One Utah

In Talking Points, George Lakoff and Co. include a discussion of the distinction between the ways in which people regard steadfastness.

Among Iraq war supporters, the worse the situation, the more obvious it becomes that the war was a disastrously bad idea from the beginning, the more important “steadfastness” becomes. In the face of the extreme shallowness of the conservative analysis of terrorism and its motivations, steadfastness makes sense. To the strict father mind, terrorists are simply bad people who do bad things; you cannot reason with them nor should you, their states reasons and goals are beside the point, only their actions matter and they must be confronted and stopped. Any other actions are seen as weakness which will embolden the bad people to do more bad things. The causation is immediate and direct. Eschewing systemic thinking, the strict father model rejects the possibility that Muslim radicals might have legitimate grievances, no matter how reprehensible their actions.

It’s not accidental or coincidental that America’s home grown theocrats agree with conservative muslims in their analysis of western culture as decadent, lazy, self-indulgent, depraved and immoral. Karen Armstrong said years ago that our fundamentalists have more in common with their fundamentalists than either side has with the moderates and progressives in their own religions.

As the ridiculous right in America becomes more and more aware that mainstream Americans disagree with them on a wide range of issues, their entire worldview will suggest that the problem is not with their views, but with their lack of steadfastness. With the Iraq war, rather than rethink the entire approach, they will adopt the even more disastrous “more of the same” theme. Simply put, if the Iraq was is failing among Americans, conservatives will believe the problem is a lack of seriousness; more troops will prove our seriousness, bring victories and restore the popularity of the war. The “surge” bandied about among the “serious thinkers” in DC is nothing more than nice language for “send lots of troops and win big so our war will be popular again.”

There’s no possible victory for the US in Iraq at this point. That nation has started a civil war and the question is not “Can we win?” but “Will we sit in the crossfire or will we get the hell out as soon as humanly possible?”

Iraq was always the wrong war, against the wrong enemy at the wrong time; it was from start and will be until finish the single worst strategic mistake the US has made. Short of refusing to fund the war, Congress can’t force the President to bring our soldiers home. George W. Bush won’t order our troops to come home - he has too much invested at this point.

Our only real hope (slim though it is) of leaving Iraq before 2009 rests on Republicans, watching their electoral chances swirling around the toilet bowl, putting pressure on George W. Bush to declare victory and get out of Iraq. From beginning to end, the Iraq was has been a Republican owned and operated disaster. As Republican politicians fight for their political lives, they can hope George W. Bush cares more about the party than his ego and they will likely bring pressure on him to get the hell out of Iraq. I’m not optimistic. So for now, I think we expect to spend at least two more years in Iraq, watching as Americans die, each and every day, for the sake of the egos of the people who thought up, sold and led the war in Iraq because leaving would be, for them, a failure of steadfastness and in a worldview in which changing your mind is worse than dying, I don’t think anyone in the Administration will be able to change thier minds.

This entry was posted Monday, January 1st, 2007 at 7:58 am and is filed under George W. Bush, Iraq, Peace, This Blog, War. Both comments and pings are currently closed.