Throughout this weekend, I’ve gone over to sites quite adamant in asserting that my fears for the breakdown in dialog on the role of strategic deterrent have been some sort of genocidal wish fulfillment. I’ve tried and tried (in my own ham-fisted fashion) to see what the other half of the blogosphere thinks about these critical issues.
What I’ve found is that right-leaning sites have tended to at least engage the issue, on their own terms, and in a manner that feeds red meat to the masses. There have been notable blips of engagement, and those I treasure.
When migrating over to the other half of the commentary world, the basic assumption is that the posts Jeff or I put up speak only of a desire to kill en masse. Naturally, I am sickened to my core that a clarion call against disaster should be seen this way, but such is the way of partisan debate.
Further, I went over to these sites and have found some who really, truly do try to engage.
But when I see the tit-for-tat mentality that has been the response – rather than trying to engage on any element of merit – I am disheartened.
To be sure, those of us on this side of the aisle aren’t saints, pure as the driven snow, but I had, perhaps mistakenly, hoped that not all basis for engagement was dead.
Cynn, in an earlier comment, had intimated that the inability to reach common consensus now made the nightmare scenario that much more likely. I agree with this.
I just hope that, until that horrible moment, we can find the strength to at least bridge the gap on this, most important of all, issues.
Welcome to my world, you diaper-changing failed academic deathmerchant chickenhawk!
Debate isn’t dead. The rational part of it is a different story.
Yeah. As a libertarian musician, I’ve had plenty of experiences trying to engage in reasonable dialogue with liberals, often at musician-oriented forums that consist of socialists, communists, liberals and myself.
To be fair, a certain amount of it is mob mentality and digital cowardice. If you took many of these people and put them into a room full of conservative types, they’d probably be more reasonable.
On a liberal forum, however, their righteousness and your idiocy is a foregone conclusion, so that all that remains is to chastize and disparage you based on your association. I have tried this many many times. Your arguments have little to do with it. I found that no matter how compromising or accomodating I was, my association eliminated me as a reasonable person, so my arguments were nothing short of propaganda from the Third Reich.
I eventually gave up and do not talk politics at these forums. I should add that of the few right-leaning musicians that did engage in “debate”, they’d often get so infuriated that they’d end up venting and get banned. Of course, calling a right-winger every name in the book was completely acceptable.
Ah… death merchant.
My friend at Raytheon doesn’t understand the reference…. because of course his end of things makes the “bad” guys miss.
He introduces himself to women… as an engineer for Raytheon. They ask what he does and I interject: “death merchant”. I know it sounds harsh but that night when the greenpeace intern and he hooked up seared my mind… well, he will thank me later.
Carbon offsets alone for the (potential) little (bastard) offspring would be enormous…
Offset this…
That’s right, bent to the right though it may be… off…. set….this. And of course there will be begging for more.
But I digress…
I very much want to engage in a definitive discussion… one that results in an action that has dignity, honesty, action, courage and foresight. One that leaves freedom in the the lives of our children.
I fear that dream is laughable
Who are you and what are you doing in my brain?
Seriously, I feel you. I don’t talk politics with musicians. Or anyone really, except on blogs. The drummer in my band is an ex-Marine Comskyite, if you can belive that.
Not sure you can have a rational debate about an imaginary future.
You can have an interesting debate about it, though.
You people don’t listen. I done already outlined for you that the key to jump-starting the conversation BRD wants to have is not in the realm of the academic, not a blog thing per se, and definitely not a conversation that requires a grounding in an understanding of civilizational imperatives and smart-guy stuff – though these are good things and will signify that a debate has begun in earnest.
The central thesis BRD has introduced is that the we should take care, now, to examine the likely reaction that the U.S. and her people would have to a catastrophically devastating attack wrought by Islamic terrorists. Problem being, in a democratic, open society – fears of fascism and neocon agendas and liberal overcompensation notwithstanding – the reaction of the U.S. government will be informed by the reaction of the people, and for the most part, the people are not willing to engage an exploration of this dark terrain.
But if you follow the discussion over the coming days of reaction to The 300, I think you’ll find ample evidence that it’s our pop culture that is an indispensable catalyst in the manufacture of the sort of simulacra that can instigate broader discussion. The ideas that are presented, however crudely, in our films, and books and tv shows and video games are a vital, sine qua non of a serious discussion of post-apocalypse America. Earlier, Jeff reached for The Siege, BRD reached for The Green Mile…
The “notable blips of engagement” BRD is looking for will die on the vine until nurtured by a serious-minded attempt, perforce by liberals, to certify the subject as buzz-worthy through a media event. Starring Samuel L. Jackson. And a soundtrack featuring something by Bright Eyes. And a media kit that articulates NPR-ready news hooks.
Is later than I realized so I’m gonna toss out a couple points I cut out of the above for the sake of brevity –
* Because of the feedback loop between the society and government that will inform our response, a truly grounded conversation requires the establishment of a certain popcultural literacy that can serve as the – Jeff likes “objective correlative” – of key elements like abrogation of civil liberties, vengeance, the role of Islam, and Our National Character. What’s certain is that any conversation that is not accessible to The People is meaningless, because it’s The People that will be the ultimate arbiters of whatever response America might undertake, and they can be fickle.
* Also, the whole apocalypse thing is not a closed system. By popculturally telegraphing a semi-consensus post-apocalypse scenario, we inform not only our own response, but the reactions of those whose views will inform the governments of countries that would work to undermine our response as well as those whose views will inform governments that might have sympathy for what we do. It doesn’t hurt to suggest that we can also inform the pre-emptive energies other nations might bring to the cause of preventing a catastrophic attack in the first place.
happy,
Are we trying to pretend that the last four years, Bush’s 30% approval rating and the booting of the Republicans from Congress last Novemeber are not about what happens to leaders who carry out a very wrong response to a terrorist attack?
I think a rather large majority of the American people have already pondered this question and voted their opinion.
Why debate an imaginary scenario when we’ve already had a very real one?
alphie, when are you guys going to reconcile the “Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11” mantra with the idea, obviously well-internalized, that the Iraq war is a de facto “response to a terrorist attack”?
I wish you would bring this incisive inquisitiveness to the global warming debate. So there’s two things for you to reconcile.
Well, happy,
We have this October 2002 short speech by Bush on Iraq that mentions 9/11 five times.
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability—even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
There are many other examples of the administration using 9/11 as an excuse/reason to invade Iraq, so there is little doubt that:
1. The Iraq War was a response to 9/11.
2. It was a very bad response.
So, I would say that the 10% or so of Americans who could be considered “lefties” plus the vast middle of the American political spectrum have been having a very honest and brutal debate about appropriate responses to terrorist attacks for the last 4 years.
Not sure what the 10% of Americans on the “right” have been up to over the past 4 years, but, welcome to the party.
The debate’s already over, but there’s plenty of food and drink left.
Help yourselves.
alphie, of course the Iraq war was a response to 9/11 – but your assertion that it was a bad response would be a lot more compelling if it were demonstrably “bad” set against the approach proscribed by Democrats, which mostly seems to involve examining shipping containers, creating vast new armies of unionized government workers, destabilizing Pakistan, having tea with Iran, and inviting Judge Judy to dispose of captured terrorists, while NOT intercepting terrorist communications, NOT interrogating captured terrorists, and NOT encouraging pluralism, tolerance and democracy in the Middle East.
Fun project: find a short speech by a Democrat during the ‘06 campaign that mentions 9/11 five times.
Bush & Cheney have burned the house down while cooking dinner and all the Democrats have come up with for dinner ideas is a trip to a McDonald’s drive through or maybe ordering a pizza, happy?
Unfortunately, the Iraq fiasco has become a far bigger problem for America than terrorism ever was.
Let’s cleam up that mess first, then we can have a brainstorming meeting on what to do next.
Just out of curiousity, alphie, what other kind of future is there besides and imaginary one?
And BRD, I do wonder at the lack of a reasonable left-wing voice on the blogosphere. It is a philosophy based more on emotion than reason for sure, but in the real world I know plenty of lefty thinkers who are not capable of reasonable discussion. It seems somewhere you could find some on-line, instead of an these non-stop fountains of inane platitudes and rhetoric. It really is like trying to argue with a religious fundalmentalist: for instance as alphie demonstrated above the ‘06 elections absolutely proved the Democrats were correct about Iraq, and there is no point in discussing it. The same people that wax rhapsodic about evolution and marvel at how that has led to the social structure of ants and bees and wolves shriek in horror at the first glimmer of Social Darwinism in a discussion.
Until the (relatively) reasonable voices on the left take the megaphone from the alphoids that have it now, I think real debate may be impossible, on the web, at least.
…in the real world I know plenty of lefty thinkers who are capable of reasonable discussion.
Sorry, not enough caffeine yet.
Alphie,
Do you have a point somewhere that you’re digging around for?
Give it up, happy, the Action Chimpâ„¢ is in full threadjacking mode. Nothing less than a reboot can stop it now.
I had an interesteing phone conversation with my oldest (25) daughter late Friday night. I’ll start by saying that she holds relatively moderate political views that range from support of Gay Marriage to skepticism about Global Warming to dissatisfaction with Iraq. She had just spent an evening at her boyfriend’s Uncle’s house. Her need to vent concerned her experience of spending two and a half hours listening to twenty members of the “fifty something hippy liberal warren” talk endlessly (“whine”) about global warming, McChimpybush, the world hates America, why are we in the Middle East, etc. ad nauseum. Danielle is one of the most adept people I know at seeking another’s views and finding honor in them (as well as being a fierce and knowledgable debater) and her frustration was both surprising and amusing.
I asked her to describe the key elements of their speech and conduct that most elicited her frustration. Quickly she replied, “…lack of factual knowledge and a complete lack of interest in listening to opposing views.” That has been my experience as well. It is almost inevitable that at a gathering of folk with mixed political views, the liberal half will demonstrate a fierce lack of interest in engaging in anything that resembles rational discourse, prefering to either spout barely understood talking points as holy dogma and/or resorting to condescending putdowns of opposing viewpoints.
Perhaps the heady days of socialist/communist dalliances during the People Power times of the sixties have so mutated these people that they are imbued with “truthiness” and, therefore, are immune to the societal restrictions of “walk a mile” or analytical listening. They seem to be engaged in dictatorship of ideas where the power of “truth” provides ample justification of almost all forms of debate suppression. The more time I spend listening to and reading liberals the more I am struck by the irony of the dogmatic nature of their writings. Take out a word like Iraq or “privacy” and substitute “God” or “Allah” or “sin” and you are left with sermon worthy of an ultra fundamentalist church.
Nothing demonstrates this rampant intellectual laziness more than the rection to BRD’s heartfelt post. Rather than grasping BRD’s agonizing concern about a future Apocalyptic reaction to a terrorist attack many armchair progressives chose to see a desire for genocide and tarnish BRD with the “warporn” label. This site deals with factual lassitude on a regular basis from he-who-has-many-names, who believes that a McDonalds metaphor about Bush and Cheney constitutes a new insight into his views about Iraq rather than an umpteenth telling of the Holy Talking Points spewed ad nauseum in all circumstances.
I defer from painting all self confessed liberals with this broad brush of “couch potato debate” as there are, as BRD has noted, some who actually are interested in extending an analytical exercise. It’s also true that we have sometimes fallen short as our desire to stomp on someone who we feel unworthy to be part of our “collective” overwhelms our bonhomme (although not always unfairly.) My main response to my daughter? “Welcome to my world.”
I sometimes despair at the lack of politeness and civility in political discussions. I sometimes think I shouldn’t have said some things I said in the way I said them. And sometimes I think most of the world, left and right, is dead wrong. Mostly I keep slogging away, because the issues are generally important enough to warrant both mudslinging and getting dirty.
I know on talk radio most listeners never call in. Even the local shows, where anyone with a pulse and the ability to not say “fuck” every other word can guarantee air time. What’s the percentage of blogviewers who don’t ever comment?
Debate is difficult in a blog format. One side puts forth the argument, sets most of the terms, has a following ready to use boilerplate and vitriol, and is ready for the comments from the other side. There’s always a predictable “your side does it too” comment. There’s a reference to Cheney or Kennedy or Fox News or MSM or BDSM or something or other. It always gets filled with more talking points than discussion. New ideas rarely come up, compromise is difficult when there’s no real-world result. It’s damn easy to keep hating each other when there’s no actual results from one side in a blogwar winning or losing or from both sides coming to an agreement. Sometimes it’s as meaningful as seeking student council seats. “Will the prom decorations be an ode to Thermopylae or an homage to multiculturalism?”
And if we get hit again? We’ll hit back. Should we? Yes, or course. The real fight is over How? And my answer is, appropriately. What that is depends on the situation.
Just on the off chance that alphie will actually pay attention to a point, I’ll give it a quick try.
Iraq is a response to the problem of nuclear terrorism as a whole. The thought being that you want to go both after the demand and supply sides – those who would be most likely to seek and then hand out nukes, and those who would use them.
9/11 was cited as an example to highlight the very basic point that terrorists could no longer be counted on to self-limit in the way that they had previously – in other words, the paradigm of terrorist violence had forever changed.
Iraq was chosen as it was thought to be, at the time, the most consistent and persistent violator of arms control and non-proliferation agreements.
The spectacle of a nuclear terrorist attack was predicated on the example of:
1) Al Qaeda being representative of a class of terrorist that would not self-limit their scope of violence,
2) Iraq being representative of a class of nations that actively and persistently sought to gain and expand their WMD capabilities, and
3) Iraq being representative of a class of nations with strong direct ties to terrorist groups.
In retrospect, meh, who knows how it would have played out. Many have speculated that with sanctions regime failing that it would have completed its collapse. It is almost certain that we wouldn’t have any notion of the extent of the Iranian nuclear program, because that came to light as a direct result of the Iraq War (arguably the first recorded incident of a dissident group using non-proliferation violation as a political strategy). It’s very possible Saddam and AQ Kahn might have transacted some sort of business.
But that’s all speculation.
The salient points are, again, given proliferators, and given terrorists who actively seek nukes, how do you defend and deter against that?
BRD
Careful, guys. It’s actually good to have alphie here; if you read him carefully and don’t go into berserker mode at his inanities, he’s telling us a lot about the Left. It’s true that he’s a bigot, but you have to be careful to properly identify what he’s bigoted about.
Please note that, in the exchange above, alphie has conflated “response to 9/11” with “revenge/punishment for 9/11.” In fact, he takes it as an identity. That’s because he and his have no paradigm for “response” that doesn’t contain some element of revenge or punishment and consider that a flaw while still thinking it, because they hold a bigoted stereotype of “conservatives” that imagines us with no capability for response other than violence exactly matching his dissatisfaction with his own tendency to that, and because any element of violence in an actual response is taken as pardigmic confirmation of his assumptions. If you suspend your critical facility for a moment, and work it out robotically based on those notions, you will reach the same conclusion alphie does.
You know, and I know, that going to war in Iraq was based on a long, long list of things, in which 9/11 as an act by persons was of vanishingly small importance. It was, in fact, the result of a “root causes” analysis, just not one in which the fundamentally-distorted Marxist basis that is taken for granted as the “root cause” by those who use it as a mantra, e.g., Diego from the other thread. But alphie is constitutionally unable to recognize that. In the first place, his mind is too small to accommodate such large ideas. In the second place, he is far to bigoted to grant us the ability to process such a large collection of concepts. And, in the third place, the occasional right-troll who trots out some variant of “kill ‘em all and let God sort it out” slots immediately into alphie’s preconceptions and validates them. It doesn’t help that his stereotype of us makes him automatically conflate “unfortunately we’ll have to hurt some people” with “kill ‘em all et cetera.”
It’s why I kept going with the “artificial stupidity” meme a few days ago. I have no doubt that alphie’s a real person; I’ve spent too much time sitting on porches with people named Dub and Billy-Bob not to recognize that. But his responses are so knee-jerk and preprogrammed that the distinction is a small one.
Regards,
Ric
SUCCESS!
That was wild… I was writing a post here and I got redirected to a site dedicated to a barking mad nutcase…
Anyway, it is easy for me to say that if the left drives Moore, Soros, Sheehan, and a few others out of their tent debate would be easier and consensus over direction could be had.
But then I scan the halls of the House and see Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lois Capps and the rest of the “surrender or flee” caucus.
I see the appointees Pelosi made, and I see Waxman who is clearly more interested in attacking domestic enemies like Alberto Gonzalez.
I know I’m partisan, but I don’t think much about the nuts on my own side… because I have already marginalized them in my own mind. Pat Robertson? Pompous idiot, I tune him out. I don’t like John Kerry much, but I still tune out the swift boat guys. I laugh a bit at Ann Coulter, but usually I ignore her… the list goes on and on.
I miss Senator Alan Simpson for his straightforward speech
I prefer “death machine engineer”, myself. I used to respond with that when people ask me what I did.
Well, except for the Sparrow missiles they built during Vietnam that had a 54% failure rate and did the missing for the other guy…
BRD –You are assuming the left wants a dialog; they don’t. It is a key part of leftist dogma, whether the leftist in question embraces mad, bad old Saul Alinsky (here are some of his 108 Rules for Radicals; Lenin, Hoffman or Clinton, they see debate with us as a stalling tactic, a way to tie up our resources and time having an argument they don’t care about rather than reaching out to our own supporters and the uncommitted middle. Look at any post by Alphie, or the unlamented Dr. Vic. Do you see the slightest sign that that they have EVER paid the least attention to anything said to them.
The left has one object that overrides everything, everything else… the acquisition of domestic political power. While we are fighting a war against terror and oppression worldwide, they are fighting a war against us, poltically, culturally and economically. It seems to me that you are calling for tea to be served at a knife fight.
BRD: I have read dozens of posts along these lines in the past year or so. They do not phrase the issue you do, but they usually are elaborate “what ifs” about “when” (not “if”) terrorists are capable of exploding several nukes in urban centers in the USA. The projected responses always involve massive counter-strikes against Muslim population centers and even the “wiping out” of Islam.
I responded to your post of Friday, but these posts tend to generate many, many responses so I can’t keep track of them all.
I will again phrase a brief response in terms of the points you (re)raise:
There is also the practical side of getting such nukes into the United States. Border control, port control would seem to be no brainers.
This is again where I think you have 9/11 on the brain. 9/11 was a diabolically clever, low tech attack that got results that I doubt even the terrorists expected (total collapse of both buildings).
The threat of terrorist nukes was not appreciably greater on 9/12 than it was on 9/11: yet, those who think in terms of the nuke option are obviously galvanized by it. Are you forgetting 1993? That WAS an attempt to bring the towers down, with a truck bomb.
I am not saying that the nuke threat is not there, I am saying we should suppress it the same way we have always sought to suppress it. A nuclear weapon is not a zip gun: it requires very sophisticated components and above all sufficient amounts of fissionable material. We have been monitoring all of that for decades. We should keep doing that.
We should also be developing Humint for finding out who is trying to make these things. We should intervene on a local level. Overthrowing countries doesn’t have to be the way (not to say that that was what Iraq was about: I accept the Bush Doctrine as a legitimate attempt to reshape the ME.)
Unless our intelligence is totally screwed up (it might be), no small nuke will be blown in this country. If a small terrorist group succeeds, then we will have no alternative but to hunt down and kill them. We will not be able to repay a nuking of say LA with a ten-fold nuking of some other cities. No US president will do that, and I doubt if the US will ever turn into a mob demanding that. And no president worth the name takes orders from a mob.
If, OTOH, NK sends a container nuke to SF, then we will nuke Pyongyang. Tit for tat. We will also (obviously) start getting serious about our borders, ports, and so on. That’s the best defense.
Ric – well said, but I fear it will roll off a like water off a duck’s back. I have quit trying, but bless you for keeping on.
Well, let’s chalk up another voice crying out for debate:
“BRD, if you really agreed with the part of my post you quoted, you’d shut up and go off for a sober period of reflection followed by extensive apologies. What I mean to say is that you are part of the problem and that insofar as there is any real risk of a catastrophic overreaction to future terrorism, it will be much more the fault of obsessive fantasizers of death and ruin like yourself than of dedicated seekers of peace.”
I recently asked why anyone here considered a to be an American, because I wanted a point of context to reference his point of perspective. I believe a large part of the problem confronting BRD’s attempt at initiating a reasoned debate is the linear thinking descriptive of polar opposites v/v politics. In the U.S. most people are an amalgamation POP, (points of perspective), some more precise than others, but generally,(IMO), not fixed. Much like concrete before it sets; ideas, opinions and attitudes can be influenced and modified by information,(or dis-iformation for that matter). This can be much different in referring to someone from another culture or society, in that, the experiences and hiearchal societal structures can be different.
In my opinion, BRD, I think the situation now seems that more than one group within western societies are using the current situation to seize something they have been unable to do heretofore. They are maniplulating the daily dialogue we all use and are co-opting the issues to gain an elevated societal standing, hence they vitriol and bombast.
For my part, I thank you for your attempt at a conjoined, rational discourse. force41
Having been around both of those guys (CharlieCarp and KCinDC) in comments quite a bit, BRD, my take is that you might want to ponder a bit before offering a return salvo. I don’t think those two, at least, are telling you to shut up.
Slart,
I agree. I would have to say that those two, along with Cernig, are the folks who give me the most hope. I’m figuring on another post, in about a week or so, to try to lay out more explicitly the origins of my concern, a few bits of appropriate history, and some of the critical problems that face us collectively in figuring out to tackle this whole cast of problems.
Even beyond this immediate discussion, I am encouraged to think that those folks – not unlike our local dissidents
– are trying to engage and wrap their heads around some of the big problems we face.
BRD
Ah. I’d thought you hadn’t understood. Good, then; CC and KCinDC are people I rarely agree with, but rarely also find to be reluctant to engage.
I’m surprised you weren’t swayed by Mona, though. It’s almost as if the sheer force of her outrage wasn’t, in fact, compelling.
So, there’s got to be something else at work, wingnut! Probably, you’re posting this from your new Halliburton cubicle in Dubai.
Strange that a large majority of Americans voted in Lieberman over your candidate, Joe being pro-Iraq war and all. So let us debate this very real scenario.
alphie,
What are your conquering people waiting for? Why are they not defunding the war immediately? Why is Bush’s approval rating rising during this surge? Where is Murtha now? Where is his airtime?
Mona was a plant from the start. She is, and will remain, a low-rent Greenwald.
Compare her commitment to defeating the enemy (that would be us) by any means with Greenwald’s proclamation of same.
We are not to be engaged, but rather discredited—and to achieve that end, anything goes: distortion of our views, attacks on our character, enlisting those most helpful to the project (kneejerk nutroot types and the kinds of libertarians who are nothing more than leftists who want to smoke pot and don’t want to be arrested for it).
It’s a scam and a sham. And it is poisoning discourse.
I outed Greenwald over this long ago in a debate we had (back when he still “engaged” me). Mona is simply following along, as she always does, in his wake like a moronic little demagogue in training.
If her spiel stinks more, it’s because she’s not yet house trained.
I have no more time for her. Neither did the guys over at QandO, with the exception of Henke, and I think he wound up quite disillusioned, as well (though I could be remembering that last bit incorrectly).
Mona starts off by cozying up to you, then tries to overtake your forum after one of her canned epiphanies.
This woman has more epiphanies than a book of James Joyce short stories—and they always set her up (how fortuitous!) as someone who was once just like you, but who has now seen the light and come to her senses.
Load of horseshit. So easy to see through these days that she may as well be invisible.
If you’re reading this, Mona—and of course you are—know that each time you engage me and try to take up my time distorting my views or the views of the commenters here, I will point out to anyone reading that you are a opportunistic fraud, a debater who has no interest in anything other than discrediting those who disagree with you politically, but who has no ability to do so without resorting to lies, slander by omission, ad hominems, cloying self-righteousness, faux outrage, and a host of other rhetorical “techniques” that, in a better era, would ensure that you were banned from intellectual company as not only a sophist, but an especially transparent one.
An example from a (somewhat) less fraught subject is instructive.
One of the Left’s favorite slams against Bush is that he had no effective plan for Katrina, forcing everybody concerned to improvise like mad and resulting in everyone’s disadvantage.
Suppose such a plan had existed, a comprehensive layout that presumed the near-total destruction of New Orleans, with contingencies already laid out for housing, feeding, etc. the displaced persons—and had not been needed. Hey, Lefties! If that plan had been revealed, how many of you would have attacked Bu$hitler for deliberately hoping that such destruction would occur so that he could break up the Democratic Party’s domination of the NOLA bloc? Hands up, now… nobody? Yeah, sure. Lying partisan polemicists to the end.
But hey, at least you’re consistent.
Regards,
Ric
To me it seems that the problem w/ engaging most on the left is two-fold, first, most do not see Iraq as either a part of the GWOT or consider it a worthy or moral action. This view-point once accepted, makes all other forms of debate near impossible in regards to the Middle East or terrorism in general, because once they accept it as a portion of the war on terror or that it is indicative of the type of ground war most likely to occur in the future, it invalidates their strongest point of opposition. This view-point is reinforced daily by the Pelosi led faction that is in control of Congress, who only contribution since 2003 has been to belittle all efforts or pounce upon any negative aspects to further their political posturing in efforts to regain political control. The end result is that their political futures are invested in having this action or war fail or reflect negatively on their political opponents. The people who support their side politically, like-wise cannot allow any view, no matter how relevant, to go unopposed because it directly contradicts the political base upon which their platform of response is defined & threatens their possible political success.
The second aspect of the left that prevents honest debate is the acceptance of pre-defined group definitions as a means to argue, define & understand their opponents & themselves. In this arena, it is membership of groups that define an individual & most arguments are geared towards addressing or attacking perceived membership of a particular group & never the words or ideas expressed at an individual level. Once the pre-definition of group membership is accepted, the author’s point is rendered irrelevant to them, since that person can never hope to rise above what their apparent group confines them in. This is why Greenwald(s) is so largely acceptable to the left, he uses & enforces this type of mentality & generally is the basis of his argumentation: conservative bloggers this, neo-cons that, this conservative is representative of the whole, etc.
This type of group-think is not only limited to the left, the right-side of the political spectrum has its own share, but the difference is those on the public faced side on the right, especially in the blogsphere, are not members of that particular sect of the right; whereas, the powerhouse or elites on the left represent that inherent point of view & depend upon that type of mindset to enforce their political & social views.
Given this general & broad brushed approach or understanding, I’m not surprised that it has been difficult to engage in a rational or meaningful debate w/ the left in general. I have noticed that it is those on the left who do not solely define themselves by the dogmatic nature of the “progressive†agenda that can & do actually debate or are able to present their view-points & accept counter arguments in a non-personal way, since they are able to see their opponents as individuals or their arguments as stand-alone ideas & not the equal or equivalent moral/social constructs of a pre-defined groups’ dogmatic agenda.
Fascinating. After years of shutting out Dem legislators from participating in bill writing committees in congress, rewriting legislation after it’s been voted on, twisting arms of recalcitrant Republican congressman, bribing them, threatening them, while holding votes open for hours on end, completely trashing the rules of both the House and Senate with thousands of earmarks you want to talk.
Years of lies, corruption, no bid contracts, fired whistleblowers, of calling anyone who disagrees with you “traitor”, the eliminationist talk, making the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter millionaires, and you want civilized debate?
Stampeding our nation into the Iraq fiasco based on unwarranted assumptions, again while denigrating anyone who disagreed, foreign allies and domestic experts and politicians alike as appeasers, Dhimmicrats, etc and now after losing the House and Senate you guys want to work together?
That crap still going on. A few weeks ago on a Thursday afternoon there were two Repub congressman on the House floor trading snark for the cameras about how the Dems had adjourned for the weekend making a lie out of the longer workweek Pelosi had instituted. This lasted until a Dem came down and grabbed the mic to expose their BS. He said they knew darn well that most other members were still in DC at work in their committees crafting legislation not snickering baldfaced lies on the House floor.
Pardon me BRD but until you guys wise up and the Republican party proves it’s not the party that wants to drown our government in the bathtub (and most of the rest of us along with it) while keeping the nation perpetually at war without even having the courage to ask us to mobilize or tax ourselves sensibly to win the war I can see no reason why we on the left should bother with you other than to do our best to make sure as few of you get elected to public office as possible.
Rovian political slander tactics, as bad as they are aside, the right has few if any policy prescriptions we find useful. Putting people who hate the federal government in charge of the federal government makes as much sense as putting a Bush fundraising wiz, horse show organizer in charge of FEMA. And it’s exactly the kind of appointees it gets you.
I’ll bet $20 that markg8 is unaware of how Halliburton got no-bid contracts. I’d bet another $20 that markg8 is unaware that no-bid contracts aren’t exactly a new thing, or a bad thing.
Interesting. I have a friend in the same line of business. Chicago area?
Translation: not accepting the Democratic Party’s version of each and every bill and/or issue in preference to the Republican one
Translation: following the Clintonian procedure of issuing “memoranda of understanding” to clarify how the Executive would enforce the law, sometimes not exactly as the Congress intended
Translation: attempting to maintain party loyalty (there’s a reason the office is called “whip”)
Translation: employing the routine tactics of Democratic Party leadership
Translation: Spending all that lovely money we could have used to buy more votes
Well, actually, no. But we have overcome our initial reaction, and realize that talking is probably better than at least some of the alternatives.
Regards,
Ric
Put markgate down for “Debate is Dead” BRD.
markg8—you are aware that prior to the Gingrich Congress of, what, ‘94?, the House had been in Democrat hands for decades. The Senate had usually been in Democrat hands.
All the crap you’re whining about? The Democrats are the absolute masters, and often the originators, of all of it.
BRD—you should realize that the reaction you received is nothing new or particularly limited to blogging. Look at the attitude towards the subgenre of military SF; it’s routinely derided as “war porn”. It “glorifies militarism”, it’s “fascist”, etc.
But if you look at the words of the actual authors, you learn something different. They’re trying to investigate a number of salient questions—why men fight, what it means, what is our duty to those who fight—in a manner that entertains while it informs. Some (David Drake, for instance) write what they do in order to express their own experiences at war.
For some reason, there are people out there who view war in the same way the most stereotypical prude views sex—something that should never be discussed, should never be considered, and which we’d all be better off without. As far as they’re concerned, the discussion you want to have is like teaching kindergartners about felching.
You know, I normally try to direct the “no-bid contract” squealers to (Google search ID/IQ contract) one or two tutorials on the subject, but hardly any of ‘em seem interested. Not even this seems to make any difference:
It’s the –based part of reality-based that’s occasionally a problem.
The BDS crowd, and I’m using the term as a conveniently understood label, does not represent liberalism as a whole, Democrats, or even the progressive left. They think they do, and consider themselves heirs to the mantle of the Vietnam anti-war brain trust but they’re wrong. They have been given a bully pulpit far out of proportion to their actual influence by the media, but far more importantly by the internet but not because they present a viable ideas. (Remember, I’m talking the BDS crew.) And they have deluded themselves into thinking that translates into a majority acceptance of their viewpoint.
Take Alphie and markg8 contending that their point of view now represents the majority point of view and therefore the majority sees Iraq as a fiasco for example. The same claim was made by several others here over the weekend and is endemic on BDS blogs. They don’t support the claim, so I’m forced to assume what their rational for making it is, but I think I’m on safe ground saying they believe it based on the midterm election results. They believe one single issue determined those results and that the shift in power in the house and senate reflects a sea change and a majority acceptance of their opinion on the war. Nothing supports that contention. None of the historical dynamics of midterm elections support the conclusion. Could it be true? Might be. But the election results aren’t definitive on that score. And the performance of the party now controlling the house and senate since doesn’t appear to support that conclusion over the last few months. The same people with the same agendas who are just louder now. The support where it counts – from their colleagues – is no stronger. And to their dismay, they now find that controlling the bully pulpit on capitol hill now places them under the relentless focus of the media. markg8’s reaction to this? The republicans are polluting the process and preventing the majority american viewpoint from prevailing. The problem isn’t that the BDS agenda isn’t prevailing because most democrat legislators know damn well it does not represent a majority opinion in their districts (Lieberman results running unaffiliated in blue state CT anyone?), and won’t commit political suicide at the polls for the likes of KOS and company. Nope, it must be failing because the agenda’s opponents won’t agree to commit suicide by angst and relieve the democrats of the need to do so at KOS’ behest.
The folks in charge of the legislatures realized all this belatedly, and are now being very careful about public perceptions of their motivations and beginning to distance themselves from the BDS crowd. Rather quicker than I expected actually and it’s driving the BDS clown show to paroxysms. They expected something along the lines of 1972 when both the house and senate could force disengagement in SE Asia in open debate and with a solid bipartisan majority of legislators.
