Dissent and Patriotism
Dean
Tim at Crack the Bell has further thoughts on dissent and patriotism.
I'll only add this: no one ever said dissent is unpatriotic. There is certainly patriotic dissent and unpatriotic dissent as well as dissent which is neither one nor the other--he who insists that Pi=3.4 is certainly dissenting, but his patriotism doesn't enter into it either way.
My own view is that in times of war patriotic dissent involves constructive criticism, turning a very critical eye toward attacks on our service members, and, when you're going to criticize policies being carried out by the government, actually have clear and explicit alternatives you advocate instead of the current policies. It also usually involves hoping you're wrong and that the troops succeed in their mission.
I really don't find any of that all that radical, and I find at least some people just a wee bit too defensive on such points (and no, I don't mean Tim).
Related Posts (on one page):
- Speaking of Patriotism...
- Dissent and Patriotism
- "Dissent Is Patriotic"
Yeah, right, that'll be the day. I keep asking the critics for their alternative policies and all I ever hear are the same old catcalls - "BushCo", "chickenhawk", and the rest of the moldy oldies. It's too easy to just heckle, any seventh grader can tell you that.
Neither do the gasps of horror and rants about how we're descending into fascism and are when I speak that obvious truth. Since when is saying "you're an unpatriotic butthead" a fascist boot on your neck? Answer: only in the fever-dreams of the ultra-paranoid.
Damn right.
Unfortunately, we are woefully short on genunine constructive criticism, that seeks to provide solutions instead of scoring political points by pouncing on every shortcoming.
Come to think of it, I cannot really think of one Democrat who genuinely engages in such constructive criticism as regards the war in Iraq.
Hillary? She is as transparent as gauze. She is the worst offender of all - one who puts on a show of 'constructive criticism' when all she really wants is power.
Possible reasonable explanations: 1) Saddam fell more quickly than anyone expected, and 2) It is very difficult to plan for any situation so complicated on such short notice.
Constructive Praise: The Administration showed a remarkable willingness to be flexible, discarding the Admiral and replacing him with Paul Bremer.
Constructive Criticism: Paul Bremer was too slow to accept the input of Ayatollah Sistani.
Possible reasonable explanations: The fear of creating another Iran-like Religious driven theocracy was reasonable given America's experiences with radical Islamic religionists.
Constructive Praise: Paul Bremer eventually came around and incorportated many suggestions from the Ayatollah without unduly antogonizing the Shiite majority.
Constructive Criticism: President Bush and his Administration does a poor job, strike that, a very poor job of communicating the status and progress of our efforts, not only in Iraq, but in the Greater War on Terror overall.
Possible explanations: 1) President Bush does not trust a hostile press, and 2) Some information needs to be held back because it affects current operations.
Constructive Suggestions: Irregardless of a hostile press, it is the responsibility of the President to more forcefully, more clearly, and more often communicate directly with the American people. Ultimately, this is not a venture of just this Administration, but it is a venture of the American people. He must do better.
Note: If the press was truly doing its job, and was not seen as overtly hostile to both the President and the Iraq campaign, then perhaps President Bush wouldn't be so reluctant to talk to them. In other words, the bias and hostility of the press is inhibiting their ability to effectively report by alienating the very people we need to get information from. In this environment, the only people communicating are the disillusioned and the disgruntled - hardly a good informant base for open and balanced reporting. And this just reinforces the press' bias since they only consistently hear from the critics.
I'm sure there are many others. President Bush and his Administration has been far from perfect. But he has earned the trust of the American people because of his obvious commitment to try and keep the American homeland safe. Even if he ultimately fails, i.e. there is another major attack, the American people will know he did his best to try and avert the attack, and that he will respond to any such attack with the full might and fury of the American people.
More importantly, our enemies also know this. It is what you might call "effective deterence." Even if the American left (including the MSM)doesn't believe Bush, our enemies do believe him. Ultimately, that is more important than assuaging the hurt feelings of the discredited press.
And who is dying now? Iraqi civilians and U.S. and coalition Soldiers primarily in Iraq.
What I want is an absolute victory on the war on terror, but I also want a truthful accounting of the Bush Administration's plan to take down Sadaam LONG before the war.
I'm about as left as they come in the Army, but please don't assume that all or even most democrats want an American defeat. We can't pull out of Iraq now, that would be absolutely the worst thing to do, but it doesn't stop those on the right (Mr. Freedom Fries) from demanding that we pull out. "Oh, I didn't know so many Americans were going to die. We need to pull out now in order to avoid more casualties." Look, fuck-stick, you mother fuckers got us in this war, and we're going to see it through! Don't go pulling out like your daddy should have long ago.
The fact that Saddam was supposed to disarm in a certain way, had not done so, violated the ceasefire reqirements in the armistice were all pushing a confrontation. Saddam would not back down nor would he behave according to his agreements. So in that sense war was inevitable as soon as the two towers fell. He could not be trusted, so he had to go. He refused to comply so it was war.
Inevitable as long as the United States demanded that he conform to the armistice his government signed, and truly no fault but his own.
"They want an American defeat in the War on Terrorism, not merely in Iraq but everywhere it is being fought. They want to see America, and Western civilization, destroyed."
The "they" I was referring to are the Noam Chomskys, Ramsey Clarks, Lord Pork Porks, Ward Eichmanns, ANSWER, and other such treasonous, subversive rats in our media and universities -- not patriotic, brave soldiers like Tim the Soldier, no matter how their views on this or other issues might differ from mine. I support every one of our soldiers 100%, including most definitely Tim the Soldier and Eel-Master, who has been commenting here in Dean's World and in the Queen's realm longer than I have, even as long as has Arnold Harris.
Truthfull accounting? What kind of crap
is that?
Who on th right is saying that?
Yeah, that's a rational argument.
"The "they" I was referring to are the Noam Chomskys, Ramsey Clarks, Lord Pork Porks, Ward Eichmanns, ANSWER, and other such treasonous, subversive rats in our media and universities"
Jimmy Carter, too.
Iraq was hardly the most threatening nation to the U.S. prior to or after 9/11. Why didn't we take out those regimes? My answer is that we picked the quick easy target. What about Syria, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, or Saudi Arabia? Hmmmmm.
"When I look at the number of men and women who have been killed it's almost 1,700 now, in addition to close to 12,000 have been severely wounded and I just feel that the reason of going in for weapons of mass destruction, the ability of the Iraqis to make a nuclear weapon, that's all been proven that it was never there," Jones said on ABC's "This Week."
There were no good answers, and Iraq was the weakest and easiest of three nasty targets (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). It was the one which we were still at war with. Based on the circumstances as we knew them at that time, Saddam had to go. The ball was in his court - all he had to do was comply with the armistice, get his bill of good health, have the sanctions lifted, and then go on his WMD shopping spree, and there would have been little we could have done. But no, he had to play the tough guy.
There were other reasons listed in the Congressional Authorization. Any one of which may not be enough, but together, yeah, they justified everything. And still being at war with Iraq since 1991, we had all the international law cover we wanted. (By the way, the US Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. As no treaty can override the US Constitution, that power remains with Congress, and it remains legal for the USA to declare war when it wants. This is not to say the motivation for a declaration would be a good on, it would just remain legal.)
Other reasons have come forward since that time, probably the best is that the Bin Laden's of the world have to fight in Iraq, now. They cannot afford the loss of face that losing in Iraq would entail (weak horse-strong horse). So they pour men and resources into this theater, to the exclusion of most others. They fight trained American troops who are armed to the teeth, not civilians. And they attack and kill fellow Arabs and Muslims. That is not such a good thing for the jihadis. They are fueling a backlash there where they should be trying to keep their support network strong. All to the good.
Again, that couldn't be used to justify war because the reaction of Bin Laden wasn't known. All in all, I think the campaign was justified, especially on bursting that thirty-year-old bubble, the one that said Americans would not fight. (We always have to burst that bubble - tyrants everywhere think that for some weird reason).
I like cars too, but I'm not going to go out and buy a Yugo. And while I support the war, I'd rather drive a Corvette than a Yugo (BushCo).
Disagreement is part of the equation, and Tim disagrees. The majority of the people who decided to vote agreed with the Bush Administration. That's where we're at, and wishing won't change anything. We need to discuss this from this point onward, not continuously rehash the arguments of three years ago. People need to drop their tired old slogans, "Bush Lied, People Died!" and so on. We need to start facing the future and stop the self-congratulatory navel gazing that this continuous drumbeat of Bush-hatred is a symptom of us.
