Glenden BrownAnd here I thought it was wrong to blame America . . .
With Iraq’s descent into civil war and George W. Bush’s increasing irrelevance, conservatives are scrambling to create rhetorical cover for the disastrous last six years. Although some are arguing that if George W. Bush were a real conservative we wouldn’t have these problems, other have updated the “stabbed in the back” explanation that has been used for decades to explain Vietnam.
Case in Point: Carol Taber, president of Family Security Matters, argues that we’ve brought this whole war on terror on ourselves because of our fecklessness and we may not in fact deserve to the aforementioned WOT (patent pending).
In article entitled Do We Deserve to Prevail In This War?, Taber argues that an anti-war Democratic Congress means a weak America. Her argument, more sophisticated than most conservative takes on this theme, suggests that there may be a time for a nice, anti-war Democratic congress but now is not that time:
America must take as strong and as forward a posture against this implacable American enemy as ever before in our history
Taber argues that leaving Vietnam emboldened American enemies around the globe and that our “failure†in Vietnam is the direct cause of the problem of terrorism today. Taber quotes Max Boot who created a laundry list of American weakness going back (I kid you not) to the Barbary Pirates
We have been betraying friends since our first overseas conflict against the Barbary pirates…we stood by…when Czechoslovakia and Poland were occupied by the Nazis…we did too little to save the Eastern Europeans from Russian occupation
She helpfully adds:
and he goes on to remind us that we also turned our backs on Cuban anti-communists, the rebels who fought the Sandinista government, and the worst and most shameful betrayal of all, that of the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites in 1991. . .
This short paragraph is the alternative version of American history that motivates conservatives. In this version of history, we should have gone to war in 1937 as soon as Japan invaded Manchuria, we should have gone to war against Hitler in 1936, gone to war against Russia as soon as Berlin surrendered. In this version of history, we should have invaded Cuba rather than allow Castro to win. We should have stayed in Vietnam until the communists gave up. In 1991, we should have invaded Iraq and destroyed Saddam. Our failure to do those things was a failure of will power that created the impression of weakness. Any failure, any retreat now will further prove our resolve is weak.
This version of history is completely disconnected from reality. No sane person honestly believed we could militarily defeat the Soviet Union – and taking them on immediately after they’d brutally defeated the Nazis on the Eastern front would have triggered a global war even more devastating than the one against fascism. (Plus, we were still at war with Japan.) Invading Cuba to stop Castro would have been bloody and horrific and would have resulted in a direct confrontation with the Soviet Union. We’d still be fighting in Vietnam today. Invading Iraq in 1991 would have resulted in exactly the same outcome we have today, with the exception of more people dead sooner. This understanding of history assumes that American military strength is sufficient to and appropriate for every task. It is only our failure to be tough enough that causes problems.
There’s totally more . . .
Reading Taber’s article, imagine the nation as a fortress – strong walls keep dangerous forces out and strong discipline inside keeps order within. Behind the walls, we must be ever vigilant, preparing for attack, and outside those walls we must be strong – we must destroy those who would attack us. When we attack outside, we must do so with such overwhelming force that the current enemy will be absolutely destroyed and possible future enemies will be cowed.
Taber paints an interesting picture of American life and values behind the fortress wall. Consider this quote:
We all want to preserve an idyllic life for our children, but we must understand that peace and freedom – with each generation - comes at an extremely high cost. So many others in the world want to take them away from us. FULL STOP.
This exemplifies the “freedom is not free†way of thinking; to paraphrase Frank Burns, it is only by blindly following orders, doing exactly as our leaders tell us without question can we be truly free. Taber assumes here that Americans have experienced an “idyllic life†– right up something big happened. The notion of American innocence is profoundly important to conservatives. This idyllic life behind the fortress wall has blinded Americans to the brutal realities of the world. We must venture forth and destroy the enemy, before we can safely return to our idyllic world. If this sounds like a romantic version of World War Two, that’s neither accidental nor coincidence. World War Two is the model “good war†in the conservative ideological construct.
Taber’s conclusion:
Our fecklessness in defending human freedoms, our indifference to many global events and our lack of determination to win unequivocally once in the fight will do us in as surely as the sun rises and sets on this land. We are drinking each day the poison of a privileged, excessively politically correct life that will eventually kill us unless we recognize that America is loathed for these very privileges that others around the world either envy and resent (some of our “alliesâ€) or hate (all of our enemies), and it is time we united against these forces who are themselves united to destroy America as we know it.
Taber’s logic strikes me as extremely simplistic: They hate us because we are free. We know they are evil because they hate us. We must destroy them to preserve our idyllic life.
If I didn’t know better, I’d think Taber’s was writing brilliant parody.
In Thinking Points, George Lakoff and company illuminate the rhetorical understanding Taber is working with. Through the lens of the Strict Father morality, Taber’s argument makes sense – it has been the failure of the US to be strict with non-Americans that has led them to believe we are weak and can be attacked. We must now be punitive (excessively strict) with them to bring them back into correct behavior; IOW, they have misbehaved and we must punish them. Failure to punish them will lead to worse misbehavior in the future. In this perspective, Rumsfeld’s “Old Europe†comment highlighted the way in which Western Europeans failed to be strict with their former colonies; Eastern Europeans, supposedly hardened by their battle against communism and now freedom loving and strong, were the future allies in disciplining misbehavior Muslims an Arabs. (The inherent racism in this model should trouble you!)
This reasoning makes at least some rhetorical sense of the Iraq debacle. Everyone knew Saddam Hussein was an enemy. By destroying him we were sending the message to other enemies that we would destroy them too. In this paradigm, Iraq represents the central front in the WOT (trademark) ideologically; success in Iraq is ideological success against our enemies. Saddam Hussein had to be destroyed to show Osama Bin Laden that he would be destroyed. In this version of history, George W. Bush is a great man because he is stalwart and unflinching. His strength is his refusal to change course. I think Stephen Colbert said it best –he thinks the same thing on Wednesday as he thought on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday.
George W. Bush and the Iraq war remain popular among the approximately 1/3 of Americans who most passionately hold the strict father morality precisely because they see his steadfastness, his refusal to change as a sign of strength – strong people don’t change their minds. For these Americans, Vietnam represents the ultimate failure of American strength from which America must redeem itself. Success in Iraq is the creation of a strict father, free market, democracy. Anything less is a continuation of the Vietnam defeat, a further cause of shame and an invitation to other enemies to attack and destroy us.
It takes some work, but in Taber’s worldview, the Iraq war can almost make sense and be something other than a pointless, misguided, dusty bloodbath.
December 4th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Wow, I mean, how wrong can one person be? Taber seems to think a mistaken intervention or invasion based on a fatal misunderstanding of another country like Vietnam or Iraq can be a good thing. Anyway, most Democrats are not “anti-war” –just in favor of using America’s intelligence and warmaking capability against the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Bush went off instead on a neocon adventure to wreak havoc across the Middle East just to prove we could.
December 4th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Richard -
I’m having web troubles today so if this appears twice I apologize.
Approximately 1/3 of Americans continue to believe that Vietnam was a “winnable” war and that it was only the lack of willingness on the part of American politicians to unleash the full fury of the American military that prevented our victory. It is an article of faith among many conservatives that politicians and turncoat citizens lost the Vietnam war. The notion that Vietnam was never a winnable war does not enter into the equation.
I’ve detected in much of the Iraq triumphalism as yearning to “refight” Vietnam - to redeem America’s military might from that victory. Refusing to grant Vietnma MFN status as a trade partner is strictly vengeful - punishing them for not surrendering to our army.
December 4th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
It’s ironic that the people who want to “re-fight” Vietnam never fought there in the first place. If they had, they might have learned something.
December 4th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
This semester I have been studying World History. I’m getting an A, I might add. When you track the events that lead up to World War I, and World War II, there is a common theme of either real or perceived weakness on our part along with fruitless attempts to “reach out” and appease our enemies that in every instance has had catastrophic results. We are making the same mistakes now, and are sewing the seeds for future and much worse wars. Instead of a few thousand deaths that we have now, we may be facing hundreds of thousands of American casualties later on. Like the saying goes “those who forget history are doomed to repeat it†Right now our country has a chronic case of history amnesia.
December 4th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Ken, I agree, our country does have a chronic case of history amnesia. We repeatedly fail to remember that we have developed and have used under questionable pretexts, all kinds of weaponry from nuclear bombs to cluster bombs, from ‘daisy cutters’ to napalm and white phosphorus. Our weakness really comes from a disregard for history an a fear of not having enough weaponry, when, in fact, we have more weapons than the rest of the world put together. Another element is the Military / Industrial / Political Complex’s neat promotion of war and destruction as a booster for the economy. Maybe a day will come when we all remember this kind of history lesson.
December 4th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Glen,
Great post and nice find of an article. This writer and their compatriots among our people are not conservatives exactly. They are actually fascists. I would encourage you to read, Benito Mussolini’s, Doctrine of Fascism. Many of the points you analyzed in Ms. Taber’s writing are mirrored in Mussolini’s work.
But much like their Supreme Omnipotent State, and it’s cultish Leaders, like Reagan and Bush, these people do not actually fight our wars. It is easy to have a romantic, nostalgic longing to make war and VICTORY it is another matter altogether to “light-up” a car at close range to find innocent women and children. Or to “shake n’ bake” a bunch of insurgent Hajiis. I highly reccomend that those who have not yet completely succumbed to war propaganda contact the Free Speech Zone at 801-487-2295 and borrow the film, “The Ground Truth” http://www.thegroundtruth.net. You can host a home screening with some friends.
BTW Glenn,
I am convinced that following the overwhelming domestic political defeat of the aggressive US destruction of Vietnam the Pentagon and think tankers produced this counter intelligence propaganda against the People’s Movement Against the Vietnam War. That is to say, the Defense Establishment, created propaganda to blame the failure of the Vietnam Atrocity on the Political Movement of the American People.
Th aggressive attack and occupation of Iraq spin is no different than it was for Vietnam. As the anti-war movement has exposed this illegal war and helped Move the People to End it, the Defense Establishment Policy Makers, Think Tankers have launched a new counter intelligence program. Blame the Political Initiative of the People, Blame their craving for justice and righteousness. Call it weak resolve, cowardice, privelege with arrogant disdain. This is spread among a fascistic minority of our population and people that are vulnerable to authority in our society.
We are proving that here and now that their Counter Intelligence has failed, will fail and the Movement of the People will ultimately Prevail.
Sorry Ken, I don’t know if you fit vulnerable to authority or out fascistic thinking. I think it is the former.
December 4th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Ken,
By way of explaination you are using exactly the same arguments that the fascists of Europe used for their conquests in “Defense of the Homeland.”
I’m glad your taking a history course Ken. However, understanding history takes some depth and breadth of study. Not just maps, battles and what bosses, politicians and generals said.
Look Deeper. . .
December 5th, 2006 at 8:39 am
Ken, I need to ditto Nate’s sage advice. You would be doing yourself a great disservice to study history through a veil of pre-conceived notions, or as an excercise in self-validation.
I would give you an F if you made the connections you did in your comment on an essay. I thought you were studying World History, not war.
Most historians reject ANY comparison between WWI and II. And certainly our role in both were entirely different.
Understanding Iraq requires studying the Middle East going back to Mohammed, then moving SLOWLY forward up throught the Caliphates and Britsh Imperialism. Do not forget the rols of North Africa along the way.
The study of history is a lifelong process. Never stop reading.
December 5th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Nate; I am between wondering if the wars’ conduct has been purposeful, to engender the biggest chaos possible, leading to a wider war, as described by huntington in, Clash of Civilisations, or if we must fight the war to retain our power in the region, and have simply have failed to do so because of our enemy(insurgency)or domestic opposition. The domestic opposition has stopped no part of this war, so I assume that all is going according to plan, or we have completely blown it.
Another factor could be that the American people are opposed because they have not been made to understand that their own lifestyles are utimately at stake, and they just don’t see how. The deals made between iran and china for oil, and those that china was to make with iraq, can change the balance of what we get from the region. Keep in mind that every barrel of oil sent to china brings them closer to the goal of wiping us out of the world dominance picture. China can never be allowed to consume resources like us, or we will be playing 2nd fiddle. Consider that the might war have been to DENY oil to china, europe, in turn ourselves perhaps, price and profits never having been higher for a certain oil industry. IE the war is a corporate one, against everyone that pays for oil. Iraq is just the vehicle.
Given our inability or unwillingness to reduce oil consumption, we have to assume that the war in the ME is for us and our overfed, over warmed, asses and cars. The battle is hardly won yet with 150,000 troops in the field and people dying every day, we are hoping that the recently elected would get us out of the war, but this hope gets dimmer daily,…. the newly elected are brought up to speed and they accede. We need this war is what it looks like, or we as a nation have become certifiable.
If you want to drag the boat to Powell we have to control the oil. It has clearly been worth someone dying for it.
December 5th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Seems to me that this war, like other wars that are fought simply to enhance corporate profits by using the U.S. military, have pushed the price of oil higher than it’s ever been, not to mention the actual costs of the war and its aftermath for taxpayers, casualties, and thier progeny. We would have been much better off, in every way, if we had simply competed for the purchase of this commodity. The layers of karma, and costs were simply not worth it.
But, from a corporate perspective, one could certainly pronounce, “Mission Accomplished”. Thankyou George, Dick, Donald, an all thier supporters. May you have a very, Merry X-mas.
December 5th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
The increased cost of gasoline alone increased the value of the national reserve by billions. Kinda of a no brainer if your lookin at a balance sheet/stock value.
December 5th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Glenn,
Thanks for your comments. I agree that world energy resources have been a huge motivator along with the capitalist’s so-called, “self-interest” principle which drives an energy/war goods invested cadre (Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice etc.) to dump all of our wealth and effort into more energy/war goods investments. No big surprise to me there.
However, I point to the latter Clinton era and do solemly declare that the United States Elites are in total league and combination with the Chinese elites on matters of business investment and profiting. The WTO has created a brave new world, the age of the nation-state is over. . . most of us don’t know it yet.
Giants of US industry like, Nike, Wal-Mart, McDonalds all use Chinese communist exploited labor to make their billions and billions of profit, stock of physical assetts, investments and so on. Ever wondered since 1998 about the transfer of Hong Kong back to China. The Chinese CP has not touched its profit making and capital investment machine. . . and they won’t either.
The United States and China both will back their profit making joint enterprises and heirarchies of Elite Rulers, Whether Presidential Dynasty or Party Chair. They will back eachother’s interest against the people of the United States and the people of China as they compete with one another for advantage in this game. Their broad interests are in combination with US Corporations and Chinese labor production power.
The Trade deals made with Asia in the 1990’s are locked in place, total bipartisan consensus, corporate groupthink conspiracy world wide. Both Clinton and Bush are likewise in agreement about “success in Iraq” as the only viable option. And what is success?
I would say maintain total management prerogative over ALL mid east/central asian energy resources, intimidate all other G-8 Elites of Nations including Russia and China, and Terrorize all lower class non nuclear /Non-U.N. Security Council Nations (Iran, Iraq, Syria). And above all, to accomplish these objectives while creating a false prestige and bully influence for the US Corporate-Military Combination.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:14 am
Lynette, ‘no-brainer’ takes on a new hue when looked at in relationship to the republican party masses.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:23 am
We know what the chinese elites will do their own people, it’s what they will do to us that I believe Americans don’t understand. Playing capitalism is a means to an end for the chicoms, just try to defy the party when it comes ot interfering with money, business, or simply trying to secure riches without permission. The party will kill you and sell your organs to the highest bidder.
Doing business with china is like feeding a croc, it seems harmless enough as long as you keep your distance. Eventually though if you run out of things to feed it, you then become the prey. The advent of china using too much energy will bring the conflict to a point. The war in the mideast in relation to china is to at least get control of what is being sold to china, so the west can skim the profits(again). This story is going the way of the eastern version of WW2, we will cut the chinese off if possible, as we did to japan when it began to grow too large. Maybe we are too late.
The context of 25 cent an hour workers and this somehow being a good thing will come back as memory to the average chinese worker, that the western public is useless in improving their lives, and as consumers of their goods at low prices, defines us certainly the obedient progeny of a corrupt and predatory elite. Hey it’s just free trade right? They don’t have to work for 25 cents an hour, a chinese can after all, sell a kidney.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
but they also can’t grow in their poisoned farmland or remain in a self-sufficient sustainable lifestyle either. State Capitalism is not that different from Corporate Capitalism in it’s aims, tendencies and ultimate results.