George Will attempts a narrative, and fails.

by Kagro X

I've known for a long time that it's a waste of effort to read George Will, but every once in a while you like to remind yourself just how shameless even a fellow with Important Looking Glasses can be.

George Will knows well, and relishes, the role he plays in America's newspapers. And so it is, I am sure, with no shortage of delight that he uses the leverage he has as America's breakfast table pundit to announce The Bad News: After four years of George W. Bush getting everything he wants in Iraq, the Democrats are to blame for the failure of his plans.

Why? Because they've come to the realization that this incompetent boob of a president is never going to succeed, and the price of his continued grasping is the blood of American troops -- to say nothing (as Republicans do) of the lives of Iraqis we're "liberating" from the oppression of having a pulse. And it is the unfortunate curse of Congressional Democrats that they take that rather seriously.

Will kicks his column off with the charge that many in Congress, on both sides of the aisles, are engaging in "indiscriminate criticism" of the president -- Republicans of the Bush "administration's" nuclear deal with Pyongyang, and Democrats (and some Republicans who of late have come to take their jobs seriously) of Bush's having presided over the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history.

Frankly, that criticism doesn't sound all that indiscriminate to me, but then again, I'm not wearing a tie right now, so what do I know?

Will's treatment of the Pyongyang deal is a throwaway. Conservatives in Congress are disturbed essentially because they've bought the "administration's" rhetoric on North Korean to this point -- that is, that it's been a "serial liar" on this subject and ought not to be trusted. True or not, it's just another example of Bushista rhetoric making it impossible to actually pursue diplomatic solutions that are politically acceptable domestically. Having invested so much in framing the North Koreans as being both untrustworthy and led by a certifiable maniac (focus, people -- we're still talking about North Korea here), conservatives find it difficult to let go of that paradigm and accept a new one. Gosh, who would've believed that of conservatives? Well, besides the people over at Webster's, that is.

After Will's Asian jaunt, he gets to the meat (mostly gristle, really) of his accusations: Democrats are to blame for George Bush's spectacular failure of vision, leadership and just plain competence in Iraq, because they've peered down into the hole and suggested he stop digging. But here's how He of the Scholarly Spectacles puts it:

Regarding Iraq, the Democratic-controlled Congress could do what Democrats say a Democratic president would do: withdraw U.S. forces. A president could simply order that; Congress could defund military operations in Iraq. Congressional Democrats are, however, afraid to do that because they lack the courage of their (professed) conviction that Iraq would be made tranquil by withdrawal of U.S. forces.

As frequently as Will presumes to speak for Democrats, he's never gotten any better at it. And this column holds out no promise of improvement. Are Democrats "afraid" to defund military operations in Iraq? I'd have to let him have that one. They're certainly being incredibly cautious about it. But it's when we come to the why part -- you know, the analysis Will is presumably paid to provide -- that things begin to fall apart. To the extent that it's fair to say Democrats fear this undertaking, it's largely because they assume, quite rightly, that Republicans will demagogue the issue incessantly, and will characterize it as endangering the troops no matter how the funding withdrawal is structured, and how much explicit direction is given to maintaining their safety as they withdraw. In other words, it is not from a lack of courage of their convictions, but from an empirical certainty that their Republican colleagues will react entirely without convictions and opt instead to lie, pretending that the free flag that you get with your coffin amounts to supporting the troops. Will even flubs (intentionally) his guess at what Democratic convictions are. Democrats don't want to withdraw from Iraq because they think it will make that country tranquil. They want to withdraw because George W. Bush is using that theater to destroy the greatest military force in the world, and Democrats, like most Americans, would prefer he not do that.

Will goes on to complain that the funding restrictions proposed by Jack Murtha would "hamstring" the president (in much the same way taking away the allowance of a delinquent child "hamstrings" his ability to buy spray paint, I suppose), grousing as most Republicans do that requiring troops deployed to Iraq be fully rested, trained and armored is "disgusting" or "a plan for surrender." He then turns to the refusal of Senate Democrats to capitulate to GOP demands that they be permitted a vote on a resolution opposing such restrictions, and belittles it as "tiptoeing" toward... well, exactly what he began this section of his column by saying Democrats lacked the will to do.

He finally takes a turn toward the serious, though, in explaining the likely outcome of all this "tiptoeing":

Suppose Democrats write their restrictions on the use of forces into legislation that funds the war. And suppose the president signs the legislation but ignores the restrictions, calling them unconstitutional usurpations of his powers as commander in chief. What could Democrats do? Cross First Street NE and ask the Supreme Court to compel the president to acquiesce in congressional micromanagement of a war? The court probably would refuse to get involved on the grounds that this is a "political question."

Bang! Constitutional crisis. A conundrum with no easy exit. Either Congress caves and permits the war to continue to spiral out of control and destroy America's armed forces in this "cakewalk" gone awry, or it turns to the only remedy available to them in such a showdown: impeachment.

So, would you proceed with caution? Would you "tiptoe?" Not America's Bold Breakfast Table Pundit! He's for jumping in with both feet!

Yeah, right.

Will kindly ends his column by proving my earlier point: that Republicans will demagogue the issue to death. Which I suppose is appropriate, considering that they're already demagoguing the troops to death, in the most literal sense. Ending the war, he says, means Congress will "legislate decisive failure of the Iraq operation."

The failure of the Iraq operation, George, was written in the history books over the past four years and 3,000+ American deaths. Four years of blank checks from a Rubber Stamp Republican Congress Politburo, and four years of a virtual merry-go-round of Pentagon brass kept whirling as Commander Cuckoobananas fired anyone who wouldn't tell him that brazen carbombings of American bases, the now-weekly downing of billion dollar helicopters, and resort of the insurgency (in it's Last Throes^TM, mind you!) to the detonation of makeshift "dirty bombs" fueled with poison chlorine gas represents "progress."

The failure of the Iraq operation, Will would have us believe, becomes a legislative failure if Mommy and Daddy Congress are finally forced to ground Junior over four solid years of failing grades.

Comments

[Redshift]

I used to read Will for fun, just to find the major logical flaws that completely undermined the argument he was trying to make (there's at least one in every column.)

He does unwittingly illustrate an important point -- that Bush is pursuing measures that are increasingly desperate and unlikely to succeed because he knows that as long as the war doesn't end, he can continue to pretend he hasn't lost. Will's contention that if the Democrats do end it, it will become their fault is, as you point out, ridiculous, but in that backwards way he manages to be almost half right. (Well, maybe ten percent.)

[Nellieh]

Marcy,
I was going to comment on Wlll's article in the WaPo this morning but didn't want to give the twerp the satisfaction. He reminds me of the nerd on "Criminal Minds" who knows it all. Except Will has to answer to nobody. He can just ramble on as though he has all the answers but to date what problem has he solved? Or even had the correct solution? I'll leave the critiquing to you and others more erudite than I to show him what a bloviator he is. He is the same as Limbaugh without the noise and cigar.

[jackie]

Fritz!!!

Why do these people* keep going on about winning! in Iraq...We've already lost and all that is happening now is that more and more people are dying...

[Jodi]

I sense anger, ..., much.

[greenhouse]

wow, Joki's an empath.

[greenhouse]

Nellieh, the post is by Kagro X.

[Jodi]

Kagro Xm

I think you have missed or are ignoring one of the more salient points of Will's column, that we will have a real mess if we withdraw too soon, and that is the mess the Democrats are ignoring in their rhetoric, though probably the implict reason they aren't demanding the "defunding" of the war, they profess to now hate so much.

That doesn't mean we should have gone over there in the beginning, but now we seem to have the bear by the tail. Best not to let go yet.

[Kagro X]

Jodi,

You're in error before you reach the third word of your message.

And by the way, clinging to the idea that there's only one "bear" in this scenario is precisely the reason you and your people have failed in Iraq. You're holding one by the tail while another half dozen are mauling you, and clinging to the moronic proverb about the wisdom of not letting go.

[greenhouse]

BAM! OK, from now on I defer to Kagro to dispose of the nitwit (provided he's in the house), for he does so more economically and spectacularly hilarious than I ever could. "Jodi,
You're in error before you reach the third word of your message."
Need I say more? Can't stop laughing!

[P J Evans]

Jodi sounds like some of the people I commute with, who this morning were discussing how Shrub will be viewed in 20 years: as a good president or a great president? (Complete with phrases about 'keeping them away from us' and other low-information Faux-viewer keys.)

[freepatriot]

we'll have a "real mess" if we withdraw ???

what the fuck would you call Iraq right now ???

A "phony" mess ???

a "Partial" mess ???

a "small" mess ???

America is losing 3 soldiers per day

how could it get any worse ???

could somebody explain how Iraq could get to be more of a "Mess" than it already is now ???

[Dismayed]

Oh, it will get to be more of a mess. This Chlorine bomb tactic has made it more of a mess in just the last two days. It will be 25,000 tired, overused, and underequiped troops more of a mess in just a month or two.

I am SO FUCKING tired of Cheney's rhetoric. Like a broken fucking record, and still the press prints it. Over and over again.

How can it be more of a mess? We send our guys out to outpost where they will now be vulnerable to coordinated quick strikes like happened two days ago. Just wait, I'm so sad to say it's just a matter of time before the numbers catch up with us and some 30 or 40 troops get over run.

The chimp and the pimp let an insurgentcy start, they lost the war. These people will wait us out. Two years four or ten, they will wait us out. Osama said he would bring the downfall of America, and GWB and company are executing brilliantly on his plan. I'm sure he goes to sleep happy every night that Cheney opens his big pertrusible mouth.

The Dems need to quit fullfilling the Rights characterization of them being pussies. They are acting like PUSSIES! It's time to call this thing over and bring the boys home.

How? Approve six months worth of funds and tell Cheney to fuck off.

Want to win a few former Republican votes? Show some balls. For the love of God. A landslide election and it's raining pussies in Washington.

I mean really, what on Earth are they waiting for?

[John Casper]

Kissinger set Saddam up as a Sunni counter weight to Shia Iran. That's why everyone told Bush not to invade/occupy. Now, at the bargain basement price of $267,000,000/day, we're the counterweight.

Bush has no idea what his troop to task ratios are. They only exist for military objectives. Setting up a police force aka bullet sponges, is not a military objective. A military objective is taking a hill or securing a beach head. The objective determines the troop to task ratio and it involves integrated forces, close air support and artillery. We cannot use either in Baghdad. That would be a dead giveaway to many that we're asking our troops to function as a police force, but sadly many miss the obvious.

With the British leaving, our supply lines and exit are even more vulnerable, because they all run through Shia controlled Iraq. Of course, cooperating with the Shia only pisses off the Sunni royal family in Saudi Arabia who are concerned about the Shia who work their oil fields. Haven't even begun to talk about the destabilization of Jordan and Lebanon yet or the problem of a Kurdish homeland. All those affect affect force protection estimates.

Every day we stay engaged in Baghdad weakens us militarily and economically. That makes Iran and Russia more influential in the region.

[knut wicksell]

A long time ago I used to get tempted about once a year to eat a hamburger from one of the chains. I never failed to regret it. Same holds for Will and until he retired, Safire. Same old, same old indigestion.

[Jodi]

Kagro X,

I am trying to think of who got on me when I used a term similar to "you and your people." I wish there was a search on this site.

But you don't answer Kagro X!
What will happen when we release the bear?
Have you even thought about it?

greenhouse,

I saw an inference somewhere else that causes me to ask this question.
Are you emptywheel's husband? If so, you have a very talented wife.

P J Evans,

there are actually a lot of people like that. It is a good question. History with its longer view has a way of rewriting current events.

freepatriot,

it can get worse if it comes over here to America.
Yes we have lost 3,000 plus soldiers in Iraq. How many did we lose in an hour on 911?

dismayed,

maybe your Democratic legistators are more aware of the big picture and the big mean bear we are dancing around with right now.
Sometimes it is hard to release the bear, and get back out the cage quick enough without the bear grabbing you, or getting out the door too.

[Dismayed]

Just listening to NPR about the Dems planning to introduce a bill, reworking the president's war powers. Of course, we all know the bill will face a certain veto. An Idea - Why not attach the revokation/limitation of war powers to the supplimentary funding bill for combat operations. Thus saying, "Here's your money, and here are your limits." Thus we put the pres in the position of not funding the troops if he vetos the bill.

[Veritas78]

If we keep occupying Iraq, it will come over here. If we bomb Iran, it will come over here. The more we keep killing people and destroying countries, the more it will come over here. Get used to it coming over here, because with these fools running things, it's inevitable. Deal with your failure.

[Dismayed]

Yeah, The people of this country have to face the cold hard fact that we are not always the good guys. The coopting of our military and diplomatic machinery by corporate interest has long made this a reality. We need to face the fact that imperialism and support of unjust governments is perhaps the largest cause of our problems. We've got to get to the point where we examine our own policies before pointing the finger and the howitzer.

[John Casper]

"it can get worse if it comes over here to America."
"They" are already here. There are millions of Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds living in this country right now. There are already stories of mounting tensions in their communities.

"Yes we have lost 3,000 plus soldiers in Iraq. How many did we lose in an hour on 911?"

2,752.

The losses of life and limb of US service personnel in Iraq were in vain. Not only did they not make the US safer, the invasion and OCCUPATION make us less safe. 9/11 was perpetrated by Sunni Supremacists. They really hate the Shia and anyone who is not a Sunni. All the Middle East sees on teevee, al-Jazerra for example and other stations is photos of US troops indiscriminately killing, wounding, and persecuting Arabs and Persians. If anything bad happens, everyone blames us. That's part of being an occupying force. These people know that Bush/Cheney just wants their oil. It's the crusades all over again, Xtianity against Islam.

[Kagro X]

Jodi,

You will release the bear anyway, when the other six kill you. If you really feel the need to know what happens, ask President "We don't know, we'll all be dead."

Stupid scenario, either way, because your question is so dumb. What you've got in your hands is, metaphorically, your dick. Waving it around and pretending it's a bear's tail is moronic.

What happens when you let go?

The world says, "Hallelujah! The idiot who thought she was holding a bear by the tail has awoken from her dream at last!"

You are holding nothing, and demanding answers about what happens when you let go.

Why not ask yourself about what's been happening while you were "holding on?"

Chlorine bombs, a helicopter a week, and the withdrawal of every single "ally," including the British. That's what.

[Bruce Miller]

"now we seem to have the bear by the tail"

From where I sit it looks more like the bear has us by the nuts.

[greenhouse]

Jodi,

I seriously doubt Mr. Wheel would waste his time responding to your vapid musings. Me, I do it to kill time, which makes me sorta pathetic I guess. You still holding onto the metaphorical cock unable to wake up from your wet dream?

[Jodi]

greenhouse,

I would say that it is you that has a fixation with that metaphor.

[greenhouse]

Jodi, you just don't get it do you.