by Charles
Several terms and phrases have floated across my computer screen the last few days, and I thought I'd dig into a few of them. In a prior post on Muslims, a certain prominent commenter stated that there is a "massive sense of cultural humiliation in the Muslim world." Perhaps there's some truth to it, but I can't help but interpret "cultural humiliation" to mean "we lost and our feelings are hurt!" I don't believe it's a sound idea to craft policy based on another group's emotional state. After all, the saying goes, we can only control our own emotions, not the feelings of others. It also sounds suspiciously like the victim card is being played, with those facing "cultural humiliation" to be the next candidates for interest group status. Approaching psychobabble levels, there's even a feelings-based community ready to fertilize and generate interdisciplinary research (both intra and interculturally) on macro, meso and micro levels.
In a Google search, "cultural humiliation" is oft applied to Iraq, Guantanamo detainees, Abu Ghraib, black American women, and so forth. In a February 2004 essay by Jessica Stern of the Harvard Kennedy School of Goverment:
Individually, the terrorists I interviewed cited many reasons for choosing a life of holy war, and I came to despair of identifying a single root cause. But the variable that most frequently came up was not poverty or human rights abuses as has been posited in the press but perceived humiliation. Humiliation came up at every echelon of terrorist group members leaders and followers.
In other words, the terrorists are emotional midgets who lash out and murder innocent civilians because their feelers got mushed due to some perceived slight. Makes me want to pull out my tiny violin, especially for al Qaeda extremists like Zawahiri, who considers the New World Order a "source of humiliation." In many cases, avoiding the humiliation of others with face-saving acts are appropriate and necessary. Not so with the unreasonable ones. Also, don't get me wrong, I don't approve of the mistreatment and abuse of detainees. They should be treated humanely because it's the right thing to do, regardless of how detainees feel about it.
Even if the humiliation is genuine, the remedies for dealing with it can be 180 degrees wrong, as can be the reasons for these emotions in the first place. Rather than casting blame on backward leaders who repress their countrymen, how much more convenient to blame Western Civilization and Jews as the culprits. The real solution isn't to declare jihad and behead the nearest Westerner in the vicinity, but to change their society from within. But to do that, a country should have some democratic governance and respect for human rights, and perhaps that is the real source for the frustration. In the absence of any democracy and human rights, perhaps revolution is the real answer.
Maybe I reacted this way because I'm a heartless conservative who would rather puree cuddly kittens than look at them (yum! kittens!). But I don't think so. I suspect that this marks a liberal-conservative divide where, in my opinion, too much emphasis is placed on emotional well-being and not enough on achieving concrete results. Instead of group hugs and pep talks, I've always thought that the best way to raise one's sense of self-worth is to get out and actually accomplish something. I believe this works on a personal level, and perhaps it could work on a larger scale as well.
Germany and Japan seem to have recovered quite well from their humiliating WWII experiences. In the Middle East, Iraq could very well be the next nation that gets a shot in the arm since it is on a similar track toward freedom and economic well-being. Or Lebanon.
Switching gears, an article with a Berlin dateline concluded the following:
The number of Islamist extremists based in Germany increased slightly last year but the country faces far lower threat of terrorist attacks than states which took part in the Iraq war, an official report said Monday.
There were 32,100 Islamists living in Germany last year - an increase of about 300 from 2004, said the report by Germany's domestic security agency, the Verfassungsschutz.
The numbers were estimated using the guilt-by-membership method, i.e., counting the number of members in various Islamist groups such as Milli Gorus (a Turkish movement), Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course, not counted are the unknown numbers who would rather keep their Islamist identities under wraps which, to me, bollixes their other conclusions. In other words, the article doesn't really tell us a damn thing.
Finally, now that Iraq has an elected and functioning government, it can no longer be said that the United States and the other coalition forces are "occupiers". As of last Friday or so, our forces are in Iraq at the invitation of the legitimate and internationally-recognized Iraqi government, no different from our troop deployments in Germany, Japan and South Korea. In that vein, the term "insurgent" should also be inoperative. The paramilitary groups who are attacking civilians and police/military authorities should now be identified as terrorists and criminals, just as Omar would describe them.
"...the Russians in the 1980s (though our Stingers helped - you're welcome, Mullah Omar!)"
Perhaps I'm biased by only reading western accounts (Steve Coll, the late George Crile's Charlie Wilson's War, etc.), but it seems very clear that there's no way the Afghans could have gotten the Russians out without the combination of American, Saudi, and Pakistani aid. Just footnoting to no particular point.
"So why do the Arabs continue to indulge themselves in paranoid fantasies about Jewish and Western conspiracies, against which they are apparently helpless?"
Because it's so easy?
But I'm not comfortable with your generalization about "the Arabs." How about "some Arabs" or "many Arabs" or "the Arabs that choose to support terrorism" or some other "the Arabs that...." formulation.
Because plenty of Arabs don't. Lots write articles about going in different directions, and obviously for each one who writes an article readable in the West, there are countless more who agree but don't write such articles.
"But hey, so do the Latin Americans, and you don't see them flying planes into buildings or strapping bombs to their children."
No, but lots are awfully awfully awfully pissed off. Most, probably even, to one degree or another.
And it's hardly as if most Arabs are engaging in terrorism, you know. Especially against the West outside of Iraq and Israel/Palestine. It's like .000000001% or so.
Unless you've been seeing a lot of suicide bombers in your neighborhood lately, and haven't mentioned it. Let's not stereotype "Arabs" as terrorism supporters.
"...you don't see them flying planes into buildings or strapping bombs to their children."
Point is, we don't see more than an unbelievably tiny fraction of Arabs doing that, either, outside Iraq and Israel/Palestine. And even in Israel/Palestine, it's still a tiny percentage, and the overwhelming majority support a two-state solution. (I'll show you the polling figures if you like. Heck, I just happen to have Marshall McLu-- er, this post standing right here.)
It's easy to get a distorted notion, of course, if one reads hate sites like Little Green Footballs and its satellites, and is credulous about them without much contextual knowledge of the Middle East.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 12:32 AM
In 1853, the Japanese were humiliated by the appearance in American warships in Tokyo Bay, which they could do nothing to prevent....Why didn't the Arabs react the same way to their various defeats and humiliations?
3GB,
There's actually a lot of "humiliating stuff" that you are eliding there, though it is not something that people should be expected to know. The bakufu system was teetering and the arrival of Perry was taken by a number of the stronger han (city-states) as a 'see, I told you so' moment. Also, there were a large number of Japanese who were opposed to the westernization, with the climactic battle occuring just down the road from me. Saigo Takamori, who founded the first modern army, was the leader of the rebellion and though considered a pivotal figure in Japanese history, he, and any other samurai who died fighting against the Imperial Government Army, have not been permitted to be enshrined in Yasukuni.
And even after Japan had a modern army and navy, the cycle did not end. A large number of currents in Japanese society arose because of the various "humiliations" given by western powers, including the Portsmouth treaty that ended the Sino-Japanese war, the 1924 Exclusion Act, and the The Washington Conference agreement. Two notable ones would be the March 1931 attempted coup d'etat, and the attempt to prevent the emperor from surrendering by killing the members of the privy council charged with relaying the recordings of the emperor's surrender speech to the radio broadcasting station.
Last weekend, I visited the kamikaze museum at Chiran. I don't mean to be snarky, but I really don't think the example of Japan gets you to where you want to be.
(ps, I agree with several of the others that you would be a worthwhile addition to ObWi)
Posted by: liberal japonicus | May 29, 2006 at 12:45 AM
"Saigo Takamori, who founded the first modern army, was the leader of the rebellion and though considered a pivotal figure in Japanese history, he, and any other samurai who died fighting against the Imperial Government Army, have not been permitted to be enshrined in Yasukuni."
Yeah, and people now know him as Ken Watanabe.
;-)
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 01:06 AM
Quick responses before I go to bed:
rilkefan, maybe I'm just being judgmental but I don't think the examples you gave are enough of a reason. Did China suffer any less? How about Africa?
Bruce, I grant that it is a human response - I don't wish to dehumanize the Arabs. But William C. Quantrill is long dead, and Osama bin Laden is (probably) not. I find Opus Dei and its like-minded counterparts in Protestantism despicable, but you have to admit there is a big difference in the number of people killed by them and killed by al Qaeda.
Gary, I should have added a second caveat that by "the Arabs" I did not mean all Arabs or even most Arabs. A disturbingly large minority, perhaps.
Yeah, LJ, I skipped over a lot, though I'm tempted to emulate Gary and point out that the Portsmouth Treaty ended the Russo-Japanese War, not the Sino-Japanese War. ;) But instead, I'll just say that the example of Japan was given only to provide contrasting responses to defeat and humiliation, both negative (militaristic Imperial Japan) and positive (post-war Japan).
OK, now I'm off. I'll check back here in the morning.
Posted by: ThirdGorchBro | May 29, 2006 at 01:29 AM
the Portsmouth Treaty ended the Russo-Japanese War, not the Sino-Japanese War. ;)
My cheeks are a glowing sakura pink...
Still, I don't think that it's such a simple compare and contrast. Japan had a flowering of democracy during the Taisho era, and the rollback to militarism was due to the deft deployment of nationalistic ideals coupled with the utilization of slights to national honor (whether actual or imagined). And unless we want to take the whole of the Middle East to a point that we took Japan to (remember, there was a faction that argued that Japan could be completely starved into submission, can you imagine that situation obtaining in Iraq?), I don't see how this is actually a contrasting response.
Furthermore, that anti Western response seems to lurk under the surface in many interactions. The protests to the rape cases in Okinawa as well as the banning of US beef suggest that there are currents that run quite deep. And this is a country which has probably been the recipient of more American largesse than any other. I shudder to think what Iraqis, who see little investment and peace brought at by the barrel of a gun, think.
Posted by: liberaljaponicus | May 29, 2006 at 01:55 AM
In re KenB: “Say what? I think the Iraq venture as a whole was poorly conceived and the reconstruction poorly executed, but I don't see how it can reasonably be considered a war of aggression against the Iraqi people.”
It would be nice to think it were not. However, if it is not a war of aggression against the Iraqi people, I have trouble explaining the 1+ million to 2+ million Iraqi dead (“depending on the break” – Gen. Turgidson) over the last 15 years, the medical items on the list of sanctions, the deliberate bombing of water treatment facilities, the continued operation of Abu Ghraib (Why did no one bother to change its name?), the millions of dollars in oil revenues missing under the CPA, the bottom-of-the-barrel security priority accorded Iraqi cultural and educational institutions, the near ubiquitous military mantra that the only thing Iraqis understand is force, the imposition of unpopular leaders like Chalabi, some of the other issues raised by SOD at 6:05pm, etc.
Understandably, some infrastructure needs to be destroyed if you are after cutting off the head of an enemy nation. But beyond that caveat, what conclusion can you draw from the examples above of the nature of this war? Is it possible that the reason for the poor execution of the reconstruction is that, despite rhetoric to the contrary, it is not an important goal for the US?
Posted by: otto | May 29, 2006 at 02:00 AM
I'm glad you found someone who agrees wholeheartedly with Murtha, sparti. Good for you. I don't agree with Rosen because the so-called insurgents are mostly killing fellow Iraqis, not Americans. I guess the excuse is that they're all collaborators. Rosen also has a disturbing level of sympathy with those who chose to bypass the democratic process. And I wonder what Israeli-born Rosen did that the Israeli army would reject his admittance because he was "enemy of the state". He doesn't say. Perhaps because he's "...wondering if a punitive bombing of Tel Aviv, the city I love, until it complies with international law, might be a good (albeit quixotic) idea." In this interview, Rosen conferred directly with present and former terrorists. I wonder how an Israeli-born Jew was able to get access. Perhaps you should ask Rosen what his agenda is. From a person who knows him:
Kudos to him for going into dangerous places, but you have to wonder how he convinced these terrorists and hardliners not to behead him, like what happened to Daniel Pearl.Posted by: Charles Bird | May 29, 2006 at 02:43 AM
"I don't think the examples you gave are enough of a reason. Did China suffer any less? How about Africa?"
Come by my office sometime and we'll chat about the complexity of the simplest, most basic interactions known. What reason is sufficient unto the human heart I cannot say.
But... Consider the Congo. Consider Rwanda. Consider the men forcing children to commit atrocities against their families as a recruiting technique. Consider how lucky we are in Mandela.
Consider that China has (has had) a continuous ancient tradition/culture/control structures, a nearby safety valve in Formosa, a seat on the security council, a clear path to world prominence, some military success against the West, an effective elite authoritarian govt., and a fairly recent history of inconceivable internal bloodshed. Not much like say Syria. Lebanon might be a nice place now if not for the PLO, and Syria, and (I guess) great power infighting and incompetence. Do you think Iraq ever had a clear path to becoming Belgium skipping say Richelieu-era France?
Still, there might be something to what you say - but how one could show it given the available data is beyond my pay scale.
Posted by: rilkefan | May 29, 2006 at 02:54 AM
CB, interesting points about Rosen - but if this article is in question, do you contest any of the factual claims he makes (which seem to make up the entirety of the article as I read it)? Stuff like "in what witnesses described to me as summary executions" and '"No," he said definitively. "They could level all of Baghdad and it would still be better than Saddam. At least we have hope."' seem pretty fair and balanced to me.
Posted by: rilkefan | May 29, 2006 at 03:04 AM
LowLife’s comments, so far, have been the best at getting to the nut of some topics in this thread, especially, “Saying we don't target civilians and that we do target civilians is saying the same thing.” Thanks.
What is the point of making such a distinction? Does such a distinction matter to Iraqis? Would it matter to us if we were on the receiving end of another nation’s air strike?
Two issues here that are nonsense: 1) US military forces indiscriminately kill innocent Iraqis (the malice afore thought variety). Nonsense. 2) The war in Iraq is not a war of aggression against the Iraqi people. Also nonsense.
If President Bush said, “This is a war against the Iraqi people,” or if he said, “This is a war about WMDs/regime change/promoting democracy/etc.,” how would we be able to tell the difference vis-à-vis the reality on the ground in Iraq? Saying this is a war solely to rid the world of evil and not a war of occupation against another nation seems a convenient device for avoiding affronts to our identity and national narrative.
Posted by: otto | May 29, 2006 at 03:38 AM
Charles wrote (about Nir Rosen)--
"Kudos to him for going into dangerous places, but you have to wonder how he convinced these terrorists and hardliners not to behead him, like what happened to Daniel Pearl."
Robert FIsk has gotten interviews with Osama Bin Laden and probably various other unsavory characters because they know he is harshly critical of Western behavior in the Middle East (and also very critical of Arab behavior, btw.) Possibly Nir Rosen has credibility with some Muslim terrorists for the same reason. I have no problem with this. But I get the impression CB suspects something worse.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | May 29, 2006 at 08:18 AM
TGB's point about how many cultures have been humiliated by the West, but only the Arabs have flown planes into buildings is one I think I first saw made by Hitchens. It's always struck me as funny--there seems to be the unconscious presupposition that it's in the natural order of things for us to have killed innocent people overseas, but a bizarre aberration in need of special explanation if some member of another culture murders innocent people here. Look at those other cultures--we piled up bodies all over the place and they sucked it up, seems to be the argument.
But anyway, if you actually look at Asian, Latin American, and African reactions to Western colonialism you'll see countless examples of extreme brutality. 9/11 is different because it's a massive atrocity that occurred on our own soil. Does TGB really want to uphold China's 20th Century history as a more reasonable sort of response to Western imperialism? I kinda doubt it.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | May 29, 2006 at 08:35 AM
I don't know, it is difficult to know how well Adesnik knows Nir Rosen, and I have the sinking suspicion that for Oxblog gents, they probably think that they can tell what people are like because they knew them in Junior High school. At any rate, any prognosticator who felt that Richard Lugar or Richard Armitage had a snowcone's chance in Hades of becoming Sec of State is not coming to this enterprise with a high batting average.
Nir Rosen's website is here and his blurb about his book is worth quoting.
In the Belly of the Green Bird is a searing report, unlike any other book about the American experience in Iraq. Almost everything covered in the Western media has been at least one or two steps removed from the minds and acts of the people who will determine the future of Iraq. Some of them are peaceful, some are violent. Some of them hate one another with the intensity of ancient enemies. The depth of discord between Sunnis and Shias is difficult to fathom without listening to them. Their anti-Americanism is much more recent, but not much less intense. The divisions within this cobbled-together country, much like those within Yugoslavia after Tito, are simply too intense to contain.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | May 29, 2006 at 09:30 AM
Charles links to David Adesnik about Nir Rosen as an expert opinion. As it happens, I had read David's post that got Charles' attention, which he didn't bother to quote, many hours before Charles linked.
Charles neglects to quote other things David says, David having known Nir so well and long since junior high school. Let's go, instead of to David's post from yesterday, not the one from 2003 that Charles selectively quotes (I don't believe Charles happened to recall a three year old post, rather than that he saw the link to the three year old post in David's post yesterday, which is still the top-most post at Oxblog).
Here:
Bear in mind that David also is of the mind that the press doesn't publish enough positive things about Iraq, that Iraq is on the way to success, that it's a mystery why people are being so negative, that the CIA is engaged in "trench warfare" against the administration, etc.Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 09:41 AM
Wow, Charles' 2:43 am is an awful lot of words just to say "I summarily dismiss the man's argument because of his political opinions"
Posted by: Phil | May 29, 2006 at 09:42 AM
"Nir Rosen's website is here and his blurb about his book is worth quoting."
It's not his blurb. It's the cover copy written by Simon and Shuster. Writers don't do this for their own work.
Perhaps more relevantly, one can read Rosen's articles for one's self, and judge them for one's self. There are plenty of them, and they're long and thorough, and extremely good reading, as those of us who have been reading them for the past couple of years know.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 09:54 AM
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 09:57 AM
I mean, Chas' Tacitus comment was in response to a brief post about Congressman Kline, so him telling slarti that he doesn't know who Kline suggests that he's not actually considering any information that is being rendered.
Several points, LJ. First, yes, at Tacitus I caught the title to the diary but the read body too quickly before spouting off. The reference to Kline slipped right past me. Either that or I forgot that it was Kline who said what he said. On a second reading of the Tac diary just now, indeed there was mention of Kline, so my bad. The point remains that I read this thread non-chronogically and caught sparti's comment first (and responded), then I read Gary's comment (and responded). Second, nothing I wrote in the Tac diary or here takes away from the fact that Murtha held a press conference at his own instigation in order to commemorate the six-month anniversary of his calling for immediate unilateral withdrawal of troops from the Iraqi theater. In that press conference, he exploited for his political gain (in my opinion, which still seems obviously self-evident) the Marine incident at Haditha by stating as fact that Marines killed innocent civilian Iraqis "in cold blood", using it as a political club to bash current American policy. His own transcript of the press conference makes that fairly clear to me. By the way, it was "sparti", not "slarti". We must be right about every single possible detail, no?
you're smearing him because he was right without your permission
Where exactly did I smear Murtha, cleek?
OK Gary, but one more shot. You asked if I was mindreading Murtha. My answer to that is no, I don't think so, because he made his agenda clear, foldeding Haditha into his "it’s time for us to leave" press conference and then went on the talk show rounds. Second, I also understand the timing of how the news came out. The difference is that Murtha used the phrase "in cold blood" in his press conference, seemingly rendering his verdict before the investigation was finished, and he expressly used Haditha when he commemorated his initial call for immediate redeployment, then he went on to Hardball and ABC This Week to do the same thing all over again. A politician could hardly have politicized it more. Third, let's be clear on what I didn't say. I didn't say Murtha was a traitor nor did I question his patriotism. Never have. Those that did must answer for themselves, because I never agreed with their take. I didn't question his accuracy. I didn't say that he released unauthorized information. It does come across that he rendered his own verdict prematurely, which you would think an elected official would be more careful about, especially since we have the fairly recent case of Ilario Pantano. But on its face, it does look pretty bad, that Marines did kill innocent civilians. And if it's true, it's worse than Abu Ghraib because so many were killed. Fourth, my apologies for not reading a thread in proper linear progression.
Posted by: Charles Bird | May 29, 2006 at 10:02 AM
"But on its face, it does look pretty bad, that Marines did kill innocent civilians."
How dare you slander the Marines involved by this accusation, when the investigation hasn't finished, and there's been no report!
Why would you comment prematurely, like this!?!
Clearly this demonstrates that you are a loser-defeatist, as only a loser-defeatist would hate the United States and our Marines enough to attack them so viciously this way.
-----------------------
Okay, I don't mean any of that: I've just been getting it all weekend from certain blogs, which isn't your fault.
But I really don't understand what the rationale is for how you can differentiate between the above and between condemning Murtha for having said the same thing last week.
I'm not interested in discussing Murtha's policy notions at this time, and I find the fact that you find them inseparable (apparently -- if you can separate that from this discussion, and drop that issue for another time, more power to you) telling. It's a separate and separable issue.
So, setting that aside, you say: "The difference is that Murtha used the phrase 'in cold blood' in his press conference, seemingly rendering his verdict before the investigation was finished...."
Aside from the fact that that's what all the Marine attestations say, and if you give any credulity to the now extremely multiply-attested to accounts, you have to note that the "cold-blood" part is inextricably at the heart of the whole point of what's so terrible in what appears (at present, given as yet not-fully-confirmed information) to have happened here, so I don't for the life of me understand what distinction you're making, once one separates out your pre-existing disagreements with Murtha over Iraq policy (which are, to repeat again, irrelevant to whether he's given an accurate account of the information).
I'll repeat again for emphasis that it's become clear that Murtha was personally briefed by Marine Commandant Hagee. Yet again, I'll ask you to please comment on that. Yet again, I'll ask you -- for the last time -- to please comment on what Represenative Kline has said, and compare and distinguish it from what Murtha has related and characterized in describing this issue (without bringing in extraneous issues about Murtha's other views).
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 10:49 AM
And I wonder what Israeli-born Rosen did that the Israeli army would reject his admittance because he was "enemy of the state". He doesn't say.
Neither do you. Neither do you address anything in the article in a substantive way. Now, if I was to turn around and adopt the tone you've displayed, I would probably say something like "so the Israeli Army won't have Rosen. What reason did the U.S. Army give you?"
But that wouldn't be very constructive. You're not being constructive here Charles, either here on this thread where you're displaying either a laziness in reading and responding to comments or I'm afraid, a degree of bad faith.
And you're not being constructive in the larger "meta" sense by labelling those that disagree with you traitors (and no, I'm not going to buy your weak arguments that loser-defeatists isn't a rather transparent euphemism). Especially given the fact you don't seem to have the courtesy enough to read what your "opponents" say.
Posted by: spartikus | May 29, 2006 at 10:51 AM
"...and if you give any credulity...."
Very poor word-substitution there: I meant to say "grant any credibility...."
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 10:51 AM
"Traitors" is vastly more flamnatory, and has a very specific meaning.
It's precisely because of that that I carry on about its misuse. Treason carries the death penalty. It's defined in our land by Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. The word should never be used in a lesser context.
"Loser-defeatist," aside from being subliterate, and better replaced with the normal "defeatist," is merely an accusation that can be debated. It carries no criminal penalty attached, let alone the death penalty. The choice of which to use is vast and important.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 10:56 AM
It also has the advantage that you wouldn't be able to sue for defamation, like you could with "traitor."
Given the current climate, I feel confident, though, that "loser-defeatist" is being employed as code (and probably for the above reason). YMMV
Posted by: spartikus | May 29, 2006 at 11:02 AM
"Given the current climate, I feel confident, though, that 'loser-defeatist' is being employed as code (and probably for the above reason). YMMV"
I prefer to limit my mind-reading attempts, so I couldn't say. But if people can be shamed out of accusations of "treason" and "traitor," to far more reasonable language (if still entirely debatable), than I feel something has been accomplished.
"Defeatist" is something I think is within the bounds of decency and argument.
I feel strongly that "traitor," absent specifically providing aid and comfort to an enemy in time of war by acts, witnessed by two people (not by words), is not within the bounds of decency in our society, and is unacceptable, and people who make such accusations without cause should be shamed and shunned.
"Defeatist," though, is merely a disagreement over policy within normal bounds of political discussion. Harsh and perhaps foolish, but within bounds.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 11:18 AM
You are, Gary, using the words as they are defined by the law and the dictionary (and as they should be). But I am continually troubled how defeatist is employed in a manner which suggests the "defeatist" actually hopes for defeat.
Treason. Not of the [narrowly defined U.S.] law, but of the spirit.
Mindreading, of course.
Posted by: spartikus | May 29, 2006 at 11:56 AM
rilkefan's 2:54 AM post and Donald Johnson's 8:35 AM post both kind of get to the heart of what I am talking about. Of course I wouldn't suggest China's response to Western imperialism in the 20th century was positive. But suppose instead of overthrowing Chiang Kai-shek, Mao had instead sent bombers over to the US to emulate Sacco and Vanzetti? And suppose Chiang was giving covert support to Mao and railing in private about occupied Hong Kong, while smiling to our face? Wouldn't Americans resent the Chinese much more than we did in the wake of the Korean War? Isn't it better to have an enemy who will face you?
I know that I'm generalizing about responses to cultural humiliation, but generalizations ususally have a core of fact (uh-oh, now I'm generalizing about generalizations).
Whatever our sins in the Middle East, and they are many, nothing justifies reliance on terrorism as a primary tool, and it's hard to respect people who do so (again I note for the record that I do not consider most Arabs terrorists, nor do I yearn for a cultural or religious war).
Posted by: ThirdGorchBro | May 29, 2006 at 11:58 AM
Where exactly did I smear Murtha, cleek?
you mean besides your insistence that he's using the Marines to advance his own craven political agenda ?
Posted by: cleek | May 29, 2006 at 12:06 PM
"Traitors" is vastly more flamnatory, and has a very specific meaning.
given the amount of rightwing stuff you must read to keep up your blog, you should know as well as anyone that the words "traitor" and "treason" get tossed around on the right quite freely. personally, i don't think there's much reason to assume "L-D" isn't just another way to express whatever the tr* words are meant to express ("working for the enemy", "blame America first", "objectively-pro ___", yadayadayada).
in other words - it seems silly to assume that people who throw accusations of treason around willy-nilly are paying attention to the nuances of synonyms.
Posted by: cleek | May 29, 2006 at 12:14 PM
Let me say that I give Charles credit insofar as he does, to the limited extent he does, show up here to defend his remarks and positions; I wish he did it more, but, of course, he could just quit and not do it at all, and I know it isn't easy for him to face a largely hostile set of responders.
But I see his view on Murtha in the contest of the environment of uncivil nutbars on the conservative wing who eagerly through around the words "traitor" and "defeatist," as well as other slurs, like kids throwing popcorn at the movie screen of a bad movie.
Here, for instance, we see Hindrocket:
Of course, this is a lie. Murtha received the briefing that was personally given by the Marine Commandant, General Hagee, to the House Armed Services Committee. But Hindrocket isn't interested in the fact, he's interested in slander and slur, so he lies, and says it's a "leak" to Murtha."Of course, he's the top end of the market.
Here we find the "Gateway Pundit":
Murtha: defeatist.Here we have "Macsmind," topic header, "No matter what happened in Haditha - Murtha's still a coward":
Sound familiar? Mind, this is said of a former Marine Colonel with the Bronze Star, Purple Heart (2), Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, Navy Distinguished Service Medal, who, well, let's cut to the record: Damn the coward for all that. It takes a brave man to stand up and note that such a record is clearly the mark of a coward.Now, a decent person could disagree all they want with Murtha's choice of policies; that's cool, that's fine. But they could do so civilly.
Or they could act like disreputable children with a shocking lack of respect for actual military service in our nation's defense, and potty mouths.
But they show who they are and what sort of honor they truly hold when they do so. So perhaps we owe them our gratitude for making clear what sort of people they truly are.
In any event, we see the tropes Charles uses in milder form: Murtha can't be disagreed with civilly, he must be smeared and slurred personally. Murtha's policy advocacy is what is relevant in discussing Haditha, not whether what he said about Haditha was accurate or in any way out of line with what Republicans and conservatives otherwise say. Since that's not an argument Charles can win, he'll go with the smear argument, and besides, it's pre-made by his compatriots, and merely has to be repeated; this has the side benefit of demonstrating his bona fides with the nutbar wing, and giving him some comfort level there, where he already has too many disagreements.
But the Murtha=Traitor meme is all over the right. John Murtha, Traitor. This from May 18th:
Malkin the 18th: Dan Riehl has words of inspiration: Rousing, eh?Of course, this is the same Dan Riehl who, two days before he wrote that on the 28th, wrote this on the 26:
But, you know, when he says it, it's okay.It just goes on and on. Most of the big name conservative bloggers have all now written stuff about how it appears that dreadful crimes were committed at Haditha.
But that's okay. They're on the right side. That makes all the difference.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 12:24 PM
Presented just for curiousities sake, but defeatism is an actual crime in some [nasty] countries. Ex.
Posted by: spartikus | May 29, 2006 at 12:33 PM
cleek: "given the amount of rightwing stuff you must read to keep up your blog"
I actually only do so quite sporadically; I feel no obligation to spend much time in the cess pool, and in fact I don't generally frequent the more flamnatory liberal/left/Democratic blogs, either. They're not tempermentally to my taste. I prefer facts and calm reasoning to being shouted at, no matter by whom and in what cause.
I prefer unadorned nouns when discussing heated issues, rather than loaded adjectives and adverbs.
But that's just me.
I make exceptions at times, and that's what I'm doing in this case. Precisely because I feel so strongly that a line is crossed when "traitor" and "treason" are words tossed about so casually. I find that appalling. And highly dangerous. I want to do everything I can to damp that down, to try to encourage a sense of shame to be spread in regard to anyone who uses such flamnatory terminology.
There's a reason that since early 2002 my blog has had on its sidebar "Proudly free of calling anyone a 'traitor' since 2001."
Spartikus: "But I am continually troubled how defeatist is employed in a manner which suggests the 'defeatist' actually hopes for defeat."
Yes, but I still find that within acceptable terms of debate. It's offensive, but I don't object to accusations of "treason" because it's offensive. I object because it calls for the death penalty.
Presumably prefigured by arrest and trial.
And in an environment where we already have the Attorney General of the U.S. saying he has the right to try reporters for printing classified leaks, and Congressional Republicans calling for the arrests of reporters, not to mention a President who reserves the unilateral right to torture, to imprison indefinitely without charge, to eavesdrop at will without warrant, to assassinate at will, and so on, accusations of "treason" are as serious as can be.
They're calls for killing one's opponents, with whatever degree of legality might or might not be involved in our Brave New World.
That's a whole 'nother thing than merely being offensive.
Back as regards Charles, we do know why he has to tie his charges against Murtha to Murtha's "loser-defeatist" policies. He has no choice. He can't maintain without reference to Murtha's policies that Murtha said anything out of line in reporting the known facts given to him by the Marine Commandant on Haditha. Most conservatives have also said such things by now. Those reports are made by every news source. Plenty of Republicans are now on record as repeating them. He doesn't address Congressman Kline, because if he, and the rest of his friends taking this line, were honest and consistent -- and this is very simple and plain and utterly undeniable -- nothing complicated about this -- they'd have to condemn Kline for saying what Murtha said, and they'd have to condemn most of themselves.
It's illogical and indefensible; it's not a stand that can be taken, even by people given to the most amazing twists of logic.
So the only possible way to throw more mud at Murtha and make charges about this are to insist that the true fault is that he's "using" this incident.
And then you have the absurdity of accusing a politician of citing facts in support of the policy he desires.
Which, of course, is absolutely no different from what all these pro-war guys are doing by citing Murtha's statements to denounce his policies in favor of their policies.
It's remarkably twisted, but there we are. They're being complete hypocrits, and can't face up to that, of course, so they engage in further hypocrisy by claiming there's something wrong with citing facts in support of a desired policy.
The right and proper and honorable thing to do, of course, would be to simply argue with Murtha's policies on the merits. And that's all.
That's fair game. They're free to simply say "I oppose Congressman Murtha's advocacy of rapid redeployment of our troops to stations near Iraq, but to no longer base them there, because that is a bad idea for reasons A, B, D, and C.
But that isn't good enough. Civil disagreement isn't good enough.
Apparently they are afraid logic is insufficient to make their case convincingly. That, or they are simply tempermentally incapable of not smearing and slurring.
So they smear and slur.
And when they do that, they show they have no honor.
It's all very sad.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 12:43 PM
Sorry, Chas, don't mean to be ganging up on you, but you said
First, yes, at Tacitus I caught the title to the diary but the read body too quickly before spouting off. The reference to Kline slipped right past me.
Work with me here. You make a harsh comment about Murtha in a kneejerk reaction to a title. Now, wouldn't it be better to just admit to that up front rather than try to defend the last trench of 'murtha is a loser-defeatist'? Instead of spending all this time and effort over getting offended that some other people are getting offended over your rhetoric, especially when you yourself admit it was not a thought out point, but a reaction to a title, wouldn't it have been better to all concerned to just acknowledge you feel strongly about it and let it go?
Gary provides a number of excerpts to show why some of the leading lights of the right blogosphere arouse such ire on this. We know that they are completely unconcerned with having a dialogue, but why do you seem to throw your lot in with them? Or, conversely, why do you waste your time here?
Posted by: liberal japonicus | May 29, 2006 at 12:48 PM
Precisely because I feel so strongly that a line is crossed when "traitor" and "treason" are words tossed about so casually. I find that appalling. And highly dangerous. I want to do everything I can to damp that down, to try to encourage a sense of shame to be spread in regard to anyone who uses such flamnatory terminology.
agreed.
i enjoy responding to people making those charges with a simple URL: https:/tips.fbi.gov. that way they can report the crime they've witnessed with no more effort than it takes to write a blog post.
Posted by: cleek | May 29, 2006 at 12:50 PM
"But suppose instead of overthrowing Chiang Kai-shek, Mao had instead sent bombers over to the US to emulate Sacco and Vanzetti?"
Aside from the fact that Mao had no such intercontinental bombers, the other problem with this example is that Sacco and Vanzetti were famously railroaded in an unfair trial, and Vanzetti was innocent, it appears. (Possibly Sacco, too, but we can't know; what we know is that the trial was ludicrously unfair -- that's why they're famous.)
"And suppose Chiang was giving covert support to Mao and railing in private about occupied Hong Kong, while smiling to our face?"
That's not so far from what happened, insofar as he was deeply corrupt, and most of those around him were deeply corrupt, and in any case, when we gave him endless support in WWII to fight the Japanese, he largely hung back, made a profit, and hoarded troops and equipment to fight his true enemy, Mao, rather than the Japanese.
But instead of being vilified, as he was by, for instance, General Stilwell, and those in the know, the American public lauded him, and kept lauding him even after he died, thanks to the anti-Communist crusaders who instead put the blame on Democratic traitors who, by way of being Communists, deliberately turned China over to the Communists. Thank Richard Nixon, Joe McCarthy, Henry Luce, and most of the Republican Party for that.
"Whatever our sins in the Middle East, and they are many, nothing justifies reliance on terrorism as a primary tool, and it's hard to respect people who do so...."
This would not seem to be a controversial sentiment, and I wouldn't expect much debate. :-)
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 12:53 PM
"Whatever our sins in the Middle East, and they are many, nothing justifies reliance on terrorism as a primary tool, and it's hard to respect people who do so...."
Though let me note that America, overall, had little problem dealing with, or forgiving, Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin, whose career as terrorists is quite famous, though not to all Americans, to be sure. Not everyone is familiar with the history of the Irgun Tsvai Leumi and the Stern Gang.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 12:55 PM
Hokay, I'm off and out for a few hours now. Talk amongst yourselves. :-)
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 12:57 PM
interesting points about Rosen - but if this article is in question, do you contest any of the factual claims he makes
I don't think I'm able to, rilke, but if he came to Iraq with the agenda that Adesnik suggested, then I am skeptical with his choosing of the facts that he is putting forward, because it feels like I'm not getting the whole picture. At the risk of jumping the linear progression of comments, Gary linked to a new Adesnik post which I thought was interesting.
But that wouldn't be very constructive. You're not being constructive here Charles, either here on this thread where you're displaying either a laziness in reading and responding to comments or I'm afraid, a degree of bad faith.
Here's a fair question, sparti: Why are you so exercised about my agenda yet give noot the slightest damn for Rosen's? Surely as a published writer, he is much more influential than lil ole me. It doesn't sound terribly pragmatic of you, and from where I sit, your uncuriosity does not contribute to this world of pragmatism that you said you were seeking. Quite frankly, I think you're applying an unfortunate double standard. BTW, I'm not dismissing what Rosen wrote in the WA Post, just expressing serious skepticism, justifiably so, in my view.
And you're not being constructive in the larger "meta" sense by labelling those that disagree with you traitors...
That is simply a false statement, sparti, "meta" or in any other way, and you're bordering on violating the posting rules with such a detestable mischaracterization.
Given the current climate, I feel confident, though, that "loser-defeatist" is being employed as code...
Your confidence is misplaced. Code is not a language I speak in. Going one further, I wrote months ago that I thought Murtha was a patriot who loved his country. I actually and honestly meant what I said back then, and I hold that same opinion today. Believing that a person is horribly wrong does not mean that said person is unpatriotic, treasonous, seditious, etc.
Yet again, I'll ask you -- for the last time -- to please comment on what Represenative Kline has said, and compare and distinguish it from what Murtha has related and characterized in describing this issue (without bringing in extraneous issues about Murtha's other views).
