The New York Times > Washington > Washington Memo: Communicator in Chief Keeps the Focus on Iraq Positive:
Mr. Bush instead focused on his long-term goal of "ending tyranny in our world," and then cast the Iraqi election coming Sunday as part of a march of freedom around the globe. He said that if he had told the reporters in the room a few years before that the Iraqi people would be voting, "'you would look at me like some of you still look at me, with a kind of blank expression."
"You know, it is amazing, first of all, they're having a vote at all," Mr. Bush said in response to the first question, about whether he expected a big turnout in the Iraqi election. "A couple of years ago, people would have been puzzled by someone saying that the Iraqis will be given a chance to vote."
Puzzled is right. Because if you had said a few years ago that the Iraqis would be voting, we would say that could happen only one way. That could happen only if a country like us went in and conquered Iraq, and then we held elections because that is what you do when you bring freedom and democracy to people.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
What Would It Take?
So historians are going to judge Bush favorably for overthrowing Hussein and bringing democracy and freedom to the Middle East. We'll see. He will be judged the worst president in the history of the United States because he is a war criminal. Historians have rated other presidents poorly because they have allowed corruption on their watch. No president in our history has ever committed out and out aggression, as this one has. No president has ever asked our brave soldiers to die in order to conquer and occupy another country. No president has ever killed thousands and thousands of innocent civilians on the flimsy argument that he knew what was good for them.
The famous saying from the Vietnam war was, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." Now, after Fallujah, Najaf, Samarrah, and Baghdad itself, we have to say, "We had to destroy the country in order to save it." Nothing Bush says is trustworthy. Nothing he does now can restore our good reputation. Nothing but a change of leadership can do that, and we have rehired this broken down, dishonest, self-righteous and short-sighted man for another four years. My son wondered on the phone tonight whether Bush is well-intentioned but short-sighted, or just plain evil. I reminded him that my wife and his mother clearly thinks it's the latter. My son commented that it's probably somewhere in between.
I am past wondering about the man's motives, his make-up or his character. I just want him out of there. All you have to do is look at his actions, and the results of those actions, to see that he is a disaster. No person who understands our place of leadership in the world could approve of what he has done. No person who understands the proper grounds for a just war could think that this war is justified. And no person who understands the war we should be fighting against Al Qaeda can think that this war is worthwhile. The war in Iraq can only bring one bad consequence after another.
My wife was talking with my dad on the phone the other night. She asked, her voice rising a bit as it always does when addressing this subject, "What would it take for the Christian right to renounce Bush?" What could he do that he hasn't already done? He has invaded a country and wreaked untold damage as a result. Well, I thought I'd take this somewhat sarcastic question seriously. What would it take? I heard an evangelical leader on the radio today speak favorably of Bush, because Bush professes Jesus as his savior. What would Bush have to do to turn this leader's opinion around? What if he shot his mother in public? Would that do it? What if he began to imprison people like me for sedition? Would that do it? I had to conclude that the only unforgivable act, the only thing Bush could do to reverse the evangelicals' admiration for him, would be blasphemy. If Bush were to renounce Jesus as his savior, if he were to declare that Jesus was the Satan's emissary on earth, then the evangelicals might reconsider. Otherwise, they would overlook all of his acts, no matter how bad. They would find some reason to excuse his bad judgment, some grounds for approving of his policies. They already have.
If a Democrat like Kerry had gone to war in the Middle East on the same grounds cited by Bush, do you suppose the evangelical Christians would have approved of his action? Hardly. They might likely have called him the anti-Christ, and cited Revelation to prove that the war was another sign of the end times. Bush can do no wrong in their eyes. He speaks their language, and that's all that matters. Bush is sure that he is doing God's will, and they're sure that he is, too. But Bush's blindness, the atrocious consequences of his bad judgment, will make the country lose its preeminent position in the world. And Bush's supporters will blame Bush's enemies for the fall, not Bush himself. They'll blame traitors like me for not giving him the backing he needed during the country's hour of crisis. No matter how bad the results of Bush's actions, they won't see that he has done anything wrong. He can't do wrong, because he is God's instrument on earth.
In four years, other countries will pity the United States almost as much as they fear it. Well that's an exaggeration. It'll take longer than that. But it's going to be hard to watch China rise and the United States fall. I thought it would happen after I was dead, but it's going to happen while I'm around to see it. And March 19, 2003, is the date the process began. That's the date the war started, and that's the date that historians will look at when they analyze the actions of the worst president the United States ever had.
The famous saying from the Vietnam war was, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." Now, after Fallujah, Najaf, Samarrah, and Baghdad itself, we have to say, "We had to destroy the country in order to save it." Nothing Bush says is trustworthy. Nothing he does now can restore our good reputation. Nothing but a change of leadership can do that, and we have rehired this broken down, dishonest, self-righteous and short-sighted man for another four years. My son wondered on the phone tonight whether Bush is well-intentioned but short-sighted, or just plain evil. I reminded him that my wife and his mother clearly thinks it's the latter. My son commented that it's probably somewhere in between.
I am past wondering about the man's motives, his make-up or his character. I just want him out of there. All you have to do is look at his actions, and the results of those actions, to see that he is a disaster. No person who understands our place of leadership in the world could approve of what he has done. No person who understands the proper grounds for a just war could think that this war is justified. And no person who understands the war we should be fighting against Al Qaeda can think that this war is worthwhile. The war in Iraq can only bring one bad consequence after another.
My wife was talking with my dad on the phone the other night. She asked, her voice rising a bit as it always does when addressing this subject, "What would it take for the Christian right to renounce Bush?" What could he do that he hasn't already done? He has invaded a country and wreaked untold damage as a result. Well, I thought I'd take this somewhat sarcastic question seriously. What would it take? I heard an evangelical leader on the radio today speak favorably of Bush, because Bush professes Jesus as his savior. What would Bush have to do to turn this leader's opinion around? What if he shot his mother in public? Would that do it? What if he began to imprison people like me for sedition? Would that do it? I had to conclude that the only unforgivable act, the only thing Bush could do to reverse the evangelicals' admiration for him, would be blasphemy. If Bush were to renounce Jesus as his savior, if he were to declare that Jesus was the Satan's emissary on earth, then the evangelicals might reconsider. Otherwise, they would overlook all of his acts, no matter how bad. They would find some reason to excuse his bad judgment, some grounds for approving of his policies. They already have.
If a Democrat like Kerry had gone to war in the Middle East on the same grounds cited by Bush, do you suppose the evangelical Christians would have approved of his action? Hardly. They might likely have called him the anti-Christ, and cited Revelation to prove that the war was another sign of the end times. Bush can do no wrong in their eyes. He speaks their language, and that's all that matters. Bush is sure that he is doing God's will, and they're sure that he is, too. But Bush's blindness, the atrocious consequences of his bad judgment, will make the country lose its preeminent position in the world. And Bush's supporters will blame Bush's enemies for the fall, not Bush himself. They'll blame traitors like me for not giving him the backing he needed during the country's hour of crisis. No matter how bad the results of Bush's actions, they won't see that he has done anything wrong. He can't do wrong, because he is God's instrument on earth.
In four years, other countries will pity the United States almost as much as they fear it. Well that's an exaggeration. It'll take longer than that. But it's going to be hard to watch China rise and the United States fall. I thought it would happen after I was dead, but it's going to happen while I'm around to see it. And March 19, 2003, is the date the process began. That's the date the war started, and that's the date that historians will look at when they analyze the actions of the worst president the United States ever had.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
The New York Times: At Senate Hearing, Rice Cites Progress in Training Iraq Forces
The New York Times > Washington > Foreign Relations: At Senate Hearing, Rice Cites Progress in Training Iraq Forces:
"The theme of Ms. Rice's opening statement was that history would favorably judge the Bush administration's struggle to expand freedom, particularly in the Muslim world, just as President Harry S. Truman is hailed by historians for laying the foundation of defeating Communism after World War II."
"The theme of Ms. Rice's opening statement was that history would favorably judge the Bush administration's struggle to expand freedom, particularly in the Muslim world, just as President Harry S. Truman is hailed by historians for laying the foundation of defeating Communism after World War II."
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Safire: Character Is Destiny
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Character Is Destiny
The British historian D. W. Brogan wrote 60 years ago that the unique achievement of Americans to form a continental nation - without sacrificing liberty or efficiency - led to the temper of the pioneer, the gambler and the booster: "the religion of economic and political optimism."
History has shown that U.S. optimism has not been misplaced. But what of reports of global griping at America's superpower arrogance - at our government's triumphalism? Has our character been warped by victories in three world wars?
Call me a chauvinist unilateralist, but I believe America's human and economic sacrifices for the advance of freedom abroad show our personal, political and national character to be stronger and better than ever. This moral advance will be more widely appreciated as an Islamic version of democracy takes root. (What's triumphalism without a triumph?)
It is that growing strength of national character - more than our individual genius or political leadership or military power - that ensures the future success of America and brightens the light of liberty's torch.
The British historian D. W. Brogan wrote 60 years ago that the unique achievement of Americans to form a continental nation - without sacrificing liberty or efficiency - led to the temper of the pioneer, the gambler and the booster: "the religion of economic and political optimism."
History has shown that U.S. optimism has not been misplaced. But what of reports of global griping at America's superpower arrogance - at our government's triumphalism? Has our character been warped by victories in three world wars?
Call me a chauvinist unilateralist, but I believe America's human and economic sacrifices for the advance of freedom abroad show our personal, political and national character to be stronger and better than ever. This moral advance will be more widely appreciated as an Islamic version of democracy takes root. (What's triumphalism without a triumph?)
It is that growing strength of national character - more than our individual genius or political leadership or military power - that ensures the future success of America and brightens the light of liberty's torch.
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Dow: Defining Victory Down
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Defining Victory Down
It's good to remember how our civil war started: with an election. The immediate cause of the war was Lincoln's election in 1860. South Carolina and the other states of the confederacy would not have seceded it Douglas or Buchanan had been elected. Scowcroft argues the same thing about Iraq: the election may be the last event before civil conflict gets much worse.
It's good to remember how our civil war started: with an election. The immediate cause of the war was Lincoln's election in 1860. South Carolina and the other states of the confederacy would not have seceded it Douglas or Buchanan had been elected. Scowcroft argues the same thing about Iraq: the election may be the last event before civil conflict gets much worse.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
The New York Times > International > International Special > Powell, in Indonesia, Describes Scenes of Devastation
The New York Times > International > International Special > Powell, in Indonesia, Describes Scenes of Devastation
Not in this article, but in one published the day before, Powell said that he hopes our aid to Indonesia and other countries hit by the tsunamis would improve our image with the Muslim world. What would we have said if Goebbels had gone around on a good will tour after Czechoslovakia, saying that he hoped German aid would improve the Nazi's image in Eastern Europe? What would Churchill have said? I don't want to say that Powell is like Goebbels, or that Bush is like Hitler. I do want to say that the invasion of Iraq is a crime on the same scale as Hitler's move into the Sudetenland. Of course we'd like to improve our image. Every warlord and thug wants to have a good image with the people. But when will someone acknowledge that we are criminals here, that what we have done is a crime? Good people and good countries have reputations that stand on their own. Only people and countries who have done horrible things have to think about brushing up their images.
