liz_marcs | The good (massage) and bad (Bush II: Revenge of the Bushes)...

The good (massage) and bad (Bush II: Revenge of the Bushes)...

Lucky me. I finally got a chance to take advantage of my parents' Christmas present of "a day at the spa." Yet another example of why I love my family. Sometimes I think I'm the only person who didn't grow up in a dysfunctional household. Which means I probably did but am too screwed up to know it.

Anyway...

The story is, my parents were wondering what to get me for "Gimme! Gimme! Oooooh! Prezzies!" Day since I was all, like, "I'll settle for a meal I didn't cook, thanks!" My brother--who'll probably make someone a good husband if he ever, y'know, dates--comes up with, "She's always wanted a professional massage but she'd never buy one, so how about buying her a spa day?"

One quick trip on the Internet later and I get me a $200 gift certificate to day spa up in Gloucester. Yay! Finally cashed in today.

Now, I'm not exactly a girlie girl (in fact, in college, the joke among my friends was I was an honorary guy...despite the fact I had a boyfriend, go figure...), but I felt truly ignorant. I only today found out what a "French manicure" was (my first manicure, maybe not my last) and what was involved with a facial (definitely my last--how do people *stand* having their face covered with hot towels and slathered with smelly stuff? Seriously.) and my second-evah professional massage (Heaven!).

The facial person thought I had beautiful skin and fabulous pores (hunh? pores? unnnhhhhh, okay...) and started asking me about my "beauty regimen" that keeps my skin in such good shape. To which I answered: "Beauty regimen?"

Aaaaaalrighty then.

What it boiled down to was: I am a water freak. I eat lots of veggies and fruits. I exercise. I don't wear make-up (waaaay too lazy to bother). I wash my face (my whole body, really) with olive oil soap (using the same bar). Once I month I remember something about preventing blackheads and put a clay mask on the face and wash it off.

This apparently is not good enough. I was informed that if I want to keep my skin young-looking into my 30s, I must begin immediately.

Ahhhh, clarification ma'am. I am in my mid-30s.

Whoooops!

Genetics apparantly trumps all I guess. (Heeeee!)

Made me feel good to hear that I have beautiful skin for a 25-year-old who doesn't really do much with it, even though that ship sailed a little bit ago. Wheeee!

Anyway, the French manicure is cool-looking. I'll actually try to maintain it. (Unh, right. But I will try. If I can get my lazy ass in gear to do it.) And WOW! Feeling the aftermath of having my muscles relaxed.

In the middle of all this, I bought Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies. I'm 30 pages in and already I want to kick George II's ass for being an idiot.

The sad thing is, none of the testimony before the 9/11 Commission this week was news to me. I'm just one of those weirdo armchair travelers and I knew about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda back in the early to mid-90s.

Now keep in mind, I wasn't obsessed. Certainly not to the level Clarke was/is. In ten years I've read less than 10 books on the subject of radical Islamists, Middle East policy, Islam, or the Middle East anything. Books that were and still are available at your local Borders or on Amazon. Books that you can easily find anywhere. I don't consider myself an expert, I wouldn't even say that I'm knowledgeable about the issue.

But I did know some things:

On 9/11 I was in downtown Boston (scary that Clarke mentions in passing in the first 30 pages they thought on 9/11 Boston might be on the target list because of the liquid natural gas port...and if that happened, bye-bye downtown Boston). I called my dad on the cell as they shooed everyone out of the city and on to commuter rails and told him: "We're either turning Afganistan into glass or a whole lot of Hamas leaders are gonna die in mysterious accidents." This was before it was official that al Qaeda was behind the attacks. I knew this because of the smattering of books I read over the previous 10 years.

I knew Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda, so needless to say, I never bought the Iraq-al Qaeda connection reasoning for the invasion.

I suspected (but didn't know) that someone was lying about WMD in Iraq.

Frankly, we should be a hella lot more worried about North Korea, the Pakistan/India cross-border glare, and our good buddies, Saudia Arabia, and, lest we forget, the still alive-and-kicking-and-revitalized al Qaeda. Why are we in Iraq again?

Assurances from our government that Iraq would be over before we knew it meant someone was lying out their ass or had no idea what we were in for. As I told a friend at the time: "This is gonna make Vietnam look like a walk in the park."

While that last statement is arguable, I think we can safely say that George II is looking a lot more like Nixon and a lot less like Churchill. Just sayin'.

Now, the thing is, I could figure this out by reading, as I pointed out, less than a handful of books over 10 years. None of these "revelations" before the 9-11 Commission, none of the testimony, nothing is new news.

What's new is just how *deep* the denial was and still is in the Bush II White House. That is frightening.

The fact is, the roots go back to arming the Afaghanis during the 1980s against the Soviets. However, I honestly don't believe anyone in their right mind could've ever predicted something like al Qaeda, certainly not at that stage of the game. So much as I didn't and still don't like Ronald Reagan, you can't blame the guy.

I also don't blame George Bush the I. Not crazy about him, but he's clearly the sane guy in the family because he was smart enough to be an internationalist when, you know, we went international. While I was glad to see him go, I don't think a second term would've been anywhere near as damaging as just four years under his sonny-boy.

How sad is it that an experienced Cold Warrior with Republican and Conservative creds like Clarke gives the most props to Clinton...bane of the right wing...Clinton for being the guy who was probably the smartest president in recent years and who actually got the potential threat al Qaeda and other nationless movements possess? That. Is. Sad.

Clinton apparently did more than anyone realized, but even he had his hands tied by lack of national will, scandals at home, and a whole host of other problems.

Note to self: When I'm Empress of the Planet, line up the editorial department of American Spectator and have them summarily shot. While we're at it, let's throw Ken Star on the firing line.

To be honest here: I was making Wag the Dog jokes when Clinton ordered his bombing runs on suspected al Qaeda strongholds in Afganistan and Sudan. And it turns out he was perfectly justified in ordering those runs.

Mea culpa on that one.

But here's the point: there's not a whole lot that's news to me (aside from the depths of delusion from which the Bush II White House has refused to emerge). Me. Who read barely anything. Me. Who found it interesting in an arm chair traveler kind of way.

Yet this is apparently news to a lot of people. Hold me. I'm scared.

I think Clarke had it a little wrong. He apologized for the government failing its people.

I think we should apologize for failing ourselves.

I don't know if 9/11 could've been prevented, but that's not the point. The point is the "maybe."

I apologize for the rant. Now I have to go read Paul O'Neil's book when I'm done with Clarke's.

For those of you interested in a quickie reading list for the historical roots:

From Beirut to Jersusalem by Thomas L. Friedman
Hell, anything by Friedman is an excellent choice.

The World's Most Dangerous Places and Three Worlds Gone Mad: Dangerous Journeys through the War Zones of Africa, Asia, and the South Pacific both by Robert Young Pelton
I have Dangerous Places going back to the second edition...my introduction into what the Muslim Brotherhood really meant, al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden. Be sure to check out the Black Flag Cafe, the message board associated with Pelton.

Charlie Wilson's War by George Crile
About Afganistan proxy war against the Soviets and the right wing--and we're talking extreme right wing--push to support it.

Blackhawk Down: A Story of Modern Warby Mark Bowden
Again, doesn't speak to the issue at hand, and focuses on a Bush I/Clinton fuck-up, but paints a pretty good picture of what American troops can expect when surrounded by armed enemies who look exactly like civilians.

Holidays in Hell by PJ O'Rourke
While not throwing any particular light on the issue, a fun read with some interesting insights, even if some of the info is outdated. Plus, you'll probably be depressed and O'Rourke's wry observations might cheer you up.

That doesn't even include a whole host of other books that focus directly on this issue, including Sleeping with Devil by Robert Baer about the Saudi-U.S. relationship or any book by Bernard Lewis. The list above are books that I've read in the past few years. It also doesn't include clearly partisan books on either side of the political-culture divide.

People looking for interesting an intelligent online debate on this one, I highly recommend visiting the Straight Dope Message Boards, which you can find here. The Straight Dope Message Boards is, of course, associated with The Stright Dope, Fighting Ignorance Since 1973 (It's taking longer than we thought), a syndicated column (and online Web site) showcasing "Cecil Adams." Check it out.

Right. I promise to post another part to "Living History" tomorrow and actually attempt to answer e-mail. I'm wrestling with re-working a part that's in a few chapters, so that's where my brain has been...aside from ranting about Clarke, I mean...

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

This apparently is not good enough. I was informed that if I want to keep my skin young-looking into my 30s, I must begin immediately.

Ahhhh, clarification ma'am. I am in my mid-30s.

This just happened to my friend Angie last week.

Why are we in Iraq again?

Because the adminitstration had a major fetish. It's not like there wasn't a case for going after Saddam, because there was an argument. But there wasn't much of an argument for making it the sort of priority the administration has, given the other options available and then other security concerns faced.

But then, Toppling Iraq and Cutting Taxes are pretty much articles of faith regardless of reality. For GWB It's pretty much believed that if he did the two, all goodness on international and domestic policy would logically follow. That this might be incorrect, or that the implementation of these goals (given that they are set in stone) might be flawed, is simply beyond his ability to contemplate.

I admit I was wishy-washy on the Iraq thing.

I thought fighting a two-front war (Iraq, Afghanistan) was a stupid move of German proportions (Note: Not comparing Bush II to Hitler, merely pointing out that I think that World War II Germany fighting an Eastern/Western front war was a boneheaded tactical move) but at the time no one was clear on the WMD issue...maybe the CIA had info we weren't privvy to, maybe we were warned by a friendly intelligence agency...who knew?

I thought it was a bad idea given the information we had at the time, and I thought administration was over-selling and it was clear Bush II had a boner for Saddam, but there was enough doubt in my mind to make me hesitate.

A friend of mine was all for it, but she's doing the "in retrospect" thing as well.

That Saddam was well past his sell-by date, yup. I agree. Shouldda been done the first go-round when there was justification and some international support for it...or should've been done in the future when there was better justification for going back in. I really don't doubt that it would've happened eventually, although I tend to think Saddam would've made a play for another oil-rich country, which tended to be his targets in the past. He really wasn't so much about uniting the Middle East under his flag, but he seemed to be all about gaining control of the crude, which would in turn have made an awful lot of the world dependent on Iraq. Not a stupid thing to consider if you think about it. Somehow I doubt going toe-to-toe with any country with the ability to outspend him on defense was high on his things to do list.

Again, just my spec based on very limited knowledge and on what little I've read. I'm talking out my ass as much as the next person.

The real problem in my mind is that it turns out we walked in under a cloud of lies, we walked in acting like the new sherriff was in town and we were gonna kick butt and take names, and we had no clear idea of how to get out of it.

Someone else on my Flist (Hi David!) pointed out: We're trying to fight Iraq and Afgahnistan on the cheap...and you can't do that if you're trying to make an argument to counter the angry young men in madrassas. Nation-building has to be involved. You can't just drop bombs and walk away because that's just proving their point. What you need is a Marshall Plan-like approach that shows what you've got to offer. Not a bad idea that, but given how the Iraq misadventure started, difficult (if not impossible) to pull off.

I think my formerly pro-invade Iraq friend put it best: Sooner or later we'd have to deal with Iraq/Saddam. Or someone else would. The point is: with the economy tanking, al Qaeda still operating, Osama bin Laden still eluding, and the aftermath of 9/11 still to sort out, *now* was probably not the time to do it.

Heee. Long-winded way of saying I agree.

was a stupid move of German proportions (Note: Not comparing Bush II to Hitler

And here I was thinking you were comparing Bush to Luddendorf. I wonder if W not-so-secretly worships Thor too.

The real problem in my mind is that it turns out we walked in under a cloud of lies, we walked in acting like the new sherriff was in town and we were gonna kick butt and take names, and we had no clear idea of how to get out of it.

