Devils and the Deep Blue Sea
The non-victory-lap victory lap broadcast from the Oval Office last week showed beyond any lingering doubt that young Mr. Obama is every bit the prevaricator that young Mr. Bush was. But the mission semi-accomplished speech carried an even darker announcement: the unconditional surrender of our political leadership to the American Pentarchy, that malevolent confluence of Big Brother, Big Bucks, Big Oil, Big Arms, Big Bandwidth, Big Jesus, Big Zion, and big-shot generals and politicians who sustain the Pentagon’s Long War agenda.
Only someone with the IQ of a tea bag could fail to recognize that Obama’s Mission Pseudo-Accomplished speech was a post-Orwellian masterpiece of Dubya-class disassembly.
“The combat mission in Iraq has ended,” Obama told us, but there’s lots of fighting ahead. Our troops “defeated a regime that had terrorized” Iraq’s people, then they “shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people” from, uh, each other. Because of “the resilience of the Iraqi people,” they’re still a threat to themselves. “All U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year” unless our generals and other military advisers say leaving is a bad idea, which they’ve already said, time and time and time and time and time and time again. And oh yeah, all this is Bush’s fault, but you can’t doubt the schmuck’s “support for our troops or his love of country and commitment to our security.” Or can you?
Bush could give a speech like that with a straight face because he lacked sufficient moral and cognitive subtlety to understand how full of crap he was. Obama doesn’t have that excuse. His father didn’t even stick around to watch him grow up, much less buy him degrees from Harvard and Yale, and Air National Guard pilot wings, and spiritual redemption from a televangelist, and a baseball team, and a political career. Obama had to acquire clout the hard way, which means he spent more time operating under the table than a Bangkok bar girl. As a result, Obama has developed a sophisticated capacity for Orwellian Doublethink, the ability to simultaneously accept both of two contradictory beliefs as truth.
It isn’t like the warning signs weren’t there all along. When candidate Obama swore he’d pinch it off in Iraq in order to “finish the job” in Afghanistan, we might have suspected that something with a reek nailed to it was headed our way. In another telling campaign event that largely flew under the radar, Obama camp foreign policy wonks Tony Lake and Susan Rice signed their boss onto a “study report” issued by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), an AIPAC subsidiary. The “report,” titled Strengthening the Partnership: How to Deepen U.S.-Israel Cooperation on the Iranian Nuclear Challenge, concluded that the U.S. must be open to taking “preventative military action” against Iran in order to protect Israel or accept that Israel may be forced to take military action on its own. I never heard Obama mention that during the debates, did you? It must have slipped his mind.
Some of us feared the jig was up when a victorious Obama announced he’d keep Defense Secretary Bob Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, “King David” Petraeus, “Desert Ox” Odierno, and the rest of the surgin’ safari on the job despite their public stands in opposition to the kinds of withdrawal timelines he had proposed during his run for the White House. His appointment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state ensured that war would continue to trump diplomacy as America’s foreign policy tool of choice.
Then Obama agreed to Gen. David McKiernan’s request to escalate the Afghanistan war even though neither McKiernan nor the Joint Chiefs could tell him what the end game in that conflict might look like. He let Petraeus Inc. bully him into firing McKiernan and replacing him with Petraeus darling Stan McChrystal, and then he let McChrystal pry-bar him into yet another escalation. When it came time to fire McChrystal, Obama stiff-armed the opportunity to clean his five-sided house of ill repute and sack the entire junta like he should have when he took office. Instead he put Petraeus in McChrystal’s old job and continued to leave the Bush-era mafia in place. It is now clear that the Aug. 31 end-of-combat milestone was a mockery, and that the other withdrawal timeline dates for both Iraq and Afghanistan are equally farcical.
There is a certain healthy aspect to once and for all coming out of one’s state of denial about Obama and his relationship with the warmongery. Unfortunately, that’s just the first step of a startling journey into the dark corners of our national psyche. For not only has the War Borg assimilated Obama, it has consumed his party as well. Congressional Democrats have had nearly four years to pull the plug on our woebegone wars in Western Asia and have declined to do so.
And the alternative to our present ruling faction is a party that owes its allegiance to the undead sorts who flocked to Washington last week to worship Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial. Worse yet is that when we look to the highbrow end of the GOP lineup we find Newt Gingrich, who as a political philosopher makes Niccolò Machiavelli look like Lao Tzu. Newt is the master of every underhanded ruse of Socratic rhetoric. One of his favorites is the false analogy, with which he recently pseudo-refuted the right of American citizens to build a mosque in the vicinity of the Twin Towers by saying, “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington.”
In one fell swoop, Newt equated all Muslims with Nazis and he equated a place of worship to a “sign,” presumably one that would say something spiteful about Jews who suffered in the Holocaust. Newt would have been making a fair analogy if he’d said, “Lutherans don’t have a right to build a day-care center next to the Holocaust Museum,” but even Glenn and Sarah might think that kind of talk was crazy, or at least be forced to confess that they didn’t have a clue what Newt was quacking about.
And it would never dawn on Glenn or Sarah or their sub-sentient acolytes that Newt was demonizing Muslims in the exact same manner that the Nazis demonized Jews.
Our quest for the lesser evil has arrived at an impasse. On one hand we have a world-class Doublethinker who expects us to thank him for keeping promises he has vigorously broken and to accept the cynical notion that war is peace. On the other we have a mob of flesh-eating galoots who promise to give us Orwell’s Hate Week 52 weeks a year for as long as it takes them to bring about Armageddon.
Read more by Jeff Huber
- $80 Billion Down the Plumbing – November 1st, 2010
- Bull Feather Merchant Marines – October 25th, 2010
- Don’t Ask, Don’t Care – October 20th, 2010
- Long Warfare Theory – October 11th, 2010
- Uncle Bob Wants You – October 4th, 2010





mickperry
September 6th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
"Instead he put Petraeus in McChrystal’s old job and continued to leave the Bush-era mafia in place."
Maybe that's because Obama is not the Don. He has been Jimmy Carter'ed, and that speech was evidence enough.
Neil Kitson
September 6th, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Jeff gives me hope for America.
MoT
September 7th, 2010 at 12:36 am
Bush got us into this mess but I won't cut O any slack for his prevaricating and constant lying about why he can't get us out. I'm tired of folks treating him like some poor dumb misunderstood schmuck like W. They're both clever lying bastards with legions of dysfunctional foot soldiers willing to thrown YOU onto their ideological spear to prove whether you're patriotic enough or if a grain of racism may lie within your noggin. In the meantime the world burns.
Vojkan Milosavljevic
September 7th, 2010 at 12:41 am
Newt Gingrich's analogy certainly was bad but yours with Lutherans isn't quite good either. First because Nazis were hardly driven by Lutheranism, Shicklgruber himself had Catholic ascent and there were a lot of Nazis who were Catholics. So "Catholics" would have been a better analogy. You could also have said "Christians" instead of "Lutherans", but then as an Orthodox I would have felt offended
bogi666
September 7th, 2010 at 4:14 am
Interesting, perhaps the Pentagon criteria for enlisting in the military is that the recruit must come from dysfunctional families and be dysfunctional themselves.
epppie
September 7th, 2010 at 4:43 am
This is an excellent piece, but one crucial point seemed to be missing; when contrasting the mad democrats with the madder republicans, I think it's important to fully acknowledge their two-step dance, where each Dems step to the right, forces the Pubs a step to the right, and each Republican step to the right, pulls the Dems a step to the right. That's one important reason why the 'least-worst quest', as you brilliantly put it, is doomed to failure. It will always be possible for Dems to point to the Pubs in order to spark domestic political terra amongst Doubting Dems, because wherever the Dems are at, the Pubs perforce have to find a way to position themselves to the right of that. But it's a difference that doesn't mean anything.
It may be that the only reason to elect Obama over McCain was that McCain's "Bomb Bomb Iran" song made him seem crazier than Obama, but that song reflected the Pub-Dem twostep more than anything. It showed just how far McCain had to reach to find a way to position himself to the right of the Right Charging Dems. And as if to prove the point, once elected, Obama installed Clinton – the Obliterator' – in the key position for supposedly peace-oriented 'engagement'. And it didn't take long for Clinton to demonstrate that her "obliterate" speech was indeed a window into her soul.
Is "obliterate Iran" better than "bomb bomb Iran"? Of course not. But Bomb Bomb Iran works like magic to scare Dubious Dems back into the DLC fold, while reassuring Restive Republicans that their icons really are tougher, badder and meaner. And that's how the political theater rolls on…
emsnews
September 7th, 2010 at 5:13 am
The bulk of our manufacturing is now military. Outside of Boeing jets, the bulk of our manufacturing exports happens to be…military stuff. Many, many good paying US manufacturing jobs are now strictly funded by the taxpayers and is military in nature. The 'security' market is part of this: it is terrifically expensive, fully 'privatized' as in 'profitable for capitalists' while the costs are entirely and totally funded by US public debt.
So people want more military spending. This is the biggest jobs program in our country. This is why, even with facing financial ruin, the government has increased both Pentagon spending and moving this spending overseas. To evade paying even slight taxes on privatized security which is strictly used overseas, Prince moved his Xe operation to Dubai just as Halliburton moved there, too. Neither operation has been cut out of Pentagon spending budgets.
