Why does anyone use the term "shock and awe" unironically?
The term entered the American political lexicon in the 2003 Iraq War, when the Bush Administration launched a massive bombing attack on Baghdad in the initial days of the war. The idea was that the Iraqi leadership would be so shocked and awed by America's destructive power, they would quickly surrender or turn on Saddam Hussein, which would bring the war to a quick end.
Needless to say, that is not what happened. In other words, "shock and awe" was a failed strategy, the first of many in that particular war. So now are the Bushies, in their current incarnation as the Jeb Bushies, embracing the phrase now? Are they so unwilling to admit the last Bush administration had any faults that they don't remember that the events they evoke with "shock and awe" were a failure?
The term entered the American political lexicon in the 2003 Iraq War, when the Bush Administration launched a massive bombing attack on Baghdad in the initial days of the war. The idea was that the Iraqi leadership would be so shocked and awed by America's destructive power, they would quickly surrender or turn on Saddam Hussein, which would bring the war to a quick end.
Needless to say, that is not what happened. In other words, "shock and awe" was a failed strategy, the first of many in that particular war. So now are the Bushies, in their current incarnation as the Jeb Bushies, embracing the phrase now? Are they so unwilling to admit the last Bush administration had any faults that they don't remember that the events they evoke with "shock and awe" were a failure?
