Happy Codpiece Day

Others have noted the irony of Bin Laden's killing on the eighth anniversary of dubya's carrier-deck strut and Mission Accomplished bravado.
(All Hat, No Cattle) Golly, whoda thunk that gathering intelligence- and paying attention to it- responding with a focused plan, and carefully targeting your objective might have a more positive outcome than initiating unplanned hostilities against a poorly armed, fractious nation whose leader threatened your daddy and your masculinity?

Here's the thing: I don't want to underplay the importance of killing Bin Laden. I honestly don't know how important he is/was at this point; if reports are accurate, he has been thoroughly out of the loop. I think kudos and more are in order for those involved in this operation: well done! I wish it was as easy for me to assure you of proper health care and the benefits you deserve when you return to civilian life. Lord knows our country and citizens owe you at least that much, but we both know you're going to have to fight tooth and nail to even get attention, let alone the support you're due.

But what really disturbed me last night as I realized what had happened was the mood of celebration. I was watching Twelve Monkeys- an appropriately surreal, grim and depressing film, when I started hearing fireworks, cheering, and chants of "USA! USA!" I didn't pay much attention. Danged Greek kids will use anything as an excuse to make noise and get drunk... one gets inured to it after a while. Then I took a break and checked the web. Oh my. Celebrations in New York and DC. Obama interrupting Celebrity Apprentice Dance Survivors (or some such) for an officious statement. Boo-yah. A guy is dead. Go USA!

Really, people? Yeah, he was an awful person, a prick, a monster, even. Yeah, he planned an event that killed 3000 American Citizens within our national boundaries (I think it's that latter detail that gets everyone's panties in a knot- we sure as shit don't give a fuck when American citizens are killed overseas by ambushes and IED's.) But I had been under the impression that our country was built based on the principle of the basic dignity and assured rights of each and every human being. It's one thing to see a few self-selected yahoos celebrating the execution of a criminal in Texas (after, I might point out, the application of due process of law, however flawed that might be); it's another to see a huge portion of my country celebrating what amounts to a military execution as if it was a game-winning three point play in the closing seconds of a playoff game.

Listen, assholes: this is not a game. These are not the closing seconds- we have been warned that GWOT will likely go on for decades. Bin Laden was a human being, not a basketball. Celebrating the death a human being, however awful he was, cheapens ALL human life, including your own.

I'm reminded of Tommy Sand's song, There Were Roses:

Isaac was my friend! he cried, he begged them with his tears
But centuries of hatred have ears that do not hear
An eye for an eye, it was all that filled their minds
And another eye for another eye till everyone is blind

And the tears of the people ran together.

Again, let me be clear: I am in no way saying Bin Laden's death is a bad thing. I would have preferred his live capture and trial, but as best as I can tell, actually following our own law is distasteful and unworkable for our current legislative and executive branches. It's much more pragmatic to throw suspects into a box in Guantanamo, with assurances we'll sort them all out with military tribunals in some nebulous future. Given that fact, and the potential for his martyrdom or becoming an even more powerful symbol, I really don't feel that execution by Special Ops force is a bad alternative.

No, what disgusts me is the idea that we can treat the end of a human life- any human life- as a source of cheap entertainment, nationalism, and a reason to celebrate.

Followup: National Buttocks Day?

Following up on a comment from Skinny Dennis to the previous post, he and I would like to propose and promote July 6 as National Buttocks Day. July 6, is of course, the birthdate of our illustrious ex-president, George W. Spud Bush, aka dubya, aka shrub, aka bleeder of the free world.

I'm not certain what to propose as commemorative activities yet, but I will take a strong stance against greeting cards and cheap waxy chocolate.

Five Years Ago Today

Cheney got a gun, from the Bob Rivers Show. There is some uncertainty regarding the exact date of this incident- unsurprising given our former VP's unwillingness to respond honestly to questions of any kind, or to take responsibility for any of his fubars. According to Wikipedia,

The shooting was widely reported to have taken place on Saturday February 11, 2006, based on the public statements of Katharine Armstrong, owner of the 50,000-acre (200 km2) Armstrong Ranch. However, in her written statement to the Sheriff, she said that the shooting happened on February 12.

Harry Whittington, in his only public statement, said that "accidents do and will happen – and that’s what happened last Friday" (February 10). Whittington has not made another statement or issued a written statement about the shooting.

The shooting wasn't publicized for at least a day or two after it occurred, and many of us have assumed that was to give Darth an opportunity to sober up. That accusation has, of course, been strongly denied, with everyone involved insisting there was no alcohol.

Armstrong, the ranch owner, claimed that all in the hunting party were wearing blaze-orange safety gear and none had been drinking, and that at lunch they drank beer, which contradicts her later statement that "there may (have been) a beer or two in there [the coolers at lunch], but remember not everyone in the party was shooting." Cheney has acknowledged that he had one beer four or five hours prior to the shooting. Armstrong said she never saw Cheney or Wittington drink until later at the house, when Cheney had a cocktail. Armstrong did not actually see the incident happen, believing that the reason Cheney's security detail was running was that Cheney had a heart problem, although Cheney described her as an eyewitness in his Fox interview.

So there is standard Cheney operating procedure: multiple conflicting stories, denial of responsibility, no consequences, and a heartfelt apology. No, not from Cheney, you silly person, you: Whittington later apologized to Cheney for getting shot.

Followup: Also, as it happens, Sarah Palin turns 47, and Thomas Edison turns 164. Edison has, of course, been dead for nearly half that time, instead of brain-dead for most of it.

Derision Points

So Dubya's new book thingie is set to be released next Tuesday, but the NYT has the review today. I'm sure the review makes for better reading than its subject.

Certainly it’s the most casual of presidential memoirs: how many works in the genre start as a sort of evangelical, 12-step confession (“Could I continue to grow closer to the Almighty or was alcohol becoming my god?”), include some off-color jokes and conclude with an aside about dog poop?

The prose in “Decision Points” is utilitarian, the language staccato and blunt. Mr. Bush’s default mode is regular-guy-politico, and his moods vacillate mainly among the defensive and the diligent — frat boy irreverence, religious certainty and almost willful obliviousness.

I was one of the lucky few given the opportunity to get a sneak preview of the draft of a chapter, posted in its entirety here.

K+5

Five years ago today, Katrina plowed ashore in New Orleans, killing thousands, and proving for once and for all Reagan's sweet little homily that a government with no interest in governing is the enemy. If there's a phrase more terrifying than "We're from the government, and we're here to help," it's "Fuck you. You're on your own. This is your fault." Which latter statement is, of course, what stranded residents of New Orleans heard from the Bush administration.

"Heh heh! Sucks to be you!"

This was a period leading up to my complete abandonment of TeeVee, and I had given up on news from that medium... as a result, it was Wednesday before I really realized just how bad the situation had become. Looking primarily for text, I saw few images in the aftermath. In many ways, I was better informed regarding the details than most, but I missed and was unaware of the viscerally gripping pictures that were circulating. It wasn't until much later- weeks to months- that I started filling in the gaps there.

Friday, The Big Picture ran a series of 49 photos commemorating this anniversary, many new to me. The one below is one that gave me pause and made me feel a little teary.

Leonard Thomas, 23, cries after a SWAT police team burst into the flooded home where he and his family were living in New Orleans on Sept. 5, 2005. Neighbors had reported that the family was squatting in the house in the wake of Hurricane Katrina but the authorities left after the family proved they were the owners. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)

I find it more than a little ironic that this happens a day after Beck, Palin and Teabaggers United marched on the Lincoln Memorial, screaming and crying about how if everyone were as religiously committed as they are, as blindly jingoistic as they are, and above all, as white and affluent as they are, well everything would be just peachy.

Hate to disillusion you folks, but that ain't happenin'. And even if it was, I don't believe that was the message your Jayzus was trying to convey.

Ground Zero

I had read that during the late sixties and early 70's Afghanistan was, if not a "first world" country, actually fairly modernized and prosperous. Then the Soviets invaded, and we funded and supplied arms for a counter-insurgency. We provided training in guerrilla tactics, and poured in weapons and ammunition. The Soviets gave up and left. The Taliban became the defacto government. Then educational descendants of those we trained attacked us, here at home. Then we invaded Afghanistan. It's easy to forget that the Afghani people have effectively lived under a state of continuous war for over thirty years now. And it's freaking mind boggling to actually see the changes wrought by those thirty years.What Would Jack Do? On a related note...
Darius Whiteplume's Tumblr

