Andrew and the Neocon Right
The truth is that I agree with Pete Wehner on Iraq far more often than I agree with Andrew Sullivan, but I think Wehner gets something important wrong in his critique of Andrew’s recent post on Georgia.
Wehner highlights the following graf.
My only fear at this point is that by pointing this out, we may goad the Bushies and neocons into finding some kind of military escalation that would bring in the US. The US has no rational basis to be as committed to Georgia as Russia is; and has very little moral standing to protest an invasion of a sovereign country. [emphasis added]
And proceeds to write:
This highlighted statement is an astonishing one. The clear implication is that what America did in going to war with Iraq is the moral equivalent of what Russia has done to Georgia. If this is Sullivan’s point—and I’m not sure what other point he could be making—then it is, I think, an indefensible one.
In the situation in Georgia, a lawful, self-governing nation which respects human rights (and happens to be an ally of the United States) is under attack. In Iraq, we deposed on of the most wicked and cruel regimes of modern times.
My guess is that Andrew was referring to the US intervention in Kosovo, and our decision to accept Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence, among other things. South Ossetia is a state ruled by thugs. But of course the KLA wasn’t the most morally appealing bunch either. Note the language the Russians are using — this is from the WSJ.
“The Russian army is trying to enforce peace, and to do that, we have to attack the Georgian military,” which is shelling South Ossetian villages and towns from outside the region’s nominal border, Sergei Ivanov, Russia’s deputy prime minister, said on CNN. “We have to stop the genocide.” He also indicated that Mr. Kouchner’s cease-fire proposal falls short. Moscow is demanding that Georgia first sign agreements with leaders of the pro-Russian breakaway republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Both Mr. Ivanov and Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian Duma, justified the Russian action with a comparison to NATO actions in Kosovo in 1999, when NATO aircraft bombed targets in Serbia proper, as far from the Kosovo battlefield as Belgrade.
This is — I forget who said this first, but I found it very astute and I’m really peeved to have lost the reference — is Russia using military force to effect a grotesque parody of the NATO intervention. It seems pretty damn clear to me that Russia is in the wrong here. But Andrew is making a valid point. (James makes this point well. I’m a lot more inclined to stick up for Georgia than he is, but he makes a number of worthwhile points about limits.)
At the same time, I find Andrew very frustrating to read on the subject of Iraq. Consider this post on the surge.
But the neocon right needs to talk as if the extra troops made all the difference.
My sense is that the neocon right was responding to the bizarre claim that the extra troops made no difference, e.g., Obama arguing that his preferred strategy of withdrawal and intense negotiations might have yielded a similar decline in violence. Had we reduced our presence, we would have been less useful to the Iraqi government, to put it bluntly, yet we would have remained a political liability. That’s straightforward. Speculatively, it would have been natural for the Shia’s to lean more heavily on Iranian support, to more aggressively pursue an ethnic cleansing strategy.* Moreover, the shift to a counterinsurgency strategy was about more than the surge of troops — which is why it “began” before the actual surge, along with increased casualties early on — but follow-through depended on increasing troop strength. This isn’t that outlandish.
The truth is: they were shrewdly deployed to help galvanize a multiplicity of already-existing trends among Iraqis. But if you begin to describe Iraq as a sovereign country, able to make its own decisions and able to restore some level of non-chaos to its own communities, with the US merely nudging, the case for staying there for ever diminishes.
Yes, and my sense is that many in the neocon right agree. But it matters whether we adhere to a rigid timetable, or if we try to build on shared success.
The neocons aren’t stupid. They always advance the arguments that help sustain the case for more American control everywhere, indefinitely.
I can’t agree with this. What people misunderstand about neoconservatives is that they’re not reflexive unilateralists, like Rumsfeld or Bolton; rather, they believe the United States has the power to provide global public goods. The idea of a “League of Democracies,” unwise though it may be, is about constraining the unilateral exercise of force, and building consensus among liberal market democracies. For all the deep-seated opposition to the reckless use of American power, there is a silent (one might uncharitably say free-riding) consensus that the United States should clean up its own messes and, of course, other messes that happen to occur along the way. I think that neoconservatives — and I think of myself as internal to this community — ought to think more creatively and pragmatically about non-state threats. But are neoconservatives hellbent on imposing American control everywhere? I tend to think they want American power constrained by the need to maintain and ideally extend the “security oxygen” the affluent world has enjoyed for so long.
*Briefly, you should check out the Biddle-O’Hanlon-Pollack analysis in the latest Foreign Affairs. O’Hanlon and Pollack have become hate figures on the center-left, but Biddle wrote the most astute critique of US counterinsurgency strategy pre-surge, “Seeing Baghdad, Thinking Saigon,” and I think he deserves to be taken seriously.
It is worth noting that separation resulting from sectarian cleansing was not the chief cause of the reduction in violence, as some have claimed. Much of Iraq remains intermingled but increasingly peaceful. And whereas a cleansing argument implies that casualties should have gone down in Baghdad, for example, as mixed neighborhoods were cleansed, casualties actually went up consistently during the sectarian warfare of 2006. Cleansing may have reduced the violence somewhat in some places, but it was not the main cause.
This is worth keeping in mind.
Informative and insightful as ever, however I must disagree with you on a couple of points.
First, I think you are selling Obama short by describing his plan as “preferred strategy of withdrawal and intense negotiations.” What Obama wanted to implement was the plan of the Iraq Study Group, which was a basket of approaches, that did indeed include diplomacy and eventual troop draw downs, but also had several other aspects which were integral to the plan.
Second, neocons and McCain have repeatedly stated that the success in Iraq is a direct result of the surge, I don’t see them responding to the idea that the surge failed and so are just pointing out that it was part of a larger chain of events that started before the surge. (perhaps I am unfairly conflagrating McCain and neocons, and if so I apologize).
Third, the last quotation seems absurd.
“And whereas a cleansing argument implies that casualties should have gone down in Baghdad, for example, as mixed neighborhoods were cleansed, casualties actually went up consistently during the sectarian warfare of 2006.”
As Yglesias and Drum have both pointed out, of course violence went up while the cleansing was going on, people were being killed. It was only after most of the targets of genocide had been killed that the violence went down. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_08/014230.php
— Leigh Hartman · Aug 12, 06:09 PM · #
This was an interesting read until you cited that absurd comment from Biddle. Read it a couple times and then think about how it makes absolutely no sense. And I see that Leigh has rightly pointed out the absurdity.
As for the parts on Sullivan. He’s an easy target as he is prone to much hyperbole but I think there is plenty of evidence that his view of the Neo-Cons is basically right. Any group of people who’s main rhetorical strategy is to go around hyping threats should be mocked and ignored. It’s easy to find a Hitler under every rock and to declare every international incident as truly significant but that rhetoric makes us less safe and prone to overreaction. I don’t even have to look at their rhetoric on Russia to know what they’ve been saying.
— KJ · Aug 12, 07:16 PM · #
But the Iraqis want a rigid timetable, as any people who desire self-determination would. To your immense credit you have jettisoned the democracy-building rhetoric that underpinned so much of the neoconservative agenda. But the neocons have not, and the twin poles of their ideology, security and democracy, increasingly leave them with schizophrenic policy positions. The fact of the matter is that there is an inverse proportion between the degree to which great powers provide your country with “stability” and the degree to which you are a sovereign and self-determining nation. I absolutely applaud the fact that you’re able to see that democracy promotion and American self-interest are not identical, and that the United States’s actions aren’t somehow ordained by god to always enhance democracy. This is a virtue I’m afraid many other neocons don’t share. But I’m a little creeped out that you don’t seem more concerned by the impediment to democracy that American intervention can become. On a elementary first principles basis, I think that appeals to foreign stability have to be superseded by appeals to foreign self-determination. (We’ll stabilize your country whether you like it or not!) And I believe you need to be far less credulous about the righteousness and pragmatic benevolence of American power anywhere.
The simple question remains: who has the right to decide when the American occupation of Iraq is over? The United States, of course, has the ability to stay or leave as it pleases. But if we actually have any of the desire to spread democracy that we (and particularly the neocons) have been loudly proclaiming for 7 years, we absolutely have to abide by their timetable. If we don’t, there is absolutely, 100% no difference between the American adventure in Iraq and that of any other invading country. None at all. The fact of the matter is that when neoconservatives again and again demanded that this was an exercise designed to liberate Iraqis, and again and again praised the legitimacy and authority of the al-Maliki government, you abdicated any right to question the manner with which the Iraqis demand that we withdraw. Right?
— Freddie · Aug 12, 07:45 PM · #
“they believe the United States has the power to provide global public goods. The idea of a “League of Democracies,” unwise though it may be, is about constraining the unilateral exercise of force, and building consensus among liberal market democracies.”
If you seriously believe this, please provide evidence that Bill Kristols, the Kagans, the crowd at the Corner or any other respectable neo-con has any interest at all in constraining American power, except as they deem fit to constrain it. McCain doesn’t want the League of Democracies to constrain American power; he wants it to more effectively project American power.
— Steven Donegal · Aug 12, 09:30 PM · #
The weak argument that “liberal democracy promotion” ought to be a primary (long term) strategic objective of America is perfectly sound. That the strong argument is fatally flawed shouldn’t distract us from this fundamental insight.
— kris sargent · Aug 12, 10:11 PM · #
Of course the US invasion of Iraq is comparible to the Russian invasion – we never went to do in Saddam – we based our invasion on claims of national security. it’s amazing how the Neo-cons twist the events to suit their purposes. yes, Bush proclaimed Saddam a menace, but he did so in the context of a threat to America – does this author think we went to war to liberate Iraq? To rid the world of Saddam Hussein? Or did we go to find WMDs and/or to prevent Saddam from handing those weapons of nonexistence to terrorists? Sorry folks, at least man up and own Iraq. Admit that we threw the world a finger – the same world who begged us not to go, and we acted unilaterally and killed thousands for our own self interests. We wrote the scrpt that Russia’s following – and to listen to the Neo-Conmen at their game again – getting it wrong on the Russian invasion, is enough to make one scream…
— Jeffrey · Aug 12, 11:12 PM · #
“I can’t agree with this. What people misunderstand about neoconservatives is that they’re not reflexive unilateralists, like Rumsfeld or Bolton; rather, they believe the United States has the power to provide global public goods.”
I agree with every word of this. I also think that the neocons are children of the Enlightenment. The problem is that every word I quoted from Reihan, as well as my previous sentence, applies to Marxist-Leninists. Neocon=Trotsky.
— Joe S. · Aug 13, 02:59 AM · #
I think the neo-cons rational that a US hegemony would be used to “provide global public goods” was borrowed as a convienient cover story by those in power who wanted a US hegemony for more enfarious reasons (money, power, security, glory). I don’t think Dick Cheney cares about democracy in Georgia or Iraq, or even Wyoming.
— cw · Aug 13, 03:55 AM · #
Freddie, I’m not sure that it’s true that “the Iraqis want a rigid timetable.” It’s easy to slip into a morass of definitions on what “the Iraqis want” and “a rigid timetable” mean, but I agree with you that if that’s really true, we should probably do it.
My slightly educated guess is that the Iraqis probably want something closer to a commitment to leave as benchmarks are achieved, or that some Iraqis want the US gone ASAP, others want us around as long as necessary, and some want a commitment that we will be leaving Real Soon Now but Not Just Yet.
— J Mann · Aug 13, 01:14 PM · #
It looks like Sullivan has more or less conceded that in talking about the US’ moral standing he was in fact talking about our moral failures in detainee treatment, not about Kosovo (apt in many ways though the Kosovo analogy is), so that point is invalid.
Freddie, I don’t see why all roads lead to talking about Maliki’s support for a pullout. Nobody wants to see fewer troops in Iraq more than me but you’re pushing it too far.
For one thing, the idea that the legitimacy of al-Maliki’s government gives them the thorough right to demand the removal of US troops is wrong — just ask the Okinawans. That’s because Iraq is still going to have a US security guarantee after withdrawl, and you’d better believe al-Maliki wants that protection. And that does in fact give us some good reason and moral standing to argue with that government about how and where we’ll redeploy. Now if he doesn’t want any US military support/aid, that’s different. I concede that this is something of a twisted argument since the fact is that even if the Iraqis didn’t want a certain measure of US protection we’d be obliged to give it to them because leaving Iraq a totally failed state would both be morally terrible and would be a severe blow to US credibility so we have a vested interest in keeping Iraq stable — but it’s moot because the Iraqis seem to want that backup guarantee too.
