 |
August 31, 2006Unity, Then and Now“People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election.” --Otto von Bismark Time constraints have prevented me from analyzing Donald Rumsfeld's dishonest and repulsive speech (I use these words very advisedly) to the American Legion, but the above quote came to mind while perusing it. Detailed analysis to follow as soon as time allows, but in the meantime, and aside from Rumsfeld's transparent demagoguery, I did want to quote this snippet, and juxtapose it with somewhat similar quotes, Rumsfeld: "It seems that in some quarters there's more of a focus on dividing our country than acting with unity against the gathering threats." Unity is an interesting word. It immediately brought to mind Adolf Hitler's February 1933 Berlin Proclamation to the Nation, where he stressed the importance of "unity" no fewer than six times: 1) "With profound distress millions of the best German men and women from all walks of life have seen the unity of the nation vanishing away, dissolving in a confusion of political and personal opinions... (ed. note: "Confusion" is another word both Hitler and Rumsfeld employed liberally, Rumsfeld twice, including this snippet: "And that is important in any long struggle or long war, where any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong, can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.") 2)" ...Germany has presented a picture of heartbreaking disunity..." 3) "We never received the equality and fraternity we had been promised, and we lost our liberty to boot. For when our nation lost its political place in the world, it soon lost its unity of spirit and will.... " 4) "He called to those of us in nationalist parties and leagues to struggle under him once more, in unity and loyalty, for the salvation of the German nation." 5) "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation" 6) "Reichspräsident von Hindenburg has called upon us to bring about the revival of the German nation. Unity is our tool. Therefore we now appeal to the German people to support this reconciliation." [my emphasis throughout] The point here isn't that Rumsfeld is some Hitler redux, of course. But Rumsfeld's rhetorical tactics of late, it should be noted, are not infrequently rather similar to the Fuhrer's, and this bears noting, I'd think. Especially for someone who tries to wear the mantle of Churchill and who throws the word fascism around so liberally, Rumsfeld might instead take a good, hard look in the mirror, as the relevant historical analogue(s) might not be quite as flattering as he'd wish. Regardless, and analyses of political leader's rhetorical tactics aside, what is quite clear is that as election season kicks into gear, Bush has instructed his two old attack dogs (Rumsfeld and Cheney) to go out, dish some dirt, and play hardball. But this is not devilishly effective Lee Atwater style fare, delivered with calculated punch and resulting in tangible electoral advantage. Rather, it smells like damaged goods, smacks of desperation, and is nakedly divisive fare despite disingenuously masquerading as a call for unity. Indeed, as the failure of the Bush Administration's war strategy becomes more and more evident to all but the most hardened denialists, as their desperation and incompetence becomes more evident to the American public, as their Middle East policy increasingly lies in tatters, and as they continue to erroneously attempt to conjoin things like the London terror plot with Iraq, without admitting the need for urgent re-appraisal of our overall strategy in the war on terror (they are incapable and/or too exhausted to make significant course corrections)--the rhetoric is beginning to border on dangerously reckless, and I trust the American people to reject this growing demagogy, and vote the Democrats in in November (at least in the House). I take no particular joy in this, as I think the Democrats have distinguished themselves by what I've called their ferocious lameness too often, but I cannot support a party that continues to allow a man this discredited a platform to propagate such gross dissembling, not to mention continues to allow him to prosecute a war where he has failed so dismally to achieve our nation's most basic strategic objectives. To be sure, Bush will doubtless give a more centrist, 'statesmanlike' speech in the next days. But let us not be fooled. Bush has proven an incompetent, and he has two reckless, even dangerous men advising him in Rumsfeld and Cheney who, rather than disappearing into the early retirement both so richly deserve, are instead being given free rein to engage in the quite disgusting revisionism, cheap historical hyperbole, and demagoguery we've witnessed with the American Legion speech. Bush supports them in this, and so is totally complicit. Enough is enough. The only message these arrogant, discredited men will understand is a blistering one of rejection sent through the ballot-box. Let's try to give it to them, big time, as they say. MORE: The FT editorializes: It may be unfashionable to acknowledge this, but Mr Rumsfeld is making one valid and important point. There should be no moral confusion about who is responsible for the heartbreaking violence in Iraq. It is not the American army that is planting car bombs in markets. Some of the most ardent critics of the Iraq war are in danger of almost welcoming further bad news as an opportunity to say "I told you so". They should recognise that it is still overwhelmingly in the interests of those who want a freer and more peaceful Middle East that the Americans and their allies succeed in stabilising Iraq. Color me deeply unconvinced any "honest analysis" will be forthcoming. Posted by Gregory at August 31, 2006 05:30 AMComments
I wait with bated breath for your detailed analysis of the speech... Naturally, I would have preferred that you identified in *this* post the parts of the speech that you find "dishonest and repulsive". But apparently, the task of breathlessly linking Rumsfeld and Hitler based on the oh-so-telling shibboleth "unity" was of such urgent importance that you couldn't spare the time to present an actual analysis or argument. It's especially odd that you gratuitously invoke Hitler in a post criticizing Rumsfeld's "demagoguery". Your BDS is worsening. This saddens me. Though I often disagree with you, I have in the past found your perspective interesting. Alas, this happens less and less frequently. Based on your increasingly intemperate (and unpersuasive) writing, frankly, I'm concerned for your health, and I hope you are much calmer in person than the seething persona you present here. James Posted by: James at August 31, 2006 07:40 AM | Permalink to this comment
As has been pointed out to me very recently, it would appear that the phrase "Bush Derangement Syndrome" has ceased to mean "people who instinctively reject everything Bush says out of personal hatred for the man". Its definition now seems to be "failure to line up like good Americans behind every inane statement emanating from the administration." As for the gratuitous invocation of Hitler, I think it's time to call shenanigans on Godwin's Law - the right wing have been fluffing each other with sexy talk about Islamic Fascism and new Middle Eastern Hitlers for so long I can't remember a time when they talked about anything else. Posted by: Flying Rodent at August 31, 2006 08:33 AM | Permalink to this comment
I'm with James. I really am eager to read your comments. Fred Kaplan at Slate didn't like the speech, but tended to focus on purely policy "questions" Rumsfeld raised. But there were political hits embedded in his speech, and quite hard ones at that. Posted by: Quiddity at August 31, 2006 09:29 AM | Permalink to this comment
I find it hard to imagine what the US might do if it had a leader who was not a cowardly moron led by Nixon-era thieves -- it is becoming unfathomable what it might be like if there was any intelligence in the Administration. I have become used to inept corrupt blundering, and am losing my ability to imagine anything else. Posted by: j doe at August 31, 2006 09:33 AM | Permalink to this comment
Your BDS is worsening. This saddens me. Though I often disagree with you, I have in the past found your perspective interesting. Alas, this happens less and less frequently. Based on your increasingly intemperate (and unpersuasive) writing, frankly, I'm concerned for your health, and I hope you are much calmer in person than the seething persona you present here. Physician, heal thyself. Rather than be concerned with Greg's health, perhaps you should be asking yourself why someone like Greg -- someone who a few short years ago was as critical of opponents of Bush and his cronies as you are -- has begun to sound like a Daily Kos diarist. Hint... its not because Greg is sufferning from "Bush derangement syndrome".... Posted by: p.lukasiak at August 31, 2006 01:34 PM | Permalink to this comment
James and Quiddity=Denialists. Don't like it? Go on over to LGF (I'm sure you do already). Posted by: v at August 31, 2006 01:46 PM | Permalink to this comment
Premature? Alas, both Cheney and Rumsfeld are both well over retirement age. There would be nothing premature in their stepping down. Posted by: JAG at August 31, 2006 02:14 PM | Permalink to this comment
The last few years have conclusively demonstrated that there is only one thing that deserves to be called "Bush Derangement Syndrome". And that is the deranged and deluded state of anyone who thinks that the Bush administration is competent, honest, or trustworthy. I'm very glad that Djerejian has overcome his earlier case of BDS. Don't worry, James, you'll get over yours, too. All it takes is a steady look at the facts. Turning off Fox News helps, too. Posted by: kid bitzer at August 31, 2006 02:21 PM | Permalink to this comment
jag: i often take the liberty of making very slight edits in posts i've put up in haste. before reading your comment, i had replaced "premature" with "early". just in case anyone is confused by your comment. yours, (in good health!) greg Posted by: greg at August 31, 2006 02:23 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg, You say: I take no particular joy in this, as I think the Democrats have distinguished themselves by what I've called their ferocious lameness too often, but I cannot support a party that continues to allow a man this discredited a platform to propagate such gross dissembling, not to mention continues to allow him to prosecute a war where he has failed so dismally to achieve our nation's most basic strategic objectives. I wonder if you've bought into the Republican rhetoric that Democrats are soft on terror, and such. That lie has been pressed so hard by Republicans and their cronies in the media, that I believe most Americans think Democrats all voted against the War in Afghanistan, where the REAL war on terror is supposed to be. However, Barney Frank in an op-ed in the Boston Globe shows that Democrats indeed are strong on terror, and would actually do a fine job. One of the critiques of Kerry during the 2004 elections is that he was too much of an internationalist, yet in 2005 and earlier in 2006 Bush used Kerry's internationalist strategies himself to fight terror. It is disingenous of Republicans to claim Democrats are not strong on terror and then use Democratic strategies to fight terror. Moreover, since Bush has come to power, and since 9/11, what Democrats have been in a position of authority to execute any portion of the "war on terror?" I challenge you to name one. Can't think of any? That's because Republicans are in control of all three branches of the government right now, and all parts of the execution of the war on terror is on their watch. All failures are at the hands of Republicans. Do not believe Rove's lie, Mr. Djerejian. He is a charlatan. Any word that comes out of his mouth is politically calculated to make his man look good and his opponent to look bad. He is evil. He is not looking out for the best interests of America, but the best interests of his boss. Give Democrats a chance to prove themselves. And for those who bring up the past, and claim that if Clinton had done his job, we wouldn't be in this mess, I would point out that Reagan cut and ran when Hezbollah killed 241 Marines in Beirut. Was that being 'strong on terror?' Posted by: Dan at August 31, 2006 02:50 PM | Permalink to this comment
The fact that Mr. Djerejian is "sounding like a Daily Kos diarist" is a problem in itself, regardless of whether he is justified. Belgravia Dispatch was a place where you could find analysis and commentary -- now it is heavy on invective and light on detail. Not all the time, but enough. I take Mr. Djerejian's invective seriously because I know that he is informed; but hearing it does not serve to inform me. He is certainly challenging the conventional wisdom about marriage making people settle down and become more conservative, though. Posted by: sammler at August 31, 2006 04:11 PM | Permalink to this comment
May I be the first to say: Shrill. Good on yer. Posted by: Jim Henley at August 31, 2006 04:29 PM | Permalink to this comment
FT: "critics of the Iraq war are in danger of almost welcoming further bad news as an opportunity to say "I told you so"." those of us with (CRDDS - current R dominance DS, a subset of those with BSD), are in a double bind. obviously, as civilized people who wish only the best for all, we want good news: an early end to the carnage, all coalition troops home, a free, stable, and prosperous iraq, etc. on the other hand, some truly fear (IMO, legitimately) that continued R dominance of the government would be disastrous and therefore don't want the news in the next two months to be too good. no rational person could "welcome further bad news" for its ego enhancing value. but anyone failing to recognize the inescapable dilemma just described has fallen into a psycho-babble version of the RNC "opposition is treason" trap of which rumsfeld's remarks are another example. Posted by: ctw at August 31, 2006 04:32 PM | Permalink to this comment
A few replies to various commenters... Flying Rodent: BDS was originally defined by Charles Krauthammer as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush" Disagreeing with Bush is NOT a symptom of BDS. Becoming incoherent while doing so is. I *like* that BD disagrees with Bush. It provides a forum for me to read about alternative policies. I dislike, however, that BD increasingly "sounds like a Kos diarist". Sadly, I think "paranoid" is an increasinly apt adjective for BD's recent posts. "King George", Rumsfeld=Hitler, etc... Give me a break. Also, (and this is a nit), I suspect Godwin's law is slightly different than you think (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law). It is, apparently, a statement of probablility that Hitler will be invoked and is silent about whether or when he should be.
Huh? Are my comments intemperate? I suggest you get a new retort generator, one that's more context sensitive.
I'm awed by your profound argument. I don't think I'm in denial. BD is clearly right that Baghdad is not a pleasant place right now. I simply remain unpersuaded by BD's exhortations to apply tens or hundreds of thousands of troops that we do NOT have or having the French (or other "adults") negotiate additional vacant and/or perfidious aggreements on our behalf. James Posted by: James at August 31, 2006 04:55 PM | Permalink to this comment
"I take Mr. Djerejian's invective seriously ... but hearing it does not serve to inform me." "He is certainly challenging the conventional wisdom about marriage making people ... more conservative" while appreciating that the second quote was in jest, it does suggest that there's still some "inform[ing]" that you might gain from a closer reading of mr D's (and many others') "invective", viz, that one's commitment to being"conservative" has nothing at all to do with criticism of the current R leadership. IMO, true conservatives should welcome decisive D victories in '06 and '08 followed by a complete overhaul of the R party and partial (to achieve divided government) victories in '10 and '12. disclosure: I'm not a R, so this suggestion could well be a ploy to help sabotage the Rs; OTOH, neither am I a D. Posted by: ctw at August 31, 2006 04:57 PM | Permalink to this comment
james writes: "I simply remain unpersuaded by BD's exhortations to apply tens or hundreds of thousands of troops that we do NOT have or having the French (or other "adults") negotiate additional vacant and/or perfidious aggreements on our behalf." Well, then, if Bush isn't going to muster then manpower, I guess we lose to Hitler, right? Isn't that what you're saying? Especially since the "Islamofascists" aren't based in Tehran and working under Ahmedinejad's orders, so nuking Iran won't do much to help. Posted by: Jon H at August 31, 2006 05:10 PM | Permalink to this comment
James, "Baghdad is not a pleasant place right now"? Yeah, no denial there. Atlanta in August is not a "pleasant place". OTOH, it's a dry heat in Baghdad. Maybe Atlanta IS less pleasant then. Posted by: flitter at August 31, 2006 05:33 PM | Permalink to this comment
James, you are obviously suffering from Bush Denial Complex. Somehow you haven't noticed how awful his lack of policy is working out.Somehow, even after Katrina, you haven't noticed how incompetently the government is being run. Of course you don't think you're in denial. When have you ever heard about somebody in denial who thought they were in denial? I think your criticism of Greg's suggestion should be fleshed out some more. You say we don't have the troops to send more to iraq. This is silly. The way we're doing it, our troops spend less than 1/3 of their time in iraq. They come home and spend as long as they were over there resting, and then as long as they were over there training. Did we do that in WWII? Did we ship our troops home for 2 years after every year they spent europe? Hell no. If we needed to we could easily and quickly put 3 times the troops in iraq and leave them there as long as necessary. The troops wouldn't like it. But they'd put up with it for victory. The trouble is, that wouldn't do much toward victory and the troops know it. Continuing right along, it takes a long time to train recruits. We could easily send them over with much shorter training, and then we'd have more troops available. We did that in WWII. If it's vitally important to get a victory in iraq, we could have a draft and get as many troops as necessary. There's a whole lot of unemployment and underemployment in the USA, it wouldn't cause a labor shortage at all. Bush says it's vitally important but he doesn't do anything. Don't argue that we can't get more troops. The better argument is that more troops wouldn't be any use. That's what Rumsfeld has said. He said if we sent in more troops they'd only be more targets. Imagine if we'd used that approach in WWII. "No, we don't need any more troops in france, if we had more troops they'd only be more targets for the german army." Whew! See, Bush is like an executive with a poorly-performing subsidiary. It's a loser, but if he sells it off the stockholders will blame him for buying it in the first place. So he keeps it and absorbs the losses and he tells the stockholders he's about to turn it around. And you're in denial, you want to believe he *will* turn it around. But it would cost too much to actually try for a turnaround that likely wouldn't work anyway, easier to just let it slide and talk about how it's about to get better. That's the kind of executive he is.
