 |
I was not a friend of Mary McGrory, but I knew
Mary McGrory. I had visited her at her Washington Post office. She called
occasionally with questions. I was honored that she quoted me a few times
- and I don't mind bragging about it. She wrote beautifully, fearlessly
questioning conventions and authorities. Many will miss her carefully constructed
columns. It is enlightening to read some of them again; to look back, knowing
what we now know, at what she knew then. Here are some excerpts from her
articles, with links to many more. |
Nuts
About Nukes
March 14, 2002
Most military men agree that battlefield nukes are not an option. Among them has been Colin Powell, who, in his autobiography, "My American Journey," wrote disparagingly of their utility. In 1958 he was assigned to guard a nuclear cannon. "We are not talking about dropping a few artillery shells at a crossing. No matter how small they were . . . we would be crossing a threshold. . . . Using nukes at this point would mean one of the most significant policy and military decisions since Hiroshima."
Powell has been assiduous in defending the administration against charges of extremism and unilateralism. Some think he swallows hard before fashioning his rationalizations, but a united front is more essential than ever, with the vice president making a tour to convince 11 nations that this is a prudent, painstaking country that could be trusted to run a tidy and effective effort in evicting Saddam Hussein from Iraq.
Hesitant
Hawks
May 30, 2002
It was a demonstration of cold feet on the part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who leaked to Post Pentagon correspondent Thomas E. Ricks that they, just like the rabble in the streets of Europe, thought that invading Iraq was a chancy affair that would involve a large commitment of troops and casualties. And victory would bring only the unappetizing prospect of occupying Baghdad for an extended period.
Bush must have been steamed, as they say. Why was the rhetoric of beads and sandals emanating from the brass? Had the chiefs become flower children grown old? For the public, perhaps, it was only the appropriate commemoration of Memorial Day. India and Pakistan were shouting threats at each other across a nuclear divide. Suicide bombers were exploding in Israel. The chiefs at least provided a timely reminder of the inescapable fact that when you send young men and women to war, they get killed -- the message on the Vietnam Wall.
Shortcuts
To Missile Defense
August 8, 2002
Republicans see in the military-industrial complex the only worthy recipients of government welfare. The Democrats dare not squawk because there's a war going on against terrorism and they are terrified of being found "weak on defense."
That is why the Defense Department makes arrangements that mere mortals think are profligate, as for instance the matter of waiving oversight and audits for missile defense contractors.
So anxious are the president and his civilian cohorts to get this highly dubious undertaking underway that they are reverting to the "buy before you try" standard of Caspar Weinberger, to whom the bang was more important than the buck. George Bush is trying to push missile defense so far and so fast that no successor will be able to reverse course, and hang the tests, which so far have proved nothing.
Nuclear missile defense has been off the radar lately as George Bush's civilian defense advisers beat the drums for war with Iraq. They are so confident that U.S. progress to Baghdad will be a cakewalk that they want to extend hostilities to Saudi Arabia. Pentagon officials have been busy explaining that Thomas Ricks's story in The Post does not represent "dominant opinion" in the administration. But they have not been asked about hanky-panky in military contracts -- or to answer the excellent point made by critic Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.) at a July 16 hearing on missile defense: "So we're testing every kid in grammar school all the way through high school every damn year and we're not going to test this program against any benchmarks at all. . . . We're just going to occasionally look at it and see whether we want to keep on slugging up the hill or not."
Mistaken Patriots
October 17, 2002
By way of preparing for the election, Democrats decided to get the war issue "out of the way." By overwhelmingly backing President Bush's desire to blow the bugle without the blessing of the United Nations, they ensured that the commander in chief will be at center stage. The papers throb with accounts of his minions moving troops and launching training exercises as if war had been declared.
Sheepish Democrats continue to show the electorate that when it comes to the fateful business of sending young Americans into battle, they are at one with the Republicans. They turned aside the known skepticism of the uniformed military. They were undeterred by the newly enunciated doctrine of "preventive war," which all previous presidents have rejected. While they declared in their floor speeches that they were uncertain of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein, their votes said they were mindful of the danger to themselves and they were taking no chances.
The whole slate of Democratic presidential hopefuls lined up for the president's right to make war unilaterally. Of them all, Sen. John Kerry had a unique foreign policy perch. A decorated war veteran who also came home and led a brilliant demonstration to end the war, he delivered a sophisticated critique of the botched hunt for Osama bin Laden. But he joined the gang voting for the president -- such notable peaceniks as Tom Harkin, Chris Dodd and Tom Daschle -- not to mention Hillary Clinton.
The majority leader hated to do it, but in the end he threw in the towel to show the world the country is "unified" on the issue.
I'm
Persuaded
February 6, 2003
I don't know how the United Nations felt about Colin Powell's "J'accuse" speech against Saddam Hussein. I can only say that he persuaded me, and I was as tough as France to convince.
I'm not exactly a pacifist. Vietnam came close to making me one, but no one of the World War II generation can say war is never justified. I have resisted the push to war against Iraq because I thought George W. Bush was trying to pick a fight for all the wrong reasons -- big oil, the far right -- against the wrong enemy.
Of course, Bush chose Powell to make the case before the United Nations. He has no one else who so commands the country's respect -- or the world's.
His voice was strong and unwavering. He made his case without histrionics of any kind, with no verbal embellishments. He aired his tapes of conversations between Iraqi army officers who might well be supposed to be concealing toxic materials or enterprises.
He talked of the mobile factories concealed in trains and trucks that move along roads and rails while manufacturing biological agents. I was struck by their ingenuity and the insistence on manufacturing agents that cause diseases such as gangrene, plague, cholera, camelpox and hemorrhagic fever.
Would Saddam Hussein use them? He already has, against his own people and Iranians. He has produced four tons of deadly VX: "A single drop of VX on the skin will kill in minutes." The cumulative effect was stunning.
I wasn't so sure about the al Qaeda connection. But I had heard enough to know that Saddam Hussein, with his stockpiles of nerve gas and death-dealing chemicals, is more of a menace than I had thought. I'm not ready for war yet. But Colin Powell has convinced me that it might be the only way to stop a fiend, and that if we do go, there is reason.
NOTE: None of Secretary's Powell's major charges about WMD in Iraq or links
to al Qaeda has proven to be true. No weapons have been found. It is highly
unlikely that Saddam could have moved, hidden or destroyed the quantity of weapons
Secretary Powell claimed Hussein had.
The Washington Post has posted a collection of Mary McGrory's columns on
their web site at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/columns/mcgrorymary/
