Letters to the Editor
-
This Is Very Unfair, Glenn!
One of the most depressing aspects of this entire Establishment spectacle is how mind-numbingly predictable it all is. Here is what I wrote back in May about what would happen in September....:
The single greatest and most transparent delusion in our public discourse right now -- and that is a distinction for which there is always an intense competition -- is that Something Weighty and Significant is Going to Happen In September with regard to the Iraq War.
No fair! You've seen the Peanuts cartoon!
http://kimandjason.com/blog/images/CharlieBrownLucyFootball.gif
Ah, but did you know that before Lucy first pulled this trick on November 16, 1952, it was initiated by Violet on November 14, 1951?
True, it was unintentional, because Violet was afraid Charlie Brown would accidentally kick her instead of the ball. Still, she was the originator.
Which, in turn, led to Bush's majestic speech comparing Lucy to Iraq and Violet to Vietnam.
("Lucy," you see, has four letters, just like "Iraq," while "Violet" and "Vietnam" both begin with a "V".)
-
Significance of a single Friedman Unit
Projecting into the future:
If:
1. Congress permits another 6 months of full-bore occupation;
2. The WH was somehow able to keep up an effective propaganda campaign (using question 9--the 'civil order' question cited by GG);
3. That propaganda realizes the same gains showed in the past three months (see question 9);
Then by the end of the F.U. the postive/negative numbers will be ca. 45/52, with 3 point MOE. In other words, the public will have shown a significant shift. Numbers this closely divided in significant subject areas will, I believe, permit indefinate occupation, base-building, etc.
There are a lot of ifs in the above, and this is all speculation, but it does suggest what could be at stake with this pending decision in congress.
-
The Beltway Establishment is not monolithic
It's important to realize that the old-guard foreign policy establishment (exemplified by Brent Scowcroft), and the Cheney regime change group differ on the overall strategic goal for the U.S. in the Middle East.
Brent Scowcroft (who opposed the Iraq War) was on Face the Nation this AM saying we cannot pull out of Iraq now, because it will lead to a regional conflagration. "If we walk away, we might have a region that looks like Iraq now...It would not take much to creat a Middle East conflict." His solution? Stay, indefinitely, in order to "continue supporting and training the Iraqi army."
Hello? Chaos in the Middle East precisely the goal of that other wing of the Beltway establishment -- Cheney's office, the neoconservatives and their supporters in the media. Serious spokesman for this point of view (in the opinion of Fred Hiatt) is Michael Ledeen, who remarked back in 2002. (From the National Review Online):
"Nobody is perfect, and Scowcroft has managed to get one thing half right, even though he misdescribes it. He fears that if we attack Iraq 'I think we could have an explosion in the Middle East. It could turn the whole region into a caldron and destroy the War on Terror.' One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today... That's our mission in the war against terror. The most dangerous course of action is Scowcroft's: Finesse Iraq, and squander our energies fecklessly trying to broker peace between Israel and the terrorists."
Amazing. Fast forward to September 2007. We have Serious Beltway Establishment type Brent Scowcroft, arguing that we must stay in Iraq in order to avoid a wider war, versus Michael Ledeen, representing the Cheney wing, who argues that we must stay in Iraq, as part of the drive to create exactly that situation, a regional war throughout the entire Middle East. Our current foreign policy establishment is not monolithic; there are two diametrically opposed camps, both struggling for ascendency while the American people look on helplessly.
No wonder the polls say that Americans don't trust what they hear from their elites in the media and the U.S. government. There is no agreement on goals in the Middle East, just the strategy: more blood and treasure for this war. Anyone who believes differently is just not Serious and deserves to be ignored.
-
Oh, is *that* what generals do?
Kevin Drum:
"I've been thinking about is how badly the liberal blogosphere and the liberal establishment have been outplayed here. . . . We're only seeing the results of Petraeus's PR blitzkrieg now. . . . The general has profoundly outplayed the amateurs on their home turf. . . . Bravo, general. Well played"
I had the mistaken impression that generals were supposed to apply their minds to outsmarting enemy officers, and maybe, in the case of an occupation, to the generation of lasting political solutions for the occupied country. Here Drum learns me different: their job is to be propagandists, first and foremost. So be like Petreus, generals! Concentrate on the stateside PR, and don't worry about whatever's going on over there in...oh, wherever all your troops are!
PS: Props to My Man Godfrey: you captured Rove's putrescent essence as succinctly as possible.
-
I don't know how effective it will be...
...but it did make me feel better the other night to sign the petition that Chris Dodd is sponsoring to demand an enforceable deadline. [There was a space for comments.]
http://chrisdodd.com/
It does seem more appropriate, given the new poll that Glenn cites, to get as many signatures as possible on that petition.
Richardson has a petition, too; his is to deauthorize the war:
http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/page/content/deauthorizenow/
-
No, it's not AIPAC and its subsidiaries, screwitletsgolf
Why blame the Israeli lobby, as powerful as they may be, when there are far more powerful lobbies that directly benefit from the continuing Iraq invasion right out in public?
Big Oil wants us to stay in Iraq, as does Big Banking, and Big War ( the military industry. ) The benefits are many, there's money sloshing around for all these fine folks. ( hundreds of billions I hear, and much of it off-the-record )
Our CEOs and bankers have it under control, so don't worry about the Jews. And shouldn't you be out golfing anyway?
-
More To The Point, We've Been Through This Movie Before
Glenn:
I don't doubt that where there are a lot more American troops, it's harder to carry out attacks.
But the point -- and I made this point in the post -- is that Americans don't really care at this point. Even if there is marginal and isolated improvements in security, that hasn't tranlsated into less opposition to the war or an increased belief that we ought to stay.
This is not just a matter of the American people behaving irrationally. It's a sound judgement, whether or not everyone making it can fully articulate why it is sound.
While the virtually Stalinist conformity of the press corps deprives many Americans of the historical references points to hang their feelings on, they nonetheless know more about guerilla wars of national resistence from past experience than all their so-called "betters" do.
While the example of Vietnam is always tempting--and, as the proximal source for public disillusionment, is certinly correct--there's another example I prefer to cite, because it's so much easier on our collective psyche: The British generals in the Revolutionary War were much more successful than Patreas has been, and look what a fat lot of good that did them.
Guerillas don't win wars. They outlast them.