2007 from the War Room
To fully understand President Bush's decision to surge forces into Iraq and stick with the mission, to understand that it is not just stubbornness or some grand vision of a greater good being pursued, one has to look at the world through the eyes of the warriors.
Disintegration and growing Jihadi strength in Iraq, resurgent Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, nuclear weapons in Iran and North Korea, an intractable Israel-Palestine and an increasingly strong Hezbollah in Lebanon, a disintegrating Somalia and Horn of Africa, Darfur, Venezuela rising and the future of Cuba, instability in Southeast Asia, China as a great military power.
In the war room, Iraq seems indeed to be at the center of endless threats and a global war. But do they see a world on fire because they are true believers or are they true believers because they see a world on fire?
Here is my thumbnail tour of the world as the warriors see it. Tomorrow I'll make my predictions for the coming year:
Iraq: Iraq is indeed near a tipping point, not so much because we are close to throwing in the towel or because of the Washington parlor game of is it or isn't it civil war. And it isn't because of how many Iraqis (or Americans) are dying. Iraq is at a tipping point because there is no real government. As the clumsy execution of Saddam demonstrated, a faction of the Iraqi population is currently in charge; a constitution and elections have not created functional governance. Increased conflict exists because this is the currency of political power. The U.S. looks to Baghdad as if it is a young Washington, and to Iraqi forces as if they are raw recruits yearning to serve a national power while the nation does not exist.
U.S. intelligence is not just worried about the continued even increasing power of Sunni, Shi'a (and Kurdish) armed factions outside the government, and about the continued foothold of Jihadis in Iraq, but they are also increasingly worried about militias exporting terrorism ala (early) Hezbollah to the United States and elsewhere. It is certainly something that Iraq's eastern and southern neighbors fret about.
U.S. intelligence has been closely watching exchanges between the militias and the Iranians. After the Lebanon war this summer, there were warnings that Hezbollah was training militias in explosives, just as there were earlier warnings of Iranian supply of shaped charges (explosively formed penetrators). Though it is surely the case that there is cross-fertilization of skills and even technical assistance coming into Iraq, at this point, the Iraqi insurgents have years of experience against an occupying U.S. military and are the problem themselves. It is a divergence from our failures and from the absence of functional government in Baghdad to look at Syria or Iran as the causes of instability. What U.S. intelligence is increasingly seeing though is organizational modes being adapted from Hezbollah. The Mahdi Army is indeed becoming an army, a Hezbollah-like state within a state.
Afghanistan and Pakistan: Though driven from power five years ago, 2006 proved to be the best year for the old Taliban. The movement has firmly lodged itself throughout southern and eastern Afghanistan and continues to find safe haven in Pakistan. Islamabad, America's ostensible ally against terrorism, has also increasingly made accommodations with tribal leaders in North Waziristan and Bajaur that creates sanctuary. The Taliban and al Qaeda have managed, despite the "war" against terrorism, to create yet another state within a state.
U.S. intelligence is also increasingly wary of the future of Gen. (President) Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. I'm hearing many senior officers speak of the American challenge "after" Musharraf. The Pakistani leader evidently has not only lost control of the tribal areas in the west but also continues to be highly insecure in the cities.
Iran: While official Washington remains seized with Iran's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, specifically nuclear weapons, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has emerged as a charismatic world figure, storming New York in September and yet losing domestic support in late year elections. Iran is a player in both Afghanistan and Iraq (and in Lebanon) and U.S. intelligence believes that without much effort, it could even be a more powerful actor in any of those three theaters.
The United Nations Security Council voted to impose sanctions on Iran on Dec. 23 over its nuclear program, an act that will likely have little impact on its nuclear pursuits and also increase the strength of the Ahmadinejad government, who is seemingly maintaining Iranian pride and holding off the world community. Economically, Iran is facing
North Korea: On Oct. 9, North Korea announced that it has conducted a nuclear test, demonstrating once again that it is beyond the control of the international community. The UN Security Council called for the North to abandon nuclear weapons and return to the Six-Party talks. The North has its own agenda and timetable. In reality, North Korea is a weak and disintegrating government, but to war planners that is the rub: if ever there were a country prone to lashing out in a last gasp of survival, it is that of Kim Jung Il. The U.S. and South Korea are furiously finishing contingency planning for just such an event or for some other calamity that will require their action or intervention.
Israel: Israel's Operations "Summer Rain," "Change of Direction," and "Autumn Clouds" last year ultimately proved unable to change the security climate vis a vis either the Palestinians or Hezbollah. Though ceasefires are in place with both parties, the level of distrust and hatred is as high as ever, while an Israeli vision of a peaceful future seems absent. War planners in Israel look at Syria and Iran as the true strategic threats, a worldview popular with the Cheney crowd in the administration.
Latin America: Fidel Castro has now successfully transitioned governance to his brother Raul Castro and the conflagration once dreamed of in Miami with the death of the Cuban leader seems a distant dream. Cuba can hardly be categorized as any type of "threat" any longer, but that reality has not quite caught up with the war planners and the politicos.
The revolutionary mantle is passing to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, el Sharptonista, the leader, at least for now of the leftist tilt throughout the continent. Chavez was joined by Daniel Ortega in government on Nov. 7. None are "threats" per se, especially at this late date in a lame duck American administration, but the history of Latin America and of U.S.-Latin American relations has always equated independence and progressivism with instability. Of course it's hard for the contingency planners not to plan for contingencies when foreign leaders are calling the American leader the devil. Even if it is just for theater.
China: China continued its rise in 2006, economically as well as in foreign affairs. Before the Republican defeat this year and whenever Iraq provides a geopolitical breather, the warriors point to China as the true "strategic" threat to the United States. It is the "peer" competitor that ultimately fuels our half a trillion dollar defense budget. While the Pentagon plans, China forays into increasingly exotic locales in Africa and Latin America to expand its influence and exert an independent set of relations. All is not future war with China, as the United States and China held their first joint naval exercise in September and there is a strong school who believes that the last great communist government will slowly transition to a mercantile view. At the same time though, China increased its military presence and ties with Tajikistan and Pakistan in 2006, and the People's Liberation Army concluded its first long-distance overland maneuver in an exercise during the year, flexing muscle.
For all of the post Sept. 11 talk of eliminating the ungoverned spaces in the world and drying up the sources of terror, a tour of the world in 2006 shows global anarchy in parts of Iraq, Afghanistan-Pakistan, the Horn of Africa, Lebanon, the Philippines, and elsewhere, hardly an advertisement for strategic success in the western "war" against terror. And while more nations join NATO and the European Union, the limits of stability seem firmly drawn around islands of stability: things could easily blow in Russia, in Pakistan, on the Korean peninsula, in the Middle East, in central Africa.
2006 has been such a mess, we've virtually forgotten about the Avian flu and the Ninth Ward, and worldwide riots over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad seem a lot longer ago than less than a year. The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June has now been proven as a hollow victory in the battle against Islamic extremism. "Home grown" terrorism and the French riots are also now distant threats, at least in the United States, where they seem almost quaint compared to the anarchy and ever growing anger out in the world against the United States and its policies. Add to all that the Islamization of Europe and the rise of (Iranian-supported) neo-Nazism, global kidnapping and piracy and an epidemic of crime in Africa, and ever more gross disparities in the Persian Gulf states with a gigantic unprivileged underclass. Happy New Year everyone.
By William M. Arkin |
January 3, 2007; 12:00 PM ET
Previous: Saddam Hussein: I'm Going to Miss Him |
Next: Predictions for 2007, and one surprising death
Posted by: CatherineTheGreat | January 5, 2007 10:47 PM
Leigh Meyers,
Lynching? I guess if you believe Saddam was innocent of his crimes.
Otherwise, just deserts.
Posted by: M. Simon | January 4, 2007 1:09 PM
He said the democrats can do much more damage to the republicans and pursue withdrawl ...!
Yes Sully,
But what is more important than doing damage to the Republicans is the saving of lives now, both American and Iraqi lives. That is what the Democrats have been tasked to do. The war was based on fraud and fraud negates a contract!
Stop the war first, and then if they must play politics, then proceed. But both sides need to be aware that most Americans have had enough of business as usual.
