« Get Us An Easier Test! | Main | Yo-Yo Girl Cop » Courage09 Jul 2007 08:23 am "The soldiers think they can win," reads Bill Kristol's subhead in The Weekly Standard while "some Senators lose their nerve." This conflation of the actual physical courage exhibited by soldiers risking their lives in a war with the alleged courage demonstrated by pro-war pundits and politicians in advocating that the lives of others be risked is surely the most annoying tick of America's War Party. War is hard. Favoring war is easy. The distinction isn't difficult to grasp. Comments (42)
"Sir, I'd whip you on the steps of your club ... if you had a club." I believe that's the cliché we want. Or else the one about horsewhipping them if I had a horse. Either way, something definitely 19th century. 
Something that also needs to be mentioned is one of priorities. For the soldiers in Iraq, winning (whatever that's supposed to mean while the Iraqi parliament takes the summer off) is an immediate concern that pretty much goes hand in hand with staying alive. Back home, the population as a whole has a greater range of priorities, ranging from figuring out what to do about Iran, what our response to Darfur should be, combating HIV/AIDS, beefing up our first responsers' capabilities, inspecting our ports, the trade deficit, how to handle illegal immigration, how to reduce the deficit, how to handle global warming, how to get back on track in Afghanistan, the overall health of the economy, etc. Spending millions a day on the Iraq War does not solve any of these things and likely makes it harder because we can't get that money back. At the same time, we just look weak that we cannot beat an insurgency while our military reaches the breaking point, which the guys at the Pentagon have been warning is coming closer. We have no real allies we are fighting for anymore in Iraq. Who are our allies? The Iraqi government, which is full of Shi'ite parties that don't want reconciliation with the Sunnis, some of whom are connected to al-Sadr? The very Iraqi government that can't control its own country and refuses to cut the necessary political deals?
Yup, if Kristol was a real man, he would enlist in the US Army.
"Sir, I'd whip you on the steps of your club ... if you had a club." How about... the Hair Club for Men?
Actually, Kristol's first-born is in ROTC at Harvard (or was; he may have just graduated) and will likely be deployed as a Marine before this is over. Some will find that admirable, but it puts me in mind of: God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
"Sir, I'd whip you on the steps of your club ... if you had a club." How about... the Hair Club for Men? Someone should whip Grover Norquist on the steps of the Club for Growth.
The NeoCon cheerleaders are just setting the stage of blame for when we leave Iraq. "We would have won, if the cowardly American media and politicians had the will to win!" Der Dolchstosslegende has begun.
"Favoring war" is certainly easier than fighting a war, but it's not as easy as being "anti-war". Imagine how your social life would suffer, Matt, if you were still in favor of the Iraq War. Isn't it easier to hang with the cool kids now that you've recanted?
I'm with Reality Man... of course soldiers need to believe in what they're doing, that they're going to 'win,' because for them, objectivity & questioning are dangerous when their lives are at stake on a moment-to-moment basis. If 'supporting the troops' means validating everything they (not that they're actually monolithic, of course) supposedly believe, then we effectively have no accountability. There was a time, you know, when soldiers & veterans were more honest about this inherent division; my grandfather, an FDR-hating Republican and WWII vet, was always very clear that the military's immediate interests & priorities were not (and could not be) the same as the civilian population's, and that's the way it should be. Even in his later-in-life contempt for all liberals, he still managed to remember that the brass & politicians weren't doing soldiers any favors either most of the time.
penalcolony, that's an interesting biographical detail about Kristol. It reflects well on the family. But his son's sacrifice is not his own. And there are no guarantees, but the younger Kristol is likely to wind up with a somewhat better-informed, different view of how to use the military than Bloody Bill, who wants to use it now, everywhere. When Bush became president instead of Gore, I thought the silver lining was that the GOP, regarded as being more friendly to the military, would address the problems in force structure that were so apparent in the Clinton presidency. I thought they'd get a bunch of experts together and prevent anyone from tapping the Guard and Reserves the way that we did in the 1990s. In retrospect, I was naive about what actually interested the people running the GOP.
In retrospect, I was naive about what actually interested the people running the GOP. 'ja think?
All of the mainstream news outlets are using "fatigue" to describe the waning support for the war. Not so subtly suggesting that it's a loss of will rather than a rational decision.
Another silly-ass poofter on the "cowardice" of those who support their fellow citizens who are at war. Thank God, your types weren't generaly permitted at the Front in earlier wars in our history.
When Bush became president instead of Gore, I thought the silver lining was that the GOP, regarded as being more friendly to the military, would address the problems in force structure that were so apparent in the Clinton presidency. Heh - I believed the myth that the Republicans were more friendly to the military for a long time too. And the myth that they were more friendly to business. Took me a while to figure out that the Republicans are more friendly to military contractors and more friendly to BIG businesses than Dems, but Dems are more friendly to military servicemen and to small businesses. Dems don't get the credit they deserve in these areas, nor to Republicans get the scorn they deserve, and haven't in my entire lifetime of watching politics.
So when do any of you suppose we'll be reading columns and hearing interviews from the Kristols and Kagans of the world asking for shared sacrifice, the rollback of unprecedented tax cuts for the wealthy in time of way, and of course, for the College Republicans to sign up and fight in this, The Most Glorious Of Battles, you know, since the last one anyway. Yeah right. I'm not holding my breath either. Each of these guys ought to be stripped of citizenship and exhiled to Baghdad so they can see just how f*cking wrong they were about EVERYTHING. Then - and likely only then - will we hear the truth from these propaganists.
Sorry, should read "time of war"...my apologies.
Steve Duncan, you from PA?
Thank God, your types weren't generaly[sic] permitted at the Front in earlier wars in our history. And Thank God your types weren't running them, else we would have responded to Pearl Harbor by attacking Madagascar.
Men's Hair Club for Growth It's one of those astroturf PACs. Norquist and Kristol are founding members.
Surely the most annoying tick of America's Peace Party is complaining about how America's War Party thinks that "advocating that the lives of others be risked" is courageous. If your grandmother thinks that the Iraq War is groovy, I'll certainly think she's an idiot, but in a democracy she's entitled to her opinion even if her body isn't on the line. Admittedly all the chest puffing and ersatz gravitas is odious, but it's a side effect of AWP's belief that the proper goal of foreign policy is to kill hundreds of thousands of furriners in pursuit of catharsis or (as in the case of William Kristol) partisan advantage. There are MUCH core annoy ticks of America's War Party!
the most annoying tick ...is not knowing the word tic.
Andy: the problem is not so much that people like Kristol support the war. OF COURSE it is possible to support a war without being a member of the military. The problem is that people like Kristol think they have some sort of innate courage and steely strength of will by supporting the war. They think they are brave, serious, manly men by writing columns and telling the President to send more soldiers into the meat grinder. I don't really have a problem if someone supports the war and doesn't fight. Well, I guess I do for this war because we have so obviously been short on troops for so long. Ignoring that, though, when they start talking about how war opponents lack "strength of will" and are "spineless", as they inevitably do, I shake my head.
funny how people talk a lot about how much the military suffered under Clinton. i've just got to wonder what the hell these people are talking about. the major post-cold war cuts in the military were proposed, explained, justified and implemented by George Bush Sr. as a response to the lack of an enemy superpower. its insane that anyone would describe Clinton's treatment of the military as poor in comparison to that of Bush who sent our military into a hornets nest without the proper numbers, equipment, mission...and all based entirely on lies. Bill Clinton is a military genius compared to George Bush. our military was, contrary to conservative CW, in great shape when Clinton handed it over to Bush. can people at least try to be specific in their criticisms? what exactly was the 'harm' that Clinton did to the military? conservatives just say that as if its a given. it isn't, it just means conservatives hate Bill Clinton and aren't above exploiting the military to justify that hate.
penalcolony, A more apropos verse of Highway 61 might be (from memory): The cloak and gambler he was very bored
What these warmongers fail to realize is that soldiers are trained to follow orders and will follow a failed policy right off the cliff if you ask them to. If we fail in Iraq, it's not because our troops underperformed, it's because our civilian leadership listened to idiots like Bill Kristol. It's a failure of policy and we should hold the people who advocated for this in contempt. We should not have to listen to their whinny little voices on the TV every Sunday morning.
onceler-- I was referring specifically to the calling up of the Guard and Reserves. Lots of the things we were doing in ex-Yugoslavia required skills that people in the Reserves had more than active duty people. I thought it wasn't sound policy, or fair to the Guard and Reserves and their families, to count on them to be sent to Yugoslavia repeatedly, instead of fixing things up so that the active duty military was able to handle more stuff on its own. I wasn't arguing that any cut in the defense budget is a self-evidently evil liberal plot. You are right that conservatives (1) exaggerated the degree of the problems that occurred in the Clinton years and (2) never cared about the careers and families of people in the Reserves except as props-- just like they did the Kurds gassed by Saddam.
Oh! that's who he is!! I thought he was the other kguy with the same name, the funny guy who is a film actor. Dear Elvis: I am a left and I cared about the Reserves and my son, a former marine got a bad back that kept him out of the first Gulf War..stop pissing on my people. And for the Kurds, gassed, what will you do about Iran human rights, Lebanon, China, Darfur et al?
Also, I thought that the viewpoint formerly called the Powell Doctrine-- let's not attack places unless we have a detailed top-to-bottom/beginning-to-end plan-- sometimes got short shrift under Clinton. The Powell Doctrine tended to be associated with anti-intervention arguments in places like Yugoslavia, which I think time has shown to have been extremely successful and beneficial. But while it wasn't worth rigid adherence, it was always, always worth engaging. The problems I was concerned about, of course, were all multiplied a thousandfold under Bush.
Oh, geez, fred lapides, I didn't mean to piss on your people. I was talking to onceler, who, appropriately, wanted those of us who'd criticized Clinton on this thread, to show their work. He had in mind the oft-heard right-wing viewpoint that I expressed in caricature-- that any reduction in the defense budget anywhere at any time through history was an liberal elitist America-hating plot. It's not clear to me that you and I disagree on anything.
Bill Kristol needs to be parachuted into Fallujah. Let's see how many Iraqis greet the war architect with flowers and chocolates.
It takes no courage to support a war in a country where the elites have all joined together to demogogue the rest of the country and the Congress into supporting that war. What takes courage is opposing such a war. I will give Bush some credit though. It takes a helluva lot of courage for a theist like Bush, who believes in Hell, to wage an aggressive war based on a hoax. To be willing to commit war crimes and to torture people and to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands, all the while believing that you will face a judgment day that could send you to a permanent fiery Gitmo in Hell? Now, THAT takes courage....or stupidity.
"just like they did the Kurds gassed by Saddam." The right only cared about the gassed Kurds in retrospect, once Saddam was no longer our good friend and ally. It was only us crazy lefties who complained about it--and Saddam--at the time.
Three cheers for cowardice! Our human allotment of moods each comes with advantages and disadvantages. Being afraid and retreating from obvious danger is only bad if there is some reason not to retreat from obvious danger. It takes a lot of courage to light up a cigarette when you are standing kneedeep in gasoline - but the better course, the cowards sniveling course, is to get out of the gasoline as quickly as possible. Since the U.S. is in a position of weakness in the Middle East, it will only get into a greater and greater bind by acting with courage, aka the stupid assumption that all problems have a military solution, or that even all problems should be put in the framework of a military solution. Forget it! Though the U.S. spends more than the rest of the world combined on military stuff, most of it is useless and is simply meant to stuff the pockets of an entrenched military industrial sector, from Raytheon to the latest thinktanky security and mercenary outfits that have popped up in D.C. like mushrooms - why else would we be fighting "world war 4" with only a fourth of the military budget? The useless stuff that a good 300 billion is spent on per annum exists only to make the engineering and middle management set happy, otherwise they'd have to do something productive. Actually, the right isn't so braindead that it doesn't have a bonedeep respect for cowardice - no rightwinger has ever come down on Bush for being too cowardly to invade Pakistan in the pursuit of al qaeda, for instance. They recognize and submit to the cowardly impulse: there is a limit to American power that can't be transgressed, here, and have watched America pay tribute to the country that, besides Afghanistan, was closest to Osama bin Laden with nary a blink or doubt. It has been an excellent policy in many ways, and it simply needs to be extended. More tribute, less troops - it is the way to go in the Middle East. Hell, maybe it will extend America's run as a superpower for an extra decade or two.
You don't have to be Freud to see something pathological about draft dodgers like Bill Kristol becoming warmongers. Kristol, Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al cheered on the Vietnam war while taking steps to avoid actually serving in the war. They have since become all out war pimps, agitating for perpetual war and romanticizing war as the ultimate act of courage and manliness. Kristol actually thinks he can be seen manly and tough advocating for never ending war in which other people bleed and die.
it's tic
Someone wrote something about the Powel Doctrine - you know about not entering a war without a strategy to win, get out etc. Here’s Hankest’s Doctrine. Do not get into a war ever, unless you have absolutely no choice. Any other war, no matter the reasoning or strategy is awalys bullsh$t - Whether it’s WW1, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq Part 1, Kosovo or Iraq #2, etc - all bullsh$t. Support the Hankest Doctrine!
At what point will the hosts on the tee vee shows say to Kristol: "You've been wrong about everything since day one - - just STFU and go away!"
The astounding willingness of the armchair generals to sacrifice actual lives suggests they think they are playing chess. Maybe whenever these idiots play chess, in their imagination they are commanding real armies.
One more thing: What the fuck does Kristol know about what "soldiers think?" What if they realize, as I assume many actually do, that the whole enterprise is useless? Would that change his mind?
HELL, BILL KRISTOL DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE THINKS. HE'S A PITIFUL, PUSILLANIMOUS PUS BAG THAT SPENDS ALL HIS WAKING HOURS EMPTYING THE DROOL BUCKETS FOR HIS MASTERS. THE MAN IS GUTLESS WHORE! I HOPE HIS SON NEVER GOES TO IRAQ IS IS SPARED THE STUPDITY HIS FATHER HELPED CREATE!
For me, the most striking fact introduced on this thread is that Kristol has a son. That implies a form of interaction in the past that I'd have thought no self-respecting woman would participate in. He is, truly, a slimeball--a tiresome slimeball.
Comments closed July 23, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Kristol, Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke need horsewhipped. Twice.
Posted by steve duncan | July 9, 2007 8:31 AM