I think that's actually a symptom, not the problem. There's no overarching strategic context for administration policy within which this is going to fit. And thus, there's no clear way to develop or later and analyze policies in a way to make sure the program and impelementation furthers those goals.

(I'm an amateur historian, but professionally/academically, I'm a student of Defense policy and security strategy. So no surpise, I find Clarke compelling.)

Basically, W et al want to project an aura of toughness and they want to get rid of Saddam. But that's about it. No coherent Grand Strategy or vision. Compare to Nixon’s Cold War strategy w/respect to US-USSR-China relations.

There are plenty of reasons to go after Saddam, and if one really believes in the reasons - the question is how Saddam in particular measures up against everything else. In terms of nuclear threat, how does he measure against Indo-Pak or NKorea. In terms of rights, how does he compare to other violators. In terms of terrorism, how does he compare to Al Qaueda. And so on, and so on. As my (RL) friend Haggai has pointed out to me, the actual rationale provided by the Administration was essentially a MacGuffin - only so important to them inasmuch as it got them the war they wanted.

Which is the real source of the problem. There was no set strategic purpose for the invasion - just a set of vague intents. And thus, no policy can be designed to produce match it. And it can't be set up for Quality Control, reassessment, revision...

How do you set an exit strategy when you never had a vision to go after in the first place? They just wanted to destroy Saddam, and they can’t have a competent follow-up prepared. They never thought about it, or how Post-Saddam Iraq fit into US policy. And it seems to have also overridden everything else that was on the plate, instead of fitting into a bigger picture on where they wanted the US to be in 2004.

Even if I agreed with the aims, and I don’t know that I do, I really don’t think this Administration’s management is well suited to actually carrying out those aims. And that frustrates me as much as the substantive issues do.

I was in Boston for a couple of days in August 2001 and had dinner with some friends at the restaurant on top of one of the biggest skyscrapers, which had a wonderful view towards the airport. I think it was about five or ten degrees off the direct line of the main runway, and as we were eating we could see an endless succession of aircraft lights approaching the runway and taking off towards and below us.

I remember making a joke about being ready to duck fast if one of the pilots got it wrong. A month later it didn't seem very funny...

Great reading list and I hope to get to it this summer. As for Blackhawk down--that incident doesn't reflect so much on the abilities of US troops--don't forget, those guys fought off an armed mob at over ten to one odds, and, except for the poor unfortunates who were killed, beat them; as it does the lack of will and direction of the Clinton administration in Somalia--true a legacy of the Bush administration--but then Bay of Pigs was a legacy of the Eisenhower administration, but it happened on Kennedy's watch. When you engage in peacekeeping operations such as this, you have to expect soldiers to come home in body bags--it's an unfortunate part of the business. By cutting and running after seeing those painful images, the Clinton administration displayed a posture of weakness that Al-Queda and others picked up on and that has only now begun to be dispelled by the fact that we are sticking around in Iraq--much to the irritation of the al-Queda figure directing operations in that country who, as a recent captured document shows, has expressed dismay at the fact that the US is not cutting and running after the deaths of a few troops. Now, this does not mean that I supported the original invasion--as I said in my journal entry, I have some very real problems with the reasons for war, the planning of the war, and the apparent losing of the peace that is going on right now--this has been a cluster foul-up of the first order which might or might not cost Bush Jr the election.

As for the massage--I'm envious...

I've been wanting to pick up Charlie Wilson's War. Calpundit (I'll see if I can find an archived link) notes a very telling anecdote in that book about the very special alternate reality in which neocon Richard Perle lives. Perle thought you could get captured Russians to defect by broadcasting encouraging messages over loudspeakers. As one might expect, it was not a rousing success.

Our local independent bookstore ran out of Clarke's Against All Enemies. I also want to get The Age of Sacred Terror, written by two Clinton staffers whose names escape me.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The good (massage) and bad (Bush II: Revenge of the Bushes)...

Cecil Adams is a fun read

Re: Cecil Adams is a fun read

Re: Cecil Adams is a fun read

no subject

Nice reading list

Great reading list!