Why the fuck is Paul Wolfowitz on the news being asked what we should do about Iraq's descent into civil war?
Why the fuck is William Kristol being asked the same questions? Or Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld. At least George Bush has the respect for this fuck up happening as a result of his "Decider-ing" to be quiet and paint cats.
How, and why, are people who so colossally oversold a threat, misled expected outcomes, so poorly prepared for occupation, and so pathetically mismanaged all of the above being asked what should be done now?
You might call this Monday morning quarterbacking. It's more like the week after Monday, since what is happening in Iraq now was predicted before the invasion, and during the early stages of the occupation.
"Naysayers" "America-haters" "Non-supporters" we were called. We wanted the invasion to fail we were told. We loved Saddam we were accused. Bullshit. We would be happy if it failed we were admonished by the "grown ups" - as they called themselves when they won the disputed 2000 election. I'm not "happy" that the Iraq misadventure failed. It would have been some karmic justice if what is happening now had happened in 2007 so these fucknuts would be the ones answering the questions - "What do we do now?"
I don't know what should be done about Iraq. I don't know if the United States should do much of anything. I certainly don't support sending troops back. I don't know that air strikes, and drone strikes are enough to quell the civil war that the "grown ups" pooh pooed when told it was coming.
I do know that Paul "Iraq doesn't have a history of sectarian discord, and its reconstruction can be paid for by oil revenues." Wolfowitz, Dick "We'll be greeted as liberators" Cheney, Donald "You go with the military you have, not the one you want - We know the WMD are in the north by Tikrit" Rumsfeld, and Bill "The Iraqi National Congress is a popular group in exile to build a government around" Kristol are not the ones to ask what to be done. They were so epically, and tragically wrong in 03. Why would anyone listen to them again?
What to do? I don't know, but this time can we ask someone who knows what the fuck they're talking about? Seriously - can we?
Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts
Monday, June 16, 2014
Monday, March 3, 2014
Ukraine - a few thoughts
There is, unless you've spend the past 2 weeks doing research on the Bachelor contestants, or watching all movies nominated in all the categories for the Academy Awards (and really, how do you appreciate sound editing?) a huge crisis in Ukraine.
Here's a summary of the past few weeks; There has been a popular uprising since late January leading to massive demonstrations in Kiev, the capital city of Ukraine, against the sitting President. He was seen as a puppet of the Russian government led by Putin. After swearing, and promising he would not step down, after hundreds died in huge demonstrations in Kiev - he stepped down. On the 23rd of Feb the Ukrainian Parliament appointed an interim President until new elections. February 28th is when Russia says "Screw that." Invades the Crimean peninsula to "protect" ethnic Russians (although they were not in danger really) It was a bullshit rationale to invade a sovereign nation.
This is a real crisis, with real people affected, with life, death, and liberty at stake for Ukrainian people. Ukraine is on the western edge of Russia. It's the most European of the former states of the Soviet Union. Its capital - Kiev - is a historically significant city in Russian history. The seat of the Russian Czars was there before being moved to Moscow. It was a pretty autonomous state under the old Russian Empire, although it did remain subordinate to the Czars. Under the Soviet Union it was strategically important during the Cold War. It was a hub of Soviet armed forces, and was densely armed with nukes. When the Soviet Union collapsed after the Cold War, Ukraine became independent. In exchange for its independence it gave up all nuclear weapons to Russia. Russia paid Ukraine the value of the uranium. A treaty was signed by Ukraine, Russia, United States, and United Kingdom recognizing Ukrainian sovereignty. So, no way is Russia right in it's invasion.
To hear the conservative punditocracy the biggest reason Putin felt he could do this was because Obama is not decisive, or tough enough. Never mind that when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 there was a different President who, for whatever his faults, was very decisive and tough. Right there the argument is exposed as red team bullshit. This issue is way bigger than the red team/blue team political paradigm that out lazy media finds the need to put everything into.
If there were a President Romney right now, and if events played out in Ukraine as they have the past few months, the crisis would be here in current shape. If you think differently, you're either stupid, or not paying attention. If you think tough talk will change anything, you're foolish. If you think US forces should be there to support Ukraine, I suggest you crack a history book, and look up "land wars in Russia." If there's anything Putin is counting on it's Congress and the President NOT working together, and playing politics with this as they have since 2010.
Here's a summary of the past few weeks; There has been a popular uprising since late January leading to massive demonstrations in Kiev, the capital city of Ukraine, against the sitting President. He was seen as a puppet of the Russian government led by Putin. After swearing, and promising he would not step down, after hundreds died in huge demonstrations in Kiev - he stepped down. On the 23rd of Feb the Ukrainian Parliament appointed an interim President until new elections. February 28th is when Russia says "Screw that." Invades the Crimean peninsula to "protect" ethnic Russians (although they were not in danger really) It was a bullshit rationale to invade a sovereign nation.
This is a real crisis, with real people affected, with life, death, and liberty at stake for Ukrainian people. Ukraine is on the western edge of Russia. It's the most European of the former states of the Soviet Union. Its capital - Kiev - is a historically significant city in Russian history. The seat of the Russian Czars was there before being moved to Moscow. It was a pretty autonomous state under the old Russian Empire, although it did remain subordinate to the Czars. Under the Soviet Union it was strategically important during the Cold War. It was a hub of Soviet armed forces, and was densely armed with nukes. When the Soviet Union collapsed after the Cold War, Ukraine became independent. In exchange for its independence it gave up all nuclear weapons to Russia. Russia paid Ukraine the value of the uranium. A treaty was signed by Ukraine, Russia, United States, and United Kingdom recognizing Ukrainian sovereignty. So, no way is Russia right in it's invasion.
To hear the conservative punditocracy the biggest reason Putin felt he could do this was because Obama is not decisive, or tough enough. Never mind that when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 there was a different President who, for whatever his faults, was very decisive and tough. Right there the argument is exposed as red team bullshit. This issue is way bigger than the red team/blue team political paradigm that out lazy media finds the need to put everything into.
If there were a President Romney right now, and if events played out in Ukraine as they have the past few months, the crisis would be here in current shape. If you think differently, you're either stupid, or not paying attention. If you think tough talk will change anything, you're foolish. If you think US forces should be there to support Ukraine, I suggest you crack a history book, and look up "land wars in Russia." If there's anything Putin is counting on it's Congress and the President NOT working together, and playing politics with this as they have since 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)