Thursday, May 08, 2008
Craving defeat
John Wixted chronicles one journalist's craving for America's defeat, even at the expense of the facts.
I understand disapproving of the war, and I even understand hating the idea that the United States might end up improving its geopolitical position in Iraq. I do not share these opinions or impulses, but I understand them. However, I do not understand how any American can want any result other than unambiguous victory (an elusive result in any counterinsurgency, to be sure). Is confirmation of one's own point of view so important that it is worth the steep price of cheering for the other team? Or is it that rooting for the enemy is not regarded by such people as the utterly degraded act that it is?
18 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu May 08, 02:03:00 PM:
Focusing on this kind of perspective is useful for expressing your stern, obvious disapproval of a subset of the population so small that, as a percentage, it would demand scientific notation. I could similarly talk about how idiotic I find Reverend Phelps's positions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps
But even addressing such a thing lends it more credence than it is worth, and creates the illusion that I (the author) think such positions are more universal than they are. In my own observation, the exorbitantly overwhelming majority of people against America's involvement in Iraq don't believe as your reporter does, and instead think that the US
1) lacks a clear plan, with cost/benefit and likelihood analysis as to why the plan is wise,
2) is regarded as an occupying force by the vast majority of Iraqis, including the governmental officials who have asked us to leave,
3) shouldn't rely on a Commander in Chief to get it right after multiple tries. You only let your house collapse after your architect deigns to build it on the sand once, then you find a new architect. To drive the metaphor home, consider which state that the US is no safer than it was before 9/11, or that al Qeada is no weaker as compared to that time.
I recognize that your analysis tends to be subtle and well-wrought, TH, but I see too many commenters or other bloggers treating the material you like as the substantive objection to the war. Let's all keep our strawmen to ourselves.
By 
Fellow American, at
Thu May 08, 02:21:00 PM:
Contrary to Anonymous above, I believe a significant slice of the left in this country feel exactly as James Carroll, and have added significantly to our difficulties in fighting al Qaeda. Most of them are simply not as honest.
By , at
Thu May 08, 02:32:00 PM:
I guess I too can assume people that don't agree with me are doing so for whatever reason I choose, contrary to other possible and volunteered explanations, and in so doing assume bad faith on the part of the opposition with a hypersimplified caricature of a wrong position.
"It's nice to know that all conservatives ever are in lockstep agreement with Reverend Hagee, and want to nuke Iran to trigger the final phases of Evangelical eschatology so we can all be Raptured tomorrow. Also, they hate everyone who isn't straight white male upper-class protestant and Anglo-Saxon, and wish those aggravating others would just stop resisting the secret Cabal run by The Man."
Whee. Does this seem like an intellectually redeeming exercise? I won't assume bad faith if you do the same.
By Fellow American, at
Thu May 08, 03:00:00 PM:
I have not assumed it. I have inferred it from their own actions.
By , at
Thu May 08, 04:02:00 PM:
The core issue is Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).Many on the looney left so hate Mr. Bush that there is no position they wouldn't take if they thought it was opposite that held by the President. Many/most in the ulyra left wing media suffer from BDS.
BDS is so irrational that it can be amusing to watch.Every lefty knows that Mr. Bush is dumb as a box of rocks. They also know that he is the evil hand behind everything that goes wrong with with one of their anti-American delusions. Next time you hear a lefty blame something on Bush,i.e., voter ID in Indiana, conservatives in Rome, Clinton staying in etc., simply ask, "You think he is that smart?"
By Escort81, at
Thu May 08, 04:05:00 PM:
There is a larger context here. While not exclusively a belief held by certain segments of the left, the desire to see the U.S. as just another country -- that is, an end to the belief in, or concept of, American Exceptionalism -- may be what drives those to root openly for the defeat of the U.S. effort in Iraq.
Now, asking the U.S. to be "just another country," say, like Switzerland or Belgium (both of which are fine countries and good places to live) is a bit like asking MVP Kobe Bryant (or Michael Jordan, when he was playing with the Bulls) to be a low scoring, pass-first point guard. It ignores history and doesn't make the best use of talent for the team.
