The Eye Of The Beholder (MALKIN UPDATE)

 

SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE ON MICHELLE MALKIN'S STALKING LAW PROFESSOR

No, this won't do.

Those of you who have been following my comment threads for the past few weeks have been witnessing and at times engaged with one of my commenters who has made it his business to boisterously oppose most opinions of mine and those voiced by my commenters. No problem with that.

Many times we debated and both myself and my commenters offered many links to support our various positions. But when the tables were turned, and detailed requests for supporting controversial assertions remained unanswered, a detailed list was submitted. The answer, "When in Rome...", suggesting that opinions and positions on my blog are not backed up with links or sources. Whilst predictable, it caused me to sit back and to reflect about the type of person who would make such an obviously false claim and to analyze who we are dealing with. 

It seemed to me, that nobody should just come along and make all these very detailed assertions and accusations and, when asked to support any of them, expect us to do his work. Worse still, that is what we have been doing all this time; yet everything has only been dismissed in a manner, which only ever confirmed contempt for our values and beliefs. I realized, that this type of person is truly intoxicated with his or her own self-righteousness. It occurred to me, that the refusal of this kind of opposition to support its assertions and accusations, reduces most of it to nothing more than hate-speech devoid of any substance and nothing more than juvenile attempts to spread poisonous propaganda.

I also had to laugh; all the various characterizations of Republicans describe in fact my view of this type of person to the core. Reading the comment section, I was reminded of the beauty of these exchanges in so far as that all participants are judged only by what they say and how they say it; only by their written conduct. And what stood out, was the consistent display of one of the worst traits: always tearing down what others have build; always assuming 20/20 vision after the fact, whilst arrogantly claiming the "I told you so" posture.

We have all met people with this kind of attitude in real life; people of this kind rarely create anything, aggressively support mostly the lunatic fringe of political life, contribute rarely anything to society and mostly burden the social support system. But are always at the ready to tear other, more gifted and courageous people's achievements down. People of this kind, when accidentally catapulted into positions of influence, routinely and deliberately committed some of the worst crimes against humanity known in history: French revolutionary Robespierre, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong. If you have time, read the fight to defend the lost cause amongst Socialists and Marxists spanning over one and a half years at Dean's World, all set off by this:

During the years 1958 and 1959, China experienced what was hailed by Marxists as the "Great Leap Forward." During this time, Mao's regime was directly responsible for between 30 and 40 million deaths. Starting in 1966 (the year of my own birth), a lesser pogrom known as the "Cultural Revolution" began, with a new wave of terror and torture that killed mostly-uncounted numbers of people. Mao Zedong was, quite simply, the greatest mass-murderer in human history.

All these mindful murderers shared the same trait as the type of people here represented by our commenter, the trait, which for many days now, has been clearly portrayed in every comment thread: a complete and pathological lack of humility and an absolute conviction to have discovered an absolute truth, thus occupying a position of absolute 'moral' superiority.

The hatred for President Bush is most likely nothing more than a projection of his or her own character coupled with convictions held in the absolute. The President's crime is merely, that in their mind, he has been 'too dimwitted' to have discovered the same absolute truth as they have. I can feel their pain; I can feel their frustration; it must be torment when those around them refuse to see the light. Thank God that theirs is nothing but an impotent anger, that they are unarmed, but for their keyboards. Otherwise this type would soon find ways to 'encourage' those poor benighted souls to see the light.

MALKIN UPDATE : My God, and I think I have problems. One of my favorite bloggers Michelle Malkin, has an unhinged Law Professor by the name of Eric Muller on her case stalking her every keypad move, timing her itinerary, and attacking her integrity and work ethic.

Even the liberal Talk Left blog finds it creepy.

Michelle's cool answer: "Thanks for the back-handed compliment. Now, I suggest you get. A. Life."

My comment on his 'Is It Legal' site, which is still up for approval I am posting here, as I notice that the Talk Left comment is still not up despite it being posted yesterday: "What is your problem? You really do need to get a life, get out more, read up on the technology possibilities of today. You are stuck in a time warp, and attempting to argue in your echo chamber court of law with outdated arguments.

As for "The jury may not be in, but they're knocking on the door."

The only knock on the door you will hear is someone coming to take you away, somewhere where you can't hurt yourself anymore."

The Talk Left comment is excellent and should be publicized:

Eric, I have to agree this was a cheap shot.

More importantly, an airline radio exec told me yesterday within the next few months domestic airlines will be equipped with wi-fi so we can blog in the air. He was excited about it because for the airlines it means that some of their in-air programming will be accessed by fliers via their computers on the internet, rather than by the airlines having to pay the cost to get a copy of the program aboard every plane. Or something like that -- it was a sales pitch call, so I was blogging as I was listening to him and may have missed something.

