Viewing the Iraq War with Red State Spex!
First off, I have to give props to Bill McDonald over at Portland Freelancer for scooping Karl Rove's memo to Reinhard explaining Dave's latest column defending the Iraq War three years later. It explains, in detail, the mechanics of a Republican-apologist columnist. Kudos.
Secondly, is it just me or did Dave, in this column, reveal himself to be a Tom Tomorrow-like caricature, viewing the current situation in Iraq with Red State Spex? I mean, seriously, Dave uses 732 words to come to a conclusion that we all ready knew: he supports this war. (No shit!)
Ultimately, the most disgusting aspect of Dave's column is the ending, in which he describes the Iraq war as being "noble and winnable." With this choice of words, Dave betrays himself as being unfamiliar with war. Wars are never noble. Necessary, perhaps. Unavoidable, sure. But never "noble." Especially not a war that was rushed into on faulty information (or lies, if you will) with little public debate. Not a war that was used for political gain by Republicans, at the expense of over 2,300 lives of our bravest troops. If there was ever a definition of a "noble" war, this current debacle in Iraq is far from it.
What's also ridiculous is Dave's contention that the events in Iraq aren't a "true civil war." As Terry Crawford points out in a letter in Monday's Oregonian, a definition of "civil war" is: "1. A war between factions or regions of the same country, 2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization . " That is present-day Iraq in a nutshell. Perhaps Dave doesn't think this is a "true civil war" because it doesn't compare to the American Civil War, fought 140 years ago. However, as the Bush administration has repeatedly compared the 'global war on terror' (which, in their arguments, Iraq is the main battlefield of) to the Civil War and World War II, it appears Dave is on the opposites of the administration in that regard.
As I write this, the main headline on Yahoo! News is "Insurgents storm jail, 28 killed." Each day this past week, Yahoo! News has reported an average of at least 30 Iraqis being killed. Some at the hands of insurgents, some at the hands of secterian-aligned militias, and others at the hands of U.S. troops. (Perhaps the worst result of this botched experiment in 'exporting democracy' is that the pain and suffering currently happening in Iraq isn't the fault of Saddam Hussein, but rather is the fault of the U.S.'s presence there.) One must truly be blinded by ideology not to come to the conclusion that such a high daily number of fatalities represents a symptom of civil war.
Of course, Dave would have an easy answer in regards to this fact: the 'underreporting' of positive stories by the media. For example, he cites Ralph Peters, who wrote a column at RealClearPolitics.com and voices the opinion that the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra ushered in the birth of the Iraqi army. "They defused budding confrontations and calmed the situation without killing a single civilian," Peters wrote. "And Iraqis were proud to have their own army protecting them. The Iraqi army's morale soared as a result of its success." Funny, Peters seems to be the only one who states this opinion, as for nearly every other account of events after the mosque bombing indicated the inability of the Iraqi army to intercede in the murderous secterian rampages throughout the country, bequeathing poer to religious militias. Indeed, the army stood idly by as Iraqis, from different factions in the same country, slaughtered each other in the street. But remember- this isn't a "true civil war."
But what do I know? I'm not in Iraq. I write this in Portland, thousands of miles from these events. Besides Peters, who Dave points out 'has been there', notorious liar Victor Davis Hanson is also cited- again he 'has been there.' Perhaps I should heed the opinions of these two men, as they provide a perspective that I can't share? Or perhaps I could take the word of former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who on the same day that Reinhard's column was printed, was quoted by the BBC as saying: "It is unfortunate that we are in a civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knws what civil war is."
Poor Dave. Talk about bad timing. His column was obviously timed to coincide with 10,000 anti-war demonstrators marching through the streets of Portland. But along comes Allawi to discredit his rhetoric.
In the end, I am a staunch supporter of a free and democratic Iraq. Heck, if the entire world was free and democratic, you'd find no complaints from me. But I am also a staunch supporter of competency, strategy, and a realistic plan to accomplish possible goals. Using the lives of American soldiers for political gain and making statements that they'd be greeted with "flowers and sweets" smacked with just as much of disingenuosness three years ago as Dave's tired rhetoric does today.
