I was at Toys ‘R’ Us today, which is always both fun and sad. No chemistry sets for today’s youth. Instead this thing. (and of course the hip and more approvable new flat-screen Lite Brites)
A creepy thing on this day when we hear that they’ve sold Alistair Cooke’s bones. A grim possiblity that’s had me humming all evening what must surely be the greatest Disney song of all.
Found a lovely picture today of Pen Dinas, in Aberystwyth. One of my favorite places. I used to walk there every few days. You can see the Wellington monument on top, and the earth-works of an iron-age fortress around it. These were constructed perhaps 2000 years before Edward I built his castle in the valley below (the model for this story, I think).
North of Pen Dinas is an old pillbox that once guarded the tiny harbor from German submarines. South of it is a mysterious estate. On the hill are many pretty flowers with determined little stickers.
The election in Iraq seems to have some opponents of the Iraq war a little confused. So many people voting; so little violence on election day; so much hope for the future—might George Bush have been right to invade after-all?
The question becomes even more pressing if you believe, as I do, that things are likely to go better in Iraq than many people expect. Furthermore, as American troops pull out, and retreat to fortified bases, we’re going to see a reduction in American casualties, and we’re likely to see changing attitudes in the US towards the war. In fact, by the ‘08 elections, the Iraq war is likely to serve as a positive for whomever is the Republican Nominee for President.
Republican have already started pushing an interesting talking point, that we’ll surely see much more of soon. I noticed the “we won, but it’s subtle” meme on the Belmont Club a week or two ago:
Victory when it came, was both greater and less; more partial and more complete than expected. It did not take the European form of parades down the Champs Elysee, followed by a return to old and establish ways of governance. What the destruction of the Ba’athist regime did was reanimate long suppressed local and ethnic interests and channel them into competition through the ballot box — with the occasional recourse to violence. Tremendous forces have been unleashed which critics of the war will point to as signs of an incipient civil war, but which supporters of OIF will describe as a newly liberated society feeling its way forward.
Ick, yes. If you want to read the rest of the post, you’ll find that it paints political violence in Iraq as something to be regarded fondly as the evidence of the flowering of Iraqi politics. Rush Limbaugh has been echoing this sentiment lately—pointing out repeatedly that “we had a civil war in this country—the greatest country on face of the earth!,” and suggesting that the Iraqis ought to be grateful for the chance to experience the exciting project of nation-building as we Americans did at Antietam and Chancellorsville. Lucky them!
It’s a pretty grotesque logic. And if the civil war in Iraq escalates during or after the American pull-out, we’ll see more such disgusting stuff. But we probably won’t. Because a large-scale Civil War in Iraq is less, rather than more likely. As American troops pull out, I’m betting that cooler heads will prevail and keep things together, at least in the short run. We’ll see.
If the civil hostilities that break out can be kept to a minimum, or at least kept from American television screens (this won’t be difficult!), we can anticipate a resurgence of support for the Iraq adventure as American troops come home, and as Americans become more oblivious to whatever problems remain in that far away place, that most of them probably still couldn’t find on a map.
Democrats should realize that the Presidency will by no means be their for the taking in ‘08, as some of them seem now to believe.
But to return, then, to the opening question: was it right to invade Iraq? This question, for me, bears serious consideration, since I’m not a pacifist, and since I always understood that some pro-war sorts—Chis Hitchens, and even Paul Wolfowitz, for exampe—are at least in part motivated by a sort of progressive internationalism that I think has merit.
Why was it then a bad idea to invade Iraq, even if a democracy does develop there?
Without trivializing the enormous suffering and loss of life that this war has brought to Iraq (which might otherwise have had one day a peaceful revolution, a la 1989, a slow movement from autocracy into modernity (a la Turkey), or a bloody but largely home-grown revolution), it needs to be said that the larger reason to avoid this should have been the extreme longer-term peril posed by plunging the world into a multipolar political arrangement.
While the Project for the New American Century viewed American Hegemony as the only way to survive, the attempt to secure hegemonic power will lead—and has already led—to a destabilizing reaction against American power. As a consequence of this war, we’ve already seen, for example:
+Unprecedented joint military exercises ny Russian and China
+The rise to power of anti-American Left governments in S. America, who are interested in reducing their “special relationship” with the US, favoring new “South-South” alliances
+The rise of nationalism in Japan, and a move to revise the provisions of the Japanese constitution that prohibit the building of a military
+Europe’s decision to end its military reliance on US global-positioning satellites and is building its own network, and its simialr growing objections to the US role in administering the internet
+Russia has built a new generation of ziz-zaging ICBM’s to render useless the gigantically expensive “Star Wars” missile-defense system for which Bush scrapped the 1972 ABM treaty.
Activities of these sorts represent the slow unraveling of the unipolar geopolitical arrangement that’s more-or-less kept the peace since the end of the Cold War, and a relaunching of multi-lateral arms races and political alliance-making that hasn’t been seen since before World War I. And that’s where the real danger lies.
Instead of strengthening the United Nations and other methods of international governance, the Bush administration has fanned the flames of nationalism worldwide and initiated an arms race that is only now becoming obvious. The dangers here involve not just terrorism, but also global military conflict and catastrophe.
We must hope and work to see that cooler heads in Iraq and in the world prevail, and that the global move towards militarism and nationalism can be halted by those of us who want a world as free from war, terrorism, and injustice as possible. The first years of this new century are beginning to very much resemble the first years of the last one.
When did TDQ jump the shark? Perhaps when its humble caretaker could not help but link to just one more Christmas video clip.
If the comments at the bottom of the page can be trusted, this is yet more evidence of Christmas Socialism. Which, if that’s a movement, sign me up now!
In honor of that creepy St. Lucy, I present to you a few post-Catholic tunes, with little crosses inserted in some names and titles to ward off the search engines of evil. Here they are:
1) Jesus Boys is a just-for-fun tune by Beezus. I ran into one third of Beezus two days ago at Meijer. Since you already have their first album, you should pick up their second asap. Really great.
2) la petXite mort is a toe-tappin’ metaphysical masterpiece, by Erin McKeXown. One of my favorite songs.
3) I will folloXw you into the dark is a weepy and manipulative little thing by Death CXab for CuXtie that I sort of despise but in truth cannot really resist. Jesuitical.
Happy St. Lucy’s day!
Christmas has been having a hard time this year, as Fox and some associated conservative-types have started pushing a “War on Christmas” line, designed to amp-up the culture war that that’s lately been lost amid scandals of various sorts. A typical example. More to the point is what Ann Coulter had to say to the New York Observer about Christmas in New York: “Oh, it was so much fun this year, because saying ‘Merry Christmas’ is like saying ‘Fuck you!’ I’ve said it to everyone. You know, cab drivers, passing people on the street, whatever.” Nice.
Adam Cohen (who like Jon Stewart (video!) might seem an unlikely defender of the holiday), makes some smart observations about this in the New York Times. (See also: other defenders of Christmas)
But let me just take a different tack here, and submit for your consideration a couple of remarkable things I’ve just lately come across, that seem to appertain. One being the childhood photo you see on the left of, yessiree, Ann Coulter. And the other being Krampus. I must say, that when I first learned of Krampus this morning, I thought that it must certainly be an elaborate internet joke. Having read a good bit on Demonology, and being habitually interested in this sort of thing, I was dumbfounded to discover (via Metafilter) this morning a whole world of dark Christmas Gnosticism, including Santa’s Demonic companion.
While reading about Krampus and his ilk, it was impossible not to be reminded of Coulter, O’Riley, and the rest of the red-faced crew that have seized upon Christmas as a cudgel.
For those who celebrate it, no holiday is more redolent with Childhood sweetness (it after-all makes a ritual of the capacity of Children for innocent misbelief). Yet the above picture of Coulter (and, presumably, her brothers) is an errie reminder of how little we change from our childhood selves, and how mistaken or simplistic that assumption of innocence can be.
Coulter stands shouting in the foreground. Is she joyful, or sad, or full of craving? She screams, reveling in attention—the manic and demanding blonde prow of a wedge of male patriotic authority (at whom do you think she’s looking?). How palpably she treasures this role, even at this early date! One must admire, in a way, her purity of purpose.
Coulter, finally, is not like Krampus; she isn’t the opposite part of a Christmas dyad; rather she and O’Riley attack the holiday from the outside, trying to transform a holiday of humility, wonder, and fellow-feeling into a mirror of their own pathological hostility. Only if it were destroyed utterly would they be able to understand it.
[Q1: Am I the only one who didn’t know about Krampus?]
[Q2: Am I wrong about this picture of young Coulter? Am I harshing on an innocent? A cute innocent, even? (Paging doctor Blake . . .)]
I’ve been trying to find a reason to visit Charlotte, North Carolina, since my brother lives there, and my Mom is pushing hard to get the family to try and drive down there for Christmas. But it’s hard to find much. I mean, the Mecklenburg Declaration is interesting, but only possibly real. The City has Freedom Street, Freedom Park and the American Freedom Bell. “The world’s largest single-cast bell displayed at eye-level,” the American Freedom Bell is an improvement over that old Liberty Bell, since it makes it more clear just who’s freedom we American are supposed to be happy about. What else is in Charlotte? (V. says I’ll want to look more closely at Southern food and such—which sounds fair enough. But where? Perhaps I should just trust my brother on this one, and not be such a dorky tourist).
Anyhow, what I’m meaning to get to is my effort to find good Civil War Battlegrounds to visit when and if I should make it to Charlotte. It turns out, rather surprisingly, that there are none—a fact I discovered by inspecting this rather interesting map of Civil War battles. Would you have guessed that more battles in that war were fought in Missouri than in North Carolina? Further, would you have suspected Civil War battles in New Mexico? Arizona? A long way from Dixie.
Also: It’s too bad (but far from unintentional) that this blog is a such well kept secret from my family. Otherwise I’d have more to say about my cousin who, white girl though she be, will be bringing the avant-garde double-dutch today at the Apollo Theater in Harlem. Since she won’t read this, my comments here are mere bragging, rather than actual support, but nonetheless, here’s hoping she and her compatriots leave the stage to the tumult of much acclaim.
