PhotoDude.com

Sun. Nov 10, 2002

WarPlans 'R Us

WarPlans ’R Us – ....also known as The New York Times. We’ve been here before. Back in April, The New York Times published an article about the Genuine War Plans "...a major air campaign and ground invasion, with initial estimates contemplating the use of 70,000 to 250,000 troops [...] ...a more traditional approach than the unconventional campaign in Afghanistan. Such an approach would resemble the Persian Gulf war in style if not in size and would be fought with even more modern weapons and more dynamic tactics."

Now we get Genuine War Plans, Part Two, "...an air campaign shorter than the one for the Persian Gulf war … It would feature swift ground actions to seize footholds in the country and strikes to cut off the leadership in Baghdad … calls for massing 200,000 to 250,000 troops for attack by air, land and sea. The offensive would probably begin with a ’rolling start’ of substantially fewer forces."

Well, at least they’ve narrowed the estimated number of troops required. But I don’t understand the motivation of these speculative articles any more than I did nearly 7 months ago. How relevant is that 7 month old article today, and what did it accomplish last April? When and if we go to war in Iraq, how relevant will this article be at that time, and what will it have accomplished?

The New York Times no doubt has the right to publish such articles, just as pundits all over the web have the right to speculate in detail about what will/might happen in a war with Iraq, or even in various ways joke about war. Jokes just end up looking … bloodthirsty.

Speculating about the specifics of any war plan goes even beyond that, to me. This is a topic that requires a seriousness and thoughtfulness (i.e., self-editing) that I find to be sadly missing from many quarters.