Good Guy Politics and Winning that War

Nuanced arguments seem to get lost in the political process. There are phrases of this campaign, and perhaps politics in general, that frustrate me. Palin’s recent rhetoric about “Does Obama think that terrorists are the good guys?” makes me want to bite someone, anyone (so much for non-violence). The idea that there are “good guys” and “bad guys” rather than a complex web of human interactions, influence, greed, power, and abuse of power is so simplistic and anachronistic. Do you have to say something so idiotic to get popular support?

Similarly simplistic, in my mind, is the concept of “winning the war.” In Iraq, it’s not clear to me what “winning the war” would mean. Didn’t we already win the war with our campaign to bomb the shit out of it in order to “win hearts and minds?” We’re not trying to capture territory, right? The expressed objectives of the invasion of Iraq was to topple the regime of Saddam Huissan in order to prevent Iraq from getting nuclear weaponry (which apparently wasn’t as far advanced as our bogus intelligence would suggest) as well as to prevent his aiding and abetting terrorist groups. Since the intelligence was wrong, I’ll cede that the first two items are more or less accomplished. In regards to terrorism, the war has done next to nothing to reduce animosity towards America, and has likely stepped up recruitment of would-be terrorists. Even if we managed to salvage the wreckage of the invasion and leave a relatively peaceful Iraq, would this constitute a win? This is the kind of thing that no presidential candidate can express, for fear of appearing insufficiently bloodthirsty and patriotic (Blogs may be the best venue for these musings). Obama steps around this by pointing to Afghanistan as the real focus of the “war on terror and saying we should “kill” Osama Bin Laden. Lets hope his rhetoric is convincing to our bloodthirsty and terrified semi-literate populace on Tuesday(another comment you can't make as a politician).