< HOME  Thursday, March 16, 2006

How can you tell the TRUTH from a lie?

What would it look like? Donald Rumsfeld asks.

Here on the streets of Baghdad, it looks like hell.

Corpses, coldly executed, are turning up by the minibus-load. Mortar shells are casually lobbed into rival neighborhoods. Car bombs are killing people wholesale, while assassins hunt them down one by one.
The death and destruction itself is true, no doubt. But, how you characterize the facts and what you attribute them to makes all the difference.
Is it civil war? "In Iraq it is no longer a matter of definition - 'civil war' or 'war' or 'violence' or 'terrorism.' It is all of the above," said one familiar with all of the above, Beirut scholar-politician Farid Khazen, a witness to Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war.

* * *

American military analyst Stephen Biddle says U.S. policy-makers make a mistake if they "miss the nature of the conflict, which in Iraq is already a civil war between rival ethnic and sectarian groups." Washington should work to broker a peace by allocating power and resources - that is, oil revenues - along those same lines, said Biddle, of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Reading through reams of "news stories" checkered with statements from "experts" and "analysts" gives you a feel for how to read between the lies.

This is an express directive to Congress from CFR to get with the program. The civil strife is strategically in place, and now's the time to divvy up the spoils and re-engineer the geo-political boundries of Iraq.
Marr, author of the 1985 book "The Modern History of Iraq," takes a long view and sees revolution where others see civil war.

With the 2003 U.S. invasion, she said, "we have brought about two revolutions in Iraq." One was a change of leadership, the toppling of President Saddam Hussein. The second is a revolution in the nature of the Iraqi state: Will it survive, or break up into separate Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish entities?

"We occupied the country and not only removed Saddam, but the institutions and the underpinnings of government - the Baath party and the elite that ran the country, and the military - leaving a huge political vacuum," she said.
This is no coincidence and it seems Iran now accepts the facts on the ground, opting to negotiate its role in Iraq's new political reality.
Political scientist Khazen, reached by telephone in Beirut, said he saw striking parallels between Iraq and the devastating Lebanese civil war of a generation ago - but differences, too.

"For some people, this war in Iraq is a war against the United States," he said.
How you characterize a war is everything. For example, calling it "a war against the United States" implies active aggression on the part of those who oppose US interests, when this is NOT what's happening.

This so-called "war against the United States" is one fought in self-defense, not by "insurgents," but by people who refuse to surrender to belligerence and oppression, and not against "the United States" but against the corporate, military interests that have hijacked it.


At Thursday, March 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, well it's a war against the great Judeo-"Sadducean" empire, also known as "Big-Brother." Ck Orwell's "1984." Further then u can think of it in accord with cycle theory and Oswald Spengler's "Decline of the West."

"Perpetual war for perpetual peace," Christian vs. Moslem w. Jews and associate traitors in the middle making money, having great fun. Hey, why not?--if the white elders receiving their social security cks and getting subsidized drugs approve it and tell Bush II and company they're doing so well?

Hence the battle is theological, hence ARTISTIC: thus we let the elders know how they're being sold out, betrayed. But at same time we must realize that it's also a matter of waiting for these old delusionals fade fm the scene and die out, fairly naturally.

That's why our patriot approach must parallel reality: we do what we can best we can--but know it's in God's hands. PRAY.

Hence Bush's poll numbers seem to be down--attrition is taking its toll. I saw on CBS news yesterday former Sen. Kerry fm Nebraska sticking Bush in the back--saying how Bush has blown it.

What a liar Kerry is: Bush has followed Council on Foreign Relations (CFR--see JBS.org) instructions to the letter.

Oligarchs seem to consider they still have cards up-their-sleeves, like ultimately, another 9-11 "T"-event.

Hence we must make utmost use of internet and INFORMATION science, like blogging, also an art well done on WakeUpFromYourSlumber.blogspot.com. Pls by all means keep up ur good work. Thor

At Friday, March 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When weapons are blunted, and ardor dampened, strength exhausted, and resources depleted, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of these complications.

Then even the wisest of counsels would not be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

Therefore, I have heard of military campaigns that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen military campaigns that were skilled but protracted.

No nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare....

Therefore, one who is skilled in warfare principles subdues the enemy without doing battle, takes the enemy's walled city without attacking, and overthrows the enemy quickly, without protracted warfare.
--Sun Tzu

At Saturday, March 18, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

Hey Navyswan! thanks for dropping by.

Yes, you make a good point. This war was not only illegal and unjustified, it is being executed poorly.

At Sunday, March 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point is, it should never have been executed in the first place. Sun Tzu said that the best and most complete way to win a victory over another army is without ever fighting them. Thus he is arguing for diplomacy over war.

And of course Iran is getting involved in the diplomatic efforts to shore up the political process in Iraq. They are the neighboring country that is taking advantage of the complications. They see an opportunity to have some larger degree of influence in the new Iraqi government than our government would like them to have. This, of course, only serves to further point out the confusing nature of the Bush admin. policy toward Iran. For some reason, the US and its ambassador in Iraq are more than willing to negotiate with Iran in the interest of getting Iraq stable, even while accusing Iran of providing IED bomb parts to the Iraqi insurgents (yes, Gen. Pace, JCS, has already admitted that those claims by Bush and Cheney have no basis in reality). For some reason, US officials are willing to meet with Iranian leaders over the issue of Iraqi stability, but will not be willing to discuss the nuclear issue while at the table with them. Sun Tzu would say that this opportunity would be perfect for some kind of strategic agreement to be reached such that fighting between the countries is never necessary, but that assumes that US officials don't want a fight with Iran anyway.

Lawrence of Arabia documented very closely for the British his efforts to help the Arabs fight their guerrilla insurgency against the Turkish oppressors not so long ago. It seems they have not forgotten the small tactical strike units, hit and run tactics, strike the supply lines against a larger stronger force, then hide in the desert, plan that he worked up for them. Apparently that strategy still works.

And it is true that no country has ever benefitted from protracted warfare, but elsewhere, Sun Tzu gives as one of the reasons for this that the merchants around the area of the fighting will be increasing the cost of goods, because they know that the products are at a premium because of the war. Even 5000 years ago, the profiteers were exploiting war for money. The ones who are profitting from this war, and who will profit from the war in Iran (and Syria, and N. Korea, and Venezuela, and ultimately China) are the defense contractors. They will not let the political process end peacefully with diplomacy. They prefer to distort Clausewitz when he said that war is only politics by another means. They distort the idea of Clausewitz's Total War and try to use that concept to justify their endeavors. They seem to think that he was advocating war as an extension of politics for use when the politics was too complicated or aggravating. What many scholars think he was saying was that war is actually a result of a failed/incompetant foreign policy. the same goals can be reached politically, as long as the players wish it to be so. So, you see, Sun Tzu would agree with this. The first, and most desirable, course of action is always political discourse in an attempt to find a solution to the problem. Only when one side is too beligerant or ignorant or willfully destructive to come to an agreement does a battle happen.

5000 years of man killing man has not changed the easiest course to victory, nor has it changed the difficulty of actually having to fight for that victory.


Post a Comment

<< Home