Rumsfeld(')s Gone Wild?
So this. Johnny Quest heard the press conference and basically concluded that he'd gone nuts, as does Mr. Pizzo.
I didn't see it so I can't comment on his demeanor. His claim that U.S. troops should not intervene to stop Iraqi troops from abusing Iraqis made me feel...and believe me when I say that I never thought I'd have to say this with such frequency...rather ashamed to be an American. It also counts as some evidence against the claim that it's considerations about human rights that are driving this project.
But as for the complaints about Rumsfeld's claim that the insurgents aren't really so much insurgents as they are "enemies of the legally-elected Iraqi government"... Well, the man does have a damn point there, and pointing out that it makes for a funny acronym (EOLIEGs) (note: not an actual acronym) doesn't change that.
Reminds me a bit of the ridicule aimed at him for his extemporaneous epistemological claims about known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Easy to ridicule, but true and sometimes important to keep in mind.
Ridiculing Rumsfeld for these things is no better in my book than ridiculing Kerry for his perfectly intelligible and reasonable claim that he voted before the Iraq funding bill before he voted against it. These kinds of political potshots are beneath people who are serious about this stuff.
And in this case it's very odd to criticize him for this point when he actually said somethng really and importantly terrible during the same press conference. I mean, even if you're only interested in making the guy look bad (note: and you shouldn't be), why distract people from the truly awful thing he just said with this terminological triviality?
So this. Johnny Quest heard the press conference and basically concluded that he'd gone nuts, as does Mr. Pizzo.
I didn't see it so I can't comment on his demeanor. His claim that U.S. troops should not intervene to stop Iraqi troops from abusing Iraqis made me feel...and believe me when I say that I never thought I'd have to say this with such frequency...rather ashamed to be an American. It also counts as some evidence against the claim that it's considerations about human rights that are driving this project.
But as for the complaints about Rumsfeld's claim that the insurgents aren't really so much insurgents as they are "enemies of the legally-elected Iraqi government"... Well, the man does have a damn point there, and pointing out that it makes for a funny acronym (EOLIEGs) (note: not an actual acronym) doesn't change that.
Reminds me a bit of the ridicule aimed at him for his extemporaneous epistemological claims about known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Easy to ridicule, but true and sometimes important to keep in mind.
Ridiculing Rumsfeld for these things is no better in my book than ridiculing Kerry for his perfectly intelligible and reasonable claim that he voted before the Iraq funding bill before he voted against it. These kinds of political potshots are beneath people who are serious about this stuff.
And in this case it's very odd to criticize him for this point when he actually said somethng really and importantly terrible during the same press conference. I mean, even if you're only interested in making the guy look bad (note: and you shouldn't be), why distract people from the truly awful thing he just said with this terminological triviality?
posted by Winston Smith at
3:52 PM
5 Comments:
But as for the complaints about Rumsfeld's claim that the insurgents aren't really so much insurgents as they are "enemies of the legally-elected Iraqi government"... Well, the man does have a damn point there
Does he? I'm not aware that "insurgent" and "enemy of the legally-elected Iraqi government" are mutually exclusive categories.
The usage note in my dictionary says (in part): "An insurrection is an organized effort to seize power, especially political power, while an insurgency is usually aided by foreign powers." Based on that, I would think the administration should prefer "insurgent", as it suggests the involvement of foreign fighters.
Damn.
Can I weaken my claim to: Rummy's new term is at least as good as the old one?
Do you really not think that it's important that the insurgents are to at least some extent fighthing against the legally-elected government of Iraq?
Seems like an important fact to me, and it doesn't seem stupid to want to use terminology that makes that fact clear.
But there's no doubt about it: you're right that the Kerry case is far clearer. In that case the criticism was entirely unjustified and devious. In the the Rummy case it's not so clear...though I'm not yet convinced that this distinction is without any difference at all...
I think Rumsfeld was adamant on this, to make sure the US isn't blamed for whatever the New Iraqi Army might do since they're still under our command structure. From what I've read from Robert Kaplan, the US troops training the Iraqi ones make the concept of proper respect of human rights a priority.
As for Kerry, the voted for/against blunder just reinforced his image as a mealy-mouth, and that's why it stuck. These things don't work if they're out of character.
But that wasn't in Kerry's character, and what he said made perfect sense. It was just a political low blow, just manipulation of the electorate. (Par for the course for these guys.) The whole waffling issue was fabricated by Rove et. al., like Gore's alleged prevarication.
No basis in reality.
Besides, Rummy's already got a reputation for being kinda wacky...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home