The new command has had bipartisan political backing -- who could question the idea of taking Africa more seriously?Insofar as the phrase retains any real meaning in the American idiom, let me suggest that it is possible to take something seriously without a garrison.
-David Ignatius
Sunday, January 06, 2008
AFRICOM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
As an old soldier, I notice that the primary peace dividend of the end of the cold war has been more wars, in far more pestilential places, for lower stakes, with higher mortality rates for all involved. And, I'm not sure why anyone needs to take Africa seriously. Contemplating the disaster that extends from the Mediterranean to the Cape of Good Hope makes me wonder why in the hell I stopped drinking...AIDS, Ebola, Malaria, Sleeping Sickness, Denial, Inter-tribal warfare, Evangelical Christians, Kleptocratic insanity, Mugabe...maybe I need to drink more and then I'll see an upside.
Word.
that is, word to ioz, not to whatever the hell is trying to be said above
yes drink more
I am for not taking Africa seriously at all. From hereon all U.S government officials shall refer to it at as Bongo Bongo Land.
I think the adverb "seriously" is superfluous - if we just say that there's a bipartisan consensus to "take Africa" then the very first definition in our Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary explains it quite clearly -
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/take
transitive verb
1: to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control: as a: to seize or capture physically - 'took them as prisoners' b: to get possession of (as fish or game) by killing or capturing
See?
---charley, ph.d.
tggp -
Thanks for the funny map - here's a more readable copy of it:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=231354631&size=o
Post a Comment