Logic Times

United States at War - Essay Challenge

Posted by Trekram, 10/17/05, 10:46pm. Comments (2)

I’m also sick of the anti-America and/or anti-Bush anti-war fanatical narcissistic ideologues projecting their self-hatred inflict onto any sixties residual drug flashback cause they can find. However, I have issues with your exposition and will respond in 3 areas.  First, in my opinion, your “anti-dissent” positions, while noble and righteous, are excessive and extreme and ultimately unconstitutional.  Second, your justifiable irritation is to some extent overstated and misdirected.  Third and most important, my main disagreement is with your lassitude about the war comments.  

First let’s go to the main premise. In essence, your assertion is that ALL Americans are required to forever unconditionally support a war whether they were originally for or against it. Those who don’t are “looters, cowards or someone who rejects the American system of government.”  Not sure if this is sincere or hyperbolic, but either way, one is forced to entertain the thought of the divergent extreme; a nation of Kool-Aid drinking eternally blind followers.  Not much of a choice. You then correctly soften but in effect weaken your argument by saying “dissent is not banished; it is harnessed.”  Enter the gray zone, and we’re back to deciding what is acceptable criticism of the war and what’s not.  That said, I’m in agreement with your “harnessed” position and my only criticism is more on you painting anyone questioning the war or effort into a no win situation.  

Second, while the support for the War in Iraq is declining, your righteous anger is misdirected. Actually, I’m surprised the support is as high as it is. You’re always going to have anti-war freaks driven by whatever demon they’re dealing with and fueled by hatred for Bush or anyone from the right.  These run-of-the-mill burnt out idiots are nothing compared to the true traitors in Congress which you’re also always going to deal with. They are the usual suspects: Kennedy, Kerry, Polosi, Boxer, et al.  I’ve not seen anyone take these idiots on with any righteous anger in any meaningful way.  Our men are risking their lives to protect our freedom in Iraq and the spineless republican coward politicians, especially Bush, are losing the battle at home in order to save their careers and pensions.

The vast majority of people are frustrated not at the rationale for the war but the lack of leadership and information on its execution. This is where I fall.  Not just the war on Iraq but the war or terror. This criticism and your anger should fall squarely on Bush and his administration. Sound leadership requires vision, communication, accountability and action.  While you may not agree or like it, a nation at war requires constant and steadfast communication of the plan and results and clear and measurable objectives.  And admitting he is a piss poor communicator is no excuse. Bush has to take as much, if not more responsibility, for the decline in support as any radical dissenting voices. This Administration has failed miserably at keeping the motives, risks, challenges and results of this war in the forefront and in focus.  Failure is not an option in Iraq. We lose there, we lose the war on terror. The military can handle the enemy on foreign soil and will ultimately be victorious, however; if this battle is lost it will be on the home front.  This battlefront at home is for the hearts and minds of Americans and is Bush’s to fight and all I can say is he ain’t much of a fighter.  Talking and walking around like a bad ass Commander in Chief while slapping the backs of soldiers while he’s a pussy on the home front in facing the radical dems ain’t going to cut it. One can only assume that he and his administration are either detached from reality and/or locked in the vacuum of the beltway bubble.  Let’s face it fellow republicans, they are either oblivious or incompetent.  This war is too critical for us to lose and his inability to keep Americans behind the war is tragic.  You seem, as does the administration, to want everyone to drink the kool aid of patriotism and either deny the war even exists or sit back and blindly cheer on the effort for as long as it takes and whatever the cost.  If you complain or dissent, we’ll just chalk you up as one of the radical extremist communist un-American nut jobs. This is absurd.  Which brings me to my third and real beef, your lassitude statements.

"The defeat of the enemy." What the hell does that mean in the war or terror or in Iraq?  You seem to think Bush and the war in Iraq is like Michelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and hiding the progress while the pope keeps asking him when it will be finished. "It will be done when I believe I have satisfied art" to quote the great artist. What is it for Bush, "it will be done when I believe I have satisfied ………ahh,….. well…..ahh… well, until then…. you’ll just have to trust us and ya know,…. this is hard work and …well…. we’re working really hard…really hard." This is BS.  Lives and 100’s of billions of dollars are being spent and I want to see a cohesive coordinated plan and ongoing assessments on what has been done, what you are doing next, what challenges and failures we’ve faced, what successes we’ve had, what criteria will determine the rate and timing of Iraqi security forces standing on their own and us standing down. Also, what you are doing with the borders and why are you not taking the offensive.  Americans can deal with the truth and hang in as long as it takes to get this thing done as long as they know there is a plan and we’re working it and have defined objectives and measurable success. I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit back and trust any government like a blind idiot.  What’s the global multifaceted plan for defeating terrorism?  I’ve not seen one. If it’s all military then we’ll be broke before this war is over. Our borders are open, there is no real plan to reduce our dependence on oil from the region, no political pressure on the two faced nations taking our money while supporting terrorism, we’re fighting for democracy in Iraq while setting up another terrorist state in Palestine.  Nothing makes sense.

I’d suggest you stop giving Bush a pass and start putting the pressure on the leaders of this country and war and stop spending time condemning the idiot protestors who don’t have a clue to what’s at stake.

{Aslan: Let me begin by saying that that bulk of my response to this Essay Challenge takes place in form of a new commentary, War and Dissent.  I will be referring to that essay on several occasions.

