Warmongering as the measure of serious statecraft

Ok, I know it's Joe Klein, a man who inspires and requires oxymoronic descriptions, as in a deeply shallow thinker and a seriously trivial-minded writer, in order to begin to give an accurate sense of the man's Red Queen logic---Klein has argued that proof of a person's seriousness on Iraq and issues of national security is that person's willingness to transmit the opinions of people who have been spectacularly wrong for years on Iraq and issues of national security and the premise of his post is that because George Bush and his crew of corrupt incompetents have so thoroughly screwed up in Iraq they deserve the chance to continue to screw up in the exact same way for the next two years.

I know it's Joe Klein, a good gossip columnist who has been traveling for over a decade now on a reputation as an expert on the American political scene, a reputation earned by writing a book-length gossip column that he bravely published under his middle name, Anonymous.

I know it's Joe Klein, who believes that his having said on TV on the eve of the invasion, "This is a really tough decision. War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think it--it's--it--it probably is," amounts to a bold declaration of opposition to the war.

I know it's him, and I know he's just another Cliff Clavin of the Washington Punditocracy, fancying himself an expert on any and every subject that comes up, endlessly spouting off, happy to substitute opinion and conjecture for actual knowledge and asserting unreliable and even nonexistent experts to back him up, and retreating into bluster, paranoia, and hysteria when anyone challenges him on the facts, and I ought to ignore him.

The problem is that while Klein ought to be as thoroughly ignored as the Cliff Clavin, he writes for TIME, he appears regularly on the Sunday morning bobblehead fests, the next book he writes will be a bestseller, and despite his having been wrong about Bill Clinton and the impeachment crisis, despite his having been wrong about George W. Bush, and despite his having been, well, not wrong on Iraq, according to his own lights, but apparently just a coward and liar on the matter, now and for the foreseeable future, he will be treated as a serious thinker by too many people who matter in Washington.

On top of all that, he is what passes for a Liberal in Washington.  And according to him, as our official spokesman, we're all traitors, or might as well be, because we're not just defeatists.  We're anti-American defeatists.  We want America to fail in Iraq because we hate our own country.

The proof of our wishing for it is our pointing out the fact that we have in fact failed.  See, it's as if we were looking at the blackened and smoking ruins of the White House and were saying, "Oh my God, George Bush burned down the White House!" and Joe Klein snapped back, "You just want the fire to win.  You are pro-fire."

In the Washington Wonderland in which Joe Klein lives and thrives, if you pour enough water on smoking and blackened ruins they will magically reconstitute themselves into a house, a nice house, a better house, an Architectural Digest showcase of a house.

So, I wish I could ignore the guy, and just move down the bar to where Sam is trying one more time to explain the inflield fly rule to Frasier, but I can't, not when he writes that the American left---by which he means exactly what the Right Wing means when they say the American Left, Liberals and Democrats---has "a tendency to assume every U.S. military action abroad is criminal."

Again, we're in Wonderland here, where the proof of thinking that every U.S. military action abroad is criminal is having Joe Klein accuse you of thinking that every U.S. military action abroad is criminal.  And, by this logic, the fact that Joe Klein thinks you think this disqualifies you from thinking the war in Iraq is a mistake and a failure.

Of course, Liberals and Democrats supported U.S. military action in Kosovo and last time I checked the map Kosovo was abroad.

And Liberals and Democrats supported U.S. military action in Afghanistan and many of us are still wondering what happened to that one.  After all, that's where the actual terrorists were.  Does Joe Klein know?  Does he care?

And Liberals and Democrats weren't the ones who accused President Clinton of "wagging the dog" when he tried to put missles in the lap of Osama bin-laden during the Impeachment Crisis.

And Liberals and Democrats did not run the candidate for President in 2000 who opposed "nation building," by which he turns out of have meant military actions abroad ordered by Democratic Presidents.

And if anyone had let Liberals and Democrats have it their way, there'd have been American troops in Rwanda to stop the genocide.

And plenty of us still wish we had the troops to spare to send to Darfur.

But I don't want to defend Democrats and Liberals on the grounds that we can be every bit the warmongers and militarists Right Wing Republicans are.

I'm after the assumption behind the argument, the assumption that has been behind the argument that Liberals and Democrats are not to be as trusted on issues of national defense and security for going on three generations---Democrats and Liberals just aren't as ruthlessly committed to the idea of sending American troops to die.

That isn't how the assumption would be phrased by those who assume it.  They'd say that Democrats and Liberals aren't willing enough to send American troops to go kill our enemies.

Since there's no intelligent reason to think that the "surge" will accomplish anything positive in Iraq, I assume that the War Party's attraction to surging is based on just that, killing enemies---the dead bodies of brown people will pile up.

That it will also turn a lot of live American bodies into dead ones is the price "we" have to pay.

Besides, what else are our troops good for?

Nevermind that if you count World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam as Democratic wars---and Bob Dole and plenty of Republicans used to be glad to---the Liberal count of dead enemy bodies is multitudinously higher than that the Right has managed to accumulate.

But I'm willing to give the Right credit for wishful thinking and count all the enemy bodies they'd have created in the nuclear first strike against Russia they dreamed of and would have brought about if they'd just been given the chance.  (Damn that Nixon and his Detente!)  In fact, the only proof that the Right is more serious on issues of national defense and security has been their own talking up of their enthusiastic willingness to start World World III and make us all better dead than Red.

This has been the basic premise.  Warmongering is the proof of toughness and seriousness of purpose.  It is the basis of all the pro-war rhetoric on the Right since 2003.  It is finally the last justification for staying in Iraq.  We have to show the world how willing we are to pile up dead bodies.

And this is, when all is said and done, the assumption behind the thinking of the likes of Joe Klein.  It's why he was too scared to admit in 2003 that he thought going to war in Iraq was what he now calls a folly.  He was afraid that if he opposed the piling up of dead bodies he wouldn't be taken seriously by the warmongers.

But let's get this straight once and for all.

History shows us one thing about the willingness to go to war, the willingness to pile up dead bodies, the willingness to send other people to die for whatever reason and call that the price "we" have to pay.

It has always been the first mark of tyrants and madmen.

Thanks to Greg Sargent, Atrios, the Booman Tribune, Ezra Klein, Kevin Drum, Avedon Carol, Sadly, No, and, especially, to Mr Anonymous himself.

Comments

[Rasselas]

I would find it easier to follow the blogger lead and blame the tyrants and the madmen, and the toadying Fourth Estate, if the populace whose secret wisdom bloggers endorse didn't keep electing and re-electing such people. I don't feel comfortable blaming W. and Cheney on Joe Klein when several dozen million Americans failed to do with politicians what they do with NFL players and laundry detergents -- i.e., look through the lying promises.

[Mike Schilling]

It was also right-wing Republicans who encouraged both generals and common soldiers to disrespect and disobey the president, and to complain that nation building misued them. One might find this odd in a group which now defines patriotism as unthinking obedience to the leader.

[Middle Browser]

Not trying to start an argument here, and our politics are probably more similar than my comment may reflect, but just to be clear, I'm curious -- was FDR a madman or tyrant?

[sweetloaf]

Middle Browser, FDR was "willing" to go to war after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. I'd say that's a valid reason. Unlike hypothetical weapons unleashing hypothetical mushroom clouds at some point in the not too distant future, hypothetically.

[Middle Browser]

Sweetloaf - Perhaps I read the original language too literally. Then again, that doesn't explain FDR's willingness to pile up bodies in Europe.

My real point is that the language was hyperbolic, inflammatory and imprecise, etc., etc. You can disagree with Bush and his administration without comparing him to a madman or a tyrant. He is neither. Describing him as incompetent, however, is something about which reasonable people can disagree.

