Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Best Art Show. Ever. (Part... | Today on Line Out »

Friday, September 14, 2007

The War Forever

posted by on September 14 at 15:19 PM

What is the meaning of this?

“[U]nderstand that their success [Iraqi leaders] will require U.S. political, economic and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency.”
One possibility: GWB knows that war is already a failure not in and of itself but because it will not extend beyond his presidency. Had he but world enough and time, the war would grow, expand, and express the success that is in its seed.

Another possibility: GWB imagines the war will not expire when his presidency expires, which means he sees the war as something that has a life of its own, a life outside of his presidency. The war will go on without him because the war has a purpose that is independent of his presidency. According to this imagining, the war would have happened even if he had not been the president. The war was the logical result of historical forces. GWB did not cause the war, the war caused him. He was a victim of the “cunning of history.”

Ultimately, what this type of thinking wants to conceal is the fact that one man has the power to spend more public funds on, and to send more American lives into, the vacuum of a war. Just one man. Remove him, you remove the war.

RSS icon Comments


Charles, I'm your biggest fan, but here you are wrong. Hillary Clinton and every other credible Democrat is commited to the security of Israel. American Airbases in Iraq are for the security of Israel if/when the attack on Iran occurs.

We are winning this war because Israel is stronger militarily than ever before. It's fine to let off steam whining about the war ending. But among adults who support Israel, it's not a war it's the gradual conversion of the Middle East into a pro-American, pro-Israel democracy. It'll take time (Tikkum Olam is generational) but Israel is worth it. On Rosh Hashanah today let's all say a prayer for Israel.

Posted by Issur | September 14, 2007 4:04 PM

This dream you speak about (absolute security), has been there from day one. In terms of American policy, what makes iraq today not iran of yesterday?

Posted by charles mudede | September 14, 2007 4:34 PM

It is all about the oil. The Kurds signed an oil deal with a Texas oil company this past week (Headed by one of Bush's pals). Bush needs chaos in Iraq to make money off the oil. If stability were to be established or if we left (enter Iran or Syria) then the oil/money pipeline would be cut off and Bush and his croneys get no money. Bush's pocket book gets fatter as long as Iraq remains a police state (and that is all it is) and can not really get it's shit together. If they did, Bush's croneys will not get the oil money.

Isreal was safer before we attacked Iraq. There is no one of sane rational mind who thinks this war has helped in Isreal's safety. (The little war last summer in case you would like an example)

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | September 14, 2007 4:45 PM

Agree with Cato. Also, it's one great mess to later blame on the Democrats, along with the collapse of the economy, education, etc.

Posted by Dianna | September 14, 2007 4:52 PM

Either way, it's clear that Bush's hideous plan is to drop this fiasco in the lap of the next administration, and then blame them for "losing" the war in his speeches at his Fantastic Freedom Institute (aka the Bush School for Semi-Retarded Autocrats).

Posted by Original Andrew | September 14, 2007 4:52 PM

@5Then why don't the Dems end the war and avoid inherting hell? I rember reading that in the Dem primaries before the last election cycle a lot of Iraq war vetrans wanted to run as dems to end the war, but the DNC went against them, and elected the Blue DOg Dems, who keep voting for this war.

Posted by GJ | September 15, 2007 12:08 AM

I don't know if what you said was true, C, but damn you sure said it beautifully.

Posted by Grant Cogswell | September 15, 2007 12:22 AM

Ahhh, gee! What does The Stranger\'s resident war monger Dan Savage think?

Posted by Gomez | September 15, 2007 10:02 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).