November 14, 2012

Word: The media didn't convey us Petraeus

Tip to the media: in the military, four stars is a rank, not a rating - Sam Smith

Colonel Douglas MacGregor, Retired, Anti-War  - Consider these points: The Shiite dominated government of Iraq is not only more corrupt today than its secular Baathist predecessor. It’s also among the most corrupt states in the world, far worse than North Korea or Russia. And, unlike Saddam Hussein’s Iraq it is unambiguously tied to and aligned with Iran. In Afghanistan, Afghan National Security Forces continue to run from fights with pathetic Taliban in bed sheets and flip flops and more Afghan civilians died during the 18 months of Petraeus’s “Afghan Surge” than at any time in the previous ten years. How did these things come about? Who is responsible for this debacle?

How many times have Americans read the flattering assessments of Petraeus on the editorial pages of The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal or heard Journalists repeat Petraeus’s assertions of “progress” and “success” on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC? Whenever Petraeus wanted to show that his alleged “counterinsurgency” strategy was delivering significant progress in Iraq or Afghanistan, the mainstream media offered unconditional support for whatever narrative Petraeus provided.



Anonymous said...

Yeah... But the war in Iraq achieved a number of political goals:

* Removed long-time Bush family scapegoat Saddam Hussein from control of the second largest proven oil reserves in the world.

* Killed longtime Bush family scapegoat Saddam Hussein and his son effectively dead-ending the Hussein family political lineage.

* Qualified Bush 43 as a "wartime president" during the 2004 campaign. ( USA! USA! USA! )

* The War On Terra in Iraq was far more popular than the war in Vietnam. Bush 43 was associated with Iraq, John Kerry was associated with Vietnam. Combine this with the emerging threat of same sex marriage and 43 wins a second term.

* Last but not least the occupation all but shut down Iraqi oil production. The price of crude doubled, OPEC made money, The House of Saud made money, Russia drilled its way out of recession, Exxon reported record profits and Koch Industries made enough windfall to piss away millions in 2008 & 2012 against the other Hussein.

What's bad for America isn't necessarily bad for all Americans...

Anonymous said...

The Bush's were rewarded well for defending the terrorist enemy, Saudi Arabia, against Saddam. The U. S. is much worse off without Saddam. The moral principle is that the U. S. has no business defending tyrants against other tyrants, especially those as treacherous as Wahhabi Arab Sheikhs.

We defended China against Russia in Korea, and having learned nothing did it again in Nam. In both cases we defended tyrants.