Not very likely, methinks.  The buzz surrounding the military status of Iraq has by now transcended mere “carnival” proportions and has elevated itself to the deeply absurd.  Single data polling points are blown completely out of any kind of logical proportion to try and sell the idea that Americans are finally coming around on the surge, while statistics on the field of battle are equally mischaracterized to paint a particularly rosy picture of the situation over there.

The point of this is extremely simple; while there may arguably be some short term improvements in the military scenario in Iraq, the political situation over there is a mess.  Just recently we learned that not long after one of the largest Sunni blocs quit the Iraqi government, a new powerhouse alliance was formed within the federal parliament, one that omitted both Sunni’s and Sadrist Shiites.

In other words, a template for the subjugation of considerable portions of the Iraqi people has already been set, effectively eliminating not only one of the most violent and volatile Shia sects, but also just about the entire Sunni population of Iraq.  It is hard to imagine any hope for peace under these conditions.

But this apparently  does not seem to be significant in the eyes of the administration to consider.  Instead, what is apparently the game plan is to politically keep the Iraq War efforts on life support as long as possible until, A) Iraq magically fixes itself, or B) the new administration takes over in January of 2009.

As silly as this may seem strategically, it is nonetheless the game, and a big part of that game is the soon to be released report from General David Patraeus.  It is because of the political seriousness with which the administration is taking this whole game that has led to the scrutinous public not being particularly surprised, but still disgusted with the revelation that the White House would have a heavy hand in the report.

The report, might I add, that is scheduled to be delivered on Sept. 11 or 12.  While the report was due on the fifteenth, a Saturday, it is planned to be delivered a few days before that… on a day that has absolutely no significance whatsoever.

That is unless you happened to not be born in a cave and kept from all forms of media for the entirety of your life.

Now, I understand, there is no way that we will forever in the future be able to avoid any and all events of any kind of significance happening on September eleventh.  That’s not going to happen.  Still, I think I’ve gotten to the point where I’m cynical and paranoid enough to the point where I think I smell a little orchestration here at the timing.

I could be wrong, I kinda hope I am, but right now my conflation senses are tingling, and I have a more than strong feeling that this “report” if that’s what you choose to call it will be heavily tied in with 9-11 sentiments and the like.  Not like we haven’t seen that before.

At this point the true question is, are we over it yet?  Has this kind of political tactic finally jumped the shark?  Not honest remembrance of 9-11, but the completely cynical and disrespectful political manipulation thereof?

If we aren’t, if it hasn’t, we need to find a way to make it so.

No Responses to “Coincidence?”


  1. bastard.logic - Get Ready For Another F.U.... by matttbastard Last week it was revealed that the much-ballyhooed Petraeus Report on the ’surge’ in…
  2. bastard.logic - “There is enormous inertia—a tyranny of the status quo—in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis—actual or perceived— produces…
  3. The Shock Doctrine & A Sliver of Hope » Comments From Left Field - [...] and the timing of its delivery to Congress (ie, 9/11 week), Kyle (somewhat despairingly) had this to say [prior to…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook