Is the US Bush Administration Un-Patriotic??

[Timber Loftis]

Flipping the issues back and forth shakes out some interesting arguments.
__________________________________________________ __

Who's Unpatriotic Now?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Some nonrevisionist history: On Oct. 8, 2002, Knight Ridder newspapers reported on intelligence officials who "charge that the administration squelches dissenting views, and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary." One official accused the administration of pressuring analysts to "cook the intelligence books"; none of the dozen other officials the reporters spoke to disagreed.

The skepticism of these officials has been vindicated. So have the concerns expressed before the war by military professionals like Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, about the resources required for postwar occupation. But as the bad news comes in, those who promoted this war have responded with a concerted effort to smear the messengers.

Issues of principle aside, the invasion of a country that hadn't attacked us and didn't pose an imminent threat has seriously weakened our military position. Of the Army's 33 combat brigades, 16 are in Iraq; this leaves us ill prepared to cope with genuine threats. Moreover, military experts say that with almost two-thirds of its brigades deployed overseas, mainly in Iraq, the Army's readiness is eroding: normal doctrine calls for only one brigade in three to be deployed abroad, while the other two retrain and refit.

And the war will have devastating effects on future recruiting by the reserves. A widely circulated photo from Iraq shows a sign in the windshield of a military truck that reads, "One weekend a month, my ass."

To top it all off, our insistence on launching a war without U.N. approval has deprived us of useful allies. George Bush claims to have a "huge coalition," but only 7 percent of the coalition soldiers in Iraq are non-American — and administration pleas for more help are sounding increasingly plaintive.

How serious is the strain on our military? The Brookings Institution military analyst Michael O'Hanlon, who describes our volunteer military as "one of the best military institutions in human history," warns that "the Bush administration will risk destroying that accomplishment if they keep on the current path."

But instead of explaining what happened to the Al Qaeda link and the nuclear program, in the last few days a series of hawkish pundits have accused those who ask such questions of aiding the enemy. Here's Frank Gaffney Jr. in The National Post: "Somewhere, probably in Iraq, Saddam Hussein is gloating. He can only be gratified by the feeding frenzy of recriminations, second-guessing and political power plays. . . . Signs of declining popular appreciation of the legitimacy and necessity of the efforts of America's armed forces will erode their morale. Similarly, the enemy will be encouraged."

Well, if we're going to talk about aiding the enemy: By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden — who really did attack America — and Kim Jong Il — who really is building nukes.

And while we're on the subject of patriotism, let's talk about the affair of Joseph Wilson's wife. Mr. Wilson is the former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to investigate reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases and who recently went public with his findings. Since then administration allies have sought to discredit him — it's unpleasant stuff. But here's the kicker: both the columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative.

Think about that: if their characterization of Mr. Wilson's wife is true (he refuses to confirm or deny it), Bush administration officials have exposed the identity of a covert operative. That happens to be a criminal act; it's also definitely unpatriotic.

So why would they do such a thing? Partly, perhaps, to punish Mr. Wilson, but also to send a message.

And that should alarm us. We've just seen how politicized, cooked intelligence can damage our national interest. Yet the Wilson affair suggests that the administration intends to continue pressuring analysts to tell it what it wants to hear.

[Chewbacca]

Thanks TL! More food for thought, for those of us thinking anyway. It does give me a chuckle that someone would have the cahoonays to describe the administration as unpatriotic.

Lets see if the administration and their devoted can take their own medicine and stand up to real thoughtful scrutiny. From watching many news outlets they seem too dodge the issue and change the subject really well, I wonder how long it will hold up.

[ 07-22-2003, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Indemaijinj]

But I thought the plan was systematically removing all potential threats so USA would never have to fear any attacks again.

Isn't that the whole idea about pre-emptive strike?

[ 07-22-2003, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Indemaijinj ]

[John D Harris]

Better Bait TL, add a little chum and you may have a winner.

[Azred]

Charges on both sides that "the other side is unpatriotic" necessitates asking one very important question: what is "patriotic"?

Is it pursuing the best interests of America? I don't think either side is doing that right now,; are both sides are unpatriotic or is patriotism something else?

Is patriotism simply following the stated policies of the party in power? That is a pretty weak definition, because if true then patriotism can change every 4 years, if not more quickly.

Is patriotism defined by trying to actualize what you think America should be? If so, then there are as many definitions of patriotism as there are people in America, and two people's definitions could be diametrically opposed to one another.

The real problem here is that patriotism for America cannot be defined because America doesn't have a true national identity. A nation founded on personal liberty that allows almost anyone to immigrate and become a citizen cannot form one single identity. It is like trying to look at a painting made up of discrete dots of color--viewed closely you see only dots which don't make much sense, but when seen from a distance the true picture takes shape. Is patriotism fighting to make sure that the "big picture" keeps its cohesiveness and doesn't degenerate into chaos?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Azred: The real problem here is that patriotism for America cannot be defined because America doesn't have a true national identity. A nation founded on personal liberty that allows almost anyone to immigrate and become a citizen cannot form one single identity. It is like trying to look at a painting made up of discrete dots of color--viewed closely you see only dots which don't make much sense, but when seen from a distance the true picture takes shape. Is patriotism fighting to make sure that the "big picture" keeps its cohesiveness and doesn't degenerate into chaos?

The one thing that binds us is that nothing at all binds us. How schizophrenic is that?

[johnny]

Wrong TL, picture yourself watching TV, you see a mob in some far away country burn US flags and chant all kinds off stuff i can't mention here. You'll be pissed off, and so will the rest of the US. It's the flag that binds you.

[Stratos]

The idea of calling your political avdersaries 'un-patriotic' is utterly ridicolous since there is no universally accepted standard as to what is meant by 'being a patriot'. Unless your're being an ovbious traitor it's just simple name calling.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by johnny: Wrong TL, picture yourself watching TV, you see a mob in some far away country burn US flags and chant all kinds off stuff i can't mention here. You'll be pissed off, and so will the rest of the US. It's the flag that binds you.

But what IDEAS is the flag a SYMBOL of?? Without the underlying ideas, the totem is meaningless. Without the notions of freedom and liberty, etc, the flag is simply a mundane item like any other. These totems we share are all about making the profane into the sacred through the imparting of greater meaning -- as a side note, this greater meaning usually results from group collective effervesence and a feeling of liminality.

Get your really pointy-headed discussion of totems/religion HERE and expand your search from there.

[Moiraine]

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Now find out whose quote this is ...