In other words: A discussion of The Bush Administration
Amnesia
Apparently at least one half of Americans have a memory span going back, oh, about a minute and three seconds, or just as long as it takes to spin a news cycle. Remember the time before the national doctrine of We get to invade anybody, anyplace, if we deem them capable of someday maybe perhaps becoming a threat? And a minute or so before that, when it was, When we know for sure they have weapons of mass destruction? And about thirty seconds before that when it was, We will smoke 'em outta their holes, wherever the terrists are hiding, and go after any country that sponsors them? And before that when it was, We believe in working closely with the U.N. and our NATO allies to form an international coalition to fight terrorism wherever it may be? And before that when it was, We will never put U.S. troops in harm's way without our U.N. allies? And before that,when it was, We don't believe nation-building is in the best interest of the United States? And before that when it was, We believe that what we did in Lebanon in 1982 [the U.S. turned tail and fled as soon as we were attacked, under Reagan-Cheney] was the right thing to do? No, you don't remember?
This, my friends, is known as selective amnesia, and hawks are using it to cherry-pick their arguments in favor of continued aggressive occupation and conquest of the Middle East and all points north south east and west. The logic has been turned on its head. Now the rallying cry is, We have to pour every ounce of treasure and blood into Iraq and sooner rather than later its neighbors or else it's a victory for al-Quaeda, and any other country that doesn't agree with us is an appeaser in the mold of Neville Chamberlain, despite the mandate of that country's people in a democratically held election. I suppose our NOT turning the handling of the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq over to what are supposed to be our U.N. allies has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT? The argument is that the Europeans have no belly for war. That's an interesting argument, considering that Europe STARTED BOTH WORLD WARS in the 20th century and has been a crucible for statism, terror and international violence for more than A THOUSAND YEARS. But no, Americans see things much more clearly than any thousand-year-old country can. What's wrong with those democratically elected leaders in all those free countries? We should teach them a little democracy.
Meanwhile, all the good arguments for actually fighting terrorism (something Bush might think about once in while, especially in an election year) go completely and utterly unheeded by the bellicose jingoists. The only way to fight terrorism is a big military invasion and occupation of an already beaten, toothless country, which we, the aggressors, knew never posed a threat. Before the unilateral, illegal invasion, anybody who knew anything at all about the region and the likely response who bothered to speak out was instantly ridiculed and shouted down by the administration and its supporters, without anything resembling an intelligent or reasonable debate. It always has been and forever will be, Shut up, we know exactly what we're doing.
Well, that may indeed be the case, but is what you're doing making the world a safer place by actually cracking down on the lunatics who threaten it? No, because that never was the mission, and it still isn't. This is why all the arguments change after the facts, and the world is much more dangerous as a result. Every day brings us closer to something resembling Armegeddon, and there's a real possibility that something genuinely horrifying will happen here, something that will make 9/11 look like a dummy run. So what are we supposed to do about it?
For starters, better leadership and less greedership. The entire world knows what Bush is and what he's doing. He's establishing a circle of military bases around ports and oilfields and means to secure them, no matter the cost, no matter who dies, including Americans in their beds. Whoever's reading this better understand that. This is fact, not opinion. You can disagree with my reasons, but the military bases are there and show no signs of ever going away. You can't dispute their presence. And if you think they're there for anything other than controlling that region's resources, you're the one with the ideology, not me.
Second, we better get the fuck out of that civil war. That's Vietnam. The Sunni-Shiite struggle is being deliberately sparked, and that fucker's blowing as we speak. If we allow our War on Terror to include using American troops as fodder for a sectarian Islamist struggle, then we automatically lose, since the only way to win is to destroy the other side, which is impossible in this case. I say, let them blow each other up and stay out of it. We can't build a free society in the middle of a civil war. We tried that already once and it doesn't work. Why won't the hawks acknowledge that? I'm not saying we should just pull out, but we can't be the only ones there. Bush must go. He is an utter failure in international diplomacy. We need a regime change at home, a whole new slate of legislators, and some kind of international coalition actively pursuing a diplomatic course in addition to aggressively combatting terrorists. How do we do it?
Stop saber rattling and threatening everyone. Cancel our doctrine of Bring 'em on. Cancel unilateralism. Include ourselves in international treaties and protocols. Obey the Geneva convention. These are just a few ideas that only served us well for more than 50 years. Since they're tried, I guess that means they can't be true. Better just throw that all away and wing it instead. At least according to selective amnesiacs. Everything changed after 9/11. Really? I could've sworn people were blowing themselves up in Israeli shopping malls.
The other canard is that "the only thing that will work is to go in there with the military and hit 'em hard. It's the only thing the terrorists understand." For one thing, we're not hitting the terrorists, they're hitting us. We're hitting the Iraqis, and it's pissing them off. I recently read this excellent editorial, which notes specifically with regard to going after terrorists:
"So what can we do? Traditional top-heavy approaches -- strategic bombardment, invasion and other large-scale forms of coercion -- will not be any use against border-hopping jihadist swarms, and they would only add to their popular support.
"Surprisingly, however, pinpoint responses may not be the answer either. Kathleen Carley, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, has used intelligence data and computer modeling to monitor changes in jihadist networks, including the cell responsible for the suicide bombing of the American Embassy in Tanzania. She found that eliminating the "central actors" -- that is, cell members who have the most ties to other cell members and to other groups -- has actually spurred terrorists to adapt more quickly, and has been less effective in the long run than eliminating less-central foot soldiers. Thus assassinations of leaders (a favorite Israeli tactic) may be counterproductive, in addition to causing public revulsion.
"Rather, destroying terrorist networks requires what David Ronfeldt, a RAND analyst, calls "netwar." This is, in effect, mimicking the swarming tactics of the enemy. It involves long missions by smallish, mobile military units that can quickly descend on terrorist groups."
Do you hear anything commonsensical like this coming from the hawk camp? I sent this to my old pal Dan Lynch, and he ignored it, instead referring to me as "breathtakingly naive" on his radio program when I asked him how we could afford to be policeman of the world and go it alone. Why? Does anyone reading this consider it breathtakingly naive to go after terrorist networks in the way described here, with mobile military units made up of an international coalition? No, I guess it makes much more sense getting blown up all alone like sitting ducks for years and years to come, while you and I and your children's children pay for it, while Iraqi freedom and democracy burns.
Meanwhile the radical Islamist fundamentalists have a whole new reason to recruit thousands and thousands of followers who believe in violence as a political solution, much like selective amnesiacs.
- Michael 11:45 AM - [PermaLink] -
----
TCS Now offers a News Reader Feed
Subscribe to the TCS Feed
Having trouble with some of the poor English
on this site?
Imagine what it looks like when translated by a machine:
This is a "team" blog. We are a bunch of
Americans, whose rising distress
in our leader's decisions brought us together to make this site.
As Bush said, he's a "uniter." Many of us have never even met.
That's the internet for you.
Buy our cool stuff.
And tell everyone what you feel.
We have a little Store
you can visit.
Our store's selection of items is constantly growing. Come
see what we have.
We're also Amazon Associates, so if you want to buy something from Amazon, please search for it below, and we will get a few bucks from the sale.
Static Sky
Tin Foil Caps
The Free Speech Zone
The office of the independent blogger
Buzzflash
Tom The Dancing Bug
VerifiedVoting.org
Get Your War
On
This Modern World
Eschaton / Atrios
Daily Kos
meowpurrmeow
Contribute to America's Future
It is now more important then ever.
Donate to the Democractic Congressional Campaign Committee
Donate to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Some More Site Mottos
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American people."
- Teddy Roosevelt
"Government has a final responsibility for the well-being of
its citizenship. If private cooperative endeavor fails to provide work
for willing hands and relief for the unfortunate, those suffering
hardship from no fault of their own have a right to call upon the
Government for aid; and a government worthy of its name must make
fitting response."
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions, but laws must and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain
degree."
- James Madison
"I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves."
- John F. Kennedy
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
more coming...
