Comments on: The Iraqi Resistance and the Noble Cause

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:04:08 +0000

“You’re not standing in a bar full of halfwits in Kansas yakking about the absent them, why do you throw crap in our faces as you did?” But, hell, I’m seeing some of the same sorts of stereotypes thrown around and strawmen knocked down on the left side of the fence here. George, bless his naive heart, has been villified and psychoanalysed in the most vicious ways. It’s an ugly thread. Not for the least reason that dsquared, as is typical (I’ve come to realize after reading him for two years), engages in some ill-considered hyperbole or careless rhetoric and, when challenged, creates ex post facto explanations of what he really meant and, oh, why didn’t you go to the trouble and read what I wrote, with some other little snarkism thrown in here and there. Sigh. That notwithstanding, it was a pretty good post. Not such a good ensuing discussion, however.

By: W. Kiernan

W. Kiernan — Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:50:26 +0000

Jim Rockford sez: But, far too many here seem to hate America, love tyranny and murder, and want us to lose. There it is, political debate as it is practiced in the U.S.A. circa 2005. You right-wingers, honest to God, it’s impossible to discuss anything at all with your camp nowadays. Do you seriously think left-leaning readers of Crooked Timber love tyranny and murder? You know that’s bullshit, we know that’s bullshit, so why did you defame us like that? You’re not standing in a bar full of halfwits in Kansas yakking about the absent them, why do you throw crap in our faces as you did? It’s pretty much the same thing as if I concluded a political argument with “Jim Rockford just loves raping six-year-olds”; given that I am perfectly sure you do not, in fact, molest six-year-olds, what excuse would I have for assaulting you with an absurd and disgusting insult like that? Conversely, if insulting strangers is your only purpose for posting, why not save yourself the effort of typing all those words and words, and simply post “FUCK YOUSE LIBRULS1!” instead?

By: Cranky Observer

Cranky Observer — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:05:31 +0000

There are 30,000 US troops that used to be located mostly in Seoul, but now they are being moved further South, further from the demarcation line. What do they defend there? I don’t know.

The 30,000 troops existed to (a) help slow down the North Korean blitzkrieg (b) die in the process, thus triggering off the involvement of the (ex-SEATO) Pacific allies and eventually the NATO allies, and to provide a rallying cry for the US public – committing the US to the defense of South Korea.

Pulling those troops back from the DMZ (while very good for them individually) leaves the US in the worst of all possible worlds: involved but not committed; there but not critical.

The way the Bush Administration has screwed up the US’ friendship with Korea, one of the only true friendships the US has in the world, is another in a list of disasters from the mind of W.

Cranky

By: abb1

abb1 — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:14:08 +0000

Mill, I was arguing with someone about US military forces in Korea recently. I searched the web and it turns out that Korea has something like (off the top of my head) 600,000 troops of its own. There are 30,000 US troops that used to be located mostly in Seoul, but now they are being moved further South, further from the demarcation line. What do they defend there? I don’t know.

By: Mill

Mill — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:39:31 +0000

abb1, I respect your opinion too, and the problem probably is just that—we’re talking about opinions, not specifics. Also, I don’t believe in “the country as a whole” in that sense. For example, who represents South Korea “as a whole”: the older generation, who Remember The War™ and most definitely want the US bases to stay, or the younger generation, who want closer ties with the North and believe (rightly, no doubt) that the bases make this difficult? I would feel uncomfortable telling either side that they are wrong and I know what’s best for South Korea. Which means that I also can’t say whether the US troops in SK are, overall, a worse thing for the country than their absence would be, which means I can’t get behind an argument that all US bases are unproductive cancers. (I could certainly be convinced that certain particular US bases are, in countries with less dramatic division of opinion, but this comment thread isn’t the place for that.)

By: liberal

liberal — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 02:32:29 +0000

george wrote, A lie is when you knowingly present a falsehood as the truth. If you have evidence that Bush or Cheney or anybody else knew for a fact that Saddam had no active WMD programs in 2003, at the time they were saying he did, let’s see it. Completely laughable—-no one has access to the requisite records, and this isn’t a criminal trial, requiring evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. As hypotheses go about politicians, the claim that Bush knew he was lying is a far better bet than that he didn’t know he was lying.

By: liberal

liberal — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 02:26:38 +0000

george wrote, Dr. Slack: I said memories are short, but I had no idea. Remember that guy who used to run Iraq? Started two wars of aggression? Killed an estimated 300,000 of his own people and over a million others? Did nice things like feed people into plastic shredders or pave them under hot asphalt? You mean the guy we leaned towards in the Iran-Iraq war? Oh. That guy.

