Debate Space

When will it be time to go home?

2005-11-21T09:46:00.000-05:00

Well, this one is in the news a great deal now, and more and more people jump on the "bring our troops home bandwagon". Hopefully DM will be up to this one after he's had a few more days soaking up home, family and work.

I must confess I myself am not on the "troops out now" bandwagon, simply because the current state if Iraq is not, from my understanding, adequately stabilized for the good money to be on a democratic, human-rights-respecting regime to take hold in Iraq that will last. I also do not entirely dismiss suggestions that either a Shia theocracy tied to Iran, or (not unrelated) a civil war could quite easily spring up between the Iran-backed Shia majority and the Saudi (and al-q) backed Sunni minority.

Lets be very clear here. While leaving Vietnam seemed like a good idea at the time, it left a LOT of people in the lurch. Even then, however, there WAS a stable (Chinese puppet) government in the North, which was able to take control of the whole country. If the Iraqui government falls, there isn't a fall-back.

So lets maybe debate a few questions and see where we go:

1. Should there be an absolute time cap on US involvement in Iraq?

2. What are the absolute "must meet" targets before an withdrawal?

3. If the US needs/wants to pull out before these targets are met, is there an obligation to arrange for other nations to be a part of the rest of the work?

4. What mistakes has the current administration made up until now that may have delayed possible withdrawal dates?

5. What has the administration done right that has helped the process along?

6. What could the administration do now to help expedite the process in an effective and appropriate manner?

BW's Answers (to himself :P )

Okay, I'll just start by saying that I did not support the invasion of Iraq. I felt that 100% of US military and economic assets in the region should have been directed into Afghanistan, and completed the "deTalibanification" of that country, democratizing ALL the provinces not just the capital, and suppressing where necessary even former allied warlords where their respect for human rights is not demonstrably better than the Taliban's. Preventing a return to opium poppy production might have been nice too. Following that, severe pressure on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the key funders of the madrassas and agents of the spread of radical Sunni Islam and indirect culprits of 9/11 to a much more profound extent than Iraq. In short, it should have STAYED a war on terrorism and on Al Quaeda.

As for Iraq, it should have been handled with a VERY hard look at the corruption and violations in the oil for food program, and otherwise kept up the no-fly zones, forced inspections with airstrikes punishing noncompliance and economic sanctions as needed. Military force to be kept as a reserve if confirmed targets of chem/bil/nuke sites were discovered.

For preparation in general, the US forces (including intelligence forces) should have instituted full-force economic or promotion-based incentives for the learning of Arabic. I'm talking 6 months minimum off with pay to learn, bonuses, promotions, you name it, just by demonstrating verbal proficiency in Arabic. Additional bonuses for intelligence staff who learn written Arabic. The Muslim world has a lovely gift in the spread of a single second language, and there was no excuse after 9/11 not to PUSH folks to learn Arabic. This would have been useful in Afghanistan, and more profoundly useful in Iraq. It also would have increased HUMINT opportunities in the global war on terror.

Okay, now I'll answer my own questions:

1. Yeah. 25 years. Took about that long in Germany, and that is about the only example we have. The task as it has been decided is not just changing leaders, or something as simple as conquest and foreign administration. The goal as set is the complete change of a country that has been ruled dicatorially for longer than most of its citizens have been alive. The change goal is an end to dictatorship, market capitalist economy, human rights laws almost unheard of in the region and representative democracy. A five year timeline is a joke. You have to actually have people GROW UP in that environment until they're truly comfortable in it.

2. a) Crime rates (including terrorism) comparable to pre-war numbers and/or to similary countries in the region (Iran and Saudi Arabia would seem best comparisons).
b) Third-party confirmation of relatively positive human rights record. NGO inspections.
c) Substantial improvement in internation ratings for liveability, quality of life, etc. Better that pre-sanctions Iraq, comparable or better than regional averages.
d) Free and fair elections, again as assessed by third parties, ideally international bodies dedicated to this. Carter's group perhaps.
e) Not much else. You'll note I'm not talking about numbers of police, numbers of the army, yadda yadda yadda. Those are interim goals designed (one would hope) to meet the larger goals. They are only valuable if they lead to the larger goals.

3. Oh my yes, there is. Of course I'm not so sure who those nations are, but if their efforts were financed by the US, there might be some takers. I know there was a lot of talk about other nations stepping up to help with Iraq's reconstruction and helping to finance it shortly after the war, but really you can't expect countries who refused to participate in the war, or even opposed it to help pay the reconstruction bill. 'You break it, you buy it' isn't an alien concept to anyone. Regardless, the US can't withdraw without someone else picking up the medium and long-term slack. It'd be immoral.

4. The answer here depends on what you believe the war was for, what it should have accomplished and what goals you see as the end ones. If there was ANY hope of a relatively quick (ie. under 5 year) withdrawal, the administrations has made a ton of mistakes, not the least of which was de-Baathification. You can't very well dissolve all the key power structures in a totalitarian state, execute/imprison/dispossess its leaders and then expect to have a functionning country quickly. If you wanted quick, would have been best to invade, 'let' one of Saddam's least odius lieutentants "accidently" kill him, then put that guy in power. You would have a stable country. Not a NICE country, not a JUST country, but a stable country. Then, if you cared enough, you could pressure the new regime to give you bases in the country and then apply ongoing pressure over years to improve human rights, etc.

Another issue is whether the US administration should have been civilian at any stage. In my opinion, the country should have been military administered with a goal to hand it over to Iraq civilians first. No offense to Bremer personally, but I trust the military more than I trust a Bush appointee.

Human rights is another issue. IMHO the Administration STILL should join the international court of human rights and let issues like Saddam's trial be dealt with by them.

Reconstruction dollars is another area that should have been dealt with differently. It was presented as a carrot to help encourage people to join the war, they would be eligable for lucrative reconstruction contracts, etc. IMHO as much as possible core reconstruction work should have been left to the Army Corps of Engineers (whom we can trust to be competent, above corruption AND be able to secure their own job sites), and the remaining non-essentials to be completed by the first Iraqui-run civilian authority/government as they saw fit. The private sector, US and otherwise, is milking a LOT of money out of this whole process that should be spent on the work itself. Where the expertise of private contractors were needed, oversight by the engineers would still seem wisest.

Hrm, that's the second time I've suggested less civilian involvement and more trust and support for the military in dealing with the initial reconstruction work. Perhaps that's a theme. Why trust the military to take the country, but not trust them to initially administer and rebuild it?

In short, if Bush wanted a withdrawal within a couple of years, he should NEVER have completed the process of eliminating the former administrations police and army. Sure, some leaders had to go, but a lot more had to be pardoned and sent back to their main jobs of maintaining law and order. If however Bush wanted the democratized and totally retooled nation that is being talked about, he should have asked someone with some education in history, told the American poeple from the outset that it would be a 10 to 20 year plan, and then started off right from the outset on that path. Of course preparing for that path also would have needed more than a few months preparation, and it wouldn't have hurt to had a HELL of a lot more troops trained in Arabic (as I mentionned earlier) before it was attempted.

5. One of the best things the Administration has done is resisted the urge to install a puppet. Elections earlier than some might have expected also helped. I must say that the other thing the administration has done a very good job of is accept casualties. Not that I like seeing folks maimed and killed, but one of the biggest problems I always saw with Clinton was he was too chickenhearted to accept that nothing profound can be accomplished militarily without putting boots on the ground, and accepting that some of those men and women will not come home alive. Much as Iraq is a mess, at least he's not afraid to lose some people. Somalia and Yugoslavia might have turned out much different if Clinton hadn't run at the first site of blood, or preferred bombing to boots in an operation meant to protect civilian populations.

6. a) First off, the administration needs to start being honest about their choices, and how long term the plan needs to be. Granted, that is political suicide, but it is needful to keep the American people from a building groundswell to withdraw US forces long before they are ready. As a second-term president, political suicide shouldn't be keeping him up nights regardless, and the Republicans can easily field a competitive candidate in the next Presidential election that can support effective reconstruction
b) Second, its time to reintroduce the draft. Sorry, it is. The US is already starting to feel the pinch of being overcommitted militarily, and that will only get worse. Our military in Canada is so small and so over-committed that we've been burning out our best soldiers (and their families) with far too many foreign deployments. You can either reduce your commitments (something that seems impossible right now?) or you can make a big boost to manpower. In any case the stop-loss stuff and some of the dodgy officer recovery efforts recently are doing the same thing, but only to those who have chosen in the past to serve their country. The current miltary could absorb these folks in small batches, with the excellent professional military core in place. Any new draft should probably also eliminate class-based exemptions. University students can afford a year or two off. Hell, most of them are already taking it and going to Europe or working or something until they've "found themselves". They can find themselves in uniform. Make their schools guarantee their spots until they return. The children of the rich, of politicians, etc can serve as well. Perhaps we'll have better leaders in the future with some folks who have at least *seen* the sharp end, rather than sending others to it.
c) Stop/roll back tax cuts. I mean hey, some common sense. This is all costing a fortune, but it is worth doing right. That's no excuse for making future generations pay the cost. Pay for it now. At the very least eliminate the shortfall of revenue. The time to reduce taxes for ANY nation is after not just the defecit is paid off, but after the DEBT is paid off. They debt carrying charges are gone and taxes naturally go WAY down. Ask any country or province that has done it. Once you retire your debt, you can and should cut your taxes to the bone. Otherwise, you're as crazy as the man with a 200K mortgate who goes down to part-time work from a good full-time job. You'd call him crazy if it was a person, but some call it "good economics" when a country does it. DUH!!!!
d) Establish formal domestic prison systems for terrorists in Iraq and in the US and rules that can be applied CONSISTENTLY in determining whether someone is a POW as defined by the Geneva conventions, a criminal as defined by the laws of the nation in question or a terrorist, in which case a new international convention should be established to define them, and delineate how they should be deal with. Terrorist prisons in Iraq should be run by Iraquis with civilian oversight, like the H-blocks in Northern Ireland used for the longest time to house terrorists separately from regular criminals, under civilian oversight. Once an international agreement regarding terrorist detention is made, end the practice of using the questionable "enemy combatant" term to ignore existing rules. Have military detention only for legitimate POWs, and leave the military out of all management of terrorists following their capture. Require the conviction or at least a finding of terrorism of individuals before they can be detained long term, and require they be charged within two weeks of their capture, barring special circumstances, and brought to trial within a year of their capture (again barring circumstances). Ensure terrorist prisons are open to inspection by the Red Cross just as POW prisons are. Ensure torture is not used except as specifically delineated by a law passed by the US government, without leeway for local 'creativity'.
e) Establish and impose sanctions on nations found to be exporting terror not just internationally but even regionally. Distinguish between formal state sponsorship and simply the export of radical citizens acting privately, but hold nations accountable to some extent for both. Establish positive reward practices for nations that in good faith reduce or eliminate such practices.
f) It's still not too late to spend a ton of time and effort teaching all US military officers Arabic, and ideally NCMs as well. Bonuses for ANY troop regardless of rank who demonstrates proficiency in written and oral Arabic. Similarly classes (not just a few, but say 40 hours at least) on local culture mandatory for folks in-country but also expecting to be deployed as well. Relying on domestic interpreters for day-to-day matters is insane, a short-term solution inappropriate in a longer deployment. Having a SMALL cadre of such experts (well educated and carefully vetted) to troubleshoot, teach and train would work much better.

Dadmanly offline for a bit, thus a break from debate

2005-10-14T14:14:00.000-05:00

I'm sure most of you read Dadmanly's blog, but if anyone doesn't I'll mention here he's not expecting internet access of any quality for the last few weeks of his deployment. He's taking a break from blogging for that time out of necessity. I'm sure you all join with me in wishing or praying for his safe return and of his troops as their tour ends, and look forward to hearing from him when he's back.

For now I'll keep arguing as needed with folks who wish in the comments section here, and perhaps if enough people want to continue to debate by comment we could try another topic, but mostly I'll be looking forward to his return to the US and him coming back to try to kick my butt some more (I had to put in the "try", I'm sorry, I'm terrible :P).

BW

Dadmanly Responds:

I want to thank BW for his patience with me during this time. That must seem like a dirty trick, get him all worked up with some animated discussion, then I fall off the face of the earth!

(Not exactly my best timing, starting in with a new debate partner when I have to take a sabbatical.)

My time is crunched pretty good, I am still blogging but restricted to wrtie ahead and upload, not ideally suited to a back and forth format. Also, I have some "want to get done" stuff before I am out of the sandbox.

If there are any of our regular readers interested in a debate with BW, please let one of us know. I can invite you in if you send along your email. (If BW is interested.)

Again, thanks BW for tipping off the readers, and for the lively exchanges. I've enjoyed them (when I wasn't expressing extreme dissatisfaction with your views in somewhat off color ways, God forgive me ;) I look forward to having more time for more rhetorical scrimmages.

If you're not with us, you're agin us!

2005-10-11T11:13:00.000-05:00

Right, this is a reference to DM's main blog which references Blackfive's blog. I didn't get a chance to read the comment that annoyed DM as it seems deleted from blackfives blog, so I'll just quote DM:

What did Blackfive say again?
At some point, you have to pick sides. Not choosing a side is choosing not to be on our side.
In other other words (ones that are connected to reality), maintaining some bizarre sense of impartiality or neutrality (or objectivity, which would probably be okay if any of the Old New Journalists knew what that word meant), in the face of brutal inhumanity is to be on the side of evil. When a terrorist intentionally targets innocents, women and children, families, any form of non-combatant, they are not deserving of any sympathy or respect. And to remain non-judgmental about them is to condone and tolerate evil. And that, my morally tone-deaf friends, puts you on the other side.

Okay, so very quickly, I'm going to duck the media part of it per se, I've beaten that one to death right here and overall from out comments its beaten to death everywhere.

Here are my objections to the argument:

1. There is nothing so simple as two sides. Even the AIF are not all on the same side. There are (as I've noted in the past) clear examples of terrorists in the AIF, but also groups that do not intentionally target civilians. If the Iraq war in particular had been (or even was currently) as simple as Al Qaeda (still can't spell it right) vs. the people of the United States, and it was an Al Q government, it could be argued perhaps more successfully that there are only 2 clear-cut sides to the war. But then as many have pointed out, Iraq was very low down the list of state sponsors of terrorism, low on the list of know WMD producers/researchers and is only recently becoming the themepark for every sadist wacko and devout/homicidal Islamist in the east...

2. Bush killed this expression for the foreseeable future. He said you're with him or with the terrorists. At the time he said it the debate was not at all about supporting the terrorists, it was about HOW to beat the terrorists and his plans were not the ONLY plans that were conceivably workable to prevent future 9/11s and punish the people responsible. He also used this line on Canada (we do not miss our last US Ambassador BTW, seemed to think we were some kind of vassal) and it did not go over well. We chose "not with you" but never for a second accepted that this made us bad people or terrorist supporters. In fact we continued our part on the war on terror in Afganistan (we're in a hot spot there right now BTW), we continue to work co-operatively with the US government on domestic antiterrorism, signals intelligence and the million other issues we need to co-operate on as neighbours, allies and key trading partners. But we weren't about to join the Iraq war, and still aren't.

3. The administration has a very selective view of which evil murderers of innocents should be taken to task, and for that matter the US government over time can be similarly criticized. Some evil dictators have been quietly ignored by the US government. Some have been supported, even lionized. Similarly some very nasty "insurgents" or "freedom fighters" have been supported by the US government. If what people do to pursue their goals should *consistently* be the compass of the sides the US picks, then you're looking at a HUGE realignment in US foreign policy.

4. In the case of DM or B5, which side is YOUR side? I'm not going to be on your side politically. You're soldiers but also far on the right in general. Although we acknowledged in a previous discussion the US military is probably majority right wing at this point, that shouldn't mean 'support our troops' means 'vote Republican'. So if your government is giving you a mission that some folks believe is wrong, CAN they oppose the mission without opposing the troops? CAN they support the mission yet oppose the methodology laid out to achieve it?

5. There's nothing morally tone deaf about refusing to paint just some people as evil. Speaking for myself as a person on the left, what I find annoying is the selectivity of the current administration's use of the word evil. I find a LOT more evil in the world than Mr. Bush talks about, and I hate it when bad people or governments are tolerated and NOT named as evil because they are key allies in another area. A LOT of key allies in the war on terror are dictatorships or monarchies. Many of them have TERRIBLE human rights records. Some, like for example Pakistan, support terrorism in Kashmir and India. Some, like some of the warlords serving as regional administrators in Afghanistan, are the worst sort of murderous, drug-dealing thugs. Plus as a fellow Christian like Mr. Bush, it strikes me odd he doesn't take a stronger tone on the persecution of Christians in allied Muslim countries. I can't think of anything more evil to me than suppressing God-fearing brothers and sisters or encouraging that hate with simplistic fundamentalist muslim schools of indoctrination in those nations, the very schools I might add that were a key part of the Taliban's Afghanistan, and many of whose graduates joined Al Q and the Taliban.

BW

Dadmanly Responds:

Man, I picked a bad time to pick a fight ;) I'm exhausted from the increased Operations Tempo (OPTEMPO), to which any who have deployed or redeployed in a command position will relate.

I really can't give this the justice it deserves, but I'll poke at it a bit until I need to lie down.

By the way, you must know I'm being tagged teamed by an anti-war blogger and commenter from over at Blackfive. (It's my own fault, I went and put a stick in the hornet's nest.)

1. I would strenuously object to your characterization of Iraq or the enemy we fight here. I believe your facts and assumptions to be it to be in error, though widely reported in the press. Stephen Hayes ahs done an excellent job marshalling substantial evidence of the very real possibility that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 specifically and worldwide terrorism more generally, more widely than has been acknowledged by mainstream media.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, the "insurgent" who was at one time part of the Iraqi Army or Baathist government is almost non-existent. Foreign fighters predominate, with criminal elements a more distant second destabilizing force.

2. Bush killed this expression for the foreseeable future. He said you're with him or with the terrorists.

That's actually not what he said. The speeches you are referring to specifically were addressed to state sponsors of Terrorism (you know, Axis of Evil type countries with a long history of funding, sponsoring, directing, and protecting terrorists.

3. The administration has a very selective view of which evil murderers of innocents should be taken to task, and for that matter the US government over time can be similarly criticized. Some evil dictators have been quietly ignored by the US government. Some have been supported, even lionized. Similarly some very nasty "insurgents" or "freedom fighters" have been supported by the US government. If what people do to pursue their goals should *consistently* be the compass of the sides the US picks, then you're looking at a HUGE realignment in US foreign policy.

Ah, the old "You didn't do anything about Pinochet, so why go after Noriega?" argument. By that logic, we are forever constrained by mistakes in our past. Thank God we are beginning to truely align our foreign policy with our ideals and values, and not with the weepy impotence of a Jimmy Carter who left our reputation in tatters. Or a pecadillo-enmeshed Bill Clinton who could make deals with the Chinese in exchange for campaign contributions, watch Bin Laden gain power, and make empty deals with North Korea that let themn get nukes, while pretending to abide by meaningless agreements.

And wouldn't you say that the current foreign policy, so adroitly navigated by Secretary Condi Rice, was in fact just the sort of "huge realignment" you say would be necessary to navigate consistently by the compass of our ideals?

4. In the case of DM or B5, which side is YOUR side?

Far to the right? That's an gross exaggeration. Many of my fellow bloggers are not at all socially conservative (some, like me, are). As I said, many would consider the Democratic Party if Patriotism wasn't equated with Jingoism, and a victim and rights philosophy (couched in political correctness) didn't pervade every aspect of political discussion. We may be Republican, but only because no one else is meeting us even a quarter of the way towards a strong national defense, based on true security, and not hope.

Many soldiers were doubtful of the Cold War (I was, until I started seeing first hand evidence of how the USSR maintained control in Eastern Europe for 4 decades). Many have a "this ain't worth American lives" ethic, even those who are here and want us to kick butt. Once the men and women are deployed and at risk in the battle space, I think those who actively oppose the war are a day late and a dollar short. They tried to influence the decision, and lost. Their advocates lost, and keep losing.

5. There's nothing morally tone deaf about refusing to paint just some people as evil.

We start where we can. There is much evil out there. Our efforts in Iraq have already paid dividends in Lebanon, Egypt, the rest of the Middle East, and even Asia. Libya is arguably off the path of memberhsip in the Nuclear Club.

Would the left really tolerate us going after the rest? You can't be serious. If this administration has any skill at all, it is being able to make the most out of less than any in recent memory. They have anbout pushed a divided country and its opposition just abolut as far as they can probably go, and a draned sight farther than anyone would have wagered on back in 2000.

