September 08, 2003

Think of a wonderful thought...

Posted by Ted

From Donald Rumsfeld:

Mr. Rumsfeld did not mention any of the domestic critics by name. But he suggested that those who have been critical of the administration’s handling of the war in Iraq and its aftermath might be encouraging American foes to believe that the United States might one day walk away from the effort, as it has in past conflicts.

From Christopher Durang:

You remember how in the second act Tinkerbell drinks some poison that Peter is about to drink in order to save him? And then Peter turns to the audience and he says, “Tinkerbell is going to die because not enough people believe in fairies. But if all of you clap your hands real hard to show that you do believe in fairies, maybe she won’t die.”

So, we all started to clap. I clapped so long and so hard that my palms hurt and they even started to bleed I clapped so hard. Then suddenly the actress playing Peter Pan turned to the audience and she said, “That wasn’t enough. You did not clap hard enough. Tinkerbell is dead.” And then we all started to cry. The actress stomped off stage and refused to continue with the production. They finally had to lower the curtain. The ushers had to come help us out of the aisles and into the street.

You hear that? CLAP LOUDER!

More from Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Arthur Silber, Kevin Drum, Atrios, and Tim Dunlop.

Posted on September 8, 2003 07:16 PM UTC
Comments

What is the sound of no hand clapping?

Posted by kelley b. · September 8, 2003 09:11 PM

Good thinking. Clap, and don’t get paranoid about censorship.

Posted by PG · September 8, 2003 09:22 PM

Love the Peter Pan reference, but is it poor taste to point out that Rumsfeld is obviously correct?

Domestic dissent does yield the appearance of disarray, and those not versed in the interplay of democratic politics may dissent may well infer weakness of will. We may believe these costs worth bearing (for good Millian reasons), but they are costs nonetheless.

Posted by BAA · September 8, 2003 09:39 PM

if there is enough to dissent to give hope to the “terrorists” then obviously there was enough dissent that those in charge of our side should have been concerned with the support of such an endeavor in the first place. Instead, they decided to invent and construct support through a nationalistic fervor.

Therefore, because the leaders decided to drum up support that they should have been aware was built on a flimsy house of cards, and would waver if all didn’t go as “planned”, it is SOLELY their responsibility if any terrorists now find dissent in American to be a good thing.

Therefore, our leaders have already made our nation look silly in the eyes of the terrorists, regardless of dissenters.

Posted by Bob · September 8, 2003 09:53 PM

Is the sheepishly named baa putting us on? Did we lose WW2 because (mostly honest, loyal) Americans questioned FDR’s prosecution of the war? Right down to holding a Congressional Inquiry on what the president knew, and when, about Pearl Harbor - during the war?

It is true that those in closed societies may not understand our open, free democracy (I’ve been told by men who were there that Germans expected Americans to quit fighting when FDR died). That’s an interesting fact. It should not be used as a bludgeon by those in power against those who would hold the powerful responsible for their failings.

Or is Mr. Rumsfeld as unfamiliar with the free exchange of ideas in a democracy as German civilians in 1945?

Posted by JRoth · September 8, 2003 09:56 PM

baa: Not to belabor the obvious, but since it seems to have eluded you — Our level of resolve, much less unanimity, is irrelevant to the stakes for Iraqis fighting our presence. Just as in Vietnam, they want to control their own country, regardless of whether or not it’s for what we or most people around the world would consider a laudable end — certainly not in the case of Baathists, or even Iranian-oriented Shiites. We are outsiders, and they will go on fighting until we leave. Only if it’s virtually all the world fighting them — in the form of the UN, under international goals and reconstruction direction (which means Halliburton doesn’t get endless fat contracts) — will they eventually give up.

Posted by Steady Eddie · September 8, 2003 09:57 PM

I think terrorists pay little if any attention to American politics as a whole. Their priorities are going to be the marines around them, the populace they’re trying to rally into revolt, and maybe our strategic military action, but I don’t see Bin Laden sitting in a cave and analyzing CNN for weakness of spirit.

So I don’t think Rumsfeld really has a point here, certainly not one worth mentioning like he did. I’m afraid it was purely political.

Posted by Narrator · September 8, 2003 09:59 PM

is it poor taste to point out that Rumsfeld is obviously correct?

Correct? Absolutely. Which is why Hitler was able to do such a brilliant job directing the German Army — at Stalingrad, the Battle of the Bulge, etc. Because, you see, he didn’t have deal with all those carping domestic critics questioning his strategic decisions.

Ditto Stalin in the summer of 1941 — meeting the Nazi invasion head on, and only losing half of his armies and most of his major cities, because he, too, didn’t have to worry about those pesky critics second guessing him. Those big officer purges helped, too — no more grumbling in the ranks. No siree.

And Kaiser Wilhem, tightly in control of the German press and parliament, deliberately launching a two-front war in 1914.

Or Czar Nicholas in the winter of 1916, driving his exhausted and ill supplied armies into reckless offensives against German artillery and machine guns - secure in the knowledge that nobody in St. Petersburg would dare to question his orders.

Yep, mindless conformism is the key to military success all right …

Posted by Billmon · September 8, 2003 10:00 PM

I don’t know, Billmon… I don’t think debate and open discussion help military action, but I don’t think they paticuarily damage it either. I’d have to chase down a US grunt or ‘Baath Party Remnant’ and confirm this, but I would assume that all this seems petty and far off to them.

To take the obvious comparison, a Vietnam veteran was much more concerned about personal safety than who was on his side.

Do the terrorists feel heartened by our divisions? I’d be surprised if they even knew about it or gave a shit.

Posted by Narrator · September 8, 2003 10:06 PM

Does Rumsfeld (or anyone else in the administration) know WHO the terrorists are that we’re “fighting?” I see rather random sweeps of the Iraqi countryside by US forces, who occasionally find arms caches and “detain” prisoners. But mostly I see US forces hunkered down in secure camps, pretty much accepting the total lack of order.

So what are we spending the $87B on next year? Better troop shelters?

How, exactly is this helping in the fight against terror?

Wouldn’t $87B be better spent say, actually mounting an operation to capture Osama bin Laden?

Just asking…

Posted by Swoosh · September 8, 2003 10:43 PM

My, I seem to have inadvertently raised the bile level here. Glad to see the WWII references flying hot and heavy as well.

So let me bleat briefly. Was Rumsfeld “playing politics”? Yes. He’s an embattled cabinet secretary — expect nothing less!

Was his point correct? Well, as much as one would prefer a focus group of Al Queda plotters, let’s go theoretical. Let’s imagine a US poll is published tomorrow showing 80% support of sustained nation-building in Iraq. If you were a ex-baathist trying to force US retreat by bombing pipelines, wouldn’t that bum you out? It would bum me out if I were a murderous ex-baathist! So too, I imagine those hoping to drive American forces out of Iraq would prefer to see the headline of the Post read “criticism of Iraq occupation grows” than “strong bi-partisan support of Iraqi nation-building.”

Again, I think dissent — defined as criticism honestly offered in the efforts of improving American policy — is worth the costs (Soldier on Joe Biden!). What might not be worth the costs are transparently unserious criticism advanced for political purposes. Lucky there aren’t any of those!

Posted by BAA · September 8, 2003 10:57 PM

I just need to back this up a second and ask if I’m the only one disturbed by the creepy head game ‘Peter Pan’ played on a room full of children. That just seemed warped…

Posted by kq · September 8, 2003 11:08 PM

tinkerbell was within the margins of acceptable risk. the sooner kids learn this, the better.

Posted by BAA · September 8, 2003 11:20 PM

I thought the Peter Pan story was hilarious. Reminds me of an episode in Shakes the Clown, a Bobcat Goldthwaite cult movie. Or Robin Williams as Mr. Roberts: “I guess that ought to hold the little shits for another day”.

Note that these people who are looking so carefully at op-ed pages and public opinion polls are the same ones who we’ve been describing as crazed murderous lunatics all these years. So suicide bombers are really quite sensible when you get to know them, eh?

Posted by zizka · September 8, 2003 11:21 PM

kq-

Welcome to the world of Christopher Durang.

Posted by holofernes · September 8, 2003 11:25 PM

A typical misuse of language. It is not obvious that dissent makes us weaker. In fact, dissent makes us stronger as a nation. We would not be stronger if we all clapped as hard as we could, we would be weaker.

Posted by NBarnes · September 8, 2003 11:41 PM

baa, is that a position that you’ve actually thought through?