Secondly, Iraq is a poor third-world country and so what matters, realistically, isn’t just what its Parliament wants but also what its military wants — hell, countries like Pakistan and Turkey, each much more developed in different ways, have that constraint. Al-Maliki can’t ignore that, Iraq can’t ignore that. And as far as I can tell, the Iraqi military brass all want us to stick around a while. Arguing about what the security apparatus wants isn’t the most morally wonderful thing but it is necessary and realistic.
— Sanjay · Aug 13, 01:30 PM · #
We don’t need to speculate as to the wishes of the al-Maliki government. Iraqi elected officials keep saying that the United States needs to have a firm timetable for withdraw. If the United States remains in Iraq contrary to the wishes of the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government, there is absolutely no moral distance between this occupation You can’t square this circle, you rationalize this, you can’t get past this. If the United States continues to forcibly occupy Iraq after the Iraqi people ask us to leave, we are the equivalent of any other aggressive imperial power in world history. Full stop.
— Freddie · Aug 13, 08:23 PM · #
No, Freddie, obviously no. Because if the Iraqi government asks us to leave, but also wants us to guarantee their security (and they do, and we don’t need to speculate about that either) — circle squared. “Full stop.” Just the same as it is in Okinawa, where the people all want us to leave. I then have no moral qualms about asking, which do you want more, US military protection, or US military absence? What you know right now, is the Iraqi bargaining position. That’s all. And, again, the Iraqi people don’t benefit loads if you overrule the Iraqi military, and the Iraqi government ain’t really going to want to do that either. Not yet.
Of course if the answer comes back, no, we’ve got a super-bitchen security agreement with Iran, so, we just want you Americans gone — that’s different. But I don’t see it, do you?
— Sanjay · Aug 13, 09:43 PM · #
Had we reduced our presence, we would have been less useful to the Iraqi government, to put it bluntly, yet we would have remained a political liability. That’s straightforward. Speculatively, it would have been natural for the Shia’s to lean more heavily on Iranian support, to more aggressively pursue an ethnic cleansing strategy.*
I might speculate that with less American support, Maliki’s government would have been more accommodating in political reconciliation with the Sons of Iraq or Shia politicians allied with Sadr, and/or more determined to spread oil revenue around for reconstruction rather than squirreling it all away for…who knows what.
— Consumatopia · Aug 14, 01:03 AM · #
Reihan,
I think you’re being way, way too easy on Mr. Sullivan (possibly because of friendship, but I do understand that).
No, Mr. Sullivan is well, well aware that the situations are entirely different (or, if he’s not, then he should be, given his self-professed erudition and seeming shrewdness). This is nothing more than an attempt to bash the “Neo-cons.” Nothing more. Nothing less.
If he had a real argument (he’s capable of it, as you know), he’d have made it.
I suspect you know that, but are being far, far more generous towards him than he deserves.
Certainly, Pete Wehner is on-target, as someone who knows the score here.
For my part, what we did here in Iraq is absolutely amazing. I’ve met kids here with artificial limbs – being treated by American doctors. I’ve met families with kids (some as young as 4) that have been burned by IEDs: treated, and with more care, than they ever, ever expected (and, wouldn’t have expected at all during the Saddam era).
We had an Iraqi woman who lived close to Sadr city who works with us every day. Her advice? Go after the Sadrists HARDER than had already been done, and earlier (she’s Shiite, also, I believe). She’d been saying that for months!
Anyway, Sullivan hasn’t been here, doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and the folks who do know what they’re talking about have quite rightly caught him – again – in hyperbole mixed with a bit of moral equivalency.
All because he’s made up his mind that the President and the VP are torturers and/or war criminals (yes, he’s used both terms) and should be impeached and/or tried by a War Crimes Tribunal (despite his, Sullivan’s) lack of evidence.
What happened at Abu Ghraib was a stain on us all, for certain. But, Sullivan has gone far, far beyond that in his BDS-ness. This is just the latest example. Anything, anything to stretch it back and blame the administration, including moral equivalency with a real, true, occupying conqueror power such as Russia in Georgia. He couldn’t be as far from the truth if he tried, and at some level, he must know it, though it hasn’t stopped him from maligning Administration officials unfairly NOR citing anti-Semites (Philip Giraldi) in support of his “arguments.”
