Monday, October 18, 2004
Mr. Short Term Memory
Andrew Sullivan, aflame with righteous outrage, cites the Knight Ridder report on the Bush administration's failure to plan for the Iraq war aftermath:
Reading that took me right back to the Spring of 2003, when, while some people were baying hysterically for war, handing out "Sontag Awards," and accusing naysayers of being part of a fifth column, Andrew Sullivan was a lone voice of reason, constantly warning us of the dangers of rushing into Iraq without a postwar plan. If only more people had listened to Mr. Sullivan. (Strangely, although the Army War College report made the news in 2003, I could find no mention of it on Mr. Sullivan's blog. Maybe Blogger ate his archives.)
Lately, Mr. Sullivan has used his blog to decry the divisive tactics used by some people in pursuit of political advantage:
Alone among bloggers and pundits, Mr. Sullivan is qualified to pass judgment on the dividers, for he has never contributed to the polarization of America.
|
Andrew Sullivan, aflame with righteous outrage, cites the Knight Ridder report on the Bush administration's failure to plan for the Iraq war aftermath:
The only reasonable response to the Bush administration's non-existent war planning is outrage, mixed with incomprehension. Here's the latest evidence of their negligence. Money quote:
"The possibility of the United States winning the war and losing the peace in Iraq is real and serious," warned an Army War College report that was completed in February 2003, a month before the invasion. Without an "overwhelming" effort to prepare for the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the report warned: "The United States may find itself in a radically different world over the next few years, a world in which the threat of Saddam Hussein seems like a pale shadow of new problems of America's own making."
A half-dozen intelligence reports also warned that American troops could face significant postwar resistance. This foot-high stack of material was distributed at White House meetings of Bush's top foreign policy advisers, but there's no evidence that anyone ever acted on it.
"It was disseminated. And ignored," said a former senior intelligence official.
What I simply don't understand is the silence of so many who supported this war about the appalling amateurism with which it has been conducted. I guess they think Kerry would be worse and are therefore hiding their criticism in public. But everything I hear in private is damning - even among the neocons. The question we have to ask is: if the Bush people screwed up Iraq this badly, how do we trust them in any future military operation? But that's a question the neocons refuse to ask. - Sullivan
Reading that took me right back to the Spring of 2003, when, while some people were baying hysterically for war, handing out "Sontag Awards," and accusing naysayers of being part of a fifth column, Andrew Sullivan was a lone voice of reason, constantly warning us of the dangers of rushing into Iraq without a postwar plan. If only more people had listened to Mr. Sullivan. (Strangely, although the Army War College report made the news in 2003, I could find no mention of it on Mr. Sullivan's blog. Maybe Blogger ate his archives.)
Lately, Mr. Sullivan has used his blog to decry the divisive tactics used by some people in pursuit of political advantage:
"Bush has managed to divide this country in wartime (with help, or course, from the Michael-Moore-Terry-McAuliffe left)."
Alone among bloggers and pundits, Mr. Sullivan is qualified to pass judgment on the dividers, for he has never contributed to the polarization of America.
