How the battle lies were drawn

The [UK] Spectator ^ | 14 June 2003 | Neal Clark

[Greybird]

In both Kosovo and Iraq, the government's war strategy seems to have been threefold: 1. In order to whip up public support for war, tell lies so outrageous that most people will believe that no one would have dared to make them up. 2. When the conflict is over, dismiss questions about the continued lack of evidence as 'irrelevant' and stress alternative 'benefits' from the military action, e.g., 'liberation' of the people. 3. Much later on, when the truth is finally revealed, rely on the fact that most people have lost interest and are now concentrating on the threat posed by the next new Hitler.

The old Hitler, o'course, dreamed up the modern glosses on this formula in the first place. And it has not been limited in its use to one side of the Atlantic -- or to one particular political party on this side.

[varon]

The Serbs were Mexicans are, according to the US State Department, 'conducting a campaign of forced population movement not seen in Europe the world since WW2'

[meenie]

You can recognize when the need is false. The atrocities increase and eyes start dropping as if ashamed to tell the story. I watched Powell at the UN and GW loses his directness when the whoppers start coming.

[clockwork]

The Serbs were Mexicans are, according to the US State Department, 'conducting a campaign of forced population movement not seen in Europe the world since WW2'

Let's bring the troops home from these ridiculous foreign wars and put them on the southern border to stop the invasion. You would think at least one presidential candidate would take this position. To paraphrase Mohammad Ali "no Serbian ever did anything to me", but there's a whole lot of illegal Mexicans stealing services in my community.

[elhombrelibre]

By the time we got to Kosovo, Milosevic was on his third war. He was a bad guy and, like Saddam, the world is better off without them. Maybe there wasn't the genocide people like Blair and Clinton described, but I've been to Kosovo. The first time shortly after the war, and for some reason many of the homes had no roofs! Guess somebody was suggesting folks should leave. Saddam and Milosevic will have their apologists. Clinton was a man who should have been impeached, but that doesn't forgive Milosevic. His own people eventually got rid of him, and Saddam was in power only because he ran a cruel police state. Most of the 25 million Iraqis know they are better off now.

[duckln]

Check out the transcipts of the Hague 'Tribunal'.
Milosevic is winning so much so that the media dropped
covering it after the first 3 witnesses. Now they're
at about the 125th prosecution 'witness', with no case
and no end in sight.

[wonders]

Balkans ping!

[wonders]

You might like this one.

[Destro]

When you were in Kosovo did the screams of Serbian Christians being butchered during the night bither you as you slept? That the Albanians you went in to save were allied with Osama Bin Laden and your eager help to those people quickened 9/11 upon us? You sicken me.

[Destro]

I love this one! Never forget! We will not stop!

[Dragonfly]

Good find!

[getoffmylawn]

Very well put.

[getoffmylawn]

...in power only because he ran a cruel police state.

Am I right in assuming that this is some cryptic reference to the demise of our 4th Ammendment?

[palmer]

Saddam and Milosevic will have their apologists.

Nobody is apologizing for them. The fact that both needed to go doesn't justify all the lies and wars. The results are easy to see: Kosovo ethnically cleansed of Serbs, "nation-building" in Iraq which really means target practice on our troops. War is the dumbest way to solve diplomatic problems, Albright was too stupid and stubborn to realize that, but Powell should have known better.

[Core_Conservative]

Can you say Cynic

Main Entry: cyn·ic Pronunciation: 'si-nik Function: noun Etymology: Middle French or Latin, Middle French cynique, from Latin cynicus, from Greek kynikos, literally, like a dog, from kyn-, kyOn dog -- more at HOUND Date: 1545 1 capitalized : an adherent of an ancient Greek school of philosophers who held the view that virtue is the only good and that its essence lies in self-control and independence 2 : a faultfinding captious critic; especially : one who believes that human conduct is motivated wholly by self-interest - cynic adjective

[mark502inf]

The old Hitler, o'course, dreamed up the modern glosses on this formula in the first place. And it has not been limited in its use to one side of the Atlantic -- or to one particular political party on this side.

Greybird, it is historically inaccurate to say Hitler fooled or lied to the German people to get them to go to war--he LED them willingly to war based on a combination of their sense of injustice over WWI & the Treaty of Versailles, resurgent nationalism, and his racist Nazi ideology. Then his regime outright murdered at least 6,000,000 and started a war causing the deaths of millions more. Greybird, with your emphasis on the old Hitler, you insinuate there is a new one. Who, pray-tell, would that be? Since we don't have anybody on this side of the Atlantic that even comes close to budging the needle on the Hitler-meter & those across the sea that do (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) are no longer in a position to carry on, is your insinuation then based on ignorance of history, a desire to trivialize Hitler's deeds, or some need to exaggerate someone else's perceived mis-deeds?

[getoffmylawn]

Powell should have known better.

I think he did. In the beginning he seemed the voice of reason and then there seemed to be a short period of public conflict between Powell and others in the adminstration, and then he fell into the party line. I'd love to know what conversations transpired in order to bring Powell into the fold.

[mark502inf]

Nobody is apologizing for them [Saddam and Milosevic]. The fact that both needed to go doesn't justify all the lies and wars

Palmer, Since you grant that Saddam needed to go and I am sure you are aware of the years and years of economic and diplomatic pressure put on Hussein, how would you propose to have made him "go"? I suspect that Powell, having come to the same conclusion that you did--i.e. Hussein must go--determined that military force was the only instrument of power able to effect the desired result.

[palmer]

I think there's a bigger question which is how do we prevent terrorists from leveraging Iraq, prevent large-scale civil war, and otherwise maintain order with or without Saddam? Then there's the subproblem of getting rid of Saddam who seems motivated only by survival and power leaving us no choice but to kill him. He might have lost control of the country if we had backed the uprisings in 1991 (with 20/20 hindsight of course). Our victory last month is a cleaner solution for the Saddam problem, but I don't see how it helps with the larger problem. I am not optimistic that the Iraqi people will rise to the occasion. Unfortunately their Islamic religion inspires a lot of radicalism and it only takes a few radicals to really mess things up.

All the normal justifications for war don't seem to apply. No immediate threat. No chance of a bigger war if we postpone (Saddam was not getting stronger). Terrorists can hit us quite well without Saddam's help. Saddam's WMD, even postulated ones, have no effective delivery mechanisms even by terrorists.

I think Powell saw this opportunity as an effective, predictable and humane method of getting rid of Saddam. He was also much more knowledgable about the threat although perhaps a little too deep into it. Under those constraints he made the best choice.