What, concretely, do people who think opposition to the Iraq war has hurt our chances of a good outcome to the war, think we'd be doing differently in the absence of opposition?
Nuking stuff, of course.
nukes, maybe.
just ask family security matters.
nope, i'm not the right one to answer your question about what more we could have given bush to help him win the war,
cause to my mind we gave bush everything he possibly could have wanted.
so instead i want to ask:
why did we give bush everything he possibly could have wanted?
(which was still not enough to keep him from screwing up).
and in my own case the answer is:
i gave him everything, i never stood in his way, i held my tongue, i didn't march, i let it all happen without protest,
largely so that i would not get blamed, once again, for having been the cause of the disaster, as i was after vietnam.
we dirty hippies got slammed for several decades about how we had treacherously stabbed america in the back.
and as a result, when this particular episode got under way, a large part of my reaction was: fuck it, i'm not getting involved. i'm not going to be the one to tell a fool not to go on a fool's errand.
i tried that thirty years ago, and for thanks i got branded a traitor.
what i didn't realize, but should have realized, is that with this gang, they're going to brand you a traitor anyway, whether you gave them everything they asked for or not.
so, okay. i wish i had realized that back in 2002, but now i know.
i just wish the democratic congressional leadership would learn that lesson, soonish.
30-yard penalty: Inappropriate assumption of good-faith argument.
I think the idea is that if the US presented a united front, with an apparent willingness to stay indefinitely, and to let the military do things we do not want them to do, then the other sides would come to terms that were acceptable to us. It's a sort of Biggest Guy in the Room theory. I can't really say it's wrong, much though I loved MY's Green Lantern post.
But I think pro-war folk are unwilling to accept or even acknowledge that both our national will and the freedom of action we allow the military are constrained for excellent, hard-headed reasons. I think that's why it's important to them that the war be understood as part of an existential fight: things that are unthinkable otherwise are suddenly OK in such circumstances.
Morale! We would have more troops if liberals weren't killing their morale.
kid bitzer gets it right.
It's so aggravating. If someone does nothing but lie about you, you have complete freedom of action. The Republicans will obviously lie about the Democrats' lust for terrorists whether or not the Democrats agree to support unnecessary and destructive freedom-destroying laws. Over and over this happens. Why do they think that the Republican lies will be somehow less effective with the electorate if they aren't based on a tiny smidgen of twisted truth?
3 is right. Also, America has God on Our Side, therefore the only thing that can defeat Us is Us.
5 almost has it. The thing is that the dirty fucking hippies made it clear to AL-QAEDA, who are the only people we're fighting in Iraq™, that if AL-QAEDA only killed enough of our brave noble boys -- who can't hardly fight back, what with all the lawyerin' the ACLU makes them do -- the dirty fucking hippies would force America to withdraw. It's not that our brave noble boys haven't been given enough, although it would be nice if people just shut up about Abu Ghraib and let them do the things that need to be done -- "The blame of those ye better / The hate of those ye guard", you know. It's that the very act of opposition made AL-QAEDA, who are the only people we're fighting in Iraq™, win.
This narrative is, of course, fascistic and insane, but I expect Tucker Carlson will be repeating it non-stop for the next eight years, and David Broder will say that while it's true, it ignores the fact that Rumsfeld did a job, so really both sides were wrong.
The ability to whip people into a frenzy about gay marriage is dying down, and the business interests of the Republican party are currently preventing them from instituting the "shoot illegals on sight" many of them would prefer, so really, the stab-in-the-back narrative is all they have at the moment. Never doubt their ability to get the media to chase the can they just kicked, though.
Well, there's still the illegal immigrant blame. Maybe the Mexicans are stabbing the good American boys in the back, when they're not causing the housing market to collapse.
3 gets it exactly right. Tweet. Repeat second down.
But if I were to construct a story about how liberals stabbed the troops in the back, I'd start by going all the way back to the beginning of the war where Shinseki (?) requested 500,000 troops to manage the war properly, and the administration was only able to allot him 100,000 because the liberals had weakened American resolve even before the first shot was fired. The liberals forced the administration to build up the liberating Iraqis facade for the war, meaning that al-Qaeda knew we would never use nukes. And the newspapers printed pictures of Abu Ghraib, which made us look bad. And then it's will to power all the way down.
I didn't say it would be a good story.
yeah, i sorta went meta on the question, but for the object-level answer, i think snarkout in 8 is about right.
what he (she?) points out correctly is that only a failure of will could prevent our achieving our objective,
because our only objective was to *demonstrate our will*.
the people who are most responsive to the stab-in-the-back story are not people who had some precise, determinate end-state that they wanted to bring about in iraq.
these are not people who cared deeply about how the revenue-sharing for the oil reserves was divided between provinces.
these are people who are willing to flit between advocating a democratic ponystan and advocating a new strong-man at the drop of a hat.
they only had one objective, all along: not to lose, whatever losing might consist in.
and perhaps more determinately, not to knuckle under, not to cry uncle, which is even worse than losing.
(if saddam had possessed infinite arsenals of q-bombs and the u.s. had gone down in glorious defeat, that might have been okay--provided that we were bloodied but unbowed, with our unshakable will still willing unshakably).
the sad thing about all of this is that because the question of what "triumph" and "defeat" consist in is so flexible here, there is really no reason (other than vice and mania) why we should not declare a victory and then leave.
indeed, what the winning democratic candidate *should* be saying is: 'we won! let's come home! we toppled saddam! we certified iraq was wmd free! we did it! it was a glorious victory! everyone come home now!"
and it's actually bush's act of defining leaving as a failure, that makes it a failure in the eyes of those who want to win at all costs.
8 gets it right. It's the Green Lantern Theory: the hippies have weakened our will. Our enemies then see that it just might work to keep fighting until the hippies make us withdraw, rather than bowing to our will. (The story continues: They are wrong about this, of course, as long as strong leaders like Bush and Petraeus stay the course.)
What, concretely, do people who think opposition to the Iraq war has hurt our chances of a good outcome to the war, think we'd be doing differently in the absence of opposition?
Digby is on the case here. Not only is there a program for what Real American Patriots would do in the absence of disloyal opposition, but there is a program to deal with the opposition.
On the recommendation of some people in a previous thread, I'm going to have to point out that I already blogged about this over two years ago, and much more insightfully -- that is to say, I actually isolated the mechanism by which liberal critics are undermining the war effort.
indeed, what the winning democratic candidate *should* be saying is: 'we won! let's come home! we toppled saddam! we certified iraq was wmd free! we did it! it was a glorious victory! everyone come home now!"
and it's actually bush's act of defining leaving as a failure, that makes it a failure in the eyes of those who want to win at all costs.
Absolutely.
Why is it that when we hear, "Sob sob sob if we leave now we will lose and ALL OUR SACRIFICES WILL BE IN VAIN!", the response is not "We won the war 4 years ago. The occupation has not gone as planned and it turns out that we can't accomplish the occupation's goals with a military force."
Is it because "occupation" is a dirty word?
Ugh. Even from their own perspective, the answer, of course, is that if the administration wants everyone's universal unqualified support for any action, they should (a) fucking earn it, or (b) roll out a truly powerful rhetorical machine that convinces everyone.
"Wah! We didn't convince everyone this was a good idea, and now we don't like it when they criticize us and it makes doing this thing no one wanted us to do so much harder! Wah!"
Bitching leads nowhere. They had the most goodwill any administration has ever had, and they still couldn't convince everyone the Iraq war was a good idea? They should have tried harder.
Oh, everyone should click through that link. I read it a couple of days ago, and man, is it freaky. I do need to figure out exactly who the writer is; I didn't get it pinned down between random crazy guy two degrees of separation from powerful people, or someone who genuinely has some influence himself.
What, concretely, do people who think opposition to the Iraq war has hurt our chances...
I think 'think' is the operative word here, and they don't.
13 was interesting. But seriously, the "Let's feel sorry for Georgy Porgy" talk is not going to convince many. The people who have irrationally loved him have done so because they thought he was blessed by God, or just stunningly successful in a way they found hott. Could any of those people claim the same of GWB now? He's in political trouble, and can't stop bitching about it, and if there's one thing America hates, it's a whiner.
Also, I think:
http://www.unfogged.com/archives/comments_7385.html#616542
is still right about the content of their 'thinking'.
"if there's one thing America hates, it's a whiner."
You're kidding, right? The stereotype abroad is that you're a nation of whiners.
Er, what nattarGcM said in the link in 21.
However, the stereotype among Americans is not that we are a nation of whiners. I would be surprised if that was any country's self-image, except some Eastern Europeans.
20--
i hope you're right, awb, but i worry.
his remaining supporters confuse paralysis with resolve.
as long as he keeps on saying the same things, he shows resolve.
and as long as he shows resolve, and doesn't knuckle under
--to the foreigners, the dirty hippies, the democrats, or the press, if we can even make those distinctions--
then he isn't a loser, he's a winner.
plus--what you hear as a whine has been repeatedly poll-tested.
if he had said "it's hard" the first time, and it had tanked in the focus-groups, then karl would have smacked it out of him.
he keeps on saying it, and that's pretty good proof that it has been shown to appeal to the die-hards.
(makes him christ-like is my guess.
how he bears up with all those hateful liberals attacking him all the time, well it passeth understanding
--the strength of the man! his resolve! it's so steely!)
22--
foreigners think we're whiners?
but but but--
are not, either!
that's not *fair*!
make them stop!
I have nothing substantive to add. But I will point out that long post titles really screw with the "LATEST COMMENTS" list on the left side there. Just sayin'.
24 - Are you kidding? I just read a (unintentionally hilarious) Andy Rooney piece about how baseball isn't interesting because we don't leave pitchers in for all 9 innings any more. "The pussification of the American male". Endless reams of paper spent talking about how nobody is as good as the Greatest Generation. This has been a theme since at least the Baby Boomers' adolescence, and probably before that. (The half-step-up-from-niced/oggy.net right-wing blatherer LB is asking about wrote a book called A Study of Our Decline apparently.)
If we weren't coddled whiners, nobody would complain if we had to choke a bitch nuke some wogs.
The Republican core is intensely reactive and expressive, like people who get angry at physical objects they bump into. Chickenhawks, gay-baiting gays, the list goes on -- we're looking at dense concentration of unexamined lives (ofthen enabled by cheap, prosperity-theology Christianity.)
The leadership is completely cynical and demogogic, and also murderous.
So we need to have a counterattack ready. I hope that Democrats don't hope to "put it behind us and go on with America's work", or be above the battle, or try for reconciliation, or "be better than them", or compromise. That won't work.
27: The feeling is generally expressed as "Talk about whiners! Who saved whose ass in World War II?!?! Who won the cold war?!?! Who is paying more for military stuff than the rest of the world combined because the effete Europeans can't defend themselves without our help?!?! Sheesh, talk about ungrateful."
28: I was about to mention that I can tell a LizardBreath post because the title is usually about five times as long as the titles of anyone else's posts.
31 - It's true, the Russians are a very stoic people.
31 sure. We love that over here.
I've come close to physically beating someone who expressed that opinion to my face.: not that I am a violent person but he was being a spectacular ass about it.
31--
yeah, more accurate, but less manifestly whiney.
(i don't appreciate subtle whines--i like robust whines, whines with brio.)
I think the White House has just finally given up on keeping people from comparing Iraq and Vietnam so now they're trying to spin the comparisons. Reeks of desperation to me. Maybe Rove's leaving has something to do with the timing of Bush's address--it was barely coherent and a touch strident. Rove's fingerprints were all over it.
I would be surprised if that was any country's self-image, except some Eastern Europeans.
You'd be surprised, I think, how widespread that self image is in Europe, especially Britain.
The stereotype abroad is that you're a nation of whiners.
Which tells you something about the degree to which the right wing has taken over discourse in this country. It's not whining to say: "Boohoo, those furriners and hippies are messing with our benevolent hegemony."
However, you are a whiner if you say: "Boohoo, my child is chronically ill and George W. tells me to take him to the emergency room." Suck it up !
Similarly, you are Blaming America First if you think invading and occupying Iraq was a bad idea. But if you think the bad outcome was the result of the weak, traitorous American public, then you are just a good American.
I do need to figure out exactly who the writer is
You're kidding, right? The stereotype abroad is that you're a nation of whiners.
This is interesting when considered in combination with the fact that European colleagues frequently comment with dismay and bewilderment about how relentlessly optimistic Americans seem to be. Americans: obnoxious in every direction!
But people upthread are right. A Democratic President, on 21st January 2009, could easily say, "OK, we won the war six years ago, and now the democratically elected government of Iraq, chosen in elections enabled by us, would like us to go. And we're happy to oblige a friendly government in doing this. Byeee!
"And now, this health care thing..."
I think the White House has just finally given up on keeping people from comparing Iraq and Vietnam so now they're trying to spin the comparisons.
Someone has probably done this, but just for yucks it would be fun to go back and chronicle the voluminous administration denials that Iraq is anything like Vietnam.
39: Yeah, looks like random loon, a couple of degrees of separation from real people -- not more than that.
re: 40
I don't think those things are incompatible. The things Americans are relentlessly optimistic about and the things they whine about being different things.
They* are relentless optimistic about what they can achieve and about their own greatness and whine about how others perceive them and act towards them. Two sides of the same coin.
The whining is about others failing to appreciate how marvellous and important they are.
* stereotypical 'they', I'm not saying this is universally true.
from the link in 39--
"I think Atkinson's sense of entitlement is the only man-made pathology that can be seen from outer space."
44--
as for instance, relentless optimism about how easy it will be to create democratic ponystan in the middle east,
whining about how the brilliant plan was foiled by liberals and ungrateful arabs.
42: They did that on The Daily Show last night.
16 They had the most goodwill any administration has ever had ...
Given the patriotic fervor in the aftermath of 9/11, and the rapid dispatch of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the administration enjoyed better than 90% support from liberals and conservatives alike. In this political climate, critical thinking and public debate about the president's pending misadventure went out the window.
What happened next? Karl Rove squandered the good will of the loyal opposition and cranked up the partisan wedge machine to gain and maintain republican majorities in the 2004 elections.
For those democrats and liberals who supported this president, it was the ultimate act of political betrayal. From that point forward, the president's words and deeds would be forever suspect. And that is where we find ourselves today.
Ponystan. Snort.
Well done, AWB. Now let's try a little whinny.
AWB, careful. BPhD has a bridle and bit all ready.
/Godwin
American jingos have developed a toxic mix of bragging, bullying, and self-pity, but that's not unique.
You wouldn't believe the unspeakable things the Czechs and Poles were doing to innocent Germans between 1936 and 1939. Finally the Germans were forced to reluctantly intervene.
Optimism and self-pity are yin and yang. If you think that wonderful things are your due, small problems make you very angry.
JE, typical garden-variety narcissism.
You didn't "lose" the war against the Vietnamese because you left too soon. You lost the war because the enemy beat a force that should not have been there to begin with.
As for Bush invoking the memory of Vietnam, his critics have been calling this "his Vietnam war" from out outset and he had denied it. Referencing to it now is nothing more than a diversionary tactic, to get people, like us, talking about a history most people don't even understand as a means to divert attention from the latest war most people don't understand.
It is working. It always does.
> we just don't have enough soldiers
Silly LB.
We're going to have a military draft within a few years.
Like this:
- the Army and Marines are too over-extended to react to another crisis without more recruits.
- Look! Another crisis! *cough* Iran *cough* act of terror in US *cough * just before Nov 2008 *cough*
- Preznit goes on the holy TV: it's either a draft, or knuckle under to islamofascistbrownpeople. Courageously, he issues order to draft the sons of poor people.
- and oh by the way in the present emergency, we're postponing the 2008 elections. just for a while. you know, until the war on terror is over.