tommy, you've hit the big time

I like Thomas Friedman as much as the next guy; in fact, I recently went out of my way to hear him speak and to ask him to sign one of his books for me -- that's how much I appreciate his very insightful writing. But good satire is good satire, and I would like to think that Tom himself would appreciate this and particularly this. (courtesy of Reason's Hit 'n Run - I would note that at least one person whose email looks hauntingly like TF himself weighed in on Reason's comments section, so hopefully he hasn't lost his sense of humor.)


Marc posted this at 30.4.04 | Permalink

...and give saigon a rest

Two consecutive postings do not a theme make, but Vietnam is yet again in the news. Terry McAuliffe, DNC Chair, takes a break from harping on the President's war record to harp on the Vice President's non-participation today:

"You remember Dick Cheney. When John Kerry was risking his life for his country in Vietnam, Dick Cheney was getting deferments because, in his words, he had 'other priorities than military service.' And he feels qualified to tell us that John Kerry won't do whatever it takes to defend America?"

OK. (1) John Kerry's war record is hardly a slam-dunk (to use last week's most unfortunate phrase). There are a lot of inconsistencies and things he doesn't want publicized -- why?; (2) The Veep probably should re-assess his ill-chosen words; (3) No, the President's war record isn't that spectacular, but weren't there a lot of people who served in places other than Vietnam during the war?; (4) And doesn't the fact that he put the uniform on count for something?

I guess that's the real point here, after all. Criticizing the VP isn't going to achieve anything in the long run -- Terry knows as well as anyone that people don't vote for the VP. It is, if they're willing to accept some free political advice from the opposition, simply wasted effort.

Why? It's mind-bogglingly hypocritical, for a start (not that this should deter a professional campaigner, just FYI). After all, President William Jefferson Clinton not only didn't serve in Vietnam, he spent a good portion of his draft-eligible years in Jolly 'ol England, presumably chasing coeds. He ran against a genuine, hard core, no maybes, greatest generation war hero, Bob Dole.

Memo to Terry McAuliffe: This approach won't work. Remember 1996? Let me paint you a picture. Good-looking, incumbent president with a doubtful war record is running in a period of relative prosperity with good economic indicators. He is running against a dour US Senator whose military record is impeccable but who can't seem to connect with ordinary people because of his somewhat patrician bearing and mediocre public speaking skills.

Sound familiar? Dole lost for the same reason that Kerry will probably lose. People want a vision for the future, not recriminations about the past. When the GOP talks about John Kerry's votes in the Senate, people see that as an indicator of his future positions, and they're looking ahead. When the DNC talks about Vietnam, people see the party looking backwards. And they turn the other way.

So, on second thought, Terry, take a few more shots. The GOP is keeping its powder dry.

Marc posted this at 27.4.04 | Permalink

let iraq be iraq

Iraq is Vietnam. Iraq isn't Vietnam. Iraq might be Vietnam. Well? The clock's ticking. Which is it?

Every time America gets itself into any armed conflict of any type, whether it be Somalia, Panama, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Iraq (I) or Iraq (II), inevitably some wag in the press has to trot out the old canard, (hushed tones, please) "is this another Vietnam?"

Is his objective historical research? Careful debate about American foreign policy? Deep review of cultural differences?

More likely, his objective is to sell more magazines, get more viewers, please more voters, or get more website hits to keep the sponsors happy. This is not by any means an intellectual pursuit.

A friend of mine had a professor in college who was fond of saying, "there are two types of people in this world: those who create artificial and spurious dichotomies for the sake of proving a point -- and those who don't."

Vietnam is clearly a deep and still tender scar on the American psyche, and one that will take decades to heal. If you doubt me, note that there are still people in the United States who have strong feelings about the American Civil War -- and that was nearly 140 years ago. But why is it our only point of reference?

A very few radical souls dared, at the beginning of our onslought towards Kabul, to compare what lay ahead of us to the Soviets' experience in Afghanistan. That proved to be an ill-chosen rhetorical avenue, but at least it was at least to some extent comparing apples to apples. You never (or incredibly rarely, anyway) hear people comparing Iraq to the British Empire's experience in the Middle East. When was the last time you heard someone liken Iraq to the British occupation of the American colonies? To say nothing of other relatively more recent American military excursions abroad -- Grenada, Panama, Iraq (I), or Nicaragua. Could it be that these were too successful?

Vietnam lasted at least (counting from the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) 11 years, cost 58,000+ American lives, and crossed three presidential administrations. Vietnam was, at least at its inception, about communism. Vietnam was about fighting a jungle insurgency largely financed by the Soviet Union. How is this even remotely like what is going on in the so-called Sunni Triangle today? Even if it might be a valid comparison someday, how can any reasonable thinker make such a judgement barely 12 months into the engagement?

Iraq is not Vietnam, any more than it's the Battle of Hastings or the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 or Agincourt or Bosworth Field, Lexington, Iwo Jima, Grenada, Normandy, Ethiopia, the War of the Roses, or the Falklands.

It's what it is and nothing more. Say what you will about American foreign policy, George Bush, Europe, the Iraqis, Don Rumsfeld, Saddam, Adnan Pachachi, Scott Baio, Bozo the Clown or anyone else who might even be tangentially involved with what's going on between the former no-fly zones today.

But please, for everyone's sake, leave South East Asia out of it.

(cross-posted to etalkinghead.com)
Marc posted this at 21.4.04 | Permalink

bin ladin's real agenda
(cross-posted from etalkinghead.com)

The Middle East Media Research Institute has an excellent (as always) translation of Bin Ladin's most recent statement. The conventional wisdom is that this statement is an attempt to drive a wedge between the United States and Europe, encouraging a withdrawal by European states of their troops from the Middle East, betraying whatever residual trust may have existed between them and America.

This may be, though Al Qaeda can't have been surprised that European leaders spent a good deal of time today rejecting Usama's olive branch. However much disdain they have for the United States, Chirac et al realize -- particularly in the post-Madrid world -- that terrorism is a more immediate threat to their security than American hegemony.

But this wasn't Bin Ladin's real agenda.

As significant as every such statement is (reminding us, as if we'd forgotten, that he is still at large and reading newspapers), this pronouncement was particularly important because represents a move by Al Qaeda towards self-legitimization. And though we are loathe to admit it, Usama and Al-Zawahiri have had some success, both within the Arab world (to a great extent) and elsewhere in transmogrifying a group of hapless murderers into a quasi-accepted "resistance movement."

By boldly speaking directly to the European public and by extension European leaders, Bin Ladin is taking his first shaky steps in the direction of transforming Al Qaeda from a fringe terrorist group into a para-statal entity, with the apparent legitimacy that such a status would bring.

Bin Ladin's gratuitous and disingenuous condemnation of the killing of Sheik Yassin, and his singling out of Halliburton as "merchants of war" and "bloodsuckers" are calculated ploys -- as calculated as any politician ever spoke -- and his ever-improving mastery of dime store populism leaves one wondering whether he has engaged an advertising agency to keep him "on message."

Al Qaeda has been fragmented by operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere, but the result may be a new, focused and distilled version of the old. Bin Ladin is trying to teach himself statecraft, consensus building, and communication skills in order to project his particular variety of nihilism far beyond merely guns and bombs; and that should give us pause.


Marc posted this at 16.4.04 | Permalink

my talking head

So my latest claim to semi-fame is a gig as "contributing writer" for eTalkinghead.com. See my latest column (on the rather irritating Mohamed ElBaradei) here.
Marc posted this at 8.4.04 | Permalink