July 2006 Archives

No, I Am Not in Favor of Genocide

The consequences of a poorly conceived strategy incompetently executed will force us to reconsider fundamental notions of humanity in order to survive the predictable fallout from such actions.

Man, it just keeps getting better and better. First, it's obvious that Pod of J was simply trying to move the discussion to the right such that torture, etc doesn't look so bad in comparison to genocide. Of course, absent in any discussion by Pod of J is how we got into this mess in the first place. Pod of J - like all of the right wing propaganda machine - is simply a ratchet which only turns in one direction. Try to get them to understand how we got here in a conversation with them is like yelling at the moon. Worse, unlike yelling at the moon, any energy directed at "seeing the other side" (as if one can actually see the usefulness of genocide) is used to ratchet down tighter by these insane morons.

Note, for example, how Pod of J actually recounts where genocide was "useful" - in his carefully circumscribed concept of "useful". In typical fashion for the right, it's a matter of resolution of tactical issues. Genocide is only useful to solve the immediate problem of having an unruly uprising. After the slaughter, you still have the original problem that was causing the uprising and the additional issues of making the original problem worse by - you know - slaughtering the people in question. Not to mention the whole moral issue that mass slaughtering has on your society.

But, you got to hand it to the ratchet men of the right wing. No issue is too morally reprehensible to advance their cause or compensate for their idiocy and complete lack of any serious strategy or any competence to carry it off.

Update: for an example of the ratchet in action, check out Kevin Drum post where he makes the typical "on the one hand" concession that the ratchet strategy depends upon. And then read Matthew of the unpronouncable last name for an excellent rebutting of this insanity:

There's a reason that Clausewitz is such a cliché. War really is the conduct of politics by other means. It makes no sense to worry about whether or not brutal measures "work" to "win" wars. The point of wars isn't to win -- it's to achieve something and you need to ask yourself what you're trying to achieve.

This is the problem -- not that liberal doses of violence can't achieve anything, but that they can't achieve the specific things we're trying to achieve. The logic of pursuing a "transformative agenda" for the Middle East primarily through the use of force is that the entire Muslim world should be turned into a gigantic police state run by the United States of America. But, obviously, we're not going to do that, we shouldn't try to do that, and if we did try to do that we'd fail.

Professionalization of war is ghettoization of war

It's not enough to actually commit genocide, you have to have the right propaganda to back it up. Otherwise, you end up with soldiers too dumb to realize who the enemy actually is.

No. Really. This is getting quite surreal. Well, let me restate that. This whole thing started off quite surreal and has now degenerated into a comical farce. Mark Steyn is literally arguing that we simply don't know who the enemy is any more and echo's J-Pod's call for genocide, claiming we've become way too soft as a nation.

It's like watching an old B movie on the Roman Empire, ain't it?

Oh, and for you James, do note that Steyn is indeed making an equivalence argument:

In fact, the notion that "fighting" a war is the monopoly of those "in uniform" gets to the heart of why America and its allies are having such a difficult time in the present struggle.

Yea. Either that or a lame ass strategy that wouldn't work in the first place doggedly followed well past the point where it is obvious that it is failing.

Confessions of a Former (and Maybe Future) Hawk

Just because the last unmitigated disaster didn't work out so well doesn't mean I won't support the next one.

I guess I'll await the appearance of Will Wilkinson (no relation to Wink Wilkinson) to tell me to stop bashing Libertarians again, but Geez Louis. Yet another Libertarian (both big and small "L") crying crocodile tears about their former support of an obvious disaster (and laying the ground work for support of a future disaster). And this isn't just some average, run of the mill, dope smoking libertarian of the kind you'd see kicking the homeless in your neighborhood. Nope, he's a Cato academic, the vice president of research.

And check out his reasoning: "I currently consider the threat of Islamist terrorism to be far less grave than I feared it to be in the wake of 9/11". So, he's just out right admitting that his support for the war was based on irrational fear. Kind of cool for someone who's frickin' political beliefs are predicated on rationality, but what the hey. Who wants to be rational when you got a war to get on?

Well, on to the next fact changing event that scares the shit out of Brink.

Update: Maybe before that next fact changing event, Brink should watch this BBC documentary on the Power of Nightmares. It probably won't change that fine libertarian mind, but at least he won't have an excuse the next time it gets too scary for him to take...

Too Nice To Win? Israel's Dilemma

The only way for a race that was subjected to genocide to survive in the 21st century is to start committing genocide themselves.

No, really. Although he's carefully framing the article as a question, it's perfectly clear that J-Pod is literally salivating over his crispy logical conclusion that the problem with the US and Israel is that we're simply hamstrung by being too nice. And what we really need to do - stat! - is to start systematically committing genocide. Seriously.

I can only stand in stunned awe at what is the logical conclusion of the neocon wet dream of spreading democracy by the point of the sword.

Breathtaking.

P.S. Gregory Djerejian accelerates his fall from grace and comments on the J-Pod's exit from the human race (plus a bonus Insta-bash). As always, it's simply entertaining to see an ex smoker comment on those still under the addiction - so to speak.

So I guess the heat wave we just went through has fried more than just a zillion transformers on our nation's power grid. Via Billmon, I am led to a truly frightening article in Harper's magazine.

Could U.S. Troops End Up in Lebanon?

According to the former official, Israel and the United States are currently discussing a large American role in exactly such a “multinational” deployment, and some top administration officials, along with senior civilians at the Pentagon, are receptive to the idea.

The uniformed military, however, is ardently opposed to sending American soldiers to the region, according to my source. “They are saying 'What the fuck?'” he told me. “Most of our combat-ready divisions are in Iraq or Afghanistan, or on their way, or coming back. The generals don't like it because we're already way overstretched.”

I guess the "senior civilians" at the Pentagon refer to Donald "Snake Eyes" Rumsfeld and his merry band of yes men.

So, there really is only one thing to say at this point:

"Holy Flurking Shit!" Who could be this stupid?

We've been subjected to stories regarding how "thinly stretched" our forces have been. Most recently, it was lowering our standards so that we're recruiting members of hate groups. Then there was the old standby regarding the lowering of standards so they can hire high school drop outs and those who score in the 16th to 30th percentile on the US armed forces mental aptitude exam (btw, I took this test out of high school and I have to say that if you're scoring in the 16th percentile, you probably shouldn't even be driving a car much less being trained with deadly weapons n' such). Apparently, even showering the lucky recruits with boatloads of money hasn't even helped. And then there's the fact that we're hemorrhaging the officer class.

But hey! We know for a fact that calling someone a Chickenhawk is one of the stupidest things evah! One might even call the argument an ad hominem attack. Of course, when the attack is a personal attack - an attack actually directed at the person's character - an ad hominem attack really isn't a fallacy. But then ad hominem tuquoque has always been a staple of the right wing's argumentation - even the crypto-conservative's argumentation.

The classic example, of course, is Cliff May's impassioned - one might almost say desperate - assertion that fighting the "war of ideas" on the home front is every bit as dangerous (an even more important) as being in the middle of the exponentially increasing sectarian civil war in Baghdad - worse, even! Because, you know, that carpal tunnel syndrome can be such a bitch and those blogofascist liberals can be so mean.

But hey! Everything is going to be okay because War: we know what it's good for! A few <heh>'s, a few indeed's followed by a healthy refrain of "read the whole thing" and before you know it we'll be up to our eyeballs in the best wars that no one is willing to fight in. At least we have finally figured out how to deal with the problem of the chronically poor. Turns out Swift was rather short sighted. Why eat them when you can send them off to fight for you while you do the heavy lifting here on the fight against blogofascism. One really does have to have priorities, after all...

Think the Army is stretched too thin? You should see the nagahyde seat of the desk chair favored by the Fighting 101. Now that's being stretched thin, brother. That's stretched thin.

