When mission accomplished is really Mission Impossible

April 10, 2008 by barbara

barbara writes

All right. Let's get busy.

My first task is to try to embed a video for the first time.

Assuming I succeed at this, take a look at the following MoveOn video. Even if you've already seen it, watch it again. Then spread the word. Better still, spread a link to the Clothesline, because we are not above shameless self-promotion, even when we've gone missing for several days running.

Turn up your speakers and wish me luck. Here goes.

Booyah! I did it! More shortly.

(h/t Alan!)

Posted in

Comments

Anonymous (not verified) | April 11, 2008 - 6:38am

Protection of assets and protection of a way of life, such as is enjoyed in the United States, requires at times, much more than folks like Moveon are willing to commit. Of course, if maintaining that way of life is against your interest, and you would like to change it to a more, what shall I call it, a socialistic type of lifestyle, then the Moveon folks certainly deserve the "hero" status status that you give them.

To most, they are pathetic.

McCain 08

»

barbara says (not verified) | April 11, 2008 - 7:45am

leftyMN sent me this spot-on Juan Cole piece (read the whole thing at http://www.juancole.com/):

"War turns Republics into dictatorships. The logic is actually quite simple. The Constitution says that the Congress is responsible for declaring war. But in 2002 Congress turned that responsibility over to Bush, gutting the constitution and allowing the American Right to start referring to him not as president but as 'commander in chief' (that is a function of the civilian presidency, not a title.)

"Now Bush has now turned over the decision-making about the course of the Iraq War to Gen. David Petraeus.

"So Congress abdicated to Bush. Bush has abdicated to the generals in the field.

"That is not a Republic. That is a military dictatorship achieved not by coup but by moral laziness.

"Ironically, what officers like Petraeus need from Bush is not deference but vigorous leadership in the political realm. Bush needs to intervene to work for political reconciliation in Iraq if Petraeus's military achievements are to bear fruit. But Bush seems incapable of actually conducting policy, as opposed to starting wars. Bush happened to Iraq just as he happened to New Orleans. He cannot do the hard work of patiently addressing disasters and ameliorating them. He just wants to set people to fighting. Crush the Sadr Movement, perhaps the most popular political movement in Iraq? He's all for it. Risk provoking a wider conflagration in the Middle East by worsening relations with Iran? Sounds like a great idea to him. Bush campaigned on being a 'uniter not a divider' in 2000. In fact, he is the ultimate Divider, and leaves burning buildings, millions of refugees, and hundreds of thousands of cadavers in his wake. He is not Iraq's Brownie. He is Iraq's Katrina itself.

"Just as New Orleans's Ninth Ward will still be a moonscape when Bush goes out of office, so will Iraq."

»

Leftymn (not verified) | April 15, 2008 - 9:11am

Anonymous hits the nail on the head. "Protection of assets and protection of a way of life" is the essential American rationale for war. Despite the American myth of spreading liberty , freedom and democracy in all our wars, essentially with one or two exceptions all our wars are about protecting "assets" and the American "way of life".

Of course the question is begged, whose "assets" are they? (last time I looked at my assets I didnt see any that I owned in Iraq, but then Dick Cheney and many energy/oil companies have presumed assets there I guess)

Does the American "way of life"(which I believe means the "right" to consume, at a discount, 25% of the world's resources) have immediate priority and preminence in the world? (this presumes that any other country's citizens have ways of life that are secondary, unfortunately for us some countries, China for instance, have decided that their way of life might be just as important as ours)

And so the American public is sold the flag and apple pie and patriotic paeans to our armed forces going off to be stationed overseas .... funny their service and deaths dont typically get justified with protecting "assets" do they? They do get praised for defending freedom and liberty and the American way of life... but for the life of me I have a really hard time understanding from day one how the invasion of Iraq and its current occupation have much at all to do with the protection of freedom, liberty and the American way of life... not so much.

Alan Greenspan, a man I really do not admire at all, actually told the truth about Iraq, it is essentially about oil and the American desire to control that asset in the Middle East to keep China and India from likely gaining it, and to keep the Russian energy juggernaut in check... that is the Cheney/Neocon theory. (basically a continuation of the 19th century great power imperialist thinking carried into a 21st century that is rapidly changing all those preconditions )

Thank you anonymous, I find your lack of sugarcoating this Greek tragedy ( I would call it a farce but the death and damage are all too real even for a cynic) quite honest for a Republican true believer.

»

barbara says (not verified) | April 15, 2008 - 1:46pm

Well, lefty, you nailed it again. Much sacrifice is required of the diminished middle class and especially the underclass to prop up the assets of the top dogs. Follows along the same vein as the 400:1 ratio of corporate head honcho "earnings" to those of their lowest paid workers. "What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine."

It would be extremely interesting to see credible demographics of women and men in military service, particularly with respect to their economic position on the tops-down ladder. And the Iraqi civilians? No biggie. Collateral damage. What say we don't even keep track of that pesky statistic.

»