Finding American backs to stab

[Cannoneer No. 4]

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.

[goesh]

I've always thought that at some late-night, visceral level, even the most hardened Liberal/Leftist/Pinko had fleeting visions of themselves or maybe their children being the star attraction in a beheading video, that extremely remote and off-the-chart probabilities really do nag at them a bit from time to time. It's sort of like the gore from a bad wreck on the highway we can't take our eyes off of as we pass by on our way to grandmother's house for turkey dinner, living as we do in the la-la world where the presumption of privlige is soley based on geographic location at the time of birth. Nope, it's just hard to completely dismiss masked fanatics with their bombs and beheading swords despite the props of equity, justice, brotherly love, globalism, tolerance, sound foreign policy that aren't keeping them fully at bay. It weakens the punch of their rhetoric if nothing esle. I don't know, maybe I should have gone for a Sufi-style poem here.

[J Wolfsberger]

He's comparing Bush to Paul von Hindenburg. That has to count for some intellectual improvement over comparing Bush to Hitler.

[Stan]

Hey John !

He's comparing Bush to Paul von Hindenburg. That has to count for some intellectual improvement over comparing Bush to Hitler.

If you think that's a comparison, imagine what the Russian Chief of Staff has to say

Russia not obliged to protect world from U.S.

I swear that's a 1970's era Hawk battery behind him in that pic. Did we sell them those too

[Tom Odom]

Naw, he just took the pic from a brochure

[Stan]

Naw, he just took the pic from a brochure

Sneaky bastards; if he poses in front of a Bradley or Abrams next time, that's it

[wm]

He's comparing Bush to Paul von Hindenburg. That has to count for some intellectual improvement over comparing Bush to Hitler.

The latest Doonesbury thread portrays the VP as a dark lord akin to Star Wars' Emperor Palpatine. (Or perhaps he is a Dickensian Ghost of some Christmas past, present, or yet to come.)

[Tom Odom]

The latest Doonesbury thread portrays the VP as a dark lord akin to Star Wars' Emperor Palpatine. (Or perhaps he is a Dickensian Ghost of some Christmas past, present, or yet to come.)

I must admit that I, too, live outside the bubble, Lord Cheney

[Cannoneer No. 4]

. . . 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.

[Cavguy]

I must admit that I, too, live outside the bubble, Lord Cheney

Hear hear.

Doonesbury never interested me before about 2002 - since Iraq started it seems to have reinvigorated Tredeau's satirical mojo and has become one of my favorite reads. His Iraq stuff is powerful.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

The congressional Democrats' surge-against-the-surge -- a case study in political futility. by Noemie Emery

Seldom before in the annals of governance have so many politicians fought so long and so hard to completely screw up a winning strategy being waged on their country's behalf. Some cruelly define this as treacherous conduct, but this is imprecise and unkind. They tried, it is true, to do serious damage, but were compromised in the event by their chronic incompetence

[Rex Brynen]

I'm not sure I find "stab" a very useful way of characterizing the debate (regardless of one's views on US deployment in Iraq).

[Tom Odom]

I'm not sure I find "stab" a very useful way of characterizing the debate (regardless of one's views on US deployment in Iraq).

Agreed but then again it's the Weekly (No) Standard

[Cannoneer No. 4]

I'm not sure I find "stab" a very useful way of characterizing the debate (regardless of one's views on US deployment in Iraq).

Is that more useful for you?

[Stan]

I'm not sure I find "stab" a very useful way of characterizing the debate (regardless of one's views on US deployment in Iraq).

How 'bout "Stone Age" ?

The Weekly Standard dated 12 March 2007

When our tale opens, it is the last month of 2006, Democrats have just scored a blowout in Congress, Iraq is in shambles, and the country is calling for Bush to change course. He does. But he changes course in the other direction, radically revising his Iraq strategy, adopting aggressive new rules of engagement, and sending in 30,000 more troops. Even before the plan was announced to the public on January 10, 2007, Democrats launched their assault. Senator Christopher Dodd declared the plan useless: "A 'surge' of American troops will do nothing."

Glad I didn't have a paid subscription to this 'breaking news'.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

How 'bout "Stone Age" ?

The Weekly Standard dated 12 March 2007

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.

[Stan]

Thanks, I stand corrected!

December 3, 2007...
Works better when you get the date right.

I naively assumed that since I posted on 25 NOV, it couldn't possible already be 03 DEC. With that minor discrepancy out of the way...

I do not refute the information therein. Completely accurate or not, It's still dated info and could best be described as a summation of the last 7 or 8 months, and election year jitters with all the trimmings. Pointing fingers and making generalized accusations from behind the safety of one's desk in D.C. demoralizes the troops and certainly will not fix the war any faster.

[SteveMetz]

By the way, I heard Feith come very close to blaming the military and the intelligence community for the problems in Iraq in a 2005 presentation at AEI. I think that if things go south again, that may raise its ugly head. (And, by the way, being a southerner, I resent the fact that "going south" is slang for "falling apart." Not that I question its accuracy. I just resent it).

I'm more and more concerned that the U.S. military has been and will be routinely screwed on counterinsurgency--it isn't given the mission unless policy is an abysmal failure and the military alone can seldom compensate for policy failure.

[wm]

I'm more and more concerned that the U.S. military has been and will be routinely screwed on counterinsurgency--it isn't given the mission unless policy is an abysmal failure and the military alone can seldom compensate for policy failure.

Isn't this the American way? We seem routinely to seek a silver bullet, single source solution to each problem. Sort of like trying to maintain econmoic stability with a monetary policy and no fiscal or trade policy. Too bad leadership seems unable to get around the subordinate partisan turf battles and produce a comprehensive plan. That would be a great Christmas present, eh