Delayed Pundit

2003-03-28T10:59:00.000+10:00

Quote of the Day from Jonathan V. Last:

Even the French--the French!--were able to hold out for 44 days. If Saddam prolongs the fighting for another 5 weeks, all he will be doing is rising to the level of military competence set by France.

Today is Day 8 of the war. Let's try to keep some perspective.

2003-03-28T08:47:00.000+10:00

If you don’t do anything else today, at least read this article.

2003-03-23T15:43:00.000+10:00

The truth shall set you free ... or at least really piss you off:

Nic Robertson, the CNN correspondent ordered out of Baghdad on Friday, reported deep frustration on the part of Iraq information officials, who angrily told him the network was "worse than the American Army" and that it was to get out of Iraq immediately.

Images of allied military divisions advancing through the south of the country seemed to be taking their toll, he said. "The Iraqis had been struggling with the images that they'd been seeing on CNN — images of soldiers surrendering, Bradley fighting vehicles driving up the Iraqi desert," he said in an interview. "They've been trying to tell their own people it's not really happening, this really isn't Iraq."

The team of four CNN journalists in Baghdad left Saturday morning.

2003-03-22T11:47:00.000+10:00

Kudos to Nick Penniman and Richard Just:

Millions of people will soon be freed from a yoke of cruelty and dictatorship. One might have expected liberals to use this moment to cheer the prospect that the war's aftermath could lead to a better life for Iraqis, as well as for those Arabs, Israelis, Turks and Kurds who have for more than two decades lived under the threat of attack by Saddam Hussein. One might have expected liberals to begin making the case for a lengthy and serious rebuilding of Iraq -- a process that is hugely complicated and that no one knows whether the Bush administration will commit to wholeheartedly. But neither of these things has happened. Instead, on the brink of the ouster of a dictator who is the very embodiment of illiberal values, too many liberals are on the sidelines throwing beer cans at the proceedings.

2003-03-22T09:45:00.000+10:00

I would strongly recommend everyone read Slate during the current Iraqi crisis. Top-rate journalism all-round. William Saletan's war-blog is especially good.

2003-03-21T21:52:00.000+10:00

I was really keen to see the new Ned Kelly movie .. that is, until i saw this:

Australian film star Heath Ledger has added his voice to the anti-war movement, calling on Prime Minister John Howard to "grow up" and assert the nation's independence.

In Melbourne to launch the new Ned Kelly movie, in which he stars in the title role, Ledger said yesterday Australia's involvement in the war on Iraq was ridiculous.

A bit of pre-emption of my own ... this is a BOYCOTT, not a blacklist ... no 'McCarthyite' accusations please ...

2003-03-21T12:17:00.000+10:00

Just a preliminary head-count: after the current action in Iraq, how many people would be willing to buy a T-shirt with the following written on it:

So, you were anti-war, huh?

Do you feel kinda stupid for

being SO F*CKING WRONG?

2003-03-21T11:29:00.000+10:00

From the Sydney Morning Herald’s Letters Page:

Moments ago I heard that war had begun. I cry now for the children of Iraq. I cry for our own children: how can I explain this unjust war to them?

How can we explain that we have created a world in which our only answer to injustice being committed by one dictator is to engage in more terrifying injustice, killing innocent children. It's a sad day when you wait for your children to come home from school to report this news.

Barbara Livesey doing her best Helen Lovejoy impersonation: Won’t somebody please think of the children!

The blood of those who will die as the new US doctrines of unilateralism and pre-emptive strike are applied by the US and by other countries.

David Cameron has trouble with the concept of unilateralism. (A hint: ‘uni’ = ‘one’; ’35 countries who have so far signed onto the coalition of the willing’ does not equal ‘unilateralism’)

Miranda, we do remember Vietnam. And the protesters were right ...

Trevor Finch, I remember Afghanistan. And the protesters were wrong ….

2003-03-20T08:13:00.000+10:00

... it was clear the United States would operate with dozens of allies, some large like Australia and Italy, some small such as Latvia and El Salvador.

I think Fred Barnes is trying to sweet-talk us Aussies by playing to our egos ...

2003-03-20T08:05:00.000+10:00

Psych-out, continued ....

Mass desertions from the Iraqi army, and the defection of very senior figures from within Saddam Hussein's ruling family circle, are under way as the countdown to a British and US invasion of Iraq reaches its final hours.

In the northern region on the border with Kurdistan, up to three-quarters of some Iraqi regiments have already fled.

In the mainly Shia Muslim south, Kuwaiti border guards are having to turn Iraqi soldiers back, telling them that they must wait until the attack begins before they can surrender.

And in a highly significant development in the capital, Baghdad, a half-brother of Saddam, who is regarded as the dictator's closest adviser, has fled to Syria in the past week. Sab'awi Ibrahim Hasan al-Tikriti, who is regarded as a possible war criminal in the US, has sought refuge in Damascus.

2003-03-20T08:00:00.000+10:00

You learn something new everyday ...

2003-03-20T07:46:00.000+10:00

Some might say it is no worse for Iraq or North Korea to have nuclear weapons than it is for Britain, France, the United States and several others to have them. It is. It may go against egalitarian principles to say so, but not all countries are as nice as each other. Sweden is nicer than Saudi Arabia, for example. And while I am certainly no fan of the Bush Administration, it is plain silly to say the US is just as bad as the regime in Iraq.

Pamela Bone confirms that the left is not yet totally devoid of intelligence.

2003-03-20T07:32:00.000+10:00

Now, imagine if a bunch of protesters tried to blockade the White House. Some Clint Eastwood wannabe with a magnum under his coat and a wire in his ear would probably have killed someone. Certainly, people would have been brutalised and clapped in irons. In Iraq, there would have been a massacre.

Mike just couldn't help himself. Don't you see? America = Iraq and Iraq = America. Also note the crude American stereotype: Gung-ho nutters just itching to kill someone. Sheesh. I bet Americans all look the same to you as well don't they Mike?

2003-03-19T21:19:00.000+10:00

Michelle Grattan writing in The Age:

Now Australia has made its participation official, it finds itself a minor player in an extraordinarily small club of nations launching a pre-emptive military strike that could send unforeseen reverberations through the international system.

Fareed Zakaria writing in Newsweek:

But in its campaign against Iraq, America is virtually alone.

Simon Crean, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald:

But the Opposition Leader, Simon Crean, said Australia had joined an "immoral minority" of just three countries waging war with Iraq.

Hmmm, time for a reality check:

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said today that 45 nations backed the United States in the coalition that may soon go to war with Iraq. Thirty of those countries - who have offered troops, overflight rights, logistical support and assistance and Iraqi reconstruction projects - were willing to be named publicly while 15 preferred to remain anonymous at the present.

Plus, in addition to Oz, the UK and the US, Denmark, Slovakia and the Czech Republic are providing military units ... why is the left wrong all the time?

2003-03-19T21:07:00.000+10:00

Ms Kingston displaying a remarkable knowledge about the 1999 Timor crisis:

Remember East Timor? Howard asked the US for troops - it replied that this was a regional matter, and we should handle it ourselves. The UN managed the crisis - through it we organised our own coalition of the willing, including several neighbours in the region. They could not help us after this - antagonistic public opinion in their countries would make that impossible.

Sure, I remember East Timor Margo. I remember how it was only after a US General rang an Indonesian General (and essentially told him that the game was up) that Indonesia relented and allowed an Australian-led force to land in East Timor. I remember how it was only due to the logistic muscle of the US Defence Forces that Australian troops - let alone Thai and other regional troops - were able to get to Timor in the first place. I also remember how a US Marine combat group (approx 4000 troops) remained stationed off Dili while Indonesia forces remained in East Timor. The message from this was action was clear: "While we may not be there on the ground, f*ck with our friends and we will f*ck with you." God bless our seppo mates.

Face it Margo, without the US, East Timor would never have happened. So don't give us this sanctimonious bullshit about America never 'being there' for us.

2003-03-18T15:06:00.000+10:00

Psych ... Psych, Psych Psych!!

But if you doubt the power of psychological warfare, look at what's happening right now in Baghdad and Ankara. Turkish leaders who dragged their heels on U.S. troop deployments are rushing to open their gates. Why? According to the New York Times, Turkish officials believe an "invasion of Iraq now seems inevitable," so the only question left is whether Turkey gets a "say in its aftermath." Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that Baghdad residents have "besieged currency exchange dealers … lugging in satchels of worn Iraqi dinars and leaving with small wads of $100 bills."

A dinar is a promise from the Iraqi government. A dollar bill is a promise from the American government. Saddam's people are betting against him. The psych-out has begun.

2003-03-17T10:56:00.000+10:00

… the United States will spend as much next year on defense as the rest of the world put together (yes, all 191 countries). And it will do so devoting 4 percent of its GDP, a low level by postwar standards. - Fareed Zakaria

I think it is pretty safe to say that I am not reflexively anti-American. Nor am I someone who ascribes to the mindless belief that America is an oil-hungry imperial power, bent on world domination. However, I would be lying to say that the above statement doesn’t scare me just a little …

2003-03-16T16:31:00.000+10:00

Two interesting and competing versions of the future between Europe and America:

Harold Meyerson from The American Prospect and Mark Steyn from The Spectator

2003-03-16T15:53:00.000+10:00

Tracking down terrorists is a job for intelligence services and police forces, not armies. - Hugh Mackay

True - terrorism is a crime that is most effectively dealt with by police forces, HOWEVER, Mr Mackay needs to appreciate that international terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda, pose serious problems to the 'law and order' approach to counter-terrorism. In the absence of an international police force, the 'law and order' approach breaks down when confronted with national governments unwilling to cooperate with targeted countries. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the Taleban (or the Iraqi, Irani, Syrian or North Korea governments for that matter) would have fully cooperated with the FBI and other US law enforcement agencies to track down the perpetrators of the September 11 terrorist attacks?

The fact remains that, in some cases, military force is required to deal with regimes that are actively supporting terrorist groups. To suggest otherwise is to ascribe to an overly optimistic (and simplistic) view of the international system.

2003-03-16T15:14:00.000+10:00

Hugh Mackay advocating a breakdown in Australia's democratic civil-military relationship:

It's a pity our military leaders don't have the freedom to disobey your orders when those orders contravene both international law and common sense. What a sweet moment it would be if the top brass could simply say, "Sorry, we won't act unjustly. If you want to invade Iraq, get someone else to do the job. We're coming home."

Democratic accountability can be so annoying, can't it? And there's more:

If I've got it straight, your logic runs like this: because Iraq has failed to respect its obligations to the UN, Australia should do the same.

Close. The PM's logic runs like this: because Iraq has failed to respect its obligations to the UN, and because certain members are actively preventing the UN from disarming Iraq, 'whatever the circumstances', Australia and other concerned countries should reluctantly address the security threat posed by Iraq by launching military action. UN support would be good, but Australia should not sacrifice its decision-making capacity to France, Angola and Chile.

2003-03-16T15:06:00.000+10:00

Ahhh, Alan Ramsey...

There was a strong sense, to this ear, in our Prime Minister's pleading that he, too, now realises his folly in having been so thoroughly seduced by the most disliked and distrusted US President we have so come to fear.

According to Mr Ramsey, the prime minister (and one would assume the prowar movement in general) has simply been conned by George W. Bush's tantalizing salesmanship. Not a bad effort for someone who is routinely derided as a moron …

Or that the frightening zealots who lurk behind this cowboy-booted caricature would allow him to do so?

I'll give Mr Ramsey the benefit of the doubt and assume he is not ascribing to the 'neo-conservative Jews run America' theory - can't let facts get in the way of some good, old-fashioned anti-semitism ...

Just as offensive as Howard's threadbare "justification" on Thursday for making war on Iraq was his behaviour beforehand.

I am curious to discover what element of the Prime Minister's justification Mr Ramsey found 'threadbare'. Saddam's possession of WMD? - something that not even the French deny. Saddam's link with terrorist groups? Perhaps Mr Ramsey was questioning the assertion that Iraq has violated numerous UN Security Council resolutions? (On a side note, I am always amused when people try to deflect this charge by highlighting how other countries - namely Israel [notice how they always mention Israel - nothing like good old Jew bashing] have also violated UN resolutions. As if pointing out the transgressions of other countries somehow absolves Iraq of any guilt).

Yet Australians dislike and fear Bush.

I won't be so petty to comment about a mindless generalisation.

The ANOP's Rod Cameron: Any sort of war will not be a winner, politically.

Like to put a wager on that Mr Cameron?

For more Ramsey de-bunking (there is simply too much for one man), visit Tim Blair

2003-03-14T13:12:00.000+10:00

Put this in your relativist-pipe and smoke it ... more from Daniel Kruger:

Let there be no talk of ‘imposing’ ‘Western’ values here. As President Bush says, the values of liberty are universal, not Western. They only seem Western because the West has applied them most successfully, and grown rich on the proceeds. Liberty might just as easily have flourished in the Korean peninsula or at the junction of the Tigris and the Euphrates. Then it would be Koreans and Iraqis, to the dismay of limp do-gooders among them, exporting ‘Eastern’ values to us, the benighted nations of the world.

2003-03-14T13:09:00.000+10:00

I don't know if I like being called a hedgehog ... an extract from Daniel Kruger's latest article:

Slavery was to the British in the 19th century what terrorism is to the Americans in the 21st: a blight on the earth, fostered by renegades and despots, and an affront to civilisation. Yes, yes, we were complicit in its first stirrings — establishing plantations in Virginia and Jamaica, funding Saddam against Iran — but that simply fired our resolve to stamp it out once we realised our error. The slave trade was outlawed throughout the British dominions in 1834, and it was simultaneously decided that no one else should be allowed to practise it either. For the next 30 years the prime duty of the Royal Navy was to eradicate the slave trade on the high seas.

By and large Britain did this duty alone. Overwhelmingly the most powerful nation on earth, she chafed at the restraints of international co-operation. She did lead a sort of alliance against slavery, with a handful of ships from America and France, but in reality Britain did the work, often ignoring diplomatic sensitivities by attacking slaving stations on sovereign territory, or stopping and searching ships flying neutral colours. The Americans in particular, the hypocrites of their day, were more a hindrance than a help: they bleated about British ‘unilateralism’ and protested about the need for ‘international law’, while all the time her entrepreneurs were running their own slave ships between Africa and the Southern states. One thinks of the French, urging the ‘UN route’ while Total-Fina schemes to win Iraq’s oil contracts.

2003-03-14T08:21:00.000+10:00

At a meeting at NSW Parliament House, organised by the Walk Against War Coalition, he [Professor Stuart Rees ] said that although the UN was said to be facing imminent disaster, it could be a godsend for the world. "It's a forum that is not producing a forced consensus," he said. "That's wonderful for democracy and the future of the United Nations."

Democracy? The UN? What planet is Professor Rees on? Is he referring to the countries that comprise the UN (Syria, Iraq, China, etc.)? Is he referring to the absence of democratic processes that would allow individuals to influence UN decisions? Is he referring to the immense power *smirk* the General Assembly wields? Or is he referring to the Security Council – the most fundamentally undemocratic institution in world politics?

2003-03-14T08:03:00.000+10:00

Mr Crean said: "The Prime Minister has been locked in, like an Exocet missile, to doing whatever the US asks of him. He's got no way out."

"The only decision that hasn't been made is the one by President Bush," Senator Bartlett said. "I don't think there is a person in the country who believes John Howard won't follow when Bush makes his decision - he's waiting on the call from President Bush."

Senator Brown said: "At any time the American Administration can decide we're going in ... and we'll be locked into that,"

So, it appears that the opposition parties aren't going to argue against the content of the Prime Minister's speech. I doubt even with the combined intellectual 'power' of the Greens, Democrats and ALP that they would be able to argue:

1. Saddam Hussein does not have WMD,

2. That the inspection process is flawed,

3. That there is a historical link between the Iraqi regime and terrorist groups.

So, the opposition parties are left to bleat the tired old line: "Johnnie Howard is Bush's lap dog". Yawn. You know when someone doesn't have an intellectual argument to stand on when they resort to repeating a slogan as fact.

2003-03-13T15:38:00.000+10:00

From Auntie ...

Cracks appear in international coalition - France and Russia now seem certain to vote against or veto the new UN resolution on Iraq.

France and Russia were part of the international coalition? Since when? This article should be read:

France and Russia reaffirm their commitment to impeding the UN's ability to disarm Iraq

2003-03-13T11:59:00.000+10:00

Jack Robertson in Web Diary writes:

But I simply have to protest that it's asking a bit much to expect me to cop it sweet when someone like you tries to blame us anti-invasionists for Saddam. All the warhawks are doing it these days, I notice.

Certainly I agree that it is a bit of a stretch to blame antiwar advocates for the human rights violations of Saddam Hussein, however, Mr Robertson is being a tad disingenuous. For the most part, ‘prowar hawks’ aren’t blaming ‘antiwar doves’ for Saddam’s human rights violations. They are just asking why the antiwar crowd is seemingly content to ignore the fact that while war will cause human rights problems in Iraq, so will the absence of war. There is even a strong case to suggest that leaving Saddam in power would cause greater human rights violations in the long run than removing him from power. It is because of the antiwar protesters’ failure to grapple with this issue, combined with their severe ‘don’t mention the war’ attitude to the horrors of the current Iraqi regime, that has led many people to question their sincerity regading Iraqi human rights.

Actually, it is funny that many people who have been criticising John Howard and George Bush over their alleged inability to appreciate the complexities of the Iraqi situation are unable themselves to deal with the complexities of the human rights situation. It seems certainty is not just a prowar problem …

2003-03-13T11:39:00.000+10:00

So what are the options left for the U.S. and its allies regarding Iraq? The dominant approach supported by the commentariat is for the U.S. to compromise and allow the weapons inspectors more than 45 days to test Iraq’s compliance against several disarmament tests. The main problem with this proposal is that no-one – in particular the French or the Russians – are willing to accept any kind of automaticity, that is, allowing any triggers that would allow the coalition of the willing to automatically declare war without going back to the Security Council. So there is no real guarantee that after 45 days and numerous Iraqi violations we won’t end up where we are now – with more French squabbling and delays. I have come more and more to agree with Charles Krauthammer - the allies should just force a vote. If the UN supports us, good, if they don’t, so what - just walk away, leave the UN squirming in its own irrelevance, and disarm Iraq anyway. Do it now while the advantage is on our side. More negotiations aren’t going to change France’s or Russia’s position – they are just giving Saddam more time to prepare and more opportunities to weasel out of his responsibilities.

