Finding American backs to stab

Thanks, I stand corrected!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cannoneer No. 4

December 3, 2007...
Works better when you get the date right.

---

I naively assumed that since I posted on 25 NOV, it couldn't possible already be 03 DEC. With that minor discrepancy out of the way...

I do not refute the information therein. Completely accurate or not, It's still dated info and could best be described as a summation of the last 7 or 8 months, and election year jitters with all the trimmings. Pointing fingers and making generalized accusations from behind the safety of one's desk in D.C. demoralizes the troops and certainly will not fix the war any faster.

I think you forgot which war these people are fighting, Stan. It's certainly not against al-Qaeda. It is, as always, the war against their political enemies in D.C. Sometimes I wonder which fight is really, in their heart of hearts, more dear and important to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by selil

I've come to the conclusion the right/conservative/fascist and left/liberal/pinko exist as a real group only in the non-thinking polarized few. Whether the topic is environmentalism or corporate subsidies few people think that there are easy answers or that there is a "one answer fits all" approach. Those that do think in concrete terms and that everything is black and white and color is evil are few but vocal. The Internet has given rise to the equivalent of two loud mouthed six year olds reasoning with volume and listening with deafness.

The debate on the war in Iraq between liberals and conservatives has been disingenuous at best and outright political theater at its worst. A few people are making a lot of money. The reasons for attacking Iraq are terribly inadequate. Continuation of the war is foregone conclusion whether it is true or not.

The same supporters of the war equate non-support of the war to anti-patriotism and hating the troops. The same supporters of the war who took a long time to up armor humvee's (sic) and built the equivalent of the largest fire-base on the planet in downtown Baghdad. The same supporters of the war willing to field an all volunteer force except for their children. Oops. Never mind the stop loss, forced return from IRR, sending 50 year olds back based on service 30 years ago, and other methods of a back door conscription

To their detriment those who oppose the war show almost a childish detachment to reality. Fighting over reasons of why a war began is like arguing over why you pissed your pants. It's to late to do anything about it but you should worry about cleaning it up. There is no metric for what withdrawal would cost or mean in world wide support. Ignoring the obvious conflict we are enjoined is creates a credibility gap and arguing over the past instead of the future is a painful lesson in maturity.

Intellectual debate is a stimulating exercise in political posturing that occurs while those under arms are motivated by hostile terrain and the engaging chatter of enemy weapons fire. Henceforth, I will forever ignore a politician or pundit who leads with or primarily uses the reasons of starting the Iraq war as a platform, or non-support of the Iraq war as bludgeon of patriotism.

---

I'll throw out a thesis for you--in my book, I'm playing with the idea that the Iraq issue simply became a venue for the wider polarization of the American polity driven, in large part, by the emergence of "new" media. In an earlier, never finished book, I talk of "combat discourse" in American politics.

I believe that one of the major reasons for this is that new media has led to the rise of punditry from both ends of the political spectrum. To try and distill a complex point, back in the old days, most people would take their political cues from their elected officials. Elected officials, even highly partisan ones, have to have some ability to compromise and work with the other party or they never get anything done.

The hyper partisanship emerged, I think, as a deliberate strategy of the Republican party (and let me point out I'm a Republican) via people like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. But it was stoked by the new media. Today, many people get their political cues from Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore (and others like them) rather than elected leaders. Since these stiffs never have and never will hold elected office and since in an age of punditry proliferation and multiple 24 hour news networks, it takes extremism to stand out from the crowd, the cues they send to their audiences are ones of hyperpartisanship and extremism.

Bottom line is that moderates get lost in the crowd today. Extremists get attention. Hence we are a nation divided and increasingly paralyzed.

With that upbeat message, I'm off to work. With sabbatical and leave over, this will be the first full week I'll put in since August!

By the way, I heard Feith come very close to blaming the military and the intelligence community for the problems in Iraq in a 2005 presentation at AEI. I think that if things go south again, that may raise its ugly head. (And, by the way, being a southerner, I resent the fact that "going south" is slang for "falling apart." Not that I question its accuracy. I just resent it).

I'm more and more concerned that the U.S. military has been and will be routinely screwed on counterinsurgency--it isn't given the mission unless policy is an abysmal failure and the military alone can seldom compensate for policy failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

I'm more and more concerned that the U.S. military has been and will be routinely screwed on counterinsurgency--it isn't given the mission unless policy is an abysmal failure and the military alone can seldom compensate for policy failure.

---

Isn't this the American way? We seem routinely to seek a silver bullet, single source solution to each problem. Sort of like trying to maintain econmoic stability with a monetary policy and no fiscal or trade policy. Too bad leadership seems unable to get around the subordinate partisan turf battles and produce a comprehensive plan. That would be a great Christmas present, eh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

I'll throw out a thesis for you--in my book, I'm playing with the idea that the Iraq issue simply became a venue for the wider polarization of the American polity driven, in large part, by the emergence of "new" media. In an earlier, never finished book, I talk of "combat discourse" in American politics.

I believe that one of the major reasons for this is that new media has led to the rise of punditry from both ends of the political spectrum. To try and distill a complex point, back in the old days, most people would take their political cues from their elected officials. Elected officials, even highly partisan ones, have to have some ability to compromise and work with the other party or they never get anything done.

The hyper partisanship emerged, I think, as a deliberate strategy of the Republican party (and let me point out I'm a Republican) via people like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. But it was stoked by the new media. Today, many people get their political cues from Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore (and others like them) rather than elected leaders. Since these stiffs never have and never will hold elected office and since in an age of punditry proliferation and multiple 24 hour news networks, it takes extremism to stand out from the crowd, the cues they send to their audiences are ones of hyperpartisanship and extremism.

Bottom line is that moderates get lost in the crowd today. Extremists get attention. Hence we are a nation divided and increasingly paralyzed.

With that upbeat message, I'm off to work. With sabbatical and leave over, this will be the first full week I'll put in since August!

---

Dr. Metz,
I think your comment on a deliberate strategy to divide the electorate and create hyper-partisanship, is more than reasonable. Polarizing the electorate, then winning on the margins by microtargeting/narrowcasting clusters to mobilize, and by suppressing other clusters, has become a powerful electoral strategy in the era of information science. The hitch, as you note, is the division and paralysis it brings. The winning candidate is left with little political capital.

The byproducts of modern electoral campaign strategies, and its effect on policymakers and our nation, I think is overlooked. How will elected officials with little mandate effectively future handle foreign crisis's? Does narrowcasting and microtargeting only reinforce the emergence “micro political-communities”, that Van Creveld notes of in his “Decline of the State” thesis?

Looking forward to the book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bourbon

Dr. Metz,
I think your comment on a deliberate strategy to divide the electorate and create hyper-partisanship, is more than reasonable. Polarizing the electorate, then winning on the margins by microtargeting/narrowcasting clusters to mobilize, and by suppressing other clusters, has become a powerful electoral strategy in the era of information science. The hitch, as you note, is the division and paralysis it brings. The winning candidate is left with little political capital.

The byproducts of modern electoral campaign strategies, and its effect on policymakers and our nation, I think is overlooked. How will elected officials with little mandate effectively future handle foreign crisis's? Does narrowcasting and microtargeting only reinforce the emergence “micro political-communities”, that Van Creveld notes of in his “Decline of the State” thesis?

Looking forward to the book.

---

I think you've nailed it. One of the themes I'm developing in my book is that the Bush administration was aware that this tendency normally constrains the ability of political leaders to undertake bold action. They believed there was a post September 11 window of opportunity for boldness which would close fairly rapidly. So they had to capitalize on it while they could.

The problem they've faced is that once we got some distance from September 11, the window closed. Hence they do not have the backing to attain their orginal objectives in Iraq (a unified liberal democracy spreading liberal democracy across the region) and have had to develop less ambitious and more readily attainable goals.

After all, if the administration had gone to the American public in early 2003 and said, "Here's the deal--we're going to get rid of Saddam Hussein but this is the cost: several thousand dead Americans, tens of thousands of maimed ones, many requiring a lifetime of care, trillions of dollars of taxpayer money (which might otherwise have been spent domestically or in Pakistan or Afghanistan), and an Iraqi state which is, at best, Iran's best friend with limited control over half of the country and, at worst, three countries, one dependent on Iran for security, the other on Syria, and the other in continuous strife with Turkey," would the public have signed on? I'm a Republican and voted for George Bush, but this was the Mother of All Bait and Switches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

I'll throw out a thesis for you--in my book, I'm playing with the idea that the Iraq issue simply became a venue for the wider polarization of the American polity driven, in large part, by the emergence of "new" media. In an earlier, never finished book, I talk of "combat discourse" in American politics.

I believe that one of the major reasons for this is that new media has led to the rise of punditry from both ends of the political spectrum. To try and distill a complex point, back in the old days, most people would take their political cues from their elected officials. Elected officials, even highly partisan ones, have to have some ability to compromise and work with the other party or they never get anything done.

