|
I heard a very interesting brief interview this morning on NPR with a Newsday writer by the name of Matthew McAlister (sp?). Mr. McAlister apparently got a rare opportunity to interview one of Uday Hussein's bodyguards that were recently captured by American forces in Iraq.
This interview seems to confirm the currently unpopular view within the Beltway that these attacks against American forces have very little to nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or either one of his dead sons. This bodyguard said that the Husseins were dismayed with the rapid collapse of their military and did not have any plans to fight a guerilla campaign after the conventional war ended because they truly expected the conventinal campaign to be the be-all and end-all of the war.
While it is very, very true that we should take anecdotal evidence like this under careful consideration (as our administration DID NOT when relying on Challabi and his INC), this particular person, due to his job, is certainly well-placed to provide information about this particular question. If he was honest then our administration can expect to have a significant problem on their hands for as long as American forces remain in Iraq whether or not Saddam is killed or arrested.
Information like this makes me even angrier whenever one of the chickenhawk PNAC jackasses gets up and bleats on about the "criminal holdout gangs in Iraq." They have no idea how much they show their asses in saying things like this statement. This one is a favorite of Paul Wolfowitz who notably has never had to be under a helmet, sweating his balls off in combat against these "criminals." I'm pretty certain that he would have some more accurate language to describe these things if he or one of his sons were out in the field being ambushed by guerilla forces.
|