But, Ignorance Is Bliss
As I warned Diane, I am a little time challenged right now. Visits from son at DFW, sister and brother-in-law who are RV'ing after he retired from Los Alamos, and a crunch at work are pulling more strings than I have. But am early up this a.m., and after reading and reacting to a WaPo editorial which ignores basic facts, read Diane's post about our quaint White Man's Burden view of the Middle East.
It was the ignorance, as we call in in the South, dominating their views that inspired this cabal in our White House to make unilateral war on Iraq, claiming it would be paid for out of their oil resources and they would be delighted [candy + flowers]. With a few Chalabis [reminiscent of the chorus of Greek drama - the chorus always being wrong] providing an uncorroborated pretence of intelligence, the idjuts sailed in as only the truly stupid can. They have made a complete disaster out of an unpleasant situation which earlier ignoramuses had created out of a primitive tribal loose confederation. If you want to get a pretty good idea of what we started out with, Lawrence of Arabia, even the movie, is recommended.
Well, didn't I go on. Now, to the WaPo editorial that just throws me over the edge:
'But if, as appears more likely, Iraq's civil war deepens and spreads, the United States should abandon attempts to pacify Baghdad or other areas with its own forces. It should adopt a strategy of supporting the Iraqi government and army in a long-term effort to win the war. The elements of such a strategy might include substantially upgrading the training, advising and support missions -- which have been woefully undersupported so far.'
What do we know about the Iraqi army? that it is thoroughly infiltrated by Shiite militias and other elements unfriendly to the US, and much of the training and equipping of it disappears with the forces - who tend to melt off into the general populace - as in recent reports that kidnappings and executions were allowed to happen before the army moved in to mop up.
[For examples go here and also here.]
So what is the WaPo advice to allow our military to provide cover to those Iraqi operations besides an admonition to participate in their civil war on the side of the forces that are hardly acting in a bipartisan fashion, and often as agents of one or the other independent militias. Is this as stupid as I think it is? That is a rhetorical question.
Looks like the idjuts at the helm are about ready to admit that 'Stay the Course' is failing even as a bumper sticker. While they try to mop up after themselves, it would be helpful if our media and commentators in general would look before they, too, leap into the quagmire made by completely wrong assumptions based on completely arrogant ignorance.
from Ruth
It was the ignorance, as we call in in the South, dominating their views that inspired this cabal in our White House to make unilateral war on Iraq, claiming it would be paid for out of their oil resources and they would be delighted [candy + flowers]. With a few Chalabis [reminiscent of the chorus of Greek drama - the chorus always being wrong] providing an uncorroborated pretence of intelligence, the idjuts sailed in as only the truly stupid can. They have made a complete disaster out of an unpleasant situation which earlier ignoramuses had created out of a primitive tribal loose confederation. If you want to get a pretty good idea of what we started out with, Lawrence of Arabia, even the movie, is recommended.
Well, didn't I go on. Now, to the WaPo editorial that just throws me over the edge:
'But if, as appears more likely, Iraq's civil war deepens and spreads, the United States should abandon attempts to pacify Baghdad or other areas with its own forces. It should adopt a strategy of supporting the Iraqi government and army in a long-term effort to win the war. The elements of such a strategy might include substantially upgrading the training, advising and support missions -- which have been woefully undersupported so far.'
What do we know about the Iraqi army? that it is thoroughly infiltrated by Shiite militias and other elements unfriendly to the US, and much of the training and equipping of it disappears with the forces - who tend to melt off into the general populace - as in recent reports that kidnappings and executions were allowed to happen before the army moved in to mop up.
[For examples go here and also here.]
So what is the WaPo advice to allow our military to provide cover to those Iraqi operations besides an admonition to participate in their civil war on the side of the forces that are hardly acting in a bipartisan fashion, and often as agents of one or the other independent militias. Is this as stupid as I think it is? That is a rhetorical question.
Looks like the idjuts at the helm are about ready to admit that 'Stay the Course' is failing even as a bumper sticker. While they try to mop up after themselves, it would be helpful if our media and commentators in general would look before they, too, leap into the quagmire made by completely wrong assumptions based on completely arrogant ignorance.
from Ruth
posted by Diane at 5:09 AM
3 Comments:
I love the clarity of your analysis, symptoms of a well-ordered mind.
No Candidate can afford to say it. But I can:
As far as the disorder in Iraq is concerned, If they want to have their uncivil free-for-all, let's freaking get out of their frigging way!
Thank you all very much. I'm just joining in with Diane here, and learning my way around blogging, so excuse that I don't use all the tools just yet. Appreciate your kind comments.
from Ruth
Post a Comment
<< Home