Malaise? Hardly

We're not really at a tipping point as much as a bursting point. People are mad as hell, unwilling to take it anymore.

David Brooks editorializes in the NY times today on how he views today's America--and its rather grim. It is a view where people have lost confidence in their leadership, and he lists a myriad of reasons, after mentioning Katrina, why this is so:

Over the past few years, we have seen intelligence failures in the inability to prevent Sept. 11 and find W.M.D.'s in Iraq. We have seen incompetent postwar planning. We have seen the collapse of Enron and corruption scandals on Wall Street. We have seen scandals at our leading magazines and newspapers, steroids in baseball, the horror of Abu Ghraib.

Public confidence has been shaken too by the steady rain of suicide bombings, the grisly horror of Beslan and the world's inability to do anything about rising oil prices.

Each institutional failure and sign of helplessness is another blow to national morale. The sour mood builds on itself, the outraged and defensive reaction to one event serving as the emotional groundwork for the next.

America, for good or for bad, was never the same after September 11th. That was the day that we became vulnerable. The public began asking questions, and our voyeuristic media, watched and recorded how we "felt." Brooks refrains in his editorial from mentioning a few events. Being that we are not the hopeless type, a little more than one month after 9-11, the United States and a coalition of allies masterfully executed the destruction of al-Qaeda's sanctuary, removed the Taliban from power, and paved the way for the first free democratic elections in the dark history of that country. Afghanistan is now an ally in the GWOT and we accomplished it in less than 3 years.

The media has been rather silent on the issue.

Attention drifted back to Iraq, who we were still at war with. Saddam Hussein was shooting at us and laughing at the U.N. for 10 years since the cease-fire to end Desert Storm. Strong debate over what to do about this meglomaniacal dictator in light of 9-11 polarized not only this country, but the world. At one point and time, everyone made the decision to support this, or not. Some felt that we were becoming too paranoid and that our fear was unfounded, while others urged a stronger approach.

The limitations of international organizations came to the forefront as a Cold-War institution, the U.N., wasn't able to resolve this issue without war. Either Saddam kept giving us the finger, or we'd go in there and clock him. Apparently Congress agreed, as they gave the President the authority to use force in order to get Saddam to comply with the dozen U.N. resolutions he was violating. Bush, in April of 2003, risked his whole presidency on that fact, ignored his critics, and gave the order for a mission that had no precident. At ever turn, America would have to improvise, learn from mistakes and literally write the book on counterinsurgency.

Saddam Hussein was no idiot. He had a lot of money, and after watching years of CNN, understood that for America to be defeated, she would have to be defeated at the polls. Tommy Franks engineered a lightening strike against Iraq that had the American coalition occupying the entire country in less than a month. Even though Saddam's army was humiliated again, they weren't all dead. They went underground, had stores of munitions and lots of cash. From here they would begin the ball rolling on an insurgency that was incapable of defeating the Americans on the battlefield, but focused on ripping her apart at home.

In summer and fall of 1944, the Allies were cruising through Europe and the Germans were being beating back. The Third Army, commanded by Patton, was moving so quickly, his tanks were running out of gas before the supply lines could catch up; the Allies thought they would be home before Christmas.

On December 16th, Hitler would remind them all that the enemy always gets a say in the course of events, and counterattacked with over 500,000 men. It was an intellegence failure of epic porportions. Germany was able to move 500,000 men into a concentrated spot within smelling distance of the American front lines, and acheived complete surprise.

Needless to say, the war would not be over. Hilter was desperate, and some would argue still in a position where he couldn't win the war, but he struck back and hit hard. Instead of recriminations, Eisenhower accepted responsibility, and ordered Patton north to hit the Germans. Many good men had to die due to this last-ditch effort, but it was not needless. It was a point where the Allies picked themselves off the ground, and tenaciously fought back to hold off the German advance. It would be at least another year, but V E Day couldn't of happened if we turn and ran when the supposedly "defeated" German Army staged their last stand.

Today, 50% of the people in this country continue to view Iraq through the prism of Bush. The Democratic leadership, instead of seeing the conflict in Iraq as a conflict between freedom and repression, have decided that they too are unable to see this without looking through the same prism. They hate him with such a passion, that they are unable to understand from recent history that war is not about avoiding mistakes, it is about moving on from them when they do occur. Watching the frothing of the mouth that has come from them as they try and assign blame to each piece of bad news, first made me shake my head in disbelief. Vapid arguments like Fahrenheit 9-11 were laughable in their silliness.

I agree, David, that people are mad as hell. I'm one of them. I'm sick and pissed off at the utter insanity that is spewing from half this country when we are in the middle of a war. It is a war in which we have utterly destroyed the enemy in every major engagement, and one where al-Qaeda and fundamentalist Islam has began to loose support amongst the majority of Iraqis.

Is this fight over? No-freaking-way. Civil War there is a real possibility, but for the first time, leaders in that country are saying things like, "Let's use the political process to solve our differences." Can you tell me of a case where someone in an Arab country made such a suggestion in the last century?

Anyone? Bueller?

Brooks mentions Enron as well. As far as I'm concerned, while Enron had an impact in legislation and was something that adversely affected far too many innocent, hardworking people, the long-term effects to the psyche of the markets is long over. Since then, the economy has rebounded mightily. It's original decline was in whole not primarily owed to Enron, but because of the popping of the largest market bubble the world has ever seen. After the implosion of Silicon Valley, we rebounded and in less than a year had the economy steaming full ahead again.

But, what hasn't changed, is the complete disaffection and obsession that many have with George Bush. Even after the election, there is no canard they will let pass through their fingers without trying to stick it on him. From Michael Moore to Cindy Sheehan, there remains a severe lack of credibility and reasoned thinking on the majority of his opponents. Logical reason has gone the way of the Dodo; it has become fashionable to just emote. Somehow, according to these folks, the louder you emote, the more authentic and relevent you are. Unfortunately, the "impartial" news media likes this narrative as well.

David, I'm mad as hell and refuse to take it anymore. Criticsm should not escape any public official, and there are plenty of issues to legitimately debate (you mention some good examples in your editorial), but when it's lowest common denominator is constantly given credibility, we cease to function effectively. If the Democrats want to give the alcoholic drunk uncle the microphone at their wedding, fine. At mine, however, I'm taking that drunk uncle outside, giving him a few waps across the face and an order not to return until he is ready to act like an adult again.

Posted by 10 fingers 6 strings at September 4, 2005 06:36 PM | TrackBack