1 Boring Old Man

I didn’t watch Vice President Cheney on Larry King last night. Here‘s what he had to say about the War on Iraq:

Cheney: …don’t take it from me [about progress in Iraq] — look at the piece that appeared yesterday in the New York Times, not exactly a friendly publication — but a piece by Mr. O’Hanlon and Mr. Pollack on the situation in Iraq. They’re just back from visiting over there. They both have been strong critics of the war. Both worked in the prior administration, but now saying that they think there’s a possibility, indeed, that we could be successful. So, we will know a lot more in September, when General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker come back and report sort of to the Congress and the president on the situation in Iraq and whether or not we’re making progress.

King: You don’t know what to expect, though, do you? Or do you?

Cheney: Well, I think it’s going to show that we will have made significant progress. The reports I’m hearing from people whose views I respect indicate that indeed the Petraeus plan is in fact producing results.

Did you see the Bill Moyers program on the lead-up to the Iraq war in which he traced how the administration leaked to the New York Times what turned out to be a debatable report about Saddam’s WMD, and then the next day the Vice President went on Meet the Press and quoted the Times, as if they were a second, confirming source? (Pretty clever, good to remember if you want to start a war.) And then, of course, Cheney stressed that the Times was a liberal paper, more or less saying, see, even liberals see that we’re right.

Ware: Well, Anderson, there is progress. And that’s indisputable. Sectarian violence is down in certain pockets. There are areas of great instability in this country. They’re at last finding some stability. The point, though, is, at what price? What we’re seeing is — is, to a degree, some sleight of hand. What America needs to come clean about is that it’s achieving these successes by cutting deals primarily with its enemies. We have all heard the administration praise the work of the tribal sheiks in turning against al Qaeda. Well, this is just a euphemism for the Sunni insurgency. That’s who has turned against al Qaeda.

And why? Because they offered America terms in 2003 to do this. And it’s taken America four years of war to come round to the Sunnis’ terms. And, principally, that means cutting the Iraqi government out of the loop. By achieving these successes, America is building Sunni militias. Yes, they’re targeting al Qaeda, but these are also anti- government forces opposed to the very government that America created.

Unlike Durand, I’m not so interested in the fact that Vice President Cheney is trying to trick us into believing that the ‘surge’ is ‘working’ – ‘producing results.’ I think there’s a much bigger trick afoot – that our being in Iraq is a good thing in the first place. Putting a government in place that supresses the Shiite majority doesn’t sound like a very good idea to me. It reminds me of the former Yugoslavia. Tito created a country that supposedly united a bunch of warring factions. It lasted until he died – at which point they picked up where they left off decades before. Unlike Durand, I don’t think the fate of the ‘surge’ really matters.  I’m not even sure the fate of Iraq is even the point. I’m not even sure Iraq is a country.

But we’ve already lost what we apparently set out to achieve – something called The Bush Doctrine. The goal was for a post-Cold War America to flex her muscles by ignoring the U.N. [unilaterality], by unseating another government we didn’t like [pre-emption], by becoming a great military force that policed the world [strength beyond question], and by spreading our form of government over the globe [‘Evangelical’ American Democracy]. Even putting aside the Administration’s obvious wish to win oil rights in the Middle East, and taking what they said as straight, this policy can now be pronounced an abysmal failure – ‘surge’ or ‘no surge.’

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be” to “use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States.”

I don’t know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched the Twin Towers crumble to the earth; a side of the Pentagon destroyed; and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.

Moderation and restraint is not what I felt – and moderation and restraint is not what was called for. It was a moment to summon our national will – and to brandish steel.

I didn’t watch Vice President Cheney on Larry King last night. I don’t much care about what Vice President Cheney has to say.

---

Note: Larry King Live wasn’t ‘live.’ It was pre-recorded, not in the CNN studio, but in Cheney’s office building.