Alas, poor Petraeus, I knew him well...

I have to say that I love Dick Cavett and wish that I had been older during his heyday when he had his talk show. Such a brilliant humorist, and now a brilliant writer. On April 11 the NY Times published his piece entitled “Memo to Petraeus and Crocker: More Laughs, Please” where he skewered the Bush administration’s despicable prosecution of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by ridiculing the language used by Bush’s principal mouthpieces on the war, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. My favorite arrow from the piece were the last seven sentences:

…poor Crocker. His brows are knitted. And he has a perpetually alarmed expression, as if, perhaps, he feels something crawling up his leg.

Could it be he is being overtaken by the thought that an honorable career has been besmirched by his obediently doing the dirty work of the tinpot Genghis Khan of Crawford, Texas? The one whose foolish military misadventure seems to increasingly resemble that of Gen. George Armstrong Custer at Little Bighorn?

Not an apt comparison, I admit.

Custer sent only 258 soldiers to their deaths.

"The tinpot Genghis Khan of Crawford, Texas" -- LOVE IT!

I would also add: at least Custer died with his men.

The piece generated hundreds of responses posted on the NY Times website. Most of them were supportive of Cavett, but not a few were highly critical of his treatment of Petraeus. One writer, who identified himself as "Tim," wrote: "It is easy for a civilian to sit safely at home and criticize a soldier, the life and death decisions do not weigh on you at night, nor are you entrusted by the people of your country to execute a mission, as ordered by your President. Instead of insulting a soldier who is serving honorably, I think it best to direct your insults at an inept Congress and our incompetent and despicable commander in chief."

I agree with Tim. Petraeus and anyone serving in the military are to be commended for their service, particularly at the folly of a commander-in-chief like President George W. (for "War-criminal") Bush. Having myself entertained soldiers at American military bases all over the world, from Iceland to Kuwait to Diego Garcia, I have witnessed first-hand their bravery, their selflessness, and their belief in the American ideal. All of them, even the ones I thought were assholes (mostly the officers), are patriots.

But if anyone thinks that Petraeus is not also a political cog in Bush's machine, he is deluding himself. Bush's presidency will go down in history as the most obstructionist, secretive, "Dick"tatorship the nation has ever seen. Petraeus would, at Bush's behest, do everything he could to keep all of Bush's balls in the air for as long as possible, including the wearing of every single medal he ever earned since he was in boot camp (called "Fruit Salad" by the irreverent) and using more syllables than needed to say what was plainly clear to anyone witnessing his congressional testimony. Further complicating matters is the fact that he likely bears in mind that he might have a political future of his own. Best not to upset the Republican apple cart if his goal is someday to lead that party to the White House.

Torture and War Crimes

Contributors to Andrew Sullivan's blog The Daily Dish have been debating the torture issue for a few days. One reader wrote in to differentiate the bombing of Dresden in WWII and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from torture and torture camps used by the U.S. as it prosecutes the "War on Terror." He saw the former as acts necessary to inflict the kinds of damage that would end the wars quickly and permanently deter future wars. They seem to have worked, don't you think?

However, torture is used to humiliate and dehumanize the enemy as much as it is to obtain information (dubious, that).

It's funny how the dehumanization works both ways, though. The reader related a time when he was sharing his feelings about the war in Afghanistan in his Quaker religious service. Money quote:

I called the men we were fighting "animals, who deserved to be treated like animals." This is the mentality that not only justifies torture but makes it appealing: to reduce your enemies to pathetic creatures; to at once demonstrate your superiority and to make someone--anyone will do--the vessel for your own pain and your own humiliation. It's a psychological form of warfare all the way down, and it dehumanizes all parties.

To me this is the essential ingredient needed to make torture OK. To view the enemy as human makes it impossible to torture them for whatever reason. Once it's become OK to call them "animals," "thugs," "savages," "Muslim scum" or "pieces of Iraqi shit," it becomes much easier to inflict the kinds of pain and suffering on them that one would reserve only for one's most gruesome yet exclusively interior fantasies. Like the guy who nearly ran me off the 110 freeway this morning. I wanted to string him up by his lead foot from an overpass, about 15 feet off the ground, while cars zoomed under him at 70 mph. Now, knowing that he's a human being who might have been in a big hurry for a very important reason -- plus the fact that I just couldn't catch the guy -- would obviate any attempt on my part to act on my scenario. But, with might, will, and a mind-set that reduces the enemy to sub-human status, anything is possible. It's what made slavery possible, what let the Holocaust happen, and what caused senior high-ranking officials in the Bush Administration -- including the president and vice president themselves -- to blame a few "low level renegades" in the military for being "bad apples" and committing atrocities at Abu Ghraib.

Biden holds forth on McCain, the election, and National Security

A Biden adviser released an excerpt from a speech he's giving today at Georgetown University. He says, "When people say, 'This is the most important election in my lifetime,' they're right."

"When it comes to Iraq, there is no daylight between John McCain and George W. Bush. They are joined at the hip. When it comes to Iraq, there will be no change with a McCain administration… and so there is a real and profound choice for Americans in November.
"Fifteen months into the surge that President Bush ordered and Senator McCain embraced, we’ve gone from drowning to treading water. We are no closer to the President’s stated goal of an Iraq that can defend itself, govern itself and sustain itself in peace. And we’re still spending $3 billion every week and losing 30 to 40 American lives every month.
"We can’t keep treading water without exhausting ourselves. That’s what both the President and Senator McCain are asking us to do. They can’t tell us when, or even if, Iraqis will come together politically, which was the purpose of the surge in the first place. They can’t tell us when, or
even if, we will draw down below pre-surge levels. They can’t tell us when, or even if, Iraq will be able to stand on its own two feet. They can’t tell us when, or even if, this war will end.
"Most Americans want this war to end. They want us to come together around a plan to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.
"They’re not defeatists. They’re patriots who understand the national interest – and the great things Americans can achieve if we responsibly end a war that we should not have started.
"I believe it is fully within our power to do that. Then, with our credibility restored, our alliances repaired and our freedom to act renewed, we will once again lead the world. We will once
again address the hopes, not play to the fears, of our fellow Americans. That is my hope for next November."

Much as I like Joe Biden as a venerated elder in the Senate, I just can't get 100% behind what is excerpted here. Neither Obama nor Clinton would get us completely out of Iraq, and McCain will actually make things worse. We need to face the reality that our presence in Iraq is now required to prevent further damage to the region. I think the war is wrong, our reasons for starting it were wrong, and Bush needs to be prosecuted for his failure to defend our Constitution (from himself!).

However, if we leave before the Iraqis can defend themselves without our support, we will create a power vacuum. Maliki is worthless and Sadr too powerful. Also the Shiite majority are too allied with Iran. Iran wants to go nuclear and dominate the region, and getting deep into Iraq will give them way too much real estate. In fact, last week it announced an expansion of its uranium enrichment program, prompting concerns in both Israel and Saudi Arabia. We need to face the reality that Bush's mistake, endorsed by Congress, is now America's mistake. We all need to see it through and leave the region better off for our having been there in the first place. I certainly don't like it, and I don't think anyone does. But I also don't like the idea of just cutting it off and pulling out immediately, because I think that things will get worse over there if we do. I don't think that the enemy will follow us home, but I do think that it will plunge the world economy into chaos over the supply of oil. Much as I hate to admit it, we will still need the black stuff to fuel our engines for years to come.


Ugh... excuse me while I go throw up now.