I'll Leave You New Ruskin College
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Lecture Notes: 12-28-04
The War is Over
All the fill in hate radio talk show hosts have been bloviating on how the “liberals” think Iraq is another Vietnam. But these second string loudmouths know better.
The feckless man in the oval room who made bio-weapons the central issue of the war, before the war, now makes “constitutional democracy” in all the Middle East the goal at the end of the war. He has “vision.” He has “faith.”
As was explained at the beginning of the war the invasion of Iraq could not possibly make us safe from bio-weapons. (see Don Imus Says Good Morning, 45 Minutes and the Distortions of History, Who Killed Duane Garrett Part II, and Army Navy Club at the Weber)
Now at the end of the war this inarticulate, un-thoughtful man, keeps adding to our war aims. He has made the writing of the new constitution of Iraq apart of the war. Our troops will just have to go on fighting until the new constitution is written he says.
What if the Iraqi’s take two years to write a constitution? We go on fighting for two more years? This open ended commitment, in which the goals of our war aims are outside the control of the United States, where we do not have any means of achieving those goals and bringing the war to a conclusion by our own actions alone: This; is what is called Vi-et-nam. (Note: It is typical that Mr. Powell has said that the lesson of Vietnam is that when the United States goes to war it should use “overwhelming force.” See? A bigger hammer. That is the lesson Mr. Powell drew from Vietnam. How typically American.)
This nattily dressed gentleman in the oval office has turned control of the war over to our enemies. He has conflated Iraq’s success in writing a constitution, in holding elections, developing a housing program, establishing a system of national parks, God knows what else, (he has told us God speaks to him but exactly what they have discussed on Iraq has not yet been disclosed), with the national interests of the United States. He is mistaken.
He could have himself written a constitution before the war. Before the war it was important to us to have someone to whom we could hand off the government of Iraq. Someone should explain to the gentleman in the oval room that this is why the constitution was important before the war. To help with this transition. Got it?
And the Pentagon tried to explain this to the gentleman in the oval room, before the war. Both Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Wolfowitz, tried to explain the importance of establishing a government so we could have someone in place after the war to whom governance of the country could be entrusted. (And this is why the recent criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld is so misplaced.) But there was conflict in the cabinet and the Chief Executive did not know what to do. And so the feckless Commander in Chief, sitting in his oval room “negotiated” and “negotiated” each time putting off the difficult task of making a decision.
All the “hard work” was put off, and put off, until the end. Well the end has now come. And now the United States is not in a position to exercise control over the constitution of Iraq. So therefore, now the people of Iraq will have to write their own constitution. This project is not part of the Second Gulf War. This project will be part of the history of the new Iraq. Good luck to them.
The United States does have a national interest in promoting democracy in the Middle East. But, and this is not a subtle minor point, this broader regional interest, is not, part of our war aims. The war is over. (In any case war is not a very effective method of building democracy.)
“Fighting the insurgency” is not part of the Second Gulf War. Repeat: The war is over.
We can continue to help Iraq. I would recommend we set up military reservations in the desert, on the Syrian and Iranian borders for example. From these military reservations we can help the people of Iraq as their needs require it.
We wish them the best of luck and God’s blessing on their new enterprise of self government. We wish them well, and we can give them encouragement, and even technical assistance, in fighting the “insurgency.” But this battle is not part of our war aims.
As for the rest of the Middle East we will continue to work with Iraq’s neighbors as they bravely march down the road to greater and greater democracy. The liberation of Iraq has been a huge contribution to this effort.
But as for “fighting the insurgency” or writing a constitution, or any of the other problems the struggling young democracy of Iraq faces, we are available to assist, but to repeat: The war is over.
George . . . George . . . if you do not listen to me, . . . George, I’ll, . . . I’ll leave you.
How else to get him to listen? Stubborn? How about egotist?
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Lecture Notes: 12-28-04
The War is Over
All the fill in hate radio talk show hosts have been bloviating on how the “liberals” think Iraq is another Vietnam. But these second string loudmouths know better.
The feckless man in the oval room who made bio-weapons the central issue of the war, before the war, now makes “constitutional democracy” in all the Middle East the goal at the end of the war. He has “vision.” He has “faith.”
As was explained at the beginning of the war the invasion of Iraq could not possibly make us safe from bio-weapons. (see Don Imus Says Good Morning, 45 Minutes and the Distortions of History, Who Killed Duane Garrett Part II, and Army Navy Club at the Weber)
Now at the end of the war this inarticulate, un-thoughtful man, keeps adding to our war aims. He has made the writing of the new constitution of Iraq apart of the war. Our troops will just have to go on fighting until the new constitution is written he says.
What if the Iraqi’s take two years to write a constitution? We go on fighting for two more years? This open ended commitment, in which the goals of our war aims are outside the control of the United States, where we do not have any means of achieving those goals and bringing the war to a conclusion by our own actions alone: This; is what is called Vi-et-nam. (Note: It is typical that Mr. Powell has said that the lesson of Vietnam is that when the United States goes to war it should use “overwhelming force.” See? A bigger hammer. That is the lesson Mr. Powell drew from Vietnam. How typically American.)
This nattily dressed gentleman in the oval office has turned control of the war over to our enemies. He has conflated Iraq’s success in writing a constitution, in holding elections, developing a housing program, establishing a system of national parks, God knows what else, (he has told us God speaks to him but exactly what they have discussed on Iraq has not yet been disclosed), with the national interests of the United States. He is mistaken.
He could have himself written a constitution before the war. Before the war it was important to us to have someone to whom we could hand off the government of Iraq. Someone should explain to the gentleman in the oval room that this is why the constitution was important before the war. To help with this transition. Got it?
And the Pentagon tried to explain this to the gentleman in the oval room, before the war. Both Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Wolfowitz, tried to explain the importance of establishing a government so we could have someone in place after the war to whom governance of the country could be entrusted. (And this is why the recent criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld is so misplaced.) But there was conflict in the cabinet and the Chief Executive did not know what to do. And so the feckless Commander in Chief, sitting in his oval room “negotiated” and “negotiated” each time putting off the difficult task of making a decision.
All the “hard work” was put off, and put off, until the end. Well the end has now come. And now the United States is not in a position to exercise control over the constitution of Iraq. So therefore, now the people of Iraq will have to write their own constitution. This project is not part of the Second Gulf War. This project will be part of the history of the new Iraq. Good luck to them.
The United States does have a national interest in promoting democracy in the Middle East. But, and this is not a subtle minor point, this broader regional interest, is not, part of our war aims. The war is over. (In any case war is not a very effective method of building democracy.)
“Fighting the insurgency” is not part of the Second Gulf War. Repeat: The war is over.
We can continue to help Iraq. I would recommend we set up military reservations in the desert, on the Syrian and Iranian borders for example. From these military reservations we can help the people of Iraq as their needs require it.
We wish them the best of luck and God’s blessing on their new enterprise of self government. We wish them well, and we can give them encouragement, and even technical assistance, in fighting the “insurgency.” But this battle is not part of our war aims.
As for the rest of the Middle East we will continue to work with Iraq’s neighbors as they bravely march down the road to greater and greater democracy. The liberation of Iraq has been a huge contribution to this effort.
But as for “fighting the insurgency” or writing a constitution, or any of the other problems the struggling young democracy of Iraq faces, we are available to assist, but to repeat: The war is over.
George . . . George . . . if you do not listen to me, . . . George, I’ll, . . . I’ll leave you.
How else to get him to listen? Stubborn? How about egotist?
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
