In the Guardian, Sir Max Hastings is still trying to lose the war in Iraq for the coalition single-handed, this time by talking up 'dissension and dismay' within the US military. He tells us:
'Many service people are shocked by the incontrovertible evidence that the justifications offered by the Bush administration for invading Iraq — WMD and a link with international terrorism — were false.'
Uh-huh. Is that so. Well, what do they — or perhaps that should be, he — think was going in at salman Pak in northern Iraq, for example, where there was a full-sized airplane for terrorists to practise on? It's the word 'incontrovertible' that is so, er, arresting. I have book after book on my shelves with detailed evidence of Saddam's involvement in terrorism — not to mention the Senate committee report which stated that he had been fomenting terrorism against the US throughout the 1990s. No doubt all this is incontrovertibly false, too.
By way of a contrast to Sir Max's relentless defeatism, the admirable Amir Taheri, writing in Arab News, comes up with a fascinating comparison between Iraq and Algeria. In the early 1990s, he says, the Algerian terrorist campaign had two objectives: to destroy the Algerian army, and to prevent the any elections. Almost by instinct, the Algerian leaders stumbled upon the holding of elections as a way of mobilising popular opposition to the terrorists, because while few are willing to kill or to die, most are willing to vote. Taheri writes:
'The turning point came in 1995 when Algeria organized its first ever pluralist and direct presidential election. This is was not an ideal election. The candidates were little known figures that had appeared on the national political scene just a couple of years earlier. None presented a coherent political program. To make matters worse the terrorists did all they could to prevent the election. They burned down voter registration bureaus and murdered election officers. Masked men visited people in their homes and shops to warn that going to the polls would mean death.
'And, yet, when polling day came it quickly became clear that the terrorists, in the forlorn attempt at stopping democracy, were, as in so many other instances in history, facing certain defeat. Never in my many years of journalism had I seen such enthusiasm for an electoral exercise anywhere in the world. The “silent majority” spoke by casting ballots, not because it particularly liked any of the candidates but because it wanted to send a message to the terrorists that they had no place in Algeria.
'That one election did not make Algeria a democracy. Since then Algeria has held three more presidential and a dozen local and parliamentary elections. None of these exercises have been perfect, and Algeria may need dozens more elections, which means many more years, before it can achieve the standards set by mature democracies. But the Algerian exercise has made one fact clear: The only way to defeat terrorism is by involving the mass of the people through elections.
'Algeria was the first major Arab country to be attacked by Islamist terrorists on a large scale. It is also the first to defeat them.'
The obstacles to freedom in Iraq are fearsome, and will doubtless get even worse before the election happens. But this inspiring and moving parallel demonstrates yet again why Sir Max Hastings is so very, and despicably, wrong.
(Melanie Phillips in 'Melanie Phillips Diary', January 19, 2005)
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/2005_01.html
This reporter should interview real soldiers. What a crock. I know soldiers who've been there. They are shocked at the media coverage here. Piss on him.
bookmark and ping
A British intellectual can always be relied upon to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
no doubt max hastings wears a 'michael moore pin' on his lapel. what a jackass.
They find one or two soldiers who are disgruntled, and it's the entire operation. Screw the brits, screw europe, we saved their ass how many times. Some day, the world will regret how they treated us now.
There's a new one, LOL!
Arioch7 out.
Last autumn in Iraq, a senior British officer told me how impressed he was by the Americans' commitment. "Before I came here," he said, "I doubted whether the US army possessed the moral toughness to see this thing through. I no longer feel that uncertainty. I have not met one American at any level who questions the need to be here, and to finish the job."
That assertion is no longer true.
----
No doubt when it WAS TRUE AND WAS STATED, Guardian was running some other leftie defeatist clap-trap and completely ignoring this statement.
He only brings the 'positive' to use as a foil to say "but ...".
Yeah, maybe this is Vietnam... let's hold off for *at least * 10 years before we conclude that, however.
I say Iraq is ALREADY A VICTORY AND ALREADY A SUCCESS. The interim GOvernment is already more representative and better than most mid-east Governments. And Saddam's threat is no more.
And the loss of 1200 soldiers, while tragic, is hardly comparable to the losses in major wars like Vietnam or Korea, etc.
Melanie Phillips is right.
MORE GUARDIAN GARBAGE. How about Pravda, what's their take on things? Any word from The Daily Worker?
The Guardian's track record of predicting military outcomes hasn't exactly been spot on...
I am glad things are going pretty well in Iraq. Leave it to the kool aid drinking commie left to take a bleak outlook for hope in Iraq. It is to me an indictment of the success for coalition forces in Iraq. Next stop, Damascus!
Biy, this is horrid journalism. Hastings just makes some broad assumptions and goes with it :
"But commanders and soldiers alike are conducting an increasingly anguished debate."
A recent military poll (maybe someone can dig it up) showed that approval for Bush's handling of the war has actually increased slightly amongst troops. That hardly sounds like "growing dissension", unless Hastings meant growing in the other direction.
The only "anguished debate" is amongst the idiotarion left.
What an asshole.
Max Hastings also appears to be viciously antisemitic. A quick Google search turned up another article, which is truly disgusting.
Who is at fault for Islamic terrorism throughout the world? Why, the Jews, of course.
Unsurprisingly, the Guardian was eager to publish both these pieces of trash:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1166637,00.html
Dear Max:
Thank you for your opinion. It's only your opinion. We shall see what happens.
Sir Max has a history of spitting on American Soldiers. He suffers from a serious case of envy, I do believe