Judgment and war: Obama and the Democratic party
It’s ironic that the surge’s success has made the issue of the Iraq War less central rather than more in this campaign. “Ironic,” because the passage of time has made it clearer that, no matter what one thinks of the wisdom of the war’s genesis, those who counseled that the surge was a failure even before it began (and that includes both nominee Obama and most of the Democratic Party leadership) were wrong. If we had followed their leadership, Iraq would have been an even worse failure—and tragedy—than Vietnam was decades ago.
Fortunately, they did not prevail this time. But how is it that this party and these leaders can ask us to trust their judgment and elect them to make decisions about military matters in the future?
One possibility is that they are saying that their poor judgment on the surge is canceled out by Bush and the Republicans’ poor judgment on the start of the war. But that conveniently ignores the fact that most of the Democrats voted for the war at the outset. The idea that they were deceived by the cleverly lying Bush is their defense to that charge. But even if a person were to accept that argument, it’s not exactly a testimonial to the Democrats’ judgment, either.
Another possibility is that the Democrats say that the war is moot now, so let’s focus on other issues: the economy, health insurance, energy, the Supreme Court. If one agrees with the Democrats’ approach to these domestic issues, that would be an argument with legs. The recent conflict in Georgia, however, undermined it somewhat, reminding the American people that the world remains a very dangerous and volatile place.
I recently had an epiphany of sorts about this issue of why someone would trust the Democrats (and especially Obama) on military matters if they were so wrong in their judgment on the surge. Here it is: if a person believes that war is obsolete and nearly always avoidable, and that Presidential diplomacy is the invariably correct answer to solving international conflict involving the US, then good judgment in the prosecution of a war becomes irrelevant. The only decision that matters is the decision to go to war in the first place, and if a person believes that decision can and should nearly always be answered in the negative, then good judgment in war strategy becomes mostly unnecessary.
I doubt that most Obama supporters would own up to this viewpoint if asked. They might say that of course there are circumstances under which wars must be fought. But my guess is that those circumstances are so restrictive in their minds that they become effectively nonexistent, and that the emotional pull is to the idea that war will almost never be necessary. Somehow, Obama’s magic will make that dream a reality.
Pingback:The Thunder Run
To paraphrase Trotsky: “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
If we had followed their leadership, Iraq would have been an even worse failure–and tragedy–than Vietnam was decades ago. and that of the isolationist Right then, additionally, the following would be true: Bosnia and Kosovo would have been annexed by a greater Serbia and ethnically cleaned, Kuwait would have been annexed by a Baathist regime, that was looking more and more like the vanguard of the new Caliphate, Libya would not have given up their WMD’s to Bush and Blair; these areas would more likely resembled Darfur and Rwanda where the world decided we’d do it Kofi Annan’s way.
There’s a reason why those of us in the military are overwhelmingly GOP.
The transition of the Democrats from the working mans party to the party of the intellectuals and functionnaires is almost complete. It is accompanied by a parallel shift of the Republicans from a party of all businessmen to a party of blue collar and small business people. I see here in my Connecticut suburb that the middle managers for the big insurance companies are drifting to the Democrats. Not from any great love for the positions, but in part to be with the trendy types and in part to mimic their CEOs who will pay the price required to be in play. They figure they need to be able to play with the Dems, as they can always work with the GOP.
Many of the blue collar voters are veterans or have family members who served and small business types are freer to express their natural sentiments for patriotism and common sense.
Bull’s eye. Rank and file lefties aren’t nearly so intellectual as to reason their way to your epiphany, neo. Their position is based upon magical thinking, plain and simple.
What do you expect? The Most Merciful Lord Obama probably has never heard of Clauswitz, let alone discovered read his in book that war is merely the continuation of politics by other means.
neo:
“They might say that of course there are circumstances under which wars must be fought. But my guess is that those circumstances are so restrictive in their minds that they become effectively nonexistent, “
Right next to the bumper stickers that say “Free Tibet” and “Save Darfur” is the one that says “War is not the Answer”. That type of lofty, yet meaningless rhetorical posturing kinda limits what kind of options you’re prepared to take. That is unless lofty meaningless posturing is all you ever meant to do anyway.
While liberals exhaust every diplomatic effort to make themselves appear to our enemies that they posses the earnestly sought after moral high ground, hundreds of thousands of people are killed and/or enslaved. That’s because our enemies largely arent interested in what liberals consider to be the moral high ground. That lesson never seems to sink in.
nyomythus,
I spent almost 18 months in Kosovo Courtesy of Uncle Sam and the Texas National Gaurd. I hate to tell you, but Kosovo is still being ethnically cleansed. I was there in 2004 when the undereported “riots” occurred and Ancient Churches were destroyed in Kosovo by the Albanians. When Serbian houses were burnt to the ground, and the wimpy Europeans, with their rules of engagement could do nothing and American troops had to be sent out of sector to help the ridiculous Europeans. Course, we did not do so well either, as originally we had little non-lethal weapons at the start of the riots. Those Serbs that were in the mixed areas , especially the smaller towns, are pulling back to Serbia proper- being bought out by their Albanian neighbors. The media presented Kosovo as a black and white issue. There were atrocities on all sides. The longer I was there on the ground, the more I realized that.
Kosovo today I think is somewhat like the current situation in Los Angeles, where the Black neighborhoods are being replaced by Mexican ones, and few people outside the area seem to realize there is a slow ethnic cleansing going on one threat at a time.
Some school systems are literally NOT teaching war.
I’m the webmaster for a site that teaches humanities, and we have an excellent series on how WWII was fought. A history teacher objected to the content because she stated that, rather than teach “military history,” they focused on the home front, especially the beginnings of the civil rights movement. No war. No need to teach war. Seriously. So, anyway, another history teacher in the focus group turned to her and asked, “So, do any of YOUR students know who WON?”
For the record, we have lesson plans on the home front, on civil rights, on “Rosie the Riveter,” heck, even on “Jazz and WWII.” But no. She had to object to a curriculum unit about a War that dealt with facts of War.
jon baker — thanks
Or, vanderleun, as Hillaire Belloc once wrote:
Pale Ebeneezer thought it wrong to fight.
But Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right.
In a nearby suburb a bunch of people gather every Monday at a streetcorner. They’re…I think the Australian word figs…fuckwits. Yesterday they all had “End the War” signs and I remembered Orwell’s remark that the quickest way to end a war is to lose it.
Greetings:
“If we had followed their leadership, Iraq would have been an even worse failure–and tragedy–than Vietnam was decades ago.”
Iraq is and was eons away from the tragedy that was Viet Nam.
That’s counter-hyperbole.
We, the warfighters, won the war in Vietnam. The F***wits (their tepid little get together is going on now) lost it.
gm
jon baker,
Regarding wimpy Europeans: After the Germans had been in Afghanistan a while, a report got out that their activities were hindered because some of their armoured vehicles coudn’t be used. It seems they were overdue for their emission checks. Clean air ueber alles.
The reason that the progressives think they’re so smart is that everybody they know agrees with them.
This is a manifestation of the collective instinct in people. The flip side of the collective is the individual, less of a need for approval of others.
Both exist in all of us to varying degree. The collective side wants to say things that please others. The individualist is more inclined to listen to others.
Politics – both right and left – becomes radical when the collective becomes dominant. This is pretty obvious in the Democratic Party. I have not seen a campaign so tone deaf in the 60 years I’ve been watching politics.
We also see this in the right, especially the blogosphere. I hold my nose and go there – kind of like a pathologist. If you don’t follow the party line of that particular blog you will be vilified.
“I hate to tell you, but Kosovo is still being ethnically cleansed.”
From my understanding (I happen to converse with someone from there on an archery forum) Kosovo has pretty much been written off.
They created a new country (Republic of Sprska) where the non-ethnic cleansing people can go happily live (and be protected) and then the UN basically tries to keep the older parts from becoming a full on hot war. Even then he admitted that if the UN left that many in Sprska would try and kill the other side anyway – they are just the ones that can be controlled by law and order.
I don’t really know if that is wise or not, that guy seemed to think it was just peachy keen and a better arrangement than any other country he had been in as the UN holds Sprska fairly tightly (that is, little crime).
Personally my thoughts on areas like that are that we create a “safe” zone and strongly enforce it and just just let them kill each other elsewhere. We can’t get that (too many will not be forceful enough and the “safe” zone would be heavily taken advantage of – I also understand Sprska is used as such).
The only reason we feel sympathy towards those being ethnically cleansed is they lost. Reality is if/when we *do* step in and “help” the loosing side just goes around and ethnically cleanses the other resulting in us flopping back and forth over whom we help and causing a MUCH higher death rate than if we just let it run out. There is no clear winner to take the side of.
Iraq (in both Desert Storm an Iraqi Freedom) clearly had an aggressor and a victim – the current Georgian/Russian does too (unless you are really good at deconstructionism and/or being a useful idiot and then you can get whatever you want). There are other areas of the world that are just as clear too. Rwanda, Darfur, Kosovo, and a number of others ones are not. If we decide to intervene without letting the hammer fall we get decades of fighting and killing (again – see Kosovo), most likely we will end up nearing the “centuries” mark on most of those as they have been fighting that long already.
I’m not against going in, I’m against the pansy ass way we go about it. All we end up doing is giving both sides equal ability to kill each other and then stand in between them.
I’ll own up gladly to that viewpoint, neo. The more pansy a president we have the better.
Your analysis misses the mark, Neo. First of all, while I was a supporter of the surge, I don’t believe the situation in Iraq would have deteriorated if the surge had not gone into effect. Keep in mind that the “surge” raised the level of troops to the same level they were at an earlier point in the war … when it wasn’t enough. There were two main reasons the situation in Iraq quieted down — the first was simply the natural evolution of political reality, as people turned against Al Qaeda and their allies — the second was more intelligent tactics on the ground, instigated by Petraeus, who came on the scene because Bush was forced to change things up after the defeat of the Republicans in 2006. Yes, the increase in troops was a part of this, and an important part, but in and of itself wasn’t the crucial factor.
The blunder of going into Iraq in the first place, however, far exceeds the mistake of opposing the troop increase. Furthermore — I honestly believe that had Obama or any Democrat actually been in office they may well have supported a surge strategy — the opposition was to some extent knee-jerk anti-Bush sentiment. It’s natural for the opposition party to tend to oppose anything the other party supports, regardless of the merits (natural, though regrettable, as I’ve often said). But if Obama or Kerry or any other Democrat had actually been president, I suspect a surge-like strategy may well have been enacted anyway — even perhaps a larger surge than actually came to pass.
“Obama’s magic will make that dream a reality.”
“Peace in our time…. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.” Because we will all be needing it (and the advanced weapons systems), unless Obama succeeds in cutting/Carterizing the military, when the Chinese communists are finally feeling confident enough to expand beyond Tibet, starting with Taiwan, and the Mahdi’s followers finally get their bomb…
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1447472
However, things are working out better than hoped for now with the Dems, since it’s Obama w/ Joe (Obama’s a nice guy but he’s not qualified…blah, blah) Blow, and not Shrillary w/ Bill Richardson, who would have been very hard pair to stop… Fortunately the dems have an intellectual quotient equivalent to smug Peter Pansy (above), who would be trembling pathetically if he weren’t protected from reality…
Ah Mitsu, “But if Obama or Kerry or any other Democrat had actually been president, I suspect a surge-like strategy may well have been enacted anyway – even perhaps a larger surge than actually came to pass.”
Right, they would definitely have voted for an even better bigger badder war after they voted against it before they voted for it, since anything is possible for a 20-20 vision in hindsight dimocrat, except facing reality, and placing country before politics…
“Right, they would definitely have voted for an even better bigger badder war after they voted against it before they voted for it,”
Of course, didn’t you know they have foraward looking hindsight glasses? They knew that the thing would succeed so they voted for it in the first place, then realizing that without someone trying to make it fail they would never have done the surge and actually had success. So, being the patriotic people they are they did everything they could to stop it. Now, once their grand forward looking hidsight has come through they can declare that they were for it all along (except still actually being against it – those forward looking glasses there again) and if they had been in power they would have done more to get it done faster – after all they are against it in an attempt to make it succeed.
I’m reminded of an Aqua Teen Hunger Force quote I always liked “You don’t remember because back then it was only a prophecy, but now, in the future, the past has occurred”. Master Shake and the Cybernetic Ghost of Christmas Past speeches always struck me as perfect imitations of the rationalizations around obviousness that the left use in their arguments. They even get the tonal inflections of their voices whilst ranting down to near perfect.
I’m just speaking about political reality: the role of the opposition party is to oppose. For example, because Blair was a supporter of the Iraq War, in Britain the Conservative Party, although in principle a more war-supporting party than Labor, ended up criticizing the conduct of the war far more than they would have otherwise, because they happened to be in opposition. It’s just the nature of electoral politics for the opposition party to be, well, in opposition.
Prior to opposing the surge many Democrats criticized Bush for not having put enough troops into Iraq in the first place — but by the time Bush came around to supporting Petraeus’ surge strategy, the war had become so unpopular that it was politically advantageous to say you opposed the surge. Being in power is a different situation — you have to be more pragmatic in that case, and I suspect Petraeus would have been able to convince a Democratic administration that some sort of limited surge strategy was a good idea.
In any event, even without a surge the situation in Iraq likely would have begun to stabilize especially after the incompetent Rumsfeld and Franks were out of there, and the far more astute Gates and Petraeus were in.
Trotsky plagerized Pericles.
“Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.” (Pericles, 430 B.C.)
You know Mitsu, you get kudos from me for putting forth an honest argument. That being said, in your comments on the realpolitik of political expediency I think I should point out that while being honest, it doesnt say much for the motivations of democrat politicians and only reinforces for me what convictionless political opportunists they are. How they would sell their country downstream in return for their moment in the political spotlight.
You say that the business of the opposition party is opposition. Fine, that’s reasonable to a point, but I highly doubt that in the same position, a republican would have: Ran a campaign of troop demoralization, leaked sensitive information to the press, called our troops murderers or compared them to Nazi’s, predicted military failure before a mission even got underway, attempt to deny both the military and intelligence agencies the means to effectively succeed in their missions or morally equate our nations actions to that of people who cut their captives throats in front of a camera as part of a deliberate strategy for victory.
As much as you guys hate George Bush, one thing you cant accuse him of is wavering on principal for political expediency. If George Bush “blundered” our country into Iraq, you have to keep in mind that he had at one time the blessing of 30 top democrat politicians as long as the polling numbers remained favorable for them to support it. What was their excuse?
Mitsu partly makes the interesting point of what is easy and hard for a President to do:
It’s easy to do what the other party wants (Nixon: China, Vietnam pull-out, wage & price controls; Reagan & Bush I: expand gov’t programs; Clinton: NAFTA, welfare reform; Bush II: medicare & more spending). (Carter is a failure here.)
What’s hard is doing what the other party opposes.
But if Kerry had been elected in 2004, the calls to pull out of Iraq by 2006 would have been so strong I believe Kerry would have done so, and attempted to blame the resulting blood-bath all on Bush.
Iraq is and was eons away from the tragedy that was Viet Nam.
The US military can ‘win’ the war, as it did in both Iraq and Viet Nam, but the US non-military can still lose the peace. As it did in Vietnam, losing in 1974-75, AFTER the ’73 Peace Accords). Losing by NOT fighting the aggressive, Treaty violating commies.
Iraq can still become a Killing Field bloodbath, with Sunni vs Shia, and vs Kurd (until Kurdistan becomes independent).
Current Marxists will say ‘true Marxism’ was never really tried, and still hope that capitalism will change. Similar believing folk will always claim, upon failure of Talk to stop genocide/ war/ aggression, that the ones doing the talking “didn’t really try” or “weren’t good enough”. They Hope, and believe, that Obama will be.
I’m certain Obama’s victory would prove them wrong (like Marxists), and thus hopeful his defeat will avoid such proof.
And Neo, you might recall that the 2002 speech of Obama included him saying “I’m not against all war, I’m against a dumb war.” This is exactly what you’re saying, but it’s not clear what real situation of current war he would favor.
Harry beat me to a rebuttal of Mitsu’s point by pointing out that the opposition party should be the welfare of the country first, and scoring political points second. The Republican Party did not undermine the prosecution of WWII, despite the many criticisms that could have been mounted. That’s the model for how a party should comport itself in wartime. Not every issue should be exploited for political gain.
The operative word being “sentiment.” Democrats feel, Republicans typically take a more dispassionate — some might say “adult” — perspective. It’s why the Democratic Party is so heavily laden with the young and women (no offense, neo), for whom feelings commonly trump intellect.
Only if Al-Qaeda attacked the argula-growing areas.
Er, make that “arugula-growing areas.”
In any event, even without a surge the situation in Iraq likely would have begun to stabilize …
Right. For that matter, even without D-Day, it’s likely the Germans would have begun to retreat anyway, and eventually surrender unconditionally. (Hey, this hypothetical history is easy!)
If we had followed their leadership, Iraq would have been an even worse failure–and tragedy–than Vietnam was decades ago.
the only thing we havent accepted yet is that such things are their goals.
statistically speaking you cant keep being this wrong and causing this much misery (just sit and start adding from jim crow, and keep going and see how much misery sold as a social benifit they hve caused!)
once is an accident
twice is coincidence
three times is on purpose.
Another possibility is that the Democrats say that the war is moot now, so let’s focus on other issues: the economy, health insurance, energy, the Supreme Court.
this is the wonderful part about refusing to let anyone know your motives, and having a lot of ulterior ones.
everyone with some intelligence will put every REASONABLE musing on the table. and will AVOID like the plague, those that sound too wild, far reaching, etc.
which is why the bold extremists tend to win out, we dont imagine they will actually do what they say. after all, if we believed mein kampf, would hitler the despot have existed?
do we go back and read the more complete history later to correct what our assumptions in the now at the time were? most dont, history buffs sometimes do.
you have to read the history of where these people come from, who they knoew, who their freinds were adn where did they travel…
or perhaps compare their “planks” with the planks of other political systems…
after all, if it has webbed feet, feathers, a bill, lays eggs, goes quack, etc and they call it a priopanoplyopticanilparadice… would it still be a duck?
well, when the communists in america took the new name progressives, we stopped seeing the duck, and started seeing the fake priopanoplyopticanilparadice
Here it is: if a person believes that war is obsolete and nearly always avoidable, and that Presidential diplomacy is the invariably correct answer to solving international conflict involving the US, then good judgment in the prosecution of a war becomes irrelevant. The only decision that matters is the decision to go to war in the first place, and if a person believes that decision can and should nearly always be answered in the negative, then good judgment in war strategy becomes mostly unnecessary.
that would presume that your the one that always starts the wars, so that your the only one that has to stop.
I think they are following a different strategy since they only complain about US conflicts, and totally leave others liek mugabe, and stalin, and putin, and mao, and chavez, and so forth alone.
no… they have a doctrine that the US has to fall so that one sovereign democratic party remains over the people. they do not care how it falls, which is why they work all over.
if they refuse to go to war under any pretense, they give the rest of the world as a gift to other states that wish to take other states and not be stopped by the US.
after war starts, they wish to stop it, that way no one trusts the US, no one will side with us, and we would get the same (equal) reputation as russia has, and so people will feel its easier to deal with russia.
their tactics on stopping war are telling too. Orwell said the fastest way to stop a war is to lose…
and so they work to lose the war, which again serves the purpose of giving the rest of the world to the soviets.
you forget what FBI agent Cleon Skoussen said, and i listed some… so i guess you decided to think that despite having billions of dollars devoted to them, the actions of spies, agents, agent provacateurs, fellow travellers, and such dont mean anything.
well, how about this list of OTHER planks…
[note that the communists stopped putting up a candidate for president of the US, because “they couldnt distinquish their platforms from the democratic platforms”]
here aer some of the points added to the congressional record in 1963.. just before our communist revolution of love..
Capture one or both of the political parties in the U.S.
U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the U.S. would be a demonstration of moral strength. [this is one of obamas election points!!! almost quoted word for word in one of his videos]
Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the grounds that it was only a minor part in the big picture.
Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. [dems definitely promote this]
Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. [dems definitely promote this]
Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American traditions; that students and special interest groups should rise up and use united force to solve economic, political and social problems. [dems attract and use this… do you see the right doing this?]
ever notice that the way they create jobs is to transfer them to the state? state jobs paid for by taxes get counted the same as free market jobs.
except that one generates more money, and one takes money from some other firm to pay for their people.
maybe read the work of Anton Pannekoek, an interesting person you probably never heard of.
this from wiki:
As a recognized Marxist theorist, Pannekoek was one of the founders of the council communist tendency and a main figure in the radical left in the Netherlands and Germany.
He was best known for his writing on workers’ councils. He regarded these as a new form of organisation capable of overcoming the limitations of the old organs of the labour movement, the trade unions and social democratic parties. Basing his theory on what he regarded as the practical lessons of the Russian revolution, Pannekoek argued that the workers’ revolution and the transition from capitalism to communism had to be achieved by the workers themselves, democratically organised in workers’ councils.
note that if you dont learn all this other stuff, that is part of the history, and part of how people act and move, all your doing is an exercise in apologetics
all your doing is putting a reasonable face on the issue because you refuse to put an unrasonable face on it.
i would suggest reading “World Revolution and Communist Tactics” by Anton Pannekoek
The transformation of capitalism into communism is brought about by two forces, one material and the other mental, the latter having its origins in the former. The material development of the economy generates consciousness, and this activates the will to revolution. Marxist science, arising as a function of the general tendencies of capitalist development, forms first the theory of the socialist party and subsequently that of the communist party, and it endows the revolutionary movement with a profound and vigorous intellectual unity. While this theory is gradually penetrating one section of the proletariat, the masses’ own experiences are bound to foster practical recognition that capitalism is no longer viable to an increasing extent. World war and rapid economic collapse now make revolution objectively necessary before the masses have grasped communism intellectually : and this contradiction is at the root of the contradictions, hesitations and setbacks which make the revolution a long and painful process. Nevertheless, theory itself now gains new momentum and rapidly takes a hold on the masses; but both these processes are inevitably held up by the practical problems which have suddenly risen up so massively.
in other words the tactic to breing about communism from socialism, is to run the system into the ground so that it collapses, and so all the rules, regulations and things will fade away.
now… take some time and see if you can denote the policies of the democrats, and the economic results of their politicies.
pretty much sounds like what lennin said.
“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them
between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”
well… lets see. obama will raise taxes for “fariness” till it hurts and grinds the economy to nothing.. (causing china to call in the debt and a collapse)
and lets see… refusing to let oil be drilled for, and global warming will cause huge inflation and starvation in the world, but would hurt the US more.
Economic collapse is the most powerful spur to revolution. Germany and Austria are already completely shattered and pauperised economically, Italy and France are in inexorable decline. England has suffered so badly that it is doubtful whether its government’s vigorous attempts at reconstruction can avert collapse, and in America the first threatening signs of crisis are appearing. And in each country, more or less in this same order, unrest is growing in the masses; they are struggling against impoverishment in great strike-movements which hit the economy even harder; these struggles are gradually developing into a conscious revolutionary struggle, and, without being communists by conviction, the masses are more and more following the path which communism shows them, for practical necessity is driving them in that direction.
With the growth of this necessity and mood, carried by them, so to speak, the communist vanguard has been developing in these countries; this vanguard recognises the goals clearly and regroups itself in the Third International. The distinguishing feature of this developing process of revolution is a sharp separation of communism from socialism, in both ideological and organisational terms. This separation is most marked in the countries of Central Europe precipitated into economic crisis by the Treaty of Versailles, where a social-democratic regime was necessary to save the bourgeois state. The crisis is so profound and irremediable there that the mass of radical social-democratic workers, the USP, are pressing for affiliation to Moscow, although they still largely hold to the old social-democratic methods, traditions, slogans and leaders. In Italy, the entire social-democratic party has joined the Third International; a militant revolutionary mood among the masses, who are engaged in constant small-scale warfare against government and bourgeoisie, permits us to overlook the theoretical mixture of socialist, syndicalist and communist perspectives. In France, communist groups have only recently detached themselves from the social-democratic party and the trade-union movement, and are now moving towards the formation of a communist party. In England, the profound effect of the war upon the old, familiar conditions has generated a communist movement, as yet consisting of several groups and parties of different origins and new organisational formations. In America, two communist parties have detached themselves from the Social-Democratic Party, while the latter has also aligned itself with Moscow. – Anton Pannekoek
so its not the first time this has happened… the world collapse after 29 crash… made a huge change in the US towards socialism…
and each time such happens, we move a bit more.. and we forget who put the policies in place to cause the situation.
ever read the orders from the different communist internationals?
Lenin told the English communists that they should not only participate in parliamentary elections, but even join the Labour Party, a political organisation consisting largely of reactionary trade-union leaders and a member of the Second International.Anton Pannekoek
bet you didnt know that the labour party in england changed because of lenins orders to the international…
The Comintern (Communist International, also known as the Third International) was an international Communist organization founded in Moscow in March 1919. The Comintern held seven World Congresses, the first in March 1919 and the last in 1935. As of 1928 it was estimated that the organization had 583,105 members, excluding its Soviet membership
do you think a half million leaders could do something?
and before you say that they were gone a long time ago…
“The International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was founded at roughly the same time that the Comintern was abolished in 1943, although its specific duties during the first several years of its existence are unknown.[31]” In September 1947, following the June 1947 Paris Conference on Marshall Aid, Stalin gathered a grouping of key European communist parties and set up the Cominform, or Communist Information Bureau, often seen as a substitute to the Comintern. While the Communist parties of the world no longer had a formal international organisation, they continued to maintain close relations with each other, through a series of international forums. In the period directly after dissolution of Comintern, periodical meetings of Communist parties where held in Moscow. Moreover World Marxist Review, a joint periodical of the Communist parties, played an important role in coordinating the communist movement up to the break-up of the Socialist Bloc in 1989-1991.
so the roots of the changes go back to the early part of last century… they were opposed till the late 50s and such, then a critical amount of people in the state and other areas were reached and everyong thought the idea of communis subversion was silly…
though you can still see evidence of some shenanigans in a lot of stuff… fullbright scholarships to soviet union… several top state people went there too (condoleeza rice, clinton, etc). the use of soviet nicknames for recent presidents. obamas connections… daughters name sasha… (why pick a russian name when your african, indonesian and american?).
its even more interesting readnig the warnings entered into the congressional recods and comparing them to the results.
like the AMA warning that medicaide and medicare would lead to socialism, which would lead to communism once the system collapses on not being able to create enough wealth to pay for the unlimited projects.
sigh…
so much hsitory… and everyone chooses to ignore it and make up modern reasons something is the way it is in the absence of rich information that explains it as the points of ideology!!!!! (for MORE than 100 years!)
“The role of the opposition party is to oppose.”
I think I would rather say I was actually using some strange convoluted logic to help things along. Many times I will pretty much ask if someone is stupid or dishonest, in this case I just made the “stupid” case and Mitsu came along and championed the “dishonest” angle.
There is no “opposition party” – there are several political parties that should be looking out for the well being of the state and it’s people. Those parties will more than likely disagree with each other on many stances – but that is *very* different from being an opposition party.
Of course, I also agree that is political reality too – that is just one of the main reasons that the Democrats can all go fall off a cliff for all I care. Any group that puts their own political power above the country does not deserve to have leadership. There will always be individuals that do that and if I have the chance to vote for them I will not, but in this case it is pretty much party wide. The difference here is that you fully support them and – even if it is not your favorite things about them – it says something about your political ideals and loyalties that you brush over it and present it as something we should really just ignore as “normal”.
Interesting – I’m doing precisely that just now. Mein Kampf is readily available online, and is highly illuminating. The author made no bones whatever about his intentions. How anyone misunderstood those intentions surpasseth all understanding.
want to read a real eye opener?
then read: Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder by Vladimir Lenin
it talks about the seeds being planted (and a lot of other things too). it mentions the things that must be helped so that england would have a socialist/communist party.. and germany… etc..
the USA was still out of their sphere till the economic collapse in 29, 9 years after this was written.
it was much of the games that they played that caused the lack of stability that created the wars and problems of the last century, and until you read their political action stuff, you will just not understand their participation in this.
our history books leave eerythign about them out. no mention except a light glossing… but then again, one of the planks was to affect education and they did through the teachers union in teh 40s. (reading the minutes where they voted to indoctrinate and stop educating is interesing. since that time, we have been slowly dumbed down)
things become even more interesting when you read of lenin referring to the pamplets of the franfurt school, and you know their history when they came to columbia and helped create the teachers school to insure all the teachers had a left mind… it took a long time to repalce the teachers of the past with the new teachers of today.
We can (and must) begin to build socialism, not with abstract human material, or with human material specially prepared by us, but with the human material bequeathed to us by capitalism. lenin
and they did… starting with the unons and labour movements… when that died out or was stable, they took over the feminist movments… they took over the race movments… but that was after lenin.
we started copying their laws and things they created, but we didnt knwo they created it. things like free love, unilateral divorce, etc.
with all these musings as to the democrats, and such, we never hear of how the premises of their past and the changes effected are what drives the choices today.
bottom line:
We totally refuse to beleive that there are ulterior motives, which make their mistakes into hidden desired outcomes
this creates the sitaution churchill spoke about.
waves of crisis… their polices create crisis that they later use to take more power, and create more crisis. the dems created the housing problem by loostening up the laws so that people too poor to pay for houses could get loans. now that bad loans come true for 3-5%, we are calling it a crisis. and want to take control of the banks…
oil high prices is a crisis, and they have said they want to nationalize the oil companies…
communists nationalize things to put things all under one party central government control
the duck is still a duck no matter if its called.
Artfldgr, thanks for the tip.
TESTIMONY OF RONALD REAGAN to HUAC
historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6458/
another eye opener describing the games used…
there is so much to know… and nowhere other than these records, non revisionist histories, and a few other places are they known.
they are totally uncommon to the average man, who looks like a deer in the headlights after it ate too much hemp…
the tactics described by reagan are close to the tactics of obama who gets rock groups to get crowds so that he looks popular to his people like reifenstal made hitler seem very popular to the masses.
my deepest apologies for the lengths… i am trying to be short… but there is 100 years of missing history… (note that we also dont commonly know the history of asia either!)
so i apologize to those who prefer soundbites
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/the_four_horsemen_of_economic.html
The Four Horsemen of Economic Apocalypse
Sally, I think your comparison with D-Day is silly. The situation in Iraq stabilized to a large degree because Iraqis themselves got fed up with the chaos, and started taking matters in their own hands. It was helped by the fact that Petraeus was willing to engage former insurgents and recruit them to the cause of Iraqi stability, a policy that went against much of the ineptitude that characterized earlier Bush Administration initiatives, such as disbanding the Iraqi Army prematurely, keeping American troops on base far more than on patrol, “de-Baathification”, etc. Had Democrats been in power a similar realization on the part of Iraqis would likely have resulted in similar cooperation with our forces.
Regarding “opposition”, all I can say is my comments apply to both Republicans and Democrats equally. Republicans tend to reflexively support what “their” side does, even if it goes against their long-held principles (as has occurred many times during the Bush Administration), and they also tend to oppose things just because a Democrat proposes it (for example, many Republicans criticize Obama’s idea that we ought to be sending more forces into Afghanistan — yet if the situation were reversed, and it was a Democrat that had committed to a war far from Afghanistan and Pakistan, I am absolutely certain Republicans would be the first in line shouting that we ought to be refocusing our efforts on Afghanistan). Witness how Republicans used to be against big government until they took power, and then they spent even more freely than Democrats ever did. Or how, when a Democrat is president, Republicans are shocked, shocked, that the president is invoking executive privilege, but when a Republican is preisdent, executive privilege suddenly becomes sacrosanct.
It’s just the nature of politics.
I should add — of COURSE in an ideal world people would set aside oppositional politics and pull together for the national good. And this does happen, to some degree, all the time. However, I’d say there is a positive aspect to all this oppositional politics (which, while I am a big supporter of bipartisanship, I still think is worth saying), which is that when you have a opposition party they will make sure the national dialogue includes at least two points of view (the view of the party in power and at least one opposing view). This has the salutary quality of ensuring a robust debate. It’s a bit like our adversarial justice system — you have a prosecutor and a defense. It’s helpful to have both views, and to occasionally have the party in power switch to the opposition. Though I am a Democrat I know that it makes our country stronger for both parties to alternate in power. Through competition and debate, we wobble forward — perhaps inefficiently but, as Churchill said, it’s the worst form of government except for every other form that has been tried.
