Engaging "wayback machine" this is Jan22,2007
Here's a phrase that seems to be getting big play, it started shortly after the '06 election results and has gained ground ever since. It has a nice ring, bipartisan, it sort of rolls off the tongue with lovely strong syllable breaks and an element of cadence. I'll bet it would sound good if you did it with a mouth full of marbles and it looks nice in print - bipartisan - hey even in italics - bipartisan. It seems such a long time time since it had any currency.
You may be familiar with the name Frank Luntz, he of the Republican dictionary, well now he's decided to tell the Democrats how to use Words that Work over at HuffPo. The idea is to bury the hatchet...not in the Republican's heads, but actually bury it. He's on to the spirit of bipartisanship (-ship kind of spoils the cadence) and even notes, "Democracy is at its best when its practitioners use language to unite and explain rather than divide and attack." I also think it works pretty well when "Clean Air" doesn't mean pollution and estate tax means that and not "Death Tax" which means you get charged for not living anymore, um, dying. It would be pretty crass to charge for the dubious privilege of being dead. He just doesn't think being vindictive will work out for the Democrat Party (sure he knows better, he just can't help himself), that the Party should figure out how to work with the Republicans. He's actually right, the Democrats cannot afford to be perceived as vindictive. What I find odd, though, is the idea that it's the Democrats who are supposed to be bipartisan. Maybe it's the bi- piece of the word that's throwing me. All the way through Webster's 9th Collegiate (again) bi- has two involved, I think the part about "both sides" (2) may just be what's up with the word. Well, anyhow, thanks Frank.
I have a little different take on this Congress deal, nobody on that side wants to get along, what they want is a chance to score points for '08 and make Democrats look bad. When you reach across that aisle, if you get your hand back, you better count your fingers. What Democrats can do (listen up Hillary) is come up with good policies, make sure everybody knows they're good, ram them through, be seen ramming them through, and make sure the Republicans get the blame for their failure to happen. The President says he can do as he pleases, well now, that's an idea, but hauling them up before investigative committees makes that a bit tougher and when the dirt falls out impeachment really ties you up. Jail can give you time to reflect on hubris.
You already know that the Republicans would like very much to undo the 06 damage and hang onto the Presidency, since they're the minority their only hope is to be obstacles and then blame Democrats as "do nothings." You can thank Mr Luntz for showing you the genesis of how it will be played, "We were reasonable but all they wanted to do was keep hitting us with a bat." Just make sure that it's obvious that the Republicans stopped the game by stealing the balls, the bases, and the scoreboard. Then whack 'em with that bat again.
That's not being vindictive, it's culling the herd.
Showing posts with label Blame. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blame. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Monday, April 30, 2007
The Maggots Gather On The Rotting Corpses
...of the dead at VT. The Brady Bunch and their followers couldn't let the bodies cool before they started in with their faked up statistics and fear mongering. BushCo immediately rushed to the scene and got his photo op. The Libertarian nuts started banging away on a gun in every house to cure social ills. Goddam what a sick bunch of bastards.
Look here, a nut did something nuts and people who should not have, died. It's not about guns, it's not about having them or not having them, it's about a nut. I'll bet you'd like a softer more "correct" description of this person. Fine - loon. There is an entire world of difference between moody, eccentric, quiet loner and a psychotic murderer and some people were making warning noises but our polite nice society let him cook in his own juices. Then a whole raft of people want to take advantage of that failure to make their own agendas look good.
Gun control freaks - do you have any idea what carnage a sword wielded by a maniac in close quarters would wreak? Things do not commit mayhem, but a lot of them are darned useful for it.
Gun nuts - just how many people do you think could exceed the abysmal hit rate of police in combat situations?
George W Bush - NOTHING you can say is going to make you look better or more concerned for our citizenry.
I can not begin to tell you how offended I am for the parents and participants in that tragedy by this piling on of people with agendas - including the commercial interests of the media. There is only one lesson here, pay attention to your fellows, care about them, care about how they're doing, care about what they might do. Just plain humanity would do for a start.
Look here, a nut did something nuts and people who should not have, died. It's not about guns, it's not about having them or not having them, it's about a nut. I'll bet you'd like a softer more "correct" description of this person. Fine - loon. There is an entire world of difference between moody, eccentric, quiet loner and a psychotic murderer and some people were making warning noises but our polite nice society let him cook in his own juices. Then a whole raft of people want to take advantage of that failure to make their own agendas look good.
