Iraq, Domestic Politics And Patriotism.

Dave Schuler has been doing his level best to lead a discussion on Iraq and keep the kids to the subject without hurling insults. Dave is one the most reasonable bloggers around, and is truly interested in discussing the situation rather than flouting the latest theory. So naturally, he sometimes has his work cut out for him.

One of his more interesting commenters is a guy who goes by the handle of Lounsbury or sometimes Collounsbury, who I believe is a financier based in Morocco and thus claims a special expertise on the subject of MENA issues, and is humorously condescending of many whom he deems below his pay grade. I would enjoy a conversation with this chap, as he displays an on-the-ground level of knowledge combined with an ability to insult most eloquently. (Incidentally Mr Lounsbury is battling what looks like TB at the moment. Hopefully, he'll be back and decrying "whingers" sometime soon).

Lounsbury is fond of pointing out, rightly, that most of what passes for internationalism with regards to Iraq (and the region, I would extrapolate) is masqueraded domestic politics. Of course he's right, though I have less of a problem with the notion than he. I see no reason why Americans should be the only people on earth not to reserve the prerogative of acting in their own self-interest.

The recent rhubarb surrounding Rep. Jack Murtha's call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq was an attempt by the Democrats to inoculate past votes and speeches from what is perceived to be an American public ready to vacate and rent out the central battlefield in the Middle East. The Republicans played up Murtha's supposed about-face, going so far as to draw parallels between the Congressman and Michael Moore. (This elicited howls from the Democrats, who apparently have no problem with Moore as long as he's sitting next to someone more radical, like Jimmy Carter).

I was less dismayed by the Congressional cha-cha than most, as it is heartening to see that there are still something that will get our lawmakers exercised more than a stealth pay-raise. The conventional wisdom, as opposed to actual wisdom, is that the Democrats won because they forced the Republicans to play dirty and anyway, the American people are harping for withdrawal.

If polls are to be believed, then, a recent bed-check of domestic attitudes provides a bit of illumination.

Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney's suggestion that criticism of the administration's war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney's point.

Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.

The results surely will rankle many Democrats, who argue that it is patriotic and supportive of the troops to call attention to what they believe are deep flaws in President Bush's Iraq strategy. But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.

Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage."

The part of this story that amuses me so is the line about Democrats and patriotism. It amuses me because in all my years of political interest and arguing, I have never worried that my patriotism was being questioned. And I am suspicious on anyone who seeks to end debate by claiming that one's patriotism is being questioned.

I am not patriotic, at least not in the way patriotism is defined by different factions.

Let's tell the truth. Liberals equate patriotism with nationalism, which leads to fascism in the popular left view. Liberals are skeptical of patriots, or at least of patriots that are defined in the lexicon as mindless, flag-waving America-firsters. Why claim then, that one is more patriotic?

The Rights's patriotism is defined generally as "true" of its own accord and is almost too easy a target to actually parody. For many on the right, it was patriotic to claim that Bill Clinton wagged his Lewinsky by bombing Kosovo, but it's unpatriotic to point out that George Bush has been managing Iraq in a blindly reactionary fashion.

It is not unpatriotic, whatever that means, to want Iraq to be going better, and to recognize that had the administration believed its own rhetoric that Iraq was but a battle in a larger war, and required a more comprehensive plan along with more troops, we might at the moment be discussing how to manage the transition from occupation to self-governance--in Syria. The Bush administration accomplished the seemingly undoable by taking a united country to a divided world and in the end, doing right by no one.

It is not necessarily unpatriotic, though it is punishable at the ballot, to play domestic politics with the war effort. In this game, both parties are playing with fire. However, in war winning is not only the first priority, but the only priority, and here is where we come to questions of patriotism. It is not and never will be patriotic to equate, as some on the left have taken to do, of equating in any way the government of the United States and the myriad totalitarian regimes throughout history. It is not patriotic to draw analogies between American Armed Forces and Pol Pot.

Republicans, and those in favor of "staying the course" are fond of quoting Thomas Dewey: “I would rather lose the presidency and win the war than the reverse.” Well, good for Dewey. And, it turns out, good for us. But what is forgotten that Dewey engaged in a little nuance of his own, in one case making a speech in which he suggested that FDR might in some way be responsible for Pearl Harbor.

As for staying the course, well, what happens if there's suddenly a boulder on the course? Wouldn't it be, to quote another Bush, "prudent at this juncture" to maybe diverge from the course if that would get us to the finish line better and faster?

Let's acknowledge that domestic politics is all about the war, like it or not. And let's also admit that patriotism is illusory and not an argument, but a means to an insult.

Comments

[Maggie]

Patriotism....maybe difficult for an atheist to understand where I stand.

It is the thanking God for having been given the gift of being born an American...it is the showing even if in only the smallest of ways that I am grateful I was so blessed that The Almighty saw fit to bring me forth in this land which I love...a land that I grow to love with each mile I travel across the vast spaces I once had only envisioned in my dreams (or saw on the tv screen).

The EU condemns such simplistic sentiments. Religion = the need of the weak...those ill-equipped to deal with the difficult. Those seeking shelter in the unseen.

I believe that the citizens of this nation have grown soft. I have seen it in my children ... the slightest pain requires a pill. Heaven help me how many times the pediatricians shoved an antibiotic at my kids for what I knew to be a virus once strep throat had been ruled out.

I read all the well-supported facts.....reinforced by polls and the latest news disseminated as vital information.

I still see a nation that requires immediate gratification...an immediate solution to the problem. Life on a personal level is not so simple. Why should it be so simple on a global level?

i.e. The doctors still can't say why John Doe down the street has a rash over his entire body after running five hundred tests. But we expect an immediate PANACEA for the woes in Iraq.

1. I would like to hear a politican...ANY PARTY CAN APPLY...I REALLY DON'T CARE....state: war is hell, war is a crap shoot, we're winging it, baby. Hang in there as our cheerleaders cause you're needed to keep those on the front lines upbeat.

2. I would really, no I mean, REALLY like to see term limits for those in Congress. No person who spends more than twenty years in Washington has any clue what the real world is about...and that includes both parties. Enough! Most of them are quite wealthy...if not,I'm sure they can arrange lucrative book deals...hey, are you worried about the 5% unemployment rate, Senator? How about you give a young family man/woman a chance for a job in D.C.?

Daniel, I apologize for bouncing on the outskirts of the main topic...BUT, I was on an army base during Viet Nam. I saw that the battles were being won...but that the war was lost stateside. Living in Texas at that time, I personally believed LBJ didn't even know what being a Texan meant...he was just too Liberal to get it. He didn't get Nam, he didn't move beyond local Texas politics. He should have stayed running the radio station. LBJ was the Peter principle personified.

Oooops! Sorry, rambled. I'll stick to short and snarky for the rest of the year (five weeks). Promise. X.

[collounsbury]

Well, found this by accident.

I should clarify, when I say domestic politics masquerading as foreign, I do not mean national self interest, I mean purely domestic political disputes that have fuck all to do with the actual FP issue at hand getting played out.

National self interest I am all for. Especially coldly rational and logical self interest. Rather less so bumblingly incompetent self deception posing as self interest.

Would expand perhaps, but these bloody drugs are rather making me fuzzy.

[Daniel]

Col-

Thanks for the clarification. And I see, then, that we agree.

Good luck with the illness.