"Our Karl Rove is the blog you should be glad that Democratic strategists don't seem to listen to"
-- what they're saying on Republican blogs

Monday, October 24, 2005

Democrats: Bush Administration Insurgency in Last Throes

Democratic Leadership,

As noted in a prior post, the Bush administration -- what with its seemingly bipolar attraction to an evangelical pro-life agenda at home while killing thousands of people in the name of secular freedom abroad -- is somewhat of an insurgency in our own government.

So many people (neo-conservatives, televangelists, media haters, and other extremists), with so many radical ideas, just knew that there was just no way they'd get another chance to push their fringe agendas through the American political system like they could with George W. Bush. They knew that this modern American Prince (who was already drunk with hubris) would be the ideal vessel for their policies, because - face it - he really never had to live in reality. And with no basis in reality, almost any idea floated by his desk could appear to be rational, sane, and just -- especially coming from the people the President knows and trusts the most.

As you know, both Bush Junior and Senior share many of the same policy makers and administrators in their inner circles. But Bush Senior had a little thing called experience. He ran the CIA. He was the Vice President. He was also sober. He knew all too well the ramifications that accompanied the various "visions" that the neo-cons and evangelicals espoused. This experience and sober judgment proved frustrating to the radical conservatives. The radicals found Bush Senior weak and wobbly, and later created organizations like the Project for a New American Century in the 1990's, where neo-cons fantasized about American military might toppling Saddam, creating a department of Homeland Security, and taking aim at an axis of evil.

With no opportunity to, shall we say, explore their ideological fantasies in Bush Senior's administration, you can only imagine how their pent up frustration transformed into elation when George W. Bush became President. Finally, a guy who won't hold us back like his dad did. Finally, a guy who will let us implement all the post-cold-war and cultural ideas we've been dreaming about for over a decade. A guy who not only won't understand our philosophical underpinnings (and therefore can't possibly undermine the rationale), but a guy who is also stubborn enough to not back down when times get tough. Perfect.

Which brings us back to the idea of an insurgency, where the pent up desires of radicals who finally have a way to make a difference typically make that difference in ghastly, explosive ways. This quite disturbingly describes Iraqi radicals as much as it describes some of the American radicals in George W. Bush's circle of influence.

Like all insurgencies, they eventually overreach, go a step too far, and lose their ideological credibility by completely ignoring the means they use to pursue their very ideological and unwavering ends.

Such is the story of this administration. And, as Vice President Cheney noted earlier this year, the insurgency is "in the last throes." A prescient comment, no doubt...just directed at the wrong insurgency.

It may be in its last throes, but insurgencies die hard. If you think of this administration - and the recently radicalized Republican Party leadership - as an insurgency, then you need to deal with them like one. Start reading military strategy books like Resisting Rebellion: The History And Politics Of Counterinsurgency; start thinking like national defense strategists; start separating yourselves from the insurgency by speaking out against it. Divorce yourselves from the Iraq War because of what the war really represented: a neo-conservative fantasy devised in the 1990's.

Before you critique this administration for losing the war in Iraq to insurgents, think about how you're doing against the insurgency here at home.

1 comment:

Thomas Beek said...

As much as I'd like to "divorce" myself from the war in Iraq, now that the thing is done, it is too late. I undoubtably mean as a policy choice, and I do divorce myself from supporting the decision to launch the attack, the reasons given (bogus reasons), and the "freedom for the Middle East" bandwagon. Freedom is a choice that is fought for, not forced, as it was in this case. You cannot liberate people who are not already at the point of laying down their lives for it, as were the American Independence leaders who signed the Declaration of Independance.