Mencken said that the Americano is distinguished in all fields and endeavors by his capacity to believe that which is palpably untrue, and by the headlines you can sense that statement's palpable truth. What's happening in Iraq is not "progress" by any lights, dear god. It is right now worse than it has ever been, "reductions in violence" or whatever the going phrase is notwithstanding. Timorous American liberals are reenacting their prewar failures, casting themselves as an opposition but hiding behind the hedges. For fear of being shown wrong a year in the future, they will not state plain facts. Fortunately, we're all gonna die. So here it is, unvarnished. America has overseen the effective ethnic cleansing of Baghdad, and there you have it. Reductions in violence. Elsewhere and otherwise, we have thoroughly empowered the very people who will soon ramp up their efforts to reacquire the reins of state power. The Anbar awakening my ass. You might as well call it "a third force," pace Graham Greene. Do you want to know why they have effectively cooperated in attacking and undermining the operational efficacy of all those home-grown Iraqi terrorist groups who made the last year the deadliest ever? Because now that they are organizing, they don't need a lot of fuckin' amateurs fucking things up. This is not a difficult point to grasp if you simply stop viewing Iraqis as naive little children and understand that these people who now claim to have allied themselves with America are political sophisticates. The chaos served their interests for a time. If you want to worry, worry about the brutal efficacy with which they've clamped down on something that a hundred and fifty thousand American soldiers couldn't control. These are parties with a political agenda, and America has effectively abandoned the weak government that America itself set up to underwrite the aspirations of that government's principle domestic enemy. So, you know, everyone who's spent the last five years pointing out that the real difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that in Vietnam there was an organized, ideological enemy that sought political control of the Vietnames state whereas in Iraq there's just a bunch of camel jockey's blowing shit up because they're a lot of primitive, superstitious sand niggers with no politics and too much plastique can kindly sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up. Of course, we never overtly allied ourselves with the Viet Cong, but whatever. Here's the point, dudes. At some point not very far off, you are going to see a substantial uptick in directed violence against the current Iraqi government and the American occupation forces who have convinced themselves and their media interlocutors that they're only in it for the money. We know which Lebowski you are, Lebowski. You're not dealing with morons here.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
But wait, IOZ. Megan McArdle has discovered the gooks weren't mad at us because we fucked their shit up, but because we left. We just misinterpreted the will of the Vietnamese people back then. Clearly, success in Iraq depends on understanding that no matter what the ragheads say or do, they really want us to stay. All your sophisticated analysis is based on the false premise that the violent resistance of the last several years had any meaning. Violence will rage and violence will lull, but it doesn't matter. Deep inside their dark, inscrutable little hearts, the ragheads know we're the good guys. If you don't believe me, go to Iraq in 2042 and see how polite they are to you.
Did you say something? I can't get the image of bad Chinese food and anal sex out of my mind.
Timorous liberals? You mean the Democratic Party? Good one.
As for the expected uptick in violence against the Baghdad government, I hope you're right. I've been looking forward to it for some time now. Can you imagine the coverage? The editorials? Just think of it: in the dead of night, a cement truck filled with fertilizer rams into a wall of the green zone and mortars burst over nearby guard towers, followed by a horde of Iraqis streaming through the rubble and into the heart of the emerald city. Now that's what I call direct democracy.
What the fuck are you talking about?!
The Chinaman is not the issue here dude!
I'm talking about drawing a line in the
sand, Dude. Across this line you do
not,-- also, Dude, Chinaman is
not the preferred nomenclature, uh,
Asian-American, Please.
And did we tell you the name of the game, boy? We call it "riding the gravy train."
Another offensive term for Asian American or (Asian Vietnamese) is "slant."
The Vietnam Occupation was relatively brief (just about a decade, approximately) compared to the planned duration of the Iraq Occupation, because the Viet Cong drove the U.S. forces out. The ragheads may be as tough and determined as the gooks were, but the Iraqis have the misfortune of living on top of our oil - so the odds are against them.
Of course, we never overtly allied ourselves with the Viet Cong
Well, actually... Ho Chi Minh was extensively supported by the US during and immediately after WWII, because the nationalists opposed the Japanese occupation.
Of course, we never overtly allied ourselves with the Viet Cong, but whatever.
yep, just like we never overtly allied ourselves with Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.
You know, I've read that the region we now call Germany was relatively peaceful in the fall and winter of 1623.
Post a Comment