There is an issue, a topic, that has been lurking around the back of my mind. It keeps cropping up in different contexts, and it’s paralyzing. Every time I try to articulate it, I find that I can’t whittle it down below book length.
But I can articulate the question, even if I can’t figure out how to concisely answer it.
Are we at war, or not?
:::flip:::
Maybe we should start by taking a look at this poll. As far back as December, 57% of Americans believed that the Iraq War was not worth fighting. In fact, 47% felt strongly that the war was not worth fighting.
I think these numbers help to explain why the MSM is loathe to report on the Downing Street Minutes, or to acknowledge the routine torture and religious humiliation that our government has been resorting to in the so-called ‘war on terror’.
Simply put, the case for war is dead. It has been exposed as a hoax. The war is not going well. We are hemorrhaging money that we don’t have to fight a war that was unnecessary. If the public really turns against the war, then the war is lost. And if Iraq is left in its current condition, it could have serious consequences that are hard to predict. A region-wide interruption of energy supplies is not out of the question.
The media is an uncomfortable position. But the Democrats that sit on our Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and Intelligence committees are in an even more uncomfortable position. Invading Iraq was not an urgent foreign policy requirement, but getting Iraq stabilized now that we have invaded it, is.
Given how much the world relies on a steady supply of oil and gas from the middle east, the stabilization of Iraq is a major interest of all nations. All of our economies could suffer dramatically if the region becomes volatile.
But the Bush administration is not making any concessions to the world, or to the Democrats. Instead, they are pushing John Bolton for the U.N. post, trying to undo the New Deal, and pushing the nuclear option in the Senate.
How is this possible?
Do they not see how critical the situation has become? Do they not see how badly they have erred? How severely their credibility has been damaged?
Anyone who makes a deal with this administration, or continues to do business with them, has their credibility undermined as a result. This is as true of Karzai, Musharraf, Mubarak, the House of Saud, as it is of Joe Lieberman and Joe Biden.
That is why Newsweek’s story had to be attacked, that is why the Downing Street story has to be ignored. We cannot afford to see a further erosion of credibility in our government. And even the Democrats understand this. We are at war, and we are losing.
The Bush administration should realize how critical things have become. They should treat this situation with the seriousness that it deserves. They should recognize that they still have one major card to play. That card is the interest the whole world has in maintaining a stable supply of energy from the region. The world cannot afford for the region to fall into chaos.
The first step is to reach out to the Democrats. A good start would be to fire Rumsfeld and put a someone like Carl Levin in charge of Defense. They should withdraw Bolton and nominate a Democratic candidate to the UN. They should stop this nonsense about Social Security and the nuclear option, and act like grown ups.
I cannot believe how far off the rails the Republicans have gone. I cannot believe that they are fiddling while the world burns.
Good question Booman, I hope you will take a look at my new diary,Yes these are hopeful times in which I present an idea for us to do something about this war or non war we are in.
I am just as perplexed and upset as you and as usual I am for taking some action, so please check out diary. Your comments and suggestions will be welcome!!!!
Unfortunatly I believe the only thing that will wake up republicans is elections.
Very simply put if they suffer in 2006 due to administrations policies as they enter another cycle in 2008 they will abandom Bush as a lame duck.
I believe that while the media is slow I think they are becoming less scared of the Bush admin.
The turning point is coming in 2006 and I think then we may find ourselves talking seriously about getting out of Iraq.
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com
We may be featured on a NBC affliate tonight…our spokesperson (husband of the web master:) is being contacted.
it’s still going, we are also michaelmoore.com link of the week etc……bottom up and maybe the word will get out thats why I’m so happy about this news story.
Booman,
While I agree with you in your analysis of what has and is transpiring. I believe you missed one point that defy’s your logic. That Bushco, his pundits and his religious reichwing supporters are actually pushing for Armeggedon, they want the end times to arrive now, today, this very minute. The so called Religious Right, that small and very militant and vocal group that has taken over most mainstream church organizations, has mobilized hundreds if not thousands of media outlets and taken over the ministries of many churches, is preparing to launch the end times to fulfill biblical prophesy. I lived less than a mile from the church Tim LeHaye founded, along with his bible college. I used to ride my bike up and around that campus and it was a armeggedon paradise. I was amazed that anyone would have a positive thought in their heads. I can only hope that the fascists in our government are removed and the sooner the better. I believe that Bushco and company really do want to end the world. That the Christ will resurrect them into heaven and all of us heathens will rot in hell.
I think BushCo is primarily interested in making gobs of money, yachting, golfing, and playing with their grandkids.
They use the LeHaye’s of the world cynically to get the majorities they need in elections.
So, I think we are safer than you think. That’s the good news. The bad news is that they will not even consider taking my advice.
I can only hope and pray that you are correct in that assessment. It was just a few days ago that Bushco and the Pentagon heirarchy asked to have authorization to have command authority to use tactical nuclear weapons in the field. I don’t profess to know much, I read all I can, listen to both sides to find out what the other side is doing and thinking and still it remains a puzzle. I know that there are rumblings in the heartland, as they have buried three servicemen from the county I live in and it hasn’t been all red white and blue, singing the national anthem and praising GW the talking head Bush for protecting the homeland. You may be right about Bushco, yet there are many Generals and Admirals in our Military that are right wing christians who I believe would have little compunction if ordered to launch nukes, would so so in a heart beat. If America does not want to find itself caught in the clutches of Fascist Theocracy, our people have to be jolted into some reality. I will keep shouting from the rooftops in my little corner of the red state I live in and hopefully one day, the people will open their eyes and ears and actually see what has been happening to their country.
It was just a few days ago that Bushco and the Pentagon heirarchy asked to have authorization to have command authority to use tactical nuclear weapons in the field.
Do you have a link, please?
This is part of it, I will keep looking for more, can’t remember where else I saw it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/05/18/DI2005051801572_pf.html
Interesting interview and article. Be happy to see any other links you can scare up ; )
As do I, first of all Bush is not really a Christian in my opinion. He is faking it and that is evidenced by the info that was released about him asking leaders of evangelical christians, how to talk like them, I can’t remember the reference location. He was just using them, but it may be that they are using him now. I don’t think he has a Christian bone in his body…
I agree wholeheartedly with that statement.
I saw that video. Bush is a political animal and he found out early in the game that becoming ‘born again’ could win him elections. The Super Churches now claim 30 million members, that’s a pretty big support group.
I lean more to Seymour Hersh’s view.
From his 2004 interview in Salon:
I think there are a lot of the Bu$hCo crowd whose attitude is “Oh boy! A war! Let’s make oodles of lovely money and yacht and golf, etc.”
But I think that it’s the more dangerous PNAC types (their Statement of Principles should be required reading for all Americans – and look carefully at who signed it, and at who signed the letter to Clinton asking him to invade Iraq) that really made this tragedy happen. It’s the true believers, the ideologues, who are most dangerous in this world.
And since they truly believe their delusions, no, they won’t take your excellent advice. Though the world would be eternally grateful if they would.
Instead, look at their most recent letter (Jan 2005) which includes
Ghostdancer, you look on the junta-in-power as an extension of the fargone faiths – with good reason; Booman sees the same gang as as the frontpersons of a gang of crooks unparalleled in US history – with equally good reason.
Personally, I find it most useful to view this administration as an amalgamation of three different (and not always compatible) groups:
The administration has tried to serve each in turn: the geopols got the Iraq war, the crooks got bankruptcy and the assault on social security, and the wackos are supposed to get the judiciary. (I realize many might argue that Iraq was about material gain, but I suspect that if that was the primary motive the postwar would not have been prosecuted so ineptly.)
I believe that the more aware in each of these groups recognize the problems inherent in the aims and objectives of the others, but can say nothing because they all need each other’s support.
Which means that in the last analysis there’s nobody at the wheel.
I guess that I don’t really believe that there are really any ‘geopolitical ideologues’.
I see PNAC crew as straight and simple war profiteers. The ideology they proclaim is a front for big defense budgets, which they benefit from directly. I don’t think that believe in any of their rhetoric.
Sy Hersh thinks they do, and he is a smart man. So, I am open to the idea that I am wrong. But I think their democracy rhetoric is bullshit. They don’t value it at home, so why would they value it abroad? Especially since it would upset their corporate board plans in many cases.
The White House has changed the definition and the
purpose of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
They began as a hunt for al Qaeda and Saddam’s WMD.
No Osama bin Laden, no WMD, so they changed it to
a “War on Terror.” Not enough people protested that
a nation cannot wage war on an abstract noun.
Lately, I heard them define the military occupation of Iraq
as a “War for Freedom,” or “War for Iraqi Freedom.”
In fact, someone reported here or on DKos that his friend,
a Marine had been killed. A Marine in dress uniform appeared at his friend’s home to tell the mother that her son had died for “Freedom.”
The US invaded two small countries, Afghanistan and
Iraq, in response to 9/11. The invasions turned into
military occupations. That’s how I see it. If you can
call a ‘military occupation’ a war, then the US is at war.
An invasion is not a war. In September of 1939 Germany was not “at war” with Poland.
is so vast and involves so many angles that it is impossible to tackle it in a single diary.
You raise one important aspect of the question.
There are dozens of others. Like, are you at war if you are cutting taxes?
I guess you can do it if you keep your war “off budget”.
It begins with language.
The US administration is at war with our language.
They read the bible after all, “In the beginning was
the word.”
Good (sarcastic) point, although the comparison of the US announced Shock & Awe invasion of Iraq and the German blitzkrieg on Poland is weak. Germany did not announce to Poland, “we are coming to change your regime and give you freedom and democracy.”
One could argue that weeks after the invasion of Poland it was no longer a war, it was a military occupation of a defeated country.
Today the US is involved in the military occupation of two defeated countries. Both countries have pockets of resistance. The US administration does not claim that ‘the US is at war with Iraq’ or ‘the US is at war with Afghanistan.’ They call it War on Terror or War for Freedom or whatever. Call it what you want.
but I had a little league game to attend.
You say:
Firstly, my analogy was only meant to be that of a powerful country invading a defenseless one. But more importantly, George Bush only began to talk about “freedom and democracy” after his WMD chicanery didn’t pan out. His reasons for the invasion, given before the invasion, were that Iraq was a threat to the United States of America.
Right, I was thinking in passé terms, that war was
between two enemies with at least some military parity.
Yes, Bush convinced more than half the US population that
Iraq was a major threat. Regime change was on the agenda initially too.
What I object to is the term “war on terror.” It’s impossibly broad, the whole world is the ‘enemy’ then.
I have yet to hear the Bush admin speak of War against Iraq. They can’t say that and at the same time say they are bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.
Although in Vietnam they liberated villages by setting fire to them. So, I guess they can say anything and it
is up to us to decipher the truth.
“that weeks after the invasion of Poland it was no longer a war, it was a military occupation of a defeated country.”
Poland is flat and easy to control. Yugoslavia and Greece were also swiftly occupied. However, ask the Germans stationed in either country whether they felt they were at war and I bet the answer would be yes. In many ways I am surprised at how effective the Iraqi resistance has been without mountains or forests (or jungles, for that matter).
Had the Partisans been able to mount an attack within Germany that killed millions, they would have done it, been praised for doing it and it would now be prominently displayed in our textbooks for helping to shorten the war.
The US claims to be involved in WWIV: the Global War on Terrorism. It has given itself the right to attack the ‘enemy’ at any time and place of its choosing. We are very much at war.
If tomorrow, touch wood, a blast flattens Philadelphia, it would not be a ‘terrorist attack’ it would be ‘strategic bombing.’
No one in the West today would say that the Greek Resistance did not have the right to kill Germans wherever they found them. Why would a historian from 2115 differ on whether Afghans or Iraqis have the same right against Americans today?
might not be the right comparison.
I think we are at war the same way the British were at war during the height of their imperial power. There was constant state of war, occupation and suppression.
You must remember that the brand of Republicanism the current administration adheres to has much more in common with Rove’s hero McKinley than Reagan. Empire is the goal, and war is just the cost of attaining one.
a very apt comparison, and reading about events at that time can offer some very valuable insights for those whose comfort level will be compatible.
If you are lucky to have access to some elderly Germans, talking to them, rather, listening to them, can be a great help in understanding many things that are happening today, especially with respect to what choices people make regarding their own government’s policies.
with he 1930 comparisons in regards to almost all domestic policy. From the ties to big business, use of religious imagery, militarism, to the attack on civil liberties, no other conclusion could be drawn.
It is in the handling of the war and empire building that I think a much more drawn out and long lasting model is being used. Hitler’s quest for empire was rapid and based almost solely on the conquest, occupation and ultimately the elimination or enslavement of other nations.
The reason I think an British imperialist model might be more fitting here is that I think the Neocons, like the Victorian British, are more concerned with subjugation and access to raw materials and markets than annihilation. The Neocons and the oil interests they serve could be compared to the British East India Co., whose control over domestic politics and the military let them set British foreign policy for over a century. Although the kept their nation in a constant state of war, they viewed it as a Golden Age. That “Golden Age” is what I think is the misguided goal of current foreign policy.
Hitler’s reasons for attacking Poland in his own words:
It was about territory. I’ve forgotten the German word for the expression ‘Germany needs more room.’ 🙂
a bit differently, along the lines of “effecting a regime change to liberate the Polish people and bring stability that will ensure a productive relationship between Germany and the New Poland.”
Thank you.
Hate to nitpick, but:
“Lebensraum”, lit. “living space”
at dKos.
And it is very heartening to see people questioning and analyzing, and the questioners and analyzers are to be commended.
The downside of all that is, you are not likely to be pleased with the answers.
The “hoax” that the invasion was based on is in itself a hoax. So what if Saddam had “WMD?”
The US is the master and dictator of the world only in the eyes of Americans, and there are even a few Americans whose support for the principle is softening.
Yet that is the bedrock principle of all US policy.
As BooMan points out, the warlords are interested in making money. The unspoken part of that sentence, the part that is hard for Americans to face is that there is not an interest in keeping BooMan, or his neighbor, or yours, safe.
There is a large box of things that will be hard for Americans to face, and at this point, whether it matters if they face them or not is an arguable point.
Now to surprise you all I will actually address the question in the topic.
The US is on a kind of aggression spree, this is nothing new, but like most things, the pace has increased, and more information is available about it to more people, and that can make old things look new sometimes.
There is some Resistance, but if your definition of war implies any sort of military parity, the US vs global Resistance does not qualify. The US has more and fancier bombs and gases and flesh burning jellies and flesh cooking rays and other weapons you don’t want to know about than any other entity on earth.
The Resistance only has people like you.
I might have had a passé concept of “War” by expecting it to mean a conflict between two evenly matched enemies.
if your definition of war implies any sort of military parity, the US vs global Resistance does not qualify. The US has more and fancier bombs and gases and flesh burning jellies and flesh cooking rays and other weapons you don’t want to know about than any other entity on earth.
Here’s a cheery thought: Bush was among the bunch who wanted to just nuke Hanoi and just get it over with. If he had been president in 1975 we wouldn’t be having this conversation because we would likely all be dead.
How will Monkey-Spank deal with the fall of Baghdad when and if it comes?
Funny, I seem to hear Vera Lynn playing off the distance.
I won’t be happy until I see a photo of Bush in his underwear on the cover of Vanity Fair.
…
P.S. I flipped on the TV out here this morning, and it was the beginning of Good Morning America. Saddam’s underwear photos were the headline today.
I just heard an analysis of the Saddam photo broohaha on MSNBC. They even brought on David Brenner, the comedian, who talked about how well hung Saddam is, but also said that it’s rude to Muslims to show such photos. Not once — not once — did any of the exspurts mention the NYT piece.
If we are at war, who are we fighting? Who is the enemy?
If it is a war on terror, why haven’t we attacked Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Why did we invade and occupy Iraq?
If not for oil? What?
Democracy? Where? In Pakistan? In Saudi Arabia?
One thing to keep in mind in reference to this:
“Do they not see how critical the situation has become? Do they not see how badly they have erred? How severely their credibility has been damaged?”
George Bush has never succeeded at anything he has attempted to do. George Bush has screwed up everything he has touched. The only thing George Bush knows is that someone comes along behind him and cleans everything up. No, George does not see. Rove and Cheney and Hughes and Bartlett and Donnie and Wolfie and Condi and all the rest want to keep it that way.
Blame the judges.
Blame the liberals.
Blame the press.
The taxpayer will pay of it.
Their war, is war profits. They are fighting to steal as much as they can and then burn what they can’t steal. And torture some innocent people just because they can get away with it…
And that is probably the concise reason to why are they doing what they are doing, in any and every arena; they’re doing it because they think they can get away with it… It has nothing to do with ideology.
whenever he passes by, things go wrong.
If you haven’t seen the movie “The Cooler” –
a Cooler is a person who has such negative
vibes that he just walks by a people winning
at the gambling tables and he kills their
winning streak.
That was a great movie, William Macy is absolutely terrific(as usual). Making the leap to applying the word ‘cooler’ to bush is brilliant, sybil and so true.
I think I’ll just start privately referring to him as ‘the cooler’ from now on…
And if anyone wants to spend the weekend relaxing with a good movie..go rent The Cooler. Alex Baldwin was also in it and was nominated for supporting actor.
I love that guy!
Doesn’t matter what we call it, it just is.
War, occupation, everlasting war, last war..whatever, we need to do something, now, before it is too late.
It’s against an ism in any case and how do you fight that. Well surely not with guns…
So lets start some peaceism, (my new word).
of me is the mention of Syria more and more. The “terroists” are coming from Syria. Syria and Turkey are concerned over the influx of people and the safety of their countires from terrorists. The diary over at dkos the other day about the diarists friend being killed in Iraq and that that soldier’s last phone call home he mentioned his was going to Syria. Few posters caught that but I did and pointed it out. Others became concerned. Most of the fighting is going on near the Syrian border and in my mind it was brought up there for a reason…to have an excuse to take the war across the border. Bushco is itching for another fight but Iran won’t take the bait and neither will N. Korea. They are like addicts…their drug of choice is more. More power, more oil, more money.
