Strategery

"Bring 'em on."

Aside from having to deal with the obvious Nazi tendencies of an Ann Coulter, or the racist rantings of a Michelle Malkin--or even the foolish, vainglorious stomach rumblings of a first-class creep like Big Time Dick Cheney--you've gotta start wondering just what the hell sort of delusions are affecting the national political leadership when something as painfully clear as the crisis of Operation Disaster in the Desert garners reactions like a dimwitted resolution, the ever popular grandstand with old Glory, or a swiftboat campaign...instead of some evident realizations...

Like, for instance, it'd be a godamned good idea (whether or not you agree Operation Disaster in the Desert is just that) to ensure, from a tactical standpoint, that the deployed forces were positioned in a way to SECURE their perimeter and supply lines. THAT, by the way, is the essence of the Murtha position of redeployment "beyond the horizon." Watching the cheerleader faction in Congress interpret this as "cut and run" reveals a profound ignorance of basic military tactics...or an equally profound lack of concern for the welfare of the troops. If NOTHING else, you'd think these assclowns would recognize that dead or seriously wounded soldiers constitute a significant loss on the military's investment...and, maybe it's just me, but you'd also think they'd have at least a small degree of human compassion for the individual soldier...or their family and loved ones.

You'd also think it wouldn't take any kind of high-level analysis to realize that killing people isn't exactly a way to win hearts and minds. And, aside from the cost in human lives, you'd think someone would understand that the monetary investment at this point FAR outweighs any possible "gain" we might salvage...

We're still spending money hand over fist...and gaining less than nothing.

Bob Herbert (sorry, no link), sums up the distinct lack of success:

After all the sound and fury of the past few years, how is the U.S. doing in its fight against terrorism?

Not too well, according to a recent survey of more than 100 highly respected foreign policy and national security experts. The survey, dubbed the "Terrorism Index," was conducted by the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine. The respondents included Republicans and Democrats, moderates, liberals and conservatives.

The survey's findings were striking. A strong, bipartisan consensus emerged on two crucial points: 84 percent of the respondents said the United States was not winning the war on terror, and 86 percent said the world was becoming more — not less — dangerous for Americans.

The sound and fury since Sept. 11, 2001 — the chest-thumping and muscle-flexing, the freedom fries, the Patriot Act, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the breathtaking expansion of presidential power, Guantánamo, rendition, the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars — seems to have signified very little.

And Paul Crag Roberts looks at another cost:

Many Americans have turned a blind eye to the administration's illegal and unconstitutional spying on the grounds that, as they themselves are doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear. If this is the case, why did our Founding Fathers bother to write the Constitution? If the executive branch can be trusted not to abuse power, why did Congress pass legislation establishing a panel of federal judges (ignored by the Bush administration) to oversee surveillance? If President Bush can decide that he can ignore statutory law, how does he differ from a dictator? If Bush can determine law, what is the role of Congress and the courts? If "national security" is a justification for elevating the power of the executive, where is his incentive to find peaceful solutions?

Emotional appeals to fear and to patriotism have led close to half of the population to accept unaccountable government in the name of "the war on terrorism." What a contradiction it is that so many Americans have been convinced that safety lies in their sacrifice of their civil liberties and accountable government.

Before concluding:

Sugar-coated propaganda doesn't present Americans with the emotional and mental stress associated with the hard facts.

In National Socialist Germany, by the time propaganda lost its grip, Germans were in the hands of a police state. It was too late to take corrective measures. Not even the military could correct the disastrous policies of the executive. In the end, Germany was destroyed. Does a similar fate await Americans?

I'm beginning to wonder if Roberts might be spot on in likening things to the particular black hole of Nazi Germany. Even as history will judge Team Bush's decision to invade Iraq--strictly on the basis of military expediency--as the worst strategic blunder since Operation Barbarossa/War on the Eastern Front, I'm beginning to think an excellent study might be made in comparing and contrasting some of the more foul smelling shitbombs emanating from Twitnuttia with their forebears back in the Old Country. Indeed, some already have. And as things continue to fall apart, it's highly likely you'll see even MORE explicit reflections of this as twitnuttia retreats into their comfort zone. Let's just hope the general public wises up, tosses the existing government out on its ear, and elects some adults BEFORE we see rhetoric transferred into action...