Defeat and defeatism

The New Neo Posted on by

The word “defeat” has been thrown around lately in connection with the war in Iraq; here’s an example.

The title of the editorial is “Vietnam syndrome: the consequences of U.S. defeat in Iraq would be much greater than they were in Vietnam.” I agree with the basic premise; they would. But I disagree with the characterization of what’s going on there as “defeat.”

You may think I’m engaging in useless semantic nitpicking. But I don’t think so. I think what we experienced in Vietnam was closer to defeat than what’s going on in Iraq, but I think both basically come down to a different thing entirely: defeatism, and that it’s a troubling post-Vietnam development in our national psyche.

Remember that we had been disengaged from active fighting in the war in Vietnam for years when we abandoned that country in early 1975. I’ve written about that process so extensively that I’m not going to go into it again here (see this, this, this, and this). What’s important, though, is that we gave up when we were undergoing very little risk and when the cost of continuing was low. Even though we were merely subsidizing the fighting of others in a cause for which fifty thousand Americans had already given their lives, we had grown weary of what was perceived as an endless conflict, and it was that psychological defeatism that led to our pulling the plug on the still-fighting South Vietnamese themselves, who then—and only then—were in fact defeated.

We have lost relatively few casualties in Iraq, our economy is still thriving, and we’ve experienced no increase in terrorist attacks here. There has been no military defeat, just a psychological one, and it is self-generated.

In a way, though, my distinction between “defeat” and “defeatism” might be moot: in the end they both would have the same effect on the Iraqis. They would/will also have the same effect on the international perception of our ability to keep our word and to persevere in a struggle, an important part of deterrence of future conflicts.

They look different domestically, though; we have not experienced anywhere near the suffering and decimation involved in an actual defeat. Ask the elderly Germans or the Japanese what that is like.

In fact, the US has never suffered a defeat. The only part of the US that has is the South during the Civil War and its aftermath, the traumatic process of Reconstruction. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons the word “defeat” is now thrown around so readily; many of us don’t quite understand what it means.

Bye bye, Blair: more change across the pond

The New Neo Posted on by

Not unexpectedly, Tony Blair has called it quits as Prime Minister. His farewell speech was relatively short, and some thought it too emotional and quasi-apologetic on Iraq.

I only read it in print, so perhaps it was different when he delivered it, but it didn’t really seem either to me. Surprisingly, though, for a man known for his eloquence, it didn’t have much rhetorical flair. Perhaps after ten years he’s tired, much more tired than Obama, and for that he can be forgiven.

Yes, Blair does end his speech on an odd note, with an apology. In context, though, it’s a blanket apology for the times he had “fallen short;” people can decide for themselves what times those may have been. The bulk of his speech is actually about changes for the better in the British economy and its sense of itself as a leader nation during his tenure; he says only a little bit about international relations or Iraq.

As far as Iraq goes, Blair alludes to the fact that many people hold the opinion that the aftermath of the war in Iraq—what he calls the “blowback from global terrorism”—“simply isn’t and can’t be worth it.” But then he says:

For me, I think we must see it through. They, the terrorists, who threaten us here and round the world, will never give up if we give up. It is a test of will and of belief. And we can’t fail it.

It doesn’t seem all that equivocal to me. The war in Iraq has been, if anything, even more unpopular in the UK than it is here, and that was true at the beginning of the conflict as well as now. Blair had to buck public opinion from the start; as he says, he did what he thought was right in leading the country in that direction.

Blair’s most likely successor is his deputy, mystery man Gordon Brown. To some, Brown appears to be pretty much an Americaphile, and although he has a history of supporting Blair’s position vis a vis Iraq, no one is at all sure what he really thinks.

After reading five or six articles on the man, I can honestly say that the picture I get from all of them is a murky one; Brown appears to be an enigma even to those far more familiar with his record than I. Apparently he has purposely kept his positions somehwat ambiguous, the better to change them as the situation might warrant.

His personal style is very different from Blair’s: no charm or charisma here. The New York Times quotes the Sunday Times as describing Brown in an editorial as “a blank sheet of paper,” and that pretty much sums up the views of many who have watched him over the years.

So I won’t even venture a guess as to which way Brown will turn, except to say that he will probably seek to prove he’s not Bush’s poodle (the epithet that dogged Blair’s footsteps) by emphasizing whatever differences in policy do exist.

And by the way—what’s up with all these single-syllable leaders whose name starts with a “B”?

Congress, the President, and the polls: a game of withdrawal chess

The New Neo Posted on by

Headline in the Washington Post: “Bush would veto new Iraq bill.”

Ya think? Surely this isn’t a surprise (it’s a sort of “dog bites man” story) although of course the Post and the rest of the MSM are required to treat it as newsworthy.

The new bill would fund the war only through September, and even that would be contingent on a report this summer to Congress on whether the Iraqi government has met certain security benchmarks. Then Congress would vote again as to whether to actually release the funds or not.

Congress continues to play political games here. I guess at this point that’s pretty much its raison de etre. But still, the sponsors of this bill had to know that it would be vetoed. So, why continue this approach?

The struggle between Bush and Congress has always been couched at least partly as the Democrats trying to chip away at Bush’s popular support. But surely they know that, at this point, Bush is beyond such considerations. The word “Bush” is probably just a cover for the word “Republicans”—after all, it’s other Republicans, who must go on record as either voting or not voting for this bill, who need to run again in 2008.

So the Democrats don’t really need for the bill to actually be signed into law. It will function as a litmus test for members of Congress, and the Democrats are betting that it’s a winner for their side in the elective sense.

If one reads the news summaries of the latest polls, one could easily think the Democrats are right. It seems like a no-brainer: 6 out of 10 Americans want to see a timetable for withdrawal no matter what. What could be clearer? The Democrats would appear to have the majority strongly with them.

But go to the Gallup site and read the actual results. Hmmmm. It turns out that the all-important question was worded thusly:

If you had to choose, which do you think is better for the US—to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq until the situation there gets better, even if that takes many years, [or] to set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and to stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq at the time?

Why didn’t the pollsters ask whether people favored immediate withdrawal, withdrawal in a certain number of months, or whether they favored the bill as written (the poll was asked May 4-6, so the information in it could have been quite current)? Well, I don’t read the minds of pollsters, and I guess they were looking at exactly what they wanted to be looking at, which was the support for a timetable versus no timetable at all.

But the distinction isn’t a very helpful one when that’s not the choice being faced at the moment. It’s the addition of that telling phrase “even if that takes many years” that even I, a non-pollster, can tell easily could be skewing the results. And it doesn’t take training as a therapist to see that, either. I’m sure the pollsters knew it themselves.

Other parts of this and other recent polls ought to give the Democrats pause as well, although I doubt they will. A poll in late April asked certain questions that the Gallup folks apparently decided not to include this time, but the findings then were that only 30% of Americans would like to see troops beginning to return home within six months, with an additional 27% wanting to see withdrawal start sometime next year or beyond, and 39% against any such deadlines.

Hmmm, once again.

In the most recent poll, Americans believed 50% to 46% that a withdrawal would embolden Iran and North Korea to see it as evidence of US weakness, and to challenge us with threats. Hmmm again.

And then there’s the fact that majorities see a likelihood of negative consequences for a pullout: as increased threat of civil war in Iraq, al Qaeda setting up shop there, and increased threats of terrorist attacks in this country.

Again, I would exercise caution: polls are polls, and often not all that worthwhile. But if one is relying on them in order to gauge public opinion for a coming election—and I have little doubt that that’s exactly what the Democrats are doing—one should at least take a good, hard, and careful look.

Sanity Squad: Sarkozy on the couch

The New Neo Posted on by

The Squad takes on mon petit chou Sarkozy and what his election might mean for France, the US, and the world. Join Siggy, Dr. Sanity, Shrink, and me as we opine on matters small and great.

Oh, and it’s okay now to have some French cheese and drink some French wine as you listen. But just a little of the latter—you’ll want to keep your mind clear enough to appreciate the fabulous wit and wisdom of the Squad. Or something like that.

Obama and the “tired” factor: making excuses

The New Neo Posted on by

I have to admit I’ve got a ton of sympathy for Presidential candidates. The campaign seems at times to be a two-year marathon of travel, speeches, handshaking, exhaustion, and exposure to the howling wolves of the press who are always waiting for the first little slip to pounce and devour their prey, even one so favored as Obama.

Yes, you might say the candidates all asked for it; nobody is forced to run for President. And at this point, no one can plead ignorance of the process. But still, the actual experience—like having a baby and needing to get up five times a night to feed it—is probably far more grueling in the actual doing than it appears in the prospective contemplation thereof.

So when Obama made his slip-up and overstated by a factor of 1000X how many died in the Kansas tornado, I’m inclined to say it’s amazing such errors don’t happen more often to all the candidates, given the circumstances. But his excuse—that he was tired and weary—doesn’t sit all that well with me, although I have no doubt that it’s both true and understandable.

The problem is twofold. The first is that it may indicate not only a certain lack of toughness on Obama’s part, but a willingness to offer up excuses too easily. It’s okay for a Presidential candidate (or President) to be tired, but I’m not so sure he should be so eager to excuse himself on that score. I’ve often thought that, if the campaign is a grueling marathon, it’s probably a (pardon the phrase) cakewalk compared to the actual Presidency.

Just as the Presidency is not for the shy or those tortured by ambivalence, just as it requires a certain amount of narcissism (perhaps more than is healthy in ordinary life), it also requires true grit and enormous—almost superhuman—endurance. And if the President doesn’t feel up to it all the time, he/she is supposed to shut up about it and not let others see.

No excuses, although of course Presidents make mistakes. But, as Harry Truman said, “The buck stops here” for the President—and for the Presidential candidates.

In a larger sense—and perhaps I’m overdoing the analogy here, but what the hey—Obama’s willingness to admit to exhaustion mirrors the Democrats’ willingness to admit to being so weary of Iraq that they want it to be over, and immediately. Arguments about the pros and cons of the war aside, in strategic terms the clamor for the pullout signals a lack of stamina that can only be immensely heartening to our enemies.

The incredible shrinking (or is it growing?) al Qaeda

The New Neo Posted on by

Al Qaeda is a secret organization. It doesn’t publish statistics on how many members it has, and if it did we wouldn’t believe them anyway, because for al Qaeda propaganda trumps veracity every time.

And yet lack of specific knowledge doesn’t stop commentators from tossing out pronouncements, not only about al Qaeda’s size and its recent growth or lack thereof, but also about the reasons behind said expansion.

From the NY Times, here (from the serendipitously named Clark Kent Ervin) is a good example of the sort of thing one reads almost on a daily basis:

While many of [al Qaeda’s] operatives have been killed or captured since 9/11, the supply of young people who are willing and even eager to attack Americans seems limitless. Our disastrous misadventure in Iraq has only increased that desire. Al Qaeda has reconstituted itself in Pakistan and is trying to reclaim Afghanistan.

I recall first hearing the “al Qaeda and the Taliban are back in control in Afghanistan” meme a few weeks after the Afghan War ended. And, although I have no reason to doubt that they continue to be a force to be reckoned with there, and are continually trying to regroup (with some success) there’s been nothing to indicate a major leap in that direction. If you read the previous link you’ll see the general vagueness of all such reports, which tend to go like this: we took out a lot of their leadership, but they’re trying to come back, and the extent to which they have been successful is unknown. Well, of course.

It does seem fairly clear that, like the broomsticks in Disney’s “Fantasia,” al Qaeda has become less centralized over time. Again, it’s hard to see how it could be otherwise; it just makes good sense. Even the absence of a major attack on the US since 9/11 isn’t definitive evidence of anything much; your guess is as good as anyone’s as to whether it’s from lack of opportunity, or a cagey strategy to allow us to destroy ourselves with argument and divisiveness—after all, an attack might actually unite us, even now, even with the dread Bushitler in charge.

Ervin makes the bold assertion that our “disastrous misadventure” in Iraq (well, I guess we know where he stands on that one) has increased the desire of willing young people in the Muslim world to attack Americans. I guess he’s a regular jihadi mindreader, because his statements occurs in the absence of evidence of actual increased attacks.

Maybe he’s right. But perhaps not. The truth is that no matter what we’ve done, the desire of jihadis to attack Americans seems to have been steadily increasing. If Iraq was the cause of an increased increased desire, what was the cause back in the 90’s? Oh, of course, the Gulf War. Or our presence in Saudi Arabia. Or our support of Israel. Or, or, or….as some say, our way of life itself, and the increased exposure of fundamentalist Muslims to that way of life.

The Egyptian Sayyid Qutb, one of al Qaeda’s early inspirations, was scandalized and angered back in the Forties by such American outrages as green lawns and church socials (take a look; I’m not making this stuff up). Jihadis take offense at an awful lot, and we don’t call it a “clash of civilizations” for nothing.

In fact, a good case could be made that the Iraq War has caused a decline in al Qaeda sympathy, at least in Iraq itself, where most of the victims of al Qaeda seem to have been innocent Iraqis. But the truth is, no one knows, and yet that doesn’t stop many people from acting as though they do.

It’s not as though we have a graph to chart the growth of al Qaeda, and can compare the slope of the line before-Iraq and after-Iraq. The 90’s, with training camps in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban, were clearly the growth years. Many of those leaders are now dead, pursued by the US and some of its allies. But, as President Bush said in a speech he gave as long ago and far away as September 20, 2001:

Americans should not expect one battle [against al Qaeda], but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.

Sometimes I wonder how many were listening, or how many remember, or how many even care.

Sarkozy’s another one we don’t have to look up to

The New Neo Posted on by

Watching a tape of Sarkozy walking through a crowd, I noticed that he is not a tall man.

This got me thinking as to whether Sarkozy is following a trend I analyzed about two months ago: the rise of the height-challenged (otherwise known as short) candidate. Research shows that past US Presidents have tended on the whole to be taller than average, although the legend that the taller man always wins is just that—a legend. Whether it’s the same in France I don’t know, but my guess is: maybe.

Sarkozy has been compared at times to Reagan, but in the height arena he’s positively Napoleonic and somewhat less than Giulianic. The only mention I could find of an exact figure for how tall Sarkozy is states that he comes in at just around 5 feet 5 inches, which certainly would preclude any references to de Gaulle, a lofty 6’5″.

Sarko the Magnificent

The New Neo Posted on by

I couldn’t be happier about this news.

I first wrote about Sarkozy here, during the riots in France. He seemed a fascinating character then, and even more so now, a breath of fresh air in a France that has been stagnating for quite some time. Sarkozy represents the desire for change; as Publius Pundit sees it:

There’s no doubt Sarko wants change. But he wants it for different reasons than leftists often do. Leftists want to create a New Man. Sarko wants to save France so that it can be France, not turn it into another cookie-cutter Berkeley or Ann Arbor, as has been happening. Sarko’s a flag-waver. He’s extremely passionate and energetic, and he will make a difference. His proposed economic programs to keep France powerful and competitive, will do just that, as French voters read it, because that’s a big issue that resonated.

This promises to be very interesting. Perhaps France will become an ally once again, and not just in name only.

[ADDENDUM: I didn’t realize Sarkozy was anti-boomer. Well, that’s okay; I forgive him, even though I’m a boomer myself. And, what’s more, I agree with him—the legacy of the 60s in France (and to some extent in this country) has been a destructive moral relativism that cries out to be corrected.]

Nobody’s satisfied: the imperfect earlobe and the unfashionable human body

The New Neo Posted on by

Recently I saw an ad on TV for a product designed to fix a problem I previously hadn’t known existed: saggy earlobes.

At first I thought it must be a joke of some sort. Saggy earlobes? Of all the available body parts about which we’ve grown so self-conscious and dissatisfied, I wouldn’t have thought that earlobes would be high on anybody’s list.

But apparently a significant number of people will barely leave the house because of their worn-out earlobes—or their perception of their worn-out earlobes. So this product is the non-surgical equivalent of breast implants for the earlobe, uplifting the fallen.

Take a look, if you dare.

We’re never satisfied, it seems. In some cultures, people want nothing more than to do the opposite, all for beauty’s sake: to streeeeetch their earlobes with wider and bigger plugs so that they become—not just saggy, but stupendously, freakishly saggy.

To wit:

And lest you think such spectacular distortions of body parts are the predilection only of tribal folk, think again. Recently I couldn’t help but notice (although I tried valiantly to keep from staring) an ethnically unremarkable young man sporting similar auricular splendor behind the counter of our local health food store.

I’ve long owned a fascinating book entitled The Unfashionable Human Body. It describes the lengths to which people have gone throughout history to overcome their essential boredom with the unadorned human form. Clothes are part of this effort, although of course they have many practical considerations as well. Jewelry likewise, minus the practical. But, especially in areas where clothing as we know it is more or less optional, the body itself became the plastic clay to be molded by humankind’s driving need to not leave well enough alone.

The variety has been astounding. For example, the book has a lengthy chapter, with illustrations, on foot-binding, one of the saddest chapters in the annals of what people are willing to do for beauty and an enhanced ability to attract the opposite sex. In this endeavor, as in present-day female genital mutilation, the practice involved not just the preferences of the opposite sex, but the cooperation of older woman themselves in foisting it on young girls to perpetuate the custom and increase the girls’ desirability.

So-called “civilized” people are hardly immune to such machinations. The whalebone corset was responsible for a great deal of the female fainting that went on not all that long ago in Western life. And I’m old enough to remember a time when even young teenagers were expected to wear girdles (and, believe me, those things were uncomfortable) any time they wore a garment that was in the least form-fitting, lest they be betrayed by a tell-tale jiggle.

My own grandmother came from an era in which the assumption was that, without such support, the body would slide, jelly-like, into a state of amorphous shapelessness; even the feet and ankles needed high-sided shoes to shore up their innate tendency to “spread” and weaken.

And then there’s that perennial favorite, high heels. No ankle support there. These are a little unusual, to be sure—but only a little:


Our driving force to transform ourselves into objects of beauty—even if one culture’s transformation is another’s deformation—is most decidedly here to stay.

And don’t get me started on tattoos.

Winning the debate

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s too busy a day today for me to post much, but I just wanted to comment on the debate last night—the one I didn’t watch.

Others did, and from the variety of their responses I’m reminded that beauty—and Presidential debate winners—is very much in the eye of the beholder.

These early “debates” are little more than introductions, anyway. Who looks tired? Whose forehead is too shiny? Who seems most “Presidential,” that hard-to-define-but-we-know-it-when-we-see-it quality?

I’ve never been keen even on the later Presidential debates. I think they tap into a skill that may or may not have anything to do with being a good President, which is the ability to be glib, seem relaxed, and keep from making a major faux pas (look at your wristwatch, anyone?).

The consensus here seems to have been that Fred Thompson did himself a favor by not showing up. Winner by default?

Slippery pols relying on slippery polls (Democrats and the war)

The New Neo Posted on by

One arena in which even Bush’s opponents would probably agree he stands out is that he’s the rare public figure who really doesn’t much care what the majority thinks when he sets his agenda; he does what he thinks is right. Of course, that’s either cause for celebration if you tend to agree with him (“resolute,” “integrity,” “courage of his convictions”) or anathema if you don’t (“stubborn,” “arrogant,” “demented,” “evil”).

There’s little doubt that most politicians aren’t nearly so good at ignoring the polls, although our republican (that’s a small “r,” not a typo) form of government dictates that a legislator vote his/her conscience rather than what’s popular.

Clinton, for example, was famous for setting his policy by the latest polls. And there’s no doubt whatsoever that the present Democratic push for a withdrawal from Iraq and a cutoff of funds for the campaign there is to a large extent poll-driven, although there are certainly ideological underpinnings. Here, for example, are some telling quotes:

“This legislation responds to the wishes of the American people to end the war,” Pelosi said, surrounded by American flags, seven TV cameras and dozens of reporters…The ceremony itself was “designed to send a signal to the president that if he decides to veto this bill, he stands alone and at odds with the American people,” said Reid’s spokesman, Jim Manley.

The bill received a very theatrical presentation at its sendoff to the President, especially for one that was doomed to be vetoed, has little chance of an override, and therefore was about to die a quick death once it got to its destination. The spectacle was designed to appeal to what the Democrats assume is the disgust of a majority of Americans with the war, and their strong desire to end it quickly.

That’s certainly an understandable conclusion for the Democrats to draw; recent polls have indicated support for a withdrawal within the year. And the Democrats—rightly or wrongly—attribute their victory last November in Congress to their antiwar stance, and are trying to extend it and capitalize on it for 2008.

But beware polls and their vagaries. One of those quirks is that poll results can differ widely based on the way a question is asked. And it turns out that seems to be the case for Iraq and the pullout and the fund cut.

I first was alerted to this fact by a comment from reader “sergey,” calling my attention to National Review’s Cliff May’s report on a series of polls with some results that ought to give the Democrats pause if they feel certain their current strategy is a winner in the political sense.

Americans may have been against the surge when it was proposed, but according to recent polls they are also against Congress’s denying the money for additional troops (61% against, a hefty majority). If that seems contradictory, I can only say that human beings aren’t known for their consistency. In this case a further explanation could be that, although the majority of people wish Bush would give up on the war and the whole thing would just go away, once a course of action such as a surge has been proposed and is in operation, they do not support cutting it off in mid-stream and they especially don’t like what they see as Congress’s overreaching to tell the military what it should do.

This is borne out by the response to another poll question May reports: 69% of American voters (an even heftier majority) trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. Americans may not think much of Bush right now, but they think even less of Congress’s ability to set a military agenda.

President Bush, that non-poll watcher, may have read a few in preparation for a remark of his made as he vetoed the bill (only the second time in his Presidency that he’s exercised the veto power, by the way): it “substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders.” Pelosi countered with, “We had hoped that the president would have treated it with the respect that bipartisan legislation supported overwhelmingly by the American people deserved.”

I don’t think she’s done all her homework.