Are Americans just frustrated?
by digby
QOTD: Senator Chris Murphy
Americans today, more than ever, feel like they have lost control of their lives, of their ability to feel financially, economically, and even physically secure. These videos, and reports of ISIS’s unconscionable brutality, add to this feeling of insecurity. And they invoke rage –justifiable, appropriate rage – about those who would carry out such acts.
In this case, the fear and the anger that we feel about ISIS’s actions is complemented by a legitimate threat that this group poses. So we shouldn’t hesitate to act, simply because our desire to do so is fueled by the intense emotion that this enemy engenders in us. But our response – the details of our strategy – cannot be dictated by these impulses. Our plan of attack against ISIS needs to be well thought-out, nuanced, not rushed into because we feel an emotional compulsion to do something – anything – right now.
We’ve made that mistake in the past as a nation, and we shouldn’t misstep again. And we certainly shouldn’t allow election year politics to play into our calculations. This is a debate about ISIS, but it’s also a debate about how we’re going to meet a potential plethora of anti-Western extremist groups that are, and will, organize against us throughout the world. We’re creating a precedent for action, and we shouldn’t rush into action simply because we feel pressure to get something done before an election. As the President noted last night, and it’s important to repeat, ISIS today does not have imminent plans to attack the United States. That doesn’t diminish the necessity of taking them on, it simply means that we don’t need to engage in a panicked response.
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who recognizes that Americans are frustrated by the chaotic nature of the world today and their own feelings of powerlessness and so are ready to engage in some "action" --- any action --- to assert control. And it's good that someone is recognizing how the financial and economic insecurities of our time might lead us into making some major errors in judgment. Since we are a military empire, those errors in judgment about what action to take are unfortunately likely to fall into that category.
If you read the rest of his comments you'll see that the ship has sailed, however. He's backing the president's strategy for the most part while cautioning him about mission creep and demanding a debate in congress, which I argue here in Salon, is one of those procedural dodges in any case. Yes, the congress should debate. But let's not bullshit ourselves into believing it will make some sort of difference. It never has before. If the congress votes, whether for explicit authorization or simply for the funding, they will find a majority to support. Murphy says the president will get his authorization if he wants it. Everyone says he'll get his authorization. Every member of congress is deciding right now whether it's best to be on record supporting or opposing, calculating the odds down the road. Maybe they'll let the president take all the risk and the potential glory. If I had to bet, I'd say they'll vote. And if they vote, they will vote yes. And if they don't vote, it's happening anyway. So why are we obsessing about this?
This whole argument reminds me of the one before the Iraq war in which all of us liberals --- myself included --- argued vociferously for UN authorization as if that was the be-all and end all of the issue at hand. But the real issue was the decision to invade Iraq and it would have been wrong whether we did it under the auspices of the UN or not. UN approval wouldn't have changed it and arguing as if that was what really mattered made it seem as though the process was more important than the result. And when it comes to war, I don't think that's true at all, particularly since once you've reached the stage of asking for permission the default is almost always to defer to war anyway.
Certainly the congress in the US is most likely to rubber stamp whatever the president wants to do in these matters. There is very little precedent for anything else and if you look at the political make-up of both houses you are not going to see an anti-war majority in either one. So all of our braying about congressional authorization has no potential to change the decision to escalate in Iraq and Syria. (Now, down the road, if it all goes wrong, they can try to use the power of the purse to pull the president back, but for right now, the di is cast. ) We're going, and the only question is whether congress wants to be part of the show. They will not stop it at this point.
Anyway, Murphy is right that this should not be done out of a sense of frustration that the world is chaotic place and Americans can't seem to get a grip. But that's part of what's motivating this willingness to be baited into action by these dramatic videos. I've always been skeptical of the "no-drama Obama" business but I've been glad he seemed to be taking a deliberate approach and not stoking this sense of alarm in this situation. His speech, unfortunately, broke with that and he sounded a lot more like George W. Bush than I've ever heard him sound before. That's too bad. I get it. He was baited too, and not just by ISIS but by American warmongers. Still, I had hoped for less flag-waving and more "keep calm and carry on."
.