Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the War

By David Michael Green, AlterNet. Posted January 27, 2008.


Thank God for the Bill Kristol and the liberal New York Times.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by David Michael Green

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

What a ding-dong I am!

For months -- nay, years! -- I've been ranting about how screwed up the war in Iraq has been, and how disastrous have been its consequences.

What a fool I've been! In reality, it's actually turned out pretty great.

That's what I learned when I read William Kristol's recent New York Times piece, "The Democrats' Fairy Tale." In a stroke of thoughtfulness, generosity and uncanny prescience, the Times was kind enough recently to hire Kristol to write a regular column for their op-ed page. I guess that's because Ariel Sharon was unavailable and David Duke was on vacation.

And bless his little heart, Kristol knows a thing or two about a thing or two. Heck, he's the one who got us into Iraq in the first place! He's been telling us for a long time what a cool thing it would be to knock over that tin-pot Saddam Hussein crank, and damned if he didn't convince the president to do it, despite Bush's decades of foreign policy experience.

But it's been a rough couple of years for Ol' Bill, 'cause the whole damn country went into some sort of narcoleptic, apoplectic, pathogenic tizzy about the war, crying fickle and foul at every turn and seeming like all everyone wanted was to end the darned thing. Imagine that. What a bunch of whiny little self-interested twits, squealing like a continent full of Europeans, and utterly failing to see the great wisdom of Young William's Grand Adventure In Mesopotamia. It's really quite nauseating, isn't it?

In his article, Kristol really rips the Democrats, and don't they ever deserve it. Now that Iraq appears to be marginally more peaceful than it was last year at this time, Kristol is angry because, as he puts it: "It's apparently impermissible for leading Democrats to acknowledge -- let alone celebrate -- progress in Iraq."

Bill is angry because the Democrats (and the public -- but, oddly, he doesn't mention that part) still want to end the war -- even though it's been a huge success! They should "celebrate" it, instead! Fortunately, he is clever enough to suss out the real reason for this childish intransigence. It's not, as Hillary put it, because the Iraqis know the Democrats will shut off the supply valve of endless wasted dollars and soon-to-be casualties headed to Baghdad. As Kristol notes, "That is truly a fairy tale. And it is driven by a refusal to admit real success because that success has been achieved under the leadership of … George W. Bush. The horror!" I must admit I've suffered from some of the same confusion as the Dumb Dems, whom I think we can all agree are simply hopelessly naive pacifists intent on allowing our country to be taken over by Very Bad People (of less than fully white complexion) who mean us harm. You know the type I mean, like George McGovern, who flew all those bombing missions during World War II while Little Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Kristol and the rest fought … valiantly … in … Viet … oh, never mind. Anyhow, that hopeless and dangerous idealism is why, just one year before the Iraq war, every single Democrat in the Congress opposed the invasion of Afghanistan except for … well, except for … every single Democrat in Congress other than one. Okay, never mind on that one too.

Look, let's get down to brass tacks here. Kristol just gets it. The rest of us don't. He realizes that in the grand scheme of things -- "World War IV" as his pappy likes to call it -- what's important is not the big picture, but the very narrowest.

You may think, for example, that promulgating egregious lies in order to shove your way into an Iraq war that no one else wants is stupid and counterproductive, damaging the credibility and interests of the United States, and probably accounting for the lack of allied support in a more credible war in Afghanistan. But Bill Kristol knows better.

You may think that fighting a war that massively drains military, diplomatic and financial resources away from the real enemies of the country in order to pursue a pet project that has nothing to do with those genuine threats would be idiotic and suicidal. But that's 'cause you're not as smart as William Kristol.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, bill kristol, neocons, morons, warmongers, hawks

David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at www.regressiveantidote.net.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Pot calling the kettle black
Posted by: carbon-based on Jan 27, 2008 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
""You might think that wrecking our military and compromising American security over a non-problem ----- that people like Bushes and Cheneys and Rumsfelds and Reagans once very much created and encouraged ""

We must not foget Carter and LBJ and to a large extent, Clnton. If you are going to write a piece criticizing Kristol for being to one sided, try not to repeat the same mistake yourself.

Imagine the NYT, that stalwart defender of all things liberal hiring a "moderate" writer..how dare they!

The truth is that how could the democrats come out now and say hey, the "surge actually did work" - in an election year. Imagine, They and Moveon.org were dead wrong!. Had they based their opposition more on the morality of the war, they would still be able to voice opposition. Now they must just sit silent. An opportunity lost because they were just concerned about getting elected and not doing much else.

Lets hope Obama (assuming he's elected) has what it takes to overcome the worst congress in years and overcome the democrat doldrums and cure our country from 8 years of Bush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NYT HIRES KRISTOL AND ENDORSES CLINTON
Posted by: outrider on Feb 1, 2008 5:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I enjoyed this article. It was a welcome relief after some of the comments I have been reading.

I was surprised that NYT hired Kristol, not on the ground that it had ever opposed his views, but rather on the ground that by the act of hiring him they blew their cover. After the criticism NYT received for its part in getting us into this War I did not think it would provide more fodder for its critics.

Why has the New York Times (NYT) elected to publish the views of William Kristol and to endorse Senator Clinton? Is this a tactical or strategic move or neither of the above?

Judging from its record, NYT aided and abetted the powers that be to get us into an unlawful war and, notwithstanding protests to the contrary, has continued to support the war and all of its intended and unintended consequences.

My hypothesis is that our country is ruled by a shadow government comprised of the self-styled elite of both parties. The facts suggest that this cabal, call it what you may, is comprised, at least in part, of persons of immense wealth, mostly inherited or acquired by advantagous marriages, who by virtue of their wealth, personally or through hirelings occupy positions of power in the government, industry, and the military. Since the goals of the shadow government appear to parallel those of the neoconservatives, many neocons are either members of the shadow government or used by them in the pursuit of common goals, a miitaristic empire and monopoly of world trade. The mainstream media, papers like NYT, are always at their beck and call. They, the shadow government, select their candidates for public office from both parties like secret societies select candidates for membership. The media sees to it that those not selected are banished from the political process that ensues.

Since the shadow government does not have one of its own running for President, they will seek to elect that candidate, regardless of party, who will best implement their agenda, an agenda which seldom if ever coincides with public opinion. How acceptable each candidate is to the shadow government can be judged by the amount and kind of media coverage the candidate gets. They appear to be favoring Obama and McCain. The endorsement is a negative for Clinton whose war policies will now be equated with that of NYT and Kristol.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]