Also, I don't see anything wrong with changing the time of blog posts either to have them more spaced out throughout the day or evening, or to put a morning time on something that was written at 2 am. It's a privacy and security issue, I really don't want people to know when I'm online and when I'm not.

I am beginning to think there was a reason for posting the painting above after all...

From the talented liberal blogger Michael van der Galien:

Weird people are everywhere. Sadly that means they participate in the blogosphere as well. The latest weird person in the blogosphere is the law professor Eric Muller. He is stalking Michelle Malkin; tracing every step she takes: Calculating whether or not she was able to post her articles at the time she did. After that, he writes an article in which he simply proves to everybody that he is nothing but a weird, stalking person.

Confederate Yankee, puts forward some long and thoughtful arguments and concludes:

For someone teaching law, Eric Muller presents a laughably weak case. Perhaps his obsession has cut too much into his sleep.

For his students' sake, I hope he gets the help he needs.

Other bloggers on this: Mac @ MVRWC,  Wizbang Bomb Squad, Dan Riehl, TigerHawk, James Joyner @ Outside The Beltway, Greg @ Political Pitbull, Right Wing Nation, bRight & Early, Don't Go Into The Light 

Comments

[Joseph Marshall]

Well, we appear to be talking at cross-purposes on all our issues. It seems to me that there is very little for me to add to what I have already stated in my last post.

So I am perfectly willing to leave the matter here, since, unlike David Byron, I do this merely for personal entertainment, with no expectation of either changing anybody's mind or winning a debating trophy.

And I would not want to give anyone the least impression that I am the sort of fellow to start a political pogrom at the drop of a hat, merely because I speak forthrightly on a blog or two.

[Saul Davis]

Mr. Marshall: I may be missing something -- I am a little slow today because of work overload. But I believe that you have completely missed Alexandra's point, and that of my subsequent comment; I do not know if it was intentional -- I will give you the benfit of the doubt, and assume that you were not intending to lose the point of the comparison by Alexandra.

You state: "Millions of reams of paper have been sacrificed over the last three centuries to establish their "basis", and justify their policy. Can you even conceive of Attila The Hun or Genghis Khan [to take a couple of human monsters of the same scale] bothering with this? Or Napoleon, Hitler, and Mussolini, for that matter?"

My point, and I believe that of Alexandra's in the comparison between Mr. Byron, Stalin and Mao, possessed no relation to the bases of Mao's and Stalin's political beliefs or policies -- which themselves (?) are quite controversial. Rather, it is the manner in which they treated those who questioned those policies with facts or valid arguments. Stalin and Mao did not respond to intellectual criticism with papers that justified their position. Their reponses are historical fact. They did not accept valid factually based questions or criticism -- they simply executed their critics and opponents. The comparison between Mr. Byron, Stalin and Mao is with their thought processes in response to fact-based criticism or questions of their policies. That intolerance to proper intellectual fact-based debate, and the inability to even understand the raison d'etre of the opposing points of view -- coupled with the inability or declination to support positions that have been controverted, demonstrates similarities in the thought processes of all 3. It is an inability to see any validity in the points raised by the opposition, and/or a destructive response. Your responses completely miss the point.

You also state: [I leave out the quote from Mrs. Malkin because of the already undue length of this comment -- it is not necessary at this point here] "I said she has 'all but advocated' the internment of American Muslims, I have said so after reading this sort of thing, and I meant what I said. I also think that anyone who reads the above quotation and does not understand what I mean [even if they disagree with what I say] is either a fool or willfully obtuse."

Well I guess I am either a fool or willfully obtuse; but let me explain my foolishness (my apologies for the length of this comment); 1. I do not see a relationship between advocating profiling to avoid terrorist activities as "all but advocat[ing]" internment of all, a majority, or even many Muslims; initially, when there have been repeated convictions of Muslims -- of a particular age group and gender -- for planning and/or assisting terrorist activities here and abroad, when all of the Sep 11 terrorists were Muslims of that age and gender group, etc., then PROPER profiling is not only warranted, but should be encouraged; profiling is not the equivalent of, or the next step to internment in any manner, shape or form. See for example an intellectual discussion of the propriety of ethnic profiling, and the necessity to mandate built-in protections regarding the manner of profiling that would pass Constitutional muster, in:

http://www.cato.org/current/terrorism/pubs/levy-011002.html

This analysis clearly demonstrates that there can be valid profiling within the confines of the Constitution -- in particular, this is demonstrated by the author's statement that:
"But second, government may not discriminate unless it adopts means that are "least restrictive" when compared against alternative approaches to accomplish the same ends. That second principle will ultimately control disputes over ethnic profiling."

It also clearly demonstrates that advocating proper profiling should not, to my obtuse logic, lead to the type of internment that occurred during WWII, or operate as the equivalent of advocating such internment, when the Constitution and decisions of the courts indicate that there must be valid and limited criteria for profiling -- the Fourth Amendment only prohibits "unreasonable" searches; reasonable searches are permitted and have been upheld in hundreds of decisions.

see also: 1. http://hnn.us/articles/9512.html, by an apparent Muslim or Arab American, who advocates resaonable ethnic profiling while finding the Japanese internment abhorrant.
2. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew39.htm;
3.http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bctwj/25_1/06_TXT.htm

More importantly, your own quote of Mrs. Malkin clearly demonstrates [to my obtuse and foolish logic] that she did not
advocate internment of all, a majority of or many Muslims. Your quote states: "I was compelled to write this book after watching ethnic activists, historians, and politicians repeatedly play the World War II internment card after the September 11 attacks." That quote clearly indicates to me that she was of the opinion that the "World War II internment card" was an illogical basis for precluding proper profiling. If she derides those who argue against profiling with their use of the "World War II internment card", then she apparently is not stating that profiling will or could or may lead to indiscriminate internment.

My examination of Mrs. Malkin's book, and the subsequent debates with Prof. Mueller (not sure of the spelling), indicate that she chose to defend the internment, based upon historical facts such as the Magic files, BECAUSE the internment was being used as a worst case scenario in opposition to reasonable and legal profiling. As an aside, her defense of the internment was supported by, among other things, the Supreme Court of the United, and the "Magic" files. The validity of that defense is a separate question, and should not be used as a means of denigrating a Constitutionally valid system of profiling.

2. The fact remains that many countries have used ethnic profiling to prevent terrorist activities, AND there has been no indiscriminate internments that resulted from such profiling.
See: 1. http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-360509 -- countries such as France have used ethnic profiling. Israel has used reasonable profiling to prevent terrorist acts on her airline flights. There has not been ANY terrorist activity on El Al flights for the last 30 years. Yet this has not led to broad indiscriminate internment of Arabs in Israel. Arabs constitute approximately 1/4 of the Israeli population, and those citizens have not been interned.

3. With all that was said, even if Mrs. Malkin advocated internment, that is her right under the Constitution. That right does not, and should not operate as a basis for the vile, uncivilized and deranged vituperation heaped upon her by the LLL.

So Mr. Marshall I hope you will excuse me if my poor foolishness and obtuse thinking fails to understand the logic of your comment.

[Nightfighter]

Beautiful,

Those kind of people are fundamentally dishonest and are not worth the time it takes to thoughtfully respond.

[Joseph Marshall]

a position as empirical fact, without basis,

However true this may be of David, it is most emphaticly not true of Robspierre, Stalin, or Mao. And to say so is to massively misread history. French Jacobin Democracy and 20th Century Communism were two of the most elaborately "rational", "intellectual", and "philosophical" approaches to politics that have ever been promulgated. Millions of reams of paper have been sacrificed over the last three centuries to establish their "basis", and justify their policy. Can you even conceive of Attila The Hun or Genghis Khan [to take a couple of human monsters of the same scale] bothering with this? Or Napoleon, Hitler, and Mussolini, for that matter?

The real flaws of Robespierre, Stalin, and Mao, were, frankly, the flaws of the intellectual systems they embraced, which massively magnified the power of banal individuals of no truly distinct character or very high intelligence.

Without those systems, all three of those men are not likely to have done any more than tyrannize a home, a workplace, or, at most, a neigborhood. It was the "basis" that made their horrors possible.

The first hubris of the professional intellectual is the failure to understand that merely because a systematic explanation is "rational" [this, by the way, is not a synonym for "correct"] this does not mean that the attempt to apply it to actual human beings, and to social, political, and economic life, will lead to results that are humane. Both the late French Revolution and 20th Century Communism are monuments to the evil power of this hubris.

I have visited Mrs. Malkin's site on an almost daily basis; I have never to my recollection read any statements by her that would advocate, or "all but advocate" "rounding up all Muslims in America and placing them in internment camps." Can you point me to some of the statements by Mrs. Malkin upon which you rely for such an outlandish position?

I quote from About In Defense of Internment, which I believe is on her website:

It offers a defense of the most reviled wartime policies in American history: the evacuation, relocation, and internment of people of Japanese descent during World War II (three separate actions which are commonly lumped under the umbrella term “internment”). My book is also a defense of racial, ethnic, religious, and nationality profiling (widely differing measures that are commonly lumped under the umbrella term “racial profiling”) now being taken or contemplated during today’s War on Terror.

I was compelled to write this book after watching ethnic activists, historians, and politicians repeatedly play the World War II internment card after the September 11 attacks.

I said she has "all but advocated" the internment of American Muslims, I have said so after reading this sort of thing, and I meant what I said. I also think that anyone who reads the above quotation and does not understand what I mean [even if they disagree with what I say] is either a fool or willfully obtuse.

The second hubris of the professional intellectual is the refusal to draw the reasonable, but inhumane, conclusions from their inflammable premises. We can call it the "oh no, I never really said that!" tactic.

Ms. Malkin defends the internment of Japanese for security reasons in World War II. She also defends, in the same book, the "racial, ethnic, religious, and nationality profiling" of government security agencies after 9/11.

The mere bracketing together of these issues clearly implies two things: the post 9/11 security situation is fully as grave as World War II and that any security measure taken during World War II, including ethnic internment of American citizens, would be equally justified in the post 9/11 world.

Moreover, she has made it perfectly plain that In Defense of Internment is not merely abstract scholarship, but that it was deliberately written as a piece of political coat-trailing and polemical controversy. Therefore it was written as a defense of at least the hypothetical possibility of a Muslim American internment.

I cannot see how any one with plain common sense would attempt to argue otherwise.

Now, granted, it remains "hypothetical". This is why I said "all but advocated", because she evades the perfectly logical extension of her premises into genuine public policy. And she evades it with considerable literary talent and skill.

But I think it disingenuous on the part of Ms. Malkin or anyone else to pretend to unawareness or lack of understanding of the logical implications of what she is willing to say.

Such evasion and such disingenuousness, no matter how well written, offends my taste.

I repeat, I do not defend derangement or verbal abuse. But, frankly, I think Ms. Malkin has gotten plenty of useful mileage out of any ugly e-mails sent to her, a whole book out of it, in fact. If the correspondence are indefensible, it is also the case that Ms. Malkin clearly needs no defense and is perfectly capable of taking care of herself.

As to my own style of controversy, I am perfectly well aware that I am a guest of the Baroness here. She has not written me to say I am unwelcome. If she does, I will cease to comment. My fellow commentors have lately been inclined to question my “tact” and “nuance”. I certainly am direct. But I think that many are simply not used to someone of liberal political opinions who is not secular and thus intellectually hampered in articulating a religious moral vision and moral standards in plain and uncompromising words. We are, after all, rather rare.

[Saul Davis]

Mr. Marshall, you stated: "I would point out that someone like Michelle Malkin, who has all but advocated rounding up all Muslims in America and placing them in internment camps, has no grounds for complaint even when she generates the strongest personal reactions."

I have visited Mrs. Malkin's site on an almost daily basis; I have never to my recollection read any statements by her that would advocate, or "all but advocate" "rounding up all Muslims in America and placing them in internment camps." Can you point me to some of the statements by Mrs. Malkin upon which you rely for such an outlandish position? Your tact here seems to be very similar to that of the subject of this article by Alexandra. Are you Mr. Byron with a new nomme de plume?

Furthermore, since when did advocating a position operate as a basis for the truly vile emails that she has received; have you read her book Unhinged? I have. And I can unequivocally state that the email statements she reprints in her book (from what I understand, these are the proverbial drop-in-the-bucket) are truly vile and uncivilized. The individuals who made those statements need some serious psychological counseling, and their statements reflect that they are in the category of the "deranged," at the very least.

You also state:

"But, even with all this, comparison of either David or Muller to Mao and Stalin is patently absurd. We are deceived by the fact that three of the least pleasant and most destructive men of the past two centuries--Napoleon, Hitler, and Lenin--have had an unusual level of lunatic personal chairisma, strategic genius, or both together, that makes them glamourous in the their evil."

I think we all agree that Mr. Byron is not in the same league as Mao or Stalin -- very few are. But you seem to be missing Alexandra's point. The type of characteristics demonstrated by Mr. Byron are the same as those demonstrated by Mao and Stalin -- advocacy of a position as empirical fact, without basis, and "destruction" (albeit on a verbal rather than physical level) of all of those who denigrated that position with verifiable fact. That type of delusional thinking and advocacy can lead to destruction of those who dispute them, given the completely delusional nature of those who express those positions. The difference is that Mr. Byron was not in a position of power, while Mao and Stalin were.

[North by Northwest]

Alexandra, about your update:

I think this comment on the Professor Eric Muller blog, dealing with his rants about Michelle Malkin sums it up quite nicely for me:

Eric, just to adddress some of the things you were asking about on Michele Malkins Website.

1) a professional journalist, columnist, and author like Michele could easily have posted those updates in the time frame you sited above. She would have to be skilled typist for here choosen trade to start with. For a skilled typist to put out that amount of information is easy.
2) any good researcher such as Michele, would have performed her research and developed the story in her mind before she even set down at the key board. Unlike me, or the causual blogger, her mind is trained and geared for that kind of performance. She was a journalist and columnist long before she was a blogger. And in that buisness, if you don't think and produce fast, you don't stay in buisness.
3) Laptops and portable devices are not required to be turned off on the airplane. Only on take off and landing. On a three hour flight, maybe thirty minutes of the flight. (Yes I have flown a lot) That still leaves 2.5 hours for typing, plus the terminal time. Plenty of time.
4) posting from a plane is a simple matter now days. Most planes have phones in the seats ecspecially airlines that cater to the buisness crowded. It would be expensive to use, but then it is a buisness expense.
5) the fact that you didn't find flights at the times you listed, doesn't mean there isn't any. Most online sites are going to be like most travel agents, they are only going to have available what the airline makes available to them. There could very well be other flights.
Did you call every possible airline? There are an awful lot of them out there.
6) Most major airports now have some type of wireless hub or internet cafe. And almost all are broadband connections. To add something to a blog only takes a few minutes, if that long.
7) The posting time mark on the blog is the time where the blog server is located. In other words, if the blog is one a server in DC, the time mark will be in the Eastern Time Zone. But if she is to the west, the time zone she is in will be 1 or more hours behind that.
8) Your rant sounds like a liberal who can not beat Michele's arguements, so instead, you resort to the personal attack that she is not able to do this. You insult her and thus try to diminish her in the eyes of her readers becuase you can not defeat her arguments. Or you are some bigoted liberal who thinks that conservative women are kept bare foot and pregnant, and thus she is to stupid to do this on her own, and her husband is using her name to hide behind. Whatever the reason, your attack is pathetic and simple minded.

[David]

Well, I'm getting in on this a little late. Been hung up in some RWE things and am seriously behind on reading my fav blogs--like yours, Alexandra.

If y'all are referring to the commenter I think you are, I believe I can relate.

"...make all these very detailed assertions and accusations and, when asked to support any of them, expect us to do his work..."

I've had trolls attack statements of fact I've asserted in similar fashion. If, after one or two times ignoring my instruction to "Go do your own homework, then come back and we'll talk" they still refuse to back anythinbg they say with facts, I simply ban 'em. And teach my SPAM filters to recognize their tactics if they try using anonymous proxy servers or other means to duck back in.

Life is simply too short to spend too much of it attempting to instruct self-made idiots. Just as normal people learn to walk around the loon standing on the street corners shouting about "Blue flames! Blue flames!"without making eye contact, so too ought we to simply ignore those who refuse to support their arguments with facts or make well-reasoned arguments from facts.

Ig nore and shut 'em out, once we know the limits of their fantasyland.

Life is just too short to fool with 'em on a blog, on a street corner or anywhere, for that matter. If they make threats of violence, THEN deal with them appropriately. Otherwise, shut the door. With them on the other side.

[Joseph Marshall]

I hold no brief to defend anyone who allows personal emnity to pair with sharp political disagreement. Such as do are immature at best and deranged at worst. David Byron, I think, was a case of the former, and it sound like Eric Muller is one of the latter.

I make it a personal rule never to post comments on blogs when I do not personally like the blogger. It's a rule that I recommend to anyone and, if you cannot bring yourself to like anyone whose political views disagree sharply with your own, then simply don't indulge your "righteous indignation". It's not likely to change anybody's mind, after all.

That said, however, I would point out that someone like Michelle Malkin, who has all but advocated rounding up all Muslims in America and placing them in internment camps, has no grounds for complaint even when she generates the strongest personal reactions. Nor have her fans. Ann Coulter bemoaning hate mail would be even more ridiculous, but not by much.

But, even with all this, comparison of either David or Muller to Mao and Stalin is patently absurd. We are deceived by the fact that three of the least pleasant and most destructive men of the past two centuries--Napoleon, Hitler, and Lenin--have had an unusual level of lunatic personal chairisma, strategic genius, or both together, that makes them glamourous in the their evil.

Robspierre, Stalin, and Mao, along with Mussolni and Pol Pot, are noteworthy for their personal ordinariness, and for a brand of literal-minded common sense, which bears no relationship whatever to overwrought bee-in-a-bonnet merchants on the Internet.

It would be truer to say, I think, that such characters are more likely to be the followers listening to the mesmerizing speaches of the glamourously heinous than anything else.

[epaminondas]

MALKINOLOGY - (ITIS) Having read 'Unhinged', which makes liberal use of her received emails, their some very scary stuff, in particular the use fo a 4 letter word connoting female genitalia which my Social worker daughter militantly has alwasy insisted is the demarcation line of abuse. Thi smakes for interesting irony..the left makes it 'OK' to abuse the female as long as the female is on the right. As someone who considers themselves to be a liberal of the Truman/FDR/SJackson/HHH 'civil rights' with stong defense and foreign policy era, the words fail me to describe this phemonenon.

