Kimberly and Fredrick Kagan on Iraq by Political Cynic

Here is a recent essay by Kimberly and Fredrick Kagan in the Washington Post titled A new mirage in the Iraq desert, two prominent Neo-Conservative thinkers and policy experts, indeed, Ms. Kagan was a contracted employee of the U.S. Government involved in policy planning and implementation. But even more impressive is the fact that these two intellectuals were part of the concentrated propaganda offensive, that The Bush Restoration and The Party of War, and the Democrats and Republicans that make it up, waged in support of an attack of another sovereign nation, in violation of international law, perhaps, a matter of little concern to The Kagans, as prelates of an indigenous American political necromancy. In the United States of Amnesia this information is of little interest, as is the heavy irony of this long quotation:

“Iraq is a signatory to numerous treaties and a member of international organizations obliging it to respect human rights, ensure due process of law, and refrain from arbitrary or political detentions. Responsible nations should insist that Iraq demonstrate its commitment to those obligations. The president should tell Maliki in no uncertain terms that Washington will hold him to account in the international arena if Iraq does not.”

Or should we, in the cultivation of a necessary political honesty, simply label this call for ‘respect for human rights’ , ‘ensure due process of law’, and ‘refrain from arbitrary or political detentions’ as the necessary window dressing of maintaining political respectability, at all costs: in the interest of maintaining the political/ethical fiction of the virtue of Neo-Conservatism, and of the necessity of the National Security State as re-engineered by it’s operatives, The Kagan’s?


Political Cynic



About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.