[update: For those who pretend to disbelieve I could have possible ever been engaged in hermeutic study (or that I must necessarily have been bad at it), I’m happy to provide you, once again, with some course notes I developed for a 2-part seminar that outlines the trajectory of my study and the conclusions I drew from those studies—which put my ideas about interpretation, truth claims, etc., into context. Of course, I don’t expect those of you visiting here to call me an incompetent paste eater or a “failed grad student” to read through the notes; but it heartens me to know they are available to you. Discussion of hermeneutics in the context of interpretation and meaning making begins on p.8]
****
Yesterday’s post on Language, Intent, and the other Other, a gloss on Shelby Steele’s WSJ piece that dealt with the linguistic mechanisms that, once they insinuate their way into our cultural consciousness and are repeatedly validated by practice and policy, conspire to alter the way Americans think about identity, memory, history, and “Otherness—one of the tangential effects of which is that it alters the political calculus for fighting wars—was greeted rather predictably by the “reality-based community.”
A sample of their much-lauded appreciation for “nuance” is evident in their characterizations of the post. Enjoy!
Greenwald:
Looking at the bright side of this deranged rhetoric, it is, in a sense, refreshing to see that many of these war supporters, in their great frustration, are finally relinquishing their solemn concern for the Iraqi people and the tearful inspiration caused by the Purple Fingers. Instead, they are now just calling for some good old-fashioned carpet bombings and mass killings. As Jeff tells us: “there are times when we really should turn off the “smart†bombs.” After all: “no one wishes to see innocent civilians die . . . But at the same time, from a practical standpoint, there is nothing wrong with fighting a war as if it is a war.”
Does it really have to be said that the reason we can’t carpet bomb Iraq and “win the war” is because we are supposedly there to build Iraq, not to destroy it?
I don’t know, Glenn. You tell me. After all, I never mentioned carpet bombing, which has been obsolete for decades—much like the conscript, thuggish, poor man’s military that lives inside your fevered imagination.
What I did suggest is that we shouldn’t fear the kind of screeching and moaning coming from people like you should US military command let it be known that, say, should insurgents set up shop inside or atop mosques, we will not hesitate to shoot up said mosque with helicopter gunships—or raze the thing entirely—if the situation calls for it.
~~~~
Jazz Shaw:
“Shorter Goldstein: ‘We must burn the (Iraqi) village to save the village’
Yeah, sure. That was my point. Leaving aside that the post was not specifically about the current Iraq war—but was instead more concerned with US political attitudes toward military action in general—the idea the we must necessarily use more force was never once advocated in my post. That we must be willing to use more force if the situation calls for it—with the goal being to save US lives and shorten the war— was advocated for. Presumably, “Jazz” ain’t on board with this.
Because let’s face it: the more US casualties? The more they scream that the war is a failure. And that is what they do. So I don’t find it all that difficult to believe that somewhere in “Jazz’s” black little soul is the (perhaps unconscious) hope that more and more US soldiers die. Because that way, they can say, “I told you Iraq was teh suxOR!”
Bravo.
~~~~
The Mojo Wire:
“Carpet-Bombing Our Way Toward Jeffersonian Democracy”
Would somebody please explain to me WTF Jeff Goldstein is trying to say about all this?
[...] As I’ve mentioned here on numerous occasions, the first fight we must win is internally and domestically. And it is a fight for the soul of classical liberalism, which is being undercut (in my estimation) by nearly 40 years of a concerted effort by those whose goal is power and control to relativize meaning and deconstruct, through incoherent linguistic assertions that have unfortunately been widely adopted out of self-satisfied feel-goodism (specifically, an ostensible deference to the Other that allows us to convince ourselves we are “tolerant†and “diverse,†when in fact we have created the conditions to turn those ideas into something approximating their exact opposites). [...]
If I didn’t know better, I’d say he’s attempting to sound cerebral, but it’s really hard to say that when he throws around words like “feel-goodism” and uses bizarre phrases like “ostensible deference to the Other” that really make you wonder if he might not be human. Seriously. I’m halfway convinced he’s really a very rudely hacked Perl script running Markov processes on text regularly scraped from National Review Online.
Why am I not shocked that “Mojo” can’t quite figure this out.
If it helps, next time I’ll post it in a Crayola font…
~~~~
Mahablog:
This rightie, for example, is going on about “identity narratives†and calls for the defeat of “institutionalized linguistic assumptions,†which, I take it, are what is holding us back from our proper role as world conquerors. It’s way more academic ontological theory than I want to handle before breakfast. Or after breakfast, for that matter.
”Proper role as world conquerors”? Perhaps Barbara is wearing her progressive bun too tight again. Since when is wishing to see the middle east democratized an indication of imperialist desires?
And for those of us who agreed with Rumsfeld’s plan for Iraq?—you know, deploying less / fewer* troops (so as to create a smaller US footprint) while training Iraqi troops to take over security and helping the political process yield a Constitutiona and a representative Iraqi government—man, do we ever suck at imperialism.
Now the Dems—they would have sent MORE troops. But not evil, murderous, thuggish, brutish troops like the kind Bush sent. Hell nah!
The soldiers they’d have sent over would’ve traded in their rifles for hammers and daisies, and built and created and spread understanding until Iraq was the living embodiment of an Indigo Girls song.
Really. It’s that easy!
~~~~
Rob Farley:
Jeff:
Which is why there are times when we really should turn off the “smart†bombs and show our seriousness by putting the world on notice that, when we believe the situation calls for it, we are willing to ignore the inevitable bad press and the howls of protest from human rights groups, and exhibit a show of strength and military professionalism that is politically disinterested and tactically thorough and lethal.
In other words, we should massacre more people. This would indicate our seriousness to the world, and would keep them from fucking with us.
Why use other words when the ones I used were so much less ridiculous?
First, note the conditionals in my original: “there are times,” “when we believe the situation calls for it”. Second, look at what I believe there are times for: “[…]we are willing to ignore the inevitable bad press and the howls of protest from human rights groups, and exhibit a show of strength and military professionalism that is politically disinterested and tactically thorough and lethal.”
Where do I mention anything about massacres? I’m talking about killing the enemy without worrying about the political repercussions brought about by those who act shocked that people are killed in war—and that when insurgents are shooting at you, it is okay to shoot back, even if that means doing so inside de facto “safe zones” like mosques and schools and hospitals. If the situation calls for it—something that I imagine would be determined by professional soldiers on the ground.
I must admit, for those who claim to “support our troops,” folks like Rob don’t seem really to trust them all that much to operate professionally. Me, I guess I just have a little more faith in their decision making and training.
But then, my support for the troops is not just rhetorical cover, either. So there’s that.
~~~~
Patrick Yelladog:
“Shorter Jeff Goldstein : ‘Exterminate the brutes.’
Well, I’d go with kill the enemy, but to each his own. Plus, Patrick’s formation uses totally boss terms like “exterminate” and “brutes”—which recalls genocide and racist dehumanization of the enemy.
That, and it’s short and pointed: like a Howard Zinn erection in prose!
~~~~
Jeff Fecke:
In order to save the Iraqi people that Jeff Goldstein and the 101st love so much, we have to kill ‘em! Kill a whole bunch of ‘em, indiscriminately! That’ll teach ‘em to love us, and love democracy. How could it fail?
