Stop the Surge
Again, the White House controls the language, and thus, they control the debate. From the people who brought us "Shock and Awe" and "Turning the Corner" we now have a new word to replace the phrases, "send more troops," "risk more lives," and "make more war."
Surge is what we say now. But what should really concern us is just how quickly and easily this new name, this new term for going against the will of the American people, has come to such pervasive use in the media.
PS - Stay tuned for "sacrifice," but Keith Olberman pretty handily puts that one to bed with this excellent little rant:
2 comments:
jeez. somebody must have starched keith's boxer shorts. he's spitting mad. i can't remember the last time i heard a tv journalist advance such a cogent argument with such emotional power. of course you have your fruitcakes, like bill o'reilly, who are always evincing their invariant personal melange of disgust, disdain, and peevishness, but they always sounds like somebody sending back an entree at a fancy restaurant, not a thoughtful person engaging in a dialectical exhortation.
President Bush wants victory in Iraq, that much is clear. He never stops saying it. What he might mean by it is a bit murkier.
We have be warned what would happen if we don't achieve victory. Our enemies will be emboldened and Iraq will become a training ground for terrorists.
I hate the fact that I can regurgitate the talking points so easily. But, what can I do? They still have "The Architect" working for them.
Now, when insurgents "change their tactics every month" and constantly tinker to create deadlier and deadlier IEDs, and by now that should stand for "improved explosive device", doesn't it suggest that there is some serious training going on? And when death squads ethnically cleanse mixed neighborhoods with impunity, isn't that, in the most despicable sense of the word, "bold?"
So, if everything that Bush warns about has already come to pass, what is the point of doing more of the same? The "surge" is a losing strategy.
He should give a speech saying "we have laid the foundation for democracy in Iraq. Now it is up to Iraqis to finish the job." He needs to stick with his pre-election strategy of denial, declare victory and pull out.
Nobody knows how much chaos will ensue. But it's absolutely certain that Americans are an occupying force, and much reviled around the world for it. They will always be in the crosshairs, and never hailed as a benevolent force for freedom in Iraq.
The country is headed toward partitioning. Turkey won't accept an autonomous Kurdistan, so it will probably be some kind of Federal Republic, with strict delineation of Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurds. Bush's father could see it. He didn't want to get into this kind of mess, so he kept stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf from marching on Baghdad at the end of the 1st Gulf War.
What a disaster. And now the al Maliki gov't has managed to do the impossible and make Saddam Hussein look respectable on the gallows.
Can it get any worse?
Post a Comment