Merry, Merry!

Ok, people. I'm off to LA to enjoy the holiday with Reader M (a little worried that while I'm gone The Big One will strike -- there have been two decent size earthquakes in the last 3 days, the two biggest I've felt in 11 years in California.... I mention this so I can seem prescient if it happens, and by way of claiming the apotropaic effects of predicting catastrophe, i.e. it then never comes to pass).

Anyway, perhaps you are bored, and would like something to read. Perhaps you, like me, absolutely loathe Thom Friedman of the Times. Maybe you also have taken on the term "one Friedman" to mean 6 months, "2 Friedmans" to mean a year, etc. (for the uninitiated: since 2002, Friedman, who agitated for the war like he was getting paid for it, which maybe he was, has been saying "the next six months in Iraq will be critical" at roughly 2 month intervals). And maybe you have not been introduced to the pure joy that is the writing of Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi when he's on a tear. If not, let me offer you this as a Christmas offering. Feel free to eat it with your hands.

Snatching Tragically Epic Defeat From the Jaws of Seriously Historic Defeat

Want to read something crazy? Ok, go over to the Weekly Standard and read Fred Barnes' article on Bush's strategy for Iraq. Go on, do it. It's not that long, and it's a riot. For instance, it includes the following bit of pompous hilarity:

Now Bush is ready to gamble his presidency on a last-ditch effort to defeat the Sunni insurgency and establish a sustainable democracy in Iraq. He is prepared to defy the weary wisdom of Washington that it's too late, that the war in Iraq is lost, and that Bush's lone option is to retreat from Iraq as gracefully and with as little loss of face as possible. Bush only needed what his press secretary, Tony Snow, called a "plan for winning." Now he has one.

Ooooh -- a plan! Shame on me for thinking that 3 and 1/2 years into a war is, in fact, too late to get a plan. So, what does this plan entail? Ready? Ok, it's the genius idea that security has to be a established before political unity can be a serious goal. Now, that is funny, isn't it? Because these are the same people who told us that the absence of security didn't matter in the face of all of those waving purple fingers. Remember that? No? Well, you don't have to, because Bill Kristol repeated that "the war is winnable because the Iraqis voted" line again tonight on the Daily Show, and he'll do it again on the rebroadcast on Wednesday.

If you refuse to read the Weekly Standard on principle (or because it sucks), just watch the Daily Show for more of the journal's brilliance. Either way, you'll find out that we can still establish the suddenly all-important security through: more troops! Barnes' piece in the Weekly Standard cites 50,000; others are bandying about the number 20,000; Kristol only likes to voice particular numbers if he can wave his hand in the air to indicate vagueness, so who knows what number he thinks it'll be. But at any rate, we're adding some more troops, and the Standard tells us why (brace yourself):

The Keane-Kagan plan is not revolutionary. Rather, it is an application of a counterinsurgency approach that has proved to be effective elsewhere, notably in Vietnam. There, Gen. Creighton Abrams cleared out the Viet Cong so successfully that the South Vietnamese government took control of the country. Only when Congress cut off funds to South Vietnam in 1974 were the North Vietnamese able to win.

Oh man. What to say about that? First, go read my Vietnam/Iraq post below. I did warn you. Then cry a little. We had half a million troops in Vietnam. Even if you believed this bullshit about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, it would still be a preposterous comparison. Reading these people is like looking at the world in a fun-house mirror. How, please tell me, how, can they think that it's a good idea to justify an Iraq strategy based on its similarity to a Vietnam strategy? Have they ever visited Earth before?

But hey, I'm with Harry Reid. Let's let them do this. Put in the 20,000 (I'll bet major ducats they can't find 50,000; if they get close, it'll be by shuffling, not adding). Unfortunately, it won't make any difference, and here's why. The other day I heard an interview with Rajiv Chadrasekaran, author of Imperial Life in the Emerald City, explaining that during the looting after the fall of Baghdad, when the National Museum was being pillaged, and American soldiers were standing around with orders not to get involved, all it would have taken to protect the museum would have been a few shots in the air from the Americans. Because at that point, they took us seriously. They don't anymore, and an additional 20,000 or 50,000 or even 100,000 troops isn't going to get back that original fear.

