Thursday, July 19, 2007
The War on Terrour as a Diet
Glenn Greenwald notes, the limit of neoconservative reflection the conduct of the war is sloganeering. Jonah Goldberg of National Review called for the US to be more "ruthless" in prosecuting the war(s). When asked to clarify, he said he didn't mean a "dogged, merciless belligerence," but a "single-minded determination to win." There we have it: the blueprints for victory. Blogger Glenn Reynolds, when asked what our strategy in Iraq ought to be, replied, "Win."
Greenwald focuses his post mostly on the noxious and inaccurate comments the extreme right makes about war opponents: how they're seditious traitors, how criticizing the war architects is unacceptable, how liberals should be executed to set an example, etc. With the caveat that anecdotal quotations shouldn't be used to indict an entire political movement, the unanimity of mind among prominent war supports does indicate a sort of hive mentality. Greenwald lampoons the substance-free macho posturing perfectly:
Thus the war is basically framed as if it were a diet, where sheer will and determination can see you through to the goal of slipping into a new Iraq to be the prettiest neocon at the party. Considering the Manichaean nature of our political discourse--specifically, the unquestioning assumption that "us" are "good" and anything we do, no matter how horrible, is perfectly justifiable because "them" are "evil"--this is especially pernicious. It applies the verbiage of individual moral struggles to the macro level of the nation. Citizens are asked to sacrifice nothing, but must identify completely the conduct of the war with the ordinary difficulties of everyday life. The message is that this war on terror is effectively permanent, we will live in a low-grade state of emergency that is subject to periodic flareups for the rest of our lives, but at the same time, victory would be just around the corner if you people would just shut up for six months, stop "emboldening our enemies" with your shrewish bitching and hold out for the glorious outcome we're on the precipice of unveiling.
Even worse, this sets up the post-Iraq plan of attack for the right. When we withdraw from Iraq, no matter how obvious and overdue it is, they will shriek about how we've castrated ourselves in front of a region whose culture only understands domination and the use of brute force. To withdraw is never evaluated against prudence or rationality (to say nothing of the ridiculous cost, $400 billion so far) but only a metric of humiliation where it is once again Us or Them feeling the iron boot. That we would do it to ourselves stupefies conservatives, because it's a one-dimensional, implicitly gendered dynamic to them. The liberal desire to humiliate America requires a purge because criticism of the Bush Administration's diktats confuses ordinary citizens, saps their reservoir of mute cheer and, by revealing the plumage of effeminacy to the manly Muslims, imperils the entire war.
Actual strategy need not enter this calculus; the entire predicate of the Surge is "troops + more troops = victory tomorrow." That's the sum of Pentagon planning. If tomorrow never happens to become today, it's only because our will must have flagged (due to the liberals) in our faith-based endeavor. When the President is convinced he talks to God and God to him, it makes those liberals even more treacherous; they operate outside of God's divine plan, eroding the national character of a country blessed by the Almighty. It's God's will; it should be your will; you should will yourself to refrain from speaking out against your president because the success of the war depends on having the stomach to endure Guantanamo just a little longer, because we're so close to a victory in which there aren't any more terrorists.
As for "emboldening our enemies," that meme really ought to sputter out by now. I don't see how people bent on total destruction of a country can be any more emboldened by this point, nor do I think "embolden" is even a word, except ironically, the way "decider" and "misunderestimate" now are. But to Joe Lieberman, every Democratic attempt to rein in the lawless extravagance of our imperial fiasco adds more fuel to a fire that can grow hotter and hotter, forever. Did you know that Muslims are capable of infinite emboldening, if given the opportunity? One of these days, Harry Reid is going to sponsor a bill that will push the Islamic universe towards a quantum singularity where they all blow themselves up and take space-time with them.
In the meantime, we need to stick to the diet. This country has a real obesity problem.
Greenwald focuses his post mostly on the noxious and inaccurate comments the extreme right makes about war opponents: how they're seditious traitors, how criticizing the war architects is unacceptable, how liberals should be executed to set an example, etc. With the caveat that anecdotal quotations shouldn't be used to indict an entire political movement, the unanimity of mind among prominent war supports does indicate a sort of hive mentality. Greenwald lampoons the substance-free macho posturing perfectly:
By "single-minded determination to win," does that mean we bomb more indiscriminately, forget about ethical restraints, break the law, re-instate the draft, raise taxes to pay for a larger military? Who knows. He won't say. They never do, because their real goal is to sound tough and avoid admitting error ("the Iraq War isn't a failure; not at all. We just need to stiffen our spines, take the kid gloves off, and commit ourselves to a single-minded determination to win"). |
Thus the war is basically framed as if it were a diet, where sheer will and determination can see you through to the goal of slipping into a new Iraq to be the prettiest neocon at the party. Considering the Manichaean nature of our political discourse--specifically, the unquestioning assumption that "us" are "good" and anything we do, no matter how horrible, is perfectly justifiable because "them" are "evil"--this is especially pernicious. It applies the verbiage of individual moral struggles to the macro level of the nation. Citizens are asked to sacrifice nothing, but must identify completely the conduct of the war with the ordinary difficulties of everyday life. The message is that this war on terror is effectively permanent, we will live in a low-grade state of emergency that is subject to periodic flareups for the rest of our lives, but at the same time, victory would be just around the corner if you people would just shut up for six months, stop "emboldening our enemies" with your shrewish bitching and hold out for the glorious outcome we're on the precipice of unveiling.
Even worse, this sets up the post-Iraq plan of attack for the right. When we withdraw from Iraq, no matter how obvious and overdue it is, they will shriek about how we've castrated ourselves in front of a region whose culture only understands domination and the use of brute force. To withdraw is never evaluated against prudence or rationality (to say nothing of the ridiculous cost, $400 billion so far) but only a metric of humiliation where it is once again Us or Them feeling the iron boot. That we would do it to ourselves stupefies conservatives, because it's a one-dimensional, implicitly gendered dynamic to them. The liberal desire to humiliate America requires a purge because criticism of the Bush Administration's diktats confuses ordinary citizens, saps their reservoir of mute cheer and, by revealing the plumage of effeminacy to the manly Muslims, imperils the entire war.
Actual strategy need not enter this calculus; the entire predicate of the Surge is "troops + more troops = victory tomorrow." That's the sum of Pentagon planning. If tomorrow never happens to become today, it's only because our will must have flagged (due to the liberals) in our faith-based endeavor. When the President is convinced he talks to God and God to him, it makes those liberals even more treacherous; they operate outside of God's divine plan, eroding the national character of a country blessed by the Almighty. It's God's will; it should be your will; you should will yourself to refrain from speaking out against your president because the success of the war depends on having the stomach to endure Guantanamo just a little longer, because we're so close to a victory in which there aren't any more terrorists.
As for "emboldening our enemies," that meme really ought to sputter out by now. I don't see how people bent on total destruction of a country can be any more emboldened by this point, nor do I think "embolden" is even a word, except ironically, the way "decider" and "misunderestimate" now are. But to Joe Lieberman, every Democratic attempt to rein in the lawless extravagance of our imperial fiasco adds more fuel to a fire that can grow hotter and hotter, forever. Did you know that Muslims are capable of infinite emboldening, if given the opportunity? One of these days, Harry Reid is going to sponsor a bill that will push the Islamic universe towards a quantum singularity where they all blow themselves up and take space-time with them.
In the meantime, we need to stick to the diet. This country has a real obesity problem.
