[KB] "Trivial Repetition," "Dull, Daily Reenforcement"
Edward C Appel
edwardcappel at frontier.com
Fri Sep 12 14:46:52 EDT 2014
Greg,
Yes, we'll have to disagree on this one. The "Saddam problem," as you call it---left over from the Gulf War---was for me the "Saddam solution," albeit a very distasteful one, I admit. The mess that the British and other victors of WWI created with the disparate parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire was at least being covered over, tamped down, by the dictator in question, in his area of control anyway. Take Saddam out of the picture, and look what we got.
As for whatever that great "coalition" Bush senior was able to muster together might have been able to do by way of social control in the '90s and beyond---you're more optimistic than I am. I see no reason to believe that a commensurate level of chaos would not have ensued.
We have chosen, rather the moneyed interests that rule this nation have chosen, to squeeze profits out of the last drop of oil that can be drilled from the sacred ground of planet Earth. That's our fundametaL issue, or one of them, in all this. We should long ago have solved our addiction to this intoxicating brew. Our ecosystems are sinking fast into rising seas, flood waters in states, provinces, and island nations, and a biosphere on a headlong slide into another major extinction.
Whatever the "truth" about the present conundrum and its causes, I find it difficult to credit Obama in particular, or the Democrats in general, for rhetorical effectiveness.
Ed
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 9/12/14, Gregory Desilet <info at gregorydesilet.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [KB] "Trivial Repetition," "Dull, Daily Reenforcement"
To: "Ed Appel" <edwardcappel at frontier.com>
Cc: kb at kbjournal.org
Date: Friday, September 12, 2014, 1:58 PM
While I admit I venture
skeptically and cynically into the can of worms that is
American politics and foreign policy, I have to disagree
with you on this posting, Ed. I think Obama has done a
reasonable job in attempting to extricate us from our
military involvements in the Middle East. No matter what
course of action chosen, the likelihood of broad approval
would be slim (damned if he does this, damned if he does
that).
American and
British involvement in the Middle East has had a long and
tortured history—due to alliances there and dependency on
oil. The Gulf War was, in my opinion, a necessary action and
it rightly received broad international support. The big
mistake we made—the mistake made by Colin Powell and Bush
Sr—was to leave Saddam in power. Granted, the U.S. did not
have international support to go all the way to Baghdad, but
after Saddam set fire to the oil wells in Kuwait, Bush Sr.
had the high ground for pursuing him and no one on the
international scene would have had substantial moral or
political ground to oppose such action. At that point in
time, due to the international coalition created for the
Gulf War, the U.S. could have removed Saddam from power and
left the U.N. and the international community with the task
of overseeing nation re-building in Iraq. If, subsequently,
the political scene in Iraq blew up, the international
community would have been as involved as the U.S. in
overseeing and cleaning up the mess. The U.S. would not have
had to go it alone—as was the case following the Iraq War.
As things happened, Bush
Jr. had to confront the mess left by his father and the poor
decision he and Powell made. If Bush Jr. had not acted, the
Saddam problem would have continued to fester until another
American president would be forced to confront him and his
militant aggression in the Middle East again—and possibly
under worse circumstances. Bush Jr. seized an opportunity to
do what should have been done previously—remove Saddam
from power. Unfortunately, the situation no longer drew
international support and Bush should have backed off until
he could get such support. That he did not do this was his
big mistake.
Whether we
like it or not, the U.S. has an intricate set of
involvements and commitments in the Middle East and there is
no easy short cut political way to change that history. The
only good thing to do at this point is attempt to learn from
past mistakes and make better decisions regarding our
actions there. Thus far, Obama has been reluctant to repeat
mistakes of the past. He is building international support
for American actions regarding Iraq and Syria. I doubt very
much he will commit any large number of boots on the ground
there during the rest of his term. He will let the various
factions fight it out among themselves, while lending modest
and cautious support to the factions that appear closer to
our interests. That few hawks or doves in the U.S. will like
this approach is a given, and Obama knows this. But thus far
he has had the courage to chart the unpopular course—one
that exposes him to criticism from every side. I think he
deserves credit for that since, as I say, I believe it’s
the better from among a lot of ugly options.
