America is like a guy who…

Nearly nine years after the start of the controversial invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein and sparked years of violence, Panetta told Iraqis “Your children will have a better future”, and said the US and Iraq would have “a new relationship rooted in mutual interest and mutual respect”.

“We are not about turn our backs on all that has been sacrificed and accomplished in Iraq,” Panetta said.

“Iraq will be tested in the days ahead by terrorism, by those who would seek to divide, by economic and social issues … by the demands of democracy itself,” he said, while adding that the US would be a “committed friend and … partner” to the country.

Aljazeera

In the spirit of dreaming up ridiculous analogies to depict America’s attitude toward its former colonial ward and now client state, Iraq, here’s one that occurred to me when I heard a clip of the speech quoted above on the radio this morning.  America is like a home invader who, after setting your house on fire and killing your husband (or wife, depending on your preference) and shooting your dog, moves in and forces you to marry him at gunpoint, whereupon he tortures your kids, shoots your cat, hires a bunch of contractors to fix the place up but instead they cash the checks and take off before finishing the job, and then, when he decides he’s finally had enough, he leaves, though before leaving, he pauses on the front lawn to tell you how much better off you are now than before he burned your house down and to announce how dedicated he is to your special friendship and to promise to come back any time if you ever need any more help with anything, really anything, and then he jumps into his already-running bright yellow Hummer and speeds off, spewing a cloud of exhaust fumes in your face.

Self-Hatred

Over at TNR, Andrew Bacevich writes what I think would be a fairly uncontroversial critique of the “withdrawal” from Iraq, saying, essentially, that it’s another political gloss job, much like the so-called surge, meant to obscure the fact that the war/occupation was a clusterfuck and to prevent the US as a nation from learning the right (or any) lessons—e.g., that maybe using military force to attempt to transform foreign societies into little Americas is a fucking dumb idea.

But anyhow, forget about the article itself, because as usual some dipshit in the comments section steals the show.  Here we have (dim?) bulbman1066, trotting out that tired neocon bugaboo, the self-hating liberal:

Saddam Hussein may have been a bad man, but he was anti-American, anti-Western and anti-Israel, which is enough to make the likes of Andrew J. Basevic regret his fall.

Whatever happened to the heroic Democratic Party of FDR, Truman, Acheson, and JFK? Today’s Democratic foreign policy is feeble, cowardly, cynical, utterly devoid of honor and decency. Its leitmotiv is the self-hatred of of the nabobs of academia and the mainstream media. Obama’s speech reflects this. You could see it in the bored, skeptical faces of the military personnel among those whom our pathetic excuse for a president was addressing.

Really?  Do people actually still believe this shit?  Did they ever?  I thought it was just a cynical ploy used by the warmongers to sell the ever-gullible American public on a war that had nothing to do with national security.*  But then again, I hate America (and Israel, too, apparently), so what do I know?  I have an idea, though.  Next time we decide to invade a country, let’s tie a bulbman1066 to the hood of every Humvee and Bradley Fighting Vehicle on its way in.

*Never mind the moronic nationalistic tripe that equates one’s feelings toward the country they happened to be born in with one’s feelings about him or herself.

The war is over (well, okay, not literally over)

The last U.S. combat brigade has left Iraq, says NPR:

The U.S. military presence in Iraq took a symbolic turn Thursday as the last full Army combat brigade left the country, ahead of President Obama’s end-of-the-month deadline for ending combat operations.

So that means no more fighting in Iraq, right?  Well, not exactly:

The departure doesn’t mark the end of the U.S. military presence, however: About 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq through the end of next year. The troops are officially there in an advisory role, but will carry weapons to defend themselves and will join Iraqi troops on missions if requested.

So even though there are no more combat troops in Iraq the U.S. military will most likely still be involved in combat operations in Iraq?  Kinda, yes:

“‘Combat operations’ is sort of a relative term,” [Marine Reserve Capt. Peter Brooks] said. “I think some troops who remain after this date are going to see things that look kind of like combat.”

Symbolic, indeed.  Of course, for some Obamanoids, no amount of blatant manipulation is enough to diminish the total awesomeness of the “prez” for living up to a meaningless campaign promise.