McCain, Kissinger and Blair, but no Three Stooges jokes
From this weeks Harper's Weekly (Nov. 21, 2006):
Senator John McCain said that American troops in Iraq were "fighting and dying for a failed policy"; Henry Kissinger said that he didn't believe a military victory in Iraq is possible; ... Tony Blair told Al Jazeera that western intervention in Iraq had been "pretty much of a disaster,"
John McCain, by using the phrase "failed policy", obscures the evil of this "policy". It was a policy adopted over the objections of knowledgeable people, dictated by neocons who felt, logically, the being the sole remaining superpower, there would never be a better opportunity to grab the reins of history and fashion it to their liking: where all live under a freely-elected representative government and share in the wealth created by enlightened capitalism. Of course, such hubris makes one reel, but more tragically, the makers of this policy have no ear for the lessons of history. Their constant conceit is that, given a choice, anyone would choose the Western democratic tradition. This shows a glaring and utter lack of comprehension of the differences between Us and Them. To call those differences "cultural" even understates how fundamental those differences are. And by the way, wealth, like matter and energy, cannot be "created", only accumulated. To say that capitalists "create" wealth is wonderfully niave, childish, and essentially magical thinking. It also help maintain the fiction that the wealth are somehow different than the rest of us. They're not, but they may be luckier. The wealth is this country is primarily inherited.
Henry Kissinger is right, as right as anyone who can predict Xmas on the 25th of December. Where was he three years ago? Two cheers.
And when Blair calls the intervention a disaster (my recollection is that he merely agreed with someone who did call it a disaster; it's a small distinction perhaps, but an important one), he's just wrong. The war has (predictably) cascaded from a disaster to a catastrophe. While commentators dance around the obvious by calling it "sectarian violence", no one calls a spade a spade - it's a religious war that will continue to claim lives. I leave it to you to ponder what percentage of those who hear the phrase "sectarian violence" even know, let alone care, what "sectarian" means.
But the Right does sense this will be a very long haul, if one can judge from the preparations to lay the blame elsewhere. Obviously, whoever gets to withdraw will come in for the lion's share of the blame; it's the perfect fit. As in VietNam, the argument will be "If we'd only stayed in, we would've won. But we cut and run." It's handy because it can never be disproven. But other scapegoats are available, and already targeted; I have read that it's the fault of the press for biased reporting and the populace for believing it. All of the VietNam excuses are being deployed in a growing chorus of dissembling, and its success is directly related to the loss of American historical memory. The Left has a tenuous control of foreign policy now, but only by virtue of the brute force of the ballot box. If the Right gets another chance, we'll all go right back to the same "failed policy." The policy will change, but minds haven't.
Senator John McCain said that American troops in Iraq were "fighting and dying for a failed policy"; Henry Kissinger said that he didn't believe a military victory in Iraq is possible; ... Tony Blair told Al Jazeera that western intervention in Iraq had been "pretty much of a disaster,"
John McCain, by using the phrase "failed policy", obscures the evil of this "policy". It was a policy adopted over the objections of knowledgeable people, dictated by neocons who felt, logically, the being the sole remaining superpower, there would never be a better opportunity to grab the reins of history and fashion it to their liking: where all live under a freely-elected representative government and share in the wealth created by enlightened capitalism. Of course, such hubris makes one reel, but more tragically, the makers of this policy have no ear for the lessons of history. Their constant conceit is that, given a choice, anyone would choose the Western democratic tradition. This shows a glaring and utter lack of comprehension of the differences between Us and Them. To call those differences "cultural" even understates how fundamental those differences are. And by the way, wealth, like matter and energy, cannot be "created", only accumulated. To say that capitalists "create" wealth is wonderfully niave, childish, and essentially magical thinking. It also help maintain the fiction that the wealth are somehow different than the rest of us. They're not, but they may be luckier. The wealth is this country is primarily inherited.
Henry Kissinger is right, as right as anyone who can predict Xmas on the 25th of December. Where was he three years ago? Two cheers.
And when Blair calls the intervention a disaster (my recollection is that he merely agreed with someone who did call it a disaster; it's a small distinction perhaps, but an important one), he's just wrong. The war has (predictably) cascaded from a disaster to a catastrophe. While commentators dance around the obvious by calling it "sectarian violence", no one calls a spade a spade - it's a religious war that will continue to claim lives. I leave it to you to ponder what percentage of those who hear the phrase "sectarian violence" even know, let alone care, what "sectarian" means.
But the Right does sense this will be a very long haul, if one can judge from the preparations to lay the blame elsewhere. Obviously, whoever gets to withdraw will come in for the lion's share of the blame; it's the perfect fit. As in VietNam, the argument will be "If we'd only stayed in, we would've won. But we cut and run." It's handy because it can never be disproven. But other scapegoats are available, and already targeted; I have read that it's the fault of the press for biased reporting and the populace for believing it. All of the VietNam excuses are being deployed in a growing chorus of dissembling, and its success is directly related to the loss of American historical memory. The Left has a tenuous control of foreign policy now, but only by virtue of the brute force of the ballot box. If the Right gets another chance, we'll all go right back to the same "failed policy." The policy will change, but minds haven't.
posted by an atheist | 5:39 PM
|
0 comments