While I don't think e-stalking is a crime, public exposure of these lunatics is a must. Geolocation of IP address anyone? Everyonr that hits my blog or this blog or any site, must expose their IP address unless youa re there with an anonymizer (which may block your ability to comment). With a littel work these nut jobs can be located by the 'host' IP adress they arrive with. Nothing like the deterrence of public exposure to tamp down and deter whacko behavior by OCD fringers on both ends.

[epaminondas]

Saul, I have all of Marx memorized ...the other one, with the 'brothers'

Actually that quote is on the first page of one of the greater modern histories ever written, which is THE CONQUERORS, by Michael Beschloss. Both this and Goodwin's latest because of the liberal use of memoirs and letters in the tug of wars of 'reality', and holding that up to the events as they unfolded (sometimes day by day) a picture arises which makes it clear that what is going on today is not some screw-up by fools, but rather typical when compared with inarguably one of the greatest successes of ALL history ..the occupation of germany, how it arose, and how it was carried out.

Human affairs are a mess. Always will be.

[Michael van der Galien]

Wait... how did this thread become about Iraq? Was this thread not about how to talk to eachother? How to debate with eachother? With respect for what the other person says? And that people get annoyed if particular commenters constantly talk downgrading to the others, insulting them, not listening to the arguments of the other side and when asked to provide 'proof' for ones opinion, not doing so?

[Saul Davis]

Epaminondas do you have an inventory of these types of quotes; you seem to come up with some pretty good ones.

[Saul Davis]

Oops -- should have proof read -- "the" should be "then." My apologies.

[Saul Davis]

Epaminondas: "For critics of the 'occupation' I have one phrase only ..see iof you can find it's author

'The success of this occupation can only be judged fifty years from now. If they, at that time have a stable, prosperous democracy, then we shall have succeeded'"

Love Google -- Jim Wilkinson, Deputy National Security Advisor for Communications, quoting the Gen Eisenhower, June '45 regarding occupation of Germany.

[epaminondas]

For critics of the 'occupation' I have one phrase only ..see iof you can find it's author

"The success of this occupation can only be judged fifty years from now. If they, at that time have a stable, prosperous democracy, then we shall have succeeded"

Those are history's words uttered before history's judgement by a wise and experianced man.

Those whose caterwauling (sans URL provenances no less) continally seek to define their own intemperate, childishly short timelines for what defines success transparently display their impatient and unending desire to see certain leaders (parties, ideologies?) fail, and to achieve this, in a world of solipsoid delusion imagine that this consequence for our nation is either devoid of negative consequences, or that we deserve them. I have never understood such a mindset.

[Liquidlifehacker]

Hey Ghost, when you are staring at reality as it has unfolded for the chickenhawks why don't you ever see that maybe if we would give up the political correctness that things would get better! Thats how we will win any war...when we stop pacifying the PC!

[Patrick]

This can be a minefield for me; however I do want to raise one fundamental point to Ghost. Civilian control of the military = Chain of Command.

It sounds like a great idea to just say no; however that is incompatible with military service. Bravery has nothing to do with it. If an officer disagrees with the decisions of those placed over him, his recourse is to reasonably voice his opinion (which was done) and then either accept the dangerous mission, or tender his resignation. That resignation can be refused and if the order is not obeyed, then UCMJ is next. If you firmly believe that the order is not illegal, but still shouldn't be obeyed, you should act with your conscience and enjoy your time at Leavenworth.

Let me be clear that the military personnel are only allowed to (lawfully) refuse illegal orders, not simply orders they do not agree with. Don't get me started on the race to the airfield incident with our NATO bretheren. It demonstrates very well what happens when "people" get to choose the orders they obey. The reason for this draconian chain of command is that what seems an unwise decision at one echelon can be necessary for the good of a larger operation. Time is usually of the essence and we cannot spend time building consensus agreement with in the group. This is why the CoC and UCMJ are constructed the way they are. It gives us unity of command.

My typical illustration is that placing a platoon is a very difficult defensive position might seem poor tactics at the platoon level; however at the company or battalion level, that platoon defending any other position would leave an exposed seam and allow the enemy to penetrate the defense and defeat the force in detail. Not a situation you want to be in.

According to doctrine, the military is only one part of the national strategic power. You need to apply the four elements to every situation (Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic-DIME for us knuckle dragging idiots). The civilian leadership at the top has the responsibility to choose how to employ those four elements in concert to achieved the desired results.

The military is responsible to execute those orders to the best of its ability. As I was always told, you get one shot to tell your boss your concerns/objections and offer an alternative. If that is not accepted, execute the mission.

Let me emphasize the most important fact again. Civilians control our military. That is as it should be. The military's job is to be as good an instrument for national policy as possible. We defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic, but our job is not to guess "the will of the people". That is why we have elected or senate confirmed appointed officials who have final say over the highest military persons. Our military should never choose the wars we fight, nor should posse comitatus ever be repealed. There are too many example around the world where the military has too much power. We are just one very visible instrument of national power.

