Rant Control
Carla, at Preemptive Karma doesn't like my musings on U.S. power and Iranian nuclear ambitions.
Her first words are, "Learn, dammit!" Lovely way to introduce yourself.
I'm probably even more ignorant than she thinks, though, because I've read her post several times and I can't for the life of me figure out what it is I'm supposed to learn from it. Unless by "learn" she means, "just start feeling the way I do," which is entirely possible.
She says it's so obvious that the U.S. military is overstretched. So obvious that even the Iranians and the Syrians know it. How she knows what they mutter over their dinner tables is a good mystery that goes unanswered.
I think we're doing far better than treading water in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's another story. [I have to wonder if the left believes that, in fact, this is the absolute limit of what we are capable of doing, why it raises a constant kerfluffle about not having had more "boots on the ground" in Iraq last year?]
But I do have to wonder how this stretched-to-the-breaking-point U.S. military managed to be in Sumatra firstest with the mostest in a matter of days after the tsunami, on top of everything else, while the U.N. was still trying to find a pair of matching socks and the FAX number for a five-star hotel in Singapore.
And I wonder how a United States with a smaller base population than it has today could have fielded armed forces that conquered the fascist empires of the 1940s, or stared down the Soviet Union in the 1980s.
But how can I "learn" if she's too busy posturing to teach? Or is this just another Michael Moore experience?
It seems clear to me, in spite of what she feels, that the U.S. military can deflate any "Axis of Evil" or rogue nation government with one hand behind its back. Defeating Syria? As one general said, "It would take seven days. One day to defeat Syria and six to stop laughing."
Nation-building is another story. Sowing seeds of democracy among the Middle Eastern tares is another story. That takes numbers, long-term planning, diverse structures, and creative capabilities. That takes long-term commitment by a voting populace willing to make a sacrifice for the good of the world and the future. Clearly our leadership hasn't done that job in Iraq as well as I wish it had, and clearly about half of our people aren't up for the job. But that wasn't the subject of my post, was it?
What history would that be? She mentions none. History of Gertrude Bell in the Middle East? History of Napoleon in the Rhineland? History of the Nazis in Yugoslavia? History of the post-Civil War U.S. South? I'll be glad to talk history, but you've got to name some. Otherwise, she's just doing the end-zone victory dance without actually scoring a single point.
Ah, now I get it. It's the tutti-frutti ranting style, where the only scoring system is based on how many anti-Bush tropes you can cram into one sugar cone. Don't even try to follow along; you'll strip the gears of your mind changing topics so quickly.
She's confusing two different points there. "Intelligence" in the spying sense is never exact. Someone smarter than me once explained it like this: You're the president, it's July 2006: the director of the CIA tells you there's a 50-50 chance that North Korea is going to transfer nuclear missiles to al Qaida in the next two weeks. What do you do? That's the nature of what is mis-called "intelligence."
[I also didn't miss the fact that it's "reckless" she's after and there's no such word as "wreckless," but she's the teacher and I'm the ignoramus, and it's not good form for the guy who's been handed the dunce cap to correct teacher.]
Bush's premise for invading Iraq always was a matrix of objections and arguments, best-guesses, certanties, and policies. It involved U.N. resolutions as well as neocon ethics. It was humanitarian and self-interested. It pitched its appeals with different weights in different places -- there was the domestic mix and the U.N. dance remix.
But when you add it up, yes, in fact, Saddam was a genocidal tyrant. Yes, he did try to get yellowcake from Niger. Yes, he did covet a WMD arsenal. Yes, the sanctions and inspections were keeping him from it, but that system was well on the way to breaking down, largely because he had discovered a way to subvert it.
But actually, that fact, in this context, doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. I hope they're paying attention to our public disclosures about our intelligence in response to the Iraq war.
For one, real democracies have transparent institutions, and while I'm sure the mullahs are giggling like schoolgirls over the Congressional hearings, they may notice that their restless population has upped its respect for America a notch and longs for such transparency in Teheran.
For another, the leaders of Iran also now know this U.S. administration is willing to act, rather than wait for the perfect intelligence that never comes, or comes too late to be any good.
No doubt also they're paying attention to the fact that a large part of the Western public is more focused on hating America than on paying attention to what Iran or Syria or North Korea is doing. And no matter how badly Iran's leaders choose to misbehave, they know they can count on a large chunk of the Western "street" irrationally blaming everything on the U.S.
And what am I supposed to learn from that? Learn that the strong and willing and hopeful should give up and lie down and die because some crickets are chirping?
She conflates a tough negotiating position, and a tough frame of mind, with being a thoughtless physical bully. As a parent, I have to be tough and firm in my positions. That doesn't ever require me to raise a hand and do the slightest physical violence. People who can't differentiate the two probably shouldn't be parents. They certainly shouldn't dabble in world affairs.
That's the "Dirty Harry" question, isn't it?
Clint squints at the mullahs: "I know what you're thinking, punk. You're thinking, 'Has he got five divisions in Iraq, or just four?' Well, to tell you the truth, I've forgotten myself in all this excitement. But being as this is the U.S. military, the most powerful ass-kicker in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?"
Rather messy, but I'll still take that as a deterent. Better than rolling over and playing dead in the presence of the crickets.
And come to think of it, what exactly is Carla's proposal in this case? I guess that's another thing I'd like to "learn."
And how exactly do they prove that to her? Perhaps by telling her Rogue Nation X intends to set off a nuclear bomb in her city on Date X, and then doing nothing, and then letting it happen. That way, you know, we can all be certain they got it right.
She seems to think America belongs in some global Time Out room because we made everyone else so upset, because so many people feel we misled them (people who generally didn't believe us in the first place anyhow, and never will). So what happens then? The world goes on while we're bound down Gulliver-style. When do we get out of time out? When there's a Democrat in the White House, maybe? And what state will the world be in then?
Since when did left-wing progressives become ideologues on behalf of U.S. unilateralism? One of my points was that the rest of the world does matter. She says it doesn't. Iran doesn't matter? Iran having nuclear weapons doesn't matter? Israel doesn't matter? All that matters is America? Hello, Pat Buchanan.
I don't particularly trust all the cops in my town. They're few enough that I know many of them by name. I'm in a position to have to deal with them more than most people do. They're a mixed bag; some very good, some very bad. They've totally screwed up some cases. When a drunken idiot got into his pick-up and wiped out a family, they took pictures of the accident scene with a camera they forgot to load with film. Case thrown out. They come down especially hard on minorities. They seem to take a particular sadistic delight in doing what they do.
Do I want to abolish the police force? Take them off the street entirely? Do I blame the police for the drunk driver? When someone is trying to break into my house, am I going to call Kofi Annan? The local "Women in Black" chapter?
Learn, yourself. Learn to get real.
Her first words are, "Learn, dammit!" Lovely way to introduce yourself.
I'm probably even more ignorant than she thinks, though, because I've read her post several times and I can't for the life of me figure out what it is I'm supposed to learn from it. Unless by "learn" she means, "just start feeling the way I do," which is entirely possible.
She says it's so obvious that the U.S. military is overstretched. So obvious that even the Iranians and the Syrians know it. How she knows what they mutter over their dinner tables is a good mystery that goes unanswered.
"Wake up and smell the coffee, Callimachus. The US military is overstretched, overburdened and barely treading water when it comes to dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq."
I think we're doing far better than treading water in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's another story. [I have to wonder if the left believes that, in fact, this is the absolute limit of what we are capable of doing, why it raises a constant kerfluffle about not having had more "boots on the ground" in Iraq last year?]
But I do have to wonder how this stretched-to-the-breaking-point U.S. military managed to be in Sumatra firstest with the mostest in a matter of days after the tsunami, on top of everything else, while the U.N. was still trying to find a pair of matching socks and the FAX number for a five-star hotel in Singapore.
And I wonder how a United States with a smaller base population than it has today could have fielded armed forces that conquered the fascist empires of the 1940s, or stared down the Soviet Union in the 1980s.
But how can I "learn" if she's too busy posturing to teach? Or is this just another Michael Moore experience?
It seems clear to me, in spite of what she feels, that the U.S. military can deflate any "Axis of Evil" or rogue nation government with one hand behind its back. Defeating Syria? As one general said, "It would take seven days. One day to defeat Syria and six to stop laughing."
Nation-building is another story. Sowing seeds of democracy among the Middle Eastern tares is another story. That takes numbers, long-term planning, diverse structures, and creative capabilities. That takes long-term commitment by a voting populace willing to make a sacrifice for the good of the world and the future. Clearly our leadership hasn't done that job in Iraq as well as I wish it had, and clearly about half of our people aren't up for the job. But that wasn't the subject of my post, was it?
"Callimachus refuses to learn from history"
What history would that be? She mentions none. History of Gertrude Bell in the Middle East? History of Napoleon in the Rhineland? History of the Nazis in Yugoslavia? History of the post-Civil War U.S. South? I'll be glad to talk history, but you've got to name some. Otherwise, she's just doing the end-zone victory dance without actually scoring a single point.
"Not to mention the fact that we can't trust our intelligence community and the Executive Branch braintrust to get it right and not be completely wreckless. Or did you miss the fact that pretty much all of Bush's entire premise for invading Iraq has fallen apart like a cheap house of cards?"
Ah, now I get it. It's the tutti-frutti ranting style, where the only scoring system is based on how many anti-Bush tropes you can cram into one sugar cone. Don't even try to follow along; you'll strip the gears of your mind changing topics so quickly.
She's confusing two different points there. "Intelligence" in the spying sense is never exact. Someone smarter than me once explained it like this: You're the president, it's July 2006: the director of the CIA tells you there's a 50-50 chance that North Korea is going to transfer nuclear missiles to al Qaida in the next two weeks. What do you do? That's the nature of what is mis-called "intelligence."
[I also didn't miss the fact that it's "reckless" she's after and there's no such word as "wreckless," but she's the teacher and I'm the ignoramus, and it's not good form for the guy who's been handed the dunce cap to correct teacher.]
Bush's premise for invading Iraq always was a matrix of objections and arguments, best-guesses, certanties, and policies. It involved U.N. resolutions as well as neocon ethics. It was humanitarian and self-interested. It pitched its appeals with different weights in different places -- there was the domestic mix and the U.N. dance remix.
But when you add it up, yes, in fact, Saddam was a genocidal tyrant. Yes, he did try to get yellowcake from Niger. Yes, he did covet a WMD arsenal. Yes, the sanctions and inspections were keeping him from it, but that system was well on the way to breaking down, largely because he had discovered a way to subvert it.
"If you don't think the guys in charge of Syria, Iran and North Korea aren't paying attention to that uncomfortable fact, let me disabuse you of your illusions right now."
But actually, that fact, in this context, doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. I hope they're paying attention to our public disclosures about our intelligence in response to the Iraq war.
For one, real democracies have transparent institutions, and while I'm sure the mullahs are giggling like schoolgirls over the Congressional hearings, they may notice that their restless population has upped its respect for America a notch and longs for such transparency in Teheran.
For another, the leaders of Iran also now know this U.S. administration is willing to act, rather than wait for the perfect intelligence that never comes, or comes too late to be any good.
No doubt also they're paying attention to the fact that a large part of the Western public is more focused on hating America than on paying attention to what Iran or Syria or North Korea is doing. And no matter how badly Iran's leaders choose to misbehave, they know they can count on a large chunk of the Western "street" irrationally blaming everything on the U.S.
And what am I supposed to learn from that? Learn that the strong and willing and hopeful should give up and lie down and die because some crickets are chirping?
"While it may be gratifying to some base need to be a tough guy ... more arrogant posturing and ass-kicking style tactics will get us nowhere."
She conflates a tough negotiating position, and a tough frame of mind, with being a thoughtless physical bully. As a parent, I have to be tough and firm in my positions. That doesn't ever require me to raise a hand and do the slightest physical violence. People who can't differentiate the two probably shouldn't be parents. They certainly shouldn't dabble in world affairs.
"Why? The notion that we're there to back up our words with tough action....Bush and what army?"
That's the "Dirty Harry" question, isn't it?
Clint squints at the mullahs: "I know what you're thinking, punk. You're thinking, 'Has he got five divisions in Iraq, or just four?' Well, to tell you the truth, I've forgotten myself in all this excitement. But being as this is the U.S. military, the most powerful ass-kicker in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?"
Rather messy, but I'll still take that as a deterent. Better than rolling over and playing dead in the presence of the crickets.
And come to think of it, what exactly is Carla's proposal in this case? I guess that's another thing I'd like to "learn."
"And then there's the intelligence aspect. How can the American citizenry be sure that Bush, the CIA and other intelligence agencies haven't screwed up another country's information? We can't. The bottom line is ... we can't trust these guys to get it right. Until they can prove to us that they've managed to sort out their problems and reformed to the point where they are once again effective, there's no reason to believe they know what they're talking about."
And how exactly do they prove that to her? Perhaps by telling her Rogue Nation X intends to set off a nuclear bomb in her city on Date X, and then doing nothing, and then letting it happen. That way, you know, we can all be certain they got it right.
She seems to think America belongs in some global Time Out room because we made everyone else so upset, because so many people feel we misled them (people who generally didn't believe us in the first place anyhow, and never will). So what happens then? The world goes on while we're bound down Gulliver-style. When do we get out of time out? When there's a Democrat in the White House, maybe? And what state will the world be in then?
"The rest of the talk about Europe and Israel is useless and meaningless. This is about the US and what we can do and what we can't."
Since when did left-wing progressives become ideologues on behalf of U.S. unilateralism? One of my points was that the rest of the world does matter. She says it doesn't. Iran doesn't matter? Iran having nuclear weapons doesn't matter? Israel doesn't matter? All that matters is America? Hello, Pat Buchanan.
"And right now...we can't trust Bush and we can't trust the intelligence agencies to get it right."
I don't particularly trust all the cops in my town. They're few enough that I know many of them by name. I'm in a position to have to deal with them more than most people do. They're a mixed bag; some very good, some very bad. They've totally screwed up some cases. When a drunken idiot got into his pick-up and wiped out a family, they took pictures of the accident scene with a camera they forgot to load with film. Case thrown out. They come down especially hard on minorities. They seem to take a particular sadistic delight in doing what they do.
Do I want to abolish the police force? Take them off the street entirely? Do I blame the police for the drunk driver? When someone is trying to break into my house, am I going to call Kofi Annan? The local "Women in Black" chapter?
Learn, yourself. Learn to get real.
