Andrew Bacevich Jr. Killed in Iraq ~ Son of Prominent War Critic Dies By Suicide Bomber....

Iraqslogger ^ | 05/14/2007 9:30 PM ET | staff

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

A renowned professor and prominent critic of the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq has now lost his son to the war. Lt. Andrew Bacevich, Jr. was killed by a suicide bomber on Sunday.

A local Boston station reports that the younger Bacevich's captain said in an e-mail to the family that he was killed by a suicide bomber in a white sedan his unit had stopped on a main highway south of Samarra.

The DoD's official release of the incident reported on Monday that, "1st Lt. Andrew J. Bacevich, 27, of Walpole, Mass., died May 13 in Balad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his unit during combat patrol operations in Salah Ad Din Province, Iraq."

Andrew Bacevich, professor of International Relations at Boston University, has a long list of publications supporting his self-label of conservative, but he became disillusioned by what he viewed as an overreliance on military power driving foreign policy choices by "conservative" neocons of the Bush Administration.

In a conversation discussing his latest book, The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, Bacevich responded to a question asking if the neocons "believed too deeply in the hype of American hyperpower?," with the interviewer clarifying, "Ruling groups, even while manipulating others, often seem to almost hypnotically convince themselves as well."

Bacevich responded:

That's why I myself tend not to buy into the charge that Bush and others blatantly lied us into this war. I think they believed most of what they claimed.

[leadpenny]

Just as I thought. You’re anti American.

[RinaseaofDs]

Tremendous post.

In effect, that we can’t is the exception that proves the rule, and makes a case for something much more singular with respect to the role Islam has played, not just recently, but going all the way back to 670 AD.

[leadpenny]

“carrying water for traitors”

Let me guess, “traitors” are those who disagrees with the conduct of the war? What do we have left if Americans can’t speak freely about what they believe? Would it be worth defending?

[SoldierDad]

The problems we are having in Iraq have less to do with this man’s particular opinions than with the fact that our “leaders” in the opposition party (DemoncRats) have fought against this country (thereby providing aid and comfort to our enemies) and this war simply to assuage their hatred of the President. A country divided cannot stand, and we are almost there.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Might want to see this.....

Shi'ite cleric gains sway across border

[wideawake]

Let me guess, “traitors” are those who disagrees with the conduct of the war?

No traitors are, for one example, people who claim that we are at war only because the President "lied us into" it.

Bacevich's argument that Bush actually lied himself into war first, and then only accidentally lied the country into war believing the lies were true, is contemptible and separate from any criticism of the actual conduct of the war.

What do we have left if Americans can’t speak freely about what they believe?

No one is suggested that Bacevich should be prevented from continuing to spew his garbage.

[wideawake]

Correction: “has suggested”

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

There is a book (now available in paperback ):

***********************

Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left
(Hardcover)
by David Horowitz

********************************************************

And reviews:

****************************************

Editorial Reviews

Rich Lowry, Editor National Review

David Horowitz is synonymous with pyrotechnics. A historian and polemicist of the first order, he is paid the ultimate compliment --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Davis Hanson, Author, Ripples of Battle

An original look at those who want us to fail in the Middle East, both at home and abroad. The --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

***********************************************************

See all Editorial Reviews

Fascinating Analysis of Leftist Goals, August 13, 2006

Reviewer: N. Sincerity - See all my reviews

A former 1960s radical, Horowitz is well-acquainted with the Leftist mindset. In this book, he strives to explain the modern alliance between left wing progressivists and radical Islamofascists. He argues that this alliance is based on a common desire to destroy Western capitalism. Leftist sympathy with Islamofascist ideas makes no sense from an intellectual point of view, given that countries ruled by radical Islamists are among the most racist, sexist, theocratic states in the world today. However, Leftists have recognized that they can benefit politically from destructive terrorist attacks on the Western world. A West under attack can be made to turn on its leaders in fear and desperation (as they did in Spain after the Madrid train bombings). Only once people reject current government structures can the Left execute its anti-capitalist revolution and build a new reality that mirrors the Leftist view of utopia.

The complete and utter idealogical hypocrisy of the Islamofascist-Leftist alliance is distressing, but as Horowitz reminds us,

Leftists radicals truly believe the ends justify the means.

***************************************

[3niner]

There is nothing wrong with questioning the conduct of the war, with an eye toward improving it, but doing it in public serves only to embolden the enemy.

FDR made serious mistakes in the conduct of WWII, but they were not brought up publicly, during the war.

[monday]

That will last right up to the point when American troops leave. Then whoever comes out on top in the subsequent bloodbath will clamp down as tight as ever. Even now the government is clamping down on media reports of terrorist activities.

Muslims are fundamentally incapable of living in a free society. Unlike ordinary, sane human beings they have no civic values, no empathy for people outside of their tribe. Their world view is and always has been “us against the world”. Their culture more closely resembles that of dog packs than it does modern western culture.

Their idea of perfect government is is to install their own tribal or religious leader as absolute dictator and then help him enforce his will on the rest of the country. If you don’t believe me, just look at the scum Iraqis voted for given the opportunity to democratically choose their own leaders. Islamic culture makes termite mounds seem enlightened by comparison.

[3niner]

What do we have left if Americans can’t speak freely about what they believe?

Good Americans know when it is appropriate to "speak freely", and when to be more circumspect.

My own grandfather was monitored by the FBI, all through WWII. (Mostly done by neighbors on behalf of the FBI.) This was because he spoke freely (favorably) about Hitler, during the 1930s. He kept his stupid yap shut during the war, though.

[leadpenny]

One mistake FDR didn’t make was taking only a small fraction of the country to war. Had GWB done as FDR did, we might have a different homefront.

[whd23]

Bacevich Sr. emboldened the enemy by telling them that America is being defeated and we don't belong in the Middle East to begin with. Bacevich Jr. was killed by those receptive to that message. The son paid for the sins of the father.

Was this before or after OBL & crew killed 3,000 people on American soil? I'd say they were pretty bold before we were feeding our armed forces into a meat grinder in Iraq.

Should all war critics lose a child? Would that please you?

[whd23]

No one is suggested that Bacevich should be prevented from continuing to spew his garbage.

No, but more than one poster has suggested that he deserved to lose his son because of his statements. I guess some of the Bush boosters around here won't be happy until every person who disagrees with the president has a child killed.

[3niner]

Had GWB done as FDR did, we might have a different homefront.

Had Congress declared war, things could have gone very differently, too. You don't seem to understand that our President has been hamstrung during this entire operation, and has not been able to conduct this war like we conducted WWII.

That is not a legitimate excuse for emboldening the enemy.

[leadpenny]

You don’t seem to understand that the President is the CinC. He decided when and how we went to war.

[3niner]

...more than one poster has suggested that he deserved to lose his son because of his statements.

I do not believe that he deserved to lose his son, and I certainly don't think that his son deserved to die. However, he did contribute to the death of his son. Sedition matters, that's why it's illegal, and also why the laws against it used to be enforced.

[3niner]

Now you're being childish. President Bush has been allowed less power, in the conduct of this war, than any wartime President in history.

If you don't understand anything about history, or the various legal and practical limitations of Presidential power, you shouldn't get involved in this kind of discussion.

[leadpenny]

If you name call and tell me what I can discuss, you lose.

Are you saying we could only go to war in 2003 with the military we had on 9-11? What is it about the Presidency you don’t understand? Who is responsible for the situation in Iraq? Rumsfeld? Cheney? The Joint Chiefs? The War Czar? You know the answer. The Commander is responsible for all of it.