Grunts and Non-Coms in the NYT on Iraq
This was interesting, and rings true to me, to the extent I can evaluate it from where I sit: The War as We Saw It. Makes for a thought-provoking contrast with the “don’t pull the rug out from under the troops Just When We’re Finally Making Progress(TM)” stuff that Team Bush has been putting out lately.
August 20th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Those seven soldiers are risking a lot by speaking out as they have done. Their choice of words,
“This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.
We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.”
is excellent. Lesser writers would not have stated, “pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities” but would have called a spade a spade by stating that ‘the mission is ridiculous and based on a profound ignorance and wishful thinking by the fools in Washington.’ Essentially the two statements are the same.
August 21st, 2007 at 4:54 am
never forget that THIS is the rwnj crowd… The Hate Boat™ loonies… the Duhmurkkkah First! morans…
They have busily scrubbed the article but digby has it in full
I have to say that the right wing isn’t just some bunch of aw-shucks-we-just-love-FREEDOM™ ‘folks’… the right wing actually thinks this shit up believes it and then sends our soldiers off to die for greed and oil and a thousand years of Rethuggle™®© Rule. Go fuck yourselves.
– – – – – – – –
Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
Philip Atkinson
Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 3, 2007
While democratic government is better than dictatorships and theocracies, it has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson describes some of the difficulties facing President Bush today.
Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
By Philip Atkinson
President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.
Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.
The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.
When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.
This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.
The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.
The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.
As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.
By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.
However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.
When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.
Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.
If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.
He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.
– – – – – – – – – –
President for life… more like death death and more death until the shrubpocalypse comes to take all the morans up to their 72 virgins or whatever.
August 21st, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Boy, that Atkinson guy, what a visionary, I read that piece with rapt attention, years ago I heard a quote by Winston Churchill “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest”. Since that day I have dreamed of the day when someone would dream up a better system of governance than a democracy. If only someone like James Madison could have thought of something as insightful as Atkinson on, oh, say Thursday November 22, 1787. And if only he had written it down in the form of Federalist 10, and if only he had used that concept to form the government structure of the United States of America. We can only dream.
Before you comment read Fed 10, it’s long and boring, it’s work, it’s research.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:12 pm
By the way, the word democracy is not found in the Declaration Of Independence, the Constitution, or the bill of Rights, and as far as I can tell Fed 10 is the only paper it is used in. The founders weren’t keen on the idea of the tyranny of the masses.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:01 am
So your answer to an extreme rwnj essay on ‘shrub as president for life’ combined with nuclear genocide rant is to quote Churchill??? then challenge me to read the Federalist Papers??? talk about divorced from reality…
The sad reality is the right wing of American politics is going farther and farther off the deep end. I’ve been an independent voter my entire adult life, but I can’t see how the Dems could screw up worse than shrubco (we’ll see how President Hillary or Obama handle cleaning up shrub’s fuck ups). But just keep calling anyone who disagrees “idiots” “traitors” “asshole” “bugs” and the like. Maybe I’ll get over myself and start voting fascist nutjob (doubt it).
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.”
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Enkidu,
Sorry, I thought he was a left wing nut case, when they get around the back side of the political spectrum they all start to look the same. They kind of start to resemble Knarly. Fed 10 would still be good reading for you. You say you are an independent voter, does that mean you typically vote for third party candidates, or you vote for the best man, or you are just registered independent. It doesn’t really matter, I owe you a thank you in any case. Since we have a two party system here any vote for anyone except a Democrat helps my side. Thank you.
As I have said in the past, I don’t call people names for disagreeing with me, you have to earn the title of “idiot” and the rest by doing much worse than disagreeing with me.
And yes the Democrats can make things much worse, they probably won’t do anything to make it worse, well there’s yer problem.