How the Republicans are Stealing the November Elections
Or, Bushes and Bonapartes
On November 7, the American people delivered a stiff rebuke to the Bush Administration and the Republican Party over its far-right policies. They were especially worried about the Iraq fiasco, and upset over the mounting US and Iraqi casualties. But they also worried about Bush's coddling of the Religious Right and the erosion of the separation of religion and state, along with the assault on civil liberties.
Washington has been gripped by speculation that the brain surgery undergone by Senator Tim Johnson, D-South Dakota, might lead to his seat falling open, allowing South Dakota governor Michael Rounds, a Republican, to appoint a Republican replacement until 2008. That would throw the senate into the hands of the Republicans, since Richard Bruce Cheney is president of the senate and can cast tie-breaking votes. This scenario is undemocratic in so many ways it is hard to count them. The idea that a Republican governor elected by a few thousand shivering voters (South Dakota's population is 754,844) could overturn the results of an overwhelming national popular vote by fiat should make the blood boil of everyone who cares about equity in the Republic.
(It is a matter for regret that poor Senator Johnson's health problems should provoke anything but concern for his well-being, and I wish him a speedy recovery and sympathize with his family's ordeal.)
The Michael Rounds Coup may or may not take place; if it does, I think the blogosphere should mobilize to see that he never wins another election, and to work to see that both senators from S.D. are Democrats in 08. How many Paypal clicks could it take to affect a South Dakota election? Egregious behavior on the level of national politics should be punished. And, I think a Minnekota, which combined the two Dakotas with Minnesota to form a single state, would make a lot more sense than the current arrangement.
But the Michael Rounds Coup would be a small thing compared to the Iraq War Coup now being conducted by W. You thought that the American people had spoken? They want the troops out? They want to be extracted from the quagmire? Too bad.
You see, we do not have a democracy, with the Bush administration in power. We have an elective dictatorship. The elections are like lotteries. Many of them don't even reflect the popular vote or the general will. The Rehnquist Coup of 2000 was not intrinsically different from the Rounds Coup (if it happens) of 2006. Nor would the techniques whereby elections are "won" bear much scrutiny. Ask Tom Delay, through the penitentiary window. And the incumbents feel they owe nothing to the electorate, nothing whatsoever. They have the Power. They act as they please. The rest of us are just onlookers.
So Bush's response to the clear public demand for a change of course and a disengagement? It is to run to Henry Kissinger's apron strings. And what does the Butcher of Chile and Indonesia urge? That Bush should put another 40,000 US troops into Iraq!
The problem is that Iraq is a 500,000 troop problem. Another 40,000 are just going to anger locals. And, apparently, they would be sicced on the Shiite Mahdi Army in hopes of permanently crippling the Sadr Movement headed (in part) by Muqtada al-Sadr. And maybe they'd be used in a new offensive against the Sunni Arab guerrillas.
Let me explain why it won't work. It won't work because Iraqis are now politically and socially mobilized. This means that they have the social preconditions for effective political and paramilitary action (they are largely urban, literate, connected by media, etc.) And they are politically savvy and well-connected. They are well armed, gaining in military experience, and well financed through petroleum and antiquities smuggling and through cash infusions from supporters abroad. The Mahdi Army fighters can be defeated by the US military, as happened twice in 2004. But they cannot be made to disappear, as they were not in 2004. That is because they are an organic movement springing from the Shiite poor, and are the paramilitary arm of a large social movement with a national network and ideology.
Attempts to crush popular movements once they have mobilized have most often failed. No attempts at counter-revolution in France in the 1790s were successful. Even powerful empires like Austria were helpless before the mobilized French infantry (who for the first time used large numbers of conscripts).
In 1905-1907, the Iranian public mobilized to demand a constitution and parliament from the autocratic Qajar monarchy, which the then shah granted shortly before his death. His son and successor, Mohammad Ali Shah, hated the whole idea of constraints on his absolute power, and he tried to get rid of the parliament and the constitution. He simply provoked a national revolution against himself in 1908-1909, with major crowd and paramilitary action in Azerbaijan in particular, and ended up having to flee the country.
To give another Iran example, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi tried to crack down militarily on the mobilized urban crowds demonstrating against him in 1978, and even formed a military cabinet. But hundreds of thousands were coming out for well-organized demonstrations. When the military fired on peaceful protesters in Tehran, it simply enraged the whole country further. By January of 1979 the shah, despite his powerful army, had had to flee to Egypt.
I am not saying that popular protests cannot be crushed. They can and have been. I am saying that when you have a whole country that is politically mobilized and has substantial resources, a crack-down is likely doomed unless it is almost genocidal (Saddam's use of chemical weapons in 1988 and of helicopter gunships against civilians in 1991 are examples, as is Truman's use of the atomic bomb against Japan).
The US is not going to commit the half a million troops it would take to have a chance of winning in Iraq. Nor is it going to use genocidal methods to strike absolute terror into the hearts of the Iraqi people.
The Iraq situation has gone beyond the point where 40,000 troops can retrieve it. And that is if we even had 40,000 troops to put into Iraq and keep them there any length of time, which we do not.
In fact, since most of the "coalition of the willing" troops have now left (Italy, Spain, etc.), one of the two US divisions would only be putting the number of Coalition soldiers back up to what it was earlier in the Occupation, when things were also not going well.
The fact is that if provincial elections were held today, the Sadr Movement would sweep to power in all the Shiite provinces (with the possible exception of Najaf itself). It is increasingly the most popular political party among Iraq's Shiite majority. For the US to cut the Sadrists out of power in parliament and then fall on them militarily would just throw Iraq into turmoil. It would increase the popularity of the Sadrists, and ensure that they gain nationalist credentials that will ensconce them for perhaps decades.
The "surge" tactic is being generated by Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard and by Frederick W. Kagan and Bill Kristol, i.e. by the same plutocratic American Enterprise Institute (Likudnik Central) that brought you the Iraq War with champagne toasts in the first place.
Kagan has a recent book on Napoleon. Napoleon's most prominent characteristic was his willingness to waste his troops' lives lightly. On his return from Palestine in 1799, he even had some poisoned because they were ill with plague and he did not want to risk transporting them back to his HQ in Cairo. He took 54,000 men to Egypt in 1798; about half came back. His Russia campaign saw a similar dynamic, on a much larger scale.
Bush is the Napoleon of our age, trampling on whole peoples, a Jacobin Emperor mouthing the slogans of liberty and popular sovereignty while crushing and looting those he "liberated." And Kagan and Kristol (playing Talleyrand 1798) and Emperor Bush are readying a further slaughter of our US troops, 24,000 of whom have been killed or wounded, and of innocent Iraqis, 600,000 of whom have been killed by criminal and political violence since spring of 2003.
