Iraq: will words help?
Victor Davis Hanson sums it up admirably:
Either stabilizing Iraq now is felt critical to the United States and the West or it isn’t.
The responsible Left hears the question and answers that it is not critical. The irresponsible Left doesn’t care, because it feels the West itself is a blight on the world and wouldn’t mind that it be defeated and replaced by—well, by some sort of Utopian and impossible dream or other, or perhaps just said Leftists in charge.
Some on the Right also feel the answer is that it is not. I, like Hanson, feel that it is indeed critical—but not necessarily critical in the sense that failure there would be irreparable. I think we are stronger than that, although of course I could be wrong. My opinion is that failure there would increase the cost immensely both for us and for the enemy, and that these new payments could be so bloody that it would make the Iraq War look like a quaint tea party.
The same, of course, was true at Munich. The death of many millions could have been avoided if only—if only. Instead, humble and flawed human beings (of which I am one, as is every prognosticator on the other side and every commenter here) can only do the best they can to look at the situation and try to plot the best course of action for the future, knowing we can never predict it properly.
Hanson, a writer and thinker I admire tremendously, says quite a few other things in his National Review piece that I think are to the point. One involves the intelligence of the enemy and their ability to use our own technological advances against us:
We create sophisticated communications at great cost and investment; the parasitical terrorists simply bore into them and use them at no cost and sometimes with greater effect than do their inventors.
Indeed. And he is also eloquently spot on in describing the terrorists’ knowledge of the general Western mindset and impatience, as well as the sad-but-true fact that it is far easier (always) to destroy than to create, and takes far fewer people.
I disagree, however, with his remedy. Hanson is more optimistic than I about the power of improved communication on our end, and for everyone’s sake I hope he is more correct than I as well. He writes that [my emphasis]:
…unless explained, most Americans will not see a connection between the ideology of the head-drillers and head-loppers we are fighting in Iraq and those who try to do even worse at Fort Dix and the Kennedy airport. The war to remove Saddam was won and is over; the subsequent and very different war in Iraq that followed is for nothing less than the future of the Middle East ”” and now involves everything from global terrorism and nuclear proliferation to the world’s oil supply and the future of Islam in the modern world. We need to confess that the jihadists are not only keen students of insurgency warfare, but good observers of the American psyche….we must start using our vast cultural and media resources to explain what is at stake ”” in a strategic and humanitarian sense ”” and precisely what it is costing America and why it in the long run is worth it…The more brutal honesty, the less euphemism and generalities, the more Americans will accept the challenge.
Funny thing, but I’ve heard those explanations coming from this administration. Perhaps because they were delivered by Bush’s un-eloquent voice, or his much-hated persona, they could not be heard. Perhaps the press coverage wasn’t good enough, or sympathetic enough. Or perhaps too many people weren’t ready to hear the message, especially if the execution of the task wasn’t perfect, swift, and easy.
Perhaps Hanson is right, though. If so, I hope the next administration, be it Republican or Democrat, will be able to convey the message in a way that the American people can finally hear it.
But I think it will take more than a well-articulated message. Possibly that would have been enough earlier, but by now so many people may have turned so far away from hearing what is at stake that I don’t think even a leader such as Churchill could deliver it properly at this point. I think that actions will speak much louder than words, in the end, and unfortunately those actions might be terrible enough to grab our attention and fills us with a “terrible resolve.”
We fantasize that we can walk away from the threat. We fantasize as if we are children, ending a football game in a neighbor’s yard. We fantasize we can declare the game over, then go home to our Mother’s comforting supper table, then bathe and tuck into bed: all warm and safe.
“Hanson, a writer and thinker“
…and there, Neo, is the problem, in my opinion. Too many Americans just don’t think about the consequences of withdrawal, of what radical Islam means to the world and especially to the West. We just can’t take the long view that Hanson suggests…and Islam has been taking the long view for centuries.
You left out this line, which might resolve some of your “perhapses”:
“So more explanation, less assertion; more debate with, rather than dismissal of, critics.”
Apparently Hanson missed the explanations too, should we attribute it to a latent case of BDS?
The responsible left believes that it is not *possible*, or at least not possible at a cost that we are able to bear. Not everything that is critical to accomplish is necessarily possible.
Or they believe we are destabilizing Iraq, Hyman.
Because, of course, Alphie, Iraq was so stable before we got there, right?
The Middle East is/was stable only because of autocratic dictators like Saddam, Assad, Mubarak, and the Sauds. The former Yugoslavia was “stable” too, as long as Tito was alive, but look what happened when the Iron Fist was no longer around. This fiction of a peaceful ME is a favorite fantasy of the Left…if only there were no Israel or the US, it would be a paradise on Earth…
And of course, “Palestine” is the example of “democratic” government.
I’ve always been amused that people blame the President because of his speaking skills. They usually bring up Churchill or Lincoln in comparison. (Or FDR occasionally). But all three men lived in times where the threat was very clear and still did not convince many until the last moment. What they really did was to make sure that neglected preparations were made.
Churchill made sure the RAF was sound and US relations were kept alive. Lincoln held the North together and laid the moral basis for preserving the union. FDR started rearming the US and kept England supplied as well as throwing the moral gauntlet at Japan.
As I have gotten older I gain respect for those in the public eye who are content to plug away at things that needed to be done. The military officers who knew that the wreckage of Vietnam had to be cleared away so the forces were ready when needed. The politicans who continue to see that Israel and Taiwan are allowed to buy weapons. The Foreign service officers who keep our real interests at stake in odd corners of the world. This is a long war, and we will suffer fools in our own leadership. Perhaps a little less handwringing and a little more elbow grease is in order.
Of course you believe there are things “not possible” to acomplish, Hyman. That way, you can sit on your behind with a clear conscience for “not even trying”. The Democrats and left of the time made the same arguments about prosecuting the Civil War. And they(Hyman, Alphie, “Unknown” Blogger) are on the wrong side of history now, too.
George B. McClellan (r.e Hillary Clinton). Democrat for President. He supports the troops. He’ll end King Lincoln’s war. He’ll open up a dialog with the South. He’s “responsible” leadership from the left.
Actually, David, it was Neville Chamberlain who made sure the RAF was sound (which allowed Britain to win “the Battle of Britain”).
But, he was on the wrong side of history, as Lee says.
Bad military tactics and blustering speeches is what the West looks for in a war leader.
whitehouse.govApparently UB wasn’t listening when it was “explained” to the people:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
And Alphie was right (and wrong) for once. Chamberlain did oversee the early formation of the RAF, since Churchill did not become P.M. until @May 10, 1940(the exact date escapes me, but happened within days of Germany’s attack into the Low Countries). Where Churchill gets credit is he ordered that the new Spitfires be kept home for defense, and supporting the BEF with only Hurricanes and other less modern planes. Which meant that Spitfires were available in sufficient numbers to be effective in the Battle of Britain.
Although there were many other factors involved, saving the Spitfires is probably the most important.
Stability is overrated. I would even go so far as to say stability is anethema to democracy. A successful democracy is dynamic, with no one person able to seize absolute power, not even with the consent of the majority. The most important feature of a democracy is its instability; without it, democracy quickly converts itself to oligarchy and then military dictatorship, as Zimbabwe and Venezuela have done.
Peace and stability do not go hand in hand; in fact, the most enduring peace comes about when a country is unstable enough that organizations no longer feel the need to resort to violence to gain power, instead relying on the popular vote to do so. That’s a long way off in Iraq, and may not come until the country is crushed much flatter than the US would, and even more than Saddam could.
Funny thing, but I’ve heard those explanations coming from this administration.
I don’t think Hanson is really talking about explanations. I think he is talking about propaganda.
That’s a different venue. Propaganda and countering the enemy’s propaganda.
Perhaps the press coverage wasn’t good enough, or sympathetic enough.
The Press are part of the enemy propaganda that must be countered. If Bush can’t get past them, then how is he going to get past the Islamic Jihad’s message?
Possibly that would have been enough earlier, but by now so many people may have turned so far away from hearing what is at stake that I don’t think even a leader such as Churchill could deliver it properly at this point.
Active propaganda has always been combined with action, it wasn’t just talk. As events procede in the middle east, new narratives will develop and new opportunities will arise for both propagandists, good and evil, to manipulate and take advantage of. It remains to be seen which side takes more advantage of their opportunities. Bush had plenty of opportunities. So did the Jihadists. One took more advantage of their cards than the other.
Bad military tactics and blustering speeches is what the West looks for in a war leader.
Remind you of something, Neo? Your SS broadcast perhaps and the comments there? Bad Ayrab tactics combined with Persian and Ayrab boasts… makes an interesting concoction combined with the “The Left are Ayrabs”.
I’ve quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/06/re-iraq-will-words-help.html
Ymar,
Let’s try a more realistic “concoction:”
A Christian Scientist mom backs her car over one of her kids playing in the driveway.
She stops the car and goes to her child and…starts praying.
A neighbor runs up and yells, “forget the praying…call 9/11.”
The child = Iraq
The mom = the pro war crowd
the neighbor = the 72% of Americans who want us to get out of Iraq
simonsays.comAs history has shown us Americans don’t take to war well. Once involved though we try to fight a gentleman’s war. The word try is very appropriate. We have managed for over three years to rein in our impulses on the Iraq front battlefield. But if we are seriously attacked at home, unless it is so serious it produces anarchy and the breakup of the union, our enemy will wish they were in Hell. The NGOs, the UN and the rest of the blame America crowd will become impotent and just background noise. Just look at WWII fought by the Greatest Generation. From a purely battlefield perspective, commanders did not place many restraints on our warriors fighting the enemy, especially in the Pacific. And there was certainly nothing subtle about the huge billboard that Admiral Halsey ordered erected on a hillside on one of the Solomon Islands. Visible to passing ships it bore a simple and crude admonition to his troops:
KILL JAPS. KILL JAPS.
KILL MORE JAPS.
You will help to kill the yellow bastards
if you do your job well.
(http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?isbn=0743217349&sid=33&agid=2)
Replace a few words and we have a 21st century admonition for our troops.
alphie’s concoction is okay, except that he got the roles of the mom and the neighbor a bit mixed up — the mom is the anti-war crowd, and the neighbor’s already called 911. That’s why we’re saving Iraq.
iwar.org.ukpublicdiplomacy.orgjhuapl.edu.
Y’all and Y’marsakar
You’re hitting a lot of good, solid, points in essence, if not in details. Among other things, we’re doing a disastrous job of information warfare (in its manifestations as an augment to hard and soft power operations). [nb: feel free to disregard a vast portion of what you see on the InterTubes about IW and whatnot, as this field breeds ill-informed conspiracy loons like nobody’s business]
More broadly when the Wall came down, the United States, for whatever reason, threw out a huge portion of what it knew about conflict across the full spectrum of engagement. China is quite up to speed on this sort of thing, and continues to generate some fascinating doctrine. The Islamicist Bad Guys™ seem to have a very good instinctive, bar-tender’s and shop-owner’s grasp of the subject, but don’t seem to plumb the depths of the matter. We’re warming up, but as per usual, the US sometimes takes a long, long time to truly absorb new warfighting lessons, although I think we are starting to make some headway.
Perversely enough, one of the things we’ve gotten wrong in recent years (and many Europeans still don’t seem to grasp) is the value of hard power in soft power, information warfare approaches. At the outset, we seemed to regard hard and soft power as being axiomatically at odds. Force was something that generated collateral damage and was antithetical to a hearts and minds approach. However, as the surge is demonstrating, bringing some measure of stability and making it clear who will be prevailing in the long term makes it much easier to garner support in the short term. So, contrary to some assumed wisdom, and to riff off of Mao a tiny, tiny bit, sometimes soft power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
And sadly enough, while the Right seems to be finally developing an intuitive grasp of the dynamic, the left hasn’t. It was something I would have thought that the left would have gotten around to understanding after Clinton’s relatively muscular approach to deploying troops, but it appears that the lessons have only been superficial and that we, as a nation, still lack the intestinal fortitude to tackle any threat which provides a challenge appropriate to something which poses an existential risk.
But, on the bright side, once you get nuked three or four times, it usually sets the tone of the debate.
Thanks for the link Lee, but the explanation Hanson asked for was not for why we invaded Iraq, but for the *connection* between who we are now fighting in Iraq and those who planned the attacks on Fort Dix or Kennedy Airport…and presumably how victory in Iraq will stop them.
By the way, since you’ve accused someone of “sitting on their behind with a clear conscience,” might I ask what active role you are playing in this conflict?
TUB,
Excuse me for interrupting your exchange, but you’ve touched on something that I feel compelled to speak up about.
You’ve been civil when we’ve interacted and, generally, by my lights, you seem to be reasonably invested in an actual exchange of ideas, rather than a redistribution of talking points.
So, in that spirit, if you’ll please indulge me a question:
I know – I know – you’re not descending into any of that ‘chickenhawk’ nonsense, right?
BRD:
Oh, UB’s one of the great “chickenhawk” fans. But then again, he’s a “chickendove”…not over in Iraq being a human shield and all…
Stumbley,
I just wonder what his position is on intervention in Darfur (or for that matter, Kosovo or Rwanda).
news.com.au”Let’s try a more realistic “concoction:””
Never heard of a neocon doing anything like that.
Now, leftist hippie drum-circle participants, on the other hand…
BRD:
Folks like UB are always for intervention, until someone actually, you know, intervenes, and then it’s “imperialism”. I’m wondering how in the world we’re going to “Free Tibet” by simply mouthing the words and putting bumper stickers on the cars. Maybe we’ll use harsh language against China and that’ll do it…
Cardinal Fang: Get the comfy chair!!!!!
It seems to me that the biggest problem in Iraq is that Iraqi political and religious groups are not getting along with each other. There is too much tendency to settle differences by fighting. Iraq will never be stabilized, and foreign fighters there never kicked out, until an actual functioning legitimate government really does unify the people to a significant extent.
In the meantime, Iraq has become one of the biggest incubators of terrorism the world has seen, and continues to grow in that respect. This has happened concurrently with U.S. military involvement there. I do not say that this is mostly our fault — it is mostly the fault of Iraqis not getting along, and of negative foreign influence.
If you wish to continue military involvement there, the question is, what will we do differently from here forward that can correct all this damage done, reverse the growing hostilities between political and religious groups in Iraq, and begin REDUCING, rather than increasing, the number of jihadists you justifiably keep warning us about? A good answer to this question is what I really want to see from the right-wing press. If it exists, please point me to it.
I know that pulling troops out will not solve anything. It does not seem to me that keeping troops there will solve anything either. I agree with people who say a lasting solution in Iraq needs to be political rather military. The pro-war statements in this blog seem to all say, essentially, “There is evil out there and we need to keep fighting.” For these statements not to ring hollow, we need to start hearing HOW we will fight more effectively in the future than we have been.
cfr.orgE.H.,
You make some good points. For my money, I think Iraq can be stabilized, but that it’s a long, hard slog.
With respect to your specific comments, it seems to me that a lot of the critique that has arisen is because some critics seem to labor under the misapprehension that a war is not something that is wrapped up in one television season, let alone a 30 minute episode.
Past that, I think the addition of combat forces to the region is a good first step, as it can be helpful in improving security. Past that, I do have some qualms about deployment rates and rotations, but the military should be able to handle this operational tempo without major difficulties.
The big thing that we really need to do is get cracking on the broader spectrum of war-related activities, in particular some of the information warfare, lawfare, network warfare, theological warfare, and reintroduction of western volunteer units.
But even with the introduction of all these methodologies and approaches, the big thing is that this kind of proxy warfare by insurgency is a time consuming process, and is largely a question of stamina.