Gun control freaks - do you have any idea what carnage a sword wielded by a maniac in close quarters would wreak? Things do not commit mayhem, but a lot of them are darned useful for it.
Gun nuts - just how many people do you think could exceed the abysmal hit rate of police in combat situations?
George W Bush - NOTHING you can say is going to make you look better or more concerned for our citizenry.
I can not begin to tell you how offended I am for the parents and participants in that tragedy by this piling on of people with agendas - including the commercial interests of the media. There is only one lesson here, pay attention to your fellows, care about them, care about how they're doing, care about what they might do. Just plain humanity would do for a start.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Ideological Purity
David Sirota writes in the San Francisco Chronicle that there is a real problem with people in power not owning what they said about the Iraq War, this is certainly true. He holds John Edwards up as an example of how it should be done - I made a mistake and I regret it. He goes on to note that there definitely is a massive case of CYA going on. This is where it gets sticky, why is this going on?
We all know why the President of the US would state that he never said, "Stay the course." It's politically stupid to do it, but he does have the semantic dodge of what course he was talking about, Nostradamus works well in that respect. There is however the matter of pundits and other pols who beat the warm drum enthusiastically. It is now a generally unpopular stand to take and those who take it publicly will be held to account for that stance. There is such a thing as Conservatism that isn't about god, gays, and guns; I don't subscribe to the philosophy but one of its tenets is military adventures aren't to be done. That used to be a Republican deal, but ideological purity requirements of the past decade silenced that. The political price to be paid for opposing the Iraq adventure on philosophical grounds outweighed principle. You weren't pure in the Bush ideology.
The responsibility for this falls on Parties and voters. Politicians can count. If philosophy loses to Party line the fault is not solely the Party's. This notion of ideological purity driving political discourse is harmful to Parties and to national policy and Republicans are not the only guilty party. There are, of course, issues that in voter's mind's trump ideology. Joe Lieberman is an example, his stance on Iraq cost him the Democratic Primary despite the rest of his political stances. There does, however, remain a blindness to policy and reasoning due to ideology. I will make a personal argument in this arena, I am intimately familiar with it and thus competent. During the Democratic Primary for OR 02 CD I set up policy statements and my reasoning for them, The Oregonian took those and attributed "the most conservative" of the candidates to me. As far as I can tell, there were 3 policies that contributed to that, strong support of the 2nd Amendment, opposition to illegal hiring/illegal immigration, and a stance that one size fits all environmental regulations is doomed. Now I'd be real surprised to find that conservatives exactly agree with my rationales for those stands, they are in fact based on hard left politics. Anybody that hasn't gotten the idea that I regard the 2nd as the final block against people like BushCo hasn't paid attention - and yes, I regard that bunch as exactly that dangerous. Sounds left to me. Illegal hiring crushes labor - I oppose fervently any actions to debase labor, and I don't mean just organized labor and in the 1920's that would've gotten me arrested. I'll fight the establishment of, enhancement of, and enabling of a plutocracy in this country tooth and nail and serfs are a part of that. That's damn left. Environmental policies that are created with the one size fits all philosophy are doomed, public backlash will occur and the very people you need to be partners become enemies. I want success in that arena, long term meaningful success. Left again. That is not the measure that was taken of me as a candidate. I failed the ideological purity test on the surface. Drivng drag cars fails completely.
Reasoning and motive become buried under simplistic labels, the fact that racist xenophobic nutcases oppose illegal immigration has nothing to do with the matter as far as the health and well being of labor is concerned. It certainly is not progressive politics to oppose something on the basis of race, neither is it progressive to participate in the oppression of labor. Pay attention. The fact that the NRA seems to have fallen in bed with some of the worst aspects of the Republican Party has exactly not one thing to do with owning firearms. The fact that Sen Chuck Schumer (D) sees a difference between interfering with the 2nd and interfering with the 1st does not make it progressive to do so, it is in fact absolutely oppressive to restrict liberty. It is not reasoning to ignore contradictions in the name of ideology, it is the pursuit of ideological purity that you've been told exists.
Do the Hillary Clintons pass ideological muster? Certainly on name alone, debate ceases if the surname and (D) becomes all important. The question really should fall on the balance of policy statements, their reasoning and their motives. The timing of her opposition (post mid-term) to Iraq is suspect in my eyes, her stances on gun control have shown no reasoning in light of the Constitution, in point of fact I find her very nearly the most poll driven pol I've seen. I cannot find a single iota of respect for labor in any of her stances beyond the minimum wage and that has yet to play out. Do I find Hillary's ideological purity in question? Not really, I have no idea what her ideology is by definition of action. I don't care if it doesn't look ideologically pure, I care about the outcomes and the reasons for them. Ideological purity is all about appearances and those who'll pass its muster should be deeply suspect. If you've 'stuck your foot in it' apologize for it, state why you were wrong then and why you're right now, people will take the measure of that and make an informed decision. If you're right, stand up for it, the heck with how pure it looks.
We all know why the President of the US would state that he never said, "Stay the course." It's politically stupid to do it, but he does have the semantic dodge of what course he was talking about, Nostradamus works well in that respect. There is however the matter of pundits and other pols who beat the warm drum enthusiastically. It is now a generally unpopular stand to take and those who take it publicly will be held to account for that stance. There is such a thing as Conservatism that isn't about god, gays, and guns; I don't subscribe to the philosophy but one of its tenets is military adventures aren't to be done. That used to be a Republican deal, but ideological purity requirements of the past decade silenced that. The political price to be paid for opposing the Iraq adventure on philosophical grounds outweighed principle. You weren't pure in the Bush ideology.
The responsibility for this falls on Parties and voters. Politicians can count. If philosophy loses to Party line the fault is not solely the Party's. This notion of ideological purity driving political discourse is harmful to Parties and to national policy and Republicans are not the only guilty party. There are, of course, issues that in voter's mind's trump ideology. Joe Lieberman is an example, his stance on Iraq cost him the Democratic Primary despite the rest of his political stances. There does, however, remain a blindness to policy and reasoning due to ideology. I will make a personal argument in this arena, I am intimately familiar with it and thus competent. During the Democratic Primary for OR 02 CD I set up policy statements and my reasoning for them, The Oregonian took those and attributed "the most conservative" of the candidates to me. As far as I can tell, there were 3 policies that contributed to that, strong support of the 2nd Amendment, opposition to illegal hiring/illegal immigration, and a stance that one size fits all environmental regulations is doomed. Now I'd be real surprised to find that conservatives exactly agree with my rationales for those stands, they are in fact based on hard left politics. Anybody that hasn't gotten the idea that I regard the 2nd as the final block against people like BushCo hasn't paid attention - and yes, I regard that bunch as exactly that dangerous. Sounds left to me. Illegal hiring crushes labor - I oppose fervently any actions to debase labor, and I don't mean just organized labor and in the 1920's that would've gotten me arrested. I'll fight the establishment of, enhancement of, and enabling of a plutocracy in this country tooth and nail and serfs are a part of that. That's damn left. Environmental policies that are created with the one size fits all philosophy are doomed, public backlash will occur and the very people you need to be partners become enemies. I want success in that arena, long term meaningful success. Left again. That is not the measure that was taken of me as a candidate. I failed the ideological purity test on the surface. Drivng drag cars fails completely.
Reasoning and motive become buried under simplistic labels, the fact that racist xenophobic nutcases oppose illegal immigration has nothing to do with the matter as far as the health and well being of labor is concerned. It certainly is not progressive politics to oppose something on the basis of race, neither is it progressive to participate in the oppression of labor. Pay attention. The fact that the NRA seems to have fallen in bed with some of the worst aspects of the Republican Party has exactly not one thing to do with owning firearms. The fact that Sen Chuck Schumer (D) sees a difference between interfering with the 2nd and interfering with the 1st does not make it progressive to do so, it is in fact absolutely oppressive to restrict liberty. It is not reasoning to ignore contradictions in the name of ideology, it is the pursuit of ideological purity that you've been told exists.
Do the Hillary Clintons pass ideological muster? Certainly on name alone, debate ceases if the surname and (D) becomes all important. The question really should fall on the balance of policy statements, their reasoning and their motives. The timing of her opposition (post mid-term) to Iraq is suspect in my eyes, her stances on gun control have shown no reasoning in light of the Constitution, in point of fact I find her very nearly the most poll driven pol I've seen. I cannot find a single iota of respect for labor in any of her stances beyond the minimum wage and that has yet to play out. Do I find Hillary's ideological purity in question? Not really, I have no idea what her ideology is by definition of action. I don't care if it doesn't look ideologically pure, I care about the outcomes and the reasons for them. Ideological purity is all about appearances and those who'll pass its muster should be deeply suspect. If you've 'stuck your foot in it' apologize for it, state why you were wrong then and why you're right now, people will take the measure of that and make an informed decision. If you're right, stand up for it, the heck with how pure it looks.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Scapegoat ...Aaaaaaggghhhh!
The President of the USA told 60 Minutes in an interview that if Americans wanted a "scapegoat" he was it. There have been "things that could've been done better" and if we need a scapegoat he'll take it on for us. My head exploded.
I like Webster's 9th New Collegiate, it's not the best but they do get to the point fairly quickly and are accepted:
scapegoat - 1. *biblical, never mind* 2. a: one who bears the blame for others b: one that is the object of irrational hostility
If Merriam Webster take these people in the White House seriously they're going to be publishing an entirely new type of dictionary, one with meanings optional. They'll just spray words at a page and you get to pick what you like.
Now if you can explain to me how exactly it is that the Commander-in-Chief, you know, The Decider, is bearing the blame for someone else regarding the conduct of his war I'll try to put my head back together and apologize. Failing that, explain to me how this person who has mislead us into a war, mismanaged a war, inaccurately described the progress of a war, and divided this country into Patriots who back him and Traitors who do not is the object of irrational hostility on this basis and I'll just stop writing anything at all, ever again, because I must be psychologically imbalanced and just plain retarded.
There is such a complete and total disregard for the meaning of the English language demonstrated by these people that there probably are no words to adequately describe it to them. This misuse of the language goes beyond spin into the realm of propaganda. For Condi Rice to argue that escalation isn't the proper term, that augmentation is a correct description to a US Senator - Republican - is just plain ... stupid. Augment means: to make greater, more numerous, larger, or more intense and escalate means : to increase in extent, volume, number, amount, intensity, or scope. This is the best we can do for a Sec. State? This isn't about the diplomacy of correct language, this is about using the language to deny that what you're doing is exactly what you say you're doing. Does this make your head spin? 'We don't want you to think we're doing exactly what we're telling you we are doing because you might not like us doing exactly what we just told you we are doing.' If you don't like being treated like a complete idiot, it would pay to remember that these people were elected by us TWICE.
I like Webster's 9th New Collegiate, it's not the best but they do get to the point fairly quickly and are accepted:
scapegoat - 1. *biblical, never mind* 2. a: one who bears the blame for others b: one that is the object of irrational hostility
If Merriam Webster take these people in the White House seriously they're going to be publishing an entirely new type of dictionary, one with meanings optional. They'll just spray words at a page and you get to pick what you like.
Now if you can explain to me how exactly it is that the Commander-in-Chief, you know, The Decider, is bearing the blame for someone else regarding the conduct of his war I'll try to put my head back together and apologize. Failing that, explain to me how this person who has mislead us into a war, mismanaged a war, inaccurately described the progress of a war, and divided this country into Patriots who back him and Traitors who do not is the object of irrational hostility on this basis and I'll just stop writing anything at all, ever again, because I must be psychologically imbalanced and just plain retarded.
There is such a complete and total disregard for the meaning of the English language demonstrated by these people that there probably are no words to adequately describe it to them. This misuse of the language goes beyond spin into the realm of propaganda. For Condi Rice to argue that escalation isn't the proper term, that augmentation is a correct description to a US Senator - Republican - is just plain ... stupid. Augment means: to make greater, more numerous, larger, or more intense and escalate means : to increase in extent, volume, number, amount, intensity, or scope. This is the best we can do for a Sec. State? This isn't about the diplomacy of correct language, this is about using the language to deny that what you're doing is exactly what you say you're doing. Does this make your head spin? 'We don't want you to think we're doing exactly what we're telling you we are doing because you might not like us doing exactly what we just told you we are doing.' If you don't like being treated like a complete idiot, it would pay to remember that these people were elected by us TWICE.
Friday, November 10, 2006
The Rush To Blame
Obvious in the title, Rush Limbaugh says he lied because The Ends Justified The Means. Ok, whatever. He applauded people he now claims to find despicable - that would be: out of office and no longer influential. You know, like those despicable drug addicts.
Segway to the C-I-C, Donny you're fired. I'm the boss on a construction site and my guys don't get to just make it up as they go, it's done my way. I'm a little less important than the President, but we're supposed to feel like Donny made it up and now things are gonna change. Keeeripes, so Bob Gates is going to fix things inspite of the President.
Nancy Pelosi says the Democrats are going to reach across the aisle, they'd better count their fingers if they get the hand back.
I don't mind their "agenda" but here's some suggestions, Minimum Wage to match Oregon's, no opt outs, indexed. (NO tips DON'T count); lobbiest restrictions - limit to no-value promotional items, ie: ballcaps, key chains, etc, matching FEC restrictions on campaign items (buttons etc); real employee verification ability for employers matched by Davis-Bacon wage rate matching fines and jail time for illegal hiring, all officers from human resources up; Illegal Aliens invited to return home within 6 months, those remaining subject to fines, property confiscation, forcible deportation ; 2nd time same plus jail. Those leaving and registering get 1st up in their labor catagory (recognition that they have contributed); immediate roll back of Patriot Act, Terrorism Act, Detainees Bill - the Constitution and BOR will be respected, Voter Act tossed - no onerous voter reqirements, paper trails, research of institution of OR type Vote by Mail. Take up Wyden's Flatter Tax proposal, in the short term - exit all Bush Tax breaks except child deductions, add college/trade tax credit up to State College Tuition, move Alternative Minimum Tax to where it would be with indexing since institutuion and index. Get OUT of Iraq, period-I know, he's the Pres, well there are ball bats available. Real oversight, you're not going to impeach the guy so tie his hands.
Ok, realistically, minimum wage & lobby reform & ethics teeth & and tie his hands.
Hey Democrats, the voters fired that other bunch, that doesn't mean they like you, show them why they should've liked you. You've inherited a real mess, you've got a 5 year old for President that nobody's been watching, cronies have stolen the public blind, our kids are in debt forever, the public thinks you're all crooks and half of them don't vote and the Republicans are looking for a way to nail you to their cross. The Independents/NA that pushed you over the top are looking for an excuse to leave you and they won't help you. Now you get the blame.
It gets worse, your base is looking at you and expecting something, and that base is left and apparently nobody else is. Welcome to 2007.
Segway to the C-I-C, Donny you're fired. I'm the boss on a construction site and my guys don't get to just make it up as they go, it's done my way. I'm a little less important than the President, but we're supposed to feel like Donny made it up and now things are gonna change. Keeeripes, so Bob Gates is going to fix things inspite of the President.
Nancy Pelosi says the Democrats are going to reach across the aisle, they'd better count their fingers if they get the hand back.
I don't mind their "agenda" but here's some suggestions, Minimum Wage to match Oregon's, no opt outs, indexed. (NO tips DON'T count); lobbiest restrictions - limit to no-value promotional items, ie: ballcaps, key chains, etc, matching FEC restrictions on campaign items (buttons etc); real employee verification ability for employers matched by Davis-Bacon wage rate matching fines and jail time for illegal hiring, all officers from human resources up; Illegal Aliens invited to return home within 6 months, those remaining subject to fines, property confiscation, forcible deportation ; 2nd time same plus jail. Those leaving and registering get 1st up in their labor catagory (recognition that they have contributed); immediate roll back of Patriot Act, Terrorism Act, Detainees Bill - the Constitution and BOR will be respected, Voter Act tossed - no onerous voter reqirements, paper trails, research of institution of OR type Vote by Mail. Take up Wyden's Flatter Tax proposal, in the short term - exit all Bush Tax breaks except child deductions, add college/trade tax credit up to State College Tuition, move Alternative Minimum Tax to where it would be with indexing since institutuion and index. Get OUT of Iraq, period-I know, he's the Pres, well there are ball bats available. Real oversight, you're not going to impeach the guy so tie his hands.
Ok, realistically, minimum wage & lobby reform & ethics teeth & and tie his hands.
Hey Democrats, the voters fired that other bunch, that doesn't mean they like you, show them why they should've liked you. You've inherited a real mess, you've got a 5 year old for President that nobody's been watching, cronies have stolen the public blind, our kids are in debt forever, the public thinks you're all crooks and half of them don't vote and the Republicans are looking for a way to nail you to their cross. The Independents/NA that pushed you over the top are looking for an excuse to leave you and they won't help you. Now you get the blame.
It gets worse, your base is looking at you and expecting something, and that base is left and apparently nobody else is. Welcome to 2007.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Blame Somebody
In regard to the mess in Iraq recently there has been a bit of a stir as neocons and their allies started slinging blame around, and everybody else seems to be pointing at somebody - that isn't them. Now let's just back the train up a little bit from where we are now after it seems everybody and their brother has screwed the deal; no lies told, nobody dead, just theories of ideology.
The idea was that military force could achieve regime change in countries that eschewed America's interests and that would provide for the implementation of American "ideals." Now wars are generally fought around a basis pretty similar to this if "ideals" don't get too lofty. (land, booty, etc) But here's the rub, the neocons wanted to change societies. This is not an impossible idea and in fact it has been done. The obvious question, if you have this aim, is how has it been done?
