I've been following the testimony going on before Congress here lately about Blackwater USA - the "bodyguard" firm that appears to be more rightly considered a US mercenary unit.
Testimony from Jeremy Scahill, investigative reporter for The Nation magazine:
...The stakes are very high for the Bush administration because the company involved, Blackwater USA, is not just any company. It is the premiere firm protecting senior State Department officials in Iraq, including Ambassador Ryan Crocker. This company has been active in Iraq since the early days of the occupation when it was awarded an initial $27 million no-bid contract to guard Ambassador Paul Bremer. During its time in Iraq, Blackwater has regularly engaged in firefights and other deadly incidents. About 30 of its operatives have been killed in Iraq and these deaths are not included in the official American death toll.
While the company’s operatives are indeed soldiers of fortune, their salaries are paid through hundreds of millions of dollars in US taxpayer funds allocated to Blackwater. What they do in Iraq is done in the name of the American people and yet there has been no effective oversight of Blackwater’s activities and actions. And there has been absolutely no prosecution of its forces for any crimes committed against Iraqis. If indeed Iraqi civilians were killed by Blackwater USA last Sunday, as appears to be the case, culpability for these actions does not only lie with the individuals who committed the killings or with Blackwater as a company, but also with the entity that hired them and allowed them to operate heavily-armed inside Iraq–in this case, the US State Department.
All this talk has made me wonder: If many so-called conservatives don't trust the government, don't think the government can be trusted to do things correctly or cheaply, why, then do they express such confidence in the US military? Why not farm out all our soldiering to mercenary units such as this one?
Is the government incompetent and incapable of running social assistance programs or medical programs, why is a government military trustworthy and reliable - and not merely trustworthy and reliable, but the "best military in the world!"? Where is the consistency? How can a government be incompetent to run welfare, but capable of dispatching by far the most expensive, expansive military program in the history of the world?
[NOTE: It will be obvious to all who know me at all that I'm not advocating turning over military operations to mercenaries - God forbid! - nor am I necessarily advocating a nationalized healthplan nor welfare in general. I'm just wondering how anti-government types explain their reasoning.]
[OTHER NOTE: Write your representatives and demand an end to the use of mercenaries by our government and that mercenaries who behave badly be prosecuted. This undermines our national security, not to mention our already tarnished integrity.]
85 comments:
Actually I think the reliance on Blackwater has less to do with conservatives' trust of our military, or the military's ability to do social assistance than the fact that Blackwater is basically completely exempt from any law or oversight while operating in Iraq. Military justice doesn't apply to them, and Iraqi civilian justice doesn't either. Nice and tidy, eh?
Also, I'd imagine that, if Democrats were to demand a pull-out of troops (yeah, fat chance ... what did we elect them for again?) these mercenaries wouldn't be included as they're simply contracted by the executive branch, through the State Department.
Still trying to clarify Blackwater mercenaries in terms of free competitive enterprize: is a private enterprize street thug worth more than five times the cost of a soldier?
BB-Idaho is quick to use the epithet of "street thug" just as Michael a while back called contractors "scum."
I do wonder if these same people are equally quick on the draw when it comes to terrorists in al Qaeda. Or are they people that we must strive to understand rather than villify?
And, there's a simple reason we trust the military to be competent: it is the American institution that has been best preserved against the radicalism of the Left, more so than other government bureaucracies, the news media, the entertainment industry, the universities, and even the church. It is a unique bulwark of traditional Western values, and for that reason it is uniquely competent, as Western civilization has been uniquely successful.
And, there's a reason conservatives support large military budgets: our military is in direct survival-of-the-fittest competition with the militaries of our enemies. It is not as if the Swedish welfare system could invade us and destroy ours.
Keeping up with our enemies is good, but maintaining a decisive military advantage is better, because mere parity is often not enough to deter an aggressive, totalitarian regime.
Western civilization -- its people and its values of liberty and justice -- are better served when its militaries wield overwhelmingly superior firepower, whether that means the British navy in the 19th century or the U.S. Air Force now. Truthfully, even other people are better served by this military superiority because it's so rarely needed in a full-blown war: enemy regimes rarely dare to start such a war with us, and our values tend to advance in the meantime.
(It is my observation that those Westenerners who desire military parity also often claim moral equivalence between the values of Western liberty and those of totalitarianism. They don't agree to the objective of liberty's advancing, so it's not as if we're merely arguing means.)
Peace through strength -- economic, political, and especially military strength -- is an effective strategy in the real world where matters are often decided through the use of force or the credible threat of the use force.
Would that it were not so, but if the "just peacemaking" crowd wants everyone to disarm, I would love to see them start with the totalitarians. One reason I suspect they don't (by no means the most unkind reason) is that they know it would be ineffective, but though convincing the West to disarm first is easier, it's not smart as it emboldens those who are the least likely to listen to reason and engage in good-faith negotiations.
All this talk has made me wonder: If many so-called conservatives don't trust the government, don't think the government can be trusted to do things correctly or cheaply, why, then do they express such confidence in the US military? Why not farm out all our soldiering to mercenary units such as this one?
Because government is only good at one thing: breaking things. It is, by definition, force; it is destruction. So government should take care of the breaking-things business and leave the rest to free enterprise.
Very astute observation, though, about how small-government conservatives relate to government and the military. Former generations of small government advocates, like Thomas Jefferson, strongly distrusted the military. And in a sense, they still do, hence their strong advocacy of gun rights as a counterweight to a standing army.
Some other thoughts...
First, it's not the case that the military is omni-competent, as it has a tendency to "fight the last war", to acquire equipment and train personnel as if the next war will be similar to the previous war. I doubt many traditional conservatives would be opposed to market-like reforms that would make the military more responsive to change.
And, I would argue that some market-like effects have long since existed in our military: units are given some flexibility in the tactics they employ, they report their progress, and effective tactics tend to propagate. There's a competition of tactics and ideas even though the military is one cohesive whole.
But that cohesion might ultimately be why privatization ultimately should be eschewed. Fighting a war -- putting yourself in a kill-or-be-killed situation -- is so very different than delivering the mail or sending welfare checks that it changes the social dynamic.
Look, a socialist economy can only work if everyone considers the needs of the collective before his own individual needs: that's why it generally can only work on the small scale on a truly voluntary basis: all the hippies of the commune are able to "buy in" to the cause of the greater good.
In a war, that ability to "buy in" suddenly becomes possible: infantrymen on the front line are willing to put themselves in extremely deadly situations (sometimes lost causes) all for the sake of military victory and the goals that achieves, typically including freedom or security for loved ones back home.
Because the "buy-in" for a collective cause suddenly becomes possible, the command-and-control structure of a regimented state-run military may likely be more effective in the real world than any piecemeal free-market alternative.
And, beyond that, a military can often be inflexible, but it still can only work effectively if there is very broad adherence to a clear chain of command: the President is the Commander-in-Chief, not just a client, and his authority as C-in-C should not come into conflict with the directive of a private company's CEO.
The trouble Lincoln had with the intransigence of some state militias illustrates the problems that could result with a private army: those militias were run by the individual states rather than private companies, but their soldiers often didn't clearly see Lincoln as the unique military authority. The Union's ability to wage war effectively suffered as a result.
(To put my point another way, there is a level of self-sacrifice in familes and armies that cannot be replicated by the DMV, the Post Office, or the mechinery of a welfare state. That often renders moot any comparison between the social structure of the Marine Corps and that of the DHHS.)
John: "Because government is only good at one thing: breaking things."
Ya got that right!
No one knows better than my family how the government has broken the U.S. Army. When your soldiers are broken in body and soul over and over again, the machine can no longer function... the main reason for Blackwater and their ilk. They keep the engines of perpetual war running.
Not to worry though...the draft is coming up over the horizon. And guys like Bubba, who sit safely behind their computer screens debating the issues with long diatribes, will have to shut it up and put on a pair of combat boots.
Marty, it still amazes me how much viceral hatred you have for civilians who vocally support the U.S. military and its mission.
Perhaps because she realizes that those who "support" the loudest, also tend to support the least, in the real world?
...and the character attacks begin.
No character attack intended. I'm saying that some folk, such as Marty, who have family members in the military, sense the disinguenity of "supporting" the military in an unjust and ill-advised venture especially when those "supporters" are not even willing to serve themselves.
Perhaps it is the case that some folk think the best way to support the military is not to send our soldiers off on an ill-advised campaign.
Regardless, that's not a character attack. It's just a statement of what some people think is self-evident.
Bubba said a lot, including this:
To put my point another way, there is a level of self-sacrifice in families and armies that cannot be replicated by the DMV, the Post Office, or the mechinery of a welfare state.
You've obviously never been a teacher or social worker...
Bubba, I fully understand that sometimes it's hard to say stuff in a few words and I don't mind long essays (when appropriate). Just understand that many people will find it difficult to justify spending that much time reading all that - especially if you don't appear to be making much logical sense to them. I understand that's true when I write long responses (and therefore try to avoid them, but don't always) as it is with yours. Just food for thought.
I, myself, have yet to wade through your thoughts, but will when I get a chance.
I'll keep this brief, then.
We don't all agree on whether Iraq has been unjust and ill-advised, so reasonable people can disagree about how best to support the troops in Iraq. I make a point of not questioning whether Marty supports the military, and I doubt you would tolerate my making that suggestion, and yet you have no problem reiterating the suggestion that my support is insincere.
This, after you recently spent an inordinate amount of time and words complaining about how your politically and theologically conservative opponents were writing as if we knew your mind better than you do.
Now you almost attribute literally psychic powers to Marty, as you write that she can "sense the disinguenity" of those civilians who support our mission in Iraq.
This is indeed an attack on my character and the character of other civilians who disagree with you and Marty. You apparently think the attack may be justified as a self-evident description of those who disagree with you, but that makes it no less of an attack.
And your assertion to the contrary makes it no less of an attack: it is what it is, and questioning a person's sincerity is an attack on his character. Period.
Dan writes, "I'm saying that some folk, such as Marty, who have family members in the military, sense the disinguenity of "supporting" the military in an unjust and ill-advised venture especially when those "supporters" are not even willing to serve themselves."
Indeed. Hey... aren't we supposed to support the war by going shopping and going to DisneyWorld? At least that's what our President has told us. Feh.
I've been watching Ken Burns' "The War" on PBS, and I've been struck by the difference in how the folks on the Home Front supported the troops then vs. now. Then, the folks at home did without, they sacrificed, they scrimped and saved. Today, we put cute magnetic ribbons on the backs of our cars. Indeed one doesn't have to be a mind-reader to "sense the disinguenity" of those civilians who support our mission in Iraq, it's usually plastered all over the backs of their gas guzzling, oil-burning SUVs.
(Not to mention the so-called supporters of the military who claim soldiers who disagree with the war are "phony", or civilian politicians who send kids off to war with little or no armor, or who dare our enemy to "bring it on" while we have troops in combat, or... etc., etc., etc...)
While I don't doubt that such "support" may be truly sincere, I'd still say it's pathetic. I'd say there's a difference between saying that the support from some of these pro-war folks is insincere and saying that it's meager, at best.
Alan, for the sake of brevity I'll focus on one comment you made.
I'll assume the best possible case and hope that you are only woefully misinformed about Rush Limbaugh, in reference to your comment about "the so-called supporters of the military who claim soldiers who disagree with the war are 'phony.'"
Rush did no such thing.
Instead, he was referring to men who fabricated their military records, including Jesse MacBeth, who claimed to have been an Army Ranger and Purple Heart recipient who participated in the murder of innocent civilians in a Baghdad mosque.
None of these claims were true. MacBeth washed out of boot camp in less than two months, was never an Army Ranger, was never awarded the Purple Heart, and was never with the U.S. Army in Iraq. The atrocity he claimed to have happened, never happened, and he recently admitted all this in federal court, where he was sentenced to five months in jail.
On Tuesday, September 25th, Rush aired a "morning update", a brief radio commentary that airs on his affiliate stations, and its focus was on MacBeth and how the media doesn't make a big deal about his admission in court:
You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse MacBeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.
The next day, Wednesday the 26th, Rush mentioned "phony soldiers" with a caller and -- as an indication of precisely what he meant -- he immediately played the entire morning update from Tuesday.
You can hear Rush replay the entire exchange in context here.
Now that I've explained the truth, I hope that you can accept the truth and retract at least this one comment. If you do so, you will demonstrate that you are either now better informed or more honest than Harry Reid and Wesley Clark. I will think better of you. I will still conclude that the entire point of Rush's morning update has been validated by this psuedo-controversy -- that for much of the Left, "the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth" -- but I will have confirmed that there remains among you men of honor.
Bubba: "Marty, it still amazes me how much viceral hatred you have for civilians who vocally support the U.S. military and its mission."
Viceral hatred? You amuse me Bubba. But hate you...not a chance.
Dan: "I'm saying that some folk, such as Marty, who have family members in the military, sense the disinguenity of "supporting" the military in an unjust and ill-advised venture especially when those "supporters" are not even willing to serve themselves."
Yep that about sums it up. You don't have to be a psychic to figure that one out either. In some circles the word for those "supporters", I believe, is "chickenhawk".
a “chickenhawk” is someone who stands by an ideal, so long as it isn’t too personally costly for him to do so.
By that definition, most of us are chicken-hawks, even you. You oppose the Iraq war, but it doesn't seem that you're doing literally everything in your power to stop this war, starting with repeated acts of civil disobedience and the lengthy jail time that comes with it. And either way, it's not as if civil disobedience is in any way comparable to the sacrifices our soldiers have been willing to make when they signed up.
No, so far as I can tell, you sit safely at your computer, maybe join a few marches and put up a few fliers, but you make sure that your opposition to the war isn't too costly for you.
I got three words for you, Marty: Thich Quang Duc.
Quang Duc was the Buddhist monk who, in 1963, set himself on fire and burned to death in protest of religious persecution by the South Vietnamese government.
Now there's a guy who stood by his ideals. You, on the other hand, are hardly in any position to criticize anyone else about their level of commitment to their causes.
Do something about that, and then you can come back and tell me about my moral failings.
I'm not sure how effective catching one's self on fire is as a change agent.
I suspect you don't really know what Marty or anyone else here is doing to effect change, so perhaps you ought to be a bit more circumspect in your accusations, bubba.
And regardless, perhaps that definition of chickenhawk is not as precise as it should be, since "chickenhawk" also tends to refer to those who specifically stand by the ideal of war that they want other people to fight, but are not willing to fight themselves.
Marty has demonstrated that she is quite engaged in the fight against this war, using methods that are as effective as she knows how. I suspect that some of those methods have been at a personal cost.
Bubba writes, "Now that I've explained the truth, I hope that you can accept the truth and retract at least this one comment. If you do so, you will demonstrate that you are either now better informed or more honest than Harry Reid and Wesley Clark...."
Thanks for the remarkable level patronization, but I heard the exchange on Limbaugh's show myself. It was obvious who he was talking about. And compounding the insult, just days later in response to an ad placed by folks protesting his earlier remarks, he compared a wounded veteran in that ad to a suicide bomber. His opinions on the matter are quite clear. (And, let's not forget that Limbaugh is also the guy who claimed Michael J Fox was faking his Parkinson's disease in an ad before the 2006 elections -- Rush has made a hobby of this kind of behavior, and the pattern is evident.) In any event, all that was a tangental, even parenthetical, point.
"I will think better of you."
Somehow I'll survive. ;)
But, if you'd like to comment on the actual point of my comment, instead of fisking my comments (again) for one tangental point you disagree with, feel free. I'll think better of you. :)
"No, so far as I can tell, you sit safely at your computer, maybe join a few marches and put up a few fliers, but you make sure that your opposition to the war isn't too costly for you."
Interesting that in one comment you complain that people are making unfounded assumptions about you, and yet you turn around and do the same thing.
Yes, you're right, I haven't set myself on fire, but that's hardly a standard by which opposition to the war should be measured. But since we're making unfounded assumptions about everyone, so far as I can tell you sit safely at your computer but you make sure that your opposition to the war isn't too costly for you. Unless by chance you've recently enlisted in the armed forces?
John said:
Because government is only good at one thing: breaking things. It is, by definition, force; it is destruction. So government should take care of the breaking-things business and leave the rest to free enterprise.
John, as a joke, that's quite funny. As a legitimate policy stand, it's horrifying.
I'm assuming you meant it as a joke, or at least a half-joke.
Bubba said:
I make a point of not questioning whether Marty supports the military, and I doubt you would tolerate my making that suggestion, and yet you have no problem reiterating the suggestion that my support is insincere.
This, after you recently spent an inordinate amount of time and words complaining about how your politically and theologically conservative opponents were writing as if we knew your mind better than you do.
Bubba, no one has stated they know your mind better than you do (unlike what has happened with me and others). What was said was:
those who "support" the loudest, also tend to support the least, in the real world
Neither I nor anyone else here questioned your or anyone's sincerity. I didn't question your christianity or your patriotism.
I said that ofttimes, those who "support" loudest, tended to support least. My intention in this is to say (as I explained later) that those who support every military operation that comes around - regardless of its legitimacy or efficacy - are not supporting the military. I'm sure you agree that if one supports a "bad" war, one does so to the detriment of the soldiers and their families.
As you noted, we may disagree as to the righteousness of this particular war, but if we think that this war is dead wrong, then yes, we think those who support continuing the war do so against the best interests of our military and nation. And Marty has seen this first hand.
That's just a statement of facts as we understand them. It's not an interpretation at all into what you believe or don't believe or your sincerity.
This is yet another case of someone claiming we've said or suggested something that simply has not happened in the real world.
Dan, since Marty knows just about as much about my life as I know about hers, why in the world are you not asking her to be circumspect in her accusations? Why, instead, are you amplifying those accusations and joining her in accusing me of being disingenuous?
I'm not sure her efforts thus far have been all that effective, since we're still in Iraq, since Congress hasn't made any serious effort to cut the war's funding or otherwise genuinely force a pullout, since every viable Republican nominee to succeed Bush stands behind the surge, and since the even presumptive Democratic candidate has suggested that she won't pull the troops immediately upon being sworn in.
But let's grant the point: let's suppose that Marty is doing whatever it is she's doing rather than putting her life at greater risk because she thinks she can be more effective doing the former. You both should consider the question of efficacy before throwing around the "chickenhawk" smear. I acknowledge that serving as a soldier is much more dangerous than all that I do to support the mission, and I admire the men and women who feel called to that duty and volunteer in the absence of a draft. However, I believe that we're much more likely to lose the war against jihad in Washington than we are in Baghdad: the war has become a question of political will rather than a question of military success. I believe I can be more effective joining the war of ideas here than joining the military itself, but that determination has no apparent effect on whether you going to accuse me of being disingenuous.
The hypocrisy on your part is transparent: knowing next to nothing about my life and caring nothing for about where I believe I am most effective, you have no problem echoing Marty's smears on my character, but those concerns immediately become important the moment I dare to return fire.
If you were much less selective about when such concerns matter, you would be much more credible in asking me to be circumspect. As it is, I don't what you think about the propriety of my suspicion that Marty here is in no position to tell others about the personal cost of standing by their beliefs.
And, for what it's worth, I very truly doubt that her efforts to oppose the war have come at any significant cost or put her life in any significant risk. To whatever degree she thinks she's put herself at risk, I suspect that that risk is largely manufactured.
Alan, I focused on Limbaugh's comment primarily because that snarky little remark was the easiest to refute most clearly. For whatever reason you continue to deny the truth and retract your comment on what I will admit is a minor point. You are, therefore, not very trustworthy on more important matters.
Like Dan, you have no problem with Marty attacking my character, viciously and repeatedly, so I don't think you have no moral standing to criticize my response.
And, Dan:
Neither I nor anyone else here questioned your or anyone's sincerity.
This transparent lie insults my intelligence. I apparently made a mistake thinking that you are capable of a civil and rational discussion in good faith.
(Rather, Alan, I don't think you have any moral standing in criticizing my response to Marty. If you or Dan had said one critical thing about the remarks she made that prompted my response, things would be different. As it is, you repeated her attack.)
"Alan, I don't think you have any moral standing in criticizing my response to Marty."
Um...again...somehow I'll survive.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, Bubba, perhaps you simply didn't read my earlier comment. Out of curiosity, do you read what I write, or just fisk my comments looking for things about which to get offended?
So, just to be clear... What I said was this, in a nut shell: Some of those who support the war and say they support the troops my be sincere, but their support is meager, at best, particularly when compared to the public's support of troops in previous wars. That is not an attack on your character, nor is it a defense of anyone's attacks on your character (real or imagined). In fact, in my first paragraph, you'll notice I used the word "we" to include all of us, as I believe none of us are doing enough. In my final paragraph I intentionally included the qualifier "some of these pro-war folks..."
But of course, you don't want to address those comments, because you'd rather haul out the weapons of mass distraction and talk about Rush. :)
Let me be clear, AGAIN: I am not questioning the sincerity of your support. Now that I've made that as clear as I possibly can, any further claim by you that I have attacked your character by questioning your sincerity is simply a lie.
"You are, therefore, not very trustworthy on more important matters."
Strange that you'd bother continue to engage me in comments, isn't it? You apparently find my comments interesting enough to criticize my writing style and to continually fisk them for minor points with which you disagree. In another thread you said you didn't want to take the time to comment on my points (though you took the time to leave 3 or 4 comments saying that over and over). If my comments are so untrustworthy, why even bother responding at all?
And now, while spending time making several comments which do not respond to my actual points, you've essentially called me a liar (or "untrustworthy"). Yet you are the one complaining about me attacking your character? I have not attacked your character at all, and yet you attack mine. Nice job!
"Like Dan, you have no problem with Marty attacking my character, ..."
First of all, as I read it, Marty said nothing about your support being insincere. Nor did Dan. In fact, Dan has clearly stated, "Neither I nor anyone else here questioned your or anyone's sincerity. I didn't question your christianity or your patriotism." And I have clearly said that I don't question your sincerity -- though perhaps you should take that statement with a grain of salt, since I am, apparently, untrustworthy. If I thought either one had, then I may have had a problem with it. It isn't that I don't have a problem with it ... it's that I simply don't see it.
I've read, and re-read their comments and I simply don't see it. I didn't see anyone attack anyone's character. As I said in my comment, saying that someone's support of the war and the military is meager is not the same as saying it's insincere.
"I don't think you have any moral standing in criticizing my response to Marty."
I didn't criticize your response to Marty. I'm not sure where you're even getting that! Are you sure you're reading comments that I actually wrote?!
Please re-read my comment. I simply agreed with Dan that some of the pro-war crowd's support of the troops doesn't seem to extend past the tail-gate of their SUV.
Given that you seem unable to read the comments I actually write, and that you call me "untrustworthy" without cause, I don't think you have any moral standing to attack my character as you've done. ;)
Bubba: "No, so far as I can tell, you sit safely at your computer, maybe join a few marches and put up a few fliers, but you make sure that your opposition to the war isn't too costly for you."
Bubba, you have no clue how I go about seeking to end this war and you certainly have no clue regarding the cost of it to me and my family or to those military families I am involved with. But even if all I did to stop the war was what you said, it is more than you are doing to win the war and help the effort.
Thanks Dan for your support and for always allowing me to speak my mind on this issue. And yes your definition of "chickenhawk" with regard to the war is accurate.
Alan, I did read everything you wrote, I just didn't address every point you made: hardly anyone has the time or patience to address every point another person makes. It seems to me that you're inclined to define "fisking" as my questioning, criticizing, or refuting points that you would rather have presumed to be reliable.
About the more substantive point of your comments, you write:
But of course, you don't want to address those comments, because you'd rather haul out the weapons of mass distraction and talk about Rush.
You're the one who brought up the inaccurate and easily refutable misrepresentation of what Rush Limbaugh said, not me. If you want to focus on the substance, you can either choose to avoid such digressions in the future or at least retract them when it's been demonstrated that they're false.
(And, honestly, you hardly refute the thorough evidence I offer, only noting that "It was obvious who he was talking about" -- I agree -- and bringing up other less-than-honest summaries of unrelated comments. If you're not going to retract the comment, you could at least put some real effort into defending the comment.)
