Have I Been Humiliated?
Oh, hell, yeah, and many times, too – but the question is, does this post humiliate me? One of my many, many fans takes issue with this post yesterday and writes:
So anti-war bloggers are “silent” about the Iraqi elections, are they? I don’t think so, unless you consider it “silence” when war critic Glenn Greenwald slices up your argument into pieces and humiliates you in the process…
Ah, the warm glow of fan mail…
Well, what has Greenwald said that slices me up and spits me out, a humiliated shell of myself? Let’s take a closer look:
Aside from the emotional manipulation which these elections afford – nobody raised in the U.S. and instilled with an appreciation for democracy can help but feel some pleasure for Iraqis as they vote to choose their leaders – exactly what arguments advanced by war critics are supposed to be undermined by these elections, and what pro-war justifications are bolstered? The answer is none.
Pictures of smiling Iraqis with purple ink on their fingers is no more of an “argument” in favor of the war than pictures of the incinerated corpses of Iraqi civilians is an “argument” against the war. Both tactics are equally crude and slothful attempts to emotionally manipulate rather than do the work of making substantive arguments. Anyone with doubts about this should see the wildly manipulative post of pro-war hero Captain Ed where he stands tall at high noon and proclaims: “Look the people with purple-stained fingers in the eye and tell them that. I double-dog dare you.”
Pro-war bloggers are almost always silent whenever the latest Iraqi police station is blown up or guests at another Iraqi wedding party are slaughtered by American bombs. Why is that silence less revealing than the relative silence of war critics about the elections? George Bush recently revealed that he believes that 30,000 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives as a result of this war — 30,000 Iraqi civilians dead– and I don’t recall reading much in pro-war precincts about that.
Well, you did hear about it from this pro-war blogger…but as to the larger point about why we don’t blog about the slaughter of guests at wedding parties – because it is a random act of violence, and to compare that to millions of Iraqis voting in free elections is moral cowardice of the worst sort.
We’re talking about a major, epochal event in our foreign policy, not a pathetic attack by murdering terrorists. Yes, it is news that there is an insurgency, and that it is killing people – but is it even remotely at the level of free elections for a permanent government 2 1/2 years after the downfall of the tyrannical Hussein regime?
Well, I’m feeling really humiliated so far – since I am a masochist, let’s allow Mr. Greenwald to finish:
These elections are not an argument in the pro-war contingent’s favor. At best, they are a neutral (albeit emotionally satisfying) event which affords the opportunity to use symbols and manipulation in lieu of substance in order to try to prove that this war is turning out to be a good idea after all. But the election does no such thing. It does not reflect one way or the other on whether our occupation of Iraq is helping or hurting U.S. interests. All of the pro-war celebrations don’t change that fact. It just obscures it for a few days.
Since that is the only real issue that matters in the ongoing debate over this war, it should not be a surprise that the only people yelling about these elections are the ones who want to dance around, cynically exploiting the emotions of yesterday, all in pursuit of some sort misplaced and unwarranted sense of vindication. The U.S. is no closer to achieving its goals in this war today than it was last week or last month, and there are compelling arguments to be made that it is, in fact, further away from those goals than ever.
Raise your hands if you buy that…the elections are a neutral event? What can that possibly mean? The elections would have happened regardless of whether the pro- or anti-war crowd held the upper hand?
Ludicrous…as is the notion that the elections not only don’t bring us closer to our goals, but move us farther away (!!). The Sunnis voted with a very heavy turnout…the Sunnis are the main enablers of the insurgency. Clearly, they are tiring of violence, particularly since that violence kills more Iraqis than it ever will coalition troops. Instead, they are turning to democracy – and yet, Greenwald would have us believe that this is a ‘neutral’ event, and that we are moving in the wrong direction.
Maybe there is a good reason the war critics stayed silent yesterday…the more they say, the weaker their arguments become…
UPDATE 9:59 a.m. – more from the Real Ugly American…
haha great post Mark!
I took a few moments myself this morning to point out Mr. Greenwalds factual errors.
Blog on!
Between Greenwald and Wolcott I don’t know who’s more clueless. I think Greenwald is just disconnected because he’s only a part time resident. That’s just a smug joke.
To use the language of the day, the Lib bloggers have been silent because Iraqi elections are fundamentally inconsistent with the loss they hope Iraqi is.
The Sunnis voted with a very heavy turnout…the Sunnis are the main enablers of the insurgency. Clearly, they are tiring of violence, particularly since that violence kills more Iraqis than it ever will coalition troops. Instead, they are turning to democracy – and yet, Greenwald would have us believe that this is a ‘neutral’ event, and that we are moving in the wrong direction.
Just a couple of points:
1. It is too soon to say if the insurgents are tiring of violence. I have heard this expressed one way or another for almost two years, and yet coalition soldiers continue to die at similar, or increased rates.
http://icasualties.org/oif/Cumulative.aspx
2. One reason for the high Sunni turnout could simply be their desire to kick out American troops asap. And they want to ensure this is a part of the political agenda when the new government is formed.
But if they get their wish and we leave, it is doubtful if the Iraqi security forces will be ready to keep Sunnis and Shias away from each other’s throats. If we stay, Sunnis may turn away from the political process completely.
I think the only thing we can say for sure is that the elections went well, and that is a good thing. But what is all ultimately means will play out over the coming weeks, months, and perhaps even years.
While this third vote, the turnout, the praticipation of the Sunni are clearly metrics of success-and also part of a TIMETABLE that was established more than a year in advance is the a ‘metric’ for success, the dems have no metrics to judge failure.
The focus on the number of casualites is all they have. One problem:
We are progressively working our way across the country to Syria, attacking westward towns that hold insurgents. Many of the soldiers that are being killed are part of the Westward push. It is not going to continue endlessly as critics would like to believe, nor is it a sign that things are static. Quite the opposite, they are dynamic. The Iraqi troops that are training to protect their country are growing in size and skill daily. The area that is being swept and controlled is also expanding.
Joe- (from your own source)
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/WoundedChart.aspx
Take a look at November 05. Number of soldiers wounded was 50. Please interpret that relative to other months and explain why it doesn’t matter.
The vote may have little impact on US civilian morale, but to believe that the vote will not impact the morale of the military and civilians of Iraq is plain stupid. If casualites are the metrics you will judge success by, then when we are no longer suffering casualties, you will celebrate the success of operations, won’t you?
“Pictures of smiling Iraqis with purple ink on their fingers is no more of an ‘argument’ in favor of the war than pictures of the incinerated corpses of Iraqi civilians is an “argument” against the war.”
I would think that images of the Iraqi civilians Saddam slaughtered would be another argument for war, not against it.
It’s just more of the smoke-and-mirrors circus that inhabits the soul of the Left. The sustenance of their poor injured psyches is emotion–they don’t care a fig for real-world results. They just ignore the evidence and move on to another perceived injustice. Since it’s all about them, there are no results that would be acceptable. They just pack up their toys and go home, then call us the losers.
Greenwald is at least being consistent with his fantasy that the Iraqi people don’t figure in this, for it’s the narcissistic Left that truly cares only about the power they themselves can grab. The Left didn’t care a damn about the people of South Vietnam–as soon as the draft was abolished the anti-war protests vanished like a joint at a Grateful Dead concert–and they don’t care a damn about the people of Iraq either.
One more point…
I’m sure I’ll be voting for a congressman, who does not support a timetable. 95% of democrats who vote for a dem in 06, will also be voting for a congressman that does not support a timetable…
Very glad that we can all agree on something.
Joe, I think you are almost certainly right that a great number of Sunnis participated as a means of hurrying the U.S. exit; but freedom is very addictive, and we can only hope that this exercise in democracy, regardless of motive, might become habit-forming to the majority of them…
mtl: Take a look at November 05. Number of soldiers wounded was 50. Please interpret that relative to other months and explain why it doesn’t matter.
You are grasping at straws. You have just ignored months and months of data that show the insurgency is strong! Besides, the low number of wounded soldiers from November must be wrong. Look for an update soon. I find it hard to believe that 86 soldiers were killed in November, but only 50 were wounded. No way.
But as I said, if this is the one thing that will allow you to ignore all the other data, whatever. I suppose that we keep you safe and sound in your dream world of Iraq = success. Let’s just hope the elections finally make a difference in the insurgency. So far nothing else has. As the data clearly shows.
