It was really refreshing to read Ted Rall’s latest piece. Here’s an anti-war man of the old school, one who doesn’t mess about with half-measures. Disagree vehemently with his perspective if you will (and I’ll be with you on that) but you’ve got to admire his honesty.
He starts off by expressing his contempt for the inconsistency he sees around him:
"Support the Troops, Oppose Their Actions," reads the oxymoronic headline of an April 2005 essay at antiwar.com.
But he’s just warming up. He goes on to slice and dice the very "support the troops but oppose the war" position that I have objected to in this space — only from the opposite direction. While I support the troops and their mission, I have to appreciate Mr. Rall‘s consistency in opposing both:
If we are, as Jean-Paul Sartre posited, defined by our actions, most of
the blame for the murder of more than 100,000 Iraqis belongs to our top
government officials. But Bush’s armchair warriors couldn’t have
invaded Iraq without a compliant and complicit United States
military–one that, it should be noted, is all volunteer. These
individuals, who enjoy free will, fire the guns and drop the bombs. If
personal responsibility is to have any meaning, the men and women of
our armed forces have to be held individually accountable for the
carnage.
Oh, and by the way, he doesn’t stop at condemning soldiers who have done things that most of us would censure, such as the abuses at Abu Ghraib. He goes far beyond that:
So, you’re wondering, is he saying that soldiers and marines and sailors who just go to Iraq are war criminals? Well, I refer you to his next paragraph:
How bracing it is to read such rhetoric! None of that namby-pamby "support the troops by bringing them home" pablum for our Ted! The men and women who willingly bear untold sacrifices on our behalf are "contract killers" to him. No doubt where he stands.
Enter his world for a moment. It is a world in which the commander-in-chief is "an unelected imposter," and in which:
Every
order to deploy a soldier, aviator or sailor to fight in Iraq is by
definition an unlawful order, one that he or she is legally and morally
bound to refuse.
So what’s a soldier to do? Well, Mr. Rall’s got it all figured out:
OK, so there are a couple of places where he slips into the ambivalence that has characterized the current anti-war movement — such as when he says "The military used to be an honorable calling." (That assertion begs for elaboration, of course. When was it honorable, by Mr. Rall’s standards? Until January 2001? For about four years in the early 1940s? Up until 1783?) And there’s a confusing bit toward the end where he seems to hold up actions by the anti-war folks during Vietnam to "support the troops" as somehow backing his position.
But for the most part, he resolutely refuses to wimp out. He recovers quickly at the end, with a breezy, "OK, lefties? You can drop the ‘support the troops’ shtick now." You’ve got to give him that.
At this point, I should say that I’m sure there are thousands upon thousands of people who are honestly sincere in saying they "support the troops but oppose the war." But then, I’ve noticed time and again in my 52 years that the human brain has an almost limitless capacity for rationalization. That’s what enables people to say, "I’m not pro-abortion; I’m pro-choice," or "I’m not a racist, but…."
But set that aside. I’m sure there are many people who love the troops and hate the war and are not rationalizing, but are sincere about it from the bottom of their souls, both consciously and unconsciously.
I have to wonder, though: How many others out there, deep down, really and truly despise the troops themselves for fighting and dying (and killing) for us? Well, we seem to be at one and counting.
Related Posts
Ted Rall blends half-truths with the quotations of liars and his own misinterpretations of events which he states as if they are accepted fact.
1. Richard Reeves is only pretending to care about our military.
2. It was Aristotle who said that we are defined by our actions. Sartre probably never bothered to read Aristotle.
3. Joshua Frank’s repeating of the lie that, “out troops are committing terrible atrocities” will never make it so, but misperception is reality for anti-Americans.
4. The few troops who mistreated prisoners were acting against orders, not under orders, and they were tried and punished very quickly, as a public warning.
5. The U.S. never declared war against Iraq, because Congress is filled with cowards.
President Bush was continuing a policy put in place by Democrats in 1998 with their nearly unamimous resolution authorizing preemptive military intervention to prevent terrorism from Iraq.
6. Vietnam veterans have been called “baby killers” by thousands of socialists, from war protestor and fabricator of atrocities John Kerry, to Senator John Kerry, Al Gore, and lots of media pundits, leftist politicians and college professors, much of it in the guise of objective analysis and even psycoanalysis.
Brad,
That is cruel,mean-spirited and one of the most DISHONEST pieces you’ve written.
I don’t know about that screed – heck, I can’t figure out my own position on the war on most days – but it does remind me of something I’ve mused about from time to time. What in the world does “support the troops” mean anyway?
Of course, I “support the troops” – but I really don’t. I mean, I honor their commitment to an ideal I certainly didn’t have the courage to make when I was 18. But then again, wouldn’t you think the vast majority of the people doing the actual killing, bleeding and dying – or providing the real support to those who do – really just joined the military because it was a job, or a pathway to a job.
Your average eighteen-year-olds I’m familiar with are firmly committed to playing or watching sports (or maybe video games today) and getting laid as soon and as quickly as possible (at least the boys are); I haven’t met many who say, “Dang, I’m gonna go be a patriot.” I’m sure they’re are more than there used to be – and probably more than we’d like to admit – who think to themselves, “I’d like to kill some people, break things and get paid for it,” but, still, I can’t believe they make up the majority of the grunts in Iraq.
But, back to “supporting the troops.” What the hell does that mean? I support them with my tax dollars (and in return they protect my right to fill up my SUV and raise my family, and I’m damned grateful for it); I don’t wish any ill will on them; I pray for their safety and the sanity of their families.
But I don’t really lend any material aid and comfort to a single soldier, do I? So as long as I’m not sending donations and hand grenades to Osama’s Pakistani p.o. box, does it mean I don’t “support the troops” and think George Bush is an idiot who’s squandered the one opportunity in his pampered life to do something worthwhile?
Now, wait a minute, Bill, I see nothing wrong with Brad’s piece. What are you talking about?
Lee: “President Bush was continuing a policy put in place by Democrats in 1998” Not to dispute your point, but is this in the official GOP talking points memo sent out every Monday to the rank and file? Because it sure the hell is getting repeated ad nauseum right now.
Dang, I wish I could edit my comments on this thing. My last statement should read:
“..does it mean I don’t “support the troops” because I think George Bush is an idiot who’s squandered the one opportunity in his pampered life to do something worthwhile?”
Well, to counter Rall, the Nuremberg trials were not for all German soldiers, only for the leaders accused of war crimes. Apropos of war crimes, one of the most interesting things Robert McNamara had to say in the documentary “The Fog of War” was this, about the firebombing of Japan:
“[Curtis] LeMay said, ‘If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.’ And I think he’s right. He, and I’d say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?”
I can’t go with Rall on this, though. I think there are many, like myself, who find it hard to imagine how somebody could volunteer knowing they might end up in Iraq. But, with the exception of those who clearly can be shown to have engaged in intentional attacks on innocent civilians, or torture, etc., I think of most of the young people serving in Iraq as victims, too. Sadly, many right-wingers will leap on this Rall piece as “proof” of antiwar people’s hatred of America. Just scroll down from this post in a few days and we’ll see it all, from the usual suspects.
It wouldn’t be necessary to even say such things as “we support the troops but oppose the war” were it not for the fact that our patriotism has been questioned so relentlessly by the right-wing element which controls much of our government. In a sane society, it would be understood that our opposition is to government policies and does not include hatred of our soldiers in general.
Actually, Phillip, the reason people make such a thing of saying the “support the troops” while opposing the war is that in the last 15 or 20 years, society has turned against the distinctly anti-military cast of the anti-war movement of the 60s and 70s. If war opponents are to have credibility with the mainstream — and succeed, as they have, in shifting public opinion — they have to distance themselves from that old revulsion toward anyone in a uniform.
It’s interesting that Mr. Rall, while snorting in derision at all the cozying up to the military we see among war opponents today, also goes out of his way to dispute the alleged virulence of anti-military feeling back THEN. As I noted in my original post, it’s an odd digression, perhaps expressive of some ambivalence on his part.
And Bill, what do you mean by “cruel, mean-spirited (and) DISHONEST?”
At this point, I should say that I’m sure there are thousands upon thousands of people who are honestly sincere in saying they “support the troops but oppose the war.”But then, I’ve noticed time an again in my 52 years that the human brain has an almost limitless capacity for rationalization. That’s what enables people to say, “I’m not pro-abortion; I’m pro-choice,” or “I’m not a racist, but….”
Tim,
Brad says here that you can “support the troops…” then inserts, ” But then…” implying that you can’t support the troops and not the war(you’re just “rationalizing”).
and then Brad ends with,
I have to wonder, though: How many others out there, deep down, really and truly despise the troops themselves for fighting and dying (and killing) for us? Well, we seem to be at one and counting.
Here,Brad sounds cruel and misanthropic.
I don’t support the troops or the war.
Having flown into the Columbia airport
countless times with the new recruits
headed for Ft. Jackson, my impression is
that the majority of these KIDS have no
other options available to them besides
the military. They’ve either been
brainwashed by recruiters or military
parents or else figure it’s better to
take a shot at surviving Baghdad than
trying to make it out of Detroit or
East Overshoe, Alabama. Our military
success is a result of our overwhelming
technological superiority, not the
slackers who serve as cannon/IED fodder in
a made for television war. It’s all
about $$$$$ for the defense contractors.
For you war mongers, what are you doing
to support your position besides talking
about it? How many of you would put
your own child on the frontlines? If
you wouldn’t do that, you’re “patriotism”
isn’t worth squat.
I emulate my veteran (Navy – Korean War) father’s view of Vietnam in regards to Iraq: When asked at the time what he would do if my older brother was drafted for Vietnam, he said “I would march him right down…. to the bus station and send him to Canada”.
This isn’t war — it’s a police action.
Here’s a perfect example of what the military is all about…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman
Pat Tillman’s noble action resulted in him becoming a tool of the Pentagon’s propaganda machine.
Another honest man is heard from.
That’s two and counting…
Brad, you’ve got a good point there about anti-war equaling anti-military back in the 60’s and Vietnam era, but I think that’s because the antiwar movement then was really part of a much larger anti-establishment rebellion, which manifested itself in many many ways, including music, clothing, drug and sexual experimentation, etc. etc. Everybody in uniform (including the “fuzz” or “pigs”) was an enemy. Of course there was a class issue as well, as it was often the upper middle class kids who had the luxury of skipping out on their college classes to march against the war, while it was often working class kids who bore much of the human cost on the American side in Vietnam.
Now anti-war attitudes are more evenly spread generationally, I think…and not so much part of a larger cultural divide, at least not in the same way as in the sixties.
The so-called “anti-war movement” of the 1960s was just a small group of sincere, patriotic WW2 veterans, but mostly a small group of sincere, unpatriotic communist sympathizers, financed by the Kremlin.
The “anti-war movement” did not become large until President Johnson ended draft deferments of graduate school. Then the students personally affected, and the faculty who stood to lose students, tuition, and grant money, took to the streets, posing as objective pacifists, but still steered by the core of KGB-financed leaders.
I doubt Tim knows what the RNC talking points are. I certainly don’t, but it is about time they GOP held up the 1998 Democrat votes for “regime change in Iraq to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction” in the faces of all Democrats who now pretend to have been duped by President Bush. They are liars.
Wow! I’ve got to thank Lee for setting us all straight. All this time, I thought my old high school guidance counselor, veteran of Omaha Beach and winner of a Bronze Star, was sincerely anti-war when he opposed Vietnam. I didn’t know he was a fellow traveler. It’s amazing how Lee alone is privy to all these hidden truths.
I think many Americans are frustrated with the war because President Bush violated the non-intervention policy that has for the most part guided our foreign policy since the founding of the republic.
John Quincy Adams warned in 1821 that “Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will (America’s) heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.” I’m not a military historian but I think our venturing into Iraq ranks as one of America’s most serious blunders into war.
Has America every gone to war before on a humanitarian mission? The only beneficiary of this mission might be Iraq, if indeed a stable Iraq can be constructed (after thousands more Iraqi casualties). There will be little or no benfit for the US. It is hard to imagine another action that would have created so many terrorist recruits. Surely America will be no safer and her standing in the world will be no higher than before this misadventure.
Imagine Bush in early 2003 saying, as he easily could have “We don’t know that Iraq has WMDs or that it is truly a threat to our national security. However, my best guess is that we should pursue a pre-emptive war. However, even if I am correct, it is likely that our effort in Iraq will cost thousands of American lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and last many years. It will be easy to defeat Saddam but much more difficult to create a democratic Iraq.” That would have been true leadership.
Instead, he went in like an overconfident boxer sure of a first round knockout, unwilling to acknowledge the risks of his strategy or to prepare the American people for them. Now we are in the midst of a fight with an opponent we severely underestimated wondering why we picked it in the first place.
Bottom line: Bush showed his unfitness as Commander in Cheif by involving us in a war that was not absolutely necessary. Now we are stuck and there is no going back. He’s left us no good option. All that’s available is “cut and run” or “stay the course” no matter how many more lives and dollars are unnecessarily spent.
Was the President lying when he said this?
Well, maybe. They are the words President Clinton used in an address in signing The Iraq Liberation Act on Halloween, 1998. Scary, no?
What Lee should have stated above is that the act declares “that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.”
Another point – we live in a world of bumper-stickers. A lot of folks don’t take the time to think through the implications of what they think they believe and end up thinking like this:
Brad,
OK, I now officially support the war since I can’t otherwise support the troops. To be consistent, I now consent to everything that George Bush does since he is the Commander-in-Chief of the troops. Since President Bush is the leader of the Republican Party and the chief of the troops, I now give my rubber stamp of approval to all Republican policies in order to support the troops. If I oppose the policies of the Republican Party therefore, then I must be opposing the troops. If the war continues indefinitely, then I’ll unceasingly support the President and the Republican Party so that I may support the troops. If President Bush starts another war in conjunction with this war, then I’ll support President Bush and the Republican Party doubly so in order to support the troops even more. In order to be patriotic I need to support the troops, which in turn means supporting the President and his party. So the more I support Bush and the Republicans, the more I support the war, and the more patriotic I am. Wow, now that was easy, thanks for setting me straight. Who needs democracy anyway?
It should be off now.
Welcome aboard, Mark!
The pacifist left has no stomach for the blood that is being shed to provide protection for the launch of a new democracy in Iraq for 25 million people.
Every drop of American blood is precious. Joe Lieberman stated that 25 million Iraqis want freedom and 10,000 want a return to a brutal fascist dictatorship. Does anyone ever take the time to surmise what the Middle East would have been if the US had joined in with the French approach to this part of the world. First, Saddam Hussein would have owned Kuwait. Shortly after that, he would have eyed the prize of Saudi Arabia. With the oil money and worldwide power he would have gained, there is no question his next step would have been Israel. The pacifists all during this time would have been counting on the 17th through 99th UN resolutions requesting that Hussein stop and join the civilized world. Now we would have been put into a situation where we could sacrifice Israel and hope that the wide spread of the oceans would protect us. The radical Muslims, backed by limitless oil dollars, would next eye the soft and decaying socialist and atheist nations of Europe. Of course, the Euros would turn right back to the US for a bailout, reference Bosnia-Serbia, WWII, etc. In the end, we in the US would become the target, as the Muslim world cannot co-exist voluntarily next to a Christian world. In fact, we are the target now, but thanks to the Bush administration, the Iraq war has been undertaken to take the fight to the Muslims on their own soil, and to delay the eventual attack on Israel. If anyone thinks the new President of Iran was kidding around about wiping Israel off the face of the earth, then think again.
As for Paul’s comment about Bush underestimating an opponent expecting an easy knockout in the first round, from the day after 9-11 EVERY administration official indicated the War on Terror would be a long and hard endeavor. By the way, if the shoes were reversed, the Muslims would not fight a civilized war with precision bombs avoiding civilians, and medical care for Al Qaeda. No, were they in power, and the fight was here, American cities and civilian populations would be massacred and completely destroyed with not a hint of mercy. Does anyone doubt that?
These are complicated issues, and I’m not sure anybody knows “what if . . .” But keep in mind:
1)Kuwait originally belonged to Iraq. I may be a “victim” of biased history lessons, but my understanding is that British colonial interests were at the heart of British-made independence for Kuwait, which Iraq was eventually forced to accept.
2) My understanding is that Kuwait was and remains one of the biggest exporters of Islamic fundamentalism, using petrodollars, of course.
3) Saddam was a secular Muslim, with little regard for religion. He had no interest per se in spreading Islamic fundamentalism.
4) True, Saddam needed to be watched, especially with regard to Israel, but how much of him was bluster? I’m not saying the First Gulf War was unneeded; I just don’t know. Saddam is/was an awful man, but there are a lot of other awful dictators out there. Yes, I suppose we have to choose our battles. I’m still not sure we chose well. I have yet to meet someone who knows the Middle East and the Arab mind-set well, who supported either the first Gulf war whole-heartedly, and certainly not the Iraq war. Of course I will readily admit that my circle of acquaintances is not that large, so unlike one or two other contributors to this blog, I do not claim omniscience. But I think we do tend to do everything we can to humiliate, antagonize, and enrage the Arab mind, including tacit approval to about everything Israel does (which includes kidnapping, extraditing and torturing dissenters). Could we not have played the Saddam card wiser, and kept him and the whole region in check? True, we would not have had the establishment of democracy in Iraq — but will we? If democracy comes to Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood will probably come to power. What will happen in Iraq is still anybody’s guess. What if . . . ? Which means I am back where I started. And of course, everyone is smarter looking back. We’ll probably know in about twenty years. Stay tuned.
Herb –
The US and Britain had been policing Iraq airspace since the end of Gulf War I with the goal of keeping Saddam’s military aircraft grounded. A secondary objective was to protect the Kurdish areas from Saddam’s military. Each day of air patrols carried the danger that one of our planes would be shot down.
In the meantime, the UN was running the Oil For Food (OFF) program, an undertaking with a simple concept: the UN would manage the sale of Iraq’s oil on the world market and use the proceeds to purchase food, medical supplies, and other humanitarian aid for the Iraqi people. But as I pointed out in a comment to Brad’s post here, the OFF was manipulated by Saddam, UN personnel running the program, France, Russia, and even India. This had a number of effects, one of which was a weakening of resolve within the UN Security Council to continue sanctions against Iraq. A reasonable observer in 2001 would have wagered that the sanctions against Saddam would soon disappear. That’s yet another reason that Bush moved when he did.
So where are we, what’s going to happen?
In today’s Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum examines the possible outcomes and posits a likely outcome that’s neither victory nor defeat. She concludes with this:
As a war supporter, I can accept this. I served in the Army in Berlin in the early 1970s. While we’d won WW II by defeating the Nazi menace, we soon found ourselves in yet another pickle with an evil just as great. Just 25 years after the war’s end I was on an island of sorts, surrounded. Maintaining Berlin had been expensive – the Berlin Airlift of 1948 – 1949 was a remarkable but expensive project, and the Berlin Wall went up in 1961. Yet the durn wall fell in 1989. So good, big things take time.
My prediction is this (Mary, Mark, bookmark this for later): Whatever government gets seated after the December 15th elections will get longer term results against the terrorists for several reasons. First, they’ll have the military get more aggressive, if not brutal for the simple reason that the public will demand it. Second, the Saddam / Baathist component will essentially give up and try to fit into the new order. Third, the radical Islamicists will have fewer safe havens, less support, and more stress. At some point the survivors will fade away to a less hostile environment. We will likely station a powerful force in the country for a decade or two.
Paul,
I don’t think you’re going to fit into the centrist Unparty very well talking like this:
Bottom line: Bush showed his unfitness as Commander in Chief by involving us in a war that was not absolutely necessary. Now we are stuck and there is no going back. He’s left us no good option. All that’s available is “cut and run” or “stay the course” no matter how many more lives and dollars are unnecessarily spent.
Centrists unequivocally support the war in order to support the troops (Brad says so). You support the troops don’t you? You’re patriotic aren’t you? Then support the President damn it! You’re demoralizing the troops for God’s sake.
You liberals just don’t have the stomach for all this blood and guts, do you?
Mike,
Honestly, I hope you are right. I don’t think that you are-but I hope that you are. Honestly, I don’t think that we can leave Iraq at this point because Iraq will plunge into utter chaos if we do. Honestly, I think there are now legions of terrorists (based on our President’s and Congress’ actions) while before there were few. I’m honestly holding my elected representatives accountable at the polls for this debacle come election time-you can bet on that for sure.
Warthen once again demonstrates the lack of integrity that has led to his failure as a journalist and as a human being. He hunts around for a few people who do not support our soldiers in their choice to agree to follow the orders they are given, and calls these people, and only these people, “honest.” Warthen once again tries to pretend that one cannot support our soldiers without supporting the policies they are called on to carry out. As I explained before, the soldier agrees to follow the orders he or she is given and to carry out the policies of the government, without passing judgment on those policies. That is a soldier’s gift to us, and that is what we support. Supporting a soldier’s choice does not deprive us of the right, or the duty, to question the policies our soldiers are asked to carry out. Instead, it imposes such a duty on us with great force. We are obliged to stand in for our soldiers. They do not, in their role as soldier’s pass judgment on the policies that put them at risk. We are therefore obliged, as citizens, to consider those policies and oppose them if they are, in our judgment, unwise.
Warthen again shows what a worthless piece of garbage he is by using our soldiers as shields to protect his views against criticism. It is Warthen who is dishonest in a particularly appalling way. Warthen’s arguments have failed to persuade the public, so he seeks to avoid argument and to shut down opposing views by casting aspersions on those with opposing arguments and trying to paint the opposing arguments as beyond the pale. Warthen spits on our soldiers by trying to prevent loyal Americans from judging whether or not America’s policies are in the interests of our country and our soldiers.
Mike, you have proven over and over that you are dishonest and retarded. None of your predictions about the war has come to pass. Why should we listen to your blithe predictions about the future, when the course of action you advocate imposes great costs on our country (costs toward which you contribute nothing)?
“So good, big things take time.”
Unfortunately, however, the Iraq was was not an effort to achieve something over a long period. It was an attempt to achieve something quickly and cheaply simply by hoping it could be achieved quickly and cheaply. You are only saying that it will “take time” to achieve whatever fantasy is your present fantasy, because the project so far has proven a failure and none of the predictions of the Ledeens, Feiths, Wolfowitzes, Friedmans, Warthens, and other chickenhawks have come to pass.
Mary, Are you tuning into the Saddam trial at all. How could you say nothing is being accomplished in Iraq? I would pay to see you go face to face with the “raped” women who are testifying and tell them that this is all a mistake and Saddam should have been left in power. Maybe some of us can pitch in and buy you an air ticket. Interesting idea. The really good sign in Iraq, besides free press, women voting, hosptitals opening, universities opening, retail shops booming, is that the locals are now beginning to turn in the murderous terrorists. They are doomed now without their safe zones. AQ cannot win the war or the people by blowing up weddings, funeral processions, and people coming out of mosques. Anyone with common sense could see that. Mike C. has been correct on this all along.