Indeed, calling you "untrustworthy" is an insult: I think it's accurate, but I don't deny what it is. My problem is that others use insults, which you still deny.
I didn't mean to intend that you questioned my sincerity alongside Dan and Marty, but you have used insults of your own.
"Given that you seem unable to read the comments I actually write..."
I'm clearly quite literate and quite able to read your comments: I've simply chosen not to respond to every single one.
Does the fact that I think you're not trustworthy preclude my responding to your comments? Obviously it doesn't, and I don't see why it shouldn't.
Thank you for reading my mind. LOL Care to misstate my position with even more disingenuousness?
The acusation of disingenuousness involves its own presumption of mind-reading; I see now that you repeat the charge of disingenuousness that Dan and Marty threw my way, regarding my interpretation of your writing rather than my support of the military; and you do all this while you continue to harp on my calling you untrustworthy.
Having now pointed out such a tightly wound ball of hypocrisy and irony on your part that I'm not sure you could top it, Alan, I quite agree that this dead horse has been beaten quite enough.
"The acusation of disingenuousness involves its own presumption of mind-reading..."
Not if it's true. ROFL
"I quite agree that this dead horse has been beaten quite enough."
See? We can agree on something. ;)
Returning to the subject at hand, I do hope Dan finds the time to read and respond to my admittedly lengthy answer to his question.
In a follow-up comment, John wrote:
Former generations of small government advocates, like Thomas Jefferson, strongly distrusted the military. And in a sense, they still do, hence their strong advocacy of gun rights as a counterweight to a standing army.
I think an armed citizenry is an excellent counterbalance to government tyranny, and I should have mentioned it the position that most American conservatives support:
We believe that a state-run military, commanded by civilian officials who we elet, and countered by a well-armed citizenry, is a workable tradeoff between the need to have a strong state to protect its people from criminals and foreign threats, and the conflicting need to limit the state to keep it from infringing on the very liberties it's supposed to protect.
It's just a tradeoff, and not a perfect solution to enshrine liberty, but no such solution exists and -- as the "negation of ideology" -- conservatism is and ought to be uninterested in total political philosophies that presume to have perfect answers to all of life's questions.
"I think an armed citizenry is an excellent counterbalance to government tyranny"
Really Bubba? So does that mean you are supportive of the armed citizenry in Iraq aka "insurgency" which has arisen due to the occupation of their land by a foreign tryranical power?
Marty, the American forces in Iraq do not constitute a tyrannical power: the democratically elected government there wants us to stay, and we would leave if they asked us to. In the meantime, we're doing everything we can to make our direct military support unnecessary for Iraq to ensure internal security, and we're actively planning to begin withdrawing troops as that government becomes capable of defending itself. Petraeus announced last month that, assuming things go well, the surge can be reduced next year. This is hardly the behavior of a despotic regime.
And, the so-called insurgency includes a significant number of foreign terrorists, and the terrorists are being given material support from countries like Iran.
Because I dispute the premises of your question, I don't believe the so-called insurgency is just, even though I recognize that it's a tough thing to determine whether the private use of force against a state is just or unjust: if the American Revolution was just, was the Whiskey Rebellion equally just, or is the issue of representation a critical difference? It can be a tough question to answer.
But I would love to know what you think about the right to bear arms and the right to use those arms against a tyrannical regime. If you affirm those rights, and if -- as it appears -- you think our presence in Iraq is tyrannical, do you support the insurgency?
Regarding the verbose Bubba's "BB-Idaho is quick to use the epithet of "street thug", the term is used
herein to describe a well-armed mercenary, unfettered by US military law, Iraqi law or the Geneva convention. Perhaps Bubba will accept the term 'Hessian' a similar type familiar to our forefathers?
Is Idaho implying that, if the United States is using forces that are analogous to the Hessians, the terrorists who are targeting American troops are analogous to the Minutemen? It wouldn't be the first time such an analogy has been made.
Bubba, I think it is wrong and against the teachings of Jesus for a Christian to bear arms. Period.
And also to support the bearing of arms.
Marty, respectfully, I'm not sure I quite understand you. Do you mean that it is wrong and against the teachings of Jesus for a Christian to support an individual's bearing arms, or does that extend to the state as well?
Bubba, thanks for the brevity. I am implying that mercenaries are mercenaries..they hire out their skill to the highest bidder.
Idaho, it's not necessarily the case that a private company like Blackwater is open to be bought by the highest bidder simply because they're a private company. I'm not sure what Blackwater's specific policies are, but a private firm could choose to limit itself for instance to Western democracies, members of NATO, or at least countries that are not designated state sponsors of terrorism. (Working with the latter would almost certainly cause a company serious legal problems with the U.S.)
You might as well argue that, simply because Francis Drake was a privateer, he could have been bought off by the Spanish.
I've something more important to observe but first I've got to clear the air over one of the first things in blogdom that has really gotten to me.
It's the Rush thing. I'm no Rush fan, but I caught a stench from the phony soldier affair so I looked into it carefully.
You see, I am on the threshold of geezerdom, that is, my majority dates back to the Viet Nam era.
In the wake of that debacle I knew scores of people who served there and I well knew they served there and witnessed things that would make the Devil cringe. None of them, not one, not one ever, could much be engaged in conversation about it. Never referred to it, much less put it on display.
There were another few score I knew or knew of who wore it on their sleeve. Always showing up in military jackets and hats, always explaining their failure as human beings on their terrible Viet Nam experience, always seeking out the stage and spotlight. By actual accounts (and now that the military assignments are on the internet, it is even easier) not one of them actually served in Viet Nam. Most wiped out of bootcamp, many had never even been in the military. Not one of those wearing their "service" like a banner was the genuine article. Not one. Did I mention, not one!
So I paid close attention and, Dan-ites, Bubba has got this one right. The individual Rush was deriding is a proven, certifiable, demonstrable phony.
Those who claim that they know what Rush REALLY meant can have their illusions of mind reading, and their reality of being a fool.
Those who read the full account of Rush's outing this phony and than repeat the story that he was referring to anyone else is a liar.
I've earned that opinion.
Guys, your continuing problem is that you are unwilling to shoulder and embrace the burden of not having an aggressive and invading plundering army.
It would mean your subsidized, soft, Pillsbury Doughboy existence would be at an end and you'd get a taste of how the rest of humanity lives.
And for what? We are quickly losing our oil soaked grip on the world any way.
What we need is a purely defensive military. It could be a tiny fraction of the size of the one we have now. I would remind the historians that no nation that maintained a purely defensive citizen militia army retained has ever been conquered.
F'r instance, the ancient Greek city states derived their wealth by their own agriculture and did not look toward conquests and looting to do so. As a result they developed an army that was purely defensive in the extreme: the heavily armed hoplite drawn up in the defensive phalanx. They were heavily armored, used the long (18 feet long at the height of the tradition)spear as the main weapon, and the highest honor was standing firm behind the hoplon, the huge shield, in defense of one's country. The Greek soldier and Greek military formation was utterly useless as an attack force, but it was just about unbeatable as a defensive force.
At Thermopylae the 300 Spartan hoplites withstood three days of frontal assaults by 10,000, then 20,000, and then 50,000 Persians with almost no loses but killing 20,000 of the invaders.
This same thing has been repeated in history many times. In the US this would mean everyone capable of doing so would be expected to keep and bear arms. The standing army, navy, and other branches of service could be very small compared to their present numbers and the states would be unassailable.
Wow, I'm called untrustworthy, a fool, and a liar all in one comment thread!
Can't ya just feel the love? LOL
As interesting as all this Rush talk isn't, on topic, let me address a few comments...
Bubba said:
And, there's a simple reason we trust the military to be competent: it is the American institution that has been best preserved against the radicalism of the Left, more so than other government bureaucracies, the news media, the entertainment industry, the universities, and even the church. It is a unique bulwark of traditional Western values, and for that reason it is uniquely competent, as Western civilization has been uniquely successful.
And the evidence for this is? The lack of criminality within the institutions of the military? The lack of wasteful spending therein? The lack of
Keeping up with our enemies is good, but maintaining a decisive military advantage is better, because mere parity is often not enough to deter an aggressive, totalitarian regime.
And so following this reasoning, we ought to have the most, largest, biggest bombs and military institution, AND THEY ought to have the most, largest, biggest bombs and military institution - and so should all the Others.
This is a policy designed to encourage an insanely large, expensive, expansive global military machine and thus a more dangerous world, seems to me. If every nation is out there seeking the most dangerous military machine - and IF they are justly required to do so because not doing so is foolishness - then we'd have all the reasons to do "whatever it takes" to make sure We have the most lethal, most costly military - and we'd have reasons to make sure we have the greatest economic power - again, whatever it takes. Otherwise, we're being fools and not protecting our interests. And that goes for every one.
This is a policy designed to encourage terrorism, fascism and oppression, seems to me.
I agree with the bumper sticker slogan, "Peace through strength -- economic, political, and especially military strength..." is like virginity through copulation. It is an ideal that would drive folk to corruption and deceit - win at all costs. Might makes right.
I say it's a prescription for hell.
Sorry, I cut off one of my paragraphs early on. I was asking what evidence you have to support the notion that the military is a "unique bulwark of western values"? You think that folk in the military are inately less immoral than those in the social work fields?
Why?
Do you disagree with Lord Acton who opined that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely? Do you disagree with the Bible that the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil? Do you disagree with God speaking in the OT, who warned Israel against a king because a king would tax them heavily in order to form a large army, drafting their sons and daughters in the king's service?
If you're the sort who believes in humanity's inclination towards wrong, do you have any evidence whatsoever to support the notion that the military is somehow uniquely less likely to be corrupted by all the power and money sent their way?
Lacking any evidence, do you mind that we not accept your word for it that the military is any more likely to not be corrupt than any one else?
[All of which is not to say that I think the military any MORE corrupt than any other institution. Just that people are people and when we give people more power and money and fewer restrictions, then there tends to be abuse sometimes. I don't think it's any worse in the military than anywhere else, but neither do I see any evidence whatsoever to expect that it's any better.]
Bubba: "Marty, the American forces in Iraq do not constitute a tyrannical power".
You say.
Bubba: "the democratically elected government there wants us to stay, and we would leave if they asked us to."
You sure about that? You do realize, do you not, that we are building massive permanent military bases?
Bubba: "so-called insurgency includes a significant number of foreign terrorists"
A significant number? And how do you know this? Do you have access to classified and secret information on military operations? My son would definitely know for sure, but he ain't talkin' and I ain't askin'.
And finally:
Bubba: "Do you mean that it is wrong and against the teachings of Jesus for a Christian to support an individual's bearing arms, or does that extend to the state as well?"
I meant what I said. I will add that if Christians alone were to lay down their weapons, it would be very difficult for the state to wage war.
Bubba:(comments out of order)"Even with that advantage, it might still be true that neither nation could conquer us, but they could bomb our cities and factories to ruins and otherwise make our lives very uncomfortable."
Bubba, for one, gets it. Yes. This IS the point. You Pillsbury Doughboys pay attention. Our aggressive military as it is, as it acts today, is NOT guaranteeing our freedom. I'm sorry if this offends, but don't hand me that this or that person in Iraq or Afghanistan is fighting for my "freedom". The military and its present actions are there ensure us our comfortable lifestyle. Just like the argument in the other thread that you can't separate the atonement from the teachings, you CAN'T separate our aggressive military exploits and our cushy lifestyle. Get rid of one, you get rid of the other. Live the one, and you are de facto endorsing the other.
Bubba:"now that the genie of technology is out of the bottle -- it's simply not true that we could thrive as a nation with a tiny military and without a genuine threat from external forces."
But like all genies this one carries a double edged curse. Technology is complex, expensive, hard to maintain. It's easily broken. As you and others have alluded here, the US has the equivalent of Douglas Adams' Definitkil Mega-Hurts Cannons, horribly beweaponed planes, drones, tanks, ships, and missiles. And yet ... and yet .. after years we still can't manage to "win" our present war.
Not only that, the whole time we are waging it we are no safer from a WMD attack than we were in the beginning.
Advanced technological weapons seem to be pretty good in a given pitched fire-fight, but they have a dismal track record in wining modern wars or protecting the wielders of those weapons from one man with a stick of dynamite.
For the record, my small defensive army does not exclude missile warning systems, offensive retaliatory strategic weapons, or any diminishing of technology. It's only that for purely defensive purposes you don't need much of it.
Bubba (quoting):"Here's how I feel about the matter. This nation is the vanguard of civilized values in the world. She must prevail in any conceivable conflict. She must, in fact, keep a military profile so large and forbidding that no other nation will even think of attacking us."
I'd remind you and Mr. Derbyshire that we WERE attacked, standing right there in front of God and everybody with 20,000 nukes at our disposal we were still attacked.
Not by another nation, officially, as a function of declared war, you say? No. Neither will we be next time.
The nukes didn't seem to do us a lot of good.
But here's the real point. Take a few key words out of the above quote and put in a few others and you have what the Soviets said for 60 years. You have what the Communist Chinese have been saying. And even more to the point, you have pretty much exactly what the Islamic Jihadists are saying right ow. THEY are the vanguard of everything good and civilized and decent and THEY must prevail in any conflict.
The problem isn't nukes or the absence of them ... it's thinking like the above that is the problem.
Eleutheros wrote:
What we need is a purely defensive military. It could be a tiny fraction of the size of the one we have now. I would remind the historians that no nation that maintained a purely defensive citizen militia army retained has ever been conquered.
The hard part is determining what constitutes a purely defensive military. For example, a much smaller US military would have been unable to respond to the 9/11 attacks. What other military establishment on earth was capable of attacking a land-locked country deep inside a continent on the other side of the globe.
Let us say that on 9/11, Al Qaeda attacked not the US, but Mexico -- a nation with a long-standing policy of deliberately maintaining a small military. How could Mexico have responded?
It would be great to have a much smaller military, not only to save money, but also to reduce the risk of domestic oppression. We've tried it before in the 1790s through 1812. But what we found was that our citizens and property outside our borders were at the mercy of larger, more ruthless militaries like that of France and the Barbary corsairs. A "purely defensive military" is a great idea on paper, but it doesn't address problems that actually come up in practical policy making.
John, as a joke, that's quite funny. As a legitimate policy stand, it's horrifying.
I'm assuming you meant it as a joke, or at least a half-joke.
Well, only partially. It's standard rhetoric that I always carry in my Libertarian Utility Belt. I also got a grappling hook.
Government is force; it is violence. Government is very good at killing. Governments have killed more people than any other human institution in the past 100 years.
John:"Let us say that on 9/11, Al Qaeda attacked not the US, but Mexico -- a nation with a long-standing policy of deliberately maintaining a small military. How could Mexico have responded?"
How could we respond? We still have not responded to the actual people responsible for 9/11. Sure, we've slapped around a country where they were hiding and just for good measure slapped around a neighboring country. But with all our huge ponderous military we STILL haven't "responded".
When we leave, as we must surely do ere long, we will be right back in the same place we were and still as vulnerable and still as unable to "respond".
Part of my purely defensive stance would be much like the plane on 9/11 that didn't make it to its target but due to the "Let's roll" attitude went down in a cornfield.
A large military is a great idea .... on paper. But in reality it hasn't even been successful in either apprehending the people behind 9/11 nor greatly reducing the likelihood of another attack.
John:"We've tried it before in the 1790s through 1812. But what we found was that our citizens and property outside our borders were at the mercy of larger, more ruthless militaries like that of France and the Barbary corsairs."
Our property outside the US during that time (and now) had nothing to do with our freedom nor our ability to provide well for ourselves. It had to do with wealth. Foreign property and foreign interactions were a function of wealth building.
Need I remind you that during that war we battled the British navy to a standstill with a navy not 1/20th the size of theirs. Also the last great battle of that war in 1815 (although after armistice was signed) was the Battle of New Orleans where pirates and volunteers from Tennessee (hence The Volunteer State) utterly decimated the finest of the British regulars.
That era in our history is more proof of the value of a SMALL military. The British with their much larger army and much larger navy burned Washington to the ground, but in the end were forced into submission.
