Category: The Dish

Philip Carter on the latest news from Iraq:

The New York Times reports this afternoon that the mother of all political deals may be coming together in Baghdad, one that would bring Iraq’s largest Sunni political bloc back into the Shiite-led government.This is potentially huge news. If this grand bargain goes through (and there is some reason for worry), it would represent a substantial step toward rapprochement between the Sunnis and the Maliki government and toward the formation of a viable, lasting national government. It could also boost the prospects for provincial elections in the fall.

I’m relieved by this:

About one thing I wish to be piercingly clear: I do not believe that Andrew Sullivan is an anti-Semite. No, it is more than a matter of my own belief. I know as an incontrovertible fact, based on my long acquaintance with him and his writings, that he is not an anti-Semite. Of course he is not an anti-Semite. I should have said so before I pounced.

The valid question at issue is the following:

Why a Catholic cannot call a Muslim a fraud or a Jew call a Protestant a liar or an agnostic call a believer a cynic, or why one’s identity should have any bearing upon the truth or falsity of anything one says.

I take that point. Yes, in some respects, anyone is at liberty to call anyone else a fraud and their own identity can be irrelevant to that judgment. What I was trying to get at – not so artfully – is the following point. When a Catholic calls another Catholic a bad Catholic or a phony Catholic, it is evident that he is fighting over what both acknowledge is the same corpus of belief. They are both trying to get at the truth they should share. There is an understandable inference of sincerity and good faith. But if, say, a Muslim were to call a Catholic a fraud, it is not so clear that he is arguing out of sympathy for the common belief. And if he also has a political advantage in playing up divisions within another faith community, one’s suspicion of cynicism and opportunism on his part should ratchet up a notch. That was my point. In retrospect, I think I over-stated it. But I don’t think it’s without merit either.

Why Obama should drop out. It’s jujitsu:

Dropping out now nearly guarantees that he’ll be elected president in 2012. Here’s the roadmap:

Obama drops out next week, stating that although he could almost certainly win the nomination by fighting it out until the convention in August, he is simply not willing to drag the party through a battle that will cripple its chances against John McCain. He then pledges to help support Sen. Clinton in her bid—with full knowledge that she will not take him up on the offer.

In one stroke, Obama will regain his messiah creds by making the ultimate sacrifice for the good of the party. His followers will be furious. The mere mention of Clinton’s name will provoke unspeakable acts. They will abandon Clinton in numbers sufficient to hand McCain the election in November.

The trouble is: it would be a betrayal of his supporters and his message. And there is a golden rule in politics: never give the Clintons a life-line. They will use it to strangle you the minute they have the opportunity.

"No matter how many kicks the rest of us find in such famously fun primary states as Indiana and South Dakota, it’s going to be McCain versus Obama in 2008. I believe the cement set around the Clinton coffin last Friday. The Obama campaign announced it had received the support of former Sens. Sam Nunn of Georgia and David Boren of Oklahoma," – Daniel Henninger, Wall Street Journal.

Vladimir Nabokov’s son allows the publication of something his father never wanted to see the light of day. It’s hard to control what people make of or do with your work after you’re dead. But the important thing is: we know the author’s intention. And readers can weigh that in the balance.

A reader writes:

I’ve been following your debate with McArdle and Larison about war crimes and total war with interest.  I think it’s misguided to conflate things like Night Area Bombing of Nazi Germany, or even the use of the Atomic Bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with things like torture camps. They’re just entirely different in kind.  Strategic bombing in World War II fulfilled clear strategic objectives in fighting very powerful industrialized nations: it weakened the will of the people to fight; it destroyed industrial capacity and killed factory workers; and it demonstrated the severe consequences of starting wars.  I put things like this on par with General Tecumseh Sherman’s March to the Sea during the Civil War, in which he burnt down houses and destroyed essential infrastructure.  His professed aim was to: "make war so terrible that they will be ready to exhaust all peaceful remedies before taking up arms."  These aims–a speedy end to war and the prevention of future war–are legitimate and real: the south has not fought again, nor (yet) have Germany and Japan.

 

Torture and torture camps are an entirely different aspect of war, and in my view they are unjustifiable.  The difference is that torture’s aim is as much humiliation and dehumanization as it is to obtain information. 

A personal anecdote: I went to a Quaker High School, and when we attacked Afghanistan, many people at the school expressed disapproval at our Meeting for Worship (the Quaker religious service).  I stood to defend the war.  I’m still proud I did that. What I’m not proud of was the words I used.  I called the men we were fighting "animals, who deserved to be treated like animals."  This is the mentality that not only justifies torture but makes it appealing: to reduce your enemies to pathetic creatures; to at once demonstrate your superiority and to make someone–anyone will do–the vessel for your own pain and your own humiliation.  It’s a psychological form of warfare all the way down, and it dehumanizes all parties.

 

So it confuses the issue to talk about strategic bombing as being comparable to the torture regime.  Strategic bombing and the like aims to end war and prevent war.  The torture regime is a war on persons and an exercise in power and domination for its own sake.  If we can’t make this distinction, it’s difficult to see where the Allies and the Nazis would part ways in our moral calculus.

The candidate the Clintons and Rove say is weak has a 52 – 38 percent lead over McCain. Clinton’s lead is 5 percent. There’s a reason the GOP establishment wants Clinton. And the "he’s a commie leftist God-Hating racist" line of attack hasn’t worked too well:

Sixty percent (60%) of Minnesota voters have a favorable opinion of Obama, up from 57% a month ago. McCain’s favorables are at 56%, Clinton’s at 51%.

The only way past this is through it. Yes he can!

Michelle Cottle draws a line. Good luck, Michelle.