Friday, September 14, 2007

Iraq: A Lot Like Katrina and NOLA, But Without The Acts Of God

I finally figured out what the strategy was/is for George Bush's Iraq Democracy Freedom Spreading Experiement (IDFSE), which by the way was originally primarily a WMD eradication effort. Even so, we now know that was the bait for the grand bait and switch they played on us regardless. But, I digress.

Over the past two mornings, on my AM run, I've been ruminating about what the real purpose of the illegitimate Iraq invasion was. Simultaneously, I've been watching some of Spike Lee's footage from his documentary on Katrina, tivo-ed ever so faithfully via HBO. Then, for some reason, the confluence of strategies slapped me like a bee sting on the back of the neck. Stick with me here for a bit.

The W, Rove and Co strategies for handling NOLA's existing disaster sparked by Katrina is much the same as the IDFSE except that GW and his team decided to act like god to initiate the destruction. Think about it.

Katrina came in, and only the wealthy were really able to vacate the premises. Those that remained behind - the sick and the infirmed, the poor, those with no wherewithal - were left to fend for themselves. Some of them couldn't walk out on their own power, or were waiting for buses that never arrived.

Katrina hit, the levees broke, and large swaths of NOLA were laid to waist. Those with the money were able to move out, and stay out. Those that remain are the leaches that feed off the misfortunes of others, the good Samaritans trying to help, and those who don't have anywhere else to go. All of whom are left to pick themselves up by their own broken bootstraps.

Forgedabout the raft of broken promises of FEMA, GW, and never-you-mind about the trailers sitting on the tarmac at some remote locations still waiting to be distributed two years later. Essentially, the poor are left to their own devices, to clean up a mess they didn't create. And we would have to say, at this point, it's not going well.

This is not to negate the position that perhaps it's unwise to rebuild NOLA given that it's located in the greased pathway for many future hurricanes, or that it's built below sea level. That's the subject for some one else's post. The W, Rove and Co's ability to solve the Katrina problem is much like their ability to extinguish the Iraq conflagration.

First, Iraq had it's own period of destruction - re: the initial invasion and bombing of the country that led W to stand in front of a Mission Accomplished banner oh, so long ago. They were not gods, but they acted like god did in NOLA. The aftermath was similar.

Much of the rich and well-to-do in Iraq left. Some of the well-to-do have still not returned to either location. Those that remained were left to fend for themselves and had to fight to survive. Those that profit off the destruction are the leaches screwing the poor because they can.

Of course the big difference between Iraq and NOLA is that now there are terrorists and civil war being waged in one place rather than the other. But the end remains the same, those that remain are left with a giant mess to clean up and no end in sight to the work necessary to produce satisfactory results.

When you listen to the President discuss either one, I only hear the blaming of others, and the manufactured spewing of statistics that suggest they have done all they can. Obviated by the current climate in both locations, they only amount to excuses. Of course the President says:
The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is "return on success." The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.

When the President says that when there is success, he will withdraw troops. But what should and does "success" look like? If it mirrors the "successful" assistance of New Orleans residents in need, I don't think that the Iraqi's, those that remain, have a prayer.

So, what's the W, Rove and Co. umbrella strategy? On it's face (the prima facie for those who fancy Latin), it looks a lot like this: lay waist to a place, provide only a modicum of recovery assistance, and then let the poor, those who don't have the means to leave, the random Good Samaritans and the leaches remain to mix it up and clean up the mess they didn't create.

Is this strategy successful in either location? You be the judge.

Blog on friends, blog on all.

No comments: