Embolden - Nation
Ok. That's it. This has gone beyond stupid. There are two ideas that continue to be in play, and they both have to be put to rest. They are two sides of the same disingenuous rhetorical coin. One is that {some action} is
emboldening the enemy. The other is that {some other action} is hurting the morale of our troops. Now, for those of you with critical thinking skills, you can see that this is
Prima Facie nonsense. For the rest of you, I'll try to help.
First, let's consider "the enemy". There are a number of different forces arrayed against the American military in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have various, if similar, reasons for fighting us, some quite obvious and reasonable, others less so. But I think it's reasonable and honest to conclude that they have decided to engage in combat with American troops without any consultation with the western media. It's very important to remind ourselves that it was us who invaded their country, killed their soldiers, fought our way to the capital and deposed their leadership, and stayed on as a military occupation force. In that capacity, we have killed and detained thousands of their people, some for good reason, others for no reason, and destroyed homes and workplaces all over the country. It is utterly blind to believe that our very presence in those countries does not inflame the insurgents every day. To believe for even a second that something said in an American newspaper or in a political debate will somehow cause people to suddenly decide "hey, I think I ought to start fighting these people" is crazy. Simply put, it is not our debate that causes them to hate our government and fight our military, it is the behavior of our government and the actions of our military.
As to the debate hurting the American troops, that's even more farfetched. These are professional, disciplined soldiers and marines. They are there, at least in part, because of a sense of duty instilled in them by their training. But let's be honest. Very few of them WANT to be there. They'd like to be home, with their families and loved ones, going to school, working, raising kids and dogs, maybe having a beer or bowling on weekends. Anyone who takes the position that we need to bring them home is not going to cause them unhappiness or melancholy, whether they agree with the politics of it or not.
In combat, you don't fight for god, country, ideals or ideology. You just don't. Once the blood starts to spill and the rounds are incoming, you fight for your own survival, and for the guys around you. You are not an American, not a nation, not a political doctrine. You are a platoon, a squad, a fire team. You fight and move and dig and shoot and call for support for the people you know, and the people you have lost. Later, when the guns are silent, you might discuss the politics of the situation, and there will be soldiers on every side. But understand this: Even for the men and women on the firing line, the reason we are fighting and the goals we hope to accomplish are obscure concepts, not in any way related to the day-to-day reality of life in a combat zone.
And there is so much that CAN affect the troops morale in the field. Second, third, even fourth deployments are toxic to morale. That's when you start impacting personal lives, breaking marriages and causing depression and suicide. But nobody questions the wisdom of that. Coupled with the stop-loss programs, the urban combat, the deaths by IED rather than by real combat, and you are creating an entire lost generation of troubled, damaged, depressed, lost souls. Souls who know that quality health care will not be available to them, that they will have reduced prospects once they come home. And who even raises the issue?
Down this Dark Path We Travel, and What is our Destination?
From Evangelical Christians to Kabala to Catholics to activist Jews, every year the American population goes a little bit further towards a worldview and philosophy defined by mysticism and mythology. This has no good consequences, but let's follow it to it's logical conclusion and see where we end up. First, we need to recognize the processes at work. Theocratic extremists tend to have certain tendencies in common. First, they are not, by and large, a "live and let live" type of people. They believe in the utter necessity of living a life defined and constrained by their religious dogma of choice, and cannot accept a world where other people may allow their lives to be defined by a different set of beliefs. Especially if that different belief set is more liberal, they will conflate theocratic dogma with democratic legislation in order to compel even non-believers to live as if they were believers, or suffer punishment and torment. Which leads to the second common tendency, the belief that their church hierarchy has a major role to play in their governance. The so-called "separation of church and state" is anathema to them, for without the power to enforce by staute or decree that which they volutarily believe, they have no power to compel their community to behave in specific fashions and they have no power to enforce those behaviors.
