The other is that there has been some controversy over SLA Marshall’s research, which Grossman uses as a jumping-off point. Having said that, there are a number of things in Grossman that I do find myself in agreement with.

I have quite a few issues with Grossman.

For example, he uses the multiple-loaded rifles of the American Civil War as an example to support his thesis. Yet the more likely cause was simple fear, not a reluctance to kill.

He points out that most killing occurs on a flanked or fleeing enemy; he claims this is because the fleeing enemy isn’t perceived as human. I think that it is simply the fact that it is easy to kill someone who is not effectively resisting.

If we had set out to fight this war like we did WW II, we’d be done by now.

This isn’t WWII. It’s a different kind of war, a war we are still learning how to fight. When the USA entered WWII, we had created enormous advantages in doctrine (read There’s a War to be Won) and both the population and the leadership understood the nature of the war, a war between states. Now we are fighting a war between states and those who do not have states in the traditional sense. I’ve pointed to Bobbitt’s analysis often (Shield of Achilles, Terror and Consent) because he is the only author I’ve read who really gets his head around that point and begins a systematic analysis on it. (SoA is background, and if you read it, read the introduction over and over until you can say “That should be obvious,” or you’ll miss the whole point of the book.)

Goesh:

In Viet Nam, sleep deprivation and dehydration were significant stress factors and we would go for long periods of time without a shower, sleeping in fire pits or what the army calls fox holes. There were alot of bugs, we ate out of cans and would run short of water on patrols. Our water came from tanks we called water buffalos and it was warm and nasty tasting. We would use water purification tabs in the bush and diarrhea was real common. We weren’t aware of our stench because we all had it. As grunts you could always distinguish us from non-grunts back at base camp because the toes of our boots were white and chewed up from being on the ground on our bellies so much and humping through the bush all the time.

They did have a lot of those problems in Iraq. Read David Bellavia’s House to House. True, they were crammed into an IFV instead of fire pits, but they had the same diarrhea in a more confined space.

Speechlessness and writer’s block is not a a trait of victory you know.

But he and you want to nail anyone to the wall who disagrees on how he is going about that and at what cost in other areas (economy, social welfare…) to the country.

3. You should be careful about those broad characterizations, one might think that those who said you had Bush Derangement Syndrome would be correct in their analysis. No one actually believes, including yourself, that your accusations are right while everyone else’s is de facto wrong.

You’re not worried about the cost, you are just afraid of the cost. And such fears seem to make you forget what I’ve said previously, that are inconsistent with your colored view of the situation.

Anyone that is afraid of the cost to anything, is absolutely worthless in terms of finding solutions to problems. Like I said, those who take counsel of their fears are worse than useless in a fight.

I do consider the cost, so there is a very obvious reason why you think that I don’t. You just consider how afraid you are if the costs are too high. I fail to see how anyone could be part of the solution with that kind of attitude.

I expressed the hope that segments of our military would not be sworn in to serve a Commander in Chief who, in my view, has so little regard for the public good and for life.

4. Hope is a positive emotion, not a negative one.

He gave his speech in front of a portrait of TR, who would have nailed the terrorists but who also nailed the Enrons of his day.

4b. So you’ll only like Bush when he does everything you like for him to do… That. Is. Not. An example. Of tolerance.

Liking Bush as a person does not require that everything he does is liked. That might be something you might want to restudy under the title “Human nature” if you are serious about fighting terrorism.

5. You need to go back to that projection business that sort of blew up in your face, before talking about Dr. Phil.

What you have to say is : Nail them to the wall.
5b. That’s not what I said, that’s what you said Teddy Roosevelt would have done.

The rest is one huge and silly frame around that.
5c. Huge and silly as your disgusting, narcotic, and nauseaus rendition of your personal fears in what you think is the fate of the US? Don’t think I could have topped that so easily.

That’s just plain ridiculous behavior on your part. And it’s not a behavior a real fighter of terrorism would feel comfortable having.

6. If you had a sense of humor, we might be able to laugh at some things both of us said.

6. You have to get out of the Nile to have a good laugh at being wet. Only when the solution has been applied and the problem solved can you laugh about it, I don’t really want someone laughing while they are drowning on my side doing anything.

They tend to be dead weight, and soon at that.

But all that said, have a happy time on this blog and smite all those Lefties endangering our republic.

You’re not a Lefty no matter how many times you claim others think you are, and I smite enemies of the Constitution. Whether they are domestic or foreign. It really doesn’t matter what name you cloak them in. You might want to revisit your duties as a citizen of the United States of America, before you place your fake moral superiority on anyone else.

We have room for only one loyalty in this country, and that is loyalty to the people of the United States and the Constitution. Not to Erasmu’s personal dislikes of Presidents.

Have fun drowning in the Nile. We’ll be on the shores growing food to feed the hungry and making weapons to make war on the barbarians, while you have your little swim.

If you want to know something, ask. Don’t be like the dozens who read my posts, and then stew in the shadows and then crop up with bitterness when they think I’m not expecting it.

They think I don’t know, but that’s what happens in an intel vacuum.

I don’t tend to triple redundancy check my posts with a bibliography because that would make it much longer and it is also not necessary.

I’m not so much here to debate as to read people’s reasoning and logic, and to present my own reasoning and logic in return.

I have nothing against debate, but I don’t come out and say “Believe me because I have these links”.

If you want to know something specific, you need to specifically ask about which FBI and CIA comment you want more background on.

I don’t really understand the problem. If your complaint is the lack of specificity, why do you specifically make your comments too vague for me to figure out which post of mine you were refering to?

2. I’d suggest not practicing psych on the web.

I have nothing against that recommendation, but I have to wonder why you didn’t practice what you preach when you first mentioned “projection”. Talking about fear is not psychology, it is human nature.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt:

I don’t tend to give people the benefit of the doubt that their reasoning is right and mine is wrong. So when you mentioned that I was projecting, I looked it up. And compared and contrast. And presented arguments as to why your reasoning was incorrect given the evidence. Purely debate style of course.

5. Supporting an effective war against terrorists does not require liking the Bush/Cheney domestic agenda.

No, it doesn’t. So why are you mentioning it? Is this some kind of straw man logical fallacy going on here or something?

You think you can prove yourself “right” if you can prove that you can agree with foreign policy but not Bush’s domestic policy?

Jeez, that’s not what the argument is about.

Chomsky and Coburn only wish there really were that many.

Stop changing the subject just because you can’t justify your previous sentences and declarations.

It is not like I don’t notice.

What, Dr. Spielvogel, do you think that says about the author?

I think he is frustrated that Bush doesn’t enforce this country’s laws, and that if Bush was sincere about national security he would make sure that people who hurt national security go down in flame.

What do you think that sentence says about the author Mr. NoEssayFormat?

Do you actually think I would forget that you couldn’t justify your statements about the military, your fears, my fears, and everything else you’ve said in this thread?

“…when the time comes to break the hold of the government we will do so, and nothing will stop us from fulfilling our oath to the Constitution, to protect it against foreign and domestic enemies.”
This, I presume, will become known as the Meals on Wheels or Assisted Living Putsch.
You (“we”) are going to break the hold of WHAT government?
You keep talking about fear, fear, fear. Hasn’t anyone ever told you about projecting? Calm down. Have a cup of tea. “You have nothing to fear but…” You know that one.