The Big Fool says to push on
I said yesterday that I might write about
Lieberman's "plan" to end the war, but it's really too tiresome, and I'm too
tired. A few observations
nonetheless.
One of the more insidious arguments made by the war apologists is what you might call the Big Muddy argument. According to them, we must kill more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, because not to do so would dishonor those who have already died, as if we can validate a wasted life by wasting more. A variant is the argument that we must continue down the path we are on, because leaving it would be an admission of defeat, as if our enemies are unaware of our situation until we acknowledge it. Peter Seeger summed it up in his lyrics:
One of the more insidious arguments made by the war apologists is what you might call the Big Muddy argument. According to them, we must kill more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, because not to do so would dishonor those who have already died, as if we can validate a wasted life by wasting more. A variant is the argument that we must continue down the path we are on, because leaving it would be an admission of defeat, as if our enemies are unaware of our situation until we acknowledge it. Peter Seeger summed it up in his lyrics:
But every time I read the
papers
That old feeling comes on;
We're -- waist deep in the Big
Muddy
And the big fool says to push
on.
In it's essence, Lieberman's proposes that we keep crossing the Big Muddy. Unlike the ill fated Captain in Seeger's song , Joe proposes to lead from behind, just as Bush has always done.
Try as you might, you will not find the answer to one question in all 10 points of his plan: How do we know when we're on the other side of the Big Muddy? And why should we follow the fools leading us across?
Now, it's quite true that the first of his step in his plan is to fire Rumsfeld. This is actually quite strange in light of the portion of his speech I remarked on yesterday, in which he said that we shouldn't sit in judgment on the past. Isn't that what we're doing if we fire Rumsfeld-blaming him for his past mistakes. Shouldn't he get a free pass too, like the one Joe is asking for? But, I'm getting sidetracked.
The problem with Joe's plan, besides so much of it being unworkable even assuming we had someone rational to implement it, is that we don't have anyone rational to implement it and there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that any of it would be adopted by the regime or, if it were, that they would implement it effectively. These people have proven themselves to be collosally incompetent and dishonest to boot, and there is no reason to believe they will suddenly change their ways. It's time for Republican wanna-bes who embrace President Bush's war to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for two more years. We ignore the president's utter lack of credibility at our nation's peril. So the fundamental problem with Lieberman's plan is that he must of necessity expect Bush to implement it. Even if it made sense, it wouldn't work.
But it doesn't make sense. One example, and then I must retire.
Here's point two:
Second, together with the British, we should convene an international crisis conference on Iraq, involving the Europeans and other Arab countries -- especially those who have much to lose if Iraq were to collapse into outright civil war and become a safe haven for terrorists. If these nations will not help us train the Iraqi security forces to take over from us, surely they can be convinced to join us in financing and overseeing the rebuilding of Iraq's economy, so that the Iraqi people can live better lives and their children can dream of even more.
Which Arab countries does he have in mind? We won't speak to the very countries who would have the best chance to influence the situation there. We are about to start a war against one of them (with Joe's blessing, you can be sure). And why would these countries, at this point, have any incentive to pull our chestnuts out of the fire, when it looks like a sure thing they'd only get their hands burnt in the process. In any event, see the main point. The Bush Administration is not about to let anyone else be involved in "overseeing the rebuilding of Iraq's economy". That would upset the delicate balance of homegrown Iraqi corruption and American corruption leavened with right wing ideology . That might result in the money being diverted away from the Halliburtons that have been "rebuilding" Iraq's economy for years. There can be no question that Bush and his henchmen would not give up a bit of their control of the process of "rebuilding". Even if other countries helped with financing, it would just mean more money down the toilet.
We can only believe in Joe's solution if we do as he asks: stop talking about the trail of lies and blunders that got us here in the first place, and assume that Joe and his ilk will magically get it right from here on in. It ain't going to happen, even if Joe gets to be Secretary of Defense, which increasingly appears to be his objective.
In it's essence, Lieberman's proposes that we keep crossing the Big Muddy. Unlike the ill fated Captain in Seeger's song , Joe proposes to lead from behind, just as Bush has always done.
Try as you might, you will not find the answer to one question in all 10 points of his plan: How do we know when we're on the other side of the Big Muddy? And why should we follow the fools leading us across?
Now, it's quite true that the first of his step in his plan is to fire Rumsfeld. This is actually quite strange in light of the portion of his speech I remarked on yesterday, in which he said that we shouldn't sit in judgment on the past. Isn't that what we're doing if we fire Rumsfeld-blaming him for his past mistakes. Shouldn't he get a free pass too, like the one Joe is asking for? But, I'm getting sidetracked.
The problem with Joe's plan, besides so much of it being unworkable even assuming we had someone rational to implement it, is that we don't have anyone rational to implement it and there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that any of it would be adopted by the regime or, if it were, that they would implement it effectively. These people have proven themselves to be collosally incompetent and dishonest to boot, and there is no reason to believe they will suddenly change their ways. It's time for Republican wanna-bes who embrace President Bush's war to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for two more years. We ignore the president's utter lack of credibility at our nation's peril. So the fundamental problem with Lieberman's plan is that he must of necessity expect Bush to implement it. Even if it made sense, it wouldn't work.
But it doesn't make sense. One example, and then I must retire.
Here's point two:
Second, together with the British, we should convene an international crisis conference on Iraq, involving the Europeans and other Arab countries -- especially those who have much to lose if Iraq were to collapse into outright civil war and become a safe haven for terrorists. If these nations will not help us train the Iraqi security forces to take over from us, surely they can be convinced to join us in financing and overseeing the rebuilding of Iraq's economy, so that the Iraqi people can live better lives and their children can dream of even more.
Which Arab countries does he have in mind? We won't speak to the very countries who would have the best chance to influence the situation there. We are about to start a war against one of them (with Joe's blessing, you can be sure). And why would these countries, at this point, have any incentive to pull our chestnuts out of the fire, when it looks like a sure thing they'd only get their hands burnt in the process. In any event, see the main point. The Bush Administration is not about to let anyone else be involved in "overseeing the rebuilding of Iraq's economy". That would upset the delicate balance of homegrown Iraqi corruption and American corruption leavened with right wing ideology . That might result in the money being diverted away from the Halliburtons that have been "rebuilding" Iraq's economy for years. There can be no question that Bush and his henchmen would not give up a bit of their control of the process of "rebuilding". Even if other countries helped with financing, it would just mean more money down the toilet.
We can only believe in Joe's solution if we do as he asks: stop talking about the trail of lies and blunders that got us here in the first place, and assume that Joe and his ilk will magically get it right from here on in. It ain't going to happen, even if Joe gets to be Secretary of Defense, which increasingly appears to be his objective.
Posted: Tuesday - September 26, 2006 at 09:18 PM
Quick Links
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 17, 2007 07:18 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 17, 2007 07:18 PM