From Reuters:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, days after calling Iran the world’s top state sponsor of terrorism, ratcheted up the pressure on Tehran on Friday with fresh accusations of interference in Iraq.
Rumsfeld, in Taormina, Sicily, for a meeting of NATO defense ministers, used an appearance in Europe for the second time in a week to talk tough over Iran, which the United States and European Union fear is covertly developing nuclear weapons.
Asked during a news conference about U.S. assertions that Iran, as well as Syria, supports insurgents in Iraq, Rumsfeld said: “We have undertaken a series of initiatives to try to persuade them that their behavior is harmful to a new Iraqi government and indeed harmful to the region. Thus far we’ve not been successful.”
“I think they’re making a mistake,” Rumsfeld said, “although I can certainly understand that from their standpoint having a free and sovereign and democratic Iraq on their borders probably is not terribly encouraging to their type of government. So I can understand their resistance to that.”
Rumsfeld did not make specific allegations of misconduct by either Iran or Syria relating to Iraq. In the past, U.S. officials have accused heavily Shi’ite Muslim Iran of encouraging radicalism among Iraq’s majority Shi’ites and of allowing dangerous weaponry to pass into Iraq.
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said such accusations are unfounded.
U.S. officials have also accused Syria of allowing foreign fighters and financing to flow across its border into Iraq. Syria says it is doing what it can and says Iraq and the United States have failed to control their own side of the border.
While it is true, as Reuters notes, that Rumsfeld “did not make specific allegations of misconduct by either Iran or Syria,” it is nevertheless increasingly apparent that the US is ever more mindful of those two countries. Consequently, we may therefore soon see a media shift away from relentless coverage of Iraqi insurgents fighting a moribund battle on behalf of either the new Caliphate or Ba’athist nostalgia in favor of increased coverage of US “plans” for Iran and Syria.
If this is the case, the reconstruction and reformation of Iraq could make great strides once removed from the consistently-negative presentation it is getting while in the international spotlight. Alternately, with the world’s attention turned elsewhere, it could fly into civil war and chaos.
I’ve got my money on the former for now.
On the one hand we’re further along than I had imagined at the outset, on the other there is no doubt in my mind that we’d be even further along had we been united in this country (and the world) all along, but since no one on the anti-Iraq side can seem to grasp that, you’re right, the next best thing is getting the MSM busy looking somewhere else.
Since they couldn’t argue the “legality” of our movement into Afghanistan, they only use Afghanistan as “unfinished business”. We took the eye off the ball and went to Iraq. The day they start complaining about “unfinished business” in Iraq because we took the eye off the ball and started bombing the hell out of Syria and Iran, I’ll know we’re right on schedule winning the war on terror.
”Consequently, we may therefore soon see a media shift away from relentless coverage of Iraqi insurgents fighting a moribund battle on behalf of either the new Caliphate or Ba’athist nostalgia in favor of increased coverage of US “plans†for Iran and Syria.”
Very likely. But the spin put on the coverage by the mainline media will be that Afghanistan and Iraq are lost causes, but that the West can still be restrained in the cases of Syria and Iran.
Apparently they used to give asylum to the people we’ve installed in power.
What makes you think that progress there has anything to do with what we think of it here?
Very likely, John. But so long as things are getting done effectively, history will be the final judge.
I think Jeff is Actus. He posts that really stupid stuff as Actus to make his “Jeff” points look all the more brilliant.
“What makes you think that progress there has anything to do with what we think of it here?”
Jeez. I just don’t know. Why would the fact that “Swimmer” Kennedy, John “Frog” Kerry, and Harry “fucking” Reid are on your side have anything to do with believing that if you keep going, these assholes will prevail?
I appreciate your concern, but as with most Liberals, your conclusions lack any relationship to history, human nature , or the world as it ACTUALLY EXISTS.
Good thinking, Bozo. We are all amused – very amused.
So then how does me thinking that things are bad in Iraq impede progress there? won’t the administration just go ahead with its same level of (in)competence regardless? You think if the public stops thinking the admin is messing up, then hte admin will mess up less?
Its one of those odd assertions, like how people finding out we do inherent, warrantless surveillance is supposed to be bad for national security.
What is really interesting is that they frame the article so that the information that Iran and Syria support terrorist groups is treated as “new and doubtful information” from Secretary Rumsfeld.
One wishes to ask where the hell have they been for the last twenty-five years.
word: labor. It is hard labor to get any common sense into the heads of the clown princes of the media.
There are some days I think actus is fairly intelligent, just naive. Then there are days like today when I wonder if he has to wear safety glasses if he eats with a fork.
actus—say you become defense counsel on a high-profile case. The media hates the D.A. and is totally on your side. It runs a constant stream of articles hammering the D.A. for wrongful prosecution and incompetent investigation. Polls show many of the public, from which your jury will be drawn, believe your client has gotten a raw deal. Other attorneys with an an eye on the D.A.’s job, on deep background, tell reporters the same thing. Aside from the merits of the case or accuracy of the media reports, does any of this encourage you in your defense?
