There is a little blog-tempest going around about the comments of highly popular left-wing blogger dKos. It is tough to link to the original comments because he is rerouting links to his pseudo-apology. I'll try to link here but I will reproduce the entire text in question in case this link also vanishes.
He wrote (speaking of the four men who were killed, burned, and had their bodies dragged across the city and then were hung from a bridge:
Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly.
That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.
He also has what I would characterize as a nonapology here . I would characterize it as such because it consists of six paragraphs of issues completely not pertaining to the men refered to when he said 'screw them', and ends with:
So not only was I wrong to say I felt nothing over their deaths, I was lying. I felt way too much. Nobody deserves to die. But in the greater scheme of things, there are a lot of greater tragedies going on in Iraq (51 last month, plus countless civilians and Iraqi police). That those tragedies are essentially ignored these days is, ultimately, the greatest tragedy of all.
He doesn't retract the 'screw them' and doesn't change his devaluation of their lives compared with other people working in Iraq.
He now has what amounts to a 'fuck you' to the people who called him on his callous dismissal. In this he seems to revel in the attention he brought to himself, without caring about the moral dimension of his statement. In effect he has turned this into a game where he gets to be a martyr rather than a story about someone who has any regrets about what he said.
But for me the interesting part is that his initial comment reflects an analytical failing which I have heard repeatedly from those who did not support the invasion of Iraq. Just because you didn't like the invasion, doesn't mean that what the US is doing NOW in Iraq is bad. It may be. It may not be. But it would really help to maintain perspective about the different sides of the issue.
1. Those who dragged the bodies around Fallujah are hoping to reinstall a Ba'athist regime like that of Saddam.
2. Those who were dragged were aiding an attempt to set up a stable democratic regime in Iraq.
3. If the UN hadn't been chased out of Iraq, it would be doing the same things that these men were doing. They would be getting paid to provide security and to deliver supplies.
4. If trying to establish a democracy in Iraq is a worthy goal it remains worthy even if the UN is unwilling to do it, and even if Americans are paid to do the same things that the UN would pay people to do.
5. If you believe it is not a worthy goal, you ought to be forthright about that belief, so that we don't need to engage in discussions which use that goal as a premise.
Yeah, it's Not Good. What would have been nice would be to have seen some level of frowning on other centrist/centre-left blogs.
Posted by: James Casey | April 05, 2004 at 04:39 AM
...there's an oblique reference in this post on Eschaton, and Tom Tomorrow calls it 'ill-conceived', although he does make the point that some people expect bloggers to have some code of conduct that they MUST stick to, whereas in fact it's personal opinions.
Now, of course, in everyday life, no one in a prominent position is required to be diplomatic and hide their thoughts if they think they wouldn't go down well, but then if you're trying to play a role in a cause or something, you've surely got to be careful not to say or do anything that damages the wider cause.
I just think it's a shame that a) He felt like saying that after some people had died, and b) Everyone piled on. Sometimes it feels like people are more interested in catching the opposition out than actually being shocked at something they say.
Posted by: James Casey | April 05, 2004 at 04:44 AM
As far as I know, this is wrong - the four were (not based on any evidence) probably killed by Baathist remnants, but the corpses were mistreated by random local jerks.
Is there evidence for intentionality in this? They might have been interested in the $1k/day or the excitement.
UN people probably wouldn't have driven around pointing machine guns at random Iraqis, as contractors have been alleged to do - and they probably wouldn't have been killed. Quite possibly they would have been doing the work for less money and more altruistically (I don't necessarily think this matters, though e.g. Tacitus seems to in re Rachel Corrie).
This I think is a tautology. Also, my impression was that the UN wanted a bigger role at various stages and was rebuffed, in part due to ideology and politics.
This seems to me to be vaguely insulting to some subset of reasonable opponents of the war.
James Casey, good comments at 8:44.
Posted by: rilkefan | April 05, 2004 at 05:07 AM
rilkefan, just a reminder under the UN auspicies over $10 billion was stolen from the Iraqi people. Lining one's pockets is true altruism.
Posted by: Timmy | April 05, 2004 at 06:43 AM
Timmy, would you please clarify the $10 billion thing? I'm not sure I follow you.
Cheers
Posted by: nagoya ryan | April 05, 2004 at 07:41 AM
Ryan this provides the background.
Posted by: Timmy | April 05, 2004 at 07:49 AM
Thanks, Timmy. I had been aware that Saddam, of course, was using all that Oil for Food business to pay for solid platinum moustache kits rather than grain. It's obvious that he must have had partners on the outside... I'll be curious to find out more through research and new developments. The article linked is an editorial, though... hopefully, it's just op-ed juju flying when Gingrich turns to the UN institution itself, stating, "...U.N. officials apparently turned a blind eye." And this bit:
"...it seems extremely implausible that the United Nations was unaware of what was going on. Worse, it may be revealed that high-ranking U.N. officials were willing participants."
I hope he's wrong about UN culpability... who wouldn't? I'm not naive enough to think that the UN is any more or less susceptible to this brand of corruption than the government of any individual state. Also, I sometimes wonder how anyone could really be myopic enough to think that the Oil for Food program was actually working in the way it was intended. Just keeping my fingers crossed for Annan to get his outside investigation; and, that it is thorough, reliable, and an impetus for improvement.
Crap, way off the Kos topic. Whoops.
Posted by: nagoya ryan | April 05, 2004 at 08:47 AM
"Is there evidence for intentionality in this? They might have been interested in the $1k/day or the excitement."
You wouldn't have to ask that if you'd read this and its link yesterday. :-)
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 05, 2004 at 09:24 AM
"UN people probably wouldn't have driven around pointing machine guns at random Iraqis...."
I see you've not read much about actual UN deployments. I suggest starting with the Somalia force, and the SOP and behavior of the Pakistani troops.
How is it that 24 of them were killed, do you think?
Who do you think provides most of the UN troops? Swiss saints? Santa Claus? What is your understanding the typical motivation is? (Answer: third world forces eager to get the income.) How great do you think their training is? Do you think that they (say, the Nigerians) commonly receive excellent training in human rights?
"Quite possibly they would have been doing the work for less money and more altruistically (I don't necessarily think this matters, though e.g. Tacitus seems to in re Rachel Corrie)."
On Canada's behalf, yes. Fiji? Ahahahahaha. No. Please look into the subject.
"Also, my impression was that the UN wanted a bigger role at various stages and was rebuffed, in part due to ideology and politics."
"The UN" doesn't "want" anything. Only the members do. And the UN was in Iraq, and pulled out immediately after being attacked, remember?
If you think UN troops don't earn resentment and attacks, think again.
"I hope he's wrong about UN culpability... who wouldn't?"
It's a great fantasy, but I'd also like to believe in the tooth fairy. Try this.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 05, 2004 at 09:44 AM
Whoops, boggled that "think again" link. Apologies. It was supposed to go here.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 05, 2004 at 09:46 AM
I have no problem chastising Kos for saying something stupid and horrible. Nor do I have any problems for calling him on his "non-apology apology" (even though I didn't see it as such, I can easily see how others could have this as a valid response). And in brief reply to James Casey, plenty of left-of-center bloggers have done both.
What is not a valid response is the ludicrously-out-of-proportion witch hunt that was launched almost immediately following Kos's initial post, an orchestrated partisan campaign to remove a Democratic fundraising source. Most everyone here is a reader of Tacitus. To believe that that blog would live up to the standards Tac is holding Kos to after numerous Bird Dog posts concerning the whole of the Arab and Muslim world, or Tac's posts concerning Rachel Corrie, is nothing short of the most ingrained hypocrisy. Instapundit has declared every Palestinian to be an enemy of the United States and has winkingly suggested American/Israeli funding of terror against Europeans. What are either of these people doing launching a crusade against indecent rhetoric in prominent bloggers?
I think it's good that there's partisans on both sides. I think it's good that Tac stands by Bird Dog and Glenn Reynolds gets to say whatever he wants to. That's the beauty of the internet. But it cuts both ways, ladies and gentlemen, or else you wear your hypocrisy on your sleeve.
As it is I've lost all respect I had for Tacitus. He loses the right to wave the righteous crusader flag from now on.
Posted by: Iron Lungfish | April 05, 2004 at 09:56 AM
As far as my personal beliefs regarding the use of mercenaries, I don't care whether we use civilian mercs or military soldiers as long as we're making the best and smartest effort to secure Iraq and turn it into a stable liberal democracy.
I was against this war from the start, but hell, we're stuck there, and if we don't win this one we're in it deep. Frankly, current events do not fill me with inspiring hope, mercenaries or no.
Posted by: Iron Lungfish | April 05, 2004 at 10:02 AM
Iron Lungfish wrote:
Perhaps it might be helpful if you actually provide some foundation to support your charges so that we can judge whether this is a legitimate comparison or someone simply trying to change the subject. Besides which are any of those sites actually affiliated with the Republican Party or Republican candidates (e.g. consultants and fundraising) like Kos is to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates? If not, then it isn’t the same thing, not by a long shot.Posted by: Thorley Winston | April 05, 2004 at 10:34 AM
...ludicrously-out-of-proportion witch hunt...
Kos brought it upon himself. If he had written a timely apology and retraction, this would've been over days ago. There would've been no de-linking and pulled ads. He chose poorly, and displayed a political ear of pure tin. If you don't believe me, then you should at least listen to Kerry and what his blog said.
Posted by: Bird Dog | April 05, 2004 at 11:52 AM
I hope you guys don't mind this, but I know there are a lot of Tacitus regulars here. I may be an idiot, but all I want to do is get the comments to display in posted order, and I can't do it. I think I tried every possible display option, including "flat" and "oldest first".
Any help to be found?
Posted by: Jerry | April 05, 2004 at 11:53 AM
Rilkefan, I don't understand some of your points, and others don't seem grounded in the facts we have available.
I'm not sure how to respond to the idea that the draggers were just random people in a mob. Isn't the current conventional wisdom that this was intentionally staged by Ba'athist remanants to provoke US attempts to save the bodies and spring an ambush?
"Those who were dragged were aiding an attempt to set up a stable democratic regime in Iraq.
Is there evidence for intentionality in this? They might have been interested in the $1k/day or the excitement."
Even if true, you are putting more weight on your personal speculation about intentions that we could never possibly know while I am focusing on their actions. They were engaged in the support of our transition effort. So far as I know, this is undisputed.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that the UN doesn't pay well in war zones. But I find it very interesting that given the same unknowability about intentions, you assume that the Americans were being mercenaries while you assume a greater amount of altruism from UN workers. Perhaps you aren't being clear, but that has all the appearance of pure prejudice. (Or charitably it could be from your mistaken belief that the UN doesn't pay well.)
"If trying to establish a democracy in Iraq is a worthy goal it remains worthy even if the UN is unwilling to do it.
This I think is a tautology. Also, my impression was that the UN wanted a bigger role at various stages and was rebuffed, in part due to ideology and politics."
I don't think this even close to a tautology. I constantly hear about UN 'legitimacy' even when the US and UN would be doing the exact same thing. I hear it when the US would be doing it for the UN if the UN were involved. The implication is that doing it alone is wrong. I am asserting that building democratic institutions in Iraq is good even if the US does it alone. I'm quite sure that there are quite a few UN supporters who disagree.
The UN left because its resolve was broken when it got bombed. That is both unsurprising and unhelpful to Iraq.
"If you believe it is not a worthy goal, you ought to be forthright about that belief [...]
This seems to me to be vaguely insulting to some subset of reasonable opponents of the war."
I don't see why this should be insulting at all. If you are in the reasonable subset, you aren't included (I think). If you don't believe it is good goal, I would rather know that up front rather than spend hours arguing from the premise that trying to make a democratic Iraq is a good goal only to find that my opponent disagrees (usually on some vaguely racist notion that Muslims aren't ready for democracy.)
