Why We Can’t Win the War in Iraq

Let’s give President Bush credit for at least one point: it would be a useful thing if all countries were democracies, because democracies, at least in comparison to dictatorships, tend not to go to war. Democracies require the will of the people in support of any significant governmental initiative, especially one as devastating and with such potential for adverse and unanticipated consequences as war.

Too bad President Bush never sold his war in Iraq as an exercise in promoting democracy, not that he would have had much of a chance convincing the American public that such a war was justified. But even with a small possibility of success, such an argument, and such a war, would have allowed the United States to occupy the moral high ground in its fight against Saddam Hussein. And occupying the moral high ground is all-important for a democracy at war. Not just the government, but the great majority of the people have to believe that their cause is morally just despite the inevitable setbacks and costs of war.

Instead, the Bush administration relied on the imminent danger argument: Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction (including a nuclear capability) that in a post-9/11 world posed an imminent threat to the safety of the United States. It was, as Paul Wolfowitz said, the one argument everyone in the administration could agree upon prior to the invasion.

There was a related but very important argument also promulgated: Saddam had collaborated with terrorists and was therefore implicitly to blame for the 9/11 attacks. This argument was like a salve on the open wound Americans nursed after 9/11. It gave immediacy and materiality to the enemy, especially since Osama bin Laden had evaporated into the Pakistani wilderness. Saddam Hussein was a sitting target, just asking for payback from an American public anxious for revenge.

And so the United States went to war out of self-defense and with a thirst for vengeance. Self-defense satisfied the need for a moral purpose to the war, and vengeance satisfied a savage instinct aroused when the World Trade center towers collapsed.

Two successive investigations into Iraq’s weapons capabilities have shown that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, and was only bluffing the rest of the world about the danger he presented. The moral justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq disappeared with these investigations, and thus began a slow but steady erosion of public support for the war in Iraq.

Supporters of the war – including the administration – have pointed out consistently that the war critics are undermining the war because the insurgents can see how approval from the American public is dissipating. This argument is entirely specious. The insurgents, first of all, have more pressing internal objectives than to worry about American public opinion. But to the extent they even think about American public opinion, their only concern should be maintaining the insurgency at some minimum low level. Time is their ally, because even if there were no war critics in the U.S., public support would progressively fade as the death and injury toll mounts and meets head-on with the realization that there is no moral purpose to the war.

This is the first reason why the United States cannot win this war. Now that it lacks a moral justification for the invasion of Iraq, public support is permanently damaged and will certainly not be available to justify the increased resources necessary to prosecute the war effectively. In fact, as the insurgency in Iraq has begun to take on the cast of a civil war – one in which the U.S. plays no effective role in keeping the antagonists at bay – it is even less likely that the U.S. electorate will tolerate the human and economic costs much further. Already the president has begun to lay out a timetable for troop withdrawal, something he vowed never to do for the past three years.

That leaves revenge as the other motivating factor for the war. Unlike high moral ground, revenge has little power to sustain public support for a war effort. With public support clearly now below the 50% level, revenge appears to have played out its purpose and has been effectively satiated. Moreover, revenge has now been shown to rest on the same faulty ground as the weapons of mass destruction argument – Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, and the administration’s attempts to connect him to this attack were deliberate deceptions.

The public can now see that they were tricked twice when they gave their approval for the war in Iraq. In political terms, this is unforgivable, and has doomed George Bush’s adventure in Iraq.

If it is hard enough for a democracy to sustain a war effort without a high moral justification, it is impossible to do so when the public feels deceived by its government in the run-up to the war. Perhaps in a democracy with an all-volunteer army, the war could go on for quite some time without public support. But even the military has lost faith in its mission. According to a recent Zogby poll, conducted through personal interviews of 944 American military personal in undisclosed locations in Iraq, 93% said the original purpose of the war – finding weapons of mass destruction – was no longer relevant to invading Iraq. Instead, according to John Zogby, “… 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly ‘to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,’ and 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was ‘to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.’”

This is actually an astounding result, partly because of the different ways the question can be interpreted. It is possible that the overwhelming number of U.S. troops in Iraq believe the U.S. is punishing Saddam for his attacks on the U.S. and his promotion of al Qaeda. If so, the military forces have been fed a steady diet of misconceptions by their commanders and their Commander-in-Chief, and they are forbidden to learn the facts that are readily available on the internet.

Alternatively, it could mean the troops are quite savvy about the fact that Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with either 9/11 or al Qaeda, and they are merely recognizing these as the surface rationales for the invasion offered up by the White House.

Either way, the troops are fighting for a lie – one they believe wholeheartedly, or one they accept as a lie used to inveigle the U.S. in Iraq. Giving your life up for a lie is about the most heinous sacrifice a government can ask of its young men and women. It is not a request that can be perpetrated for a long period of time.

Hence the “Long War” talked about by the Pentagon is equally likely to end in defeat as the war in Iraq. The U.S. has no moral or emotional compass to guide it through the terrible sacrifices necessary to fight these wars.

This is why the U.S. cannot win in Iraq. This is why George Bush will have the singular historical distinction of perpetrating and losing a major preemptive war, one in which the mightiest military machine known to man was defeated by $200 improvised explosive devices and $100 bounties placed on the heads of American soldiers and marines.

No less a conservative icon than William F. Buckley has already uttered the word “defeat” in relation to the war in Iraq. This is not simply a recognition of reality. It allows the unthinkable to enter into the national vocabulary, and it negates completely the right-wing attempts to label war critics as defeatists.

It will take time, but the public discourse and consciousness will eventually absorb the fact that the United States has lost the war in Iraq. All those lives have been lost for nothing, and all those injuries will have to be borne with the understanding they were as purposeless as they were avoidable.

The neo-conservative cabal which brought us this war is already fracturing in different directions and shifting blame anywhere else but to themselves. Their target of deflection: George W. Bush. They now discover his incompetence and realize it is matched only by his audacious arrogance.

“Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.” A Bible-quoting, born again Christian such as George W. Bush will recognize these opening lines from Ecclesiastes. He should get used to them; they have become his epitaph.

Numerian March 15, 2006 - 1:54pm

Numerian's diary | printer friendly version |

( categories: Opinion )

U.S. military forces to engage in "nation building."

As a candidate for the presidency in 2000, George W. Bush insisted that, if elected, he would not allow U.S. military forces to engage in "nation building."
No way would he follow President Bill Clinton's foray into nation building in the Balkans, Bush declared. Famous last words.

Is attacking a country to install a puppet government different than nation building?

The outright lies that keep on coming on top of the lie of nation building is astounding. Today’s lie for both Rummy and Bush is that there is no civil war in Iraq. Rummy states that the U.S. military has no plans for dealing with a civil war because there is not going to be one.

"Takes a bucket of blood for a barrel of oil"
Steven Bruton

Peter C March 15, 2006 - 9:44am

You Can't Govern a Democracy With Lies

Sooner or later the people find out the truth and lose all faith in their government. Of course you can govern a dictatorship with lies, for a very long time in fact. It's just that the people live a life of perpetual distrust of their leaders, and eventually the whole edifice comes crashing down.

As Bush once said, it would be easier if he were a dictator. But then America would be on the same course of oblivion as the Soviet Union - sunk under crushing military costs without any real reason for its existence.

Numerian March 15, 2006 - 10:36am

Making Money Both Directions

The Rethugs are not only getting away with crimes, the crash will not hurt them behind thier walls of private estates. Guarded by Blackwater Secuity with modern fully automatic weapons with night vision. Let it crash, the BushCo enterpise will make money off both directions, when the crash comes their sleezy gun dealer will be selling small arms out of the backs of pickup trucks along with drinking water purified by Halliburton portable water units.

"Takes a bucket of blood for a barrel of oil"
Steven Bruton

Peter C March 15, 2006 - 11:52am

Seems like a contradiction

democracies, at least in comparison to dictatorships, tend not to go to war

Except in the case of the US or... is the US a democracy? I really have a hard time telling where the democracy ends and the propaganda machine begins in the US. The US propaganda machine seems able to create the public support for any war like the one in Iraq. Now we have a situation where the propaganda machine seems to be gearing up for a war with Iran. Americans have no idea of the real reason for these wars. So is the US really a democracy or is its democracy irrelevent or what?

We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. - General Education Board Letter #1, 1906, Rockefeller Foundation.

Joaquin March 15, 2006 - 6:33pm

I was wondering about that same thing

As I wrote those lines I knew they didn't apply precisely to the U.S. under George Bush. So are we a dictatorship, or is it better to say that the Bush administration borrowed tactics from dictatorships in order to foster the war in Iraq? A lot has been made of the Hermann Goerring quote about how easy it is to drag a country into war: demonize an enemy, exaggerate the threat, and impugn the patriotism of anyone who objects to a war. Certainly the Bush administration followed this playbook, but I think a better and more ironic analogy is to the Soviet Union. The administration wasn't peddling just one big lie, but a whole series of lies about global warming, environmental regulations, budget deficits, the effect of tax cuts, the safeguards behind the Patriot Act, the restrictions on domestic eavesdropping, and so on. In that regard they are like a communist government, spinning a world that is completely divorced from reality. With the help of a lot of the media, they have misted over the eyes of most of the public. How ironic that the Republican Party has morphed into America's Communist Party, complete with a party line and a Potemkin Village facade of government that hides incompetency. Except at some point the people see the incompetency up close and personal. Under communism the state security apparatus prevented the people from doing anything about it. Under whatever form of capitalism the U.S. currently enjoys, it will be interesting to see how and when the general public catches on to all the lies.

Numerian March 15, 2006 - 11:55pm

I Agree with your sentiment

Ironically, the same process that brought down the Soviet Block might end up bringing down the US government.

We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. - General Education Board Letter #1, 1906, Rockefeller Foundation.

Joaquin March 16, 2006 - 1:05am

people believe what they want to believe

Numerian,

Sound analysis, in general, but skips some hard questions (that I have not answered) that you might want to consider.

1. I think we agree that, as citizens, we have an obligation to oppose these outrages and crimes. Only organized resistance will have an effect. How should we organize for the moment?

What institutional changes would you propose to alter the effectiveness of the propaganda machine?

2. The real bear in the woods is nuclear proliferation. It is no accident that "Saddam will soon have a bomb" was selected as the most effective war cry.

What do we do about it?

In the 1930s, FDR said we have nothing to fear but fear itself. It is tempting to bring that out to box gwb's ears for his war-mongering. But is it still true? We have two things to fear: fear itself, and a loose nuke.

3. It is not all rational. People believe what they want to believe. A certain set of cultural groups will believe the propaganda no matter what because they identify with the President and his Republican cohort. These cultural identity commitments insolate policy from rational discussion.

How do we debate without calling people names?

Our actions in Iraq have been unspeakably violent. A crime, as well as stupid. We can leave based on the idea that it is useless to stay. But if we are going to avoid the madness in the future, we need to acknowledge our guilt.

Does the country have the character necessary to face the full reality?

Do we have the institutions that will show us ourselves?

If not, how do we build them? Where do we start?

jwp March 16, 2006 - 12:58am

American Propaganda and state credibility

For me, one of the striking things about the Bush era is that the lid came off of American propaganda. Before this time we had only Chomsky to tell us how, for example, the NcNiel-Lehrer News Hour on PBS "Manufactured Consent". It was all very sophisticated and most of us were unaware of the extent to which we were bombarded with propaganda. We had all bought into a free press.

The Bush regime blew this all wide open with Fox and the socalled "echo chamber". This is creating an environment where more people are catching on and soon it will be like living in a state where no one believes anything the government or the press says. The propaganda machine will have to deliberately say more and more outrageous lies so as to make the important but more subtle lies sound more reasonable. It will get to the point where no institution of government has any credibility.

We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. - General Education Board Letter #1, 1906, Rockefeller Foundation.

Joaquin March 16, 2006 - 2:17am

For jwp and Joaquin

These are very troubling questions and get to the core of the difficulties afflicting American democracy. I've written about some of this in my previous diaries; for example, about the the inability of the public anymore to tell truth from falsehood. This is a direct consequence of the Republican propaganda machine which went about destroying the credibility of the mainstream media by confusing opinion with fact, especially via FOX News. The end result is that the public loses all faith in the institutions of government or the press, which in turn makes it that much harder to govern the country. The White House is just now beginning to discover what it means to have no credibility whatever.

We have a plentitude of other problems in America as well:

1. The country is living off its "seed corn". Americans share a set of beliefs about their inherent goodness, the perfection of their democracy, the brilliant success of their capitalist market economy, and the dynamic creativity of their culture. Some of these beliefs are justified from past experience and some are myths, but there is dry rot at work undermining all of them. The inherent goodness has been shown at Abu Graib and elsewhere to be deeply flawed; the democracy I will talk about in the next point; the market economy is being grossly undermined by debt and the elimination of any ability to create something the world wants to buy; and the culture while still dynamic in some areas is ossified and retrograde in its glorification of violence, denial of rationalism and science, and the ascendance of religious fundamentalism.

2. The democracy is under severe stress. The American political system gravitates to two parties because of the role of the electoral college; third parties only play spoilers in national elections and never actually gain power. This is fine under most circumstances, but the parties carry cultural flaws. The Republican Party has a tendency to look for enemies, and sometimes that matters a lot when real enemies threaten the country. But Republicanism exploits its reputation as the protector of the country in order to garner votes, and it often seeks out enemies domestically when convenient. McCarthyism morphs into the current efforts to demonize liberals, women activists, gays, etc. It sets Americans against Americans and weakens the country. The Democratic Party has a tendency to seek out victims. This is necessary given that there are whole sectors of the society in sore need of help. But sometimes people are glorified into victims who should be helping themselves, and sometimes the country can't afford all the money spent helping victims.

Another aspect of the political makeup of America is the worship of individualism and the market economy. This is not only most pronounced in the Republican Party, but it has turned into a pathology of selfishness, greed, and nepotism that has corrupted the Republican Party and led into a philosophical cul de sac.

But this isn't the worst of the damage being done to American democracy. I would say at this stage that Bill Frist, Pat Roberts, Tom DeLay and other congressional leadership on the Republican side are doing as much damage to democracy as the White House - maybe more so. The disgraceful inability of the Republicans in Congress to provide any oversight or checks on the administration (though they are quick to threaten judges) really calls into question whether any of them understand the slightest thing about this country's constitution or its history. When the White House says it can ignore any law it wishes and interpret laws any way it wants, and the Congress sits by mutely assenting to this travesty, democracy is under grievous threat. It should be remembered that during the Vietnam War the Democrats controlled Congress and held a succession of hearings into Lyndon Johnson's administration that eventually brought down Johnson and lost the Democrats the presidency. But the Democratic Party sacrificed its own interests for the sake of the country. Similarly, Republicans in Congress joined Democrats in pursuit of the impeachment of Richard Nixon. Since the current Republican Party cannot put the interests of the country ahead of its own desire for power - since not one Republican has stood up publicly against George Bush (look at the shameless bootlicking of John McCain, a supposed reformer and truth-talker) - this country is in very, very serious political trouble. The Republican Party needs massive, top to bottom reform, starting with its principles and philosophy. Maybe that will happen if the voters throw them out of office in November, and if the electoral process has not been irrevocably corrupted as well, but I am wondering if the Republican Party needs to disappear altogether and be replaced by something with a sense of commitment to the country first.

There are lots of reasons to be disenchanted with the Democrats but I don't sense that they have the fatal flaw of the Republicans. This is because the Democrats keep trying to play by the old rules of respect for the law, competency in governance, and bipartisanship. They get whupped at the polls regularly by the Republicans and castigated on the blogosphere for not being tough enough and speaking with a single voice. But I would much rather see them playing by the old rules in the expectation that at some point the electorate will turn to them for governance. Then the real problem will be who on the Republican side will be willing and able to work with them. One small point: it is completely unrealistic to expect the Democrats to speak with a single voice, because that is not how the political process works in America. When a party is out of power, it has no national voice until the next presidential campaign. At that point a candidate is chosen to run for president and that candidate's policy platform becomes the voice of the party.

3. The American electorate is fat, lazy, uninformed, and disengaged from political issues. This is an intractable difficulty that has something to do with the breakdown in physical, local community brought about by television, the internet, the need for most families to have both parents working, and other social dynamics. Since nothing appears on the horizon to change this, the reversal of this process can only come about from a shock to the system.

The dry rot that is at work destroying the economy from within, weakening trust in government, debasing the sense of community or shared interest in the welfare of all Americans, emphasing militarism over all other solutions, refusing to recognize problems and challenges when they arise, and rejecting rationalism and the Englightenment principles upon which America was founded - this dry rot has left the U.S. highly vulnerable to external shocks.

The 9/11 attacks found Americans unfamiliar with death and destruction on their own soil (even though the U.S. is more than capable of visiting the same on other countries), and the consequence was that America was susceptible to governance by fear and a military response based on vengeance and false threats. This does not bode well for the shocks to come, particularly from global warming and an implosion of the economy due to excessive debt.

Unfortunately - and this is my direct answer to your questions - there are no internal solutions to the problems of the propaganda machine, the risks of a nuclear weapon falling into psychotic hands, or the inability of the electorate to learn from past mistakes. Countries, societies, cultures - these are organic entities that can only learn from experience. America will regrettably require an external shock or shocks to cause a complete rethinking of its role in the world and the soundness of its political institutions and economy. The Iraq War is something of a tremblor at the moment, but not of the magnitude to cause Americans to really look at how militarized they have become and how debilitating this is to their international standing and their economy. Perhaps the Iraq debacle will eventually result in this rethinking, but I suspect it will take a lot worse event. The U.S. is flirting once again with nuclear weapons as tools of offense rather than self-defense. And even if America backs off from this lunacy, the rest of the world seems on a path to an eventual nuclear exchange. We have a choice: we can wait for this to happen, or act now to prevent it. In either case, humanity (not just the U.S.) needs to keep close track and control of every ounce of enriched plutonium that exists and every old Soviet nuclear weapon that is currently unaccounted for. One of the completely unforgiveable things the Bush administration did during their first month in office was to cancel funding for a program that Clinton had set up to do just that.

It is the tragedy of the commons at play - the inability of our species to see the greater good and sacrifice our own personal or group self-interest in order for the greater good to prevail. The U.S. is not alone in this tragedy; the whole world is unable to band together to prevent global climate catastrophe. But that is a whole other diary that cannot be explored here in what is already too lengthy a response to your questions.

Numerian March 16, 2006 - 7:13am

I wish you would send this commentary

to the editor of a significant newspaper, such as the Washington Post or the New York Times, for publication. It's compellingly written, and you have a way of expressing these thoughts so fluidly. Sometimes I think Americans are sleepwalking through life, merely shrugging their shoulders at the disgusting nature of all of the current events going on around them. There does not seem to be an appropriate sense of outrage at the Bush administration as he nonchalantly shrugs off all of his misdeeds as being explainable by 9/11. You have framed the debate in a way that would compel Americans to think more deeply about what is happening to our country.

cardinal March 16, 2006 - 9:58am

Of course I agree

Of course I agree with pretty much everything you are saying. My hope was always that a new political party would arise, a revolutionary party of truth. However, it is hard to see another party arising in the US which elects by plurality. Any new party would have to be shaped by corporate America making it part of the problem.

We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. - General Education Board Letter #1, 1906, Rockefeller Foundation.

Joaquin March 16, 2006 - 3:04pm

I disagree, Numerian

Your approach to history is too loosy, goosy. Some of what you say is vaguely correct, some I think is mistaken. Some sounds a little like Flambee -- you judge there.

Anyway, it all veers too Jimmy Carter malaise speech. The spirit of the epoch has lost its way.

Bullshit.

People wake up and go to work.

That is pretty much reality. Today and every day.

If we are going to make things better, we have to analyze what is going on in terms of people's daily routines. Why exactly is the sum of our activities during the day what it is. Where could we shift the balance of those routines. What practical measures.

A plumber cannot get up tomorrow and vow not to eat the nation's seed corn. If "don't eat the moral seed corn" is all the advice we have to offer, what the hell do we expect people to do?

Much of the liberal internet aspires to replace the Sunday morning pundits. It's entertaining. It is moral boosting. Sometimes it tweaks media coverage a little. In a few cases, it leads to organized support of certain political candidates.

But it is not ambitious enough to offer much real help. And I think we need some real help.

We need organized efforts. In many areas.

We need to organize information, systematically, and make it readily available.

We need people to brainstorm specific suggestions. And then organize to see those suggestions realized.

I have a few pet projects that I think would help. I'd like to see a consortium of universities put together a rotating squad of students that would keep track (in detail) of what happens in Congress.

I'd like to see televised (PBS) high school debates on State budget issues where the debaters have to prepare both sides of a particular spending bill -- and then debate after having been told at the last minte what side they are assigned. Scholarships for winning debates.

I'd like to see "academies" set up in poor areas to offer public service, mentoring, and tough acadmeics to kids in rough neighborhoods. Supplemented by career/entrepreneurship networking programs. Try to build social networks for success.

Other things.

Those are some of my interests/attempts to think of things that would affect various routines.

But there are thousands of small things that could be done to help this and that.

What do we need to do to strengthen out financial system?

How could we move toward more wind power? Wave power?

What might spur a better pattern of saving?

Thousands of issues I haven't even thought about.

Unless we try to organize around specific suggestions, we will float from crisis to crisis.

And do not be too confident that the public will "learn" from an external shock. It is just as likely that the public will be confused, humiliated and angry and rally behind some thoughtless demagogue.

Let's not wait for the world to knock us to our senses.

Let's try to figure out how to get there, bit by bit, on our own.

jwp March 17, 2006 - 12:22am

I wish you were right ...

I disagree, I am not sure what history you are talking about. I don't think you understand the serious mess we are in. This is a time like no other. The US, once rich in natural resources, has very little now. We liberals are the ones who tried to influence policy decisions away from their current course bit by bit over the years. We tried shift the direction from fossil fuel consumption to alternative energy. We tried to encourage family planning around the world. We tried to encourage sustainable farming. We tried to protect the oceans from over fishing. We are told we have no ideas.

Nobody listened to liberals and now we are coming down to it. Bush is flirting with attacking Iran because Iran is flirting with Euros for oil. There are hints that the US may us a nuclear bomb on Iran. Liberal ideas, bit by bit are not going to help now. This thing will run its course even if Bush backs off Iran. There will be a dislocation it is too late for bit by bit.

We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. - General Education Board Letter #1, 1906, Rockefeller Foundation.

Joaquin March 17, 2006 - 3:38am

Nothing Wrong With Your Ideas

Not only would it be fantastic if your ideas could be put into practice - especially getting students to start watching and debating what is happening in legislatures - they probably will be put into practice. At some point the nation has to do something about wind power, solar energy and fuel cell cars. The question is when will this come about. Maybe now is the right time for at least some liberals to begin putting this in place, but broad public acceptance, support and funding won't be there yet. That is where, in my view, the external shock comes in - something like a severe and permanent energy crisis or bond market crash with a collapse of the dollar.

I like your phrase "spirit of the epoch has lost its way". That's exactly what has happened politically. People used to talk about the zeitgeist, and the political zeitgeist for 30 years now has been the ascendancy of conservative, Republican, free market individualism. That political philosophy is showing itself to be bankrupt now that it is taken to its logical conclusion. But the public hasn't turned against it viscerally yet because it hasn't hit them personally. Just having alternatives available now in their community (assuming they could be funded) isn't going to do it yet. People need to have a moment when they ask "where have all the liberals gone? I could sure use some help now." That's when they'll realize Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have figuratively killed most of them off. That's when they'll be seeking out someone like you who has been trying to figure out how to get there, bit by bit.

The one time I remember such a moment was Watergate, when you could feel the public disgust with Nixon. That helped elect a lot of liberals to Congress but it didn't last long once Reaganism was afoot. This current White House is having a Watergate implosion as well, at least in the polls. Its misdeeds are every bit as bad - and in the long term more dangerous - than those of Nixon. But I don't feel that public disgust yet. There needs to be a complete discrediting of not only Bush but the whole Republican apparatus, but it is not there yet. For what it's worth, I think the tipping point will be an economic or market event. The economy is mediocre to lousy for a lot of people, but it is not yet devastating the average person's life and future. It's the only thing holding the Republicans up at the moment, and when that goes, the spirit of the age is going to change fast.

Until the spirit of the age changes, you can't get broad national acceptance of new cultural and political thinking. One example I came across about two years ago ties in to the importance of student education. I was at Auschwitz and was put into an English-speaking tour by the docents - we were mostly Americans, Brits, Australians in this group. In front of us was a group of students from Israel, who started out sober during the tour but became progressively angry as they went from room to room. Behind us was a group of students from Germany, who started our sober and became even more so as the tour progressed (this is most people's experience). Our docent told us that our group was deliberately sandwiched between the two student groups so that at no time would there ever be any mingling of these groups in the same room. They've had attacks before on German student tour groups. Also, the German students were there as part of a required school program on education on the holocaust. This gets to your point about education, and I've heard it from friends of mine in Germany. The whole German culture is now suspicious of nationalism and loathes war. They are especially uncomfortable with the militarism that is rampant and admired in U.S. culture. The Germans made that cultural shift through the devastation and shame of WWII. We just aren't there yet in the U.S. The lack of real shock over the Abu Graib torture, and the refusal of the public to demand accountability, is proof of that.

I certainly agree with you on one thing. Writing about these problems is all well and good. But actually coming up with solutions and doing something is a lot more important.

Numerian March 17, 2006 - 5:48am

FDR kitchen cabinet

I do not remember the details anymore, but when FDR came to office there were some people who had some practical ideas to try. Some didn't work; some are still working. But it was calming to have some ideas around.

If the economic crisis comes, we want it channeled into peaceful, progressive action. The danger of violence and fanatisizem is real here, as it has been in other countries over the years.

In 1979, I started (and never finished) a book about the ideological underpinnings of the New Right (Reaganism). I was prompted by the malaise speech, which talked about the spirit of the age. Spring of 1979 there was a violent trucker strike, stagflation, and a general sense of drift and failure. I criticized Carter's speech for talking about amorphous historical ideas, instead of showing people their practical options.

It was practical concerns that drove the economic/cultural concerns. Much of it was channeled in xenophobia when the Iranian hostage crisis hit, and propaganda like Night Line sprung up with that useless Day 1, Day 2 stuff.

In late 70s, economic displacement fueled a backlash against liberal ideas.

We didn't just lose our way. We were pushed.

And the Dme leaders of the time were not up to the challenge of offering a common sense course forward.

One complicating factor in the 70s, like always, was the myth of American Glory. The idea that we have a wondrous, magical economic system. That myth means that if our economy fails, some sabateur has screwed up the system. It leads to resentment and anger, etc.

It is not a mythical world. Just nuts and bolts. And we are each responsible for our own actions.

A friend helps people see their choices.

Short version of the book that never was.

jwp March 17, 2006 - 8:11am

One More Reason to Write Your Book

I don't have that Mayberry Machiavelli quote at hand from John DiJulio but he describes why he resigned from his faith-based initiatives job at the White House. He never saw any hint of policy work being done or discussed, and no practical ideas ever came up in meetings. Everything was based on marketing campaigns, pithy slogans, and political considerations. The current White House, in other words, is being run exactly as you described - no practical ideas for improvement. You should be able to insert a whole chapter about the Pentagon, or at least the way Gen. Tommy Franks abandoned any effort at preparing for Iraq after the successful run up to Bagdhad. It is certainly an interesting idea you have come up with, and I wouldn't doubt if the business community also offered a host of examples.

Numerian March 17, 2006 - 8:27am

Thanks Cardinal for Your Kind Words

I enjoy writing, and writing here at the Agonist where readers are thoughtful and provide good criticism and analysis. Plus your work doesn't disappear in five minutes and Sean-Paul occasionally elevates opinion pieces to the front page. Still and all, I doubt the Washington Post or any other newspaper would print what I write - even the phrase "Republican propaganda machine" is toxic to a public medium.

But you have put your finger on a major conundrum: why don't the American people wake up? Other writers far better than me have been publishing warnings all over the blogosphere and sometimes in the press, yet the public blithely spend their time worrying about American Idol.

I suspect the problems are not personal enough yet to affect the average American. Global warming isn't evident every day; the Iraq horror is only afflicting Iraqis plus the families of our volunteer military; the high price of gasoline is an inconvenience; the loss of civil liberties is hypothetical or academic to most; the economy is moving ahead with moderate benefits for most people. About the one thing people do notice is government incompetence - on the news about Hurricane Katrina, and now on a wide scale with Medicare D. That's why the first word that comes to most people's mind regarding the president is "incompetent" (see the recent Pew Research Poll).

I have to conclude that the American people will need to be bopped over the head with a succession of disasters that personally affect millions of people before a necessary sea change in public opinion can take place. Fortunately, by then people can look back at the Agonist archives for some real answers.

Numerian March 16, 2006 - 1:23pm

Search

latest

User login

Navigation

Team Agonist

Thoughtful

Global

Timely

Who's online

Online users:

Syndicate

Why We Can’t Win the War in Iraq

Comment viewing options