- BIG NEWS:
- Barack Obama
- |
- Joe Lieberman
- |
- Sarah Palin
- |
- GOP
- |
I have a question.
It's this:
WHAT IN THE NAME OF GOD'S OWN HOLY NIPPLES IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY?
My calm, measured inquiry is prompted by a new NY Times op-ed by Mark Moyar, a professor at the Marine Corps University. According to Moyar, it turns out Vietnam and Iraq are quite similar, but in a good way:
The United States faced a very similar crisis a half-century ago. In 1955, the pro-American government of Ngo Dinh Diem sought to disband militias that belonged to religious sects, analogous to the Shiite militias in Iraq today...Through political acumen and force of personality, Diem gained the full cooperation of the National Army and used it to subdue the sects...
Diem went on to become a highly effective national war leader. When, in August 1963, he suppressed challenges to his authority from another religious group, he again experienced an upsurge in prestige...
South Vietnam's history recommends the pursuit of two objectives that American officials are now urging upon Prime Minister Maliki: subduing the Shiite militias and transferring control of the police from Shiite partisans to Iraqi nationalists...
If we pull back our troops temporarily and let Mr. Maliki deal with Iraq's problems using Iraqi forces, we will be able to determine more quickly whether he can save his country as Diem saved his in 1955.
Now, I'm no expert on Vietnam. But...even I could guess there was something a little wrong with this analogy:
• Before France colonized it, Vietnam was mostly Buddhist.
• France brought Catholicism. A minority converted, and in the standard colonial pattern this minority were most of the ones who ran things for the French. Thus, Catholicism was the religion of a disliked elite.
• Ngo Dinh Diem was Catholic.
• Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki is Shia.
• The militias which Diem "sought to disband" in 1955 therefore were not "analogous to the Shiite militias in Iraq today." Why? BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T CATHOLIC.
• Again, Diem was Catholic. In fact, he was Extra-Catholic; his brother was an archbishop. But the main sects he attacked in 1955 were Cao Dai (Syncretic), Hoa Hao (Buddhist), and a criminal organization called Binh Xuyen. (As the op-ed says, Diem "suppressed challenges to his authority from another religious group" in 1963. The other religious group was Buddhist.)
• Again, Maliki is Shia. Thus, even if he had the power to crush the Shia militias (he surely doesn't), he wouldn't want to. He would be crushing his own base of support.
The op-ed is crazy and evil in about nineteen other ways too. Spencer Ackerman touches on a few here. But just the problem I identify should be enough to disqualify this guy from teaching anyone anything anywhere. Moreover, even if the crazy-filter failed to catch him before he got tenure, in a non-insane country the country's most prestigious newspaper wouldn't be printing something like this. In a non-insane country, the most prestigious newspaper would be wiping its prestigious ass with it.
But here in America, the NY Times will not only publish something calling for our puppet to shed rivers of Iraqi blood, they don't even care it makes no sense whatsoever.
God, we're in trouble.
MORE EXCELLENT CRAZY: The leader of the Hoa Hao militia was Ba Cut. As the Pentagon Papers record, in 1956 Diem had him beheaded in public.
Since Mark Moyar believes the situations in Vietnam and Iraq are "analogous," I guess his plan involves some future public beheadings. I think we can all agree Iraq hasn't had enough of those.