Tuesday, February 21, 2012

The Economist Believes In Magic

As I’ve said before, The Economist is a wonderful magazine if you want to see the insanity of liberalism presented in pure form. This time, they go all out to demonstrate how insanely stupid liberal foreign policy is in an article ludicrously titled “How To Set Syria Free.” Watch as they demand that we enter an unjustified war, and then they come up with a plan of action which relies on magic.

The Economist starts by trying to overwhelm your logic with emotion by talking about victims, butchery, dead being buried under cover of darkness, mourners, makeshift clinics, and floors slick with blood. They are trying to paint a picture so emotionally horrible that you put aside your reasoning and just accept that something must be done. Then they say the Syrian people have the “fire of conviction” that they will win, but “the outside world, to its shame, has shown no such resolve.” In other words, victory is inevitable and you are shameful to oppose intervention. These are peer pressure arguments.

Having set you up emotionally, they now give the “logical” case for intervening:
Argument No. 1: Almost 7,000 people have died and “the people of Syria deserve better. . . the world has a responsibility to act.” Uh. For starters, the number is actually half that. And if world-intervention is justified just because people are being killed, then why not invade Brazil? Don’t the 55,000 people killed there each year “deserve better” too? Why isn’t The Economist demanding the world invade Mexico where 30,000 people have been killed in the past few years in a drug war?

Argument No. 2: “[The world] also has an interest. Syria occupies a vital position in the Middle East, jammed between Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Israel and Lebanon.” Holy cow! That’s the argument? The mere fact that Syria has neighbors is now considered an interest which justifies an attack? What country doesn’t have neighbors? Using this logic, there is literally nowhere on Earth that doesn’t have some vital world interest. And yet these people said we had no interest in Iraq and have no interest in Iran?
That’s it for the justification, by the way. Clearly, the case for intervention is unassailable, so let’s talk about what the world should do.

Right out of the gates, The Economist shows that it has no stomach to do anything real: “shifting Mr. Assad from power as fast as possible is essential.” Talk about a mealy euphemism. We’ve gone from defeating and killing to eliminating to regime change to shifting from power. That sounds like retirement. And it’s ominously passive, like they want Assad to agree to quit. In fact, they do. Observe.

First, they claim that it’s too late for Assad to “negotiate an accommodation” to oversee “an increase in democracy.” In other words, they’re sick of talking and he needs to be taken out -- notice how this flies in the face of their positions on Iraq and Iran where they demand never-ending talk. And why must he go? Because he’s lost the will of the people and if he gave them democracy, they would only use it against him violently. Translation: we can’t not-kill him because if we don’t kill him, the people would kill him, and we can’t have them killing him, so we are forced to kill him. Try figuring that one out.

But don’t worry about an actual attempt to kill or dethrone him, because The Economist doesn’t have the cojones for that. Indeed, watch them crumble.

See, Assad’s military is loyal and is willing to kill civilians. That’s a big advantage which we must overcome. So how do we stop them? “The most direct answer is. . . bombing Mr. Assad’s troops.” This would satisfy “outsiders’ urge to do something to show their outrage.” BUT, The Economist notes, Russia and China will stop the UN from doing that. Also, Syria’s terrain isn’t like Libya and there are no front lines, so The Economist says bombing won’t work. Ergo, take bombing off the list.

What about arming the rebels? That might work, EXCEPT the rebels are disorganized and lack unity and “such a policy would not suddenly turn the opposition into a fighting force.” Also, The Economist warns us that “a country awash with weapons would be plagued by the very violence the world was seeking to avoid.” It then argues that giving the rebels guns would create another situation like Afghanistan, where the flood of guns “helped create the chaos that spawned the Taliban.” This is, of course, ludicrous. First, it was a civil war which spawned the Taliban, not the presence of guns. Secondly, the Syrian regime has more than enough guns to cause this to happen if they fall.

So what do we do? Well, The Economist has the answer. It would be “far better to attack Mr. Assad’s regime where it is vulnerable – by peeling away his support.” Specifically, we need to SOMEHOW convince Russia to stop defending Assad in the UN because that would let us do a bombing campaign (which The Economist already said won’t work). We also need to convince all of the minorities in Syria to rise up as one. Yep. There it is: the Kumbaya Plan.

