Baghdad
So we're into our "surge." Can you tell how well it's going? Troops have had their tours extended. Most of the extra brigades are in place. And people are still getting killed at a rate that makes Charles Manson look like Charlie Brown. Victory must be just around the corner, right?
But don't think that this "surge" is in any way surge-y. A "surge" is:
1. a strong, wavelike, forward movement, rush, or sweep: the onward surge of an angry mob.
2. a strong, swelling, wavelike volume or body of something: a billowing surge of smoke.
This is not a "rush or sweep." Those forces are there to stay. They've planned to keep them there until at least 2008. And is there any question of the Junta pulling them out after that? Not if it's up to them.
So the "let's wait three months to see if it's working - it's just three months, for crying out loud" crowd is now up to "let's wait until September." Apparently, vacation season is going to cut into their surge evaluation time.
And what do you think we'll hear in September? Every major political blog has already written the script - the generals claiming some success but looking for more improvement, summing up that "it's working as well as we could expect." Except that we used to expect that our military leaders would tell us the truth. We used to expect that in a democracy we'd have all thin information that the government has.
Okay, stop laughing. We all know that the Junta only tell lies. What's really dangerous is that they've taught the military to lie:
The U.S. military commands that oversee Baghdad and Iraq as a whole have so far failed to meet requests to release current statistics on attack trends, with some U.S. officers voicing concern that the information would be skewed by critics to argue that the strategy is not working.
What could be more dangerous than a military that manipulates information? We've gone from the slow boat to hell to the fast cigarette boat to a Pakistani-type military dictatorship. We are already blessed with secret detention, unchecked surveillance, and lots of good old fashioned torture.
So why not put a general in charge? Our current Junta is led by a cabal of chickenhawks - why not put the real hawks in power? At least real hawks would be somewhat effective in making the trains run on time. When they do something, maybe it will get done. Like, when they buy hundreds of trailer homes for people in Louisiana, they won't park them in Arizona.
We could use a touch of efficiency. And sure, they'd control everyone's lives and throw dissenters in jail, but that's a small price to pay for a drop of efficiency, isn't it? I mean, compared to being ruled by the capricious whims of two-digit-IQ doorknobs like Georgie Bush and Karl Rove, we could get some dudes with combat experience. Hell, I'd settle for the guys who can build a bridge in an hour.
So Army: you go ahead and withhold those reports. We don't need them. And stay in Iraq as long as you like - it will "sharpen your sword" and train up a good cabal of battle-tested guys to come back and abolish the constitution.
Just do it before the Repubs - please!
But don't think that this "surge" is in any way surge-y. A "surge" is:
1. a strong, wavelike, forward movement, rush, or sweep: the onward surge of an angry mob.
2. a strong, swelling, wavelike volume or body of something: a billowing surge of smoke.
This is not a "rush or sweep." Those forces are there to stay. They've planned to keep them there until at least 2008. And is there any question of the Junta pulling them out after that? Not if it's up to them.
So the "let's wait three months to see if it's working - it's just three months, for crying out loud" crowd is now up to "let's wait until September." Apparently, vacation season is going to cut into their surge evaluation time.
And what do you think we'll hear in September? Every major political blog has already written the script - the generals claiming some success but looking for more improvement, summing up that "it's working as well as we could expect." Except that we used to expect that our military leaders would tell us the truth. We used to expect that in a democracy we'd have all thin information that the government has.
Okay, stop laughing. We all know that the Junta only tell lies. What's really dangerous is that they've taught the military to lie:
The U.S. military commands that oversee Baghdad and Iraq as a whole have so far failed to meet requests to release current statistics on attack trends, with some U.S. officers voicing concern that the information would be skewed by critics to argue that the strategy is not working.
What could be more dangerous than a military that manipulates information? We've gone from the slow boat to hell to the fast cigarette boat to a Pakistani-type military dictatorship. We are already blessed with secret detention, unchecked surveillance, and lots of good old fashioned torture.
So why not put a general in charge? Our current Junta is led by a cabal of chickenhawks - why not put the real hawks in power? At least real hawks would be somewhat effective in making the trains run on time. When they do something, maybe it will get done. Like, when they buy hundreds of trailer homes for people in Louisiana, they won't park them in Arizona.
We could use a touch of efficiency. And sure, they'd control everyone's lives and throw dissenters in jail, but that's a small price to pay for a drop of efficiency, isn't it? I mean, compared to being ruled by the capricious whims of two-digit-IQ doorknobs like Georgie Bush and Karl Rove, we could get some dudes with combat experience. Hell, I'd settle for the guys who can build a bridge in an hour.
So Army: you go ahead and withhold those reports. We don't need them. And stay in Iraq as long as you like - it will "sharpen your sword" and train up a good cabal of battle-tested guys to come back and abolish the constitution.
Just do it before the Repubs - please!
posted by fiduciary at 10:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home