Not in this article, but in one published the day before, Powell said that he hopes our aid to Indonesia and other countries hit by the tsunamis would improve our image with the Muslim world. What would we have said if Goebbels had gone around on a good will tour after Czechoslovakia, saying that he hoped German aid would improve the Nazi's image in Eastern Europe? What would Churchill have said? I don't want to say that Powell is like Goebbels, or that Bush is like Hitler. I do want to say that the invasion of Iraq is a crime on the same scale as Hitler's move into the Sudetenland. Of course we'd like to improve our image. Every warlord and thug wants to have a good image with the people. But when will someone acknowledge that we are criminals here, that what we have done is a crime? Good people and good countries have reputations that stand on their own. Only people and countries who have done horrible things have to think about brushing up their images.
Monday, December 27, 2004
Herbert: Shopping for War
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Shopping for War:
"The war in Iraq was the result of powerful government figures imposing their dangerous fantasies on the world. The fantasies notably included the weapons of mass destruction, the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the throngs of Iraqis hurling kisses and garlands at the invading Americans, and the spread of American-style democracy throughout the Middle East. All voices of caution were ignored and the fantasies were allowed to prevail.
The world is not a video game, although it must seem like it at times to the hubristic, hermetically sealed powerbrokers in Washington who manipulate the forces that affect the lives of so many millions of people in every region of the planet. That kind of power calls for humility, not arrogance, and should be wielded wisely, not thoughtlessly and impulsively."
"The war in Iraq was the result of powerful government figures imposing their dangerous fantasies on the world. The fantasies notably included the weapons of mass destruction, the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the throngs of Iraqis hurling kisses and garlands at the invading Americans, and the spread of American-style democracy throughout the Middle East. All voices of caution were ignored and the fantasies were allowed to prevail.
The world is not a video game, although it must seem like it at times to the hubristic, hermetically sealed powerbrokers in Washington who manipulate the forces that affect the lives of so many millions of people in every region of the planet. That kind of power calls for humility, not arrogance, and should be wielded wisely, not thoughtlessly and impulsively."
Monday, December 20, 2004
Bob Herbert: War on the Cheap
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: War on the Cheap
How can I get in touch with Operation Truth?
How can I get in touch with Operation Truth?
Friday, December 17, 2004
Herbert: Fiddling as Iraq Burns
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Fiddling as Iraq Burns
Tenet, Franks, and Bremer: Honored for their service in the nation's interest in Iraq.
Herbert concludes: "Medals anyone? The president may actually believe that this crowd is the best and brightest America has to offer. Which is disturbing."
Tenet, Franks, and Bremer: Honored for their service in the nation's interest in Iraq.
Herbert concludes: "Medals anyone? The president may actually believe that this crowd is the best and brightest America has to offer. Which is disturbing."
Sunday, December 12, 2004
A Further Comment on Friedman
Don't say, "What's done is done. Now we have to make the best of it." The proper attitude now is, "Stay away, and cage or kill this beast." Churchill said after Munich, "We can't do this," and people listened to him at last. What would history's judgment be if any leader had said after Hitler's invasion of Poland, "We have to make the best of it."? Resistance was the only right response to that invasion, and resistance is the only right response to the invasion of Iraq. Accommodation to this evil by the rest of the world will just bring more evil.
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Friedman: Iraq, Ballots and Pistachios
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Iraq, Ballots and Pistachios
NATO won't get involved in Iraq because Europeans don't trust Bush. They are right not to trust him. He is not trustworthy. Never, never, never do anything to support someone who has done what he has done.
NATO won't get involved in Iraq because Europeans don't trust Bush. They are right not to trust him. He is not trustworthy. Never, never, never do anything to support someone who has done what he has done.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Postscript on Civil War
A civil war is different from other kinds of warfare. In a civil war, our opponents' only goal is to make us leave. That's what made Vietnam such a hard war to win. Our opponents were willing to sustain high losses in order to make us leave, and that's what they did. Our goal, which was to keep the country divided, was extremely hard to achieve if we did not have a strong and motivated local force fighting on our side. In fact, we did not have such a force, and we did not achieve our goal.
We can see a similar situation in Iraq: soldiers on the other side who are much more motivated than the soldiers on our side, and a simple goal to make us leave. A difference is that we can carry out ground operations against our opponents more effectively. We can attack Falluja, Najaf, and Baghdad on the ground, but we could not deploy infantry to Hanoi.
We can't lose this war, but it's not at all clear how we can win it, either. The word quaqmire was inappropriate for Vietnam, and it's not helpful for Iraq, either. It suggests that we get sucked in, as with quicksand, and that we have no way to get out: no exit strategy, as they say.
But we can get out easily if we recognize the nature of the situation we're in. In a two-sided war against a unified state, or against an alliance of unified states, one side has to win decisively, or both sides have to agree to stop fighting. It does no good to declare peace if the other side keeps attacking you. In a civil war, where an outside power fights to support the weaker force, the outside power can withdraw any time. The exit strategy is a simple one, if not easy to execute. In this case, we don't even have to admit that the original invasion of Iraq was a mistake. The Iraqis are grateful that we got rid of Saddam Hussein: they were grateful in April 2003 and they still are. We just have to admit that we made mistakes after getting rid of him. Then the path is clear for an honorable withdrawal.
So these reasons - there'll be a civil war, we can't lose the war, we can't appear to lose it - all of these reasons for staying in Iraq are misconceived. The question is, what serves our interests, given the situation that exists right now? The answer now is the same answer that held when we rolled the first tanks over the border: start planning for disengagement. Let the Iraqis build their own state, because they don't want our help. If we let them alone now, they'll be our friends later.
We can see a similar situation in Iraq: soldiers on the other side who are much more motivated than the soldiers on our side, and a simple goal to make us leave. A difference is that we can carry out ground operations against our opponents more effectively. We can attack Falluja, Najaf, and Baghdad on the ground, but we could not deploy infantry to Hanoi.
We can't lose this war, but it's not at all clear how we can win it, either. The word quaqmire was inappropriate for Vietnam, and it's not helpful for Iraq, either. It suggests that we get sucked in, as with quicksand, and that we have no way to get out: no exit strategy, as they say.
But we can get out easily if we recognize the nature of the situation we're in. In a two-sided war against a unified state, or against an alliance of unified states, one side has to win decisively, or both sides have to agree to stop fighting. It does no good to declare peace if the other side keeps attacking you. In a civil war, where an outside power fights to support the weaker force, the outside power can withdraw any time. The exit strategy is a simple one, if not easy to execute. In this case, we don't even have to admit that the original invasion of Iraq was a mistake. The Iraqis are grateful that we got rid of Saddam Hussein: they were grateful in April 2003 and they still are. We just have to admit that we made mistakes after getting rid of him. Then the path is clear for an honorable withdrawal.
So these reasons - there'll be a civil war, we can't lose the war, we can't appear to lose it - all of these reasons for staying in Iraq are misconceived. The question is, what serves our interests, given the situation that exists right now? The answer now is the same answer that held when we rolled the first tanks over the border: start planning for disengagement. Let the Iraqis build their own state, because they don't want our help. If we let them alone now, they'll be our friends later.
The New York Times > Washington > News Analysis: Will More Power for Intelligence Chief Mean Better Results?
The New York Times > Washington > News Analysis: Will More Power for Intelligence Chief Mean Better Results?
I am an outcome oriented person. Results do matter. Everyone is focused on whether we can win the war in Iraq. For the sake of our troops fighting there, I hope we do win. But that neglects the question of whether we ought be fighting the war to begin with. Success in the war does not mean that the war is right.
The fact that the Nazis lost in 1945 does not make their war wrong. It would not have been right if they had stayed in France and Russia, if they had actually built their thousand year reich. And their defeat is not proof of their wickedness. The actions themselves prove it.
Similarly, the Romans weren't right because their attempt to build an empire succeeded. Yes, we remember the winners, and we overlook the bad things that winners do, but the bad things that winners do are still bad. Rape is still rape, torture is still torture, murder is still murder, and cruelty is still cruelty. Success doesn't affect moral judgments at all.
But, you say, ends do justify the means: if we are successful in bringing democracy to the Middle East, that outcome is so significant that all the bad things we had to do will have been worth it. That outcome is so good that we ought to overlook all the bad things we had to do to achieve it. Realizing the utopian vision of a new world order built on a democratic Middle East will make us forget what happened during the war, and we should forget about it.
Most people believe that, but I don't. I believe that we are going to pay for what we did in Iraq. I believe Lincoln when he said that the United States would pay for every lash of the overseer's whip, that it had already paid with every drop of blood shed in the Civil War. I believe the United States is going to pay, no matter how good the outcome in Iraq. It will pay in lost allies, lost respect, lost leadership. It will pay when China overtakes us as leader of the world, and when we struggle in a long war with Islamic militants that we can't win. It will pay when our enemies seek revenge.
So policy makers have to focus on how to resolve this war as successfully as they can. Commentators have to focus on what the policy makers are doing. But the rest of us should focus on the moral nature of our country's actions. The only way out of our current situation, the only way to redeem it at all is to admit to the world that we made a mistake, and to ask for its forgiveness. Richard Clarke did that when he testified before the 9/11 commission several months ago. I don't think John Kerry would have spoken so forthrightly as Clarke if he had been elected, but he did aim to repair our standing somehow. Bush will not do any of these things. He thinks that if we win the war, everything will be okay. The people who voted for him believe that, too. They're wrong.
The only way to win the war we are in is to fight the enemy who attacked us. To think that our enemies will give up because we defeat an enemy who didn't attack us is foolish. The only way to win the war we are in is to set up shop in the country where we had to fight: Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure that's not possible any more: a lot of time has passed since 2002, and I don't believe we'd be welcome there anymore. It's hard to tell, though. Other people's reactions are hard to predict.
What does setting up shop mean? Well, some of you have heard me say it so often that you won't need to hear it again: construct air bases, highways and super highways, roads, listening bases, army bases, naval air stations, training centers, supply depots, communications facilities, intelligence centers, humanitarian relief operations, radio and television stations, trade relations, schools, consulates, joint commands with our allies, water projects, fuel depots, armaments depots, and... you have the idea now. After we set all these things up, we should use them. Make Afghanistan the fifty-first state. Do everything but collect taxes. Make Afghanistan an extension of our own country. Use it as our forward base for operations throughout South Asia and the Middle East.
