From Joel Stein in the LAT:
I DON’T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.
I’m sure I’d like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you’re wandering into a recruiter’s office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.
And I’ve got no problem with other people  the ones who were for the Iraq war  supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.
But I’m not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken  and they’re wussy by definition. It’s as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn’t to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.
Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there  and who might one day want to send them somewhere else.
Two quick observations: 1) Stein clearly is desperate for traffic and attention—and the exhiliration and false fillip of bravado that comes from penning something you’re certain will be controversial and then sending it off in a determined attempt to spoil for a fight must have ol’ Joel’s “pacifism” all atingle with the intoxication of testosterone flooding; of course, what Stein is betting on, even as he pretends this position is his own, honest, position, and that he cares not a lick how others feel (that’s their own business, God bless the country-strong muscular Dairy Queen savants), is that he’ll be able to throw the first rhetorical sucker punch and then let the crowd of armchair philosophers and professional “considerers” intervene and break up the ensuing fracus—on the grounds that we need to “unpack the rhetorical” context and “open up a much-needed discussion”—before anybody really gets hurt by a flurry of return blows, or by a stealthy SEAL’s knife angled between the rib cage (those of you familiar with Richard Linklater’s wonderful Dazed and Confused will recognize this gambit of Stein’s). And 2) Stein’s showy pacificism exhibits the height of contempt for fellow citizens; in fact, pacifism, as a social philosophy, is often embraced by those who presume to enjoy the benefits of the social contract, while reserving the right to treat it with the utmost disdain, then hide behind its protection. So while Stein is boisterously “honest” in his opening salvo—“I DON’T SUPPORT THE TROOPS”—what he is not telling you directly is that he doesn’t support those of you who do support the troops (be it a sincere support, or trailer park jingoism fueled by Budweiser pony-keg patriotism), nor does he support those of you who, like him, don’t support the troops, but pretend that you do simply to be a “good citizen.” Because in fact, the position Stein takes, when he says that supporting the troops “is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken,” is that his own sense of preening moral rectitude is only ethical position to assume in a democracy whose elected leaders have chosen, in the national interest, to fight for the security of the nation, be it at home or abroad.
Pacificism, as noted Rethuglican neocon war profiteer George Orwell famously wrote of another conflict, is “objectively pro-Fascist.” And a few weeks after 911, the late Michael Kelly added to Orwell’s thoughts some necessary updating of the context. From “Evil masquerading as goodness” (Sept 27 2001):
Pacifists see themselves as obviously on the side of a higher morality, and there is a surface appeal to this notion, even for those who dismiss pacifism as hopelessly naive. The pacifists’ argument is rooted entirely in this appeal: Two wrongs don’t make a right; violence only begets more violence.
There can be truth in the pacifists’ claim to the moral high ground, notably in the case of a war that is waged for manifestly evil purposes. So, for instance, a German citizen who declined to fight for the Nazi cause could be seen (although not likely by his family and friends) as occupying the moral position. But in the situation where one’s nation has been attacked–a situation such as we are now in–pacifism is, inescapably and profoundly, immoral. Indeed, in the case of this specific situation, pacifism is on the side of the murderers, and it is on the side of letting them murder again.
In 1942, George Orwell wrote, in Partisan Review, this of Great Britain’s pacifists:
“Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, `he that is not with me is against me.’’’
England’s pacifists howled, but Orwell’s logic was implacable. The Nazis wished the British to not fight. If the British did not fight, the Nazis would conquer Britain. The British pacifists also wished the British to not fight. The British pacifists, therefore, were on the side of a Nazi victory over Britain. They were objectively pro-Fascist.
An essentially identical logic obtains now. Organized terrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist.
There is no way out of this reasoning. No honest person can pretend that the groups that attacked America will, if let alone, not attack again. Nor can any honest person say that this attack is not at least reasonably likely to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people. To not fight in this instance is to let the attackers live to attack and murder again; to be a pacifist in this instance is to accept and, in practice, support this outcome.
The easy (and specious) rejoinder to this, of course, is that Iraq never attacked the US, and so the US under the evil Bushco regime are, in effect, like the Nazis engaged in “a war that is waged for manifestly evil purposes”, while Stein, for his part, can (and does) cast himself in the role of the German citizen declining to fight for the Nazis (Wow! Bush really does = Hitler).
But of course, such a position relies on an intellectually dishonest and repeatedly resisted framing of the GWoT as it has been officially and strategically outlined by our twice-elected CiC, one that wishes to bracket out all but reactive retaliatory measures—and even then, the preferred method to do so is international tribunals and UN paperwork—and to insist that a large, and largely covert, nationless threat spread over the globe, whose members are joined by purpose, tactic, ideology, and leadership structure (and who, let us not forget, has also declared open war on us, and has a plan for the defeat of the west) is nothing but a series of small, disparate potential mini-battles that can be handled without any but the most cosmetic military intervention.
But Iraq was never envisioned as an isolated action under the current war strategy; it was considered a battle in a larger war, and was prompted out of intelligence fears, the decision not to play defense and wait for a threat to become imminent or for more towers to fall, and out of a belief that when murderous tyrants threaten the safety and security of your country, it is high time—in an age of such instantaneous global communication and travel—to take them at their word.
Stein’s essay, therefore, can be viewed as just another in a long line of attempts to assume a position of virtue through the sophistry of gilded cowardice masquerading as idealism.
