Monday, July 17, 2006

PNAC Rises From its Grave



I had been planning on writing about PNAC (Project for a New American Century) after Iraq, and how they weren't dead, just recovering, when good ol' Bill Kristol himself proves my non-article right. Arguing that Iran and Syria are fighting a proxy war against Israel, Kristol offers this advice to the USA:

The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions--and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.


For the uninitiated, PNAC is the conservative thinktank. Anyone who is anyone in the conservative movement (That isn't a christian nut) is a member, especially in the Bush Whitehouse (Which also has it's fair shares of christian nuts). They want to show the world just how awesome America is with them at the helm. They even asked President Clinton to invade Iraq, stating potential WMD development. Clinton, in response, bombed these potential sites with long range missiles, effectively removing any WMD capabilities without endangering American servicemen. How very 'Clinton' of him.

With the rise of the Bush Administration, PNAC got its wish. The mess of generating an excuse for the invasion was conveniently given when 9/11 happened. Add a good helping of rhetorical slight- of- hand and a dash of paranoia and bam: We got Iraq episode III: Revenge of the Shi'a. (I being the Phantom war and II being the Phony war- no- fly zones and such). But it wasn't all flowers and candy, as it turned out. The mess of a civil war there is enough to tell anyone in reality that the plan didn't work. It's only those very special people outside of all that messy 'logic' and 'facts and evidence' that don't think it's a shitstorm.

Which brings me back to Billy here. Since Iraq went so well, he wants to do Iran now. Oh we won't get Iraq again. You see in Iraq, we didn't try hard enough. If we hit Iran really hard, then we'll get candy and flowers... ...and teddy bears and widdle bunnies and....

Kristol's mentality seems to be that if you put meat in an oven, set it to roast, and don't get a cake, you just need to roast it more. The only possible way to get a cake is to cook whatever went into the oven more until it becomes a cake. There are no other ways to make cake! I wouldn't be too concerned about this if it wasn't endemic of the conservative movement in general: When you have failure from an abolutely conservative government, it's not that conservatism has failed, it's because the government wasn't conservative enough. You know, because dominance of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches isn't enough. ("It's those damned demoblogifacistacommunists!" Says the little Rushie on my shoulder. "Them and the feminists. Don't forget the feminists" Says the little Newt in addition.)

I say now what I wish I said before the Iraq sabre- rattling began. "Look who's not crying now, Stacy; look who's lasting longer than thirdy seconds!"

Now that that's out of the way, here's another one: Don't get caught up in the beat of the war drums (DC Dems, I'm looking your way). We don't need a war with Iran, now or ever. Only a dishonest person will push for one and well, I don't tend to trust dishonest people. Seems to be a good rule.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home