Share on Google Plus 1 Share on Twitter 1 Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon 1 Tell A Friend (4 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   5 comments
General News

Who You Callin' An Organizing Principle?!?!

By       Message William Boardman     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 3   Well Said 3   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 9/14/14

Author 14586
Become a Fan
  (30 fans)
- Advertisement -

By William Boardman -- Reader Supported News

Washington's ISIS War Drums: Do Stupid Stuff, Do It Now!

- Advertisement -


How many empty chambers are there?
(Image by [dpwnloadroulette.net])
  Permission   Details   DMCA

"Hopefully we get it more right than wrong" -- organizing principle?

As Hillary Clinton was widely quoted as saying recently, "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle."

- Advertisement -

Maybe others have pointed out that this is a pretty stupid statement, but that's far from the conventional wisdom. Think about the levels of stupidity here. Only "Great nations"? What, small nations don't need to get their acts together? And who says the United States is a "great" nation and in what sense is it great and isn't spouting a version of the American exceptionalism cliche just another way of doing stupid stuff? As organizing principles go, "Don't do stupid stuff" is a great place to start. Then all you need to do is figure out what's stupid and don't do it: like not voting for war in Iraq in 2002.

What does the aspiring President Clinton offer for her own organizing principle? In her book Hard Choices, she writes: "Making policy is a balancing act. Hopefully we get it more right than wrong." That means even less than "Don't do stupid stuff." That pretty much means: "we're bound to do stupid stuff but we hope we won't do too much stupid stuff."

Of course that makes good political sense coming from the woman who, as Senator Clinton, voted to go to war in Iraq. As if that wasn't totally knowable, in advance, as doing stupid stuff, really stupid stuff. That vote was a clever trap for intimidated Democrats, afraid to stand up to stupid stuff. Senator Clinton was not alone in that rush to war. She, along with Senators Kerry, McCain, Biden, Hagel, McConnell, Reid, and 70 other Senators, voted to support the administration lying us into that war on transparently dishonest evidence. It's kind of cute, in a darkly disastrous way, that these same wrong-headed people are again among those braying most loudly for more war now. It makes a sort of amoral sense, since today's mess is a continuation of the war they voted for because they presumably didn't think it was stupid stuff that would last more than a decade.

"Hopefully we get it more right than wrong" unsupported by the stats

Senator Obama voted against the Iraq war in 2002, as did 22 other Senators. He campaigned in 2008 against getting into stupid wars. He demonstrated how little he understood his own principle by defending (and later enlarging) the war in Afghanistan as a smart war. As Hillary says: "Hopefully we get it more right than wrong." The scoreboard does not offer encouragement.

With all that in mind, here are some vagrant thoughts about what "Don't do stupid stuff" might mean in some parts of the world these days, where smart options are few and far between:

IRAQ. Backing the unreliable, probably unstable Baghdad government is moderately stupid, but probably necessary in current circumstance. Baghdad is in a bind that will only get worse if we just leave it alone: to fight ISIS, Baghdad might need to rely on Iran, which would not only annoy the U.S., but might make the Sunni part of Iraq determinedly independent-minded. This box is the one Baghdad built for itself (with U.S. help, to be sure), but consequences belong to them. The Baghdad third of Iraq is not vital to American interests, it's hardly vital to Kuwaiti interests, so don't do something more stupid than the present tenuous balancing act. Keep an eye on the exit.

- Advertisement -

NORTHERN IRAQ. Bombing ISIS in the vicinity of the Mosul Dam is not so stupid, but only in the short term. Losing control of the huge dam would endanger everything downstream even more than now. Killing some ISIS fighters at a distance isn't likely to annoy much of anyone except the ISIS fighters. Also it helps with defending the Kurds and it helped the Yazidis, all plus marks.

KURDISTAN. Supporting Kurdistan is not so stupid now, but could turn out to be stupid in the long run, not that anyone can know from here (can they?). The current Kurdish state gives the impression of actually being a functioning, non-sectarian, tolerant, quasi-democratic state with its more primitive cultural id reasonably under control for the moment, especially compared to its neighbors. And Kurdistan has some oil. And Kurdish independence is annoying to Turkey and Iran.

TURKEY. Annoying Turkey is probably stupid, but also inevitable if we follow any sort of sensible course in the region. Turkey has been annoying others for years now, so it deserves to be annoyed in turn. Just the wide-open Turkish-Syrian border is annoying enough to deserve response, since that open border has been critical to the growing strength of ISIS, which some Turkish fundamentalists (like the prime minister?) see as a good thing when it's going against Damascus and Baghdad, but pretty much not such a good thing if ISIS comes after Ankara (and why wouldn't it, if it could, which it can't?). Turkey, like Baghdad, has been playing an ugly, deadly game, and bailing Turkey out of its own mess would be really, really stupid unless it came with serious changes, in advance. Not gonna happen any time soon.

EASTERN SYRIA. Bombing ISIS in Syria is clearly stupid from the perspective of international law, but maybe not so stupid militarily if managed carefully (surgical strikes and all that other imaginary stuff). Something one might call "incursive bombing" on either side of the largely meaningless Syria-Iraq border could be helpful in buying time for whatever alternative forces may remain deserving of support (including the Kurds). "Incursive bombing" would need sensible targets (OK, name one!) and would have to be designed not to prop up President Assad any more than would be inevitable. The U.S. has already bombed the region 145 times, by its own count (all supposedly on the Iraq side of the border). The U.S. plans to go right on bombing indefinitely. Syria is bombing ISIS on the Syrian side of the border, so if the U.S. incursive bombing spreads, U.S. bombers will have to avoid running into Syrian bombers. Is there any evidence this isn't really stupid stuff in the making?

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

Must Read 3   Well Said 3   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

Vermonter living in Woodstock: elected to five terms (served 20 years) as side judge (sitting in Superior, Family, and Small Claims Courts); public radio producer, "The Panther Program" -- nationally distributed, three albums (at CD Baby), some (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Nuclear Perceptions Fight Reality

Fukushima Spiking All of a Sudden

Fukushima Meltdowns: Global Denial At Work

Vermont Asks: "What the Fukushima"?

Military-Industrial Complex Owns Vermont

Accountability in Vermont?