On August 21st, I (Scott) posted a jwn commentary on Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) and his rather lonely, if compelling complaints against the Bush Administration approach to the Middle East, and Israel/Lebanon in particular. Back in August, Hagel was quite prescient in anticipating that his Republican party “had lost its way” and was vulnerable to being, “held accountable.”
Alas, I was disappointed when Senator Hagel “rushed off a cliff” with the herd in voting for the recent “detainee treatment bill” – and even against an amendment what would have restored habeas corpus rights for any non-citizen human beings scooped up in the US g.w.t. dragnet. I’ve yet to come across explanations for Senator Hagel’s vote, though one curious WaPo report suggestes that he, along with other moderate Republicans, might have supported Senator Specter’s original proposal to permit habeas corpus for “detainees” after a year of detention. (I hope one day soon Senator Hagel will have the courage to explain and/or recant his vote and then support corrective legislation.)
As it stands though, Hagel’s votes on our shameful modern day echo of the Alien & Sedition Acts reminded me of what Kyle Michaelis, a Nebraska-based blogger, wrote about the Senator:
“He’s Chuck Hagel, folks – the thinking man’s unthinking Republican. And, you almost have to like him; you just can’t count on him.”
Yet I am happy to note that Hagel is still “thinking,” and rather far “off the neocon reservation,” – as evident in his oped in today’s Washington Post. The Senator opens by declaring,
“There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq.” Neither is Iraq “a prize to be won or lost,” nor is there a “military solution.”
So glad we cleared that up.
Imagine President Bush being so candid with loved ones of those who have fallen in Iraq. At least Senator Hagel isn’t cluelessly telling us “we’ll win unless we quit.”
Yet unlike Helena, Senator Hagel is better on diagnosis and prognosis than on prescription — other than a reference to a “phased troop withdrawal.”
As for how we got into the Iraq mess:
“We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam. Honorable intentions are not policies and plans.”
Well said – and it comes from one who earned two “purple hearts” while serving in Vietnam. As for “honorable intentions,” what’s the old saw about “the road to hell?”
“Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. They will decide their fate and form of government.”
Really? How un-American. (irony alert) I wonder if Cheney is today having a chat with King Abdullah along the same lines…. Anyway, wow, what a splendid little concept – other folks independently deciding their own form of government.
Where we stand:
“America finds itself in a dangerous and isolated position in the world. We are perceived as a nation at war with Muslims. Unfortunately, that perception is gaining credibility in the Muslim world and for many years will complicate America’s global credibility, purpose and leadership.”
Put differently, America lately hasn’t had much of a Jeffersonian “decent respect to the opinions of mankind” – and the resulting displeasure from a “candid world” has come home to roost. (*bg)
Meanwhile,
“[O]ur effort in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, partly because we took our focus off the real terrorist threat, which was there, and not in Iraq.”
I wonder how many other Republican Presidential candidates will be so candid come 2008?
“Surging” is not an option.
“The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation — regardless of our noble purpose….
We are destroying our force structure, which took 30 years to build. We’ve been funding this war dishonestly, mainly through supplemental appropriations, which minimizes responsible congressional oversight….”
Mark this as another key area where Hagel sharply disagrees with Senator John McCain, another likely contender for the GOP Presidential ticket in 2008. And speaking of politically incorrect,
Its all linked:
“The Middle East is more combustible today than ever before, and until we are able to lead a renewal of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, mindless destruction and slaughter will continue in Lebanon, Israel and across the Middle East.”
One encouraging sign:
“It may take many years before there is a cohesive political center in Iraq…. There will be a new center of gravity in the Middle East that will include Iraq. That process began over the past few days with the Syrians and Iraqis restoring diplomatic relations after 20 years of having no formal communication.
What does this tell us? It tells us that regional powers will fill regional vacuums, and they will move to work in their own self-interest — without the United States. This is the most encouraging set of actions for the Middle East in years.”
Obviously,if not mentioned by name, that means Iran will inevitably play a major role in Iraq’s future.
Ironically, the Washington Post editorial writers cling to precisely the opposite interpretation of Iran and Syria’s role in Iraq. In a blunt editorial facing Hagel’s essay today, the Post sounds quite “Rumsfeldian” in blaming Iraq’s insurgency on Syria and Iran. Because they, Iran and Syria, are “ruthlessly waging war” against the west, then the Post has little hope that mere talking with them will have any chance for sucess in Iraq unless we “fight back” with “a big stick.”
The assumption here is that Syria and Iran have “no interest” in cooperating with the outside world – including the US – in restoring order to Iraq. As such, the US has to give them a reason – the avoidance of an American “stick.”
This sounds all too much like the WaPo editorial stance that so mindlessly functioned in 2003 as a neocon cheerleader, “Lally-gagging” us into Iraq in the first place. They haven’t learned a thing.
Curiously, the only “stick” the Post dares to suggest here is but the thin reed of sanctions. What would even T.R. (Teddy Roosevelt) think of this editorial? Speaking softly or sound and fury? Carrying a Big stick or a spaghetti noodle?
A far better approach would recognize that Iran, like all of Iraq’s neighbors, has concrete interests in not seeing Iraq disintegrate. Just as Iran was constructive in the negoations over Afghanistan’s future (as attested to by former Bush officials like Flynt Leverett), so too it has good reason to see a stable Iraq emerge from the present ashes.
Chuck Hagel well understands such possibilities, even as he may be too politically astute to spell them out directly.
“There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq.” Neither is Iraq “a prize to be won or lost,” nor is there a “military solution.”
So glad we cleared that up. !!!
Yes you knew and believe now “There will be no victory for the United States in Iraq.” But for Iraq he is the looser in any account, it was a state people looking for their future in this naive world where the a small group of fanatics whatever are far rights or far left control the world they do what their head thinks without any care of millions of humans suffering daily because their adventures.
For start the occupation of Iraq it is illegal, in 1991 US stands for the rightness of the UN charters and librated Kuwait from Saddam now they did exactly same as Saddam did in 1991, in fact they did worse than him with on going lies and mistakes with continuing announcing they need to do the job in Iraq and get the victory.
What victory they talking about any one can tell me what is the sort of victory they working on?
They are so like Saddam when he did his adventurous wars and he kept saying its a victory until he fled and hided in “Spider Hole”, I wonders where those in US will go and hid from when the moment of truth come out when the world stand in one line to stop these guys of missing in humans lives on clime of victory.
Wars tend produce three types of veterans. The first type feels bitter and betrayed and wants to spend the rest of his civilian life refighting the last cause, either because he lost or because he didn’t think he won enough — it doesn’t really matter which. The second type just wants to forget the whole thing, good or bad, and get on with the normal life of home, family, work, community, et cetera. The third type wants to know why it all happened and devotes the rest of his life to finding an explanation in the hope that such an understanding might help him prevent another such tragedy from ever happening again.
John McCain belongs to the first type. I belong to the third type. John Kerry once belonged to the third type, but then he became one of the second type before considering that the job of President might require him to become one of the first type. McCain believes the wrong things for the wrong reasons. I believe the right things for the right reasons. Kerry doesn’t know what to believe.
We veterans have our counterparts in the larger civilian population. By far the largest cohort, or Type 2 Ambivalents, never fought in any wars and would prefer to leave the entire subject of armed national belligerence up to someone else: by default, the Type 1 Orwellian Nationalists who think of nothing except war but who prefer to leave the actual fighting to someone lower down the socio-economic totem pole. The Type 3 Pacifists don’t want anyone to fight in any wars, but their attempts to prevent the ones they clearly see coming usually fail. The Type 1 Orwellian Nationalists usually succeed in starting at least one war in every generation. The Type 2 Ambivalents passively allow this to happen without ever becoming aware — of anything. The Type 3 Pacifists, although they rarely stop wars from starting, do occasionally help bring them to a somewhat earlier conclusion. Naturally, this good deed (or “Syndrome”) never goes unpunished by the Type 1 Orwellian Nationalists while the Type 2 Amibivalents, a.k.a., “The Nation of Sheep,” a.k.a., “The Fate-Driven Herd,” disinterestedly await their next fleecing.
The Type 1 Orwellian Nationalists like Sheriff Dick Cheney and Deputy Dubya Bush have had a good run, thanks to much help from the first type of veteran like John McCain, John Warner, and John Murtha. They enjoyed the usual amount of zero opposition (i.e., hapless acquiescence) from the second type of veteran like John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, and others of that disappearing ilk. Interestingly, John Murtha now seems to have become almost a third type of veteran in that he would like to stop (or at least diminish) the present unnecessary war because it now (as opposed to previously) seems too damaging to the prospects of keeping the army beefed up on pork and so ready for the next needless conflict.
The purging from the national memory of the third type of Vietnam Veteran — me — by the first type of Vietnam Veteran — McCain — allowed the Type 1 Orwellian Nationalists — Cheney and Bush — to do their thing yet again only worse than almost ever before in American history. Now we see once again the newly survived veterans of another needless disaster (those who have managed to make it home) falling out into their predictable categories: with the professional officer corps — generally if not genetically the first type of veteran — lining up with the Type 1 Orwellian Nationalists for another grab at the “long war” brass ring before the merry-go-round breaks down and they lose their last career opportunity forever.