And you thought a mere election would make a difference. No one had to elect the American Enterprise Institute. No one needs to crown the emperor, he can do it himself. Welcome to Year 1 of the Empire.
posted by Juan Cole @ 12/15/2006 06:29:00 AM
50 Comments:
Michael Schwartz, Professor of Sociology and Faculty Director of the Undergraduate College of Global Studies at Stony Brook University, writes convincingly on Why Withdrawal is Unmentionable
The world now needs a popular protest in the streets of the USA. If Bush and others ignore elections, maybe they pay attention to millions on the streets.
Wasting another $100 billion and thousands of lives in Iraq is just criminal. Imagine how much we could to counter the climate change (e.g. by ramping up rail transportation - would also save GM and Ford - in the USA) with that money.
"And Kagan and Kristol (playing Talleyrand 1798) and Emperor Bush are readying a further slaughter of our US troops, 24,000 of whom have been killed or wounded, and of innocent Iraqis, 600,000 of whom have been killed by criminal and political violence since spring of 2003."
Let us not forget the religious context of the current era, one in which human sacrifices are required in order to appease the gods to which these people appeal for their guidance and success. While various factions may assert that "Christianity" ("Christian" inanity) is a religion founded on "love they neighbour as theself" and "good will to men, peace on Earth," the truth of the matter rests with the numbers of those who have been sent to their demises in the name of some Crusade or another, most notably against the Middle Easterners (locally Washington, DC?) in the name of the cruxified one. There has never been a war in which the "Christian" deity has been invoked that has not resulted in widespread bloodshed and untold numbers of maimed, wounded, killed, and otherwise destroyed peoples (not forgetting the environmental impact), usually resulting in more and more grudges being gouged into peoples' souls, scars that barely if ever heal, much like the eternal wounds on the fellow Jesus' extremities that are refreshened with either paint or real blood, memorialised each and every minute of every day of every year by the ritual anthropophagists who delight to the point of endorphinated calmness and serenity whenever they take a bite of the fellow's "body" and drink some of his "blood."
Napoleon might be excused for his various other accomplishments. Stalin might not, having reduced his burdensome population by millions. Hitler might not fare so well either (despite the VW "Bug," superhighways, and rocketry), having committed and lost 6 million Germans, adding to the numbers of various others who were also caused to perish in honour of his quest for domination. The Spanish had their conquests and Inquisition, providing the background and justification for later members of the "faith" to continue the periodic purges of those who would oppose anyone in power, using some pretext of religion to accomplish their political ends and ritual use of blood in attempts to woo their deities. Other cultures have used the same means to consecrate their empires, namely the Japanese and the Americans who were not entirely committed to the Papacy as Uncle Joe, Addled Addie, and the others had been.
Doing "God's work" usually has involved some sort of missionary work, using religion as a disguise for imperialism, used to invade every nation on every continent as a result, usually propagated by those who have no concept nor understanding of the Middle East in which their "Christian" religion was born, having been bastardised and corrupted by the Constantinians and their successors who bear the barely disguised dagger in the form of a cross, much as Constantine did on the day of the big Battle of Milvian Bridge, otherwise seen as the lynching apparatus used by the previous Romans to help sate their own blood lusts. The Romans, of course, did their own "missionary" work, extending their own empire far and wide, employing religion as a tool in their political machinations.
The current persuasion of the religious does not deny the continued need for sating appetites long whetted by the prospect of continued wars. The only difference is the limp wristed ones prefer the carnival atmosphere of the "games" in which others are offered for the sacrifice. It is no longer the case of the Napoleons or the Constantines who will lead their armies into battle when it more convenient for proxies to perform the dirty deeds for them. In stricter terms, the sacrifices are spoiled due to the reluctance of those who hope to gain the most from them to offer themselves. In "Christian" terms, the fellow Jesus might have sent one of his fledgling followers up the hill to be the lynched one rather than offering himself for the rite. As such, this conflict wrought by those who are willing to make blood a condition of success, the fighting will be in vain inasmuch as the "leaders" have all-too-often demonstrated their cowardice in the face of their deity, taking his/her name in vain, not showing true allegiance to their beliefs. "Christianity" is a success only because the fellow Jesus, as the leader, led.
Thus, the "slaughter" is fairly likened to the culling and killing of the various animals in once-Great Britain recently, when many thousands of those thought to be exposed to hoof 'n mouth disease were sent to their deaths. Of course, the government compensated the farmers but the loss of the critters amounted to a tragic waste of life, one that might have been avoided with better thinking and planning, not allowing the scourge to begin, to begin with. As the English were arming Saddam Hussein almost up until his ill-fated invasion of Kuwait, the need for unnecessary death and destruction might have been abated or avoided had the proper prophylaxis been employed. Overriding reason and rationale, the threat of Hussein and his kind was increased to the point where spilling blood and making the sacrifices was an imperative, the leaders -- male and female -- salivating like some old fat duffers in a nudie movie.
Inasmuch as Bush41 and his coterie were highly UNsuccessful in destroying enough lives, his genetic and political successor was forced to renew the conflict, by any means at hand, using any pretext. Whereas B41 had been "blooded" in a previous conflict, it fell to Bush43 to insist on his own ritual to equal (or surpass) that of his father. Again, the major problem with him and his camarilla is their cowering in the distant shadows when the hostilities began, essentially nullifying the sacredness of the efforts. Even Al Haig made a reference to Bill Jeff Blythe IV Clinton having been "made a man" by his involvement in one of the push-button attacks, either on the Sudanese aspirin factory or on the Serbs. Al, of course, forgot that BJB4C never got close to the action, rendering his efforts flaccid if not impotent. And, was the Republican drive for impeachment only about illicit "whoring"? Or not enough atavistic warring?
While the foregoing is somewhat bizarre in its thesis, the efforts to plan ahead with intellectual skill and intelligent design have been largely avoided by the dainty Democrats and the refined Republicans, to the point of even encouraging another cannibalistic fellow like Hussein to go ballistic on his neighbours so they could get some notion of jollies. For those sitting in their Armani Army uniforms in the safety of their air-conditioned accomodations, their intentions will be for naught inasmuch as they are not willing to become part of the party. And we all know how credible someone who stayed home is when talking about who wore the lampshade ... only those who have the will and guts to get lit up will ever understand the whys and wherefores of the lampshade. The party poopers don't know s**t!
Last summer we witnessed two iterations of "a surge" more crudely referred to now as "doubling down", not at blackjack, but doubling down on death.
Last summer we saw two versions of Operation Together Forward, and for reasons that Michael Schwarz so succinctly summarized in Juan's link yesterday, both were absymal failures. Violence in Baghdad actually rose, and dramatically.
Now it is as if, the President Jonathan Chait calls the "bubble boy", needs to double down on death just to assure himself that his war in Iraq has been the Greatest Strategic Disaster in our history.
Grotestque.
But at least we've seen something rare....
A rare thing
A Prophecy Fulfilled
90% of Iraqis Say 'Worse Off Than Under Saddam'
The Americans seem to have gotten themselves into an intractable mess in Iraq. They must now choose between a historical debacle if they hang on and a temporary setback if they let go.
"We cannot leave Iraq before it is stabilized," declared a former CIA officer. But to maintain a prolonged foreign occupation of Iraq is to destabilize it only further. Once the invader departs, there will no doubt be a civil war, which will accelerate the dismemberment of the nation, giving rise to a fundamentalist regime, which will make at least some people miss the era of Saddam.
Regis Debray 2003
Dear Professor Cole
For some reason I am unable to find the link to the White House Astrologer as I expect he has been consulted too.
I do note that the dear Rumsfeld is still shown on White House Radio.
The Emperor was helped by the sure knowledge that the greatest honour that can befall a Frenchman is to die for France and the same attitude holds to this day in the Foreign Legion.
So perhaps it is worth reminding the good citizens to pass on the advice of of the great Roman poet Quintus Horatius Flaccus to their children, Dulce et Decorum est pro Patria Mori.
losing a senator is actually not that easy, according to the folks at mydd:
"little to no precedent for forcibly unseating incapacitated senators
the only way the senate can remove a member is by a vote to expel, and there has never been any desire to do that for a health-related cause.
sen. karl mundt (r-s.d.) suffered a debilitating stroke in 1969 but refused to resign and stayed in office until his term expired in january 1973 - although he never showed up for work following his infirmity. republicans pressured mundt to step down shortly before the 1970 elections, when it appeared the gop was going to lose the governorship, and with it their ability to appoint a senate successor. there was never talk of a motion to expel, though the republican conference eventually did strip him of his committee assignments. in november of that year, a democrat was elected governor, so the republicans who were urging mundt's resignation turned to hoping he would serve until his term expired.
there were other, similar situations. rep. john grotberg (r-ill.) lapsed into a coma in january 1986 after participation in an experimental program for his colon cancer caused him to have a heart seizure. his family and staff refused to consider resignation, and the house took no action. he even won re-nomination to the house in the march gop primary that year, but his family finally relented and announced he would not run again. he remained a member of the house until his death in november 1986.
in the spring of 1964, sen. clair engle (d-calif.) was dying of brain cancer, but refused democratic entreaties to resign. in june, when the senate voted to break the filibuster that had stymied the civil rights bill, the dying engle was wheeled onto the senate floor to vote for cloture by motioning with his hand. he died a month later.
in the spring of 1943, sen. carter glass (d-va.) was 85 years old, in poor health and simply stopped coming to work. he died in may of 1946, still a senator but no longer a visitor to capitol hill. and according to sen. robert byrd's (d-w.va.) invaluable book of senate historical statistics, sen. james grimes (r-iowa) suffered a stroke in 1869 and remained in office as an invalid until his death in february of 1872. but there was no move in the senate to declare any of the aforementioned seats vacant.
the only instance i can think of where lawmakers took action involved gladys spellman of maryland. the democratic house member suffered a massive heart attack in october of 1980 while campaigning that left her in a semi-conscious, coma-like state from which she never emerged. she won re-election with ease, but once it was determined that there was no prospect for recovery, the house voted to declare the seat vacant in february 1981."
I watched with interest Charlie Rose's recent show featuring Henry Kissinger and I was amazed how Henry was tightrope walking to avoid saying or suggesting he may have been wrong post 9/11 regarding the actions of George W. His accent thickens with the years as he explains what he meant by the words he used in the past that perhaps did not pass on in meaning his intent, sort of Nixonian.
Great post per usual.
I have a question: What happens to the Iraq scenario if Canada pulls its troops from Afghanistan? Parti Quebecois is threatening to pull out of the Harper coalition over Canadian troops dying in Afghanistan. Stephene Dion, leader of the Liberals, is similarly against the Afghanistan adventure. What will Bush and the Pentagon do if the Canadians leave, which is increasingly a possibility?
So is Bush a would be Emperor? A would be dictator? A would be Monarch? These are all very different things! Make up your mind.
My view, he is a fascist in pursuit of a new world order of nation races inferior to the great American race. He is a racial dictator
that's a bit morbid. but not unreasonable.
Love your blog Professor Cole, but why bash North and South Dakota? They've sent exclusively Democrats to Congress in recent history, up until 2004. North Dakota still has all Democrats, Sen. Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan and Rep. Earl Pomeroy. South Dakota has Democratic Rep. Stephanie Herseth and Senator Johnson, the only Republican is Sen. John Thune. Since only 1/3 of the Senate is up for election every 2 years, SD can't get rid of Thune in 2008, though they can re-elect Johnson or replace him with another Democrat. While Sen. Johnson's death would be both a personal and national tragedy because of it's political implications, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say it would be a coup d'etat. You have to do well 2-3 elections in a row to control the Senate.. and while we did awesome (24 seats to 9) in the last election, we're still behind 40 to 27 in the remaining seats (that's what 2008 and 2010 are for!).
Prof. Cole,
I love it when you get hot like this. Why is that you can see and explain the situation in Iraq with such clarity and real understanding while all we get from the so-called wise men of the foreign policy and defense establishments is mealy-mouthed prevarications portraying an unmitigated disaster as slight problem that needs only to be tweaked a bit to be resolved to the benefit of all?
George Bush's insistence that all he wants to do is to bring democracy to Iraq rings especially hollow. If we had democracy in this country, a democracy in which all those who wanted to vote could without impairment and all votes would be counted fairly and accurately, George Bush would never have set foot in the White House.
"Saddam's use of chemical weapons in 1988 and of helicopter gunships against civilians in 1991 are examples, as is Truman's use of the atomic bomb against Japan"
I generally agree with your argument, but surely this is a false equivalence that does not further your argument.
I sense your dismay, which is shared by many. These are precarious times. It is astonishing yet seemingly true that only a sex scandal gets the attention of the public. Without the Foley mess, I doubt we would be discussing how to preserve the Democratic majority in the Senate.
I hope that the Congress has the fortitude to deny an expansion of our military, and thus curtail Bush's continued adventurism.
Great post.
Prof. Cole,
I've been reading your blog for a while now and, in terms of information, I've always find it informative, revealing, and thought-proviking. In term s of opinon, I tend to agree with you 99.9% of the time.
Today, though, it's the 0.01%. You state in your entry that
Washington has been gripped by speculation that the brain surgery undergone by Senator Tim Johnson, D-South Dakota, might lead to his seat falling open, allowing South Dakota governor Michael Rounds, a Republican, to appoint a Republican replacement until 2008. That would throw the senate into the hands of the Republicans, since Richard Bruce Cheney is president of the senate and can cast tie-breaking votes. This scenario is undemocratic in so many ways it is hard to count them. The idea that a Republican governor elected by a few thousand shivering voters (South Dakota's population is 754,844) could overturn the results of an overwhelming national popular vote by fiat should make the blood boil of everyone who cares about equity in the Republic.
