Doh!
I saw Defense Secretary, Gates, on "Meet the Press" this a.m. I must admit he is absolutely refreshing after the almost cartoonish Rumsfeld (you know, V.P. Cheney's nomination for "the best Secretary of Defense this country has ever had," an accolade from Cheney at Rumsfeld's resignation ceremony). Personally, I think Rumsfeld should have traveled to wherever he hails from "by light of [his] own burning effigies" as an unpopular Civil War general noted about himself when he was removed from his post and traveled from Kansas to Boston.
Gates played his cards close to the vest, but did note that he was incredibly unhappy with the Iraqi government's decision to go on vacation when Baghdad's citizens are suffering the majority of the day and night without electricity in 130 degree heat. He apparently told the government of Iraq that "their vacation would be paid for in the blood of fallen Americans." Not to mention Iraqi civilians and Iraqi troops and police. (Read Treasure of Baghdad's blog about the ineffectual government: his blog is linked to this one)
Gates also noted, rather cryptically, that "things would change," if Petraeus' report was negative." Do tell. We would like to have more detail, Secretary Gates, on what those changes would entail. Don't tell us your battle tactics: give us the broad strokes. We KNOW the report will not be good, regarding Baghdad and the military relations with the government—that's a given—but what are we to do? Withdraw? Chaos. Stay? Chaos. Withdraw to the borders and let the sects and groups slug it out? Chaos and unethical. Overthrow Maliki? Chaos and hypocrisy (like we see in Gaza). What exactly do you have to threaten the Iraqi government with? The government that refuses to work on the division of oil profits (at this point, what oil? The sabotage and inability to fix the sanction-damaged equipment has strangled oil production). That Americans are going to leave? Maliki said that would be fine, that the Iraqi government could handle an American withdrawal. That America will withdraw financial support? That sounds familiar, sort of like sanctions, and there are plenty of bad actors that will funnel money to their proxies in Iraq. What's the plan? We, and Iraqis, want a plan. You know, the "plan B" that in the past was the same as plan"A" and better be different now? Even Homer Simpson has a plan B, albeit "we move to Alaska, where you can never be too fat or too drunk." (See the Simpson movie. It is a scathing commentary on the mismanagement of the war by "the suits." There is even a depiction of the outrageousness and the affront that is the "Green Zone," but I won't give it away. I hate it when people give away an entire movie I haven't seen.")
The complexity of this war is mind-boggling, and I wouldn't want to be in Gate's shoes for any amount of money. But I hope his clarity and seeming honesty manifest in some sort of solutions, solutions that are spelled out for the American and Iraqi public.
I saw Defense Secretary, Gates, on "Meet the Press" this a.m. I must admit he is absolutely refreshing after the almost cartoonish Rumsfeld (you know, V.P. Cheney's nomination for "the best Secretary of Defense this country has ever had," an accolade from Cheney at Rumsfeld's resignation ceremony). Personally, I think Rumsfeld should have traveled to wherever he hails from "by light of [his] own burning effigies" as an unpopular Civil War general noted about himself when he was removed from his post and traveled from Kansas to Boston.
Gates played his cards close to the vest, but did note that he was incredibly unhappy with the Iraqi government's decision to go on vacation when Baghdad's citizens are suffering the majority of the day and night without electricity in 130 degree heat. He apparently told the government of Iraq that "their vacation would be paid for in the blood of fallen Americans." Not to mention Iraqi civilians and Iraqi troops and police. (Read Treasure of Baghdad's blog about the ineffectual government: his blog is linked to this one)
Gates also noted, rather cryptically, that "things would change," if Petraeus' report was negative." Do tell. We would like to have more detail, Secretary Gates, on what those changes would entail. Don't tell us your battle tactics: give us the broad strokes. We KNOW the report will not be good, regarding Baghdad and the military relations with the government—that's a given—but what are we to do? Withdraw? Chaos. Stay? Chaos. Withdraw to the borders and let the sects and groups slug it out? Chaos and unethical. Overthrow Maliki? Chaos and hypocrisy (like we see in Gaza). What exactly do you have to threaten the Iraqi government with? The government that refuses to work on the division of oil profits (at this point, what oil? The sabotage and inability to fix the sanction-damaged equipment has strangled oil production). That Americans are going to leave? Maliki said that would be fine, that the Iraqi government could handle an American withdrawal. That America will withdraw financial support? That sounds familiar, sort of like sanctions, and there are plenty of bad actors that will funnel money to their proxies in Iraq. What's the plan? We, and Iraqis, want a plan. You know, the "plan B" that in the past was the same as plan"A" and better be different now? Even Homer Simpson has a plan B, albeit "we move to Alaska, where you can never be too fat or too drunk." (See the Simpson movie. It is a scathing commentary on the mismanagement of the war by "the suits." There is even a depiction of the outrageousness and the affront that is the "Green Zone," but I won't give it away. I hate it when people give away an entire movie I haven't seen.")
The complexity of this war is mind-boggling, and I wouldn't want to be in Gate's shoes for any amount of money. But I hope his clarity and seeming honesty manifest in some sort of solutions, solutions that are spelled out for the American and Iraqi public.
posted by mariestaad at 3:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home