| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| The New Defeatism |
| 2004-06-04 |
| Nothing has been quite as depressing as watching Washington and New York melt down during these past two months. History in D.C. is apparently measured by hours, not decades — and its lessons are gleaned from last night’s reruns. Liberal pundits went ballistic over Abu Ghraib and Fallujah. Worse still, many conservatives bailed or triangulated. Meanwhile, bin Laden’s clique talks endlessly of payback for Jerusalem, Afghanistan, and Iraq — jettisoning the casus belli of his 1998 fatwa about U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and the U.N. blockade — even as our elites, aping the Spanish, claim that only Iraq stirred up terrorism. In somber tones newscasters assure us of all sorts of bad things to come. But our soldiers have continued to fight in Iraq as the plans for transition have inched forward. So let us review the conventional ignorance and ponder what exactly is our national affliction. No Plan? For those who think that we are either incompetent or disingenuous in Iraq, look at Kurdistan, where seven million people live under humane government with less than 300 American troops. How did that happen? The people of Kurdistan are Islamic, often quarrelsome folks — in the heart of the Middle East — now residing in relative safety and autonomy, and expressing good will toward the United States. They accept that we don’t want Kurdish oil any more than we want to take over the sands and slums of the Sunni Triangle. So the problem in central Iraq is not us, but rather the fact that unlike Kurdistan — which had a decade of transition toward consensual society thanks to Anglo-American pilots — the country is reeling from 30 years of autocracy, in which Islamic fascism offered an alternative of sorts to an ossified Soviet-style dictatorship. We have always had a "plan" in Iraq — it was to leave the country something like its northern third in Kurdistan. Precisely because it was costly, idealistic, and dangerous, we should expect a lot of killing and bombing in the next few months as an array of opponents tries to derail the upcoming transition and elections. Anyone who thinks thousands of Islamic fascists and out-of-work Baathists won’t want to stop the region’s first consensual government is unhinged. But, again, for all our mistakes of omission there was and is a plan — and it is now slowly coming to messy fruition. Even after the spring nightmare, we do not hear many Iraqis saying, "Leave right now and take your stinking $87 billion with you," much less, "Give us back Saddam" or "Quit stealing our oil for your cheap gas." Neoconservatives? Let us be frank. This appellation is no longer a descriptive term of so-called "new conservatives," those members of the eastern intelligentsia who were rather liberal on some domestic hot-button issues (tolerant of open borders, quiet about abortion, indifferent to gay marriage, etc.), but promoted a proactive neo-Wilsonian idealism in foreign policy (whether in the Balkans in taking out Milosevic or in trying to replace Saddam Hussein with democracy rather than a Shah-like proconsul). Instead, face the ugly fact: "Neocon" is now a slur for "Jew." General Zinni (who once boasted that 600 to 2,000 Iraqis were eliminated from the air in his Operation Desert Fox bombing campaign) is now ubiquitous on television hawking his new book, criticizing the war (on Memorial Day, no less), and being praised in the Arab news as he talks about "Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith" and all those who purportedly got us into Iraq. "Cabal" and "Nazi-like" are also used by others and with increasing frequency to promote the old idea of crafty, sneaky people pulling the wool over honest naifs (no doubt aw-shucks, unsophisticated folks such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice). A shameful Senator Hollings has no apologies for claiming that our policy was misdirected for Israel’s sake. Even a saucer-eyed Al Gore got into the spirit of things. Recently he screamed out the names of those who must walk his plank, and went into an exorcist-like trance when his vein-bulging, spinning-head got to spitting out the name "Woolfwoootizzzzz." If there was advice from a "bloc" of so-called neoconservatives, it has not "failed," but is in fact already working even as we caricature it: We’ve taken out Saddam; we are on the eve of a transition to an autonomous reform government; and we are shooting the enemy 7,000 miles away, rather than being murdered at Ground Zero. And, by any historical standard, we are fighting in both an economical and humane fashion. Israel? Most of us are tired of reading daily that Israel is making problems for us. It is a liberal democracy and currently in the throes of a national debate about whether to withdraw from a territory, Gaza, from which it was attacked in three wars. Its uniformed military targets terrorists; its main opponent’s terrorists seek to kill civilians. We should have more confidence in its free press, elected officials, and voting citizenry to craft a humane policy — under threat of suicide murdering, no less — than in all the corrupt and fascistic regimes that surround it. It once took out — at great risk to itself — Iraq’s nuclear reactor; it did not sell the reactor at great profit or take control of that country’s oil. If this caring world is worried about the injustice of a fence or Islamaphobia, then start slurring nuclear India for its $1 billion fence, which shuts off the entire (impoverished Muslim) country of Bangladesh — a far