Emphasis added. I'm a firm believer that we should not complain about democracy when it produces outcomes we disagree with. Besides, you could make the same argument - and given the difference in votes, probably a more valid argument - about the election results in the Virginia Senate race since that was the race that tipped control of the U.S. Senate. Mike Rounds was elected governor by 85,775 votes and 62% of the votes cast while Jim Webb defeated Sen. Allen by just 9,329 and with barely 50% of the vote. If you were to argue who has the stronger mandate, S.D. governor Rounds has the better case.
That said, it would really suck if it came down to having Governor Rounds make a Senate appointment.
Although I opposed our invasion of Iraq I now think 'surging' more troops into that country would be a good idea.
Will it work? Of course not, but if we don't we'll have to listen forever to idiots saying "if only we'd put another 10K troops in ..."
what does Truman dropping atomic bombs on Japan have to do with crushing popular protests? terrible historical analogy, Juan.
I recall that in California the governor appointed the deceased pol's wife to the seat. at the time I thought it odd. now I get it.
Rounds would be in a tough spot on this. SD voters spanked the republican party in the last elevtion, killing the abortion ban that he had promised to sign, for one.
Wonder how many times Karl Rove has called him since Johnson fell ill?
I would argue year five, heading into year six. The emperor crowned himself in 2001, thanks to the preppie riot in Florida and the SCOTUS "Good for One Visit Only" ruling in Bush v. Gore.
Domestically, Bush has for some time reminded me more of Napoleon III than Napoleon I.
Ol' Nappy da Trey's idea was to create a crippled representative body with no real legislative power and to rule autocratically, while giving a cursory nod to the rights of the people by holding an it's-all-about-me referendum on his continued rule every ten years.
A major difference between the two is that Napoleon III was highly intelligent, progressive (by 19th-century standards), devoted to learning and enthusiastic about science. He also had the sense to recognize that to maintain public support he had to promote general prosperity for the people of France, not just a guaranteed place at the public trough for a small set of cronies and the "right" sort of people.
OTOH, both N v. 3.0 and Bush stupidly dove into unwinnable, self-destructive wars for irrational emotional reasons.
Half a million GIs would have kept law and order and secured the borders during the invasion, but are not enough now to control the Iraqis.
The population of Anbar province was 900,000 before the war (3.4% of the population,) less now, but has been largely out of control even with over 30,000 US troops plus Kurdishh and Shiia Militias.
Colonialism succeeded when the natives had spears and the occupiers guns and artillery. Colonialism ended when the natives managed to get guns too.
The Americans thought they could do it through the "liberators not occupiers" old yarn not the military. Even the noe-cons have stopped using that now because it so laughable.
Bozo (a.k.a. Jonah Goldberg) thinks "Iraq needs a Pinochet". Yeah, nothing like good old state terrorism to fix things up: blowing up Orlando Letelier (in D.C.) and Carlos Prats (Buenos Aires) not to mention internal repression.
A short while after I moved to Minnesota in 2002, Sen. Wellstone died in an aircraft crash. His death decidedly altered the fate of the Democrats, as he had been one of the two outspoken critics of the Bush War in Iraq.
I moved to South Dakota this summer and, sure enough, Sen. Johnson is felled by sickness.
Maybe I should just move to Washington.
Year 1? This is at least year 5.
Lately I've resigned myself to some facts that most have suspected but few, and especially journalists and bloggers, have openly admitted and clearly explained.
By the time 2009 rolls around there will have been a Bush in the White House for 20 of the past 28 years. Those 8 years off were not by design. Tack on another 4 extremely powerful years by going back to 1976, when GHWB headed the CIA. This is by far the closest thing to monarchy the country has ever seen, and Jeb still waits in the wings (although voters may think much harder about their choice next time around).
There are easy conclusions to draw there, but for me the most cathartic thing I've done for myself since 9/11 is to just go ahead and understand that our military won't be home for a long, long time.
Chaos in the Middle East? Bring it on. The more chaos that ensues, the riper the environment for lawlessness, which applies for BOTH sides.
International treaties flouted? Who needs them.
Voters voicing their wishes? This is an Administration which considers 51% a mandate. It really doesn't matter. If they won by a single vote does anyone doubt their attitude wouldn't be exactly the same?
Clinton got in the way of this whole thing a long time ago, which is part of the reason why they spent $100 million to try and take him and the Dems out for a long, long time. Democrats are little more than disposable obstructionists interfering in the overarching plan.
Remember, these guys couldn't even wait until Clinton's 2nd term was over before they told the world they'd hit Saddam. They were licking their chops in public in 1998.
The point is, the seeming collective and contagious incompetence is not incompetence at all. Stop pulling your hair out and beating your heads against the wall. Yes, governments can make huge mistakes, but we are well beyond that point. Are we truly to believe that there was ever any intention of rebuilding Iraq, and that these guys just didn't understand how to do it?
Energy resources are the name of the game, we've all known it for a long, long time, and the more clearly and more often its explained the better off we'll all be. If people can get with this idea, then everything will make much more sense.
By NO means am I saying it was the right thing to do. I am saying the opposite. But I do believe that Cheney has orchestrated this whole thing because he believes it is good for the company as well as for Halliburton, Bechtel, etc. This isn't just so his buddies can get rich, although it is an extremely convenient byproduct.
Our entire economy depends on hydrocarbons, not just the vehicles we drive and the machinery of the armed forces that protect us. Everything. The one thing I won't fault Cheney for understanding is that this country is too big and too divided to pull itself together and create an entirely new infrastructure in 30 years. Sad, but let's be honest.
The White House understands that controlling entire populaces in the Middle East isn't possible. Controlling the energy resources will be good enough for them. The microcosmic defining event for this theory could obviously be the surrounding of the Oil Ministry in 2003 while the rest of Baghdad was allowed to be looted.
In terms of protecting America at home, that's what crushing civil liberties is for. They knew they'd need that line of defense. Creating what some are describing as Hobbesian chaos requires keeping a very close eye on what happens at home. Given what's already been uncovered wit regard to wiretapping, etc., imagine what HASN'T been uncovered. And as far as Americans or visitors of Arab descent. I'll go out on alimb and say there are very few who aren't being intensely monitored, and that includes women and children.
I know it's early, but they cut their deal with McCain years ago, and when the time comes, they'll install their new emporer by whatever means necessary (Florida 2000, Ohio 2004) to keep the dream alive.
I agree with your assessment of Bush's authoritarianism, but I think you should also mention that essentially the same points apply to the Democrats. There are no indications that the newly elected Democratic majorities in both houses of congress will make any serious effort to end the US occupation of Iraq. With a few notable exceptions (e.g., Kucinich, Murtha), they are not even talking about it.
The Iraqi people want us out. The American people want us out. The Democrats were elected to get us out. But neither the Democratic nor the Republican leadership intends to get us out. That is a "democracy deficit" that is much more radical than your post implies. The problem is not just Bush, his cronies, and the American Enterprise Institute (though that problem is serious enough). It is much broader.
You have hit the nail on the head, as usual, attributing the purpose of 30-40 thousand troops being to anger the locals. I will make a wild guess that if W goes with the troop surge, we will see some poorly planned and executed operation that will duplicate or exceed the results in Somalia.
It really drives me crazy that all Bush is going to do will be military escalations. That, combined with the fact that there is Saudi support for an attack on Iran makes my skin crawl. I've heard whispers over the years of Saudia Arabia buying a nuke from Pakistan. If Iran could get one from N Korea, we have trouble ( with a capital T and that rhymes B and that stands for BOMB ).
Sorry Dr C, but that was just dying to come out....
I feel perhaps even stronger that Bush sees himself as a Napoleanic figure, forgetting as he does that he avoided combat, wears a yellow streak instead of, say, a Silver Star, and is in general a malignant moron when it comes to governence. His political skills include being a shameless liar and his low cunning in that sphere has carried him and his toadies so far beyond their competence as to be breathtaking.
His monstrous lack of ordinary morality has resulted in the Iraq debacle. Why did he insist on this optional war that has come closer to ruining the United States that even Vietnam? Oil, graft, power. All of those certainly. But what else do the Bushies do well except for politics? The startled faux cowboy who skedaddled to a Nebraska bunker on 9/11 had to become a war president or face the immediate ridicule and disgust that he had earned. So we went to war to give this cretin talking points.
I would find it hard to fault anything you have said, Professor Cole, about Bush and his failed administration. But please forbear putting Truman's decision to drop the bomb in the same category. This was not putting down an insurrection or intervening in a civil war. This was a global war between nation states, not peoples, not religions, and not really ideologies, although there was some aspect of that, as well as race, in the Pacific war, of course. In the case of Japan, we were at war with a desperate enemy mobilized down to infancy by a belief in the divinity of their emperor. Their merchant and military fleets were sunk, their cities firebombed, their island conquests gone, and still they refused to surrender. Were we really to go through another series of Okinawas on the Japanese main islands? Our casualties would have been enormous. Japanese casualties, mostly civilian armed with bamboo spears and the like, would have been in the 10s of millions. Remember that it took two atomic bombs before the emperor insisted that surrender must even be considered. Remember that a military coup was mounted against that emperor by a few remaining military fanantics in an attempt to assassinate Hirohito before he could order the nation to surrender. Think upon the occupation of Japan if their national polity had not ordered the full and unconditional surrender of his people. Those bombs saved both American and Japanese lives. If there had been another way, of course we all would have wished it. I don't think there was.
This is all a little silly. It's the law that the state's government can select a replacement Senator. My hope and my expectation is that this will not be necessary in this example. But, comparing this to the French Revolution is beyond sense.
Great post.
Your Bush/Bonaparte comparison is a bit harsh on the latter, though, n'est-ce pas? I mean, the one's a moron and the other was, with all his tyrannical faults, a genius. Bush is the representative of the plutocracy; but Napoleon was no one's puppet.
AEI published F.W. Kagan's full "surge" strategy statement on December 14. It even says where each US division should be deployed and a timetable for victory. There is also a video that expands on the PP. The argument and recommendations are probably exactly what Eliot Cohen and Gen. Keane conveyed to W a few days before.
Unless the US actually adopts it and fails, the Neocons and allied McCain-cons will surely insist that it was the best hope and that only "lack of nerve" and spineless Dems on the Hill deserve blame for losing Iraq. After all, the Baker-Hamilton recommendations offer only vague hopes for a miscellany of "wish upon a star" things that may not happen. The Kagan plan also calls for resources and time limits that are finite enough to prove or disprove the strategy before November, 2008. Under the Baker-Hamilton plan, meanwhile, there is a strong chance of a Saigon-1975 debacle, which McCain will say only proves that a "surge" in 2007 would have been a better approach. The blood, voters will be told, is on the Democrats’ hands.
By the way, wasn’t Napoleon the original Neocon?
I've been saying this for some time: once the grannies take to the streets, it doesn't matter how much power you have. The movement can't be stopped. Or, to be exact, it can be if you're willing to kill every last person.
People who advocate for brute force are advocating genocide. If they had the courage of their convictions, they would admit it. They wouldn't hide behind limp-wristed notions like liberty and democracy.
Because, let's face it, they know where their ideas lead. They just don't care. If they did, then when the evidence was in front of them, as it is now in Iraq, they would be even more horrified than the rest of us. These were their ideas, after all.
Dear Professor Cole
Bush is the Napoleon of our age
I know it is Christmas but please don't encourage him.
He is not a military genius.
Imagine "Bush does Austerlitz and Jena" or "Bush's Italian Campaign".
Prof. Cole
Well said, as always. I do have one small quible with your post. You say that it is "Year 1 of the Empire".
That is true as far as the Republic is concern (domestic political policies and governance) although I would argue it is Year 2 (2004 been the definite year when 51% of Americans voted for Empire). As for the rest of the world it is Year 230 (+) give or take a decade.
What we are seeing in Iraq and around the world is nothing short can only be called a Global Insurgency (probably the First, but not the last) against Pax Americana and a eurocentric view of the world. The irony is that this rejection of American power is deeply rooted in Western history, primaraly the twin narratives of American and French Revolutions.
But as well all know, Empires end badly; in fire and carnage. Only one Empire in the history of the world has succesfully survived its own collapse, and that dubious honor falls upon the English. The lend-leased the Empire to their American cousins and divested themselves of the cost of maintaining said Empire. The U.S. does not have the option. The days of the American Empire are numbered.
There's one factor not being counted here - non-lethal crowd dispersal weapons. The military has been working on these things for years, for this very reason. I suspect we, as a people, don't have much time before being able to take to the streets in protest will become physically impossible, especially if our protests pose a real threat.
They'll just turn on the microwaves and the sonics and people will run screaming back to their homes. To be rounded up one by one, thanks to illegal wiretapping and all the electronic monitors they're busily trying to place on the internet tubes.
The latest explanation is that the "surge" troops would either be used to train Iraqis or to free current combat troops to train Iraqis or both sets would train Iraqis. Then the Iraqi Army would stand up before we could fall down.
The best comment this week was from a Marine commenting on the scut jobs they were doing now in training Iraqi troops, manning roadblocks, conducting improvised mine sweeps, "hearts and minds" PR, etc.
"Marines are trained to blow things up and to kill people. Any other mission is a waste of manpower".
As I hear paens of praise to Rummy for making the military a "lean, mean, fast moving, quick response killing machine" I have to wonder how fast you can move through a briar patch.
Each man killed represents an investment this country made in his training, his knowledge and his experience so that losing a 20 year "top" is not solved with an E-1 just out of basic. The almost 3k KIA we have invested in Iraq represents resources it will take years for us to replace.