Different war. Different times. The Jacksonians don’t see this war as not our business. The frustrations of the BDS crowd over the fact that they are not the heirs to the 60’s antiwar movement is palpable. There won’t be any John Kerry draftees tossing medals (not his it seems, but medals nonetheless) over the fence and giving testimony at senate hearings. No matter how many times Alphie, markg8, and company make their brief forays outside of the BDS blogs to market their smug assurance that they now control the national narrative and the majority is behind them, that assurance far from evident even on those blogs. Quite the contrary. The siege mentality is still evident. Look at Mona’s refusal to do more than figuratively fart over the walls in the general direction of her opponents for a poignant example. She sure as hell isn’t going to go out and contest on the field. Deep down they know they can never afford to expose themselves for what they are on CSPAN and it eats at them. No one is going to put someone like KOS, their version of representative leadership, in front of a committee hearing to give his opinions.
One last point to make. I’ve also been at family gatherings and in work situations where the BDS line gets going like BJTexs and others mention above. There is something I’ve always noticed. The rhetoric starts out and stays defensive, not assured. I’ve noticed it even when they are debating among themselves. They go into it knowing that their logic is suspect. Any expression of any slightest misgiving about that logic, and in a blink of the eye your pushed outside the comforting light of the council circle’s fire. Chant in unison, or be condemned to darkness. It can be fun sometimes watching the backpedaling and contortions of someone scrambling to recapture the rhythm and hoot on key.
Jeff – I think it is time to let alphie go. He brings nothing to a serious debate. He offeres nothing but the same stale points he raises in every thread. He doesn’t help explore the topic, he contributes nothing. everyone is dumber for his participating.
Let him go – his input is less than worthless.
The evidence16 is this and any other serious thread.
”It was Dick Cheney, as defense secretary in 1992, who spearheaded the movement to privatize most of the military’s civil logistics activities. Under the direction of Secretary Cheney, the Pentagon paid $9 million to Halliburton’s subsidiary, KBR, to conduct a study to determine whether private companies like itself should handle all of the military’s civil logistics. KBR’s classified study concluded that greater privatization of logistics was in the government’s best interest. Shortly thereafter, on August 3, 1992, Secretary Cheney awarded the first comprehensive LOGCAP contract to KBR. The Washington Post reported “The Pentagon chose [KBR] to carry out the study and subsequently selected the company to implement its own plan.” Three years later, in 1995, Halliburton hired Cheney as its CEO.
In 1997, two years after Cheney became CEO of Halliburton, KBR’s LOGCAP contract was not renewed and the government alleged the company engaged in fraudulent billing practices. The independent auditing arm of Congress, the GAO, had criticized KBR’s performance during America’s war in the Balkans. GAO said KBR’s cost-overruns in the Balkans inflated the original contract price by 32 percent. After KBR was effectively fired by the Army in 1997, the LOGCAP contract was awarded to Halliburton competitor DynCorp. But, after Cheney became vice president in 2001, DynCorp was fired and KBR was re-awarded the contract.”
It takes a real whacky wingnut to defend Halliburton KBR Slartibartfast but I guess you’re just that kind of guy.
Dick Cheney had KBR write up the guidelines and shazaam, just like he discovered as head of the veep search committee that he was the best man for the job they wound up winning the contract they’d written the guidelines for. It’s like magic isn’t it?
This isn’t a no bid contract, it’s cost plus, or as the KBR boys say, “Don’t worry about it, the government’s paying for it”. We’ll be hearing a lot more about this in the future, you can count on it.
Maybe you’ll want to discuss that? I doubt it.
MarkG8, how familiar are you with procurement processes?
JPT:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). March 2-5, 2007. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (for all adults). RV = registered voters.
“In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that George W. Bush is doing in handling the situation in Iraq?” Half-sample (Form B)
Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
3/2-5/07 27 67 6
1/17-20/07 28 67 5
12/8-11/06 23 71 6
10/28-30/06 RV 34 63 3
10/13-16/06 RV 33 63 4
9/8-11/06 RV 38 57 5
7/21-24/06 34 61 5
“Do you favor or oppose the decision to send an additional twenty-one thousand five hundred troops to Iraq?”
Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %
3/2-5/07 31 63 6
“What concerns you more—that Congress will go too far in pressing the President to reduce troop levels in Iraq, or that Congress will not go far enough in pressing the President to reduce troop levels in Iraq?”
Too Far Not Far Enough Unsure
% % %
3/2-5/07 41 51 8
USA Today/Gallup Poll. March 2-4, 2007. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
“In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?”
Made a Mistake Did Not Make a Mistake Unsure
% % %
3/2-4/07 59 39 2
2/9-11/07 56 42 2
You get the idea. If you don’t there’s more, go read it.
The problem Dem legislators have ending the war in Iraq is crafting a bill that Senate Repubs can’t filibuster and Bush can’t veto. Seeing as the US Army is sending wounded soldiers back to Iraq it’s my guess by the end of the year we’ll be well on our way out. This war in crippling the US Army, the Reserves and the Guard. A tiny minority of our people, the soldiers and their families are bearing the brunt of this war. They’d like to get out and not enough fine upstanding non felon Repubicans of fighting age are signing up to replace them. Not to mention the damage the desert does to equipment.
The military keeps trying to recruit those with little opportunity, kids from single parent families or deadend towns and neighborhoods. They really ought to be going after that 30% that still supports the president, the well to do that come from families all across suburbia.
The president ought to send Rove over to Recruiting Command with his contributor files. He could show them how to target the true war supporters in less than a day. Oh sure it probably wouldn’t be legal to recruit by poltical affiliation but when have the niceties of the law ever stopped them?
BRD,
The question should be how does offering, yet another Cheney/Halliburton conspiracy theory relate to the topic of the post, namely Is Debate Dead? The question, given the nature of Markg8 & little “a’s” responses is resoundingly clear; yes it is for them. How else could one explain that they do not wish to engage in debate when they change the subject at every turn by trying to merely show all conservatives & all actions by the current Administration as being evil? To them, as I argued above, it is just a matter of attacking the group they perceive that you belong to & never the ideas presented. That is why the majority of responses to your comments over at highclearing were of a personal nature & never bothered to address the concerns you raised about possible, publicly supported nuclear reactions to nuclear attacks here in the US. Granted there were some that almost took up the gauntlet, but even before those could argue your points, they had to cast you into a recognizable group membership before addressing your concerns or ideas.
BRD what would you like to discuss? The useless F-22? The V-22 Osprey deathtrap? How about the deployed but inoperable National Missile Defense Shield that on 9/11/01 Condi Rice was to present a major public policy speech defending. See a few days earlier Joe Biden made a speech advocating taking about $800 million out of the program and putting it into anti terrorism measures. Condi’s speech was going to refute his points. You can’t get a copy of it though, it’s been classified.
Hey PMan I didn’t bring up Halliburton that was
Slartibartfast who mistook their LOGCAP contract for the no bid oil field one.
I’m more than happy to debate. But don’t count on me saying what you want to hear and please don’t run away like Jeff when I call him on distorting my position to try and score points.
MarkG8,
I was wondering if you were familiar with the bid/no-bid process and all of that sort of thing, and the conditions, in general, in which a no-bid contract might be preferable.
But, as you mention it, I would be more than happy to debate, since you bring it up obliquely, deterrence.
In an earlier thread, you had noted that your strategy for preventing a nuclear attack on the US by terrorists was based on prevention. I responded by agreeing, but also noting that a strategic posture based on one, and only one axis is inherently less stable and less able to prevent an attack.
I didn’t see a response to it, but I would, if I may, like to extend an analogy, which may fit into your comments here.
Relying on ‘prevention’ alone, absent a deterrent, would be rather like relying on a National Missile Defense to prevent the launch of an ICBM at the US, without any deterrent response to back it up.
I don’t see, exactly, why you think that, in one case, a single axis prevention/protection strategy is sufficient to prevent the use of nuclear weapons in anger, while, on the other hand, you seem profoundly uncomfortable with augmenting an already existing system with a prevention mechanism, to ensure greater safety and security.
I would be quite happy to learn your thinking on the matter.
BRD
markg8,
<blockquote>The question should be how does offering, yet another Cheney/Halliburton conspiracy theory relate to the topic of the post, namely Is Debate Dead?</blockquote>
I didn’t point out you were the first to use Halliburton, merely your little conspriacy theory.
BRD as I said before I don’t only advocate prevention, I’d like to see us (as most Dems do) go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the Pakistani border much more strongly too. Can’t do that while we’re wearing out our army in Iraq fighting mostly Iraqis of one stripe or another.
As for the NMDS it doesn’t work. If and when it does work, which is years away at best, the Russians agreed to the abrogation of the ABM treaty for one reason: they think they can defeat it if need be. We’re not the only ones who do research. There was no valid reason to deploy a non functioning weapon system in 2004. No valid reason to keep it deployed either. Shut it down until it can be made to work and reallocate those funds to other desperately needed priorities.
MarkG8,
I’m not going to get involved with arguing the successes of BMD technology, or anything of that sort, because it’s not germane to the question at hand.
In one class of strategic threat, you note all you’ve done is say, “Yes, I like prevention, but I really like A LOT of prevention.” Just because you’re doing your shtick anywhere from Afghanistan to Waziristan doesn’t have any ability, whatsoever, to deter an attack. It becomes another way, effectively, of further capability, but does not undermine intent – it’s just more prevention, axiomatically. You can argue whether or not it’s passive or active protection, but protection is protection.
Whether or not NMD works to your satisfaction – or mine or anyone elses – it cannot be denied that it augments an existing strategy – that of deterrence.
Now, your Super Prevention methodology isn’t any more infallible than NMD or deterrence or anything else – it may be more or less reliable, certainly, but none are is immune to failure.
I am perplexed on why the notion of having two options or ways to prevent an attack is something you seem so inimically hostile to? In one case, you seem to be all about prevention to the exclusion of deterrence. On the other, you are all wrapped around the axle of deterrence to the exclusion of prevention.
The only consistent bit in either case, is that you are hell-bent for leather on not having more than one way to prevent a nuclear attack, regardless of origin.
How does this make sense?
BRD
markg8,
Sorry, but the response from the first 1000 people who don’t hangup the phone doesn’t determine legislation. If it did, there would have been enough support from the republican side of the aisle to have made the difference by a comfortable margin. The people speak at the polls, not through polling. And the democrats in congress seem to be having a lot more difficulty associating the election results with a clear anti-war get out of Iraq mandate than you. Otherwise, your statement:
doesn’t make a lot of sense. They’d have the support, Wouldn’t they? Or do you think that republicans aren’t subject to recall at the polls if the majority in their district feels they aren’t voting the will of that majority? Polls as in polling places, not phone calls.
It is the democrats who are concerned that they will win this one overtly and what it means to them at the polls. So they keep trying to craft legislation that gives them plausible deniabilty All the republicans are doing is calling the bluff. You think that isn’t fair.
Again, I give you Leiberman/Lamont. Lamont ran a single issue campaign in the bluest of states – get out of Iraq. I fail to see where the majority in that state supported the concept.
Says you.
You’re right. We should send over carpenters, taxi drivers, lawyers, and architects to share the combat load.
Says you.
The army is made up of republicans?
Oh, the army SHOULD be made up of republicans from suburbia.
See, now I can get on board with this. Suburban republicans supply soldiers (it’ll be up to them whether they let rural democrats and republicans in, but I expect they’ll make the exceptions if their presidential support bona fides are sufficient.) Not like I support polarization you understand, but I take your point. You don’t mind if they in turn decide not to deploy unless there’s a direct threat to suburban republican life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do you? And ignore anything that might happen in traditionally democratic areas? As no threat to them? Because that works for me. I live in suburbia.
Steve,
With respects to the logistics-as-obstacle argument you make is that it only holds true if you’re trying to make a device. Theft or purchase change the equation radically.
Secondly, with respect to 9/11 on the brain, I think you may be true, but in a way you don’t suspect. The threat of nuclear terrorism has existed all the way back to the Baader-Meinhof gang. In fact, it was this first threat of nuclear terrorism that resulted in the massive strengthening of Permissive Action Links in warheads.
However, the significance of 9/11 wasn’t that it happened – which was bad enough – but it was demonstrative proof of a fundamental shift in the nature of terrorism as we understand it. Previously, even in the case of early nuclear terrorism, the scenarios all revolved around nuclear blackmail, because it was widely understood that terrorists were primarily political actors, and killing off too many civilians would ruin their ability to negotiate with the country of the hostages.
9/11 was unique in that it marked the first, principle time in which it became manifestly evident that the game had changed. From that point forward, it became quite clear that there was no longer a self-limiting mechanism involved with terrorism. Given an opportunity to stack up bodies in a particularly grisly fashion, it was understood that for these ‘new’ terrorists the sky was the limit. There is no longer any manner of restraint – deterrence, if you will.
The third point you note in passing is “Unless our intelligence is totally screwed up (it might be)”. Based on the success of the intelligence community on strategic events, how lucky do you feel about proliferation?
1) the Fall of the Soviet Union
2) the Soviet nuclear presence in Cuba prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis
3) the Soviet lead in ICBMs in the early 50s
4) post WWII German resistance movements
5) the status of the Indian nuclear program
6) the status of the Pakistani nuclear program
7) the invasion of Kuwait
8) the facilities being used in the North Korean nuclear program
9) the status of the Iranian nuclear program
10) the status of the Libyan nuclear program
11) the status of other Libyan WMD programs
12) Soviet preparations for an offensive nuclear strike in the 80s
Conversely, given our stunning successes on counter-terrorism:
1) 9/11
2) Africa Embassy Bombings
3) Lockerbie Scotland
4) 6/85 TWA hijacking
5) Khobar towers bombing
6) Berlin disco bombing
7) USS Cole
8) WTC 1 bombing
9) Achille Lauro hijacking
10) 11/85 Egyptair hijacking
11) Beirut barracks bombing
12) Beirut car bombing
What on earth makes you comfortable with the notion that if something really goes off the rails, we’ll do what? Invade Afghanistan again?
Given our past successes and inherent limitations in how much louder we can turn up the ‘prevention knob’, wiping our hands and saying to ourselves and the world “Hey! Guess what! Our most effective way of dissuading terrorists from nuking us, is to, like promise that will get Extra Preventative next time!”
BRD
markg8,
I should probably make the point that I do believe the you’re arguing your case from a belief in your interpretation of events and issues and have giving it considerable thought. I don’t believe you’re parsing those events and issues correctly and paint yourself into a corner as a result. The big problem I have with what you say in the assumption that you have the majority on your side.
Polling data is not a good indicator of what the majority thinks. It’s a indicator of what the people who respond to polls think. We’ve just seen two elections that made fools of polls and pollsters and surprised the pundits of first one party, then the other.
Where you and I differ most is that where you believe that the war should not have been or be fought at all, I tend to the notion that we have fought and are fighting the Iraqi war for the right reasons and in the right way. To fight it more aggressively might have even pulled the left on board at first – victory having many fathers and all that – but would not have been a victory for the Iraqis. And that’s the mission in Iraq. It’s not a war of conquest. It’s to give them a chance and shift the course of the mideast into something less nihilistic. Iraqis are the ones who have to win this. I think they will win it if we maintain our resolve, but they can’t without our boots on the ground helping.
If the mission in Iraq is not successful, then BRD’s fears about who dictates when and where the next battle in the WoT occurs and whether that spirals out of control becomes more likely, not less.
BRD are you conveniently forgetting everything else I’ve written in other threads? C’mon, there’s a whole lot that needs to be done about homeland security that the Repubs haven’t done at the behest of their campaign contributors, especially in the fossil fuels, chemical and transportation industries.
JPT the people spoke at the polls in November. In your wordy way I guess you’re trying to say Dems don’t want to take ownership of Bush’s war and be blamed for “losing” it. That is a concern seeing as Republicans have been living off that same kind of meme since Vietnam. But frankly it’s not going to fly. The Pentagon is already working on Plan B.
Your party has disgraced itself time and time again, not just with the American people but the military itself whether you know it or not. You sound like you probably don’t. Fine by me, keep deluding yourself.
BRD: Thanks for finally getting back to me on these points.
However, I still disagree, although I do pick up your sarcasm.
First, I disagree on the “changed equation”—the equation changed in 1993, when the first attempt on WTC took place. From my personal experience, nuclear terrorism was never far from anyone’s mind after that, just by analogy with what was implied that day.
Your argument seems to be that people who think that prevention, prevention, prevention is the only solution are pussies (my word) who don’t have the gumption to do something more drastic. The problem is that “more drastic” just has no traction with terrorists.
You postulate the threat of a nuclear weapon, well, that might be accomplished by a platoon of Mohammed Atta’s but it might also be accomplished by a platoon of Timothy McVeigh’s or Unabomber’s. And what do we have to defend ourselves against that?
Simply put, IF nukes become as common as firearms, we’re all toast. No way around that. However, we have never done anything to stop nuclear proliferation in the past, and there are already thousands of nuclear weapons loose in the world. The short-term demand is to keep them out of the US, and that can only be done with intelligence and by controlling our border.
The long term demand is to pacify any groups and/or states that might use them against us. I see three ways that can be done:
1. Preemptively invading, overthrowing, and (necessary if we don’t want more open ended invasions) occupying troubled regions, and wiping out terrorists. – That isn’t going to happen because we don’t have the manpower.
2. Preemptively nuking (or heavily bombing) areas in the world where nukes might be, terrorists might be, etc. – I don’t see any POTUS ever doing that, but it’s a thought. Non-nuking enemies or specific locations hardly ever works, long term.
3. THREATENING to do some exemplary punishment, such that no one would ever even think of nuking the US. Is this what you are thinking of? Okay, we could have Bush give a speech threatening to nuke Mecca (the low casualty no brainer), or threatening to nuke every city of more than, say, 50,000 people in Arabic countries if a nuke ever blows in the US. Do you think that would actually work?
4. Alternatively, if it actually happens that a nuke or nukes explodes in the US, what are we going to do? Well, I suppose we could start nuking Mecca and other Arab population centers. I’ve seen this scenario many times on the web. What do you think the ramifications of such actions would be? More important, what US president would even do such a thing?
I realize you are impatient with the idea that only prevention is forthcoming as a solution, but it’s the only credible solution.
JPT I don’t know how you think we could have fought the war more agressively from the start. We got to Baghdad in what 3 and a half weeks?
There was virtually no planning after that, for Phase IV. No, basically there was a tiny window of opportunity to execute the post invasion occupation almost perfectly as it needed to be if we were succeed. In reality that chance was lost when drunk on power Rummy and Wolfowitz canned 17 out of 21 experts hired by the State Dept’s Future of Iraq project for being “Arabists” instead of loyal neocons they could trust in the weeks before the invasion.
There is no great silent majority just waiting for the chance to elect Rudy Nixon and his secret plan for ending the war with honor. By November 2008 we will either be out of Iraq or well on our way.
The Iraqis you’re looking to win it are all living in Syria or Jordan and trying to get into the US. We ought to take them, it’s the least we can do. The current Iraqi government is allied with Iran. The next one, unless Allawi pulls off a coup, will be too. That’s not worth one more American life or limb in my eyes.
markg8—First the Democrats were gonna end the war in’04. Then ‘06. Now the moonbats across the street from me every week insist they’ll have the votes in ‘08.
Frankly, I don’t think you guys have an exit strategy.
I think you just have a different idea of prevention than some of the rest of us (although I speak only for myself). When I see people discuss “prevention”, I see homeland security measures: improved border and port security. Relying on these sorts of measures as the first line of defense is foolish, because they are also the last line of defense. If they fail or are bypassed, then its game over.
Part of the prevention solution has to involve minimizing the threat as much as possible before it gets to that last line of defense. If you can’t persuade countries not to develop nuclear weapons in the first place or institute modern safeguards and verification, something almost impossible to do in the current diplomatic climate where three of the UN Security Council veto powers support the highest bidder, then you must keep force on the table as a deterrant and as a means of limiting nuclear capabilities. This can be anything from covert operations to out and out war.
Normally I dislike people arguing geopolitics from techno-thriller novels, but anyone perusing the local library can come up with a dozen means to bypass any practical and most impractical border security (up to and including a mile-high dirt berm around the whole country). Sure, half of those methods don’t have a chance in the real world, but the other half…
Interesting what you find out about yourself, from a guy who’s manifesting a severe reading comprehension impairment. I’m not “defending” KBR, I’m pointing out that so-called no-bid contracts are hardly novel, and hardly restricted to BushHitlerCo.
One of us is confused. I’d appreciate if you’d explain for me how it isn’t you.
BRD: Well, I don’t recall saying that border security and port security are the ONLY things we should do. I do think they are the FIRST things we should do, and we haven’t done those, either.
If/when we have the multiple nuke scenario you discuss happening, don’t you think that the first thing people will want to have done is to establish some border security? And don’t you think that whatever is left of the government will be strongly criticized for it?
People keep bringing up WW2 analogies. OK. The over-riding demand after Pearl was to establish security, and THEN defeat the Japanese. I would expect to be the same here.
However, if we are dealing with non-state actors I repeat I do not think there is any credible or useful deterrent. I mean the United States is not going to peremptorily start nuking other countries. Or even bombing the hell out of other countries. After the nuke goes off—your idea here—we may. But then it isn’t deterrence anymore. It’s revenge. I am not opposed to revenge intrinsically. But how would it work? And what would be the results? This is where you are letting your emotions get the better of you.
Now, getting back to NK. (Supposing.) Well, we could nuke North Korea and that would be that. If it’s Al Qaeda, what then? Pakistan? (Where Osama is supposedly hiding) Saudi Arabia? (Do we nuke near the oil refineries, or where, exactly?) What message would we be sending to our victims and to the world? “Don’t mess with Texas”? I just don’t see it happening.
No, we have to secure the entry of nukes in the US, becaust first thing’s first. Then we have to monitor the location of all nukes and their precursors. Then we have to covertly or overtly destroy these capabilities.
This of course invites bombing Iran. I am not intrinsically opposed to this, but I do know that a mere bombing will not achieve our goal, it will only delay their development of nukes. I mean, to a certain extent, the US can do whatever it wants, you know? But eventually the US doing whatever it wants will start having effects on the way Americans live their lives. Because we’re not alone in this world, and we are only 5% of the population.
Steve,
I don’t think that prevention is a ‘pussy’ strategy. I would really prefer to put as many different lines of defense in place as I reasonably can. To borrow a rough example, it would be kind of like telling cops they can wear the bullet-proof vest, but they can’t carry a firearm.
In passing, I don’t see, exactly, why it is that you think “The problem is that “more drastic†just has no traction with terrorists.” It would be an absolute first in the entire history of mankind where ‘more drastic’ didn’t, at some point, have traction.
But, to cut to the chase, I think your points #3 and #4 are exactly what navigated us through the entirety of the Cold War. Why is this notion to be discarded in its entirety? Sure, it may not be directly applicable, but what can or should be retained? Detonation in an uninhabited area of the Saudi desert as a gentle reminder to the Saudi Royal Family about their larger priorities? I don’t know.
I guess part of what bears some consideration is that nuclear weapons, since August 1945 have been almost exclusively political weapons. The problem is that if the political price for using a weapon decreases on one half of the equation (i.e. someone uses a whole raft on you), then the political liability on the other half of the equation decreases too.
By simply regarding any sort of large-scale response as being off the boards in its entirety, it weakens the deterrent effect, increasing the likelyhood of use by the Bad Guys, which then, in turn, reduces the political prohibition against using them by our side.
Now, if, if, if you can effectively communicate that to folks who have a dog in the fight, then the situation then starts to return to stability.
The question is what kind of communication can be used to restore that equilibrium? Should it be done in a national policy statement? A graduated response architecture (i.e., threaten, demonstrate, EMP, then military targets)? When we say that we won’t tolerate nations that host terrorist targets or pursue WMD, what does that mean?
If the only signal we telegraph is that the absolute last thing we’ll do is hold something at threat, there’s not any disincentive for a terrorist bad guy to think twice. For that matter, there’s not even a whole lot of incentive for a Bad Guy Country to let things slip past their notice as a sin of omission.
BRD
MarkG8,
To borrow from an analogy I use above, all of the things that people talk about in terms of prevention are the equivalent of giving cops bulletproof vests, but no firearms.