BW rebuttal:

1a) Fair enough, former Baathists as a group are mostly used up. There is still however nothing close to solidarity among non-government armed forces in Iraq. If you will grant no other distinction, at least grant the clear divide between Shia militias who are for the most part not attacking the government or US forces (but not ruling it out), and the more Sunni/Wahhabist individuals aligning with Al Q. Even that is however simplistic from my reading of actual milblogs from various parts of Iraq (I am in this case getting my info from you lads not the MSM).

1b) I'm well aware that a great deal of effort has gone into spinning yarns of how Iraq *might* *maybe* have been involved *in some way* in 9/11. But what we know for a fact is that Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia were much more obviously involved. Saudis got a free pass though...

1c) My point regarding two sides was perhaps not clear enough. Being opposed to how Bush has been conducting the war on terror does NOT mean that one supports terrorism or wants nothing done about it, but that is implied by presenting us-or-them choices. Arguments for massively increased human intelligence, targetted arrests and assassinations and increased attention to improving the US' image in Middle East are not crackpot theories to be dismissed out of hand.

2) I am afraid you stand corrected. Bush did in fact use that expression repeatedly in conjunction with threats both implicit and explicit. It was most decided targetted at his political adversaries and foreign nations of all stripes. He began to revise in May/June 2002 to the meaning you are using, but when he began to use it in the months after 9/11 he made it quite clear it was his way or risk being considered an enemy of the United States.

3) You concede my point that Republican presidencies from which Bush takes many of his staff, his vice president and many of his ideas were amoral at best in this regard. I will in turn concede yours that Democratic presidencies were probably no better in this regard. As for your assertion that the United States is operating with a clear moral compass now, I defy you to demonstrate that. States that are closely allied with the US still get a free pass regardless of their human rights records (Saudi Arabia, the new Afghan Government (also here), Turkey, Pakistan (and here for a pile of links re. the plight of our Christian brothers and sisters specifically) and in the case of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia their sponsorship of terrorism. Nothing has changed. Oh and don't get me started on China, which still gets the best trading status possible with the US while Cuba is under a punishing, and in my opinion immoral economic embargo. You tell me how China has the moral high ground over Cuba. Please.

4a) Okay, fair enough. You're somewhat to the right, but far to the right was unfair. Blackfive is however another story. As Dave has noted in the comments, Blackfive's choice of sponsors is extreme right wing, from the insult to pacifists everywhere (footprint of the American chicken t-shirts) to the whole "annoy a liberal" line of products designed basically to offend everyone on the left just on sight. Some are especially over the top (ACLU spelled with a Soviet sickle) while others are amusing to me but designed to offend others (Peace symbol turned into a B-52 labelled "PEACE: through superior firepower". I don't even read Blackfive regularly anymore as the right column is so nauseating it spoils the whole blog for me.

4b) My question still stands. How can people oppose the current policies of the government and still support the troops? Or is the only way to accept every decision once the President makes it?

5a) If the goal of the United States following the Afghan campaign was removing the threat of rogue states with WMD, the first target should have been North Korea. Everyone who knows anything about the North Korean situation is scared shitless about that raving lunatic's nuclear program. Plus the plight of the average North Korean is undoubtedly worse than the plight of the average Iraqi pre-OIF. They're not only brutally oppressed by a mad, homicidal dictator, they are also starving by the truck load due in large part to their evil leader's policies.

5b) If the goal was suppressing state sponsors of terrorism, stomping Saudi Arabia flat and installing a democratic government would have been a good start. Or Pakistan (speaking of dictatorships with nukes), or Iran. Or Sudan? Or Yemen? I could go on here. The official list before Bush came to power lists 7 state sponsors of terror (although they leave a lot off), with IRAN named as the worse offender, and Iraq listed only because they supported the Palestinian intifada (like a lot of Arab countries did and still do) and because they supported a group of Iranians who used terror against the government of Iran (not much different than Iran's funding of armed Shia militants in Iraq I might add). The report even says "The [Iraqi] regime has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 in Kuwait." Incidently Libya is noted in the same report as being well on the way to international compliance LONG BEFORE 9/11, with a declaration of an anti-terrorism stance and no suspicion of involvement in new acts of terrorism.

5c) My main point here is that morally tone deaf when applied to the left and/or the media was a bit of a cheap shot, and or to mix metaphors a stone thrown from the balcony of a glass house. "And to remain non-judgmental about them is to condone and tolerate evil." is a lesson that should be applied much more broadly than it is now, or has been by all American governments in recent memory, both blue and red. The White House claming the moral high ground now is nothing more than disingenuous sophistry.

Does the left want the war in Iraq to be lost?

2005-10-11T09:11:00.000-05:00

I was laughing to myself even just trying to phrase this topic question properly. war vs. occupation vs. nation building vs. iraqi freedom or whatever. Cut me some slack on my wording and we'll all get along fine.

So here we go. My opinions on my own question:

1. First, as a disclaimer about pacifists. They're not all leftists. I'm not one myself, although I like the concept in principle. I don't know many true pacifists. The ones I know are divided between conservative Christians from pacifist sects and leftists of the 60s-survivor variety (and nouveau hippy variety ofc). Pacifists I think want to see all wars fail, but preferably not be fought at all. I don't think they want the terrorists to win per se either though.

2. Some want the war to fail spectacularly. Extremists (not just islamic) want to see the United States fail and be humbled. Hell, some of the nastier and crazier people (the right doesn't have a lock on either vote :P) probably cheer when they hear of US casualties. That's a bit sick and inhumane, but I've met people like that in my travels so I'm sure they're out there. For people who don't care much about what happens to anyone doing something they deem as bad, the prospect of the US getting their ass handed to them in Iraq appeals as it might just roll back the tendancy towards foreign adventure for a decade or two. Not too much difference than crazy animal rights extremists killing researchers, or crazy pro-lifers bombing clinics and sniping doctors. You can get so INTO your own issue you forget or ignore the humanity of those on the other side.

2.5 Incidently, I do not include conservative islamic fundamentalists in "the left". Some of them are part of anti-war coalitions and organizations, sure, but on almost any other issue they are so far from left positions that they make uneasy allies for the thinking person on the left. On choice, civil rights, separation of church and state, foreign policy and gay rights you won't see islamic fundamentalists hanging out with all us lefties. So yeah, nobody is kicking them out of the peace marchs, but don't try to brand the left with their ideas or behaviour. They ain't us, and they don't claim to be.

3. Many are conflicted. I'd put myself in this category. On one hand, a forced US withdrawal at this point would throw the country into civil war at worst, and another strongman dictatorship at best. It's hard to see that as good for anyone. On the other hand, many on the left feel that a clear-cut victory for the administration in Iraq will be interpreted as proof of worth for the policies and people who ordered the invasion happen in the first place, and might lead to further foreign adventures based on criteria and goals many on the left don't agree with. I think this fear is reducing the less time there is in Bush's presidency and the more of a lame duck he becomes. Many on the left would feel more confident if a Democrat or even a trustworthy Republican like McCain inheirited the last bit of the Iraq issue. Of course the right might not, but there's that polarization of the States again rearing its head.

4. Many on the left want the *stated* goals of the administration to be met. That's not to say they necessary supported the initial invasion, but the *stated* goals of the administration at this time are (probably intentionally) such motherhood issues that one cannot help but hope for their success. Mind you, just because one supports the stated goals doesn't mean one can't be suspicious or apprehensive of the unstated goals....

Oh, and on the list of things the left is suspicious about or looking for?

1. Long term beneficial contracts for US defense contractors and US oil companies. Proof of the VERY common suspicion that the war was about oil, or that key players have been lining their own pockets and the pockets of their friends. Incidently, in Canada even among relatively conservative people the belief about it being a war for oil is very high. Just FYi.

2. Maintenance of restrictive anti-terror laws long after there have been attacks on US soil. Proof that some of the 9-11 response was to empower the federal government to oppress the people or to stifle dissent.

3. A draft, or policies on stop-lossing that force people to fight the war. Obviously I think the draft is a great idea regardless, but that is one of the few ways in which I am totally out of touch with most of "the left" :P

4. The war being used as an excuse to implement policies the right already wanted to do but couldn't sell to the general public. Drilling oil in wilderness for example, or moving even further away from engagement with the UN.

BW

Dadmanly's Response

I can't really give you any kind of argument on your classifications of those on the left, and whether they wnat us to "lose." I will say that the anti-war movement takes it on faith that their efforts caused us to "lose" the war in Vietnam, and they widely count that a great victory for their cause.

Think about that for a minute, and dwell on the aftermath that followed. The fall of South Vietnam and the consolidation of North and South under Communism. Political reeducation, and the spectre of millions of Vietnamese risking their lives to escape. Pol Pot and genocide in Cambodia. Emboldening of North Korea. A demoralized and diminished US military that retreated from its obligations and security protections for a generation until Reagan and a reenvigorated Cold War against communism. Arguably, Vietnam was our Afghanistan (right, flip that comparison around for a moment), and distracted us and enabled the USSR to dodder on for another decade and a half.

So forgive us if we are a little skeptical about acknowledging any on the left (you conflicted middle roaders notwithstanding) actually will be pleased with a positive outcome, that will diminish their ability to exploit events for political advantage.

And those things the left is suspicious about or looking for?

Gosh, if there wwas evidence of any of this, I'd be nervous too.

1. Long term contracts

This is an unfortunate by-product of modern war. Many tasks are outsourced, capability is held in reserve (unpaid for) until needed, then called into service. It's more expensive, but the rationale is that it saves money long term. I don't necessarily buy that, but as a Consultant in my civilian life, I make my living off of such arrangements! I am somewhat uncomfortable with the large role played by KBR, but I do know they are the biggest, best, and most capable firm wiht global and immediate reach necessary to be called in for these kinds of jobs. People who have been there and are willign to risk their lives for money. Once I'm retired, you wouldn't catch me taking that kind fo job, but I admore those who do, and don't begrudge them their just compensation.

2. Maintenance of restrictive anti-terror laws

This is the big hallucination. The Patriot Act enacted some minor enhancements and eased soem evidenciary rules, without eliminating the need for review by a judge, warrants, habeus corpus, etc. Library or information access provisions have never been utilized. Anti-corruption and RICO statutes are far more intrusive and exapnsive of police powers, and those go unremarked on.

Some muslim aid organizations funnel donations and money launder for active terrorist groups, far more blatantly than IRA supporters in the US. (Anyone who has spent any time in an American Irish Pub will know what I'm talking about.) These are the organizations who are crying violation of civil liberties, and they drip the blood of innocents up to their elbows.

3. A draft or stop-loss

Not yet necessary, may not be needed at all. Military leaders don't want to have to deal with the difficulties of coerced or unwilling recruits. Media balance would go a long way in this regard. The vast majorioty of soldiers will never be in harm's way (even in Iraq). There's still risk of course, and danger, but many who might serve have a distorted (media) perspective on the real situation.

4. The war used as an excuse

No less than the Left using the war as an excuse to attack the Republican Party or score short term gain. Both sides can do a better job of making common cause on issues of National Security, but there can be no serious argument that says the Democrats in our country have any serious policy (foreign or otherwise) alternatives to this administration. The administration is suffering its worst reaction yet from conservatives, many of whom are gravely concerned and disappointed over exapnsion of Big Government or straying from other conversative priorities.

An All-Volunteer Army?

2005-10-07T15:05:00.000-05:00

This one I have got thinking about as I've noticed a decidedly conservative lean to the milblogs from Iraq compared to say history books and reprints of letters I've read from WWI and II.

Now I don't know, but I gather the US ended your draft what, 30 years ago? If so, you're approaching the second generation of an all-volunteer army. Nobody getting drafted then staying, any and all lifers chose the military and felt it was what they wanted to do from the start? From my own experience the left of my generation (early gen X) doesn't go in for the soldier's life often so I assume there are less of us serving...

So some questions for dadmanly and a place to start:

1. Without claiming a formal survey, of all the troops you've met in the last year, what percentage would you guess are conservative, what percentage moderate and what percentage left-leaning?

2. Do reservists/NG members seem any more or less skewed right than lifers?

3. Would mandatory service (while maintaining a cadre of lifers) threaten the quality of the modern army? Is it even practical in the modern, high specialized military?

4. Does it worry you that a significant portion of your nation may some day (if not now) live their whole lives not even sure how to fire a weapon, let alone maintain one?

5. Should the left be worried about attaining a state where most of the people in the military have a particular party affiliation?

6. At what point do totally uninformed and inexperienced people stop deserving any say in what is done by the people who are actually at the sharp end? How would civilian oversight really work if the people overseeing it were clueless?

7. Does a populace who for the most part have never served make it unlikely that politicians will be held to account for wasteful military spending, or make it unlikely that they will recognize GOOD military spending when they see it?

I don't really have a position to argue for myself yet (I'm sure you'll give me some), the only thing I think is that, as a lesson in citizenship and solidarity, I think all democracies should have a period of mandatory military service.

BW

Dadmanly Responds:

I think BW is correct in his impression that a large majority of MILBLOGGERS are decidedly conservative, although I would guess they are far more conservative on military issues (and perhaps economics) than conservative, say, on social issues (although I think a majority still would be, but less so).

I think BW may have hinted at one of the primary reasons for that: we ended our draft 30 years ago, and have an all-volunteer army. As BW suggests, those who stay in for life have made an initial choice and then continue to choose to stay in. No one (except the few Vietnam era drafted Soldiers who may still be in, nobody got drafted and then decided to stay. This causes some interesting culture phenomenon, as I'll discuss along the way.

BW is also correct that military life is not a widely popular decision for generation X (or Y or Z), but it really doesn't need to be to maintain force numbers sufficient for manning. A minority of young people, self selected, is all that is necessarily required.

But on to BW's specific questions:

1. Without claiming a formal survey, of all the troops you've met in the last year, what percentage would you guess are conservative, what percentage moderate and what percentage left-leaning?

I think I read that 73% of Soldiers voted for President Bush in the last election. I think that's a helpful starting point. No doubt, something less than 27% voted for John Kerry, some of whom might have been conservative and thought of Kerry as a viable "military-minded" candidate.

They'd be wrong in my opinion, but I've spoken to Vietnam era vets who believed this to be so, there would be some who thought so. We can discuss Kerry another time perhaps, but suffice it to say most military thought him a phony and that he discredited and disgraced his military service after the war.

I think those who view military service as a civic responsibility, an honor and a virtue, and follow through on that belief by putting their life on the line will by definition tend to also share other conservative beliefs. Not that Patriotism is necessarily conservative, but conservative tend to be overwhelmingly patriotic, and therefore will far more often self-select military service. Likewise, those who are more progressive, socialist, will tend to view (national) patriotism at least ambivalently, if not with distrust or even scorn. It seems to me there is a lot of self- and nation-loathing (and cynicism) that lies at the heart of many a progressive agenda.

2. Do reservists/NG members seem any more or less skewed right than lifers?

That's an interesting question. I could see in some ways skewed less right; we have civilian jobs, we did not pick the military as a full time profession. Some did not expect to ever go to war, many were in for college benefits.

Then again, many joined the Guard and Reserve after 9/11, precisely to join the effort to fight terrorism and protect our way of life. The sense of civic obligation rose dramatically -- in casual discussions as well as official communications -- in the wake of 9/11, and the tremendous courage exhibited by uniformed services in NYC.

The one canard I thing we can safely put to rest is that people join the military out financial desperation. As any one can tell you who does NOT want to stay in (pulled in from the IRR or on stop loss for example), if you want out you don't care if you have to go on welfare. If you look at demographic trends, the highest rates of enlistment or re-enlistment far more match the red blue map than the economic one. In other words, joining up is far less common in Blue state or blue city regions, far higher in red state areas. Poor people or unemployed sometimes join the military, but there are easier ways to survive. South, Midwest, West, Rural areas. The Army is pretty much red state fed.

3. Would mandatory service (while maintaining a cadre of lifers) threaten the quality of the modern army? Is it even practical in the modern, high specialized military?

Yes. No. (I hadn't thought of that, that's another reason why not.)

No career military person wants to deal with unwilling draftees. It's bad enough today dealing with the few involuntarily extended or those called back to service.

4. Does it worry you that a significant portion of your nation may some day (if not now) live their whole lives not even sure how to fire a weapon, let alone maintain one?

Not particularly, but then I think survivalists are a bit wacko.

I believe deeply that we will sustain a nuclear terrorist attack (or two or three) somewhere in the US. I think that will change everything, and not for the better, because those of us who warned of such things, and those who think there is evil that must be confronted, will have NO patience for the foolish ostriches who have stubbornly kept their heads in the diplomatic, appeasement, or pacifist sand. Habeas corpus will go, as will many of the other safeguards, and that will be the true test of whether we survive as a people.

And oddly enough, I think that event, and the drastic upheaval it will cause, will make everybody a believer, and we'll unify in purpose like something out of Independence Day (the movie). Naive, perhaps, but then I know we are the Nation of Lincoln, and capable of the most amazing feats of courage and resilience in given the chance.

What I am concerned about is that so many of my fellow citizens think they are entitled to the amazing blessings we have, and have no clue of the generational sacrifices that have been made to make it all possible. "Freedom isn't free," as the bumper sticker says. Or as Greyhawk says, "Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

5. Should the left be worried about attaining a state where most of the people in the military have a particular party affiliation?

Not worried, but it should cause them to rethink who is making the sacrifices necessary to defend the liberties they take for granted. (Or worry, if they are obsessed with politics.)

6. At what point do totally uninformed and inexperienced people stop deserving any say in what is done by the people who are actually at the sharp end? How would civilian oversight really work if the people overseeing it were clueless?

Never. As the NCOs used to like to say, "I gets my power from Congress." And Congress gets it's power from the people who elect them. Same with the Commander in Chief, elected by the people. And to your last, you will cause quite a few chuckles from military veterans, who would most likely respond, "And how is that different from what we have now (or ever)?"

7. Does a populace who for the most part have never served make it unlikely that politicians will be held to account for wasteful military spending, or make it unlikely that they will recognize GOOD military spending when they see it?

Waste is waste, and you don't need to be a subject matter expert to see the worst excesses. In the US, military leaders say, we don't need Base A or Weapon X, and Congress goes and gives them Bases A, B, and C for good measure, and Weapons X, Y, and Z as a bone to defense contractors in their districts. Famously, reports of $400 hammers and $600 toilet seats got huge play here, and I believe helped lead to some dramatic changes in the political landscape throughout the '80s. Arguably, these were in the mix leading up to Clinton's win in '92 and the Contract with America in '94.

That's why I am very excited about our Porkbusters effort here. I think it can be as effective with wasteful military spending.

Links: Basil's Blog, Dadmanly, Outside the Beltway, Wizbang, California Conservative, Jo's Cafe, bRight & Early

BW Responds:

"I think I read that 73% of Soldiers voted for President Bush in the last election. I think that's a helpful starting point. No doubt, something less than 27% voted for John Kerry, some of whom might have been conservative and thought of Kerry as a viable "military-minded" candidate."

Now for me this seems spooky. The potential problems of a significantly politically aligned military are not to be sneezed at long term, based on the history books at least.

"Likewise, those who are more progressive, socialist, will tend to view (national) patriotism at least ambivalently, if not with distrust or even scorn.

Yay! Something to argue about! I knew we'd find something (or did you just throw me a bone?).

Anyway, first off, are folks on the left ambivalent about national patriotism. I would have to say most often, to some degree yes. I would say however that this is as much a reaction to unthinking "cover yourself with the flag" button-pushing on the part of the activist right as it is anything rooted in the left. One of the oldest tactics in the book is accusing people of being "unAmerican" (or whatever country), and that tends to get thrown out there most often by a right pushing their own views. In its natural form patriotism is a grand thing. Abused, it is a button that can be used to push folks into all kinds of pretty terrible behaviour, and is the keystone of many an autocratic regime, regardless of their overall left/right tendences.

It seems to me there is a lot of self- and nation-loathing (and cynicism) that lies at the heart of many a progressive agenda."

Cynicism is not something that the left can claim a patent on. I get enough US talk radio and TV to hear a lot of frank, nasty cynicism coming from right-wing pundits and hosts, so I'm going to suggest it is much more the fashion of the day (masquerading as intelligence or wisedom) and thus nothing that can be claimed or laid at the door solely of the left.

As for self and nation-loathing, the one thing I quite like about many on the left is being able to criticize oneself and one's country without felling like either a jerk or a traitor. You don't have to hate your country to be opposed to its current policies. Many on the left would argue that you do not love your country (or your neighbour, or yourself) if you allow stupid or evil things to continue to be done in our/its name without speaking up.

I love Canada enough to have a problem without our underfunding of our military. I love Canada enough to hate the policies that are slowly destroying our national health care system. I love Canada enough to oppose tax cuts while we still have a large national debt. I love Canada's freedoms enough to want the RCMP and CSIS investigated and held to account for the Arar incident, even if it does end up embarassing us. I loved Canada enough to support Jean Chretien when he refused to commit troops to "the coalition of the willing".

