Learning what the price of “progress” was in China and the Soviet Union, seeing it happen again after we left Vietnam–these experiences are part of what shifted my politics. Pilger, on the other hand, knows that he is aligned with bad people, must know that their goals along with their methods are terrible–and he does not care. Any stick to beat a dog. . .

Pardon the sarcasm, but isn’t this exactly what politicians in both parties do? Aren’t the Republicans just as mindlessly hitting their own hot button issues like lower taxes, tough immigration and family values in an effort to win a few more votes in their own primaries? Who really expects serious, cogent and insightful discussion of actual issues, especially in these contrived “debate” formats that have become little more than an opportunity for everyone involved to litter the airwaves with sound bites from their stump speeches?

As for the tendency of politicians to secretly (or not so secretly) hope that the administration currently in the White House will make a mess of their foreign policy, especially with a lame duck President, I seem to remember Republican outrage (mixed with a heaping dose of glee) when Carter dealt with Iran in the hostage crisis and Clinton was CIC while we had troops in the Balkans. Again, this may be unseemly, but it is not a fault owned by only one of the two major parties.

As to the issues of substance, the jury remains out on whether the surge will accomplish much more than a temporary reduction in casualties. Many observers are concerned that a big part of the seeming success is associated with the ever more hard edged divisions between Shia, Sunni and Kurd areas. Where these groups were previously much more integrated, today the divisions have become virtually absolute. This is not a path to long-term peace and stability … nor was it intended to be. Unfortunately, the Iraqi government has not taken the opportunity this respite was designed to provide to come together and begin working out their differences in order to pull the country together. Nor has our government seriously pressed them to stop bickering and do so. If anything, the opposite seems to be the case. In many ways, the current surge is analogous to the entire adventure; the military has done a fantastic job despite a wide array of systemic and political obstacles while the diplomatic front has been AWOL far too much of the time.

The long arc of warfare in the twentieth and now twenty-first centuries has been toward increased use of terror as an acceptable means of conducting war. Given that there are hundreds of definitions for terrorism and a virtually infinite number of interpretations of those definitions it is helpful to have some common agreement for what is and what is not terrorism. My own short definition is use of violence against civilians to create a climate of fear for the purpose of bringing about change in the governmental, economic or social structure. Of course, this definition could be leveled against virtually every nation including ours (firebombing Dresden and Tokyo for example), let alone would be revolutionary cadres. Oh, and don’t forget groups like the KKK.

It was my own hope in the period immediately following 9/11 that the U.S. might leverage the wide spread shock around the world to place on the international agenda the issue of how to better define and prohibit the use of terrorism. I feel that was an opportunity squandered. Instead, under the thinking of those at the top in the Bush administration, we have moved in the direction of arguing that we must beat them at their own game, in other words, do a better job of using many of the same tactics and techniques (cf. torture).

The sad thing, however, is that, right now, the Democratic base is far more base than I ever recall thinking the Republican base was, even when I was a diehard liberal Democrat.

The Republicans, by the way, were not happy with Carter’s failed handling of the hostage crisis, not his non-existent success in handling it. I do not remember glee on their part; I remember disgusted outrage.

Republicans talk about “issues” like lower taxes because they work (see Northern Ireland). They talk about immigration because it’s a huge problem (see California, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona). They talk about family values because they see what the destruction of the nuclear family has brought about. They’re trying to solve problems, not “pander to a base”. They criticized Clinton’s actions in the Balkans because they did no good (and we still have troops there, after we were assured that they’d “be home by Christmas”), and as Neo points out, we were disgusted by Carter’s abysmal record in “handling” the Iranian hostage crisis.

The trouble with “progressives” is that they haven’t ever realized that their policies have never worked, anywhere they’ve ever been attempted.

Though I imagine that what Chris White meant by ‘tough immigration’ was tough on illegal immigration.

Chris White’s definition of terrorism seems to be uniquely designed to equate ‘terrorism’ with ‘war’. It certainly isn’t my definition. While I certainly hope we minimize civilian casualties whenever possible (without jeopardizing victory), terrorist tactics require as many civilian casualties as possible while minimalizing risk of a military response.

As Chris White says, terrorists attempt to, ‘use of violence against civilians to create a climate of fear’, but they are also trying to prevent their enemy from bringing his military might to the party. This is why middle eastern countries have not lately openly declared war on Israel, but continue to use suicide bombers.

Terrorist strategy also includes hiding amonst civilians in an attempt to use the enemies moral code against him (and in mosques, etc.)

Of course, even Chris White admits his definition could be leveled against virtually every nation. It seems to me to be nothing more than an attempt to equate terrorism with traditional warfare, thereby both deligitimizing war and/or legitimizing terrorism.

It depends on your point of view. If you absolutely hate America for what it has done to the progressive’s wish for a world marching ever leftward, you might sympathize with the US Democrats.

If you want the Iraqis to have a peaceful prosperous country, you want to kick the US DP in the cojones.

How are “success” and “failure” defined in terms of the Iran hostage crisis? No hostages died. We did not enter a war in Iran. Iran lost far more than it gained in its relations with most of the other nations of the world. The U.S. did not give in to any of Iran’s demands. The only clear failures were a pair of ill-fated rescue attempts in which none of the casualties and injuries were due to enemy action, but rather to weather related equipment failure and human error on the part of a pilot.

One can posit a very different approach and say that we could instead have taken over of the embassy with a commando raid by special forces immediately prior to a massive attack on the country. We can go on and posit that this could have saved most, if not all, the lives of the hostages but even more could have freed the country from its new theocratic regime, thus snuffing the rise of the radical Islamic movement and bringing about a new paradigm in the Middle East. Is this a realistic supposition?

One can also make the case that we “lost face” by failing to exert our military might. On the school playground do we applaud and respect the big kid who, blindsided by a pipsqueak showing off, resists the urge to pound said pipsqueak into a bloody pulp and goes instead to the teacher and seeks proper redress? Or do we join the throng of kids calling for revenge and eager to see the big guy shake it off and break the pipsqueak’s face?

If one thinks that the entire Iraq adventure has been, at best, misguided from its initial planning forward, the relative “success” of the surge, that is to say the increased troop numbers (something many military voices called for BEFORE the invasion), is cold comfort and not a valid argument for the entire enterprise.

As for the issue of terrorism, the march of history over the past 150 years has been toward ever higher percentages of civilian versus military casualties during wars. When nation states use firebombing of civilian areas as ‘legitimate’ military targets using the logic that the enemy exists within the population, the question of who or what is a valid target for whom, using what means, is the entire crux of the issue. One cannot simply fall back on the idea that if we do it, it is okay, if our enemy does it, it is not. This is ultimately the same argument of whether we do or do not follow laws in pursuit of those who break them.

You can’t kick what’s not there.

The US is a big world problem even though we are not attacking places like [socialist] Sweden… it’s the Iraqs and North Korea.. and we must be stopped…. pffft…

I dont think so. You see, our candidates can answer the question of whether or not illegal immigrants should be issued drivers licenses because, 1.) our guys have a moral and practical opinion on the issue and, 2). It happens to be the same opinion as the majority of the electorate.

“This is ultimately the same argument of whether we do or do not follow laws in pursuit of those who break them.”

No Chris, it isnt. Its a recognition of the fact that if you want to “Save Darfur” or “Free Tibet”, you gotta do something more than just slap it on a bumper sticker, and that “something” in reality, often requires violence.

They slap on the bumper stickers, safely knowing they are required by their own standards to do nothing more. But, by their standards, they are morally superior heroes speaking truth to power.

The other part of the country does the real work, giving the Chris Whites opportunity to complain about what meanies we are.

Win-win for them, and don’t think for a minute they haven’t figured it out.