For my part, I support the troops because they are our countrymen and women, they have signed up willingly to serve the nation, and we are in no way, shape, manner, or form fighting a war that is empirically evil, or even objectionable from any baseline ethical standards that include a resistance to tyranny and a promotion of peace and democracy.
Which is why it is easy for me to look at Stein’s pseudo-philosophical bit of puffed-up provocateurism and call it what it is: the nadir of the “me” generation, and the ultimate passing of the buck.
What makes it so unseemly is that Stein has the audacity to sneer at those who are paying for his keep.
(h/t Allah; see also, Mark in Mexico; Sister Toldjah; QandO, Ace, Michelle Malkin, Jawa Report, Outside the Beltway, Myopic Zeal, and 4 the Little Guy, Polyscifi, Say Anything, Vince Aut Morire, Llama Butchers, Dread Pundit Bluto, Memento Moron, Wizbang, Blackfive, Alpine Summit, and Sadly No, Down with Absolutes, California Mafia, Reid Blog, Right Mind, Newslinker, Mudville Gazette, Ed Driscoll, Glenn Reynolds, The Daily Bayonet, Soldiers’ Angels Germany, and Brutally Honest
update: See also, Major John—whose efforts to serve and protect I feel confident in saying Joel Stein does not support.
And here’s the transcript of Hugh Hewitt’s interview with Stein.
Oh. And Treacher seems to know this guy’s schtick better than I do. I honestly hadn’t even heard of him until today. Which means that either need to match more VH-1 (and I don’t see that happening), or else harbor the secret shame one feels when one has no idea who the fuck Joel Stein is.
Eminently doable, option two is.
My word, I can’t believe that Stein is being serious. But by all indicatons he is being serious.
I am going to end up voting for the Rep’s once again.
Not that the Dem’s seem to care if I ever come home….
This&That
Would you please explain the Dazed and Confused reference for me? I’ve seen the movie but I don’t see the tie in. Fantastic essay though, and ever so much sweeter when you can use Orwell against the intelligentsia.
There’s nothing wrong with pony-keg patriotism per se, if it’s merely the drunken expression of your natural patriotism. Of course, I can never advocate the swilling of St. Louis beer (I favor Milwaukee); there’s something in the water there.
I’m keeping my eye on you, Newton.
Wonderful post, Jeff. Some things live above or outside irony, as proven by your warm sentiments with which I heartily agree for our fighting men and women.
The whole Iraq focus is a canard. I got just as many hysterical emails about Afghanistan. But our victory there was so fast and so without famine or refugee crisis that the left never forgave Bush The left will never acknowledge that we are truly at war because they can’t deal with Orwell’s logic. Thus they glom onto Iraq and scream Vietnam! like angry brats.
And If Joel doesn’t understand why our troops are in Germany, perhaps he should take World History 101, focusing on Nazi Germany and the rise of Communism.
Well argued. I wasn’t aware of Stein’s pacifism, but I guess it doesn’t seep into his humor columns.
Is his career trending downward? Going from regular gigs at Entertainment Weekly and Time to freelance op-eds to the LA Times smells of flop sweat to me.
Going into Iraq after 9/11 is the difference between playing “Whack-A-Mole” by the rules of that game, or beginning the process of dismantling the machine.
Personally, I can’t stand “Whack-A-Mole.”
Word: four. “It’s past four and I’m getting tired.”
Let the Joel Steins of this world think whatever they need to think. To say that he’s inconsequential is to waste 15 keystrokes. He’s an entertainment writer and a pop-culture geek, right? Do we expect such a person to be as shallow as Teddy Kennedy’s shot glass? Of course, we do. Must I feign shock at the philosophy of an eight-year-old? I’m a great actor, but not that great.
I have been teetering toward canceling my LA Times subscription, and this may have finally done it for me. I was pleased to hear yesterday that Matt Welch had been appointed the paper’s assocaite editor, but now I’m going the other way, and am going to cancel for good. The paper’s long past being anything I can take seriously.
Stein has always been a writer who assumes a “humorous” approach to his subjects, so I do wonder if this is something to take seriously, or not. Is it a tongue-in-cheek strike at the middle of the pro-war and anti-war debate, just for rhetorical pleasure? Maybe, but if that’s the case, it belongs in the LA Weekly, not the LA Times.
Hmmmm.
1. How dare you question my pacifism you low-brow troll! Sir! Have you no shame!?
2. IMHO many cases of pacifism are little more than ego-centric posturings that makes a virtue out of sloth and cowardice.
3. I sure hope this schmekel becomes the Spring 2006 Posterboy of the Democratic Party.
We have gone almost thirty seconds since the last screech of “Vietnam!!!” from some ignorant fool.
And just so Stein knows, no self-respecting member of the armed forces that I know would “hang in Vegas” with his wimpy ass. Speaking truth to power, conservatives know how to party because we don’t worry about being “sensitive.”
Especially when we believe in a military and its mission that occassionally involves, gasp, killing people on behalf of numbnuts like Joel Stein and the entire editorial staff of the LAT for that matter.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
— John Stuart Mill
Of course, there’s those on the Left (and in other countries as well) who honestly believe, in their heart of hearts, that ALL self-proclaimed patriots are really just drunken jingoists who can’t see the complexities of the situation from the porches of their trailer-park homes.