I don’t think I’d be watching much TV. But if I were looking to get on TV, I’d be doing more outrageous things if the TV wasn’t reporting on me. But if the polls show that my jury pool is going to rule for my client, I’d maybe start working less and watching more re-runs of CSI.
But that’s what you think is the problem? That teh terrorists there are motivated by our TV’s ‘bring em on’ attitude? And thats whats stopping progress? I don’t think the terrorists will be less motivated if the TV stops talking about them.
Just like I don’t think the white house will be more motivated to be competent if the TV keeps on talking about their incompetence.
Now I understand—actus is psychic. actus can cause people to go crazy with a mere thought.
Too bad the maximum effective range of that awesome power is about 3 inches.
TW: actus needs to deal withi this issue.
Salt Lick  What you have to realize is that every “true’ “Liberal” “Progressive” is an Army of One. They can march in a crowd with every frothing ANSWERbot, Sparticist Leahuer, Maoist and Palestinian wannabe with bus fare to the rally and insist they have nothing to do with any of them. They can tell you with an absolutely straight face that it’s not their fault if somebody acts on what they’re tramping through the streets to advocate. Every single one of them lives in their own private universe of self-indulgent self-righteousness.
I don’t think the terrorists will be less motivated if the TV stops talking about them.
Well, if you don’t believe that, do you think terrorists are encouraged when TV does talk about them and, in addition, undermines their enemies?
Sorry, gotta run. Don’t mean to be rude, but I’m on dial-up and the wife is standing over me saying something about mealtime.
Adios.
I think they have different motivations. They’re going to try to do what works. And if it doesn’t work, they’ll try something new. But I don’t we’re going to get them to give up by not talkign about them. That sounds like pre-9/11 head in the sand to me. Ignoring them won’t make them go away.
It doesn’t.
But does a car bomb exploding in a Ramallah market make a sound if no sympathetic media is there to report on it?
As I’ve tried to explain to you before, actus, the war in Iraq is one of a very strong opponent versus a very weak opponent. Over time, the very strong opponent will always win over the very weak. Always. The only hope the very weak have is to somehow convince the very strong to quit, by say, fooling them into believing that they’ve already somehow lost, or that victory for them is impossible, or that their goal of victory is unjust. Any of this sound familiar?
To this end, a pliant press is the biggest weapon in their arsenal. Were that weapon diminished, their behavior would change in the face of the different imperatives they would endure as a result. It would also give our military more opportunity to better engage the enemy when it doesn’t have to worry about engaging the bad faith of the mainstream media.
Why don’t you just try to convince the whole country of your ‘nyaa nyaa nyaa can’t see or hear bad things’ strategy, and I’ll argue that we ought to have an informed electorate, and then we’ll see which way people want to go?
An “informed” electorate is one passingly familiar with all the facts, not one that has been spoon fed a single narrative, with regular booster shots of “evidence” supporting that narrative.
Listen—you of all people know that by forcing people on the defensive to explain and re-explain, justify and re-justify every action, you are taxing their energies with the hope of wearing them down so that they a) either try to change the subject, or b) make concessions to stop the nagging.
The way the media has presented the Iraq story matter. If you don’t believe so, fine. But I won’t fall into the very trap I’m highlighting by responding to you on this any further. Believe what you must.
Whatever we do to Syria and Iran, this time we’ll have the goddam Europeans behind us. My brother lives in Holland, and he tells me that there’s been a sea change there because of the protests over the Mohammed cartoons. The European man and woman on the street have finally seen the danger they’re in, despite the ongoing appeasement of their governments.
Scuttlebutt is that these protests are a test that the European governments are flunking with flying colors. The Islamists think that Euros will cave no matter the provocation, so they’re now planning the next step.
Remember all those signs in London, warning of the coming apocalypse? Imagine coordinated armed uprisings all across Europe on the same day. Millions of Muslims with Kalashnikovs, RPGs, Molotov cocktails, and suicide vests.
The Islamists think that the Europeans won’t resist. I think they will, and I think they’ll strike back harder than anyone expects, like with napalm, tanks, and Gatling guns.
Plus, they won’t criticize us when we hit Damascus and Teheran.
Fasten your seatbelts.
Hmmm.
Frankly my money is not on a civil war per se, since what we’re seeing now is in effect a civil war, but instead a good old fashioned ethnic cleansing. By old fashioned I’m referring to stragety practiced in the middle east by many governments over the past few thousands years. Even the Syrian Army surrounded a rebellious kurdish city in Syria and conducted a punitive campaign there that resulted in some 70,000+ dead and wounded civilians.
What we’re going to see in Iraq is a defacto federal style goverment where the kurds will generally rule the north and the shia will generally rule the south. Baghdad will be maintained as a neutral capital city and majority sunni areas will be left alone as long as they accept their minority status. Those areas and cities that offer rebellion will simply be wiped out.
Harsh yes, but this is actually the traditional way of dealing with these situations. Iraq is still largely based on tribal/clan relationships. This means that many areas have a uniformity in their tribe/clan relationships than here in America. Here a single extended family could be spread all over the coutry. There a single extended family could run the entire length of a city block and no further.
In this sort of circumstance the tribe/clans would be the ones to enforce the peace on it’s members with the ever present threat of utter slaughter if things get out of hand.
In a purely legalistic point of view it’s a return to status quo ante.
My 2 shekels.
Thanks, actus, for the textbook example of how the left has simply forgotten how to make an actual argument. If you don’t like my premises, then you argue why you don’t like them; you don’t get to simply discard them, stick your own premises beneath my argument and then mock the resulting non-sequitur.
But I’ll take you up on your offer anyway. I’ll keep making arguments, and you keep trying to manipulate people, and we’ll see which way people want to go.
yours/
peter.
I wonder if “millions” is a bit of an overstatement (at least at the outset), but even thousands in each EU country would be believable.
They’re definitely on the verge of pushing the envelope, encouraged by the wimps in the western press no doubt. I think you’re right about the pushback to a degree, but remain concerned that so many, in so many countries, are so anxious to do the impossible defense routine and retaliation “after the fact” thing.
.
If that becomes necessary, let us hope it doesn’t, I’m afraid the usual suspects will be as vocal in their criticism as they always are, unless your first scenario is as violent as you portray it—it’s tough for a critic to talk tough about ignoring the threat when he’s talking from the street in front of his burning building and unfortunately, that may be exactly what it takes to wake them up.
This ‘single narrative’ is the ‘big lie’ that BBH was talking about in some other thread? Come on. You can’t really think things are this simple.
I’d say that’s the way the government should always be: on the defensive.
Rupert Murdoch has a network there that you can use to help spread these myths.
Oh I’m fine with your premises. And I say I’m fine with competing with your idea. You tell people that the car bomb in Ramallah really didn’t make a sound. And I’ll tell them to think about whether ignoring iraq is the way to make it get better. I’m fine with competing with the guy that thinks the problem with car bombs is that they’re going off, rather than impeding the mission.
I mean this:
I’m fine with competing with the guy that thinks the problem with car bombs is that people know they’re going off, rather than impeding the mission.
sorry.
actus, it’s posts like that that convince us that you are either (a) arguing in bad faith or (b) too ignorant to pound sand.
Nobody has argued that car bombs going off should not be reported. Your construal of the objections in that way is not just a strawman, it’s a damnable, palpable, bald-faced lie.
What I, and at least some others, object to is making car bombs the centerpiece of the “narrative”, bringing them and their concomitants to the fore at every opportunity, and de-emphasizing or ignoring anything whatever that doesn’t fit that particular thread. That is precisely the intent of the car-bombers, and by framing the “narrative” in that way you and your fellow travelers are acting as PR agents for the people who murder babies to make political points in favor of a rigid theocratic regime.
I’m not in a position to know whether your feet stink or not, nor do I know your Mother’s preferences in footwear. But when you frame the argument as “the wingnuts want us to ignore the car bombs” you lie like a rug.
Regards,
Ric
Whats ‘the narrative’ ? That things are a mess? Cuz they are. That things aren’t goign according to the plan we started with? They arent. That we have now elected a government made up of Shiite religious majority? We have. These are all ‘the narrative.’ If anything that middle one isn’t so mentioned.
Car bombs going off ruin shiny happy narratives cuz they’re not shiny happy things. Good things happen in iraq, bad things happen. All of those get told to us. Purple fingers mix with car bombs. There isn’t a concensus on Iraq, and there isn’t a consensus ‘narrative.’
What would you like it to be? Steady forward progress?
Take that up with the idiot talking about ‘does a car bomb make a noise.’
Shiny happy narratives are a useful way to get people to go ahead with tough jobs. As you know very well, being a sponsor of shiny happy narratives yourself—“Happy Iraqis flew kites in the park before Bush started killing them!” “Electing Democrats means no more mistakes!” “Getting rid of George Bush will bring the Millenium!” Smashing shiny happy narratives, either because they compete with your narrative (shiny happy or not) or just because you can smash something, is not in itself a useful contribution.
Either (a) lying or (b) stupid. The poster was using hyperbole to point out that car bombs are, among other things, an attempt at getting publicity, and giving it to them serves their ends—which I suspect you know very well, so I choose (a).
Regards,
Ric
Your mission, actus, should you decide to accept it, is to research any war in the history of mankind that went according to plan.
What you mean we, Kemosabe?
I am so not happy and shiny that the best we can do is elect these democrats. They’re in general better at governance and worse at electioneering, but no panacea. Far from it. But they do seem to have among them the people who have spent time studying nation-building, as opposed to decrying it.
I take from car bombs that things are a mess and people are dying and there is terrorism. All true, all which the terrorist wants me to believe, as well. But just because of that I’m not going to pretend he doesn’t exist.
And why does the terrorist want you to believe this actus? So you will promote the US quitting and leaving and the terrorist will win. Are you really too dense to understand this? Or do you just want the terrorist to win?
The left is so fond of wailing ”Have we learned nothing from Viet Nam?” – I am starting to realize that they really haven’t.
I vote “b.”
I thought the consensus was the 91 gulf war went better than expected.
All of this comes back to the simple, undeniable truth that Actus needs for us to understand – he cares. Unlike us wingnuts, who don’t have, and will never have, his capacity for caring. He dons Emmett Kelly’s make-up, but that’s part of the meta-irony of it all, because there’s really a tearful, soulful, caring heart behind it all. I Pagliacci is playing in the background as he composes his passive-aggressive one-liners.
Because he cares.
With over a hundred thousand words, English is bound to have one for “cynically deliberate simulation of disingenuousness”. Unfortunately I don’t know it, so I have to simplify.
Liar.
The question is not whether there’s a mess. There is always a mess. The human race is a mess. The question is whether the existing mess is less messy than the previous mess and/or any realistically conceivable alternative mess. If you are prepared to assert that a Democratic administration would have made no mistakes and would not have made a mess of things—a quite different mess, perhaps, but still a mess—I’ll be prepared to accept “stupid” rather than “lying” despite your obvious literacy. If you assert that an Administration led by either Al Gore or John Kerry would have made no mistakes and left no messes, I’ll be sure of it.
The Democrats’ notions of “nation building”, as expressed in the vanishingly few actual suggestions made in the farrago of Bush-bashing, are to continue (or resume) the previous policy of shipping boatloads of money to the existing elites and oligarchs, or (best case) the out of office competitive elites and oligarchs, in the hope of purchasing love. As an ex-sailor, and once an habitué of Olongapo City, I can tell you exactly how well that works, and history as she are actually experienced bears me out.
Regards,
Ric
BTW, an article on how to debate anti-Americans is here :
http://futurist.typepad.com
I can’t recall what the consensus was on that war; I do know that the current war went far better than expected—don’t you recall all the progressives predicting hundreds of thousands dead (some even bandied about millions dead) and millions more fleeing to Syria and Iran?
Regardless, I don’t see how a consensus of one opinion or another has anything to do with whether or not a war went according to plan.
You’re not forwarding the idea that because a war went better or worse than expected, that same war followed the original plan, are you?
What doesn’t seem to be appreciated—at all on the left, to any great extent on the right—is the degree to which American military thinking has diverged from previous patterns. The change isn’t complete. Western military tradition goes back to at least the Spartans, and moving it is rather like trying to divert the Mississippi with an entrenchment tool, but the change is surprisingly complete nevertheless. Some of the changes are symbolic. Symbolism is important. A military whose new combat uniform is what amounts to a pair of flame-retardant pajamas, with nothing shiny on it anywhere and the rank markings held on by Velcroâ„¢, is something of a departure from previous notions.
I suggested once that the plan was to make mistakes. My interlocutor grinned, bought another round, and started talking about football… the biggest mistake one can make in any contested venue is to assume that the plan will match the reality. I look forward to the day when “I have a Plan!” is dismissed with the same contempt we give “I have an Explanation!” when the explanation involves Gray aliens. From what my son, and the people I’ve met through him, tell me, that day is real close in the U.S. Army.
Regards,
Ric
The Plan always involves Grey Aliens, Ric.
Always.
Well, of course.
It’s explanations involving Grey Aliens I’m dismissing.
Regards,
Ric
Actus exists to stupend.
Okely-Dokely, Sherlock. You’re not Michael Moore-on with both fingers in your ears saying that the likelihood that you could die from terrorism is minute, or the Beeb creating a faux-cumentary about how Al Qaida doesn’t exist. Hey, wonderful.
Now tell me the other part about how you simply want to implement the other 99% of his platform, like withdrawing from Iraq, the ME in toto, paying the Danegeld in aid programs, stability, and how Unkie Saddam was an ‘ally’ in the war.
Or how the terrorists want to call the US surveillance-free, want Johnnie Cochran for every Gitmo inmate, want us to treat their kiddie-scalpers as prisoners of war, want us to respect the Mosques they use as strong points, and want us to “redeploy” our jihadi-eaters from the theatre.
Yeah, actus, pretty smart. That’s exactly what the terrorists want us to do, so you can be super-secret smart and advocate exactly that program, too. Kiss Osama good night for me.
It’s just…Actus doesn’t have “need to know” on these matters, so to speak. Let him go on thinking it’s all swamp gas or Venus.
And my Turing Word is “nuclear” – Of course, it would be…..
I’d actually be happy to see every inmate of Gitmo represented by Johnny Cochrane (who’s dead) rather than a load of MSM handwringers (who are dead only from the neck up). But that’s by the by.
I wanted to touch on actus’s claim that “Rupert Murdoch has a network [in Europe] that you can use to help spread these myths”. This is completely untrue: FOX is not readily available in Europe, and Sky, Murdoch’s other network, is staffed by refugees from the BBC and its news coverage is indistinguishable from the BBC’s yay-jihad-boo-nasty-Yanks ravings.
TW: Sorry actus, but once again your peculiar delusional state has failed to correspond to reality…
Yeah, that should be good for a battalion or so, easy.
Maybe they can run the field kitchens for Americans, Brits and Aussies.
I don’t have to follow his explanation of how to get it to stop. But I do have to recognize that it is happening.
No I don’t. I do recall big shots telling me of cakewalks that pay for themselves.
Its not just that all ‘wars don’t go according to plan.’ It seems like they didn’t even think about that. But this is just, of course, a narrative. Which, if only it was happier, would make reality better. We are told.
Not my fault Murdoch simply adjusts to market pressure. He did it for China, no surprise he does it for europe. But I did not know he had.
Maybe they can run the field kitchens for Americans, Brits and Aussies.
Sir! We have Halliburton to take care of that, Sir!
Would you consider reincarnation and a fresh commission?
tw: life Yes, exactly.
actus sez:
You can’t fix stupid.
Actus,
Are you trying to be disingenuous?
When, on the one hand you state:
And try to pass that off in response to an earlier query about wars “going according to plan” is a non-trivial bit of revisionism.
More importantly, in interjecting whichever metric seems to beg whatever question you are being faced with is a cheap bit of misdirection.
If you could at least try to rephrase your question a bit more clearly, I’d be happy to address it, but if you can’t make the distinction between “going according to plan” and “went better than expected” then you aren’t making any point which merites a response.
BRD
Well one way to fix the ‘wars don’t go according to plan’ problem is to not have one. I guess. But again, we’re discussing the right/wrong of one of many narratives that are out there. Like this one, so are others, such as the purple fingers of freedom. And the great victory we’ve achieved by electing religious leaders allied to Iran.
actus
Wait for it…
Of course you don’t, your insight into history doesn’t even cover the last 2 years!!!
Proving that Saddam Hussein was of course an ally or a neutral. Yawn.
Just a passing thought—and I mean that, probably the vanilla in the scrambled eggs that did it—but what if these religious leaders allied to Iran who “we’ve” elected (me, I voted for Ross Perot), having seen what our military is capable of even when fighting a surgical war with smart munitions, act as a control on Iranian aggressiveness?
More they remove the incentive for Iranian aggressiveness. Why be so aggressive when democracy works so well? Iran fought for 8 long years against Iraq, when all they needed was an election there.
Yeah, actus, you’re right. Having our bastard in charge is better than their bastard.
I’m sorry, who did WE elect? I missed that vote.
Gotta love the left, they’re in favor of democracy, so long as you elect their people–if you don’t, there’s something inherently wrong with the program.
“Well one way to fix the ‘wars don’t go according to plan’ problem is to not have one.”
Kinda a problem for your al Qaeda buddies, isn’t it. Not exactly going to plan? Guess the idea that the US would just roll over, take it in the ass, and accept the global caliphate, isn’t going according to your plan?
After how many terrorist attacks was it that the US picked up its toys and went home? So you figured you could hijack a few planes, crash them into landmarks, and bring us to our knees.
Well, we’re on our knees, kicking the shit out of you. How do you like your war plan now? Maybe the US doesn’t have that glass jaw you were expecting? Next time, pick on somebody your own weight–a lightweight, that way you can dominate them, just like your buddy Saddam did.
I’m keeping this short, ‘cuz I know you gotta go pray.
Cheers.
Sorry for the ambiguity. I meant ‘not have a plan.’ Not ‘not have a war.’ Go chill out and pray.
Ah, but not just an election, actus, as you surely know. A series of elections. Political compromises and horse trading. And of course, the necessity for a ratified Constitution, providing legal protections heretofore uncodified, along with a societal openness that comes from being a democracy (free press, engagement with the world, being answerable for your rhetoric, et al.) But I suppost those shall all be ruses to bring about the great Theocratic end times.
Because “democracy” = “vote”.
Except that, y’know, that’s a strawman argument; as I’ve said on many occasions, voting is just a method. Democracy requires certain preconditions and structural imperatives.
Ergo the ChristoTaliban.
It’s like an atheist: There’s too much religious strife in the world today, therefore I declare war on all denominations. Swell.
If you aren’t all for dressing up your 13 year olds like tarts, for unprotected sex with someone whose name you don’t know, for dung-madonnas, abortion on demand, and cradle to the grave entitlements, well gee, you must obviously be an enemy to liberals. Therefore unacceptable.
Its hard to imagine a more depraved philosophy, diversity in regards to eugenetics, none to thought, empowerment to the poor, but no authority, and to strenously fight against the peaceful while cowering like dogs before bullies.
Nah. Just enough to replace a government hostile to Iran with one with an affinity to it.
Absolutely. Pardon my shorthand of ‘democracy’ for what happened in Iraq. Now lets get back to doing what the republicans have great experience in: building institutions of societal opennes and legal protections.
actus: First, you said:
“Well one way to fix the ‘wars don’t go according to plan’ problem is to not have one.â€Â
Then you replied:
“Sorry for the ambiguity. I meant ‘not have a plan.’ Not ‘not have a war.’”
Huh? This makes sense to you? No wonder you don’t win elections. Brilliance to the room temperature IQ crowd is a far as that logic gets you. But in lefty circles, that’s a target rich environment, apparently.
Wait, Vercig…
I’m supposed to know the name of the 13 year old tart on welfare I’m having sex with?
Boy, you’re no fun. Who invited you?
Party pooper.
Now bend over and take your punishment.
Oh, and now wait while actus gives us a lecture on how benighted the Democrats were for keeping blacks enslaved for 100 years following the Civil War. (And near the bitter end, Bobby Kennedy approved the wiretapping of Martin Luther King, while Bobby (klan kleagle) Byrd fillibustered the CRA of ‘64 for 14 hours on the floor of the Senate.) For our benefit, and theirs’. Societal openess, and all.
That’s quite a record–not a starting point I’d take–but quite a record, nonetheless.
When you’re in a hole–my advice–stop digging.
Its got nothing to do with say, non-candidate status.
I don’t know whats so hard about ‘one way to fix the problem that wars don’t go according to plan is to not have a plan.’
Which we all know is what’s important in war, a perfect plan, not like victory or anything. Or in other words, failing to plan is planning on failing…give it up, actus, its a stupid ‘point’ made moronic.
I liked how we failed to plan for victory. Thats a cute one.
That was right at the top of the plan, actus. Me, I like to have something like “world domination” at the top of my weekly to-do list, but so far no dice.
TW: We built this city on rock and roll.
Yeah, my thoughts exactly, since moving 150,000 troops 10,000 miles away, keeping them in a fight for 3 years and all of that happens, of course, without a plan. Like a series of elections. Setting up civil institutions, repairing three-decades of neglect for Iraq’s institutions. Duh!
IIRC, Stephen Greene was the first to note the media’s enormous influence in the War on Terror. Austin Bay added nuances to that observation, and military analyst Ralph Peters adds others that may be of interest. In part:
We have reached the point (as evidenced by the first battle of Falluja) where the global media can overturn the verdict of the battlefield. We will not be defeated by suicide bombers in Iraq, but a chance remains that the international media may defeat us. Engaged with enemies to our front, we try to ignore the enemies at our back–enemies at whom we cannot return fire. Indeed, if anything must be profoundly reevaluated, it’s our handling of the media in wartime. We have no obligation to open our accounts to proven enemies, yet we allow ourselves to be paralyzed by platitudes.
This doesn’t mean that all of the media are evil or dishonest. It means we need to have the common sense and courage to discriminate between media outlets that attempt to report fairly (and don’t compromise wartime secrets) and those whose track records demonstrate their hostility to our national purposes or their outright support for terrorists.
We got it right in World War II, but today we cannot count on patriotism among journalists, let alone their acceptance of censorship boards. Our own reporters pretend to be “citizens of the world” with “higher loyalties,” and many view patriotism as decidedly down-market. Obsessed with defending their privileges, they refuse to accept that they also have responsibilities as citizens. But after journalistic irresponsibility kills a sufficient number of Americans, reality will force us to question the media’s claim that “the public has a right to know” every secret our government holds in wartime.
The media may constitute the decisive element in the global counterrevolution in military affairs, and the video camera–that insatiable accomplice of the terrorist–the cheap negation of our military technology. (And beware the growing capability of digital technology to create American “atrocities” from scratch.) We are proud of our ability to put steel precisely on target anywhere in the world, but guided bombs don’t work against faith or an unchallenged flood of lies. We have fallen in love with wind-up dolls and forgotten the preeminence of the soul.
We need to break the mental chains that bind us to a technology-über-alles dream of warfare–a fantasy as absurd and dated as the Marxist dreams of Europe’s intellectuals. Certainly, military technologies have their place and can provide our troops with useful tools. But technologies are not paramount. In warfare, flesh and blood are still the supreme currency. And strength of will remains the ultimate weapon. Welcome to the counterrevolution.
Why do you persist in wasting your time responding to actus as though he is interested in an honest debate? No “true” “liberal” “progressive” is.
Just treat him like a pop-up you can’t hit the X button on and scroll on by.
Actus,
The only way whatosever to have a war (be it either Cold, Hot, or lukewarm) go according to plan is, as you say, not to have one at all. As you state ”Well one way to fix the ‘wars don’t go according to plan’ problem is to not have one.”
So the only thing I can infer is that you’d rather roll over and die rather than have a war and risk something not going according to plan.
BRD
Actus,
I can only assume that the post in which the following is stated:
is a spoof, and not, in fact, a serious post. There is no way on God’s green earth that I can expect that any individual with enough brainpower to type could ever say something like that in any measure of seriousness.
BRD
TW: I am going wait a few minutes to see if I hear a rebuttal.
