Monday, July 30, 2007

O'Hanlon/Pollack: "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq"

Here's an op-ed on the subject of Iraq by two Democrats who were recently in that neck of the world. It's well worth reading, excerpts:

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

and

But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

and

Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.

21 comments:

  1. what was that dreher was saying about soldiers going off to iraq last week?

    oh yeah.

    "Damn it."

    which is probably what he said when he read this oped.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here goes dreher again, thinking he is answering our criticisms by merely parrotting them. for someone who berates his critics so harshly, he seems to pay them an inordinate amount of attention:

    "In my case, I became so focused on fighting the (very real) evil that at the end, all I could see was the evil. My vantage point on the Catholic Church was no more realistic than the sunshine-and-fluffy-bunnies denialists that I'd come to both pity and despise.

    In my case, I was like a soldier who tried to fight on righteous zeal alone, and both failed to build myself up in ordinary Christian ways (prayer, fasting, good works, spiritual reading), which would have strengthened me for the necessary battles, but also given me perspective on which battles were necessary, as well as perspective on what the ultimate goal of the fight was. It's understandable that those who see serious evil in one's church to get angry with those who deny the crisis, and who thus sit inert while bad people do bad things. But it is not the case that to focus only on the crisis, and to haunt websites and comboxes arguing about the crisis, and to make your church's crisis the focus of nearly every conversation you have with co-religionists -- it is not the case that you are therefore fighting for the right in your zeal.

    This is a hard-won lesson that I've taken with me into Orthodoxy"

    In other words, i've learned a lesson that nullifies my reasons for having left the catholic church ... and i've taken that lesson with me to my new church. Dreher has moved from incoherence to a total lack of personal integrity such that his entire being is in cognitive dissonance with itself. He relies on either cluelessness or politeness of others to maintain this incredible facade.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I notice that you noticed that Rod hasn't responded to the op-ed yet. He's probably waiting for the "Larison spin".

    Re: the laughable "No perfect church" (really, Rod? NOOOO!) travesty: it's a little like saying "Boy, I sure learned a lot about how to screw up a marriage! After my messy divorce that I tried to keep under wraps, I knew my next marriage would be a lot better. Plus, as a bonus, I decided that I didn't love my first wife anyway and my new one is really "much more like it", as they say."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Interestingly, his lame excuse for persisting in schism comes right on the eve of an OCA Synod that's supposed to decide the fate of the OCA and resolve the OCA Scandal.

    ISTM he's heading off charges of hypocrisy, in advance, should the synod meeting tomorrow (7/31) actually result in same-old/same-old/corruption-as-usual, rather than real resolution of the crisis.

    So, allow me to anticipate him by leveling the resounding charge:

    HYPOCRITE!!!!

    Diane

    ReplyDelete
  5. In other words, i've learned a lesson that nullifies my reasons for having left the catholic church ... and i've taken that lesson with me to my new church. Dreher has moved from incoherence to a total lack of personal integrity such that his entire being is in cognitive dissonance with itself. He relies on either cluelessness or politeness of others to maintain this incredible facade.


    As usual, Kathkleen: completely incisive analysis.

    No wonder Rod Dreher's scared sh_tless of you. :)

    Diane

    ReplyDelete
  6. Go to the website www.victorycaucus.com
    to see the real story on Iraq. Also, getting Dreher to admit Anti-Catholic bias will not happen. I live in the same neck of the woods as him and the only people to ever admit Anti-Catholic bias wear white sheets and hoods.Finally, what do you think about getting the Orthodox Christian Network to challenge him to a debate? He has joined them recently.

    http://www.directionstoorthodoxy.org/mod/news/view.php?article_id=671


    Isn't amazing how in two years he is doing more for Orthodoxy than he ever tried for Catholicism?

    ReplyDelete
  7. About Rod's lessons learned about no church being perfect...

    I must say, first, to any 40-year-old raised in a Christian home that realizes no church is perfect: Duh. The behavior of the Apostles before Pentacost and their later epistles to churches dealing with all manner of internal problems is proof enough of that.

    Second, there is no way for Rod to deal with this in public and do so with any real decency. This convenient realization after the fact of his conversion undercuts the very reasons he moved: for his insistence that he did/does believe that the doctrine of Eastern Orthodoxy is more correct than Roman Catholicism, his narrative about why he changed churches has very little to do with theology. He can't stay where he is and look good, and he can't return to Catholicism this quickly and look good. The key phrase is that he can't do this and do it well "in public", but is there any real doubt that Rod has no disposition for clamming up and keeping his private life private?