I suspect most on your US left love your country and feel that some of the choices made by your current administration threaten its welfare, international reputation and perhaps long term survival.

BW

Comments Now Open

2005-10-07T04:18:00.000-05:00

Somewhere along the way Debate Space had comments for Registered Users only. Don;t know when that came about, but it's since been corrected. Comments are now open to anyone, with a word verification to help cut down on comment spam.

Sorry for any inconvenience; we welcome your participation.

(H/T C. Bond of RightWingNation for pointing that out)

This is no liberal media bias

2005-10-05T15:21:00.000-05:00

Posted by BW

Two quick disclaimers. First, I am not a liberal. The word means something a bit different here in Canada anyways. I'm sure I would be labelled a liberal if I lived in the States, assuming I wasn't labelled an out-and-out Commie. A liberal in the classical sense is more of what today is called a libertarian. Small "l" liberals at their core believe in less government, less taxes, and more individual freedoms, which only by coincidence includes vigorous protection of *individual* human rights, and reject morality laws *only* because it is unnecessary state interference in the lives of citizens. A true liberal believes the only jobs of the government are law-and-order, and defense.

The "liberal" used by pundits in the US has come to mean "weak-chinned, public-funds-wasting, softie pinko commie". It's a disrespectful label that I do not apply it to myself, nor is it an issue in my country, where "The Liberal Party" is the government, and is committed to most of those individual ideals, as well as cutting budgets, cutting taxes and reducing wasteful (and useful) public spending (except pork,graft and patronage which all governments seems to love). Most on the left prefer to call themselves progressives, but many choose other names/labels as "the left" is not one big group but a bunch of groups with often competing issues and interests. In North America few are even prepared to call themselves "social democrats" as Europeans do, because years of anti-communism and witch hunts in the 50s and early 60s have confused socialism with communism, and communism with Stalinism and Maoism.

Second disclaimer is, I'm not an American. I do not believe Canadians should refer to Mr. Bush as "The President". We are our own country. Besides, most Americans who even know who or what our head of state is (and sadly huge number of Americans don't know) do not refer to Mr. Martin as "The Prime Minister". So for the most part when I post, I put "George Bush" or "Mr. Bush" or even "Bush". I do not mean any disrespect, if I were an American I would give him his due as "The President" even though I don't have much use for the man or his administration, but as a Canadian I don't use that. I hope that doesn't offend anyone, but if it does suck it up.

Putting aside the label, I want to address the issue, often bandied about in the conservative media, of left wing or "liberal" media bias.

You see, the thing is, the MSM doesn't have a liberal media bias. It really doesn't. It has a sensational bias. Sure, some stations may be more left or right than others, but TBH Clear Channel and Fox News more than make up for whatever former hippies might live at CBS and NBC in my opinion. Regardless, the "sensational bias" (sometimes called "if it bleeds it leads" means that frigging anything to do with Iraq will be BIG news so long as it's the major centre of deployment for the US, and as long as its still pretty hot. Heck, even in Canada we get more reports about Iraq than Afghanistan, which is nuts since we have lots of Canuck boots on the ground in Afghanistan and none in Iraq (officially at least, who knows where JTF2, our own small 'Delta Force,' is right now, no one is allowed to say). It's also why a big VBIED with civilian fatalities makes more news than the Iraqi constitutional process, despite the constitution obviously of more long term importance (and admittedly being a "good news for the right" story so long as it continues to progress without stalling).

I've been reading a lot of milblogs (being from a family with proud military traditions, although all civilians now since VJ day) and I've found that the myth of the "liberal bias" in the media is strong among the service members (at least the ones who blog). But again, those media ppl aren't doing "the left" any favours either, and never have. The MSM covered Abu Graib because it was sensational, had some sexual undertones, and had disturbing pictures. They do the same in Guantanamo in part for the same reasons but more importantly because even they have to admit that the rules of war are being pretty blatantly (and perhaps ineffectually) flaunted in that place. And of course because its very controversial and thus sensational and thus "leads". They don't always cover it though. In one of the websites I link to below, they note there is a long term hunger strike on at Gitmo (sp?) that nobody in the MSM is talking about right now. It claims the prisoners are being force fed to avoid the first starvation fatality, which would of course qualify for "it bleeds it leads" and put whatever innocent victim/hardened terrorist as front page sympathetic news. If true, it would be the smartest thing the commander there can do. If none of them die, nobody will care and the MSM will spend no time on it. Look at how Bobby Sands got turned from an internationally ignored IRA terrorist into an adored martyr just by starving himself to death.

The MSM don't cover the things people on the left are concerned about. They don't report on a regular basis about honour killings in Saudi Arabia or Jordan. They don't report about the persecution of Christians in Pakistan and parts of southeast Asia. They don't report on the human rights abuses of many central or right of centre governments in South and Central America. The don't report (usually) on the biggest humanitarian crises going on around the world, unless Bono holds a concert or an remarkable number of people die in one day. They don't report the negative impacts of tax cuts in a nation with both a big deficit and a big debt.

Honestly, if you talk to any person left-of-centre and they level with you, they ALSO feel the media is biased, and usually think it is a "right wing bias". Conservatives/Republicans ask "where is all the good news in Iraq on the news" or "why did the pro-war/pro-bush counterdemonstration only get 1/10 of the media coverage". Progressives/leftists/commies (call us what you will) say "why do they only cover the rowdiest or stupidest asshats at any demonstration, and leave out the majority of us that marched peacefully, sang songs and yelled a bit" or "how come when we had 20,000 people in our demonstration and there were 60 people at the counter-demonstration, they still got 10% of the coverage with only 0.15% of the people?".

We could probably debate the "liberal media bias" issue for awhile, because I'm definitely not done. Suffice it to say that while conservative commentators call MSM "the liberal media", progressive commentators call it "the corporate media". It's something we all agree on, for different reasons. Those significantly far from the imaginary "center" totally distrust the MSM. For an example of how little one NGO thinks of the MSM, see here.

So, to date my points are that the MSM haven't covered progressive activist groups concerns about Iraq adequately, any more than they've covered their concerns about other places adequately. And that the MSM, and especially the conservative MSM owned by Rupert Murdoch, do not do "the left" any more favours than they do the right, and sometimes less.

For those of you who are more on the right and simply trust the evidence of your eyes, you probably need to read some *real* left stuff to get a better idea.

So go to Mother Jones and The Nation, just looking on their front pages, stuff you never hear about on the network news. There is even an article lambasting the NYT (darling of those who want to point out liberal media bias) for a story that appears to have been twisted and bent to suggest highly educated women really do want nothing more than to do stay-at-home mothers and dream of the day they can be, an issue near-and-dear to the hearts of conservatives and a big "we don't wanna talk about it" issue for most of the left.

Even Move On, although a huge machine to try to influence the media, still has 1/2 their campaigns totally obscure if you count off the list. Maybe they get even 1/2 because they've got a lot of pull with the media, or perhaps they just strategically (and perhaps cynically) focus their campaigns on stuff that is already being covered by the MSM so they can try to get their message across on an issue they don't have to force onto the table.

For NGOs that feel ignored 99% of the time by the MSM, go to AI, Human Rights Watch, Greenpeace, NOW, you name it.

I won't even get into the race issue in any depth but I'll tell you that I've never heard a discussion of media and race that didn't observe (often with lovely examples and references) that for every time the MSM covers racism as a problem, there are many more stories that focus on racial minorities in the context of crime, and linking them to crime.

So I will say this. Most of the MSM press does NOT lead, or often report at all, stories near to the heart of leftist and progressive NGOs. Some on the left in fact feel there is a bias towards the right, based on corporate ownership of the major media by the rich, and in some cases the very conservative (this is Murdoch again).

I'm not going to make that argument. I am however making the argument that while some *stories* in the MSM favour a position also favoured by the left, overall the majority of the MSM seems to represent the views of neither the right nor the left.

Personally, I think they represent the views of nobody most of the time. They are in the business of selling commercials and product placements. They will cover a story that will bring in the most viewers. If they can get live tape of a fatal train wreck, that's the story. If they can get scandalous photos of naked prisoners with a female soldier present, they'll publish that and then go on about it for weeks so long as they have an excuse to keep showing those photos. If they can get a story on a US President with *some* (and only some) left tendencies and a tendency to adultery, they'll go with that and not care if it kills his ability to govern so long as they can show a semen-stained dress and show the mildly attractive, but chubby young lady over and over again while using various euphemisms to discuss quickie fellatio.

But nobody gets their good news published, and nobody (much) gets their issues addressed by the mainstream media unless it is somehow sensational or likely to provoke controversy.

For me the saddest part of the growing polarization of right and left is exactly the kind of thing the MSM likes (and my paranoid conspiracy-theorist brain suspects they feed). They don't want to cover a constructive discussion. Hell, they don't even want to cover a respectful debate. They want insults, cutting remarks, yelling if possible and blood if its at all available. If it bleeds, it leads.

BW

Dadmanly's Response:

I think there is liberal bias in many publications, on many editorial and news staffs, but I nevertheless do think that much that is derided as biased towards liberal points of view is, as BW suggests, biased towards the sensational.

"If it bleeds, it ledes." (For all those not versed in Journalist jargon, the opening paragraph of a story is its lede.)

I have seen similar tendencies among my Intelligence Analysts, which I commented on elsewhere in Patterns of Analysis. So I am prepared to acknowledge that much of the impetus for stories and editorial selection is certainly often based on considerations financial rather than ideological. But that only carries us back to the point just so far.

Last objections first, let me somewhat discount the disgruntlement of the higher echelons of non-governmental organizations (NGO). Many of the more prominent NGOs are dissatisfied with "corporate media" (and corporate it most certainly is), all well and good. Major media outlets do not cover all the topics of interest to them, nor do they cater particularly to their priorities. If I have multiple NGOs, and they each chase after different (socialist or progressive agenda) rabbits, does that mean they are in opposition to each other? Of course not, they seek different rabbits, but they share the same philosophy.

In and of itself, that NGOs are not wholely (or even somewhat) satisfied with corporate media does not negate the possible liberal bias of these organizations. They may still be fellow travelers, just lazy or poorly informed or lousy researchers. And of course, as relatively well-compensated members of society in inverse proportion to effort or exertion, they are going to have middle, upper middle, and upper class biases as well, and these may blind them to certain issues more important to the lumpen proleteriat. They still might be biased towards liberal positions and against conservative ones.

For MILBLOGGERS, liberal bias is no myth, they experience it firsthand. And it goes way beyond the "if it bleeds" formulation. They read press accounts that use subjective terms that color the way subjects are reported. Scare quotes, terms heavily laden with history or meaning, and outright distortion of facts on the ground by how a story is reported. This is widespread, evidenced most notoriously by Reuters, but almost as often by the Associated Press. The NY Times does a fair bit of it, as does the LA Times, I'm not sure the history of the Canadian press.

Here's how it works. Mnay news organizations won't use the word "terrorist" to describe someone who intentionally targets civilians, children, women, etc. They will use "rebels" or the preferred "insurgent." What if 90% of these fighters are foreign interlopers? Doesn't that make the term insurgent somewhat (or very) inaccurate? Subjective phrases or non-facts (even impossible to verify "environmentals"), get inserted in the story. This is where the reporter (in a straight news story for God's sake) says something like, "Growing more and more desperate to reverse public opinion, Leader X announced today..." If you can't prove an assertion objectively, you can't disprove it either, an that makes such fuzzy descroiptions of mood, or alluding to mental or emotional states, completely inappropriate.

While 30 years ago, this kind of subjective fluff got edited out of stories -- I know this from first hand experience -- it is pervasive today. This technique is over used particularly by AP reporters, those anonymous hacks who toil away at reporting for a very wide audience but with little visiblity. (Is that why?). Many smaller papers can't really afraid reporting staffs, and print that crap verbatim from the AP news feed.

You could catalog this stuff all day long. Subjective and editorial comments inserted in news reports. Selective presentation of facts. Omission of known information that would create a more balanced impression. It goes way beyond just going for the sensational, and those of us hungry for news from Iraq see it all the time. I tell you what. I will keep in a sidebar a list of examples. I will be willing to wager that in one month's time I come up with over a dozen examples of major news stories, AP, NY Times, etc., where such comments have been inserted.

Next technique is to willfully hire "stringers" who actually work in concert with foreign jihadists. This used to be true only of Al Jazeera types, but now major news networks like CBS have been caught cozying up to our enemies, and allowing them to "stage" photographs, lie in wait for ambushes, and essentially function as before- and after-the-fact accomplices to attacks against Coalition forces. This is bias, as well as completely unethical.

And I don't completely buy the "if it bleeds" schtick either. I have a feeling our new book will be a runaway bestseller, precisely because big "corporate media" doesn't realize how hungry the American public is for positive, uplifting, patriotic, and energetically pro-American stories and reporting.

What's it like in Canada? Is it possible that Canadians would like to hear mnore positive stories about Canada, and the fine work the Canadian military is doing?

Links: Basil's Blog, RightWingNation, Mudville Gazette, bRight & Early

BW rebuttal

Okay, first off, the full response by me was huge, so I posted it on a new Blog for those who care or are bored enough to read it all.

Right, so I’m going to keep to numbered points in an effort to be brief.

1. Thanks for the correction on “lede” .
2. I think you made too quick work of the NGO section. I definitely disagree that all NGOs share the same philosophy. Development-oriented NGOs routinely piss off Greenpeace and vice versa. As for the suggestion that “the liberal media” might cover NGOs poorly only by accident and only out of being incompetent, that’s really a stretch. The MSM is very good at what they do, which is keeping our attention, selling commerical time and making money. They cherry pick stories from NGOs too consistently based on topicality and controversy for me to accept that is all a co-incidence. Especially the bad researcher idea. The MSM dig up a two year old report on the AI website on human rights abuses by US troops IF it fits their story, but then ignore the front-page stories about Africa, etc on that web site? Lazy MSMers would be publishing the front page stuff AI or HRW is really focussed on…
3. What is the MSM? I find myself being brought to task on this topic for a couple of newspapers everyone knows are more left-learning by US standards. I have a long discussion on newspapers on my new main blog, but suffice it to say, in most markets people have a conservative and a less-conservative option at the very least, and either they are both mainstream and should be equally judged or are both biased and should be left from the discussion.
4. What is liberalism? Again, I’m stuck on the word. What Americans seem to think of as left-wing is often centrist or centre left opinion in much of the rest of the Western world. The very idea that socialized medicine (just as an example) is a leftist position would get people all over the world collapsing in laughter.
5. As for selective wordings, ect by the media in general (I leave print media to a looong discussion at BWviews , I have to say that your points are based largely on print media and based on your own perceptions. Which is fine, but bare in mind that others looking at other articles see the lack of fairness to left views. Discussing domestic political discussions especially this is striking, tax cuts and supply side economics as a key example. Overall I stand by my point that most biased journalism including clearly biased newspapers on both sides, go for drama, controversy and conflict at the expense of facts.
6. If you’re going to keep me a sidebar of examples, give me more than just a few known leftish papers. AP would be excellent. It might also be nice if while you’re scanning for bad ones, take note of how many relating to the war don’t seem especially biased, or even those you like.
7. On the topic of “terrorist” vs. “insurgent” I beat this to death on my longer post in the new blog. Basically though, I feel “rebel” and “insurgent” are fair to use, “freedom fighter” isn’t ever, “terrorist” is only if the person or group has a history or stated goal or TARGETTING civilians or makes an attack that can’t reasonably be considered to have military value. You cannot call people terrorists if their actions are targeted at military or government targets and cause “collateral damage” equivalent to the damage that would be done by using a tank main gun on an apartment unit, directly a Spectre gunship onto a legit target in an otherwise somewhat populated area or firing a 50 cal into a speeding car.
8. Perhaps it might be fun to pick a news article each from MSM sources of our choice, and each of us look for right and left wing bias. I could pick the right wing, you could pick the left? I bet we find supports for our own arguments in both :P

A New Debate

2005-10-05T13:20:00.000-05:00

A Canadian gentleman by the moniker BW has graciously volunteered as a "left voice" for Debate Space. Until such time as BW can properly introduce himself, let me pass along some of his Blogger Profile, the entirety of which you can access by following the lnk:

I'm somewhat left of centre, more so on some matters than others...I vote for the NDP, our quasi-socialist (not communist folks, socialist) party most of the time. I'm a believing Christian of the Protestant variety. I'm annoyed both by Christians on the right who feel I can't be both Christian and 'progressive', and by atheists/agnostics on the left who don't like to accept me as "one of their own" because I go to church, believe in Jesus and treat the bible as scripture rather than myth or dubious history.

Based on his initial (unofficial) response to my post here on a recent Christopher Hitchens' column, I think we'll enjoy ourselves immensely discussing a wide variety of topics, military, political and religious.

(Hopefully some of you will be mildly entertained as well.)

My previous partner and co-founder, The Liberal Avenger, is in hiatus and is certainly welcome back as well if he gets an opportunity and the inclination.

We hope to be up and running in a few days. Pardon the noise of construction...

Wanted: A Civil Debater

2005-09-27T13:43:00.000-05:00

My apologies for an extended dirth of debates.

If you have political views (or any views, really) towards the left of the political spectrum, and willing to abide by some basic standards of civility despite at times rigorous debate, I'm looking for a debating partner.

Drop a comment if you're interested, or pass the idea long to a friend.

Where is Charity?

2005-08-09T10:25:00.000-05:00

Bear with me. Indulge a short reading from the Torah (Old Testament).

In the book of Genesis, the story is told of Isaac's two sons, Jacob and Esau. Jacob, second born son, at the prompting of his mother, exploits his father's failing eyesight to trick his father into giving him the blessing of the first born. Isaac does so richly, even so far as asking God to bestow upon Jacob rule over his siblings, "Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you. Be master over your brethren, and let your mother's sons bow down to you." (Genesis 27:29)

Esau, discovering his brother's deceit, in despair goes to his father, and asks, "Have you only one blessing, my father? Bless me, even me also, my father!" And Esau lifted up his voice and wept. (Genesis 27:38)

In Slate, Christopher Hitchens writes piercingly of a challenge he poses to those opposed to the war in Iraq:

How can so many people watch this as if they were spectators, handicapping and rating the successes and failures from some imagined position of neutrality? Do they suppose that a defeat in Iraq would be a defeat only for the Bush administration? The United States is awash in human rights groups, feminist organizations, ecological foundations, and committees for the rights of minorities. How come there is not a huge voluntary effort to help and to publicize the efforts to find the hundreds of thousands of "missing" Iraqis, to support Iraqi women's battle against fundamentalists, to assist in the recuperation of the marsh Arab wetlands, and to underwrite the struggle of the Kurds, the largest stateless people in the Middle East? Is Abu Ghraib really the only subject that interests our humanitarians?

These questions damn those who can criticize and complain only, and secretly (and not so secretly) hope deeply for catastrophe if only to feel some smug self-satisfaction that after all their political defeats, "they were right all along."

That cynical view of the world is callous beyond description. It ignores the complexity of history. It is the preference of the ostrich to keep its head in the sand as the only defense it has the heart to offer.

If Hitchens is wrong, if I am wrong, where is the compassion and humanity to help a people with some of the most bona fide credentials in all victim-hood?

Why is the left incapable of saying, "how we got here is wrong, we disagree with the policies that led us here, but there is grave human need, and we will respond?"

For they do this everywhere else in the world. They surely disagree with the brutality of African States that result in widespread famine; they are strenuously opposed to ethnic cleansing in Europe, Asia and Africa that causes millions of displaced persons and genocide. There is not a place in the world today where human rights, other non-profit and aid groups are working today, that do not share the exact same causations and state-decision-making so appalling to those on the left.

So where are they for the oppressed people of Iraq? Where are they in trying to build democratic institutions? Where is there outreach to support and sustain native peoples trying to build a renewed civilization from decades of destruction and ruin (caused first by Saddam, and then by their lights, our Coalition)?

Hitchens conclusion:

Isn't there a single drop of solidarity and compassion left over for the people of Iraq, after three decades of tyranny, war, and sanctions and now an assault from the vilest movement on the face of the planet? Unless someone gives me a persuasive reason to think otherwise, my provisional conclusion is that the human rights and charitable "communities" have taken a pass on Iraq for political reasons that are not very creditable. And so we watch with detached curiosity, from dry land, to see whether the Iraqis will sink or swim. For shame.

"Have you only one blessing, my father?"

As I have not received a reply from my erstwhile debating partner, I offer an invitation to any of his companions or blogging sympaticos to offer a guest response.

Internet for the Military in Iraq

2005-06-08T14:24:00.000-05:00

An ex-serviceman friend of a friend mentioned recently that he thought that internet access for American soldiers in Iraq may be censored to some extent - that certain sites may be deliberately blocked.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some level of control exists over email in order to prevent sensitive information from getting out. I'd also suspect that there are guidelines, at the very least, for soldiers who blog, in order to maintain secrecy over some issues.