That’s whats so cute about that line. Its got quite a bit of truthiness to it. It both damns as well as praises.
Its kind of like how the best way to improve education in america is to leave no child behind. Nobody really talks that like that with seriousness. But its how the talk gets talked.
Actus,
Enough with the cute, you were either trying to say something or you weren’t. If you (even think) you had something intelligible to say regarding warfare and plans, I’d be happy to hear it.
As yet, I’m pretty convinced that you don’t even think that you have anything at all intelligible to say. But, as I said, I’d be quite happy to hear what you think you have to say.
BRD
This all started when I made the point that there were several narratives, with the ‘failed to plan for victory’ type being just one of them. I think there’s plenty to base all of these narratives on. And the original point was that there being all of these narratives makes our host rather silly when he talked about people being spoon fed a single narrative.
Actus,
Grand Prize winner in the having cake and eating it too contest:
That things aren’t goign according to the plan we started with? They arent.
Well one way to fix the ‘wars don’t go according to plan’ problem is to not have one. I guess.
I don’t know whats so hard about ‘one way to fix the problem that wars don’t go according to plan is to not have a plan.’
At no point have I asked you about any narrative other than the one to which you have bought into regarding Planning and the Iraq War. So far you seem to be eager to pounce on all faces of the argument – the war may be going well according to your narrative, the situation is Iraq is all screwed up and not going to plan, the Gulf ‘91 War went better than plan (but even though it didn’t go according to plan – the original implication – you’ll take better than expected as both gospel truth and some sort of vindication), and who knows what else.
On some level, you’re either making a point with respect to plans, the conduct of warfare and the Iraq War, or you’re not. I’m not particularly convinced you have any earthly idea what you’re on about, other than disagreement for it’s own sake, which is just as intellectually dishonest as anything you’ve decried.
Since you’ve hopped around your own self-stated point so adamantly, and then (in the same breath) turned around and implied that posters here are so benighted by ideology as to beyond engagement is noxious, immature behavior of the first order.
So figure out what the hell you’re on about or just shove off.
BRD
Actus, you really are quite a moron. The reality is that the Iraq operation has probably been among the top half dozen war plans together with successful execution in history. Only someone completely bereft of any understanding of military history could say the silly crap you do.
I’m making a point with respect to narratives. The ‘war didn’t go according to plan’ and ‘we didn’t plan for victory’ are just some of the narratives out there. There isn’t a single one being spoon fed to us. And there isn’t even a single interest holding the spoon!
Actus,
I enjoy humorous revisionist twaddle as much as the next blogger. However, you never made these assertions with respect to the war going as planned (or not) with any eye whatsover to a discussion of narratives. For you it is a bald-faced fact. I’m trying to see if you even believe in the narratives in which you believe, or if you’re trying to stiffle disagreement with your position by putting on the “whole lotta narratives” cloak which releases you from the obligation to make a cogent point, stand b it, or expose it data not of your liking. Weak, Actus. Very weak.
BRD
See who’s challenging the official 911 story now.
just wander over to: http://www.st911.org/
and go to “who we are” when you get there.
blubonnet-
can’t you just tell us?
Who they are, blubonnet, are nuts.
Of course not. I’m not interested in each individual narrative. Just that several exist. So don’t bitch about us being spoon fed just one.
There is the narrative that in 2003 we did not expect to still be there with 100K+ and this many billions spent. There is the narrative that we’re on our way to causing elections to flower all over the middle east thanks to our elections in Iraq, etc… all of those have enough truth in them to count as narratives.
I have a narrative in which actus gets a clue, unfortunately I can clearly see the narrative in which he loses it immediately.
Sigh
Actus,
This then suggests another question, are all narratives equally valid? Secondarily, do all narratives have equal impact on the situation at hand?
BRD
BRD, you forgot the third…who needs a narrative when you have fact. But far be it for me to criticize an obvious Man-’O-Action such as Actus…no doubt assuaging the pain of the poor of the world through his noble work with Medecines sans Frontiers or some such.
The benefit of actually doing something is that people can quibble about what that something means, but no one can deny the deed itself.
V-torix,
The thing that kind of bugs me is that those who go around munching on the narrative stalk seem to then breathlessly go on to become blind to the role that this same kind of nonsense played in Vietnam. The Vietnamese didn’t know then won the Tet offensive until the “Narrative” told them they did. In other words, this business of “Narrative” as Actus seems to be pursuing it is a very fancy way of talking about things like the Will to Power, morale, propaganda, and so on. However, there is such a rush to embrace, coddle, and nurture the bad news, that they don’t understand that this nurtuing causes failure to become, essentially, a self-fufilling prophesy. I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to suggest that the lines of argument pursued by such folks contributes in an active and measurable way to the death of American soldiers.
But then again, I guess I’m just blah-blah-blah-whatever-boilerplate-blah.
Whatever.
BRD
Scrolling down a bit, I see that mostly they’re composed of psychologists, theater majors and liars. Bob Bowman, directory of Star Wars? You’ve got to be kidding me.