The goal of a reduction of U.S. influence in the world is of primary importance to the anti-Exceptionalists. Certainly, that means few justifications for the projection of military force (perhaps in a humanitarian intervention or relief work), but also less economic and "cultural" power abroad. If that results in changes to the way Americans lead their everyday lives, such that our standard of living is more in line with the rest of the world, that's just another benefit.
On the left, this desire may flow from the perception that the exercise of power on the part of the U.S. over the last century has been a net negative for the world as a whole, so that it is therefore logical that the power of the U.S. should be diminished for the good of the world. On the right, the Paulist or Paleocon desire is clearly more isolationist in tone, and has racial and anti-Semitic strains running through it, historically.
So the theory might be, if Vietnam didn't teach us our lesson, maybe Iraq will, and we'll stand down as a world power and let the PRC and India (with the largest populations) take the lead. Or better yet, no one country or pair of countries takes the lead, we work hard together to reach a consensus and then maybe solve an international problem.
The thing is, people from other countries are not clamoring to get into the PRC (unless you are a starving North Korean) or India, particularly not the best and the brightest from other countries. It's always helpful to look at voting patterns of people who vote with their feet.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu May 08, 04:36:00 PM:
"Focusing on this kind of perspective is useful for expressing your stern, obvious disapproval of a subset of the population so small that, as a percentage, it would demand scientific notation."
If so few people think like this, how come so many of them end up in positions where they can broadcast these ideas? This Carroll guy. Michael Moore. Cindy Sheehan. John Murtha. Charlie Sheen. Arianna Huffington. Dennis Kucinich. Et cetera.
What are the odds?
"2) [the US] is regarded as an occupying force by the vast majority of Iraqis, including the governmental officials who have asked us to leave,"
This is an absurd lie, clear to anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass. Seriously. Even debunking this lends credence to the idea that it doesn't deserve.
But here's a link anyway.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/iraq-asks-us-to-stay-one-more-year/2007/12/12/1197135492195.html
"3) shouldn't rely on a Commander in Chief to get it right after multiple tries."
Because if at first you don't succeed, throw in the towel at least until the next election cycle. Is that it?
Bull Run. Kasserine Pass. The Phillipines. Osan.
What do these four names have in common?
Answer: They were opening engagements that the US badly lost, in conflicts that the US did not lose.
Casualties from the Fall of the Philippines were about 100,000 Americans and Philippinos, far more than losses in the 5 years of the Iraq War. And we won that war with the fewest casualties of any of the major combatants.
But Iraq is a disastrous defeat.
These kinds of honestly held opinions require an intoxicating mixture of wishful thinking, willful ignorance, and contempt for their own nation.
I can't explain it, because it's utterly irrational. But I would guess that such folks are so unwilling to concede that they might be wrong about something (the Surge is a failure! Bush is a tyrant! American troops are criminals! etc.) that they will happily warp or ignore facts and demonize opposition to maintain their own sense of certainty and superiority. If all else fails, they just ignore you and your 'propaganda.' (or 'militaristic koolaid,' I've heard it called)
I'm still waiting for the police state these people promised back in 2002. It's been 6 years already! By this time, Hitler had functioning concentration camps. I'm all hyped up and ready to ship off people who don't think like me to be re-educated or worked to death.
Speaking of which, where is Schochu John? He promised that I could rub it in his face when the Surge worked. I guess that's why he hasn't been back here in a while.
Case in point.
By , at
Thu May 08, 05:11:00 PM:
Happily, these sorts of people won't have places to work much longer. Oh, they may find other jobs, like maybe George Soros will hire all of them on to his "Destroy America so I can make money on the currency trade" cabal, but their present employers are being driven into the dustbin of failed companies.
Whenever I read about people like this fellow James Carroll, I find the terrible financials of the NYT Company very consoling.
By Fellow American, at
Thu May 08, 05:20:00 PM:
The best explanation of the liberal thought process I've heard was by the comedian Evan Sayet in "How Modern Liberals Think."
Video here.
By Escort81, at
Thu May 08, 05:32:00 PM:
DF82 -
Re: your #3, maybe after reading the NYT in the AM, they go to Yankee Stadium in the PM, and if the visiting team scores a few runs in the top of the first inning, they get up and leave!
By , at
Thu May 08, 06:29:00 PM:
If one thinks that America is an unjust nation - or, at least, a nation run or dominated by unjust (if not evil) people - it all makes sense.
Why would someone want a fascist, racist, homophobic, exploiter of the world nation to have victories on any battlefield?
He who says (a) America is an evil country; must say (b) a defeated America is good for the world.
By , at
Thu May 08, 07:41:00 PM:
Maybe people don't hate America so much as they like statistics, such as the myriad of studies here which justify perspectives on Iraqs not perceiving Americans as liberators, seeing them as occupiers and so on.
http://www.iraqanalysis.org/INFO/55
For the most recent data I could find with 2 minutes of googling, from March, look here:
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=4444000
General Idea: things have improved in some areas (not hard to go from 0% satisfaction upward, or from 70-80% dissatisfaction down,) but large issues remain, strife is still a problem, and they are hardly throwing rose petals in the street.
"...Similarly, the number of Iraqis who call it "acceptable" to attack U.S. forces has declined for the first time in these polls, down to 42 percent after peaking at 57 percent in August. Even with a 15-point drop, however, that's still a lot of Iraqis to endorse such violence. (Just 4 percent, by contrast, call it acceptable to attack Iraqi government forces.)..."
---
With respect to comments on this thread, a few observations:
1) It's not just the lunatic fringe that disapproves of our war:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
That may be a gigantic number of Democrats in that first study, but also a quarter of Republicans and a preponderance of Independents. Other studies on the same page tell a similar story. Opposition doesn't only come from a few whackjobs.
2) I find it telling that the first point I raised earlier remains untouched: having a clear plan, with monetary costs, opportunity costs and likelihood of success laid out. The numbers being bandied about before the war approximated $60 for the stated conflict, but ignored the cost of occupation, and we are rapidly approaching the 1 Trillion Dollar mark. Rather than pitching emergency supplementals every six months like a gambler trying to win back his cash, I for one would be more persuaded by an overall pricetag; at least then we would know what we are getting into.
3) "But these prominent people say things: Soros, Pelosi et al."
Perhaps people support reprentatives not to endorse a rationale but to seek a particular action. I don't try to paint conservatives as hypocrites given that Newt tried to impeach a president over infidelity while Newt himself was unfaithful, because we can all disambiguate people from their somewhat misguided representatives. It may be Machiavellian to care only about your rep's actions, but so it is.
4) Just because you cannot think of a rationale for a different opinion doesn’t mean that there isn't one. I don't think one should say "The only reason you would think X is..." unless one is prepared to back it up with a proof of why all other perspectives are invalid and untenable, and the fact that I can put one forward (cost, likelihood of success, no confidence in the CinC, democratic will in Iraq, making the Iraqis take care of them selves be forcing a timetable) is telling when someone makes such a universal claim.
5) The biggest argument I have heard against the welfare state: with indefinite welfare, people ride for free, and there is little incentive to work. Applying this on a national level, why not try to maneuver and make a government pay for your security as long as possible? Stopping this motive is exactly why some people support timetables: different groups are then forced to get their affairs in order, a situation which is never guaranteed to happen given indefinite arbitration by the US.
This issue is a complicated one, and simplifying it to “I am with the West and everyone who doesn’t agree with my jingoistic position is a wimpy, stupid traitor, Rawr!” is likely to stifle discussion and alienate supporters. I think the pitch can be made for a long term US presence in the Middle East, likely through negotiation with the EU (to embrace global security responsibilities) and Israel (because they’re there,) but honesty and an assumption of good faith comes first.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu May 08, 09:48:00 PM:
This post wasn't about honest debate over foreign policy. It's about people who are so set in their little belief system that they actually wish for the death and defeat of their fellow countrymen. And not only do they wish it, they talk about it. Publicly. Without shame.
"I find it telling that the first point I raised earlier remains untouched: having a clear plan, with monetary costs, opportunity costs and likelihood of success laid out."
That's because it was a valid point. Unfortunately, "We didn't have a proper plan" doesn't really justify "I hope our soldiers die and we lose!"
"that Newt tried to impeach a president over infidelity while Newt himself was unfaithful,"
President Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. 2 other charges were thrown out. I watched the vote.
