The Economist recently analyzed the strategic options in Iraq and concluded that all the options were bad, but the least bad was for the US to stay-the-course. Well, that's just great--they are perfectly willing to see our sons and daughters and husbands and wives and mothers and fathers die or be dismembered, and for our treasury to be raided. Not a word about, e.g., British troops who are leaving the south going to Baghdad instead of London. Not a word about funding. And, this from a Tory paper that extols free markets as virtuous because they hold people, and companies, accountable, and decries the excesses taken with "other peoples' money". (FYI/ They endorsed Bush in '00, and Kerry in '04, and were leading protagonists of invading Iraq).
If someone proposes that you sell everything and put it in a particular investment, one of early due diligence questions is whether that person is also investing. If he is not, that raises huge red flags about the investment: is it really that good? will it be properly managed? will due care be taken to ensure its success and protect the investment? By the same token, is it not appropriate to ask: "why Mr Bush has not a single member of the Bush family--nephews, nieces, children--volunteered for Iraq? Both of Lyndon Johnson's sons-in-law went to Vietnam almost immediately after marrying an LBJ daughter; indeed, it would have been unthinkable in those days for them not to have gone. David Eisenhower, Julie Nixon's husband, went into the Navy to avoid direct combat, but spun it by saying, "my grandfather told me to go into the army if you are going to make it a career, but the navy if you are not". Bogus, of course, and the beginning of tolerating lack of accountability by the armchair warriors, but at least reporters challenged him and asked the question.
Let me assure you: this could be a very potent, and legitimate point. Example: Jeb Bush appeared at the Florida booth at the biotechnology meeting in San Franscisco in 2004. I stood across from him, and asked him, "are any of your children going to volunteer for Iraq?". He answered, "no, I don't believe they will. My sons are 26-28, and my daughter, she's in college". Then, he added, "but she might do it, she might do it". Most tellingly, while he spoke he turned red in the face, and when he finished he turned on heels and walked away.
William Kristol, one of the co-founders of Project for a New American Century, appeared at a Seattle. "Host" Michael Medved asked Kristol about this "chickenhawk" question. Kristol said his youngest was in ROTC at Harvard (4 yrs away from potential deployment--want to take any bets on whether he deploys?), said nothing about his older children, and then said that he himself had been too young to volunteer for Vietnam. After the presentation, I went in the autograph line (did not buy his book) to ask Kristol when he was born: December, 1952 was his answer. The Vietnam war ended in 1975, meaning Kristol was 18 yrs old in 1971, and had 4 years he could have volunteered. Doing this highly complex math in my head, I asked him about it. Like Jeb, Kristol turned red in the face, and angrily shouted, "why should I, why should I?".
Anyone wants to venture a wild guess as to whether any of Joe Lieberman's children have volunteered for Iraq, or whether Joe volunteered for Vietnam? Chris Shays, a major Iraq War hawk, was a conscientious objector during Vietnam---one can only conclude that now that he is too old himself to volunteer that he is proving his courage as a surrogate warrior.
These people are VERY sensitive about this issue. But, no one asks. And, here's why: there is a conspiracy of silence about this matter among politicians of both parties and the media elite. No one other than the media elite gets direct access, and so the question goes unasked these days. I put in a full page ad in the LoneStar Iconoclast (Bush's hometown newspaper) during August, asking the media to ask him that question. They will not, because they depend upon these people for access, and, for that matter,they attend soirees with them. I also asked Charlie Rangel about raising the question on the House floor---his method is to propose a draft, even though that is besides the point. The LBJ sons-in-law, all of FDRs family, they all VOLUNTEERED.
The best control there is on investing other peoples' money, or other childrens' lives and limbs, is to ensure that those promoting those policies and managing them have a direct, personal stake in the outcome, not just saying one is accounting, but actually acting accountably. Now, that would be a revolution.
Forcing this question on Bush, on those who support the war in Congress, on young rightwing commentators, would surface the question of whether "staying-this-course" is acceptable as the best of bad options. As John Kerry said about Vietnam: "how do ask the last person to die for a mistake?". Until the proponents are themselves willing to volunteer or have their own flesh and blood at risk, the question of whether this is "worth it" cannot be honestly addressed.
Finally, this question can be raised to our allies in the region. If the US leaving would be a disaster for Saudi Arabia, how about the Saudis funding the war and contributing their own troops? What about the Jordanians and Egyptians? [Some of them might even know a little Arabic}. And, I don't mean a token contingent, I mean a real deployment, so the US truly stands down. If they do not act as if their lives depend upon it, why should we believe it does?
Advertisement