I honestly don't know if we could do that anymore. We could have done it in 2002. It may be too late, now. But we ought to try. The effort would have some interesting outcomes. The only way we could launch the effort now, given the amount of fear and distrust we've generated with the war in Iraq, is to do what I suggested above: admit our mistake and ask forgiveness. If we did that, I believe we would have a lot of help in whatever we undertook after that. That confession would restore trust with the people's whose help we need. And we do need help to defeat Al Qaeda.
Here is a postscript: Just last night I heard on the radio again the standard thinking. If we leave Iraq now, the country will dissolve into civil war. That was a credible warning a year and a half ago, but how is it a warning now? The country has already dissolved into civil war. It's true that Iraq has no large armies on the march, but most of the civil wars we've seen since World War II have been fought by small bands of soldiers. A key difference between the civil war in Iraq and the other civil wars we've seen is that we're in the middle of it. Our reasoning about what we should do shouldn't be based on what will happen if we get out. The war we fear has already started.
So what should we do? Work with local leaders - local leaders who aren't currently shooting at us. Find out what they want. Do what we can to help them get what they want. Work from those beginnings to communicate with the people who are shooting at us. Some of our enemies won't want to talk with us. Some will. Listen to anyone who wants to talk with us. Find out what they want, think about what serves our interests, and make a plan that helps Iraqis and helps us at the same time. Most Iraqis want us to leave now. Who is to say they are wrong? Who is to say that the country would be so poorly off if it broke into three separate states after we left? We would see some very interesting developments were we to let the Iraqis determine their own future. We think that the January 30 election is the key to self-determination. They believe our departure is the key to self-determination. Perhaps doing both would be a good idea.
I am an outcome oriented person. Results do matter. Everyone is focused on whether we can win the war in Iraq. For the sake of our troops fighting there, I hope we do win. But that neglects the question of whether we ought be fighting the war to begin with. Success in the war does not mean that the war is right.
The fact that the Nazis lost in 1945 does not make their war wrong. It would not have been right if they had stayed in France and Russia, if they had actually built their thousand year reich. And their defeat is not proof of their wickedness. The actions themselves prove it.
Similarly, the Romans weren't right because their attempt to build an empire succeeded. Yes, we remember the winners, and we overlook the bad things that winners do, but the bad things that winners do are still bad. Rape is still rape, torture is still torture, murder is still murder, and cruelty is still cruelty. Success doesn't affect moral judgments at all.
But, you say, ends do justify the means: if we are successful in bringing democracy to the Middle East, that outcome is so significant that all the bad things we had to do will have been worth it. That outcome is so good that we ought to overlook all the bad things we had to do to achieve it. Realizing the utopian vision of a new world order built on a democratic Middle East will make us forget what happened during the war, and we should forget about it.
Most people believe that, but I don't. I believe that we are going to pay for what we did in Iraq. I believe Lincoln when he said that the United States would pay for every lash of the overseer's whip, that it had already paid with every drop of blood shed in the Civil War. I believe the United States is going to pay, no matter how good the outcome in Iraq. It will pay in lost allies, lost respect, lost leadership. It will pay when China overtakes us as leader of the world, and when we struggle in a long war with Islamic militants that we can't win. It will pay when our enemies seek revenge.
So policy makers have to focus on how to resolve this war as successfully as they can. Commentators have to focus on what the policy makers are doing. But the rest of us should focus on the moral nature of our country's actions. The only way out of our current situation, the only way to redeem it at all is to admit to the world that we made a mistake, and to ask for its forgiveness. Richard Clarke did that when he testified before the 9/11 commission several months ago. I don't think John Kerry would have spoken so forthrightly as Clarke if he had been elected, but he did aim to repair our standing somehow. Bush will not do any of these things. He thinks that if we win the war, everything will be okay. The people who voted for him believe that, too. They're wrong.
The only way to win the war we are in is to fight the enemy who attacked us. To think that our enemies will give up because we defeat an enemy who didn't attack us is foolish. The only way to win the war we are in is to set up shop in the country where we had to fight: Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure that's not possible any more: a lot of time has passed since 2002, and I don't believe we'd be welcome there anymore. It's hard to tell, though. Other people's reactions are hard to predict.
What does setting up shop mean? Well, some of you have heard me say it so often that you won't need to hear it again: construct air bases, highways and super highways, roads, listening bases, army bases, naval air stations, training centers, supply depots, communications facilities, intelligence centers, humanitarian relief operations, radio and television stations, trade relations, schools, consulates, joint commands with our allies, water projects, fuel depots, armaments depots, and... you have the idea now. After we set all these things up, we should use them. Make Afghanistan the fifty-first state. Do everything but collect taxes. Make Afghanistan an extension of our own country. Use it as our forward base for operations throughout South Asia and the Middle East.
I honestly don't know if we could do that anymore. We could have done it in 2002. It may be too late, now. But we ought to try. The effort would have some interesting outcomes. The only way we could launch the effort now, given the amount of fear and distrust we've generated with the war in Iraq, is to do what I suggested above: admit our mistake and ask forgiveness. If we did that, I believe we would have a lot of help in whatever we undertook after that. That confession would restore trust with the people's whose help we need. And we do need help to defeat Al Qaeda.
Here is a postscript: Just last night I heard on the radio again the standard thinking. If we leave Iraq now, the country will dissolve into civil war. That was a credible warning a year and a half ago, but how is it a warning now? The country has already dissolved into civil war. It's true that Iraq has no large armies on the march, but most of the civil wars we've seen since World War II have been fought by small bands of soldiers. A key difference between the civil war in Iraq and the other civil wars we've seen is that we're in the middle of it. Our reasoning about what we should do shouldn't be based on what will happen if we get out. The war we fear has already started.
So what should we do? Work with local leaders - local leaders who aren't currently shooting at us. Find out what they want. Do what we can to help them get what they want. Work from those beginnings to communicate with the people who are shooting at us. Some of our enemies won't want to talk with us. Some will. Listen to anyone who wants to talk with us. Find out what they want, think about what serves our interests, and make a plan that helps Iraqis and helps us at the same time. Most Iraqis want us to leave now. Who is to say they are wrong? Who is to say that the country would be so poorly off if it broke into three separate states after we left? We would see some very interesting developments were we to let the Iraqis determine their own future. We think that the January 30 election is the key to self-determination. They believe our departure is the key to self-determination. Perhaps doing both would be a good idea.
Sunday, December 05, 2004
Frank Rich: The Nascar Nightly News: Anchorman Get Your Gun
The New York Times > Arts > Frank Rich: The Nascar Nightly News: Anchorman Get Your Gun: "Kevin Sites, the freelance TV cameraman who caught a marine shooting an apparently unarmed Iraqi prisoner in a mosque, is one such blogger. Mr. Sites is an embedded journalist currently in the employ of NBC News. To NBC's credit, it ran Mr. Sites's mid-November report, on a newscast in which Mr. Williams was then subbing for Mr. Brokaw, and handled it in exemplary fashion. Mr. Sites avoided any snap judgment pending the Marines' own investigation of the shooting, cautioning that a war zone is 'rife with uncertainty and confusion.' But loud voices in red America, especially on blogs, wanted him silenced anyway. On right-wing sites like freerepublic.com Mr. Sites was branded an 'anti-war activist' (which he is not), a traitor and an 'enemy combatant.' Mr. Sites's own blog, touted by Mr. Williams on the air, was full of messages from the relatives of marines profusely thanking the cameraman for bringing them news of their sons in Iraq. That communal message board has since been shut down because of the death threats by other Americans against Mr. Sites."
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Kristof: China's Donkey Droppings
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: China's Donkey Droppings: "or the last century, the title of 'most important place in the world' has belonged to the United States, but that role seems likely to shift in this century to China."
Saturday, November 27, 2004
Kristof: Saving the Iraqi Children
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Saving the Iraqi Children: "Lately, I've been quiet about the war because it's easy to rail about the administration's foolishness last year but a lot harder to offer constructive suggestions for what we should do now. President Bush's policy on Iraq has migrated from delusional - we would be welcomed with flowers, we should disband the Iraqi army, security is fine, the big problem is exaggerations by nervous Nellie correspondents - to reasonable today. These days, the biggest risk may come from the small but growing contingent on the left that wants to bring our troops home now."
But this is not an either-or choice! The choice is not between staying the course and leaving now. The reason we can't imagine other possibilities is that we haven't even tried to think of them. Let's stop now to think about what we should do, and leave aside the options that clearly won't work.
But this is not an either-or choice! The choice is not between staying the course and leaving now. The reason we can't imagine other possibilities is that we haven't even tried to think of them. Let's stop now to think about what we should do, and leave aside the options that clearly won't work.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Dowd: A Plague of Toadies
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: A Plague of Toadies: "W. and Vice want to extend their personal control over bureaucracies they thought had impeded their foreign policy. It's alarming to learn that they regard their first-term foreign policy - a trumped-up war and bungled occupation, an estrangement from our old allies and proliferating nuclear ambitions in North Korea, Iran and Russia - as impeded. What will an untrammeled one look like?"
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Dowd: Slapping the Other Cheek
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Slapping the Other Cheek: "Bob Jones III, president of the fundamentalist college of the same name, has written a letter to the president telling him that 'Christ has allowed you to be his servant' so he could 'leave an imprint for righteousness,' by appointing conservative judges and approving legislation 'defined by biblical norm.'
'In your re-election, God has graciously granted America - though she doesn't deserve it - a reprieve from the agenda of paganism,' Mr. Jones wrote. 'Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ.' Way harsh."
'In your re-election, God has graciously granted America - though she doesn't deserve it - a reprieve from the agenda of paganism,' Mr. Jones wrote. 'Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ.' Way harsh."
Friday, November 12, 2004
King Abdullah II: The Road From Here
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: The Road From Here: "We can't win the war on terror if we don't act together. We Muslims were the first targets of the extremists, whose stated goal is to bring down moderate governments and stop the growth of democratic civil society. "
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Lou Cannon: Can Bush Break the Second-Term Jinx?
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: Can Bush Break the Second-Term Jinx?: "President Bush, now basking in his re-election honeymoon, is likely to face even greater skepticism over Iraq if the prospects for success there do not improve after the current offensive in Falluja and the Iraqi elections in January. Both Mr. Buckley andMr. Will, for example, have questioned the wisdom of the Iraq war. Further to the right, Patrick Buchanan has denounced the war and insisted (accurately, I believe) that Ronald Reagan would never have waged it."
Monday, November 01, 2004
Herbert: Days of Shame
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Days of Shame: "It was Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, who said that 'America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.'"
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Dowd: Will Osama Help W.?
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Will Osama Help W.?: "You'd think that seeing Osama looking fit as a fiddle and ready for hate would spark anger at the Bush administration's cynical diversion of the war on Al Qaeda to the war on Saddam. It's absurd that we're mired in Iraq - an invasion the demented vice president praised on Friday for its 'brilliance' - while the 9/11 mastermind nonchalantly pops up anytime he wants. For some, it seemed cartoonish, with Osama as Road Runner beeping by Wile E. Bush as Dick Cheney and Rummy run the Acme/Halliburton explosives company - now under F.B.I. investigation for its no-bid contracts on anvils, axle grease (guaranteed slippery) and dehydrated boulders (just add water). "
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Thoughts on Democracy in Advance of November 2
"Things like faith, love of country, courage and dedication - they are all part of the inner strength of America. And sometimes, they do not become self-evident until there is a time of crisis."
Ronald Reagan, September 9, 1974
"Well, I know this. I've laid down the law, though, to everyone from now on about anything that happens: no matter what time it is, wake me . . . even if it's in the middle of a cabinet meeting."
Ronald Reagan, April 13, 1984
Welcome to all of our new subscribers! You've joined a varied, vocal group, and you're going to like what you read here. Whether you're a recent subscriber or you're well acquainted with the journal, thanks for your interest! It keeps me going.
One thing that has always distinguished small d democrats from more aristocratic skeptics is a faith in the people's judgment. Jefferson, Lincoln, Reagan, and most recently, William Jefferson Clinton all believed that the people will make the right choice if they know the truth. If people have the facts they'll make a good decision, the democrats have said. That's a pretty big qualification, though, this appeal to truth and facts. We know that getting good information, and then making sound judgments about the information, is not easy work. In fact, if you have done a good job of evaluating your facts, you've already done most of what you need to do to make a good decision.
There's another qualification in there that we don't think about as much. People have to care enough about their country to do the hard work of decision making to begin with. Experts in politics analyze voter turnout, and ask questions like these:
- What party benefits if turnout is good?
- What does low turnout say about the state of our democracy?
- Why should we care about voter turnout in the first place?
The key question is, what effect does turnout have on the quality of the decisions we make? In the past, people have said that high turnout with distorted or incomplete information is something we should avoid. It's better to go with low turnout, and have good information in the hands of the people who do vote. Interesting as these thoughts are, they're not so helpful when we truly want to influence the nature and the outcome of the fight.
Well, we can estimate voter turnout pretty accurately, but making judgments about the quality of information that's available isn't as easy as you might think. Let's take the swift boat ads about John Kerry as an example. The people who run the ads say that Kerry doesn't deserve his medals, and the people who served with him say that he fought with valor and courage. What are we to make of such a contradiction? How can we make a reliable judgment about his character if people can't agree about the basics of his military record?
If we look into the issue, we learn that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth aren't all that concerned about what Kerry did in Vietnam. What they really care about is what he did after he returned to the United States. They don't like it that he led a movement of veterans against the war. They don't like it that he criticized his senior officers in public, or that he publicized the atrocious things American soldiers did to Vietnamese civilians. They don't like it that he threw his medals away at an anti-war rally in Washington, and they certainly don't see him as a war hero. It rankles them that he plays up his service as a naval officer, because they see his behavior after he returned from the war as traitorous. For them he's a male Jane Fonda, and they show a picture of him sitting near Fonda at a Washington anti-war rally to prove it.
This simple example illustrates that it's not so easy to separate facts from judgments. In fact, it's not clear we should try. We have to decide what we think about active opposition to an ongoing war - what Kerry did when he came back from Vietnam - while we try to reach judgments about his character. We want to say that accurate information about the candidates will lead to a good choice on election day. More important than accuracy, though, is our ability to think clearly about the information we have. The campaigns are engaged in a great polemic, and we have to stand apart from them with good analytical tools. And then we have to vote, which means we have to participate in the fight.
So let's take up an underlying issue in the discussion of Kerry's war record: the question of whether it's unpatriotic to oppose an ongoing war. The same issue applies to the war in Iraq, of course. I didn't know what it was like to receive hate mail until I began to write about the current conflict. There's nothing insipid about the mail I receive on this issue. But what do you make of the last message I received, where someone I know well compared me to Tokyo Rose? He wrote that if I had been similarly outspoken during World War II, I would have been thrown in jail.
Does that mean that public criticism of the war just isn't permitted because it's traitorous? How patriotic can it be to support a war that has already done so much harm to our reputation and our ability to lead, not to mention our security? Doesn't everyone have an obligation to argue strongly about the merits of the case? It doesn't seem right at all to cast the people on one side of the issue as patriots, and the people on the other side as traitors. Where will that lead? To look at this phenomenon another way: the people who oppose the war might reach severe judgments about those who favor it - but they don't call them traitors.
Now we need to tie these thoughts about patriotism to the call for democratic participation. After all it's patriotism - an inbred concern for the health of our country - that leads us to become involved in its affairs in the first place. We the people have to decide who will lead the country. If we don't, other people who have their own interests at heart will decide for us. We ought to have faith that good judgment and devoted participation by people who care about their country will result in a good decision. It doesn't matter if the quality of information in the candidates' ads is contradictory, aggressive, and self-serving. Don't expect a balanced presentation of facts in campaign ads! The only way to evaluate the claims we've encountered during this election season is to use our independent judgment.
During previous election campaigns, we heard all the reasons for not voting: (1) there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, (2) I don't like either candidate, so why should I give either one my support, (3) my vote doesn't make a difference anyway, (4) the system is corrupt and I can't do anything to change it. The close election in 2000, the September 11 attacks and the war in Iraq all make these defenses lame and irrelevant. It's not cool to be detached and indifferent anymore. When you hear people say that this is the most important election in our history, believe it. The only election of comparable importance occurred in 1864. Then the southern states indicated they would leave the Union before they would tolerate an administration opposed to slavery. The voters sent Lincoln to the White House in a three way race. Many people sense that our future as a free nation depends on the choice we make when we vote on November 2. Their instinct is correct.
I won't make an argument in this article about why you should vote one way or the other. The main purpose here is to persuade you it's worth your time to vote next week. More than that, it's worth your time to persuade other people to vote. Do what you can to remind people to participate in this great occasion - this remarkable event in our communal life. Send this article around to the people on your personal mailing list. You won't receive any hate mail for doing it!
I remember a teacher of mine in graduate school who is both good natured and serious about democratic citizenship. He asked students on election day in 1984, "Did you vote?" He didn't put people on the spot, but he sure left no doubt about what one's civic duty required. He set a good example, and it's an example we should follow now. We shouldn't wait until next Tuesday to deliver our reminders, though. We should follow the lead of both parties, get ready for the occasion, and do what we can to let people know that their participation is needed. If we all get together and vote our true beliefs, we'll have an outcome that is good for our country, and therefore good for us.
Sincerely,
Steven Greffenius
P.S. Above I referred to my writing on the war in Iraq. A week or so ago I published an expanded edition of my essay, Ugly War, which first came out in this journal last May. The new edition has maps, pictures, and a more readable format. To have a look at the new version, visit http://thelastjeffersonian.com/ugly_war.pdf. Please let me know if the file does not open for you. And please send the link for Ugly War to others who would like to read the essay, whether or not you think they agree with it.
I wrote the essay with the aim of persuading people to vote their hearts and minds on this critical issue of the war, and I do hope it does that. The more citizens who participate in this decision on November 2, the more we can live with the outcome, and the better our prospects as a free, secure, and respected nation.
Steven Greffenius is the author of The Last Jeffersonian: Ronald Reagan's Dreams of America. To learn more about the book, please visit http://thelastjeffersonian.com/.
Ronald Reagan, September 9, 1974
"Well, I know this. I've laid down the law, though, to everyone from now on about anything that happens: no matter what time it is, wake me . . . even if it's in the middle of a cabinet meeting."
Ronald Reagan, April 13, 1984
Welcome to all of our new subscribers! You've joined a varied, vocal group, and you're going to like what you read here. Whether you're a recent subscriber or you're well acquainted with the journal, thanks for your interest! It keeps me going.
One thing that has always distinguished small d democrats from more aristocratic skeptics is a faith in the people's judgment. Jefferson, Lincoln, Reagan, and most recently, William Jefferson Clinton all believed that the people will make the right choice if they know the truth. If people have the facts they'll make a good decision, the democrats have said. That's a pretty big qualification, though, this appeal to truth and facts. We know that getting good information, and then making sound judgments about the information, is not easy work. In fact, if you have done a good job of evaluating your facts, you've already done most of what you need to do to make a good decision.
There's another qualification in there that we don't think about as much. People have to care enough about their country to do the hard work of decision making to begin with. Experts in politics analyze voter turnout, and ask questions like these:
- What party benefits if turnout is good?
- What does low turnout say about the state of our democracy?
- Why should we care about voter turnout in the first place?
The key question is, what effect does turnout have on the quality of the decisions we make? In the past, people have said that high turnout with distorted or incomplete information is something we should avoid. It's better to go with low turnout, and have good information in the hands of the people who do vote. Interesting as these thoughts are, they're not so helpful when we truly want to influence the nature and the outcome of the fight.
Well, we can estimate voter turnout pretty accurately, but making judgments about the quality of information that's available isn't as easy as you might think. Let's take the swift boat ads about John Kerry as an example. The people who run the ads say that Kerry doesn't deserve his medals, and the people who served with him say that he fought with valor and courage. What are we to make of such a contradiction? How can we make a reliable judgment about his character if people can't agree about the basics of his military record?
If we look into the issue, we learn that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth aren't all that concerned about what Kerry did in Vietnam. What they really care about is what he did after he returned to the United States. They don't like it that he led a movement of veterans against the war. They don't like it that he criticized his senior officers in public, or that he publicized the atrocious things American soldiers did to Vietnamese civilians. They don't like it that he threw his medals away at an anti-war rally in Washington, and they certainly don't see him as a war hero. It rankles them that he plays up his service as a naval officer, because they see his behavior after he returned from the war as traitorous. For them he's a male Jane Fonda, and they show a picture of him sitting near Fonda at a Washington anti-war rally to prove it.
This simple example illustrates that it's not so easy to separate facts from judgments. In fact, it's not clear we should try. We have to decide what we think about active opposition to an ongoing war - what Kerry did when he came back from Vietnam - while we try to reach judgments about his character. We want to say that accurate information about the candidates will lead to a good choice on election day. More important than accuracy, though, is our ability to think clearly about the information we have. The campaigns are engaged in a great polemic, and we have to stand apart from them with good analytical tools. And then we have to vote, which means we have to participate in the fight.