I’m reminded of a political cartoon (by a Canadian cartoonist, no less) that showed a truck-driver type wearing a Stars-and-Stripes baseball cap getting into an argument with Jesus. Jesus says something innocuous that offends the dumb right-wing hick (who thinks it’s supposed to be an anti-war sentiment); he socks Jesus in the eye, Jesus pointedly turns the other cheek, and the trucker beats the shit out of him for “looking at him the wrong way”.
People actually think that patriots behave this way. Patriotism is a dirty word to the Left.
As a recent transplant to Pennsylvania, I recently learned that the Quakers, pacifists of course then as now, benefited greatly from the American Revolution. The story I’m told is that, beyond informing on the Revolutionaries (which, given that PA was pretty Tory, is probably not unlike what a lot of other Pennsylvanians were doing), they also tended to swoop in on newly-bereaved war widows and offer to buy their now-unhusbanded farms – I conclude that they were more able to do so than those with more of a dog in the fight because they hadn’t been pledging their lives or their fortunes (to say nothing of their honor) to the cause of independence. Hence the huge tracts of land Quakers came to control. (Ahem. Please note that I do not believe that today’s Quakers are guilty of war profiteering.)
Pacifism. Bah.
Well…Stein let go of some flatulance and swirled some dust around. Now the bastard is holding his nose and pointing fingers.
I know who the gas bag is and he knows who the gas bag is. So there is no joke. Just a sorry excuse for a human being. You do realize that that sorry son of a bitch is actually breathing air that a real human is entitled to.
Joel Stein: a waste of space on this planet.
Still if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
— Sir Winston Churchill.
Oh, how I miss Michael Kelly! Great post, Jeff.
Lets see Stein stand face to face to those who have served in any conflict, and spew his bullshit opinion that he has the right to spew, given to him from the blood of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. He wouldn’t, he is the coward he rights about…Amazing…..Hated the LA Times before, hate them even more now. My paper, the OC Register isn’t much better….
Turned out Maureen Dowd was right about this guy after all.
Big E,
One of the dorky kids (was the actor Adam Goldberg? I think I just recognized him through a mental image.) who hangs out with the red haired girl decides he’s going to start a fight with a guy who can obviously kick his ass. Dorky kid does so under the logic of “I hit this guy, look tough for standing up to him, and don’t have to, you know, actually fight because it’s at a big party and will be broken up before the violence becomes extreme (i.e., I get my ass kicked).”
Unfortunately for dork boy, he winds up getting pounded on for a while and then, instead of being upset with himself for starting a fight with someone who could obviously kick his ass, he rails against the guy for kicking his ass (and I think against the fact that people didn’t react the way he wanted them to).
Slightly rephrased Colonel Jessup, perhaps?
Joel Stein doesn’t want the truth because deep down in places he doesn’t talk about at parties, he wants the troops on that wall, he needs the troops on that wall. The troops use words like honor, code, loyalty. They use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. Joel Stein uses them as a punchline.
Jamie – on PA Quakers. I don’t know where you got your information, but I come from a very long line of Welsh Quakers who came to PA in the late 1600s. I have spent years researching not only my Quaker lines, but dozens and dozens of related family lines. What I found were extremely patriotic men and women. Yes, their belief structure was pacifist, but they found many other ways to support the struggling colonists seeking independence from England’s tyranny. They manned the hospitals, they contributed money to the cause, some took the risk of being disowned and took up arms, they gave safe haven and they worked tirelessly to advance the cause of freedom in their communities. Those who could not take up arms because of their beliefs made their homes available for meetings, encampments, or as supply depots and hosptials. They raised money and often contributed livestock and wagons as a way to equip the local militias.
And to say that PA was a majority of Tories is just plain wrong. The Quakers were the last group who would support Britain. Most of them had lost their property and been imprisoned before leaving the home country because they refused to continue worship within the Church of England. Also, you leave out the large population of Scots-Irish who by all accounts were rebels of the first order. Between the Quakers of the Eastern side of the state who were blazing the trails across the state and the Scots-Irish who joined forces with them, PA was a center for rebellion. In addition, this was all complicated by a constant threat from Indian attacks.
When I joined the DAR, I did so under John Owen, a 3rd generation Quaker, who signed up and fought not just for the initial few months, but over 4 years, eventually being wounded severely. My 4th Great Grandfather and 5 of his sons all received bounty land warrants as payment for their Revolutionary service. None carried arms, but their support service and service behind the scenes was so vital, they were rewarded by the new government after the fact.
Quakers are against bearing arms, but their conscientious objections stop there and they are first and foremost patriotic and even today will serve honorably in non-combat roles such as corpsmen and doctors and nurses.
For more information on early Quakers, see my genealogy blog, http://www.gendatablog.com where I have four long accounts of early Quaker lines, migration patterns, and general Quaker information.
“Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay–and claims a halo for his dishonesty.” – Robert Heinlein (from Starship Troopers)
Joel doesn’t claim a halo, just the right to “hang in Vegas.” Ass.
Thanks, A Fine Scotch. I guess I don’t remember that movie nearly as well as I thought I did. Completely forgot that whole scene. I remember now and it was Adam Goldberg that played that role I believe.
No worries, Big E. Spent a good portion of my 20’s watching that movie.
Did you know the black guy’s paddle says “Soul Pole”? Took me about six viewings to catch that and it made me snort whiskey. Not a pleasant experience.
Pacifism is the source of war.
Imagine we lived in a world where “real” governmentsâ€â€liberal western democraciesâ€â€simply didn’t tolerate aggression from juntas. A world where thug rulers understood that the “real” governments around the world merely tolerated them as placeholders, and that any aggression on their part would systematically result in a swift, regime-ending response from the “real” world.
What kind of world would that be? An intensely free one, and a world entirely at peace at almost any given time.
yours/
peter.
What’s interesting and surprising about all this is that Stein is actually a man of the Right; he’s a libertarian whose work is syndicated by that G-d-fearing publication, Jewish World Review. He wrote an interesting piece of Time a few years ago describing his politics, and why he couldn’t “get down with the conservatives” despite agreement with them on a lot of issues. I would think the feeling is now mutual.
Thanks, squiggler.
Look, just because someone abuses a proud tradition, that tradition is not thereby denigrated. That goes for Abu Gharib and our armed forces, and likewise for the likes of Joel Stein and a pacifist tradition that goes back centuries and includes the man many of us consider our savior.
As has been noted, the spiritual birthplace of our country (Philadephia) was founded by true pacifists run out of England by the sort of abuse I’ve read in this thread. I’m glad they came and glad we welcomed them. Stein’s problem is not hiw pacifism, its his shallowness, laziness, and ignorance.
In this column, I might add. Its a common blind spot – the terror threat, is, um, terrifying. When something’s too terrible to confront directly, people naturally take it out on something they can. Mad at the boss but can tell him? Kick the cat. Terrified by terrorists but can’t find them? Bash Bush.
In general, I find Stein a very appealing writer, who would actually probably get along pretty well with our illustrious host.
Fortunately, I stopped questioning the likes of Joel Stein’s patriotism long ago; that question is entirely settled.
So I don’t know if “well, duh,” is enough traffic to keep the LA Times happy…
You spent your 20’s *watching* “Dazed and Confused”? I spent my teens *living* it…all except for the part about the paddles, that is; we were way too small town to ever be interested in any way in another guy’s a$$.
It is a misnomer to refer to people like Stein as pacifist. Rather Stein, like most of the anti-war crowd, is a passive.
:peter
Policy Review Dec/Jan 2005…Schall “When Force Must be the Answer” (approx. title). I found this essay a compelling refutation of the whole concept of pacificism ie pacificism exacerbates conflict. Enjoy.
What a lengthy and eloquent post in response to a silly attention getting stunt. I never heard of this guy until all my favorite bloggers linked to him. Why? Who gives a crap. This guy (Stein) is no different from hundreds of other two bit writers and comedians around the country desperate for careers and seeing this sort of posturing as the way to it. In the 21st century, attention is like money, so why the hell would you give any to a guy like Stein? Instead of linking to him, why not link to a milblog and give ‘em some traffic. Sheesh.
Joel Stein always gave me the shivers on those “list” shows on VH-1. He’s one of those people who has the mark of the beast, in that he’s utterly cynical and contemptuous–but only when the best of human motives and emotions are concerned. He despises earnestness, innocence, joy, selflessness, and courage, but he embraces pain, death, humiliation, and despair. He’s now a kind of toxic waste. Being in his presence is damaging to your health.
But I guess he has every reason to be unhappy. By his own admission he’s rich, comes from a good home, did well in school, and has sex all the time.
The horror. The horror.
Wow. Michael Kelly does an excellent job of manipulating Orwell’s writing to suit his own pro-war ends.
Orwell was writing about one particular war–World War II. He was not making a general statement about all wars. Does Kelly know that Orwell was a democratic socialist who hoped that Britain’s victory in World War II would bring about socialism in England?
It’s true that the Nazis wanted Britain to fall victim to pacifism, because that would make the Brits easier to conquer. The Nazis had a huge army (not to mention an air force) just waiting to take Britain. I don’t think Osama and his boys amounted to a Nazi army waiting to march on Washington, D.C. The analogy of World War II to the “War on Terror†simply falls flat when you begin to analyze the particulars. You have to take wars on a case by case basis.
According to Kelly’s logic every pacifist is pro-Fascist. Pacifists during the Civil War or the Spanish-American War were pro-Fascist? I don’t think so. Pious Quakers are pro-Fascist? That would make Henry David Thoreau a Fascist for opposing the Mexican-American War during the 1840s.
Oh, shit. Am I pro-Fascist because I don’t support this war? I feel so ashamed.
Rock on Protein addicts, rock on…
“Policy Review Dec/Jan 2005…Schall “When Force Must be the Answer†(approx. title). I found this essay a compelling refutation of the whole concept of pacificism ie pacificism exacerbates conflict. Enjoy.”
Pacifism is a much more compelling srategy for the powerless than the powerful, especially considering the plight of the powerless under their care.
“He despises earnestness, innocence, joy, selflessness, and courage, but he embraces pain, death, humiliation, and despair.”
Stein doesn’t despise anything – that would require too much commitment. He’s a classic phlegmatic temperament, and those can come in handy when we’re all champing at the bit to chase the latest fad.
“Does Kelly know that Orwell was a democratic socialist who hoped that Britain’s victory in World War II would bring about socialism in England?”
Kelly’s dead. Care to reveal further ignorance?
Do you really feel that sanguine about nuclear terrorism, or are you just afraid to think about it?
Two wrongs don’t necessarily make a right, but two wrongs can cancel each other out, which is better than one wrong left unanswered.
(I’ve had a couple of beers – is this a quote, or have I stumbled onto profundity? Or am I just buzzed?)