GUTOP

Not a surgical procedure for weight loss, but "Grand Unified Theory of Palinisms." Jacob Weisberg, who you may remember as the archivist who collected eight-plus years of Bushisms, is still at it, but with a new collection. Following is an excerpt from his book Palinisms: The Accidental Wit and Wisdom of Sarah Palin, due out in a couple of days, and previewed at Slate:

But the best Palinisms of all result when the huntress encounters something she wasn't hunting for—that is, when Sarah Palin comes into contact with most anything to do with domestic, foreign, or economic policy. It is this situation that generates those priceless let me tap-dance and, also, sing for you a little song while you think of a different question moments. One such was the juncture in her mind-boggling 2008 interview when Katie Couric asked Palin to name a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with, other than Roe v. Wade. Surrounded by hostile forces, out of cartridges for her Remington, she bravely held her ground and kept pulling the trigger, to no effect:

Palin: Well, let's see. There's—of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American, and there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others. But, um.

Couric: Can you think of any?

Palin: Well, I would think of any again that could best be dealt with on a more local level maybe I would take issue with. But, um, you know as a mayor and then as a governor and even as a vice president, if I am so privileged to serve, I would be in a position of changing those things, but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

Weisberg's Bushisms were (and are-Shrub's limited public appearances mean fewer misunderstatementisms, but Weisberg has kept the site up to date) often side-splitting, and I much appreciate his work in putting together the definitive collection. Likewise, while the Palinisms project seems a little limited at this point, I expect it will be expanded after the book makes its initial run.

However, I think that simply listing all these strange quotes (and they are strange) for the LOLs misses the point. First, it gets old pretty quick. Second, it overlooks, even obscures, the strange phenomenon of Palin: here is a person who apparently cannot tack together an intelligible sentence in the English language without a prompt, and even then it's iffy. Yet people are paying her hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions, for her writing and speeches. What does that say about the media, and what does it say about us? That is the book I'd like to read.

For me, the definitive compilation of Bushisms, and what it says about our culture, is Mark Crispin Miller's The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on A National Disorder. Oh sure, there's lots of yucks in the book, some tear-inducing. But it's placing them in context, and showing how and why Bush was a perfect match for modern TV, while Gore was a poor fit indeed, that makes it such a compelling read. For people who weren't paying attention pre-9/11, I still highly recommend it (here's a good review, and here's the Amazon Page), and though I haven't read any reviews of Weisberg's book yet, I hope he has tried to do a little of this needed contextualization of Palin's malapropisms. Yeah, such stuff is funny to a point, but it won't be if Caribou Barbie decides to run for POTUS and we let the media play us for suckers yet again.

Conversation in Three Parts

One of the (countless) issues that currently has the right's collective panties in snarls is that (gasp) teh mooslims want to build a mosque at ground zero. They don't; the property in question is a few blocks from that site, and is owned privately. Property rights used to be a central issue for conservatives, but facts and consistency have been irrelevant to them for the last 30 years. So a couple of days ago, Caribou Barbie farted tweeted the following:Much hilarity, ridicule and snark ensued. So the Princess of Wasilla took it down, and farted tweeted the following:
To which Roger Ebert replied:
I have a difficult time understanding Shakespeare. The language is dense, many words are unfamiliar, the rhythmic nature imposes a patterning that is a lot of work to get through, and when I've watched movies or performances, it is too fast for me to make sense of. But I've found a couple of times that if I make the effort to make sense of his work, it pays off more richly than I could have imagined.

Unlike Palin, who, when I try to make sense of her words, ends up being more confused, uninformed and illiterate than I could have imagined.

Followup: Nice discussion that more clearly illustrates my point, from Steve Benen.

Euphemisms

"processed food product"
"non-dairy creamer"
"clean coal"
"new heart device"

That last one is new to me... here's the entire headline: Former Vice President Dick Cheney gets new heart device. And here's the picture they ran with the article:Dunno, Dick. Looks like your "heart device" could use some a'justin.

Utterly Consistent

Not. Bobby Jindal, then:

The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and the enterprising spirit of our citizens. We are grateful for the support we have received from across the nation for the ongoing recovery efforts. This spirit got Louisiana through the hurricanes and this spirit will get our nation through the storms we face today.

To solve our current problems, Washington must lead. But the way to lead is not to raise taxes and not to just put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians. The way to lead is by empowering you, the American people. Because we believe that Americans can do anything.