Re: Your Place

Ungrateful snipes... If it wasn't for people like me, you people wouldn't even have a war in the first place!

Onward Cautious Soldiers

Call me Goldilocks... I don't like my wars too hot or too cold. My wars have to be just right

If this was my child, you would have a new enemy for life.

As it stands, I sit in the cushioned comfort of a typical American life. Consequently, all you have now is my complete disdain and evaporating support. Yes, the Hezbollah terrorists have my complete disdain as well, but they are - you know - terrorists. We kind of expect them to be the scum of the earth, worthy of pretty much all the scorn we can dish out. But a democracy?

We hear a lot about Israel being the middle east's "only democracy". Which, unfortunately, means that the "only democracy" has pretty much proven itself to be somewhere south of the dividing line that separates civil society from a society of people willing to collectively punish civilians for something they have no control over. So much for democracy.

If there's any justice in this world, your leaders will sit in the International Criminal Court and answer for these crimes. If you truly believe you are justified, then you'll have to stand in court and explain it like the rest of the vigilantes do.

What a completely pathetic legacy you have made for those who died for the creation of your state.

P.S. and note to all those ready to scream "anti-Semite": Fuck you. States with advanced weaponry - especially weaponry I helped pay for don't get to shell civilians - I don't care what anyone did to you. Just because you're fighting the scum of the earth does not mean you sink to their level. I've called my own country on this - and I'm hoping that our own leadership gets its day in the International Criminal Court for their own war crimes - so screw pretty much everyone who thinks that we can't criticize Israel because anyone who does is anti Semitic.

The whole lot of you in the middle east are trying to play "king of the hill" on a pile of rotting corpses.

Please stop.

Via Jon Anderson (we miss ya Jon - and what about that 5 bucks I lent you?)

Cage of freedom
That's our prison
Where the jailer and captive combine
Cage of freedom
Cast in power
All the trappings of our own design
Blind ambition
Steals our reason
We're soon behind those invisible bars
On the inside
Looking outside
To make it safer we double the guard
Cage of freedom
There's no escaping
We fabricated a world of our own....

Cage of freedom, growing smaller
'Til every wall now touches the skin
Cage of freedom, filled with treason
Changing sides as the losses begin
Our suspicion tries escaping
But they step up the security
There's no exit--there's no entrance
Remember how we swallowed the key?
Cage of freedom, that's our prison
We fabricated this world on our own....

Big brother
Is there a bigger one watching you
Or is there one smaller
Who I should be watching too
Infinite circles of
Snakes eating their own tails
For every one chasing
Another is on the trail
Is that a friend
Can you tell, is he on your side?
'Cause I spy with my little eye
Yet another spy... (fadeout)

Transformation's Toll

Behold, by the power invested in me by the grand pundits of the universe, I will stop this train wreck by using my magic bow tie to calm the rabid rottweilers, slobbering for a thermonuclear crusade

Gregory Djerejian finally throws in the towel regarding Glenn Reynolds. Read the whole thing, as it's pretty much a straight line indictment of Reynolds qua propagandist/idiot.

The whole thing is rather hilarious... The particular act of comedy to me is the pattern that Djerejian keeps exhibiting which is the hero worship, ra-ra-ra, followed by a prolonged period of flabbergasted pleading and profuse excuse making, capped finally by a Pontius Pilate-like ritual washing of the hands after the damage has long been done and the proverbial horses are long out of the barn.

If mother nature ran things the way humans do, the bears would get together and elect an Alpha Squirrel to lead them.

Glenn Reynolds is the blogosphere's Alpha Squirrel.

On Meet The Press

We need to reorganize every non-military bureaucracy to be as effective as the Pentagon was during the planning for and actual reconstruction of Iraq

And we should not forget that he who can do no wrong was a member of Rumsfeld's defense policy board during the hellish period in question, when the Defense department ruled every aspect of Iraq, pushing every "non-military" bureaucracy aside in the process.

