Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

I stand accused of being simple-minded because 1., I slap George W. Bush around regularly, 2., I think the war in Iraq, while it has resulted in some good, has resulted in much more bad and was started on rank stupidity if not outright lies; and 3., I rail against the Global War on Terror as the kind of rhetoric that does more harm than good.

1. It is my constitutional right, and obligation, to badmouth what I consider a bad president.

2. The war in Afghanistan is justified, and now wrongly neglected because of the war in Iraq, which was not -- but we're stuck with it, and stuck with finding a way to finish it -- a "win" is too damned much to define, let alone expect -- with some semblance of honor. God help us. Here's one idea, picked up from my blog friend Dan Trabue.

3. Let us count the "wars." "War on Poverty." Didn't win that one. "War on Drugs." Nope, no win there. "Global War on Terror." Unwinnable, unlosable, undefinable, the kind of ill-conceived idea that wears us out as a people, wastes our treasure, distracts us from real things and makes us look like we're still punch-drunk after 9/11, which maybe some of us are but I'm not anymore. Go here to read, in the comments, some of my other thoughts on that. Warning: You'll have to step over quite a bit of BS in those comments.

Think I'm off? Turn off the damned talk radio, put down whatever rag you're reading that still dares to call itself a "news"paper and read some real analysis:

By rushing into Iraq instead of finishing off the hunt for Osama bin Laden, Washington has unwittingly helped its enemies: al Qaeda has more bases, more partners, and more followers today than it did on the eve of 9/11. Now the group is working to set up networks in the Middle East and Africa -- and may even try to lure the United States into a war with Iran. Washington must focus on attacking al Qaeda's leaders and ideas and altering the local conditions in which they thrive.

Read all of "Al Qaeda Strikes Back" in Foreign Affairs.


And this:

The rift between U.S. military and civilian leaders did not start with George W. Bush, but his administration's meddling and disregard for military expertise have made it worse. The new defense secretary must restore a division of labor that gives soldiers authority over tactics and civilians authority over strategy -- or risk discrediting civilian control of the military even further.

Read all of "Bush and the Generals" in Foreign Affairs.


I'm not sure if the links will let y'all read all of the articles. I subscribe to Foreign Affairs and read the hard copy. If you can't, spend $8 or whatever it costs and go buy the damn thing at Barnes & Noble or wherever.

Then come back here and tell me I'm fricking uninformed. We might still disagree, but you'll know that I'm not as full as s--t as you think I am.

And yes, I might have one particular person in mind who jumped ugly on me unprovoked in the RW a few days ago. But reading some thoughty thoughts won't hurt anybody else either.

--ER