Fighting the Memes
Pierre Legrand ruminates on why the President failed to keep the American people in the war.
According to him, it’s because Bush, et al have failed to win the debate over Saddam Hussein’s links to al Qaeda, a key factor behind the public’s support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He’s certainly right about that. The meme now reads, “Saddam had no links to al Qaeda”.
It’s another example of the administration and it’s supporters failing to stand their position in a debate and simply point to the facts as they are known. As Mr. Legrand points out in his post, there is ample open source evidence of Saddam’s links to al Qaeda, including harboring one of the 1993 World Trade Center plot bomb makers - Abdul Rahman Yasin.
To add a little to Pierre’s list of AQ/Saddam links. We must not forget the Al Shifa connection, my most favorite of the forgotten 1990s episodes. For a little background, see
http://southcom.arabie.org/2006/06/20/al-what/
and the follow-up at
http://southcom.arabie.org/2006/06/21/al-shifa-the-darkside/
Turning to the failures of the Bush admin to combat the memes, I think it arises out of a faulty assumption that when it came to serious matters of national security, the Dem/MSM would put aside political calculations and would join in the war effort. This, as it turns out, was perhaps Bush’s gravest miscalculation. Indeed, the failures in this war are nearly entirely on the perception front. Militarily, we are winning, I believe.
I see the “no AQ/Saddam connection” as being only one of several memes that must be dismantled. The others being that “there was no WMD threat from Iraq” and that “we are losing in Iraq.”
Comment by Webmasta — December 11, 2006 @ 8:45
I am not getting the point: what difference does it make if Saddam had any connections to al Qaeda or not? (Which he did not have in any serious, supportive way, as far as I am convinced). Isn’t the problem for Bush, that nobody sees a clear vision of how to stabilize and democrizy the Iraq? a vision, when the dying will end! Continuous civil war activities from an “unvisible” enemy with no “light at the horizon” that no matter how many soldiers will be there, you wont be able to stabilize the area seems to me the biggest problem.
actualy in germany after world war II there was a similar - and different - situation: similarity: after a foreign invasion to remove a dictator there was a great fear that irregular troops could seriously damage and attack the regular troops over years. “difference”: people surpisingly kept quiet, there were no “hidden troops” what so ever and the civil society was happy to get a new chance.
bush main mistake was to think that something similar could ever happen in an arabic country - that was complete ignorance of the region and their people.
btw: somebody like abdul rahman yasin would never respect a saddam hussein (the one acts out of religous conviction and belief, the other acts for money and power. from yasin a hussein would be as bad as mr. bush - no difference from his (religious) point of view) - maybe a yasin would use an hussein - never vice versa! an osama bin laden is much more connected to saudi arabia, and others than they ever were to iraq (at least before the war - now unfortunalty it is different…)
Comment by Philipp — December 14, 2006 @ 9:31
somebody like abdul rahman yasin would never respect a saddam hussein (the one acts out of religous conviction and belief, the other acts for money and power.
That is, as you put it, “complete ignorance of the region and their people.” The tribal cultures throughout southwest asia are notorious for shifting alliances. That said, do you dispute the fact that Abdul Rahman Yasin escaped to Iraq after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and was given safe haven? What about the fact that the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, entered the U.S. on an Iraqi passport and was known to his associates as “the Iraqi.?”
Comment by Randy — December 14, 2006 @ 4:06
Philipp: Perhaps you are right that Arabs are, as a people, incapable of democracy. I however, am not prepared to condemn them to a perpetual state of totalitarian rule. Here in America, the prevailing view for many years was that Blacks, as a people, were also incapable of democracy.
I suppose that’s idealistic - so be it.
Comment by Webmasta — December 15, 2006 @ 11:37