An Empire of Sentimentality
I think this kind of sentiment from Dave Dilegge at the COIN hotspot Small Wars Journal reflects some dangerous trends in American culture:
Ain’t this just dandy and a pisser to boot – those who have strived – and died – to ensure Iraq’s freedom and future place as a responsible partner on the world scene are brushed aside for the latest bash Bush melodrama and a ‘real hero’ is on the scene – Iraqi who threw shoes at George Bush hailed as hero via The Times. Plenty on this elsewhere, on the dailies and wires – most likely more tomorrow – meanwhile back in the real word… People care, they die or suffer serious wounds, and their contributions are tossed aside for this. A damn shame it is, indeed.
Americans love and respect the men and women who volunteer for military service under our flag. And those of us who’ve had friends serve in Iraq, and especially those who’ve personally served in Iraq and watched friends be killed or maimed, think only the best of the people who’ve been doing dangerous jobs in difficult circumstances. But I think it’s crucially important not to allow these positive sentiments about soldiers and marines to deteriorate into sentimentality about the mission they were undertaking in Iraq. The Iraqi people didn’t ask to be liberarted conquered and occupied by a foreign power that destroyed their country and then immediately set about meddling in Iraqi politics and until just a month or so ago was struggling mightily for the right to permanently station military forces on Iraqi soil contrary to the will of the Iraqi public. Not only did Iraqis not ask for such services, but nobody anywhere has ever asked for them.
The harsh reality is that this was not a noble undertaking done for good reasons. It was a criminal enterprise launched by madmen cheered on by a chorus of fools and cowards. And it’s seen as such by virtually everyone all around the world — including but by no means limited to the Arab world. But it’s impolitic to point this out in the United States, and it’s clear that even a president-elect who had the wisdom not to be suckered in by the War Fever of 2002 has no intention of really acting to marginalize the bad actors. Which, I think, makes sense for his political objectives. But if Americans want to play a constructive role in world affairs, it’s vitally important for us to get in touch with the reality of what the past eight years of US foreign policy have been and how they’re seen and understood by people who aren’t stirred by the shibboleths of American patriotism.
129 Responses to “An Empire of Sentimentality”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 16th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Shorter neocon tool:
George Bush = the troops
What rightwing Americans want for Iraq = what Iraqis should want
Iraqi suffering = we don’t care
December 16th, 2008 at 11:53 am
It’s just the usual party line: if you don’t like our war, you don’t support our troops. If you care what actually happens to Iraqis, who might have to live with the outcome, you’re un-American. They won’t give up on the line, but at least on this one Americans have stopped buying.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:56 am
It shouldn’t even be necessary to state this. It’s like writing, “Naturally, I don’t beat my wife and I don’t condone domestic violence.”
You shouldn’t feel the need to defend your patriotism when you are questioning Bush administration military and occupation policies. When you do so, it lends legitimacy to these attacks which are designed to put war opponents on the defensive in the first place.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:59 am
…it’s an argument which does not even deserve to be addressed, just as if you’d been accused of pedophilia for suggesting that sex offender registration laws may go too far, or of being a drunk because some DUI laws may be too draconian.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
you know what’s really amusing about Muntadar al-Zaini’s shoe-throwing incident?
I read a lot of wingnut comments declaring that if those f’ing Iraqis are so ungrateful, we should just leave.
Of course for years DFHs have been advocating exactly that, and we get called traitors and Saddam-lovers for our trouble.
When an Iraqi dares to show his displeasure with Dear Leader for the incredibly bungled Iraq occupation, it suddenly becomes an acceptable position.
Go figure.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
So when do folks figure out that Afghanistan is just as FUBAR as Iraq? Might have had a chance in 2002 — now hopeless. Can we get out less whipped than the Russians?
And then, can we do anything to jam the Israelis into realizing they can’t permanently cage up and humiliate a Palestinian population as large as their own and growing?
Those are our real security questions. Those — and loose nukes all over the world.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
The “fools and cowards” include the new secretary of state, the new vice president, and … Matthew Yglesias!
Matt is smart enough to notice that the new secretary of state and the new vice president aren’t being marginalized, and one might also note that the current secretary of defense is going to be the new secretary of defense.
One line of Matt’s is just mistaken: “Not only did Iraqis not ask for such services, but nobody anywhere has ever asked for them.” Many Iraqis did in fact ask for the war. That was a big point of emphasis for Matt a couple of years ago, conveniently forgotten for now.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
The harsh reality is that this was not a noble undertaking done for good reasons.
The harsh reality of Saddam’s regime is what anti-war people refuse to acknowledge. They whitewash it and instantly start bleating “George Bush” or “Neocons” or “oil and permanent bases.”
American soldiers can be proud of ending that regime, which
1) committed genocide against the Kurds
2) attempted to forcibly annex a member of the United Nations, Kuwait.
3) attacked Iran which lead to a disasterous 8 year war.
4) bluffed about having WMD (now we know thanks to US soldiers)
5) Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait led to troops in Saudi Arabia which pissed OBL off which led to 911
6) did have WMD know-how which could have been handed off to terrorists, better safe than sorry after 911
7) democracy in Iraq will have a good influence on neighboring Iran and Saudi Arabia
I don’t go for all the conservative patriotic nonsense and chest-pounding, but the region is better off and the world is safer. Had this guy thrown a shoe at Saddam he would have been taken out back and shot. A lot of the antiwar arguments used about Iraq can be applied to Afghanistan, who never invaded anybody.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
> Many Iraqis did in fact ask for the war.
Many Iraqis asked for “a” war — thinking that anything would be better than Saddam. We went out of our way to make it clear that no, we were worse for Iraq than Saddam was. Yay, us!
Matt said: The Iraqi people didn’t ask to be liberated conquered and occupied by a foreign power that destroyed their country and then immediately set about meddling in Iraqi politics and until just a month or so ago was struggling mightily for the right to permanently station military forces on Iraqi soil contrary to the will of the Iraqi public.
Not the same as “The Iraqi people didn’t ask for a way”.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
jesus. peter k. is kinda like rip van winkle–lost in a time-warp somewhere.
hey, peter: would you like to bet on the outcome of the super bowl for years 2004-8? i’m feeling clairvoyant.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
janinsanfran, Obama is going to put more troops into Afghanistan to shore up our position which is rather precarious thanks to Dear Leader’s focus on Iraq. It won’t be plausible with most Americans to blame Obama for what goes on in Iraq; but if Afghanistan goes to shit, the Rethugs may well get away with sticking Obama with the blame for that one.
It’s also reasonable to hope that NATO allies will offer more substantial military support in Afghanistan with a President Obama.
Beyond that, Obama is likely to pursue a multi-pronged strategy in Afghanistan; short of carpet-bombing Afghanistan, it’s highly unlikely we’re going to wipe out the Taliban.
As for Israel and Palestine, it’s also highly likely Obama is going to pursue a much more realistic position other than ‘giving Likud free license to do whatever it wants’. I cannot conceive of a more bone-headed Middle East strategy than that pursued by Emperor C+ Augustus. Just about every ME leader told Bush that Israel-Palestine was the key to a broader settlement of Middle Eastern issues.
Of course, he wasn’t listening to the people closest to the issue who might know best, he was listening to the neo-conservatives who deliberately chose to know nothing and yet were convinced they knew everything they needed to know.
Then, with just six months left in his term, Bush decides to pursue some sort of Israel-Palestine peace deal. Of course, being a very lame duck, having spent the previous 7.5 years pissing off every Arab in the Middle East save Ahmad Chalabi, and having a policy towards Israel and Palestine which consisted of giving Israel everything it wanted and then some, Bush had exactly zero chance of obtaining any sort of deal.
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Only five weeks to go before Worst President Ever is consigned to the trashheap of history.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
“Had this guy thrown a shoe at Saddam he would have been taken out back and shot. ”
Now 1,0000,000 Iraqis are dead and he gets two years in prison.
Go fuck yourself, coward.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Thomas beat me to it… but which are you, Matthew? Coward or fool? I also have to wonder if you have any opinion on Drum or Marshall. I would lean towards fools all around, but I can’t say for sure.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Dave Dilegge is a raving wingnut lunatic.
who the fuck is striving to “ensure Iraq’s freedom and future place as a responsible partner on the world scene”?
i really would like to see a poll of U.S. military, employees, contractors, etc. and see how many of them would agree that the above statement is their primary rationale for being in iraq. i doubt the number would crack .01%. Fuck, i’ll just say it outright, there is probably not a single American anywhere who is “fighting for Iraq.”
dave dilegge is *very upset* that an Iraqi who managed to survive the mass death and carnage caused by the American invasion threw a shoe at the invasion’s architect. How dare those iraqis! How dare they be so ungrateful for us killing millions of their fellow countrymen? Well, dude, the thing is that the iraqis figured out the con game a long, long time ago: America is not there to fight for “Iraq’s freedom.” We’re there for us–and our interests do not coincide with the interests of Iraq, whatever bullshit slogans coming out of the mouth of the President notwithstanding.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Peter K., there are indeed some things worse than living under the rule of a brutal tyrant.
Exhibit A: Post-Saddam Iraq.
If you cannot understand why Iraqis don’t seem very grateful for Dear Leader’s liberation, imagine that you had a really bad cockroach problem at your house. You call the exterminator, he comes over and burns down your house. You want to kill him on the spot, and he wonders why you’re not grateful for him getting rid of the roaches.
Capish?
December 16th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
The Iraqi people didn’t ask to be liberarted conquered and occupied by a foreign power that destroyed their country and then immediately set about meddling in Iraqi politics and until just a month or so ago was struggling mightily for the right to permanently station military forces on Iraqi soil contrary to the will of the Iraqi public.
Who are Iraqi people? The Kurds who fought Saddam? The majority Shia who rose up after the end of the first Gulf War and got slaughtered?
hey, peter: would you like to bet on the outcome of the super bowl for years 2004-8? i’m feeling clairvoyant.
Aren’t you the type who said the US would install permanent US bases? What if, without Saddam his crime family, Iraq develops and thrives and is a good influence on neighboring Saudi Arabia and Iran. Will you feel clairvoyant then smartass?
December 16th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
if that happens, it will have been IN SPITE of Bush’s determined efforts to fuck up everything he touches, not because of Bush’s war.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
but which are you, Matthew? Coward or fool?
I feel confident in saying that the answer is (b), fool.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Re Peter K
Mr. Peter K is full of shit. The Iraq adventure was nothing more then an attempt of the neocons to assert control over Iraqs’ oil, the second largest proved reserve in the world. So far, this adventure has cost the lives of some 1/2 million Iraqis, forced another 1 million plus into fleeing the country, and resulted in ethnic cleansing of millions from their homes. All in all, a despicable and criminal activity for which the US and its allies prosecuted and executed Nazi war criminals after WW 2.
Re janinsanfran
Gee, the Government of Israel is being beastly to the Palestinians. When it applies Hama Rules, Mr./Ms. jan will really have something to squawk about. Thus far, it has applied only a slap on the wrist.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
There’s a lot of 20/20 hindsight being applied here. I was against the war–thought it risky, likely to inflame anti-American sentiment, lacking in international legitmacy,and all the rest. Yet I had mixed feelings, did not join protests, etc. The reason? Saddam’s regime was arguably the most bloodthirsty in the world. Dissent was death–painful death, and perhaps for one’s whole family. How could one, back then, have unmixed feelings about a war that would remove that regime? Who knew–really knew–how badly things would turn out? That Iraq would collapse into the complete chaos and carnage of 2004-07 looks like it should have been predictable to anyone paying attention. In fact, even most war opponents didn’t think it would be that bad. That the execution of the occupation would be utterly incompetent and, worse, toture riddled perhaps should have been obvious back then. (Not that better execution of a fundamentally flawed strategy would justify it.) Few saw that coming, either.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Hi, Peter K. Let’s examine your reasons, then, for the war:
1) US enabled that.
2) US enabled that.
3) US enabled that.
4) Bluffing’s a reason to invade a sovereign state?
5) So Saddam caused 9/11?
6) Didn’t do anything…but could have!
7) We shall see.
Wow! Let’s invade everybody! We can start with ourselves. Or have we given up supplying arms to despots in the Middle East?
Are supporters of this war really still confused as to why most of the world opposes it? The United States is not some magical special country that’s free to invade other countries whenever it wants to based on suspicions and concerns–especially not when half of its concerns are to correct foreign policy mistakes it’s made in the past, and now feels guilty about. (And especially not when the other half of its concerns are OILOILOILOILOILOILOILOIL.)
Have we learned anything after seven years of insanity?
Here’s a thought experiment for anyone who justifies this war by citing Saddam Hussein’s (admittedly horrific) crimes against his own people: So you’ll be down with it when someone else invades us, to punish our war crimes?
The past eight years make me sick. There is no other sane response but disgust. All of it, from 9/11 onward, is horror and insanity, seen and matched and escalated by an administration of sociopaths. Thank god they’ll soon be out of office, but it’s a little too late for many, many people whose lives and countries have been destroyed. Don’t seek to justify it.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Sure there is. The 101st Chairborne and the 82nd Fighting Keyboardists are laboring away mightily every day, sustained only by Mountain Dew and Cheetos, blogging for peeance and freeance in Iraq.
Outside of that, no… nobody in America believes we are fighting for Iraq. We are fighting for obscene war profiteering and Bush’s vanity and finding a way to leave Iraq while saving face.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I can only imagine the outrage that would have erupted if President Clinton had slammed critics who condemned him for getting a BJ from Monica Lewinsky as the “blame America first crowd” or that they “hate America.” Yet, critics of the malevolent GOP act of attacking and attempting to conquer Iraq are accused by looney tune, nutjobs as hating America. The obvious difference between Clinton’s reckless, narcissistic stupidity with Lewinsky and the Bush administration’s reckless, narcissistic stupidity in Iraq is that Clinton’s error didn’t cause mass-murder, mahem, torture, and endless suffering – the Bush administration’s did.
For draft-dodging cowards like George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, etc., to call ANYONE anti-American, after the number of US troops whose murders they are not only responsible for, but who have profitted wildly from those deaths, is grotesque beyond words.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
2 million refugees might have a different opinion but who cares about them? It was only the country where they lived. Peter has better plans for other people because while not a really a god, likes to bravely play one on blogs.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
1) committed genocide against the Kurds- yes, and the Shiites in the south. This is tribal-religious warfare- certainly something we should be involved in. Somalia, Sudan, the Balkans and Ireland come to mind. 2 Billion a week also comes to mind.
2) attempted to forcibly annex a member of the United Nations, Kuwait. Iraq invaded for oil. We invaded Iraq on the pretense of WMDs. It was oil.
3) attacked Iran which lead to a disasterous 8 year war. How long will our disatstrous war last?
4) bluffed about having WMD (now we know thanks to US soldiers) NO- we knew it was a lie before we invaded. Fat fact. The soldiers died based on a lie.5) Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait led to troops in Saudi Arabia which pissed OBL off which led to 911 Really, now? You know this and how?
6) did have WMD know-how which could have been handed off to terrorists, better safe than sorry after 911 And they were peddling this to who? OBL was hated by the Hussein regime because of destabilizing issues. Didn’t happen- your speculation is cheap to no value.
7) democracy in Iraq will have a good influence on neighboring Iran and Saudi Arabia. Really? How?
December 16th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Hi Matt,
The reason why many people in 2002 and 2003 didn’t realize how bad things could get in Iraq is because 1) the Bush Administration outright lied to everyone, and 2) the media rolled over and became cheerleaders.
Plenty of people were saying back then that the war would end this badly. I remember hearing it, and I didn’t trust the administration to run the war any better than it has. And I was but a simple grad student, not some pundit or Washington insider.
But that wasn’t the cool atmosphere back then. I remember going to anti-war protests and being spat on, told I was a traitor, that I should be arrested. That was the mindset of our country.
I often think about those people now, spitting and screaming at a young man holding a sign. What do they think about Iraq now? The fact that most US citizens finally want to end the war doesn’t make me happy–I just see it as a chance to finally, as many say, stop shitting the bed.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I doubt you could find a single person who had fond feelings for Saddam’s regime, other than his family and those profiting from his black market petroleum deals.
However I had very grave doubts that this administration was worthy of being entrusted with both defeating Saddam and pulling off their grand scheme of democracy in the Middle East (or even a somewhat stable post-war Iraq).
I could go into the reasons, but it would take quite a bit of space. Let’s just boil it down to this: I read history. History shows that occupying a foreign nation and assisting it in making the transition to some sort of non-tyrannical rule is very tricky.
