Ray Robison emails:
The media has decided that the Taliban is winning and they are running with the “resurgent Taliban” lie no matter how much NATO says the Taliban is not “resurgent”. They are burying US success to help the democrat nominee.
Are they? Or is such spin actually more helpful to the candidate seen as most likely to prosecute the war vigourously, John McCain.
— Oh, wait. I guess that’s the same thing, isn’t it? Only they’ll get to put an (R) in front of it. Because of the synchronicity.
My bad.
Meantime, Ardolino has posted part II of his series, “Inside Iraqi Politics.” The first installment is here.
A taste:
Security gains in Iraq have maintained momentum for five months and the focus has turned to spurring and gauging the country’s political progress. The ultimate goal of the troop surge executed by the military was for improved security to provide “breathing room†for such progress, which can be simplified to three fronts: “ground-up†political progress, executive political progress by the federal government, and federal legislative progress.
Perfect time for Oprahfied Americans and latte liberals to rally behind a charismatic empty suit who would undermine the progress of our “long hard slog” in order to appease his anti-war base, a base whose entire foreign policy strategy consists of gnashing their teeth, counting up the dead, and bemoaning the sinister militarism of its own country (unless, of course, we’re talking about, say, Kosovo) — all so that they can believe themselves peaceful people unsullied by the horrors of “elected” war.
NOT IN THEIR NAME!
Such easy sanctimony is part and parcel of a culture that has learned to rationalize its way out of any tough decisions — learning, from their annointed leaders, to kick the can down the road until some external savior steps in and returns things to the halcyon days of the Clinton years, where history had ended, and the CiC was getting hummers in the Oval Office while chatting up the Chinese.
It’s all very illusory — and make no mistake, these adepts of the naked emperor know his junk to be exposed and bouncing about like a chubby, sworn in yo-yo — but they don’t seem to care. The Me Generation has found its acolytes, which, sadly, ain’t too difficult in a cultural ethos of in-your-face relativism cynically disguised as either “pragmatism,” academic “recontextualization,” or, in more official circles, “realism.”
Something so very continental about all that, you see: sophisticated, decadent, corrupt — a Danielle Steele novel come steamily to life.
Which is why should Obama be elected, I think he’d do well to consider Fabio as his UN Rep.
In the end, should such a movement succeed in taking power, attempts to pull out of Iraq will put both a strain (immediate) and a stain (long term) on an Obama presidency. And there won’t be much that the history books will be able to do to insulate him — aside from celebrating the fact that he was the first Black president.
Form over content.
This is our America.
I’d rather see photos of Angelina Jolie, if it’s all the same.
oh…..i lurvs fabio.
hes so hawt.
but seriously…
when Obama gets briefed an gets classified access hes gonna know a lot more wat that assclown clinton did while in office.
i think he may have an epiphany.
an…it may be time to draw down…..i wanna see wat Petraeus says.
Obama is far more likely to listen to Petraeus an the JCS than bilary.
bilary’s agenda is retainin power at any cost.
There’s been a planned draw down, from what I understand. Which makes a lot of this pull-out talk so much posturing. If Obama pulls out all the troops, however — or attempts to (though this takes time) — I think he’ll encounter a real backlash.
form can be used to create support for content.
look at JFK.
look at Jesus.
Of course it can. That’s the idea. But oftentimes when the plan is to privilege form, it’s because the content, once closely examined, falls to pieces.
See The French Revolution
the Communist Revolution
Jeebus, nishizonoshinji. You’re starting to rave again, and again, and again.
yah jeffie
failed experiments….but it is evolution in action.
the evolution of ideas.
but…u have convinced me mccain is nonviable as a candidate.
mathematicians are deeply pragmatic.
it is our nature.
in a choice between bilary an Obama im definitely for Obama.
u see…ive read some of those 26,000 classified docs.
tah, diana.
this convo may be outside ur IQ gradient. ;)
;)
Form over content.
This is our America.
Our our Jeff G. post. Whichever.
Pulling out the troops takes about two years, right? Obama has stated that he’s not fool enough to attempt a full withdrawal, though. His proposal was tied to the political progress, and ultimately deferred to Congress. So I would expect that, if elected, he’ll propose a withdrawal, it will be mangled by the political process, and it will end up looking much the same as what Bush planned to do, only Bush would sell it as Democratic meddling tying his hands, whereas Obama would sell it as the hard-minded practical decision. The result will be the same, but the Left will always be able to say “Obama got us out of Iraq” and the Right will always be able to say “It would have worked if it weren’t for you meddling Dems and your stupid candidate” which, IMHO, is probably the best outcome either side could have hoped for.
hehe!
Gabriel, blow ur horn!!!
just an aside…..in reguards to wat the Founders wanted…..
im bothered by all this deist chatter.
Washington was a Freemason.
Freemasons were the first guerilla thinkers.
an they believe religion shud be private and personal.
mathematicians are deeply pragmatic.
it is our nature.
Pragmatic means dorky?
But oftentimes when the plan is to privilege form, it’s because the content, once closely examined, falls to pieces.
Ah but the pieces can easily be swept under the rug like three million corpses in Vietnam and Cambodia. As Ron Paul! says, “The U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam didn’t turn out so bad. They’re making gym shoes for us now.”
mathematicians are deeply pragmatic.
it is our nature.
I disagree
I’m married to a mathematician
QED
I think your academic “recontextualization,” link needs tweaking. Unless that’s irony.
Yup. No content here, Vergil. Just a setup for a flip line, which — in your haste to execute — you butchered.
I bet that’ll gnaw at you all day.
Oh. Now it’s differnt. I think. I’m not really sure of anything anymore.
I find it very difficult to not get depressed by things like this, since I think what you’ve said is true. And, I don’t see anything changing soon. In a dream a few days ago, someone suggested I just forget about politics and take care of my own business. I think that would be healthy from a mental standpoint, but I’m not sure if that is healthy for society as a whole. I don’t care much for people in general (and I cannot conceive how anyone possibly could), but I do care about our society since it gives me quite a bit of freedom. Standing aside and watching it fall may not be a wise choice either (then again, there is not a lot I can do in either case).
nishi:
I spent enough time in academia to know that the way one presents one’s ideas is incredibly important to getting noticed. Spelling and grammar might seem arbitrary, and indeed spelling often is arbitrary, yet is does give a measure of the level of literacy of the presenter. Even the best ideas will not survive poor writing. If you actually want to have a conversation here, you might consider working on that (and don’t say that you can’t do anything about it… passive-agressive stuff like that won’t work with me). Also, I have found that accusing detractors of having low intelligence is a really Liberal thing to do, if you know what I mean and I think you do.
Gabriel, nope. From his website:
That’s complete withdrawal, with no concern for facts on the ground, other than if al-Qaeda attempts to move back in after we leave. So, even then, it’s complete withdrawal beginning immediately.
Should work now, HF.
Wait. No. It’s the same. I’m confused.
Oh. Thx.
Careful with the defeatism, Jeff. It’s a powerful substance. I don’t want to see you turn into Bill Quick.
What cranky-d said.
His actual proposal, however, which was vigorously discussed in these pages a few months ago, contained the provision that if Iraq political progress meets our standards, the withdrawal would be indefinitely postponed. So if you’re right, and Iraq is making tangible progress and the escalation was a success, then, Obama’s proposal leaves the troops in. If you are incorrect and Iraq is not making adequate progress, and the escalation was a failure, then Obama’s proposal pulls the troops out at the fastest practical speed, which is over a year. So he is, in essence, pledging to allow the Iraqis over a year to demonstrate political progress.
What’s so objectionable about that? I would think the Left would be significantly more sour on that idea than the pro-war blocs.
There was a transvestite whose privates were covered with tape who crouched on all fours in a kiddie pool of glitter and stuck a lit sparkler in his bum while America the Beautiful played.
Well, my Halloween is set. Thanks Jeff!
If he removed the troops immediately – and things all go to shit over there – he’ll be nicely covered anyway. The line (supported by the MSM) was that it was doomed for failure, we never should have gone … wasted money, wasted lives. Yada yada yada.
Of course, then my bil will not have to go on his second rotation in Iraq. Instead he’ll go to Afghanistan or … (quagmire!) Kosovo.
Apologies for the haphazard commas.
oh Lost…..since U are not the mathemetician….i suggest that the mathematician is disguisin its true nature.
after all….we Pythagoreans were genocided by Kylon an the first democrats.
since we have become somewat secretive of our true natures.
an thus our natural antipathy for democrats.
;)
crank-d u cannot change me.
cuz….i dont care.
i dont really believe i can persuade anyone.
it is simply a convo i am havin with jeffie and happyfeets….an possibly Pablo.
read at ur own discretion plz.
His actual proposal, however, which was vigorously discussed in these pages a few months ago, contained the provision that if Iraq political progress meets our standards, the withdrawal would be indefinitely postponed.
Note to Iraq Parliament Members: vote “Present” a lot.
‘course it’s five minutes to Wapner there nishi
The problem is, nishi, I think you do have something to say and people are missing it because you don’t care about your presentation. And that’s too bad.
From what I know of Congress, “Present” is often the only rational vote. Wasn’t Kerry haunted by his vote against appropriating over a hundred million bucks for a spy satellite program that had already been scrapped? I believe that was spun as “Kerry votes against defense in time of war!”
Obama’s many votes of “present” indicate to me that he has already absorbed the lessons that his “lack of experience” is supposed to have denied him.
Well, niche … ur IQ just topped 52. Well done!
My apologies Jeff. You hit all the talking points (latte liberals is my personal fave), so I guess that’s content of a sort.
I don’t want to see you turn into Bill Quick.
Bill has a good excuse: he lives in San Francisco.
I think.
Obama’s many votes of “present†indicate to me that he has already absorbed the lessons that his “lack of experience†is supposed to have denied him.
Obama’s own explanation of voting “present” is that you vote “present” to let people know that you’re interested in that particular legislation, but you would still like to negotiate the terms. A fine explanation, and it would obviously lengthen the process and subsequently “slow” progress. So why can’t the Iraq Government use these same savvy, clever political tactics in their process?
What has our congress accomplished in the past 7 years. Dogshit, that’s what. A bunch of backstabbing whiners, too busy investigating who told someone that the skank on the 4th floor works for the CIA. “She does? How did you know that?”
“I see her go into the building every day.”
Progress according to our standards. Give me a fuckin’ break. This whole thing is the biggest fairytale I’ve ever seen.
h/t W. J. Clinton
Sorry. They did replace Chili Mac with Panini. mea culpa
Our Congress has made spectacular progress is the field of spending money. You can’t deny them that. As for the rest of their time, I have written a short dramatic work that I feel gets to the heart of the modern political process:
[lights up. Senate chamber]
GOP: We’re going to do some really ill-advised things for short-term political expediency.
Dems: If you do that, we’ll filibuster.
GOP: We’re going to remove the filibuster option from the rules.
Dems: That’s crazy. You’re not always going to be in charge, you know.
GOP: The filibuster is being abused. You’re forcing our hand.
Dems: Hey, we’re in charge now. We’re going to do some ill-advised things for short-term political expediency.
GOP: Just try it. We’ll filibuster.
All: Congress is unpopular because of your immature shenanigans.
[exeunt. lights up. roles reversed. repeat.]
that would be RTO’s, um, hope. He’s ignorant of some military workings, but he also seems like a quick study.
If this election were “Let’s Make a Deal,” we would already know the candidates behind doors one and two (we pretty much know what Hillary! and McCain are about), and Obama would be the candidate behind door number three. There’s the slim possibility that he’s a new car, and the more likely possibility that he’s a small box with an ant in it (ht Bill Cosby).
The war is only important insomuch as it can generate sticker shock. In the general I mean, but it’s not like Hillary and Baracky are mixing it up a lot on Iraq. Meredith and Matt say it’s the economy, and so it’s the economy. McCain needs to get out front on that, and keep the powder dry on his perceived foreign policy acumen I think until events offer a more favorable foil for that.
McCain needs to show off his economic brilliance more better. Shine on little diamond.
Yes, Vergil. Latte liberal was the whole point of the post.
GOP: We’re going to do some really ill-advised things for short-term political expediency.
Yes, nominating Judges is really ill-advised.
Even Barry O’s voting record is an empty shirt. What kind of “leader” thinks voting present is the best way to deal with an issue ?
I saw Fabio interviewed about politics once and like many immigrants he leans hard right on most issues. Plus he has really great hair, better than silky even.
The only thing that any American executive should say about the strategy in Iraq is “We’re going to win. The Iraqis are going to get a real shot at a lasting Democracy.” Anything else is just handing useful information to those who wish to murder you. The fact that Obama doesn’t understand that, or worse, does and is using this issue for political advantage, solidifies my feeling that the guy will make a horrible POTUS.
No way in hell is that butter.
Vergil is one of those tedious trolls who picks out phrases he can claim “demonize” a whole sect, then pretends it was the cornerstone of the entire piece — in essence, ignoring any and all arguments the piece actually made.
For the record, that phrase (“latte liberal”) has been used by a number of journalists describing a substantial portion of Obama’s backers, so I just repeated it up for consistency. There’s your “form.”
Beyond that, though, here are some of the arguments made in the post:
1) Not reporting the war(s) accurately may in fact be helping McCain, if in fact most Americans would rather not see us “lose” the war. McCain does well with centrists and independents. So my first argument took issue with one made by Robison, a conservative.
2) Implicit in that was the suggestion that McCain is, in many ways, no different from a Democrat, for reasons I’ve discussed at length in other posts. His governing philosophy is statist; he believes in the power of a virtuous federal government, and he is, by nature, a regulator. He also puts the collective good (as he sees it) before the rights of the individual. Read the Welch pieced I’ve linked to on more than one occasion. McCain admits as much.
3) The security successes of the surge have set the stage for momentum on the political front in Iraq. But Obama has pledged to remove troops immediately. He can’t really do this, but the perception of such will have real consequences, both here, in Iraq, and with the strategy of al Qaeda, which is severely weakened (if you can believe yesterday’s PBS report).
4) Because such grandstanding and base pandering is likely to cause setbacks to progress in the region and in the war against Islamic fanatics, history will not look kindly on Obama’s decision (even if its only ostensible force is rhetorical; its actual force, in terms of geopolitical consequences, is what is more worrisome).
5) The anti-war “base,” for the most part, considers itself liberal, and yet has adopted the non-interventionalist/realist position of James Baker, Henry Kissinger, et al. The left has become a proponent of foreign policy realism after spending years excoriating such political calculation. The end result of realism is the propping up of dictators, secret CIA-led wars, etc. At least, so we’ve been told.
Now, the same people who long made such arguments have embraced what they claimed to despise, all because they disagree with the strategy of the current administration. What that tells you about their principles is for you to determine. Me, I think I made my argument on that point clear.
6) And in making it clear, I also hinted at what I believe to be the problem — and longtime readers of this site don’t need me to rehash it in great detail, because earlier posts on the subject are available under greatest hits on the sidebar. Still, I mention a change in epistemology, which I’ve tied in the past to a change in ideas of interpretation. You’re free to explore those arguments, Vergil, and offer your critiques. But let’s not pretend the arguments haven’t been made, at great length — and, for a blog, at least, in a rather academic tone.
So. There’s your content.
Disagree? Make the case. Otherwise, save your jibes for instances where they might actually carry some force.
Geez, Vergil. Where’d you get the mushroom-shaped bruise on your forehead? If I were you, I’d get some ice on that, pronto.
I prefer lagostino liberals.
FOR THE PROGRESSIVE ALLITERATION!
I think reasonable people can disagree on points 3 and 4. The threat of withdrawal that came with the election of the majority Democratic Congress was supposed to have a similar disastrous result, but in real terms, it was used by Cheney to put pressure on the Iraqi leadership to curtail their vacations. Hardly a fiasco for the administration.
So while Obama’s threat of withdrawal COULD possibly cause negative results, I have seen no convincing argument that those results are in any way more likely than the potential positive results that that pressure could bring. In my opinion, the threat of US withdrawal is perhaps the only viable diplomatic tool available to squeeze the Iraqi leaders, with whom we have spared the rod too often.
Yes, Gabriel, because there is no difference in how those choices could be effected from the White House as compared to Capitol Hill.
Sure there’s differences, but as I think we’ve established, Obama’s actual ability to pull troops is limited by logistics, his determination to do so is subject to revision, and I think Jeff was making the point that the idea of withdrawal itself is going to be damaging. And while I agree that the idea will have an effect, I don’t agree that it’s going to be a net negative.
Really, Jeff? You mean you’re not the first person to use that cliche? What a devastating rebuttal to the charge that the post is little more than a string of talking points! Rephrasing them doesn’t give them any weight. Here, I can do it more succintly:
1) The media is stabbing us in the back on Iraq.
2) McCain is a RINO.
3) The surge is working!
4) History will look unkindly on people who disagree with me.
5) BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!
6) Please see every post I’ve ever written. Also, saying “linguistic turn” and “epistemology” a lot makes me sound smart.
Dan Collins, the bruise on my head looks suspiciously like the one on your cheek. Any advice?
oh Lost…..since U are not the mathemetician….i suggest that the mathematician is disguisin its true nature
Nope, no pragmatist would hve married me. Yet a mathematician did.
You aren’t Prince are you? ’cause if you are, can I get an autograph?
I agree that the idea will have an effect, I don’t agree that it’s going to be a net negative.
Unless you’re an Iraqi of course.
Al-Quada doesn’t see it as a negative I’m sure.
Fucking devastating, Vergil. You changed my mind. Wow.
Even more “succint” Vergil:
1) WINGNUTS!!1!
Just think of all the keystrokes you might have saved yourself, Verge.
Gabriel,
I don’t see where his proposal leaves the troops in, and I’ve never heard him say anything other than that the whole thing was an enormous mistake and we ought to get out of there ASAP. If I’m missing something, please point me to it. I’m assuming that his actual proposal is that which is on his campaign website in the Issues section, where one would think he lays out his proposals. I see no caveat regarding Iraqi progress there.
Vergil is a dimwit and a twatwaffle.
1. True
2. Talking point
3. Point of fact
4. All of the above
Turn the other face.
HOMOPHOBE!!1!!!
Well, Vergie-baby, you not only sound, but clearly are, dumb. Not only were you well and truly cock-slapped by the mighty Jeff G. (and deservedly so; can you say “non sequitur”?), why haven’t you done as he suggested? That is, come up with something resembling a cogent counter-argument.
And aside from the bitingly “succint” post by Slartibartfast (how go the fjords there, bro?), which added that second mushroom-shaped bruise you are now sporting, we are still waiting.
Put up or shut up.
The first word in “succint” is sucks.
Gabriel —
You’re right, the effects could be different than I describe. How those effects are historically categorized and ultimate framed comes down to where historians place the beginning and ending points of causality. No disagreement. But nevertheless, the argument can be made that the effect will be negative (given al Qaeda’s willingness to see any capitulation as “glass half full,” and given that they are currently losing support in the ME, again, if you can believe yesterday’s PBS report). and I’ve made that particular argument on numerous occasions. Not just assertion, but argument. Thus, content, I think.
Vergil —
No, the post contains a string of arguments. That you don’t wish to address them — instead dismissing them as “talking points” so that you don’t have to deal with them substantively — is your choice. But that doesn’t mean what I’ve given you here is form over content, as my last comment made clear.
Your decision to diminish the arguments by reducing them to caricatures speaks to your laziness. Your suggestion that I use words and phrases like “epistemology” and “linguistic turn” to make myself sound smart seems to bracket the fact that I use the terms correctly, and with an intentional precision.
Why this bothers you, I have no idea. But why don’t you just send me a list of words or phrases that you don’t find particularly ostentatious (hopefully, “ostentatious” isn’t one of them, or else I’m re-fucked), and I’ll see if I can’t pitch my rhetoric to your likings.
Back to your “talking points,” though:
1) The media is stabbing us in the back on Iraq.
The net effect of how the media reports on Iraq has actual, real-world consequences. Unless you think that information carries with it no power, or that those who disseminate it aren’t in a particularly strong position to frame narratives.
Agree or disagree?
Given that I think that the net effect has been negative, I think it fair to say (through the transitive property of equality?) that the media, insofar as it is the frame through which most of us understand the war, has a hand in how the current war is perceived and is (and has been) fought. You can make the case otherwise, or you can ignore the argument. Your choice.
2) McCain is a RINO.
I don’t generally use that term, but if you’d read carefully — or if you listened to what I had to say on NPR — I don’t believe McCain is a RINO. I believe he’s not a conservative. One has to do with party, the other with political ideology. If this election season is any indication, there are plenty of Republicans who aren’t conservative. This doesn’t make them any less Republican, and I have been critical of the party machinery that has left conservative voters with Republicans whose political philosophy is, at base, progressive. McCain wants the government to regulate pro boxing. He wants the government to stop ultimate fighting on Indian reservations. He’s used class warfare rhetoric. He wants to use the government to overregulate private business. He sees the country in almost religious terms, so much so that he believes individual liberty is secondary to the good of the people.
You can reduce my concerns over McCain’s ideology to some silly bit about RINO’s, but again, that just shows how lazy you are intellectually, and how your only real desire is to act the troll, and stick your finger in my eye because you don’t like where you believe me to lie on the political spectrum.
3) The surge is working!
Well, I provided a link, which in turn provides detailed analysis from people who have been to Iraq and who have spent time studying the effects of the “surge.” Your putting an exclamation point at the end of the declarative doesn’t make it any less true or false. It is merely a feeble attempt to ironize it in the hopes that it paints me as TEH BLIND BEL13V3r!!1!. Again, were you not so incredibly lazy, you’d take the time to refute the pieces I linked to instead of relying on such a transparent and utterly feckless tactic.
While you’re at it, you may wish to speak with Hillary, who agrees. At least, she stood and applauded at the last State of the Union address when Bush made the point.
4) History will look unkindly on people who disagree with me.
The fact that they disagree with me is incidental. History, I believe, will look unkindly on those who have used this time to resurrect foreign policy realism and non-interventionalism against a stateless and worldwide enemy with truly colonial aspirations. Particularly grating to me is that many of those who disagree with me have, in other circumstances, argued the exact opposite position.
5) BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!
Indeed.
6) Please see every post I’ve ever written. Also, saying “linguistic turn†and “epistemology†a lot makes me sound smart.
I don’t think it necessary that you see every post I’ve ever written. But it is ridiculous to expect me to incorporate every post I’ve ever written into every new post just so I can’t be accused of not providing detailed arguments.
The arguments have been made, and often enough that to anyone who’s been reading here for awhile (your use of “BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY” suggests that you are one of those people) is certainly aware of them. But even if they aren’t, I have made them accessible by cataloging them in the sidebar.
If you don’t wish to educate yourself on my positions before presuming to attack (your version of) them, I can’t control that. But that is a failing on your part, not mine.
For a fee, though, I suppose I could put together some PW cliff’s notes.
That last bit I believe I’ve covered. But for you, just remember to replace those terms when you come across them with whatever you find most accessible. I ask only that you keep the meaning the same.
Which, of course, you could do by simply leaving the terms as they are — but then, we’re right back to my being all wannabe smarty-smarty, aren’t we?
The trolls trump card, revisited.
Flaccid.
Coccyx.
I’m through with Vergil. You all can take it from here. He’s not worth the effort.
Gabriel,
I want to thank you for behaving like an adult in your dissent. If more people who disagreed behaved like you, I think we might be much better off. It seems corny to have to say, but since it seems to happen so rarely in the blogosphere, I thought it should be pointed out.
So while Obama’s threat of withdrawal COULD possibly cause negative results, I have seen no convincing argument that those results are in any way more likely than the potential positive results that that pressure could bring.
Plan for the worst, hope for the best. The fact that it could happen is reason enough to be very wary of it. The lives of millions of Iraqis and the reputation and future well being of our troops depend on our being capable and willing to make the right moves.
In my opinion, the threat of US withdrawal is perhaps the only viable diplomatic tool available to squeeze the Iraqi leaders, with whom we have spared the rod too often.
One problem with the “rod” approach to the Iraqi government is that they are not supposed to be subservient to us, and to threaten them with withdrawal of our military support could also force them to seek advantage with other regional power players. Also, to leave before the job is finished would be to betray the people of Iraq, again.
Steven King makes an interesting point in “Hearts in Atlantis” in which he posits that the reason the boomer generation has never been able to get over Vietnam is because there was no successful conclusion to that war. They are forced to live there forever because of it. I actually think it’s a good theory, and I do not want my generation to never be allowed to leave Iraq, as it were.
Okay. Then I guess we’re at the point where gentlemen agree that it’s time to bet a bottle of scotch, and not-so-gentlemen make cracks about tenure. But since I’m not the type to make bets with this many uncertain events between now and the payoff, I’ll just make a note of this for later, in case Obama wins the presidency. At which point we can take this up anew, with fewer hypotheticals. Secondly, I’m into Edradour right now, but tastes change, and I’d hate to be locked in, you know?
Picking on carcasses isn’t all that satisfying, Jeff.
1) Agree as a general proposition. But that doesn’t get you’d like it to go. There isn’t persuasive evidence of systematic intentional distortion. Note to hangers-on: I said systematic, so OMG JAMIL HUSSEIN REUTERS BEAUCHAMP won’t cut it.
2) Ok, CINO.
3) Actually, you said it “sets the stage for momentum”. Putting aside the sloppy mixed metaphor, since none of your linked analysis suggests there actually is political progress on the front, you’re asking for yet more blood and money to be spent on what amounts to wishful thinking.
4) Since there’s little chance of actual political reconciliation, history’s judgment is unlikely to be particularly unkind on those who were disinclined to throw good money after bad.
on 5 it appears we agree.
6) I’ve reviewed some of your old posts. In my view they are sweep far too broadly to rest on the thin empirical evidence marshalled in their support. My guess is you’ve taken a justified distaste for the politicization and weak argumentation that is endemic to certain disciplines in the humanities and social scientists, and generalized that into an indictment of progressives/moonbats/leftards (the last two are to keep Cave Bearinterested, on the off chance he’s been able to read this far). An angry conservative academic’s version of the personal is political.
So (6) is the only really original argument in this post, and is ultimately unpersuasive.
Aw, too bad. Well at least you’ve no shortage of fluffers to soothe your ego!
My guess is…
You really should have posted this first, Verg, would have saved us all the trouble of thinking you might be serious.
“Aw, too bad. Well at least you’ve no shortage of fluffers to soothe your ego!”
Talk about sloppy mixed metaphors.
