The idiot is a bad joke. Don't enable him by adding to the Google trail of references. Let's not waste any more bandwidth on these dead-enders. No more mention of their names, no more quotes. They should be beneath notice by now.

Time to act, not complain. Kick their heroes out of office, and they'll be old news.

The neocons have been remarkably fortunate that no opinion leader has been willing to confront them head on and connect for the public at large all the dots about their organizations, publications, lobbying, and influence inside and outside of public office. Every lost war needs some scapegoats and how well they deserve that role!

Watching Kristol become unhinged is quite fun.

I have to disagree about TNR, though. The magazine does seem to be failing (it's now smaller as a biweekly than it was as a weekly) but it's not a neocon rag, despite Peretz. This issue has a pretty hillarious take on Fred Thompson by Michelle Cottle. Also smart stuff by Jeffrey Rosen on John Roberts, though I disagreed with Rosen's conclusions. An article about the Armenian genocide and Turkey's lobbying efforts to keep our government from acknowledging it happened was also very good.

I admit, I get TNR for free, from work. I wouldn't pay for it. It's also infuriating at times. But some of those writers are damned good.

I also noticed that the blogging style has effected TNR. In Cottle's piece on Fred Thompson she actually used the phrase "man crush." That's one of our digs!

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Most of us service moms who oppose the war have been extremely uncomfortable with Cindy Sheehan being played up by MSM as The Voice of Service Families. God bless her--I have always said I would not criticize her because my son lives and hers does not--

That said.

Many of us disagreed very much with her tactics, her extremist rants, and the fact that she was co-opted by an anti-war group that, well, just made a lot of us with active-duty family uncomfortable.

What happened was, she was embraced as THE VOICE of--let's face it--nutcase peace activists, and in so doing, THOSE OF US WITH VERY REAL ANGUISH ABOUT THIS WAR WERE COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED BECAUSE WE WEREN'T GETTING ARRESTED AT THE CAPITOL or whatever else she was doing.

I'm grateful to her for drawing a nation's attention to the Forgotten War Dead, but I feel that her extremism has completely gotten off the subject. Now she's talking about running against Pelosi, fergodsake--and it's just stunts like that that draw attention away from the fact that there are many, many active-duty military families who want to see this war end.

According to the most recent polls, SEVENTY PERCENT OF ACTIVE-DUTY MILITARY FAMILIES NOW BELIEVE THIS WAR IS A MISTAKE AND WANT TO SEE IT END, but the neocons keep dragging out that tired old saw about "supporting the troops" as if the troops are nothing but cardboard cut-outs and not real people.

She's a very handy scapegoat for them, a very easy way to DIMINISH those of us who have had to send our beloveds back to fight this miserable war over and over and over again, just WAITING all that time, for the dreaded knock on the door.

By dismissing Cindy Sheehan, they can now dismiss ALL of us, the less than one-percent of us who are groaning under the weight of Bush's War.

I watch CNN and I don't know how may times I've seen this;

Wolf Blitzer asks a Democrat guest a question on Iraq, or some such. The Democrat answers, then Blitzer says; "Well, let me read you what the President says," which is usually opposite of what the Dem suggested, and Blitzer then asks the Dem, "What about that?"

What I find amazing about this is no matter how many times "what the President said" turned out to be a lie or flat out wrong over the years, Blitzer still uses this tool. Kristol is much the same, regardless of how wrong he's been about Iraq/Middle East, he still shows up on CNN, MSNBC, Meet the Press, etc......... though I do expect to see him on FOX.

One more thing about Kristol; wearing a smile, I saw him tell Russert on MTP that he "supports a robust foreign policy."

With Kristol I take that to mean using our military to elbow our war around the world.
People like Kristol, Perle, Kagin, Wolfowitz, Bush, Cheney, the gang that signed PNAC, etc. are the best example I have to argue against a $500 billion per year defense budget.

J. McCutchen

Great to hear that TNR continues its slow circle to the bottom of the bowl. Happier still that I discontinued my subscription a few years ago

Destor23, you are right, in that Sheehan asked a question that HAS YET to be answered: Why did my son have to die?

And no, I did not mean to imply that anybody against the war, even in 2003, was an extremist--I've been opposed to it since they first mentioned it in 2002 or whenever it was. Sept. 12, 2001, to tell the truth. Or even anybody who agreed with Sheehan. She did a very great service; I take nothing away from that.

But her methods played right into the hands of those who wished to dismiss ANY war protest as the act of desperate crazies and not representative of the very real concerns, not just of many in this country, but many from active military families.

To this day, her name sparks debate on things unrelated to the REAL issue, and that is that, if you truly want to "support the troops"...maybe you should start by asking THEM.

You'd find a whopping majority who feel the same way as the rest of the country does, but that one fact has been completely lost in recent debates.

Even the way this debate is framed in the national media makes me scream. Just this morning, on NPR, while explaining the recent Senate all-nighter, the reporter was saying that the Dems misinterpreted public support for their policies, saying something like, "While most Americans would like to see the war brought to an end, they just DIDN'T WANT TO PULL THE RUG OUT FROM UNDER THE TROOPS."

I see this in different phrasing in every single solitary mainstream news article I read or hear.

The powerful implication is that, to vote against the war now, or to vote for phased redeployment, is somehow to leave the troops hanging or otherwise not support what they are doing.

Nothing could be further from the truth, but right now, the WH STILL controls the narrative, and that narrative is that continuing the war supports the troops--all evidence to the contrary.

Along with Destor's list, I'll throw in praise for Jonathan Chait on "the middle way."

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

For fear of being labeled dirty Vietnam-era hippies, anti-war leftists climbed on the Support-the-Troops bandwagon four years ago. They should have listened to Mark Twain: "History doesn't repeat itself - at best it sometimes rhymes."

A self-inflicted wound; and they've got no one but themselves to blame if they now find that their moral cowardice has come back to bite them.

Although I was pretty young during the Vietnam era and don't remember it too well, it seems there is a world of difference as to how anti-war people relate to the US military then and now. At that time, soldiers who served in Vietnam were stigmatized as "baby-killers" and commanders as blood-thirsty fascists (Dan Rowan's "General Bull Wright" from the immortal show "Laugh-In"). Today, at least in the coverage I see, the soldiers serving in Iraq seem to be highly respected and seen as highly courageous, and the commanders are seen as highly respected people trying to make the best of a terrible situation. I am glad to see that the criticism has shifted to those who deserve it...those who make the policy.

As a separate question, I wonder what those in Congress and other places of influence think will happen in Iraq when the US finally does pull out, assuming that "the surge" doesn't succeed, and what will the foreign-policy fallout be for the US?

I agree.  Slaves should not be held morally accountable for the sins of their masters.

The neocons have been remarkably fortunate that no opinion leader has been willing to confront them head on and connect for the public at large all the dots about their organizations, publications, lobbying, and influence inside and outside of public office.

I nominate Keith Olbermann for the job.  Just as often as possible.  Has he done a Worst Man in the World on Kristol lately?  Ever?

aMike

As a separate question, I wonder what those in Congress and other places of influence think will happen in Iraq when the US finally does pull out, assuming that "the surge" doesn't succeed, and what will the foreign-policy fallout be for the US?

After we're gone, there will be some bloodletting. The militias will probably seriously start fighting and gaining control of some areas. A warlord or strongman might eventually appear who takes control of the country. Or maybe the disappearance of American troops will reduce the incentive for violence and some insurgents will return to their families. Who knows, maybe both things will happen. I'm ok with either option. We can't force the Iraqis to not kill each other, and we can't force them to be our friends. It's their country. It's their responsibility. If they want a stable and safe democracy, they have to build it. If they want a war torn hell hole, they can have it. It's not our responsibility.

I almost don't care about the "foreign policy fallout for the U.S." but there won't really be any. Pulling out and repudiating the policies that took us into Iraq will improve our reputation among our allies.

Here's another perspective on Billy and Friends.

Morgan

With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plea; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.
-- William Lloyd Garrison (1805 - 1879)

The other interesting thing in this piece is that Kristol argues pretty persuasively that the New Republic is again publishing fake stories. Of course, Kristol only cares about this because the story in question questions the war. But it is sweet seeing the New Republic caught plagiarizing again.

First of all, the "again" in that last sentence is no doubt obliquely referring to the infamous Stephen Glass case of 10-odd years ago. But that was not a case of plagiarism but a case of simply making shit up.

In any case, it is worth pointing out that TNR has not been "caught" in any way.  It has been accused.  Big difference.  And accused by Bill Kristol.  It's interesting how MJ just takes Kristol's word for things on this, while dismissing him as wrong on just about everything else.

Curious, I trekked over the tnr.com and found a note by Franklin Foer saying the following:

Several conservative blogs have raised questions about the Diarist "Shock Troops," written by a soldier in Iraq using the pseudonym Scott Thomas. Whenever anybody levels serious accusations against a piece published in our magazine, we take those charges seriously. Indeed, we're in the process of investigating them. I've spoken extensively with the author of the piece and have communicated with other soldiers who witnessed the events described in the diarist. Thus far, these conversations have done nothing to undermine--and much to corroborate--the author's descriptions. I will let you know more after we complete our investigation.

My guess is that they will probably find a few minor embellishments but the core of the story will be found to be factual.  I will find it "sweet" when TNR finishes its internal investigation and finds the published story credible.  Not only because I am quite sure that events like what was described in the story do indeed happen and need to be understood, but also because it will prove once again - as if any more proof is needed - that MJ Rosenberg is a fool.

There's only one reason he hates TNR, and that's because it takes a reality-based line on the Israel/Palestine issue.  And anyone or anything that doesn't inhabit the loony lefty world he lives in is a Nazi or a neocon.

I think we need to all agree that his name is now Kristol Meth and that the country has a Kristol Meth problem.

The dude can make you paranoid, prolonged exposure can be bad for your circulatory system, and he can rot your teeth.

He can probably also lower your inhibitions and make you have sex with ugly people.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

It's probably more significant for those who are there.

WASHINGTON, July 20 (Reuters) - Attacks in Iraq last month reached their highest daily average since May 2003, showing a surge in violence as President George W. Bush completed a buildup of U.S. troops, Pentagon statistics show.

Deanie Mills,

I'm curious--whom do you see as "nutcase peace activists"? And do you use the same (nutcase) terminology for warmongers, or only peace activists?

Let's not forget that peace is the normal and best condition of mankind, war the abnormal, despite what the profit-driven warmongers say, and this being the case extremists in the cause of peace can't be "nutcases", can they?

I'm sorry that you were uncomfortable with anti-war groups but someday you will realize, I hope, that they were acting in your own best interest. Their and Cindy's "dismissal", which you decry, was a function of government/media propaganda and had nothing to do with the purity of their purpose or your (un-demonstrated?) anguish over the wars.

And why shouldn't Sheehan run against Pelosi, who has poorly represented her lefty district, San Francisco? Isn't this a democracy? Should we all just wring our hands and suffer? What do you propose we do?

I personally don't use the terminology "nutcase", but I am quite willing to consider people who see war as a solution to everything, or as a solution to nothing, as ill-informed about the many ways of dispute resolution, and of the evil that can sometimes be stopped only one way.

I will not forget that peace is the best condition of mankind, but I suggest that history does not show it is the normal condition. Extremists in the cause of anything can be unbalanced. Combat veterans I've known hate what they saw, but those that liberated Nazi concentration camps or Japanese POW camps, or helped clean up an Vietnamese village after Viet Cong "armed propaganda teams" had made examples of the village leaders, could well think of people to kill. My late father-in-law was torn by PTSD from being ordered to strafe refugee columns from which North Korean troops were firing on UN forces, but he longed to have a chance to...discuss...the matter with those who had ordered those troops to use human shields.

You seem to suggest that "someday", I would find every antiwar group always acted in my best interest. Looking back forty years or so, some indeed were well-intentioned and contributed to the US political process. Some simply used Vietnam as an opportunity to push overall political agendas. I knew some soldiers and activists as superb human examples, and some soldiers and antiwar activists as slime. I suppose a few decades of experience have taught me things aren't as simple and pure as you seem to assume.

Sheehan can run against anyone she pleases. I certainly would not have suggested that George McClellan not run against Abraham Lincoln. It's Sheehan's right. Whether or not I think Sheehan running against Pelosi is wise, at a national political level, is quite another matter.

It must be nice to have a world where everything is so black and white. I'd be interested in where it would be found.

--
Howard

"It is well war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it" [Robert E. Lee]

"Nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won." [Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington]

To be fair to the stock market, we've had good returns in the last 12 months but... the economy Bush had inherited from Clinton would have given us 14,000 a long time ago.

The business press needs to report the truth -- we've reached new highs but only after 7 years of a pretty sideways market.

A return only matters when you pick the starting point. If you put that point at the start of Bush's presidency, 14,000 is unimepressive for the Dow. The broader S&P is unimpressive as well. And the ol Nasdaq is still down around half of its highs.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I just find the fact that Kristol seems to think of the New Republic as on "the cutting edge of progressive thought" incredibly hilarious.

"On July 21, 2007 - 2:59pm JohnW1141 said:

". . . . Democrat candidate . . . ."

". . . . Democrat takeover . . . ."

The correct word is DemocratIC. The form you use is the disrediting effort of the extreme right wing.

SeeDee

I'm not one for un-due hyperbole, but I can only wonder if Bill Kristol and his ilk (like the disgusting gaggle of 'Young Republicans' portrayed by Max Blumenthal), have any idea of the utter contempt and, yes, hatred, that is generated toward them in those of us who have flesh and blood serving in the useless, even criminal, military exercise in Iraq when they engage in their yellow-bellied, cowardly b/s about the service of troops in the combat-zone?

What, in the name of God, do a damned one of them know about combat?...including the top cowards, the 'Smirk' and the 'Snarl'???

We were fed a bucket-ful of lies to start the war, we've been subjected to un-relenting lies RE the conduct of the 'war', and, now, we are being covered with more lies from Bush's hand-picked syncophantic generals about the 'plans' for the future 'war'.

Why any worth-while publication would continue to give credence to ANYTHING coming from the likes of Bill Kristol is beyond comprehension.

"For fear of being labeled dirty Vietnam-era hippies, anti-war leftists climbed on the Support-the-Troops bandwagon four years ago. They should have listened to Mark Twain: "History doesn't repeat itself - at best it sometimes rhymes.""

Exactly. During the Vietnam era, we were criticizing the policy -- not the troops. But in order to avoid the actual issue -- criticism of the policy -- "we" were accused of "attacking" the troops. This time around, in effort to avoid that accusation/distraction, the "Left" defensively helped obscure their position and message by joining the warmongers on the point.

The best response to the accusation thus became, "Support the troops: bring them home."

The troops have never been the target; it is the policy which puts them into such situations. So when accused that one doesn't "support the troops," one must stick to the issue: "The policy is not the troops. I oppose the policy."

Today it is: You can support Bushit, or you can support the troops. But you cannot support both.

...it takes a reality-based line on the Israel/Palestine issue...

and Israel/Palestine 'reality' according to TNR and BradtheDad is...?

Volunteers are "slaves"?

Not if they can "volunteer" their way out.

I think there's plenty of bullying to go around. What was it Saudi Arabia told Bushit about pulling out of Iraq? Is Saudi Arabia Shi'a or Sunni? Which of those two stand to be slaughtered should the US pull out?

Israel can do no wrong, because the supremacists who established and support it are the "chosen people" -- annointed so by the "God" they themselves invented to do exactly that.

I think people over simplify the reaction against the turmoil in the late 60's. For one thing, we were up against the WWII generation and that war was definitely the signature event of their generation and they were much less cyncial than people are today. For that matter, so were we! We boomers really believed we had the power to change things in a major way. Young people today don't even seem to want to much bother to try.

Plus, you have to put Vietnam in the context of the other enormous social changes going on at the same time, particularly the Civil Rights movement and the reaction to that when forced busing was a bridge too far for working class whites.

The right is very good at blaming a bunch of college kids for events that were much beyond our power to change however much we boomers believed we could!

This is where you lose my interest, JNagarya. You've revealed to me that you didn't learn a damn thing since Vietnam. It must be pretty safe and secure on your EXTREME left side of life.

You and Billy would make interesting roommates.

Morgan

With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plea; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.
-- William Lloyd Garrison (1805 - 1879)

I try to be priceless, but sometimes I'm just worth a couple bucks.

The top four in general order of support:

Richardson is saying complete, immediate withdrawal, leaving only Marines to protect the embassy.

Edwards is saying immediate withdrawal of 50k troops and complete withdrawal in a year.

Obama wants a reduction in troop levels and a phased withdrawal.

Clinton wants to leave a large residual force in Iraq, though she swears there won't be permanent bases or any of that sort of thing.

It's interesting that you mention Ron Paul and third parties, because, you know, Ron Paul is a Republican. Last time I checked, they weren't a third party, but what do I know?

As I've said before, I'm not particularly happy with our candidates so far. Richardson was my early favorite, but he hasn't lived up to his potential. As I've also said before, in Nov. of '08, I'll be voting for whichever candidate has a little "D" next to their name.

But I'm sure you can make a lot out of that since you appear to have the ability to find in my comments things that I didn't say.

Many WWI German soldiers wore belt buckles with words, "Gott mit uns", or "God is with us". This was occasionally a battle cry.

Jumping ahead to WWII, a senior German staff officer commented "War is chaos. The Americans do it so well because they constantly practice chaos."

Returning to WWI, the Germans were rather confused to have American units screaming back, "We got mittens too!" Presumably, the chaplains of both sides praised the Lord and passed the ammunition.

War is never a desirable thing. While the content of Barbara Tuchman's history of WWI was not the best historical writing, her title, The March of Folly, was a magnificent phrase that applies to most wars, or the diplomatic and policy failures that created them, or the problems of wars prolonged when a side starts to confuse its propaganda with policy.

As an example of the latter, FDR's original throwaway line of "unconditional surrender" prevented any real support of the resistance elements in the German military. Whether the 20th of July plot could have succeeded had more military officers been more encouraged is an unknown, but US intelligence elements in contact with the resistance were not allowed to say US policy could possibly include any negotiation -- and those Germans detested Nazi war crimes as much as anyone else.

The Allies had much poorer intelligence about the internal power struggles of WWII Japan, and we probably didn't know that a peace faction started to form after the Battle of Saipan and the fall of the Tojo government in July 1944. It was probably early 1945 when there was Allied awareness of such a faction, which was utterly stymied by the hardliners' insistence on the preservation of the monarchy. It took nuclear attacks for the Emperor to intervene -- and the Allies did agree to the single condition of the preservation of the monarchy. How many lives were lost due to the lack of any clue to the Japanese that there was any room for negotiation?

It must be nice to be so sure that all war is wrong. I have never supported the operations in Iraq, and I long have been able to trace US policy errors in Southeast Asia going back to the 1945-ish Patti Mission.

Nevertheless, if all war is wrong, what does one do to stop a Hitler? What does one do to stop the savageries in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere?

Mutual Assured Destruction was an incredibly ugly (and even ungrammatical) proposition, but the reality is that with it as a doctrine, the Cold War did not explode into a hot nuclear one.

Snark is all very nice, and Mark Twain indeed a master hunter of snarks. Nevertheless, you seem awfully sure that military action can somehow always be avoided -- and I haven't heard you mention deterrence.

Just because an Administration commits idiocy does not mean that militaries can and should be dismissed.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Were soldiers who served in Vietnam really stigmatized as 'baby-killers' by the anti-war people?

Yes indeed.

Revisionists have trick memories.

There doesn't actually seem to be a documented case of an anti-war activist or hippy spitting on a vet.

Of course baby killers would naturally be liars too you think?

How would this documentation occur except by the word of certified baby killers?

Best, Terry

You are correct, They invented exactly that ("God") 5000 years ago and have been screwing humankind for all this time.

Howard,

Let's not debate historical events. To argue about how the US could have avoided participation in two world wars and two Asian conflicts is pointless.

The United States has not been invaded since 1912.

In today's world the United States is not threatened by any military force, and so does not need a standing military except to invade other countries under contrived conditions. In fact the mere existence of a standing military force, which was denounced by the Founders, encourages its use. What good is the finest military in the world if you don't use it? the argument goes (Madeline Albright). And that way we get a full-time Commander-in Chief. Oh joy.

Any terrorist threat facing the US can be countered by effective intelligence and efficient police work, elements that were absent on 9/11.

The proposed 2008 Pentagon budget exceeds half a trillion dollars, not counting war expenses, and the army and marines are expanding their ranks, all of which is utter foolishness under any rational examination. The problem is that war expenditures have become a drug with congress-critters fighting to keep bases open and war materiel contracts alive in their districts. America is now the arsenal of state terror.

"War is a racket . . . the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."--Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC, recipient of two Congressional Medals of Honor, 1935

Wow, Terry, you raise some interesting points. Let me check my watch...

Gosh, look at the time! The war ended 35 years ago, and you're still fighting it. You figure that there's still time to win?

Here's the reality: You lost. You didn't win. You didn't win on points. You weren't stabbed in the back. It wasn't Jane Fonda. It wasn't the hippies. It wasn't even Walter Cronkite. It wasn't because America didn't try hard enough. It wasn't a noble cause.

Vietnam was a fiasco. It was a horrific waste of money. It was a horrific waste of American lives and resources. It was unnecessary, unmitigated, brutal, pointless and wrong headed.

America lost in Vietnam because it deserved to lose. America lost in Vietnam because it had no plan, no strategy, no ideas, no principles and no clues. America lost in Vietnam because all it offered was corruption and killing, money and bombs. America lost in Vietnam because the Vietnamese were simply better. Because they were willing to fight harder, fight longer, take more casualties, make more sacrifices, and simply not give up. In the test of wills, America blinked.

Get over it.

As far as I'm concerned the people whining about Jane Fonda and the whole 'babykillers' thing are ball-less pussies who need to get a life. People obsessed with fighting the Vietnam war or blaming hippies for the loss, belong to that same category of people who deny that Hitler actually killed all those Jews, or that the Confederacy was a noble cause. History is full of unpleasant things that we all have to learn to live with.

And frankly, if you're going to sit there and tell me that some Vet who spent two or three tours in country in Vietnam dodging real bullets, sidestepping real traps, and actually risking his life is going to get all choked up and traumatized at getting called a name, and how that's the real tragedy of Vietnam, I'm going to laugh.

I certainly hope that this hasn't offended you. But if it does, consider it well deserved.

The real tragedy of Vietnam is the same of Iraq: neither were fought for a "nobel cause."

Therefore, the veterans of Iraq will share the same post war trauma as the veterans of all other wars. For the rest of their lives, they will be seeking to find a divine purpose in their war, an event that changed them forever, made them strangers to themselves, to their families and friends, to their community. Always in the back of their minds, they will be searching for the "WHY" -- the WHY they went through hell, the WHY they had to watch their friends die and the WHY they had to take another human being's life.

This president and his followers are under the mistaken belief that if enough time passes, if enough people die, if the war can just keep going a little while longer, eventually the divine purpose for going through all this hell will reveal itself to all who choose to see. And they're asking us to trust them in this belief.

Like the compulsive gambler or alcoholic or religious fanatic who thinks the next wager will bring him fortune, the next drink will be his last, or the next catastrophy will reveal to him God's will, Bush and his followers cannot end this war, because they will not allow themselves to believe they've lost control of it.

What they can't see is that when they begin to look to history for providing meaning to the loss and sacrifice of this war, that's when we should be bringing our troops home -- because the war is over. And it's over because that's the point when war as a political tool is no longer effective.

It's no longer a war, but rather a continuous series of pointless acts of violence. Much like the rest of the Middle East is today, has been in the past and probably always will be. Only time and writers of history will tell whether our participation in this war, with all our sacrifice, loss of life and depleted treasure, was justified -- or unjustified.

It's time to bring our troops home. It's time for the people of Iraq to determine their own fate, to create their own destiny, to find their own meaning.

We've done all we can do.

Morgan

With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plea; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.
-- William Lloyd Garrison (1805 - 1879)

Utter and absolute bullshit, asshole.

Do you think you can cover up your contemptible attacks on those of us who opposed the war but didn't take to your brand of misinformation by obscenity and false allegations?

What did Jane Fonda apologize for?

Why do you support the occupation now?

Best, Terry

Howard, I myself would never say "all wars are wrong", but I would say: "all unjustified wars are wrong."

How do I define a 'justified war'?

Um, I know it when I see it. :-)

Since WWII we have been involved in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War 1,
Yugoslavia/Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq.

WWll was justified.

Korea may have been partially justified due to its being a UN Operation.

Afghanistan was justified, but only to the extent that we were searching for Osama. Overthrowing the Taliban quite possibly may have been a major mistake because it puts us in a position of not allowing them to come back.

Give some people a $500 Billion defense budget and they're gonna want to use the toys it buys.

Sometimes I think the only difference between Vietnam and Iraq is the news media of the time.

I can still visualize the Dick Cheney appearance on Meet the Press not long after the 2000 election. The smile on Russert's face, ear to ear, was almost orgasmic as he fawned over Cheney and his "gravitas."

The flag draped coffins returning to Dover AFB are still off limits to the press.

If I had the Bush propaganda machine and the compliant press the Bush gang had in the run up to the Iraq debacle, I could make a factual case for an invasion of Saudi Arabia. There would be no need for lies or innuendo, I would sell truth; the nationality (no Iraqis) of those who attacked us on 9/11, the Wahabi schools and what they teach about the West, where many "insurgents" who are killing our troops in Iraq are coming from, the Saudi financial support to Palestinian suicide bombers (terrorists), going so far as to have an auction to raise money, and probably a few other truths that escape me at the moment.

The Bush Family Evil Empire and their long term connection to the Saudis are the real Axis of Evil.

Another perfectly good discussion hijacked, Kristol long forgot.  <sighmode></sighmode>  Oh well.  I guess shrugging one's shoulders is a form of exercise.

aMike

You're still a far better person than I am, Morgan, as my remarks upthread show.

mea culpa

When is Kissinger going to apologize?

When hell freezes over.

About the same time you do.

Best, Terry

It's the supreme irony that Hitler becomes the justification for any and all wars. Hitler rather proves the opposite case! It's the Hitler-like mindset that begins wars in the first place.

War is wrong because it kills people. Twain was not snarking here, he was commenting on the those who read "thou shalt not kill" and then set about the business of killing tens and hundreds of thousands and millions in His name.

Whining about Jane Fonda, grousing about all those damned hippies who disrespected you back home... that's wallowing in self pity.

And not only do I have a heartbeat, but I have a brain. Which puts me two up on you, I think.

Another perfectly good discussion hijacked, Kristol long forgot.

But isn't it good to forget that idiot? :-)

Best, Terry

Cindy et al are launching the Orange Revolution tomorrow.

For info, the honor of your presence is requested at The Blogging Activist.

"No nation is conquered until the hearts of its women are on the  ground."  Cherokee saying

We are pretty much in agreement. Gulf I, and to a lesser extent Panama, are debatable both ways. What I'd like to see is a serious national discussion of our international roles that do, or do not, involve a military capability. I make no argument that there is enormous waste in some aspects of the defense budget, yet there are legitimate areas that are starved for money.

Among the latter is the case that if US troops are sent into combat, they are not sitting ducks for reasonably predictable threats. If we expect allies, they aren't cannon fodder and deserve equal treatment. Some of the CSIS/Anthony Cordesman reports of US troops going into joint operations, with the US personnel in armored vehicles and the Iraqis in busses and pickup trucks, are disgusting.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Well, the news coverage is indeed different, isn't it? I remember, night after night, watching television news clips of bloodied bodies of soldiers being carried on stretchers to waiting helicopters in the grass and palm covered fields of Vietnam, while my parents, siblings and I sat with eyes transfixed to these TV images trying to eat dinner.

It was macabre and surreal. I'm certain this administration is very aware of how traumatizing it was for us at home to be subjected to those scenes -- night after night. Vietnam had a profound mental and emotional effect on many, many Americans -- not just the vets and their families.

And the draft? The draft hung out there like Damocles's sword over us all -- well, nearly all. It was 1971, I was 19, newly married, had a new baby only weeks old and was preparing to run to Canada because the college my husband was attending failed to send in his student deferment papers and he learned he was bumped up to 1-A status and drew number 76 in the next lottery -- at a time the government was calling up for active duty the first 100 number-holders.

We were young, we were scared -- just like the kids going to Iraq today. But unlike Iraq, we knew EXACTLY what we were going to -- hell. Because we witnessed it up close and personal, blood, guts and all, EVERY EVENING. Today's Army is different. I can speak with authority, as my son is now voluntarily serving in the Army in Iraq, that for the most part, it does take better care of its troops. And as crazy as it may sound, my son loves to serve -- he reminded me of this just today in an e-mail.

And unlike what some in this blog have tried to portray of our troops, the last thing most of these guys want to do is hurt or kill someone -- but they will if they have to to protect themselves, their buddies or any civilians in harms way. They don't want to be there, doing what they've been ordered to do by their civilian leadership who knows or cares nothing about their welfare. They know they have a job to do -- to take out the enemy -- and they want to do it as quickly and as efficiently as possible and then come home to their families.

But the problem with Iraq, like the problem in Vietnam, is the enemy is either unknown or hidden amongst the civilians. And everyone -- the troops, the civilians, even the insurgents -- are very, very afraid.

Part of the indifference or apathy that most feel here at home stems from how much of this war has been hidden away from us and how small is the number of people who actually go there or have family there. This administration doesn't want the truth to interfere with the "reality" they're trying to make up. In sparing the country the harsh reality of this war in Iraq, they're also sparing themselves being subjected to the private seething rage of criticism that exploded into violent public protests during the '60s and'70s.

Our media is acting as enablers to this administration that is pulling off the greatest deception and government conspiracy in American history. Bush & Company make Sen. Joe McCarthy and Pres. Richard Nixon look like school children.

Morgan

With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plea; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.
-- William Lloyd Garrison (1805 - 1879)

My own view is to amend Santayana. People who do not remember the past are compelled to make it up.

History is not a cycle, but it does tend to be a spiral, with the same themes and the same sorts of trains of events.

People remember history, but more properly, it is misremembered, the wrong lessons are constantly taken, self serving interpretations rewrite events, the past is treated as a sore tooth that the present must worry into a new future.

Even now, the lesson that is taken from Vietnam is 'we shoulda won', when the truth is 'we shouldna been there at all.'

Agreed about Cindy Sheehan, yet, as somebody who lives in Pelosi's district, I'd welcome a challenge to her comfy status quo arrangement.

Personally, I think that the Tillman family have taken over as the figurehead for the troops and their families. While the death of Casey Sheehan was a tragedy, the coverup of Pat Tillman's death was a crime. Even though the wingnuts have tried their usual smear and deny tactics, they don't wash with Tillman, and I hope that his family will keep the drumbeat going.

This war is a criminal tragedy, with our troops fighting for a lie. Cheney/Bush and their neocon supporters can bray all they want, but America is much less secure than it was before they abducted the Presidency.

Godspeed home your son and the rest of the troops.

I have yet to have a negative feeling brought on by a Cordesman analysis.

OK,

BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOOOOMMMM BOOMBOOM, DA DA DADA DAAAAAAAAAAAA DA DA DAAAAAAAAA

Ha! We've found out Brad's 'real identity'--he's really Bill Kristol!

You're a real hammer, Brad--you're so wrapped up in your special interest politics that your slip is showing; while the topic of the article is Kristol's chickenhawking in Iraq. Why would anybody hate Billy Kristol? Perhaps because he's been wrong about everything he's said about this war, since before it started?

As a true PNACer, you know the true purpose of the 'war' is all about Israel, and nothing else matters, least of all the cannon fodder US troops.

On July 22, 2007 - 12:41pm Morgan Pardee said:

Well, the news coverage is indeed different, isn't it? I remember, night after night, watching television news clips of bloodied bodies of soldiers being carried on stretchers to waiting helicopters in the grass and palm covered fields of Vietnam, while my parents, siblings and I sat with eyes transfixed to these TV images trying to eat dinner.

For some time, during WWll the news media were not allowed to show dead American troops. Eventually FDR took the ban off so the public could see the horror of war and why they were making the sacrifices they were making.

After Vietnam, the lid came down far more tightly than it ever had in World War II. In Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), the Gulf War (1991), and Haiti (1994), American military officials kept the press out entirely or restricted press access to small pools that were taken only to places and events approved beforehand by military press officers.

If the carnage in Iraq was being broadcast today as it was during the Vietnam years it would be more difficult to continue to support this frikkin war. Embedding reporters with the troops was a masterstroke by the Bush gang, it guaranteed them the coverage would be mellowed.

Given the choice, I wouldn't go to fight in Iraq.

And today, with an all-volunteer Army, the only reason anyone would have to enlist is an actual attack on our country -- as in 9/11. This administration has exploited 9/11 so that it can keep feeding strong young bodies ruled by naive impressionable brains into the maw of our military machinery.

Embedding the media with the military served the purposes of the Pentagon when Rummy told them they would be greeted with open arms.

It's much, much harder to get embedded with them now and they usually don't send them to where the REAL action is. Read the foreign newspapers, such as the Guardian, to get a more accurate picture of what's really happening at ground level. My son says most of the reporters that are with them are very, very VERY young and scared out of their wits. CNN's Michael Ware is with the brass so that he can get the bigger picture from the top.

And for a good reason: Journalists get killed. (Note the names ... how many are AMERICAN journalists?)

Morgan

With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plea; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.
-- William Lloyd Garrison (1805 - 1879)

An internal TNR investigation is unlikely to "prove" anything to the satisfaction of folks who do not take TNR's views as dispositive, certainly not on a matter such as this where the magazine has an interest in a favorable finding.

I often disagree with Brad the Dad on his I-P views but his post was not a "1". I think he's a bright guy and doesn't deserve snark responses. We're not supposed to downrate folks around here simply on the basis of disagreement.

Ellen,
Like many hispanics in the US, and you, I will never forget Francisco Villa and his successful evasion of General Pershing's army after his (Villa's) raid on Columbus, New Mexico.

Howard,

1. The US has not been invaded since 1812. The Hawaiian Islands were not part of the US in 1941. They were illegally taken from the native people and were an occupied territory. The war against Japan had essentailly already started, and fleet defenses were inadequate and so Husband and Kimmel were court-martialed. Your "other events, not on a large scale" were obviously not invasions.

2. Your belief that we "make the correct choice" when we go to war is an academic one, made without any personal risk to yourself but resulting in considerable risk to others. How noble of you. Actually war is a criminal act, as well as immoral, and your support of it is therefore criminal. You calling some war a "peace operation" is of course doubletalk, isn't it. War is peace, sure. You ought to work for the Pentagon.

3. Yes, the only American military role should be against physical threats to US territory. That's the way most countries behave. Ask your neighbors if they'd be willing to go on a (hypothetical) suicide mission to liberate France, as many were ordered to do, and watch them choke on their freedom fries.

4. The highjacking of four planes on 9/11 could have been prevented by an administration that was doing its job. Warnings were disregarded in the State Department, and the FBI and CIA, which didn't communicate with each other. Bush's stonewalling of the subsequent investigation is an indicator of administration failings (some say complicitness).

5. Since there is no military threat against the US, the huge Pentagon budget is simply corporate welfare, supported by congress-critters because of the pork being distributed to most congressional districts. The new F-22 fighter plane, for example, has zero usefulness but since its subcontractors have been carefully situated in over 200 congressional districts it is guaranteed support. Every operational army brigade brings 4,000 jobs to a district, and so on and on, and what good is the world's finest military if you don't use it, which results in the drug of war.

6. In my opinion you are naive when it comes to the way things work in this world we live in. You may not be motivated by money but our rulers are. The economic health of the United States is not ever measured by the income of middle- or lower-class working people but by the stock market, where people are making money screwing lower- and middle-class working people with out-sourcing and any other nefarious scheme they can think of including the useless Pentagon budget which is a huge contributor to corporate bottom lines, and is why militarism (including war) is supported by the media and always has been. I fear that you are a victim of this media.

I don't know what's the matter with you guys. you overlook the famous Battle of Fort Stevens during WWII:

In what became the only attack on a mainland American military installation during World War II, the Japanese submarine I-25 under commander Tagami Meiji [4]surfaced near the mouth of the Columbia River, Oregon on the night of June 21-June 22, 1942, and fired shells toward Fort Stevens. The only damage recorded was to a baseball field's backstop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_United_States_territory_in_North_America_during_World_War_II

The story I heard was that one brave soul fired an antique cannon that presumably is still in place on top of a sea wall; the cannon ball plunked harmlessly short.

Japan 1; America 0

Best, Terry

You're too kind, really.

SeeDee

Plaudits to Cal D on his re-write of the lyrics to an old, old, old fun song.

At the risk of being banned, I'll counter with my "Dobya's Refrain" or, also sub-titled "Bring 'Em on"...some verses that I wrote back in late July, 2003.

Dubya's Refrain
Bring 'Em On

You know Dubya is my name
And I can bear no shame
'Cause you all know my brain is sorta lame.
"Just bring 'em on."

Dick and Don have made their mark,
And we've kept you in the dark
On our reasons for our actions in Irark.
"Just bring 'em on."

"Hey, to you who lost an arm,
That casket headed for the farm
In Carolina, where they seem to like my charm."
"Just bring 'em on."

"Tell your parents I'm not sad,
Cause this war's not really bad;
Though now, you know that you've been really had.
"Just bring 'em on."

I have no feeling of remorse,
And I'm too dumb to alter course.
So ride, ride on, pale apocolyptic horse.
"Just bring 'em on."

For the rich folks I like best
Not to worry...stay at rest,
Our ranks are filled with kids financially distressed.
"Just bring 'em on."

If a few (or more) of them should fall,
It won't concern me much at all
As long as my old buddies get to steal more oil.
"Just bring 'em on."

My attention span is short;
I think I'll have another snort,
And then fly off to Crawford to hold court.
"Just bring 'em on."

"Bring 'em on," is what he said
As they counted up the dead
From that useless expedition that he led.
"Bring 'em on. Bring 'em on. Bring 'em on."

And, still, I have not changed my mind on Bill's Iraq war and the troops...my chant is "BRING 'EM HOME"

I am a retired military veteran still living and working in the military community and I have just about had it with chickenhawk pinheads like Bill Kristol who like to pretend they know anything at all about the military and like to throw around this ridiculous notion that anyone who does not agree with either the purpose of a military campaign or more importantly the management of that campaign by our elected civilian leadership does not “support the troops”.

In the first place, the basic premise that one who is against any particular military campaign is somehow against the troops is ridiculous on its face. Mr. Kristol is obviously naively unaware of the make up of our United States military. They are not robots imported from some sanitized society to shed blood for Mr. Kristols wars, they are a slice right out of American society, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters-- at least for most of us anyway.

Mr. Kristol is obviously unaware that not every service member always agrees with the decisions of their civilian leadership, especially now and especially with respect to Iraq.
To follow Mr. Kristols logic, the troops don’t “support” themselves. Just how ludicrous a notion is that…really? The troops do what they do for a range of reasons, but mostly because it’s their job. They do what they are told to do because it’s their profession, to complete the “mission” whether they agree with it or not, whether they like it or not, because that is what they are trained to do, rightfully so.

Second, and more importantly, this whole bumper sticker “support the troops” campaign slogan is a lie and a myth perpetuated by the right wing with the sole purpose of taking votes away from the left.

To Bill Kristol and any other chickenhawk who like to throw around the bumper sticker slogan, it’s time to call you out.

- If you aren’t actively lobbying the White House and Congress for:

- Better pay and allowances for the “troops”

- Better housing and infrastructure for the “troops”

- Better support for military families, especially taking care of those left behind by a “troop” lost in the line of duty.

- Keeping the Federal Governments promise to veterans with respect to health care

- An immediate end to the use of tour extensions and Stop Loss to support the war.

- An immediate end to the decimation of our military and National Security by this administration.

That just scratches the surface. If you are not calling for these kinds of things at every opportunity than you in fact are not “supporting the troops”, just perpetuating the false notion that every citizen has to be a cheerleader for any war to “support the troops”.

The myth and the lie that Republicans are any more supportive of the troops than anyone else are easy enough to dispel with the simple facts and reality. In 2000 George W. Bush made it a campaign issue to suggest that the next President would take over a “decimated” military and that “help” was on the way. Bush took that decimated military to war less than a year after taking office and has rode it hard and put it away wet for 6 years since. A Republican majority in both the White House and Congress for 6 full years failed to live up to any of George Bush’s promises and the military is no better off today than it was in 2000. The damage this administration has done and is doing to this nation’s military is in fact downright frightening.

Sarcasm. Excellent!

Have I been obtuse?

Am I not responding to your imprecise examinations of my positions?

2. I wrote that the US had not been invaded since 1812, and you counter with verbage on attacks. Sloppy.

Since I have no idea of what risks you have or have not taken in regard to your choices of going to war, fill me in. Educate me. Convince me that you are not a chicken hawk.

And tell me how going to war is a legal and moral decision.

Have you also considered killing those pesky citizens in the next town over from where you live? Well, if you countenance killing foreigners, why not neighbors?

You insist on talking about the past and refuse to address the current condition in the United States where the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about

You don't think that US corporate interests are exploiting "the toiling masses" (your derogatory put-down of working people)?

I'm sorry that you've decided not to discuss these issues with me, apparently because of my "phrasing". I can only conclude that your positions, whatever they are, are indefensible

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

PS -- speaking of chickenhawks, when do you plan on actually posting a statement of your principles, or any damn thing where you don't just snipe at others?

Damn, that's it!

To justify the next US military escapade (Iran? Pakistan?) the government won't need to prattle on about yellow cake, WMD's and 9/11, it'll just mention Howard's 'Just War Theory, with a dash of malum prohibitorum and malum in se', with a modicum of 'Augustine, Aquinas, Grotius, and Lieber'! I can just see the drill sergeants whipping the recruits up for battle with literary illusions. Think it'll work?

amike, thank you for your reply. I respect your contributions to the site, which are many and excellent.

To respond to some of your points:

I did not say that you created a snark reply. I've not seen any replies you may have made to Brad's post.

The snark replies came in reply to Brad, from leftAhead, davai, J Nagarya, and Mark ("Brad, take your man crush on MJ elsewhere.") Weinberg. I rated those posts "1" as unproductive.

If you're going to consider that post by Brad OT (since when is responding to a 'minor' point OT? If so, then I plead guilty many times over. Sometimes what prompts a commenter to respond is a minor point to some or many readers, but not necessarily to the commenter. I don't see why that should be out of bounds.) then several other posts in this thread probably should get 1's from you, too, if you are trying to be consistent, as I believe you are.

Do you think the authors of the 4 comments I rated as a "1" aren't responsible for what they choose to write or not write in response to Brad? Do you believe that "Brad started it"? That, if so, the others get a pass for a string of unproductive comments, several of which do not attempt to make a substantive point? That scenario, which may not reflect your thinking, is about the only one I can construct which makes sense of how you rated, and did not rate, as you did.

Brad's comment makes the substantive point that there is a distinction between being accused vs. being caught, a point I would think many fair-minded folks here would tend to agree with in other contexts.

When he asserts that those who disagree with MJ on I-P are called neocons or Nazis, I see that as an exaggeration but not as a wholly unwarranted or baseless charge. That does happen at this site, and not so infrequently, from what I've seen.

There is a "back story" perspective which I acknowledge bringing to I-P discussions at the site.

Brad the Dad's views on I-P issues are very much a minority point of view among those who write here. I've disagreed openly here with Daniel A. Greenbaum, a fellow denizen who defends views on I-P that seem to me similar to Brad's, ones with which I disagree strongly in some respects.

I believed in some of Daniel's past comments that he was mischaracterizing many posts as being anti-Israel when, based on what was actually written versus what Daniel seemed to read into them, it seemed to me they were merely critical of Israeli policies and US policies towards Israel. I think that distinction needs to be understood and acted upon if there is to be reasonable discussion on I-P.

[As an aside, as a Jewish American who is appalled and disgusted by Israel's settlements policies in particular, and the refusal of the United States to reduce aid to Israel in consequence, I've written on that here at the site:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/discussiontables/foreign_affairs_table/2006/dec/05/inviting_discussion_on_israel_palestine

So for any who may assume that because I appear to be sticking up to some degree for Brad I must be some "neocon" "apologist" for whatever Israel decides to do and for a status quo US policy towards Israel, I don't think that would be a justified assumption.]

Posts I gave 1's in this thread seem to me to reflect no substantive point about any policy of Israel or anything else, but just general deep, unarticulated animus towards Israel and its defenders. Worse than that, davai's post in particular seems to me to beg for an interpretation that it is anything other than overt anti-Semitism.

Brad the Dad on I-P has argued, quite cogently for the most part, what here is very much a minority point of view many times in the past (I am thinking of posts and comments going back well over a year ago) and been downrated because some disagree with him--and for no other reason I can discern.

If what some folks want at this site is to chase away dissenters on I-P, even intelligent ones like Brad, then I guess they will continue to single out his posts to downrate for inappropriate reasons and otherwise let him know that his reduced presence here is unwelcome.

Perhaps, at some point, management will feel obliged to post an advisory on the home page or to potential new subscribers, letting folks know that any points of view deemed "pro-Israel" are likely to draw hostile reactions from some denizens.

I have seen some good, reasoned discussions on I-P at the site. I also see a fair amount of playground-type "You did it! Did not! Did, too!..." types of exchanges which contribute nothing but do engender ill will among people who simply disagree with one another. When the response produced by disagreement is to try to demean rather than respond substantively and civilly to the other, the site is much the worse off.

From what I've seen, amike, that is most atypical for you. This in fact is the only instance I can recall where I thought you were being unfair to someone.

May I suggest that anyone that feels the need to give "0" or "1" rating to anyone, they give them to me. I have collected more than anybody and I don't care as long as I am allowed to post here.

Best, Terry

And not only do I have a heartbeat, but I have a brain. Which puts me two up on you, I think.

That's a rather slick way to phrase the right wing's sorry canard about how Liberals only feel, as opposed to Conservatives who in their turn think.

Terry has a position from a vantage point that ought be respected not pelted with glib overstatement. It is cry’en shame to see talent wasted on egocentrism.

It seems occasionally Kristol gets confused about what decade he is living in, who is on first and the current set of play signals.

I stand by what I said, with a modest addendum.

I very seldom (1) anyone.  I'm more likely to (1) a person who uses an ad hominem attack against a primary author, because, MHO, M J Rosenberg and others who author original material have a duty not to respond in kind to those kinds of attacks.  This leaves them vulnerable to all kinds of slurs.  MJ Rosenberg has, on occasion, lost his cool and responded in kind, and when he has and I've seen it, I've given him a 1.

Lest I be accused of inconsistency, I also don't get into the wars that break out between members on occasion.  The wars themselves are proof that the members are quite capable of protecting their own interests when they feel a need to do so, and their choice of language and method of argument tells everyone far more about them and their character than a (1) from me ever could.   

aMike

Damned fine, SeeDee. You have a talent.

The main factor that keeps the troops motivated to continue to function courageously and selflessly in situations they abhor and know are nonsensical is their intense devotion to their buddies, which keeps them going back into hellish situations and even re-enlisting for more. Unprincipled civilian leaders of course are aware of this love that soldiers bear for each other and use it to full advantage. Bastards.

Those of you who are interested in anti-war sentiment among the troops and want to read about it and disseminate it to the troops can subscribe to "GI Special" by contacting Thomas Barton at thomasfbarton@earthlink.net
GI Special used to be on the web but got knocked off and is only available now by email.

On July 23, 2007 - 11:49am Don Bacon said:

The main factor that keeps the troops motivated to continue to function courageously and selflessly in situations they abhor and know are nonsensical is their intense devotion to their buddies, which keeps them going back into hellish situations and even re-enlisting for more.

Exactly right. Soldiers want to go back on the line not so much to defend their country, but to be with those they were with through thick and thin, and experiencing together all the shit war throws at them. They have a sense of being in it together, its called camaraderie.
Bush's "completing the mission" may be the last thing in their minds.

Unprincipled civilian leaders of course are aware of this love that soldiers bear for each other and use it to full advantage. Bastards.

Referring to the current civilian leadership and neo-cons like Kristol, Kagin, Wolfowitz, Perle etc., correct again.

Don,

not being a statistician, my numbers weren't meant to be precise, but I stand behind the gist of the post; 'the easily led public', those that spend much of their waking hours listening to conservative talk radio, watching FOX, and roaming right wing chat rooms where
they trade in disinformation, reinforce each other's lies, revel in their self reinforcing delusions and expect the nonsense to be accepted by rational adults
in other venues. And so many more who spend countless hours watching soap operas, the new reality shows, sit-coms that aren't funny, and sports, and who would laugh uproariously at the suggestion that they tune in to C-SPAN now and then.

These are the reasons people like the cretin Bush can get elected.

C&GSC is defined as the midcareer professional education course for Army officers, the basic two being Basic and Advanced Infantry (or other branch) and the advanced being the Army War College. A thesis there, or at the associated School of Advanced Military Studies, has to address something in the curriculum.

Routinely, officers of the services may, for broadening, go to a different service's school; there are apt to be Air Force officers in a Navy War College Class.

Incidentally, it isn't necessary to google when one bookmarks the institutional libraries and uses their search engines. Nice try.

