March 19, 2003
Officials say the flag could give the citizens of Iraq the wrong idea about the convoys of artillery, ammunition and soldiers. They are not, these officials say, an army of conquest, intent on claiming Iraqi land or treasure for the United States, but a liberation force. They are concerned that streams of American flags would be seen as provocative.Maybe we should have let the Army handle diplomacy at the Security Council over the last couple of weeks. Clearly they’re better at it than the civilians of the Bush Administration. [11:44 PM]“It’s imposing enough that we’re coming into another society,” said Capt. Frank Stanco, a commander with an artillery unit in the 101st Airborne Division. “I tell our soldiers we want to maintain our professionalism. We could be making history. I call it being quiet professionals.”
"Maybe we should have let the Army handle diplomacy at the Security Council over the last couple of weeks. Clearly they92re better at it than the civilians of the Bush Administration"
Take that Rummy.
The military has consistantly fared better than their civilian bushista masters - in all disciplines.
Colin Powell hasn't had a free hand; he's been constrained by the very public presence of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld saying things that made his job much, much harder, and by the fact that he couldn't, on orders of his boss, agree to most possible sensible compromises.
Wonder what the whacko right is saying about the decision not to fly the flag. Or, are they ignoring it altogether?
Makes no difference if the troops fly the flag anyway. Everyone knows who they are. They might as well fly it. Are they intending to pretend that it isn't an invasion by the USA? Who's being fooled here?
Chuck,
I think the whacko right is with Pat Buchanan et al, who not only have been opposed to the war but think 9/11 was probably a good thing and we deserved it and Palestinians are perfectly justified in blowing up Israeli civilians, yada yada yada.
We on the (ahem) more moderate right find the decision not to fly the flag prudent and reasonable.
Colin Powell?
Nah. He's one of those knaves, criminals, morons, bullies, sadists, and fools, one of those notably ghastly and hapless human beings that lead the country.
As far as I'm concerned, Powell is just another dull gray apprarachnik, doing what he's told, whether it makes sense or not. The fact that he doesn't come across as a raving lunatic puts him in a positive light in this administration.
The reason he's in the administration at all is that he's a black Republican with name recognition. There's a serious shortage of them.
I'd say what people like that were called back during the Civil Rights days, but it would get moderated out.
The charitable interpretation is that Colin Powell believes in the Constitution, saw it as his duty to limit the damage, and isn't having a very good time of it since the rest of the administration is either in favour of the damage or oblivious to it.
The thought to hang on to in all that is 'in favour of the damage', I think, rather than just what failings of character Colin Powell may or may not possess.
The charitable interpretation is that Colin Powell believes in the Constitution, saw it as his duty to limit the damage, and isn't having a very good time of it....
Those holding that charitable interpretation are ignoring Sect. Powell's military career. Sect. Powell's ability to protect his superiors is exactly why he rose to the rank of General, why he was made the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the highest posting a uniformed officer can achieve in the US) and why he was made Secretary of State.
Those of you unfamiliar with Sect. Powell's military career should do research. I suggest starting with then Major Powell's actions in Vietnam. Then, merely look at most of the objectionable foreign policy decisions of the Nixon and Reagan administrations, and look for Colonel/General Powell's name. and who he was working with and for at the time.
Graydon, why should we be charitable towards Secretary Powell? Do you have reason to believe his character has changed significantly since My Lai?
Powell has certainly done less damage than others in the Bush administration. But he's been so ineffectual that "less damage" is hardly a charitable interpretation. (And it's awfully faint praise, in any case, considering the company.)
An interesting run-down of Powell's career can be found here:
http://www.disinfo.com/pages/dossier/id803/pg1/
He's well at home within the Bush Junta.
British troops have also been instructed not to fly their national flags. This BBC report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2866581.stm
quotes Lt Col Tim Collins' pre-battle speech to the troops of the Royal Irish Regiment, which at least shows that not every corner of the military has succumbed to jargon and soundbites.
Zed: Actually, no; they were instructed to take it down, and they did.
Makes no difference if the troops fly the flag anyway. Everyone knows who they are. They might as well fly it. Are they intending to pretend that it isn't an invasion by the USA?
not at all, it's just a matter of respect. I'd guess they intend to signal to Iraqis, "we recognize that this is your country and we don't intend to stay longer than necessary". If only the same message were coming (unambiguously) from the civilian administration, Iraqis might actually believe it...
Hard-Hitting Moderator: Teresa Nielsen Hayden.
Comments on Blink.: