The Four Unspeakable Truths

The Four Unspeakable Truths
What politicians won't admit about Iraq.

By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 3:33 PM ET

When it comes to Iraq, there are two kinds of presidential candidates. The disciplined ones, like Hillary Clinton, carefully avoid acknowledging reality. The more candid, like John McCain and Barack Obama, sometimes blurt out the truth, but quickly apologize.

For many presidential aspirants, the first unspeakable truth is simply that the war was a mistake. This issue came to a head recently with Hillary Clinton's obstinate refusal to acknowledge that voting to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq was the wrong thing to do. Though fellow Democrats John Edwards and Christopher Dodd have managed to say they erred in voting for the 2002 war resolution, Clinton is joined by Joe Biden and a full roster of Republicans in her inability to disgorge the M-word. Perhaps most absurdly, Chuck Hagel has called Bush's 21,500-troop "surge" the biggest blunder since Vietnam without ever saying that the war itself was the big blunder and that he favored it.

Reasons for refusing to admit that the war itself was a mistake are surprisingly similar across party lines. It is seldom easy to admit you were wrong—so let me repeat what I first acknowledged in Slate in January 2004, that I am sorry to have given even qualified support to the war. But what is awkward for columnists is nearly impossible for self-justifying politicians, who resist acknowledging error at a glandular level. Specific political calculations help to explain their individual decisions. Hillary, for instance, worries that confessing her failure will make it easier for hawks to savage her if she gets the nomination. But at bottom, the impulse is always the same. Politicians are stubborn, afraid of looking weak, and fearful that any admission of error will be cast as flip-flopping and inconsistency.

A second truth universally unacknowledged is that American soldiers being killed, grotesquely maimed, and then treated like whining freeloaders at Walter Reed Hospital are victims as much as "heroes." John Kerry was the first to violate this taboo when he was still a potential candidate last year. Kerry appeared to tell a group of California college students that it sucks to go and fight in Iraq. A variety of conservative goons instantly denounced Kerry for disrespecting the troops. An advanced sufferer of Senatorial Infallibility Syndrome, Kerry resisted retracting his comment for a while, but eventually regretted what he called a "botched joke" about President Bush.

Lost in the debate about whether Kerry meant what came out of his mouth was the fact that what he said was largely true. Americans who attend college and have good employment options after graduation are unlikely to sign up for free tours of the Sunni Triangle. People join the military for a variety of reasons, of course, but since the Iraq war turned ugly, the all-volunteer Army has been lowering educational standards, raising enlistment bonuses, and looking past criminal records. The lack of better choices is a larger and larger factor in the choice of military service. Our troops in Iraq may not see themselves as cannon fodder or victims of presidential misjudgments, but that doesn't mean they're not.

Reality No. 3, closely related to No. 2 and following directly from No. 1, is that the American lives lost in Iraq have been lives wasted. Barack Obama crossed this boundary on his first trip to Iowa as an announced candidate when he declared at a rally, "We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged and to which we have now spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." With lightning speed, Obama said he had misspoken and apologized to military families.

John McCain used the same proscribed term when he announced his candidacy on The Late Show With David Letterman last week.* "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives." This was a strange admission, given McCain's advocacy of a surge bigger than Bush's. In any case, McCain followed Obama by promptly regretting his choice of words. (The patriotically correct term for losing parts of your body in a pointless war in Mesopotamia is, of course, "sacrifice.") These episodes all followed Kinsley's law of gaffes ("A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth). The mistake Kerry, Obama, and McCain made was telling the truth before retreating to the approved banality and euphemism

A fourth and final near-certainty, which is in some ways the hardest for politicians to admit, is that America is losing or has already lost the Iraq war. The United States is the strongest nation in the history of the world and does not think of itself as coming in second in two-way contests. When it does so, it is slow to accept that it has been beaten. American political and military leaders were reluctant to acknowledge or utter that they had miscalculated and wasted tens of thousands of lives in Vietnam, many of them after failure and withdrawal were assured. Even today, American politicians tend not to describe Vietnam as a straightforward defeat. Something similar is happening in Iraq, where the most that leaders typically say is that we "risk" losing and must not do so.

Democrats avoid the truth about the tragedy in Iraq for fear of being labeled unpatriotic or unsupportive of the troops. Republicans avoid it for fear of being blamed for the disaster or losing defense and patriotism as cards to play against Democrats. Politicians on both sides believe that acknowledging the unpleasant truth will weaken them and undermine those still attempting to persevere on our behalf. But nations and individuals do not grow weaker by confronting the truth. They grow weaker by avoiding it and coming to believe their own evasions.

Jacob Weisberg is editor of Slate and co-author, with Robert E. Rubin, of "In an Uncertain World".

[http://www.slate.com/id/2161385/nav/tap1]

Not bad, but of course the authors remains silent on the main unspeakable truth about this war: that the US if fighting it solely on behalf of Israel. But it would be too much to expect that kind of admission from a Slate article anyway...

0

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Four Unspeakable Truths

The US isn't in it for Israel - it's in for the oil. Good ol' Dubbyah and Rummy. Dubbyah must have thought it a great idea - bomb out Iraq, then get his buddies in Haliburton to rebuild. After all, that's what happened in Gulf Wars I. The fact that Dubbyah is surrounded by delusional jews who would like to abuse the US military's power doesn't mean that the US is doing it for Israel.

This article is only pointing out the obvious really - politicians only care about their own ass and don't give a damn about the nation. Schwarzenegger is much more practical, admits when he makes a mistake and tries to move on (despite the opposition of the judicial arm and state legislature, and after the fiasco of his first year or so in office he's learned it's better to go his own way than tow his party around. I think we need more of his type of ex-nazi-idolizer and politically incorrect joke teller --- someone who isn't afraid to do things differently and make mistakes. The worst thing a politician can do (and most of them do it) is to try to please the masses. Of course doing otherwise usually means only 1 term in office at most, but it's a better option than the usual one of catering to the sheep. Face it - most of the voters are ill-educated dolts and shouldn't have a say in how things run. Unfortunately at the moment the White House is capitalizing on that and doing as it pleases with no opposition from the masses.

The Four Unspeakable Truths

If by "Israel' you mean the nation, I agree with you: Dubya does not care (in fact, I would argue that his insane policies put Israel at greater risk than ever before). Nor does he care about US Jews who, by the way, are the ethnic group in the USA who are most *opposed* to these wars. But what he does care for is the Zionist Lobby of AIPAC and Co. who hold more power right now than the combined force of the oil and the Military-Industrial Lobby. Heck - they even managed to get the entire Democratic leadership to back these Imperial wars.

The oil lobby does NOT need these wars and they are the folks who are right now instructing Baker and Bzezhinsky to argue against an attack against Iran.

Motto: chown -R linux:GNU world
Distros: Debian, gNewSense

Syndicate content