Secondly, is it just me or did Dave, in this column, reveal himself to be a Tom Tomorrow-like caricature, viewing the current situation in Iraq with Red State Spex? I mean, seriously, Dave uses 732 words to come to a conclusion that we all ready knew: he supports this war. (No shit!)
Ultimately, the most disgusting aspect of Dave's column is the ending, in which he describes the Iraq war as being "noble and winnable." With this choice of words, Dave betrays himself as being unfamiliar with war. Wars are never noble. Necessary, perhaps. Unavoidable, sure. But never "noble." Especially not a war that was rushed into on faulty information (or lies, if you will) with little public debate. Not a war that was used for political gain by Republicans, at the expense of over 2,300 lives of our bravest troops. If there was ever a definition of a "noble" war, this current debacle in Iraq is far from it.
What's also ridiculous is Dave's contention that the events in Iraq aren't a "true civil war." As Terry Crawford points out in a letter in Monday's Oregonian, a definition of "civil war" is: "1. A war between factions or regions of the same country, 2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization . " That is present-day Iraq in a nutshell. Perhaps Dave doesn't think this is a "true civil war" because it doesn't compare to the American Civil War, fought 140 years ago. However, as the Bush administration has repeatedly compared the 'global war on terror' (which, in their arguments, Iraq is the main battlefield of) to the Civil War and World War II, it appears Dave is on the opposites of the administration in that regard.
As I write this, the main headline on Yahoo! News is "Insurgents storm jail, 28 killed." Each day this past week, Yahoo! News has reported an average of at least 30 Iraqis being killed. Some at the hands of insurgents, some at the hands of secterian-aligned militias, and others at the hands of U.S. troops. (Perhaps the worst result of this botched experiment in 'exporting democracy' is that the pain and suffering currently happening in Iraq isn't the fault of Saddam Hussein, but rather is the fault of the U.S.'s presence there.) One must truly be blinded by ideology not to come to the conclusion that such a high daily number of fatalities represents a symptom of civil war.
Of course, Dave would have an easy answer in regards to this fact: the 'underreporting' of positive stories by the media. For example, he cites Ralph Peters, who wrote a column at RealClearPolitics.com and voices the opinion that the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra ushered in the birth of the Iraqi army. "They defused budding confrontations and calmed the situation without killing a single civilian," Peters wrote. "And Iraqis were proud to have their own army protecting them. The Iraqi army's morale soared as a result of its success." Funny, Peters seems to be the only one who states this opinion, as for nearly every other account of events after the mosque bombing indicated the inability of the Iraqi army to intercede in the murderous secterian rampages throughout the country, bequeathing poer to religious militias. Indeed, the army stood idly by as Iraqis, from different factions in the same country, slaughtered each other in the street. But remember- this isn't a "true civil war."
But what do I know? I'm not in Iraq. I write this in Portland, thousands of miles from these events. Besides Peters, who Dave points out 'has been there', notorious liar Victor Davis Hanson is also cited- again he 'has been there.' Perhaps I should heed the opinions of these two men, as they provide a perspective that I can't share? Or perhaps I could take the word of former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who on the same day that Reinhard's column was printed, was quoted by the BBC as saying: "It is unfortunate that we are in a civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knws what civil war is."
Poor Dave. Talk about bad timing. His column was obviously timed to coincide with 10,000 anti-war demonstrators marching through the streets of Portland. But along comes Allawi to discredit his rhetoric.
In the end, I am a staunch supporter of a free and democratic Iraq. Heck, if the entire world was free and democratic, you'd find no complaints from me. But I am also a staunch supporter of competency, strategy, and a realistic plan to accomplish possible goals. Using the lives of American soldiers for political gain and making statements that they'd be greeted with "flowers and sweets" smacked with just as much of disingenuosness three years ago as Dave's tired rhetoric does today.
posted by true_slicky at 4:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home