|
July 14, 2007
war party games I can't discuss at parties
There's a theoretical concept that has become such a hot button issue that it's not a safe subject for public discussion. Not, that is, unless you're among trusted friends. That's the idea of using war for political advantage. Because it is seen as so immoral and so despicable by the people accused of doing it, people become indignant, and reasonable discussion is next to impossible. Ever since 9/11, Bush has been accused of waging war for the political advantage of his own party. Not only is the mentioning any positive accomplishments in the war seen as political opportunism, but so is any mention of 9/11. (The latter, of course, supplies much of the emotional fuel for the 9/11 Truther movement.) But because Democrats see Bush as fighting a war for political purposes, this inclines many of them to want (at least in the political sense) the war to become a hopeless quagmire -- something that can be said to have been "lost" by Bush. Beyond this is where it gets tricky. (And highly emotional.) There is a fine line between wanting Bush to screw up so that the voters will see the truth and throw the damned Republicans out on their ass, and actually wanting America to lose the war because America is evil and just plain deserves to lose the war. Not only is it a fine line, but it's a messy, blurry line, because the Democratic Party is home to genuine America haters like Ward Churchill, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Code Pink, Not In Our Name, A.N.S.W.E.R., etc. And naturally, those who hate America indignantly claim that they do not hate America, but only hate its evil deeds and the evil men who run the government -- and that it is those who disagree with them who really hate America (and are unpatriotic). I realize that by even attempting to discuss this, I am resorting to the type of generalizations I normally deplore, which is why I don't like to write essays like this very often. People become emotional whenever anyone generalizes about them, and I don't like it either. When I see any of the groups to which I might be said to belong being smeared, I tend to take it personally. Thus, if someone calls gun generalizations, or pit bull generalizations, or genital generalizations, I cannot help wondering whether they're talking about my guns, my dog, or my genitalia. So I should make it clear that I am not talking about pro-war Democrats here -- especially those of the Joe Lieberman variety. Nor am I talking about people who disagree with the war, but do not want the U.S. to lose it. I'm talking about those who want the country to lose in order to take back the White House -- both the "evil America" haters and the "good America" lovers. I have to say, I find myself wondering whether it's more honest to want the country to lose because it's evil and because war is evil than to want it to lose in order to win an election. I also find myself wondering what would happen if Bush were cynical enough to play this game along with them. To play this out hypothetically (as I'm sure many a Washington Machiavellian political junkie has), let's assume that the GOP's top strategists were able to call the shots, and that they had concluded that because the war called for a longtime occupation in Iraq, that it was not capable of ever being translated into a neat and tidy "victory" in time to win the 2008 election. They'd be faced with several choices: Right now, I don't see any evidence that Bush is engaged in a political strategy geared towards winning the elections. I think he still wants to make sure that Iraq government is stabilized, but that he is forced to admit that it is very difficult. Politically, this might be a bad strategy, but I don't think he cares. (Whether the GOP leadership cares about the political implications more than what's best for Iraq, I don't know. In politics, no one admits anything, and everything is denied, so there's no way to "know.") I have noticed that since al Qaeda's resurgence, there is a sudden tug of war even over the use of the word "al Qaeda" -- with the Democrats seeing the words as a political ploy (or maybe an indictment of the idea of putting "al Qaeda" and "Iraq" in the same sentence lest people be "confused"). From the viewpoint of longterm political success or defeat, the two major factors are: I think this is compounded by the fact that many of the Democratic Party's leaders are veteran Vietnam antiwar activists who have drawn so many parallels between Iraq and Vietnam that they really and truly want to see their analogy proven right. And if the U.S. pulls out and the Iraqi government survives, this will disprove the Iraq-is-Vietnam "theory," and worse, it might help the GOP. The question reduces itself along the following lines: Will thousands of Americans have died for nothing? Many people have a vested interest in this being the case, whether they admit it or not (and whether they like it or not) it is in their political interests to want the Iraqi government to fail. It's become a downright unpleasant subject for discussion. posted by Eric on 07.14.07 at 09:35 AM
Comments
IF we pull out because a lot of Americans, and their elevted officials, are reacting to a gut impulse rather than having a goal, my buddies will have died for nothing. If in 5 or 10 years, I can go to Iraq, sit in a cafe along the Euphrates and drink some tea and eat masgoof, and watch kids play, it will have been worth it. If we withdraw too soon, and Iraq collapses into ethnic cleansing, refugee camps all over the ME, and asylum seekers housed in former US barracks in Europe (as ocurred with Bosnians during the '90's), I'll be an embittered old vet saying "I told you so" as they recall me to active duty to deploy once again to Iraq to intervene "before things get out of hand". Americans, they think they know it all, but are too lazy to bother to learn anything from history. SFC SKI · July 15, 2007 05:06 PM I think the problem from the beginning was that this was a war of choice: Either way, we got into a war that was not justified by the needs of the situation, and could have been handled by other methods. Could these methods have been blocked? Possibly, but there was plenty of time to have tried them out. Time was not given, because the war was desired. An "elective" war indeed! Now that we are there, the situation is really toxic. When the U.S. left Vietnam, we lost nothing but "face" and some local control of things going on in Southeast Asia: the Vietnam war was never a matter of U.S. security. If & when the U.S. leaves Iraq, I am worried about what will happen there: not only for the people who have to live there, but because, in this new world, Iraq can easily become a terrorist metastasis center, even though it was not previously. Iraq could become a replay of Afghanistan when the Russians moved out. So I also think leaving Iraq is not a good idea. But then the next question is, Is staying in Iraq doing any good either? Or is it just exacerbating Middle-Eastern anger at the U.S.? I don't know. I just have this awful feeling that things will continue to get worse before they get any better. I have visited Egypt already. Maybe I'll do a visit to Turkey and Iran before it's too late to expect a friendly welcome; and Petra in Jordan, too. I fear that the world is becoming a more dangerous place. This was, of course, bin Laden's plan: but Bush & Cheney bit on the hook in Afghanistan, and went back for seconds. Dead or alive, bin Laden must have a permanent grin on his face. Neal J. King · July 19, 2007 03:53 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
July 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2007
June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
The right of the militia to keep and bear arms?
American Morality Will your blog be censored as "hate speech"? Or as "spam"? Magical new technology creates signs that work! America Fights The Jihadis 1776 - 2007 Pagan fertility aids disrespected by Homeric donut? Conventional wisdom -- please do not disturb! correlating co-rumination Whatever happened to "working class hero"? Or "day job"? Physicists Should Stick To Physics
Links
Site Credits
|
|
There is no point in denying it, there are many similarities between the war in Iraq and Vietnam, and people in both parties are making the comparison, but that is a dangerous thing to do. Yes, history does repeat itself, but never perfectly. In Vietnam, the enemy the US was fighting had a well structured military, fighting for a single political leader, Ho Chi Minh. When the US pulled out of Vietnam, the North Vietnamese army and the Viet Cong worked in unison to take over the whole country. There was no anarchy, no fighting among sectarian factions for control. That is not the case in Iraq. If the US pulled out of Iraq now, there would be a big fight for control of the country.