1. Who said anything about intentional systemic distortion? Hell, commenters here talk about hive mind, selection bias, swarm intelligence, etc. And I have pointed out on a number of occasions that I believe some of it is intentional, some of it is economic, some of it has to do with institutional laziness, and some of it is merely sensationalism. You’ve lost this one. Cut and run.
2. CINO is significantly different than RINO, so I don’t accept the easy re-do. And it shows that some of us are more committed to ideas than party politics. I should think this would appeal to a “thinker” like you, Vergil.
3. Uh, the “momentum” line was in the quoted portion of the linked post. It is the argument of that analysis that improvement of the security situation has greatly increased the likelihood of strides being made on the political front. So, a) the sloppy mixed metaphor I don’t think was mine, and b) the argument itself is that the surge sets the stage for political progress, insofar as it provides the country with the momentum born of military successes and improved security. One less concern to dwell on, in other words.
You are free to argue that is not the case. Or rather, to counter argue that such is not the case. But my argument is clear. It being an argument though — and one necessarily based on informed speculation — I of course can’t “prove” it to be correct.
But then, if I could, it wouldn’t be an argument. It would be a fact. And I said I offered arguments (many of which I’ve used facts to bolster).
Strike 3.
4. “Since there’s little chance of actual political reconciliation” is an unsupported assertion. You wish then to conclude from such an unsupported assertion that my assertion — supported by links to those who are either in the process, or who have been in Iraq studying the process — is incorrect. But what makes my assertion an argument is, in fact, the link to the supporting materials.
Whereas you have skipped some crucial steps in the critical thinking process.
0-4.
5. Yes, we agree on the form. But you are wrong, once again, on the content.
6.
Well, then your “guess” would be wrong. Instead, what I do is something else entirely. I analyze the substructures of particular ideologies, find their kernel assumptions, and then trace the trajectories of those assumptions — be it into hermeneutics, or politics, or social science. There is nothing “generalized” about it, other than that the foundational assumptions of particular ideologies are static (this is what gives them their status as belonging to that ideology), and so can be used “generally” when applied to a given object of investigation.
So this “angry conservative academic’s version of the personal is political” is no such thing; instead, it is a classical liberal /minarchist libertarian’s assessment of how particular ideologies function over interrelated sets of disciplines, how they are born, established, reinforced, bracketed, overdetermined, marginalized, embraced, etc.
You claim to find my arguments unpersuasive, but my counter to that would be to point out that, given your description of those arguments, you are being “unpersuaded” by arguments that aren’t mine — though you’ve attributed them to me.
Which makes you 0-6.
Don’t worry, though. If you get three hits in your next four at bats, you’ll be hitting .300. And that can bring you some serious cabbage come arbitration.
I do love when Jeff performs outreach (Vergil in #66). But, then again I guess I’m just a fluffer. Whatever that may be.
Yeah, stick around Gabriel. Obviously, you like the Edradour. Any tatsing notes you’d care to give? I’m drinking a 10 year old Bowmore. Their Legends expression. It’s a very inexpensive Islay and it’s really quite tasty (as you would expect an Islay to be).
Fred Kaplan is mostly a neutered cumquat I think.
You really got to believe that there was some point in his life he would have sworn he’d never let himself be reduced to this, but there you go.
All these big words make me HOTT.
no…HAWT
that gets the insolence, right?
what I do is something else entirely. I analyze the substructures of particular ideologies, find their kernel assumptions, and then trace the trajectories of those assumptions  be it into hermeneutics, or politics, or social science. There is nothing “generalized†about it, other than that the foundational assumptions of particular ideologies are static (this is what gives them their status as belonging to that ideology), and so can be used “generally†when applied to a given object of investigation.
If I ever meet you in person and can’t resist the urge to kiss you square on the lips, like a motherfuckinViking, you aren’t gonna freak out and get all MMA on my ass, are you?
Roman…Bea Arthur makes you HOTT. You’re a cad.
Something said by one American general is not a pronouncement by NATO as a whole – especially when he acknowledges the other people we have encouraged to send troops are not sharing his experience.
A post on the blog American Thinker is not some sort of absolute truth (insert Jeffian pronouncement on truth here) but an opinion.
Even if the above were not true, we should surely inquire if the media were aware that an American general had made this statement, if they were aware it was inarguable truth, and parallel questions for the American Thinker post before bashing them.
uh,maybe someone should tell these guys?
except that he’s the commander of ISAF so I suppose he’s in a position to know.
Reconstructing Afghanistan should be prioritized. The people are in an awful situation.
“fluffers”
Not that there’s anything wrong with that, right, Vergil? I mean, we wouldn’t want to show intolerance for the lifestyles of others, now, would we?
