Do I Detect Bitterness?

Anyone noticing what I'm noticing? Namely that there seems to be an undertone of bitterness creeping into the voices of many of Pajamas Media's pro-war bloggers? Evidently the strain of trying to astroturf a catastrophe is getting to some of those still in the Warmonger's Club.

As an example, here's Glenn Harlan Reynolds at Instapundit:

I don't know where this sudden ooze of defeatism comes from, but it seems clear that the troops don't share it.

Two to three years ago, when the majority of the public supported the War in Iraq, we were all a noble and well-informed citizenry being muzzled and/or duped by a out-of-touch elites, subversive intellectuals as well as that most evil of evil empires… the Main Stream Media. Now that a majority of us have come to the conclusion that, irrespective of whatever the original merits of the Iraq strategy were, George W. Bush and his administration have so irretrievably fucked up the prosecution of the war and the rebuilding of Iraq that both are beyond repair, we're all defeatists and cowards.

I suppose it never occurred to Glenn that many of us have simply come to the conclusion that George W. Bush is a well-meaning fathead who couldn't successfully manage a taco stand, let alone Middle East geopolitics. Once you've come to the conclusion that the President is a moron (and I know I have), there is no scenario in which anything of a military or diplomatic nature attempted by the Administration to salvage the situation in Iraq can be supported. In the real world, you simply don't let the mechanic who accidentally disabled the brakes on your car, which then causes the accident that comes close to wiping out you and your family, to make it up to you by fixing the brakes and steering on your new car 'for free'.

So now that the citizenry can no longer be counted on, we are at the "but the troops support it" stage of this disaster for Glenn. Being unable to offer a reasonable and coherent argument to continue support the Bush Administration's prosecution of the war, we now see its supporters suggesting that the opinion of the soldiers, rather than the citizenry at large, that should trump all. In a way, it is a curious inversion of the old "chickenhawk" argument used by legions of dimwitted Lefties attempting to disenfranchise those they disagreed with. Now we've come full circle, it seems.

In any event, per Glenn, the war is being lost because we're all a bunch of pussies. That sounds pretty bitter, if you ask me.

And although they all praised the troops before they dissed the troops, we're also starting to see some in the pro-war crowd place the blame for the coming defeat on the troops themselves. Here's NRO's Michael Ledeen slagging the soldiers last week:

Note that an increase in embeds [U.S. troops embedding in Iraqi military units] doesn’t necessarily require an increase in overall troop strength. We’ve got lots of soldiers sitting on megabases all over Iraq. They should be out and about, some of them embedded, others just moving around, tracking the terrorists, hunting them down. I don’t know how many guys and gals are sitting in air-conditioned quarters and drinking designer coffee, but it’s a substantial number. Enough of that.

Could you imagine the reaction from Ledeen's pals at Pajamas Media if Markos Moulitsas (or God forbid, John Kerry) had said exactly the same thing in the exactly the same context? It would have been a pure shitstorm of indignation. Roger Simon would have written a cute little post about liberal reactionaries that incorporated a Buddy Holly song, Charles Johnson would have cited it as inconvertible proof of the worldwide conspiracy between Islam and The Left to enslave us all using the Vulcan Mindmeld, Glenn Reynolds would have sputtered something about Markos (and/or Kerry) hating America and the troops, while Michelle Malkin synthesized it all into a really stupid post of fifteen or so very small words.

In any event, per Ledeen, the war is being lost because our goldbricking soldiers are sitting around drinking latte instead of shooting Muslims. That sounds pretty bitter, too.

And of course, we already have many in the pro-war crowd blaming the Iraqis for not establishing security and rebuilding their country themselves, irrespective of what the U.S. has or hasn't done. Given the circumstances, it can only be a matter of time before everyone from Reynolds to Ledeen to Simon to Malkin are chirping away that Iraq is a mess because of the Iraqis themselves. I can hear it now:

Hey, we went there and killed a bunch of the bad guys just to help them. Isn't that enough? Can't they establish democratic institutions, rebuild the country's infrastructure, and supply their own internal and external security themselves. Do we have to do everything? Just tell 'em to suck it up and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

In any event, this bit of nonsense will constitute the war blogger's trump card, so get used to the idea of Roger and the Rabble ragging on those once noble savages we once wanted to free, but who are now, of course, simply not worthy…

I'd advise you to place bets, starting immediately, on the idea that sooner or later, just about everyone other than George W. Bush and those intrepid war bloggers themselves will be blamed for the disaster in Iraq. It will include you, me, Congress, the generals, the soldiers and all of the usual suspects. And when that time comes, rather than honestly proclaim their real agenda, what we'll see is the bitterness just 'ooze' out. Given the circumstances, betting on that sort of reaction just stands to reason, doesn't it? It is a sure thing.

Comments

[Fighting Keyboarder]

Screw those latte-drinking nancy boys! If I wasn't so busy keeping morale high on the home front I'd sit that Moqtada down and get him to stop the bullshit. And then -- faster, please! -- on to Iran, and Syria, and then on to Moscow!

[db]

Could you imagine the reaction from Ledeen's pals at Pajamas Media if Markos Moulitsas (or God forbid, John Kerry) had said exactly the same thing in the exactly the same context? It would have been a pure shitstorm of indignation. Roger Simon would have written a cute little post about liberal reactionaries that incorporated a Buddy Holly song, Charles Johnson would have cited it as inconvertible proof of the worldwide conspiracy between Islam and The Left to enslave us all using the Vulcan Mindmeld, Glenn Reynolds would have sputtered something about Markos (and/or Kerry) hating America and the troops, while Michelle Malkin synthesized it all into a really stupid post of fifteen or so very small words.

I love this paragraph. You really capture the essence of these absurdities.

[Wellstone]

I heard this phrase yesterday:

"Cut-n-Blame".

Fits these sonsabitches to a tee.

[JPatterson]

Dennis - I'd be interested in hearing...well, reading...your take on why the war is lost. What were the fuckups that lead to this, in your opinion?

I just re-read the above and it sounds kind of like I am being a smartass. I'm not. Sincerely, I'd like to hear your take on this - your analysis is dependably dead on.

[DennisThePeasant]

JPatterson-

I'll be posting just such information in the near future.

[mick]

The Blame-the-Iraqis game has already started, Dennis.

Pres Bush on 60 Minutes: The Iraqi people should be grateful to us....

And so it begins.

[Jane]

Why, those latte-swilling military layabouts! Too bad they didn't have the 101st Fighting Keyboarders' bravery, fortitude and determination to see things through to victory.

It almost makes me weep for the days when Glenn and his comrades referred to the likes of me as "objectively-pro Saddam..."

[Nancy Irving]

As usual, designer coffee is the mark of the beast. :)

[Guesst]

Well, D--the guy who replaces Bush will be just as big a fathead and moron, whether we're in Iraq--or not. Presidents Gore or Kerry or McCain or Clinton or Obama would have no better success. All things being equal then, we might as well be there. When they blow the head off somebody's eighteen year old kid, maybe we should get mad instead of being big pussies about it.

Plus, we already knew Iraqies would be no help to our side. It's no surprise to anyone.

xoxo,
Defeated

[Tim P]

I gotta disagree with you on this one. I also echo JPatterson's wish to hear just where & how you think we lost it. If you care to go into it. It's your blog after all.
You comment on Reynold's quote and say

Now that a majority of us have come to the conclusion that, irrespective of whatever the original merits of the Iraq strategy were, George W. Bush and his administration have so irretrievably fucked up the prosecution of the war and the rebuilding of Iraq that both are beyond repair, we're all defeatists and cowards.

I think you're really reaching to say

per Glenn, the war is being lost because we're all a bunch of pussies

I don't see where you pulled that out of his statement. The fact of the matter remains that this administration, like it or not and I'm no big fan, has taken a relentless pounding in the MSM like I haven't seen since Nixon was mired in Watergate. Christ this guy's responsible for everything bad and nothing good is ever mentioned.

Nor do I share your assumption that the majority have reached the conclusion that it's irretreivable.

Iraq beyond repair? Tell that to the Kurds in the north or the Shiites in the south.

I could go on and on, but I'm just not up to it now. Except to say I find it as curious a phenomenon to see everyone piling on the anti-war wagon now, as feverishly as they were joining the pro-war bandwagon several years back.

One thing I will agree with you on is if some latte sucking pussyboy like Michael Ledeen feels like slagging the troops, maybe he should shoulder a weapon, go on patrol and show them how it's done.

[chuck]

Dennis - I'd be interested in hearing...well, reading...your take on why the war is lost

I know I'm not Dennis, but I might be able to offer a thing or two for your consideration:

1) The Iraqis don't want us there. If they do, they have a strange way of showing it. EVERY poll that's been conducted demonstrates that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis want us to leave. Compare that with our occupations of Germany and Japan after WWII. The difference? We had all the legitimacy in the world back then. We have less than zero now.

2) We have lost virtually any ability to control events on the ground. When we tell the Maliki government to do something, it collectively shrugs its shoulders. We've been training the "Iraqi Army" for years now and they still can't field a fucking battalion. Not even one. Meanwhile, the real Iraqi Army (the one that never gave up) continues to blow us away at the rate of 2-3 soldiers a day.

3) We simply can't afford it.

4) The US lacks the will to occupy Iraq in sufficient numbers (this would require a draft, as you know) - something in the area of 500,000 soldiers and Marines.

These are just a few reasons - I could offer lots more, and I'm sure Dennis will.

[Tom Cleaver]

One thing I hope even the densest of the warbloggers has come to realize is that you just don't go electing a guy with an unbroken lifelong record of fucking up everything he touches, in the expectation that putting him in charge of not dropping and breaking the nation is going to "bring him around." The past DOES count!!! Demonstrably incompetent morons do not change their ways overnight in the middle of middle age!

And successfully governing Texas is not a demonstration of anything, since complete absence of a governor there would have the same result.

Poor Roger Simon - he fails at being a Big Time Hollywood Screenwriter, so he takes his con-artist ways and becomes The One-Eyed King in the Land of the Blind, and he STILL can't win for losing. Maybe you righties should consider that a guy who writes the kind of movies you would never go see probably doesn't have anything else of interest to say to you.

[dennis AND war supporter]

If Ledeen said that execrable pile of dung about our designer coffee-sipping troops in Iraq attributed to him here, then to H with him and his “we can bring down the mullahs and their theocracy soon and without war” constant claptrap.

While I’m about it, Simon’s the twittiest of all, war-supporter or no. The few good instincts he has politically go rancid with his drooling imbecility over using his media (between the lines) to promote a “non-partisan” third party to bring hawk security and leftie fairness to our country. Lord help us all- ‘twould be like nanny Europe with mean ol’ tasers. And then, of course, there’s the way the accidental CEO actually treats people and lives his supposed ideals, but Dennis covers that quite nicely.

We’ve become a sitcom people who can barely sit through two-hour movies and football games. We must have tidy resolutions and have them “faster please.” Was there ever any doubt, especially in the mind of our enemies, that gung-ho war supporters would give up all faith in our efforts after a few years, ah, for ‘reason’? Good thing there are always reasons, especially when the press is relentlessly negative to sap our will, the biggest weapon in our enemies’ arsenal. And so once-conservative hawks can now distinguish themselves from those hippie war protestors, by citing mistakes, stupidity, cupidity, tragedy, corruption, perversion, imperfection, costs and delays during the course of this war.

But war’s a bitch and always has been. War’s rarely done right during its course and is never cheap. War isn’t a high-tech game or movie- it never has tidy endings and its consequences can’t often be known for years. Simple fact is, with its problems, setbacks, violence and unsure endings, this country can’t stomach war, anymore.

The very worst of it to me is this: our State Department and CIA have been less than useless in this war effort- they seem to have been pulling against it from the beginning and DoD is having to do it all. Yes, Bush has failed to reform them as they’ve been busily undermining him over the years, but that’s a lot of powerfully entrenched, partisan bureaucracy against which to push.

And, then, the new American fetish for surgical, PC bloodless fighting has driven the military into touch-feely sociological approaches and restrictive ROE that make killing the bad guys all the more difficult and their killing our troops all the easier- both of which hearten the enemy and prolong the hostilities. What libs tuning in here to this post would agree that we haven’t fought bloody enough?

…………… (That’s what I thought.)

[dennis AND war supporter]

Critics on the Left and Right would have us fight a “limited mil action” on the cheap but sexily and seamlessly high-tech; successfully with next to no blood or barbarity; for humanitarian interests only- NO WAR FOR OIL!- meanwhile, we should vote out Repubs over high gas prices; and, finally, with strategic/ tactical perfection and all moves subject to international approval.

The preceding need be accomplished with an entire political party, the domestic press and world media and a good bit of our fed bureaucracy and most foreign orgs and polities arrayed against our hard-power projection. Oh, let us not forget to include every citizen armed with a modem, Internet access, and a brilliant opinion as to how we’re f-ups.

War as cakewalk, sweet and moral, to be done faster, please, or not at all. Bush and the US military, give us perfection or give us capitulation! Either will do.

Meanwhile, much progress has been made on the warfront that's overlooked by listing mostly negative entries onto the accounting ledger in an incomplete audit in a limited timeframe. B & W analysis lies in how one defines the end-state and chooses variables. IOW, assessments are mostly hunches, art, and vested political interests, at this point. Even hard metrics act like liquid mercury right now.

[guest]

dennis AND war supporter,

Even if what all you said was true who are we fighting for and what would we accomplish if we somehow did all come together, magically come up with another two trillion dollars, reinstitute the draft and stay the course until we could put another million troops into country in a few years time? (The Army field manual says we'd need 20 troops for every 1000 people in Iraq to "win" the war.) What's the end game? We're either fighting for a Shiite dominated government, (Maliki or some other even less desirable Iranian flunky) or break up of the country. Is that worth the lives of more US soldiers and our tax dollars?

I say turn this mess over to Iran and Syria. The Syrians can get the Saudis to pony up cash for their soildiers to protect their Sunni cousins. They won't jump into this briarpatch if Bush invites them. Nobody, but nobody wants to be seen doing his bidding these days.

So Bush should just keep making feckless threats as we moonwalk out. The Weekly Standard and AEI boys should keep writing apocalyptic screeds. Halliburton could leave a few billion worth of shiny new oil field spares laying around to entice the Iranians. The Syrians probably won't be able to resist the urge to corner the market on delicious Iraqi sheep.

What's the worst that could happen? They'd succeed at pacifying their neighbor where the mighty USA failed? I doubt that'd happen but if it did good. Islam needs a few successes to get over their massive inferiority complex. They're not very good at making war. Being good at making peace might give them ideas. It beats building nukes. At the very least it'd keep 'em busy.

But frankly there's no reason to think Ahmadinejad and Assad would be any better at fixing this mess than Bush. Hell if Mohammaed and the 12th Iman came back hand and hand and said knock it off they'd still probably keep fighting for awhile. So Syria can set up a fiefdom in Anbar and the Iranians in the south. Let them piss away their treasure and have their kids ride around waiting to get blown up or kicking in doors. Like I said it'd keep them busy. If Syria and Iran come to blows Hezzbollah can kiss off Damascus as their waystation for Iranian missiles. Chances are it'd bring down both Ahmadinejad and Assad without us firing a shot. Iran's gonna be in Iraq eventually anyway. Why not get the Syrians in to counter balance them? I say cut to the chase and make them think it's their idea. Democrats aren't stupid enough to buy into Bush's fisaco but the Iranians and Syrians might.

[ATS]

"Success" in Iraq is defined in various ways. Certainly the Ledeen crowd is fine with chaos and discord, rather than unified democracy. After all, the latter would leave an Israeli rival intact.

It is hard to imagine anyone who deserves a puch in the nose as Ledeen. After all, the French diplomat who called Israel a "shitty little country" got dismissed: Ledeen, who suggested throwing a host of "shitty little musilim countries against a wall" got promoted.