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | April 05, 2004 at 12:11 PM
Kos got hammered, and deserved to get hammered. If he wants to play with the big boys, that's fine by me. But when 4 Americans are tortured, burned, murdered, mutilated and desecrated, the proper response ain't "Screw 'em."
In short, it shows that Kos is simply an immature punk.
But, in fairness, cruel and stupid words ain't nearly as bad as cruel and stupid deeds. So, perspective is in order.
My 2 cents.
Posted by: Navy Davy | April 05, 2004 at 12:17 PM
Bush & Kathleen Parker & Rush Limbaugh
"Now after reading Kathleen Parker's comments about nuking a million or so civilians for the greusome death of four americans. I thought: Should we be outraged? I said why be stupid and make a big stink out of one comment or two.
But the screed would cry she never was part of the "Republican Party Establishment.
Maybe ... Maybe not, but she has been linked to by the Official George W. Bush Blog more than Kos was on the Kerry Blog. See here and here. She has also been featured on RNC.org here."
Haven't heard the outrage from Tacitus on this and I don't expect to. The game he's playing is simple and the oldest one in the book. He's been making some outrageous comments since he started his new blog in an effort to draw attention to it. Maybe it'll work, but he really shouldn't expect to be taken seriously by the left anymore. I wish him luck on his new freeper site.
Posted by: Rodney | April 05, 2004 at 12:36 PM
"Kos is simply an immature punk."
And Tacitus is simply an egotistical fool, but then you knew that already. Right?
Posted by: Rodney | April 05, 2004 at 12:51 PM
The fact is, that what Kos said was cruel and ignorant. Most importantly for a political consultant, it was careless. Carelessness, more than just the ideology behind the statement, will cause some politicians to avoid him.
Keep trying to change the subject, Rodney. Oh, and I don't think that you will accomplish much by insulting Tacitus here.
Posted by: Nathan | April 05, 2004 at 12:56 PM
What Kos said WAS cruel and ignorant. And if you're telling me Tacitus or Bird Dog haven't said cruel or ignorant things of comparable nature, you either haven't read Tacitus enough, or you've lost your perspective to partisan bickering.
Posted by: Iron Lungfish | April 05, 2004 at 01:03 PM
Tacitus isn't an egotistical fool. But he is a hypocrite, and a blind partisan. I hadn't thought of him as either of those things until now.
His own contempt and mockery of Rachel Corrie and her family showed a deeply-held lack of empathy for loss of life on the other side of the partisan divide, the same sin Kos is guilty of. Tacitus just uses incessant flag-waving to cover it up, and as an excuse for a blogosphere purge.
Posted by: Iron Lungfish | April 05, 2004 at 01:19 PM
Rodney wrote:
Actually what’s stupid is that way that Rodney and the moron he was mindlessly quoting tried to distort Kathleen Parker’s column:
What Parker clearly did in her column was to contrast two emotional reactions (nuke them al and l let’s leave) that many people have had Fallujah (including herself) in order to argue why both are wrong and why the proper course of action is to keep our heads, remain in Iraq, and complete the mission to help them rebuild. In other words, arguing for reason to trump emotion.
Posted by: Thorley Winston | April 05, 2004 at 01:21 PM
Not to pile on - but hell, why not, here's a favorite from Instapundit:
"I've thought for quite a while that "proxy war" was the appropriate characterization, and indeed I've used that term here before. Europeans should worry, though, about what will happen if Israel -- or America -- decides to return the favor. Providing financial aid to terrorists who target European civilians would be uncivilized -- but, then, the Europeans are supposed to be the civilized ones, no?"
Posted by: Iron Lungfish | April 05, 2004 at 01:22 PM
My point with all this being, I am sick and tired of blogs, left and right, acting holier-than-thou on this front. I'm sick of the fact that every time someone crosses the line, left or right, a certain percentage of blogs on that blogger's divide are expected to denounce him in a chorus or else it's to be expected that the entire Left/Right endorses that opinion. And I'm sick to death of moral crusaders with stained histories roaring up and down about how this or that blogger has to be torn up from the roots over this last unbearable post. It's stupid, it's asinine. I'll link to who I'll link to, you link to who you'll link to. But don't dare claim to be the voice of God telling me what I have to do with my blogroll, or my advertising dollars.
Posted by: Iron Lungfish | April 05, 2004 at 01:32 PM
I have no idea who Kathleen Parker is -- and don't care. And, I've never read anything by Tacitus, that even remotely came close to the "Screw-'Em" comment by Kos.
Tacitus is a class act; Kos is, I repeat, an immature punk.
Posted by: Navy Davy | April 05, 2004 at 01:38 PM
Iron Lungfish wrote:
More importantly, it was undeserved (although calling it "ignorant" arguably covers that as well).
And I’m sure that you, have “read Tacitus enough” will be able to provide examples to provide foundation for your charges, right?
Really and what exactly did Tacitus write about Rachel Corrie that was so terrible or undeserved? Please provide links and or full quotations.
Posted by: Thorley Winston | April 05, 2004 at 01:41 PM
Kos is, I repeat, an immature punk.
Navy Davy, do you mean his words were the words one would associate with an immature punk, or are you basing a characterisation of him on more than that post?
Posted by: James Casey | April 05, 2004 at 01:49 PM
Kos brought it upon himself. If he had written a timely apology and retraction, this would've been over days ago.
Agree with Bird Dog: the lesson here is how to react to one's own idiocy. It affects all of us. Kos's failure to really apologize, in my book, is the far worse sin than having said something childish and stupid.
In short, it shows that Kos is simply an immature punk.
But, in fairness, cruel and stupid words ain't nearly as bad as cruel and stupid deeds. So, perspective is in order.
Oh, and that too. (Good thinkin', Navy Davy.)
Posted by: von | April 05, 2004 at 01:55 PM
James Casey,
For God sakes, don't we have enuf parsin' in this world?
