QandO

May 27, 2004

The Hunt for Red Tom Clancy
Posted by

Alan Wirbicki writes in The New Republic that the real shocker about Gen. Anthony Zinni's new book isn't the content. Zinni's been a bush critic for quite a while. The real shock is who co-wrote it: Tom Clancy.

But Battle Ready is still a milestone, for reasons that, paradoxically, have nothing to do with Zinni at all. It seems to have been mostly overlooked, but the co-writer of Battle Ready, and the man who gets top billing on its cover, is none other than Tom Clancy, the hugely popular author. Even if the general's criticisms don't make much of an impression, the identity of his Boswell might. Unlike Zinni, who is unknown to most Americans, Clancy is a cultural icon; his name is short-hand for the conservative, pro-military mindset typically associated with Republicans. By itself, Clancy's decision to lend his name to Zinni's book is not going to change any votes. But it's a telling indication of how precarious the president's carefully managed image as a friend of the U.S. military has become. When Ph.D. candidates of the future write the literary history of the Bush presidency, the day that a Republican administration became the bad guy in a Tom Clancy book will surely stand out as a cultural Rubicon crossed.

That's right. Mr. Republican Paperback Writer himself. As Wirzbicki notes, if you're a Republican president and you've lost Tom Clancy, then you might be in real trouble with your base.

Well, maybe, and maybe not.

It all comes down to what happens after 30 June. If the transitional government looks like it's working right, the Iraqis start to take over more of their own security, and things start settling down, a lot of paleo-conservatives like Clancy and Zinni may not look as smart as they do now.

You know, when you're right in the middle of a complicated and difficult national project, especially a war, it's hard to tell how it's going to turn out. Not only do you have to do all the the right things, there's an enemy who's constantly trying to prevent you from succeeding.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the news you get is almost always skewed against good news. Watching thousands of Iraqis peacefully going to work in, say Karbala, doesn't make anywhere near as good a video as a couple of hundred fanatics firing AK-47s into the air in Najaf. If it bleeds, it leads, which, while it makes for great television, doesn't necessarily mean you're getting a realistic picture of the world.

I see a lot of retired generals bitching and moaning about how Iraq will all lead to a bad end. But how many of them have been there? I see some pentagon armchair warriors carping about the Bush Strategy, too. But, really, in an organization of 2 million people, is it really shocking that you can find some who don't like the Bush Strategy?

And, while we're on the subject, how many of them have spent the last two years on the Joint Staff, wearing their nice, starched Blues or service greens, instead of slogging through the sand in Desert Days, like the guys out on the sharp end are?

I see Iraqi blogs coming on line now, and the writers seem to think things are going fairly well, despite some trouble spots here and there. I see enlisted people writing letters home, saying the same thing.

So, what does it mean?

I dunno. I'm not there. Haven't been anywhere near there since 1991. And--and this is an important bit--neither are Tom Clancy or Tony Zinni.

Look, in march of 1942, I could've said all sorts of unkind things about FDR. Irresponsibility that led to Pearl Harbor. Getting us involved with a German war when the real enemy was al-Qaida--uh, I mean, Japan. Losing the Pacific Fleet's battleships, which, as any moderately competent navy man could tell you were the key assets of any naval war, and whose loss meant the Japanese fleet could steam peacefully from Tokyo to Adelaide. Heck, in February of 1943, I could've argued that the disaster at Kasserine Pass was proof that going against a powerful, sophisticated military like Germany's was the height of folly.

It would have all sounded very credible, and learned, and, indeed, retired admirals and generals were, in fact, making similar noises at the time.

And it would have been completely and totally wrong.

All it took to completely change the picture in the pacific was the Japanese loss at Midway. It didn't end the war. The killing went on for years. But from that moment, it was over. No matter how tenaciously and viciously they fought, the Japanese were going to lose.

If June 30 begins to look like Iraq's Midway, then all the Tom Clancy novels in the world won't matter. If not, then Jack Ryan could appear out of thin air, pat W on the back, and say "That's my boy!" and it wouldn't be nearly enough to keep the electorate from driving W out of Washington like some kind of poison troll.

TrackBack