Bringing the War Back Home

It was predictable that, as long as the Democrats were falling all over each other “supporting the troops,” they would be unable to do anything at all for the anti-war voters who made them the majority in both houses of Congress. Now that has come to pass yet again: the Cheney/Bush Administration and the minority Republicans in the Senate and House conceded nothing to them in the funding bill the President just signed – not even meaningless timelines for troop reductions. According to George W. Bush, making funding contingent on anything at all is out of the question because it betrays troops needful of their nation’s “support.” He’s not entirely wrong. If “supporting the troops” meant making amends to economic conscripts and their families, and taking care of those who return injured or maimed, then the way to support them is to stop the war NOW. That’s what “supporting the troops” ought to mean, but it isn’t what it actually does mean in our debased political culture. That’s because Clintonized Democrats, as much as Cheney and Bush and their neo-con advisors want to avoid the appearance of defeat, lest an Iraq Syndrome impede American dominance of our ever “globalizing” world economy. So, whether they like it or not, the Democrats have no choice but to “support the troops” by supporting their “mission.” That was Bush’s point. W is nothing if not linguistically (and intellectually) “challenged.” But in this case, as he campaigned for full funding -- he nailed the Democrats good.

The anti-war movement is culpable too. So fearful are its leaders of the urban legends surrounding “the troops” in Vietnam – for example, that they were spat upon when they returned home – that they exude ambivalence towards the vastly more successful anti-war – and anti-military! --movement of the Vietnam era. Thus they too effectively buy into the Clintonite/neo-con consensus. Ditto for Dennis Kucinich. In this respect, Mike Gravel is a little better. As a throwback to the golden days of yesteryear, he at least knows enough not to declare support for the troops at every possible opportunity. But his is barely a voice in the wilderness.

More even than misleading media reports about U.S. successes in Iraq, the failure of almost all Democrats to assume a genuinely oppositional position has helped deflect attention away from the Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where abject defeat is also looming. Should the war monger McCain “surge” in the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary, this will be part of the reason why. Ironically, a McCain victory would be bad news for the Democrats’ electoral prospects. McCain is every bit as awful as any other conceivable GOP nominee. But he’s not nearly as risible as the rest of them. He would therefore be a more formidable opponent. This time around, it is all but inconceivable that the Democrats will lose. But if it can be done, count on them to pull it off!

I’ve written before about the nightmare scenario – Clinton v. Giuliani (with or without Michael Bloomberg). Clinton v. McCain seemed to be off the agenda back then. Now that prospect is back, just as it was before the Presidential campaigns got underway. Clinton v. McCain is every bit as scary as Clinton v. Giuliani. Will an electorate so plainly opposed to the Bush wars let this happen? We’ll know in just a few weeks time.

Meanwhile, for the next few weeks, let the optimists among us think John Edwards thoughts – and, since money is to our “democracy” what location is to real estate, send money to his campaign as well, distasteful as that may be. To vote for John Kerry in 2004, it was necessary to forget a great deal. In the same spirit, we must, for now, forget Herzliya [where, last January, to win the hearts and minds of the Israel lobby, Edwards declared “all options on the table” in Iran.] If we are fortunate, there will be time enough to bring it (and much else too) up later, again and again. Lets also prepare ourselves to acquiesce, if need be, in an even more unpleasant because more Clintonite prospect -- an Obama candidacy. And since it is still more probable than not that the most Clintonite candidate of all, Slick Willy’s better half, will win the nomination, and since she falls below the acceptable lesser evil threshold, lets keep in the back of our minds the thought that we -- those of us who live in “safe” states, anyway -- may soon need to mobilize in support of Cynthia McKinney or whatever other progressive alternative develops.

What Kind of Moron Do They Think We Are?

Evidently, the answer is “first class.” Yet again, the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate are going through their “support the troops” charade – giving Cheney and Bush even more money than they’ve asked for for their wars, but with a “timeline” attached. It’s the Democrats’ version of the surge theory – since the maneuver hasn’t worked yet, try more of it. Wearily, I must repeat the obvious: the only way to “support the troops” is to bring them home (unconditionally); the only way to end Cheney’s and Bush’s wars is to defund them; and, while we’re at it, the best outcome that can emerge from the Iraq debacle would be an abject defeat, followed by an Iraq Syndrome – much like the Vietnam Syndrome Reagan and the first Bush inveighed against, only deeper and more enduring. [Of course, abject defeat is already a fact on the ground; the issue now is to face the fact squarely; not obscure it the way leading Democrats, and Republicans, are desperately trying to do.] It’s also obvious that, to keep Cheney and Bush from making the situation much worse in the the next fourteen months – by extending their perpetual “war on terror” into Iran -- they must be removed from office ASAP. I might add, again wearily (as I’ve said it many times before), that the best way to repair some of the harm Cheney and Bush have done would be to bring them to justice. But, for reasons I have also amply discussed,the Pelosiite leadership of the Democratic Party wants no truck with the obvious. They’d rather remain Cheney/Bush aiders and abettors, thinking that they can somehow mollify their “base” by continuing a charade that fools nobody, probably not even themselves.

Meanwhile, with another Democratic presidential candidates debate looming, the November 26 issue of The Nation, contains “endorsements” for each of the Democratic contenders. Was this a debating exercise? One would hope so, at least in some cases, because rejecting some of those candidates is a true no-brainer. But I fear that the authors took their endorsements seriously. If they did,, this would be yet another example of The Nation’s ecumenicism lapsing into political incoherence, if not downright silliness. The endorsements are worth reading nevertheless. Gore Vidal’s piece on Dennis Kucinich is a gem, and several of the others are good too – Bruce Shapiro on Christopher Dodd, Richard Kim on Mike Gravel, and, above all, Katherine Newman on John Edwards. Michael Eric Dyson makes a fairly lame case for Barack Obama and Rocky Anderson, the “radical” mayor of Salt Lake City, makes an even lamer case for Bill Richardson. Of course, Anderson didn’t have much to work with. The latest flurry of media interest in Obama notwithstanding, it’s looking increasingly like Dyson didn’t either. But what was John Nichols thinking in endorsing Joe Biden? Unless this really was a debating exercise, he should have his head examined because Biden is, if anything, even worse than Hillary Clinton – even more Clintonite. Which brings me back to the “what kind of morons…” question. If you really want to know, take a look (if you have the stomach for it) at what Ellen Chesler finds to say in support of the Hillary. Or maybe the real message of her piece is that the Democratic leadership is on to something: that many, indeed most, Democratic voters (according to the polls), genuinely are “first class.”

Charade

The Democratic leadership in the House and Senate think they’ve got a good thing going by passing popular spending bills – SCHIP, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, was one – that Bush is sure to veto in the name of fiscal conservatism. Then they count on there being too few Republicans willing to break with the administration to override the veto. This, they think, will make the Republicans look bad, even worse than they otherwise would, going into the 2008 elections. What makes it all work, in their minds, is that Bush wants an extra $200 billion more for his Iraq and Afghanistan wars, while the spending he’ll veto is unlikely to amount to a tenth of that.

Were this nothing more than electoral posturing, it wouldn’t be particularly objectionable. After all, in a choice between Republicans and Democrats, one can only hope that the lesser evil party will do as well as it can. But the Democrats’ strategy isn’t just posturing – it’s a charade. With Democrats controlling the House and Senate, the billions for Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the additional billions for his so-called War on Terror (actually, a war on the rule of law) are bipartisan ventures. The Democrats could shut all these operations down in a minute if they wanted to; they could free up money galore for social purposes. But, of course, they won’t. They’ll wring their hands in mock despair instead.

It isn’t just that the Democratic Party is in the thrall of the competitive elections game. Nor is it that plus the (patently false) belief that the Bush wars are making Americans safer. If anybody doubts that they’re making Americans less safe, they should read David Cole’s and Jules Lobel’s new book, LESS SAFE LESS FREE: Why America is Losing the War on Terror (New Press, 2007). [Cole and Lobel argue exhaustively that the war on terror (and the preventive wars that are part of it) not only devastate traditional freedoms and longstanding commitments to the rule of law, but are also counterproductive. This is absolutely obvious, of course, but evidently the case needs to be made, given how many supporters war mongering Republicans like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have, and inasmuch as there plainly are Democrats too who believe this nonsense. The task Cole and Lobel took upon themselves is a bit like explaining why creationism isn’t science. But somebody’s got to do it.]

The real problem is that, in the end, the Democratic leadership – indeed, the entire Clintonite wing of the party (and not only them) -- want what Cheney and Bush want: a pax Americana assured through control of strategic resources (like oil), and maintained by a military force that no one dares to challenge. This Republicrat consensus is related to the more familiar Washington consensus for “free trade” and neo-liberal economic policies friendly to American corporations. It is, as it were, the Washington consensus’ foreign policy. Bush’s failures threaten the appearance of American invincibility. The US has lost big time in Iraq, and it’s losing in Afghanistan. Republicans and Democrats alike want it to seem otherwiwse because the last thing they want is an Iraq Syndrome even more disabling to imperial designs than the Vietnam Syndrome that Reagan and the first Bush set out to combat and that the (Bill) Clinton administration finally dispatched.

Of course, Democrats can’t just come out as Republicrats – not if they want to retain their “base.” The candidates especially can’t, though all of them – except the unelectable ones (Kucinich and Gravel) – are on board. So their only recourse is to say that they’ll keep on funding the Bush wars in order to “support the troops.” Can anyone say those words without choking in their craw? Evidently. It flows out of the mouths of Democrats and Republicans alike.

I’ve pointed out countless times in earlier entries that putting American troops in harm’s way, subjecting them to death and injury, ruining their lives and the lives of their families, and turning them into purveyors of murder and mayhem is an odd way tp “support” them. It hardly need be said that those who really want to support the troops will do whatever they can to bring them home now. In our so-called democracy, we, the people, can’t do much – witness the 2006 elections. But, unless Cheney and Bush abrogate the Constitution altogether, Congressional Democrats can!

Of course, they won’t – as long as there are troops they can say they have to “support.” They’d rather play out their charade. It may be too much to hope that enough people will notice, but the fact is that, by doing so, they’ve backed themselves into a corner. If it all comes down to supporting the troops and if, thanks to Bush, there really must be a trade off between that and supporting even more needy constituencies, why should the troops get it all? Why not children, the poor, the sick, and the elderly? Why not money for infrastructure and public health and disaster relief? Could it be because the troops are doing something necessary and honorable; because they’re “serving their country” in a way that the rest of us are not? Even if this were true, the question would remain: why should they get it all? [Never mind that getting it all in this context means getting only grief.] But, of course, it isn’t true that they’re doing something necessary and honorable or even worthwhile. More than three-quarters of the American people have, by now, come around to this view. So have almost all Democratic legislators, whether they’ll admit it or not. It’s long past time that they stopped pretending otherwise. Playing out their transparent charade is a moral and strategic blunder. And, insofar as it matters, as it evidently does to the party’s movers and shakers, it is also bad electoral gamesmanship. After Cheney and Bush, only doctrinaire Clintonites and the truly foolish can still believe that bellicosity buys votes. Will the Democrats overcome their Clintonism and end their foolishness in time?

NOTE: While Democrats play games, Bush and Cheney may be revving up for yet another reckless military adventure, targeting Iran. Democrats have done nothing to stop this latest march towards war; but until now the relatively saner voices in the administration, and in the military and intelligence communities have held Cheney and Company back. But Cheney is used to getting his way and so, not unrelatedly, is the Israel lobby, which is dead set on the US taking on Iran. This report from The Congressional Quarterly suggests that it may be happening again.

Excuses

After his well-publicized colonoscopy this summer, there should be no doubt where the Decider’s head is at. But there are always the willfully blind – aka the Republican “base.” As if to show them the light, last night’s (Sept. 13) Speech from the Throne (aka Oval Office) should clinch it. It probably won’t, though. But, for everyone else, the speech provided ample confirmation in a thoroughly stupefying way. The Bush boy came on pretending to be Sir Winnie. We must decide what kind of country and people we are, he declared, and then battle on and on. Yes, the war is “unpopular” (that news has penetrated the bubble!) but we must defend an ally set upon by aggressors whom we must fight there, lest we fight them here. Also, of course, we must stand by our troops. In comparison, LBJ was almost clear headed and honest when he proclaimed that we were in Vietnam to combat aggression. No matter that the aggressors were Vietnamese, and that “we” most certainly were not. At least the Vietnamese struggle for national liberation wasn’t just an artifact of delusional and incompetent U.S. (and French) machinations, like the sectarian and ethnic civil war in Iraq is. In the end, the Cheney/Bush argument comes down to this: we must stay in Iraq (indefinitely, it turns out) because we are there.

To add yet another level of absurdity it is, according to the Decider, the infallible General Petraeus (concoctor first of the plan to introduce Shiite militia members into the Iraqi police forces; concoctor now of plans to do the same for the Sunnis) who has made it so. The Commander in Chief is only doing what his servant in the field tells him must be done. If only the good General, who surely knows better, had enough backbone to stand up against the Mindless Leader! It would make no difference to Cheney or Bush; they’d still “stay the course.” But it would have taken away the excuses our legislators so desperately seek.

For Republican “moderates,” especially if they are not yet up for reelection, the Petraeus report is an excuse for standing by their man. Petraeus did, after all, say that “the surge” could end in another year or so. For the leaders of the Democratic Party, and alas most Democratic backbenchers, downsizing to last year’s levels is an excuse to back off from the shamefully timid “timelines” for withdrawal they’ve been urging -- in order to woo moderate Republicans into helping them “end” the war. This drama will play out in the next few weeks – a struggle for the hearts and minds of a handful of Republican legislators! The Democrats will probably lose. But even if they don’t, the sure thing is that Cheney and Bush will win. They’ll continue their war for -- can one say it without gagging on the hypocrisy and deceit -- “freedom.”

The Democrats’ excuse for becoming even worse than they used to be is that they don’t have the votes to end a Senate filibuster or to override a Presidential veto. True enough. But they do have a modest majority in the Senate and a plain majority in the House. Therefore there is something they can do to end the war: not fund it. There is no doubt that this is their Constitutional prerogative. Let Cheney and Bush launch a Manhattan project led by John Yoo and staffed by the best hacks the Federalist Society can offer. They still won’t be able to mount a single argument to show otherwise; not unless they’re prepared to override the Constitution itself on the grounds that 9/11 “changed everything.” There’s also no doubt that defunding the war would end it because Republicans can’t filibuster funds into being and because Bush cannot “veto” a measure that hasn’t passed; not unless he’s prepared to take the step from “unitary executive” to unabashed dictator. Things are bad, but, even under Cheney’s tutelage, it hasn’t come to that!

Needless to say, defunding the war, like impeaching its perpetrators, is “off the table.” The Democrats figure that, to win in 2008, they have to look tough and, of course, “support the troops” (by assuring that more of them will be killed or injured). These are nonsensical miscalculations. But they may be right in thinking that many, perhaps most, Democratic voters will go along. With our party duopoly system, there’s the familiar argument that progressives have nowhere else to go. There’s also the fact that in a political culture so dumbed down and right-wing that even the Clintons look “liberal,” too few Democratic voters will see the Democrats’ rationale for the shameful excuse that it is.

How can this change? Maybe, since it seems to be on everybody’s lips (if not their mind), it’s time to rethink the whole “support the troops” issue. Of course, fair compensation is due those whose lives are ruined (or lost) by Cheney’s and Bush’s wars; especially inasmuch as our “volunteer” military is comprised mainly of economic conscripts. But the implication that the military is a trusted and revered institution – and that its Petraeuses are beyond reproach – must be contested, not endorsed! At the university where I now work, the marines recruit openly right outside the student union. That they could do so without protest is a disgrace. This would have been unthinkable during the Vietnam War. Part of the explanation, of course, is that now there is no draft (none that affects people affluent enough to attend universities). But the Democrats’ acceptance of the “support the troops” mantra is also part of the explanation. The candidates for President should be questioned relentlessly on this: they should be asked just how having more soldiers and marines die or be maimed for no defensible reason, in cause that is not only plainly wrong but also plainly lost, counts as “support.”