I suspect that much of this is in CONJUNCTION with an anti-social conservative bias of his vis-a-vis the gay marriage issue, though Sullivan is too shrewd to admit it outright. He says the “Neo-Cons,” but what he really means is, “I’m targeting the Neo-Cons right now, because they have, supposedly, the most influence on the Administration. Really, however, I’m calling myself a ‘Conservative,’ but the real intent is to split the conservative “triad” (ie – mix of economic conservatives, social conservatives, and defense hawks) so that Democrats and liberals get elected, purely because of their social liberalism. I’ll then (meekly) criticize their big-spending ways at that time (big deal, once they’re elected), but then, the Liberaltarian agenda will be advanced quite nicely, ALL THE WHILE that I’m happily calling myself, still, a “‘conservative.’”
That’s his real M.O., and has been for such a long time.
How else to explain his more-than-fervent support for Barack Obama, even more than the Daily Kos himself.
It’s an interesting little bait-and-switch, but there are some of us who’ve figured it out.
Have a good day, sir, and I cannot wait to read GNP!
PS – If you get this posting, please withhold my name. I’m almost done in my tour here, but I felt I had to “straighten out” some of the arguments made by Sullivan, as well as some of your posters here.
— Deployed in Iraq · Aug 14, 08:31 AM · #
Reihan,
Some replies to some of your posters, if you wouldn’t mind:
<First, I think you are selling Obama short by describing his plan as “preferred strategy of withdrawal and intense negotiations.” What Obama wanted to implement was the plan of the Iraq Study Group, which was a basket of approaches, that did indeed include diplomacy and eventual troop draw downs, but also had several other aspects which were integral to the plan. >
Yes, and The Surge was a part of the Iraq Study Group’s plan. Sen. Obama may have agreed with other parts of the Iraq Study Group (which now, in hindsight, it’s quite a good things that those OTHER recommendations were ignored entirely in the beginning. The cart was most DEFINITELY put before the horse there, and it’s to President Bush’s credit that he fought the ‘prevailing Washington winds’ and pushed for the Troop surge (which has made unquestionable progress here), which Sen. Obama rejected months – MONTHS – after it was apparent to all that it had succeeded.
<Second, neocons and McCain have repeatedly stated that the success in Iraq is a direct result of the surge, I don’t see them responding to the idea that the surge failed and so are just pointing out that it was part of a larger chain of events that started before the surge. (perhaps I am unfairly conflagrating McCain and neocons, and if so I apologize).>
Actually, the statement ITSELF is absurd, with all due respect. Neo-cons (indeed, Mr. Kagan and Gen. Jack Keane were the Surge’s original planners) have been trumpeting the Surge’s success for the last year-and-a-half, if not more. Why would they “respond to the idea that the surge failed,” when, clearly, it hasn’t, and they were the ones who had been saying for years that we needed MORE troops here, long before the Surge??? Makes no sense.
<This was an interesting read until you cited that absurd comment from Biddle. Read it a couple times and then think about how it makes absolutely no sense. And I see that Leigh has rightly pointed out the absurdity.>
The burden of proof in showing that the sectarian killings were “near final” is on Yglesias, Drum, and everyone else. It’s basically the “Escape from New York” argument (see the old movie, or the one from 1996, and you’ll understand what I’m getting at): there’s nobody left to kill, so, of course the murder rates are down.
Absurd. The killings were going up even in the first months of The Surge, and then started going down just as the troops started arriving. Not ONLY that, but other socioeconomic indicators – such as people shopping in the streets – is way, way up (whereas, if there’d been a Rwanda-type genocide, fear would still rule, and it most manifestly does not here).
It’s a convenient argument…..made by people who haven’t been here, who haven’t talked to the military on the ground, who haven’t seen the surveys of people who feel optimistic about the future, who haven’t seen the schools, pools, hotels, public buildings being built or being re-opened, etc.
But, these same DO have an interest in revisionist history, if only to make the Administration look bad and, yes, to discourage the troops (of which I am one) by NOT showing adequate respect for our leader, Gen. Petraeus, and his brilliant counter-insurgency strategy (which he also wrote his PhD on; excellent, if one ever gets a chance to read it).
Quite funny, if it weren’t so horribly obscene, counter-factual, wrong, and sad. But, I suppose that’s what one can expect of “analysis” that has a ideological and political agenda: non-analysis from the cheap seats.
