FromThe New York Times
March 29 2003)
“But what we're seeing, especially in the images from Nasiriya and Basra, is an age-old reminder about the reality of war. Under the armor there is still only the flesh and blood and sinew of young soldiers. It makes no difference whether that armor is the shield of an ancient Greek soldier or the electronics jamming of a modern attack aircraft.”
Under the Armor
FromThe Independent
(March 29 2003)
“The implications of a long war are serious. The case for military action was sold with the implication that it would be short and relatively bloodless. Even on that basis, George Bush and his award-winning salesman Tony Blair could not persuade world opinion that it was necessary. Now that they appear to accept that the fighting will last months rather than weeks, with all the likely consequences in blood and suffering, support for the war, although it may have increased briefly once British troops were engaged, could recede…
“This is not simply a matter of the immediate human cost in death, injury, grief and fear. That will be multiplied by an unknown factor as it is translated into anti-American sentiment throughout other Arab and Muslim countries. In Iraq, meanwhile, it is becoming clearer that the feelings of the people towards their self-appointed liberators are more ambivalent than was allowed for in the world -view of the American right. That means the post-war situation in Iraq will be less tractable, and more expensive, than expected…
“[I]t is also right that democratic leaders who make the wrong choices and mislead people to justify them should be held to account.”
There will be a severe political price to pay if the human and financial costs of this conflict mount up
FromThe Guardian
(March 29 2003)
“Of course, events on the ground could rapidly unblock with Saddam's regime belatedly following the Pentagon script and duly falling to its knees. But the way things stand now, this war is going badly for the PM. These first 10 days have disproved two of his core, pre-war arguments: that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and that his people would instantly see foreign invasion as liberation…
“But this war has been neither hard enough nor easy enough to prove Blair right: instead it is turning out to be a slog that shows he and the military planners read Iraq wrong. In the choice words of America's top infantry commander, William Wallace: ‘The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we'd war-gamed against…'”
Even if he wins the war, Blair has been humiliated
FromThe Washington Post
(March 29 2003)
“The moment the first shots were fired last week in the war against Iraq, the Bush administration pivoted sharply to dampen public expectations of the military operation.
“In the months preceding the war, President Bush was largely silent on the subject of the conflict's cost, duration and dangers, while key administration officials and advisers presented upbeat forecasts. Vice President Cheney, for example, predicted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's troops would ‘step aside' and that the conflict would be ‘weeks rather than months,' a phrase repeated by other top officials. Others in advisory roles in the administration predicted Iraqi soldiers would ‘throw in the towel' and Hussein would collapse like ‘a house of cards' -- phrases senior administration officials often echoed in private…
“Other forecasts seem increasingly improbable. Richard Perle, until this week chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, said last summer that Hussein is ‘much weaker than we think he is.' Calling the regime a ‘house of cards,' Perle said ‘support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder…'
Upbeat Tone Ended With War
|
