Ugh. Mark Steyn's recent column about the Underwear Bomber reminds me of all that was so egregiously wrong about the past decade.
It's odd actually - but, personally, the last decade has been pretty incredible. The birth of my children. Attending graduate school in Missoula, the swirl and rush of the 2006 election campaign, the completion of the work in 2008. Other things, too, like the Red Sox finally cracking it open - not once, but twice - the dominance of the Patriots, some memorable trips to faraway places, a brief and enjoyable hiatus in the Bay Area, these things made the naughties, for me, pretty swell.
But on a wider level, the naughties were a stinker: 9/11, sinking earnings and a flat-lining economy, looming ecological disaster, the Bush administration, Iraq and the associated collapse of the media, a bungled Afghanistan, Dick Cheney, the hamstringing of progressives on health care reform, Blackwater, and torture, just to name a few off the top of my head. An evil, vile time, and lot of the most reprehensible events that occurred are clearly lain at our own feet.
And why? Read Steyn's simpering, fear-soaked column wringing its hands over airport security and cloaked in gutless he-man bravado. It's a voice worshiping Armageddon, and demanding you, too, get on your knees in obeisance to his fear, cloaked in nationalist rhetoric, and demanding the blood sacrifice of liberals. It's craven, calculated, political, and completely amoral. And that's what drove us to Iraq, to the loss of habeas corpus, to torture: the careful manipulation of fear for partisan, political gain.
I remember when it began: with John Walker Lindh's capture a few weeks after 9/11. Say what you will about the man - whether he's a traitor addled by religious fervor or a misunderstood pilgrim caught up in events - there was something rotten about his treatment after capture...the beatings, the torture, the quick application of "justice," and the weird gag order imposed on him and his family that forbids them to speak about his handling by the US government, clearly none of which serves our national security interests.
But the really notable element to come out of Walker Lindh's capture was the rhetoric coming out of the right that was prominently featured on cable television talk shows. Remember this?
We need to execute people like John Walker [Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.
Ann Coulter said this, January of 2002. Later Coulter hid behind her claim it was a joke, but it wasn't funny when I heard it sitting on my inlaws' couch in Berkeley, California, when she and her ilk d*mned an entire metropolitan area of several millions as treasonous because of Walker Lindh. What was notable, though, was that it marked the end to that that post-9/11 feeling of unity that was so pervasive everywhere. Coulter's remarks were an announcement, a piercing fanfare, that 9/11 was going to be crassly exploited to go after the left, politically.
To be fair, what really sunk us was that a lot of lefties - and notably, the media -- bowed down for fear of appearing "weak." Still, it was right-wing fear that moved them. And that grating, arrogant, fear-laden tone is what I'll remember most about the politics of this decade...
The news last weekend of the death of White Sulfur Springs soldier, Michael Rogers, in Iraq was a grim omen of Barack Obama's decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Rogers' death reminds us that war has a grim arithmetic. More Americans will die because of Obama's decision. More Afghanis will die because of Obama's decision.
Me? I'm not really sure I know what the right decision is. I really like Fred Kaplan's take on the war, not necessarily because of the suppositions, but because he honestly feels gross ambivalence about what to do:
Columnists are supposed to have firm views and express them with steadfast certainty. Since I write a column called "War Stories," the least a reader might expect from me is a clear opinion on whether the United States should escalate or pull out of the war in Afghanistan.
Recently, a friend told me that he couldn't quite figure out where I stood on the issue. I replied that I couldn't quite figure it out, either.
Personally, I supported going into Afghanistan. The Taliban - unlike Saddam Hussein - was connected to al Qaeda, and was harboring Osama bin Laden. Seemed the right thing to do. But now? It seems like our only goal is to keep the Taliban from returning to power. A fool's errand at which we keep throwing troops and money, hoping that the political and cultural system will somehow magically change while we're there. And while we all squabble over health care reform - you know, on programs that actually help people, that improve health and lives - we're throwing a sh*tload of money at a black hole of a war, without knowing why we're there, or what it is we're actually trying to accomplish.
Seymour Hersh was on Fresh Air recently, talking about the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. He had this to say in reaction the news that President Obama had demanded an "exit strategy" from Afghanistan from his national security team:
...this could be a...really important step for the president. Because many are concerned...about the fact that he delegated much of the war-making policy to the generals in the field...There isn't a general in the armed forces asked to do that would say, I can't win...So he put himself into a box, and he was very passive for a long time about it. That's why, if you had asked me four days ago about it, I would have thought he was going to make a political decision to do something, to send some token troops, because he doesn't want to lose more independents, he wants to show he can run the war, he can be a tough guy.
But what Obama's done - if he has done what he seems to have done - is he's telling the military, you know what? I don't think it's going to fly. This is huge, because he's basically saying, I'm not going to play politics with the war, I'm not going to do what other presidents have and continue fighting a war that I don't think we can win, and I'm just stalling for time until I can find a way out.
That's what I would have guessed three or four days ago.
Well, Obama's speech last night didn't exactly signal a break from the kind of politicking with the war that Hersh was hoping for - Rachel Maddow even compared Obama's rhetoric to the "Bush Doctrine", the radical rhetoric that endorsed pre-emptive war - but he did set a kind of amorphous exit timeline, something that hasn't yet been discussed for Afghanistan. Still, it reeks of compromise and politics. Worse, all the support from the same folks who were egregiously wrong about Bush's foreign policy - Fred Barnes at the Weekly Standard, say, and otherassortedrighties - should give us pause.
The reality is that any justification for us going into Afghanistan in the first place is long gone. We're there to baldly protect our own "national" interests, which obviously have more to do with the exchange of commodities than they do with national security or democracy or anything like that. And while there's a commitment to an exit, I guarantee we'll see this whole debate again when it comes up again in a year-and-a-half, at which time we should expect another "compromise."
But...did Obama promise us anything else during the election? Isn't this exactly what he said he was going to do?
(I meant to promote this earlier, but what with all the furor over the superdelegates, etc & co... - promoted by Jay Stevens)
What happens when you deploy troops who have seen high intensity combat time and time again with inadequate dwell time between tours? You see skyrocketing mental health issues.
After months of investigative work, talking to our troops and veterans, we released a report on the situation at Fort Drum in Watertown, New York. Since 9/11, the 2nd Brigade Combat Team has been deployed for more than forty months, more than any other brigade in the Army, and we are seeing what is nothing short of a cry for help from the men and women on the base; a cry we will answer for troops in Montana as well.
A cry for help that is also coming from the leadership on the base. In a New York Times article today about our report, Major General Michael Oates, commander of the 10th Mountain Division, says: "We recognize that there is stress on our force and their families from this conflict, but until recently, we have not fully appreciated the extent of some of the mental stresses and injuries or how to best identify them." Please read the rest of the article here.
What is happening at Fort Drum -- with Soldiers still on active duty suffering from PTSD, with Soldiers and their families in need of counseling, with Soldiers literally dying while still on duty -- is going to happen all around America unless we begin to address some of the basic issues of this war. As our report explains, DoD itself has stated that the likelihood of troops having mental health problems increases by 60% with every tour of duty. So, in short, through ourdeployment policies, we are consciously compounding the wounds of war.
This is unacceptable to us. Veterans for America's Wounded Warrior Outreach Program will continue to address these problems from the bottom up.
We are going to go to as many bases as we can afford to go to, see what is happening on those bases and see how we can help. If you can help us, we would greatly appreciate it.
We are going to continue our Wounded Warrior Registry Outreach -- if you or someone you know needs help getting help with PTSD or TBI, please click here.
And above all, we are going to continue to serve and help those that serve and have served us with the same level of dedication and courage they have shown. Click here to learn more about what we are doing.
And finally, to round out a triumvirate of posts on really atrocious quotes, I bring you Stu Bykofsky, who writes (in a major newspaper):
America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.
What would sew us back together?
Another 9/11 attack.
The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago's Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda.
Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again?
If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.
Ugh. I don't know if this guy is a conservative, but this sure sounds like the usual war-proponent's bluster about how we should all shut up and follow "our" President, because...well...because he's "ours," even is if he is incapable of leading.
Our political system is premised on the notion that people are going to disagree with one another. To borrow a phrase, "That's a feature; not a bug." Americans have substantive policy disagreements about national security and foreign policy. The past several years have, thanks to an intentional White House strategy, driven people apart, which leads us to the contemporary debates Bykofsky seems troubled by.
