President Bush reminded me of the District Attorney in Chinatown (that is, in "Chinatown") the other night, as he stood in the White House "liberry," stiffly mumbling about his "new strategy" for Iraq, which amounts to: "As little as possible." Then Jon Stewart made me cry last night (with laughter and outrage -- and relief that somebody was telling the manifest truth) as he cut through all the lazy, endlessly recycled punditry about how Bush was "really putting it all on the line this time" (as he's been said to do every time he makes an empty gesture toward Iraq, or his Boratian "War of Terror"). Talk about creating a false sense of drama. Bush put nothing of himself on the line. He risked nothing. He did... as little as possible.
The only people Bush is putting on the line are the troops and the Iraqis. As Stewart pointed out, what is the addition of 21,000 more troops (returning the level to that of two years ago) supposed to accomplish that it didn't accomplish back then, when conditions were a whole lot better than they are now, and we still couldn't secure Baghdad? We have 130,000 troops in Iraq now, Stewart observed. Another 21,000 is a 15 percent increase. "That's not a surge, it's a gratuity. It's a tip," Stewart said. (Watch the whole segment here.) Perhaps Stewart's best metaphor for the President's actions: "He cooked up a giant, giant pot of shit, and looked at it last night and said, 'You know what that needs? ... A pinch of salt.'"
The real strategy? Do just enough to pretend you're trying, then blame the failure on the American people (for not supporting a losing strategy) and Congress (for not supporting a losing strategy) and the Iraqis (for being Iraqis). Amazing. Now here's a (bullshit) artist who shows nothing but contempt for his audience -- and his "characters" (i.e., the lives he's cynically and recklessly monkeying around with).
From the 2003 RAND Corporation study: "America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq," Chapter Nine, "Lessons Learned," page 153:
"The highest levels of casualties have occurred in the operations with
the lowest levels of U.S. troops, suggesting an inverse ratio between
force levels and the level of risk. Germany, Japan, Bosnia, and Kosovo
had no postconflict combat deaths. The postconflict occupations in
Germany and Japan proved relatively risk-free because both Japan
and Germany were thoroughly defeated and because their govern-
ments had agreed to unconditional surrender. The low numbers of
combat deaths also show that postconflict nation-building, when
undertaken with adequate numbers of troops, has triggered little vio-
lent resistance. Only when the number of stabilization troops has
been low in comparison to the population have U.S. forces suffered
or inflicted significant casualties."
If Bush had proposed to send in 200,000 more troops I still would have thought it was a bad idea (being about three or four years too late), but at least I might have thought he was (once) serious about trying to bring stability, freedom and democracy to Iraq. One again, he's done nothing more than reveal what a bad bluffer he is.
Deep down inside I know that I have to be an optimist, because this shit continues to piss me off year in and year out. At this point, anyone who truly "believes" in or whole-heartedly supports Bush and this war, well, I have to question their mental well being and moral upbringing. Trying to be good and "American" doesn't mean shit if you don't have a clue what's going on in the world...oh, what a coincidence, [i]Idiocracy[/i] just came out on DVD.
Rob, outside of Sean Hannity (blech), I think you'd have a lot of trouble finding anywhere any true "believers" in Bush any more. You might be surprised... everything I'm reading at my fave conservoBlogs (Ace of Spades, Patterico's Pontifications, among others) is-- or if you prefer, has become, IMHO-- very circumspect with regard to the on-the-ground reality in Iraq. No one's volunteering to put the "Mission: Accomplished!" banner back up, that's for sure.
And Jim, not to be adversarial, but if you really want/need to post about the political so often (and I wholly acknowledge the Iraq campaign is very much about politics, just as it is about national security and several other savory/not-so-savory topics), I sincerely recommend starting up a political blog that is aside and separate from Scanners. Not that politics and entertainment/movies/film don't intersect; they often do so exquisitely, lot of the time, in which case it'd be your call where to post. But I get the impression you feel a bit hemmed in, having to relate your politics to movies. Just a friendly suggestion.
The problem with your post, and Jon Stewart's segment, is that it is characteristic of the knee-jerk, reactionary auto-contrarianism you so vehemnetly denigrate in your previous posts. What a hypocrite. The fact is, it wouldn't have mattered what Bush would have promulgated as a solution in his speech -you would have attacked it and Stewart would have made fun of it. Everyone's an expert when it comes to deriding the ideas of others, but you, or politicians in Washington, or pundits offer nothing as alternative solutions. What's really funny is you and Stewart are so uninformed, that you totally misrepresent the 'surge' strategy; just blatantly wrong on how its going to be implemented. That's the joke and frankly I'd be embarassed. Do yourself a favor - do some research. Otherwise you lose all credibility. Sure the Iraq war is messed up and there's been mistakes (which Bush, to his credit, took responsibility for in his speech) but for God sakes show a little professional integrity and either get the facts right or don't post on subjects which your knowledge does not warrant a serious opinion. This is a very complex issue that deserves a far more earnest analysis than the shit above. I think "qdpsteve"'s post is apt. The problem with people in the movie business is they think everyone automatically wants to know their political opinions. We don't, especially when most of them are foolish and uninformed as evidenced by the paucity of erudite insight displayed above. Mr. Emerson, I value your insights into film very much. I do. I read your reviews when I was a kid (I guess I still am a kid kinda) when you wrote for the OC Register (Ironic, isnt it, how you wrote for one of the most conservative papers in the country) and I have read your blog since its inception. But your continued interjection of your politics is insulting to people who don't share your views but want to enjoy your film insight without the added political inculcation. It's the same problem at my university. Professors continue to interject political opinions into class unrelated to the material and I have to confront them and its frustrating. Maybe the situations are not exactly analagous, but I think in both cases it is unprofessional and ininmical to responsible discussion. If you came out front, and were honest and said 'hey this is a film site that derives its analysis from a liberal political perspective' then that'd be great. That's exactly what 'LIBERTAS' does which is a good conservative blog on film that A.O. Scott and others have reccomended. And maybe you could be its countertpoint and I would gladly read it and w/ no less vigor. But they, however you may view their politics, have had the integrity to be upfront about their politics. So far you cannot say the same. We'll see what happens. I'll be reading. BTW, I hope your dog is all better.
My rambling, endless post on the Up with Contempt! entry probably gives me away but I like the mix of politics with movies that I find here. qdpsteve's suggestion is valid but I think combining political discussion with something people here are, perhaps, more passionate and more open-minded about is both interesting and enlightening. Obviously, you can't talk about "Children of Men" without talking politics and there are few movies, even bad ones, that aren't worth connecting to the zeitgeist.
There's a blog called "Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule" that signals by its name that it's about both film and baseball. Scanners accomplishes the same thing by having a list of categories on the right side of the page. Anyway, why should a blog be about only some prescribed set of subjects?
Aaron: I've been pretty specific in any comments I've posted about why I've thought Bush has made the wrong decisions about Iraq (if, in fact, they were his decisions) since 2002. And so has Jon Stewart. His criticisms are direct, reasoned and to the point.
But I agree with you in one sense: At this point, I don't know that there are any good decisions possible. It seems to me that, over the last four years, every opportunity for "success" has been missed, and I don't see any way to turn back the clock. I didn't think the invasion of Iraq was necessary, and I thought the diplomatic bumbling that led up to it was symptomatic of this administration's disingenuousness and/or incompetence. But at least I read that RAND report back in 2003 and, therefore, thought Gen. Shinseki's original, rough troop-strength recommendations ("several hundred thousand") made sense at that time, if the goal was really to "liberate" the Iraqi people. If you're serious about bringing stability to a country in hopes of establishing constitutional freedoms and democracy, then you have to make some kind of educated effort, not discard the best advice of the people with the most experience and knowledge.
I do put every post into a category (they're all listed at the right) -- and this one is filed under "Politics." Funny you should mention the OC Register -- they were a libertarian paper, which would put them, in principle, in opposition to Bush on many fronts: international interventionism, spending, separation of church and state, government intrusion into people's private lives, states' rights, ballooning size of federal bureaucracy, etc. Libertarian-leaning conservatives have been some of the most outspoken critics of this administration. As have many Goldwater, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush I conservatives -- particularly on foreign policy.
I'll check out that movie site you recommend.
P.S. Thank you for asking about Frances. She's going to have surgery to remove the tumors this week.
RE Bush: Why has there not been an effort - a serious effort - to impeach this smug, arrogant, cruel, lying, warmongering piece of (insert expletive of your choice)?
SERIOUSLY! IT MUST BE DONE!
Hi Jim,
Just adding my two cents-- I love your blog because I love movies, but I also have similar political views, so I actually enjoy the political commentary too, FWIW.
Since I'm a long time reader, first time caller :-), let me add that Scanners has enhanced my knowledge and appreciation of film in general, as well as turned me on to great films in particular.
Thanks for doing what you do.
I love all the sweeping generalizations you people are making.
Iraq is a boondoggle, you get no argument there from anyone except maybe bushie himself.
It was always in the opposition's (Democrat) best interest for Iraq to fail and they have done eveything they could at every step to make it so.
At least Bush is (misguidedly) trying to do something.
Any solution other than "bring the troops home asap" is decried as stupid or worse evil.
I know you erudites hate to be questioned, so I fully expect my fair minded comment to be quashed.
Jim, your "liberry" comment is telling. Most Bush bashers can never disguise their contempt for his use of language, which reveals their underlying snobbery. They can't just make their points, they always have to make personal attacks on him, often over irrelevancies such as his pronunciation of words. It just makes them look petty. That kind of superciliousness only weakens whatever is said. Any merit there may be in the argument is lost behind the attitude and only the choir winds up hearing the preacher.
Many people mistake the ability to express themselves (you are a writer, afterall) with expertise in a field about which they know little. At some level, perhaps subconsciously, though probably consciously, you may well have preferred it if the surge had been an utter failure since you would have gotten some emotional satisfaction out of what you would have considered another Bush blunder: "Yesssss! Bush blew it again!" Who cares what happens to the troops or the Iraqis as long as something the evil George W. is behind fails.
Unfortunately for you, the surge has been successful, and only those with entrenched interests in denigrating all things Bush can't admit that. What you failed to realize, though it was apparent to anyone who attempted to really understand the DETAILS of what was happening on the ground, was that conditions had changed in Iraq and that a troop increase of 20,000 in January of 2007 would have had much more impact than it would have had earlier in the war. Stewart's comments don't seem to be quite the "manifest truth" that you once thought they were, do they? And your assessments of Bush's motivations could only have come from someone with contempt for Bush, which makes your title rather ironic.
I'm a little surprised you haven't deleted this blog entry since things turned out so differently than you had predicted. You might want to start reading some things that aren't as slanted as the publications you've recommended. That might broaden your outlook a little and you'll be less likely to take such one-sided positions. If you are going to dabble in politics, try to show some signs that you've made an attempt to understand points of view that aren't entirely leftist . At least fake it and list a few centrist or (gasp!) even conservative publications on this site. If you're worried about what your friends might think, email them and let them know that it's just for show.