Sunday, December 11, 2005
The moods of war and violence as a measure of success
Noah Feldman, a professor who worked for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, has a short note ("War-Mood Metrics") in today's New York Times Magazine about the mood of the homefront during war. Professor Feldman -- who is a smart guy -- warns against the bi-polar disorder induced in all but the most skeptical of our chattering classes: that having once been optimistic, we should now despair for our slim chance at "victory" in Iraq.
Rice, January 30:
Ted Kennedy, January 30:
So, who was drawing premature conclusions about the election last winter, and who was not? Professor Feldman's artful use of the passive voice -- "being said in Washington" -- hid the identity of the premature evacuator quite neatly.
Let's say it again before the election next week: strategic progress in this war -- both for us and the nation of Iraq -- does not require an abrupt reduction in the violence there. Indeed, with the progression of Iraqi political maturity from infancy to toddling in the last year, the forces in the world that want to defeat the aspirations of the Iraqi people will only get more desperate. Looked at that way, rising violence can be a reflection of strategic progress.
A little less than a year ago, in the aftermath of the first Iraqi elections, the most irresponsible thing being said in Washington was that everything was going to be fine. Now, with the next set of elections scheduled for Dec. 15, the new irresponsibility is the increasingly respectable assertion that the war has already been lost. Irrational optimism has been replaced by unjustified pessimism. This is not some triumph of experience over idealism. One a priori ideological standpoint is simply giving way to another....His overall assessment of the current situation in Iraq is more pessimistic than mine, but probably more optimistic than most academics. No matter. The interesting question is, why do so many people, including particularly in the media, suffer from these mood swings? One reason is that it is in the interests of the media to induce mood swings -- emotionalism sells papers and holds viewers. Another is that it is in the interests of the opposition to stir things up. Neither group is inclined to remember the sustained warnings of the "long road ahead" that have come from the Bush administration, which did not say "the most irresponsible thing ... said in Washington" last winter. Quite the opposite. Bush, January 30:
Bush cautioned that the election will not end violence in Iraq, but said U.S. forces will continue training and helping Iraqis "so this rising democracy can eventually take responsibility for its own security."
Rice, January 30:
"We all recognize the Iraqis have a long road ahead of them," Rice said on CBS' "Face The Nation."
"The insurgency is not going to go away as a result of today," Rice added.
Ted Kennedy, January 30:
In a statement Sunday, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass, said Bush "must look beyond the election."
"The best way to demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we have no long-term designs on their country is for the administration to withdraw some troops now" and negotiate further withdrawals, Kennedy added.
So, who was drawing premature conclusions about the election last winter, and who was not? Professor Feldman's artful use of the passive voice -- "being said in Washington" -- hid the identity of the premature evacuator quite neatly.
Let's say it again before the election next week: strategic progress in this war -- both for us and the nation of Iraq -- does not require an abrupt reduction in the violence there. Indeed, with the progression of Iraqi political maturity from infancy to toddling in the last year, the forces in the world that want to defeat the aspirations of the Iraqi people will only get more desperate. Looked at that way, rising violence can be a reflection of strategic progress.
1 Comments:
By 
sexshoptienda.blogspot.com, at
Sun Nov 13, 03:21:00 AM:
Here, I do not actually imagine it may work.