I'm not certain that I buy the idea that outbound internet access might be censored/blocked/filtered for surfing soldiers.

Is this something that does occur? If so, how does it work? What sort of sites are being blocked and for what purpose? Does this happen to keep people away from message boards or other sites where it would be easy to share classified information? If the military isn't doing this, do you think that they should be?

Dadmanly Responds:

What a timely question. My unit just experienced our first communications black out. More on that in a moment.

There are two kinds of access available to Soldiers in Iraq. The first, available to most all Soldiers on a Forward Operating Base (FOB) and even some outposts, is a Segovia or other Morale Welfare and Recreation (MWR) Center. These are phone and intenret centers where Soldiers can access the Internet for free over Segovia provided laptops.

Access to these devices is pretty wide open, but you're in a big room with laptops all next to each other, and there are signs warning that accessign pornographic websites is strictly prohibited. (Would be in violation of General Order #1, due to respect for Host Nation sensitivities, but also Military regulations against such material.) Soldiers can be punished for violations, but frankly, these are usually busy public places.

The signs up at these Internet Cafes also strongly caution Soldiers against sharing any operational details or information on Blogs or in email, and carefully list the type of information that could reveal valuable information to potential enemies.

No other censoring goes on in these Cafes (to my knowledge). They are run by a private contractor, and available to Military and Civilian contractors. They may have products such as websense installed, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. We have a cafe in one of our living quarters, and we had occasion to catch one of our soldiers violating the rule against explicit material (quite accidentally, in the course of investigating some lost equipment), so I don't know how pervasive or robust the blocking software is.

The second avenue for Internet access is via a Wide Area Network (WAN) Proxy connection to the Internet. This is available in many of our offices and a few of the living quarters of leadership (myself included). As this connectivity comes through a firewall onto the WAN we use for our regular administrative email and office local area network (LAN), the Army has recently completed installation of Websense. This prevents connecting to Pornographic and Streaming Video sites. To my knowledge, it doesn't block anything else. (Nor would there be any interest in doing so.)

Streaming video is blocked because the WAN is at max capacity, bandwidth is at a premium, and more sophisticated network communicationsare not yet available. We can access Iraqi satellite providers, but that's discouraged. Could result in access to the no-no sites, and local vendors are come and go. Come and take the money, go away and not come back when there's problems. Customer Service has not yet evolved in Iraq.

Back to my opening remark. We suffered a brief rocket attack on our FOB, and by a very unfortunate and probably random freakishness, the trajectory let one of the rockets hit in a very narrow space that had not been properly protected. Two officers from our Parent Division were injured, and thouigh evacuated immediately, died of their wounds.

As is the practice here, the Command shuts down phone and internet connections for 24-48 hours, long enough for the Military to contact affected families.

Let me tell you why that is so important.

One of the idiots here who doesn't understand the very good reasons for the blackout, placed an anonymous call just before the blackout was imposed, saying 4 soldiers of our Division were killed, maybe more injured.

An equally idiotic (no, make that even more idiotic) news editor or reporter called Mrs. Dadmanly at home, told her about the anonymous tip, and asked her if she had heard any news?

Needless to say, with the rest of us on blackout, my wife was a basket case, as were many other family members and friends. Since the news (based on this anonymous tip) was immediately reported on local news and amplified by CNN, the military authorities in our Rear Detachment were forced to send out an email confirming that soldiers were injured, but that no further information could be made available until families had been notified. Which just scared and upset more families and friends of Soldiers in our Division, because (thanks to HIPAA restrictions), the Army can't reveal any medical information without patient consent.

My wife had to wait until the blackout was lifted to find out if I had been injured. Or if others in my unit had been hurt or killed.

Freedom of the press is a right that bears an attendant responsibility. Sometimes that responsibility is gravely important.

It isn't exactly "First, do no harm," but that wouldn't be a bad place to start. Some news can wait a day or two. Unless of course you're the unfortunate family that gets the personal visit to your home. The rest of you can wait.

UPDATE By Dadmanly: Posted as Covered Dish Special at Basil's Blog.

W. Mark Felt - Hero?

2005-06-01T09:54:00.000-05:00

Yesterday W. Mark Felt was revealed to be the infamous "Deep Throat" of Watergate fame.

From your perspective, was Felt a hero?

Dadmanly Responds:

I note that as the Number 2 man at the FBI at the time, Felt arguably could have put a stop to dirty tricks within his own agency, and been a part of official reaction and punishment of wrongdoing. Lower in the organization, in some less directly involved agency, or outside the inner decision-making circles, all that’s been said would probably be justified.

Felt saying no to his superiors, and calling in the full weight and measure of the FBI’s own ample arsenal of oversight capabilities (or even Congress, if those self-policing organs were inadequate). That would have been heroic, would have achieved a better result that might have allowed the government to correct abuse within the system. That might have allowed the Government to demonstrate internal checks and balances within the system of Government.

Worst of all, he was one of the many cogs – and a pretty highly placed one at that – that lacked the courage of conviction and dedication to public trust to publicly and in the course of his official duties to say no to wrongdoing when first he had the chance. (Or when second, or third…)

Instead, Watergate and its aftermath created a nuclear blast in public mistrust and skepticism that persists to this day, and amply reflected in the conspiracy musings on both left and right. After all, our Government was capable of Watergate, and no one stopped it until some poor apparatchik blew the whistle. Some Apparatchik. He’s like the hit man goon who turns against his Mob boss for immunity from prosecution. Public Service? Yeah, if we ignore all those bodies stuffed in the trunk.

He could have said no to dirty tricks himself, but as the record shows, he was convicted later of much of what he "blew the whistle on."

Instead, he hid behind anonymity, and saved his career. With the death of J. Edgar Hoover only 6 weeks prior, and the known enmity between Nixon and Hoover, there is a strong reason to suspect this was as much due to bureaucratic infighting, than Felt's sense of public service.

He was right to have acted, wrong in his choice of method, morally deficient in not using the power and authority of his position – like so many others in this sad spectacle of Watergate – to stand up against wrongful use of position.

You might quibble with how much power he could have wielded, but we deal with this kind of issue in the military all the time.

Having said all that, a point of reference to military life.

Things happen which Soldiers think are wrong. They are strongly encouraged to use their chain of command (going to the boss). The intent is to give that leader a chance to take appropriate action. If unsatisfied with the response, the Soldier is entitled to bump it up a level. If all else fails, or the chain of command is entirely reluctant to address the wrong -- or doesn't view the offense as wrong -- the Soldier can then access the Inspector General, a ubiquitous ombudsman of sorts with direct access to all levels of command.

No command wants their attention if they might be in the wrong (or come out looking that way). Congressmen are very responsive, and a Soldier can always place a call or send a letter, and that Congressman will initiate a Congessional Investigation. These are incredibly painful to commanders, and usually end up firing up the entire Chain of Command (at least a little, from the SecDef on down). Lastly, and furthest outside, would be to notify the Press.

My point, Felt was in a position well suited to respond appropriately to wrong doing, but instead he went way outside the chain of command, and in the process, did vastly more harm to his organization (and prior and future employer by the way) than would have been the case had he stood up from within and done so publicly if necessary. Of course, this route was easier for him, and more beneficial.

That wipes the hero word right off the board, in my view.

Dadmanly Addendum:

I'm sorry, I didn't finish my point on the military example.

Early on, we had some very poor leadership decisions (higher than my Company), and several of our soldiers contacted the Inspector General (IG), which they were absolutely entitled to do. My Commander and I sat through several IG interviews and fact finding missions, and watched as eventually Division leadership must have brought down the hammer, and things lightened up.

But from that point forward, we used to joke that half the Joes had the IG on speed dial, because whenever we made any decisions that caused unpleasantness (and this is the Army, so there's lots of that), in would come the call from the IG, or they'd stop by for a visit.

Now my Commander, who is quite good, and I don't mind these at all really, everything we do is by the book and on the up and up, so we aren't worried about the result. If there are administrative deficiencies, we have an opportunity to correct them, so laregly no harm no foul. And we ourselves were very honest and direct about the source of problems with the IG staff, and were actually glad to have them involved.

But it did get frustrating at times, when we were ready and prepared to address concerns, sometimes encouraging Soldiers to come forward so we could take their case against higher commands, and they call the IG instead. Or call a Congressman. Or a reporter. Part of the problem was an IG relatively inexperienced, who gave a lot of attention to initial complaints, and of course part of it was our superior commander and some poor leadership on his part.

But my point was, that Soldiers should utilize (and usually can get better results)if they involve the Chain of Commmand and the NCO Support Channel (enlisted leadership). And when they draw the big guns, it wastes a lot of time and sometimes creates a result that is less favorable than what they could have gained through their immediate superiors. Sometimes, you have to give the system a chance.

Dadmanly: You Don't Support Us

2005-05-23T19:42:00.000-05:00

Dadmanly: You Don't Support Us

I'm asking the following question not to cause trouble, but because I think it needs to be asked.

One of my site's regular [conservative] visitors pointed me to your excellent "You Don't Support Us" post on your blog. It was poignant and very well written and I intend to recommend it to all of my readers.

My question related to this post, then is simply this:

Do you think that US military interrogators in Guantanamo did indeed play toilet tricks with the Koran - or do you think that the Newsweek reporters fabricated the story?

For the record, I don't view dumping the Koran in the toilet as terribly severe treatment of detainees as far as the list of possibilities go. In fact, I feel that the practice of "waterboarding," which is apparently allowed by US law as an interrogation measure is infinitely more obscene and immoral. If I could swap banning waterboarding for giving interrogators the ability to put the Koran in the toilet, I would.

In all of the anger and hurt on display from The Bush Administration to rightwing blogs about the Newsweek story, I've seen a lot of hair-splitting over which official did or didn't claim to read which allegation in which report - and a lot of moral equivalence rhetoric reminding us how bad the terrorists are - but I've seen nobody address the event behind the allegation itself. I've seen accusations that "liberals" want so badly for the story to be true, which is asinine...

What do you think?

Dadmanly Responds:

Thanks for the kind introduction to and recommendation of the post. Our readers should be aware, that while the Liberal Avenger and I intentionally won't delve into each other's postings to raise disputes (see our ground rules), both of us I think try to make ourselves aware of differing points of view. (Liberal Avenger, I suspect, more than I.)

If we lay aside for a moment any consideration of the truth or accuracy of the story as reported (or if it falls into the category of "fake but accurate"), I want to address the story as written by Newsweek. For it is in this sense I hold them particularly culpable.

I will acknowledge that the section of Newsweek in which this item appeared (Periscope I believe) is somewhat akin to Fox's Grapevine or other features in which a snippet of an idea is briefly mentioned. As such, the heated discussions it has are no doubt somewhat overwhelm the "indiscretion" itself, if I may call it that. That being said, I think Newsweek is held rightly accountable for running with a very thinly sourced story.

I am reminded of the scenes in All the President's Men (I think it was), where Woodward and Bernstein spend untold hours trying to get confirmation of a lead they've been given by an anonymous source. That's classic journalism, at least it was. That's what I understood when I studied journalism, heck, it's what I learned working as an intelligence analyst, confirmation. And that's what Newsweek didn't do, it's what CBS didn't do with the faked Guard memos.

I would think that any editor worth his salt would be on the lookout to block unfounded stories that try to pounce on rumors and planted info and hearsay, in the hopes of getting that next big sexy scoop. That used to be their job. And I think this is an area where the media (by and large) let's their own prejudices color or taint what information they receive. It fits the template they carry around, it fits what they think, so they go with it.

Newsweek was perfectly right to fully retract their story, because that particular story based on their sources was completely unsubstantiated. At that point, you digress from the point at hand if you then make the argument, "yes, but it still could be true." And yes, it might, but that doesn't make this story, this time, any less wrong. Journalism is reduced to fiction if the "essential truth" of something is held in as high regard as the actual truth. So that's my sum and total on Newsweek's violation of journalistic ethics.

I don't think Newsweek "fabricated" the story out of whole cloth, no. There have been numerous accusations and several accounts similar, but, and this is highly significant in my view, many of these accounts appear to derive from Detainees intentionally using their Korans to stuff up toilets. So much for a devout reverence for their Holy Book.

I have seen many accounts recently, and I believe there are books out that emphasize that Al Qaeda and other Jihadists are instructed to make these kinds of allegations and turn the "legal systems of the infidels" against us. This obvious desire and motivation to propagandize should be self-evident, and prompt a supposedly skeptical press to be very wary of any such claims. So far, that has not been the case, and goes a long way to explain the deep suspicion and resentment on the part of military members towards a "neutral press," that seems to bend over backwards to make sure the voice of the opposition (in this case, terrorists and enemy combatants) is heard, no matter how extreme or false. (More on what I consider a gross distortion of the purpose the Fourth Estate in a response to the previous post.)

You may call the focus on the accuracy of this particular story hair-splitting, but I think too much gets published taken as fact and certainty, when in fact it is more supposition, assumption, or deduction.

As one of our commenters pointed out, if the press had reported on Abu Ghraib and other accusations of Detainees in our facilities, noted the ongoing investigations, prosecutions, an opportunity to fully respond, capturing the full context of the security environment, how these individuals were captured, what they were doing, in other words, reported objectively, no reasonable person would find fault. But our New Journalism has long ago traded the hard slow slog of getting the full story into some modern day equivalent of "yellow journalism," where a quick-hit tabloid approach sells and sells well, and that's what they go for.

Okay, having said all that and all that, the really juicy part you want to know. Where there's smoke, is there also fire?

Yes and no. Individual interrogators and guards certainly behaved badly, some violated military standards, others also violated the Geneva Convention or other similar army policies and regulations. Importantly, allegations have and are being investigated, charges brought, convictions won. In some cases, such as at Abu Ghraib, senior leadership (to include leaders 6 levels above the actual illegal acts) has been convicted of poor leadership and negligence in not doing enough to ensure that their prisoners weren't treated humanely or in accordance with procedures, laws, and conventions.

Although we have a detention facility within our area of operation, to which I have Soldiers assigned, I don't have any first hand information about incidents of the type described in Newsweek, the NY Times, and other publications. I do know that the Army has responded aggressively to any perceived abuses and deprivation of prisoners, and Interrogators complain that many of their best tools (sleep deprivation, long interviews, and other non-physical forms of prisoner handling) are ruled off limits of late.
Many of the alleged incidents are exaggerated or exploited by prisoners, or have even been generated by them as a means of dynamically and actively resisting interrogation.

And there are still Soldiers today who think we would achieve more success if we were harsher and more bad-a**. For an Iraq so used to violence, extreme punishment, and terror as they were under Saddam, this is no doubt true. Iraqis do not fear us as they feared Saddam and his police or military.

We were out at a range today with some of our Interrogators, and we got into a discussion about these issues. They are very frank in saying, in the first days of Afghanistan (right after 9/11), and the initial battles in Iraq, tempers and emotions ran very high. There were Soldiers and units that sometimes used excessive force, or treated prisoners more roughly than they would today. We deal with some part-time insurgents (there are such people) whose reluctance to turn themselves in may in part be due to experiences early on that made them expect a rougher and harsher treatment. Still probably not torture in any classic sense, but definitely hard and without respect. And probably not widespread or very common, but out there.

They also express some frustration with what they view as ambivalence or at least a lack of clarity expressed in guidance and directives (or the lack thereof) early on by senior military officials.

I believe a lot of this confusion directly relates to the very unusual nature of our detentions in Guantanamo, of those hostile to the United States who are nevertheless not prisoners of war in any sense recognized by the much misunderstood Geneva Convention. They do not wear uniforms, they do not strive to prevent civilian casualties (in fact they seek them), they violate known and accepted laws of war. They have no state they fight for, there is no one to whom to go to accept their surrender. They are more like spies and saboteurs than Soldiers. They neither accept nor give quarter, nor do they acknowledge Sanctuary, rather they violate it willfully. Terrorists by any definition previously known to civilized countries would be executed on the spot as unlawful combatants. And yet, we hold them prisoner in a limbo state.

But here's a bottom line. Let's say that at times, Korans weren't treated by military personnel with as much reverence or respect as devout Muslims would wish. What would be the point of reporting that? To highlight how culturally insensitive Soldiers can be? (Ask any women in a bar about Combat Soldiers out on the town, now they can tell you stories.) Or that the military is hostile towards Muslims and Islam in general? Which is more likely to be true most often? Can you really distinguish? How perfect would one expect a military to be?

Many of us on the right, and many in the Military, may bristle at accusations like this, but it’s as much because of how the accusations are made, who's making them, and why we believe they are reported so extensively. And we fail to see the value and purpose of these reports, if not to weaken our war effort, or at least diminish its support at home. And we find that disloyal, potentially dangerous, and very disrespectful of the many lives – U.S., Coalition and Iraqi – that have been sacrificed to bring democracy to Iraq.

Doing More Damage Than Good

2005-05-23T14:23:00.000-05:00

Doing More Damage Than Good

Conservative commenter John Cole (not liberal commenter Juan Cole!) has written a controversial article called "Doing More Damage than Good" in which he argues that conservatives are doing everyone a great disservice by viciously attacking any news organization that reports anything negative or controversial about the military. Here's an excerpt:

Everyone repeat after me:

Reporting on abuses that have been committed by our troops, in our name, is not anti-military. While I am not arrogant enough to attempt to divine the motives of every journalist who reports on such abuses, Hugh [Hewitt] appears to be up to the challenge. I find his attack on the reporting of the outrageous abuses detailed at length in the NY Times to be both disturbing and disingenuous.

Apparently in the myopic worldview of Mr. Hewitt, reading and reporting the just-released documents the Army itself created is both 'anti-military' and 're-hashing' an old story. Let's not focus on the fact that few, if any, have been punished for these transgressions. Let's not focus on credible reports that these incidents continue to occur. Instead, if Hewitt is to have his way, we should all focus on the 'anti-military' stance of the media.

Please read Cole's article - it is enlightening.

We have a problem in our society and it stems from the fact that there are those who would enthusiastically crush any criticism of the military.

The military - one of the largest organizations in the world, probably the most powerful organization in the world, the recipient of an incomprehensible amount of our tax revenue and for many, the primary "face" on our foreign policy - is beyond reproach. This is enforced socially by a very active and very vocal, very powerful large group of conservatives who spring into action anytime something unsavory is said about the US military. They are, essentially, Thought Police who by protecting the military for scrutiny and criticism create an environment in which the military is unaccountable to the American taxpayer and is less able to identify and solve its problems.

I'm not here to lay a trip on the military. Even as a pacifist, I have a great deal of respect for the US military and particularly for the men and women who have made the military their career. I know that the vast majority of people in the service are honorable and good and act professionally and selflessly in ways that most of those of us on the outside can never truly appreciate.

That being said, no organization is infallible. Every organization has their share of bad people as well. The military differs from a bank in this respect, however, in that servicemen and women represent the people of the United States and by virtue of the realities of war, at times wield a great deal of (oftentimes deadly) power over others.

Without dwelling on details, I, along with hundreds of millions of other people around the world from all political persuasions have been deeply disturbed by various US military scandals that have been reported over the past year - detainee abuse being just one of them.

Yet Hugh Hewitt and thousands like him would prefer to see those stories go unreported. The rightwing blogosphere engages in intense career-ending campaigns against those who would dare suggest that the military may have problems (see Eason Jordan). Kevin Sites received death threats after having happened to film the battlefield execution of a wounded prisoner in a mosque in Fallujah (an act, by the way, I didn't have a problem with, given the circumstances).

The US military is accountable to the American people. If and when there are problems in the military, they should be identified, explored and corrected.

The actions and rhetoric of Hugh Hewitt and many very vocal conservatives, in the blogosphere in particular, appear to be either asserting that soldiers are incapable of acting unprofessionally or that the military should be exempt from scrutiny and criticism.

What is your reaction to the Cole article? What level of accountability to do you think that the military should have to the American people?

Rightwing commentators often use the phrase "aid and comfort to the enemy" with respect to the press coverage of our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since this is part of the Constitutional definition of "treason", is this acceptable rhetoric

Dadmanly Responds:

John Cole uses the example of what he considers critical excess to make a valid point -- media should provide oversight and report abuses by our military -- but that doesn't in any way diminish the equal validity of the position he so strongly opposes on the part of his erstwhile conservative colleagues.

You cannot convince me that, by and large, the press doesn't harbor a deep cynicism about the military, and the rightful exercise of American military power. I believe this to be an aging holdover from Vietnam and the Watergate era. (The cynicism, not the people who hold these views.) If you don't see that or recognize that, there's nothing I can say or point to that will change your mind. What I would point to as cynicism or hypercriticism, you might call healthy skepticism.

It's kind of like how African Americans can be subjected to very subtle forms of prejudice or mistrust to which most of us are totally oblivious. Those of us in the military know it all too well.

When Abu Ghraib happened, it was like the O.J. Simpson case. Story after story, day after day, news about news about news about news, any excuse at all to run the photos, always the photos, over and over again the photos. Editors chose to make those decisions, one because of sales, but more importantly, it might "finally turn" the American people against this war and against their military. You will hardly find a Soldier serving today who doesn't know this in their core. And no amount of self serving, excuse making, "we're just looking for the truth" justifications will change that.

Contrast this treatment of these horrific pictures that would surely turn Muslim anger to a heated fervor against us, versus films and photos of the utter carnage of 9/11, that disappeared totally from public view within weeks (if not days) of 9/11, because editors felt that these stories might "inflame Americans," or cause them to rise in a heated fervor against Muslims. (This is especially odd in that Americans rarely and not at all recently have any tendency towards public violence, while such responses are a staple of Middle Eastern societies.)

Note the hypocrisy of these two contrasting editorial decisions. Note that every major American media outlet made the same set of decisions in both cases.

Coincidentally, both sets of editorial decisions happened in the run up to a Presidential Campaign, and oddly enough, both decisions were viewed to benefit the challenger against the incumbent. And yet, this doesn't strike anyone on the left as somewhat self-serving or duplicitous?

Abu Ghraib hurt the U.S. Military and our mission terribly. And to this day, many on the left still believe deeply in their heart of hearts that these abuses were, if not directed, knowingly tolerated by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and every General Officer in between these gentlemen and the depraved scum who carried out these abuses.

Yet you won't find a Soldier who isn't very glad there are Soldiers involved going to jail for hard labor with long sentences, and that there are superior officers having their careers terminated. So report and prosecute away.

Anyone who could seriously make the argument that the "good news" of our military and diplomatic efforts are receiving an over-abundance of reporting is deluded, or blind, or more precisely, hallucinating. (You see these things, but they're not really there.) To then point to Blogs as the source for all that good news just underscores that the good news is on the Blogs because it sure as heck doesn't make the Times. (Or CBS.)

Career ending attacks? Eason Jordan didn't just report that "the military had problems." He accused the U.S. Military of targeting (intentionally killing) innocent civilians. As the head of a major news division, he took the opportunity before a foreign audience in slandering the U.S. Military with these untruths, and then lying about what he said. (No tape or transcript has ever been made available to refute what has been reported that he said, that he denies.) I would think stockholders and owners of reputable media outlets wouldn't be too enthused by heads of those organizations making outrageous claims not backed up by fact.

Perhaps you allude to Dan Rather too? The gentleman who made a ruinous situation worse for CBS by attacking his critics and assuring the American people that the source of his reporting was unimpeachable? Who's producer, no doubt with his full support, bit fully into a fraudulent story, perhaps planted by political operatives, but surely abetted by a known anti-Bush crank?

The military should be and surely is fully accountable to the American people. The U.S. Military is probably one of the MOST responsive organizations in the world in terms of accountability. We even have our own legal system that exists outside of and in addition to criminal courts, and we can be punished by both.

I've mentioned before that, when deficiencies or problems are noted at all levels of command, almost immediately we see corrective actions, training, preventative measures.

The American people should and can be very proud of their military, notwithstanding and in spite of the infrequent abuse of power or transgression. And proud, too, that moreso than any other institution, public or private, tries to right whatever wrong takes place within our organization.

If the press handled its own transgressions with as much humility and earnestness, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Moral Frameworks and Where They Come From

2005-05-23T12:42:00.000-05:00

As you and I have discussed previously, I have grave concerns that America is losing the necessary underpinnings for an ethical and moral public life. As a born again Christian, my faith provides base, the needle, even "magnetic north" for my "moral compass." Having said that, I've acknowledged that I believe there are people of deep moral and ethical convictions who are not religious or do not believe in God.

But I am curious. As a man who stands very firm on deeply held moral principles (foremost perhaps as a pacifist), where do your moral landmarks come from? How are your moral judgements grounded?

Before I either add more aspects of that question -- or even let you answer it (only one of us can blog at a time after all) -- a short digression by way of giving you my answer that explains it for me and my faith.

I would say I am blessed with a strict need to rationally think through, process, and integrate everything. (Others would say this is a burden.) I was an atheist up until 1987 or so. When sinking into a deep discontent and despair over an unwanted separation and ultimate divorce, I followed the example of my ex and got involved in 12 step groups. I discovered behaviors and patterns of thinking best explained by being a child of dysfunction. (The specifics are not important.)

I relied on the concept of an unspecified Higher Power to help me heal myself enough to start asking the big questions. That led to an agnosticism, and eventually to deism, and then to the Bible, and then to an acceptance of Jesus as both Son of God and my personal savior.

The real sticking point was achieving deism. As a highly rational and scientific minded person, I wasn't comfortable taking anybody's word for anything to do with God. So I conducted a thought experiment one January day, walking along frozen canals and abandoned settlements along the Mohawk River.

Fast forward, in the end, I concluded that I firmly believed in absolute good and absolute evil, and I could identify behaviors and events that were conclusively in one category or another. I further believed that I knew in my heart and mind that these "truths" would be true whether I accepted them or not, they were not relative or adaptable. To me, that had to argue for a consciousness of some kind, a God who was responsible for establishing a priori, good and evil. That may not mean the same for someone else, but for me, that was pretty convincing.

I know that you are not a moral relativist. I believe you hold a passionate dedication to some pretty basic moral truths, based on some of your previous responses.

But for you, if you've thought about it, where does morality come from? Why do we care to do right? Why should we do right?

How do we know what's right, upon what do we base it on? Are there moral truths that are knowable, and how can we prove them, or what can we use as evidence?

Because it has seemed to me that if you do not accept the possibility of some kind of creative consciousness or God, what one is left with is a strictly utilitarian argument, what is good for self, or family, or tribe, or nation, or survival of the species, and that no appeal outside of utility (usefulness of behavior or sets of behavior) would be logical.

LiberalAvenger's Response #1:

This is an excellent question and I am very glad that you asked it. It will be interesting and informative for me, too, to explore the whys and wherefores of my belief system.

It is also directly related to an issue that has at times infuriated me. There exists in our society at present a significant number of people who believe to their core that absent religion (and in particular, Christianity) in one's life, one is incapable of adhering to a moral code. This is insulting and asinine.

[continued response...]

I've spent a great deal of time overseas traveling or living in a dozen different countries. The one strong, persistent impression I've carried with me through these experiences is that there are definitely some constants to human nature. Regardless of our race, creed, color or national origin, for the most part, we humans all love our children, respect our elders, enjoy sex, fall in love, enjoy a good meal, etc.

This leads me to conclude that some universal moral truths do in fact exist in the human race. They are most certainly not strictly adhered to by all people at all times, but they are an intrinsic part of the force that guides humanity as a whole. I don't think one needs a governmental or spiritual law to understand that killing others is "wrong." Additionally, after having been thrust into an environment where the law (both governmental and spiritual) allows or even encourages killing (a religious war might be an example), there are unquestionably people who are conflicted about the act.

Religious doctrine across the board largely reflects these moral truths as well with very few exceptions. A Tibetan Buddhist can relate to the 10 Commandments while a Christian or Jew can relate back to The Eightfold Path.

Our societies and cultures, grown slowly over the course of hundreds or thousands of years, naturally reflect these truths as identified by religion in their laws, customs and social mores which, in turn, reinforce the values within us all.

[End Part #1 of LiberalAvenger's response. More to follow...]

Drugs in the Military in Iraq

2005-05-12T17:59:00.000-05:00

I've seen variations on this question appear different places on the internet several times over the past 2 years, but I've never seen a response.

Recreational and hard drug use exists everywhere in the world. In the United States, young people - military age people - are using crystal methamphetamine and ecstasy at an ever increasing rate. Crystal methamphetamine abuse is particularly problematic with young people in rural America - a demographic from which the military draws a disproportionate number of its recruits.

I have written about my own drug use. When I was in college in California, a high school friend was in the Navy and stationed nearby in Vallejo. He was a crystal methamphetamine user as were many of his Navy friends that I met. Once he was assigned to a ship and moved to Norfolk, Virginia, he and his fellow sailors' methamphetamine use continued, even when they were away on ships for months at a time. Methamphetamine use amongst young servicemen struck me as fairly normal at the time. I realize that my perception doesn't mean that this was necessarily so.

We have 140,000 troops in Iraq, 40% of whom are from the National Guard and Reserves. Thousands of tons of supplies are flown in daily from military bases around the world and those supplies are disseminated throughout Iraq. Drugs like crystal methamphetamine and ecstasy are relatively easy to manufacture, are popular, are profitable and don't take up a great deal of space (as opposed to bales of marijuana, for example). Methamphetamine, at least, is also addictive.

What sort of drug use exists within the military in Iraq? What is coming in? How is it getting in? Who is using it? What is it being used for? Is it a problem? How does the military deal with it?

Dadmanly responds:

I am in a position whereby I would need to enforce the Army's zero tolerance policy towards drugs (and here, alcohol as well). We have had no such incidents in the 200+ soldiers in our unit. We had a couple of incidents prior to mobilization, but none since. I would argue that once on active duty, our checks and safeguards (and potential punishments) are a pretty effective deterrent. There's pretty good evidence that the few positives we had could have been intentional attempts to get out of deployment.

I may be naive to think it would be pretty difficult to get anything in here. The security threat is high, thereby screening procedures include canine units, open container searches, and other techology based procedures.

Given what my soldiers have seen as the consequences for drug use, I think they would be pretty reluctant to get caught. (And anyone who knew or found out would talk about it, and eventually someone not your friend would find out.

But our parent unti is quite large, and I have no doubt that some enterprising souls could and perhaps have found a way. But I will say I have heard of no cases, nor is it discussed. What is discussed, at every opportunity, is Sexual Abuse Prevention and Response (SAPR) training, which I taught to my soldiers during mobilization training, and we've gone through another round here in Iraq.

This is in response to publicized problems with unreported or underreported assaults within the military. That's how the military responds to identified problems, they identify action items (which often have a training and retraining component) and conduct training. If drugs was even on the radar screen, we'd be going to mandatory training classes. And its just not happening.

Not in response to chronic problems, but as a standard feature of active duty live fior more than a decade or two (I remember having these in the 80's), the Army conducts regular, unit level random unrinalysis. Programs are designed to be implemented randomly, without notice, throughout the year in such a way that the soldiers never now if their turn is due until right before they are screened.

And neither we nor our parent unit to my knowledge have had anyone piss hot. Not here. Not now. Maybe its because it could really get you killed here.

LiberalAvenger response:

Very informative answer, Dadmanly. Thank you!

George F. Will Puts on the Brakes

2005-05-12T17:50:00.000-05:00

It's not just me and my fellow secularists... Conservative commentator George F. Will is concerned about the pendulum swinging towards theocracy, too.

I do not believe in God, and not for a lack of exposure to faith. My mother was raised as a nominal Catholic and my father is a lapsed Congregationalist. I went to Sunday School and to church on Easter and at Thanksgiving and at Christmas. My grandmother, my love for whom was immeasurable, was first and foremost a Christian and will forever be fondly remembered as such.

My wife is a woman of faith, albeit a different faith. She is from a Buddhist country and spent time as a Buddhist "nun" in a temple in the mountains after she finished college. Her uncle is monk who holds a high position in the monk hierarchy - I think of his position as being like that of a Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church. My wife's grandmother is a nun and my mother-in-law wakes up every morning at around 4:00AM to cook for the monks in the monastery nearby and walks a mile in the dark with her wicker basket full of food to bring to them. My brother-in-law escaped a dangerous drug habit by entering the priesthood and we were so proud of him. He just left the monastery to return to secular life after 9 years. Someday I'll show you a photo of the cute little house for visiting monks that I paid to have built in a mango grove at the monastery my mother-in-law brings food to. My teen-aged daughter, having spent much of her life in the old country with her mother, has been raised Buddhist by her mother and considers herself to be a Buddhist.

While choosing not to participate in acts or beliefs of faith, I have a profound sense of its importance to those who do choose to participate - and I respect that. I find faith and many of its physical accoutrements to be quite beautiful at times. Like most people who have traveled a great deal my memories of places are filled with visits to churches, cathedrals, mosques, temples, monasteries and ashrams.

Where tax money, public service and government here at home are involved, however, faith makes me very uncomfortable. Why is that?

Perhaps it stems from the fact that when one faith is asserted, there is an implicit message that it is the one true faith. Christians AND Muslims AND Jews AND Hindus AND Buddhists can't all have the monopoly on the one true faith.

I live in a blue town in a blue county in very blue Massachusetts. A few months ago we were at a performance at my daughter's public school. My daughter was singing in the school chorus. My wife and I sat in the audience as the kids filed onto stage. My daughter is small so she was in the front row.

The principal of the school started the performance by leading everyone in a prayer - a Christian prayer. The theme of the prayer wasn't a problem for me - it was actually a prayer that our fighting men and women overseas would return home safely. It was the prayer itself - a Christian prayer at a public school lead by a civil servant for a mixed faith audience.

Serious question: If you were in the audience watching your child and the principal came out and opened the concert with a Hindu prayer for Ganesh the elephant god, what would you think?

Next question: As Americans we are free to worship as we please in our homes and our churches/temples/mosques/synagogues. Nobody is challenging this. Again I live in the bluest of towns in the bluest of states and there are a dozen different flavors of Christian churches up the street for me to choose from, as well as a synagogue, mosque and Buddhist temple close by. If the basic rights to worship freely in home and at church are not in jeopardy, what more is it that conservative Christians are looking for from the state?

Final question: What is your reaction to the George F. Will article?

[Note from LiberalAvenger... I lost part of my original question in a mishap here. It has been my intent to try to rewrite it, but this hasn't happened yet. Since Dadmanly has already graciously responded, I am posting this with my question as is and Dadmanly's full response. Thanks.]

Dadmanly Responds:

I read and was somewhat troubled by George Will's piece. I believe he himself exaggerates the import of some of the events he uses to support his assertions. I do think there is some element of truth, in noting a fair amount of exaggeration and posturing on the part of "aggrieved believers." But I think that is true for both sides of these debates of religion and public expression; both sides are using the "outliers," the extremes to paint a picture of the whole that I think distorts for effect.

There is almost no real argument here, unless we argue the exceptions to the rule. Most Christians in most settings are not remotely persecuted -- for true persection, try being a Christian in a Muslim country or a dissident in Cuba or China -- and likewise, most people of other faiths or atheists are not remotely persecuted or suffer any of the "oppression" of the majority. If given a majority Christian population in any particular setting, that public expressions might more often include those particular to the majority should be of no surprise and little consequence.

I have no inherant right to never or seldom be exposed to public utterances of religious expression that is contrary to my own. I have no inalienable right to never suffer offense, or never hear or see things I disagree with, no matter how strongly I disagree or am discomfitted. Believe me, Believers are living this every day in the continual degradation and lowering common denominators for public expression in conversation, media, television and other popular entertainments. To say we can "turn it off," "walk away," "ignore it," is to underestimate the prevasiveness and intensity of the onslaught.

I have been asked several times some version of, "imagine you are in the audience, and a public official (of X faith) makes a public expression of (X religious practice). My answer is of course, I would be somewhat uncomfortable, depending on the context. And that's a pretty big dependence.

Do public officials work for the people they represent 24 by 7? Only 9-5? Weekends too? If their official duties bring them to public events, but without official sanction (think sporting events or public celebrations), are they then freed from the constraint against public expression?

I do not disagree at all with the idea that public officials ought not to use their positions to at all promote a particular faith. I do however think it facile to suggest they somehowhave to "turn off" their spiritual or religious sensibilities as they might inform moral or ethical decision-making. (And no, I don't think I hjave anything to fear by the Jewish believer who allows his or her faith to inform his moral judgement in public decision-making, likewise the Muslim, or Buddhist, etc. Most faiths do not significantly impact or stress political activism, so I think it's mostly a non-issue.

Frankly, I think the lack of a moral or ethical framework, and moral relativity in both unfaithful believers, misguided adherants, or non-believers is potentially more dangerous to our society, and why I think a lot of this discusssion is a distraction. Money has way too much influence in politics, the employees and managers of some businesses behave unethically and irresponsibly, some industries take too little responsibility for their products and their after-effects, and in many walks of life individuals are way to self-oriented and self-absorbed and refuse to be accountable for their behavior and the condition of the thought, image, and behavior world they help create.

I would object to Will's passing shot at the buzzer of his article:

But Republicans should not seem to require, de facto, what the Constitution forbids, de jure: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust."

I think the notion that Republicans are using a Religious litmus test on appointees is stretching the point in two ways.

I do think Republicans are actively seeking judges who square up with the notion of articulated and enumerated rights, constitutional constructivists who want to drag the courts back away from judicial activism. I would not all that a religious litmus test. I would call it a test for a form of jurisprudence, and in that it emphasizes the rule of law as balanced by the constitution, and not some new construct of implied or derived rights, seems to be a legitimate grounding for judicial appointments.

In contrast, I believe Democrats are quite openly blocking or rejecting appointments specifically on the basis of a religious test. Jurists who are devout in their faith can't be trusted to perform their public trust impartially nor base their decisions in law versus their "beliefs." And yet it would be hard not to notice that ever since the Warren Court, many Supreme Court decisions have been decided in just such a way.

The Genie Out of the Bottle

2005-05-10T14:46:00.000-05:00

What's a pacifist's answer to Nuclear proliferation?

Sure, I know the U.S. is often held exclusively responsible for letting that genie out of the bottle. (Or, opening the Pandora of all Pandora's boxes?)

I would argue that German scientists working for Hitler were certainly feverishly at work, before and during WWII, God only knows what would have happened if Einstein had fallen into the hands of the Nazis. And in the aftermath of WWII, the efforts of the Russians and Chinese to acquire the Bomb certainly strategically altered forever our nuclear destiny, and forced our hand in many respects from a strategic planning perspective. And yet, Nuclear Brinksmanship and Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) arguably kept the two superpowers from fighting anything other than proxy wars with conventional arms.

More and more nations joined the Nuclear Club, and now emerge the threats of non-state actors with Nuclear Weapons, with the potential to detonate a dirty bomb or even a nuclear explosion as an act of terrorism. Regardless of how we got here, what's the proper response?

And as a side note, were the Rosenbergs guilty of treason, or if they did commit the acts attributed to them, was their act patriotic? Is an act of that kind a potentially acceptable Pacifist response?

LiberalAvenger response #1:

Nuclear weapons are bad and I wish that they had never been invented.

They were invented, however, and we must accept that. There is no need to point figures at who/when/why was responsible. The bomb was a product of a very dark time and indeed, we can be thankful that the United States secured the first working versions ahead of Hitler or Stalin. I also believe that the use of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the best decision at the time given the circumstances and mankind's general naivité as to the full implications of the existence and use of the bomb.

The very idea of a nuclear bomb is absurd. That human beings would create something so poisonously destructive runs counter to any enlightened sensibilities. We've heard factoids that the world's existing nuclear arsenal is capable of killing every living creature on the face of the earth several times over or turning the entire surface of the earth into glass from the heat. Whether or not these precise statements are indeed "the truth," the destructive potential of nuclear weapons is mind-boggling and evil.

Yes, evil.

Conventional devices that exist to kill people or destroy property and infrastructure are evil. Devices to kill and destroy indiscriminately on a massive scale are even more so.

As you've pointed out, Pandora's box is open. Tragically, we cannot undo this.

In light of the fact that these devices exist, the general strategy of non-proliferation makes sense. It is, in fact, our only hope to save ourselves from armageddon.

That being said, the Bush Administration has failed us on the non-proliferation front. Distracted from the world stage by the Iraq folly, we have allowed North Korea to acquire between 6 and 8 nuclear devices and Iran to move their own program further along. This is inexcusable. Furthermore, the Bush Administration has squandered American credibility internationally with the Iraq misadventure which will make it all the more difficult to keep North Korea and Iran in check.

Thank you, GW Bush and friends for making the world all the more unsafe while we become the mockery of the diplomatic world by engaging in a war of choice in Iraq.

Furthermore, Bush Administration insistence in moving ahead with battlefield and bunker-busting nuclear weapons is unconscionable and adds to our general lack of credibility while undermining the worldwide non-proliferation effort. It is the height of arrogance and is inexcusable.

Update from LiberalAvenger:

I forgot to answer the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg question.

I am under the impression that Julius Rosenberg was guilty. Treason is a crime. He should have been imprisoned. I do not believe in capital punishment and find the fact that he was executed to be barbaric. Civilized societies should not be executing human beings.

I do not think it is clear whether or not Ethel Rosenberg was guilty. Regardless, she should not have been executed.

Additional update from LiberalAvenger:

This article by Robert S. McNamara in Foreign Policy is excellent and relevant.

Dadmanly responds:

I think this sounds partisan. (But that's okay, I expect us to be, even if we're trying to be civil.)

I hear this argument a lot, that Iraq is a distraction from greater dangers, and I don't think it's sincere. Or better, it's a handy argument used almost "marriage of convenience-like," usually by people who would be equally aghast at any of our probable responses to whatever strawman alternative danger they set up.

I worked many years in Intelligence. Within military and civilian intelligence, defense, and diplomatic establishments are thousands and thousands of analysts, each with their own assigned targets and areas of interest. What's on the budget is gargantuan; what's black ops (invisible) is even larger. The idea that some portion of our military or intelligence or diplomatioc corps being focused on Iraq, would have any consequential (negative) impact on analysis or casework elsewhere is naive. There's plenty of capability and focus to go around. We even have time to be attentive to non-immediate threats and not-yet-but-potential threats. Just as there are plenty of resources devoted to the hunt for OBL.

North Korea and Iran are bad examples for the point in any case; both countries were aggressively developing nuclear weapons capability throughout the Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton years, and U.S. Foreign Policy (and U.N. Security Council responses) were completely unsuccessful at preventing their eventual transition to nuclear statehood.

And what response now would you propose? What response in 2000 or 2001 or 2002 or 2003 would you have supported? If you don't like or can't support a(n) (relatively easy) overthrow of Saddam in Iraq, how would it be possible for you to support anything that would have succceeded in Iran or North Korea? If you mention anything to do with arms control, or U.N. Weapons Inspectors or Agencies, you really can't be serious. If there is one thing that should be accepted as fact on all sides by now, is that WMD wannabees and U.N. sanctioned regimes can very easily game (and make a total mockery of) whatever system the U.N. puts in place.

American standing in elite world opinion has been low for a long time, Iraq is merely the latest of talking points for a continuous stream of anti-Americanism with 9/11 only a very brief respite. This, in stark contrast to the overwhelming popularity of American culture, ideas, innovation, and technology.

But we are in fact, very credible. The leaders of countries all over the world are quite sure that, under the current administration, if we promise (or threaten) something, we will follow through. The fact that this was quite the opposite just 5 years ago, and how Islamic Terrorists were convinced we would not defend ourselves, speaks volumes about the value of saying what you're going to do and doing what you said you were going to do. That is true credibility. I think what you really mean is popularity. We are unpopular, but I would argue there is more evidence for this being the result of jealousy and envy and resentment over our power and influence. Much of the world would be very happy indeed if we were to suffer grave harm financially and militarily. If that's the cost of us gaining credibility as you mean it -- which I think we will never earn in any real sense -- than I would say the cost is too high.

Our national interest must always be national first, and international only when it is in our interest.

The Cold War, 15 years Later

2005-05-10T14:37:00.000-05:00

How do anti-War activists and liberals view the Cold War, 15 years after it ostensibly ended? Was it worth fighting? What are the lessons we should have learned, or yet may learn from the struggles of the superpowers?

What is the view now of the Soviet Union, what kind of a threat did it really pose, and was there any validity in perceiving regional geopolitics as so many "dominoes," the fall of which might threaten (Western) democracy?

I can deeply respect true pacifists -- even as I am glad that there are rough men ready to fight on their behalf, that they might sleep peacably in their beds -- but I know that even the most ardent make certain exceptions for certain grave threats. I believe you have stated that you consider our struggle against Nazism and Fascism in WWII to be morally justified (or words perhaps close to that in effect).

Would you extend that same consideration to struggles against the USSR? Against Stalin specifically, if he might be the exception?

Were we right to fight the Cold War, and did we win?

LiberalAvenger's response #1:

We were indeed right to fight The Cold War against Stalin and the Soviet Union. We also unquestionably won.

That being said, there are still numerous aspects of our end of the Cold War that merit criticism. Some of our excesses during the Cold War marked low points in the great American experiment.

You ask specifically about the "domino effect." Containment of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe was a good thing and the right thing. The Soviets would have undoubtedly liked to have expanded their reach across Western Europe. Whether or not this was ever practical or if they would actually have done this are difficult questions. What isn't in question is that our Cold War presence in Western Europe acting as a deterrent to them helped keep westward expansion on their part impractical.

Fear of the "domino effect" in Southeast Asia and Central America caused us to make egregious mistakes.

The deaths of 58,000 Americans and 2+ million Vietnamese will forever be remembered as a shameful waste of human lives. After 10 years in the region and these horrific losses we still lost the Vietnam war, and more importantly, the domino effect did not cause the rest of Asia to collapse along with Vietnam.

I won't belabor the legal and ethical issues surrounding Iran-Contra, another sad episode in the Cold War, however the behavior of many in the government at that time puts the indignation and outrage expressed by Republicans over Bill Clinton's blowjob and the UN Oil-for-Food scandal in perspective.

McCarthyism was another American excess of the Cold War that should be a reminder to all of us that being on the right side of a great war doesn't justify the actions taken in every battle.

On the critical side of the ledger, I find it somewhat amusing that Ronald Reagan is unconditionally lauded as having "won" the Cold War when the coup de grace that finally took the Soviet Union out was its own internal bankruptcy, a side-effect of the conflict that was unrecognized, not part of the American strategy and came as a complete surprise to Reagan and the CIA when it came about. There is no question that Reagan played a major role in the collapse of the Soviet Union and our winning of the Cold War. Attributing the demise of the Soviet economy to his genius is overreaching and reeks of idolatry.

On the positive side, the Cold War strengthened American Democracy and fueled a passionate effort to spread American Democracy and capitalism abroad, a movement which, in spite of some flaws, paid dividends in ultimately improving the lives of billions of people.

The Cold War played roles of primary importance in the prosperity and freedom found in the democracies of Western Europe, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, etc.

[To be continued...]

Dadmanly Interjection #1

While I would agree that bankrupting the USSR was not a central feature of Cold War planning, as an Intelligence Analyst involved in efforts against them, I would state categorically that many of us by the mid 80's fully expected the USSR to collapse under the financial burden of the arms race, particularly the Strategic Defense Initiative. Many prominent Sovietologists stated so at the time, I recall discussions in Foreign Affairs. Whether that system would have been practicaly within any near or far term, is debatable, but I believe the evidence is clear that the Soviets were very worried about it and our capabilities to make it happen.

As with many related issues, Reagan's legacy is hugely benefitted by the political tradition he inherited as a staunch anti-communist. Up until the fall of the Soviet Union, many of his prominent political opponents, and the majority of left leaning writers and thinkers, were dramatically opposed to any hardline opposition to Communism and Socialism. Realpolitik and detante were the rage, and Reagan was seen as an unsophisticated, cowboy simpleton (I wonder if that won't always be the complaint against a strong and assertive foreign policy). Up until the liberation of Eastern Europe and the collapse of the USSR, that is.

This was never envisioned by Reagan's opponents. (Although you would never know that listening to them now.) There is thus a great deal of revisionist history going on about the fall of the USSR. There were vehement debates about Reagan's Foreign Policy, and these are remarkably similar to those used against Bush and his policies. (I remember, I hated Reagan at the time.)

[To be continued...]

Draft-avoidance, Clinton, Bush and Cheney

2005-05-07T17:04:00.000-05:00

In your response to my Homosexuality and the Service post, you wrote the following:

Especially given his draft-avoidance via college deferrment, Clinton was in very low regard throughout the military.

I was aware that draft-avoidance was a bone of contention for many anti-Clinton folks.

Both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney avoided the draft during the Vietnam War. Bush's non-Vietnam experience is well known. Cheney reportedly enjoyed five deferrments during which he also attended college.

I should point out that as a pacifist, I don't have a fundamental problem with draft-avoidance. If I was George H.W. Bush, I would have pulled strings to get my son into the National Guard, too. If I was Cheney, I would have tried to stay in college and get multiple deferrments for as long as possible.

My father, married and just out of college faced the draft in 1965. Instead of being drafted into the army he chose to enlist in the Air Force instead. He and my mother moved to Texas while my father went to OCS and then pilot training (F-4 fighter) at Lanark AFB. My mother lived off-base in a motel with a group of other Air Force wives.

In the end, three-quarters of the way through pilot training, my father got a kidney stone and was hospitalized on base. Once the stone had passed, he returned to his barracks from the hospital to find a note instructing him to report to his CO. He did so, and was medically discharged on the spot. The Air Force wanted no responsibility over him as the kidney stone apparently revealed some sort of congenital kidney deficiency. (Fortunately for him, the kidney deficiency didn't bother him again until he was over 60 years old!)

There were all sorts of circumstances that kept young men out of Vietnam proper.

Do Bush and Cheney's draft-avoidance methods place them in low regard with you or with the military in general? Do their experiences differ from those of Bill Clinton in your eyes? Why?

Dadmanly Responds:

There are big differences between the way soldiers today view Vietnam and the way most of that generation did at the time. Soldiers today are pretty matter of fact about such things. Running away to Canada was cowardly, and showed no sense of personal responsibility for one's country. National Guard service was a choice, but a perfectly valid one.

Mnay National Guard units deployed to Vietnam, obviously some didn't. Being drafted was a real good way of ending up in Vietnam, volunteering for service gave you some options. Very few veterans today think there's anything wrong with that, the modern volunteer Army is ALL about what you can get in your enlistment (or re-enlistment) contract.

Some conservatives during and since the war might disparage Guard service as a way of avoiding Vietnam, but I think that's not too common an attitude. I hear my father-in-law describe what he and his buddies did in WW II and Korea, and most men who might be soldiers have always played the angles or tried to find the best service or the best duty or the best deal. Vietnam was no different.

For the guys who did go to Vietnam, especially those drafted, many resented that others got out of going or found easier duty. But that's a far cry from how they felt about deserters, draft dodgers, and conscientious objectors. College deferrments? Likewise, soldiers of the time certainly thought of that as the college boys gaming the system to get out of the fight. There was a fair amount of class and socio-economic fault lines in Vietnam and those who served, but that had to do with opportunity and how those might be more difficult to come by for some than for others.

Clinton got a bad rap with soldiers because of his avoidance of the draft on a college deferrment, and subsequent decisions that made soldiers feel that as Commander in Chief he was at least ambivalent about them, and at worse antagonistic. Don't ask, don't tell, what was seen as military adventurism (this was before 9/11), perceived use of the military for public relations, and the Monica Lewinsky reminiscent Berets -- all of these diminished Clinton's standing.

By the way, Gore suffered from the perception of his service as well, much like Kerry. Gore did a short stint as a Army Press reporter if I understand it, so he could get combat time, patches, etc., before Senator Gore pulled him back home post-haste. Kerry's 4 months in the combat zone, possible self-recommending himself for awards, then abandoning his crew, and of course his Winter Soldier escapade. (He reminds me of Annie's hippie boyfriend in Forrest Gump, who hits Annie when mad, but then blames it on that "damned Johnson.")

Most of us didn't really know Cheney, but he had served as a Defense Secretary and had the link to Reagan and Bush 41, so he kind of got a free pass. You might remember Dan Quaile was a Guardsman who avoided Vietnam, but he was almost a complete unknown and pretty lightweight, and I don't think it was even on the radar. And Bush 41 was the most unlikely of war heroes, although a Fighter Pilot in WWII, he had more of the career bureaucrat air about him from all his CIA and Washington insider time, so he didn't benefit as much as he could have from his war record.

George W. Bush? He was trained as a Pilot. His unit could have been called up, some were, and many of those who proceeded him did. He volunteered at one point to go, but there is some evidence that his father's influence could have caused him to lose or miss the opportunity. By the time he was fully trained, the model he flew was less in need than it had been.

But I don't think any of that really matters to 90% of GIs. They like him because he so clearly likes the military. He treats military people great and with deep respect. And he's learned enough about what makes them tick that he doesn't come off sounding like someone who only knows what to say because someone wrote down the words for him. He's a natural, and soldiers hate phony more than anything.

And he came away from 9/11 wanting to kick some butt. He believes deeply in this purpose, in the crucial need to win, the danger of our adversaries and the dangerous consequences if we lose. He risked his future and his legacy on some bold foreign policy decisions that may still go south. But if we succeed, and the Middle East continues its shift away from Terror and Oppression and towards democracy, his gamble will be remembered as the stunning U.S. Foreign Policy achievement of the century.

And soldiers want to win, they're fed up with being used as tokens on some Diplomatic gameboard. They know their lives are worth more than that. If they're going to risk their lives for something, they want it to be grand and big and important and something that changes the world for the better. And if they can kick some terrorist or dictator butt in the process, well that just counts as icing on the cake.

LiberalAvenger responds again:

I'm disappointed by your response here.

Partisanship aside, as a grown man and as a soldier, do you really believe that Kerry recommended himself for his awards? This has never been proven.

You appear to be attributing the best of intentions to the Republicans you speak of and the worst of intentions to the Democrats across the board.

Disappointing.

Dadmanly responds again:

At first I was puzzled by your disappointment, but I think you make your point clearer in the comments. I do think otherwise sensible people on the left and right (whether Democrat, Republican, or unaffiliated) do tend to hound the political opposition to their graves. I've read a lot about of criticism about Ronald Reagan that would fir that category, but surely Republicans and conservatives can be rightly accused as well.

I think a big difference is that many of the battles that underlie the animosity are STILL actively being fought. The accurate legacy of Vietnam (did we lose, or win but withdraw?), the Cold War (were the Soviets or even Communism worth fighting), Socialism and/or Welfare Reform. And as far as Kerry, Clinton, and Gore, these individuals or their close associates (how's that for a euphemism, "I was once Bill's close associate") are still out there, if not in direct opposition as a candidate or potential candidate, than a political surrogate to a slugfest.

As a veteran, there is a big difference in the ways variuous candidates and politicians used (and exploited) their service. And yes, given several ket sets of facts, I believe John Kerry largely invented and certainly exaggerated his service records multiple times, for one set of purposes in the 70's and for a different set of purposes in the 80'0 and 90's and onwards. There are many other pieces of circumstantial evidence that I won't belabor that lead me to suspect there are numerous documents in Kerry's military record that contradict much of his public statements of his service.

No doubt, I am far more skeptical of the official version of his service than Bush's. But I will say that I have no doubt that all three -- Bush, Gore and Kerry, along with countless others -- no doubt gained considerable advantage due to their station and political connections. I still maintain, however, that Bush gained advantage from his military record but rarely stressed it; Kerry based his entire campaign on it.

One last point. Military men and women have a very keen eye for fair weather friends. Bush had the great advantage of having biological and philosophical antecedants with rock solid military credentials: Ronald Reagan and Bush 41. Kerry had no such advantage, in Clinton, Gore, and Kennedy (Ted).

I'll admit to being partisan, but it would be hard not to stray with a question posed as this one is. To paraphrase "Oh Brother Where Art Thou," to ask such a loaded question without a partisan response would "whet the appetite without beddin' her back down."

I guess that's the best I can do for this one.

Question from LiberalAvenger:

What were Ronald Reagan's rock solid military credentials?

Dadmanly responds:

I never would have guessed this term "credentials," would have so many shades of meaning. If this debate has taught me anything, it is that people have many different senses of what it means to be credentialed.

I meant that Ronald Reagan was given great credit by the military, not that he was some big military hero. He was extremely popular with soldiers, much like Bush 43.

As to his actual military service, quoting from a CNN biography:

During World War II, Reagan's poor eyesight kept him from combat, and he was assigned to make military training films. He was discharged as a Army captain in 1945, but not, he later said, before developing a disdain for the inefficiency of the military's bureaucracy.

I think I figured out why Presidents like Bush 43 and Reagan were so popular with the troops, and why others like Clinton and Carter (and even to an extent Bush 41, believe it or not).

Military members believe strongly in the mission of and purpose for the U.S. Armed Forces. They tend to be conservative, and they share none of the reluctance to use the military to support or fulfill U.S. National Security objectives as long as those objectives are sound. They also tend towards the macho, and strong figures like Reagan or Bush, while otherwise polarizing and divisive, were and are nothing if not powerly and assertive. I need not describe some of the frequent stereotypical comments about others for you to surmise correctly what those might have sounded like.

Reagan was a staunch anti-communist. As a cold warrior in the 80's, I can vouch that the prevalent feeling in the U.S. Military was likewise anit-communist, especially those of us in the know about Soviet and Communist activities, and in tune with what was a very strong "heartland" animosity towards the communists. Ascribe its source where you may, but also consider it one of the earliest precursor to the "Red State - Blue State" divide. (Only then, the point of divide was antipathy towards the "red" menace.)

I fault Reagan for mnay of the failings foreign policy wise as his next two successors. Much was left unattended to. But there is no question that standing up (with strength) to the Soviets and pushing against their interests was rather (though not universally) popular with the military. (As I stated, I hated him at the time, but have I think a wiser awareness now.)

It may seem counterintuitive for someone not in service, but soldiers don't restrict themselves to narrow personal interest. Once you are the type of person who is willing to serve, with all that that entails, you are likely to be quite ready to place the national interest above your own. Sure, there are grumblings from some about "we have no f'ing business being here," but that's the exception, and within military culture, that kind of negativity and resistance is frowned upon.

Reagan and Bush 43 conveyed a strong sense of valuing the military and being willing to use it without fear or hesitation, and showing deep conviction that doing so was the right thing to do for America (whether or not it was or they had to follow through, placing their soldiers boots where their mouth was). This then dovetails with my observation about (macho) military perceptions of strength and strong leadership.

Not to be partisan -- I don't mean it that way -- Republicans of late have done better with image and perception in this regard than Democrats. Not that that's all it is, its fueled and supported by real issues and real decisions and stances. But I am often impressed by how much nonverbal communication goes on that all of us underestimate. Military men and women are trained to be obedient, and respond in an instant to the commands and directives of those in authority over us. I think that's why we're so attuned to some that fit that communications model, and tune out or can't hear or respect those who don't communicate strongly in that way.

We know strong leaders, and we respect strong and forceful leadership. Any amount of indecisiveness, uncertainty, or even "nuance" could get us killed. Hence all the stories, mostly apocryphal, about fragging during Viet Nam. Soldiers grouse about poor leadership and uncertain or flawed leadership more thna any other single thing, and some will translate those complaints into mental "lists" of who the first one to get it will be. Those comments go away when leadership is strong, decisive, but fair and always mindful of the cost of decisions upon soldiers.

Homosexuality and the Service

2005-05-06T18:25:00.000-05:00

When the Clintons first moved into the White House I was working at a small software company in California. One of my colleagues had joined the team immediately following a stint in the Army.

If you recall, one of the first issues Bill Clinton took up in his presidency was to attempt to force a rule change in the military to allow gays. He failed to get the reform he sought while his efforts ended up producing the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that exists today.

At the time, I remember asking my ex-Army friend and colleague his take on the issue.

"Hey - what's your take on the issue of gays in the military?"

I'll never forget his answer:

"I don't know what the big deal is - they're already there!"

I always thought that that was a pretty damn grounded answer.

What do you think is the state of affairs for gays in the American military deployed in Iraq? Is "don't ask, don't tell" the strict rule? Does this comprehensively prohibit openly gay men and women from serving? Or is the situation more relaxed - instead of "don't ask, don't tell," have another set of de facto rules come into play?

How do you feel about the issue itself - as a soldier, a parent, a conservative and a born-again Christian?

I'm looking forward to your response and to comments from our guests.

Dadmanly's Response:

Most military I've worked with or known wish that Clinton had left the whole thing alone. Yes, there have always been gays in the military, but the timing of his change in policy days after his inauguration smacked of political payback and something he thought he could weather early and have it forgotten by the re-election campaign. Especially given his draft-avoidance via college deferrment, Clinton was in very low regard throughout the military. (That and making us wear berets.)

But that's just background.

Like many lifestyle and behavior related rules in the military, how this one gets handled depends on the command and how much of an issue it becomes.

There are no openly gay members of the military unless they were motivated to make that kind of statement beforehand. Once they "come out," the military will follow through although generally with a good conduct discharge. Generally speaking, no one in the military really wants undue or unfavorable attention. Often, the orientation may be known, but it's not dealt with or talked about, unless someone wants to get even over something else. And the gays who do serve in the military really don't want the kind of attention that fighting this battle would bring. They want to serve their country with honor, that's why they joined.

Of all the situations I am familiar with, in all but one, gay soldiers were not punished in any way or discriminated against (that I could tell) even though their commanders and fellow soldiers had to know or strongly suspect that they were gay. But then again, they held up their end of the don't ask don't tell. In the one instance in which this wasn't the case, a senior NCO in a training environment was involved with some of his students (same sex). This got him busted and drummed out, but this happened to instructors for heterosexual encounters with students as well.

There are many good reasons for the military to enforce certain standards of professional relationships, and sexual relationships between soldiers inevitably create problems: in good order, discipline, and morale. When relationships cross the line or involve supervisory relationships, the military has good reason to discourage them.