How stupid can you get?! When faced with a dictator killing his own people, the liberal response is to wish that people would stand up to them. Doesn’t The Economist realize that’s what’s happening in Syria right now and it’s not working? And how in the world can they think this will work when they just said the following a couple paragraphs before about Assad’s advantages:
“One is his willingness to do whatever it takes to put down the rebellion. . . Syrian soldiers are steeped in blood [and] Assad commands crack units and a relatively loyal officer corps.”
In other words, Assad doesn’t care how many people stand up to him, he’ll kill them all. Yet, The Economist’s plan is to hope enough people stand up that Assad gives up? Insane.

And The Economist isn’t done yet. See, to make this happen, “Syria’s fractious opposition must unite. . . with a single voice and credible leader.” In other words, they need a Magic Syrian they can all trust. Then this leader can talk to “the Kurds and Christians who back Mr. Assad.” Oh oh. Wait. The Kumbaya Plan relies on everyone rising up and “isolating” Assad, but now we’re hearing that chunks of the population support Assad? Doesn’t that doom the Kumbaya Plan? Oh, that’s right, the Magic Syrian can heal the sick and bring everyone together.

Then The Economist goes into all-out fantasy mode. Once this Magic Syrian appears, “the Russians would also begin to shift ground.” Why? Because Russia would then know that defeat for Assad would be inevitable, and unless Russia wants to lose a naval base it has in Syria and its arms export business to the country, then it would clearly shift sides. As this happened, naturally, the Syrian military will change sides too because the Magic Syrian is just unstoppable. . . somehow.

So let’s put this together. We need to enter a civil war without provocation because people are dying. And to defeat a military that is willing to kill as many of its own people as needed, we need only hope that a Magic Syrian arises who can unite all the people, including those who have a vested economic and social interest in backing Assad, and can convince the Syrian military and Russians to abandon Assad. And like that, the world will have solved the Syria problem.

Nice work Economist, you’ve solved everything.

Finally, for good measure, while we wait for the Magic Syrian, The Economist suggests that we kind of, sort of ask someone to create a safe haven somewhere near Turkey where Syrians can flee. Why? Because “a free patch of Syria would be powerful evidence that Mr. Assad’s brutal days are numbered.” Yes, refuge camps always defeat dictators.

Idiots.

53 comments:

T-Rav said...

Excuse me, Andrew, but I really think you're selling the Syrians short here. After all, we intervened in Libya, and it's now a free, prosperous, and democratic nation. Or at least I assume it is, since the media hasn't said anything about it not being so.

And I mean, there is the small chance that we could provoke an immediate showdown with Iran by intervening and thus precipitate a regional if not world crisis; but hey. What's a little thing like that when human rights/getting rid of mean people is at stake?

tryanmax said...

I'm sorry, I'm confused. How is this Bush's fault? I know it somehow must be.

Joel Farnham said...

I think the whole staff at The Economist should travel to Syria and stand up to Assad. You know, to show how it is done. Lead by example. That's the ticket! ;-)

Tennessee Jed said...

I was going to put in the lyrics to Lovin' Spoonful;s "Do You Believe in Magic" but their article is so non-sensical I can't, in good conscience, even give it that much respect. Look, everyone knows we should "lead from behind" (a.k.a. the Obama Doctrine.) My suggestion is that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood take the lead in a "boots on the ground" campaign while we dig up some old chemical weapons buried along the border by Saddam to arm them.

Daffy Duck cartoons appear to make as much sense as "The Economist."

tryanmax said...

TJ, what did Daffy Duck ever do to you?

Koshcat said...

"Hassan, the magic Syrian lived by the sea..."

I have a better and crazier plan. We send in the Greeks to take care of it. About a million should do. In return we can wave some of their debt. If they send only the old and retired it might help take care of their unfunded mandates as well.

Multiple problems solved without any new ones. ;)

Daffy Duck said...

You're all dethpicable!!!

LawHawkRFD said...

Aw, c'mon. The solution is simple obvious. Syria must be rescued from Assad. Russia and China support Assad. Therefore, we must declare all-out thermonuclear war on China and Russia to save Syria. Why does everybody have to make things so complicated?

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, You're right, Libya produced a brand new shining example of a free society, so why would this be any different?

As for Iran, they don't mind. They're good people! If only we would try talking to them.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I'm sure it is Bush's fault... somehow. The left hasn't figured out how yet, but I'm sure they will.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Good thinking! NO DOUBT Assad would give up if a bunch of goofy journalists shows up and starting seeing "we shall overcome" in unison.

It's the unison that matters, by the way. That's what really intimidates dictators.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, Isn't it amazing how nonsensical this is?

First, you have the world's worst argument for intervention -- people are dying and the country has neighbors! How in the world does that justify intervention?

Then they get all outragey and call us shameful for not fixing the problem.

