Finding American backs to stab
By William J. Astore
The world's finest military launches a highly coordinated shock-and-awe attack that shows enormous initial progress. There's talk of the victorious troops being home for Christmas. But the war unexpectedly drags on. As fighting persists into a third, and then a fourth year, voices are heard calling for negotiations, even "peace without victory." Dismissing such peaceniks and critics as defeatists, a conservative and expansionist regime -- led by a figurehead who often resorts to simplistic slogans and his Machiavellian sidekick who is considered the brains behind the throne -- calls for one last surge to victory. Unbeknownst to the people on the home front, however, this duo has already prepared a seductive and self-exculpatory myth in case the surge fails.
The United States in 2007? No, Wilhelmine Germany in 1917 and 1918, as its military dictators, Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg and his loyal second, General Erich Ludendorff, pushed Germany toward defeat and revolution in a relentless pursuit of victory in World War I. Having failed with their surge strategy on the Western Front in 1918, they nevertheless succeeded in deploying a stab-in-the-back myth, or Dolchstoßlegende, that shifted blame for defeat from themselves and Rightist politicians to Social Democrats and others allegedly responsible for losing the war by their failure to support the troops at home.
[snip]Fear of being labeled "the enemy within" is already silently reshaping our politics as even decorated combat veterans like Congressman (and retired Marine Corps colonel) John Murtha are not immune from being smeared for criticizing the President's war. Politicians recognize that, in a campaign, it's well-nigh impossible to overcome charges of weakness and pusillanimity. Senator Hillary Clinton senses that she may be unelectable unless she argues for us to continue to fight the good fight in Iraq, albeit more intelligently. In fact, if you're looking for significant changes in troop levels or strategy there, better hunker in for Inauguration Day 2009 -- and then prepare to wait some more.
Presented for your consideration.
They're trying to preemptively inoculate themselves
. . . against accusations of defeatism and worse should they end up on the wrong side of history.
Anybody who questions their patriotism is a Nazi. End of discussion.
Tired of the Rovian Political Mindset
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cannoneer No. 4
Gawd, can all sides declare a moratorium on two things, at least on SWJ?
1) Any comparison of any group to nazis that aren't nazis. Come on. Seinfeld can keep the "Soup Nazi", but that's about it.
2) Non support/criticism of war = not a patriot. I joined this army to defend their ability to question authority. You don't have to like it, but you can tolerate respectful dissent.
And I'm adding a #3 as I type - using the wingbat right (Malkin/Coulteites) or wingbat left (Moveon/Kos) to characterize everyone of a given political persuasion. Just because one lefty equates Bush to Nazis doesn't mean all those left of center to, or that some of them don't have valid points to make that are less emotionally loaded. Same for when the wingbat right equates all those who thought maybe we should be doing a different COA in Iraq are all "defeatists".
<sigh>
12/03/2007, Volume 013, Issue 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stan
How 'bout "Stone Age" ?
The Weekly Standard dated 12 March 2007 :D
December 3, 2007
Indirect refutation seeking to question the validity of some aspect of the allegations or the source of the information to challenge its credibility works with some target audiences, Stan. Works better when you get the date right.