How could it not fail?
Look, let me explain this in short, declarative sentences so even Jeff Goldstein can understand it: The primary purpose of our invasion was to get rid of Iraq’s WMDs. Since there weren’t any there in the first place, mission accomplished. The secondary purpose of our invasion was to dethrone Saddam Hussein and establish some sort of peaceful democratic regime in order to show the Muslim world the value of democracy and liberalism.
If we start killing Iraqis right and left, then reason number two goes out the window, too, and this of course would beg the question of why we’re in Iraq at all. And no, just wanting to kill Muslims isn’t a good reason.
Another member of the nuance crowd who took his cues from Glenn Greenwald and didn’t bother reading my post.
Killing Iraqis indiscriminately? Where do I call for that? And in “bunches,” no less! BUNCHES!
Listen, Jeff: you might think of Iraqis as overripe bananas, but I don’t. And nowhere do I call for any kind of “indiscriminate” “left and right” killing—unless you’ve managed (like many of your fellow travelers) to translate “military professionalism that is politically disinterested and tactically thorough and lethal” into “indiscriminate killing.”
Which, now that I think about it, wouldn’t surprise me—given what you people have managed to do to the meaning of the word “lie,” which now covers just about anything that, in retrospect, didn’t come to pass. Tom Jackson picked the Broncos to beat the Steelers in the AFC title game last year? Well then JACKSON LIED!
~~~~
Kevin Hayden:
Talk about “incoherent linguistic assertions.†Really funny, since he’s basing it on a false linguistic assertion Shelby Steele created on the fly.
What does Goldberg do for a living, anyway? He’s not an historian…
No, he’s not. But at one time he did teach university honors courses about hermeneutics, intentionalism, and historiographical theory—which invested heavily in analyses of linguistic assumptions, particularly how they are formed, the impact they have on identity formation, and how they permeate history and historiography (which in turn has a manifest impact on epistemology).
How about you, Kevin?
Incidentally, you’ve identified the wrong linguistic assumptions that I believe we are fighting against. Note that I say those linguistic assumptions (which have to do with untethering meaning from intent for purposes of interpretation) allow for both the stigmatization Steele points to and our acceptance of that stigmatization. Were it my essay (and not Steele’s), I would have identified the guilt as cultural / “liberal”, not necessarily “white,” but my point was simply that the guilt (from wherever it stems) only works on us because we have accepted certain dubious ideas. I cover this in the footnote to the post. If you think it’s nonsense, that’s okay with me. I know several critical theorists whom I’ve debated who would agree with your assessment (though unlike you, they would do so knowing what the hell it is I’m talking about). To be fair, though, I know many who would agree, too—and their names are quite well respected in my academic specialty.
****
There are many more, too (“Military professionalism? Since when does military professionalism involve disinterested and indiscriminant slaughter?)—nearly all of them reworded rehashes of the original Greenwald meme that launched a thousand quips.
Hell, just read the original thread here to find Greenwald’s intellectual concubine Mona (or “Hypatia,” or whatever the hell it is she’s calling herself these days in between changes of the hairshirt) repeat his strawman argument that I—along with other bloodthirsty warmongering wingnut chickenhawks—want soldiers to indiscriminately slaughter Iraqi civilians with carpet bombing and nukes, etc. This is likewise echoed repeatedly by beetroot, who eventually finds himself
forced to backpedal.
Amazingly, not a single respondant tried to address the main thrusts of my argument. Instead, they worked hard—and in a swarm (led by the increasingly sophistic Glenn Greenwald, who has become the Pied Piper to the anti-war’s nutria train)—to reduce my post to a simple cartoon, one that bears little resemblance to the original.
For instance, the suggestion the we be willing to leave open all of our military options, regardless of the political and social pressures—most of them relatively recent—that militate against the deployment of those options? That has somehow become (once run through the famed “nuance”filter ) a clarion call for “extermination” and “indiscriminate killing.”
Nor did these respondents even try to deal with the portion of the argument that posits structural linguistic explanations for what I see as our current state of social affairs, preferring instead to dismiss that portion of the post entirely (as “nonsense” or “hollow pomposity” or warmed over National Review detritus(!?))—or else reduce it to yet another cartoon, this time, the suggestion being that I’ve argued something akin to “pomo is teh Devil!”
Which, of course, is more nonsense — and is further proof that these people are fundamentally unserious, not to mention extraordinarily lazy intellectually.
As if we needed any more examples of that.
My honest opinion? I doubt that half of those who responded read anything other than Greenwald or Farley’s willful misrepresentations of my post. And the rest never made it past the second paragraph of the original.
Perhaps The Online Integrity Statement of Principles should have included a provision about arguing in good faith…?
Jeff,
I think your opinion in the second to the last paragraph is accurate. I also think some of the commentary was due to the conflation of your words with some of the comments.
And let’s face it, when you start taling linguistic assumptions and hermeneutics, the prose is not for the faint of heart, short of attention span, or limited of intellect. Your diverse set of writing styles is what some of us appreciate; but when you deliver a heaping helping of your more complex prose, you can’t really be surprised that some will fail to follow.
Regards,
Neil
I’m talking about killing the enemy without worrying about the political repercussions … If the situation calls for it ….
You sound awful defensive, Jeff! It’s true that no one is spending much time talking about the linguistic side of your argument. People are much less interested in your arguments about <i>why </i>we wear pink panties and why we must shed them than they are in your prescription for <i>what we must do when the panties are off.</i>
And you’re advocating increased lethality. You’re saying that we have too many constraints on our killing power (won’t shoot at mosques, hospitals etc.) and we need to remove them. I think people understand this perfectly clearly, and that’s what interests them, because its relevant to our war.
And of course many are disgusted and horrified. And you, in response, sound like you’re backtracking a bit:
So why the hell did you bring it up if it’s not relevant to the war? Come on, man, where’s the courage of your convictions? You’re saying that we’re culturally hamstrung from using our full force, and that less hamstringing = more killing = victory. Is that just some vague principle that you’d like to see imprinted upon our fellow citizens – – or is that something that you think is going to help us win the frigging war?
I mean, do you think we’re fighting hard enough and lethally enough in Iraq, or don’t you?
Hey Jeff,
If I went over to Greenwald’s store and got my own strawman, would you sign it for me?
”…like a Howard Zinn erection in prose.”
You are a GOD, man.
Re: The Mojo Wire
Aside from the name problem I have with this site (personal, I don’t plan on sueing anyone), it’s kinda silly to expect anything like modernisim from a site named after an obsolete (thank god!) piece of technology capable of “sending an entire page of text across phone lines in only SIX MINUTES!”
And for whatever it’s worth, I like your writing style, Jeff. Despite the fact that some brain-dead paleo-commie seems incapable of parsing it correctly.
SB: ways
and meanies
Just to slightly dovetail on what Neil says. I thoroughly enjoy reading what you have to say, and there are times when I have brush through it, and try to get the gist of your intent. That can be difficult, because you construct sentences of some complexity. It might be worth attempting slightly less complex compound sentences, if only to bring further clarity to your intent.
I know, I’m trying to tell you how to write. Major faux pas. I don’t want to overstep my bounds here, Jeff. Consider it constructive criticism from a big fan. I love the message, I just think it could be ever-so-slightly polished. For the unwashed masses, as we were!
