Coming to C-Span in 2011: AEI symposium, “Who lost Iraq?" (Bet on it)
It is now becoming clear what is going on in the minds of the right wing, including Bush and Cheney. The “surge” in Iraq has nothing to do with Iraq itself. Bush and Cheney know their original objective of a friendly Democratic government that will “invite” the Americans to stay -- in their massive Emerald City embassy in the Green Zone and in the several massive bases around the country – is doomed to failure. Whatever happens, that won’t be it. Obviously, they are trying to buy time to stay in Iraq until Bush leaves office. I have generally thought of that as being unready, unwilling and unable to face up to the disaster they have wrought with their own naivete, but there is probably a deeper purpose behind it. Given the amount of deep strategic talent the Republicans can command from its supporting business community, it is wise to always look for that deeper purpose.
Of course, they also know that a Democratic Party resurgence is just beginning. The inherent incompetence in governance of a Republican Party that despises government to the point of irrationality is sinking into the awareness of more and more Americans. So what’s going is the start of the Republicans’ “Long March.” With the belief that national security is their ultimate ace-in-the-hole, they are preparing to hunker down for a few years, minimize their losses, and lay the groundwork for a triumphal re-grouping. They are trying to set the Democrats up for future failure by preparing a “stab-in-the-back” scenario. The absurd notion that liberals and Democrats prevented victory in Vietnam, aided and abetted by deeply irresponsible but popular war flics like Rambo (Stallone: “Are we going to be allowed to win this time”?), has had considerable success and staying power in galvanizing support among the right-wing base.
So they are laying the groundwork for trying it again. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is already salivating at the scenario. The surge will stave off actual defeat, or what can be clearly described as such, while Bush and Cheney will continue to keep goading as many Americans as possible with their taunting rhetoric: do we have the “will, the “strength of character,” the guts, the courage, not to “surrender” or “give in” to “the enemy”? Many Americans who derive their own sense of worth from our military strength have predictable Pavlovian responses to schoolyard taunts challenging the manhood of the country – not recognizing, for example, that Cheney effectively declares the Iraqi people who want us out of their country now or soon – the huge majority of the population – to be “the enemy.” (Some liberation that is!) An unexpected but still possible bonus of this line of attack might be a Republican President in 2008 – although the deep strategists probably recognize that such a victory would continue to saddle Republicans with the Iraq War.
The Democrats, of course, besides continuing to try to force Bush’s hand during the waning days of his administration, will at minimum have to pull out combat troops from Iraq after victory in the 2008 election. The Democrats, then, will have “lost Iraq,” having first prevented victory during Bush’s second administration with its constant attacks, and then, if the Democrats win the Presidency, actually ended the occupation. The majority of Americans may want that now, but those swing voters are terribly susceptible to which way the wind is blowing at any given time. The Democrats must likewise lay the groundwork preparing Americans to see this coming. The Democrats must have a clear strategy for what to do with the Emerald City and the huge bases – any presence of American soldiers anywhere on Iraqi soil will continue to be a strategically-damaging irritant in the region -- and must educate Americans to see the schoolyard taunts for what they are – the sham declarations of losers and weaklings. They must convince at least 75 per cent of Americans that we are enhancing our strength for the long haul if we stop doing something really, really stupid.
This is an excellent article by Tom Engelhardt from TomDispatch on the evolving administration rhetoric. (“Tomgram: The Devil's Dictionary of War in Iraq: Words to Die For ... or a New Dawn in Baghdad?”). It really stimulated these thoughts on Republican strategy and the preparation and response needed. Maybe this has been obvious to everyone for awhile. So be it. It seems worthwhile to play out the scenario in order to be prepared.
Of course, they also know that a Democratic Party resurgence is just beginning. The inherent incompetence in governance of a Republican Party that despises government to the point of irrationality is sinking into the awareness of more and more Americans. So what’s going is the start of the Republicans’ “Long March.” With the belief that national security is their ultimate ace-in-the-hole, they are preparing to hunker down for a few years, minimize their losses, and lay the groundwork for a triumphal re-grouping. They are trying to set the Democrats up for future failure by preparing a “stab-in-the-back” scenario. The absurd notion that liberals and Democrats prevented victory in Vietnam, aided and abetted by deeply irresponsible but popular war flics like Rambo (Stallone: “Are we going to be allowed to win this time”?), has had considerable success and staying power in galvanizing support among the right-wing base.
So they are laying the groundwork for trying it again. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is already salivating at the scenario. The surge will stave off actual defeat, or what can be clearly described as such, while Bush and Cheney will continue to keep goading as many Americans as possible with their taunting rhetoric: do we have the “will, the “strength of character,” the guts, the courage, not to “surrender” or “give in” to “the enemy”? Many Americans who derive their own sense of worth from our military strength have predictable Pavlovian responses to schoolyard taunts challenging the manhood of the country – not recognizing, for example, that Cheney effectively declares the Iraqi people who want us out of their country now or soon – the huge majority of the population – to be “the enemy.” (Some liberation that is!) An unexpected but still possible bonus of this line of attack might be a Republican President in 2008 – although the deep strategists probably recognize that such a victory would continue to saddle Republicans with the Iraq War.
The Democrats, of course, besides continuing to try to force Bush’s hand during the waning days of his administration, will at minimum have to pull out combat troops from Iraq after victory in the 2008 election. The Democrats, then, will have “lost Iraq,” having first prevented victory during Bush’s second administration with its constant attacks, and then, if the Democrats win the Presidency, actually ended the occupation. The majority of Americans may want that now, but those swing voters are terribly susceptible to which way the wind is blowing at any given time. The Democrats must likewise lay the groundwork preparing Americans to see this coming. The Democrats must have a clear strategy for what to do with the Emerald City and the huge bases – any presence of American soldiers anywhere on Iraqi soil will continue to be a strategically-damaging irritant in the region -- and must educate Americans to see the schoolyard taunts for what they are – the sham declarations of losers and weaklings. They must convince at least 75 per cent of Americans that we are enhancing our strength for the long haul if we stop doing something really, really stupid.
This is an excellent article by Tom Engelhardt from TomDispatch on the evolving administration rhetoric. (“Tomgram: The Devil's Dictionary of War in Iraq: Words to Die For ... or a New Dawn in Baghdad?”). It really stimulated these thoughts on Republican strategy and the preparation and response needed. Maybe this has been obvious to everyone for awhile. So be it. It seems worthwhile to play out the scenario in order to be prepared.
posted by KISSWeb | 1:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home