I, of course, identify with and salute the (third veteran type) Iraq War Veterans Against the War; although a new “syndrome” appears already in the making to discredit them. Unfortunately, the (first veteran type) Iraq War Veterans For the War (only somehow done better) will probably join with enough of the Type 1 Orwellian Nationalists and their captive Type 2 Ambivalents to make the aging and blustering John McCain only a pale shadow of his future — and possibly far more dangerous — incarnation. I mean, who could have thought after Vietnam that America would get both George W. Bush AND John McCain: two know-nothing-and-care-less relics of the self-satisfied Baby Boomer generation — the worst of both civilian and ex-military components of that dreadfully dumb demographic.
I don’t know who except the Iraqis “lost” Iraq, but I do know that America has lost itself — again. With nothing much in the way of judgment or competence shaping up as the usual take-it-or-take-it Hobson’s “choice” in a couple of years, I can only hope that (the first veteran type) “More Bombs and More Troops” John McCain never achieves his pathetic grasping after the commander-in-brief’s silly little Napoleonic baton. Neither do I wish to see the Type 2 Ambivalent You-Know-Her ascend to “the top of the greasy pole” (as Disraeli called the summit of political office) because then the Type 1 Orwellian Nationalists and first type of embittered veteran will combine to bully her inexperienced self into bombing Sudanese pharmaceutical plants or the Chinese embassy in Belgrade again — just like they did her Type 2 Ambivalent husband.
Actually, I think I’ve just analyzed myself right into a conviction that unless the third type of veteran and Type 3 Pacifists somehow get the better of the argument (an event rare in human history), that America might sink even lower into the Warfare Welfare and Makework Militarism that have now almost ruined the country beyond hope of recovery. Only immediately doing what we did in the mid-nineteen-seventies can save us from our own schizoid-on-steroids, Lunatic Leviathan government: (1) cut off the money for occupying Iraq, (2) revoke the “Authorization” for occupying Iraq, and (3) punish the perpetrators for occupying Iraq. Senator John McCain and Senator You-Know-Her, for their pusillanimous parts, haven’t got a single useful idea between the “front running” two of them.
Wow, quite a response there Michael. You remind me a bit of a group of Vietnam Vets I used to work with (and learn from) up in Alleganey (sic) County, New York. Independent thinkers there all of them – though I suspect most would not like being put in one category or the other, yet would recognize your point about category switching….
I’m not sure how I see Hagel into Category #2. If he indeed is an “Eisenhower” Republican, then that likely means a LOT. No, not as in the disaster of 1953 (the coup that put the Shah back on the Iranian throne), but the Eisenhower who managed to stand up to the British, French and Israelis over Suez – and didn’t flinch. Or the Eisenhower who warned of the pernicious influence of the “military industrial complex.”
By the way, Juan today reported on the Hagel oped too…. though he did it via a link to an essay over at The Nation.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=143259
Good point about how Hagel appears to be out-flanking the democrats – who seem to be spending much more time lately wailing and screaming about Jimmy Carter’s New Book re. Palestine. Come to think of it, we might also note how very much Carter is in the same tradition as Eisenhower…. :-}
Wow, there’s a cool thought.
Scott,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I realize that no one likes to think of themselves as part of a “type” and yet without some sort of taxonomic strategy for organizing our life’s experiences, we can’t even begin to sort them out into meaningful, much less productive, themes. Just because we place chickens and turkeys in the category of edible fowl, doesn’t mean we can’t tell the difference between the two species of birds. Please allow me to elaborate, especially as this exegesis may concern Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska: an articulate and appealing archetype of artful ambivalence — veteran or otherwise.
Like myself, Senator Hagel served as an enlisted man during America’s War on Vietnam. At that time as now, no one cared what low-ranking types such as us thought about anything. Unlike officers, we never got to “interpret” our orders. We went where they sent us. We did what they told us to do. End of story.
However, Chuck Hagel — like officers McCain, Kerry, and Murtha — functioned before my time “in country” as part of America’s direct substitution of itself in Vietnamese affairs. I, on the other hand — as a language-trained Naval Advisor — had ostensibly the task of “standing up” (in today’s paternalistic patter) the “fallen down” Vietnamese military. This “standing up” or “Vietnamizing” of the Vietnamese in Vietnam had precisely the same obscure objective as does the currently paternalistic American goal (about which more later) of “Iraqifying” the Iraqis in Iraq. And it will “achieve” (if one can use that word) the same “results” (although we will disown these) as do all such doomed post-colonial conceits.
