Rational intelligence
I would like to think that most folks thing that, regardless of some political differences I may have with some people, that I'm a pretty reasonable guy who enjoys a reasonable discussion of issues.
With that in mind, I get more and more outright stunned by what is, quite frankly, obscene stupidity on the part of a large number of people. Perhaps I shouldn't be stunned since, well, there are a lot of people in the world, making the odds rather good that a portion of them are rather short-sighted.
Consider my criticism of the upcoming report the president is due to present of the success of 'The Surge' in Iraq. One would think that if you supported this element of military strategy and foreign policy, you could offer a coherent and rational defense of it. As I have had since before it was implemented, I had doubts about its long-term effectiveness in bringing security to the region as well as its ability to help Iraq achieve its 18 stated political goals (to date, Iraq has met five).
One would think that, since I have repeatedly argued in the past against an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, this could be accepted logically for what it is ... a simple questioning of this strategy to achieve its stated aims. Of course, logic doesn't always flow freely I suppose because, in what is becoming an incredibly tired and borderline comical tradition, I was told to merely shut up and support 'The Surge' because the military was executing it and if I didn't think the strategy was the best way to achieve those stated aims, I must not support the military.
This, of course, is completely ridiculous, patently false and suggests, dare I say, an inability to effectively defend one's position.
This isn't the case for all. Xon is a hardcore libertarian who possesses a worldview that confounds me, but he engages me in dialogue and presents his case intelligently. Consider Jeff Emanuel, who defends 'The Surge' with experience and data.
I can still disagree with them, but I can respect them because they respect me and my positions.
People put up blinders, and they make things fit into their worldview even when the things they initially supported don't necessarily work. Folks from all over the political spectrum label those who ask these questions as 'unpatriotic' or 'fundamentalists' or 'hippies' or 'Rethugs' and fail to understand that disagreement over specific policies or ideas or actions doesn't mean you have to surrender your worldview.
With that in mind, I get more and more outright stunned by what is, quite frankly, obscene stupidity on the part of a large number of people. Perhaps I shouldn't be stunned since, well, there are a lot of people in the world, making the odds rather good that a portion of them are rather short-sighted.
Consider my criticism of the upcoming report the president is due to present of the success of 'The Surge' in Iraq. One would think that if you supported this element of military strategy and foreign policy, you could offer a coherent and rational defense of it. As I have had since before it was implemented, I had doubts about its long-term effectiveness in bringing security to the region as well as its ability to help Iraq achieve its 18 stated political goals (to date, Iraq has met five).
One would think that, since I have repeatedly argued in the past against an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, this could be accepted logically for what it is ... a simple questioning of this strategy to achieve its stated aims. Of course, logic doesn't always flow freely I suppose because, in what is becoming an incredibly tired and borderline comical tradition, I was told to merely shut up and support 'The Surge' because the military was executing it and if I didn't think the strategy was the best way to achieve those stated aims, I must not support the military.
This, of course, is completely ridiculous, patently false and suggests, dare I say, an inability to effectively defend one's position.
This isn't the case for all. Xon is a hardcore libertarian who possesses a worldview that confounds me, but he engages me in dialogue and presents his case intelligently. Consider Jeff Emanuel, who defends 'The Surge' with experience and data.
I can still disagree with them, but I can respect them because they respect me and my positions.
People put up blinders, and they make things fit into their worldview even when the things they initially supported don't necessarily work. Folks from all over the political spectrum label those who ask these questions as 'unpatriotic' or 'fundamentalists' or 'hippies' or 'Rethugs' and fail to understand that disagreement over specific policies or ideas or actions doesn't mean you have to surrender your worldview.
posted by Jmac at 8:08 AM
15 Comments:
Good thing Leftists don't put up blinders.
Look, the fact is the Dems in Congress--the very ones who voted unanimously to confirm Petreus--are now doing everything they can to undermine him. They are working actively as we speak to discredit the report he will issue, before he issues it.
That, to me, is the same as working to undermine the men and women who are risking their lives to carry out the troop surge (which, for what it's worth, is getting credit for improving conditions on the ground, and getting that credit from a wide variety of unusual suspects, most recently Katie Couric).
