March, 2003:

Just wanted to pop up for a second from my secure undisclosed location to note the following quote from Zbigniew Brzezinski from this interview in In The National Interest:

While at this stage it is too early to make any categorical judgments, it would appear that before too long, it is in the interest of U.S. credibility–especially the Bush Administration’s credibility–to demonstrate tangibly that Iraq has–or has had–weapons of mass destruction.  (Since Saddam is fighting for his life it would be surprising, and rather strange, if he didn’t use the weapons of mass destruction that he is said to have.)  Secondly, one would also hope that there will be more evident demonstrations that the Iraqi people are welcoming their “liberation.” 

Both issues, after all, were central to the U.S. case for undertaking what has been undertaken.

You can say that again.

Like many other media outlets, the Houston Chronicle has discovered Salam Pax, the man behind the Where is Raed? weblog. Not unexpectedly, they expressed doubts about his authenticity:

While stories like those by Salam Pax may seem intriguing, Aly Colón, an ethicist for the media think tank Poynter Institute, said the entries should be taken with a dose of skepticism.

“Blogs are another tool for journalists and the public to get other perspectives from inside Iraq,” Colón said. “The danger is taking this, or anything on the Internet really, at face value.”

Colón said while the blog may be convincing to some, it could just as easily be a computer prankster in Topeka, Kan.

Salam Pax lists only an e-mail address as a means to contact him. The e-mail address, operated by a British music magazine, responded several times Monday with a message indicating the inbox was full. Efforts Monday to contact Salam Pax or determine his location were unsuccessful.

Look, maybe Salam is real and maybe he is a hoaxster from Topeka. The problem is that this “analysis” gives short shrift to the question. For one thing, Salam’s blog has archives that go back to September. If he’s having it on with us, he’s put an awful lot of time and energy into doing so. That’s by no means conclusive evidence of his bona fides, but it’s a fact that ought to be taken into consideration.

Second, while you may not be able to get hold of Salam himself, that doesn’t mean he’s a cipher. Why not treat him like a reclusive author who doesn’t give interviews – read his collected works, speak to people who know him, and paint yourself a picture. Maybe there’s something in an old post that clearly contradicts what he says about himself. All I’ve seen so far in the old media accounts of Salam is quotes from his most recent entries, which again gives the impression that he’s a newcomer on the scene.

As for his peers, Salam has been a blogworld celebrity for some time now, and a number of bloggers have corresponded with him. Diane E. was an early booster, and she thinks he’s real. Other bloggers, especially those on Salam’s blogroll, likely have some useful insights. Maybe one of them has an actual email from Salam, whose headers could be checked to see if the originating IP address is in a block that’s assigned to Iraq. You never know till you ask.

I understand that this story is seen as “timely”, and the steps I’ve outlined would take more time than a reporter in this position might like to take. But I think we deserve a better examination of the question of Salam’s genuineness than the canned opinion of some “media ethicist”. Who knows, we might even discover the truth of the matter.

UPDATE: Someone has done some of this detective work, and he thinks Salam is real, too. Thanks to Ikram and Ginger for the tip.

Sean-Paul gets written up in the NYT. Way to go, dude!

This story in the Financial Times asks the question “what are we to do with Saddam if we catch him alive?”

The US government’s decision will tell us whether any wisdom has been gleaned from the army’s experience more than half a century ago. It has a number of options.

First, it could shoot him. This was General George Patton’s choice for dealing with captured Nazis: line them up, tell them what they did and pull the trigger. Was there any question of their guilt? One look inside a concentration camp was enough to know. Why dignify such behaviour with trials? The drawback is that this option contradicts the principles of democracy which the Bush administration says its invasion is intended to preserve.

Second, it could try him before an international court. The charges against Mr Hussein would include violations across several borders, which would justify his trial before an international tribunal similar to Nuremberg. Like Nuremberg, however, such a court would be vulnerable to charges of “victor’s justice” – guided not by due process but by a desire for revenge.

Nuremberg’s detractors were quick to point out that Russia’s crimes were as reprehensible as Germany’s. How did Stalin’s regime qualify to sit on the tribunal and judge Germany? And did transgressions by the British and US, such as the bombing of Dresden, not throw doubt on their ability to judge a defeated enemy fairly? For all they achieved, the Nuremberg trials remain compromised by these questions.

Third, it could turn him over to his own people. This is unlikely. If compromised by Mr Hussein’s forces, such a court might vindicate him and find the US guilty of an illegal invasion. At the end of the first world war, the US turned German prisoners over to the German government for trial. A handful were tried, the rest set free. The US would not risk a repeat of that fiasco.

Fourth, it could try him before a military tribunal. This is the most likely scenario. It has precedent. Between November 1945 and August 1948 nearly 2,000 of Hitler’s henchmen – administrators of concentration camps where the “final solution” was implemented – were tried by such a tribunal at Dachau, 65 miles south of Nuremberg, in one of the largest yet least known series of war trials in history.

