Response to Juan's post was Re: They dared ask [was: Re: Forced to fight]

[Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> And the it happened.  Finally, anchors for a major western news
> organization asked "how many of them are heavily armed --or lightly armed,
> for that matter-- people who don't particularly love Saddam Hussein but
> are people who are fighting simply because they don't like their country
> being invaded by a foreign army?"
>
> The "expert" commentator dismissed the possibility out of hand, but from
> the looks on the hosts' faces it was evident that they were not convinced.
>
> - Juan

Hi Juan,

Something similar seems to be happening in Oz.  On the public broadcaster
the ABC at 7.30 since the war began we have had a panel of three "experts".
One is an ex-commander of the SAS (a very scary type, whom I have heard
talking gleefully about a changed world where more SAS types are needed).
Then there is  a former Air Admiral (two bricks would not be as thick) and
a defence analyst.

I could not listen to them at first.  I tuned in though when the war began
to go badly for the USA always referred to as 'us' or 'we' by the
panel.  On Thursday they were still gung -ho.  the Admiral had Baghdad
falling this weekend.  the SAS type was still talking of great
achievements.  Very impressed he was.  However the defence analyst had
changed. He was talking of 'conquest' instead of liberation and what that
meant in terms of long term politics.

What has been interesting as well has been the changes in the anchorman's,
(Kerry O'Brien) demeanour.  A credibility gap has opened up between him and
the military experts and he has gotten closer to the analyst.  That process
of disillusionment took years in Vietnam, but we have it by day 9 of this war.

Last night O'Brien brought up the question of the Arab world's response to
the war and for that he went not to the panel but to a professor in Jordan,
who said dire consequences would result for conservative regimes.

What all this means is that the warmongers are losing control of the
intellectuals.  The latter are now beginning to smell the confusion and the
lack of clarity behind this whole adventure.  I still think that the key
player here has been Blair.  It is he who has persuaded many that this war
might be wrong but it was a clever thing to do. Everyone is quite clear
about Bush's cretinism, but Blair had most of us fooled.  We knew he was a
rat but thought he was a cunning one. Now he stands exposed as the British
Prime Minister who fell victim to a war too far.

If the Iraqi people and army can hold out for another month then the hot
weather will become a big factor.  The pressure will also grow for Syria to
actively help Iraq by sending in soldiers.  It makes sense for Syria to do
that now rather than wait to be picked off after Iraq is conquered.

In reality this war is the most terrible gamble by the Bush and Blair
Govts.  They have to win or they will fall.  That means they must capture
or kill Saddam within at the most 3 weeks. Bush and Blair have left
themselves with no plan B. There is no alternative for them but to
prosecute the war to a bloody conclusion.


Meanwhile the size and fervour of the demonstrations in Egypt grow.  All
eyes may be on Baghdad but Cairo may yet prove the decisive space in this
conflict.

regards

Gary


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.