The Power of Words
The House today passed a resolution declaring "that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror," thereby joining a long line of regimes that believed that saying something would make it so.
It brings on a warm nostalgia for the old era of Soviet five-year plans, which would declare the most outlandish future achievements as if they were historical fact. At least the Soviets had the Marxist doctrine of historical inevitability as an excuse. Since the administration has so far shown remarkable incompetence, 'inevitability' isn't the word that comes to mind.
I suppose that, since the "Global War on Terror" is a rhetorical construct anyway, for which no actual definition has ever been clear, and for which the conditions by which one 'prevails' have not be set, declaring it as a 'fait accompli in the future' isn't as absurd as it seems. Perhaps the correct way to read this 'non-binding' House resolution is 'we will, at some future time, declare that we have prevailed, (preferably at a time most favorable for our poll numbers) and since the GWOT is what we say it is, we will be right.'
After reading the news, though, I was getting pretty excited about this whole 'wishing makes it so' concept. I was working on my own set of resolutions:
I resolve that I will be given a million dollars.
I resolve that we will be freed from obligation to pay off an enormous government debt.
I resolve that every young girl will get a pony!
Strangely, none of these has yet turned out to be meaningful.
Meanwhile, while not busy passing such important legislation, the Congress is all atwitter about an amnesty proposal. No, not that one for the millions of peaceful illegal immigrants here in the US. This is a proposal from the office of the Iraqi Prime Minister to give amnesty to Iraqi insurgents who can prove they have not shed Iraqi blood.
Now, normally such amnesty proposals are offered in exchange for something, like laying down arms, but the Iraqi government is not, shall we say, bargaining from a position of strength. So far, Republicans have been rushing to support this idea, since, after all, it does stand a chance of lessening tension and violence, and may be a route to cleaning up the mess they've made.
On the other hand, if one is an insurgent, but hasn't been attacking Iraqis, who has one been attacking? And who could one continue to attack, if 'Iraqi blood' is the key to the whole amnesty thing? Yes, of course, the US occupying forces. Hmm.
Just how this supports the troops, or enables us to prevail in the Global War on Terror, or any of those things they accuse Democrats of failing at, is not clear to me.
Maybe because they say it does, and they could pass a resolution to that effect.
Perhaps they can have it ready next Seersucker Thursday. What a way to mark the next 2500 soldiers dead.
It brings on a warm nostalgia for the old era of Soviet five-year plans, which would declare the most outlandish future achievements as if they were historical fact. At least the Soviets had the Marxist doctrine of historical inevitability as an excuse. Since the administration has so far shown remarkable incompetence, 'inevitability' isn't the word that comes to mind.
I suppose that, since the "Global War on Terror" is a rhetorical construct anyway, for which no actual definition has ever been clear, and for which the conditions by which one 'prevails' have not be set, declaring it as a 'fait accompli in the future' isn't as absurd as it seems. Perhaps the correct way to read this 'non-binding' House resolution is 'we will, at some future time, declare that we have prevailed, (preferably at a time most favorable for our poll numbers) and since the GWOT is what we say it is, we will be right.'
After reading the news, though, I was getting pretty excited about this whole 'wishing makes it so' concept. I was working on my own set of resolutions:
I resolve that I will be given a million dollars.
I resolve that we will be freed from obligation to pay off an enormous government debt.
I resolve that every young girl will get a pony!
Strangely, none of these has yet turned out to be meaningful.
Meanwhile, while not busy passing such important legislation, the Congress is all atwitter about an amnesty proposal. No, not that one for the millions of peaceful illegal immigrants here in the US. This is a proposal from the office of the Iraqi Prime Minister to give amnesty to Iraqi insurgents who can prove they have not shed Iraqi blood.
Now, normally such amnesty proposals are offered in exchange for something, like laying down arms, but the Iraqi government is not, shall we say, bargaining from a position of strength. So far, Republicans have been rushing to support this idea, since, after all, it does stand a chance of lessening tension and violence, and may be a route to cleaning up the mess they've made.
On the other hand, if one is an insurgent, but hasn't been attacking Iraqis, who has one been attacking? And who could one continue to attack, if 'Iraqi blood' is the key to the whole amnesty thing? Yes, of course, the US occupying forces. Hmm.
Just how this supports the troops, or enables us to prevail in the Global War on Terror, or any of those things they accuse Democrats of failing at, is not clear to me.
Maybe because they say it does, and they could pass a resolution to that effect.
Perhaps they can have it ready next Seersucker Thursday. What a way to mark the next 2500 soldiers dead.
posted by Paul at 1:28 PM |
|
email this
