Posted 1:09 PM by Paul
22 February 2003

Tip for Iraqi Military Planners

Just watch the BBC.

Now I don't know a great deal about strategy and tactics. I have never been to war, trained in the armed forces or been shot at. It is one of the few things I have in common with George W. Bush.

However, my basic understanding is that, if at all possible, you should try to keep most of your troop movements and concentrations secret. Imagine my surprise when the BBC showed footage of US Army trucks disembarking today at a Turkish port. This was followed by aerial and perimeter fence shots from a couple of months ago and today of a big air base near the Turkey - Iraq border. The later shots showed that there was no big build up of airplanes as of this evening.

The pictures were striking in that they were so much clearer than those provided by Colin Powell at the UN Security Council to show that Saddams men had been moving nerve gas around in ice cream vans.

This may of course be disinformation. In fact the US may launch a surprise attack on Baghdad via
St. Tropez led by Jolly Jacques Chirac. But it makes you wonder. The BBC report then went into great detail of which divisions were stationed where. If true - it was the sort of information that used to cost big bucks in bribes, spies salaries and OO7 type secret agent kit. It seems that in February 2003 Saddam can just ask his people at the embassy in London to tape BBC Newsnight and pop the video in the post. Unless of course it is all spin.

Blair is having a torrid time today. He has gone to ground. His grin is nowhere to be seen and he has sent out the Stetford Politicians to bat for him. These are members of his Party (he rules them with an iron fist) whose brains have been replaced by loyalty chips. They wear the strange glazed look of the cocaine addict. Like they are not quite "all there".

Both the Catholic and Church of England Archbishops have doubted the morality of an attack on Iraq and issued a joint statement. It seems like only yesterday that they were burning each other at the stake.

This is a few days after Blair opened up a new rhetorical front by claiming that there was a moral case for war because Saddam was - wait for it - "an evil dictator". Not exactly hard news. In the same speech he praised China. Obviously the Tianemen Square massacre and the invasion of Tibet were the work of the French. He also claimed that China was an "ally of the US". Something which must be news to the butchers of Peking. The man is making it up as he goes along. But he is such a brilliant actor that he gets away with it nearly all of the time. Has he been taking lessons from Clinton and Spacey?

During the speech Blair read out a beautifully written e-mail from a 19 year old Iraqi student at Cambridge who supported a war to rid her country of Saddam. Totally understandable and any decent person would empathize with her views, even if they did not agree with them. But now it seems there might be a problem. The text of parts of her letter bear a striking resemblance to an article written by a Blairite columnist a couple of weeks earlier. Did the tame columnist write the e-mail for her? The columnist neither admitted it nor denied it when questioned. In the present climate nobody believes a word the PM is saying so doubts are growing.

This is particularly the case now it has been revealed that Blair tried to bury a petition from 160 leading Iraqi exiles (many torture victims) who stated their opposition to an aerial bombardment but stressed support for getting him out in other ways (creation of democratic front, civil insurrection etc.) Loud guffaws were also heard when it turned out that one source quoted by Blair, as being in favour of an invasion was an Islamic fundamentalist cleric who supports hard-liners in Iran. Said cleric probably wanted to overthrow Saddam's torture regime so that he could establish a more effective one of his own.

But back to God. Both the Church of England and the RCs in England gave qualified support to the Gulf War. So it is not as though they are Pacifist Vegan Commies who hate baseball. When Blair goes to Rome he is also having an audience with the Holy Father. That's the Pope - not the Head of 5 Families. Given that Blair has nearly gone RC and his wife is a life long practicing Catholic this could cause problems.

What happens if El Papa whispers in Tony's ear that his whole family will be excommunicated as soon as the first Cruise missile begin to fly? Or will Blair excommunicate the Pope?

Coverage is also being given to the fact that a poll in the US today shows that 50% of Americans would only support a war if it were sanctioned by the UN. Contrary to popular opinion in Euroland US citizens are not all gung ho for war. They are after all good people who enjoy nothing more than hunting. making pots of money and eating unfeasibly large sandwiches. The poll proves what any fool should know - that the vast majority of US citizens are more sophisticated that their President.

Which takes me to my final insane theory which is based on nothing more than my own personal prejudice House and distaste for the present occupants of the West Wing.

So here goes.

Election 2000 was a freak and has put the political cycle out of kilter. By any sane analysis Bush just lost that election in the final days as Al Bore rolled up his sleeves and started shouting around the same time as George went home to bed. That is, "lost an election", in the almost universally accepted definition of "polling less votes than your opponent"

Mid Terms 2002 - Bush wins and becomes President in the eyes of most Americans and foreign observers except effete whining Brits like me and radical Louisiana hotheads like Ray Mouton.

Election 2004 - George Bush hits mid term blues and can lose

So the message is clear. Prepare for a George Bush landslide and a short successful war in Iraq.

Paul " Roadkill of History" Bower