Kristolization of Iraq's Civil War

Last night on Charlie Rose, Bill Kristol was whoreing his book of recycled Weekly Standard fare. I won't get into the rediculosity surrounding any book that consists entirely of the "My Documents" folder in any columnist's computer.

In between Charlie Rose yucking it up with Billy the Kid, Kristol would let some admonishments towards the Administration slip. The usual Kristol fare, taking full responsibility for pushing the overthrow of Saddam marbled with the "but I wanted lots of troops" qualifier. I paused the DVR and grabbed the vomit receptacle I have designated for such occasions when Charlie Rose chooses to have one of these right wing hacks on his mostly decent and respectable show.

The dicotomizing of Kristol's elaborate viewpoints coupled with carefully crafted arguements for his previously failed arguements intertwined with graciousness towards his dismissals continued on and on. Then finally the question about the civil war in Iraq.

My unofficial transcript is as follows:

KRISTOL: There is not a civil war in Iraq. I think we know what a civil war looks like. There is no ethnic cleansing in Iraq. Iraq has not become the Balkans with an ethnic cleansing. etc..

Trust me, this is what he said. In fact, I think he mentioned ethinc cleansing a few more times hoping it would somehow become a part of the national conversation.

Now I am no expert on civil wars, but I know enough about them to know that while ethnic cleansing can and will occur in some civil wars, it is not a neccessary or required element of civil wars. The terms ethnic cleansing and civil war are not interchangeable nor should they be conflated in some Kristolian way. I recall a certain Civil War where white people in the North were killing white people from the south and vice versa. Most dictionaries will define a civil war as a that between "factions or regions of the same country." In any case, if ethnic cleansing is a defining characteristic of civil war, Kristol later deomonstrated his infinite ignorance by admitting that said ethnic factor actually being present in Iraq.

Sir Kristol went on to say that "Suni's are targeting Shiites." I am wrong to call this an admission for it is the reality (and reality need not be validated by admission). It is what we see on whatever piss poor media coverage we get in the US regarding this war. A war by the way that people like Kristol believe is the only means of achieving some glorious democratic end in the middle east. Does anyone need reminding that this man is one of the fathers of Neoconism? That gastly religion espoused by people in charge of this war (e.g. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Perle).

This question of Civil War in Iraq and wether Iraq is on the verge of one, or actually engaged in one is a rather silly one to be debating at this time. It is similar to the debate surrounding Evolution as a solid scientific theory. There is ample evidence presented by the reality on the ground, as well as the Pentagon's daily briefings to not only suggest a Civil War but to confirm it. Depending on where you sit on the political specturm these sources should be satisfactory.

If you are moderate to liberal and accept the media's version, you have to say, yep Civil War. If you are a conservative and accept the Pentagon's version of "the attacks are killing less Americans," then again you must define the situation as a Civil War.

Anyone who denies this reality should be gagged. For the debate over the Iraqi Civil War usually accompanies some debate about how to "win in Iraq." A debate typically associated with lots of admissions of mistakes (as with Billy the Kid), along with platitudes of "if only we had realized our mistakes in the beginning." Lots of mistake mongering, when the debate over this civil war is in and of itself a mistake.

Fighting obvious realities like the current Iraqi Civil War is what got us to this point in the first place. And the publications of Sir William Kristol and King Roberto Kagan took the lead in dismissing such realities as they were occuring, spinning their own wet dreams into common wisdom among the willing press. Finally peddling books admitting to the mistakes of the power wielders for whom they were PR consultants.

These voices should be silenced not amplified, and for that Charlie Rose or any other person wielding a camera and microphone who allows this man to advertise his book of deceitful warmongering deserves a lashing.