The Right and the War

A reader has an insight:

Looking at the comment by Rich Lowry you highlighted today ("for all his swagger and protectiveness of executive prerogatives ‚Äî is becoming a disturbing study in lassitude in the executive branch"), it occurred to me that you can read it two ways. One is that Bush, as has often been noted even by allies, is rather intellectually lazy, incurious and generally detached from things that call for close attention or expertise (such as the Presidency, fighting wars, etc.). That’s not the Lowry we all know and love. The other – and the point I think Lowry tries subtly to make – is that Bush didn’t exert enough power in the execution of the war. He should have listened more to Cheney. We needed more executive privilege, more top-secret decisions, more "commander-in-chief" type leadership, whereas Bush preferred the comfortable position of simply being another branch of a democratic government. There’s also a clear dig at the generals there – if Bush had just kicked their asses a bit more, they might have gotten something done.

What we needed was more troops, more allies and an actual post-invasion plan (which Rumsfeld vetoed). Even then, it would have been tough. What we didn’t need was more bombs, more torture, more executive secrecy and more unilateralism. But the terrible lack of that list of horribles seems to be an emerging theme on the denialist right. My reader continues:

I predict that we will start seeing a new meme emerge from the Right (and linked to approvingly by Reynolds): Bush just wasn’t tough enough: he countenanced treasonous dissent in the press and in Congress; he was too cautious, too afraid of ticking off the ACLU and all those bleeding heart Europeans; he was too soft on the generals and failed to expand the war to Syria and Iran when he had the chance. That, combined with "the Iraqis were a bunch of incompetent ingrates" will comprise the Right’s assessment of this war over the next two years.

We’ll see, won’t we? But given the dreadful record of much of the conservative intelligentsia these past few years, I wouldn’t be surprised.

Atheist Proselytizing

An Australian atheist gets ticked off by pre-lunch Mormon proselytizing, so he gives a fireside rant and then travels to Salt Lake City and goes door to door trying to convert people to Darwinism. Since I have now offended every Mormon by publishing a picture of the undergarments, I figure I have nothing left to lose by posting this YouTube. It’s not something I’d do myself (I tell proselytizing Mormons that I’m Catholic and, if that doesn’t work, that I’m a flamer), but it’s somewhat revealing about some double standards with respect to religion and other views of the universe:

Papal Fashion

The correlation between strict orthodoxy and fabulous outifts is a long one, as this Harvard Advocate piece points out. Money quote:

"[T]he Catholic use of art and design to broadcast a message of strength and authority in times of transition is not new. In response to the Protestant Reformation, Baroque art became the propaganda of the Counterreformation. As Protestantism embraced a simpler aesthetic, Catholic art became more extravagant. The new churches rejected such indulgences as idolatrous and sinful. Catholics, however, played up this dichotomy in order to assert their identity as well as influence the hearts and minds of everyday churchgoers who marveled at the glory of the cathedrals and representations of holy figures. Protestants may have offered a more intimate relationship to God through study of the Bible, but Catholics put on a better show…"

The NCR sees this a little differently:

It has become apparent in recent years that there’s been an upsurge in historical ecclesiastical finery and other goods. We’ve seen more birettas (those funny three-peak hats with the fuzzy ball on top that come in different colors depending on clerical rank) and cassocks (the kind with real buttons, no zippers for the purists) and ecclesiastically correct color shoes and socks, lots of lacy surplices and even the capa magna (yards and yards of silk, a cape long enough that it has to be attended by two altar boys or seminarians, also in full regalia). In some places they’re even naming monsignors again.
It’s as if someone has discovered a props closet full of old stuff and they’re putting it out all over the stage. …

It really is the Age of Conservative Denial, isn’t it?

Underwear, Again

An email I should address:

I’m a pretty reasonable Mormon. I live in MA, voted for Deval Patrick, got my MBA from Boston University after going to BYU. I also served a two year mission.

Your garment picture is offensive to me. You showing them and joking about them (to me) would be like having a rave in the holy of holys to a Jew or touching the Koran to a devout Muslim.

Every worthy LDS church member that has been a member longer than 1 year most likely wears them. You are offending a lot of people.

I’m sorry I was unaware of the underwear. I’m sorry if my eyebrows jumped a notch. But I am not sorry for publishing a visual of them. My response is the same to Mormons as it was to Muslims who were offended by my publishing images of Muhammad. This is your taboo, not mine. And this is a free country. If you cannot handle some inspection of your religious practices, then you need to find some other place to live.

I dare say this blog has revealed more about Mormonism to a mainstream audience than many other outlets in recent history. I’ve linked to many Mormon websites and sources of information. I’ve published emails from Mormons. I’m busy reading more. And I have to say that the more I read about Mormons’ understanding of the constitution and politics, the more I actually agree with them. They seem very keen on the separation of church and state, religious liberty, and the separation of powers – much more so than the evangelical right. It comes, perhaps, from a deeper understanding of what it actually means to be a despised minority in this country. Yes, they are virulently homophobic. But so are most organized religions, sadly. And all in all, this past week has made me far less concerned about a Mormon president than I might have been. In fact, I think the message of constitutional propriety and reverence that seems common among Mormons could do well in appealing to the conservative center, especially in contrast with the bullying and contempt for the constitution displayed among many Christianists. But it’s foolish in my view for Mormons to be so sensitive. If Romney runs, you’ll need to deal with this. And you’d best get a thicker skin.

Ten Months

Baghdadhadimizbanap

Rich Lowry finally comes out of denial about Bush:

Bush simply has failed to run his war. Historian Eliot Cohen describes how, in contrast, the best American wartime president conducted himself: "Lincoln had not merely to select his generals, but to educate, train and guide them. To this end he believed that he had to master the details of war, from the technology to the organization and movement of armies, if only to enable himself to make informed judgments about general officers."

Bush has taken the opposite approach and — for all his swagger and protectiveness of executive prerogatives — is becoming a disturbing study in lassitude in the executive branch.

A new Cornerite, Mario Loyola, is even forced to the following concession:

I still think that given the alternatives ‚Äî in 2000, the disturbingly insincere and megalomaniac Al Gore; and in 2004, the sincerely pompous and foolish John Kerry‚ÄîBush was by far the better choice. But in the end, in these horribly difficult times, America needed a leader of real greatness …

Well, yes and no. In 2004, we knew Bush was a failure. Hence my decision to give someone else a chance. On September 12, 2001, I wrote in this space:

The only question is whether we will get the leadership now to deal with this or whether we will have to endure even worse atrocities before a real leader emerges.

For well over a year after that, I did all I could to give this president the benefit of every doubt, until, in the weeks afer the Iraq invasion and the torture revelations, it became impossible to continue to do so. Four years later, I think we now all sadly know the answer to the question of whether we had the right leader at the right time. The Iraq failure, I should add, does not mean surrender. It means a tactical retreat from a dreadful error in order to fight again. But not recognizing it as an irretrievable failure at this point is pure fantasy. In war, we cannot afford fantasy. We need strategy, based on a cold, hard empirical look at where we are. You think Churchill would have advised fighting on to retain Dunkirk? The choices are as Tom Friedman puts them today:

10 months or 10 years. Either we just get out of Iraq in a phased withdrawal over 10 months, and try to stabilize it some other way, or we accept the fact that the only way it will not be a failed state is if we start over and rebuild it from the ground up, which would take 10 years. This would require reinvading Iraq, with at least 150,000 more troops, crushing the Sunni and Shiite militias, controlling borders, and building Iraq’s institutions and political culture from scratch.

Given our military constraints, the message of the last election, and the inadequacy of presidential leadership, I’m compelled to say: 10 months.

(Photo: Hadi Mizban/AP.)