I don’t really argue with Jeff, much, but mostly because I widely agree with what he says. I occasionally find some of what he says off-putting, or disagreeable as a matter of opinion, but I rarely have time for a war of opinion, these days. I do tend to read around, and think about what people have to say, more than I tend to stand up on a soapbox and decry the opinions of others on the Internet, before making a modicum of effort to understand said opinions. If that makes me different from you, I think I’ll stick with it.
Just as an example: I find Jeff’s arguments comparing Clinton to McCain in the matter of the GWOT disagreeable, but only because he seems to be saying that McCain will be a worse choice because he can be counted on not to be a sneaky bastard, while Hillary can be counted on to go wit what gives her most advantage, regardless of where she says she stands.
Sounds like prognostication, to me. He might be right, or not, but I think arguing the point is more a matter of who’s willing to get into the heads of politicians, and still, in matters political, it’s almost a sure bet that the winner will be the person who’s best at cynical manipulation. Which is just about self-guaranteeing, if Jeff gets his way. Jeff, you’re a raving wingnut, because I disagree with you!
[/Vergil]
Me, I don’t like either of them. I’d rather trust someone who’s direct and honest, whose views I happen to disagree with. There aren’t very many of those in the race. It seems with increasing frequency, the choice is between awful and slightly less awful.
Furthermore, Vergil, the effective way to counter purported right-wing talking points is:
1) Show which arguments being made are talking points
2) Provide counterarguments that invalidate those arguments
Or (and this is a point nearly everyone new to Internet discussion misses) you could skip directly to step 2. It saves quite a few keystrokes, to just counter the argument. Naming some set of unspecified arguments, collectively, talking points doesn’t do any damage at all to their validity.
Possibly you can disagree, and we can bring up any number of left-wing talking points (or, more directly, Vergil talking points) and see how that disagreement stands up. There’s a near-unity probability that you’re going to wind up disagreeing with yourself.
Forget Vergil: He can’t even spell his own name.
#79: I want to revisit Kaplan’s odious piece of three card monte with one playing card and two blanks. That idiocy is just the sort of compressed and absolutist historical rigging that the twooth to powre squad finds edgy and delicious. Fred brews the Kool-Aide bright red and sickening sweet with no nutrients to feed The Narrative™. Drink down, twoothers, and be mislead.
So Kaplan rejects the realpolitique that is, ironically, so intimately a part of the current anti-war movement and the Paulines. The national self interest built into a successful strategy of bleeding the Soviets of lucre, blood and will is a selfish act born of our outworldly narcissicm. The fact that not all of the rebels were jihadists seems to have been misplaced by poor Fred and the tinfoil brigade who swallow this heady concoction.
Fred fails to mention the ouija board session he had in the early nineties that predicted the rise of a Taliban years after the Soviets tucked tail and ran. Those pesky dirt poor peasant madrassa students. You just can’t trust them. Other than the compression of years of warlord infighting after the the overthrow of the communist supported government anyone with the proper divination would have clearly seen the rise of an obscure set of students building a rebellion from the ground up, fueled by Pakistani intelligence money, to the very stunning point that they coalesced popular support and took over most of the country. Of course, Mullah Omar being one of the very few members to be old enough to claim jihadist alumni status supports our guilt in creating these wackos in the vacuum of our advisor’s absence. Compression and redirection wins! Thank you, sir, and may I have another?
RTO, Major John, et al? It’s only a dream, ‘thugs! No doubt fueled by neocon delusions. Apparantly Fred is basing this assumption on the lack of Fench participation because never there equals there and left. Brilliant! Brew me another tankard!
As RTO has pointed out a gazillion times, the troops that were there and left continue kill both leaders and foot soldiers of the “resurgent” Taliban and al qaeda in rather frightening numbers. The fact that the missing can do that from Iraq is a testament to their range skills. And Halliburton. But not Kyoto. Chug it!
The fact that Kaplan drew a paycheck for that unserious and totally ludicrous piece of self serving commentary causes me to laugh in a distubingly maniacal way, just before my friends to waterboard me for a day. FOR THE EQUILIBRIUM!
Drink deeply, my friends, but take shallow breaths.
Nice job BJ. That could go on the front page all by itself I think.
[…] From happyfeet, channelling BJ’s comments from Jeff’s post of yesterday: […]
the Communist Revolution
failed experiments…. but it is evolution in action.
the evolution of ideas.
Over two hundred million served. Yet those ideas still flourish?
@ #42 he also seems like a quick study
Yes, mk. Illinois Combine quick.
@ #55 Any advice?
Duck.