(as per one angry TPM Reader DK)

Larry Johnson brings up some observations of the current situation in the Middle East that I've been wondering about myself.

Israel Takes A Stupid Pill

While most folks in the United States buy into the Hollywood storyline of poor little Israel fighting for it's survival against big, bad Muslims, the reality unfolding on our TV screens shows something else. Exodus, starring Paul Newman, is ancient history. Hamas and Hezbollah attacked military targets--kidnapping soldiers on military patrols may be an act of war and a provocation, but it is not terrorism. (And yes, Hezbollah and Hamas have carried out terrorist attacks in the past against Israeli civilians. I'm not ignoring those acts, I condemn them, but we need to understand what the dynamics are right now.) Israel is not attacking the individuals who hit their soldiers. Israel is engaged in mass punishment.

How did Israel respond? They bombed civilian targets and civilian infrastructure and have killed many civilians. Let's see if I have this right. The Arab "terrorists" attack military units, destroy at least one tank, and are therefore terrorists. Israel retaliates by launching aerial, naval, and artillery bombardments of civilian areas and they are engaging in self-defense. If we are unable to recognize the hypocrisy of this construct then we ourselves are so enveloped by propaganda and emotion that, like the Israelis, Hezbollah, and Hamas, we can't think rationally. We can only think in terms of tribalism and revenge.

That last point - i.e. that we can only think in terms of tribalism and revenge - pretty much sums up the last five years here in the US. And, as George Will said this morning on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos", the US got hit once (multiple attack, one day) in 9/11 and we invaded two countries overthrowing both of their regimes - one didn't even have anything to do with 9/11 at all... So, calls regarding a "proportional" response coming from this administration are - understandably - going to be met with howls of derisive laughter.

Besides all the benefits that our arch-enemy, Iran, is reaping from Dick and W's Excellent Middle East Adventure, it's now clear how completely impotent this administration's "strategy" has made the USA. We have Israel telling us to "back off, bitch". We can't do jack against Iran (short of thermonuclear warfare, which I'm sure hasn't been ruled out) because they can instantly make our lives miserable in Iraq. We have Kim-boy, the man with the constantly bad hair day, tossing his dong into the sea of Japan and all we can do is wag our angrily impotent fingers at him.

Today on This Week, Condi was sitting around at the G8 summit while all hell is breaking loose, telling the world that "she's ready to do whatever is necessary" to help solve the problem. Everything, that is, except get directly involved in the situation. Seems like she just has too much to do to actually go to the region and start shuttle diplomacy in earnest. Meanwhile, the boy king is telling Putin that he'll soon be treated to the same kind of democracy that we have in Iraq.

Surreal.

But I guess this is how it's all going to end. Idiocy upon idiocy combined with chickens (and chicken hawks, no doubt) that have been itching to roost. Long standing issues that should have been resolved decades ago are now finally out of control.

I guess the only way to resolve this is through the liberal application of nuclear weapons. At least, that's what Battlin' Bill Kristol told me.

I don't know what's worse. The horror on the ground in the Middle East, or the horror on the pundit circuit as they literally drool like Homer Simpson eying a donut over the prospect of finally unleashing nuclear wrath upon the great Islamic threat.

We are so fucked.

It's Our War

The repercussions of globalizing the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel can only bring good things. On to Iran!

My lord, wasn't it only yesterday that Kristol was on The Daily Show, laughing it up with Jon Stewart, telling us all how Bush had driven us into a ditch?

See, all it takes is a bit more unmitigated bloodshed to scrape that veneer off and bring out the old warmonger that beats within his bloodless heart. I look forward to seeing all the recently repentant Hawks unzip the Dove costumes and start strutting around like they've always believed they should be.

So, we hit $77.95 a barrel today. Futures are trading at $80.

Think how terrifically cool it will be to have an SUV when gas is at $4 a gallon.

Democracy’s Long Haul

I've always relied upon the kindness of historians not even born to excuse the idiocy of today's tragedies caused by our lack of any strategy to deal with crisis of today caused by the policies of an administration adrift on a sea of intervention gone wrong

Alternate link here

We all knew this day would come. Heck, some of the more forward thinking members of the authoritarian right have been pushing for this for quite some time. But I guess when "even the liberal" TNR starts speaking A REVOLTING TRUTH, you know the fat lady is clearing her throat if not actually preparing for a full throated trill that will signal the seventh seal being broken in Iraq and we're about to see the lemmings begin their run over the cliff, plunging into the sea of final madness in their final push for global thermonuclear war against the unwashed billions of islamofascists.

As the Iraqi civil war progresses to the point where even the most Pollyanna of the authoritarian right can no longer ignore it, and having exhausted the ludicrous argument that the main stream media is responsible for the illusion of failure, there really is only one place for their confirmation bias to lead them:

Blame the Iraqis.

And this is what we see in the latest stinky loaf that Kaplan has squeezed out in a blog post of that bastion of liberalism formerly known as The New Republic.

Let's face it. Civil wars - especially religiously driven, sectarian civil wars - are bloody. Brutal. Ugly. The stuff of nightmares. And this kind of nasty, ugly, inhumane situation is precisely the kind of situation that those nasty anti-this-war-now liberals were warning against. Not - I would like to stress - because the nasty anti-this-war-now liberals thought that the Iraqis were incapable of civilized behavior and more than capable (like all humans) of democratic self governance. Nope. What those nasty anti-this-war-now liberals were warning against was a society much akin to a steel beam under compression and such a situation incompetently handled goes from bad to worse in under 3 milliseconds.

So, it's going to entertaining to see the venom the ravenous right normally reserves for the left and the so called liberal media and unleashes it on the Iraqis. It's kind of a nice frame for the current run up to the war with Iran - the war to save our lilting manhood.

The Cialis War.

Or maybe it's better known as The Enzyte War. It's hard to tell these days. (hard. get it?)

In any event, it seems like it's pretty clear that within a few Friedmans, we could be looking straight down the maw of a full blown world war. Seems like that's what they're pushing for - there are, after all, over a billion Muslims islamofascists populating this planet.

You don't wage war on a population that size without having a hard-on for war that would make Bob Dole green with envy.

In another of our of "Liberal is the New Conservative" series, check out a rather entertaining - or not - post by the Cunning Realist on the subject of politics changing experiences.

Here's the link to the LA Times story of horror to which the CR refers.

Also, you just have to check out this surreal document by Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute. As Matthew of the Unpronounceable name says, it's the Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics.

Strange times.

Gotta love it when the prominent representatives of Libertarianism are pushing for WAR, WAR, WAR.

Update: In the comments below, Will Wilkinson points out that the CATO institute has been vocally against the war and that Reuel Marc Gerecht doesn't represent their views - the CATO Unbound blog is an open forum for various viewpoints. Fair enough.

I think, though, this is the same Will Wilkinson who wrote this, which was demolished by Chris Bertram and bitch slapped by Brad De Long, followed by a final dusting up by Majikthise. My own response at the time is unpublished as I wandered way off the reservation into a comparison of the Sigmoid function to economic feedback for an individual's effort in the society - a truly surreal discussion if you've ever had it with me, I can assure you. Seeing as how I make X and I know people who work two jobs and a heck of a lot harder than I do and make 1/10 X, the whole sigmoid response function (and Grossberg's adaptive resonance theory, in general) makes a whole lot of sense to me when modeling what happens in our society in terms of economic distribution. But then I'm a group mind, collectivist who thinks we're all just a really messed up, adolescent global intelligence that is begging to be put to bed without supper for the crap we've been ladling out.

Anyways, I look forward to hearing the CATO institute's response to this surreal loaf squeezed out by Gerecht. After Reynolds, Matt Welch and countless other so called members of the Libertarian (or, perhaps more appropriately referred to as Glibertarian) party have not only embraced the war, but have enthusiastically backed pretty much every bit of authoritarian land grab of social liberties by this administration - including backing state sanctioned torture of all things - it certainly would be refreshing to see a Libertarian organization stand up against such obvious crap.

On This Week With George Stephanopoulos

My call for a purge of the anti-war liberals is an example of the kind of unity the Democratic party needs. The netroots lynch mob's fight against Joe Lieberman is an example of the kind of divisiveness that frustrates my desire for a purge of just these kind of people from the Democratic party.

The Liberal Inquisition

The liberal netroots lynch mob will only succeed in driving the real Democrats into the waiting arms of the Republican party where they truly belong.

In Good Faith

When we use secular democrats as cudgels against the religious right, we do so out of pure love for our lord and savior, Jesus Christ.

And, of course, see also the master of the short form, B³, for another take on Amy's homey homily.

So, maybe it's just bleeding obvious to everyone. Maybe it's just that everyone is so swamped that they haven't had time to adjust to the shifting ground and it'll take them a bit o' time to start focusing their mad blogging skilz on analyzing the impact of the Supreme Court's Hamdan ruling.

But to me, it seems like it's this administration's worst nightmare. First, there's the whole war criminal aspect. As Sullivan has so delicately brought up on the right wing circuit, there's the distinct possibility that we now have a war criminal as our president - not to mention our vice president, the secretary of defense, and god only knows how many people on down the line. For a country that used to be the beacon of human rights in this world, this is quite a turn of events - and one that leaves a very distinct taste in my mouth. As we are not signatories of the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, it's kind of up in the air as to what precise effect this shameful fact is going to have. Maybe it'll prevent his nibs and the band of merry torturers from travelling outside of the country - that is, if he actually plans on travelling outside of the country now that he's no longer required to. Who knows.

But of more immediate concern is how to comply with the ruling.

Right now, the fantasy is that all we have to do is get the congress to make things better with their magic legislative wand. Granted I don't even play a legislative expert on T.V. and I'm quite willing to express my ignorance on the finer points of constitutional and international treaty law. But one thing I'm pretty sure about is that when you've tortured someone, you've pretty much screwed the pooch as far as anything you have learned as a result of this torture. Now, maybe - just maybe - the congress can wave their magic legislative wand and the whole issue of torture and evidence gained from it will disappear like the morning fog on a hot summer day.

But I'm willing to bet that there's a host of other constitutional issues involved with that. Issues that this administration really doesn't want brought up - after all, this is precisely why they claimed the extra-constitutional right to do whatever the f*ck they want with these prisoners in the first place.

If nothing else, I'm going to enjoy hearing the increasingly shrill voices on the right telling me for the umpteenth time that these people are not human and don't deserve even the dignity of water-boarding. I never grow tired of hearing the blood thirsty rants of the likes of gamblin' Bill Bennett. There's nothing like fat, bloated, hypocritical subhumans cry out for blood on the public air waves.

Nothing says "America" like torture.

Wow. I'm watching gambling Bill Bennett on Meet the Press and he's acting like a total child. Fortunately, or unfortunately, Andrea Mitchell is sitting in for 'lil Tim. As I say, I'm not sure whether her subbing for Tim is unfortunate or not. Certainly the dynamics would have been different - Andrea just doesn't have the force of will to control the conversation.

But anyways, it's pretty darn funny to see Bill Bennett losing it. Let me tell you that it's a strange, strange day when William Safire is a voice of reason. Things must be pretty darn surreal when you have Safire standing up for the freedom of the press against the flying spittle coming from Bill Bennett.

Anyways, the Republicans are definitely pulling out all the stops here. It's clear they think that this issue - i.e. the NY Times as a barbecue for the feast of Rove - is a big part of their '06 strategy. I hope they keep putting gamblin' Bill Bennett out there. And I really hope he keeps tearing into the press. He's such a sympathetic figure.