Actually, Greg, at this point Rumsfeld and company remind me not so much of Hitler as of the Wizard of Oz: "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" The only real difference is that the Wizard insisted he was at least a very good man, a claim that Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld would have difficulty making with a straight face. That being said, did you catch William Arkin's Washington Post column yesterday calling Rummy "crazy" and "a menace to America" who might well attempt to pull off a dictatorial coup d'etat if he thought the military would back him up (which they won't)? http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/08/rumsfelds_declaration_of_war_o.html Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at August 31, 2006 05:41 PM | Permalink to this comment
Just tell us Greg - knowing what you know now - should we have not gone in and toppled Saddam Please - no "with a better plan" evasions ( a plan you won't supply or if you do it will be based upon fantasies like a dozen French and Chinese divisions in the wan ) Just answer the question I'd like to see how deep your concern for the people of Iraq is today Posted by: Pogue Mahone at August 31, 2006 06:37 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg: I wonder if you've had a chance to review Olbermann's Murrow-esque speech (and yes, it is a speech) from last night, and what your thoughts are on it? The full text is available on Olbermann's blog. Posted by: Sam at August 31, 2006 07:10 PM | Permalink to this comment
Interesting points. Do these attack dogs have any credibility left? Posted by: Chris at August 31, 2006 07:16 PM | Permalink to this comment
I'd like to see how deep your concern for the people of Iraq is today The people of Iraq? You mean the ones who are murdered left and right today at such a highly disproportionate rate to make life under Saddam be heaven? 3400 Iraqis were killed in July 2006. That's in a country of 20 million. As a comparison, there are nearly 300 million people in America. Imagine that 42,000 Americans died in July of violent deaths. Now compare that to the crime statistics which showed 16,000 homicides in the entire United States in 2003. That's 16,000 for the whole year, compared to 42,000 in one month. That's how violent Iraq is right now. As we know, 42,000 times 12 is nearly half a million. Can you imagine half a million Americans dying in one year? In the entire Civil War back in the 1860s, 600,000 Americans died. Iraq's death rate is on a much higher scale proportionally speaking. Do you have any concern for the safety of the Iraqi people today? If so, why do you back Bush and Rumsfeld's failed plans? Posted by: Dan at August 31, 2006 07:28 PM | Permalink to this comment
I can't speak for Greg, but my own answer to Pogue's question upthread would be "in 1991, clearly yes; in 2003, clearly no." And I am not nearly so concerned about the future of Iraqis as I am with American interests. For what it is worth, I held a different view in 2003, almost entirely because I was too credulous of the assumptions about the state of Iraq's WMD programs. I did liken the idea of building a liberal democracy in Iraq to trying to build a skyscraper in a swamp, if that matters, but I will not claim to have had more well-formed ideas about what to do after eliminating the WMD threat than the administration did. The point is that right now -- and for the forseeable future as far as the administration and a disturbing number of its critics are concerned -- we have a foreign policy dominated by a massive effort with high odds against success to create in one, mid-sized Arab country a system of government that has never existed there before. This is absurd, and directly contrary to American interests in the region and generally. Per commenters James and sammler upthread I have to say I agree that comparisons between Sec. Rumsfeld and Adolf Hitler, however qualified, are better left unmade. Just as a matter of rhetorical emphasis, once you've compared someone with whose actions or public statements you disagree to Hitler where do you go? If you make that comparison and he's still around in two months, with whom do you compare Rumsfeld then? Could it be, maybe, oh I don't know....SATAN? Posted by: Zathras at August 31, 2006 07:45 PM | Permalink to this comment
No, you just keep pointing out that some of his rhetoric bears a genuine resemblance to Hitler's. After all, it took a lot longer than two months to get rid of Hitler... Actually, though, we could take a break from this by making other valid comparisons -- such as the Wizard of Oz (as I mentioned above), or (my personal favorite) Cornelius Fudge, the incompetent head of the Ministry of Magic in the Harry Potter books who homes in obsessively on the wrong enemy and then uses one political dirty trick after another to force the rest of the wizards to go along with him. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at August 31, 2006 08:06 PM | Permalink to this comment
And, by the way, isn't it time we stopped the crap about most of the opponents of the Iraq War being in favor of "surrendering to the terrorists? All but one member of Congress voted for the Afghanistan War. There was overwhelming support for it in the polls of American liberals, and that support has not weakened. As for the serious queasiness of a lot of Democrats about getting entangled militarily in Iran: well, that's shared by those two notorious pinkos William F. Buckley and George Will. I'm not sure I'm not actually to the Right of those two gents on this particular issue; but I will agree enthusiastically that we need to try some diplomatic/economic pressure before we move on to the military type, and that even military action should be accompanied by offers of a truce that might be acceptable to both parties (such as a non-aggression pledge by the US against a non-nuclear Iran, or a public offer to let Iran acquire the Bomb after -- and only after -- it becomes a stable and non-aggressive democracy). Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at August 31, 2006 08:23 PM | Permalink to this comment
More and more commentators from the center and center-right are becoming fed up with the toxic combination of mendacity and incompetence that the Bush administration calls policy. Rather than flog BD from the left and right, Greg D should be applauded for his clear sightedness. Don't blame the messenger, blame the message. Posted by: Tom S at August 31, 2006 08:48 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Your BDS is worsening. This saddens me. Though I often disagree with you, I have in the past found your perspective interesting. Alas, this happens less and less frequently. Based on your increasingly intemperate (and unpersuasive) writing, frankly, I'm concerned for your health, and I hope you are much calmer in person than the seething persona you present here." Let's see. Hitler used the word "unity," and he was bad. Rumsfeld also uses the word "unity," so he must be bad, too. Does seem like a bit of a stretch, doesn't it? No sense being defeatist about BD, though. Maybe Gregory just needs to adjust his meds. Then, again, this one is really weird. D'ya think BD could all just be a big psychology experiment, designed to plumb the depths of human credulity? Maybe our 15 minutes of fame will be as subject A and subject B on the pages of "Psychology Today." Posted by: Helian at August 31, 2006 10:13 PM | Permalink to this comment
Well the heretic is hated more than the heathen once again. Do any of you keepers of the faith have anything to say in support of Rumsfeld rather than castigating BD for going all wobbly? Today Bush called the security situation in Bagdhad a "crisis." How it got to be a crisis in light of three straight years of all the "good news from Iraq ignored by the MSM" remains a mystery. Since "as they stand up/ we stand down" also needs a little reworking-as it's now they get mowed down/we stand around. So what's the new plan? Geniuses.
Sooner or later, you have to take these people and the facts at face value.
