Translate

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Irony Man

I'm still puzzling over the various implications of Bush's deliberate use of his Vietnam trip to either draw or dispel parallels between that misbegotten war and the current one in Iraq (not to mention the chronically neglected one in Afghanistan).

Four decades after America became bogged down in an unpopular war in Southeast Asia, President George W. Bush finds himself increasingly haunted by an analogy the White House dreads -- Iraq as another Vietnam.

The administration insists there are few parallels. Today's war in Iraq is fought by an all-volunteer military, the U.S. body count is much lower and there is nothing like the anti-war protests that caught fire in the 1960s.

....

Bush loyalists are so uneasy at the thought of Iraq becoming a Vietnam-style failure that some hesitate to even mention the name of the drawn-out war that polarized Americans a generation ago. They refer to it as the "V-word."

As public support for Bush's Iraq policy has eroded in the face of mounting U.S. casualties and rising violence, the president can't seem to escape the comparisons.

"Iraq is in many ways a quagmire," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It's a parallel to Vietnam the administration doesn't want to admit."


The main difference between the two, as the resurgent joke from a couple years ago iterates, is that Bush had a plan to get out of Vietnam.

6 comments:

mariamaria said...

Bush has yet to even come up with a plan to go into iraq...he blithely believed in Mission Accomplished.

LadyLiberty said...

His days are numbered. Rumsfeld, going, going. Cheney following close behind. Then, the embarrassment and I believe he's succeded in making Sadam look like the "Cookie Monster" from Sesame Street. I haven't seen, lived through this much evil and I pray I never will again.
Thanks again for a good post!

Anonymous said...

Even Kissinger now admits Iraq is unwinnable, with Kofi Annan echoing him. You'd expect these people to come up with some sobering realizations as to what the fuck they intend to do in Iraq. Instead, they talk vaguely about "inviting" Iraq's neighbors to give a helping hand stabilizing the country. That is Iran and Syria. However, not a single time did the Retarded Quarterback try to even answer the question, now why the hell would these two countries do that? It's in their interest that the US remain trapped in that quagmire -- why would they wanna help it out? Second, while Iran may be coaxed into "helping" (read: install a Shia dictator not too hostile to American interests in the area) the price-tag for their cooperation would be a green light for their nuclear program. But Shrub has said he won't give them that. Syria would want Preznit Resolvitude to turn a blind eye to al-Assad's abuses in the country in exchange for their "assistance" in stabilizing Iraq (also, they nevel tell us how exactly that stabilization is supposed to take place). But again, Le Dauphin can't give them that without enraging his "base" of sputtering retards.

So, this way, Shrub has just bought himself another friedman of deception and procrastination, hoping that, by then, people will be gullible enough to accept Tony Snow's next canard: it's all the Dems' fault -- they won't roll up their sleeves to work together on this issue; Iraq coudl totally be saved, if only Nancy Pelosi weren't so damn obtuse.

In the meanwhile, rats like Ken Adelman jump out of Bush's sinking Bismarck -- that makes about five of them so far, if you count Fukuyama, Kristol and the other neocon rodents. Not enough of them, I'd say -- there still are psychopaths like this motherfucker who, instead of being confined in a straitjacket, write policy. Oh, the humanity!

--M.

Heywood J. said...

Abby, I'd like to agree that Bush's (and Cheney's) days are indeed numbered, it's just a matter of how much more damage they'll do on the way out.

It's a toxic combination of greed, spite, and sheer ignorance that frankly makes wish we could dig up Nixon and prop him in the leader chair for the next two years. Anything would be better than these clowns.

Heywood J. said...

Marius, I was struck by Kissinger's seeming turnaround, considering that he was reputed to be a top consultant on this war. He's certainly at an age where the notion of karma should be weighing more heavily on him, so maybe that explains it. Or maybe he's realized that being one of the most universally detested human beings is not what it's cracked up to be.

Your observations re Iran and Syria's interests are spot on, and I can't escape the thought that it probably doesn't even occur to Bush that other countries have their own interests, which frequently do not coincide with ours. Sometimes they even contradict our interests; who'da thunk it?

But they really do seem to not only operate, but actually process cognitively in this Manichean fashion. It's of a pattern with how Bush has treated people in his life -- either they are there to grease his path and help him get his way, or they are obstructions to be harangued and threatened.

That dynamic may work with the nouveau riche Texas oil douchebags, but not so much with the current representatives of incredibly ancient cultures, people who have cultivated impossibly deep political and sociocultural undercurrents for several millennia. He truly just does not realize that, I think. It's beyond his reckoning; he seriously thinks that if he just recites the boilerplate enough times, they'll just magically come around. It's very weird and disturbing.

Heywood J. said...

Maria, right on about the non-plan. Junior doesn't plan, he delegates, and then struts around like he knows what he's doing. Amazing what an Ivy League legacy edumacation will get you these days.