(no subject)
Jun. 29th, 2005 09:20 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ebonlockSomehow Jesse at Pandagon always seems to know just how to express something that has been niggling at the back of my brain for a while, and do it far more eloquently than I ever could:
Long story short, when Bush says 9/11 and Iraq, he's playing on a complete lie. The issue is, we're fighting the first postmodern war (and I mean postmodern in the intellectually lazy way that conservatives perceive it). Why are we fighting? Well, everyone has their reasons. Mine are just as valid as yours, unless yours aren't, in which case I'm even more right. When Bush says 9/11 followed by Iraq, he's not referring to what he's obviously referring to - he's referring to an entirely different set of specious assumptions backed up by my ability to choke them out without being struck down by lightning.
This, I think, is the disconnect between reality and much of the pro-war right. When the New York Times or Washington Post criticizes the war, they're criticizing the war that's happening. It's a war where there's a large-scale insurgent movement, where the al-Qaeda interest in Iraq was seeing Hussein gone and using the subsequent unrest to recruit and attack, where new cafeterias aren't replacements for dead kids. In the Fighting Keyboarder world, everyone's got their own version of this war - in some, we're creating a nation of adoring America-fans, in others we've crushed the insurgency and whatever's left is simply a shadow pumped up by the "MSM". But whatever the war, it's theirs, and it can't be argued with because the relevant particulars are determined in their heads and switched as is necessary to accuse you of treason.
Although this comment by a site visitor, Adam, is also beautiful beyond my ability to articulate:
9/11 showed us that if America is attacked by terrorists, we need to kill terrorists. Even if it means going to Iraq and making more terrorists. After all, all the terrorists are fighting for the unified platform of Terrorism, which is the dominant political ideology in Terroristan.
Long story short, when Bush says 9/11 and Iraq, he's playing on a complete lie. The issue is, we're fighting the first postmodern war (and I mean postmodern in the intellectually lazy way that conservatives perceive it). Why are we fighting? Well, everyone has their reasons. Mine are just as valid as yours, unless yours aren't, in which case I'm even more right. When Bush says 9/11 followed by Iraq, he's not referring to what he's obviously referring to - he's referring to an entirely different set of specious assumptions backed up by my ability to choke them out without being struck down by lightning.
This, I think, is the disconnect between reality and much of the pro-war right. When the New York Times or Washington Post criticizes the war, they're criticizing the war that's happening. It's a war where there's a large-scale insurgent movement, where the al-Qaeda interest in Iraq was seeing Hussein gone and using the subsequent unrest to recruit and attack, where new cafeterias aren't replacements for dead kids. In the Fighting Keyboarder world, everyone's got their own version of this war - in some, we're creating a nation of adoring America-fans, in others we've crushed the insurgency and whatever's left is simply a shadow pumped up by the "MSM". But whatever the war, it's theirs, and it can't be argued with because the relevant particulars are determined in their heads and switched as is necessary to accuse you of treason.
Although this comment by a site visitor, Adam, is also beautiful beyond my ability to articulate:
9/11 showed us that if America is attacked by terrorists, we need to kill terrorists. Even if it means going to Iraq and making more terrorists. After all, all the terrorists are fighting for the unified platform of Terrorism, which is the dominant political ideology in Terroristan.
