Thoughtful Quote

” Six years ago, immediately after the 9/11 attacks, would we have imagined that an open-ended anti-insurgent presence in a country that didn’t attack us would be the proper response?”
—James Fallows

Wolfowitz: Architect of Delusion

Paul Wolfowitz, the embattled leader of the World Bank, is one of the main idiots behind our Iraqi Blunder. He persistently has reversed cause and effect. Radical lunatic idiots like him should be removed from any place of power.

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1422387520070414

Enlightening Exchanges

I have had a most enlightening exchange. It has been suggested to me by someone whose opinion I value, that I tend toward rhetorical overreach, and am use language inexactly. I thought about it for several days, and tend to find merit in that notion. Though I think some of that comes from the assumptions we all make about what is generally known or accepted by others.

In any case I think we would all benefit by common usage of words and terms. Politicians have become past masters at manipulating language, and as Orwell suggested we cannot let them have control over the language, because with that, thought follows.

If we could agree on terms, words, and meanings then we could all spend more time discussing an idea, less time arguing past each other.

I am not sure how we could do this. Are there any suggestions?

The Surge: A Gamble with No Prospect of Success

The “surge” will apparently take place; I’d like to go on record as saying that: not only will this fail too; it will give the impression of being our maximum effort, which till the surge would have been a question mark for many. This further failure will embolden the Iraqi partisans/guerrillas.  But will it topple a criminally incompetent,
America betraying, chief executive?  

The military have a “can do” attitude; it colors their judgment.  They will try their utmost, though they cannot succeed.  The military has been betrayed by the President and his regime. 

The U.S. went into
Iraq with no plan, just hopes and dreams.  It would have taken about 60,000 troops, Armor, Mech., and Air Cavalry to overthrow Saddam. It would have taken about 400,000 troops of all kinds to overthrow Saddam, secure the country, and create a provisional government: if the Iraqi’s supported us and
Kurdistan was allowed to break away.  It will take 2.5 million troops of all kinds, plus civilian/paramilitary officials to secure
Iraq now against the will of the Iraqi’s.  And then
Iraq will only be secure while we have 2.5 million troops there. It will revert to type, as soon as we leave. There is no true model of permanent success: some ideas are just plain bad. 

We need a new government.

Saddam and the Hooligans

I have seen the footage of Saddam’s execution; I can only shake my head in disbelief. The guards were not uniformed, and showed no gravitas or military bearing. They seemed like sectarian thugs for one of
Iraq’s political factions, undisciplined and unqualified for the task.  

Saddam went to his death with dignity and courage, and presence: dressing down his executioners for the shambolic train wreck they made of an historic event. In his last moments, Saddam’s impeccable behavior made him finally human and sympathetic, simply a man facing death with grace; not the tyrant and mass murderer we know him to have been. Of all the scenarios of Saddam’s demise that have been bandied about for lo these 14 years, none of them included Saddam as a sympathetic figure.  

How could they screw this up? How in fact is it possible for the Bush Administrations to always be wrong, and fuck up all and sundry? Statistical probability should allow them some successes: it is really quite extraordinary.  

We need a new government.