Re my preceeding post...

I was so caught up in my own theme I forgot the irony of my post juxtaposed with the story headline which I had fogetten about (because it was not representative).

Given that, I think maybe Bush junior's authoritarianism is probably a response to his father's lack of strength under his mother's iron rule.

Oooo, now I'm a shrink.

http://thePhrog.com

This article is excellent, and addresses, partially, a critical aspect of the Bush regime and it's invasion of Iraq.

However, I disagree with the suggestion that the aggressive military style which places emphasis on brutal subjugation is due to a lack of understanding of the means to achieve his stated goal.

We have only to look at other policy areas to see that subjugation IS his goal, though not the stated one. This derives from his patriarchal world view in which it is more important that the father's rule be followed, than that the intended result be attained.

A good example is his abstinence program to reduce unwanted pregnancy. The results of the rule are the opposite of the stated goal, however, rather than admit that maybe woman should be aided in not getting pregnant, the results of the rule are hidden (the administration will not permit a true evaluation of its effectiveness). This is because the true goal has nothing to do with reducing unwanted pregnancies (and abortions), but has to do with making women behave the way Bush thinks they should. In this case (as in Iraq) the purported goal is actually an EXCUSE to exercise authority.

This same phenomenon can be seen in abortion policy, environmental policy, bankruptcy policy, tort reform, the so-called drug war, etc.

The shadow goal, or excuse, is necessary when an authoritarian ruler does not have total power, and needs the approbation of others. As power is consolidated, these excuses become fewer and flimsier, and the true nature of the ruler comes out.

Statements such as "I am the decider", "I ennacted policy", etc. are meant to make it clear who is the boss. To make it clear that he doesn't care for or need anyone's input, and are direct indicators of Bush's patriarchal view.

The Iraqi's must submit, anything less is failure to this administration.

He is the father and his will shall be done.

http://thePhrog.com

Manhattanite---

Someone HAS come out publicly about GWB's mental state, and Blumenthal should probably give credit where he basically restates the ideas from a book called "Bush on the Couch." It's written by a psychoanalyst, and it's both frightening and incredibly brave. You're right, we are living with a sociopath, and like the children of abusive parents, we can't bear to admit it.

The huge bases that we are building in Iraq will enable us to dominate whatever government they finally install. The Texas oligarchs and their Saudi buddies will have the low cost/high profit oil they want, and the American taxpayer will have payed for it, both in blood and treasure. We will withdraw to the bases, allow the Iraqis to slaughter each other until they resolve their issues, and then we'll make a deal with the victors. Bush may be dumb, but his backers are very smart.

Pyrian, it's nice to think your imperious attitude is going to settle the score for you, and that 'tude may work in your little world, but here, logic rules, and on that count you're a rank amateur. You wrote: "If we'd simply spent $250 billion in the first six months, we could've easily put everything on the right track before the insurgency had time to take root, mostly pulled out, and let the Iraqi's work out the long term consequences."

Did you ever wonder how someone as brilliant as you can distill a problem with complexities too numerous to mention in a book, and summarize it in one short ambiguous paragraph that supposedly settles it all? We could use that genius. Why not sell us a book and show us how it's done. How about, Nation Building for Dummies? Or would you rather just pretend to be smart. Why not prove it and make money? You seem to like to spend other people's hard earned cash.

First, you say "simply" - your first strategic mistake since raising $250 B and then distributing it, and then, monitoring its effectiveness has nothing in common with simple. It's simple to think so. Second, things could be "easily" placed on the right track. Really? And just what does "the right track mean"? Perhaps before asserting such idiotic aphorisms that are expected to negate what a far more thoughtful letter explored, you might want to consider the concepts of being explicit and comprehensive. After all, you are issuing a prescription for nation building, not changing a tire. Or are they technically equivalent in your view? Maybe you have a TV show to go watch and can't really give nation building the kind of thought it might require. By the way, Is Jennifer Aniston really going to move to Chicago?

You suggest that "US" could've rebuilt an infrastructure in Iraq in six months. Ever use a hammer Pyrian? Put sheet rock up? Unloaded bricks from a truck? Drilled holes in a wall? Lay underground pipe? Probably not, but you did see Bob Villa do it once on PBS.

It's been five years now and they still haven't rebuilt a structure at Ground Zero. And you expect the infrastructure to an entire nation that's been decimated by two wars and years of corrupt leadership to have its infrastructure rebuilt in six months? Wow, you must have good connections in Mexico. Oh, I know, you're going to say, "I didn't say that." Well, of course you didn't, not with the amorphous language of "everything on the right track." One can presume you're using Webster when you say "everything," meaning streets, bridges, electrical grids, oil refineries, or does "everything" mean a couple of pizzerias and then let them figure it out?

And no general, here or in any other part of the world, ever suggested that the U.S. pull out after six months as you suggest. In fact, if you weren't so busy handing out critiques to the other letter writers, and feebly attempting to rectify and re-explain your woefully inadequate letter to me, you might've had time to read the 84 page PDF written by the military mentioned in the story, which details a long drawn out post-war scenario. But why let such details get in the way of your fanciful and simplistic view of nation building?

Hey, got any idea about how the Big Bang happened? Or maybe you know everything there is to know in a paragraph about gravity? One thing's obvious from this exchange, however, you're impressed with your own intelligence without demonstrating a modicum of insight. It must be nice to have a disproportionate self-esteem based on attitude instead of substance