Candidly, if Mr. Gore had won in 2000, I would have agreed to go to war in 2001 and 2003. Taking the fight to them is the only answer that'll work. I've dealt with enough bullies in my life (and the Islamofascists are bullies) and realize the only thing they understand is the application of force. Thirty years of threats and climbdowns are being paid for right now.
I'm amazed that an actual, honest-to-God Army man can be so completely off point.
Well, let's consider World War Two. Who attacked on December 7, 1941? Hitler or Hirohito?
And who is dying now? French civilians in North Africa and U.S. and allied Soldiers primarily in Morocco, French West Africa, and Algeria.
What I want is an absolute victory in the war on the Axis, but I also want a truthful accounting of the Rooseveldt Administrations' plan to take down Hitler LONG before 12/7/1941. Anyone remember the destroyers for bases deal, Lend/Lease, and the shoot on sight orders to the Navy before the war? Not to mention the participation of U.S. Navy vessels in escorting belligerent convoys to Great Britain, including firing on German boats while they were at war with the British Empire, and the United States was supposedly a neutral country.
Then Tim whips out some nitwit Republican who's chief claim to fame is christening "Freedom Fries," and acts as if that proves something.
There's weak sisters on the GOP side? No shit, sherlock. Your point is?...
Tell the citizens something they don't know.
Tim, you are a living, breathing example of really lame dissent. Unpatriotic? Hell, no. I have absolutely no doubt that you would answer the call, and I respect that. I also appreciate everyone who serves, and that includes you.
No, you aren't in Iraq, but I know enough that every man and woman in uniform sacrifices something to wear it. While I don't know it, I don't doubt you could be making more money as a civilian doing equivalent work.
Thank you, sir, for that service.
That said, you still come up with some of the silliest arguments I've heard, and I feel the obligation to nail you for the presentation thereof.
Your above post is a very silly, silly argument. Perhaps we should invent a Department of Silly Arguments, like the one for Silly Walks? :)
Your follow up post presents some hard questions. I used to defend Bush 41's decision to stop before Baghdad, but -considering what's happened the past three years- we might as well have invaded, since pretty much all the events which made Bush 41 apprehensive happened. Should we call this his "Versailles moment?"
I would say that the previous Kurd atrocities didn't make an impression because D.C. was still operating in Cold War mode: as long as the dictators don't make waves, we ignore them while facing the USSR. At the time Hussein hadn't provided any solid indicators that he intended to take on the US later. Ok, he didn't really intend to take on the US over Kuwait, either, but that's because he had worse intel than Bush 43 ever did. {snort}
You missed (I feel) an important point: why the hell didn't Bush '41 do something after Desert Storm once Hussein started slaughtering the Iraquis who were dumb enough to take Bush's speeches seriously, and tried to take Hussein down!? He left those poor bastards out to die.
But that's really irrelevant to Bush '43s decisions a dozen years later, isn't it? Different man, different administration, vastly different context.
Your following comments, alas, revert back to "do I really understand what I'm discussing" mode, alas. If you like, I can give you a basic rundown on why/why not on the states mentioned. Cuba, for example, is only a threat to... Well (honestly) it isn't an active threat at all.
And... Will you shut up about Walter "Spineless" Jones already? Fine, fine. You managed to find one certified Republican who is just as will to cut and run in the same manner as worthless trash Democrats such as Kennedy, Boxer, and Pelosi. Feh. Most of the Democrats in D.C. are as least as spineless as that little turd, Jones.
Real argument, please?
After that you shift over to "those civilians in the administration making the most uneducated asinine decisions about how to wage and win the war that have never been addressed," but you haven't mentioned any specifics thereof in this entire thread. Is it time to say "moving the goalposts" yet?
Mike, you said "Steve, I'm going to call BS on that. War is too important to be left to the military, way too important to be left to a small segement of society."
Um, I think Steve was pulling your leg. He was merely turning around (with a very straight face) a very famous quote from World War One
Again missing the point on too many levels to count. The decision to go to war ALWAYS rests with the elected officials. Once that decision has been made however, get the hell out of the way and let the military decide how best to accomplish the mission. We've seen it far too many times - when the civilians back in Washington make decisions regarding troops in theater, bad shit happens. BushCo. completely ignored Gen. Shinsheki, Gen Franks, and others with how to properly establish the peace after initial victory. If you can't see that, there may be no hope for you.
You are clearly comparing apples to oranges with the War in Iraq and WW II.
Are you telling me that Bush has not made ONE mistake in the war on Iraq?
"Will you shut up about Walter "Spineless" Jones already?"
Touched a nerve huh?
I agree instead with the great General who said:
"War is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. We have no choice but total commitment. I cannot sit by and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist Conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."
Our Holy War: The Goddess against the Godless.
Comparisons to WWII are appropriate to show how humans act. The Guadacanal landings were a fiasco and Savo Sound was a disaster. So we should have fired the Roosevelt Administration for piss-poor planning and inadequate night training? No, you adapt and go on, which we do. Welcome to real life - military operations do not go 100% perfect except on the game board. And not even then.
By the way, "BushCo" leads me to conclude that you cannot give an honest assesment of the subject. Your judgement is too clouded by your emotions. Similar to those people who call Senator Clinton "the Hildebeast". The phrases say more about the speaker than they do the subject. And really, do you think you can give an honest assesment of President Bush's performance? Can you actually give proper credit where due and balanced criticism? I, for one, doubt you can.
But I could be wrong.
You may be right in your observation. I don't have much respect for George W. Bush personally. What has he done successfully in his life? Getting elected to office doesn't count. Hell, Maxine Waters keeps getting elected to office, that proves nothing.
Admit mistakes (don't dwell on them) and move on!
I do not merely claim that your argument is silly, I explicitly illustrate that fact by drawing direct parallels with similar situations in WW2, which you completely ignore. No, I take that back. You claim I am comparing apples to oranges, but make the teeny little mistake of forgetting to support your argument.
"Once that decision has been made however, get the hell out of the way and let the military decide how best to accomplish the mission."
Oh, we've done really well if FDR had followed that precept during the war. You do know that Admiral King was very much favor of a "Japan first" strategy, yes? Especially after we encountered significant trouble on coming to an agreement with the British on overall strategic objectives in 1942? You have actually read detailed accounts of the arguments which crossed the Atlantic, haven't you? Rooseveldt was very much in charge of the overall strategy.
Now, once he formulated that strategy, and conveyed this to his military staff, then you are correct. For example, FDR pretty much orchestrated our involvment in North Africa against the explicit opposition of most of his advisors. But once he had settled strategy with the Brits, he did indeed pass off the execution to the military.
Please note what I'm doing here, Tim; it's called addressing your opponent's arguments directly, and providing solid examples. You may want to try it sometime, instead of the ipse dixit approach. :)
Bush has done the same thing. He's defined overall strategy, then allowed the theatre commanders to execute it.
And here we come (again) with Shineski. I bet the Bush-bashers get erections every time they mention his name, because here's a Real. Live. Ginral who disagreed with Bush. The Gospel according to Saint Shineski, forsooth.
I suppose this means that you think generals are always right about everything they say, because if that's not the case, then Shineski's opinions don't mean shit. We both know you can always find someone who thought any given operation was a bad idea, so you just might want to try to support that claim with some ... facts, since otherwise all you're doing is arguing by appeal to authority.
For example, I can specifically cite instances where generals with extensive battlefield experience still screwed up on more than one occasion. Take MacArthur, for example. His 1942 Phillipines campaign was a total clusterfuck, and ten years later he nearly got UN forces in Korea wiped out because he refused to listen to his intel staff. After that he advocated escalating the war to nukes.
Besides, all Shineski said was that we needed more troops. Do you really think a few thousand (after deducting the 90% tail) more combat boots on the ground would have made much more difference in a country the size of California? If so, why? Because Shineski said so?
I'm wondering if you reading my posts correctly? I don't know why else you you'd say something to imply that ever said, implied, or otherwise implicated that Bush "never made a mistake." I did say your argument was silly. After that I provided specific and explicit examples to support my argument. I did not appeal to authority, nor did I provide arguments "because I say so." That is, by assertation without support.
As for the "Spineless" Jones crack (and I agree he's spineless) my point is: can you quit with the pathetic citations? It embarasses me that you stoop so low. What's next, Gannon faggot jokes?
You're better than that, Tim. I know it.
So why not try real arguments, with specific examples to support your position; all of which is directed by a thread which is supported by actual logic and reason, instead of dogmatic faith?