No, that title is not in reference to the Jack Garigliano piece that seems to be the talk of the town these days. Just from looking at the title of that second link, I'm inclined to believe that all that may be said about Garigliano's work already has been. I instead refer to the piece in the Badger Herald written by Mattie Duppler of the College Republicans. Particularly disturbing (laughably so?) is this choice nugget midway through the article:
Moving on, Duppler's concessionary passive voice lets the reader know right away that a muse about winning this war was only half-heartedly tacked on to an emotional passage about the inhumanity of our grand enemy — apparently a critical threat to the very existence of our nation. I know plenty about the threats and consequences of Islamic extremism, and a little prescriptive rhetoric would be a welcome addition to the Republican column-writing repertoire apparently exhausted by cliché and hyperbole .
Of course, Duppler keeps the target moving, turning focus in the next paragraph to the sorry state they've gotten Iraq into, while leaving critical readers wondering exactly happens for Iraq to "be won." While the Republican penchant for screaming about the most miniscule of silver linings impresses me greatly, they leave no indication of how this unsustainable escalation is finally putting us on the path toward the Iraq of their dreams. Devoid of ideas, both in philosophy and policy, they've been reduced to ten paragraphs of explaining why we're all in grave danger and how they have absolutely no idea what to do about it. Contrast that tone with the progressive, prescriptive piece penned by Oliver Kiefer, and published alongside Duppler's (albeit, about a different subject).
But as I sat down to write this post, I noticed that, as if waiting for the UW-Madison College Republicans to drop the ball, Anonymous Liberal today wrote about a subject very pertinent to this debate: "who are we fighting in Iraq?"
While [Islamic extremists] glorify the use of one’s child as an explosive devise [sic], the hypocritical zealots adhering to the “pull-out” strategy demonize a war that, in light of General Petraeus’ report illuminating successes in Iraq, can still be won.Where do I begin? First, by law, there is no General Petraeus report. There is a Bush Administration report. Second, Merriam-Webster defines "zealousness" as that which is "marked by fervent partisanship for a person, a cause, or an ideal." I consider the opinions of 60% of Americans to stand much higher than mere zealous partisanship (redundant, I know), and I wish that our peers across the aisle would as well.
Moving on, Duppler's concessionary passive voice lets the reader know right away that a muse about winning this war was only half-heartedly tacked on to an emotional passage about the inhumanity of our grand enemy — apparently a critical threat to the very existence of our nation. I know plenty about the threats and consequences of Islamic extremism, and a little prescriptive rhetoric would be a welcome addition to the Republican column-writing repertoire apparently exhausted by cliché and hyperbole .
Of course, Duppler keeps the target moving, turning focus in the next paragraph to the sorry state they've gotten Iraq into, while leaving critical readers wondering exactly happens for Iraq to "be won." While the Republican penchant for screaming about the most miniscule of silver linings impresses me greatly, they leave no indication of how this unsustainable escalation is finally putting us on the path toward the Iraq of their dreams. Devoid of ideas, both in philosophy and policy, they've been reduced to ten paragraphs of explaining why we're all in grave danger and how they have absolutely no idea what to do about it. Contrast that tone with the progressive, prescriptive piece penned by Oliver Kiefer, and published alongside Duppler's (albeit, about a different subject).
But as I sat down to write this post, I noticed that, as if waiting for the UW-Madison College Republicans to drop the ball, Anonymous Liberal today wrote about a subject very pertinent to this debate: "who are we fighting in Iraq?"
Unless we have some plan for altering the underlying dynamics in Iraq, the forces behind the chaos and violence will still exist and will exert themselves again as soon as we leave. Unless the various factions of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds are all willing to live together under a Shiite-dominated, Iranian-allied central government--and there's absolutely no reason to think they are--then there is no point in establishing order merely for order's sake. Even if we sent in a million troops and stopped all violence in the country, the fighting would just start up again as soon as we began drawing down our forces.I invite the College Republicans to spend their next column describing exactly what they mean for Iraq to "be won." Do we establish an expressive, liberal democracy grounded in western values and free of undue and harmful outside influence? I mean, that's what we were promised, right? Surely, the College Republicans would not have supported initial military action for anything less. And would anything less truly be a win? In the meantime, leave it to Democrats in Washington to set the tone for constructive foreign policy that will keep us safe at home, and protect our interests abroad.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home