Mark, Yes, there are more terrorists in Iraq now than there were before the war. That was part of the whole plan. Where better to exterminate them? Would you rather have them sneaking across our southern border so we can battle them in Columbia, SC? There is not an unlimited supply of terrorists and as I noted with the Iraqi people turning against them the end is near. We all realize that for liberals to even think that W has been successful in Iraq causes them severe mental anquish. It causes Dean to scream that the US cannot win a war, causes Kerry to do mental flashbacks to Vietnam and Shengis Kahn (as he pronounces it), and now we have Jimmah Cotta coming forward to really tell everyone how weak and immoral we are, and to top it off Murtha informs the world that our military is now broken and worn out. I wonder how fellow blogger Captain Yanity took that comment. As I have posted before, the Democrats should never, ever be allowed to lead this nation again.
Please tell me where the Republican flavored Kool Aide is being sold.
Sheesh! I don’t know who’s generating the talking points, but this guy is on distribution too.
The “this guy” I refer to is Al Qaeda’s deputy leader, Osama Bin Laden’s right-hand man, Ayman al-Zawahri.
At least Democrat politicians are starting to realize that their “pull-out now” strategy is a loser. In quoting from this WaPo article, National Review’s Rich Lowry observes:
If the Democrats want to return to power, they need to decide where as a party they stand. Right now they are against Bush, and for many that translates into being against the war. We’ve seen this sort of behavior before — remember the Copperheads? — and it dooms the opposition to irrelevancy.
Democrats need to have a really big argument among themselves to arrive at a consistent governing philosophy, to include a foreign policy vision they can sell to the American public. Jonah Goldberg offers some excellent advice that they ignore at their own peril: decide what you stand for and then move out smartly. As Goldberg points out, they have a potentially huge base — massive hardware in his analogy — but no coherent, unifying philosophy — operating system — to run it.
Every market needs competition, the marketplace of ideas is no exception. Ted Rall is doing his part to offer coherence in one part of the spectrum, Joe Lieberman is too. That Pelosi, Dean, and other party leaders zigzag, recapitulate, and revise daily is confusing – frustrating — to those who could be brought into the Democrat fold. Folks who don’t like what the Republicans are doing fine no alternatives — other than a big “NO” — are even ready to start their own party to build a viable alternative.
Brad,
That is cruel,mean-spirited and one of the most DISHONEST pieces you’ve written.
Posted by: bill
I concur. Blogging’s not exactly bringing out your best side.
Ted Rall doesn’t speak for ME, Mr. W, but if you insist on that position, I’ll be happy to find an extremist anti-Muslim war supporter and announce that he represents YOUR secret desires.
Brad –
Keep this up. I know it’s disappointing when folks who don’t like something you write immediately impugn your integrity and motives, but in so doing they display their lack of intellectual depth and a failure to think through their positions. It would be great if they’d provide a counter argument, but they apparently can’t. I think you know that, but some of us, even the retards, want to make sure.
C’mon, VNVET, ya gotta know that Republican flavored Kool Aid is sold at Wal-Mart!
At least you’re following some of Dilbert’s tips.
As for the fly-paper strategy — attracting terrorists to Iraq to fight them away from the homeland — I don’t think it was part of the initial plan, but turned from a bug into a feature of the plan. This seems to be a reasonable analysis by a Harvard Law professor:
But, as Mary keeps reminding me, I’m retarded, so you’ll have to pardon my tendency for simplicity.
Mike, when thugs like al-Zawahri taunt us with comments like that and pro-war types respond by saying, “see, we CAN’T leave, they’ll think they won and we can’t give them the satisfaction,” we essentially are marching to their beat. We should choose to stay or to leave according to OUR best interests, not to one-up some terrorists.
I don’t think you can lump Dean in with the zigzaggings of most Dems. As evidenced by his recent “we can’t win” statement, he still has a penchant for speaking bluntly and I feel of those in the party, he has been the most consistent from the beginning. As party chairman now, of course he has to try to acknowledge the diversity of opinion within an entire political party.
And much of the diversity of that opinion, “inconsistency” some might say, really has to do with the degree of speed of a proposed withdrawal (or “redeployment” which–nod to Brad—is indeed a euphemism here). Few Dems probably favor superfast immediate withdrawal, but a clear indication that withdrawal is coming in months rather than years is still a distinct policy difference from this administration’s position.
Dave, terrorism by its very definition is the ability for a small handful of people to wreak destruction and (attempt to) jar the psychological stability of major countries in amounts disproportionate to the smallness of the attacking group. This is why the idea of a War on Terror is so, well, stupid… a dishonest idea sold to the American people in the wake of their vulnerability after 9/11. You can never completely eliminate the possibility of terror attacks, only do all you can in terms of reasonable security plus intelligence work, to thwart opportunities for such attacks.
People act as though terrorism started with Osama. Remember the Marines in Beirut? Hostages in Iran? Oklahoma City? The IRA in Britain? Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway? The U.S. will always–always—be a potential target for loony terrorists simply because it is the dominant superpower. As China rises in power in the decades ahead, I predict they will suffer more terrorist attacks, though as a less open society terrorists will obviously find it more difficult to succeed in operations there.
So as I’ve said before, I hope democracy takes root in Iraq and am still optimistic it will, but the idea that we are going to defeat “Terrorism” like it’s a country that will sit down and sign Articles of Capitulation, is just the ultimate indication of this Administration’s disrespect and contempt for the intelligence of its citizenry.
Dave,
Did we invade Iraq because women were being raped? If so, don’t you think we should protect our women at home from sexual abuse first?
Does th US Army planting stories for cash make for a “free” press? It sounds more like a $100 press to me. Cough up $100 and they’ll print whatever you want (assuming you’re the US Military).
