Politics

Anger Managment Course’s rundown of claims made by the pro- and anti-war camps prior to hostilities, and how they seem to be panning out so far.

Final score: pro-war, -7 out of 7, anti-war, +2 out of 6. Sounds about right to me.

This is the absolute last thing we need floating around Capitol Hill these days: House Joint Resolution 11, “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.”

On the bright side, according to Tom Tomorrow, Rep. Serrano has been tossing this one out every so often for quite a while now. Of course, on the down side, if something this insane is going to pass, it’s a lot more likely in the current political climate. Creepy — very, very creepy.

I can’t say it better than Shelley did, so I won’t try. Just go and read.

Interesting theory from the Tehran Times:

Suspicions rose on the same day when U.S. troops, that had been stopped at the Euphrates, immediately were able to advance toward the heart of Baghdad without any significant resistance by Iraqi forces. Nobody asked why Tikrit, that was once called the ideological heart of Saddam’s government and the last possible trench of the Iraqi army, was never targeted by U.S. and British bombs and missiles. Or why when the elite Iraqi forces arrived in eastern Iraq from Tikrit, the pace of the invaders advancing toward central Baghdad immediately increased. Also, it has been reported that over the past 24 hours, a plane was authorized to leave Iraq bound for Russia. Who was aboard this plane?

All these ambiguities, the contradictory reports about Saddam’s situation, and the fact that the highest-ranking Iraqi officials were all represented by a single individual — Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed al-Sahhaf — and the easy fall of Baghdad shows that the center of collusion had been Tikrit, where Saddam, his aides, and lieutenants from the Baath Party had been waiting for al-Sahhaf to join them so that they could receive the required guarantees to leave the country in a secret compromise with coalition forces.

This possibility was confirmed by the Al-Jazeera network, which quoted a Russian intelligence official as saying that the Iraqi forces and the invaders had made a deal. The Russian official told Al-Jazeera that the Iraqi leaders had agreed to show no serious resistance against the U.S.-British troops in return for a guarantee that Saddam and his close relatives could leave Iraq unharmed.

Is it possible? Well, of course it’s possible. The question is whether it’s an actual probability, or if it’s just a well thought out conspiracy theory. Either way, we’re not really likely to know unless someone high enough in the heirarchy turns whistleblower (not a very likely option).

I have to admit, though, it is a convincing argument for the possibility. I’m weighing whether my ingrained distrust of conspiracy theories outweighs my rapidly-growing distrust of our current administration, or vice versa. For the moment, I’ll just chalk it up as a very intriguing idea.

(via The Agonist)

The Agonist discussion thread about this is so far leaning to the side of it being a combination of media spin and conspiracy theory, but one of the posts brought up something I’d been wondering about myself, that this theory could make sense of.

Last week, on April 3^rd^, Daily Kos wondered where the Iraqi army was.

Whole units are missing from the battlefield and that has to concern CENTCOM planners. Whole divisions are gone. The arrogant and clueless Richard Perle says they’ve gone home. He’s an idiot. They’ve done no such thing. If they did, you’d see signs. Abandoned equipment, lots of surrenders, the surrender of cities or even the beginnings of civil war as the regulars shot it out with the Baathists.

Instead, they’re nowhere to be found.

My bet, they’re hiding in the close suburbs of Baghdad, maybe 100,000 men. Now, they may not be there. But if Saddam is a student of Stalin and not insane, he’s got a plan for a counterattack when the US is least able to reply. Kaplan isn’t wrong when he says the Republican Guard isn’t all that elite, but they have unit cohesion and discipline. So they didn’t run away.

Saddam has used very small forces to tie down US troops. Only in Basra is there a sign that whole divisions have been used. So, unless Perle is right, and that would be a first, where IS the Iraqi Army?

The assumption then was that Hussein was keeping the majority of his most elite forces close around him in Baghdad, in order to give the advancing U.S. forces “the mother of all battles”. However, as was seen in today’s advances into Baghdad, that never happened. As thrilling as the pictures coming out of Baghdad were today, it still leaves the question of just where all of Iraq’s troops went unanswered. This AP story asks some of the same questions:

CAMP AS SAYLIYAH, Qatar — With American troops rolling through Baghdad, U.S. military leaders are asking a disturbing question: Have Iraq’s Republican Guards really melted away, or are they regrouping to fight another day?

Early fears about the battle for Baghdad raised the prospect of house-to-house combat and even chemical warfare. But U.S. forces quickly overran the capital.

Upon entering the city, Marine Cpl. Nate Decavelle wondered out loud with a yawn: \”Where are the Iraqis at?

[…]

One U.S. official involved in both military operations and intelligence said there are thousands of Iraqi troops unaccounted for.

“That’s the scary part. We don’t know where these guys went to. Did they just melt into the population? Are they planning to come back out as paramilitary? Are they laying in wait?” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

So — what now? Is Saddam dead? Exiled? Still in hiding? Is the Republican Guard really gone, or merely waiting for U.S. soldiers to drop their guard?

And lastly — how many of these questions can be answered without more loss of life?

This editorial from Ha’aretz, while actually about the Fox News network’s approach to reporting the war in Iraq, could very well apply to the majority of U.S. media these days.

With effective, rapid and decisive rewriting of history, there is an impression that the network has erased past relations between Iraq and America. It is difficult to find any mention of the fact that the U.S. armed Iraq in its war against Iran in the 1980s, or that it turned a blind eye when Saddam Hussein brutally put down a 1991 uprising with chemical weapons after the first Gulf War. The argument about the connection between Saddam’s regime and Al-Qaida and the attack on the Twin Towers has disappeared, and the “axis of evil,” which also included Iran and North Korea, has evaporated. There’s practically no mention of the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction and how they were hid from the UN inspectors as being the official reason for the war. There’s no reference to the American economic interests in Iraqi oil wells. Every operation to take over the wells and prevent their sabotage was altruistic, for the sake of the Iraqi people and preservation of its assets and resources.

Sometimes I think the only thing really standing in the way of a truly Orwellian society is our ability to find other sources of news and information via the Internet and form our own opinions. If all I got was the official propaganda, I’d probably be fairly satisfied with the world right now. Heh.