Posted by: The Rev | January 4, 2007 12:34 PM
Rev wrote:
---And Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats must stop funding an illegal war that was brought about as a result of lies and deceit.---
I agree with the end result but I think Nancy is smarter than just pulling funding. I was listneing to some talking heads last night and one talked about how the democrats have to be careful about just shutting the door to Bush and Iraq, and how that would play politically. He said the democrats can do much more damage to the republicans and pursue withdrawl from Iraq by not going after Bush and Cheney but by going after their appointees, just as the cops go after the petty criminals to eventually fight those at the top of crime. He said he expects to see the funding continue but a lot of subpeonas going out to question generals, pentagon civilians, NSA low level people, etc... All to expose the way things have been run under Bush and use that as pressure to change direction without overt blocking of funds. Look for a careful knocking out of those implementing Bush's programs leaving Bush with no one willing to tell a lie for Bush, including lies about Iraq. The truth about what is going on should be enough to force Bush to get out of Iraq.
Just as the democrats did not force Bush to consider a new direction in Iraq, it will not be the democrats directly influencing Bush withdrawing troops, it will be the people who learn through congressional committees and those they subpeona just how bad things are, how a surge is doomed to fail, and how Bush cannot be trusted if he plans any other adventures. The light is about to be turned on Bush and what he has been doing. Watch for Bush and Rove to dive for the shadows, where they belong. And watch for coverups. All the democrats have to do is shine some light, and there is so much darkness in this administration, in the NSA, CIA, FDA, DHS, HHS, DOD and other agencies that I expect the democrats will have a hard time lighting it all up at once. But Bush will be on the defensive for the next two years and once the light is shown on Iraq the democrats will not need to pull funding, Bush will claim victory and pull the troops on his own before 2009.
Posted by: Sully | January 4, 2007 12:27 PM
Sully,
The feeling is mutual, believe me, just ask the Iraqis about the American beacon of freedom.
And Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats must stop funding an illegal war that was brought about as a result of lies and deceit.
We must stop funding a 'fraudulent war in Iraq'!
Posted by: The Rev | January 4, 2007 11:09 AM
---In the anals of history, America will be remembered as the fiercest and most warlike nation that ever existed.---
Well that would belong in the anals of history, but I think the annals of history will show America was the beacon of freedom the world knows it to be though we stray now and then.
"anals of history" ... sometimes you just crack me up Rev ...
Posted by: Sully | January 4, 2007 10:55 AM
American containment is failing, just as containment eventually failed for all of the other past empires. And that is what has most Americans worried, given that the American way of life, take what you want and have all that you can get, is in jeopardy!
In the anals of history, America will be remembered as the fiercest and most warlike nation that ever existed.
I wonder if the Egyptian, Graeco-Roman, Assyrian, Babylonian or any other empires, had a 'War Department'?
American does not have a Social Department or a Peace Department or an Uninsured Americans Deparment, however, its War/Defense Department receives as much or more funding as any other of America's many governmental departments!
Why? To defend America and have peace? Answer: Nope, just to invade, occupy and meddle in the affairs of other nations and to retain its position of ascendency!
Posted by: The Rev | January 4, 2007 9:38 AM
Looks like, since the world wasn't "on fire" - or at least not anymore ablaze as it usually is - when the "true believers" came to power, it's fair to conclude that they projected "fire" on the world, and then started the "fire" to claim that they saw it.
A bit like Nero, just a lot more destructive. Still just as foolish. And the verdict of history will be remarkably similar.
Posted by: Bob Brandon | January 4, 2007 8:30 AM
Alex wrote:
---well if Clinton had a bit of angst/imagination , he might have done something about osama. Yes, Bush should have nailed him in tora, but sometimes it does help to be a bit paranoid.---
Well, Clinton did warn Bush that Osama was a major threat to the US and Richard Clarke tried to have a meeting with Bush for 8 months to go over it only to find Bush and Condi could have cared less. You might want to pick up Richard Clarke's book "Against All Enemies" and read it. In that book Clarke says that Bush, just after 9-11, ordered Clarke to look for a link between Iraq and the WTC attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.
Blame Clinton all you want but its been 5 years since 9-11 and Osama is still threatening us. If Bush had any guts he'd have focused on our enemies and not Iraq. If Bush had any angst he'd have listened to his competent advisors instead of his political advisors. And as 'sm' noted, Clinton admits his failure to get Osama. Bush never admits a mistake believing it makes him stronger. I learned in 1st grade that is not true. Any man that cannot face the truth or admit his mistakes is a coward. Bush is a first class coward.