BRD wrote:
I know – I know – you’re not descending into any of that ‘chickenhawk’ nonsense, right?
Hi BRD, always nice to hear from you. Here’s a summary of the situation:
Lee accuses Hyman (whom he presumes to be a person against the military intervention in Iraq) of “sitting on his behind with a clear conscience for ‘not even trying’.”
Is it wrong to wonder what exactly Lee might be doing to *not* be considered “sitting on his behind,” and “trying”?
Or should we just assume he doesn’t have a clear conscience?
TUB,
I’ve gone back and re-read the comments in question. It seems as if you might have covered a little bit too much turf in the application of your analogy.
What I read in Lee’s comment was an indictment of the notion that “Resistance Is Futile”, and it put me in mind of a scene in the movie Trainspotting in which one of the characters is interviewing for a job:
Versus the implication of the chickenhawk trope, which is that those who support but do not fight have no right to support. Which, if it were true puts me in a sticky situation vis a vis Darfur, not to mention the broader fact that military service is a privilege, not a right.
Cheers!
BRD
Stumbley wrote:
“I’m wondering how in the world we’re going to “Free Tibet” by simply mouthing the words and putting bumper stickers on the cars.”
Stumbley, sorry if I’m getting too personal here, but did your wife run off with some guy with a “Free Tibet” bumper sticker or something? One sure seems to have hit a nerve with you somewhere. 😉
BRD wrote:
“I just wonder what his position is on intervention in Darfur (or for that matter, Kosovo or Rwanda).”
Perhaps you do, and I will be happy to discuss them another time, but the question before us is not about intervention in general, but about Iraq in particular, is it not?
And specifically it’s about the right to challenge those who on one hand argue that Iraq is the central, defining conflict of our age, that if Iraq is lost then the War on Terror is lost, and that if we lose the war on terror Western Civilization will Collapse and we will all be subjects of an Ayatollah in the White House subjecting people in Omaha to beheading if they don’t convert to Islam (or something like that), and anyone who disagrees is a terrorist-loving, panty-waisted sissy, but on the other hand somehow manage to have “other priorities” when it comes to doing anything to stop the barbarians at the gates.
About the other “chickenhawk” argument, I think it’s clear by now that many of the administration’s most serious mistakes in Iraq can be traced to shunning the advice of its military advisers in favor of the advice of civilian idealogues with no military experience whatsoever, something it continues to do to this day.
And when someone points that out, to just yell “chickenhawk nonsense!” seems to me to be exactly the kind of wrong response Hanson was talking about in his article.
Kind Regards
UB
BRD:
“It seems as if you might have covered a little bit too much turf in the application of your analogy.”
Hmmm. Did I make an analogy recently? I can’t recall doing so. Let me know.
Here is what I’m getting at: Lee says Hyman is “sitting on his behind,” which implies a criticism of inaction. I’m arguing that since Lee is critical of inaction, it’s not unfair to wonder how Lee is not being inactive. Maybe I’m wrong.
Versus the implication of the chickenhawk trope, which is that those who support but do not fight have no right to support.
Ah, well I guess some people may make the argument that loosely, but I have usually read it as I have stated above, that is:
“Iraq Is Absolutely Our Last Chance To Survive As A Nation, And My Place Is Here In The Comments Section Of Neoneocon.com.”
TUB,
Maybe analogy was the wrong term, but, still, in my reading, the critique was of the idea that claiming failure is inevitable and that all efforts are doomed removes the question of moral agency from all actors, and, in and of itself, becomes a justification for taking the easiest of ways out. I thought of it kind of like claiming that one doesn’t have to turn in one’s homework because everyone will all die in a nuclear war anyway.
As far as the broader points you raise, there are also significant questions about civil-military relationships. According to your recollection, Bush ignored the advice of senior military commanders, and is therefore hasn’t properly executed his role as Commander-in-Chief. But then, by this token, did Kennedy fail because he didn’t heed the words of his Generals?
And in passing, the ‘finding other engagements in a time of need’ item that you cite raises a couple of questions. First, are those who are unable to serve eligible to have an opinion? Secondly, since (as I have noted earlier in this thread) information warfare and morale are critical, critical issues, is not actually supporting the effort of some value, in and of itself?
BRD
Hard and soft power do need to work together. I agree with that basic foundation. It is just like a mace and a sword to me. Sometimes one is better than the other. Change your tactics around a bit, get the enemy off balance.
Chavez for example is pretty predictable. And if you have enough power, you can crush him. Easily.
The problem with Iraq is two fold, on a strategic level in my view.
One, it is a Limited War, not a Total One.
Two, the Limited War, to be won, requires forming militias and auxiliary Iraqi shock troops to handle more of the fighting. This translates as getting good and loyal subordinates to do your dirty work. Whether you call that moral or not, I call that workable.
If people want things to go faster in Iraq, all they have to do is invade or destroy Iran and Syria, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. All at once.
But if they want a Limited War, then they can’t really complain about the slowness.
BRD, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.
I personally feel you are giving Lee’s “critique” too much credit: it clearly sounded to me like the goading of a critic for “sitting on his behind.”
Let’s hypothetically suppose my reading was correct though. Then would it be legitimate to question what exactly Lee is *doing*?
“According to your recollection, Bush ignored the advice of senior military commanders, and is therefore hasn’t properly executed his role as Commander-in-Chief. But then, by this token, did Kennedy fail because he didn’t heed the words of his Generals?
