Dissolve into Evergreens
With The Sound Turned Off
On The News
The Official Octavarium Countdown
Unless The Bridge Falls
Oh Yeah, The Race Riots
The Flaming Lips
The New Radicals
Death Cab for Cutie
Badly Drawn Boy
Coheed and Cambria
Atom Site Feed
Easy Part: Using our vastly superior military, outfitted with the latest and greatest in technology to defeat the small and under-equipped military of a small Middle Eastern country.
Hard Part: Stabilizing that country after the invasion and preventing everything from melting down into chaos.
(The conversation leading up to the conflict, in spirit.)
Pro-Invasion: "We can defeat them!"
Anti-Invasion: "Sure, but should we, and what do we do after that?"
Pro: "Who cares, they attacked us, we should smack 'em around a bit!"
Anti: "But it wasn't Iraqis that attacked us."
Pro: "Eh, they're all the same over there, brown and Muslim. Saddam's a brutal tyrant that needs to be taught a lesson!"
Anti: "We need to get more support or we'll be bogged down there for years."
Pro: "No we won't!"
Its amazing how a columnist will use a phrase like "Put more boots on the ground" rather than "Send more kids off to get injured or die."
I love the language we avoid. So much gets reintepreted once you start using phrases like "War on Terror" instead of "The invasion and occupation of Iraq". Phrases like "War on Terror" are ridiculous and shouldn't be taken seriously. They serve no other purpose than to mislead, and anyone that puts forth such deceptive language does so to hide their motives and intent. Terror is an emotion. We can have a strategy to prevent "terrorism", which is a tactic, but we can't fight a war against terrorism, and you can't fight a war to defeat "terror". The very idea is absurd.
But, politicians do love the word "war".
So, right now we are in the midst of trying to accomplish the hard part in Iraq, which we denied would even be a problem. Its a bit like jumping out of an airplane and planning for the landing on the way down, convinced that the problem would just magically solve itself. But there weren't any rose petals to cushion our landing.
So now we fight "insurgents", people who feel so strongly about our invasion that they wish to kill our soldiers. In the new version of the story, killing them will defeat "terror". Merely suggesting that some of these people might have a legitimate beef is considered beyond the pale. After all, "September 11th". "Changed everything".
Oddly enough, the very same people that argued that this very thing (long term occupation and chaos in Iraq) would not happen, are now trying to deflect the blame onto the media. The fact that we had no plans to deal with the hard part following the invasion is irrelavant because pointing this fact out is the real cause for "our defeat".
Draft Young Republicans!
Comments: Post a Comment
Dissolve into Evergreens