An excellent piece by John Tierney on the problems that the United States faces in Iraq. The last two paragraphs really sum things up:
Maybe, as President Bush hopes, Americans can stay long enough in the Middle East to jump-start democracy and reduce the long-term risk of terrorism. But in the meantime, they're bound to face resistance, no matter how noble their intentions.
During the Civil War, Union soldiers were amazed to see poor Southerners without any stake in the slavery system defending it in suicidal charges. But there was a simple explanation, as a barefoot, emaciated Confederate captive famously put it when a Union soldier asked him why he kept fighting: "Because you're here."
(Some folks still feel that way; in the words of the late, great Lewis Grizzard, "Delta is ready when you are.")
What did they expect?
Posted by: nell | July 02, 2005 at 02:49 PM
They expected to be welcomed with open arms, remember? Flowers were mentioned, if I recall correctly. It is to weep.
Posted by: Bonnie | July 04, 2005 at 01:25 PM
"No matter how stupid [Bush] seems, he is convinced that the general public is even stupider and there's not a whole lot of evidence to prove him wrong on that." - Mykeru.com
Posted by: Sarah | July 05, 2005 at 09:08 AM
The candy and flowers line was part of Chalabi's con job.The neocons bought it, ignoring the fact that he hadn't lived in Iraq for 40 years. Duh.
Posted by: Pa Bear | July 05, 2005 at 12:41 PM
The candy and flowers line was part of Chalabi's con job.The neocons bought it, ignoring the fact that he hadn't lived in Iraq for 40 years. Duh.
Posted by: Pa Bear | July 05, 2005 at 12:44 PM
Well, the neocons may have bought it but the Bushies knew it was a lie all along.
Posted by: nell | July 05, 2005 at 05:48 PM
Suprisingly, Tierny is the NYT's Pet Tame Conservative, intended as a replacement for Safire.
Posted by: John | July 06, 2005 at 10:08 PM
Maybe it was the bit in the article about marrying cousins that made me think of this, but I think the problem is a sort of political inbreeding. Politicians have become so hostile to opposing views, they surround themselves with people that won't disagree with them, and ostracize those who do. As their views get more and more extreme, the people who will agree get progressively dumber and more fanatical.
Iraq is a good example of this: Rumsfeld is saying it may be another dozen years before we're done, while at the same time the White House is trying to tell us the insurgents will burn themselves out any minute now. Neither view makes any kind of real sense, but attacking either one of them would be political suicide just the same.
If something doesn't happen soon to make at least ONE of these houses of cards the neocons (or whatever these knuckleheads area) have built up collapse, and collapse so publicly they can't deny it, then sooner or later the whole village of cards is going to come down, and god only knows what it's going to bring down with it.
Posted by: David | July 08, 2005 at 05:09 AM