Mr. Cole I would like to say that I follow your blog everyday and I am thankful for your excellent analysis of the Iraq war and the middle east.
However in my opinion on the rare occasions when you go on rants like this and use terms like "King George" and "Coup" and call for N. Dakota, S. Dakota and Minnesota to be combined into one state, I think it does not meet the high standards you have set for yourself and brings more heat than light to the situation.
Or course this is your page and you can write whatever you want, but I think this style does not fit with your usually impeccable reporting.
Bush as Napoleon? Not hardly. For all his egomania and ruthless use of others' lives, Napoleon at least was extremely intelligent in his own right and manipulated other individual nations and individuals to create his makeshift Empire to an extraordinary degree. Bush is rather the Kaiser Wilhelm II of our era. Insecure, bullying, fascinated with the military and uniforms though utterly incompetent and possessed of a short attention span. Willi took power when Germany's reputation was at a high power and managed to utterly destroy it. He surrounded himself with a semi-mystical military cult dedicated to an expansionist Greater Germany. He managed to isolated and alienate his nation from friends abroad and to entangle himself in the dubious alliances that would lead to the catastrophe of World War I and the worse horrors that lay beyond. Bush is our Kaiser Willi.
Juan, regarding "The fact is that if provincial elections were held today, the Sadr Movement would sweep to power in all the Shiite provinces (with the possible exception of Najaf itself). It is increasingly the most popular political party among Iraq's Shiite majority. For the US to cut the Sadrists out of power in parliament and then fall on them militarily would just throw Iraq into turmoil. It would increase the popularity of the Sadrists, and ensure that they gain nationalist credentials that will ensconce them for perhaps decades."
Where is the proof for this. Sadr has been part of the Iraqi establishment since Jan 2005, and has controlled 5 powerful ministries since then--including Health, Education and Transportation. Since early 2005 most Shiites have been basing their judgment of Sadr in large part on the quality of Iraq’s national health care, education and transportation system. Although these systems are not nearly as bad as some on the left claim, they aren’t doing great either. You frequently report on the challenges these systems face. There are widespread allegations of graft and corruption on the part of the Sadrists. While there isn’t irrefutable proof that they are more corrupt than other Iraqi political parties, they aren’t exactly pristine pure either.
Moreover, the Mahdi army is sometimes a little rough, undisciplined and occasionally known to strong-arm Iraqis. Many Shiites find the Madhi and Badr brigades (which on the whole are better organized, led and disciplined), to be unprofessional and mixed blessings at best. In mixed part of Iraq, where Shia depend on Badr and Mahdi to protect them from sunni arab militia (resistance fighters), both Badr and Mahdi are more popular. Southern Iraqis feel less threatened by Baathists and sunni arab militia (with the exception of Takfiri Salafi Al-Qaeda terrorists), and don’t need Badr and Mahdi that much. Many Shia blame Sadr for the excesses of unruly Mahdi.
In the bottom 9 provinces, there is a good chance that Shia will say: “pox on both your houses Madhi and Badr, we’ll vote for someone else.” Dawa and/or the Fadheela Sadrists might benefit at the expense of both Muqtada and Hakim.
I don’t think Muqtada believes that he is super popular in the south. When the 8th Iraqi Army division fought with Mahdi, Muqtada quickly stopped the fighting because most Shia sided with the 8th Iraqi Army division (IAD) against Mahdi. Muqtada wouldn’t have been so circumspect about fighting the Iraqi police and 10th IAD in Maysan province if he thought he was that popular.
SCIRI, Muqtada, Dawa, and Fadheela (Virtue) Sadrists all have high favorability ratings among Iraqi shia, but it is far from clear who Iraqi Shia would choose between them (of course conventional wisdom Fadheela is smaller and more geographically limited than Dawa, SCIRI and Muqtada).
Sadr is also perceived as more militantly anti-sunni arab than Hakim. This hurts him among Shia who want national reconciliation between Shia and sunni arabs. IRGC operatives are in Madhi, and have led death squads against sunni Arabs. Mahdi had no strong officer corp in 2003. IRGC organized, trained and equipped his Madhi forces. Many are still part of his Madhi militia. Although Muqtada is publicly critical of Khomenei and suspicious of him, he can’t clean his Mahdi milita of them even if he wanted to (and there is no evidence that he does, because that might allow Badr/Iraqi Army/Iraqi Police/multinational forces to militarily damage his forces.) Badr/Hakim has had a strong officer corp for many years and could afford to be more selective of receiving IRGC help and personnel. Hakim also has more command and control over his forces than Sadr.
In addition, Hakim’s position on federalism is more popular than Sadr’s position on a strong central government among Iraqi Shia. Hakim also comes across as more moderate, mature and reasonable to some Shia than Muqtada, although Muqtada has really improved his public image with respect to these issues.
Fantastic analysis. You are spot on in your prediction that Bush’s plan will only make things worse.
Reading your post makes 2007 look much clearer. Predictions.
I’m actually not surprised that Bush is trampling the will of an overwhelming majority of the American public, since the Iraq War is his legacy. His presidency will be judged on the Iraq War. What’s more, the future of neo-conservatism will hang on the Iraq War. Even they admit this. So, Bush feels he has nothing to lose by advocating on last push, since his approval ratings are already so low and his legacy firmly affiliated with the Iraq War anyways. The neo-cons have more to lose, because their careers are on the line. If their creation leads to more chaos, newspaper, magazines, think tanks, foreign policy institutes and the government will have no reason to employ them or keep them on board.
So, Bush tries to appeal to the public for more patience. It doesn’t work. He has 6 months at most to fix the problems in Iraq. The Dems are angry with Bush. They feel he’s betraying the will of an overwhelming majority of the public. Bush’s plan results in more violence, less stability and more deaths. Sadr gains strength, the Mahdi army is a force for stability and Shiites and Sunnis alike work together to expel the United States. By July, Bush’s approval rating sinks to 20%. 85% disapprove of his handling of the Iraq War. The Democrats are furious. They feel Bush is not considering anything but his legacy and the future of neo-cons. The tension proves unbearable. The neo-cons call for one final attack on Sadr’s forces. They advocate using any means necessary to produced a desired result. A new scandal is exposed, making Abu Ghraib look like tune up. The American public is furious. Impeachment proceedings start. By October, Bush loses half of his own party. By November, he is impeached. McCain loses all credibility. Lieberman resigns. Hillary has a 2/3rds majority for her 2008 campaign. Because he has to, Bush finally caves and agrees to start withdrawing troops in early 2008. By the end of the year, Bush narrowly risks being removed from office, with 40 senators voting not to remove him. Bush becomes a lame duck until Hillary is president in 2008. She will accelerate withdrawals and American forces are out completely by 2009.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is alarmed by Sadr’s rise and his links with Iran. They actively funnel material and personnel aid to Iraq to counter Sadr’s forces. By the end of 2007, a de facto civil war emerges between Shiites/Iran and Sunnis/Saudi Arabia. Moderate Arab countries are appalled by growing carnage in Iraq. They rightfully view the United States as an imperialist bully whose goal since 9/11 is to force a way of life down people’s throat, antithetical to the whole concept of freedom. They take matters into their own hands, urging Iran and Saudi Arabia to stop competing for hegemony and unite as common Arabs. The war in Iraq is stopped. A loose confederation is established. The world looks with awe the accomplishments of moderate Arab regimes. While the tension still exists, the world sees the United States and a warmonger maniac. Bush’s near removal does not squelch their common hatred of the United States.
The neo-cons believed that forcing Jeffersonian democracy down people’s throats would work. The very opposite will have happened. It turns out, shockingly, that people don’t appreciate when others put a gun to their head and force them to conform to an imperialist norm. The neo-cons believed American Empire would be a force of good, and that public opinion of the US would improve. The very opposite happened. The world hates the US for its imperialist aggression. Even though the American form of government is admirable, the immediate imposition of American style democracy on 2000 year old civilizations results in the whole world turning on us. The neo-cons believed US supremacy could be established through the Iraq War. The very opposite happened. The US Empire declines, our credibility in the world drastically reduced for generations to come. Along with our power. 2008 is a year of rebuilding.
I have some professional and personal experience with AVM. All of the handwringing is premature. Joe Bidenhad an aneurism in 1988 and was absent from the Senate for 6 months but returned to his seat and serves to this day. Anyway, here is the link to my post if you want the take of a healtcare professional with a masters in neuro-physiology and the daughter of an AVM survivor.
"...But please forbear putting Truman's decision to drop the bomb in the same category. This was not putting down an insurrection or intervening in a civil war...."
There are differences to be sure. There are similarities in that the atomic bombing of Japanese cities (particularly the second one) can also be characterized as having been enabled by racist attitudes toward Asians and the use of atrocities to terrorize populations into submission...not just in Japan but across the entire world. There is widespread acceptance of the idea that dropping those bombs saved lives but there is also a large body of work that argues that this was not the case.
Here are some quotes:
"Militarily unnecessary
Those who argue that the bombings were unnecessary on military grounds hold that Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender.
One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."[53][54]
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[54] and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,[55] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[56]
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[57]
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[57]"
-via wikipedia under "Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki". There are also listings explaining the arguments in favor of using the Atomic bombs. I just included these references to show that even military sources disagreed with the necessity of this action.
"Only one Empire in the history of the world has succesfully survived its own collapse, and that dubious honor falls upon the English. The lend-leased the Empire to their American cousins and divested themselves of the cost of maintaining said Empire."
That's an interesting perspective-- IOW, the United States basically inherited the British Empire and now runs it (with the British themselves as weak junior partners)?
I'd heard a related sentiment recently by another historian, who noted that the effective disintegration of the current US empire (of bases and politico-economic control), coupled with China's resurgence to the status of global leader it's held for centuries, effectively marks the end of almost two centuries of Anglosphere dominance, stretching back to the conclusive defeat of Napoleon and the almost concomitant rise of the British Empire as the world's largest and most powerful at the time. (Britain had moved in this direction with the French-and-Indian War in 1763, but the British defeat in the American Revolution-- which was also an Anglo-French/Spanish/Dutch War-- blocked them. Conversely, with Napoleon's conclusive fall at Waterloo, the British also consolidated their conquest of India-- those major victories against the Sikhs and the Indian heartland occurred during George III's later reign-- and spread into Africa.)
This sort of makes sense. The British were never the sort of military power that e.g. the Romans were (or even the Chinese were, during e.g. the Qin/Han/T'ang/early Manchu periods, let alone the Arabs during their near-unbeaten streak from the early 600's to about 800). The British in fact had a nasty habit of getting their hides kicked in embarrassing fashion in their colonial wars against supposedly "inferior" brown-skinned colonial enemies. The British managed to get themselves slaughtered 3 times in Afghanistan in the 1840's, 1880's and right after WWI, now coming back for a fourth helping. (At least the Russians called it quits after one disaster there.) Even more humiliatingly, a ragtag militia of mostly Blacks and mestizos in Buenos Aires under a French general, Santiago de Liniers, defeated the British twice in the early 1800's, expelling them from South America. Even in wars they "won," the British were constantly relying on tougher allies to do most of the fighting, and even then this often failed them (e.g., when the British and French were both humiliated while trying to take the Suez in 1956). Indeed, it was British blunders and defeats in the World Wars (Gallipoli anybody? or Somme, Passchendaele, Narvik, Singapore) and then in the post-WWII colonial wars (Suez, Palestine, Cyprus, Aden and in Ireland earlier) that largely stripped them of their wealth and strength and destroyed the British Empire.
The USA in comparison really is a military power, much more muscular and more like Rome in that sense-- so much so that the US, whatever our Anglosphere connections with Britain, defeated the British ourselves in the 18th century! So the British Empire, founded chiefly in the late 18th and early 19th century by mercantilist trading cartels and not-so-great armies in Asia and Africa, passed its mantle on to the more Roman imperial-like Americans with our globe-straddling imperial armies.
Such an irony then that New Rome, the politico-military colossus of the United States, is about to be felled conclusively and bankrupted in three successive bloody, drawn-out wars against peasant guerrilla forces in Vietnam and then Afghanistan and Iraq. I guess this is the Achilles Heel of even imperial military superpowers-- they overstretch themselves. And with the collapse of the US empire, so falls the hegemony of the Anglosphere that the British had started following the Congress of Vienna.
"Bush becomes a lame duck until Hillary is president in 2008. She will accelerate withdrawals and American forces are out completely by 2009."
No, she wouldn't-- where in the world are you getting this idea from? Hillary has consistently been among the most hawkish of Democrats on Iraq and has if anything been even more hawkish than Bush on Syria and Iran.
I'm sorry, but you're indulging in pure fantasy if you think that Hillary would withdraw the troops from Iraq. Frankly, it's pure fantasy to believe she could come anywhere close to winning a general election-- not just conservatives and moderates, but even the Democratic Party's longtime liberals are furious at her. I've been a Dem party activist for years, and most people I speak to would not vote for her at all. They'd either vote for a Third Party or (ugh) vote for a Republican nominee if his name is Giuliani, McCain or Romney.
If the Dems want to win in 2008, they'd better avoid Hillary Rodham Clinton at all costs. Edwards, Gore, Richardson, Obama would be much better choices.
response to has (directly above):
keep dreaming. the inevitable new torture scandal will not change a thing. nor will continued and worsening chaos in iraq. your man on a white horse (the democratic party) has been convinced that impeachment or any such measure is politically untenable. nothing will change that.
keep dreaming. iraq will not look nice anytime soon. the idea that moderate middle eastern governments will stop this madness all on their own is delusional. this problem is beyond the point where it can be contained through good will. too much iraqi blood has been spilled. reconciliation is no longer a reasonable hypothesis. you predict that the middle east will "unite as common Arabs" behind this wave of international good will. but the beef between sunnis and shi'ites is, as i'm sure you're aware, very very old. it has survived worse carnage than this.
not only will there be no happy ending to this catastrophe (in iraq or the u.s.), but there will, in fact, be no end at all. we will eventually withdraw (bush will be forgiven within the u.s.), and iraqis (and lord knows who else) will spend the better part of the next decade or two dying in the millions. this is a problem without a solution. no one can fix this; not us, not the u.n., and not the "moderate arabs".
The biggest loser of President Bush's one last "surge" agenda, aside from the AngloAmerican occupation forces and the Iraqi people themselves, who will continue to die or suffer damage ~ will probably be Senators McCain and Lieberman, whose crank up the War bluff: increasing troop levels in the face of overwhelming opposition by the American electorate and Iraqi population, has just been called.
After the utter futility of this one last "surge" scheme becomes apparent, the window for any orderly unwinding of our military posture before the 2008 election will be closed; What was once seen as neo-conism generally will be branded as "the failure of McCainism" specifically to resolve or in any way improve the IRAQ quagmire quandry: IOW, an even more angry American electorate will feel either ignored, "fooled twice," or betrayed...
...although i do feel there is a danger that the impending neo-con backlash and Dolchstosslegende could sweep up not only the political pundits most resposible for advocating invasion and occupation of IRAQ, but also spill over to general resentment of many other resident muslims and jews entirely innocent of military aggression and war profiteering ~ clearly, to this writer ~ the biggest losers will be anyone now posturing themselves as Once More Over the Top armchair advocates of what, for all intents and purposes, resembles more and more a futile asymmetrical trench warfare mentality.
On the subject of democratic government questions of succession: A Bruce Ackerman opinion piece at the LATIMES
The Brit comparison to Afghanistan losses and the end in Vietnam let me think there is some peril that American forces risk annihilation by millions of hostiles : unmentioned forts notwithstanding.
If you insist in deploying conventional troops in unconventional conflicts you risk finding out the hard way that no, the square peg does not fit in the round hole.
How many remember just how Religious was the Vietnam war? Diem the RomanCatholic, his wacko Bishop brother, who provoked the Buddhists to self-immolate. As RCs, my family was spellbound by JFK. The war was seen as Christians vs Communism.
Then Diem was shot, then JFK was shot.
How uneasy is Maliki?
Regarding what some people have said about my post.
First, I do not see a viable alternative to Hillary, like her or not. Hillary goes where the wind goes. Don’t be surprised to hear her talk about a timetable for withdrawal soon, since that’s the line of an overwhelming majority of Americans. She has been positioning herself for '08 since she was elected to the Congress. You cannot win elections unless you project yourself as a moderate. Look at the failures of left-liberals like Gore, Dukakis, Mondel etc. Obama is clearly not ready, and he'll be thrown under the bus so badly he might well lose to a no name Republican. Edwards, maybe, but where is his base of support. The Clintons are enormously powerful in the Democratic party, and no leftist like Howard Dean will stand up to them.
Look, I understand we're frustrated, but 2008 should be a year of reconciliation. Dems aren't going to control the government until they reach out to new constituents. One such opportunity might be evangelicals. I know that sounds crazy, but they did vote for Democratic candidates in '06 and it seems like their support for Bush is starting to crack, especially in light of Mark Foley and Jack Abramoff. If they don’t feel threatened by an incoming Democrat, they may well leave the political arena altogether, a prospect that benefits us. The one area where I will respectfully disagree with Prof. Cole is the influence if "Likudists." Yes, they do exist, but they're meaningless without another broad base that captures a much larger portion of the American public. Evangelicals, with their fanatical belief in the coming rapture (and Israel being created as a precondition to that), are really the underlying force behind the neo-con movement. If they start doubting, or if they stop voting (they were politically inactive until the '70s), then the neo-con movement will disappear forever (about time). Once the Iraqis under the yoke of American martial law in Baghdad start rebelling against the American forces through violence, I expect a large continent of erstwhile loyal Bush evangelicals to become so disillusioned they’ll resign to their pre-1970s existence of isolation and apolitical activity. The only way they’ll mobilize is if a left-liberal emerges. Once they feel threatened, they’ll reinvigorate politically, and you’ll see another Ralph Reed forming coalitions with the Likudists. We haven't held the presidency in 8 years. We need to win that first before we can talk about anything else. Wouldn’t you rather stay patient for a few years and watch the evangelicals fade away from political relevance and neo-cons disappear forever?
Regarding the future of Iraq when American forces leave, I think the situation will simply play itself out. Iran won't be able to defeat Saudi Arabia and their resources/proxies. Think about it. Saudi Arabia sells oil to everyone in the world. Iran sells most of its oil to China. Knowing that the Saudis will eventually prevail, Iran and Syria will be the first to talk about compromise. Of course, Saudi Arabia could hold out for all of Iraq, but that may involve an all out war with Iran, which Saudi Arabia doesn't want. Eventually, the two sides will have to work something out. The new arrangement will probably resemble an Iraq equivalent to the type of society the Religious Right wants to impose in America. It will probably be a very loose confederation of states divided along sectarian lines with Islamic codes and possible political plurality. Now, maybe I'm being incredibly naive, but can anyone else explain to me why a version of that won't happen. I can understand why the warmongers aren't specific, but what makes any of you think Iraq won't be solved peacefully by Arabs themselves.
Has, I can't believe you'd say you "don't see a viable alternative to Hillary" for the Democrats. She would be positively the worst option in every respect for the Dems-- seen as polarizing and utterly unsupportable with extremely high negatives by conservatives and by Independents, having alienated the Democratic base so much that many are defecting to Third Parties already, on record as strongly in support of a disastrous war in Iraq and its extension further, having supported outsourcing and a bankruptcy bill that is horrendous for ordinary Americans, a very uninspiring speaker-- Hillary has made just about every major mistake she could make on the way to the Democratic primaries, and as Iraq fails, Hillary Clinton's earlier support for it damages her further.
On top of this, in the one aspect in which Hillary might have indeed had an advantage-- fundraising (name recognition helps)-- even there she's squandered it. She spent almost her entire war chest in that dumb Senate reelection campaign against a candidate that the Republicans picked solely to take potshots against her, which he did quite well. Even then, her vote advantage was much less than that vote for Eliot Spitzer in the gubernatorial election, who had much less money and was up against a tougher Republican adversary.
One thing that frustrates me about the Democrats, is how they find ways consistently to blow golden opportunities for them. The Dems can win with an Iraq War opponent like Barack Obama, or a now-opponent (and someone who voted against the bankruptcy bill) like John Edwards. With Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Dems would be marching to tried-and-true disaster yet again.
Post a Comment
<< Home