Yes, even if your liberal friends and relatives tell you that You Could Find Better Things to Do, or tell you You Can’t Do That, keep on postin’

I’ve Got A Feeling I’ll be reading your blog for a long time. Help! I Should Have Known Better Than to post this silly comment!….

Seriously, if you actually read the MilBlogs concerning Iraq, you would see a picture of what the United States military can do in a country once free from all domestic political wrangling and stupidity.

We convert a mass of ignorant, superstitious, and backwards people into the premier military force of their region. To do that, we instill such virtues and character traits as “discipline”. (You know what discipline is, right?)

Among other virtues, like

Honor.

Loyalty.

Sacrifice.

Duty.

And so on.

We weren’t born with those traits after World War II, we as a nation earned those through relentless Cold War years and relentless self-criticism and self-improvement after Vietnam. The all Professional VOlunteer Army is the equivalent in historical terms, to the Roman Legions after the Gaius Marius Reforms.

It is only as small as it is because so many young people can find jobs easily in this increasingly strong economy we gots. We’re fighting a “war” but we are doing so with a peace time economy. Ever see someone juggle 3 balls in the air with one hand? For 5 hours? Ever see Tiger Woods bounce a golf ball up and down with a golf club?

The central point of course, is that Iraq and Afghanistan has never known the stability and security that can be brought about by a “professional” army. An army that does not steal, does not go around raping people, nor accepts bribes.

We bring to Afghanistan superior techniques, superior culture, and superior resources. But the relationship is not one sided. The Afghanistan people, while being educated in the art of war by Americans, also bring their own subtle strengths to the table. The Afghanistanis bring their brand of patriotism, their brand of tribal violence, their brand of self-reliance and hardiness.

While we have to train city kids in the Marine Corps via a harsh menu, in order to instill “warrior” virtues as well as “soldierly” virtues, the Afghanistanis already has several warrior virtues. They only need the soldierly discipline.

Read Alpha Geek’s blog, he is a Special Forces operator in Afghanistan and he has PLENTY of stories on the Afghanistanis he works and trains with.

http://sfalphageek.blogspot.com/2005/04/about-those-beards.html

You said it best yourself, look to history. It is not like we lack examples of societies rebuilding themselves while under American supervision. Germany, Japan, South Korea all have a US military presence and it certainly hasn’t kept those socities from growing. These are good questions to be sure, but history shows they we’ve had some experience and some success in rebuilding nations.

“For now they must suffer the consequences of a violent invasion and occupation on top of the effects of having lived under a brutal sanctions regime and a vicious dictator.We lap up the bright images of toppling statues and purple fingers but the reality is in the hospitals and morgues and funeral processesions. “

While life might not be easy in Iraq right now, I don’t think it matches with the dark picture you paint. Reality shows that they are free from a murderous dictator. Reality shows that they are slowly forming their own government. In reality that horrible foreign occupation is being replaced more and more with Iraqi troops. Certainly everything isn’t roses and lollipops, but I think you’re being a tad melodramtic.

Good point. Perhaps it’s a matter of taste. Her ‘subjective’ portions rub me the wrong way. She has some good readers, though.

“My “bile for logic” remark was directed at Anonymous[…].”‘

I realize that, but my point was you were using similar such bile against Neo-neocon.

“This is analysis? Maybe the NYTimes doesn’t think this is a major breakthrough. They have an opinion. Can she be so sure? She seems to have no understanding of the line between opinion and fact.”

Of course you should be critical of such remarks, just as she is critical of the New York Times. But, if I may use a cliche, “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water” I think she made a good point about the increased Iraqization of Iraq. This to me is a positive, and I’m glad she was able to point out an example of it. You’re not going to agree with everything she writes, but in focusing only on the highly opinionated and subjective portions of her articles, you are missing some fascinating substantive insight.

“… seems nobody agrees with you and probably isn’t reading you either…”

More bile. My blog gets read; I know many who agree with me, although perhaps not among the commenters here, but there is a larger world. Perhaps you HOPE nobody is reading or agreeing with me. Sorry to disappoint you. GWB won the election, but it was pretty darn close, now wasn’t it? My fellow liberals and I aren’t going anywhere – you’ll just have to live with us here in this big country of ours…and we with you.

I’m not very interested in “winning” arguments – I like to try and learn something, and perhaps convince people of my point of view. Anyway, I honestly don’t understand what point Anonymous was making about Orwell, and I suspect he knows little of his writing.

Something on which we agree completely – Fussell’s book is a masterpiece.

To Mr. Hobbs:

My “bile for logic” remark was directed at Anonymous who presented a strange and contradictory set of arguments, a major part of which was character attack (on Orwell) and snide remarks directed at me because he believes me to be a Francophile.

As for Neo-Con’s “cheerleading”, I don’t begrudge her a point of view – I have one too of course. What bugs me is her tendency in many posts to grab onto a news item and run with it as if it proves a whole slew of propositions, or to simply make snide comments(Amnesty and the ACLU being frequent targets)that impute beliefs or actions to people who don’t make her political muster. I also find her preoccupation with the media (something she shares with political bloggers of left and right) to be indicative of a concern for image and scoring debating points rather than a desire to parse the truth.

Her conclusion of the post is a good example:

“Months ago, who would have predicted it? Certainly and most assuredly not the NY Times. I wish they would publish something that acknowledges what a major breakthrough this is, what astounding progress has been made, and how another Vietnam analogy has bitten the dust.”

This is analysis? Maybe the NYTimes doesn’t think this is a major breakthrough. They have an opinion. Can she be so sure? She seems to have no understanding of the line between opinion and fact. I don’t begrudge her having an opinion – I just think rational people should recognize where one ends and the other begins. Feel free to point out my failures in this regard anytime, but please be specific.