Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Looking Backward

Surely John Derbyshire isn' this sheltered. "While my scorn for the 'Bush lied, men died' gang is every bit as great as yours, it is a fact that no American, in March 2003, thought we would have a huge army planted in Iraq 2½ years later."

Obviously Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld had no clue about what would happen. I think most neocons figured that the Bush Victory tour would have moved to Syria and Iran by know. But looking at the premier issue of The American Conservative, from October of 2002 I found an article by Eric Margolis called Iraq Folly which spoke of a coming "quagmire" and said, "Though U.S. forces could quickly defeat Iraq’s regular army in the field, there is a high risk of prolonged urban guerilla warfare and great numbers of civilian casualties." The same issue had a Pat Buchanan column that I have quoted many times. "With our MacArthur Regency in Baghdad, Pax Americana will reach apogee. But then the tide recedes, for the one endeavor at which Islamic peoples excel is expelling imperial powers by terror and guerrilla war."

I could find more examples of people warning of the consequences of invading in 2002 and early 2003, but when it would have helped, they were drowned out by the cakewalk brigade.


Anonymous said...

If memory serves me right, there's at least one article out there (I'm thinking of the sneerfest that Johnathan Last wrote for the Weekly Standard) that was printed in April/May of 2003 and quoted the Anti-Warriors' predictions, and proceeded to mock them to the fullest. And which keep on seeming more and more and more and more accurate...

-- Matt Hardwick

buddy don said...

ye never fail to spark my thankin, sir. thay wuz a passel of folks that dint thank twood be no cakewalk. i half to add mitt tiz a sprize so minny of em wuz cunservativ since ceptn folks lack yew, seems to me the modurn cunservativ has dun sold out to the neocons.