If: A attacks B with violent intent,
And C does everything in his power to prevent B from resisting,
Then C is pro A, regardless of what A, B, and C represent.
Pacifisim, Stein style, is an extremely effective method of increasing the amount of violent behavior in a society. Bully A attacks nerd B. Nerd B resists. Teacher C indulges in “conflict resolution”, which has the effect of requiring B to give A all or part of what he demanded. B has thus been punished twice (once by A, once by C); A has been rewarded for violent attack and taught that C will advocate for success of violence. It follows that further violent attacks will occur, both by A and by emulators of A.
Gandhi pointed out that pacifism, as a tactic, is only effective if the opponent is a good guy who has temporarily lost his bearings. Against people who are not good guys, whose intent is violence, intimidation, and robbery, it is not just useless, it is counterproductive.
So, yes, comandante. If you do anything at all, however minimally effective, to prevent attacks on terrorists and their supporters, then you are objectively pro-terrorist and can claim your reward for your your part in contributing to the murder of terrorists’ victims.
Regards,
Ric
I’m writing to apologize most humbly for impugning Pennsylvania Quakers without having determined the accuracy of my information source, who is only a neighbor of mine. While I oppose pacifism (though not peace), it was irresponsible of me to pass on stories that, for all I knew, were idle rumors this guy had heard (or maybe me getting punked, something I’ll have to look into) about followers of a religion. It’s not my habit to do such a thing.
TW: May I have just another tiny piece of humble pie, please?
Is this the same guy who has a VH1 gig? I love the any decade? Well.
No commandante, you’re pro-facist becuase you support Islamo-facists, congratulations.
Did not see Tom W comment…rumor is Joel also once sported a mullet!
The easy (and specious) rejoinder to this, of course, is that Iraq never attacked the US, and so the US under the evil Bushco regime are, in effect, like the Nazis engaged in “a war that is waged for manifestly evil purposesâ€Â, while Stein, for his part, can (and does) cast himself in the role of the German citizen declining to fight for the Nazis (Wow! Bush really does = Hitler).
Sez me: It seems to me that the obvious counter to this rejoinder is that if the majority of Iraqis “assume the moral high ground” and refuse to fight us, we’ll achieve our objectives sooner by (1) having less bad guys to deal with and (2) knowing who the bad guys are.
So maybe there’s something to that idea that not all pacifists are pro-Fascist!
Bezhov: Accuse me of ignorance? Then I’ll accuse you of daftness. That was a rhetorical question. Sure I know Michael Kelly is dead. The author of this blog described him as “the late Michael Kelly”.
Ric Locke: That’s some great logic with your A, B and C stuff. But last time I checked Iraq never attacked the United States.
corvan: How did you know I support Islamo-Fascists? Are you a mind-reader? Did the NSA show you my credit card receipts for my purchases at JihadMart?
You guys crack me up. Thanks for laugh, brothers.
Comandante,
You need to check more often. You’ve been missing some history.
I ain’t your brother, dink.
There are, at the moment, two potential outcomes to the war on terror in Iraq.
A) Terrorists and insurgents give up and fade away.
B) US gives up and goes home.
Currently, the anti-war side is focused on achieving B. The pro-liberation side is focused on achieving A. The terrorists and insurgants want B. A is just as peaceful as B. Since the anti-war side is only working for B (or seems only to be working for B), then I conclude that the anti-war side wants a terrorist and insurgant victory, not peace. A true pacifist would want both sides to give up and settle differences without fighting, and would not favor one over the other. And that’s without considering the relative merits of A or B.
Osama just wants to conquer countries and institute repressive totalitarian fascist governments and kill millions of innocent people, totally unlike Hitler. Would it have been wrong to go to war against Germany in WW2 if they hadn’t declared war on us? What if after Pearl Harbor, the Germans had said “Look, we don’t care if you (the US) and Japan battle it out over the Pacific. You leave us alone and we’ll leave you alone.” Would it then have been wrong to liberate Europe?
Ah, another jingoist, bigoted Westphalian.
There are two types of pacifist: the passivist and the activist. A passivist pacifist simply refuses to contribute, and is no more than a dead weight of no moral or physical consequence whatever. An activist pacifist actively opposes efforts to forstall violent acts, and thereby becomes complicit in the violence. As an activist pacifist you are a terrorist with the same moral standing as Mohammad Atta; you’re just too much of a coward to actually act on your convictions.
Attacks can be made by means other than nuking your home town, which I am just before deciding is a wondeful notion. The Hussein Administration aided and abetted terorism in a number of ways, all of them working to our detriment; the biggest was Saddam’s assertion that he won the ‘91 war because Bush I didn’t remove him. That was convincing and encouraging to many—including bin Laden, who cites that inter alia as evidence that the United States lacks resolve and can be attacked with impunity. Saddam also served as evidence that the sort of murderous autocrat you seem to revere could act that way without interference—which added to the hopeless helplessness of the “Arab street” and encouraged the nihilism that leads to terrorist recruitment.
The function of the Iraq war was to remove a murderous regime, relieve the people of Iraq of that oppression, and set up something resembling a decent country instead of a snake pit. The first was easy; the second and third are more difficult than expected, largely because of <sneer>pacifists</sneer> like yourself sending aid, comfort, and materiél to assist in blowing up babies.
Ah, well. Believe it or not, God will explain it to you, just before he dumps you in the sixth-circle shitpile with the rest of the liars and betrayers. Enjoy.
