Why I <3 FOXNews
This has been floating around the blogosphere, classic (via Balkanization):
Many on the right seem to be getting pretty desperate about the condition in Iraq; especially after Francis Fukayama's essay (which might be the straw the breaks neo-conservatism’s back) in last week's New York Times Magazine. It's never a good sign when founders of neo-conservatism are writing about its downfall.
It also isn't a good sign when the last bit of spin the right has is playing a civil war as a good thing.
-Mr. Alec
posted by Alec Brandon @ 3:11 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Mihai,
I never said made the argument that a civil war was starting.
Did I, because I must be missing something here.
But for you to play an all out sectarian civil war as a good thing is ridiculous. Unlike in this country, most other nation's have civil wars that don't end. Sure the Sunni's might be 20% of the country, but 20% of Iraq is a lot. There is no clear winner or loser.
Let me remind you of one last thing. In the last civil war of any "success," the one between India and Pakistan, the British oversaw the partitioning. The British had been in India for a couple of centuries, they knew their shit. Yet still, upwards of 2 million people were killed in sectarian violence.
Just imagine what Iraq would be like with the US trying to control fighting or trying to actively partion the country.
Get back to me when you have realized the consequences of your partisan dribble.
-Mr. Alec
PS There is going to be a point where you are going to have to realize how bad this whole war has gone, I just never figured it would happen before Fukayama was disavowing himself from neoconservatism.
PPS If anyone thinks I am taking too harsh of a tone with Mihai, he is my roomate. He can murder me in my sleep if he feels offended. It is all in good fun.
Not that Mihai doesn't already appear completely delusional, but I'd like to add a comment.
All joking aside, I think the situation in Iraq is quite scary, and I find Mihai's portrayal of the war as the Sunni Arab's last stand for dominance to be a great oversimplication. There are many forces at work, many interests, many sides in this fight. Merely identifying them is a challenge in itself, not to mention resolving the conflicts between them.
Also, Mihai wrote that the Sunni Arab position is based on centuries of dominance. But it is important to recognizes that, while some of the forces currently at work in Iraq have developed over centuries, others are fairly novel. Or at least renewed. What I mean is that many of the problems presented in Iraq developed only over the past few years. The post-invasion breakdown of law and order caused people to abandon the semi-secularism of Saddam's Iraq and rely on religious, ethnic, and tribal networks for security. Now there's a government that many people see as representative of a specific faction. The police and army reflect the growing sectarianism and are not a source of order. Many of the Kurdish militias that everyone's talking about unleashing endorse and rely on Islamist dogmas that will not help build a secular Iraq. The Assyrians Christians are fleeing from hostile militias throughout the country.
There will be no secular Iraq. Let's face it. That's not to the say the situation won't improve, but come on. Let's be realistic. Shit's all fucked up.
Heretofore we have relentlessly squabbled amongst ourselves to no avail.I urge you to cease this meaningless tussle and look to Baywatch and Full House for the answers. David Hasselhoff and Bob Saget are quite wise beyond their years and still have much to offer.
That is all.
Post a Comment
<< Home