"Spineless, unprincipled opportunists"

"The policy that Brent Scowcroft and his fellow travelers advocated result[ed] in an atmosphere of distrust and cynicism in Iraq as well as most of the Arab world. It paints the US as spineless unprincipled opportunist[s] and provide[s] our enemies with propaganda," writes Vietnamese American Minh-Duc of State of Flux, in a clear-eyed analysis of post-Operation-Iraqi-Freedom dynamics -- not remotely like the Vietnam-quagmire analysis so favored by the left -- that rings true [Were we Roger L. Simon, at this point we would insert an editor's note re suspicions of Minh-Duc's being a CIA plant] Tough issues for Bush père and fils to confront, but the son seems to be on the right track:

I recall one conversation with an Iraqi interpreter, and a friend . . . I asked why Iraqis, despite being majority Shiites, and suffered immensely under Saddam, did not become more proactive in Post-Saddam Iraq . . . He looks at me amazed and promptly reminded me of 1991. After the first Gulf War, the George Hebert Walker Bush called on Iraqis to rise up against Saddam. Shiites in the South responded to the call and rose up against Saddam. Iraqis security service responded brutally and crushed the insurrection. Between 100,000 to 200,000 Shiites died, many were innocent women and children. I recalled a story being told to me by a US sergeant who saw atrocities committed against civilians but was ordered to do nothing.  The incident haunted him for many years afterward.

Here is a concrete negative effect of this policy. Muqtada Al-Sadr used the 1991 massacre (quite effectively) to flame anti-American sentiment which allowed him to stage a bloody insurrection throughout 2004. Many supporters of Sadr believe that the massacre of 1991 is the result of a conspiracy between the US and the government of Saddam Hussein. This is of course conspiracy nonsense but in an area full of conspiracy nonsense, the action of the US during 1991 was indeed odious.

This does not mean that the campaign to win “heart and mind” of Iraqis (and Arabs in the greater context) is doom. The tide is turning. Iraqis are still skeptical but many are coming around. More are willing to take greater risk of trusting the US. The election turn-out on January 30th this year is a good indicator.

Don't breathe a word of this to our friends on the left side of the aisle, who know what's really important in the War on Terror: 1) What Karl Rove knew and when he knew it, 2) SCOTUS nominee John Roberts' desire to handcuff little girls [greatest post yet -- among many excellent ones -- on the subject from Martini Pundit] and 3) George Bush's responsibility for the proliferation of Islamicist terrorism due to his taking out of Saddam Hussein.

Comments

[goomp]

Seems like Bush pere really wasn't on top of things and lacked an overall understanding of Saddam. Sort of a Chamberlain guy. W looks more like Winnie.

[Minh-Duc]

I notice that you edit my grammar. Thank you. My subject and verb rarely agree. English is still my second language.

[Gayle]

A. The entire Rove foofah is totally without basis.

B. John Roberts IS a good nominee and we should ALL be letting our Senators know that they will pay a price for non-support.

c. What happened in '91 is proof of what happens when you "back off" these tinpot demagogues and unprincipled despots. George W. Bush (Bush 43) knows that and knows his way is the right way to handle these fanatical murderers of the innocent.

Minh-Duc - I honor and applaud you.

[Van Helsing]

Thanks for yet another reminder that Bush Jr is a big improvement on Bush Sr.