I am now officially pissed off at those calling for withholding funds as a way to end war in Iraq. I have never heard one person promoting this idea move past the mere promotion of it and explain the details. Forget the dubious constitutionality of it - explain to me how it works? On the most basic practical level it causes chaos amongst the rank and file of the military - end of funding means end of legitimacy and why would any sane grunt put his life on the line for a reason that lacks legitimacy? End of funding quite simply means end of military presence and I have not heard of one person in his right mind who also isn't still having his shoes tied by his mother who thinks that's a good idea. But beyond the somewhat emotionally charged issue of troop morale, the short sightedness of the suggestion is absurd - you rescind funding and Iraq turns into a bloodbath: do you ignore the bloodbath or re-institute funding to quell it? Amidst the chaos the Kurds annex Kirkuk, separate from Iraq proper and Turkey, alarmed by this, enters Iraq: what do you do? Same scenario with Iran: you just let Iran take over? If Saudis decide that's unacceptable and a regional Sunni vs Shia war is threatened, what then? You start funding the war all over again? Call it a different war and fund that?
It's absurd. Calls for withdrawal of funding are simply idiotic and should be met with scorn - and yet they proliferate! Presidential candidates proudly proclaim their love for the notion while rabid acolytes cheer them on - but cheering for what? The promise that they won't have to feel bad anymore about themselves, their country, the world? Are they cheering for the promise of an eased conscience? Are they cheering for an end to the war or an end to an uncomfortable association with it? Idealists on both sides resent the thought of having to compromise their precious notions of how things should be, their identities are too tightly tied to particular modes of thought - which is why those railing against the surge sound just as unglued from reality as those rallying for it. Where is the rational and reasonable dialog that should be taking place? Is such a posture just not politically tenable anymore? Is the perceived hopelessness of it all driving people to extremes of denial?
Or is thoughtful reflection just simply at odds with the mass personality issues afflicting an affluent democracy? As free people in a free society we are burdened with the usually unconscious responsibility, imperative even if you like, of having to think well of ourselves and others in order to get along as it were - in effect it is almost necessary that we give ourselves credit when possibly in fact no credit is due.
In Russia there's a TV show called 'Happy Bus' that airs on a state controlled network and involves two rich and powerful men giving away money and gifts to poor Russians. One of these two men will succeed Putin which is why he has put them on TV in something of a gratuitous competition to see who the ignorant will find most appealing and therefore who is more apt to be the best dictator. Opponents of Putin will not be getting TV shows of their own. That is how democracy works in Russia and Russians don't seem to mind. One is tempted to be scornful of the charade and sure enough hackneyed representatives from legitimate democracies do from time to time step to a podium and spout off something that sounds outraged - but you know I'm thinking there's a lot of people out there riding Happy Buses and they ain't all Russian.