I don't accept your conditions, Gary, because Murtha himself made inseparable his comments about Haditha and immediate withdrawal. But to excerpt the NY Times:
Although not in quotes, his statement was qualified with "allegations indicated", but more clearly delineated qualifiers would have been helpful. The context of his comments also counts. He didn't set up a press conference, he didn't go on Hardball. Instead, he was there are at the DoD briefing, and when reporters called, he answered their questions. This is important because the point I made was specifically about political exploitation, not a comparative analysis of what Persons A and B said. If you think Kline exploited Haditha to advance his political agenda, tell me how. Perhaps he did, and I just missed it.Murtha said a lot of things in a lot of places, but getting to his signature comment: "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report is going to tell." Taranto offered a pretty fair analysis of Murtha's words. The phrase "our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them" does bother me. While you accused me of mindreading, wouldn't it be more accurate to put that one on Murtha? He's the one who was divining the states of mind of those Marines. Also, Murtha did not see the report, and his phrasing suggests that he arrived at his own verdict.
you mean besides your insistence that he's using the Marines to advance his own craven political agenda ?
First, cleek, Murth didn't use the Marines, he used Haditha. Second, "craven" is your word, not mine.
You make a harsh comment about Murtha in a kneejerk reaction to a title. Now, wouldn't it be better to just admit to that up front rather than try to defend the last trench of 'murtha is a loser-defeatist'?
You mean I can't do both? Yes, LJ, I made a harsh comment. Yes, there was some kneejerk in my reaction to it. Yes, I made the mistake of not committing Kline to memory. But those are separate from my views that Murtha politically exploited Haditha and that his "it's time to leave" proposals are defeatist.
We know that they are completely unconcerned with having a dialogue, but why do you seem to throw your lot in with them? Or, conversely, why do you waste your time here?
That's exactly why I like to have a presence on both the left AND right sides of the blogosphere. I suggest that there are hefty numbers on both sides who are "completely unconcerned with having a dialogue", and that there are hefty numbers on both sides who do. It's a little unsettling at times, being in both places, and there's a lot of dissonance, but I like being able to have my feet in both puddles. I think it brings a wider understanding and perspective on the issues. Having seen quite a bit of freerepublic and Atrios, for example, I've seen little difference in tenor, tone and substance between the two commentariats.
Posted by: Charles Bird | May 29, 2006 at 04:12 PM
Here's a fair question, sparti: Why are you so exercised about my agenda yet give noot the slightest damn for Rosen's?
Possibly it may be Rosen is in Iraq actually bearing witness, while you barely seem read the comments you respond to.
That is simply a false statement, sparti, "meta" or in any other way, and you're bordering on violating the posting rules with such a detestable mischaracterization.
If you feel you've been mischaracterized maybe, instead of threatening banning, you could clarify your meaning. Or not. It's up to you. Quite a few people, myself included, have not been convinced by your efforts to date. FWIW:
Defeatism is acceptance of defeat without struggle. In everyday use, defeatism has negative connotation and is often linked to treason and pessimism,
Posted by: spartikus | May 29, 2006 at 05:16 PM
"He didn't set up a press conference, he didn't go on Hardball. Instead, he was there are at the DoD briefing, and when reporters called, he answered their questions. This is important"
That's cool, because in fact I've seen Representative Kline give several tv interviews, and he's in dozens of different newspapers. Try another.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 05:22 PM
Let's back up: Charles, define "exploited" in this context, and precisely what you view as wrong about it, please.
And let me see: you're saying that it's just fine for people to utter opinions about what they've been officially briefed as regards Haditha, and as regards news reports on what is alleged to have happened at Haditha, or not?
If not, precisely what's okay in your view, and what's not, as regards passing on what someone has learned in an unclassified briefing and as regards opining about what appears to be tentatively know so far?
Lastly, are you saying that you have no problem with what Congressman Murtha said as regards Haditha except insofar as it connects to "his political agenda," or are you saying that you have a problem with it that is separable and isolatable simply as regards just what he said about the Marines -- or not?
For the record, in my 12:24 p.m, when I wrote: "But I see his view on Murtha in the contest of the environment of uncivil nutbars...."
What I meant was "context," not "contest." Apologies.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 05:32 PM
Incidentally, in the new, very safe, terribly democratic, ever -improving, full-of-good-news-we're-not-told-about Iraq, a CBS newscrew was just mostly killed.
This may interfere with their presenting good news from Iraq any time soon.Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 05:44 PM
Gary,
CW:"Yet we don't call the Confederates 'terrorists' and 'criminals'- we recognize that when a substantial subset of a country doesn't accept the legitimacy of the government, there is a big problem."
Yes, we call the Confederates "traitors" and "rebels," actually.
Im not sure if you're agreeing with me, or disagreeing- since ("traitors" and "rebels") are not equal to ("terrorists" and "criminals"). But the context (why bring up these alternatives) and the "actually" make me think that you're drawing an equivalence & therefore disagreeing...
Two main differences:
1)Rebels (the most commonly-used term I've seen) is not really perjorative (my high school mascot was a rebel). I have yet to encounted a "criminals" mascot. "Traitor" is admittedly perjorative though (but also in the eye of the beholder, Oleg Penkovsky may not seem like a traitor to us...)
2)The former two terms accurately describe action against a country, either in the service of another power or en masse representing an internal power/faction. The latter two terms describe a)deviant or self-serving behavior or b)the use of violence (or threatened violence) against civilian targets to cause sociopolitical change.
The Iraqi insurgency could reasonably be called rebels. I think traitors would be a less reasonable appelation (since they are opposing an order they have never assented to- likewise, calling Confederates traitors ignores the fact that their fealty was given to their states, and that secession was certainly considered a legitimate action by those Confederates).
Neither should be called criminals or terrorists, except insofar as their specific actions meet the criteria for those names.
(nb saying that the Confederates and the Iraqi insurgents were not criminals or traitors should not be considered an endorsement of eithers' agenda).
Posted by: Carleton Wu | May 29, 2006 at 05:44 PM
I probably should have included:
But I'm sure there's good news, too.Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 05:45 PM
"1)Rebels (the most commonly-used term I've seen) is not really perjorative (my high school mascot was a rebel)."
Pejorative. "Perjorative" isn't a word.
It's funny how Southern rebellion-inspired mascots never are called "the Traitors." Probably isn't as catchy.
But we probably don't want to digress into offensive mascot name discussions.
I'm afraid I've lost track of the relevance of the rest of your points; sorry. It's not as if there's a single "insurgency" in Iraq, or it's the chief problem there, in any case.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 05:48 PM
Incidentally, in the new, very safe, terribly democratic, ever -improving, full-of-good-news-we're-not-told-about Iraq,
Along similar lines, this story highlights the burdgeoning non-theological nature of the new Iraq.
Posted by: spartikus | May 29, 2006 at 06:00 PM
Charles,
Abu Ghraib was under already investigation when it was made public, and it was inevitable that it would be publicized. This has happened for every scandal, non-scandal and pseudo-scandal that has occurred in the last six years.
Are you saying that every scandal that has occurred has been publicized? Or that every scandal that's been investigated has been publicized? Every scandal has been both investigated and then publicized?
Or just that every scandal that you've heard of has been publicized?
You're either omniscient, or you've decided to grace us with a truism.
Third, let's be clear on what I didn't say. I didn't say Murtha was a traitor nor did I question his patriotism. Never have.
Let's be clear- saying that someone wants our military to lose is questioning their patriotism. Quoth Charles: "Murtha is betraying the American soldiers who have been there.- but apparently this was only the patriotic kind of betrayl.
Also, you didnt address the Confederacy point. Noting that political analogies are never an exact fit is *not* addressing the point, it is fleeing (in a loser-defeatist manner, no less) from engagement with the point. If you think that the Confederates were not criminals and terrorists (using your logic), please explain how their situation was different rather than just asserting that this is the case.
And finally, you've neglected to tell us how re-labeling the insurgents in the American media is going to produce "concrete" results (that's the kind you profess to like, after all)- as opposed to shifting the blame for the current problems from those who were in favor of the original decision to invade over to those recalcitrant Iraqis who cannot play fair and accept that they've lost.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | May 29, 2006 at 06:01 PM
Gary,
Thank you for courageously correcting my spelling- the world is a better place now.
Im sorry to hear that you can't remember why you made your original comment, but Im afraid I can't return the favor by helping you with that...
Posted by: Carleton Wu | May 29, 2006 at 06:08 PM
You make a harsh comment about Murtha in a kneejerk reaction to a title. Now, wouldn't it be better to just admit to that up front rather than try to defend the last trench of 'murtha is a loser-defeatist'?
You mean I can't do both? Yes, LJ, I made a harsh comment. Yes, there was some kneejerk in my reaction to it. Yes, I made the mistake of not committing Kline to memory. But those are separate from my views that Murtha politically exploited Haditha and that his "it's time to leave" proposals are defeatist.
Morning Charles. You can do both, but if you had done the first from the beginning, we might be having a more meaningful discussion about the question. And by not doing the first from the beginning, it reinforces the suspicion that you are thinking, you are simply reacting.
I'd also point out that there is a hierarchy of errors, so you not knowing who Kline is might be considered more grevious than me typing slarti for sparti (especially when you look at the keyboard and see where l and p are located) In fact, I had no idea what you were talking about until reviewing this.
Since this is a big pile on, I'll sneak back up into the stands, but I'm wondering what kind of evidence would be necessary to change your opinion. To be honest, I'm not sure what evidence is necessary to change mine, but I take Murtha's previous record of service as well as the position he had previously staked out as a politician evidence, while you seem to dismiss all of that out of hand.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | May 29, 2006 at 06:28 PM
Eye-witness after-the-fact testimony about the bodies at Haditha from Lance Cpl. Roel Ryan Briones.
I'd also like to assume that everyone read this post that I've pointed to a few times, with all the various links and cites and quotes, including to this ABC account of the other night, and seen this this video of the shot-up house, and of Safa Younis, the 12-year-old girl said to be a survivor of the event. Alternate version here.
Of course, Dan Riehl and others immediately find it questionable and hint it's a lying fake (he has a number of posts along that line; so do many others who love to engage in wishful thinking.
But I'd like to hope everyone is keeping up with the story.
Carleton: "Im sorry to hear that you can't remember why you made your original comment...."
No, I remember that.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 07:23 PM
From spartikus's link: "In addition, the leaflet forbids men from wearing goatee beards and anyone from buying mayonnaise."
Iraqi fundamentalists prefer a different condiment?
Dreadful story, of course. But also reinforcing one of my points above: this has nothing to do with the "insurgency." It's part of the civil war.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 07:28 PM
Possibly it may be Rosen is in Iraq actually bearing witness...
So it doesn't matter how partisan or agenda-driven the person is, what's most important is that the person was there? It looks to me like your double standards are still showing, or do you place equal weight on all of the other numerous firsthand accounts, such as here? If not, why? They were there, after all.
If you feel you've been mischaracterized maybe, instead of threatening banning, you could clarify your meaning.
No, I don't feel mischaracterized, sparti, you actually did it. You made a clearly false statement, so the warning still stands. How many times must I explicitly state--before it finally sinks in--that when I criticize someone like Murtha, that I'm questioning his policies and not his patriotism? For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure I did clarify my meaning, but if you desire a dictionary definition, this is the one I had in mind, not wikipedia's. Does that clarify?
Gary, I take your word that Kline was on television and in more than one newspaper. Tell me how Kline exploited Haditha to his political advantage.
As for "exploiting", I'll take this definition and say that Murtha took unfair advantage of the briefing information he received by folding it into his commemorative press conference, adding Haditha to his litany of reasons for immediate redeployment out of the Iraqi theater, possibly going as far as mindreading by stating that "our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them", thus lessening the responsibility of those who shot those unfortunate Iraqis (allegedly) and shifting the blame up the chain of command. Wasn't this how Calley & Co. got such piddling sentences?
Noting that political analogies are never an exact fit is *not* addressing the point, it is fleeing (in a loser-defeatist manner, no less) from engagement with the point. If you think that the Confederates were not criminals and terrorists (using your logic), please explain how their situation was different rather than just asserting that this is the case.
I liked Charley's and Gary's answers, so I didn't feel the pressing need to respond, Carleton. Criminals or traitors would fit the bill for me, but to be neighborly with our southern compatriots, and since the war is fourteen decades past, southerners also works for me. I don't remember terrorist attacks being much of an issue back then, but those who did target civilians for attack would be terrorists.
And finally, you've neglected to tell us how re-labeling the insurgents in the American media is going to produce "concrete" results...
I take it that you reject the works of Lakoff? Are we not fighting an information war as well as a physical one?
Posted by: Charles Bird | May 29, 2006 at 07:28 PM
So it doesn't matter how partisan or agenda-driven the person is, what's most important is that the person was there? It looks to me like your double standards are still showing, or do you place equal weight on all of the other numerous firsthand accounts, such as here?
Is there something specific, as in some sort of concrete fact, in Rosen's piece you are calling into question?
Is there something specific in Iraq the Model you wish me to read and address? Otherwise, they're entitled to their opinion.
You made a clearly false statement, so the warning still stands.
Ridiculous. I have not mischaracterized, and certainly have not "lied" about anything you've said. If you don't like that your words carry connotations beyond what you intend....STOP USING THEM.
As for threats of banning, this is abusing your moderator's position.
Posted by: spartikus | May 29, 2006 at 07:44 PM
"...and say that Murtha took unfair advantage of the briefing information he received by folding it into his commemorative press conference...."
So what you're saying is that he shouldn't use facts in the course of espousing his opinions, and that that's wrong, is that it?
The wrongness comes from what, precisely, other than that you don't agree with him?
This seems to be a key point. I have no idea what you think is wrong here. You assert that something is wrong, but what it is: beats me.
I'm pretty sure that using facts to disagree with you is not, in fact, wrong.
It wasn't a classified briefing, after all. If it were, and Murtha gave away secrets he shouldn't have, than I'd join you in criticizing that.
But that's not the case. It was an unclassified briefing. It's the same information that has been provided to the public.
I'm fairly sure that part of the job of elected officials is to speak to the public about the facts as they know them.
So, the problem here, beyond that you disagree with Murtha, is?
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 07:45 PM
"Is there something specific in Iraq the Model you wish me to read and address?"
Regarding that, oh, my, but the negative things I can quote from Iraq The Model, and every other Iraqi blogger Charles has ever mentioned. None of them is a happy camper. It's hard to believe that he actually reads them consistently, rather than picking up on a few of the more positive bits as cherry-picked by the Usual Suspects.
Similarly for the way Michael Yon is beloved by the right, save for his insistence for many months that what's going on in Iraq is a civil war, and his denunciations of those on the right who he says are refusing to listen to him.
From the latter -- but don't let that stop you from reading the whole thing, or the other post I cited:
I'd also note that gung-ho conservative bloggers aren't providers of Truth about Iraq any more than IndyMedia is.Looking at Iraqi bloggers is a good step. Shall we do that next?
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 07:56 PM
Does that clarify?
No, the wikipedia entry, and the citation of those jailed in times past on the charge of defeatism, was to illustrate the word carries beyond it's dictionary entry. Like the context of coupling it's use with a sentence like Murtha is betraying the American soldiers who have been there. & Murtha is betraying the Iraqi people.
Posted by: spartikus | May 29, 2006 at 07:58 PM
Here is an Iraqi blogger, Charles. Do you read her regularly, to find out the truth in Iraq, or do you filter her out, because you don't like what she says?
But let's look to Iraq The Model at the moment. Here is a post from Thursday about the wire from Mohammed's neighborhood generators being stolen at night, so they have no power -- no one in Iraq relies on official power, of course, since there is little, and never for long. Good news!
Here a post from the 21st on the new government.
They haven't been. That's without having had any new government at all since those elections in December Charles is so fond of. Good news! Good news!On the 19th:
Good news!Tuesday the 16th:
Good news!May 7th:
Good... well, you know.Why is it that the American MSM refuses to bring us this good news?
I, for one, want to know.
Shall we look at some other Iraqi bloggers? Remember, these guys are the most rose-colored-glasses ones you can find. The others are a heck of a lot more negative.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 08:13 PM
"I take it that you reject the works of Lakoff? Are we not fighting an information war as well as a physical one?"
Um, Charles? Lakoff talks about framing ideas in a democracy, for political use.
He doesn't suggest that reframing wording is going to win a war.
But, by all means, if you can get him to back you up on this, go for it. I'll just wait here. I have lots of popcorn on hand.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 08:17 PM
Let's look at Healing Iraq. Zeyad was quite the favorite of American rightwing bloggers, after they had dropped Salem Pax as their favorite, because Salem said some unflattering things about the American invasion.
Of course, then when Zeyad told the story of how American soldiers had made his cousin and another man jump in a river at night, and his cousin drowned, most of the American rightwing bloggers declared that Zeyad was lying and making things up, and dropped him. A few later apologized. Zeyad eventually quit blogging for over a year. He came back a while ago, but is still infrequent; he's also fleeing for a journalism degree in the US at Columbia U. soon. What's going on now in the former favorite's view?
May 8th:
Okay, that's about as cheery as he gets with the good news. Don't believe me? Go look for yourself.Just some typical phrases in recent posts: ...7 to 12 residents were killed in the clash. [...] The fire was random now.... [...] We heard from friends and relatives that life was going on 'normally' in other parts of the capital; the obligatory car bomb or roadside bomb, politicians still bickering, corpses still turning up at random locations, people still being kidnapped and assassinated, you know, the usual everyday stuff. [...] The area is now one huge fortress, armed to the teeth and expecting an attack any moment now.
Here is a post on his job.
Earlier: "[...] I'm not sure if it's an ill-fated omen or something else, but random violence seems to follow me wherever I go in Baghdad."
And so on and so forth.Wanna look at some more Iraqi blogs for the good news we're not hearing in the MSM, Charles?
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 08:29 PM
Charles,
I assumed that when you took issue with my characterization of the Confederacy as worthy of the same labels as the Iraqi insurgency (I say 'took issue' bc you said Your problem is equating the American Civil War with what's taking place in Iraq, Carleton...). Now you seem to agree that the Confederates could rightly be given the same labels (ie "criminals").
I don't agree, but at least you're consistent on this point now.
As for questioning Murtha's patriotism- you said that the man betrayed American troops. No amount of reiteration (or banning, for that matter) is going to change this. While you may believe that you've somehow managed to make that statement without impuning Murtha's patriotism, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to draw the opposite conclusion. Disclaimers are not magical, and we are not obligated to believe them when the evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming.
And I haven't read Lakoff; Im less interested in political framing than I am in practical, concrete (some might even say "conservative") solutions to problems.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | May 29, 2006 at 08:44 PM
Gary,
Carleton: "Im sorry to hear that you can't remember why you made your original comment...."
No, I remember that.
Excellent. I'll just stick that in the big "Im sure Gary had a point in there someplace" pile, then- since your original comment was so poorly worded that it was unclear if you were supporting the position or attempting to ridicule it, and you apparently spent so much energy spellchecking mine that you're unable to summon enough to explain it, or respond further.