Also, the whole “we’ll buy you a ticket to Iraq” schtick is beat. Why don’t you get your bloated ass out from behind the computer and go there yourself if it is such a noble and just cause.
Lastly, I am glad to know that we have another poster who is privy to our top- secret military plans “Yes, there are more terrorists in Iraq now than there were before the war. That was part of the whole plan.” Are you people all delusional?
I think Steve Aiken is playing dumb, pretending to not understand that I specificially separated the patriotic opposition to the Vietnam War from the communists, sympathizers, and useful idiots who were annointed as leaders of the “anti-war movement”.
Here’s what I need to support the occupation of Iraq until a stable democracy can be established, otherwise I want us to pull out:
1. All torture, misuse, and deprivation methods have to stop concerning detainees. I want hard federal law outlawing all forms of torture inside and outside of the US.
2. All secret prisons have to close and the detainees brought back to the US where they’re treated like prisoners of war.
3. All the detainees that we’ve sent to other countries need to be brought back into US custody. I want documentation about any torture that detainees underwent-be they alive or dead.
4. I want due process, habeas corpus, and all precepts of US jurisprudence implemented with any person in US custody.
5. I want the Patriot Act to be nullified by Congress.
6. I want Rumsfeld to be fired.
7. I want Cheney to be fired (step down).
8. I want every neo-con architect of the war in the administration to be fired.
9. I want new appropriations for the active duty military. The military is far too small. I want a military big enough to fight two wars simultaneously in two major theaters against any prospective enemy.
10. I never, ever want to see the National Guard have to carry such a big burden in a war again.
11. I want the US (us) to keep our hands off Iraqi oil.
12. I want to stop US encouragement of privatization of Iraq. If the people choose to nationalize their assets, then so be it.
13. I want all mercenaries and private security forces funded by the US out of Iraq.
14. I want to insist that for US support of any new government, that something analogous to our Bill of Rights be implemented in Iraq.
15. I want no bid contracts to be investigated by a bipartisan body.
16. I want real oversight by Congress on all matters concerning the occupation.
17. I want competent people from the State Department to go and negotiate among the various factions. The Sunnis are getting a bad deal and they know it-they’re going to continue fighting unless they get more representation in the government.
18. If Bush can’t do it, then Congress should take over the occupation.
If we can’t do this, then we need to get out!
In 31 speeches from 1998 to 2000, President Clinton said that Iraq had WMD, in the form of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, in various stages of development and readiness. John Kerry and Democrats with access to intelligence data also made those declarations.
In 2003, Bill Clinton again asserted that Iraq had WMD. Hillary Clinton, prior to voting in invade Iraq, conferred with her husband’s former security advisors.
Bill Clinton dropped 81,000 tons of bombs and cruise missiles on Iraq during his last 2 years in office. Why don’t the Democrats identify all the WMD sites and terrorist training camps he claimed to be bombing, tell us how he knew they existed, how they know they were destroyed, and why they didn’t say so prior to 2003, and how they explain the terrorist training camps and Al Qaeda documents captured by US and British troops in 2003?
Mark, all you have to do is stop imagining half the items on your list, because they are not real world problems.
Amen Mark.
Oh Omnipotent One, could you please explain what was in those “documents captured by US and British troops in 2003” that we common folk were not privy to.
You common folk are privy to the documents, which have been reported on the AP wires. The physical documents released by the CIA reside at Harvard University for your examination. In the meantime, use Google to learn about correspondence among Saddam, his sons, Bin Laden, Zarqawi and others regarding anthrax attacks on the US and highjacking airliners. The 911 report disusses known contacts of the highjackers with Iraqi agents coinciding with large wire transfers to bank accounts in Florida.
Also look up the highjacker training camps at Salman Pak, and the captured videotapes of Saddam urging the graduates to “attack America first”.
Brad,
I’m puzzled by your choice of Ted Rall as a target. Surely you knew what kind of heated response that was going to generate. Of course any discussion of the war is going to induce emotional responses but I thought your desire was to produce thoughtful, measured debate in your blog rather than name-calling.
As I said earlier, I beleive most Americans are now deeply ambivalent about the war in Iraq because we have no good choices.
The hard part about staying the course is that a truly conservative President would never have committed troops to Iraq. It seems to me an outlandishly liberal/naive idea that we could go to a country that we understand so poorly and sow the seeds of democracy like Johnny Appleseed.
Dave, yes it was clear from 9/11 that the war on terror was going to be long (indeed, never ending) but the war in Iraq has little to do with reducing terrorism and many believe is increasing terrorism.
President Bush led us into this war by equating the war on terror and the war in Iraq when they really have little to do with one another. If he had taken a strong stand against going to Iraq we would not be there. But he chose to exercise the full weight of his presedential power and persuasion to get us into Iraq.
So that’s why many of us are feeling burned. Bush blundered into war and for many years after he is out of office,we are going to be left to pick up the pieces. Any when we call the president on his mistake, we get our patriotism questioned.
Iraq has been a huge distarction from what this nation should be doing-making our homeland safer from terrorists and solving the Palestinian question, which until Iraq was the core of Arab distrust of the West.
Preston, We have been taking measures to make the women in this country safer. The first step was to get Bill Clinton out of the oval office. That lowered the presidential rate of female intern molestation immediately.
As for me serving in Iraq, I would gladly go. I served in the military honorably already and if you did that is great and I commend you. I do spend too much time with computers and had to laugh at your comment about my back end bloat. Keep in mind Brad wants this site to stay civil so I will not retaliate in kind.
Many of the liberals like to claim that there were NO terrorists in Iraq before the war, so how can you dispute that comment. For those terrorists who want to martyr themselves, what better place to go to than Iraq.
Mark, is that your special Christmas wish list of 18 items. Look for an empty stocking with that list.
