Comments on:

By: Robert Lyman

Robert Lyman — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:15:25 +0000

(My last post here) I said: “Ted Kennedy, who is a member of the Senate and a very influential politician, has more power to cause US defeat than the insurgents in Iraq.” Pepi characterizes this as: Ted Kenney is more dangerous than the men who kept [the recently freed hostages] captive for two months and slaughtered their friend. These are two entirely different statements. I do not know of any reason to think Sen. Kennedy is literally dangerous to human life so long as he is sober while behind the wheel. However, the fact that he isn’t a murderer doesn’t detract from the fact that he is indeed a very powerful man. Gary Ridgeway, although a mass-murderer, is not nearly as powerful as even the most junior of senators. Pepi, you aren’t even trying to understand what I’m saying. Or maybe you’re just being sarcastic, I don’t know. In any case, you do not seem interested in a serious discussion, so I will give up trying.

By: pepi

pepi — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:19:45 +0000

Dan – any analogy to past, different historical situations stops working at some point on the sheer grounds of there being entirely different contexts. Because no two historical events or situations are identical. But when the analogy is on a specific, precise kind of behaviour that is exactly identical even in those widely different contexts and historical periods, then it does stand – even if the first instane occurred in a dictatorship, the second in a democracy. The difference between dictatorship and democracy also stills stands. They’re not the term of comparison. The precise behaviour is – blaming critics for failures (anticipated or not) and for the military strategy being messy, or, in the very words of the Defense Secretary, “incoherent”. That’s what I have been saying. No “touting as superb” anything. If that precise analogy can be picked apart, why ask me to do it? Do the work yourself. You don’t expect in a discussion the other person to argue his own opinions and yours too, right? No one has picked it apart, there’s just been derailing and straw men, like the “you said they’re really all nazis”. Which, no, I didn’t. Read again. It’s really tiresome. Childish, too. I may indeed have wasted an inordinate amount of words, because I’m seeing an inordinate amount of misleading assumptions and contradictions in the statements I took issue with. (Of course if everyone shut up, then things would go really smoothly in Iraq. They would go even more smoothly if we didn’t hear any news from Iraq at all.) Care to at least add a comment on the media coverage of the UN resolution? Or was that defeatist and negative too?

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:47:56 +0000

Pepi, both historical analogies are broadly accurate, and both are full of minor holes that one could use to pick them apart. You’ve spent an enormous (I would say inordinate) amount of effort picking apart the one that you don’t like. If you had a shred of intellectual honesty, you’d at least have paused to consider the many ways in which the analogy you prefer could also have been picked apart. (I’ll leave the details as an exercise for the reader.) Instead, you’ve chosen to tout it as a superbly apt comparison, to brag that I’ve conceded its accuracy—in short, to insist, as I summarized your position, that “your opponents really are Nazis.” If those obeying Godwin’s Law were capable of recognizing their culpability, the Law would cease to be applicable. Sadly, it shows no sign of losing its relevance.

By: q

Wed, 09 Jun 2004 16:37:42 +0000

Well… the bit you mention about the “a similar bloody struggle, and for similar fear of persecution for religious affiliation reasons” well, a lot of that persecution happened in Europe. So it doesn’t surprise me that the Arabs are annoyed. As for 1948, I am not too keen on sponsoring the setting up of religiously based states … seems a bad precedent – this goes for Pakistan too … many people died for the principles of rights and liberty for all, which basically meant that governments shouldn’t be run to prejudice particular groups of people.

By: DaveC

DaveC — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 16:08:56 +0000

q. Wow, it was late at night and I don’t know what got into me. Yeah, I suppose that was just a statement of my beliefs. I am typically just a lurker and enjoy watching the debate, especially on sites like Crooked Timber and Tacitus where both sides are well represented. I don’t really even object to people calling each other names, but sometimes we need to realize that we do not necessarily know the other side’s intentions. And words sometimes do hurt. If you want to respond to any part of my post, I think that the comparison of Israel to Pakistan probably would be the best thing to discuss. Both countries were recognized by the UN in 1948 after a bloody struggles, and both were established in part to protect people of a minority religion. (This should be right up your alley.) Sorry, I am not real good with the dialog like you all have here. I think that it is good to have a heated discussion, but I am not very skilled at it. That is the reason for the long rambling post and why I probably will not respond to other comments. Thanks, Dave

By: q

Wed, 09 Jun 2004 15:28:39 +0000

Robert Lyman: I think we can win in Iraq militarily and politically if we are willing to stick with it. militarily: I agree. This is not a problem. politically: I would need to see some workable proposals before I agree we can win this part.

By: pepi

pepi — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:38:31 +0000

I only have to add one thing regarding that characterisation of terrorists and militias in Iraq as “undereducated teenagers with an AK”: … No, I can’t put it in words. Language fails me when confronted with such amazing intellect. I’m just glad that’s not the view of those in charge of matters in Iraq. See, you’ve inadvertently given me a reason to have faith in the coalition. Because whatever fuckups they may yet incur in, at least they’re not some warblogger moron talking out of their comfortably seated arse. Small consolation, but anything reassuring is precious, as all true non-defeatists know.

By: pepi

pepi — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:14:50 +0000

Pepi, I think you’re being willfully obtuse here. First off, no one is accusing you of “causing bombs to go off in Baghdad” or any such thing. Well yeah of course I meant that literally. You know, I was seriously worried. I’m glad my words didn’t kill anyone today. Thanks for clearing that up! (talk about obtuse…) Ted Kennedy, who is a member of the Senate and a very influential politician, has more power to cause US defeat than the insurgents in Iraq. Oh-kay…. if you say so… I’m sure the prisoners who were freed today would agree Ted Kenney (who they’ve probably never even seen or heard that much, not being American)) is more dangerous than the men who kept them captive for two months and slaughtered their friend. Yep. (hey! that was some good news today wasn’t it? it was the headline everywhere, just like the UN resolution yesterday, and I heard the exact words “good news” in a couple of reports too – but ah, these sly defeatist media were probably just trying to cover up their dangerous agenda) We can’t just jail or shoot him, after all (not that I’m endorsing any attempts). Well I am! if he’s more dangerous than people who slash throats, then, by all means, we should have his throat cut. Live. On Fox News. The pen, or in this case the TV camera, is substantially more mighty than the undereducated teenager with an AK. Absolutely. With a pen, or a Tv camera, it’s also a lot easier to slice throats. If you explode a pen, you can kill ten people in one go. Ten pens, you’ve got a serious-sized attack. A whole writing set can destroy oil infrastructure. A laptop can successfully maim ten children. If it’s a Pentium, twenty. We should all stop writing now. I think the only path to defeat is surrender, and that some politicians and war critics seem to be advocating surrender (or “immediate withdrawal,” as they like to call it.) I am advocating Tony Blair gives me £150,000 to buy me a house in Mallorca. Is he going to do it? “Some” politicians and critics – who, how many, what proportion, what influence? most importantly, how likely is “immediate withdrawal” to happen when a new UN resolution has just been passed and even the only opponent to Bush running in elections has made it clear he won’t be doing any “immediate” withdrawal at all (besides it would be no longer immediate by the time he gets to the White House, if he gets there at all)? Like, hello, warbloggers, meet reality…

By: Robert Lyman

Robert Lyman — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 12:45:24 +0000

Pepi, I think you’re being willfully obtuse here. First off, no one is accusing you of “causing bombs to go off in Baghdad” or any such thing. In b), “defeatist” attitudes are given more power than the “insurgents” – who are killing, bombing and kidnapping people. Yes, of course. Ted Kennedy, who is a member of the Senate and a very influential politician, has more power to cause US defeat than the insurgents in Iraq. We can’t just jail or shoot him, after all (not that I’m endorsing any attempts). The pen, or in this case the TV camera, is substantially more mighty than the undereducated teenager with an AK. Pepi, day-to-day violence and voluntary withdrawal are two different things. One is not the necessary extension of the other. It’s not like I said “Officer, of course I wasn’t going 90 mph, I was going 100!” Rather, I said “Bloggers are saying B, not A.” This is not difficult to understand: I think we can win in Iraq militarily and politically if we are willing to stick with it. I do not think the insurgents can defeat us on the ground. I think the only path to defeat is surrender, and that some politicians and war critics seem to be advocating surrender (or “immediate withdrawal,” as they like to call it.) I also think that on obsessive focus on “exit strategies” and fixed withdrawal dates—even if they are years down the road—are deeply mistaken and increase the odds of defeat. I further think that while the media certainly has an obligation to report bad news, they have an obligation to report good news, too—and that the soldier’s blogs, the word from friends serving, and the published emails home show that there is plenty of good news to report. And finally, I think that criticism of the war effort is essential. I have my differences with the folks at CT, but they produce good-quality stuff for debate. The same is not true of many of our elected officials, who are more interested in scoring off of Bush.

By: pepi

pepi — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:39:47 +0000

… and of course, fascism didn’t even allow for any media to report anything but the hyper-optimistic, patriotic line, or they were silenced. So the critics were clandestine. I don’t think that’s what’s being suggested except maybe by the most rabid warbloggers, but even they don’t get to enforce a thing. In a democracy. Such as the one we all want to work in Iraq. Something for masters of contradiction like Pejman to ponder on a bit, if possible at all.

By: q

Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:35:59 +0000

Davec- You covered a lot of ground. Do want a reply to any specific points you have made in your extra-long comment, or is it just a statement of your belief?

By: pepi

pepi — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:33:32 +0000

… DaveC: my “just saying” was indeed sarcastic. And I’m only speaking for myself, don’t attribute my sarcasm to Yglesias, ok? And yes, I did directly and explicitely compare that specific reasoning, mentality, reaction, whatever (of blaming an unsuccessful military/political campaign on the media or critics) to the one that the fascist regime used to hammer into the heads of its own subjects, via regime media, reels, posters, speeches, etc. I specifically said I am not calling anyone a fascist for that – the context being entirely different, obviously. What’s unclear about: “I’m not making any comparisons either or labelling anyone a fascist. It’s just amazing how, when the patriotism accelerator is pushed with a ton of rhetorical force, the resulting memes can be so similar even in a democracy. At least, at the level of language.” The warbloggers and the pro-war media pundits can go on all they like about how the critics are damaging the war, they’re not suggesting they get arrested or tortured or shipped to confinement so obviously it’s NOT fascism. The point is, it doesn’t take a dictatorship to cause such stab-in-the-back memes to spread. It’s also a basic psychological reaction, when you don’t want to acknowledge harsh facts but only push a rhetorical line of defense. It’s almost like the only options being given are to decree the situation in Iraq as irredeemably BAD or absolutely GOOD, with no chance of an analysis that will see both the fuckups and the possibility for remedying them. I would think the latter approach is not only healhty but necessary for any policy. Even the harshest criticism is beneficial because it will highlight problems that NEED to be addressed. It’s completely pathetic to accuse critics of wanting “surrender” or defeat while at the same time chanting the mantra that ok some things are bad, BUT etc. etc.. It’s no good hiding one’s head in the sand, precisely if you want the plan to have some democracy and peace Iraq to succeed. I for one definitely want that.

By: pepi

pepi — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 07:58:46 +0000

Dan Simon: if the comparison is historically accurate and precise, like you recognised yourself, then it cannot be “gratuitous”. We were not talking about moustaches and silly Hilter comparisons. Doh. Really, how do people manage to acknowledge and deny something in the same breath? It’s amazing. And NO, I’m NOT defending the use of the Chamberlain slur “when used by those you agree with” – pointing out that there’s a rhetorical use of that stab-in-the-back meme is not the same as, to use your own words, the Chamberlain parallel being employed casually, for emotional effect, with no substantial argument beyond crude “guilt by analogy” and as shorthand for, “people who disagree with me are soft on Hitler” (or Saddam), which is most definitely NOT the point Yglesias was making in noticing that stab-in-the-back mentality. Again, you yourself acknowledge Yglesias parallel was accurate, while the Chamberlain parallel is not, and then you go back to arguing they’re equivalent? It’s an impressive talent, his deny-admit-deny roller-coasting. And I thought the visual aid would be helpful, how naive of me. Well, I guess you can’t see it if you don’t want to see it. Incidentally, I haven’t even said whose position I agree with in block. I only have a problem with rhetorics trumpling things like oh, facts, principles of democracy, and basic logic.

By: nick

nick — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 07:45:59 +0000

Why, it doesn’t occur to him that maybe the news tend to be bad because there are more bad things going on than good ones. Could it be that simple? Warfloggers + Occam’s Razor = styptic pencil.

By: pepi

pepi — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 07:44:40 +0000

… at the risk of causing massive carnage in Iraq and single-handedly destroying any prospect of democracy, I have to add one last reply to this pearl by Robert Lyman:

Better that the bias should tend toward encouraging victory than surrender even if the war is “unjust” (I should point out that I am a hard-hearted realist—I don’t think “justice” is a consideration in war, merely national interest). Surrender (or retreat) will only rarely be beneficial, and in Iraq it would be catastrophic.

Ok, now, even if all the ones who are not biased in that desirable optimistic way were indeed arguing for withdrawal, fact 1: a UN resolution on Iraq has just been passed that will require things to proceed until it’s time for gradual withdrawal of troops, something that had been envisaged from the beginning (actually, the prediction was the occupation would be much shorter); fact 2: even if Kerry should become President later this year, he not only will be bound by that resolution and developments of current situation, but he himself has made it clear he is not for immediate total withdrawal. Shorter reply: straw man. Now I’ll really shut up. Apologies for putting the troops at such peril with reckless words.