I try not to spend much time reading blogs dedicated to abusing, injuring and killing people as life is short even if you are not a stupid Iraqi, but sometimes I temptation gets two or three evil claws on me and I do. I certainly try to not bother responding to them, because doing so will not do any good. There is no room for dialogue as I do not understand their perspective, which is not for a lack of trying, and basically assume that they must be dishonest and/or stupid. But then sometimes I just give in...
Author, blogger, columnist, radio talk show host and former Reagan appointee Hugh Hewitt (January 24) is adamantly against the U.S. Senate passing a non-binding resolution against the surge/escalation/whatever exactly you want to call the plan from Bush that is just so certain to solve, at the very least, the most important problems of Iraq. Such a plan, Hewitt writes, will inspire "the enemy" and give it the extra bit of confidence needed to kill more of God's greatest people. (Fuck you Iraqis!)
This confuses me. I thought they were already so evil that they want to kill us all and that we have occupy Iraq to keep them from doing so. I thought they hated us because we exist and that nothing we could do had any effect on them, but hey, as I wrote above, I really do not understand the mindset of people who write stuff like this.
So anyway Hewitt –who keep in mind gets paid for this kind of material- is now passionately urging and encouraging others to urge Republican senators to filibuster any resolution that does not tell our troops they are doing a great job because they are doing what our great president tells them to do, or something. Although this is opposition to a resolution that would have no impact on U.S. foreign policy, the brilliant thinker knows the stakes are high (January 24):
At some point, all the Senators who are involved in the debate on the Anti-Surge resolution will have to face the light of history. If the surge succeeds, there malfeasance will be mere footnotes to history...
But if the surge fails and the war effort fails, history will wonder why these Senators went so out of their way to undermine their country effort at such a pivotal time. History will ask why they thought it was critical that they show to our enemies and our soldiers their lack of confidence and resolve.
In other words, if you disagree with plan, you should keep your mouth shut as nobody will care if you are wrong and, if you are right, it is your fault that you were right and America lost.
There is no room, in the outlook of Hewitt, for opposition to the occupation that is not against the great Americans and especially the great American troops. He appears very comfortable with this limit on political discourse.
I will concede that it is very possible that Hewitt is right about how people in the future will look at things. Hewitt, for one, will certainly look at it this way if the surge does not succeed and not be without influence in getting others to take a similar view, but the widespread support that once existed amongst the general public for invading and occupying Iraq should be all the proof one needs that that the public and the elites are, at least some of the time, idiots who deserve to be laughed at.
Wait, I'm sorry. I forgot, there are some people so stupid they still do not acknowledge this.
Hewitt's speculation about the future indicates a matter of fact confidence that the current opposition to the U.S. trying to run Iraq, and be extension other countries, will not last. Does what we know now justify his confidence? Given what happened the aftermath of the U.S. experience in Vietnam as well as the pitifully small anti-war movement that now exists in the country that can never stop talking about how great it is, I would say he does.
The question is, what can be done to change the situation so that Hewitt is wrong? On the theoretical level, people need to understand that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is not an aberrancy of U.S. foreign policy, but a period that easily goes along with the larger themes.
I wish I knew how to convey that in a way that significant numbers of people, i.e. a near majority if not a majority of the outright variety, would agree with.
I wish I even believed that was possible. Hewitt is at least angry about the resolution. The same can't be said for the major Democratic activist websites.
Given how much they pushed for Democrats to take control of congress and their widespread opposition to the troop increase, one would think that there would be outrage on sites like Daily Kos, Eschaton and MoveOn.org that the Democrats are only pressing for a nonbinding resolution. However, the frontpages of these sites reveals none, unless you count a Daily Kos post by MissLaura (January 25) that notes that a binding resolution is off the table without any interest in this how this came to be. Quite simply, there does not appear to be much interest in actually ending the occupation amongst online activist Democrats. When that is the opposition as it currently exists, what hope is there inside of the United States?