The people who are working to undermine the surge and the troops are doing so for purely partisan reasons. They believe their is political advantage to being against US military and geopolitical objectives. And they rely on bad news to make their case.
The worse the news for America, the better (they believe) it is for them and their partisan purposes.
When Democratic leaders are quoted as saying that a good report from Iraq would "be a problem for us," that tells me all I need to know about Democrats.
Unlike you, I've lived through this before. The vapid criticisms we hear from the Left as we fight the war on terror are the same vapid criticisms we heard from the Left when Reagan and Bush the Elder were fighting and winning the Cold War.
The Left was wrong then; the Left is wrong now. In fact, it is difficult to find any American military venture in which the Left has not been wrong, and ultimately proven wrong (hello, Charles Lindbergh; I'm talking to you).
The men are fixing the flat in the rain; the women are in the car bitching and moaning. If the women aren't going to get out help, the very least they could do is shut the hell up.
I won't hold my breath, though. Bush will continue to fight the terrorists; the Dems will continue to fight Bush.
When we prevail in the fight against Radical Islamic fundamentalism--and, with God's help, we will, it will be in spite of the Left, not because of it.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think of "the left's" advocacy for intervention in the Balkans, and "the right's" opposition to the same?
And since you believe people must "get out help" or "shut the hell up" I must ask, when are you joining the military?
I want my party back from pomo chickenhawks like you.
What, if anything, do you know about my military service?
And I don't know what you're talking about re Right-wing opposition to US intervention in the Balkans. There was certainly none from me (I wasn't--and am not--happy about being subordinate to the blue helmet crowd, but the mission was noble; the service, honorable).
The thing that will most make the Iraq War stand out in the history books is the way it completely flipped the foreign policy of the two major parties. (imho, istm, etc.) Suddenly the GOP became widely interventionist, and even justified intervention with the rhetoric of humanitarianism ("We are doing it for the Iraqi people, not for oil", etc.) It is both attainable and desirable for the U.S. to spread democracy through military operations in parts of the world that don't particularly have a history of said democracy. Etc. This is bizarre, b/c it's straight "progressive" foreign policy from the early 20th century. The anon commenter from the second comment already pointed out how different things were when Clinton went into the Balkans. As recently as 1999, the GOP opposed intervention and the Dems supported it.
But equally bizarre (just so the point is not missed) is that the Dems have flip-flopped just as awkwardly. Now, to hear many Dems talk, the party of Woodrow Wilson and FDR would have us believe that they are isolationists. (Clinton doesn't say this, of course; but Clinton is hopelessly compromised on the war issue anyway.) The whole thing is wierd wierd wierd.
The Left was wrong then; the Left is wrong now. In fact, it is difficult to find any American military venture in which the Left has not been wrong, and ultimately proven wrong (hello, Charles Lindbergh; I'm talking to you).
Hello, America's entry into both WW I and WW II was pushed by the "leftist", liberal elements of the government, and opposed by the centrist - conservative elements. For example, the famous Lend-Lease program was Roosevelt's way of getting around conservative strictures on supporting Britain in its war effort.
Characterizing Charles Lindberg as "leftist" is that is what is being said, is interesting in that Lindberg was at least mildly anti-semitic, was the spokesman for the ultra-conservative "America First Committee", and characterized the War in Europe as the "Jewish War".
The vapid criticisms we hear from the Left as we fight the war on terror are the same vapid criticisms we heard from the Left when Reagan and Bush the Elder were fighting and winning the Cold War.
Them's some pretty late inductees into the "cold war." Truman fought the Korean War, and Kennedy authorized the build up and American intervention in Viet Nam, followed up by Johnson. Kennedy's handling of the Russian missile crisis did as much to stalemate Russian goals as anything "Ducth" did.
JMac - how many silver stars do you wear, Sir?
I'll take a guess and say zero.
Ah, yes: Kennedy and Truman.
Kennedy was a tax-cutting commie hater who wiretapped with impunity; Truman dropped nukes.
Those were the days.
Today's Dems? They wouldn't cross the street to kill a terrorist. Wimps.
The only one who comes close to having any balls at all is, ironically, Hillary. And she's having to apologize for it.