So, at least to this observer, we are becoming a theocratic society dominated by a single mystical worldview and increasingly governed by an autocratic and authoritarian leadership whose basic pricipals are based upon an ancient text they believe to be the inerrant word of god. Now if you accept that our current societal drift is in that direction, what is the endpoint? Or to put it another way, if the people are successful in creating this radical theocratic fascist state, what will it look like?
There's an old expression that says we always become that which we hate. Go back and read the above paragraph again, but this time, instead of envisioning a Christianist American State, think about an islamic state. Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iran, the kind of Shari'a law the American Warmonger Right is always shouting about.
Yep. The very people shouting the loudest for killing, imprisoning and otherwise denying rights to muslims are themselves very similar in all but choice of book, and the name of the deity. What they are trying to build here in America resembles in every way a radical Islamist society. From clerical intervention in education, defining curiculum, banning books and vetting teachers, to defining mores of dress, music and entertainment and interpersonal relationships, to intervention in individual medical decisions to squelching scientific inquiry when it conflicts with religious dogma, there is litterally no difference between the vision for society held by James Dobson and the one held by Mullah Omar.
The screeching hypocricy in all this is the tendency of the American religious right to call those of us on the cultural left traitors in the war on terrorism. I have actually been accused of wanting the terrorists to win so they could establish a Caliphate under Shari'a law here on our shores. The speechless, sputtering irony is that in that Caliphate I would be among the first put to the sword, while the individual who accused me of these traitorous acts was, at worst, a fellow traveler and more likely an active collaberator.
...I do not think it means what you think it does
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the neocon lunatic fringe and the cheetoh-stained cheering section all keep using the term "Victory" to describe the desired outcome in Iraq. I don't get it. By mid-summer 2003, you had your victory. The nation was conquered, the Hussein regime deposed, the army disbanded, the Baathists scattered. What else could you expect your military forces to do? Bush himself, in the runup to his presidential campaign decried "nation building" as an unrealistic goal, impossible to accomplish with military forces.
So we stayed, and we stayed, and now we have all the different albeit intertwined conflicts swirling around us in Iraq and in the Gulf region. And yet, still they speak of victory. Victory over what, I ask? Is this like the mindless sloganeering represented by "the war on terror"? You cannot defeat a tactic. A methodology is always available to those who would choose to use it. Victory over the insurgency? As we've learned so painfully, time and again since Vietnam, a regular army force with soldiers and tanks and artillery and air power cannot defeat an insurgency with local support. There is no army to fight, no pitched battles to win, no ground to take and hold. The insurgents are the people in the cities, towns and villiages. By day they sell you CDs. By night they plant IEDs, assasinate collaberators, fire mortars. The more you fight them, the more they do not lose, and more they don't lose, the closer they are to winning. You must eventually bring your army home - they have nowhere else to go.
Looked at in another way, in order to have a "victory", you have to defeat something. Who or what is it we're going to defeat in Iraq? What force is holding us there, fighting us for supremacy? Shiites fight Sunnis. Shiites fight each other. Tribes engage in combat over historical slights or for economic advantage. Criminal gangs fight to protect their concessions. Can you defeat religious strife? Or how about tribal hatred? Can you blow that off the face of the earth? Criminals! Surely you can defeat them. Err, no, there have always been criminals, and in the midst of chaos, in a place awash with cash and weapons, criminals may well be on the ascendency. Are you going to defeat "the terrorists"? That's beyond stupid. Terrorists are nothing more than political activists sociopathic or ideological enough to murder to advance their cause. They are not a population, a community, a constituency that can be identified or isolated. And as such, they cannot be "defeated".
It seems to me that if you cannot define clearly who or what you are going to defeat, you cannot aspire to "victory". Victory is not a marketing buzzword. It is an indisputable condition. And it is clearly not available to the US in Iraq. It is time for our leadership to stop hiding behind the hackneyed term victory and start embracing an exit strategy.
I Like this Guy
Some among the audience of Dubai-based diplomats and analysts complained that American wars in the Middle East were already threatening the region's stability and asked Burns to sort out Iraq and the
Israel-Palestinian conflict before turning attention to Iran.
