War is how we rule the world. The only debates allowed are how many we should fight, where we should fight them, and how "wisely" we prosecute them.

Actually, it’s even worse than that. We can’t even debate how “wisely” we prosecute them – such a debate is no longer legitimate – it helps the enemy.

General McCaffrey said yesterday that we shouldn’t even bother to ask whether or not the surge is working until Petraeus “the most talented person I have ever met” has had a year. Until then, everybody must be quiet.

Also, yesterday, Dick Cheney warned us: “Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda..”

So, once a war is started, we must not question if it is being wisely fought, we must leave it up to Gen. Petraeus (“he who must not be questioned”).

Of course, it’s all right for totally objective “anti-war critics” like O’Hanlon and Pollack to judge the surge – because they see progress. John McCain also sees “remarkable progress” and so does Dick Cheney who thinks “we could be successful.”

So the only ones who can debate whether a war is “wisely” prosecuted are those who think a war is "wisely" prosecuted. Everyone else must withhold judgment.

Shhh!

Let me ask this question: will this article and multiple appearances by O’Hanlon and Pollack change anyone’s mind on the war?

I don’t think so. I think before the war, they were influential in getting some to support it who might otherwise not have, but now, they’ve lost credibility and their talking point (that things are getting better) has lost credibility. Anyone who is already against the war will not be swayed by this article.

This little government propaganda piece is for the base, who, judging by the right-wing blog swarm over this article is desperate for any little bit of positive news to rationalize continued support for this fiasco.

How odd to see the very same people who’ve been agreeing with everything Bush has said for years embrace an article that starts out with, “The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility.” At this point, this is the best they can do.

Not only that, they don’t have the authors predicting a glorious “victory” which they’ve always demanded before. They are now content to accept the new undefined buzzword “sustainable stability.”

But those outside of Bush-bubble will notice that most of the “progress” that’s reported in this article comes from “American advisors told us” and “American high command assesses” – these are the same sources that have long ago “lost credibility” remember?

That’s why this article is geared to prop up the base for the home stretch, and set up the “stab in the back” theme that “we were winning” until we pulled out because of treasonous liberals, and oh yes, the “Iraqi leaders who failed to do their part.”

It will be everyone’s fault except for those who promoted and sustained this war.

So desperate for sightings of ponies and unicorns are the war supporters that they grasp at the slightest bit of propaganda as a glorious “turning point” on the road to winning, or “sustained stability” or whatever the latest talking point is. It’s just sad.

Back before Josh Marshall turned against the war, he cited Ken Pollack’s book as very important in shaping his views. He described Pollack as “The Reluctant Hawk.”

In one revealing passage, Pollack tells readers about his own surprise and momentary disbelief that he is actually endorsing the invasion-first policy he proposes, but says he cannot see another viable alternative.

But there were plenty of critics of Pollack’s book. Sadly, no one took them seriously. In a review, critic Richard Behan wrote:

Pollack compares Iraq to Germany in 1938. Hitler was building the most fearsome war machine in history, and appeasement only made more costly his eventual defeat. Pollack sees Saddam as today’s Hitler.

But Behan didn’t take Pollack’s frightening message seriously:

Saddam Hussein is a psychopathic tinpot with no significant air power or navy, a decimated army, questionable inventories of chemical and biological weapons with no capability for intercontinental delivery, and five years away from his first nuclear device. By what conceivable means can he realistically threaten America, the most heavily armed nation on earth? This is left utterly unexplained in Mr. Pollack’s book.

We know today that it was Behan, not Pollack, who was correct. Yet, once again we are hearing from Pollock, and his critics who were right, are not to be heard from, not taken seriously.

Pollack told us we had no alternative to war, now he tells us we have no alternative but to continue the war. He was wrong before, and he’s wrong now. It would be nice to hear a bit more from those who were right, those who disagreed with the “reluctant hawk” – because he’s never sounded all that reluctant to me.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0211.marshall.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1211-02.htm

Hugh Hewitt has talked to John Burns of the New York Times and asked him why anti-war extremists like Glenn Greenwald can’t believe that Gen. David Petraeus is Jesus Christ and why they can’t seem to accept him as their personal savior.

Could be interesting.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/e0f78233-64f0-46cf-a8ff-75d200df3dc5