harsher blow to far more millions than Israel’s so-called "Wall" aimed at stopping suicide killing. If we hate the principle of "occupied lands," then let Europe cease trade with China and hector that dictatorial government about the cultural obliteration of occupied Tibet. If we are truly worried about violence, then let the U.N. and the EU turn their attention to Nigeria, where thousands are murdered yearly. If the death of tens of thousands of Muslims and the desecration of mosques bother the Arab League, then let them blast the Arabs of the Sudan, who are systematically and in the most racist fashion butchering black Muslims. But if after all that we have still not gotten our bearings, then let us rail about Sharon and the "occupation," and thus enable the Arab world to forget its self-induced misery and find psychic reassurance, as Europe too often has, by blaming Jews. No al Qaeda links? Equally bothersome is the old canard, "Saddam was a secularist and hated al Qaeda" — as though simultaneous enemies of America have always shared the same ideology. Just ask the Japanese and Germans, or the Chinese and Russians, who agreed to set aside their mutual hatred to fight us for being emissaries of freedom. Under the Clinton administration it was considered standard intelligence dogma that Osama and Saddam worked together; only the controversy over Iraq has post-facto questioned that former pillar of American and European intelligence doctrine — and for entirely political reasons. There was a reason Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were in Baghdad. And it was the same reason why al Qaeda was working in Kurdistan, why al Zarqawi went to Baghdad to Saddam’s doctors, why there is good reason to believe that before the first World Trade Center bombing the culpable terrorists had ties with Iraqi intelligence, and why seized documents now coming to light in Iraq reveal a long history of cooperation between Islamic terrorists and Saddam’s secret police. To think otherwise would be crazy, given the shared aims of both in attacking Americans and getting them out of the Middle East. The only puzzle is whether Saddam contributed to the 9/11 terrorist fund or simply was apprised of al Qaeda’s general efforts. Our Real Dilemma. We do have a grave problem in this country, but it is not the plan for Iraq, the neoconservatives, or targeting Saddam. Face it: This present generation of leaders at home would never have made it to Normandy Beach. They would instead have called off the advance to hold hearings on Pearl Harbor, cast around blame for the Japanese internment, sued over the light armor and guns of Sherman tanks, apologized for bombing German civilians, and recalled General Eisenhower to Washington to explain the rough treatment of Axis prisoners. We are becoming a crazed culture of cheap criticism and pious moralizing, and in our self-absorption may well lose what we inherited from a better generation. Our groaning and hissing elite indulges itself, while better but forgotten folks risk their lives on our behalf in pretty horrible places. Judging from our newspapers, we seem to care little about the soldiers while they are alive and fighting, but we suddenly put their names on our screens and speak up when a dozen err or die. And, in the latter case, our concern is not out of respect for their sacrifice but more likely a protest against what we don’t like done in our name. So ABC’s Nightline reads the names of the fallen from Iraq, but not those from the less controversial Afghanistan, because ideological purity — not remembering the departed per se — is once again the real aim. Our very success after September 11 — perhaps because of the Patriot Act, the vigilance of domestic-security agencies, and the global reach of our military — has prevented another catastrophe of mass murder, but also allowed us to become complacent, and thus once more cynical and near suicidal. We can afford to be hypercritical and so groan at a Rudolph Giuliani at the 9/11 hearings only because brave men and women prevented more suicide bombings. We caricature our efforts in Iraq and demonize a good man like Paul Wolfowitz, even as a courageous and competent military took out Saddam in three weeks — and, in far less than the time that the occupations took in Germany and Japan (likewise both written off as failures of the times) allowed an autonomous and soon-to-be-elected government to take over. Partisanship about the war earlier on established the present sad paradox of election-year politicking: Good news from Iraq is seen as bad news for John Kerry, and vice versa. If that seems too harsh a judgment, we should ask whether Terry McAuliffe would prefer, as would the American people, Osama bin Laden captured in June, more sarin-laced artillery shells found in July, al-Zarqawi killed in August, al-Sadr tried and convicted by Iraqi courts in September, an October sense of security and calm in Baghdad, and Syria pulling a Libya in November. These depressing times really are much like the late 1960s, when only a few dared to plead that Hue and Tet were not abject defeats, but rare examples of American courage and skill. But now as then, the louder voice of defeatism smothers all reason, all perspective, all sense of balance — and so the war is not assessed in terms of five years but rather by the last five hours of ignorant punditry. Shame on us all. Historic forces of the ages are in play. If we can just keep our sanity a while longer, accept our undeniable mistakes, learn from them, and press on, Iraq really will emerge as the constitutional antithesis of Saddam Hussein, and that will be a good and noble thing — impossible without America and its most amazing military. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #7 I too stand clapping. I wondered as I read if it was VDH. Damn he's good! No one else can both see and express the truth so clearly. VDH...love you!! You're the man. XXXOX |
| Posted by: B 2004-06-04 7:33:00 PM |
| #6 Answering questions in #4 post: Key points of Jeffersonian democracy are that all men are born with "natural" rights to freedom and liberty [even jihadists who want to convert or kill infidels?]that democracy is the best form of government[Sir Alex Fraser Tytler would disagree] and representative government[ one jihadist, one vote?] is the best form of democracy and furthermore, that there needs to be a wall of separation between church and state[ the trouble with Islam is that it is not a Judeo-Christian religion and is not so accepting of a wall between church and state] I would suggest to you that the neocons are insistent that only the idealistic Jeffersonoian version of democracy is acceptable in Iraq. That's why I keep saying neocons are too rigid and too elitist/arrogant in they way they view what's a good government for Iraqis. What's successful in Iraq may need to be something other than a democracy, especially an idealistic Jeffersonian democracy. Kurds in Iraq are nominally Muslim. They are not Arabs. For VDH and other leading neocons to claim with confidence that what happened with the Kurds can happen with Sunni and Shiite Iraqis is naive and dangerous. This "one size fits all" elitist view of what's good for all Iraqis for all of the ME will be America's undoing. As for your pointing to Turkey and to the experience of democracy elsewhere????what in heavens are you talking about? I see no evidence of successful democracies in Muslim dominated countries. Ask the Kurds in Turkey about how great democracy is working in that country. Ask Prince Abdullah about the numbers of synagogues and Catholic churches there are in Jordan. That you use "expert" Bernard Lewis to support Wolfowitz's sheltered experience with one Muslim country is laughable. Lewis is yet another academic. Why don't you ask a Kurdish soldier or an Israeli soldier about their views on the likelihood of Jeffersonian democracy transforming Sunni and Shiite Iraqis into wonderfully tolerant citizens of the world? As for the "bitter hatreds" of the Founding Fathers...last I heard, the Founding Fathers did not need an occupying military force from a foreign nation to prevent them from slashing each others throats nor did the Founding Fathers get force fed articles of the constitution from another "suits" in another nation. As for why Wolfowitz is being criticised more than Cheney or Rumsfeld for the neocon foreign policy...it's obvious...it's because Wolfowitz is the chief architect of the "winning hearts and minds" philosophy. If Rumsfeld had his way, I have no doubt he'd have been in and out of Iraq by January 01, 2003. Rumsfeld is a soldiers' soldier. He uses soldiers to break things, demolish the enemy, not to use them like social workers building trust and self-esteem in Sunnis or to act as carpenters to re-build shelled mosques, the sanctuary of the enemy's philosophy if not the enemy itself. I don't know what Cheney's philosophy is about democracy flourishing in Iraq, but I suspect he's a lot more pragmatic and closer to Rumsfeld than Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz is the Chief Chef of democracy in ME = security for America, and if he can't stand the heat of criticism, he should not have gone into the kitchen. For VDH to shelter Wolfowitz from criticism using the club of anti-semitism is shameless. Feith Who is hardly a high profile player in the public eye. Feith has done his best the past 3 years to hide in his office. His name came up recently with regards to the Abu Prison policy but other than that why would a shadow be a target of criticism? As for Kristol -thank you for bringing up his name - he is a neocon who has recently criticized the WH's chaotic policy in Iraq, but it's okay for him to criticize neocons but it's not okay for me? As for criticism of Kristol personally, I've not read much, maybe you have. I must say when I've seen him interviewed on FOX News, his condescending manner is reason enough for critics to love to slam him any chance they get. Kristol has an abrasive manner about him that makes him a great target, not his being Jewish, and I've got news for you, Kristol's know-it-all personality would alienate as many people whether he was Catholic or Hindu or Jewish. It's the person, not the religion. #5 I chose the NYT as an example of anti-Israel posturing because, at least in my mind, the NYT used to be considered an icon in newspaper journalistim circles. I contrasted this elitist icon to the Pittsburgh Tribune, which to my mind, represents the views of ordinary Joes/Josephines in mainstream America. This buttressed my point that VDH was wrong about attempting to relate the general public's concerns about the occupation of Iraq to anti-Israel sentiments. It is just not so. I did not look at journals outside America because I was focusing on how mainstream America views Israel, which is in a very supportive positive way. That you suggest that "it's hardly surprising" [ie. understandable and justified] that the owners of the NYT damn Israel because they are worried about their personal social and political connections is very odd, I must say. How is it that you believe that criticizing Wolfowitz's bad judgment in shaping foreign policy is anti-semitic but when the NYT slams PM Sharon and Israel's fence building effort every chance it gets and features pictures of wailing Palestinian suicide bomber mothers on the front page is understandable? No old Jewish families there. Why are you singling out the NYT? Your thin skin about imagined anti-semitism makes it very difficult to debate anything with you. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-06-04 5:43:19 PM |
| #5 Re the NYT, its hardly surprising that a highly assimilated family, deeply concerned about its political and social power here, finds Zionism threatening. And of course its connections to the "fellow travelers" on the upper west side is also a factor. And BTW theres much worse antiIsrael posturing than that, coming from Harpers, the Nation, Slate, and elsewhere, not to mention the UK press. No old Jewish families there. Why are you singling out the NYT? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-04 3:43:43 PM |
| #4 That Wolfowitz convinced our President that Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq would flourish First he didnt say Jeffersonian democracy, any democracy will do. And the basis is not jsut his experience in Indonesia, but the experience with the spread of democracy elsewhere, the experiences of Turkey and Kurdistan, and the views of experts on islam and mid east culture like Bernard Lewis. BTW have you actually read the history of the early US, the articles of confederation period, the bitter hatreds among the founding fathers? Not only does Iraq not have wise and enlightened leaders, at the time OUR leaders didnt look too wise or enlightened either. Jefferson even spread attacks on George Washington. And of course VDH is not saying you cant attack neocons - he IS asking why in many such attacks, only Wolfie, feith, Kristol, et al are called neocons, while Rummy and Cheney are not? Is there an ideological gap here we dont know about? Or is neocon being used to mean "jew"? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-04 3:39:16 PM |
| #3 I usually enjoy reading VDH's pieces. This one left me cold. I felt this piece was too much of a pre-election pro-Bush propaganda piece. The fact that VDH criticizes only the media and the Democrats of causing "meltdown" and only they can ruin our success in Iraq is disingenuous. Also, I take exception to VDH's transparent attempt to muzzle criticism of neocons' political philosophy by suggesting that critics are being anti-semitic by doing so. That's absolute hogwash and VDH should know better. The fact that Paul Wolfowitz is Jewish is not why he is being criticized. The fact that Paul Wolfowitz has convinced this Admin. that it is America's role and obligation to spread ideology throughout the world is the reason why Wolfowitz is being criticized. That Wolfowitz convinced our President that Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq would flourish["knowledge" based on his 3 short years as a well guarded Ambassador in a Muslim country]and this freedom of Iraqi Muslims would spread throughout the ME and would ensure our security from jihad is why Wolfowitz is being criticized. The fact that Wolfowitz relied on Iraqi exiles like Chalabi for much of his optimism re: how the Iraqis would behave towards our GI's is why Wolfowitz is being criticized. The fact that Wolfowitz is bringing his pie in the sky academic philosophy to the Defense Dept.[second in command no less]without possessing even one nanosecond of personal experience on the front lines of war is why Wolfowitz is being criticised. Shall I go on??? The fact that many neocons are Jewish is a fact of life. But the reason that people criticize neocon philosophy is because the philosophy is imperfect with faulty assumptions not because of the religious background of many of its proponents. Support for Israel in mainstream America has never been stronger than it is today. Oddly enough, the major standard bearer of anti-Israel sentiment I see in America is in the pages of the NYT, which is owned by a Jewish family. Anti-Israel pro-Palestinian posturing is not coming from the editorial pages of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,it's coming from the NYT. Why this is happening is a mystery to me. IMO, in this piece, VDH has done exactly what he accuses others of doing: We are becoming a crazed culture of cheap criticism and pious moralizing, and in our self-absorption may well lose what we inherited from a better generation. Our groaning and hissing elite indulges itself, while better but forgotten folks risk their lives on our behalf in pretty horrible places. VDH has piously moralized about the reasons for "meltdown" in our attitude to the war in Iraq. As well VDH has taken for granted the sacrifices and risks that our military are facing in Iraq. It's not just the jihadists that put our men in danger, it's the politically correct and yes, I'll say it outright, "muddled" philosophy in DC that hampers their efforts to win a war and creates for them unfair rules of engagement and unrealistic goals for "success." |
| Posted by: rex 2004-06-04 3:02:10 PM |
| #2 generally i like the above. But: They would instead have called off the advance to hold hearings on Pearl Harbor While of course no advance was called off, there WERE hearings about Pearl Harbor during WW2, IIUC. Was Kimmel scapegoated for FDRs failure, that sort of thing. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-04 1:58:12 PM |
| #1 Standing, cheering, clapping! Man, I wish I could write like VDH. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-06-04 12:22:13 PM |