I suggest you read Bruce Bawer’s “While Europe Slept” to get deeper understanding of the reaction to 9/11 and the denial prevalent in Europe.

I hear this a lot so it MUST be a prevalent thought among a large percentage of Americans…

The other part of the country does the real work, giving the Chris Whites opportunity to complain about what meanies we are.

Would that be something like the “Support the Troops” stickers? Or would that “real work” be something like leaving comments on this blog accusing people of being traitors?

This is of course a completely ridiculous statement. It’s the Republican candidates who want to “double gitmo”, practice unrestrained torture, and invade Iran, positions that are not supported by a majority of the American public. On the left, the “radicals” want withdrawal from Iraq, which I would say is a fairly natural response to four years of inconclusive insurgency and also…a position supported by a majority of Americans.

What worries me about the reaction of liberals and Democrats is not the skepticism [about recent positive developments in Iraq]…but the da[r]k and sinister impression they give that the worse the tidings, the better they would be pleased.

Evidence of that assertion? Oh, none. Just a “dark and sinister” impression. Sort of like on this blog. And I particularly enjoyed how he tacks that on at the very end of the column, as if he couldn’t write just one column about Iraq without insinuating the critics of the war are traitors. Nevermind that the right has been consistently wrong about Iraq, and that at this point skepticism is the ONLY appropriate response to reports of good news out of Iraq.

And how shall we impugn the credibility and motives of leading Democratic politicians? By citing a relatively unknown and very left-of-center “journalist”:

The Left wants a defeat for the US in Iraq and a triumph for the Iraqi resistance, in order that the US will be weakened worldwide.

Oh, but that wasn’t good enough. Instead you “reimagined” what Democrats would really say, in Pilger’s words.

Oh, but there is a caveat:

Yes, I know that the Democratic candidates don’t share Pilger’s extreme anti-American stance. But unfortunately their party has too many people who do.

Where? Find them, and point them out to me. That does not include everyone who disagrees with you about the war, despite what you may think.

Please. The right has done plenty to weaken the United States, without the help of anyone on the left. Do you for one second believe we are stronger now than we were before we invaded Iraq? Here, let’s test that assumption: how free are we to deal with Iran? Hmmm…less free because they can react against us in Iraq. How free are we to deal with militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Oh, less free because we 175,000 troops in Iraq. Would you say that Iran’s drive to obtain nuclear weapons or the strength of the militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan is evidence of our strength? Neither would I. “Leftists” and “Democrats” are not to blame for this because, as even you would admit, they did not start this war in Iraq.

As for the “progress” in Iraq, as a good neocon, you are probably aware that Stephen Biddle, a very sensible adviser to Gen. Patraeus, has stated that our current strategy will at best bring about eventual stability if we keep 100,000 or so troops in Iraq for the next 20-30 years. Do you agree? Disagree? Why? And do you think the American people would have signed on to this war if they knew that was in the cards? Do you think they’d sign onto it now? No, I don’t either. But I suppose that just makes a majority of Americans “leftists” or traitors, right?

We, to our credit, generally discourage targeting civilians or using torture and tend to punish those over zealous soldiers who cross the line, at least when such activity comes to light. Radical groups, including al Quada, recruit the over zealous to perform such acts and they should be condemned and brought to justice for doing so.

While I am not a Democrat and find the endless political horserace less than ideal, the kind of over heated rhetoric that paints the Democratic Party as traitors wishing for U.S. troops to die so that they might win an election a symptom of a disease far worse than BDS.

Easy question. The latter, of course. Going to the teacher and tattling makes the big kid a puss …er…future liberal. Would you seriously respect the tattler? Good God. That alone speaks volumes.

Why shouldn’t they? After all, we’re still in S. Korea, we’re still in Kosovo. Does doing right have a time limit? Or is it that the Xans of the world are more embarrassed in the likelihood that the longer we maintain a steadfast conviction the worse off it is for Xan and his non existent moral convictions?

Yes, that’s it, isn’t it Xan?

Sometimes bumper stickers don’t quite do it do they Xan? Thats what really sets you off. You can try to turn this around, as you have, and attempt to make a “support the troops” bumper sticker the same thing, but what we support is actual freedom from oppression, not empty platitudes. Might that take 20 or 30 years Xan? Isn’t that worth it to somebody?

I am bringing my understanding of the Left’s philosophy into play now. So isn’t it true, Chris, that the moral equivalency is only there because you believe that such actions are never justified without international approval and cooperation? In essence, America is not cooperating with terrorists or civilians amongst terrorists, and neither is terrorism cooperating with American plans, such as collateral damage or GitMo. Is not cooperation your ultimate goal for a better world? The ultimate solution to the nasty business of people dying.

How are “success” and “failure” defined in terms of the Iran hostage crisis?-Chris

Tap, if you are the same Tap as was present with Op at Bookworm Room, then you will know where this line of logic is going.

In general, what Chris brought up is the classic philosophical difference between those with a Leftist membership and those with a non-Leftist membership. By Leftist I include the Triangle of Death geometry present between National Socialism, Communists, and Democratic Socialists.

No hostages died. We did not enter a war in Iran. Iran lost far more than it gained in its relations with most of the other nations of the world.-Chris

To a Jacksonian or a conservative, winning is about gaining life and liberty over losing life and liberty. Losing is the latter only. The concept that people lose because they lost “relations” and status with other nations, is the philosophical assumption that humans, by cooperating, can ease social tensions and defuse violent situations.

This is only true if you believe in the martial virtues. This is not true if you believe in Leftist standards and values, however.

On the school playground do we applaud and respect the big kid who, blindsided by a pipsqueak showing off, resists the urge to pound said pipsqueak into a bloody pulp and goes instead to the teacher and seeks proper redress? Or do we join the throng of kids calling for revenge and eager to see the big guy shake it off and break the pipsqueak’s face?

To requote this thought experiment, it is only a translation of Leftist philosophy which says that the only justification for violence or action of any kind is to call upon higher powers. And in the Leftist hierarchy of command, international approval is The higher power and authority. Authority does not come from individuals, after all, but from groups. This is opposite of martial virtues that dictate that power comes from individuals, also known as the people. It is also in direct contradiction to insurgency and guerrilla warfare, where the target is primarily people not specifically the higher authorities. Higher authorities only have authority because the people at the bottom give it to them. Raise up the people at the bottom against the authority, and the authority will cease to existence. Look at Iran when the Ayatollah deposed the Shah and also look at what the West is trying to do in Pakistan.

Isn’t trying to create global support simply an excuse to allow those ruthless enough to weld the people to them to win? I know the Left sees winning as both parties making agreements internationally. But that isn’t what happens after all. The Left does not have enough power to enforce cooperation, they only have the power to make reasonable people cooperate to their detriment. This frees up those that would target the real source of power, the people at the bottom, for carnage and violence.

Look at Petraeus’ COIN strategy to see how it treats individuals and people at the bottom. Then look at Leftist welfare and aristocratic attitudes to see who they see as the souce of power. It is simply the military’s bottom up hierarchy vs the aristocrat’s top down hierarchy. One is grassroots while the other is autocratic. Using philosophical premises and logic, this works out quite well even if the society that the Left resides in is democratic while the society the military resides in is dictatorial.

(something many military voices called for BEFORE the invasion)-Chris

The claim that many military voices called for a counter-insurgency doctrine to be implemented before the invasion, has few justifications. Did anyone hear generals and pundits talk about the need to craft stronger ties to the locals by arming them and ensuring that we fight with them to kill all enemies, foreign or domestic? There was nobody saying such things in 2003-4. Nobody that the Left would tolerate.

Even the Democrats and their Leftist allies that disagreed with the war, did so only based upon WMD, UN, and international law standards. Not COIN/Insurgency protests. Well, there was that “freedom fighter” business. Suddenly those freedom fighters are now our terrorist militia allies, suddenly. Fancy that. It just goes to show you how inverted are some people’s conceptions of what “grassroots” mean and what “top down leadership” is. They got those two mixed up.

More troops do not equal COIN. Not at all. Nor do “more local forces” equal COIN. The Iraqi face strategy doesn’t equal COIN either, as practiced by Abizaid at least. Counter-insurgency requires the building of a loyal powerbase from the ground up, individual by individual, family by family, sector by sector. This is completely mutually exclusive with the Leftist world view that people can simply be commanded to cooperate from the top down by those in the know.

When nation states use firebombing of civilian areas as ‘legitimate’ military targets using the logic that the enemy exists within the population, the question of who or what is a valid target for whom, using what means, is the entire crux of the issue.-Chris

Military necessity is not a field that the international goon squad of corrupt bureacrats have an interest in improving upon. That status quo is not going to change regardless of how many people complain about civilian casualties.

One cannot simply fall back on the idea that if we do it, it is okay, if our enemy does it, it is not.

The moral equivalence that unintended civilian casualties are not okay while enemy intended civilian casualties are also not okay, is a philosophy bereft of free will. It does not take free will into consideration at all.

It is convenient, in a way, since the only way to get lambs and lions to cooperate together is to make them do so, against their wills, if wills they have. The Left lacks the ability to erase civilian casualties from the field of war. So they erase free will, thereby erasing the difference between intended consequences and unintended consequences. Thus murder would be the same as manslaughter. Would it then make any logical sense to say that someone thinks murder is not okay if they do it, but manslaughter is okay if we do it? What kind of logic does such statements use? A logic bereft of free will.

The issue of contention was never about whether such things were “okay” or not. The issue of contention was always “who authorizes the use of force”. The Left says the international “higher authority” cabal. I say never them. It is never okay to give into the demands of those that take more power than they actually have. Regardless of what those bureacrats actually want you to do.

Since American collateral damage is not authorized by the UN while terrorism is authorized by the UN, whether through bribery or simply ideological adherence, American actions will always be “not okay”. It doesn’t really matter whether America did something bad or not. What matters is that America does not knuckle under demands from the international community that such a magnificent fighting force such as the US Marines and US Army should be used on assignments of Sex for Food by any UN bureacrat or other internationally sanctioned group like the Human Rights Commission in need of such services. That’s what is not okay with the higher authorities.

No Chris, it isnt. Its a recognition of the fact that if you want to “Save Darfur” or “Free Tibet”, you gotta do something more than just slap it on a bumper sticker, and that “something” in reality, often requires violence.-Harry

Chris may authorize such violence. If the international community agreed to it. Did he not, after all, say that he wanted Saddam removed in Gulf War 1 because the UN had sanctioned his removal?

I suggest you read Bruce Bawer’s “While Europe Slept” to get deeper understanding of the reaction to 9/11 and the denial prevalent in Europe-expat

It is not really about whether Chris is well read in the topic or not. As Op demonstrated at Bookworm Room, you can be knowledgeable about a subject but still limited by your philosophical assumptions. No amount of new reading can change someone’s basic philosophical assumptions that they have held for many years.

Have a problem? Create a committee to study the problem, appoint somebody else to be in charge and pay them from the public coffers. That way if the problem continues, you can use the poor sap you hired for the job as a scapegoat for why the system failed, create another level of bureaucracy above that and pay them with more public funding, all to avoid doing something about the problem yourself.

In Oregon, you cant even pump your own gas. That would be dangerously capricious. Its better the “highly trained” minimum wage “specialist” pumps it for you.

Well, actually I was thinking more about what it means for our national security that we have 100,000 soldiers sitting in Iraq for two or three decades, will insurgencies fester in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Clearly you haven’t considered that little problem, or you might think of it as conundrum more for our country than my own personal moral convictions.

And thus, the war is explained. Remember kids: for all the high-falutin’ language about WMDS, it really was about picking up a smaller country and throwing it up against the well, demonstrating that in fact our country has the biggest balls in the whole world.

But what if the “teacher,” after being asked for “proper redress,” then smiles benignly at the “pipsqueak” while the “pipsqueak” blithely continues inflicting violence on the “big kid” and many other children on the playground? Big kid needs to do some ass-kicking, I think.

That’s you pretending Iraq isn’t a national security matter, and/or pretending that national security drives your concerns. I’m convinced that it isn’t. You’re going to have to find another excuse as to why we shouldn’t continue to fight this one out. So far, you excuses are exhausted.

The inability to make moral distinctions between accidental but unavoidable deaths in war and the deliberate attempt to maximize such deaths has sometimes been referred to as moral relativism, but it shouldn’t be — it’s really a kind of moral imbecility. An imbecility that has come to characterize ever growing segments of the contemporary Democratic Party as it continues to be bent out of any decent shape by its frenzied and degenerate left wing.

CW (after apparently giving his head a shake): We, to our credit, generally discourage targeting civilians or using torture and tend to punish those over zealous soldiers who cross the line, at least when such activity comes to light. Radical groups, including al Quada, recruit the over zealous to perform such acts and they should be condemned and brought to justice for doing so.

Some people seem to think that if you say something ridiculous and stupid one minute and then turn around and say the opposite the next, this will make you look complicated. It doesn’t. It just makes you look simple, and I don’t mean that in a good way. These are the modern equivalent of the “useful idiots” that were so helpful to the previous incarnation of the totalitarian impulse.

And thus we see the extent and depth of the Lefty view of strategy — no doubt unconsciously, but quite vividly, they view the world as just a backdrop for the projection of nothing more than their schoolboy fears and anxieties.
No, X, I’m afraid there really is more to it — but, though the language isn’t really all that “high-falutin’”, you might find it a bit of a strain. For one thing, while WMDs were a serious concern, particularly given the weakening international sanctions, they were certainly not the only one. The real point of the Iraq invasion was to begin the long but essential program of draining the terrorist-breeding swamp of the Middle East, by striking at the most vicious and terrorist-supporting regime at its heart. It was, from the start, a risk, certainly, but a calculated one, and ultimately — in the terrible light of 9/11 — a necessary one, that would only have to be repeated, later, under worse circumstances, should it fail. Like all such risks, it’s had its mistakes, and even partial failures. But grownups understand that, and understand the need for the patience and fortitude to see things through. Even the need to put up with the tantrums of the arrested-development left.

that sure is warped thinking. Personally I would like a triumph for Iraqi resistance just on principle alone. After all, I would like to win if I was being bullied and trampled on in my country by foreigners. And it isn’t just Iraq. I cheer for Hamas, I cheer for Hezballah. I cheer for Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez. I cheer for everyone being trampled upon by anyone else. The US is Godzilla, Israel has a sneaky hand in the roid rage…oops, I mean the war on terror. Democrates, Republicans…they pay the same piper for slightly different tunes. BFD.

Once upon a time you could have seen her likes cheering for Hitler, being trampled upon by those sneaky Joos, couldn’t you? Bonnie’s not a moral imbecile, at least — she’s quite clear about which side she’s on. But you couldn’t ask for a better illustration of what the deranged and degenerate left has been reduced to these days. Thanks, Bonnie.

Anyone care to know how many military families are actually relieved about what the Dems are proposing?

Can a war be won without the support of the loved ones at home? Doubtful. But, all YOU are told is to derail the Dems and take no responsiblity yourselves for supporting the GOP who for the last 6 years provided no oversight, ran up the largest debt ever and looked the other way while only 1% fought their war. Well, ITS YOUR WAR TOO!

Serious problems with the war in Iraq are well chronicled, but I am struck by one that does not seem to trouble the country’s leadership, even though it is profoundly corrosive to our common good: the disparity between the lives of the few who are fighting and being killed, and the many who have been asked for nothing more than to continue shopping.

Those who rationalize this disconnect have argued that our soldiers are volunteers, happy doing what they signed up to do.

Hubris. GOP Hubris.

YOU DON’T get to define people. you may think that you have the power to do that, and that somehow a person’s credibility goes down the drain. The same old line from every right winger is to try and discredit. Problem is, it’s such a tired old line that you end up looking really weak.

Don’t like what they say, and derail their patriotism as if only you and your party have that base covered. HUBRIS

Because it certainly isn’t YOU and it certainly isn’t YOUR KIDS and it certainly isn’t costing YOU anything now is it?

It’s easy to support a war when you aren’t the one doing the fighting. HUBRIS.

I’m trying to remember which countries in the Middle East the terrorists of 9/11 came from. Oh, right, they were primarily from Saudi Arabia. But the leadership, surely that was Saddam, right? No? Oh, it was Osama bin Laden, I think I remember that now. But he hid out and got his support from Iraq, didn’t he? Oh, he flits between Afghanistan and Pakistan does he?

In the months leading up to the Iraq invasion we were inundated by the Bush administration with spurious links between the 9/11 attack and Iraq, despite the actual facts of the matter. Advertising works I guess.

Hmmm, so why did we target Iraq again? Because Saddam might possibly, in a number of years, if he got materials and expertise from other nations and continued to thumb his nose at the international community, have reconstituted his dismantled, nascent WMD program. Then, once he had WMD he could have decided to share them with al Quada, even though he and al Quada were not exactly friendly, because he ran “the most vicious and terror-supporting regime.”

I thought that regime was in Libya. Oh, right, we managed to use international sanctions and diplomatic means to change that. Wait, wait, I remember, it’s Syria, or maybe Iran, or the Taliban in Afghanistan. Golly, this is so confusing.

As this neocon vs. leftist tussle rolls along I continue to be astounded by the some of the extremes voiced in the posts. From the assertion that the Democratic Party is virtually no different than Stalinist Communism on the one side, to the “I cheer for Hamas” idiocy on the other.

The strongest correlation for the creation of terrorists seems to be among youth who have achieved a level of higher education and modest economic means but who live under highly repressive regimes that use draconian means to maintain power and order, like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Pakistan. And yes, Iraq and Iran. The question is how to best drain those terrorist-breeding swamps. Having a different view of how to do that, one that does not tend toward showing the terrorists that we have bigger balls than they do, does not make me a traitor … or a puss. I believe that the invasion of Iraq has weakened our long-term security, especially because it failed to balance military might with diplomatic smarts and international support.

A common tactic “among” the left wing too, then wouldn’t you say?

Get over yourself, Laura. You’re wearing that “military family” badge pretty thin. Here’s what you need to understand: this isn’t about party politics. The war isn’t a game, and choosing sides isn’t like picking your team. This is about doing what needs to be done to stop a great evil, and about choosing sides in that struggle. If you want to argue about that, fine, do so, but driveling on about shopping doesn’t do it. And your whole “military families = victims” schtick is just unworthy of the bravery and sacrifices of those who’ve volunteered to fight in this struggle.

Here is something for you to chew on. This HAS been a political football. For too long. The GOP has attempted to silence the rational voices on the war and laid the work on a small group of people. The lessons of Vietnam for the PNAC et al were clear…give hefty tax cuts, infuse the country with rampant nationalism, have “support the troops” rallies, show up and give speeches with the troops in the background as a great photo op, keep pictures of the fallen out of the mainstream, and tell your fellow americans that they need to stay the course.

While you might poo poo the idea of the military family’s dribble was it? You underestimate the power of the 1% of the country fighting the war; their families.