This is why the US public supports military spending; good jobs, guaranteed jobs and above all, honorable jobs. Not members of nasty unions (libertarians cannot understand how important unions are for a healthy, wealthy society!) the workers for the military hold their heads high as they bankrupt our nation.
The US empire is facing bankruptcy but we still have breathing room as our export-happy 'allies' flood us with goods and suck down our debts so the pain of overspending, now that rates for short term debt is so cheap, and so this military spending seems to be 'free' but it is not.
Not at all. The principal balance is doubling every 8 years which translates into a hockey stick graph rise to infinity. This is a sure sign of impending bankruptcy even if interest rates stay at say, 1% a year. It just takes a little bit longer to hit the ceiling.
Vojkan Milosavljevic
September 7th, 2010 at 5:50 am
Jeff,
First, l'd like to say that I enjoy very much the caustic tone of your articles.
It seems though that I haven't explained well enough my remark. I don't question the essence of your analogy but rather its form. Of course I know there were terrorists of other religions. One Serb for instance killed a pregnant woman back in 1914, and what I otherwise think of Franz-Ferdinand and Austria-Hungary is irrelevant. Princip was a terrorist who killed a pregnant woman.
COntinued in next comment…
Vojkan Milosavljevic
September 7th, 2010 at 5:51 am
My remark concerned the fact that using Lutheranism for the analogy devalued the analogy. Lutheranism is not uniquely German, it is widespread across Northern Europe. Norway for instance is in its majority Lutheran. I do believe that if you had used "Catholics" instead, or simply "Christian", you would have been more on target. Catholic terrorist and an anti-semitic past (the Dominicans for instance) are well documented. Whatever my view of Lutheranism, except the ethnicity of the founder, very litlle links Lutherans with Nazis. Therefore, your analogy can be argued against by those you, I think rightly so, denounce for their attitude.
Regards,
Vojkan
Jeff Huber
September 7th, 2010 at 7:08 am
That's like saying Islam is not uniquely Middle Eastern. Lutheranism, the original protestant religion, was born in Germany.
Vojkan Milosavljevic
September 7th, 2010 at 7:49 am
Jeff,
Maybe we'll get to understand each other. I agree with your first sentence. I agree with the second. But "uniquely" and "original" have different meanings.
Regards,
Vojkan
Jeff Huber
September 7th, 2010 at 8:15 am
Okay, Voj, let's ditch the term "unique" for now.
Here's my take.
Islam is to the Middle East as the Lutheran Church is to A. Antarctica, B. Uranus, C. The National Football League, D. Germany.
Thanks for the fun discussion. Catch you next week.
Best,
Jeff
Vojkan Milosavljevic
September 7th, 2010 at 8:31 am
My pick is "A. Antarctica". Sorry, but no it isn't "D".
Vojkan Milosavljevic
September 7th, 2010 at 9:32 am
Actually, since I didn't like the tone of your last post, I think that it would be best that I answer you in a typical European condescending manner. Do you hear the difference between a Steinway, a Bechstein and a Boesendorfer? All three are German brands, well the last is Austrian actually, like Shicklgruber.. If you have anything like an ear, the Bechstein is the closest to be "Lutheran". Rubinstein refused to play on a Boesendorfer, he preferred Bechstein. Do I really need to say more?
Good luck
September 7th, 2010 at 10:43 am
In defense of the President, his speeches have been few and halfhearted, indicating he is not really behind the plan. If you want to throw a monkey wrench into the works may I suggest donating to that Koo Koo Koran burning church. Yes they are crazy but crazy in a making the GWOT impossible for the US to prosecute sort of way. Petreaus is against them and Gingrich is running away from them. Those are the most impressive antiwar credentials anywhere.
gary
September 7th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
great aticle as usual by huber…whot a country we have become….an example of our leadership is this…..n.korea and s.korea are having serious problems with each other..so instead of urging calmness and a lowering of the rhetoric like a true world leader…. what do we do?….we hold huge joint miltary manuevers with s.korea to heighten the tension…is this what passes for diplomacy in the obama regime?….like we don'thave enough wars going on now.
Popsiq
September 7th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
What choice does Obama have?
Refusing to ride this bull leaves him the option of being the only President to actually 'lose' a war.
A declaration of Vict'ry, in whatever form, is a heckuva lot better than what happened to the Russians, or to poor old Dick Nixon. The continued killing just might get lucky and actually kill somebody important enough to stop Al Qaeda, theTaliban, the Muslim brotherhood, the Son's o' Justis or whoever it is that actually hate us for our freedoms. At the very least it's proactive to keep all those defense establishment paycheques coming during a soft economy.
If the country had to depend on welfare and unemployment cheques, well … we won't even go there.