Skip to comments.

Posted on 11/30/2001 5:16:37 PM PST by Pokey78

I know everyone's moaning about Microsoft's new Windows XP, but apparently it has one absolutely marvellous new program for us pundits.

With Quagmire '75 (the year the software was written), you simply press a button and your redundant doom-mongering column on the Taliban - bombing never works, merely unites the civilian population against us, etc - is instantly updated to the next unassailable fortress.

Take Chris Matthews, who appears in the New York Daily News and also hosts TV's Hardball. A month ago, Chris was full of dire warnings about Afghanistan. This week, he had, as Bill Clinton likes to say, moved on:

"To attack Iraq now would forfeit all that the American President has won since September 11: the backing of the United Nations, the support of the Arab League and a 90 per cent job-approval rating from the American people. It would be nothing like the recent successes in Afghanistan.

"To topple Saddam would take a half-million to a million US troops. It would require an occupying force capable of policing a civilian population that would be embittered by a brutal bombing campaign."

Fantastic stuff, eh? I'll bet Chris is already in the Virgin Islands sipping his margarita, secure in the knowledge that Quagmire '75 will simply insert new quagmires as necessary:

"To attack [Iran/North Korea/ Wales] now would forfeit the support of the [Arab League/EU/ Milton-under-Wychwood Women's Institute]. To topple [Assad/Voldemort/the Queen Mother] would take two to four million [US troops/ broomsticks/souvenir mugs]."

A war with Iraq, says Chris, will put an end to America's national unity. Hmm. This week a Washington Post/ABC poll asked: "Would you favour or oppose having US forces take military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power?"

Seventy-eight per cent said they were in favour. That's not because they're rallying round the President. The President has barely said a word about Iraq, for fear of distressing Colin Powell. But it doesn't look as if daisy cutters over Basra are going to be denting his numbers.

As for "the support of the Arab League", that's one of those exotic shimmering mirages that looks dandy from a distance, but fades to nothing when you try to drink from its limpid pool and wind up with a mouthful of camel dung.

In fairness, Matthews isn't the only one who seems to believe that, globally speaking, "Bush has bought into the Clinton/Gore policy", as Democratic Congressman Barney Frank put it.

According to the Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt, the formerly isolationist President has signed on to all the big Gore themes from Campaign 2000: "State-building, a strong reliance on the United Nations and multilateralism."

Really? The Administration is taking a relatively detached view of the Afghan nation-building talks in Bonn. And, on the question of "international peacekeepers", Don Rumsfeld seems happy to accept the Northern Alliance's assurances that their chaps have everything under control.

A "strong reliance" on the UN? Kofi Annan can't get a look-in. Most Americans would be forgiven for assuming that, after its Conference on Racism in Durban in early September, the UN had entered the witness protection programme.

"Multilateralism"? A week ago, about 6,000 Royal Marines and more than 1,000 of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry were on 48-hour stand-by for Afghanistan. Then London and Ottawa were informed by the Pentagon that they would not be needed.

It doesn't sound terribly multilateral when even America's closest Anglosphere Nato allies can't get a piece of the action, never mind France, Lesotho, Guatemala, the South Sandwich Islands and all the other members of the Stanley Gibbons collect- the-set Gulf War coalition.

But the problems Blair has had staying in step with Bush these past two weeks accurately define the limits of the Administration's multilateralism. They're happy to let the SAS string along, because the SAS share a Bush war aim: killing bin Laden. But sending in the Royal Marines to annex Kabul for Clare Short is not on the White House agenda.

In any case, if Blair is serious in his commitment to a common EU defence policy, then this is the last US war British forces will be available for, so Washington might as well get used to doing without them.

And let's not forget the most potentially rewarding multilateralism for Washington - with the supposedly seething "Muslim street", where bin Laden T-shirts are gathering dust on the discount racks. When Baghdad's day of liberation comes, the civilian population will be too busy dancing in the street to be "embittered".

I see that back in the summer I mentioned Saddam's musical, Zabibah and the King, currently playing at the Iraqi National Theatre. It was supposed to be Baghdad's answer to Cats. My advice is to see it before New Year, even if you have to make do with a couple of restricted-view seats in the upper balcony.

If they haven't hung up the "Limited Season Only" sign yet, they ought to.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.