So let's take up an underlying issue in the discussion of Kerry's war record: the question of whether it's unpatriotic to oppose an ongoing war. The same issue applies to the war in Iraq, of course. I didn't know what it was like to receive hate mail until I began to write about the current conflict. There's nothing insipid about the mail I receive on this issue. But what do you make of the last message I received, where someone I know well compared me to Tokyo Rose? He wrote that if I had been similarly outspoken during World War II, I would have been thrown in jail.
Does that mean that public criticism of the war just isn't permitted because it's traitorous? How patriotic can it be to support a war that has already done so much harm to our reputation and our ability to lead, not to mention our security? Doesn't everyone have an obligation to argue strongly about the merits of the case? It doesn't seem right at all to cast the people on one side of the issue as patriots, and the people on the other side as traitors. Where will that lead? To look at this phenomenon another way: the people who oppose the war might reach severe judgments about those who favor it - but they don't call them traitors.
Now we need to tie these thoughts about patriotism to the call for democratic participation. After all it's patriotism - an inbred concern for the health of our country - that leads us to become involved in its affairs in the first place. We the people have to decide who will lead the country. If we don't, other people who have their own interests at heart will decide for us. We ought to have faith that good judgment and devoted participation by people who care about their country will result in a good decision. It doesn't matter if the quality of information in the candidates' ads is contradictory, aggressive, and self-serving. Don't expect a balanced presentation of facts in campaign ads! The only way to evaluate the claims we've encountered during this election season is to use our independent judgment.
During previous election campaigns, we heard all the reasons for not voting: (1) there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, (2) I don't like either candidate, so why should I give either one my support, (3) my vote doesn't make a difference anyway, (4) the system is corrupt and I can't do anything to change it. The close election in 2000, the September 11 attacks and the war in Iraq all make these defenses lame and irrelevant. It's not cool to be detached and indifferent anymore. When you hear people say that this is the most important election in our history, believe it. The only election of comparable importance occurred in 1864. Then the southern states indicated they would leave the Union before they would tolerate an administration opposed to slavery. The voters sent Lincoln to the White House in a three way race. Many people sense that our future as a free nation depends on the choice we make when we vote on November 2. Their instinct is correct.
I won't make an argument in this article about why you should vote one way or the other. The main purpose here is to persuade you it's worth your time to vote next week. More than that, it's worth your time to persuade other people to vote. Do what you can to remind people to participate in this great occasion - this remarkable event in our communal life. Send this article around to the people on your personal mailing list. You won't receive any hate mail for doing it!
I remember a teacher of mine in graduate school who is both good natured and serious about democratic citizenship. He asked students on election day in 1984, "Did you vote?" He didn't put people on the spot, but he sure left no doubt about what one's civic duty required. He set a good example, and it's an example we should follow now. We shouldn't wait until next Tuesday to deliver our reminders, though. We should follow the lead of both parties, get ready for the occasion, and do what we can to let people know that their participation is needed. If we all get together and vote our true beliefs, we'll have an outcome that is good for our country, and therefore good for us.
Sincerely,
Steven Greffenius
P.S. Above I referred to my writing on the war in Iraq. A week or so ago I published an expanded edition of my essay, Ugly War, which first came out in this journal last May. The new edition has maps, pictures, and a more readable format. To have a look at the new version, visit http://thelastjeffersonian.com/ugly_war.pdf. Please let me know if the file does not open for you. And please send the link for Ugly War to others who would like to read the essay, whether or not you think they agree with it.
I wrote the essay with the aim of persuading people to vote their hearts and minds on this critical issue of the war, and I do hope it does that. The more citizens who participate in this decision on November 2, the more we can live with the outcome, and the better our prospects as a free, secure, and respected nation.
Steven Greffenius is the author of The Last Jeffersonian: Ronald Reagan's Dreams of America. To learn more about the book, please visit http://thelastjeffersonian.com/.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Dowd: Cooking His Own Goose
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Cooking His Own Goose: "One of my first presidential trips was going to Texas one weekend to cover Ronald Reagan hunting with James Baker at Mr. Baker's ranch. President Reagan came back proudly empty-handed. He didn't want to shoot any small animals. He had his faults, but he never overcompensated on macho posturing, thinking that blowing away a flock of birds in borrowed camouflage for the cameras or bombing a weakened dictator and then sashaying in Top Gun gear for the cameras would give him more brass."
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Tommy Franks: War of Words
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: War of Words
Franks's vision is clear enough, but he has no more judgment than his commander in chief. He cannot see that he was involved in the biggest military blunder our country has ever committed.
Here is a passage about people who have both clear vision and good judgment - good moral judgment:
"What is a great man who has made his mark upon history? Every time, if we think far enough, his is a man who has looked through the confusion of the moment and has seen the moral issue involved; he is a man who has refused to have his sense of justice distorted; he has listened to his conscience until conscience becomes a trumpet call to the like-minded men, so that they gather about him and together, with mutual purpose and mutual aid, they make a new period in history."
-- Jane Addams
Franks's vision is clear enough, but he has no more judgment than his commander in chief. He cannot see that he was involved in the biggest military blunder our country has ever committed.
Here is a passage about people who have both clear vision and good judgment - good moral judgment:
"What is a great man who has made his mark upon history? Every time, if we think far enough, his is a man who has looked through the confusion of the moment and has seen the moral issue involved; he is a man who has refused to have his sense of justice distorted; he has listened to his conscience until conscience becomes a trumpet call to the like-minded men, so that they gather about him and together, with mutual purpose and mutual aid, they make a new period in history."
-- Jane Addams
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Ugly War
Hi All,
The next version of Ugly War is ready! This version has pictures of the
leading actors, maps of Afghanistan and Iraq, a better format, and new
material written since last May. Please have a look at it. To open the essay
in Adobe Reader, just click this link:
http://www.thelastjeffersonian.com/ugly_war.pdf
The PDF file opens in your browser. For easier reading, click View > Full
Screen in the browser's top menu bar. Also, you can use the Save button in
Adobe Reader to save a copy of the file to your hard drive.
If you don't have Adobe Reader on your computer already, let me know. Adobe
Reader has been available for quite a while now, but I wonder if I'm correct
in my supposition that most people have it. If the essay doesn't open when
you click the link, it's probably because the reader isn't installed. If
you'd like to obtain the reader, it's free at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
Lastly, and perhaps most important, please forward the link for the essay to
people you know. You might wonder how people will react to strongly worded
arguments about the war in Iraq, but you can say, "Here is something a
friend of mine wrote. He's written a lot about politics and the arguments in
this essay are worth thinking about."
The election is only two and a half weeks away! A democratic decision means
that everyone who can vote, should vote. If you remember the story in Horton
Hears a Who, we have to make sure we don't have any shirkers. Our future as
a respected country depends on the outcome of the election on November 2. To
see why I assess this vote in such sober terms, please read Ugly War!
Thanks,
Steve
P.S. Some of you receiving this note haven't heard from me for a while. If
you'd like to update your address, tell me what you think of the essay, take
yourself off the mailing list, or just say hello, please send a note by
return mail.
All the best,
S. G.
_____________________________
June, July, and August Books
www.TheLastJeffersonian.com
Steven Greffenius
Office: 781-762-6757
Mobile: 781-223-1396
_____________________________
The next version of Ugly War is ready! This version has pictures of the
leading actors, maps of Afghanistan and Iraq, a better format, and new
material written since last May. Please have a look at it. To open the essay
in Adobe Reader, just click this link:
http://www.thelastjeffersonian.com/ugly_war.pdf
The PDF file opens in your browser. For easier reading, click View > Full
Screen in the browser's top menu bar. Also, you can use the Save button in
Adobe Reader to save a copy of the file to your hard drive.
If you don't have Adobe Reader on your computer already, let me know. Adobe
Reader has been available for quite a while now, but I wonder if I'm correct
in my supposition that most people have it. If the essay doesn't open when
you click the link, it's probably because the reader isn't installed. If
you'd like to obtain the reader, it's free at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
Lastly, and perhaps most important, please forward the link for the essay to
people you know. You might wonder how people will react to strongly worded
arguments about the war in Iraq, but you can say, "Here is something a
friend of mine wrote. He's written a lot about politics and the arguments in
this essay are worth thinking about."
The election is only two and a half weeks away! A democratic decision means
that everyone who can vote, should vote. If you remember the story in Horton
Hears a Who, we have to make sure we don't have any shirkers. Our future as
a respected country depends on the outcome of the election on November 2. To
see why I assess this vote in such sober terms, please read Ugly War!
Thanks,
Steve
P.S. Some of you receiving this note haven't heard from me for a while. If
you'd like to update your address, tell me what you think of the essay, take
yourself off the mailing list, or just say hello, please send a note by
return mail.
All the best,
S. G.
_____________________________
June, July, and August Books
www.TheLastJeffersonian.com
Steven Greffenius
Office: 781-762-6757
Mobile: 781-223-1396
_____________________________
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Monday, October 04, 2004
Friday, October 01, 2004
Two Car Bombings in Iraq Kill 41, Many Children
The New York Times > International > Middle East > Two Car Bombings in Iraq Kill 41, Many Children
We keep saying that the worst thing that could happen in Iraq if we pull out is civil war. We should recognize that Iraq is already undergoing a civil war. Many, many more Iraqis have died in this conflict than have Americans. On one side in this conflict are the so-called insurgents or terrorists; on the other side are the Americans, and any Iraqi who has any contact with the Americans. The insurgents see those who have contact with the Americans as legitimate targets, anyway. The Iraqi civil defense force - the police and military forces currently under training - are both targets and fighters in the war. We say that the insurgents are sowing chaos in order to prevent democratic processes in Iraq from producing a legitimate government. They offer no positive plan, we conclude, just destruction. They do have a positive plan, though: get the United States armed forces out of the country.
We have made it plain in our conduct of the war in Iraq that we do not know how to fight our enemies there. If we knew how to fight an enemy so weak that it must resort to suicide car bombings against civilians, we would be taking less casualties now than a year ago, not more. If we knew how to fight this enemy, we would not have lost large population centers to their control. If we could engage this enemy, we could prevent it from acting at will. What has been a fragmented insurgency will become better organized and more determined as the weeks pass. Actually, they've been resolute and willing to take large losses from the beginning, but they haven't had the ability to conduct operations across the entire country. Starting last spring and continuing into this fall, that has changed. Last spring we called it an uprising. This fall we have to recognize the war for what it has become: a civil war.
We are not caught in the middle of this conflict. We created the conditions for it, and we want our side to win. So far, we are losing, even though our opponents are still very weak. If we try to win the war, we'll take more civilian lives than our opponents have taken. If we keep fighting, we can't lose. The only way to end the conflict is to withdraw. If we do that, the insurgents will have achieved their main goal. What's not clear is whether they would continue to attack Iraqi soldiers and civilians after we leave. I'm not sure that they would. Their main enemy is the United States. Still, the conditions might be right for a lengthy civil war. We shouldn't deceive ourselves, however, into thinking that our withdrawal is the factor that allows a civil war to start. It has already started, and it is going to get worse.
We keep saying that the worst thing that could happen in Iraq if we pull out is civil war. We should recognize that Iraq is already undergoing a civil war. Many, many more Iraqis have died in this conflict than have Americans. On one side in this conflict are the so-called insurgents or terrorists; on the other side are the Americans, and any Iraqi who has any contact with the Americans. The insurgents see those who have contact with the Americans as legitimate targets, anyway. The Iraqi civil defense force - the police and military forces currently under training - are both targets and fighters in the war. We say that the insurgents are sowing chaos in order to prevent democratic processes in Iraq from producing a legitimate government. They offer no positive plan, we conclude, just destruction. They do have a positive plan, though: get the United States armed forces out of the country.
We have made it plain in our conduct of the war in Iraq that we do not know how to fight our enemies there. If we knew how to fight an enemy so weak that it must resort to suicide car bombings against civilians, we would be taking less casualties now than a year ago, not more. If we knew how to fight this enemy, we would not have lost large population centers to their control. If we could engage this enemy, we could prevent it from acting at will. What has been a fragmented insurgency will become better organized and more determined as the weeks pass. Actually, they've been resolute and willing to take large losses from the beginning, but they haven't had the ability to conduct operations across the entire country. Starting last spring and continuing into this fall, that has changed. Last spring we called it an uprising. This fall we have to recognize the war for what it has become: a civil war.
We are not caught in the middle of this conflict. We created the conditions for it, and we want our side to win. So far, we are losing, even though our opponents are still very weak. If we try to win the war, we'll take more civilian lives than our opponents have taken. If we keep fighting, we can't lose. The only way to end the conflict is to withdraw. If we do that, the insurgents will have achieved their main goal. What's not clear is whether they would continue to attack Iraqi soldiers and civilians after we leave. I'm not sure that they would. Their main enemy is the United States. Still, the conditions might be right for a lengthy civil war. We shouldn't deceive ourselves, however, into thinking that our withdrawal is the factor that allows a civil war to start. It has already started, and it is going to get worse.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Dowd: The Prince of Tides, Tacking and Attacking
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: The Prince of Tides, Tacking and Attacking
Yet Mr. Kerry's case has a hollow center. He was asked at his press conference on Tuesday about W.'s snide reminders that his rival gave him authority to go to war (and, playing frat pledge to W.'s rush chairman, inanely agreed that he would still have voted to give that authority even if there were no W.M.D.).
That vote, he replied, was correct "because we needed to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for weapons. That's what America believed."
Not all Americans.
The administration rolled the Democrats on the authorization vote. It was clear at the time that going after Saddam to punish Osama made no sense, that Cheney & Co. were going to use Saddam as a lab rat for all their old neocon agendas. It was clear, as the fleet sailed toward Iraq, that the Bush crew had no interest in diplomacy - that it wanted to castrate the flaccid U.N., the flower child Colin Powell and his pinstriped State Department, snotty Old Europe, and the despised Saddam to show that America is a hyperpower that is not to be messed with.
As I quoted a girlfriend saying in September 2002, a month before Mr. Kerry's authorization vote, "Bush is like the guy who reserves a hotel room and asks you to the prom."
When Mr. Kerry says it was the way the president went about challenging Saddam that was wrong, rather than the fact that he challenged Saddam, he's sidestepping the central moral issue.
It was wrong for the president to take on Saddam as a response to 9/11, to pretend the dictator was a threat to our national security, to drum up a fake case on weapons and a faux link to Al Qaeda, and to divert our energy, emotions and matériel from the real enemy to an old enemy whose address we knew.
It was wrong to take Americans to war without telling them the truth about why we were doing it and what it would cost.
It wasn't the way W. did it. It was what he did.
Yet Mr. Kerry's case has a hollow center. He was asked at his press conference on Tuesday about W.'s snide reminders that his rival gave him authority to go to war (and, playing frat pledge to W.'s rush chairman, inanely agreed that he would still have voted to give that authority even if there were no W.M.D.).
That vote, he replied, was correct "because we needed to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for weapons. That's what America believed."
Not all Americans.
The administration rolled the Democrats on the authorization vote. It was clear at the time that going after Saddam to punish Osama made no sense, that Cheney & Co. were going to use Saddam as a lab rat for all their old neocon agendas. It was clear, as the fleet sailed toward Iraq, that the Bush crew had no interest in diplomacy - that it wanted to castrate the flaccid U.N., the flower child Colin Powell and his pinstriped State Department, snotty Old Europe, and the despised Saddam to show that America is a hyperpower that is not to be messed with.
As I quoted a girlfriend saying in September 2002, a month before Mr. Kerry's authorization vote, "Bush is like the guy who reserves a hotel room and asks you to the prom."
When Mr. Kerry says it was the way the president went about challenging Saddam that was wrong, rather than the fact that he challenged Saddam, he's sidestepping the central moral issue.
It was wrong for the president to take on Saddam as a response to 9/11, to pretend the dictator was a threat to our national security, to drum up a fake case on weapons and a faux link to Al Qaeda, and to divert our energy, emotions and matériel from the real enemy to an old enemy whose address we knew.
It was wrong to take Americans to war without telling them the truth about why we were doing it and what it would cost.
It wasn't the way W. did it. It was what he did.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Monday, September 20, 2004
Saturday, September 18, 2004
Friday, September 17, 2004
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Maureen Dowd: Pre-emptive Paranoia
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Pre-emptive Paranoia: "Iraq is a vision of hell, and the Republicans act as if it's a model kitchen. "
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Thursday, September 02, 2004
The New York Times Editorial: Mr. Bush and the Truth About Terror
The New York Times > Opinion > Mr. Bush and the Truth About Terror: "The Bush campaign is betting the ranch on the idea that Americans, in the end, will vote for the candidate they think is most likely to keep the nation safe from terrorism. The president has been honest about saying we will never be totally safe. He has been much less frank about explaining that even relative safety depends on our ability to create international alliances and to pick our fights not on the basis of where our armies can successfully fight, or of settling old scores, but where the gravest dangers lie. There are few venues less promising for truth-telling than a political convention, but there are also few better opportunities to make the public listen."
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Kristof: Crowning Prince George
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Crowning Prince George: "Instead, Mr. Bush emulates Coriolanus, a well-meaning Roman general and aristocrat whose war against barbarians leads to an early victory but who then proves so inflexible and intemperate that tragedy befalls him and his people.
Unless Mr. Bush learns to see nuance and act less rashly, he will be the Coriolanus of our age: a strong and decisive leader, imbued with great talent and initially celebrated for his leadership in a crisis, who ultimately fails himself and his nation because of his rigidity, superficiality and arrogance. "
Unless Mr. Bush learns to see nuance and act less rashly, he will be the Coriolanus of our age: a strong and decisive leader, imbued with great talent and initially celebrated for his leadership in a crisis, who ultimately fails himself and his nation because of his rigidity, superficiality and arrogance. "
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Laura Bush: Upbeat Republicans Revive Bush Theme of Compassion
The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Upbeat Republicans Revive Bush Theme of Compassion: "'No American president ever wants to go to war,' Mrs. Bush said. 'Abraham Lincoln didn't want to go to war, but he knew that saving the union required it. Franklin Roosevelt didn't want to go to war, but he knew that defeating tyranny demanded it. And my husband didn't want to go to war, but he knew the safety and security of America and the world depended on it.'"
If Lincoln had gone to war against Kansas, would we praise him now? If Roosevelt had gone to war against Mexico, would we be grateful for his courage and practical wisdom? Republicans say we should feel safer under George Bush's leadership, but he picked the wrong enemy! He doesn't know what he is doing. However sure our president is that he's doing the right thing, no amount of steadfastness can substitute for poor judgment. In fact, his self-assurance makes him unable to see his mistake.
If Lincoln had gone to war against Kansas, would we praise him now? If Roosevelt had gone to war against Mexico, would we be grateful for his courage and practical wisdom? Republicans say we should feel safer under George Bush's leadership, but he picked the wrong enemy! He doesn't know what he is doing. However sure our president is that he's doing the right thing, no amount of steadfastness can substitute for poor judgment. In fact, his self-assurance makes him unable to see his mistake.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Friday, August 06, 2004
What About Iraq? Consequentialist Reasoning
Cathy Young writes for Reason magazine. I like her writing and her arguments, and she's one of those columnists I read when I have a chance. The other day she published a column in the Globe where she said the jury was still out on Iraq. I thought, still out! I also thought she could be right: you can't tell how things are going to turn out.
The problem with this reasoning is that it's consequentialist. Consequentialist reasoning is where you judge the rightness or wrongness of something based on its consequences. By this reasoning, we don't know yet whether going to war in Iraq was the right thing or the wrong thing to do, because we don't have a full balance sheet yet on all the good and bad consequences of the decision. Consequentialist thinking about the war is totally mainstream. Most of the public commentary on the war fits this model. We shouldn't have gone in there because so many bad things happened as a result. We should have gone in there because we got Hussein and we're bringing democracy to the Iraqi people. The battle of consequences continues, and as the election approaches, neither side seems to have much of an advantage. And as Ms. Young observed, the jury is still out because we're still in the middle of the war.
How about an argument that says we shouldn't have attacked Iraq because it was wrong in itself? We don't need a jury to tell us that an unprovoked attack on another country is wrong. We don't need a jury to tell us that you don't attack a country because they might pose a threat to you in the future. If we're going to go to war on that basis, we should start preparations to march on Beijing right now.
So the moral question on the Iraqi war is easy to answer. The charges about weapons of mass destruction were trumped up, and it was obvious before we went in there that they were. The charges about links between Hussein and Al Qaeda were trumped up, and that charge was so laughable I still can't understand how our leaders could have made it. If they hadn't made that charge, sympathetic historians might have said the war in Iraq was an honest, understandable mistake, in light of 9/11. Having suggested the connection, having persuade people it was true, historians will have to see the grounds for war as dishonest, the war itself as a vicious fraud.
I should add before I sign off that I use consequentialist arguments myself. You can't make good evaluations without them. The biggest consequence of the war in Iraq, I've argued, is that it makes defeat in our war against Al Qaeda much more likely. We cannot lose that war and survive as a civilization. This misstep in Iraq will be with us for a long time, and if we do lose the war against Al Qaeda, historians will see the attack on Baghdad on March 19, 2003, as the first step toward defeat. That's a big consequence.
