Friday, April 13, 2007
Reading some of the reaction to Chomsky's appearance at Newton South, it sounds like some of the older folks who should know better thought Chomsky's talk was fairly non-controversial because he basically repeated the conventional wisdom on Iraq as the convention runs here in Massachusetts. One of the commenters mentioned that Chomsky spent most of the time relating events, and only left a small amount of time for his own opinions. Of course, for those familiar with Chomsky, his relating of events IS his opinion...questions of reliable narratorship and all.
I don't know why I thought of that while reading Charles Krauthammer's latest excellent piece: The Surge: First Fruits
...How at this point -- with only about half of the additional surge troops yet deployed -- can Democrats be trying to force the United States to give up? The Democrats say they are carrying out their electoral mandate from the November election. But winning a single-vote Senate majority as a result of razor-thin victories in Montana and Virginia is hardly a landslide.
Second, if the electorate was sending an unconflicted message about withdrawal, how did the most uncompromising supporter of the war, Sen. Joe Lieberman, win handily in one of the most liberal states in the country?
And third, where was the mandate for withdrawal? Almost no Democratic candidates campaigned on that. They campaigned for changing the course the administration was on last November.
Which the president has done. He changed the civilian leadership at the Defense Department, replaced the head of Central Command and, most critically, replaced the Iraq commander with Petraeus -- unanimously approved by the Democratic Senate -- to implement a new counterinsurgency strategy...
From Krauthammer:
"... as Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, the Australian counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, has written, 14 of the 18 tribal leaders in Anbar have turned against al-Qaeda. As a result, thousands of Sunni recruits are turning up at police stations where none could be seen before."
Also:
"Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a major critic of the Bush war policy, reports that in Anbar, al-Qaeda is facing "a real and growing groundswell of Sunni tribal opposition." And that "this is a crucial struggle, and it is going our way -- for now.'"
Fouad Ajami's piece, linked in Krauthammer's article, is likewise well measured.
For reference purposes, I will point out Mr. Krauthammer had amazing prescience to write articles calling upon this administration to act unilaterally (ignore treaties and diplomacy) against perceived enemies, before 9/11/01. Amazing, that. Or something.
But to get back to the foolishness and sophomoric logic of Chuck: "Second, if the electorate was sending an unconflicted message about withdrawal, how did the most uncompromising supporter of the war, Sen. Joe Lieberman, win handily in one of the most liberal states in the country?"
Gee, how can one begin to argue with such a simpleton? Because ONE neocon fellating Independent gets re-elected, the rest of the results, the changing of the Majority of Congress is to be ignored? The polls showing overwhelming disgust at this administrations conduct of occupation? Oy, my head hurts from the stupidity.
Charles Krauthammer is a foreign agent, a traitor to America.
Period, end of story.
Some aspects/perspectives: unilateralism vs. "unilateralism," aka realities vs. rhetoric:
Is it Legitimate to Use Nuclear Weapons Against the West? A Debate on An Islamist Forum
Ten Counterinsurgency Commandments from Afghanistan
Arab States' Efforts to Combat Terrorism Financing
h/t Gypsy Scholar