The Long, Long Haul

I am aghast, as are many others, at the writings of Stu Bykofsky in a Philadelphia newspaper calling for another 9/11 to unite our country. There are so many things wrong with the article, not the least of which is the fascist idea that if we just had an enemy, real or imagined, to inflame our nationalist, stateist, xenophobic fears we could be the strong fatherland that god intended us to be and rule the world. Many people worry that the holocaust will be forgotten. Well, whether Bykofsky is a Jewish or Polish (or both or neither) name, it is sad to see that the rhetoric of the fascist state would win support under such a name.

I would like to focus, however, on an often repeated lie that appears in this column that points more directly to what is creating the rift that Mr. Bykofsky laments in our society. That is the lie that Americans just can't be in a war for the long haul. He writes,

"Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don't have the patience for a long slog. We've been in Iraq for four years, but to some it seems like a century. In contrast, Britain just pulled its soldiers out of Northern Ireland where they had been, often being shot at, almost 40 years."

Being an Irish-American I have to control my effusive joy for the amazing success that the British occupation was for the Irish people and return to my point. This straw man first appeared (in my lifetime) during the Viet Nam war. Despite its utter lack of credibility, it still seems to have legs with those who support the never-ending-war-of conquest model of American unity.

Since this column appeared in a newspaper, may I be excused for thinking that it represents some form of journalism? If so, might Mr. Bykofsky supply some, oh I don't know, FACTS! Does he have anything to back up this position? Mr. Bykofsky seems to be under the impression that he is watching M*A*S*H II and ratings have declined since they killed off the very popular Saddam character. Can Mr. Bykofsky point to any evidence that those opposed to the war are also suffering under this delusion? Can he point us to the anti-war writings that declare that it's a wonderful war, it just can't sustain an audience for another season, so we oppose it? Are there any polls that indicate that the American people cite this reason for not supporting the war? Does he have anecdotal interviews to make the claim that even some people may oppose the war on this basis? If he does have any of this evidence, he fails to share even a shred of it with his readers.

In fact, if one looks around at the writings of those opposing the war, the reasons have to do with the lies that started the war, the incompetence of carrying it out once the ill-conceived debacle was initiated, the lack of reasonable plans to provide ACTUAL support (beyond bumper stickers) to the troops who were asked to carry it out, the distraction and diversion of resources from the ACTUAL war against the people who attacked us, the cronyism that insured that incompetent management would be the hallmark of the US occupation. Does any of this sound like we wanted the show canceled for lack of interest?

No, and if one takes the time to look for factual evidence to back up their opinion piece, one will find that those who speak of the public being "fatigued" by the length of the war are the very same people, like Bykofsky, who support the war or, worse still, those who started it. I am tired of being handed this straw man by people like him and being told that this represents my opinion. It most certainly does not.

The most ironic aspect of this charade (to me) is that I don't believe that people like Mr. Bykofsky (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) would accept this childish and specious argument from their child. Although a child might have a better excuse for an incomplete understanding of logical discipline and be more easily excused for such a lapse. If you had the misfortune to have a child who repeatedly broke the law and you pleaded with your child to take a look at their actions and the poor choices they have made, all in the hope that the child would see the effects their choices were having and reform, but the child replied that you weren't really concerned about them living a more productive life but actually just fatigued by the length of time they had been breaking the law, how would you respond? "Oh you're right! I really don't care whether you stop torturing the other kids in the neighborhood! I'm just tired of hearing about it every day! Brilliant!" By Mr. Bykofsky's logic, we would all drop our opposition to the child's transgressions and join in, as one big happy family.

Or maybe he would hire the even bigger neighborhood bully to attack his family and show them the joys of pulling together for the clan?

An adult, presumed journalist, ought to know something about logic. He ought to know a straw man when he sees one. He ought not to see his job as the distribution of scarecrows but more correctly as the distribution of fact. I look forward to his exposition of the facts that he uncovered to support his views on the motivations of those opposed to the war in Iraq.