Every needs a little therapy now and then...

February 16, 2003 2:26 PM

War as national therapy- revisiting the Gulf War:(scroll down 5 paragraphs to "Powell and the Persian Gulf War") Some 100,000 retreating Iraqi troops were incinerated, blown to bits, etc. (Schwarzkopf's estimate) with unexpectedly light US casualties (383 from all causes). “Even in Vietnam I didn’t see anything like this. It’s pathetic.“ said Major Bob Nugent, Army intelligence officer. But the stunning victory - and the ensuing US euphoria - were almost sabatoged by a Russian peace plan.... "The President's problem was how to say no to Gorbachev without appearing to throw away a chance for peace"(wrote Colin Powell in American Journey) “We have to have a war,” Bush told his inner circle of Secretary of State James Baker, national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and Powell" (narrates Bob Woodward)...."Fear of a peace deal at the Bush White House [wrote columnists Evans and Novak] had less to do with oil, Israel or Iraqi expansionism than with the bitter legacy of a lost war. 'This is the chance to get rid of the Vietnam Syndrome,' one senior aide told us." Peace threatened, but Colin Powell had a plan......
posted by troutfishing (31 comments total)

Metafilter is becoming quite a war blog. For someone who works in news, and is about to leave for the Air Force (I'm a graduate with an English degree who can't find any other job with the same benefits. It's not as much reactionary as it is necessity...) I've about had enough. I'm feeling the same thing from when it was election season.

I know... I know... It's a very important topic of which we should share all sides. And I find all of the discussion very enlightening and healthy, bla bla bla.

But, for goodness sakes, when can I find multiple posts about vibrating Harry Potter broom sticks again?
posted by mychai at 2:49 PM on February 16, 2003

Best of luck mychai!
posted by Postroad at 3:07 PM on February 16, 2003

Maybe those 100,000 retreating Iraqis were slaughtered purposefully to weaken Iraq for another subsequent war. This war will be different. Lots of casualties, maybe some Americans, and maybe this will make a difference since many Americans seem only to care if other Americans die even though normally we can't stand each other.

Good luck out there, Mychai.
posted by letterneversent at 3:09 PM on February 16, 2003

I'd bet on another mass Iraqi surrender in this war.

As for war in Baghdad.. it seems to be a challenge on paper, but we will see how that goes.
posted by RobbieFal at 3:11 PM on February 16, 2003

I'd bet on another mass Iraqi surrender in this war.

Yeah, you're probably right, since Tikrit-born, Sunni Saddam does not appear to be particularly popular in Iraq -- for ethnic reasons and also because apprently cruel fascist dictators are seldom beloved by their subjects.
But as a mass surrender, it was pretty much a fucking bloodbath in 1991. It would be pretty groovy to avoid, if possible, a new carnage
posted by matteo at 3:52 PM on February 16, 2003

Nothing's stopping people from posting the more traditional off-beat, hard-to-find nuggets of gold lurking on the web. But the impending war is a pretty big deal, at least in the historical perspective. The rally yesterday, for example, was one of the largest in the history of the world. A lot of the posts tend to be more liberal in their slant (and occasionaly outright conspiratorial), so I can see how it might turn a lot of people off. But if you're looking for an interesting corner of the web that you might not have seen before, here you go.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:06 PM on February 16, 2003

From July 1991, The Atlantic, by Christopher Layne: Why the Gulf War was Not in the National Interest. It was not, from a serious realist perspective. The same can be said of the seemingly impending war.
posted by raysmj at 4:21 PM on February 16, 2003

But, for goodness sakes, when can I find multiple posts about vibrating Harry Potter broom sticks again?

Fark. Not a single post about the protests until today, and then it was about a cop being beaten up. I think they're poised to become the Lawrence Welk show of the 21st century.
posted by condour75 at 4:36 PM on February 16, 2003

sorry about the open cite tag. Second part shouldn't be italics.
posted by condour75 at 5:02 PM on February 16, 2003

Thanks, guys, for not slaughtering me in my war-blogging comment. I partly bring on my frustrations all on myself. I tend to slant more on the conservative side of things, and I know MeFi leans much more to the left. Yet I am prone to visit quite regularly. That mixed with working for an NBC-affiliate station... well... you can probably understand why I get burned out on things.

As for the well wishes for the Air Force. I greatly appreciate it, though I won't be anywere "out there," as letterneversent put it. I'll be in Air Traffic Control, which is pretty well guarded from any kinds of attack. And even still, I seriously doubt I'll be shipped overseas. But if I do, I do.

Here's a bit of conversation for you to chew on: This is the first major "conflict" (war) since Viet Nam that the military is actively recruiting the press and media to participate in patrols, battles, etc. I am highly supportive of this. Mostly because it will better record what's going on over there. But it will also greatly reduce the chance of "some 100,000 retreating Iraqi troops [getting] incinerated." No commander wants his men being broadcast over network television doing this, therefore the press acts as a watchdog (imagine that...).

Agree? Disagree? Discuss...
posted by mychai at 5:03 PM on February 16, 2003

THis time the idea isn't to engage the Iraqis en masse but to strike down the air defenses, get total air dominance, and basically try to shut down the country without large-scale force-on-force engagements. AIUI, we've been dropping pamphlets telling the Iraqis to keep their heads down and stay in their bunkers and they'll be safe; resist and they'll be clobbered per 1991 (and they know all too well how that went).

We can surround or bypass the cities without house-to-house fighting, too, because we're mobile enough that we don't need to secure ever last town; the ones from which counterattacks originate are likely to be smacked down, but the ones that don't aren't going to be "liberated."

What bothers me, though, is the aftermath, wherein we're basically redoing Japan 1945 and Tommy Franks plays Gen. MacArthur. I don't think the Iraqis are going to go along with being occupied by a foreign power any more than they would exchanging home-grown dictators.
posted by alumshubby at 5:22 PM on February 16, 2003

The Laws of War, US-Style

"After decades of massive defence spending, the US is today assured of victory in any war it chooses to fight. High-tech weaponry has reduced the dangers to US personnel, making it easier to sell war to domestic constituencies. As a result, some US politicians have begun to think of war, not as the high-risk recourse of last resort, but as an attractive foreign policy option in times of domestic scandal or economic decline. This change in thinking has already led to a more cavalier approach to the jus ad bellum, as exemplified by the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence. It is beginning to have a similar effect with regard to the jus in bello. When war is seen as an ordinary tool of foreign policy - 'politics by other means' - political and financial considerations impinge on the balance between military necessity and humanitarian concerns. Soldiers are buried alive because the folks back home don't like body bags."
posted by homunculus at 6:04 PM on February 16, 2003

Agree? Disagree? Discuss...

I tend to agree that it is a good thing because it would deter potential atrocities, but I'm concerned that those journalists will be incapable of making an objective record precisely because of their proximity to the military. I do hope there are some independents like Robert Pelton over there, assuming it's possible be there at all without getting incinerated.

It will be interesting to compare American reporting to al-Jazeera's, though according to this article, their management now has to clear their broadcasts with the Qatari government, who are trying to keep the US's favor (except for those members of the royal family who help al Qaeda, of course.)
posted by homunculus at 6:27 PM on February 16, 2003

Metafilter is becoming quite a war blog.

Metafilter reacts to the web, which is reacting to the world around it. I agree with many points brought up in this thread, but unless a site has one focus (Like a rabbit used to like putting things on its head) generally-themed sites will follow the flow of history.

And that's a good thing, although certainly overwhelming sometimes.
posted by jragon at 6:36 PM on February 16, 2003

Agree? Disagree? Discuss...

See also this.
posted by Sonny Jim at 7:29 PM on February 16, 2003

As for the American troops on the ground, tonight's 60 Minutes was really disturbing:

"Twelve years after chemical and biological weapons were discovered in Iraq’s arsenal during the Gulf War, U.S. forces massing for a possible attack on Iraq are still not properly prepared to encounter such weapons. Politicians, current and former military members and even Congress’s own General Accounting Office tell Mike Wallace that American soldiers do not have enough training or equipment needed to survive a chemical or biological attack."
posted by homunculus at 7:40 PM on February 16, 2003

"Fark. Not a single post about the protests until today, and then it was about a cop being beaten up. I think they're poised to become the Lawrence Welk show of the 21st century."

Have you read one thread about the war?

IT'S LIKE EVERY OTHER THREAD!

It's useless to report on that on Fark because all it does is re-generate the same 400 post flamewar that does nothing.

*rolls his eyes*
posted by RobbieFal at 7:47 PM on February 16, 2003

mychai - "Harry Potter vibrating broomsticks"? Ahh.........those were innocent times!

Good luck directing air traffic. I, for one, don't feel like yelling at you, and I doubt many Mefi-ers would. I think that both the US, and the tradition of civilian dissent against US invasions and interventions - has matured quite a bit since the Vietnam war so that those perceive the ugly aspects of US foreign policy no longer blame members of the US military but, rather, the Bush administration itself. target of those whose dissent against the activities of US givernments The US military hasn't decided that Iraq represents a deadly threat to US security: the Bush administration has determined the threat.

,
posted by troutfishing at 8:10 PM on February 16, 2003

My brother is among those being shipped overseas (101st Airborne). If this war is national therapy, why don't I feel better about it?
posted by Soliloquy at 8:11 PM on February 16, 2003

Soliloquy - I was suggesting that the last Gulf War was a sort of national therapy, but this new, potential Gulf War........I don't know what to call it. I hope your brother does OK.

There has been an unusual - maybe historic? - amount of dissention in the US military about the wisdom of the US going into Iraq (especially unilaterally) but in the end, George W. Bush calls the shots. In theory, Congress is supposed to have the power to declare war. What a joke.