Lets get back on track! The Bush Adminsitration has failed in every particular. It is hard to know which is the dominant impulse in the administration: incompetance, arrogance, corruption, unaccountability and so on. The war in Iraq was begun under a false premise of WMD's, later bolstered by a ludicrous claim of democratization. This war isn't winnable, and it has never has been. It is not a matter of 'will' it is a matter of human behavior. There is not one modern example of non westerners welcoming a western occupation, or of a successful occupation. And that is not surprising, no one wants foreign occupation troops, ever. If I had a plumber work on my house, and he left the plumbing in worse shape than ever, and my basement flooded, no one would blame the water. It is only in politics where we get cause and effect so screwed up. Bush is a failure; to doggedly support his failure is stupid and disloyal to the country. Posted by: Tom at August 31, 2006 10:53 PM | Permalink to this comment
If you think this is a bit of a stretch, it's because it's hard to analyze and respond to Rumsfeld's outlandish talking points without becoming utterly shrill. It's difficult to criticize the magnitude of failure with a calm voice that says "it would be so much better if..." Really, here's the abbreviated talking points with -- oh dear, shrill! -- responses: "Can we believe that this is all a law enforcement job?" "Can you show me a violent murderous terrorist who got to where they were a serious threat with legal passports, visas, firearm registration, driver registration, pilot's license, et al?" "Can we negotiate for peace with terrorists?" "Can you show me anybody that will actually say they want to do that? And can we negotiate for peace with North Korea and Iran without having our full military capacity at the ready?" "Can we afford to appease them?" "Can we afford to continue dumping $8B+ into a single front of a global war with no timeline for completion?" "Amnesty international doesn't like Gitmo which is arguably our best facility!" "Yes sir, they're the ones arguing that point." "CNN conceals evidence to slant their reports!" "And we knew where exactly *what* was in Iraq, sir?" "Newsweek says we're mecenaries!" "Well, folks who sign up for military duty are very likely to collect paychecks while serving and protect Iraqi citizens and help and train the Iraqi army... which does fit the 'a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army' definition of the word pretty closely, sir." "Our first hero is ignored while our scum are touted by the media!" "Our hero was awarded that medal by an unpopular president two years after he was killed in action earning it. Our hero is dead, sir, just like the terrorists want him to be. But... does that qualify as trying to appease the terrorists?" Posted by: Jmiller at August 31, 2006 11:16 PM | Permalink to this comment
To paraphrase Sinclair, it's diffuclt to convince a man to see the truth, when his ego depends on him not knowing it. Anyone with any passing knowledge of that area would have know this was a futile exercise from the get go. Bush today said we're in an epic struggle. If the threat is so epic/great/dangerous, why is the sacrifice not commensurate? I'd like to hear that from the Bush defenders. If we accept the premise that this is something we have to do, why has the nation not been asked to bear some burden? Bush4ever Posted by: Bush Rules at August 31, 2006 11:40 PM | Permalink to this comment
Bush4ever: We have not been asked to bear any burden, because their is not GWoT. There are a variety of struggles over land that are being lumped together. Commercial and ideological interests are driving these conflicts. Posted by: Tom Perry at September 1, 2006 12:09 AM | Permalink to this comment
"Can we negotiate for peace with terrorists?" Worked with the IRA. Posted by: Jon H at September 1, 2006 01:11 AM | Permalink to this comment
Rumsfeld's Salt Lake City speech is important and revealing in many ways. Historically, in times of crisis, the position of secretary of defense and its predecessor posts have been carefully kept above the political fray – a step important to maintaining national consensus with respect to the actual conduct of war. Having a secretary of defense who is simultaneously the most fractious and arguably the most partisan figure in the cabinet breaks with an old and very wise tradition and suggests that for this administration partisan politics is given a higher place than national security. But the language of the speech itself is deeply disturbing. The themes of unity in the face of adversity, of silent obedience to leadership in a struggle against a foreign enemy, of a new morality which places a premium on this leadership concept and the security it promises – these themes indeed resonate very strongly of 1933. You cite a Hitler proclamation, but I immediately thought of the final passages of Martin Heidegger's Rektoratsrede given at the University of Freiburg in May 1933, which Rumsfeld's language echoes in the eeriest way. Just exactly what is going on here? A speech summoning to nationality unity and resolve in a struggle against a "new type of fascism" that then intones each of the major images of fascist thought?! This is so preposterous as to defy belief. It's as if Rumsfeld were being set up for massive public ridicule. Whoever wrote this speech must be a saboteur intent on taking Rumsfeld down. And Rumsfeld himself appears almost witless. Yes, just hearing Rumsfeld speak made me fear for our country's security. Primarily because he is at the helm of the greatest military force in human history, and he seems intent on smashing it to bits. It's enough to make me doubt the Founding Father's wisdom in providing for civilian control of the military. Surely this military would be much better off without its civilian leaders.
What follows is an accurate chronology of United States involvement in the arming of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war 1980-88. It is a powerful indictment of the president Bush administration attempt to sell war as a component of his war on terrorism. It reveals US ambitions in Iraq to be just another chapter in the attempt to regain a foothold in the Mideast following the fall of the Shah of Iran. From
From: ------------------------------- Ah yes, America's famous love for Middle Easterners. Posted by: NeoDude at September 1, 2006 01:23 AM | Permalink to this comment
What ever happened to Bin Laden and the Saudis and Pakistanis who financed the attacks on 9-11? Bush sure did a fine job distracting you all with Iraqis and Persians.
Unity can be good or bad. Yes a united nation following the right strategy to combat a threat is powerful. But a nation united in a wrong strategy is a sure recipe for disaster. Posted by: vanguardia at September 1, 2006 02:08 AM | Permalink to this comment
Really, I think you need to actually read the speech, and think about it yourself carefully. Ignore the pudits, and the chattering classes' comments. What does the speech itself say? What facts can you marshall to refute or support the speech? Opinion, after all, is dross, to be discarded in tommorrow's ash bin. Only the facts will persist. Dr. Coambs Posted by: Dr. Coambs at September 1, 2006 03:26 AM | Permalink to this comment
"There should be no moral confusion about who is responsible for the heartbreaking violence in Iraq. It is not the American army that is planting car bombs in markets." The error that the Financial Times makes here is to assume that moral responsibility is a zero-sum quantity. That's wrong. Suppose that a friend borrows your car, and parks it without taking the time to lock the doors and turn on the burglar alarm. If the car is stolen, both your friend and the person who stole the car are both at fault. Your friend is responsible for his actions (failing to protect the car against theft), and the thief is responsible for his actions (stealing the car). Saying that the thief is responsible for the theft of the car doesn't make your friend any less responsible, and vice versa. The only moral confusion I see here is on the part of the Financial Times. The insurgents are responsible for the consequences of their actions. That doesn't change the fact that Bush and Rumsfeld are responsible for the consequences of their actions.
A little nugget of "moral confusion," the U.S. Army has a street gang problem: http://www.komo4.com/stories/45247.htm This is a follow-up story...four of these guys got caught trying to rob a bank near their base last week...sigh. Posted by: monkyboy at September 1, 2006 06:53 AM | Permalink to this comment
"What facts can you marshall to refute or support the speech?" OK, I'll play. let's assume that after wading thru all the rah, rah team acolades to the AL that the don bulleted what he thought were the substantive points - if you will, facts - and see what he's got: - With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased? it's unclear who the don thinks are the "vicious extremists" (VE) and what he means by "appeased". to start, let's assume that the former means al qaeda. OK, we routed them out of afghanistan with almost unanimous support both at home and abroad. there has been an international effort to break their cells using infiltration, economic disruption, and legal electronic surveillance with little objection from anyone. when some electronic surveillance was found to be needlessly illegal, there was an outcry by civil libertarians who think it's good to follow the law. exactly what part of this constitutes appeasement? the don doesn't say. or maybe VE means iraq. with bipartisan support, we invaded the country despite there being no WMD, no proven connection with al qaeda, no imminent threat to the US, no connection to 9/11. now that it's unequivocal that the admin totally botched the aftermath, there is growing bipartisan criticism. again, what part of this is appeasing whom? the don doesn't say. or is VE iran and syria? rational people understand that additional land wars are completely infeasible. is that appeasement? or is it unwillingness to obliterate whole countries using nuclear weapons? the don doesn't say. - Can folks [don't you just love this down-home touch?] really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists? who is suggesting negotiating peace with what terrorists? certainly not al qaeda. iran? the don doesn't say. who is suggesting that terrorists are like bank robbers or car thieves? who is so idiotic as to think that the methods appropriate to dealing with the latter also apply to the former? the don doesn't say. - And can we really afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, but America, is the source of the world's troubles? ah, this at least points to someone identifiable: the person who thinks that maybe, just maybe that since almost any knowledgable foreign policy thinker recognizes that some US actions have had adverse consequences in the ME, there might be a basis other than "they hate us for our freedoms" (which, in a much more subtle way that is conveyed by that ham-handed phrase, is somewhat true) for upset among the peoples of the ME. so, the "destructive view" is acknowledging the role of history in a people's attitudes. ie, he means me - I stand unmasked by the don! notice the pattern here. the don ascribes a sometimes ill-defined posture vis-a-vis an ill-defined enemy by unnamed groups. where are the facts to be "refuted or supported"? fortunately, the second set of bullets can be easily and quickly dispatched en masse. their paradigm is: take an isolated factoid (eg, more news articles about bad guys than good guys) and draw a ludicrous conclusion (a media intent on "dividing our country" using "myths and distortions"). the don fails to consider that perhaps the good guy being awarded a medal is simply less newsworthy than the bad guy's unspecified "misconduct" (abusing prisoners? raping and murdering a teenage girl? AWOL? conveniently, the don doesn't say). this is more appropriate to ann coulter than to the US secdef. the speech was pure politics; there were no facts. one who can't see that is either hopelessly partisan, wilfully ignorant, or IQ-challenged. - "BA/BS/MA/PhD/1L" ctw (everybody's got credentials these days, doc) Posted by: ctw at September 1, 2006 06:58 AM | Permalink to this comment
Note in particular Rummy's quite deliberate confusion of the two different senses of "wrong": anyone who says that this administration's particular military/political strategy is wrong must therefore be saying that the very cause of resisting Islamofascism is wrong. Why, of course! Similarly, anyone who believes that the US must be "unified" in its determination to oppose Islamofascism must surely also think it should be "unified" in its support for the current Administration's strategy, even if it's godawful. Which idiocy is why it's a judgment call whether Rummy's speech more closely resembled the Fuhrer or the Wizard. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at September 1, 2006 06:58 AM | Permalink to this comment
A little off-topic point: We reached a sad milestone I'd mentioned we were approaching in an earlier thread a little sooner than I'd thought we would today: U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq - 2,641 U.S. soldier killed in in Iraq + Afghanistan so far - 2,974
How utterly bankrupt you Bush haters are The absurd numbers from Dan with his dangerous Iraq - as if life under Saddam was safe and happy The disdain for the idea of arab progress toward freedom and democracy that is applauded Why don't you just come out and say those sand-niggers are incapable of such things and should have been left under Saddams boot - its all they should ever expect
What contemptable scumbags you are I would trade all of you for one free and thoughtful Iraqi who is struggling to live all the while sectarian facist gangs roam the streets and spread anarchy and death randomnly - causing hundreds of innocent dead at a time. And then these results are trotted out by the Dan's of the West as proof that life under Saddam was BETTER for Iraqi's How disgustingly obvious that your pov Dan is EXACTLY what encourages these murderous savages They feel if they can kill enough innocents they will prove arabs cant be free - that their gang rule is the norm over there - among the sand-niggers And you take their results and build your arguements on the bodies of their victims.
Pogue...it you who are racist with what amounts to the 21st century version of the "taking up the white mans burden". We need to show those "sand %$%&%$" how to live by force of arms. Bankrupt ourselves financially and morally in process. The critcs are far from racist to point out that "democracy" does not always work out. How did Wiemar republic work out? It is not only "sand %$%&$%$" that fail at democracy!!!! Posted by: centrist at September 1, 2006 04:30 PM | Permalink to this comment
Is Pouge a leftist pretending to be a right-wing nationalist? Posted by: NeoDude at September 1, 2006 04:34 PM | Permalink to this comment
NeoDude, I think you're attributing too much subtlety to Pogue. This is what passes for leftie-baiting these days. And if it gets responses, it can be claimed to work. I don't know whether he's one of the ones who get paid to pollute the discourse, but if so he can count all our responses toward his quota.
Pogue Mahone, that was a lot of attempts at emotional manipulation. Let me ask you straight: do YOU care about the liberty and freedom of Iraqis? You have implied it, but I would like your response to a direct question.
are instead being given free rein Okay, this is grossly OT, but... +500 points for not spelling it "free reign." For the country that so glorified cowboys, we have too many people who apparently have no idea what a rein is. Then again, comment threads such as this one also demonstrate a paucity of awareness of "the false dichotomy." And that would probably be a more worthwhile dragon to slay. Ah, well. Back to tracking down inappropriate apostrophe use! Posted by: mds at September 1, 2006 09:21 PM | Permalink to this comment
The critics of this war cannot seem to resist blaming Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld and adding ad hominem attacks. There is much more blame to spread for the war's mistakes and failures than to the three fellows at the top. 1. American culture won't support a grim war in a distant land to hunt down innumerable bad guys. We have to believe that we are on a mission to change the world and that a handful of bad guys are the real problem. Every president who ever propagated a war had to resort to missionary rhetoric and the vilifying of the enemy's leaders. 2. American military culture is built on mobility and concentrated firepower. To win in Iraq, we would need to disperse our large units, train them as snipers and ambushers, train the Iraqis to fight like the insurgents rather than as the U.S. Army, give very young men operational control and intelligence responsibilities of entire city blocks, and make our soldiers "live off the land" when necessary. Instead, we are bunkered in large bases, demoralizing the best soldiers and often promoting the worst. This is what the British did after Bunker Hill, and everyone knows they eventually evacuated Boston. 3. The bunkering affects everyone in the military, but it is at its worst in the White House itself. A long war creates suffocation up the chain of command. I have listened to soldiers returning home over three years, and it seems that morale has dropped remarkably in 12 months and the veteran NCOs no longer believe they can achieve the mission. The situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan is deteriorating. We need to go on a tactical offensive in order to make a strategic retreat, but this administration has lost its drive and creativity. It is merely trying to spin and survive this 2006 election. The administration is as hunkered down in the White House as was LBJ's and Nixon's. It is going to make a bunch of additional mistakes. I would recommend that the President fire Rumsfeld and every Army general with more than two stars. Replace them with the best battalion and brigade commanders from 2003. Send everyone to school on counterinsurgency. Develop a new strategy, and if necessary, a strategy to pull out, based upon the brains and experience of the soldiers who have fought this war well. Your analysis of the situation itself is keen, but the analogy of Rumsfeld's speech to Hitler's rhetoric is over the top and means that you are preaching to the anti-war choir instead of to thinking conservatives who want to reform and even reverse some of our policies without renouncing our goal to defeat those who seek to kill us.
BD: "The point here isn't that Rumsfeld is some Hitler redux, of course. But Rumsfeld's rhetorical tactics of late, it should be noted, are not infrequently rather similar to the Fuhrer's, and this bears noting, I'd think." Every now and then I drop in, to see if I misjudged BD the last time I was here, but I always leave wincing. Today BD seems to think he's pointed us to some sort of rhetorical parallel between Rumsfeld and Hitler, but where is it? BD's provided us with six lines of text from Hitler's February 1933 Berlin Proclamation to the Nation, each one with the word "unity" or a form of it. And Rumsfeld used the word in a speech, too. BD thinks it's enough to point this commonality out, but a word is not a "rhetorical tactic." Even as i'm impressed that BD should have Hitler's speech echoing about in the apparently limitless attic of his mind, I'm amazed that he thinks it bears any resemblance to Rumsfeld's. Is it too much to ask him to explain what he's getting at? Posted by: clazy at September 1, 2006 10:26 PM | Permalink to this comment
Reading these comments, I wonder why so few are questioning whether 90's style liberal intervention is a sound strategy. I opposed Iraq II because I thought the best strategy would be along the lines of the Hippocratic Oath - "First, do no harm." If I'd thought we could've made Iraq a better place, I would've reconsidered. For the life of me I couldn't see how unleashing the might of the US military upon Iraq was likely to improve the lot of the average Iraqi. Gulf War I showed conclusively that the invasion itself would cause horrendous damage and I was deeply suspicious about the motives of those shouting for war, since their track record on human rights is nothing short of abysmal. I'm still open to the idea of intervention in extremis - say, in 1992 Bosnia to prevent genocide - but the historical record should be fairly clear that international meddling only smears the blood around, rather than mopping it up. There were many, many voices raised in advance of the invasion of Iraq warning of sectarian conflict, quagmire and partition, but the dominant voices of the era - neo-conservatives, right wing partisans and liberal hawks - refused to brook any dissent from the party line, decrying anyone who objected as an apologist for fascism. Nationalistic war-fever won the day, and anyone who objected was castigated.That's how we wound up with the abject disaster we have on our hands today, and no amount of boo-hooing about the failure of the Western world to rise in acclaim of our noble deeds are going to pull us out of this hole. What I'd like to see is a frank reappraisal of strategy in dealing with international hotspots, and preferably before Bush finishes the United States as a superpower by invading Iran. If anyone would like to quibble with that last point, I'd like to point out that Iran has around 20 million men eligible for military service, lots of guns and a hell of a lot of emnity towards us. Posted by: Flying Rodent at September 1, 2006 10:47 PM | Permalink to this comment
Tertium, thank you for the well-thought-out and detailed analysis. I believe you have missed some key points. First, consider how our urban warfare tactics worked before. We would drive around in unpredictable patterns, and we would set up random roadblocks. When someone acted suspicious at a roadblock etc we'd grab them for questioning. Meanwhile we disrupted traffic, insurgents (and everybody else) needed to find alternate routes. Sometimes we'd send in teams to do a snatch -- informers would tell us about insurgent leaders and we'd sneak in and grab them. And we'd seal off a square block of city that might have insurgents, and search house-by-house, and confiscate weapons and money. When somebody shot at us we'd respond by shooting at everybody in sight, since we couldn't tell immediately who was the enemy. That didn't make us a lot of civilian friends but it increased the casualties on the other side and decreased our casualties. The idea was that there were only a few insurgents and they weren't particularly popular. So we could disrupt their operations and prove to them that they couldn't win. If they attacked us we might take a casualty but they'd certainly take casualties. At one point we were suffering, what? 300 attacks a day. And getting on average 2 killed a day. The insurgents were getting a lot more casualties than that, a lot more. They couldn't win. But our military guys said we couldn't win with a military victory, either. They were giving the iraqi politicians time to get organised. When the iraqis saw they were getting a real democracy they'd give up insurgency, and the insurgent sympathisers would stop sympathising and turn in insurgents, and then we'd win. But sunnis didn't see that they were getting real democracy, and they saw us shooting a lot of sunni civilians, and they kept fighting harder. Our casualties were low but still seemed too high, so we trained a shia army to do the ground fighting. Not command, not logistics, not artillery or air support, just roadblocks and house-to-house searches and urban warfare. They'd fight under our orders and do the dying. The hope was that faced with utter defeat the sunnis would surrender, or the shias might give them some compromise, because we couldn't accept the country getting partitioned. We couldn't *really* win the war militarily even with shia infantry doing the dying, but we could buy time for a political settlement. So now the mixed cities are falling apart. Shia death squads are killing sunnis, maybe official government shia death squads. Sunni terrorists are killing shia civilians. Sometimes they're fighting pitched battles. Officially our goal is supposed to be to restore order. But how would we do that? Would we move in on a pitched battle and fight both sides? We can't very well tell them apart. Would we listen to phone calls by sunnis teling us where the death squads are, and move in to catch them? These are the guys who've been ambushing our patrols for 3 years, and we're going to go right where they tell us to, to fight iraqi government police? Our army doesn't have a mission in iraq at the moment. There's no more time for us to buy. The politicians sitting in the Green Zone look like our stooges. They've turned irrelevant. The iraqi army under our command might or might not be effective, but it isn't going to stop the cviil war. "You can't tell the players without a program". We're clueless, often we don't even know which militias are fighting. We can't pull the troops out or it will look like a defeat. What can they do now, that would be better than sitting in their bases?
Gregory, you say Rummy was like Hitler -- but he referenced Churchill, the opposite. Didn't Churchill want "unity" against Hitler? Opposing "unity in evil" with "unity for good"? I, too, have reduced reading you, because too much of your criticism of Bush is without standards. If you advocated a strategy to invade Iraq and bring peace at less than 1000 US deaths, I'l be happy to learn I missed it -- DO you have a record of such? Or 2000? Or 3000? What is your standard of competence? This is where Bush-hate rhetoric is missing, where has Arab democratization AND dictator neutralization been MORE successful? If nowhere, if there are no examples, than claims of incompetence are without much real evidence. I have my own critiques of Bush: replacing Gen. Garner for no good reason; Bremer avoiding early local muni elections; too much aid, not enough loans & bonds for reconstruction; supporting terrible Proportional Representation, instead of geo- districts, which helps extremists -- but there's not clear evidence my way is better. Bush is over-optimistic, simplistic, and his supporters are greedy. But his strategy is correct. Democracy to replace dictators. I say the right strategy, implemented at a "B" level, is better, even far better, than the wrong strategy. And I say, to call someone incompetent requires a standard to measure competence. Of course, Greg's idea of massive forces is exactly the opposite of what the Dems argue for -- so advocating "unreal perfection" keeps his hands clean. Bah. If it's the Dem cut & run and accept huge Iraqi civil war (600 000 Viet murders didn't bother anti-war folk in the slightest) or else Bush, I say Bush is much better. Here's Rumsfeld's letter (from Instapundit) to Pelosi: Thought and careful preparation went into what I said. It is absolutely essential for us to look at lessons of history in this critical moment in the war on terror. I was honored by the reception my statements received from our veterans. I am sending you the full text of my remarks because I assume your comments to the press were made in reaction to inaccurate media reports, such as the coverage by the Associated Press. I know you agree that with America under attack and U.S. troops in the field, our national debate on this should be constructive. If I have to choose who is the greater fascist, the US or the terrorists, I choose to call the anti-human rights terrorists the fascists. Gregory, do you really think Rumsfeld & Bush are more fascist than the terrorists? On Unity, with Joe Lieberman, almost the most liberal, big gov't voting Dem in the Senate, but pro-war -- being PC / unity anti-war drummed out of the Dems, aren't the Dems becoming more fascist intolerant?
Sheesh. What is your standard of competence? This is where Bush-hate rhetoric is missing, where has Arab democratization AND dictator neutralization been MORE successful? If nowhere, if there are no examples, than claims of incompetence are without much real evidence. Have you ever heard of somebody jumping into a cesspool and not getting dirty? If there are no examples then you shouldn't complain about Bush pushing us in. See, if Bush is trying something that's failing, and we don't have any examples of anybody else succeeding, that *doiesn't* in any way make it less of a failure. It means he was trying to do something unprecedented, something that he had no particular reason to think could succeed. And you want to argue that it's OK because nobody else has done better? If nobody else has jumped into a cesspool without getting dirty, but Rumsfeld says we will, should you believe him? And then when we get dirty you say we're doing just fine? Pee You. Sheesh.
From A Farewell to Arms(1932) [Gino] "Have you ever noticed the difference [food] makes in the way you think?" "Yes," I said. "It can't win a war but it can lose one." "We won't talk about losing. There is enough talk about losing. What has been done this summer cannot have been done in vain." I did not say anything. I was always embarrassed by the words sacred, glorious, and sacrifice and the expression in vain. We had heard them, sometimes standing in the rain almost out of earshot, so that only the shouted words came through, and had read them, on proclamations that were slapped up by billposters over other proclamations, now for a long time, and I had seen nothing sacred, and the things that were glorious had no glory and the sacrifices were like the stockyards at Chicago if nothing was done with the meat except to bury it. There were many words that you could not stand to hear and finally only the names of places had dignity. Certain numbers were the same way and certain dates and these with the names of the places were all you could say and have them mean anything. Abstract words such as glory, honor, courage, or hallow were obscene besides the concrete names of villages, the numbers of roads, the names of rives, the numbers of regiments and the dates. Gino was a patriot, so he said things that separated us sometimes, but he was also a fine boy and I understood his being a patriot. He was born one. He left with Peduzzi in the car to go back to Gorizia. Posted by: NeoDude at September 2, 2006 06:56 AM | Permalink to this comment
See, if Bush is trying something that's failing, and we don't have any examples of anybody else succeeding, that *doiesn't* in any way make it less of a failure. What's the standard for failing? If it's going to take 5, or 10, or 20 years, how can one claim it's a failure before the right time? Iraq IS a democracy -- it has a constitution its people voted on, and elected politicians.
Is the metric Iraqis dying? (Since when? How many Vietnamese have to have been killed AFTER the anti-war policy is implemented to say cut and run is a failure?) 'Failure, failure, failure' -- but no standards. That IS defeatist, and it DOES help those actively killing Americans. Why can't even the most reasonable against Bush specify what their standards for success are? Because they have no standards. They do have endless "cesspools without getting dirty" straw-man analogies -- but neither standards nor even comparisons to prior wars and outcomes. Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at September 2, 2006 11:52 AM | Permalink to this comment
Folie de grandieur would be best to describe this one-sided diatribe against Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld was telling us the truth about those enemies wishing us defeat in Iraq, and this piece by Gregory stands out as an exemplar of the contemptible hauteur he displays without butressing his mainly ad hominen attacks with what would work there. There is no denying that there are problems there, and to lay them at the feet of Rumsfeld is folly of the firt order. The problem of insurgency was not created by Americans as much as it is a symbol of the desperation and utter emptiness of the medieval culture that is pervasive across the Mideast. Those Islamic fascists, yes they are fascists in every sense of the word, cannot sustain that insurgency by beahving like savages we need to exterminate. And for Gregory to even imply Rumsfeld is using the same tacttics as Hitler did in the '30s is beyond belief and speaks of a mentality that reinforces his hatred of America. I think we welcome dissent on any important issue in this country, but to engage in this kind of drivel drives home the point of Gregory's moral and intellectual confusion. To me he is a public enemy of America and should be scorned as a traitor. Posted by: RGL at September 2, 2006 12:13 PM | Permalink to this comment
Pogue, you say: The disdain for the idea of arab progress toward freedom and democracy that is applauded This is the heart of the pernicious lie of Bush supporters. Somehow you all think that the ONLY possible way to support "arab progress toward freedom" is through Bush's idiocy. What a lie. Moreover, the results of Bush's actions are far from creating a free and democratic world in the Middle East. Tell me, are Iraqis free from fear of death? How free are women in Iraq? Are they not still forced into marriages and then discarded on the streets as whores? Where's the "progress" in Iraq? Elections are obviously not the end all be all of democracies are they, or Republicans would cheer for joy that Palestinians freely elected Hamas into their government, or that Hezbollah was freely elected in Lebanon, or that Moqtada al-Sadr is "freely" elected and part of the Iraqi government. Bush and his supporters don't want to hear of any other options. In their eyes, it is either them or the terrorists, damned to hell if they are wrong. How can they make any mistakes when they know they are on a crusade, a mission from God to remake the Middle East as they see fit. Anybody that raises rightful and strong questions must be a terrorist appeaser. Oh the folly and the bamboozlement of Republicans today! You used to call yourselves men of reason and sound understanding! What the hell has happened? How can you be so foolish? How can you not see the elephant in the room? It stares you down and roars, but you plug your ears and say "la la la la, I can't hear you!" At least Mr. Djerejian has unplugged his ears and stared the elephant down to a mouse. The more that do, the better it will be for America. Standing up to Republicans and removing them from power in America does not equate appeasing terrorists in the least. Republicans want to cling to power and will say anything, including undermining the democratic process right here in America. But as we know from history, Republicans have had a nack for undermining real democracy because they don't agree with the results (Chile in the 70s and Iran in the 50s, for example). I don't particularly have a high regard for Republican propaganda regarding promoting democracy. Your record stinks. Meanwhile, what American party has successfully pushed Arab nations to sign peace treaties with Israel? Can Republicans claim any such result? Nope. It was a Democrat, Jimmy Carter (all his other many faults aside), who forcefully pushed Egypt to sign a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, something that has lasted now nearly 30 years. No war that Israel has fought produced such a long peace between Israel and one of her neighbors. The Six Day War produced no lasting peace, as just six years later, Egypt attacked Israel again. But notice that since 1979, Egypt and Israel have been at peace. There is no greater success for peace and reform in the Middle East than peace between Israel and her neighbors, including nations you would not think would make peace with Israel. I'm curious for those who are a little older than me, who were cognizant of those days, just what was the thinking? Could anyone forsee a peace between Israel and Egypt? A war in Iraq has not brought more peace in the Middle East. In fact, with removing Saddam from power in Iraq, we've unintendedly given Iraq over to Iran, which, according to several studies, now rules the day in Iraq. Yeah, nice job Bush. Well done. You gave Iran exactly what it wanted. What do you think, Bush supporters? How do you feel that you, by your support for Bush, are inadvertently supporting Iran? How does that make you feel? But I've said this before, calls for peace fall on deaf ears in the last days. People don't want to talk about peace. They cannot see it. They've been blinded. All they can see is their gods of steel and iron. That's who they bow to and worship. "Oh save us, dear missile," you can hear. "Protect us from our enemies, dear warhead." If you want progress among the Arab world, then it begins with us. We must stop being violent, we must stop punishing the whole Arab world for the sins of the few. Republicans set up false boogiemen (Evil Islamofascists) and like many who fall to the draw of a straw man, many Muslims take the bait and yell back, "yeah, but you're the Great Satan, so there!" By returning the schoolyard insult, they play right into Republican hands, who retort, "Oh yeah, well i'm not going to talk to YOU!" and, pouting, fold their arms, running to get their big brother to pounce the nerd. We've got to stop being so childish. The thing about progression is that it takes a long time and a lot of patience. Starting wars does not bring about progression. Wars are all about regression and devastation. The only ones who benefit from war are the makers of weaponry. No one else benefits. Tell me, what is the return for our $200 billion we've spent in Iraq so far? What is our profit to this point? America has not profited yet, nor does it look like it will. But warmakers sure have. Boeing is sitting pretty with their military contracts. diversion aside, progression in a society can only happen in times of peace, because it takes a long time to change a culture. Stalin and Mao attempted culture changes cold turkey. How did those turn out? Not very well. In fact, they failed miserably. You deride what liberals say about how to change the Middle East, but in actuality, that's the best way, through patience, firm stances, and rewards for good behavior. Forget the bad behavior. Leave them for the past. The only way to change nations and cultures is to reward the good behavior, not punish the bad. The moment we begin punishing the bad, we lose our credibility because we've got bad behavior too, and they will see the hypocrisy, and they'll wonder why we bother with the mote in their eye when we leave the beam in our eye intact. See the problems of fighting? See the benefits of praising the good? There is no hypocrisy and no undermining who we are and what we stand for when we talk of the good vs punishing the bad. But again, I fear we're long past such understanding, and the world will go up in flames. How sad we humans are. God is weeping over our childishness. Posted by: Daniel at September 2, 2006 02:19 PM | Permalink to this comment
If "The problem of insurgency was not created by Americans as much as it is a symbol of the desperation and utter emptiness of the medieval culture that is pervasive across the Mideast." then shouldn't Rumsfeld et. al. have anticipated it? How can you have it both ways? It isn't our fault, yet sweeping away Saddams rule made it inevitable? If it wasn't inevitable because of the 'medieval culture" then where was the plan for a better outcome? There is no evidence that Rumsfeld had any plan but rather volumes of evidence that he thought none was necessary. On either count then Rumsfeld can be criticized. For not anticipating the inevitable chaos or for not planning on fighting it. If neither fits the reality of the situation then please suggest an alternative. Perhaps this outcome, organized sectarian killings on a massive scale and US troops regularly being blown to bits while driving around and spending a half a trillion dollars was the plan. Fair enough but for me and most Americans that would seem to be a really bad plan. In any case it was never suggested that such was the plan so maybe a bit of criticism of Rumsfeld is appropriate. Posted by: rapier at September 2, 2006 02:54 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Libbbberty Dad", Now lets go to the other side of the ledger. What have we really accomplished....."we had an election and created a constitution". BIG DEAL....we achieved that in the South Vietnam as well. How did that work out....as soon we stopped supporting the regieme all the "progress" was swept away like a sand castle at high tide. FOR ALL THE COST OF THIS WAR WE HAVE NOT ACHEIVED ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT ACHEIVED IN VIETNAM!!! Posted by: centrist at September 2, 2006 04:32 PM | Permalink to this comment
Even assuming that we all recognize that evil culture, it would be presumptuous for anybody to know, except in retropect, that those savages would be resorting to blowing themselves up along with their fellow Iraquis. History gives us lessons that wars, no matter how well we prepare for them, have unintended consequences. For arm-chair experts and hate-mongers to think that bellowing against Rumsfeld for what is now happening in Iraq is sheer lunacy. They want to cut and run, like their idol Murtha, sneering with their sanctimonious creed there is no way to win it. What alternatives, in fact, do these hypocrites have? None, except to keep comforting the fascist enemies we don't have the will to finish what we started. Patriotism demands the best of us when we need it. Cowardice from poltroons like rapier makes me think he would run away from his country when the times demand it. Posted by: RGL at September 2, 2006 04:32 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Liberty dad" ,
Tom Grey: With all due respect, but in which world are you living? Is it sunny over there? "Success" and "Failure" can't be easily defined in term of metrics. Therefore I find it hardly a fruitful approach trying to set goals like these and then claim "Mission accomplish" once they are met. For example, what good is a democracy if the government has no means to govern? What good is a secular constitution if you cannot afford to wear shorts without being beaten or even killed? What good are 250.000 trained soldiers in the Iraq forces if they can't be used to stop the death squads which are prowling the streets at night in their ethnic cleansing missions? Do we agree on reality at all? Do you recognize that the number of people killed by the low-but-growing-intensity civil war over there? Do you recognize that unlike before, now a majority in ALL ethnical groups in Iraq want America out of their country - even the Kurds? Do you recognize that the local militias are the effective ruling forces in the country, with the government having no influence outside of the green zone? Do you recognize that these poor helpless figures need to IMPORT FUEL from Syria, and still there are hour-long queues at gas stations? And most of all, do you recognize that the _trend_ for all of these vital indicators is clearly negative? Your approach might have merit if the current crisis in Iraq was some temporary storm which only had to be braved to survive. Hunker down and wait for sunshine. Unfortunately, that's not what's happening. So please tell me, what are you basing your optimism on? Assuming that you're not just a blind denialist like RGL (Gregory hating America, good LORD!) Posted by: Mentar at September 2, 2006 04:51 PM | Permalink to this comment
It's become a standard practice for Reactionary Zionists to attack the individual person behind every opposing opinion. They have no argument to justify the repeated invasion and bombing of Arab civilain populations from Gaza to Kurdistan. So they attack the individuals questioning these policies as "jew haters" or "bush haters". This is right out of the AIPAC playbook. Just look at the treatment of Walt and Mersheim. AIPAC insinuated itself into the highest ranks of the Republican party machine and has infected the DOD - probably beyond repair. The US has lost Iraq and Israel will likely lose the West Bank and Gaza. The only question is whether the Arabs will allow Israel to remain within its 1948 borders and whether the Israelis will use weapons of mass destruction in their defense This isn't going to change regardless of how many AIPAC spokesmen insult the majority of American citizens who have seen through this destructive perversion of our foreign policy Posted by: john in LA at September 2, 2006 05:29 PM | Permalink to this comment
Great, Greg, You’ve touched a raw nerve. The old ways don’t work. One of them is the idea of airpower and nuclear weapons. The US and its allies won WWII because of maximum mobilization and superior numbers. This was no “business as usual war”, as it would have been had we declared war on Hitler in 1940 (Congress would never have gone along) but an existential war for survival after the Pearl Harbor attack. John Robb’s Global Guerillas has wisdom at globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2006/08/playing_at_war.html#comments Real leadership would end our Middle Eastern hemorrhage, and push the Israelis into a new world- De Gaulle got the French out of Algeria, but didn’t have to deal with religious fundamentalism. American fundamentalists will insist that the US support Israel and keep shipping cluster bombs to the IDF. They can’t convince America that we are in an existential war. Jihadis don’t threaten our survival. The US and Israel will never convince the Palestinians to accept their economic oppression. Israel diverted the Jordan River to provide water for agriculture and to choke out the Palestinians. Water wars will supplant oil wars.
The cynical use of the term "patriotism" to give cover to the boondogle in Iraq has really orwellian. Casual obervers may be confused, so let me clear it up. Now I will list some ofthe unpatriotic, fascist loving, america haters:Greg(nevermind the years of opinion expressed on his blog), General Wes Clark(nevermind that he was first in class at westpoint and left most of his calf in viet nam), Jack Murtha (nevermind) he is a decorated marine from a family of decorated marines), Generals Zinni and Shalikasville and the dozens of other Generals that recently signed a no cofidence letter on Rumsfeld and dozen of other Generals that endorsed Kerry,Bush Sr who doubted the wisdom of invading Iraq. We can make this debate about many things about national interest but using patroitism like Bush jr and co. has smacks of McCarthyism towrad the end when he claimed many "communists in the pentegon" were undermining US security. Mark Twain was correct in his assertion that "patriotism and religion could be last refuge of scoundrels". Posted by: centrist at September 2, 2006 06:21 PM | Permalink to this comment
It seems to me that a number of people missed the point Gregory Djerejian made: that it's always wrong to argue politics by trying to shut down the opposition in the name of "unity". It so happens that Hitler also did it, but that doesn't mean it isn't wrong in the first place.
Monkeyboy mentioned some stats: U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq - 2,641 U.S. soldier killed in in Iraq + Afghanistan so far - 2,974 Benladin has been granted a Fatwa to kill 10 million Americans, including women and children. He now has Islamic moral and legal ability to do so. It's incredible how slow his declared victims are to discover firm moral ground on which to defend their own children. Posted by: John Richard at September 2, 2006 08:14 PM | Permalink to this comment
Benladin has been granted a Fatwa to kill 10 million Americans, including women and children. He now has Islamic moral and legal ability to do so. What is incredible is how John Richard can't see the difference between potentially killed people and killed people. Perhaps he should ponder how many people the U.S. could kill in Iraq if it really exerted itself. Bin Ladin is a criminal, but President Bush said about him in 2002: "I truly am not that concerned about him." . Ask yourself why he's not concerned (hint: he cares more about the war in Iraq). I haven't been able to find any reference to 10 million, but Bin Ladin has stated that in general he favors killing Americans. But again, George W. Bush is not that "concerned" because he doesn't have a country as a base. Bah. Here is more of the quote (from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html): Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?Posted by: Bengt Larsson at September 2, 2006 08:56 PM | Permalink to this comment
Sitting around waiting to see if someone makes good on a threat is dumb, and in this case morally reprehesible. The point isn't even Binladen... the fact that a Mufti granted this Fatwa authorizing a precise limit on the number of deaths is the relevant fact. It is now legal for a muslim to use a WMD. Anyone who thinks that is just a funny anecdote is sadly ignorant on what motivates these people. Any crime requires two things: movtivation and opportunity. They have the first (most important), and are planning the second. Posted by: John Richard at September 2, 2006 09:45 PM | Permalink to this comment
I’m sure when Middle Easterners are being bombed, slaughtered and killed by the U.S.’s weapons; they are comforted by the righteousness in the honorable hearts of all Americans. Posted by: NeoDude at September 2, 2006 10:02 PM | Permalink to this comment
John Richard, it's George W. Bush who is "sitting around" re Bin Ladin. As for "mufti" and "legal for a muslim" I think you're listening to conspiracy theories.
There's too much drivel here in the comments and in the basic post to make more than a passing observation: "You say we don't have the troops to send more to iraq. This is silly. The way we're doing it, our troops spend less than 1/3 of their time in iraq. They come home and spend as long as they were over there resting, and then as long as they were over there training. Did we do that in WWII? Did we ship our troops home for 2 years after every year they spent europe? Hell no. If we needed to we could easily and quickly put 3 times the troops in iraq and leave them there as long as necessary. The troops wouldn't like it. But they'd put up with it for victory. The trouble is, that wouldn't do much toward victory and the troops know it." "Continuing right along, it takes a long time to train recruits. We could easily send them over with much shorter training, and then we'd have more troops available. We did that in WWII." "If it's vitally important to get a victory in iraq, we could have a draft and get as many troops as necessary. There's a whole lot of unemployment and underemployment in the USA, it wouldn't cause a labor shortage at all. Bush says it's vitally important but he doesn't do anything." "Don't argue that we can't get more troops. The better argument is that more troops wouldn't be any use. That's what Rumsfeld has said. He said if we sent in more troops they'd only be more targets. Imagine if we'd used that approach in WWII. "No, we don't need any more troops in france, if we had more troops they'd only be more targets for the german army." Whew!" J Thomas at August 31, 2006 05:37 PM Well, now there's a MacArthur in the making! A man who thinks just put every soldier in the Army into Iraq until the insurgency ends or they all die. (I'm sure those who end up divorced, fatigued and spat upon, and with the lowest morale they would ever have will just jump at the chance to reup--but we're breaking the Army right now, doncha know?) We don't need no stinking trainers. (Any kid off the street in 3 months can be trained to be cannon fodder. That's all they'll ever need to be anyway, right?) We don't need to worry about where the recruits will come from. Just draft 'em. (As if Greg and his compatriots would support a draft and wouldn't find a way to ensure they weren't inconvenienced by having to serve) There's plenty of unused labor force in this country right now (where with unemployment at 4.7%? Why bother to train a labor force anyway? Who needs those tax dollars? We'll pay for the troops when they return home and not before!). Training? They don't need it (just ask my father who enlisted in 1942 and made it into combat after his training in 1944) It all worked in WWII. (Of course every swinging dick in the country supported the war after Pearl Harbor -- because Americans were made of sterner stuff then. Today, the Men serve their country without being forced to do so. The pantywaists remain uncommitted to any effort to ensure their continued existence beyond attending cocktail parties and vacationing in Europe with their peers.) Of cour |