Monday, August 21, 2006


A brutally grim assessment of Iraq in yesterday's Washington Post by Kenneth Pollack and Daniel Byman. Just a fucking shame that Pollack didn't think of this BEFORE he began advocating invading Iraq. The article, without that background, has valid points. The article, with that background, is a template for "Liberal Hawk" self-justifications that will be pestilential in volume in the months ahead.

Smart and commonsensical op-ed by Andrew Bacevich:

Frustrated American hawks and some anxious Israelis now want to up the ante. Believing that big victories require big wars, some advocate attacking Iran. The appeal is clear: At least in its initial stages, a war with Iran would play to the U.S. or Israeli strong suit. It would be a war of "shock and awe" rather than of ambushes and roadside bombs. But even if a war against Iran were winnable militarily — a large assumption indeed — would victory solve our political problems? History says don't count on it.

Gunter Grass' public trial.

Billmon, smart as always:

I think if Shrub were ever forced to let go of his vision, his one big idea, it would not only crush his fragile ego, it would leave him completely incapable of making any sense at all out of his presidency, out of America's role in the Middle East, out of the universe.

New short story by Richard Ford.



Post a Comment

<< Home