Dan already wrote eloquently about the absurdity of Glenn Greenwald’s(’s) recent attack on the Victory Caucus, but, after having finally gotten around to reading it myself, I think a few more words are in order. Luckily, I already wrote them and placed them in the comments to Dan’s original post, so I don’t have to do a whole lot of additional work here—which is fortunate, because Greenwald(s) himself isn’t worth the effort, frankly.
What is worth the effort, though, is pointing out just how hamfisted this preening, self-deluded “moralist” is, and how it takes a stunning leap of faith on the part of progressives to elevate such an obvious fraud to a position of rhetorical godhead. His positions are puerile; his analyses so predictable that they’ve ceased being analyses at all, but instead read like dubiously annotated celebrations of his own presumed righteousness.
Really. Is this what passes for nuance?
In Greenwald’s(’s) piece (after having first buggered up the analogy that anchors it), Glenn(s) does what he always does: he makes his ubiquitous assertion (the Bushies and neocons have ruined a once great and proud nation and “they†need to be stopped, with himself leading the charge), then he appeals to authority (one general who happens to agree with him), offers a bandwagon appeal (most people now side with him, according to polls), and relies on the chickenhawk smear to try to shame his ideological enemies while simultaneously (and hilariously) trying to set himself up as a brave TruthTeller who is unafraid to take on the scaremongers!
Or is it bedwetters? I forget.
He then pats himself on the back for being a true patriot, while practically declaring everyone who disagrees with him on Iraq strategy a traitor. After all, the neocons are lawbreakers and fascists who are actively working to subvert the Constitution, relying on scare tactics so that they can advance the cause of war.
Motive? Well, they get to blow shit up, I guess.
And what can be more seditious than that?
The fact that Odom pulled the chickenhawk argument on Hewitt marks this particular general as an unserious thinker and a rhetorical bully. But its clear why somebody like Greenwald(s) wants to prop him up as the new poster boy for the anti-war cause: He wears a uniform with lots of stars on it.
Of course, so does Petraeus. But, wellâ€â€we each have to pick our generals, I guess. Some of us, though, aren’t quite so blatantly opportunistic about it.
Anyway, as I’ve pointed out before, this sanctimonious, bombastic blowhard has followed Sullivan’s blueprint for successâ€â€the “conservative,†turned reluctantly by a rogue President, who is then embraced as a “brave†dissenting voice by the left, which respects his maverick individualismâ€â€and he’s making his nut with it.
But the whole thing is a sham. This guy has been a manufactured cutout from the very beginning (not just anybody made Kos’ Townhouse list for orchestrating talking point campaigns)â€â€and that he is able to land book deals and plum gigs at Salon after having been caught sockpuppeting all over the place just goes to show that, as with Marcotte, the anti-war crowd is only concerned with whether or not you are on message. They couldn’t care less whether you are honest, or whether your emotion-packed screeds are embarrassingly shallow and rhetorically transparent. They’ll pretend otherwise, for the good of the cause.*
To borrow a phrase, Screw ‘em.
****
update: Here’s a combat vet you won’t hear Greenwald citing any time soon (see video).
How anyone reads him, takes him seriously and considers themselves well informed is beyond me.(Cue Mona in 5…4…3…) I could never get past his highly annoying habit of linking to things that don’t say what he tells you they say and the fact that he takes 400 words to say what could have been said in 15.
Quantity is not quality, nor is it a effective mask for a lack thereof. If you’re going to bullshit me, you could at least keep it tight.
I’m gonna go workout and try to forget that people actually pretend this guy is anything other than a snake oil salesman.
I’m glad you posted that, Jeff.
Jeff,
You are exactly right. In fact, I just posted about Brit Hume’s Murtha smack-down. The most notable thing about that interchange wasn’t Hume’s stating the obvious–it was Juan William’s response. He said essentially, “This is a Democratic process. Murtha gets a voice and a vote.” What the?