Posted by: Sully | January 4, 2007 8:27 AM
sm wrote:
---Anyway, I am surprised that in Mr Arkin's blog nothing was mentioned about Taiwan.---
Yup, thats where the focus should be. North Korea rattles sabres and Iran talks about nuclear power while Bush see bombs, but the real future threat of war is between China and Taiwan, and China's military buildup is designed specifically for that war and to counter any US intervention. We should be working vigorously with China and Taiwan to get this resolved, maybe some interim unification with some autonomy. That war is coming and if we ignore it the Chinese will start it when they are ready. Its not speculation, its Chinese stated policy. Unfortunately, diplomacy is needed and no one in the Bush administration is capable of handling diplomacy. Maybe Bush should send Baker over to China. Baker seems to be the only person with a brain that Bush trusts.
Posted by: Sully | January 4, 2007 8:13 AM
The world is dynamic and it is evolving day by day!
The United States continues to stand still in terms of its desire to remain the 'Lord of the Flies', and rule the rest of the world which it seeks to contain in a tiny encased American engineered bottle, that is fully under America's control!
All empires have shared a similar fate, and Bush is just another pawn in a fool's game. He is yet another leader of a world empire, who has been tasked with the responsibility of preserving another (non-preferred) world empire that is loosing its grip on power!
And the only way left to preserve an empire, or its feeling of significance, which is day by day loosing favor in the world, is to continue to invade nations and beat them into submission. Killing people is a non-sequitur for an ailing and failing empire; for above all else, the empire must be preserved regardless of the cost!
America's problem (and that is the problem facing the world today) is that other nations are catching up with America, and they are making it known that they are no longer willing to remain in the bottle. Why should we, some ask, continue to be ruled over by a nation that represents only 5% of the world's population and that is clearly biased, unlawful and hypocritical?
It was easier for the U.S.A. to 'CONTAIN' the world, a term that America often uses when referring to other nations on the planet, when America DOMINATED the rest of the world in practically every other sector like wealth, conveniences, imports, exports, trade, its military...., however, the world is catching up, and the world no longer wishes to be contained by any power or Superpower!
Bush just cannot get the genie to stay in the bottle in Iraq. He has tried and tried and tried and tried, lied and lied and lied. Until he and the American people realize that the world is changing, and until the latter decide that it is time to drop the double-standards/hypocrisy and unlawful activities, and then learn to live peaceably among the world's family of nations, we will continue to see the kind of American induced chaos, that we are all witnessing in Iraq, in the future!
For what we are witnessing in Iraq and Afghanistan is just a microcosm of what the United States will be experiencing over the next century, ; I call it resistance against anillegal force, some of you might call it FRICTION!
Posted by: The Rev | January 4, 2007 7:49 AM
Hey, Alex, you didnt hear Pres. Clinton with Chris Wallace? Clinton said he tried and failed.
Anyway, I am surprised that in Mr Arkin's blog nothing was mentioned about Taiwan. With the PLA's rapid modernization, there is substantial agreement that there will be a 2008-2015 "window of vulnerability" when China may have the increased technological capability to invade Taiwan and the US would not have the appropriate capabilities (ballistic missle defense, integrated anti-submarine warfare network)to counteract it. See for example the "US-China Economic and Security Review Commission: 2006 Report to Congress", Page 145
Posted by: sm | January 3, 2007 8:46 PM
Geez commenters, Arkin is telling us what the people that spend the defense budget are thinking.
Posted by: Sam Ellison | January 3, 2007 8:05 PM
PJ writes:"Most of these threats are products of the Bush Administration's imagination,or general Republican angst."
well if Clinton had a bit of angst/imagination , he might have done something about osama. Yes, Bush should have nailed him in tora, but sometimes it does help to be a bit paranoid.
Posted by: Alex | January 3, 2007 7:14 PM
"Economically, Iran is facing"
Where's the rest of the sentence?
Posted by: jmimons | January 3, 2007 4:09 PM
For uncensored news please bookmark:
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info
Ford's funeral: the hollow pomp of a corrupt and crisis-ridden establishment
By Bill Van Auken
3 January 2007
Sandwiched as it was between the obscene televised assassination-by-hanging of Saddam Hussein and the dismal although expected news of the 3,000th US soldier dying in Iraq, the attempts by Washington's political establishment and its servants in the corporate media to generate a wave of patriotic feeling with the funeral of former President Gerald Ford fell flat.
