Memo to a Democratic Congress: Declare Peace In January
The myth of the just war may indeed as Mark Grimsley argues may make fascists of us all, and more than a few think it has. But it is clear that the right wing is trying to make alchemists of us all. They'd be flat earthers, except there is too much money pushing missile defense against ICBMs.
It is the day after St. Crispian's - immortalized by Henry V of England and given a pedestal of poetry Shakespeare - that it is worth reflecting on how a devastating victory on the field can still lead to a quagmire in the occupation.
But it is the last verse of the play which speaks most loudly to the results of history:
ChorusThus far, with rough and all-unable pen,
Our bending author hath pursued the story,
In little room confining mighty men,
Mangling by starts the full course of their glory.
Small time, but in that small most greatly lived
This star of England: Fortune made his sword;
By which the world's best garden be achieved,
And of it left his son imperial lord.
Henry the Sixth, in infant bands crown'd King
Of France and England, did this king succeed;
Whose state so many had the managing,
That they lost France and made his England bleed:
Which oft our stage hath shown; and, for their sake,
In your fair minds let this acceptance take.
It is clear that the right wing has mangled itself with visions of great imperial conquest. The names of Churchill and other luminaries of war are constantly upon their lips, and clearly worked into their libidos, so sexualized are the rhapsodies of how this war is their World War II. It is a ridiculous comparison - there are no great havens of war, churning out machines of destruction as we might churn out cars. There is no great counter economic order which drives belligerent spirits. Instead, we face creatures whose cause is sourced from our own acts and actions. It is we that feed the Islamic terrorists, by both funnelling money to their elites, and denying a decent living to their populations.
There are long years and a great deal of painful work before they could even make use of the technology and social organization which would allow them better lives - but this work is not accelerated by denying them access to it. Nor are our own problems made less - the piling up of capital in the hands of a few creates economic imbalances. Capitalism relies on the idea that the people who are solving the problem, get more ability to expand the solution. Rent, instead, gives more money to those who profit most from the problem itself.
It can be said that Harry England had a good claim to the throne of France in theory, but not in practice. By this point the house of Plantagenet was divorced from both its distant Norman roots, and its more recent swaddling in the Aquitaine. By the end of the Hundred Years War, they had lost any hold on either, and kept only a foothold in Calais.
Whatever the claim that the United States had to topple Saddam - and had Bush had fewer ulterior motives, one could have been established - it is clear that his thinking is more Talbot than Edward the Black Prince. That rather than being "brilliant" as Rice keeps fawning, he is instead, rather a pedestrian thinker who relies on his enemies being even more pedestrian still.
The only act of brilliance here is that by fighting an unpopular war, he has distracted people from the unsoundness of his fiscal policy - which has done little but transfer trillions from the middle class to the upper class, with no corresponding benefit in wages or standards of living. However, this act will not last long, as the narcisistic political leadership which has fiddled while the country burned. Iraq may be the number one issue - but 41% picked bread and butter issues as the top priority for the next Congress in a recent survey, against 44% for security issues.
This is important to the war, because, as with the madness of Henry VI, the deteriorating political position of those who wage a war has a material effect on their ability to have unlimited power in waging it.
This will be taken by the war supporters as the "cause" for the defeat - believing in the meglomaniac way that captains of doomed charges do, that they coul win the battle single handledly, if only everyone else would submit to their will. However, this is reversed - a commander that is that the commander is losing that is the cause of his support disintegrating. It is the inability of a commander to strike the decisive blow, or his willingness to, as Talbot did in one fateful battle, charge out in front of the bulk of his army - and to his death. Talbot's run of victories from his aggressive attacks, in the end, did little to perserve the English hold on France.
And so it is in Iraq - America's run of tactical victories, and even its decisive invasion which toppled the old regime - did little to change the dynamics on the ground. With each victory over the local forces, the ground work was laid, not for the transformation of Iraq into a subject colony, ripe for exploitation, but into a cauldron of hatred.
