Believing is Seeing
The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend
--Henri Bergson
--Henri Bergson
USA Today's "President Discusses Strategy This Week With Military, Diplomatic, Iraqi Leaders," suggests GWB is expanding his discussion of the Iraqi situation beyond Laura and Barney the Dog.
Except the strategy concerning Bush is how to save the next presidential election for the Republicans. Iraq be damned.
"When I do speak to the American people, they will know that I've listened to all aspects of government." Perhaps, but listening is a far piece from constructively synthesizing from the facts presented. GWB appears to ignore all except what's in his heart; anything contradictory to his will is dismissed.
President Bush repeated Monday that success in Iraq would "help protect the U.S. in the long run" by denying safe haven to "extremists and radicals." So, if they can't live there, then...they can't hit us here. Or something like that.
It is somewhat akin to the gentrification of our inner cities--the addicts and street people may be pushed out in the name of tidying things up, but they have to go somewhere. Perhaps we will provide an institutional setting in which the Iraqi misfits can be housed. Something like the new Gitmo, except a whole lot bigger. A mini-Iraq-within-Iraq. And then, one day when the funds dry up, we will empty them all out, dumping what will then be even angrier and more disaffected people on the world.
And what does "the long run" look like? Does it mean until he's out of office, or the U.S. is out of money? In case he hadn't noticed, the entire populace and government of Iraq is filled with "extremists and radicals." Anyway, even if these unsavory elements were run out of Iraq on a rail (leaving it a ghost town), I'm quite sure any and all of Iraq's neighbors would be happy to put up the overflow, all in the name of giving America a good run for its money.
GWB further defined success as achieving a nation that governs and defends itself and "serves as an ally in this war on terror." That sure is a clearly defined goal. What does "ally" mean? Is this a nation that is happy to spend our tax dollars and give us nothing in return?
posted by rangeragainstwar at 1:20 PM
9 Comments:
It might help if your embassy in Baghdad had more than six - 6 - people who knows arabic fluently. Or if your senators in charge of intelligence knew the difference between shia and sunni. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1970943,00.html for a gross example on how your politicians seem to be living in cuckoo-land. It just keeps on amazing me.
My homecountry is quite close to a socialist model, and theres plenty both bad and good to be said about that, but at least our Prime Minister is a professional social economist, our industrial minister is a former worker and none of the government earns more than 200000 dollars a year. From what I read 50% of your Senate are billionaires, as if being rich is a symptom of good political skills and knowledge. More engineers and less ass-kissers would be a good idea for the US the next twenty years..
Martin,
First, thank you for mentioning RAW to Pen and Sword and Majikthise. This was a pleasant surprise discovery.
I don't know that I trust engineers more than politicians (look at our Army Corps of Engineers and see what they've wreaked upon the environment.)
I would question the 50% of Senators being billionaires. Millionaires, I could accept. The Democrats are the party of the rich; the Republicans, of the super-rich. We need a party that addresses the needs and realities of the vast majority of Americans, which are neither. This said, the Founding Fathers were all wealthy men for their day.
The only criterion for holding office in America, it seems, is policital savvy and connectivity, linked with photogenic features. A family pedigree seems to be evermore important, too. Did you ever find the two Iraqis that were AWOL, BTW. I am concerned (!) They may be headed our way... Being a Floridian, DisneyWorld has been designated a prime target... Let's hope the Seven Dwarves are alerted--we know where at least one or two are.
Jim
Concerning the Iraqis that have gone AWOl: Turns out we have lost all together seven of them the last two months, without anyone really making a fuss. Still nobody worried around here, even though at least the two who went missing recently were "special forces", whatever that may be. And yes, they may well be headed your way, I would love to hear wich part of Iraq they belonged to but the NATO-command are keeping radio-silence. Last we heard they didnt show up for the return-flight, and they have valid travelling-papers to the whole of Europe. Hopefully already started working in some kebab-shop in Hamburg, Insh`allah..
As for trusting engineers, I in one way agree with you, but blind technical approach at least has the advantage of calculating possible negative outcomes before the plan is put into action. The ideological yes-sir approach fails to do even that. What was the name of the marine commander who stated that George Bush jr. was the hand of God and so could not err? I forget, but that kind of Gung Ho-mindedness wins battles, not wars.
Its interesting what you write about the US military being a fighting-weapon and only that, very big doctrinal difference from us who have developed operational standards through UN missions.
And btw, for an excellent summation of the situation in general, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1971749,00.html
To quote the opening: "What an amazing bloody catastrophe. The Bush administration's policy towards the Middle East over the five years since 9/11 is culminating in a multiple train crash. Never in the field of human conflict was so little achieved by so great a country at such vast expense. In every vital area of the wider Middle East, American policy over the last five years has taken a bad situation and made it worse."
Martin,
You wouldn't be profilinbg with the kebab-stand comment, would you know. If so, I'd be highly disappointd; that's my job!
I say that our military is a death-dealing machine because that's what we do best. I understand your comments, however.
When you refer to U.N. missions, there is a limited capability from the U.S. side to do PKO. This function is a stated military police mission. This is usu. the MP Battalion found at Corps level.
I have a hard time even considering what we are doing as being a "policy". It is really more like a hope and a prayer. I also call it pie in the sky, as it is not grounded--that is, when it is not "the sky is falling." To use an old aviator term, it can also be known as "flying by the seat of your pants."
Well, as for the administrations "policy": I still do not understand it. I try not to be a conspiracy-nut, but its really bloody hard work finding a rational explanation for the course of events since the invasion of Afghanistan. You would have thought that invading the nation wich defeated both the russians and the english in modern history would have been seen as a serious project, worthy of shoveling a lot of money into. Instead they went and invaded Iraq, and left Afghanistan to itself, except as a hunting ground. Why? I cant see any rational explanation, quite simply.
And I cant make myself believe that they expected democracy to bloom from Iraq either, not seriously. If the US high-command saw that as a viable scenario, then they had to be on opium all of the time, all of them, for an amazing long period. "Lets invade them, make them unemployed, bomb them and theyll love us, despite the fact that weve been killing them for ten last years!" Your high command is not that insane, surely?
So it comes down to a couple of options for me, really:
1) The Pirate Raid-option. Quite simply, Haliburton/Carlisle/Kellogs etc. staged the whole event in order to steal enormous amounts of hard cash from the US treasury and never mind the nation.
2) The Religious Nut-option: They literally thought they were doing the will of Jesus and God, and that the rapture would gloriously commence as the forces of Christ entered Babylon and the fields of Harmageddon.
3) The Psycho-Drama Option: A lot of old men out to prove they were right during the Vietnam/ Iran-Contra era (Cheney, Rumsfeld/ Negroponte, Reich) and a president in rebellion/adoration to his father.
4) The Lizards From Pluto/Chtulu-option. As David Icke so convincingly states, the US is run by the spirit of the evil lizardkings of Atlantis, who were kept within the magical binding of the Pentagon and burst forth into the world on 11/9 after the breaking of the seal. HP Lovecraft wrote about these elder evil gods.
Or a combination of all of the above. Shit, it makes as much sense as any other explanations to me... Sigh.
Martin,
You pose some excellent questions that no one seemed to raise in the last presidential election. Now we--those of us who wonder--are left scratching our heads. I do not know if the President sincerely thought democracy would bloom.
I tend to the cynical, and think his behavior is pathological. From Heine: "Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments where he was merely stupid." Take your pick.
It defies logic in all arenas--from economic on down. I agree with the Dixie Chicks (musical group) which opened a concert in England by saying they were ashamed of their president.
Martin,
Follow-on to the lizard king: I can hear the Doors music being played in the background as I read your comment.
Post a Comment
<< Home