The death of a 93-year-old man who served as the country's unelected chief executive 30 years ago--lasting less than 29 months in office--and who is a virtual unknown to the majority of the country's population today offers little to work with for those trying to revive flagging national spirits and obscure the grim and unrelenting news from the Iraqi fiasco.
The brutal truth is that Ford--who allowed his personal opposition to the launching of the Iraq war and the policies of the Republican Party's "hard right" to be made public only after his death--has more than a passing connection to the current criminal catastrophe presided over by the Bush administration.
If he will be remembered for anything, it is for his decision, one month after taking office, to issue an unprecedented pardon to his predecessor Richard Nixon "for all offenses against the United States which he . . . has committed or may have committed or taken part in" during his more than five-and-a-half years in the White House.
(Less well-remembered, but highly significant in understanding the role played by Ford in the affairs of the American state, was his service on the Warren Commission, where he became one of the most steadfast defenders of the "lone gunman" theory, a thesis designed to cover up the political divisions and conspiracies that lay behind the Kennedy assassination.)
Ford's pardon, issued on September 8, 1974, prevented the country from holding Nixon to account for crimes enumerated in the articles of impeachment brought against him in July 1974. Among them were obstruction of justice, illegal spying on American citizens and the arrogation of extra-constitutional powers that were creating the scaffolding for a presidential dictatorship.
For the rest please go to:
Posted by: che | January 3, 2007 3:26 PM
Most of these threats are products of the Bush Administration's imagination,or general Republican angst. They see a conspiracy behind every corner. The areas that cause concern are the effects of the death of Saddam Hussein, the sectarian civil war between Sunnni and Shia Iraqis, Afghanistan, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Except for Afghanistan, the death of Saddam Hussein will end any pretense that a civil war has not started in Iraq. While the Sunnis will attack Shias in general, al-Sadr and his militia will be a favorite target. We are looking at a blood bath. As the U.S. will be seen as partly responsible for his death, there will be attacks from both sides on U.S. troops. As to the Palestinians, Saddam was a popular figure among them. Whether they approved of their children's activities or not, the families of suicide bombers had their houses bulldozed to the ground by the IDF in retaliation for those attacks. Saddam compensated them for their losses, and became popular among Palestinians.
The death of Saddam has pushed the sectarian killings over the line, and there is little chance of a unified Iraq, unless one side or the other wins a clear victory. It is more likely we will see a country divided along sectarian and ethnic lines.
As to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the U.S. is seen as favoring Israel and against Palestinians.
As to Israel, the U.s. is trying to sell them a new high angle missile defense system to replace the Arrow system which was as useless as our missile defense system. The new one is equally unproven and useless. Israel has not been targeted by high angle missiles from Iran, but low angle rockets from Hizbullah and the Palestinians. The chief threat to Israel is short to medium range conventional missiles if conflicts emerges with her neigbors. Israel needs peace agreements with her neighbors.
As to Afghanistan, we need work with Iran to bring that conflict to a successful conclusion. Iraq is probably too far gone for either Iran or the Sunni states to influence any peace agreement.
We need agreements with both Syria and Iran to sucessfully prosecute the war against al-Qaida. The other groups mentioned are nationalist and pose no international threat unless provoked.
We need to work with people. We cannot do it alone!
Posted by: P. J. Casey | January 3, 2007 2:03 PM
since when is occupation called a war?
is there some reason why we are there other than oil?
_J_o_h_n_W_D_e_a_n_ former counsel to Nixons book Worse Than Watergate....sayz in there that bush made up all of the reasons why we should be in Iraq...
and in so doing mislead Congress which is an impeachable offense...
kim ill jong dangerous? is that like some one with a curling iron is dangerous or like someone about to far tina closed elevvator is dangerous?
has your chain been tightened over at the CIA?
making up spppooooooookie BS
Iran was given the plans for nukes right
and Kim was provided 3 nuclear reactors by Rummy right?
sssoooooooooooooooo who are the real dangerous people?
the liars and obfuscators and people who sell WMD to evil dicktators?
think about it
I will be back.