Tribunals, however, face tricky procedural issues: how far down the chain of command would guilt extend? What rights would the accused be granted in preparing their own defence? What charges might be brought, on what kind of evidence? This panoply of legal challenges has plagued such efforts in the past.

In my mind, the best option is probably the much-reviled International Criminal Court. It would provide open proceedings that the world can see – you know, they way things are done in a free society and all that – and the Bush administration’s contempt for it would be a strong defense against charges that it’s just a puppet of the American government. Naturally, I don’t expect this to happen.

Obviously, things will be much easier for Team Bush if Saddam and his inner circle are considerate enough to be casualties of combat. No one will bother noticing a military tribunal for lower-ranking functionaries, at least as long as we don’t get too zealous about it. I’ll say this: The longer this invasion takes, the less likely Team Bush is to be in any way magnanimous in victory.

If you happen to see pictures of Iraqis giving US troops and/or camerapeople the “thumbs up” sign, you should know what that means in this context:

Thumbs up, meaning “everything is great” or “I’m Okay” to the West can be equated to the “middle finger” by Middle Easterners. Of note, hitch-hikers do not “thumb a ride”, rather they hold their hand horizontal to the road and wave it up and down as though telling motorists to “reduce speed”.

Via the increasingly indispensable Sean-Paul Kelley. Someone get this man a case of Jolt! and a pepperoni-n-anchovy pizza, stat.

I don’t often link to specific items on Ted Barlow’s blog because I figure anyone who is anyone is already reading him (as well they should be). That said, I commend you to go read this piece on civil discourse. You rock, Ted.

At the end of that same post, Ted links to this Instapundit piece:

In the town of Safwan, Iraqi civilians eagerly greeted the 1st Marine Division.

One little boy, who had chocolate melted all over his face after a soldier gave him some treats from his ration kit, kept pointing at the sky, saying “Ameriki, Ameriki.”

This is the “peace” movement’s worst nightmare, isn’t it?

Ted and Jim Henley have already responded to this, so now I’d like to add my version. It starts out looking like this (via Henley) and like this, from The Agonist:

Tens of thousands of mostly youths protested the U.S.-led war against Iraq in Egypt and the Gaza Strip on March 22. More than 20,000 protesters gathered at Cairo’s prestigious al Ahzar University, calling on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to provide military assistance to Iraq — or else step down. Anti-riot police were deployed to contain the protesters, but there been no reports of clashes so far. In addition, about a thousand lawyers held a sit-in protest at their association headquarters in Cairo to protest the government’s position on the war. Lawyers associations in Egypt are often connected with the banned Islamist movement, the Muslim Brotherhood which counts thousands of professional Egyptians among its ranks. In Gaza, a reported 10,000 people — mostly students from Gaza’s Islamic University — filled the streets, chanting “No blood for oil,” “Death to America and Great Britain,” and “Where are the Arab countries’ armies and leaders?” Agence France-Presse reported.

and culminates, at some undetermined point in the future, looking like this. If you’d paid any attention to the many rational voices that spoke out against this war, Glenn, you might have understood that.

(I’m sure I don’t have to say that I fervently hope this particular nightmare remains nothing but a bad dream, but I’m going to say it anyway just so we’re all clear on this point.)

UPDATE: Here’s another scene from the “peace” movement’s nightmares. Is it in your nightmares, too, Glenn? I don’t see any mention of it at this time.

I’m sure it will come as a great comfort to everyone to hear that according to Karl Rove, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with politics.

“It is really the height of cynicism to suggest a president would make the awesome decision to send people in harm’s way for politics,” Rove said. “He did this because he believes fervently that after 9/11, that the world has changed.”

You have to give the man credit. A lesser mortal would have burst into flames immediately upon saying such a thing after having told the RNC last summer that “[we] can go to the country on this issue, because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America’s military might and thereby protecting America”, but it’s just another day at the office for the Rovemeister.

Although thousands of Americans have taken to the streets in several U.S. cities to protest the war, Rove said he did not see that as any kind of solid opposition to the president. He said polls have shown the American public has consistently favored the ouster of Saddam Hussein as the leader of Iraq, even if they differed on how to do it.

“In the last few days, the polls have indicated a vast majority of Democrats support the president’s actions,” Rove said. “This is not an issue about politics. This is an issue of what is best for world peace and the nation’s security.”

Polls are showing about 75% support for this invasion. That’s about the level of support for Gulf War I, though it’s interesting to note this particular difference:

Two weeks ago, 54 percent approved of the way Bush was leading the country, according to the New York Times/CBS Poll. Thursday’s poll found 67 percent approving of how the president does his job.

