snark of the week

jim henley @ unqualified offerings:

the following appeared this week in the new york times, the washington post, slate and the new yorker in a parallel universe ... how i got it right: looking back at a time of justified opposition to a mad, violent enterprise so many publications have expressed such overwhelming interest in the perspectives of those of us who opposed the iraq war when it had a chance of doing good that i have had to permit mutliple publication of this article in most of the nation's elite media venues — collecting, i am almost embarrassed to admit, a separate fee from each. everyone recognizes that the opinions of those of us who were right about iraq then are crucial to formulating sane, just policy now. it's a lot of pressure, so please forgive anything glib or short you read herein: between articles, interviews, think-tank panels and presentations before government agencies and policy organs i'm not permitted to mention, i'm a little frazzled. on the bright side, and i can confirm that my experience has been similar to those of my fellow prophets, being the object of so much attention, being repeatedly quizzed by eager interlocutors on the same basic points, encourages one to distill one's thinking to its essence. as kenneth pollack asked me the other day, "what the fuck was so special about you, anyway?" "for one thing," i said, "i am not sprawled on a sidewalk next the mcpherson square metro station, hoping to cadge enough quarters to enjoy the rare treat of laundering the vomit out of the only shirt i own, praying all the while that decent people do not recognize me beneath the matted beard and tangled hair." "but my thigh hurts!" he said. "shut up," i consoled him, "or i'll kick it again." still he had a way of arriving at the essential question: "what the fuck was so special about me, anyway?" why did i have the sense to oppose the us conquest of iraq when so many of our great and good supported it? sometimes i think the other question is almost more interesting: what the fuck were those other people thinking? alas, answers to that one are hard to come by, since understandable shame has closed many mouths. so my own side of the story will have to suffice. why was i right and you, if you were a powerful politician or respected pundit in 2002-2003, wrong? some guesses follow. i'm really very bright. i don't like to brag, but my iq places me in the 99th percentile of americans. odds are, for instance, that i am smarter than you. and if i'm not, you're probably not that much smarter than i am. and even if you are, it would be unseemly for you to say so. what are you, stuck up or something? you aside, i'm certainly smarter than the president, or doug feith, or joe klein. i am seventeen times as smart as senator joseph lieberman. i am twenty-five hundred percent brighter than gop presidential candidate john mccain. my superior intelligence is a superficially plausible explanation, and i don't discount it, but two immediate objections suggest themselves. first, and less crucially, it simply raises another question: how did i get so smart in the first place? the shortest answer is, "because my parents were smart, and their parents were smart too." it's very hard to say why that matters: iq appears to be substantially heritable, but it's hard to disentangle the genetic component from the environmental nevertheless — i was reared by my parents, and not, as you know, by yours. if i'd been reared by yours i'd have gotten more toys as a kid. we were poor and you, somewhat spoiled. distressingly, there's no practical program for improvement there. "be smarter!" we might say to doug feith, "you'll make better policy!" but doug feith can't go back in time and be born to other people. but in light of the second objection to the "intelligence theory," that probably doesn't matter. second objection: you didn't have to be all that bright to oppose the iraq war in advance. heck, polls suggest that most americans were dubious about the idea until the war became obviously inevitable. real enthusiasm was confined to the elite media, the bipartisan defense-policy establishment and a bunch of republican quasi-intellectuals who had spent ten years casting about for different countries to have a war — any war — with. i mean, for crying out loud, at one point our rulers declared that saddam hussein might attack america with remote-controlled model planes. you didn't have to wait to bounce that one off the folks at your next mensa meeting to judge its likelihood. nor did you have to puzzle overlong, if someone tried to put that one by you, how much stock you should put in anything else that came out of their mouths. conclusion: my manifest intelligence was definitely not necessary to opposing the iraq war. it may not have been sufficient either. i wasn't born yesterday. i had heard of the middle east before september 12, 2001. i knew that many of the loudest advocates for war with iraq were so-called national-greatness conservatives who spent the 1990s arguing that war was good for the soul. i remembered elliott abrams and john poindexter and michael ledeen as the knaves and fools of iran-contra, and drew the appropriate conclusions about the bush administration wanting to employ them: it was an administration of knaves and fools. people will object that the project for a new american century had heard of the middle east before september 12, 2001 too, so just knowing some things wasn't enough. and hey, true, but if you read"warbloggers"back in 2001-2003, the thing that really jumped out was how new all this foreign-policy stuff was to them. people without much knowledge on the subject went looking for someone to soothe a very real hurt they felt in september 2001, and the first people they ran into were raving, nationalistic morons with a preexisting agenda, clustered around the wall street journal and the weekly standard. libertarianism. as a libertarian, i was primed to react skeptically to official pronouncements. "hayek doesn't stop at the water's edge!" i coined that one. not bad, huh? i could tell the difference between the government and the country. people who couldn't make this distinction could not rationally cope with the idea that american foreign policy was the largest driver of anti-american terrorism because it sounded to them too much like "the american people deserve to be victims of terrorism." i could see the self-interest of the officials pushing for war — how war would benefit their political party, their department within the government, enhance their own status at the expense of rivals. libertarianism made it clear how absurd the idealistic case was. supposedly, wise, firm and just american guidance would usher iraq into a new era of liberalism and comity. but none of that was going to work unless real american officials embedded in american political institutions were unusually selfless and astute, with a lofty and omniscient devotion to iraqi welfare. and, you know, they weren't going to be that. finally-er, being neither republican nor democrat meant that i wasn't unduly impressed when even tom friedman, or even some clinton administration hack, assured everyone that the tinpot ruler of a two-bit despotism eight-thousand miles away would and could destroy us if we didn't get him first. here there are a number of objections. all too many self-described libertarians supported the iraq war, with that noxious fervor for which we are notorious. these people were led astray by a combination of noble and base tendencies within libertarianism. saddam hussein was a vicious tyrant, after all, and some libertarians let a commendable hatred of tyrants overrule their common sense. some libertarians remembered that war involved guns, and lots of them, and figured it must be good. and many feared that if the united states did not go to war, it might make some hippie, somewhere, happy. the more telling objection is that you didn't have to be a libertarian to figure out that going to war with iraq made even less sense than driving home to east egg drunk off your ass and angry at your spouse. any number of leftists and garden-variety liberals, and even a handful of conservatives, figured it out, each for different reasons. this objection has the disadvantage of being obviously true. what all of us had in common is probably a simple recognition: war is a big deal. it isn't normal. it's not something to take up casually. any war you can describe as "a war of choice" is a crime. war feeds on and feeds the negative passions. it is to be shunned where possible and regretted when not. various hawks occasionally protested that "of course" they didn't enjoy war, but they were almost always lying. anyone who saw invading foreign lands and ruling other countries by force as extraordinary was forearmed against the lies and delusions of the time. it's a heavy burden, i'll admit. but the riches and fame make it all worthwhile.

