Monday, September 03, 2007
Asking a simple question:During Bush's visit in Iraq today, he spoke to the troops that were stationed in al-Anbar province, and he was proclaiming good news: I'm incredibly proud to be the commander-in-chief of such a great group of men and women.
The surge of operations that began in June is improving security throughout Iraq. These military successes are paving the way for the political reconciliation and economic progress the Iraqis need to transform their country.
When Iraqis feel safe in their own homes and neighborhoods, they can focus their efforts on building a stable, civil society, with functioning government structures at the local and provincial and national levels.
The kind of bottom-up progress that your efforts are bringing to Anbar is vital to the success and stability of a free Iraq. Stop right there. We know about the local Sunni leaders that have moved against al Qaeda. That's the bottom part of "bottom up progress". QUESTION: What's the up part? Where's the progress at the national level that "bottom up" implies? There is none. Bush avoided Baghdad because there is no "bottom up progress" to embrace. Bush certinly would like to see "bottom up progress" but until that happens his use of that expression is pure razzle-dazzle. Don't fall for it.
posted by Quiddity at 9/03/2007 05:44:00 PM
3 comments
I don't think analytical or deductive reasoning are Bush's strengths. Nor is understanding the scripts handed to him. Probably not staying within the lines while coloring in his books either.
Like Bill Maher said, "Bush was born to be a bartender." That was his calling in life, but he missed it.
When he tells us that the surge is working, remember that he's a guy tending bar.
You'll see "bottom-up" progress over the next couple of Iraqi election cycles as the newly minted effective local leaders begin to replace the hastily-chosen, ineffective elected representatives in the national government.
Achieving success at the local level is an enormously important accomplishment, both for the MNF and the Iraqi people.
There's an old saying in Tennessee, I know it's in Texas, "When life give you turds, make ass juice"
The Bush team ain't dumb. They know there is no "up" in their "bottom up". But they aren't just going to sit by and let reality win. Humans are not rational and they see patterns where there are none, and if their values drive them to cheer for team Bush, they can be fooled.
Sure, you and me see this "sunni leader versus al qaeda" thing as a one time thing, but a lot of people are trying really hard to keep the faith and they really want to see this as the start of a grass roots movement. They just needed something to latch onto. Now they can just stop worrying since everything is up from here.
But you're still arguing like a 17th century enlightenment philosopher, expecting people to figure their own interests good and make decisions based on evidence that they don't have (even if it is out there, how many would rather receive from on high?). Unless people are taught new ways of seeing things, how do you expect them to see past their own eyelids?
Just look a th post by anonymous, who has bought the talking points hook line and sinker, he wants to believe, there's no real idea that the whole thing could just be lipstick on a pig. What the Bush Team has done is steal the idea of grassroots movements and smeared it on Iraqi events. we Americans know how our grassroots movements are supposed to grow, so we can pretend that's what is going to happen in Al-Anbar. Even the commanders on the ground are merely hopeful but are wary of the quick switch from laying IEDs one day and collecting a police paycheck the next.
I think this recent alliance with Sunni Tribal leaders is a poltical sigheh (prostitution marriage) with the Iraqis playing the role of the husband. The Iraqis will annul the marriage whenever they wish and the US occupation forces and Bush neocons will be left like the beggar bride desperate for her next life sustaining romance.
|
