Friday, December 22, 2006

And to All a Good Night

The National Review Online today features what you might charitably call a symposium, though without all that gay shit Plato had to—you’ll pardon the expression—shove in there. It’s called “Christmas at War,” and I imagine a heavy period to lend a little gravity to the pronunciation thereof: “Christmas. At War.” It is not to be confused with the War on Christmas, which is a discrete portion of a wider ideological struggle. If you’d asked me just hours ago if I believed that any table of contents would ever achieve the same gauzy silliness doing drag as necessary commentary as was achieved by this recent edition of TNR, I wouldn’t have believed it. And yet:


It is “Patton’s Prayer,” that reaches the highest aeries of kooky jingo nostalgia, a reminiscence of the Great Showboat personally calling on the assistance of god a-mighty to kill all the Krauts. All of the World-War-II-ia centers on a Patton who’s done even crazier than George C. Scott did him and a General Barry McAuliffe who comes off in Skelly’s piece as a sort of unhinged, merry psychopath, played, one imagines, by Mel Gibson. “Ever spend Christmas in Fallujah?” is actually about spending Christmas on Parris Island. It’s one of those manly-man hunting story things: we all froze our asses off out there and it was cold as hell and we didn’t shoot anything and Phil lost the tip of his pinky to frostbite, but damn it was a good time.” Count me out. I’ve never spent Christmas in Fallujah, but I’ve also never spent a Christmas hanging out in an abbatoir. I know the common human behavior is to make the whole table taste your disgusting appetizer at the restaurant, but I really see no reason to elevate human misery and suffering to an anecdote that will years late begin, “Well, it wasn’t so funny at the time . . .”

4 comments:

thrasymachus said...

This is a bit of a non sequitur to your post, but something occurred to me over lunch today.

Wouldn't it go some short way towards mending America's breach with the rest of the world if the story of President George W. Bush were to end with his impeachment, conviction, and removal from office in disgrace?

Better still would be his trial for war crimes, but sending the Dauphin to the Hague is just a pipe dream. The President's successful impeachment, on the other hand, is slowly becoming a very real possibility.

Speaker Pelosi should commence her "first 100 hours" by presenting legislation that explicitly orders the President to seek a further Enabling Act from Congress before attacking Iran or any other country that we're not already at war with.

In this political climate, I think the passage of such legislation in the House would put enormous political pressure on enough Republican Senators to secure the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster, and perhaps even the 66 needed to override a Presidential veto.

If the bill were to pass the Senate, Bush might interpose a veto, but at the cost of even *more* political support from an electorate tired of his war and from a Republican Party that has been politically crippled by it. . . and an unauthorized expansion of military action to other countries would *still* be illegal under the War Powers Act (a point which the bill should underscore in a strongly worded prefatory finding).

None of this would deter Bush from attacking Iran. He's constitutionally incapable of changing his plans once they're set.

But it would make him very easy to impeach in the wake of that attack; and the Republicans in the Senate would have a hard time defending him. . . assuming that any of them still want to, given the President's utter indifference to his party's political fortune.

IOZ said...

Unfortunately, "mending America's breach with the rest of the world" is a tougher nut than can be cracked even with an impeachment (impeachment itself being a fanciful idea at this point). I wrote:

[A]lthough [Yglesias is] much, much wiser than his Democratic elders, he still engages the unpleasant, but comforting notion that the Bush Administration is unique-because-it's-crazy, rather than simply uniquely crazy, and perhaps not even that. The "highest councils of government" have always been populated by genuine lunatics, with the level of lunacy increasing in inverse proportion to distance from The Bomb. I mean, Paul Nitze was crazy. Lewis Strauss was crazy. J. Edgar was crazy. Curtis Lemay was really crazy. The inhabitants of the oval office have been uniformly crazy since Truman, and yes, I include Eisenhower in that assessment. Consider that in the last 40 years alone we've had Nixon, Johnson, Reagan, and our regnant Dauphin. Is anyone really going to propose that Crazy is the outlier of this particular presidential cohort?

It precedes WWII anyway. Back to Wilson. Back to TR. Back to the annexation of the American Southwest from Mexico. Our well-intentioned adventures have a long history. "The world" has a far more fraught relationship with our history than we do.

thrasymachus said...

I find it hard to believe that *anybody* could have a more tortured relationship with our nation's history than we do ourselves. See, for instance, the tangled web of self-congratulatory and recriminatory art and architecture that festoons Foley Square in New York.

I've upgraded my estimate of the likelihood that Bush will be impeached and removed from office to "speculative" as opposed to "fanciful".

I submit that the President's notorious incompetence in matters of policy has now metastasized, in the wake of the last election, to include his political decisionmaking as well.

Time will tell, but I think the ice is already groaning under his feet.

Brian said...

Good essay. I'm sick about hearing, effectively, that we need to have more war and bloodshed so that surviving codgers can piously remember the good times 40 years later. Not too fond of the cult of manliness, either.