This looming war is about the geopolitical visions of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, as expressed in this document: "Rebuilding America's Defenses - " the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
posted by troutfishing at 9:21 PM on February 16, 2003

I think that both the US, and the tradition of civilian dissent against US invasions and interventions - has matured quite a bit since the Vietnam war so that those perceive the ugly aspects of US foreign policy no longer blame members of the US military

troutfishing, I was there. We never ever blamed the military, only the corrupt fools who sent them into harm's way. Hell, some of us sold underground newspapers to the military, smoked dope with the military, even dropped acid with the military--I know this to be a fact from personal experience. Heck, a very substantial proportion of us formerly were the military.

These lies about Viet Nam come from the fact that there are people who can not countenance the fact that our government, administration by adminstration, helped to cancel free elections, create puppet regimes whose armies would not fight their countrymen and sent 50,000 American boys to die in a war everyone in power knew could never ever be won all along. These same people helped make up these urban legends about protestors spitting on returning soldiers--something that has never been documented.

Apart from the fact that you don't, despite all warblogger lies and distortions, have a small percentage of twits trying to organize the proletariat and screeching Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, NLF Is Going To Win! anymore--the only thing that has matured about the peace movement is that the classes of 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 and so on have put on weight and gotten gray hair.
posted by y2karl at 10:22 PM on February 16, 2003

As long as this war isn't shock therapy, then it should turn out well.
posted by RobbieFal at 10:26 PM on February 16, 2003

RobbieFal - as in 10 year garrison duty?

y2karl - You are right. I shouldn't have conceded that ground. "Germany after World War I and France after its defeat in Vietnam...In both instances, stories of spat-upon veterans circulated widely after military defeat. The common thread is that the war was lost not on distant battlefields, but by betrayal at home....” (from your link)
posted by troutfishing at 10:39 PM on February 16, 2003

Well, to be fair, we've had troops in Germany, Japan and South Korea since the wars there, and you wouldn't consider them to have turned out badly (like you'd consider an Iraq war to have turned out badly if we stay there for too long).

Sure, troops will still be around, considering the threat of a post-war revolution by radical muslims who would try to establish a regime in Iraq (while fighting the new leaders), it'd be irresponsible to leave too early and make the new leaders face another force that they may not be able to contain
posted by RobbieFal at 10:57 PM on February 16, 2003

That mixed with working for an NBC-affiliate station... well... you can probably understand why I get burned out on things.

If you know this news is there why not have your NBC affiliate cover, in fact cover story it, this news of our Authoritative Leaders corresponding so breezily about the lives of defenseless others and the manufacturing of the personal emotions of Americans?

Why stop there? There's plenty of documentable scandal. Check out Greg Palast for starters. Let the non-web denizens know something else other than the soundbites of powerlessness inducing fear. Why not? You're going to fight and sacrifice your life for "them" on a strictly need-to-know basis.

(I'm sorry. But somebody had to say it.)


I wish your health well.
posted by crasspastor at 10:57 PM on February 16, 2003

Er, that's...

If you know this news is there why not have your NBC affiliate cover, in fact cover story it, this news of our Authoritative Leaders corresponding so breezily about the lives of defenseless others and the manufacturing of the personal emotions of Americans?

Why stop there? There's plenty of documentable scandal. Check out Greg Palast for starters. Let the non-web denizens know something else other than the soundbites of powerlessness inducing fear. Why not? You're going to fight and sacrifice your life for "them" on a strictly need-to-know basis.

(I'm sorry. But somebody had to say it.)

I wish your health well.
posted by crasspastor at 10:57 PM

He missed the quotes on the < a href= ""
posted by y2karl at 11:16 PM on February 16, 2003

RobbieFal - Well, to be fair, we've had troops in Germany, Japan and South Korea since the wars there..."

Yes, that's true. But Iraq in 2003 is a very, very different place. Comparisons to post WW2 Europe probably obscure more light than they shed.

Regionally, I would liken a US invasion of Iraq, and the postwar presence of a huge US garrison there, to whacking a hornet's nest with a stick. Do not forget the feelings of virtually the whole Islamic world over this, the damage the "Crusade" and "good vs. evil" rhetoric on the part of US leaders and Fundamentalist clergy has done, the rage of the Islamic world over the Palestinian issue - and it's conviction that the US invasion of Iraq would amount to a neo-colonial project.

Do not forget Pakistan.

As I said, "whacking a hornet's nest with a stick"
posted by troutfishing at 7:40 AM on February 17, 2003

The 220,00 Casualties No One Speaks About
posted by homunculus at 11:43 AM on February 17, 2003

homunculus - Holy crap. That link's worthy of it's own post.
posted by troutfishing at 7:46 PM on February 17, 2003

Well, to be fair, we've had troops in Germany, Japan and South Korea since the wars there, and you wouldn't consider them to have turned out badly

Yes, most South Koreans yearn nostalgically for the years 1948-1960 when Uncle Syngman was boss and deeply appreciate America's help in propping him up.
posted by y2karl at 8:57 AM on February 18, 2003

Gulf War Vet on Death Row Seeks Clemency
posted by homunculus at 2:18 PM on February 18, 2003