The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

really? — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:23:25 -0000

@Stacy: I'll miss (unless TC proves otherwise) your insight into the NBA. Your insight into the minds of war protestors? Not so much.

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

allbetsareoff — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 10:53:45 -0000

Leaving aside the "no war" crowd, which usually deserves ridicule, there were a lot of informed, hard-headed people who had misgivings about going to war in Iraq because they believed, correctly as it turns out, that Bush & Co. didn't understand what they were getting us into.

They didn't understand the ethnic-religious fragmentation and tribalism of the region, and that its nation states (Iran, Turkey and Egypt excepted) are artificial constructs by former colonial powers and, as such, are inherently unstable. They didn't understand the centuries-old resentment of Western occupiers and aversion to Western culture. They didn't understand that when autocracy falls in the Middle East, it's usually replaced by theocracy, not secular democracy - hardly surprising, since Islamic institutions are the only nongovernmental entities with mass followings in most of these societies.

They didn't even realize that jihadism, which we had bankrolled in Afghanistan against the Soviets, would subsequently turn against us; or grasp the basics of counterinsurgency until we were four years into this misadventure.

Focused solely on deposing Saddam Hussein, they were oblivious to the consequences that anyone with a passing knowledge of the Middle East could have predicted - and did.

We should judge the Middle East policy of the next administration on whether it listens to the advice of people who understand the region. Novel idea, huh?

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

Hector — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 10:50:08 -0000

Right, Powell. The 'legitimacy' or Iraq's 'government' (i.e. the one that is currently propped up by U.S. tanks) is roughly comparable to the legitimacy of Jaruzelski's government in Poland, or Thieu's regime in South Vietnam. A foreign proxy regime is illegitimate by definition.

Not that I think the US should necessarily leave....as illegitimate as the occupation is it's probably better than the likely alternative (which would be civil war and sectarian pogroms). But if you want the US to stay in order to prevent a genocide, then you should make that argument forthrightly, and not resort to silly babblings about legitimacy and representative elections.

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

robert powell — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 10:37:27 -0000

With all due respect for those posters who seem to get all their history from CNN and comic books--

--We went to war with Iraq in 1991 with full legal bells and whistles, and extremely just cause. By that time Iraq had killed over a million people in several countries, tens of thousands of them with nerve gas, in the process of launching two consecutive wars of aggression that violently disrupted the world economy.

--In the interim between 1991 and 2003, we spent about $70 billion a year deploying tens of thousands of troops to enforce the embargo that killed perhaps a million additional Iraqis, the most innocent and vulnerable ones, while tightening the regime's grip on power and enriching its collaborators.

--Iraq comprehensively violated the ceasefire from 1991 in addition to the other 16 Chapter VII Resolutions with which we hoped to bring the conflict to a reasonable conclusion without actually bothering to win. There is no "international law" anywhere that precludes the resumption of offensive operations in the face of ceasefire violations.

--The "Iraq War" ended with the fall of Baghdad and the capture of Saddam Hussein. What followed was an entirely predictable power struggle the management of which was botched in unbelievable fashion by the Administration, but in which nearly all the killing of Iraqis was done by other Iraqis. We are currently in Iraq at the express request of its government, the most representative and legitimate in the Arab world, and under the terms of a unanimous UN mandate.

The Bush Administration made a hash of what should have been a fairly straightforward stabilization operation after mid-2003, but that doesn't mean its political opponents can now re-write history. The next time we come up against an oil-rich, aggressive, genocidal totalitarianism sitting on the fulcrum of the world economy, let's remember The Lessons of Iraq. Right.

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

Matt McIrvin — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:57:35 -0000

"I've sort of thawed and I'm willing to accept that maybe the country as a whole learned something out of this and the next war that gets ginned up isn't going to be treated like a joke"

People learn, but, on the other hand, over time we make new people. When I was growing up I heard a lot about "Vietnam syndrome" and didn't necessarily understand that it was just a derogatory phrase for "learning better". Part of what's happened is that we have a large bloc of fairly conservative Gen-X voters who don't remember Vietnam personally. We may be reluctant to carry out stupid military adventures for a couple of decades, but eventually somebody is going to demand that America get over Iraq War Syndrome and it's all going to start over again, unless we're so ruined by then that it can't happen.

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

Matt McIrvin — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:52:12 -0000

The class of people who currently oppose the Iraq war is so large by now that they could hardly all have the same motivation. Whether the war is stupid in some contingent or essential sense is secondary, and refusing to make common cause with people who oppose it for different reasons seems counterproductive.

