Empathizing vs. Politicizing
I'm letting others do the talking tonight, especially as I'm including generous selections of their work.
First up is Larry Johnson, offering excellent empathetic insights that we should have been hearing more of since "we" invaded Iraq and started being fed astonished news that we were less and less welcomed as liberators:
One critical dilemma we confront in Iraq is the burden of our status as the Superpower. All people in the region--Sunnis, Shia, Kurds, and Persians--assume that we have a secret plan that we are pursuing unilaterally. The majority of these folks cannot accept that the sectarian violence unleashed in Iraq is a consequence of U.S. incompetence. They assume that the rising sectarian violence is something we want because we are a Superpower. By virtue of our status as a Superpower it is inconceivable that we would allow such violence unless it suited our "hidden" purposes.
The fact that Baghdad still suffers from chronic shortages of electricity, polluted water, broken sewers, and incompetent police is viewed by many in the region as prima facie evidence that we are deliberately and purposefully dismantling every vestige of what was the most secular Arab state in the Middle East. How could it be otherwise? We are a Superpower and a superpower, like any super hero, can do anything it wants.
The picture gets more complicated when viewed thru the sectarian lens of the various groups.
The Iraqi Sunnis by and large believe we are working in concert with the Shia to destroy the Sunni people. The notion that the Shia are the majority of the population is irrelevant. As the Sunni know, the Shia are incapable of governing or organizing without the support and direction of the Superpower.
The Shia keep waiting for the other shoe to drop because they know, in their heart of hearts, that we do not want them to control Iraq. They know we have designated their Iranian benefactors as part of the Axis of Evil and they read and hear news reports that the United States, perhaps with Israel acting as proxy, is going to attack Iran. Remember, we are the Superpower. Nothing happens, good or bad, without us pulling the strings behind the scenes.
-clip-
The following must be our short to middle term objectives:
We must publicly declare we have no intention to occupy Iraq and should renounce any claim to maintain permanent bases in Iraq with the following exceptions:
We will maintain one base in Baghdad, which will serve as the principle location for training a genuinely integrated Iraqi military. We must try to form a force that is not organized by geographic or sectarian loyalties. We must commit to support that force in its operations to make clear that it is not going to favor one religious faction over another. We may also want to consider having one base within each of the major ethnic regions of Iraq. However, our ultimate objective to disengage militaryily must be made clear to all sides.
We must restore public services in Baghdad to pre-war levels. Electricity must be available to all of Baghdad's residents 24-7. They must have clean water and functioning sewage systems. We must use whatever resources are required to accomplish these tasks. If we do so we can begin to counter the widespread belief that we are actually trying to impoverish the people of Iraq.
We must transfer the power now exercised in Iraq by the U.S. Ambassador and U.S. troops to a recognized international authority. The United States cannot and should not be the face of power in Iraq. If we are then we will also bear the blame for allowing the sectarian strife to escalate and for permitting social and sanitary infrastructure to collapse.We must pursue public diplomacy with both Syria and Iran. Saber rattling has gotten us nowhere. We are not in a position to destroy or occupy either of those countries. A crazy fantasy is not a substitute for pragmatic policy.
-clip-
And then there is Mr. Greenwald, author of "How Would a Patriot Act" (highly recommended), noting how the embattled, embittered, and increasingly irrelevant are desperately flailing about with what might be called anti-empathy (although in truth it is just their best effort at supporting the terrorism-fear they have been exploiting):
One theme that has emerged among a very specific strain of embittered Bush followers -- exemplified by the likes of Marty Peretz, John Hinderaker, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds -- is that Al Qaeda and America's other enemies, such as Iran, are celebrating the results of the midterm elections because Democrats are their allies.
To make this claim, they cite a series of playground taunts from Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq and various Iranian political officials mocking President Bush because his party was rejected by Americans in the election and because he lost Donald Rumsfeld. Taking these taunts with the utmost seriousness, these Bush followers claim this to be proof that Democrats are the allies of the Terrorists and/or demand that Democrats take immediate action in response in order to prove that this is not the case.
Ann Althouse asks: "What will the Democrats do to push back against that?" Marty Peretz echoes her "thought":
And Friday, according to an article by John Hemming from Reuters, Khameini that the defeat of the Republicans on Tuesday was a victory for Iran. Let's hope that the Democrats don't make it so.
One way to prevent this from seeming to be objectively true would be to have Nancy Pelosi end her ugly and personal vendetta against Jane Harman as the chair of the House Intelligene (sic) Committee. But, let's face it, it will take more than that. Much more.
John Hinderaker has a whole post with one declaration after the next like these:
I don't think there is any doubt about the fact that the terrorists, world-wide, were hoping for a Democratic victory. . . . And the spike in violence in Iraq prior to the election was generally understood as an effort by the terrorists to help Democratic candidates. . . .
Do the Democrats feel at all sheepish at having their victory hailed by al Qaeda? Do they feel any pressure to demonstrate to the American people that they are not a de facto ally of the terrorists? Not as far as we've noticed so far.
-clip-
There is no point in bothering to refute any of this because it is so vile and just plain stupid that it is self-refuting. This was the rhetoric upon which they and their Leader increasingly relied as the inevitability of their loss became clearer, and the more they spew this sort of trash, the better it will be for the country, because with it, they so transparently reveal what they really are.
I note all of this not in order to respond to these "arguments" but instead to note the response to it all from Ed Morrissey, who said this:
It's the kind of stupid rant that makes radical Islamists and their sympathizers swoon with delight, but is filled with hyperbole and crude attempts at psychological warfare and propaganda. They try to play into the mood of their enemies, and they demonstrate their ability to monitor news feeds in their attempts to provoke Americans across the political spectrum. That's one reason why it's a mistake to allow them to succeed, but there are more as well.
Radical Islamists want to divide Americans in order to defeat us. They will play on our differences, stoking the fires of resentment and generating more hatred between us than we have against our enemies. . . . Besides, if we take Abu Hamza at his word about the Democrats, then we have to take him at his word about Bush as well, and about our troops.
The partisan sniping has ceased to be germane. We've already had the election, and the Democrats are in charge -- and they will be for two years no matter what. Obviously, we will watch closely to ensure that they do not surrender to terrorism, but I'm not going to take Abu Hamza's word that they will before their majority session even starts.
-clip-
The idea that Al Qaeda and Iran were rooting for the Democrats to win in the midterm elections -- or that they want Jane Harman to be blocked from ascending to the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee because they prefer some more liberal Democratic Congressman -- isn't just malevolent. It's outright stupid and childish -- just as those endless claims as part of the 2004 election that Al Qaeda was rooting for John Kerry were. Digby explained exactly why that is so yesterday in the course of speculating as to why Rumsfeld was not fired before the election:
It is also probable that Bush, Cheney and Rove all believed that any sign they were listening to the opposition would be perceived as weakness by the terrorists which I think is one of their fundamental mistakes in running the war on terror. Like most immature bullies they attach much too much importance to silly schoolyard taunts . . . .
How much do you think Junior hates [hearing Al Qaeda taunts that he fired Rumsfeld and lost the election]? I would guess it bothers him quite a bit, judging from his rhetoric over the past five years.
I suspect they think the world sees things through the same schoolboy lens as they do and truly believed that if their voters saw al Qaeda dissing the Prez before the election they would recoil from their weakened leader in disgust.
Perhaps they are right. And I suspect they couldn't take the idea of Democrats gloating (we are pretty much the same as al Qaeda in their minds) either.
In many respects, we have had a foreign policy over the last five years based on the mentality of the most irrational, insecure 8-year-old playground bully -- hence, the obsession with Al Qaeda's chest-beating proclamations and the increasing identity between the Bush movement and Al Qaeda in terms of both rhetoric and thought process. But I think Morrissey's sober response to his comrades illustrates something important.
-clip-
First up is Larry Johnson, offering excellent empathetic insights that we should have been hearing more of since "we" invaded Iraq and started being fed astonished news that we were less and less welcomed as liberators:
One critical dilemma we confront in Iraq is the burden of our status as the Superpower. All people in the region--Sunnis, Shia, Kurds, and Persians--assume that we have a secret plan that we are pursuing unilaterally. The majority of these folks cannot accept that the sectarian violence unleashed in Iraq is a consequence of U.S. incompetence. They assume that the rising sectarian violence is something we want because we are a Superpower. By virtue of our status as a Superpower it is inconceivable that we would allow such violence unless it suited our "hidden" purposes.
The fact that Baghdad still suffers from chronic shortages of electricity, polluted water, broken sewers, and incompetent police is viewed by many in the region as prima facie evidence that we are deliberately and purposefully dismantling every vestige of what was the most secular Arab state in the Middle East. How could it be otherwise? We are a Superpower and a superpower, like any super hero, can do anything it wants.
The picture gets more complicated when viewed thru the sectarian lens of the various groups.
The Iraqi Sunnis by and large believe we are working in concert with the Shia to destroy the Sunni people. The notion that the Shia are the majority of the population is irrelevant. As the Sunni know, the Shia are incapable of governing or organizing without the support and direction of the Superpower.
The Shia keep waiting for the other shoe to drop because they know, in their heart of hearts, that we do not want them to control Iraq. They know we have designated their Iranian benefactors as part of the Axis of Evil and they read and hear news reports that the United States, perhaps with Israel acting as proxy, is going to attack Iran. Remember, we are the Superpower. Nothing happens, good or bad, without us pulling the strings behind the scenes.
-clip-
The following must be our short to middle term objectives:
We must publicly declare we have no intention to occupy Iraq and should renounce any claim to maintain permanent bases in Iraq with the following exceptions:
We will maintain one base in Baghdad, which will serve as the principle location for training a genuinely integrated Iraqi military. We must try to form a force that is not organized by geographic or sectarian loyalties. We must commit to support that force in its operations to make clear that it is not going to favor one religious faction over another. We may also want to consider having one base within each of the major ethnic regions of Iraq. However, our ultimate objective to disengage militaryily must be made clear to all sides.
We must restore public services in Baghdad to pre-war levels. Electricity must be available to all of Baghdad's residents 24-7. They must have clean water and functioning sewage systems. We must use whatever resources are required to accomplish these tasks. If we do so we can begin to counter the widespread belief that we are actually trying to impoverish the people of Iraq.
We must transfer the power now exercised in Iraq by the U.S. Ambassador and U.S. troops to a recognized international authority. The United States cannot and should not be the face of power in Iraq. If we are then we will also bear the blame for allowing the sectarian strife to escalate and for permitting social and sanitary infrastructure to collapse.We must pursue public diplomacy with both Syria and Iran. Saber rattling has gotten us nowhere. We are not in a position to destroy or occupy either of those countries. A crazy fantasy is not a substitute for pragmatic policy.
-clip-
And then there is Mr. Greenwald, author of "How Would a Patriot Act" (highly recommended), noting how the embattled, embittered, and increasingly irrelevant are desperately flailing about with what might be called anti-empathy (although in truth it is just their best effort at supporting the terrorism-fear they have been exploiting):
One theme that has emerged among a very specific strain of embittered Bush followers -- exemplified by the likes of Marty Peretz, John Hinderaker, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds -- is that Al Qaeda and America's other enemies, such as Iran, are celebrating the results of the midterm elections because Democrats are their allies.
To make this claim, they cite a series of playground taunts from Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq and various Iranian political officials mocking President Bush because his party was rejected by Americans in the election and because he lost Donald Rumsfeld. Taking these taunts with the utmost seriousness, these Bush followers claim this to be proof that Democrats are the allies of the Terrorists and/or demand that Democrats take immediate action in response in order to prove that this is not the case.
Ann Althouse asks: "What will the Democrats do to push back against that?" Marty Peretz echoes her "thought":
And Friday, according to an article by John Hemming from Reuters, Khameini that the defeat of the Republicans on Tuesday was a victory for Iran. Let's hope that the Democrats don't make it so.
One way to prevent this from seeming to be objectively true would be to have Nancy Pelosi end her ugly and personal vendetta against Jane Harman as the chair of the House Intelligene (sic) Committee. But, let's face it, it will take more than that. Much more.
John Hinderaker has a whole post with one declaration after the next like these:
I don't think there is any doubt about the fact that the terrorists, world-wide, were hoping for a Democratic victory. . . . And the spike in violence in Iraq prior to the election was generally understood as an effort by the terrorists to help Democratic candidates. . . .
Do the Democrats feel at all sheepish at having their victory hailed by al Qaeda? Do they feel any pressure to demonstrate to the American people that they are not a de facto ally of the terrorists? Not as far as we've noticed so far.
-clip-
There is no point in bothering to refute any of this because it is so vile and just plain stupid that it is self-refuting. This was the rhetoric upon which they and their Leader increasingly relied as the inevitability of their loss became clearer, and the more they spew this sort of trash, the better it will be for the country, because with it, they so transparently reveal what they really are.
I note all of this not in order to respond to these "arguments" but instead to note the response to it all from Ed Morrissey, who said this:
It's the kind of stupid rant that makes radical Islamists and their sympathizers swoon with delight, but is filled with hyperbole and crude attempts at psychological warfare and propaganda. They try to play into the mood of their enemies, and they demonstrate their ability to monitor news feeds in their attempts to provoke Americans across the political spectrum. That's one reason why it's a mistake to allow them to succeed, but there are more as well.
Radical Islamists want to divide Americans in order to defeat us. They will play on our differences, stoking the fires of resentment and generating more hatred between us than we have against our enemies. . . . Besides, if we take Abu Hamza at his word about the Democrats, then we have to take him at his word about Bush as well, and about our troops.
The partisan sniping has ceased to be germane. We've already had the election, and the Democrats are in charge -- and they will be for two years no matter what. Obviously, we will watch closely to ensure that they do not surrender to terrorism, but I'm not going to take Abu Hamza's word that they will before their majority session even starts.
-clip-
The idea that Al Qaeda and Iran were rooting for the Democrats to win in the midterm elections -- or that they want Jane Harman to be blocked from ascending to the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee because they prefer some more liberal Democratic Congressman -- isn't just malevolent. It's outright stupid and childish -- just as those endless claims as part of the 2004 election that Al Qaeda was rooting for John Kerry were. Digby explained exactly why that is so yesterday in the course of speculating as to why Rumsfeld was not fired before the election:
It is also probable that Bush, Cheney and Rove all believed that any sign they were listening to the opposition would be perceived as weakness by the terrorists which I think is one of their fundamental mistakes in running the war on terror. Like most immature bullies they attach much too much importance to silly schoolyard taunts . . . .
How much do you think Junior hates [hearing Al Qaeda taunts that he fired Rumsfeld and lost the election]? I would guess it bothers him quite a bit, judging from his rhetoric over the past five years.
I suspect they think the world sees things through the same schoolboy lens as they do and truly believed that if their voters saw al Qaeda dissing the Prez before the election they would recoil from their weakened leader in disgust.
Perhaps they are right. And I suspect they couldn't take the idea of Democrats gloating (we are pretty much the same as al Qaeda in their minds) either.
In many respects, we have had a foreign policy over the last five years based on the mentality of the most irrational, insecure 8-year-old playground bully -- hence, the obsession with Al Qaeda's chest-beating proclamations and the increasing identity between the Bush movement and Al Qaeda in terms of both rhetoric and thought process. But I think Morrissey's sober response to his comrades illustrates something important.
-clip-
posted by Sir Gumbo at 11:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home