First you offer an 80% approval of long term US presence as an example of something that would “bum out” a terrorist, and offer as evidence only the fact that it would bum you out (more on this later). Then you silently and mysteriously substitute “transparently unserious criticism advanced for political purposes” (TUCAPP) as the type of activity that you are criticising. Not only is the latter situation fundamentally different from the former, but even American strategists don’t pay attention to TUCAPP except as Kremlinology. Or do you honestly think that terrorists’ strategies are sensitive to whether Chuck Hagel or Joe Biden rips into GW in the WaPo?

second, I can’t wrap my head around that “bummed out” argument without reaching the conclusion that you are either a pacifist or very poorly informed about history. Frankly, if the roles of Iraq and the US were reversed I wouldn’t (and I suspect neither would you) give a rats ass whether a majority of Iraqis thought me ungrateful, or supported the rebuilding of the US as a liberal democracy, because it would long since have become apparent that the occupiers lack either the capability or the intent, or both, of dong so. Or do you honestly think that the average Iraqi is better off (or even has a reason to believe that things will get better soon) under the CPA?

Sorry if this is harsh, but the “imagining” of Iraqis’ responses to US behavior without any basis in fact is what got us into this mess. I’ve lived in the Middle East, which has a lot to do with why I am personally willing to defend the US Constitution with my dying breath, and is also why I can tell you with some confidence that there are plenty of Iraqis, Wahabbis and pan-Arabists who, should they feel that the occupation has the broad support of the US populace, will be perfectly happy to take us on in a battle of wills.

Posted by radish · September 9, 2003 12:00 AM

Some day maybe, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon, the jackboots will stop fantasizing about WWII and realize that this is not a war the way they dream about it. Read my lips: THE US IS NOT FIGHTING A SOVEREIGN NATION. The radical fundamentalists are NOT interested in the U.S. leaving Iraq, they thrive on the constant state of violence and turmoil (anyone see Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or any other militants in the ME moving to make peace and create stable [in a western sense] societies?

Bush’s (Rumsfeld) invasion and occupation of Iraq is a fanatics dream come true. From inciting anger at the US to having easy access to taking pot-shots at American soldiers, the occupation is just what the fanatics want. What would make anyone think that they want us to leave? I hate to break the news to Rumsfeld, but the ME fanatics have the US right where they want us.

Posted by danuube · September 9, 2003 12:48 AM

“…might be encouraging American foes to believe that the United States might one day walk away from the effort, as it has in past conflicts.”

I think baa should take note of that last clause. No amount of clapping our hands, waving flags, or anything else is going to snow the opposition into thinking we have the brains and guts to get it together when we have such an abysmal track record. They may smirk at what we say, but I betcha their real inspiration comes from what we do.

Posted by Avedon · September 9, 2003 12:54 AM

As Bob points out, if this stupid theory of Rumsfelds were correct, or if Rumsfeld even believed it, he was criminally irresponsible to push a divided nation to war. What a brilliant theory:
Step 1: Ignore opposition to the war
Step 2: Screw up BIGTIME
Step 3: Blame the opponents for not cheering loud enough.

Posted by citizen k · September 9, 2003 12:59 AM

Well, I’m not going to try too hard here, as I seem to be struggling against a will to misunderstand. Also, not all the criticisms here cohere. And,So real fast:

1. There seems to be some consensus that at times in the past, the us has ‘stuck it out’ in conflicts (korea, WW II). other times, not so much (beirut, somalia, vietnam)
2. If one were trying to dissuade the US from sticking it out, the prospect of imminent success is more likely than not to spur one’s efforts.
3. The belief that US resolve is wavering would count as evidence the success is imminent
4. Dissent can be/often is interpreted as evidence that resolve is wavering.
5. Conclusion: dissent might make enemies of the occupation think this was one of those times america might not stick it out, and try extra hard.
6. just a note. Obviously I, like everyone else here, has no idea through what kind of fun-house mirror opponents of the occupation are viewing american morale/resolve. Can we admit that some level of correct interpretation exists? If so, Rumsfeld’s point holds. Sure, it’s a cynical, political statement at the same time. Alas, the devil Rumsfeld in this case does not instantiate all vices simultaneously! Try again tomorrow.

7. Last, as I’ve tried to make clear (but hey! let’s try again!) this doesn’t mean dissent is bad, it means dissent has costs. The advantages of serious democratic deliberation outweigh the costs, so boolah boolah dissent!

Posted by baa · September 9, 2003 01:18 AM

The US did stick it out in Vietnam. 1965 (escalation) — 1973. More than seven years.

Posted by zizka · September 9, 2003 01:27 AM

:1. There seems to be some consensus that at times in the past, the us has ‘stuck it out’ in conflicts (korea, WW II). other times, not so much (beirut, somalia, vietnam)

Posted by citizen k · September 9, 2003 02:21 AM
Followups

This discussion has been closed. Thanks to everyone who contributed.