Wednesday, January 10, 2007

The Virtue of Proof

Patience, is often rewarded. Usually, however, it's not rewarded as spectacularly as it is here.

This is the US Government's trump card in the ongoing trial of Saddam Hussein's 6 remaining co-defendants, as well as what amounts to a posthumous continuation of his own genocide trial. Saddam speaking on tape about his use of chemical weaponry to massacre his fellow countrymen. As an added bonus, we get Saddam talking on tape about how to hide evidence of those pesky WMDs that there was never any evidence about, contrary to what 400+ congressmen voted on...

One recording revealed, more clearly than anything before, Mr. Hussein’s personal involvement in covering up Iraq’s attempts to acquire unconventional weapons, the program that ultimately led to President Bush sending American troops to overthrow him. Talking to the general who led Iraq’s dealings with United Nations weapons inspectors until weeks before the 2003 invasion, he counseled caution in the figures being divulged on the extent of Iraq’s raw supplies for chemical weapons, so as to disguise the use of unaccounted-for chemicals in the attacks on the Kurds.


Yeah. Isn't proof a great thing?

1 comment:

Patrick Armstrong said...

So, after we went in unprepared, after we told the rest of the world to stuff it, after we executed the guy, US officials release today damning information about something that we already knew in 2002. And they do this the same day that the President announces the politically unpopular decision that we will be sending 21,000+ more troops to Iraq.

I can't speak for any other liberals, they may have a different opinion on this, but I knew Saddam Hussien had used chemical weapons against the Kurds back in 1990. He wasn't a good guy. He deserved to hang for crimes against humanity.

But my problem remains: we went to war for whatever reasons - but we went without enough stuff to get the job done right. Which the President admits by sending more troops this very day, but he still refuses to do enough to get the job done and at the same time calls the other side defeatists, unpatriotic, and troop-hating for trying to change a direction that will not work.

Speaking for myself, my problem with this revelation is that it is too little, far too late, and in any case, this recorded testimony by Saddam does not justify continued incompetece in running a war.

We are far, far, far beyond the justification argument, despite the desire of some on both sides to continue that debate.

Right now, we are in the "How the Hell Do We Win This/End This Mess???" debate, and the end result is that neither side has a good plan. Still.

I mean, each side has a plan that doesn't solve our problem. Stay the course + 21K? Not near enough to truly support the troops and win. Our troops keep dying for 5 - 6 years. Disengage and Redeploy? Not gonna solve the problem, and we'll have to figure out a better solution in 5 -6 years.

The choice is a game plan that doesn't work, or a punt.

I do know one thing, though, from the annals of military history: there is always a strong argument to be made for abandoning an untenable position, retrenching at a stronger position and counterattacking from that position once reinforcements have arrived with more guns and better planes.