So why go along with it? Well, for one thing we can't stop them. For another thing, it gets from over our head the sword of "you pacifists wouldn't let us try to win". And, I really think, it will rid us of McCain. He was planning to run on a "if they'd only listened to me" strategy. Now he's going to have to face down the long barrel of "they listened to me, and whoops." And that's where we stand. All there is left to do with Iraq is calculate whose political career it can still destroy.

It's Not Bacon, But It's Damn Good Anyway

Here's what I made for brunch on Sunday, and I advise you to do the same for a holiday treat. 'Cause it was fucking awesome. And so, I unveil (and please don't tell me if it's in some cookbook your mom has, because I'm very pleased with myself for this idea and don't need to know that your great-grandma made it in the old country): Frenchnog Toast! Or, alternatively: French Nogtoast! In my mind, those are very different options. At any rate, you make it like this:

Ingredients:
Bread, sliced
Eggs
Egg Nog
Nutmeg
Butter
Confectioner's Sugar
Maple Syrup

Take 3 slices of the bread. Poke them repeatedly with a fork to make little holes to suck up the delicious egg nectar. Crack many eggs (like 4 or so) into a bowl. Add several liberal tablespoons of Egg Nog. Add a little more to grow on. Pour some more Nog into a glass and swill that down to make sure it hasn't spoiled since you bought it yesterday. (Note: I didn't add booze to the Nog, because it was really early in the morning, but you could, if you're that type.) Whisk the eggs and Nog together until light and foamy. Add 1/4 tsp grated nutmeg and whisk some more, because whisking is very satisfying. Pour the nectar into a shallow pan or container of some sort, preferably a clean one.

Turn on a burner on the stove to medium low heat. Put 2 TBSPs butter in a skillet and put that on the burner. Allow butter to melt. While it's melting, put a slice of bread in the egg nectar. Let the bread soak a moment, then flip it and soak a bit more. Poke the bread gently with a fork or the back of a spoon to encourage it to drink the delicious egg nectar. Plop the bread gently into the skillet, pouring an extra couple of TBSPs of the egg over the top, without letting it overflow.

Now, in all seriousness: don't cook the bread on too high a heat. Because of all the sugar in the Nog, I suspect, the bread will turn too dark very easily. I know you don't believe me, and will try to hurry the cooking by using higher heat, and that's why I told you to use 3 slices of bread, so that you could screw up the first piece finding out that I'm right.

Once the bread is golden brown on one side, gently flip. Cook to same color on Side B. Remove from pan to warmed plate. Spread a little butter very gently over the top. Sprinkle with confectioner's sugar like a little loving snowfall. Pour maple syrup over the top in a ribboning motion for full coverage.

Eat and, if desired, lick plate.

Then add bourbon to the remaining egg nog, say fuck it, drink the whole thing, and go back to bed.

Miss Manners

It's official! Mary Cheney and her girlfriend, Heather Poe, are welcoming their first child in the spring. This is great, because what the world lacks is enough Cheneys. They make so many fine contributions -- especially in the area of courtesy. For example, we have Mary's own description of her reaction to John Edwards at the '04 Vice-Pres. debate. Remember that? Where Edwards, in answer to a specific question about the gay Cheney daughter (a fact that no one, and especially not Mary herself, ever remembers), famously said the hurtful, cruel words: "I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her." Remember that shameful episode of Democratic nastiness? So, here's Mary Cheney on Fox with Chris Wallace a few months ago, describing her family's measured, rational response to the Vice-Presidential candidate:

WALLACE: You were sitting in the audience that night in Edwards' line of sight. What did you think and what did you do?

CHENEY: I was in the very front row, and I was very angry, as was the rest of my family, because it was such a cheap and blatant political ploy on behalf of Senator Edwards.

You know, my initial reaction was one I'm not necessarily sure is appropriate to share on television, but...

WALLACE: You mouthed an expletive, correct?

CHENEY: That would be a good way to put it, yes. [Ed. note: The expletive in question was "fuck you", which is, properly speaking, not an expletive but an obscene phrase. So it's not really a good way to put it, is it? And I will also point out that the expletive within the phrase is one that falls so easily from the Cheney lips that they have gifted it to the halls of the Senate and the stage of a televised national debate. With any luck, the new Cheney will someday have the honor of introducing "fuck" to the Queen of England, perhaps during a moment of silence at an Armistice Day ceremony, eh? At any rate, let us continue with how the Cheney's coped that on that awful, awful day of the debate:]

WALLACE: And your mom and your sister?

CHENEY: My mom and my sister took a slightly higher road. They stuck their tongues out at him.

Right. They stuck their tongues out at him. Now that I'm faced with that, I have to recant my previous comments and say that I vastly prefer a nice, solid "fuck you" to a couple of grown women acting like five-year-olds. So really, it's sounding great that we're going to have more Cheneys to carry the burden of guarding society against rude and inconsiderate speech.

And it's for this reason that, while Andrew Sullivan sees this as an occasion to commiserate with Mary about her inability to make an honest woman of her better half (despite the fact that Mary herself said on Fresh Air a few months ago that she didn't actually want to get married) -- I, on the other hand, see this event as offering a rather different opportunity. To me, it is a chance to once again replay the beauty, the hilarity, the astounding and hideous terror that is -- Biggus Dickus Dickus Cheneyus! My friends, turn your eyes southward, and thank all that is holy for the poverty and social obscurity that separates you from that thing -- whatever it may be:

Blow the Trumpets! The Vietnam/Iraq Post Is Here!

Much anticipated, and very long, the Vietnam vs. Iraq throwdown you've been waiting for. There are no links or italics or underlinings or photos because the new version of Blogger is evidently broken. Let us pray they fix it soon, so I can spice up my lengthy ramblings.

And now, let us begin:

It's odd that Bush went to Vietnam the other week. Wouldn't you have thought he'd want to avoid that of all locations? Especially given that he managed to go in the midst of a dizzying flurry of "Is Iraq another Vietnam?" reporting. The Times, the Post, the News Hour -- it was everywhere. And so what does Bush do? Goes to Vietnam. Sometimes I think that if I were writing the story of the last five years as a novel, any reputable agent would tell me the narrative was unpublishably predictable. Especially given that, when asked to compare Iraq and Vietnam, while IN Vietnam, Bush helpfully explained that in both cases we could win unless we quit. Not exactly a tactful thing to say to a Vietnamese government that traces its origins to the outcomes of our quitting, and also not very helpful to call Americans historically weak-willed.

By the way, how are you liking the new, bipartisan Bush? Isn’t he just so different now?

All of this brings me to a question: what the hell are the lessons of Vietnam, anyway? Because listening to the ad infinitum reporting over the last few weeks, I really couldn't tell. If you get any two foreign policy experts together, and ask them to talk about the lessons of Vietnam, or the comparison between Vietnam and Iraq, they promptly bog down in detail bickering. You know -- "Well, Steve, I must remind you that in 1965 when we were involved with talks ..." -- that kind of thing. Which is singularly unhelpful, because, of course, Iraq is not LITERALLY Vietnam. If we're looking for differences, we can for sure find plenty of them. But it seems to me the issue is the fact that there's disagreement at all. How is it possible that 30 years later we have absolutely no sense of the meaning, or lessons if you will, of a war that cost us a decade and 58,000 lives? Especially given that we were all apparently unaware for those 30 years of the very fact of our own unawareness.

For the record, I had always thought that the lessons of Vietnam were (and these were gleaned from a vast array of cultural and educational sources):
1.) Avoid a land war in Asia (cf The Princess Bride)
2.) Don't blame the troops (a concept the right certainly picked up on, to judge by their fanatical use of it as a cudgel against liberals)
3.) Don't go to war for stupidly ideological purposes (the Domino Theory? Seriously??); corellary: get over the idea that systems of government are contagious
4.) Don't lie about Gulfs of Tonkin or bombings of Cambodia (or equivalent)
5.) Don't treat other people's countries as your chattel (see "Don't go to war for
stupidly ideological purposes,” above)

It turns out that the Neocons you hear so much about learned a rather different set of lessons. To them, who were once Democrats and became Republicans under Reagan, the lessons of Vietnam boiled down rather simply to the failure to show sufficient commitment. This was the fault of the public, the liberals, the hippies and, perhaps more than anyone else, the press. It was this line that Bush was repeating. It’s this line you can still hear in the Weekly Standard and National Review. It was buried in Kissinger’s nastily calculating comment that Iraq is unwinnable “in the time period that the political processes of democracies will support”.

All of which means that the question -- "Is Iraq another Vietnam?" -- is a false one, not only for the reasons of detail I mentioned above, but because the answer doesn't matter in any case. Iraq doesn't need to be Vietnam for the lessons of Vietnam -- whatever you take them to be -- to apply to Iraq, simply because it was the people disgruntled over Vietnam who got us into Iraq, to soothe their hurt and to demonstrate, most importantly, that you don’t need long-term public support when you’ve got a new army and a spruced up, post-9/11 ideology. I would go so far as to say that these people were waiting around for 9/11, and Christopher Hitchens, who has a great deal in common with the Neocons, has as much as admitted that 9/11 was for him an ideological godsend.

Now these people are in an interesting pickle. Whatever else it was about, and however much detail bickering you’d like to engage in, the fact is that Vietnam tested the idea of voluntary warfare, and demonstrated the outer limit of our democracy’s willingness to pursue purely elective military goals. Given that Neocons attribute the loss of that war to insufficient public will (after 10 years, 58,000 dead and, at the end, over a half million troops in-country), it seems rather moronic of them to have based an entire political theory on the idea that that same public will would be so different this time around. It appears, if I may say so, naïve.

But Neocon naivete should not be credited on its face. Some of it hides a secret cunning. For instance, Neocons could only make the argument they made about Vietnam because of the draft. The draft meant effectively unlimited manpower resources, until the drawdown (“Vietnamization”). This allowed total blame for the press, the public, and the Democratically controlled Congress. Now, in Iraq, with a tiny military, these people find themselves begging for 20,000 troops (see this week’s Weekly Standard for proof), not because that would help (it certainly wouldn’t), but so that they can then say, when they don’t get those troops, that it was the public/press/Congress’s fault that we lost the war. They’ve replaced the actual possibilities offered by the Vietnam-era giant army with a bit of casuistry. And it’s not very pretty behavior.

Of course, the only honorable thing to do in their position – given that they think this war MUST be won or the sky will fall and the devil will reign for seven years and a giant hell mouth will open and swallow us all – well, given that they feel that way, shouldn’t they demand a draft as a matter of patriotic duty? And, by not doing so, don’t they sell out their principles to court precisely the public favor that they disdain? Don’t they, in effect, sell out American honor – judging by their standards, understand, not mine – for immediate political comfort? Doesn’t that make them, at the very least, no better than the rest of us, and probably worse? Oh yes, let me assure you, it DOES.

I have to say, I’ve had enough of these idiots – the Bill Kristols, the Podhoretzes (pere and fils), the Richard Perles, and their various sidekicks at the Weekly Standard, the National Review, the American Enterprise Institute, and so on. No doubt you don’t read them, and God spare you should, because they are truly horrifying – if you want, I’ll pull out a few gems for you sometime and put them on display – but I do read them, in the interests of research, and they make my skin crawl. Their greatest crime wasn’t the founding of an ideological movement grounded on a misinterpretation of the lessons of Vietnam; their crime – and it is a grievous one -- is the constant shifting of blame for a war they created in the service of that ideology onto those who are ultimately going to pay the bill – financial, physical, spiritual – of that war. By whom I mean, us.

And it is in this way that Iraq is another Vietnam. Those who failed to learn from Vietnam lied, cheated, and manipulated us into Iraq, and now they are busy making sure that Iraq confirms their theory of Vietnam: that these two wars were not lost due to flawed ideology, but thanks to a disloyal public.

To which I say, yeah, well fuck you too.