Theres a saying that applies to much of what weve been hearing from our leaders over the past two years: When we assume we make an ass out of u and me. Many people may tell you these assumptions are facts, and some call them lies. For arguments sake, lets say many things have been taken for granted and accepted as true without proof.
One of the most obvious assumptions, repeatedly uttered by powerful people who should know better, is that we are winning the two wars being waged at the moment the one in Iraq and the larger, misnamed war on what has been classified as terrorism. A related assumption is that the United States cant be defeated due to its superior technology.
A second, most recently repeated by the president at the FBI training academy in Virginia last week, is that people who blow up subways and buses are not people you can negotiate with, or reason with, or appease. In other words, theres no talking to those whose wartime strategy includes civilian deaths. The corollary is that negotiating would be a sign of weakness, and we definitely cant send that signal no matter how powerless such violence makes us feel.
Finally, theres the widely distributed notion that they want us to give up and go home. The follow-up is that, since its what they want, we must soldier on until the job is done.
The trouble is that, despite desperate efforts to back up these assumptions, they are wrong. In Iraq (and Afghanistan, for that matter), the battle is not over and the longer it goes on the more it suggests that victory is far from guaranteed. As in Vietnam, those who have nothing to lose, and stand willing to sacrifice their lives for strongly held beliefs, are demonstrating that they are prepared to keep fighting for years even decades and wont be easily vanquished by even the most advanced weaponry.
As for refusing to negotiate with those we call terrorists, since when? Britain negotiated with the Irish Republican Army, and the United States ultimately negotiated its way out of Vietnam. More to the point, sometimes democratic governments even fund groups that others call terrorists. One telling example is some of the same Islamic fighters who oppose the United States and its partners today. We helped support them to terrorize Russians, and anyone on their side, in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Back then, we called them freedom fighters.
But the most seductive and dangerous assumption may be that al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and other radical Islamic forces want us to cut and run. With more recruits showing up each day and even U.S. hawks admitting that Iraq has become a magnet for insurgents, why would they want that? No, they dont want us to give up and go home. They want us to stay, waste more lives and resources, and face defeat. What threatens extremists most is the possibility that a conflict will end without an obvious winner and loser.
And that brings us back to the U.S. president, an extremist in chief who is always eager to confuse strength with bravado. Faced with the prospect of becoming an early lame duck, he now hopes to negotiate his way out of a contentious fight over Supreme Court vacancies. His domestic agenda is already on the critical list, and his choice for UN ambassador could be the next casualty. Even his brain (aka Karl Rove) may have to be sacrificed.
About the only things he has going for him are the willingness of Democrats to keep endorsing his administrations lame assumptions, and a bi-partisan eagerness to prove that Congress isnt hopelessly divided before the start of the 2006 mid-term elections. One thing incumbents in both parties agree on is the need to shore up institutional legitimacy, proving that the system still works and they are qualified to keep running it. Thus, leaders of both parties are quietly working out a deal to reach consensus on a Supreme Court choice that will not produce a deliberating battle and make Congress look even worse.
But now isnt the time to blur the issues. Its time to bring this administration to its knees. That wont happen, however, unless people demand that the Democrats develop some backbone. Democratic Committee Chairman Howard Dean needs to dust off his anti-war rhetoric, and lawmakers like Vermonts Sen. Pat Leahy need to level with the public about what is going on behind those closed White House doors.
Half of the people in the United States have opposed Bush since the Supreme Court appointed him. This is the ideal moment for them to force their representatives to seize the ship of state and turn it around, away from disaster and false assumptions. Anything less will be just another sell-out.
Greg Guma is co-editor of Vermont Guardian (www.vermontguardian.com), a statewide weekly. This commentary appears in the newspaper's July 15, 2005 issue.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home