James Wolcott has said a fair number of snotty things about me lately. I won’t link all them because, well, I’m a sensitive guy. [No, you're not. You're just too lazy to look them up.--ed. Okay.] Anyway, before I was so rudely interrupted, I have always been an admirer of Wolcott’s. He’s a witty writer and deserves his lifetime gig at Vanity Fair.
So I wondered why I stuck in his craw so much and at first glance figured it was the apostate thing–no one pisses off the club so much as the member who resigns. Of course, deep down my politics and his may not be so radically different as he thinks they are. I’m assuming we would both like to see a democratic Middle East with equal rights for women and so forth. On domestic social issues, though I haven’t paid that much attention to his views, we may not disagree much, if at all.
I think the differences between us are ones of temperament and, to some extent, economics. I have always been an optimist and, almost always, an interventionist, all the way back to my days in the Civil Rights Movement. I want to fix things. But as professional writer, up until this recent blogging “episode,” I have never written opinion journalism of any sort, only fiction and screenplays. Woolcott has always been a social critic–and a good one. They live off a pessimistic view of society, off snark, in the new parlance.
It is not therefore surprising that James drips his practiced vitriol on those of us who choose to take an optimistic view of the situation in Iraq. I say choose because I readily acknowledge I am deeply uncertain and worried about the results of this enterprise. Of course, Wolcott, I am sure, in his honest moments is unsure as well from his side. No one knows where this will end. Of course, in the greater sense it will never end anyway, but suppose five years from now–hardly a long time as these things go–Iraq is a semi-functioning democracy and the Middle East turning toward peace. What will Wolcott say then? What will I? Again who knows, but I imagine Wolcott will be grinding his teeth if Bush winds up on Mt. Rushmore. I will just be chuckling to myself at the amazing accidents of history, wondering what their contemporaries thought of the previous denizens of the mountain during their lifetimes.
As for that dumb pessimist/optimist dichotomy, I will make an even dumber observation. At least for us humans, planet Earth has been a helluva good place. There are tons more of us now than there were when we started and we have hugely longer life spans. Pessimism may sell in the short run, but, so far at least, it doesn’t make much sense over time.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
79 Comments
1. Pat Curley:If it’s a success Woolcott and others will claim that they actually supported the ouster of Saddam; that their argument was on technical grounds. Doubt it? Look at how many Democrats now claim that they supported the first Iraq war (despite the fact that the vote on it was much closer than the vote for the second Iraq war). Look at how the Democrats and liberal pundits now admit that Afghanistan was an appropriate response to 9-11, never mind how bitterly the anti-war nuts opposed it the time, never mind the warnings about how the Afghans had repelled both the British and Soviet empires, never mind the quagmire and Vietnam comparisons….
Lack of memory is a wonderful thing.
Jan 11, 2005 - 9:32 am 2. Tom Grey - Liberty Dad:Perhaps the biggest change the blogosphere will make is that “professional pessimism” will be seen, accurately, as wrong. Factually wrong.
The pessimists will make a BIG, BAD predition, on the Web, and they will be wrong.
And they won’t be able to hide, or easily forget it. Google will show it — and if THEIR web site edits it, there will be a wayback machine or somewhere else that has it.
Permanance. Simon Walman guesting on Jay Rosen has it:
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/01/07/wldm_perm.html
But this means, increasingly, the pessimists wrongness will be haunting them.
Good. This makes me smile.
A World Without Dictators — that’s where we’re going, and where we should be going, and where we will get to. Despite all the sour grapes of Wolcott being wrong wrong wrong. (And you, Roger, in opposing “fighting for democracy” in Vietnam.)
No dictators. Maybe in my lifetime. Smile.
Jan 11, 2005 - 9:49 am 3. Old Dad:Optimism is the precursor of action. Sometimes foolish optimism leads to foolish action, but that doesn’t necesarrily lead to failure.
I’m reminded of my football days–not quite leather helmets, but a few years back nonetheless. It was always necessary to believe that you could win–regardless of the odds. And sometimes we did win against much better teams. Coaches have an old saw that goes something like this–we didn’t lose, we just ran out of time.
Let’s look at OIF as a football game. The USA is the number one team in the nation with a deep bench and the best talent in the world. Their fans are fickle, though. Iraq has never even cracked the top 25.
The USA took a huge first quarter lead, but then Iraq countered with a stubborn guerrila defense that has caused us problems. We’ve got a comfortable lead, but our fans are growing restless because we haven’t scored the crushing TD that would restore their optimism.
The football analogy breaks down in at least one very important point. The clock can’t run out on OIF. We can only quit. The upshot is that we can’t lose the game unless we quit.
Pessimists would never have lined up for the opening kick off. Optimists will never quit. Will the fickle fans boo us into submission? Not for at least four more years.
Jan 11, 2005 - 10:17 am 4. Kyda Sylvester:What will any of them say? Nothing, they never do. They just lie in wait for the next opportunity to trot out their oppressive pessimism and worn out platitudes, never mind that their dark, dire predictions seldom bear fruit. This is a great country and we have it within us to tackle and solve any problem fate cares to throw at us. We prove it time and time again. Must drive the Woolcotts of the world nuts.
I subscribed to Vanity Fair for many years. I found that I was always finished reading what Woolcott had to say long before he was finished saying it.
Jan 11, 2005 - 10:19 am 5. photoncourier.blogspot.com:It’s not just pessimism; it’s the sneering, the snideness, and the sarcasm, which seem to be the defining characteristics of certain individuals.
Lord Wavell defined sarcasm as “being clever at someone else’s expense” and went on to say that it is always offensive.
Jan 11, 2005 - 10:19 am 6. Tom O'Bedlam:For the record — and ignoring the merits of either side’s position — I have to say this is one of the classiest responses to vitriolic criticism I have ever read. This sort of response is a lot harder to pull off than it may seem in the abstract. Well done.
Jan 11, 2005 - 10:20 am 7. Fausta:Very nice post, Roger, as Tom says, classy. I also agree with Kyda, I found that I was always finished reading what Woolcott had to say long before he was finished saying it
My VF subscription expired last year & I didn’t renew it. Except for Hitchens and Dominic Dunne, all the regulars do is bitch & moan about conservatives, or whatever they think is “conservative”. ‘Nuf of that!
Jan 11, 2005 - 10:40 am 8. ambisinistral:but it will soon become time to recognize the inevitable and blow the whistle on the World War IV he and the neocons have been so determined to wage
Well, the above is provincialism at its most naked. If the US, and the US alone mind you, blows the whistle and calls it quits on the neocons imaginary WWIV then all will be well.
Kashmir, Indoneasia, the southern Phillipines, Central Asia, the Sudan, Northern Nigeria, the ghettos of Europe, all will be well. The sheep and the wolves will frolic with each other.
This war hasn’t even gotten ugly yet, and they all do. Walcott is fiddling while Rome burns, but he does it with a sort of style I suppose.
Jan 11, 2005 - 10:56 am 9. Jeremy Brown:Wolcott is an extremely talented writer but his gift seems to be fueled by contempt, whether justified or not, for other writers. He’s a bit of a razor tongued, foppish vampire in that sense. I enjoy his prose but reading him leaves me feeling slightly soiled. It’s a bit like stealing glances at an attractive woman you know to be a member of a fascist party. Being lashed by his lizard tongue should be taken as a sign that you have done something right.
Jan 11, 2005 - 10:57 am 10. ms anne:i agree on hitchens and dominic dunne–smart, realistic, and elegant writers. like roger.
i enjoyed reading michael crichton’s “state of fear” because of his obvious delight in harpooning the doomsayers and hand-wringers bemoaning global warming. even though his position is not politically correct or in tune with conventional wisdom, he demonstrated that there is more than one side to an issue. wolcott would not agree–in interminable prose. i’m grateful that so far our efforts in afghanistan have helped that country and the women in it.
Jan 11, 2005 - 11:02 am 11. W.J.A:Roger, I think you’re missing the most fascinating thing about James Wolcott’s adorable rottweiler puppy attacks on the legs of various leading lights of the blogosphere. By every measure, Wolcott is an established figure in the white hot center of the mainstream media, as a Vanity Fair columnist for some ten-plus years. This is a man who has one of the most envied megaphones in the New York and national magazine publishing scene. Yet for some reason, he now spends most of his time gnawing away at, say, a law professor from an obscure Tennessee college, a part-time columnist from the Midwest, and a moderately successful (no offense!) mystery novelist from Los Angeles. This reversal of polarity would have been unthinkable even a year or two ago. Used to be, people like you used to pester people like *him*, since your only forum to do so was with over-polished letters to the editor run three months after the fact. So the hysterical viciousness, the hyperactive flavor of Wolcott’s constant attacks on the blogosphere is striking. They are actually little more than the machinations of a man desperately trying to break into a world he knows he’s not a part of, but desperately wants into. Picture a disheveled, middle aged man with a suddenly expired credit card with his forehead pressed against the window of a four star restarant, howling “Let me in! At least LOOK AT ME!” into the night wind, and you probably have a pretty accurate picture of what’s going on in his head, when he writes these things about you.
As to him agreeing with you deep down, I think you’re too generous by half. That Upper West Side *ex cathedra* tone of his indicates an utter lack of disinterest in anything resembling a debate or requiring any thought that cannot be contained in two paragraphs of pop cult snark. Were the coalition to utterly lose control, were Iraq to sink into civil war and tens of thousands killed in a horrific power struggle between Shi’a mullahs and Baathist holdouts, his reaction would likely be nothing but gleeful vindication. If he’s so eager for the blogosphere’s attention (and he is! he is!) perhaps he should challenge one of you to a debate on the issue. I doubt he’d last a few rounds before retreating behind a Britney Spears reference.
Jan 11, 2005 - 11:07 am 12. Kevin P:Roger:
The difference between you and Wolcott is the diffence between people who are proactive and try to accomplish something,knowing that sometimes they will fail, and those who sit back and do nothing and carp at those who act. Their guilt and impotence eat at them so they strike out at those who actually achieve and strive.
For decades the left has railed at the US for supporting dictatorships in the mideast either thru direct support or indifference. President Bush, for better or worse, has taken the challenge of the left and brought more democracy to Afghanistan and soon to Iraq then the UN, the EU, or any American administration has ever achieved. The fact that these governments are flawed or struggling does not erase the fact that they are light years ahead of the previous governments that the the left loved to hold up as examples of the failure of US policy yet they took no actual steps to change them beyond writing impassioned editorials or resolutions that did nothing to change the facts on the ground.
I already posted these lyrics once before but I think they are still the perfect fit for Wolcott and his ilk. From the Holly Williams song “Everybody’s Waiting for a Change”- “Everybody’s waiting for me to fall/ You criticize my walk as I watch you crawl”
Jan 11, 2005 - 11:21 am 13. thibaud:WTF is James Wolcott?
I see lots of references to Vanity Fair, the celebrity dumbsheet that jostles People and the Enquirer for space at my local supermarket checkout counter. Who takes this rag seriously?
Jan 11, 2005 - 11:33 am 14. Katherine:Roger,
ìI’m assuming we would both like to see a democratic Middle East with equal rights for women and so forth.î
Is this the James Wolcott of the ìI root for hurricanesî fame?
If so, then I strongly suspect that you are mistaken in your assumption that you both share a goal of free and democratic ME. People like Wolcott care about one thing and one thing only: themselves. Perhaps on some abstract level he may sort of concede that freedom for other people is a good thing, but this is always a subject to his central drive: whatís in it for me.
As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the freedom of Iraqis for Mr. Wolcott, because should this happen the credit will go to his sworn ideological enemies, the Dread Neo-Cons, led by the Fascist Bush. Since in the eyes of people like Mr. Wolcott the most important task facing the 21st century is not the defeat of terrorism, but crushing influence of the JesusLand on the Republic, the Iraqi people and their welfare rank very low on his scale of priorities. I guess you just cannot make that omelet, etcÖ..
Additionally, I strongly suspect that Mr. Wolcott thinks (if he ever spares them a thought) that Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, and all other inhabitants of ME are ì not readyî for democracy and freedom and prefer to be ruled by a nice bloody dictator ñ at least for next two hundred years or so.
So, in a great schemes of things I believe that you and Mr. Wolcott have very little in common, even if both of you support some ideas such as nationalized health care. You are a caring human. I would not like to say what he is.
Jan 11, 2005 - 12:24 pm 15. Dishman:It seems a few (Wolcott, Coleman) have decided to do battle against blogs and specific bloggers. Unfortunately for them, in doing so they have also designated their ‘turf’ as the battlefield. As best I can tell, they only stand to lose.
“Don’t s*** where you eat.”
Jan 11, 2005 - 12:25 pm 16. Kevin P:Katherine:
Would reactionary idealogue express your feelings about Mr. Wolcot?
Jan 11, 2005 - 12:41 pm 17. Katherine:Thank you, Kevin. This is precisely what I think about him, among other things.
Jan 11, 2005 - 12:53 pm 18. Terrye:As a wise man said to me lately when I asked him about Moore’s recent award: Who cares? I mean rally, how many people even read this joker Wolcott and if they do chances are they are members of the Bush is Hitler fan club and so what do any of us expect?
These folks don’t give a damn about the little brown people in the ME. The other day my brother told me that Bush was making up the whole terrorism issue, that is what right wingers do he said.
I ask him why then did the Clinton people say that they told Bush terrorism was the greatest threat to our national security back in 2000. It goes back to that memory thing. When it works for them…
Guys like my brother and Wolcott need to sort out what they beleive before they start attacking other people.
I will say this, if we can’t win in Iraq then we might as well throw that badge in the dust, get in the buckboard and drive out of town and leave the world to fend for itself. And that means telling the folks at the UN to set up shop elsewhere as well.
Jan 11, 2005 - 1:06 pm 19. Rick Ballard:Pessimism Sells
How is the planning coming for President-elect Kerry’s inauguration?
I would comment on the linked column but I don’t have a firm enough grasp of incoherence to truly discuss it. One might suppose that in some imaginary world this drivel could have import but a world where discourse consists of “Us good – Them bad” fails to interest me.
Pessimism is first cousin to cynicism and neither view has ever produced a leader of substance. Keep up the clarity and honesty, Roger, and let the attack chihuahuas yip in well earned obscurity.
Jan 11, 2005 - 1:32 pm 20. Terrye:Twenty years ago the hot topic was the seemingly endless mayhem in ElSalvador. A full third of the country was in the hands of the insurgency when the elections were held. People were ducking bullets on their way to vote. There were people that said that would never end too.
When was the last time we heard about death squads and communists insurgents in ElSalvador?
Jan 11, 2005 - 1:50 pm 21. truepeers:Well that’s the first time I’ve read this Wolcott, and probably the last. The centralized sneer, what could be more boring now? I was just thinking, or wanting to, that even the Christmas cards from NYC are more boring, with their `look at us in the Big Apple tales’, compared to the equal banal tales from the family who is nowhere special. Even in banality, it is the more marginal, but not righteous, romantic, or resentful, voices I crave. (If Roger were a step closer to LA celebrity…) Interesting authors need to be outsiders; that’s why Wolcott is trying to turn the tables on the blogs, to become an outside critic again, but he’s lacking the skill set or mindset.
If this were his serious objective, and if he were as cynical as he sounds, then he should want this war to get much worse before it gets better, because that’s the card his righteous, wannabe elitist whining can always play. However, even if he is bluffing, I sense he is showing some lack of confidence (or is it genuine concern for those who have to live in the ME?) One senses a fear, not so much that this war is about to get worse (and it probably is, for someone), than fear that if we don’t get out now before the next phase, we cannot be sure of our ability to declare a Bush failure. (And if *that* guy were to show a better grasp of history than us, then our gig is surely up.)
The Sunni-Baathist fascists have not been soundly defeated. Now is crunch time, double up on all bets or get out. It is a tough choice for Americans, with so much of the world, and many of your own, sending out unthankful, righteous cheap shots. I only hope you know some love you and there is no longer anywhere for everyone to safely hide from the resentfully marginal; they must somehow be faced and not left to local dictators, whether heads of state or NYC editors, to fuel the mess.
Jan 11, 2005 - 2:13 pm 22. Terrye:People say that now most American people think the war was a mistake. I dont know if that is true or not. I think people respond in polls based on what they feel at that moment.
But Bush won the election and that tells us that most Americans want to see this through.
And there are Iraqis being killed over there so that they can vote. One would think that people who claim every vote counts would want to stand by the people of the ME that want the same oppurtunities we have.
1300 Iraqis in uniform have died since Septmember, if we abandon these people how many more will die? And would the Wolcotts care or would they just sit back and say smugly, I told you so I told you so don’t forget I told you so. That will be small comfort to the people we run out on.
Jan 11, 2005 - 2:56 pm 23. brandon davis:NOTICE: Fawning compliment follows (part of my New Years resolution, after reading what den Beste had to say about negative comments on the lamented USS Clueless blog).
Roger? Your last paragraph just about nails it. Simple, simply put. And devastatingly brilliant. “At least for us humans, planet Earth has been a helluva good place. There are tons more of us now than there were when we started and we have hugely longer life spans. Pessimism may sell in the short run, but, so far at least, it doesn’t make much sense over time.” Kudos, dude. Maybe I’ll buy a book or three, too (in appreciation, natch).
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:09 pm 24. Ed Poinsett:Roger, I’ve never read this Wolcott fellow or even heard of him until the kerfluffle over the Hurricanes. But for what it’s worth, I’d bet on your five year scenario for Iraq being much closer to the truth than his!
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:09 pm 25. Hitman:I must say, that the art of Damning with faint praise has always been appreciated by me and it is an art. Roger, you are an artist and will hereafter be counted as a true practioner. Kudos, I love it.
Humbly yours….Tom
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:31 pm 26. Catherine:I read Wolcott for years, and always loved his stuff, so he’s been one more name to cross off the list, which is too bad.
I just followed the link to his blog, and I must say: I simply do not understand the Mind of the Elite.
For instance, this:
So we are to understand that James Wolfcott has to go to Daily Kos to find out that ‘one’ Republican Congressman from North Carolina says it’s time to ‘think’ about withdrawing from Iraq?
Where has he been?
The entire ‘Republican elite’ has been thinking out loud about withdrawing from Iraq for months.
Thinking, talking, punditing, op-edding–you name it, they’ve been doing it.
How is it that I am able to know this, and James Wolcott is not?
Meanwhile we’ve been holding the Optimism Debates around here, too.
For my husband, Iraq is a debacle and a catastrophe, period. I don’t know if he’s escalated to ‘tragedy’ yet, as Michael O’Hanlon has done in his latest, but if he hasn’t, he’ll be there soon.
But the 2004 election, I discovered just this week, is not a debacle!
The 2004 election doesn’t tell us anything about anything: Bush won re-election by the smallest margin ever in the history of mankind, and besides, Americans don’t vote Presidents out in the middle of a war. So it was pre-ordained that of course Bush would win.
And that’s it!
No debacle!
Nothing to worry about at all!
No need to consider a ‘mid-course correction’ or two!
When I brought up James Carville’s assessment of the election (debacle), he said, “James Carville is emotional.”
OK, true.
Naturally I said, “So, if you’re willing to think the 2004 election wasn’t bad news for Democrats, why aren’t you willing to think that the outcome in Iraq could be in doubt?”
No dice.
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:50 pm 27. pandaba:In defense of Wolcott, who I enjoy reading even if I don’t always agree with him, his resume doesn’t matter in the blogosphere.
Some of the comments try to portray his attacks on Lileks, Hewitt, and others, as some old media guy beating up on the new kids.
But thats not whats happening at all. The blogosphere is a self-levelling playground. In this universe, Wolcott is the rough equal (in readership and influence) to Lileks who is the equal of Kos who is the equal of Roger, etc. Therefore, for one to attack another, is perfectly legitimate, no matter what their real world resume is. In this world, the resume doesn’t matter. Isn’t that the whole point of the mythical pajamas?
And as far as pessimism goes, I think thats an inevitable reaction to this administration’s make-it-up-as-we-go-along approach. The administration might pull this off. God, I hope they do because defeat in this scenario would be worse than Vietnam.
I understand pessimism is not a self-fulfilling prophecy. If I was a Union partisan in early 1863, I’d think Lincoln was royalling screwing things up. Lincoln largely won due to a single-minded resolve. I hope Bush wins the day with his resolve, because his level of planning is ridiculous.
Jan 11, 2005 - 3:59 pm 28. jrdroll:Has Wolcott “jumped the snark”?
Jan 11, 2005 - 4:09 pm 29. Catherine:I’m completely mystifed by the ‘already lost’ meme.
The Sunnis are—what? 20% of the population?
Which makes the Shiites & the Kurds, backed by the world’s only remaining superpower, 80% of the population . . . and we’ve ‘already lost’?
I’m just about finished with Saxon Math 6/5, but it looks like I’m gonna need Saxon Math 7/6 & Saxon Math 8/7 at least to understand that math.
Pretty good op-ed by David Ignatius today, which you can find on realclearpolitics.
He says the military believes, based in historical experience, that it typically takes 9 years to defeat an insurgency. If that’s the case, I’d say ‘already lost’ is 7 years premature.
He also uses the phrase false pessimism.
Jan 11, 2005 - 4:17 pm 30. richard mcenroe:What will Hurricane Jim and his ilk say in five years? We’ve already heard it:
NANCY PELOSI: *Stare* “We could have pulled that statue down for a lot less money…”
Jan 11, 2005 - 6:57 pm 31. Jamie Irons:OT to Catherine
Good to “see” you here.
Did you get my email about your book?
Jamie Irons
Jan 11, 2005 - 7:03 pm 32. truepeers:“his resume doesn’t matter in the blogosphere.”
I’d be interested in how others see this. I don’t think of Wolcott as old media guy beating on new kids; rather, he’s getting beat. And fighting back, he is willing to play the resume game, from both sides (twice in three days he called Roger the novelist who wears hats. old school.) And isn’t part of the reason for our comments that *we* resent his MSM creds popping into this new space? Not that we’d have so much to say without him or latter day equivalents.
Anyone can put up a blog, but if you care about winning readers, you have to make a claim to authority, credentialled, amateur, popular, or romantic. Wretchard the Cat chooses anonymity, in a name that hints of born-again authority, while everyone knows instapundit is a law prof. Wretchard has unusual skill, so he has readers, while less skilled Juan Cole, if he weren’t a known prof (with media creds), could not have a succesful blog with such pretense to learned insight (maybe lefties need formal creds more?). So different strategies can work, but don’t you still have to play up some authority? And how easy that is does not just depend on what you (don’t) have to say.
Jan 11, 2005 - 7:05 pm 33. RogerA:OK–I am with Thibaud. Who is James Wolcott and why do I not give a damn because I dont recognize the name? Vanity Fair rings a bell–A Dicken’s Novel perhaps? and I also thought until recently that U2 was a spy plane and have only recently discovered it is a rock group. alas.
I am not revelling in old fartdom–I dont know who all the poseurs are in the MSM nor do I care. I checked out after Tony Lewis, Scotty Reston, and the rest of the old NYT crowd retired or settled into their dotage. What has impressed me is the collection of folks I see posting on blogs; and of course, our esteemed host. These blogs are true fora: Wolcott doesnt have to respond to real time criticism; the rest of us in the blogosphere do and I believe it makes a genuine difference in our outlooks.
None of us is privy to what may come, but in my 60 some odd years I have seen the alarmists, the nuclear winter folks, the “day after” folks, the detente as survival folks, and the morass that would be Afghanistan, and all of the rest of that crowd give way to optimists like FDR, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan and, I believe, the current President. The optimists succeed because they shape events rather than react to them; they see the possibilities embodied in RFK’s aphorism about seeing the possibilities and asking, why not.
Would someone tell me again who this Wolcott guy is and why he should be heeded?
Jan 11, 2005 - 7:12 pm 34. ambisinistral:Iraq is not the end game. A win or loss, by either side, is not the end of the war — it is the end of a campaign in the war.
That is the danger of Wolcott and his ilk’s thinking. They cannot wrap their minds around the dimensions of the conflict. They seek a peace that is neither offered, nor there to be had.
Jan 11, 2005 - 7:17 pm 35. max:1. “A Dickens novel, perhaps?” Actually Thackeray, and one of my all-time favorites.
2. Pessimism – related to lack of self-confidence, even cowardice, and also a way of avoiding responsibilty if anything goes wrong. Notice that pessimists rarely ‘do’ anything other than find fault with others. (Again cowardice and avoidance of responsibility.)
3. Tone – what is it with the msm/left these days? Do they think they are making any converts with their constant nastiness/snideness/sarcasm? I sometimes think they would rather commit sepaku (sp?) than be nice to someone who disagrees with them. The stupidity of their malice does surprise me though – they make enemies (in fact insist on doing so) without any gain. For every member of their side who somehow is inspirited by their ugliness, at least 5 people ’sitting on the bench’ shy away from them. And their credibilty (as anything other than a partisan hack) goes to zero)
Jan 11, 2005 - 7:27 pm 36. Terrye:Speaking of poor planning and losing wars and all, wasn’t the US supposed to be out of Bosnia by now and weren’t they supposed to have elections and the lights on and an end to killing years and years ago? It is amazing what Democrats can get away with.
I think the worst thing we can do in Iraq is allow a bunch of mouthy pundits and politicians who have a vested interest in failure decide when and if we lose the war. If they had their way Saddam would be back in Baghdad making deals with Kofi and co.
Why is it all these hot shot jouranlists didn’t see the food for oil scandal coming? Always the last to know.
Jan 11, 2005 - 7:27 pm 37. RogerA:thanks Max: any human being with the middle name of Makepeace is a worthy man!
Jan 11, 2005 - 7:31 pm 38. Steven Mitchell:I find that much of the nature of Wolcott and his ilk was readily explained almost a century ago by G.K. Chesterton. Below is the first part of “On the Negative Spirit from “Heretics.” In “Orthodoxy,” Chesterton went on to explain his view of pessimism and optimism–that a person ought to be fiercly pessimistic about things like mad bombers and equally, fiercly optimistic about the bomber’s soul. Such a person might really be able to hate the sin and love the sinner. Anyway, the partial quote:
“Much has been said, and said truly, of the monkish morbidity, of the hysteria which has often gone with the visions of hermits or nuns. But let us never forget that this visionary religion is, on one sense, necessarily more wholesome than our modern and reasonable morality. It is more wholesome for this reason, that it can contemplate the idea of success or triumph in the hopeless fight towards the ethical ideal, in what Stevenson called, with his usual startling felicity, “the lost fight of virtue.” A modern morality, on the other hand, can only point with absolute conviction to the horrors that follow breaches of law; its only certainty is a certainty of ill. It can only point to imperfection. It has no perfection to point to. But the monk meditating upon Christ or Buddha has in his mind an image of perfect health, a thing of clear colours and clean air. He may contemplate this ideal wholeness and happiness far more than he ought; he may contemplate it to the neglect or exclusion of essential things; he may contemplate it until he has become a dreamer or a driveller; but still it is wholeness and happiness that he is contemplating. He may even go mad; but he is going mad for the love of sanity. But the modern student of ethics, even if he remains sane, remains sane from an insane dread of insanity.”
And let it be noted that Mr. Chesterton’s “heretics” were a great deal more thoughtful and serious men than Mr. Wolcott.
Jan 11, 2005 - 7:34 pm 39. Jamie Irons:ambisinistral (7:17 PM)
You wrote:
That is the danger of Wolcott and his ilk’s thinking. They cannot wrap their minds around the dimensions of the conflict. They seek a peace that is neither offered, nor there to be had.
Superb comment!
Jamie Irons
Jan 11, 2005 - 8:10 pm 40. Jamie Irons:Steven Mitchell
What a wonderful comment and quote. Thank you.
And Terrye
You are lucid and to the point as always.
Jamie Irons
Jan 11, 2005 - 8:17 pm 41. Barry Dauphin:I’m afraid that Walcott appears to have drunk some Dowdian Koolaid. When writers imitate her (by design, consciously or unconsciously), they invariably tell us more about themselves than their subjects. Walcott makes no effort to analyze the situation in Iraq, he’s simply reading the racing form on the punditocrity. He writes as if he believes that cleverly worded sentences must be true or wise ones. His style is inching closer to end days of Truman Capote territory, only without the honesty.
Jan 11, 2005 - 8:58 pm 42. goldsmith:I emailed Wolcott to ask how Dorothy Parker and the gang are doing. He still hasn’t responded. Maybe the Algonquin doesn’t have WiFi.
Jan 11, 2005 - 9:49 pm 43. dick:The column by Mr Woolcott reminds me of the Clinton administration and the gays. They told us all the support they wre going to give the gays, the research they were going to fund on AIDS, the help they were going to provide the nations of Africa on AIDS, the support for gay freedom. What did they do? Nothing. You got the DOMA, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” scenario, the defunding of the AIDS research, the failure to do anything for the nations of Africa for AIDS. In fact they did nothing about Rwanda genocide and then flew at government expense all those people over there for a huge party.
Woolcott is the same thing. He talks the talk and then refuses to walk the walk when the time comes to do something and the adults get to work. Then he sits there and picks away at any scabs you have while you try to fix the problems of the world and tells you that there is no way you can succeed. For some reason the genes that gave us FDR and Harry Truman have died out in the Democratic party and the liberals and when the conservatives pick up the slack and do the job all the LLL can do is bitch and moan about it. F**k ‘em.
Jan 11, 2005 - 9:51 pm 44. Charlie (Colorado):Wolcott’s real problem is penis envy.
Jan 11, 2005 - 10:27 pm 45. DennisThePeasant:James Wolcott is simply another example of the Dowd Principle: A columnist who is commented upon not because of his knowledge, expertise, insights or intellect, but because he writes for what passes as a ‘prestigious’ publication in MSM-dom. And like Maureen Dowd, were he writing about the latest appearance of the fabled Shreve Swamp Monster for the Shreve Daily Movement, he’d blend in seemlessly with the overall quality of that publication.
Beyond the fact that Wolcott looks to Markus Zuniga for the latest in news and politics, it is a well known that he refers to the Earth as ‘Gaia’. Let’s face it, anyone who calls the Earth ‘Gaia’ and is not living on an self-sustaining anarcho-syndicalist organic tofu ranch in Oregon is, by definition, a moron…irrespective of whether they quote ‘KOS’ (although doing so does help).
There is a difference between exquisite writing and exquisite thinking. Just because someone like Wolcott has one does not mean he has the other. The two very often to do not coexist in the same columnist. Andrew Sullivan has proved that. In short, Wolcott is less than the sum of his parts, and if Vanity Fair dropped him tomorrow he’d sink like a stone.
Jan 11, 2005 - 10:31 pm 46. Frederick:It’s been some time now since I last read one of these magazine pieces in the Eustace Tilly tradition. I had forgotten the tone of self-satisfaction and the subtle hint that the reader is overhearing what those at the center of the world talk about. Stuff like Wolcott’s had a good run, but the artifice became a bore a long time ago, and the news for the pre-Galileans is that nobody is at the center of the world. Exquisite writing? More like Nick Coleman at a costume party in top hat and spats, looking like Mr. Peanut.
Jan 12, 2005 - 12:14 am 47. Major John:I don’t think I have ever read a series of comments that has been as thoughtful and well written as these. I have looked in on this blog (introduced to me by an Instalink) many times, but now I find I will have to read the comments on every entry – without fail. Wow.
Jan 12, 2005 - 2:21 am 48. illison:Dick,
I don’t think any of you are actually “doing anything” or “walking the walk,” unless gathering around for a round of hearty backslapping qualifies. But carry on, brave Panglosses, as Americans and Iraqis continue to die for your precious optimism.
Jan 12, 2005 - 6:59 am 49. thibaud:The pessimism of the MSM-Snarker Class parallels the desperation of the Iraqi fascists. Both are rising sharply as Jan. 30 approaches.
In reality, the situation in Iraq today is better by far than it was several months ago. First, and most obviously, the nation is on the threshold of free elections that will produce a legitimate national government– the first such elections in any arab sovereign state in decades. Those elections will in all likelihood be based on popular turnout in the 75%+ range. This is of course an astonishing achievement that was beyond the imagining of anyone contemplating the slaughterhouse that was Iraq a mere two years ago.
Second, while the fascists have increased the sophistication of their attacks, it is clear that they have lost the battle for popular support. Their coalition with Sadr and his rabble is in ruins. Zarqawi is desperate.
What we are now facing is a purely ba’athist rearguard action, directed by all accounts from Saddam’s men ensconced in Damascus and abetted by ba’athists inside of the Allawi regime. While this is of course a formidable threat, it is obviously far less a threat to us than it is to democratic forces within Iraq, and these democratic forces now include Sadr and his followers as well as the vast majority of Iraqis. The contest is not between ethnicities but between well-organized fascist ancien regime elements and a democratic majority that, until now, has been disorganized and deprived of the reins of power. That is about to change.
As always, the MSM/Snarker crowd are playing their favorite game, Move the Goalposts, and it proceeds in four phases: Silence, Denial of Facts, Denial of Facts’ Significance, and then Changing the Subject.
First the Meme du Jour was to ignore Jan 30 and focus on mayhem. Then it became the denial that elections would take place, whose explosion was swiftly followed by the Elections are Illegitimate (Disenfranchising the Sunnis!) Meme. Related to this was the Civil War’s Here meme.
And now that it’s clear that many sunni are determined to vote, and more importantly, that Sistani and Sadr and the Kurdish leaders have adamantly insisted that their followers not take up arms against the ba’athists, the new meme is to change the subject from the inexorable march of Iraqi democracy to Quagmire and All Abu Ghraib All the Time.
The most difficult task for any observer of a complex phenomenon like Iraq is to distinguish signals from noise. A shame that our MSM are determined to drown us in noise and distract us from the clear signal that democracy is coming to Iraq and that the clash now is between Iraqi democrats and Iraqi fascists.
Jan 12, 2005 - 7:34 am 50. thibaud:Utterly bizarre that a democratic movement encompassing many millions of Iraqis and united in its determination to avoid vigilantism and adhere to democratic rule of law is pissed on in this shameful form by the same people who howl continuously about Florida, er, Ohio, er King County, the Patriot Act, and other imagined crimes against democracy.
These fools should be forced to sit down and listen to the Fadhil brothers explain what democracy really means. They and Sistani could teach our idiotarian fascist-worshippers a few lessons.
Jan 12, 2005 - 7:39 am 51. thibaud:Oh, funny that the Vanity of Vanities idiotarian should quote Excitable Boy Sullivan quoting Stratfor. Here’s StrategyPage’s take:
http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM
January 11, 2005: Can the anti-government forces in Iraq win? Some pundits think so. But do you really think the Shia Arabs and Kurds will allow Saddam’s thugs to bully their way back into power? The Kurds and Shia Arabs are 80 percent of the population, they control of the oil, and have American troops to back up their efforts.
Iraqis indicate, to anyone who will listen, that they have no intention of folding under Baath pressure, and a growing desire to come down hard on the Sunni Arabs who support the violence. The Kurds and Shia Arabs have lists of names, because Saddam’s thugs didn’t wear masks when they ran things for three decades. Guess who is going to lose? But that thought is what is driving the resistance. The Baath Party thugs know what they will have to face eventually, if they donít regain control of Iraq.
Jan 12, 2005 - 7:50 am 52. ambisinistral:illison,
Please, tell us again your bedtime story about how the fuzzy-wuzzies in Afghanistan will never be able to hold an election. I need a cold splash of your reality to think clearly again.
Jan 12, 2005 - 7:58 am 53. Rick Ballard:Thibaud,
I wouldn’t toss around a 75% turnout number too blithely. It’s very unlikely to occur but not from fear of the Sunni fascists. The problem lies with the number of criminals that Hussein created. His reign of terror was aided by hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Iraqis who either broke laws or conspired to break laws during his tenure. It is very doubtful that those whom the new government labels “persons of interest” will show up to vote. In a society where amnesty and clemency are very much the exception rather than the rule, staying out of sight makes good sense.
The MSM propagandists have declared a 46.7% turnout by the Palis to be “impressive”. I believe that Iraqi turnout will be around 60% but I’ll bet that the MSM uses the adjective “disappointing” to describe it. A little discussion of VAP, VEP and the number of Iraqis who are actually “persons of interest” would be helpful.
Jan 12, 2005 - 7:59 am 54. thibaud:Illison,
You should be aware that there are those of us here who have seen people close to us killed by the fascists in Iraq. My best friend disappeared from Tikrit in Oct ‘03 and is almost certainly dead.
Given your big talking ways, it sounds as if you’ve invested heavily in a fascist victory. Not a smart bet.
Jan 12, 2005 - 8:00 am 55. richard mcenroe:Illison ó We did our something last November, Sunny Jim; how’d you make out?
Jan 12, 2005 - 8:01 am 56. thibaud:Rick,
I’ll stick with the 75% range. Your point re criminals is well taken but I suspect the Afghan phenomenon– people denied a normal, decent, human life for decades showing their absolute determination to grab at the chance for such a life, as represented by elections– will repeat itself here.
I recall the MSM, esp Krugman, pissing heavily on turnout projections in Afghanistan as well. Funny, but no one predicted the Ukrainians would rise up against their own fascist thugs, either. Come to think of it, I recall my poli sci profs insisting that Poles and other Soviet Bloc nations would never rise up against their totalitarian overlords….
I’ll bet on democracy, thanks.
Jan 12, 2005 - 8:05 am 57. illison:Ambiswhatever – when did i ever say anything about Afghanistan? Your comment is a non sequitur.
Thibaud – I’m sorry for your loss. But don’t you agree that a bunch of keyboard warriors congratulating themselves on how they are “doing something” by whining about Dan Rather and Reuters is a little sickening given that people like your friend are the ones who are actually doing all the heavy lifting? I’m not invested in a fascist victory, but sadly resigned to yet another Bush administration f-up.
Richard – wow, you voted. That’s really impressive – I applaud your brave sacrifice. Crowing about how you voted for policies whose costs will be borne by other people really just proves my point, does it not?
Jan 12, 2005 - 9:10 am 58. Silicon valley Jim:I don’t know whether Zell Miller has ever read anything by Wolcott or even knows who he is, but Wolcott’s writing is definitely the sort of thing Zell has in mind when he talks about dueling preventing certain behaviors from occurring.
Jan 12, 2005 - 9:18 am 59. thibaud:illison,
Thibaud – I’m sorry for your loss. But don’t you agree that a bunch of keyboard warriors congratulating themselves on how they are “doing something” by whining about Dan Rather and Reuters is a little sickening given that people like your friend are the ones who are actually doing all the heavy lifting?
Appreciate your condolences.
However, your “keyboard warriors” slang is cheap and beneath this discussion. Your presumption seems to be that democratic debate and discussion is hugely valuable to the nation when it concerns, say, health care or campaign finance but somehow not valuable at all concerning matters of war and peace. Words matter. Given the fifth column tendencies of Mikey Moore and so many Bush-haters, words matter hugely.
Did you find it “sickening” when liberal western citizens considered themselves to have “done something” positive when they sat down to their keyboards and attacked western isolationists who opposed our unilateral intervention in the balkan wars? If not, then why the switcheroo?
I would add that so long as you’re going to make moral distinctions between different social groups, you might note that it’s the warrior class that, among all US demographic entities, is most solidly in favor of the war.
Which doesn’t prove much of anything besides my point that your attacks on people for serving or not serving are irrelevant at best.
I’m not invested in a fascist victory, but sadly resigned to yet another Bush administration f-up
Sorry to disappoint you, but if you could get over your US-centrism and pay closer attention to what’s actually happening inside Iraqi society you’d see that it’s Iraqi fascists vs Iraqi democrats now. US forces will be play a part, but by no means the central part, in this drama. Believe it or not, the world does not revolve around your or my feelings toward the Bush administration.
Jan 12, 2005 - 9:56 am 60. jdm:So, Illision, if ambisinistral’s comment about Afghanistan and you is a non-sequitor because you never said anything about it, so is yours to thibaud as the only comments in this thread about Reuters or Dan Rather all point to you.
As to your chickenhawk aside about sacrifice, what do you do that lets you sit in judgement?
Jan 12, 2005 - 10:05 am 61. Terrye:illison:
I have had relatives fighting in Iraq just like I have had relatives fighting in other wars. It is something we have always done.
I don’t pretend to be a warrior, but while we are on the subject of keyboard warriors, what about he keyboard humanitarians who seem to be rooting for terrorists who kill and maim civilians for the sheer nasty fun of it?
Saddam used to harden his fadayeen by starving dogs and then having his men feed old people and children to them. They were also instructed read such secular works as Mein Kampf and told to learn from them.
So it seems that when the socalled human rights people are forced to pick a side the pick the decapitatijng fascists rather than the folks risking life and limb to vote.
You are a hypocrite and as such are in no position to pass judgment on me or anyone else here.
BTW my uncle was badly wounded in WW2, he survived but was missing for some time. My grandmother got one of those telegrams and as for uncle Robert, he spent every waking moment of the rest of his life in pain. He helped liberate Europe, but when my Grandmother got that telegram the words that sprang to her mind were not, oh well it was worth it. The words were God my God please send my baby back home to me.
Countless other mothers have said the same thing and some of those mothers are Iraqis and their sons are trying to build a country that would never exist if left to self righteous keyboard humanitarians like you.
Jan 12, 2005 - 11:13 am 62. ambisinistral:illison,
Yes, my sarcasm was a non sequitur. I assume you imagine your sarcastic insinuation about “walking the walk” was not a non sequitur?
How convenient.
Jan 12, 2005 - 12:24 pm 63. illison:Ambidasdfasdf – if you recall, my original comment was in response to dick’s remark that Woolcott fails to “walk the walk.” Thus it was not a non sequitur, convenient or otherwise.
Terrye – any keyboard humanitarians who are rooting for the terrorists are despicable. You assert a false equivalence between everyone who thinks the war was a bad idea and those who think the Zarqawi crowd are freedom fighters. There seems to be a willful blindness among many of the pro-war crowd to acknowledge that one can take the position that the war was a bad idea, expect that it will turn out badly, but nonetheless hope against hope that it somehow turns out well. I concede that a democratic Iraq would never exist if left to “keyboard humanitarians” like me. But it wasn’t left to me – it was left to the Bush administration, and they’ve been doing an awful job of bringing it about. Strangely, few on this board seem too concerned about that. That’s what’s doing violence to democratic debate.
My comment about keyboard warriors was a reference to sneering triumphalists, of which there are plenty on this comment board, who somehow think they’re actually contributing to the war effort by slamming the “MSM” Michael Moore. Finally, it’s not Iraqi fascists v. Iraqi democrats, and what’s with the future tense? US forces are, right now, still doing the bulk of the fighting, no matter how many times Bush has Allawi over to the White House. And the Pentagon is estimating a significant US presence for the next ten years at least.
Jdm – are you kidding? Count how many times the “MSM” is referred to on this board. Such an obtuse comment merits no further response.
Jan 12, 2005 - 12:51 pm 64. ambisinistral:illison,
The you agree you have no idea if any of us are “walking the walk”, or “keyboard warriors”, or what ever other cute derogatory remark you care to use. That’s big of you.
By the way, as to your whole description of how the Iraq war is going, and where it will ultimately lead — is that not you opinion? Perhaps you read the situation incorrectly and another view is closer to the truth?
That is of course why I made the Afghanistan crack. Since the connection escaped you I’ll spell it out… many people who currently hold your view about Iraq held the view that Afghanistan was likewise an unwinnable quagmire, and democracy there was too nonsensical even to consider. They were wrong and the optimists were right.
Jan 12, 2005 - 1:08 pm 65. Terrye:illison:
I am well aware that there a decent people who will always oppose war, but not all of them assume the people who disagree with them are uncaring and unfeeling to the tragedy and pain on conflict. I am tired of getting lectures in morality from the Saddam Hussein fan club.
The topic is Wolcott and the way he treats other people in print. He is nasty.
As far as Bush doing an awful job of bringing democracy about, I think that considering the difficulty of the task and the lack of support from the socalled loyal opposition he has done a better job than most of the people bitching about him.
After all when was the last time you brought democracy to a traumatized, pillaged, terrorized, Muslim nation?
Is there a book out there entitled Liberation for Dummies that the rest of us are unaware of?
Jan 12, 2005 - 1:09 pm 66. Katherine:Terrye,
Liberation for Dummies?!Ö.
Brava!
Jan 12, 2005 - 2:18 pm 67. Charles Foster Kane:The way I understand it, the topic is optimism in the form of Mr. Simon versus pessimism in the form of Mr. Wolcott, not Mr. Wolcott’s nastiness per se.
And since we are venturing off topic, have any of you ever wondered if democracy is an appropriate fit for a “traumatized, pillaged, terrorized, Muslim nation”? What if we build the world’s greatest democracy and the Iraqis say no thanks and elect candidates supporting a theocracy and in five years Iraq looks more like Iran? Do we go back in and bust heads again? I’m not optimistic.
If it takes nine years to defeat an insurgency and we’re two years in, that leaves seven years to get this cleared up. Sounds about right, except no one expected an insurgency. In fact, this was supposed to be short and sweet. Based on the administration’s past performance, how can you be anything but pessmistic?
It is too bad there isn’t a book “Liberation for Dummies” because it is pretty obvious this administration is in way over their heads.
Jan 12, 2005 - 7:26 pm 68. richard mcenroe:Illison ó Do you have any idea how many people on this board have served in the military, or marched for civil rights back when that was a blood sport? Walk the walk? We’ve been there, done that and put the T-shirt up on E-Bay. If you’re going to pretend you’re engaging in a dialogue here, you should at least pay attention to the people you’re talking to.
And by the way, I didn’t just vote, I won. Deal with it.
Charles Foster Kane ó The reason there is no “Liberation for Dummies” is because it’s never been done before. The reasons it hasn’t been done before are 1) Europe couldn’t be bothered as it divested itself of its unholdable empires (”Hey, you! The bloke by the flagpole! You’re in charge! We’re outta here.”) and 2) the condescending, thinly veiled racism that wonders if democracy is “an appropriate fit” for the hapless fuzzy-wuzzies.
It wasn’t supposed to be possible in Afghanistan. It happened. It will happen in Iraq. And if they elect to follow policies and course of which we do not approve, or that place us at odds, then we will deal with, as one sovereign and free people dealing with another.
Jan 12, 2005 - 7:57 pm 69. richard mcenroe:Terrye ó Much of the New York literary circle has always been underpinned by this nasty streak. Although it was a bit before my time, I understand the Algonquin Round Table was actually a pretty poisonous place as your Benchleys and Parkers et al sat around fulminating on their next bon mot…
Jan 12, 2005 - 7:59 pm 70. Charles Foster Kane:Richard Mcenroe:
If you are accusing me of “thinly veiled racism” I suggest you look elsewhere. Democracy being an “appropriate fit” has nothing to do with race or haplessness. Given that Iraq is fractured along religious and ethnic lines, each with a long history (and memory), expecting Iraqis to put aside those differences to participate in a democracy where one of those groups can so easily dominate the others seems like misguided optimism.
At some point it might be useful to actually define what people are talking about when they use the word “democracy”–are we really talking about a constitutional republic like the United States?
No country has ever been liberated, whether from an “unholdable empire” or from under the yoke of a brutal dictator and become a functioning democracy? India immediately comes to mind.
Your assertion that “if they elect to follow policies and course of which we do not approve, or that place us at odds, then we will deal with, as one sovereign and free people dealing with another” is laughable. Perhaps we should break out “Regime Change for Dummies” and turn to the Chile 1973 chapter or the Iran 1953 chapter.
I’m reminded of Will Cuppy’s essay on Pericles in The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody, in which he wrote: ìPericles was the greatest statesman of ancient Greece. He ruled Athens for more than 30 years in its most glorious period, 461-429 B.C. Or rather history says the people ruled it, for Athens was a democracy. At least thatís what Pericles said it was. Only he told everybody what to do.î
America will be playing Pericles to Iraq and Afghanistan for many many years.
Jan 12, 2005 - 11:10 pm 71. PW:America will be playing Pericles to Iraq and Afghanistan for many many years.
If only the Pericles role could instead be filled by Saddam and the Taliban or some other well-meaning dictators who are more of an “appropriate fit”, Iraq and Afghanistan would be so much better off, right? Your long-winded protestations notwithstanding, Richard managed to cut straight to the heart of your argument, even if you yourself don’t quite seem aware (or perhaps in denial) of what you were advocating.
If that’s not what you had in mind, perhaps you could offer your alternative vision for what constitutes an “appropriate fit”. Merely carping “Democracy? That’ll never work!” from the sidelines won’t get you taken too seriously around here, because that particular empty argument has been made by unserious people six ways from Sunday already. If you’d like to tell us something new, go ahead; otherwise, perhaps you’ll want to think through your position some more.
Jan 13, 2005 - 2:52 am 72. Charles Foster Kane:I suggest that “democracy” might not be an appropiate fit and suddenly I’m wishing and hoping for the return of Saddam and the Taliban. Makes perfect sense, because if I don’t believe that what the United States is doing is absolutely right I must be a Saddam loving leftist who cheers when the terrorists kill people. We’ll just let that fallacy wither and die on its own. The point is that how much of a “democracy” will Iraq be if the United States continues to call the shots militarily and, to a smaller, degree, politically?
You completely ignore the idea that we all might be better served if people outlined what “democracy” in Iraq might look like so that we can avoid misunderstanding one another. Simply holding elections makes a democracy? Is that what your argument is? Is it a democracy if parts of Iraq can’t vote in the elections? If you mean democracy in the sense that whoever receives the most votes wins, no, it probably won’t work in Iraq because of the unequal numbers of Kurds, Sunnis, Shi’ites, etc.
Are you talking about having proportional representation, with the leader of Iraq then chosen by a parliament in which parties build coalitions? Or something more like here in the United States? In your Iraqi “democracy”, whatever form that takes, it seems pretty clear that each party/ethnic/religious group is going to seek to have protections for their interests built into the government, most likely in the form of guaranteed representation. Is that a democracy?
So before you start asking for alternatives, why don’t you start by stopping your simplistic chant of “Democracy! Democracy!” as if saying it often enough will make it so and explain what your vision of “democracy” entails. Then we can have a serious discussion of Iraq’s future.
As for now, I will continue to be pessimistic about our work in Iraq but will be very very pleased if Iraq has a functioning political system that can hold together a diverse population united in rebuilding Iraq. Those two views are not mutually exclusive.
Jan 13, 2005 - 7:17 am 73. illison:Ambis… – Again with the straw men and weasel words: “many people” is a prime example. Try to come up with something a little more concrete – and just screaming “Michael Moore” won’t cut it. Perhaps I am wrong about Iraq, I hope that I am. The irksome thing is that Roger and you and Terrye don’t seem to even consider the possiblity that YOU could be wrong.
Mcenroe – your comment is adolescent taunting and no substance. I don’t care if you marched in the 60’s. It’s completely irrelevant to whether cheerleading for Bush counts as “walking the walk,” and it doesn’t get you a free pass. And since you seem to think you have won the election, can you give us a preview of your inaugural speech? The team-sport mentality your comments repeatedly display is precisely the problem. All this crowing about Afghanistan seems bit premature – “who cares if it’s a lawless backwater, as long as they held one election!”
Charles and PW – the most amusing irony is that the folks around here who cling to “optimism” in the face of reality seem to already have forgotten about another ideological program that was sweetness and light in theory but came up awfully short in practice, with disastrous consequences for the people whose lives were supposed to be made better.
Jan 13, 2005 - 7:42 am 74. JK Ribera:Illison wrote:
“The irksome thing is that Roger and you and Terrye don’t seem to even consider the possiblity that YOU could be wrong.”
Roger wrote in this very post:
“I readily acknowledge I am deeply uncertain and worried about the results of this enterprise.”
Oh, well… We’re not all high on reading comprehension.
Jan 13, 2005 - 8:19 am 75. thibaud:Citizen Kane,
You completely ignore the idea that we all might be better served if people outlined what “democracy” in Iraq might look like so that we can avoid misunderstanding one another.
You’re blissfully ignorant of the existing Iraqi democracy that has already been functioning, and functioning superbly, for over a decade, in Kurdish Iraq. Under the protection of US and UK warplanes– not ground troops– the Kurds created a succesful parliament (including female representatives), competing political parties, a free newsmedia, independent courts, and a reasonably thriving economy. The latter was based mainly on smuggling, but Iraq’s democratic regime will of course have the great stimulus of oil wealth for its burgeoning consumer economy.
