roachboy

uh...it's a rhetorical tic. i'm accustomed at this point to opposing most military adventures undertaken by the united states. a function of my life-span i suppose, the time i grew up in, have lived in, so since vietnam. they always seem based on such stupid premises and lead to such fucked up conclusions. i understand in theory that i am among the americans in whose name this nonsense has been happening, but i oppose everything about it logically and politically--so sometimes it seems like there's this other place called the u.s. of a. that's populated by people i have nothing to do with and nothing in common with who use the name of the same place i happen to live to advertise and legitimate doing things that i often find to be entirely insane.

and to my mind, the whole "war on terror" is entirely insane.

but to answer the second part of your question: the massive incompetence of the bush administration has left obama boxed in on so many levels that my initial answer is that i'm glad i'm not president of the fading ship of american empire at the moment. on this matter, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that as a centrist from jump, obama accepted the notion that the "war on terror" made sense. so that's a difference. i don't accept it. i think it's nutty. so i wouldnt have been elected doubtless. not sufficiently manly for reactionary tastes i expect. and i don't like football. so not even amurican.

were i in control of this ship, i suppose i would place a whole lot more emphasis on getting israel to stop pulverizing the palestinian population in the west bank and gaza--to start doing stuff like letting in concrete for folk can build (they don't allow it for "security" reasons)...not only stop the settlements but start evacuating them, taking them down. dismantle the entire colonial apparatus in the west bank. accept the need for a viable palestine.

start allowing gaza to rebuild. end the blockade.

that would, i expect, change the climate pretty quickly.

i'm not sure i have an easy answer for what to do in either iraq or afghanistan--on iraq, conditions are quite different than we've been lead to believe (once again, we've been lied to, but no matter..i can post links if you like)...afghanistan seems a downward spiral that simply does not admit of a simple response. in a counter-factual world, i wouldn't have gone there in the first place, but that's fantasy. and the campaign's been run, when it has, quite badly. i don't support the "surge" but i don't have an alternative in mind.

as for yemen, i really don't see that this is a great move that's taking place--i don't see what it is to accomplish, and i see even less how it is supposed to accomplish it. the idea is obvious enough...but the route being chosen? it seems based on some vague hope that the desired results can be gotten to by proxy. and to be operating under the assumption that "advisors" does not mean ground engagement already. i think we're already in yemen, personally. like on the ground. maybe because it's easier than dealing with pakistan? maybe it's all theater. hard to know.

one thing i would expect though is that changing the us policy toward palestine would bring about alot more space for diplomatic and economic pressure to be brought to bear----using that route would be my preference. but the premise would have to be in place.


but these cheap calling-out games are little more than that. "yeah well what would you do?" as if you, the one asking the question, have the faintest idea yourself. easy peasy. whatever.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite