New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wants to know why the United States is (in his view) so inept these days:
This is the pathetic state of affairs in the U.S. as we approach the end of the first decade of the 21st century. Whatever happened to the dynamic country that flexed its muscles after World War II and gave us the G.I. Bill, the Marshall Plan, the United Nations (in a quest for peace, not war), the interstate highway system, the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the finest higher education system the world has known, and a standard of living that was the envy of all?
America’s commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, and our ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, went up to Capitol Hill this week but were unable to give any real answers as to when the U.S. might be able to disengage, or when a corner might be turned, or when a faint, flickering hopeful light might be glimpsed at the end of the long, horrific Iraqi tunnel.
A country that used to act like Babe Ruth now swings like a minor-leaguer. The all-American can-do philosophy has been smothered by the hapless can’t-do performances of the people who have been in charge for the past several years. It’s both tragic and embarrassing.
Herbert could have gotten a clue about why the U.S. today isn’t like the U.S. of the late 1940s from the sheer arrogance displayed in fellow Times contributor Dick Cavett’s blog posting of the previous evening. That brilliant fool Cavett disdainfully mocked General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker for having chosen their words carefully in their testimony before Congress this past week. Excerpt:
… I guess a guy bearing up under such a chestload of hardware — and pretty ribbons in a variety of decorator colors — can’t be expected to speak like ordinary mortals, for example you and me. He should try once saying — instead of “ongoing process of high level engagements” — maybe something in colloquial English? Like: “fights” or “meetings” (or whatever the hell it’s supposed to mean).
I find it painful to watch this team of two straight men, straining on the potty of language. Only to deliver such . . . what? Such knobbed and lumpy artifacts of superfluous verbiage? (Sorry, now I’m doing it…)
But I must hand it to his generalship. He did say something quite clearly and admirably and I am grateful for his frankness. He told us that our gains are largely imaginary: that our alleged “progress” is “fragile and reversible.” (Quite an accomplishment in our sixth year of war.) This provides, of course, a bit of pre-emptive covering of the general’s hindquarters next time that, true to Murphy’s Law, things turn sour again.
Back to poor Crocker. His brows are knitted. And he has a perpetually alarmed expression, as if, perhaps, he feels something crawling up his leg.
Could it be he is being overtaken by the thought that an honorable career has been besmirched by his obediently doing the dirty work of the tinpot Genghis Khan of Crawford, Texas? The one whose foolish military misadventure seems to increasingly resemble that of Gen. George Armstrong Custer at Little Bighorn?
Of the 104 comments to Cavett’s piece of used toilet paper, nearly 90% take up his cry; only a few defended the general and the ambassador. I’ve reproduced the best defenses below after correcting a couple of minor spelling errors:
Steve: "Your leisurely, decadent lampooning of serious men who serve the nation at a critical time and place is both cynical and unsurprising."
Jon Entwistle: "Petraeus and Crocker are doing their best to convey serious and complex information on a most difficult situation, and Mr. Cavett thinks it is appropriate to mock their delivery?"
James Currin: "It is ever the fate of serious men to endure the disparagement and mockery of peanuts."
gje: "Since carefully chosen words are the tools of your profession, I would expect you to have a little more respect for those who are required to use them. These men knew their words would be picked apart and manipulated by the likes of you, so can you blame them for exercising caution?"
Paul Dimiter: "Embedded in Mr. Cavett’s surly comments are not one but two mocking references to military awards for service and courage under fire, remarks that at best are unseemly and at worst disclose the possible cause of such embarrassing snideness: the fact that such awards, and the qualities that earned them, have always been beyond his reach. When at the peak of his fame Mr. Cavett was a young curmudgeon, and there was a certain charm in that; but now at long last he does qualify for an award, the Falstaff Award: ‘How ill white hairs become a fool and jester.’"
Roger Knouse: "I guess you don’t like to get back what you give out. Generals aren’t allowed to play the definition of is game. Only the academia, political, and media elite may participate in postured prose. You included."
Patrick: "As far as I can divine the soldiers and my son in the 82nd airborne report Patraeus as a fine leader doing a good job. So Dick Cavatt who doesn’t like big words (hah hah!)criticizes a fine General. Who’s Dick Cavatt and what does he do?"
John Murnane: "Petreaus took a round in the chest on a training exercise and wrote a PhD on the lessons learned on Viet Nam. He’s stepped up to improve a terribly complex and deadly reality. While Cavett and his ilk take cheap shots from their cocktail parties."
Jarhead: "For my part, once you made the admission months ago that as a young Bevis with your pal Butthead circa 1950, you intentionally set off firecrackers next to your uncle the Marine who had fought at Iwo Jima and had PTSD, I must confess I mentally exited caring about your worldview."
Mike: "A wise man told me many years ago that the reason journalists (Cavett) dislike soldiers (Petraeus) so much is that, when they were all in high school, guys like David would stuff guys like Dick in their wall lockers."
Steve Fraasch: "If only someone as smart as Mr. Cavett would enlighten us on alternatives to our current plan, that doesn’t result in a civil war, I am all ears. Then we’d really have something to listen to."
Leave a Reply