I can understand an upthread post posing concern that they are pushing for Armegeddon. Oh my, are we ever going to feel safe again?
e-mailed to me:
24. Late-Night Political Jokes for Dems
“The Pentagon is shutting down 180 military bases
around the country. … The administration said the
closing of the bases will allow us to fund another
unnecessary war.” –Jay Leno
“President Bush came out today for alternative
fuels. He said he looks forward to the day when
American invades a country for its soybeans.” –Jay
Leno
I just accidentally erased a post by Janet Strange while I was trying to give it a ‘4’.
I’m really sorry Janet. I’m kicking my clumsy self. It was a fanstastic post that took a lot of effort and I nuked it. Forgive me. Damn it.
(cross posted on Kos)
The last thing that anyone in this administration is going to do is admit that they have made a mistake, or in any way miscalculated. To this administration, introspection is not a sign of intelligence, it is a sign of weakness, a sign of self doubt.
“There are none so blind as those who will not … no make that … cannot see.”
We are at a distilled, synthesized, “high tech”, “high efficiency”, micro managed, neo-con wetdream version of warfare which is rapidly becoming a nightmare even for the perpetrators; but they refuse to see it. The American population is no where near consciously, much less unconsciously buying this concept of war… no one in general is really sacrificing anything; we’re not hurting. These things are so visceral that even the worst Republicans don’t really buy it at an unconscious level. The country is NOT united at ANY level, despite the crude Bush and pentagon psy-ops on their own countrymen. If we were truly at war, God(or Allah) help the country that stood in our way.
I would cite as proof for my little rant the recommended story on Dkos yesterday about the wingnuts in the StarWars line… If we were truly at war; a dire peril, we-all-could-be-wiped-off-the-face-of-the-earth-struggle, what do you think those wingnuts in line would have said or done? They would have left the line immediately and headed for the nearest recruiter to do their part after listening to the guy… They shut up, stayed and watched their movie… They know that they’re in no danger…
Please excuse my language, but… war my ass! This is just evil, and brave and good people as well as innocents have died on both sides for nothing but greed and sloth…
No, we’re not at “war”. We’re fighting the same adversaries we’ve been fighting for a long, long time. The one’s who believe in the golden rule: them that has the gold (power) rules. But it seems like a war because we are slammed with breathless headlines every day in a 24-hour news cycle. Amplified by advocates on blogs, radio, television, and newsprint.
If you had walked away from that cycle for a week the world would not look anywhere near the same. What here is !!!!!!!!! in the real world is huh? Really? I didn’t know that. Here anything-or-anyone-associated-with-the-evil-Bush is “BAD”; anything progressive, democrat, or leftish is “RIGHTEOUS”.
Walk away. Just…..walk……away…..slowly. For 24 hours, or the weekend. Walk out your front door and come back and tell me how bad the world looks from your front porch. From your family dinner, meeting with friends, or phone calls from the kids.
And when you get back I’ll remind you that “our side” holds a population majority; we only need to win a few races to take back congress; for every evil perpetrated by this small group of megalomaniacs there will be justice meeted out; and the only “war” we’re fighting is the same one we always fight.
I gotta go mow the lawn now. It’s 80 degrees under clear skies with a breeze from the North.
day after day after blinkin’ day… will it be syria next…? will the msm wake up…? just wait ’til 2006…! impeach the bastard…! dobson’s calling the shots for frist… gannonguckert was a plant… call your senators… call your representatives… write a lte… i know cuz i do it right along with everybody else… but ya know what i think…? i think we just may have already lost…
my take is that the decisive defeat was 2000 in florida… everything else has been just gravy for the r’s and if the filibuster goes down, it’s checkmate, baby… c’mon, get real… bush has ALREADY peppered the executive branch with his party-loyal, ideologically correct stooges… the federal courts are ALREADY awash in judges bought and paid for by corporate interests and wearing the christian fundies’ seal of approval, all as a result of careful strategic planning and execution that began many years ago… wolfie’s at the world bank and bolton is packed and ready to move to nyc…
yeah, ok, there’s gonna be the occasional victory and we’ll pound each other on the back and wait for a brighter day tomorrow, but i don’t think so… i’m not making an argument for resignation or passivity by any means… i just think it’s gonna take one hell of a lot more concerted and, yes, AGGRESSIVE, action to turn things around than we have seen so far…
and, btw, in case you haven’t noticed, bushco doesn’t now nor have they ever played to the polls… after all, when you can fix elections, what the hell difference do polls make…?
but I am operating under the assumption that the situation is redeemable.
But it does require that we get much more aggressive.