The Politics of Distraction
This may seem a minor point amongst the major points being debated in the country today, but it comes up again, and again, and again, and again: the manufacturing of some completely meaningless personal political squabble to distract from substantive debate (remember John Kerry’s “botched joke?).
Case in point. Yesterday Barbara Boxer said this in a hearing to Condi Rice: “Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families.”
That’s a fairly straightforward way of pointing out that for all this talk of changing strategies and tactics, foreign policy has a direct impact on a relatively small number of Americans who are bearing a heavier and heavier load, and who are about to be asked to sacrifice some more. But then we get this on the front page of the NY Post, dutifully followed by this lead story on the Fox News website, followed by outraged bloggers.
No doubt, the noise generated in right wing tabloid-talkradio-FoxNews-blog universe will be loud enough to draw small mainstream news items. Sometimes, it even draws an apology (which, in turn, generates more news stories).
This is a big waste of time. Every inch of space dedicate to these stupid games is an inch not being devoted to debate over the real issue – the Administration’s policy in Iraq. Does the NY Post and Fox News really think that this is the most important story of the day?
Think about what is more important and more likely. That John Kerry hates the troops, Dick Durbin thinks U.S. troops are Nazis, and Barbara Boxer hates childless women? Or that President Bush blundered into Iraq, U.S. personnel are ordered to use deplorable interrogation tecniques, and we should pause to consider the strain of extended rotations to Iraq on our military families?
Among the many disgraces of this era of our politics, I hope these phony, manufactured distractions from substantive debate are left behind. Politics may be theatre, but it need not be theatre that is an insult to our intelligence.
Related posts:
Agreed. We should be focusing on the more important question of what to do next in Iraq. There really are only 2 options though. We either leave and let iraq fall to the islamofacists and become a terrorist’s safe haven, or we stay and finish training that country’s military to kill the terrorists themselves. The answer is clear.
Comment on January 12, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
It is indeed important to consider what we do next in Iraq. But just like the distractions mentioned, the alternatives are far more complex than (a) leave and let iraq fall to the islamofascists and become a terrorist’s safe haven, or (b) stay and finish training the country’s military to kill the terrorists themselves.
The National Intelligence Estimate pointed out that our presence incited violence and acted as a recruitment device for the insurgents and terrorist organizations like Al Quaeda.
A larger question is whom do we support when we are fighting? And what is victory? And how do we “kill the terrorists” when there is an endless supply of them? Do we support a government in Iraq that is Shia-dominated and allied with Iran and anxious to impose Sharia law? Do we side with the minority Sunni group that is angry over Saddam’s execution that appeared to be more like on of the ceremonial beheadings we abhor?
How do we take sides in a civil war?
Perhaps a good place to start would be to listen to the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan committee that was advising the President on Iraq policy. They suggested that it was time to start getting out of that country, not adding more soldiers. Instead this President, as he is inclined to do, privatized his advice with the American Enterprise Institute and adopted the Kagan/Keane “surge” plan.
Comment on January 13, 2007 @ 10:31 am