The Wingers Defeatist Alternative

The American Conservative, in their January issue (still only in print), presents three alternatives to Bush in Iraq: Stay the Course, Vietnam-like, or Get Out.

You can tell they are conservative, because they predict only an additional 1000 US troops past the 1000 at their time of writing, to die in Iraq over the next 5 years. But Bush will lead past 2000 deaths in Iraq by the end of 2005.

I agree with their view that we should just get out. The Bush administration seems content to create another Vietnam-like situation, where we invest in creating a Iraq gov't and army that cannot defeat the insurgents any better than American forces have been able to do so. But staying the course, with all the loss of life and money, is the most dangerous route, as it invests those families and resources into a losing cause, spiraling down into a defeatism that sees only one way out. Which this issue of their mag speaks toward:

...the Bushites now see democracy's spread as necessary for America's own survival. The world, particularly the Muslim world, must become democratic now, or we will perish. The neoconservatives in the administration believe that democracy will spread only if the president commits more and more troops to Iraq and topples the regimes in Tehran and Damascus. As alarming as the neoconservatism of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Danielle Pletka, and John Bolton is, more alarming is the spirit that has spread in its wake--a kind of neoconservativism without a graduate degree.

You see it on certain blogs and hear it in the rants of some of the most widely listened to right-wing talk-radio hosts. If the Arabs don't want to be democratic, we should nuke them. We have no choice but to nuke them for our own safety. It's a vulgarized neoconservatism --no one from the American Enterprise Institute speaks like this (in public). But this talk is around in the heartland and growing, and it is wind in the sails of the new administration.

Yea, it's on certain blogs, like the one the Washington Post (which just bought Slate) continues to market as the "Best International" blog (Little Green Footballs).

Tags: Republicans (all tags)



That list is bs
Despite the fact that left wing blogs have the highest readership, every single blog that won a category was right wing.  Some how NRO's the Corner ahs better Democratic Party coverage than Kos?

Apparently "Dems are crazy liberal traitors who like taxes too much" printed 500 times in a row is considered best coverage.

WP as liberal media?  Yeah and I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

by Lavoisier1794 2004-12-26 08:58AM | 0 recs
AmCon pulling punches
I don't know if they're playing to their target demo or just refusing to accept the obvious, but this article clings to the fallacy that the war in Iraq was well-intentioned, just misguided:
While Pinochet and Franco and for most of his reign Stalin kept within their own borders, Bush has ambitions of global scope. Of course they are idealistic ambitions, beautiful ambitions. The spread of democracy--especially if it springs up from a country's indigenous institutions and populace--is a very good thing. But the Bushites now see democracy's spread as necessary for America's own survival.

The issue the mainstream critics keep dodging is that the chaos of Iraq wasn't a result of incompetence or misguided policy, it was the whole idea. The architects of the war aren't idiots, they're criminals, and it's nuch easier to loot undetected and bump off your political opponents in the midst of rioting and open conflict. Freedom and self-determination in Iraq were never the goal.
by catastrophile 2004-12-26 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: AmCon pulling punches
They always pull their punches, which is probably why they have no impact.
by Jerome Armstrong 2004-12-26 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: AmCon pulling punches
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.

Were they stupid, criminal, or criminally stupid? Either way, they f****d up big time.

by wayward 2004-12-26 04:28PM | 0 recs
Not malice: Greed. Avarice. Powerlust.
I don't think stupidity is adequate here at all. There was too much transparently false about the whole operation, from the WMD story right through to the reconstruction. I just don't buy it.

And, they only f'd up bigtime if it actually cost them something. It's the rest of us who are paying for their adventure, and they even get to stay in office another four years. But no, they get to funnel $billions to their buddies and look forward to cushy private sector jobs once they're termed out. What's the downside for them? This is a textbook example of privatized profits, socialized risk.

What they really did, they f'd US bigtime.

by catastrophile 2004-12-27 11:34AM | 0 recs
This magazine opposed the war
They print Eric Margolis, Justin
Raimondo ( and Scott McConnell (endorsed Kerry over Bush because of the war).  Buchanan opposed the war, too, but he thinks he needs to be on the pro-Bush team in order to be on TV.  
by Frances 2004-12-26 05:30PM | 0 recs
Buchanan hates the war
But he hates immigrants and jews more, so he's firmly on the right (although the fact that Bush is sometimes pro-immigrant and has plenty of jews working for him causes his brain to explode).
by Geotpf 2004-12-26 05:33PM | 0 recs
Nuke 'Em All
"They attacked us on 9/11, Nuke 'em all" -- I've heard that from clients, and a friend heard it from a RN who used to be a 60's lefty.

I believe that Karl Rove was aware of this blind rage and the fear that spawned it. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was designed to exploit this visceral desire to inflict death and destruction. In the process, the old wound of Vietnam was reopened, to the advantage of the screeching wing nuts and the corporate kleptocrats that exploit them.

It makes me wonder just how much the White House knew about the 9/11 attacks, from the 50 odd warnings delivered by George Tenet, during his "hair on fire" period.

by ck 2004-12-27 07:09AM | 0 recs
Are you prepared for
missing the ball drop in times square, not because you couldn't stay awake, but because New York City is gone? Really think through what will be the reaction of all Americans to the right of Kucinich if the United States in attacked with a nuclear weapon? Will people be asking "who? why?" as they did after 9/11? No. We know who, we know why, and we have decided not to apologize for being who we are. We are Americans, we want throw our weight around in the world. If the Arabs don't like it, tough. Why don't they join us in the modern world? That is all we're asking. But if they think that they will gain anything by "resisting" us, they will learn the hard way.

God help us if Arabs decide to drag the world over the edge; I support all efforts of so called pro-peace Americans to try to talk sense into the islamic fundamentalists who hate us.

by Paul Goodman 2004-12-27 04:32PM | 0 recs
it's not who we are . . .
The fundamentals of this conflict are the same as any blood feud. We are hated because we fail to keep our government in check, and it goes around the world meddling in other peoples' affairs for the benefit of a relative few. That may not be our doing, and it's certainly not who we are, but it impacts how people see us.

So, when a relative few of "them" respond with violence, and we are denied an honest view of the underlying reasons for their enmity, we assume they had no reason to attack other than "they hate our freedom," and we use the actions of that few to justify collective punishment -- just like "they" do. So both sides come out hypocrites.

Hatfield, meet McCoy.

by catastrophile 2004-12-28 12:44PM | 0 recs
I was just over at the Little Green Footballs to see some examples. I was really put out by the incredible amount of bile and lack of thoughtful discourse. A post that featured a pentagon employee complaining about the protesters there included comments about how the Dems are the enemy of not just the U.S. but military people in general.

Just pathetic.

by Animal13 2004-12-29 03:34AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads