Like many of you, I’ve been trying to digest what I can from the oh-so-self-important recommendations from the Iraq Study Group, primarily that we start getting the hell out of Iraq (as noted in this Time article written by someone besides Mike Allen which is actually pretty good), and I’ve seen all manner of hand-wringing from the media crowd and other beltway insiders who will proclaim this work to be some courageous attempt at achieving a consensus, trying to find that mythical common ground, implying that there is some gray shading in a calamity that is hopelessly composed in extremes of black and white.But I would ask that we step back and take another look at this in the context of history.
I mean, did it take a Vietnam Study Group to lay out the case to Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon that that war was becoming “unwinnable” under any stretch of the imagination? Did it take a Korean War Study Group to explain to Harry Truman what his options were as it became clear that China was supporting North Korea and the 1952 presidential elections neared? Did it take a World War II Study Group to outline for Franklin D. Roosevelt what was needed to defeat the Axis powers first in Europe and then in the South Pacific?
What does it say about the inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that he requires a team of Beltway players to provide strategy for him in what quite possibly is the worst foreign policy misadventure this country has ever seen, one which he and his team initiated?
And on top of that, what else does it say that he will probably ignore those recommendations anyway?
Update: By the way, I meant to mention this earlier, but I came across a quote from an ISG member (unnamed) which, as far as I'm concerned, speaks volumes about the validity of their work (or lack thereof - appears at the bottom of this link)...
"What we have produced is a plan for December. We have no idea what things are going to look like in February."I think we know more than those assclowns do.
2 comments:
george definitely doesn't "require" a blue-ribbon to tell him what to do... the isg is entirely a rovian political gambit to provide george cover and to fool us into thinking he is actually open to advice... nothing could be further from the truth... the u.s. has 14 bases and a massive embassy complex a'building in iraq and the bush cabal ain't about to pull up stakes... they also don't care how many iraqis die in the process... u.s. troops will stay even if they have to barricade themselves inside their heavily fortified compounds and disengage entirely from the rest of the iraq disaster... they've got what they came for - a u.s. protectorate smack dab in the middle of the islamic world and the energy resources of iraq, the 'stans, and iran... trust me, we ain't leavin'...
I read a lot of the same things you do, and I know you’re right.
As I consider all of this, I wonder if this country truly grasps the monstrous evil of our government. I mean, of course our corporate media is going to cover Bushco every way possible (before going to bed last night, I channel-surfed to the Comcast channel and saw some hairdo named Lynn Doyle, a news person more or less, waxing indignant over the possibility that the incoming Democratic congress will constantly block Bush’s nominees to either judicial or other government positions, thus resurrecting the “Democrat Party as obstructionist” narrative before the 110th Congress is even sworn in), but I wonder if people really grasp this now or if they ever will.
I wonder if they will truly understand how pointless and ridiculous it is to think that Bushco will ever capitulate on anything or ever act in anything besides their own self interest. And I wonder if they will ever grasp that they don’t care about ANY international protocols or treaties or any kind of universally recognized principles of law.
I wonder if they truly comprehend this madness as we do (sorry to sound self-serving, but I don’t know how else to call it). And I will always wonder why the hell they don’t.
Thanks for the comment.
Post a Comment