"What we are not interested in is another war in the region," Mohammed al-Naqbi, who heads the Gulf Negotiations Center, told Burns. "Iraq is your problem, not the problem of the Arabs. You destroyed a country that had institutions. You handed that country to Iran. Now you are crying to Europe and the Arabs to help you out of this mess."
Not enough people are willing to stand up to the US and tell the truth. Considering the harm we have done starting wars willy-nilly in that region, it continues to amaze me that more middle eastern government officials have not taken the bush/cheney cabal to task. They have to be outraged. It's not like their region didn't have any problems to begin with. But then to have a white christian military power with a bad attitude travel eight thousand miles to start not just one, but TWO wars in your neighborhood has got to be a source of irritation. And now, with two countries ruined, two bloody conflicts raging, the United States of ADD is working up it's mojo to attack yet a third sovereign nation.
And yet, while less enthusiastic then they were a few years ago, the leadership of most countries in the area seem oddly reluctant to question America's destructive behavior. Mubarak, Abdullah, al Sabah, they all seem to be unwilling to call attention to the real disaster that has befallen their region as a direct result of American military intervention. Sure, they have a historical reason to hate and fear the Persians, but Iran would not be in a position to dominate the discussion if they had not been the direct beneficiary of the American Iraq debacle.
Between an increasingly militarized, nuclear armed Israel and an America that can only be seen as a heavily armed lunatic, to continue to ally themselves with the west to the exclusion of what must be described as better global citizens seems to me not to be in their best interest.
Who's in Charge Here, Anyway?
I'm
completly confused by this relatively new two-tier world that America seems hell bent to enforce. We can have nuclear weapons but Iran cannot. We can violate the
NPT but Iran cannot. Israel and India can, but North Korea is a "rogue state" if they do. We tested an anti-satellite missile twenty years ago, but China must not be allowed to do so now. For the life of me, I don't understand how our government thinks that they can do
litterally anything if they deem it to be in our national interest, but other nations will not be allowed pursue
intiatives they deem to be in their interests. Unless they are nations we approve of.
All the hollering about nuclear R&D programs have shown up this
blatent hypocricy over the last couple years, but the Chinese test of an anti-satellite missile has truly clarified the situation. Now look. The militarization of space is a bad thing. Space, if you will, has a "special relationship" to the surface of the planet. It is the ultimate "high ground" from which a small nation might exert undue dominance on all the others. But it is undeniable that the US has been leading the charge to the militarization of space, over the repeated concerns of the rest of the world. A few years ago the world came together to ban the development, testing and deployment of space-based weapons, and to make space equally available to all. 160 nations voted for the treaty. Only the US refused, and has continued to develop a number of space weapons. And this is odd, for the United States has a great deal more assets at risk from anti-satellite weapons. The simple, obvious answer is to support banning these types of weapons - it is in America's interest much more than a new arms race.
But think about it. With America not only making
bellicose statements and rattling sabers, but actually invading sovereign nations without compunction, what is the responsible course for the leadership of China? Should they sit passively, trusting that the US will act benignly towards them? I wouldn't. As long as the US proclaims itself to be China's adversary, the Chinese leadership has no choice but to continue to develop a credible deterrent. With our government, that seems to be the only voice they listen to.
Careful what you Wish For
I didn't watch the Bush speech last night. I never watch him speak. I can't. I find it utterly unbearable. But I always read the transcripts. I want to know what he's saying, I just can't listen to him lie.
Upon reading the transcripts of last night's speech, I was struck by two things. And no, the escalation of troop strength (the "surge") wasn't one of them. It certainly wasn't a surprise, and along with everyone else in the world, I've already weighed in on that. No, the surprise wasn't the escalation. It was the expansion. Bush made it clear last night that it was his goal to expand the war, not end it. So he went well beyond saber rattling, and made it clear that we will soon be in a much hotter, higher level conflict than we have become used to.
First, Bush went out of his way to explicitly threaten Iran. He made a point to say that we will attack them when we can find them in Iraq. And, of course, if they are providing "safe havens" for Shiite insurgents or death squads across the border, we will cross the border to kill them. Never mind that the Shi'a have been our ostensible allies in Iraq since 2004, and it is extremely unlikely that they are supporting the Sunni/NeoBaathist insurgency. Bush wants a war with Iran, and this is going to provide the excuse. It will be the "WMD" for this war, so to speak.
Then, coupled with statements made by Maliki, it has become clear that the truce is over, America is going to start a shooting war with the Mahdi Army. Now, in addition to many smaller players, there are two major Shi'a militias in Iraq. The Mahdi Army, loyal to Muqtada al Sadr, is a very strong nationalist social movement. They favor a strong, unified Iraq, are practically the only Shiites in the Maliki government calling for the Americans to end the occupation and are not particularly friendly with Iran despite their close affiliation with the Dawa party. Then there's the Badr Bridgades, the armed militia loyal to Abdul Aziz al Hakim's SCIRI, very friendly with Iran and closely supported by Tehran. Both militias have effectively infiltrated local government, police, Interior Ministry commandos, government ministries and both hold multiple cabinet posts. Both militias are operating death squads and kidnap/assasination teams against both Sunnis and each other. But one (Mahdi) has continually resisted American occupation and called for the Americans to leave Iraq, while the other (Badr) has happily allowed the Americans to do their fighting and bleeding for them. So under pressure from American diplomats, military and political leaders, Maliki has agreed to allow the Americans to go to war against the Mahdi Army.
Now think about this. Most of the dificulties that the Americans have encountered in Iraq have come only from the Sunni insurgents and jihadis - we have, at least since the summer of 2004, been peaceful, if uneasy allies of the Shiites. And yet, the occupation goes badly, the cost goes up, the casualties mount. At best, fighting the Mahdi army will be disasterous, with large swaths of Baghdad flattened in the urban combat, many civilians dead and a large spike in American casualties. Now what will Iran do? Even if we haven't succeeded in starting a shooting war with Iran yet, they will certainly contribute weapons and funds to support al Sadr in the fight. And that could provide the catalyst for war with Iran. But even if it doesn't, what will al Hakim do? He is no friend of al Sadr, but they are also Shiites, and he may very well contribute fighters and support. Who knows, they may even be able to engineer a truce with the Sunnis and pull together to fight the Americans.
And if Bush and Cheney get their wish and start open warfare with Iran, Iran will certainly send thousands of combat troops across the border into Iraq to fight the Americans, and possibly the Sunnis too. In this chaotic spasm of large-scale conflict, will Turkey take the opportunity to roll into Kurdistan and clean up the PKK? If the Shiites begin to murder the Sunnis in large numbers, will the Saudis feel the need to get involved? There are many scenarios possible in this pending bloodbath, and they all have something in common - the are all very, very bad.
It is clear to almost everyone. The only rational, sane path from where we find ourselves is to immediately begin to draw down our forces in Iraq and begin a dialog with the regional players. Very slowly, we need to repair our tattered reputation and begin to be seen as a fair, honest broker in the region. That is the only way to make us safer, and after our arrogant actions of the last five years it will take a long time.
On 9/11 and the Tragedy of Violent Attacks
I've heard alot of renewed discussion about 9/11 recently, and frankly, the jingoism and one-sided, through-the-wrong-end-of-the-telescope viewpoints are begining to sicken me. Over and over, from people of all political persuasions, I hear the same lament. We were
Attacked!! The worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor!! It was a brutal, calculated attack that killed thousands of civilians without warning! It was a tragedy of monumental proportions, an immeasurable loss, a global wake-up call. Sure it was.
After the 9/11 attacks, America needed to respond. We needed to hit back at those who hurt us so badly. And so we have been doing so, again and again, over and over, spilling more blood, causing more pain and anguish. Where is the end of it? How much bloodletting does our national pride require, how many lives do we have to take, how many cities must be laid to waste?
I invite those of you with open minds to think about this. 5 years ago, two of our cities were attacked. Buildings were destroyed and over 3000 people were killed. And today, five years on, we still wring our hands with wrenching anguish over the pain and loss of that day. Yet how many 9/11s have we been responsible since that day? Kandahar, Baghdad, Faluja, Najaf, Beirut. Thousands of buildings destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of innocents slaughtered. Do you not think that each and every victim of these attacks feels the same wrenching anguish? Do you not believe that their sense of tragic loss is every bit the same as ours?
How Dare We?How dare we continute to exploit our national sense of loss as the primary reason to create the same kind of urban terror, over and over and over again, all around the world. All described in the dry journalistic tones that wash the blood from the corpse and hide the horror in sepia tones. "AC-130 gunship pounded islamist positions in southern Somalia." "American troops advanced up Haifa street under cover of airstrikes from F-15s and Apache gunships." "Israel launched another day of strikes against Hezbollah infrastructure in South Beirut."
Each of these events, and the thousands just like them we have perpetrated in the five years since that September day are 9/11s too. The collapsed buildings, the stench of burning flesh, the cries of the injured, the grief and anger of the survivors. We, of all people in the world today, should be able to recognize the absolute wrong of blowing up buildings full of people. We of all people should understand the forces unleashed when strangers, foreigners at that, suddenly appear to kill our friends and relatives and destroy our cities.
I am sickened by the outpouring of racist hatred that continues to drive our nation to use it's military might against people who are not our enemies, just to satisfy some kind of national revenge fantasy. But even more, I am offended by the sheer impracticality of our actions. How can we expect anything but more hatred, more attacks, more war? We are perpetuating the conflict and ensuring that ultimately we will be the loser. For as we squander our wealth and our exalted place in the pantheon of nations, we continue to create enemies at an alarming rate. And those enemies are an asymetric threat. They don't need aircraft carriers and supersonic fighters and armored brigades. We can't stop them with all of our firepower, indeed, all of our firepower merely creates more of them. And they can hit back, anywhere, anytime. Like the bloody Lebanon debacle of this summer, they win by not losing. And we lose by being unable to even define winning, let alone accomplish it.
So the next time you start to describe the horror and terror of that September day back in 2001, think about all the horror and terror we have unleashed since. All the flattened buildings, all the burned and broken bodies, all the grieving survivors. Think about it and ask yourself if this is something we should be doing.
Utter Madness
Why are there insurgents? I mean, generically, what is it that causes people to take up arms against the local powers to attempt to overthrow or change the composition of the leadership? I tend to think that there are three, perhaps four reasons. If they do not feel they are honestly represented polictically. If they do not feel they have access to a reasonable level of economic opportunity. If they belong to a religion or other tribal entity that is actively oppressed or otherwise mistreated by the ruling class. Or, they are under foreign occupation. If one were to think about it, there are probably a few others, but these are the reasons for most of the insurrections and insurgencies that I can think of.
One or another group of Iraqis can lay claim to all four. Whether it's the Sunnis, marginalized and unrepresented, or the Shi'a, fighting for a larger slice of the economic pie after years of oppression, the reasons they have taken up arms can be clearly explained, even if from where we sit safe in America those reasons have a scent of unreasonableness.
So in order to improve the "security situation" in Iraq, primarily Baghdad, the US is sending an additional 20,000 combat troops. What will they contribute? They are combat troops. Combat is what they do. They will fight the fighters. So ask yourself: If we fight the Sunni insurgents, can we kill enough of them to cause them to accept the oppression, the ethnic cleansing, the economic and political marginization? Why would they stop fighting? What reason would they have to lay down their arms because some additional combat power was brought to bear against them? And Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army. They are currently uneasy allies in the fight against the Sunni/Neo Baathist insurgency. So we start a fight with them. Why would they not fight back? What would they have to look forward to if they laid down their arms and allowed the Americans and the Iranians to disarm them, to take all of their power?
