So, let's see. You used to call yourself a liberal. But things changed after 9/11, and now you're not sure what to call yourself anymore. Try "neo-neocon" on for size.
Austin Bay is back home, and he's rallying the troops--and us. Excellent perspective on the whole bloody thing, in a concise nutshell that includes an analogy to our own Civil War and its aftermath.
posted by neo-neocon @ 10:25 AM
11 comments
I'm a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England. Surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon. My friends and family are becoming sick of what they see as my inexplicable conversion, so I've started this blog to give vent to my frustration. I have a Master's Degree in Marriage and Family Therapy, and my politics make me a pariah there, too. Little did I know that I moved in such politically homogeneous circles. Why the apple? See this.
11 Comments:
Human life is cheap depending on one's moral persuasion over any given war. Bay mentions the Civil War and at the battle of Gettysburg for instance, in 3 day's time, the heroes sustained 23,000 causalties, while the insurgent Rebs sustained 28,000. A website on Gettysburg mentions that about 2 million people visit each year. Why do they go? A tad over 5,000 very young men fell in one day on 6/6/44 at Normandy, which of course was a 'good war'. I don't know how many people visit Normanday each year, but I'm sure the number is large.
I think we miss the message left by the visitors. The visits to these war sites are not festive events, there isn't much loud talk or much rowdy behavior on the part of kids and adolescents. There isn't much on-site food consumption that accomapanies these visits. Isn't it all about the collective willingness to regard half the dead as villains, sort of a macabre silent acknowledgement that the bastards got what they deserved, at the expense of our men? If we own up to this, sort of fess up if you will, does it in any way impact the collective resolve to prosecute a war? Al jazeera seems to revel in showing beheadings and the good folks in Fallujah had quite a celebration when they hung the burned bodies of contractors from a bridge. I for one remember some palestinians dancing in the street after 9/11. But we don't celebrate the deaths our enemies these days and because of this, I'm not just too sure we are really capable of winning any war that requires our men to kill and die on the ground. Am I advocating that our troops start wearing the ears of any enemy they kill? We do know however what would happen if a grunt did cut off an ear, dry it and wear it around his neck, don't we? I'm not advocating this but I'm not so sure we are capable of really owning up to what we want in a war.
This leads to another question I have been asking myself lately. Does our unwillingess to celebrate the death of an enemy in any way contribute to the PTSD of the returning troops? Can we wave a flag and tell a grunt, " I'm glad you blew the heads of as many of the bastards as you could" at the same time? Are we the ones that put up a subtle barrier that contributes to a feeling of isolation on the part of returning Vets? When is the last time, despite our resolve, that we announced to anyone that X number of terrorists in Iraq were just killed? I don't have many answers for my questions, but I do know in the final analysis it is all about the killing and dying.
From my own visit to Gettysburg, being a visitor doesn't demand that I hold one side to be monsters and other side to be angels.
However, I already knew that General Lee was not in favor of slavery, but he could not lead an army into his own homeland of Virginia. I also knew that the average Confederate soldier was a poor white man who never owned a slave.
This knowledge didn't mitigate the fact that one side was in the wrong, morally. But it did help me visit the battlefield without feeling a need to rejoice over each Johnny Reb who died.
One thing that may help us understand whether we should be celebrating every terrorist death is this question: how did the American public treat German/Japanese defeats during WWII? What about Allied/Axis victories and defeats during WWI?
We don't have to celebrate the deaths of enemy combatants, but I think we can admit that it is a good thing that there are N fewer guys out there trying to kill American soldiers and Iraqi citizens.
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind talking with a returning soldier (over beer, probably) and telling him I'm happy that he accounted for his share of the work over there--whether he killed any bad guys or not.
I bet if we all tried real hard we could come up with at least a couple of holes in the Iraq War-Civil War analogy...
The '93 bombing could have been worse. The hope was that the building would collapse--that was why the explosive was set in the basement parking garage--but the cyanide gas was consumed in the explosion. Could have been bad.
Point: We know what the terrorist want to do and we know they will do it with the most effective weapon they can find. What if they set off a couple of nukes in the US?
I visited Shiloh battlefield. Toward evening, I was looking at a mass grave where rebel soldiers had been buried. A black man, taking a picture of the thing, commented, "Hardly seems worth it." Perhaps he didn't know it was a rebel grave. Perhaps he did, and at that point, didn't think it was worth it.
