…that they are not getting what they voted for.
In other words, the neoconservative agenda is not what it promised to be.
Warning – this one is long… with subheadings…
Anyone who thinks this is black and white has not read up on the subject…
Professor Bainbridge, at his eponymous weblog, has apparently stopped toeing the party line:
It’s time for us conservatives to face facts. George W. Bush has pissed away the conservative moment by pursuing a war of choice via policies that border on the criminally incompetent. We control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and (more-or-less) the judiciary for one of the few times in my nearly 5 decades, but what have we really accomplished? Is government smaller? Have we hacked away at the nanny state? Are the unborn any more protected? Have we really set the stage for a durable conservative majority?
Meanwhile, Bush continues to insult our intelligence with tripe like this:
“Our troops know that they’re fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy,” Bush said in his weekly radio address. {Ed: Full text here}
“They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war,” he said.
I guess that’s all he has left. After all, if Iraq’s alleged WMD programs were the casus belli, why aren’t we at war with Iran and North Korea? Not to mention Pakistan, which remains the odds-on favorite to supply the Islamofascists with a working nuke. If Saddam’s cruelty to his own people was the casus belli, why aren’t we taking out Kim Jong Il or any number of other nasty dictators? Indeed, what happened to the W of 2000, who correctly proclaimed nation building a failed cause and an inappropriate use of American military might? And why are we apparently going to allow the Islamists to write a more significant role for Islamic law into the new Iraqi constitution? If throwing a scare into the Saudis was the policy, so as to get them to rethink their deals with the jihadists, which has always struck me as the best rationale for the war, have things really improved on that front?
The trouble with Bush’s justification for the war is that it uses American troops as fly paper. Send US troops over to Iraq, where they’ll attract all the terrorists, who otherwise would have come here, and whom we’ll then kill. This theory has proven fallacious. The first problem is that the American people are unwilling to let their soldiers be used as fly paper. If Iraq has proven anything, it has confirmed for me the validity of the Powell Doctrine.
—
While we remain bogged down in Iraq, of course, Osama bin Laden remains at large somewhere. Multi-tasking is all the rage these days, but whatever happened to finishing a job you started? It strikes me that catching Osama would have done a lot more to discourage the jihadists than anything we’ve done in Iraq.
These are points that if made by someone on the left side of the political spectrum, they would be immediately be dismissed as “partisan politics” by the right-wingers in blogworld.
With them coming from an avowedly and proudly self-proclaimed conservative from the old mold, if the discussion quoted above is any indication of his provenance, can the accusation of “partisan” continue to be leveled at any and every one who condemns the new-mint neoconservative policies that appear to have if not completely failed, have fallen far, far short of what was promised by the acolytes of the new faith?
It’s hard to answer what is wrong, when nothing is right…
Meanwhile, political science professor Dr. Stephen Taylor (who from my reading at least appears to be right-leaning) at PoliBlog offers this concern regarding the current draft of the proposed Iraq constitution:
I have long wondered if the usage of “federalism” in the press is accurate, and have thought for a while that it was not (and Shugart’s post today confirms it). Indeed, what seems to be on the table is a form of confederalism or a strange hybrid of kinda-sorta-federalism with a unitary government–neither of which is a very good idea.
Indeed, this sounds like a potential disaster–but I will think some more on the topic and wait and see what is actually in the document.
In short: the confederal version (a Kurd zone, a Shiite zone and a Sunni zone) is a recipe for breakup, and a Kurd + the rest of Iraq version seems to equal a relatively quick exit for the Kurds, which would cause problems with the rest of Iraq, not to mention Turkey and Iran.
Did they not consult with anyone who knows something about constitution design and institution arrangements? It would appear not.
And at this point I am more prone to believe the negative assessment vis-a-vis getting a draft to parliament, rather than the optimistic one.
To say that his analysis and questions are troubling is an understatement.
Elsewhere in the world, since both Iran and Kim Jong Il, the dictator in charge of a North Korea that likely has the very nuclear weapons that Iraq was discovered to NOT have, a regime that desperately needs hard currency incidentally, has already been mentioned by Professor Bainbridge, perhaps we should discuss what I have often argued is the true medium to long-term existential threat to the United States, which is China, not terrorism (a tactic, not an ideology) or Islamofascism:
China today differs from Japan in 1980s
Country may be a far tougher force to reckon with going forward
Associated Press
Updated: 4:59 p.m. ET Aug. 21, 2005
NEW YORK – It sounds like history repeating itself: The United States faces a huge trade deficit with an Asian country, which is also under intense scrutiny for its interest in buying U.S. assets and having a currency many deem undervalued.
Today, that best describes how China is viewed. Two decades ago, Japan came under similar attack for its growing global presence, and that spurred all sorts of protectionist talk out of Washington.
The Japanese hysteria eventually died down as the country fell into a long recession. But don’t look for that to happen with China, where its politics combined with its potential for growth may make it a far tougher force to reckon with going forward.
—
There are also significant political differences between the two. While the Chinese have been more open to foreign investment than Japan, there are some concerns that the communist political structure means that the Chinese won’t embrace all kinds of foreign involvement such as an American company buying a big Chinese company.
In addition, Standard & Poor’s chief economist David Wyss points out that China’s huge population — which he estimates is 10 times as large as Japan’s — means that China has the capability of taking over world production of just about everything.
So talking about China today as though it were Japan 20 years ago might not accurately size up the situation of this fast-growing empire. China’s might just be beginning to build its power as an economic force.
To the dismay of many Americans, that will likely mean a bigger, bolder China to contend with for many years to come.
If we do not defeat ourselves through our over-reactions to perceived dangers by passing or making permanent laws such as the USA PATRIOT Act that arguably are unconstitutional (the requirement of judicial approval for search warrants, anyone?) and other ineffective but freedom-denying actions that degrade the very liberties we proclaim to be defending, then we may very well not be able to combat the economic threat posed by China.
Recall, we did not defeat the Soviet empire through a direct war. We won through other means.
In other words, “It’s the economy, stupid.”
Think of the Web as a big bathroom wall, and everyone has a marker…
Those bloggers and professional editorialists who repeat the current right-wing talking points blame the so-called “liberal media” for poisoning the atmosphere regarding Iraq by the insidious plan of the heinous MainStream Media (MSM) to only present the bad news out of Iraq while completely ignoring the good news.
An aside here, if I had to don body armor and only go out with an armed platoon of the US military to “report” on the situation outside the infamous Green Zone in Baghdad, I would question the efficacy of the occupation of Iraq, too.
However, returning to the substance of the accusation of a “biased media”, it is interesting to observe that many of these same writers who are claiming that the supposedly biased media are turning the citizens of the United States against the policies of the administration in Iraq, implying that citizens are incapable of making their own judgments and instead swallow what they are fed by the MSM whole, are the very same writers who were proudly proclaiming that those very same average citizens are now miraculously smart enough to make their own choices regarding retirement planning and investing, so it is vital (according to the right-wing talking points) for both fairness and the future of the retirement system that we make Personal Accounts a key part of the Social Security system.
Do you sense an inconsistency here that is rather insulting to the “average Joe”, just as insulting as is the arrogance of the left-wing?
At times I suspect that both extreme wings suffer from the same syndrome of hubris and smug certainty that they are the only ones who know what is right, but the right-wing is better able to come across as “folksy” while the left-wing doesn’t hide their own version of the same elitist arrogance at all.
I wonder, which is truly more honest…
Anything can be put to use, even the dead…
In an ironic symmetry, recently John Donovan of Castle Argghhh!, a milblogger who leans right but is happy to engage in reasonable discussion, posted on his agreement with a Christopher Hitchens article in Slate decrying using the dead to make a political point, a condemnation that I agreed with if applied to both wings equally. Hitchens wrote:
Finally, I think one must deny to anyone the right to ventriloquize the dead. Casey Sheehan joined up as a responsible adult volunteer. Are we so sure that he would have wanted to see his mother acquiring “a knack for P.R.” and announcing that he was killed in a war for a Jewish cabal? This is just as objectionable, on logical as well as moral grounds, as the old pro-war argument that the dead “must not have died in vain.” I distrust anyone who claims to speak for the fallen, and I distrust even more the hysterical noncombatants who exploit the grief of those who have to bury them.
Yet today, Blackfive, a milblogger who also leans right but doesn’t seem to drink the right-wing kool-aid wrote this at his eponymous weblog (NOTE – bolded italics added):
One point (and not critical of the above post by my pal Andi), I really do object to using the name “Sheehan” to identify the protests. I doubt very much that Army Specialist Casey Sheehan would appreciate that. Instead, let’s call it Cindy-fest or something else. Cindy-land. Cindy-stock. Anything but Casey’s name.
To put it bluntly, Blackfive has just ventriloquized the dead by stating that he knows better than what the mother of Army Specialist Casey Sheehan knows her son, the dead Casey Sheehan, would appreciate.
Ventriloquizing the dead? Everyone is doing it.
I know the irony was unintentional, but that is what makes it all the more cold and hard.
The only lesson history has taught us is that man has not yet learned anything from history…
Even though I did not like George W. Bush even before he became President of the United States, recent trends are not good for our nation (thanks to Jonathan Singer posting at The Moderate Voice for the link):
George W. Bush’s overall job approval ratings have dropped from a month ago even as Americans who approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president are turning more optimistic about their personal financial situations according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 36% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 58% disapprove. When it comes to Bush’s handling of the economy, 33% approve and 62% disapprove.
Among Americans registered to vote, 38% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 56% disapprove, and 36% approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 60% disapprove.
This is the second month in a row when improving economic ratings have not been matched by higher job approval ratings for Bush. A total of 24% of Americans now say their personal financial situations are getting better, up from 17% in July, and 27% say they believe that their personal financial situations will be better off a year from now, which is up from 21% in July.
(Full disclosure: I lived in Texas long before George W. Bush became President and observed his performance then… along with the very American tendency that I do not like sons of privilege who have never held a real job, or even any job that was not acquired through who your father is rather than what you have actually accomplished on your own… I ask the hyper-partisan among you to give me an example of where any business that George W. Bush was in charge of prospered under his leadership, or indeed any job he did not get through who he was related to but instead based upon his qualifications and what he had achieved)
How can any American who is interested in the success of his nation, regardless of his partisan leanings, take joy in this?
I take no joy in it, because it shows the failure we are undergoing despite the price we have paid in treasure and, far more importantly, lives both lost and damaged beyond any repair we can give them.
It only gets worse, however:
Militias wrest control across Iraq’s north, south
Newly empowered Shiite, Kurdish forces hold mixed allegiances
By Anthony Shadid and Steve Fainaru
The Washington Post
Updated: 6:19 a.m. ET Aug. 21, 2005
BASRA, Iraq – Shiite and Kurdish militias, often operating as part of Iraqi government security forces, have carried out a wave of abductions, assassinations and other acts of intimidation, consolidating their control over territory across northern and southern Iraq and deepening the country’s divide along ethnic and sectarian lines, according to political leaders, families of the victims, human rights activists and Iraqi officials.
While Iraqi representatives wrangle over the drafting of a constitution in Baghdad, forces represented by the militias and the Shiite and Kurdish parties that control them are creating their own institutions of authority, unaccountable to elected governments, the activists and officials said. In Basra in the south, dominated by the Shiites, and Mosul in the north, ruled by the Kurds, as well as cities and villages around them, many residents say they are powerless before the growing sway of the militias, which instill a climate of fear that many see as redolent of the era of former president Saddam Hussein.
Militias gain power, but authority unclear
The parties and their armed wings are sometimes operating independently, and other times as part of Iraqi army and police units trained and equipped by the United States and Britain and controlled by the central government. Their growing authority has enabled them to seize territory, confront their perceived enemies and provide patronage to their followers. Their rise has come because of a power vacuum in Baghdad and their own success in the January elections.
Since the formation of a government this spring, Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city, has witnessed dozens of assassinations, claiming members of the former ruling Baath Party, Sunni political leaders and officials of competing Shiite parties. Many have been carried out by uniformed men in police vehicles, according to political leaders and families of the victims, with some of the bullet-riddled bodies dumped at night in a trash-strewn parcel known as The Lot. The province’s governor said in an interview that Shiite militias have penetrated the police force; an Iraqi official estimated that as many as 90 percent of officers were loyal to religious parties.
Across northern Iraq, Kurdish parties have employed a previously undisclosed network of at least five detention facilities to incarcerate hundreds of Sunni Arabs, Turkmens and other minorities abducted and secretly transferred from Mosul, Iraq’s third-largest city, and from territories stretching to the Iranian border, according to political leaders and detainees’ families. Nominally under the authority of the U.S.-backed Iraqi army, the militias have beaten up and threatened government officials and political leaders deemed to be working against Kurdish interests; one bloodied official was paraded through a town in a pickup truck, witnesses said.
Violence a black mark on U.S.?
“I don’t see any difference between Saddam and the way the Kurds are running things here,” said Nahrain Toma, who heads a human rights organization, Betnahrain, with offices in northern Iraq and has faced several death threats.
Toma said the tactics were eroding what remained of U.S. credibility as the militias operate under what many Iraqis view as the blessing of American and British forces. “Nobody wants anything to do with the Americans anymore,” she said. “Why? Because they gave the power to the Kurds and to the Shiites. No one else has any rights.”
There is more, and none of it promising.
In other words, if not a complete and utter failure of the administration’s handling of the post-war situation in Iraq, the reality there is far, far from a ringing endorsement of the policies and leadership.
Yet, the warbloggers who chanted “weapons of mass destruction” for months and months before and after March of 2003 until ultimately they were proven completely and totally wrong continue their drone of unquestioning support despite the incompetence their revered leaders have shown.
Is it any wonder that this poem from almost a century ago, written in the wake of the First World War seems even more applicable now?
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
-William Butler Yeats, January 1919
After pulling together all of these seemingly disparate threads and slogging through all of this text, one must ask what is the pattern?
The answer is simple.
We are being distracted by things that are not true threats, and neglecting the real perils to our nation.
Islamofascism?
Yes, it is dangerous, but will it ever overthrow our government unless we help it from within through ill-considered laws that are contrary to the liberties envisioned by our founders?
No.
China and other rising powers in Asia (including India, the largest democracy in the world)?
That is where the real confrontation to our current pre-eminent position of power technologically, economically, and militarily (for the three are linked far more profoundly than most realize) in the world lies.
How do cultures die?
When they are more concerned with internecine conflicts over ideologies that are more similar than the fundamental culture is to the external threats opposed to them.
We have to step outside our ideology, outside our partisan talking points, and deliberately choose to look at the world as it is.
The consequences if we do not?
I leave the rest of the math as an exercise to the reader.
Technorati Tags: commentary, patterns in the white noise, politics, right-wing, right-wing politics, right-wing weblogs, some thoughts
