elfs: (Default)
[personal profile] elfs
"What does it profit you, to gain the whole world but lose your own soul?" Mark 8:36.

If you were reading the right-wing blogosphere you might find yourself in a strange, alternative, attractive universe today. A universe in a Republican victory is assured in 2008, a universe in which the Democrats are shown to be craven, sucurrilous dogs who never had any intention at all of doing right by the world, and whose only emotion was one of winning against the Republicans, damn the nation and the world.

The window into that universe is Bartle Bull's Mission Accomplished, After All, in which he claims, contrary to the popular notion that we're just keeping a lid on a civil war which will break out the moment we leave,
The country is whole. It has embraced the ballot box. It has created a fair and popular constitution. It has avoided all-out civil war. It has not been taken over by Iran. It has put an end to Kurdish and marsh Arab genocide, and anti-Shia apartheid. It has rejected mass revenge against the Sunnis.
Who knows, maybe he's even correct about that. The right is having a field day with this article, finger pointing and telling us that the all-father President Bush, in whom they have put their worship, patiently guided us all by his sheer will, defied our impatient childish tantrums, and led us to place where his vision of a free Iraq could take hold.

And all of this churns my gut if Bull is right. Because I don't believe the cost, in blood and money, has ever been worth it. I have seen the rise of jihadi fundamentalism, the destruction of American civil liberties, the loss of world respect and world authority, the desecration of respect for human knowledge and science, the destruction of our intellectual capital as a nation, under the watch of the current administration. This has been an administration of men, most of them incompetent, and not the rule of law. We will not get any of those things back.

If Bull is right, then Iraq is our Milvian Bridge: the last great victory before we start our slide into historical irrelevance. If he's not, well, the worst is still yet to come.

Date: 2007-10-11 06:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] damiana-swan.livejournal.com
By Bull's own argument, then, we can leave. And should. Like, NOW.

It amazes me that that hasn't occurred to them.

Date: 2007-10-11 07:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jordan179.livejournal.com
I think we will mostly leave Iraq soon ...

... to invade Iran.

Would that fulfill your victory conditions?

Date: 2007-10-11 07:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] damiana-swan.livejournal.com
Bah. That assumes that "victory" is even a possibility.

It would not create less of a mess, no. In fact, I suspect it could quite possibly trigger that event the behind-the-scenes fundies have been hoping for--a worldwide apocalyptic, quite possibly nuclear war that they can trick out with all their End Times prophecies.

It won't matter that Iran doesn't have nukes--we do. And if we use 'em, I guaran-damn-tee that some coalition of nuclear-capable nations will stop us by whatever means necessary.
From: [identity profile] jordan179.livejournal.com
Bah. That assumes that "victory" is even a possibility.

Actually, I was asking about your "victory conditions," namely what you want to see happen.

But I guess you're right. We're doomed. Don your burka and prepare for your cliterodectomy. We only wish the Muslims were "ten feet tall" -- in fact, they're more like twenty! Run for the hills!

It won't matter that Iran doesn't have nukes--we do. And if we use 'em, I guaran-damn-tee that some coalition of nuclear-capable nations will stop us by whatever means necessary.

Why does war with Iran imply that we use nuclear weapons? And why, if we did, would "some coalition of nuclear-capable go: "Hey! America just used nuclear weapons in Iran! WE want to be nuked too!" ... ?

No, I don't think that any "nuclear-capable nations," with the possible exception of North Korea, are that stupid!
From: [identity profile] damiana-swan.livejournal.com
I'm not actually assuming that we'll end up being overrun by big bad evil scary Muslims.

I *am* assuming that if we start nuking Iran, that N. Korea will get involved ... and so will China, and quite possibly India as well, politics making for strange bedfellows. And Russia is trying to re-start the Cold War, so they'd probably want a piece of the action too.

We've pissed off a lot of people, and while we could probably successfully take them on individually, if they all pile on us together, we're toast.

And yeah, so are they. If we're stupid enough, they may decide it's worth it.

From: [identity profile] jordan179.livejournal.com
I *am* assuming that if we start nuking Iran, that N. Korea will get involved ... and so will China, and quite possibly India as well, politics making for strange bedfellows. And Russia is trying to re-start the Cold War, so they'd probably want a piece of the action too.

I suggest you examine the correlation of forces, particularly strategic-nuclear ones. Their leaderships certainly would do so.

Russia is the only one of the Powers you've named which has enough nuclear weapons with intercontinental delivery systems to actually destroy us as a Power. China could hurt but not destroy us, while North Korea and India lack intercontinental delivery capabiltiies and thus could at worst deliver one or two bombs covertly.

India is neither our enemy, nor Iran's friend. If you envision the Indians intervening, against a stronger Power, to avenge radical Muslims, you know nothing of the diplomatic or political situation in South Asia!

We've pissed off a lot of people, ...


To the level of "We don't like those arrogant Americans," not to the level of "I hate them so much that it's ok if I and my family all die as long as we take some of the bastards with us." Even the former level of hostility is not in the majority, and the latter is held only by our most fanatical foes.

Russia alone could destroy us, and if all the Powers you named but Russia attacked us, we'd win. Because it would be a total war from the start, with us not holding back at all.

And yeah, so are they. If we're stupid enough, they may decide it's worth it.

Why would they decide that it was "worth it" to have hundreds of millions of their people killed and their nations reduced to at best Minor Powers, just to avenge Iran? You are implying that they are monstrously stupid!
From: [identity profile] damiana-swan.livejournal.com
Oh, and as for what *I* want to see happen?

I honestly don't know. Or rather, given the current spaghetti-knot of circumstances of everything from thousands of years of cultural and religious conflict to BushCo doing their best to sweep every penny into their own pockets and those of their friends while using everything possible to gather more power unto themselves to their backers really and literally trying to trigger the Apocalypse, I don't know what combination of events could happen to cause peace and safety and prosperity.

It does seem, though, that putting corrupt, power-hungry people in charge of everything there isn't working.

Date: 2007-10-11 07:37 pm (UTC)
solarbird: (Default)
From: [personal profile] solarbird
Not at all. C.f. this article, which I think is fairly well on target.

Date: 2007-10-11 06:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jordan179.livejournal.com
Way too pessimistic in historical timing, Elf. America is now in the stage of the Decline of the Republic, not the Fall of the Empire. We haven't even established the Empire, yet.

Oh, and Islamic Fundamentalism (this cycle's analogue of the Judean Zealotry) rose well before 9-11. If history repeats itself perfectly, Islam will commit Suicide by Global Hegemon, in an agonizing centuries-long ordeal that will rip the guts out of the Arab homelands, only to be reborn in a finer form in a Diaspora.

Perhaps to be first sheltered, then later persecuted, under some future Caliphate belonging to some religion yet unborn!

Date: 2007-10-11 09:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] doodlesthegreat.livejournal.com
Mr. Bull is full of himself, as it were. At this moment, the country is on course to becoming three smaller ones, one for each major faction. The Kurds will get the north, the Shiaa the south (and the oil), and the Sunni will get the shaft.

Date: 2007-10-11 10:15 pm (UTC)
tagryn: (Death of Liet from Dune (TV))
From: [personal profile] tagryn
Which translates on the ground as, the Turks will get the north, Iran will get the south, and the Saudis will take the rest, reluctantly.

When all you have is a hammer...

Date: 2007-10-12 05:23 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Well, of course someone well-versed in history is going to see the world in those terms. It doesn't make them right, though.

Profile

elfs: (Default)
Elf Sternberg

December 2025

S M T W T F S
 12345 6
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 1st, 2026 08:34 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios