Dr. Bacevich's Memorial Day
Turns out that two people wrote to Prof. Andrew Bacevich, the Vietnam and Gulf War vet whose son died a couple of weeks ago in combat in Iraq, and told him that his opposition to the war killed his son. Aren't people lovely? In the WaPo, Dr. Bacevich writes for the first time since his namesake and only son died. Excerpt:
The people have spoken, and nothing of substance has changed. The November 2006 midterm elections signified an unambiguous repudiation of the policies that landed us in our present predicament. But half a year later, the war continues, with no end in sight. Indeed, by sending more troops to Iraq (and by extending the tours of those, like my son, who were already there), Bush has signaled his complete disregard for what was once quaintly referred to as "the will of the people."
To be fair, responsibility for the war's continuation now rests no less with the Democrats who control Congress than with the president and his party. After my son's death, my state's senators, Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, telephoned to express their condolences. Stephen F. Lynch, our congressman, attended my son's wake. Kerry was present for the funeral Mass. My family and I greatly appreciated such gestures. But when I suggested to each of them the necessity of ending the war, I got the brushoff. More accurately, after ever so briefly pretending to listen, each treated me to a convoluted explanation that said in essence: Don't blame me.
To whom do Kennedy, Kerry and Lynch listen? We know the answer: to the same people who have the ear of George W. Bush and Karl Rove -- namely, wealthy individuals and institutions.
Money buys access and influence. Money greases the process that will yield us a new president in 2008. When it comes to Iraq, money ensures that the concerns of big business, big oil, bellicose evangelicals and Middle East allies gain a hearing. By comparison, the lives of U.S. soldiers figure as an afterthought.
Memorial Day orators will say that a G.I.'s life is priceless. Don't believe it. I know what value the U.S. government assigns to a soldier's life: I've been handed the check. It's roughly what the Yankees will pay Roger Clemens per inning once he starts pitching next month.
Money maintains the Republican/Democratic duopoly of trivialized politics. It confines the debate over U.S. policy to well-hewn channels. It preserves intact the cliches of 1933-45 about isolationism, appeasement and the nation's call to "global leadership." It inhibits any serious accounting of exactly how much our misadventure in Iraq is costing. It ignores completely the question of who actually pays. It negates democracy, rendering free speech little more than a means of recording dissent.
This is not some great conspiracy. It's the way our system works.
I thought I was clever to have come up with the concept of an "emergent conspiracy." But I googled the term and found that others got there first. It's a meme! http://www.correntewire.com/emergent_properties_and_criminal_conspiracies It ignores completely the question of who actually pays. It negates democracy, rendering free speech little more than a means of recording dissent. I don't think this is paranoia. I think Andrew Bacevich is speaking the truth, and Rod has had the guts to recognize it and pass it on, for which I thank him. This is why I believe the Republicans must be punished, even though the Democrats are little better. We cannot shrug and let them get away with it. Not this time.
Is this a quote from "Manufacturing Consent"?
It's awful what those people have said to Prof. Bacevich. End of story. But that doesn't mean I can't disagree with him. This is exactly the kind of thing you'd expect to find from a writer for American Conservative, and it's to your discredit, Rod, that you've been mentioning AmCon more and more recently, going on about how brilliant they are. Just b/c you're fed up with Bush doesn't mean you have to jump to the crazy uncle end of the conservative spectrum.
"To whom do Kennedy, Kerry and Lynch listen? We know the answer: to the same people who have the ear of George W. Bush and Karl Rove -- namely, wealthy individuals and institutions. Money buys access and influence. Money greases the process that will yield us a new president in 2008. When it comes to Iraq, money ensures that the concerns of big business, big oil, bellicose evangelicals and Middle East allies gain a hearing. By comparison, the lives of U.S. soldiers figure as an afterthought."
The American Conservative is hardly "the crazy uncle end of the conservative spectrum." The magazine publishes thoughtful critiques of domestic and foreign policy. Had Bush listened to their advice, we'd have no futile war in Iraq; no "immigration reform;" and no massive entitlement (prescription drug bill) as starters. It would have saved lives, money and possibly our culture.
Mr Bacevich's point is that the system continues quite well and that it is greased by money. This money isn't too particular about which party it comes from. None of that matters RIGHT NOW. Men and women are fighting and dying in the streets of Iraq, and that is what matters right now. That people would continue to politicize the situation is precisely the problem. No one is thinking or acting clearly. That would undermine their political platform.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.