Why Treat Us Like Idiots?
There is a creepy, propagandistic tone to much of what our government says about the war. It's not just annoying and insulting, it's unnecessary and would seem to be objectionable even to hawks and Bush-boosters.
Today W says, "We've got a huge coalition. As a matter of fact, the coalition that we've assembled today is larger than the one assembled in 1991 in terms of the number of nations participating."
OK, that's true in a meaningless kind of way--there are lots of countries that don't count for squat that have signed on for moral support this time around, but then again there are lots of important countries with political, economic, and military clout who helped us last time but are not with us now.
The coalition is clearly made up of us and the Brits on the battlefield, with the Aussies and a handful of other legit supporters, plus a large group of virtually meaningless hangers-on, several of those completely unarmed. It really doesn't compare favorably at all with the previous coalition, which is plain to anyone, hawk or dove.
So why not just go with the truth? It even fits in with the government's party line, that we exhausted the UN process and that we perceive the risks at hand to be so pressing as to legitimize breaking with many of our sometime friends.
We seemed proud to ditch "Old Europe," so why pretend our posse is bigger than it is? Why the need to spin every fact?
Rules of Engagement
The Economist on urban warfare: "(A)s the battles for Hue, in Vietnam, in 1968 and for Manila in 1945 suggest, American rules of engagement can become more permissive the longer and costlier urban battles become. If Saddam deploys chemical weapons, or lots of human shields, the battle of Baghdad could be especially nasty."
5:22:10 PM 
|