So basically, if I may paraphrase your words Jeff:
“A bunch of people read and understood posts written by a few people who read my post and understood little of it. What followed was a virtual volunteer army of folks who not only (through their perception of someone’s misconception) admitted to being too lazy to understand my ideas, but also proved that they are also to lazy to think on their own at all – opting rather for someone like Greenwald to chew up thoughts and ideas, and vomit it back into their twittering beaks in tiny bits unrecognizable as the original material.”
Personally, I think you’ve shown an inordinate amount of tolerance (you know, being that you’re a bloodthirsty, Zionist, Imperalist warmonger) in even addressing the counter arguments of people who didn’t even attempt to read your article on their own.
And that one guy even called you Goldberg. Truly, these people haven’t got a damn clue.
Are not “extermination” and “indiscriminate killing” the inevitable result of “turning off the smart bombs”? And, by the way, “the political and social pressuresâ€â€most of them relatively recentâ€â€that militate against the deployment of those options”, I suppose you are arguing they are groundless (or mostly groundless
) so we shouldn’t be constrained by them. Most people recognize they are limits imposed by our morality and humanity, that’s why they exist. Of course I could be “misunderstanding” you again. That seems to happen a lot around here.
Well, I’d go with kill the enemy, but to each his own. Plus, Patrick’s formation uses totally boss terms like “exterminate†and “brutesâ€Ââ€â€which recalls genocide and racist dehumanization of the enemy.
You throw a rock into a pack of dogs and the one that yelps is the you hit.
Watching you yelp is a riot.
Jeff,
Friendly tip; you denouncing Glenn Greenwald for sophistry is roughly akin to Jackie Gleason denouncing Paul Newman for putting on a couple of extra pounds…
Jeff,
They didn’t read your stuff.
The point is to shout you down. It’s petty.
Quite the strawman army they’ve raised, isn’t it? All the idiotic obtuse ranting against you serves to confirm your (and Shelby Steele’s) points more correct than you could have asked for.
Hilarious, if you ask me.
Holy crap these people are morons.
My thought is they’re offended we could even GASP think about widescale destruction to win a war. The fact that we’d ever discuss it (and/or keep it on the table as an option) apparently offends the little pea brains of these so called pacifist nutjobs.
I have news for you douchebags. If it comes down to me or the terrorists and killing terrorists means civilian casulties, I’ll take kill terrorists. They don’t like it ,a. change the tone of Islam and b. STFU about Israel.
It is hard to not be “filled with hate” when I think about how the left helps the enemy every single day any of their more prominent members opens their mouths.
I’m gonna ask it again, just in case:
Jeff, do you think we’re using enough lethal force in Iraq, or don’t you?
I guess that’s true, if their point was, “If I say crazy shit, people will call me crazy.”
Rob:
There’s a difference between sophistry and actual philosophical argument. Pretending there’s no difference is sophomoric.
Jeff,
Have you given up on American moral superiority. Aren’t we still better than them? Why do you hate America?
I usually like these little onslaughts, but I don’t think I have ever seen one where the trolls were as absolutely clueless to the actual topic as they are here.
Jeff, as a non-college edumicated person I understand exactly what your point is.
Seems pretty clear to me, hell I even enjoyed reading it
keep up the good work, love your blog
Why is it that so many of these fools can’t see the difference between applying overwhelming force against enemy combatants and indiscriminate slaughter of civilians?
Clueless? Deliberately obtuse, more likely.
Do these cynics actually believe jihadi mercenaries are EXACTLY THE SAME as Iraqi civilians? Is it acceptable for these terrorists to hide among civilians and use them as unwilling “human shields”, yet a “war crime” if American soldiers fire back and civilians are injured or killed? Is it acceptable for jihadis to use a mosque as cover and a fire base, yet a “war crime” if American soldiers attack them there?
I understand that everything is relative these days and we’re supposed to debate every cockamammie, psychotic thing you sociopaths throw up against the wall, but discarding our humanity and morals because our leaders are feeling political pressure over the war’s progress is just beyond the pale. Oh, sorry, that must have been clueless because I’m sure there’s some way you meant “regardless of the political and social pressures” to refer to some other constraints on our behavior, maybe that thing in Star Trek where they’re not allowed to interfere, or something.
They didn’t read your stuff.
Oh, we read it, we considered it and we addressed it like the pathetic ramblings of the authoritarian cultist to whom it belonged.
Hmmmm.
@ Jeff
It’s amazing isn’t it?
These people can step right past the heart of an argument, fabricate whatever strawman they want and then start screaming about it without restraint. And if you call them on it, they just simply ignore it.
For decades liberals were supposed to be the ideal of intellectualism. Now it’s more like the death of intellectualism.
Like this one:
Is there anything more off-topic and just plain stupid than this?
After all the basic concepts you were exploring are fairly sedate. That an imposed regime of white liberal guilt has largely emasculated the ability of the American military to respond with anything other than kid gloves. Regardless of how detrimental that may be to the survival of America.
During WWII the 8th Air Force firebombed Dresden into a flaming molten wreck. Short of a nuclear war there is nothing that could possibly drive today’s American military forces into repeating that action. Back then they did it because of both a military necessity and to punish the German civilians. Today there’s nothing that could justify such an action, even if it were absolutely necessary, to liberals.
And it relates to an old military term call “Correlation of Forces”. This is where you compare the friendly force vs the enemy on an item by item basis. In most cases this correlation is based on material items such as aircraft or tanks and such. But modern warfare involves much more than victories or defeats on a battlefield, now it involves management of the Informational Space and the operational tempo. Both of which used to involve only military units but now are also mutated into involving civilian and media elements as well.
And in this modern Correlation of Forces we now have a new addition, that of a will to be harsh. Sounds rather odd doesn’t it? But it’s there as a concept, regardless of the name.
In the most obvious parallels it’s cheap and easy to betray America because we’re prevented from employing the harshest measures. But betraying far more harsh regimes or organizations, such as criminal gangs and terrorists, has a much higher cost and so penetrating those organizations becomes much more difficult while preventing the penetration of our operations is also made more difficult.
Remember Jonathan Swift, Jeff:
It is impossible to reason a man out of a position he was never reasoned into in the first place.
It’s a pretty solid indication that when they start “paraphrasing” and using “shorter Jeff Goldstein,” they’ve stumbled over the perimeter of their own ignorance and are merely substituting some facile prejudice they think they comprehend for that which they can’t.
Don’t take it personally, they can’t help it.
In your case let us substitute clueless with hysterical extremist, since you seem to see nothing but the fringes and react hyper-emotionally to any foreign stimuli.
If by ‘read’ you meant ‘skimmed the peice looking for phrases that could be construed, absent the context, as something other than what was intended.’
You know, the kind of intention/identity theft most ‘progressive liberals’ have become increasingly known for these days.
I’m in no position to know for certain. As I noted in my original post, I understand that there is a delicate political balancing act happening in Iraq—and of course, my argument extends beyond the Iraq war. The real question is, are there times when we are letting political considerations get in the way of more effective means of winning the war. And I believe that there probably are. Which is to say, I think there are probably times when the political calculus that advises restraint doesn’t yield the trade off we are hoping for in terms of winning diplomatic points—and so from a strategic perspective, this decision (inasmuch as it potentially prolongs the war and causes additional casualties) was a wrong one.
I am interested in how and why have come to err more often than we used to on the side of a “restraint” that might, in the long run, cause more death than it prevents.
dave —
You write:
No.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that you didn’t just argue that because something is wrong, we can’t physically be engaged in doing it.
Car thiefs everywhere rejoice.
…Uh, what is your point? And who decides these limits? For instance, is it more “moral,” in your world, to advocate for actions that will result in the death of even more people—and the potential prolonging of war—simply because your self-righteous brand of “morality” (one that is more about appearances than about outcomes) leaves you feeling good about yourself?
Seems to me you are making war about you, dave…
Well, it does when people like you show up.
But that’s likely an evolutionary failing.
Rob —
Break out the comedy stylings! Wow! All I can say is, Colbert better watch his back. Because there’s a new smug, condescending, self-important sheriff in town—and he ain’t afraid to break out the strained similes!
Imposed? Is this that pesky Galactic Federation thingy, again? I wish they would quit controlling all of our minds and creating these baseless standards of morality and humanity. Then we could really do some killing, I mean war-winning.
Wow, you are quite the little insulter, aren’t you?
Been wanting to say that for days; thanks Jeff. It seems critical mass in the self-important Leftist parse-o-sphere has (had?) occured.
It’s never the results, it’s always the appearances.
Well, maybe the appearance of critical mass should occur at certain places around the terrorist globe…
tw: And they became as glass?
Common problem in the news, on the web and elsewhere: being sure of the narrative in advance of collecting the facts.
Hold on Dave, once we start insulting one another, “extermination†and “indiscriminate killing†are likely just around the corner…and you’d be morally responsible for starting such.
Eponymous,
I stand corrected, but I am curious as to why you read Jeff’s post since nothing you’ve posted on this thread has any correlation to it?
You could have been just as snarky and insulting and spared yourself a healthy dose of pathetic rambling.
You’re kidding me right? C’mon…you didn’t really read it? Honest injun, double pinky swear?
Everyone.
You guys are very free with the personal insults, aren’t you? You’re not like that in person, are you? It just seems so rude.
So victory is something other than killing your enemy? And what exactly would that be, Dave?
yours/
peter.
Jeff. Never mind. They’re a bunch of pompous, good-for-nothing blowhards. No need to ‘clarify’ for them. Or me, for that matter. I’ll just have to work harder to understand you. Or give myself more time!
Damn you Jeff and your pale-penis-people left brain thinking.
BECAUSE OF THE FEELINGS!
You believe the end justifies the means. I don’t.
You call them appearances, I call them human lives.
We’ll just have to disagree.
Peace.
Seems like kinda an unwieldy process.
It’s strangely unsurprising that none of the spittle-flecked rants have actually taken on Jeff’s *actual* point.
I’m unsure how people can conflate a desire to wage war without unnecessary kowtowing to political correctness directives with a desire to “carpet bomb” or any of the other laughable terms proffered.
Huh? When the ends are saving as many lives as possible—and the means involve choosing what strategy (diplomacy, restraint, overwhelming force) is the best way of doing that—I don’t find myself having many moral qualms.
Whereas you would rather remain firm in what appears to be the more moral position—best articulated in a simplistic bumpersticker that points out how war is bad for children and other living things.
Yawn.
We disagree because you are wrong. I don’t accept your relativism. And I find your self-contratulatory morals appalling, frankly.
No, Dave—that isn’t “peace.”
That’s “Let the furriners slaughter one another.”
Hey in the 20th Century, weren’t more people slaughtered by their own governments than by war? You okay with that?
So Dave, this who human condition thing must really harsh your mellow.
pissed they called you out on being a fucking slave.
Shit man, at least make yourself useful: put on a chain and pick some cotton.
Heavy. And what, other than victory, causes peace? The only thing I can think of is “defeat.” Surely you have something else in mind, right?
And don’t be so coy. It’s not everyday I encounter someone who knows more than all of the collective humanity that came before Him.
yours/
peter.
Oops. Meant to say:
So Dave, this whole human condition thing must really harsh your mellow.
There are very real choices one makes in war. For instance, you are an infantry platoon leader, and you and your ment start taking fire from a building. You have a couple of choices about the tactical employment of weapons.
1. Go in and clear the building, room by room, risking an unspecified number of your soldiers lives, but certainly saving a percentage of innocent civilians who might be holed up in the building along with the shooter, or
2. Call in an airstrike and level the building, killing the shooter and whatever else might be hiding there, while you and your troops remain in relative safety.
Option 1 might seem more humane (to the enemy and/or civilians inside), but Option 2 seems safer.
Naturally, these are incomplete choices, made by young men, under considerable stress. If they choose Option 2, then most of the time, I’m not going to fault them—they did what they had to in order to survive.
Now if one of the troops speaks Arabic, and notices that on the oustside of the building is a sign that says “Fallujah Orphanage”, naturally, it makes Option 1 seem a lot more palatable. You know there are almost certainly innocents inside.
But under the laws of war, the Orphanage may be put under fire using Option 1 or 2; the enemy’s action in firing from a protected site removes the protection from the site. There is a war crime if the orphanage is leveled, to be sure—it is committed by the man firing from within the building, who is putting the civilians in jeopardy.
Ask the vast majority of U.S. soldiers what they would do in this scenario, though, and I’m certain the vast majority of them would go in using Option 1 and risk death while trying not to kill innocents. And I’m sure that even to a lieutenant, the notion that there would be political ramifications if he chose Option 2 would certainly occur to him.
I think in conducting past wars, the military used to have the benefit of the doubt of the press and the U.S. public. They used to assume that the military knew best whether to use Option 1 or Option 2, and weren’t going to presume to know better without considerable evidence to the contrary. There was faith and confidence in the military.
Now, I think there is a segment of the population that a) does not trust the military, b) assumes we always use Option 2, c) can’t recognize the difference between Option 1 and Option 2, or d) refuses to accept the legitimacy of either Option 1 or 2, claiming they’re all war crimes in support of LIES for WAR for OIL.
Almost without exception, none of these people have ever been faced with the decisions that the young lieutenant is faced with—a true, life or death, moral dilemma. They don’t even see the dilemma. It’s a drama being played out in Greek to them. But hey—they paid their admission, and feel free to heckle and eat popcorn in the stands.
OMg everyone decides the limits Dave ? Ohhhh ok, cause *everyone* has a history of getting along and agreeing.
How bout this limit- Iran should not have nuclear arms. Iran disagrees and thinks it is entitled to such. So EVERYONE would be unable to participate in setting a limit on Iran b/c not EVERYONE could agree. Its those sweeping generalizations by liberals that quite frankly, is so impractical that it borders on idiotic.
*You guys are very free with the personal insults, aren’t you? You’re not like that in person, are you? It just seems so rude. *
You’re a guest here, who is trying to stir up trouble. If you had a viable position, people would debate you. However, as you have no real position, it is almost impossible to engage you – thus, we become annoyed. But if you’re skin is that @!#$ing thin then boy are you in a the wrong place.
Jackass.
Beetroot,
I think what you’re running into is, perhaps, an accident of language. When some folks use phrases such as:
Double wow. Here it comes. It’s always this: Kill more. Kill kill kill.
It becomes rather easy to infer that they see the article as a clarion call for more blood to be spilled. People then make the assertion that it’s not the death their after, but the more aggressive prosecution of combat that is being considered. Which is then turned around to say “Kill kill kill kill kill kill kill.â€Â
This is the reason that some commenters are thought to be disingenuous.
Let’s try another take.
If I have a tumor and am put on some sort of chemotherapy regime, I know full well that the chemotherapy will make me sick, ill, and result in the loss of many, many healthy cells. However, I may be in favor of even more extreme chemotherapy or even surgical removal of the tumor, in order to make sure that the tumor is removed. Will a more involved treatment result in the death of more innocent cells? Why naturally – but the calculation is that such an act will also be lethal to the tumor and allow the whole body to survive. When folks here assert a more forceful methodology of combat, they are like the oncologist arguing for more chemotherapy.
By the time those sort of folks that I quote above seem to have digested the message, it gets returned with “Lose guilt … kill more (or ‘be more lethal’) … win.” Thus, the response, by analogy seems to sound like someone who would view more chemotherapy as simply an exercise in killing more healthy cells – an end unto itself – rather than an unfortunate and unavoidable consequence of more aggressive treatment of the problem.
BRD
Reminds me of my freshman year at UMich. A poem in class from World War I was presented. I commented that the first world war was particularly bad for the soldier (gas warfare, 19th-century tactics against tanks and machine guns) and was shouted down for trying to distinguish between wars. War was bad; all nuance in that regard was unacceptable.
This accounts for leftist disdain for learning about how weapons and military technology work. They will never credit high-precision weapons, preferring to point to any time they fail (once is enough) rather than realizing that, in the “old days,” lack of such weapons meant that the annihilation of large areas around a target was needed to be reasonably certain the target was hit, leading to enormous numbers of people ending up dead unnecessarily.
What Jeff was saying was simple: Sometimes concern for the “look” of a particular attack (hitting a mosque, for instance) gets in the way of the mission (killing the bad guys) because of the actions of the bad guys (shooting from the mosque and using it as an ammunition dump). We are VERY careful–and that is a good thing. He’s just asking if that care has gone overboard in cases like this, where the tactical situation clearly calls for destroying a building, but we can’t do it because someone might get all offended.
I spoke to a pilot just back from Iraq who was very gung-ho on a particular targeting system he was using. Why? It let him hit the bad guys–and ONLY the bad guys. He was not the “shoot everything that moves” caricature that the left so often saddle our fighting men with.
True.
There you go, again. Insult, insult, insult. You guys might make someone feel unwelcome if you keep that up.
So that’s the “actual point”? Hmmm. So Jeff is only talking about razing mosques, shooting human shields and bombing neighborhoods where terrorists hide? Oh. I get it. Sorry, the “turning off the smart bombs” line must have thrown me. And the only reason we’re not doing these things is political correctness? Is that “not upsetting the liberal elite powers-that-be” type political correctness? The whole turning the Moslem world against us angle had nothing to do with that decision? Oh, yeah, I forgot. In your world, the Moslem world is already against us because they hate our freedom. I’m afraid Jeff is playing it a little too cute.
You call it “political correctness”, I call it standards of human decency. Semantics, I guess.
Colossus, like always, you are using logic to support a proper argument addressing real world decision making.
Couldn’t you just narrow it down to one simple trite word or phrase (ala “Peace”)? Its much easier, and when something goes awry, you can run around pointing fingers at those you didn’t vote for.
dave: speaking of strawmen, I can build one too. “In September of 2001, 19 young, idealistic Muslims, who were passionate about the ideology they lived for, tried to preserve morals and humanity. They came in Peace.”
So now Jeff tells us that he’s got no opinion as to whether our current war demands more lethality. He tells us that he’s thinking generally:
In Jeff’s first post, he really made it sound like he couldn’t wait to start raining JDAMs on recalcitrant Iraqi neighborhoods. His invocation of Sherman’s march made it sound like he was ready to embrace any means necessary to win the war. It read like a call to arms. Jeff’s readers certainly felt that way.
And today, after bazillions of people read your work and conclude, “Jeff Goldstein says kill more people,” Jeff doesn’t have an opinion about whether more killing—of insurgents, of anybody—is necessary.
What Jeff’s sticking to is the notion that we are more restrained than we should be. That we operate in a world of political constraints is undeniable. The era when a power could kill indiscriminately without fear of political blowback are certainly over. Jeff’s suggestion that our war efforts are too constrained seems plausible on its face.
But from theory to practice: what unused military options would help us in Iraq? What could we do that we are’t doing? What options are off the table because of political considerations?
The option of shooting people in mosques?
The option of shooting people in hospitals?
The option of bombing Iraq into the proverbial stone age?
The nuclear option?
What kind of killing can’t we do?
Hmmm.
@ dave
What utter bunk!
Did everyone decides that beheading people was not just ok but actually good for recruiting terrorists? When was that petition passed around?
What you constantly fail to recognise “dave” is that this perceived morality and limits are entirely self-imposed by a culture and such limits vary, or disappear, when dealing with different cultures. Thus when a culture with self-imposed morality and limits ends up having to deal with a culture where those self-imposed morality and limits has no corresponding virtue then the first culture is at a decided disadvantage. A disadvantage that might be fatal.
This strikes at the very heart of Jeff’s argument and one that you’ve singularly failed to understand.
While you may think you’re very witty with your nonsensical bullshit but all you’ve done is illustrate the absolute negation of the principal value of that self-imposed morality when the purpose of that morality is lost amidst the superficial application of it.
In other words, to make it even easier for you to understand, a morality that depends more on application than value is utterly worthless.
And to make this shit even easier for you:
1. We don’t kill without regard to civilian casualties because it doesn’t serve a valuable purpose.
2. But if it did serve a valuable purpose to kill without regard to civilian casulties then it must be done.
Shorter fucking translation:
We did firebombing raids on Tokyo because it was necessary, not because we enjoyed it. Even though more than 100,000 Japanese civilians died in just one of those raids from the erupting firestorm it was deemed necessary to disrupt the Japanese military production and break the will of the Japanese people.
Oh good grief. I give up. Jeff, you’re a fucking SAINT to put up with this crap.
I didn’t say everyone agrees. I just said everyone decides. These limits you all keep decrying did not appear out of thin air. Jeff’s job is to move the line. I sincerely hope he fails.
okay, while i don’t think they’ve managed to reduce your arguments to a simple cartoon, i’d pay to see someone draw the cartoon of the anti-war’s nutria train. because, seriously, i haven’t stopped giggling about the mental image for, like, an hour. maybe two.
Unrelated, perhaps, but an example from history has been nagging at me, also.
Was Lincoln right to issue the Emancipation Proclamation?
Certainly, freeing the slaves in the rebellious states was not anticipated in the original decision to use force. Was Lincoln shifting the goalposts by doing this? Was he lying in order to build a more convincing case, in 1863, for what certainly was a costly and unpalatable war?
Because in the initial decision to go to war, the idea of freeing Southern slaves wasn’t advanced as a primary rationale for it, in 1861, by Lincoln.
Was Lincoln using an after-the-fact rationalization to bolster his argument, or did he come to the conclusion that slavery really was one of the underlying issues that had to be addressed—and worth putting on the table in 1863?
