The introduction of a President-elect who, unlike the previous occupant of the White House, is smarter than the average Village talking head and who is actually responsive -- to an as-yet-unknown but in any case threatening extent -- to the observable wishes of the American people, has created a number of alarming problems for certain allegedly "centrist" or "center-left" addicts of the pundit class.
Where before these addicts could appear reasonable enough in the studio to pass as wise and urbane by simply arguing over the extent to which Bush is a bellicose moron . . . adding almost as an afterthought "for balance" that not everything Bush did was a mistake. . . now, they must think of actual arguments and reasons to keep the nickle-bags of mindless, exciting, and lucrative war away from teaming hordes of Americans wanting change. Pre-emptive bluster that Bush and Cheney weren't really so bad is going to become more and more common.
On the January 13 Talk of the Nation, Neil Conan hosted a conversation between Ted Koppel, David Sanger, and some callers-in. Sanger, a White House correspondant for The New York Times, had just published a book titled The Inheritance: The World Obama Confronts and the Challenges to American Power. Starting at minute 23:50 (my transcript, apologies for any errors), a veteran of the war in Vietnam arguing for peace has just called in and a woman with a son in Iraq is about to. We're going to be seeing a lot more of the following in the coming months, as various Villagers scream keep away from my stash!
Ted Koppel: There was a major story, I think in the Times this morning, David you would know, either in the Times or the Post, the story being that the Obama Administration has decided it pretty much has to go ahead with sending in an additional 30,000-plus U.S. troops, the purpose however being to buy enough time to figure out exactly what to do next. And it underscores the point that David Sanger was making just a moment ago, and that is it's not quite clear what the policy is to be in Afghanistan. But I will -- just to come back to Iraq for just a moment -- I'll bet you a quarter that we'll still be sitting here a year from now and we will still have troops in Iraq and we will still have troops in Iraq, despite the Status of Forces Agreement, we'll have U.S. troops in Iraq two, three, four years down the road.
David Sanger: In the book Ted I have to say, not to sound too pessimistic for you, I agree completely with what you say, but in Afghanistan I think we're probably going to have troops 20 or 30 years down the road.
Koppel: You're exactly right. I mean there is the, the Pentagon for years was calling this "the Long War" and they weren't just referring to Afghanistan, they weren't just referring to Iraq, they're really referring to the war against terrorism, and when they talk about the Long War -- and for some reason or another they stopped using that phrase -- but when they talk about the Long War they're talking about a generational war.
Neil Conan: Ted Koppel, NPR senior news analyst, also with us David Sanger, we're talking about his new book new book, The Inheritance: the World Obama Confronts and the Challenges to American Power, and let's get Marty on the line. Marty on the phone with us from Green Bay.
Marty: Oh, hi. I have a son that's just back from Iraq for a year now and I so agree with the last caller that called in that war is not the answer. I hear from so many Quakers lately about why -- and this is my question -- Barack Obama had written that wonderful book about an essay of hope and saying that going to war in Iraq is not the answer. I still don't understand why we need to go into Afghanistan in a war that has never been won by any civilization. Why do we not get the idea that war is not the answer, and when are we going to get out of this military industrial complex idea that that's the way to prosperity? It's not, how do we get that across . . .
Conan: David Sanger, in your book, you at the end cite several illusions that President Obama will have to confront. Among them I think exactly what Marty's talking about -- and you describe it as an illusion -- that many of his supporters, many of the people who voted from him, believe that he should adopt a policy similar to the one that Marty is talking about, that use of force should not be resorted to by the United States.
Sanger: It's not that we don't all agree with Marty that we would love to be able to resolve all of these issues peacefully. Because, of course, we would. But what we've learned is that just as you can go in with too much force, and not enough aid, you can also go into a problem with dipomacy that isn't backed up with the threat of force that is credible. And I think one of the lessons that it may be difficult for many who supported Senator Obama to come to terms with -- and this takes us back to our opening discussion about Iran -- is that with some of the states we are dealing with if there isn't lurking in the background the possibility that we would use overwhelming force the diplomacy isn't going to work. And that's why you --
Koppel: Let me just jump in --
Sanger: And that's why you heard Hillary Clinton say "All options are on the table." I'm sorry Ted.
Koppel: No no no, that's quite all right. There's one other point that I think needs to be made. And this is where I think people have been a little bit intolerant of what was motivating the Bush Administration these past the past eight years since 9/11. Their great fear has always been a terrorist attack that would be married to a weapon of mass destruction, whether that's a chemical weapon, or a biological weapon, or God forbid even a nuclear weapon, that is what is scaring the hell out of this administration and I guarentee you it's going to scare the hell out of the Obama administration too. And when you talk about putting all of those forces into Afghanistan, what you're really talking about is trying to create a counterweight to what is now going on inside Pakistan, a Muslim country that does have nuclear weapons already.