The leftwing blogosphere has found its next star. He is an articulate champion of a modern leftist sensibility:
• He says that the war in Iraq has failed to produce democracy and has only created “civil war” that is “getting out of [Bush’s] control.”
• He calls the war in Iraq “unjust” and says it was launched based “on deception and blatant lies.”
• He says that the war has made a mockery of our “slogans of justice, liberty, equality, and humanitarianism”—instead replacing them with “fear, destruction, killing, hunger, and illness.” He goes on to say that “more than 650,000 of the people of Iraq” have died “as a result of the war and its repercussions.”
• He says that the “vast majority” of the American public wants the war to stop and “elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven’t made a move worth mentioning,” leading to the “vast majority” of the American electorate “being afflicted with disappointment.”
• Why haven’t the Democrats done what they were supposed to? He has an explanation: “they are the same reasons that led to the failure of former President Kennedy to stop the Vietnam War. Those with real power and influence are those with the most capital. And since the democratic system permits major corporations to back candidates, be they presidential or congressional, there shouldn’t be any cause for astonishment—and there isn’t any—in the Democrats’ failure to stop the war.”
• He bemoans that the White House is focused on Iraq rather than on the real dangers facing all mankind, such as “global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations,” “the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes, and real estate mortgages,” and of course “the abject poverty and tragic hunger in Africa.”
• He is particularly peeved that President Bush “insists on not observing the Kyoto accord.”
• He decries the entire process of “globalization,” which he sees as nothing more than the attempts of “the capitalist system . . . to turn the entire world into a fiefdom of the major corporations.”
• He cites the growing consensus of thinkers who “have declared the approach of the collapse of the American Empire.”
• And he recommends that anyone who wants to know what’s really going on in the world read the works of MIT professor Noam Chomsky and former CIA official Michael Scheuer.
The only area in which this bold thinker seems to differ from modern Western leftist orthodoxy is in his prescription for all these ills: “To conclude, I invite you to embrace Islam, for the greatest mistake one can make in this world and one which is uncorrectable is to die while not surrendering to Allah, the Most High, in all aspects of one’s life—i.e., to die outside of Islam.”
So perhaps Osama bin Laden won’t be blogging for DailyKos anytime soon. After all, hardcore leftists don’t look kindly on fundamentalist religion (though they tend to be more suspicious of Baptist preachers than of Muslim terrorist leaders). But the overlap between bin Laden’s world view (at least as it’s expressed in his most recent videotape) and that of many Western leftists is uncanny. This does not mean, I should stress, that leftists support al Qaeda. It does seem to mean, however, that bin Laden is trying to rally the “antiwar” crowd to his side in language they understand.
The Occam’s Razor explanation is that, like the North Vietnamese Communists during the 1960’s, he is attempting to manipulate public opinion among his enemies, and that he is good at doing so because his ideology is not that of traditional Islam, but rather a weird amalgam of Islamic teaching and modern totalitarian ideologies. That is, he probably believes the rants he spews out.
Of course, conspiracy theorists will posit that this all just a big ruse, and that precisely because bin Laden is posing as a man of the Left, this is a transparent attempt to discredit the Left and thereby to keep in power Bush, Cheney, et al., who are supposedly doing so much good for bin Laden’s cause. No doubt the works of bin Laden’s favorite American commentators will provide chapter and verse for this argument.
you supported the iraq war. you are the joke, not this guy.
i cannot believe max boot feels compelled to read – let alone refute – bob herbert…
…there are serious critics of america’s defense postures and strategies…but bob herbert…?
there are no ‘shifting rationales’ – because the man has no coherent ‘worldview’ regarding the role of force projection in protecting america’s citizens and interests….you have to have a rationale to shift!…
what boot leaves out (by accident or design) is that there is someone who publicly declared pakistan a potential threat and a threat that may, indeed, justify military intervention…
that someone is president-elect barack obama…
i look forward to herbert’s crolumn on the bushification of barack
“Nor does he consider what the impact of an American defeat in Afghanistan would be”
We lost the 1st war in Afghanistan. Looking honestly at seven years of America efforts today, let’s say we lost Phase 1 because we didn’t win phase 1. So let’s make a decision to begin Phase 2 with a winning plan and execute that plan,or let’s concede that outside forces don’t prevail in Afghanistan,and like the Soviets,with their much larger efforts,let’s pack up.
