This, from Gen. William Odom, who capped a distinguished career in the US Army by serving as Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 through 1988.
Just the title of this text is great, and explosive, since it bursts through much of the namy-pamby political “positioning” that so many antiwar folks (self included) have engaged in during discussions of the US presence in Iraq up until now.
Here is Odom’s title:
What’s wrong with cutting and running?
I got this text today via Today in Iraq, who got it from Antiwar.com, who got it from the Neiman Foundation’s “Nieman Watchdog“…
One very interesting question is why, if this text was already available at the Watchdog on August 3, it hasn’t received more attention in the US national discourse before now? This is a very germane questiont. The Nieman Foundation, located at Harvard University, is a very well-funded media-studies center that is connected with many very well-funded media outlets and media “personalities”. The context for Odom’s text seems to be that it was part of (perhaps a transcript of?) an interaction with journalists at the Foundation, perhaps in some kind of seminar with working journos, or whatever.
Odom started out there saying,
- If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren’t they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better….
He then lists nine of the key argument against pulling out, and one by one he refutes them. JWN leaders may be very interested to read these refutations– and to use them in discussions with fence-sitters… They are generally very well constructed and well worded.
But at the end of that sustained piece of argumentation on the substance of the troop-presence argument, Odom then gets into some very serious criticism of the Dem Party leaders and the US media establishment:
- Most surprising to me is that no American political leader today has tried to unmask the absurdity of the administration’s case that to question the strategic wisdom of the war is unpatriotic and a failure to support our troops…
So why is almost nobody advocating a pullout? I can only speculate. We face a strange situation today where few if any voices among Democrats in Congress will mention early withdrawal from Iraq, and even the one or two who do will not make a comprehensive case for withdrawal now.Why are the Democrats failing the public on this issue today? The biggest reason is because they weren’t willing to raise that issue during the campaign. Howard Dean alone took a clear and consistent stand on Iraq, and the rest of the Democratic party trashed him for it. Most of those in Congress voted for the war and let that vote shackle them later on. Now they are scared to death that the White House will smear them with lack of patriotism if they suggest pulling out.
Journalists can ask all the questions they like but none will prompt a more serious debate as long as no political leaders create the context and force the issues into the open.
I don’t believe anyone will be able to sustain a strong case in the short run without going back to the fundamental misjudgment of invading Iraq in the first place. Once the enormity of that error is grasped, the case for pulling out becomes easy to see.
Look at John Kerry’s utterly absurd position during the presidential campaign. He said “It’s the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time,” but then went on to explain how he expected to win it anyway. Even the voter with no interest in foreign affairs was able to recognize it as an absurdity. If it was the wrong war at the wrong place and time, then it was never in our interest to fight. If that is true, what has changed to make it in our interest? Nothing, absolutely nothing…
The wisest course for journalists might be to begin sustained investigations of why leading Democrats have failed so miserably to challenge the US occupation of Iraq. The first step, of course, is to establish as conventional wisdom the fact that the war was never in the US interest and has not become so. It is such an obvious case to make that I find it difficult to believe many pundits and political leaders have not already made it repeatedly.
Well, here was Gen. Odom, telling some of the leading lights of US (mainstream) journalism how to do their jobs! And also, by very strong implication, chiding them– and the Dem Party leaders– for not having done their jobs up in the past. Is it any surprise that his remarks somehow didn’t get amplified into the echo-chamber of what passes for US mainstream discourse for more than two months after he made them?
What can we all do to amplify them some more at this point?
The Democrats in Congress seem unwilling to lead where their constituents and absolute majorities of everyone want to go. I can only conclude that they are not actually interested in contesting for power with the Republicans. They are just preserving their little personal niches of influence and comfort.
As you remark in your next post above, Republican critics of aspects of the GWOT like McCain, Graham, and Warner, may very well be leading the way to a more significant re-examination of the premises of our current imperial effort. The Dems are just completely out of the loop of serious policy and power.
Bush today gave his most detailed description to date of the violent extremists and would-be tyrants he believes we are fighting in the GWOT. It doesn’t take much sense of irony to notice how perfectly his definition fits the violent extremists and would-be tyrants currently in charge of the U.S. government. These are people who:
– “serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil but not insane.”
– seek to establish “a totalitarian empire”
– are “obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience.”
– “exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution”
– “exploit modern technology to multiply their destructive power”
– “target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence”
– are “elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the . . . masses”
– have as their chief visionary a man “who grew up in wealth and privilege” and encourages poor people to become killers, “though he never offers to go along for the ride.”
– teach “that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision”
– “have endless ambitions of imperial domination” and “wish to make everyone powerless except themselves”
– “while promising a future of justice and holiness . . . are preparing for a future of oppression and misery”
– “are murderers at war with the Iraqi people themselves”
– claim that “murder is justified to serve their grand vision” and “end up alienating decent people across the globe”
– claim that their “societies are strong and pure until those societies collapse in corruption and decay”
I could not have said it better.
I don’t agree with Odom that Iraq is likely to be a failure because Muslim/Arab countries are so difficult to democratize. That seems like a very broad and sweeping statement and if true it has much broader implications than for Iraq alone.
That aside, the rest of what he said makes sense.
John C– Great analysis there! Thanks so much for that. If it weren’t so incredibly tragic I’d have cracked a broad grin on reading it.
JohnC: I sent your comments on to the president and vice-president and said I agreed with them.
Dare I ask…is there any substance to the cyberspace white noise that AIPAC has the Dems “leadership” by the balls? Conspicuous by their absence at the big anti-war demo in D.C….someone must have given them their non-marching orders…yadda yadda yadda. Is that any more far-fetched than the “Eyes right, hup hup hup” voice of “persuasion” that has Bush’s ear…see this morning’s (Oct. 7) Guardian headline: “George W. Bush: God Told Me to End the Tyranny in Iraq”.
Hey, Comments are working for me again.
JohnC, you are having us on, right? He can’t really have said those things with no sense of their ironic applicability to himself?
“…a man who grew up in wealth and privilege and encourages poor people to become killers, though he never offers to go along for the ride.”
“…someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution.”
(Thus, the US Army is apparently the appropriate body to confront a potential bird flu epidemic, presumably with fowling pieces.)
When you combine this sort of self-delusion with his personal phone line to the Almighty, who apparently has come out of the closet and declared war on his alter-ego, Allah, it is very very frightening.
Frightening in the sense that under the absurd rules of your so-called democratic process, the world is stuck with this sinister buffoon and his cronies for another three years yet.
And your nation seems to have no significantly better alternative in sight.
John C.
Word games just don’t cut it as analysis.
Who are these “Would-be tyrants”? This is a very deep slander and you have no backup.
Bush has beliefs that are neither evil nor insane. Bush is not out to establish a “Totalitarian Empire”, the Islamists are. Clealy Bush is not obsessed with ambition, and interviews with military families show he has a conscience.
Bush is cleary not building a “Culture of victimization”. Bush is not blaming others and does not resort to violence as a first choice. Bush sees other solutions. Bush is not self-appointed.
And so on. While lots of Bush’s words that you quoted are themselves too vague and propagandistic to clearly analyze “…their societies are strong and pure until…”, a lot of it is crisp enough to have meaning.
All leaders believe that “that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision”. Even Gandhi believed this. Bush should have left that line out of his speech, and you should have left it out of your comment.
There are, in fact, grounds to criticize President Bush. His beliefs, while neither evil nor insane, aren’t very sophisticated nor are they based on wide knowledge. He looks at things superficially, trusts his friends too much and genuine experts too little. Bush is cynical about public opinion. In other words he’s a typical mid-level politician. Nothing profound about him and perfectly capable of being the mayor of a small city or maybe a member of Congress.
But you missed that and decided to play words games that make people feel good. It’s a lot of fun to turn around the words of the opposition and make them fit. But the analysis you get is just not accurate.
Along for the ride? Both Bush and Osama bin Laden are military dillettantes. I guess that assured their survival. It doesn’t prove anything. Adolf Hitler was a really excellent soldier in WWI. Did that qualify him for anything?
A future of oppression and misery? There just isn’t any evidence for this. You think the Iraqis would have been better off under Saddam? Even if a US departure results in a full bore civil war, the Iraqis will still end up better off with Saddam gone.
ada
Well John C, I think Warren W has a point. Many (most?) of Bush’s comments that you claim refer to him and his administration as well as to our shadowy terrorists, are too too subjective and matters of opinion, not fact.
However, that said, they really don’t belong in a “major” speech by our president. He is using innuendo, half-truths, and slander to incite fear and anger among the citizens of the US.
And, although I think that growing up in “wealth and privilege” is a fact, no one has ever accused Bush of being a “visionary.”
Dear WarrenW-
I will try to respond to your withering criticism.
“Word games just don’t cut it as analysis.”
It isn’t a game. Bush and friends are murdering, maiming, imprisoning and torturing lots of innocent people. We have to stop them.
“Who are these ‘Would-be tyrants’? This is a very deep slander and you have no backup.”
The three principal would-be tyrants are named George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, and Donald H. Rumsfeld. If you want more names -and also for backup – I would refer you to the Project For The New American Century website at http://www.newamericancentury.org. Enjoy.
“Bush has beliefs that are neither evil nor insane.”
True. He also has beliefs that are both evil and insane. For example, his belief that we have done nothing wrong in Iraq.
“Bush is not out to establish a ‘Totalitarian Empire’, the Islamists are.”
Debatable. Depends on how you define the terms.
“Clealy Bush is not obsessed with ambition”
Clearly, you are wrong. How do you think one gets to be President of the United States?
“and interviews with military families show he has a conscience”
Cindy Sheehan would beg to differ.
“Bush is cleary not building a ‘Culture of victimization’.”
I would argue that the Christian conservative political movement in the U.S. is exactly that. To the extent that a culture of victimization exists in the Arab world, Bush is certainly contributing to it.
“Bush is not blaming others and does not resort to violence as a first choice. Bush sees other solutions.”
Plainly false. His entire speech consisted of blaming others (the “Islamo-fascists”) against whom he resorted to violence as a first and only choice. This is the man who just proposed martial law to deal with a flu pandemic that hasn’t started yet, and for which he is otherwise totally unprepared.
“Bush is not self-appointed.”
True in the political sense of having been elected (at least the 2nd time). Not true in the sense of moral righteousness and divine guidance which he claims as ultimate justification for his policies. Please see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1587614,00.html
“All leaders believe that ‘that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision’.”
As I tell my teenage kids, that doesn’t make it right.
“A future of oppression and misery? There just isn’t any evidence for this.”
Many Iraqis would be glad to show you evidence, if you had the guts to go and look at it. So would many of the tens of millions of Americans living and working in hopeless poverty, whose ranks are steadily growing under Republican leadership.
“You think the Iraqis would have been better off under Saddam?”
I think some would have, and some wouldn’t. I take it you favor the ones who wouldn’t.
“Even if a US departure results in a full bore civil war, the Iraqis will still end up better off with Saddam gone.”
Do you know this from scientific polling of the Iraqi people, or your own omniscience?
For what it’s worth, I do generally agree with your description of Bush’s shortcomings and limitations, which just proves Arendt’s thesis regarding the banality of evil.
Peace.
Regarding John C.’s original post of the quotes from Bush’s speech, isn’t the irony here not in the “Bush/Bin Laden” comparison, but rather in Bush’s presumably neocon speechwriter attributing characteristics to the terrorist enemy that apply so well to the neocons themselves? Bush is just the guy reading the text, not the author.
Speculating about the nature and motivations of the jihadists provides an opportunity for a kind of Rorschach-like projection of one’s own inner self, given that there is so little hard evidence.
What source was Bush’s speechwriter using to inform his confident assertions about terrorist motivations? Genuinely scholary research that I’ve seen ( such as Robert Papes’ ) strongly suggest that most terrorists are motivated by legitimate grievances.
http://www.americaspurpose.org/video/grievance_pape.wmv