The Ghost Hunters
The dead now walk the Earth, apparently, as the specter of the US venture in Iraq returns from the grave of anonymity. Some might find this strange, believing they never faltered in their concern for the perhaps millions killed and millions upon millions displaced in that country. But the Wall Street Journal’s Gerald F. Seib already reassured us that the issues had receded: the election was “less about ideology and ideas and more about governing style and leadership ability -- intangible qualities…” Leaving aside the problem of judging leadership on the basis of things which cannot be judged, let us focus instead on Mr Seib’s presumed disappointment at the temerity of those hairy nuisances, the issues. Yes, it’s true. The issues are back. At least one is: “Candidates to Use Petraeus Hearing To Push Iraq Stances”; “McCain Is Vocal on War”. The nerve of those issues not knowing when to die!
But Mr Seib is surely not alone in not understanding the issues. I certainly don’t understand why it was necessary to move a million people from around the world into Iraq to replace one tyranny with another and preside over a genocide in the process. But of course, no one can mention this aspect of the issue publicly. Voters don’t seem to understand either: “’there is no correlation in the exit polls so far between the issues people think are important and the candidates they vote for,’ says Andrew Kohut, who conducts polling for the Pew Research Center. ‘It's about the qualities of the person.’" Such personal qualities are essential in politicians who must make tough, unpopular decisions. Or in other words, to truly ignore the majority of US voters and support the moneyed interests that got them elected, politicians must hide their actual stances from the voters. The press seems to think they’re doing quite well. But then, the press is a moneyed interest as well, isn’t it?
So how is Iraq really doing? According to Mr McCain, "Overall, it's a remarkable success -- overall with significant challenges ahead". Hmmm; not the words of someone who knows. But that’s ok, because we have experts to tell us: “Mr. Petraeus' status report… will shape the administration's policy for the next several months…” It bears reflection that generals were once subordinate to presidents. Clausewitz saw war as an extension of policy, not as its inevitable master. Lincoln had little compunction about firing generals. This of course required some understanding of how war was meeting political objectives. Our leaders today seem to have given up trying. “Just do whatever the general says” is the order of the day.
But if we don’t know how Iraq is going, how do we know if “Mr. Petraeus” knows? Without a doubt, this media savvy general has a firm intellectual grasp “of the revolt the newest state”. Reading further, however:
Mr. Petraeus is expected to report that impressive security gains and modest political progress has occurred since the influx of U.S. troops, and that force withdrawals can continue this fall if officials conclude security would not be compromised.
Does this mean anything? I don’t think so. In fact, troop withdrawal is a given when a certain amount of troops become unnecessary. This is simply a statement of the obvious. More to the point, it is an admission that we don’t really know how it’s going to go. Nobody seems to know.
Most people, however, seem to know we’re drinking turd punch. Some are even complaining about the taste. The Iraq war is the unhappy offspring of moneyed interests, authoritarian ideologues, and the terminally credulous. It is part of a self stoking process in which money and political power are consolidated in ever fewer hands. But people aren’t as dumb as these tyrannies give us credit for: everywhere people are standing up and speaking out against these and other injustices. Perhaps there is yet enough time to do some good.
