In this post I play the role of neutral observer. For the record, although I am basically a liberal on domestic policy and agree with Kerry on more individual issues than Bush, I feel Bush's zealotry regarding the war on terror is the most important single attribute that either candidate possesses, and that happens to be the most important issue of our time. Too bad I can't pick and choose aspects of each candidate and create my own Frankenstein-like composite (not that I'm commenting on Kerry's looks or anything).
But anyway, Steve Chapman is a totally pro-Democratic columnist - the guy brays when he speaks and had a tail pinned on him - and here is his assessment of the Kerry campaign:
- Memo
To: John Kerry, Republican mole
From: Karl Rove, White House political adviser
....let's review some of the tactics we've implemented. They fall into the following categories:
Making Michael Dukakis look good. People thought he looked like a doofus riding in a tank wearing that goofy helmet. But you outdid him when you put on an anti-contamination suit to tour the space shuttle orbiter. You looked like one of those sausages that race around the field at the Milwaukee Brewers' home games. Dukakis would never have let himself be photographed in that outfit--heck, Ben Stiller wouldn't have let himself be photographed in it.
....Impersonating Thurston Howell III. One of the ways rich politicians show their kinship with "Joe Six-Pack" is speaking the universal language of sports. But you've cleverly "bungled" every opportunity to show your sports savvy. You went to Michigan and said, "There is nothing better than Buckeye football." When someone mentioned stock-car racing, you asked, "Who among us does not love NASCAR?" You said your favorite Red Sox player of all time was Eddie Yost, who never played for Boston. Maybe I'm overoptimistic, but that last one might even put Massachusetts in play this year.
Those remarks were scripted by our crack staff, of course, but they didn't equal your brilliant ad lib when you showed up in Green Bay and made a reference to the Packers' "Lambert Field"--when everyone this side of Paris know it's "Lambeau." The only thing that could have hurt the Democratic ticket more in the Dairy State is to confess that you're lactose-intolerant.
Creating your own woman problem. Bill Clinton had Gennifer and Monica, but you've got Teresa. It was shrewd to equip you with a fabulously wealthy wife who speaks with a foreign accent, but Teresa has expanded the role far beyond my fondest hopes. That speech she gave at the Democratic National Convention--well, I haven't witnessed such a prolonged display of self-absorption since Alanis Morissette's last CD.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Bill Wallo
Eric:
That was a very interesting post. Thanks.
2 - Eric Olsen
thanks Bill, much appreciated!
3 - Hal Pawluk
Interesting that ultra-neoconservative Max Boot says:
The claim is true, and Max Boot himself confirms it in the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal:Now that their policy has failed, they're trying to distance themeselves from it.Does anybody believe anything the neocons claim?
I, for one, do not. How about you?
4 - Eric Olsen
I would say it's very premature to say that "their" policy has failed, if you mean forwarding democracy backed with force, the whole point of that section of the post was to indicate that promoting democracy backed with force isn't an idea limited to "neocons," and rather than having failed, it seems to me it is just getting started.
5 - Bob A. Booey
OK, I've been reluctant to get into this, but I have to say it:
I really don't understand why otherwise intelligent people like Olsen who admit Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 admire Bush's "war on terror" beyond some vague psychological desire to lash out in response to tragedy.
Virtually everyone has already commented upon this in the media, including many people far, far smarter than I, but Iraq did not make us safer and drew resources away from Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin Laden in the areas bordering Pakistan. It also blew our international goodwill that could have been marshalled toward an expanded, targeted war on Al Qaeda around the globe. Look at that quote in the Hoagland excerpt above: it's gotten so bad that our allies don't even want to help Kerry pick up the pieces of Bush's mess if he wins. Countries like Japan and Italy have offered some help in the way of financing and infrastructure, but haven't been willing to commit political suicide as Blair has by committing to a full-blooded deployment of their own troops.