Even more so when the culture and predominant religion are alien to us, when religious and ethnic feuds have been suppressed for years by force and suddenly released (one needed only look at post-Tito Yugoslavia, which was very, very recent history at the time), and when there are vast petroleum riches at stake for whomever ended up controlling post-war Iraq.
It would have taken wise, competent and knowledgeable bureaucrats and leadership to pull off such a transition.
Instead we were saddled with a neo-conservative “brain trust” overflowing with hubris and completely opposed to nation-building.
It was not all that difficult to predict a disastrous post-war aftermath, but I do admit that even I (and I suspect many others) were dumbfounded by how bad things got in Iraq.
To whatever extent there is relative ‘peace’ in Iraq now (compared to the astoundingly bloody 2004-2006 period), it’s likely that of a nation which has exhausted itself with bloodletting and ethnic/religious cleansing.
To go back to my burning house analogy, a fireman who allows the house to burn down instead of successfully fighting the fire, should not go around taking credit for the fire having been put out.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
It should be a condemnation of our society that something called “Small Wars Journal” exists.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Even now you see sick, demeneted monsters like Peter K. trying to defend the indefensible. I suppose tomorrow he will try to defend the nazis because they tried to end Stalin’s misrule.
And frankly it is partly because of monsters like Peter that we need real accountability. Which means that, after fair trials and convictions, we need to see Bush, Cheney, and about 2,000 other war criminals hanged by the neck until dead, dead, dead.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I’ve always suspected Hitchens must be embarrassed to have such a low-quality lickspittle as Peter K. Surely Wolfowitz’s groupies are more presentable in public.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Matt wrote, Who knew–really knew–how badly things would turn out? That Iraq would collapse into the complete chaos and carnage of 2004-07 looks like it should have been predictable to anyone paying attention. In fact, even most war opponents didn’t think it would be that bad.
Nonsense. It was obvious to even casual observers that the area was, geopolitically, extremely delicate. (Think Turkey vs Kurds, Iran and the Shi’ites in Iraq, etc.) Furthermore, it was clear that the history of nation-building (by Americans and others) didn’t allow for much hope.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
“Thomas beat me to it… but which are you, Matthew? Coward or fool?”
Sam L beat me to it.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Once again, the underlying premise is that invading Iraq was something “the troops” did on their own initiative out of patriotism, and that the only way to support the troops is to support the occupation of Iraq.
To call that premise false would be a massive understatement.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Shoe Thrower’s Brother: He Has Been Beaten In Custody
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/16/muntadhar-al-zeidi-who-is_n_151089.html
I thought freeance was sprouting in Iraq?
December 16th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Matt wrote, Saddam’s regime was arguably the most bloodthirsty in the world.
(1) It wasn’t at the time the argument about the invasion was being held.
(2) History shows that states don’t invade other states for humanitarian reasons.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
About 98% of Americans do not realize or remember this, but Iran has more democracy than Iraq and a lot more than Saudi Arabia.
Is it an Islamic republic? Yes. Are candidates carefully vetted by the mullahs? Yes. It’s not a perfect democracy by any measure.
But, if we’re going to hold up ‘having elections’ as a standard by which to measure whether there is ‘democracy’ or not (and this has long been the Bush/neo-con standard, if you hold an election then you must have a democracy), Iran has it and Iraq, just barely. Saudi Arabia, hardly at all. In Iran, there is a very real possibility of the election of leaders who are more moderate in their views of Islamic theocracy than others.
Oh, and Palestinians – despite the best efforts of Israel to crush them – had an election between the moderate-but-highly-corrupt Fatah and the radical Hamas, which provides badly needed social services to Palestinians and is generally considered much more honest in their administration of government.
The Palestinians voted for Hamas, and of course the Bush regime refused to respect the legitimately-elected leaders of Palestinians.
“Democracy” has been given a bad name by the Bush regime, thanks to a noxious mix of naive idealism and outrageous hypocrisy.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
renato wrote, when religious and ethnic feuds have been suppressed for years by force and suddenly released (one needed only look at post-Tito Yugoslavia, which was very, very recent history at the time)
Exactly.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
It is amazing that morons like Thomas and Peter K can still post their lies about how glorious and just the unprovoked assault on the Iraqi people was. It was no such thing. Saddam Hussein was a very bad man who made Iraq a bad place. George W. Bush is a monster who made it into a violent hell-hole.
Others have dealt with many of the points and even the WMDs, but I want to point out something to the idiots who think that being right about the total lack of WMDs is about hindsight: You don’t get to be wrong in your rationale for mass murder. Bush’s claim that Iraq was a threat to our national security was laughably wrong. Or would be if it didn’t result in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of human beings.
Bush went without proof. The evidence actually pointed in the other direction – years of inspections that find nothing aren’t exactly a smoking gun, unless (like Peter K & Thomas) you are a total fucking moron.
If Bush had been honest with the American people they would never have supported this brutal war against the Iraqi people.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
renato wrote,
It would have taken wise, competent and knowledgeable bureaucrats and leadership to pull off such a transition.
It’s true that Bush made the likelihood of a “good” transition much lower, but it would have been pretty low no matter who was in charge, as implied by your point about Yugoslavia.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
But I think it’s crucially important not to allow these positive sentiments about soldiers and marines to deteriorate into sentimentality about the mission they were undertaking in Iraq.
Hey Matt, welcome to “Iraq Syndrome”. I feel sorry for younger guys like yourself, because you are going to have to put up with this struggle for the national soul longer than I will. It may even end up defining your political future.
I went to a Celtics game last weekend, during the halftime of which they had a “Heroes Among Us” celebration, in which a strapping young marine Adonis in full dress, bathed in the glory of his colorful badges, ribbons and honors, was escorted to center court to be lauded by the announcer for his heroic actions in Iraq, and beheld in amazement by the hushed and overawed crowd.
Now it might seem as though rational and fastidiously liberal and right-thinking human beings like yourself can easily, and without pronounced emotional tension, hold onto the belief that their glamorous and strong young soldier boys are heroes all, or heroes mostly, while the war those soldiers fought in was unheroic, FUBAR, wrong, strategically unsound, awful, etc., etc. etc. But most people have cruder responses, and aren’t able to sustain such an emotionally challenging distinction. For them, either the war was an heroic cause fought by heroes, or an unheroic piece of bloody crap fought by unheroic dispensers of bloody crap.
How will this all play out? Unlike Vietnam, which was an obvious loss for the US, with the last remaining troops flying away from the rooftops of Saigon as our enemies achieved their long-sought victory, it will be quite easy for the official guardians of our national memory to paint Iraq as a victory, especially once the killing dies down. No more Saddam and a roughly democratic government in Baghdad, with only a half a million to a million Iraqi eggs cracked? Who could deny this is another triumph in the permanent revolutionary spread of American liberty?
I also predict that within five years you will be offering modest mea culpas, and asking the world to reacquaint itself with the 2002 pro-war Matt, and forget 2006 antiwar Matt. Your kids might even end up going to one of the G.W. Bush Junior Highs – if you send them to a public school.
Hopefully we can get through this process of manufacturing a false but usable national past … um, I mean get through the “healing” … without a lot of angry, rioting soldiers going all Tim McVeigh on the citadels of liberal opinion. On the other hand, maybe the United States will follow the model of Germany between the two great wars. You may soon have to watch what you say, Matt, as letting the hint of a whisper of a name such as “Abu Ghraib” pass your lips could earn you the right to have your ass kicked in the back alley of your local bar by a delegation of returning veteran heroes.
I said a few weeks ago, following the conclusion of the SOFA negotiations, that G.W. Bush just won the Iraq War. And I haven’t changed my opinion. I have tried for a long time to urge people to realize that we are in a battle for the historical memory of the Iraq War, which was a classic hostile military takeover of a foreign state. My feeling is that we who opposed the Iraq War have already lost that battle.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
“But it’s impolitic to point this out”
why use “impolitic”? use “politically incorrect” and take the meaning back from “the right to be an asshole and not get called on it.”
December 16th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
renato wrote, janinsanfran, Obama is going to put more troops into Afghanistan to shore up our position which is rather precarious thanks to Dear Leader’s focus on Iraq. It won’t be plausible with most Americans to blame Obama for what goes on in Iraq; but if Afghanistan goes to shit, the Rethugs may well get away with sticking Obama with the blame for that one.
Yes, but it looks like the likelihood of a “good” outcome in Afghanistan (”good” = stable with Taliban not in control) isn’t that high.
One can argue from history that it’s very difficult for leaders to disentangle themselves from wars, even those started by unpopular predecessors, so perhaps we should’t judge Obama too harshly. But that doesn’t negate the fact that it seems probable that sticking it out in Afghanistan will prove be a mistake. (And as (IIRC) Andrew Bacevich pointed out recently, sticking it out there and thus increasing the likelihood of destabilizing nuclear Pakistan seems to be a really bad tradeoff.)
As for Israel and Palestine, it’s also highly likely Obama is going to pursue a much more realistic position other than ‘giving Likud free license to do whatever it wants’. I cannot conceive of a more bone-headed Middle East strategy than that pursued by Emperor C+ Augustus. Just about every ME leader told Bush that Israel-Palestine was the key to a broader settlement of Middle Eastern issues.
Yes, but there’s a huge distance between “what Likud wants” and “what is likely to lead to a just peace.” My best guess is that Obama continues the American tradition of taking positions that, while perhaps not totally in accord with the desires of Likud etc, are neither just nor likely to stabilize that dispute.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Dan Kervick wrote, Unlike Vietnam, which was an obvious loss for the US, with the last remaining troops flying away from the rooftops of Saigon as our enemies achieved their long-sought victory…
Actually, there was no true stategic loss in Vietnam, since we had no true geopolitical interest there. There was the whole domino theory thing, but that turned out to be wrong. (Strong evidence was the bloody 1965 liquidation of the communists in Indonesia by Suharto.)
…it will be quite easy for the official guardians of our national memory to paint Iraq as a victory, especially once the killing dies down.
But who’s to say when the killing will die down, esp. after the US leaves? Place is a hotbed of rival ethnic and religious groups (Sunnis, Shi’ites, Kurds, Turkamen, etc).
No more Saddam and a roughly democratic government in Baghdad, with only a half a million to a million Iraqi eggs cracked?
Don’t forget the refugees, destruction of capital, and the possibility (apart from civil war) that the place ends up in the orbit of Iran. (Not the worst outcome in the world, but one which isn’t in accord with your predictions or the desires of the foreign policy elites of the US.) Not to mention possible war between Turkey and the Kurds, etc etc etc…
December 16th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
So can any country invade a country that they fought against 20 years before and get a free pass, or is it only the US who can decide that Gulf War I wasn’t a big enough victory so we had to go for round 2?
You may want to read up on Iran/Contra since you seem to have absolutely no idea the US was supplying the Iranians during that war and kept it going far longer than it would have without that help.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
The problem with the hero-soldier bit is this: it is impossible to be a hero in a situation where your fight is dishonorable. Sure, you might have saved your buddy and earned medals, but ultimately there is no honor in a war of aggression.
There is a sick fetish in this country for soldiers. There is a more than sick fantasy that they are “fighting for our freedom.” How is turning Iraq into a hell-hole “fighting for my freedom”?
Those who say “the soldiers don’t determine their mission” miss the point. They infantilize the young men and women who agree to execute these acts. When your orders insist that you commit war crimes those are not legal orders and you have an obligation to refuse them. “I was only following orders” has never been a valid defense.
Some will claim I am too harsh on the soldiers and too weak on the leaders. Not so. The leaders should be on the dock and the soldiers can be forgiven. But forgiveness is wildly different from worship.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
What about the Grand Duchy of Fenwick?
December 16th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
George W. Bush has failed at everything he has ever done in his sad, miserable, life. Utterly failed. It is impossible that this is accidental.
Thanks to a corrupt Washington establishment, utterly corrupt Karl Rove machine, beyond corrupt Cheney gang, vapid gaggle of moronic courtiers we call the press, and the majority of the poorly educated but well trained American servant class we call the electorate he was allowed to practice his depraved self destructive behavior on the world.
Tragically, the consequences are that millions have died or been maimed, billions have had their life savings torn from their hands and virtually burned or given to the monumentally greedy to use as toilet paper. This is not the relatively inconsequential end of Harken nor Arbusto or National Guard Service.
Is an accidental tyrant not a tyrant anyway? I can barely stifle a feeling of sympathy for this weak, sad, little man trying so bravely to stand in his daddy’s shoes but I wonder if, as his apologists such as Peter K. above do, I am to excuse him the millions (man, woman, child, old, young, rich, poor) of dead, displaced, torn asunder, burned alive, tortured, robbed and beaten why would I not also excuse Saddam who, after all, would tell you that he was able to bring stability to a sharply divided polity even if, sadly, it took harsh measures to do so?
I am not prepared to forgive either one the total insensitivity to the suffering for which each was directly responsible nor the evil either conscious or unconscious each effectuated.
It is still early in the century. We have yet begun to suffer the full consequences of our passivity in the face of evil. To have a shoe thrown at one is not the equivalent of hanging upside down from a meathook.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
… The harsh reality is that this was not a noble undertaking done for good reasons. It was a criminal enterprise launched by madmen cheered on by a chorus of fools and cowards. …
Thank you.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Angry Shoe-Throwing Guy probably has a slightly different set of complaints about Bush than I do, but as a purely symbolic and human act of defiance against someone who’s done an impressive amount of harm to human beings in the United States and around the world, I have absolutely no trouble understanding — and endorsing — his act.
George W. Bush is a war criminal, amongst other things, and deserves our contempt.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
“It was a criminal enterprise launched by madmen cheered on by a chorus of fools and cowards. ”
Well-said.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Well, no one “really knows” anything. For all we “know” the sun won’t rise tomorrow. That said, after we defeated Iraq in 1991 some guys named Cheney and Powell advocated NOT invading the country to topple Hussein because it would be a bloody quagmire.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
What about the Grand Duchy of Fenwick?
That’s the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. And they invaded us./b>
December 16th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Peter K: “Who are Iraqi people? The Kurds who fought Saddam? The majority Shia who rose up after the end of the first Gulf War and got slaughtered?”
Who, you probably didn’t notice, hated us and wanted us gone, from late 2003 onwards (when they realized that we weren’t liberating, we were staying and planning on running things). The only reason that they didn’t join with the Sunni Arabs to kick us out was that (a) they hated the Sunni Arabs, and appreciated our help in a bit of revenge mass murder, (b) they knew that kicking us out short-term would have cost them hundreds of K’s dead, and (c) Iran was running some Shiite factions, and it took time to defeat the anti-Iranian Shiites (with US assistances).
December 16th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
This war was self-evidently the stupidest foreign policy move of our nation’s history. (Well, there were some other dumb one’s too, but it’s in the top three.) I mean, it was so obvious that, no matter how bad Saddam was, that going to a war 5000 miles away, without any adequate political preparation for someone to take over after our invastion, was going to be a disaster. There was no internal resistance organized to take over the country, and the only way to avoid a prolonged occupation was to hand it right back from the people we took it from. We were going to create a power vacuum in the most volatile political region of the world, with no apparent care for the consequences. Matt is clearly right, it was the work of madmen and fools, and anyone who did not realize this and protest their actions shares the blame.
And don’t tell me how bad Saddam was. There are lots and lots of bad guys. Robert Mugabe is immesurably worse but where the fuck are you war-glorifiers on him?? At a minimum, before we go charging into countries to get rid of their governments, we damn well better have some idea what government will succeed them. We didn’t here and the whole project was a shambles.
Finally, the whole project was a betrayal of the men and women we sent to fight there. So much for supporting the troops.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
You know, imperialism and ethnocentricism (as you see it) is a legitimate tool and strategy of the state. Call the Kurds and ask to speak to their gassed sister so you can ask about their request to be liberated (or invaded). PS – Clinton promised two supported coups to the Kurds and then backed out, so I don’t care who is in office…there are more rights and wrongs in this equation that the simplistic view you have chosen.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Prosecutorial scrutiny should be focused upon this administration by The Hague or ICC, since no U.S. courts will be willing to participate in any such undertaking. I wish Philippe Sands, et al, a fruitful bon voyage in their efforts. Shoe tossing is too light weight of an expression to deal with such potential ‘alleged’ crimes against humanity. Something a little more industrial strength and existential needs to be administered.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Dan Kervick: i bow down to no one in my contempt for the average person… but i have to say you’re being a little pessimistic. The vast majority of Americans in fact oppose the iraq war, think it was a terrible idea, and want us to leave. they also support the troops, so as an empirical matter the two things are easily consonant.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Hungary 1956? I think they asked.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
You know, I have nothing against the men and women who serve, and in some cases I admire and respect them. My brother served in the Navy, in military operations.
But in contrast to the stand-up, heroic image that the military like to imagine, I again and again find them to be sensitive flowers who wilt in the slightest criticism. Case in point was the local veterans committee. Turned out we had a medal of honor winner from town who had never been given a proper recognition, because it was in the Vietnam War. The man threw himself on a grenade to save his buddies. I know I couldn’t do it, and I know I had no reason to object to doing something in his name. The problem was that the veterans committee decided in advance that the only proper way to honor him was renaming courthouse park downtown. Then they went to the city council to ask for this. Well, first of all, courthouse park belongs to the county. Second of all, the man played no particular role in the city’s history. It was a nice idea but a non-starter and if they had merely made discreet inquiries beforehand they would have known this. Instead they played up a snit fit about the city not honoring veterans’ sacrifices and wrote passive-aggressive letters to the editor. It was embarrassing. What happened in the end was that a bridge was named after him. But I was disappointed in the way the veterans acted like crybabies with chips on their shoulders instead of constructive citizens. They didn’t want to start a conversation about honoring him, they made a unilateral and impossible-to-fulfill decision that only one way of honoring him was appropriate and if the city didn’t do it, that proved all that they had imagined about how the city viewed all veterans.
Another incident years ago took place in college. It was actually a community-college class, not the liberal arts ivory tower I later attended. The Vietnam War was discussed. I happened to be the only person to state such an opinion, which was basically a pragmatic one that while there may have been value in opposing Communism, the war was conducted in a horrific way and we lost accordingly, and would have been smarter not to get so involved and so in the way of history. Well, some guy came up to me afterward shaking and sobbing that I shouldn’t have said that, because his brother died there. I’m not sure what his point really was, I apologized for upsetting him, but I still thought the war was a colossally bad idea. I guess I was lucky his friends were there because he nearly took a crack at my head.
This article was pretty much the same crap. The Times said nothing about US or UK veterans, nothing at all. There was no insult, unless republishing an insult intended as such — something newspapers do all the time — amounts to actually endorsing the insult. Of course it doesn’t, except to someone with a chip on their shoulder. COIN experts, shrinking violets — who’d a thunk it?
December 16th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
“A chorus of fools and cowards”: well put, Matt. My question is: which one were you back in 2003, a fool or a coward?
I suppose I could pose the same question to the rest of the so-called “progressive blogosphere”: Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum, etc., etc., etc.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
A dangerous trend in American culture is sentimentality towards those who serve in the armed services? What a bunch of cr_p. While it is certainly not unpatriotic or disloyal to question the actions of our government or to insist that those who act in our name do so in a manner befitting the Republic’s better angels, much of what passes for analysis from the left certainly flirts with being both. When every action by the government is “criminal” or “illegitimate”, one shouldn’t waste time investigating those in power, but one can and should question the good will and intentions of those doing the criticizing.
We should take a lesson from the downfall of the Roman Republic – when participants continually criminalize political conduct, or characterize political opponents’ actions in the darkest possible light, it inevitably leads to a deterioration of the polity into a cycle of actions forever raising the stakes until the republic disappears. The writer feels aggrieved that his lack of support for the war might be interpreted by some as unpatriotic (it’s not), but blithely characterizes those who disagree with him as “a chorus of fools and cowards” in support of “a criminal enterprise”.
Essentially the attitude boils down to “How dare you question my goodness, but everything you do is foolish or evil.”
Come on, guys, let’s rachet down the rhetoric. We can disagree without shouting at each other. That someone disagrees with us does not make that person evil or render his/her opinion illegitimate. Flaming like this just gets everybody PO’ed and makes it harder to resolve differences (it also makes you look irresponsible and like someone who doesn’t have to be taken seriously).
December 16th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Yes, there are a bunch of people who thought it might be a good idea. They were wrong. All of those mentioned by Mike J have repudiated their stance. Unlike some here, I think Matt meant his comment as a bit of self-mockery; I could be wrong.
One hopes that MY, KD, and JM have all learned something important from this – imperialism is not the answer to bad acts.
In any case it is only the dead Enders who still think there was any justification for creating mass Iraqi death. The situation may be complicated but none of those complications justify Bush’s actions.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Errrr, Ummmmm, (psssssst) maybe some news or information that, well, I guess people just have forgot, or were never aware of. Desert/Shield-Storm really never ended– what I mean by that is, the authorization from the UN over Iraq never expired, and as such, we had a few 10 thousand troops still left over there to conduct missions such as Operation Northern/Southern watch, you know… like combat missions such as Desert Fox and Desert Scorpian… see, we never LEFT the war in Iraq in the first place, we had troops over there 10 years after the first Gulf War ‘ended’ still conducting combat operations. So, during the time that the Iraqi people didnt ask to be liberated: four US embassies were bombed, Two US warships were attacked- (not just the USS Cole, but also the USS Princeton), Kohber Towers, and the World Trade Center Towers,(or have you’all forgot the second attack was the one that brought them down) and the Pentagon. All this during the clinton administration, and the first 9 months of Bush– who is really at fault we invaded Iraq. The president that left troops thier for 10 years, the same president that had absolutely no response to the bombing of the USS Cole– or the president that said enough is enough. for those nay sayers out there– you had better believe that Iraq (and even more so Iran) was indeed a world player in terrorism– who do you think supported the Islamic Courts in somaillia? Or, have you all forgot that Clintons response to the Cole was to fire two cruise missiles into the Sudan… the Sudan? Why the Sudan? Hey, i ll leave that answer to those that want to take the iniative to research the truth to real world affairs.. the rest of you can believe what ever the media feeds you.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Kurt, you are welcome to demonstrate that there was sufficient justification for the wholesale slaughter of innocent Iraqis. Sorry if the phrasing offends, but those dead people? Most of them were innocent of any bad acts. Think they aren’t the responsibility of the Americans? Sorry, wrong there too. Without the invasion those people would have been alive. Sure in many, maybe even most, cases the proximate cause was a countryman but do you imagine that the upswing in Iraqi on Iraqi violence and the American assault on the people of Iraq are merely coincidental?
The problem with your argument, Kurt, is that you bring only the whining of the oppressed brutalizers. “Sure, the assault on Iraq was without justification, sure it caused untold suffering, sure it cost trillions of dollars, but why pick on us poor Republicans for having inflicted this on those people?”
We pick on you because it is the smallest fucking thing that can be done. We pick on you because, unlike you, we don’t believe that the right solution is mass murder.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
travelingtrav – yes, yes, that’s right. We have always been at war with Eurasia. And besides, it’s the fault of Goldstein.
Try harder moron. Your propaganda has more than a hint of week old fish.
By the way, Kurt, travelingtrav is a perfect example of why we need to keep reminding people that this was an unprovoked war of aggression.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
We are hated, DESPISED even, by the people not only of Iraq but the rest of the world, especially the Arab world because of our invasion of Iraq. Bush was lucky he had only a pair of shoes thrown at him. He could have been firebombed or gunned down. I traveled through Southeast Asia last summer and was surprised at how other people reacted to me as an American. They are calling us the “Ugly Americans”, “imperialist dogs”, etc. A lot of Americans don’t really care what others think about us. Perhaps, we should start caring now.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
guys, Very Serious Person Kurt has just deployed to the thread to explain to all of us DFH exactly how a Very Serious Person should act: accuse the left of being unpatriotic and disloyal while pushing the corpses of millions of dead iraqis under the table because to bring them up would be “ratcheting up the rhetoric.” thank you for your wisdom, Very Serious Person Kurt.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
the US has always been reviled around the world and by the homegrown left wing. It was thus back in the “good old days” before Reagan and it is still true today. Of course to know that your knowledge of history has to encompass more than hating the current boogieman, the neocons. boo! there are republicans under you bed!
When you lock up Bush make sure you lock up every left wing politician who voted to go to war.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Yeah, y’all are right. We should have left Iraq to Saddam. After all, who cares if he drops his citizens into acid vats? Who cares if Iraqi Olympic athletes get torn apart by dogs because they didn’t place high enough in the competitions? Who cares if young Iraqi girls are taken, raped and then killed by Saddam’s animal sons? NOT OUR PROBLEM!!!
As far as all the folks around the world who cry “Imperialist Americans” and “American Dogs” and who dance, shout and fire small arms into the air whenever tragedy strikes us, I think we should just pull back all our foreign aid and spend it here, where people are suffering too!
December 16th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
So . . .
December 16th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I wonder what the verdicts would be if Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, et al would be in trials for war crimes and incompetence, with juries of:
1. Shinseki, Gates, James Webb
2. Average grunts with friends blown up by IEDs
3. Iraqis of the various factions
4. Nattering nabobs of the chattering classes, both right and left
5. Senators
My guess is there would be guilty verdicts in at least 50 percent of the trials, although not on 50 percent of the counts.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
You see, because there were some unresolved issues from Gulf War 1, we simply had to massively damage our national interests by starting Gulf War 2 and Occupation 1. We clearly had no other choice.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
And yet another fucking moron, the pirate, joins the fray. It’s as if he thinks that enumerating bad acts by Saddam Hussein wipes out Abu Gharaib, Gitmo, and the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.
Did you not learn at your mother’s knee – two wrongs don’t make a right. The bad acts you mention, and they are bad acts, don’t warrant the slaughter of the Iraqi people. Hell, if Saddam Hussein had unleashed the kind of violence that George W. Bush had, I would be arguing for the invasion of Iraq.
What “the pirate” claims as justification for invading Iraq is a bunch of internal issues. Horrific to be sure, but not really what the AUMF was about (there was some lip service paid to such issues but read it again) – it was all about the WMDs. Why? Because an immanent threat warrants going to war – bad, even horrific governance short of genocide does not. “the pirate” cannot point to genocide in 2003. Only horrific governance. And in doing so he ignores the genocidal result of Bush’s unprovoked aggression.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Flyfish – grow up. There were a lot of bad decisions made in the run-up to Bush’s war. But make no mistake, Bush chose war. The cowardice of the Democrats made it easier. But without Bush’s decision there would have been no war.
December 16th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
“Flyfish – grow up. There were a lot of bad decisions made in the run-up to Bush’s war. But make no mistake, Bush chose war. The cowardice of the Democrats made it easier. But without Bush’s decision there would have been no war.”
Flyfish is just demonstrating the tendency of conservatives to hide behind others when it comes time to assign blame. We’ve all gotten used to Republicans hiding behind the troops for the last six (plus) years. Now the unscrupulous bastards are hiding behind… Democrats??? Truly, they stand for nothing these days. It’s like they WANT to make Reagan spin in his grave.
December 16th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I think they should have left Sadaam Hussein, Ouday, Qusay and Chemical Ali in there, and then they could have continued wholesale slaughter of the people over there.
December 16th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Well said. And it can’t be said too often or too clearly. Thanks.
December 16th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
EMC, ooh, idiot irony.
Saddam Hussein doesn’t torture Iraqis anymore, that’s a job for Americans.
Is there any conservative who isn’t a total fucking moron? Is there not a single one who can come up with a coherent argument that Iraq was a threat to our national security?
Wait, that would be impossible for someone with intelligence, asking that of Republicans is like asking a chimp to explain eigenvectors.
December 16th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Hey EMC, what was the violent death rate under Saddam Hussein circa 2003? How does it compare to post Hussein Iraq?
Your humanitarianism would be touching if it existed outside rationalizing the brutal mass slaughter of Iraqis caused by George W. Bush.
December 16th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
“I think they should have left Sadaam Hussein, Ouday, Qusay and Chemical Ali in there, and then they could have continued wholesale slaughter of the people over there.”
Nobody is fooled that the Republicans wanted to go into Iraq to liberate the population: not the Iraqis, not Americans, not anyone anymore. Spreading democracy and freedom quickly became the GOP #1 rationale after all the WMD fearmongering didn’t pay off, but it did not start out that way.
This is why disasters in Zimbabwe and Sudan don’t rile conservatives. They don’t give a shit about getting rid of monstrous leaders, even when it might not be that hard to do. They only pretend to give a damn about Iraqis (who don’t want the US in their country) because they are compelled to defend Bush’s war.
December 16th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
“Not only did Iraqis not ask for such services, but nobody anywhere has ever asked for them. ”
What about the Ionian Revolt? What about the Spaniards during the Napoleonic Wars? What about the Dutch during the dutch revolt? What about the protestants during the 30 Years War?
And on and on and on and on.
Plenty of people throughout history have asked for, and received this kind of help. If you are ignorant of history you should keep statements like that quoted above to a minimum.
December 16th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Spray all the muslims with pigs blood and walk away
December 16th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Generally good. But one thing.
“past eight years of the US foreign policy”? It’s more like past eighty years.
Remember the Osama something guy? What pissed him off was a result of the pre-44th president BS that also was called the US foreign policy.
December 16th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
IN ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS we have a saying . . .”YOU
CAN TELL AN ALCOHOLIC . . . BUT YOU CAN’T TELL HIM MUCH”.
And then you have the uncured type (GWB) . . . they go down swinging that there is nothing wrong them, it’s everybody else who’s fucked up.
CLEARLY, the shoes went over stupid little boy George’s head,
IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE.
December 16th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Renato, Please refrain from insulting the 101st Airborne and 82nd Airborne Divisions. What you posted in post #22 is very disrespectful to those fine units.
Those two units, and the rest of the U.S. Military provide freedom and support of countless nations around the world (both allied and non-allied)
Regardless of your political views–Anti-Military/Anti Bush/Anti-Goverment, please understand that some servicemen/women ARE fighting to bring freedom (or at least stability) to countries around the world.
One of the reasons I have served 20+ years in the military is because of this. (It certainly wasn’t for pay/food/living conditions).
Finally, I don’t care what your political views are, but will risk my life to defend them (regardless of what allied nation you are from)–would you do the same for me? If the answer is no, then don’t disrespect us.
Regards,
Supply SGT
B 1-320 FA, 101st Airborne DIV
Fort Campbell KY
December 16th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
101st Div Eagles: I think you may have misunderstood’s r€nato’s humor.
By using the phrasing of 101st Chairborne or 82nd Fighting Keyboardists, he’s not referring to the actual military units such as the 101st or 82nd.
It’s an often-used joke to refer to loud-mouth war hawks who not only are not, but frankly never would serve in the military.
It refers to people who make all sorts of macho arguments on the internet about how other people who are actually in the military should or should be sent to do this or that.
Say, someone who would never actually sign up to serve in the 82nd Airborne in real life, but has read a lot of books about the U.S. Civil War or really likes the “300″ comic books or various war-style video games. And this person writes about how ‘we’ have got to go and invade or punish or wipe out X or Y or Z, and how anyone who disagrees is a coward, unlike them who are brave enough to just be loudmouths.
I served in the military and thankfully it was boring, safe, and uneventful. That’s why you’ll never catch me penning screeds about some magnificent invasion I’ve got planned out in my head.
December 16th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
damn you guys are complicating something that is really simple.
The Iraq war is unconstitutional. Our foreign policys, are to blame for 911, they are to blame for the hatred of the United States, they are to blame for the violence, and our foreign policy is being used as a tool for recruitment.
FUCKING WAR ON TERROR IS A GODDAMN OXY-MORON.. if these criminals in the federal government would of done it right by the constitution they would of gotten our troops out of all these foreign countries a long time ago.. but nooooo. the banks have their vested interest in considerable losses.. and the mainstream media keeps all of us believing that right and left and black and white are all different.
The truth.. We are all freedom loving people.
I believe the constitution was a good start for a free people, sure it’s imperfect.. but it’s better then anything these establishment loving socialists can deal out at us.
Bring the troops home from all the countrys we are occupying, and end the fed.
Please.
December 16th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
I think an empire of sentimentality is a good name for this article.. it sure highlights all the sentamental people on here, and their emotional responces.. I choose to look at it more rationally though.
The forefathers didn’t want us to be involved in other nations foreign policy. It causes problems, and it makes things worse in relations with other countrys.
They encourage free trade, but they preached against nation building, and going around the world slaying dragons.
Their is a lot of bad in this world.. Just look at all the military dictatorships our government supports now.
Ultimatly it’s up to people to set a good example.. and to help each other out. That is so much better then government, which has proven time and time again to be incapable of doing anything productive, even know they have good intentions.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Americans’ ignorance and naivete about the rest of the world cannot be exaggerated.
And this sentence—”Americans love and respect the men and women who volunteer for military service under our flag”—makes me choke. What an absurdity, that I should love someone I don’t even know, or respect someone based on his or her career! Must I love and respect teachers, or nurses, or doctors, or firefighters for the same reason? Of course not: some of them are incompetent, unethical, cruel, and stupid. And personally, I have more than a few qualms about giving blanket endorsement to people who volunteer to kill for their government—oh, sorry—for their country. Why is that automatically admirable? What am I missing?
