Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman There was a time—ever so briefly—when Pat Tillman dominated the news cycle. Actually, there were two times: one, when the football semi-star joined the military and become a posterboy for patriotism and self-sacrifice, and another when he died via friendly fire, becoming yet another It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad World story in a long string of nonsensical happenings on the other side of the world.
Alternatively, read the PDF format
Several weeks ago, the War in Iraq entered its fourth year—despite the official “end of major combat” that the codpiece-sporting President announced mere months after it began—and the steady sectarian violence pursuant to the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party shows no encouraging signs of abatement. It has been a busy four years, with opponents of the war criticizing its planners for the endless stream of seemingly empty motivations, the President and his closest associates maintaining the need to finish stabilizing the region, regardless of cost, and a growing swell of political moderates noting the sour taste that the whole affair has left in their mouths. To a reader in 2007, it seems silly—almost masochistic—to read accounts like Anne Garrels’ Naked in Baghdad: the book chronicles the NPR correspondent’s time in Iraq from just before to less than a month after the United States’ invasion, and its message seems congruent with the cries that have been heard since 2003, the truth falling somewhere in between the most stringent rhetoric from either ideological side. This is old news—no pun intended.
Garrels’ fragmented narrative does not coalesce into an overarching parable about preemptive war or the human cost of conflict, nor does it fall prey to maudlin sympathies. The most important “string”—to borrow one of Garrels’ own metaphors—to be found in the story of Iraq’s fall is the similarities to the ailing Soviet Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Not only is Russian language and influence pervasive in the Middle East—Garrels notes this, citing the Soviet Union’s own intrusions into the region during the 20th century—but the parallels between Saddam Hussein and some of the former U.S.S.R.’s less illustrious leaders, and between the two countries’ essential dissolution into chaos and mob rule during regime change, is a pressing allusion.
Naked in Baghdad Mere days ago, the War in Iraq entered its fourth year—despite the official “end of major combat” that the codpiece-sporting President announced mere months after it began—and the steady sectarian violence pursuant to the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party shows no encouraging signs of abatement. It has been a busy four years, with opponents of the war criticizing its planners for the endless stream of seemingly empty motivations, the President and his closest associating maintaining the need to finish stabilizing the region, regardless of cost, and a growing swell of political moderates noting the sour taste that the whole affair has left in their mouths. To a reader in 2007, it seems silly—almost masochistic—to read Anne Garrels’ Naked in Baghdad: the book chronicles the NPR correspondent’s time in Baghdad from just before to less than a month after the United States’ invasion of Iraq, and its message seems congruent with the cries that we’ve been hearing ever since 2003, the truth falling somewhere in between the most stringent rhetoric from either ideological side. This is old news—no pun intended.
Garrels’ fragmented narrative does not coalesce into an overarching parable about preemptive war or the human cost of conflict, nor does it fall prey to maudlin sympathies. I believe that most important “string”—if I may borrow one of Garrels’ own metaphors—to be found in Naked in Baghdad is the occasional reference to the author’s time in the Soviet Union during its declining years. Not only is Russian language and influence pervasive in the Middle East—Garrels notes this, citing the Soviet Union’s own intrusions into the region during the 20th century—but the parallels between Saddam Hussein and some of the former U.S.S.R.’s less illustrious leaders, and between the two countries’ essential dissolution into chaos and mob rule during regime change, is a pressing allusion.
I was forwarded this article this morning by someone who often sends me not links to articles, but the sort of perfidious chain e-mails that recast a bogus FNC story and add the lines “God Bless America! If you agree with this e-mail, pass it on!”
When I’m passed an e-mail that is obviously false, my usual reaction is to reply with a link to Snopes: the source is trustworthy enough that the sender believes it, if somewhat resentfully.
When I’m passed National Review, my tendency is to simply ignore them, as stuff from that magazine isn’t particularly opprobrious, but—in my estimation—still wrong.
However, I can’t resist tearing this latest one to pieces. It comes from Investors Business Daily, which seems to me like a less prestigious version of the Wall Street Journal, replete with the conservative ideologues manning the editorial page. But this particular article reads like some awful tripe from Town Hall—it’s that bad.