finally, flowers

then:

"think of the faces in afghanistan when the people were liberated, when they moved out in the streets and they started singing and flying kites and women went to school and people were able to function and other countries were able to start interacting with them. that's what would happen in iraq." — defense secretary donald rumsfeld, 9/13/02 "as i told the president on january 10th, i think they will be greeted with sweets and flowers in the first months and simply have very, very little doubts that that is the case." — iraqi exile kanan makiya, 3/17/03

now:

baghdad — pomp and ceremony greeted iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad on his arrival in iraq on sunday, the fanfare a stark contrast to the rushed and secretive visits of his bitter rival u.s. president george w. bush. ahmadinejad held hands with iraqi president jalal talabani as they walked down a red carpet to the tune of their countries' national anthems, his visit the first by an iranian president since the two neighbours fought a ruinous war in the 1980s. his warm reception, in which he was hugged and kissed by iraqi officials and presented with flowers by children, was iraq's first full state welcome for any leader since the u.s.-led invasion to topple saddam hussein in 2003. — reuters, 3/2/08

how to make a martyr

nir rosen @ iraqslogger:

hijacking eid and hanging saddam the important muslim holiday of eid al adha was due to begin over the weekend. for sunnis it began on saturday the 30th of december. for shias it begins on sunday the 31st. according to tradition in mecca, battles are suspended during the hajj period so that pilgrims can safely march to mecca. this practice even predated islam and muslims preserved this tradition, calling this period 'al ashur al hurm,' or the months of truce. by hanging saddam on the sunni eid the americans and the iraqi government were in effect saying that only the shia eid had legitimacy. sunnis were irate that shia traditions were given primacy (as they are more and more in iraq these days) and that shias disrespected the tradition and killed saddam on this day. because the iraqi constitution itself prohibits executions from being carried out on eid, the iraqi government had to officially declare that eid did not begin until sunday the 31st. it was a striking decision, virtually declaring that iraq is now a shia state. eid al adha is the festival of the sacrifice of the sheep. some may perceive it as the day saddam was sacrificed. ... although the shia dominated iraqi media claimed saddam was terrified prior to his execution and fought with his hangmen, saddam's on screen visage was one of aplomb, for he was conscious of the image he was displaying and wanted to go down as the grand historic leader he believed himself to be.

