Fortune-telling in the War on Terror
In an essay on Norman Mailer's books on 1968 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/books/review/Berman-t.html) occur these lines:
[In 1968] "Mailer prophesied that Communism, based on its inbuilt inadequacies, was going to collapse. There was no reason to go to war against it. His analysis would loom today as totally brilliant if only he had added a 20 percent tip about what was meanwhile likely to happen to the unhappy people of Indochina during the interval between America’s withdrawal from the war and the Communists’ eventual withdrawal from Communist doctrine — the interim experiences of policy-driven famine and poverty in Vietnam, extreme oppression, “boat people” fleeing for their lives and Cambodian horrors: the Indochinese catastrophes that have still not registered in the consciences of Americans when they are feeling dovish, just as Hiroshima and Nagasaki have not yet registered in the consciences of Americans when they are feeling hawkish.
Somehow this informs the discussion on the "War on Terror", just not sure how.
By the way, it is the likes of Bailey's jack-off analysis of a 40 year old text that sent me running and screaming away from a graduate degree in English and a life of professordoom. How can so many people spend so much time over-analyzing the musings of others. Digging into Shakespeare and Joyce, yes, I can see it, but the rest is, at best, cocktail conversation waiting to be distracted by the sight of a leggy blond (of whatever sex).
Labels: 1968, Mailer, terror, war
Bi-czar failure
The Bush-Cheney White House is seeking a “war czar” to take control of their ill-conceived, incompetently executed, out-of-control Mid-east fiasco.
“Czar” and its spelling variants are a contraction of the word Caesar, referring to emperors, dictators and supreme leaders, especially in Russia, Bulgaria, and Serbia. In the US, it most recently refers to an expert in charge of implementing policy, e.g. the drug czar.
American czars have a sad history of failure. A series of Presidential drug wars, led by drug czars, have produced an exploding prison population (as befits dictatorial epochs) and little else. Meanwhile, our leaders can focus on fund-raising and PR, having delegated responsibility for real issues to some czar.
Three top retired generals have passed on the “war czar” job, including Army General Jack Keane, who, last December, promoted the idea of a U.S. military surge. Bush bought the Keane’s PR idea of a surge – which is, in fact, a mere escalation of “stay the course”. Now Keane wants no part of running his surge. His Marine counterpart, retired four-star General John Sheehan also rebuffed the White House job offer, telling the Washington Post, “The very fundamental issue is, they don’t know where the hell they’re going. So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, ‘No, thanks.’”
Bush’s failures of competence are reaching critical mass. The administration is imploding. Having failed to deliver a competent Commander in Chief, the Bushies now seek a surrogate.
Why do we need a “war czar” anyway? Isn’t that the job of the Commander in Chief? We need a competent Commander in Chief.
Labels: Bush, czar, failure, Iraq, Keane, Sheehan, war