2003-03-11T12:47:00.000+10:00

Yesterday, the Eminem ‘Macho Man’ was all-conquering (see below), defining masculinity and pushing the world to war.

Today, the ‘Macho Man’ is dead. All hail the 'Metrosexual'!!

2003-03-11T10:25:00.000+10:00

Ms Kingston appears to have a problem with the Prime Minister's certainty:

The clock is ticking, it's the final countdown to war - whatever cliche you use, we're all scared. Very scared. Don't you wish you were John Howard? He's never had doubts that he was doing the right thing. Me, I've always feared people without self-doubt.

For those wishing to read a useful counterpoint to Ms Kingston's ideological criticism (How dare you be certain! Don't you know everything is relative!), try David Brooks writing in The Times / Weekly Standard. An excerpt:

In certain circles, it is not only important what opinion you hold, but how you hold it. It is important to be seen dancing with complexity, sliding among shades of gray. Any poor rube can come to a simple conclusion--that President Saddam Hussein is a menace who must be disarmed--but the refined ratiocinators want to be seen luxuriating amid the difficulties, donning the jewels of nuance, even to the point of self-paralysis. And they want to see their leaders paying homage to this style. Accordingly, many Bush critics seem less disturbed by his position than by his inability to adhere to the rules of genteel intellectual manners. They want him to show a little anguish. They want baggy eyes, evidence of sleepless nights, a few photo-ops, Kennedy-style, of the president staring gloomily through the Oval Office windows into the distance.

2003-03-11T09:29:00.000+10:00

So, France has declared that it will veto any new UN resolution on Iraq, "whatever the circumstances". Even the presence of a 'smoking gun' - such as the recent discovery of an undeclared Iraqi drone capable of delivering chemical and biological weapons (which the 'impartial' *cough* UN conveniently forgot to tell everybody about) will not be enough to persuade the French about the seriousness of the situation. Does anybody need anymore evidence about the absolute recklessness and complete insincerity of the French position?

2003-03-10T18:46:00.000+10:00

What's all this then ....

The British and US ambassadors plan to demand that Hans Blix reveals more details of a huge undeclared Iraqi unmanned aircraft, the discovery of which he failed to mention in his oral report to Security Council foreign ministers on Friday. Its existence was only disclosed in a declassified 173-page document circulated by the inspectors at the end of the meeting - an apparent attempt by Dr Blix to hide the revelation to avoid triggering a war.

In honour of the French, I am going to refuse to believe that Hans Blix and the rest of the UN have been actively undermining America's position on Iraq, even in the face of overwhelming evidence ....

2003-03-10T15:20:00.000+10:00

Hints by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that some American military units should leave South Korea are provoking a sudden new appreciation of the United States military presence here.

Within hours of Mr. Rumsfeld's musings that American soldiers should be shifted out of North Korean artillery range, South Korea's new prime minister, Goh Kun, hurried to a meeting with the American ambassador here and said, "The role of the U.S. troops as a tripwire must be maintained."

I always love it when those who partake in anti-Americanism are suddenly confronted with the consequences of their actions.

2003-03-10T11:58:00.000+10:00

It's not just about oil - it's also about Eminem! Why does this essay read like a media/cultural studies student trying to justify their degree?

2003-03-10T11:37:00.000+10:00

Quote for the day:

"... people who could not face the truth about human nature were for the U.N.; people who fairly squished with the juice of human kindness but who had a pretty soggy brain were also for the U.N.; people who preferred to preserve their illusions intact favored the U.N." - David S. McLellan

2003-03-10T08:40:00.000+10:00

"The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said on Thursday that the US was studying ways of either withdrawing its 37,000 troops in South Korea, or shifting them further away from the Demilitarised Zone, the North-South truce line."

Hopefully comments like this will force the South Korean government away from it self-imposed strategic slumber and convince many of Washington's critics that the United States is not an imperial power .. then again, rationality has never been the anti-American left's strong point.

2003-03-07T12:11:00.000+10:00

Evening all .... Hopefully this experiment in blogging will be a rounding success.