The military had to deal with the integration of women into non-combat roles, and now even that distinction is greatly blurred in a non-linear battlefield or in low intensity conflict. Anyone can suddenly find themselves under fire. There are many aspects of men and women sharing the battlespace that have caused a lot of problems. That doesn't mean there aren't advantages, but it hasn't been all good. Bringing in the additional problem of same sex relationship just expands the pool of problematic relationships.

The military is probably more conservative on this issue than average. Forget the brass, I don't think your average soldier would be very happy about fellow soldiers who were openly gay. I think any thought that you can "legislate" such a major change in attitude is naive and hopelessly counterproductive. To what end? And I don't think the military is the place to experiment, there's too much at stake.

The military is the most racially and gender integrated and non-discriminatory organization in the world. It sets a very high example for other organizations and businesses that don't even come close. But asking it to navigate the politically correct extreme of openly gay relationships in the barracks, that's just asking a little too much.

The military demands so much of its soldiers, to put their lives on the line, to risk everything, to deprive themselves, to sacrifice, and the rock bottom single most valuable piece of the whole enterprise is the trust between soldiers. And the fact is, most soldiers don't care what way the wind blows for the guy they sleep next to, fight next to, celebrate survival or mourn a loss with. As long as they can trust each other.

Personally, I really appreciate a remark I heard attributed to President Bush. When confronted by an aggressive reporter who asked him about his views on gays and what he thought of them, he answered, "We're all sinners here, buddy."

I know and have met people who I believe for whatever reason, were born with a physiological disposition to be gay. I have also met and known others who I believe for whatever reason made a set of decisions that led to them being gay. I don't understand that, and I think any kind of sexual immorality, premarital sex (any kind) is a sin. A very common one, but God in His word advises us against a lot of different behaviors for our own good. And this is one of them.

I believe that the overwhelming majority of those who profess to be gay report being sexually abused. (It's something like 93% I believe, although I can't point to an authoritative source.) I don't think that's an accident. I know that many first time homosexual experiences are either predatory, involve sexual abuse, or sex between an adult and a minor child, or between minor children where one has been sexually abused by an adult. I likewise don't think that's an accident either. I think peer pressure can be tremendous, and low self esteem, matched with hormones and a hostile environment can be very confusing to a young person. Figuring out your sexuality and making your way through the post modern, post sexual revolution cultural morass we find ourselves in only makes matters more difficult for young people.

I also happen to believe that marriage between a man and a woman is a gift from God, and one that helpfully is designed to give children the best possible environment for a healthy growing up, and ensure that human life will be sustained in a healthy and positive way from generation to generation. Now that's not possible for everyone, things happen, death and divorce and children born out of wedlock, and people have to do the best they can, and sometimes make the best of a less than ideal situation. But I don't think you help in the long run when you create situations that are less than ideal if there are other choices. And for me, my primary concern is for children.

Adults will do what they will do. And yes, I'd prefer people keep private matters private. As a leader, I really don't want to have to get involved with or have to deal with the public consequences of the fallout of relationships of any kind. This goes for affairs and sexual relationships of any kind outside of marriage, or for marriage problems when they erupt into or effect the workplace. I'm not naive, but I expect my soldiers to be professional and honest and disciplined in keeping their private lives to themselves and off the job. Of course, when they have personal problems, I'll get involved, and get them any help that's available or appropriate.

We won't ask, if you won't tell. It's not a perfect solution, but in the world we find ourselves in, with the unusual environment of the military, I think it's the best we can do.

LA:

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Dadmanly:

One of our commenters challenged my suggestion of a statistic I thought I had seen somewhere, that 93% of gays were sexually abused, and thought it absurd. I can't find whatever reference I may have seen, so I wanted to say so. I could find no mention of the 93% statistic.

But what I did suggests to me the number might actually be close to that. From studies, I am finding support for 40-50% of homosexual males reporting sexual abuse, and I think the dynamics documented by researchers strongly suggests that figure may be underreported.

Anecdotally, I have been involved with 12 step and other couseling groups for 15 years. In these and contacts in other walks of life, childhood sexual abuse is very prevalent among people who are gay. Of course, many may feel that their initial homosexual experiences as minor children with adults doesn't constitute sexual abuse, but as a parent, I certainly consider it so.

While I found nothing conclusive, the research suggests that sexual abuse and early sexualization of children by same gender perpetrators has very damaging consequences for sexual and emotional development, with many lasting effects, among others, commonly a high degree of confusion about gender issues and sexual orientation. Those who deny any correlation merely make the statement that gays do not chose to be gay, they are born gay (and apparently espcially vulnerable to sexual abuse), and there is no causal connection, and that's that. I would suggest that itself is a position unsupported by evidence.

References:

My results from Google (really, you folks can try this too, if you want to challenge someone else's data). A sample only. Do a google search on "sexual abuse" and homosexual and you'll find what I found.

1. Via Family Research Council:

The Archives of Sexual Behavior reports: "One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender." Marie, E. Tomeo, et al., "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons," Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539.

A study of 279 homosexual/bisexual men with AIDS and control patients discussed in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported: "More than half of both case and control patients reported a sexual act with a male by age 16 years, approximately 20 percent by age 10 years." Harry W. Haverkos, et al., "The Initiation of Male Homosexual Behavior," The Journal of the American Medical Association 262 (July 28, 1989): 501.

Noted child sex abuse expert David Finkelhor found that "boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had had such an experience. . . . Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences." Bill Watkins and Arnon Bentovim, "The Sexual Abuse of Male Children and Adolescents: A Review of Current Research," Journal of Child Psychiatry 33 (1992); in Byrgen Finkelman, Sexual Abuse (New York: Garland Publishing, 1995), p. 316.

2. Sexual Abuse in a Sexualized Culture Part 2: The Impact of Sexual Abuse on Males
, By Kathy A. Goodrich, CSW-R:

Sexual Orientation: Sixty-four percent (64%) of male survivors in the 1988 study by Dimock had masculine identity confusion. They doubted their masculinity, called themselves "wimp" and "gay", and struggled emotionally with their inability to protect themselves from sexual abuse. Several researchers have found higher rates of sexual abuse among homosexual than heterosexual populations, or higher rates of homosexual orientation among those who report childhood sexual abuse than among the general population (Mendel, p. 117).

Johnson and Shrier's 1985 and 1987 studies of adolescents in an outpatient medical clinic indicate that homosexual identification is seven times greater and bisexual identification six times greater for victimized males than for a comparison group of non-abused adolescent boys.

In their second study in 1987, the above researchers compared the 11 adolescents molested by females with the 14 adolescents abused by males and found that the sexual orientation effect was specific to the male-molested group. Approximately one-half of those abused by males identified themselves as homosexual and often linked their homosexuality to sexual victimization (Mendel, 118). An earlier 1982 study (C.G. Simari and D. Baskin, "Incestuous Experiences Within Homosexual Populations: A Preliminary Study", Archives of Sexual Behavior, 11, 329-344) found that incest was reported by 46% of male homosexuals, with about two-thirds (64%) of this involving the extended family and one third (36%) involving the nuclear family. The most frequent perpetrators of incest were male first cousins (60%) and brothers (32%). Simari and Baskin state that 96% of their study participants indicated "they identified themselves as actively homosexual before the occurrence" of the abuse incidents. This leaves us to speculate regarding how, if these self-reports are accurate, some of the perceptions and behaviors of the sexually wounded may contribute to vulnerability that is taken advantage of by sexual predators.

3. Sexual Abuse: A Major Cause Of Homosexuality?

The following books, with page numbers, refer to the fact that many many homosexuals were sexually abused when young:

Teen Prostitution by Joan J. Johnson (NY & Chicago: Franklin Watts Publishers, 1992), p. 53.

Female Perversions by Dr. Louise J. Kaplan (NY: Doubleday, 1991), p. 437.

Invisible Lives by Martha Barron Barrett (NY: William Morrow & Co., 1989), p. 140.

Incest and Sexuality by therapists Wendy Maltz and Beverly Holman (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1987), p. 72.

The Secret Trauma by Prof. Diane E.H. Russell (NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1986), p. 199.

The Broken Taboo: Sex in the Family by B. and R. Justice (quoted in the book Incest: a family pattern by Jean Renvoize [London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982], p. 127).

The following books refer to the fact that many young victims of sexual abuse later experience confusion over their sexual identities:

The Consumer's Guide to Psychotherapy by Drs. Jack Engler and Daniel Goleman (NY: Simon & Schuster/Fireside, 1992), p. 414.

Desires in Conflict by Joe Dallas (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1991), p. 187.
Betrayal of Innocence by Dr. Susan Forward and Craig Buck (NY: Penguin Books, 1988), p. 96.

Ground Rules for Comments

2005-05-05T07:54:00.000-05:00

I am certain that there are no circumstances under which I will cease being liberal and I am certain that Dadmanly feels similarly about his conservatism. With that in mind, I'm not concerned with anything he said or will say in the future on his own very conservative blog to his own very conservative audience. Likewise, he's not going to look at my very liberal blog for reasons to get upset with me.

We hope that visitors to the Debate Space blog will do the same. There has already been one comment from a visitor here about something I posted on my own blog - that is against the rules and unacceptable.

We hope that we can keep ourselves from descending into the same old cauldron of anger and name calling - here at Debate Space, at least. Thanks.

Town/Gown Interaction

2005-05-05T05:37:00.000-05:00

OK, "town/gown" is silly, but you'll see what I mean in a moment.

There is a great deal of noise at the moment about claims made in a New York Times article by a conscientious objector about the mistreatment of Iraqis by US forces.

I'm not going to put you on the spot regarding this. There is already enough sound and fury in the air about the story - there is no need for us to rehash any of it here.

What I would like to hear from you is for you to talk about a positive experience you have had in Iraq with Iraqis - outside the Green Zone or whatever base, building, office or camp in which you live and work.

We have already discussed that Baghdad isn't Saigon - for better or for worse American soldiers aren't living amongst the Iraqis.

That being said, you are living in Iraq and presumably must find yourself interacting with the locals at times. I'd like to hear about one of these times. Do you have any stories to share?

Dadmanly Responds:

Town/Gown would make a certain sense to some of our soldiers, who refer to Iraqi men who walk around in "man dresses." As you suggest, I won't consume blogtime with a rehash of the Consciencious Objector story, although I can't resist making two points.

I read in one of the accounts about the story, that a soldier claimed his fellow soldiers were hitting Iraqis with soda bottles from convoy vehicles. This is probably apocryphal on several counts. We drive fast through towns, and the intent is NOT to get anyone in a fighting mood. On convoys, we drive on wide highways, avoid city streets,and their are Iraqi Police at major intersections, especially in cities. It would be a strong and accurate arm, and unusual closeness to Iraqis, that would allow a soldier to accomplish that feat. Also, we don't have any soda bottles here. All our sodas some in cans, and the water in plastic bottles, gatorade in plastic, milk, juice, etc., in juice boxes. No bottles, except for NA Beer, and if that had been what the soldiers were throwing, this objector would have known and called it a beer bottle, not a soda bottle.

Soldiers do throw things at Iraqis. Early in our stay here, several soldiers were concerned that there was no intermediate step they could take between waving Iraqi vehicles away from convoys and firing warning or real deal rounds. Iraqis are terrible drivers, and road courtesy non-existent. They drive on any side of the road they want, weave in and out, go off the road, over the median, etc. Convoy gunners have a VERY difficult time distinguishing between a possible Vehicle born improvised explosive device (VBIED) and just your average Iraqi lunatic driver. So our guys now carry stones. When a car comes up quickly, tries to pass or get between vehicles, or won't yield right of way, they chuck one of these stones. Sometimes the result is a broken headlight or taillight, sometimes a cracked windshield or a dented roof (which just adds to all the other blemishes these cars have, many of them Caprices). But usually, the guy moves away. And stays in one piece.

Back to your actual question. I have met very few Iraqis, some of my soldiers have met somewhat more. The ones I deal with are a group of young workers who do odd jobs for us on the base. They are young, seem positive, but they take some chances working for the Americans, and they spend a lot of time hustling Chinese made pirated movies (also on sale at our on post Bazaar), knock off Rolexes for $20. I try to discourage too much closeness with them, one they could be put in danger, and two, when we leave any economy we create on base leaves with us. These Locally Employed Persons (LEP) need to keep an eye out for more permanent employment. (Also, I got to know a lot of the "near base" economy dynamics in Germany, and it always has the whiff of desperation and dependence (and disdain, on both sides).

There are other, highly visible Iraqis who clearly run contacts between Contracts and Iraqis, Military and Contracts, and are so comfortable in their business enterprises that clearly they know the right people outside (or pay them enough) that they are not in danger. Modern Iraq has a 40 year history of corruption at every level of society to an extent that would cripple any industrially advanced nation. But they don't need to be taught about opportunity, they'res plenty of entreprenuers to go around. Too many.

When we first got here, we heard about the former sculptor of Saddam, who gratefully created a terrific statue of a soldier of the first unit here, helping an Iraqi schoolgirl. We also heard about the tailor who was killed and his stylist wife who lost her arms (or vice versa) after being ambushed after work one day. (Our hair got long at first with no barber.) But as time went on, some soldiers would shell out money for some service or product, only to be told that their money (and the vendor were gone, with the Iraqi killed on his way home. I heard enough of these stories (and watched the money add up), that I believe at least some of these accounts were designed to prevent retribution against theft and generate soldier sympathy. (My Lieutenant says I am conspiracy minded.)

We are located in the heart of Sunni territory, and our Iraqi foreman says they don't like us outside the gate. There's a Civil Affairs detachment that organizes donations to the local schools, and we have several soldiers who work with Iraqi Police (IP) and Iraqi Army (IA) as trainers and advisors. They describe locals as wary, but fascinated with these Americans, about our ethnic and racial differences, rank and social equality (versus their very stratified culture). My former clerk, who is over 6 feet tall, described his first meeting with his IA students, and they swarmed around him, like eager schoolkids meeting a sports hero.

My guys out at a remote site deal with sheepherders, but I think they are mostly Kurds. They get pretty cocky, they know they are not targetted, and they compete to get their sheep as close as possible to the wire (getting at fresher grass) without causing the guards to tap off a few brrrrat brrrrat bursts to shoo them away.

All in all, I am not much of a first person source on the Iraqis.

Followup Questions from LiberalAvenger:

Thank you for your response. It makes me

I don't know how close you are to a town... Could you leave the gate from your base and walk alone into the nearest town, stop at a shop to buy something, maybe sit and have coffee somewhere? Perhaps some kabobs... Could you do this in uniform? Could you do it in civilian clothes? Do the men you are responsible for do this?

Can this be done in Baghdad? In Basra? In the Kurdish region in the north?

I remember seeing a story a year or more ago about an American soldier in Iraq who met an Iraqi woman. They fell in love and were hastily married. My recollection is that his "tour" ended and he was rotated back home and she was waiting for her visa to join him in the States at the time.

Have you heard of this happening other times? What would the legal/social ramifications of this?

Thanks again.

Dadmanly's Response:

Most of us ca't leave the FOB alone, and most wouldn't want to. Special Forces, infantry soldiers, scouts, Military Police, Civil Affairs, some Counter Intel, some high level Officers, and those soldiers training the Iraqi Army or Police are the only soldiers who can venture out in the way you describe. And even they tend to use convoys and routine security precautions (Body Armor, Armored Humvees, plenty of firepower).

Civilian contractors and other governmental civilians can and do depending on the region or area. This is possible in the Shia South, in the Kurdish North, and I believe there is some opportunity in Baghdad. In Sunni areas, this would not be advisable even if we could. Hit and run small arms fire, an occasional RPG, IEDs, and the like make such attempts too risky for most people.

Whereas in other overseas posts, most soldiers stay on post because they are more comfortable with their own culture, in Iraq they do so because that's the order handed down.

There are opportunities for the soldiers mentioned above to meet Iraqi women, and if they say patrol a specific area or town (as was the case wiht the soldier you mention), such a relationship could form however unlikely. But it would be foolish, dangerous, and possibly endanger your fellow soldiers, and you would likely be punished for starting such a relationship. Culturally, you could spark a tribal war or trigger a vendetta with such carelessness. Not good.

Compared to any prior conflict, soldiers in today's military are held to a far higher behavioral and ethical standard. (Some of our old timers even mutter that they've taken away any possible outlet or tension reliever there used to be. No booze, no gambling, no sex, no adult material.) This is not a trivial concern, and the fact that our military is voluntary and does as well as it does with the constraints is a testament to the quality of our service members.

Why Two Personas?

2005-04-30T11:45:00.000-05:00

Call me confused.

I am pretty much myself here on my blogs. I may take up different topics depending on where I'm blogging, or seek different audiences based on what material I'm working with. I may be very passionate about one topic, less so with others, and range from amused to irritated to irate to cynical or sarcastic. But it all feels to me like shades of me, not different person's.

I've been taking the opportunity to get to know my bloc-partner here at Debate Space, and following through with some of his links, checking other blogs that link to me through NZBear, etc. And I'm confused.

How can someone have what seems to be a civil discussion, wanting to talk back and forth with arguments, and facts, with basic discourse, then walk back to their own bloc and pick up with hateful venom? (My MILBLOG friends would say, I told you so. I'm not so sure, but want to ask some questions.)

What exactly is the point of this mutual exercise, from your standpoint? I know what it was from mine. Lively debate. Passionate argument. Reasoned analysis. Discussion, consideration of an alternative point of view.

LiberalAvenger's Response #1:

There is only one me - not two person's. I am passionate about my beliefs and I believe that in my own small way I am accomplishing something good through my writing and blogging.

I don't buy the "hateful venom" label. I think what you are encountering are my strong feelings about issues that are of prime importance to both of us. Because our respective positions on these issues are likely polar opposites you may be misinterpreting my rhetoric as "hateful venom."

As is clearly the case for you, my positions on issues aren't self-serving. I believe in the things I believe in because I am concerned for our country, for our children, for the people of the world... Most of us liberals recognize that our conservative counterparts believe deeply in what they are saying and doing. It is a constant source of frustration for us to be dismissed as "America-Haters." Conservatives need to understand that we love America, too, and we believe that our causes will benefit everyone. Just like you do.

I am an atheist. This doesn't mean that I hate religious people. It does mean that political snipes asserting that godless people are incapable of morality or craven political maneuvering that uses faith as a wedge angers me deeply. I believe strongly in the "separation of church and state." I am concerned about what I perceive as a slow but determined trend by conservatives to move our government towards a "theocracy."

I am a pacifist. This doesn't mean that I hate people in the military. It does mean that I have fundamental moral objections to war and violence. This doesn't make me naive. You won't find me arguing against the United State's critical involvement in World War II or the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. It does mean that the messy way we got into Iraq and the messy moving target of justification for the war and the messy post-invasion planning disappoint me gravely. It also means that I am unable to accept terrible things being shrugged off as the unfortunate, inevitable consequences of war.

I have other pet peeves that will undoubtedly be exposed over the course of our discussions. I hope that I can get my points across without appearing to be hateful.

What do I expect to get out of these discussions?

I value having access to somebody on the other end of the political spectrum in Iraq with whom I can ask questions and expect honest, articulate answers. I don't pretend to know everything, and I know that whatever we hear about Iraq or the military or conservatism passes through misc. filters on its way to the American public. I want to understand more.

I am also excited about the reaction our initial exchanges received. That it was remarkable that two people from opposite ends of the political landscape were able to communicate without conflict is indicative of a larger problem in our society. Perhaps we can set an example for better communication between our respective "sides" in the great left-right ideology war. We are stuck with each other and we are all Americans, after all. There are some fundamental misperceptions on both sides that get in the way of communication. Exposing the fact that Liberals don't hate America and Conservatives don't hate Muslims would be a start.

Dadmanly's Response #2:

I had an interesting experience that past two days that I think bears on this discussion. (And, as in that situation, I think I need to rethink if not my opinions, then at least some of my attitudes.)

I do not talk much to my siblings. Two of my sisters are liberal (okay one and the other says she's further left than that). I have been emailing a lot of what I've been blogging to friends and family, and while I knew that some of what I wrote might upset, bother, or anger them, I kind of made a decision that I didn't care, that if they didn't like it, they would tell me. (I think I also felt that, as a soldier deployed to Iraq, they needed to cut me some slack and put up with my opinions. (My family has never been one to shrink away from debate or argument, so I thought they would push back if they needed to.

They didn't. I underestimated to power of guilt and feeling obligated to listen to the poor army guy thousands of miles for home and away from his family. My Christian writings also bothered them (their faiths are different), but they didn't feel like I would accept or appreciate an argument about my faith.

Of course, that's not what I thought. I knew it was a lot of other family dynamic issues, and maybe some of that is true, but a lot is just what I've said: guilt, unease, and not feeling right about saying, "I don't think that's true."

In the end, my big sister stepped in and extended an olive branch of love, cutting through a lot of the deadwood of the past and inviting us to do the same. Our relationships are born anew, and we have an opportunity to move forward with more honesty, openness, and trust than we've had previously.