Other than fighter aces, who actually shot airplanes--which incidentally contained men--there was no celebrating of killing in WW II, although in the Pacific, once it was discovered what happened to Allied POWs in Japanese hands, there was some grim satisfaction, along with some ear-gathering.
We won that one.
the President could devote considerable time and effort and political capital urging his supporters to enlist.
close to sixty million Americans voted for George W. Bush.... the idea that Bush could not (or will not) go on a "60 stops in 60 days" recruitment tour in those areas that constitute his political base and come up with a couple of hundred thousand new recruits is rather alarming. Bush needs to tell his supporters that this war is not just important enough to send other people to fight and die in, he needs to tell them that its important enough for them to make sacrifices.
the President could devote considerable time and effort and political capital urging his supporters to enlist.
close to sixty million Americans voted for George W. Bush.... the idea that Bush could not (or will not) go on a "60 stops in 60 days" recruitment tour in those areas that constitute his political base and come up with a couple of hundred thousand new recruits is rather alarming. Bush needs to tell his supporters that this war is not just important enough to send other people to fight and die in, he needs to tell them that its important enough for them to make sacrifices.
NeoPatton - I don't think it is as simple as young people not wanting to enlist because they don't think we should be in Iraq. I think our materialism is catching up to us as a nation. We are what we own, what we can purchase, what we earn,what we drive and what high-tech gear we have, we are fashion and fad victims, suckers for Hollywood glitz and instant gratification, fast lanes and fast food and lots of cell phones and being instantly in touch, but with what? None of this is to be had slogging it out in the sand in Iraq with terrorists, even though we all know jihadism has to be confronted when and where it is found. It is just too damn much work for little pay and no glitz and glamour and being disconnected from cyberspace and all the rest of the immediate gratification mind-set we are addicted to. What America has to have is a 5 day war where nobody on our side gets hurt and we come out the winner and evil is vanquished. The folks that behead humanitarian workers know this too. Time is on their side, not ours.
Michael B:
How has our invasion and occupation of Iraq done anything significant to hinder the jihadist's ability to aquire WMD?
I am all for defense of the country. I am a patriot.
I am begining to believe invading Iraq was a deliberate blunder of gargantuan proportions, but I wholly supported Afghanistan (though I think that the prosecution of that effort was also a massive blunder).
I am just saying that if I am wrong and Iraq really does play a vital role in the defense of this nation then we should absolutely have no hesitation whatsoever to call up the necessary resources, from additional tax dollars to personnel.
That is what America does, always has done, in times of war and national emergency. And citizens have always risen to the occasion.
Brie eating Euro trash can participate in compulsory service, but tough Americans cannot, interesting.......
And yes, I do think that instituting the draft will separate the foreign policy wheat from the foreign policy chaff.
Americans will fight when the country needs them, when the world needs them. But they will not fight long when they see no obvious necessity.
When you are against the draft you are tacitly admitting that Iraq was not a national emergency, a serious threat, nor a necessity. You are admitting that you do not like the draft because, by involving the citizens, generally, in wars of choice based on the designs of the rich and well positioned and the theories of their cynical ivory tower hand-maidens that you might get have a rebellion.
Folks, this is our country, not Bush's. Invest the citizens and they'll make the right choices.
Michael B said...
Anon, 3:53 pm,
Unwilling to answer either yea or ney, hey? That may be telling in and of itself. An unwillingness to take a position, for example with WTC '93, may reflect a desire to remain abstracted from the debate, a desire to be able to snipe or otherwise criticize from afar, from above the fray, while not committing so much as an opinion one's self. This may not represent your own situation, but it's a position that is very often encountered nonetheless.
And many people who write stuff like you wrote above have red hair and freckles. It may not be so in your case, but believe me, it is not outside the realm of possibility that someone who would write that could have those attributes.
I'm being ironic there, Michael, just in case you were wondering. Can you let somebody take a long weekend over the 4th of July without pidgeonholing them into another of your "leftist islamofascist treasonous snipers/whiners/complainers" catgories?
