Not Getting It Department
I’ll let you take on this Tom Harkin statement in the comments section, because I just don’t have the stomach for it. Here goes:
The relatively quick fall of Baghdad shows that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was a “paper tiger” rather than a major threat to world peace, Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa said Thursday.
“What we were told and what you saw in the press last fall and earlier this year is that he had a massive war machine,” said Harkin, the most outspoken critic of the war in Iraq among members of the Iowa congressional delegation.
“It looks now like this was just a Third World country – there were people fighting with tennis shoes on, on the Iraqi side,” Harkin told reporters. “I don’t know what else we’re going to find, but they didn’t fly even one airplane in the air. They had almost nothing.
“So if they were that weak, where we could just roll over them like that, tell me again how he was such a big threat in the past?” the senator added.
Anyone?
There is no need to reply to Harkin.
The ghosts of a million Iraqi people, dead from Saddam’s hands, can answer him.
The ghosts of people murdered by terrorists, supported by Saddam, can answer him.
The joy on the faces of the living Iraqis, free from the terror they were submitted to for years, can answer him.
The parallel is imperfect, because this wasn’t an amphibious campaign, but I can’t help thinking of Herman Wouk’s WWII novel, “War and Remembrance.” A German general’s memoirs treat our North Africa landings with some contempt. The protagonist retorts:
“Roon deliberately belittles the largest, most difficult, most successful long-distance sea-born invasion in history. If it looked easy, that’s because it was well-planned and well-executed. It could have been a gigantic Gallipoli.”
Not to mention that nobody ever said Saddam had a great conventional force and was going to come invade us. The problem was the possession of WMD, the intent to use same, and the intent coupled with demonstrated ability to acquire more of same to include nucs. The whole point of preemption was to take him on at a time and place of our choosing rather than wait for him to attack us at a time and place of his choosing. Or did I miss something?
For the clueless like Harkin, let’s boil it down to two phrases:
1. Afghanistan
2. 9/11
Prior to 9/11, no one worried about Afghanistan and the Taliban. The only thing they threatened were large Buddhist statues. They certainly didn’t seem to be focused on the US.
After 9/11, we still didn’t need to be worried about Afghanstan, per se. The Taliban didn’t perform the 9/11 attacks. They were enablers. They provided safe haven, infrastructure and various other forms of support to the people who did.
Iraq was Afghanistan writ large. Hussein was an enabler of terrorists (at the very least of the Palestinian kind), had access to much worse stuff than the Taliban ever dreamed of, and, unlike the Taliban, had both economic strength via oil and the tacit support of over half of the world’s great powers (Russia, China, France, Germany).
The fact that he was trying to give Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot a run for their money in the “Worst Tyrant of the 20th Century” sweepstakes only made it all the more imperative that he needed to be put down like the rabid dog that he was.
Harkin needs to go back to high school history class. He’s either fabulously ignorant or deliberately trying to diminish the amazing US victory.
Remember another moustached dictator in the 1930s. He violated armament treaties while world leaders stood by, fearing the cost of war. Had France or Britain even made a minimal effort to stop Hitler as he occupied the Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia or Poland, his weak military and fragile government would have collapsed. Instead the Allies waited and waited and appeased and appeased until Hitler built a powerful army.
In this war, we acted. Saddam was indeed crushed while his power was minimal. Is Harkin suggesting that we should have let Saddam develop nuclear weapons and cultivate his feydaeen militia before we invaded?
Harkin’s statement and mentality are naive, ignorant, and incredibly dangerous. God help us if someone like him ever is elected President.
Let us hope the good, patriotic people of Iowa remember their supposed representative’s comments and act accordingly.
“The parallel is imperfect, because this wasn’t an amphibious campaign, but I can’t help thinking of Herman Wouk’s WWII novel, “War and Remembrance.” A German general’s memoirs treat our North Africa landings with some contempt. The protagonist retorts:
“Roon deliberately belittles the largest, most difficult, most successful long-distance sea-born invasion in history. If it looked easy, that’s because it was well-planned and well-executed. It could have been a gigantic Gallipoli.”"
The parallel works, particularly since Harkin–like the German general–is an unrepentant sore loser.
As an Iowan, please accept my apologies on behalf of our state for again inflicting this weasel on the rest of the country in the 2002 election.
I will never understand why this state votes for him. Maybe it’s a side effect of our affinity for methamphetamine.