They won't quit. They
can't quit. There is no hope for them in quitting, only in fighting. Why can't the Americans see this? The Iraqis see it all too clearly. Left to their own devices, the Badr Brigades will brutally crush the Mahdi Army and the Sunnis. It will be
Anfal in reverse. It's not just the brutal bloody-mindedness of the Bush Administration that makes me angry. It's the continued belief that just a little more combat power, a little more killing, a few more flattened neighborhoods and peace will break out all over. It's their refusal to open their eyes and see what they are creating.
Since the creation of the Israeli state in which tens of thousands of Palestinians were forced from their lands and into camps, there have been four generations born in those camps. And as each generation was more brutalized, more oppressed, the hatred grew, the radicalization became more widespread, and the violence has grown exponentially. There are many examples of how to create a permanant state of war. It's as if we studied them very carefully and set out to do exactly that. There will ultimately be peace in the fertile crescent of Mesopotamia only if and when the external forces cease to press their particular agendas and the people of the region can find a way to sit down and talk to one another.
If the Americans pull out their troops now, will there be peace? Of course not, our venal and misguided attempt to control a region we didn't understand has prevented any possiblity of that. But I fear we are about to create a spasm of industrial scale violence in the heart of a city of 7 million souls that would have made a simple civil war look like a desirable outcome.
Let me end by reminding you of one simple fact. The Russians utterly destroyed the city of Grozny in late 1999. The Chechnians are still fighting today. This is not a solution. It is madness...
The Goode, The Bad and The Bigoted
As an American elected representative, Virgil Goode is an oscenity. For someone to be part of the American democratic process, who has sworn an oath to the Constitution, who is the current end of a legacy of liberty and inclusiveness to be so utterly unaware of true American values is beyond sick. Its as if he doesn't know that America was formed, in part, by Europeans fleeing religious persecution.
Now mind you, intolerance and racial hatred have a long, storied history in America. In this realm, Goode is just another garden variety racist, just another Klansman with a gross misunderstanding of what his nation stands for. Indeed, some level of bigotry and jingoism seems a necessary part of a significant portion of the American population. This portion, by the way, is VERY strongly represented in the remaining 30% of the population that continues to support this administration no matter how egregiously criminal their acts may be. Why? Because, as long as they are actively working to eradicate "people who are not like us", such as Muslims, all else will be immediately forgiven.
No, we confront the individual American's tendency towards exclusivity, intolerance and hatred with yet another weary sigh. The obscenity represented by Virgil Goode is his office, and the constituency that elected him. It's the so-called Americans who agree with him, who want a minority they can pound on without incuring a backlash that sicken me. MUSLIMS!! The new demonized minority. The theory goes something like this: The people, mostly Saudis, who attacked us in September 2001 were indeed Muslims. Therefore, all muslims are our most evil enemies and anything you suggest, from segregation to camps to genocide, is perfectly ok.
Here's the call to action. Virgil Goode has staked out a position. He's essentially betting his career that America will become more intolerant, more racist and Muslims will continue to be demonized by cowardly Americans who cannot feel strong in equality, only in imbalance and inequality. What are we, real Americans who understand our history and values, going to do about it? I'm going to stand up and say we might just be better off with more muslim legislators, more gay legislators, more women, more african americans, more diversity, more tolerance. We need to tell Mr. Goode and the thugs that enable him that his act doesn't play in our nation. He can take it on the road, or he can find a way to get with the program. It's a new century, and I submit his time has passed...
Meet the New Way. Same as the Old Way.
Man, they really aren't very good at this. For about 4 months now, we've been waiting for bush/cheney to announce their new strategy for Iraq, the so-called "New Way Forward". Throughout the Iraq Study Group release, the "Listening Sessions", the Pentagon Report, the guidance of pundits, wonks and "experts", the buildup has been inexorable. Now, it's January and we're still waiting for the announcement from the decider. It has taken on an air of a magic bullet, a deus ex machina from the folks who brought you the hunt for bin Laden, Katrina and the November '06 midterm elections.
