[CLUE-Talk] Iraq Stuph

[Charles Oriez]

At 09:03 PM 4/21/2003 -0600, Match Grun wrote:

>Just because Baghdad fell so quickly does _NOT_ mean the anti-war
>movement was right. This seems like that old adage about statistics!
>
>If we never invaded, Baghdad would not have fallen, and probably
>would not fall for many years.


I don't think Baghdad falling quickly or otherwise proves anyone right or 
wrong.  Pravda announced the fall of Kabul and the successful conclusion of 
the Russian invasion of Afghanistan 3 days after their invasion started in 
1979.  Nine years later the Russians withdrew in defeat.

The success or failure will be measured by where we are 6 months or a year 
or two from now.  If our visible presence there lingers, and anyone coming 
to power has to be propped up by foreign troops, we can still lose.  I can 
point to any number of indicators that give rise to hope or fear (fear side 
- the gutting of the history museum, the murder of the moderate Shiite 
cleric, Chalabi's problems in Jordan http://tinyurl.com/a0v0 vs hope side - 
restoral of infrastructure, that welcome our troops got, the hard evidence 
surfacing of regime actions against its own people during its time in power)

I was listening to the NPR interview with Freidman on the way home 
tonight.  I thought he made some good points on what the next steps ought 
to be.