Change our force posture
Bush’s last stand
February 15, 2007 5 comments
At his press conference yesterday, George W. Bush said:
And the first step for success is to do something about the sectarian violence in Baghdad so they can have breathing space in order to do the political work necessary to assure the different factions in Baghdad, factions that are recovering from years of tyranny, that there is a hopeful future for them and their families. I would call that political breathing space.
(That’s another rare positive use of the word “political“. But “political” things are probably fine for other governments, just not for the President’s domestic critics.)
And by providing this political breathing space, in other words, giving the Maliki government a chance to reconcile and do the work necessary to achieve reconciliation, it’ll hasten the day in which we can change our force posture in Iraq.
“Change our force posture”. It surely would be excellent to send a wizened old Chinese tai chi master out to Iraq to instruct US soldiers to relax their knees, drop their tailbones, and imagine a golden thread holding up the top of their craniums. The posture of the forces, as well as their “force posture” or ability to withstand shoving, would surely be changed, and for the better. But what I suspect change our force posture really means is “get the hell out of there”. As Bush later said:
I want our troops out of there as quickly as possible.
But not before they stand up straight. This lays to rest any doubts remaining that the aim of the Surge Escalation Reinforcements is actually to speed the day when America can, er, cut and run. In a way the strategy is the reverse of the old French expression. Sauter pour mieux reculer.
Testily responding to questions on Iran, meanwhile, Bush twice referred to himself in the third person as the “Commander-in-Chief“. Don’t argue, just salute. And tuck your chin in.
I see you’re a musician also, Steven. I was thinking of a useful enactment of some of our leaders’ methods, in the event of a rival emerging for some film commission. Upon hearing an example of this rival’s work, you could reluctantly say to the commissioner of the piece, “First of all I don’t understand the technicalities, and I guess it would say it’s musical.” This should have the desired effect.
Emm… I would say, not it would say.
Note how the curse of “political” (with its connotations of idle and feckless play) is modified by the highly active noun “work.” The army needs to do something to provide breathing space so work can be done – kind of like ‘cleaning out the workroom,’ or maybe ‘clearing brush.’
But who is this political work aimed at?
to do the political work necessary to assure the different factions in Baghdad, factions that are recovering from years of tyranny, that there is a hopeful future for them and their families.
Are these factions who have a hard time imagining a hopeful future, who need political work done on them, the same ones who were going to greet the Americans with garlands of flowers the minute Saddam’s statue came down? Has their rage and despair over the past few years been a side-effect of their recovering from years of tyranny, much as a former alcoholic might recover – emerging, perhaps, with a new-found sense of mission and trust in higher powers?
Who exactly are these factions in Baghdad? Perhaps their leaders could be brought to a negotiating table, in order to reconcile and do the work necessary to achieve reconciliation (a la South Africa?).
Unless, of course to do something about the sectarian violence means to kill everyone involved, via non-sectarian force-reposturing.
I fear you are right, there, Richard. Bush also said:
“Pretty good about clearing” I think means quite efficient at bombarding areas and killing many people therein.
I note also that apparently “posture,” when paired with “force” loses its connotation of “posturing.”