May I Have Another?

"One month from The Anniversary, I'm thinking another 9/11 would help America," says Stu Bykofsky, conservative columnist.

I think Ross is right and Henry Farrell wrong about the best way to interpret the Kristol/Kagan argument for a "Neo-Reaganite" foreign policy -- the argument about this helping the Republican Party is probably offered in a pundit's fallacy spirit. The dark truth is probably closer to what Bykofsky expressed, something like national greatness conservatism icon Teddy Roosevelt's sense that war was, as such, a good thing because of its influence on the national character. Strains of this kind of thinking were definitely discernable post-9/11 on both the right and in the more hawkish precincts of the left -- a kind of genuine enthusiasm for violence, the sense that war is a force that gives us meaning, and that it's only by having giant disasters occur that our true national spirit is revealed.

Photo by Flickr user Beija used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

It's bad enough that I'm reading at this hour, but I'm on the West Coast -- it's 10:40 and I haven't gone out yet. What are you doing posting at this hour?

Posted by too many steves | August 12, 2007 1:31 AM

Matt, if you haven't read Hedges book, you ought to. The point is that the sentiment expressed by the title is how people are manipulated into supporting war.

Posted by TJ | August 12, 2007 1:58 AM

Uh, there's a simpler explanation for why Kristol and Kagan always want America to go punch somebody for them.

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 12, 2007 2:07 AM

What's that explanation, Steve? Perhaps you can enlighten those of us who are dullards.

Posted by Juan | August 12, 2007 3:50 AM

What bothered me about the Neo-Reaganite piece was the partisan logic implicit in it. I had held for a long time that the primary reason we were in Iraq was so that Republicans could have a foreign policy distinctly different from what Democrats espoused. (What was wrong with Clinton's mulitlateralism. anyway? Maybe someone can help me out here, because I always assumed that the only thing wrong with it was that Clinton was the one doing it, and we all know to Republican eyeballs that Clinton=bad.) But that's probably an unsophisticated reading. Kagan and Kristol were selling their foreign policy ideas as a sort of third way, but I suppose that may just have been to make what they had believed for a long time to be true palatable to partisan ears. That doesn't mean that such a critique is without fangs, because they couldn't have sold their agenda the way they did if there hadn't emerged a conservative audience willing to take what they said seriously.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 12, 2007 3:53 AM

It's very late and I myself if I can spell it am very drunk but you:

you are an idiot...(and not in the nice way)

and you, you, if i'm not mistaken, are, supported the war:

pathetic,

and you [chuckle] [chuckle] [frown] are an idiot.

p.s. say hi to peretz for me!

Posted by rk | August 12, 2007 3:57 AM

sorry, sorry, sorry

i didn't mean pathetic. i meant tone deaf.

again my apologies. late night should be dedicated to art brut video clips.

i'm a big fan

Posted by rk | August 12, 2007 4:05 AM

National Greatness and National Socialism are either cousins or brothers.

Bykofsky's mistake was putting this idea to paper. I can't say that most of the war sluts actually have been hoping for another significant terrorist attack here but I think it is safe to say that they have all along assumed one was coming and that it would be a political positive for them and the administration. I've always attributed the Democrats limp wristed opposition to Bush to spring from the fear of the day after the next attack. The day when any questioning of the need for torture or unlimited surveillance will be used as proof they are weak or traitors or both.

Posted by rapier | August 12, 2007 6:49 AM

What are you doing posting at this hour?

Every idiot and his dog go out on a Saturday night, hip people go out on a Tuesday night.

Posted by novakant | August 12, 2007 6:54 AM

What's so fucking maddening about that "We Need Another 9/11" column is how it bemoans the war in Iraq and then moons about how great it was after 9/11 when the patriotism police were in full effect and creating the no-questions atmosphere in the press that in effect allowed the ill-conceived, ill-prepared war to happen.

The fact is, a lot of shriveled-dick, right-leaning middle-aged men like Stu Bykovsky found the attacks to be thrilling and exciting time. They loved being able to claim that they lived in mortal danger just because they had an office job (think of that episode of the US Office where Michael Scott becomes jealous of the warehouse workers' far more perilous safety training). And they loved it because it validated their worldview that America is this great, shiny model of perfection and that the poorer, browner parts of the world are not worthy of sympathy or understanding. They felt they could rub the attack in any liberal's face and that they could now support unrestrained militarism in a joyful, full-throated way. It also allowed them to revel in their Greatest Generation worship, which is of course a disturbing pathology created by a certain kind of male boomer who feels inadequate and emasculated when he compares himself to his strong, silent father.