Folks like Harkin debate in bad faith. He has no interest in debating an issue such an Iraq on the basis of truth because he’s seeking something more important than the truth: putting a Democrat in the White House in ’04.
Weapons of mass destruction? History of using such weapons? Ties to terrorist organizations? Kleptocracy? Paying families of suicide bombers? Stalinist regime? Torturing and killing Iraqis? Cynical use of religion? Cult of personality? So what?
I am so tired of folks who don’t even attemt to use facts and logic to disclipine their statements constantly spewing such crap. It doesn’t matter to such nihilists whether they were wrong. What matters is attaining and preserving power. The truth just gets in the way to achieving their goal.
And, as I’ve seen elsewhere, if Saddam was so weak, why didn’t Clinton take him on directly in ’98, when the Democrats were making all that warlike noise? Shows you the difference between Clinton and Bush43. One of them is more than just talk.
For a bunch of people who oppose war and the destruction that comes with it, the left sure seems to get bent out of shape when there isn’t a big body count.
“. Afghanistan
2. 9/11
Prior to 9/11, no one worried about Afghanistan and the Taliban. The only thing they threatened were large Buddhist statues. They certainly didn’t seem to be focused on the US.”
This is ridiculous. Prior to 9/11, critics such as Pat Buchanan had warned of catastrophic terrorist attacks. Robert Kaplan mentioned the threat of Osama bin Laden, based in Afghanistan, in Warrior Politics. Clinton’s lame cruise missile strikes were aimed at Afghanistan. One could go on and on . . .
Clark -
You’re arguing against something I didn’t say. Plenty of people were worried about Osama bin Laden/al-Qaeda and there were at least a few lame attempts to do something about it, but I know of no widespread concern about Afghans and/or the Taliban prior to 9/11.
All your examples deal with the al-Qaeda/OBL threat, not with the Taliban regime. The statues at Bamiyan were about the only newsworthy mention of them pre-9/11. (Although I believe Behind the Veil may have been filmed before then, it did not receive significant exposure in the US until after.)
In any case, “state sponsored terrorism” was largely a throwaway phrase during the 90s. It wasn’t until after 9/11 that state sponsorship was seen as the big issue that it always should have been. We’re always going to have groups of wackos (like the Branch Dividians and Posse Comitatus), but unless they have the backing of a state, they’re dangerous mostly in a law enforcement sort of way.
This is a common mistake many people make. Because our military victories are often overwhelmingly lopsided and involve remarkably low casualties on our side they think that our enemies were weak to begin with, that their forces were not a serious threat. This is an incorrect perception. The correct perception is that our armed forces are enormously more powerful than people give them credit. The battles in Iraq have been hard fought and have met with heavy resistance. However, our forces are able to utterly demolish enemy forces and do so without taking high casualities. Nevertheless, when our tanks go up against their tanks it is still not an inconsequential thing. Our tanks hit them hard and fast and cause massive destruction quickly, their tanks fire back but are less accurate, less quick, and have shorter ranges, so they don’t hit our tanks as often and don’t cause as much damage when they do. Iraq’s army before this war and before Desert Storm was quite powerful and quite capable, certainly capable enough to stand toe to toe with many armies of the world. And, as we have seen, those forces have proved potent dangers to the region in the past. They had caused hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths in the Iran-Iraq war, in the invasion and occupation of Kuwait, and in battles against rebellious regions within Iraq. Had that army been opposed by any other military in the world the outcome would have been much more in doubt and the casualties on both sides (and to civilians) would have been higher. Had the Russians, for example, gone to war with Iraq the situation would have been enormously different and it might well have turned into the same kind of bloody quagmire as Afghanistan and Chechnya were for them.
In short, the Iraqi army posed a serious threat to just about everything in the world except for the US armed forces when they are specially assembled for a battle of this magnitude. Incidentally, that, to me, seems like an excellent justification for war all on its own.
Let’s say I have a medical condition that requires surgery. My surgeon uses the latest techniques and technology and removes it, and I awake a few hours later with a dressing over a small incision and leave the hospital a little sore, but none the worse for wear.
Should I then infer that the surgery wasn’t needed because previous techniques and technology would have taken three times as long, left me with an incision from my navel to my neck and required me to convalesce in a hospital for a week?
Skill makes difficult things look easy. Sen. Harkin owes an apology to all of the military personnel who are serving in this conflict.
md,
Worse, what did the disease do to YOU, the doctor? The disease, after all, was only bothering the patient. Who are YOU to come and take it away?
