Saturday, January 31, 2015

man, you guys read too much into stuff. i know that's the deal with what you do, but at the same time you're often soooo close. i'm a little (ok a lot) behind on video feed, so i'm just getting to this now.

1) bowe bergdahl was charged with desertion this week. this was the obvious setup. i'm pointing it out here to demonstrate that it was obvious and you guys should have seen it. there's been rumours for a while, now, that desertion in afghanistan is under-reported. and, this is something that goes back to vietnam or further. but, it's really right out of 1984. i don't doubt for a minute that the stories around bergdahl are accurate, or that he was really in detention. rather, i'd point that this is exactly why they needed to get him back. the united states army is not a democratic institution. it's a violent, ruthless, top down structure where rape is rampant as a tool of control. most civilians (and i'm a civilian...) couldn't contemplate how this really works. so, you've got a deserter. what the army is going to do is take the guy, bring him back, force him back to duty [to send the message that you can run, but you can't hide] and then send him to jail. it's been a long time since they executed somebody for desertion, but it's still a possibility. so, is it a "psy-op"? well, sort of. but, the audience is every serviceman or woman who's ever considered just taking off into the countryside. the message is clear: the army will track you down, put you back in service and then punish you for it. there is no escape.

2) this iran/america "detente" is totally overblown. and, i think it's an error to think that the americans wanted to prop up maliki. rather, it's pretty clear that they wanted maliki out. my reading into the situation is that a substantial part of the isis movement into iraq was to force a regime change one way or the other - either maliki steps down, or isis takes him out. and, of course the saudis think any shiite is a heretic that should suffer their equivalent of being burned at the stake, so it's right in line with their interests. what the americans are doing here is creating the situation which they wanted in the first place, which is bringing forces back in. remember: the americans wanted a force to remain in iraq, but couldn't get maliki to sign a sofa. the crux of the fighting seems to be a proxy war between the saudis and the turks, and the americans may be helping to knock out a few undesirable elements. but all i can see happening in front of me is the americans finding a sneaky way to reestablish the presence they didn't really want to terminate. of course, that's on top of an excuse to blow up abandoned syrian military installations...