Your arrogance is astounding really Sally. Once again, easy to support something that doesn’t affect you personally, as long as you have your tax cuts and feel “safe”…People tend to care deeply about the issues that affect them deeply. This one just passes through the filter in your brain and gets cast aside. Perhaps because you know exactly why you have that knawing feeling in your gut when you see a photo of a fallen soldier, or hear of a soldier killing himself in country.

It’s called guilt. And, you Sally, are complicit in the country being far less safe. Thanks so much!

“Thank You for Your Service. Now Draft Me.”
by Matthew Rojansky | November 20th, 2007

It’s a sobering read from someone deeply touched by the war. Right Left Center should read as much as they can from these soldiers. We owe it to them to support them as they wrestle with the aftermath of war.

Will Bardenwerper, an Army infantry officer from 2003 to 2007, was stationed for 13 months in Nineveh and Anbar Provinces in Iraq.

Excuses…you’re a clever one, though not clever enough to understand my point. Which is (in case you’re wondering) that although the right is busy celebrating the “victory” over al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda is busy making itself very comfortable in Pakistan’s western provinces, and is having a grand time killing our soldiers in Afghanistan as well. So I would like you to explain how you can dismiss that situation and yet consider yourself someone who is “serious” about national security matters.

That is another common tactic, rehash the worthless words “bravery and sacrifices” and “voluteered”.

Sally, how many soldiers have been backdoor drafted? 70,000. Did they “voluteer” for that? Wake up Sally.

Oh, I’m quite familiar with that rationale, as it is repeatedly peddled alongside the WMD and humanitarian rationales. However, I might remind you that:

a) Saddam Hussein’s connections to Sunni and Shiite terrorists in the Middle East have always paled in comparison to those of Iraq
b) There were more al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq after the war then before, and
c) al Qaeda is resurgent in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

So it appears that instead of draining the swamp, we instead poured more water into it and added some more mosquitoes for good measure. The situation is now returning to something closer to what Iraq was like before we invaded (though despite victory proclamations, al Qaeda is still busy killing people in Iraq) AND the situation in Afghanistan is much worse. So not only was that rationale always insupportable, it also didn’t work. Not that those facts will change your mind.

Oh, and one more thing…grownups understand that foreign policy is not premised on silly analogies.

It bears reminding that Fascists are on the right of the political dial, not the left. And according to many “good” Germans at the time, Hitler was only responding to the threat of Jews infiltrating and undermining the national security of the Fatherland? Does that ring a bell Sally?

We need to ponder these things on this Thanksgiving holiday, and not forget that America is the only real protector of civil society in the world.

The answer is obvious: diplomacy. American, unlike every other superpower through history, has relied mostly on diplomacy to maintain its security. To be sure, there have been cases where America misued its military power or other cases where diplomacy failed and military power was the only remaining option.

Given that, why do Republicans always root for American diplomacy to fail?

Why, for example, do right wingers blame American diplomacy in Vietnam for failing? Vietnam was a very difficult situation with deep, unreasolved conflicts within the country and the region. American diplomacy was certainly an incomplete success there, but why do right-wingers insist that it failed abjectly and that, therefore, the only possible recourse was war, war and more war?

When American policy was to contain Saddam Hussein, every right winger from sea to shining sea, was begging for America to fail. After 9/11, every right winger with access to a printing press or a microphone, declared that containment had failed, that American diplomacy had failed–and desperately hoped for evidence to prove the assertion correct.

We now know that the containment strategy worked. Saddam was unable to obtain WMD, even though all signs are clearly that he would have preferred to have them.

To be sure, the success of diplomacy in Iraq was incomplete, but clearly much more complete than any success the war policy can now claim.

Why is it that right wingers feel so free to root for the failure of diplomacy, yet feel that rooting for the failure of war is somehow unpatriotic?

Is it plain small-mindedness, denial or ignorance?