And if the disease was, say, in the brain, preventing further activity, who authorized you to come and eliminate it.
Shouldn’t the doctor feel bad, cutting away tissue, that the tissue isn’t at least dissolving some of the fingertips and perhaps parts of your cornea in retribution?
I’d try and muster up a reasoned response to Harkin’s statement, but what’s the point in arguing with pillocks?
I see the opportunity to respond as yet another invitation for shameless link-whorage.
The real crux of his statement is that he concedes his belief that none of us will remember such moronic statements in November of 2004. Like most of the Democratic fodder, he chooses to see Iraq as a solitary event rather than a global catalyst for historic change. People with such a narrow world view can never be put back in charge of our national security. Their desire to undermine our country and our military’s accomplishments in the name of partisan politics is disgusting.
One wonders at what level of resistance posed by Iraq, would Harkin not object to the war (which he voted to approve)? Too much resistance, not worth doing. Not enough resistance, not needing doing. Just the right level of resistance? Goldilocks Harkin is satisfied.
Well, Tom Harkin, if Saddam really was a paper tiger, then all of the peaceniks and sundry cassandras who opposed this war will be trebly damned for needlessly prolonging his bloody reign.
Can somebody please tell me what the H*ll is wrong with Iowa. This is really nothing new from this guy. Iowa keeps reelecting him even though they know what he is all about. Why are they so liberal there. It doesn’t make sense.
memo to rnc…
just collect these phrases and great quotes.. and then replay them 24 7 around elections…
there should be lots of great material to hang people with… especially regarding terrorism, defence, etc…
just run people’s quotes as campaign ads…
“what… you said it in public… you don’t believe that now? strange!”
Once again, a Democrat demonstrates the utter vapid nature of Democrat policy thinking. Yawn.
Harkin is right. Iraq was never a threat to the US. Where are all of the WMD’s? Again – no threat to the U.S. “Afghanistan or the Taliban” were not a threat to the U.S. Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, however, are more of a threat than ever. Iraq was invaded because it was:
1) an easy target to bully, and set up shop in the middle east.
2) lots of oil to pay for the occupation!
3) easy to sell to morons who believe that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 – (they didn’t – repeat it over and over).
Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, et al planned this a LONG time ago.
http://www.namibian.com.na/2002/september/world/02816860A1.html
http://newamericancentury.org/
Yes, The American military are brave and did a wonderful job. They deserve prise. respect, etc. But they are being abused by being put in harms way (and injured and killed) to fight a regime that was never a threat to the U.S. The civilian leadership (Bush Administration) has lied to the American people and sent the brave military off to die for it’s own greedy reasons and visions of empire.
Yes, the Iraqi people are better off without Hussein – but is that worth even ONE American life? Much less one or two hundred?
Now say it again slowly -
Iraq was never a threat to the U.S. – Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Once you admit those 2 FACTS, you will understand why there are war protestors. Not because protestors “hate America”, but because protestors do not want anyone killed to remove a threat THAT NEVER EXISTED.
Oh please please party of the pachyderm, remember this stuff and smite the donks mightily with it in ’04. Enough with the nicey nice stuff. They really need to go the way of the Whigs.
Ed, wish I could be around to watch you eat crow. You seem pretty confident that Iraq is a WMD free zone, even though we haven’t even finished the liberation which will allow an “inspection” to begin in earnest. And now that two of Iraq’s top scientists are in coalition care, we may find out a few more interesting details about their programs, which admittedly may or may not exist. But apparently you already know these details. And apparently there is not a connection between the Taliban and Al Qaeda? The simple fact that they hosted and supported Bin Laden must be more than you can fathom. And why did Atta meet with Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir Al-Ani in Prague? Who knows, Atta ain’t talking. And the only people to refute the story are journalists with high level contacts who will remain “nameless”. To claim that Iraq was never a threat to the US is to admit that the best strategy is to wait for them to do something to prove there really is a threat. Brilliant policy.
>>To claim that Iraq was never a threat to the US is to admit that the best strategy is to wait for them to do something to prove there really is a threat. Brilliant policy.<
The only alternative is to annihilate everyone – because everyone is a “potential threat” , yes? Or only pick on weak ones – like a playground bully?
Paranoia, anyone?
I am an Iowan and Harkin embarrasses me. I wrote him about his ignorant statement.
Ed- What is there about the phrase “unconventional and non-proportional threat” don’t you understand?