"Just because you cannot think of a rationale for a different opinion doesn’t mean that there isn't one. I don't think one should say "The only reason you would think X is..." unless one is prepared..."
I'm pretty sure I said, "I can't explain it." And then guessed. And I'm pretty sure Tigerhawk said, "I don't understand this." And then guessed.
"This issue is a complicated one, and simplifying it to “I am with the West and everyone who doesn’t agree with my jingoistic position is a wimpy, stupid traitor, Rawr!” is likely to stifle discussion and alienate supporters."
I suppose it would. But if you'd check again, no one has said anything even remotely like that in this thread.
This wouldn't be assigning words and belief systems to one's opponents arbitrarily like you mentioned before, would it?
You should get a handle, anonymous. You're actually coherent.
By Escort81, at
Thu May 08, 11:10:00 PM:
Well put, DF82, especially the opening paragraph.
There's a big difference between having vaired opinions about a particular policy and openly asking why the U.S. can't accept defeat.
The column in question was written just before the 2006 elections, before the word "Surge" became part of the politcal parlance.
Carroll nicely glosses over the fact that the U.S. was "defeated" in Vietnam because the post-Watergate Congress defunded the ARVN (as the brief Kissinger video in the thread above points out).
I am not sure that even a President Obama would defund U.S. support of the Iraqi government once most of the U.S. troops were pulled out, under his plan. The stakes are higher -- the VC were never going to follow us home. Heck, now they're happy to have us vacation there, and sail around at our leisure on 40 foot sailboats. Does anyone believe victorious AQI types will be welcoming American tourists with open arms a generation from now?
By , at
Fri May 09, 01:13:00 AM:
And liberal scum news columists like HERB CANNE he was a slimeball and i do beleive he is dead
By , at
Fri May 09, 12:29:00 PM:
Just to clarify, and in so doing respond to DF's engagement of the issues because it deserves to be: I interpreted TH's original material as, with far more detail, "there are a bunch of reasonable people with understandable positions, but wow some people are crazy."
In response, I attempted to write (however unclearly) that crazy people do exist, but there are preposterously few of them, and most people who would be labeled crazy have substantive objections which can be engaged reasonably. Essentially, I tried to emphasize that many people tend to be painted with the crazy brush, and that we ought to use it sparingly, instead focusing on arguments and policy.
One might characterize that objection as a general comment on how such discussion fits into the greater way we deal with such issues, but I think we found a case in point with Nate's video: all liberals are X, they are not just wrong on most issues but on all issues, etc. I don't think we would have to work very hard to find similar video from Bill O or Malkin, so it seems that the strawman proviso might be well taken. Similarly the assignment of motives might be found in Anonymous at 5:11, ignoring the other motives that Soros might have (like the standard arguments for progressive tax thumbs up, diplomacy yay, etc. Currency arbitrage may be one of his aims, but there could exist others.
I will specifically call out that I do not want to assign malevolent motives to particular individuals here; if such was a perceived subtext, please chalk it up to exhaustion and accept my apologies. However, I do feel that videos such as the recent "I'm with the west" one do send a message of "With us or against us, therefore you must agree with this intricate and nuanced policy position out of the many that conform to the 'with us' philosophy," and that this is bad.
Two separate notes: I will confess to leaping, perhaps overeagerly, at the opportunity to use the (awesome) word "jingoistic" earlier, and due credit on the military history analysis.
By Fellow American, at
Fri May 09, 05:35:00 PM:
Anonymous wrote ...
"In response, I attempted to write (however unclearly) that crazy people do exist, but there are preposterously few of them..."
I'm not sure I would use the word crazy to describe such people, but I do think there are a significant number of the left in this country who would like to see America lose, because they think we deserve to lose. They are not preposterously few, but rather include many of the so called leaders of the Democrat party and the media. My belief that they really do want to see us lose is a realization I came to reluctantly, through my own observation of liberal behavior over the past few years, and I truly have stopped caring whether liberals think I am some kind of hyper-partisan for holding this view of them. I used to hold them in high contempt, but now I think of them more as petulant children that need to be marginalized and ignored while the adults deal with the realities of the world.