Benen also notes that Bykofsky doesn't really mention exactly what or who we'd rally around if another 9/11 came. Personally I wouldn't be willing to put my trust in this current administration in anything they did in response to a massive terrorist attack, outside of immediate aid or investigation. I'd just suspect it'd be more of the same: pushing their radical ideology in the name of preserving national security. (And this is from a guy who supported - and still supports - our mission in Afghanistan.)
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Update: Weird. Apparently some righties are agreeing with Bykofsky! Wishing a massive terror attack so they can go ahead with their policies? I mean, I know some of these *sshats wanted to win their rhetorical wars at any cost...but are their egos really worth the deaths of thousands?
In any case, don't hold your breath for a post 9/11 II to actually benefit Bush or his few remaining hangers-on. Quite the reverse. I suspect most of us would prefer having someone competent and not so radical in office at a time of crisis...
This came from something else I'm working on, and I thought it deserved a post of its own.
my math was wrong on Montana, these are the corrected numbers.
Per capita deaths of Montanans in the Iraqi war theatre: 1 per 58,125
Per capita deaths of Montanans in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan: 1 per 54,706
Compare that with this:
Per capita deaths of Pennsylvanians in the Iraqi war theatre: 1 per 83,581
Per capita deaths of Pennsylvanians in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan: 1 per 77,312
Per capita deaths of Californians in the Iraqi war theatre: 1 per 109,816
Per capita deaths of Californians in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan: 1 per 101,130
Per capita deaths of Texans in the Iraqi war theatre: 1 per 84,229
Per capita deaths of Texans in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan: 1 per 77,814
Per capita deaths of Coloradians in the Iraqi war theatre: 1 per 129,167
Per capita deaths of Coloradians in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan: 1 per 113,414
Per capita deaths of Idahoans in the Iraqi war theatre: 1 per 81,765
Per capita deaths of Idahoans in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan: 1 per 81,765
Per capita deaths of Utahans in the Iraqi war theatre: 1 per 165,000
Per capita deaths of Utahans in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan: 1 per 145,58
Per capita deaths of Wyomingites in the Iraqi war theatre: 1 per 56,111
Per capita deaths of Wyominites in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan: 1 per 45,909
I used figures from the U.S. Census Bureau's Annual Population Estimates 2000 to 2006, and ballparked the above states average estimated population for the period between 2000 and 2006 (I used 930,000 for Montana; 12,370,000 for Pennsylvania; 35,800,000 for California; and 23,500,000 for Texas. 4,650,000 for Colorado; 1,390,000 for Idaho; 2,475,000 for Utah; and 505,000 for Wyoming)
I took military death information from the Department of Defense, but I did use other more up-to-date death figures for Montana. I used 16 for the number of Montanans killed in Iraq, and 1 for the number of Montanans killed in Afghanistan.
You can nosh that around any way you'd like - but a consistent approach will show one thing that I started thinking about back at the beginning of the year when I wrote the original post linked to above - that Montanans are paying a pretty high price for an illegal war in Iraq.
A 17th Montanan gave his life today in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The third Montanan killed in the last 12 days. The Helena Indeppendent Record has an article on this week's loss of Army Spc. Scott Dykman, 27.
Prayers and tears for each and every one of these brave soldiers and their familes and loved ones.
Army Spc. Scott Dykman, 27 - Helena
Army Pfc. Shawn Murphy, 24 - Butte
Marine Lance Cpl. Nick Palmer, 19 - Great Falls
Sgt. Travis M. Arndt, 23 - Bozeman
Pfc. Andrew D. Bedard, 19 - Missoula
Staff Sgt. Aaron N. Holleyman, 26 - Glasgow
Capt. Michael J. MacKinnon, 30 - Helena
Cp. Dean P. Pratt, 22 - Stevensville
Lance Cpl. Jeremy S. Sandvick Monroe, 20 - Chinook
Cpl. Phillip E. Baucus, 28 - Wolf Creek
Lance Cpl. Nicholas William B. Bloem, 20 - Belgrade
Petty Officer 2nd Class Charles V. Komppa, 35 - Belgrade
Sgt. 1st Class Robbie D. McNary, 42 - Lewistown
1st Lt. Edward M. Saltz, 27 - Bigfork
Cpl. Raleigh C. Smith, 21 - Troy
Pfc. Kristofor T. Stonesifer, 28 - Missoula
Pfc. Owen D. Witt, 20 - Sand Springs