So please don't conclude that I regard consequences as unimportant. Rather, we should evaluate consequences and the thing itself. Sound judgment depends on good reasoning in both areas. We've had a lot of analysis that centers on the war's results. That's no surprise, since the analysts are policymakers and others who evaluate policies based on costs and benefits. Cost-benefit analysis is useful for economic decisions, but it's not your tool of choice for moral questions. A decision about war or peace is the supreme moment in moral reasoning. Our decision to initiate war was a grave moral failure. We attacked a nation that was not capable of attacking us, and we let escape an enemy that had clearly demonstrated its ability to attack us. The only way to correct this failure is to admit the mistake, carefully extract ourselves from Iraq, then pursue our real enemy with all vigor. Are we capable of that?
The problem with this reasoning is that it's consequentialist. Consequentialist reasoning is where you judge the rightness or wrongness of something based on its consequences. By this reasoning, we don't know yet whether going to war in Iraq was the right thing or the wrong thing to do, because we don't have a full balance sheet yet on all the good and bad consequences of the decision. Consequentialist thinking about the war is totally mainstream. Most of the public commentary on the war fits this model. We shouldn't have gone in there because so many bad things happened as a result. We should have gone in there because we got Hussein and we're bringing democracy to the Iraqi people. The battle of consequences continues, and as the election approaches, neither side seems to have much of an advantage. And as Ms. Young observed, the jury is still out because we're still in the middle of the war.
How about an argument that says we shouldn't have attacked Iraq because it was wrong in itself? We don't need a jury to tell us that an unprovoked attack on another country is wrong. We don't need a jury to tell us that you don't attack a country because they might pose a threat to you in the future. If we're going to go to war on that basis, we should start preparations to march on Beijing right now.
So the moral question on the Iraqi war is easy to answer. The charges about weapons of mass destruction were trumped up, and it was obvious before we went in there that they were. The charges about links between Hussein and Al Qaeda were trumped up, and that charge was so laughable I still can't understand how our leaders could have made it. If they hadn't made that charge, sympathetic historians might have said the war in Iraq was an honest, understandable mistake, in light of 9/11. Having suggested the connection, having persuade people it was true, historians will have to see the grounds for war as dishonest, the war itself as a vicious fraud.
I should add before I sign off that I use consequentialist arguments myself. You can't make good evaluations without them. The biggest consequence of the war in Iraq, I've argued, is that it makes defeat in our war against Al Qaeda much more likely. We cannot lose that war and survive as a civilization. This misstep in Iraq will be with us for a long time, and if we do lose the war against Al Qaeda, historians will see the attack on Baghdad on March 19, 2003, as the first step toward defeat. That's a big consequence.
So please don't conclude that I regard consequences as unimportant. Rather, we should evaluate consequences and the thing itself. Sound judgment depends on good reasoning in both areas. We've had a lot of analysis that centers on the war's results. That's no surprise, since the analysts are policymakers and others who evaluate policies based on costs and benefits. Cost-benefit analysis is useful for economic decisions, but it's not your tool of choice for moral questions. A decision about war or peace is the supreme moment in moral reasoning. Our decision to initiate war was a grave moral failure. We attacked a nation that was not capable of attacking us, and we let escape an enemy that had clearly demonstrated its ability to attack us. The only way to correct this failure is to admit the mistake, carefully extract ourselves from Iraq, then pursue our real enemy with all vigor. Are we capable of that?
Bob Herbert: Failure of Leadership
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Failure of Leadership: "The pressure may be getting to Mr. Bush. He came up with a gem of a Freudian slip yesterday. At a signing ceremony for a $417 billion military spending bill, the president said: 'Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.' "
Thursday, August 05, 2004
World Trade Center to Abu Ghraib
World Trade Center to Abu Ghraib
How did we go from the heroism, unity, and sense of purpose that marked 9/11, to the degradation, shame, and cruelty of Abu Ghraib? Do you remember the spirit of that time, less than three years ago? We told ourselves that we had to see our enemies clearly, work with our friends, especially our friends in the Middle East, and draw hope from those who were equally determined to destroy Al Qaeda. We knew that many Muslims shared our determination to put this organization out of business. And we knew that we needed their help.
Now let me ask you: do you think that man lying on the floor is an enemy of ours? I'll tell you something: I don't know who he is. I'll bet virtually no American in the whole prison knew who he was. He was an Arab and they were going to have some fun with him. You know that even if he were a member of Al Qaeda, we would have been wrong to treat him that way. Our enemies may not follow the rules of war, but we should.
Let's go back to the original question: How did we go from the World Trade Center on September 11 to Lyndie England holding a beaten, naked man on a leash? Will anyone admit that when you engage in a war that's wrong you can expect that kind of thing to happen? You have to see the connection between an unjust war and the way we have treated people who aren't even our enemies.
For a longer answer to the question above, see Ugly War at the TheLastJeffersonian.com. The essay explains why America should leave Iraq. America should leave Iraq because it should not have gone there in the first place. To defeat your enemies, you have to go where your enemies are.
Lincoln said that we had to suffer through the Civil War as punishment for the sin of slavery. What will our punishment be for attacking Iraq? We have already heard our enemies, the ones who planned 9/11, call us war criminals, and know they are telling the truth. We have ceded the moral high ground to some of the worst people who have ever lived, people who are clearly criminals themselves. That's an accomplishment.
When I lived through the Reagan years, I had an instinct, a feeling in my heart, that this was it, this was the apogee, this was like the time that Julius Caesar ruled Rome. Caesar's rule actually came pretty early in the history of Roman civilization, and Rome still had quite a few good rulers to come, including Marcus Aurelius. But after Caesar's friends betrayed him and killed him, things unraveled, and historians could truthfully say that Rome never shone as brightly after that astonishing act of selfishness on the steps of the Senate.
America, Reagan's shining city on a hill, will never again shine as brightly as it did during those eight brief years. I certainly didn't want my instinct to be proven correct. When Reagan said that America's best years were still to come, I agreed with the sentiment, and I wanted it to be true. I certainly liked his rhetoric, and I was not among those who charged him with false optimism. I wanted him to bolster American confidence, and Americans had lots to be hopeful about, lots to be proud of. Reagan did the right thing, as a leader, to encourage the people who followed him. We would praise a military leader for doing so, and we should praise Reagan as a political leader for doing the same.
Yet Reagan's refrain that our best years were ahead of us proved wrong. Events proved the instinct correct after all. I had no idea in the 1980s how the story might turn out. The 1990s brought exactly the kind of prosperity that Reagan predicted: technology driven and based on innovation, it was a prosperity that rewarded free enterprise and entrepreneurship. Not only that, the Soviet Union collapsed, just as Reagan said it would. As a judge of human events and a seer of human aspirations, Reagan built an outstanding record of accurate prophecy.
As far as I could tell, no one in the 1980s thought about the significance of the Reagan years this way. I didn't see any essays from the people who liked Reagan about how America's best years were behind her. The left had long nurtured a reputation for speaking pessimistically about America's future. The conservatives who liked Reagan didn't seem to have any reason to doubt what Reagan himself said about our shining prospects.
Well, no one predicted 9/11, that's for sure. It was easy to predict that our enemies would strike us at home someday, but that particular attack took everyone off guard. What a turning point that unexpected event turned out to be. We could have shrugged it off, or we could have gone nuts. If we had shrugged it off, Reagan would have been right: we would have been the world's shining city on a hill for many more generations. If we went nuts, as we did, we would provoke the outcome that we are already coming to see: despised, defeated, dejected and discouraged, we command no admiration or respect anywhere, least of all in the places where we need it the most.
Let me elaborate a little. How could we have wanted to shrug off something like 9/11? One commentator, on public radio a few weeks after 9/11, told the story of a Roman legion that lost about 600 men a minute during a terrible battle against a powerful enemy. He said that the Romans just shrugged it off. They went ahead and coldly destroyed their opponent. That's how they maintained their power. The commentator did not say that we should forget the people who died on 9/11, or that we should not honor them. He just wanted to say that we should not give in to hand-wringing, anger, soul-searching, and the like. We should just find our enemies, destroy them, and be done with it. Be methodical and ruthless. It's one of the things you have to do to maintain order and protect your citizens.
Well, we didn't search out our enemies, and our leaders certainly didn't search their souls. We went totally nuts, like a blinded boxer who, out of pain and frustration, swings wildly and hits anyone who might be standing by. Bush's defense of his action against Iraq sounds more strained and unconvincing each time he delivers it. If you don't find Bush's defense persuasive, the only explanation for our attack is the blind boxer gone nuts. Or perhaps not so blind. We found a victim we could defeat, and one where we had a score to settle to boot. We went after a non-enemy that was available rather than the real enemy who got away.
So now we're going to spend the next four hundred years looking back, wondering how we could have made such a serious mistake in 2003. It's not going to seem so bad here in the United States. We'll still have our prosperity, some of our freedoms, our ideals and disconnected memories. We'll still have a few friends like Britain and Australia, and others who will tolerate us out of self-interest or because they have no choice. But I tell you, we won't ever command the respect that we had around the world when Eastern Europe expressed its gratitude to us for delivering them from the Soviet Union. We won't ever know the warmth and the genuine sorrow that flowed toward us in the days and weeks after 9/11. We'll be a byword and an object of contempt through most of the world now, because we couldn't see clearly what we had to do after the twin towers fell. We'll become irrelevant, and then defeated, because we couldn't shrug it off.
Lincoln said that America's example gives "hope to mankind, future for all time." What a loss to the world that we couldn't live up to Lincoln's ideal in a time of trial. Reagan always asked, what will people one hundred years from now say about us, when they look to the decisions we made about life and death, war and peace, freedom and slavery? Will they thank us for making the right decisions, for protecting what we had and passing it down? Until the war in Iraq, we had a good reputation. A good reputation is worth protecting: it takes a long time to build, only a short time to ruin it. That's why good people are so careful not to make a mistake that destroys something they've worked hard to create. We used to have a good reputation with freedom loving people, and we gave hope to everyone who aspired to a free life. Now people around the world, though they won't admit it, would like to put a leash on us.
How did we go from the heroism, unity, and sense of purpose that marked 9/11, to the degradation, shame, and cruelty of Abu Ghraib? Do you remember the spirit of that time, less than three years ago? We told ourselves that we had to see our enemies clearly, work with our friends, especially our friends in the Middle East, and draw hope from those who were equally determined to destroy Al Qaeda. We knew that many Muslims shared our determination to put this organization out of business. And we knew that we needed their help.
Now let me ask you: do you think that man lying on the floor is an enemy of ours? I'll tell you something: I don't know who he is. I'll bet virtually no American in the whole prison knew who he was. He was an Arab and they were going to have some fun with him. You know that even if he were a member of Al Qaeda, we would have been wrong to treat him that way. Our enemies may not follow the rules of war, but we should.
Let's go back to the original question: How did we go from the World Trade Center on September 11 to Lyndie England holding a beaten, naked man on a leash? Will anyone admit that when you engage in a war that's wrong you can expect that kind of thing to happen? You have to see the connection between an unjust war and the way we have treated people who aren't even our enemies.
