The same old crowd

Dashiell

While the media continues to distract us with the interminable dog-and-pony show known as the “presidential election,” the likelihood of an attack on Iran continues to rise.

Polls show that about 60% of the American public think we should pursue talks with Iran. But, as Dick Cheney said in another context: “So?” The political classes and their media parrots apparently don’t fall within that 60%. Once again, and for the umpteenth time, we find ourselves in a position of watching helplessly while the elites prepare to sink us into further chaos and destruction.

The two main reasons—excuses, I should say—are Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its arming of militias in Iraq. Both are the products of exaggeration, distortion, and outright deception. There are many reasons why attacking Iran is a terrible idea. William R. Polk offered a good summary of them a few months ago. But there’s one very simple and elemental reason that generally goes unremarked in the mainstream media, although I am by no means the first to point it out in the blogosphere. And that is: that the same group of people who ran the Iraq War would be coordinating the attack on Iran.

In other words, even if you thought there was a possible rationale for attacking Iran—which I don’t think, but let’s just talk hypothetically—such an attack would be doomed to have disastrous results for us simply because it would be initiated by the Bush administration.

Call me old fashioned, but I think a record of failure should count for something when the people and organizations that have failed are proposing new projects. Especially something as important and hazardous as an act of war. Now, when I say a “record of failure,” I am aware that the phrase is too mild to completely describe the situation. In fact, the Bush administration has brought the art of failure to a level of perfection never before achieved in the annals of U.S. politics. In our decadent version of the ancient story of Midas, the Bush regime has managed to turn every single thing it touches into pure shit.

I challenge anyone to come up with one Bush policy or initiative that has not been a corrupt, despicable failure. There isn’t one. These people have been wrong on everything with breathtaking consistency. The invasion and occupation of Iraq, to cite only the most obvious example, has been a disaster of unimaginable proportions, a stinking cesspool of rapacity, callous destruction, and mass murder. Bush has destroyed that country, and we can not yet calculate the extent of the damage he’s done to his own. Naturally we notice the economic impact, although the media acts as if the war has nothing to do with the recession. Worse has been the impact on the men who were sent to Iraq, and the degradation of our own souls by being a party to these crimes against humanity.

So why should we ever again trust these people with a decision to go to war? Credibility is a finite quantity. To forget what has gone before, acting as if this Iran situation can be effectively managed by this group of politicians at this time, is insane. Nothing they say can be trusted—they lie every time they move their lips. When they carry out their intentions, the results have always been bad. They have long ago run out of chances to prove that they can be right about anything, or effective in carrying out the duties of government. The entire debate, if it can be called that, is invalid already because the people who are arguing for an attack are proven criminals.

This is a primary example, I may add, of why the Democrats failed the country so gravely in not pursuing impeachment. Even if conviction was unlikely, and even if impeachment would have hurt Democratic election chances (the usual excuse, which I dispute), it was the right thing to do because it would help tie this administration up in a survival for its political life instead of being given tacit permission to continue to act as if it were a legitimate government that can be trusted to take us to war.

Advertisements

~ by cdash on June 8, 2008.

6 Responses to “The same old crowd”

  1. dash

    never underestimate the stupidity of the american people – the ones that voted bush in a second time knowing how bad the first time was. the ones that give him a 25% approval rating but show 45% voting for McSame (yes the same) right now. the ones that live in fear of the big scary muslims and if the GOP has its way — will spend 4 months talking about big scary black men.

    watcht the country, led by the cheerleaders know as Russert, Keller, etc “rally” to bush’s side and BEG him to stay on if a) there is a terrorist attack on us soil or b) we attack iran. with no american idol to distract them, bombing iran can be the biggest thing on tv since Richard hatch paraded naked on an island. and if the hated yankees dont get into the world series — this can be the perfect october surprise

    it is amazing how many people just DO NOT care that bush has perfected the art of failure — and are STILL willing to give him the benefit of the doubt – especially when it comes to “national security”. how much security do we need with $12 tomatoes and $7000 airline tickets when we are all stuck at home becuase we cannot afford to eat or move.

    while the american people have failed miserably as a society for 8 years – the “protectors” (aka media) are worse. they cling to a notion that somehow all this is gonna get redeemed by Jan 21 and refuse to acknowledge how much we hate this man.

    also what will CNN MSNBC and Fox do if there is no horse race for four months? talk about issues – i dont think so. they will insure that mccain stay in the race.

    sadly bush will be in paraguay when this all collapses

  2. Dashiell, you’re absolutely right. Unfortunately, I have bad news for you. All the news sources I have gone to in the United States (with the exception of DCap’s blog) has said that the recent spike in oil prices in due to the job loss report in the United States and speculation on some comment about oil hitting $150 a barrel by July. Over here in Europe, there is another, more important reason being reported.

    Apparently, an Israeli minister said that bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities is “unavoidable”, thereby causing increased tensions in the Middle East and driving up oil prices. These comments were taken so seriously because our very own George W. Bush met with the Israeli Prime Minister this week.

    My source is Euronews, the English language news channel in Berlin. I’m quite certain they have a website if you would like to check this out for yourself.

    Keep up the good work.

  3. well in stock terms the PE ratio with Mccain is high for such, even higher if he selects Webb as his running mate.

  4. What’s a PE ratio? Webb is a Democrat and would never run with the pro-Iraq war McCain.

  5. Dash: I’m lazy. Here’s a response to one of my team who wrote something similar.

    Baton Rouge: It’s as appalling now, as it was then. No, it’s worse now. Because with everything that the media has SHOWN the American people despite the propaganda, the world futures price on the 2008 election merely gives the Democratic Party a 64% chance of winning the election, without a particularly dovish platform even. 36% chance for status quo in Iraq and Afghanistan (the wretched status quo YOU describe), and likely something similar in Iran, Northern South America, and probably Syria, Lebanon, anywhere really.

    The problem as you’ve so ably stated is that this is a very new model of warfare, to say the least. My impression from the tiny amount of military history I do know, is that if a national-state goes to war there is a clear goal, defensive or offensive, and it involves a best effort at victory, defined as, for the sake of ease, the enemy’s surrender.

    I also understood that it was a very complicated endeavor and required a tremendous degree of planning, preparation, training, technology and execution.

    Nuclar war would have been something else entirely but the threat is to be sure another factor in the conventional wars that have been fought since the invention of nuclear weapons.

    I’m a pacifist and a man interested in business and finance who is of the opinion that wars create instability which crates randomess and excess variance (I’m being clinical here on purpose) and quite contrary to the conventional wisdom, I believe peace is good for business and war is terrible.

    With that in mind, had the Bush Administration in 2002 presented the case for war in Iraq thusly: GLOBAL ECONOMIC CHANGES HAVE COST THE UHITED STATES DEARLY. THOUGH THE PRODUCTIVITY OF US LABOR IS AS GOOD OR BETTER THAN THAT OF ANY OTHER NATION, THAT SKILL HAS BECOME LESS AND LESS USEFUL TO THE NATION OVER TIME, AS OUR MANUFACTURING BASE IS NO LONGER THE KEY TO OUR ECONOMY. THE ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS, FINANCIAL SERVICES, OUR SERVICE SECTOR, TECHOLOGY AND BIO-TECH SECTORS ARE FOR BETTER OR WORSE OUR STRENGTHS. BECAUSE WE COULD BE SURPASSED IN ANY OF THOSE AREAS AT ANY TIME BY MANY NATIONS, WE ARE AT A RISK OF LOSING OUR POSITION OF GLOBAL DOMINANCE WHICH IN THE WAKE OF OUR VICTORY IN THE COLD WAR IS BITTER REALITY TO CONFRONT.

    WE HAVE CONFRONTED IT THOUGH, AND HAVE MADE A DIFFICULT CHOICE, ABOUT WHICH THERE WILL BE MUCH DEBATE. PERHAPS, THE ELEMENT OF OUR COUNTRY WHICH CAN NEVER BE SURPASSED IN QUALTITY OF PERSONNEL, TRAINING, LEADERHSHIP, SKILL AND TECHNOLOGY IS OUR MILITARY.

    TO THAT END, IT IS OUR DECISION TO CONTINUE THE ONGOING SURVIVAL AND SUCCESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY USING OUR BEST ASSET TO EXPAND TERRITORIALLY AND ACQUIRE THE VALUABLE NATURAL RESOURCES OF OTHER COUNTRIES. IF WE ARE LUCKY, WE WILL BE ABLE TO STOP WITH THE CONQUEST OF ONE OR TWO OF THE MIDDLE-EASTERN NATIONS OF OPEC. IT IS THE BELIEF OF THE FINEST MINDS AT THE DEDPARTMENT OF DEFENSE THAT THE FIRST AND BEST TARGET OF THIS POLICY IS IRAG.

    WE INTEND TO INVADE AND COLONIZE IRAQ WITH A FORCE OF 600,000 OF OUR TROOPS AND ALL OF THE BEST TECHNOLOGY WE HAVE.

    WE HOPE NO MORE VIOLENCE BE REQUIRED THAN THIS….”

    I would have gotten into the streets and protested. I would have left the US a little earlier. I would not have liked it in any way and would not have wanted the fruits of it in my kitchen.

    I would have understood it, though, from an historical perspective. It’s happened many times before in human history to be sure.

    I did not understand what has happened for a couple of years. Now, I do. It’s a different model of conventional warfare. It’s many wars meant to be lost or drawn so slowly that they are continuous. If there’s no dedication to military victory, it’s also a model that may be reapeated many, many times over, with each new war merely added to the ones already being “fought.”

    In some ways perhaps with all his absurd double-speak, former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was LAMENTING his superiors war plans when he spoke of going to war not with the military you want but with the military you have. Perhaps, what he would have wished to say was that that he as Defense Secretary was forced to participate in a war with a force far less than he would have wanted and the numbers were small BY DESIGN?

    There were rumors of a press conference he had been planning for the fall of 2006 which was to be an apologia of sorts and an explanation of the new war model teh United States has chosen. [One personal note: I am no supporter or fan of Donald Rumsfeld, but I know that he was rather peeved at the cheek of Senator Frist when the former majority leader asked Rumsfeld to include the UIGEA in the defense appropriations. Rumsfeld refused.}

    Israel or no Israel, I was never able to make the philosophical leap that Wolfowitz and Perle did. I always consdidered myself stateless and the idea of being part of a country based upon a military culture and an imperial foreign policy was/is/and will always be as odd to me as being a part of a country in which the practice of Saneteria or Voodoun was the prevailing pole star. And I am the son of US veteran. It is as foreign to my father as it is to me, however.

    I don’t mean any disrespect by it. I merely mean it is cuturally unnatural to me. I never owned an American flag and quite frankly their ubiquitous display always made me uncomfortable for cultural reasohns. I feel the same about most flags but in no other country that I’ve lived is the display so prominent and so culturally meaningful.

    I’m not a resident, soon I won’t be a citizen. I often wonder beyond the rhetoric and rancor if the Americans who do love that flag so much and seem more comfortable with war than I am, like the idea that their flag now represents a policy of continuous and endless military defeat.

    Anybody who gives this a moments thought must realize that the USA without nuclear weapons does not have the resources to take over the Middle East, North Korea and South America. They seem to have their hands full using the current model anyway with Iraq. With Afghaistan.

    I’ve put it in hyperblic terms before, but given the new model of US conventional warfare, defeating the Colombian center and left strongholds in cities as large as Bagdad would be no easy task. To conquer Venezuela would be impossible. And I don’t mean that as a “criticism of the troops” or any nonesense like that.

    The new model may work poltically for a little while. Perhaps, it will be enough to defeat Barack Obama and maybe enough to defeat Feingold or Wyden or Sibelius or whoever is the Democratic nominee in 2012.

    It believe it will end with the partitioning of the United States Of America at some point in the not terribly distant future.

  6. One tiny and I mean tiny spark of hope is that Rumsfeld is gone and I really don’t think Gates is as bad as he was. That being said, I hope to hell they don’t do this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: