Create an Account
username: password:
 
  MemeStreams Logo

RE: Bombings Kill at Least 146 Iraqis in Baghdad - New York Times

search


RE: Bombings Kill at Least 146 Iraqis in Baghdad - New York Times
by Mike the Usurper at 3:22 pm EDT, Apr 20, 2007

Decius wrote:
It does seem fair to ask the question. However, I think that by leaving the question hanging Olbermann intends to score a political point instead of really thinking about it. He goes on to talk about how preventable the violence in Iraq is. I'm not so sure. If we hadn't gone in to begin with, we wouldn't have the problems we have now, but that decision has already been made. Does Olbermann have a peace plan, or merely a plan to pull out and let the people there consume each other in civil war?

....

Were we to be more emotionally involved, would it impact the outcome? I think perhaps it might. I'm interested in what others think.

(note: some offensive comments included, not appropriate reading for the young'ns)
There are two separate points here and I'll deal with the easy one first, Olbermann. Calling this a political point is bogus. Of course it is in a large sense, but the reality is, he's a newscaster. His job is to report things and say when the emperor has no clothes. It is not to be the emperor or the emperor's tailor.

Of course it's political, but I don't see him giving the Democrats any slack when they fuck up either, so political, yes, biased, maybe, on the other hand, maybe he just goes after Republicans more because until last November they controlled all three branches of government and were colossal screw ups, at least the ones who weren't corrupt that is.

The second issue, involvement is a whole different ball of wax. There are multiple points of disconnect here, so we'll start at the top.
First, the military, and especially the army, is made up of poor people. Not all of them certainly, but predominantly the military was seen as a route to college, having some money, and getting out of the slums. Compared to the draft era, it means people are less likely to have any direct personal connection to the people in the services.
Second, with the end of the draft and the move to the all volunteer force, there is less of a moral connection. "They signed up for this, so I'm not going to worry as much about it." This is of course wrong. The people who volunteer usually do so with the idea that they're defending the country (and recruiters sell that point when they try to get people). They didn't sign up to get teabagged by W to prove he has balls.
Third we start seeing cultural issues. After four years of seeing people get blown up every day, the violence of Iraq no longer surprises anyone. Another car bomb? What's new about that? We're becomming immune to it. And this is not a comment on video games or movies or violent TV or anything of the sort. This is very direct. For pretty much my entire life, people have been blowing away other people in the Middle East on a near daily basis. If it were someplace else, like New Zealand, it would be seen differently. In the Middle East, it's normal.

So, with that out of the way, let's deal with the bigger issue. Going to war in Iraq is such a complete and utter cockup that if there really is a heaven and hell of the sort W thinks there is, he has reserved him a place at the front of the line for entry. It's about the WMD, no it's about exporting democracy, no it's about stability in the Middle East, no it's about terrorists, no it's about... What the hell is it about anymore? Trying to create an Iraqi government that can hold the country together and avoid a civil war? That's not a military mission. Creating the government is a political mission, and considering we're viewed as occupiers and the government in place as a puppet, it is not possible for us to do it. The only way you will see peace in Iraq with US troops still there is if the only people there are the US troops.

At this point our continued presence is making things worse. We keep a minor lid on things meaning the back and forth between the Shiite and Sunni sides simply has more time for increasing animosity in a part of the world known for having long memories of injustices done by one side or the other. We provide a rallying point for foreign agencies to point at as infidels soiling their land furthering the cause of extremism throughout the entire region.

The Brits are pulling out, and when they do, our troops will be completely and utterly screwed. Currently they hold open the doorway to the south and the sea. When they leave, the gauntlet that supplies currently travel becomes a noose that our forces will need to exit Iraq through. This will not be like the helicopters leaving the embassy in Saigon, this will be like the French at Dien Bien Phu.

This WAS NOT inevitable. Tom Ricks gives an excellent explanation of where things were and how we got there in Fiasco. Unfortunately, that was a year ago. Things have gone from bad to worse in that time, and now we have no options. The "surge" was a joke, the army is now broken and getting progressively worse, and we still have Afghanistan waiting in the wings for "Colossal Cockup: Part Deux," which we will also lose because we won't have any resources to work with because they all went to shit in Iraq.

Screw a plan for "success." I'll take a full blown civil war in Iraq if it means we can get a handle on Afghanistan. The truth is, that's not going to happen. World War I started because someone shot the Archduke Franz Ferdinand who no one could stand. George Bush started a war in Iraq for reasons that only he knows (since the public ones given have all been shown to be palpable bullshit) and set off a chain of events that through sheer incompetence and hubris could plunge the entire region into a confused war.

Oh wait, it gets even better. In "Colossal Cockup: Iraq" one of the things that was a sticking point was Turkey. The original battle plan was for a full infantry division to come down from Turkey (I think it was 4ID in the plan) to close the back door, but that never happened because the Turks didn't trust us on the whole "Kurdistan" question.

Here we are 4 years later, Kurdistan is about ready to come into full blown existence, and the Turks and the Kurds are about ready to take each other on. Now here is where things get weird. The Kurds are Sunni, but have more or less allied with Shiite Iran because Iran is giving the Iranian Kurds the leeway to do whatever the hell they want. Bottom line? We could pull out, but get sucked back in anyway because Turkey is part of NATO.

Of course, none of this matters until someone other than Bush/Cheney is running the executive branch. They won't pull out, but refused to go all the way in. They fucked us just enough to get us pregnant, but never bothered with the foreplay, worthwhile sex or "afterglow moment." Now we're stuck with them as inept, deadbeat dads prone to occasional bouts of abuse.

RE: Bombings Kill at Least 146 Iraqis in Baghdad - New York Times


 
 
Powered By Industrial Memetics