Fisking Cohen
If, as Samuel Johnson said, "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," then "support our troops" is very close by. It is being used to deflect criticism of the war in Iraq, or to rebut those who call for a pullout or question how incompetents seized control of the government in a coup by ideologues. In the lexicon of some, the only way to support our troops is to ensure that more of them die.
If "seizing control in a coup by ideologues" means the elected government of the US set a policy that the opposition party disagrees with, then I guess Bush is guilty. Far be it for the current administration to reject failed policies and thinking that got us to 9/11 and try something new and inovative. The administration is dealing with a new type of threat not seen before, some new thinking is needed.
So I don't need any cheap reminders about supporting the troops. On the contrary, it's the other way around. It is the reminders who need reminding that they owe the troops the highest level of respect. That means, among other things, explaining clearly and honestly why they are being sent into harm's way. If that cannot be done -- if you cannot tell soldiers why they might die -- then you cannot send them. At the very least, you must stick to the strictest truth.
The truth, Bush spelled out in the 2003 State of the Union Address and his speech at West Point what the mission is. The point of the war is not to have zero casualties, but to accomplish the mission (removal of dictator and start of transformation in the middle east). Now, you can believe that the mission won't make America safer or is the wrong strategy, but it is disingenuous to say the war was a lie. If the goal wasn't clear, you weren't paying attention.
But Cheney was not strictly truthful. He turned the war in Iraq into a war against terrorism, when it is only partly that. The Sunni insurgents have no designs on America. And to say, as Cheney did, that terrorists "believe that, by controlling an entire country, they will be able to . . . establish a radical Islamic empire that encompasses a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle East and South Asia, all the way to Indonesia" is to give credence to the fantasies of Islamic nut cases. This may or may not be the goal of certain terrorists, but it is clearly beyond their reach -- and no reason to fight in Iraq.
When do you start to worry, when the empire reaches Egypt, Libya? Cohen may not fear an Islamic empire, but I don't think anyone really feared a greater German empire in 1936. The whole point of the fight in the middle east today is to prevent the threat from expanding. Ask the Austians or the Czechs how that worked out for them. The other difference between today and Germany is that technology allows the islamofacists to strike us now, which Germany couldn't do in 1936.
Similarly, Cheney once again implied a link between the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and Saddam Hussein. His words were slippery, but his meaning was clear: "Some have suggested that by liberating Iraq . . . we simply stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq . . . and the terrorists hit us anyway." Yes, and the crowing of the rooster makes the sun come up. Cause and effect is being mocked here.
No one has claimed that Iraq and 9/11 are directly linked. There was contact between Al Qaeda and Iraq throughout the 90's. After 9/11, the tolerance for this threat dropped, so the US launched a preemtive war.
As I recently wrote, I do not favor an immediate pullout from Iraq -- not yet, anyway. The arguments advanced for staying make sense to me, and Cheney mentioned some of them in his speech. There is reason to fear civil war in Iraq, the country's dissolution, the creation of a haven for terrorists and the precipitous loss of American prestige, which could encourage even more terrorism.
Someone tell Howard Dean Jack Murtha, John Kerry (depending on the day) and Nancy Pelosi.
But I do not fear the emergence of a vast, radical Islamic empire stretching from Granada to Jakarta, and neither do I believe that toppling Hussein dealt a blow to terrorists or made the United States one iota safer. Soon enough we will exceed in military deaths the number of civilians killed on Sept. 11 -- and the culprits, including Osama bin Laden, are still on the loose, still posing a threat. This is a policy that collapsed of its own stupidity.
Cohen repeats, so I will too. When do you start to worry, when the empire reaches Egypt, Libya? Cohen may not fear an Islamic empire, but I don't think anyone really feared a greater German empire in 1936. The whole point of the fight in the middle east today is to prevent the threat from expanding. Ask the Austians or the Czechs how that worked out for them. The other difference between today and Germany is that technology allows the islamofacists to strike us now, which Germany couldn't do in 1936.
If "seizing control in a coup by ideologues" means the elected government of the US set a policy that the opposition party disagrees with, then I guess Bush is guilty. Far be it for the current administration to reject failed policies and thinking that got us to 9/11 and try something new and inovative. The administration is dealing with a new type of threat not seen before, some new thinking is needed.
So I don't need any cheap reminders about supporting the troops. On the contrary, it's the other way around. It is the reminders who need reminding that they owe the troops the highest level of respect. That means, among other things, explaining clearly and honestly why they are being sent into harm's way. If that cannot be done -- if you cannot tell soldiers why they might die -- then you cannot send them. At the very least, you must stick to the strictest truth.
The truth, Bush spelled out in the 2003 State of the Union Address and his speech at West Point what the mission is. The point of the war is not to have zero casualties, but to accomplish the mission (removal of dictator and start of transformation in the middle east). Now, you can believe that the mission won't make America safer or is the wrong strategy, but it is disingenuous to say the war was a lie. If the goal wasn't clear, you weren't paying attention.