Then they tell us their brilliant solution is to hope that SOMEONE comes along to SOMEHOW unite all the Syrians and that this show of unity SOMEHOW causes the dictator to see the error of his ways and step down... at which point he will be tried and hung.

Yeah, that makes sense.

This is classic liberal stupidity -- wring your hands about a problem that's none of your business and then scream "won't somebody do something?" Then propose a nonsense solution while simultaneously laying out the case to whine about anything anyone actually does.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed and trynamax, Daffy Duck is a vision of clarity and sanity compared to The Economist. What makes this worse, this was their lead article, meaning it went through many of their editors, i.e. this wasn't just one idiot over there. And yet this is what all that supposed brainpower produced -- and none of them realized, "hey, we haven't said anything here?"

AndrewPrice said...

Koshkat, LMAO! That's hilarious! Indeed, why should The Economist object to using Greeks as human shields? They claim that if enough people stand up to Assad, it will all somehow solve itself with a minimum of bloodshed. Let's test that theory.

AndrewPrice said...

Daffy my friend, you make great cartoons, but a foreign policy star you are not.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, Good thinking! Only right after we declare all out war on China, we should then all refuse to show up. Because if we had a war but nobody came, then maybe Assad will realize that violence is never the answer! :)

tryanmax said...

Reminder: Liberal Military Policy

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Yep, they've learned nothing.


Interesting, Obama has now sent drones into Syria, which means that there are special ops guys on the ground. So it will be interesting to see where this goes. I'm betting he's planning to use the military because he thinks he can win this one. Yet, he continues to ignore Iran?

tryanmax said...

But they're not wearing boots, right? That makes it okay.

Joe Biden said...

Daffy Duck is a close friend and personal advisor of mine. He is, simply put, a big f---ing deal. So watch what you Nazis say about him.

AndrewPrice said...

Right, just like how all the combat troops in Iraq weren't combat troops since Obama brought all of those guys home.

AndrewPrice said...

Well played Mr. Duck. Well played. With friends like Joe Biden calling you a big f**ing deal, you truly have arrived on the world stage!

AndrewPrice said...

Speaking of Joe Biden, this was always a personal favorite of mine: The Most Interesting Man In The Administration

T-Rav said...

Oh Lord. I was just joking with that sockpuppet, but then I saw this and I couldn't not post it. Link It's like I'm getting psychic powers or something.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Very nice! This administration truly is packed with idiots, isn't it? How in the world can you misspell Rhode Island? And how can so many people not catch it?

DUQ said...

Andrew, Didn't you say before that you get spam from Syria? What kind of spam?

Exiled Nigerian Prince said...

Those Syrians--they want to think they're spammers. They got nothin' on me.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, Yes. It's strange. We get all kinds of spam, but a few months back we started getting spam which was kind of cryptic:

"Did you hear about the dictator in Syria who is allied with Iran."

Then we started getting it from the other side: "I don't like what I am hearing from the terrorists in Syria, they want to help terrorists."

Good luck convincing anyone with internet spam.

We've also been getting anti-Israel comments from Egypt. I've been deleting those.

AndrewPrice said...

Dear President of Nigeria, I would like to discuss this further, please send me a bank account. :)


That, by the way, reminds of me of this (I'm Outta Here) and this (Technical Assistance) as long as we are going down memory lane

Ed said...

We really should not be going to war with Syria. Seriously, how many wars will this Idiot in Chief start? He's sent troops to "fight" pirates, he bombed Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya. Aren't there troops in some African country too? He's attacked more countries than all our other Presidents combined!

T-Rav said...

Hey Egyptians, how about you stop murdering Christians and raping "infidel" women, and then maybe someone will get back to you.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, Yeah, I can't disagree. Obama has been very quick to send in the troops.

The Africa mission is taking place in Uganda, Congo, South Sudan and the Central African Republic.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, As an aside, have you noticed that we always seem to be on the other side than the Christians in these countries? Imagine that.

BevfromNYC said...

Hey, I have an idea! They need a magic leader to unite them...why not send Obama to be their magic uniting leader! It might work if we send him to defend Assad since everything he does seems to work out wrong.

Oh, and about the Road Island debacle. Some professor said it was okay because it was only in print. If he had spelled it outloud like Dan Quayle did with "potatoe", then we would be free to ridicule and debase him and he could be a laughing stock. But since it was in print, it's okra, kos stuph habbens.

BevfromNYC said...

Oh, and it IS Bush's fault because his administration closed the embassy in Syria and, so when Obama ordered it opened again shortly after his inauguration, it has not not turned out so well. Bush should have told him that he shouldn't have done that...

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Now that is a brilliant plan! Obama IS magic! And he can solve anything. Why, his very presence will cause everyone to set down their guns and turn off their tanks and start singing! Assad himself will join the protests against himself! :)


Although, you are correct, he might do better "helping" the other side?

AndrewPrice said...

Good point about Bush. He failed to warn Obama about the dangers he faced!


Did you hear that jerk say the other day that he underestimated how bad things were when he took over? Give me a break. Take responsibility for something for once in your life dude!

T-Rav said...

I think it's funny that the article also tried to point out that Santorum misspelled the name of Bemidji, MN a few times in the past. They have to do both sides, I guess, but (Andrew's feelings about Rick as a person and a politician aside) Bemidji is a bit less well-known and easier to misspell than Rhode Freaking Island, it seems to me.

patti said...

I say let the libs go first. every time they have an asinine request of those around them, but doesn't actually involve themselves: make it a law that they go first. bet that would shut a bunch of idiot pieholes.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Don't get me started on Rick. He's doing untold damage to the conservative brand right now, undoing decades of attempts to make conservatives seem sane and drop the "woman hater" label. Grrrrr. But I'm trying very hard not to write about him.

(Also, Ron Paul has a great ad out today about Santorum, in which he points out that Rick has a truly liberal voting record AND voted to fund Planned Parenthood.)


That said, I can easily excuse the misspelling of obscure Bemidji in a single press release. It's impossible to excuse "Road Island," especially after it had to have been seen by an entire professional staff. So I'm not holding that against Rick.

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, I think that should be the law -- whatever stupid idea liberals comes up with should apply to them first and the rest of us can join them if we decide it's working out. :)

T-Rav said...

Andrew and patti, I don't know about that. If liberals had to abide by the laws they were pushing along with everyone else, they would never pass....oh. Ohhhhhh. I see.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, LOL! Yep!

It's a plan that is stunningly brilliant both in its 100% effectiveness and in its simplicity.

I'd say that within about six months of enacting such a law, liberals will pretty much stop trying to pass laws. :)

Ed said...

Andrew, You've been remarkably well restrained in your Santorum hate. :D

AndrewPrice said...

It's a struggle Ed. The Democrats are laughing themselves silly right now and with good reason.

Doc Whoa said...

John McCain says we should arm the rebels, but Obama's people say we shouldn't. They claim that this time they want "a lot clearer idea of who they are" before they start giving them weapons. Funny how we didn't worry about that in Libya.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, I saw that. Personally, I think getting involved is a mistake either way. I see no justification for it. But if we're going to get involved, then arm the good guys (whoever that is) and let them fight for themselves.

Unfortunately, we are likely to either arm the bad guys or commit to something like a bombing campaign for no reason other than Obama wanting to show the world he's a good guy.

Darth Vader's Publicist said...

No No No...

You can't give the rebels X wing Fighters. That will just lead to more space battles. What you need to do is giove all the rebels signs. That's right they can go down to the square in Coruscant and show their support for ending the empire. Then.. well the emporer will have a special message for them, lights from heaven or is that the blast cannos from the star cruisers...
We get those confused.....

Individualist said...

It's funny but we need to arm the rebels in Lybia and Syria and evidently would have in Egypt so that fundamentalists can take over the country....

Yet we have a green movement in Iran who want to fight the fundamentalists there and somehow the One ignores them.

Yet the same liberal complain about christian fundamentalists who want to say a pray in school.....

I am confusaid!!!

AndrewPrice said...

Dear Darth Vader's Publicist, Good point, we should not arm the rebels because that will just lead to more space battles. Perhaps we can organize a committee to meet with the Emperor and express our concerns?

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, It's stunning isn't it? And the gyrations they go through are amazing. They find a million ways to say that black is suddenly white and white black whenever they want to.

It almost seems like liberals are specifically looking to generate malicious policies, with the intent of helping whoever will do more damage to the west in each case?

Rebel Committee Member said...

That's right, Mr. Emporer we need for you to acknowledge the rights of separate species to get married and you should use green solar cells for your stormtroopers Walkers...

Ughk! ghkgkhgkhgka... I can't breath Unghhhh... *gasp*

Thud! [sound of body hitting the plastic floor of the palace}

AndrewPrice said...

Dear Rebel Committee Member, I agree. We should find a way to "green" the empire to prevent Galactic Climate Change. We should add solar panels to all blasters, make droids of recycled material, and make all Star Destroyers wind powered!

Post a Comment