Joe-
You are looking backwards, and I’m looking foward…
The numbers from November are wrong? Then how am I to trust any other numbers from the poll?
You have just staked your argument to disbelieving the source you previously cited to prove your argument. Whatever…
Hello mtl,
I said November numbers probably haven’t been completely updated. That hardly calls into question all the other numbers, although I can understand why you’d like it to…… The site is comprehensive and well documented. If you have better numbers of wounded soldiers from Iraq, let’s see the link! But they will show the same story.
And apply a bit of common sense. There is no way you can have 86 deaths in Iraq from November but only 50 wounded soldiers in the same month! A look at previous monthly totals should also give you a clue. Again, you are desperate not to admit one obvious fact: the insurgency is still strong in Iraq. Very strong.
Now, this may change after the elections. Let’s hope. But there is no need to lie to ourselves about the current situation in Iraq just to make ourselves feel better. There are so many things we can legitimately disagree upon. But trends in killed/wounded soldiers in Iraq shouldn’t be one of them, when the data over the past year is so clear.
Looking backwards…
http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx
Worth looking at the chart on the left, seems fatalites on Iraq police are going down…
That can only mean
a)there are fewer Iraqi police now than several months ago
or…
Thanks for the site.
Just started reading the Greenwald piece that inspired this… and had one quick thought…
This idea is one we’ve heard over and over and over: “nobody will be able to reasonably claim that the waging of this war was a prudent decision if Iraq ends up being governed by a Shiite cleric theocracy which is, in turn, loyal to and controlled by the Shiite mullahs in Iran.”
It’s worth noting that the mullahs in Iran wouldn’t be able to win an actually free election in Iran (if they thought they could, they’d hold such elections), so assuming their puppets will dominate in Iraq seems completely nutty. Am I missing something?
Clint wrote: It’s worth noting that the mullahs in Iran wouldn’t be able to win an actually free election in Iran (if they thought they could, they’d hold such elections), so assuming their puppets will dominate in Iraq seems completely nutty. Am I missing something?
What makes you think elections in Iraq will be free in 4 years? It all depends on Iraqi religious leaders. They believe the right to rule comes from God, not the electorate. They are willing to tolerate democracy so long as it confirms their rightful place as respected, influential leaders. Once Iraq moves more secular, look out. Something has to give.
Extremists like Sadr have their own well-armed militias. Some argue that US forces are training more Shia radicals right now, since they have infiltrated the new Iraqi army. Who knows? In any case, there are a lot of guns in Iraq, and I doubt very seriously religious leaders will willingly give up power. So a confrontation is in the cards. This is the main reason why I am such a pessimist. Key question: will the people support the Iraqi army or religious militias?
Keep an eye on Sadr. He’s a populist religious leader, anti-west, violent, with lots of armed followers. Very popular among the poor, and willing to work with the Sunnis against the Americans. We have already underestimated him once. If he feels he will be sidelined in the coming months/years, look for confrontation.
Iraqi religious leaders like Sadr will want to keep the veneer of democracy. But they will probably try, just like in Iran, to rig the elections to ensure they always win. Otherwise, they will just be giving up power, and that rarely happens without a fight.
If the only gauge for success/failure is deaths and casualties, what will the dems move onto when the numbers are down?
If deaths and casualites do drop percipitously, should it be interpreted as we are winning?
It is like arguing with a picture of a running horse, which has all hooves off ground, that horses actually fly.
Gestalt meets democrats.
mtl: If the only gauge for success/failure is deaths and casualties…
Who said it was the only gauge? But certainly the number of times you are being attacked within the country you have supposedly liberated is a key metric.
If deaths and casualites do drop percipitously, should it be interpreted as we are winning?
I would interpret it as a very positive trend, yes. Absolutely.
Patience then.
The deaths are not infinite, but are predictable. We are in the final act. Once getting leaders established by April, there will be strong movement for the elected to show that they are in control, without need for American support, before assuming power. After April, it will be crazy how fast they want us out.
( a skeptic should watch for assasination attempts, particularily among the Shiites…it is your next argument, after the US military turns the ops over to the Iraqis and casualites drop.)
Be careful how you interpret the call for US forces to leave.
It is not an expression of hatred, so much as independence…let them have it.
Wait ten years, then judge.
Be careful how you interpret the call for US forces to leave.
It is not an expression of hatred, so much as independence…let them have it.
Wait ten years, then judge.
Yes, complete agreement.
Let’s revisit this thread in 10 years.
I’ll probaly be standing in a half-mile line at the Bush Presidential Library…
go ahead, laugh.
The problem with being at the Bush Presidential Library in ten years is that most of the books will be colored in by then (sorry, can’t resist)
peter, that’s why they had to close the library at Texas A & M – somebody colored the book (sorry, Aggie fans!)…
I won’t defend his intellect…but sometimes the most simple view is better than nuanced one.
in ten years, they’ll still be making additions to his library, hopefully for good reasons.
Joe-
“Key question: will the people support the Iraqi army or religious militias?”
That’s sort of the entire point of democracy, isn’t it?
The Iraqi army will answer to the Iraqi government that’s elected by the Iraqi people. It’s not a question of whether the people will be on the army’s side, it’s that the army will be on the people’s side, whatever that turns out to be.
I intended to answer this post in a post of my own but I blogged today about the NSA eavesdropping controversey and consequently did not have time to do so. But these are the points in reply I wanted to make:
(1) I did not say that pro-war advocates never mention Iraqi dead civilians killed by the U.S. military. I said they rarely mention it, which is undeniably true. And those who do mention it do so (as you did) in order to dismiss it as a sufficient reason for opposing the war.
It can’t be denied that 30,000 dead Iraqis packs a significant emotional punch. And it’s at least 30,000 dead, since that’s an American estimate. I’m not interested in bickering over the number or the identity of each of them. Other estimates from months ago put the number at 100,000 civilians, and the important point is that no matter what number you want to believe, it’s a huge amount of innocent Iraqi people who were killed by this war. Even pro-war advocates – perhaps especially them, since the war is purportedly being fought to liberate Iraqis – must feel some strong sense of sorrow and remorse over this huge number of deaths.
But the reason pro-war advocates are able to still favor the war despite the existence of huge numbers of dead Iraqi civilians is the same reason that I can oppose the war despite the emergence of democratic elections in Iraq – while it has a strong emotional effect, it does not, in itself, speak to whether the war is, on balance, a war that we ought to have fought or should keep fighting, particularly from the perspective of U.S. interests — which is, for me at least, what determines whether this war is a good idea.
(2) When I said that the existence of elections in Iraq is a neutral event, I did not mean, and did not imply, that the elections would have happened in the absence of our occupation. They clearly would not have. What I said was that they are neutral from the perspective of U.S. interests. Elections by themselves do not advance U.S. interests. Whether U.S. interests are advanced depends on who gains power by virtue of the elections. I have yet to hear anyone explain how U.S. interests will be advanced by these elections if they end up installing in power a Shiite theocracy loyal to Iranian mullahs or worse. Does anyone have an explanation as to how that can be?
(3) If democracy is intrinsically helpful to U.S. security, do you actually favor taking steps to rid countries like Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia of their unquestionably dictatorial but intensely pro-U.S governments and replace them with a democratically elected government which is almost sure to be anti-American if not outright sympathetic to, and cooperative with, Muslim extremists?
This is not the cliched argument that is often advanced to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration’s pro-democracy rhetoric. It is a genuine question about whether we really are willing to commit ourselves to democracy in this region even if it means – as it almost certainly will – that U.S. interests will be harmed in the process.
The 20th Century is full of examples of governments which were initially elected democratically but then become despotic. Adolph Hitler is but one of many such examples. And there are plenty of democratically elected leaders who are anti-American today, with Hugo Chavez being the most prominent, but not only, example around today. The mere existence of a democratically elected government does not even remotely assure us that the government will be pro-U.S., and in the case of Shiite religious dominated Iraq, there is every reason to believe that it will not be.
Glenn, thanks for the comments…and I apologize if I was harsher on a personal level than I should have been – I probably mixed my reaction to the letter writer saying your post ‘humiliated’ me with your post itself.
