Wednesday, July 16, 2003

One thing I keep getting sick of hearing is that we're in the post-combat phase in Iraq, especially after some high-ranking Army guy even said "we're still at war" several weeks back.

Also, the Democrats have no business criticizing anyone for a lack of "coherent" policy. The Democrats really should be going after the Administration for all this shit, I mean really going after them, but the best we get is the occasional opportunistic attack from John Kerry. They shouldn't be complaining about an incoherent policy, they should be complaining about an incomplete policy. I still feel like the Administration was like "Remove Saddam first, deal with everything else later". And of course, we'll get to "everything else" at some point, because undoubtedly, America's promises have no expiration date.

Why the fuck aren't the Democrats bringing shit like this up? Well, maybe it's because I'm wrong. But I'm still fully convinced that our current foreign policy was hammered out years ago, pre-September 11th, when our outlook was much different. I know I've said this a million times, but the Project for a New American Century group decided years ago on everything that's happening today. Do you think a Democratic congressman has ever brought up PNAC? You would think that someone would have to have done so, but I still don't know why a bigger deal hasn't yet been made of it. And yes, I know I'm oversimplifying things, and there's a lot more to the picture than PNAC, but come on. If someone explained to the American people how the Administration started with a premise like regime change in Iraq and worked backwards from there, I think that even with all the morons out there, some people might start to catch on.

While we're talking about the "incomplete" policy, why the hell is it so incomplete? I've said time and time again that even though I don't like Bush and his neocon cabal, I know that they, save Bush himself, are all smart fucking people. If they're so fucking smart, you'd think that they would have a better plan in place for putting Humpty Dumpty back together. Clearly, the idea isn't just regime change, but regime replacement. Namely, replacement with a pro-US democracy. Maybe I'm just impatient, since it has only been a couple of months since we went "post-combat," and this kind of thing is going to take time no matter what. But you can't help but think that things weren't fully thought through when Gen. Jay Garner was replaced as head of reconstruction by civilian Paul Bremer just a few days after taking the reigns. And of course, you can't have too much hope at this point, since our most recent (mis)adventure in reconstruction, Afghanistan, isn't exactly being hailed as a resounding success.

No comments: