Football And Two Questions

And the war goes...not quite as well as we thought.

I leave to others to discuss the various problems that have been cropping up, with this exception: We have the best quarterback in the world. We have the best receivers in the world. What kind of coach in that position risks it all by assuming that the opposition linebackers will be pushovers and benching the fat guys?

As some of the more level headed among us have pointed out, it's too early to really say one way or another whether the complications we've seen so far are relatively minor or not. The fact that people who know what they're talking about are grumbling disturbs me, but, again, we'll just have to see.

But I do have two questions.

1. How long until the blast fax (or InstaPundit) regurgitators on the Right start talking about the 'hypocrisy' of those who were opposed to the war who now demand to know why heavier forces weren't in place before the war began?

The only way you could possibly call this hypocrisy is if you accept the absurd premise that the anti-war movement was fundamentally opposed to the safety of our troops and that, if war occurred despite the movement's best efforts, they hoped for a long and protracted conflict with high casualties on all sides.

Of course, that is the belief of a large chunk of the hawk contingent; as I've said earlier, such people are either liars or fools. But rather than meaning that we won't be hearing such accusations, this virtually guarantees that we will.

Additionally, this kind of attack should most enrage the "Balking Hawks," whose entire opposition to the war was based on their lack of confidence in this Administration to properly carry out the war and deal with the aftermath.

So as soon as this kind of talk starts popping up, it would be helpful if the entire Left starting collectively screaming bloody murder. Thank you for your cooperation.

2. If the war continues to fail to live up to expectations -- particularly if we start taking heavy casualties -- how long will it be before we start hearing more news reports like this?

I'm not saying that the New Yorker is doing Karl Rove's dirty work in this instance, but if the conventional wisdom remains "the administration failed to listen to the military and therefore caused the war to go worse than it could have," we will start seeing a lot of quotes from "senior administration staff" placing the blame on Rumsfeld and possibly a few other key figures (Richard Perle would seem to be the best target; having resigned his chairmanship of "an influencial Pentagon advisory board" under fire for conflicts of interest, he's already in hot water and so could be a very tempting scapegoat). At the same time, we'll start hearing from the conservative press that the President wanted more forces in the Gulf but Rumsfeld nixed it. As important as Rumsfeld is to the President, I don't think anyone seriously doubts that Rove would throw him to the wolves if it became clear that the execution of this war could hurt Bush in '04.

Sidenote: Before I get nasty emails yelling at me for disparaging our armed forces, it needs to be pointed out that "fat guys" is a reference to offensive linemen, which, from what I understand, is exactly the kind of role our heavy armored divisions need to be playing in the war, once they get there.

Edit: Sometimes, when you're tired and not thinking straight, you get your main idea down, but screw up the details. Of course I didn't mean Daniel Pearl, the WSJ reporter who was killed last year. I meant Richard Perle. Stupid mistake. Thanks go out to the proprietor of Merde In France and to commenter Raybin, both of whom pointed out my error. This post has been edited accordingly.

Note From the Management

I realize that posting has been rather light this week.

Sorry.

Real life things kept coming up this week, and sleep is currently a rather dim memory. Beyond that, the war has pretty much been monopolizing my free thoughts, and the amount of information, analysis, and conjecture that must be sifted through in order to be able to write anything even marginally relevant about it is becoming something akin to a full time job (one for which I emphatically am not paid).

So basically, check back tomorrow. A good night's sleep and a massive caffeine infusion should be what I need to actually make VeryVeryHappy worth reading again.

Bloodless Coup

That's funny. I don't remember hearing the news reports about a group of eight year olds taking control of the Federal Government.

The things you miss when you're at the dentist's...

Uncomfortable Realizations

Hmm. Well, it seems that I wasn't quite as successful in negotiating that slippery curve this evening as I thought, because it is now clear to me that I am in Hell.

I think I am going to be holding a grudge against Kevin Drum for pointing this out to me.

Nattering Nabobs of Negativism

As the war progresses, Glenn Reynolds seems to be moving further and further toward the deep end of the crazy pool, but to prove that I'm not all negative, all the time, here's something about which he and I agree.

Goodbye, Connie. Kindly never show up in public again.

Nursery Rhymes, or Complete Break From Reality: TMRM Loses His Mind

Beware: This is the result of my having to spend a good chunk of the day in my car, hyped to the gills on inhuman ammounts of caffeine, and out of range of decent radio stations.

A Bush Family Lullaby

(see sidenote below for cadence)

Tell the press McCain is crazy,
They’ll accept it ‘cause they’re lazy,
And their thoughts are awful hazy,
And their moods are awful phase-y.

The press thinks Gore tells lies,
So they’ll bitch about his ties,
And climax over your rise,
And not let Krugman criticize.

Come just a few votes short,
Then be elected by the Court-
But not the recount they abort-
While Jim Baker’s screaming “Tort!”

Give big tax cuts to the rich,
Put the nation in the ditch,
Then blame Clinton and his bitch,
While Scaife pays Drudge the snitch.

Tell the world to fuck itself,
Then sit back and count your wealth,
While the press praises your health,
And how you’ve improved yourself.

Let Dick screw California,
While the Clinton’s try to warn ya,
And Ashcroft fights mari-warn-yah,
Like a Christian that’s reborn-a.

But if the country’s getting pissed,
‘Bout the terrorists you missed,
And North Korea who you dissed,
And executives you’ve kissed.

If the voters are a-doubtin’,
Then you better start a-shoutin’,
‘Bout the rules Iraq’s a-floutin’,
And violations you’ve been toutin’.

If Osama ain’t been captured,
‘Cause your staff’s been so enraptured,
By evidence that’s manufactured,
And the UN that you fractured,

Make Coalitions of the Willin’
‘Cause our gas tanks need a-fillin’
And you sorely need a villain
Who you’ve got a chance of killin’.

Drop the bombs from way up high,
And say there’s more than meets the eye,
Give Halliburton-the-whole damn-pie,
Send Ari Fleischer out to lie.

Once Baghdad’s been demolished,
And the Bill of Rights abolished,
And your designer shoes are polished,
And the twins are good and colleged,

The GOP will know the score,
And will beg you for some more,
And Democrats that you deplore,
Will be fucked until ’04.

Then your story will be completed,
(‘Cept the records you’ve deleted),
‘Cause the Founders you’ve defeated,
And the nation’s soul depleted.

You’ll have ruined all our lives,
Filled up all our backs with knives,
But from the rich you’ll get high-fives,
And they’ll offer you their wives.

“It can’t happen here” they’ll say,
“God don’t let it, please” they’ll pray,
But it’s happening today,
So God Bless The USA!


Sidenote: Proper cadence:

da-da-DA-da-DA-da-DA
DA-da-DA-da-DA-da-DA
DA-da-DA-DA-DA-da-DA
da-da-DA-da-DA-da-DA

Crunch extraneous syllables into their neighbors, playing around with the emphasis.

This song can actually be sung. Trust me.

Sidenote the Second: Is this an accurate, well-thought out depiction of my political views?

If you think so, don't ever read my site again.

Sidenote the Third: Man...there is something seriously wrong with me.

Sidenote the Fourth: But seriously. If you had spent two hours of your life making something up in your head (even if those were idle, on the road in the car by yourself hours), would you want it to simply disappear, or would you want to preserve it for future generations?

What's a Little Hypocrisy Between Friends?

The Honorable Mr. Sullivan seems to dislike the BBC.

He has written no less than 8 posts since Sunday (the earliest day that is displayed on his main page; I will not go digging through that man's archives. I have my limits) about the bias, the incompetence, and the generally traitorous nature of the BBC.

He justifies this with the following:

WHY THE BBC MATTERS: My harping on this theme is not simply media criticism. It's war analysis. Remember one of the key elements, we're finding out, in this battle is the willingness of the Iraqi people to stand up to the Saddamite remnants. That willingness depends, in part, on their confidence that the allies are making progress. What the BBC is able to do, by broadcasting directly to these people, is to keep the Iraqi people's morale as far down as possible, thereby helping to make the war more bloody, thereby helping discredit it in retrospect. If you assume that almost all these reporters and editors are anti-war, this BBC strategy makes sense. They're a military player. And they are objectively pro-Saddam.

So, basically, he's angry that the BBC isn't lying about the progress of the war, because if they made it seem like the war was proceeding perfectly, the Iraqis would feel free to rise up en masse against Saddam and end the war quickly.

Aside from the rather...flawed...nature of his assumptions, what Sullivan doesn't seem to quite get is the fact that the BBC is a news organization, subject to all the ethical constraints that that entails. While the possibility that the factual BBC reporting is dampening Iraqi's will to dissent is an unfortunate side effect, it does not nullify the BBC's basic responsibility to its primary audience: the British people.

The function of a free press in a democracy is to provide the electorate with the most accurate, timely information possible, so that when it comes time to choose a path for their country at the ballot box, their decision can be an intelligent and informed one. The same holds true between elections, when informed people can pressure their elected representatives one way or another through organized campaigns, contributions, or simple calls to their offices.

Tinkering with this process is extremely dangerous because it is tinkering with one of the foundations of democracy itself. Besides, who does Sullivan suppose should decide what should and should not receive this "special" kind of coverage? Should it always be used in wartime to help end hostilities as quickly as possible?

In that case, most members of the American press corps are traitors, and Matt Drudge should be shot, for hampering the war effort in Bosnia by forcing a sitting President to devote huge amounts of time and resources to an adultery scandal.

Somehow, I don't think this is what Sullivan meant.

However, to be fair, there is a line between informing the public and compromising national security.

Quoting Sullivan again:

"The BBC -- the UK's premier news organization, which consistently has the best sources in the intelligence world and the least compunction about leaking -- ran a story mentioning that bin Laden "keeps in touch with the world via computers and satellite phones." Bin Laden stopped using the satellite phone instantly. The al-Qaeda leader was not eager to court the fate of Djokar Dudayev, the Chechen insurgent leader who was killed by a Russian air defense suppression missile that homed in on its target using his satellite phone signal. When bin Laden stopped using the phone and let his aides do the calling, the United States lost its best chance to find him."

This incident happened in 1998, and it is almost certain that if we had been able to kill Bin Laden at that time, the 9/11 attacks would never have taken place.

It seems then, that the BBC is a traitorous organization, or at the very least a hopelessly stupid one, which can be indirectly blamed for the worst terrorist attack on US soil in history.

Except...oh, whoops. Please forgive me. I accidentally quoted former National Security Council members Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon instead of Sullivan. And the news organization they were referring to wasn't the BBC.

It was The Washington Times, Sullivan's employer.

My mistake.

Edit: Corrected an extremely minor punctuation error, and removed a bit of redundancy ("one of the foundations upon which democracy is founded"? I'm better than that...)

A Little Too Far

I wish I could simply label Andrew Sullivan a fringe figure and ignore him forever after. Unfortunately, he enjoys just enough journalistic fame to make his half-baked ideas (read: kool-aid regurgitation) deserve countering.

For the past few months, the France-bashing that has reached truly epic proportions among the Right has annoyed me, as I've mentioned a few times before.

But in the end, the doltish "freedom fries" variety of francophobia is a relatively minor problem. When the war is over, and other concerns press for our attention, these things will lose their relevance and will be forgotten.

This kind of thing will not:

"It seems to me that the alliance with France is now over."

In this post, Sullivan makes me think of the dull kid in the group who takes the joke too far.

Think about it: A few children are standing on a corner, making fun of an old woman.

"She looks stupid!" says one.

Laughter.

"She smells funny!" shouts another.

More laughter.

"Ha ha!" Sullivan yells, and throws a brick at her head.

The alliance with France is now over? Is this man out of his mind?

The fact that people who share Sullivan's deranged worldview actually occupy key positions in our government (Richard Perle, anybody?) and are capable of influencing our foreign policy is one of the main reasons I think I should drink more.

Nitpicking

I'm getting tired of yelling about Glenn Reynolds. I think that, by now, it is quite obvious that the man irritates me.

That's all right. It's certainly not a crime to irritate me; if it was, I would live in the middle of a vast swath of vacated property, because most of the residents of my town would be incarcerated.

However, hypocrisy really kicks the irritation level up a few notches, especially when it contributes, intentionally or not, to someone's agenda (the agenda, in this case, being the general effort on the Right to throw as much mud as possible at news organizations such as CNN and the New York Times in order to make conservative outlets like Fox News more palatable).

And so, with that, I quote the law professor from Tennessee:

"CNN MENTIONED SALAM PAX-- and gave his URL. This isn't cool.
More reason to hope the troops get to Baghdad soon, and keep Saddam's goons busy in the meantime."

I agree. But it would have been nice if he had at least apologized for committing the same offense on numerous occasions.

After all, surely Mr. Reynolds is not under the impression that Iraqi government agents combing through American news sources for information pay no attention whatsoever to "The New York Times of the bloggers"?

A Question

Why is it, exactly, that we are bothering to drop e-bombs in Iraq if their effects can be protected against with aluminum foil?

Or is it that we haven't yet, and people are simply acting on the mistaken belief that this will protect their electronics?

I haven't been able to find any information beyond descriptions of how e-bombs work and potential uses. If anyone knows the answer, please drop me a line.

Language Cop

Goddamnit, Reynolds, quit trying to popularize made up words!

If you want to fuck around with your area of expertise, fine. Make up laws all you want.

But leave my language alone.

Guerrilla Vs. Terrorist

Andrew Sullivan talks in this post about the Iraqis using "terrorist" tactics in the ongoing war.

While the line between a guerrilla and a terrorist is pretty fuzzy, it seems that irregular surprise attacks by small groups upon military targets of an overwhelmingly superior invading army are textbook guerrilla tactics.

Although the distinction may seem fairly minor, semantic accuracy is important during wartime, when rhetoric on both sides escalates to white-hot levels.

This is especially true when the deliberate choice of words is itself part of a larger intellectual effort - in this case, the linking of Saddam's regime to terrorism.

While I would like this to be a solitary knock against Sullivan, the confusion (or deliberate obfuscation) between "guerrilla" and "terrorist" in this case is sufficiently widespread to merit a more broadly-targeted rebuke.

Sidenote: Does this mean I approve of the attacks in question? Of course not. These are attacks against my country's soldiers, and as such I absolutely condemn them. Anyone who would suggest otherwise is an idiot whom I would politely ask to go to hell and never visit my site again.

Things That Do Not Matter Even A Little

If Daniel Day-Lewis wins the Best Actor award at the Oscars tonight, I will consider repealing my Eternal Loathing and Disgust For The Academy Awards, which I instituted in the wake of the snubbing of Saving Private Ryan in favor of Shakespeare in Love for Best Picture a few years ago.

Update: Guess not. Plus they screwed Scorsese. Again. Fuck the Oscars. The Academy voters are scum.

Consequences

As several people have expressed dismay over my seemingly fluid stance on the war, I want to briefly expand on "the consequences of pulling up short" that I referred to in my last post.

Excerpting my response to a reader's comment:

"One of the biggest reasons that I am now in favor of continuing the war to its conclusion is because I am afraid of what Saddam (or his successor) will do to reconsolidate power if we fail to take him out after dealing such devastating blows to his infrastructure. Remember what happened to the people who rose up against him in the last Gulf War after the cease-fire?"

For the full context, please see the comments section in that post.

Thank God For The War

I can no longer be classified as anti-war. I have registered my dissent, and I still do not trust this administration, but now that we are committed, I hope for a swift victory and a quick end with a minimum of casualties. Even if I were the commander-in-chief, I would not end the war today. The minute we started this war, we were committed to a path, and even though it is a path I disagreed with, the consequences of pulling up short are too great to justify doing so.

But that does not mean I do not object to the glorification of war that I am seeing in significant portions of the exhultant pro-war camp.

I agree that sometimes war is necessary. While I do not believe that this is one of those times, I do not necessarily hold the belief that it is against the pro-war faction. There are some very good arguments to be made for that position, and there are some very smart, responsible people who believe them.

But there are some things on which there can be no disagreement among reasoning human beings.

One of those is that war is terrible. War is awful. War is horrendous. War is about using utterly brutal force to compel an enemy to follow your wishes.

Another one of those things is that no matter how precise our weapons may be in comparison to weapons of the past, accidents still happen, actions still have unintended consequences, and things still go hideously, horribly wrong.

Anyone who does not acknowledge these two things is either deranged or unbelievably ill-informed.

And anyone who does acknowledge these things and yet still relishes the idea of war is either a literal sociopath or a stunningly ignorant child who cannot seperate the fantasy of people dying in movies from the reality of people dying in the real world.

Al-Jazeera is currently running one of the most abominable photographs I have ever seen. I hope to God that it is faked, but I very strongly doubt that it is. Even if it is, though, it serves as a horrid reminder of exactly what is happening to some of the innocent as we attempt to rid Iraq of the guilty. (Extraordinarily graphic- do not click through if you are not prepared to see the truly obscene)

With this picture, I accuse all who celebrate this war, all who cheer when they see bomb flashes on their television screen, and all who hope for greater, more widespread war, of being either subhuman or children.

War is a serious endeavor, to be entered into only by serious men and women, and only after serious consideration, soul-searching, and debate.

By treating the war like an action movie, you affirm your rightful place at the children's table, and thus exclude yourself from all future discussion among the grown-ups. You can squeal and curse and celebrate the war's beginning all you want amongst yourselves.

The adults, both those who opposed this war and those who supported it, will celebrate when it ends.