Friday, August 11, 2006

Thou shalt not be aware, Andrew Sullivan

From Andrew Sullivan (with emphasis):

...the proclaimed Bush policy was not mere deployment of brute force, torture, bombs and swagger as a response to the civil war within Islam. It was ostensibly to create a beach-head for modernity and democracy in Iraq. That, at least, was the rationale I signed onto. Now, maybe in retrospect, the idea of a beach-head for democracy was always just a cover for Rumsfeld and Cheney to try to terrify a bunch of "barbarians" with brute force. And in so far as the war was designed this way, the Bush administration's general incompetence and brutality has, of course, done the precise opposite. It's actually emboldened the enemy, made the West look weak, and lost us potential support in the vital center of Muslim opinion. Send too few troops into Iraq and of course the Islamists think we're unserious. That's why I couldn't support Bush again last time around; and why I hope the Democrats take back at least one chamber this fall - if only to put a break on the Queegs and Strangeloves in the Pentagon and the Veep's office.
But, for all Cheney's and Rumsfeld's flaws, they are at least proposing something serious, however ineptly carried out....
I won't dignify Sullivan's post with a link. I don't take him seriously enough to dialogue, an assessment backed by the lack of comments on his blog. However, you can read the rest of Andrew's rumination by visiting his blog and looking for The War and the Democrats dated, Aug. 10, 2006, at 8:22 PM.

Basically, I get the feeling that he's miffed at Democrats who don't wish to clean up the mess on Aisle Iraq that the Bush Administration broke. See, that's the problem, within the framework of how conservatives think, Iraq is a place, a location, a geography. When in truth, Iraq is comprised of different types of minds--Sunni, Kurds, and Shia--who have disagreed with each other for decades. Or more. Conservatives see Iraq as a "beach-head" for their ideals, not a group of divergent people who have their own set of ideals.

Military action cannot change the way people think. Freedom is a state of mind, and for those who have forgotten, review Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If one can't satisfy the basics of survival, who cares about self-actualization when the greater concern of staying alive eclipses being free and democratic? Replacing a force with another force is merely a lateral move with zero progress in the transcendence necessary to create a nation of free people. The Iraqis didn't invite us. Bush's war was predicated on the false pretense that Saddam was a threat to our national security that's been so thoroughly disproved. Collectively, Iraqis weren't ready for democracy and who knows when they will transition into embracing the idea of equality and freedom for all. Our continued occupation isn't inspiring them. Nonetheless, even after the initial mistake of invading Iraq, we could have left the Iraqis alone--respecting their process rather than inserting our will upon them--after deposing Saddam. Imperialists aren't capable of thinking this way because they have an agenda--theirs. Civil war would have ensued, you say? Ha! Civil war escalates by our very presence. Murtha's plan to redeploy our troops has always made sense, and too bad, such an idea wasn't grasped initially before proceeding to occupy Iraq and impose the inherently self-serving neocon plan for its reconstruction--an approach that has failed miserably.

And yet, Andrew fails to understand the operating fallacy beneath "the rationale" he "signed onto."

My friend Genet advises not to waste time by getting sucked into the patriarchy's agenda lest you, too, get colonized. Andrew Sullivan exemplifies her argument. Although Sully is a gay man, he supports the patriarchal neocon delusion that a democratic state can transform the Mideast into a coalition of democratic-leaning Islamic nations through imperialism. For all the Republican rhetoric about the pre-9/11 mindset--a mode of thinking often blamed on liberals--conservatives (who think as Sully) are stuck in some century long, long ago. Neocons don't realize how un-modern the proposition of invasion and occupation is. As if heterosexuality by force would suddenly, Poof! Turn Andrew straight. I'm sure some heterosexuals would seriously advocate "liberating" Sully from his ho-mo-sex-u-al-i-ty. Tragically, Sullivan cannot see the parallel futility of "liberating" Iraq.