A Rank Truthhood
---
Charles Krauthammer, with his typical chest-thumping indignation, accuses critics of John McCain, apparently including me, of "a rank falsehood" for pressing McCain's now infamous "maybe 100" remark:
--In all the previous occupations there was a clearly delineated switch from "war" to "occupation" — V-E Day, V-J Day, etc. Such a demarcation has not occurred — and cannot occur — in Iraq. Roadside bombs were not exploding in Germany in the 1950s; suicide bombers were not self-detonating along the DMZ in the 1960s, etc. This is exactly the conundrum that McCain cannot bring himself to admit: One cannot "win" an occupation; one can only commence it, prolong it or end it.
--Whether friendly toward U.S. occupation forces or not, the Germans, Japanese, Koreans and Kuwaitis were and are unified peoples. Unlike post-Saddam Iraqis, their agendas never included blowing each other up (especially via women, children and incompetents).
If, for example, post-Hitler Catholic Bavarians had been perpetually obsessed with killing Lutheran Hessians and vice versa (in God's name, of course) — and with U.S. troops perpetually dying as recurring collateral damage — then I sincerely doubt that we would have stayed in Germany as long as we have.
The Iraq that McCain and Krauthammer expect us to be nonplussed to occupy for a century is a geopolitical impossibility. The fact that McCain cannot grasp, or is unwillingness to acknowledge, this self-evident reality makes him all the more untenable as a post-Bush commander-in-chief.
--Two words: Cold War. Only rabid warmongers and "national greatness" fetishists like McCain and Krauthammer could pretend that "Iraq isn't different." We stayed in Germany, Japan and Korea because we had to. As McCain's own recent episode of foreign policy illiteracy demonstrates, the "al Qaeda will take over" bogeyman is a laughable canard. When al Qaeda acquires ICBMs, nuclear submarines and a fleet of tanks along the Elbe, then let's talk about where we need to set up shop for "maybe 100" years.
Unlike our previous great conflicts and their subsequent great occupations — which were fundamentally strategic in nature — the War on al Qaeda requires tactical strikes on a tactical organization — bombing a training compound, assassinating a leader, infiltrating a terror cell, etc. It's a war best fought not by GI Joe but by Tom Quinn.
The only basis for wanting to occupy the world is the geopolitical equivalent of excess testosterone — of which we have had more than enough these past five years. That is hardly, to borrow Krauthammer's insolent term, a "rank falsehood."
Similar deceitful apologia from The Washington Post.
"We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." And lest anyone persist in thinking he was talking about war-fighting, he told his questioner: "It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world."There would be a grain of truth — more like truthiness — in Krauthammer's screed but for a few pesky contrasts (i.e., "truthhoods") between Iraq on the one hand and Germany, Japan, Korea and even Kuwait on the other:
--In all the previous occupations there was a clearly delineated switch from "war" to "occupation" — V-E Day, V-J Day, etc. Such a demarcation has not occurred — and cannot occur — in Iraq. Roadside bombs were not exploding in Germany in the 1950s; suicide bombers were not self-detonating along the DMZ in the 1960s, etc. This is exactly the conundrum that McCain cannot bring himself to admit: One cannot "win" an occupation; one can only commence it, prolong it or end it.
--Whether friendly toward U.S. occupation forces or not, the Germans, Japanese, Koreans and Kuwaitis were and are unified peoples. Unlike post-Saddam Iraqis, their agendas never included blowing each other up (especially via women, children and incompetents).
If, for example, post-Hitler Catholic Bavarians had been perpetually obsessed with killing Lutheran Hessians and vice versa (in God's name, of course) — and with U.S. troops perpetually dying as recurring collateral damage — then I sincerely doubt that we would have stayed in Germany as long as we have.
The Iraq that McCain and Krauthammer expect us to be nonplussed to occupy for a century is a geopolitical impossibility. The fact that McCain cannot grasp, or is unwillingness to acknowledge, this self-evident reality makes him all the more untenable as a post-Bush commander-in-chief.
--Two words: Cold War. Only rabid warmongers and "national greatness" fetishists like McCain and Krauthammer could pretend that "Iraq isn't different." We stayed in Germany, Japan and Korea because we had to. As McCain's own recent episode of foreign policy illiteracy demonstrates, the "al Qaeda will take over" bogeyman is a laughable canard. When al Qaeda acquires ICBMs, nuclear submarines and a fleet of tanks along the Elbe, then let's talk about where we need to set up shop for "maybe 100" years.
Unlike our previous great conflicts and their subsequent great occupations — which were fundamentally strategic in nature — the War on al Qaeda requires tactical strikes on a tactical organization — bombing a training compound, assassinating a leader, infiltrating a terror cell, etc. It's a war best fought not by GI Joe but by Tom Quinn.
The only basis for wanting to occupy the world is the geopolitical equivalent of excess testosterone — of which we have had more than enough these past five years. That is hardly, to borrow Krauthammer's insolent term, a "rank falsehood."
Similar deceitful apologia from The Washington Post.
Posted by Kip on
28 March 2008
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.