Hey, it was a tangential point anyway, Im glad to be done with it.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | May 29, 2006 at 08:50 PM
Charles, Bush has given up on Iraq in all but the rhetoric. The troops are being pulled back to bases. Our role will be to watch from the sidelines as the Iraqis kill each other. Southern Iraq is now controlled by SHiite militias with ties to Iran. . The only good news is that with the Sunnis at only twenty percent of the population I don't expect you will have to wait for more than three or four years for "victory"--the Shiite militias should be able to kill most of them off by that time.
Posted by: lily | May 29, 2006 at 09:23 PM
"The troops are being pulled back to bases."
This is is a considerable over-generalization, to the point of being not particularly helpful, insofar as that without discussing at least with slightly more granularity and specificity, it's as untrue as it's true, or probably more untrue than true. It just isn't useful to speak so broadly in this context.
"Our role will be to watch from the sidelines as the Iraqis kill each other."
This is, at this time, still more than a little speculative.
Lily, you have many wise things to say, and many excellent points that you often make in excellent fashion. Discussing military specifics isn't one of your strengths, however, and I'd like to gently urge you to, if you feel the need to address them, to perhaps put a bit more effort into at least being a bit more specific. Because I'd prefer you when you argue with Charles, to not leave him holes the size of the Holland Tunnel to drive through.
I mean this in the friendliest fashion, and hope I don't seem condescending, as I know it's so easy for me to do unintentionally in trying to say something like this.
"Southern Iraq is now controlled by SHiite militias with ties to Iran."
This is closer to a true generality, but still slightly over-stated; better to at least, though, use some modifiers. "Close to being controlled." "Largely controlled." "Heavily controlled."
Something like that.
"...the Shiite militias should be able to kill most of them off by that time."
Extraordinarily unlikely, given the tendency towards regionalization; what might happen are more complete ethnic shifts by geography, but the complete wiping out of the primarily Sunni region is not at all likely to be in the cards; were it to start to look that way for some reason, Sunni neighbors would intervene and we'd have a regional war, to point out one perfectly obvious and well-known reason.
Also, the Kurds are Sunni.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 29, 2006 at 10:07 PM
Are you saying that every scandal that has occurred has been publicized? Or that every scandal that's been investigated has been publicized? Every scandal has been both investigated and then publicized?
I could've written it better, Carleton. The point earlier on was that there is no reason to believe that Haditha would be swept under the rug.
As for questioning Murtha's patriotism- you said that the man betrayed American troops. No amount of reiteration...is going to change this.
I disagree that betraying the troops who have been there equates to a betraying of one's country. What I wrote:
I don't believe what I wrote was tantamount to calling Murtha a traitor or questioning his patriotism. I think it's highly troubling that Murtha told American soldiers that they've done all could, that their efforts are a waste, and that their mission is no longer worthwhile. I also don't believe that a betrayal of the Iraqi people is unpatriotic because Murtha's not an Iraqi. But I will reiterate it again. I think he's dreadfully and horribly wrong, not unpatriotic.Im less interested in political framing than I am in practical, concrete (some might even say "conservative") solutions to problems.
Me, too, re concrete, which is why I believe framing is important, and why I also believe that the information war is just as vital as the physical one. It's a multi-front conflict, and our enemy also wants to prevail mediawise. Zawahiri:
Today's news re the attacks against CBS journalists should be a reminder that journalists are being targeted by terrorists, as I wrote here.No, the wikipedia entry, and the citation of those jailed in times past on the charge of defeatism, was to illustrate the word carries beyond it's dictionary entry.
Sparti, I already told you that I didn't accept the wikipedia definition as mine (add to that your citations of those folks jailed long ago in other countries), and I don't know why you're trying to push your wikipedia definitions on me. I use wikipedia, but I don't consider it the ultimate authority. I gave you one that fits my interpretation and use of the term. You said: "If you don't like that your words carry connotations beyond what you intend....STOP USING THEM." All kinds of words carry connotations beyond the conveyor's intentions, but that is no reason to stop. In situations where there is uncertainty, then the thing to do is ask for clarification, which you did. Clarification given, but now you seem to be going back on that.
You wrote: "And you're not being constructive in the larger "meta" sense by labelling those that disagree with you traitors."
I will say again. Your statement is patently false. Treason carries a heavy meaning, and I don't use it unless a person is actually tried or proven to be a traitor in a court of law. I disagree with Gary, Hilzoy, you, Carleton and dozens of others on this blog almost every I time I show up, and I label none of them traitors. I disagree with left-wing political figures all the time (and right-wingers) and I've labeled none of them traitors. Your statement is absurdly untrue, and it's a detestable mischaracterization. It is egregious to the point of being a personal attack, which is why I consider it a posting rules violation.
Is there something specific in Iraq the Model you wish me to read and address? Otherwise, they're entitled to their opinion.
You brought up Rosen because he agrees with Murtha that immediate withdrawal is the best course. His opinion has weight, according to you, because he was there. Omar is there, too, and more so than Rosen, and he is against immediate withdrawal. Because being there is such an important prerequisite to you, and since Omar has lived there for quite a bit longer, I'm glad you changed your opinion re the immediate redeployment of our troops from Iraq.
So what you're saying is that he shouldn't use facts in the course of espousing his opinions, and that that's wrong, is that it?
Tell me how the phrase "our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them" is a fact, Gary. Also, Murtha did relay facts, although I don't think "in cold blood" was said to Murtha by DoD officials. That was Murtha's own spin. The setting in which he dispensed this combination of facts and opinion and spin was overtly political and overtly agenda-driven. Obviously you see nothing wrong with it, and that's your opinion.
Wanna look at some more Iraqi blogs for the good news we're not hearing in the MSM, Charles?
You're veering dangerously close to jerkoff comment territory, Gary. My point upthread (and the ITM link) had nothing to do with good news or bad news in Iraq, but with the topic of immediate withdrawal.
Posted by: Charles Bird | May 29, 2006 at 11:16 PM
"While it's commendable that Murtha goes to Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals 'almost every week', he should spend more time in Iraq, talking to the soldiers on the ground, getting firsthand accounts of what's taking place."
Of course, the ludicrous part of your writing this, Charles -- and let me again thank you for participating in some discussion -- is that the only people possibly privileged to write this are people who have done what you are lecturing about.
But if you've, in fact, been to Iraq and talked to the soldiers, I apologize.
If not, I'd like to bring to your attention the absolute absurdity of your taking it upon yourself to lecture Murtha (in his absence, to be sure) that he's only privileged to speak about Iraq if he's been there (which I think he has, but never mind), but somehow, this applies to him, but not to you.
You do realize, if you think about it, that this is cuckoo, right?
"It is egregious to the point of being a personal attack, which is why I consider it a posting rules violation."
I'll agree with Charles here; regardless of your feeling, Spartikus, that "loser-defeatist" has some connotations of "traitor," words have specific meanings, and those are different words -- not synonyms. You're on safe ground in charging Charles with the implications and connotations of "defeatist" in various circumstances, but you really don't have standing to insist that Charles means one word when he uses another, nor to insist that words that are not synonyms are, just because it feels that way to you. In my opinion.
But you're free to carry on telling Charles why "defeatist" is a problematic word choice by itself, in my view.
"Tell me how the phrase 'our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them' is a fact, Gary.
It's not: it's an attempt to apologize for their behavior and defend them, insofar as it is anything. A lot of people have disagreed with that statement of Murtha's, and you're free to, as well. But what justification you have for regarding it as something beyond something to disagree with, for whatever reason, and as something to slur the man, I have no idea.
"Also, Murtha did relay facts, although I don't think "in cold blood" was said to Murtha by DoD officials. That was Murtha's own spin."
Charles, the entire point of what's so horrible about this is that the handful of troops involved apparently spent a considerable time, hours, on the scene, shooting people they had no reason by the rules of engagement to shoot, and then covered up their crime. That's the point. If it were in a battle, that would be different.
Now, if you want to say they were in a rage because of the death of Lance Corporal Miguel (T.J.) Terrazas, then you can argue that, but while neither you nor I are in a position to judge many facts for now, given that Murtha was briefed personally by General Hagee, I'd presume he's presently in a better position to know than either of us. In any case, sooner or later the facts will be relatively clear, and you can then judge how accurate or inaccurate he was.
Have you been following the news stories I've been linking to? Should I run through the accounts again?
"The setting in which he dispensed this combination of facts and opinion and spin was overtly political and overtly agenda-driven. Obviously you see nothing wrong with it, and that's your opinion."
You've not answered my question: you're being overtly political and overtly agenda-driven: is there something wrong with that?
No, I don't see anything wrong with people being political and agenda-driven, so long as they're not lying or distorting facts. You?
"My point upthread (and the ITM link) had nothing to do with good news or bad news in Iraq...."
"Omar is there, too, and more so than Rosen, and he is against immediate withdrawal. Because being there is such an important prerequisite to you, and since Omar has lived there for quite a bit longer, I'm glad you changed your opinion re the immediate redeployment of our troops from Iraq."
I guess you've, on this logic, changed your mind about how the MSM isn't giving us the good news that the Iraqi bloggers are telling us, then.
You didn't answer my query about Riverbend: do you read her, or not? Do you disregard her opinions simply because you don't like them and they contradict yours? What about giving weight to Iraqi bloggers? What about how people should "should spend more time in Iraq [...] getting firsthand accounts of what's taking place."
Is that only if those firsthand accounts accord with your preconceived desires of what you want to believe?
What about my point in quoting all the stuff that I quoted from Iraq The Model, and Healing Iraq: you've simply ignored it in your reply, other than to tell me that I'm "veering dangerously close to jerkoff comment territory."
That you choose to not deal with the accounts I've cited, but to jump to ad hominem, instead, tells me just that: you choose not to deal with accounts that you don't like, even when they're the sources you just cited as most authoritative.
How does that work? How is that intellectually honest, Charles?
Why not discuss the substance of what I quoted, please? What do you think of it? Things going well and getting better? Good news that the MSM isn't telling us because they're biased against the war? Reconcile, by all means, rather than dodge into calling me names, if you wish to persuade anyone of anything other than that you have ad hominem to fall back on.
Thanks.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 30, 2006 at 12:27 AM
Your statement is patently false.
Obviously you didn't read this comment. Honestly, how many times must you be taken to task for not bothering to read what's been written?
You brought up Rosen because he agrees with Murtha that immediate withdrawal is the best course.
That's funny. There's no advocacy for withdrawal in the article. Could it be something else you haven't bothered to read? I wouldn't be surprised if Rosen felt that way, but his observations from Iraq, quite damning, were presented to show that the goal of a "free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic" isn't being achieved by the current policy. I'll ask again: is there any factual claim you dispute from the Nir Rosen article Iraq Is the Republic of Fear?
Omar is there, too, and more so than Rosen, and he is against immediate withdrawal.
Good for him. I'll ask again: is there something specific from Iraq the Model you wish me to read?
Posted by: spartikus | May 30, 2006 at 12:48 AM
I'll agree with Charles here; regardless of your feeling, Spartikus, that "loser-defeatist" has some connotations of "traitor," words have specific meanings, and those are different words -- not synonyms.
Unless they are employed in a manner inconsistent with those specific meanings. Then it becomes a flag of convienence.
That said, I've already admitted it's mindreading.
Posted by: spartikus | May 30, 2006 at 12:59 AM
You know the funny thing my original comment didn't even call out Charles Bird by name.
Another part of my agenda is to live in a world where absolutism is downplayed as much as possible. If someone disagrees with your favoured approach to achieve a goal, for example, they are not labelled "losers", "defeatists", or "traitors".
Posted by: spartikus | May 30, 2006 at 01:05 AM
In case anyone's tired of the above repartee, this is striking.
Posted by: rilkefan | May 30, 2006 at 01:39 AM
i think Tony Blair summed-up the situation pretty well:
I think it's easy to go back over mistakes that we may have made, but the biggest reason why Iraq has been difficult is the determination by our opponents to defeat us.
Wow. I think he's onto something!
(via CNN.com)
Posted by: cleek | May 30, 2006 at 08:05 AM
It's late in the thread to be making any comment, let alone as silly a one as I'm about to make, but, hell.
I'm %75 sure that I met Nir Rosen at a dinner party, about a week before he shipped out to Iraq in the winter of 2002-2003. He was first headed for Kuwait. "What if the war doesn't happen?" we asked, and he said he'd come back. And then we asked "What if the war does happen?" I couldn't quite believe that he would really stay and cover it, as he said he would, because it just sounded so dangerous. There was an interesting dynamic between him (if I'm right about this) and his beautiful, very smart wife: they'd already argued about his going into such danger, it seemed, and they'd come to a wary understanding. Watching them I had that sense of icebergs below the surface.
I remember being very impressed by him, and not the least because when I described a project I was working on at the time, he listened carefully to my then still-fuzzy ideas and then disagreed amicably with my basic conceptual framework. If I'm right about his being Rosen, that is.
(It's hard to say from the photos I've seen: famous-Rosen is thinner and wears glasses, and my visual memory of that night isn't clear.)
Anyway...
Posted by: Jackmormon | May 30, 2006 at 09:34 AM
I have a fresh post with new links on Haditha stories, incidentally, if anyone is interested; I recommend reading the full pieces, not just my quotes, of course.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 30, 2006 at 03:26 PM
Reaction to the Nir Rosen piece summarized.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 30, 2006 at 08:48 PM
So, we go from chimera to chimera. My stock response back when the great hope was the unified secular Iraqi national army was "Robert E. Lee." Now I'm reduced to saying, "William Clarke Quantrill, anyone?"
Posted by: CharleyCarp | May 31, 2006 at 12:51 AM
Back in busy mode again. I haven't read any comments since my last one, but I need to say to Gary that I'm sorry about my own last jerkoff comment. I take it back.
Posted by: Charles Bird | May 31, 2006 at 09:55 AM
Charles and I already had this exchange in e-mail yesterday, where I thanked him, and again told him I appreciated his coming back when I'm roughing him up. (Though, of course, I look forward to him coming back soon so I can continue cuffing him. ;-))
This morning's Haditha roundup here, by the way.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 31, 2006 at 12:56 PM
Last two comments - good stuff.
Posted by: rilkefan | May 31, 2006 at 03:04 PM
Um, Charles? Lakoff talks about framing ideas in a democracy, for political use.
Is not politics war by other means? Do you disagree that we are in an information war as well as a hot war?
Of course, the ludicrous part of your writing this, Charles -- and let me again thank you for participating in some discussion -- is that the only people possibly privileged to write this are people who have done what you are lecturing about.
That wasn't my point about Murtha, Gary. It had to do about where he was getting the information which formed the basis for his wrong conclusions. As a Congressman who chose to turn his back on who knows how many of his own constituents fighting in Iraq, surely it would've been more helpful for him to go there from time to time, such as what McCaffrey did, to get a broader perspective on what's taking place.
Murtha has a higher responsibility than I do, so I don't know why you would compare him to me. I haven't been to Iraq, but I've read a broad range of accounts from folks who are (or were) there. Murtha is an elected representative who's not only speaking for himself, but also for his constituents as a representative of the U.S. government, and especially so because he has purposely put himself on the national stage. And what about the opinions of thousands of troops who disagree strongly with Murtha's take? Did he consider their opinions? Doesn't look that way. Which general, retired or otherwise, agrees that immediate redeployment is our best course of action?
But what justification you have for regarding it as something beyond something to disagree with, for whatever reason, and as something to slur the man, I have no idea.
What slur? Is it not possible that Murtha is doing the slurring by reading the minds of those Marines? To me, he was trying to blame-shift, not apologize for their alleged behavior.
Charles, the entire point of what's so horrible about this is that the handful of troops involved apparently spent a considerable time, hours, on the scene, shooting people they had no reason by the rules of engagement to shoot, and then covered up their crime. That's the point.
That's the difference between you and Murtha, Gary. You used the word "apparently", which was my point. Murtha not only rendered his judgment, he also apparently knew their states of mind. He may end up being right, that an atrocity occurred, but I still believe he wrong for politicizing it in the manner he did.
I guess you've, on this logic, changed your mind about how the MSM isn't giving us the good news that the Iraqi bloggers are telling us, then.
My long-running point is that Iraq is a big country, and journalism that follows the if-it-bleeds-it-leads playbook does not paint an accurate picture of what's taking place, especially with the magnifying effect that news reports (especially TV) can have. There is also an information war we are fighting. Yes, there's plenty of bad news, and it's out there every day. I've never not acknowledged that, so I'm not sure why you may think I'm fixated on good-news-only.
That said, I am concerned that there are many who are eager to talk down Iraq, just as there are Krugmanites who will talk down the economy at every opportunity. It may be a bad analogy, but it reminds of a time when I was playing golf with a fella who bitched and moaned after every single shot but finished at two over. Barone has another perspective.
You asked if thought the situation in Iraq is getting better. It depends. Right now, the violence is worse since the new government was established. There's a bunch of militant Islamist Sunnis in Hadith, Ramadi and Baghdad and other places who need to quit or die, and there remains thousands of Iraqi troops who need more training to help do the job. It's going to take time.
You didn't answer my query about Riverbend: do you read her, or not? Do you disregard her opinions simply because you don't like them and they contradict yours? What about giving weight to Iraqi bloggers?
I read her for awhile, but when she broke out with a lingering and virulent case of BDS, I quit her. I do read other Iraqi bloggers and other bloggers in Iraq, and I generally take what they say seriously.
Obviously you didn't read this comment.
I read it, sparti, and I agree with Gary and I disagree with you. And your statement remains patently false. Defeatism, even political defeatism, does not equate to treason, especially since this is the third time that I've said that I don't accept your wikipedia definition. If I meant treason, I would have said it outright, not backdoored it.
Also, let's be clear on what I didn't read in this entire 276-comment thread: it was one single link from one comment written by Gary, which I have since read. So please keep that in mind before you start making more stupid generalizations.
That's funny. There's no advocacy for withdrawal in the article.
You're correct. It simply reinforced his earlier theme, which is in virtual lockstep with Murtha.
I'll ask again: is there any factual claim you dispute from the Nir Rosen article Iraq Is the Republic of Fear?
Asked and answered.
Posted by: Charles Bird | June 06, 2006 at 05:40 PM
I read her for awhile, but when she broke out with a lingering and virulent case of BDS, I quit her.
Well, that certainly says it all.
I don't accept your wikipedia definition.
That's your prerogative. Nevertheless, the labelling of people with the term in wartime remains, in my opinion, shorthand for treason, in spirit. I'm sure you'll be able to live with the fact we disagree on that.
If I meant treason, I would have said it outright, not backdoored it.
Maybe. I have no way of truly knowing without mindreading.
Asked and answered.
Where's your answer? Could you link to it? Or is it simply a case where an author disagrees with your politics, therefore the things they write about are, by definition, untrue.
Posted by: spartikus | June 06, 2006 at 08:00 PM