Greg Desilet
On
Sep 12, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Edward C Appel <edwardcappel at frontier.com>
wrote:
> Burkophiles,
>
> I asked in a
chapter in Praeger’s Venomous Speech last year, “Where
Is the Democratic Narrative, FDR Style?” That piece had
mainly to do with the polemical malfeasance of the Dems in
dealing with, rhetorically pretty much ignoring, what
globalization has done to aggravate the income gap in
USAmerica the past three and a half decades. (Tax policies
are culpable, too, we know, in multiple ways.) Senator
Warren appeared on Moyers on PBS last Sunday. She listed
four Democratic proposals she thinks are winning issues
going into the Fall elections. Moyers asked her why, then,
aren’t we hearing more about them from Democratic
candidates and their spokespersons? Warren really had no
good answer.
>
>
Burke says in the Rhetoric (p. 26), “Often we must
think of rhetoric not in terms of one particular address,
but as a general BODY OF IDENTIFICATIONS that owe their
convincingness much more to trivial repetition and dull
daily reenforcement than to exceptional rhetorical skill”
(emphasis in original).
>
> I monitor Fox News daily. That
propaganda network masquerading as a news channel (I know,
we can say the same thing about MSNBC) is near-fanatically
repetitive in promoting its conservative, anti-Obama
agenda. Fox is relentless. Case in point: Bill
O’Reilly has invidiously targeted the President in his
opening “memo” for as many nights as I can remember.
Another: Wish I had even one dollar for every time I’ve
watched our consulate in Benghazi burn on my Channel 48.
They don’t let up.
>
> Add this mantra to the list: Bush 2
“won” our righteous “War on Terror” with the surge
in Iraq. Obama came into office, took our troops out of
that country, and now has “lost” a war that Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz had brought a U.S. victory
and peace to!
>
>
The rhetorically inept, more accurately altogether
missing, response by Obama in his “leading from behind”
speech on Wednesday, and in his fumbling precursors to that
address, are dispiriting.
>
> First and foremost, Obama was and
is uniquely situated to characterize the Iraq War for what
it plainly was: A mendacious military adventure, foisted on
USAmerica by subterfuge and deception, a cynical
exploitation of the shock of 9/11, not merely a “dumb
war.” Fifteen Saudis and four Egyptians, under the
leadership of a wealthy Saudi, trained in Afghanistan,
highjacked four commercial jetliners and perpetrated the
mayhem of that frightful day. Saddam, we knew even then,
had nothing to do with it. Nor did his chemical weapons,
if they even had existed and they didn’t, nor did his
so-called “mushroom cloud” potential, pose any real
threat to this nation. Again, we knew even then that
Iraq’s nuclear ambitions, even if real, were as yet no
more than hope, if not fantasy. And, for anyone paying
attention, the Bush-Cheney fear-mongering had already been
shot down in an op-ed in the NYTimes by Ambassador Wilson,
and by clear-headed reporting
> by the
McClatchy News Service.
>
> So, what happened after waste of a
trillion dollars (it will be three trillion or more after
medical expenditures are exhausted a half-century from now),
loss of thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of
maimings and woundings, and destruction and shattering of
this jerry-built nation of warring sects that only a tyrant
like Saddam could hold together—what happened after the
candidate who promised to end the Iraq War came to power?
He stopped calling the war what it really was and started
treating it pretty much like a somewhat legitimate
enterprise we had to bring to an end “responsibly.”
Obama was even planning to keep fifty thousand (or was it
eighty thousand?) troops in Iraq in perpetuity, before
al-Maliki said “no way” to our insistence on military
immunity. (And Obama doesn’t even defend himself on that
issue.)
>
>
You may object that Obama had to metamorphose into a “war
president,” since he was then Commander-in-Chief.
Can’t in any way imply that our soldiers died in vain in a
conflict subversively motivated by oil, Israel, Bush family
score-settling, or plans for victorious re-election in 2004
by a flight-jacketed president after “Mission
Accomplished.”
>
>
Upshot: There exists a corrupt context to what Obama
and USAmerica face in the current chaos of the Middle
East. It is a context that requires repetition and more
repetition still by leadership that has some semblance of
the near-self -destructive insanity of America’s vaunted
“War on Terror.” As he takes us into yet another phase
of this resource-draining, quick-sand tugging, tar-baby of a
conflict, someone with a megaphone has to stand up and shout
down the McCains and Foxies who current occupy the
rhetorical terrain uncontestred.
>
> I have no hope that Obama’s the
one.
>
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> KB mailing list
> KB at kbjournal.org
> http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org
More information about the KB
mailing list