[…]

In 1991, then-President Bush’s job approval rating jumped to 82 percent in the early days of the Persian Gulf War, eventually peaking at 88 percent.

Make of that what you will.

Sean-Paul has wall-to-wall coverage of the Iraq invasion, with constant updates. I’m getting carpal tunnel just reading it. If you want to stay on top of what’s happening, visit The Agonist and keep hitting Refresh.

My wife asked me: “are you going to do this all day?”

“Yup.”

“And tomorrow?”

“Yup.”

“You’re nuts!”

“Yup.”

Yup. Hang in there, Sean-Paul.

We’re going to be hearing the phrase “Support the troops” a lot in the coming weeks, so here’s a way that you can actually do something to support them: You can be a foster caregiver for their pets.

[Army Staff Sergeant Dwayne] Armour is stationed at Fort Hood, whose 48,000 soldiers make it the largest army installation in the world. The 265-square-mile base is near Killeen, 180 miles northwest of Houston.

Thousands of dogs and cats were killed on American soil during Operation Desert Storm. Soldiers like Armour couldn’t find a friend or relative to pet-sit indefinitely, so they abandoned their animals on country roads or dumped them at the pound — and animals that enter the pound usually don’t leave alive.

In 1991, Killeen had a mass slaughter of military pets, says Carmen Wallace, who volunteers at Second Chance, an animal shelter in Killeen.

The Killeen pound “couldn’t even hold the pets but a couple of hours,” Wallace says. “They were euthanizing them left and right.”

To prevent mass mutt murders and keep dogs and cats off casualty lists, Wallace is organizing a foster program. Armour saw it on the news last week; he called and the next day Wallace had several potential foster parents who promise to send him pictures and updates while he’s gone.

“Time is getting short. I would never just abandon her,” he says. “I was really getting depressed about it. We’re getting closer and closer, and I didn’t know what I was going to do.”

As noted in the article, you can go to NetPets or Hugs for Homeless Animals to offer your assistance. So there you have it.

I’ve decided not to listen to the radio for the duration of the invasion. I don’t think I’ll be able to hear a happy-talk DJ offer brainless platitudes or brook-no-dissent “patriotism” without making like Lane Meyer in Better Off Dead and ripping the damn thing out of the dashboard. Actually, I think I’m just going to boycott Clear Channel altogether. It’s the least I can do.

(Speaking of Clear Channel and their sponsorship of those faux grassroots pro-war rallies, guess who else they’re sponsoring? Thanks to Digby for the catch.)

By the time the combat part of the invasion is over, we’ll know once and for all if Saddam has WMDs. If it turns out that he doesn’t, or that all of his illegal weapons were destroyed or about to be destroyed by the inspections process, I’m sure we’ll be hearing from Bush’s amen corner why it was that Saddam didn’t need WMDs to be an immediate threat to America’s safety.

It’s more likely, I think, that he does have some nasty chemical and/or biological weapons and that he will unleash them in the next few days. If so, I wouldn’t be so quick to call that the final nail in the UN-weapons-inspections-are-a-joke coffin. After all, it was pretty clear that no matter what was or wasn’t found, we were going to invade Iraq and depose Saddam regardless. Given that he had no real incentive to cooperate fully, is it really a surprise that he might have held back an ace in the hole?

I’ll echo the recommendations of Patrick Nielsen Hayden and Gene Healy of this Robert Wright piece about the invasion’s likely long- and short-term effects. Meanwhile, Seth Michaels puts the likely refugee problem into perspective:

Picture this scenario: a war some decades in the future between the U.S. and Canada. Canada informs us that in three days, Chicago will be no more, so people had best evacuate. How would they all get out? Cars would be clogging the roads, people would leave on foot, panic would set in. Where would these people go? Stay in hotels? Stay with friends? Imagine the impact of three million people, proud owners only the possessions they can carry, suddenly thrust into the suburbs and countryside. What would they eat? Where would they sleep? How many would have no choice but to stay and be killed?

Now, consider that Baghdad is bigger than Chicago, and that the area around has less infrastructure – no motels, no ATMs, no supermarkets. This is the humanitarian crisis the U.S. will be faced with – not at some unknown hypothetical future point, but in a matter of ten days or so.

Remember, there’s no money officially budgeted for this invasion yet. The administration has only recently even suggested a dollar amount. We’re doing this without a real discussion of the costs. Keep that in mind the next time an administration flunky insists that deficits don’t really matter.

Argh. I need some distraction. Thank $deity I’ve got a team practice tonight.

We have crossed the Rubicon. I feel sick to my stomach.

Right now all I want is for the fighting to end as quickly and bloodlessly as possible. After that, I can only hope that we won’t come to regret what we’ve done. May our troops be safely home soon, and may our actions truly benefit the citizens of Iraq.

I’m too upset to say anything else.