    (And, a quick question. Rod now writes, "I've been worshiping with the Orthodox for almost two years now, and I'm just now getting the rhythm of the Divine Liturgy." Do his earlier accounts fit with this timeline?)

    On -- to me -- the much more important issue of Iraq, Rod's really in a bind and has only three alternatives given his past behavior:

    1) Accept the NY Times op-ed as gospel, since earlier he proclaimed that the Surge was failing simply because the Times said so.

    2) Discredit the Times as a reliable source, just as he repeated the preemptive character assassination of General Petreus.

    3) Ignore this op-ed just as he ignores all evidence that contradicts his positions, from the claim that conservatives didn't criticize Bush until late 2005 to the idea that, apparently, food does defile a man.

    It looks like he's going with Door Number Three, and yet still he writes about Iraq, yesterday citing an NRO article about Iraqi Christians, writing (dispicably) that "With brothers in Christ like G.W. Bush, Iraqi Christians don't need enemies."

    NRO today has a symposium about the NY Times piece. I'm going to guess that, like every Hanson article and every other piece on Iraq that challenges Rod's position, it's going to be ignored. For Rod it might as well not exist.

    What's hilarious is that the article he cites takes a position opposite from Rod, at its conclusion:

    As Sargon Hanna watches his son slowly die from the wounds inflicted by terrorists in Iraq, he maintains hope in the American vision for Iraq. “They [the U.S.] must find some solution for our people. Yesterday, it was someone, today it was me and tomorrow it will be someone else. This has gone on for too long.” Like the hundreds of thousands of Christian refugees and those internally displaced, Sargon reflects the optimism that their sacrifice will not be in vain and that there will be a place for them in Iraq.

    Even THIS is ignored in order for Rod to make his point, that the plight of Christians in Iraq is bad -- never mind that he seems quite open to the argument that genocide (emotionally loaded word that it is) is no reason not to retreat.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rod has no credibility, no integrity, and no excuses. God help him. I really mean that.

    Diane

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm dueling with Rod over at this post about how American religion is all about the middle-class, just like sports, or something. He obviously thinks this is medieval Europe; I mean, let's have a show of hands -- how many middle-class people here had lower class grandparents? It's all so goofy -- I don't know what point he's trying to make, obviously Rod's "educating" me as he points out. I can't wait until I get my freaking diploma.

    ReplyDelete
  10. On second thought, I believe Rod's made a comment that undermines his credibility on Iraq, just as his recent stuff about imperfect churches undermines his move to Orthodoxy:

    "Having been absolutely certain that the war was the right thing to have done, and that we would prevail easily, I am no longer confident that I can discern when emotion is affecting my judgment unduly."

    Let's see whether he can applie this lesson to his sometimes quite vicious opposition to our continued presence in Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  11. About the "big enough church" post, Pauli, I still wonder if some, um, indispensible aspects of Christianity continue to elude Rod.

    On Orthodox and Catholic churches:

    "There is a spiritual depth and intellectual complexity to these forms of Christianity that appeals to middle-class intellectuals who have grown weary with the emotionalism and trendiness of much popular religion."

    Complexity is not a thing to be sought after: truth is. The Trinity is a tough, tough concept, but we preach it because it is true, not because it is tough. I think "seeker" churches should be criticized for trying to water down doctrine that happens to be complex, but I also think that older churches should likewise be criticized for admiring complex doctrines simply because they are complex.

    In Acts 15, the Apostles agreed that Gentile converts should not be made to carry "a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear," and they focused on essential doctrines and practices. Rod seems to have missed this.

    "I would not have the Orthodox Church compromise on its ancient liturgy, for example, for the sake of making it possible for just anybody to walk off the street and feel right at home, with no effort at all."

    Lost people who come to church often do -- and should -- feel uncomfortable because of the crisis of conscience that arises when confronted with the truth of his sinfulness and God's offer of grace through the cross, but that doesn't mean that we should needlessly add to the discomfort through non-essential practices. If we try to abandon the uncomfortable truth of the Gospel, we're failing in our duty to carry out the Great Commission, but if we wrap the Gospel in layer upon layer of other uncomfortable, otherwise unnecessary trappings of church, we're also failing in that duty.

    ReplyDelete
  12. One more thing.

    As a Bapist who continues to learn about and appreciate my roots, I take very seriously the concept of religious freedom for the individual. As such, I'm troubled by Rod's writing, "while I dislike what's happening, attempting to use the laws to suppress the Protestant evangelists are doomed, because for whatever reason, that form of Christianity it speaking to people's needs in ways that our form(s) is (are) not."

    Suppressing others' right to worship isn't just ineffective, it's immoral, and it ought to be dismissed as the offensive idea that it is, not just as a counterproductive idea.

