From The Archives-THE NEO-CON INSURGENCY

COMMENTARY

THE NEO-CONS CIRCLE THE WAGONS-KICK THEM WHILE THEY ARE DOWN
HELL, NO. NO MORE TROOPS IN IRAQ

This writer freely admits that he is a political ‘street fighter’. And the rules of engagement for this activity are the same as in any rumble-kick your opponent when he or she is down, and give an extra kick when they are down just for good measure. Therefore I come to today’s commentary ready for bear.

Apparently in response to the aftermath of the 2006 midterm elections which, at least superficially, were a repudiation of the Bush Administration’s neo-con inspired Iraq (and Middle East) war policy these “pointy-headed” conservatives are circling the wagon for one last push for ‘victory’ in Iraq. Aspiring Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain signaled that perspective before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this fall when he argued for an increase in troops in order to attain ‘victory’. In light of the already ‘leaked’ conclusions of the upcoming Iraq Study Group reportedly arguing for some kind of ‘graceful withdrawal’ from Iraq the leading neo-cons-Robert Kagan and William Kristol, the National Review and the other usual suspects-have issued their own call to arms, literally. Although I note, as always, that they did not personally offer to carry them. Locally, one Jeff Jacoby, a regular neo-con columnist on the OP/ED page of the Boston Globe in the Sunday December 3, 2006 edition took up the same call in his role as armchair military strategist.

Things must be getting politically desperate in neo-con land when they see their worst nightmares coming true. No, not the fiasco of their policy in Iraq, don’t be silly. No, it’s the reemergence of what today passes for the old Yankee Republican Eastern foreign policy establishment. The really interesting part of Mr. Jacoby’s argument for increased troop levels in Iraq is his trashing of Bush I’s foreign policy, which amounts to the old conservative war cry of appeasement before evil. I, for one, am getting pretty damn tired of that old one-size-fits-all Munich 1938 argument every time one of these cowboys decides to argue for and then go on some imperialist adventure. In any case, the scenario Mr. Jacoby lays out is that Bush I, abetted by the real villain of the piece, ‘evil adviser’ James Baker, today head of the Iraq Study Group, acted out the role of Neville Chamberlain while all hell was breaking loose in the Middle East and elsewhere in the 1991 Gulf War. Thus, the logical conclusion is that Bush II should politely decline that group’s recommendation for pullout and instead increase troop levels to insure victory. (Nothing new here-shades of Vietnam escalation strategy, frankly.)

In the event that Mr. Jacoby and the others have not been paying attention during the last four years of first the build up to war and then the subsequent occupation-what planet are you on? Even a superficial look at the situation as it has developed internally in Iraq points to one small kink in the argument for more troops. The problem is the United States presence. Continuing to kick down every door in Iraq, as American/Allied troops, have done since the start of the war in search of the ‘enemy’ is the problem. The sectarian civil war has gone on and will continue to go on regardless on American presence. The body count on any given day (and relentlessly, every day) should clue one to that fact. Thus, the American troops are, at best hostages, in the situation. Now, in true democratic spirit, I am willing to let every person have his or her opinion of military strategy whether they served in the armed forces or not. However, as Mr. Jacoby and the vast majority of his neo-con brethren have not, they should be circumspect, very circumspect, about sending some other mother’s son or daughter to fight for their ‘pet’ imperialist adventure.

In earlier commentaries I have argued that the real role for anti-war activists here in the United States is to form anti-war soldier and sailor solidarity committees in order to fraternize with the troops and get them the hell out of Iraq. I will not restate that case here. See my blog address below. However, I do have to admit that I can see one basis for an increase in troops in Iraq. That is to increase, by whatever necessary number, the number of truck drivers, jeep drivers, humvee drivers, air transport personals and sailors it takes to make an orderly withdrawal from Iraq. And be quick about it. IMMEDIATE, UNCONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL OF ALL AMERICAN/ALLIED TROOPS!

THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES OF COMMENTARY ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!

ON THE IRAQ STUDY GROUP REPORT- A NEO-CON'S WORST NIGHTMARE

COMMENTARY

FORGET THE 79 RECOMMENDATIONS- HERE'S THE 80TH ONE- THE ONE THAT COUNTS-THAT IS OUR FIGHT

A look at the number of blogs on the subject of Iraq by this writer will convince any reader that I have spent no few words on the question of Iraq. In fact I have been something of a Johnny-one note on the subject. Thus, few words are needed here.

When the neo-con cowboys were riding high in Washington this Iraq Study Group document would have been the work of some under-employed State Department Deputy Secretary for Middle Eastern Affairs and been buried. Or ordered publicly burned at the stake on the Washington Mall. But that was then. Now it is the considered wisdom of the liberal Democratic Party foreign policy establishment and what today passes for the old Yankee Eastern Republican branch of that establishment. I am sure that they will find President Bush's copy under some couch in the White House when he leaves office. In any case it can only be described as a policy wonk’s delight. And should be read, if only as a historical document. The picture it paints of Iraq is grim-but it is already dated. As I write this the civil war rages unabated. This is my reaction, as posted elsewhere, to the work.

“On the subject of the recently released and breathlessly awaited Iraq Study Group it is my considered opinion, arrived at after a painstaking, methodical, reflective, thoughtful and deep analysis that the following conclusion can be drawn from the report. Forget the 79 recommendations. Here is the missing 80th one that the ‘Grandees’ did not have space for-the only one that counts now. IMMEDIATE, UNCONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL OF ALL UNITED STATES/ALLIED TROOPS FROM IRAQ-START REVVING UP THE TROOP TRANSPORTS NOW! Enough said.”

WHEN THE COWBOYS WERE RIDING HIGH ON IRAQ

CHRIST, IT WAS EVEN WORST THAT WE THOUGHT-HELL-RUMSFELD’S RESIGNATION WAS NOT NEARLY ENOUGH-HEADS SHOULD ROLL AND THE U.S.HOSTAGE-TROOPS IN IRAQ SHOULD DO THE ROLLING

In all the recent hoopla over Iraq Study Group reports, Pentagon Middle East strategy reassessments, Secretary of War Rumford’s resignation, the Robert Gates confirmation hearings for that same post and, to many commentators, the seemingly mythical results of the midterm 2006 elections one should not forget how this disaster got started and who started it. With that thought in mind I would like to recommend Mark Danner’s article IRAQ: THE WAR OF THE IMAGINATION in the December 21, 2006 issue of THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS(starting on page 81).

Mr. Danner is actually reviewing several books about the subject-Bob Woodward's State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III (Simon and Schuster); Ron Suskind's The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 (Simon and Schuster);and, James Risen's State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration (Free Press). The article is also liberally sprinkled with Mr. Danner's own insights, based on several trips to Iraq and a vast knowledge of the subject, into the situation. None of this reportage is pretty. But it is nevertheless worth the read in case you cannot get to the books under review. Moreover, it may just help, if only a little, a few thoughtful people from obediently giving carte blanche to the next American imperialist adventure with blinkers on.

Christ, as cynical about bourgeosis politics as this writer is, and with good reason, it is hard to believe that a modern bourgeois democracy and the leading military power the world has ever known, to boot, turns out to have been run by guys (and it is mainly guys) who a thoughtful person would not hire to mow the lawn. Never mind let within 1000 yards of a government office. No, as I mentioned in the headline to this commentary and have done for months the resignation of one Donald Rumsfeld is not nearly enough. If there is any justice in this world the American hostage-troops, among many others in Iraq, should get first crack at their old boss’s butt. And move up and down the chain of command from there. Mr. Danner and I disagree about what needs to be done in Iraq. But for right now let Mr. Danner give you some of the details of the why Iraq is a quagmire and in the now fashionable 'state of civil war'.

OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, JOURNALISTIC HYSTERIA AND THE LIBERAL ACADEMY

COMMENTARY

THE LIBERAL ACADEMIC INTELLIGENTSIA IS UNDER ATTACK- APPPARENTLY FOR CORRUPTING THE MORALS OF THE YOUTH. LONG LIVE THE MEMORY OF SOCRATES

Over the past several months there has been an incessant drumbeat about the failure of American higher education to produce civically virtuous citizens. We know the usual suspects on the right on this issue. Former Federal Education Czar William Bennett comes easily to mind. Another is David Horowitz who after spending three minutes in the New Left about forty years ago has created a virtual cottage industry out of ‘documenting’ the alleged liberal bias of the American professoriate. The more johnnie-come lately types like Columbia Proessor Todd Gitlin have written whole books about the treason of the liberal intelligentsia for not marching in lockstep to every imperialist adventure any American government decides to engage in. Recently, within the space of one week two separate articles appeared in the weekday OP/Ed pages of the Boston Globe by regular columnist Cathy Young and then by guest commentator Elizabeth Kantor. What gives?


What gives is one of the old themes of the ‘cultural wars’ that have been with us since the first New Leftist of the 1960’s traded in his or her bullhorn and placard from the streets and adjourned to the nearest ivy-covered campus to bask in tenure-insured theoretical contemplation about the dangers of the world and the nasty betrayal of the struggle by the masses. If one really thinks about it the theme has been going on every since they made old Socrates take the hemlock. In any case, the commentators mentioned above believe that the liberal bias of the American professoriate has dulled the senses of patriotism, civic duty and history of today’s crop of students. For proof they rely on recent studies, particularly a University of Connecticut survey, which indicate that most college seniors know less about the world when they leave the leafy campuses then when they arrived.

But are the poor, bedraggled liberal professors with their quirky little theories, their alleged distain for the Western canon, their self-doubts and their penchant for bravely signing petitions for every worthy cause as their “radical’ acts of political awareness really the causal factor behind the apparent decline in civic virtue of the past half century. I think not. While this writer LIKES the Western canon and will freely admit publically for the first time, horror of horrors, that he LIKES John Milton’s poetry it has never hurt anyone to look at other bodies of literature and history from the’ forgotten’ of world history. Moreover, although the liberal ‘fight’ led by the professoriate to create pockets of ‘political correctness’ in the cloistered academy has sometimes set my teeth on edge it hardly is on the scale, of say- an average day of treachery by the Bush Administration and the Congress- in accelerating the decline of civic virtue.

Just to get a feel for what is going on among college students I recently walked around several campuses here in Boston, where you practically stumble over a college student with every turn you make. Here one can find all manner of student from Harvard’ ruling class in training to the lowly struggling junior college student studying hard to keep out of Iraq, and everything in between. That walk has led me to a very different conclusion from those faint-hearted conservative commentators. I witnessed first hand the intersection of 24/7 iPod nation, cell phone nation, and My Space Internet nation. That phenomenon, dear readers, is where the ‘death of civility’ is to be found. While on average today’s youth is probably smarter than previous generations there is just no time to go beyond the hyper-individualized trance necessary to balance all that technology. That long touted ride down that ‘information superhighway’ has taken a greater toll on the body politic than one might think.

Additional note: As an alternate theory to the conclusions from my tour above I offer this. The “enhanced” prospects for increased social life (read-party time) created by campus life and the mania for sports events such as big-time college football and March Madness college basketball should be carefully analyzed as factors in the decline of civic virtue. Hell, wait a minute- how is that so different from the generation of ’68, my generation. We did the same damn things? Let the college students breathe a little, make their mistakes and learn from them. Maybe we will even make a few revolutionaries in the process. Enough said.