For a longer answer to the question above, see Ugly War at the TheLastJeffersonian.com. The essay explains why America should leave Iraq. America should leave Iraq because it should not have gone there in the first place. To defeat your enemies, you have to go where your enemies are.
Lincoln said that we had to suffer through the Civil War as punishment for the sin of slavery. What will our punishment be for attacking Iraq? We have already heard our enemies, the ones who planned 9/11, call us war criminals, and know they are telling the truth. We have ceded the moral high ground to some of the worst people who have ever lived, people who are clearly criminals themselves. That's an accomplishment.
When I lived through the Reagan years, I had an instinct, a feeling in my heart, that this was it, this was the apogee, this was like the time that Julius Caesar ruled Rome. Caesar's rule actually came pretty early in the history of Roman civilization, and Rome still had quite a few good rulers to come, including Marcus Aurelius. But after Caesar's friends betrayed him and killed him, things unraveled, and historians could truthfully say that Rome never shone as brightly after that astonishing act of selfishness on the steps of the Senate.
America, Reagan's shining city on a hill, will never again shine as brightly as it did during those eight brief years. I certainly didn't want my instinct to be proven correct. When Reagan said that America's best years were still to come, I agreed with the sentiment, and I wanted it to be true. I certainly liked his rhetoric, and I was not among those who charged him with false optimism. I wanted him to bolster American confidence, and Americans had lots to be hopeful about, lots to be proud of. Reagan did the right thing, as a leader, to encourage the people who followed him. We would praise a military leader for doing so, and we should praise Reagan as a political leader for doing the same.
Yet Reagan's refrain that our best years were ahead of us proved wrong. Events proved the instinct correct after all. I had no idea in the 1980s how the story might turn out. The 1990s brought exactly the kind of prosperity that Reagan predicted: technology driven and based on innovation, it was a prosperity that rewarded free enterprise and entrepreneurship. Not only that, the Soviet Union collapsed, just as Reagan said it would. As a judge of human events and a seer of human aspirations, Reagan built an outstanding record of accurate prophecy.
As far as I could tell, no one in the 1980s thought about the significance of the Reagan years this way. I didn't see any essays from the people who liked Reagan about how America's best years were behind her. The left had long nurtured a reputation for speaking pessimistically about America's future. The conservatives who liked Reagan didn't seem to have any reason to doubt what Reagan himself said about our shining prospects.
Well, no one predicted 9/11, that's for sure. It was easy to predict that our enemies would strike us at home someday, but that particular attack took everyone off guard. What a turning point that unexpected event turned out to be. We could have shrugged it off, or we could have gone nuts. If we had shrugged it off, Reagan would have been right: we would have been the world's shining city on a hill for many more generations. If we went nuts, as we did, we would provoke the outcome that we are already coming to see: despised, defeated, dejected and discouraged, we command no admiration or respect anywhere, least of all in the places where we need it the most.
Let me elaborate a little. How could we have wanted to shrug off something like 9/11? One commentator, on public radio a few weeks after 9/11, told the story of a Roman legion that lost about 600 men a minute during a terrible battle against a powerful enemy. He said that the Romans just shrugged it off. They went ahead and coldly destroyed their opponent. That's how they maintained their power. The commentator did not say that we should forget the people who died on 9/11, or that we should not honor them. He just wanted to say that we should not give in to hand-wringing, anger, soul-searching, and the like. We should just find our enemies, destroy them, and be done with it. Be methodical and ruthless. It's one of the things you have to do to maintain order and protect your citizens.
Well, we didn't search out our enemies, and our leaders certainly didn't search their souls. We went totally nuts, like a blinded boxer who, out of pain and frustration, swings wildly and hits anyone who might be standing by. Bush's defense of his action against Iraq sounds more strained and unconvincing each time he delivers it. If you don't find Bush's defense persuasive, the only explanation for our attack is the blind boxer gone nuts. Or perhaps not so blind. We found a victim we could defeat, and one where we had a score to settle to boot. We went after a non-enemy that was available rather than the real enemy who got away.
So now we're going to spend the next four hundred years looking back, wondering how we could have made such a serious mistake in 2003. It's not going to seem so bad here in the United States. We'll still have our prosperity, some of our freedoms, our ideals and disconnected memories. We'll still have a few friends like Britain and Australia, and others who will tolerate us out of self-interest or because they have no choice. But I tell you, we won't ever command the respect that we had around the world when Eastern Europe expressed its gratitude to us for delivering them from the Soviet Union. We won't ever know the warmth and the genuine sorrow that flowed toward us in the days and weeks after 9/11. We'll be a byword and an object of contempt through most of the world now, because we couldn't see clearly what we had to do after the twin towers fell. We'll become irrelevant, and then defeated, because we couldn't shrug it off.
Lincoln said that America's example gives "hope to mankind, future for all time." What a loss to the world that we couldn't live up to Lincoln's ideal in a time of trial. Reagan always asked, what will people one hundred years from now say about us, when they look to the decisions we made about life and death, war and peace, freedom and slavery? Will they thank us for making the right decisions, for protecting what we had and passing it down? Until the war in Iraq, we had a good reputation. A good reputation is worth protecting: it takes a long time to build, only a short time to ruin it. That's why good people are so careful not to make a mistake that destroys something they've worked hard to create. We used to have a good reputation with freedom loving people, and we gave hope to everyone who aspired to a free life. Now people around the world, though they won't admit it, would like to put a leash on us.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Bruce Springsteen: Chords for Change
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: Chords for Change: "Like many others, in the aftermath of 9/11, I felt the country's unity. I don't remember anything quite like it. I supported the decision to enter Afghanistan and I hoped that the seriousness of the times would bring forth strength, humility and wisdom in our leaders. Instead, we dived headlong into an unnecessary war in Iraq, offering up the lives of our young men and women under circumstances that are now discredited. ...It is through the truthful exercising of the best of human qualities - respect for others, honesty about ourselves, faith in our ideals - that we come to life in God's eyes. It is how our soul, as a nation and as individuals, is revealed. Our American government has strayed too far from American values. It is time to move forward. The country we carry in our hearts is waiting."
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Monday, August 02, 2004
Friday, July 30, 2004
Barbara Ehrenreich: The New Macho: Feminism
The New York Times > Opinion > Guest Columnist: The New Macho: Feminism: "First, let's stop calling the enemy 'terrorism,' which is like saying we're fighting 'bombings.' Terrorism is only a method; the enemy is an extremist Islamic insurgency whose appeal lies in its claim to represent the Muslim masses against a bullying superpower."
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Robert Kennedy in 1964
Here is the quotation from Bobby Kennedy's speech at the 1964 convention. The author of the article is R. W. Apple.
And then Robert F. Kennedy appeared on the podium, barely nine months after his brother had been murdered in Dallas. The hall exploded in cheers that lasted for 22 minutes, despite every effort to restore order. Standing in the midst of the New York delegation, I could scarcely hear the senator as he evoked his brother's memory with a passage from "Romeo and Juliet."
"When he shall die," he began, "Take him and cut him out in little stars, And he will make the face of heaven so fine. " All around me, hardened pols wept.
And then Robert F. Kennedy appeared on the podium, barely nine months after his brother had been murdered in Dallas. The hall exploded in cheers that lasted for 22 minutes, despite every effort to restore order. Standing in the midst of the New York delegation, I could scarcely hear the senator as he evoked his brother's memory with a passage from "Romeo and Juliet."
"When he shall die," he began, "Take him and cut him out in little stars, And he will make the face of heaven so fine. " All around me, hardened pols wept.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Notes on Reagan and Freedom
Ronald Reagan had an ear for the vocabulary of freedom.
the masses - that's not something we've called ourselves around here
Peter, Paul, and Mary - Don't take away our freedom, please don't take it away.
That's not the way we talk around here.
Can I have the car keys, Daddy? ...Please don't take them away.
Free citizens can't have their freedom taken away.
Who are Peter, Paul, and Mary appealing to? The government?
Do you feel comfortable with a government that leaves us alone because we ask it to leave us alone? If we remain free because the government lends a sympathetic ear to our appeal, we have problems. Free citizens can't have their freedom taken away. They can give it away,
To go back to the example of the car, which represents freedom. The daughter is in the position of the government. It is subservient, not in authority. The daughter obeys her father, who is in charge. The father is in the position of the people, the citizens. He issues instructions and expects them to be followed. So imagine if the father goes to his daughter and appeals to her not to take his car keys away. We'd say that something was wrong in that family. We'd say that a father who makes an appeal like that to his daughter has already lost his freedom and his authority, is no longer in the position he should be in. So it is with citizens in a state. If they make an appeal like that - Don't take away our freedom - they've already lost it.
So is it that serious? Have we reached the point where we think the government grants us freedom, and can therefore take it away? (Remember, the true situation is just the opposite: we grant the government whatever authority it has to act, and we can therefore take that authority away.) Reagan worried that we were headed in that direction. He thought that nothing is so easily lost as freedom, nothing so hard to regain, once lost. A powerful government - it became powerful because the citizens gave it power - can indeed take people's freedom away. But if it was powerful enough to do that, the people were already not free. The taking of freedom is just the last stage of giving it.
the masses - that's not something we've called ourselves around here
Peter, Paul, and Mary - Don't take away our freedom, please don't take it away.
That's not the way we talk around here.
Can I have the car keys, Daddy? ...Please don't take them away.
Free citizens can't have their freedom taken away.
Who are Peter, Paul, and Mary appealing to? The government?
Do you feel comfortable with a government that leaves us alone because we ask it to leave us alone? If we remain free because the government lends a sympathetic ear to our appeal, we have problems. Free citizens can't have their freedom taken away. They can give it away,
To go back to the example of the car, which represents freedom. The daughter is in the position of the government. It is subservient, not in authority. The daughter obeys her father, who is in charge. The father is in the position of the people, the citizens. He issues instructions and expects them to be followed. So imagine if the father goes to his daughter and appeals to her not to take his car keys away. We'd say that something was wrong in that family. We'd say that a father who makes an appeal like that to his daughter has already lost his freedom and his authority, is no longer in the position he should be in. So it is with citizens in a state. If they make an appeal like that - Don't take away our freedom - they've already lost it.
So is it that serious? Have we reached the point where we think the government grants us freedom, and can therefore take it away? (Remember, the true situation is just the opposite: we grant the government whatever authority it has to act, and we can therefore take that authority away.) Reagan worried that we were headed in that direction. He thought that nothing is so easily lost as freedom, nothing so hard to regain, once lost. A powerful government - it became powerful because the citizens gave it power - can indeed take people's freedom away. But if it was powerful enough to do that, the people were already not free. The taking of freedom is just the last stage of giving it.