So is Bobby boy now saying that Louisianans should sop up the oil with "compassionate hearts and the enterprising spirit of our citizens?" Not exactly.

“We need to make the federal government accountable,” Jindal said Monday in Louisiana, with U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano at his side.

(...)

“We have been frustrated with the disjointed effort to date that has too often meant too little, too late to stop the oil from hitting our coast,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said during a Monday news conference at Port Fourchon with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

“BP is the responsible party, but we need the federal government to make sure they are held accountable and that they are indeed responsible. Our way of life depends on it,” Jindal said.

(Politico) Now don't get me wrong... I'm not suggesting we actually deliver the kind of gummint that Republicans are fond of claiming they want: "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." What I am suggesting is that you can't have it both ways. If want a Libertarian paradise, move to Somalia. If you want a government that's robust and powerful enough to make a difference in the case of a disaster of this magnitude, you're going to have to pay for it. That means taxes. If you want to have disasters of this magnitude, by all means, keep fighting to end or minimize all oversight and regulation of corporations. If you'd prefer the only rational alternative to disasters like this one, you're going to want some pretty serious oversight and regulation.

There's plenty of room for disagreement about exactly how far we want the government's power to extend, but this sense that government shouldn't exist until you need it- until your "way of life" is threatened- is self-centered, juvenile, and blatantly stupid.

Not that I expect most of today's far-righties to comprehend that.

Retitling Laura

Via BuzzFeed, here's the "funny meme I just have to participate in" of the day: retitling Laura Bush's new book cover. 'Cause "“Spoken From The Heart,” is just too insipid. You can download the blank here.
Gratuitous "Joker" reference, yes, but the resemblance is creee-py!
Yes, Laura, we've been meaning to talk to you about that...
I think this one is my favorite.

Derision Putz

It was announced a bit over a year ago that dubya was going to make a book, and it was announced yesterday that it would be published on November 9 of this year.

I can't wait.

As it happens, I was privy to a sneak preview of an early draft. And since there is currently a meme circulating in the left-leaning portion of the political blogosphere to provide a more appropriate cover, here's my offering to reflect that excerpt, Chapter 3.
And in case you didn't notice the title of the post, I'd suggest we change the title of the book, as well.

Other particpants that I know of thus far are:
Tengrain and Scissorheads at MPS
Blue Gal
Ian David
Mark Hoback at FGAQ
Terrant at My Corner To Vent

Visit and enjoy. These versions are guaranteed to be more edifying and entertaining than the real thing.

So is Everyone

Your right to life ends when you have one independent from your (legally mandated) womb. Clay Bennett at the Chattanooga Times Free Press is probably my favorite current editorial cartoonist; Toles at his best is elegantly brilliant, but Bennett is consistently good.

The Short Version

• Number of attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference: ~10,000
• Number of attendees voting in the straw poll: 2,395
• Top 3 placers in straw poll: 1) Ron Paul, 31%; 2) Mitt Romney, 22%; 3) Sarah Palin, 7%.

Run, Sarah, Run! 168 out of 10,000 possible votes is definitely a sign from God!

The (slightly) longer version is at TPM.

Followup, 6:56 PM: The much longer version is at Fivethirtyeight.

Big Hole

Via Talking Points Memo, a chart of job loss rates from December 2007 to January 2010. I think the emphasis on "Bush vs. Obama" is largely irrelevant. What really strikes me is the enormity of the hole that needs to be filled. And the lack of seriousness with which both sides seem to be approaching the issue.

Oh, Hail, No!

Little bruddah Bush ran as a moderate too. Until he got appointed by big bruddah and teh supremes. How'd that work out for ya? Via McClatchy, "Jeb Bush is back, and some think he's looking presidential."

"I think that leaders on both sides of the aisle need to figure out where there is common ground and at least focus on that,'' he said. "It's one thing to give a good speech. The other thing is to invite people that don't agree exactly with your point of view to build consensus.''

This from the governor who presided over some of Florida's most hyper-partisan battles of the last decade? Who helped declare his brother the winner of the 2000 presidential recount, threw out affirmative action with the "One Florida'' program, made the FCAT the end-all be-all of the public schools and insisted on getting in between brain-damaged Terri Schiavo and her husband?

