Unbelievable Cluelessness

The incompetence and cluelessness of the Administration on what has become by all accounts a loss of government control and full-blown civil war in Iraq would be hilarious were it not so tragic. Perhaps most painful of all is that the very same people who are responsible getting us into this mess are still responsible for how we are going to get out of it, even as the situation spirals beyond anyone's control--and they act as if they literally have no clue what is actually going there, and has been going on for some time.

According to Forbes Magazine today, Bush is moving to try to obtain more help and support from aliies:

Facing rising violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Bush opened a high-stakes diplomatic mission Monday seeking more help from allies amid growing impatience at home with the war.

"Obviously everyone would agree things are not proceeding well enough or fast enough" in Iraq, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said aboard Air Force One.

At this point, trying to get more international help is like trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Anyone with a brain from anywhere except the "serious" Washington & New York crowd have been telling Bush, Cheney and friends that we needed more international help years ago if this venture in Iraq was to succeed. Anyone with a brain knew that the Occupation needed to have an International, rather than American face. But the NeoCons would have none of it, because they wanted to keep the oil in the hands of American companies, and because they wanted to keep building permanent American bases.

But more appalling still is Hadley's comment about thing "not proceeding fast enough" in Iraq. They're proceeding quickly all right--Iraq is speeding into a full-blown huminitarian catastrophe that could make Rwanda and Darfur pale by comparison. If the intent of the Bushies is to beg for international help because there's a full-blown crisis, perhaps they should be using the language of crisis--unless, of course, they're so clueless that they don't believe they have a crisis on their hands.

And they obviously don't believe there is a crisis:

Bush left Monday for an overnight stop in Estonia ahead of a two-day NATO summit in Riga, Latvia. He then heads to Amman, Jordan, for talks Wednesday and Thursday with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

From Air Force One, the president spoke to the leaders of France and Egypt. Addressing Bush's upcoming talks with al-Maliki, Hadley said, "We're clearly in a new phase characterized by an increase in sectarian violence that requires us to adapt to that new phase."

We're in a new phase??? Earth to Hadley: We've been in that phase for quite a while now. Only the truly delusional would have believed that the situation over the last six months could be described any other way. What, indeed, does Hadley think "new" means in this context? If this article is correct, it would appear that this Administration woke up on Sunday morning and just now realized the hellhole that Iraq has become--and that it's not just a fight "agin' the terrists" anymore.

At least they realize that Baghdad is so dangerous that they have to hold the meeting in Jordan instead.

But what does this mean for American troops? If we're in a "new phase" of full-blown civil war, what possible good can American occupying forces do there, instead of U.N. and NATO peacekeepers and humanitarian aid? Shouldn't we be doing something different?

Not according to Bush:

He said it was unlikely Bush would address the issue of any U.S. troop withdrawal. "We're not at the point where the president is going to be in a position to lay out a comprehensive plan," Hadley said. He also said the administration did not believe that the violence in Iraq would turn into a wider regional war between Sunnis and Shiites.

Now that's rich: Not at a point...to lay out a comprehensive plan. So what the Administration is saying here is that in three years they just haven't had the time or inclination to think about Iraq very much. That they planned out the path to Hell, but have no plan for the path Out of Hell. But they're more than content to let other people's children die while they twiddle their thumbs.

What if, after three years working on a disastrous project for your boss, she asked you what strategy you had in place to cut your losses, and you responded, "I'm not in a position to lay out a comprehensive plan." Not only would you be fired on the spot (hell, you'd have been fired years ago), but you might even get sued. But not these guys. They get a free pass. Disgusting.

Hadley continues:

"These two leaders (Bush and al-Maliki) need to be talking about how to do that and what steps Iraq needs to take and how we can support" Iraq's leaders, Hadley said.

Excuse me? Need to be talking? I thought talking was for weak-kneed liberals. I thought Conservatives were Men of Action.

The time for talking about the steps Iraq needs to take was three years ago. Two years ago. One year ago. Six months ago. Today, the only "talking" that we need to do is to figure out any way possible to stop one of the greatest humanitarian crises of our lifetimes from taking place. It's time to ACT--to get the soldiers out of the way except as bodyguards, and get the humanitarians and diplomats to take charge from here.

But the kicker is really this:

He also said the administration did not believe that the violence in Iraq would turn into a wider regional war between Sunnis and Shiites.

That's because Hadley is a clueless fucktard who wastes valuable oxygen with no brain cells or redeeming value to the planet. The same goes for everyone he works with. And six months from now, we'll be hearing how "Nobody could have predicted that there would be a regional sectarian and ethnic civil war across the entire Middle East..."

The article finishes with explanations of how we are trying to encourage our allies in NATO to spend as much of their GDPs on National Defense as we do--failing with remarkable cluelessness to see that:

1) Increased military spending will not and cannot possible solve this problem; and

2) Even if more military spending could solve the problem, increasing spending on military won't do a damn thing absent the political will of those nations to engage in imperial conquests of non-threatening foreign nations--or the desire to bail the United States out of a disaster of its own making, while still being subject to the control of U.S. generals.

-----------------------------

So what we have, in sum, is an Administration that still believes that anything resembling progess is being made in Iraq.

An Administration that has only now woken up to the realization that we might be in some sort of "new phase" of sectarian violence.

An Administration that thinks that it might be a good time just now to start talking to Iraq's powerless, nominal figurehead-of-state about what to do.

An Administration that is too lackadaisical to draw up any sort of "comprehensive plan" just yet.

An Administration that thinks the answer to this problem is increased military spending.

And an Administration that didn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites before they smashed up the place, and doesn't think there will be wider regional civil war there now, any more than they thought the levees would fail in New Orleans.

At this point, there's really only one relevant question left: When do the adults get to take charge again, and how much damage will be done by these intellectual and moral cretins in the meantime?