Many of us have seen this shift coming. It takes no particular insight to see the Dem’s (and Obama’s) professed passion for the “right” war in Afghanistan as a charade manufactured to provide “wimp repellent” to cover a “cut and run” strategy in Iraq. Once Iraq is no longer the focus (ironically, but irrelevantly, because we have won the war), Afghanistan will become the “quagmire” and the “unwinnable and unjust war” to support a “corrupt and undemocratic” regime whose continuation is not worth a single one of “our children’s” lives. The only real uncertainty is how quickly the shift will come and what specific arguments will be used to make a blatant reversal of policy look like a natural and appropriate correction of the “lies and mistakes” of the Bush administration. Herbert is the bell-ringer for an army of “lesters.”
#4 “—Once Iraq is no longer the focus (ironically, but irrelevantly, because we have won the war),—”
Take a good look at the SOFA,and then convince me that we won. It looks like a loser to me.
“you supported the iraq war. you are the joke, not this guy.”
Way to miss the point.
Besides, over half of the Senate democrats and about 40% of House democrats supported the war as well. At least they did before they didn’t anyway, to use John Kerry’s logic. Perhaps Max isn’t the only “joke”.
Gee, the people who gave us Bernie Madoff now want to tell us that their lovely little war in Iraq was a success. I’ll give you this much: Shamelessness becomes you.
While it is not my policy to feed the trolls, I am curious to know what, in the holy name of St. Lucy, Bernie Madoff has to do with the “lovely little war in Iraq.”
I see the pseudo-pacifists are on an irredentist bender. Whatever. Yes, the Iraq war is won. It is won by the standards put forward by the Bushies and by the hated Neo-Cons. It is even won by the standards of the Leftwing moron platoon. But to hell with them one and all. Herbert is, as someone observed, an absurdist figure. Anyone relying on him for anything is a lost cause as are the trolls who will end their days, far in the future, yet cursing the name of George W Bush.
#9
Mega,read what a true blue neo-con says about SOFA. Diana West says,
“Officially, the pact is titled “Agreement between the United States and the Republic of Iraq on the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities During Their Temporary Presence in Iraq,” but I guess AUSRIWUSFIOTATTPI is a hard sell.
Actually, the whole thing is a hard sell, or surely would be if Americans really knew that in the interest of a treaty, the Bush administration has gone so far as to trade away, among other things, some of our troops’ constitutional rights.
Media focus has narrowed mainly on a few points, including: Article 24, Paragraph 1, which stipulates a withdrawal date for all U.S. forces from Iraq of no later than Dec. 31, 2011; and Article 12, Paragraph 2, which states that “Iraq shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over United States contractors and United States contractor employees.” This means, of course, that as of Jan. 1, 2009, when the agreement goes into effect, all U.S. contractors will be under Iraqi law 24/7, just as though they were tourists vacationing in a foreign country rather than employees of the U.S. government working in a war zone.
But there’s so much more to be sick about in this 18-page document, which I only recently found in its entirety online via one of the closer analyses out there by Chris Weigant writing at Huffington Post. (Contrary to my conclusions, Weigant thinks the agreement bodes “a pretty good outcome, all things considered.”)
Weigant begins his analysis with Article 4 (“Missions”), aptly noting that “Iraq gets veto power over American operations.” But that’s putting it mildly. Paragraph 2 reads: “All such military operations … shall be conducted with the agreement of the Government of Iraq … shall be fully coordinated with Iraqi authorities.” Paragraph 3 reads: “All such operations shall be conducted with full respect for the Iraqi Constitution and the laws of Iraq….” And there’s more: “It is the duty of the United States Forces to respect the laws, customs and traditions of Iraq….”
What’s up with that? This is the neither the first nor the last time in this agreement that the “laws, customs and traditions” of Iraq are declared “the duty” of Americans in Iraq to “respect.” For example, Article 3 also declares: “While conducting military operations … it is the duty of members of the United States Forces and of the civilian component to respect Iraqi laws, customs, traditions, and conventions” and “it is the duty of the United States to take all necessary measures for this purpose.”
Has such a “duty” ever been written into a U.S. treaty with another country? Is it even constitutional? I doubt it. After all, the “duty” of United States Forces anywhere is to the U.S. Constitution alone, not to the laws of another country. Given that Iraq’s constitution above all enshrines Sharia (Islamic law), this would also seem to mean that it is now “the duty” of U.S. troops and other Americans in Iraq to “respect” Sharia as well.
This isn’t just grotesque, it poses a colossal moral and strategic problem if and when Iraqis deem American actions in Iraq to clash with the strictures of Iraqi law. Combined with the huge concessions our government has made regarding legal jurisdiction over Americans in Iraq, this new American “duty” to Iraq is at least humiliating if not also potentially disastrous.
The jurisdiction article (Article 12) opens by repeating this same troubling stipulation: namely, that it is “the duty of the members of the United States Forces and the civilian component to respect Iraqi laws, customs, traditions and conventions,” which, of course, include Sharia. It goes on to place U.S. contractors and their employees wholly under Iraqi legal jurisdiction, and to place “United States Forces” and “the civilian component” under Iraqi legal jurisdiction should they commit “grave premeditated felonies” off base and off duty.
The predicament of U.S. contractors aside, it appears that the U.S. government has surrendered key constitutional rights of our fighting men and women. Now, it’s bad enough to read, for example, in Article 5 (“Property Ownership”) that the Bush administration has agreed to transfer to the Iraqi government everything “connected to the soil” that the United States has built — bases, buildings, facilities of all sorts — for free. Or, even more significantly, in Article 27, Paragraph 3, that “Iraqi land, sea and air shall not be used as a launching or transit point for attacks against other countries.” After all, U.S. bases in Iraq for just such potential actions against Iran or Syria were once ballyhooed as a strategic rationale for our prolonged presence in Iraq. But what about this new “duty” of American troops to “respect” the laws of Iraq, and even, in some circumstances, to be subject to them?
It all starts New Year’s Day.”
“Yes, the Iraq War is won.”
4
materialist Says:
” It takes no particular insight to see the Dem’s (and Obama’s) professed passion for the “right” war in Afghanistan as a charade manufactured to provide “wimp repellent” to cover a “cut and run” strategy in Iraq. . . . Herbert is the bell-ringer for an army of “lesters.”
Bullseye! The cutting and running begins in a few short weeks.
Max Boot endlessly demands war in Afghanistan; he is bold in that but demure in explaining the reason why.
Where does he lay out the national security interests that commit the US to protecting the regime in Kabul? What returns would the US gain for the blood lives and money spent on that corrupt, backstabbing, inefficient regime? How will driving the Taliban back into its holes, make the US safer? What does it matter to our national security whether al Qaeda operates out of Afghanistan or Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, etc?? What assurances do we have that the Taliban will not reemerge, as after its devestating defeat in 2002, after every future supression? How long is this to continue, nevermind the excruciating logistics of the place, and with what repercussions to US standing in the world? Why does Boot devote a fraction of the energy with which he argues for war, to explaining its necessity in terms of concrete US interests?
He brandishes the red shirt of “the impact of an American defeat in Afghanistan”. He claims -
How would it surviving in Afghanistan boost al Qaeda more than surviving in Pakistan? How would the ability to operate in Afghanistan make plotting “similar outrages” easier than plotting them outside Afghanistan? How is it easier and more terrible for terrorists to shelter in Afghanistan than in Pakistan?
Actually, we are better off with al Qaeda and its flock in Afghanistan. Now we must consider the sensitivities and resentment of Islamabad. If al Qeade were to reemerge under a Taliban govt in Kabul, both would again be susceptible to a devastating mowing by a relative handful of special forces wielding Daisy Cutters, something not possible if they shelter in Pakistan.
#3
We lost the First Phase of the war? This is what it’s come down to on the anti-war side, making statements of dubious fact and then adding them up to some irrelevant total. This also, coincidentally, allows them to say that Obama won the Second Phase, or whatever phase, by their reckoning, that we’re currently in.
What metrics are you using to say that we lost the First Phase: Our carbon footprint? Is the First Phase officially over?
Question: It seems to me that you can lose all the phases of the war, except the last one, and still win the war. Do you agree?
#14,”Do you agree?”
Yes I do, now I have a question,Who is articulating the plan to win that last phase,and what is the plan?
#15
Good question. It would have to be the current administration and hopefully informing the incoming administration. That would be Gates, Bush and Cheney et al.
What is the plan? I believe that as troops are freed up in Iraq they’ll be transferred to Afghanistan and maybe some sort of a surge will be possible in the more dangerous areas of Afghanistan. I think that Afghanistan is going to be a long slow action unlike Iraq. It won’t be as violent and it won’t be so evidently successful until a long ways out. It’ll probably resemble the Balkans more than Iraq. And slowly over time the Afghan government controls more and more of its country. That’s sort of the feeling I get. I’m unaware of the official plan.
#16,”What is the plan? I believe— That’s sort of the feeling I get. I’m unaware of the official plan.”
You’re correct,there is no plan,and no one is articulating a plan. If anyone ever does,then we can have an intelligent discussion. Otherwise,the choice is carry on as we have without a rudder,or pack up. That’s all I’ve been trying to say. Regarding Iraq,all I’m trying to say is look at the SOFA,and tell me that this is what the sacrifice has been all about. To me,SOFA is a farce.
#17
I appreciate your insinuation that if I don’t know of the plan, then there can’t be one, but I think you overstate the confidence the President has in my opinions. The current military leadership has a record of success in Iraq, so they have my complete confidence that they can bring about success in Afghanistan, whether they confide in me or not. To quote the President-elect, “I’m here if they need me,” but I suspect that they can probably do well without me.
Um, should the United States and its representatives NOT respect the laws of Iraq? If the SOFA treated Iraq as a de facto colony and not as a sovereign state and ally, would that signalize victory?
Incidentally, the concessions made by the US in the SOFA with Iraq are not particularly “huge.” Similar rules apply in every country where US forces are stationed. Such rules were clearly inappropriate when the insurgency was raging. But the situation has changed.
#19: Ach Du Himmel! A rational voice in Contentions commentary! Were Nostradamus, R. Paul, and Alex Jones right?
20
Alexander Almasov Says:
January 6th, 2009 at 3:00 PM
#19: Ach Du Himmel! A rational voice in Contentions commentary!
AA,we always look for you to confirm that which is rational. Thank You.
RCAR – I think the poster has it essentially right. At some point we were going to have to decide that now is the jumping off point. Once the military and security aspects are largely secured we have to fade away. We can easily disagree on the timing, and certain aspects of this agreement are to placate domestic politics. The military phase of Iraq is over. Now we have to win the peace. There is nothing in the SOFA that is significantly different than other countries where we have defense installations and a military presence.
cynic “Besides, over half of the Senate democrats and about 40% of House democrats supported the war as well. At least they did before they didn’t anyway, to use John Kerry’s logic. Perhaps Max isn’t the only “joke”.”
not by a long shot. the joke is the entirety of the old media and the beltway.
“Gee, the people who gave us Bernie Madoff now want to tell us that their lovely little war in Iraq was a success. I’ll give you this much: Shamelessness becomes you.”
lol now that’s anti semetic. come on bro