« More views on whether voters are idiots | Main | Katon Dawson vs. poverty »
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Moving forward in Iraq -- the one good idea
The Wonderland of Washington, driven by polls and 24/7 TV, is its own, separate reality. Unfortunately, the TV-watching public and partisan activists think it's the reality.
Meanwhile, over in Iraq, the surge is doing what it was intended to do, as this piece back on the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal -- under the appropriate headline, "Moving Forward in Iraq" -- reports:
In Washington perception is often mistaken for reality. And as Congress prepares for a fresh debate on Iraq, the perception many members have is that the new strategy has already failed.
This isn't an accurate reflection of what is happening on the ground, as I saw during my visit to Iraq in May. Reports from the field show that remarkable progress is being made. Violence in Baghdad and Anbar Province is down dramatically, grassroots political movements have begun in the Sunni Arab community, and American and Iraqi forces are clearing al Qaeda fighters and Shiite militias out of long-established bases around the country.
This is remarkable because the military operation that is making these changes possible only began in full strength on June 15. To say that the surge is failing is absurd. Instead Congress should be asking this question: Can the current progress continue?
That's the way it starts. I hope the link works so that you can read the whole thing. The next 10 or so paragraphs go into greater detail about the ways in which the surge is working. The author, Kimberly Kagan, is "an affiliate of Harvard's John M. Olin Institute of Strategic Studies, is executive director of the Institute for the Study of War in Washington. She even tries to express some optimism about Mr. Maliki's efforts to achieve the strategic aim of the surge, a political solution. That part is somewhat less convincing. But the part about what our military is achieving is convincing.
What would be wonderful -- what we owe our troops -- is to praise and applaud and encourage what they are accomplishing. But that's not what we're doing back in this country, is it?
The piece ends this way:
This is war, and the enemy is reacting. The enemy uses suicide bombs, car bombs and brutal executions to break our will and that of our Iraqi allies. American casualties often increase as troops move into areas that the enemy has fortified; these casualties will start to fall again once the enemy positions are destroyed. Al Qaeda will manage to get some car and truck bombs through, particularly in areas well-removed from the capital and its belts.
But we should not allow individual atrocities to obscure the larger picture. A new campaign has just begun, it is already yielding important results, and its effects are increasing daily. Demands for withdrawal are no longer demands to pull out of a deteriorating situation with little hope; they are now demands to end a new approach to this conflict that shows every sign of succeeding.
Indeed. And that demand is coming from both Democrats and Republicans. What is happening in this country is an appalling spectacle.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 10:01 AM in Iraq, Leadership, Military, Parties, Strategic, The Nation, The World, War and Peace
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4ea353ef00e008d64ba58834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Moving forward in Iraq -- the one good idea:
Comments
I thought that name was familiar, and so I did a little searching. I found a lot of references to her, but one in particular stands out in my mind, from something called George Mason University's History News Network. There's an article there about her and her work on reviewing the surge strategy, with this headline:
"Kimberly Kagan: Wife of Frederick Kagan to monitor plan her husband devised"
Posted by: Tom Robinson | Jul 11, 2007 10:55:26 AM
Brad, it's time to give it up. The American people are now leaving the Washington politicians only two options for Iraq. (1) Gradual withdrawal over a 1-2 year period, or (2) Rapid withdrawal within 6 months or less. They understand that only PARTISANS believe the surge is working. They understand the security situation has not improved. They understand Americans are dying in record numbers (100+ in 3 straight months). Here are today's security headlines from Reuters:
GARMA - At least seven members of one family were killed when gunmen broke into their house in Garma, west of Baghdad, and planted explosives inside and blew it up, police said.
* SAMARRA - The mayor of Samarra, a mainly Sunni city 100 km (62 miles) north of Baghdad, was shot dead, police said.
BAGHDAD - Police found 26 bodies in Baghdad on Tuesday. Most had been shot, victims of sectarian death squads.
TIKRIT - U.S. soldiers handed over 12 bodies to the general hospital in Tikrit, 175 km (110 miles) north of Baghdad on Tuesday, said Iyada al- Jugheifi, head of the hospital's morgue. It was unclear how the people died.
BAGHDAD - At least four policemen were killed and two others wounded when gunmen attacked their patrol in northern Baghdad on Tuesday evening, police said.
