|
scout: your entire post presupposes that the current "strategy" in iraq is rational--when it isn't--and necessary, simply because it exists. the motivation for these assumptions appears to be little more than conservative partisanship. what i think is interesting in your post is the repetition of the entire conservative-specific set of assumptions that enable continued support for the iraq debacle and the administration responsible for it:
a) the attempt to characterize criticism of that policy as elitist positions you as "defender of the common man"--i confess to being baffled as to how that fits in with anything else in your post. you hear this alot though from the right--the curious claim that "authentic america" is made up entirely of petit bourgeois reactionaries.
b) a wholly irrational assumption that you and those who support similar politics views have a monopoly on "what's really going on" in iraq. what exactly is the reality of a war?
this is a serious question, if you think about it.
for example, how is the "reality" of war not logistics?
if you consider what a war is and where the majority of activity connected to it happens, it is mostly in shifting things from one place to another.
but maybe the history channel lets you conservative-types define reality in whatever manly way is convenient for transient argument purposes.
so reality would be what you like, and not anything else.
so what you're really saying is obama should go to iraq so that he would end up agreeing with your claims.
c) the american position on iran has made no fucking sense from the outset. the is compounded by the simple fact--one which is self-evident to everyone except that tiny segment of the population that substitutes conservative filtering devices for anything remotely like an analysis of what's happening on the ground, to the extent that any of us know about it in this information-controlled, filtered and packaged continual public-relations farce of a system---by the simple fact that the administration had NO strategy going into iraq. the wolfowitz doctrine WAS the strategy. it is mind-boggling to think about that--not that i expect you to--but if you do, it's amazing stuff. given that there was no strategy, it follows that there was and could be nothing but reaction along the way--the american position on iran has been nothing but reactive. it makes no sense. the business about the iranian nuclear program has fuck all to do with anything--it is a red herring--but if you and your conservativeland buddies ARE concerned about it--don't you think that reducing iran's sense of being-threatened by the united states would be a good step forward in undercutting the rationale for such ambiguity as exists about their program?
but that would require you think in terms not unlike those jimmy carter laid out about iran last week. and carter would be an elitist, so his positions are ruled out a priori.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|