Cutting and running

I was interested to see Coughlin’s claim, if it all fails, it will be the Iraqis’ fault.

To point out only one level of absurdity in all this, Coughlin denounces Iraqi politicians for failing to form a government, but forgets to mention that the US Embassy vetoed the first choice, Jaafari. The Americans are at least as deeply involved in the mess as any Iraqi faction.

There’s also an interesting rhetorical slide between “it won’t be the fault of the British soldiers in Basra” (true enough) and “it won’t be the fault of those who ordered and cheered on the invasion” (100 per cent false).

I call “dibs” on John!

abb1,

Sadly, the purple fingers were a Marine Corps stunt reconstituted from our failed attempts to hold, uh, “elections” in Nicaragua while chasing Sandino around in the jungles. While the Marines may have learned a thing or two (the 1940 Small Wars Manual is still essential reading), it does’t appear that anyone else in a position of power in this ridiculous country of ours did.

But then, you know, with so much that’s unbelievably funny happening with this clusterfuck, I’d hate to seem humorless….

Kevin, I thought the gist of it was: ‘the Iraqis are bastards and they are in cahoots with the Iranians who are, obviously, bastards too, so let’s just get out of there quickly’ – as opposed to ‘we need to bomb Iran to win this thing’.

Con Coughlin was exposed as an MI5 relay in a court case back in the late 90s. That he still has a job at the Telegraph, tells you something about their priorities.

Mind you there’s also that BBC correpondant (Frank something), who occasionally slips up and actually discusses the security services as if he’s a member…

I think the 66% of Parliament to form a Government rule is worth mentioning. I can see why they put it in place – to stop a civil war – but if they’d rather a goverment than no government, and a civil war is brewing because there is no government, then it’s getting in the way.

I’m opposed to replacing the hilarious “decent left’ with the all too sober “credulous Euston left.” Decent is better on oh so many levels. There is the ruling class blindness of it — there is the contrast between decency and the advocacy of maximum deceit on the home front, and maximum force in foreign policy — there is the lunatic combination of the cheers for “lets make Iraq a killing field” and the continual allusion to aiding progressive movements (unions and such) in Iraq. And finally there is the odd idea that getting behind the thieves and thugs the coalition generously imported into Iraq, the Chalabis and Allawis, is the kind of missionary work that is self evidently blessed by the spirits of ‘progressives’ past, from Tom Paine to Trotsky.
For all of these reasons — I say, save the ‘decent’ label. It fits like a body bag.

hmmm, ted, if you’re not a rightwing troll trying to create the impression that lots of CT readers support victory for the insurgency and cheer at coalition casualties, then you’re doing a reasonable impression of one.

I think you guys miss the impact that Barnett’s books Pentagon’s New Map and Blueprint For Action have on the neoconservative universe. Two of the loudest supporters of the philosophy espoused in these books are Rice and Rumsfeld. These 2 books make an interesting (and I can see how the imagery can overwhelm some people) argument for invading pretty much every country that isn’t part of the Functional Core (usually just called Core). The other countries, not fully integrated into the global economy are called the Non Integrated Gap (usually called Gap, but since the NIG are all dark skinned, I can also imagine a 6-letter word that starts with NIG that will be on the mind of the audience for his seminars and books).

I liken the philosophy in PNM and BPA as the New White Man’s Burden. And we’ll spread globalism at gunpoint, as necessary. Barnett claims that one every country in the gap has been brought into the core, then terrorism will wither away (hmm, where have I heard that “wither away” argument before? Fukuyama? Marx? Or was it Hegel?) and be a nuisance like organized crime, instead of a major threat.

A cynic might suggest that the United States can’t even do this in New Orleans much less in foreign countries. In fact, as the FMFM 1-A, Fourth Generation War, argues strongly, even if an outside force does everything right, the probability of success in such endeavors remains low. Why? As Russell Kirk wrote, there is no surer way of making someone your enemy than to announce you will remake him in your image for his own good. To many of the world’s peoples, what Barnett argues for in such blithe simplicity represents Hell, and they will fight it literally to their dying breath.

Source.

And the insurgents in Iraq are fighting it to their dying breath. Just like the “insurgents” in Iran will fight it to their dying breath. Have folks forgotten the riots that happen pretty much anytime the WTO happens to have a meeting? If first world people are so opposed to globalization, why should third world people be interested?

And before you poo-poo the notion that Barnett’s books have an influence on the folks in this administration, you might want to read the parts where he drops names and goes on and on and on and on about all those powerpointless presentations he gives. Or his own site where he talks about all the presentations and meetings he has with the folks in power. If you’re left wondering what his “sysadmins” and “development in a box” mean, then you’re not alone.

What’s up with the timing of this reconsideration of the prospects for success in the war?

So, a British helicpoter crashes and kills 5, while locals express sentiments “less than grateful”, and this is a cause for soul searching about the mission?

While the US and British initiated a war based on lies, obvious even at the time, the Iraqis face chaos, insecurity and fear, daily, the sorrow of the relatives of the approximately 100,000 EXTRA dead people, and the roughly 50/50 probability that the death rate will drop below “Saddam levels” even ten years from now?….not as much?

It’s like burning a village to save it, while in the process stubbing your toe, so THEN deciding that the mission might not be worth it, and the locals are to blame (those ungrateful wogs might not deserve our help!).

John Quiggin,

Perhaps I’ve been duped by intel-agency-relay journalists, but I understand that other Iraqi politicians couldn’t abide Jafari, and after months of political deadlock the U.S. Embassy lent its weight to suggestions that he should step aside.

Trotsky, of course a lot of other Iraqi politicians couldn’t abide Jaafari, but they were in the minority. The US was on the anti-Jaafari side from very early on, and helped to create the deadlock, which they then demanded be broken. Here’s Juan Cole back at the beginning of March.

He made a deal with Al Sadr in February/March. The deal full of various populist items – geting rid of the US/British foreign fighers right on the top of the list, of course. And immediately he became unacceptable.

John Dolan at exile.ru has this joke:

An Irishman has been bayoneted by a British soldier, and as the Mick dies slowly in a ditch the Brit kicks him over and over, cursing him and wishing him a painful, slow death. With his last breath the Irishman asks, “Why are you so angry at us?” The Brit leans down, whispers, “You swine, we will NEVER forgive you for what we’ve done to you.”