Phillip – what are your thoughts on why the US still has troops in Japan, Germany, Korea, and Bosnia to name a few. ARe you aware that a group of 1500 new soldiers (from Texas I think) just got sent to Bosnia. Where is all the liberal venom about why Billy Bob Jeff Clinton got us into Bosnia with no exit plan? If I recall, Slickmeister said our troops would only be in Bosnia for a year or two. Yet, not a word about a quagmire. The liberal press is so anti-American but has no principles. Clinton could have dropped an A-Bomb on Mecca and he would have gotten a free pass from the pacifists. When he bombed the aspirin factory in the Sudan, a country we had NO fight with in any way, the press either applauded or ignored that stupid act. What more do you need? Oh yes, lets not forget the Chinese embassy in Serbia and the civilian passenger train bombing. Excuse my sarcasm, but let me know why no attention is paid to US troops all over the world on foreign soil.
Paul, if the worst thing Bush is ever accused of is being idealistic about liberty, freedom, and democracy, then he may end up on Mt. Rushmore. I will agree the jury is still out on that. This country has not had a true terrorist attack since 9-11 yet it is factual that attacks have been planned and subverted by Homeland security. Is anyone out there grateful for that fact? Not liberals for sure. Whining, moaning, day in and day out. Gotta run, more later.
Paul, Ted Rall sent me that piece to my e-mail address — he regularly includes me in his mass-mailings to editors — and I started to read it, and simply reacted the way I did, and shared it as a post. It’s not like I went looking for something provocative. It just came in.
And you’re absolutely right when you say “a truly conservative President would never have committed troops to Iraq. It seems to me an outlandishly liberal/naive idea…”
At least, all but the “naive” part. It was a very liberal thing to do, and it was risky, and the only naive thing would have been not to recognize the risk (maybe some people didn’t, but don’t count me among them). Not conservative at all. But as an Unpartisan, it doesn’t bother me if something is liberal or conservative or not liberal or not conservative. I just thought it was the right thing to do. As I explained in a column right around the time of the war’s start, this was something that needed doing before 9/11, but to paraphrase Bush I, would not have been prudent. After 9/11, I believed it was actually more dangerous NOT to do it.
But no question, it was a liberal move. It was Kennedyesque. As in Jack, not Ted.
“ARe you aware that a group of 1500 new soldiers (from Texas I think) just got sent to Bosnia. Where is all the liberal venom about why Billy Bob Jeff Clinton got us into Bosnia with no exit plan? If I recall, Slickmeister said our troops would only be in Bosnia for a year or two. Yet, not a word about a quagmire.”
Dave, can you explain to me how you are so outraged about the successful mission to stop genocide in Bosnia, which imposed minimal costs on the United States, but you defend the Iraq war, which has been a total failure and has imposed unsustainable coss on the United States? And can you explain to me how it is Clinton’s fault that we still have a few soldiers there? The Bosnia mission took place in what, 1999? How was it within Clinton’s control to decide whether to keep troops in Bosnia in 1999? If troops are in Bosnia now, it’s Bush’s responsibility. It’s either the right thing and it’s Bush’s responsibility, or it’s the wrong thing, and it’s Bush’s responsibility, but it’s Bush’s responsibility. It’s not Clinton’s responsibility, because he didn’t make the decision.
Your total inability to reason is a sad testimony to the failings which have beset South Carolina for so long. No wonder we have to pour federal handouts into South Carolina in order to keep its economy from collapsing.
Mary, you refer to my inability to reason but you need to spend some time refreshing your own memory. Go to this site http://www.historyguy.com/balkan_war_third.htm
to see that the Bosnian-Serbian was in the 92 to 95 timeframe. You said 1999. You also conclude that I was against the war there. Wrong again, I simply point out the continued hypocrisy of the left in picking and choosing the military actions they like and dislike. By the war, NATO and the US have to this day not found and arrested Mladic and Karadzic, the two directly responsible for the genocide. While our current admin. is pounded daily about not yet capturing Bin Laden or Zarqawi, once again not a word about the Serb genocidists. Then you have the ten year trial of Slobodan. Can you imagine if Saddam would still be on trial 9 years from now. I can just hear you, Kerry, Dean, and the peace lovers howling over that. So, please, instead of questioning my intellect, do some homework and also stop with your personal, insulting, childish attacks on Brad Warthen. I could show your comments to some pyschiatrists and my guess is you have an obsession of weird sorts.
Thanks Dave. Didn’t mean to be a personal attack, as I don’t personally know you. I just think that the whole leave (the US) if you don’t like the policy arguement is against all the we as US citizens stand for.
The Repubs have been in sole control of the government for 5 years, and I can personally say that the only reason that I feel safer now than on 9/11 is that I moved back from DC to SC.
What “successful mission” in Bosnia?
* The Balkans have been re-balkanized into feuding nations aligned along ethnic and religious lines.
* US and NATO troops are still there.
* 30,000 Muslim guerillas armed by Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright to destabilize
Yugoslavia are now trying to create Muslim dictatorships, or have migrated to Iraq and Syria to fight with Al Qaeda.
* Muslim terrorists have burned hundreds of Jewish synagogues and Christian churches.
* Muslim gangs have driven 250,000 Christian and Jews from their homes and into refugee camps.
Dave, after 47 posts I think it’s gotten confusing who’s responding to whom. I don’t see what I said that relates to U. S. troops in the other countries you mention. As far as Clinton’s Sudan bombing and hypothetical nuking of Mecca, I can’t speak for others but I personally am against American military adventurism of all kinds, whether perpetrated by Democrats or Republicans. I consider, for example, Lyndon Johnson to be a war criminal of the first magnitude. (As Bill Maher says, “can we please stop electing Texans to the Presidency?”)
And Brad, though Kennedy was a pro-defense liberal of the Cold War variety, I would ask you to please stop saying that the Iraq War is a “Kennedyesque move.” Though for sure Kennedy is to blame in part for Vietnam, it is generally agreed that at the time of his death he was seeking ways to reduce America’s involvement in Vietnam, not escalate it. The responsibility for 90% of the deaths in Vietnam rests with Johnson and Nixon. I’ll accept it if you say the Iraq War is “Lyndonesque.”