The successful implementation of this idea occured in World War II with Western Nazi Germany and Tojo's Japan, the societies that emerged post-war had no real resemblence to their antecedents. The problem for the neocons is that the conditions neccesary were brutal, the countries were virtually destroyed, their armies broken, and resistance faced total destruction. Shock and Awe was a show, in WWII the cities and infrastructure were destroyed, the population faced death and destruction on a massive scale. Not even unreasonable people were able to mount more than token resistance in the face of the occupation. These countries were occupied, they were run by the conquerers. And then the conquerers rebuilt them. The they gave them back.
The neocon idea was that you could cut the head off a snake and it wouldn't thrash around. Social structures go much deeper than the government, and people do not willingly change something that basic. If your goal is to make that level of change then the pain of change must be less than the pain of staying the same. To acheive that level of pain the methods must be extraordinary and the results, horrific. No one in this government was willing to create that level of pain or commit the human resources neccesary to reach it, they created a wishful thinking scenario. I would doubt the sanity of any person who advocated a WWII warfare strategy to change Iraq, the problem is, that was the requirement.
To find an example of failure of the total warfare strategy in changing a culture we need look no farther than our own Civil War. The first part of the strategy was accomplished, the will to resist was broken, the problem was the Reconstruction and we paid for that failure for nearly a century. History provided the neocons clear and convincing guidelines and they ignored them in favor of wishful thinking dressed up as an ideology.
To go from such a basic failure to blaming the Adminstration, and from there all the other blames handed around is foolish. You cannot build an airplane if you start out with house plans, this mess was doomed from the outset, it cannot be fixed at this date, we can, however, leave. We can stay, and extend the suffering until we leave and the results are the same once we're gone. Or, we could raze the place, kill anything that moves wrong - including entire neighborhoods, take iron fisted control of the government and start rebuilding - I don't think that's gonna fly.
We elected a toy soldier and gave him the real things and gave him the opportunity to use them, and pretend intellectuals to guide him, and we're surprised at the result?
The idea was that military force could achieve regime change in countries that eschewed America's interests and that would provide for the implementation of American "ideals." Now wars are generally fought around a basis pretty similar to this if "ideals" don't get too lofty. (land, booty, etc) But here's the rub, the neocons wanted to change societies. This is not an impossible idea and in fact it has been done. The obvious question, if you have this aim, is how has it been done?
The successful implementation of this idea occured in World War II with Western Nazi Germany and Tojo's Japan, the societies that emerged post-war had no real resemblence to their antecedents. The problem for the neocons is that the conditions neccesary were brutal, the countries were virtually destroyed, their armies broken, and resistance faced total destruction. Shock and Awe was a show, in WWII the cities and infrastructure were destroyed, the population faced death and destruction on a massive scale. Not even unreasonable people were able to mount more than token resistance in the face of the occupation. These countries were occupied, they were run by the conquerers. And then the conquerers rebuilt them. The they gave them back.
The neocon idea was that you could cut the head off a snake and it wouldn't thrash around. Social structures go much deeper than the government, and people do not willingly change something that basic. If your goal is to make that level of change then the pain of change must be less than the pain of staying the same. To acheive that level of pain the methods must be extraordinary and the results, horrific. No one in this government was willing to create that level of pain or commit the human resources neccesary to reach it, they created a wishful thinking scenario. I would doubt the sanity of any person who advocated a WWII warfare strategy to change Iraq, the problem is, that was the requirement.
To find an example of failure of the total warfare strategy in changing a culture we need look no farther than our own Civil War. The first part of the strategy was accomplished, the will to resist was broken, the problem was the Reconstruction and we paid for that failure for nearly a century. History provided the neocons clear and convincing guidelines and they ignored them in favor of wishful thinking dressed up as an ideology.
To go from such a basic failure to blaming the Adminstration, and from there all the other blames handed around is foolish. You cannot build an airplane if you start out with house plans, this mess was doomed from the outset, it cannot be fixed at this date, we can, however, leave. We can stay, and extend the suffering until we leave and the results are the same once we're gone. Or, we could raze the place, kill anything that moves wrong - including entire neighborhoods, take iron fisted control of the government and start rebuilding - I don't think that's gonna fly.
We elected a toy soldier and gave him the real things and gave him the opportunity to use them, and pretend intellectuals to guide him, and we're surprised at the result?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)