Let me answer briefly with a couple of observations; first, undoubtably, 30,000 deaths is a sobering number. I don’t deny it – but let’s remember that many thousands of those deaths (over 5,000, at the very minimum, according to the Brookings Institution) were caused by IEDs left by terrorists). Still, the point stands; yes, it is a sobering number.
Many millions of Iraqis, however, have been given a real chance at LIFE for the first time, if we define living as more than the act of being alive. I have always said, and I wouldn’t expect you to know this unless you were a regular here, that the WMD argument was overplayed, even if we had found stockpiles of them (and I’ve always freely admitted that the fact that we didn’t was a huge intelligence failure and a major embarassment). I much prefer the humanitarian call to cast out the tyrant.
That brings me to youir number three; I can’t pretend that a democratic government never goes bad (as in your Hitler example) nor can I pretend that a democratic government wouldn’t be strongly against the U.S. However, I would advocate freedom, even in all the places you mention, because freedom and the harsh theocracy of Muslim extremists is incompatible in the long run…
I think it’s because of residual bitterness over my having edged you out for the highly coveted seventh place spot in our Weblog award category.
Well, you are being intellectually consistent and honest about it. I personally don’t see the role of our military as being humanitarian, but instead, see its principal, if not exclusive, function to safeguard U.S. national security and repel attacks. I believe that’s how the Founders saw it, too. But if you believe that invading another country and waging war is legitimate in order to help the people of that country lead better lives, then I can genuinely see how you could favor this war. Generally speaking, the lives of Iraqis almost certainly will be better subsequent to, and as a result of, our invasion.
As for your desire for democracy to spread throughout the region, allow me to recommend to you the article in the New York Times this morning reporting on the broad popular support which Hamas has in the Palestinian Authority and the possiblity that Hamas could actually win or have a very strong showing in the elections there. There isn’t much of a question that this dynamic – whereby actual terrorist groups, let alone terrorist sympathizers, would command broad electoral support — would repeat itself in the non-democratic countries we are discussing (Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia).
One has to be a pretty zealous devotee of the project of spreading democracy to risk that quite dangerous outcome.
Glenn-
It’s amazing to me that most of those in opposition to this war ever puts those 30,000 casualties in their appropriate context. As Academic Elephant laid out the other day: the real headline should be “Bush saves 95,000 Iraqis, brings hope of democracy to millions!” Fact: an average year in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq brought four times as many violent deaths as does the chaos and violence taking place there now. It is chaos and violence relative to our noble ideals, not to anything that has existed in Iraq before.
Perhaps next you will demand the trial of that great terrorist organization the American Cancer Society. Every year, it gives over $300 million to support the American Medical Association’s stormtroopers in their so-called “War on Cancer” — a war in which they routinely slice patients open, poison them with “chemical weapons” and irradiate them with dangerous radiation. This War claims over half a million civilian casualties in the U.S. alone every year.
If you care, in this case, that far more would die without the efforts of hard-working and dedicated oncologists, perhaps you should give this some thought in the case of war as well. Saddam Hussein filled many of his mass graves in what were purported to be times of peace.
Re: Democracy among those who don’t like us…
While in general I can see a “realist” policy argument based on the idea that the current enslavement of Saudis is to our benefit, keep in mind that Bin Laden’s rage had its source in the oppression he experienced growing up there. But even if the benefit is there, it’s hard to claim the moral high ground for the argument that innocent others must suffer to make us rich/free/safe.
More practically, taking the Hamas example, if it’s really true (as we all believe it is) that a substantial majority of Palestinians support Hamas and violent war against Israel, then how exactly is that reality helped by our picking out a random Palestinian gentleman, naming him King of Palestine, and signing a treaty with him. Do you believe that Hamas would honor such a treaty? To exclude Hamas from the elections because we believe they would win, and then hope to make peace with whoever is “elected” is not qualitatively different from this ridiculous scenario.
Glenn, indeed, you had to further humiliate me by beating me for Best New Blog – congrats, btw – we’re numbers 7 and 8, but we try harder!…
[...] great minds think alike but I don’t want to insult Mark. [] [Print This Post] [Permalink] [Trackback URI] No Comments� [...]