For Democrats it’s not about the content of the voice or the damage done by the vote. It’s just that Dems feel they have a voice now and everyone else can shut the eff up. Expressing themselves trumps national security. Being in charge is the end. Who gives a flip about Murtha’s ideas as long as he’s in charge. Or, more importantly, Republicans aren’t.
And while Greenwald shrieks like a little girl, his rhetoric defines Leftists these days–even in the Mass Media. Marcotte, Greenwald and their ilk do represent the mainstream, inside the beltway Democrat–that’s why Edwards would even consider her.
And Hillary remains wary of them, not because she disagrees with the substance, she disagrees with the style. Can’t these people see that normal people how people view them? No, they’re completely delusional.
I’m celebrating Grover Cleveland for Presidents Day this year. I think he was on a stamp, once.
I’m celebrating Garfield and Harrison.
Be careful, Dan. He was a Democrat, and Jimmy Carter is still eligible for one more term. Don’t go giving History’s Greatest Monster any ideas.
Stupid Mugwumps.
Oh, and I’m going along with Mallard Fillmore.
Is Amanda going to start a Vagina Gonococcus?
“the “conservative†turned reluctantly by a rogue President who is then embraced as a “brave†dissenting voice by the left, who respects his maverick individualism‗
Uh, excuse me. It is disheartening to see you
rant using prose to disguise your insubstantial
critique. Why don’t you find out where Greenwald
lives and ‘TP’ his house. That’s what any red-blooded american teen does when consumed with
passive aggression. I have come to expect better of you, Goldstein. I am shocked, shocked to see there
is rambling going on here.
Do they have TP in Brazil?
Aw, the cabana boy’d have to clean it up, anyway.
Still, the idea of a road trip . . .
Why? You’re the one doing it.
Insubstantial critique? Let’s see: my critique was that Greenwald uses a number of fallacies of argument to promote a position that is really nothing more than a tribute to his own self-righteousness.
I named the fallacies: ad hom (chickenhawk), appeal to authority, bandwagon appeal, false analogy, guilt by association, etc etc.
I point out that his introduction into the blogosphere as a “conservative libertarian” is given lie by his having been a stooge on the Townhouse mailing list.
I link to a substantial debate I had with him in which he admits to believing it okay to lie, if the lie furthers the greater truth (which he, conveniently, gets to define).
I take Odom to task for using the chickenhawk smear on Hewitt, and point out that Gen Petraeus (who was confirmed without problem, mind, supports the “surge”).
Not enough substance for you? Sorry. Maybe Greenwald can offer up a nice word salad for you.
Clearly, leo is begging for a haiku.
I rest my case. You sir, are no Patrick Fitzgerald.
You made a case? Where?
“You made a case? Where?”
Pablo;
I am not a moon-shiner. You gonna haveta’ buy your own hootch for your morning coffee.
And, you sir, are no Perry Mason.
Clearly.
*snort*
You realize that’s a compliment, don’t you?
Not surprising. If I had to guess, I’d figure you’ve been cooking mushrooms and meth.
It’s not like Hugh Hewitt, or anyone here could ever be called rhetorical bullies. And serious thinkers, I mean, you’re all over that Marcotte “scandal”. That’s some real serious stuff.
How dare he? Can you imagine a war supporter questioning the patriotism of those who oppose the war? Now Hugh Hewitt would certainly never do a thing like that, being a serious thinker and all.
True, we can’t all be like George W. Bush and pick Generals that we agree with and just fire the rest.
If you are serious thinkers, call for Bush and Cheney to resign and find yourselves a competent Republican to run the war.
That video at redstate you linked in the update made me feel quite a bit better about things. There are still a few good people representing us.
Fuck off, semenclit.
And take stevexx with you.
Oh, look. Another of the idiots dropped by.
I want to apologize for forgetting the obligatory “cue stevexx making the vacuous “righties do it, too” argument in 5, 4, 3…”
But the icing is that stevexx apparently thinks the generals previously in charge of the Iraq op were doing an exemplary job. Where was stevexx when they needed his support?
There are different types of chickenhawk arguments. The one I think we all object to is the one that says, “I was in the service, you weren’t, how dare you talk about sending our people to war,” because that’s just a military version of identity politics.
However, what I caught Odom saying, was, in effect, “If you want to fight this war, why don’t you go over and fight it,” which maybe objectionable but not a chickenhawk argument per se (as I understand it.) Theoretically there would be no reason why Hewitt and Bill Kristol couldn’t start an “Abraham Lincoln Brigade”—except that as long as US troops are in the region they’d probably be busted.
For the record, while I thought his impatience with Hewitt (which is how I interpret the CH argument), it seems to me that Odom seemed fairly lucid. I have no idea however what his politics are or if he has a vendetta, or whatever.
Hey, whatever happened to Markos’ secret plan to destroy the DLC? Aren’t we a couple years overdue on that?
Karl,
The Generals have all been beholden to King George. None of them could be competent if they wanted to. You can’t fight a war based on someone’s flawed fantasy of how the war should be.
Steve, as a former backup on the New England Patriots, I figured you would understand how a depth chart works. See, the Constitution has a depth chart just like Bill Belichick- except it’s called an line of succession.
I don’t want to spoil it for you.
ps- I’m thinking of putting together a park-district football team. Maybe call it the “Rogers Park Chickenhawks” or something. Any suggestions about the best way to prep a bunch of bed-wetting neo-cons on how to run the 46 defense?
Hmmmmmm…..according to my search of the PW archives, the the last person who used the term “competent Republican” was monkyboy. Must be steveXXP’s version of a “serious thinker”.
Although I notice that this is not steveXXP’s first shot at finding someone competent to run the war. After getting his ass handed to him in that thread, you’d think he’d learn.
Wait, “….think he’d learn”? Oh, yeah, right. Never mind.
A fine set of cheap provocations.
The window is now open for bets on when steve xx backs out.
I think its just so fabo that there is a group out there calling themselves the “victory caucus.” It’s like a little baby pajama.
Real Jeff,
Was there an argument in there? Don’t try to hash old threads like a the high school quarterback trying to relive old glory.
Wait- you’re an ex-expat now? They send you over to NFL Europe for the ofsseason?
Congrats!
or Lincoln, or Truman
The rest? do you have any clue how many there are? and who was fired in this case?
jdm,
I’m usually good for about 10 posts.
PS: steveXXP, check out the Constitution. If Bush and Cheney resign, the Presidency does not transfer to another Republican. Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, would become President.
If you’re going to communicate with us from your fantasy through your magic portal, at least be entertaining, and not utterly clueless. Think of the pixels!
That’s the essence of the chickenhawk slur. It’s a fallacy, and anyone who believes it’s a substantive argument is arguing for restricting the franchise—or the ability to declare war—to the military.
Wow. I didn’t realize the guy had so many sockpuppets, or that to them he was such a sacred cow.
Don’t make the same stupid arguments.
oh, and also thanks for the link to Rep. Johnson’s speach, Jeff. I heard bit of it on the radio Friday night. so glad I’ve had the chance to vote for him a couple times.
<i>
I didn’t contribute to the thread in the second link, steveXXP, I merely enjoyed the dialog as it played out. Here, I simply pointed out to the others that you have some consistency in your cluelessness, and that you have at least intellectual rival within the Blogosphere, startling as that may be.
But I’m glad that you acknowledged the ass kicking in that thread (“old glory” and all), given how you usually cut and run when you start tanking.
TW: And that’s my case.
Pablo wrote:
“You made a case? Where?”
Cleo blurted:
“I am not a moon-shiner. You gonna haveta’ buy your own hootch for your morning coffee.”
Conclusion: Cleo did not make a case and is firing chaff and flares in the vain hope it distracts people.
Jeff: I also want to thank you for that link to Red State. It’s good to know some Congresscritters don’t go through life with their head up their rectum.
Woo baby! A complete misunderstand of important terminology. That’s gotta be embarrassing. Let’s see how Steve responds…
steve ex-pat wrote:
No, you’re good for bloviating until someone digs up facts proving you are wrong. Then you slink away and show up on a different thread pretending your antics on the previous thread never happened.
Crawford: I’m not sure about that. Don’t you see that there are two arguments? The first argument is, you were never in the service (and/or you have never seen combat), how dare you talk about sending people to war? That is a slur because (a) the person being accused can’t retroactively be 18 again and enlist, (b) the person is being accused of hypocrisy (i.e., you didn’t serve, how can you ask others to serve, etc.). There’s no defense against that argument: it’s just a slur.
The second argument is different. It simply says, If you want war, go ahead, leave me out of it. It has nothing to do with due process because Odom didn’t say “you have no right to persuade the American people to stay the course”, he just said, “You want a war? Go fight it yourself.” That’s the way I read it. I might be wrong, but I am certain that there are two different arguments going on here.
I’m assuming he’ll be back. He’s just off looknig up some suggestions on good base plays to run out of the single back trips formation.
I’m planning on a little razzle-dazzle.
Waiting… being exposed as ignorant of what a chicken hawk actually is must’ve hurt. Steve’s response seems slow in coming. Is he stunned? Can’t figure what to say? Or is he feverishly working on an equally clever counter?
… hahaha, just kidding on that last one.
No, it’s not.
If you really think there’s a difference between the two, considering the context and the target of the remark, you’re a sad, sad person.
No, I think it’s an even cheaper ploy, an attempt to stifle argument from the right side of the spectrum.
“If you haven’t served, shut up!”
Of courxe, the same argument never applies to a reactionary leftist.
Followed, of course, by an Arkin-style rant about the troops having the gall to say anything in support of their mission. In the end, you’re not allowed to say anything if you didn’t serve, and you’re not allowed to say anything if you have.
At least, not if what you’re saying is supportive.
Now there’s a guy supporting the military.
I agree with the last sentence, though stevexx might try floating that on his side of the debate.
Here’s the exchange.
There’s no slur there. That’s an invitation for Hewitt to put his money where his mouth is.
It’s not quite the same.
Can anyone disagree with you without being personally attacked? Thank you.
I don’t think that’s what he said.
Actually, they make the same argument all the time: if you are straight white male, you have never been oppressed, and since you have never been oppressed, you cannot say anything valid about anything at anytime, and if you do, you are simply a tool of the power structure.
Happens all the time.
BTW, I’m just a straight white male.
Excellent post (both times) Mr Goldstein.
BTW I heard the Odom interview and he definately threw the chickhawk carcass on the table. Hewitt sputtered something about his age and went back in. Odom then backed off and allowed that people have a right to express their opinions.
He toyed with it but dropped it.
Yeah, I’d agree with that.
Is anyone here surprised that Greeny has yet again resorted to baseless accusations all the while ignoring what is really going on in favor of presenting his side as the only creditable option? This is his MO & it is used by all cheap, know nothing attorneys or 2nd year law students. His arguments are not really arguments, but appeals to the feelings of others; appeals dressed as facts & presented in a stale, circular tone that is only acceptable in a format where one side is only given voice at a time.
How much you want to bet that he reads his posts aloud like he is presenting them to a jury?
Like any litigator, his job is to steer the “jury†or readers in this case, against the damning facts by presenting a case that seeds only doubt in the other side. His goal isn’t to rally to one side or argue the validity of his case, but cheapen the real arguments being made or twist the facts as to make them inconsequential. The end result is that those already predisposed to his side’s version feel enlightened & strengthened, while those who depend merely upon factual evidence are possibly portrayed as buffoons or “cultists.†This is the same methodology that little “aâ€Â, stevieX & most of the trolls here resort to as well. Notice that there is never an alternative approach presented, just the wrongness of the other-side? Notice that their defense is either the stupidity or blindness of the other side?
The sad thing is almost every point GG has ever made falls apart under any kind of scrutiny, that his points rarely rely upon facts, but mostly like-minded opinions or the taken out of context words of his opponents & his points require that you suspend rational discourse or logic & follow the sentiment solely. This is great when arguing fault for car accidents, assigning liability or suggesting that cops are racist, so the evidence shouldn’t count, but this in no way to define a foreign policy, run a war or build a political platform.
The problem is that those who tend to rely upon this patternized argumentation methodology are so busy trying to undermine the presenters of facts or evidence, that they are no longer capable of seeing what is going on beyond the preformed filter of obtaining their goal – see every post by alphie our own little “a†for a prime example. Once again, this is acceptable in a court of law, but truly disastrous in real life or for maintaining rational discourse within a thread.
PMain: Both sides do what you describe.
I’m willing to listen to facts from either side.
Videos of individual soldiers who are gung ho for the war, versus videos of mangled Americans or dead Iraqi children, are not really facts as much as they are emotional appeals.
Problem is the disputes have less to do with facts than with forecasts. There’s a big difference.
Also, the Internet is a big venting mechanism. It is, therefore, almost by nature, a big emotional blowout.
Historical analogies are not facts either. At best, they are considered historical judgments. At worst, they are emotional appeals designed to bulldoze agreement with someone’s self-righteousness (George Clooney’s Oscar speech where he ludicrously described African American moviegoers who were forced to sit in the back of the theater comes to mind.)
Because he asked one of the Iraq war’s loudest cheerleaders why he didn’t enlist, this three-star Army general who was Ronald Reagan’s NSA director who also holds a Ph.D. from Columbia should not be considered…a serious thinker?
PMain, we’ve heard from your side for over five years now, look where it’s gotten us.
Here’s a quote that I picked up from either Greenwald’s or Marcotte’s blog…don’t remember which:
FORMER EDWARDS CAMPAIGN AIDE: BLOW JOBS, IT DEPENDS
Who you calling “us,” Mr. Victim?
or because keeps saying, “well, those facts don’t matter” or somesuch when presented with data that contradicts his argument. Turkey? doesn’t count! Lebanon? Nope!
I may be misreading this, but I would suggest that while historical analogies are not facts, they often offer lessons from which one can learn.
For example, if history tells us that most insurgencies fail, but usually take longer than five years to fail, alphie’s complaint that “we’ve heard from your side for over five years now, look where it’s gotten us” looks different than if we remain ignorant of history.
SteveXX,
The notion you cover in this statement: “If you want war, go ahead, leave me out of it.” is completely antithetical to the notion of civilian control of the military, particularly in any even quasi-representative form of government, let alone a Republic.
It is, in it’s way, worse than what you suppose to be the general chickenhawk slur. The chickenhawk slur, as you seem to see it, basically says that, ‘As a military, we will fight according to the dictates of our national command authority. Even though this national command authority derives its consent from the governed, and the governed should have no authority over me, because many of the governed have not served.”
The second is much more pernicious: ‘As a military, we may fight according to the dictates of our national command authority and the governed, providing that it suits us. If not, then we, as a military, now choose to exercise ultimate veto authority over the foreign policy and military policy of the country that we are ostensibly here to protect – provided it suits us to do so.”
In either case, they are both manifestations of the same broader argument which is encapsulated under the chickenhawk slur. And in both cases, I think that the assertions are thrown around with an abandon that reflects only on the fundamental lack of seriousness and amateurism of those using them.
BRD
but trust me! I know enough about Iraq to know it’s a QUAGMIRE! please don’t bother me with your “facts”
Where did he say that, maggie?
One fact that’s hard to ignore is the insurgents launched an attack on a U.S. military base today.
Very disturbing.
Really? Then why do you keep defending Odom’s “chickenhawk” smear? That’s not a “fact”, even if it’s taken the most innocent way possible.
BRD: Well done, at least you seem to have caught the distinction I had in mind. However, I am not Steve XX. I am the “dour” Steve.
Also ….
Well, the lessons you get from history depend on a lot of variables, such as: whether the analogy is accurate, whether the past ever “really” repeats itself, and so on. One can certainly make analogies and offer them up, but that doesn’t make them “facts.” That’s all I am saying.
Come to think of it, the whole notion that the military is somehow not, ultimately an instrument of the government that derives its authority from the consent of the governed, as expressed in the framework of the Constitution is particularly coming from one whose entire adult life has been devoted to
It may not be farfetched to suppose that the General perhaps let his rhetoric get away from him in an moment of passionate debate.
(Dour)Steve,
It would probably help the likes of me if you signed with the handle of SteveD or something to that effect, for I have been known to fall prey to confusion from time to time.
Cheers!
BRD
Um, they’re the fricking enemy. You expect them to send strongly worded letters?
my, my, we’re following links and reading them aren’t we?
OMG! OMG! we’re being attacked in a war zone!!!! oh, and your link didn’t work, so I’m taking your word for it.
Alphie notes:
I don’t think that’s a particularly hard fact to ignore if one keeps in mind that we are actually engaged in a War. Perhaps I lack your depth of understanding of things military and do not possess your strategic acumen, but pray tell, would you not consider an attack by hostile forces to be something that could reasonably expected to happen during the course of fighting a War?
Yr. Hmbl. Srvnt,
BRD
Broadside!!
To All:
Actually, re-reading Alphie’s proclamation:
I did note one discontinuity. Given Alphie’s evident eagerness to see an American loss, his use of the term “Very disturbing.” is a bit surprising. Perhaps he still hasn’t become intellectually honest enough with himself to realize that he really doesn’t have any criticism of the Iraq War itself, but rather a suppressed desire to see American defeat.
BRD
And we know how you treat “facts”, don’t we steve?
I checked; it happened. I suspect alphie’s on some sort of dead-GI mailing list, so he gets immediate updates.
I couldn’t find mention of how many jihadis died during the attack, not even from “unnamed witnesses”. The story did say that the base saw lots of helicopter traffic the rest of the day, so I took that to mean the jihadis utterly failed to overrun the base.
BRD,
This wan’t an I.E.D. or a sniper, it was a coordinated attack on a U.S. military base.
Almost four year into our occupation of Iraq.
It’s worrisome because the insurgents would seem to think they are on the offensive despite our “Surge.”
NO Brain: Yeah, I know how YOU treat facts. With personal abuse, and and claims about disease deaths being combat deaths. Cheers.
…and then there’s reality:
Reading is a skill. But it’s not in alphie’s toolset.
Crawford: You and I are arguing the interpretation of what Odom said, not what he said.
To me the classic chickenhawk argument is:
A: “We should go to war with X”
B: “Oh, yeah? Where were you in Vietnam?”
That argument had some force, 10, 15 years ago, when most adults were at least vulnerable during the Vietnam Era, and when many who did not serve acted in ways that were frankly craven and/or selfish in order to avoid service.
Now however the argument has much less force and furthermore it’s not really a fair argument, anyway.
Uh, no. Because he asked a 51 year old man why he didn’t enlist—knowing that he was well past the age for enlisting. And because he tried to discredit a fellow citizen’s opinion and his advocacy for a particular foreign policy by suggesting that he hadn’t earned the right to speak it.
Which, PhD or not, shows a rather unimpressive understanding of why the founders gave civilian control to the military, and why the likewise opted for a representative republic rather than a true democracy, where the mob could rule based on passing whims.
So? They’ve done the same thing before. Stop trying to turn them into 50’ high monsters.
Didn’t read the article too well, did you? On page two of the WaPo article:
So the attack was defensive.
alphie, I don’t suppose you’ve been hired by the CGSOC have you? Maybe LTG Odom could help you build a sylabus for us all.
Dour Steve – Odom did try the chickenhawk argument – just why else would you ask a 51 year old radio host to enlist? Besides – his utter and bullheaded refusal to care about what happens in consequence of his own propositions kind of left me shaking my head…
alphie, consider the example of ADM Gene Laroque before trying to cherry pick some goofball former flag to back you up. For a more recent version, try Wes “New York Money” Clark… Making rank doesn’t mean your appeal to authority is any more effective when that “authority” doesn’t have the vaguest idea of what has previously happened and cares not what will happen in the future if his own proposal is adopted!