ISKANDARIYA - At least two people were killed and 17 wounded when four mortar bombs landed in a residential area in Iskandariya, 40 km (25 miles) south of Baghdad on Tuesday evening, police said.
ISKANDARIYA - Gunmen killed a civil servant when they broke into his home in Iskandariya on Tuesday evening, police said.
BAGHDAD - Gunmen attacked a police commando checkpoint, killing one policeman in the Saidiya district of southern Baghdad on Tuesday, police said. Eight civilians were wounded.
FALLUJA - A suicide motorcycle bomber attacked a police patrol on Tuesday, wounding two policemen in Falluja, 50 km (32 miles) west of Baghdad, police said.
HASWA - Police found two bodies showing signs of torture in Haswa, 50 km (30 miles) south of Baghdad on Tuesday, police said.
DIWANIYA - Gunmen killed a policeman inside his car in Diwaniya, 180 km (112 miles) south of Baghdad on Tuesday, police said.
NAJAF - Gunmen on a motorcycle killed a police intelligence officer in northern Najaf on Tuesday evening, police said.
Posted by: bud | Jul 11, 2007 11:22:40 AM
"Appalling spectacle!" Let me describe an appalling spectacle. Four years of war involving the greatest power on Earth in a country with fewer people than Texas. Worldwide disdain for American diplomacy and resentment of American power. Over 3500 Americans killed; probably 20,000 seriously wounded. Over 500 billion dollars spent to see "the light at the end of the tunnel." Halliburton as the major contractor (no bid) for a reconstruction that has barely had any impact. World oil prices at 3 times 2000 levels. Gasoline prices at 3 times... still no appreciable Iraqi oil. Bush and Cheney affiliated companies over-flush with cash and other war/energy related gains. The ignoring of the military and diplomacy-based Iraq Study Group report - only to be forced into its major recommendations by conditions months later than needed. Attempts to win this war wholely by military means are degrading our military, our treasury, and our sense of common purpose. Joe Biden was right in 2003 and is right now - "Bush, the Squanderer." That is what is appalling.
Posted by: Harry | Jul 11, 2007 11:35:32 AM
Brad,
Were you waving a flag and baking an apple pie when you wrote that entry? Sheesh... what is appalling is watching the last throes of the war mongers try to spin a debacle into a victory.
Bush is already setting up the easy way out of Iraq - blame the Iraqis for their failure to create a stable government out of the turmoil we created.
This from an AP article about Republican Senator Olympia Snowe's proposal to set a timeline for withdrawal by next April:
"The visit came as the White House finalized a 23-page progress report on Iraq that concludes the government in Baghdad has made little progress in meeting reform goals laid down by Bush and Congress."
It's pretty easy to read the tea leaves... Bush will incrementally increase the rhetoric blaming Iraqis as more Republican Senators hop off the bandwagon. The RNC will tell Bush that "for the good of the party in 2008, we need to bring the troops home." Bush, being the ultimate party guy, will make a token effort to hold the line until about January, when he will declare victory (again) and start the withdrawal.
Posted by: Doug Ross | Jul 11, 2007 11:36:19 AM
"Appalling spectacle!" Let me describe an appalling spectacle. Four years of war involving the greatest power on Earth in a country with fewer people than Texas. Worldwide disdain for American diplomacy and resentment of American power. Over 3500 Americans killed; probably 20,000 seriously wounded. Over 500 billion dollars spent to see "the light at the end of the tunnel." Halliburton as the major contractor (no bid) for a reconstruction that has barely had any impact. World oil prices at 3 times 2000 levels. Gasoline prices at 3 times... still no appreciable Iraqi oil. Bush and Cheney affiliated companies over-flush with cash and other war/energy related gains. The ignoring of the military and diplomacy-based Iraq Study Group report - only to be forced into its major recommendations by conditions months later than needed. Attempts to win this war wholely by military means are degrading our military, our treasury, and our sense of common purpose. Joe Biden was right in 2003 and is right now - "Bush, the Squanderer." That is what is appalling.
Posted by: Harry | Jul 11, 2007 11:37:22 AM
Thanks for the heads-up, Tom. For everyone else, here's a link to the item he mentions.
So you can say they're sort of like the mutually-affirming duo of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, if you are so inclined.
But then, what have you got? Does a valid argument -- whether it's an intel report from Africa or a an op-ed piece (and the "monitoring" to which Tom refers was nothing official, but reports for The Weekly Standard) -- become INvalid because of who you are married to? I find the connection interesting now that I see it, but how does it mean anything?
What she said made perfect sense this morning, and it still does. I don't care if she's Gen. Petraeus' secret girlfriend. (Actually, though, if she were, it might give us a valuable perspective. And what's this I hear about him and Angelina Jolie?)
Of course, to people who make their judgments according to personality-driven TV news and blogs, a personal connection is an argument. This, also, is appalling.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jul 11, 2007 12:07:59 PM
FYI, I posted that response to Tom before I read, and approved, the comments above from the rest of y'all. I woudn't have said anything different if I HAD read them, but I just wanted y'all to know I wasn't just ignoring you.
Speaking of new comments, there's an interesting one from "Boyd" over on this thread.
Back to this subject ... bud, to the extent that "the American people" are only leaving us those two options, the American people are WRONG, just as they were wrong to want to invade Iraq for the wrong reasons. Of course, they had no way to know at the time that it was for the wrong reasons. But they do have the opportunity to know better this time, and I intend to keep pointing it out.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jul 11, 2007 12:35:51 PM
"But we should not allow individual atrocities to obscure the larger picture."
Actually in this case perhaps we should not let indivdiual local accomplishments obscure the larger picture. We never had an idea of what winning would be in Iraq, we still don't know what winning is other than "stay the course" now "stay the surge," and our defined goals for Iraq continue to change as time moves foward. Most of the civil war in Iraq still is incorrectly attributed to Al Queda. We keep swatting at this hornets nest think that the bees will stay there. The only real credible argument for staying in Iraq at this point is we owe it to the people of Iraq to fix what has turned into one our great nation's most mismanaged, uniformed military and foreign policy fiascos of all time. There is nothing for us to win in Iraq. If we now look bak can see how foolish the fallin dominos theory of nation's falling to communism was in the Vietnam era, how much more foolish the ill concieved and imprudent Bush strategy of effectively "standing up the dominos" in the Mid-East that if we forcefully impose Western Democracy on one nation (all be it as long as the vote in anyone we wish) then soon the democracies would spring up! Whoopie! Some insight into world history, political system, Middle Easter culture, religion and society, as well as foreign policy would have been fantastic things to consider before and during this boondoggle. Bush's failed foreign policy is like asking a doctor to do the work of an attorney for vice versa.
Posted by: Silence Dogood | Jul 11, 2007 12:39:15 PM
A new campaign has just begun, it is already yielding important results, and its effects are increasing daily.
-Excerpt from Brad's excerpt
This should be a great big red flag to anyone who feels inclined to continue listening to the pro-war folks. The so-called "surge" began in February. The whole sordid Iraq war began more than 4 years ago. Truthfully this surge is nothing all that new. We've had surges before, troop increases before, tactical changes before. To suggest this is new flys in the face of any reasonable reading of the facts. The "surge" is just warmed over "stay the course". And the American public is not buying it.
Posted by: bud | Jul 11, 2007 12:43:10 PM
“Society exists only as a mental concept;in the real world there are only individuals.”
Oscar Wilde
Posted by: bill | Jul 11, 2007 12:58:06 PM
Brad, I suspect that most of my fellow commenters wish that we could succeed in Iraq. If I thought there was a chance we could, I would be in favor of troops remaining there. But President Bush et al. have demonstrated over and over again over the past four years that they are not competent to prosecute this war, and they are in charge for another year and a half. It's not enough for the American public to give the war in Iraq a chance; the Bush Administration also has to get it right. After four years of stinking it up, why do you still believe they are capable of getting it right?
Posted by: Wally Altman | Jul 11, 2007 2:10:05 PM
Here's the thing: I don't know, 100%, if it's working or not. Certainly if it is working someone should tell the GOP senators currently looking to get out.
But even if it IS working -- and I'll admit the DoD is functioning better than it did this time last year -- this should have been done YEARS ago! The first signs of trouble were in Oct. 2003 when America lost the first helicopters. Ok fine, trust in the Rumsfeld plan... March 2004 hits and the insurgency comes into its own and Fallujah first flares up... Bush trusts in Rumsfeld even though Iraq's just gotten worse...the election gets underway, and the seige of Fallujah hits, and still the President doesn't make changes... 2005, a whole year, goes by, more deaths, no reaction by the Bush administration, Rumsfeld stays... 2006 gets underway, the Samarra mosque is bombed and still Rumsfeld stays...
