September 24, 2007
Jobbed by the Watchman!
I've never seen this before, but there was a tie in the Nouncil voting this time... and the Watcher in the Weirds broke the tie by giving his extra point to the one he liked best. Which would be perfectly fine, if it happened to someone else (with my narcissism, I probably wouldn't even have noticed). But it happened to me. Me!
Well, I mean it happened to the Nouncil nominee I nominated... and I'm still smarting. Ouch. Stupid voters; if just one more Council member had voted correctly, even as a second-place vote, there wouldn't have been a tie; and the Watcher's awesome powers would have been stymied.
The winner in the Council vote is... ah, who cares? I'm still steaming about the Nouncil vote.
All right, all right; contractual obligations and all that. The winner in the Council category was:
- Is War With Iran Now Just a Matter of Time?, by Right Wing Nut House.
Since I voted for this piece (not being allowed to vote for myself, which otherwise I would do every week, whether my post was good, bad, or ugly), I really can't kick about it winning. Still, I can't escape the feeling that the Watcher is somehow mocking me.
The piece is about -- exactly what its title proclaims. Therefore, I'll take the opportunity to blow my own harp instead. In an e-mail I sent to my very good friend and drinking buddy Scott Johnson, I quote from my very good friend and drinking buddy J.R.R. Tolkien:
In your post Tehran Calling, you quote Robert Trackinski:
The coming of the war with Iran has very little to do with our intentions and has everything to do with the enemy's intentions. Our only choice is how we will respond. Will we continue to evade the need to confront this threat--or will we finally begin to fight back?
I thought suddenly of a quotation from the Lord of the Rings. Theoden King, king of the Riders of Rohan, is worried about confronting the evil wizard Saruman. He speaks to Gandalf the Grey, the good wizard:
Theoden: I will not risk open war.
Gandalf: Open war is upon you whether you risk it or no.
We can sit here and say we'll not risk open war with Iran... but open war is upon us, whether we recognize it or not. It's a fine line; we're such a powerful country that we barely notice the pinpricks Iran inflicts upon us. But they are growing more desperate to gain our attention; and eventually, their "pinpricks" may turn to something much more serious. We daren't wait until that point (Bush's comment about the first indication being a mushroom cloud applies); but we cannot strike too soon, or we may lose critical allies in the war against global jihad.
But open war is upon us; and sooner or later, we shall have to strike. And when we do, then we must make it a death blow. As Machiavelli wrote, if you strike at the king you must slay him... which also applies to the clown, if the clown has a nuclear hand grenade. (50-foot throwing range, 5-mile blast radius -- why bother throwing it? Just stand nearby and pull the pin.)
So you see, it all ties together. "It's part of the lattice of coincidence that lies on top of everything." Scott's jocular response -- "who exactly are you, anyway, and where did you get this e-mail address?" -- only points out how much he appreciates my point.
Since we already spilled the beans about how we cast our number-one vote, you're probably equally fascinated to know who got number two:
- (See above)
- LA Times: "No Blood For Oil" Lackey, by Cheat Seeking Missiles.
The last discusses the L.A. Dog Trainer's interview with former Federal Reserve Board Chairman and Erstwhile Randroid Alan Greenspan... but you know all about it if you read Mr. Greenspan Regrets He's Unable to Bash Today. And if you didn't, then don't hold me accountable for lacunae in your education.
Here is where the real action occurred. This is the piece that required our esteemed leader to take the iron glove off the velvet hand and directly force its victory:
- Dead Eyes, by Acute Politics.
Here is what Mr. Watcher wrote about why he chose to intervene:
There was actually a tie in the non-council category this week... there were two very good posts about Iraq but Teflon Don's post about the weariness of war ultimately won me over.
Gaak. That was precisely the reason I did not vote for Dead Eyes: Its premise appears to be that everything is hopeless in Iraq, it's all a waste, so what's the use?
Here, our number-one vote, is the Iraq piece that should have won:
- Iraq the Model, by Hugh Hewitt (actually by Dean Barnett writing on Hugh Hewitt);
- "al Qaidastan" Rising, by ZenPundit.
The Barnett post -- named in homage of the best blog out of Iraq -- takes a look at the rapidly declining homicide rate in Iraq and sees therein proof of the effectiveness of the counterinsurgency strategy.
The ZenPundit post is a technical post about "Fourth Generation Warfare" that I found interesting and thought to bring to your attention. Consider yourself alerted.
The usual plug...
Read all about it here.
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, September 24, 2007, at the time of 3:42 PM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2454
The following hissed in response by: Fritz
Dafydd, for what it's worth, I think you should nominate Sachi's post, COIN-Op War, to the Watcher of Weasels for the next edition. It is a post that everyone should read and think about if they wish to try to understand Iraq and what is happening there. That is my cent's worth as I'm not sure I'm worth two cents.
The following hissed in response by: zenpundit
Much thanks for the link!
I agree, it was a technical post but much of my readership consists of the Nerds of War, so what can I do ? ;o)
The above hissed in response by: zenpundit at September 24, 2007 5:29 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved