|
Edited on Tue Oct-10-06 09:56 AM by Armstead
Just a random historical obsrvation.
Remember Shock and Awe in Iraq? The idea was that we'd bomb the hell out of Baghdad, which would scare Sadaam into submission, which would allow us to waltz into Baghdad as liberators. The only challenge would be picking up all the rose petals being thrown out way by a gratful population. And the war would be over immediately. And that would automatically spread moderate democracy throughout the Middle East.
Now think of Stephen Colbert's concept of "Truthiness." It's the idea that you don't base truth on the facts, but on what you want to be the truth. You bend reality to your own fantasies, rather than on objectiuve reality. You don't base your plans and actions on empirical data, but on your own desire of how things will occur.
Put the two togethyer and what have you got? Our entire Iraq Policy and war strategy. Shock and Awe was Truthiness taken to the extreme. "We can win a war and conquer Iraq with a simple show of force at no risk or cost to us."....Sounds easy. Quick. Simple. Logical on an emotional level.
Problem was that they ignored all those experts who told them that the situation was much more complicated than that. They ignored the empirical evidence that cautioned that Shock and Awe did not take into account all of the social conflicts within Iraq, and all of the geo-political ramifications elsewhere.
They responded with more Truthiness. "We want to Shock and Awe them into submission, so that's what will happen." And then when they went in, they took truthiness to the next level with "Mission Accomplished." We want the war to be over, we say it's over, so it's over....And they're still following the Truthiness Strategy today.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
