Uncle Dinny Story

I just saw a reference to Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan exchanging Irish jokes over Irish coffee after 5:00 pm. That reminded me of this one. It’s an “Uncle Dinny” story about Dinny McGonicle, similar to the Ole and Sven stories of Minnesota fame:

While working as a longshoreman, Dinny, drunk as usual, fell off the dock and drowned. The union man went to his wake to see Mrs. McGonicle who was sitting with her friend Celia Brady.

“I know Dinny has given you a lot of trouble, Mrs. McGonicle,” the union man said, “him being a drinking man and all. But we all liked him on the docks, and we’ve taken up a collection for him. Here’s a check for $5,000.”

“Glory be to God, Celia,” Mrs. McGonicle said. “Can you imagine that? Why, he never had two nickels to rub together. He couldn’t hold a job. Couldn’t write. Couldn’t read.”

“Thank God,” Celia rejoined, “he couldn’t swim.”

William F. Buckley, Algeria, and Iraq

Quoted from The New Republic, March 19, 2007 - "Athwart History," by Sam Tanenhaus

But Buckley recognizes that cold war analogies of any kind are dubious. For one thing, in the age of terrorism, the "enemy" is not so easily classified or even identified. "Individual terrorists were, only yesterday, engaged in ordinary occupations, shocking friends and family when they struck as terrorists," Buckley wrote in August 2005. By this time, he had already uncovered another, more useful parallel. In October 2004, a week before Election Day, he presciently exhumed in his column a half-forgotten 1978 book, A Savage War of Peace, the classic account of the Algerian war written by Alistair Horne, the British Historian who is one of Buckley's oldest friends (the two were boarding school roommates in the early '40s). What made the book "hideously relevant to our present problems in Iraq," Buckley explained, was its description of how the French, trapped in a bloody debacle that dragged on for eight years, were losing to "a factionalist-nationalist movement using terrorism as a means of expressing contempt and hatred for modern forms." At last, in 1962, President Charles de Gaulle "surveyed that mess" and "unconditionally surrendered" rather than risk the only, and unthinkable alternative - a massive military attack. The United States now faced the identical problem and was similarly hamstrung, because, as Buckley warned both Bush and Kerry, "the insurrectionists can't be defeated by any means we would consent to use." Six months later, Bush's inner circle, and Bush himself, would claim to be studying Horne's book - though, earlier this year, Horne told Maureen Dowd that, when he had given a copy of his book to Rumsfeld with passages on torture underlined, he had received a "savage letter" in return.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well that's a pretty long passage. I wanted to quote the entire paragraph, though. Now here's a thought about Iraq, building from the comment above that a military victory in Iraq would require us to use methods that no Western country would consent to use. To win militarily in Iraq, we would have to do to one major city after another what we did to Fallujah. We would have to level it, then shoot any person left who misbehaves. Think of what that means: we would have to make Baghdad look as Berlin did in 1945, then keep killing people there until the city was pacified. You don't hear that much about violence in Fallujah these days, do you? It's not a center of insurgent activity the way it was before we leveled it. Well listen, we went through the decision process about attacking Fallujah twice. The first time we couldn't bring ourselves to do it. The second time we went ahead and leveled the city, and we knew afterwards we weren't going to do that again. Yet the results in Fallujah show - and our failure to secure other cities also shows - that military means by themselves won't work for us. They'll only work for us if we're willing to do to the entire country what we did to Fallujah, and we've already decided we're not going to do that. So we are stuck, and we will have to concede defeat, as de Gaulle did.

Here's an afterthought on military means versus political means in the fight we want to finish in Iraq. The Washington watchword throughout the first months of 2007 was that we have to resolve our problems in Iraq with political means, not military means. That's another way of saying what I argued above. It neglects a big qualification, though. The way out of the war in Iraq requires both military and political means, and our leadership has shown so little ability to coordinate our efforts in those two areas. That is a major part of their incompetence: they don't know how to make military power work to enhance other kinds of influence. They don't know how to make other kinds of influence work to enhance military power. They don't know how to coordinate military, economic, political, social, and diplomatic means to serve our nation's interests. They don't have these skills, and they show no evidence of acquiring them as they go along. They are, in short, incompetent.

Gonzo for Gonzo

Hmm. Maybe Alberto Gonzales was actually brilliant yesterday. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

Comments on Warrior Politics

Andrew Bacevich, a distinguished professor and analyst in international relations, wrote an article in The Atlantic (May 2007) called "Warrior Politics." Here are some comments I wrote in response:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your note! After reading two of your articles, I admire your way of thinking and writing. Links for the articles are posted at the TLJ Resource Center.

Anyway, the one in The Atlantic on civil military relations makes you think. I've long agreed with the underlying premise: it's dangerous in our democracy for soldiers to become involved in politics. I served as an officer in the navy - then, like you, taught international politics. So for ordinary times, I think you're right.

These aren't ordinary times, though. We have an incompetent president. Some would also say his decisions are criminally incompetent, but that's inflammatory and the first charge is serious enough. Anyway, what do you do when a president leads his country into a catastrophic military venture, and practically no one shows sustained willingness to lead us away from it? The Democratic party, the natural source of such leadership, hasn't done it. Even after the November 2006 elections, it has moved slowly and without any creative thinking from the party leadership.

We've had Cindy Sheehan and John Murtha and a full presidential election cycle. Donald Rumsfeld is gone, the Iraq Study Group has come and gone, George Tenet, Tommy Franks, a fallen hero in Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are all gone. Even Saddam Hussein is gone. It doesn't matter: we're still doing the same thing we did three years ago. All that has changed is that the families and communities that send our fighting units over there have become more and more fed up.

I know that's much over simplified. A lot has changed in Iraq in the meantime, and change in public opinion here makes it look as if we will actually rethink our policies next year. With a new election cycle we can't help but have some new debate. Even so, impatience sets in. If we can't have some new thinking from our civilian leaders, perhaps our uniformed service men and women can give it.

Here I'll differ directly with you. Why should protest that comes from the enlisted corps be worse than protest that comes from the officers? In these circumstances, that doesn't show insubordination or disobedience. It shows courage that officers have had trained out of them. Officers are far too conscious of what's going to enhance or hurt their careers. Enlisted men and women who stop to think about what they're doing should be able to give expression to their thoughts, even if, or especially if, they go against current thinking in the executive branch. If the war they're fighting is illegal, as this one is, our citizen soldiers ought to have a right to act against it. We have to listen to what our soldiers have to say as citizens, confident that what they think as citizens won't affect their willingness to obey as soldiers.

I joined the navy shortly after we pulled out of Vietnam. The ignominious withdrawal from Saigon in 1975 was still fresh in everyone's memories at the time, and joining the service was certainly not something people with my background did. I opposed that war just as strongly as I've opposed this one. I thought hard before joining to judge whether my attitude about Vietnam - or more broadly, judgments about my obligations as a citizen - would prevent me from serving obediently. I concluded that even though the potential for awkward conflict existed between my own sense of right and wrong and my obligations as a military officer, it was not something that should keep me from serving. I'm glad I decided the question that way. As it was, my unit, the USS KIRK, was called into service in Indian Ocean for the Iranian hostage crisis, and such a conflict didn't arise. If it had arisen, I would have served my unit just as well, and written letters like this one to express my ideas as a private citizen.

You're right that there's a difference between privately expressed thoughts and signing a public petition, or joining a public lobbying group. Ordinarily, we just don't want our citizens in uniform to become involved in political activities like that until after they've left active duty. Still, our leadership everywhere has failed the country and our soldiers. Bush and his advisors have ruined our army, marine corps and national guard, and people in our military have to speak up. At this point, they are our last resource.

John Locke said that democratic citizens have a right to resist when the government unconstitutionally exceeds its proper authority, and our government has done that. Historians still say that the officer corps in Germany should have seen what was happening in the relationship between the Wehrmacht and the Nazi party, and that they should have done something about it. Historians still say that we could have prevented Vietnam if only the officers in the Pentagon had been more willing to speak up against Johnson and McNamara. At times the consequences of keeping quiet are worse than the consequences of speaking up.

Rumsfeld essentially fired Zinni, and since then - for four years - we've had only retired officers speak up. We need anyone - officer or enlisted, active duty or retired - to say something now, to show solidarity with John Murtha and all the parents that Cindy Sheehan had the courage to speak for. Yes, Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war movement found each other, and we all remember how the anti-war movement disrupted healthy, democratic political processes in the sixties and seventies. Still, we don't have a movement as such of any kind now, and Cheney still ridicules the war's opponents as unpatriotic, insinuating that they are traitors. With leadership like that, we are going to suffer a lot more, and the possibility of bad consequences from our enlisted service members speaking up aren't nearly as bad as the consequences we're already facing when so many have had to mute their thoughts and feelings about what has happened. People like me - and those soldiers - don't want to feel helpless anymore.

Thanks for writing both of your recent articles. The one titled "'Your Iraq Plan?' Is a Pointless Question" at latimes.com stated the problems with our public conversations so well. And the one on "Warrior Politics" in The Atlantic has been worth commenting on. I've enjoyed the opportunity.

Return from Vacation

Well we're back from our trip to St. John in the U. S. Virgin Islands. And it's time to move ahead with these books on the war in Iraq!