Letters to the Editor
-
This means war, kinda.
All along the fundamental contradiction that the Iraq occupation has contained is the combination of a claimed existential threat, a threat on the order of the Nazis or the Soviets along with a kinda half-hearted commitment. The president's rhetoric has not matched the military or political commitment.
If this really were the fourth world war, or the next Crusade, or the determination of the status of western civilization, or any other of the rhetorical tropes they engaged in, then the effort should have been concomitant.
But it hasn't been. It's not clear that even with the kind of commitment made in vietnam that the result would have been any different (see vietnam). But this commitment was never serious, as Shinseki pointed out in the beginning.
-
More? No, less
The removal of troops that was proposed a few weeks ago is a smokescreen. Large numbers of the soldiers that are already there have had their tours extended to the maximum length. They have to come home soon.
But it sounds better to say that things are going so well that we'll let a few soldiers return home than it does to say "we've maxed them out."
Why does anyone believe anything that comes out of the White House?
-
This guy got it right
He waited until Petraeus had his say, and then, it appears, delivered a controlled, reasoned, and line-by-line takedown of the man. What MoveOn did - callling him childish and silly names before he even had spoke, in an fairly blatant attempt to discredit the messenger - left them open to criticism from those who respect the military and don't want to see it or its generals slandered unnecessarily. Bacevich will not receive the same treatment that MoveOn did, not out of any establishment love or respect for The American Conservative, but because he respectably made his case in the form of a response, instead of an attack. I look forward to reading it.
-
Oh, get off your damn high horse
Have you read the ad? It was perfectly reasonable. The coming of Petraeus was being sold up the ying-yang by the White House, by the brainless cable news, by everyone: now the Great General will tell us why we were right to be against a timeline for withdrawal. He will show us graphs! Graphs! We will look at the drawings by the hero and gladly send him more gold and human sacrifice. Oh, did you see that bar graph? The purple bar was a full 6% lower than the previous one. Let's vote for another $200 billion for the meat grinder.
All the MoveOn ad did was pop the balloon. They cited all the other sources of stats, and questioned why the general was coming up with stats so different from the other sources, and bringing attention to the fact, AHEAD OF TIME, when it could affect the political climate, not afterwards in some conservative rag that isn't paid any attention to by the current GOP, and all hell broke loose. So what? I'd say that was proof of how on target the thing was. The only quibble they could possibly have was with ONE WORD. Grow a spine, please, if you're a liberal, or a heart, if you're conservative.
-
It's not about Petraeus, it's about making Dems shoot themselves in the foot again.
The entire purpose of the MoveOn denouncement had nothing to do with “supporting the troops” or protecting Petraeus’ apparently fragile psych. It had everything to do with getting Dems to attack a group that supports them not only financially, but with feet on the ground. Now, with this vote on the books, they can attack Dems for taking money from MoveOn because they’ve been condemned by a bipartisan vote in Congress. Plus, they get to piss of a good portion of their base yet again. Unfortunately, the Dems do this all too often. Whether it’s the “ is correct and I have a big problem with that too” statement I keep hearing Dems make on TV, or this sort of circular firing squad; the Democratic Party keeps showing why we can’t count on them winning the White House in 2008 like some people seem to think.
Republicans will not denounce Conservative Magazine or Rush Limbaugh because they’re not stupid. In the long run, nobody will care whether they do or don’t, and they may need their help later on; so why attack their friends?
-
I Agree with Jim
Not one single criticism of the MoveOn ad got past the headline and addressed its core substance: that Petraues has a history of giving unduly optimistic reports which later turn out to be false. It cites sources (at least in the online version) and provides a compelling case for its assertions.
The spirit of America to me is the right of any citizen to face its government officials and call bullshit. It shouldn't matter if the official happens to wear a military uniform.
-
Thought Provoking!
Thanks Joan for bringing this to light. It does strike at the heart of a lot of the inconsistencies of this war on terror. It is serious, it needs to be fought in earnest but we won't always give the military the protection it needs, the equipment it needs, the top personnel it needs to do what "we" supposedly wish it to do.
This is similar to the very way the invasion was carried out (although in those halcyon days, I suppose, the idea was our military was to be joined by the grateful throngs of the liberated). There is an illogic that haunts the plans that we hear for Iraq.
Thanks once again Joan for a thought provoking column!!
-
@Jim H.
All of the substance of the MoveOn ad matters not. It was that one word you refer to - that one word that childishly attacked him before he had even uttered a word - that is all that matters now. What, exactly, did it accomplish, other than to set the Democrats up to condemn MoveOn, thus creating a schism within the American left? Do you really think that it succeeded in "popping the baloon," as you put it? I don't, and I think that this result was, and is, entirely predictable.
If MoveOn had followed Bacevich's strategy - saving the bulk of their critique until after he had delivered his report, and thus addressing it to the substance of what he actually said - this area of conflict between MoveOn and the Democratic Party would not exist.
Your own final attack on my own character is noted and ignored.