Regards,
Ric
Commandante thinks he’s being called a fascist because he’s an intentionalist; in his worldview, almost no outcome regarding matters of men, such as war and peace, etc., occurs without being intended by someone, so when you tell him that his actions benefit our enemies, to his mind he’s being accused of “intending to help them, and thus wants to know how we can “read his mind,” i.e., his intentions.
Whereas being a fascist may necessarily mean being “pro-fascist,” being pro-fascist does not equate to actually being a fascist.
:peter
Hey, besides Jeff Goldstein, is there anyone else here who has served in the Armed Forces?
The answer, civilis, is no. It would have been morally correct. Evil is evil, and leaving evil with the ultimate right bower, violence, is akin to agreeing with them. Reputedly, Stalin told the British his answer to pacifisim. “Shoot Gandhi.”
Sometimes, however, the direct answer isn’t politcally or physically possible. That doesn’t mean it is wrong, though.
Word: job. “Cleaning up these messes always seems to be job of America.”
No, Ft. Apache, I’m not. Much to my regret. My little brother is in Iraq now, and has spent a tour in Afgahnistan, so I do have a dog in this hunt.
Just sayin’.
Word: lot. “I do love my brother a lot, and want him back safe.”
Brian:
“[Stein] wrote an interesting piece of Time a few years ago describing his politics, and why he couldn’t ‘get down with the conservatives’ despite agreement with them on a lot of issues.”
Funny, that. I agree with libertarians on a lot, but when I got the invitation to join the party, there was this deal-breaker: No use of the U.S. military except in direct defense of United States borders. Nice in theory, but if I were willing to swear fealty to that principle, I’d have had to oppose stopping Hitler militarily in 1936, when it would have been easy and farsighted leaders like Churchill saw the necessity, rather than joining a fight when there was no choice–and when he really could have won.
Which brings me to the terrific Churchill quote posted above. Thanks for reminding me of it, mojo. It’s the reason I’m not a pacifist.
Jeff’s Old army Buddy:
Thank you, too. I was beginning to think this thread would run its course without that very original and clever point being made.
Quick question–Those of us who support the troops, and believe the war is sadly necessary: of course, we have a responsibility to get in the fight, or our opinions can be ruled out of order, so to speak.
But people like you: What are your responsibilities? Snark? Unconstructive criticism? (I don’t see many of you you fulfilling any others.) I’d suggest you have a responsibility to die in the terrorist attacks we’ll fail to stop, should we ever decide to do things your way and you turn out wrong.
But of course, we won’t hold you to it, and you know it. Which makes your position rather…facile, and easy to hold with no personal sacrifice. Much as you say ours is.
I’m wondering about this Stien guy. Does the left agree with him?
I never served in the armed forces. But I did once beat the piss out of a “gang” of 4 anti-war protesters with nothing more than a paper mache puppet head and one of their belt made of daisies.
Kind of a Crouching Tiger, Frightened Anonymous Pussy Clan Who Really Didn’t Think I’d Go Through With That First Roundhouse Kick To The Windpipe moment. I wish I had filmed it in slow motion, ala Billy Jack.
Not sure if that means I’m now permitted to write on the failures of pacifism, but what the hell. Put on a puppet head and a daisy belt and come try to stop me, anonymous punk.
Heh.
Since one of the decisions every State must make from time to time is whether or not to go to war, and since only those who have been to war or are willing to go in propria persona are qualified to make that decision, it follows that the only legitimate Government is a military dictatorship. Having served my time, and having just welcomed my son home from Iraq, I’m all in favor.
It follows from that that the natural act of any military dictatorship would be to put seditionists such as yourself up against the wall. I’ll be happy to supervise the machine used to let everybody who wants a chance take a number. I might even pull the tab a couple times myself.
Regards,
Ric
While we are at it, can we make it so only people who pay taxes get a say in how it they are spent.
Sir Winston Churchill, War Speech, Sept 3, 1939
I wonder what would have happened if the hard left decided FDR was a bigger threat to America than Hitler?
Let’s reprise the “chickenhawk” chant. I for one and many others here have served, are serving or have someone near and dear that is in harm’s way. That certainly does not give us “moral authority” in this debate. All we can offer, over and above the thoughts of others is “experience in the theater.” You don’t get any “extra points” here for that. You just get to have your say along with everyone else.
Orwell wrote so, so much. From Homage to Catalonia:
As to wheter a pacifist in todays world has “no way out of this reasoning [of being pro-terrorist]” We can simply ask whether pacifists feel that criminals should go to jail. Should criminals who plot attacks on america be dealt with? I don’t think pacifists believe that there should not be law enforcemnt.
I’m not a pacifist. So I don’t know for sure. Ward Churchill’s book “Pacifism as Pathology,” erased any moral pacifism I had left.
How much power do pacifists use? Not all of it right? Not violence.
Ay, there’s the rub.
If you won’t use violence, you have no sanction against the wilfully violent; you can do nothing against the bully. The only one you can do anything against is the bully’s victim. So the net effect of pacifism is to endorse and empower the wilfully violent.
You needn’t be mystified when people don’t respect your moral authority. You don’t have any. If you won’t support the removal of Saddam Hussein, you are Saddam Hussein’s accomplice.
Regards,
Ric
I hereby declare that nobody has the right to be a pacifist unless they themselves have experienced the horrors of war firsthand.
