Fishing with a howitzer
: Cathy Seipp takes on Prof. Pondscum’s best buddies. Go get ‘em.
WHEREAS, Juan Cole has been far better at predicting the course of the war on Iraq than pro-war types like Jeff Jarvis; and
WHEREAS, Jarvis is reduced to sputtering rage against Juan Cole and unable to muster any response to Cole’s dastardly reporting of bad news in Iraq instead of consigning it to the memory hole like patriotic Americans; and
WHEREAS, Jarvis rightly applies the epithet “Pondscum” to that traitor Cole who won’t get with the program and write about schools being repainted and soccer balls distributed; which obviously outweigh daily casualties, massive intimidation, the occasional Iraq family killed by nervous American troops in a war they don’t understand and increasingly are skeptical of, and an American military which is increasing its troop strength to an even higher level than during the initial invasion; and
WHEREAS certain posters on this blog have unfairly sought to hold Jarvis to the words of his own Post-Election Pledge;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT SAID PLEDGE IS ALTERED TO READ;
After the election results are in, I promise to:
: Support the President, even if his Iraqi policies are increasingly obvious failures.
: Support the President, even if I did vote for him. After all, there’s a war on!
: Violate standards of civilized discourse in blogs and in media while hypocritically pushing both to be better, with special vitriol for anyone who criticizes the war, including smarty-pants Pondscum professors of history who have spent years studying Arabic and Islamic civilization and thus know far less than Jeff Jarvis.
: Divide the nation with increasingly hysterical rants against those who question the war, putting the war effort over country, even as pro-war supporters get ready to blame the likes of Professor Cole and the liberal media if the war fails. Repeat after me, “We were stabbed in the back!”
After all, I’m the great Jeff Jarvis! How dare you attempt to hold me to my words?
Too bad ProToAnti didn’t sign with a name that Jeff consider’s non-anonymous. Since s/he didn’t use a lable like “Henry” or “Bernadette,” Jeff won’t pay attention to it.
Jeff is sick, Goddamnit. Jeff does not respond to every comment, as Jeff has made clear. Jeff is not your monkey.
And predicting the course of the war has not one damend thing to do with what Cole did to those two good men, which was impardonable.
Now excuse me while I breath germs on you.
Such Christian kindliness! I almost thought it was Robertson, Falwell or Dobson.
At least the pro-war types appear to be conceding by default that “Pondscum” and his ilk have been more correct about the war’s course than they have. I guess the “ignoring the good news” meme is so discredited that it’s not even contested.
Breath all the germs you want, but try reading Cole if you want any chance of salvaging anything out of this conflict.
Jeff – i was just commenting on your odd policy of ignoring and discounting posts that aren’t “signed” — as if singing a post “Mary Harrison” somehow adds value (or “balls” as you usually put it) to the content. If you want only non-anonymous comments, you need a more precise measurement that whether you think people are using their real names.
try reading Cole if you want any chance of salvaging anything out of this conflict. – ProToAnti
I tried that. Didn’t work. Couldn’t find a sensible plan.
I’ve read Cole closely for more than a year, and here’s part of what he recommends:
1: Cooperate with Iran in stabilizing Iraq. As a next-door neighbor to Iraq, Iran will naturally have great influence if Iraq has majority rule. Both nations have a Shia majority, and in both nations the Ba’athists were the deadliest enemies of the Shia. Iran is opposed to either the Ba’ath or Al Qaeda taking power in Iraq. Unless we are prepared to invade Iran before it goes nuclear (which some in the Bush Administration still want to do), we have no choice but to reach an accommodation that recognizes Iran’s influence.
2: Stop trying to put hand-picked strongmen in charge of Iraq. First we supported Chalabi, now Allawi, both of whom were long out of the country and have no natural base of support.
3: Cease the heavy reliance on Kurdish peshmerga to help American forces outside of Kurdistan. This inflames Kurdish-Arab tensions and may lay the groundwork for ethnic cleansing.
You may not consider these elements “sensible,” but one must ask, compared to what? The Bush Administration’s plan is mostly PR spin and posturing, with “victories” such as Fallujah, which supposedly broke the back of the insurgency. In reality, the attack on was mainly the desire for vengeance by the Bush Adminstration’s and American troops. This is inconsistent with the professed aim of helping free the city of a relative handful of terrorists. And this thirst for vengeance helps explain why the American occupation is being treated with somewhat less joy by Iraqis than, say, the liberation of Paris in World War II.
As we know, fighting is *still* going on in Fallujah. Now Mosul, a much bigger city, is edging toward chaos. The retinal-scanned survivors who return to Fallujah are not apt to thank America for nearly destroying their city. Put yourself in their place and ask yourself how would you like your home and city ruined by an angry invader?
Rumsfeld’s sneak visit to Iraq, complete with friendly questions (probably guaranteed by Pentagon spinners), is an act of desperation. He wants to save his job, and talk about what progress is being made. We’ve heard that line for more than a year and a half? How much longer will the pro-war types deceive themselves?
When people like Jeff Jarvis frankly admit we screwed up by invading Iraq — no matter how noble the cause — only then will we be able to cut our losses. But alas, Jarvis’ pointless, fact-evading insults and charming wishes for digital germ warfare (who does *that* remind you of?) suggest we will be stuck there yet awhile.
Buy my new book and get clickable footnotes and links.
Buy my new Kindle Single on Amazon.
Now out in paperback!