the new york times:

u.s. questioned iraq on the rush to hang hussein none of the iraqi officials were able to explain why mr. maliki had been unwilling to allow the execution to wait. nor would any explain why those who conducted it had allowed it to deteriorate into a sectarian free-for-all that had the effect, on the video recordings, of making mr. hussein, a mass murderer, appear dignified and restrained, and his executioners, representing shiites who were his principal victims, seem like bullying street thugs. but the explanation may have lain in something that bassam al-husseini, a maliki aide closely involved in arrangements for the hanging, said to the bbc later. mr. husseini, who has american citizenship, described the hanging as "an id gift to the iraqi people."

nir rosen @ iraqslogger:

saddam had been in american custody and was handed over to iraqis just before his execution. it is therefore hard to dismiss the perception that the americans could have waited, because in the end it is they who have the final say over such events in iraq. iraqi officials have consistently publicly complained that they have no authority and the americans control the iraqi police and the army. it is therefore unusual that iraqis would suddenly regain sovereignty for this important event.

digby @ hullaballoo:

bush's law: if it's possible to make things worse, he will. saddam hussein is the the man i would have thought was least likely to be turned into a martyr, but damned if they didn't manage to do it. bush's law. and here's the great thing about it — the us, which claims rather unconvincingly that it had no say in this because iraq is a sovereign country, gets blamed for this right along with the shi'a government and moqtada al sadr. terrific. lose, lose for us — as usual. heckuva job, bushie.

christopher hitchens @ slate: (hitchens has been called "the gold standard for leftwingers who had adopted the neocon stance on iraq", so his post represents something of an ongoing epiphany)

lynching the dictator ... in spite of his mad invective against "the persians" and other traitors, the only character with a rag of dignity in the whole scene is the father of all hangmen, saddam hussein himself. ... the said chief perpetrator was snatched from the dock — in the very middle of his trial — and thrown as a morsel to one of the militias. this sort of improvised "offing" is not even a parody of the serious tribunal that history demands. ... did our envoys and representatives ask for any sort of assurances before turning over a prisoner who was being held under the geneva conventions? ... we have helped to officiate at a human sacrifice. for shame. ... to have made the butcher saddam into a martyr, to have gratified one sect, and to have cheated millions of iraqis and kurds of the chance for a full accounting — what a fine day's work!

p.z. myers @ science blog pharyngula:

how can they screw up this badly? why is it that i, nasty ol' atheist who is completely ignorant of theology and religious history, can see the parallels in the execution of hussein, but our theocracy-sympathizing leaders bumble along, failing to see the damning errors of their position? ... you know, foreign occupying power, powerful religious group agitating for the execution of a hated, charismatic competitor, promises of who will bear the guilt for the deed, metaphorical washing of the hands ... jebus, if i know what a counterproductive pr disaster that was for the pharisees and the romans, what's the matter with the american leadership in iraq? don't they read the bibles they thump? add to that that they've apparently done the execution at a time when it is "religiously unacceptable", and we've got a situation that makes pontius pilate look good.

the new york times:

at the burial, several mourners threw themselves on the closed casket. one, a young man convulsed with sobs, cried: "he has not died. i can hear him speaking to me." another shouted, "saddam is dead! instead of weeping for him, think of ways we can take revenge on the iranian enemy," sunni parlance for the shiites now in power.

the los angeles times:

sunni grief, anger flow at funeral "today they proved themselves that the trial and the execution were mere retaliation and not justice," said a mourner from tikrit, near al auja, who gave his name only as abu mohammed, a customary nickname. "it is clear now against whom we should retaliate."

booman @ the booman tribune:

shrine desecration and other happy news the execution of saddam was handled very badly. there were many errors, but allowing footage of the executioners yelling 'moqtada, moqtada, moqtada' was perhaps the worst mistake. the sunni response, breaking into the samarra shrine and parading around a faux-coffin of saddam the martyr-hero, is about the worst sacrilege imaginable. imagine a bunch protestants blowing the dome off of st. peter's cathedral. then imagine them breaking into the church and parading around pictures of hitler and mussolini. there is not going to be any end in the cycle of sectarian violence.