I personally got really badly rolled by a large number of official lies and I'm pretty upset about that. I suspect the war was dishonestly motivated and pointless in principle, and badly executed in practice (it's possible that Afghanistan may have been just badly executed in practice, though I'm really not sure about that any more either). I think a lot of Americans currently feel that way.

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

heedless — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 07:30:19 -0000

Stacy,

Please don't feed the troll.

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

Ed Marshall — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:00:20 -0000

The reason I think that's such a line in the sand is that if you look at how the issue played among registered Democrats support for the war was at an incredibly thin level. It was so low a percentage that I remember thinking at the launch of the war that that by now I must have nearly seen every last one one of them in America on my teevee. They were either liberal pundits, Democratic politicians or party apparatchiks who have been playing the same refrain since a bunch of 1992 wanna-be presidents got nuked not backing Desert Storm.

It was them and another tiny layer of not actual apparatchiks but people who looked up to them and aspired to be them and wouldn't espouse any opinion that Newsweek hadn't told them was CW. (and Coates who was a high-minded sort and nothing like the creatures I've described above)

I've sort of thawed and I'm willing to accept that maybe the country as a whole learned something out of this and the next war that gets ginned up isn't going to be treated like a joke, if not for any other reason than Iraq War II has sacrificed way more Democratic careers than Desert Storm ever thought about. The shadow of Dick Gephardt is going to loom long the next time this mess gets started and they all start thinking about their bullshit jobs. If John McCain goes down it will make Republican's less trigger-happy for the same reason.

I hope the punditry next time around feels the same way but the bad thing is there is no cautionary tale for journalism. I guess there is Judith Miller who had to settle for wingnut welfare at the Manhattan Institute.

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

MoeLarryAndJesus — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:30:58 -0000

LarryM writes: "Voting against the war wasn't enough. Did ANY of them speak out when they received briefings about torture and other war crimes (and it's pretty clear in retrospect that they were briefed on those things)? (Oh, the briefings were "secret." Boo fucking hoo. Of COURSE their obligations to humanity trumped domestic "security" laws designed to protect the machinery of empire.) Did they draft articles of impeachment? I could go on. Every single member of congress - even the staunchest war opponent - is complicit in war crimes. Every last one of them."

Well, not quite - there are some who have entered Congress after the war started who are explicit about opposition to it. And you're wrong if you think all members were briefed re: torture and so forth. And yes, the impeachment process has been started (ask Dennis Kucinich) - it just hasn't gone anywhere.

You may have seen the footage of members of the Black Caucus protesting quite strongly in session before the war vote. It should still be easy to find.

My position is only that where the war is concerned the Dems have been preferable to the Repiglicans. It's not a claim that they've covered themselves in glory. Those of us in the reality-based community know that we're stuck with these parties for the foreseeable future. Saying one has been better than the other when it's certainly true isn't unreasonable.

"LM&J, whever his virtues, and obviously he and I agree regarding a lot of this (but not his annoying but typical tribalism regarding the two party system) is not a person worth arguing with. Yeah, yeah, I know I just did it too.

Some would say the same for me, but I'd like to think that, most (not all) of the time, when not confronted with idiocy or mendaciousness, I can be relatively civil."

Keep on telling yourself that, Larry. You've said that over and over again and you still keep on addressing me. I guess you lack self-control.

I'm sorry you're upset over the fact that I'm better at this sort of thing than you are, but you should probably get over it. It's not going to change. Take notes and maybe you'll improve, grasshopper.

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

LarryM — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:38:19 -0000

ML&J, that is, and "whatever his virtues." WTB an edit function.

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

LarryM — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:36:35 -0000

Stacy,

LM&J, whever his virtues, and obviously he and I agree regarding a lot of this (but not his annoying but typical tribalism regarding the two party system) is not a person worth arguing with. Yeah, yeah, I know I just did it too.

Some would say the same for me, but I'd like to think that, most (not all) of the time, when not confronted with idiocy or mendaciousness, I can be relatively civil.

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

LarryM — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:31:35 -0000

Too many of them did, yes. But a majority of the Dems in Congress did vote against the war.

Voting against the war wasn't enough. Did ANY of them speak out when they received briefings about torture and other war crimes (and it's pretty clear in retrospect that they were briefed on those things)? (Oh, the briefings were "secret." Boo fucking hoo. Of COURSE their obligations to humanity trumped domestic "security" laws designed to protect the machinery of empire.) Did they draft articles of impeachment? I could go on. Every single member of congress - even the staunchest war opponent - is complicit in war crimes. Every last one of them.

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

Stacy — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:13:59 -0000

Please don't kill yourself. I wasn't being serious. I love you even though you are dishonest and petty. I gotta run. I hope you have a really nice evening. I actually have to take off. I gotta go meet my Daddy for shots of tequila. Hopefully we'll bump into some pretentious idiots. I'll let you know.

XOXO,

Stacy

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

Stacy — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:01:44 -0000

Time out. Calling someone a pretentious idiot does not make you judgmental. These are people that I knew, and they were pretentious idiots. I didn't say everyone protesting the war was a pretentious idiot.

Have I ever said anything funny in my life? Wait, you actually think those nicknames are funny? Wow, your friends must be nerds as well if this type of shit passes for funny. "Get it! Dumbya?! Its like George Bush's middle initial but it also plays on how dumb he is!! Jesus, where do I come up with shit?!"

Spacy? Seriously?

I suppose I have a Father, but I don't have a Daddy. Maybe I just don't call him Daddy 'cause I'm NOT A FUCKING FEMALE. Stacy is my last name. I've done nothing to suggest I am a woman.

Kill yourself.

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

agorabum — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:57:01 -0000

I was a fence-sitter during the run-up not because the arguments did not appeal to me, but I didn't trust the Bush Admin to execute things competently.

All someone had to do was watch the total lack of interest in the administration in ensuring post-war stability in Afghanistan. It was a case of bump off the old, promote some malleable elites (and warlords), and draw down US forces. No force projection into the provinces. No focus on law and order. An assumption that the UN can come in and take care of all that later.

So while the siren song of ending the sanctions regime, arab democratization, and punitive action against a brutal dictator pulled at my heart, my brain knew that better men were needed to pull off such a momenteous event then those in the White House.

Sadly proved right.

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

Stacy — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:54:37 -0000

LarryM,

Yes, yes, yes. I agree with all of those things. The slogan itself wraps up the point fairly nicely, I suppose. I just think relying on slogans like "No Blood for Oil" do nothing to advance any conversations or to convince anyone of anything. It is a bad slogan if your goal is to actually change hearts and minds about the war. Maybe I'm being a bit unfair. Maybe it does the job of grabbing people's attention. I just thik it rings a bit hallow(hollow?) because a lot of people that use it would only be able to explain it in very vague terms.

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

MoeLarryAndJesus — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:49:38 -0000

Stacy says: "I don't have a 'Daddy.'"

Well if your mother is anything like you I can certainly see why.

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

MoeLarryAndJesus — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:47:41 -0000

Spacy says: "There's nothing wrong with calling someone a nerd if they are acting like one. Using clever nicknames for all the groups and people you dislike makes you a nerd."

So what do you have against nerds? Also, have you ever said anything funny in your life? I can't imagine it.

"I have no idea how I've possibly come off as judgmental."

Damn, you're stupid. Scroll back and tell me some more about "pretentious idiots."

How did you manage to make it to your mid-to-late twenties and remain so blissfully lacking in self-awareness?

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

Stacy — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:45:18 -0000

1. You've lost your fucking mind.

2. I don't have a 'Daddy.'

3. I NEVER SAID I SUPPORTED THE WAR.

4. I didn't bring up the slogan and I never said that all people protesting the war were clueless. I simply pointed out that many of them were.

5. I don't drink Tequila unless I'm shooting it.

6. A lot of them were pretentious idiots.

7. I simply pointed out that it was a shitty slogan, you are the one that made a big deal of it.

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

MoeLarryAndJesus — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:43:36 -0000

LarryM writes: "I can't speak for ML&J, but I hate the Dems also. They are on the whole just as guilty of supporting the machinery of empire, or hegomony if you prefer. True, Bush and Cheney are a particularly monstrous manifestation of that sickness, but (a) they are a product of it, and (b) the Dems went along for the ride."

Too many of them did, yes. But a majority of the Dems in Congress did vote against the war.

On the other hand, there was just no significant anti-war voice in the GOP for years, until a few folks like Chuck Hagel started speaking up.

So while I'm not blind to the problems with the Democrats, the Republicans these days are almost wholly devoid of decent human beings. Which is why I call them Repiglicans. Fans of "Animal Farm" should be able to appreciate it.

Even Stacy has probably seen the movie.

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

LarryM — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:41:13 -0000

Your holier than thou schtick probably wears a little thin on others as well.

Indeed it does. Given my disgust with this nation's foriegn policy, and the so called "progressive" response to same, I'm past caring about that.

Let me ask you this. Obviously, a statement that fully captured the complexity of the many reasons to object to the Iraq war wouldn't fit on a protest sign. Is it the concept of protest signs that you object to? Assuming that the answer is no, what is it, specifically, about that particular slogan that you object to? Do you disagree that the the Iraq war specifically, and our middle eastern presence generally, is almost entirely about oil? If so, my insulting statements above were fully justified.

No, I'm not asking you to believe specifically that part of what was going on was specifically about "stealing their oil," though it's pretty clear at this point to anyone without his or her head in the sand that AT LEAST the government figured that that was a nice bonus of the war (in the sense of trying to jam through an oil law in Iraq disproportionately favorable to western oil companies), if not a motive force.

No, I'm merely asking you to acknowledge three very mundane facts: (1) that the biggest motive for the attack was acquiring a base for the projection of power in the middle east; (2) that the reason that we feel the need to project power into the middle east is ... the oil; (3) that ancillary motives for the attack on Iraq were an indirect product of our presence in the middle east, said presence being, again, about ... the oil.

And if those facts, which shouldn't be very controversial at all, are acknowledged, then why is "no blood for oil" such a lame slogan?

And yes, I realize that you and many others believed that the war was about WMD. Obviously in retrospect, it wasn't. Many of us knew that at the time.

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

MoeLarryAndJesus — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:37:52 -0000

Stacy writes: "I just think that's is possible to be a "non-interventionist" and be just as blind as a 27% that still support George W. Bush. I just think the slogan "No Blood for Oil" is FUCKING STUPID. It means nothing. It is empty because MOST of the people who would utter it have no fucking clue what they are talking about and only force the other side to be more resolute in their own thinking. Get it?"

I get it, Stacy. Your highly cogent and fascinating point - worth yapping about over and over, because your daddy always told you you were really, really smart - is that people who had much better judgment than you about the Iraq War had a BAD SLOGAN.

I can only imagine the depth and intellectual complexity of the activities you were taking part in while those "pretentious idiots" were busy being right and you were doing your Britney Spears act. "I was very skeptical of the reasons we were going, but ultimately was young and naive enough that I still had some faith in our government."

So did you and your little pals make margaritas while you watched "Shock & Awe" and you all cheered?

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

Stacy — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:34:20 -0000

There's nothing wrong with calling someone a nerd if they are acting like one. Using clever nicknames for all the groups and people you dislike makes you a nerd. Especially when those nicknames are simply play-on-words.

Also, I never said I supported the war, but I didn't protest against it. I already admitted to being a bit more naive in my younger days and not believing my government was completely lying to me. I have no idea how I've possibly come off as judgmental. But to compare me to Bill Krisol? Seriously? You can do better than that.

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

MoeLarryAndJesus — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:29:11 -0000

Staash writes: "...than in:

* pressuring their elected representatives

* putting aside petty internecine differences for the sake of a common cause

* organizing a real, effective political coalition

It's really unfortunate; the antics of these nitwits end up alienating a lot of Joe and Jane taxpayers who are sympathetic to the cause. "

Of course the Kossacks and MoveOn.org did all three of those *'d items with incredible skill and efficiency, and just look at what happened to the Repiglicans in 2006 as a result. Airheads and wingnuts can pretend that it was all about "filthy hippies" dancing in the streets, but it wasn't.

That work continues and the Repiglicans are looking at another savage beating in November, including in some more states where they've had dynasties going.

Re: Do we oppose all wars or just dumb wars?

MoeLarryAndJesus — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:21:49 -0000

Stacy replies: "And no, I don't have a special hat. You'll be able to tell me apart because I won't be saying things like...

"No Blood For Oil"

"Repiglicans"

"McSame"

"Dumbya"

And no, we weren't talking about pithy slogans. I was stating that pithy slogans are lame, and don't accomplish anything. You responded by telling me that I'm "not the brightest bulb in the Exxon sign." Again, another very clever and pithy line. I'm sure you saw it on a t-shirt somewhere. "

No, I made it up. And whoever said a slogan could accomplish anything, you silly little child?

No, you're not saying things like "Repiglicans" - you're saying things like "nerd" and "the protesters came off as pretentious idiots." And you seem to claim the ability to READ MINDS! Spectacular!

Here's how you come off, Stacy - as a judgmental fool who will be wrong about just about everything in her life, and who will see each and every wrong judgment as another affirmation of her specialness. In other words, you remind me of Bloody Billy Kristol.

So when do we get to the part where you just shut up about it? I don't think it will ever happen with Billy.