<But the Iraqis want a rigid timetable, as any people who desire self-determination would. To your immense credit you have jettisoned the democracy-building rhetoric that underpinned so much of the neoconservative agenda. But the neocons have not, and the twin poles of their ideology, security and democracy, increasingly leave them with schizophrenic policy positions. The fact of the matter is that there is an inverse proportion between the degree to which great powers provide your country with “stability” and the degree to which you are a sovereign and self-determining nation. I absolutely applaud the fact that you’re able to see that democracy promotion and American self-interest are not identical, and that the United States’s actions aren’t somehow ordained by god to always enhance democracy.>
First off, that’s God, and no, He doesn’t ordain the US as the master imperial nation, despite whatever canards have been ingested via the web and the public universities (of which I went to). The Iraqis, rightly, want their country governed by them, yes, which they do, now.
So do the S. Koreans, but we’ve been there for 50 years (thank God, too, or they’d have had a Communist-genocide and a living hell for an existence). Yes, I remember, in the 1980s, student protests against the US bases there…..until Kim Il-Sung or now Kim Jong-Il would get aggressive, THEN the government, and the people, were quite happy the world’s greatest power was there. But, short of unification, we’ll probably stay there, just as we did in W. Berlin for those many decades.
Same thing in Iraq. It’s a fluid situation, and politicians in Iraq have their OWN domestic constituencies to satisfy (witness the contradictory public statements by Maliki – or, rather, by his spokespeople), and not all can be taken at face value, any more than ANY political statements, from any country (or, not all of the time) can be taken at face value.
Basically, they want us to be gone, or a limited presence at all, but they ALSO want security, and they realize they’re not up to providing it…yet.
As Gen. Petraeus TRIED to explain to Congress back in April, “War is not a linear event.” Yes, I know that major combat operations are over, but let’s not be as naieve as Sullivan and Sen. Obama pretends to be – for domestic political calculations – shall we?
<If you seriously believe this, please provide evidence that Bill Kristols, the Kagans, the crowd at the Corner or any other respectable neo-con has any interest at all in constraining American power, except as they deem fit to constrain it. McCain doesn’t want the League of Democracies to constrain American power; he wants it to more effectively project American power.>
Please provide the evidence that the Bill Kristols, the Kagans, the folks at The Corner (not Neo-cons there, necessarily) or Sen. McCain are NOT interested in, where and when necessary, NOT intervening in other nations’ affairs, simply because they could.
This type of non-nuanced argument (and, I thought nuance was a good thing? Apparently, only when you’re dealing with America’s adversaries and NEVER with domestic political opponents) is trite, callow, and wrong.
Neoconservative originally meant “Liberals mugged by reality.” Now, it means, apparently, “American intervention everywhere.”
But, the term, like the context, is not nearly so simple, as this piece from 1999 illustrates:
http://www.slate.com/id/25358/
Moreover, there was talk in 2004 (I believe) where the Rev. Jesse Jackson wanted the US to intervene in Nigeria (I believe) and Charles Krauthammer was adamantly opposed. Who’s the “Neo-Con” in THIS example?
The point is, the term “Neo-con” is bereft of any real definition by its critics, to the point where the original Neoconservative, Mr. (Irving) Kristol, isn’t sure what it means anymore.
But, in any event, John McCain has advocated a forceful US presence when and where necessary for our national security interests, oftentimes ALONG with moral considerations, but it doesn’t mean a “blank check” for intervening everywhere and anywhere (The Cornerites, for example, are against a military consideration in Georgia). That’s the essential position of the neoconservatives, and that has a pedigree going back as old as the Republic itself:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/26105009.html
<If the United States continues to forcibly occupy Iraq after the Iraqi people ask us to leave, we are the equivalent of any other aggressive imperial power in world history. Full stop.>
That’s a big “if.” Moreover, it goes against our history, our laws, our national morality, and our national interest. If the Iraqis ask us to leave, we’ll leave. Purely and simply.
Well, I’m done here. There are other arguments I could make, but I’ll reiterate, as strongly as I possibly can, that the Iraqis here are very, very, very grateful for caring about their country (Saddam Hussein is the only man – the ONLY man – in world history to ever use chemical – CHEMICAL – weapons against ordinary civilians; let me paint a stark picture for you, if that isn’t sanitized enough: that means that innocent men, women, and little babies gurgled on chemical gases, with their lungs filling up with toxic fumes – and untold pain, horror and terror – for many, many minutes until their insides gave way to a painful, horrible death).
