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...
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Krauthammer: The Surge.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/7518
3 Comments
Leave a comment to: Krauthammer: The Surge
Comment Info and Policy:
1) You must have Javascript enabled in your browser in order to comment (blame the spammers). If you don't know what that is, you're probably fine.
2) HTML is on, so basic html should work. Raw links will be made auto-clickable, too, so even if you don't know html you can just paste in the link and it should work fine. Keep the "http://" in it.
3) Comments are generally unmoderated, which means I don't necessarily agree with the tone and tenor of everything posted. In fact, sometimes people post things they don't really mean just to make other people look bad. The internet is an anonymous place for the most part. That said...
4) I welcome you to post here. I'd love to have your input, agree, disagree or just offer a different data point, really. If I didn't want any participation, I'd turn off comments. Be aware, however, that this blog and the comments section exist for my entertainment. Therefore, I reserve ALL RIGHTS here, including the right to remove any or all comments on nothing more than a whim. Please don't even bother complaining. I'm the one providing the space and the free news and thought buffet. I don't owe anyone anything.
Anyone who posts here will be treated as my guest. That means I'm happy to be polite as a default, but if anyone is rude to the host they'll be unceremoniously shown the door.
It may pay to recall a famous line from the Tom Selleck magnum opus, Mr. Baseball: "Jack-san, you want Yoji's advice about the babes, you come to Yoji with respect."
5) Enjoy your stay!
, p.73
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