This is a bit disingenuous. Obama is saying we should send troops to Afghanistan instead of Iraq, thereby playing the old left-wing game of military three-card monte, that wherever the U.S. does something, it should have done something else, somewhere else. (No, no, we shouldn’t have done anything about Iraq! What about Iran? What about N. Korea? What about Darfur? We all know perfectly well that had any of those options been taken, left-wing propagandists and the legions of useful idiots would merely permute the country names above without missing a beat.)
Now if Obama were specifying beefing up Afghanistan in addition to Iraq, I’d listen.
Really? I’m not. We’ve done that experiment, in the Balkans. I don’t recall Republicans shouting at Bill Clinton about this, no riots, no demonstrations. The most you’ll probably find is some quiet questioning whether our national interests were/are involved in the Balkans, and whether it would be more appropriate for the EU to interrupt their mutual high-fiving about being the counterweight to the “American hegemon” long enough to fix a problem in …Europe.
We are in a war, you realize? And wars entail greater spending, you realize also? Furthermore, one of the biggest knocks on George Bush from Republicans is just that criticism.
Small difference between exerting executive privilege in a matter of national security (until the New York Times publishes it, of course) and exerting it to keep a blow job quiet. Apart from that, good point.
Mitsu: For starters, Republicans havent suddenly become proponents of big government. GWB’s spending habits have always been a sore point among conservatives. And as far as pulling together for the national good, democrats instead went as far as holding an expensive investigation and show trial into the so-called Valery Plame “outing” for the dual purpose of reinforcing the notion that the entire reason we were in Iraq in the first place was based upon lies, and to deflect from the public mind that the only purposeful lie in the WMD affair belonged to Joe Wilson. I see no similar shameful examples of such duplicity among Republicans.
>And wars entail greater spending, you realize also?
Obviously I’m not merely referring to war spending. I’m talking about spending skyrocketing in the DeLay era, as well, where Congress became incredibly cozy with lobbyists and spent through the roof.
>executive privilege
Executive privilege has been invoked by presidents for time immemorial. Clinton invoked it in a number of cases, for example for the FALN clemency issue and others. Bush has invoked it not only for “national security” but to cover up the shameful politicization of Justice Department hires, etc. Nixon invoked it to cover up Watergate, etc. Sometimes it’s to protect something legitimate, sometimes to cover up something shameful. It’s been invoked by many presidents and each time, the opposition party always cries foul. That’s my main point. It’s simply naive to think that only the “other” party engages in oppositional politics. You guys do it, and so do Democrats. At least I’m honest enough to admit that.
>I see no similar shameful examples of such duplicity
That is one of the most unbelievably blind statements I’ve ever seen. The entire rationale for the Iraq war was duplicitous: neocons wanted to do a democratic revolution in the Middle East and they decided Saddam would be the excuse. Or, the Justice department politicization and Alberto Gonzales’ “I can’t remember”? Or of course we all remember Nixon’s shameful end. Or do we? To think that only members of the other party are duplicitous and your guys are totally clean is the utmost in naivete.
Mitsu:
“The entire rationale for the Iraq war was duplicitous: neocons wanted to do a democratic revolution in the Middle East and they decided Saddam would be the excuse.”
Well, so much for your being honest.
Where’s your evidence for all this? Was it in the Valery Plame show trial? Was it in the trumped-up hysteria surrounding the firing of 8 US attorneys? (and why that was more significant than when Clinton fired all 93, I dont know.) Where is it?
You know Mitsu, after a length of time when people tell you that Big Foot or the Loch Less monster exists but you never ever actually see Big Foot or the Loch Ness monster, rational people eventually come to the conclusion that those two entities do not in reality exist.
Another important distinction between liberals and conservatives.
Well, this is not exactly a fringe viewpoint I am expressing here — it’s something quite a few neocons themselves have argued. Even before 9/11, the Project for a New American Century put out this position paper:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
in which they state: “while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for U.S. military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein”.
I mean, quite frankly, if Saddam was the real reason for the Iraq war, it was a completely idiotic justification. Saddam was always a containable threat, a deterrable threat. I am actually giving the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt by suggesting that they had a more rational (though still, in my view, flawed) justification for the war. This view has also been echoed by Stephen Den Beste, by the way, hardly a liberal.
Yet Regime change in Iraq had been US policy since Clinton signed off on it in 1998:
“if Saddam was the real reason for the Iraq war, it was a completely idiotic justification.
Well I’d disagree, but then again he wasnt the total justification it wasnt was it? Or are we going back to the conspiracy theory?
Sorry. It wouldnt allow me to send the link.