In ancient times, a human or animal sacrifice was deemed necessary to wash away the sins of the people, to atone for any grievance that may have offended the gods (ooops, GOD). Catastrophes of any kind, including a defeat in battle, was always seen as a sign of the gods’ (ooops, GOD’s) wrath, which required a solemn ritual in which the blood of an innocent (and one deemed sufficiently pure) must be spilled. Only after a proper sacrifice would the gods (oops, GOD) restore his (her or their?) favor to the people.
Today we know longer sacrifice animals to propitiate the gods. We are a Christian (oops, Judeo-Christian) nation, as any Republican worth his or her salt will tell you. We slaughter animals for food, not to appease the gods (ooops, THE LORD). The preferred sacrifice these days (at least when a Republican President is in power) when “mistakes have been made” in war time is a General:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain on Sunday said he might vote against Gen. George W. Casey’s nomination as Army chief of staff, saying he had “serious concerns” about the man who has overseen the Iraq war since 2004. […]
“I’m concerned about failed leadership, the message that sends to the rest of the military,” he added. […]
Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, told CNN’s “Late Edition” that he thought Casey would be confirmed by the Senate, but Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said Casey will face tough scrutiny.
“General Casey will be held to account for the advice he’s given in the past, for the strategy he proposed in the past. And we’ll have to make a decision as a Congress what’s the best thing for General Petraeus and this new strategy,” Graham said on CNN.
Failed leadership? I thought General Casey did everything President Bush asked of him in his time as Commander in Iraq. How then did he fail? Oh, wait — you must mean this, right Senators McCain and Graham?
(cont.)
Today, Gen. George Casey, U.S. commander in Baghdad, is in hot water with proponents of a “surge” because he believes what he told The New York Times: “The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq’s security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq’s problems, which are at base their problems.”
I can see where giving the President advice that contradicts what he wants to do, advice which accurately reflects the situation in Iraq, would be considered failed leadership. After all, President Bush cannot fail, will not fail, has never failed. Failure is not an option for a Republican Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, someone else must accept the blame.
Someone in the military, preferably. Civilian politicians, as we well know can only be blamed if the wear the Democratic label, and unfortunately, none of them has made any of the decisions regarding Iraq since their first one in granting Bush the authority to liberate the Iraqi people from the evildoer, Saddam Osama bin Hussein and his terrorist minions. Sadly, too many Republican politicians joined them in that action, to make them a valid sacrifice. Even the people of our Great Nation recognized this fact, last November, when they voted Democrats into complete control of Congress for the first time in many a moon.
The troops cannot be blamed of course, they can only be supported, primarily with magnetic yellow beribboned bumper stickers (or, if you prefer, in the optional tri-colored striped arrangement of Red, White & Blue). So that leaves it to the Generals, and since General Casey is being forced out stepping down from his proconsular authority in Iraq, he makes the perfect victim.
Good luck and Godspeed, General Casey. A grateful nation thanks you for your service sacrifice.
