|
A Chat About The War With Bill Quick & Andrew Stuttaford
by John Hawkins
I got together to discuss the war with noted author & blogger Bill Quick from Daily Pundit & Andrew Stuttaford, a contributing editor for National Review Online. John Little from Blogs of War was supposed to join us as well, but unfortunately technical problems prevented him getting in on the chat. After a bit of discussion, we decided to push on without John. Here is the edited transcript of our discussion that covered a variety of issues including how the war is going, media coverage of the war, the EU, France, Tony Blair and numerous other issues.
John Hawkins: (John Little) has disappeared -- maybe he had to reboot...
Bill Quick: Computers are always completely dependable - until you need them.
Andrew Stuttaford: And AOL always adds a little hell of its own.
Bill Quick: Well, Case had to build AOL's rep on *something*...:-D
John Hawkins: Geeze...this (waiting) is painful...
Andrew Stuttaford: No, no, pretend you are the Iraqi information minister - "all is well."
Bill Quick: And all the other participants are right here in the chat with us. We just can't see them yet.
John Hawkins: The exploding pencils bit was priceless.
Bill Quick: I missed that. What was it?
John Hawkins: He said we were dropping booby trapped pencils to kill their children.
Bill Quick: How...diabolical of us.
John Hawkins: With all that we pay per year for the military we better be spending that money on something other than big GPS guided slabs of concrete & dolphins.
Bill Quick: Frankly, there are times the Iraqi high command looks a lot like refugees from one of Jerry Springer's shows.
Andrew Stuttaford: Or the Munsters...
John Hawkins: Now if only there were an Iraqi Helen Thomas to torture them at press conferences...
Bill Quick: Why can't we send them the real article?
John Hawkins: That would violate the Geneva convention...So how do you think the war has gone up to this point? Good, bad, or quagmire, quagmire, quagmire?
Bill Quick: This war will very likely go down in history as one of the most successful military ventures ever...um, for the Coalition, that is.
Andrew Stuttaford: Pretty well, it seems. However, it's inevitable that how we view these first two weeks will be colored by the ending. And we don't know that yet - obviously.
Bill Quick: I've never believed in the either-or siege or assault analysis. I expect that once it sinks in that the Coalition can project power into Baghdad in support of revolutionaries, the locals will collaborate in the destruction of what remains of Saddam's forces.
John Hawkins: So how long do you two think we have before Baghdad is under Coalition control?
Bill Quick: In answer to your question, Bob, I think it will be within another week at the outside.
John Hawkins: Bob? =)
Andrew Stuttaford: :-)
Bill Quick: Sorry. John. In fact, on my blog, there are two of you, and one calls himself "the other John Hawkins."
John Hawkins: After all those links back and forth, for shame....
Bill Quick: Hey, I'm confusing you with Robert Prather. There are worse fates.
John Hawkins: For Robert Prather, yes there are =D
John Hawkins: Just kidding, I love his work...
Andrew Stuttaford: On Baghdad, I think that it will take until Saddam dies or has fled. How long will that take? No idea.
Bill Quick: Moving along, does anybody have a guess as to what happened to Saddam's armies? It isn't often you see military reports that say entire enemy divisions have "vanished."
John Hawkins: Personally, I think most of them switched into their civies and went home. I can't say that I blame them...
Andrew Stuttaford: I think the conscripts have gone home, and the diehards are lurking somewhere in Baghdad. The presence of these foreigners is interesting.
John Hawkins: I'd say it's a blessing to have these foreign jihadis there 1) so we can kill them & 2) because it's tangible proof that we're fighting a global terrorist network...Let's move on a bit, what letter grade would you give to the mainstream media's coverage & analysis of the war so far?
Bill Quick: C.
Andrew Stuttaford: H for hysteria.
Bill Quick: I don't think any coverage has been very good. Look at what we don't know - almost everything.
John Hawkins: Lol, I can't believe how many times I've seen the phrases "quagmire", "big muddy", and "Vietnam" already...
Bill Quick: It is guaranteed that TV's "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality would focus almost entirely on the little picture.
Andrew Stuttaford: MSNBC has been surprisingly good.
Bill Quick: The pentagon did something extremely brilliant from its point of view with the embeds.
Andrew Stuttaford: Indeed.
Bill Quick: The embed procedure has created a pro-military "fifth column" within the media itself. From my point of view, I think much of the media would like us to win, but in such a way that it doesn't help Bush or the Republican Party.
Andrew Stuttaford: There's a conflict at play. On the one hand, very, very few wish ill on the troops. But, there will be some who will find it difficult if this story ends up in a way that says "Bush was right."
Bill Quick: So they'd like a quagmire, a lot of innocent casualties, anything but a lot of troops coming home in body bags.
John Hawkins: But, if there's a quagmire, you're going to see more troops coming home in bodybags.
Andrew Stuttaford: I don't think they want innocent casualties - that goes too far. Like I said, a conflict.
Bill Quick: There isn't going to be a quagmire. A far more interesting question now, I think, is where we go from here.
Andrew Stuttaford: In terms of spin? That Rummy was lucky to get away with it.
John Hawkins: Which leads me to the next question -- do you ever see the Post WW2 order, NATO, the UN, & a tight US/European relationship coming back together strongly?
Bill Quick: Both NATO and the UN were postwar structures tailored to help wage the cold war against the Soviets. The EU itself is based on a different concept - being a counterweight to the US.
Andrew Stuttaford: Well, it wasn't originally based on that. But, that's what it is becoming. That's why Blair is key.
Bill Quick: I think if you asked De Gaulle about it, you might find that's exactly what he had in mind, eventually.
Andrew Stuttaford: Bill, you are right. That's why he vetoed the UK's entry. He foresaw that there would be a moment like this one.
John Hawkins: The EU will never be able to put together a "United States of Europe" because the nations of Europe will never be able to subordinate their national interests to an EU ruler the way that the states in the US do to the Federal government...
Bill Quick: Where does Blair go from here, Andrew?
Andrew Stuttaford: I have a nasty feeling that he will try and bind the UK closer in to the EU. But he MUST be conflicted.
John Hawkins: Dick Morris has said that he thought supporting the US was pure triangulation on Blair's part. But as many times as I've doubted Blair in the past, I think I'm sticking with him at this point until he proves himself to be unreliable...
Andrew Stuttaford: Well, I'm no Labour guy, but he has been impressive.
Bill Quick: Well, Brit domestic politics like a winner as well as anybody, I'd guess. He lost support with the red Labourites, and picked up the Tories. Strange, but he may end up stronger than ever.
John Hawkins: What about Chirac's motivations? From my point of view, it looks like he may gain domestically, but France is going to be a huge loser in this...
Bill Quick: Chirac made a giant gamble as well. Only he lost.
Andrew Stuttaford: On Chirac - he's left himself no wriggle room.
Bill Quick: It's a great mystery why he gambled the way he did. He must have believed at least some of his own bluster. Does the French leadership really believe Bush is an idiot?
John Hawkins: Why not Bill? The Democrats in the US still believe it despite the fact that Bush has run circles around them since he came into power.
Bill Quick: John, I don't think serious Democrats actually believe it, they just pretend for political reasons to do so.
John Hawkins: Oh, I think they believe it Bill. I think they believe most Republicans are idiots.
Andrew Stuttaford: Do they think he's an idiot? Yes. Don't underestimate the snobbery of the French political class.
Bill Quick: If that is the case, then the French are truly in for some very tough times in the future.
John Hawkins: Could Chirac have been deliberately trying to create a split between the US and Europe?
Andrew Stuttaford: Create a split? No, I don't think that he ever expected that matters would go this far. He wanted a 'symbolic' rift, not a real one. He messed up.
John Hawkins: What do you mean by a symbolic rift, Andrew?
Andrew Stuttaford: A symbolic rift. That there would be lots of shouting, the US would back off with a face saving 'compromise'.
Bill Quick: That betrays a nearly inexplicable divorce from reality. Did Chirac really think 9/11 made no difference?
John Hawkins: I can't imagine that the French thought we'd back off. I knew we were going to invade Iraq more than a year ago. The only puzzling thing was that it took so long...
Andrew Stuttaford: I don't think people understand what 9/11 meant over here.
Bill Quick: I expect you are right, at least that's the only answer I can come up with to explain a lot of things.
John Hawkins: I keep getting that impression as well Andrew.
Bill Quick: Interesting. Churchill understood what Pearl Harbor meant. Do you think Blair understood 9/11, and that's why he did what he did? I mean that Churchill, when he heard about Pearl Harbor, is said to have exulted - "We have won the war. England will survive!" by which of course he meant that America would now focus immense power on the enemies of England, and defeat them. Perhaps Blair understood about the sleeping giant awakening once again?
John Hawkins: I think Blair understands it well, at least he says all the things that someone who understands it would say. I can't say the same for the rest of Europe unfortunately. Other than the Aussies and Brits, I get the feeling that everyone else is going along with us out of pure political expediency...
Andrew Stuttaford: I think Blair understood it. People in Europe understood the horror of it at one level. But, they didn't understand what it meant to America's perception of itself as the last safe place.
Bill Quick: I've never had the perception of America as the "last safe place." I was born in 1946, and grew up with nuclear nightmares - literally. I woke up from dreams of atomic bombs going off in my home town. From my earliest years, I always understood I could be killed by an enemy, right in my bed.
Andrew Stuttaford: Bill, but did you expect WWIII?
Bill Quick: Yes, of course I did. As I grew older, at least.
John Hawkins: Speaking of WW3, where too now in the war on terrorism? North Korea, Iran, Syria?
Bill Quick: Iran. They're the next low hanging fruit. Korea isn't a meaningful threat. But, we'll need the Brits for that - which is why I expect we cut Tony an enormous amount of slack.
John Hawkins: I don't know, I consider having the North Koreans selling nuclear weapons to the highest bidder to be very serious.
Bill Quick: Not gonna happen. For one thing, nobody is gonna be bidding.
John Hawkins: You don't think the Saudis or Syria would pay a few hundred million for a nuke?
Andrew Stuttaford: I'm not so sure. The US should carry on what it is doing worldwide, rather than single out one target. Iran 'may' be moving in a positive direction - anything that is perceived as US bullying could backfire.
Bill Quick: Andrew, I'm talking about the secret stuff and you Brits have a much better spook infrastructure in Iran that we do. I think we intend to use it.
John Hawkins: By moving in a "positive direction" do you mean moving towards revolution? Because short of that I'm not sure there's anything all that positive happening there...
Bill Quick: I think we'll be encouraging that revolution, secretly, of course.
Andrew Stuttaford: In Iran - yes, revolution by millimetres (as I read somewhere today).
Andrew Stuttaford: North Korea - tricky. I think the US is right to want to 'multilateralize' that problem, at least for now.
John Hawkins: I think getting the neighboring countries involved around N. Korea is the way to go as well. I think we can negotiate an end to their bomb making.
Bill Quick: We can get China involved, that's for sure. If the North Korean problem doesn't get solved pretty soon, they're looking at their worst nightmare - a nuclear Nippon.
John Hawkins: Well gentlemen, it's about time to wrap this up. Is there anything else you'd like to add?
Andrew Stuttaford: Not for now. These are interesting times.
Bill Quick: Just read NRO for all your informational needs.:-)
Andrew Stuttaford: Thanks Bill!
Bill Quick: :-D
John Hawkins: Thanks for your time.
|