Alphie,
Getting back to something I started wondering in an earlier post, do you, personally, have any desire whatsoever to see a US/Coalition victory in Iraq?
BRDr
October 16, 1859: This wasn’t an I.E.D. or a sniper, it was a coordinated attack on a U.S. military arsenal.
After seventy years into our occupation of North America.
And that’s not how the chickenhawk slur is being used today. Today, it’s used exactly the way Odom used it—“if you support this war, you should go fight it”.
If that’s not the way it’s used today, then explain its use in the thread following this one. I wasn’t even in grade school when the US left Vietnam; I’ve been called “chickenhawk” dozens of times, in reference to the Gulf War, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It wasn’t meant in the limited way you’re interpreting it; it was meant in the broadest sense of “you cannot advocate military action unless you’ve served in the military”.
yeah, Robert, may have.
In other words, we have no clue what they were up to.
Our latest plan for victory is to get our troops out of their large, well-defended bases and sprinkle them in small groups around Baghdad.
Making them far more vulnerable to attacks like this one.
Alphie,
In the annals of warfighting, the ability of an opponent to mount an attack is not prima facie evidence of one’s own defeat – lest Pearl Harbor be the battle that ended the war.
Past that, going out on patrol is generally considered one of the most effective and time-honored methods of establishing contact and then engaging opponents.
I am still, to this very day, continually surprised that those who seem to be most vocal about warfare have such a profound aversion to understanding anything about it. I say this without the slightest bit of sarcasm or condemnation, but rather pure, genuine, sincere confusion. It is rather like someone deciding that they, as a doctor, are going to fight cancer, but refusing to learn anything pertinent to the practice of oncology.
The mind reels.
BRD
Tell me, alphie, just what did the jihadis accomplish with this attack?
alphie, please…
There are tactics and systems to make our* troops less vulnerable, but they tend to blow a lot of things up and kill a lot of people. Say, automatic counterbattery fire; heavy aerial bombing and generally reacting to all threats with overwhelming force.
Do you support that?
The Yahoo News links not working isn’t alphie’s fault.
But from the same story you get reportage like this about the “surge” itself:
Mind you, the average daily death toll in Iraq was supposedly 94. And that 60 of the 85 were killed by two car bombs, rather than turning up riddled with bullets or signs of apparent torture, as was happening prior to the start of the new op. And that the “surge” is far from complete.
No, if you’re the AP the new plan is already a failure; Jamil X told them so.
BRD, you have given voice to a frustration that I have had for some time now. You said it much better than my crack about alphie teaching at CGSOC…
But then again, we are all in a nation that arm-char quarterbacks every football game, roundly curses any economist or Fed chairman that we disagree with, won’t listen to doctors who dispense sensible advice, etc.
Sounds like a Polosi/Murtha wet dream!
Robert,
I am continually baffled by the notion that people forget that the attack is not the thing, in and of itself, but rather is intended to accomplish an objective – failure to accomplish that objective is the evidence of failure, not the attack itself.
If this were some sort of purely political phenomenon, I guess it could be described as some fundamental shift in the rules of the game, but warfare is imminently objective and anchored to concrete realities, and hence, can’t be redefined like this – at least not sustainably.
If you recall Orwell’s 1984, in his appendix on language, he least is aware that Newspeak is inadequate for describing physical reality, and takes some care in addressing how that fits in with the larger context of the book. Here it’s as if many have failed to understand that just because Winston finally saw five fingers, it didn’t mean that there were actually five fingers. Rather, that he knew that freedom was the ability to say “2+2=4” – to describe the rational, concrete world as it is. lack of freedom to do so doesn’t make reality any less true, it simply means that reality becomes the thing which cannot be mentioned.
I am perplexed.
BRD
Major John,
It is, looking from the outside in, rather a pity that there isn’t some program for interested civilians to be able to apply for admission and a stipend to study at the CGSOC, simply of their own volition. Well, a pity and a good way to avoid a huge security and paperwork nightmare.
BRD