November 12, 2003
ADULT SUPERVISION:
Like it or not, America is becoming an imperial power (John Keegan, 13/11/2003, Daily Telegraph)
Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of Defence, believes that Saddam Hussein is alive and hiding somewhere in Iraq. He also believes that he will be found by the coalition forces.Mr Rumsfeld, whom I met last week, is visibly undeterred by the level of continuing terrorism in Iraq. He is convinced that the coalition campaign is going well, that the military problem is being overcome and that the reconstruction of the country is proceeding rapidly. Yesterday's tragic attack on the Italian police HQ in Nasiriyah will not change that view.
Mr Rumsfeld read me a series of reports, from the American regional commands, summarising progress achieved: terrorists apprehended, weapons recovered, explosives destroyed. The totals were impressive. Despite daily reports of American casualties, he was dismissive of the danger to coalition forces. Within the context of the total security situation, he sees the level of violence as bearable and believes that the trend of terrorist activity is downward.
He foresees a reduction of the size of the coalition force, now largely American but with a big British element, over the coming months. That will be achieved by the introduction of other forces from outside. He particularly hopes for a Pakistani division. The main means of reducing dependence on outside forces, however, will be an increase in Iraq's own security forces, the border patrol, the police, the civil defence corps, the facilities protection service and the new Iraqi army.
It's always nice to have grown-ups in charge. Imagine the Clinton reaction if this was going on during his watch? Posted by Orrin Judd at November 12, 2003 7:22 PM
1. The attacks on our troops are abhorent and we should strike back as hard as we can. There is also, however, a lot of good that can come from our taking the losses while staying in Iraq. So long as the Ba'athists and Islamicists think they can drive us out by killing Americans, they will be trying to kill Americans.
2. If the bad guys are paying attention to our politics, they will necessarily draw the conclusion that, if they can keep up the attacks for the next year, we will elect a Democrat who will immediately pull us out, leaving Iraq to them.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 12, 2003 8:02 PMThe caption does not seem to reflect anything Keegan wrote, but it stretches the definition of "empire" beyond any meaning at all.
I waa amused that Keegan thinks Bell should take a bow for her intimate knowledge of Iraq and for helping it to reach the stage it has reached now.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 12, 2003 8:55 PMOJ: Your comment should have ended with the first sentence (which was apt). Your second sentence/interrogative gives me the willies, and will interrupt my sleep tonight.
Fred Jacobsen
San Francisco
David:
Do you believe that, if all the Dem candidates were as gung-ho as Bush, the resistance would end ?
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 13, 2003 6:01 AMMichael:
The resistance from Europe would. They think that if they can hold on long enough, Bush will be voted out and his successor will adopt transnationalism as our policy, thereby giving the world control over us.
Posted by: OJ at November 13, 2003 8:24 AMIf Bush is reelected, will Europe send more troops ?
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 13, 2003 11:27 AMDoes it help Blair if Bush is reelected ?
Is the UK at all sensitive to US politics ?
Michael:
Not per se--but the parties study each other's successful election strategies pretty closely.
Posted by: oj at November 13, 2003 11:39 AMMichael --
No. Other than the chance that, if you allow for one miracle, you must allow for another, I don't believe that gung-ho Democrats would cause a pacific Iraq. Nor do I particularly blame the Democrats -- that is, given their craven, gutless foreign policy, I don't think any worse of them because it might also spur violence against US troops. But I do think that we must expect people in the middle east to watch the elections and conclude that a Democratic President will pull out of Iraq, kowtow to the French and the UN and otherwise reduce our involvement in the region.
If that's true and if violence in the middle east makes it more likely that we will elect a Democrat, which I think most people assume, then won't this, at the margin, encourage violence? I don't know how large the effect would be, but these don't seem to be people who need much urging.
Ironically, though, I disagree that more violence will elect a Democrat. I think more violence will allow for a more violent US response.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 13, 2003 12:20 PMI just returned from 10 days thru Europe, and without question they believe Bush will lose big in '04. They honestly think that a good 70% of the American public hate him as much as they do. If you try to tell them anything different from what they are seeing in the press there they think you are a loon. I did not know if I should laugh or cry.
Posted by: BJW at November 13, 2003 2:47 PMThen I wish you'd made about 10,000 bets with Frenchmen on the election, losers to push peanuts down the Champs Elysee with their noses.
That would have been fun.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 13, 2003 5:02 PMThere was a guy, in the past couple of months, who rolled a peanut with his nose, through downtown London.
It was a "protest for peace", in Iraq.
It took him eleven days, but it was well worth it, as the Ba'athists in Iraq were touched by the effort...
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 14, 2003 7:57 PMDid he do the whole thing with the same peanut? Now that would be tenacity. Not to mention dirty.
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 15, 2003 2:22 AM