Via Dennis Perrin, I see that Max Sawicky, of whom I'm not usually a great fan, has explained that "The 'Internet Left' is a mostly brainless vacuum cleaner of donations for the Democratic Party." Even from these boondocks of Pittsburgh, I can feel the heat rising into the pale, aquiline face of Markos Moulitas, subcommandante of the Netroots revolution. Sawicky also says:
The "Internet left" is substantially a captive of the Internet bubble. It's a nice bubble, full of fun. It is awash in hypertext and flash graphics, but it doesn't demonstrate much depth in history, political-economy, or ideology, which is another way of saying it is fairly stuck in mainstream ideology and narrow tactics. It needs to step away from the LCD monitor and crack some difficult books, go to some boring meetings, wear out some shoe leather.To which the Donkle rabble rises like a fish to a fly with such songs as "Marx was a communist!" and "the SDS were terrorists!" All this in service of positing Thomas Franks and his Sweet Kansas: Suite as a better Antonio Gramsci and the FireDogLake chicks as the Sophie Scholls of this generation.*
Elsewhere and otherwise, Glenn Greenwald mildly chastises big libbloggers K. Drum and Atrios for speaking too blithely of the war. Atrios can be forgiven, I think, for his tone, which I take to be dismissive of Drum's moderated lust for launching aggressive wars and not intentionally callous about the toll of this particular aggression. Greenwald notes properly that what is absent from our present dialogue is any "horror" at the prospect of war, and there you have another unfortunate concurrence between the current powder keg in the Middle East and the pre-Great War situation in Europe. A happy comparison, surely.
In any case, the Internet Dems whine day and night that their elected officials demonstrate an insufficiently zealous committment--or any committment at all--to ending the Iraq war, even though they themselves show zero ideological committment to a dismantling of the imperial apparatus of the American state. They can chatter all they want about how "extreme" the right has become and how hard they're pushing back against the rightward drift of the American center, and they can yell "Progressive!" up to the damn rafters, but the truth is that they have staked out one side of a very carefully circumscribed intellectual territory. Hucksters like Kos and egomaniacal half-rate scholars like Eric Alterman spend as much time excoriating the far left or futiley courting a few dedicated libertarians in the name of Democratic victory as they do "opposing" President Bush. They're as fond of stab-in-the-back narratives as the prowar right. "If not for that fucking Nader . . ." Dennis Kucinich looks funny. Libertarians should support welfare statism and we will deign to prosecute fewer and more graceful imperial holding actions. You know the song and dance.
I don't know. What's a Democrat done for me lately?
*Good health and best wishes to Jane Hamsher, regardless, who has again been diagnosed with breast cancer.
63 comments:
would you laugh at me if i suggested that dubya's speech actually outlined an exit strategy?
I read Alterman's blog daily. I go there to see what he is linking to, he often points to stuff that I dont make the time to look for on my own.
He seems like a very condescending, status oriented, arrogant asshole to me. And he once penned one of the most cowardly critiques in the history of penning. Alterman felt compelled to respond to the shoddy work of someone he considers his friend, and concluded a multi-paragraph disclaimer with the following remarks, "I am not quite this brave, alas. If I were, I would write a far angrier, more expansive takedown of Paul’s review of McPherson’s biography than I intend to. Paul gets points for his intellectual honesty as well as for being my friend. But Izzy was my friend, too..."
Ah, yes, the awarding of points for friendship.
Ahhhh, stop moving the goal-posts. You demand to know why Democrats aren't doing more to prevent the expansion and/or escalation of the Iraq War.
Find one who's trying to do that, with every fiber of his being, and you chase him down demanding an explanation as to why the Democrats aren't doing more to end the fucking Iraq War.
And even if you should somehow come across some handful of Democrats who are actually willing to do their utmost, gamble their very lives, lie down in front of the tanks old-school China style. . even then. . .
Even THEN you'll be glaring at the poor bastards, through the grille of the goddamn tank, asking why they're lying around on their asses in the shade of a nice cool M1 when they could be working to "dismantle the imperialist apparatus of the U.S. government". . . just as soon as somebody defines what the fuck that might mean.
IOZ! DUDE! For fuck's sake would you open your goddamn eyes and LOOK AROUND at what's going on out there?
The President of the United States is a god-crazed fanatic armed with nuclear weapons who is convinced that God wants him to reshape the entire fucking world in the image of a christ-fucking goddamned "Left Behind" book!
And sooner rather than later, he's going to be waving his cowboy hat and codpiece in the face of an Iranian leader who's just as crazy, and just as nuked-up, as HE is.
And still you sit there, blathering on about the urgent, pressing need for the Democrats to do more on the issue of Iraq? On the desirability of a reformation of the American government and character?
The FUCK is wrong with you, IOZ? There's no "issue of Iraq" anymore. There's no IRAQ anymore! And you fucking well know it! There's just a pile of corpses and bombs, a pestilent charnel house in the shape of a godaamn spitoon, a spitoon filled to its overflowing brim with shit, piss, human ashes, dead animals, and the severed, gangrenous limbs of Iraqi children.
The charitable take on our country's recent actions is that America unleashed this cataract of horrors in order to steal Iraq's natural resources. . . the uncharitable interpretation is that we're in it simply to kill as many Muslims as possible, starting (but certainly ending) with every Islamic man, woman, and child in Iraq.
There's your reality, IOZ. That's the unvarnished truth, and it's high time we faced it. We're criminals, each and every one of us, because we're citizens of a criminal nation. We're poised to leap from atrocity to full-on genocide, and your counsel in this dire hour, IOZ, is. . . .
. . .what?
Heh, Procounsel says to a certain extent what I've thought and occassionally tried to say myself. Sadly I don't have his writing skills. But in all fairness, I can kind of see IOZ's point also. He's convinced that half measures aren't going to halt the rush to war with Iran, and that people like Kos and Alterman are, in their own way, though inaction, contributing to the problem.
On my good days I think IOZ is wrong; on my bad days I fear her is right. But it's not like IOZ is unaware of the facts stated by Procounsel. The fact that he doesn't have any answers to what he sees as a hopeless problem (hopeless, that is, in terms of the current dynamics of debate in the United States) isn't a fair criticism.
Oh, and IOZ, please head over to Matthew's place and swat down his naive post about Max' narrow view of when war is justified.
Dear Proconsul,
What?
Larry,
People like Kos are contributing to the problem by acting as PR clowns for a party committed to a policy of military aggression. As regards Iran, it was Democrats all through 2003-2005 who wailed that Iran was the real danger and Bush's monomaniacal obsession with Iraq blinded him to the truer evil. There were dozens of posts at DailyKos and others asking "Why isn't the President doing something about Iran?" That question, of course, was the crass attempt of a coterie of hack politico wannabes to construct a counternarrative to the President's chosen ordering of phony existential threats, but now powerful Donks have no real option but to stand aside and offer quiet support (cf. Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, et al.), if only to avoid contradicting their own prior bellicosity.
Yeah, but. . but. . . ah, fuck it, larry, my head's exploding.
Lookit, I'd have no problem with IOZ condemning "half-measures" if he'd just stand the fuck up, draw a nice deep breath, and tell us in plain English (or Latin, for all I give a turd) just what in Fuck's Hill, in the name of my dead grandfather's dead goddamn ball sac, he thinks FULL measures would look like!
And don't tell me about the national debate not being ready for whatever the fuck he thinks it should be ready for. . . the history of this damn country -especially over the last 10 or 15 years- is the history of lunatics espousing horrific, hellacious, repulsive, medieval horseshit initiatives like "creation science" and "abstinence funding" and "faith-based crapola" and the fucking "flat tax," for God's goddamned fuck-his-own-ass sake, and getting laughed at. . . until about 5 years later some drunken bought-out asshole in Congress takes some time off from sniffing his butt-cheese to actually *sign* the damned stupid thing into law.
Whatever the fuck IOZ might suggest -drown our pets in Jello, drink gasoline, put our legs up and shit into our own mouths, whatever- it can't possibly be any dumber than the "flat tax", or any of the 500 other dumb-ass things that the neocons and their sheep-fucking crucifix-licking cohorts have stood for. . . and half of that shit is now LAW.
So out with it, IOZ! What's the plan? Ban spoken English? Mandate Esperanto? Divide the U.S. into microstates, each one centered on a Starbucks? Apply for annexation to Canada? To Sealand?
Shit, man, the crazier the better. What's *not* a viable goddamn alternative to a genocidal kleptocracy run by a babbling fanatical moron? Mandate anything! Make everyone marry their fucking pets! Turn all the corpses into pate and serve them in the public schools. . . make everyone carry a fucking xylophone, man. . .
JUST TRY US!
Proconsul,
Chill out. At least it's not Baghdad. And again, what?
Plain English: Don't vote for Democrats. It doesn't help.
What do you mean it doesn't help? Karl Rove's oppo research guy is about to get appointed U.S. attorney, and Feinstein is on the case, by God...
Do you really think voting for the Green Party candidate du jour would be of any more practical use than voting for someone who would give the Democrats parliamentary control? Your post offers a convincing case that it would be morally purer, but not that it would lead to a better outcome. You'd have to make the case that there is absolutely no difference in the depravity of the two parties, which seems to me a somewhat tough case to make.
But just for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that there really is no daylight between the Democratic and Republican leadership, even as a matter of degree. Underdevelopment of alternatives to the two major parties would seem to make electoral politics useless as a means of effecting change in our warmongering and imperialism. It just doesn't matter whom you vote for. What, then?
I think that's what Proconsul's asking. As I recall, you had a similar question not long ago. It's really time to start working on this one. Quo vadis? Would love to see you post on that -- otherwise maybe I'll have to resuscitate my blog.
Hey, Proconsul, you really oughtn't to be attacking IOZ. He ain't, as they say, the problem. He's pointing to the solution -- which, I grant you, none of us will see in our lifetimes, and which may not arrive prior to Armageddon. But geez, Proc., here I thought *I* was depressed and upset. You make me feel like Mary Tyler Moore on a very good day. "I can turn the world on with my smile..." And I can, too! Come up and see me sometime, and you'll see what I mean...
So...what can the Dems do? Hmm...that's a stumper. Hey, NO, it isn't! How's about this, just for a little baby step to start with: they could STOP FUNDING THE GODDAMNED IRAQ CLUSTERFUCK. They could follow Kucinich's lead, the man who, as I remarked at my place recently, appears to be the only Dem who actually wants to *stop* this nightmare.
Not just stop funding the "escalation" or whatever the hell you want to call this monstrous stupidity...STOP FUNDING THE ENTIRE WAR. There's enough money in the system to bring the troops home. So DO IT.
But they won't. They're cowards...and, as IOZ and I both are correct in thinking, they believe in the same foreign policy. In fact, the Dems STARTED it. How's about them apples? Check out the first part of my Dominion Over the World series...(I'd provide a link, but it seems to destroy the margins, mebbe IOZ can fill it in), where I explain in part why Iraq is the Dems' war, too. You may have noticed I'm a verbose fellow; I'll have much more to say in this series in the coming week.
I haven't even begun to trash the Dems -- and they deserve all of it, and much worse.
Meanwhile, you could go to an antiwar demonstration on Jan. 27, or join the civil disobedience action written about at Antiwar.com recently (gotta find that link; they're doing sit-ins in Congressional offices and whatnot).
In short: only WE can stop this nightmare, and we will have to use tactics that haven't been used much recently. I'm talking *massive* civil disobedience here.
Or you can sit on your ass, and take potshots at one of the most perceptive bloggers around. Your choice.
After all, it's a free country! Hahaha. My gallows humor really cracks me up. (That's *my* depression talking.)
Cheers, y'all.
Why call in the big guns when they show up on their own?
Dominion Over the World: I
Dominion over the World: II
M_A
What then? I don't know.
So fine, then. Politics is a shit-sneeze, and a Democrat is just what's left clinging to the sphincter of the body politic after a sheet or two of recyclable, comfort-quilted Green has been used to scrape the Republican dingleberries into Democracy's ever-rippling bowl.
And so? So? So fuck them all. Fuck them all, right in in their fucking nostrils. Rape them right in the face, and then move the Christ on, you piss-drinking retards!
What the fucking hell has radicalism come to, when it's reduced to whining about how tough it is to find someone sympathetic to whine to?
Jesus! Fucking wise up! There is no sympathetic audience, ANYWHERE! And do you know why? Because you're fucking radicals, that's why. Assholes. If you had people in power who were willing to lend a sympathetic ear, you wouldn't fucking well BE radicals, now, would you?
Assholes. God! There's no mass constituency for justice, and there won't be until you go out and persuade one. And you won't fucking well persuade ANYBODY if you can't bring yourself to tell people what the fuck you stand for.
Here's what *I* stand for:
-The impeachment and removal from office of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and every member of the Cabinet. Their subsequent trial for crimes against humanity and treason against the United States of America.
-The immediate cessation of American intervention in the Middle East, and, for that matter, anywhere else.
-The submission of the entire United States Armed Forces to United Nations command, and the encouragement of every other country on the planet to do likewise.
-Reparations, in the sum of 14 trillion dollars, will be paid out to the surviving people of Iraq over the next 20 years.
-As a rule of thumb, every domestic law and policy that's in general use in the European Union, including national health and social welfare, should be immediately put into full force and effect in the U.S.
How's THAT for a fucking radical platform? I got the whole thing out and it didn't hurt a bit. Go ahead. Anyone. Try it.
Or, if you prefer, you can come and whine to *me* about how crappy *my* politics are. At least, if you bitch and moan to me, you know I might listen attentively before I take a long, mellow piss on your fucking heads.
PC is dead on - the bastards have to go but it requires action not musings. Just how, though, with the wagons continuing to circle as tightly as they are, to be effective at all has kept me troubled.
This afternoon, I listened to a long MLK speech that I had not heard before here on WPFW, describing the events and details of the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott. 50,00 citizens thoroughly involved (well at the 90% level)in an organized civil disobedience action that, after 381 days, resulted in local success.
Now, it may seem/be passe to consider such actions again, but what else have we got and what is there to lose. Individual action = serious peril. Voting obviously ain't it. With the exposure and links that IOZ, Arthur's and other blogs have, why not organize a nationwide action? Hell it could start with something as simple as pulling over to the side of the road at a given time; just so those involved might/could see that that there were others with them. Then another and another, upping the ante just so each time, eventually getting to some actual sacrifice. Whattya say oh eloquent one?
While we're waiting, what *I* say is that we're living in an age of bland, blind, ignorant, grease-farting apathy, not a fucking decade of self-sacrifice and passionate social commitment and whatever other noble shit sentiments people claimed to feel when they weren't busy group-fucking each other's peasant-skirted sisters high on acid made from fucking rat poison in the 19-Christ-fucking-60s.
Successful political movements are *always* in line with the temper of the time they fucking occur in. And the temper of *this* age is lazy, ignorant, and stupid as a box of baby hammers. Baby hammers that have secretly been eating fucking chips of toxic lead paint.
So forget the fucking "rocket's red glare" and suchlike shit. . . the symbol of combat in *this* era is a huge fucking cloud of Dorito farts. . . and the key to political victory in *this* age is. . .
. . . to get a couple of million people to adopt a completely radical political position, and (this is the fucking critical part) NEVER, EVER COMPROMISE THAT POSITION SO MUCH AS AN ASS-HAIR'S WORTH. Concede nothing, and tell sweet reason to go off and get itself kicked in the choad.
Repeat your hardline position constantly, over and over and over again, as if it were self-evidently true and as if 90 percent of the whole fucking country has been secretly on your side the whole fucking time.
Don't give an inch. Keep telling people that we need to impeach the president, put the army under UN control, adopt the laws of Europe, and pay reparations to Iraq.
Shit, for all it matters, keep telling people that the heliocentric cosmology is a cruel fucking myth. Whatever you like. When the cloud of dorito farts clears, you'll find the fucking media splitting the difference, ready to put the army under the control of the UN Security Counsel instead of the general fucking assembly and Tucker Carlson advocating a "compromise" on the "controversial issue" of what orbits what in the solar system... like maybe the whole fucking thing is based on magnets.
Just stick to the hardest hardline position you can think of, for as long as possible, and get a critical mass of pissed-off liberals to echo your points.
Nobody believes in anything anymore, and nobody's offering a vision of the future that's less fucking scary than Road Warrior.
We're told -and we believe it, because it's entirely fucking true- that the beams upholding our political structure, our social order, and our collective ideals have all rotted away, right down to the fucking core. . . and is there anyone, anyone at all with a fucking pair of ears and a pulse, who's needed or been waiting for ME to tell them that? Fuck no. . .
But what the fuck does that matter to us? To us, that's the freaking good news. It means that all we need to do is kick the fucking door in and the entire rotten building will come crashing down like the piece of shit it's become. . . it has to, and it will, and really, really, really fucking soon. . .and do any of you want to claim this is some shocking new fucking piece of news you're just now getting from me? The hell. You all knew that in your bones, the moment you could sit up in your crib and saw your first blow-dried, feathered hair, television newsreading asshole on your parents' tv.
Just grow some balls, for fuck's sake, and you powerless liberal jerk-offs will have the power to move the whole world.
Have the courage to see and then explain and then fucking INSIST on your vision of the world the way you want it, to insist on the hope of a future for humanity that's a fucking improvement over the present.
Most of you poor fuckers have had the bad luck to have lived your whole lives in an age where the only people with a vision of hope for the future are the fucking religious fanatics. . . and their plan is the fucking Apocalypse.
Just come up with a rational, secular plan. . . failing that, just come up with a rational, secular vision of hope for the future. Revive, in short, the concept of "progress". . . and the fucking conservatives will soon remember exactly why they've been losing 9 falls out of 10 against progressive liberalism for the last 200 years.
You know the prescriptions only work if you take the correct dosage on schedule, Proconsul.
Ah, Jeez. . .suddenly everyone's a critic[*]
Why, it's gotten so a man can't even pass a quiet evening spewing forth a raving, incoherent torrent of toxic obscenity without some wag questioning his emotional stability.
The nerve of some people!
[*] Of, in this particular case, a critic of a critic of a critic critiquing editorialists' critiques of, inter alia, bloggers engaged in critiquing other critics).
So, this charcter is is some kind of parody, right? I mean, sure, gotta be. An incoherent multi-paragraph screed by a do-nothing demobot pwoggie excoriating a real activist about the 1960s (WTF?) and apathy (an art at which pwoggies excel) and, oh, just all sorts of sewer spew. That kind of un-selfaware KO$ rant has gotta be some kind of Colbert-like satire, right?
It would be closer to the mark, alan, to call it an honest experiment with a very different style of writing than the one I typically use.
It might sound odd, but there are a great many deep political and ethical truths in the current environment that can only be expressed by a raving fanatic. . .since anyone else who tries to express them will immediately be branded as such. I got to say those things. . . but I also found myself saying a lot of pointlessly abrasive crap just to stay in character. . . which I suppose is the exact reverse of the soothing nonsense that the rest of us have to work into our conversations in order to avoid being socially abrasive.
Some truths that need to be said can only be spoken as comedy. Others can only be conveyed as straight prose... and still others can only find expression in frothing rants.
The fact of the matter is that I'd love to see Bush and his cabinet impeached and tried for treason and crimes against humanity; and I'd love to see us adopt about 80% of the laws of Europe. We genuinely *should* pay the Iraqi people reparations, and there's a lot to be said for putting the American armed forces at the disposal of the United Nations.
But who's willing to go out on the political hustings and take those positions? Nobody at all, and it's going to stay that way until there's a popular movement that supports those policies. And who's going to go out and round up the first few million members of that movement?
Not me, and most likely not you. That's a job best done by the raving fanatics.
I see him, alansmithee, as a sort of refugee from the Robert Anton Wilson dramatis personae. "You people aren't serious enough!" he kept screaming. So he got himself cut from the draft.
Okay, I take back my kind words to Procounsel.
No, seriously, beyond the ranting he has a couple points. Sure IOZ isn't the problem, and provides a valuable service in speaking the truth, and doing so in a fairly entertaining manner. But at the end of the day, when we asked what we should do to get out of this mess, his response comes down to "I got nothing." Well, not nothing, but certainly nothing that's gonna help us in time to stop the current madness.
Now maybe that's not his fault; maybe there isn't anything we can do to stop the slide towards armageddon, though I have some ides about that which I'll save till another post.
Secondly, though, and Procounsel just kind of touches on this, but I do kind of wish that IOZ would shift his focus more to Iran. While Procounsel exagerates a bit, the fact is that the damage in Iraq is done. Getting out now or two years from now makes a difference, but only at the margins. Iraq is screwed either way. Iran, on the other hand ... look, a war against Iran, even if it spreads no further, would be a disaster an order of magnitude worse that Iraq. What I really fear, though, is that it will lead to a larger conflict; that the loons on the extreme right will get their civilizational war, and hundreds of millions will die. I think that preventing that disaster is where our focus should be.
Okay, my other post, and I've tired to make this point before, but haven't been able to do so properly. I blame the limits of a blog comment. Perhaps I should revive my blog (which I kept at for all of two weeks about 4 years ago.
Let's stipulate that almost everything that IOZ says about the Dems is true. Let's also stipulate that it would be wonderful to have a party in the United States start to question, at least, our consensus view of our role in the world. But while waiting for such event to occur, let's work with what we have. The Dems, despite all of their faults, and I share much of IOZ' frustration with them, have at least started talking a good game on Iran and Iraq, and are on the whole a hell of a lot less crazy than the Reps. Yeah, that's not enough, but it's a start. I doubt that they are going to cut off funding for the war in Iraq, but if we focus on Iran, I can see a lot that the Dems can and perhaps will do. At the very very least, you are not going to see congress voting to authorize war with Iran, which is a huge contrast from the run up to war with iraq.
Maybe Bush goes ahead and pulls the trigger anyway, but at least he won't have a congressional authorization to give him cover. I can think of a ton of other things that are realistic possibilities, even for Dems who are still caught up in the consensus view of American power, but ... well, the limits of a blog comment. Anyway, you don't need to agree with IOZ about the proper role of the United States in the world to oppose war with Iran; you just need to be non-crazy.
Oh, and those comments from Dems about Iran that IOZ refers to? Unfortunate, yes; unwise, yes. But IOZ, where is your normal cynicism about politicians? Do you really think that those statements wil keep them from opposing war with Iran? Come on, politicans turn on a dime every day. And in this case, they even have several plausible ways to justify the switch - after all, even when there was some saber rattling from the Dems on Iran, no one was crazy enought to call for war. Already Kos and his minions, along with several Dem politicians, are speaking out against war with Iran, without any reference to prior bellicose statements regarding Iran, or with any embarrassment about possible contradictions. Will the crazies on the right try to brand the Dems as hypocrites? Sure. But in the current climate, which has thankfully changed a lot (albeit for perhaps the wrong reasons), that's just not going to stick.
Of course none of this will make a difference is the Bush admin is as crazy as I suspect it is, but, while the Dems are not doing everything in their power to stop the madness in Iraq, I think there is at least a good chance they will do what they can to prevent war with Iran. And given the stakes here, even if it's just a chance, perhaps a few words acknowledging said facts on this blog would be appropriate.
I don't think we need do anything. History will take care of us quite nicely. Either the global warming thing, peak oil, or Asia and Europe cutting up our credit cards. I guess that's apathy, but I see it more as awareness of the coming doom-and there is nothing we can do about it. There is just too much sunk into the existing unsustainable systems. I see our future as Somalia, frankly.
Brian,
All of that may be just a bit too late. I'm inclined to think that even people like IOZ underestimate just how bad things could get if Bush starts a war with Iran. I could go on for pages, but, again, the limits of a blog comment. Even setting aside the possibility of a worldwide depression if the oil gets cut off during such a war, once the United States realizes that it lacks the conventional power to "win" a war with Iran in any meaningful sense, it could lash out in some truly horrifying ways.
Larry - I don't think the Dems will support a war with Iran because they said they would previously. I think they'll support a war with Iran because they support a war with Iran.
IOZ,
I simply don't think that's true, except perhaps for one or two people like Lieberman. I see little to no evidence that you are right, and plenty of evidence that you are wrong.
And it's not because the Dems necessaryily have a healthier view of the role of the United States in the world (though some do). It's because (1) unlike the president, they are not clinically insane, and (2) they have elections to worry about in 2, 4, or 6 years, and thankfully the political winds are blowing in a very different direction these days than they were 5 or even 2 years ago.
Someone else had a nice turn of phrase in a blog comment here a month or so ago, along the lines of preferring that the sane evil people be in charge, rather than the crazy evil people. I don't think that I'd go so far as to call most Dems (or even some Reps) "evil," but I basically agree with the point.
Finally, and respectfully, I think that your strong disagreement with rest of the Dems agenda colors your thinking about their position on Iraq and Iran. Not that you are ENTIRELY wrong. Just enough to perhaps make a difference between armeggedon and the normal, depressing but not apocolyptic state of affairs.
And frankly it is also a problem with the whole "america is an imperialist nation" crowd. Increasingly I am with you guys in a lot of respects, and I think your analysis of the dynamics of empire are mostly spot on, but you guys sometimes lose the forest for the trees. Not all imperialists are the same; you can take a maximalist position against imperial states, and point out, correctly, the commonalities of such states, while still acknowledging, for example, that the Bush administration is a very real departure in many respects.
Let's close with a specific question - do you really think that there is any chance in the world that a resolution authorizing war with Iran is going to come out of this congress? If your answer to that question is yes, than I've lost a LOT of respect for your powers of analysis. I can see many ways that war with Iran could happen even absent such a resolution (I could even see circumstances where the Dems support it after the fact, but that is IMO by no means certain), but it isn't going to happen with congressional approval this time.
The President will launch the war. The Dems won't act to stop him. Can't take money from the troops, after all. Complicity and plausible deniabilty. They're better politicians than you give them credit for, and worse men.
I note also that there is no such category as clinically insane. Insanity is an exculpatory legal term. Think on that.
Re war with Iran: I see in the comments above a failure to remember some critical aspects of how the Iraq disaster unfolded. This is basically how it will go, and the groundwork has been laid for the last couple of years.
Some sort of "crisis" will occur -- an attack on US interests somewhere (or perhaps even a crisis not directly involving the US at all, but which threatens regional "stability"), that will quickly be "sort of kind of" laid at Iran's door. The media will blare the story and pump up the hysteria very quickly. No one will question the storyline, or ask for evidence of the administration's assertions. They didn't last time, they won't this time.
The Dems will echo the line about "intolerable" interference/actions by nations that defy the "civilized world" -- just as they will echo the line that it is, of course, the US that must DO SOMETHING. Before you know it, bombs will start falling on Iran. I see all of this happening in just a month or two. (It is also entirely possible that Bush will give a speech only *after* the missiles start flying, once the "crisis" has gone on for a few weeks.) As IOZ says, and I have written about repeatedly (and will be explaining more in the Dominion series), the Dems won't resist -- *because they believe in the exact same foreign policy.*
You must remember that the entire governing class believes that we are the "indispensable nation" -- that we have the "right" to order the entire world. They will not permit any other nation to threaten our dominance, or our preeminent position. The Dems believe this even more than the Republicans, when you consider the matter historically.
As I wrote in the first part of the Dominion series, people tend to see Iraq as a radical break with American foreign policy. That is absolutely false: it is a *continuation* of American foreign policy. People get distracted by the particular craziness of the Bush Gang, and they fail to see the basic continuity at work. (The Bush Gang is uniquely dangerous in certain narrower respects -- but the fundamental principles involved are identical.)
Some of the commenters above appear to have forgotten how quickly an atmosphere of overpowering hysteria can be created. The media has learned nothing at all from their role in the Iraq debacle -- and they will do it all again, creating panic and fear out of next to nothing.
I went through the basic outlines of this in an essay a while ago -- I was wrong about the timing (I thought it would happen before the election), but I was not wrong about the dynamics involved:
Our Date with Armageddon
There is much more to be said about all this, and I'll try to get to some of it soon.
Cheers...or not.
One other point, which is critical: it amazes me that anyone thinks the Bush administration will seek authorization from Congress before launching attacks on Iran. The administration has stated repeatedly that it believes the 2001 military force authorization (passed immediately after 9/11) gives it all the authorization it needs. In their view, they don't need to ask Congress for a damned thing.
This is what happens when the original Constitutional assignment of warmaking power is utterly discarded -- as it has been ever since World War II. Congress has ceded all its power to the president, under the horrific and vile notion of "Executive war." The 2001 authorization simply cemented that awful idea, one more time.
Forest, trees. Be interesting to revisit this thread in a few months.
I'm inclined to see IOZ' "they'll do nothing" belief as unfortunely plausible though far from certain. I think that Arthur strays a bit further from reality, for reasons alluded to in prior posts. Not that his scenario is inconcievable, just highly unlikely.
Why? Many reasons, the biggest of which is that sane people who hold the beliefs about American power that Arthur alludes to are well aware that war with Iran would undermine that power dramatically, because we lack the ability to impose our will on Iran.
Larry: I think the reality you are missing is that the oil industry people behind the current administration are well aware of the reality of peak oil. They are frantic to gain direct control of these resources before the other actors on the scene act first. I think many of the "sane" actors are willing to take a gamble on the insanity because they are (rightfully) afraid that the United States has basically pissed its real economy away and will lack the resources to effectivly grab control of these resources.
Larry m: And of course, we all know that foreign policy decisions are based on careful calculation and a rational assessment of the relevant facts. We saw that in World War I, Vietnam and Iraq. What you say is indisputably true.
Can I have some of what you're smoking?
As for Arthur's second point, he may well be right. Let's put it this way - if he thought he could get a resolution authorizing war, he'd ask for one. Will he go ahead and start the bombs flying without one? Perhaps yes, perhaps not. Gates, for all his many faults, would probably be a check on that impulse if he is listened to. Obviously he may not be listened to. Certainly, though, the prospect for Congress to show some spine after the fact are greater absent such a resolution.
But I guess the final point is this. If anti-war people had listened to IOZ and Arthur and stayed home, or supported third party candidates, last November, we would have a congress that would happily pass such a resolution, and would be giving rhetorical support to an Iran venture, instead of giving rhetorical opposition. Will all that make a difference? Maybe not, but I sure as hell feel more comfortable with a congress that (a) is at least making some of the right noises on the issue, and (b) can be relied upon to at least exercise some oversight, as opposed to the prior congress, where ... hmm, how can I put this ... where the only dispute was whether merely sucking the president's dick was enough. or whether they should go all the way.
IOZ:
As a person who, above all else, "pays attention," I recall that a year ago you thought an attack on Iran very unlikely. What changed?
I've asked you this before, but it's not to poke you with the incosistency stick. Highly skeptical of an attack myself, I am genuinely curious.
Arthur,
How can I put this more bluntly? The people who want to attack Iran are the seme people who wanted to nuke Russia. We didn't do that, because, despite the many, many mistakes made during the cold war, rationality prevailed far more often than not. You and I may not like much of what that "rationality" led to, but most of it was rational in the sense of furthering United States power. Vietnam? The Johnson Administration on it's worse day was twice as rational, and twice as competant, as the current Bush administration. If Bush was in charge during Vietnam, the nukes whould have been flying to Peking.
meanwhile, does nobody here see dubya's troop increase as an actual exit strategy?
how else to explain the clearly inadequate numbers? or the sisyphean conditions set out for the iraqis?
or the pelosi complicity?
Larry: Your Cold War reference unfortunately supports the very conclusion that you resist: it was the existence of a roughly equal opposite power (also armed with countless nukes) that *constrained* us then, and limited the possibilities of offensive action.
There is now no such countervailing power. And that is a hugely significant difference.
Arthur,
Or the Cuban Missle crisis. Bush in charge = armageddon.
Quite simply, you fail to acknowledge something that even IOZ has acknowledged. Draw all the (entirely valid) connections between Bush and his predecessors that you like; he is, despite those links, something uniquely horrible in American history. For a number of reasons (not the least of wish are those very real links to the consensus foriegn policy that you cite), it took awhile for the plitical class to see this, but see it they have. It may be too late to make a difference, the relevant actors may not have the balls to do what needs to be done to stop it, but if you fail to see the extent to which the political classes have turned on Bush you just aren't paying attention.
The reasons for this shift may not ultimately be the ones that you or I would have liked to have seen, and the shift may not be anywhere nearly enough, but it's real, and frankly failure to see it IMO undermines a lot of your other analysis, much of which I agree with.
Ah, cross posted with your latest. What the last few years have proved to even the most ardent supporter of American power is the serious limits of our power even in a world lacking a countervailing force as the Soviet Union. While this lesson probably hasn't been learned as well as it should be by our political classes, even they are able to get their heads around the fact that Iran is a tougher adversary than Iraq; if we couldn't impose our will on Iraq, we sure as hell can't on Iran. Especially with a partially broken and fully occupied army.
But really, Arthur, if your analysis is correct, then why even the rhetorical opposition from the Dems and soem Reps that we are hearing to the Iraq escalation and the Iranian saber rattling? I mean, all that may come to nothing, which is why IOZ MAY be right, but if your analysis is correct, you would see the Dems right on board with Bush, as they were 5 years ago regarding iraq. They aren't. Why not?
Larry: No, I'm aware of what you're saying. But note this: the governing class only opposes Bush's wars because he is *undermining* the US ability to maintain its preeminence. They are equally convinced that we *should be* the sole superpower, that we should be preeminent.
And you underestimate the how that preeminence relies on warmongering, together with the other corporatist dynamics that give it power -- and how that warmongering has its own self-sustaining power, and its own irresistible logic.
Read this, about Hillary's bombing of Iran:
the bombing of Iran in 2009
It's impossible to know when this or its equivalent will happen; there are an infinite number of variables involved. But it certainly could happen in the next year or two.
And if it doesn't, a Democrat will likely bring us the same nightmare -- if the current system and its underlying beliefs remain in place.
Or our economy (and the world's) may largely collapse in the meantime.
A nightmare is coming -- but we don't know exactly when or in exactly what form. But I still hope to see you all on the other side of it...:>)
"the governing class only opposes Bush's wars because he is *undermining* the US ability to maintain its preeminence."
I think that that is mostly true. But if that keeps us from attacking Iran, or engaging in a civilizational war with Islam, I'll take it. I think it will (or at least has the potential to; given that the oval office is occupied by a crazy man, all bets are off). You, obviously, don't.
Maximo: I'm with you all the way. I have been in support of the "surge" since the get-go. I saw it, and see it, as the fastest way out of Iraq. As that is the most important practicable goal, the surge is a necessary evil/good thing.
Larry: To be sure, I would take it too, and I hope it will prevent a widespread, possibly nuclear war.
It's not entirely accurate to say that I "don't" think these factors will prevent Armageddon. I simply don't know; no one can know at this point. But the signs are not at all promising, and I wouldn't be prepared to bet on either outcome.
Keep in mind one other thing: the Bush Gang truly believes that *they* must "reorder" the Middle East, including setting Iran back from its (possible) plans for nuclear weapons. They don't think any successor will do it; they've said that. And their time is running out, as are their options. And, for the reasons discussed above and elsewhere, I doubt the Dems will provide much if any opposition once events begin to gather motion.
So I desperately hope further catastrophe will be avoided -- but as to whether it will be? We just don't know.
la rana (hi!): "Out of Iraq"?? We aren't leaving Iraq for at least 20 years, and probably not during your lifetime. It won't matter a damn whether Dems or Repubs are in the White House.
We're there. We're not leaving. Unless, of course, there's a widespread regional war, in which case the calculus changes entirely. In that event, we might be well on the way to another world war.
la_rana: I've been reevaluating my position in light of our recent kidnapping of Iranians from their consulate in Irbil, the dispatch of a carrier group and Patriot Missle systems, and reports of already-occuring cross-border activities by American forces. I think I was overly dismissive in the past.
Very interesting discussion. Way too many people have failed to understand, or understood too late, that Bush is a radical. Even I don't understand how the Republican Congress did not even try to protect the institution of Congress.
Hillary? She will not be the Democratic nominee.
In terms of "surge as exit strategy" argument:
If I was being REALLY paranoid, I might posit the following:
(1) Whatever form a war with Iran takes, it won't be a conventional ground war. Not because such a war would be unwise, but because it would be impossible.
(2) If a war against Iran is an air/cruise missle war, then our troops in Iraq are targets; not only don't they help the war effort, they hinder it. (Counterargument: air bases in Iraq. But naval air and other land based air bases in the region should be enough).
(3) Removing most of our troops from Iraq is actually a prelude to war with Iran. Not only do you limit the vulnerability of our troops in Iraq, but you free up part of the army for some limited ground incursions, possibly from the sea, possibly from the air, possibly from Kurdistan.
(4) Gulf of Tonkin/remember the Maine - I think that Arthur is right that some sort of incident as a prelude to invasion is likely. Problem (from the perspective of the Bushistas): it's hard to manufacture such an incident entirely from whole cloth. Historically, in this nation at least, those types of incidents were generally based at least tenuously on real events, even if the real truth was ignored or actively supressed. Something like the supposed "attack" by Poland on Germany in 1939 would be tough to pull off in this country. Especially given the current credibility level of the White House.
So ideally Iran would "cooperate" by providing a pretext. Now, assume we (even partially) leave Iraq. Do you think Iran woun't try to fill the gap? Of course they will; they would be crazy not to. No one wants a nation in anarchy on their border. But Iran's actions in this regard could be used by Bush as the incident he needs to "justify" the attack on Iran.
So - surge as a prelude to (partial) withdraw and an air compaign against Iran? No, on balance I think not, but more plausible than many of the options supported by the warmongers.
In terms of the above, I know it's far fetched, and is presented more as an out there hypothetical, but one thing to keep in mind: if you are intent upon maintaining control of the middle east, Iran is the main adversary, and leaving Iraq is not a big sacrifice if it gains you the big prize, which is neutralization (at least) of Iran. Remember, these guys don't want to occupy the middle east so much as to control it. They would be perfectly happy with a bunch of client states and plenty of bases, but a much smaller military footprint than we have now. See just about any comentary about the attitude of Cheney during the run up to war.
Of course the big problem, aside from the horrific immorality of such an endeavor, and the likelihood that it will ignite a regional conflagration, is that the is a pretty huge disconnect between an air war and regime change in Iran. But hey, that's a problem with ANY plan to attack Iran, not just my little scenario.
Arthur and Larry:
I think you are both getting ahead of yourselves. First, and most glaringly, it seems unprecedented in modern history. I can't think of a comparable example, certainly not in the 20th century. While we destroyed Germany and Japan and stayed for, well we are still there, Iraq more closely resembles Vietnam and Korea. The former 2 invasions were predicated on nation-state warfare, and once a victor was determined, fighting ceased. In the latter 2 invasions fighting continued unabated after we destroyed the country, and so we left. (the Philippines is an interesting counter-example, but I know very little about the Spanish-American war)
Second, I think very few politicians want to be in Iraq. We very well may see an inconsequential resolution proving that, with some continuing to display their reticence only privately. The reason they don't want to be in Iraq is not because they've re-thought their foreign policy prescriptions (and if they have, only temporarily), but rather because Iraq has gone very badly and even most dunderheads realize that it cannot be rectified. IOZ and Arthur have done a great job of ferreting this out.
Now, since most don't want to be in Iraq, they need to find a way out, and one that is politically viable. The country has now swayed so far against the Iraqi Adventure™ that many feel comfortable calling for withdrawal. Some months ago this was still a taboo position. The republicans are in a precarious spot, however. Nearly all of the Americans that still support the "war" are republican, and besides, the democrats got on the pullout train beforehand and its too soon to flip-flop. The republicans are therefore not in a position to uniformly back pull-out, though many want to. A time will come when this will change, and that time will be within the next 3-4 years.
Bush is the largest impediment to pull-out, as his inability to appreciate abject failure prevents consideration of leaving (at least publicly). If we have not left Iraq by the time he leaves office (and nothing else has occurred - as I will discuss), we will start the process of permanently departing shortly thereafter. In two years time, not calling for withdrawal from Iraq will be political suicide.
The only thing that suggests we might withdraw, or begin withdrawing from Iraq within the next 2 years is the “surge.” No one thinks it will work and yet many people support it. This is not that curious a position in America, but it is given the political stakes and public opinion. Many of the people in power, and perhaps most of the supporters of the surge recognize that saving face is a precondition to leaving, and that a surge and temporary hiatus of 70-death-days is a precondition to saving face.
The only thing that could fatally complicate this calculus is war with Iran. I have cross-posted this at my place, for convenience, and will add a post why I think war with Iran is unlikely.
Larry - very good points, but Bush will attack Iran while American troops are still in Iraq.
Why do I know that? Every time I thought he wouldn't make a crazy decision I was wrong.
You cannot use logic to analyze Bush's decisions.
la rana: I left some comments at your place about why I disagree, and why the comparison to Korea and Vietnam doesn't work.
I have the sense that a number of critics of our interventionist policies don't see the wide scope of the domestic corporatist dynamics in play here, together with their implications for foreign policy. I touch on that in that comments at la rana's place, but I'll have much more on that in the next parts of the Dominion series (starting tomorrow probably).
You people are all much too interesting. I'd much rather get drunk and have really hot sex (or just have hot sex, even without the drinking).
Surely, there must be *somebody* here who's up for that (er, so to speak).
Okay, okay. I'll behave. Maybe.
That's funny, I was just about to tip back some bourbon. And the Mrs. is due home. But proposing hot sex after announcing I'm getting drunk rarely goes over well.
I still can't quite wrap my head around the corporate interference/interests. I'm looking forward to what light you can shed on the mattter.
I posted a somewhat hopeful (in retrospect) critique of your's and IOZ's view of impending Iranian disaster over at my place because its far too long for a comment post.
Anyone interested in this issue may want to head over to Henley's place; one of his guest bloggers penned a fairly persuasive (to me, anyway) defense of the current Dem approach on the war. Of course, it assumes that ultimatley the Dems really do want to prevent an escalation of the war, which is an assumption that our host & other commenters likely won't accept, but if you accept that premise, it makes a lot of sense.
oh, and one final question for our host, for Arthur, and for anyone else who wants to play. Even if one assigns a low, or even very low, probability that the current congress will do anything to halt the rush to war with Iran, which of the following two institutions is MORE likely to do something:
(1) The current congress;
(2) A hypothetitical congress where the republicans maintained thier majority. That means not only fewer Dems, but, perhaps more to the point, no "message" from the voters that they were unhappy with the war.
I mean, even if we are talking 5% vs 0% (and I suspect 5% is low), that's pretty significant, given the stakes, yes?
I know it's late to the party and I shouldn't even have to say it but Bush hasn't put 120,000 Americans in concentration camps for being Arab or Persian without warrant or review. And Bush hasn't approved/ordered the mass firebombing of 67 cities.
Larry M, you seem well spoken and sincere but any arguments based on party can only reveal a profound and probably willing blindness to history and the initials on all the stacks of bodies in the last century. In fact, if we were only going by politics, the Left side of the spectrum is stupendously bloodier, as I'm sure you know.
Each proposition and person has to be judged singly or the judgement, and the judge, is certain to be wrong.
Ashley,
Not sure what I said in this thread to prompt your responce, but that's okay, I've made plenty of rants on other threads which in your mind surely would justify your comments and then some.
Now, if I understand your argument, it goes something like this:
(1) FDR did things in WW II worse than anything that Bush has done (now, if I was being dificult I could point outr a few things on the other side of the scale, like the fact that FDR wasn't a torturer, but for the sake of argument let's concede the point).
(2) (Implied) FDR was vindicated by defeating Naxi Germany and Japan.
(3) (Implied) Therefore I have no right to criticize Bush for his excesses in the war on Terra.
Now, I may be giving you TOO much credit even there, but if you take a moment from your study of history to perhaps take a logic course, you'll see that 3 doesn't follow from 1 and 2. Why you fucking warmongers seem to think that the actions taken by the United States in WW II somehow legitimize any (slightly) less horrible actions taken since then truly amazes me. Now I don't happen to think that the result achieved in WW II "justifies" in any meaningful sense the atrocities that we undertook, but when facing Saint Peter at least FDR could point out that he was fighting in a worthy cause. Bush , on the other hand, has raped Iraq and shat on the contsitution in pursuit of the maintenance and extension of United States power in the middle east, self serving lies about democracy to the contrary.
As for your statement that my "arguments [are] based on party ," I think you are misreading my posts. Despite disagreeing on some nuances, I am basically in agreement with our host and with Arthur that the Dems, on this issue at least, are as bad (well, I would say almost as bad) as the Repubs.
Cheney and Bush are war criminals who should be tried for those crimes and hanged by the necks until dead. One can only hope against hope that congress will act to stop them from committing further crimes by aggressing against Iran.
In any event, sorry that my comments lack moderation, but, to coin a phrase, extremism in opposition to Armegeddon is no vice.
IOZ,
Sorry for feeding the troll.
Eh, clicking on the link makes me realize I may have been unfair in some respect. But then I really don't understand the post, with all due respect. Is this supposed to mean that the fact that the Dems did something worse 60 years ago means that they are worse now? That doesn't make any sene either. So really, what does FDR possibly have to do with my comments in this thread?
FDR or no FDR, or the excesses of the "left" in the past century (what Stalin has to do with the current Dem party I have no idea), I don't think that a fair minded person can deny that CURRENTLY at least SOME Dem politicians are more sane/less monsterous than the Repubs. And Lieberman aside, none of them are as monsterous as the current criminal in the white house.
Alright, I'm wasting enough time commenting here and elsewhere; why not revive my blog from four years ago. Nothing new of substance there yet (there will be soon), but the old stuff may be good for a laugh.
Troll? Moi? I'm saying that a label of Dem or Rep is meaningless; it doesn’t equate to right or wrong. Ta.
Some imply, regularly, implicitly, tacitly, that because Bush and cabal are horrible, which he is and they are, the opposition is somehow purified. There have been many horrible American Presidents. Hyperbole don't skin the cat. I'm always interested in learning about politicians who deserve advocacy, support, campaigners. I don't care what color they are, metaphorically or otherwise. If you have someone to hold up. Do that. But I judge both sides with the same stringency. [I like what I've seen of Obama lately e.g. but I don't know enough about him yet to decide either way.]
Pulling a party ticket is an abdication of judgement and morality.
If the Democrats aren't evil then why is their leadership concretely against the impeachment of evil? Lesser evil politics is a trap. A little bit in the wrong is still in the wrong.
Yeah Ashley, I get it now. But, as I tried to say in my follow-up post, I don't think that anything that I said in this thread justified tarring me with that particular brush. It's true that I offered a really pretty mild and heavily qualified defense of the current Democratic party, and I'll even admit that I can't imagine voting for a Republican given the current climate, but that has nothing to do with any delusions that the Dems as pure as the driven snow or even close. It's more about institutional problems with the Republican party - not that the Dems dodn't have issues of their own, but the fact is that when Bush said jump, the current incarnation of the Republican party simply said "how high."
The FDR stuff - eh, if I HAD said that the Dems were all good at all times, I guess I could have seen your point, but as I said, that pretty clearly isn't where I'm coming from.
And the "left has committed greater atrocities" stuff. Come on, what in god's name does that have to do with the Democratic party?
Finally, and this is directed at our host as much as at at you, in the short to medium run the only way for people to send a message that this war is unacceptable is to vote Dem. Granted, by itself that's not going to make the fundemental changes in our way of dealing with the world that are needed, but let's put out the current fire first.
And Ashley, I'll even concede that if Chuck Hagel somehow won the Republican nomination for president and was faced with Hillary, I'd even consider a vote for the R. Not that it would be easy to pull that lever, but I think he MAYBE could be (marginally) more trusted to avoid invading other nations. Maybe. Not that any of the presidential crop escapes from the pathologies regarding the role of the United States in the world that our host correclty identifies.
But Hagel isn't going to be the Republic presidential candidate. And of course our host would surely say that none of this matters anyway, and perhaps he would even be right.
In a nutshell, PC's arguments can be boiled down to:
There's something wrong with you if you won't unquestioningly kiss Kos' and/or DiFi's feet for all he's done for you. The best thing you can do if you want a raise is to pretend you're happy with the pittance you're getting now.
Remember, Greens are ineffectual and "quilted" and suck worse than even the most hardcore DLC warmonger, which is why I can't ever type two paragraphs without taking time out to name them as the menace they are. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Et al.
Proconsul wrote: 'the history of this damn country -especially over the last 10 or 15 years- is the history of lunatics espousing horrific, hellacious, repulsive, medieval horseshit initiatives... the fucking "flat tax," for God's goddamned fuck-his-own-ass sake...'
So taxing everyone at the same rate is a medieval idea that is, well. pretty much equivalent to killing 600,000 Iraqis. I seeee. Well, I'll be heading back to earth now.
Post a Comment