Call it for what it is, as some brave conservative commentators like Bill Kristol have: If you believe that Islam is a threat to our way of life and think Huntington's notion of the "clash of civilizations" must be resolved with lethal force, admit that. That's what the Bush ideology has been post 9/11 and if you can accept that, it's fine with me. Just don't have any delusions about this being an efficient, targeted course of war. There's way too much influence from Cold War-style ideology and manipulation of justified general public anger and desire for vengeance at work in planning this fight.
It's a simple fact that Americans are unable or unwilling to make the distinction between the radical brand of Islam adhered to by Hamas and al Qaeda and the increasingly secular, Westernized societies of most of the Middle East. The diversity of ideologies, ethnicities and politics there is remarkable, but the fact remains that our "war on terror," by virtue of its lack of specificity, has achieved a self-fulfilling prophecy and is rapidly creating the Manichean world neo-conservatives already presume we have: more and more of the Arab world is becoming united and radicalized in opposition to the American way of life. We are losing any potential for moderate allies and driving more people toward terror. The more we associate terrorism with ALL Islam and ALL Middle Eastern people, the more we'll find a great clash of religions and cultures that will lead to more tragedy. This is the conclusion of virtually all the social science, diplomacy and even theology written about this divide over the last 20 years, even before 9/11.
Yes, oil's important too. Let's be honest about that motivation. I think it's strategic for the United States to ensure the security of oil in the Middle East, make no mistake about it. But the long-term security of the region of a whole continues to be in grave jeopardy, and our economic interests along with it.
The high talk about morality and human rights is rhetorical cover for these strategic interests. If you look at Bush's positions in the 2000 election or the writings of the neo-con ideologues, moral considerations and human rights have NEVER been a primary reason for American military deployment. That's long been the conservative criticism of liberal humanitarian interventions in places like Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. The ex post facto moral justifications only an ancillary concern of the project of "spreading democracy" and "freedom," which is primarily a strategic consideration.
In fact, those of you who like the so-called "neo-con" agenda will be sorely disappointed by the relative lack of new aggression in the 2nd Bush term. No matter how much Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle whisper in Bush's ear about Syria, Iran, and North Korea, Bush realizes he's blown his entire wad on Iraq and will lose not only what little world standing we currently have left, but also the entire public along with his own party if we send more troops and money after another "nation-building" war. It just won't happen. The only bloodshed you'll have to look forward to is the continuing tragedy of the war on Iraq on the ground.
This loss of lives isn't an abstract thing and it troubles me that so much of the push for war and "being tough" from intelligent people is based on emotion and not the reason and steely-eyed strategic calculation we want from our leaders and somehow mis-attribute to Bush.
"Status quo that produced 9/11?" We should really be talking about Bush's comfort with the status quo that made us slow in preventing and responding to 9/11 or the self-satisfaction that allowed us to go on an unrelated war while the real mission of defeating al Qaeda remained unfinished, a status quo no leader should ever be willing to accept or distract his attention from.
Bottom line: Iraq will not be a functional, neo-liberal, Western-styled democracy in 20 years. It just won't be. That's the consensus of most academics who've written about Iraq's future. The historical tribal problems of ethnic divide; the increasing opposition of the populace to occupation; the remaining imbalances in wealth, education, and access; the lack of a political history of accommodation; the lack of an integrated middle class into participatory institutions; the increasing militarism and radicalization of young people; the weakness of borders and infiltration of foreign insurgents; the absence of significant international support or allies within the region; and the increasing cultural division over religion and the West all correlate very poorly with the prospects for lasting democratization.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html
If the talk of Bush trying to leave Iraq ASAP due to the political pressure is true, that portends even more grim news for Iraq and the region. We're talking civil war and possibly a radical theocracy within 10 years if that's the case.
I'm not even going to get into how Bush has failed us in Homeland Security. Many, many commentators have written about the SPECIFIC policy failures and misplaced priorities that leave our ports and borders as insecure or more insecure than they were on 9/10. Not to mention the continued foot-dragging of this administration and reluctance to support the recommendations and criticisms of the 9/11 Commission until public sentiment and political pressure makes it inevitable to cave, as they now have, on the majority of those recommendations (while still excluding some provisions for some unknown reason).
For all of you who use such stark language in defending the war on Iraq or Bush's national security record, try and offer a real response for why his approach is an effective one beyond cartoonish, emotional "we kick some ass, motherfuckers" justifications or vague talk about how the best way to deal with danger is to make some danger of our own.
I'm not saying that Kerry has offered any great ideas. In fact, I think he hasn't offered much beyond what Bush has already failed to do. But this isn't a debate about candidates. I'm talking about why so many of you adhere to this reductionist, overly simplified worldview of foreign policy and military strategy that ignores realities and the majority of expert opinion on this "war." Since you're so ardent on bold defenses of our way of life, defend yourselves on this issue. Have some balls -- let's hear what you have to say, without evasion or bullshit. Strip it down to your honest motivations and assumptions.
This is a debate everyone needs to go through before they vote in November -- otherwise, you're buying into slogans and images aimed at your emotions and fears.
Emotion, fear and anger obviously has a legitimate role in how we approach the world today. But we can't be confused about whom the rightful target of our "infinite justice" should be or how to address the people and causes that have produced our current state of affairs that produces such anxiety.
That is all.
6 - Big Time Patriot
Bush and democracy, eh? What has Bush done about Musharraf's moves to push Pakistan away from Democracy. What has Bush done that about Putin's moves to push Russia away from Democracy. What has Bush done about Saudi Arabia which is one of the least democratic countries in the world (well actually he has had the Saudi ambassador over for dinner to discuss our war plans)?
But because Bush "talks" of Democracy, you think he cares about it? He talked about being a "unifier" but he didn't do that after being elected, he spoke of "not getting into the nation building business" but he is now in the middle of that, he spoke of "weapons of mass destruction", but that wasn't true.
Why is it that you believe him now? You are a very optimistic and wishful person Eric. I can sympathize, most very cynical people like myself are closet idealists, but we learned better. I'm sorry that it will be George Bush who is the one to give you an education on people with lofty rhetoric and low character.
7 - Big Time Patriot
Bush and democracy, eh? What has Bush done about Musharraf's moves to push Pakistan away from Democracy. What has Bush done that about Putin's moves to push Russia away from Democracy. What has Bush done about Saudi Arabia which is one of the least democratic countries in the world (well actually he has had the Saudi ambassador over for dinner to discuss our war plans)?
But because Bush "talks" of Democracy, you think he cares about it? He talked about being a "unifier" but he didn't do that after being elected, he spoke of "not getting into the nation building business" but he is now in the middle of that, he spoke of "weapons of mass destruction", but that wasn't true.
Why is it that you believe him now? You are a very optimistic and wishful person Eric. I can sympathize, most very cynical people like myself are closet idealists, but we learned better. I'm sorry that it will be George Bush who is the one to give you an education on people with lofty rhetoric and low character.
8 - Bob A. Booey
It is because I am an optimist that the cynicism of this administration's foreign policy and the misleading of optimistic, well-meaning people in support of misplaced aggression bothers me.
Perhaps the only thing I like less than the current fashion of people who have no experience of war (no, I'm not talking about Bush, I'm talking about you who's reading this) hiding behind tough, "steely" military posturing and making real lives into some kind of war game is the "false optimism" game being played in politics today.
Face it ... no one can truly be an optimist in these times. And war is not a business of optimism. Optimists don't go to war; smiling while you shoot an innocent civilian isn't possible. Ask the troops who are increasingly losing morale in Iraq as our military becomes increasingly over-stretched and over-used.
Optimism is about fighting for a way of life that isn't about exclusion, fear and hatred. Optimism is about creating a world where we don't expect the worst out of people we don't know enough about and re-establish the possibility of dialogue so violence isn't the most common method of interaction between cultures.
Go ahead and call that hippie nonsense and then tell me about how you're an optimist while using laughably childish language like referring to beheadings as "regrettable." Collateral damage, right, tough guy? You're not Don Rumsfeld, guy playing with his computer who's never gotten into a fight in his life. War's tough. Ask Rumsfeld -- he's on the outs and has lost most of his influence (and likely his job in a 2nd term) because war has a funny way of making false optimists look silly.
That is all.
9 - Greg
Where did this administration assume the moral authority to try and shove 'democracy' down another Nation's throat--much the way the Crusaders tried to shove Christianity down Muslim throats? Do these people have no sense of hundreds of years of history, or only an agenda? This administratiobn has succeeded in exaberating the problem, and birthing more terrorists, and terrorist's children and grandchildren--there will be no finite point where ANY President can declare "Mission Accomplished", because of this bunch's Grand Adventure. My greatest concern is that if Bush&Co. are defeated in November, what havoc will they cause until January??
10 - Mac Diva
Kerry may well lose the election. But, what Steve Chapman has to say is about as deep as the water in a toilet bowl. The domestic issues are what will persuade many voters: continuing high employment in some parts to the country and among minorities, increasing inability to afford health insurance and prescription medication, the disproportion of poor and minority folks in the military, increases in college tuition, etc. They could not care less about Teresa Kerry's accent.
Bob is right about scaredy cats and the war on terror. The average American has a heck of a greater chance of being murdered by a fellow citizen (about half of that being by an acquaintance, friend or relative) than a terrorist. We need to start putting that risk into perspective instead of running to hide behind 'Daddy Bush.' There is no real reason to believe we will more safe after another four years of Bush. Just an illusion. In fact, if Americans continue to do things that infuriate radical Muslims all over the world, we will be less safe.
11 - Bob A. Booey
By the way, I like the Steve Chapman piece. Even as I hope that Kerry gets his campaign style together and rights the ship, I've found his rough touch funny. One of the right-wing columnists (I forget her name) in the Chicago Tribune wrote a similar piece about Nader's campaign style about a year ago -- I voted for Nader in 2000 but I cracked up reading all the quotes from Nader about "humans" and how "humans need health insurance." She was fairly convincing that Nader was a space alien, at least on the campaign trail. I don't think Kerry's nearly as weird or monastic a guy as Nader, but his failed attempts to connect with blue-collar voters re-confirm our doubts about him even as they make us laugh. I mean, even the diction of "Who among us does not love NASCAR [Dads]?" is just plain funny, especially since you know Kerry was thinking "way to chip away at his base, John old boy ... now let the plebeians see you with a hunting rifle."
There was a funny Bush verbal gaffe this past week where he tried unsuccessfully to say some word ... what was it again? That's an example of how candidates confirm our doubts about them in funny moments: Bush's anti-intellectualism and difficulty with complexity; Kerry's aloof, entitled sense of life-long pre-election (and not the political kind); Gore's pandering desperation to be loved by everyone; Nader's morose sermonizing about the sins of the human race, etc.
When I was in college, Clinton and Gore came to my school to do an education speech. Before the speech, some advisors asked us (student volunteers) for the names of some popular athletes on our basketball team. We gave them three names, and Gore got stuck with the job of listing them off in order to win points with the locals. Of course, he mispronounced one of them horribly and people started snickering. Lesson for all future candidates: don't pretend to know shit about sports if you're a prep school nerd.
That is all.
12 - Greg
Our Founding Fathers would be appalled at this administration's unfounded policy of waging 'pre-emptive war' upon a sovereign Nation that posed little threat to us except that Daddy got yapped at for not proceeding to Baghdad in the Gulf War. Don't hand me the non-comparison about Thomas Jefferson sending the Marines to safeguard American shipping against the Barbary Coast Pirates--non-issue. No, what needs to be addressed is the loss of life(both our sons and daughters, and Iraqi civilians) resulting from this Neo-Conservative 'Grand Adventure'. Bush, Cheney Rumsfeld, AShcroft, Wolfowitz, et.al. have squandered our monetary surplus, and our standing in the eyes of the World. All we have left are their glaring mistakes and a stretched way to thin delusion of military might. We have no moral authority to dictate whom may or may not have nuclear capability. By what moral right do we sanctimoniously proclaim that we can have nukes, but no one else can? Because we'll use ours first? How sophomoric......
13 - Eric Olsen
Certainly a buttload of articulate disagreement - some of the best I've read - can't get into it tonight, had attend high school football and we're off first thing to visit my daughter at college tomorrow.
It isn't that I think anything said here is necessariy wrong, it is just out of context and too narrow of vision, and that is Kerry's problem (from my perspective) also. This is a problem that really does require a grand reimagining.
14 - Mac Diva
Greg, I hate to break it you, old boy, but throughout history, people have mainly been foolish. This is just more of the same. If they re-elect Bush, the persons responsible will then sit around wondering why that didn't end terrorism. The real question is why they are foolish enough to think it will.
15 - RJ
"ultra-neoconservative"
Does this mean "super Jew?"
Just wondering...
16 - RJ
"We have no moral authority to dictate whom may or may not have nuclear capability. By what moral right do we sanctimoniously proclaim that we can have nukes, but no one else can? Because we'll use ours first? How sophomoric......"
An anti-American speaks...
17 - Greg-B
Let me be clear--I think George W. Bush is an amiable enough type that I might want to invite to my backyard cook-out, and with whom I would partake of an iced tea. However...I think Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, and, to some extent Bush Sr. are manipulating their marionettes- both W., Jeb and the media. Colin Powell has been sold out and Condoleeza Rice is too sharp to put up with this travesty...
18 - Greg
I guess it's too late for response...
19 - Eric Olsen
it's never too late, I'll be back, it's never over
20 - Hal Pawluk
Now that, RJ, is the kind of neocon bullshit that really pisses me off.
Raising the idea that objecting to neocons is somehow anti-Semitic is despicable.
I wrote about it in What the heck is a 'Neocon': Part II [opens in new window] and here's a bit from that piece
That's all an attempt to intimidate by raising the taint of anti-Semitism, but calling a neocon a neocon is not anti-Semitism.
Your question:
seems to be more of the same slime.
21 - Eric Olsen
no it isn't a game at all - it's very real, but ironically, it has to be played like a game. A certain distance is required to make strategic decisions that are matters of life and death for hundreds, thousands, or even millions. But inaction is also action and can have just as grave consequences.
We are not fighting Islam, but we are fighting a mindset of a quite substantial portion of the Islamic world, and we have tried to avoid that fight through appeasement, averting our eyes, diplomacy, etc. It hasn't worked, to put it very mildly, so it is now time to try another course, which Bush is doing, with some serious blunders along the way, but doing nonetheless.
As stated in this post, I, and others, see Kerry returning to the 9/10 approach, which I see as disaster.
It's hard to disagree with most of your individual points, but I see that perspective as revealing a telescope with a much narrower focus than I think is necessary and more "true."
22 - Bob A. Booey
Olsen,
I appreciate your comments (as always), but they're quite general. What do you see as the broader vision? I do think that vision is important to how we approach the Middle East and part of the reason we're in the situation we're in now.
What do you mean Kerry's returning to a 9/10 approach? That's a sweet little campaign stump line Bush and Cheney use (and it's obviously working in the great state of Ohio), but I think that charge needs to be fleshed out.
Islam is the largest religion in the world. If our vision is that we're going to take the fight to a large part of that population of billions (multiple countries, cultures, nationalities, ethnicities) indiscriminately while giving up on the possibility of dialogue, we're in for a world of trouble for a very long time.
We can't win another Crusades.
And finally, warfighting should never be thought of as a game. That's when we lose connection with what we value and what our objectives are. Game theorists and military psychologists talk about how commanders can get caught up in unnecessary risk and escalation under stressful situations when they lose perspective and judgment. That's another reason we conduct military exercises and war games -- not because we treat war lightly, but quite the opposite: we go through the worst-case scenario to make sure it never happens and so that it can be avoided at all costs (and the costs are always huge). It makes the least sense for civilians discussing war (like ourselves) to fantasize about huge conflagrations and wars that wouldn't ever happen since we have no reason to willfully numb ourselves to tragedy and the loss of human life. There's no reset button when you're talking about real troops on the ground and, as we're seeing in Iraq, things almost never go as planned in war.
I welcome good discussion from the rest of you as well. RJ, stop being childish.
Hal, I actually think there is a significant element of anti-Semitism directed toward the neo-conservative movement -- that's one reason it was always somewhat marginal within the conservative foreign policy establishment until Wolfowitz and Perle got Rumsfeld's ear. However, I think there's a great irony in conservatives' newfound appreciation for Israel and the Jewish people post 9/11 -- traditionally, conservatives have not been the most hospitable to Jewish concerns (here or abroad) and it'll be interesting to see how long the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" sentiment prevails. For what it's worth, a lot of Jewish commentators and intellectuals seem awfully skeptical of the new foreign policy hawks and their strategic embrace of Israel.
That is all.
23 - Hal Pawluk
I agree, Bob, that there has been some actual honest-to-god anti-Semitism against the neocons, going back at least a few decades.
But what I object to is their twisted attempt to say that objecting to them and their policies is of itself anti-Semitic.
That's as bad as the right-wing cries that it's traitorous to object to the invasion of Iraq and the way it's going.
And the neocons apparently decided to put this anti-Semitic defense into their playbooks, as several of them used the same approach approximately coevally.
As in the instance in this thread, it's an attempt to scare off critics.
Screw that.
24 - Vic
Islam is the largest religion in the world.
That is indeed, a scary thought. Radical Islam is tightly woven into what people call "moderate" Islam. Despite what the apologists say, Jihad is a core tenet of Islam and those who do not convert are to be either converted, given second-class citizen status as long as they pay a special tax, or killed.
Vic
25 - Eric Olsen
Bob, to be more specific, I will quote myself, one of my favorite sources - this is a very blunt and not particularly politic, nor sensitive statement of what I perceive the reality of the situation to be, as more than one person told me:
the "real" reality is that after the overthrow of the Taliban, in order to reinforce our seriousness of purpose, to convince all who would dismiss our resolve, revert to business-as-usual, and fail to understand that violent Islamist exceptionalism is an unacceptable worldview, we had to take further aggressive action in the greater Middle East and the situation in Iraq was amenable to such action.
We had to go in there and throw our weight around, blow shit up, as it were, and overthrow something, which we have now done. I do not believe the presence of WMD in Iraq was intentionally fabricated as a casus belli, but neither do I doubt that the intelligence seeming to indicate their presence was greedily seized upon as a rationale for what had to be done regardless.
You simply can't announce to the world, or to your own people for that matter, that you are going to invade a nation and overthrow its government because you have to prove your viciousness. But that is the reality.
Problems have ensued and the aftermath of the blowing-shit-up phase has not been handled particularly well; this is indisputable, but the bottom line is Saddam is out, the world knows we are no longer fucking around, there will be a roughly democratic government in Iraq one way or the other, and the behavior and attitudes of other nations in the region have been altered in myriad salutary ways, seen and unseen. Surely our relationships with Libya and Pakistan have changed dramatically for the good, and it has been made clear throughout the region that the spewing of anti-Western hatred from the mosques and madrassas is no longer acceptable.
A reasonable case can be made that it would have made more sense to blow shit up and kick the fuckers to the curb in Iran, Syria, North Korea, even Saudia Arabia, but everyone who lives on this actual planet knows that not one of these countries presented feasible targets for any number of political, logistical, military, geographic, diplomatic reasons. And Iraq really is better off without Saddam. You do what you can, where and when you can, and it is my hope that the invasion of Iraq removes the need for direct military action against these other nations.
The region had to be transformed, and the process has been very tangibly begun - this is not nothing, and effort and steadfastness in the face of adversity and opposition count.