I read you as very eager to criticize specifics, without offering any facts of your own. Anything that disagrees with your preconceptions is "smoke".

You are very eager to call any challenge "moot". The relevance of Just War theory is to all levels of command, including the civilian. If Administration orders are in violation of Just War, there starts being the structure of war crimes to use as part of impeachment proceedings, along with lies to the Congress in seeking the AUMF. Even if no officer ever studied Just War, it would be a relevant part of customary international law to evaluate the actions of the United States. Further, in planning a future military, assuming you believe there should be one at all, Just War is quite relevant to determining what capabilities are licit to have.

Tell me, when you take handwritten notes, do you use special paper that is one inch wide? That would seem to fit the scope of your tolerance for views that do not exactly agree with yours. I believe Day-Timers does sell pads of perforated paper about that wide; they are meant for to-do lists but should be adequate for the scope of your vision and willingness to discuss ideas that might dispute yours. Shall I check the catalog number for them?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Too late now, but mispelling in all caps hurts.

Good points.

I didn't think Brad's comment deserved a 1 notwithstanding the ad hominem attack because I thought he made a worthwhile substantive point and because he contributed important content by noting and posting Foer's response. Foer, as a semi-public figure who I have no reason to believe visits this site, can even less be expected to know about and defend himself from attacks on him here than MJ--a point of view I would have thought you might appreciate and perhaps be willing to cut Brad some slack on account of. Or perhaps Foer, being on the side of the issue he defends, is not seen as deserving of having his reputation looked after by conscientious denizens.

I have a concern with not chasing away regular folk denizens who I think make points worth considering in the course of expressing points of view which are unpopular among those who write here. You may not share this concern, or at least you do not want to use the ratings system to try to address it in however limited a way.

That said, your approach, amike, seems to me consistent enough as stated, and not unfair in light of the reasoning you've shared, for which I thank you. I don't think there is a single obviously correct way of using the ratings system. At any rate, if there is, I don't know what it is.

Howard,

"...the symbolism of shrugging while holding dumbbells ..." heh heh heh :-)

Getting back to Kristol, what I find so funny is that his position is the same as the German Conservatives in October 1918.
We all know what that led to. He is the most dangerous man in America and should be exiled.

Kristol knows exactly what he is doing. He is trying to slur the opposition to his idiotic ideas. This same technique was used against the protestors during the Vietnam War. It was BS then and BS now.

Tom

Pointing out and opposing the idiocies of the Bush administration is not the same as opposing all wars although most of them involve similar idiocies.

Tom

My favorite is "Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."

To keep context, there are three kinds of people: those that are good at arithmetic, and those that are not.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Does your comment box display in 3-point micro-type like mine? I have to post it to see the darn typos. It's a brave soul that uses caps.

If there hadn't been a reply attached I would have sent you a message, hoping to preserve your previously stellar record. At least it was phonetic.

Jane Fonda has apologized for sitting in that seat on that anti-aircraft gun in North Vietnam. She never should have done that and she knows it. Having said that she was a courageous leader in the anti-war movement, and she was very supportive of the troops in spite of what the " I hate Jane Fonda" group says.

Tom

I think Cindy Sheehan has a lot of courage. What did she do wrong aside from oppose Bush's war? Many in the mainstream media made fun of her in a deliberate attempt to slur her message. She has the guts to try and do whatever is needed to end this war. If more people in Congress had the courage she does we'd be out of Iraq by now.

Tom

I think you're buying into a perception of Cindy Sheehan that was encouraged by the right wing to turn people against the anti-war movement. She's opposing Pelosi because Nancy won't initiate impeachment proceedings against Cheney/Bush. Good for Cindy. My nephew was wounded in Iraq in March 2003. He has a metal plate in his head. I've met Cindy Sheehan and I think she's great.

Tom

PS Please be specific - who are the "nutcase peace activists". I know who are the "nutcase war activists" are - Bush, Cheney, Kristol, Perle, etc.

While it is a nice intention to help 'protect' minority points of view, I think you're overrating the substance of Brad's commentary, while overlooking his extreme animus towards MJ.

I stand by my assertion that Brad's first sentence above was offtopic, and that he was slipping back to his single-issue focus. Perhaps I was too pithy for your taste, however, your judgement is frankly suspect, given Brad's claim and my own:

Brad: There's only one reason he hates TNR, and that's because it takes a reality-based line on the Israel/Palestine issue.

Me: Why would anybody hate Billy Kristol? Perhaps because he's been wrong about everything he's said about this war, since before it started?

Therefore, in order to substantiate your blanket claim that my comment represents 'general deep, unarticulated animus towards Israel and its defenders,' why don't you back it up by posting *anything* Kristol has predicted about this war that turned out to be correct?

Can you repeat this over on Tom's post Seeking Redress En Masse and Tricia's post As I See It?

It's great info! Thank you!

Morgan

With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plea; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.
-- William Lloyd Garrison (1805 - 1879)

Forgot about the update trick. Do I go through motions of editing it?

Yeah, saw that in the Post.

ps. lest I be accused of not posting anything 'substantive,' here's a nice, partial list of the many ways Billy Kristol was publicly wrong, wrong, wrong about the War in Iraq (h/t to The Nation):

On September 11, 2002, as the Bush administration began its sales campaign for the coming war, Kristol suggested that Saddam Hussein could do more harm to the United States than al Qaeda had: "we cannot afford to let Saddam Hussein inflict a worse 9/11 on us in the future."

On September 15, 2002, he claimed that inspection and containment could not work with Saddam: "No one believes the inspections can work." Actually, UN inspectors believed they could work. So, too, did about half of congressional Democrats. They were right.

On September 18, 2002, Kristol opined that a war in Iraq "could have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East."

On September 19, 2002, he once again pooh-poohed inspections: "We should not fool ourselves by believing that inspections could make any difference at all." During a debate with me on Fox News Channel, after I noted that the goal of inspections was to prevent Saddam from reaching "the finish line" in developing nuclear weapons, Kristol exclaimed, "He's past that finish line. He's past the finish line."

On November 21, 2002, he maintained, "we can remove Saddam because that could start a chain reaction in the Arab world that would be very healthy."

On February 2, 2003, he claimed that Secretary of State Colin Powell at an upcoming UN speech would "show that there are loaded guns throughout Iraq" regarding weapons of mass destruction. As it turned out, everything in Powell's speech was wrong. Kristol was uncritically echoing misleading information handed him by friends and allies within the Bush administration.

On February 20, 2003, he summed up the argument for war against Saddam: "He's got weapons of mass destruction. At some point he will use them or give them to a terrorist group to use...Look, if we free the people of Iraq we will be respected in the Arab world....France and Germany don't have the courage to face up to the situation. That's too bad. Most of Europe is with us. And I think we will be respected around the world for helping the people of Iraq to be liberated."

On March 1, 2003, Kristol dismissed concerns that sectarian conflict might arise following a US invasion of Iraq: "We talk here about Shiites and Sunnis as if they've never lived together. Most Arab countries have Shiites and Sunnis, and a lot of them live perfectly well together." He also said, "Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than this one by this president." And he maintained that the war would be a bargain at $100 to $200 billion. The running tab is now nearing half a trillion dollars.

On March 5, 2003, Kristol said, "I think we'll be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction and when we liberate the people of Iraq."

Wikipedia says that the "photograph was shot by a public affairs officer of the Peoples Republic of Vietnam, and released worldwide for distribution." I think the real stupidity was that of the DRVN.

Here's another photo from the incident. (I have this impression of seeing a photo of her peering through the gunsight but haven't found "it" -- maybe, it's all in my mind).

Morally, Lieutenant Calley was trying to save the Vietnamese from themselves. Unfortunately, it translated into slaughtering a village of old men, women and children, which gave people the wrong impression of America and its forces. I guess that was stupid too.

Personally, I think that Calley did a lot more damage to America's fight in the Vietnam War than Fonda ever could. It's funny that Vietnam vets aren't lining up around the block to spew tobacco juice in Calley's face.

Speaking of which, who do you think will be the most famous American to come out of Iraq? So far, its a toss up between Lyndie England and Paul Bremer.

Food for thought.

I had this phenomenon confirmed multiple times by soldiers of all ranks; it just gets harder and harder to re-deploy. I deployed for the second time this year, as a civilian, for only a month at a time, to relatively secure FOBS, and it was still much more difficult for me to do it a second time.

This should be viewed as an indication of just how much soldiers are willing to sacrifice in order to carry out their orders. I am sure some combination of professionalism, dedication to their battle buddies, patriotism and a strange attraction to the war zone is at work; I see that even in myself, a civilian. The one thing I'd say for sure: nobody should impugn the effort, regardless of hypothesized motivation. I get enraged when people say "they were paid well" or "they didn't have better opportunities" or "it is their job", as if that somehow meant that it wasn't a sacrifice.

Neohobo, I'd say you really don't have to wonder about those dreams. A very high percentage of the combat troops come back with PTSD - it has a spectrum of severity, but it is startling to be talking to a perfectly "normal" civilian and see a sudden lapse into either a semi-comatose state or a fight-or-flee adrenaline surge. It seems to me that those unprocessed memories inevitably surface during sleep - if sleep is available.

It is a source of constant astonishment to me that these very real issues for soldiers are not at the top of the heap when the war is discussed.

I can say for certain that all troops track these matters very carefully - these issues end up being a kind of index for the soldiers for how much the civilian world actually cares about them and their sacrifices.

They don't expect much, because in the end they know or suspect that many promises will not be fulfilled. If I could do one thing for the troops, it would be to hammer on these issues, constantly.

Even more frightening is the love child of England and the ringleader of the abusive guards, presumably conceived when his mother was between Iraq and a hard place.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I've done a Discussion Table post on updating world policy on nuclear weapons proliferation, but also steps for decreasing the probability of their use. Yes, I know that it would be nice if they all disappeared, but that is not going to happen anytime soon.

It relates to aspects of my discussion with Don Bacon here, although I try to be realistic about what can realistically be done in the moderate future, rather than an ideal of banning all war. That didn't work with the Kellogg-Briand accord.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Morgan:

I believe my use of the term "anti-war" was both more specific and injudicious. I was referring to soldiers, not the general public. And the term is injudicious in that I should have said anti-Iraq War; it is not the case that soldiers are anti-war in general, just anti stupid wars. After all, they have to risk everything, so the cause is actually important.

Soldiers are also subjected to a great deal of propaganda. I am not outraged by this, after all, it is natural to want to believe that everything you do is good, and just, and important. When the task is fighting and dying, it becomes that much more important.

I raise this only to suggest that for a soldier to turn against the war, a lot of conditioning must be overcome. This occurs when what the soldiers personally see and experience is consistently at odds with what they are told, or when they are simply exhausted by all the death and destruction. Again, I have seen both phenomena at work personally.

Add the ingredient of a rankling sense of futility in Iraq and you have an increasingly demoralized Army.

I applaud none of this. It is hard enough being a soldier. Being a soldier and fighting with a sense that the mission is misguided or futile is entirely too much of a burden. Those soldiers who have turned against the war will leave the Army, or seek a job where they don't have to deploy. Again, I think it is a damn shame that this is occurring. I cannot help thinking that our war in Iraq simply asks too much of them.

Not only are some soldiers not re-upping many are refusing to go "outside the wire" with a few squad leaders after witnessing firsthand those higher-than-normal casualty rates, preferring instead to do sh**work over following some yahoo with a GI Joe complex willing to take unnecessary risks so he can brag about "taking the fight to the enemy."

Fortunately, in this new all volunteer Army, brass is paying attention and quietly rotating out some of these poor leaders.

Unfortunately, soldiers and civilians are killed and seriously injured in the process of weeding them out, because there are few litmus tests, other than actual combat, to test a soldier's leadership abilities. It's a very complex war, after all, not some reality show on television with millions of "armchair advisors" sitting at home.

Although this war certainly has a lot of "armchair advisors," doesn't it? ;-)

Morgan

With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plea; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.
-- William Lloyd Garrison (1805 - 1879)

He is very proud of achievements he knew, but he's also one of those people who wants to "finish the job", and it tears him up that he can't go back to it. Ironically, he is in military police and intelligence, but never has worked in "big picture" intelligence or really at all in intelligence analysis.

For example, he's made comments both on public and private newsgroups/mailing lists about Iraqi and insurgent motivations, citing some references to Islam. Rather innocently, I asked him to clarify some references, as some of his terms were interpreted in one way by some of the ulema and a different way by others. He also growled at someone for not being familiar with al-Qaeda's doctrinal publications, but it turned out that he had only skimmed them, and also not read at all the background work of Qutb and Azzam.

When I brought up those points, honestly expecting him to know them, he very quickly changed the subject. Please don't misunderstand this -- I know soldiers with multiple tours who do want to go back, and have tremendous area knowledge.

Ironically, one of them is a very devout Greek Orthodox, and one of the finest historians I know. His wife is also a soldier that has served in Iraq, although the two have never been there at the same time. He despises Islam, and gives theological reasons for it. Nevertheless, people who have served with him say that he is invariably polite to Iraqis, and takes considerable effort to be sure damage as a result of US operations is repaired or at least reimbursed -- within his power as a mid-rank NCO. He is utterly contemptuous of brutal interrogators, and speaks of the most successful ones as those that act with authority, but with obvious knowledge and respect of Iraqi and Muslim customs.

Yes, I know some here will scoff at any invader being "correct", but there is a place for humanity in the most hellish confrontations on earth.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

When you talk about the strangeness, remember that the clinical definition of PTSD says that the symptoms start to manifest at least three months after the trauma. Acute stress syndrome is just as real, but is diagnosed and treated differently.

There's a very good article on management of PTSD in WTC survivors, which gives one of the best descriptions I've seen of certain newer treatment menthods, such as EMDR (Eye Motion Desensitization Reprocessing). While it is getting a little dated, it's worth noting his observations that certain drugs are useful only after PTSD symptoms develop. For some personal things unrelated to combat, I can speak of EMDR (in progress) as extremely helpful; therapists I trust speak highly of it and the related method, more common in Canada, EMI.

The reality that PTSD is a delayed-onset disease makes it perfectly reasonable to train people to be sensitive to it developing back home, and there is utterly no shame in being evaluated and treated for it.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard: agreed, I read a good deal about EMDR last year. Remember, though, that many troops now in theater are on their second or third deployment. A delayed onset doesn't matter much. I personally know a soldier involved in some really intense combat in Afghanistan; he tried to manage his PTSD himself, was deployed to Iraq and then med boarded out when he couldn't function.

I have posted some of my more general observations in a blog entry, don't know how to link to it but it is "SLE's blog" on this site.

Also agreed that PTSD certainly can be active during a return tour, and even in the first tour after several months. Of course, that doesn't prevent acute stress syndrome and other disorders in the very near term. I've been following some of the Army psychiatric care plans in-theater, but when reality is causing the problem, therapy can do so much.

One of the saddest things is a soldier, already showing stress, pushing himself or herself back to the unit to support the people to whom he's bonded -- and that sort of unit cohesion is not a bad thing. I wish, however, that some of the people that claim this means the troops "support the war" understood that the most basic thing that drives combat troops is "don't let your fellow soldiers down."

While some troops stay behind the wire almost all the time, I have a friend who has been in public affairs whose unit was rather different. They would go on patrols as photographers and journalists, but their unit very deliberately took on base checkpoint guard duty, and also met the helicopters coming in with wounded. My friend says they felt obligated to wash the blood out of the helicopter and make it as clean as possible for the next people.

Afghanistan can be hellish as well, but I think there is an important difference. Of the Americans and Canadians that went there, most can say they know and like some Afghan civilians as well as military. They speak highly (I do as well) about Afghan food, and a little of the culture. The fact that many more get to interact with the people than in Iraq seems to be much healthier, although it's no panacea.

If you've read Catch-22, it's getting to be a perfect description.

To create a link, replace the [] with >: [a href=your site URL[Text description

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

On July 25, 2007 - 8:29am hcberkowitz said:

One of the saddest things is a soldier, already showing stress, pushing himself or herself back to the unit to support the people to whom he's bonded -- and that sort of unit cohesion is not a bad thing. I wish, however, that some of the people that claim this means the troops "support the war" understood that the most basic thing that drives combat troops is "don't let your fellow soldiers down."

Howard, yes, and I addressed this loyalty to the unit in an earlier post here, I used the word "cameraderie."

During the Bulge we were defending a bridge over the Salm river in Belgium and I suffered a slight concussion from a German 88. I was told to go back to the aid station across the bridge for a while, but I didn't go. Leaving never entered my mind.

(maybe that was because of the concussion
: -) )