I am checking out Memeorandum, and I am seeing hundreds of obits for the Howard term after his loss in the elections yesterday, and I just don’t get it. I don’t mean to belittle Australia’s contribution to the grandest most epicest struggle of our time in Iraq, but what was the peak contribution from Australia? A couple thousand? If memory serves correctly, they have around 1500 right now, if that. Probably far less, but I just don’t remember.
So is Glenn Greenwald really right when he states the following:
Our nation’s own faux Civilization Warriors are mourning Howard’s defeat as though they’ve suffered the loss of a comrade-in-arms. From National Review’s Mark Steyn: “Of all the doughty warriors of the Anglosphere, Howard, his Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and their colleagues had the best rhetoric on the present war.”
“Doughty” = “steadfastly courageous” and “brave, bold, intrepid, fearless.” Thus, we see here yet again one of the central pathologies of the neoconservative fantasy-warrior: namely, the belief that those who favor sending others off to war are themselves “courageous,” “intrepid” and “brave.”
Is Greater Wingnuttia that upset about Howard losing simply because of his occasional rhetorical support of Bush? It certainly is not because of Australia’s (and again, not to demean their help) contribution to the force make-up. Is this what the Bush dead-enders are left with- clinging to the rhetoric of a foreign leader? I realize, I think the Republican party and right-wing are such losers and so wrong on many issues I left the party and joined a party I don’t feel wholly comfortable with, but are they really THIS pathetic that all they have left are Bush, Cheney, and Australia’s Howard to worship, and now just Bush and Cheney? Is that really it?
How the mighty have fallen.