unable ... to...process...brain...shutting...down

[winterbadger]

Bush to cite US's Vietnam War experience as a reason to stay in Iraq (no, it's not the Onion...)

one of what will hopefully be a countless host of explanations why this is the most assinine thing anyone has said since Maj. Gen. John Sedgwick said "I'm ashamed of you, dodging that way. They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance."

Comments

[peaceful-fox.livejournal.com]

I saw this this afternoon and I didn't have time to read it in full, but it made me so angry.

[kmusser]

Wonkette commentary.

[cmlc.livejournal.com]

Uh, well, the problem wasn't America's presence in Iraq in the first place, the problem was that the US military didn't seem to have a clue how to occupy and rebuild Iraq - they mishandled things with awe-inspiring clumsiness and corruption and macho stupidity. Which led everyone to hate them, and *now* the problem definitely can't be solved without a US pullout.
But now it's such a mess that the problem can't be solved, period. It's going to remain hellish anarchy until a new evil mass murderer makes himself president for life. Which is just what the Saddam supporters were planning all along, one presumes. How stupid of the Americans to have played into their hands so comprehensively.
Or something like that, anyway. I'm not an expert...

[winterbadger]

I think part of the problem *was* America's being in Iraq in the first place. Most of the UN Security Council at the time felt that the renewed inspections regime was doing fine and that there was no justification for war. Everything that has come out since the invasion suggests that this was in fact true; Iraq's WMD programs were pretty much a dead letter.

Is Iraq better off without Saddam Hussein in power? I'm not sure; it depends what the alternative is. Certainly one could make a compelling case that Iraq has been harmed more by the invasion and occupation than it was by Saddam and his regime. Which is horrifying.

But I agree, we totally mishandled the occupation and rebuilding. Almost entirely because those in charge of the levers of foreign policy in the US disregarded excellent advice from their foreign affairs civil servants and reacted to what they wanted to believe was happening instead of what was happening.

I'm hoping that, at the end of the day, a not-totally-extremist Shi'ite faction will end up ruling Iraq in a vaguely oligarchic way with the cooperation of the Kurds, that most Sunni will see that the regime isn't going to kill them all out of hand, and that the regime will manage to steer clear of (a) becoming an Iranian puppet (b) upsetting Turkey so much it invades northern Iraq.

We should stop rabbiting on about democracy, though. We're not establishing democracy. You can't do that by invading a country. We're not serious about democracy, or we wouldn't be supporting Abu Mazen against Hamas, doing our best to keep Musharraf in power, or telling the Iraqi people that they need to overthrown the government we pushed them to elect. By and large, if they can be made to work, I think those are probably wise policies, but they are profoundly antidemocratic.

[cmlc.livejournal.com]

Do you know, I'd forgotten all the controversy and lies surrounding the beginning of the war. It seems so long ago! But yes, you're right, the whole case for war was based on lies from start to finish, and the place shouldn't have been invaded, as Bush senior knew. Bush's team decided to invade more or less before they got elected, I now recall.

I think I agree with a lot of the rest of what you say. I share your hopes for Iraq but I don't think they're very likely, sadly. The Sunnis will never consent to be ruled by the Shi'ites I would have thought. I think Iraq's only chance for anything resembling peace is to be partitioned along ethnic/religious lines. It's an artificial, arbitrary state, after all, there's no rhyme or reason to its borders except in the east and north. No, thinking of it, even that wouldn't work because Turkey would obliterate the Kurdish state, Iran would take over the Shi'ite state and the Sunni state would want to invade and conquer both, wouldn't it :-/ If the Sunnis united with Jordan, perhaps...

Sadly I don't think American foreign policy has often cared about democracy. In the Cold War and before it often acted decisively against democracy and supported evil tyrants. Not many countries have supported democracy except maybe the Scandinavians, and even then only sometimes.

I have to say I disagree about Musharraf. I think Pakistan should be given no encouragement or support. A lot of the religious fundamentalism in that part of the world has been a deliberate creation of the Pakistani government as a long term tactic against India. Now it's got out of hand and is threatening not just India but Pakistan itself and the rest of the world, and I think it's about time the pro-fundamentalist policy collapsed under the weight of its own hypocrisy. Hmm, mind you, they do have nuclear weapons now, and Chinese allies if it comes down to it. Nasty problem, that.

[winterbadger]

Do you know, I'd forgotten all the controversy and lies surrounding the beginning of the war. It seems so long ago! But yes, you're right, the whole case for war was based on lies from start to finish, and the place shouldn't have been invaded, as Bush senior knew. Bush's team decided to invade more or less before they got elected, I now recall.

