Search This Site


Sunday, May 27, 2007


Rahm Emmauel:
...we have to have a new direction to Iraq that has accountability, standards that you can measure progress or not...

Aside from the fact that this is all utter bullshit that doesn't deserve a very close reading, I want to see if I understand something correctly.

According to the way this whole funding, accountability, time-line, benchmark and support-the-troop blather is being framed, it is somehow important to "measure progress." To what end? From what I gather, it seems that we are saying that we will find it OK to leave only if there is "progress," whereas I assume that "no progress" (read: failure) means that we simply must stay.

So - this failed occupation, which is being decried precisely because it is a failed operation, cannot be abandoned precisely because it is a failed occupation. Paging Joseph Heller...

(Oops, I mean "war," since there has never been an example of a successful occupation in all of the days of history - I mean, really, what would that look like? Oh, yeah - Colonialism. That worked out really well all around.)

And, by the way, it would have been nice to see the debacle being decried right out of the box for reasons of simple human morals and decency, but I'll take the morally bankrupt and squeamish excuse of "failure" if I have to.

No comments:

Post a Comment

I welcome all reactions and points of view, so comments here are not moderated. Cheerfully "colorful" language is great. I'll even tolerate some ad hominem directed against me... each other, not so much. Racist or excessively abusive comments (or spam) will be deleted at my discretion.