Credibility and Morality
Since the credibility of neonconseravatism on matters of foreign policy and national security has totally collapsed as a result of Iraq, it's no wonder that they blame everyone but themselves for it. But the new theme emerging closes the circle of neoconservative thought which began with American defeat and withdrawl from Vietnam. "At least Bush wants to win," claims Jonah Goldberg. Echoing the theme that the Democrats are weak defeatists, Goldberg claims
AMERICANS ARE torn between two irreconcilable positions on the Iraq war. Some want the war to be a success — variously defined — and some want the war to be over. Conservatives are basically, but not exclusively, in the "success" camp. Liberals (and those further to the left) are basically, but not exclusively, the "over" party. And many people are suffering profound cognitive dissonance by trying to believe these two positions can be held simultaneously. The motives driving these various positions range from the purely patriotic to the coldly realistic to the cravenly political or psychological perfervid. Parsing motives is exhausting and pointless, but one fact remains: "End it now" and "win it eventually" cannot be reconciled.
Speaking of dissonance, in the space of one paragraph, Goldberg turns the dyad of "success" and "over" into "End it now" and "win it eventually," with the brilliant insight that the latter pair are irreconciable. And who believes the two positions can be held simultaneously, as he claims? And since the two positions are irreconcilable and absolute, why does Goldberg insist there are shades of gray regarding motives?
With last night's speech, President Bush made it clear that he will settle for nothing less than winning it. He may be deluding himself, and his plan may not work, but he at least has done the nation the courtesy of saying what his position is, despite an antagonistic political establishment and a hostile public. What is maddening is that the Democratic leadership cannot, or will not, clearly tell the American people whether they are the party of "end it" or "win it."
Of course he's deluding himself. Americans want our involvement with Iraq to end precisely because it has no point. They're sick of being targets for insurgents and they're sick of Bush's shifting rationales and justifications. The only consistent position Bush has held, Goldberg correctly points out, is that leaving=losing and winning is the only option. To Goldberg this is a sign of strength whereas the "Democratic leadership" will not take a firm stand. First of all, the leadership has taken a stand, in the form of a letter to the President. Second, didn't Goldberg state in the previous paragraph that liberals are in the "over" category? Which is it? The reason this is so confusing is because Goldberg himself is not taking a stand on anything. He is merely praising Bush and conservatives and demonizing Democrats and liberals. Last paragraph:
Bush came up with the "surge" plan. Will it work? Nobody knows. But the one thing the American people know about George W. Bush is that he wants to win the war. What the Democrats believe is anybody's guess.
Summarizing his facile characterizations. As for "nobody" knowing whether the surge will work, what about the authors of the surge? You know, the neoconservatives who "choose" victory? And there are plenty of people who argue the surge will not work. Goldberg is reducing the serious matter of our involvement in Iraq to "who knows," "who cares," and yet thinks the serious question is "who is braver?" Winning is everything for these people, particularly the reprehensible Bill Kristol. His reaction to Bush's speech?
One thing that struck me, when Fred was talking, he said -- you know, he compared it with previous wars. One thing that sort of disturbed me about the speech, does the president use the word "war" in the speech? I'm not sure, I didn't hear it. I haven't done a word search here, but I didn't hear it. I wish there were a little more about winning the war and a little less about helping the Iraqis.
I thought we were building democracy in Iraq. Isn't that how we win? If not, what does Kristol mean? I suspect "winning" for him is pacification. And that means overwhelming force, civilian casualties and increased hostility towards us. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Kristol is absolutely certain of his moral superiority (which means he himself can be morally relativistic) and ultimately hostile to popular democracy. He wants to live in a world where he and small band of learned intellectuals advise a king who oversees ignorant, teeming masses. That world no longer exists but in the minds of people like Kristol. And that is an extreme view, radical, and pretty much out of bounds of reality-based debate and news. Yet there he is on the TV. There he is in Time Magazine. There he is in syndicated columns. It's astounding to me. Such is the world we live in today thanks to the "conservative" movement.