BRD, I’m not clear why you seem to insist that everything one argues must have a corollary?
And in passing, the ‘finding other engagements in a time of need’ item that you cite raises a couple of questions. First, are those who are unable to serve eligible to have an opinion?
Yes.
Secondly, since (as I have noted earlier in this thread) information warfare and morale are critical, critical issues, is not actually supporting the effort of some value, in and of itself?
I think if the support is generated based on, as Hanson argues, “more brutal honesty,” and “less euphemism and generalities” then yes, it is of *some* value. But as I have said here before, ultimately a war need leaders and not cheerleaders.
And to denounce those who disagree with the effort and the tactics as *appeasing cowards* while at the same proclaiming this to be our last chance to save civilization, and being fully able-bodied yet unwilling to sign up for duty, when the military is *by all accounts* stretched for recruits, when the troops they support are on their 3rd and 4th extended tours of duty in combat…well, what do you make of that?
moveamericaforward.orgsemperfifund.orghttp://www.moveamericaforward.org/
http://www.semperfifund.org/
UB, these are organizations I support monetarily. In addition, I frequent milblogs just to say “thank you”, and since 2002, my tax returns have gone unclaimed in addition to actual taxed owed. I vote Republican, and I frequent this and other blogs to lend “vocal” support of the Global War on Terror.
While not serving in the military, it is at least more than “sitting on my behind” and griping that this current campaign is “lost”, when the evidence clearly shows progress.
As an overweight, unathletic dope-smoking wuss in my youth, I took advantage of the fact there was no draft anymore, and only registered with Selective Service as per the law, until the age of 26, when I was no longer required to update my contact information(which, I’m sure, is more than you ever did). Guess that puts me in the same category of 99% of Americans throught history who have never served.
Today, I’m 45, lost the weight, but still smoke dope and have HIV, which makes me 4-F, unqualified for military service. If I had seen 9-11 coming, I might have taken better care of myself. As it is, I do “what I can” to support the troops, as opposed to undermining their efforts with propaganda and telling them they’ve “lost”.
Now it’s your turn, UB. Tell us about your “personal history” and how it has shaped you into the “morally superior” person you claim to be, and why your efforts to undermine the war is actually “supporting the troops”.
Of course, now that the ball is in your court, I’m sure you will just run like usual.
moveamericaforward.orghttp://www.moveamericaforward.org/
There, let’s see if this works.
Unk’s problem is like most folks from the Left. If they want to defend a position, like say, sabotaging the war effort and making it unable to be won therefore justifying their lack of action in defending liberty, they will find somebody or some position to attack. That’s their version of the defense. And this is entirely instinctual almost. They go for this target zone because… it appeals to them, elementally.
It is always their way or the highway for the Left. It is either you support the troops by fighting on the frontlines or sabotage the troops via Total Sabotage.
But even that is a false dichotomy, a false slogan used because nothing else was convenient.
In ethics, there are degrees of action that eventually end up with good or evil. Those include doing nothing, trying to straddle the fence. Attempting to be ethically neutral, which is actually just simply ethical stasis. Delaying the inevitable. Then there is doing something, which is light to medium sabotage of the objective. Equivalent to light to medium support of the objective. But at the far ends of extreme action, you get active revolution, jihad, suicide bombing with active military service for the US.
Unk wants to defend the position that you can sit around sabotaging the US and it is as if you are ethically neutral or ethically good. But he does this by saying that you can only be consistent in your arguments for the support of the war if you support it by fighting it. But that is a false standard, because the war isn’t just fought in the way that the Left says it is being fought. The Left says the media isn’t part of the war, that it hasn’t taken a side.
The conscience bit is simple after all. If you want to do light to medium sabotage of the war effort, you should recognize the ethical ramifications of that position. And not try to hide it with irrelevant details. It is not a call to arms. It is not demanded that the Left or Unk help the war effort. It is only demanded that they not call themselves moral and ethical for doing what they do do in the war.
It is pretty consistent with doublethink for people on the Left to think that they are actually doing “good”, lasting good, and defending liberty when they sabotage the Iraq War either actively, indirectly, sentimentally, legally, illegally, or just via public propaganda and demoralization campaigns.
Just call it what it is. Selfishness, narcissism, and grandiose partying. Not the “good of Iraqis”, not “the best interests of the US’, and definitely not “defending liberty”.
Why are the Left so ashamed of their positions that they have to label them the Ultimate Good? It is patently not the ultimate good. Their projection attempts almost, almost, beat the Ayrabs.
UB:
Nope, happily married. It’s just that I see that bumper sticker on cars all the time, and wonder just what it is that folks think can be done to “Free Tibet”? Short of sending troops or something, which is, as you know, just not done in polite society. And again, you seem to think that donning a uniform and hoisting an M-16 is the only way civilians can “support the war effort.” We went ’round about that a while back, remember? In your view, the only support is active service, while as I’ve stated many times before, there are lots of ways folks who are too old or who are involved in work stateside that actively and legitimately supports the war effort without being in combat.
You, plainly, do neither, so I wish you’d quit bringing it up, because it actually reflects rather badly on YOU.
Ymar,
Are you saying the sizable majority of Americans who are against the Iraq war are all “on the Left?”
Alphie, you meant to say that a majority of Americans want the job finished before bringing the troops home.
http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2007/02/iraq_war_poll_5.html
Wow, Lee,
Even your rather biased, spin-laden link to polls from 4+ months ago showed that 56% of Americans back then considered the Iraq war a “hopeless cause.”
Now that we know that the surge is a bust, what do you figure that number is?
The question remains:
Do the pro war deadenders consider any American who wants to withdraw from Iraq “on the Left?”
“Now that we know that the surge is a bust”
Statistics? Facts? Citations?
Or just another of your baseless assertions?
Considering Bush said it would take 6 months to determine if the surge was even showing “signs” of sucess. Implementation began Feb. ’07. So it will be Aug. ’07 before any asessment comes out.
Lee wrote:
“While not serving in the military, it is at least more than “sitting on my behind” and griping that this current campaign is “lost”, when the evidence clearly shows progress.”
Lee, sorry, but really that *is* just basically sitting on your behind.
Hyman made a simple argument, that “The responsible left believes that it is not *possible*, or at least not possible at a cost that we are able to bear. Not everything that is critical to accomplish is necessarily possible.
If you have a difference of opinion with Hyman, and you consider frequenting “this and other blogs to lend “vocal” support of the Global War on Terror” as part of your contirbution to the effort, I would suggest you follow Hanson’s advice and debate Hyman’s points on the merits. You certainly won’t win any converts by just mockingly accusing people of laziness or cowardice. How is *that* helping the War on Terror at all?
For all you know he could be a paraplegic who sends all his extra money to moveon.org and votevets.org, so there, what would we have? Two guys sitting on their behinds debating the war in Iraq on a blog. God Bless America!
Stumbley wrote:
“It’s just that I see that bumper sticker on cars all the time, and wonder just what it is that folks think can be done to “Free Tibet”? Short of sending troops or something…
You know, I wonder the same thing, but have you considered the fact that some of them might feel strongly enough about Tibet to be *in favor* of US military intervention? Admittedly not very likely, but still, people are allowed to dream crazy dreams, aren’t they?
Would it make any more sense to you if the bumper stickers read “Invade And Occupy Tibet! And Don’t Leave Until It Is A Stable, Functioning Democracy Able To Defend Itself And Is An Ally In The War On Terror”?
As for my contribution, if you guys consider yakking on blogs to be one, then I am making one too – I am arguing for fairness, honesty and critical thinking in decision-making.
You may disagree with my conclusions but I have never once made an unsubstantiated claim about a fact which led me to those conclusions.
And I try to refrain from insulting those who disagree with me.
Glad to hear you are happily married, by the way. Me too.
“Would it make any more sense to you if the bumper stickers read “Invade And Occupy Tibet! And Don’t Leave Until It Is A Stable, Functioning Democracy Able To Defend Itself And Is An Ally In The War On Terror”?’
Yes, actually it would, because it would be much more honest than simply desiring an outcome for which one had expended absolutely no effort save the desire. Kind of like “visualizing world peace”. If, for instance, someone had a bumper sticker that read “Free Tibet” next to one that said “…And Establish Economic Sanctions on China Until They Leave Tibet Alone”, I’d be a lot more understanding of their position.
Glad to hear you are experiencing wedded bliss as well.
“Yes, actually it would, because it would be much more honest than simply desiring an outcome for which one had expended absolutely no effort save the desire.”
Would require a hell of a bumper though.
But speaking of being honest, how do you know they’ve “expended no effort”?
How do you know the next person you see with a “Free Tibet” bumper sticker isn’t 4-F, works on the Free Tibet website, contributes to FreeTibet.org, writes to Tibetan activists to say “thanks” once in a while and argues on blogs about the situation in Tibet?
Those types of contributions are readily considered making an effort toward the war in Iraq, aren’t they?
UB, of course, failed to mention the extra taxation allowed and groups I contribute to.
And in typical(and predicted) fashion, he fails to bring in his personal story, after demanding over and over for mine.
Hyman “could” be a paraplegic, but he’s not(call it a hunch). While it has been a while, Hyman’s anti-American BDS position is well known by his previous postings(as are yours).
Ball’s still in your court….
I speak in terms of personal history and background. You bring up hypothetical people who “may be like this..”.
What’s your story?
And I don’t know about you, but I consider contributing to families of wounded Marines as “support for the troops”. Don’t you, UB?
Lee my story is to debate arguments on their merits, and leave the “personal stories” out of it.
Have another bong hit Lee, you’ve joined Yammer in my “ignore” file. Good luck to you.
Jesus Christ, UB, you’re such a coward you can’t even face me. Run away now, little man.
On an annonymous blogspot, from an electronic transmitter, UB can’t even muster up the courage to answer questions he expects from others, and runs from a sick, old dope-smoker, like a baby. Congratulations, UB! You now carry the distinction of “lamest troller to ever troll”. The losingest of the losers.
Oh well, at least he was consistent, wasn’t he? He advocates cut-and-run for Iraq. At least he applies those principles to his everyday life, as well. So, we did learn some “personal truth” about him after all.
gcotharn Says:
We fantasize that we can walk away from the threat. We fantasize as if we are children, ending a football game in a neighbor’s yard. We fantasize we can declare the game over, then go home to our Mother’s comforting supper table, then bathe and tuck into bed: all warm and safe.
———————–
It’s like you are sitting at the drive-in theater watching The Blob or Night of the living dead , toying with the plot before it unfolds, being a critic all along the way. That is the fun of scary movies, but you complain it’s too long, you’re getting bored and you are yelling “kill her already!” So here is an excerpt I chose because it sums up the “her” in the movie quite nicely. You should know, as an armchair critic what the characters are about and what is everyone’s position. They can be right or they can be wrong but here are your foes and what they are fighting for. They were never fooled, apparantly.
“When the west anticipates a close end to its oil reserve at a time Iraq will continue to produce oil for the coming 100 years, it means that the American project to spread democracy is a flagrant lie. “It`s not about defending human rights. The United States supported and protected dictatorships for more than 100 years. The United States is behind Iraq`s invasion of Kuwait and paved the way for its fleets to come to our region from every part of this world. The war against Iraq will lead to civil war. This was based on studies made by US and ‘Israeli’ research centers. It clearly said that the goal is to directly control Iraqi oil reserves on the one hand and protect ‘Israel’ on the other. This is interpreted today, however we only give heed to skin-deep analyses while the US and ‘Israel’ plan for the future. Their goal is to destroy Iraq and transform the Iraqi people into refugees in neighboring countries.”
“the United States is facing stalemate in Iraq because it knows that to control this region, the spirit and will of the resistance must be crushed. “As long as there is resistance in the region, the United States will not be able to control our resources. First it must crush resistance movements, enhance ‘Israel’s’ superiority and create subordinate regimes in the region.”
——————
We will end the resistance there sure as we put an end to the Taliban. There is the fantasy.
Ah, Bonnie, the Muslim Nazi. I see, now…It’s all about Israel.
“Those types of contributions are readily considered making an effort toward the war in Iraq, aren’t they?”
It wouldn’t be what I would consider a significant contribution, no…but it’s still something. Your interpretation of some of the commenters here, however, seems to be that we’re all pimply-faced geeks of military age, sitting like mushrooms in the basement, reading our “Soldier of Fortune” magazines and playing “Splinter Cell” when we’re not acting like Nazis on-line, while not lifting a finger or doing anything to “support” the war we all seem to revel in (while avoiding it like the plague).
It must never occur to you that some here might be first responders, active duty military stateside, former military (too old to serve in this conflict), or–as in my case–actively engaged in work that directly benefits the troops overseas.
And when Lee requests that you give us just some idea of what you might do in your life to either stop the war you so clearly disdain, or to benefit the troops you claim to “support” (after having criticized, either overtly or by implication, most of the pro-war folks who comment here), you respond with a petulant “leave the personal stories out of it.”
If that’s what you want, then, quit asking others to volunteer theirs. You continue to claim to be interested in reasonable debate, and then constantly bring the personal into the discussion, while studiously avoiding anything about yourself (except marriage, of course).
Stumbley wrote:
“It wouldn’t be what I would consider a significant contribution, no…but it’s still something.”
Great, so until you actually find out that the bumper’s owner is doing *nothing* about Tibet, why not stop getting so worked up about them? You’ll be much happier and probably live longer.
“If that’s what you want, then, quit asking others to volunteer theirs. You continue to claim to be interested in reasonable debate, and then constantly bring the personal into the discussion, while studiously avoiding anything about yourself”
Stumbley, that I am constantly bringing the personal into the discussion here is an outright lie, how could you write such a thing?
Please read my response to BRD above for more details of why this matter was even brought up, but here it is in a nutshell:
When someone calls someone else a coward or a moocher, accuses them of just “sitting on their butts,” based solely on their opposition to (in this case even for expressing skepticism of) a war, I don’t see how it is in any way unfair to ask what the accuser is doing towards the effort they are expressing support for.
If you disagree, please do me the favor of explaining why you think it is unfair.
Beyond that, by so challenging the accuser, and upon receiving a response, I am then somehow obliged to provide details about how I might be actively opposing the war makes no sense to me.
It seems to me that, as an apparently uncritical stalwart of support for every aspect of the mission in Iraq, you all would be overjoyed to find I take my “activities” no further than exchanging blog comments with “punk ass college kids” and 4-F potheads.
michaelyon-online.comopinionjournal.com“Stumbley, that I am constantly bringing the personal into the discussion here is an outright lie, how could you write such a thing?”
Well, let’s see, from above in the comments:
“Stumbley, sorry if I’m getting too personal here, but did your wife run off with some guy with a “Free Tibet” bumper sticker or something? One sure seems to have hit a nerve with you somewhere.”
A joke, sure, but unfunny. And it’s not the first time.
“It seems to me that, as an apparently uncritical stalwart of support for every aspect of the mission in Iraq, you all would be overjoyed to find I take my “activities” no further than exchanging blog comments with “punk ass college kids” and 4-F potheads.”
Implying some personal stuff here, too, aren’t we?
…and I am anything but “an apparently uncritical stalwart of support” for the handling of this war. We should’ve gone after al-Sadr immediately, for instance. We should’ve relaxed the ROE long ago. We should’ve paid attention to smart local commanders like LTC Crissman (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/the-final-option.htm), for instance. And there’s more that I’m dissatisfied with. However, all that being said, the objective of the conflict–bringing democracy to Iraq and deposing a brutal dictator, possibly sowing the seeds of democracy in the region, putting pressure on Iran and Syria to behave more responsibly–all of these things I do support. More importantly, I realize the consequences of withdrawal, that even war opponents now are beginning to understand would be disastrous. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010168) Something uncritical thinkers like you don’t seem to care about.
