The Onion, which every once and a while does something that warrants remembering how great it once was, offers this hilarious and all too true parody:
In an effort to display his administration's willingness to fight on all fronts in the War on Terror, President Bush said at a press conference Monday that American ground forces in Afghanistan will be aided by the immediate deployment of Marine Pfc. Tim Ekenberg of Camp Lejeune, NC....
Ekenberg is scheduled to arrive in Afghanistan on Friday. His duties include providing full military support for the still-tenuous democratic government, resolving potential conflicts between rival warlords, gathering intelligence for his superiors, delivering humanitarian relief to millions of Afghan citizens displaced by factional warfare, and maintaining a high level of personal physical fitness.
Ekenberg's most vital assignment, however, will be to patrol approximately 1,200 square miles of volatile territory on the Afghan–Pakistani border and conduct search-and-destroy missions on the estimated 40,000 caves where U.S. intelligence sources believe Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda operatives could be hiding.
It is an exaggerated, albeit fair jab at the surge in Iraq. The vast majority of the new surge troops will be stationed in Baghdad, which means still little solvency for the rest of the territory. The argument being proffered for such a limited theater is that once the government stabilizes, the rest of the country will stabilize as well, a claim that is weak both theoretically and empirically. Still, it begs a question for all of those "framers" out there - why aren't the Dems pointing out that Bush's surge is more about victory in Baghdad than in Iraq? Doesn't the limited emplacement hint that the rest of the country may already be too far gone? I'm just asking. Maybe Michelle Malkin will be able to answer given her recent investigative tour of duty.
Comments (5)
Well, I've already convinced you to ban handguns, so this shouldn't be difficult:
(I, too Lament the once glorious Onion)
"there - why aren't the Dems pointing out that Bush's surge is more about victory in Baghdad than in Iraq? Doesn't the limited emplacement hint that the rest of the country may already be too far gone? I'm just asking"
The crats know damn well what this Iraq debacle is about:
In the decade following the cold war, The American Empire lost economic hegemony over Japan and Europe. SO, They have been making up for it with their military in the Balkans, southwest Asia and elsewhere.
This current debacle is part of a struggle between capitalist powers for markets and resources. In this case the Americans are baby-sitting a level of instability that, if the US were to withdraw, would certianly spark a regional war between Suadi Arabia, Iran and Turkey; each moving to protect their ethnic/religous comrades...a situation that leaves the USA in the drivers seat of SW asian politics. (and are the democrats about to fuck that up?)
Posted by muhahaha | January 30, 2007 4:55 PM
Posted on January 30, 2007 16:55
Mu, even if the Dems were that conspiratorial, I remain unconvinced they're that smart. I'm more than willing to think the Republicans are both smart and conspiratorial, if only because they spend so much money on think tanks to think up exactly the sort of shit you're describing :)
Posted by Kenneth Rufo | January 30, 2007 6:26 PM
Posted on January 30, 2007 18:26
Hi there, thanks for dropping by, and thanks for the songs! (very bluesy indeed) The vocals were delicious, and surprisingly tender, especially for the first track. I love your blog! A lot! *blubbers*
PS. I posted a comment before, but I suspect it didn't get through because my connection was down. Apologies if this is a repeat.
Posted by Elaine | February 16, 2007 10:42 PM
Posted on February 16, 2007 22:42
Did my last comment ruffle your feathers?
Posted by muhahaha | February 22, 2007 1:10 AM
Posted on February 22, 2007 01:10
Mu, I'm going to say no, because I think there's a good chance you got sucked into my junk comments and deleted. I've readjusted my junk detection to be more lenient, as I have apparently missed at least 5 other comments. Hopefully that's fixed now, so if you'd like to try again?
Unless, of course, you mean your first comment, which no, didn't ruffle my feathers in the slightest :)
Posted by Kenneth Rufo | February 22, 2007 7:09 PM
Posted on February 22, 2007 19:09