This much is known, and history is replete with failed invasions and arrogant leaders who look in the mirror and see a Alexander the Conqueror in modern dress. However the road forward is far more difficult. Until this point there has been little that could be done about the invasion, expect to constantly point out the high crimes and misdemeanors which were involved in its planning, presentation and execution.
As of 12 days hence, however, it will not be enough to tell the truth, but to change it. The first obvious step would be to amend the resolution which authorizes force in Iraq - and instead declare that
1. Iraq is no longer in breach of UN resolutions.
2. That the Presidential authorization to wage war against Al-Qaeda and other terrorists in Iraq is revoked.
3. That the President will have to report to Congress under the War Powers Resolution every 60 days, and that the Congress will authorize force under that resolution pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.
4. After that pass annual authorizations for continued use of force, but include in the authorization that the purpose is to secure a withdrawal from Iraq. This is a threat that can be backed by impeachment.
There is no legal bar to this ocuring, since one Congress may not tie the hands of another, there is no reason to believe that the lack of a sunset date on the original resolution prevents a later Congress from adding one, as sunset dates on resolutions have been changed before in the case of Constitutional Amendments.
If the Democratic House wants to put the probably Republican, and almost certainly pro-war Senate on the hook, this is the simplest way to do it. It is what the public wants - an end declared.
Since reporting is required, the Congress can also choose to reject a report as insufficient, and haul Bush, Rumsfeld and any other official necessary to hold hearings. And this time, there must be no "not under oath" questioning. Everything that is said must be said on the record, for the record and in the public record.
The coming two years will be a test of wills. The side with the greater willpower will win. At the moment Bush is trying to not promise an end at some future date, as a way of loosening a few voters from voting down the rubberstamp Republican Congress. If the Congress exercises its constitutional duties to decide on the state of war, then it is certainly possible to have the war fought with less corruption and incompetence - and thus fewer American deaths - and the strategy changed to one of exit, rather than empire.
Whether the leadership in Congress has this willpower, will determine their place in history. If they do not, they will be seen as liars, cowards or opportunists - people who campaigned against a war that they then did nothing to end when they had the power.
Comments (30)
Now that we've taken back both houses, our leaders can finally get to work on running this war the right way! Thankfully we have the Murtha Airwar Plan (the MAP) that will let us move our troops to bases around Iraq. Our bombers will be able reach any target the Iraq Army designates and we can all safely ignore Iraq just like we did with Kosovo. Won't that be nice?
October 26, 2006 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alan, you may wish to read the inflammatory but enlightening text of a letter by an interior designer in Atlanta.
It is not particularly well written, like your piece, but it represents the vast majority of voters in America.
The lady who wrote this letter is Pam Foster of Pamela Foster and
>> Associates in Atlanta.
>> She's been in business since 1980 doing interior design and home
>> planning.
>> She recently wrote a letter to a family member serving in Iraq.
>> _____
>> "Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started
>> by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?
>>
>> Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally
>> murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's
>> capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?
>>
>> Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning
>> or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
>>
>> And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when
>> an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I
>> don't care at all.
>>
>> I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for
>> incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
>>
>> I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start
>> caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi
>> Arabia.
>>
>> I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for
>> hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed
>> throat.
>>
>> I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and
>> fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in
>> mosques.
>>
>> I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of
>> nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide
>> bombs.
>>
>> I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First
>> Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of
>> the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.
>>
>> In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an
>> Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
>>
>> When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been
>> humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured
>> that I don't care.
>>
>> When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not
>> to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that
>> I don't care.
>>
>> When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and
>> fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining
>> that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your
>> heart of hearts that I don't care.
>>
>> And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and
>> other times "Quran"; well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you guessed it - - -
>> I don't care !!!!!"
Alan, this is the way most people who vote truly believe. Take my advice, don't dance in the end zone before you score the touchdown...
October 26, 2006 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is the basis for your assertion that this represents the sentiment of the "vast majority" of Americans?
October 26, 2006 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who said "vast majority" before you did in this discussion?
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
October 26, 2006 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one, but Kiwi did say "most people who vote" which while not a majority is a claim to a substantial block.
October 26, 2006 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you admit that "vast majority", in quotes, is a lie. And therefore Glenn in NYC lied for some reason.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
October 26, 2006 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to be petty, but Kiwi did say "vast majority of voters."
October 26, 2006 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Kiwi's post:
Jan Knaus
October 26, 2006 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well that's just fascinating. However, Pam of Atlanta's militant apathy doesn't help breed the next generation of terrorists. In fact, what Pam from Atlanta cares about is pretty much irrelevant.
What does breed terrorists is the foolish, short sighted, conterproductive policies of the Bush administration. So whether Pam of Atlanta is on board or not, our leaders and elected officials should care.
Because every foolish policy, every counterproductive tactic, every blurted-out snippet of aggressively willful ignorance that dribbles out of this administration digs the United States into a little bit deeper hole.
And the brave Marine, who Pam of Atlanta supposedly DOES care about, is the one who pays the price.
-- "Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable." (John Kenneth Galbraith)
October 26, 2006 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Sterling cannot see Kiwi von Huber's comment?
While logged out, looking at this thread, I could not see Kiwi von Huber's reply to Alan Smithee on October 26, 2006 - 1:52pm, to which Glenn in NYC was replying. It was completely missing, as if it had been zero'd under a ratings system which we no longer have. I can only see it now that I am logged in. I checked again, and it is gone when I am logged out, just missing.
I noticed a comment somewhere else where the user said "how come I can't see everyone's comments?"
I have not been on the site much since changes were made, but even so I can see that there seem to be a lot of quirky problems on this site since ratings were removed from comments & voting on Reader Blogs installed. (For example, another thing I noticed is that I get error messages when searching for a user, and also have to enter the name a second time before hitting the "user" search.) There are comments in the Cafe Management section that appear confusing as if some people are getting comment ratings ability back temporarily from time to time? Are there major browser compatibility issues going on? I just noticed that the "write to author" link only appears intermittently under comments for me. Makes me wonder, is everyone without comment ratings now or is it just a glitch that many do not have them? Why is that comment missing when I am logged out? Is there a block of some kind related to old karma score? Or are some people able to rate things zero and censor them? Etc., etc.
I cannot fathom why management/software people making changes to a site would not make an announcement about them, so users can report if the intended changes are working correctly for them.
October 26, 2006 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"They'd be flat earthers, except there is too much money pushing missile defense against ICBMs."
Does anyone else find it ironic that Tom Friedman likes to say the world is flat (globalized), instead of shrinking (and still round)?
October 26, 2006 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you listen to all the media and pundits, Democrat and Republican, the Democrats will take the House and probably the Senate, with ease.
Let us talk on November 8. We shall see if the "vast majority" agrees with the letter's author, or not.
October 26, 2006 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. Does the majority of Americans share the view of an ignorant racist schizophrenic who mixes delusions with indifference?
I can't wait to find out.
October 26, 2006 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
A great deal of this comment thread seems to be missing.
October 26, 2006 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It appears that Kiwi here has been lost for the past six weeks since Kiwi and the friendly Fred Dobbs (since booted from the Cafe) wandered in from a Drudge link to the Cafe here during the ABC Crock-u-drama... Here's a full list of the Drudge Dead-enders.
Maybe someone can loan the poor Kiwi a map to assist 'em to find their way back to that sludge pit...
~OGD~
October 27, 2006 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why attack the messenger?
I simply stated that there is a large group of "voters," people who actually vote, who share this lady's views. I don't.
But we would all be well advised to forget the polls and better understand the American voter.
Don't underestimate him on November 7.
October 27, 2006 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kiwi's comment included a letter that was, in my view, terribly hateful, and Kiwi claimed that this was the view of the "vast majority" -- yes, I put quotes around that for a reason, because, you know, it was a QUOTE -- of voters in America. All I did was ask for the basis for that assertion.
So, no, Mr. Newberry, I didn't fucking lie. How about getting your facts straight before attacking people? Christ, I agree with your position, as I usually do. Save your venom for your enemies, huh?
October 27, 2006 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, in answer to my question: You have no basis for making your assertion -- that this letter represents the vast majority of voters -- whatsoever. Thank you.
October 27, 2006 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Calm down. We are only talking to each other and we have differing views.
We don't love Bush or the feared and dreaded Republicans, it's just that the Democrats believe in immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
If they succeed in forcing us to leave under these circumstances, the United States will suffer a stinging defeat in the war on terror.
The terrorists already believe that they drove the Russians from Afghanistan and Israel from Lebanon and Gaza. They are convinced they chased us out of Lebanon in 1983 and from Somalia in 1993.
According to Osama bin Laden and those who share his views, we are militarily strong but psychologically and spiritually weak. Like it or not -- and no one likes it -- we cannot leave Iraq now without utterly and decisively validating this analysis.
We might as well run a white flag up the flagpole at the Capitol.
October 27, 2006 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kiwi, my anger in that previous comment was directed at Stirling for his unfounded accusation that I was a liar. When my personal integrity is attacked with absolutely no basis, I will not "calm down" and I will get as excited as I please, thank you very much.
As for your comments, you have no basis to know whether "we have differing views" or not. You made a simple factual assertion -- that the vast majority of American voters agreed with that woman's sentiment -- and all I did was ask you for the basis for that assertion. I honestly have no idea whether it's true or not. I'd like to think that most Americans don't subscribe to those ugly sentiments, but then again I would like to think that most Americans wouldn't have voted for Bush, and (at least in 2004) I apparently was wrong. But apparently the answer to my question was: you don't have any basis for your assertion, and that's all I wanted to know.
October 27, 2006 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough...
October 27, 2006 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Sterling cannot see Kiwi von Huber's comment?
I suspect you're right and that Stirling made an honest mistake. I still hope he can bring himself to apologize to Glenn though, because an apology is certainly merited.
October 27, 2006 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not attacking the messenger at all.
It's a simple observation that the woman whose comments you've posted is obviously an irrational ranter incapable of making simple distinctions. Indeed the breakdown in categorization, the indifference to the truth or falsity of facts and the lopsided emotional profile suggests mental illness. This is someone profoundly disturbed.
From your description... A personal friend perhaps? It sounds like she's got enough social connections and community support that she escapes the fate of so many of her kind... ranting on the street in impotent rage, her entire world in a shopping cart.
You suggest that her views are those of a majority of voters. That implies that a majority of voting Americans, and to some extent further implies that a majority of Americans at large, are drooling borderline paranoid schizophrenics incapable of dealing with complex reality.
I certainly think better of the American people. Your contempt for your fellow Americans surprises me.
October 27, 2006 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kiwi, it appears that a judge has authorized the release of film and photographs from Abu Ghraib in which US forces either condoned or actively participated in the violent homosexual rape of children, and the violent rape of innocent women.
Do you think that your Pam Foster would care? Could you prevail upon her to update her little rant?
> > I'm supposed to care when some twelve year old Iraqi boy, who is actually the son or some relative or a bystander of one of Saddam's butchers gets violently gang raped and gets his picture taken by people who watched the WTC towers fall on television, well I don't care, I don't care at all.
And while you are at it, perhaps you could also pass this little bit on to her for possible inclusion?
> > I'm supposed to care about 650,000 dead Iraqi's when the ones who are still alive are so ungrateful for all the things we've done for them? I don't care, I don't care at all.
You know, I bet it could make a heckuva song if set to music. I understand that Horst Wessel song has a catchy melody, and its not being used by now.
Hatred has to keep moving forward, and we all have to do our part.
By the by, since we were discussing things, how do you yourself characterize homosexual child rape either directly by or facilitated and photographed by American forces at Abu Ghraib? Is child rape an integral part of American values? Not such a big deal? Would this be fun and games? Torture? Do you feel that by virtue of culture or race that perhaps Iraqi children are more tolerant of or less affected by violent sodomy than we here in the pampered west?
I dunno, personally I've always associated thing like that more with Nazi's than Americans. Am I wrong? Are Nazi's an inappropriate standard of comparison?
