On benchmarks
So I've been thinking about this whole timetable/benchmark standing down when they stand up yadda yadda business.
I gotta say, to me it always sounds really weird when you hear folks talking shit about the Iraqi government. (I mean, no, it doesn't sound weird because they're shit (and shiite) and in bed with a thousand militias that are responsible for all kinds of crap and whole ministries are being run as personal armed fiefdoms, and that's not good). But basically it's still totally crazy to be pissy and mean and like "god, we only bombed your asses into the stone age and completely destabilized any infrastructure and social cohesion you may have had while simultaneously turning hundreds of thousands of heavily armed former members of the army out of their jobs, why the fuck can't you get your damn country together, already?" So when I hear that (and it comes from both right & left) I sort of want to scream.
But in fact, I don't think that's what it really means. I don't think anyone gives a flying fuck about how well the Iraqis can actually stand up. I mean duh, look at what we've done to them. We obviously don't give a shit about them as people. But what all this talk of benchmarks that the Iraqi government has to meet, and all of this standards and testing stuff (isn't it sort of like some sick version of No Iraqi Left Behind or something?) really is to me is a way to get out.
There, I said it. Look, we know that whatever standards we put in, whatever criteria we come up with, they're not gong to be able to do it. The place is a mess. There is not going to be law & order & a functioning civil society any time soon. Everyone knows that. But if we do all of these benchmarks, and the threat is "if you don't do this then we're going to leave!" well, you see where this is going? All we have to do is set up some standards for them to not achieve, and then we can blame the ingrate damn Iraqis and go the hell home. That way no one has to admit that we lost (big time) and that we made the place a living hell. No, it can be thir fault for failing to meet proscribed goals.
It's actually pretty brilliant, and most likely the only way we're going to get out of there.
I gotta say, to me it always sounds really weird when you hear folks talking shit about the Iraqi government. (I mean, no, it doesn't sound weird because they're shit (and shiite) and in bed with a thousand militias that are responsible for all kinds of crap and whole ministries are being run as personal armed fiefdoms, and that's not good). But basically it's still totally crazy to be pissy and mean and like "god, we only bombed your asses into the stone age and completely destabilized any infrastructure and social cohesion you may have had while simultaneously turning hundreds of thousands of heavily armed former members of the army out of their jobs, why the fuck can't you get your damn country together, already?" So when I hear that (and it comes from both right & left) I sort of want to scream.
But in fact, I don't think that's what it really means. I don't think anyone gives a flying fuck about how well the Iraqis can actually stand up. I mean duh, look at what we've done to them. We obviously don't give a shit about them as people. But what all this talk of benchmarks that the Iraqi government has to meet, and all of this standards and testing stuff (isn't it sort of like some sick version of No Iraqi Left Behind or something?) really is to me is a way to get out.
There, I said it. Look, we know that whatever standards we put in, whatever criteria we come up with, they're not gong to be able to do it. The place is a mess. There is not going to be law & order & a functioning civil society any time soon. Everyone knows that. But if we do all of these benchmarks, and the threat is "if you don't do this then we're going to leave!" well, you see where this is going? All we have to do is set up some standards for them to not achieve, and then we can blame the ingrate damn Iraqis and go the hell home. That way no one has to admit that we lost (big time) and that we made the place a living hell. No, it can be thir fault for failing to meet proscribed goals.
It's actually pretty brilliant, and most likely the only way we're going to get out of there.
Labels: exit strategy, iraq
posted by chiniqua at 6:06 PM
3 Comments:
Chiniqua, you are brilliant!
Todays word verification: nyncu
except that "we" have been setting benchmarks for I guess years now which they never can or do meet, and "we" make no move toward leaving. My latest theory: it's all about hanging on till the oil law is passed, which gives most of it away to "our" oil co's. Then "we" can find any of many excuses to leave, such as the catch-22 you describe.
Now that you mention it Pleep, it seemed odd to me that coming out of the starting gate Hillary kept mentioning that if Bush didn't get us out of Iraq by the end of 2008 or was is '09 that she would. Anyway the out date on it seemed fishy to me; why not sooner. I haven't heard of the oil law you are referring to though.
Todays word verification: snidzxn
To which I might reply Gesundheit!
Post a Comment
<< Home