the most beautiful christmas ever

today iraq's highest appeals court upheld the conviction and death sentence of unrepentant deposed president saddam hussein. the court ruled that the verdict must be carried out anytime in the next thirty days. sic semper tyrannis.

sixteen years ago, caught in the debris of the dramatic collapse of the soviet union, romanian head-of-state and communist party leader nicolae ceausecu found himself in a hauntingly similar situation during the holiday season of 1990:

nicolae and elena ceausescu scoffed when a romanian military tribunal sentenced them to death, and even as they faced their executioners they believed that state security police would rescue them at the last minute, their attorney said in a published report yesterday. nicu teodorescu, in an interview printed in the times newspaper, said he tried to prevent the christmas day execution of the ceausescus by advising them to plead mental instability to charges of corruption, embezzlement and murder. "when i suggested it, elena in particular said it was an outrageous setup," said teodorescu, who was hastily-summoned to a military barracks to conduct the ceausescus' defense. "they felt deeply insulted, unable or unwilling to grasp their only lifeline. they rejected my help after that." teodorescu, one of bucharest's most prominent lawyers, told the times that nicolae ceausescu showed "absolutely nothing but contempt" when the tribunal delivered its verdict of death, telling the prosecutor, "'when this is all over, i'll have you put on trial.' we all laughed." about 15 minutes after sentencing, soldiers marched the couple out of the barracks and into a yard, he said. the ceausescus believed that they were being taken to a cell but instead were hastily gunned down by a rabble of soldiers, and not an organized firing squad, he said. "the first they knew they were about to die was when the bullets hit them," said teodorescu, who said he was about 90 feet from the site. "elena and nicolae fell head to head. as they fell their bodies spun slightly around and they fell close to each other, about 30 centimeters apart." his account differed from that of film shown on state-run television, which showed the blood-splattered couple propped up against a wall. the newspaper said it was possible that the bodies were moved for the benefit of the camera. "ceausescu was convinced all along his securitate [secret police] would rescue him," teodorescu was quoted as saying. "i always thought that elena was the dominant force in the partnership, but i soon came to realize nicolae was in command. they complemented each other perfectly, like a monster with two heads." the lawyer said he agreed to defend the ceausescus because "it seemed an interesting challenge." the tribunal comprised three civilians, five judges and assessors, two prosecutors, two defense lawyers and a cameraman, reported teodorescu, the only member to give a public account. "when i saw [the ceausescus] dead, as a lawyer i didn't feel anything at all," he said. "but as a citizen, i, like everybody, rejoiced. it was the most beautiful christmas in my whole life."

as much as hussein justly deserves his fate, in the wake of the ever-spiralling death and chaos his ouster precipitated, there can be little doubt that many in both washington and baghdad quietly regret the impetuous decision to invade. as the only living person known to have been able to contain iraq's violent passions, the idea of turning back the clock, however utterly fantastic, must be sorely tempting.

---

from the bonus trivia corner: hussein's november 5th death sentence is not his first such conviction. for his role in the 1959 cia-supported attempted ouster of iraqi prime minister abdul karim qassim — who had himself come to power the previous year in a military coup that deposed and executed iraq's last royal family — saddam hussein was sentenced to death in absentia while he lived in exile in cairo on the largesse of the cia.

gobsmacked

it's not easy defending positions you've never actually thought about.

sully erna, frontman of top-of-the-charts grunge metal band godsmack, attempts to explain to jay babcock of arthur magazine why he doesn't have a problem with licensing his songs to the military for their recruitment videos:

jb:	well i have a quote from you here: "we've always been supportive of our country and our president, whereas a lot of people i thought" — and you said this in 2003 to mtv news, you said — "a lot of people i thought lashed out pretty quickly at what we did and i thought the government did everything pretty cleanly and publicly as possible."
se:	yeah ... ?
jb:	well, what are you talking about?
se:	that was my opinion at the time. the whole war thing, and trying to keep us up to date like ... if you remember, back in other wars, we didn't have the opportunity to follow it through the media, and cnn, and the news — live updates and that kind of thing. and i thought that for the most part you know we were allowed to follow it as best we could through the media sources that were feeding us information.
jb:	[incredulous] you didn't think the media was being controlled by the military?!?
se:	well, it could be. i don't know.
jb:	you didn't look into it?
se:	listen, are you a fucking government expert?

oh shit, another one of these friggin' experts! man, i couldn't get outta high school fast enough to get away from these geeks!

se:	so i just feel, well, you know, whatever we can do to say 'thank you for protecting our country' is what we try to do. i'm not trying to make this a big political issue.
jb:	okay. have you done anything to prevent people from joining the military?
se:	no.
jb:	to maybe educate them as to what's in store for them?
se:	i don't have enough education in the military to educate them in anything.

besides, it's not like there's any possible reason you wouldn't jump with both feet on gettin' your song in a recruiting vid, right?

se:	we just simply — an opportunity came up, they wanted to use some music for a recruit commercial. what are we gonna say, no?
jb:	yeah. how hard is it to say 'no'?
se:	why would we, though?!?
jb:	because —
se:	is it because you don't feel the same way about the government that we do, makes you right and us wrong?
jb:	yeah. what do you feel about the government? tell me what —
se:	aw, that's crazy, man! that's just an opinion.
jb:	i can back my opinion up from here to tomorrow if you would like to talk to me all day long.
se:	well, obviously you've done a lot of research and you've —
jb:	that's right, because —
se:	— got a different opinion. we don't know that stuff that you know, so —
jb:	why don't you do some research before you get involved with these sorts of things? you're talking about young kids' lives. you're talking about kids —
se:	[yelling] would you rather not have us be protected so they can come and overrun our country?!?

because, after all, if we were to actually do some research, the terrorists would win! but if you like your fuckin' research so much, they still got libraries in iraq!

jb:	you know what i'd like, sully? a department of defense. not a department of offense that attacks other countries — sovereign nations — who do things in a different way than us, who we have no right to go over and invade and change their governments. would we want someone else to do that to us?
se:	i'm not saying —
jb:	how hard is that to think about?
se:	i'm not saying that we were right on every war that we've created. i know that we've been damn wrong at times about stuff —
jb:	when have we been wrong?
se:	[yelling] but they have also been wrong too!
jb:	when have —
se:	i don't trust someone like fuckin' sadaam and osama to come in here and try to control —
jb:	[incredulous] when did sadaam try to come in here and control our country?
se:	dude, [yelling] why don't you go live in iraq then if you have such a problem with america? why are you here?

because, you know, you can love it or leave it, you osaddama-lovin' geek! love it or leave it!

now, if you'll excuuuse me, i have some recruiting song$ to cut.

now i could care less whether sully erna supports the troops, or how he chooses to demonstrate his support. there's a broader issue on display here.

the issue here, which jay babcock clearly illustrates, is that sully's position is completely bankrupt because he's made no effort to think about it in anything but the shallowest terms.

whatever your beliefs, especially if you actively promote them in order to influence the behavior of others, you have a responsibility to learn what all the facts are. because sully hasn't made any effort to learn anything about the military or the war, he's unable to offer any credible or coherent rebuttal to jay's arguments. all he has are cheap slogans.

sully obviously has no interest in the military beyond indulging himself in some kind of feel-good give-em-hell rock-and-roll fantasy that he's getting paid to promote. and not being in the military himself makes him not just an idiot but a hypocrite.

history lessons

those who do not learn the lessons of history shall be doomed to rewrite it.

house columnist richard cohen, writing three years ago in the washington post on the appearance of then-secretary of state colin powell before the united nations to present evidence of saddam hussein's secret weapons program:

the evidence he presented to the united nations — some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail — had to prove to anyone that iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. only a fool — or possibly a frenchman — could conclude otherwise. ... but the case powell laid out regarding chemical and biological weapons was so strong — so convincing — it hardly mattered that nukes may be years away, and thank god for that. in effect, he was telling the french and the russians what could happen — what would happen — if the united nations did not do what it said it would and hold saddam hussein accountable for, in effect, being saddam hussein. ... if anyone had any doubt, powell proved that [iraq] has defied international law — not to mention international norms concerning human rights — and virtually dared the united nations to put up or shut up. there is no other hand. there is no choice. — "a winning hand for powell", february 6, 2003

cohen today, (re)writing on the third anniversary of the invasion:

colin powell, you may recall, soiled his stellar reputation with a united nations speech that is now just plain sad to read. almost none of it is true. ... whatever bush's specific reason or reasons, the one thing that's so far missing from the record is proof of him looking for a genuine way out of war instead of looking for a way to get it started. bush wanted war. he just didn't want the war he got. — "bush wanted war", march 30, 2006

i guess cohen didn't want the war he got either. so what of his reputation? (all right, to be honest, it was never "stellar".)

it is of course always a good thing each day a war pundit joins the rest of us in the so-called "reality-based community". but the one thing that's so far missing from the record is proof of his mea culpa.