Does anyone fault Lincoln for doing this? One can certainly argue that the Proclamation was somewhat ingenuous, or flawed, in that it didn’t address the issue of slaves in non-rebellious states (such as Maryland). But is anyone prepared to argue that Lincoln was wrong in freeing the slaves?
Again, I apologize if it is off topic, but it came to mind today.
I think this is where the rubber meets the road.
On the contrary, our “self-imposed morality” is an advantage and should not be abandoned at the first sign of trouble.
There is no utility in attempting to engage the Left on serious issues anymore.
For two reasons:
1. You get people like dave, who appear sincere enough, but who wish to live in a make-believe world in which “peace” flows from unilateral adherence to Western ideals that he’s not willing to fully articulate and defend. In short, intellectual stoners who just want to coast on the accumulated political and social capital that has been banked since Athens, Rome and Jerusalem. They will never get it because they don’t want to live in the real world. Too scary.
2. Will-to-power Left wing nihilists for whom interaction with the subhuman Right is simply an opportunity to engage in war via other means, politics. Intellectual exchanges are not opportunities to expound, educate, and even (dare to dream!) convert, but exercises in obsfucation, ad hominem, demonization and deliberate bad faith. They.Don’t.Care.What.You.Say. Righties are beyond the pale and not one of their ideas deserves a hearing, fair or otherwise.
In short, I don’t know why you bother with the trolls, Jeff. Pointless.
Dave,
This is the question that is in question, what are the advantages and disadvantages to our “self-imposed morality” – much like anything else, there are advantages and disadvantages to it – what do you think the advantages and disadvantages are? What’s the calculus here?
Thanks,
BRD
There’s a high probability that I worked on that system. And am still working on it.
Thanks for making that point, Jeff. I do get a bit peeved when I see the oddballs that comment here…Do they assume we in the United States Armed Forces cannot apply force with any sense of discrimination? We are damned careful about what we do – not that any credit is ever given by the beets, Robs, et al. It feels like the unspoken assumption is that we are butchers, barely held in check, and that people like you would slip our muzzles off so we could go drown the world in blood… Bah.
In CJTF-180, our A-10 pilots would more often thannot, come back with all their muntions because they, and the folks on the ground could not be certain enough that an intended target didn’t have too many innocents in it. Listening to them talk about that was a revelation – not one of them engaged in any macho bluster, or expressed a desire to dust someplace just ‘cause.
Jeff, fairly elegant though multi-pronged. Several have made some elequently shaped responses.
I will postpone the urge to dazzle the troops with razor sharp and iron clad rebuttal. Tostesterone recently depleated. Lowers ambition.
The real opposition; Vividly!
The link has been re-done as..
http://www.pmw.org.il/index.html
Under Bulletins: upper right. Click April 25.
A new, 90% more secure Credit Card is coming to North America. So says a Visa security guy..
Play safe.Keep card offline. Wait for the new one.
Europe is mostly *New Card secure* now. Corp. data mining criminals focusing more on N. America now.
google BendGovernment. TG
You may as well ask for the calculus of 2+2. It is what it is. The line is not straight, nor static. People cross the line all the time. It has repercussions. That’s how we know where the line is. Personally, I think our foreign policy is over the line, I’m not alone (33% approval, etc.), but hey, I don’t decide the line, everyone does. Jeff is either looking to make an exception to the line (which is impossible), or move it. Either way, I think he’s wrong.
Dave,
Let me rephrase my question more clearly.
There are advantages and disadvantages to following this “self-imposed morality” in our current conduct of combat operations.
1) What are the advantages to continuing to adhere to this self-imposed code?
2) What are the disadvantages to continuing to adhere to this self-imposed code?
3) Can these advantages and disadvantaged be weighed against each other?
BRD
I’ve been wanting to say something about the whole “smart weapons” notion; guess here is where it gets said.
Smart weapons aren’t a cure-all, they’re simply a way to maximize destroying of the target you have chosen without reducing everything for blocks around to rubble. It used to be that bombers and other ground attack aircraft used optical sights, then came computer systems that predicted the ground impact point, then came automatic release (I’m guessing, here), then came guided weapons. Guided weapons, though, don’t guarantee that the chosen target site is the correct one.
So, better, but not miracle cure. We’re already at the point, I believe, where weapon accuracy is less of an issue than good target assignment. There’s no smart weapon that we’re likely to see in the next couple of decades that’s smart enough to know what target you meant to give it.
The latest in guided weapons is the Small Diameter Bomb, which is going to be jointly built by LockMart and Boeing. It’s a 250lb-class weapon with differential GPS and a seeker, IIRC. So, less explosive yield but higher accuracy still. Pretty soon we’re just going to be dropping guided rocks, I guess.
Two quick points:
1. I like it when moonbats “parse,” give the “shorter Goldstein” and even the “shorter Goldberg.” It allows them to be quoted and exposed as dim or dishonest or both.
2. “Peace” without defeating the enemy is “the enemy kills you.” Or “the enemy imposes the Caliphate.” Or “the enemy starts making WMDs, which he then uses to accomplish either of the other two options.” Or “the enemy makes WMDs and gives them to others—allowing plausible deniability—to accomplish any of the above.” Or “the enemy trains third-parties to build and use WMDs against us.”
But we should not attack dave for his answer. Rather, we should thank him for honestly revealing his mindset and his childish philosophy.
And I see that he’s just cited polling data on the disapproval of Bush’s handling of Iraq. And yet dave doesn’t even consider that the disapproval may include people who think the US should have been more aggressive in various situations in Iraq over the past three years. It’s no wonder hermeneutics, intentionalism, and historiographical theory is beyond him.
Can’t you see?!? If we would all just roll over and die, then they wouldn’t have to kill us!
It wasn’t an insult, it was an observation. You could always prove me wrong by showing some sense of nuance. Particularly by answering this:
I am curious if you have any perception of gray areas at all.
Jeff,
When you invoke Sherman’s March to The Sea in your ontological thesis, one can infer from your tone and tenor that you are in fact advocating total war, or what is often referred to as scorched earth policy, rather than simply weighing its merits.
“But compassionate conservatism, whatever you think of the concept domestically, clearly shouldn’t extend to warâ€â€and there are times when the international equivalent of Sherman’s march
through the South would, in the long run, save American soldier’s lives and foreshorten the conflict.”
Cheers,
Scot
I believe Jeff’s argument consists mostly of your desire, to some degree, to do so, frustrated by my weak stomach.
Dave, you are a lame-ass fucking idiot, and that was the biggest load of meaningless horse-shit anyone has dumped here in a long time.
That was an insult.
Scot: Leaving aside your idea (I take it) that Sherman’s march was indiscriminate rather than calculated to destroy the logistical abilities of the South and help bring them to their knees—thus ending the war more quickly—are you honestly saying you don’t grasp a moral (not to mention pragmatic) choice here? Do you not recognize that this is a conditional?
If it helps, I bolded some portions for you.
Also, it might help if you read some of the earlier comments I made in this thread and the other thread. Then we could avoid this attempts at “gotcha” and pretend we’re engaging in real grown-up talk. For instance, I was a supporter of the first Fallujah campaign (because it helped us gauge where Iraqi forces were and what needed improvement; even that, though, was a tough political decision, given the desire many of us felt to see those who killed the contractors and strung up their bodies assuredly punished). And I of course believe there are times when diplomatic efforts are better strategic choices than a more concentrated use of force. But by that same logic, the obverse applies.
And I believe we have come to err on the side of the political, even when we must (or should) know that it won’t yield the results we’re hoping for. It is, however, safer, because on the surface at least, it appears the more “humane” course of action.
I question that. Shouldn’t we all? I mean, those of us who care about winning the war quickly and effectively, with a minimal loss of life, that is…
Or “holding hands and singing kumbayah”.
The use of precision munitions, originally designed to reduce risks and costs, has supplanted the overarching theory of waging war.
By treating political and military entities as separate from the general populous, the term (and results of) “war†are reduced to the status of a team sport. Our team can beat their team – but don’t hurt any spectators – is a recipe for endless conflict.
War should be an event filled with indiscriminate death and destruction. Only by making use of our capacity to bring unimaginable horrors to all in it’s way can war be returned to what it was meant to be – something to be avoided. General populations that enable, either by action or inaction, the type of leadership that would bring invasion by the U.S. need to be placed in mortal danger in order to bring the realities of civil responsibility back to a personal level. It’s great fun to dance in the street shouting “Death to America†until America answers back.
Germany and Japan are sterling examples of a multigenerational lesson learned about installing/allowing certain types of leadership for their countries. Being the recipient of an industrial sized can of “asswhoop†tends to motivate individuals (and their descendants) to adopt a decidedly anti-aggressor/non-militaristic stance.
Reestablishing the true essence of war would be the shortest path to a world without war.
Now, I think we’re getting somewhere. I feel you coming around, “B Moe”. Are you starting to doubt the wisdom of advocating a policy of denying the existence of standards of human decency?
*sigh*
Sort of.
Your rundown there is a common Articles of Confederation-style libertarian “revisionist” reading. You can find a few thousand variants at lewrockwell.com. Not my types, but theirs beats the standard line on Lincoln, which is a transparent crock of hagiography.
A notable difference between “Lincoln lied” and “Bush lied” is that the (semi-)freeing of (some of) the slaves is taken by that faction of the right as a positive incidental side-effect of Lincoln’s still-unjust war, while the (semi-)democratization of (most of) Iraq is…I don’t want to say “denied,” because it’s too loaded, but I can’t think of another term that fits. You know the standard post-“Mission Accomplished” lefty spiel: no edible fruit from Chimpy’s poison banana tree.
So, no, that’s not offtopic at allâ€â€an illuminating contrast, in fact.
I’ve answered you on the “standards of human decency” thing, dave. And, as is typical of your kind, you have studiously ignored it and continue on with your question as if it is some sort of showstopping number wherein you spin the tassels on your pasties while the band breaks into “Blowing in the Wind.”
It’s really quite a study in a certain brand of leftist rhetorical technique.
Dave,
What are the advantages or disadvantages to behaving according to some sort of level of human decency when one’s opponent does not?
If, we as you suggest, can avoid paying a higher cost or penalty by adhering to such standards of conduct, let us look at the hypothetical cost that we would pay if we didn’t adhere to those standards. To wit, let’s look at people who don’t consider themselves limited by such standards – what penalties do they pay? Do they pay a very high price, or derive a very large benefit?
If the other guys do these things and don’t pay a high cost, then perhaps we should reevaluate our decision to abide by those standards, as the price to be paid isn’t that steep.
What are your thoughts?
BRD
I think BRD needs to examine his unstated premise.
Beetroot, Dave – you still don’t get it do you?
I think we all remember the battle for Fallujah early in the war.
I think that conflict demonstrates Jeff’s point quite eloquently.
Card players have a thing they term ‘tells’, that is reading your opponent (the way they play with chips, or when they do, what they look at, what they don’t look at, etc…) so as to ascertain what he is holding, how strong his hand is.
While our military sat outside Fallujah, the enemy were reading our ‘tells’, gathering troup strength info, positions, equipment, fire lanes, etc..
We enter Fallujah, the first time (ugh) and Whooeee boy the MSM just went nutsifagen on us…
We retreated….
We waited some more…
Giving away more tells….
We went in again and finally took the city as best we could. We lost more lives (ours, theirs, and civilians) because of that.
And after the first entry, more civilians died at the hands of the enemy than by us. Their own kind (Arabs)…
But for you we shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
Guess what, that isn’t stopping you from being here is it? You have a point to make, a righteous one it sounds like too… Who made you right?
What a hypocrite you are.
When Mr. bad guy is standing over your daughter with his winky poking her in the eye, and his pants around his ankles and his hand on her throat… I wonder what measures you might take, what polls you would have to gather before you acted, which media luminaries you would have to consult before you acted….
How long woud that take?
Does she have that long?
Do you love her?
Will you help her?
And frankly if you went ‘bang, bang, bang, click click click” (ad nauseum) I wouldn’t hold it against ya buddy… as long as the police could pry the gun from your hand before you got carpal tunnel….
So you could peel that “Kerry in ‘04” bumper sticker off your bicycle…in 2525 c.e.
Bwhaaahaaaa!
“I wish they would quit controlling all of our minds and creating these baseless standards of morality and humanity.”
– Well yes, they are baseless in the G-dless universe of the Marxist mind. “Opium of the masses” I think is how he put it.
– Dave, when you sleep, do you dream?
– Modern Liberalism is characterized by self hate, white guilt, mental laziness, and a constant mental stream of angst, scared witless to even consider anythig outside the echohambers of the Communistic prangs of “America Imperialism = all things evil”, Any other culture/Totalitarianism/Religious fanatacism = all things beautiful/plausible/acceptable because they’ve always lost before, and its just nor fair.
In other words. Self-annointed “elitist” sevant idiots, and self referential thinking, which of course guarentee’s mental incest.
– Getting away from the fantasy world of the “Liberally indoctrinated” for the moment, heres a little truth that must never be spoken in a room of Liberals, least you should send them all into catatonic cerebreal fits of body scourging mayhem:
– The world should get down on its collectives knees every single day of their miserable lives, and thank whatever G_d they pray too that America is the most ambivalent Super Power that has ever existed in the history of man. –
– If that sounds arrogant or over the line to the reader, just be intellectually honest enough to take a few minutes and consider what would have happened if any regime in the world, in all of history, would have held the responsibilities that we have for so many years. I for one have thought about it, and I doubt vey much if mankind would have survived to this point. You can argue with that, but I think its a pretty good bet.
– For this reason alone, if anyone can think that through, and still feel perniscious enough to yet find fault with our efforts to use the least force in the most human approach possible in all of our conflicts, and countinue to demonize the US without reason or letup for what amounts too just another political point of view, and an extreme one at that, designed silaciosly to prevent or retard self preservation INTENTIONALLY, then yes I think its inescapable that you simply hate yourself and your own country, above all else.
word soup: “Some people, having declared America a hateful, vengeful, fascist regime, should just get off this continent for their own safety.”
Jeff,
I clicked through Slart’s link above, for some unknown reason dedided to read all of the comments, and stumbled across a new descriptor of the site that I thought would look good up there on the top left.
“Once upon a time, I actually believed that sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me. That was before I stumbled on Protein Wisdom…
Posted by: hilzoy”
You get all the good descriptors.