A criminal enterprise? I’m with you on that.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
“Spray all the muslims with pigs blood and walk away”
That’ll show’em! One more impotent act of rage and I think we’ll have this G*W*O*T thing licked.
December 17th, 2008 at 12:11 am
OK, Let’s have a look at FACTS.
First, indeed, Saddam’s regime always did assert some claim to Kuwait, but had affirmed Kuwait’s right of existance.
Then it invaded Kuwait, a sovereign nation, and a member of the United Nations.
In response, the UN Security Council adopted a series of resolutions, culminating the the authorization to “Member States” to use force to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
This was operation Desert Storm, and it succeeded.
A very important point is that the end of those hostilities was not due to a peace treaty, but was an Armistance. This was an agreement to SUSPEND active military operations, in exchange for Iraqi guarantees on several points, one of which was to all UN Observers free and unfettered access to any and all locations within Iraqi territory in order for them to confirm whether any WMD program or materials were still in place.
15 times, it became necessary for the United Nations Security Council to adopt Resolutions reminding Iraq of its obligations under the Armistance agreement. Saddam’s regime continually played games with the UN Observers, and prevented them from doing their jobs.
The Clinton Administration several times bombed sites in Iraq, primarily Air Defense locations, both because the locations violated the Agreement and the Resolutions, and to try to demonstrate to the Iraqi Regime that they must comply. Sanctions were put in place and those cut off things like powdered milk and medicine for infants and children.
Finally, the 16th time, the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution was adopted which authorized “any Member State” to use military force to ensure that the previous resolutions were adhered to.
Now….say what you will about poor planning for the aftermath, or the poor conduct of a small handful of our forces, but what led us into this war was in its Proximate Effective Cause, Mr. Hussein’s flouting of the Armistance Agreement (which was signed by his Foreign Minister) and of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions. The root cause was the invasion by Mr. Hussein of Kuwait.
He would not have been pursued in such a way if he had complied with the United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
How many times ought we to allow the UN to be ignored, if we want anyone to take it seriously?
Isn’t THAT the REAL lesson of the former Yugoslavia?
December 17th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Dear Matt,
I really like your foreign policy writing (the blog, not the book), and think this post is great. Every now and then, I notice that you and Atrios (and, of course, Billmon) have the empathy to understand the smug sanctimony that characterizes even much antiwar sentiment and that you are able, at least in some small way, to put yourself in the shoes of Iraqis looking at what has been done to their country. And, on occasion, when prompted by some noxious commentary from the other side of the spectrum, you write about it with great eloquence.
But, let’s be honest about the provenance of your conflicted prewar thoughts and about the prowar stances of so many who have since recanted. It’s not really a matter of 20/20 hindsight. I’ll grant that nobody could have predicted just how much of a mess the United States would make in Iraq.
And I don’t think you were a fool or a coward (although, as pointed out, most of the politicians you support now were both). The truth is, you just didn’t know what you were talking about. In your case, it’s excusable; you were a kid just out of college. In the case of most of the chorus you mentioned, not only is it not excusable, they share culpability for the crime that Iraq has become.
Which of you read the Amorim report (UN document S/1999/356)? Or even know what it is? It’s the final report of UNSCOM, which says, in a nutshell, that Iraq’s nuclear program was wrecked, there were only marginal discrepancies in accounting for chemical weapons, and that there were significant gaps to closed on biological weapons (for the simple reason that biological agents that could in theory kill millions — except for lack of delivery systems — can be hidden in someone’s freezer). Or thought about the fact that a case built on claims about buying unenriched yellowcake uranium when Iraq already had plenty of unenriched uranium, on balsa-wood gliders that might attack the United States, or on the fact that uranium was sought from “Africa” (complete certainty about the attempts to purchase, with complete lack of clarity about what country?) showed not only that the administration’s case was nonsense but also that it was built on some combination of deceit and psychosis?
How many of you knew about the impact of the sanctions, including not only hundreds of thousands of deaths, widespread malnutrition, lack of access to medicine, but collapse of most social structures? Except, of course, for the mosques and their social networks.
How many knew that the Iraqi armed forces had collapsed to the point that Iraq really couldn’t threaten any neighbor except Kuwait? Or just logically thought through the argument that, if Saddam had any intention to attack anyone (which, I believe it’s clear, he didn’t by that point), the worst thing to do would be to broadcast that fact for an entire year during which time he could have allocated billions of dollars to anyone he wished?
How many looked at the fact that Saddam’s two bloodiest campaigns, the Anfal in 1987-88, and the suppression of the uprising in 1991, came with the full support of the United States? Or that his worst act of international aggression, the invasion of Iran, also came with U.S. backing? Or that the Anfal grew out of a scorched-earth military campaign? Or, in general, that the best chance of having Saddam do something that would involve killing lots of people was to invade? Indeed, before the invasion, Saddam’s regime, though brutally repressive, was probably just killing a few thousand people a year, small change for Saddam or for the U.S. in Iraq, for that matter.
How many thought honestly about who was supposedly saving the Iraqis from Saddam? You didn’t have to be an expert on U.S. foreign policy; you could have just thought about Vietnam. The mismatch between highflying rhetoric and sordid reality was no greater or less in Vietnam than in Iraq; talk about democracy was still, to use Harry Frankfurt’s term, bullshit. Nothing done in either case had any discernible connection to any real commitment to helping anyone. In both cases, the “real reason” for the war was hopelessly lost in the mire long before the end, but that doesn’t preclude one from evaluating them both as criminal enterprises (nor were Kennedy’s and Johnson’s “best and brightest” less crazy than Rumsfeld and Cheney, frankly).
How many of you thought about the food-rationing program Saddam set up during the sanctions to avert mass starvation, praised by UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq as “second to none,” and how it would be jeopardized by the standard neoliberal “anti-government” predilections of the war planners? In fact, the program has been dismantled so slowly and incrementally only because the rise of the insurgency made feeding the population a necessary part of pacification (the same is true for every move toward “kinder, gentler” operations in Iraq). This is the kind of program the United States would never implement in such a situation, since it so directly violates the primary political tenets of this culture, but if it was dismantled, more Iraqis would have died of malnutrition than were being killed in Saddam’s prisons in the last years before the war.
In fact, an honest evaluation of the role of the United States in the Third World would reduce the case for the war to this: Saddam doesn’t really pose a threat, the United States has no plan to improve the lot of Iraqis and doesn’t really care one way or the other anyway, but militaristic U.S. aims will just, through pure happenstance, end up helping Iraqis.
It was a possibility, though not a very likely one. And, I admit, I thought hard about this possibility before coming out vocally against the war. And I’m not even saying that reading the available evidence (everything I’ve mentioned was based on publicly available sources, most of them accessible online)and seriously thinking through the question would have made every prowar person into an antiwar one. I’m just saying that, for someone in a position of responsibility, to proclaim their views publicly without doing this background research was unconscionable — and those who did it should not be allowed to forget it.
December 17th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Wow what a bunch of haters.
December 17th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Of course for years DFHs have been advocating exactly that, and we get called traitors and Saddam-lovers for our trouble.
Wingnut logic: Iraqis should have risen up and defeated Saddam, and so should be fucking grateful, and if you argue otherwise, SHUT UP YOU TRAITOR!
December 17th, 2008 at 12:49 am
He would not have been pursued in such a way if he had complied with the United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
How many times ought we to allow the UN to be ignored, if we want anyone to take it seriously?
Your irony is desiccated. Either that, or you’re delusional.
December 17th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Matthew
I’ll bet you’ve never been to “the Arab world”. I’ll bet you’ve never seen the harsh repression of “liberal” thought in the Arab world. I’ll bet you’ve never sat at a meal with a sheik and had him tell you he hoped the US would fail in Irag simply because he couldn’t perceive of himself ever being anything other than a rich sheik with 50 wives and answerable only to “allah”. I’ll bet you’ve never been to a mass grave site in Iraq with evidence of Saddam Hussein’s years of brutality. Nope, never been. Sitting in your little cubby hole pontificating from a slanted perspective you hold as “truth”. So sad – a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
December 17th, 2008 at 9:44 am
I’ll bet you’ve never sat at a meal with a sheik and had him tell you he hoped the US would fail in Irag simply because he couldn’t perceive of himself ever being anything other than a rich sheik with 50 wives and answerable only to “allah”.
Actually, I can’t say that I have. I’m just wondering why the US has been supporting doods like him for the past 60+ years.
Hm?
December 17th, 2008 at 11:13 am
What Rahul Mahajan says was simply not the US government’s justification for the invasion of Iraq. That is because the US people would never had authorized the invasion on such a flimsy pretext. So all his many paragraphs are, quite simply, irrelevant.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Sorry, my last post was a response to Only The Facts Ma’am — scrolling back I picked up the wrong author to the wrong long post.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Peter K., one of your comments shows appalling ignorance.
“Had this guy thrown a shoe at Saddam he would have been taken out back and shot.”
I can’t figure out which is less likely – that having determined to shoot him they would have bothered to take him out back first, or that they would have given him as quick of a death as a gunshot.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Oh come off it Matt, is this the first time Bush, Bush apologists, Neocons, simplistic nationalists and the whole right wing noise machine has conflated the service and sacrifices of our service people with a lousy and self interested political decision by the right. That’s how these people operate. It has nothing to do with reality or even the real national interest, it’s all about furthering a political agenda. I wouldn’t spend too much time worrying about whether it will gain any traction. It won’t. Bush and the far right are totally discredited outside of the roughly 30% of the electorate that still thinks Bush is doing a good job and represents the hardcore base of the GOP. I’ve no doubt that in April 1945 you could probably find a similar percentage of Germans who thought the Fuehrer had done a heckuva job.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:36 am
G-man Says:
December 17th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Why don’t you tell all this to the roughly 300,000 Iraqis who have been killed and maimed over the past five years, not to mention the additional 3 million displaced.
And I btw have been to Iraq and the middle east many times. Americans have many good qualities but putting themselves in the shoes of others doesn’t rate high amongst them.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:55 am
I’ll bet you’ve never been to “the Arab world”.
Double or nothing you haven’t either. Almost certainly not service; even the most isolated POG knows better than that.
As for “the progressive blogosphere” all supporting the Iraq War? Not all of us, Mike, not all of us.
The mistake (or at least, my mistake) wasn’t assuming this would go belly-up, it was in assuming that it would spark “preventative strikes” elsewhere. That hasn’t really happened, thanks to Iraq being such a disaster.
The best side effect of all this might be the thorough repudiation of that doctrine. Even if Dan is right and America rewrites its memory to turn this into a “victory”, it’s still going to be the kind of victory that does not bear repeating.
December 17th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
First of all, the vast majority of those tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians (as well as all of the American soldiers KIA) were actually killed by Islamic terrorists – you know, the ones who plant truck bombs in crowded marketplaces. I suppose they are not morally responsible for their actions since they are Arabs and other dark skinned races, who according to Yglesias, have insect brains and can only react to stimuli while lacking the intellectual capacity to hedge their passions with reason. Its like a dog pissing on your carpet. Its your fault; you must have done something wrong because it is just a dog.
Second, of the Iraqis who have been killed by American bullets and bombs fired by our troops, someone is pulling the triggers and launching the missiles, and it ain’t president Bush. Are American troops volunteer hatchet men for the Bush-Cheney regime? Most Iraq war veterans are career personel, re-enlisters or signed up after the Iraq war started. Should we hold them responsible for their actions, since this war is supposedly a crime against humanity, and our troops were following orders like the Nazi guards at Auschwitz (remember Nuremburg)?
No, I guess not, because again according to Yglesias, our soldiers are just children who were “sent to war” by their redneck and ghetto parents who are too economically dispossessed to find other more socially meaningful jobs for their kids. Soldiers aren’t brave men and women who stand up to fight for their country, they are victims of predation by our fascist military recruiters (who themselves are mostly veterans, as well). Lets hold them in our prayers as we “support the troops.”
December 17th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
The war’s over. Your side lost. America and the Iraqi people won. Even Obama admits it.
Bitter? Sorry to hear that. Be a man and deal with it.
December 17th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Gee Matt. You and most of your commenters here are stunningly incorrect. An inability to recognize reality is usually identified with mental disease. Yours, and your commenters’ cases here, are no exception.
I believe it is clinically called BDS. Too bad there is no cure for it. Don’t bother trying to see reason. You have none.
I won’t try to argue with the pigs here. You’ve all made up your own minds that Iraq was illegal, a war crime, a failed enterprise run by criminals for oil and profit. The fact that you have no evidence of any of that doesn’t deter you from being foul mouthed, unhinged moonbats. So enjoy your padded cells next year. You are in for one wild ride.
Subsunk
December 17th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Demosthenes
Pay up. Spent 3 years trapsing about them there parts. Courtesy of US taxpayer in one form or another. Let’s see – Iraq, iran, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi, yemen, UAE, Pakistan, Lebanon, and even got a side trip to Syria – unintentionally of course.
And to Sufferin – we don’t necessarily “support” as tolerate, as sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. See Iraq. In hindsight I’m sure we’d all agree that life with Saddam was better – for us – than life without. Of course, roll back to 1939-1941 and life in the good ole US was better with Hitler touring Europe than the cost to see if without.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:32 am
Hey, hope this comment comes through I’m still somewhat new to this whole blogging thing.
good post! I stumbled on your blog while
looking for other people’s weight loss stories. I’ve actually just started blogging about
my weight loss calculator – I lost over 30 pounds in a month
with a diet I developed!
I would love it if you could visit my weight loss blog and let me know what you think.
Warmest wishes,
-Joan
December 18th, 2008 at 10:12 am
And to Sufferin – we don’t necessarily “support” as tolerate, as sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
The US has done a good deal more than just “tolerate” the Saudi royal family and the Persian Gulf sheikhs over the past few decades. And why were they considered worth supporting in the first place?
December 18th, 2008 at 11:25 am
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2008/12/matthew-yglesias-on-iraq-war.html
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/12/lets-get-something-straight-th/
December 21st, 2008 at 12:47 pm
The conflict has killed roughly one million Iraqis, seriously wounded countless more, made some two million Iraqis homeless, and destroyed the country’s schools, hospitals, and infrastructure.
December 23rd, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Hi, thanks for sharing that post. I have just found your site and have already subscribed. By the way I’ve been writing a blog about my own weight loss and
weight loss diet food
I would really apprectiate it if you could take a look at my blog and let me know what you think about it.
Thanks,
Joan
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Hi, thanks for writing that post. I have just come across your site and You have a new subscriber(me). By the way I’ve been writing a blog about my own weight loss and
weight loss diet plan
I would really apprectiate it if you could check out my site and let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Joan
December 31st, 2008 at 8:29 am
Matt,
I do agree with most of your post; however, how could have the Iraq people asked for anything under the tyranny of Sadam? Because of the war, they can’t be worse off than before.
God bless and have a good new years!
January 17th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Why would I come late to the thread after spammers were the only people left ? Call me Quixotic.
Much as I snickered at the quotes from “The Mouse That Roared” and the audacity of Grand Fenwick attacking America to gain Marshall Plan treatment for the Duchy – it’s quite a fairy tale and almost offensive compared to reality.
Post Saddam Iraq
That comment was the real poop. That’s the name of the war game that the Pentagon planners didn’t seem to know about when the shift occurred from taking out Saddam – an old CIA student fallen out of grace – to deliberately destroying Iraq’s government, police and army.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm
That’s the war game link : the basic building block for destroying governments in the oil bearing regions of the Middle East.
That doesn’t cover deliberate sabotage of Iraq ? Just a second
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=42948
January 20th, 2009 at 1:29 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:45 am
There’s nothing sentimental about Motorcycle batteries>”Motorcyle Batteries,
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:46 am
These will make you cry with sentimentality: Replacement UPS Batteries
March 18th, 2009 at 6:26 am
Heyyy! GREAT POST!!
I have a question…
is there really FREE ringtones @
http://www.bluestickers.info/ringtones.php
Provided by http://www.RingtoneCarrier.com
is this true??
Thanks
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:59 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
March 24th, 2009 at 5:38 am
As one of the UK’s leading distributors of dry cell batteries, They offer the widest range of batteries from stock. Brands include Duracell, Sony, Panasonic, many others.
http://www.batterymasters.co.uk
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:01 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:03 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:02 am
I want to say – thank you for this! viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Very nice site! cheap viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://yieapxo.com/qoqaxa/4.html
April 14th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Very nice site!
April 15th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
The original UGG Boots
April 19th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
levitra online levitra online levitra online levitra online
levitra online
levitra online
levitra online
levitra online levitra online levitra online levitra online