I am very surprised that they have allowed this sense of excitement, this enthusiasm for a pending solution to continue to build up. Let's be honest, there is no answer, no solution, no real hope for anything even resembling victory. They can add some troops, subtract some troops, change the role of some troops. Thats about it. The only major changes they can make, from declaring war on the Mehdi Army to bombing Iran will only make the situation much worse, with greater American casualties and more violence in the region. And yet, the press speculates while the White House delays. Pundits write breathless pieces encouraging surges, escalation, training, withdrawl. Wonks opine on the cable news channels. And the country waits, watching the deaths and bloodshed mount, wondering, speculating, hoping that in some flash of insight, some brilliant observation, some surge of competence the people who dragged our nation into this unnecessary conflict will find a way to end it.
But you know that's not the case. In your heart, you know that whatever they do, whatever bush/cheney announce, it will essentially be more of the same. Eternal war, daily losses, violence and horror, and more sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers learning a visceral hatred for America soaked in the blood of their loved ones, standing in the rubble of their communities.
You can speculate endlessly about what the New Way Forward will look like, what decisions the decider will make, moving these soldiers here, those there, keeping those in theater and assigning new tasks to these. When it's all said and done, it remains a fools errand, occupying a foreign nation by force of arms to no gain, only to our detriment. If Olbermann is right and the call is for more sacrifice, don't shake your head and walk away. Write, call or fax SOMEONE. Demand an explanation of what exactly this sacrifice is accomplishing. How will we be better, safer, stronger or wealthier after we bury our dead and hide our crippled? If they can't tell you that, they should not do it, whatever "it" turns out to be. But no matter what, keep watching what happens, not just listening to the spin. Because the one thing we cannot accept is more of the same, no matter how it's dressed up as a strategy...
Sorry, But you can't Have it Both Ways
One of the things that bothers me about these standard Wingnut Positions (beside the overarching illogic, hatred, bigotry and blood-lust) is the inherent contradictions required by the wingnuts holding these beliefs. And their willingness to look you right in the eye and make the most twisted, self - canceling arguments to support their most reprehensible positions.
The number one example, by far, is what I call the "Existential Threat" position. Wingnuts will tell you that America is the most powerful nation in the history of the world, both economically and militarily, the source of all that's good in the world, freedom and democracy and market capitalism. Then,
in the very next breath, they will tell you right to your face that a few thousand religious extremists living in isolation thousands of miles away are a dire threat to our nation and our way of life, only a hair's breadth away from creating the Caliphate from the crippled, fragile United States, forcing us poor, helpless Americans to live under Shari'a law and the tyrany of the Burkha. Now this argument usually comes out when they want to do something horribly cruel and unamerican, whether it be torturing some poor Afghan taxi driver or putting Muslim - Americans in concentration camps. They know that unlike them, good Americans tend to be pretty kind people, and the only way they would ever accept behavior like that is in the face of a desparate threat. So even though it flies in the face of even their own logic, they bring out a desparate threat.
When you begin to listen to them, you hear this same sort of construct in virtually every case. Want another example? Global Warming. Any wingnut will tell you that America is not only an economic powerhouse, primarily due to our free markets, our democratic institutions and our Judeo-Christian heritage (huh?), but also, precisely due to those same things, THE hotbed of innovation and technology. And yet, in the very next breath they will tell you earnestly that we are utterly unable to develop renewable, sustainable energy solutions that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions without crippling our economy. Therefore we cannot act on Global Warming. So let's just call it a fraud, a hoax, in spite of the overwhelming scientific support.
Somehow I have trouble with your honesty and integrity when you're willing to refute your own strongly held positions in order to get people to do things they otherwise would not. I just keep waiting for the world to catch on to these lying, venal, bloodthirsty thugs. Ah well, maybe this year...
