February 9, 2005
The Left's Old-Time '60s Political Religion
By Austin Bay

The week before the Jan. 30 Iraqi election, Sen. Ted Kennedy branded Iraq a hopeless quagmire. "Bush's Vietnam," Kennedy bellowed.

"Quagmire." "Vietnam." "Bush." Indeed, the Massachusetts senator's dire sermon invoked his fundamentalist faith's demons old and demons au courant. Sen. Barbara Boxer joined the snake dance, adding her own poisonous sanctimony.

The Iraqi people, braving car bombs and waving ink-stained fingers, demonstrated that Ted is more than a bit "tetched," to use the colloquial term. Iraqis weren't going to miss the chance to damn Saddam's legacy of theft, murder, thuggery and war.

Beltway political experts explain Kennedy's action as a tactical political gamble. See, Bay, ole Ted was simply staking out political territory. If the Iraqi elections failed --as the conventional media wisdom said they would -- he was positioned to "take the moral high ground" from the Bush administration. "Moral high ground," accompanied by appropriate friendly media magnification, would translate into the political power to dominate the Bush administration.

It's tactical, Bay, tactical.

No, it's sad. It's blind. It's also bitterly small. That's why I pity Mr. Kennedy.

Jan. 30 was crunch time for the people of Iraq. The War on Terror is crunch time for the 21st century. We are living in a moment that really matters, when blood, sweat, toil and tears fueled by hope and courage can lay the political foundation for a more just and prosperous century.

With the exception of Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Party's senior leaders have either vacillated in their support or been dead wrong about Iraq. This doesn't bode well for the United States. Last July, I met Lieberman at a reception in Baghdad. I told him I wished he were the Democratic nominee for president. He smiled wryly and said he wished he was, too.

Lieberman gets it. He understands the stakes and appreciates the risks, but he also understands the opportunities. He's an armed liberal in the tradition of Harry Truman and Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- and, for that matter, John Kennedy.

America needs the Democratic Party of Truman and FDR -- and that's a party willing to drop A-bombs and "bear any price" for freedom on the planet. Instead, the Democratic National Committee infects itself with Mad How disease, the political bacillus spread by Park Avenue's Typhoid Mary of ulcerous anger, "Mad How"-ard Dean.

This is a serious strategic illness. Symptoms include lack of spine, especially when sustaining international action to defeat tyranny and terror. There are some humorous side-effects: As the disease progresses leftward, particularly among bi-coastal and academic elites, a desire to recast America as France emerges.

The more extreme manifestations include activist nostalgia for 1960s narco-politics, where gray-haired profs with ponytails rant about -- you guessed it -- "quagmires" and "Vietnam."

"Left-wing denial" has become a redundant phrase, just like "left-wing defeatism." Remember, Afghanistan was supposed to be a quagmire. Millions would die in the harsh Himalayan winter.

Instead, U.S. forces and Afghan allies quickly drove the Taliban from power and Al Qaeda's claim to "divine sanction" for its war against America went poof. The October 2004 Afghan election ratified the victory.

The Vietnam War -- so costly and destructive -- was strategic defense, a Cold War attempt to buy time while avoiding nuclear conflict until the Soviet Union "mellowed," to use George Kennan's phrase.

Iraq, like Afghanistan, is part of a strategic political and military offensive directed at the dictators and genocidal ideologues whose design for the 21st century is 12th century autocracy imposed by death squads, men in turbans and nukes.

China's Mao Tse-Tung wrote that guerrillas are fish swimming in the sea of the people. Translation: It takes popular support to sustain a genuine guerrilla conflict. The Saddmist thugs and Al Qaeda zealots who kill Iraqi civilians and coalition troops are reactionaries with scant political appeal. They are murderers, not soldiers in a wider people's war.

Check the ink-stained fingers -- the Iraqi elections demonstrated just how politically marginal these fascists are.

Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean can't hear that, can't see that. Saddled with defeatism and blinded by cynicism, they're old-time '60s political religion is now the quagmire.

It seems the right will NEVER be able to come up w/ an intelligent arguement for the Iraqi War.  Obviously we were dead wrong about WMD's (and yes, that does include the stupid democrats who bought into this rational, like Lieberman).  It is also CLEAR that there was no terrorist connections between Al Qaida and Saddam.  If you think otherwise, you are living in a fantasy land.  So, that leaves us with the spreading of democracy, or "nation building", to use Bush's term when he criticized the former administration during the 2000 campaign.  Does anyone smell a flip-flop???  Isn't that the sign of a weak leader, according to the right?  If we really want to spread democracy, shouldn't we try it with our allies, like Saudi Arabia?  Or, we could do it for a lot cheaper in a place much closer - say Mexico???  Then again, we didn't seem to thrilled with "democracy" in Venezuela, did we? It seems like we always aren't too thrilled with democracy (much like the founding fathers weren't - but thats another thread) when it doesn't benefit us.

This war has turned Iarq into such debacle - or "quagmire, if you will  - that war proponents are continually grasping at straws.  First, the fall of Baghdad was to be the start of a great time for Iraq.  Then, turning over sovereignty was to be the great turning point.  Then the capture of Saddam.  With each "accomplishment", we've seen more and more deaths.

This article cannot be taken seriously.  We need to drop A-bombs for freedom?????  Are you kidding me????

Talking about the left:  "This is a serious strategic illness. Symptoms include lack of spine, especially when sustaining international action to defeat tyranny and terror. There are some humorous side-effects: As the disease progresses leftward, particularly among bi-coastal and academic elites, a desire to recast America as France emerges. "

- this quote is insulting, and shows the stupidity of the author.  Its funny how we all talk about how important education is, but when people actually become critical thinkers and "academics", if they don't agree with the right they are marganalized as "elites", which is even funnier because the most wealthy people in the country TEND to vote republican, yet they are somehow NOT elites.  This is proof though that republicans are masters at controlling debates and changing the definition of words - thats why they are in power.

One last point.  This election MAY prove to be successful, but according to todays deaths in Iraq, I don't think it is yet.  And while its great to find solice in pictures of Iraqis holding up ink stained fingers, doing so misses some important points.  For example, any first year political science student will tell you that a government is defined by its monopoly and legitimization to use force on people.  In this regard, iraq is not even close to achieving the single most basic definition of an legitamized, operable government - after almost 2 years since our invasion!!!  To ignore the daily death tolls in favor of ink stained fingers, is to align oneself with people like the above author, who even to this day can't see that Vietnam was a complete failure in ideology.  This guy is so stupid that he refers to Kennedy as  fascist???? If you wanna be a name caller, at least call him a Commie for God Sakes!!!  How can we use this guy as a part of intelligent debate??????


Arrgghhhh!!!!  Thats enough for now.....

Critical thought? I would argue that there's plenty of critical thought behind the article, backed by a realist viewpoint from the author's year spent in Iraq, and topped with a healthy dose of sarcasm, of which the Left deserves plenty these days.

As for name calling? Seems to be more of that in your response.

FYI the use of the word "facist" refers to the terrorists and Baathists, not Kennedy. Furthermore, applying a little bit of "critical thought" might help to understand that the A-bomb reference is a figurative reference to Democrats past, not literal. Critical reading skills help foster "intelligent debate", you know.

RLTW

If you are going to try and insult the author and imply he has some type of lack of critical thinking ability, perhaps you should research a little better.


"this quote is insulting, and shows the stupidity of the author."

About the author:

"Bay, who has had two commercial wargames published, served for four years as a consultant in wargaming at the Pentagon. He holds the rank of Colonel (Armor) in the U.S. Army Reserve. In 1999 Bay served as deputy commander of a Hurricane Mitch recovery operation in Guatemala.

Bay is now retired from the US Army Reserve, but was recalled to active duty and served in Iraq in 2004. For this tour of duty in Iraq, he was awarded the Bronze Star for meritorious service.

Bay has a B.A. from Rice University and a Ph.D. in English and Comparative Literature from Columbia University. He is a graduate of the U.S. Army War College. He currently teaches for The University of Texas' Plan II Undergraduate Honors Program."


Now tell us again.....WHERE did YOU get YOUR PhD? And what is your background, other than being an opinionated anonymous writer who can't read?

Bay is so far out of your league its ridiculous. and you think HE is misinformed.

Go get published, earn some REAL credentials, and THEN come back and see us...

I didn't criticize his English Lit claims, did I?  Or his theories on war games.  I DO have a masters in political science, so I feel I can talk to the issues that this author decided to bring up.

I do apologize for misreading his fascist statement...I was reading awfully quickly.  I guess I should be crucified.

Unfortunately, you have no response to any of the points I brought up.  I also did not call the author any names - I just questioned his reasoning.  For example, the Unabomber was highly educated - that doesn't mean I have to agree with him, or that his political ideology trumps mine because he had a PhD.  This author, on the other hand, did what you seem to do, which is attack liberals in a mean spirited way, me included.  Which brings me to another point:  if your responses, JBIRDCA, to my posts are going to be personal, just send me a PM.  Of you want to foster a dialogue or debate, then do that here.

All I was saying that this guy doesn't make a compelling case for the right.  If you want to read one, look for Joe Klein's latest essay.  While I disagree with many parts, it doesn't resort to name calling.

So, I would welcome any debate you or any other conservative want to have.  I addressed the issues in the article that I thought had holes.  While there are MANY criticisms to be leveled at the Dem's, I think this author reduces his criticism to the fact they don't think like republicans - thus rendered invalid.  In the word of Ted Kennedy - I personally don't think we need 2 republican parties.

To respond to RLTW, he did in fact say that we need the Democratic Party of Truman - one willing to drop A-Bombs for freedom.  I disagree.  And when the author calls Dem's spineless for not thinking his way, I stand by my original quote.  I do disagree that Dem's are spineless, and I think this and his other name calling of Dem's is stupid.  But, I can agree the Dem's can have some sarcasm leveled at them, but it seems awfully repeated lately everywhere you look, and smacks of a "sore-winner" syndrome in Republicans....

Finally, the author says that Dem's that were against the war were "dead wrong".  As if the war has been a success.  I'm sorry, but ink stained fingers are not success.  "Democracy" is not embodied in one election.  Democracy is much more than that, and so is a successful government.  Didn't someone post a link a while back that showed an 80+% voter turnout in Vietnam in the late 60's?  Gee, how did that turn out????  While the circumstances are not identical, it does show that things that look good one day can go to hell the next.  The fact that Iraqi police forces are regularily kidnapped/disarmed/or killed after almost 2 years of occupation shows that this country is along way from stability.

So, if you want to disagree with any of the points I brought about, I would like to read the responses.  For some reason, my post really seem to cause you outrage, JBIRDCA - I don't know why, but I would like to be civil and bury the hatchet.

I didn't criticize his English Lit claims, did I?  Or his theories on war games.  I DO have a masters in political science, so I feel I can talk to the issues that this author decided to bring up.

I do apologize for misreading his fascist statement...I was reading awfully quickly.  I guess I should be crucified.

Unfortunately, you have no response to any of the points I brought up.  I also did not call the author any names - I just questioned his reasoning.  For example, the Unabomber was highly educated - that doesn't mean I have to agree with him, or that his political ideology trumps mine because he had a PhD.  This author, on the other hand, did what you seem to do, which is attack liberals in a mean spirited way, me included.  Which brings me to another point:  if your responses, JBIRDCA, to my posts are going to be personal, just send me a PM.  Of you want to foster a dialogue or debate, then do that here.

All I was saying that this guy doesn't make a compelling case for the right.  If you want to read one, look for Joe Klein's latest essay.  While I disagree with many parts, it doesn't resort to name calling.

So, I would welcome any debate you or any other conservative want to have.  I addressed the issues in the article that I thought had holes.  While there are MANY criticisms to be leveled at the Dem's, I think this author reduces his criticism to the fact they don't think like republicans - thus rendered invalid.  In the word of Ted Kennedy - I personally don't think we need 2 republican parties.

To respond to RLTW, he did in fact say that we need the Democratic Party of Truman - one willing to drop A-Bombs for freedom.  I disagree.  And when the author calls Dem's spineless for not thinking his way, I stand by my original quote.  I do disagree that Dem's are spineless, and I think this and his other name calling of Dem's is stupid.  But, I can agree the Dem's can have some sarcasm leveled at them, but it seems awfully repeated lately everywhere you look, and smacks of a "sore-winner" syndrome in Republicans....

Finally, the author says that Dem's that were against the war were "dead wrong".  As if the war has been a success.  I'm sorry, but ink stained fingers are not success.  "Democracy" is not embodied in one election.  Democracy is much more than that, and so is a successful government.  Didn't someone post a link a while back that showed an 80+% voter turnout in Vietnam in the late 60's?  Gee, how did that turn out????  While the circumstances are not identical, it does show that things that look good one day can go to hell the next.  The fact that Iraqi police forces are regularily kidnapped/disarmed/or killed after almost 2 years of occupation shows that this country is along way from stability.

So, if you want to disagree with any of the points I brought about, I would like to read the responses.  For some reason, my post really seem to cause you outrage, JBIRDCA - I don't know why, but I would like to be civil and bury the hatchet.

ooooops

I think his essay was an attack on liberals from the point of view of of a conservative, and to me, did not contain noteable critical thought.  I have a repsonse to JBIrd that addresses your other comments....

"Go get published, earn some REAL credentials, and THEN come back and see us... "

Who is "us"???  Other published academics???  Or dudes like me, that just happen to be politically active and love the company of beautiful women.  Maybe I misread the user agreement here at TER.

So I'm supposed to just agree with guy because he has a PhD????  This is getting crazy.  How about this: I can one up him....the professor that over saw my thesis has TWO PhD's - one in ecomonics and one in political science. AND, he worked as a consultant at the World Bank.  I bet you he could beat up Bay, no problem.  AND he'll agree with me 100% - no, wait, 1000%!!!

jesus!!!!  If a liberal doesn't just roll over for you guys, you freak out.  How did I become the bitch of conservatives here????  If it makes you feel any better, I has a short essay  published years ago in an obscure poli sci journal that was probably read by 2 people.  But thats not the point.  The arguement that a PhD cannot be criticized is ridiculous.  You'd happily go after a liberal PhD, right?

ANYWAY, I've tried to be as conciliatory as possible, and I still have yet to see any substantive responses....

And again, if you want to attack me personally, just send a PM so as not to waste others time.  If you want to respond and have a dialogue for some of the topics I tried to home in on - great.

Speaking only for me, it's hard to take seriously an offer for substantive dialogue from someone who over-reacts as easily as you did in your initial reply to my post. Complaining about name calling in one sentence, then calling the person you disagree with stupid in the next.

Are you looking for two-way dialogue, or your-way dialogue?

RLTW

You wanted to know how we can use this guy for a debate, I simply pointed out his credentials vs. yours.

You are the one that indicated he should not be used, my point is if he shouldn't be in the debate, what makes you SO GREAT that you should be??

BTW, some of the dumbest people I've heard have PhDs... I could care less about them.

There was a "successful" election in South Vietnam in 1967.  Eighty-five percent turnout, I believe.

Iraq may succeed. Stranger things have happened. If it does, it will still be questionable whether we won anything, replacing a weak, secular dictatorship with a shiite theocracy-- literally doing the work that Iran couldn't do in its eight-year bloody war with Iraq.  

/Zin

Conservative or liberal, you have to admit that the Iraq war was a mistake.  Or you can put your head in the sand and keep believing that America is somehow safer.

What are YOUR credentials, Snowman?

You really have to ignore reality to think the Iraq war has been either successful or worthwhile.

There was a "staged" election in Vietnam, not a successful one. Iraq is not Vietnam, no matter how much you wish it so.

As far as measuring success; no reasonable person believes that the success of the Iraqi elections means total, unequivocal success in Iraq. Conducting the elections was an incremental (and important) success in a difficult process. They were also an undeniable (yet still incremental) victory against the terrorists and Baathists who vehemently oppose the entire process through terror and murder.

Unless of course it just can't be, because Bush is just too bad. And I think that's what is so hard to swallow for alot of you.

RLTW

-- Modified on 2/10/2005 10:14:53 AM

-- Modified on 2/10/2005 10:19:15 AM

-- Modified on 2/10/2005 10:21:05 AM

I'd much prefer a one way dialogue where everyone just lets me tell them what to think.

Seriously though, I'm sorry if you think I over-reacted but I think you can find better authors - and PhD's - to make your case.  I said I thought the guy was stupid for calling Dem's that don't agree with Repub's spineless.  I also find it hard to take anyone serious who thought that Vietnam was a success - while it might've been in terms of war games - his apparent expertise - I think it was a failure in every other (and much more important) aspect, and I don't think I'm alone on this one.

Anyway, I've seen plenty of tough talk from conservatives around here, like the original author.  If he can ridicule Dem's from a perspective that I think it pretty far out of the mainstream (like the Vietnam example), then I feel I have the right to say that is stupid.  And technically, I did not call him any names, such as "Stupid" - I wrote that what he said was stupid.  So, I'm sorry if I'm a liberal that not just going to shut and and take it, and I think I have every right to push back in the face of posts like the first one here.  If you can't deal with that, then I think you and some of the other conservatives here are looking for a one-way street.  Honestly, I've criticized an author that will never know it, yet the responses I got here were like I personally attacked a fellow poster here.  And "I" took plenty of personal attacks afterward (go back and reread some of things leveled toward me)...so really I've been attacked by you guys and I have really said nothing personal about any of you.  In fact, I've tried to be conciliatory in my follow-up reponses, to no avail.  I'm sure we'll all butt heads in the future, and from my end none of it is intended to be malicious.

Anyway, enough of this....I think this thread should be about done, although I will still stand by the points that I tried to make in my original response (other than my misread about the fascist thing).  Too bad no one responded to those....

Hey JBIRDCA, this is just another example that the left - God love 'em, would rather attack the messenger than the message.

To me it's nothing less than intellectual lazyness, but they also tend to be intellectually dishonest an awful lot too.

then he should be prepared for people to challenge his own credentials.

well I never said he can't be used as part of a debate because of his credentials. I just said his arguement didn't, to me, seem to contain any critical analysis.  It seemed to be grounded in ideology (for example, his proclomation that Lieberman "gets it" about the Iraq War.  "Gets it", as in agrees with himself and Republicans).  I still stand by my original post and say that critical analysis goes far beyond ink stained fingers.  There are many other realities in Iraq, good and bad, that need to be examined for people to make decisions about this war.  To me, he just made fun of Dem's and made an arguement based in surface level analysis - i.e. ink stained fingers.  To me, that type of over simplification is useless to meaningfum debate.