Bad idea, folks, baaaaad idea.

So I Did Watch It

My immediate reaction to the State of the Union Address was pretty positive... not overwhelmingly so, but positive.

Two points that stood out as weaknesses to me: first, I wish Obama had really punched home the necessity for health care reform as a component of economic revival. Businesses large and small that offer a health package are being crushed by rising costs, and more and more businesses are being forced to drop coverage entirely to stay competitive. By failing to make that connection, he missed a major opportunity to explain to the American people why such reform is critical, not years in the future, but now.

Second, the wild shifts in tone made for good theater, but sent a confusing overall message. Is he really going to get more forceful with both sides? Is he really going to shame the dems into growing a pair? Is he really going to be calling out the blatant (and explicit) conservative obstructionism and lies? This is at the heart of my concerns with Obama: he's a smart and competent guy, as much so as anyone. But I've yet to see a willingness to brawl in public. He came pretty close in a couple of passages last night, referring to Republican obstructionism and to the recent Supreme's decision, but these issues need to be in the media regularly, not just once a year. The Republicans are masters of this sort of messaging, and the democrats are incompetent. I think Obama is perfectly capable of this sort of game, but he'd rather not play it. At his point, in my opinion, I think he'd best admit he has no choice but to dive in, name names and specifics, and fight for the things he wants in public fora, not with sternly worded messages behind closed doors.

But it wasn't really until this morning, discussing SOTU with other coffee drinkers, that it dawned on me what it was in the speech that had so resonated with me. I'm frustrated and angry with what I see happening (or not) in this country, and what I unknowingly wanted to see was evidence that Obama was too. And I did. So my visceral reaction was positive.

Still, relating to my second quibble, what matters here is the followup. We all know the guy can deliver a speech and keep us spellbound. (I was a little fidgety by the end; don't SOTU's normally go 40-45 minutes? On the other hand, I don't know what could or should have been cut.) Yes, my reaction was positive, and from what I've read, so was that of most people. A number of commentators have said that this speech recaptured many of us who've been becoming disaffected with him. In a sense that's true for me. However, if we don't start to see some real engagement from the White House in whipping Congress into line- or at least appeals to the court of public opinion if the jackals won't start actually doing their jobs- he won't hold us.

Also too, while not the disaster that Jindal's response was last year, I was transfixed by the way that the GOP's response looked like an amateurish, badly scripted comedy sketch. I was half expecting it to end with "Live from New York... it's SATURDAY NIGHT!"

One Year

Today marks the one year anniversary of Obama's inauguration. I've seen this pointed out in a (surprisingly) few places, but of course the big news is the Massachusetts special election, and the Republican's now overwhelming 41-59 majority.

As an aside, we started a year ago with a 41-58 Republican majority. Specter switched sides (heh-heh) sometime last spring. and Franken was finally granted his Senate seat sometime in late June/early July. We saw essentially no legislative progress during the first six months and less during the second. The Republicans have made it clear that they will fight tooth and nail against anything, anything, other than tax cuts for the wealthy, taxpayer support for their corporate contributors, and cutting off "entitlements." And they've been quite successful in furthering their agenda for the past 30 years.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are bound and determined to try to compromise with "no." It's like a Monty Python sketch: The Shopkeeper and the Barterer.

Shopkeeper (Michael Palin) is standing in an art gallery, behind a counter near a cash register. Barterer (Terry Jones) enters, smiles at S, and walks over to a large painting. S returns the smile, and approaches B and the painting.

B: This is a fine painting you have here. What are you asking?

S: It's a steal at 200 Pounds, sir.

B: I'll take it off your hands for free.

S: Oh, you are quite the connoisseur, sir, but I couldn't possibly let it go for less than a hundred pounds.

B: Hmm... on closer investigation, I think it might be worth as much as... nothing.

S: You do drive a hard bargain sir, but my family and I do need to eat. 50?

B: 25?

S: (Delighted) 25 it is, sir! Shall I wrap it for you, or would you like to arrange delivery?

B: On second thought, 25 sounds just a bit high. Hmmm... I would be happy to remove this from the premises at no cost at all, effective immediately.

S: (Downcast, looks up from the floor hopefully) 10 pounds?

B: No, I think that's still a bit high. Zero.

S: Five?

B: Nada

S: Two-fifty?

B: Zilch

S: OK, this is my final offer: one.

B: (pauses, and wrinkles his brow in consideration) Look, it would help if you'd make some effort to meet me halfway. So here are our current positions; nothing and nothing. Let's find the middle ground.

S: (ponders, then looks up with a conspiratorial smile) ...Okay, then. Nothing it is. Would you like that wrapped, or would you like to arrange delivery?

B: Oh, neither, I think. (B proceeds to smash the frame and rip the painting to shreds, leaving the debris on the floor. B then starts toward the shop door)

S: Do have a pleasant afternoon, Sir! Always a pleasure doing business with you!

(Just before B reaches the door, it opens, and wearing a Bobby uniform...)

Obama: (leans into the shop) Did I hear a disturbance? Is there a problem here?

B & S (together) Of course not, officer!

S: (Smiling widely) Just concluding a transaction with my best customer!

Obama: (Nodding sternly) Good then! Carry on.

(Obama and B exit shop door, S returns to counter and register, still beaming)

This is what I've seen in US politics over the last year- even the last six months, in which the Democrats have supposedly had an unstoppable supermajority. Do you understand why I don't assign a whole lot of importance to the MA results? It will make No. Difference. Whatsoever. Further, all the pundits moaning or delighting over "What this means" no more know what they're talking about than do fortune tellers and their tea leaves and knuckle bones.

The reason I started this post was to point out two pieces I've read today that I think do a good job of summing up my attitude toward this, Obama's first anniversary in office. First is Krugman:

Maybe House Democrats can pull this out, even with a gaping hole in White House leadership. Barney Frank seems to have thought better of his initial defeatism. But I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.

And the other is at The Dean's Office:

I don't pretend to speak for all liberals, but here's how I see the breakdown on some of the major issues confronting the country and why it becomes clear that many, many of us have become completely disillusioned with the democratic party.

HEALTH CARE
OPTIMUM POSITION: Single payer health insurance provided to all legal citizens financed through higher taxes on the wealthy, drug importation allowed.
COMPROMISE POSITION: Government provided national public option coupled with insurance company regulation that would broaden coverage and drive down prices to those in private insurance plans.
LOW-BAR: Medicare expansion coupled with new insurance company regulation.

He then goes through Iraq, Banking/Finance, Gay Rights and Economy with the same three positions... and guess what? Obama clears the low bar on all of them! Yay, change we can believe in.

So in short, I congratulate Obama for completing his first year in office, and I look forward to his first successful year in office.

Lockwood is not in as pissy a mood as he was this morning. I had fun with the captions in the previous post and the (wholly unanticipated) sketch above; the idea came to me as I was writing "compromise with no." When the world hands you a merdburger avec fromage, laugh at the absurdity of a merdburger avec fromage, and the elegant manner in which it was presented.

Teabagger Terrorists

I haven't seen much of Fiore's work lately; his animations can be funny, but not consistently enough for me to go looking for them. This one is kind of not bad.

But he's getting death threats over it. Teabaggers, a sincere question: How is this different from the Islamic extremists you claim you oppose? It's wrong for them to levy death threats, or carry them out, in the name of their religion, but OK for you?

I just wish people would think a little before opening their yaps, or putting fingertips to keyboard.

Well How About That

Speaking of immersion courses in history, which I was just a few minutes ago in my previous post, The NYT's Afternoon Update just landed in my inbox:

In the fall of 2003, the new commander of American forces in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. David W. Barno, decided on a new strategy. Known as counterinsurgency, the approach required coalition forces to work closely with Afghan leaders to stabilize entire regions, rather than simply attacking insurgent cells.

But there was a major drawback, a new unpublished Army history of the war concludes. Because the Pentagon insisted on maintaining a “small footprint” in Afghanistan and because Iraq was drawing away resources, General Barno commanded fewer than 20,000 troops.

As a result, battalions with 800 soldiers were trying to secure provinces the size of Vermont. “Coalition forces remained thinly spread across Afghanistan,” the historians write. “Much of the country remained vulnerable to enemy force increasingly willing to reassert their power."

Afghanistan really hurts. I felt then, and still do, that the invasion of that country was justified. I felt then, but no longer do, that we could really do some good for that country's people. Now our strategy seems to be "have Nintendo graduates based here in the US fly drones around and blow up weddings."

Doesn't seem to be working, but maybe it's just me.