By: liberal

liberal — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 02:25:19 +0000

jim rockford wrote, Saddam could have avoided war by allowing the inspectors in, instead he chose War by not believing Bush was serious post 9/11 and thinking his payoffs to Chirac, Schroeder, and Putin plus China would stop Bush. He gambled and lost; everyone paid. Well, the inspectors were in, shortly before the war commenced. And the reason they had been gone for a few years was that they left when the US told them to leave, prior to increasing bombing of Iraq.

By: abb1

abb1 — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:16:07 +0000

All I’m trying to say is, military bases are a complex issue, and arguing about “getting bases out” as though it were a clear-cut issue where every (say) German wants the US vampire gone, right away thanks, is not really getting anyone anywhere. Mill, I respect your opinion, but I simply don’t see why having foreign military bases in your country is a complex issue. I mean for the country as a whole – of course you can find a bunch of indiviuals who benefit; sure – if NY city is destroyed, then the value of my house near Boston may jump up – so what? It doesn’t make the judgement on the destruction any more complex. I don’t think it’s any more complicated than, say, having cancer in your body. Yeah, sure, you’re going to get a lot of insurance-paid medications and maybe even some new friends and free food in a hospital, sure.

By: Mill

Mill — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 12:29:14 +0000

Sure, I’m sure Iris would like that just fine, abb1, but clearly the German government hasn’t offered to do so or she wouldn’t be upset about the whole thing. And then there’s the other guy who mentions friendships. I guess the government could send a spare secretary over to play scrabble with him, but.. All I’m trying to say is, military bases are a complex issue, and arguing about “getting bases out” as though it were a clear-cut issue where every (say) German wants the US vampire gone, right away thanks, is not really getting anyone anywhere.

By: abb1

abb1 — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:26:25 +0000

Mill, your own link says: In host countries such as Germany and Japan, local governments have paid much of the cost of stationing U.S. troops. I presume ‘local’ here means ‘German and Japanese’, not ‘municipal’ So, what’s the point? Wouldn’t it be more efficient for the German government to send the check directly to this Baumholder resident Iris Schoen, rather than funneling it through the Pentagon?

By: Mill

Mill — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:08:43 +0000

I know it’s a bit late now and the party’s over, but just for posterity: the whole “US bases out of [insert nation conquered during WWII here]!” thing is not as simple as I see people here making it out to be. Of course people don’t like the idea of US soldiers walking around their country with guns, but on the other hand they also don’t like the idea of their local economies and employment rates going into the toilet when those soldiers leave, and take their paycheques with them. Thus in each country there are some people who wish the Americans would just leave, and some whose entire careers hinge on the presence of bored American soldiers, and thus would really rather prefer that they stayed. And no doubt there are many people who are torn between the two extremes. I offer this news story as at least one example of this phenomenon and I submit that it is not unreasonable to consider it part of a broader pattern: http://www.timesleader.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/9418680.htm Whether one uses this fact to argue “even if the US bases stay, it won’t be so bad!” or “look at how dependent [X] has become on US bases! we have to get them out of Iraq before that happens!” is a whole nother story.

By: Anarch

Anarch — Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:41:05 +0000

Cranky, Oh, I know. The correct instantiation should have read “Which of us [who were actually paying attention] didn’t?” but that would have seemed catty ;)

By: abb1

abb1 — Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:51:44 +0000

Otto, In terms of getting US bases out, it is possible: the Philippines managed it after getting rid of Marcos. Yes, it is possible – it took a volcano eruption to get them out. They rest of your post is highly speculative. I suppose you’re right that the Germans could do it – Germany is the central part of the EU now, so direct US intervention in Germany is unlikely; but I don’t see any reason to think that the US will leave Cuba when there is a democratic government there. More likely they’ll build a couple more bases right in the middle of Cuba. Just in case.

By: Cranky Observer

Cranky Observer — Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:30:45 +0000

> Which of us didn’t? Anarch, Perhaps you comment would be better rendered "Which of us [here] didn't?". I did, in letters to my congressmen before the vote, but that doesn't mean anything.

Pournelle however is generally considered a warblogger when he is considered by the left at all (as he says, he was read out of the Republican Party in Tennessee for opposing segregation and read out of the Democratic Party in California for taking up with Hermann Kahn, leaving him his own man). And indeed one could easily get that impression by scanning his site. But when you read some of his longer essays on appropriate US reaction to 9/11, the runup to the Iraq invasion, and the probable outcome of that invasion, you find (or at least I find) a "strong defense" advocate who is also trying to implement John Adams' theory of "the United States is the friend of liberty everywhere but the guardian of its own".

Or maybe he is just another techo-warblogger, albeit one with a global audience. Which still makes his statement of some interest.

Cranky