Some rebuttal, plus a request
Xon jokingly mentioned my criticism of Jeff Emanuel in this posting, and it's true that I was bit hard on him. But because I'm being critical of his ideological views doesn't mean that I'm being dismissive of him, even if I was a bit flippant in my thoughts.
He and I have exchanged some different thoughts on the proposed troop surge over at Peach Pundit, and I appreciated his responses. I don't agree with the man's politics, but he seems like a nice enough fella, and I've enjoyed that brief discussion.
In that spirit, particularly since he's got a blog now, I'd like to encourage him to shoot me an email and see if we can work out some sort of point-counterpoint kinda thing on a recurring basis. I think discussion, debate, disagreement and dialogue are good things (apparently I think alliteration is cool too), so I hope he'll touch base me with me and consider this.
........
In the meantime, he put together more thorough thoughts on the Iraq troop surge debate here, and I'd like to address some of his points ...
- It's safe to say that I think Emanuel is creating a false choice that results with, in his view, a no-win situation for whoever opposes his view. I think it's somewhat of a strawman as well. First, he claims that the efforts to push forward a non-binding resolution are ultimately part of a comprehensive strategy to cut funding from the troops and employ, as he puts it, a 'slow bleed' on the troops until they have to pack up and head up. Understandably, he dislikes this policy (as an aside, so do I as I oppose cutting any funding for the troops). However, he later claims that the non-binding resolution isn't 'honorable' and that those who oppose the policy should support cutting funding. It can't be either-or, but he wants it to be because he could then easily claim that those who oppose his position are 'not supporting the troops.'
- That said, I firmly reject any notion that supporting a non-binding resolution that disapproves of a specific foreign policy conducted by the Bush Administration is tantamount to 'not supporting our troops.' That's a tired line that fails to recognize numerous elements of this complex debate. As I noted at Peach Pundit:
- What troubles me about Emanuel's position is that it clings to this notion that all it takes is staunch determination if we want to win. That if only we just fought harder, if only we just put more money and more troops in place, if only we truly believe we can win ... then those we fight in Iraq will crumble under the strength of our convictions. Surely, these are noble beliefs - and, as a man of faith, far be it from me to belittle the power of belief and conviction - but I also think those convictions must be put in the appropriate context. The War in Iraq has devolved into a secretarian stuggle in which our soldiers are being asked to do a job - police warring and rival factions - they weren't originally requested to do. If I firmly believe that I'm going to rid my house of ants, but the real problem I have is hornets and beetles, then my conviction to exterminate ants does me no good.
- Appealing to the argument that folks are 'either with us or with the terrorists' and then applying that simplistic worldview to Americans who oppose the war is ridiculous. It's the same worthless line of argument that I think some Democrats trot out on economic issues to accuse Republicans of being cold to the poor. In both capacities it's foolish and is done only to score cheap political points, though the former is considerably worse because it implies a condoning of extremist terrorism. It's cheap, shallow and wrong. I'm happy to debate the merits of our foreign policy and how best to combat terrorism, even with those who are ideologically different than me, but I also expect some respect in the situation.
He and I have exchanged some different thoughts on the proposed troop surge over at Peach Pundit, and I appreciated his responses. I don't agree with the man's politics, but he seems like a nice enough fella, and I've enjoyed that brief discussion.
In that spirit, particularly since he's got a blog now, I'd like to encourage him to shoot me an email and see if we can work out some sort of point-counterpoint kinda thing on a recurring basis. I think discussion, debate, disagreement and dialogue are good things (apparently I think alliteration is cool too), so I hope he'll touch base me with me and consider this.
........
In the meantime, he put together more thorough thoughts on the Iraq troop surge debate here, and I'd like to address some of his points ...
- It's safe to say that I think Emanuel is creating a false choice that results with, in his view, a no-win situation for whoever opposes his view. I think it's somewhat of a strawman as well. First, he claims that the efforts to push forward a non-binding resolution are ultimately part of a comprehensive strategy to cut funding from the troops and employ, as he puts it, a 'slow bleed' on the troops until they have to pack up and head up. Understandably, he dislikes this policy (as an aside, so do I as I oppose cutting any funding for the troops). However, he later claims that the non-binding resolution isn't 'honorable' and that those who oppose the policy should support cutting funding. It can't be either-or, but he wants it to be because he could then easily claim that those who oppose his position are 'not supporting the troops.'
- That said, I firmly reject any notion that supporting a non-binding resolution that disapproves of a specific foreign policy conducted by the Bush Administration is tantamount to 'not supporting our troops.' That's a tired line that fails to recognize numerous elements of this complex debate. As I noted at Peach Pundit:
I also disagree with how you think this will be interpreted by those serving over there, and I say that with the utmost respect and in a cautious tone since I know you served over there. To suggest this particular resolution or the ongoing debate over the war from a variety of different factions from both sides of the aisle will be the tipping point to an either-or mindset on their part is simplifying the matter.
From friends and colleagues I know who have served in Iraq, as well as from the reports I see and hear, there is considerable frustration from the troops on the ground. And it isn’t over merely the actual debate over the war, but over everything from frustration from lengthy time away from loved ones and home to uncertainty over who is and who isn’t an ally to concern over the direction of the mission to any of the other numerous factors they have to deal with while serving in Iraq.
I can concede your point that some troops might grow disheartened from even the non-binding resolution, but to suggest that it will have a massive effect on troop morale is something I simply don’t agree with. Or at least any more than existing factors they deal with everyday while on the ground. In fact, I would imagine some troops would agree with the non-binding resolution because of their disagreements with the war policy.
- What troubles me about Emanuel's position is that it clings to this notion that all it takes is staunch determination if we want to win. That if only we just fought harder, if only we just put more money and more troops in place, if only we truly believe we can win ... then those we fight in Iraq will crumble under the strength of our convictions. Surely, these are noble beliefs - and, as a man of faith, far be it from me to belittle the power of belief and conviction - but I also think those convictions must be put in the appropriate context. The War in Iraq has devolved into a secretarian stuggle in which our soldiers are being asked to do a job - police warring and rival factions - they weren't originally requested to do. If I firmly believe that I'm going to rid my house of ants, but the real problem I have is hornets and beetles, then my conviction to exterminate ants does me no good.
- Appealing to the argument that folks are 'either with us or with the terrorists' and then applying that simplistic worldview to Americans who oppose the war is ridiculous. It's the same worthless line of argument that I think some Democrats trot out on economic issues to accuse Republicans of being cold to the poor. In both capacities it's foolish and is done only to score cheap political points, though the former is considerably worse because it implies a condoning of extremist terrorism. It's cheap, shallow and wrong. I'm happy to debate the merits of our foreign policy and how best to combat terrorism, even with those who are ideologically different than me, but I also expect some respect in the situation.
posted by Jmac at 10:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home