Friday, 31st of January, 2003

From the Independent UK, Robert Fisk writes with remarkable restraint (but no little passion).

One Response to “Fisk on the war”

1. GulGnu says:
   February 14th, 2003 at 8:04 am

   The lack of passion is easy to explain – Fisk realizes that the game is up when it comes to Iraq. War plans are far too advanced for there to be any realistic hope of a peaceful solution at this stage. Plus, given Fisk’s recent record of predicting war outcomes, it’s rather understandable that he would rather focus on rethorical overreach by his opponents (The glass house goes *klirr*…) than on paining the passionate doom-n-gloom scenarios that made his Afghanistan articles such entertaining reading.

   Also notice how Fisk is attempting to set the bar for failure way, way, low. “hundreds, if not thousands” of Iraqis might be killed. Huh? Didn’t he get the memo ordering a minimum casualty estimate of a hundred thousand bodies at a minimum? Hell, “hundreds, if not thousands” is probably about what Saddam goes through in a year – it would make the US war an instant act of humanitarianism. You feeling alright Mr. Fisk?

   Fisk plays it safe in the rest of this piece as well, setting the conditions for US deafeat as follows: (Loose interpretation)

   1. US forces must capture Baghdad in two days minimum. Preferably before lunchtime.

   2. The US must transform Iraq into a replica of Norway in a timeframe of no more than two months.

   Well, I’d say the US is set up to lose bigtime using the Fisk scale – too bad he’s not judging this one, eh?

   Regards / GulGnu

   -Stabil som fan!