Success and Justification in Iraq
and
Bush Polls Us and Shrinks Us
If I read this Washington Post story correctly, succeeding in Iraq matters more to most people than whether the war is justified. That is, most people are more likely to support an unjust war in which the chance of success is higher than they are to support a just war in which the chance of success is lower. Excuse me while I go weep for my country.
I've pondered this sort of thing before, suggesting that what will determine the nature of Bush's legacy is whether the war is ultimately successful or not. Seems to me that that's the way American politics works: no matter how stupid, bad or incompetent you are, if you succeed then you're revered. If bin Laden dies of kidney failure or gets hit by a meteor, Bush will take the credit and most of our fellow citizens might just let him have it.
The story contains another interesting datum. We all know that Bush claims to ignore the polls. Many of us suspect this to be not only false but very false. This story seems to confirm our suspicion and to give us grounds for new concerns. Not only has the Bush team polled us to see what is most likely to maintain our support for the war, they have brought in experts on public opinion to advise them about how best to manipulate us. Apparently it is acting resolute that is the key.
So now we are being treated like cattle in the clearest possible way. To treat us like persons, rational creatures, free citizens, the administration would tell us the truth and allow us to decide for ourselves. By stooping to rhetorical tricks and psychological manipulation they reveal their disdain for us. But much of the fault is ours. If we allow ourselves to be treated like sheep, then that's probably how we deserve to be treated.
and
Bush Polls Us and Shrinks Us
If I read this Washington Post story correctly, succeeding in Iraq matters more to most people than whether the war is justified. That is, most people are more likely to support an unjust war in which the chance of success is higher than they are to support a just war in which the chance of success is lower. Excuse me while I go weep for my country.
I've pondered this sort of thing before, suggesting that what will determine the nature of Bush's legacy is whether the war is ultimately successful or not. Seems to me that that's the way American politics works: no matter how stupid, bad or incompetent you are, if you succeed then you're revered. If bin Laden dies of kidney failure or gets hit by a meteor, Bush will take the credit and most of our fellow citizens might just let him have it.
The story contains another interesting datum. We all know that Bush claims to ignore the polls. Many of us suspect this to be not only false but very false. This story seems to confirm our suspicion and to give us grounds for new concerns. Not only has the Bush team polled us to see what is most likely to maintain our support for the war, they have brought in experts on public opinion to advise them about how best to manipulate us. Apparently it is acting resolute that is the key.
So now we are being treated like cattle in the clearest possible way. To treat us like persons, rational creatures, free citizens, the administration would tell us the truth and allow us to decide for ourselves. By stooping to rhetorical tricks and psychological manipulation they reveal their disdain for us. But much of the fault is ours. If we allow ourselves to be treated like sheep, then that's probably how we deserve to be treated.
posted by Winston Smith at
7:57 AM
3 Comments:
Winston,
You forget something critical: one of the preconditions of a just war is that it be successful, or at least have a very high chance of being successful. Go look it up.
There is simply no such thing as a just failed state or "quagmire".
- mac
Good point--there's got to be (I think this is the normal locution) A reasonable chance of success. So I said "higher" and "lower" when speaking of the odds of victory. Still, you're right, I didn't pay enough attention to that.
Joining Bush's argument is impossible,since it's based on a strategy of manipulating emotional hot spots in the voting public (terror, 9/11) rather than on any objective reality. Nonetheless, his current speech is refutable simply by noting that the "jihadists" can leave anytime they want. Beyond that, in Bush's terms "they" are clearly winning, since a relative handful of "jihadists" have apparently pinned down the whole effective strength of the United States land military for an unforseeable time into the future. I'd say that simply in military terms, I just presented a reasonable argument for leaving Iraq. We did a deeply and hugely immoral thing by attacking Iraq. Our stay there is at best neutral. Some people will indeed suffer if we leave, and some will suffer as long as we stay. That's the equation. --Beel
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home