I have reached the point, recently, where most political discussions simultaneously bore and frustrate me, with none of the enjoyment that I used to find (those that involve politicians, anyway — I still enjoy thinking and talking about the individual issues). As a result of this, I’ve cut back on reading many of my favorite blogs (even those I tend to agree with), but I haven’t quit entirely.

Peter David had a post yesterday, titled The Defintion [sic] of Insanity, that criticized Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq. I would argue with Peter’s point, but I think that the issue of the Iraqi Theater of the Global War on Terror is one that is so thickly polluted with the “personality politics” that annoys me so badly that I think it’s mostly better to ignore it.

Indeed, I wouldn’t have written about the post at all except that one commenter made a comment that I felt I needed to address (which is not to say that the rest of the thread is junk. Specifically, there are a pair of comments from January 11th, 2007, at 11:46 and 11:53, by Matt Adler and Michael D., that are worth reading).

The comment in question was posted by “Glass”:

Posted by: Glass at January 11, 2007 01:39 PM

Last night’s speech and this increase in troops is political and historical posturing. It really is. The problem in Iraq is so much more than if we can sweep an area and keep it free of insurgents, so much larger than training Iraqi troops. The US could train every single Iraqi to become part of the Iraqi army and police force, and still it would not matter. This is what our Adiministration fails to see. The hate these people have is so deep-seeded only an across the board ceasefire would work and that logically will never happen.

What Bush is doing is giving the appearance of the US doing everything it possibly can, the appearance he is doing everything he can. Last night was Bush placing the onus on the Iraqi government, and when the violence does not lessen and things get worse due to our escalation, Bush in November can say, “Well, we tried and the fault lies with the Iraqi government.” Then we’ll withdraw, with the appearance of doing all the US could to make it right. Or worse, he’ll propose another plan, the third of fourth of its kind in recent years. And yet, more deaths will occur this year for that posturing.

Liberals are fond of saying, “We never should have been in this mess to begin with.” But the fact is we are in it, and in it deep. But what Conservatives need to realize is nothing is going to help shy of moving our entire country there and taking up residence for decades. And that is not our role. In short, we reap what we sow, and Bush keeps sowing, sowing, sowing…

I think I have made clear here that I believe that Affirmative Action is an extremely racist and vile policy. I believe that it, in effect, says to the people it claims to help, “You are not good enough to get a job on your own, no matter how hard you work.” I do not believe that anyone who supports Affirmative Action is so stupid as to actually claim that’s actually what they believe, however.

Similarly, I think it is extremely offensive to say that the Iraqi people are incapable of having a stable democratic system of government. I think it’s a subtle, racist way of saying that the speaker believes that the Arabs in Iraq are somehow less evolved than us, that they’re not capable of having a civilized country. I would never have believed that anyone would actually say that outright, but that’s exactly what Glass has done.

At the end of the day, I worry that we may not be capable of helping the Iraqi people to build a functional democracy. I think that there are a lot of obstacles to overcome that will make the situation seem to get worse before it gets better, and I worry that, as a nation, we do not have the heart for that.