Promoted by Steven D.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
–Voltaire
Pro-war rhetoric continues to resonate of the peculiar neoconservative brand of insanity. Last week, Representative C.W. Bill Young (R-FL) said, “Nobody wants our troops out of Iraq more than I do, but we can’t afford to turn over Iraq to al-Qaida.”
The Sunni organization al-Qaeda is not going to take over Shiite dominated Iraq. If Young honestly thinks it can, he’s an utter dullard. It’s more likely that Young was the Bush liegeman chosen to introduce the latest Rovewellian talking point.
Straying the Course
From the beginning, The administration and its echo chamberlains have sold their woebegone war in Iraq with a fabric of glittering generalities, appeals to emotion, bandwagons, sand bagging, blame shifting, straw man attacks, faulty main assumptions, false analogies, and the rest of the propaganda arsenal. They coaxed us into this war by making visions of mushroom clouds dance in our heads, and they’ve been playing Rovewellian mind games with us ever since.
Their most enduring trick has been the “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” mantra. In recent months “fighting them over there” has morphed into “If we withdraw, they will follow us here.” Pish. How are they going to get here–hide in our troops’ luggage? Swim? Wind surf? Jump?
Despite what Bush the younger tells us, the oceans do, in fact, still protect us. Nobody has an army large enough to invade and occupy the United States, and they certainly don’t have a navy or air force capable of transporting a force that size across the Atlantic or Pacific. Even if they did, we could sink them and/or shoot them down before they got halfway here.
Yes, terrorists might still sneak through our borders and ports in drips and drabs like the 9/11 perpetrators did, but nothing we’re doing militarily in the Middle East is preventing that from happening. That’s Homeland Security’s job, and if Homeland Security can’t keep terrorists from infiltrating our country, why does it even exist?
Young Mr. Bush exhorts us to show “resolve” in the Middle East. But the kind of resolve we’re showing in the Middle East is the kind of resolve it takes to throw yourself in front of a moving bus, and then lie there while the bus continues to roll back and forth over you.
In January, Senator Joe Lieberman (?-CT) said on Meet the Press that “We all want to find the right exit strategy. But my own sense of history tells me that in war, ultimately, there are two exit strategies. One is called victory; the other is called defeat.”
My three dogs have a better sense of history than Lieberman does. Wars, especially modern American wars, have seldom been decisive. World War I ended in an armistice, the conditions of which laid the groundwork for World War II. World War II concluded with the formal surrenders of Germany and Japan, but that only led to the Cold War and a series of dirty little third world proxy wars that lasted for half a century.
One pro-war neoconservative pundit recently compared Representative Jack Murtha (D-PA) to Lee Harvey Oswald. He said that Murtha and Oswald formed a small club of individuals who deserved to be classified as “ex-Marines.” This pundit is not a Coulter-class luminary in the neoconservative galaxy. He is a distinguished dean and professor at one of our most distinguished graduate level war colleges who consistently indulges in this kind of vituperative through the Big Brother Broadcast megaphone. With people like him in key positions of upper level of military academia, it’s little wonder our national security brain trust is so bankrupt.
We hear from voices on the right that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will create conditions that could lead to a regional war, but the fact is that U.S. presence in Iraq has created a regional war. Conflict, at one level or another, rages from the Horn of Africa to Pakistan, and our presence in Iraq is fueling it, not containing it.
The Bush war hawks keep serving up grape flavored hallucinogen shooters, and their non-cognitive supporters keep slamming them down. Meanwhile, a pack of dune farmers armed with tinker toys continue to make the “best-trained, best-equipped” armed force in history look like it couldn’t find its oasis with a map and a flashlight.
It’s so difficult for me to watch our chicken hawk leaders pour more of our magnificent troops into a war they’re not designed to fight in pursuit of a “victory” that cannot be defined, and justify their policies and strategies with arguments they have to know are medicine show hokum, and blame their failures on the CIA, the news media, Catholics who voted for John Kerry, and whatever other scapegoat is handy.
It breaks my heart.