It's only until, by the PResident's own admission, Oct. 2006, when he even finally considers doing something different. He could have lost WWII in such a time frame thanks to his stubborn support for a failed strategy. And we can't even be sure, had the Republicans fared a little better in the midterm elections, if he'd have even changed course THEN.
If you really want the surge to continue, why not propose getting rid of the President and the Vice President for thier incompotent and unprofessional civilian leadership in exchange? Because if the President dragging his heels on even implementing the surge strategy is any indication, victory in Iraq and Bush's presidency are mutually exclusive concepts.
Posted by: Brandon | Jul 11, 2007 3:07:20 PM
Wally, I don't think it's really a matter of getting it right. Certainly that's not the case now. The problem is that this is the wrong war at the wrong time. Katrina showed how utterly incompetent the Bush administration is. That's pretty clear now. But even with a competent, well executed plan I believe Iraq was bound to fail.
Posted by: bud | Jul 11, 2007 3:23:17 PM
Yes, Brandon, absolutely -- this should have been done years ago, as John McCain kept saying.
And as I keep saying, this is NOT ABOUT BUSH! He's the guy who stood in the way until the start of this year. This is about Gen. Petraeus, and the troops under him, and the fine job that they are doing.
It's not about Bush. It is NOT about Bush. This is a hell of a lot more important than George W. Bush! I truly believe we could solve our problems in Iraq if only every single person in this country -- in the world -- would realize it's not about Bush. Iraq is more important than that!
But we can't quite accomplish that, because there are umpteen 24-hour news channels people with blow-dried morons who cannot even say the words, "What do you think we should do in Iraq?" Instead, it's "Do you support the president? Have you decided to oppose the president on this? How long can the president rely upon the loyalty of GOP members.... yadda, yadda."
Forget about George W. Bush! This is too important!
I'm starting to feel like Howard Hughes here ... "Show me all the blueprints. Show me all the blueprints. Show me all the blueprints... show me all the blueprints... show me all the blueprints... show me all the blueprints... It's not about Bush ... it's not about Bush..."
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jul 11, 2007 3:49:23 PM
Couple tidbits from Andrew Sullivan's blog:
"Is it not incumbent on the Wall Street Journal when featuring one Kimberly Kagan's review of the "surge" to inform its readers that one Kimberly Kagan was on the think-tank team that constructed the idea of said "surge"?"
And a quote from Camile Paglia:
You speak of my party wanting to "choose defeat," while yours wants "victory." Is that stark opposition truly our only choice? Or has your party painted itself into a rhetorical corner with its polarized talk of victory and defeat? Isn't it possible that you have created a nightmare of words from which we cannot wake up? I don't regard the prudent preservation of American lives and treasure as a "defeat" but rather as a sensible acknowledgment of the reality principle. Not all of our desires, hopes, and ideals can come to pass. That is the human condition.
You say that if we don't stay and win in Iraq, we'll be back there in 10 years. I think you might well be correct. The Iraq chaos, which we instrumentally helped foment, will probably spread and destabilize the entire Middle East -- a momentum that has already begun. By removing that despicable autocrat, Saddam Hussein, we conveniently did Iran's work. There's no stopping the jockeying of power now -- Iran eyeing Iraq's Shiite territories; Turkey ready to smash the independence movement among Kurds (who have been playing the United States for a fool).
But next time around, we will hopefully have the support of other powers in the region, such as Saudi Arabia (a corruption-riddled regime with strong Bush ties), which can't afford the implosion of Iraq. Meanwhile, the massacre of our hapless soldiers, along with the waste of billions of our tax dollars, must stop. There is no clear way to define "victory" in this folly -- which tried to jump-start Western democracy in a country with none of our long traditions of civil law or free speech.
Posted by: Doug Ross | Jul 11, 2007 9:20:09 PM
Well, Camile Paglia -- that settles it, right? Who could know better than the author of Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson (oh, that kinky Emily, with her death fetish)?
And here's the clincher -- she doesn't seem to be married to anyone inconvenient. That's the ultimate argument. That makes her THE expert. I mean, this woman did a commentary track on the DVD of "Basic Instinct." Could that Kimberly Kagan have done THAT? I don't think so. I mean, we all know that a thorough grounding in sexually ambiguous figures in art is essential to understanding where the Shi'a mullahs are coming from.
Why on Earth would I have paid attention to a silly little woman who has a husband she agrees with? How absurd! What was I thinking? Why would I have placed such value on a) the fact that she follows what's going on over there for a living, and b) she says things that make sense? What is that compared to Vamps and Tramps, which absolutely nailed the whole Mideast situation?
Good night, folks.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jul 11, 2007 10:04:31 PM
It gets worse the more you look into it. You realize that Kagan guy has a whole family that agrees with him? How droll. How hopelessly bourgeois.
I'll bet Camille, the anti-academic satirist's dream girl, the self-described "feminist bisexual egomaniac," doesn't have that problem. But you know, I do have one beef with her: What kind of person lists, as her Top Ten favorite movie quotes, a bunch of lines that she obviously picked because she likes to sneer at them? I certainly hope she read Ms. Kagan's (or should we say, Mrs. Kagan's) WSJ piece today. She could have sneered her way to Nirvana and back.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jul 11, 2007 10:33:55 PM
The person you quoted as an expert on the success of the surge was paid to come up with the strategy. What's she going to say now?
"Yeah, it was a dumb idea." For someone who decries partisans, can't you find a source who isn't on the take?
Ms. Kagan's brother is the editor of the Weekly Standard (a partisan conservative mag), her father in law a neocon intellectual (oxymoron?). She knows what to say to make sure Thanksgiving dinner is not stressful.
Anyway, Paglia would eat you for breakfast in any debate on Iraq. Your selective culling of her resume to focus on the "lurid" parts leaves out her being a college valedictorian with a masters in Philosophy from Yale and named one of the world's top 100 intellectuals by UK Prospect magazine. Other than that, she's just some random bisexual chick.
Posted by: Doug Ross | Jul 11, 2007 10:34:30 PM
I'm not a Paglia fan myself, but I think she makes a good point in that quote (though it's not clear where her quote ends and Mr. Ross's comment resumes).
So what do you think about her remarks, Mr. W? Any thoughts? Or would you rather talk about her sexuality some more? She can't get married, now that's a laugh riot! Hahaha!
Incidentally, I'll bet Andrew Sullivan doesn't have that problem either. Not sure what your point is with all that.
Posted by: kc | Jul 11, 2007 11:03:56 PM
Meanwhile, as George Bush has focused on trying to turn Iraq into America Lite, he seems to have dropped the ball on a little organization called Al Queda:
From AP:
The conclusion suggests that the network that launched the most devastating terror attack on the United States has been able to regroup along the Afghan-Pakistani border despite nearly six years of bombings, war and other tactics aimed at crippling it.
Whatever happened to that Bin Laden guy, anyway? Did I miss when we captured him?
Posted by: Doug Ross | Jul 11, 2007 11:27:41 PM
Here's the Kagan family's pet project:
Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded as "a non-profit educational organization" by William Kristol and Robert Kagan in early 1997. The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC are the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] It has exerted strong influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S President George W. Bush and strongly affected the Bush administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security.
Hmmmm... a non-profit think tank. Who has jobs like that? Would they be people who would fall into the category of partisans? stubborn intellectuals with a monetary interest in promoting a particular military strategy?
Posted by: Doug Ross | Jul 11, 2007 11:43:32 PM
Brad, you missed one of the larger issues (and whether to stay in Iraq or leave is a pretty big issue in its own right): The extent to which the Bush Administration has subcontracted out policy-making to conservative think tanks, most of which are filled with people who are A) extremely bright and B) extremely ignorant of anything involving firsthand knowledge of or experience with military affairs or foreign policy. The evidence is overwhelming: From the hiring of Bush campaign staffers for the occupation authority in 2003 to the reliance on folks like Kimberly Kagan to make the administration's case. When your ideas are bankrupt, spin 'em so they sound plausible.
Posted by: Steve Gordy | Jul 12, 2007 6:10:28 AM
Statistically speaking the surge appears at first blush to have made things a bit safer in Iraq than it was in the January and February of 2007. The problem is the basis for this comparison was the bloodiest period for the entire conflict. Without any intervention whatsover the numbers were bound to come down. (In statistics this is called regression to the mean). A more relevant comparison would be to look at the same months in 2007 compared to 2006. After all, we've been there for 4+ years, shouldn't we be making the place safer in the long run? Here are the number of Iraqi civilians killed for each month 2007 v 2006:
2007 2006
Jan 1802 779
Feb 3014 846
Mar 2977 1092
Apr 1821 1009
May 1980 1119
Jun 1345 870
Jul 641(1656)1280
The 2007 number for July in parenthesis is the projected number for the entire month at the rate established for the first 12 days.
As you can see each month in 2007 is substantially worse than for 2006. The apparent slackening in June appears to be a temporary phenomenon and could be attributable to the dynamics of June rather than any intervention by the U.S. military. After all, the June 2006 number was also low.
The bottom line is clear. Hundreds of Iraqi civilians continue to die each month. American soldier deaths are at record levels. The 'surge' has done little to curb the sectarian violence even though it has been ongoing for 5 months now. An accurate reading of the statistics establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that our continued occupation of Iraq is only fueling the violence.
Posted by: bud | Jul 12, 2007 8:01:35 AM
And of course we have this:
Now that cocky claim has come back to haunt Bush and the Republicans. The Associated Press has reported that U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded al-Qaeda has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since 9/11.
Still think we're making progress in Iraq Brad? If not I can find more to refute that ridiculous claim.
Posted by: bud | Jul 12, 2007 8:33:20 AM
Thanks, bud. That's what I'm looking for -- arguments based upon observations of facts.
Folks, I'm sorry that you misunderstand my point, which I thought I had laid on thick enough for a blind man to see. But let's take a more prosaic approach:
- I don't care about Camille Paglia. I don't care about Kimberly Kagan. I was satirizing the fact that other people seem to care deeply about who somebody is.
- I don't care that CIA sent Valerie Plame's husband to collect intel in Niger. He was a guy who had local contacts, therefore it made him a logical source. I don't care who Kimberly Kagan is married to, or who his brother and father are. I care about whether the arguments seem well-informed and logical.
- Do you realize how much of my time is spent listening to people who are paid to make the arguments they make? They can provide useful perspective; they can also provide unadulterated BS. The key is to assess the information and the argument, not decide whether you're going listen or not based on who the person is.
- When I look at the Paglia excerpt Doug provided, the very first words impeach the speaker: "You speak of my party wanting to 'choose defeat,' while yours wants 'victory.' Is that stark opposition truly our only choice? Or has your
party painted itself...," etc. "My party." "Your party." This is someone who thinks in such terms, and I have a low opinion of that. It's a private pet peeve with which I thought readers of this blog were well familiar. I have an extremely low opinion of people deciding what they think about such critical things as war and peace on the basis of what the "team" position is. Such intellectual processes are beneath contempt. (Why do you think commenters, from both sides, who really want to get my goat call me "partisan?" They know my attitude.) - I also think it's ludicrous to make a big deal of a person's family connections. It's good to know them, which is why I thanked Tom for looking it up and pointing it out. But that does not disqualify a person from being informed or having a valid argument. You assess that by assessing the information and the arguments themselves.
- In light of that, it struck me as amusing that Camille Paglia has worked so hard at defining herself as a person who would not be tied to someone in the way that Ms. Kagan is tied to her husband -- the crime for which my interlocutors seemed to be indicting her and her opinions. This is the way SHE (Ms. Paglia) defines herself, not the way I do. I enjoyed the irony -- you can't accuse her of being the "little woman" enslaved to some man's ideas, can you? -- so I riffed on it.
To me, the point was so obvious that it was funny. I'm sorry the rest of you didn't think so.
And Doug -- I'm sure she would "eat my lunch" or whatever on Iraq, particularly if the contest were judged on the basis of an applause meter. Ms. Paglia knows how to express her opinions in partisan terms, in ways that evoke a warm, empathetic response from one side of the Kulturkampf. I don't have that. I absolutely refuse to have that. I reject such approaches with all my being. I have no applause lines. I don't want either side to win the political wars in Washington.
I just want the United States to succeed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Iran and on every other front in this war. And by the way, we are NOT going to succeed in capturing bin Laden or other such significant mileposts in this war (and they would only be mileposts, not the destination) as long as we continue to respect the territorial integrity of Pakistan, which we will do as long as we feel politically and diplomatically constrained to do so. That point was made on NPR this morning, I believe, and it's a grim fact.
But as long as we're having this vicious internecine fight on the home front about having invaded Iraq and whether to follow through, what is the likelihood we'll ever have the will or flexibility to do something like that?
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jul 12, 2007 10:10:05 AM