9/11 was this sort of apotheosis of the talk-radio-and-history-channel mentality, the Angry White Man's Sticky Wet Dream come true.

Posted by Drew | August 12, 2007 7:01 AM

They felt they could rub the attack in any liberal's face and that they could now support unrestrained militarism in a joyful, full-throated way.

Yes, attacks justifiy militarism. So, what's new?
What do you do when someone punches you in the nose? Do you lecture all about your elite views or do you kick their ass?
There is a time and a place for everthing.....including war. If attack on WTC wasn't a real reason....what would be in your mind?

Posted by Fred Jones | August 12, 2007 7:18 AM

Well, isn't this why so many of the right wing pundits got so creepily excited about all the super macho Spartans from 300 with the ultra military Spartans' lack of breastplates and their leather thong pants and their unbelievably tedious repetition of pompous military phrasing?

THIS IS SPARTA!!

Posted by El Cid | August 12, 2007 8:08 AM

They felt they could rub the attack in any liberal's face and that they could now support unrestrained militarism in a joyful, full-throated way.

Yes, attacks justifiy militarism. So, what's new?
What do you do when someone punches you in the nose? Do you lecture all about your elite views or do you kick their ass?
There is a time and a place for everthing.....including war. If attack on WTC wasn't a real reason....what would be in your mind?

Attacks do not "justify" militarism.

Militarism is not a different word for military action.

The choice of whether or not to use military force is a rational one, based entirely on the degree to which it both achieves rationally decided goals and to which it maintains the values of the society for which you're supposedly fighting.

The reason we have police, for example, is not to feel like we are "kicking the ass" of criminals, but to rationally and reasonably and legally use apply force in society to control or capture violators.

A military attack on Afghanistan only makes sense to the degree it is rationally designed to obtain those moral and legal goals.

The fetishistic worship of military power as an irrational, emotional release or as a nationalistic tool with which to rally the populace or the nearly sexual satisfaction of leagues of pro-war but non-fighting pundits -- these are not rational reasons to use or not use or guide the use of military power.

Posted by El Cid | August 12, 2007 8:17 AM

Militarism is not a different word for military action.

Thank you, El Cid, you beat me to it. Another crucial word in my original post was "unrestrained."

Posted by Drew | August 12, 2007 8:25 AM

"War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it." --Benito Mussolini.

Communities tend to unite when confronted with an external threat. That's a general truism about which I there's little disagreement. But it takes a fascist mentality to actively long for the catastrophic manifestations of that threat.

Bykofsky's is a morally and intellectually depraved position for at least three big reasons. First, of course, he's condoning the death and destruction of innocents. Second, he seems to believe that our problems in Iraq have more to do with civil discord here than civil war there, and can be solved if all Americans just fell in lind behind Bush. And finally, Bykofsky's goal is not an improvement in the human condition, but rather the quelling of dissent in the service of achieving a monomaniacal "righteous rage," to use his words.

This is all, of course, sheer lunacy. Bykofsky is rejecting representative democracy, and invoking berzerkerism, as a form of social organization. It's a call for blind emotion over messy deliberation. And it's a recipe for continued disaster.

Posted by Pat | August 12, 2007 9:16 AM

Where's Wilfred Owen when you need him?

Posted by Freddie | August 12, 2007 9:18 AM

1) The assholes who want war are people who've never been within a 1000 miles of an active battlefield.

2) The Army is suffering severely from combat stress -- because its soldiers are spending far more time deployed into stressful combat situations than even in past wars like WWII.

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2147109,00.html ,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070811/ap_on_re_us/army_mental_illness_1

3) This is a huge scandal that is being largely ignored by our whores in the national news media.

However, Bush is scared shitless by a recent lawsuit -- and is scrambling to keep the lid on.

4) On July 23, a federal lawsuit was filed in San Francisco alleging serious lapses in the Veterans' Administration's care for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, particularly mental health care, and calling for significant improvements in access to mental health care (Veterans for Common Sense et al v. Nicholson et al, cv-03758, N.D. CA, July 23, 2007). See http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/8/prweb546054.htm

5) Within 2 days of the lawsuit , the White House recommended a significant overhaul to the physical and mental health care provided to returning U.S. troops with traumatic brain injuries, including $500 million or more in recommended annual funding.

