Shelby Steele, in the WSJ
[…] the international left is in its own contest with American exceptionalism. It keeps charging Israel and America with oppression hoping to mute American power. And this works in today’s world because the oppression script is so familiar and because American power cringes when labeled with sins of the white Western past. Yet whenever the left does this, it makes room for extremism by lending legitimacy to its claim of oppression. And Israel can never use its military fire power without being labeled an oppressor—which brings legitimacy to the enemies she fights. Israel roars; much of Europe supports Hezbollah.
Over and over, white guilt turns the disparity in development between Israel and her neighbors into a case of Western bigotry. This despite the fact that Islamic extremism is the most explicit and dangerous expression of human bigotry since the Nazi era. Israel’s historical contradiction, her torture, is to be a Western nation whose efforts to survive trap her in the moral mazes of white guilt. Its national defense will forever be white aggression.
But white guilt’s most dangerous suppression is to keep from discussion the most conspicuous reality in the Middle East: that the Islamic world long ago fell out of history. Islamic extremism is the saber-rattling of an inferiority complex. America has done a good thing in launching democracy as a new ideal in this region. Here is the possibility—if still quite remote—for the Islamic world to seek power through contribution rather than through menace.
Notes Terry Hastings via email:
Western civilization enables terrorism, but not in the manner the left would have us believe. By buying into Said’s argument that western colonialism/racism is the dominant effect that sustains the status quo we give the terrorists a cause to rally behind.
This is an interesting phenomenon, and one I’ve noted before. Specifically, a medievalist, pre-modern mindset like the ine animating the Islamofascist movement is, ironically, quite adept at using postmodern observations about the nature of truth to sustain a rhetorical advantage over the West. And it does so by playing to the West’s arrogance—its idea that, because it has embraced the tenet of multiculturalism, it is somehow showing itself to be tolerant and nuanced in its dealings with the Other.
But recent history has shown us that all this Western “understanding” is a ruse. Instead, it is a mindset that pretends to an understanding by deferring to the Other, a maneuver that serves only to undermine Enlightenment principles and ideas of universal rights while simultaneously giving control of the identity narrative to groups it purports to “understand”, who are then able to use that control to affect victim status, define and shame their enemies, and bracket out unfriendly criticisms.
But this only works because the premises have been accepted by many in the western intelligensia, and have, from there, made their way into public and social policy. I have noted time and again how this process proceeds from (or is reinforced by) the acceptance of certain linguistic assumptions—precisely those favored by political and social movements that are collectivist in nature.
And so we have Islamic fascists exploiting the postmodern rhetorical assumptions of a western socialist / progressivist left in order to bring about the spread of totalitarianism.
Like something out of a David Lodge novel, almost.
Yeah, gee, who would have thought that irrational thinking would lead to the triumph of – irrationality?
Whoa there…how dare we judge a people that condone pulbic beheadings…it’s just a different culture that we’re dealing with. We may call it murder ot terrorism, but they’re just exercising thier “political speech” and “freedom of religion” (???)…just like a righty to try to stifle free speech. Nazi, racist… Some people use a pen and paper, some use a sword and video tape it…they’re morally on the same playing field….dirka dirka…
Are Reformed Canadians supposed to have white guilt?? Because i’m not feeling it.
“And so we have Islamic fascists exploiting the postmodern rhetorical assumptions of a western socialist / progressivist left in order to bring about the spread of totalitarianism.”
Of course. Because that’s what those postmodern rhetorical assumptions were constructed for in the first place—the spread of totalitarianism, in its original guise of Communism.
What I can’t seem to REALLY grasp is why the hard left—purportedly pro-gay, pro-feminist etc.—supports to Islamofascists and manifestly desires their victory. Can they possibly think, against all evidence, that in the glorious future they, the leftists, will be the ones in control and will get to run society? Do they hope that when the time comes their masters will reward them for their services? Or do they hate the West so much that they’ll destroy themselves just to see it go down? Valerian was the first Roman emperor—in the 3rd century AD, when the Western Empire was close to collapse, largely thanks to its own loss of imperial confidence and the decadence of its squabbling elites—to be captured by a foreign power. He was used as a living footstool for several years by Shapur of Persia; after Valerian’s death Shapur had his erstwhile footstool’s skin removed and stuffed to be put on display. Is this the fate the left secretly yearns for? Some people desire the obliteration of the self, and perhaps this is what we are looking at.
Well, duh.
Lisa, you seem to have gone over the edge there. I understand it’s getting tougher and tougher to explain away all the problems with your beliefs, but crazy is not an answer.
Although I have a lot of respect for Steele, he’s wrong when he says that white guilt is keeping us from fighting the war on terror effectively.
Steele advocates fighting the current war with the same strategy we had during WWII. What advocates of this approach never address is that we also lost 350,000 soldiers in WWII.
The current American strategy of finding both a military and political solution has kept our casualties to a tiny fraction of what they were during all of our other protracted wars.
WWII strategy didn’t work for the French in Algeria or the Soviets in Afghanistan, and that’s the reason we’re not using it in this war.
It’s not weakness or PC-induced guilt; it’s smarts. We need to be patient and have a little faith.
TW: ”Peace through victory.”
Okay, david, in the spirit of promoting understanding between tribes, perhaps you’d care to enlighten us on the reasons why the ostensibly pro-gay, pro-women, pro-freedom Left supports the forces of religious fascism and manifestly desires their victory?
Please remember to use short words, because we knuckle-draggers are notoriously dim.
“Lisa, you seem to have gone over the edge there. I understand it’s getting tougher and tougher to explain away all the problems with your beliefs, but crazy is not an answer.”
David, what are you talking about? What do you know of my beliefs? And is it crazy to ask why the left supports, vocally and overtly and enthusiastically, Hezbollah and its ilk? It’s a fact, we see it every day. What I want to know is why the left does something that’s so obviously inimical to its own stated interest, to the point of being suicidal. If you don’t wish to engage in speculation, then fine. But why the insults ?
Any recommendations on which books to start from David Lodge?
Do you have any examples of this? I could be mistaken, but I don’t think Fredric Jameson gets quoted a lot on the floor of Congress.
What I hear on the floor of Congress is rhetoric, not policy.
Policy gets decided in committee rooms and cloakrooms.
I think Jeff means that the premises have been so thoroughly absorbed by the Western intelligentsia that they’ve filtered out into society at large and have become the unconscious premises of that society. Sort of in the way that very few people have actually read Freud, but everyone knows and talks in terms of denial, repression, Oedipal complex, and other Freudian concepts, as if they were self-evidently true.
David, you seem to be making no real sense. I understand it’s getting tougher and tougher to keep up with cogent arguments that are also amusing, but nonsensical responses are not the answer.
Or were you just thinking that being a girl and all, Lisa would be a pushover?
Jeff:
I think the origin, or fount, if you will, of the process itself is simple thermodynamics manifesting itself as “conflict-avoidance.”
Our homeothermic species is molded by the Second Law of Thermodyamics and its corrallary, the Law of Conservation of Energy. Human language, facial features and gestures evolved to lower the energetics of conflict by first avoiding it if possible, then by offering alternative, less costly communication channels for conflict-resolution that minimize bodily harm.
So, you see, pop-multiculturalism offers the queasling in all us the chance to avoid yucky, sweaty things like SAT’s, Dodge-Ball and the WOT.
(I wish it would have got me out of Home-Ec. Who uses a hinged omelette pan anymore?)
-Steve
The irony of all this is that while the Islamofascists respect, if not fear, the traditional, pro-military, consevative factions in the west, they are laughing at the “progressives”. Useful idiots, indeed.
Well, of course the leftist intelligensia thinks they will be in charge when the dust settles. What else would be the cause of such a display of arrogant moral superiority?
The left knows better. How many times do you have to be told?
You’ve got to hand it to the islamists: they’ve achieved remarkable distinction in the history of Backwardness.
That their physical attacks against us are utterly dependent on the technological tools of our own society should be humiliating enough for them. But so complete is their stagnation, that even the political/social aspect of their warfare uses improvised tools to hijack the poorly-guarded infrastructure of Western thought.
When I hear their rhetorical use of “enlightened thought,” I see the glint from a boxcutter blade.
It’s a uniquely challenging thing to be faced with an enemy that is so pitifully cartoonish. When my five-year-old tries to outsmart me with a fumbling approximation of adult reasoning, I rarely take it as an existential threat. (I will concede that he rarely bring nuclear devices to discussions wherein he is sent to his room). I have no doubt the mullahs have the ability to construct a Dachau; I’m far less worried about their version of the Panzer.
I suspect in the quiet part of most of us we count on this belief. Certainly they can kill some of us, but we know that the President is never more than a few steps away from a suitcase containing what we suspect is a quick answer to this entire problem.
I think ultimately it is this confidence, rather than the undermining of Western foundations, which is the deciding factor underpinning the apparent apathy toward the islamist threat.
Either way, of course, leads to the sense of a decadent luxury of time in addressing the problem; lends itself to calculations where our own combat deaths are balanced with wringing hands against ‘collateral damage’ on the other side.
The problem being, of course, that Emperors still make damn good footstools. And if you asked the average 3rd century Roman to describe himself, he would probably say something like “Thoroughly Modern!” and proceed to rattle off statistics on the health of the Roman economy and the triumphs of the Punic Wars, which really weren’t that long ago.
You’re a dick, david.
Jeff, an interesting proposition, but what does it mean? I’m of “the left”, yet I support hunting down the terrrorists and killing them; encouraging democracy in Muslim states by the most forward, practicable means possible; censure, condemnation and even expulsion of foreign Islamist supporters (including those who do not vocally and vigousously condemn it) in our midst; no special rights for Muslims in Western democracies; financial and military aid to regimes in the middle east that supress, discourage, yeah, even persecute Islamists; and spying on and covert ops against regimes that are seen to be in sympathy with the Islamists.
I am worrried about the loss of civil liberties in the US that some of the above may cause, but not particularly so, especially as we may, with the upcoming election, be returning to a congress that actually does exercise it’s oversight duties. I’m also ashamed of some of the actions the US has taken in the past (Native Americans, Japanese internment, segregation). However, I’m no revisionist, they seemed like a good idea at the time.
Point being, I agree with the right on most of the GWoT, except the invasion of Iraq. So, how am I , a member of “the left” either explicitly or implicitly, inhibiting the GWoT? Are you trying to say that progressives are Islamist sympathizers? That a belief in universal health care is supporting the terroists? That economic justice, progressive taxation, an estate tax, a functioning SS system and a social safety net means the terrorists have won?
Just like “the right”, “the left” is not some monolithic block of automatons. Sure there are such groups in our political spectrum (mostly fringe and small, (such as libertarians, flat taxers, communists, and the Green party) but they do not represent the vast majority of thinking americans.
Here’s a though: Perhaps we should be looking for ways that we Americans can pull together on this most important of issues, instead of ways to demonize our domestic political opponents.
“Here’s a though: Perhaps we should be looking for ways that we Americans can pull together on this most important of issues, instead of ways to demonize our domestic political opponents.”
Gee. There’s an idea.
The islamofascist are even regurgitating the Soviet Union’s Most Potent Memtic Weapons, that many in the West clutch close to their hearts.
 There is no truth, only competing agendas.
 All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism / Fascism / Islam are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and colonialism.
 There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor.
 The prosperity of the West is built on ruthless exploitation of the Third World; therefore Westerners actually deserve to be impoverished and miserable.
 Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal. Poor criminals are entitled to what they take. Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it.
 The poor are victims. Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are virtuous. (Rich people can borrow some virtue by identifying with poor people and criminals.)
 For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But ‘oppressed’ people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors.
 When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorist’s point of view, and make concessions.
Bravo for your candor, Andrew. It’s refreshing to hear someone from the left just admit that the only thing they agree on is raising my taxes in one way or another. Thanks.
Here’s another thought: perhaps us conservative warmongers realize that if we don’t stanch the oozing blister of Islamofascism first, we won’t have a civilization left to address the domestic issues.
The first rule for examining the validity of a particular political system is: would you still support the proposed system if the people you despise the most in the current system were in power? No system I’ve seen that envisions more government power passes this test.
I can’t speak for you specifically, Andrew, but I have friends on the Left that I respect that question the invasion of Iraq. They confine their objections to discussions of overall strategy and cost to benefit analysis. I also have friends on the left that I do not respect when it comes to matters of politics that question the invasion of Iraq. They repeat discredited claims about chemical weapons or the US being there only to steal oil, or completely ignore the facts that the democratic leadership was convinced that there were WMD in Traq as well. By and large, I find most of the left falls into that second category.
No, but when I see the publicly acknowledged champions of those domestic progressive policies also championing the Islamist cause, I start to wonder. By all accounts, Sen. Lieberman is progressive when it comes to domestic politics, and he has been a target of the progressive left entirely for his foreign policy positions.
Perhaps you need to be telling the rest of the left that they shouldn’t be demonizing their domestic opponents. For example: in an earlier thread, a lefist brought up a statement from the Reagan administration in 1984.
He provided no admission that the situation with respect to Iraq had changed since 1984 as acknolwedged by both parties such that congress overwhelmingly and bipartisanly passed and Clinton signed a resolution calling for regime change in Iraq, and that this might be a reason why policy is different under the current Bush administration. It’s this sort of dishonest “I don’t understand why people think I’m inhibiting the GWoT” sort of prevaricating that we on the right are getting sick of. Again, you may be different. But it’s the other sort of thinking that seems to prevail on the left these days.
TW: END
Andrew —
You haven’t been a reader here long enough to recognize that I draw distinctions within the left, and that the linguistic assumptions I’ve noted here have also appeared on the right (and I have criticized them for it— over certain rightist condemnations of Bill Bennett, and over many more rightest condemnations of the Flight 93 Memorial “crescent”).
The ideological assumptions that animate progressivist thought are what I’m attacking here. Sadly, they’ve been mainstreamed over the years in the ways Lisa outlines above.
For purposes of writing posts, however, I can’t simply cite everyone by name who believes this, so I rely on descriptors like the progressivist left—and rely on having previously made the case that the ideology behind tha tmovement permits and encourages such thinking.
Just as there are conservative outliers, there are certainly progressive outliers, as well. But if I spent all my time qualifying, I wouldn’t have time to post.
I suggest you go back and read my posts on the linguistic assumptions of collectivist movements, how they insinuate themselves into public policy, and what effect they have on the way we are permitted to engage certain questions.
Or you can make the familiar (tired) point that not all leftists are the same—a point I readily concede—and think you’ve earned a victory without having done a bit of work to challenge what it is I’m saying.
I’ll also concede that the number of progressives who consciously deploy these tactics is small, and that they represent the cynical fringe. But the fact of the matter is, that from the perspective of interpretation theory, progressivist belief is repeatedly (and erroneously, from a logical standpoint) promulgated, and it is done so oftentimes without any direct political appeals.
You gotta remember,
Ddavid wanders ‘round here to take a shit, pat himself on the back, and then leaves. Ever since he was shown to be seriously fact-deficient, he doesn’t stick around to debate.I suspect it’s because he realizes how thread-bare his worldview has become, and getting in his snipes here makes him feel more in control.
The pitiful thing is that all you have to do to understand the Islamist mindset is listen to them.
So many, often blinded by BDS, simply refuse to do so.
Point being, I agree with the right on most of the GWoT, except the invasion of Iraq.
So. Generally, you agree that winning WW2 was good , but you have a disagreement about the intelligence of attacking Iwo Jima.
The road to Tehran goes through Bagdad. You can’t get one without controlling the other.When you become a general we’ll do it your way.
Andrew,
When has the Left not demonized its opponents?
Answer: Never.
Rusty, no the other….
Several thoughts:
1) Thus, I am the enemy? Last I checked, living in America means I am a) allowed to voice my dissent, b) allowed to be openly critical of our leadership (especially when they led us into a quagmire…sorry, resounding democracy building success.
2) The definition of insanity is when you take the same action and expect different results.
3) I must adhere to 100% of the agenda, or I’m with the terrorists? How is your idea of an acceptable level of diversity of thought different than a religious fundamentalist’s? I’m talking politics, foreign relations, and military planning, not ideological purity!
4) The road to Tehran is through Baghdad? WTF? I wish that had been articulated before we invaded Iraq, like “for the duration” was in WWII. And thus, your analogy of Iwo Jima is inapt, as that was understood to be part of a contiguous effort. Thus, adding Iran now seems like either “mission creep” or an unexpected surprise, neither of which instills confidence in the current leadership.
SPQR: Yeah I guess your right. It’s just that the Right is so much better at it.
Lisa, you seem to have gone over the edge there. I understand it’s getting tougher and tougher to explain away all the problems with your beliefs, but crazy is not an answer.
Wow, that really settled it.
That economic justice, progressive taxation, an estate tax, a functioning SS system and a social safety net means the terrorists have won?
What the hell is “economic justice”?
Why don’t you just say wealth redistribution?
Oh, because you’ve learned well from your Marxist leaders to never say what you really mean.
Um, we have “progressive taxation.”
SS is not viable long term as currently constituted.
Wake me up when you kids support not giving benefits to people who don’t need them.
“Social safety net”
Again, in place.
Andrew sez:
I’m quite willing to take this at face value. The people that come to my mind when reading Jeff’s post are the ones who, given a “blind taste test” of behavior, can’t decide who the good guys and bad guys are without peeking. If an American soldier does something untoward, it’s six months of headlines in the news, but when a “Bad Guy” does the same thing, it barely elicits a murmur.
