~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
Saturday, April 17, 2004
Who Should Help Solve Iraq's Problems?
Some keep saying the UN should be brought in to do that, but the editors of the Torygraph have a novel idea. A very interesting one.
Nah. . .it'll never fly. Who could support something so silly?
No doubt this will set off another wave of criticism of Israel for killing one of these guys. Of course, these Hamas people are happy to send others to kill in Israel while expecting to be sacrosanct themselves, so screw 'em and the critics both.
Heather MacDonald on other reasons for our lack of preparedness, which affect us to this day.
I think the concerns that those she calls "privocrats" are real and I share them, but often they react hysterically and put obstacles in the way of legitimate investigatory and information-gathering tools.
I don't regret the existence of the "privocrats", though. But I do wish that the debates on these measures were less inflammatory and more substantive. If the 9/11 commission was less of a partisan exercise and more of an effort to think about what we can do to prevent another such attack, they'd be focusing on things like this, what we should and should not do in the realm of information and investigation while not violating liberty and privacy. Questions of witnesses would focus on that, instead of trying to find some smoking gun for the "Bush Knew!" crowd to wave around.
Moe Lane disagrees with my interpretation of the Kerry vs heckler exchange. Lane writes:
would say that Senator Kerry was not so much accepting Daum's major premise as choosing to sprint past it in lieu of telling the man that Daum was a barking moonbat. There is no way to debate somebody like Daum; he walked into that meeting knowing what he knew, by God, and there wasn't anything sane that Kerry could have said to make the heckler change his mind.
It's true that convincing Daum was impossible, but Kerry did argue with him on other points regardless. Why? Because Kerry was not trying to convince Daum - unreachable, as you say - but his larger audience. In my opinion, it's telling the grounds on which Kerry argued and also the grounds on which he said "yes, but" to and didn't argue.
The wise thing to do in cases like this is to get to and stay on your message.
My point is that we learn a lot about the message that Kerry's on, and that the Democrats are on, from what it is and also what it omits.
Would Truman's message be limited to praise of the UN and exclude rebutting anti-American assertions? Would the original JFK's message? The fact that Kerry's message to the American electorate does not include a staunch defense of our positive role in the world and rebuttal of anti-American attitudes such as Daum's is very telling. Contrast that with Tony Blair's message to the British people and the world, which can always be counted on to include such rebuttals. Blair is no less a Liberal than Kerry, and has a electoral base in the Labour Left that includes people no better than Daum. But the difference is Blair sees part of his message as countering anti-American assertions, and Kerry does not.
To me, that's a very important difference. It's a difference between a Labour leader in Britain who I don't agree with on a lot of issues (EU for one, and many domestic matters) but which is clearly fit to govern in today's world, and a Democratic Party and its leader in the States which I do not.
DAUM: You have said, "Stay the course." George Bush calls the people there "thugs;" you call them "extremists." But they hated Saddam Hussein, and they now hate us. They wanted Saddam Hussein out. Now they want the United States out. And you say, "Stay the course." What the United States is doing is bombing hospitals, bombing mosques, sniping at civilians, killing hundreds of civilians, wounding thousands of civilians. And you say, "Stay the course." Is that the criminal course that you want to stay? This is an imperialist country that's fighting an imperialist war. You say, "Stay the course of this imperialist war," and you say you are a stark difference from George Bush. People hate George Bush. By the end of your presidency people will hate you for the same thing. You may fool some of the Americans that you are different from George Bush on this war, but you're not fooling most of the world and you're going to fool Iraqis.
KERRY: I have consistently been critical of how we got where we are, but we are where we are, sir. And it would be unwise beyond belief for the United States of America to leave a failed Iraq in its wake. And I want the Americans out, and so do Americans want --
DAUM: No you don't. You say, "Stay the course," senator.
KERRY: Let me just finish. Stay the course of leaving a stable Iraq.
KERRY: If you don't leave a stable Iraq with a legitimacy to whatever entity is going to transform the government, you have the potential for a civil war, you have the potential for Shi'a vs. Sunni vs. Kurd. There are all kinds of potentials. Let me just finish.
DAUM: They are united against the occupation.
KERRY: Yes, but...but...but the point is this, sir. You're not listening to me.
DAUM: Oh, yes, I am.
KERRY: Well, then you haven't, frankly, listened, because in fact the course that I have proposed is to you turn over to the United Nations the full responsibility for the transformation of the government and for the reconstruction.
You can here it here and here, though cluttered with commentary (its the only place I've found so far that has the full exchange, so you'll just have to bear with the side commentary; here is a text version).
Note that it's as I described. Kerry accepts the the Leftist premises that it's an imperialist war and that we're murdering innocents and bombing rather than building hospitals, following the heckler's tirade with an at least half-apologetic statement about being critical of the war himself. When the questioner says that the Iraqis are united against the occupation, Kerry answers "yes", agreeing. No wonder Kerry is making noises as quoted in the LA Times article linked to below.
"I have always said from day one that the goal here … is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy," the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee told reporters after conducting a town hall meeting at the City College of New York in Harlem. "I can't tell you what it's going to be, but a stable Iraq. And that stability can take several different forms."
I think that it's fair for me to translate that as meaning he'd be happy to put an Iraqi version of Aristide in charge there and call it democracy and stability.
For the Left, dictatorship is acceptable as long as it's Leftist. But even if you think I'm being unfair, contrast Kerry with Berman (below).
James Dunnigan asks. He also asks if the Europeans have the same problem:
Many Europeans are angry as well. But these are the people who have brought us Adolph Hitler, Joe Stalin, Francisco Franco, Benito Mussolini (and many others), in the last few generations. So they know a lot about how to nurture tyranny, and want America to learn from the European experience.
Could be. At best they're indifferent to it. After all, it provides regional stability and sweetheart oil deals for them, neh?
BILL MOYERS, WHO WILL be 70 in June, grew up in east Texas and by the age of 30 was press secretary to the President of the United States. He worked for LBJ when the Great Society was forming. He became a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation. Ever since he has kept on moving to the left. Now he controls millions of dollars in foundation money (bequeathed by rich businessmen), has access to taxpayer-subsidized airwaves, and his wife on the payroll. Yet he is a profoundly alienated man. Like Lenin, he doesn't want to pat heads when we are living in this hell.
As the stragglers rejoined us in the meadow, the Kurds lit up cigarettes, and we told jokes about the Saudis, glutting ourselves on the perfect air. And in a pause between rounds of laughter, I learned from one of the other men that the sergeant who had kept up with me - out of pride and to protect me, if necessary - hadn't just been shot once through the jaw. He had been wounded 20 different times.
My attempt to impress the Kurds had been stupid. And thoughtlessly cruel. It must have cost that sergeant real pain to make that brief forced-march. But he had smiled all the way.
When we said goodbye later on, the sergeant touched his heart and told me, "You are an American. You are my brother. I would die for you."
He meant it.
We just can't. But the 44% of Democrats that in a recent poll said we should get out now wants us to. They cannot win. This is what happens if they do:
THE Democrats would like to compare Iraq to Vietnam. Let's accommodate them.
The war in Vietnam was fought to stop the spread of communism in Southeast Asia.
After we pulled out in defeat, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos fell to that totalitarian scourge. There was a mass exodus of Vietnamese "boat people," 10 percent of the population of Laos fled the country and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia slaughtered more than 2 million people. And Democrats decided that any war waged by America was "unwinnable."
We cannot fail. They cannot win. That's the bottom line.
If anyone thinks that it isn't more likely that we will fail under a Kerry Administration and the kind of people who he would appoint and the kind of constituency he would have to hold together, by all means vote for him. But I won't, though I recognize that Bush is imperfect.
Here's the kind of Liberal I wish we had more of, Paul Berman writing in the New York Times:
A quarter century ago, some of the extremist movements pictured the coming utopia in a somewhat secular light, and others in a theocratic light. These differences, plus a few other quarrels, led to hatred and even war, like the one between Iran and Iraq. The visible rivalries left an impression in some people's minds that nothing tied together these sundry movements.
American foreign policy acted on that impression, and tried to play the movements against one another, and backed every non-apocalyptic dictator who promised to keep the extremists under control. The American policy was cynical and cruel. It did nothing to prevent those sundry movements and dictators from committing murders on a gigantic scale.
Nor did the policy produce anything good for America, in the long run. For the sundry movements did share a common outlook, which ought to have been obvious all along — the paranoid and apocalyptic outlook of European fascism from long ago, draped in Muslim robes. These movements added up to a new kind of modern totalitarianism. And, in time, the new totalitarianism found its common point, on which everyone could agree. This was the shared project of building the human bomb. The Shiite theocrats of Iran pioneered the notion of suicide terror. And everyone else took it up: Sunni theocrats, Baathist anti-theocrats of Iraq and Syria, the more radical Palestinian nationalists, and others, too. . .
The whole point in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, from my perspective, was to achieve those large possibilities right in the center of the Muslim world, where the ripples might lead in every direction. Iraq was a logical place to begin because, for a dozen years, the Baathists had been shooting at American and British planes, and inciting paranoia and hatred against the United States, and encouraging the idea that attacks can successfully be launched against American targets, and giving that idea some extra oomph with the bluff about fearsome weapons. The Baathists, in short, contributed their bit to the atmosphere that led to Sept. 11. . .
Kerry might have confronted the heckler (see below post) with this, and also this follow up:
But the bigger problem has to do with public understandings of the war. People around the world may not want to lift a finger in aid so long as the anti-totalitarian logic of the war remains invisible to them. President Bush ought to have cleared up this matter. He has, in fact, spoken about conspiracy theories and hatred (including at Tuesday's press conference). He has spoken about a new totalitarianism, and has even raised the notion of a war of ideas.
But Mr. Bush muddied these issues long ago by putting too much emphasis on weapons in Iraq (and his gleeful opponents have muddied things even further by pretending that weapons were the only reason for war). He muddied the issues again by doing relatively little to promote a war of ideas — quite as if his loftier comments were merely blather.
Berman concludes with this excelent point:
The Democrats ought to thank and congratulate the countries that have sent troops, and ought to remind the economically powerful Switzerlands of this world that they, too, have responsibilities. The Democrats ought to assure everyone that support for a successful outcome in Iraq does not have to mean support for George W. Bush. And how should the Democrats make these several arguments? They should speak about something more than the United Nations and stability in Iraq. They should talk about fascism. About death cults. About the experiences of the 20th century. About the need for democratic solidarity.
This is not a project for after the election — this is a project for right now. America needs allies. Today, and not just tomorrow. And America needs leaders. If the Bush administration cannot rally support around the world, let other people give it a try.
I don't agree with every point Berman makes - but I'm not a Liberal. But if Liberals and Democrats were more like this, and following a path such as Berman suggests, we'd all be better off. Check out the whole piece.
Stanley Crouch is also writing good pieces from the Liberal side of things lately. Here is his latest, on the 9/11 tempest:
We were not ready for war. But democracies rarely are, particularly in this era when it's hard to identify the enemy, especially if that enemy is from another culture.
Also, democratic countries try too hard to make up for the bigoted low points in their histories. Since the West once looked upon everybody else as somehow less human, we bend too far backward in times of emergency, fearing charges of racism or profiling.
Dictators and totalitarian regimes don't have these problems. They merely act. They lose no sleep over international image, the domestic press or the thoughts of the people. We have to go through all kinds of red tape to get on the beam, which is our virtue - and our shortcoming.
Currently, we are victimized by partisan finger-pointing. But we are waking up to the smell of the smoke.
Check out his whole piece, too. If America's Democrats and Liberals were more like Berman & Crouch and less like they are, they'd be ready to govern even though I wouldn't agree with them on every issue. I'd be able to sleep better at night, too, and we'd all be able to sleep more safely.
Compare and contrast reactions when Kerry was faced with a Republican critic in the audience at one point earlier on in the campaign with his reaction to the far left heckler. Sure, he argued with him. But the fire wasn't there and one other thing was missing.
Kerry did not even attempt to rebut the assertion that our presence in Iraq is part of an "imperialist war" and that what we're doing is bombing hospitals rather than building them, or the claim that we're murdering thousands of innocents. Kerry is far stronger in facing down much milder questions from conservatives. In my opinion, his reaction here was an example of what I was talking about earlier today. Kerry did not attempt to take on the absurd premises of the Left that the heckler raised. Why not? Because he's hoping for their votes is one reason. Because the heckler sounds a lot like the young Kerry is another.
(Btw, the story I found doesn't really do the exchange justice. If I can find a more full account I'll post that).
With John "Lurch" Kerry not warming voters hearts, the partisan press is trying harder to carry Kerry's water for him, but Peggy Noonan argues their efforts have backfired and helped Bush instead:
But here the press came to his rescue, and God bless them. They are so clearly carrying water for the left-liberal establishment, they were so clearly carrying water for the preening and partisan hacks who dominate the 9/11 commission, and the Washington Post's coverage of the news conference yesterday morning was so clearly teeing up Bob Woodward's next book, that the media nullified their hostility. They could have done some damage to the president with a grave and honest spirit of inquiry.
No doubt it's because Taiwan probably can't build anything that overmatches what the EU (mainly France) can supply to China, but we sure can provide much better to Taiwan.
Responding to yesterday's post on the degeneration of the Democratic Party, Kevin Cherek wrote, via e-mail:
I'd like to see some discussion of how the democratic party ended up in this mess. The republican party has its fringe elements, but for some reason they don't feel the need to "spout off". Neither to the party leaders feel that they need to pander to them.
They spout off, and some party leaders pander to them coyly. But I'd agree that you're right. They don't make it the centerpiece of their campaign. On the Democratic side, the fringe has become their mainstream, dictating tone and content.
What happened to the democratic party to cause the center to give way? They went from a party espousing traditional liberal values to one that is divisive and bitter and crazy. Instead of fighting for the common man, they tell the common man what he should want and then fight for that. How the heck did they drift so far off target? Its like a torpedo that has turned around and is homing in on the sub that launched it. What happened to the feedback mechanisms that are supposed to prevent this from happening?
For two teams to play ball, they both have to be in the same park. I really feel as if the dems and repubs are playing in two totally different ball parks, and there are no bridges between the two. I'm trained in the sciences and appreciate a logical, rational approach to politics. I find I can easily follow the arguments put forward by republicans. I also find that I am left completely clueless when presented with the dem's arguments. Perhaps its because they tend to be based on premises such as those listed in Vanderleun's article (e.g. Powell is an uncle tom). I find this schism in everyday life also. Some folks think like I do, and some like the dems. I can't find anyone in between and I can't find anyone who can bridge this gap. In every case I end up shrugging my shoulders and walking away, thinking that the other person doesn't appear capable of rational thought. I'm sure the other person is thinking I'm clueless and just "don't get it" (e.g. why Bush is evil).
What the heck is going on?
They have all kinds of reasons. A typical Democrat response would be that their anger is legitimate, because after all, Bush stole the election with the help of Republicans in Florida and on the Supreme Court and Bush lies! and Bush knew! about 9/11 but didn't stop it, Republicans attacked Clinton, Republicans did mean things to win in '94, Bush Sr. engaged in dirty tricks to defeat Dukakis, Reagan deceived everyone with glibbness to defeat Mondale, and dittoes against Carter plus conspired (with Bush as his emissary) on the hostages so he could win, and we all know about Nixon, right?
The Democrats are like Cowboy fans in the past (they've gotten better). Or Oakland Raider fans today. Those teams never lose a game, you know. They just get screwed by the Refs. They get hosed by the Republican dirty tricks machine. Never mind the Dems own machine, such as the one fingering Bush for killing James Byrd, or the Mediscare ads, or the radio adds saying a vote for a Republican is a vote for church burning, nor all the invective Democrat candidates hurl at their opponents. That's all ok, perfectly legitimate, "telling the truth and they just think it's hell" kind of stuff in their minds.
That's their reasons for their anger, and they would probably say it's a reaction to Republican/Right-Wing reactionaries taking over our politics. That's their mindset on it. In some ways that's an indication of how far off center they've moved, where policies that actually a majority of the country generally supports or at least close to a majority (as close as some of their policies on the flip side) can frequently be declared "out of the mainstream" by Liberal opinion, the courts, Democratic Senators, &tc.
But I think you're right that the problem is bigger than just "the devil makes us do it" theory that they would respond with implies. It's the fact that they have come to see disagreement with them, different visions and policies, as diabolical in the first place. Their attitude towards the political give-and-take in a Democratic society has been gradually and progressively (heh) infused with the mindset of the progressive Left.
In the FOR Sincere Liberalism post I linked to, I mentioned an article called "Slouching Towards Berkeley" that is in the book Destructive Generation by Peter Colier and David Horowitz. It's an example in microcosm of what happened to the old Liberals and the old Democratic Party. It happened first in Berkeley, among other Liberal communities and institutions, and eventually to Democratic and Liberal politics as a whole.
