ISG?
Spent some time reading last night. Just informing myself. I just clicked on whatever was up and read what they had to say. I was not selecting material, just browsing. As it turns out I did get articles containing a lot of quotes, so that became my acquaintance with the study. There was some analysis attached. I will say most of it was negative.
After perhaps an hour of such reading I had to take a break to do this duty and that and as I was puttering here to there I was wondering to myself: Is this a case of pure stupidity?
Now, it is common to respond to those who disagree with you with the sense that they are stupid. This is a feeling. Recognizing that it is a feeling and not an argument you then reread the offending disagreement and try to construct a counter. This document is stupid.
The core of the argument, if I understand it correctly, is that to "succeed" in Iraq, we have to "talk" to Iran and Syria. There is an acknowledgment (not explicitly stated in any of the quotes I read) that the destabilization is largely being caused or abetted by those two, therefore we must "talk" to them and they will help out and there will be stability because after all it is not in their interest that there be chaos in Iraq, it is in their interest that there be stability.
Again, if I understand correctly, this is the core of the document, that we can achieve stability if Iran and Syria help out, and of course they will because a stable Iraq is in their interest...?
How many times would it be necessary to repeat that argument to the point that it would not sound as a stupidity bordering on insanity? I don't think so many repetitions are possible within all the remaining days of the earth... because it is nuts! Iran and Syria have no interest in any stability which is not one controlled by their interests, and it decidedly is not in their interest that Iraq be a stable democracy. Thus what Baker and Hamilton et al. are saying --if they have any idea what they're saying-- is that the Iraq Study Group does not want a democracy in Iraq they want dictatorship. The Iraq study Group has just kissed off the deaths of all the men and women who have died there as a waste, not because we've failed, but it's because it's not something they want. These men and women have died attempting to form a democracy, Baker and Hamilton despise those deaths because they despise the mission. They do not want democracy in Iraq.
I do not consider Baker and Hamilton the kind of people fit for democracy anywhere. Certainly not to fight. They don't have the spirit. They're the profiteers of courage, having none themselves. These are contemptible people but such people exist. And this is America, we really can't shoot them. We can ignore them.
After perhaps an hour of such reading I had to take a break to do this duty and that and as I was puttering here to there I was wondering to myself: Is this a case of pure stupidity?
Now, it is common to respond to those who disagree with you with the sense that they are stupid. This is a feeling. Recognizing that it is a feeling and not an argument you then reread the offending disagreement and try to construct a counter. This document is stupid.
The core of the argument, if I understand it correctly, is that to "succeed" in Iraq, we have to "talk" to Iran and Syria. There is an acknowledgment (not explicitly stated in any of the quotes I read) that the destabilization is largely being caused or abetted by those two, therefore we must "talk" to them and they will help out and there will be stability because after all it is not in their interest that there be chaos in Iraq, it is in their interest that there be stability.
Again, if I understand correctly, this is the core of the document, that we can achieve stability if Iran and Syria help out, and of course they will because a stable Iraq is in their interest...?
How many times would it be necessary to repeat that argument to the point that it would not sound as a stupidity bordering on insanity? I don't think so many repetitions are possible within all the remaining days of the earth... because it is nuts! Iran and Syria have no interest in any stability which is not one controlled by their interests, and it decidedly is not in their interest that Iraq be a stable democracy. Thus what Baker and Hamilton et al. are saying --if they have any idea what they're saying-- is that the Iraq Study Group does not want a democracy in Iraq they want dictatorship. The Iraq study Group has just kissed off the deaths of all the men and women who have died there as a waste, not because we've failed, but it's because it's not something they want. These men and women have died attempting to form a democracy, Baker and Hamilton despise those deaths because they despise the mission. They do not want democracy in Iraq.
I do not consider Baker and Hamilton the kind of people fit for democracy anywhere. Certainly not to fight. They don't have the spirit. They're the profiteers of courage, having none themselves. These are contemptible people but such people exist. And this is America, we really can't shoot them. We can ignore them.
posted by mouse at 12:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home