In discussions I’ve had with numerous people, both live and online, there are a significant batch of people who seem bound and determined to apply sufficiently different standards to “us” and “them” as to effectively end up being an apologist for evil and a reflexive critic of those who espouse, promulgate, and practice a way of life in keeping with the broader traditions of the Enlightenment, natural rights, liberty, and a whole host of other things.
Given your quote above, it isn’t unreasonable for me to guess that you certainly don’t intend to exhibit that kind of behavior. It is, however, far from certain, that there aren’t a fairly substantial cynical and vocal segment of the left that do behave that way. And it is those people who cause me, at least, the greatest frustration.
BRD
Actually, it is one of the things that just tickles me no end in the debate about Social Security is that it turns out to be a remarkably regressive tax.
BRD,
the Democrats are the party of:
tax the guy making $30,000 and send it to Ross Perot who doesn’t need it, in the name of “helping the elderly.”
They can’t let go of these slogans even in the face of reality.
BRD:
reminded me of this:
http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details.asp?mscssid=C&sitetype=1&sid=122737&did=4
Which is an apt depiction of the discussion regarding those who would placate the terrorists.
Andrew,
Hah!
I think that pretty much nails it. Perhaps the broader point that other commenters are driving at is that in addition to “the beauty and wisdom of the Western canon” we might append some of the notions that Jeff speaks of above in his commentary to the quoted pieces.
BRD
If you close your eyes, you can see the spittle flecks coming off his lips as he types this!
Personally, I rather look askance any time I see the phrase “economic justice”. Most of the time I’ve seen it, it is used as a cover for a whole raft of unplatable concepts and even worse economics, not to mention a willful disregard for the nature of the human being in general.
But then again, I’m a defense and foriegn policy guy, so this just isn’t something I get exercised about.
Except David Lodge write better sex scenes.
Slightly OT:
Send an email urging Condi to reject a visa for the former president of Iran to come to the US.
http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nl/content.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=312458&content_id={5D04D27C-CF98-4AFE-B334-85729CA8F580}¬oc=1
How very classy, Andrew.
What we’ve come to expect, of course. Right up there with “screw them!”
Regards,
Ric
Ummm, Andrew,
I don’t think you should try and discuss war strategy anymore. You obviously lack any understanding of the subject.
Just some friendly advice.
If you close your eyes, you can see the spittle flecks coming off his lips as he types this!
Wow, that was some “answer” there dum-dum.
Don’t worry, everyone reading knows why.
All said in done, and given hindsight through rose-colored glasses, I would have preferred us to go take on Iran, rather than Iraq. But the diplomatic “activation energy” required is substantial.
I don’t think it would have alleviated any of the domestic political opportunism we’re seeing right now, but I think, as a more energetic reaction, I think the payoff would have been better.
Not a student of history, eh? The road to Berlin started, where exactly?
I think you just in one nice sentence described the entirety of “The War on Poverty”, or “The Great Society”. However you want to call the insanity, your choice.
You could easily throw the teachings of Neville Chamberlain into the mix as well. Has the Left learned anything of his wisdom? Apparently not. Will they take his actions and expect a different result?
Leave me out of this, Andrew.
So fair treatment and due reward relating to the prodution and manangement of material wealth? Sounds good to me, but I doubt this is what Andrew means.
david: Go fuck yourself, that sometimes helps.
Andrew,
I’m not going to call you names, just point out some inconsistencies in your logic.
The Islamofascists don’t care about the social safety net in Peoria. This is an example of the rhetorical trap that your ideological brethren fall into again and again. It’s the kind of nonsensical poltical non-sequitor that led some into the just-plain-stupid nuclear freeze argument in the 80’s: If we freeze then the Soviets will like us more and all those homeless people will have housing.
Steele’s article and Jeff’s post highlight the ultimate outcome of this class of intellectual sloth: Since white oppression has caused ALL the evil in the world, let’s all wear sackcloth and ashes in the face of what can only be termed “EVIL” and groove on the Dixie Chicks latest CD while the Hezzie boys saw off grandma’s head (she wasn’t covered–THE DAMNED INFIDEL HARLOT).
We’re on a very dangerous path here if we don’t start listening to what the bad guys say and watch what they do in the instances where they are in control (3,000 year-old Buddha’s–let’s blow them up!!!). It’s time to start training the lefty eye of criticism on everyone equally instead of calling Bush a warmonger and in the same breath saying the President of Iran is just “misquoted.”
Ace:
You were dismissive and abusive of my first post, so I replied in kind. You got a problem with that? You can insult me, but I’m not allowed to insult you?
Also, please don’t think that my “answer” was intended to be (or ever will be) in your case, responsive or an attempt to coax you in to a reasonable discussion. That’s obviously not what you are looking for, so quit yer bitchin’.
Also, see what Ahem said.
Ditto. One of the things that pisses me off about Iraq is that I’m pretty sure they (the Bush Admin) knew Iran would need to be dealt with and just assumed Iraq would be a stable jumping off point. Grrrrrr.
Per our discussion in another post BRD, the military options would be much more viable, tactically, strategically and geopolitically, if we had not done Iraq.
Andrew, can I respond to your question to Jeff?
I’m very glad that you support “hunting down the terrrorists and killing them†and I would like to know how you would go about doing that.
And the part about “encouraging democracy in Muslim states by the most forward, practicable means possible†sounds good. And how do you plan to do that? By the way, is this a new idea that has never been tried? What is the success rate so far?
I notice that you cite the old aphorism: the definition of insanity is when you take the same action and expect different results. Please face a mirror and repeat that when you espouse “encouraging democracy in Muslim states by the most forward …bla ..bla.. bla… bla†since I am sure that in your plan that does not involve military action. You may remember the unlamented President Peanut who actually facilitated the installation of the Ayatollahs. I always find it ironic that they did not appreciate him for all the help he was to them.
“…censure, condemnation and even expulsion of foreign Islamist supporters†gets your support in paragraph 1 while paragraph 2 explains: “I am worried about the loss of civil liberties in the US that some of the above may cause, but not particularly so, especially as we may, with the upcoming election, be returning to a congress that actually does exercise it’s oversight duties.†So am I to understand that you would be OK with the loss of civil liberties as long as we have a congress at odds with the President? A congress perhaps that would impeach the President for implementing your plan to expel foreign Islamist supporters? I’m not sure how you expect the President to go to a level of suppression that George Bush has never even hinted at with a Congress that is ready to impeach him for the NSA intercepts.
Andrew, I’m afraid that I see a lot of wishful thinking on your part. The part about encouraging democracy in Muslim states has given us a theocracy in Iran in which 16 year old girls are hanged for having sex. There is no indication that Muslim states will of their own volition become democratic. There is every indication that they will become ever more dangerous.
And as others have pointed out, please find some less shopworn phrases to replace the collectivist shopping list that you cite.
I’m curious about one thing though, you have no problem identifying “progressives†with your domestic program, but when it comes to foreign policy and the war on terror, all of a sudden we have nothing here but us “thinking Americans†and everyone else is part of a small fringe. Well, that small fringe has read Joe Lieberman out of the Democratic Party so it appears that the fringe is not so small after all. In fact, from where I sit on the sidelines, all I hear is the roar of Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Michael Moore, and the foam flecked lips of Chris Matthews.
Wishbone: I was responding to Jeff’s implication that “political and social movements that are collectivist in nature” are aiding the Islamofascists by asserting that demonizing the entire left isn’t helpful. Jeff pointed out that he was making a linguistics interpretation theory point, which, while I’m not convinced, settled my hash sufficiently to move on. Your comment about “the social safety net in Peoria” is, thus the non-sequiter. Capice?
Your second paragraph point is answered in my post of 4:38.
And, while I may believe Bush is a warmonger, I never stated it. However, I will vigorously deny that I’ve ever implied that Mr A of Iran is anything but the enemy. The guy’s a Holocaust denier, fer Christ’s sake! How do you think that would go over if I told my two Jewish brother’s in law, eh? Please don’t put words in my mouth.
B Moe,
I think Andrew means that he, being a self-anointed elite, will help us undeserving sorts dispense of our excess cash.
That song didn’t play well in New York, where the great orator Mario Cuomo himself got handed his walking papers for, among other things, redistributing our highway maintenance money to the “poor.” Evidently enough voters agreed with me that “justice” included things like having the thruway bridges that you paid for not collapse as you drove across them.
Andrew, you are free to send as much money as you like to the government. They will take contributions. I suspect your generosity ends with my wallet, so go take a flying leap.
Andrew, calling Mr. A an enemy? What has he ever done to you? What did he have to do with 9/11?
War Monger!
And Andrew, how you explain yourself to your brothers in law is not our problem and it should not form the basis for American foreign policy.
Andrew,
You really have to be careful here, a tonne of co2 is currently $6 US. Hot air adds up quick…..so maybe you can tell us all just how buying carbon credits from the former USSR, China, India is going to curb or reduce greenhouse gases in North America or Europe???
Yeah, because having the enemy surrounded is just a bad idea all around.
All around…surrounded. Get it?
Jez, I kill myself!
Covert ops, fomenting internal dissent, lots of $$ to dissident groups, coup d’tats (CIA or otherwise engineered), puppet gov’ts, etc. For those fence sitters like Egypt, more money and incentives to keep the pressure on the Islamofascists.
Fair to good during the cold war. Much Better and less costly than Iraq.
SO glad you approve
No, I believe in the separation of powers and of each of those powers watching the other like a freaking hawk. Any steps the President takes while an opposition controlled Congress is watching is fine by me. I’ll note that you brought up impeachment, not me (and, FYI, nor was I even thinking it. That would just be aiding the terrorists and Iran. Imprisonment after he leaves office, once all the papers are unsealed and read by the new occupant is always a possibility, though)
Wish I had read this part first, before replying. The problem you are ignoring here is that much of the current hue and cry about partisan politics can be laid at the feet of the current Admin. Iraq is a debacle that is festering and the Admin is still saying that a stable democratic gov’t is just around the corner. BS on that. Perhaps if the Admin had been willing to curry some favor for George and Dick’s Excellent Iraqi Adventure by playing ball on a few of the D’s domestic priorities, they’d have more support from realist D’s, eh? A house divided and all that.
I’ve become what used to be called a foreign policy “realist”, which means that things like puppets and strongmen and coups are the best tools we have available right now, and that the GWoT is going to be a slow,steady slog over the next 50 yrs. Perhaps when we get rid of the majority of the Islamofascists, then we can talk about democracy in the ME. As far as I’m concerned, for now, that dog won’t hunt anymore.
Andrew is pwn3d!
Reason #23,562,749,227,596 why military strategy should not be decided on the basis of domestic partisan political imperatives.
Also, please don’t think that my “answer†was intended to be (or ever will be) in your case, responsive or an attempt to coax you in to a reasonable discussion. That’s obviously not what you are looking for, so quit yer bitchin’.
Also, see what Ahem said.
Except I’m not Ahem.
Further, you not capable of “reasonable discussion” as evidenced by your continued dipshit postings.
Again, everyone reading knows why you can’t defend your silly statements
The problem you are ignoring here is that much of the current hue and cry about partisan politics can be laid at the feet of the current Admin.
Because you say so, right?
Iraq is a debacle that is festering and the Admin is still saying that a stable democratic gov’t is just around the corner.
Source that.
Perhaps if the Admin had been willing to curry some favor for George and Dick’s Excellent Iraqi Adventure by playing ball on a few of the D’s domestic priorities, they’d have more support from realist D’s, eh? A house divided and all that.
Yes, because not going along with the agenda of a party that can’t win elections of course means that any and every outright lie, smear, fabrication, and question of motives is justified.