Yep. I'm reading a book on the subject just now, so it's bringing it all back to me. Also, according to one book I read, Charles Allen, who is now at DHS, did some side projects before the war collecting human intelligence from Iraqis involved in the former weapons programs, and to a person they asserted that the whole thing had been shut down. This intel was ignored because it didn't fit the neo-con's plans for the war.

Sadly I don't think American foreign policy has often cared about democracy.

I'd agree. It just makes me sick listening tot he hypocrites talk about how much they want to spread democracy...as long as the new 'democratic' governments agree with them. If not, they say well, let's get rid of them.

Do you know, I'd forgotten all the controversy and lies surrounding the beginning of the war. It seems so long ago! But yes, you're right, the whole case for war was based on lies from start to finish, and the place shouldn't have been invaded, as Bush senior knew. Bush's team decided to invade more or less before they got elected, I now recall.

Yep. I'm reading a book on the subject just now, so it's bringing it all back to me. Also, according to one book I read, Charles Allen, who is now at DHS, did some side projects before the war collecting human intelligence from Iraqis involved in the former weapons programs, and to a person they asserted that the whole thing had been shut down. This intel was ignored because it didn't fit the neo-con's plans for the war.

Sadly I don't think American foreign policy has often cared about democracy.

I'd agree. It just makes me sick listening tot he hypocrites talk about how much they want to spread democracy...as long as the new 'democratic' governments agree with them. If not, they say well, let's get rid of them.

I have to say I disagree about Musharraf. I think Pakistan should be given no encouragement or support. A lot of the religious fundamentalism in that part of the world has been a deliberate creation of the Pakistani government as a long term tactic against India. Now it's got out of hand and is threatening not just India but Pakistan itself and the rest of the world, and I think it's about time the pro-fundamentalist policy collapsed under the weight of its own hypocrisy. Hmm, mind you, they do have nuclear weapons now, and Chinese allies if it comes down to it. Nasty problem, that.

I find Pakistan a fascinating place, at least from what I've read about it. Musharraf is an amazing fellow; he's certainly self-interested and self-serving, but he also has been trying to implement a vision for a more rational, Western-oriented, moderate Pakistan. He's caught between the fires of the 'pro-democracy' forces (most of whose leaders, when in power, have themselves been deeply corrupt and antidemocratic), but who are basically pro-Western, and the religious extremists, who are scary and bad in pretty much every sense. As you say, the problem is that the Pakistani military and intelligence services nurtured these militants and helped them form nasty little paramilitary groups as a way of bleeding India over Kashmir. Musharraf has been trying to root them out, but they still have their supporters, both in the military itself and in the Tribal Areas and the Northwest Frontier province, where people are (a) much more aligned to the religious fundamentalists and (b) ethnically a lot more connected to the Afghan Taliban than to the rest of Pakistan.

At the same time, Pakistan has to deal with Iran and China, which are difficult neighbors for a moderate-to-small state, and its own internal divisions that don't relate directly to the democracy or religious fundamentalist issues (things like Balooch separatism, muhajirs vs. everyone else, etc.)

[cmlc.livejournal.com]

Hmm, well, maybe Musharraf isn't as bad as I'd thought. I'll take your word on that.

When I was in India some years ago I unexpectedly had dinner with the just-retired German ambassador to Pakistan (as you do!) and I rather indiscreetly asked him what he thought of Benazir Bhutto, who was in the news at the time I think. If I interpreted his reply correctly I think he told me that she was a nice woman but that her husband was a monstrous mafia thug, and that she was totally under his control. As you say, deeply corrupt.

It strikes me that the trouble with Pakistan, as with so many other countries, is basically that it's an artificial colonially-created state with arbitrary boundaries. Europe warred for centuries before its national boundaries ended up in roughly the right place, and it's still not entirely finished (Scotland, Catalonia, etc.).

[winterbadger]

Very interesting about the ambassador! And I see in the news that Sharif is "eyeing" a return to Pakistan. Doubtless he's trying to decide whether the time is ripe for him to some back, lead a popular movement to oust Musharraf, and regain his position of power, which he used in the past to line his pockets and seize extraconstitutional power.

It strikes me that the trouble with Pakistan, as with so many other countries, is basically that it's an artificial colonially-created state with arbitrary boundaries.

I think most of the boundaries are pretty well accepted. Most of its borders were fixed by facts on the ground; the big exception was Kashmir. A majority Muslim area, it got made part of India because the future rulers of India did a deal with the British government and persuaded the princely ruler to join India instead (he then went to live abroad). There was fighting, the UN intervened and insisted that there be a referendum to determine what the *Kashmiris* wanted to do, a referndum India has refused to hold for the past 60 years. In the meanwhile, there's been lots of dirty work on both sides, several wars, and many deaths. The population of the area has been radicalised and brutalised, many of the inhabitants of the area at partition have fled, and one of the most beautiful parts of the subcontinent has become a terrorist battleground. :-(

Of course, the boundaries with China are in dispute, but then China's boundaries with everyone are in dispute, because the Chinese state is a very bad neighbor. There's been some ethnic cleansing attempts by both sides in Kashmir, but they pale in comparison to the havoc that's been wreaked by China in Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and East Turkestan.

[cmlc.livejournal.com]

Yes, you're right about Kashmir! I was thinking more of the north west frontier zone though. The borders there certainly seem to be heavily disputed by the people who live there, and have been for a long time (my partner went from Scotland to India by bus in the 70s and vividly remembers the murderous hostility which everyone in that area had to the Pakistani government). Why on earth should it be part of Pakistan at all? The only reason as far as I can see is that the border there is Britain's old imperial boundary, the point up to which it happened to have managed to conquer/buy/control the territory. As you say there's no particular ethnic or national or religious reason to have an international border there - the people have more in common with the same people just the other side of the border in Afghanistan (which is another multinational basket case, but I'll leave that aside!).

[winterbadger]

Well, there you have me. Afghanistan has never really accepted the Durand Line; some Afghans want to incorporate all the Pashtun areas in their country, some (the Pashtuns, mostly) want them to be yet another independent country. Ditto the Baluch areas (which of course, also involves Iran, much in the same way that talk about breaking up Iraq always results in the Turks getting all het up about the idea of a separate Kurdistan).

I would think that Pakistan might almost be willing to give up all the Tribal Areas and the NWFP, for all the trouble they cause and their ungovernability. It would trim Pakistan down to Sindh, the lesser Punjab, and fragments of Kashmir, but it might almost be worth it...

Oh, and the former US Deputy National Security Advisor in charge of US policy in the Mideast and South Asia, Meghan O'Sullivan? Had, according to press reports never *heard* of the Durand Line until a briefer mentioned it in passing. This is one of the high flyers I was bemoaning the other day. See why I think that even without a PhD from Oxford I think I might be able to do a bit better than some of these twits?

[cmlc.livejournal.com]

Umm. I don't think I'd ever heard it called that either :-/ but then I'm not a diplomat, thank goodness! I see what you mean though :-)

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

I thought Sedgewick's statement ended with "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist-" *SPLUTCH*

[winterbadger]

According to Wikipedia, he said it *twice* before he got hit, which is just an example of hubris in action...

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Also, where does Bush get off saying a single damn word about Vietnam?

[winterbadger]

Well, quite. An administration of rich white boys who dodged the draft *invoking* Vietnam as a justification for their bloody adventure into colonialism? More proof there is no God, as any decent one would have struck them dead with huge lightning bolts for that.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Either that, or His Noodly Appendage has yet to strike them down.

[winterbadger]

His Noodly Appendage is taking his damn time...

[gr-c17.livejournal.com]

Maybe one small silver lining here. When someone asks the question "why should we study history?" We can answer so your not as dumb as George Bush.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

He's trying to sing the Nightingale's Song that Ronald Reagan articulated so perfectly, with a spin that says a failure in Iraq will be for the same reasons as the failure in Vietnam.

(The meaning of the title comes from the fact that a nightingale can't sing until it's learned a song from another nightingale. Reagan was the original singer, going on in speech after speech about how the US Congress had betrayed the US military by cutting off funding for the Vietnam War. Never mind that Dick Nixon ran for re-election on a "peace with honor" pledge. The idea is that after Reagan started voicing that argument, you soon heard it from many, many Vietnam vets.)

So what we have in today's Bush ploy is an appeal to Reagan's widely accepted explanation for the US failure in Vietnam. He's figuring that all the people who accepted Reagan's explanation will accept Bush's claim too. Given that Reagan was a heck of a lot more popular president than GWB, it's a smart political move. But it doesn't mean a damn thing as far as the situation in Iraq goes.

[winterbadger]

speech after speech about how the US Congress had betrayed the US military by cutting off funding for the Vietnam War

Wow, I think I've heard that song before...

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I'd known about the German mythology, but this is the first I've seen a name put to it. Thanks.

[winterbadger]

Yeah, I'd not heard the name until I looked it up. I just knew the legend of how "the soldiers were betrayed by the corrupt politicians at home". Comparing people to the Nazis is a taboo subject on the Internet, I know, but the thing that I always try to remember is that the Nazis were originally a minority political party who *persuaded* people to *vote* them into office. How they did that is always, IMO, worth remembering.