I will make a couple of observations, then post something I wrote for another thread:
Of course we planned for war with Iraq. That is the Pentagon's job, to draw up contingency plans to determine force and deployment requirements. It is meaningless.
Some of the criticism didn't arise until after 9-11, and certainly they came back up after the initial period of "bipartisanship". Again, so what. Debates over the New Deal went on the back burner when we entered World
War Two. Does that mean it was bogus to fight Hitler?
So the populace trusts the professionals to do their job, and wage a reasonable war. Holy moly!
Enough with the offensive insinuations, here is the other piece:
If I assume that most people in government are normal, in the sense of having common decency, not being markedly deranged, and so forth, then I will interpret the Administrations actions one way. If I assume that most people in government are venial, grasping, power hungry, greedy, and/or that they are narcissistic and perhaps sociopathic, I will interpret Administration actions another way. If I think that only Democrats are in government to serve people, that Republicans are merely trying to protect the rich, and that they are addled by religious faith and jingoism, I will interpret the Administrations actions yet another way. Most of the commentary on SI has less to do with an objective reading of the actions of the Administration as it has to do with the assumptions brought to bear. Thus, a lot of debates turn on what set of assumptions are most probable, or even plausible.
Anti- Americanism is chargeable when one starts with the assumption that the powers that be, particularly in the post-War era, were deluded about Communism, hellbent on establishing an American Empire, glad to use the threat of Communism as a cover for exploitation, and essentially the pawns of corporate interests wrapping the flag around themselves. All of these are propositions that can be examined, of course, but none are readily validated, and, in any case, it is a demeaning set of charges against leaders from Truman to Reagan, and should not be readily assumed without debate.
As regards the current Administration, which is, by experience, the most qualified in years, and perhaps ever, and full of very smart people, to boot, it seems to me implausible to suppose they are a bunch of jerks, but also that they are in it for venial reasons. Cheney and Rumsfeld certainly did not need the headaches, they were doing quite well in the corporate world. Bush is no idiot: he got over 1200 on his SATs, before recentering and the use of calculators, obtained a Bminus from Yale, and got an MBA from Harvard. He is also widely credited with being the moving force behind improvements in the Astros franchise that enabled a profitable sale, and is also praised by both Democrats and Republicans in Texas for his terms as governor. He does not have the hint of a Napoleonic complex, or of someone on the make. If anything, he didn't seem as hungry for the job of president as Gore, which was one of his attractive features. I will not belabor this, but I want to suggest that it would be better to interpret
Administration actions as arising from intelligent, experienced people, decent and public spirited, who have certain ideological assumptions one may not share.
Have a good crackpot day....... |
