tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post110770658667214754..comments2024-03-19T11:28:58.168-04:00Comments on History Unfolding: The Iraqi ElectionsDavid Kaiserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05020082243968071584noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-1123442511296721642005-08-07T15:21:00.000-04:002005-08-07T15:21:00.000-04:00Indeed (in your conclusion)if the "government" so ...Indeed (in your conclusion)if the "government" so toppled was <BR/>Hussein's, then was the Rule of Misrule (his tortures, his mass graves) anything so risky to eliminate?<BR/><BR/>The families of those Hussein and every rival tribal murderer have negatively effected will obviate any attempt to revive at least Ba'athist (mis)rule. These families will eventually be in a position to call the shots in Iraq. Woe to the insurgents then. Also, the teeming refugees who want nothing more than to return home (to Iraq) will add weight once the place is secure. It may fill up with hopeful Iranians and even Syrians, even, waiting to foment their own revolutions against little mustached men with berets and shiny boots.<BR/><BR/>It is going to take several years, however. Note how Nicaragua took 10 years to stabilize, and Indonesia in the 1940s-50s - the war in which counterinsurgency doctrine was first laid out. It may even involve toppling the Iranian antpile and the Syrian one to boot, but will be useful to keep moving in the long run, since the payoffs will be enormous in terms of stability.<BR/><BR/>It is also important to note, professor, that neoconservatism does not in any way eliminate activist tendencies. George W. grew up in the same America, roughly at the same time as you did. You and the purported liberal east coast impedimentia are not the only activists around because you reserve the right, it seems. George W and company's version of activism is to re-define whst "non intervention in foreign affairs" means, for one, contra the archaic "rights of nations" concept as Bush's father and Reagan, for instance (and you) interpret it, using pin-stripe diplomatic definitions of the phrase. George W. and company of the neoconservative right and left see intervening in states where the "stateness" and "leadershipness" are nonexistent, since all they do is rape, murder,a nd steal, and so, are bereft of any need to continue existence. And if this coincides with strategic aims of maintaining secure supply lines to oil for European and Asian trading partners (or allies, if you wish), the faster these Bozo "states" and their dictators will a) be redefined and b.) held in courts of law for sentencing. <BR/><BR/>Add to this the fact that in the last presidential election in the US, over 50% of those who voted, voted for W. In the words of Toby Keith, America, now with more energy on its hands after the Cold War than ever before, plans to put a boot up the ass of any inconvenient usurping political nightmare it can corner. And this is going to go on for some time. So guess where this leaves any leader-to-be like John Kerry and the pin-stripe liberals? <BR/><BR/>Your self held fallacy is that, since Vietnam, America hasn't altered in its political and military stance and is an accident waiting to happen. (This is a typical marxist pose, predicated on the belief of inflexible change and a knee-jerk sympathy for "revolutionaries", which these insurgent assholes are. But given your age and the time you went to college I forgive you.) <BR/><BR/>Say, if you listen between the lines wherever you go nowadays, you'll hear the tiny language of counterinsurgency warfare popping up all over the place. Even on the alphabet networks and around the campus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com