On Noble Causes

Another busy day over here while we stay one step ahead of internet threats...

Last night I was thinking about a few things, and, coincidentally, a number of posts fall broadly into the same outline, beginning with Tbogg's, um, analysis of Ben Shapiro's decision to stay on the sidelines this go round (and, presumably, during any other conflict). Steve Gilliard does the same here.

There's a reason why the wingnut crowd takes such umbrage over the moniker "chickenhawk." It's quite an effective and devastating critique, particularly when Operation-Plan-for-Lunch-but-Not-for-an-Insurgency is failing at least in part (emphasis on "in part") because of insufficient forces (larger numbers would merely delay the inevitable, but, back to the point). This generation of the species instead seeks to hide 'neath the wing of their forebears who's examples include lengthy vacations, callous bravado--and sheltered children who, like Shapiro, will never experience the gut wrenching terror of combat (likewise their families will never experience the hollow emptiness that comes from a housecall delivering bad news).

So what, you might ask?

Well, aside from the fact that refusing to back up words with deeds is hypocritical, I remember that not all that long ago Saddam Hussein was hyped as the Hitler of the Middle East--with WMD and nuclear ambitions to boot. 9/11/01 is routinely likened to 12/7/41 and Shrubusto routinely goes all out in the rhetoric department--"war pResident, GWOT, first battle in the GWOT, etc., etc. etc.). Strong words...

But, like the modern generation of c'hawks, I find it remarkable that such strong language is followed up with such little backing in the "actions" department. Consider: during World War II, a general call up went out...a draft was authorized, millions of dollars were spent promoting armed forces enlistment, commodity rationing was in place--hell, even little children (like my dad at the time) were pressed into "service" collecting things like tin cans for metal drives. War bonds were promoted and sold--and so on.

You could write a dissertation on the subject (and I'll bet more than a few HAVE been). The defeat of fascism was seen as the defining struggle of the early/mid 20th century, and everyone who could did their part...

Where are the metal drives of today?

My actual thought last night was something like, "hey, wait a minute...if this war is even HALF as critical as Shrubelroy insists, then why such a pathetic contribution from the 'Coalition of the Willing' or whatever they're calling it these days?" If the war in Iraq was REALLY a defining battle--can't, say, Italy or Poland (NEVER forget Poland) do better than a few batallions?

Look at the nations bordering Iraq--Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and Iran. How many troops were provided by ANY of these nations? (and, of course, the REAL irony is that Iran is right now the big winner, at least according to Juan Cole). Surely they'd be concerned if Hussein was a mini-Armageddon waiting to happen.

And, as I noted, our own committment--along with that of our junior partner Britain--wasn't exactly what you'd call all-out-man-the-battle-stations. Not at all. Team Bush didn't even demand anything approaching a shared sense of sacrifice, but instead, insisted on tax cuts, despite the very real fact that NOTHING is more expensive than war EVEN if it was somehow possible to keep profiteering and price gouging out of the equation.

Sure, they took Baghdad and "occupied" the country in blitzkrieg-like fashion. However, to use a sports analogy, scoring first doesn't mean you've won the game, although evidently the "coach" thought it worthy of a now embarrassingly premature carrier celebration.

Now we've got a combination of grim reality overseas and, speaking of embarrassing, an almost surreal disconnect on the part of Vacationer-in-Chief, who apparently doesn't understand five week vacations in a time of war kind of undercuts any suggestion re: the cause.

Which is why, I think, Cindy Sheehan--and others--are being heard. Team Bush's sure thing has gone horribly awry--and they evidently don't really care all that much.

Unless the gang in DC is an even greater collection of stumblebums than I think they are, there's no way they considered Iraq a "defining struggle"--although, in yet another ironic twist, the loss in Iraq (and Afghanistan) will have serious repurcussions. No, they considered Iraq redux more of a quick bitch-slap--to be followed upon with an equally quick bitch-slap of whatever candidate the Democrats nominated in 2004...

Well, they managed to squeak through the election, but the war blew up in their face. Because of this, people like Sheehan are able to ask "just what do you mean by noble?" And they simply don't have an answer. Because a war of choice is NEVER a noble cause--even when it's over quickly, without many US casualties (and, of course, being the reigning superpower means you NEVER have to be concerned with casualties that AREN'T yours--even as you claim you're only there to "help").

And it's especially not a noble cause when you can't or won't answer the question of whether or not it's important enough for YOU--or your kids--to make the ultimate sacrifice. Try explaining that, by the way, to people like Cindy Sheehan.