Also, perhaps you’ve never been to the United Kingdom or Canada but if you ever do set foot outside the good ol’ US of A, the good folks in those parts will teach you about the notion of federalism. Are you aware that the Scots have their own parliament, with if I’m not mistaken their own taxing authority? Why can’t the Kurds’ existing, well-functioning democratic institutions be granted a similar degree of autonomy within the greater Iraqi democratic union? The Kurds are cooperating completely with Sistani and the shi’a and are participating in the democratic elections as normal and responsible competitors in the political marketplace of the new Iraq. This isn’t “optimism,” this is fact.
Is it a democracy if parts of Iraq can’t vote in the elections?
So El Salvador’s turn to democracy over a decade ago was not valid, eh? What level of turnout triggers your approval– 70%? 60%? Again, the fact remains that Iraq’s turnout will exceed by a comfortable margin the turnout achieved in the Palestinian elections. Why in your universe are the latter valid and the former not?
Are you talking about having proportional representation, with the leader of Iraq then chosen by a parliament in which parties build coalitions?
Why are you badgering people here with factual queries that you can easily resolve with a little googling? The elections will return party lists to a constituent assembly and interim government. THe more votes for each list, the more of that list’s members gain seats. This is consistent with European proportional democratic systems.
In your Iraqi “democracy”, whatever form that takes,…
Your cute attempt at irony embarrasses only yourself. The Iraqi Kurds have a functioning democracy, remember? This is fact.
… it seems pretty clear that each party/ethnic/religious group is going to seek to have protections for their interests built into the government, most likely in the form of guaranteed representation. Is that a democracy?
There’s a nice heads-I-win pseudo argument.
No guaranteed representation for the sunni? The sunnis are disenfranchised!!
Guaranteed representation? It’s not democratic!!
Yes, Virginia, democratics in complex polities often have a mix of democratic and proportional and republican elements. Perhaps you’ve heard of that non-democratic apportionment of power enshrined in the senate of the United States? Yes? That’s better, now you’re learning.
illison,
I’m still awaiting an answer to my question,
Did you find it “sickening” when liberal western citizens considered themselves to have “done something” positive when they sat down to their keyboards and attacked western isolationists who opposed our unilateral intervention in the balkan wars? If not, then why the switcheroo?
To your other points, I too am disgusted by the dismissal by the president’s men of the planning work done by State. I don’t think it’s unfair to accuse the administration of failing to anticipate the ba’athists’ adoption of the tried and true arab strategy of Lebanese-style terror-cum-guerrilla war with Syrian support. This was a serious mistake, and I agree that the optimism of Wolfowitz et al. was seriously misplaced.
You could argue that Wolfowitz should have known better– he did a brilliant job of pushing the Reagan admin to drop Marcos in the Philippines in 1985 in the right way and with excellent timing, neither too fast nor too slow. Same for urging the US to push the Soviets toward collapse and unilateral surrender of their empire– against the wishes of the Kissingerians. Perhaps his earlier successes blinded Wolfowitz to the difficulties of defeating a fascist dictatorship that had destroyed much of the non-Kurdish Iraqis’ ability and willingness to suppress the fascists militarily.
But it does not follow that defeating fascism in Iraq is or was the wrong strategy. You may recall that it was Clinton, for whom I voted twice, who orginated this policy. Clinton urged the nation not to permit Saddam to rebuild his “devastating arsenal” and therefore made war against Saddam in 1998, simultaneously pushing Congress to legislate that “regime change in Iraq is the official policy of the United States.” Clinton said then and has never retreated from his assertion that our best intelligence estimates indicated Saddam would get WMD and that, as Clinton put it to the nation in 1998, “if he gets [WMD] I guarantee you he will use them.”
So in fact the only daylight between the Clinton and Bush administrations here is that Bush actually made good on Clinton’s pledge– signed into law– to overthrow Saddam. One can disagree with the planning for the postwar, but the notion that defeating fascism was a purely neocon fantasy is bogus. It was and is not fantasy, and this sensible goal was Clinton’s goal as well. To argue otherwise is to join the isolationists and bogus “realpolitikers” such as the Saudis’ favorite DC pitchmen/lobbyists, Scowcroft and Baker.
Perfectly respectable company on K Street, mind you, but they represent a failed mideast policy that does not address the realities of the region in this century.
regards,
thibaud
Jan 13, 2005 - 9:38 am 76. PW:Charles and PW – the most amusing irony is that the folks around here who cling to “optimism” in the face of reality seem to already have forgotten about another ideological program that was sweetness and light in theory but came up awfully short in practice, with disastrous consequences for the people whose lives were supposed to be made better.
Wow, one really needs to be a reactionary miscreant to seriously attempt to make a case of equivalence between communism and democracy, despite the former’s near-universal failing, and the latter’s respectable and centuries-spanning track record. Do you honestly believe that nonsense you wrote there or are you just trolling for attention by being as outrageous and over-the-top as possible? I’m wondering, seriously.
Trust me, I haven’t forgotten about communism. I happened to get to experience it first-hand, and I’ll take democracy over it and any other totalitarian system any day, no matter the imperfections that any democratic system will obviously have. Apparently, you’re more into the notion of “stability” that already worked so well for Kerry and the Democrats two months ago.
Jan 13, 2005 - 9:55 am 77. illison:Actually, JK, Simon’s biolerplate disclaimer is hardly a serious attempt to consider that he might be wrong. He can easily imagine Bush on Mount Rushmore, but there are no such detailed imaginings of a long civil war in Iraq. Good try, though.
Thibaud – Your question doesn’t seem very relevant, since my position on the war in the Balkans vis a vis it’s opposition seems to have little to do with the current situation. Suffice to say I don’t remember a rah-rah chorus of near the smugness or volume we’re currently seeing, so I probably didn’t have occasion to comment on it. But yes, I think I would have questioned whether people who chatter in an echo chamber of mutual agreement were really doing something positive. And I continue to be mystified by your repeated references to Bill Clinton, whom nobody else has even mentioned. Note that Bush, prior to the invasion, had a bit more relevant information than Clinton had at the time the ILA was passed – namely the inspectors were starting to doubt the existence of WMD in Iraq leading up to the invasion, but Bush didn’t want to hear that so he demanded their withdrawal. Remember that the WMD, not a grand plan to export democract, was presented as the main (though not the only) reason to invade.
PW – name-calling and triumphalism about the November elections are not worth responding to.
Jan 13, 2005 - 11:37 am 78. ambisinistral:Ambis… – Again with the straw men and weasel words: “many people” is a prime example. Try to come up with something a little more concrete – and just screaming “Michael Moore” won’t cut it. Perhaps I am wrong about Iraq, I hope that I am. The irksome thing is that Roger and you and Terrye don’t seem to even consider the possiblity that YOU could be wrong.
illison,
You are now being completely dishonest in your argument. You protest over straw men and then chastise me for mentioning Michael Moore. Perhaps you could point out where I mentioned Michael Moore?
For all your protestations you have not even bothered to try to engage in a discussion. All you have done, from one post to another, is inform us what you imagine we believe and then belittle us for opinions we don’t actually hold.
To be blunt — you’re a lightweight and a joke.
Jan 13, 2005 - 11:52 am 79. illison:Ambimoronic,
Did I say you said anything about Michael Moore? Nope. I merely suggested that you and “your ilk” tend to equate everyone who disagrees with you with Moore.
As for engaging in a substantive discussion, I have repeatedly tried to get pro-war folks on this board to ponder what will happen if Iraq fails to flourish into a Jeffersonian democracy. Some, like Terrye, have made an attempt (if somewhat half-assed) to address the arguments. Others, like you, resort to sneering and insults from the outset, presumably because your vision of the world as a giant game of Risk cannot be defended on the merits.
To be blunt – you’re an arrested adolescent and a mindless repeater of cant.
Jan 13, 2005 - 3:36 pm