#
Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes from Virginia Beach, Virginia. Read his commentaries at Pen and Sword.
Breaks my heart, too.
Coming back from Japan this week, I ws in the international terminal in Dallas when about 300 of our troops were returning home. Watching them all clear customs (which seemed absurd in itself) I wondered what in the world I could say to them.
I couldn’t say “thanks for your service” since I don’t support their mission. I wanted to say “I am so sorry and ashamed that you have been terribly abused by your Commander in Chief,” but I thought some might take umbrage at that. I had to settle for ” I wish you well.”
…It’s tough to know what to say.
one of the things that I see repeated in your commentary is this underlying sentiment…ie: “magnificent troops into a war they’re not designed to fight“…is the unacknowledged fact, on the part of the leaders of the country, political and military, that we do not have a military designed to fight the wars of the 21st century.
shock and awe is soooo 90’s…but we’re still preparing our forces to fight conventional wars, with static fronts and definable objectives, with their attendant definable tallies of victories and defeats….all the while out-spending the rest of the world as far as military budgets are concerned.
it’s a failed strategy, approach, policy, whatever…regardless of authorship.
they, the poli-mili-industo-crats, have lost sight of the notion that the application of military force, ie: war, is the last option that should be chosen; and then only under threat of truly catastrophic consequences were one not to act.
if and when we extract ourselves from this quagmire…a long shot at best…there needs to be a major shift in strategic preparation of the military, foreign policy, and political preparedness and capability, application and goals.
I have no idea how that may come about, but it’s increasingly obvious that these people do not have a clue. either that, or this is all running according to plan. a conspiracy that I am reluctant to give much credence to, due in large part to the proven incompetence of those rumming the show.
broken hearts are best left to love affairs, not to matters of state.
I agree with you whole-heartedly.
There’s not much money to be made in preparing a 4th/5th generation military compared to the boodle of money you can walk away with trying to outfit a 3rd generation force. Kerry was right in 2004 calling for increasing the size of the Special Forces and even the light infantry. Dubya refused to do any of that, because it would expand the deficit without putting any money in the pockets of his campaign contributors. It also wouldn’t really ease the retirement of careerist general officers, who lust after those post-service retirement sinecures with the merchants of death and war profiteers. So, we keep sinking money in a military which isn’t designed to engage the real enemy we might be facing in the early 21st century and we’ll wind up with a military some man-child wants to play with against another major power which has a brand new 6th generation force we can’t afford to buy.
Yes, terrorists might still sneak through our borders and ports in drips and drabs like the 9/11 perpetrators did, but nothing we’re doing militarily in the Middle East is preventing that from happening. That’s Homeland Security’s job, and if Homeland Security can’t keep terrorists from infiltrating our country, why does it even exist?
I think it is long overdue for some basic logic to be applied to this situation (war on terrorism), as you are trying to do here! When Timothy McVeigh bombed a Federal Building in Oklahoma, why was there no war on terrorism then??? How many of the 9/11 perpetrators came into this country illegally at least initially?? It seems bewildering to me that what is and should have been a police action or internal national security effort was sold to the American people as a militarily carried out foreign war. How was that foreign war going to stop the Tim McVeighs out there and any other person already here from carrying out a terrorist plot?
Now increased internal policing and internal security spying on Americans (patriot act like actions) may well come with their own heinous consquences for individual freedoms, but at least they pass the logic test for dealing with the McVeighs and 9-11 situations. A 4 year war in Iraq surely does not, and for the life of me, I just cannot see why it is taking so long for so many Americans to put this logic together!
This article in the LA Times says it all.
Gross misapplication of funds.
Incorrect application of our forces
Starving anything that doesn’t “just kill people”.
And all we’ve gotten from the Bush administration is window dressing. People are becoming so fed up with it that they are just saying “to hell with it” and moving on.
We are less safe today for one reason only. George W. Bush is a failure as a leader and as a President.
It will be his legacy. It will be one which is richly deserved.
Yeah, and courtesy of Dubya all of the history in the 22nd century will be written almost exclusively in Mandarin too.