Tuesday, March 23, 2010

50,000 Advisors For the Iraqi Morons: A Revisionist’s Tale

The New York Times slays me, it really does. Not satisfied with its role as a mega big mouthpiece for the warmongers in Washington who helped push for the invasion of Iraq the Times now regales us with its coverage of the Iraq elections which it calls the “legacy” of the American War. So now the Iraq War is the American War?

But notice how the Times describes the situation there in Iraq.


In a country burdened by its recent past of sectarian war and its longer past of rule by tyranny, and still unfamiliar with the mechanisms of democracy, every statement is parsed for deeper meaning. When Mr. Maliki invoked his commander-in-chief role and the specter of violence in calling for a recount on Sunday, he raised fears that he would not respect the democratic process.

The implication of the first sentence is that the Iraq War has ended by placing it in the recent past ergo the War is no longer occurring. This despite the violence that accompanied the elections. Amazingly the Times doesn’t mention the U.S. role in Iraq’s present condition, it’s instead described as a country burdened by its recent past of sectarian war. Then we are told that the stupid Iraqi are unfamiliar with the mechanism of democracy, what a bunch of morons! Golly, it’s certainly wonderful that the U.S. is in Iraq to save them from their awful past and ignorance of how to live right. So it’s the good and kindly Americans helping the stupid violent brown people out of a mess of their own making, mostly because brown people are stupid and ignorant unlike Americans. That’s just a little revisionist.

By the end of the article we go from the sublime to the truly fantastic.

A valid election and smooth transition to a new government are seen as pivotal events for the legacy of the American war here, as the United States military plans to remove all combat troops by the end of August, leaving 50,000 troops in an advisory role through 2011.

We’re not leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq rather we’re leaving 50,000 advisors! You will note that the only real piece of reality in this fantasia is left to the very last sentence of the article where it is sure to be not read by most. Still, 50,000 advisors for Iraq? Is that what they are? I’ll be damned, I thought they were combat troops but who am I to question the mighty New York Times. I guess the Iraqi must be really, really, really, really, really, really, really stupid to require 50,000 advisors. How about troops as marriage counselors? Or troops for emotionally disturbed Iraq politicians? Troops for kindergarten classes, troops for the lollipop guild, troops for medical advice, legal advice, troops to advise you on pimples and the best way to pop them. I mean, with 50,000 advisors, the sky’s the limit.

We’re never leaving Iraq, we’re never leaving Afghanistan. 50,000 advisors have told me so.


At March 23, 2010 7:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And those 5 bases plus 1 luxurious, massive embassy, they're just "modest accommodations" for the 50k advisors!

At March 23, 2010 9:15 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Hi Charles,

Yes, those bases are rather like the 10 ton elephant in the livingroom.

At March 24, 2010 8:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps they make the elephant's ass look smaller, thereby averting everyone's eyes from that 10-tonner who now looks a 2-tonner.

At March 24, 2010 10:43 AM, Blogger micah holmquist said...

Are the advisors scheduled to become consultants in 2011?

At March 24, 2010 4:17 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Hi Micah,
That’s a good one, I like that – consultants.
That reminds me of a definition for the word consultant I heard once; someone who borrows your watch so they can tell you what time it is.


Post a Comment

<< Home