Letters to the Editor
kovie
Published Letters: 688
-
This is worse than I thought
[Read the article: The complete myth driving our Iraq "debate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It seems that even vocal war/occupation opponent John Murtha has caved into this dishonest framing (assuming that it's due to caving, and not more unsavory motivations). In a post on the Huff Post, he writes:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-murtha/to-end-the-iraq-war-se_b_49287.html
Today, I voted for both the $22 billion supplemental funding for domestic programs and the $98 billion supplemental funding for our troops in Iraq.
...
Some have suggested that since the president refuses to compromise, Democrats should refuse to send him anything. I disagree. There is a point when the money for our troops in Iraq will run out, and when it does, our men and women serving courageously in Iraq will be the ones who will suffer, not this president.
He's also buying/feeding into the myth that everything will change in September:
Patience has run out and I feel a change in direction happening within the chambers of Congress. While we don't have the votes right now to change the president's policy, I believe that come September we will have the votes from both Democrats and Republicans to change policy and direction. In September, General Petraeus will report back on the progress of the surge, and Congress will take up both the $460 billion base defense appropriations bill and the $141 billion Iraq supplemental. The surge is not producing the results that were promised. And, based on my discussions with Iraqi Government officials, I don't believe they have the motivation to bring about the political and economic benchmarks agreed to. This is why September will be key.
We have lost 418 of our fellow Americans since the president announced his surge, and come September, with your help, we can convince my colleagues from across the aisle that enough is enough. For almost two years, I have tried diligently to redeploy our forces from Iraq, and I will not stop now.Yeah, things are a lot worse than I thought. Be it out of cluelessness, cowardice, calculation, opportunism, or actual support for it, too many leading Dems are either unable, or unwilling, to do what it will take to end this war/occupation. Clearly, if it's going to happen, it will be because the administration and/or GOP want it to happen. And they're just as clearly going to set things up so that that doesn't need to happen, because while they might fear (for good reason) the short-term political impact of continuing the occupation, they are clearly supportive of its long-term goals and purpose. As are, I believe, way too many Dems. Yeah, this isn't good at all.
-
Glenn
[Read the article: The complete myth driving our Iraq "debate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not referring to people who have a preference for certain words. I try myself to be careful about the words I choose. I'm referring to this newly emerged school of thought that seems to think that the solution lies in chosen words and slogans. I realize there are a lot of people who speak enthusiastically about "framing" who mean something more substantive, but there are plenty who don't.
I don't believe that Lakoff and his more serious "followers" are suggesting that framing trumps substance. At least, that's not what I get from reading some of his works. The two clearly must go hand in hand, at least over the long term, because sooner or later people DO catch up to reality, no matter how polished the rhetorical framing.
Framing certainly works--or can work--over the short term, especially if shrewdly matched to current circumstances--e.g. Rove's masterful (and immensely cynical) manipulation of 9/11, which he was able to pull off from that very day until midway through '05. But if it doesn't align with substantive reality, then sooner or later it collapses of its own weightlessness.
Which is precisely why employing the proper framing on this issue is, I think, important, because it actually does align with reality. We need to realistically (and of course morally) acknowledge and deal with that reality, but we should also not lose sight of the importance of talking about it effectively (and, again, honestly).
For you, this mean not saying "defunding the troops". For me, it means this, of course, but it also means not calling it principally a war, but an occupation that has caused a war. Or, to be pedantic, a war (that ended 4 years ago), that led to an occupation, that led to another, entirely different kind of low-grade war of attrition, resistance and insurgency.
I refer back to my previous example of Israel's occupation. No one but perhaps a few diehard Likudniks call the ongoing violence stemming from its occupation a war. It is an occupation, that has caused war-like violence, that in turn stemmed from a war that will have ended 40 years ago in less than 2 weeks--and which, of course, has been perpetuated by a policy of occupation.
Yes, the US military is at "war", with Iraqi, Arab and Muslim insurgents, ex-Ba'athists, militia and terrorists. But these all stem from its occupation. Perhaps I belabor the point, but I really do believe that it's both more accurate, and politically advantageous, to refer to this situation as an occupation, than as a war. I agree that changing this wording will not, obviously, get us out of Iraq. But it will, I think, help put this issue into a context that might make it easier to do that.
Then again, as I pointed out in a previous comment, when such supposedly strong "anti-war" opponents as John Murtha (and Jim Webb) continue to feed into and reinforce the "don't defund the troops" frame (and, as I mentioned in yet another comment, many Dems have vested political and other interests in perpetuating this occupation or not opposing it strongly), we've clearly got a very long road ahead. Longer than some of us have realized (e.g. me).
-
"Surrender" what exactly, and to whom?
[Read the article: The complete myth driving our Iraq "debate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Our vital bodily fluids, to the enemy of course, Mandrake!
And it doesn't matter who the enemy is--they're the enemy, dammit!