"...and most people who would be labeled crazy have substantive objections which can be engaged reasonably. Essentially, I tried to emphasize that many people tend to be painted with the crazy brush, and that we ought to use it sparingly, instead focusing on arguments and policy."
I certainly don't believe every self described liberal fits neatly into the "America deserves to lose" category, and living where I do I have many liberal friends and acquaintances with whom I know I can discuss the issues in good faith. But, there are a significant enough number of the "America deserves to lose" crowd that I have stopped giving any self described liberal the automatic presumption of good faith that you seem to think they deserve. I am now quite wary of liberals, and I accept no blame for it.
As to there being "many substantive objections which can be engaged reasonably", I wholeheartedly agree. However, my experience has been that open and frank discussions with liberals (and I have tried), particularly in regard to our current war against Islamic totalitarianism, never yield a useful liberal suggestion as to how else we should combat it other than to stop what we are doing now.
We have fought an imperfect war, yes. Bush doesn't come off as the brightest crayon in the box, check. Democracy may not be able to take hold in an Islamic society, yes that's a huge challenge. Timetables might do some good, yes, though they also might do some harm. The cost is astronomical, yes. There are many substantive and not so substantive objections to our current course that can and have been heard. Does that mean Islamic totalitarianism should go unopposed? Should we just "end the war" for lack of better ideas?
What I'd like to hear from liberals is a few less objections and a lot more suggestions.
Really, what is the liberal game plan for defeating Islamic totalitarianism? Where's that 5 year plan with cost/benefit analysis? I don't see it coming from the left. All I've seen for the last five years is "End the war!", "Bush is an idiot!", "We should talk to our enemies!", "We are the real terrorists!" "No war for oil!" and other such useful stuff. Meanwhile, another generation of children in Islamic societies continues to be taught that America is the great Satan, and there is no better use for their lives than to die in the Jihad, killing as many of us as possible on their way out. If you have a reasonable suggestion on how to solve that little problem then please share it. If however all you have is a list of objections about how we are going about it now, rest assured that I've already heard it sometime in the last five years, and your objection has already been noted.
"I will specifically call out that I do not want to assign malevolent motives to particular individuals here; if such was a perceived subtext, please chalk it up to exhaustion and accept my apologies."
Same here. I did not intend to "paint you with the crazy brush", not do I think you deserving of it.
"However, I do feel that videos such as the recent "I'm with the west" one do send a message of "With us or against us, therefore you must agree with this intricate and nuanced policy position out of the many that conform to the 'with us' philosophy," and that this is bad."
I've not seen this video, so I'll reserve judgment here but I will say that I believe the struggle in which we are engaged really is, as Bush has stated, the great ideological struggle of our time, and that we who value the Western way of life are going to have to stick up for it. Conservatives have been sticking up for it the last five years. However imperfect the execution of the war many things have been achieved while liberals have stood hissing on the sidelines, objecting and objecting and objecting to the point that it really is not always clear (and here we can refer back to Mr Carroll) that they are on our side. In that light I find a simple unequivocal statement like "I'm with the West" to be quite refreshing indeed. What it lacks in nuance it makes up for in relevance, don't you think?
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sat May 10, 12:02:00 AM:
Anon, you have made so many points that certainly some will be missed. To your first point: I work in human services, an overwhelmingly liberal field, and my experience with coworkers - people with advanced degrees - is that Carroll's view is dominant, not a preposterously small minority. When people are asked poll questions, they often make their public rationales sound more palatable than their private comments. People do not tend to say "I'm against the war because I want us to lose," but comments in safe zones are often equivalent.
These people are not rumors to me, but the people I see full-time year 'round.
Your tone is quite nasty, couched in politeness, anon. You give yourself away far more than you know. You may doubt my expertise in saying so, but both my current and previous professions, theater and social work, trained me fairly well in those arts (Writing for socialist broadsheets in the 70's helped some as well).
I will note in passing that neither Newt, nor the Republicans in general tried to impeach Clinton over infidelity. That was the claim of the Clinton supporters and most major media, but the evidence for it is thin. That you accept conventional wisdom so uncritically suggests you may not be as evenhanded as you would like to appear.
