must-read post of the day
Check out Teresa Nielsen Hayden's eloquent summary of the outrage many opponents of the war feel over the ongoing situation in Iraq, especially in light of the increasingly obvious conclusion that the Administration's rationales were generally a tissue of lies meant to conceal the fact that they basically just wanted to. (Which we knew, of course, but that still doesn't excuse it.)
The big lie is that the looting and general disorder was a necessary tradeoff for freedom. The blowhards are out in force: You must not care about all those Iraqi babies Saddam was eating for dinner! I care more about the Iraqi people than about a few trinkets, huh huh huh!
...Anyway, it's complete balderdash. This failure to maintain public order, and the consequent catastrophic looting (which has not been limited to museums), is happening because our leaders screwed up. Our troops are stretched so thin that they couldn't afford to move a squad and a Bradley three hundred yards down the street to keep a major institution from getting trashed. Days after the outcry over the museums, they couldn't keep the National Library from being burnt.
...And why are our troops stretched so thin? Because when the war was in its planning stages, Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly dismissed and overruled the experienced military planners who told him how much force would be needed to invade Iraq. We have the troops. We have the equipment. Our annual military budget could practically have bought the country. More conventionally, we could have gone in with massive force and done everything in an orderly fashion, the way all our military doctrine says we should do it. But Rumsfeld said no.
(continued in the next post)