The big question that is endlessly debated is why the Liberal establishment was incapable of resisting the "Progressive" Left when the latter decided to stop attacking institutions from the outside and instead move in to control them from the inside. Becoming "Clean for Gene" in '68 despite the fact that the Democratic Party wasn't something they identified with (later revisionism on their part to the contrary notwithstanding), re-writing the Party by-laws which then allowed them to be key in nominating McGovern in '72. Things advanced from there to what we see now. But back to the question of why couldn't sincere Liberals resist those, like Tom Hayden (a favorite example of mine), Ron Dellums, and other radical progressives and indeed often made them - Republicans didn't make them, they made them - front-and-center and in leadership positions? Radical protesters who insinuated that American soldiers were war criminals in Senate testimony would never have become the Party nominee in the Party of Truman or JFK. Why is that considered uncontroversial now, except among us out-of-the-mainstream right-wing-fringe types?
Liberals of old have a long tradition of pride in the country and defense of it. Why are most of them now half-apologetic if not critical of our heritage? That is, why have they at least half-accepted the premises of the "progressives", and feel that their critiques are serious, even if they don't quite agree completely? Well, it's a question worthy of exploration and I'm not sure I totally know the answer. But whenever this comes up I'm reminded of a paragraph from Lionel Trilling's The Middle of the Journey as quoted on p.13 of The Politics of Bad Faith:
Certain things were clear between Laskell and Maxim [Trilling's representative liberal and radical]. It was established that Laskell accepted Maxim's extreme commitment to the future. It was understood between them that Laskell did not accept all of Maxim's ideas. At the same time, Laskell did not oppose Maxim's ideas. One could not oppose them without being illiberal, even reactionary. One would have to have something better to offer and Laskell had nothing better. He could not even imagine what the better ideas would be.
That's a partial explaination, but it begs the question of why the Laskells of the world didn't have enough confidence in their own ideas to see them as better. Part of the reason there might be the trauma of Vietnam - a psychological obsession of Liberals to this day, where every conflict America gets involved in is if not a Vietnam then potentially so, and Vietnam = bad. Afghanistan was Vietnam. Somalia was Vietnam and they made sure to make it so. The first Gulf War was compared to Vietnam until it ended, &tc.
But the other reason is more deeply rooted in the origins of what we call modern Liberalism (as opposed to Classical Liberalism), in what Jacques Barzun called Liberalism's "Great Switch", which I referenced here and is described somewhat here:
Of course, it is not only in the realm of culture that confusion reigns. The realms of social relations and politics are equally beset. One result is what Mr. Barzun refers to as the "Great Switch," "the reversal of Liberalism into its opposite." If Liberalism originally "triumphed on the principle that the best government is that which governs least," today "for all the western nations political wisdom has recast the ideal of liberty into liberality." The universalization and extension of the welfare state has nurtured a culture of entitlement. What began in an access of largess ends in an explosion of regulation and hectoring scrutiny.
Then we have to ask why that happened. Why did Classical Liberalism transform into its opposite, into what I mean hear by Liberalism (as opposed to Leftism)?
The origins of the "Great Switch" are to be found in the 19th century, when Liberalism's philosophical basis was re-cast from Natural Law theories onto Utilitarian grounds - the same bases from which Socialism sprung, rendering them relatives-by-adoption as it were. Then followed their interpretations of what sort of policies would be of the greatest good for the greatest number and gradually they were persuaded it would be various government-directed programs aimed at benefiting people and uplifting their lot rather than liberty and limited government. They were moved to adopt similar premises and axioms of the more radical, though not their program. They "did not accept all radical ideas, but did not oppose them. One could not oppose them without being illiberal, even reactionary." So now it is us out-of-the-mainstream right-wing fringe types that defend liberty and limited government (tell it to our politicians! I know, I know), classical Liberalism, and are seen as diabolical for it - illiberal, reactionary.
FDR, Truman, down to JFK, all remained strong though not Classical Liberals. LBJ and his establishment were, until their confidence was finally undermined by the experiences of Vietnam abroad and social disorder (riots, protests, antipathy, &tc) at home. The radicals that Truman confronted walked back into Democratic politics and became its intellectual base, and intellectual and philosophical bases are far more important than some people, including a fair number of my readers (c.f. old "Humanities" debates) think. See here and here and here and in general a surfeit of posts from last summer.
Check out this post. Vanderleun has come to conclusions similar to mine, but was still in the Democratic Party, till now.
I still want a revitalized, sincere Liberalism, not because I would become one again myself, but the country is better off with two dynamic visions. That isn't what we have now, unfortunately. Will we again? We'll have to. But whether we will depends not upon what the Right does right now, but reform and revitalization of the Liberals from within. I don't see that happening yet. If they were to suffer truly crushing defeats at the ballot box, it might prompt some soul-searching, as took place - partially and incompletely - after the '88 election. The incompleteness made it possible for a relapse into a destructive politcs that is worse.
But they're unlikely to get soundly defeated, so things are bound to continue this way for at least the next couple election cycles.
Yesterday, Bush outlined his in the press conference, and Kerry also outlined his in the Washington Post. We've checked out Bush's, lets look at Kerry's:
To be successful in Iraq, and in any war for that matter, our use of force must be tied to a political objective more complete than the ouster of a regime. To date, that has not happened in Iraq. It is time it did.
That's the first false statement. Bush has outlined what we're trying to accomplish there beyond ousting the Ba'athists, and yesterday wasn't the first time. Kerry either hasn't been paying attention, is too stupid to remember, doesn't think his audience will, or believes we'll all slip it down the memory hole and go with his version instead. Regardless of which of these are true (any or all), it's a sign he's not worthy to govern. He's a demagogue, not a serious statesman.
The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America, or in sapping American resolve, or in forcing the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops. Our country is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission.
That part at least is good. Of course it contradicts what he just said in the section above, acceding that is what Bush's strategy is and saying he would continue it. But that's what doublethink is all about: we're supposed to believe two mutually contradictory things. First, that Bush has no strategy in Iraq and second that Kerry would continue to carry forward Bush's strategy in Iraq if he's elected.
Over the past year the Bush administration has advanced several plans for a transition to democratic rule in Iraq. Each of those plans, after proving to be unworkable, was abandoned.
Ok, so we know Bush is flexible, rather than intransigently singing one note ("the UN and International Community will fix Iraq as they have Kosovo and Afghanistan" being the Dems, and Kerry's, one note).
Because of the way the White House has run the war, we are left with the United States bearing most of the costs and risks associated with every aspect of the Iraqi transition.
Just as in Afghanistan. Again, as pointed out before, lack of contribution by Kerry's favorite countries is not necessarily the fault of anyone but themselves, guided by their own interests and priorities. Countries like France, Germany, and Russia are not exactly contributing the lion's share in Afghanistan either. Kerry relies on the audience not connecting things, because we're supposed to blame Bush - and America - for the decisions of other countries. "The devil made them do it" theory if international relations has gone mainstream. Next it will be our fault that they sold their votes to Saddam in exchange for oil-for-palaces $ and oil deals.
In recent weeks the administration -- in effect acknowledging the failure of its own efforts -- has turned to U.N. representative Lakhdar Brahimi to develop a formula for an interim Iraqi government that each of the major Iraqi factions can accept.
They damn Bush for not involving the UN more, and damn Bush for involving the UN. Another attempt at inducing doublethink.
We also need to renew our effort to attract international support in the form of boots on the ground to create a climate of security in Iraq. We need more troops and more people who can train Iraqi troops and assist Iraqi police.
We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander.
Ok, we must do what Bush is doing. Got it.
The United Nations, not the United States, should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and re-create a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people.
Why's that? Because they were so good at embezzling from the Oil-for-Fraud program? Because they built up such a reserve of goodwill with the Iraqi people when the UN was working hand in glove with the Ba'athists? Because the UN has produced what it has in Bosnia and Kosovo and Afghanistan? Because they did such a bang up job in Rwanda?
This is an assertion frequently, made, but it is invariably an unsupported assertion with no argument as to why the UN should be made top dog ever attempted. Because none can be made.
The primary responsibility for security must remain with the U.S. military, preferably helped by NATO until we have an Iraqi security force fully prepared to take responsibility.
Wait. I'm confused again. I thought he just got done bemoaning the fact that most of the security responsibility is in our hands.
Finally, we must level with our citizens. Increasingly, the American people are confused about our goals in Iraq, particularly why we are going it almost alone. The president must rally the country around a clear and credible goal.
Done. But of course the country isn't just one man, and it would help if people like Kerry and his buddies weren't constantly demagoging the issue. It would help if they were honest, candid, and serious on Iraq. It would help if they cared at least as much about winning the war abroad as they do defeating their enemies at home. Then they might come up with a serious alternative strategy to present to the voters, and be more worthy of getting elected themselves.
But, blinded by hatred and spite, they forge ahead as they are. It might work, but I for one will never respect them on this basis.
In an uncertain world, as they say in the car adverts, there are some things that can always be relied on. Not getting the improvements in reading and maths that parents want? Blame it on the tests that reveal the weakness. Discipline problems in the classroom? It must be the fault of Thatcherite materialism. For the teaching profession - or at least its vociferous activist wing - it is for ever 1985. And why not? Those were the glory days, when the NUT conference was a howlathon of Trotskyist headbangers who drove one Tory education secretary after another to despair and professional ruin.
Teachers took government by the scruff of the neck (something that they refused to do to unruly pupils) and shook it. They bellowed their defiance of authority at their annual conferences and they acted it out in the classroom with their systematically subversive teaching.
Of course the Left, which often decries "demonization", engages in most of it. It's just that they don't want their mascots - "spiritual leaders" of terrorist organizations, mass killers, totalitarian despots, "revolutionary" killers, and the like deplored. But the Thatchers of the world, or the Reagans or Bushs, those are, in Howard Dean's memorable phrase "the real enemy here".
As a proud, independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation, and neither does America. We're not an imperial power, as nations such as Japan and Germany can attest. We're a liberating power, as nations in Europe and Asia can attest as well.
- President George Bush
Again, here's the text of the Press Conference. It's good he did it, and most of what he said was spot on and needed to be said. Having the questions asked so they could be answered also was good. The questions weren't as bad as I expected, but instead stuck to the ones that are being raised a lot. Many of these are spurious, but the opportunity to have them be answered rather than just raised rhetorically and left out there was good. For the most part, Bush's answers to them were good.
What are blog posts for, though? Mostly concentrating on picking nits, so my focus here is inevitably going to be more critical than not. Thus I wanted to make the point that overall I think it was a good statement and a solid press conference. Lets start with this:
The violence we have seen is a power grab by these extreme and ruthless elements. It's not a civil war. It's not a popular uprising. Most of Iraq is relatively stable. Most Iraqis by far reject violence and oppose dictatorship.
A good point and a true one. But it remains to be seen how much the majority of Iraqis are willing to sacrifice - that is, how much they're willing to fight themselves - to oppose the violent and dictatorial elements in their society, how much they're willing to sacrifice and fight for a democratic Iraq.
A situation where we're willing to sacrifice more than the Iraqis themselves on behalf of the vision Bush spoke of is not one conducive to success. I am not aligning myself with those who have said that "democracy cannot be imposed from outside", their implication always being that it only springs up internally without outside help. Rubbish. We had help when we separated from Britain - without the French fleet and other support, who knows how the Battle of Yorktown might have turned out. We might all be speaking English today. Think about that.
Bush was correct in pointing out that the vast majority of Iraqis want a democratic Iraq and do not support these extremists. But it does sometimes seem that the vast majority of Iraqis disagree with those in the West who claim that democracy cannot be imposed from outside, in the sense that they're rather passive while we do the heavy lifting for them. This is not universally true and no doubt people will consider writing in to tell me of all the Iraqis who have vollenteered to take on highly dangerous jobs, and all the iraqis who have died at the hands of the Ba'athist elements, Sadr's gangs, and terrorist infiltrators. They'll be right. But the ultimate question remains: when push comes to shove, will the majority of Iraqis shove harder than the extremists push? As Bush said regarding a democratic Iraq:
Sovereignty involves more than a date and a ceremony. It requires Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own future.
But there was this:
In Fallujah, coalition forces have suspended offensive operations, allowing members of the Iraqi Governing Council and local leaders to work on the restoration of central authority in that city. These leaders are communicating with the insurgents to ensure an orderly turnover of that city to Iraqi forces, so that the resumption of military action does not become necessary.
Remember, the insurgents here have aptly been described, by this Administration, as "dead-enders" - intransigently opposed to a new Iraq. When the Iraqi National Council pushed for a cease-fire with the intransigent Ba'athist elements in Fallujah, that was not a good sign to me. Bush did address that in the Q&A:
We'll also need to continue training the Iraqi troops. I was disappointed in the performance of some of the troops. Some of the units performed brilliantly. Some of them didn't. And we need to find out why. If they're lacking in equipment, we'll get them equipment. If there needs to be more intense training, we'll get more intense training.
But eventually, Iraq's security is going to be handled by the Iraqi people themselves.
It's a good sign that they're looking into deficiencies in the Iraqi security forces, and it's good that we're emphasizing that eventually they'll have to handle it themselves. We'll help, but cannot do for them what they will not do for themselves. And yes, I did just echo LBJ there.
Bush was asked about the Vietnam comparison:
Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half of Americans now support it.
What does that say to you? And how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?
I'd stress this part of Bush's answer:
And we've been there a year. I know that seems like a long time. It seems like a long time to the loved ones whose troops have been overseas. But when you think about where the country has come from, it's a relatively short period of time.
If Sept. 11th was 1939, that puts us at, what? 1941-2 by comparison. Things weren't looking so hot then. Actually we've accomplished quite a lot. Instead of being rolled back, we're on the offensive and have the initiative. More on being on the offensive later.
But overall, I think Bush's response to the "Vietnam" analogy was deficient. He should have said there is no "North Iraq" that is a safe harbor for our enemies. Indeed, Northern Iraq, like Southern Iraq, is secure and friendly. There is no Soviet Union supplying the other side.
There is the problem with Iran and Syria. . .and our good friends, the Saudis. . .allowing infiltration of foreign fighters into Iraq and supplying arms to the enemy. We need to lock that down in no uncertain terms. Who do you think is more likely to try and lock down Syria and Iran, Bush or Kerry? The voters will have to decide.
Bush indicated that we might reinforce the forces in Iraq. That's good as well. It's debatable - despite what Andrew Sullivan wrote yesterday - whether additional troops deployed at any one time in Iraq is really the cure-all. It's also puzzling that he would write what he did given that all the armed services are meeting or exceeding their recruitment goals. That said, I've written before that we need a significantly larger military, principally Army. The fact that we're meeting or exceeding our recruiting goals shows to me that it could be done, without Ralph Nader's proposed draft. We need it to be able to maintain troop rotation, and allow reinforcement when needed. We also need it to be able to lock down Iran and Syria if needed by force. They should know the consequences of continuing to commit acts of war against us and Iraq. This is a lapse on Bush's fault, but I see absolutely no indication that Kerry would be better. Indeed, quite the contrary. If you look at his spending proposals, he would increase the "investments" in all "vital programs" that he considers our "real priorities", but that does not include Defense. He pledged to not increase that.
Bush was asked about the failure to find WMDs in Iraq so far. He gave the usual answer. Why he can't say "programs" is beyond me. The fact is that since we went into Iraq, we have found numerous WMD programs, all in violation of the Security Council Resolutions which prohibited not only the weapons themselves but programs to make them. Now, it is an "actual true fact" that if anything the weapons programs are more dangerous than any old stockpiles we might find. Many existing stockpiles degrade over time, while the programs indicated a lasting interest in producing more as soon as feasable - that is, as soon as attention wavered, as many wanted to do prior to 9/11 and as many hoped would happen if only "inspections" would play themselves out and produce, once again, feckless inaction followed by calls by the French & Russians to eliminate the sanctions so they could cash in on the promises Saddam made to them in exchange for their votes.
Now, for diplomatic reasons, our crude Cowboy President who knows nothin' of diplomacy couldn't say that last part. But he could and should have emphasized the breadth and depth of the prohibited weapons R&D programs that we did find. It's not just Bush, either. It's like no one in the Administration can pronounce the word "programs". Others for their own reasons want to minimize that, but the Bush Administration should not be among them. They should be emphasizing that at every opportunity, and they continually fail to.
Then there was the "when did you stop beating your wife" type question:
QUESTION: Personal responsibility for September 11th?
There's no perfect answer Bush can give to that. He gave the best that can be given. After all, the effort to shift personal responsibility for Sept. 11th from Osama and al-Qaeda to Bush is a farce driven by ideological spite, and I've been blogging about that for over a week now. So no need to repeat previous remarks on that again. In answer to a later question along similar lines, Bush put it right when he closed with this:
Here's what I feel about that: The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible for killing Americans. And that's why we will stay on the offense until we bring people to justice.
Here was perhaps the best part of the whole evening:
BUSH: Maybe I can best put it this way, why I feel so strongly about this historic moment. I was having dinner with Prime Minister Koizumi, and we were talking about North Korea, about how we can work together to deal with the threat. The North Korea leader is a threat.
And here are two friends, now, discussing what strategy to employ to prevent him from further developing and deploying a nuclear weapon. And it dawned on me that, had we blown the peace in World War II, that perhaps this conversation would not have been taking place.
It also dawned on me then that when we get it right in Iraq, at some point in time an American president will be sitting down with a duly elected Iraqi leader, talking about how to bring security to what has been a troubled part of the world.
The legacy that our troops are going to leave behind is a legacy of lasting importance, as far as I'm concerned. It's a legacy that really is based upon our deep belief that people want to be free and that free societies are peaceful societies.
Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing or free. I'd strongly disagree with that.
I reject that. Because I believe that freedom is the deepest need of every human soul, and if given a chance, the Iraqi people will be not only self-governing, but a stable and free society.
Which goes hand in glove with this from somewhat later:
What I'm saying is, let the discussions begin, and I won't prejudge the conclusion. As the president, I will encourage and foster these kinds of discussions, because one of the jobs of the president is to leave behind a legacy that will enable other presidents to better deal with the threat that we face.
We are in a long war. The war on terror is not going to end immediately. This is a war against people who have no guilt in killing innocent people. That's what they're willing to do. They kill on a moment's notice, because they're trying to shake our will, they're trying to create fear, they're trying to affect people's behaviors. And we're simply not going to let them do that.
And my fear, of course, is that this will go on for a while, and therefore, it's incumbent upon us to learn from lessons or mistakes, and leave behind a better foundation for presidents to deal with the threats we face. This is the war that other presidents will be facing as we head into the 21st century.
One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course you can.
That's why it's important for us to spread freedom throughout the Middle East. Free societies are hopeful societies. A hopeful society is one more likely to be able to deal with the frustrations of those who are willing to commit suicide in order to represent a false ideology.
A free society is a society in which somebody is more likely to be able to make a living. A free society is a society in which someone is more likely to be able to raise their child in a comfortable environment and see to it that that child gets an education.
That's why I'm pressing the Greater Middle East Reform Initiative to work to spread freedom, and we will continue on that. So long as I'm the president, I will press for freedom. I believe so strongly in the power of freedom.
You know why I do? Because I've seen freedom work right here in our own country. I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country's gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world.
And as the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to help feed the hungry. I think the American people find it interesting that we're providing food for the North Korea people who starve.
We have an obligation to lead the fight on AIDS, on Africa. And we have an obligation to work toward a more free world. That's our obligation. That is what we have been called to do, as far as I'm concerned.
And my job as the president is to lead this nation and to making the world a better place. And that's exactly what we're doing.
In his opening statement Bush laid it out this way:
The success of free government in Iraq is vital for many reasons:
A free Iraq is vital because 25 million Iraqis have as much right to live in freedom as we do.
A free Iraq will stand as an example to reformers across the Middle East.
A free Iraq will show that America is on the side of Muslims who wish to live in peace, as we've already shown in Kuwait and Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan.
A free Iraq will confirm to a watching world that America's word, once given, can be relied upon, even in the toughest times.
Above all, the defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is vital to the defeat of violence and terror elsewhere and vital, therefore, to the safety of the American people.
Now is the time, and Iraq is the place, in which the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized world. We must not waver.
That's the closest thing to a "Den Beste explaination" he's made. It's probably the closest to such that can be openly made without raising too much opposition in the Middle East. But there it is.
Earlier today I said and others concurred that Bush should have given a speech instead of a press conference.
Well, I was wrong. It wasn't perfect - nothing is, and some will hold up impossible standards - but the statement at the begining and the answering of questions were both good. I'll have more later.
Thomas Sowell is once again taking a global rather than parochial view of something. Here's a review of his latest book. I haven't read it yet, but I'm a big fan of his work. Check out the review, check out the book. I'm sure I will, but probably after Basic & AIT.
Bush will hold a Press Conference tonight to address the current situation in Iraq.
I have little doubt that the press questions will attempt to hijack the subject to pre-9/11, for reasons I have blogged and written about before, insinuating criticisms by people who would have reacted just like this had Bush done what they're implying he should have then. So a speech might be better, but a press conference is good and I won't make the better the enemy of the good. The other more spurious questions need to be confronted as well as substantive ones on the current situation in Iraq.
Responding to recent themes, M. Simon writes, via e-mail:
The long marchers are not doing so well with today's students. The long marchers control the institutions but the students are not too receptive.
It's true that a majority aren't, but enough are for the thing to be self-perpetuating. They'll create enough successors and hire only them to perpetuate their ideology's control of those institutions unless some means can be found or created to promote ideologically neutral hiring practices again.
As it stands, they don't need to persuade everyone or even a majority to embrace their ideology. They just need to persuade enough who will follow in their footsteps and then be groomed to climb the ladder (to mix metaphors) behind them, and convince a majority to not rock the boat. That is, convince a majority to leave it alone, which is done via passive-aggressive methods of intimidation.
As I've argued in the past in numerous posts, institutions matter and thus so does control of them. PCization of various government departments, based on the prevailing attitudes of those who worked in them, was and still remains a factor in how terror networks were and are fought. It's somewhat overlooked by the 9/11 commission, because this aspect of things apparently remains politically toxic except among us members of the Vast Right-Wing Media. But it's not being addressed in no small part because other, non-government institutions likewise are under control of the Marchers: "mainstream" media is hostile now, just wait till they're able to characterize things as a "McCarthyite purge of professionals being conducted by Right-Wing Ideologues".
Many, many people in the blogosphere and beyond wonder aloud every few months why Bush hasn't cleaned house in some of these obviously deficient institutions. Well, there is an answer, and the answer relates to why I devoted an an entire essay in my America's 21st Century Foreign Policy series to the generational mission of institutional reform and rejuvenation. It wasn't simply because I wanted to combine pet issues, it was because whether we will succeed or fail largely depends on how we handle the problems we face, and how we handle them is largely determined by the prevailing vision in our institutions.
Right now it's quite different than what prevailed in the past, when even - or especially - Liberals could be relied upon to be as strong and unapologetic in the defense of our country and its interests as anyone else, rather than hamstringing things.
Actually things were more political in the 60s and 70s. You just had fewer sources so it seemed more monolithic. Thank the Maker for the internet.
It's probably true that things were more overtly political in the '60s and '70s, when the Marchers were occupying buildings to force their way into controlling what the policies would be, than they are now when they sit behind the desk and make the policy without having to conduct sit ins and shut institutions down. Why shut down what they control?
Plus, half their effort - at least - is devoted to convincing those who are not persuaded to adopt their vision that there is no point in engaging in politics, no point in confronting them. The motto "Question Authority" has a subliminal caveat: "except ours". Their response then is to use intimidation and, when that fails, passive-aggressiveness to wear out any disagreement. How many "speech codes" were supposedly defeated in the early '90s, only to be quietly brought back under a new guise later, when attention wavered and everyone thought "well, it's over, we won on that issue at least". But it didn't go away, and new terminology is invented all the time to shut down disagreement. The phrase "micro-aggression" that Andrew Sullivan mentioned a couple months ago was new to me. How often do people think that is invoked to rule unacceptable Leftist characterizations of the Right rather than just rule out-of-bounds arguments that makes a Leftist uncomfortable, and thus constituting a "micro-aggression" against them?
Most people throw up their hands and don't fight it, so sure things aren't as overtly political as in the '60s and '70s. But that "micro-aggression" is just a new tool in the arsenal of Marcuse's concept of Liberating Tolerance: toleration for movements of the Left, intolerance of movements of the Right, and respect for diversity being only skin deep rather than a respect for intellectual diversity. But it also limits the civic debate and is aimed at narrowing the discussion, ruling things out of consideration and thought. Remember the context in which Andrew Sullivan was confronted with the charge of committing “micro-aggression” – when he was talking about how to free us all, including most Moslems, from the radicals and extremists. The student who complained that he had “aggressed” her accepted that he wasn’t lumping all Moslems together, but that he shouldn’t have talked about it anyhow, because she was uncomfortable none the less. This is aimed at insuring that we never find any solution except “why do they hate us, they must be right – we cannot even suggest that they may be wrong.” Does it work completely? No, but these things do have an affect. Just because their ability to dictate the terms of debate is not complete does not mean it doesn’t exist.
It affects us every day, and inarguably people have died because the Long Marchers control these institutions and thus have a large degree of influence on the kind of policies we were able to adopt pre-9/11, and their efforts now are aimed at regaining the measure of control they've lost since. But also inarguably, they have not even now lost all their control, and their attitudes and latent threat affects the "realm of the possible" even now.
Thus, for example, the Transportation Department adopts pointless, futile anti-terror measures rather than effective ones. That's just one example among many possible examples, but I've written extensively on some of the others in the past and will refrain from repeating them again now.
Ok, so my general principle is to not criticize military decisions that I don't know enough about. But sometimes, one is just left befuddled. I don't think enough has been made of our attempts to get a cease fire in Fallujah (link via Winds). What the hell? When is this peace craze going to blow over already? Have we learned nothing about the nature of the enemy we're fighting?
I say that not because I'm bloody-minded, but because we know three things:
The people who are fighting us in Fallujah - not the citizens who exited when they had the chance last week, but the "enemy combatants", are incorrigible foes not only of ourselves but of a Democratic Iraq.
Seeking a ceasefire is seen as weakness by the other side, which interprets it as a victory for themselves and a defeat for us. Didn't we learn that as long ago as, oh, I donno, the first Gulf War?
Battling them now in Fallujah is, or was, an opportunity to eliminate an enemy now, rather than have them continue to plague the future. It would save lives in the long run. A cease-fire now won't get them to be peaceful. We tried that over the past year with these fellows, and this was the response.
Emphasis on one thing in the above: fighting them now, killing them now, at the cost of casualties now, will - or would have - saved lives in the long run. Me, I thought that was the theory of the war as a whole: go out and deal with the bad guys, stamp them out, eliminate them. We'll suffer casualties and so will they, but fewer than if we did not. I understand Bush's sentiment about casualties and I agree with it.
But I support the war not because I am bloody-minded, but because I am not. Every death is painful, but we go on because we believe ultimately more will live than would if we took the alternative. A cease-fire is a tactical matter: the enemy certainly doesn't see it as an opportunity to rethink their opposition, to rethink their desire to kill Americans and Iraqis who do not share their vision of a boot stamping on a human face, forever. They see it as a victory, an opportunity to pull a fade to fight again another day. How often have we experienced that? Giving the enemy a respite, only to find that this allows key leaders to slip the noose and regroup to fight again another day? When will we learn from it, and furthermore when will we learn that this is not mercy. Certainly not merciful to the people who will suffer and die at their hands in the future because we did not finish them off when we had the chance, and even not mercy to the enemy, who will still have to be fought again later.
Anyhow, that's today's intemperate rant. Please convince me I'm wrong.
Check out Wizbang's Kerry Slogan Generator. Print one out and put it up on your wall, offend your Lefty co-workers (who no doubt have their own banners).
In recent posts replying to the latest efforts to politicize the war, I've been asking the rhetorical question: what if Bush had done what his critics are implying he should have done pre-9/11? We know the answer, and Gregg Easterbrook spells it out, as does Kathleen Parker. All of his most vociferous critics now, and that includes John Kerry, would have been all over him.
Indeed, their criticisms now disguise the fact, or are intended to at any rate, that if they were in power they would not wage the war as aggressively. Their preference is for pre-9/11 methods, and John Kerry has inadvertently blurted that out and signaled so at every opportunity. That's fine. If they run on their real beliefs, that's acceptable. But voters should take into account which side of the political spectrum is politicizing the war, and I lay it out here in a piece on Enter Stage Right.
I don't think we did enough before 9/11, but I don't blame one man, even a President, for that. He had his share, as did his predecessor, as did many others - including most prominently those voices that are now most critical of the handling of the war and which are always the most critical (and were when we went into Afghanistan. Never forget that). It is true that they are attempting to shift blame from the perpetrators to their domestic political opponents, if inadvertently because they hate the latter more than the former. Blinded by their hatreds, they are unconcerned with the larger consequences and fallout of indulging these hatreds. That alone makes them unfit to govern.