NO OTHER NATION – in history – in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD – ever risked its own blood and treasure for, essentially, the simple concept of freedom and human dignity. The people here understand that, and, quite frankly, while they wish the US to further tone-down its role in affairs (understandably), they are, in fact, a bit dazed that a nation would actually do that for another. It’s certainly NOT what they’re used to in that part of the world, nor, quite frankly, in ANY part of the world.
With that, I’ll conclude my comments.
Regards,
Deployed in Iraq, and darn proud of it!
— Deployed in Iraq · Aug 14, 10:30 AM · #
Deployed —
When you slam Congress, do so with a pseudonym or part of your real name or something. Do not do so while posting as a soldier (deployed or otherwise), if you are one. It’s not appropriate, and I know whereof I speak. It’s grossly unprofessional. I have a lot of thoughts on what you posted, but I think that that point is very very important.
— Sanjay · Aug 14, 12:30 PM · #
Sanjay,
I’m off-duty, I am deployed, I’m proud of this mission, these are my thoughts, and that’s your opinion (if you think I’m tough, whether you know it or not check out the SIGNED letters to Stars and Stripes any day of the week), and that’s all it is. Whether or not you know whereof you speak is irrelevant. MilBlogs with guys active in the field are far, far harder on governmental policies than I am, and those blogs are under their own names.
The sole sentence that I even mentioned Congress was in reference to Gen. Petraeus’ testimony before it. Congress’s historical skittishness in time of war is legendary, and amply understood, partially by the nature of its very organization. I didn’t and don’t “slam” Congress; I pointed out that during his testimony he made a point about conditions on the ground being taken into consideration for policy decisions made, and that “War is not a linear event.” How is that “slamming” Congress?
I look forward to your additional points, but I’m not only not out-of-line, or unprofessional, I’m perfectly within the legal and moral right of an American citizen, and, yes, deployed servicemember, clearing up some misconceptions that others have of the conditions on the ground here.
Best regards,
Deployed
— Deployed in Iraq · Aug 14, 04:25 PM · #
Sanjay, my man, your schoolmarmishness has reached 11. If you do that again, I’m going to have to take Nurse Rached’s Ethical Blogging away from you, this time for an entire week.
Deployed, that’s what I’ve been hearing, too: the fat lady is singing, a few more years of American vise while the glue sets. As Sanjay says, we won the microcosmos.
— kris sargent · Aug 14, 05:31 PM · #
“NO OTHER NATION – in history – in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD – ever risked its own blood and treasure for, essentially, the simple concept of freedom and human dignity. The people here understand that, and, quite frankly, while they wish the US to further tone-down its role in affairs (understandably), they are, in fact, a bit dazed that a nation would actually do that for another. It’s certainly NOT what they’re used to in that part of the world, nor, quite frankly, in ANY part of the world.”
The gullibility (if that’s what it is) displayed in your final paragraph completey undermines for me any credibility the first 9000 paragraphs might have had.
— cw · Aug 15, 03:44 AM · #
<The gullibility (if that’s what it is) displayed in your final paragraph completey undermines for me any credibility the first 9000 paragraphs might have had.>
Yes, yes, of course. You, thousands of miles away from here, completely ignorant of the history of what gets done on a daily basis, and what my fellow servicemembers have already done, cocoon-like in your wilfull ignorance.
But, HEY, you do get to post on a website, and anonymously, so what the heck? Makes you an instant expert, doesn’t it, at least in your mind.
Sure. Right. Don’t worry, cw, after all I’ve endured and seen these many months here, any “undermining of credibility” to you is something that I can put alongside a bug on the ground: I pay it absolutely, positively no mind whatsoever. It’s that forgettable, and irrelevant.
Regards,
Deployed in Iraq
— Deployed in Iraq · Aug 15, 04:50 AM · #
Your “NO OTHER NATION” paragraph was one of the most ridiculous collections of words ever posted on the internet, I don’t need to spend time in Bagdad to know that…. The time you have spent there obviously hasn’t wised you up any. That doesn’t detract from any good you have done or your personal motives. But, again, that last paragraph is completely insane.
— cw · Aug 15, 07:17 PM · #
For what it’s worth, Deployed, I have some of what you apparently consider credibility (not that anyone knows if you’re a dog on the Internet). And I wouldn’t say what cw said, the way he said it (which was crass). But I agree with his point: that was an ignorant paragraph, and America hardly invented peacekeeping. And for me you lost credibility right up front with the odd claim that there’s no evidence of torture or abuse of the rights of the accused from the administration: there seems to be as much evidence as you want. I’m sure you’re a fine man — but you clearly aren’t listening to anything you don’t want to hear. That habit will not serve you well in Iraq, nor elsewhere.
— Sanjay · Aug 16, 01:18 AM · #
I was stunned into crassitudiness by the sheer, arrogant wackosity of that final paragraph. Normally I am quite sensitive.
— cw · Aug 16, 03:32 AM · #
Sanjay,
I’m no “dog on the internet,” and credibility is worth something more than mere assertion. Facts, and logic, back it up and form “credibility.” So, for you to assert that I wrote an ignorant (meaning: I’m somehow NOT conversive with American history, or something) is itself ignorant, sir.
The US didn’t invent Peacekeeping. Yes, I know. And peacekeeping was not what I was referring to, in any event (so, this whole line of questioning is an automatic non-sequitur).
Peacekeepers by definition cannot use anything other than defensive force, and only to protect themselves. This is a very, very limited form of a military-police mix use of troops, but it doesn’t work with genocide on the ground, both by its organizational structure, mission, and even in its failure in history (see Gen. Romeo D’Allaire, of Canada, and his “Shake Hands With The Devil,” and his account of not being able to stop the massacre in Rwanda).
No, I was getting at such things as the Berlin Airlift, unilaterally started by Gen. Lucius Clay, at the behest of President Truman. I was getting at the war in Korea (what natural resources are there for the US in Korea? None. We went to war to stop the Communist advance there, and that was it, and thank goodness we did).
Finally, I referenced Iraq, where I currently am. If you’d like to read the best book on life on the ground, and where everything really is, all you need read is Michael Yon’s excellent blog, and book. His book gets it better than anything I’ve read that tells it like it really is, here, now (“Moment of Truth In Iraq”).
So, really, your stating as fact that I’m ignorant, Sanjay, with all due respect, is an assertion not backed up by facts.
I also took shots at Andrew Sullivan (backed up by facts), the idea of blaming “Neo-Cons” – and the weird non-definition of it, now, in modern parlance – and other dubious assertions.
But, apparently, because I assert an historical fact about the United States that seems to go at odds with the “prevailing wisdom” of much of what has been ingested in biased college classes, horrible movies, and incredulous news reports, I’m labelled ignorant.
Indeed.
Well, actually, it’s the historical ignorance of the younger generations that’s the blight of our educational system, and I’m myself a part of the younger generation, but I had to learn much of the real history of the United States when it came to foreign policy on my own. I certainly didn’t get it from my college years.
You could do with a bit of remedial history, with all due respect, Sanjay, before you label one such as me ignorant. I daresay I’ve got more than enough knowledge and background in this area to give you a run for your money.
I’m not being disrespectful; I really have studied, and studied intensely, prior to coming over here, for years.
cw,
You’re not worth my time, flea. You’re as insignificant as the dust particles in the storm. Wise up, and try to live a meaninful life. Don’t disparage those who have different beliefs than you, merely because they’re different (and, better-informed, by a long shot). Try to learn in life; don’t take comfort in your wilfull ignorance.
Finally, Sanjay, I already referenced Abu Ghraib, if you’d re-read my earlier posts. But, contrary to the fever swamps of paranoia and outright BDS-ness of folks like Andrew Sullivan, just because a charge is leveled – even by internet bloggers, lawyers, activists, and hysterics – whether through op-eds, video submissions, or even, yes, books (!), the rules of evidence, and the historical facts underneath them, do not necessarily mean that higher-ups in the Administration were guilty of torturing people solely on the basis of charge after charge after charge.
You may believe, and you may believe passionately differently, but they don’t change those facts, and those may be the facts that you, yourself, don’t want to hear. And that habit, sir, will not serve you well, anywhere.
At least not in a civilized society anywhere.
Best,
Deployed
— Deployed in Iraq · Aug 16, 12:59 PM · #