Elect yourself another people

It’s always a very bad look for the right when they’re reduced, as they were when the American people failed to rally round impeachment of Clinton and were condemned by GOP pols and pundits as morally bankrupt, to suggesting that their fabbo leadership has been let down by a fickle populace. Paul’s already riffed off Janet Albrechtsen’s latest rant, calling her on her crud about Latham’s forestry policy. Paul Kelly, the ideologue par excellence of the punditarian ideologues, appears to have caught the same bug. It’s our fault if the terrsts win:

These are that the enemy is not the generic evil of terrorism. The enemy is Islamist terrorism as represented by al-Qa’ida and its non-state networks. This is not primarily a military threat but a global ideological and political threat that constitutes a crisis within a civilisation. This threat is long term and will demand from the West a response of hard and soft power including diplomacy, force, intelligence, law enforcement and economics; but, above all, it will demand an internal consensus on the nature of the threat that, at present, is missing from the democracies.

If anyone can make sense of that gibberish, perhaps they could also explain why none of the “justifications” for Iraq ever survive contact with reality these days, or even approach coherence.

We can’t let the Iranians win by letting the terrsts win in Iraq, says the PM. Except that if anything “emboldened” Iran, it was the removal of their enemy Saddam, turning over large parts of the Shi’a South to their influence, setting up a “democracy” which has sectarian parties all funded by Iran seeking to reverse the pattern of domination that previously existed rather than bring about “national reconciliation”, not to mention giving Iran leverage through placing heaps of troops in the way of potential harm they could stir up. The only thing we need to do, according to the pundits and pols, is to keep fear itself at the uppermost of our minds. And trust them. Or something. The shift we’re seeing across the West, and particularly in America, shows that it’s very difficult for fearmongering and warlike elites to sustain their crazed policies in the face of growing public opposition and scepticism. That’s not any sort of “failure of will”, as Paul Kelly would have us believe when he writes, “in the Long War against Islamism, grave doubt surrounds the will and patience of the West”. It’s called democracy. And it’s a good thing.

Advertisements
Tagged with:
Posted in Iran, Iraq, politics, War
12 comments on “Elect yourself another people
  1. professor rat says:

    It is seductive crapping on in techno-managerial speak sometimes – the ‘death sentence’ according to Watson – but if I ever start sounding like Paul Kelly please, please, please…take me out and shoot me.

    Thank youse – All of the Australian’s political writers speak with a corpse in their mouth…except for King Phillip-the Good. Good oil on troubled Sylvania Waters.

  2. steve says:

    These are that the enemy is not the generic evil of terrorism. The enemy is Islamist terrorism as represented by al-Qa’ida and its non-state networks. This is not primarily a military threat but a global ideological and political threat that constitutes a crisis within a civilisation. This threat is long term and will demand from the West a response of hard and soft power including diplomacy, force, intelligence, law enforcement and economics; but, above all, it will demand an internal consensus on the nature of the threat that, at present, is missing from the democracies.

    I think that what Kelly meant to say was:

    The enemy is not terrorism but al-Qa’ida. This is a crisis that will demand a response.

    That was really all Kelly had to say and the rest was just filler and meaningless dribble.

    Even simpler and looking more like a plea:
    Al-Qa’ida; response required.
    He could also have just written ARR!!!!!

  3. philip travers says:

    Now that Martin Bryant the resident Tasmanian terrorist with the glowing eyes can be seen everyday to be the Australian cultural spitting image of well known Osamas bin Laden,who is in Afghanistan according to Rudd.Will Osama visit his matey in Tasmania?Or will someone smuggle in a culturally acceptable beard for those who share amongst us the joy of seeing young mens beards!?Ask Paul Kelly next time you see him,willyou!?

  4. It is deluded to think that you are the only one who has an argument that makes any sense. Whatever the rights or wrongs about going to Iraq there are valid arguments on both sides and they are not incoherent. I happen to give more weight to one side than the other

    You forget that the beloved ALP in this instance holds a position that is not anti-war, but anti-non UN sanctioned war ie this is an illegal war and not an immoral war. It was not undertaken for piss-poor justifications or incoherent crazy reasons. This Kimmerish is far worse than any gibberish served up by Janet, Paul, John or George. Get real.

  5. Kim says:

    It shouldn’t be assumed that opposition to the government’s stance implies support for the opposition’s, in this context. But I think it was Crean-erish actually.

  6. Nabakov says:

    It is deluded to think that you are the only one who has an argument that makes any sense.

    Your comment ain’t doing much to prove your point. Conflating bi-partisan political party views and the terms illegal and immoral has fuck all to do with Kim’s actual point which that pundits are trying to dismiss the majority view in western democracies on the grounds they are not worthy of judging their leaders’ (our employees actually) decisions. Even though said pundits seemed to have no problems with said majorities’ decisions about choosing the same leaders in the first place.

    Still don’t get it informally? It’s a post about the complete intellectual and moral bankruptcy of a big chunk of the professional commenting class, not the ins and outs of the war per se.

    Speaking of which though:

    It was not undertaken for piss-poor justifications or incoherent crazy reasons.

    I couldn’t help noticing you didn’t mention why it was undertaken. No doubt you can provide some shit rich and coherent sane reasons.

  7. steve says:

    I thought that the ‘valid’ argument according to the COW had become invalid over the course of the past five years and the argument supported by hundreds of thousands of demonstrators and peace activists but declared invalid by warmongers has become the valid argument which has stood the test of time.

  8. Andrew E says:

    I read this as: OK, so Iraq is bullshit but Afghanistan-Pakistan is the main game and it’s important that Iraq does not go down the same S-bend that leads it to become an incubator for al-Qaeda.

  9. Carl says:

    Great post.

    The pundits/attack dogs from Murdoch’s arsenal have become increasingly incoherent and desperate.

    Has Paul ever considered that people don’t have the ‘will’ to ‘stand up to Islamism’ because that so-called ‘threat’ pales in comparison to the threat of

    1. Getting hit by a bus
    2. Getting Cancer
    3. Having no water in 20 years time
    4. Defaulting on a mortgage payment becasue of our extraordinary debt

    Obviously the list could go on.

  10. If only we could elect ourselves another punditariat.

  11. Cliff says:

    Any political movement which claims to speak for the people will eventually believe that the people are weak and deluded when they don’t follow like sheep. Communism is a good example. I’m sure Janet will love the comparison.

  12. John Greenfield says:

    I wonder when they will have the guts to admit who/what the war/s are REALLY against; Islam

Comments are closed.

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
%d bloggers like this: