“Clap Louder” Is Not A Strategy
I love the whiff of desperation in the morning, it smells like recycled GOP talking points.
I’m referring to the new “victory strategy” for Iraq from the right wing. It’s called–no, I’m not making this up–”We Win, They Lose.” No, I won’t link to it. Google it if you’re interested, or check some lefty blogs that have it posted (like this one.) However, “We Win, They Lose” pretty much sums up the plan. We’re gonna win, see? That’s all you need to know. Move along, now.
Their “statement of principles” was signed by former TN Senator Bill Frist and a host of right-wing bloggers: Glenn Reynolds, Ben Domenech, Jim Holt and other pundits of the Kool-Aid far-right. It says, basically, “I stand with our troops. I stand for victory. I support the President’s veto and will urge my representatives to vote to sustain it. There can be one and only one outcome in Iraq: We win, They Lose.”
If you’re catching a hint of the high school cheerleader in this plan, well, there’s good reason. As Glenn Greenwald discovered, the “We Win, They Lose” website is maintained by Valerie Ninemire, former cheerleader and current editor of Cheer Coach and Advisor magazine. This explains a lot.
For one thing, it explains that horrendous video of Michelle Malkin in a cheerleading outfit that made the rounds of YouTube a week ago. It also explains the entire right-wing strategy for Iraq: “clap louder!”
“We Win, They Lose” is an old quote of Ronald Reagan’s addressing the Soviet Union. Reagan, of course, didn’t invade the wrong country for bogus reasons like our current President did. In fact, when America was attacked under Reagan’s watch (the 1983 bombing of U.S. barracks in Beirut, which killed 241 U.S. servicemen), he picked up sticks and skedaddled out of Lebanon faster than you could say “timetable for withdrawal.” So I find it really puzzling that the Kool-Aid drinkers have latched onto Ronald Reagan as some kind of standard-bearer for an Iraq policy. Kind of pathetic, really.
That “We Win, They Lose” is not a viable strategy for anything seems to be lost on the right wing. They have relentlessly flogged the “We Win, They Lose” campaign all over the internets. They’re circulating petitions. They’re reciting this fist-pumping mantra in columns across the blogosphere. No one has stopped to consider that the slogan has no meaning.
Here are some questions:
1- Who is “we”? America? The West? Or (as I suspect from reading their petition) just Republicans?
2- What is “win”? Are we siding with the Sunnis? The Shia? Neither? Both? Does “winning” mean people no longer hate us in the Middle East? Is it opening a McDonald’s in Baghdad?
3- Who is “they”? As stated above, I suspect they mean “Democrats.” I really don’t think this campaign is meant to be a strategy for winning Iraq, it’s meant to be a strategy for winning in Washginton D.C. But just saying “we’re going to win” doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.
4- What is “lose”? If peace in Iraq can be achieved through political and diplomatic means, is this “losing”? Is the only acceptable “win” a military one?
Sadly, the right wing can’t answer any of these questions, because they’re too wrapped up in chanting their bumper sticker slogan to have any serious kind of discussion.
Here’s an idea from Tbogg:
And one way to win is to support our troops by enlisting so that they don’t have to redeployed over and over again until they break down or die. So when we see that the We Win, They Lose Dancers include Rob Bluey, noted “interpreter of other people’s writing” Ben Domenech, and Patrick Ruffini, all of whom seem young enough and reasonably fit enough, we wonder why they aren’t being fitted with kevlar BVDs.
Indeed. Their refusal to put their money where their mouth is can mean only one thing: they aren’t fighting for Iraq, they’re fighting for their political futures.
Update [2007-5-7 13:41:33 by Southern Beale]:
Those wacky kids at Eschaton have found some dear friends to sign the petition. OK, I’ll link to it.