Jeff, you must know that Sherman’s march was both tactically successful and horrifyingly brutal. The guy burned cities to the ground. Scorched earth. Pillage. Plunder. Rape and destruction. Effective? Yes. Horrible? Yes.
So when you raise it as an example of what the modern world needs, are you surprised that people react with horror? We’re still living with the aftermath of that march. It was designed, in part, to humiliate the South, which it did, and many have yet to forget OR forgive.
But let’s assume for a minute that a Shermanesque march is what we need. You haven’t made one suggestion as to where and how this kind of force might be applied. What’s today’s Atlanta? Who’s today’s Confederacy? Who’s today’s Scarlet O’Hara, the pro-insurgent civilian who must be punished?
You don’t say … you don’t even come close to saying … in fact, when I asked directly if we are using enough force in Iraq, or if some currently-proscribed Shermanesque assault would help us, you completely punt ….
… which leads me to agree with Greenwald, your fave, who thinks that this is just you (and Steele) lashing out in frustration: “Put killing back on the table! No more Mr. Nice Country!”
On to the next Atlanta …. wherever that is.
I’m not that flexible. But I’m just one guy, not everyone. Fortunately, there seem to be others like me, all doing our part to maintain the standards. Then, there’s you guys. Neither of us is thrilled about where it ends up, but that’s how it is.
Quick question: do jews have white guilt? what about hispanic people like gonzales?
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Jeebus!! How I hate wading through the shallow end of the gene pool. Is there some kind of vaccination you can get, Jeff.
For all of the intellectually challenged, here it is in simple words.
When you go to war (if any of you ever have) you basically have two choices: Kill the enemy or die. The objective is to unleash the most lethal force as quickly as you can to decimate the enemy and hence shorten the conflict. VietNam was a classic case of holding back our forces for political considerations. Had we blown holy hell out of the North and the enclaves in Cambodia and Laos, thousands of our military would not have died and millions of Asians would be alive today.
Iraq is another case in point. Had we established from the get go that if the Iraqi people harbored or allowed the enemy to seek haven in a mosque, school, hospital or even a neighborhood, we would consider those places military targets and destroy them. After a couple of such incidents, Iraqi’s would have been coming out of the woodwork to rat out the terrorists. Many lives, both coalition and Iraqi, would have been saved, this “insurgency” would have been over and the Iraqi’s would be a couple of years ahead of where they are today.
It is too late to have that policy now in Iraq, but it is not too late for the next military action, where ever that may be.
If Israel was as concerned about the political backlash as the US is, it would have ceased to exist long ago.
BRD,
if we restrict our view to what is happening in Iraq today, your question answers itself. The foreign insurgent forces have lost the support of the people and are effectively defeated to a large degree because the US military waged a restrained war and they did not.
In a guerilla war, where success largely depends on winning the support of the people, the tactics of restraint are superior. Read McCaffery’s latest report from Iraq. Peruse the Brookings Institute’s Iraq report. We’re winning by applying the lessons learned from previous guerilla wars.
That’s the advantage of waging war with some degree of restaint. Strategies which may or may not have been successful in the American Civil War or in WW II are much less relevant than the lessons learned in Nicaragua, Greece, Malaya, Algeria, Afghanistan, China, etc…
We’re pursuing a very long range strategy in Iraq. The administration is trying to change the face of the Middle East. A free and prosperous Iraq can change the world. I believe that our military is doing a brilliant job of accomplishing their goals. No change needed.
Regards,
Neil
PS none of this should be construed as support for Dave.
I do not think “extreme” means what you think it means.
If that were true, it would be really weird.
Dude, take it easy. We just don’t see things the same way. That’s what makes the world go round.
Dave,
You were the one who asserted that there is a magic line, that it is crossed, and crossing that line has reprecussions. You also assert that “everyone” knows what that line is, and that you, as an individual, have no desire to cross it. But on the other hand, I suggest that there are those, such as our opponents, that cross that line.
I’ve been trying for quite sometime, not even to suggest that there is a line, but that there are, let’s say disadvantages for going too far (much like there are corresponding disadvantages for not going far enough, advantages for going too far, and advantages for not going far enough). I’m not even trying to parse what this line is.
I do suggest, however, that your inability to even address a theoretical or hypothetical or subject your notions to empirical examination or application of evidence suggests that you have never actually considered, in depth, the argument you’re making. I am reading, evidently, the remarks of someone who has swaddled themselves in overweening moral superiority, willing ethical blindness, and refuses to engage in the notion that their decisions actually may real life (good and bad) consequences.
You’re intellectually dishonest and engage as a bad actor in any would be debate. You’ve not, evidently, come to discuss to do anything as noble as consider that other well-meaning, rational people might actually have well-founded, rational points of view, let alone, tried to change anyone’s mind, or even entertained the idea that your position of moral certitude among the unwashed fools of the world is not the all-shining revealed truth of the gods. You’re a sham and a disappointment.
BRD
– beetroot epitimises my point exactly. Fail to defend yourself, try to depend on appeasement which gives false heart to your enemies and encourages their campaigns, and the next Atlanta may in fact BE Atlanta.
Neil S.
A big kudos to you (and I’ll even knock back a beer in your honor) for answering a question asked! I’ll respond in a bit, but I think you lay out a pretty cogent argument that, in broad detail, makes sense. I’m curious to see if Beetroot, Mona, Dave, or any other members of the cast of regulars can manage to provide thier impressions on the questions at hand.
BRD
1. You get people like dave, who appear sincere enough, but who wish to live in a make-believe world in which “peace†flows from unilateral adherence to Western ideals that he’s not willing to fully articulate and defend. In short, intellectual stoners who just want to coast on the accumulated political and social capital that has been banked since Athens, Rome and Jerusalem. They will never get it because they don’t want to live in the real world. Too scary.
2. Will-to-power Left wing nihilists for whom interaction with the subhuman Right is simply an opportunity to engage in war via other means, politics. Intellectual exchanges are not opportunities to expound, educate, and even (dare to dream!) convert, but exercises in obsfucation, ad hominem, demonization and deliberate bad faith. They.Don’t.Care.What.You.Say. Righties are beyond the pale and not one of their ideas deserves a hearing, fair or otherwise.
ABOVE IS PURE FASCISM!!!
You just can’t make this shit up. The hilarious thing is he doesn’t even see the ridiculousness of it.
Remember “you crossed the line” and “don’t cross the line”. That line (it’s a figure of speech). It’s been getting pushed around lately, but it’s still there.
I think crossing the line is an idea born of panic, and, while it may win a few battles, it will lose the war.
I think D-Con makes a carpet bomb, if that helps.
Moe – Once all is relative, you can argue and debate endlessly in circles, which is good to the Liberal mind, because in that way you can avoid EVER dealing with any problem because:
“We’re terrible people and we just don’t have the right!”
Which of course is a perfect way to sidestep any personal responsibility. See. It fits perfect with every aspect of Quasi-Socialist/Liberal thinking. All is right with the world.
ABOVE IS PURE FASCISM!!!
See what I mean?
B Moe:
You must be that comic book hero,
Insult Man!
He insults more than an ordinary man.
Perhaps you should explain, or is that not one of your powers?
That was fun with the little format things.