Hope and Hackery
Yes, we at 2GL had a little slumber. And yes, much has happened while we were off doing other things. We've got a trunkfull of things to discuss, including the dark end of Hunter, a favorite writer of both Rudy and me, and the heartening events taking place in the Middle East. Let's start there.
The Middle East. I watched Jon Stewart last night and he voiced a feeling that I share, somewhat: a cognitive dissonance - we disagree with Bush's methodology in Iraq and his unpersuasive rationale for bombing the place, but are overjoyed with what appears to be a quickening climb toward democracy in the Middle East. Stewart and his guest, Nancy Soderbergh, joked about hoping that things didn't go too well over there because Bush would take all the credit for it, etc. I swear to God while I was watching it I thought "watch some right wing a$$holes try to take this seriously and turn it into some "liberals hate freedom" rant. Then, I swear, I thought... nah, no right wing a$$hole would so willingly twist an obvious bit of dark joking.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Sort of wrong (the last guy actually recognizes that it was gallows humor, but writes: "I think Soderbergh was being ironic, just joking around, just using the sort of black humor I enjoy myself on the occasion. But I think, too, she probably meant it.")
These folks don't actually think Democrats are hoping for less freedom or more deaths or more torture or less democracy, they just like to hear each other complain. In fact, they know that no mainstream liberal feels that way. How do we feel? Check out Sullivan's Email of the Day:
In short, what drives Democrats batty is the tendency to take partisan political credit for anything progressive, and to blame anything retrograde on political enemies (both foreign and domestic) who "just don't get it." . . .
And what really kills Democrats is the way that Bush not only takes credit for everything that is going well, and denies any responsibility for things that are going badly . . . it's that he then claims these false credit as the basis for "political capital" to spend on what Democrats feel are
retrograde domestic policies.The result is that the first reaction any Democrat has to good news in the Middle East (or anywhere else) is to think, "How can Bush be denied political credit for this, since you know he's going to claim it." And the important thing to emphasize is that it is Bush's own political habits that have created this dynamic, and it started right after 9-11.
Am I heartened by what appears to be an emboldened democratic movement in the Middle East? Absolutely. Do I think it's all a result of our invasion of Iraq? I truly do not know. I'll tell you what, though. If Bush had tried to sell his invasion with talk of spreading democracy in the Middle East rather than scaring the hell out of us with exaggerated nuclear boogeymen and trying to connect Iraq with 911, Americans would not have climbed onboard.
Why not?
posted by Abe at 3/02/2005 06:59:00 PM
4 Comments:
All "successes" must be viewed in light of reports like the CIA's recent one stating that the war in Iraq has increased the number of anti-American terrorists worldwide, with snapshots of Abu Ghraib and infidel occupation fueling the upswing. I think it's great, fantastic, peachy that the US brought democracy to a country that has experienced only despotism and oppression for so many years. But at what cost and will it continue?
Democracy before economic stability rarely works. It only breeds contempt for the new system undermining long-term prospects. Russia is one example. The initial fanfare is over as "President" Putin has under the radar rolled back many democratic ("small d") inspired freedoms.
What's more, how stable will the country be once US troops begin coming home? The borders of Iraq were artificially formed and carved out of the old Ottoman Empire. After that fell, the territory then came under British rule, before Iraq gained full independence from Britain in 1932.
Due to this make up, its composed of historically warring factions of Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, as well as others. Many believe that the only reason Iraq did break out in Bosnian-type civil war sooner in history was Saddam's dictatorship. Like the break up of Yugoslavia after Tito, Saddam's departure may only spell future strife.
So who's to say we won't have another Fall of Saigan on our hands if and when US troops begin to pull out?
My advice is wait and see.
Ha. According to our friend T'OD, everyone must now either "embrace or reject" Bush's "forward strategy of freedom." Err... you mean Bush's revisionist version of why we invaded a country? I think you mean "backward strategy."
Or perhaps you have actually convinced yourself that we invaded Iraq as part of some vaguely defined "forward strategy of freedom" and not because the Bush Administration scared the shit out of everyday Americans. If so, you're delusional.
So sure, I don't know if Lebanese upswell against Syria has more to do with the presumably Syrian-approved assassination of a former Lebanese leader or if it is wholly the result of the war in Iraq. How could I know? T'OD knows, though. You bet he does.
Finally, easy on the anger, pipes. I sure as hell didn't snipe about the Iraqi elections and I'm not sniping about the seeming progress in Iraq. On the other hand, what's up with your sarcastic sniping that I "profess" to be "oh so overjoyed" at apparent blossoms of democracy?
Come on, T'OD. Collect yourself. Get out of the wingnut echo chamber where those kind of ridiculous accusations are acceptable.
Yeah, Soup. Google's a bitch.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
Hell, just drop in "Iraq" and "mushroom cloud" and have yourself a ball.
I believe I heard Soderbergh also say something to the effet of -We still have a chance for things to go our way in Iran and North Korea. Must some of you root FOR failure of our foreign policy? Success abroad is bad for Democrats while failure serves them well? Run for election on that one!
Post a Comment
<< Home