So all you chickendoves out there, shut the hell up. You can’t be against war unless you’re a combat veteran.
Like I said. The pacifist doesn’t do much against the war effort. All he does is not participate. That’s not quite “do everything in your power.”
No action is required? pure inaction, or just opinion, really, is all that is needed? fascinating. Like If I say right now: I support the war. I’m not an accomplice. But then change nothing—except that I say: I don’t support the war. I have become an accomplice? odd.
Can you be a civilian victim? Or do you have to have served?
No offense, but what the fuck do you care Army brat?
And just for shits and giggles I give you all Joel’s Mullet! …and some other stupid things Joel’s said.
BTW, has Jeff had a conversation with a mullet?
I could </i>swear</i> he had one with Ted Kennedy’s hair? Nose? Anyways, Jeff it occurred to me that “Joel’s Mullet” would be an excellent subject to have a conversation with, if you haven’t had one with a mullet yet.
…Ted’s chin? Whiskey bottle?. …Massive head, that’s it. It was very distracting.
Uhhh, hey, jackass, they aren’t “criminals.” Criminals can’t declare war like al Qaeda did, once on tape, a half a dozen times overseas, and then four times on the mainland, just to get our attention, or are fighting in Iraq, chopping off heads and nail-bombing kindergartens.
Refusing to recognize terrorism outside of the whole civil liberties/civil order paradigm is part of the problem.
The true pacifist doesn’t waste time on being “against” anyone, either aggressor or resistor, they exert themselves being productive “for” something, often enough this country.
The anti-war movement is a poor excuse for pacifism.
And Commandante, do you make a practice of speaking of the deceased in the present tense?
Sure he is. “Is Abraham Lincoln still proud of the Gettysburg address?”
“Is Hunter S. Thompson sorry he killed himself?”
“Does JFK have any new thoughts on his role in Vietnam?”
“Is Mary Jo Kopechne mad at Ted Kennedy for leaving her trapped underwater?”
Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.
My problem with the anti-war movement is that the outcome of the war depends entirely on which side gives up first. The anti-war movement is built around encouraging the US to give up, and in the process this encourages the terrorists to keep fighting and killing. As such, the collective efforts of the anti-war movement does “do [a lot] against the war effort.”
The term used was “objectively pro-Fascist.” It speaks to the outcome of actions rather than the intent. Like the road to Hell, for instance, paved with good intentions and all: does it matter than you never intended to end up there, if you end up there just the same?
Weird. Comments won’t let me emphasize “objectively.”
No point in arguing against pacifism, as hardly anybody takes it seriously.
Stein is propagandizing. He’s afraid open support of troops will help continue the war. He doesn’t seem to care about pacifism as a principle.
Yes, isn’t it? Especially the way anything you don’t like gets immediately taken to what you believe is the reductio ad absurdumb[*].
In this country, effective political action does not require violence. You can effectively support your terrorist heroes without it, and you do so very well.
Regards,
Ric
[*]that was originally a typo, but I found it charming.
I will defend unto death Joel’s right to be a cowardly, hypocrirical jackass.
This shouldn’t be surprising. I doubt you can get any real work in Hollywood or in the “journalism” circuit without having some “I think Bush makes Hitler look like Mother Theresa” bonafides.
Sure they can. No reason why they can’t be both at war with us and violating our criminal laws. Now for you to tell me a pacifist wants to do nothing you have to tell me that pacifists don’t believe in law enforcement.
It is pretty dumb to make an accomplice out of opinion. I’m not quite sure how that works.
hypocritical*
Actus,
The link between involvement and opinion is inherent in democratic systems. That is, in fact, the whole point of ‘of, for, and by the people’.
As far as criminal acts v. warfighting, the definition of warfare is pretty straightforward – the use of organized violence to achieve political ends. Criminal acts are those which are in violation of a given law. The two classes are neither congruent, nor particularly well correllated.
BRD
I’d say anything that was making war, that also was under the jurisdiction of our courts would probably violate lots of given laws. It’s against the law to fly planes into the WTC. It’s against the law to bomb buildings in OKC. It’s against the law to conspire to do these things too.
None of this means they’re not war, of course. No reason to stick to dichotomies.
Actus, one individual’s opinion does not lose the war, and it’s ridiculous to frame the argument like that. But it illustrates clearly the morally debased nature of pacifism. Pacifists have the luxury of doing nothing but holding an opinion precisely because there are non-pacifists willing to defend them against the bullies of the world. Then the pacifists have the bad manners to pretend they are morally superior. See the Heinlein quote in my comments above.
So if I lived in a place where my opinion doesn’t matter, say, like in DC—where I have no congressman, or in a totalitarian society, I’d be free to have whatever opinion I wanted?
Actus,
With regards to war v. crime, while engaged in a war, one may violate a number of laws, but that doesn’t make it congruent to crime. For a prime example, during a war between two Countries A and B, soldiers from Country A are subject to the laws of Country A. In the process of prosecuting the war, they may do things that are in violation of the laws of Country B. This, however, doesn’t make the act a criminal act. When looking at the problem of crime, the Country A/B dichotomy does not break down the same way.
However, the basic notion behind the comparison – that warfare involves the use of organized violence to obtain a desired political outcome – is straightforward. The use of organized violence to obtain a political outcome is not prosecribed by the entity which has embarked on the use of organized violence.
With respect to the argument of opinion having weight, you seem perfectly content to assert that holding an opinion has no consequence above and beyond the actions one takes. But you must consider that debating that opinion or trying to persuade others is, in fact, an action. In a representative democracy (but not solely limited to democracies) this is a valid means of resolving disputed political issues. Secondly, I have no earthly idea whatsover where you come up with the notion that one’s opinion “doesn’t matter” in DC. The entire town is built on having opinions and generating hot air; furthermore, people in DC do, in fact, vote.
BRD
BRD – could Actus be taking his lead from D.C. having a “non-voting delegate” in the House? Of course, they do have 3 electoral votes by virtue of the 23rd Amendment, which puts them head and shoulders above “Insular Areas” like American Samoa or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariannas.
You are always free at any time any where to have any opinion.
When you state your opinion, that is taking an action. You are free to do that also, but you must then accept responsibility for the results of that statement.
Basically, if you don’t want to be held responsible for your opinions, shut the fuck up.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘congruent,’ but if you violate the law you commit a crime. Subject of course, to jurisdiction issues. I wonder if there is a crime for “levying war against the united states.”
For a strange sort of view of action. But there is a difference between holding an opinion, stating an opinion, and arguing for an opinion.
For President. Not Congress. Our license plates say “taxation without representation.”
DC, one of my favorite cities, was never intended to have those things. Another Founding Father type thing that irritates so many people these days.
Agreed. And we have to follow their intent back then in order to preserve freedom, or taxation without representation, today.
Terrorists fit the classic definition of war, organized political violence between (usually) foreign groups. If you can’t wrap your head around the political aspect, that’s your problem: no invading army or yahoo with a spear is ever legally sanctionied by the invadee.
And nobody really cares about how you fweel in your heart o’ hearts, actus. Who the fuck cares?
But when Code Pink demonstrates outside Walter Reed Hospital, they hurt troop moral. When protesters block access to merchant marine vessels loading ammunition, food, and medical supplies to troops overseas, they hurt readiness. When protesters block recruiting stations, they damage national security.
When newspapers trump up the allegations of torture and a chimerical American gulag, broadcast it to the most volatile places in the world where it can incite violence and attacks on US troops, they can kill US forces. When they broadcast secrets, they aid the enemy. When they advocate our soldiers shoot their officers, they are treasonous. When they promote retreat, they are as pro-facist as the Sunni Triangle, because it is those facists who will win.
Your opinions hardly matter beside these actions, advocated by different anti-war parties. Rebuke them and we can discuss your self-esteem.
About DC. Leave. Thus endeth your pointless bitch.
Subject to jurisdiction issues. If you are bound and determined to look at the use of organized violence to achieve political ends, perhaps you can look at the clash of armies as two seperate police forces engaging one another to see who can exert their jurisdiction. However, warfighting, while dedicated to expansion (effectively) or alteration of the jurisdiction over an area, contains within it explicit legal authorization for the combatants. Otherwise, Actus, you are arguing that all soldiers are criminals.
Ok, influence and communication are the sine non qua of leadership and persuasion. Influence and communication are based on opinion, fact, and analysis. What one does with these things (intentionally or otherwise) is shape the cognitive landscape of other actors. In shaping the world of other people, something is being caused to become different. In this case, the cause derives directly from the actions of an individual. You, right now, are acting.
The residents of DC are able to vote in local elections. DC maintains delegates in the House of Representatives. DC residents, as it happens, are free to not only move elsewhere if the franchise is that critical, they also can maintain legal residence for purposes of voter registration in other areas. You have not made any sort of case – whatsoever – that living in DC means that one has no democratic representation.
BRD
I’m not arguing they don’t fit the definition of war. Just that they fit other definitions too.
That is the founders intent for dealing with taxation without representation.
If there is no exception in the law for what they are doing, then why not?
You know what those delegates get to do right?
Are you sure? They can live in DC but register to vote elsewhere? I’d like to hear more. I’d like to be a voter in northern VA. But I’d hate to deal with all that traffic there. I prefer now, where I get to ride my bike to work and school. But the franchise, apparently, is what I give up for that. For not wanting to live in the burbs.
Thats so uniquely american its how our capital is!
—-pointless waste of pixels that was—-
That’s great Bezhov. Keep avoiding my argument by attempting to play grammar police and getting wrapped up in technicalities. I simply disagree with Kelly’s characterization of Orwell. Care to respond to that?
But, if you want to debate grammar…one can use the present tense to discuss the ideas and works of a dead writer, philosopher, etc. An idea does not die when the individual who spoke it dies. An idea lives on and thus can be referred to in the present tense.
nice work agi. i think my favorite part is that some person called “mojo” seems to hate you for being against killing.
i’ve said it before, i’ll say it again. protein wisdom is the funniest site out there.
DC. Taxation without representation? DC is better represented in Congress that any other state or city in the Union. The only reason you want representation is to get 2 more senators and 1 representative, elected by liberal bureucrats, in the Congress. It is part of the reason that the “Federal City” was set up as it is. From the governmental hanger-oners, to the lobbyists lining the hall of the Willard to the unions, bureaucrats, lobbyists and other montebanks that thrive there today. I couldn’t give representation to any city such as DC when common criminals a brash enough to mug a upperclass criminal such as Hizzoner! Such loss of integrity.
a brash = are brash
How cute.
Whaaa? Or you think its just lobbyists that live in this town? That elect marion barry, for example?