Here's the latest installment of my ongoing e-debate with GOP friends. This week's episode involves reaction to Howard Dean's comments about Iraq being un-winnable...
Begin:
Me:
This morning, Russert showed the RNC ad bashing Howard Dean for saying we can't win in Iraq -- one line reads something like, "the enemy is watching"...
Here's the contradiction:
Whenever a Democrat tells us that foreign perception matters, the Right instantly calls that weakness. We are proud Americans, and we shouldn't let others dictate our policy or actions, so we're told by folks wrapping themselves in the flag.
But HERE, what matters MOST is the "enemy's" perception of us...And therefore, we should allow that perception to mute the most basic liberty we have -- SPEECH and viewpoint... In other words, to "win", we have to let Osama and sunni insurgents destroy our free debate...that's insanity, imo...
GOP Buddy:
<<As far as repubs using their FREE SPEECH to counter a dems free speech, what is the problem. It's just free speech, if the RNC runs an ad like that... </p>
Me:
There is no problem at all with "using free speech". In my email, I called it one of the most fundamental of all liberties.
GOP Buddy:
<<Dems can be irresponsible and say whatever comes to mind, but repubs must always be careful. Seems dems want free speech and never have it questioned or criticized by repub free speech. You guys are a bunch of babies - you only defend free speech when it suits your needs...</p>
Me:
It isn't a question of quelling free speech; it's about someone's credibility and indeed the credibility of the argument itself when that speech is INCONSISTENT and ever-changing, depending on the political opportunity presented by a given circumstance...
To use your race analogy, I'd levy the same criticism if Democrats started running ads that tried to scare white voters because a Republican defends affirmative action... that would be horribly inconsistent, given the general support for affirmative action (or at least the notion that race DOES matter in pursuing equality) among Democrats... I wouldn't hesitate to call such a scheme blatant opportunism...
It's the same thing here: as long as the position synchs up with a GOP goal - dumping the Geneva Conventions; unilateral invasion of another country; balking at efforts to combat global warming; bashing UN inspectors -- you're a pansy if you care about foreign opinion.. But suddenly the perception of others is ALL that matters if you dare to criticize White House war policy... the "enemy is watching", after all...
GOP Buddy:
<<If a coach says something that might offend the black population, or Indians, or women, or ANY group of people, it doesn't matter if they are repub or dem, they get beat down by everyone. </p>
BUT, if a dem says something that might offend a soldier in battle, no big deal.
Why don't we protect our soldiers the same way we protect everyone else? Please tell Dean and others to state their feelings but do it in a politically correct way....that is if dems continue to demand political correctness everywhere else.
Me:
Wrong frame, imo. If an INDIVIDUAL soldier was criticized because of race for instance, or if all black soldiers were stereotyped, you'd be arguing on the correct plane. But here, Dean is criticizing the civilian leadership -- we VOTE for them, last I heard -- for recklessly putting those soldiers in danger... He's not commenting on the troops at all...
You might as well tell me that I shouldn't criticize a corporate board when a merger goes haywire, because it might hurt employee morale...Or maybe we shouldn't criticize WH decisions about IRS activity to protect the morale of tax auditors...Nor would I say that you're offending black people if you merely criticized their employers...Is it bad for police morale if I uncover a scandal in a Mayor's office?
Hiding behind the troops to avoid civilian accountability is cowardice...
In any case, from what I've seen, there's little evidence that vigorous debate affects the troops at all -- my army neighbor used to tell me that "we fight for your right to be wrong" (he knew my political affiliation)... In my view, the best way to DIShonor our troops is to allow yourself to be bullied into silence, when you harbor a firm opinion about your civilian leadership...You don't honor the troops by rolling over to the King...
GOP Buddy:
>>Democrats want sole possession of the rules for political correctness. They demand it of everybody. But here, where our troops are on the line, they feel like they can say whatever they want...
Me:
Wrapping yourself in the flag to insulate civilian leaders is the truly harmful type of "political correctness" (unlike with race, imo); it's the kind that erects concrete barriers in our efforts to reach solutions...think of how much honest and comprehensive debate was lost because everybody under the sun was afraid to criticize our president's war policy post 9-11...think of all the horrendous decisions we allowed to take form because of it...
GOP Buddy:
>>BTW, what is Dean's definition of "winning"? Is he saying we can NEVER train enough Iraqis to govern Iraq? Please tell me what winning means and what message he is actually sending.
Me:
It's tough to figure your way out of a Catch 22: on the one hand, if we leave, the Bathists would likely over-run the "government"; on the other, if we stay, we create leagues of Al Qaeda terrorists who see our invasion as vindication of everything Osama has said about Western ambitions...
[Funny how the "enemy's" viewpoint didn't matter when we were considering the invasion. Had we asked the question, we'd have known that we were about to send Osama the gift of a lifetime: American invasion of a Muslim country in the cradle of civilization. We would have known that even though few Muslims are militant, most agree with Osama's "foreign policy" aims of getting the U.S. out of the Middle East ... Ignoring that ready information, we instead went to the OPPOSITE extreme - thinking that we'd be greeted as liberators, and that everything would be rosy as soon as we toppled Saddam's tower... Now, our troops are in dire jeopardy because of these fatal miscalculations.]
GOP Buddy:
>>BTW, what is Dean's definition of "winning"? Is he saying we can NEVER train enough Iraqis to govern Iraq? Please tell me what winning means and what message he is actually sending.
Me:
The burden is on W to answer this. Part of Dean's point is to say, "we can't possibly win when the President can't even come clean on how HE defines winning..."
So far, we know W won't settle for anything less than "total victory". What the hell does THAT mean? ... Under the BEST scenario -- the CIA says civil war might be the likely end, and that Iraq is already a bigger exporter of terrorism than even Afghanistan during the 80's and 90's - we train enough troops to maintain some semblance of order, and all factions take part in future elections... But even if that happens, people are missing the big winner here: IRAN... Yes Iran, founding "axis of evil" member, armed with nuclear weapons and funding terrorism across the world... And under the BEST scenario in all this, we will have drastically expanded Iranian territory and influence...
Is that winning? ... Or do we have to now invade Iran?