The United States Senate, the most deliberative body in the world, this week affirmed,in a bold move, by a vote of 72 to 25 that

A recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.

Just to be clear, the advertisement did not suggest that Gen. Petraeus received his bronze star under false pretenses or behaved questionably under fire; yet, these assertions were made quite regularly against a decorated officer by those now rushing to defend the honor of the military. Additionally, the doggerel presented in the MoveOn ad did not go so far as to suggest that Gen. Petraeus is an enemy of the United States, as so many others have suggested, using a similar lyrical device, of a sitting United States Senator. There is an inherent hypocrisy in the Republican discourse being foisted on America. Under the rules of this discourse proponents of the administration are always presenting logical facts while those who question the administration are always ‘playing politics’ or worse, unpatriotic cowards. The fact that a minority of Democrats in the Senate failed to vote against the measure only reinforces how successful this hypocrisy has become.

Meanwhile, on the same day that the US Senate voted to condemn the uncouth folks at MoveOn.org, three American soldiers lost their lives in Iraq. That’s three Americans who will never see their family or loved ones again; three Americans who cannot pursue their dreams and hopes; three Americans who cannot participate in debate over Iraq.

Of course, unsatisfied with the bloodshed in Iraq, on the same day the condemnation of political speech was approved by the Senate another was introduced by supporters of Gen. Petraeus, one which would allow the President open authority to extend his war to Iran. And it can be guaranteed that anyone questioning the need to offer up more human suffering in sacrifice for the honor of of military will be dismissed as unamerican or defeatist.

I am also aware that today is the day before the anniversary of the events of September 11th, 2001. Six years later my heart remains saddened and troubled for those who lost loved ones and who continue to suffer in the aftermath. But I also find myself dreading the exploitation of anniversary. I fully expect the President and his supporters to again make use of this tragedy to aggrandize themselves and their disastrous policies. To watch these men exploit their own incompetence to seize more power and sacrifice more soldiers and waste more money is just galling. If these people ever had any sense of decency or respect they would just keep quiet this anniversary and let it pass without trying to exploit the fear or jingoism they have mired themselves  in for the past six year. But I doubt they have they have the humanity to keep their mouths shut.

When the Bush administration came to power it had a single foreign policy goal: to establish America as the dominant world power of the 21st century. Seeing the only threat to this goal as the world’s lesser superpowers (Russia and China) the administration focused heavily in its first year on the deployment of an anti-ballistic missile system (aka SDI) and on excising itself from the 1972 ABM Treaty. A deployed anti-missile system, they believed, would have given America a strategic advantage in pressing its will throughout the world for years to come. Then came September 11th, 2001.

When the administration states that 9/11 changed everything, for them, it is no hyperbole. Their notions of projecting a strong, nearly invincible, America on the world were called into question that day. The way the administration viewed it, America’s allies and enemies had seen a small, disorganized, group of fanatics cause massive damage to America’s infrastructure and economy with little money or effort.

The administration responded first by inflating the perpetrators of the attacks. For instance: as Jason Burke has pointed out, prior to 2001 al-Qaeda was a loose association of violent jihadi who received much of their funding from a Saudi businessman named Osama bin-Laden, and who rarely, if ever, used the name al-Qaeda to identify themselves. The administration, however, quickly elevated the perception of al-Qaeda as a powerful leading Islamist terrorist organization. A definition al-Qaeda was egotistically eager to adopt.

The administration’s next responded by prioritizing its original goal of a world dominated by America; however, direct action was now necessary in addition to simple coercion. In 2003 during an interview with Charlie Rose, columnist Thomas Friedman said:

I think it [the invasion of Iraq] was unquestionably worth doing, Charlie.
We needed to go over there, basically, um, and um, uh, take out a very big state right in the heart of that world and burst that bubble, and there was only one way to do it.

Despite Friedman’s lack of eloquence, his viewpoint was shared by most Americans, but particularly so by those who believed in the one-world, one-superpower philosophy of the administration. In order to save-face and press America’s will around the world a strategic invasion was needed. Afghanistan provided little global strategic value, but Iraq was the goldmine. The perfect choice to begin a Pax-Americana.

The notion of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was never the primary reason for its invasion – Dick Cheney alluded to this fact nearly a year ago. Rather as a geo-strategic goal, the subjugation of Iraq as a client state would present America with significant leverage not only the Middle-East, but which could be used against any state questioning its authority. Geographically, bases in Iraq would allow ground forces quick access to Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, and air forces tactical access to Russia and the former Soviet client states. Coupled with the deployment of SDI in Iraq, and perhaps Turkey, American military power would become the dominant force throughout western Asia. Aside from geographic tactical advantages, Iraq also possessed huge reserves of oil. The strategic value to influence world oil prices cannot be understated. Many economists and historians have noted, that low oil prices played a major role in the dissolution of the Soviet state. As, former Russian Prime Minister, Yegor Gaidar wrote:

The timeline of the collapse of the Soviet Union can be traced to September 13, 1985. On this date, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the minister of oil of Saudi Arabia, declared that the monarchy had decided to alter its oil policy radically. The Saudis stopped protecting oil prices, and Saudi Arabia quickly regained its share in the world market. During the next six months, oil production in Saudi Arabia increased fourfold, while oil prices collapsed by approximately the same amount in real terms.

As a result, the Soviet Union lost approximately $20 billion per year, money without which the country simply could not survive.

With the ability to influence world oil prices, America could exert economic pressure on Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. All states this administration sees as growing threats to American influence.

Additionally, the Bush administration, and it’s mentors, viewed Iraq as an easy conquest. Iraq was a modern secular state which had been economically depressed by years of war with Iran and international sanctions. It was believed that a ‘liberation’ would lead to an Iraqi golden age of economic revival under an America guided government.

The reasons for the massive administration failures in Iraq have been well documented. Overall, the administration has relied far too much on politics and philosophy in its actions; rather, than analyzing and rationally responding to a dynamic situation. In other words, they allowed their own ideological optimism to cloud their every judgment. This was coupled with a media which simply reflected and amplified their optimism and created a feedback loop for disaster.

It must be understood, above all, that there exists some political-philosophical truth in everything this administration says about the situation in Iraq. For instance, the administration has claimed upon numerous occasions that should America withdraw forces from Iraq that the ‘terrorists will win’ and ‘they will be embolden’ to ‘attack America’. If we set aside the rhetoric of fear and analyze these statements as elements of the foreign policy discussed above we can find the political truth of them. In the minds of this administration, if America would leave Iraq it would signal a massive loss of America’s prestige and influence. To withdraw is to indicate that you are no longer a super-power whose will can be exerted unilaterally. This administration has viewed, correctly in some sense, that the ultimate goal of Islamic terrorist groups is to undermine and reduce American influence in the Middle East, and throughout the rest of the world. Within the philosophy of the administration, and for its followers, this is tantamount to destroying America. The ‘terrorists’ would ‘win’ if America’s influence in the region was reduced, and anything which undermines the pressing of American will upon the rest of the world is, in essence, an attack upon America.

The administration’s philosophy suggests a naturalistic approach, in which it is understood that one state must, in some sense, exert dominance over others. This ideology strengthens the state, allowing it to believe providence has set it apart and above others. It engenders, what Freud referred to as a “narcissistic satisfaction provided by the cultural ideal” amongst the citizens, bonding them together in unity of vision. This administration, and most American politicians, cannot envision a world in which America is less then the leading global power. In particular, the philosophy of this administration holds that Americans would cease to find meaning or value in their country should America loose status.

When I began writing this entry — about a week or so ago — I was going to predict that President Bush would evoke the specter of the Vietnam war before Gen. Petreaus made his report. This has since come to pass, a bit sooner then I had anticipated. Nonetheless, this should come as no surprise to anyone who understands the political-philosophy which drives this administration. For them, America’s withdraw from Vietnam represented the greatest defeat of superpower-America that had ever occurred. The withdraw has been seen by all in this administration and its supporters as an incalculable blow to American influence throughout the world. They blame the withdraw for Soviet Gains in the 1970s, the 1973 oil embargo, and Iranian Coup. The belief remains that a strong American influence could have averted or mitigated any of these events. But that strength was lost in our withdraw from Vietnam. Additionally, it must be understood that these supporters do not believe that America’s loss in Vietnam was a military defeat; rather, they view it as a cultural defeat. They believe that the generation which was to fight the war had lost it sense of meaning and value of the state. They blame this loss on everything from Soviet influence to the stalemate of the Korean conflict. But we must remember that for this administration, America has never ceased to be the preeminent superpower; that Vietnam was simply a setback to America’s influence and prestige. One which needed to be rectified with action.

By understanding the hopes and philosophy which drove this administration into Iraq, we can understand why they will never abandon it. Far too much, for them, rides on Iraq. They still believe they will maintain their military bases and have some influence on oil production. To withdraw signals a loss of American power and a defeat of American influence. They view Nixon’s withdraw from Vietnam as a lack of willpower, and believe they have learned the lessons of history. This administration will stay in Iraq regardless of the cost because they believe the future of America as a superpower depends upon it. Every strange or bizarre historical analogy they make to the conflict in Iraq is done in an effort to highlight a time of perceived American greatness — a point in history in which America either rose to a difficult military task or emerged victorious. The only exception to this is its recent reference to Vietnam, which is invoked as a warning to America that greatness must be desired and requires sacrifice.

It is my, unfortunate. opinion that most politicians will come to the same conclusion as Mr. Bush. Few of them have the courage to carry out a policy which would reduce America’s global status. If Vietnam is any historical indicator, a withdraw from Iraq would create a need to regain influence by exerting American will somewhere closer to home. In the past this has been Central or South America. The issue which should upset all Americans, however, is that we were never consulted as to what we believe the role of our country in the world should be. This is the question which is considered far too serious and important to be left to citizens or voters. Yet, it is the question which drives our foreign policies which create blow-back towards America throughout the world. The question is perhaps the most important one which can be asked of a citizen, which is ‘what does it mean to be American?’ It is to be the moral and military authority of the world? Or is it something closer to our ideals and our lives?

postscript

There has been some discussion of the need for Mr. Bush to withdraw troops within the next six months. This is an inevitability. Our current military is far too stretched and undermanned to maintain the current troop levels in Iraq. In order to maintain a force, Mr. Bush must seek one of two options: a general draft, or an increased use of private military forces. I do not believe a draft is a possibility, as it would invite far too much scrutiny from the public into the use of military force. Thus, I believe we will see a greater use of private military forces for combat duty. Cynically, one might suggest that a significant American withdraw would lead the administration to utilize these smaller private firms to continue to destabilize Iraq after a significant withdraw. This would help create the impression that the situation is hopeless beyond any country’s influence, even America’s.

Mahablog has excellent post of interpreting Bush’s recent use of Vietnam

Digby has a very good post on the manipulation of media by the Surge machine

Fischer is not alone in her desire to bring religious zeal to our conflicts. For some time there has been an on going effort to evangelize those in our armed forces. Now comes Operation Stand Up (OSU). OSU is an evangelical group focused on providing entertainment and morale to US soldiers serving in Iraq. As they say on their site:

We perform these shows specifically for military soldiers. Our shows are specifically geared to be intriguing to the hard core soldier. Spouses and children are welcome but we make no bones about the fact that we are speaking directly to the soldiers of the greatest fighting force of in the world. No “mamsie pamsie” stuff here! Even our ventriloquist is rated one of the top 5 in the world and has soldiers busting a gut with laughter.

If all OSU was offering our soldiers is a Sargent Slaughter ventriloquist act one could hardly object, except perhaps on grounds of comedic taste. But speaking of their upcoming tour to Iraq the founder & CEO of OSU stated:

We are most excited about this crusade and yes we are willing to go to the front lines with a very encouraging word straight from God, to our troops. We feel the forces of heaven have encouraged us to perform multiple crusades that will sweep through this war torn region.

This statement coupled with the fact that OSU is sending copies of the video game Left Behind: Eternal Forces in care packages to troops certainly suggests that they are attempting to theocrotize both the military and its operations. For those unfamiliar with Eternal Forces, the game play consists primarily of converting or killing non-Christians.

The fact that the Pentagon is both supporting and endorsing OSU should make us all a little queasy. Do we as a nation want our military to become a group of Christian Crusaders? At what point does personnel religious belief become the policy of of military — and what will happen to the people who that military is suppose to protect who don’t live up to that religious belief?

Jonathan Hutson has a good look at OSU at TalktoAction — wherein he examines the homoerotic merchandise offered on their website — the hyper-masculinity is very similar to that seen in illustrations by Tom of Finland.

h/t: Liz

Twenty five years ago, growing up in a dying industrial city of the Midwest, I found myself involved with a group of homeless veterans, most of whom had served in Viet Nam. I cannot say that I befriended any of these soldiers – as they didn’t make friends, and barely tolerated one another at times. But they relied upon each other for some understanding, protection, and some level of compassion. In the 80’s these men reminded people of an unsuccessful war which had divided our nation. There was no sunshine for them from Regan’s ‘morning in America’. Many of them had been forced from VA homes and hospitals as federal funding was cut. They panhandled during the day to scrape up enough to medicate themselves at night. Even drunk and doped many of them would jump and roll with amazing agility at the sound of an unfamiliar footstep in the park where we would meet. Late at night they would wake up screaming or sit up and simply stare intently into space. For these men the war never ended. They were still soldiers — fighting the same war; the same battles. They could never come home.

Last month the Pentagon issued a report analyzing the state of mental health among our soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to that report

Based on data in their 2004 study, Hoge and colleagues estimated that, using strict screening criteria, 17 percent of soldiers from brigade combat teams would be at risk for developing clinically significant symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depression, or anxiety after deployment, and that an even higher percentage (28%) would experience symptoms if broader screening criteria were used (Hoge, Castro, Messer, McGurck, Cotting & Koffman, 2004). The prevalence of PTSD within a year of combat deployment was estimated to range from 10 to 25 percent (Hoge et al., 2004). More recent data from the Post-Deployment Health Re-Assessment (PDHRA), which is administered to service members 90 to 120 days after returning from deployment, indicate that 38 percent of Soldiers and 31 percent of Marines report psychological symptoms. Among members of the National Guard, the figure rises to 49 percent (U.S. Air Force, 2007; U.S. Army, 2007; U.S. Navy, 2007). Psychological concerns are also significantly higher among those with repeated deployments, a rapidly growing cohort. Psychological concerns among family members of deployed and returning Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) veterans, while yet to be fully quantified, are also an issue of concern. Further, hundreds of thousands of U.S. children have experienced the deployment of a parent. Clearly, the challenges are enormous and the consequences of non-performance are significant.

Despite its own findings, the Pentagon and the Veteran’s Administration have been unable, or unwilling, to provide the post-war care these soldiers require. This week veterans’ groups sued the VA in order to get the basic health care that was promised — and owed to these men and women. Veterans themselves were too afraid of reprisals to take action against their own government that umbrella organizations had to initiate action for them. Unfortunately, this illustrates but a tiny sliver of the problem. Those involved in the suit have already left the military service and have been handed to the VA; there are over 100,000 who have not yet completed their service and have seen combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As a young man, I opposed the Viet Nam conflict; as a middle aged man, I opposed the invasion of Iraq. They were and remain pointless conflicts based more on hubris then on national security. The men and women who serve(d) in these conflicts served our nation – regarless of how one feels about the conflict or the soldiers – and they require our respect and aid. Long after our soldiers leave Iraq, after the protest banners are thrown into the basement, and after the magnetic ribbons are removed from vehicles, many of the soldiers who served will be suffering the effects of this war. When those days come — and they are coming soon — when thousands of veterans seek medical care, housing, food, or simply hit you up for a buck on the street, then the phrase “support the troops” will have real meaning. It will demand money, compassion, and empathy. We should all begin offering those things today with the knowledge that more will be required of us tomorrow.

Max Abrahms has published a fascinating paper showing the ineffectiveness of terrorism as a strategic political tool, particularly when civilians are targeted:

This study analyzes the political plights of twenty-eight terrorist groups— the complete list of foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) as designated by the U.S. Department of State since 2001. The data yield two unexpected findings. First, the groups accomplished their forty-two policy objectives only 7 percent of the time. Second, although the groups achieved certain types of policy objectives more than others, the key variable for terrorist success was a tactical one: target selection. Groups whose attacks on civilian targets outnumbered attacks on military targets systematically failed to achieve their policy objectives, regardless of their nature. These findings suggest that (1) terrorist groups rarely achieve their policy objectives, and (2) the poor success rate is inherent to the tactic of terrorism itself. Together, the data challenge the dominant scholarly opinion that terrorism is strategically rational behavior.

In his analysis Abrahms argues that the low strategic success rate is due to Correspondence Interference. Correspondence Interference theory states that one interprets the intentions of others based upon their actions. For instance, you observe a young man waving a baseball bat at a clerk behind the counter at a 7-11. You infer that he is trying to rob the establishment. In actuality, this may be two friends engaged in horseplay. Abrahms states that terrorists acts, particularly those targeting civilians, create a high level of correspondence and foment an all-or-nothing ideological struggle in the minds of those attacked. For instance, prior to the events of 9/11 it was generally understood that Osama bin Ladin’s primary goal was the removal of US forces from Saudi Arabia, and then from the greater Middle East. Whether or not these goals were ever achievable is inconsequential. After the attacks of 9/11 the intent of bin Laden in the public mind became to destroy the United States. As President Bush reiterated on the 5th anniversary of the attacks,

The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation.

The overall effect of terrorism against civilians maximalizes ideological differences of any struggle making compromise or a negotiated resolution impossible. The inferred intention of the 9/11 perpetrators has become a significant political argument in the US which continues to fuel policies and actions which are antithetical to the terrorists stated goals. America’s presence in the Middle East, for instance, has dramatically increased since the attacks; whereas, the stated goal of those behind the attacks was to decrease US presence.

Abrahms argument becomes more interesting when re-interpreted to examine US policies and their effect on intended audiences and targets. While Abrahms does not engage this topic, it is, nonetheless, the next logical area to consider.

America, for instance, has a stated goal of bringing democracy and stability to Iraq. However, the net effect of our actions has left the country unstable, chaotic, and violent. One must wonder what the implied correspondence of America’s actions signified as its intentions in the Middle East. Certainly the current situation in Iraq precipitates, if not creates, a significant ideological gulf. One in which there can never be a diplomatic resolution. For if the majority of civilians in the Middle East perceive the result of America’s actions to signify its original intent then then one must believe that America is a state which seeks to destabilize the Middle East and unleash havoc upon it. Ironically, this is the goal ascribed to bin Ladin’s attack on the US. America’s actions may make it as popular in the Middle East as bin Ladin is in the Midwest.