You were dismissive and abusive of my first post, so I replied in kind. You got a problem with that? You can insult me, but I’m not allowed to insult you?
Your first and continued posts are silly bullshit.
Of course I am dismissive. You can’t defend them.
The problem you are ignoring here is that much of the current hue and cry about partisan politics can be laid at the feet of the current Admin.
Andrew, my friend, and you are my friend, your comment brings such a smile to my face. That is such a childish remark: “He started it.” That’s also so lame. And, my friend, it doesn’t help that it’s a lie.
I’ve become what used to be called a foreign policy “realistâ€Â, which means that things like puppets and strongmen and coups are the best tools we have available right now, and that the GWoT is going to be a slow,steady slog over the next 50 yrs. Perhaps when we get rid of the majority of the Islamofascists,
Aside from the fact you are in no way qualified to make these judgements, it is interesting you vote for a party looking to appease these people and who’s supporters don’t take the threat seriouisly.
So either you’re stupid or lying.
Which is it?
Money runner, one last thing. I’d love to have Al Gore back in the race for ‘08. (Unfortunately, the D’s will probably nominate Hillary,(shudder), and they will lose. That bitch will bring the R base out in locust-like droves.) It’d be an interesting, “Hey, Bush didn’t work out as well as we hoped, maybe we should have gone with Al” kind of experiment, don’t you think?
Please, supress the condemnation of Al, I’ve heard worse from better.
Fair to good during the cold war.
Er, I doubt al Qaida takes detente or MAD seriously.
But, leave it to you to bring it up.
Andrew,
I bet you are one of the proggs that claims Iraq was an illegal war, and think Bush should be impeached and brought up on war crimes charges. This for an action that was a resumption of hostilities from the 1991 cease fire, was actinable by a dozen or so UN resolutions, and had a coilition of 30-some nations.
Now you expect us to believe you would have been OK with the invasion of Iran, when there was none of those justifications?
Your eyes are brown i’m guessing.
What priorities are those, Andrew? Give me a for instance, because I’m kind of stumped since the fetid swamp of lib “ideas” on your side of the aisle is, in a word, “lacking.”
And it’s just this sort of suggested linkage that would have SHAMED Democrats like Scoop Jackson, Lloyd Bentsen, or even Hubert Humphrey.
Perhaps if the Admin had been willing to curry some favor for George and Dick’s Excellent Iraqi Adventure
What is this even supposed to mean?
That all those Democrats didn’t support it?
The problem you are ignoring here is that much of the current hue and cry about partisan politics can be laid at the feet of the current Admin.
Was that before or after Democrats started accusing the President of lying about WMD?
Or blamed his policies for James Byrd’s death?
Covert ops, fomenting internal dissent, lots of $$ to dissident groups, coup d’tats (CIA or otherwise engineered), puppet gov’ts, etc. For those fence sitters like Egypt, more money and incentives to keep the pressure on the Islamofascists.
Andrew, my friend, THAT is, a laundry list of reasons why we are in the mess we’re in.
But I’m sort if interested in the kind of mind that thinks this is the essence of statecaft.
Is this the kind of foreign policy we’ll see under Clinton II, or Kerry or Gore? And Liberals always portray themselves as the champions of the little guy, the oppressed, the poor, and the downtrodden. Quite revealing, wouldn’t you say, Jeff?
Covert ops, fomenting internal dissent, lots of $$ to dissident groups, coup d’tats (CIA or otherwise engineered), puppet gov’ts, etc
What is comical is that the left will say that Reagan did these things and take pot shots at him for it.
But, Ace–Danny Ortega, the FSLN, and having Cubans running all over Africa was just so dreamy, you know? And then Reagan had screw it up.
P.S.: Salvador Allende!!!!
Did you guys miss that one?
The boy is more than a wee bit daft, it would seem.
B Moe,
The Prez talent on the bench on that side is a bit shallow. Perhaps Andrew recognizes this and wishes to recapture the glory days of 2000.
Before Gore became seriously unhinged and started banging into everything in sight.
Would someone please perform geographic justice for Andrew and buy the resident moron a friggin’ map; How in the name of Hillary Clinton’s hairy hanging balls could we mount an invasion of Iran from Kuwait over the approximately ZERO border with Iran or move and supply more than a few tens of thousands into a landlocked Central Asian country of Afghanistan for a high-speed blitzkrieg into…ummm…gee, giant, fucking mountains.
Get. A. Freaking. Clue. Andrew.
Unless you think we should make a D-Day landing into the Persian Gulf side of Iran, we have all the same options right now as we ever had before; we could bomb them from Diego Garcia as well now as before.
Here’s the clue, I promised you: you ain’t smart, slick. Get a day job.
Well, Revolver blew the formatting away…
Andrew,
You may well be lying to yourself, but you’re a liar nevertheless.
Iran is a larger country than Iraq, and it has a large minority (if not a small majority) of citizens who are educated to Western standards or close to it. It is landlocked, mountainous, and arid, with major geographic barriers to invasion along any route you might select. Goddammit, that’s why it’s there and hasn’t been overrun by the Arabs sometime in the last millenium or so—they’ve certainly tried enough times.
If you think Iraq was more expensive, triple that for Iran, then move the decimal point two places to the right. That’s money, casualties, and time.
And if we had invaded Iran instead of Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be there, still making grandiose speeches, still being quoted by every Arab and Islamist in the world as the Great White Hope of resurgent Islam—there’s nothing that says the Caliph has to be a mullah or imam; most of them in history have been “secular”—and S. Hussein was definitely applying for the job. He would be bankrolling al Qaeda (so long as they stayed away from Baghdad and environs) and hosting Islamist conferences, between announcements of how close he was to having The Bomb and decrees of death for Marsh Arabs, Kurds, and any Shi’ia who happened to catch his eye. He would, in fact, be Ahmadinejad with more charisma, and more influence in the Middle East because he’s Arab and Sunni.