When Americans are murdered abroad, the proper response is "Godspeed," not "Screw-'Em"
Hell, even if you are violently opposed to the Gulf War II, mature, responsible people don't want to see Americans murdered and mutilated.
Jeez, How hard is this?
Posted by: Navy Davy | April 05, 2004 at 02:06 PM
I haven't yet denounced Kos...because doing so would be redundant and, as far as I've seen, sub-par to most other efforts. And also because I stoppped reading him long ago; this latest bit is extreme but not surprising.
That said, I think at some point penalties ought to be assessed for piling on.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 05, 2004 at 02:22 PM
Slart wrote:
Please elaborate.
Posted by: Thorley Winston | April 05, 2004 at 02:30 PM
In fairness to Tacitus, I was around during the "I ran over the Corrie girl myself" days and while the leap from 'her death was bad' to 'I repudiate her politics and she was an idiot' was a little too hasty for polite company, he never said anything like 'screw her'.
10 demerits to Kos for publicly admitting that his politics override the sanctity of human life. 8 and counting for turning it into a thinly veiled excuse to try to dismantle an opposing infrastructure.
Posted by: sidereal | April 05, 2004 at 02:31 PM
"Agree with Bird Dog: the lesson here is how to react to one's own idiocy."
Hey, I just gave a fresh example under an hour ago. (Rueful grin.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 05, 2004 at 02:33 PM
"For God sakes, don't we have enuf parsin' in this world?"
Never. Parsing is careful examination of words, which is careful examination of thinking. It should generally be done when writing, else one pays the cost. That's a lesson Kos should have learned, but it's a lesson everyone should have learned.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 05, 2004 at 02:37 PM
Gary, my (underinformed) argument was that Canadian peacekeepers might have irked the locals less, even acting as the Americans have. (Though along with the wonderful Canadians I know there have been an unusually high percentage of grating ones.) And that we could have gone in with the UN if we had been willing to accomodate just a tiny bit (see the recent story about France's position).
Sebastian, I'm even less up to speed than usual since my s.o. kept turning off the computer this weekend - but I thought the incident was staged and taped as an incitement, but that the participants in the mutilation were just in it for kicks.
I would have phrased #4 as, We should separate the argument about what to do in Iraq from questions of UN legitimacy, and #5 as, If you oppose establishing a democracy in Iraq, this argument won't make sense to you, and we should start the discussion at that point.
Navy, to paraphrase some on your side of this issue - don't jump in front of the merry band of Baathists if you don't want to learn about Darwinian selection.
Posted by: rilkefan | April 05, 2004 at 02:40 PM
"Please elaborate."
It's an entirely valid point, particularly in online media. Old Usenet hands long ago learned this.
There's valid criticism of someone. In an online fora, however, once the point has been made the first twenty or fifty times, further repetions serve little purpose, as a rule, beyond self-aggrandizement, or an opportunity to display moral superiority.
Redundant is redundant.
Moreover, it can, and sooner or later will, lack proportionality. It depends on the specifics, of course. But there are plenty of things worth ten scoldings, not one thousand, assuming we're not discussing murder, rape, genocide, and the like.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 05, 2004 at 02:44 PM
"...my (underinformed) argument was that Canadian peacekeepers might have irked the locals less, even acting as the Americans have."
I know you are arguing this in good faith, and please don't take me wrongly, or as asking this in other than friendly and kindly fashion, but what would, then, be your explanation for the murdered El Salvadoran soldiers yesterday? Resentment at their vast military and cultural empire? :-)
Why was the UN bombed twice in Iraq, leading to their fleeing?
My understanding of the French offer, assuming the story is correct, is that they were willing to not make a fuss, they said, if we simply didn't come back for the further UN Resolution we failed to get, which they opposed. Which would have made it politically impossible for Britain to have joined the invasion, which the French, of course, knew. So the straightfowardness of that offer is something I'm not clear about.
France, you know, does not operate in the UN or international affairs, from a position of actual moral superiority or greater legitimacy to the US, and, indeed, operates with far greater cynicism, as well as willingness to engage in military interventions, than the US, which is saying something.
On top of that, I'm not aware, though I may, of course, have missed, any further implication that France would have joined in the invasion or occupation. If you have any further information, I would welcome it.
Look, I'm not opposed to UN participation in the slightest. The UN is a mixed bag, and I hold neither to the dogmatic extreme rightest position of wanting to get out of it or viewing it as a source of nothing but evil, nor to the extremely naive leftist position that it is a body of ideals, morally superior, that can do nothing but good.
The full story on the UN is complicated, but includes that it is a body dominated by totalitarian governments, with a lot of corruption both in the bureaucracy (with a lot of staff from poor countries in it sheerly to make a buck) and the making of policy, but that it also can and often does a lot of good in its agencies, and even sometimes through peacekeeping, and diplomatic deals.
I believe in engagment with the UN, continued attempts to improve and reform it, and in making the best possible, honest, use of it. But I believe in doing so eyes open as to the facts, not out of blind, ignorant, naivety.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 05, 2004 at 02:59 PM
It's an entirely valid point, particularly in online media. Old Usenet hands long ago learned this.
Thanks, Gary. While not exactly an old Usenet type, I've seen enough piling on in the blogosphere for it to annoy me...and no, I'm not claiming to be guilt-free in that area.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 05, 2004 at 03:04 PM
"And that we could have gone in with the UN if we had been willing to accomodate just a tiny bit (see the recent story about France's position)."
I haven't seen any recent story, but my recollection of the position of France and the UN in June or July of 2003 was that there should be a complete handover to UN control before 2003 ended, with an agressive withdrawal of substantially all US troops by the beginning of 2004. Frankly that was a position which if followed would have led immediately to civil war. Perhaps we won't avoid civil war yet, but that idea would have led immediately to it.
Also, the idea that the UN would have been treated much better seems to contradict the well known fact that the UN headquarters in Iraq was bombed which not coincidentally was immediately followed by the UN pullout from Iraq.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | April 05, 2004 at 03:05 PM
"...my (underinformed) argument was that Canadian peacekeepers might have irked the locals less, even acting as the Americans have."
Gary:
Were they murdered or killed in combat? Anyway, my argument wasn't that the UN would have lost 0 people (I say so in friendly and kindly fashion). At this point troops of angels supporting the US would come under fire.
Re de Mello and colleagues, the token foothold of the UN allowed in Iraq, we'd have to get farther into the hypothetical than I care to.
Are you counting us along with Russia and China? Joking aside, I thought not-just-nominal democracy was a majority now, though perhaps it depends on one's standards (I assume you're lumping authoritarian in with totalitarian) and how much influence you think the Assembly has.
What you say re France sounds reasonable - I'll have to look deeper into the story.
When I lived in Geneva I read the UN employee newsweekly, so I've had earfuls of the UN's faults. I just think they would have gone in with less of a crusade affect (not that I can imagine any reasonably factual scenario in which they would have.)
Posted by: rilkefan | April 05, 2004 at 03:24 PM
Gary Farber wrote:
Or in response to another poster’s attack – e.g. someone on the Left brings up Lott praising former segregationist Thurmond at his birthday saying he would have been a great president and the response from someone on the Right is to bring up Dodd praising former Klansman Byrd and saying he would have been a great Senator during the Civil War.
Personally I am ambivalent about such tactics (I would rather debate entitlement reform), however I am pragmatic enough to recognize that the consequences of not responding to an attack are almost invariably greater than responding in kind.
There are two ethical conditions that must be met. First, be sure that you are quoting the opposition correctly and not distorting what they said (see Rodney’s earlier smear of Parker) which IMNHO is almost as bad as lying. Second, only use it in response to those who use it first. Since Markos Zuniga is a fellow who deals in smearing others, it is perfectly ethical (provided that the first condition is met) to remind new readers who might go onto the Daily Kos that Markos Zuniga's response to hearing of the murder of four Americans who were delivering food was “screw them.”
Posted by: Thorley Winston | April 05, 2004 at 03:24 PM
Thorley wrote:
Markos Zuniga's response to hearing of the murder of four Americans who were delivering food was “screw them.”
Is that true?
I've not read anywhere that they were delivering food. Not that this would change my opinion on Kos' statement any, just that if you're gonna call someone "almost as bad as" a liar for misrespenting the facts, you might want to cite a bit of info like this.
Posted by: Edward | April 05, 2004 at 03:39 PM
Thorley:
"First, be sure that you are quoting the opposition correctly and not distorting what they said."
It seems to me that selective quotation is distortion, which is how your proposed action strikes me. How about, "Lt. MZ's response in a comment to the news emphasis of the deaths of four American contractors (who he considered to be mercenaries) over the deaths of five American soldiers was blah, later in my view unsatisfactorily retracted here and here."
I'm not sure if your tit-for-tat strategy is sensible (a misdeed's a misdeed).
Also note that partisans will judge their opponents as smearers at a higher rate than is correct.
Posted by: rilkefan | April 05, 2004 at 03:39 PM
Edward, there's the question of "at-the-moment" vs "occupationally", but anyway see Time's article:
and
Posted by: rilkefan | April 05, 2004 at 03:53 PM
Thanks Rilkefan...
...bit of poetic license in use there Mr. Winston?
Posted by: Edward | April 05, 2004 at 04:03 PM
I think I'm gonna take Slarti's advice -- any more floggin' of Kos (after some well-deserved, righteous floggin', I might add) is prob'ly piling on at this point.
However, there is always an avenue for humor and wit: Best of Web at the Wall Street Journal, has this funny quote by Kos, when Dean was whoopin' up on John Kerry in New Hampshire, light years ago:
As for Kerry, screw him. His new slash-and-burn tactics are not only harmful to the party, but they're not helping his popularity in the least.
Well, Darn, history repeats itself!
Posted by: Navy Davy | April 05, 2004 at 04:17 PM
Gary, Juan Cole on the El Salvadorans (yes, a bit muddledly and speculatively):
Not proof this wouldn't have happened under some other scenario, of course.
Posted by: rilkefan | April 05, 2004 at 04:17 PM
hmmm...Kos isn't backing down, although I suspect these words were chosen more carefully this time.
Well, he's still slurring them with "mercs" but at least he's not still writing "screw them."
Posted by: Edward | April 05, 2004 at 04:32 PM
Tacitus on Corrie: "But fetishizing this foolish woman because she gave her life doing something foolish on behalf of a foolish cause is in itself, well, foolish." (Note that what Corrie was doing was attempting to prevent Israeli soldiers from destroying Palestinian homes: to act with courage against monstrous behavior may indeed be foolish, but it's an admirable folly, at least.)
Tacitus on Corrie's family: "If you need a discussion topic, there's always this latest bit of moronicism from the Corrie family. Acorns don't fall far from the tree and all that." (The "latest bit of moronicism" was a non-violent protest against the manufacturers of bulldozers specifically designed for sale to Israel for use in destroying Palestinian homes.)
So I'll agree that Tacitus, though he jeered at Corrie and mocked what she was doing (protecting Palestinian civilians by non-violent direct action), and further mocked her grieving family, he never said anything quite as violent as Kos: though he went far enough that I agree with Iron Lungfish that any self-righteousness from him with regard to Kos's remarks would be distinctly distasteful. (As I'm banned from commenting on his blog, I'm not going to bother reading whatever it was he wrote: hence my careful use of "would be" in the previous sentence.)
Posted by: Jesurgislac | April 05, 2004 at 04:39 PM
"I've not read anywhere that they were delivering food."
That was what many initial reports said, yes, Edward.
It's obviously a false statement, because, as, I believe it was Bruce Rolston of Flit pointed out, you don't deliver food to Falluja in an SUV unless Blackwater had made a deal with the Fallujah Domino's.
What the Blackwater men were doing in Fallujah remains a mystery; there are some suspicions that seem reasonable to suggest that they were somehow lured there; one can imagine various possible scenarios, but I've seen nothing yet beyond speculation.
"The Salvadoran troops that were involved probably had no training in crowd control, and the Salvadoran military has a poor human rights record, so the US decision to deploy them there may have been a big political miscalculation."
This is, however, precisely what is and would be the problem with most UN deployments. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that this wouldn't have happened if they'd been wearing blue helmuts.
Again, let me repeat: I'd be perfectly happy to put the whole thing under a UN flag; I just don't see any reason to think it's going to make a huge difference.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 05, 2004 at 04:45 PM
Edward wrote:
I based my comments off of USA Today:
While the Time Magazine article says:
It seems then that we have the USA today article saying that company said that they were “protecting a food convoy when they were attacked” and the Time magazine article saying that Pentagon officials were “fuzzy about the exact nature of the Blackwater mission” which only means that they were being vague and not necessarily contradicting Blackwater.
But hey, if it will help clear things up, I will be happy to amend my previous statement to "Markos Zuniga's response to hearing of the murder of four Americans who were in Iraq to deliver food was 'screw them.'”
Posted by: Thorley Winston | April 05, 2004 at 04:49 PM
"It's obviously a false statement, because, as, I believe it was Bruce Rolston of Flit pointed out, you don't deliver food to Falluja in an SUV unless Blackwater had made a deal with the Fallujah Domino's."
I believe the reports were that they were involved with a convoy going near Fallujah, and that there was an armed confrontation on the route they chose, which caused them to divert through the city.
Don't know if that helps you, but it is the information I have seen.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | April 05, 2004 at 04:53 PM
JC: "The Salvadoran troops that were involved probably had no training in crowd control, and the Salvadoran military has a poor human rights record, so the US decision to deploy them there may have been a big political miscalculation."
Gary: "This is, however, precisely what is and would be the problem with most UN deployments. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that this wouldn't have happened if they'd been wearing blue helmuts."
The UN might have been able to choose troops from other nations, perhaps some with more cultural sensitivity and better training - Bush doesn't have a lot of countries to choose from. Remember that we're talking relative incident rates here.
Posted by: rilkefan | April 05, 2004 at 04:55 PM
"The UN might have been able to choose troops from other nations, perhaps some with more cultural sensitivity and better training - Bush doesn't have a lot of countries to choose from. Remember that we're talking relative incident rates here."
Not likely. The UN doesn't have many troops to choose from. France can barely spare 2,000 for Afghanistan, which is supposedly the case that Europe agrees is part of the War on Terrorism. Europe is having trouble with Kosovo, they wouldn't be sending troops. Most Middle Eastern additions to a force would have a negative impact. Do we really want Egyptian soldiers who are used to more brutal tactics leading the way? And don't even start on how bad it would be to take troops from Syria. And Saudi Arabia? Please. The only major force available would be India, and considering that little Pakistan/India thing over my whole lifetime, I suspect that would cause some major problems too. Which, as usual, would leave US troops to do most everything. Which pretty much leaves us where we are now, anyway.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | April 05, 2004 at 05:11 PM
"I believe the reports were that they were involved with a convoy going near Fallujah, and that there was an armed confrontation on the route they chose, which caused them to divert through the city.
Don't know if that helps you, but it is the information I have seen. "
Thank you, Sebastian. I see I was extremely unclear. When I cited Bruce Rolston, I meant that people should go to his site and read his statements and citations. I neither said that explicitly, nor gave a link, so let me repair that. Here is Bruce's original article, and here is the URL for his blog. Bruce is professional Canadian military, and has been one of the best sources of analysis on military aspects of Iraq and Afghanistan since September 11th. Phil Carter is another good source. For politics in Iraq, Juan Cole is worth reading, though possesed, like everyone, of his own biases.
I'm not going to repeat Bruce's citations about why there was no "convoy," as it would be redundant. I also erred in saying "SUVs," as they were in two small Mercedes.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 05, 2004 at 07:58 PM
"The UN might have been able to choose troops from other nations, perhaps some with more cultural sensitivity and better training - Bush doesn't have a lot of countries to choose from. Remember that we're talking relative incident rates here."
I'm curious -- sincerely -- whom you would nominate. At least 200,000 troops are needed. Say the US cuts back to only 100,000, and the UN supplies at least half (arguably more are needed, but I'm trying to keep this easy; we could easily cut these figures in half, if you prefer, and I'll ask the same question).
So, whom is going to supply these 100,000, or 50,000 "culturally sensitive, better trained" troops? Where do they exist?
China? Russia? India? Pakistan? Assuming China and Russia would be willing -- they wouldn't, but never mind -- would they be "culturally sensitive, better trained" in crowd control than El Salvadorans, do you think?
Would it be "culturally sensitive" to send primarily Hindu Indian troops?
Would Pakistani troops -- whom we know perfectly well from Somalia what the result of employing them is -- be willing to come up with 100,000, or 50,000?
What I'm trying to point out is that this is basically a dream. A fantasy. I'd love to believe in it. But unless you can supply actual plausible numbers and facts, I can't fall into that happy dream.
If you'd like me to, try to give some sort of specific scenario, not a vague happy "we'll get the UN, with Good Guys (TM), and all will be better."
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 05, 2004 at 08:06 PM
One part of the argument was that we might not have needed so many troops in the first place. And your 50% is a strawman.
I suspect India could have supplied some disciplined, acceptable troops. We tried to get some before, as I recall. You have to postulate that the force in question would be as inappropriate as the Salvadorans to make your point - we're talking Hindus vs xians in a region concerned about a crusade, don't forget - or send a Sikh contingent - they form a large percentage of India's forces. Pakistan might have found a few k troops, since of course we cleaned up alQ first in this pony scenario, and this would have freed up the European forces. And while I'm no great fan of Russia's army, they must have _some_ well-trained troops who'd be happy to avoid being sent to patrol Chechnya. There are soldiers in Africa with experience in peacekeeping - maybe they have better things to do at the moment, but perhaps not. Canada has a few peacekeepers. Anyway, I think having had a few more large contingents plus a few hundred soldiers from each of a few dozen countries could have made a big difference.
