[Peace-discuss] The message of wiki-leaks…

[C. G. Estabrook]

Yes, we should "get our bloody hands out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, etc."

But is any argument that says we should do so "for the good"?

How about, e.g., the argument that it was the International Jewish Conspiracy 
that tricked us into it in the first place, so we've got to find those Jews and 
stop them?

How about the argument that that nice Mr. Obama could never mean to hurt anybody 
halfway around the world, so as soon as he's told what's happening, he'll stop it?

The best will in the world, in the absence of an accurate analysis, can do the 
right thing only by accident.

David has quite accurately articulated the subtext of Rich's article - a subtext 
that the ex-theatre critic is perfectly aware of. The point of the column - 
entitled "Kiss This War Goodbye" - is "the Afghan war is on its downside, 
everyone knows it, so let's attend to other issues while war is ended by some 
vague process that will not require voluntary action on the part of the citizenry."

Perish the though! The one thing the administration is afraid of is "voluntary 
action on the part of the citizenry": the point of "Audacity of Hope" was 
Obama's promise to the US elite that what the public did in regard to Vietnam 
can be prevented from happening again, and he's the man to do it.

Rich aids the campaign by, among other things, misrepresenting that earlier - 
and different - war: By 1971, he says, "Most Americans had long been telling 
pollsters the war was a mistake." Not quite - or rather not the whole truth. 
Even by 1969, 70% of the respondents to a question about the Vietnam War from 
the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations choose the option that the war was 
"fundamentally wrong and immoral, not a mistake."

The Obama people and their flacks in the press know how important it is to avoid 
the growth of that opinion again.  Rich is doing his job. Move along, folks; 
nothin' happenin' here...


On 8/1/10 7:14 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> I suppose I'm too insensitive and stupid to think that anything or argument
> that says for us to get our bloody hands out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran,
> Pakistan and SE and ME is for the good. Even if the arguments come from Frank
> Rich or Friedman (whom I refuse to read, because he gives me indigestion).
> What is it with you guys who feel obliged to /condemn/ anything that comes
> out that does not /precisely/ match what you want to be said. Now it's not
> only Rich, but Paul Street. Who next?
>
> I recommend reading Street's article on ZNet, again.
>
> I've now (had to) read Rich's article. David's second sentence is a wild
> take-off on what he seems to have said. The word "seems" is where the problem
>  seems to lie.
>
> Just some reactions to latest posts.
>
> --mkb
>
> On Aug 1, 2010, at 2:45 PM, David Green wrote:
>
>> The two liberal responses in today's NYT are interesting. Rich's is that
>> the Afghan war is on its downside, everyone knows it, so let's attend to
>> other issues while war is ended by some vague process that will not require
>>  voluntary action on the part of the citizenry. Thomas Friedman's response
>> is that Americans are being played for suckers by our puppets, including
>> Karzai, and the Pakistanis. He also offers an account that differentiates
>> between the Saudi royal family and the Wahabbi sect--I haven't heard this
>> before, and I suspect its either fiction or exaggerated. Of course, we
>> nurtured the most "extreme" forces for our original foray into Afghanistan
>> during the Carter administration. In any event, in Friedman's narrative,
>> idealistic well-intentioned Americans are being victimized by those trying
>> to help them. Rich doesn't go that far--implicitly well-intentioned
>> Americans have simply made lots of mistakes. In addition, there's enough
>> megalomania between these four ears to fill a wing of a psychiatric
>> hospital, or perhaps the Pentagon. DG
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
*From:* C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>>
>> *To:* Brussel Morton K. <mkbrussel at comcast.net
>> <mailto:mkbrussel at comcast.net>> *Cc:* Peace Discuss
>> <peace-discuss at anti-war.net <mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net>> *Sent:*
>> Sun, August 1, 2010 2:12:03 PM *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] The message
>> of wiki-leaks…
>>
>> American liberalism is a closed oyster into which a mere grain of sand -
>> the Wikileaks documents - has penetrated. Here we see that echt liberal
>> Frank Rich, equal to the challenge, beginning the process of covering the
>> offending element with a first layer of nacre, by the same living process
>> as is used in the secretion of the mother of pearl covering that lines
>> liberalism's shell...
>>
>> Behold - a pearl!
>>
>> Kiss This War Goodbye By FRANK RICH Published: July 31, 2010
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01rich.html?_r=2&hp
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01rich.html?_r=2&hp>
>>
>>
>> On 8/1/10 11:37 AM, Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>>> *From Paul Street on a ZNet article:*
>>>
>>> “The lesson; no, the message; no, um, the takeaway of the leaked
>>> documents is not: if only they knew how badly it's going, how hard it's
>>> going to be, then the administration would bring an end to the conflict.
>>> Rather, the takeaway; no, the message is that even knowing how badly the
>>> war goes, they persist. The lesson is not the Administration's blindness,
>>> but its dogged intransigence, its total commitment to the endeavor,
>>> regardless of the means or outcome, regardless of the possibility of
>>> reward, regardless of the cost, regardless of suffering, regardless of
>>> sense and duration. The United States has an institutional commitment to
>>> the occupation of Afghanistan. It can't be argued out of it.”*[7]* * *
>>> One of the best reflections about Wiki-Leaks and related matters. See
>>>
>>> http://www.zcommunications.org/revealing-moments-by-paul-street