|
possibly. as i've said, i'm ambivalent but in general supporting the action up to this point largely on stop-the-massacre grounds. but the scenario i outlined above seems to be accurate, to my unhappy not-quite-surprise.
my assumption about the action so far as obama was concerned is that much hinges on making a quick shift into the relative background and moving this off from being a third us war in the region---this despite the differences (un sanction, there being actual reasons to do them, etc.) which would circumscribe the action differently than a conventional war would. but i confess that i have not been paying much attention to congress recently as they seem mired in dealing with tea party posturing about runaway expenditures while at the same time authorizing a budget proposal that does not cut a single military procurement line.
that said, i have little doubt that if the united states finds itself hoovered into the ground game that this arrangement will have to change. whether the administration will have a stronger or weaker case to make at that point is anyone's guess.
keep in mind that much of the limitations/problems for the united states is caused by two entirely unnecessary bush people wars. just saying. the wages of catastrophe, the ways in which the bush people remain a gift that keeps on giving...
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|