juan cole has more
* cole:
"Abdul Karim al-Enzy [al-`Unzi], leader of one of the two major wings of the Da`wa Party and minister of National Security, has given an interview to the intrepid and courageous Paul McGeough of the Sydney Morning Herald. Al-Enzy called on US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad to stop interfering in Iraq's internal affairs. He defended Minister of the Interior Bayan Jabr, a fellow Shiite, from US criticism. In the aftermath of the bombing of the Askari Shrine in Samarra, Shiites are in no mood to compromise on issues of security, and resent what they see as Khalilzad's attempt to push around the Shiite coalition. They are also suspicious that the US wants to divide and rule Iraq."* Cole:
"Oh, great. First God chose George W. Bush and whispered things in his ear. Then He chose Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and whispered things in his ear. Now we have yet another messianic, divinely appointed leader out to do God's will. If God really were choosing these people, couldn't He come up with better candidates? And if He is giving them advice, why isn't it better advice? I'd just like to caution all these political prophets that it is widely rumored among medieval observers, who were the real experts in things divine, that sometimes Satan manages to misrepresent himself to you as the voice of God. And sometimes the conviction that God is* cole:
speaking to and through you is not so much piety as the mortal sin of pride."
"The Bush administration policy is to continually insinuate that the Muslim world is the new Soviet Union and full of sinister forces that require the US to go to war against them. But at the same time, America has warm relations with Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Senegal, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, etc., etc. When Saudi Arabia's then crown prince (now king) Abdullah came to the US, Bush brought him to the Crawford ranch, held hands with him and kissed him on each cheek.read the rest
This two-faced policy and self-contradictory rhetoric has contributed to growing hatred and bigotry toward Muslims in the US, which is no less worrisome than the hatred Jews faced in Europe in the 1920s. It is dangerous because of what it can become.
[snip]
The hatemongers think that the American public is sort of like a big stupid dog, and you can fairly easily "sic" it on whoever you like. Just tell them that X people are intrinsically evil and that the US needs to go to war to protect itself from them. Then they turn around and blame those of us who don't want our country reduced to footsoldiers in someone else's greedy crusade for being "unpatriotic.""
1 comment:
Lukery, you quoted emptywheel about war games and how it would apply to a possible Iran attack: "i'm reminded of the ex-poste rationalization for the fuck-up in iraq that the pundits now wisely spout - that 'no military plan survives first contact with the enemy' - i guess that's why they dont even bother having one."
I've seen a few references, but apparently the US war game simulations of an Iran attack have never been contained: they always ended up with a confrontation with either Russia, China, or both.
Both the CIA and DIA have conducted war games to determine the consequences of an American air attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. According to Newsweek (September 27, 2004), "No one liked the outcome." According to an Air Force source, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating." In December 2004, The Atlantic Monthly reported similar results for its own war game on this question. The architect of these games, Sam Gardner, concluded, "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran."(link)
Post a Comment