Maybe I'm mistaken

I thought the problem presented by Bush last night, that is, if we pull out, Iraq will become a breeding ground for terrorists....was ....well....logical...

Professor Cole doesn't think so....

To listen to Bush's speech on Wednesday, you would imagine that al-Qaeda has occupied large swathes of Iraq with the help of Syria and Iran and is brandishing missiles at the US mainland. That the president of the United States can come out after nearly four years of such lies and try to put this fantasy over on the American people is shameful.

That's just for "openers".....here's more....

And the main problem is not "al-Qaeda," which is small and probably not that important, and anyway is not really Bin Laden's al-Qaeda. They are just Salafi jihadis who appropriated the name. When their leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed, it didn't cause the insurgency to miss a beat. Conclusion: "al-Qaeda" is not central to the struggle. Izzat Ibrahim Duri and the Baath Party are probably the center of gravity of the resistance.

So the Baath Party is (probably) the "center of gravity of the resistance." Not Al Qaeda? Wouldn't that make it a CIVIL WAR?

Yup...sure sounds like that to me.

So just how much do we have to fear from the "failed state" scenario?

If indeed Bush and Cheney are using the surge (ESCALATION) to implement the 80% Solution then we're creating an Iranian Client State while at the same time threatening to attack Iran.

Yeah.

And Prof Cole points out another thing that makes about as much sense....

Bush could not help taking swipes at Iran and Syria. But the geography of his deployments gives the lie to his singling them out as mischief makers. Why send 4,000 extra troops to al-Anbar province? Why ignore Diyala Province near Iran, which is in flames, or Babel Province southwest of Baghdad? Diyala borders Iran, so isn't that the threat? But wait. Where is al-Anbar? Between Jordan and Baghdad. In other words, al-Anbar opens out into the vast Sunni Arab hinterland that supports the guerrilla movement with money and volunteers, coming in from Jordan. If Syria was the big problem, you would put the extra 4,000 troops up north along the border. If Iran was the big problem, you'd occupy Diyala. But little Jordan is an ally of the US, and Bush would not want to insult it by admitting that it is a major infiltration root for jihadis heading to Iraq.

Okay, so it's not Iran and Syria that are the problem....it's the Sunni Arab hinterland. It's the 80% Solution with a false enemy to (actually three false enemies: Syria, Iran and Al Qaueda)

Now I'm pissed.

The Dilema.....

For the sake of maintaining my personal sanity, I didn't watch the pResident's speech as it was broadcast live last night. (Because of some nation-wide synchronization issues, there is speculation that it was taped and edited....) I have, however, suffered through video clips of portions of the speech and transcribed highlights (if you can call them that) in order to get a sense of what he was saying and, most importantly, what he is REALLY GOING TO DO....You see, that's always been an issue with Bush. He speaks in code, sort of a Neocon version of speaking in tongues, if you will. Normal, rational American Citizens think he is saying one thing while the true believers are getting a coded message of what he's really going to do. Take this snippet from the speech for example:

This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two
regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in
and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American
troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of
support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks
providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

and then this clip from Reuters News Service:

US forces have stormed an Iranian consulate in the
northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized five members of staff according to a
Breaking News BBC report logged in at 9:27 am UK time.

See what I mean? On some of the more active message boards this morning, there is rampant speculation that the two Aircraft Carrier Task Forces that have been dispatched to the area are there to unleash airstrikes against both Iran and Syria to implement the simple paragraph in Bush's speech....that's possibly what he REALLY MEANT.

Beyond that, Bush presented a rational for his "surge" (ESCALATION) last night that presented us with the incredible dilema that faces us in Iraq. Let's examine this a little bit.

If there was one moment of Bush's speech last night that gave me any pause at all it was the prima facie rational point that there is grave danger to the United States if Iraq becomes another Afghanistan and, hence, a breeding ground for terrorit organizations which may, eventually, attack the United States. Granted, that's a bit of a stretch, but then again, we didn't believe a bunch of rag-tag extremists hiding in caves in Afghanistan could bring down the twin towers either. So we're left with a classic "what if" situation.

Now before I go further let's get a couple of things straight.

First, the reason Iraq is "cocked up" (as our British friends like to call it) is because George W. Bush and his merry band of Neocon zealots made an ugly hash out of it. Not only was it a bad idea to go into Iraq in the first place but it was also done so incompetently that nobody could have f-ed it up worse if they had tried.

Now Bush tells us that we can't pull out because we can't leave the place in such a mess....he's ignoring, of course that he made the mess in the first place....He's like the classic story of a child who murders his parents and then begs the court for mercy because he's an orphan! I do not absolve George W. Bush and his administration from any blame and I think Bush should leave office in disgrace and live in virtual exile in Crawford in a drunken stupor for the rest of his miserable days.

But that doesn't negate the "what if " scenario.

Can we leave Iraq as a mess? If not, how, exactly do we clean up the mess?

Sydney Blumenthal has a rather pessimistic view in Vanity Fair:

Maliki's management and subsequent defense of the
gruesome circus surrounding Saddam's execution disabused any illusion that he
could act in the larger Iraqi national interest rather than as a political
representative of Shiite sectarianism. He is to his marrow a creature of the
Dawa Party, founded by Muqtada al-Sadr's father, and his alliance with al-Sadr.
While the intent of the surge is to revitalize the Maliki government, that
government cannot and does not wish to be reformed. The problem is not merely
that Maliki is a weak political leader, or that his political coalition wouldn't
permit it, or that his Iranian sponsors wouldn't allow repudiation -- all of
which are indisputably true. The irreducible reason is that Maliki
exists only to achieve Shiite control, and if he did not he would not exist.
There is no other Maliki. Nor can Bush invent one.

Bush's "surge," therefore, is a military plan
that cannot produce its stated political outcome and will instead further
unleash the forces he claims will be controlled. His offensive to
subdue the Sunni insurgents, for example, is already accelerating the ethnic
cleansing of Baghdad by the Shiite militias, which, rather than being contained,
are further empowered.

Wow! So what is the solution?
(read the whole article at this link) By the by....this is the same article where it is reported that Bush privately referred to the ISG (Iraq Study Group) Report as "a flaming turd".

I offer a "modest proposal".

Write off Iraq to the Shiia militia, to Iran and deal with the aftermath and consequences. "Make nice" with the governments of Iran and Syria and offer them incentives (diplomatese for BRIBES)to keep the radicals from exporting their Jihad against the United States This requires diplomacy and I'm not sure the Bush administration is capable of it after six years of militarizing U. S. Foreign Policy and marginalizing the State Department but, hell, there isn't much let to do....it involves facing reality....which is also something the Bush Administration isn't too good at.

It doesn't look too promising that the administration will understand the reality of the situation. Here's what Secretary Rice had to say this morning:

Before her testimony at a congressional hearing, Rice defended Bush's new plan on morning television news shows. "The most important message is ... the enormous stakes we have in Iraq, that in fact we cannot afford to fail," she told CBS' "The Early Show."

"...we cannot afford to fail," We're still talking about Iraq like it was a football game.

What Bush's speech reminds me of..........

Poor Charlie Brown...he never learns............

Oh.........

wait a minute.........

Neither do we!!!

Some great writing...

I usually don't read Salon because I can't stand sitting through the commercials but when The Rude Pundit says I'd better go look....well....at least you suspect it's going to be worth the read.....As usual, I'll give the following caveat about "The Rude One"...if you can't tolerate profanity, don't click on the link.

Having now said what I don't like about Salon, I'll tell you what I DO like. It's some of the best writing on the web by some of the best intellectuals. (With the possible exception of Christopher Hitchens and his occassional guest rant.) Anyway today's feature is written by Gary Kamiya and is entitled Theatre of Blood. In this incredible article, we see Bush's war in the context of Theatre and just like live Theatre has always done, it holds up a mirror through which we see who we really are.

here are some snippets:

But overlooked in the disgust over the primitive, vengeful nature of Saddam's execution is the fact that Bush's entire Iraq war, like most wars, was ultimately an act of revenge. There is no such thing as a clean war: As Goya said in the title of one of his horrific etchings of war, "This always happens." When you set out to kill people, you cannot control what happens afterward; as in revenge tragedy, death inspires more death. Saddam's ugly end is no unfortunate anomaly, it is a hideous microcosm of the entire war -- one started by Bush, but supported by a large percentage of the American people, who were driven by the same primitive passions that led Muqtada al-Sadr's men to curse a man about to die. Before we throw stones at the Iraqis for their tribal vengefulness, we would do well to contemplate the degree to which we share it, and think again before we launch a vengeful war.

snip

America has always been obsessed with revenge. The angry god who holds sinners in his hands is a national archetype going back to Jonathan Edwards. Melville's Ahab wants to smite the White Whale out of vengeance. And the aggrieved hero who seeks vengeance continues to dominate our popular culture, from "Dirty Harry" to "Death Wish" to "Kill Bill." "Payback is a bitch" and "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" are our watchwords, only slightly checked by "Don't get mad, get even."

snip

But if revenge is a universal American obsession, its true home is on the political right. Fear, resentment and calls for revenge are closely related, and these qualities -- together with a belief that "real" Americans and "authentic" emotions and beliefs have been pushed aside by phony elites -- have long driven right-wing politics. The 1930s demagogue Father Coughlin, whose enormously popular broadcasts combined anti-capitalism, anti-Communism and anti-Semitism, utilized them; so did Joe McCarthy. The rise of the "Reagan Democrats," working-class and lower-middle-class whites whose racially tinged resentment of do-gooder social programs drove them to the right, reshaped America's entire political landscape.

Go ahead and click on the Salon link and click through the Mazda Advertisement....it's a long read but the kind that enriches the soul if not the intellect.

It's unusual fro me to make such a grandiose statement about an article and maybe even a bit pretentious but Kamiya says out loud some of the things that I have felt but have been too much of a coward to openly express ever since September 11, 2001. To see what I mean, examine this fragment from one of the above "snippets":

"-- together with a belief that "real" Americans and "authentic" emotions and beliefs have been pushed aside by phony elites -- have long driven right-wing politics."

Got that? In those awful days immediately following 9/11/01, anybody who didn't vow revenge for the destruction of the twin towers was not only unpatriotic, but also not a "real" or "authentic" American. Any thoughts I may have silently harbored about "capturing" the terrorists and "bringing them to justice (trial)" was quickly followed by a twinge of guilt that there must be something wrong with me because I wasn't among the "boot up the ass" crowd championed by Toby Keith . In a sense, I was cowed by the emotions stirred by the theatre of Bush standing with the bullhorn with a firefighter on the rubble of the World Trade Centers; by the theatre of Bush landing aboard an Aircraft Carrier to declare "Mission Accomplished". (see picture above) Almost, but not quite, all of us were cowed into it.

It's all been theatre.

It's all been smoke and mirrors to make us buy-in to his fantasy vision.

Kamiya compares Bush's "revenge drama to the Jacobian Revenge Tragedy and gives us a lesson in not only theatre history, but also in the evolution of human thought about evil, revenge, justice and war. I feel like I just received a Master's Degree in Ethics after reading this article which means only that I feel enriched by it.

If you want to talk about it, we can carry on a conversation in the comments section.....I'm looking forward to it...

I wonder.

An Invitation

A good friend just forwarded this invitation to me and I promised that I would share it with all of you. I'll reprint it as close to the original as possible:

WHO: YOU, the Residents of Planet Earth

WHAT: An Educational Forum * presenting the must-see documentary on global warming followed by a discussion led by Associate Professor Laura Le of UW Marshfield-Wood County. (Roger Ebert says, "YOU OWE IT TO YOURSELF TO SEE THIS FILM.")

WHERE: First Presbyterian Church, 200 South Linclon Ave, Marshfield, WI..(corner of Lincoln & Adler)

WHEN: FRIDAY, January 12, 2007 @ 7 P.M.

WHY: To learn about the compelling scientific evidence of global warming in an easy-to-follow format and to help us form an action plan for our won families and communities. WHAT CAN WE DO TODAY?

COST: This educational opportunity is free of charge. As always, FPC welcomes friends to join us in our environmental stewardship ministry.


* Our licensing agreement prohibits us from using the title of this recent documentary.

e's note: You should come to see this program even if it's INCONVENIENT!

So my "peculiar" title is...

Your Peculiar Aristocratic Title is:

Bishop Lord Edward the Sage of Melbury Bumpton

okay...it was supposed to be random....

but...somehow it's appropriate!

e

Blogger is back

There was a scheduled outage this morning so it was hard to get to blogger....it's all better now.....

Sooooooo...........

One of our submarines had a minor collision with a super-tanker in the Straits of Hormuz?

One of our AC-130 Gunships is blasting "suspected" Al Queda members in Somalia?

.....I'm getting a bit uneasy about what the speech tomorrow night will REALLY be about.......