First they’d need something to say…

These two should talk,” sez Rex in re:  Tony Blankley and Jennifer Rubin.

Why?  Each one could probably have written the other’s work, and neither is saying anything that we all haven’t heard (and that many of us have said) over and over again for many months.

Here’s Rex’s key quote from Blankley’s National Review white flag special:

Only self-deception can justify the continued sacrifice of our young men and women in uniform. Given the two presidents in command and their irreversible dispositions toward this war and each other, failure is virtually inevitable.

The above paragraph is bookended by an excerpt from Thomas Paine (The Crisis/Common Sense, November 21, 1778) and a reference to the Roosevelt-Churchill wartime partnership.  I feel confident that, if the National Review had been willing to give Blankley another page, he would have gotten to the Civil War and St. Crispin’s Day.

At another point in the piece, Blankley bemoans the loss of one soldier a day in Afghanistan.  A terrible thing indeed, and intolerable if for no good purpose – but during World War II, on any given day, the Roosevelt-Churchill wartime partnership was losing 1 soldier a minute.  Please, once again for the ages:  Whatever the exercise in Afghanistan is, doomed to failure or doomed to succeed, it’s not that. Comparing Obama-Karzai to Roosevelt-Churchill is like comparing this blog post to… Thomas Paine’s Crisis essays, or maybe Blankley’s article to Churchill on “blood, toil, tears, and sweat…”  (though with an opposite gist).

In an odd way, however, Blankley does come somewhat closer to Paine’s perspective on England vis-a-vis the American colonies.  In that case, one might seek to identify the gutty revolutionaries in today’s historical drama, the people for whom Blankley is speaking, and one might not care especially for the answer. But I’d rather presume that this is not that either.

As for Rubin, Rex points to this quote:

There is no way to “explain” the timeline that will improve this situation. Obama needs to lift it, announce we are in this for the long haul, and commit himself to victory. Anything less is dereliction of his duty as commander in chief to win on a battlefield he defined as critical to our national security.

I suspect that Blankley and Rubin agree entirely about the senselessness of the announced timeline.  Many of us – hapless keyboard generals, sagacious analysts, and eminent military historians – winced at this clunker when Barack Obama premiered his strategic aria last fall.  The only conceptual difference between Rubin’s and Blankley’s current critiques and those offered publicly (including by Rubin and Blankley themselves) within days,  hours, or minutes of the President’s West Point speech is the passage of two-thirds of a year.  Then as now, the paleo-cons believed failure to be certain:  They wanted to hold Obama accountable first, the neo-cons second, for even trying.  The neo-cons preferred to believe that success is or was possible enough for Obama to be held accountable for its absence – and the less said about what they deep-down think of the paleos, the better for comity in the conservative coalition.

A somewhat quieter group never quite believed success or failure as conventionally defined ever applied very well, or even could apply very well, to the entire operation.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

5 comments on “First they’d need something to say…

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. Because I’m merely an amateur observer,I get to go places the more professional pundits are forbidden. Looking at WW2,I see the keys to success as fourfold,we had:(1)A Declaration of War(2)A Draft(3) Overwhelming Force(4)Solid Support of the Citizens
    In Korea,we had 2&3
    In Vietnam,we had 2&3
    In Iraq,we had 0
    In Afghanistan,we have 0

    The only exception to this formula was The Gulf War where we had 3 and 5 which was universal support from lots of other nations. It did the job against a weak enemy,that we didn’t know was that weak until the war started.

  2. @ fertiziling treefrog:
    I think I understand your view, and the article you link is very interesting – but Lind doesn’t address the timetable issue at all (two or three months before it came up), and I wonder if he wouldn’t see it as a negative. A timetable tends to constrict maneuver in every way except one: It gives a President concerned about holding on to his anti-war base a little more room for political “maneuver,” but probably wasn’t necessary, and comes at the cost of de-stabilizing the real coalition of support for his war strategy (whatever it really is).

    I keep on thinking of that Max Boot post written after the West Point speech, in which he offered support for the Afghanistan strategy premised on the notion that Obama could campaign for it with the same determination and stubbornness he showed on health care reform. Still makes me laugh.

  3. @ CK MacLeod:

    the narrow “political” room for the build-up and announcement that the war was going intensify and likely to enlarge made avoiding an expedience such a fuzzed-up thing taken as a “timetable” seem an appealing one when considered as one of several simultaneous actions, in other foreign and domestic areas, that Obama sought to pursue.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins