Posted on 11/19/2001 5:46:03 AM PST by seamus
What a difference two weeks make. Just a little more than a fortnight ago, some of the biggest names in punditry had predicted gloom and doom for the good guys—and further suffering for the poor, innocent Afghan people.
Molly Ivins, in a column published in this newspaper on Halloween, was blunt, as usual: “It now looks, with 20–20 hindsight, as though we should have taken a few more deep breaths before smacking that tar-baby that is Afghanistan.”
Our bombing was accomplishing nothing, you see. Making matters worse, winter was coming—and the best fed, clothed, equipped, and trained military force in the world was no match for a Taliban army dressed in rags. (Are Afghans immune to cold?)
Ramadan was on the way, too. And if America bombed during this Islamic holy month, the world would think us uncaring bullies—or even bolster the erroneous propaganda that we were conquering Christian soldiers. Not only that, but for all our technology, some bombs were missing their targets, striking Red Cross warehouses full of food instead.
Such blunders were sure to cause “mass starvation,” fretted Ivins. And this would only turn public opinion against America’s war—especially on the ground in Afghanistan, where the poor people wouldn’t grasp that the hell-fire rained down from U.S. planes was for their own good.
Ivins, who has all the martial experience of Harry Potter, suggested that America should “call the war for the season, which is what the Afghans do, and wait ’til next year without any disgrace.”
Columnists and other nonwarriors, of course, are permitted to comment on the progress of battle, though their credibility might be increased if they told the whole truth—such as the fact that Afghans in particular and Muslims in general have a long history of fighting during Ramadan.
Another armchair general, The New York Times’ R.W. Apple, worried that America was getting itself stuck in a Vietnam-like quagmire. The fact that American special forces were “providing liaison to ‘a limited number of the various opposition elements,’” according to Apple, was proof.
Yet, at the same time, a mere bombing campaign was not going to be enough to defeat the Taliban that was giving refuge to Osama bin Laden. So, by Apple’s reasoning, America’s damned if it just bombs the country side, and damned if ground troops move in to finish the job.
“Is the United States facing another stalemate on the other side of the world?” he asked.
That’s a good question. And we can now see—in hindsight clearer than Ivins’—that the chances of a disastrous stalemate are slimmer now than they would have been if Ivins was defense secretary. And no doubt our troops, and the Afghan people, are grateful that President Bush was not so paralyzed by the prospect of another Vietnam that he acted as hesitantly as Apple would have.
The reality on the ground today entirely vindicates the strong, decisive action of President Bush against the Taliban. This supposedly seasoned, tough, and fanatical force—the ones who made the Soviet Union say “no mas”—couldn’t retreat fast enough. The interpreter for the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan confessed on camera last week that America’s relentless bombing of Taliban positions “took its toll” on the troops—as opposed to tempering their resolve as some in the Pentagon press pool suggested would happen.
As a result, the northern alliance used more ammunition firing their weapons in celebration than they did firing at the Taliban while marching through the conquered cities. And what of the Afghans that Ivins and others predicted would be resentful of America’s supposedly sloppy bombing runs? They danced in the streets, lined up for shaves, and yelled hosannas to America. My favorite headline: “Kabul Men Fling Off Trousers for Death-Free Soccer.”
Most of the criticism of the war effort surrounded how using force would undermine humanitarian and diplomatic efforts. In fact, the exact opposite appears to be true. Aid will now flow soon to the people of Afghanistan at a rate many times greater than were the Taliban still in control. Refugees who fled to Pakistan at the start of the war are now returning to their homes. And the northern alliance already has agreed to share power through the formation of a multi-ethnic government.
One would think the nit-pickers of our war on terrorism might be feeling a little sheepish these days—or at least admit that those who insisted only force would bring peace were right.
I’m not holding my breath.
JAMES G. LAKELY is an editorial writer for The Free Lance–Star.
Pray for GW and the Troops!
The Morning Edition guy was asking the NPR reporter in Kabul about the damage in the city from US bombing.
The reporter pulled the wind out of the whole segment by explaining that there was far greater damage from the Afghan v Afghan violence over the past decade, and that the damage from US bombing was tough to pick out because it was so limited.
Great stuff! This entire campaign is not going in accordance with the liberal playbook.
I'm expecting her retraction any time now.
THIS JUST IN: Frost warning in Hell tonight....
NPR in this case did NOT do what all the nets usually do when they have someone on the ground for a field report. Find out in advance what the answer is going to be. It's like the admonition to a lawyer ("royer" in Brokawspeak) - never ask a question of a witness that you don't already know the answer to.
BTW, there's a name for this annoying device. It's called "Save A Question For The Anchor." It's mean to blunt criticism that anchors are too detached from the stories they report - by getting the anchors more involved in the reporting. But some news directors over-use the device, making it more of a distraction than anything else.
Michael
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.