    "That is, in the past it would have been understood that the Thing That We All Do is worship at the Catholic/Orthodox parish, whether we remain as beginners in faith, or have plumbed the theological depths of the Tradition, because That Is What We Do -- but today, there is an unregulated free market in faith, and we are free to choose."

    There's almost regret in this comment: almost as if to say, there's an unregulated free market in faith, dammit.

    At the beginning of this year, I wrote, "It just doesn't seem to me that Rod Dreher is much of a fan of freedom, certainly not economic freedom, which is in some ways the bedrock for political freedom."

    Perhaps economic freedom isn't the only freedom with which Rod Dreher is uncomfortable.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bubba, re: freedom: just found this short article whilst poking around in old Geo. Weigel stuff comparing a 1995 John Paul 2 address with Pres. Bush's 2nd inaugural. Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I can't stand to even visit the RodBlog these days, so I won't look up these posts (until I have the intestinal fortitude for it, at least). But man, if he's talking about Putin's / Aleksi's crackdown on non-Orthodox churches...I do not see how he has a single leg to stand on. Or even a toe.

    What the Russian Orthodox are doing to the non-Orthodox is absolutely criminal.

    Russia is getting increasingly scary. And Russian Orthodoxy is up to its eyebrows in the whole nationalist/fascistic trend there.

    Diane

    ReplyDelete
  15. no kidding russia is getting increasingly scary. did anyone see the report on drudge about the fascistic youth rally, sponsored by a youth group affiliated with Putin, encouraging people to procreate that very day?

    ReplyDelete
  16. ep, saw it, Kathleen (on yahoo, not Drudge, but same report, I gather).

    Tat's what prompted my observation.

    I-yi-yi. :o

    BTW---I've just concluded a disastrous e-mail dialogue with an Orthodox guy from the RodBlog. Throughout the entire "conversation," (he wouldn't let me call it a "dialogue"--talk about control-freaky!!), he repeatedly insulted me and passed judgment on my every syllable, including "and" and "the." He also came off as a completely humorless prig. Finally I had enough. I had already suggested dropping it once; then he suggested it, and I concurred--and told him to shove it where the sun don't shine. (Well, I was nicer than that about it.)

    Which once more raises the question: Does conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy make people mean and bitter? Or does Orthodoxy simply attract mean, bitter people?

    Or are some people simply jerks, irrespective of their religious affiliation? LOL!

    I don't think this guy has kids yet. When he does, I can just imagine him making them point their toes toward the altar at all times, when in church. :)

    Oy!!

    Diane

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oops, holy typos! "ep" should be "Yep," and "tat" should be "that," natch.

    Diane

    ReplyDelete
  18. Glenn Greenwald's response to the NY Times op/ed is an attempted character assassination that fails to address the claims about improvement in Iraq.

    This is the same approach Greenwald had with General Petraeus, and Rod cited that first smearing to attack the general's credibility. I'd wager that if Rod even addresses the article -- perhaps he's too busy with the DMN book blog, reading books about how war is bad to address even the possibility that the situation in Iraq is improving -- he'll cite Greenwald's piece or a similar piece in order to discredit the article.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Isn't amazing how in two years he is doing more for Orthodoxy than he ever tried for Catholicism?

    Yep. But doesn't it also show how desperate and insecure the U.S. Orthodox must be, to recruit someone like Rod as a spokesman? I mean, he's been Orthodox for less than a year, already!

    They jump on these poster boys (e.g., Franky Schaeffer) and then it comes back to bite 'em, when the poster boy makes a royal public ass of himself.

    Diane

    ReplyDelete
  20. Pauli, you might be interested to know that Rod's posted a follow-up about Pentacostalism and modern man. It's largely incoherent, that modernity presents life "exempt from restrictions" which makes evangelical and Pentacostal churches more attractive to the poor, even though the poor are less likely than the rich to face few boundaries and thus expect constant progress.

    Honestly, I don't think technology has changed the culture even half as much as Rod apparently thinks: relationships continue to break; people face death and weakness, if in nursing homes and not in the farmer's field, and the ethical teachings of Christ still resonate as we still fall far short of His standards. I think Rod's trying way too hard to be clever.

    Annnnd, there still is nothing about the NY Times op/ed. Maybe he's hoping to wait it out to dismiss it as old news when it does finally come up.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Well, I'm still digesting the new Pentecostal fixation. I'd love to know his source on the numbers. I have a theory that it's kind of an "apples & orange" thing to compare joining the Catholic or Orthodox church to joining a Pentecostal or Fundamentalist church. But until I have hard data, I'll leave it alone. Seems like another "sources say" piece that MSM is famous for.

    ReplyDelete