Posted by: rilkefan | April 05, 2004 at 09:13 PM
"One part of the argument was that we might not have needed so many troops in the first place."
Except for the fact that universal opinion is that we didn't plan on sending enough troops, and still don't have enough; Shinseki estimated before Congress 250,000 would be needed, and was smacked down by Rumsfeld; it's now considered universally correct that Rumsfeld had his head up his ass on this. If you have any authoritative cites differing, I would be happty to see them.
"I suspect India could have supplied some disciplined, acceptable troops. We tried to get some before, as I recall.
You're correct; the US hoped for a division.
"You have to postulate that the force in question would be as inappropriate as the Salvadorans to make your point - we're talking Hindus vs xians in a region concerned about a crusade, don't forget"
Yes. During partition over 10 million people were ethnically cleansed, and over one million people slaughtered. If you can let me know of a comparable figure for Christian-Muslim slaughter and ethnic cleansing in the past sixty years, I would find that of interest.
But, you might be correct, since so many Muslim folk are inclined to forgive and forget (I mean no disrespect by this; I would make an identical observation about my fellow Jews).
It's possible that you may be less aware of these sensitivities than the average Iraqi; or, of course, I could be wrong.
"Pakistan might have found a few k troops, since of course we cleaned up alQ first in this pony scenario, and this would have freed up the European forces."
Yes. Did you follow the link I gave, and study the results of Pakistani troops in Somalia? This time even larger numbers could flee and be killed, and they could indiscriminately fire at and kill even more Iraqis than Somalis. Good fun for all.
"And while I'm no great fan of Russia's army, they must have _some_ well-trained troops who'd be happy to avoid being sent to patrol Chechnya."
That would be one of the least awful possibilities; and the Russians could use the money, at least. But they could put on a demonstration of the fine pacification tactics they demonstrate in Chechnya.
"There are soldiers in Africa with experience in peacekeeping - maybe they have better things to do at the moment, but perhaps not."
There are several armies in Africa that would love to make the money. Are you familiar with the fine results they've shown in the Congo? This is why not even the desperate US has been insane enough to ask, say, Nigeria. The only remotely competent troops not liable to start slaughtering people left and right, and looting everything they can, while fleeing if there's any resistance, would be South Africa. But an Army where 20% of the troops are HIV-possible would bring unique problems, both for themselves, and in public relations value for the Iraqis.
"Canada has a few peacekeepers." Canada doesn't have a single person to spare after their Kosovo and Afghanistan deployment, and is pulling people out of Afghanistan because of this; their armed forces are, literally close to a state of collapse, due to budget cuts. It is estimated that they will close the entire Canadian Air Force within ten years if changes are not made that there are no present plans to change. This is highly documented, and I again commend Bruce Rolston's Flit for tremendous specific documentation and numbers.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 06, 2004 at 12:35 AM
"HIV-possible."
Sorry; I meant "HIV-positive," of course.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 06, 2004 at 12:36 AM
Gary, I think we went in woefully undermanned - but, once again, I think that a multinational force would have been able to do more with less friction. Under the pony banner we wouldn't have made such a hash of the post-combat phase, of course.
I think you're arguing past me - as far as I can tell you've completely ignored/distorted my argument re Indian peacekeepers, for example - using too much historical analogy and not enough better-is-the-enemy-of-the-good reasoning - and I think you underestimate what could have been done in a post-9/11 world under responsible US leadership. Perhaps I'm too optimistic (I thought ECOMOG wasn't nearly as bad as you describe and is doing better in Sierra Leone) - I hear Sudan isn't getting much attention from the world.
Posted by: rilkefan | April 06, 2004 at 01:28 AM
"...as far as I can tell you've completely ignored/distorted my argument re Indian peacekeepers, for example...."
I thought I replied; I didn't mean to distort your argument. As I understand it, you are supplying examples, as per my request, of what you suggested would be available troops that would be "more culturally sensitive" than US or El Salvadoran troops, and "better trained" (in peacekeeping and pacification) troops than El Salvadorans.
I attempted to point out that using largely Hindu troops (a certain proportion of Indian troops will be Moslem, of course) is not apt to be an example of being "culturally sensitive" to the Iraqis, and not apt to provoke less friction than US troops, given that Hindu Indians have slaughtered a great many more Moslems in recent years than US or British troops, and the Iraqis are going to be very sensitive to that. You're entitled to disagree with me, or not believe me, of course.
"...and I think you underestimate what could have been done in a post-9/11 world under responsible US leadership."
If you mean, are there various things that could have been done better in Iraq, I'd heartily agree. But your statement is very vague. I've been restricting myself to the specific topic we've been discussing, which is my skepticism that there is actually much choice of substantial numbers of "culturally sensitive" "better trained" non-US troops available to put under the UN flag. I'm not saying there are none; I'm saying that under any circumstance, only the US has the capability to make up more than half the troops, and thus that would be necessary, and that all the other supplemental forces are also problematic.
I'm saying that "have a UN force" offers a lot less choice and a lot more problem then many people seem to realize.
It's far from a magic wand.
That's all.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 06, 2004 at 03:28 AM
I was arguing for "taking the American face off", something I didn't think was at all controversial on the center or left. Joe Biden was on two news programs today saying we could get some Nato support if we only tried and that this would help the transition.
Briefly - I think Indian troops of whatever ethnicity would have more awareness of the local issues than the El Salvadorans as portrayed by Juan Cole - and my (uninformed) belief is that the "crusade" aspect of the US presence is important.
I'll shut up now, but if you could briefly comment on problems with a Sikh contingent, that would help me understand your position. Also whether you think the Bush pere coalition-building was oversold (I'm a multilateral interventionist in Dan Drezner's categorization).
Posted by: rilkefan | April 06, 2004 at 04:09 AM
"I'll shut up now, but if you could briefly comment on problems with a Sikh contingent, that would help me understand your position."
I don't think I have a good handle on how Sikh's would go over, specifically. It's a fair question, but I try to restrict myself, as a rule, to only discussing that on which I feel I'm reasonably knowledgable.
My main generality is that I'm pretty darn sure that, frankly, any troops that are non-Iraqi are going to be seen as occupiers, and that's all that matters.
I don't have any sense at all that any significant number of Iraqis are going to look at folks driving around with blue helmets with the faintest bit more comfort than they do when they see US or British troops. It's all outside invaders. I can understand their point of view, and I imagine you can, too. It's a natural human reaction to hate the idea of outsiders driving around your land, pointing guns at you, no matter how benevolent they try to be, or genuinely are.
"Also whether you think the Bush pere coalition-building was oversold...."
I think that was a terrific thing in terms of getting the rest of the world to accept the first Gulf War as legitimate, comparatively speaking (though it didn't buy us much support in, say, China, and there was plenty of resentment in Russia to go round).
It didn't make a goddam bit of difference to Iraq, of course, except to increase the resentment. ("Oh, look, Mustapha, the Americans are invading along with Egyptians and Saudi Arabians! I feel better now!")
Occupation and invasion are extremely different things, except that, sometimes, eventually, not so much.
But I actually think this puts the finger on where part of this confusion comes from. A lot of people vaguely remember that the coalition was a Good Thing, which it was, but forget why. And they vaguely assume that repeating that will help, forgetting that the reasons it was good for invading -- international support around the world -- is completely irrelevant to what's important in occupying -- support in Iraq.
Does that make any sense?
(I'm a multilateral interventionist in Dan Drezner's categorization).
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 06, 2004 at 10:56 AM
Sorry, these were your words, of course: "(I'm a multilateral interventionist in Dan Drezner's categorization)."
Except that I don't have much problem applying themselves to myself, actually.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 06, 2004 at 10:59 AM
And if you're telling me Tacitus or Bird Dog haven't said cruel or ignorant things of comparable nature, you either haven't read Tacitus enough, or you've lost your perspective to partisan bickering.
Bring it on, Lungfish. Show me a post that has contains comparable moral depravity to what Kos' wrote. To save you the time of fruitless searching, let me just say you'll come up empty-handed.
Posted by: Bird Dog | April 06, 2004 at 01:43 PM
Re a coalition vs a semi-unilateral force, I'm parroting the standard line of commentators I find reasonable. The claim was that "American xian imperialist oil-grabbing invaders" makes better P.R. fodder for the Sadrs of Iraq than "American-led multi-religion United Nations peacekeepers" would - and that even average Iraqis would have preferred their country to have been defeated by a world force - would prefer to be governed by a UN High Commissioner rather than an American ambassador.
Actually shutting up now.
Posted by: rilkefan | April 06, 2004 at 01:45 PM
[Deleted by von]
Substance: From IP address 142.26.48.xx, Master posted "this is a stuped website this is a stuped website" multiple times.
Posted by: master | April 30, 2004 at 01:53 PM
[deleted by von. Same message as preceding. Same IP address. Welcome, our Canadian friends.]
Posted by: master | April 30, 2004 at 01:53 PM
[deleted by von: another message from head, aka, "master".]
Posted by: head | April 30, 2004 at 01:56 PM
[deleted by von. According to "f*ckers," (aka master aka head) this website may be a bit, well, lavender.]
Posted by: fuckers | April 30, 2004 at 01:59 PM
[deleted by von: personal insult against Mr. Farber. Apparently, Master (aka head aka f*cker) logged off and was assigned a slightly different IP address by his internet provider, British Columbia Systems Corporation. British Columbia is a beautiful place.]
Posted by: asshole | April 30, 2004 at 02:01 PM
By the way, might I recommend a policy of deleting posts that are sufficiently offensively past the Posting Reviews? And doing so as quickly as possible? It provides less motivation for defacers if their work disappears as rapidly as possible.
Just a suggestion, of course.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 30, 2004 at 02:04 PM
[deleted by von: non-sensical string of curse words. IP address indicates a high likelihood that this the author as the other offensive comments on this thread.]
Posted by: fuck u | April 30, 2004 at 02:04 PM
[deleted by von. Same dude.]
Posted by: omg | April 30, 2004 at 02:05 PM
[Deleted by von; same individual as prior, posting from IP 142.32.208.xx.]
Posted by: fuck u | April 30, 2004 at 02:08 PM
[deleted by von; same IP address as prior deleted posts.]
Posted by: eatme | April 30, 2004 at 02:11 PM
What, is middle school out early today?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 30, 2004 at 02:12 PM
Offensive comments deleted by me; all comments appear to have been by the same individual. Sir or Madam, some friendly advice: Please don't come back.
Posted by: von | April 30, 2004 at 04:53 PM
"British Columbia is a beautiful place."
It truly is; I quite recommend visiting. Seattle and Portland, and places in between Portland to Vancouver are also all lovely.
And this thread looks much nicer now, too. Oh, look, I found some coins behind the sofa cushions!
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 30, 2004 at 05:13 PM
Oooh...British Columbia Systems Corporation. I'd email their webmaster and report the abuse.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 30, 2004 at 05:18 PM
Oooh...British Columbia Systems Corporation. I'd email their webmaster and report the abuse.
I'm going to wait and see if our friend posts any more abuse. I suspect that s/he doesn't realize how un-anonymous s/he is. (There are ways to fudge an IP address, but this guy/gal doesn't seem smart enough to do it.)
Posted by: von | April 30, 2004 at 05:35 PM
Well, if it's a trap, then, I'll remove the banning. :)
Well done, by the way.
Moe
Posted by: Moe Lane | April 30, 2004 at 09:33 PM