The Valor of the Columnists

The war appears to enjoy wide support, which gives the warmongers an opportunity to appear populist in their writing. National Review, for example, seems to have suddenly discovered that wisdom of the common man in contrast to the "cultural elites" who are said to have the most doubts about the war. Completely out of character, Ramesh Ponnuru, Rich Lowry, and the gang have risen to the defense of the workers and peasants.

What National Review doesn’t mention is the absence of support among the working class for the foreign policies that got us into this mess in the first place. I’d venture a guess that there’s less than 1 percent backing among full-time workers who earn less than $30,000 per year for permanent stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia, for example.

War populism is one thing. Far more bizarre is a related phenomena: the rise of blood-soaked rhetoric among the non-enlisted punditry class as a substitute for the display of classical virtues. This style is called various names, like Jacksonian or Churchillian. In this model of writing, nothing you say is too outrageous. The stronger your rhetoric, the more elevated the language ("we must vanquish the forces of evil"), the more courage, valor, and moral conviction it is said to represent, even when what you are advocating is immoral.

The idea is to appear, as you type into your word processor, to be unflinching in the face of the enemy, to contemplate and mentally conquer the possibility of horror. The ultimate objective is to break down the normal sense of morality that readers have ("Isn’t it wrong to punish or kill innocent people?") and replace it with a new wartime ethic and language ("No robust defense of national interests can rule the possibility, however regrettable, of civilian casualties").

Another trope is the use of the first person plural. "We must send in ground troops." "Our resolve must not lag." Never mind that the writer is neither a decision maker nor a fighter. This by itself is strange. If I said, "We must increase the production of Cadillacs," the normal response would be to ask what executive position at GM I hold. The listener would be confused to discover that I hold no position at all. Writers who use the first person plural to discuss US foreign policy do this all this time, but hardly anyone raises a question.

Let go on to an example. Rich Lowry has issued a call "to send U.S. troops in on the ground to capture key cities and hold that which we consider strategically essential.... there is no avoiding these hard decisions—because there are no free lunches, including in Afghanistan." Thus do we see how the courageous Rich, as a mere web journalist, has conquered the national reluctance ("hard decision") to send young men and women into a poor land, where there are hardly any paid lunches, to conquer and occupy civilian areas.

Rich is himself impressed by an even more vivid example of this style of thinking: Senator John McCain in an article for the Wall Street Journal:

"War is a miserable business. The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer and die. Commerce is disrupted, economies are damaged. Strategic interests shielded by years of patient statecraft are endangered as the exigencies of war and diplomacy conflict. However heady the appeal of a call to arms, however just the cause, we should still shed a tear for all that will be lost when war claims its wages from us."

Very chilling indeed. But McCain would have us believe that his frankness and courage have permitted him to deal with the awful realities to a greater extent than mere mortals.

"We must expect and prepare for our enemies to strike us again.... We cannot fight this war from the air alone. We cannot fight it without casualties. And we cannot fight it without risking unintended damage to humanitarian and political interests.... We must destroy them, wherever they hide. That will surely increase the terrible danger facing noncombatants, a regrettable but necessary fact of war.... We shouldn't fight this war in increments.... War is a miserable business. Let's get on with it."

Bracing stuff. We are supposed to respond with awe at his supposed toughness of mind. And yet even McCain couches matters just a bit more than is necessary in these times. He is still too guarded and not fully embracing the grim reality. For example, there’s no need to talk of "unintended damage" to "humanitarian...interests" when he really means imposing massive suffering and death on wholly innocent people.

And what’s with this "unintended" qualifier? Let’s say I wave a gun around the room and shout: "When I shoot this, I may unintentionally kill you." In court, will I be convicted of involuntary manslaughter or murder? McCain is talking here about doing exactly what he intends. Let’s not pussyfoot around.

McCain has stepped up the rhetoric, but not enough. If he and his editorial cohorts are really serious about this war, and truly committed to appearing brash and brawny to the readers of the world, they must move beyond euphemism altogether. Thus do I offer my own contribution to the escalation of courage notable among the writers of our time:

"Now is the time for us to stand up for honor and decency against vile foreign elements that threaten our way of life. Let us murder every foreign Muslim man, women, and child, and starve those we can’t find with cruel blockades, allowing anyone who remains to die miserable deaths from disease, even if it means hurting our economy and sending thousands of American men and women to their own violent deaths, leaving their own children and spouses abandoned. Let us flatten every mud hut, kill every goat and goatherd, blow the arms off little children with our bright yellow cluster bomblets. Do it with strength and honor, and do it now.

"This may incite more terrorism at home. We will endure it. Our cities may be bombed, our water poisoned, our highways wrecked, our hospitals turned into morgues. No price is too high.

"And, friends, we may never get Bin Laden. May we never stop trying. The Taliban may actually grow in strength, as governments attacked by foreigners tend to do. We will not flinch. We may cause every decent person in the entire world to despise America. But we will show the world that no insult can break our will. Our government may never again allow a foreign visitor or product to pass our borders. We will adjust and prevail.

"Yes, we will have to give up our liberty, property, and even family members. The money we earn from our jobs will be taken by the government and spent to create more weapons of mass destruction to be dropped on foreign people’s homes, hospitals, and water-treatment plants. They will thirst but have no drink, because we paid to destroy their clean water. They will hunger but find no food, because we made it possible to destroy their crops and any means of transport.

"Your son, whom you have nursed from sickness to health many dozen times from infancy through his teen years, may be slaughtered on some godforsaken mountain between China and the Caspian sea, because that’s where your government sent him to kill or be killed. Your daughter, whom you comforted through adolescence and later dressed so beautifully for the prom, may be ripped to shreds. So great is your courage and determination that this is the price you will pay.

"This war may never end. Every bomb we drop will create more enemies, and thus more people who must be killed. We will go anywhere to do this. If we discover that the Czech Republic or Costa Rica or even Berkeley, California, harbors these enemies, they too will become targets of our wrath. There is no place safe from the sword of justice!

"Your fellow citizens who have lent aid and comfort to the enemy, in thought, word, or deed, will be humiliated, robbed, jailed without trial. As for war supporters, we are safe so long as we never disagree with our government’s official line, which is the very definition of truth.

"To eliminate freedom and replace it with a police state is what our high ideals require of us. For we know that no matter what happens, it is the fault of our enemies, for they dare to believe of themselves what we believe of ourselves. Let us get on with the war!"

Where is the justification here? Who is being proved blameless? The driver, or the youths? Are you suggesting the youths were justified in "roughing" him up because he decided to take a short cut and ran out of gas? That's where your analogy fails. Your defense of your analogy (in italics) relies upon your own definition of "justification."

Oh good grief! Okay, let's try and finally put this one to bed. I'll explain the analogy.

Here goes...
Since 9-11, a number of people have pointed out the link between US foreign policy and the 9-11 attacks. Invariably they have been accused of saying that the attacks were justified because of US foreign policy. In fact, they were saying no such thing (apart from a few weirdos - try google-searching for "birdman wtc zog").

In my analogy, there is no justification for the attack on my wife and me, but that does not mean there isn't one or more explanation.

I have already explained to you that I mentioned the poverty of Afghanistan because it has made them less able to withstand a military attack, not because of some half-baked international socialist belief in the moral superiority of workers or somesuch.

LOL! You are the classic liberal hypocrite! I figured your name was meant sarcastically. Save yourself from yourself, first, and try that that page for yourself, big guy. Listen carefully, and try to comprehend... I'll use small words:

When... you... feel... that... something... non-economic... is... worse... for... poor... people... than... for... non-poor... people... then... you... are... using... Socialist... class... envy. The details are irrelevant.

Even if we were bombing France, the Bahamas, or Monaco, the individual citizens are JUST AS HELPLESS!!! The ONLY way to "withstand a military attack" is duck-and-cover.... rich or poor. The governments and their military might be better equipped to respond due to the national treasure... but... the... people... are... S-O-L... just... the... same. Having an eight-digit bank account won't help you when the explosions are ripping up the foundation of your mansion. Nobody will care if you have a credit card with a high limit when they are waiting for the Red Cross to come in with medicine and doctors. Nobody will let you cut in the bread line when the rationing begins because you have a more expensive pair of shoes on.

Understand?

Or are you pathetic enough to think that Afghanistan's poverty exempts them from warfare, and that the United States should only take military action against those with a GDP above 'acceptable' limits, set by the UN perhaps? Exactly how Socialist are you without even realizing it?

I'll try one last time, then I'm done with you: "Wealth level should NEVER determine how to behave in a certain situation." If that is a determinant for you, then you don't understand FReedom, liberty, equality under the law, fairness, morality, or the Constitution. Your comment, that Afghanistan should be given a pass simply because it is poor, was poorly thought-out, improper, anti-American and would be counter-productive if ever utilized at the national level.

/rant>

Understand?

/rant>

"Let's try a simple analogy. I take my wife on a drive to the other side of town. I take a short cut and run out of gas right in the middle of the most dangerous part of the city. We are quickly surrounded by youths who, despite looking like millionaire rappers, extract us from our vehicle, rough us up and steal all of our possessions. When the ordeal is over, my wife turns to me and refers to the mess into which I have got us. I correct her by pointing out, freeper-style, that it was in fact the local youths who got us into this mess. She looks at me as though I have completely lost my mind."

And your wife would be right, judging by your simple analogy, you have completely lost your mind.

A more accurate and relevant analogy would be that the youthful gang members have chosen a busy work day to visit YOUR very place of work. They proceed to kill the parking lot attendant, break in and steal YOUR car from the parking lot, and without so much as a "How do you do?", they crash it at full speed square into YOUR office... killing you, your secretary, and 90% of your employees. Now... do you spend your time in the afterlife worrying whether it was your "business practices" that provoked this unseemly turn of events, or could it be that, just maybe, those youthful gang members were really just evil, malignant, antisocial monsters who would kill you as soon as look at you?

And, oh, by the way... Bill will only bother save himself, if he can. He cares not what happens to you. His release of Puerto Rican terrorists for shallow and transparent political gain should be enough proof of that.

In my analogy, there is no justification for the attack on my wife and me, but that does not mean there isn't one or more explanation.

American foreign policy is NOT an explanation of the September 11 murder raids. Those who seize on it as an explanation are "yes-butters".

The murder raids were raids by psycho religious murderers who have a chip on their shoulders about everything and everybody who stands in the way of their dream of a world ruled by Islam and sharia law.

They, and their "yes-but" pals are going to get the can of whup-ass that they deserve.

LOL! You are the classic liberal hypocrite! I figured your name was meant sarcastically.

You figured correctly. My screen name was inspired by Bill's wonderful speech in Buffalo NY a few years ago. I can't remember his exact words but it was something like: "we'd let you keep your money if only you'd spend it right". Whattaguy. Anyway, that would make me a classical liberal hypocrite, not a classic liberal hypocrite.

When... you... feel... that... something... non-economic... is... worse... for... poor... people... than... for... non-poor... people... then... you... are... using... Socialist... class... envy. The details are irrelevant.

That is a nonsensical and thoroughly innaccurate description of Marxist doctrine. One doesn't have to be a fully paid-up commie to realize that the possession of wealth helps one ride through crises intact. By your rationale there would be no point in putting aside reserves to safeguard against recessions and the possiblity of unemployment. I can't believe I have actually needed to explain this.

Having an eight-digit bank account won't help you when the explosions are ripping up the foundation of your mansion.

Quite true. But it will definitely be quite useful when a neighbor's mansion goes up in smoke and you decide it's time to get the heck out of dodge. Walking for miles in freezing desert with no food is something not many of us in the West would have to do. I very much doubt that Afghan charities (hah!) have quite matched the $500M+ raised by the Red Cross etc either.

I was merely pointing out one of the many reasons why the effects of the war are particularly harsh. I oppose all non-defensive warfare, regardless of the GDP of the nation being attacked. However, wars that are likely to kill millions of civilians as opposed to hundreds are more of a concern.
Regarding being a socialist, I am not sure that is possible to be one of those at the same time as being a radical capitalist. I am the latter. My heroes are Mises and Rothbard, not Marx and Engels. Anyway, you have yet again demonstrated your utter misunderstanding of commie doctrine. A socialist foreign policy (if there is such a thing) would call for billions of dollars in aid for poor countries.

I'll try one last time, then I'm done with you: "Wealth level should NEVER determine how to behave in a certain situation."

You are arguing with a straw man. I never said it should determine behavior. If a judge mentions the mowed-down pregnant woman when summing up a drunk-driving conviction, should this be interpreted as an endorsement of getting boozed-up and mowing down men and childless women?

By your rationale there would be no point in putting aside reserves to safeguard against recessions and the possiblity of unemployment. I can't believe I have actually needed to explain this.

I can't believe it either... please re-read the part where I wrote very... slowly... using... small... words (post 48, so you can find it). I wrote that using economic strata in "non-economic" decisions was utilizing Socialist class envy. You come back with two ECONOMIC reasons for making ECONOMIC decisions, and then you act incredulous? C'mon, you can do better than that.

I never said it should determine behavior.

Wrong again. Are you reduced to lying now, or can't you even read your own posts?

Post #31: "However, the poverty of the Afghans is absolutely relevant because it means that attacks on them are all the more devastating."
You explicitly state that their poverty is relevant to the decision-making process regarding our bombing the poor nation of Afghanistan. That would fall into the category "determining behavior."

Right. The murder of Massoud two days before September 11 was just a BIG OL' COINCIDENCE

Speaking of coincidences, isn't it just amazing that the US got the Taleban to get rid of those bad old poppy crops just at the right time? Now, there's no cash crop, no food crop, and the Northern Alliance is still growing poppies. Let's see, those are our new "allies" right?

And another coincidence: the US told Afghanistan via Pakistan that they would be attacked no later than mid-October -- months before 911.

And speaking of truly amazing, how about this (you didn't see it in the New York Times).

Musharraf: From CIA With Love?

Musharraf: From CIA With Love?
This article speculates on the possible behind-the-scenes role of CIA Director George Tenet in fixing the Vajpayee-Musharraf talks. Pakistani hardliners too are reported to be angry with the General's decision to visit New Delhi.

Some circles in the US see a linkage between the recent high-profile visit of Mr.Richard Armitage, US Deputy Secretary of State, to New Delhi, the unpublicised visit of Mr.George Tenet, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), to Islamabad where he had an unusually long meeting with Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the self-styled Chief Executive of Pakistan, and the surprise decision of the Government of India to invite the General to New Delhi for talks without any longer insisting on the stoppage of Pakistani support to cross-border terrorism as a pre-condition for a resumption of the bilateral dialogue at the political level.

Mr.Armitage, who had spent some years of his career in the CIA/DIA and holds the highest Pakistani civil decoration that could be awarded to a foreigner for his role during the Afghan war of the 1980s, has a large circle of friends in the Pakistani military and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate.

Mr.Tenet had worked for some years as an aide to one of the Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committees before he was nominated by Mr. Bill Clinton as the Director of the CIA. Significantly, he was one of the very few ( the Director of the FBI was another) important appointees of the Clinton Administration to have been asked by President Bush to continue in his post despite the criticism of the functioning of the CIA and its failure to detect the preparations for India's Pokhran II nuclear tests of 1998 by Mr.Bush and his advisers during the Presidential election campaign last year.

These circles attribute this decision not to disturb Mr.Tenet from his post to an important behind-the-scene role, which he has reportedly been playing since last year in working for a rapprochement between the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Israel in West Asia and between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. Mr. Bush and his senior aides, who do not want the President to personally play an active mediatory role in West Asia or elsewhere similar to the high-profile roles played by Mr.Clinton, reportedly felt that US interests could be better served by continuing to use the deniable, stealth services of the CIA chief.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.