[Campaspe]

See, it's as if we were looking at the blackened and smoking ruins of the White House and were saying, "Oh my God, George Bush burned down the White House!" and Joe Klein snapped back, "You just want the fire to win. You are pro-fire."

Classic. I'll be using that one, thank you very much.

[sweetloaf]

Willingness to pile up bodies in pursuit of a noble and acheivable goal - defeat and surrender of the Axis powers - is one thing. By contrast, willingness to pile up more bodies so this president can avoid the responsibility of pulling troops out of Iraq, leaving the burden (and blame) to the next administration, comes damn close to madness in my book. This is beyond incompetence.

[KC45s]

Comparing Klein to Cliff Claven. Nice. Though Cliff took being deflated more gracefully. While numerous correspondents are taking down Klein for good reasons, I also try to keep in mind the source of Klein's so-called prestige: his perch at Time magazine, "then as always the cutting-edge of lumpen-American mediocrity," to quote Nick Tosches. He's perfect for them. Like the magazine he purports to know everything, yet is expert at nothing.

[MIddle Browser]

Sweetloaf

Ok, you have lost me. Subjective assesments of noble goals is not the way to decide TO GO to war, though it might come into play when deciding to leave a country worse than one found it. Also keep in mind that much of the worst offenses of the Nazi weren't really known at the time we went to war. We were supporting allies and protecting our own interests. Period. (This is not to say that neither FDR nor Bush thought of the nobility of their actions. It just one of many feelings that should be discounted by the thinker (whether he/she be the president or a voter) when making such decisions.)

As I said before, we can question whether Bush competently assessed the risk and competently executed the war. (And we might reasonably disagree.) We would likely agree on the nobility of some of Bush's goals, but we should ignore those.

With respect to latter comment: "By contrast, willingness to pile up more bodies so this president can avoid the responsibility of pulling troops out of Iraq, leaving the burden (and blame) to the next administration, comes damn close to madness in my book." [I gather you are assuming that the administration will be Democrat - or do you have the same concern for the next Republican administration.]

Anyhow, that is a pretty cynical assessment of what Bush is doing. Pretty stupid plan if that is his goal. If the deaths continue a pace well into the next administration, I doubt there are any who will decide that it's not time to leave, nothwithstanding future risks and nobility of wanting to leave the place better than we found it. No one could legitimately hold this decision against the next administration.

[M.A. Peel]

Text from a Walt Handelsman political cartoon in Newsday.
It's entitled "phased withdrawal from realty..."

A sketch of Bush saying " ...by sending more troops into Iraq...
...we can bring them home sooner...because the longer we're there
...the faster we can get out...

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-walt-april,0,2984870.gallery?coll=ny-editorial-cartoon

[Kevin Hayden]

My ex-mother-in-law's last name is Klein. She also made me want to gouge my eyes out and surrender to the French.

Maybe it's a genetic thing Joe can't control.

[jillbryant]

Ah - Cliff Clavin - yes, that does take a lot of the sting out of insanity of his arguments and the fact he pretends to be speaking for liberals. It also puts his general buffonery in context. I don't know why Time gives him the "liberal" platform but it is a contributing factor to my losing interest in the publication.

BTW, I also could not believe the link to "the Sideshow" coverage of Michael Ledeen's quote about some of our troops sitting out the fight. That was shocking (but a relief to find it so well rebutted by Carol Avedon/The Sideshow.)

As far as tyrants and madmen....judging by some of the comments, I think there needs to be clarification of "willingness" but I think the argument for tyrant could be made in Bush's case. For example - if the president of a country says he will continue to send troops to die even if no one agrees with his decision besides his wife and his dog --- I would say there is something of the tyrant there - and maybe the madman.

[Lance]

Jill, MB, sweetloaf,

I tried to do some clarifying of what I meant by "willingness" in today's post, but I went off on a long tangent.

M.A. Peel, thanks for the link!