SADDAM, YOU ARE GOING DOWN!!!
Posted on 03/25/2003 1:06:03 PM PST by knighthawk
'No war on Iraq," the protesters chant, across the United States and around the world. As ever, their anger is misdirected. It is not the United States that is making war on Iraq. It is Saddam Hussein.
While the Americans go to extreme lengths to avoid civilian casualties, Saddam goes to even greater lengths to produce them. American forces rely almost exclusively on precision-guided weapons, designed and produced at enormous expense; attacks are timed for night, when targeted buildings are likely to be unoccupied; military lawyers must sign off on every bombing run. Meanwhile, Saddam's forces are lining up civilians for use as human shields, discarding their uniforms for civilian clothes, stashing anti-aircraft batteries in residential districts.
Saddam sets fire to his country's oil wells. Americans rush to put them out. Saddam starves his own people of food and medicine. American forces are diverted to bring in humanitarian aid, even as they come under fire from saddam's fedayeen. Was there ever such a topsy-turvy war: Where the "attackers" fight and die to protect the country's citizens from their "defenders"?
But then, was there ever a war in which people everywhere filled the streets to protest against it -- everywhere, except in Iraq, where the people fill the streets to welcome the invaders. Attitudes towards the war seem closely correlated with distance from it: 200,000 protesters march in Montreal, 60,000 in London, 5,000 in Cairo, while in the dusty towns of southern Iraq, troops are greeted with cheers of "Ameriki!" and "Bush!"
There's a connection, of course: between the number of civilian casualties and the reaction on the street. Saddam wants to maximize civilian deaths, to turn public opinion against the war, especially in the United States. The Americans want to minimize them, for opposite reasons. All wars are in part wars for public opinion, but this one is more than most. Indeed, at times it seems it is being fought almost entirely through the media.
Take the famous "bombing of Baghdad": a bombing so terrible that the lights are still on, the bridges are intact and the cars are in the streets; a bombing so brutal a Canadian peace activist interviewed by The Globe and Mail was moved to describe it as "tiring" ("I'm totally sick of being bombed"); a bombing with so many civilian casualties that Robert Fisk could personally visit them all.
This was an attack aimed less at degrading the enemy's military capacity then at sending a message, or rather two: of awesome power, yet concern for innocent life. The selection of targets seemed tailored almost exclusively for media consumption, focusing on symbols of the regime, such as the President's palace. And while troops have been advancing on the ground, much the greater effort in the first week seems to have been devoted to messing with the minds of the Iraqi regime, in a steady barrage of press conferences and other media events.
And not only the mass media. Iraqi army commanders have reportedly been besieged with e-mails and phone calls, inquiring as to whether they had considered the advantages of surrender ("We're going to be in your neighbourhood in the next few days, and wanted to let you know of our two-for-one white-flag special."). War, it seems, is telemarketing by other means.
Mind you, war by media has its perils. One constant: whatever the Americans do, they're wrong. When the media were shut out of previous operations, as in Grenada, the Pentagon was accused of muzzling the press. Now they've got media people in the rumble seat of every tank, and they're accused of co-opting them. One day the war's going well, and a reporter asks whether the U.S. doesn't risk looking like "a bully." The next day the war's going badly, and the "quagmire" stories begin. Had Saddam used his chemical and biological weapons by now, we would have been told he had been "provoked" by the invasion. But because the Americans have not found any such weapons to date, three days into the war, a headline in The Washington Post demands, "Where are Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction?"
Then there's the little matter of the coalition. Accused of arrogant unilateralism, belittling the opinion of smaller states, the Americans produce a list of more than 40 countries who have declared their support for the invasion (count in Iraq's Arab neighbours and other states that prefer not to advertise their co-operation, and the number grows to over 50). The reaction? Belittlement. It's a "coalition of the absurd," sneers Jeffrey Simpson. It's a "coalition of the anonymous," snorts The New York Times' Bill Keller. Eritrea? Micronesia? Palau? Don't make me laugh.
Fair enough. But there's also Britain, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands, together with just about every European country east of Germany, including Poland, Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Republics, plus Japan and South Korea and Singapore and two or three dozen more. Absurd? Anonymous? The coalition includes a majority of the G-7, a majority of NATO, and a majority of the OECD -- which is to say that in all three of these big-power organizations, Canada has cast its lot with the minority.
Many of these countries, it is true, depend on the United States to guarantee their security. Apparently, in some parts of the world that counts for something.
acoyne@nationalpost.com
Bumpity bump bump!
SADDAM, YOU ARE GOING DOWN!!!
While the Americans go to extreme lengths to avoid civilian casualties, Saddam goes to even greater lengths to produce them. American forces rely almost exclusively on precision-guided weapons, designed and produced at enormous expense; attacks are timed for night, when targeted buildings are likely to be unoccupied; military lawyers must sign off on every bombing run. Meanwhile, Saddam's forces are lining up civilians for use as human shields, discarding their uniforms for civilian clothes, stashing anti-aircraft batteries in residential districts.
Saddam sets fire to his country's oil wells. Americans rush to put them out. Saddam starves his own people of food and medicine. American forces are diverted to bring in humanitarian aid, even as they come under fire from saddam's fedayeen. Was there ever such a topsy-turvy war: Where the "attackers" fight and die to protect the country's citizens from their "defenders"?
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy. 
Mind you, war by media has its perils. One constant: whatever the Americans do, they're wrong. When the media were shut out of previous operations, as in Grenada, the Pentagon was accused of muzzling the press. Now they've got media people in the rumble seat of every tank, and they're accused of co-opting them. One day the war's going well, and a reporter asks whether the U.S. doesn't risk looking like "a bully." The next day the war's going badly, and the "quagmire" stories begin. Had Saddam used his chemical and biological weapons by now, we would have been told he had been "provoked" by the invasion. But because the Americans have not found any such weapons to date, three days into the war, a headline in The Washington Post demands, "Where are Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction?"Thanks. It seems to me the article points out media bias against our war effort. The Washington Post still thinks that algore should be President. So what else is new?, lol!
I'm not so sure they haven't. A chemical plant guarded by an army general and at least 30 troops is hardly likely to have been making ant killers.
We just don't know everything yet.
And, with this war going so successfully, they would be so thrilled if only Algore was Commander-in-Chief.
But, the fact is, if Algore was Commander-in-Chief, there would be no war. There would be ongoing apologies...from the US to the terrorists and those who harbor them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.