We, with our vastly superior army, navy, air power, nuclear arms, economic power, etc have managed to bomb Baghdad. And yet we have no decisive victory.
To paraphrase Churchill, no matter how elegant the plan (for a large military), it does well to occasionally look at the results.
John, you said, The hard part is determining what constitutes a purely defensive military. For example, a much smaller US military would have been unable to respond to the 9/11 attacks. What other military establishment on earth was capable of attacking a land-locked country deep inside a continent on the other side of the globe.
What is Osama doing these days? We were told definitively, without question that he and his organization was responsible for 9/11 and yet, our vaunted military (which I served in, by the way), hasn't done anything about him . . . and his organization is larger, better funded, and more capable than it was before we started pummeling unrelated cities with bombs.
"...a purely defensive military...a tiny fraction of the size of the one we have now." tasked with border and airport security probably would have prevented 9/11 in the first place. It's much cheaper and easier to protect your own borders(and a more legitimate function of government) than to project power halfway around the globe.
John
"..our citizens and property ouside our borders were at the mercies of larger more ruthless militaries.."
That one's a bit tougher. As a person who once traveled extensively on business(a purely voluntary activity, I might add) I always understood that I was at the mercy of the host country, it's police force, military and civilians. No one was coming to bail out poor little kmoo if I got myself in trouble so I conducted myself accordingly. Corporations conducting business overseas today and in the past it seems, assume that to be the governments purpose. (perhaps a result of our own colonialist tendencies).
And finally. Me thinks Eleutheros(and maybe some others)"gets it". "Our aggresive military as it is, as it acts today.."has not been in the business of guaranteeing our freedom for quite some time. It has instead been engaged in the business of facilitating our morbid, infantile overconsumption. Dad told me if your "gonna be dumb you better be tough". We have been dumb for a long time. I'm not sure how tough we are.
Well, I've done enough to fuel my own infantile need for attention for one day. Bye y'all
Eleutheros and CV Rick, you've both correctly pointed out that although our military has degraded Al Qaeda since 9/11, it has not destroyed it. But I don't understand how a small military would somehow improve that situation. How would Al Qaeda be even worse off if our military were weaker?
Eleutheros wrote:
Need I remind you that during that war we battled the British navy to a standstill with a navy not 1/20th the size of theirs.
Um. No, we did not. Our navy was almost wiped from the seas and all of our ports were blockaded for the duration of the war. There were individual, small victories (Lake Erie, the escapades of the Constitution), but all in all the British Royal Navy dominated the Atlantic for the entire war.
Also the last great battle of that war in 1815 (although after armistice was signed) was the Battle of New Orleans where pirates and volunteers from Tennessee (hence The Volunteer State) utterly decimated the finest of the British regulars.
After our small and poorly equipped army was repeatedly defeated by said British regulars along the Canadian border. And our capital city burned to the ground.
That era in our history is more proof of the value of a SMALL military. The British with their much larger army and much larger navy burned Washington to the ground, but in the end were forced into submission.
I think that we recieved two very different educations on the War of 1812. I learned of it as more of, at best, a draw. And certainly not a war in which we our enemies were "forced into submission".
Kmoo wrote:
That one's a bit tougher. As a person who once traveled extensively on business(a purely voluntary activity, I might add) I always understood that I was at the mercy of the host country, it's police force, military and civilians. No one was coming to bail out poor little kmoo if I got myself in trouble so I conducted myself accordingly. Corporations conducting business overseas today and in the past it seems, assume that to be the governments purpose. (perhaps a result of our own colonialist tendencies).
Remember that we entered into the War of 1812 and World War I because our small, purely defensive military could not protect our property rights overseas. And the belligerent governments were unsympathetic to our protests.
John, you missed my point. There is no evidence that Al Queda is weakened. There is evidence, produced independently, by the State Department, and by the CIA, that Al Queda is strengthened.
Bombing unrelated cities has done the opposite of what you claim our response would achieve.
The logic of having a stronger military to protect us from attacks and to respond to attacks no longer seems as logical. Start thinking outside that tiny, armored box.
Jophn:"How would Al Qaeda be even worse off if our military were weaker?"
You are equating "smaller" with "weaker". A bright mistake that has cost the outcome of many a battle. I could, or more to the point, you could cite 100 examples where a small force defeated a large force.
John:"I think that we recieved two very different educations on the War of 1812. I learned of it as more of, at best, a draw. And certainly not a war in which we our enemies were "forced into submission".
It was a draw only in that the two sides agreed to restore all prewar boundaries. The Treaty of Ghent didn't mention impressment and interference with trade and yet Britain didn't DARE engage in those practices again.
But militarily Britain took a drubbing. Not in every battle, to be sure. But Britain used as an excuse that they were engaged in the war with France and so took defensive positions and strategies until 1814 at which time they sent 25,000 troops to the north and 7,500 to the south (New Orleans) to settle our hash once and for all.
In the north the Americans already held Lake Eire and Lake Ontario. With 11,000 of the new troops and supported by the Royal navy on Lake Champlain, the British pushed for a decisive defeat of the Americans but the American gunboats swept the British from the lake and forced the army to retreat.
I needn't recount what happened to the southern force at New Orleans where the British suffered more than 2000 dead to the Americans' 8.
The Naval battles were just as one sided. The British had 97 warships in American waters including 11 triple decked Men of War and 44 frigates. The Americans had 22 ships and only 5 of these were frigates.
With this crushing superiority, the British could not capture Baltimore. The frigate Constitution fought the British Frigate Guerriere and destroyed it so badly it had to be sunk. The British lost 20 times the number of seamen in the battle as did the Americans.
This sent a shock through Britain who considered their Navy unbeatable in one on one fights. But not long after the frigate Untied States captured the British Frigate the Macedonia and carried it off as a prize. The Constitution sailed south and engaged the Java, a British made no excuses evenly matched Frigate and utterly destroyed it with very little damage or casualties to the Constitution.
The British were now wetting themselves. They changed Naval tactics and would not allow British ships to engage American ships one one one. They only moved in squadrons and for example when the US did lose a ship to capture, the USS President, it was only after a fierce battle with FOUR British ships, three of them frigates, and the President inflicted wicked damage on them before it struck its colors.
The US (Navy and privateers) captured 1550 British ships during the war.
True that the northern campaign which basically consisted of an ill conceived attempt to invade Canada and prosecuted by miserable Yankees was more or less a disaster. But when the militia kicked in and especially when the southern militia came into force, the British were trounced.
Sorry for the winded history lesson, but to characterize the military exploits of our tiny army and tiny navy of those days as a 'draw' is laughable.
John
Your comment"..our property rights overseas" reveals that there exist a "great gulf" between us and you may have missed my point. When I said "I realized I was at the mercy..etc.." I was saying that I understood my "unalienable rights" were, maybe, not so unalienable if I wasn't within the the confines of my own country's border. The extreme example I experienced would be Haiti, where although i'm sure they had a wonderful constitution on paper, the reality seemed quite different. I and the individuals I associated with there understood that we could not wave the United States Constitution at the local "street thug" and expect to get our way. I think that perhaps "projecting" our constitution to the four corners of the globe is maybe not very practical government policy in this increasingly resource starved world. It saddens me, because I think that the ideas it embodies are a hallmark of human achievement but a look at the daily papers reveals that reality is already rearing it's ugly head.
kmoo
Eleutheros' "winded history lesson":) is further evidence of just how costly power projection has been historically, in terms of lives and money,and our own bloated military budget and mounting casualties demonstrate that the same applies today.
In one man's humble opinion.
kmoo
The US decided, at the onset of the war, to conquer Canada in order to put a permanent end to British threats against the American mainland. But our army at Detroit surrendered without a shot. Our army in New York refused to march. The British then struck back. They captured Fort Mackinac in Lake Huron. They defeated an American force at the Battle of Brownstown, though outnumbered 8 to 1. Their Native American allies butchered an American force at Fort Deaborne. When the US was able to prepare another army to move into Canada, it was crushed at the Battle of Queenstown Heights. Likewise a US crossing at Frenchman's Creek was stopped in its tracks. An American army sent to recapture Detroit was defeated at the Battle of Frenchtown. A British force captured and held the US fort at Ogdensburgh. The US incursion into Canada was thrown back in confusion after its defeat at Stoney Creek, and even further at Forty Mile Creek, forcing that force to recross the border, its objectives soundly defeated. A British raiding force destroyed a US fort at Blackrock, just outside of Buffalo. A second US attempt to recapture Detroit was defeated at the Battle of Burlington Heights. A US invasion of Quebec was thrown back at Chateauguay. A second attempt was defeated at Chrysler's Farm. Now the British struck back, capturing Ft. Niagara in New York, and then capturing Blackrock entirely. The British continued their conquest of New York by capturing Oswego. The British then extended their control over what is now Wisconsin by capturing La Prairie du Chien, on Wisconsin's western border. A different British force burned the US capital to the ground. Did I mention that? In what you claim was an American victory, the enemy captured and destroyed the US capital city. It's worth noting that at no point did the US even threaten London, or any part of the British Isles, for the duration of the entire war.
And though you claim that we battled the Royal Navy "to a standstill", the whole of the US coast was blockaded by that same navy. That is hardly a battle "to a standstill".
The war ended with the termination of the British impressment policy (actually that happened before the US declared war), and the end of British seizure of US shipping (actually, that happened after the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte). But the US did not, as it planned to do, drive the British out of Canada. And the end of the war, much of the American Northwest and parts of New York were occupied by British troops. Our international trade had been crushed by the blockade.
It isn't "laughable" to argue that the war was a draw. It's just historical fact.
Your comment"..our property rights overseas" reveals that there exist a "great gulf" between us and you may have missed my point. When I said "I realized I was at the mercy..etc.." I was saying that I understood my "unalienable rights" were, maybe, not so unalienable if I wasn't within the the confines of my own country's border. The extreme example I experienced would be Haiti, where although i'm sure they had a wonderful constitution on paper, the reality seemed quite different. I and the individuals I associated with there understood that we could not wave the United States Constitution at the local "street thug" and expect to get our way. I think that perhaps "projecting" our constitution to the four corners of the globe is maybe not very practical government policy in this increasingly resource starved world. It saddens me, because I think that the ideas it embodies are a hallmark of human achievement but a look at the daily papers reveals that reality is already rearing it's ugly head.
Yup. But how does that stop Barbary seizure of US shipping (Barbary Campaigns), British seizure of American shipping (War of 1812), and German seizure of American shipping (First World War). A "small, purely defensive military" could not have defended our shipping.
You are equating "smaller" with "weaker". A bright mistake that has cost the outcome of many a battle. I could, or more to the point, you could cite 100 examples where a small force defeated a large force.
Okay, so how would a "smaller" US military have been better able to respond to 9/11?
Well, for one thing, they wouldn't have invaded a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and which had not provoked said invasion.
See the recent new report from Reuters suggesting that our current "war on terror" is failing.
Dan, it's not a report from Reuters: you linked to a Reuters story about a report from the Oxford Research Group. Regardless, the report's suggestions are, um... well, take a look.
The report - Alternatives to the War on Terror - recommended the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq coupled with intensive diplomatic engagement in the region, including with Iran and Syria.
In Afghanistan, Rogers also called for an immediate scaling down of military activities, an injection of more civil aid and negotiations with militia groups aimed at bringing them into the political process.
If such measures were adopted it would still take "at least 10 years to make up for the mistakes made since 9/11."
"Failure to make the necessary changes could result in the war on terror lasting decades," the report added.
Rogers also warned of a drift toward conflict with Iran.
"Going to war with Iran," he said, "will make matters far worse, playing directly into the hands of extreme elements and adding greatly to the violence across the region. Whatever the problems with Iran, war should be avoided at all costs."
May I summarize?
BRIBE OUR ENEMIES FOR A DECADE OR MORE, AND MAYBE WE'LL HAVE PEACE IN OUR TIME.
Even Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is a price worth paying to these appeasing morons.
Personally, I actually think Derbyshire's polemic, entertaining as it was, painted with an overly broad brush. El is right that our nuclear arsenal didn't deter al Queda from attacking us or even deter the Taliban from harboring them. Ultimately the effectiveness of deterence through overwhelming military superiority is limited: it's hard to dissuade suicidal fanatics and psychopaths through the threat of retaliation.
But there's also another key component to the equation of deterence that's being overlooked. It's not just the possession of overwhelming force, it's the will to use that force. Al Queda miscaluclated when it thought the United States wouldn't respond to such a brazen and deadly attack on our own soil, but given our retreat from Vietnam and Somalia -- and given our often tepid reactions to the Iranian hostage crisis, the Marine barracks bombing, the Khobar Towers attack, the U.S.S. Cole attack, and the first WTC bombing -- it's easy to see why they thought we had the resources but not the will to respond to attacks.
I'm not one to dismiss out of hand El's belief that a leaner military might be more effective. I believe that that's precisely what Rumsfeld advocated, and it's possible that there's an effect similar to the Laffer Curve: at a certain point, increased military spending might be positively counter-productive.
But, all that said, I dismiss the notion that we haven't done anything substantial to al Queda itself, and like John I struggle to see how a smaller military would have been more effective on this front.
Finally:
But here's the real point. Take a few key words out of the above quote and put in a few others and you have what the Soviets said for 60 years. You have what the Communist Chinese have been saying. And even more to the point, you have pretty much exactly what the Islamic Jihadists are saying right ow. THEY are the vanguard of everything good and civilized and decent and THEY must prevail in any conflict.
The problem isn't nukes or the absence of them ... it's thinking like the above that is the problem.
The comedian and political commentator Evan Sayet recently gave a speech titled "How Modern Liberals Think". It's worth seeking out the video online, but the transcript is here.
Sayet's idea is admittedly controversial. Here he explains why, though they aren't obviously evil or unintelligent, modern liberals act as vicious critics of what is good and true, and why they even act as apologists for what is evil and false:
"What I discovered is that the Modern Liberal looks back on 50,000 years, 100,000 years of human civilization, and knows only one thing for sure: that none of the ideas that mankind has come up with--none of the religions, none of the philosophies, none of the ideologies, none of the forms of government--have succeeded in creating a world devoid of war, poverty, crime, and injustice. So they're convinced that since all of these ideas of man have proved to be wrong, the real cause of war, poverty, crime, and injustice must be found--can only be found--in the attempt to be right."
Controversial as it is, I have found that his theory is occasionally validated, and El's statement does precisely that: the belief that Western Civilization is objectively good -- nowhere near perfect, but good: more moral, decent, and efficient than any real world alternative -- that is the problem.
Of course I deny that notion, but I am glad to see it promulgated so openly.
Well, for one thing, they wouldn't have invaded a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and which had not provoked said invasion.
Okay, you've said what they wouldn't have done. Now tell us what they would have done.
John, I think that NOT invading a country unprovoked IS a positive action towards stopping terrorism.
What we could have and should have done is treat this attack by a few individuals in a large network of criminals as a crime and worked on prosecuting it as the crime it was instead of treating it as an act of war by the Nation of Terrorism.
So you're saying that the US should not have gone into Afghanistan, but instead pursued criminal charges against the network behind the 9/11 attacks?
I think Afghanistan was questionably wise and we would have been better off to pursue it as a criminal case.
At least in Afghanistan, we had a somewhat legitimate reason for pushing in, since they were harboring and apparently supporting the criminals involved in a horrible crime. I'd think we'd have been better off (ie, reduce actual crime and terrorism) in pursuing justice in other means, though.
Dan, I wonder what you think precisely qualifies as an act of war that would justify a military response.
The question, or at least A question, that we must ask ourselves is, How wise is a military response? What is the best way to deal with an assault?
Because of the horrifying evil consequences of war - which most people are willing to grant, even if they believe in war-as-solution sometimes - it needs to be truly a last resort. Additionally, the cost - in lives AND dollars and stability - demands prudence when considering war.
I'm okay with a truly defensive war - if a nation is being invaded, they have a right to defend themselves. Most wars of choice that I can think of (Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Nicaragua, etc) have proven themselves to be piss poor in terms of legitimacy and desired outcomes.
If one wants to combat terrorism, it would behoove a nation to consider the root causes of terrorism and combat those causes. That's what seems logical and most effective to me.
Attacking other nations unprovoked only contributes to terrorism, having the exact OPPOSITE effect that we want. Who's in favor of that sort of madness?
Even if a military response isn't the most prudent, I would hope that one could see that an attack by an international terrorist organization that resulted in the deaths of thousands and intended the deaths of thousands more isn't a mere crime: it's an act of war, even if war isn't the wisest response.
It's not the case that war should be a literal last resort: one can always continue to appease, and if you want to evaluate decisions on their results, appeasement hardly has a great track record.
And, with both Afghanistan and Iraq, we're not dealing with "attacking other nations unprovoked". The former harbored the terrorists who attacked us, and the latter spent a decade defying the cease-fire agreement with us.
But, all that said, I wonder, what do you suggest are the "root causes" of terrorism, what do you propose to address them, and how much money will this predictable transfer of international wealth cost us?
An act of war, I believe, can only be perpetrated by a nation, not individuals.
Lemme guess, though: we're supposed to extend to these individuals the full protections of the Geneva Conventions even though those conventions only apply to uniformed military personnel of signatory nations?
Oh, wait, I don't have to guess:
"It is vital that we design and sign and follow through on treaties such as the Geneva Convention EVEN IF the 'enemy' doesn't."
Yes, it would behoove us to do so. To best fight terrorism, we need to be a civilized, law-abiding nation. We don't torture. We don't target civilians. We don't kidnap.
Or, rather, I should say we OUGHT not take these actions, since we have a history of doing exactly those things. I'm suggesting that if we, as the lone world superpower, establish the precedent that torture, targeting civlians, etc is acceptable, then we ought not be surprised when others out there live down to our rules.
So, to your original assertion ("an attack by an international terrorist organization... it's an act of war"), no, it is not an act of war.
And as to your assumption here:
But, all that said, I wonder, what do you suggest are the "root causes" of terrorism, what do you propose to address them, and how much money will this predictable transfer of international wealth cost us?
I'm suggesting it will cost us a helluva lot less than the nearly one trillion dollars a year that we're currently spending on "defense." And be more practical/efficacious, to boot.
I've gone through my suggestions before on how to deal with terrorism. You can review some great ideas here.
Just peacemaking. Even if you don't accept pacifism and want to hold on to war-as-solution, JPT holds great promise for teaching us how to intervene before things lead to war.
Great list, Dan. It's so obvious that paying our UN dues would effectively deal with terrorism and its root causes, I'm ashamed I never realized that before now.
And, to think, I so ignorantly presumed that your strategy was going to amount to little more than signing treaties and writing checks to international organizations...
Yeah, you're right. Spending trillions of dollars and ruthlessly wiping out people in the suspected vicinity of suspected terrorists has been much more effective.
Except, oh wait!, it hasn't been effective.
Dan, between the notable absence of a repeat performance of 9/11 and the existance (however tenuous) of representative governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's actually arguable that the Bush Doctrine has been, so far, at least moderately successful even if it's more difficult than most people anticipated.
I find it laughable that you would argue efficacy and still defer to institutions like the U.N., with its oil-for-food scandal that dwarfed Enron and an institutional history of coddling tyrants and giving them seats on their own human rights councils.
And, really, it's slanderous to describe how we've conducted ourselves in Afghanistan and Iraq as "ruthlessly wiping out" people.
You slander American troops after showing yourself to be so precise in why you don't call the 9/11 attacks an act of war.
Bubba, words have meaning. Terms have meaning. "Act of war" is a specific sort of action and an act of terrorism by individuals does not fit that meaning.
And I wasn't suggesting that our troops were wiping people out. I was echoing what some folk like you (Marshall Art, if not you) have called for. I think you have said this too, but know others have said that the only reason our war in Iraq is failing is because we haven't been ruthless enough in our attacks, that we're being too concerned about innocents.
Certainly, both the US and the UN have a poor track record in humanitarian affairs. Nonetheless, if we want to encourage international respect for the law and proper behavior, then we must begin to model it ourselves on the international level and not treat ourselves as if we're above the law.
Words do have meaning, and you wrote sarcastically that "ruthlessly wiping out people in the suspected vicinity of suspected terrorists has been much more effective" than paying UN dues.
"Has been" implies that the tactic has been tried. If you didn't mean to imply that our military has been ruthlessly wiping out people, you should have been more clear.
While I agree that the rule of law is a valuable principle, I still struggle to see how paying UN dues will convince our enemies no longer to seek our destruction.
It seems to me that people who behead journalists and ram planes into office buildings don't really give a shit about the rule of law, but what do I know?
I've gone over this before, but in case you have missed this discussion, what we want to do with thugs who'd target innocent civilians is to isolate them, let their crimes be clearly understood for the horror it is.
When we use those same tactics (torture, targeting civilians - even tangentially, invading a whole nation!), we make them into heroes to some. The guys who'd stand up to the Big US Bully.
And we don't have the moral high road if we're using the same tactics and reasoning as they are, even if we're doing it at a smaller scale and for "just" reasons.
We do that by clearly defining what is and isn't acceptable on the global scale. By supporting international law and stand by it.
We undermine these efforts by mocking international law. We strengthen the terrorists instead of marginalizing them, as has happened.
we don't torture or target civilians... It is absolutely slanderous to suggest otherwise.
Actually, it's a bit naive or perhaps a flat out lie to suggest that we don't do these things. You support the bombing of hiroshima, correct? You support our military being used in a nation that is not at war with us where we know that civilians WILL be "collateral damage"?
But we've covered all this before. I say that we need to fundamentally change the way we're fighting terrorism. You disagree, I believe. Or, perhaps you think we do need to change how we fight terrorism, in that we need to be more ruthless? (Or was that just Marshall who said that?)
You're welcome to your way, I don't think you're winning many people to your side though. I pray not, anyway. I think it's obvious to most of the US and most of the world that our invasion of Iraq was a moral wrong and that it's contributing to terrorism, not working to stop it.
It was just wrong, practically and morally. The sooner we repent and change tack, the sooner we may begin to make progress.
It's your blog, so in this discussion and the one about the centrality of the cross, I have no problem with your having the last word, but let me first clarify a few things on my part.
About the practicality of our invading Iraq, I beg you not to read article from Prospect Magazine.
About Hiroshima, I'm not sure why you're hung up about what Marshall Art wrote since I don't think I've ever written anything in his defense or in defense of his position. If you're alluding to this thread at Neil's blog, you'll notice I didn't weigh in on the Hiroshima bombing. I'm not sure I've ever weighed in on Hiroshima here or elsewhere, and I'm fairly certain I've never written that we should apply the tactic of nuking Hiroshima to Iraq.
And, about your last comment, I believe it validates my concern that you're trying to make us look as monstrous as possible. You're looking past our actual rules of engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq to imply that our dropping two nuclear bombs on Japan 50 years ago renders everything else moot. You ignore the reasons we had to defeat the Taliban and Iraq's Baathist regime simply because they do not fit a narrow definition of their having been at war with us. And, most infuriating, you imply that there is no difference between our military and the terrorists -- though we go out of our way to avoid civilian casualties, at great cost to ourselves and to punish those who target civilians, and though our enemies deliberately behead journalists and slaughter schoolchildren -- and you even say that it is naive or dishonest to deny this revolt moral equivalence.
There really is no point in my continuing to approach you on this subject.
About Hiroshima, I'm not sure why you're hung up about what Marshall Art wrote...
It's because it's not just what MA wrote. A belief that our use of the tactic of targeting civilans for mass slaughter is acceptable (which we did at Hiroshima, among other places) - which remains somewhat common among so-called conservatives - is the problem. That's just the grandest example of it.
But I see conservatives all the time being okay with our support of the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua in the 80s, or being supportive of attacks by our mercenaries in Iraq that result in the death of innocents, or of sending captured "terrorists" off to Saudi Arabia to be tortured... I've seen enough support for the targeting of civilians and the use of torture to know that many conservatives do not reject their use.
Do you? Do you reject the bombing of Hiroshima as immoral? Do you reject the use of torture as wrong?
Brother, I'd be glad to hear that to be the case. We could join together in opposition to our gov't's use of them (and therefore our breaking of laws).
Join me?
Post a Comment