As far as the indefinite success of prevention (in all it’s wonderful and lovely forms) constant advances in technology make indefinite superiority on this front an absolute pipe dream. Remember, the only thing the bad guy has to do is be right one more time than you are. That’s it.
When it gets down to cases, how many people are already bothered by the basic increase in friction in their day to day lives. To create the kind of security that would be nigh-well impenetrable against terrorism, you would have to turn into a police state of unimaginable ferocity.
And if all you’re going to do is prevention (via whatever mechanism you chose to name) you end up in a hell of a difficult position, because you can never argue that an additional precaution isn’t warranted. In fact, after such an attack, the level of security will already be crippling – and if that’s all we ever really get around to putting on our list of long-term strategic incentives to prevent stuff, it’s going to be a whopper.
BRD
BRD: I think the summary point I am trying to make is that, in the case of non-state actors, the Attas, McVeighs, and Red Brigades of the world, I really don’t think they give a shit WHAT we do or threaten to do. If anything, open threats against targets (e.g., Mecca) will only persuade them of our menace and driven them forward.
And as to putting the US under martial law, and how draconian that might be: would it be any different to say Saudi Arabia if we nuked the desert to encourage them to be even MORE of a police state?
The question is whether you’re assigning a meaning to the power shift that isn’t there – to whit that the majority in this country favors an immediate end to the Iraqi campaign. You want to use the election to support your position. I maintain that the election doesn’t say any such thing. Since legislators vote their paychecks, I’ll make the safe assumption that they don’t see the slam dunk in the pulse of their constituents that you see in 1000 phones answered across the country. Your mandate isn’t there. The majority of the legislature that represents the country seems to agree with me, not you. The events in the legislature in the past two months support me, not you. Unless and until that changes, you are patently wrong. And that royally pisses you off to the extent that on the one hand you want to present the democrats’ use of the legislative process their just reward while on the other you maintain that the republicans same use of the process is conniving and unfair. That’s cognitive dissonance.
Talk about projection.
Your other comment:
Neither do I. Since I never said from the start, the safe assumption was that I was talking about the fight against the terrorists in Iraq, not bringing down Saddam.
Is that what happened? That was the scenario and rationale? Since when does State call the shots? They don’t make policy. They are a tool for applying it. They forgot that and obstructed the policy makers and when your tool works against your intent, you discard it and find one that doesn’t.
Nonsense. Alliances suggest common purpose. Iraq wisely wants established policies that allow them to coexist with Iran as countries always do if they don’t want to go to immediate war with their neighbors. The results of that effort don’t and won’t bear any resemblance to an alliance. Iran for it’s part wants Iraq to become at best a client state of Iran’s. The results of that effort in turn don’t and won’t bear any resemblance to an alliance.
Great Mencken’s Ghost! makes an important point that I think you should consider. The democrats might get enough support to at least force the administrations hand via veto if they proposed a coherent exit strategy. I suppose that would be victory of a sort for your side if not the country’s. That means staking a position. However, that in turn requires taking ownership of both the strategy and the results – for better or worse. That’s an acceptable risk to a politician if he or she has at least some assurance that there’s enough support, the majority support that you are convinced exists, to both implement the strategy and weather the results if it fails. That doesn’t seem to be happening. If anything, it’s slipping further away from Pelosi every week.
Steve,
I guess that’s the question that drives a lot of this, and I know you’re doing your level best to get some notions into my pea brain. Rather than belting out another blather, let me see if I can spark a little bit of what might be a possibility:
1) Even a suicide bomber can be deterred. It may be difficult to figure out what they value enough, but let’s say that one threatens to wrap their remains in pig’s fat upon burial? What if one threatens his family? Forces them to renounce Islam? I mean, it beats me, because I don’t know the psychology well enough to hazard a guess, but based on the outcry over Gitmo lapdances, then there may be some point of leverage we’re missing.
2) A lot of the underlying logic of Cold War deterrence was made a bit easier by a fundamental similarity in cultures. In this case (and it’s also one we’ll be facing shortly with Iran), the cultures are different. The West tends towards a ‘Guilt Culture’ and much of the Umma tends towards a ‘Shame Culture’. Here are two links that touch on that, and I think may raise some points that will have to animate how we address this entire range of problems.
I don’t think it’s an insoluble issue. For starters, look at some of the asymmetries in philosophy. The idea, heard almost immediately after 9/11, that you can’t fight terrorism because if you kill one terrorist, it will create 4 terrorists in his place. If we take the entire set of asymmetries, then those collectively point to what can and can’t work. But if we assume only the asymmetries that redound to them, and discount any asymmetries that work in our favor, then of course we’ll always be reactive, and waiting for the next blow.
But, in any case, I’m calling it a night, but look forward to your responses.
BRD
You are making this way harder than it needs to be. How do we get people to start thinking of the US as a nation that don’t stand for catastrophical terrorist mischief? I’d say you better engage some kind of media. It’s a good vehicle for, you know, communicating stuff and shit.
BRD: A short one for tomorrow —
I don’t know if a suicide bomber can be deterred. The pig-fat burial was a technique from the Philippine Insurrection, but I’m not sure how well it worked. I don’t know the leverage point, but, if we can find it, that would be good ….
Pearl Harbor, on the other hand, contains classic examples of a failed prevention strategy. It was assumed that the biggest threat to American forces in the Pacific was sabotage. So aircraft were parked out in the open, where they could be watched.
All the money and effort put into that sort of last line of defense prevention is useless if the enemy chooses an unanticipated means of attack. It’s not a complete waste, as by merely making attacks more difficult you force him into putting effort and expense into planning, which especially may serve as a deterrant against small groups without much real state support.
The current threat is state-supported terrorism. The idea of deterrance is not so much to deter the terrorists as to deter their state supporters by putting them on notice that they can be held responsible for the acts of their proxies. We’d probably have not much recourse if a completely non-state supported terrorist group detonated a nuke in an American city.
It’s simple. The following was a litany of some of the reprehensible behavior of the Republican party.
The LOGCAP contract you cite isn’t a no bid contract like some others Halliburton received. That’s not to say there aren’t problems with any contract Halliburton gets from the US government.
The problems all seem to stem from their attitude that they’re impervious to oversight and the federal treasury is their’s for the taking. Until
last November they had no reason to think any differently.
I hope that helps.
JPT you don’t believe in virtually every poll taken over the last year. You don’t think the election in November turned in any way on Iraq. You hold that Dems won’t even try to pass a bill ending the war because the majority of their constituents want to keep fighting. Maybe you have some proof you could offer for that position?
Dems in the House have apparently finished putting together a bill to get us out at the latest by 9/08. The Senate bill last I heard will end it sooner.
The Senate Republicans can filibuster it, the President can veto it. If they do I guess we’ll see who is right. Using the filibuster isn’t conniving and unfair, I would have been happy if the Dems had used it against Alito and Roberts. Using the veto is also the Presdient’s preogative.
Repubs can use these methods and we’ll see if that thwarts the will of the people.
You didn’t specify, but again seeing as most of the terrorists in Iraq we were initially fighting were Iraqi soldiers fired by the CPA in direct contravention of the policy we’d been leafleting them with for about 10 years it helps make my point about the disastrously poor planning for the occupation. Breaking our word to 400,000 heavily armed men and putting them on the street with no means to feed their families is a very good way to start an insurgency.
The Defense Dept doesn’t make policy either but was tasked for the job. The people the State Dept.
hired for the job in the fall/winter of 2002-03 never had a chance to obstruct anything. They were canned by the neocons before they ever went to Iraq. Who appointed Garner? Who fired him and appointed Bremer? Who fired the Iraqi army and all the Baathists? You know damn well who it was and if you don’t you’re even more deluded than I thought.
Parse it all you want. Iraq under any Shia government will be much closer, either an ally or a client state, to Iran than it will be to the US.
Talk about nonsense. The Dems have controlled congress for all of 2 months. Both of you remind me of some of the people from my side, expecting to see results yesterday. Iraq isn’t going away and it’s not getting better. The American people know Bush smashed that egg on the sidewalk and aren’t expecting anyone to magically grow it into a chicken.
Of course, if we had left the Sunni-dominated Iraqi army mostly intact, Mark would be screaming that we broke our word to the Shi’ites, justifying an Itanian-backed Shi’ite uprising…
Don’t forget the Kurds, Civilis.