Bush's China/Iraq framework, according to the AP

In what one can only hope was a rather hastily assembled (18 minutes ago!) AP headline story on Yahoo! yesterday, there was a discussion of the Bush administration’s current position on China and Iraq. It seems Bush would be concerned about the Chinese military, if China ever “turned hostile”, as he was explaining to the Australian Government. Bush said that his administration spends “a lot of time on China”. Would it be fair to wonder what the Bush administration is actually considering doing about China? What specific actions do you think the folks in the White House have in mind?

Remaining in a hopeful mood, one hopes that we glean nothing on this question from the AP reporter who did the story. Without transition, Bush is stated to have urged all countries considering pulling out their troops “to base their decision on restoring the country’s security”. Oh, that is a reference to Iraq. No need to worry that the Bush administration is promoting military options to address his concern about China turning hostile. Whew.

I imagine President Bush actually addressed China and Iraq in close succession at his press conference in Sydney. And perhaps Bush did so in a way that was somewhat confusing. But come on, the Associated Press ought to be able to find reporters and editors who can sift through the word salad and report something lucid about what the United States President has had to say at a meeting with another head of state. Right? The fact that this AP story is still on the web, largely uncorrected, is bad news indeed for the US media consumer. But do you think anybody cares, or will even notice?

OK, Iraq again - Zoloft News

With apologies to my readership (both of you), this is another (brief) post on Iraq. Hey, as somebody who tracks the wonders of the Western media, a fellow has to go with what's covered.

Today, I note the remarkable stupidity that the Western media assumes its readership brings to the morning paper. The rambling AP story about today's repeat bombing at the Shiite Askariya Mosque drove the point home again, mostly through its omissions. The bit contained lengthy descriptions that gave the clear impression of strange religious sects who battle and kill each other for no apparent reason. Because the author included no explanation of the philosophical differences, the real estate tensions, or the global context, the reader could only conclude the Shiites and Sunnis must just be savage nut-cases.

On the other hand, the same criticism could not be levelled at the US forces who are in Iraq. The story quizzically noted that many Iraqis refer to the US military presence as an "occupation" - yes, the writer actually used quotation marks, as if the meaning was lost on him. Hundreds of thousands of uninvited foreign military forces in a country. How could anybody ever see that as an "occupation"? Sheeeeesh.

Also worthy of nothing more than a brief mention was the promise from the US military in the aftermath of the 2006 bombing at the Askariya mosque to re-build it. The author dryly noted that the US has taken no steps at all to fulfill that promise, and then he moved on to the next topic. Not at all possible, I suppose, that such a broken promise looms large in the minds of the "unoccupied" people. Gracious folks indeed - thanks for taking it all in stride.*

* Credit to Family Guy's Stewie.

Bush's accelerated Iraq pullout

Don't believe what the White House says. Not only is the White House unopposed to a scheduled withdrawal from Iraq. In fact, the US has effectively already withdrawn. As it stands today, a major Baghdad bridge over the Tigris can be brought down and a suicide bomb set off in the heavily-protected Parliament building (killing legislators) within hours of each other. And these things can be done with all the force and surge of the US military seeking to prevent them from happening.

In what sense, then, is the US "there"? To the distant observer, only two sad answers appear. First and foremost, US children are putting their lives at risk, and they are dying "there". Second, the US is seen throughout the world as the military force that is unable to control security "there" in any real way.

Acknowledging that these are HUGE ways to be "there", I am unwilling to consider that these are the goals of the Bushies in their stated opposition to scheduled withdrawal. So perhaps the latest events will persuade the Bushies that we have already withdrawn under the current strategy. If not, the world should give up any remaining hope that the reality of the at-risk kids (US and Iraqi) can ever match the Bushies' reckless and inexplicable fantasies.

Oh Dick

So Dick Cheney remains a dog with a bone. Saddam was cooperating with Al-Qaeda, no really. Really, he was.

This latest pronunciation comes on the heels of yet more DoD evidence that Saddam was in fact not cooperating with Al-Qaeda. Dick, that's your own DoD. If you ain't got them, who have you got? And what is the limit on your perception of the stupidity of the US voters?

That Dick could engage in this 1984-speak, without material consequence - other than appearing utterly out of touch to anybody who is thinking (a trivial loss) - is just amazing. That he would choose to pursue the subject some three-four years after the idea was discredited wholesale is also pretty amazing. There must be something for Dick to gain from the step. Who among us knows what it is?

Let the People Divide Themselves

Everybody except maybe the Bush administration is drowning in the seemingly endless deluge of stories about death and destruction in Iraq. (Fortunately for Bush, there is Justice to worry about.) But when does it become acceptable for those in power to ask if we have been looking at the problem the wrong way? The US Government and the US media clearly define success by whether there is peace within the post-colonial borders. "Can we avoid all-out civil war?"

When do we consider, however, that the West's historical division of the region by borders drawn on a map may have been at the root of the current issues? The West wants folks the world over to be excited by, and loyal to, a map and a flag (and a finance ministry and a UN seat), just the way the West has been since Westphalia. Is it possible, however, that other regions of the world may naturally prefer to divide themselves differently? That there may be other measures - say religious, business, or familial - that other people prefer to consider in determining who is "one of us"?

By introducing wealth along with its means for dividing, the West has enticed people everywhere to adopt, or at least to appear to adopt, the legitimacy of the Western style of division. But how many deaths will it take before we consider that the world may not yet have truly bought the West's global map? That systems empowered by Western wealth will break down, and when that happens, people's innate means for division will re-awaken, often wreaking havoc after having been suppressed and supplanted? I say until we wrestle thoroughly with this possibility, we will never even understand the problems, much less commence a successful solution in Iraq.

Oh Hillary

Hillary Clinton is particularly upset about Halliburton's latest. The government's decision to permit Halliburton without competition to devour so much of the multi-billion dollar fund available for Iraq's so-called reconstruction was bad, yes. But now, if you can believe it, Halliburton wants to open up shop in - Oh Lord - Dubai! Where the heck is that again? Somewhere over there, near all those Middle Eastern and Asian countries that are taking all our jobs away, or were responsible for 9/11, or otherwise need a dose of good-old American values.

Somebody in Hillary's campaign has decided this is just the hook they need to rub the Republican's nose in the muck. How dare Halliburton take all that money off to Dubai? One supposes that it all would have been fine if the Halliburton HQ were to remain squarely in Texas, where the US Government has been so effective at overseeing Halliburton to date (that is, if rudely generous bank deposits = oversight).

Good stuff indeed, and once again confidence instilling. Successful campaigns know how to pick their battles. Must be Hillary is running for the town welcoming committee.

Oh Andy

So Andy Rooney goes on TV last night (CBS' 60 Minutes) to say that he thinks the USA should re-institute the draft. He thought he'd never say that, having hated being drafted himself in 1941. But he can't seem to stand the thought of the USA being "represented" in Iraq (or other places in wartime) by the "bottom of the barrel" of our society - folks who are not even high school graduates (heavens) or, worse, convicted criminals.

Agreed - how must an Iraqi militant or civilian look down his/her nose at the fellow with a gun at that nose, since that fellow so obviously didn't even earn a high school diploma? Ouch. How the USA is suffering.

Andy seems to have stopped THINKING on this subject, no? He seems inexplicably unwilling to consider that the entire Iraq war enterprise just might be more of a driver of Iraqi disdain for the US than the (lack of) education of the US soldiers ever could be. That the President's administration is widely considered to scorn education. That there may be an unfortunate perceived parallel between that scorn and the armed "representation" Andy has in Baghdad.

Sorry Andy. Perhaps a softer arm chair would help ease the pain?