Dave, again, no wonder you are incapable of pulling your own weight and are forced to depend for your survival on handouts extracted from the taxes of people like me. I wish you could show a little gratitude, though.
The NATO Bosnia campaign took place from March 24 to June 10, 1999. So it sounds to me like your mental defects go even beyond your inability to reason; it looks to me like you are incapable of reading and comprehending basic information.
AS for “picking and choosing the military actions they like and dislike,” what on earth are you talking about? Are you saying that people should reflexively support or oppose every single military action?
Factors to be considered in evaluating a military action include the costs of the action to the United States, the goals of the action, and the likelihood of achieving the goals. The Bosnia campaign achieved its goals at a minimal cost to the United States. The Iraq campaign imposed very high costs on the United States (none paid by you, of course), failed to achieve its initial goal (elimination of weapons of mass destruction – these weapons were not present to be eliminated), and has failed and appears likely to continue to fail to achieve any of the replacement goals pressed into service by the chickenhawk war supporters.
“By the war, NATO and the US have to this day not found and arrested Mladic and Karadzic, the two directly responsible for the genocide. While our current admin. is pounded daily about not yet capturing Bin Laden or Zarqawi, once again not a word about the Serb genocidists. Then you have the ten year trial of Slobodan. Can you imagine if Saddam would still be on trial 9 years from now.”
Clinton stopped being president on January 20, 2001. To the extent that the United States is responsible for failing to capture Mladic and Karadzic after all this time, the responsibility rests primarily with Bush.
Milosovic was indicted on May 27, 1999, so how can there have been a 10-year trial. To the extent that the length of the trial is a bad thing and that the United States is responsible for the length of the trial, the responsibility rests primarily with Bush.
If the Bosnia campaign hasn’t been finished up properly, it’s because Clinton left Bush a work in progress and Bush failed to follow up on it.
You’re a hypocrite. You condemn “the left” while taking their money; you reflexively condemn everything Clinton did while making excuses for everything Bush did and trying to pass Bush’s failures off onto Clinton.
The fact is that the Bosnia campaign cost the U.S. very little and achieved a great success, while the Iraq war cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and 2100 of our soldiers, with no end in sight. That’s why we accept the Bosnia campaign and are uneasy with the Iraq war. The only reason you point to the Bosnia campaign is so that you can create imaginary failures to pin on Clinton.
It’s sad that South Carolina built iself on providing employers with a poorly educated, compliant, low wage work force. We see the result.
I see that Democrats have a lower definition of “success” for their wars.
Since Clinton dropped 81,000 tons of bombs on Iraq from December 1998 until Nov 2000, still leaving the WMD threat (according to Clinton and all Democrats), is that an official Democrat “success” or “failure” that President Bush was left to clean up?
At the risk of occurring everyone’s wrath (or perhaps disdain), I would like to quote Douglas MacArthur:
“Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificually induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear.”
Am I wrong, or did not MacArthur plead with Lyndon Johnson to stay out of Vietnam? But, lest we forget: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill,
that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to
assure the survival and the success of liberty.” (John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, January, 1961).
It was the attitude of the times, coming off the WWII generation. We were all scared to death, made to do drills at school, because the Soviets were going to probably attack us at any time. If Vietnam or Laos fell, so did all of Indochina, (and California too, by implication, I suppose). BUT: we would fix the world, fulfill Wilson’s goal, and make it safe for democracy.
We have had a few humbling experiences since then. I hope we have learned from them. The Germans would say that Americans tend to overreact to everything, instead of thinking clearly through goals, and the cost of achieving them.
By the way, I am a Texan, too, in exile in SC. But I am definitely not running for president. Aren’t you glad?
What are you guys fighting about? We can’t win this war anyway.
Gov. Dean, you’re getting confused, and reverting to reflex. Remember that this is now your operative statement.
While I’ve never been a fan of “counterfactual” thought experiments, I thought that Holman W. Jenkins Jr. starts of with reasonable speculation in What if Saddam were still in power?
You’ll have to follow the link (free) to read the rest.
I am pleased that President Bush’s approval ratings have improved a bit; he’s less likely to purchase air time to broadcast this. We all — liberals, moderates, conservatives, libertarians, the unpartied, and Bavarian Illuminati — will be better off for its immediate destruction.
Mike, I have two questions:
1. “Then Arafat dies, and Saddam, who’s been promoting himself as having bested the U.S. in the long standoff, issues a stream of inflammatory rhetoric, seeking to secure his place as the renewed militant hero of the Muslim world.”
How is a secular infidel like Hussein supposed to have enough street cred to do something like that?
2. Who the hell is Holman Jenkins? Oh, wait, let me guess. Another chickenhawk? Am I right???
Mary, since only served as a cheerleader for the wars of Clinton, does that make you a “chickenhawk”?
I am so surprised that no one – national media or on a blog has point out the following
1. Bush will declare victory in January 2006 – the elections will have been certified at this time
2. After declaring victory Bush will announce that the troops are coming home – all should be home by Christmas 2006
3. This will be done so Republicans won’t loose the 2006 mid-terms.
The Democrats declared victory in Bosnia, yet the ethnic cleansing of Jews and Christians by Muslims continues.
David E., Maybe you are the first but what is wrong with a winning strategy? All troops won’t be home since we will end up with permanent bases in Iraq. Also, it is not out of the question that the Israelis will launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran so that hornet nest will be stirred up.
Lee, murders of Christians and Jews in Bosnia or Kosovo by Muslims won’t even make page 59 of the NY Times.
The fact that some of the top staff of the New York Times have concealed handgun permits won’t make any page of the paper. But the New York Times does set the low standards which so many editors try to ape every morning.