Dissing the generals and fighting the previous war: the historical underpinnings of MoveOn’s moves (Part II)
[Part I here.]
The 60s in Vietnam represented a sea-change in attitude towards the military, and not only on the fringes of the Left. Respected mainstream jounalists began to see their task less as transmitting information and more as questioning authority, especially of the military brass and the civilian leaders at Defense in Washington. In many cases, those in charge were considered not just incompetent and/or confused, but purposeful liars, deceivers, and betrayers of the fighting forces under them whose lives were being wasted in a cause already known to be lost.
This press agenda took its full form not in the early days of the war, but after the PR debacle of the Tet offensive and the real debacle of My Lai and the initial investigatory coverup of that terrible event. Tet caused the trusted and avuncular Walter Cronkite to leap over the heretofore rigid boundary between reporting the news into opinion journalism. In Cronkite’s opinion, Vietnam had become a lost cause.
I’ve devoted a great many words to Cronkite’s Vietnam conversion (see this and this). In his famous Tet broadcast of February 1968, Cronkite spoke wearily of the nation’s loss of trust in those in charge of the war. This disillusion was also his own:
We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds.
The sense of betrayal is sharp. And, indeed, as I wrote yesterday, General Westmoreland in particular was the culprit here with his too-optimistic pronouncements about victory being close at hand. Prior to Tet, the astute North Vietnamese correctly calculated that they need not actually win the war in the conventional sense; all they needed to do was cause the perception that it would be longer and harder than Westmoreland and company had indicated. And so Tet was planned to do just that, and it succeeded wildly in its aims, despite decimating the forces of the North.
[In an] analysis of CBS’s Vietnam coverage in 1972 and 1973…[t]he Institute for American Strategy found that, of about 800 references to American policy and behavior, 81% were critical. Of 164 references to North Vietnamese policy and behavior, 57% were supportive. Another study, by a scholar skeptical about the extent of media influence, showed that televised editorial comments before Tet were favorable to our presence by a ratio of 4 to 1; after Tet, they were 2 to 1 against the American government’s policy. Opinion polls taken in 1968 suggest that before the press reports on the Tet offensive, 28% of the public identified themselves as doves; by March, after the offensive was over, 42% said they were doves.
Later, the press went from merely reporting negatively on the war to opening up its own front against a government it concluded had betrayed the American people. This betrayal focused on allegations of lying and purposeful deception.
The Pentagon Papers, released in 1971, were a joint effort by Daniel Ellsberg, the New York Times, and the Washington Post to further the cause of discrediting the war leadership. This time the focus was less on generals such as Westmoreland (although he had his day later on) and more on the civilian leadership in Washington, especially McNamara and Johnson.
It’s interesting to note that although the Papers were released during the Nixon years, and it was Nixon who fought their publication tooth and nail because he thought it would undermine both the war effort and executive power, the Papers themselves focused only on the “first act’ of the war, the Kennedy/Johnson years. In fact, they end in January of 1968.
Ellsberg and the newspapers involved have long been cast as heroes in the public mind, fearlessly risking incarceration in order to bring the truth to the long-suffering American people. But recent scholarship has cast doubt on their own objectivity and truth telling, as I wrote here. In fact, the press had its own agenda, and was not above spinning the Papers, knowing that few people were going to be plowing their way through them:
Journalist Edward Jay Epstein has shown that in crucial respects, the Times coverage was at odds with what the [Pentagon Papers] actually said. The lead of the Times story was that in 1964 the Johnson administration reached a consensus to bomb North Vietnam at a time when the president was publicly saying that he would not bomb the north. In fact, the Pentagon papers actually said that, in 1964, the White House had rejected the idea of bombing the north. The Times went on to assert that American forces had deliberately provoked the alleged attacks on its ships in the Gulf of Tonkin to justify a congressional resolution supporting our war efforts. In fact, the Pentagon papers said the opposite: there was no evidence that we had provoked whatever attacks may have occurred.
In short, a key newspaper said that politicians had manipulated us into a war by means of deception. This claim, wrong as it was, was part of a chain of reporting and editorializing that helped convince upper-middle-class Americans that the government could not be trusted.
This is not to say that the government did not engage in deception around the Vietnam War; in fact, there is no question that the American public was lied to on the subject by a succession of administrations, mostly about the war aims (more about this in a moment).
Lying about a war to make things seem to be going better than they are used to be considered necessary propaganda to further the war effort and boost morale on the home front. The press was sometimes part of it, either knowingly or unknowingly. What was different in Vietnam? One factor is that the press had declared its independence from the government during the late 60s and refused to be its willing handmaiden any more; it became its adversary. Truth-telling—and the government’s relationship to its people—was considered more important than keeping morale up to fight a war that was increasingly defined as unimportant to American concerns.
Another factor—and I believe that this is the real heart of the matter—-was that the war effort itself was limited from the start. We were not in the Vietnam war to actually win it, and a succession of administrations were engaged in hiding that fact from the American people while committing American lives to an endeavor that was half-baked.
This was the deeper betrayal. Its cause was a combination of factors: the volatility of the Cold War in a nuclear age and the fear of causing a world-wide conflagration through an escalation of the Vietnam War to other countries, a distrust of waging all-out war when the American public was felt to not have the stomach for a wider conflict in a faroff place without a clear connection to American security, and fear of the antiwar influence of a growing pacifist movement in this country. Each administration tried to finesse both the war and the American public, and ultimately each failed. Part of this failure was the perception by the public that it had been deceived by its own government.
This James Q. Wilson Wall Street Journal piece puts it quite succinctly:
Presidents Kennedy and Johnson both wanted to avoid losing Vietnam without waging a major war in Asia. Kennedy tried to deny that Americans were fighting. A cable that his administration sent in 1962 instructed diplomats and soldiers never to imply to reporters any “all-out U.S. involvement.” Other messages stressed that “this is not a U.S. war.” When David Halberstam of the New York Times wrote stories criticizing the South Vietnamese government, Kennedy tried to have him fired because he was calling attention to a war that we did not want to admit we were fighting.
Johnson was willing to say that we were fighting, but without any cost and with rosy prospects for an early victory. He sought to avoid losing by contradictory efforts to appease doves (by bombing halts and peace feelers), satisfy hawks (with more troops and more bombing), and control the tactical details of the war from the Oval Office. After the Cam Ne report from Morley Safer, Johnson called the head of CBS and berated him in language I will not repeat here.
When Richard Nixon became president, he wanted to end the war by pulling out American troops, and he did so. None of the three presidents wanted to win, but all wanted to report “progress.” All three administrations instructed military commanders always to report gains and rely on suspect body counts as a way of measuring progress. The press quickly understood that they could not trust politicians and high-level military officers.
Leaving aside endless controversies over whether the body counts were in fact misrepresentations or not, it’s easy to see the seeds of current attitudes of the Left here—and of many in the Democratic Party—towards generals such as Petraeus. The themes are the same: he is the stooge of a deceptive self-serving administration, engaged in lying and painting a rosy picture unjustified by facts. Since this is a given, there’s no need to actually hear his testimony, or note his careful and measured attempts to avoid raising false hopes.
In Iraq, as in Vietnam, there are two camps of objection to the current prosecution of the war. One is the antiwar “America-as-greedy-imperialist-occupier” camp; in other words, the Left. The other group comes more from the Right, although there is a traditional old-fashioned (i.e., WWII) liberal strain there as well, and its motto is this: if you’re going to fight a war, don’t do it in a half-assed fashion, but fight to win.
What does “fighting to win” mean these days? We have nuclear weaponry that we cannot use because it represents overkill. We feel the need to be careful of hearts and minds and the negative impact of collateral damage to civilians. Our forces are bound by Rules of Engagement that make victory more difficult, in an attempt (probably vain) to placate world public opinion and our own more pacifist citizenry.
General Petraeus is an expert on how to win in this difficult post-modern environment of PC wars against terrorism and insurgencies. It’s a shame that it took so long to appoint him, because the passage of so much time has probably made the achievement of his goals that much more difficult.
On the other hand, perhaps not. Part of the success of the surge involves the fact that Iraqi Sunnis have recently been turning against an al Qaeda presence that has shown itself to be bloodthirsty and ruthless against even its own natural Sunni allies. It is a human tragedy that so many have died in that process, but it may have been a necessary one to earn the cooperation of those tribes.
And now that Petraeus is in place, he should be treated as his own man, not as a shadow of the leaders of a Vietnam past that haunts us still.
Pingback:More on the sheepdogs in our society…. at Amused Cynic
One must admit that he has a tough job indeed. The history of the past doesn’t get washed away when the new war starts. He has to work even harder to not only make up for lost ground, he has to make sure that the same mistakes aren’t made by those before him.
Yet, sadly, one has to wonder if even that will be enough to bring back support when so many see this war as a failure.
Excellent analysis.
One of the preconditions for Iraq’s Sunni Arab tribes (i.e., the ones in rural areas – urban Sunni Arabs were detribalized) to turn against Al Qaeda was destruction of the Baathist holdout forces in urban areas. We didn’t do that – the Shiite militias did it in a bloodbath following bombing of the Samarra mosque.
Once the Baathists were broken and most urban Sunni Arab areas were ethnically cleansed, about half of the refugees from those urban areas went to Syria and Jordan, and the other half returned to their relatives in the rural tribal areas. Telling them that the Shiites would kick them all out of Iraq but maybe the Americans wouldn’t.
I.e., the Sunni Arab tribes suddenly realized the Doom that was comin’ at ’em if they didn’t change sides. Sure Al Qaeda being beastly had something to do with it. But Al Qaeda had been beastly before. What changed was the specter of losing everything to the Shiites, in the form of Sunni Arab refugees from urban areas arriving in rural tribal areas.
THAT got the tribal chieftains’ attention. Change sides now or be ethnically cleansed by the Shiites. So they changed sides.
Later, the press went from merely reporting negatively on the war to opening up its own front against a government it concluded had betrayed the American people. This betrayal focused on allegations of lying and purposeful deception.
A self-fullfilling prophecy, Neo. Humans tend to act and believe as if historical forces move them where it wills, that they being mere individual humans are blameless. They are not, for technology has provided individuals with more power than any 12th century peasant could have dreamed of.
The media felt betrayed because the media during Vietnam was guillible and unable to think for themselves. Which applies to the Democrats and the Left over WMDs as well. A person that thinks for himself or herself, Neo, doesn’t feel betrayed when things go badly because they can’t blame anyone else except for their own beliefs and analysis since it was they who made the ultimate decision, not others.
Weaker people depend upon leaders that tell them what to do. When the leaders are proven to be wrong or only appear to be wrong, then suddenly these leaders no longer meet up with the expectations of the mob and therefore must be cast down. I wouldn’t be surprised that part of the mob that lynched Mussolini also were some of his most fervent supporters back in the day.
It’s a sad thing, Neo. But that is humanity for you.
Another factor–and I believe that this is the real heart of the matter–-was that the war effort itself was limited from the start. We were not in the Vietnam war to actually win it, and a succession of administrations were engaged in hiding that fact from the American people while committing American lives to an endeavor that was half-baked.
These things essentially mean that the domestic insurgency and the foreign insurgency have time to cookup better strategies and tricks. Surprise is based upon time, time that the defender should not have or else surprise is not achieved. Without surprise, wars tend to be far longer and with far more casualties because both sides are more even.
Americans naturally dont’ like limited wars because Americans don’t like losing. Actually few people like losing. If the American people don’t get their pound of flesh, they will take it out of the hides of their political leaders. That is just how humanity is.
a distrust of waging all-out war when the American public was felt to not have the stomach for a wider conflict in a faroff place without a clear connection to American security
Another one of those self-fullfilling prophecies, Neo. Where fear counsels your actions and thus creates exactly what you feared.
When David Halberstam of the New York Times wrote stories criticizing the South Vietnamese government, Kennedy tried to have him fired because he was calling attention to a war that we did not want to admit we were fighting.
The Democrats have one thing going for them. People like JFK did not fook around with the press, when it came down to who would survive in the end. Kennedy being dead allowed Halberstam survived and set the course for Diem and the US, naturally.
What does “fighting to win” mean these days? We have nuclear weaponry that we cannot use because it represents overkill.
Not if you use it only in a psychological warfare operation, Neo. Meaning, you don’t have to select a city for a nuke or even a village. A strip of desert on Iran’s side of the border would be just as useful an example as Tehran, except without the casualties. Again, it has to be operating under psychological warfare principles rather than “fear of consequences” principles.
Our forces are bound by Rules of Engagement that make victory more difficult, in an attempt (probably vain) to placate world public opinion and our own more pacifist citizenry.
Much of that has changed, Neo, for the better. Simply because of the milblogosphere and because Army and Marine officers are far more competent than the NewYorkTimes.
And now that Petraeus is in place, he should be treated as his own man, not as a shadow of the leaders of a Vietnam past that haunts us still.
Iraq will be made by the Left into something that will haunt American actions for the next two centuries, Neo. Promising an endless chain of Vietnams and failures to affect every subsequent war waged by America.
A military that is used to victory will win, self-fullfilling prophecy. A military used to despair and defeat, will be defeaten, self-fullfilling prophecy.
“Change sides now or be ethnically cleansed by the Shiites.”
Gee, Tom, then how do you explain Sunni/Shiite alliances against Al qaeda in these “rural” areas?
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=46968
Sheikhs representing three Shia tribes, 11 Sunni tribes and 60 of Diyala’s 100 sub-tribes attended the meeting, which was led by Ra’ad, Staff Maj. Gen. Abdul Kareem, commander of Iraqi security forces in Diyala province, and U.S. Army Col. David W. Sutherland, commander of coalition forces in Diyala.
After discussing tribal differences and why it is important to unite, the sheikhs signed a reconciliation agreement and swore on the Koran as a promise to uphold the agreement.
Conditions of the peace treaty include ending tribal conflicts and attacks; cooperating with the ISF; fighting al-Qaida, militia groups and other terrorist organizations; working with the security forces to eradicate corrupt members; returning displaced families to their homes; reporting and removing improvised explosive devices; and respecting all sects, religions and women’s rights.
“And that’s the way it is…”
Another post for the ages, neo-neocon.
“Another post for the ages, neo-neocon.”
It took three hours for anyone to say anything. At that time I recalled the
I thought to say so at that time was a bit much, since it was just my own reaction and of course a speech is a much different thing from a blog post.
This morning I had this thought:
The battle of Gettysburg represented the high water mark for the South.
I hope that this “General Betray Us” comment represents the high water mark of our domestic insurgency of stupidity.
That line near the top should have read:
It took three hours for anyone to say anything. At that time I recalled the Gettysburg Address when the crowd is said to have barely responded.
It is questionable whether the Badrs had the intel and capacity to attrit the Baathists in urban locations. It would have been far easier to hit civilians than take on para-military forces, and chalk that up as a justification for the protection being paid by Shia.
Killing tribal members will eventually turn the entire tribe against you before too long. Bribes and other benefits can only cover and delay that for so long.
When the military lies to its own citizens, people lose faith in the government. But the military must lie to its own citizens, because some may betray the soldiers, either by accident or by intent, and that leads to soldiers getting killed and wars being lost.
The problem is that such treason needs to be punished by loss of citizenship and expulsion, at the very least. The Founders had the foresight to write the death penalty for treason into the Constitution, but not to predict that accurately identifying and prosecuting traitors would become an insurmountable problem as our population grew. Efforts to do so, such as FDRs internment camps and McCarthy’s blacklist, have failed, and the US has been dying for decades as its citizens come to think nothing of betraying their nation for any reason whatsoever, under the rubric of “dissent” or “post-modernism” or even, for the more honest, “anarchy.” Today we even have a thriving intellectual class that goes so far as to solicit organizations to betray their fellow citizens to.
Is there a solution? I can’t think of one, but the traitors (and ONLY the traitors) need to be purged, and soon, or the US will come to the same end the Roman Empire did.
Tatter:
Are you saying that people opposed to the war are traitors? Please clarify.
Tatter: I gotta tell you, that post is pretty creepy. We have a pluralistic democracy that we want to preserve, no matter how disgusting we think the other party is. We must never think for a moment that people in our country should be purged unless they have committed a crime. Dissent is not a crime. It is a privaledge. We must all make sure that we don’t become what we hate and what has caused so much hardship and suffering in the world. No way of life is worth that when you have to purge those amonst us. If you speak of a terrorist who threatens to kills innocents, then you have an obligation to lock them away. But never someone for dissent.
“Naturally the common people don’t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY.”
–Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
There has been an Awakening of veterans and the attack on The Wall and the resulting damaged on the night of Friday September 8th makes it more obvious that some things have not changed. Some blogs have carried the news, but I have not seen it in the MSM. See this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaIMJuD44qY) on the desecration of the Wall. This type of action was threatened prior to ANSWER’s anti-war demonstration on March 17, 2007 but veterans participating in the Gathering of Eagles I counter demonstration guarded all monuments to prevent it then; as well as we will this time when we counter demonstrate on Saturday, September 15th. The difference is that veterans of the Vietnam War and that era are no longer silent. The anti-war/American groups have had a monopoly on the streets for almost 40 years. The times are changing.
Apparently the Park Service has cameras but no guards at night and they do not want volunteers from the grass roots veteran’s organizations to assist them. It bothers me that this event has not apparently been reported by the Park Service or if so has been ignored by the media and our politicians.
This attack has significance to me and would have for the veterans I know. The attack preceded the MoveOn ad against General Petraeus, but it appears to be from the same unpatriotic ideology. The Wall is a symbol that stands as our sacred memory of my generation’s sacrifice.
amr, that is very sad. I know it must hurt to see that happen. While I understand your outrage at such things completely justified, please refrain from lumping all peace activists into that lot. I don’t like the radical ones who say mean things to soldiers, but they are a very vocal minority amongst them. I know for example that many military families, not ours, will be marching peacefully this saturday as well, many many vietnam and iraq vets with them. They are peaceful, and often looked upon as evil because of a few bad apples that are on a watch list, trust me. I do feel terribly for the wall being desecrated that way. Many of my dad’s friends are on that wall.
Why am I hardly surprised to come here and find not one, but TWO posts about MoveOn? I invite all who support the war to keep attacking MoveOn for their ad, as it will render you only that much more irrelevant come November 2008. Oh and one other thing:
Our forces are bound by Rules of Engagement that make victory more difficult, in an attempt (probably vain) to placate world public opinion and our own more pacifist citizenry.
Nonsense. The ROEs are also designed to not kill innocent civilians because it’s counterproductive to counter-insurgency strategy. This is a basic principle of counter-insurgent strategy, not some effort to “placate” other people, and it’s recognized quite rightly by Patraeus whose judgment in all other matters you seem to accept. These things should be understood by those who presume themselves knowledgeable enough to write about the war.
Tatter,
Laura is too charitable. Your last comment is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on the internet, and that’s saying something. I will tell you in unequivocal terms that people like you are a danger to our democracy, and the Founders who you revere had people such as you in mind when they built the Constitution, more so than they did “traitors” of any kind. You are no traitor, but only because it’s entirely possible to love your country to death whatever your intentions are. Fortunately the paranoid and power-obsessed rantings of your ilk have worn thin with the American people over time, and it’s entirely possible that we may yet rescue our nation from it’s decline despite the hysterical protestations of those who share your beliefs.
Lee,
Note that your article said “Shia tribes“, i.e., rural Shia, not urban Shia. Rural Iraqis are more alike than they are different.
You should also consult UN refugee statistics showing that a million urban Iraqi Sunni Arabs fled urban areas after the Samarra bombing, about half of whom ran to Jordan and Syria, and consider the timing of that in relation to the Sunni tribes changing sides.
I wonder how long it will be before MoveOnDotBetrayUs has to change their name, nothing lasts forever.
Oh, I see. So, the “urban Sunni”, running out to the “rural Sunni” with their horror stories about the “urban Shia” is what convinced the “rural and urban Sunni” now mixed out in the countryside to side with us against the “Sunni” Al Qadea(is Al Qadea “urban” or “rural” Sunnis?). And they’ll welcome the help of the “rural Shia” because everybody knows theyre different than, and have no connection or affiliation with the “urban Shia”.
Baah…ha…ha….ha…
Mark Moyar’s recent book “Triumph Forsaken” reviews the Viet Nam experience in great detail, and he shows how the reporting from Viet Nam, very early on by Halberstam and others (I am talking pre 1963) as published in the New York Times, was inaccurate and undermined our legitimate political interests in Viet Nam. Furthermore, most of the left wing sympathies for Ho Chi Min were based on false percetions.
Here we go again in Iraq
Creepy? It’s downright terrifying, but unfortunately no less true. Rome didn’t dissolve in a civil war, and neither will the US. We have, however, already started seeing genocidal dictators as more trustworthy as our own neighbors. In the end, when the barbarians invade, we will welcome them, cheering them on as they butcher our neighbors and then hearing our neighbors cheer as they butcher us.
You feel threatened, Xiph, by anyone who tries to find a solution to the problems facing the US that does not involve accepting enslavement at the hands of our “betters” overseas?
That explains a lot about the company you keep.
Tatter,
X already flunked my new Razor to identify loyal Americans, albeit perhaps with different policy prescriptions.
The former have no problem asserting their love for America, the American people, and the ideals on which our nation was founded.
The latter, like our friend X on an earlier thread, cannot bring themselves to say the above, and instead prevaricate, dissemble, parse, twist, turn, and generally weasel to avoid saying the hateful (to them) words.
Given his unhappy track record on this shibboleth, his pontificating on who is a traitor is particularly rich, unless you figure (which I do not) that it takes one to know one.
This post says all that I know and believe about how Vietnam has shaped our journalistic media with all its terrible consequences for the government being able to carry out its duty of defending the citizenry.
It’s a shame that there are not codified definitions of treason, which could be used in courts to bring charges against those who openly or covertly try to aid and abet the enemy. Such things as strikes, pro-enemy propaganda, disinformation (Reuters phony war pictures), actions to delay troop or weaponry movement, revealing secret information (NYT revealing phone taps and bank investigations), and other comparable actions should be considered. Freedom of the press is one thing. Open aiding and abetting is another.
Thank you very much, Neo, for this post. I’m printing it out and adding it to my collection of memorable blog posts.
IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY.”
If G knew so much about what was going on in other countries, why did his people screw up his country so much? Then the question becomes, why do people listen to losers and those that lost the war, but don’t listen to Petraeus and leaders with a proven victory record like Karzai? I’m not refering to Laura, but rather the people that believe 9/11 was manufactured as an external threat by the Bush administration in order to obtain emergency powers and NSA taps on whomever. Even without the 9/11 truthers, you have people who generally believe that Bush would do something similar, even if 9/11 happened to surprise him. Theoretically it may be true, but theoretically a lot of things are true.
There’s a natural alliance between the Left and totalitarianism, to the extent that Communists listen to fascistic pigs, before exterminating those fascists. They find a certain comfort in Nazi policies, even if they disagree with them; probably this is due to a natural inborn cynicism amongst the Leftist intellectual ranks. They feel no doubts about raising up Goering as a master strategist to which they should follow the word of as if it was Martin Luther King or Ghandi. Speaking truth to power, eh.
Are you saying that people opposed to the war are traitors? Please clarify.
Traitors are people that want the war ended by having the other side win and our own side lose, preferably sooner or later. Now the methods to do so are varied from intelligence, to espionage, to sabotage, to various other things as well, but the core principle remains the same. It is helping the enemy win and ensuring that the side that shelters you loses. Benedict Arnold believed that America would benefit in the long term by surrendering to the British and the more losses America had, the sooner America would surrender and the less blood will be shed in the war. Good intentions, Laura? Perhaps, but intentions have little to do with treason except as a very low standard.
There are a lot of people opposed to the war or any war, but there’s always a line between loyal opposition and active sabotage. History is full of people that are against the wars their people are fighting, yet do their duty and fight the war with the intent to win, anyways. Belisarius. Some Wehrmacht officers. Amongst others.
Thanks for the explanation, Ymarsakar, but I suspect her questions are rhetorical. More to the point was her and X’s reflexive denunciation of me, simply for suggesting that treason be illegal, not unlike the response I would get had I said atheism should be illegal. The very concept of treason, even when the question of what it constitutes is left up to the reader, is today as popular and protected as freedom of religion, and the end of the US as a nation will be the eventual result.
Tatter and Yarm:
I don’t believe one word of your bullsh^#@t!….. You do not believe that.
Thank God it’s just a prank huh? Had me going there for a minute. Pictured you guys perhaps locking up protestors and such. Darn, don’t scare us like that!
Whew.
You do not believe that.
First you have to find out what I believe, which is not guaranteed.
Do you believe the strategic weapons in sabotage and subversion of national will and war efforts are chiefly conducted by protestors? They aren’t.
NGOs, organizations like ACLU and the leadership of European diplomatic corps as well as US bureacrats, are the chief operators in this miniature war within a war.
I’m quite serious concerning Benedict Arnold and Wehrmacht officers on the Eastern front under Hitler’s command. Such historical precedents makes it more accurate to make judgements in the 21st century.
DC said: “It took three hours for anyone to say anything. At that time I recalled the Gettysburg Address when the crowd is said to have barely responded.”
Like the Gettysburg Address Neo-Neocon’s post was a lot to digest intellectually and emotionally. Some reflection is necessary for us slower human beings before we can respond intelligently.
Frequently Neo-neocon’s posts are so good that anything I say would only detract from them.
As for the warring comments here, expect things to get much, much worse. A commenter on the Volokh Conspiracy claimed that Churchill should have accepted Hitler’s “generous” peace offers after the Fall of France in 1940. That’s the tip of the iceberg of the insane vituperation we can expect in the coming year.
Keith Olbermann’s behaviour will become the norm for the news and entertainment media. Their demeanor will race their credibility to the bottom, then start digging. Just as Dan Rather did in September of 2004.
President Bush will no longer be around to stabilize the situation with his steadfastness.
The burden will fall to us to maintain civility and sanity, to not descend to our opponent’s level. Use Tony Snow’s martyrdom as White House Press Secretary as a guide.
Maintaining civility would be nice, but we will also have to answer hard questions, that conservatives find just as difficult to face, if there is to be any hope of the US pulling out of its nosedive. Just pretending the US will survive, no matter what gets thrown at it, won’t work any better than Nero’s fabled fiddling while Rome burned.
Tatter says:
“Rome didn’t dissolve in a civil war, and neither will the US. We have, however, already started seeing genocidal dictators as more trustworthy as our own neighbors. In the end, when the barbarians invade, we will welcome them, cheering them on as they butcher our neighbors and then hearing our neighbors cheer as they butcher us.”
Who sees which dictators as more trustworthy? Can you be more specific. I am still trying to understand who exactly you are talking about. Who is invading and who will support them butchering our neighbors? Can you please be more clear about whom you speak? Thanks.
Top Ten Tony Snow Exchanges with Helen Thomas courtesy of Extreme Mortman.
If by Rudyard Kipling.
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;
The press has made itself the 4th branch of government,its own check and balance on the executive. The only way to enjoy this power is to use it and the only way to use it is to use it against the executive. Particularly if it’s Republican.
THe press needs a lesson in the US Constitution, which mentions only 3 branches, and I hope they receive it soon and harshly.
I must disagree that McCarthy blacklist “failed’. This campaign was wonderfully successful: it finished American Communist Party completely. Exposure to public of dozens of Soviet spies in crucial positions in State Department and in media worked as a magic bullet, discrediting this bunch of traitors forever.
There were some reports that Nero burned down that part of Rome simply in order to build his monuments on it. It was certainly convenient for a megalomaniac, anyways.
A soviet defector answers what Laura asks.
CNN had a cozy relationship with Saddam and various other organizations supported Chavez and defended him. CNN, after all, trusted Saddam and agreed to abide by his requirements on what to report, far more than they trusted the US President.
It’s a common flaw, to fight a current war with strategies developed from the previous. Vietnam has nothing to do with Iraq. Nor can the press coverage be viewed as comparable.
The press then was moderate. It mostly supported the anti-communist policies. It was the larger public that moved the press to be more critical, and the public was driven by troop deaths and the draft. So, yeah, it shifted to the antiwar position, but it was not Tet alone that caused that.
Remember that, within three months after Tet, RFK and MLK had been assassinated. Within 5 months the Chicago police riots at the Dem convention had occurred. Within 14 months, the shootings at Kent State and Jackson State occurred. Much more occurred throughout, these are but a few standouts.
The WSJ history lesson appears slanted, too. Consider:
When Richard Nixon became president, he wanted to end the war by pulling out American troops, and he did so. None of the three presidents wanted to win, but all wanted to report “progress.”
Really? Nixon and Kissinger thought they could bomb North Vietnam into the Stone Age and gain a surrender from Hanoi. It was only AFTER that strategy failed that they found themselves with no Plan B. They spent the rest of RMN’s first term trying to negotiate an acceptble outcome. The troop withdrawals were only done initially to gain Nixon’s reelection.
If there is a parallel to the two wars, it was in the My Lai massacre. That, more than Tet, meant the administration’s propaganda would no longer suffice to sway Americans and the press reflected that. In the current conflict the parallel was Abu Ghraib. That turned the majority of Iraq against the US. We’ve never recovered that support.
And today’s press? It was war positive until the November 2006 election results came in. Once again, public opinion forced the press to be more critical. Previously, two comedians – Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert – and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC were largely alone on the tube in their criticisms. Lefties viewed even the NY Times and the Washington Post as largely pro-war, with only a few exceptions among individual reporters and columnists (such as Paul Krugman, Murray Waas and Dan Froomkin.)
The overriding challenge to obtain success in Iraq is the one most analysts had predicted ever since the first Gulf War: how to gain the support of the Shia majority. The surge has no answer for that still.
As for ridiculing military leaders, the US has a long history of that. Grant, Sherman, MacArthur, Westmoreland…. just a few of many. And you conveniently left out the fragging of officers that occurred in Vietnam. That wasn’t the press doing that.
The two camps of the anti-war crowd you mention is quite an oversimplification. The anti-imperialists are a tiny fraction of the whole. Yes, had Petraeus been in charge throughout, instead of SecDef Rumsfeld and CPA head Bremer, there’s a chance that things would have turned out differently.
Yet a key to everything that got no mention is that the objectives of the war were never clear, were changed as often as underwear, and eventually got most of America asking ‘how do you measure success when the goal isn’t known’ and it’s become clear that the Bush administration’s never been honest about anything except ‘we’re staying’.
Petraeus has political aspirations. He stepped up while many superiors were standing down in their assessment of chances of victory. Criticizing him is not anti-military. The ‘Betray Us’ moniker originated with troops in the zone, not the liberals in MoveOn.org.
I’d encourage you to speak with a few dozen recently returned war veterans to get the most unfiltered account you can.
It might not fit the narrative of shooting the messenger that neocons are so fond of. Yet, since I have family and friends who’ve been in theater, I prefer their opinions over those of theorists and ideologues.
Really? Nixon and Kissinger thought they could bomb North Vietnam into the Stone Age and gain a surrender from Hanoi. It was only AFTER that strategy failed that they found themselves with no Plan B.
Or Nixon valued a retreat on US terms rather than your terms. Your terms being that Nixon could only retreat after having attempted something irrelevant to the drawdown of US troops, helping the South push back the North death squad and progressive communists.
Giap was already a recorded primary source history that his logistics were taking a toil and he was going to surrender, but “Plan B’ came into effect. Aside from Giap’s personal statements, Kevin’s statements are all his, not Nixon’s or Kissinger’s positions. It is far easier to simply make things up as you go along than to pay attention to the actual historical realities. A hint, of other things to come.
In the current conflict the parallel was Abu Ghraib. That turned the majority of Iraq against the US. We’ve never recovered that support.
Nobody in Iraq would be foolish enough to give you and yours any support. If they did, they would be wiped out in short order, thereby ensuring that nobody else would still be foolish enough.
It was war positive until the November 2006 election results came in.
Complete lie. Such things have to be done better than that. Today’s press were “war positive” until almost 2007, an interesting fiction although not very feasible.
Grant, Sherman, MacArthur, Westmoreland…. just a few of many. … That wasn’t the press doing that.
The press hounded Sherman and got him relieved for mental stability suspicions through constantly calling him “crazy”. A modification of Sherman’s treatment of the press would be a good solution for Bush. Punishment, arrest, and treatment of reporters as spies, not necessarily in that order, are an effective counter.
CNN didn’t even need that to go along with Saddam’s rules. Should be easy with more ruthless methods than just bribes about exclusives.
Lefties viewed even the NY Times and the Washington Post as largely pro-war
What the Left sees has no basis or relation to reality, except for the fact that it is often inverted 180 degrees.
It might not fit the narrative of shooting the messenger that neocons are so fond of.
You just took a shot at Petraeus and excused it as “other people making the attack”. The fake liberals and Leftist useful idiots are only useful to the extent that they will excuse every evil motivation, act of entropy, and destruction of human liberty that they themselves take, while complaining about the smallest dogmatic inconsistency that they can see in the actions of others.
That’s no small requirement, thus the logistical capacities of an Iran or an Iraq or an Afghanistan cannot sustain many useful idiots. It’s just too expensive when food supplies are at a premium. It’s not a hard choice when you have to decide who to feed with available stocks: choose your family or someone that is only useful for mouthing off propaganda and making excuses? There’s nothing inately wrong with propaganda, but those that create it are far more useful than those that simply repeat it, as a basic standard.
Petraeus has political aspirations.
I got a bright idea. MoveOn does not have political aspirations. They are simply the “messenger” for the message from troops inside Iraq. Which, the message, is an attack on Petraeus, but since the message is carried by MoveOn, MoveOn thus is a “messenger” that neocons are shooting.
Yet, since I have family and friends who’ve been in theater, I prefer their opinions over those of theorists and ideologues.
Do you know what amoral familism is? [look it up if you don’t[ It describes your belief system far more accurately than MoveOn, Leftists and their allies, or other progressive belief systems of what is right could.
I don’t expect you to discount your family or their interests. I mean, didn’t Kos himself say about the same.
I don’t really expect true multi-culti or true liberal or true cosmopolitanism from the fake liberals and fake environmentalists. Here and there it eventually comes to a point where names stop mattering while beliefs and actions do.
The overriding challenge to obtain success in Iraq is the one most analysts had predicted ever since the first Gulf War: how to gain the support of the Shia majority. The surge has no answer for that still.
The surge has no answer for amoral familism in principle because it cannot erase it from human existence, no more than it could convince some American useful idiot to stop being useful to such self-destructive ideologies. The surge can only work with amoral familism to create some kind of greater or inter tribal loyalty between Al Ameriki and the various Al Anbar Tribes. This is facilitated by greater security operations that protects not just the people in your family and your friends, Kevin, but others like strangers. With time and resources, Petraeus might even extend such to the Shia tribes. Don’t worry though, Kevin, Petraeus is not allowed by law to target people like you. Little things like the Constitution prevents that. A Constitution that was conveniently not based upon amoral familism given that the Founding Fathers risked and condemned their families as rebels should the British ever find any of them, and they indeed find them and their families.
eventually got most of America asking ‘how do you measure success when the goal isn’t known’ and it’s become clear that the Bush administration’s never been honest about anything except ‘we’re staying’.
In conclusion, just because things are clear to you, your family, and your friends, doesn’t mean it has anything to do with any larger representation.
Ulysses Grant was attacked personally repeatedly. Other generals have been throughout our country’s history. Truman fired MacArthur for his gung ho expressions. What makes Petraeus more important to keep him above reproach?
From your blog, Kevin.
I read that as saying female genital mutilation was good for the last generation of women and the generation before that, so why should this little 9 year old girl be above such standards? Do you have an answer, Kevin?
Amoral familism, Kevin.
Those same generals and politicians: have they spoken of the bloody murders of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis because of Bush’s invisible Saddam nukes? Where’s the outrage on that? Guys like McCain should STFU with their fake posturing about the poor little Genaral who plans to run for president in 2012.
Get off your high horse before your hot air knocks you over and causes you to break your neck. Actually, never mind, keep on going.
But making MoveOn into some anti-American monster is proof positive that Silly Season’s upon us.
MoveON has no political motivations, so they are protected while Petraeus is open for bids because he does not represent the interests of your family, Kevin. Oh wait, to be more accurate you claimed that Petraeus was open for your proxy attacks because he is political. But that’s not what you really care about Kevin and you know. You care about what benefits your family, and what benefits your family is blowing MoveOn while ripping apart Petraeus.
You people, and I use that only because humanity has such low standards for sentience, don’t give a damn for who gets shot and who gets killed, in America or in the US, so long as you or yours benefit. Yet you act as if you do care and use it as a shield and justification for why you get the ability to attack people and why they can’t beat the snot out of you in defense.
You’re right in one sense. Vietnam does have nothing to do with Iraq, in the sense that neither Vietnam’s deaths nor Iraq’s deaths will affect you and yours negatively.
Yarm: How can you claim amoral familism to listening to a group of vets returned from Iraq who aren’t your family?
You can’t use that argument as a blanket statement intelligently as you did above to somehow explain how someone could possibly have that point of view.
I’m not using it as a blanket statement against anyone else, except Kos but he sort of told the truth himself. It may only be at this point true, but it is still true nonetheless.
Who do you think has that view, Laura?
“And today’s press? It was war positive until the November 2006 election results came in.”
Hardly. The cry of “quagmire” first appeared in the pages of the New York Times October 3, 2001, and by the end of the month became the official view on the War in Afghanistan of every media outlet not owned by Rupert Murdoch. Do you really not remember the q-word echoed everywhere, the assertations about the harsh Afghan winter and the fact the Soviets were driven out by the Taliban, so there was no hope for US forces?
I doubt your memory is that short, so I’ll have to assume you’re just lying.
Apparently their memories are “that short”, since now the cry is “Iraq squanders our resources from the ‘real enemy’ in Afghanistan and Pakistan”.
Pakistan’s a sovereign country. Why do they think invading it to get at osama Bin Laden makes them any better than Bush?
The simple answer is, the only thing that matters to the Left is the Left.
The predictable response to what you said, Tatter, is a sort of warping of the New York Times to either justify, excuse, or otherwise change the truth into something more convenient than the truth. Just as Petraeus is political and deserves everything he gets while MoveOn is a sacred cow that can’t be slaughtered or eaten, the Left will come up with another propaganda line that says something about New York Times this and that. Or that the New York Times was working with Bush to lowball things. Or that the New York Times was… whatever they can come up with. The Left is not all that against sacrificing one of their own for short term gains. Dean. Kerry. Lieberman. The list goes on.
The thing is, it does actually work. Not with the certainty that science and engineering do, but well enough to swing an election, if enough media outlets generate enough propaganda that the population turns to fighting themselves instead of their enemies.
The key is to find a way to build and maintain popularity, even when the public is convinced that lies are truths and truths are lies. Popularity, as I’ve said, is the real power. Historically, armies have been more often raised and put to action not by any clear danger, but by the charisma of their military leaders. Popularity is attained almost entirely by telling people what they want to hear; whether what you tell them what they NEED to hear is immaterial, and whether you tell them the truth is largely tangental, and mostly dependent on the nature of any lies told.
I think, in the years to come, the most recognized and revered historical figure will be the person who develops a system by which people can gain popularity by telling people what they need to hear, instead of always what they want to hear.
Popularity in armies are made by victorious leaders that provide good loot or benefits to the soldiers. It’s not so much different for a constituency. Now the creation of the myth of victory is an interesting subject, since if you can’t win honestly or with regular methods, you will have to cheat.
Not always, Ymarsakar. It is possible for a victorious general to be turned upon by the very people he is providing loot and benefits for, Julius Cesar being a prime example. Armies are far more interested in tangible results than most organizations, by their nature; an army whose commanders give orders based on beliefs that are contrary to the facts on the ground gets decimated. But even in an army, it is actually the charisma and popularity of the leadership structure, more than the tangible results produced, that allow a group of men to act as a unit, instead of a bunch of fools running around waving swords. If results were all that mattered to an army, we would long ago have all gathered under a single banner, or been crushed by it.
It is possible for a victorious general to be turned upon by the very people he is providing loot and benefits for, Julius Cesar being a prime example.
No, it isn’t. The Senate was going to lose whatever kickbacks they were getting because of the reforms Julius Caesar and the plebein tribunes were going to institute, backed by the Grachii family of aristocrats. The three pillars of reform was deadly to the entrenched familial interests of the Senate: three being representation of the downtrodden, powerful and wealthy backers to represent those that look out for the downtrodden, and military power.
If Caesar had the 11th Legion near him or his personal bodyguards, he wouldn’t have been assassinated, or at least it would either have been unsuccessful or they would have called it off for later. We all know what later can mean in war.
Armies are different therefore they fight for different things, although there is a limitation on what they can and will fight for. That’s why Laura’s belief that European and NATO armies can replace US fatigue or losses isn’t going to happen. Europe doesn’t even have armies, rather what they have are parade troops with only a few select elite units capable of fighting. Those are the ones that often get deployed, but the ROE their home governments dictate are so restrictive that they cannot fight. So what use are soldiers if they are deployed to shitholes but are not allowed to fight, only defend against attacks?
Yarm: Aren’t we relying pretty heavily on NATO forces in Afghanistan and aren’t those efforts effective within that war theater? And, they are allowed to fight.
Can you clarify?
this NATO right?
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6ad8f0f1-a741-486d-a319-5c120c6e3386&k=6777
Something like this
While NATO has improved, if only because they have had years to figure out that most of the fighters are going to Iraq, not Afghanistan, it’s not nearly enough to replace American forces in the degree wanted and wished for.
Nato takes too long to build forces for its missions and needs to be able to respond more rapidly to requests for troops, Des Browne, the UK’s defence minister, said on Wednesday.
Speaking the day before a meeting of defence ministers of the 26-member alliance in Slovenia that is set to discuss a military request for more Nato troops in Afghanistan, Mr Browne said Nato faced a short-term test in getting “boots on the ground or the equipment in to support them” in Afghanistan.
He said Nato was rising to the challenge in Afghanistan, where it has more than 20,000 troops in place, but has struggled to find extra forces to meet unexpectedly fierce resistance from the Taliban militia. But he said there were lessons to be learnt from the deployment and he would tell the other ministers that Nato needed to modernise the way it generated its forces.
The fact that US forces tie up most of the resources, funding, and attention of global AL Qaeda in Iraq, means that those in Afghanistan gets some breathing space after and during attacks. NATO has needed that time to become even partially effective; whatever problems exist now, will be magnified should resistance increase.
Recent developmens in Europe aren’t that optimistic either
CDR Salamander’s take on things from an active service naval perspective
Notice what troops are where. Notice where the fighting is (RC South, and RC East). Have we reached the point that only English speakers will die for NATO? Is that a fair alliance? Is this what you get for keeping (most of) them safe from Communism? At least Poland will try to step in some, after the fact. Maybe. They have a history of helping.
Senator Kerry aside, there are huge problems when you are going to rely on nations that have more in common with the Elector of Bavaria at Blenheim that the Thin Red Line in the Crimea.
Salamander has a map of where NATO forces are where. Maybe if NATO was considered an alliance composing of only English speaking Anglo-Saxons, Laura, this would make NATO look good. Since NATO isn’t, it doesn’t make NATO look good. It makes Stephen Harper’s administration look good and the British look good and America’s superior force allocation anywhere in the world, look good, but that is about it.
Yark says:
“While NATO has improved, if only because they have had years to figure out that most of the fighters are going to Iraq, not Afghanistan, it’s not nearly enough to replace American forces in the degree wanted and wished for.”
The foreign fighters in Iraq Yarm aren’t coming from this area. That’s an important thing to remember. And, furthermore, the war in Afghanistan is fought on a much more cyclical basis and is determined in large part by the weather and growing season. Soldiers deployed to this part of the world often say that the Talibs sort of pack up and go to Pakistan for the Fall and Winter and pick up and resume the Jihad in the Spring and Summer. NATO has done a remarkable job trying to stabilize the country, but fighting in the North and South are fierce. More US troops can’t deply there in large numbers because they are in Iraq. This brings me full circle to all of my positions in this blog.
How can the US accomplish all of it’s national security objectives while maintaining troop strength and morale without a clear and definitive message to the population that more people are needed to achieve these goals? How hard is that?
The foreign fighters in Iraq Yarm aren’t coming from this area. That’s an important thing to remember.
About as important as remembering that the reinforcements Hannibal needed weren’t going to come from Italy.
AQI only has one popular foreign fighter model and that’s the foreign suicide bomber slash dupe. Cannon fodder. The leadership of AQI became increasingly foreign as operations were conducted and reprisals taken by AQI on Sunnis and Shia.
Now these things are important to remember. If only because European armies cannot stand up against such in the long term, alone.
NATO has done a remarkable job trying to stabilize the country
When you said before that your opponents were saying “yeah, that’s right, we’re winning rah rah”, were you really talking your opponents and people who disagreed with you or were you talking about your own position. Not my position to cheerlead for Iraq, but perhaps yours for your own issues and goals.
How can the US accomplish all of it’s national security objectives while maintaining troop strength and morale without a clear and definitive message to the population that more people are needed to achieve these goals? How hard is that?
And you somehow don’t think the Petraeus Surge is why your basic argument is wrong?
Why, logically, then do you not support Petraeus against MoveOn and his other attackers, if you believe in his clear and definitive message that more people are needed to achieve his goals in Iraq… unless you really do not believe that Petraeus has the right plan. That would still prove the foundation of your argument wrong, since clear and definitive message would not just be a general message but a specific message that you would have to approve of. Given that there are always going to be disagreements on the “message”, this becomes a useless argument.
Thank you for the valuable enlightenment you provided me about what I believe, about what outcomes I want and especially amoral familism which, if repeated enough times while clicking your heels together will finally get you to Kansas.
I feel no similar need to assign you definitions, nor lump you with others for simplistic proonouncements of what all of youse are like. I consider global terrorism to be a matter requiring the talents and skills of serious folks, liberals and conservatives alike.
Lampooning them via caricature does not offer a constructive nor effective way forward. And I don’t get what the caricaturing of me has to do with anything beyond the thrill of taunting and one-upmanship.
I still don’t see the point of waging war with one sovereign nation that was not connected to attacks on Americans and whose imminent threat proved nil, while ignoring those with terror training schools or funding ties to the network that has attacked us several times.
None have defined the purpose of that except to provide illogical assurance that the current plan’s working and must be maintained. And so I’ll keep seeking someone at leastbetter suited to explanation.
Kevin, while you will often find thoughtful debate in some forums, and I believe Neo attempts to do this here, unfortunately you run by these few men who would rather twist and scramble your intent into something rather ugly and distorted.
You’re right about these issues being neither liberal or conservative and that these are indeed serious issues. The few more insightful individuals who like that exchange of ideas are drowned out by those who really have nothing intelligent to add, but rather who only choose to tear down.
The labels that get thrown around, such as Nazi girl, just show me how childish these people really are. In a world of their own, one only hopes that their influence is found only in these hollow chambers, each backing the other like a bottom-dwelling fish.
But there are those also who offer positive exchange without labels. Thanks for your post.
“Labels” are applied to those that “earn” them.
Kevin
Lee illustrates this by example.
As does the example of those who still feel the need to work for what they have already earned.
Pingback:Snow Plowing