Thursday, October 23, 2003
Billmon's Dishonor Roll
John Podhoretz has managed to provoke the steady-as-steel Billmon with a Podhoretzian version of "a love note for our soldiers in Iraq from the support-the-troops brigade," as Billmon puts it, who provides this sample from the billet-doux
That put Billmon in mind of some other well-known pontificators worthy of inclusion in a highly reputable roll of dishonor that includes a former first lady.
Billmon's post produced one of the best comments thread I've read in a long time; don't miss it. Several commentators added other worthies to the list, like George Nethercutt, who seem to think it okay to provide perspective on the toll of dead and wounded young Americans our Iraq project has taken thus far, by claiming they aren't really all that significant, compared to the importance of the task and our "success" in accomplishing it. If they really believe that, why do they always use only the number of dead from enemy fire, and completely ignore the wounded?
Inspired, I'd like to add another name to this Dishonor Roll; Andrew Sullivan. I had in mind a comment he made pre-war about why he was completely comfortable with the idea that young men and women in our all volunteer professional armed services would bear the brunt of the burden of an Iraqi war, but I couldn't find it in his archives. It made the round of blogs at the time, if anyone remembers what month it happened in, please do let me know.
In lieu of that, I'd like to cite the post in which Mr. Sullivan gave us the ultimate definition and justification of the "Iraq as flypaper" theory of the occupation. Reading it once again was a shock and a revelation, and reminded me that their articulation of that theory makes Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and even the President likely contenders for Billmon's increasingly distinguished dishonor roll.
In case it wasn't clear, that last two word comment outside the quotes is Sully's. Do not ask for whom opportunity knocks, it knocks for thee. Not. Not if you're a rich, snobbish, conservative swell.
It's this unified field theory of the occupation of Iraq that explains why the President finally went to the UN, to free our troops for the real task ahead, as explained by General Sanchez:
Who could disagree?
Mr. Sullivan has nothing to say about the morality of invading and occupying Iraq in order to have a theatre far from home in which to fight our war against terrorism, though he has had much to say about how the anti-war left was oblivious to the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam.
There's more such foolishness, including an astounding description of the making of Iraq into a target for Islamic terrorists that isn't Israel as being the "extra beauty of this strategy." Brad DeLong and Jim Henley had some choice remarks to make about all this at the time that are well worth re-reading.
One of Billmon's readers suggests that this Dishonor Roll deserves to be archived; I agree, added to and made accessible on someone's sidebar. And before anyone accuses those of us who questioned this war from the beginning of cynically using US casualities to bolster our arguments, that's not the issue here. At issue is the readiness of so many supporters of the war to devalue the tragic nature of the loss being experienced by too many American families, and far too many Iraqis. Support for the war and the occupation is one thing; lying about its costs is quite another.
I'm about to say something nearly impermissible in the present-day discourse on the war in Iraq. Here it is: The death toll among American soldiers remains startlingly and hearteningly low, not horribly and frighteningly high.
That put Billmon in mind of some other well-known pontificators worthy of inclusion in a highly reputable roll of dishonor that includes a former first lady.
Billmon's post produced one of the best comments thread I've read in a long time; don't miss it. Several commentators added other worthies to the list, like George Nethercutt, who seem to think it okay to provide perspective on the toll of dead and wounded young Americans our Iraq project has taken thus far, by claiming they aren't really all that significant, compared to the importance of the task and our "success" in accomplishing it. If they really believe that, why do they always use only the number of dead from enemy fire, and completely ignore the wounded?
Inspired, I'd like to add another name to this Dishonor Roll; Andrew Sullivan. I had in mind a comment he made pre-war about why he was completely comfortable with the idea that young men and women in our all volunteer professional armed services would bear the brunt of the burden of an Iraqi war, but I couldn't find it in his archives. It made the round of blogs at the time, if anyone remembers what month it happened in, please do let me know.
In lieu of that, I'd like to cite the post in which Mr. Sullivan gave us the ultimate definition and justification of the "Iraq as flypaper" theory of the occupation. Reading it once again was a shock and a revelation, and reminded me that their articulation of that theory makes Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and even the President likely contenders for Billmon's increasingly distinguished dishonor roll.
What else did president Bush mean when he challenged the terror-masters to "bring 'em on," in Iraq? Those are not the words of a man seeking merely to pacify a country, but to continue waging war against terrorism. On August 25, Donald Rumsfeld said to a group called the veterans of Foreign Wars: "In Iraq moreover we¹re dealing not just with regime remnants but also with tens of thousands of criminals that were released from the jails by the regime before it fell, as well as terrorists and foreign fighters who have entered the country over the borders to try to oppose the Coalition. They pose a challenge to be sure but they also pose an opportunity because Coalition forces can deal with the terrorists now in Iraq instead of having to deal with those terrorists elsewhere, including the United States." Opportunity knocks.
In case it wasn't clear, that last two word comment outside the quotes is Sully's. Do not ask for whom opportunity knocks, it knocks for thee. Not. Not if you're a rich, snobbish, conservative swell.
It's this unified field theory of the occupation of Iraq that explains why the President finally went to the UN, to free our troops for the real task ahead, as explained by General Sanchez:
"This is what I would call a terrorist magnet, where America, being present here in Iraq, creates a target of opportunity... But this is exactly where we want to fight them. ...This will prevent the American people from having to go through their attacks back in the United States." You won't find a better description of the "flytrap" strategy anywhere - or from a more authoritative source.
Who could disagree?
Mr. Sullivan has nothing to say about the morality of invading and occupying Iraq in order to have a theatre far from home in which to fight our war against terrorism, though he has had much to say about how the anti-war left was oblivious to the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam.
There's more such foolishness, including an astounding description of the making of Iraq into a target for Islamic terrorists that isn't Israel as being the "extra beauty of this strategy." Brad DeLong and Jim Henley had some choice remarks to make about all this at the time that are well worth re-reading.
One of Billmon's readers suggests that this Dishonor Roll deserves to be archived; I agree, added to and made accessible on someone's sidebar. And before anyone accuses those of us who questioned this war from the beginning of cynically using US casualities to bolster our arguments, that's not the issue here. At issue is the readiness of so many supporters of the war to devalue the tragic nature of the loss being experienced by too many American families, and far too many Iraqis. Support for the war and the occupation is one thing; lying about its costs is quite another.