5.1) On July 26, the parents of a young veteran who committed suicide filed a wrongful death/negligence lawsuit against Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson
See http://www.whbf.com/Global/story.asp?S=6844852

6) On Aug 2, the COngress approved by voice vote a veterans administration bill requiring the VA to exert outreach in providing mental health services to Iraq veterans and ordering the GAO to study whether veterans are receiving proper care for mental health problems incurred during their service. See
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/78393.php

7) By Aug 6, The Veterans Administration was announcing a massive hiring initiative -- to hire 1000 more mental health professionals this year. See

http://www.wsls.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSLS%2FMGArticle%2FSLS_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173352276092&path=!news!localnews

8) On Aug 6, the VA announced a new national hotline for suicide-prevention -- that veterans can call for immediate help and VA intervention

see http://www.projo.com/news/veteransjournal/Veterans_column_06_08-06-07_IG6K9I9.22f9300.html

8) By Today,Aug 12, there has been a sudden rash of (planted??) news stories in local and regional papers around the country with calls from the VA centers to Iraq veterans to come in for help with Post-traumatic stress disorder .

See http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Detail.php?Cat=LOCALNEWS&ID=59991 ,
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/94901?source=rss&dest=STY-94901 ,
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=55482&archive=true ,

9) On July 17,A few days before the announcement of the lawsuits against him, Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson announced that he was resigning ,effective Oct 1.

``There's no back story here,'' Bush spokesman Tony Snow said at a White House press briefing today. ``He called up and said he wanted to leave and move on.''

Which, in my opinion, shows just what a deceitful, lying shithead White House spokeman --and former Fox News employee -- Tony Snow really is.

See http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070718/pl_bloomberg/a1koeuln6v4u_1

10 ) And what has the New York Times -- the paper whose Judith Miller stories about Saddam's WMDS helped drag us into Iraq -- have to say about all of the above. The paper whose uncritical coverage greatly help George Bush lie us into Iraq.

Well, not very much. I didn't remember any stories in this area and a search of their 30 day archive on did show me any report of the lawsuits and the problems the veterans are facing. There was an announcement of Jim Nicholson resigning, a report of the White House report on the need to improve VA mental health services (with a tone suggesting Bush is being proactive in this area ) and a "Times Select" editorial endorsing the report.

Which ,in my opinion, shows just how two-faced and deceitful the New York Times is. In my opinion, it misleads to its readers as much by what it covers up and conceals as by what it prints.

"All the news that's fit to print" is a sick joke.

Posted by Don Williams | August 12, 2007 9:21 AM

Correction to above post:
"a search of their 30 day archive on did show me any report of the lawsuits and the problems the veterans are facing. "

Should have read "a search of their 30 day archive on did NOT show me any report of the lawsuits and the problems the veterans are facing. "

Posted by Don Williams | August 12, 2007 9:24 AM

Oh, yes, I forgot to mention the solution proposed with much fanfare on Aug 10 by Bush's war Tsar: Bring back the DRAFT!

From
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292949,00.html

"WASHINGTON — Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday.

"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."

Posted by Don Williams | August 12, 2007 9:33 AM

If attack on WTC wasn't a real reason....what would be in your mind?

9/11 was a reason to attack Afghanistan...you know, the country that harbored the people who attacked the WTC. The use of 9/11 to justify invading Iraq, on the other hand, qualifies as unrestrained militarism.

I have a masters degree in the freaking obvious, so I'm happy to help Mr. Jones whenever he needs it.

Posted by DMonteith | August 12, 2007 9:39 AM

There is a time and a place for everthing.....including war. If attack on WTC wasn't a real reason....what would be in your mind?

An attack on the US by another government would of course be the "time and place" for war.

An attack by a bunch of hoodlums can't in itself provide the "time and place" for war, because to have a war you need two governments. If you only have one government involved, you can't have a war, any more than you can loose your virginity by masturbating.

The causus belli for war with Afghanistan was not 9/11--it was the government of Afghanistan harboring hoodlums who attacked us.

The causus belli for Iraq was not 9/11--it was . . . god knows what.

