The Crow's Eye: Outcomes

"...it's not the training to be mean but the training to be kind that is used to keep us leashed best." ~ Black Dog Red

"In case you haven't recognized the trend: it proceeds action, dissent, speech." ~ davidly, on how wars get done

"...What sort of meager, unerotic existence must a man live to find himself moved to such ecstatic heights by the mundane sniping of a congressional budget fight. The fate of human existence does not hang in the balance. The gods are not arrayed on either side. Poseiden, earth-shaker, has regrettably set his sights on the poor fishermen of northern Japan and not on Washington, D.C. where his ire might do some good--I can think of no better spot for a little wetland reclamation project, if you know what I mean. The fight is neither revolution nor apocalypse; it is hardly even a fight. A lot of apparatchiks are moving a lot of phony numbers with more zeros than a century of soccer scores around, weaving a brittle chrysalis around a gross worm that, some time hence, will emerge, untransformed, still a worm." ~ IOZ

Mar 19, 2011

Outcomes

One of the most noticeable consequences of US, NATO* and UN policy in the Middle East has been the encirclement of Iran with destabilized war zones, client states and US bases.

Of of the most likely outcomes of the US, NATO, EU and UN war against Qaddafi's (formerly tolerated and favored) regime will be a criminalized chaos zone struck deep into the heart of the Arab revolutionary region, severing the Maghrib in two, and severely curtailing the revolutionary potential for cooperation between insurrectionists, trade unionists, radicals, labor agitators and other rebel factions in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt - as well as in the Levant, Morocco and the Gulf.

Iran contained.

The Maghrib cut in half.

Don't bet against deliberate policy, here, however strongly characterized by reaction to events.

* - listening to wargrumbler McCaffrey whining about delays and the need for further violence, as I typed this out, he mentioned NATO six times in a two minute period. He seemed intent on hammering home that NATO was the integrating umbrella organization for the war ~~to establish a friendly oil despotism in Libya~~, um, ~~to liberate Libyan captive mineral and hydrocarbon wealth from clutches of its Arab oppressors~~, er, ~~to sell the Libyan people into servitude to cheap labor predators and democratic capitalists~~, ah fuck, to free the Libyans from the grip of a bad dude...

ADDED IN EDIT: US launching air strikes into Libya. 3:36pm EST. Some no fly zone, that Libya...

3:40 pm, McCaffrey (talking to whatever kewpie doll MSNBC has on right now) conjures up images of Qaddafi rounding up people for torture, in Tripoli "right now," as a justification for missile stikes against Libya...

3 comments:

Happy Jack said...: NATO six times

They don't even try to be slick about it anymore. Alter was just on driving home the Change You Can Believe In! involved in the "multilateral" nature of our adventure.

As large as the military is, you'd figure MSNBC could come up with a fresh general to serve up propaganda. Having McCaffery on, after all his money-grubbing, is just rubbing it in.

The elites have become so brazen, they don't care anymore to put in some effort. Back in the day, it was a challenge to sift through the news to find out what they were up to.; March 19, 2011 at 4:43 PM
K. Ron Silkwood said...: Courageous air heroes bombing the fuck out of more brown people: always good programming on the TV.; March 19, 2011 at 6:18 PM
Jack Crow said...: Happy jack, K Ron,

Our betters want us distanced from it. Want us mildly entertained. Or paralyzed with fear of their deadly apparatus of control.

We should remember to muck with their expectations.; March 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM

Post a Comment

This one took a while to put into words.

I don't kid myself that I've stumbled upon a unique insight and I have little doubt that someone has already written or said this better than I. Five minutes after I hit the "publish" button, I'll probably regret the choice of words more than I already do now - because it's difficult to get my head outside of English language usage, to comment on a problem with that usage, whilst using the English language to do so.

In the interest of not making more of an ass of myself than necessary, I've pared a very long thesis down to a paragraph:

I find it troubling that, using English, I have very limited choice in expressing how I relate to people with whom I have ongoing interaction. If I want to reference the nature of my relations with the woman who has challenged me to grow in ways I never imagined possible, the woman who howled with a primal, gorgeous, earth shattering, mother bear of a refrain, transcending pain and pleasure in act of creation to which I will never be immediate party, who has with her defiant and proud womanhood still intact forged a family out of disparate parts - I have to write "my wife." I have to reduce her to property. That really pisses me off. I don't own her. I don't fucking want the title or the claim. I don't want to express possession, simply to refer to her (without writing a discursive dissertation). I don't like one bit that the short hand for "association" in English is expressed in the possessive. I don't own my wife or my children. They're not mine.

So, fuck you Latin and Germanic branches of the Indo-European language group.

That is all.