It's no wonder people with opposing viewpoints don't hang around long in this echo chamber. Sure this place attracts alot of trolls, people who come in yelling rubbish and then disappear. But for the most part you guys love it, and are already too busy shaking your heads and chuckling to yourselves about Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda, the trolls and other irrelevant liberal kooks, and then holding them up as some sort of "prime examples" of liberal thinking, as if they say anything at all about the many good, intelligent *American citizens* opposed to the war in Iraq to engage in a serious exchange of ideas and who deserve to have their legitimate concerns addressed much better than this administration has done with their smug dismissals of any dissent. Rather than address *their* (and once in awhile they do chime in around here) concerns, they are systematically ridiculed as cowardly dupes of the liberal MSM, aiding the enemy, etc, etc. There is so much sloganeering and mindless adherence to ideology, a 110% unwavering and uncritical commitment to the cause, it's like trying to talk to a bunch of maoists during a cultural revolution book burning party.
That said, I thank you for pointing me to Craddick's site. The level of discourse there is generally on a much higher plane than here, and I will probably be hanging around there more and less here.
Anyway, for what it's worth, to the extent I understand your question correctly, I do agree that WTC 93 was a "prominent event" and of course I acknowledge the jihadi's patience. But I would go further. 8.5 years is nothing to them. They are willing to wait 8.5 centuries if that's what it takes. If anything, I think neocons underestimate that patience when they argue that all these terrorists that would be planning attacks on US soil are now flocking to blow themselves up in Iraq. Those are just the stooges. The real dangerous terrorists are out their taking their time. They don't care who wins some presidential election here.
As for Craddick's apologia, I have to say that, while at times a bit pretentious, it makes a great case for Iraq as a tremendous problem for the US in light of the 9-11 attacks. It's too bad Bush and company couldn't come up with that on their own. They are too busy treaing us like the ten-year olds they take us for, I guess. Craddick is not too charitable towards the administration's efforts to make the case for the war either.
What his essay doesn't do very well for me is tell us why invasion and occupation was the *best possible response* to the problem and address the possible negative consequences of the war. He lists two arguments which are basically the same about the lack of finding WMDs. What about the implications of the commitment of enormous military resources for years to come for this one aspect of the war? What about compromising our military's ability to fight two major operations at the same time? What about our unfinished business in Afghanistan? What about alienating our major allies and world opinion, how will that help us in the war on terror? Maybe to you these are the concerns of a hand-wringing, panty-waisted sissy, but I think they are worth addressing, and I haven't seen it done yet. I've basically been told to fall in line quick or be considered one of the enemy.
And finally, Craddick's essay doesn't do one other thing, and that is specifically address my original question: How has the invasion done anything significant to keep WMD out of the hands of jihadis?
yours,
Anon 353
Dehumanizing a soldier in war is dangerous, for that person and for the society that has to take him back into the fold. What the military does is train soldiers, discipline them from a mob to a fighting force, not "dehumanization".
Removal of human traits, mercy and compassion, is a Leftist ideology and fantasy, where they come up with "super soldiers" that end up killing the creators.
If you want to win a war, you must have Roman Virtues. Favor strength above beauty, favor steadiness over quick thinking, and favor honor over cowardice.
Gravitas.
These are the qualities of life to which every Citizen (and, ideally, everyone else) should aspire. They are the heart of the Via Romana — the Roman Way — and are thought to be those qualities which gave the Roman Republic the moral strength to conquer and civilize the world. Today, they are the rods against which we can measure our own behavior and character, and we can strive to better understand and practice them in our everyday lives.
Auctoritas: "Spiritual Authority" The sense of one's social standing, built up through experience, Pietas, and Industria.
Comitas: "Humor" Ease of manner, courtesy, openness, and friendliness.
Clementia: "Mercy" Mildness and gentleness.
Dignitas: "Dignity" A sense of self-worth, personal pride.
Firmitas: "Tenacity" Strength of mind, the ability to stick to one's purpose.
Frugalitas: "Frugalness" Economy and simplicity of style, without being miserly.
Gravitas: "Gravity" A sense of the importance of the matter at hand, responsibility and earnestness.
Honestas: "Respectibility" The image that one presents as a respectable member of society.
Humanitas: "Humanity" Refinement, civilization, learning, and being cultured.
Industria: "Industriousness" Hard work.
Pietas: "Dutifulness" More than religious piety; a respect for the natural order socially, politically, and religiously. Includes the ideas of patriotism and devotion to others.
Prudentia: "Prudence" Foresight, wisdom, and personal discretion.
Salubritas: "Wholesomeness" Health and cleanliness.
Severitas: "Sternness" Gravity, self-control.
Veritas: "Truthfulness" Honesty in dealing with others.
If you want your nation to win, start with resurrecting patriotism, and elevating strong and brave men over fashion models and pop/movie stars.
The rest will take care of itself.
Post a Comment
<< Home