Posted by: hello | January 3, 2007 1:44 PM
Arkin,
You write as though the world was coming to an end. Its not clear whether these are your views or your view of what those in the War Room are thinking, but like Bush you inflate the threats and minimize the ability to thwart them. You exagerate the threats and minimize the support we have around the world. All you need to do is think back to 1962 when as kid in school I did not file out in single file when the fire alarm was tested, I ducked and covered under my desk. We had canned food in the school basement for the day when our school was the only building to survive a nuclear war and we had to stay there for the months while the radiation decayed. We thought we were safe but our parents knew better, a nuclear war would destroy them and our school and Cuba had nuclear missles aimed right at DC with a 15 minute warning before they hit. At least three of my neighbors had built bomb shelters in their back yards.
We had many enemies then, not just the Soviets threatening to bomb us with missles from Cuba. We had the Chinese waving little red books at us telling us we would be consumed by them. Germany was two states, one had a policy of shooting anyone trying to cross to the other side not to mention Russian soldiers in East Germany positioned in an offensive, not defensive position. India was allied with Russia though not considered a threat, Finland was smartly neutral. The Soviets were making inroads into Africa and Latin America making your talk of China making inroads their nostalgic.
Many CIA people died in that cold war. Yet somehow we got through it, we survived intact, the food in the school basement eventually given to the poor. And we got through it not by invading every nation that threatened us, not be bombing sites we thought might have weapons that could be used against us. We won through negotiation, working in coordination with allies, UN sanctions and the policy of isolation, which is widely ignored today though that policy which lasted over 50 years proved the correct one.
So today your view from the War Room, like Bush, tells us to be afraid of men in caves, men who want to impose a theocracy on an unwilling public in the Middle East, and be afraid of muslims living peaceful lives in Europe and the US. You have little to fear Mr. Arkin. My parents would have traded the fear you are mongering for the real fear of 1962 anyday. You've been reading and worrying about any threat, building each up to the same crisis level to justify military actions. Calm down, go outside, breathe the clean air, know that a nuke is not coming over from Cuba or Russia, know that the Chinese want us to buy their goods and not their ideology, know that your kids are not stockpiling food in the school basement to be ready for a nuclear winter, know that you are safer than your countrymen have been in the last 50 years. Stop trying to scare everyone and live in the real world. Get out of the War Room.
Posted by: Sully | January 3, 2007 1:09 PM
Mr. Arkin,
Regarding disingenuity, of which I ACCUSE YOU.
An example:
Jac-ti-ta-tion: A false boasting or claim, especially one detrimental to the interests of another.
That's the legal term, as used in lawsuits.
Here's an example, much like your unsubstanitated claim...
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. forces had no role in Saddam Hussein's hanging, but would have handled it differently, a U.S. general said on Wednesday as Iraqi authorities questioned a guard over a video of officials taunting him on the gallows.
In reality, according to all published accounts, American military helicopters brought EVERY SINGLE PARTICPANT in this extrajudicial lynching (redundant?) to the execution site.
I don't think I need to run the dictionary definition of 'complicit' by you as well... Do I?
Don't be party to, or propagate over-simplifications and half-truths. Your readership is smarter than you seem to believe.
Posted by: Leigh Meyers | January 3, 2007 1:04 PM
William Arkin Said:
"(Iranian-supported) neo-Nazism..."
Mr. Arkin, speaking as a 3rd generation American jew, I want you to explain that claim.
...and you damn well ought to do it quickly.
My father, a zionist jew who helped smuggle weapons to the Irgun in Palestine after WWII and went on to become a mover and shaker within the ADL would surely agree with you.
Personally, I think:
1) You are lying.
2) OK, I'll give you *some* slack... you are being disingenous.
3) You don't know what you are talking about.
Response?
Posted by: Leigh Meyers | January 3, 2007 12:48 PM
Why? Why not?
An associate of mine took a one-word test in a philosophy class, at his alma mater some years ago. The single question on the test was, Why?
My associate failed the test, not knowing that the to the question was, 'why not'?
All of you existentialists out there will realize that 'why not' is the answer to every American query! And guess what, America has been and still is, customarily wrong!
Someone should be asking why all of these people and nations are angry with America.
Why not?
Posted by: The Rev | January 3, 2007 12:41 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
I took the same philosophy class*, took the same test, and answered "Because...". I was penalized two points for using an ellipsis instead of a period, but mine was the only "A" in the class. The instructor pointed out that "Why not?" is not an answer, it's just another question.
*If you believe this then I've got a bridge to Brooklyn I could let you have cheap.