The United States at War commentary was a baited trap, and Trekram took the bait.  Of course, it is irrational to expect unwavering support for any war – any current or theoretical war – no matter what transpires.  The purpose of that challenge was to accomplish two things:

1. To de-glamorize today’s war dissent, which is almost exclusively immoral, and
2. To focus the issue on the threshold for dissent as it applies to the Iraq War.  This is the premise of War and Dissent.  

I agree with your criticism of congress, but I reject completely you lumping Bush in with them.  More to follow on this.

"The vast majority of people are frustrated not at the rationale for the war but the lack of leadership and information on its execution."  In this, you have no connection with reality.  You have bought into a myth created by mass media and perhaps the city culture in which you live.  It is the leadership – at times, the single-handed leadership – of this president in this war that has redeemed him from the scrap heap of conservative failures.  I am willing to forgive pork spending, open borders and Harriet Miers precisely because without George W. Bush at the helm, our country would be in dire straights as it relates to the War on Terror.  No information on its execution?  On what planet do you live?  This issue is convincingly addressed in War and Dissent, bookmarked here, but I will reprint the major communications from this President on the War in Iraq, the War on Terror, progress in Afghanistan, Middle Eastern political developments, and more just in the last nine months alone.  Over 70 major speeches and my guess is that anyone who could call this a "lack of information" hasn’t bothered to look or, more charitably, has only bothered to look where the media has invited his gaze.

I suggest you spend a little time and read the entire highlighted speech from 10 days ago.

"…a nation at war requires constant and steadfast communication of the plan and results and clear and measurable objectives…"  No kidding?  If the above list does not meet that demand, I will have to see if we can get you White House security clearance for personal briefings.

On this matter, Bush is a tireless communicator; the "vast majority" to whom you refer should be as tireless in listening.  As for the details on objectives – to the extent that military strategy can be revealed – he has, ad naseum, detailed his plan for the region: to train the Iraqi security forces to a point where they can maintain order.  The only missing pieces you seem to demand – timetables, which in reality are more to ease your discomfort with uncertainty – obviously would be as much use to the enemy as to you, but to far more lethal effect.

Not all dissent is immoral.  However, at this stage in the War on Terror, with the facts as described in War and Dissent, dissent is unacceptable and costs the lives of the soldiers you hold dear. }

Copyright ©  2005 Dan Hallagan. All Rights Reserved.

Comments

1: Evntprdcr

October 21, 2005 11:48am EST

Here's a comment on Logic Times request to tuck our collective heads between our legs and not be patriotic citizens.

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

 

  - President Theodore Roosevelt

{Aslan: I agree 100% with the Theodore Roosevelt, whose greatness only can partially redeem his "Father of Socialism" nephew.  The point of my essay is that, until there is basis for dissent, support in matters of war is essential.  The essay pretty convincingly demonstrates that there is no rational basis for dissent at this stage of the war.}

2: Trekram

October 22, 2005 10:55am EST

I think it’s relevant to the essay because your statement below is so subjective that any question from the opposing side would be considered political and "careful judgment" is relative to one's biased perspective.  I can’t tell you how painful it was to watch a-hole Biden ask Rice the same questions I’ve been asking about details on specific objectives and progress in Iraq.  I sit there and am disgusted at Biden’s political grandstanding and wanting to kick in the TV but at the same time thinking the jerk is asking a fair question.

I’ve concluded that in the search for truth we must, as hard as it is, set aside the often biased source and judge the question or suggestion on it’s own merits. If you’re on the side of the truth, it doesn’t matter the source because truth can be defended. The problem with politics today (and maybe always) in that both sides take the absolute position that the OTHER side is ALWAYS wrong and THEIR side is ALWAYS right. (I sound like Dick).   Take any opposing position or offer criticism of your own party and you’re labeled a traitor. A sort of political political correctness that stifles open dialog and debate.  Because of our support of Bush on the war we withheld our criticism on any number of other critical issues that we disagreed.

On the other hand, a case in point where this did not happen is the ongoing Meirs debate.  I for one was glad to see the debate on our side because it shows we are open and principled.  The spin and insults were interesting to watch and showed me how flawed and illogical our side can be as the same tactics were used as when debating the Dems/Libs.

Prediction: I don’t think Meirs is going to make it. All the energy of the supporters (not many thinking she was the best pick but trusting the president) pushing the Meirs boulder up the hill will begin to run out before she gets to the top and she’ll come rolling back fast and you’ll see her previous talking head supporters behind the boulder going the other way.  Should be fun to watch the development and spin.

{Aslan: I agree whole-heartedly agree on the Mier's nomination, from it reflecting a healthiness in the conservative movement to her not getting the nomination.  It will be fascinating to watch.

On the other, I don’t understand your demands regarding information and the prosecution of the war.  As much detail as is strategically sensible is repeatedly presented by the President and his underlings to no effect.  I would argue you are drawing conclusions not on unbiased principle, but on biased coverage of the war.  Your reaction to information available during any other war in history could be no better.  What info would you have?  You know you cannot have timetables.  What else would appease you?  The discomfort you feel for the current stage of the war either reflects a confusion about the chaos and pain that prevails in war, or it represents some sort of strange, elitist requirement that, given enough information, your support and perhaps your secret tactical advice might be forthcoming.  The point of the essay was to demonstrate that, with imperfect information, the war is going well by all standards available.}