The military must remain apolitical and respect those appointed over us regardless of party or ideology, just as we demand that of our soldiers. It would be too easy for any military to quickly become enamored of itself and think it knows what is best for its citizens. We have many examples of this throughout the world. No person or organization is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. That is all I will say on this "direction" Ghost turned this discussion.

[Ghost Dansing]

But Dubya really ISN'T a very capable or competent president, and everybody by sychophants can see that!

He hasn't actually "built" anything to tear down...in fact he and his Republican administration are single-handedly (or would that be ham-handedly with multiple ham-hands...or maybe blockheads would be better) putting a wrecking-ball to America.

And as for "I told 'ya so":

In October 2002, when it became evident that Dubya was determined to invade Iraq, the US Army War College's strategic studies institute undertook a study of a prospective occupation. Some bright soldiers and diplomats got together with two military academics, Dr Conrad Crane and Dr Andrew Terrill. The fruits of their labours were published in February 2003, before the first shot was fired.

Today the study seems stunningly prescient. First, it highlighted previous failures to address the problems of occupation, notably after the 1991 Gulf war. A senior commander on the ground, it said, "could get no useful staff support to assess and plan for post-conflict issues like hospital beds, prisoners and refugees, complaining later that he was handed 'a dripping bag of manure' that no one else wanted".

In 2003, the study predicted, after a brief initial honeymoon "suspicion of US motives will increase ... A force initially viewed as liberators can rapidly be relegated to the status of invaders ... Regionally, the occupation will be viewed with great scepticism, which may only be overcome by the population's rapid progress towards a secure and prosperous way of life ... The establishment of democracy or even some sort of rough pluralism in Iraq ... will be a staggering challenge". It warned that exile groups, the focus of Pentagon hopes, did not possess the domestic support to form a credible Iraqi interim administration.

Crane and Terrill forecast the alienation of Sunnis dispossessed of power, and the difficulties of reconciling a society riven by religious and tribal divides. They anticipated an insurgency, and highlighted the importance of training US soldiers in the specialised skills of low-intensity combat against guerrillas in the midst of a civilian population.

They identified suicide-bombing as the insurgents' likely tactic of choice, noting that Israel had been able to stem this threat only by building its security wall, not an option in Iraq: "All Arabs ... are now learning stunning lessons about the effectiveness of suicide bombers."

Crane and Terrill summarised their conclusions thus: "To be successful, an occupation ... requires much detailed inter-agency planning, many forces, multi-year military commitment, and a national commitment to nation-building. Recent American experiences with post-conflict operations have generally featured poor planning, problems with relevant military-force structure, and difficulties with a handover from military to civilian responsibility."

There is today much criticism of American and British intelligence about Iraq before the invasion. We know that both the CIA and the Secret Intelligence Service got it wrong about weapons of mass destruction. Yet allied commanders had access to a mass of shrewd analysis, of which the Crane-Terrill study, from a respected US army institution, is only the most striking example. All such material was tossed aside, of course, because it did not fit the administration's agenda.

Intelligence and predictive analysis can never be more useful than the political and service chiefs to whom they are submitted. In Afghanistan today, almost all the smart diplomats, soldiers, journalists and intelligence-gatherers agree that Nato plans to deploy a few thousand troops to support reconstruction amount to gesture strategy of the worst sort. The policy survives only because it represents the highest common factor of Nato nations' willingness to act, a pitiful political figleaf rather than a coherent military operation.

Perhaps the most important lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan is that senior soldiers on both sides of the Atlantic should be braver about saying no. Armed forces are the servants of democratic governments. But their commanders should recognise a constitutional duty to dig in their heels when invited by politicians to undertake operations they perceive as militarily unsound. This the 2003 Iraq invasion emphatically was, because of the US government's refusal meaningfully to address "phase IV" occupation planning.

Cobra II, the new book by Michael Gordon and General Bernard Trainor, which was serialised in this newspaper, makes plain that much of America's military leadership was uncomfortable with the operation, and thought the terms set by defence secretary Rumsfeld quite unrealistic. Yet the doubters stifled their feelings, and the dissenters were sidelined. There was enough ambitious, heedless top brass in the mould of General Tommy Franks to do the business.

Iraq has demonstrated what happens when governments are allowed to defy informed opinion and pursue ideologically driven adventures. There will come a time when the west has vital reasons to stage another armed intervention somewhere in the world. When it does, we need to feel confident that the chiefs of staff on both sides of the Atlantic will speak their minds if they are invited by government to execute a policy that they judge ill-conceived.

We ourselves, as citizens, must know enough to exploit our democratic institutions to prevent another such fiasco as Iraq. Any US soldier or civilian who read the Crane-Terrill report back in 2003 should have recognised that refusal to heed its wise strictures promised disaster, and indeed delivered it.

Don't have to go far to find cogent criticism of Dubya and this Republican administration. Don't even have to go to Liberals, although their criticism is just a cogent. Just have to take a good long stare at reality as it has unfolded for the chickenhawks.

[Michael van der Galien]

Patrick,

I agree. Very well put.

[weekenderman]

Actually, Alexandra, as irritating as said commentator has been on your blog, he is not nearly as irksome as the scores of conspiracy theorists who have taken over Betsy Hart's blog (www.betsysblog.com).

No matter what types of posts this conservative columnist has left on her blog this past week (since being on Hannity & Colmes the previous week and debating those who believe the government was behind 9/11), those who hate President Bush have totally hijacked her site.

The illogical hatred of the extreme left these days tends to cause intelligent debaters to sometimes no longer wish to be involved in the discussion at all.

[igout]

Oh....I don't know. Me, I kind of like strong words; they're like spice. My problem with the zealots is they're all such windbags. What do the French call a tedious performance? That it had les longueurs?

[Patrick]

What I have always loved about this site is the quality of the people contributing. Not just their viewpoints, but their approach in contributing. The vast majority of these posts civilized and well thought out. I have learned much while being here. Alexandra, if you were to be judged by the quality of your friends, you would be at the top. As always, a visually intriguing and well written topic that hits close to home.

I will take up part of Michael's slant; however it should be the problem of extremists of any ilk.

I always enjoy conversing with people who hold a different set of experiences than I do. It helps me learn more about others, the diverse world we live in, and as always, more about myself.

I also must accept some blame in that I kept feeding zealous fires. Please accept my apologies Alexandra. I knew I should have cut off the debate earlier, but hope springs eternal...and I am forever the optimist.

To carry Michael's thought a bit further, but still strip it of any pejorative left or right distiction, I feel the most dangerous zealot is not the one you easily identify because of his opposition to your viewpoint, but the one who agrees with some of your views when you are around, and takes that to the extreme when you are not. I am much more frightened by them since it would is harder to identify them. The member who infects the group and takes a positive (belonging to a group and all of its benefits) and makes it a negative (all members of the group painted with the same brush of extremism) is a virus that we all should inoculate against.

[Michael van der Galien]

This post had me laughing for quite a while. Alexandra, as always, the words you use to describe things are wonderful.

You have quite a good point. People who act like you described could very well press their beliefs on others.

I would like to shift this, however, a little bit to the other side of the court: On the other side (the extreme right) people with the same attitude exist. Both sides (extreme left and extreme right) are not used to debate and when one debates with either side, one will find out that the tone will get increasingly agressive. That is of course extremely frustrating, thus one has a tendency to become agressive oneself (I plead guilty).

On the other hand we must also not forget that, in general, everybody who owns a blog has very strong convictions as well. If one didn't have them, one would not feel the urge to start ones own blog.
Besides that, I think that people participating on blogs, have that tendency as well: strong convictions. Although there probably are a few who do not have any opinions about anything, most participents have strong convictions. One needs only to read all the comments of the participents on, for instance, this blog. Most of us would find it quite easy to put everybody in certain groups: socialists (okayokay, for Americans liberals), conservatives, moderates, neoconservatives, libertarians, communists, andsoforth.

The difference is, as always, between those who are extreme (no matter what they're extreme in) and those who are not extreme. With every extremist debates are frustrating.

Both groups have a tendency to kill every debate.

[North by Northwest]

Joseph,

Actually, Alexandra is making a very important point. Their conviction of 'Moral' superiority and their religiously held belief in the absolute correctness of their doctrines has caused these tyrants to kill millions of innocent people. David clearly is convinced of having found the absolute truth in everything. He clearly believes to occupy the absolute 'moral' high ground. You can only do that when you either never do anything yourself, thus avoiding ever to make any mistakes of your own (hence the "no contribution" argument), or when you command absolute power, thus squashing any criticism and/or evading any retribution.

As to "exaggerated foolishness" breaking no bones. How did you make this connection? Anyway, it takes nothing away from the previous argument.

[Huan]

Said commenter was dragging the site down with irrationality. Public debate is worthwhile, but it requires rational ideation and assertions supported by facts.

[Joseph Marshall]

Now,now Alexandra! I haven't heard of any of your commentors killing 30-40 million people yet! And as to "contributing nothing to society" hardly any of us can say that, apart from the wonder of our glorious presence, that what we do influences the larger polity that much one way or the other.

The exaggerated foolishness of the blog comment page [or even, dare I say it, of the original blog post] breaks no bones and who among us is that fond of buttered parsnips that we need demand them at every meal.

I think politics is getting you a little frazzled. Take some time off and go read the Anchoress' compendium of stories about John Paul II. They will ease your heart in a too contentious world.