Posted by rea | August 12, 2007 9:42 AM

I think Ross vs. Henry is hairsplitting. Bill Kristol's goal is a U.S. that will go to the mat for Israel without a second's hesitation. He's convinced that the Democratic Party will turn the U.S. into a nation of lotus eating isolationists and he believes that we're 49.9999% there in any case. Only the Republican Party will defend Israel, and the Republican Party can only win when there's a foreign policy crisis.

Kagan I think just wants to run his mouth. And if there's no foreign policy crisis, no one will pay him to do so.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | August 12, 2007 10:02 AM

Matt, if you haven't read Hedges book, you ought to.

The Hedges book is an indispensable and underrated guide to the events following 9/11, among other things.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | August 12, 2007 10:40 AM

"it's only by having giant disasters occur that our true national spirit is revealed."

9/11 did not exactly reveal our true nature; America actually has a good & generous & thoughtful side. But folks who measure us by our orgy of revenge in Iraq can be forgiven for their mistake. We haven't exactly been putting our best foot forward for a while.

9/11 gave craven politicians a good opportunity to stimulate our reptilean brainstem. They massaged, and we basked in shock and awe. Some were cynical in their manipulation, others were caught up in the fury of the moment.

Whenever the strong unleash their lower passions there is hell to pay, and rare is the society that comes to account with itself. We have carelessly damaged our national soul, the damage will be with us for many years.

The right first step is to elect leaders who repudiate the sort of foreign policy that got us into Iraq. We are not exactly making asolid start in this election.

Posted by tomtom | August 12, 2007 10:54 AM

Those warmongers really are idiots.

Even TR sobered up on war after his son Quentin died in WW1.

Posted by chris | August 12, 2007 11:04 AM

When the "war czar" brings up the draft, there's a fair chance that he's deliberately sabotaging Administration policy.

Posted by gcochran | August 12, 2007 12:20 PM

The assholes who want war are people who've never been within a 1000 miles of an active battlefield.

This is a common trope on the left that really needs to be retired.

As someone mentioned above, Mussolini really represented the ideal-type of this kind of thinking (as well as the Green Lantern theory of geopolitics, which he practically invented.) He fought in World War I. So did most European fascists. The idea that military service gives you a critical attitude toward war or immunizes you against force-that-gives-us-meaning-ism is just false.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | August 12, 2007 3:16 PM

Be that as it may, there is no question that the overwhelming majority of the architects of this, in government, think tanks and the media, are men who have never served. I've never served, either, and I think that anyone who would argue that people who haven't served don't or shouldn't have a voice in the discussion doesn't have their head on straight. But I don't think anyone, really, is arguing that. What they are arguing, what the commenter above was arguing, is that war is filled with horror and violence and injustice, even war fought for the purest motives and in the best of circumstances. And I think that men who know those horrors intimately--men like Jack Murtha and Chuck Hagel and Max Cleeland-- are less likely to advocate war capriciously or uncritically. The fact that he has never been to war doesn't make Bill Kristol's opinion irrelevant, but it certainly makes his advocacy of war as a solution to any and all foreign policy questions suspect.

Posted by Freddie | August 12, 2007 3:41 PM

Re lemuel's comment "The idea that military service gives you a critical attitude toward war or immunizes you against force-that-gives-us-meaning-ism is just false."
==========
I didn't refer to "military service" -- I referred to fighting in combat. Most of the people who see combat are blue collar enlisted men. In the case of Vietnam, Drafted enlisted men.

By contrast, I know of at least one Major General who has never been within a 1000 miles of an active battlefield. See,e.g.,
http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=4544

Posted by Don Williams | August 12, 2007 3:43 PM

Another point in TR's favor-- at least compared with today's warmongers: He made sure he was on the front line. He would have had utter contempt for anyone who promoted a war and made excuses for not enlisting in it.

Posted by audie | August 13, 2007 11:30 AM

I’d like to pile in with people praising War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. Hedges is a really interesting thinker generally.

Posted by the blackbird is involved | August 13, 2007 12:24 PM

"Even TR sobered up on war after his son Quentin died in WW1. "

Heck, even Kipling soured on war, viz:

COMMON FORM
If any question why we died,
Tell them, because our fathers lied.

A DEAD STATESMAN
I could not dig: I dared not rob:
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young?

Posted by Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | August 13, 2007 5:12 PM