But Cheney was not strictly truthful. He turned the war in Iraq into a war against terrorism, when it is only partly that. The Sunni insurgents have no designs on America. And to say, as Cheney did, that terrorists "believe that, by controlling an entire country, they will be able to . . . establish a radical Islamic empire that encompasses a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle East and South Asia, all the way to Indonesia" is to give credence to the fantasies of Islamic nut cases. This may or may not be the goal of certain terrorists, but it is clearly beyond their reach -- and no reason to fight in Iraq.
When do you start to worry, when the empire reaches Egypt, Libya? Cohen may not fear an Islamic empire, but I don't think anyone really feared a greater German empire in 1936. The whole point of the fight in the middle east today is to prevent the threat from expanding. Ask the Austians or the Czechs how that worked out for them. The other difference between today and Germany is that technology allows the islamofacists to strike us now, which Germany couldn't do in 1936.
Similarly, Cheney once again implied a link between the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and Saddam Hussein. His words were slippery, but his meaning was clear: "Some have suggested that by liberating Iraq . . . we simply stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq . . . and the terrorists hit us anyway." Yes, and the crowing of the rooster makes the sun come up. Cause and effect is being mocked here.
No one has claimed that Iraq and 9/11 are directly linked. There was contact between Al Qaeda and Iraq throughout the 90's. After 9/11, the tolerance for this threat dropped, so the US launched a preemtive war.
As I recently wrote, I do not favor an immediate pullout from Iraq -- not yet, anyway. The arguments advanced for staying make sense to me, and Cheney mentioned some of them in his speech. There is reason to fear civil war in Iraq, the country's dissolution, the creation of a haven for terrorists and the precipitous loss of American prestige, which could encourage even more terrorism.
Someone tell Howard Dean Jack Murtha, John Kerry (depending on the day) and Nancy Pelosi.
But I do not fear the emergence of a vast, radical Islamic empire stretching from Granada to Jakarta, and neither do I believe that toppling Hussein dealt a blow to terrorists or made the United States one iota safer. Soon enough we will exceed in military deaths the number of civilians killed on Sept. 11 -- and the culprits, including Osama bin Laden, are still on the loose, still posing a threat. This is a policy that collapsed of its own stupidity.
Cohen repeats, so I will too. When do you start to worry, when the empire reaches Egypt, Libya? Cohen may not fear an Islamic empire, but I don't think anyone really feared a greater German empire in 1936. The whole point of the fight in the middle east today is to prevent the threat from expanding. Ask the Austians or the Czechs how that worked out for them. The other difference between today and Germany is that technology allows the islamofacists to strike us now, which Germany couldn't do in 1936.
posted by hurtleg at 12:21 PM
1 Comments:
"When do you start to worry, when the empire reaches Egypt, Libya?"
Remember in the Simpsons when that bear rambled into town and terrorized Flanders' mailbox? Springfield's immediate response (under the pandering leadership of Diamond Joe Quimby) was to start a roving police force, using armed tanks and stealth bombers, to scour the neighborhood and keep it free from bears. Homer proudly "reasons" that they are safely keeping Springfield bear-free. When Lisa points out his specious reasoning, it falls on deaf ears. Better yet, he offers to pay her for her tiger-deterring rock.
Fans of pre-emptive war sound the same silly clarion. As long as there exists a possibility, however remote, that islamofascists will enslave all of North Africa, Team America has a duty to preemptively leap into action and stop it. Never mind that the "empire" doesn’t actually exist; if it did, it would certainly go for Egypt, and then eventually our strategic ally Libya, and then build an islamofascist bridge spanning the Atlantic and strike us here. And as long as that remains a possibility, no matter how far-fetched, we must gather all our resources and preemptively destroy it – no matter the fallout.
The "logic" of this pre-emption strategy is understood by the hawks as pre-supposed and generally understood gospel truth. Those of us on the other side wonder how any thoughtful and responsible citizen would NOT call the doctrine, and those who support it, into question.
At the very least, you have to support the Bear Patrol tax if you support the Bear Patrol. There is a lamentable absence of commentary from the pro-war right about the need for collective sacrifice - not in terms of soldiers' lives, but their precious, precious money. The tax cuts just keep coming and coming.
“The other difference between today and Germany is that technology allows the islamofacists to strike us now, which Germany couldn't do in 1936.”
So the Nazis didn’t have the benefit of “technology”, and conquered Europe using pointed sticks and clods of dirt? How is hijacking an airplane employing technology? Does he mean setting off bombs remotely using cellphones? Well, you got me there - just think of what the Luftwaffe could have done with cellphones.
Post a Comment
<< Home