Letters to the Editor
Amity
Published Letters: 1114 Editor's Choice: 106
-
Kitt on recollection
[Read the article: Good riddance to John Howard ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't recall hearing many who ever thought that the American military would not quickly pound the shit out of the abysmally diminished Iraqi military, and then, as a consequence, rapidly move into a Baghdad occupation.
Maybe we move in different circles. The idea that the US would just waltz into Baghdad and that people would be happy to see them was in my experience as laughable to most antiwar activists as the idea is to conservatives that Al Gore was responsible for the creation of the internet.
That's not to say that the same people wouldn't also cover their bases with some form of, "... and anyway who wants to be a lousy occupying power anyway." But seriously, how many people both opposed the war and agreed that it was likely to follow the neoconservative script insofar as there was one? How many people agree with that characterization even now?
I get that part of the morality of geopolitical action is in consequences, and that part of the political struggle in America over Iraq is over the reality of the consequence of warfare versus the absurd fantasy of "surgical" conflict. In that respect writers like Greenwald are doing something essential in providing an antidote to the wishful dreaming of those oh-so-realistic chickenhawks. Greenwald in particular does a lot to elevate discourse concerning the war to where it should be, at the level of justice and ethics rather than simply pragmatic outcome.
But part of the problem people strongly against the war have in persuading those who aren't is that we keep pointing out that it's not working the way Bush promised, and they keep saying that we can't quit just because it's rough going. The arguments go past each other.
When we finally persuade them that we shouldn't want to win, any more than we should want to lose — we should only want to stop — that's when the confused and demoralized will finally understand and lend the necessary weight to pulling the plug.
-
Mona on beneficial impact
[Read the article: Good riddance to John Howard ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... had it been true that: (1) some 85% of Iraqis were waiting with desperate breath for us to depose Saddam and end his torturous and murderous regime, and (2) they had in place a critical mass of citizenry able to implement the rule of law under enlightened liberty with little to no sectarian violence attendant thereto, then the invasion might have had an overall beneficial impact.
I'm no Iraq expert, but I never saw any reason to believe that either 1 or 2 weren't true. The problem was that the true aims of the invasion and the people behind it — conquest, resource acquisition, and kulturkampf — were antithetical to any subsequent civil society (as I'm sure the locals discovered very soon into the American administration).
There were plenty of options for dealing with the Hussein regime, even for those with a penchant for violent overthrow (as Desert Fox briefly demonstrated). We as a nation chose the one that most resembled an oil spill, and then some people argued that deliberately causing a massive widespread disaster will be okay in the end if only we manage to clean enough of it up.
I'm saying we have to be careful about getting into that argument with them, since it tacitly accepts the horrific immorality of the original act.
-
Model of its type
[Read the article: Time magazine's FISA fiasco shows how Beltway reporters mislead the country]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Today's "Unclaimed Territory" is a model of its type — and it has my favorite word, "lies," which Glenn Greenwald is unafraid to use when that's what he's showing us. It's no surprise that these guys should be afraid of acknowledging Greenwald or the existence of his criticism — to the extent that the mainstream press is ideologically committed to the idea that politics are a circus it has always shunned no-fun cold-water-bucket journalism and the people who produce it.
-
Showing why Iowa is worth watching
[Read the article: Iowa roundup: A pox on the polls]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Walter Shapiro's article captures something vital about the significance of the Iowa caucuses — even more than primary elections in New Hampshire, early campaigning in Iowa is about wading into an unruly, populist political system and mastering it. To win, a candidate has to reach people, educate them, and engage them in a way that goes beyond just motivating them to go to the polls and pull a lever. It's as fair a test as any of a candidate's "ground game," and it's good to see Clinton continuing to set a high bar in that regard.
.. Good not because Clinton is necessarily the best candidate, but because the modern Democratic party is pathologically tepid on the campaign trail. By working as hard as she is Clinton is ensuring that her party won't run some kind of half-assed Kerry/Gore/Mondale horsepucky campaign in 2008 — if someone else wants the nomination they have to have their business more together than hers.
That's a good thing, and personally, I hope that they do.
-
Video commentary
[Read the article: Beyond the Multiplex: Daniel Day-Lewis chooses his roles carefully]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's been interesting seeing Stephanie Zacharek and Matt Singer in their little micro-spots, and it will be interesting to see where Salon's ongoing foray into video takes it (and us).
I will say, though, the clips would be twice as interesting with half as much Singer. He's clearly more experienced in front of the camera, but confidence without content ends up just being glib. The contrast with Zacharek, who's soft-spoken but clearly accustomed to actually saying something thoughtful about film, borders on painful.
If the goal of a pairing like this is to get Salon's writers more on-camera experience, it won't be soon enough for me when they're ready to strike out on their own. Or, if it's an "I've got the brains, you've got the looks" thing, let's hope it's making them lots of money.