Skip to main content

Stating the obvious





Sasha Castel pointed out this UPI article which contains this lovely quote:



"When the Europeans demand some sort of veto over American actions, or want us to subordinate our national interest to a UN mandate, they forget that we do not think their track record is too good," a senior U.S. diplomat said recently in private. "The Europeans told us they could win the Balkans wars all on their own. Wrong. They told us that the Russians would never accept National Missile Defense. Wrong. They said the Russians would never swallow NATO enlargement. Wrong. They told us 20 years ago that détente was the way to deal with what we foolishly called the Evil Empire. Wrong again. They complain about our Farm Bill when they are the world's biggest subsidizers of their agriculture. The Europeans are not just wrong; they are also hypocrites. They are wrong on Kyoto, wrong on Arafat, wrong on Iraq -- so why should we take seriously a single word they say?"
Which reminded me of a conversation I had with a friend last week, on what would happen if (when) we go into Iraq. His contention was that we couldn't win, that we'd be stuck there for years, that "those people have been fighting for a thousand years."



Fine, said I, but bear in mind that for over a decade, no one has accurately predicted how the US military would behave in a fight. The little actions aside, such as Somalia, look at the larger actions. Gulf War of '91, everyone said we'd get creamed. Saddam's Republican Guard were combat-hardened, experienced desert fighters. Thousands of casualties, years of struggle, the futility of war!



Result: Exceptionally low Allied casualties, Iraq booted solidly out of Kuwait, all done in record time.



Now, Afghanistan: the horrid winter, the trained, experienced, hardened, etc., mountain fighters of the Taliban. They'd slaughter us in those mountains. Bloodbath. Horror! Years of continuous fighting.



Result: Taliban go bye-bye, US casualties that you can count on your hands. We will be there for years, but that's because it'll probably take a decade or so to build up an infrastructure, economy, and a new national government. Skirmishes here and there, certainly, but nothing like what was predicted.



And so it goes. When I hear descriptions of a long, bloody struggle in Iraq if (when) we attack, I am reminded of those who complained long and hard that the US military was always preparing to fight yesterday's battles, rather than tomorrow's. Then I see how we perform in actual combat, and realize that Those In Charge have taken that warning -- and lesson -- to heart. The protestors have not. In short, they have no idea how we'll hit Iraq. Neither does Saddam. And that's the key.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home. Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes . In Batman Begins , I blamed Katie Holmes . Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal , who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film,...
1 comment
Read more

Dune Part 2 (2024)

I have come not to praise Dune but to bury it. I am in a distinct minority. So be it. To explain why, there will be some minor spoilers ahead; sorry. The short version is #NotMyDune. Summary: Picking up where Dune Part 1 left off, we find the young Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) hanging out with the Fremen. Plots to overthrow rival houses and empires ensue. Go here to see what I thought about Dune Part 1 (2021) . Overall, I found it to be technically brilliant, but lacking a human heart, an exercise in frenetic slow motion. D2 is more of the same, though with far more action. Acting-wise, everyone is doing a fine, more than adequate job. Absolutely no one or nothing stands out. The way the characters are written (adapted, actually), their back and forths and interactions, are all weak and unengaging. I generally hate when they speak. I've read the novel a ridiculous number of times, and these films are prompting me to read it again. I understand that trying to translate the n...
1 comment
Read more