Really. No one can do a wrong thing (like invade and occupy a non-belligerent sovereign country) the “right” (meaning, “correct”) way. Much less can we uninvited invaders teach the traumatized (Vietnamese and) Iraqi people how to better manage those affairs of theirs that we have so mismanaged by mangling them. The American government, so to speak, has once again screwed the pooch at high noon in Central Park after brazenly summoning a crowd to come and watch a poodle-grooming contest. Pure FUBAR and SNAFU: pathetic, pornographic, and plain.
Yet, how to preserve the American regime at home from the deserved fate of the Romanovs? Let us make no mistake by supposing that Vietnam or Iraq have anything to do with this, the very real and far more imminent problem facing those official authors of so many of our problems: namely, their own political survival at the very least. How can Senator Chuck Hagel avoid the fate recently suffered by six of his fellow Senate Republicans? Outflanking the Democrats on their own exposed left (thank you, Senators Clinton and Lieberman), as I believe you properly observed, looks like the only possible course for one such as Hagel who did not forget the lessons of Vietnam so much as he acquiesced (if indeed he even knew any better) in the long labor of the Republican Party to see that no one else in America learned those lessons, either.
As I tried to point out in my categorical analysis, I don’t hold the ambivalent Hagel responsible for fraudulently flogging the scurrilous “Vietnam Syndrome” so much as John McCain who in his lust for command of his very own military mugging machine keeps trying to even embellish the canard further. Still, Hagel supinely went along and loyally toed the Republican Party line while his Maximum Leader disdained and abused those of us more competent critics (veterans and otherwise) of the the obviously impending folly. Chuck Hagel may not have pulled the trigger, so to speak, but he had no trouble helping to load the gun. Now, he claims not to like too much what he already should have seen more than enough of in Vietnam.
I agree in part with your allusion to Eisenhower Reublicans, although Dwight Eisenhower — while privately disparaging the raving Senator McCarthy’s despicable attacks on the patriotism of fellow Americans — still publicly kept his own council even when McCarthy went after one of America’s greatest servants, the man who more than any other promoted Eisenhower and gave him his most prestigious assigments: General of the Army and Secratary of State George C. Marshall. In this regard at least, Republican Chuck Hagel somewhat resembles this outwardly genial Republican Party Man, Dwight David Eisenhower. With the ambient environment changed, though, and with disillusioned American crusaders somewhat frowning upon too much outwardly venal partisanship, Senator Hagel does seem to have become more openly receptive to the putative possibility that something else perhaps might happen in Iraq, if only someone else would step up and tell him what, when, and how.
Anyway, I have already gone on too long with the expository prose and would just like to add a little poetic something in closing. Hence:
“Syndromes of Wisdom”
“You must not invade Mother Russia,” it’s said
In the vast, bitter wintertime cold
Napoleon, though, thought he’d figured a way
So did Hitler, or so we are told.
“Do not get bogged down in an Asian land war,”
So they once taught cadets at West Point
Not that France or America listened, of course
Till their noses got wrenched out of joint
“Do not spit to windward,” the sailors will say
Or you’ll get the snot back in your face
Not that landlubbers heed these instructions so wise
Which accounts for their loss with no trace
“Do not use a puppet to run your affairs”
If you don’t know the nature of string
With two ends, you know, it can pull either way
As the bad puppet chorus will sing
As they train the young dogs not to shit where they live
And the cats not to pee on the rug
So America ought not to jump in the hole
That it has only recently dug
Latrines have their uses, but swimming ain’t one
Not unless you like stinking and slimed
So America ought not to dive in the ditch
Out of which it has only just climbed
We haven’t yet found our way out of this mess
Still, before any learning can start
All the ones who so brazenly lit the last fuse
Seem to fear that we might lose the art
They’ve gone back again to the tried and the trite
Seeking slogans to mask their retreat
In a panic that soon we won’t do this again
“Isolationist!” now they repeat
In the land of the blind rules a king with one eye
Whose perspective is greatly obscured
Like the fabulous realm of the learning impaired
Where the people know only one word
The sunken investments run deep, far, and wide
And to give them up now would be bad
Never mind all those kids with the lost legs and arms
We must not make the stockholders sad
The headstones grow grim in the grass ‘round their graves
As the rows of their ranks slowly fill
While the numbers and dates tell a story of lives
Ended short, not for good but for ill
What remains of their bodies lies buried away
While their souls through eternity fall
Leaving only their memories fading in friends
And their names on a black-granite wall
They bang the drum slowly; they play the horn sad
They preach and console and reprise
Their denials that youth really dies for the old
While the story the statesmen revise
Now furious fear flings more sand in the face
As the trial balloons litter the sky
Once again it’s a “syndrome” to think of the waste,
To remember, and understand why
What kind of a people would coin a cliché
Using “syndrome” to lie and appease
All to cover a wish to make wisdom passé
Just a symptom of one more disease?
Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller,” Copyright 2005