The last Time...

...I read about a straw man this big, it was a review of the awesome Dark Night of the Scarecrow. Everyone should do as my parents did and show it to their kids in the middle of the afternoon at a time of year when it cannot even remotely be played off as Halloween preparation.

But I digress. I read Andrew Sullivan's blog on The Atlantic online (though if one has 2 other people contributing to a blog that's hosted by a magazine, does one still get paid to be a writer for the website? Isn't that a bit like farming out a dissertation to a bunch of research assistants?), and while he is sometimes a queen for drama (not like John Aravosis, that irritating fucktard), he's a solid reasoner. Sometime, though, he and his RAs will forget to comment much on what they are posting, thus making the "blog" a lot more like a news and opinion aggregator than a commentary site. We're all guilty of that, but about none of the other blogs on the internet have the traffic of Sullivan, so we can hold him and his research assistants to a higher standard.

So what is this? "I share Andrew's fears"?

Here's the cited quote, by Michael J. Totten:

"The United States has basically won the war in Iraq. No insurgent or terrorist group can declare victory or claim Americans are evacuating Iraq's cities because they were beaten. America's most modest foreign policy objectives there have been largely secured. Saddam Hussein's toxic regime has been replaced with a more or less consensual government. I doubt very much that Iraq will seriously threaten the United States or its neighbors any time soon. It isn't likely to be ruled by terrorists as it probably would have been if the United States left between 2004 and 2007. It's a relief. A few years ago, I was all but certain the U.S. would withdraw under fire and leave Iraq in the hands of militias. Even so, many have a hard time feeling optimistic about the future. Iraq remains, in some ways, a threat to itself."

There is a question I want to ask that isn't fair, doesn't engage with the reporting from the original article, and is based on a view that discounts all that has happened in Iraq since 2003. This denial of time and circumstances is decidedly problematic and rooted in a need to reiterate a stark, moral point. For, whatever the case at this moment, why even contemplate that the thing to take away from Iraq is that "we won," when doing so would be to forget the first and most searingly important fact of our presence there: it was brought about by obvious and treacherous lies? Lies that still have power, obviously, as Totten obliquely bases his favorable view of the occupation upon them.

"America's most modest foreign policy objectives (in Iraq) have been largely secured."

America never had any "modest" foreign policy goals in Iraq. If Totten could name one, that would be extraordinary, since none exists. Military occupation is not "modest;" the overthrow of political states is not "modest;" strong-arming other nations into supporting unilateral actions is not "modest;" enacting a neoconservative wet-dream is the opposite of "modest." What was the "modest" goal?

"Saddam Hussein's toxic regime has been replaced with a more or less consensual government."

That's some modesty right there, folks! We overthrew a dictator and then stood by while he was murdered in brutal fashion, while the country went straight to clan-warfare-hell, and then imposed a foreign political system that has resulted in another would-be dictator, Maliki, seizing power while, outside the few major cities, God only knows who is in charge. Why, it's floor-length skirts and high collars-level modesty! It's like a political burqa, it's so modest!

"I doubt very much that Iraq will seriously threaten the United States or its neighbors any time soon."

Here is that part about believing the lies. When did Iraq threaten the United States? I am unaware of even a single factual threat. Can someone help me out here? And in terms of threatening its neighbors, what? Iran: not threatened. Kuwait: there was that one time, but that lasted all of a week or so. Israel: has a nuclear weapon. Threatened? More like a threat -- not just to Iraq, either.

"It isn't likely to be ruled by terrorists as it probably would have been if the United States left between 2004 and 2007."

Where to begin. It also isn't likely to be ruled by outlaw bikers or carnival folk. Or, to put this ridiculous counter-factual speculation another way, it is still possible that Iraq will be taken over by time-traveling Ottoman Turks, because you cannot prove otherwise. All hail Osman!

"A few years ago, I was all but certain the U.S. would withdraw under fire and leave Iraq in the hands of militias."

Right, now we'll withdraw by agreement with the "government," under only sporadic fire and in-between IED detonations, and leave Iraq in the hands of the militias. Much better.

"No insurgent or terrorist group can declare victory or claim Americans are evacuating Iraq's cities because they were beaten."

Because, never forget, all wars in which the United States is engaged can only be judged in terms of what the United States thinks of as "victory" and what the United States has decided its enemies want. In this case, "terrorist group(s)" clearly wanted a pitched battle and final victory, and because they didn't get either one, and we left with some shred of our reputation intact (though no one, not even Michael Totten, surely, would argue that the US is even remotely as respected as it was prior to 2003), we won. We won the "war" that only we were fighting, and the made-up goals we ascribed to our opponents have not been achieved, and so totalvictoryinyourfacemotherfuckers! Yeah!! You know who you are! I hope!

Nothing like taking an impotent, secular, easily controlled, easily thwarted regime and replacing it with a patchwork of ethnic clan-states in perpetual conflict with one another who all now have a bone to pick with Americans while handing over political recognition (even if somewhat illusory) to a new dictatorial regime. It's so much easier to come to favorable conclusions when you write off everything that happened prior to the sea-change, which is why when we look at Iraq, we should ignore everything except what's happening right now. I think I've heard that somewhere before, perhaps coming from the mouths of Republicans.