In which case you and your buddies would all be shouting, “Attacking Iran was stupid! It’s hard and doesn’t pay off, and right next door is Iraq, flat and easy to blow off!” In other words, you’d be making exactly the same arguments in exactly the same exasperatedly condescending tone of voice, using a different name beginning with “I” but no substantive differences.
So peddle it elsewhere, hey? We’re rather oversupplied with that crap at the moment, so the discount is enormous.
Regards,
Ric
Andrew says:
One of the things that pisses me off about Iraq is that I’m pretty sure they (the Bush Admin) knew Iran would need to be dealt with and just assumed Iraq would be a stable jumping off point.
What tipped you off? This, perhaps?
TW: You’ll note that the link is to GWB’s 2002 SOTU ‘Axis of Evil’ speech.
Andrew
Since so many are easily handling the foreign policy end, can I just have your ear for a moment to discuss your linkage of “economic justice” and “SocSec”
See, as a government worker, I don’t pay SS.
At all.
Any my retirement fund actually and fully belongs to me. It’s an asset that passes to my heirs when I die.
All members of Congress have the same deal…
Even those progg Congresscritters preaching “justice” when they oppose changing SocSec for “the little people” into more of a retirement account rather than a tax now with an iffy promise of benefits later (and we hope you die before you can collect) thingy.
Justice. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
BRB sez:
Economic justice is when no one takes your money away.
Er…Ric, Iran is not landlocked – it has rather a lot of coast. And a few ports too. Not that I am all keen to try to imitate my old mentor, one SFC Charles Reed, and wade ashore somehwere under fire…heh. At least not until Rosetta Stone puts out some Farsi product – right now all I can get is Pashto or Arabic. Humph!
“there can be no other possibility”…
http://tinyurl.com/oxsqt
Hmmm.
Perhaps this is a white “born in America but descended from Europeans” issue?
I was born in Seoul, South Korea and immigrated with my adoptive parents when I was 6 years old. And I can tell with all honesty that I have absolutely zero “Western guilt” whatsoever. Western guilt?
What exactly is that? I’ve never really been able to understand this issue. Is it guilt for being able to take a hot shower in the morning? For being able to crap in clean toilet rather than some hole in the ground? For having clean water, substantial availability of food, a decent government and the opportunity to better myself?
Why the fuck is anyone supposed to feel guilty about this? Any of these things are available to anyone if you’re willing to create the political, social and legal structure that can sustain it. They had this in Zimbabwe for decades. Until they voted in Robert Mugabe who promised to soak the white farmers, and now they haven’t a pot to piss in. Eastern europe didn’t have this for decades, and then they went to reformed their governments and now they’ve some of the fastest growing economies in the world.
Am I supposed to feel guilty because some asshole in the middle east is so intent on killing my ass that his family is starving? Why the fuck would I feel that way?
Personally:
1.
Give me the fucking pliers, rubber hose and the branding irons for 15 minutes. They’ll be talking. And that’s all I need to say about torture.
2.
Now we’re talking! I say use the cellulose-based JDAMs, a ka “Bomb in a Box”, and just bomb the fuck out of these people. Who cares if their families get caught in the blast. If having our spouses and children blown up is good enough for us, then it’s damn well good enough for them.
Let’s winnow out some of the fucking “Royal Family” in Saudi Arabia. And anybody, particularly imams or whatever-the-fuck, who starts talking trash about destroying America. Open your stinking pie-hole about destroying America or killing Americans?
Get a Bomb in a Box delivered to your home, free delivery courtesy of the USAF.
3.
Let’s just fucking kill them and be done with it. If that requires slaughtering every male above the age of 12 in Gaza and the West Bank, I could live with that. They’re not going to love us, so let’s be feared instead.
Then again I’m probably reverting to genes acquired from Tamerlane and Ghengis Khan so who knows.
4.
See #3, Hamas.
5.
See #3, Hamas
Better yet let’s forcibly push all Lebanese out of southern Lebanon *except* for Lebanese Christians and let’s arm the fuck out of them. I think we can all be assured that nobody is going to see them throwing rockets at people. At least not south of them.
6.
Why the fuck anybody is dancing around these assholes I have no idea. They don’t hardly have an army. Their air force is a complete joke as a couple fighter/fighter-bomber squadrons from an aircraft carrier could wipe them out.
Why the hell are we treating the Syrians as if they weren’t a pimple on someone’s ass? Bomb the fuck out of Damascus and shove them into the stone age. Destroy every single power station, power plant, water pump, filtration system and water treatment system. And if the Iranians want to spend the cash to rebuild Syria, good for them. Less cash to spend on nukes.
7.
WTF? Did someone cut off America’s balls at some point in the past? Why the hell are we futzing around with these jokers at all? Why are we waiting until they get nukes to do anything?
Perhaps we can’t target their nuke facilities directly. Fine. We’ll bomb the fuck out of everything else and make life hell in that country. Or we can bomb all around these facilities and force people to leave. And then once they leave, bomb the fuck out of the facilities.
Sure gasoline will go up in price. I’d rather live with that than trying to live with a nuclear Iran staffed with certified nutcase assholes.
8.
WTF? North Korea has almost dissolved completely into chaos. Want to completely eliminate North Korea as a problem? Drop a couple million hand cranked radio/walkie-talkies with adjustable frequencies in both the radio and walkie-talkie modes.
The biggest problem in North Korea is that many North Koreans don’t realise what a shithole NK is. Those that know it’s a shithole are the ones crossing the border into China and finding out that just about everybody else on planet Earth lives better than North Koreans.
Give them a way of getting information and talk to one another and the NK government won’t last out the year. Particularly with another famine on the way.
Or better yet let’s give Kim Jong Ill-looking-hairdo a choice. He can step down now and allow America to implement a new democracy in North Korea or, once we overthrow his ass, he’ll be handed over to the North Korean people kicking and screaming for them to take care of him.
And the historical punishments given to failed leaders by Koreans isn’t anything for the kiddies to see.
…
Really. Western guilt? Is that like “white guilt”?
Whatever the hell that is, I damn well don’t have it.
sw: I’m a
of the “look at me wrong and I’ll rip your balls off” school of thought.
1) Thus, I am the enemy? Last I checked, living in America means I am a) allowed to voice my dissent, b) allowed to be openly critical of our leadership (especially when they led us into a quagmire…sorry, resounding democracy building success.
No. Your entitled to your opinion.I would hope it would be based on something other than Daily Kos talking points.Intelligent criticism I can understand.
2) The definition of insanity is when you take the same action and expect different results.
Hence the current incarnation of the democratic party. The WOT is a new paradigm. It is foolish to compare it to Vietnam.<b>
3) I must adhere to 100% of the agenda, or I’m with the terrorists? How is your idea of an acceptable level of diversity of thought different than a religious fundamentalist’s? I’m talking politics, foreign relations, and military planning, not ideological purity!
The sons and daughters of our neighbors are over there. Their sacrifice is often brutal, sometimes painful or permanent. They are doing this in our name. It’s going to be along war. Choose a side.
4) The road to Tehran is through Baghdad? WTF? I wish that had been articulated before we invaded Iraq, like “for the duration†was in WWII. And thus, your analogy of Iwo Jima is inapt, as that was understood to be part of a contiguous effort. Thus, adding Iran now seems like either “mission creep†or an unexpected surprise, neither of which instills confidence in the current leadership.
Then you weren’t paying attention when all this started. Your grasp of history leaves a lot to be desired.<b>
How did you think the United States Army, based in Kuwait, was going to get to Tehran? Were you expecting an “Operation Overlord” where our troops would all cross the Persian Gulf, land on the coast, and fight their way inland?
No one has that kind of sealift to pull off that kind of operation today, and anyhow, the build up would so obvious, way too obvious. Kuwait was obvious enough, but at least the supply depots weren’t being established under fire on a beach.
Try this one: 1) open a map, and look at the relation of Kuwait to Iraq and Iran. 2) Look at where an occupation of Iraq leaves us in regard to the location of Iran and Syria. 3) Look at the other borders of Iran and Syria and ask yourself if those borders are on friendly or hostile nations.
From Iraq we could, if we so desire, turn east or west and hit a bad guy. Thus the road to Tehran and Damascus passes through Baghdad.
Meanwhile, Andrew, having discovered that he was surrounded and out of ammo, escaped out the bathroom window.
Darleen: Are you sure you want to be talking about such things in public? I mean, word’ll get out and everyone else will want the same treatment…
Us and what army? The troops are too busy nation-building in Iraq to invade Iran.
Can they surgically install a little plexiglas window in someones naval, you think? Maybe if some of these folks could get enough light in there to read they wouldn’t go around spamming such ignorant shit on the threads all the time.
To expand upon BMoe’s comment, recruiter.
If we wanted to put a push on, we could easily expand – logistically – the number of soldiers we have in Iraq, they having established lines of communication and bases.
That is much, much, more difficult to do over an open beach without scores of LSTs, LCVPs, LCMs, and the full gallery of supply ships moving to the landing beaches and either beaching to disgorge cargo or anchoring offshore an lightering supplies onto the beach.
Torch, Huskey, Overlord, and their ilk were very dangerous operations – shoot the dice operations. If the initial landings failed there was nowhere for the landed troops to retreat and the entire apparatus of landing equipment would have to be rebuilt.
Have you not considered the implications of those operations? How long it took to build up the supplies and equipment to allow Overlord to succeed?
Iwo Jima was easy in comparison – the battlefield was limited in size, only so many soldiers could the Japanese place there. The Japanese had no aircover, no relief coming in via sea (unless a submarine could sneak in at night). The entire area of operations was isolated, and look how much it cost to secure that rock with all of the might brought to bear against it, all the experience the marines and navy had bitterly learned?
No, it is far, far, better to march overland, even through a land such as Iraq to get to Tehran, than risk so much on a landing working.
Why do you thnk Inchon is held up as such an amazing example of amphibious warfare? It wasn’t because it was inevitable, but because it was such a gamble!
Read, and consider, the implications of a proposed operation. Every head of state must, especially those who head democratic republics, and they do.
What are you a recuiter for, the special olympics?
White guilt? Sorry. When you all was busy being just awful to that nice young colored fellow from Star Trek on Roots, and giving all those skanky blankets and whiskey to the Indians, my ancestors were busy trying not to get hung by the British. So unless white guilt means Tony Blair gives me a bucket full of euros (none of that limey pound crap) for the family land back in the Old Sod, I don’t wanna hear it.
Bravo, Jeff. I’m printing this one and framing it.
See also Horowitz’s $.02.
(Apologies to the other commenters, I don’t have time to read all the buzz above.)
The sea-skimming anti-ship missile battery made opposed, large scale, over the beach, amphibious invasions almost impossible.
I find the whole concept of racial guilt to be rather ridiculous; as though the responsibility for amoral actions in the past were an incurable hereditary disease. Supposing this, would each persons portion of guilt be different, depending on the amount of evil contained in their ancestral line?
This sort of thinking, and the inability to judge other cultures by the same standards they do our own (or to JUDGE at all, really) make segements of the left- particularly in academia- very difficult to reason with when it comes to totalitarian Islam
I’ve tried to like the Democrats, I really have, but leaders are lacking in both ideas and spine (grovelling to bush when he looked strong and now snapping at his heels as he weakens), and the attitudes of to many of their followers has made it extremely difficult.
Every night, I get on my knees and pray for exactly that. …. And I am a registered Republican who hasn’t voted for a Democrat for President in my entire lifetime. [First Republican Presidential candidate I voted for was Nixon in ‘72.
If the best the donks can do is ‘Internet Al’, then the GOP will hold the White House for the foreseable future.
Schöne Seite