Right, I missed that from the first anon's comment, too. Calling the "America First Committee" and Lindbergh "leftists" is absolutely ridiculous. Again, this just illustrates how strange this war has made everyone. People who think of themselves as conservative feel like they have to interpret all historical figures who opposed war as "leftists." Afterall, the reasoning must go, I'm a conservative today and I support the war in Iraq, so when I read people opposing wars in the past (and using similar language as, for example, Ron Paul in doing so), then I know those people must not have been conservative. B/c they wouldn't be like me, and I'm conservative.
The possibility that today's conservatives have simply abandoned one of the old conservative principles (not a very conservative thing to do) doesn't even seem to occur to them.
Anyway, there are anti-war conservatives (present!), but they've been marginalized. Ah well, c'est la vie...
JMac - how many silver stars do you wear, Sir?
I'll take a guess and say zero.
Correct. The same amount as you.
Your point being?
Because obviously you've ignored everything I've written. I know doing so makes it easier for you to stick to this little narrative you've got going in your head.
It's worth noting that no one has actually done what I requested ... but whatever.
Again, this just illustrates how strange this war has made everyone.
Right. Only dare I'd say replace 'strange' with 'incredibly dumb' ...
Thanks for agreeing with me, JMac, but do remember that I think the Democrats have been just as "dumb" in this. They also have "flip-flopped." Supporting intervention, spreading democracy to various regions of the world, etc., but then changing their tune when it came to Iraq. The political shifting is on both sides in this.
[quote]Correct. The same amount as you.[/quote]
As of now that's true :) So I'll rephrase the question - How many silver bars do you wear?
... but do remember that I think the Democrats have been just as "dumb" in this.
Agreed. I've at least long been an advocate of liberal interventionism being the good FDR/JFK Democrat I tend to be. This discussion, as with cases in the 1990s, has been incredibly puzzling and tainted by politics by both sides.
Chuck ... again, why does this matter? It's a silly straw man argument. Am I to not hold any opinion over a particular topic because I lack experience in that field? This kind of logic is backward and suggests that I can't appreciate good food because I didn't go to culinary school, that I can't think O.J. is guilty because I didn't go to law school or that I think a particular policy is wrong because I'm not a politician.
Again, my disagreements over 'The Surge' stem from its failure to achieve its stated political goals based on empirical data and results compiled by numerous independent agencies, military and non-military.
To assert that God will help us win the war against "Radical Islamic fundamentalism" is to neglect what is altogether clear from the way in which God helps his people: more often than not, God gives over his people to destruction and enslavement by their enemies, because more often than not, his people continue to fail to give up their idols and their sins while claiming his sovereignty supports their petty little agendas. I would be careful, very careful, with invoking God's name and approval in any prevailing in any fight, especially given the priority God himself gave to using his name and authority vainly. Even then, the struggle of the Christian is not against those powers and principalities of this world, but the spiritual ones both in the darkness and in the heavens. To think we can kill darkness with NATO rounds is antithetical to everything a Christian should believe.
Of course, I'm assuming this is the Christian God referred to. I'm sure there are plenty of destructive and chaotic gods who would be happy to receive credit for war and death-dealing.
Also, I want to express here my curious reaction to the sexualization of the tire changing analogy. Men are the heroes of action who do things to fix the world, whereas women are the bitches who complain that change is not fast enough, and so the analogy works in reverse: the liberals (who are not leftists) are women and feminized, the supporters of the military are men and masculinized. Yet, we are obliged to support "the men and women who are risking their lives?" Why even mention the women who are fighting if we also hold women up as whiners and moaners?
A war is nothing to become a man for. There is nothing masculine about killing people for a few hundred yards of territory that will be lost soon enough for political reasons. Or, as Chuck put it in the other thread: decisions made by those in suits, not those with stars. The biblical model for being a man has nothing to do with killing infidels, destroying buildings and homes, and planting a flag on the rubble. It has nothing to do with stablizing the dollar by securing access to oil reserves away from Chinese intervenion.
So, then, why should we think that God is happy with this model of manhood? Whatever happened to raising one's children in humility and grace, instructing them wisely, and treating others fairly and honorably, repaying one's debts and helping others to repay theirs? For all this talk about impotency and weakness and power and support, without taking seriously the gospel inversion of these categories, I wonder just who is this God of Men we're claiming is on the side of the United States.
Hear hear, old friend!
Post a Comment
<< Home