I guess I want to say I think I overreacted and misjudged what I read, or at least the motivations behind the words. There is some truth to the idea that "hateful venom" may often be translated "diametrically opposed to my view."

I think its true, we both are passionate about our causes and beliefs, and that we both want what's best, but see very different views about what that would be and how to get to that better place. When Conservatives see a liberal viewpoint and immediately brand it anti-American, that's wrong, counterproductive, and eliminates the possibility of dialog.

Our last discussion dwells in greater depth on matters of the "wall of separation of church and state, I won't repeat it here. I do think any perceived movement towards theocracy is all possibility and perception and no fact or actual movement. In fact, I would argue we grow more and more secular every day, and have begun to be antagonistic towards religious expression in the public square (unless it's multicultural).

I can respect a pacifist, even more, one who can acknowledge that some wars are necessary against extreme evil. I do think we are in such a struggle, but I can accept those who feel otherwise. That's the beautiful thing about America, and hopefully something about which we can both agree.

I very much appreciate your answer to the question, "What do I expect to get out of these discussions?" I think it is exceptional that you value opinion from someone who is here in Iraq, and that you want to understand more. I would hope I can say the same, I can't say I wanted to beforehand, but value the opportunity now. And I absolutely value the opportunity to help get the soldier's point of view out there, less filtered than might otherwise be the case. Thanks for the opportunity.

I too am excited about the reaction our initial exchanges received. I also think that the very fact our conversation and debate is so unexpected and rare is very indicative of a chronic problem for our society. We can set a better example, and resolve to foster more communication, less insult, a full hearing out of ideas, and a civil exchange of views. We are all in this together, we have this marvelous and precious legacy, this inheritance of liberty, that we might by contention and bitter argument separately destroy what we might otherwise jointly preserve.

Religious Expression and the Public Square

2005-04-29T14:40:00.000-05:00

Powerline, one of the conservative Blogs on my daily reads, notes what it describes as "the least gracious apology of the week," referring to a recent remark by Democratic Senator from Colorado, Ken Salazar.

Senator Salazar referred to James Dobson and his group, Focus on the Family, "the anti-Christ." Quickly thereafter, he issued a "sort of" apology, amending his remarks to call Dobson "unchristian, meaning self-serving and selfish."

I get this sort of thing a lot from my liberal friends and family. The questions I want to pose are:

1. How come when a Christian, especially a Fundamentalist, makes a statement of religious conviction, it makes them bigoted, intolerant, oppressive, fascist, etc., but when someone of another faith tradition makes a similar statement, that goes unmentioned? If we have religious views, wouldn't it be both logical and expected that such views might inform our decisions and views about social policy?

2. As a born-again Christian, I can tell you that we have an incredibly wide spectrum of views, in all areas of social policy, legislation, spiritual lives and lifestyles, and attitudes about public and private interactions. But when secular or non-religious commentators speak of Christians, they mention either Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson? For us, that's like comparing every African American clergyman to the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

3. Separation of church and state is a derived constitutional doctrine that the founders never envisioned would be used to eradicate religious expression from public life, just prevent the Federal Government from establishing a state religion. Otherwise, it conflicts with our freedom of religion, the right to worship our conception of God as we see fit. Evangelicals see the current state of affairs as being very antagonistic towards religious expression. Shouldn't freedom of religion apply to Fundamentalists? To legislators? To judges?

LiberalAvenger's Response:

1. I'm sure that we could both find numerous examples where the opposite situation to what you present in your question happened. That being said, I understand what you mean and I will attempt to answer.

There are several factors at work here.

First, was what the hypothetical fundamentalist said indeed bigoted, intolerant, oppressive, etc? If it was, then it is right for them to be called on it. There is no shortage of bigoted, intolerant and oppressive rhetoric in the world. Some of it is going to come from American Christian fundamentalists. When it happens I would hope that we aren't looking the other way.

The same should apply to non-Christians when they say things that are bad as well.

When the standard is misapplied, I think it has to do with the fact that Christianity is the dominant religion in this country. If a Rastafarian says "Christians Suck," this is wrong, but he is doing so from an almost non-existent power base. On the other hand if a Christian says "Rastafarians Suck," speaking for myself, I would be concerned about the power that Christians could possibly wield over a Rastafarian.

If Rastafarians declared a jihad against Christians in America, would that impact your life here? Would you be constantly looking over your shoulder for men in dreadlocks? I think not.

If Christians declared a jihad against Rastafarians, what sort of impact could Christians have on Rastafarians in this country? I this happened and I was a Rastafarian, I would shave my head and start going to church.

As far as informing decisions about social policy goes, this clearly happens all of the time and there is nothing wrong with this on most levels. It is when Christianity becomes the justification for discriminatory social policy where this is a problem. The easiest example has to do with laws that are discriminatory to homosexuals. The basis for the lobby for anti-homosexual legislation is that homosexuality is a Christian sin. There are a lot of homosexuals in the world. Creating social policy against them when homosexuality is not a sin in *my* worldview nor in theirs is intolerant at best.

#2. Falwell and Robertson are the ones that we know about - and they are the ones who continue to make the most noise. They certainly go to great lengths to portray themselves as God's messengers and leaders of contemporary American Christianity. I almost think that your problem should be with them, not us. If they are embarrassing you, make them stop.

I also think that it is somewhat disingenuous to completely disavow them. They do have millions of supporters in this country and they have tens of millions of dollars at their disposal every year. Somebody's sending them checks and watching them on television and it's not me or anyone in my circle of family and friends.

#3. I don't think that anybody is saying that people in public service must be non-religious. The issue is that people in public service must not use their civil power to impose their religious beliefs, rules, mores or morality on anyone else. It seems so obvious. It boggles the mind that this comes up as an issue.

According to some, homosexuality is a sin, right? At the same time, in Massachusetts, homosexuality is legal. So the civil law says that it is OK while religious doctrine says that it is not.

Hypothetically, let's imagine a homosexual on trial for his homosexuality in front of a judge. The judge is a strict Christian, which is in of itself not a problem. If you're saying that the judge should be allowed to punish the gay guy because homosexuality is a Christian sin, then that is wrong. The law must trump that judge's personal religious beliefs. This is an extreme example, but it is indicative.

The other part of this issue has to do with being fair to the rest of us who aren't Christians - who are either atheists like me or who are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. There is a negative conservative cry about how America is "supposed to be" a Christian country. Times have changed and the people crying about that need to realize that we are a country of all people and all faiths now. Yes - Christians are the vast majority of us, but in a system where we all pay taxes and we are all subject to the authority of the government, the fact that Christians are in the majority doesn't make the American Hindu any less important in the eyes of the law.

I believe that there is an everpresent dishonest undertone in the "faith in government" movement and that is that when they are speaking about faith in government they mean Christianity in government. They are all for dismantling whatever barriers exist between church and state to let Christianity in but not Hinduism, etc.

Tell me the truth: I would imagine that you don't see the problem with a statue about the Ten Commandments in the lobby of the courthouse. How would you feel if instead of the Ten Commandments statue it was a statue of Ganesh, the Hindu elephant god. Or how about if the "Call to Prayer" was broadcast over the courthouse's PA system 5 times a day to remind Muslim employees and visitors when to pray. The praying itself isn't mandatory, but sitting through a recording of the Call to Prayer five times a day is.

How would you feel? If you don't see a problem with this, then think about the folks in your church back home. How do you think they would feel?

As an atheist, my position is that none of it belongs in the courthouse. And to be honest, while it is easy enough to walk by the Ten Commandments statue or the Ganesh figure or to sit through the call to prayer, the real problem is the perception that the standard of justice dispensed in this courthouse is going to be stacked against me as a non-believer. If the judge let's his perception of the Ten Commandments or the story of Ganesh or Sharia Law influence his handling of my matter in court, this would be unacceptable.

One might respond to this by saying, "I am Christian and I don't mind having a judge use Christianity as a basis for his ruling." This is disingenuous, too, I believe, because if we allow one, we have to allow them all.

Dadmanly's Rebuttal:

1. I think you and I will settle into loose agreement on this point, as I have often found myself offended by remarks made by some fundamentalists. I think the "tethered majority" on both sides of these kinds of disputes need to be more proactive at keeping discussion on both sides civil, and at least try to rein in intemperate speech.

I do think that a statement like, "Christians are in the majority in this country" can mislead unless viewed as a very general statement. Much like the statement today that "whites are in the majority," it depends on how far you Balkanize the populations in question. "Christian" in the sense of non-Animist, non-Muslim, or non-Jewish can usefully describe an entire panoply of descendants of a tradition, but in no way defines a population of likeminded individuals. That is precisely because, in the context I mention, these "Christians" include many people (the majority of this majority if you know what I mean) who neither ascribe to matters of the faith, nor would even consider themselves Christian. Calling Christians a majority requires you to ignore some pretty serious distinctions of faith, religious practice, belief systems, attitudes, and degree of affiliation.

(This is like the South African Bantustan ploy in reverse, the method by which Africaaners tried to keep native blacks in subjugation by breaking their lands up into tiny and disassociated "Bantustans" that tried to prevent native South African blacks an opportunity to unite or form a single consciousness. But the reality is, a non-practicing Roman Catholic bears almost no political resemblance to a devout fundamental Baptist.)

Broken down finely enough, we are all minorities of one flavor or another. Identity politics and over-attention to the rights of the minority can be an exercise of that latin expression which I think means, "reduction to absurdity." I would certainly argue that Fundamentalist Christians, of the sort that you may perhaps be more concerned about, are definitely in a minority. And from their standpoint, the "majority" (everyone else, as represented by legislatures and the courts) have taken quite a toll on what they consider their rights to worship as they see fit.

Your last point, that the consideration of homosexuality as a sin is the basis for legislative efforts is only partially true, and then only for some. Many conservatives object to redefinition of marriage less because of homosexuality itself, and more because of what they perceive as an abrogation of longstanding social policy. We would argue that marriage preferences were meant to protect children and improve their well-being. Marriage as an institution is worthy of support. If marriage can be self-defined, then why can't anyone sign up. If anyone can sign up, then the policy no longer incents or builds in preference for 2 parent households. There is a utilitarian position in support of traditional definitions of marriage, one supported by recent research.

I don't agree with laws being passed or left standing that in any way punish homosexuals. But by the same token, I think citizen-elected legislative bodies may have good cause to limit individual rights when they conflict with broader community interests (the balancing of rights). In other words, a community may decide through their legislators that homosexual partners should not be allowed to adopt if there are traditional two parent homes available for them, or that surrogates be allowed to sell their services so others can be parents.

2. I think you are right that Falwell and Robertson make the most noise, but of course you wouldn't know that if the press didn't delight in publicizing every outrageous thing they say. (And I wonder why that is? Possibly because it sells in the way it stirs people up against them?)

But making them stop? How exactly would we do that? They are public figures making public comments. They have big audiences, many of whom react favorably to them not so much based on what say in their attacks, but who or what they're perceived to attack -- decadence, immorality, moral relativism, debased culture, etc. They are demagogues of the old school, only more "religiously" focused than political (but they are way too much that in my opinion. I think this is the Elmer Gantry school of evangelism, and they aren't the only ones.

Personally, I think they inherited the good will and esteem that many in the heartland felt towards PTL (Praise the Lord ministries) and Jim and Tammy Fay Baker. Many otherwise sincere and devout Christians were very confused by what happened to the Baker's, the scandals, and were I think vulnerable to anyone who could step in and say, that's okay the mission of PTL is still important. I don't think its any accident that ministries of this kind need to keep raising money (for what except grander efforts to raise more money) and finding scapegoats in the classic sense on which to base their appeals.

There are many quiet Christians, many in important ministry, who shy away from and are uncomfortable with these kinds of public expressions. And I do think they are reluctant to criticize and condemn, but as much because they avoid doing that in general, rather than letting a "brother" off the hook.

3. There is a big flip side to your argument here. What many (Evangelical, Fundamental) Christians object to in the current legislative and judicial spheres is precisely what we view as (secular) public servants using "their civil power to impose their religious beliefs, rules, mores or morality" on society (Christian and non Christian alike).

The enforced absence of deity, religious practice, moral judgments, discrimination (in the sense of saying one thing is bad, another good) or ethical benchmarks is religious in nature. Call it the absence of religion in you want, but it is a religious framework. And the more legislatures and judges and executives impose a ban on religious expression on the public square, the more than looks more and more like state establishment of religion, against the establishment clause in the Bill of Rights.

I am a strong and unwavering advocate that justice needs be blind. My biggest problem with the liberal fight against conservative justices is the logical fallacy that somehow atheist or agnostic jurists can somehow set aside their religious beliefs (or lack thereof, but there is still a set of beliefs that they hold about the absence of something supernatural), while a religious minded jurist (of any religion) can not.

I believe you exaggerate the tearing down of that "wall of separation." Frankly, the wall has grown ever thicker over the years, not thinner. You can't possibly convince me otherwise, for my own eyes and experience have proven it. I also lived down south for a year, where there is a church every block and services held in high schools (on the weekends), where life still goes on pretty much as it did when the wall had to do with state sponsorship of religion (faithful establishment clause constructivism) and not public religious expression (first, do not offend those of other faiths).

While I don't think a plaque or statue of the Ten commandments is a big deal or worth a big fight over (aren't there civil liberties being violated in more important ways than that to fight against?), I also don't think fighting to keep them in the courthouse was right, and I think Judge Moore abdicated his primary responsibilities in representing all of his community, especially when he violated an order from a superior judge. Likewise, I would be equally against any enforced or mandated religious expression on a captive population. I don't think we need to insist on organized prayer in school, for instance. But and its a big but, out of fear of lawsuits from an almost vindictive and certainly antagonistic "rights community," local communities are eradicating legitimate public expressions of religion in the public square.

Let me ask you something. If you find yourself suddenly lost and alone in a strange neighborhood, and you see some teenagers heading your way, would you rather they be atheists, or devout Christians? (Or orthodox Jews, or Hindus, or whatever, maybe not Muslim however, given the state and extent of radical Islamic teaching.) My point is, perhaps even an atheist can acknowledge the great public utility of religion and religious expression. (Again, as long as the state does not impose it.)

Your examples seem to suggest that as a society we should care about and strive to prevent unwanted exposure to religious expression people don't agree with or submit to receive. I think society would be much better off if we require our citizens to be more mature and thick skinned, and recognize that there exist people of other faiths, and that of course as we move through our communities and the larger world, we will come into contact with them. This should be a great opportunity for learning and growth. And isn't that what you are asking Christians to do?

On last point about jurists relying on their faith to render religious decisions. I think this goes on all the time, we shouldn't be surprised, and we harm society if we try to eliminate those jurists we think will be "more liable" to do so. The determination of who such jurists would be is grossly subjective, and in the end, discriminatory (and this gives rise to devout Christians smelling the whiff of persecution for their religious beliefs). And a Jewish jurist may use his faith and faith traditions in rendering a more just decision based on law, as might a Muslim, or Roan Catholic, or even an Atheist (see my argument above that the avowed denial of deity and faith objects is a set of religious beliefs).

Any judge, any good judge, and even quite a few bad ones, gets the whole point that one bases one's decisions on law and precedent. Christian's want that even more than many atheists. And that is because legal principle and constitutional bases have been constructed out of thin air by jurists knowing what outcome they want to promote, and constructing unprecedented legal constructs where none had existed before, intended to and successful at overturning legislative law making.

At its best, such legal activism brought us the Civil Rights Amendment, the abolishment of Jim Crow laws, and the end of enforced segregation and separate but equal. But (arguably) at its worst, this has resulted in very poor constitutional decisions and judicial overreach, with Roe v. Wade only the most egregious example.

(On the instigation of my brother in law, and the course he took on Constitutional Law, I read Roe v. Wade in its entirety. Blackmun I believe it was actually penned a paragraph in which he said the termination of pregnancy at any time should be the absolute right of a mother, even if for no other reason than that a continued pregnancy or birth of a child might be inconvenient to the mother. Not a fine or heroic moment in Supreme Court jurisprudence.

(Obviously, this last issue could consume us for days. But it is the 800 Pound Gorilla in the room, so one of us had to touch on it. I will only add that I agree with the proposition that the Supreme Court in 1973 recklessly short-circuited and short cut a vital and necessary public debate on abortion. Each state was ready and prepared to enact the will of their citizens on this issue, and work through legislative bodies a divisive public issue. We would have been better off if this had happened, it is inevitable, and it will be worse for being delayed.

And it set a dangerous precedent for the Supreme Court and the Judiciary in general, whereby activists can circumvent citizenry and their legislative bodies by effecting through court edict what they cannot achieve by referendum or passing of law.

What's up with Bolton?

2005-04-28T13:15:00.000-05:00

Colin Powell doesn't believe in Bolton for US Ambassador to the UN and he has been quietly telling whoever wants to listen. Regardless of what one thinks personally of Bolton, one must acknowledge that there are legitimate questions about his history, specifically with regards to his strong anti-UN sentiments.

What is it about John Bolton that makes him such an important candidate? I would think that he isn't worth the trouble or the cost in political capital for Bush, et al to get him confirmed over the objections of the Senate Democrats and some moderate Republicans.

That Colin Powell feels he is the wrong choice holds extra weight for me. Does Colin Powell command respect within conservative military circles? Does his opinion on Bolton influence your opinion in any way?

DadManly Response #1 (I think we'll go a few rounds on this one):

As we start, I want to offer a "standing caveat" to anything I say that anyone takes as "representative" of all soldiers or military service members generally. For the most part, soldiers are trained first and foremost to obey orders, to do what they're told. That doesn't mean they don't have opinions -- soldier "gripes" are as old as humanity, and often about food or women (and now, men). So there is what we might consider a "silent minority" of soldiers who really just want to do their jobs and don't really think about this stuff.

Having said that, almost no one in the U.S. military wants to think about being under the authority of the U.N. (although we've been just that on several U.N. Peacekeeping Missions). The United Nations includes a whole bunch of countries who hate us, are jealous of us, struggle overtly or covertly against us, and these are our friends. I would say that the military is mostly negative about the U.N.; we know it doesn't prevent wars or genocide, and those of us familiar with its weaknesses are convinced it often does more harm than good.

So being a strong critic of the U.N. wouldn't bother many in the military, many of us are strong critics as well! As to Colin Powell, he is not as strongly admired in the military as you might think. Wiser and more politically savvy commentators have suggested Powell "went native" in the State Department, adapting to that organization, its conceits, prejudices, and blind spots. The U.S. Military has a long history of having to clean up what Diplomats create in the naive hope that talk talk talk beats fight fight fight.

The greatest evils of the 20th and 21st Centuries -- Fascism, Communism, and State Sponsored and non-State initiated Terrorism -- grew despite the U.N., and in some ways abetted by the U.N.

One last point. Loyalty means more to a soldier than anything. The man or woman next to you may knowingly sacrifice his or her life for you. They got your back. When the going gets rough, you need to be able to trust that soldier next to you, that he or she won't run away or pull his or her own weight. What Powell is notorious for, is departmental infighting, manipulation between departments, chronic leaking to the press. In other words, actively working against the interests of the current administration or other departments or personalities. This would be viewed as supremely disloyal. Powell is to serve the President, but it often seemed that he first served his own or his department's ends.

And Department of State has an abysmal record in terms of analysis, strategy and approach, foresight, and cost benefit analysis. Through the Cold War, Korea, the fall of the Shah, the emergence of democracy in Central America, Israel and Palestine, the Middle East in general, State has called more outcomes wrong than right. State ineptitude has often made matters go from bad to worse.

Honestly? Most military have no idea who Bolton is. That he might be a hard charger, sometimes brisque, direct and somewhat abrasive? That makes him sound like a former military man.

Who Would Have Thought?

2005-04-27T12:32:00.000-05:00

Who would have thought it possible? An unapologetically liberal anti-war blogger and a steadfastly conservative American serviceman blogging from Iraq engaged in a civil discussion about the war and other news without name-calling and without hurling insults?

The Liberal Avenger, blogging since June of 2004 and Dadmanly, milblogging since August of 2004, come together in this space to discuss and debate the issues of the day and field questions from readers.

This is an experiment in the application of technology in political discourse. We hope that you find it interesting at a minimum and hopefully informative, too.

UPDATE: The Liberal Avenger surprised me with the sincerity of his concern, and his willingness to debate civilly, and respectfully. I wish I could say that I always approach discussions that way, but I can't. My sisters, who like the Avenger tend to the left side of politics, have accused me of recklessness, making wild accusations, drawing extreme comparisons, etc. The typical partisan extremist, in their eyes. Ladies, please consider this both apology and penance.

These are momentous times we live in, great issues are in play, and the stakes could not be higher for the state of our World, no matter where we sit in the political Blogosphere. I welcome the opportunity to initiate some good conversations with my new friend, and hopefully more of you who choose to join in.