Regular readers know that I am a devotee of the op ed pages of the Boston Globe because of the quality of its regular writers. Today again demonstrates the validity of my interest, with a truly terrific column by H D S Greenway, who rights regularly on foreign affairs. Entitled The reality in Iraq, it offers his blunt assessment of the current situation and the future that is possible, one totally in conflict with what the Bush administration offers. To put it bluntly, it is a thorough deconstruction of recent administration statements, and although it was clearly written before last night's presidential address, it provides ample ammunition for anyone interested in countering that piece of self-serving bloviation.
As always when I analyze an article, I encourage readers to go and absorb the original in its entirety. Let me do something I have not done before: in one blockquote I am going to offer, connected by ellipses,a number of single sentence selections that will give a real sense of the power of the presentation.
"Islamic Fascism" seems to be the new buzzword in the Bush administration as it tries to equate its current failing wars with the moral clarity of World War II. . . .The dangers of 1938 Munich-style appeasement are regularly brought out of history's trunk these days, dusted off, and worn again -- as they were in Vietnam -- even though they fail to fit. . . .
Little of what is said seems based in reality. . . .
But the battle for Baghdad rages with little or no security in too much of the country, and the progressive constitution's writ runs little further than the green zone. . . .
There is virtually no chance now of Iraq emerging as a bastion of Western-style democracy, a light unto others in the Arab world. . . .
Just as the pre-war intelligence was twisted and manipulated to make the case for war -- intelligence that a Senate investigation has found to have been "uncorroborated, unreliable, and in some cases fabricated," in the words of Senator Jay Rockefeller -- so now is the reality of the administration's failures being glossed over for election purposes. . . .
The course needs to change. . . .
We might start by dropping the term "Islamic fascism," which brings a lot of thunder but little light to the table. . . .
Like most here, I make no claim to having expertise in foreign relations nor in Middle Eastern affairs. I perhaps know a bit more about the history of the area in general and Iraq in specific than the average layman. As a teacher of US Government including at the Advanced Placement (college) level, I do feel competent in commenting on the processes of our own government and the rhetoric advanced to justify the actions taken by this administration when those touch upon b asic constitutional issues and political processes. Yet even here I will acknowledge that one can legitimately criticize my lack of scholarship - I am not a member of the academy.
And yet it has become, at least for me, something very basic. If I am challenged as to why I do not accept the arguments made on behalf of the administration and its actions, I am sorely tempted to respond with the words offered by Senator Sam Ervin at the Watergate hearings to John Erlichmann. I cannot find the exact consequence. Perhaps the colloquy began when Ervin offered his famous statement
There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes or makes it the official duty of a president to have anything to do with criminal activities.Whether it was that or something else, Erlichmann decided to be pugnacious and asked
How do you know?and Senator Sam responded with words that are burnt into my memory, and seem appropriate for those of us who need to respond to how we can reject the administration's arguments:
Because I can understand the English language. It's my native tongue.
I do not see how anyone who approaches the situation with an open mind can continue to accept the administration's rationalizations for its actions. I had not intended to watch the Presidential address, but as I sat still in awe and Keith Olbermann's magnificent commentary, I simply did not change the channel, and thus had to listen to what I consider one of poorest addresses I have ever heard from the Oval Office (and I almost typed "offal" office, which given what we heard last night might well be a more apt appellation). It was of a piece with the Nixonian statement about people needing to know that their president was not a crook.
Read the Greenway piece. Perhaps my reaction is too particular, given how I experienced the presidential address. Even so, I think you will find it useful.
Let me end by offering the final two paragraphs from the Greenway piece in their entirety, and without subsequent commentary. Perhaps that will entice you to read the whole thing, and maybe even value it nearly as highly as I do:
Back in 2002, President Bush said that the history of intervention and war in Afghanistan had been "initial success, followed by long years of floundering and ultimate failure. We are not going to repeat that mistake," he said. But we are repeating that mistake.The course needs to change. A better way to combat the rise of extremism other than invading or bombing Arab countries has to be found, for the number of potential terrorists is rising throughout the world. ``I have always appealed to my colleagues in the US: If there are changes in US policy in the Middle East there would be a significant reduction in terrorist attacks here," Indonesia's terrorism expert Ansyaad Mbai told the Wall Street Journal. Muslims in Europe have said the same. We might start by dropping the term "Islamic fascism," which brings a lot of thunder but little light to the table.