Does your son have a position on this as a SEAL? Is he for or against? Does he get any action? How often are Seals called upon to give the high hards to twelve year old boys? Or is this another branch of the service? Do you think that violent child rape makes his job easier or harder? Does it put him more or less at risk? How does it affect the morale of him and his men? Personally, I don't know that I would want to be associated with folks who did that stuff.
Anyway, have a nice day.
October 27, 2006 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "lady" who wrote this (ca. 6/05) excellent example of Christian thinking is named Doug Patton. Since he is a self-described " freelance writer who has worked as a speechwriter and policy advisor for federal, state and local candidates, elected officials and public policy organizations," I'm sure that he would be mortally wounded that a true believer would find his offering "not particularily well written".
October 27, 2006 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
And a transvestite to boot?
I can only assume that his success as a writer is part of that Right Wing affirmative action 'hire the handicapped' movement, which explains the success of persons like David Frum.
October 27, 2006 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Patton would also be very offended that you would dare to compare him to a Canadian, for G-d's sake. He and his lovely helpmate are so American that he finds the description of the USA as an "immigrant nation" a gross insult.
October 27, 2006 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, he shouldn't be concerned. David Frum is only a Canadian by accident of birth, ancestry, upbringing and accent. But none of that apparently took hold
One look at him would prove to anyone that he's got that 'Middle Aged Man with Undescended Testicles' look that is the genetic hallmark of the unreconstructed right winger.
I'm sure that Mr. Patton would love him to bits, what with both of them being such flowers of gender ambiguity. I think that there's something about the quality of being a self satisfied bag of goo that transcends such trivial things as race and national origin. As Disney said, it's amoeba world, after all.
I bid you, Yabba Dabba Adieu.
October 27, 2006 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, he shouldn't be concerned. David Frum is only a Canadian by accident of birth, ancestry, upbringing and accent. But none of that apparently took hold
One look at him would prove to anyone that he's got that 'Middle Aged Man with Undescended Testicles' look that is the genetic hallmark of the unreconstructed right winger.
I'm sure that Mr. Patton would love him to bits, what with both of them being such flowers of gender ambiguity. I think that there's something about the quality of being a self satisfied bag of goo that transcends such trivial things as race and national origin. As Disney said, it's amoeba world, after all.
I bid you, Yabba Dabba Adieu.
October 27, 2006 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without prejudice to whether the US should have been in South Vietnam at all, I am certainly willing to accept that the Lao Dong Party of NVN was encouraged by the US protest movement. Virtually of the elite were Communists, and subscribed to the Marxist dialectic, in which the protests fall as part of the model.
I am far less convinced that the state of public opinion, leaving, etc., makes a huge difference to someone following the theology and ideology of Sayyid Qutb. It is one thing to say that the dialectic proves a weakness of the capitalist system, but quite another thing to say that certain things happen because Allah wills it. In other words, I don't think that there is abundant evidence that external public opinion makes a huge difference to Osama and friends. If his analysis is validated in his mind, I do not see evidence that it would change a term of art from the Soviets, one that I wish we'd use, "the correlation of forces".
Geographically, Iraq is a poor place to put bases. There are too few routes out of it, and the Shait al Arab is easy to block. Do I think that the US could pull off a fairly straightforward exit, without losing too much in the way of equipment? Yes.
I do not believe in leaving tomorrow, nor do I believe in publishing schedules. Nevertheless, the "course" is so undefined that I see it time to draw a line in the sand, and say "we can improve and/or recruit this much Iraqi security forces by date M." That's our target.
Unless significantly supplied with heavier weapons than they have, the insurgents really have no chance against the larger US bases. If they block supply lines, they can't block the air corridors, and as heavy transports fly in ammunition and other necessities, it used to be that only 2% of the equipment of an armored division couldn't fly out on a C-5. I believe most of that was bridging equipment, and today's version are more compact.
Yes, there is value in suggesting to the Qutbists that they can't restore the Caliphate. Yes, it is a terribly difficult problem to balance Turkish, Kurdish, and Iranian interests. Some overtures to Iran, I believe, could be of enormous help.
In other words, even if the Capitol flew white flags everywhere, I don't think it would make any significant difference to the enemy. This is not thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
October 27, 2006 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink