The American Spectator

Ryan| 12.7.09 @ 8:16AM

If Iraq, and probably Afghanistan, prove anything, it's that nothing beats manpower on the ground doing the job. As big a fan as we are of special forces and modern technology, it remains that the only way to hold ground in a fight is to put more people in there than the other guy.

It's been that way since we started smashing at each other with sticks, and it will remain that way for a long, long time.

Red Phillips| 12.7.09 @ 9:24AM

"To the Right, a premature withdrawal means a debacle of historic proportions, which will seriously embolden the jihadists and jeopardize vital U.S. national security interests."

No, the neo"con" "right," which is a species of liberalism, worries about that. The real right wants us to bring the boys home, all the boys.

Ryan| 12.7.09 @ 9:33AM

No, that's the paleocon right. Don't represent yourselves as the "real" right. As opposed as I am to the intentions of the corporatist neocons, the paleocons have their issues as well, mostly relating to an isolationism that never works.

America MUST be proactive abroad to prevent further Islamist terrorism at home. We cannot continue to be reactionary, else we wind up with further instances like 9/11.

I'm not advocating any sort of imperialism nor extended war period (IMHO, both Iraq and Afghanistan should have taken shorter periods of time, but didn't due to inept politicians); but a preemptive solution abroad is preferable to being attacked again here.

Red Phillips| 12.7.09 @ 1:41PM

"America MUST be proactive abroad to prevent further Islamist terrorism at home."

Ryan, please explain that to me. What proactive abroad can we do (other than intel and spot actions) that will prevent further terrorism here at home? Terrorism at home has always been much more of an immigration problem than it has been a military problem.

Restricting Muslim immigration and disengaging from the Middle East will do much more to prevent terrorism at home than will any amount of bombing far off countries.

John R. Guardiano| 12.7.09 @ 6:28PM

Mr. Phillips,
I am sure that you meant well and apologize for jumping at you too quickly and too strongly. It's just that your use of the word "boys" raised a significant issue.

There is a tendency amongst hard Leftists (think Michael Moore) to view our fighting men and women as poor saps and victims. And describing them as "boys" does suggest that our troops are victims; it is a rather patronizing term -- or at least it can be rather patronizing (though again, I'm sure you didn't mean it that way).

But our soldiers and marines are not victims; they are all volunteers; and they are professionally trained warriors. Our enemies fear them -- as well they should. And we Americans should, at the very least, respect them: by according them the professional honor and recognition that they have earned, and which they are due.

Again, I am sure that you feel this way and do not cast aspersions upon your assessment, even though we may disagree about Afghanistan and other things.

V/R
John

JP| 12.7.09 @ 2:50PM

Actually, for 7 of those 8 years very little happened in Afghanistan. The Taliban were able to regroup from thier sanctuaries in Pakistan; however, it wasn't until late 2008 that they began to retake lost territories in the south and east. The problem was the manifold incompetence of both the DOD and State Department. It is also not coincidental that the offensives in recent months occured after most of the insurgents were either killed or dispersed in Iraq. Iran has its hands in both insurgencies.

The November-December 2001 US offensive in Afghanistan was mainly fought by US spec ops and air force units. The defeat of both the Taliban and Al Qaida occured mainly because of our Spec Ops connections to the Northern Alliance and forcing Pakistan to provide logistic bases for our ground forces (we litterally held a pistol to thier heads).

The US Spec Ops Command planned and executed a near perfect war plan in less than 3 months. It was after CENTCOM reasserted its authority (right before Tora Bora) that things went south. The Spec Ops guys should have been allowed to continue to run things at least through 2002. Training and building of indigineous forces is thier specialty. Afghanistan is nothing like Iraq; it is one of the most primative places on earth, and no matter how many State Dept guys we throw in there, the tribal leaders will always run things.

President Obama is caught between his own rhetoric (Bush Lied, then We Died. After 6 years Bin Laden is still loose), and his own party. He hasn't a clue what he should do, and his own vanity makes it impossible for him not to take credit for the operation (the entire August-November dithering was just a show. He wants to let people know it is his plan).

Sending 30,000 more troops is not the answer. I hate to be the odd man out, but not even 500,000 more troops will solve this problem. The number of troops was never the problem.

S.L. Toddard| 12.7.09 @ 3:52PM

"I hate to be the odd man out, but not even 500,000 more troops will solve this problem. The number of troops was never the problem."

What are you talking about. If we turn Afghanistan into Arkansas (surely a realistic goal) then terrorists will have no where else to hide, except for everywhere else in the rest of the world. Then we just conquer that part of the globe (i.e. the rest of it) and - voila! - no more terrorism.

Crusader| 12.7.09 @ 5:16PM

As sarcastic as I think this post is, it is right on the money. Just where do we end? We win in Afghanistan and then where do we go?

c. j.acworth| 12.7.09 @ 5:38PM

We go to whatever country gives sanctuary to the next group of mutts who commits mass murder on our soil.

S.L. Toddard| 12.7.09 @ 7:59PM

"As sarcastic as I think this post is, it is right on the money. Just where do we end?"

It's not designed to end. In fact, it's specifically designed *not* to end. It's a call for perpetual war.

John R. Guardiano| 12.7.09 @ 6:59PM

JP,
You make some good points and seem to have a good grasp of the issues. I am curious to know what, at this point, you propose, given where we now are in light of previous mistakes and missteps.

V/R
John

Ryan| 12.8.09 @ 8:25AM

If they go back to what they were doing, the number of troops holding them accountable is EXACTLY the problem. Yes, there are issues with Iran that need to be dealt with and would come closer to answering the problem; however, it was occupation - holding the gun to their head - that worked. We need more of it in Afghanistan.

rainbow anarcho-capitalist77| 12.7.09 @ 8:44PM

I would not consider Michael Scheurer to be a paleocon or even a libertarian, but he too says that the troops should pretty much be pulled out and instead of trying to build up bastions of liberal democracy, we should use special forces and go after Al Queada cells. The mission that has suffered from the attempt to build up democracies has been the actual targeting of Al Qaeda cells. Now this the United States military can do.

Now, about the future of Afghanistan. If the goal is to eradicate the terrorist cells in there at the moment, that is possible, albeit with a smaller presence and a more targeted approach. If the goal is to form a liberal democracy in Afghanistan that will be sustainable, that is another story. In a country that has been oppressed and has been subjected to theocratic rule for so long, there lacks the necessary societal institutional prerequisites for a sustainable liberal democracy. In Japan and Germany, the democratic institutions were not so far removed from the efforts to reconstruct, in other words, there was some institutional structure within society already in place. Building a liberal democracy from the ground up is very close to impossible when done in a society that lacks the institutional prereqs for liberal democracy. Building liberal democracy at gunpoint is a recipe for blowback. And it is this that resulted in the Al Queda in Iraq group forming. Let's play a mental exercise. Let us say that you are the Indians and there is a group of Puritans who set up a form of government and subject you to it in. Are you going to be willing to submit to this foreign government that you have no idea whether it means you well or ill. Maybe the government that sent the other government has the best intentions, but does the new government set up have the best intentions? These are all issues that will plague a military reconstruction. It is central planning writ large. And like central planning in a society where the infrastructure and institutions are already set up, it is impossible to maintain.

Michael Tomlinson| 12.7.09 @ 9:41PM

Well said Ryan. The paleo-cons like Pat Buchanan have more in common with MoveOn.org than they do traditional conservatives, neo-cons, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives or even libertarians.

You're wrong about the former administration unduly extending the war. Had they fought it any other way the body count would have been far too high and it is doubtful it would have ended any quicker. That's why we won a counter insurgency of "dirty war" in half the time that it traditionally takes (i.e., 6 years vs 12 years).

Ryan| 12.8.09 @ 8:28AM

No, the body count may have been less. When you have more soldiers watching your back from the onset, when you occupy instead of traveling (one of the things about IED's - they can't get you if you aren't traveling as much and are already where you need to be). We weren't sending them into a meat grinder as cannon fodder.

And the paleocons have something good to contribute. There is something to be said for isolationism, to a point, and they ask good questions, and they are still, in a sense, on our side. I won't disavow them when they're wrong on free trade or engaging internationally.

John R. Guardiano| 12.7.09 @ 10:30AM

Red Phillips,
They're not "boys." They're professionally trained and highly skilled men and women who are tasked with defending the United States of America and destroying those who would destroy us.

Everyone, of course, wants to bring the troops home if we can. But if you really support the troops, then you'll support their mission, and insist that they come home in victory and not defeat.

Regards,
John

Red Phillips| 12.7.09 @ 1:32PM

Mr. Guardiano, "bring the boy's home" is an often used formulation that intends to communicate affection, not disrespect, and I used it precisely because of that.

"if you really support the troops, then you'll support their mission, and insist that they come home in victory and not defeat."

Oh really? Any mission, no questions asked?

"Everyone, of course, wants to bring the troops home"

No, not really. There are plenty of people who want to leave them there pretty much indefinitely and even send them into new places such as Iran and Pakistan.

S.L. Toddard| 12.7.09 @ 3:43PM

"if you really support the troops, then you'll support their mission"

A logically indefensible position. This is nothing less than demanding the American public show servile obedience and support any and every war our government decides to launch.

Michael Tomlinson| 12.7.09 @ 9:42PM

AMEN

S.L. Toddard| 12.8.09 @ 1:16PM

Right back atcha, Mike.

Crusader| 12.7.09 @ 9:54AM

Ryan, in case you haven't been paying attention, there have been plenty of islamist attacks in the USA since 9/11. In fact there was one last month. On the largest Army base in America. 13 killed and what, 35+ injured? Anyway.

Let's assume for a minute we achieve "victory" in Afghanistan, whatever that means. Then what? There's still Pakistan, Chechnya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, "Palestine," Yemen, Egypt, etc etc etc brimming with anti-America hatred and swimming in potential jihadists. So, what does "victory" in Afghanistan really accomplish?

Nothing. Because until we realize what this war is really about and against whom it really is, no amount of troop build-up or timelines or "victory" in Afghanistan is really going to make the USA any safer than it is now or was prior to 9/11.

Eradication if islam from the face of the Earth would however.

Ryan| 12.7.09 @ 12:46PM

So, how are you advocating it be accomplished?

L. Ross| 12.7.09 @ 3:54PM

Ryan:

I happen to agree with Crusader about the "final solution" to the islam problem. I also agree that it isn't attainable with our current PC mindset. I do think we should learn something about how power is acquired and maintained in the muslim world, however. Almost invariably, there is a huge bloodbath, all dissenters are killed, and control is maintained with an iron fist and a jack boot. If we aren't willing to do what is necessary (read bloodbath and harsh control) we might as well not start.

JP| 12.7.09 @ 2:55PM

Crusader does have a point. Just this morning it was announced that one of the master minds of terror attack in India that occured last year was arrested in Chicago. WTF! How did that guy get into the US? We've had terror attacks in Virginia (twice), Texas, not to mentioned we foiled Islamic attacks in a number of cities these last 10 years.

Terrorism appears to be alive and well in the US. Will we end up like Isreal, with weekly attacks in our cities?

I don't agree with Crusader's ideas of eradicating Islam (something in the Constitution prohibits this); however, Justice Robert Jackson once wrote that "Our Constitution isn't a suicide pact."

Crusader| 12.8.09 @ 10:03AM

He is a US citizen. Shocking I know.

Havoc| 12.7.09 @ 10:18AM

Churchil did not promise 'blood, soil [sic], tears, and sweat' for Godsakes. He promised 'blood, TOIL, tears, and sweat'.

When you quote a great line - get it right.

Havoc| 12.7.09 @ 10:22AM

OK, make that 'Churchill'. sigh

John R. Guardiano| 12.7.09 @ 10:27AM

Havoc,
Thank you! That is a glaring and bad mistake. We'll get it fixed.

Regards,
John

Everly Waverly| 12.7.09 @ 1:34PM

Obama is suppose to be the consummate orator, commutator, a man possessed with "The Gift", although he can't explain in a non-nuanced way what he intends in Afghanistan. If this speech he gave at West Point was intended to spell-out the "Plan", all he accomplished was confusion. Last week Rush pointed out, with past clips of speeches, that the Military Academy speech was a compilation of what he's said previously.

Weren't all the week-end shows inundated with questions about WTF did he mean, and this guy is suppose to have a "Gift", my tuckus.

Isn't all this hand-wringing about Afghanistan, about the neglect, blaming the "Past Administration" ubiquitously for all your problems, isn't it a campaign tactic that Obama has invested in and has him locked-in. Obama isn't the least bit interested in a "Victory", his main goal is turning America into a Marxist nation.

Oh, by-the-way, Barack can't orate his way out of a wet paper bag. Tell me, after listening to the schmuck for 20 minutes, I defy anyone to tell me what was said...

S.L. Toddard| 12.7.09 @ 3:38PM

"After all, these are the men and women who effected, in near record time, a dramatic turnaround of the once dire situation in Iraq. And they did so when all of the so-called experts had written off Iraq as a hopeless cause."

As I mentioned elsewhere, the great Andrew Bacevich has a piece in the LA Times everyone should read. It's called "Obama's Folly," and it truly says all that needs to be said about the subject. Here's an excerpt:

"What Afghanistan tells us is that rather than changing Washington, Obama has become its captive. The president has succumbed to the twin illusions that have taken the political class by storm in recent months. The first illusion, reflecting a self-serving interpretation of the origins of 9/11, is that events in Afghanistan are crucial to the safety and well-being of the American people. The second illusion, the product of a self-serving interpretation of the Iraq War, is that the U.S. possesses the wisdom and wherewithal to guide Afghanistan out of darkness and into the light.

According to the first illusion, 9/11 occurred because Americans ignored Afghanistan. By implication, fixing the place is essential to preventing the recurrence of terrorist attacks on the U.S. In Washington, the appeal of this explanation is twofold. It distracts attention from the manifest incompetence of the government agencies that failed on 9/11, while also making it unnecessary to consider how U.S. policy toward the Middle East during the several preceding decades contributed to the emergence of violent anti-Western jihadism.

According to the second illusion, the war in Iraq is ending in a great American victory. Forget the fact that the arguments advanced to justify the invasion of March 2003 have all turned out to be bogus: no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction found; no substantive links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda established; no tide of democratic change triggered across the Islamic world. Ignore the persistence of daily violence in Iraq even today.

The "surge" engineered by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus in Iraq enables proponents of that war to change the subject and to argue that the counterinsurgency techniques employed in Iraq can produce similar results in Afghanistan -- disregarding the fact that the two places bear about as much resemblance to one another as North Dakota does to Southern California.

So the war launched as a prequel to Iraq now becomes its sequel, with little of substance learned in the interim. To double down in Afghanistan is to ignore the unmistakable lesson of Bush's thoroughly discredited "global war on terror": Sending U.S. troops to fight interminable wars in distant countries does more to inflame than to extinguish the resentments giving rise to violent anti-Western jihadism."

http://freedomsyndicate.com/fa.....00072.html

JP| 12.7.09 @ 4:06PM

For once SL, we agree. Our elites (including those in the DOD) suffer from a preponderence of Group Think. The 2001 Campaign in Afghanistan was won in December, but lost again shortly thereafter.

President Bush's orginal Bush Doctrine was correct in one instance, however. The old way of doing business (ie supporting "stability" over everthing else) failed. Yes, our federal agencies (esp the CIA and FBI)failed miserably. But so did our entire national security establishment. And that establishment preceeded Clinton, Bush43, Reagan, and Carter. Its genesis could be found in Kissenger's National Security Offices and later his State Department. Stability uber alles was the game. If the Saudis are exporting revolution as well as oil, ignore the revolution. Best keep good relations with the Kingdom or revolution might break out in the oil rich kingdom. If Iraq was braking every article of the 1991 Cease Fire, best to ignore it as Iraq is key to keeping Iran at bay. If Iran is being equipped with nuclear infrastructure its best to keep them talking or who knows, they may just nuke Isreal (that would surely cause oil prices to spike). If Putin is reverting back to czarist imperialism, look into his eyes and you just migh find Jesus. And the crap continues.

Going forward from Bush41 to Obama nothing has really changed despite huge realignments in the international order (if it could be called that). And with all of these threats, our Best and Brightest are partying in Copenhagen (hey, the escorts in Copenhagen are free this week!) with images of dollars dancing in thier dreams.

albert constantine, jr.| 12.7.09 @ 10:59PM

Criticizing others for "group think" in a post starting out with "for once ...we agree". Could not that be construed as an invitation to more "group think"?

S.L. Toddard| 12.7.09 @ 6:08PM

"Our elites (including those in the DOD) suffer from a preponderence of Group Think"

Agreed. All one need do is ponder the widespread use of the locution "homeland". Americans did not use that phrase to define the Union. It is Nazi-talk. If it ever rises to your tongue, spit it out!

Also, I'm not sure it's accurate to describe post WWII American foreign policy as "stability uber alles," unless you define "stable" as "conforming to U.S. interests". Our corporate elites - to whom the President of the United States attends rather like a maitre d’ at a very exclusive country club - are more than happy to *destabilize* a country or region, causing staggering suffering and death, if it means coercing a particular nation to conform to US economic interests. It can be argued that this is state terrorism - this use of violence to effect political change independent of a just cause for war. It is at the very least deeply un-American. We stand unmatched in military might by any earthly power in history, we could quite easily end immigration from countries with populations unfriendly to our own and make our borders impregnable, and so we have the power and the option of returning to the great American tradition of Washingtonian neutrality, and allow all the effort and wealth we would squander all over the globe to be spread around here at home instead.

However improbable, it would be entirely possible for America to become a Republic full of Americans again. Americans don't really want that though. The left wants Americans to disappear as a people, or at least to be dispossessed of their nation-state, and to replace them with a multicultural population with a PC-based morality system and no local loyalties whatsoever, under a world-wide system of government. The right want a military savior-empire to act as a righteous soldier for universalist democratic "values", and generally to perform a hero role in the Good Guys vs Bad Guys world narrative they cling to like a lifepreserver. Neither conforms well with the sort of confederated republic under the rule of law that the Founders created.

There is no such thing as a "small government" that can rule over, lead and police the entire world. When America leads it should be by example, not through coercion.

Washington 2010!

Michael Tomlinson| 12.7.09 @ 9:48PM

Blah, blah, blah, blah! The real Americans you speak of are volunteering to defend the nation you don't have the guts to defend. Shut your pie hole Benedict.

S.L. Toddard| 12.8.09 @ 7:29AM

Hey look, it's Mike Tomlinson. Mr. Tomlinson, the United States Constitution - which you pretend to revere - declares that "all Treaties made... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land", and the Convention Against Torture treaty - the "supreme Law of the Land" according to the Constitution - compels prosecution of *alleged* torture crimes. Torture crimes have been *alleged*.

So, Mike, should we follow the Constitution and proceed with investigations/prosecutions, or do you agree with Obama that the Constitution is a quaint relic to only be adhered to when politically convenient?

Liberal Reader| 12.7.09 @ 9:18PM

Obama's "on the fence"???

Do you people EVER read the newspaper????

You pull facts from your ass; you base your opinions on fantasies.

You're absolutely ABSURD!!!

Obama has TRIPLED the number of troops that were in Afghanistan when he became president.

God, damn.

You sound like you get your news on Fox.

Michael Tomlinson| 12.7.09 @ 9:46PM

That isn't accurate. Those were troops already in the pipeline to go. So please give credit where credit is due with President Bush the war winner.

By his dithering for over 3 months Obama has screwed up deployment timetables and that means to meet his expectations troops "surged" into Afghanistan will not have the proper training or rest. His lack of leadership is going to get Marines, Sailors, soldiers and airmen needlessly killed.

Red Phillips| 12.7.09 @ 10:05PM

"The right want a military savior-empire to act as a righteous soldier for universalist democratic "values", and generally to perform a hero role in the Good Guys vs Bad Guys world narrative they cling to like a life preserver."

Amen! One of the things that is so troubling about the "Right's" embrace, especially the Christian Right, of this redeemer nation rhetoric is that it borders on blasphemy. The real Savior of the world already came 2000 years ago. We will be celebrating His birth in a few weeks. The world does not need a savior nation. The idea that America is such a nation with some self-imposed mission to spread the enlightened goodness of liberal democracy to the poor benighted masses of the world at the point of a gun is the thought of a people who have lost their faith in the real Savior and have substituted it with a faith in a kind of militaristic social gospel writ large. Like the lapsed Yankee Puritans who lost their faith in the Christ of the Bible but were hell bent on setting right those backwards Southerners who continued to hold to the orthodox faith.

As if the real problem with Islam is not that little incidental that it endangers the immortal soul of those who believe it but that they don’t let women vote. Screw their immortal soul, but we’ll send in the troops to make sure their women are enfranchised. Good grief! If the Christian Right really wants to save the Muslim nations of the world from themselves, then they should be advocating that we send in more missionaries of the Gospel, not more troops.

Christopher Holland| 12.7.09 @ 10:24PM

I would feel a whole lot better if I hadn't read the comment that the troops will be in place ready for the Taliban fighting season to start. What the f%&k kind of strategy is that, for Christ's sake! You fight a war on your own terms, not on the enemy's terms. Waiting for the enemy's fighting season before you are ready is utter BS, it is a strategy for losers. I have no confidence about the war in Afghanistan at all - none whatsoever. The only thing that will convince me is if I ever hear that the Taliban is being pursued relentlessly and attacked wherever they are, whenever they are found. The war ends when the enemy is destroyed. That is a strategy for winning a war. Anything else is a strategy for losing a war. Obama will lose the war. The only thing his strategy will decide is how long it takes to do that.

John II| 12.8.09 @ 12:05AM

Whatever cautious optimism Mr. Guardiano may attach to his concluding "We will see," the expression cuts both ways, and I am not optimistic.

Character matters, and Professor Obama is America's first post-modern president, a man of colossal self-regard and minuscule knowledge, curiosity or talent--the consequence of the direction our culture has been taking since the advent of the baby-boomer generation.

The Professor is a hollow man, whose only personal achievement is to have become a gasbag of the first water, whose administration has already racked up more scandals of an intermittently more serious nature than those of the past six presidencies combined.

War is serious, and the Professor and his retinue are preeminently children of their times, spoiled to the core and with no capacity for moral seriousness.

Yes, we shall see what we shall see. And I don't think it's going to be pretty.

wildcat129| 12.8.09 @ 5:47AM

I am still amazed and taken aback by the abject ignorance or dishonesty regarding Afghanistan. The frontier in the fight against our most prolific recent enemy, radical Islam, is the Afghan-Pakistan frontier. The notion that our fight is only against Al Qaeda is ill informed at best and moronic and evil at worst. The Taliban is equally committed to the destruction of Western Civilization as embodied in the United States of America. They are equally committed to the total control of greater Pashtunistan ruled with an iron Islamic fist. And it doesn't stop there. Once established, the Taliban/Al Qaeda and their ilk will be emboldened and able to wreak destruction and chaos world-wide, as evidenced by attacks in New York, London, Madrid, et al. The groups and individuals, i.e. Hassan at Fort Hood, need no further encouragement or support to carry out global jihad, but to relinquish ancient Pashtu lands to the Taliban and Al Qaeda not only provides a massive base of operations but provides them with a nuclear arsenal as well. Wed that to the Iranian arsenal, and obviously they will build one since the West is gutless when it comes to the necessary destruction of Iranian nuclear capability. The very existence of Western culture and values is at stake in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Potentially, the whole world could fall to Islam and Shiaria law if we do not act now and decisively to halt the spread of this radical ideology.

Red Phillips| 12.8.09 @ 9:13AM

"Potentially, the whole world could fall to Islam and Shiaria law if we do not act now and decisively to halt the spread of this radical ideology."

Wildcat, you are a sad little Chicken Little. Do you honestly believe that? The Taliban and Al -Q are going to take over the world? Seriously dude, are you intentionally trying to be a caricature of the fearful keyboard militarist, because you are doing a pretty good job of it.

There is not even the remotest chance that the "whole world" could fall to Islam and Sharia law much less the US because of some tribesmen in Afghanistan. This is laughably absurd. Please work that out for me. How does the Taliban take over the Good Ol' US of A with no navy or air force or regular army to speak of? You must lack confidence in your fellow Americans. Billy Bob and the boys with their hunting rifles and shotguns could easily dispatch any Taliban raiding party.

I don't get it. What makes people have such irrational fears. Some people just seem to have some deep seated need to be in fear. To always have some boogie man lurking around the corner. And when radical Islam will no longer do they'll invent some other boogie man like resurgent Russia or China or whoever.

John II| 12.8.09 @ 10:41AM

Well, if you have any interest in "getting it," Red, there's an alternative way of looking at all this that I'm guessing would push you closer to wildcat's take. Of course, I could point out that the Islamists who gave us 9/11 had no army or navy; all they had was a lot of financial backing and a thumb-sucking upbringing in Wahhabist Saudi Arabia. But I won't do there.

Instead, I would like to share a comment I overheard in the shallow halls of academe within a year of 9/11: it seems to have taken that long for the usual suspects to crawl back out from under their rocks--rather surprising; in September 2001 I recall thinking it would take only six months.

What I heard among like-minded idiots at a comfortable luncheon was this: We don't need all this saber-rattling; America is a big country--it can absorb several 9/11's.

End of argument.

S.L. Toddard| 12.8.09 @ 11:51AM

"Of course, I could point out that the Islamists who gave us 9/11 had no army or navy"

Correct - and "the whole world" did not "fall to Islam and Shiaria law."

"We don't need all this saber-rattling; America is a big country--it can absorb several 9/11's.

End of argument."

Perhaps that's the end of a different argument. Dr. Phillips was asking someone to explain how the "whole world could fall to Islam and Shiaria law" if we don't continue to wage war in the ME. I would like that explained as well - what happens exactly? We abandon Afghanistan, the Taliban takes over, invites Al Qaeda back, becomes an economic and military superpower so singularly powerful that they become de facto world overlords and impose Sharia law on the United States and everywhere else?

How would that work exactly? Illustrate that slippery slope for us - that starts with U.S. withdrawal from the ME and ends in Islamic Terrorist World Overlordship.

Red Phillips| 12.8.09 @ 1:40PM

Toddard, the Taliban couldn't take over my well armed deep South county, much less the World. Such irrational fear mongering is alien abduction territory. But yet some believe it. Maybe the Taliban is behind some secret plot to poison us all with chemtrails. :-)

Red Phillips| 12.8.09 @ 11:20AM

John II, no one that I know wants to absorb several more 9/11's, but a 9/11 like terrorist event is a long ways from taking over the world. So to fear monger as wildcat does is just not credible and invites bad policy in response to an exaggerated threat.

Again, the way to combat terrorism at home is to restrict immigration and disengage from the ME, not bomb far off countries.

wildcat129| 12.9.09 @ 10:58AM

Red, either you are a total fool or you simply want to sit there and ignore the facts. Those tribesmen in Afghanistan have defeated every global power since Alexander the Great. The Taliban is no paper tiger and while they cannot, on their own, take over the world, they most certainly could take over your part of the country in short order. They can take over Afghanistan and be a real threat to Pakistan. Pakistan has 60 nuclear weapons that are coveted by Muslim extremists. Islam's stated goal is to bring the infidel world under the domination of Shiaria law. The war in Afghanistan is important strategically and failure there will not only endanger surrounding countires but will threaten our borders as well. I agree that we need to curb imigration, but that alone will not weaken the threat. The threat is international, from Afghanistan, to Iran, et al. You need to look at the big picture. The whole point of the article was our bumbler in chief said nothing about victory. He is an empty vessle with no real commitment to the current effort. My position has nothing to do with fear. The only thing I am afraid of is our current Administration and Congress and their devotion to statism.

John II| 12.8.09 @ 3:00PM

Well, it WOULD be ONE way--but it's not THE way because no one's going there for a dazzling variety of reasons, some plausible and others ridiculous. For example, I believe America could achieve energy independence within a decade, and thus tell the Saudis to flake off, but the witless ideologues who run this country, in obeiance to fraudulent science and a degenerate utopian-green religiosity, have this thing against oil and natural gas and nuclear power.

I didn't make wildcat's particular point--he'll have to defend that one on his own. My point is that the heartless bastard who made the 9/11 remark was merely blurting out what I think is on the minds of many who resist American military engagement overseas for any reason other than indisputable national survival. You and Toddard, for example, though I hasten to add that neither of you strikes me as so thoroughly out-to-lunch as the people I work with.

I love your vigorous expression, Red, but if you had been there in 1941, long before the evil neocons emerged on the scene to provide an ideological scapegoat for the paleocons, so to speak, I believe you would have stuck to your non-interventionist ideology in the face of Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war a week later.

To me, the argument ended when the remark of that faculty member (and the bland response to it) crystalized something icy, narcissistic, and dangerous in the American temperament--compared to which Toddard's intermittent Left-like all-or-nothing rants about how demon America has brought all this on herself is of little moment to the survival of the American experiment. Of colossal moment, made evident by the Islamist threat, is the gradual transformation of America from a fairly united culture with some sense of herself into a navel-gazing concatenation of Eloi with no desire or capacity to defend themselves.

S.L. Toddard| 12.8.09 @ 6:19PM

"My point is that the heartless bastard who made the 9/11 remark was merely blurting out what I think is on the minds of many who resist American military engagement overseas for any reason other than indisputable national survival"

Indeed - I believe America is strong enough to survive repeated 9/11-style attacks. Of course I don't counsel that we should abide attacks, or not endeavor to prevent them. And I don't know one anti-war conservative (or liberal, honestly - and I live in Massachusetts) who equates the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan with stateside terrorism, and certainly none who believe disengaging from the former would lead to *more* of the latter. If anything we believe the opposite. Part of the reason I support disengaging from the Middle East is precisely because bombing, invading and occupying Muslims and installing puppet-dictatorships increases the hatred and resentment that leads to anti-American attacks. So your fun little story (about "heartless bastards" who want to end our wars against the Middle East even though they know it will lead to multiple 9/11s) isn't exactly relevant, is it?

"I love your vigorous expression, Red, but if you had been there in 1941, long before the evil neocons emerged on the scene to provide an ideological scapegoat for the paleocons, so to speak, I believe you would have stuck to your non-interventionist ideology in the face of Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war a week later.

To me, the argument ended when..."

You are talking about a different argument. *That* argument was against pacifism, and we are all here on the same side of it. Non-interventionists that got behind the war effort didn't stop being non-interventionists. Non-interventionists *do not oppose wars of defense*. We oppose unjust wars.

"To me, the argument ended when the remark of that faculty member"

That faculty member whose opinion are utterly alien to our own? Neither Red nor I believe that disengaging from the Middle East will cause a string of America-destroying 9/11s, and neither of us consider such a scenario acceptable or conscionable.

I have mentioned before that you confuse me. I don't understand why you allow yourself to do this - I know that you know, John II, that this anecdote you're using to discredit Red and myself is not even remotely germane to an argument about the validity of noninterventionism, so why the misdirection? Why the straw man?

"compared to which Toddard's intermittent Left-like all-or-nothing rants"

That's artful. You imply that I am a "liberal", but since you know I'm not and that such implication is slanderous, you apply the epithet to an alleged rigidity and lack of nuance in my thinking, thus(ly!) giving yourself deniability when I inevitably object to the characterization. Surely someone clever enough to do that understands that he hasn't been making a relevant argument.

"Of colossal moment, made evident by the Islamist threat, is the gradual transformation of America from a fairly united culture with some sense of herself..."

I agree. I wager Red does as well. The decline of America as a people is of primary concern to most "paleocons". It is part of the reason many of us oppose globalization and Liberal internationalism - invite the world, invade the world, etc.

S.L. Toddard| 12.8.09 @ 7:28PM

"into a navel-gazing concatenation of Eloi with no desire or capacity to defend themselves."

Most paleos fear the same. Not that I doubt that the American *government* will ever lose its capacity to defend itself. I don't fear for the state - it's the most powerful in history, etc etc. I do fear, however, that the American people have lost the desire and capacity to defend themselves as a distinct people, against the schemes of the corporate elite that owns our government, the genocidal multiculturalism pushed by means of corporate "pop" culture and public education, and the millions of cultural aliens they import who are even now displacing Americans.

That is the the most severe danger we face, I think - our dispossession, our displacement, and our disintegration as a people. And that fight needs to be waged, in part, against the same state that our military adventurism empowers and enriches.

John II| 12.8.09 @ 8:49PM

You know, Tod, it's often occurred to me that what we disagree about is minuscule when measured against what we seem to agree about. The main trouble appears to be that, when I make an argument or try to explain a point that involves a touch of subtlety (as against the one-dimensional sledgehammer logic you employ in your own assertions), you either can't or won't follow what I'm saying. Instead, you take umbrage, accusing me of some sort of obscurantism. I am a man of letters, Tod, not a machine. A rereading of . . . oh, skip it.

Anyhow, it's occurred to my far-ranging conservative noggin amid this response that you might be entertained by a different rant of mine, in which I probably sound a bit more Toddard-like. Check tomorrow's postings (what an eerie expression!) under the Jeffrey Lord piece. A responder set me off in defense of Eisenhower, part of which you might find agreeable. Come to think of it. If so, consider those portions a Christmas gift.

S.L. Toddard| 12.9.09 @ 8:07AM

"The main trouble appears to be that, when I make an argument or try to explain a point that involves a touch of subtlety (as against the one-dimensional sledgehammer logic you employ in your own assertions), you either can't or won't follow what I'm saying"

I follow what you're saying, butI follow it to both where it leads and whence it came. Your entire premise here is a straw man - you asserted that for you the "argument ended" when these "heartless bastards" blithely declared we should quit the saber-rattling and just accept multiple future 9/11-style attacks. That just doesn't have any bearing on whether or not noninterventionism is valid, or would work. Neither Red nor I believe we should accept future 9/11-style attacks, and we both believe the US should endeavor to prevent such attacks.

John II| 12.9.09 @ 10:08AM

And we disagree about HOW the US should endeavor to prevent such attacks. You're misusing the term "straw man." The "straw man" fallacy is a form of ignoratio elenchi--directing one's attention to an issue unrelated to the issue at hand. To me, "noninterventionism" vs. statist adventurism is not the issue, but rather a childish simplification of a very complex matter, currently involving American military and advisory aid of different sorts and degrees to some 50 countries directly threatened by Islamic jihadism.

This sense in turn makes me interested in the motivation of a chronological adult who would subscribe to such an abstract distortion. I am surrounded in my workplace with people who think that way--i.e., somewhat brainy people whose brain-stems are crimped by a stubborn emotional atavism. Most of them come from troubled families and have no families of their own, which is to say they are as if avatars of the most disturbing and morally dangerous aspects of the larger culture.

One cannot take stock of their bizarre comments and infantile politics without looking to their motivation. The example I cited was a stunning instance in which the motivation was suddenly on display.

Consider an analogy, Toddard. You often have dismissed the probings of the ACORN scandal as "monomaniacal," a dismissal which many have already pointed out to be itself obsessive and, well, monomaniacal. But to me your dismissiveness suggests something of a kind with your ideology of "noninterventionism." It suggests an impatience with detail and with the kind of grubby hard work one must subject oneself to in order to know something about the universe.

I happen to be what I guess you might call a "big-tent" conservative. I'm interested in good arguments redolent of imaginations concretely engaged with the world and its grubby details. The canned remarks you and Red make about neocons strike me an infantile. They do not suggest any regular engagement with the specific arguments that appear in abundance in such publications as Commentary, The Weekly Standard, First Things, City Journal, and so forth.

Rather, they suggest a dismissive impatience stuck in a rut of angry denial. In short, they have a distinctly Left character about them, whereby ideology becomes a substitute for sometimes tediously concrete reflection and reasoned analysis.

I take you at your word when you claim to be "a conservative," Toddard. But in manner if not always substance, you sure sound like a Lefty.

S.L. Toddard| 12.9.09 @ 2:15PM

“The "straw man" fallacy is a form of ignoratio elenchi--directing one's attention to an issue unrelated to the issue at hand.”

More specifically, it involves constructing and refuting an easily-refutable argument which one’s opponent has not made, which is what you did. Neither Red nor I believe we should accept future 9/11-style attacks, and we both believe the US should endeavor to prevent such attacks, ergo your arguments against those “heartless bastards” were straw men.

“To me, "noninterventionism" vs. statist adventurism is not the issue, but rather a childish simplification of a very complex matter, currently involving American military and advisory aid of different sorts and degrees to some 50 countries directly threatened by Islamic jihadism.”

Yes, yes of course. And I think your positions are based on intellectual lethargy, incuriosity, and a childish attachment to a simplistic, black-and-white world narrative that resembles a professional wrestling storyline more than any real world scenario. In all sincerity, it boils down to Good Guys/Bad Guys, and is no more nuanced than a comic book storyline. I think you more than likely formed your worldview when there was both a credible opposition to the statist left in the GOP, and when the US really did face an existential threat. I suspect you are too set in your ways to intellectually adapt to the world as it is today, and so you stubbornly cling to positions that are no longer applicable. I think you cherish having a dog in the fight too much to question whether that dog is really yours. And I think *that*, honestly, is why you revert to misdirection, straw men etc so often. You seem to be unwilling to follow arguments to their logical end, because that end is light-years away from the ideological ground you staked out decades ago, and which the world has passed by.

I’m not sure why any of that is relevant though. Really, it’s more misdirection. “Just ignore my straw man argument, and let’s instead explore your motivation”. I mean really.

“Consider an analogy, Toddard. You often have dismissed the probings of the ACORN scandal as "monomaniacal," a dismissal which many have already pointed out to be itself obsessive and, well, monomaniacal. But to me your dismissiveness suggests something of a kind with your ideology of "noninterventionism." It suggests an impatience with detail and with the kind of grubby hard work one must subject oneself to in order to know something about the universe.”

Actually, it suggests that you’re really ignorant of my motivation there. I post “monomania” beneath Matthew Vadum’s ACORN articles, because that is all *he* ever writes about. It’s a comment on Mr. Vadum, not on the ACORN issue, really.

I will say, though, that personally I think the ACORN issue is, in the grand scheme of things, not that important. If ACORN disappeared tomorrow we would have all the same major problems we have today, except a few extra poor people wouldn’t vote. But Vadum et al exploit it because it riles up the right, and because it’s a proxy attack on Obama.

“I happen to be what I guess you might call a "big-tent" conservative. I'm interested in good arguments redolent of imaginations concretely engaged with the world and its grubby details.”

From what I’ve read, you seem to be interested most in regurgitating standard establishment-right boilerplate, and an extremely simplistic Good Guys Bad Guys worldview, and anytime an argument strays beyond the narrow confines of such, anytime any nuance is introduced, you revert to type and start in with the misdirection, straw men, ad hominem (like the vast majority of this rant I’m responding to, actually), and verbose, pedantic prattle. It seems to be a defense mechanism, and I’m not sure you trigger it consciously, or even know you’re doing it.

“The canned remarks you and Red make about neocons strike me an infantile. They do not suggest any regular engagement with the specific arguments that appear in abundance in such publications as Commentary, The Weekly Standard, First Things, City Journal, and so forth”

That’s wonderful. Also, it’s nothing more than another substance-free quasi-ad hominem attack. And to be honest, I don’t believe you are being truthful here. If our remarks were “infantile” you presumably would not be utterly incapable of refuting them, and would not elect to construct and refute straw man arguments, wage ad hominem attacks et al instead. If our remarks are infantile, then discredit them. Refute our arguments, as we do yours. This is the heart of what confuses me about you – I know you are an intelligent and well educated man, and I always assume you must be capable of offering valid refutations, and yet you almost never do. Why is that?

This is the point in the argument – after I’ve called out your debate-averting tactics – where you throw your hands up and pretend you just don’t have the time to continue. By all means, Maestro – let’s hear that old favorite again.

John II| 12.10.09 @ 1:43AM

Oh. Hi Toddard. Sorry, I hadn't noticed your post earlier--I didn't mean to be rude.

I just finished giving my last final exam on an evening schedule, and I'm a tad worn down. Allow me a brief response.

1. In your tenth paragraph, you misuse the word "majority." The stylists insist, and I agree, that the word should be restricted to the governance of count-nouns rather than mass-nouns. (Acceptable: "The majority of my ties have coffee stains." Bad: "Despite heavy scrubbing, the majority of the coffee wouldn't come out of my tie.")

2. In the same paragraph, you also misuse the term ad hominem in the sense of ad personam. Strictly speaking, all arguments are ad hominem because they involve taking measure of one's interlocutor and adjusting one's comments accordingly. The measure you take of me happens to be mistaken, but the measure itself is nonetheless necessary to your discourse. In a few instances, your response appears to be merely abusive, in which case it would properly be called ad personam, not ad hominem. The confusion of the term ad hominem with the term ad personam reflects, I believe, an impoverishment of modern discourse, as it falsely implies that argumentation should be exclusively rational, thus denying the pre-rational ground of first principles. This "rationalism" (as opposed to rationality) is a prejudice of the Enlightenment. The ancients knew better.

3. As to the rest of your response, my counterpoint would be to offer you either TU QUOQUE or RES IPSA LOQUITUR. Your choice. Myself, I never touch the stuff when I'm engaged in disputation.

And now, to unwind, I return to my current viewing of old 1930s Flash Gordon serials. Boy, those were the good 'ol days, when the Good Guys were good and the Bad Guys were bad, without any shuffling pop-psychological evasions. After Flash Gordon, I shall open a cheap port and enjoy the 1940s serial Don Winslow of the Navy to reinforce my primitive black-and-white Weltanschaaung.

Again, I apologize for overlooking your missive, as I remain,

Your most obedient servant,

John II, descendant of Don John of Austria.

S.L. Toddard| 12.10.09 @ 7:49AM

“In your tenth paragraph, you misuse the word "majority." The stylists insist, and I agree, that the word should be restricted to the governance of count-nouns rather than mass-nouns. (Acceptable: "The majority of my ties have coffee stains." Bad: "Despite heavy scrubbing, the majority of the coffee wouldn't come out of my tie.")”

I see. So, “the majority of the population” – that would be a “misuse” of the word?

“In the same paragraph, you also misuse the term ad hominem in the sense of ad personam.”

Again, is this an act? Do you believe that when you write it down? Are you counting on the ignorance of AmSpec’s readers, wagering that they will be unfamiliar with these phrases? Are you unaware that ad personam is a type of ad hominem? I have no idea. I don’t personally care that you are confused about this, and I wouldn’t bother pointing it out if this confusion on your part was exhibited in a relevant argument but it’s not – it’s more pointless verbosity and misdirection. So far in this debate you have yet to stray into relevant territory. When you do that is it on purpose? Do you ever ask yourself why you elect to construct straw men, and substitute ad hominem attacks for valid arguments? You really should. It indicates an unwillingness - rather than, I think, an inability - to expose one's positions and arguments honest criticism and analysis, even to one's own criticism and analysis.

John II| 12.10.09 @ 10:40AM

1. Majority of the population: Interesting borderline case. But I wouldn't postmodify the word that way. I wouldn't have any trouble with, say, "majority of the various populations of the world," as in, say, "The majority of the various populations of the world appear to prefer freedom over tyranny; an exception is the population of academia." But if I intended the word "population" as a single entity, I would drop the postmodifier altogether and just use "majority" by itself, with the reference to "population," if I thought it necessary, syntactically rearranged: "Despite the diverse population of America and its ignorance of the Constitution, the majority cling to the basic notion of rule by law." Of course, an expression such as "majority of Americans" is indisputably acceptable, whereas an expression such as "majority of American wealth" is, like "majority of this rant," barbarous.

2. For more information on the distinction between ad hominem and ad personam, you may want to consult (although the tone of your response suggests that you don't and won't) Chaim Perelman's magisterial "The New Rhetoric" (University of Notre Dame Press). Failing that, however, I urge you at least to notice how much of your response is ad hominem in the strict sense of the term.

I regard your ad hominem assessment as necessary, however flawed, and I don't mind so much your intermittent ad personam dodges, Toddard. I am a teacher and therefore practiced at being abused. But I do mind your cavalier attitude toward the language.

Consider: A recent accretion in American English is the shabby use of the term "disinterested" in the sense of "uninterested." One hears normal people as well as liberal newscasters saying things such as "The Republican senator appears to be disinterested in promoting health care reform."

Yet, when used properly, "disinterested" is unique in the English lexicon. It means "unbiased owing to a personal disposition." The word "unbiased" by itself is not a sufficient synonym. No other word in English has the peculiar meaning of "disinterested." The confusion of "disinterested" with "uninterested" is thus of greater moment than mere slovenliness; it constitutes an impoverishment of the lexicon.

Something similar happens in the confusion of "ad hominem" with "ad personam." The very possibility of finer expression and clearer thinking is abraded. And the consequences of such abrasion are not pretty. Most of your presumptuous second paragraph is an example.

Someday, somehow, somewhere, I am going to enjoy some respect in a venue other than my family. I suppose I shall have to wait until retirement.

S.L. Toddard| 12.10.09 @ 12:11PM

“Majority of the population: Interesting borderline case.”

The application of the word “majority” to a mass-noun in this case is not a “misuse” of it, correct?

“although the tone of your response suggests that you don't and won't”

Correct. I’m well aware of what constitutes an ad hominem argument. What’s at issue here is why you must rely on ad hominem in place of valid arguments. I am still waiting for an explanation.

“Someday, somehow, somewhere, I am going to enjoy some respect in a venue other than my family”

I should think that once you earn it, you will have it. Try putting in some effort. Respect isn’t the sort of thing that gets dropped in your lap for nothing.

John II| 12.10.09 @ 2:30PM

Now that I think about it, my students DO respect me, perhaps because they sense that I don't cut corners in my teaching. At any rate, many of them bring their personal problems as well as their academic questions to me, perhaps because they sense that I'm an ordinary family man first and a twit academician only secondly. (Which is to say, I enjoy the affection of my grown kids and my growing brood of grandkids, and my wife and I are still in love--more tellingly, she still likes me after untold decades of marriage: it has been said that a friend is a person whom you know everything about but like anyhow. I guess that too is respect.)

Of course, the people I work with seem to regard me with condescension and contempt--and in some ways they remind me of you, Tod--but that too is a kind of respect, in the root sense of the word. After all, their contempt constitutes an acknowledgement of my existence, and I'd surely think I was doing something wrong if they suddenly heaped praise and awards on me.

Thanks, Tod. I already feel better about myself. Semester-end blues often get me down. On some later and more recent posting (doubtless something about foreign entanglements), I shall return to your thoughtful and interesting ad hominem assessment of my "mind-set" in your exchange with Red.

Suffice it for now that you are yet again mistaken, albeit interestingly so. I don't recall ever being a cold warrior in the sense you imply. There ARE some similarities between the two eras, I admit. For example, the Left's anti-anti-communism of those days is eerily redolent of the Left's anti-anti-jihadism of today. But I am conscious of no desperation on my part to cling to the "narrative" (silly word, Toddard, and you're misusing the term "existential") of the Cold War; truth be known, I regard that era (which Koestler aptly characterized as a confrontation between hard nihilism and soft nihilism) as a passing post-Enlightenment skirmish with water pistols when measured against what the West is facing now, after a 400-year respite. And I would say that at least half the danger comes from the West's enthrallment with post-modern fantasies, rendering her stupified and astonishingly vulnerable in the face of an enemy that will not be deterred.

Nay, Toddard, the Cold War is not my template. There were never more than a few hundred thousand communists in the Soviet Union, and most of them were opportunists. Among the world's one-billion-plus Muslims, about one-quarter support jihad as defined by the so-called radicals. That's about two hundred fifty million potentially murderous religious fanatics who regard death as a blessing. A rereading of the Qur'an would make this clearer to you.

I shall return to this topic in greater depth, anon. Meanwhile, I think it would be wise if we advance to later postings for subsequent rants. The current venue is drifting rapidly into the past.

Red Phillips| 12.9.09 @ 1:59PM

John II, if non-interventionism is simple-minded and ignores reality, then isn't "The Islamofascists are out to get us so we should bomb Muslim country X to make us safer" at least equally simple-minded?

If I remember correctly a past conversation we had, (I think it was with you) then you know good and well that I am very familiar with the intricacies of neoconservatism. In fact, I have argued in the past that lumping together all interventionists as neocons is not helpful. There is a whole group (the majority I believe) of what I call “safety and security” interventionists whose primary concern has never been exporting democracy or remaking the Middle East, but were sold a bill of goods and thought the wars were necessary for our protection. But these safety and security folks quickly resort to neocon rhetoric about democracy and freedom and America as global Good Guy when challenged, so neocon rhetoric has infected the whole conservative movement even if not all war supporters are full-fledged neocons. So my comments are not ill-informed “canned remarks” against neocons.

Also, I am very familiar with “Commentary, The Weekly Standard, First Things, (and) City Journal.” First of all, I consider First Things, which is supposed to be a Christian journal, borderline blasphemous and idolatrous and heavily infected with Straussianism. It is not really a journal about the virtues of Christianity. It is a journal about the virtues of liberal democracy which they then try to pound that square peg into the round hole of Christianity. Because they are trying to make Christianity conform to liberal democracy instead of conforming their beliefs about what is a good polity with the Bible, it is a form of idolatry. Second, Commentary and The Weekly Standard have been all over the map searching for the justification of the moment to rationalize a War they had already ordained was necessary.

You may have plenty of criticisms of me. If I recall correctly you criticized my prose style. But that I am uninformed and don’t understand the arguments of the other side should not be one of them. The problem is that I do understand the arguments of the other side and recognize them for the profoundly unconservative muddle that they are.

S.L. Toddard| 12.9.09 @ 2:23PM

Dr. Phillips - rereading my posts, I hope it doesn't seem as though I was trying to speak *for* you. If so, my apologies.

Also, to allege that we are unfamiliar with the arguments of interventionists and neoconservatives is, again, another ad hominem. "Your argument is simplistic," "your argument is infantile," "you aren't familiar with A, B and C" - these are not valid arguments, or arguments at all. They are mere insults, really, and nothing more. Absolutely substance-free.

Red Phillips| 12.9.09 @ 2:45PM

"Dr. Phillips - rereading my posts, I hope it doesn't seem as though I was trying to speak *for* you."

No not at all. No apology necessary. The "You just don't get it. You are not as well informed as me" stance is a common one from folks like John who oh so do get it. The problem is that it is an unfalsifiable and all purpose pose. There is nothing that keeps me from replying in response, "Oh no, it is you who doesn't get it." And that leaves us exactly where?

I would like John to tell me what bad things would result if we disengaged from the Middle East.

John II| 12.9.09 @ 4:27PM

Hi Red. Well, I'm no prophet, but I would guess, at the very least, that the following would happen.

1. Iran would become the local nuclear hegemon.

2. The rest of the ME would gradually go nuclear while, in the meantime, cooperating with such Iranian demands as a punishing OPEC spike in oil prices.

3. Europe and Japan would move decisively, so to speak, in the direction of being totally craven rather than merely accommodating. Islamist shadow governments would be permitted to spring up throughout the EU for sure, and probably in Japan and South Korea. The Philippines would be swallowed up by civil war along religious lines.

4. Israel would be obliterated.

5. When most of the other ME states finally went nuclear, the Arab and the non-Arab Islamists would move rapidly toward a showdown along racial as well as sectarian lines.

6. The ME would be obliterated in a way that would probably include irreparable devastation and irradiation for northern India well as north and east Africa. The Holy Land would not be inhabitable or even visitable for a century or more.

7. The Islamists in Europe and in North and South America would blame the West and continue the jihad with greater ferocity.

8. In deference to jihadist demands, the US (or what's left of it after an electromagnetic disaster triggered by a thermonuclear attack had crippled her infrastructure) will be forced to close all churches and synagogues and to bulldoze Las Vegas, Hollywood, and Disney World.

Those seem to me to be the most likely consequences, taken distinctly--but I would hesitate to guess at how China and Russia and Greenland and Australia and central and southern Africa would be affected.

You know, Red, I have no idea how "well informed" you are. All I can know about the state of your information is what you and Toddard write, and all either of you writes is, to coin a phrase, boilerplate--at least in this venue. I don't know how it would be possible for someone who really reads and takes stock of the arguments in the publications alluded to could be so grandiloquently dismissive. So I'm left to conclude that you don't bother with any of it.

Look, I'm somewhat practiced in this sort of thing--I've been a teacher for more than forty years, and, on average, it still takes me three hours to prepare a single one-hour lecture; and I've read thousands of student essays, and overseen hundreds of class discussions: I know bluff when I see it. Your take on First Things, for example, is merely abusive and ideologically charged in a way I can't account for. I don't know and I don't care to know where any of that smug abuse comes from, but I am certain that you don't read First Things, or weigh its arguments with the care you presumably accord to diagnoses of your patients.

On the other hand, I admire your passion. I wish you'd harness it to better effect.

Red Phillips| 12.9.09 @ 10:22PM

Oh good grief. I really thought you were posturing as a sort of hard headed realist, unencumbered by the ideological baggage of either the non-interventionist or the "we must kill all the Islamomeanies" crowd. But your alarmism is barely a step above wildcat's. So all that bad stuff is going to happen if America disengages? That borders on attributing magical powers to the US. Your senario is so full of holes it would take a book to refute it. But just one example. How many Muslims are there in Japan? On what basis do you foresee an Islamic shadow government in Japan? That is too absurd for words. And Japan is very unlikely to ever have a Muslim problem because they allow virtually no immigration, something we could certainly learn from.

John II| 12.10.09 @ 1:03AM

Good point. I'll adjust my nightmare scenario accordingly for my dystopian novel. But I shall have to write under a nom de plume to dodge any fatwas. As you may have surmised from my worthless thoughts, I'm a coward as well as a fool.

S.L. Toddard| 12.10.09 @ 8:38AM

Dr. Phillips, I think to a large extent the mindset exhibited here by John II (as well as by much of the right) is rooted in a Cold War conception of the US's role in the world. There was a time when reasonable men could conclude that without US intervention all over the globe the future of the West was imperiled. Where America once lead by example, she came to lead by force. During this time, people came to cherish the idea of America as world-savior - they no longer considered America's greatness as being due to America's liberty under law, or her traditions, or her people, and instead associated "greatness" with military dominance. For people like John II, it is extremely important that America be thought of as the sole, righteous force holding back a deluge of darkness and barbarism. The current threats America faces are, relative to the Soviet threat, minor. Our foes, relative to the Soviets, are pathetic. If someone was sent back in time from the future, and told us that were America to disengage from the ME and return to a policy of Washingtonian neutrality it would alleviate terrorism and lead to greater prosperity, peace and tranquility in the world, the John IIs would still reject the policy, because in their eyes America would cease to be "great", and they are emotionally invested in that force-based idea of "greatness" to a degree that it's impossible to overestimate.

It is this Cold War narrative that they cling to, white-knuckled, for dear life. That we face no existential threat doesn't matter - they will inflate the threats we face and pretend they are existential. That our foes are scattered and impoverished, and possess no navy, air force or ICBMs doesn't matter - they will exaggerate those foes until they become scary caricatures of themselves, literally on the verge of taking over the world!

ilona@israel| 12.27.09 @ 10:08AM

as soon as iran will get nuclear weapons i think their influence on middle east will be unlimited. but its a serius threat for not just israel but also russia (who sells to iran enriched uranium and says that they have no evidence of iran nuclear programm at the same time) and for usa-obama against attac of israel but it seems he forget all consiquences of 9-11.

Jane McCallond| 2.5.10 @ 9:29AM

It's not designed to end. In fact, it's specifically designed *not* to end. It's a call for perpetual war

poker rakeback

www.us-bapeoutlet.com| 4.2.10 @ 10:58PM

www.us-bapeoutlet.com

asdfasd| 4.7.10 @ 5:45AM

iTunes Converter is a professional and multifunctional software which can convert iTunes support formats, such as MP3, AIFF, WAV, MPEG-4, AAC, Apple Lossless, etc. to any other format and vice versa.
AVI to MP4 Converter is a professional and multifunctional software which can not only convert AVI to MP4, but also support converting between all other video formats, HD video formats included. In addition, AVI to MP4 Converter also functions as excellent AVI codec, audio converter, audio/picture extractor and video editor.

Poptropica | 4.9.10 @ 8:42PM

thanks you very much for your information
Poptropica
Poptropica

asdfasd| 5.5.10 @ 3:32AM

Flip Converter is a professional Flip Video Converter to help you convert Flip video, you can use it as Flip HD video converter and Flip MP4 converter. Supporting all Flip camcorder models, it can also function as Flip Ultra converter and Flip Mino converter.
zsadads

Cheap Flight to Bangkok| 6.26.11 @ 10:41PM

Do not have a hard time searching for the cheap flight to Bangkok anymore because the cheap flight to Bangkok is already provided here and now. Join our cheap flight to Bangkok and have fun in the charismatic city, enjoy the sun, and shower yourself with amazement. Remember Bangkok is not far away as you think.

Gentech| 6.26.11 @ 10:41PM

Today is the era of “quality”, not that of quantity. To gain the word “quality”, you have to start from high quality ideas. Are your business ideas within your own organization good enough? No need to answer by yourself. Try consult Gentech! Gentech is a source for more business opinions and suggestions. Share some work with Gentech and enjoy your high quality high profit business.

Wii| 6.26.11 @ 10:41PM

No lonely gaming anymore. With Wii, to have a dazzling experience with your family is a piece of cake. Select Wii! Add Wii as one of your family members for happiness of your kids and for happiness of yourself.

Game| 6.26.11 @ 10:41PM

Find some fun! Find some game ! You can experience various styles of game; action, RPG, sports, and horror. Take yourself into the world of imagination, and forget about your stress in the real world for a period of time. Playing a game can help you more than your thought. Bring it on!

IBCBET| 8.1.11 @ 12:55AM

Obama, moreover, cited President Eisenhower to try and justify why the American mission in Afghanistan must be severely constrained. ibcbet-th IBCBET ibcbet online