Oh…here:
Not technically a lie, I guess, since there were no “Star Wars” programs under presidents Ford or Carter. There was a ground-based missile defense system, extremely limited in deployment and capability, called Safeguard, but that sounds much less dramatic than being director of all Star Wars. Bowman retired as a lieutenant colonel; the current director of MDA is a three-star. Even taking rank inflation into account, one of these things is very much unlike the other.
TW: Don’t over-pad your resume, indeed.
director of, anyway.
TW: proofread before posting.
Some are more plausible than others. I’m not convinced any of them affect reality that much.
Ha, BRD. Look at the criticisms about the War on Terror and all – it is all irreducibly down to this Lak-me-off, Chomskyite ‘reframing’ and control of the ‘narratives’, whatever. Narratives control what is said and not said.
Actus’ narrative on “UBL = winner” and “ever-increasing noble savage freedom fighters” conveniently dismisses the “purple-fingers” narrative. Talk about “cherry picking” intelligence. Same old Stalinist-line.
Of course the truth is simply that at no time could the terrorists, including the Baathists, ever take and hold territory, nor administer the territory, and thus could never actaully win. It was and is impossible; only a “narrative” makes it possible.
That’s the benefit of using facts, and doing things – they destroy the BS narratives.
But whatever, actus is gay.
What? I’ve mentioned the latter and not the former. You’re nuts.
You might be on to something here.
Actus,
I’m not convinced any of them affect reality that much.
This is the problem with such a view, in Vietnam the senior NVA Commander, Giap, realized how they could win – he would simply let the American people destroy their own morale, eventually transforming Vietnam in to a political defeat. Following Tet, the NVA was pretty much ready to hang it up. But upon watching the coverage, it became apparent that the American media was far more corrosive to the American will to fight than the NVA could ever be on their own. After that realization, the NVA’s prime mission changed – it became TV coverage on American TVs. They became asymmetric in a way the US couldn’t without censoring media.
Those who are adamant about the “Apocalypse In Every News Report” school of thinking are, whether or not it’s intentional, marching down that same damned path, and expect me to praise their “patriotic dissent” while doing it.
Hogwash!
BRD
T/W: “A hearts and minds campaign works both here and over there – don’t do the heavy lifting for the other guy’s hearts and minds campaign.”
Not gay in the peter-puffer Brokeback way, just gay as in queens-in-drag singin’ “Everyone has AIDS!”, god that’s fucking stoopid, gay.
Even the pentagon recognized that we didn’t want, or couldn’t do, what that war required to win. Knew it all along. That’s whats supposed to happen in a democracy: the government only does things the people want.
I’m always amazed at how well people know you on the internets. Have you been to one of my shows?
Actus,
In regards to Vietnam, what do you make of a situation in which the country is actually fairly pro-Vietnam War throughout Kennedy and most of LBJ, but then magically decides that they have all manner of gripe after they get fed a particularly biased selection of news. As far as it went, the US was doing just fine through ‘68.
All that this seems to suggest is that the other guys can play propaganda and media games all day long, but we can’t even trouble our own news sources to even try to strike a remotely objective viewpoint, and any attempt to do so gets slogged down in the “my narrative is immune to your data” nonsense.
BRD
I think this piece by former Secretary of Defense Laird will be an interesting read for everyone but Actus. Summary:
During Richard Nixon’s first term, when I served as secretary of defense, we withdrew most U.S. forces from Vietnam while building up the South’s ability to defend itself. The result was a success—until Congress snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by cutting off funding for our ally in 1975. Washington should follow a similar strategy now, but this time finish the job properly.
It wasn’t the coverage of the Tet Offensive that changed peoples minds about Vietnam, but the fact of the Tet Offensive. Surprise, surprise, people supported a war that the politicians and generals told tehm was important and that we were winning, we were almost there. The fact of the Tet Offensive made some of those people realize that the politicans were lying to them. Shockingly this led to a decline in their support. Is your lesson from this “stop the lies” or “stop the news”?
BTW, y’all are aware that attacking Iran means switching sides in Iraq, right?
Excuse me Retief
It wasn’t the politicians that were lying, it was the press.
It appears you think the Tet offensive was a loss for our side? That can only be so if you failed to follow the link I provided and read the friggin article. It is 7-8 pages long, so I suppose that’s too much to ask.
The Tet Offensive was a loss of face for our side. It was a loss of credibility for those who said that the enemy was on the run. The facts that the US killed a lot of Viet Cong, the urban populations didn’t rise to join them, and the US took back a lot of the territory we lost have nothing to say to the fact that the American public was most unpleasantly surprised by the losses and the ferocity of the offensive. They quite rightly began to conclude that they had been misled by the Vietnam is going just fine crowd.
I believe Westmoreland’s exact words were “this insurgency is in its last throes” but I could be wrong about that one.
So what you’re saying, Retief, is that you still haven’t read the article, or perhaps it’s just that you don’t comprehend it.