Bush and the Iraq Civil War

♠
“Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas — like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It’s the South vs. the South.”

-- Thomoas L. Friedman for The New York Times

And, by all accounts, we do not have in the forces that can quell that nightmare. We are little more than a European-led UN peacekeeping force in the middle of that. This is the argument for just bugging out now, to cut our own losses. As they say, Iraq is FUBAR. Maybe it is our fault, but that does not change anything.

Bush apparently is not going to concede defeat, which means that we may be continuing this fight for at least another two years. Some people who know about these things still think it is possible to get Iraq back in control with the forces we have. If Bush does pull this off, it presumably will go a long way toward saving his presidential legacy. We shall see.


(some interesting discussion)

xXx

Bush and the Iraq Civil War

♠
“Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas — like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It’s the South vs. the South.”

-- Thomoas L. Friedman for The New York Times

And, by all accounts, we do not have in the forces that can quell that nightmare. We are little more than a European-led UN peacekeeping force in the middle of that. This is the argument for just bugging out now, to cut our own losses. As they say, Iraq is FUBAR. Maybe it is our fault, but that does not change anything.

Bush apparently is not going to concede defeat, which means that we may be continuing this fight for at least another two years. Some people who know about these things still think it is possible to get Iraq back in control with the forces we have. If Bush does pull this off, it presumably will go a long way toward saving his presidential legacy. We shall see.


(some interesting discussion)

xXx

If Chatterton Will Not Work...

♠
“It isn't working.... Interesting.”

~
Within two pages, after getting a little excited by the characters and the plot, Monk realizes that he is not going to be able to keep his interest in "Chatterton." He finds that a little worrisome. If Chatterton will not work for the hit-and-run reading, then it seems most unlikely that a work such as "Magic Mountain," or "Of Human Bondage," or the works of Dickens will work, nor Dostoevsky for that matter. That would not be terrible, as Monk has enough serious reading in his life, but it is disappointing.

xXx

If Chatterton Will Not Work...

♠
“It isn't working.... Interesting.”

~
Within two pages, after getting a little excited by the characters and the plot, Monk realizes that he is not going to be able to keep his interest in "Chatterton." He finds that a little worrisome. If Chatterton will not work for the hit-and-run reading, then it seems most unlikely that a work such as "Magic Mountain," or "Of Human Bondage," or the works of Dickens will work, nor Dostoevsky for that matter. That would not be terrible, as Monk has enough serious reading in his life, but it is disappointing.

xXx

Bush and the Generals Deal

♠
This morning I caught the headlines that Bush was going to call for enlarging the army and the marines. This is such an obvious move that has been called for for some time that it hardly seemed like news. Tonight, on "Hardball," Monk hears some interesting backstory - a theory, at least.

The idea is that Bush made a deal with those generals who were balking at his call for a surge in troop levels in Iraq. If those generals would tamp down their reservations and stop embarrassing him on this issue, Bush would okay their wish list for a larger army and marine corps. Of course, this also addresses the concern about undue stress on the army.

True? Who knows! It is an interesting story. Very Plausible.

xXx

Bush and the Generals Deal

♠
This morning I caught the headlines that Bush was going to call for enlarging the army and the marines. This is such an obvious move that has been called for for some time that it hardly seemed like news. Tonight, on "Hardball," Monk hears some interesting backstory - a theory, at least.

The idea is that Bush made a deal with those generals who were balking at his call for a surge in troop levels in Iraq. If those generals would tamp down their reservations and stop embarrassing him on this issue, Bush would okay their wish list for a larger army and marine corps. Of course, this also addresses the concern about undue stress on the army.

True? Who knows! It is an interesting story. Very Plausible.

xXx

Leave It to Philip Marlowe

♠
“Tall, aren't you?” she said.

“I didn't mean to be.”

Her eyes rounded. She was puzzled. She was thinking. I could see, even on that short acquaintance, that thinking was always going to be a bother to her.”

-- "The Big Sleep" by Raymond Chandler

Yup, Chandler will work. Why not?

So, is this what we are down to: erotica and fast-moving narratives with an attitude? The main concern is that it is probably too limiting. I do not think Monk has that many books like that.

Indeed, although "Chatterton" did not work, I no longer want to give up on more serious literature all together. Particular favorites in which Monk really likes to lose himself in may work. After "Big Sleep" I will give "1984" a shot. If "1984" does not work, then I know that I am down to porn and noir, but I am actually feeling confident that it will be fine.

"Chatterton" is nice and enjoyable, but it is not really a personal favorite and therefore requires more force of attention. This is the happy theory anyway.

xXx

Leave It to Philip Marlowe

♠
“Tall, aren't you?” she said.

“I didn't mean to be.”

Her eyes rounded. She was puzzled. She was thinking. I could see, even on that short acquaintance, that thinking was always going to be a bother to her.”

-- "The Big Sleep" by Raymond Chandler

Yup, Chandler will work. Why not?

So, is this what we are down to: erotica and fast-moving narratives with an attitude? The main concern is that it is probably too limiting. I do not think Monk has that many books like that.

Indeed, although "Chatterton" did not work, I no longer want to give up on more serious literature all together. Particular favorites in which Monk really likes to lose himself in may work. After "Big Sleep" I will give "1984" a shot. If "1984" does not work, then I know that I am down to porn and noir, but I am actually feeling confident that it will be fine.

"Chatterton" is nice and enjoyable, but it is not really a personal favorite and therefore requires more force of attention. This is the happy theory anyway.

xXx