Stumbley, please. Making a little joke once in a while and using personal information (not made-up, I might add) to illustrate points is hardly equivalent to the ad-hominem attacks on arguments which occur here routinely.
Seems kind of thin-skinned to me.
No word about the unfairness of the original question, shall I assume you agree it was fair?
As evidence for the impossibility of victory, I offer ETA, the Tamil Tigers, the Palestinians, the Shining Path, the Taliban, and the Chechens. A local insurgency can harry occupying troops for decades if they have sufficient local support. I fail to see how coalition troops are going to prevent the Iraqi people from planting IEDs.
Yet you run like a baby fom said 4-F pothead. That’s the kind of coward you are. Most of us do something (my contribution: a little relief to those that served; Stumbley: providing direct support). You do nothing but bitch and run, baby.
Can we assume you are afraid to answer questions about yourself because they would tend to reinforce what we already know, that your a chicken turd?
The original question was fair, which is why I openly answered it. The fact you used it to belittle me while runnung from the same fair question put to you shows you are a coward, and your only source of “humor” comes at others’ expense. A coward and a loser.
Stumbley, in fact, when he asked you what you do, and you replied “defense contractor”, he tried to belittle that by saying you sold post-it notes, didn’t he?
Lee, I’ve tried. I believe that it will be a long time before I respond to UB again. It’s just not worth it.
topix.nethttp://www.topix.net/world/lebanon/2007/06/60-taliban-confirmed-dead-in-boat-sinking
Hey, Bonnie,
So much for the dreaded Taliban “spring offensive”.
usip.orgusip.orgusip.orgLee Says: http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2007/0419_koenigs_afghanistan.html#taliban-confirmed-dead-in-boat-sinking
—————–
Talibans have a sense of humor too!
The Taliban Gloat: “The Americans have watches but we have time.”
http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2007/0419_koenigs_afghanistan.html#taliban
—————-
that would be nice, Lee!
http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2007/0419_koenigs_afghanistan.html#taliban
The Taliban gloat: “The Americans have watches but we have time.”
Elrond-
I do not say that this is mostly our fault – it is mostly the fault of Iraqis not getting along, and of negative foreign influence.
——————————–
Iraqis not getting along? How well did the inhabitants left behind for hurricane Katrina get along? I shudder to imagine the condition of the US if our government was dismantled, infrustructure destroyed, no law and order, and a power vacuum at hand. How many groups would we have vying for power? We have discontented, unfullfilled, disenfranchised minorites up the ying yang, radical religious groups already armed and trained in bunkers in the forests, just waiting for ‘the day’. What if some foreign power chose the religious right to rule over us? And made Falwell (if he was alive) our president? You know, all in all I just don’t think the middle to upper class would survive a single day if law and order broke down in this country. We would become refugees just like the Iraqis. Europe would have to create an Ellis Island for us. And what if we had the Muslims to thank for it? Well the Muslims have us to thank for their condition. 6 and a half years of American foreign policy and what we see in the Middle East is chaos, violence, mayhem, death and destruction. I love to listen to our politicans blame Hezbolla, Ahmadinejad, Syria, Al-Qaida etc etc. etc. What a crock. I know you didn’t praise US foreign policy, I am agreeing with you there and expanding on it.
Tatterdemalian Says:
Stability is overrated. I would even go so far as to say stability is anethema to democracy. A successful democracy is dynamic
———————–
that’s because the term stability when used in relation to the Middle East means “under Washington DC’s control.” It means one thing for us and something else for others.
Hyman Rosen Says:
As evidence for the impossibility of victory, I offer ETA, the Tamil Tigers, the Palestinians, the Shining Path, the Taliban, and the Chechens. A local insurgency can harry occupying troops for decades if they have sufficient local support. I fail to see how coalition troops are going to prevent the Iraqi people from planting IEDs.
——————–
exactly. The Muslims are 1.2 billion strong and the so called war on terror has radicalized the tamest of them. Those who don’t fight support those who do. That’s alot of ill will our way. Winning hearts and minds my foot, we have done the exact opposite.
“that’s because the term stability when used in relation to the Middle East means “under Washington DC’s control.” It means one thing for us and something else for others.”
I suppose it would surprise you to learn that we neocons oppose that kind of “stability” as well, though the media seems to treat it as the one and only rule by which success in Iraq may be measured.
Ideally, Iraq would be an independent democracy, able to stand on its own two feet against the rest of the world, and possibly even the US, should it come to that. But we don’t live in an ideal world, we just work toward it.
Gee, Bonnie, must have got under your skin with that one, huh? Your response to my post of military sucess in Afghanistan was to post Taliban feeble threats over and over and over.
And forget about those 1.2 billion muslims, just count the 25 million Iraqis. We currently have approx. 150,000 troops in country. 25 million v. 150,000. Hmmm……
If they all hated us so bad and really wanted us to leave, we wouldn’t be able to stay for ANY length of time, let alone 4+ years, with so many pleading with us to stay.
And for the most part, the victims of Katrina kept their wits and civility and got along just fine, despite some hardships. But society didn’t break down, nor did people start killing each other for what little remained, like Palestineans.
Pingback:Jessie