Pushing the button but the soda won't come out
Posted by aogThursday, 06 September 2007 at 22:18 TrackBack Ping URL

My brain is fried from heavy coding, so it’s a perfect opportunity to write a long, rambling post.

A couple of recent posts (here and here) about the delusional state of the Democratic Party and its ideological allies, or as I call them, the Modern American Left. As has been noted, they have invested heavily in the failure of American foreign policy in Iraq. I continue to be of the opinion that’s its far more habit than thought in brains long since ossified by the chattering of an echo chamber.

This leads to some distress, as is occurring now, when they realize that something is wrong but they lack the introspection or cognitive tools to discover what. For instance, the fact that Congress’ approval rating is much lower than that of President Bush. Or that the American Street hasn’t risen up against the occupation of Iraq the way it did (sort of) against the occupation in Vietnam. You can see this in the effort to pre-emptively discredit General Petraeus.

Some think that of course, the MAL leadership couldn’t want to have another debacle like that, but I think that it wasn’t a debacle from the point of view of the MAL leadership — they, personally, did very well out of it and are still, to this day, basking in the after glow of the bonfire.

Unfortunately for them, the American Street likes a winner and defeatism doesn’t sell against optimism, especially if victory looks possible. The “Blame Only America” stance doesn’t help much either, although why that’s the case seems to elude the MAL. It doesn’t seem smart politically to blame the USA for the mass terror committed in Iraq by our enemies, but there it is. I liked this quote

As a local political endeavor the insurgency is similarly, historically speaking, a bust. Where the Americans actually feared holding elections in Vietnam, they could hold one every day in Iraq, and one result would all but be guaranteed. The insurgency, in all it’s various corporate groupings, would garner no significant support. That does not mean that there is not an counterproductive acquiescence on the part of too many Iraqi’s with the insurgency, as well as a passivity in combating it, but the fact is that the insurgencies very ruthlessness and violence achieve precisely the opposite of what almost all classical insurgencies attempt to accomplish - which is grass roots support based upon actual sympathy rather than fear or avarice.

And this is where the antiwar lefts and rights position is more than just a revealing look at political pathology […] The insurgents ruthless strategy makes absolutely no sense, militarily or politically, without 2 important enablers that have become closely intertwined. The first is regional Arab support fired by the Islamism of the likes of Al Jazeera. The combination of virulent Anti-Americanism and pathological ability to sheet home the culpability of every atrocity and the suffering of Iraq to the Western scapegoat is what prevents the bloody ruthlessness of the insurgency from being entirely counterproductive.[…] To actually make the pursuit of the monstrous a viable military strategy requires a similar political pathology to infect those countries whose resolve will actually determine whether the long string of insurgent military and domestic political failure can nevertheless produce a victory for those insurgents.

That is precisely the willingness of much of Old Media and the MAL to blame America for its opponents atrocities. It is also the game plan that the Caliphascists have been running on form the start, that a sufficient number of civilian casualties would break the Western and particularly the American will. What the Caliphascists have discovered is that it doesn’t have to be Western citizens (a fact, I am sure, they found almost incomprehensible but quite useful). I sometimes wonder if that’s why we haven’t seen terror attacks directly against the USA, more than because the Caliphasists are so heavily engaged and losing so much in Iraq. They may have decided that because it’s almost as useful to kill Iraqi civilians and far easier, that’s what they’ll do.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
erp Friday, 07 September 2007 at 08:51

Excellent post and your conclusion that our enemies have learned that casualties/deaths, military or civilian, in Iraq work so well for propaganda purposes, they needn’t risk terrorist attacks here at home, is brilliant, but I think there’s another reason there hasn’t been an attack here … and that reason is these enemies, the MAL and the Islamists, fear, and rightly so, that it would mobilize public opinion and unite us in a way no rhetoric could possibly do.

The reaction of We, the People, would be swift and implacable.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 07 September 2007 at 09:23

I should have mentioned the “magical American aura” involved, whereby if Americans are nearby, the casualties are Americanized, but no Americans, no foul, as in Darfur.

You have a good point, but if it’s a human activity, there is almost never “a” reason for it. I think all of that contributes to make slaughter in Iraq much preferable.

erp Friday, 07 September 2007 at 15:42

Proving once again, if that would ever really be necessary, that the point of it all is the destruction of the American ideal. We were on the road today and listening to Rush read from Schumer’s statement on Iraq. It was hard to distinguish his remarks from the Paul Shankland parodies.

pj Friday, 07 September 2007 at 16:58

I think y’all are right about why there hasn’t been an attack on American soil - the terror sponsors noticed that didn’t work out so well for the Taliban and Saddam - so they lowered their sights to deterring future regime change. However, if they think they’ve successfully eliminated regime change as a possibility, then they might as well return to attacks on American soil. So I don’t think we can say we’re out of the woods. Plus, they continue to build the components of nukes, and maybe the whole things.

Michael Herdegen Saturday, 08 September 2007 at 06:43

Attacking America with one, or a handful, of nuclear weapons would only change the global situation from American hegemony to an actual American empire - and, the other advanced nations would go along with it, because NO advanced nation can allow rogue shadow groups to have nukes, and Europe, China, and Russia have Muslim terror problems too.

If America duplicated her WW II effort, given our larger economy and population, we could have 18 million men and women under arms, and spend at least $ 3 trillion every year on military efforts. That would create a lot of peace, at least for America. Not so much for those places that are currently anti-modern.

erp Saturday, 08 September 2007 at 08:00

As long as we’re safe, I care little about the details.

cjm Saturday, 08 September 2007 at 12:19

it’s my perception that America is on the cusp of becoming an imperial power, much like Rome did. which isn’t to say it will be an exact repeat, just that we will be forced to deal ith miscreant countries/groups quite harshly, after we lose our innocence. for the Romans, i believe the triggering incident was the battle of Cannae, for us it will be the loss of one or more major cities. now the only question is who gets to be Carthage, China or Russia ?

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 08 September 2007 at 13:47

I’ve written about that before and I think it’s important to keep in mind that, unlike Rome, we won’t have much of an economic interest in the conquered territories. “More rubble, less trouble” is in fact a viable strategy for us in a way it wasn’t for Rome.

Bret Sunday, 09 September 2007 at 00:07

Y’all sure are able to write calmly and matter-of-factly about what will be a horrendous chapter in human history if it comes about as you describe it. I think I admire your serenity, but I’m not sure.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 09 September 2007 at 09:12

The alternative seems to be to the Democratic Party platform — pre-emptive and abject surrender the moment any difficult arises. I think that will lead to an even more horrendous chapter.

Bret Sunday, 09 September 2007 at 20:04

I didn’t say you were wrong - just so calm and serene about it that it’s almost surreal. “More rubble, less trouble”? Catchy, but disconcerting to me.

Michael Herdegen Thursday, 13 September 2007 at 09:52

Y’all sure are able to write calmly and matter-of-factly about what will be a horrendous chapter in human history if it comes about as you describe it.

In my case, the calm comes from my conclusion that it’s mostly not in our hands if it plays out that way. It’s up to the other actors. We’ll just react.

And, with regard to the small part that is within our control, we’re currently attempting to avoid an Imperial future, so we’re on the side of right there.

Post a comment