This article is the first part in a series that I hope will serve as an exhortation to a sentiment conspicuously lacking in our national dialogue. What I'm talking about is an effort to understand an "other", be they a foreign insurgent or a senator across the aisle. Our affinity for dichotomies — Red vs. Blue, Tastes Great vs. Less Filling, etc. — while it might rally one's political base or sell some beer, insulates either side, stresses their differences, and makes pretty much everyone involved look like an ass. So let this be an exhortation to empathy, so that we may understand our enemies and opponents, fight them effectively over there and here, and stop polluting the public debate.
After a lengthy and ultimately unproductive debate with Congress over the bill to continue funding the occupation in Iraq with no timelines for withdrawal, President Bush held a press conference in the rose garden to discuss our future in Iraq. Much attention was given to the reporter who asked if the president had any credibility left on the subject.
Whether this was an appropriate question or not, I can't imagine what the reporter expected to get for an answer, since this president and his administration have demonstrated time and again their lack of objectivity or self-criticism with regards to our occupation of Iraq. What stood out for me were the president's comments concerning the increase in violence predicted for this summer:
Mr Bush said he expected "heavy fighting in the weeks and months" ahead. "What they're going to try to do is kill as many innocent people as they can to try to influence the debate here at home," he said. "They recognise that the death of innocent people could shake our will ... So, yes, it could be a bloody - it could be a very difficult August."
To take a cynical approach, it would appear that President Bush is attempting to frame the debate that will inevitably resume in September, when General Petraeus will make his progress report and our legislators will decide how to proceed with the occupation. By offering this perspective, Bush may somehow attempt to argue that the surge is not failing because of us but because of the insurgent violence. But, even if he were to form the argument in this way, it would be like a coach at halftime telling the losing team that "we're not scoring as many points as we should because the other team wants to rattle us and make us rethink our strategy."
Article comments
1 - zingzing
good job! this quote: "they're going to try to [...] kill as many innocent people as they can to try to influence the debate here at home," shows the total idiocy of our president and our politics. it's not like we're tinkering around with a car here... it's not like we can go in there knowing fuck-all about the situation and how to fix it...
we, especially those of us who support this war, are complete jackasses--not all the time, but certainly right here.
2 - Baronius
CTD: I'm going to reserve judgement on your series of articles. But your declared intention is to improve the dialogue, and so far you've only presented one side of the argument. Denouncing one side for lack of empathy isn't exactly empathetic.
3 - CapeTownDissentator
Baronius: Thank you for reading and commenting on my article. What you said has some validity. I did present "one side of the argument", but what is the other side? This isn't necesarily a partisan issue, but the Bush admnistration not only orchestrated our military involvement in Iraq, but also has set the tone and language of the dialogue surrounding it. So, the side I'm arguing for are those not in power -- not the Democrats, but we the people.
To respond to your last sentence, denouncing one side isn't exactly or even remotely empathetic. But, if the "one side" that I'm denouncing is Bush, then I think the article was empathetic, as I purposely did not claim that his statements were from some personal or moral failing but a common if not universal consequence of being the point man for a failing and unpopular war. His mindset is part and parcel of "the fog of war" and by trying to see it through that, I am being exactly empathetic.
Thank you again. Hope you enjoy the next article in the series. - CTD
4 - Zedd
CTD: Molo (I hope you've learn what that means)
Interesting approach. What I sense however is that neither do we or the designers of this war truly want to understand things from a different perspective. I sense that we don't really want to understand this war. We just want to win or to prove our might by either whuppin' them or leaving them in a mess causing them to feel our departure.
All human being know and understand empathy. We however don't want to feel it here. If we feel for others, we then have to acknowledge that we are just like everyone. We are not special, chosen, smarter, or more driven, just lucky. Since self congratulation is what we do best, admitting sameness with everyone on the planet will not fly.