This hardly reflects well on Rockefeller's judgment, and it may well have had some bad consequences, but in fact Senators, for better or worse (usually worse) do this sort of thing a lot. I don't think it's in a league with the Bonior / McDermott lovefest with Saddam (which Andrew Sullivan called "perilously close to treason" at the time). Rockefeller wasn't giving PR cover to the enemy. It was just irresponsible behavior, which sadly is nothing unusual where the Senate is concerned. Nor do I think it did much harm -- if I recall correctly, Saddam nonetheless didn't think we'd invade until we did, and I don't think this tipped him off to anything. Indeed, had Saddam taken Rockefeller's advice to heart, it might have helped.
However, I just sent him a question:
But you know who did take him at his word? Al Qaida. Didn't Zarqawi show up in Iraq around February 2002? Ostensibly to be treated for a wound (per our intel), but didn't he go somewhere and then come back by or before June 2002 to begin setting up his network? My memory may be slipping, but I thought that the case for war really didn't heat up until close to September 2002 (though we had made noises I suppose about the inspections before hand).
Since we know that there are at least sympathetic officials in these governments, would it be inappropriate to suggest that Rockefeller's trip may have tipped off Al Qaida early on, allowing them to get a jump on operations and possibly result in killing more of our soldiers?
Loose lips sink ships, after all. All of this reminds me of those posters we used to see from WWII. You know, back when we used to know how to conduct a war.
So, was Rockefeller just incredibly naive about the incestuous relationship of these states and the Islamists or was he just arrogant enough to believe his political cause was more important than national security and the lives of our men and women?
Update:
Heh...who knew the NRO would pick up on the same question?
No comments:
Post a Comment