The hyper partisanship emerged, I think, as a deliberate strategy of the Republican party (and let me point out I'm a Republican) via people like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. But it was stoked by the new media. Today, many people get their political cues from Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore (and others like them) rather than elected leaders. Since these stiffs never have and never will hold elected office and since in an age of punditry proliferation and multiple 24 hour news networks, it takes extremism to stand out from the crowd, the cues they send to their audiences are ones of hyperpartisanship and extremism.

Bottom line is that moderates get lost in the crowd today. Extremists get attention. Hence we are a nation divided and increasingly paralyzed.

With that upbeat message, I'm off to work. With sabbatical and leave over, this will be the first full week I'll put in since August!

---

I'm not 100% sure that this is anything really new (look back at some of the debate surrounding the Mexican War and Spanish/American War for starters), but I agree that what has accelerated the trend is the stunning access to multiple, real-time (or almost real time) media sources. Hearst never held office, but his impact on American politics and policy is pretty much beyond debate. Punditry has been around for ages, but the media has accelerated the process and then (IMO) super-charged it by an addiction to polls and soundbites in place of real stories. When views are presented as being held by "most Americans" (when in fact it's a poll sample of the same 1000 people in the greater NYC area), many people start thinking that if their neighbors think that way, then maybe they're holding the wrong opinion. It's all exaggerated by a political process that really only engages enough of the fringe to win an election and isn't honestly interested in engaging the majority in any sort of discussion (too many memories of the Silent Majority, perhaps?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

I'm not 100% sure that this is anything really new (look back at some of the debate surrounding the Mexican War and Spanish/American War for starters), but I agree that what has accelerated the trend is the stunning access to multiple, real-time (or almost real time) media sources. Hearst never held office, but his impact on American politics and policy is pretty much beyond debate. Punditry has been around for ages, but the media has accelerated the process and then (IMO) super-charged it by an addiction to polls and soundbites in place of real stories. When views are presented as being held by "most Americans" (when in fact it's a poll sample of the same 1000 people in the greater NYC area), many people start thinking that if their neighbors think that way, then maybe they're holding the wrong opinion. It's all exaggerated by a political process that really only engages enough of the fringe to win an election and isn't honestly interested in engaging the majority in any sort of discussion (too many memories of the Silent Majority, perhaps?).

---

Agree that there's nothing completely new. What I'm suggesting is that information and technology saturation has led more people to look to pundits rather than elected leaders for political cues. It has also diminished the role that expertise and experience play as filters of political ideas. In the old days, people who were uninformed or unthoughtful seldom earned an audience. Now any moron can call Rush Limbaugh and get air time. This leads other idiots to think their position can't be all that wrong since Bubba just expressed it on national radio. (And the same thing happens on Air America). By the same token (and as you suggest), information technology reinforces extremism because it allows the extremist to link with others like him or her.

I've had to deal with that myself. A study I did in 1994 struck a nerve with the paranoid schizophrenic the-goverment-is-doing-mind-control subculture. While in the old days, people like this just lived in a run down shack in the woods and everyone stayed away from them, now they find like minded people on the Internet and it convinces them that maybe they are NOT crazy. I literally had a voice mail from one of them last Friday screaming at me for contributing to the destruction of the human race. (Normally I only hear THAT from my teenage daughters). When this started after the release of the study it literally shook me enough that I obtained a permit to carry a concealed handgun (and seldom am more than a few feet from my Glock except when I'm in the office).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

What I'm suggesting is that information and technology saturation has led more people to look to pundits rather than elected leaders for political cues.

---

I think I have to disagree. After 9/11 I thought that Osama would be public enemy #1 for a long time, but when the president said that Osama was no longer in charge of a country and we needed to worry about WMDs, Osama quickly disappeared from the public discourse. The bloggers were all talking about WMDs. IMO, the president still sets the agenda.

I think the strong opposition to the war comes down to the basics: Americans like to finish wars, not start them, there was a "bait and switch", people don't like their best and bravest killed and the most important element was that people didn't believe the claims of "progress."

Now that there actually is some progress, things haven't settled down considerably and I don't think that's because the Coulters and Moores of the world have become any less verbose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

They believed there was a post September 11 window of opportunity for boldness which would close fairly rapidly. So they had to capitalize on it while they could.

The problem they've faced is that once we got some distance from September 11, the window closed. Hence they do not have the backing to attain their orginal objectives in Iraq (a unified liberal democracy spreading liberal democracy across the region) and have had to develop less ambitious and more readily attainable goals.

---

I won't disagree, but the person in the Oval Office makes a difference. I really think that - at his core - Bush believed that getting rid of evil leaders was the right thing to do. The other element was that the people surrounding him had too much faith in our high tech weapons. If doing the right is easy - and nothing could possibly go seriously wrong - why wouldn't you do the right thing?

I'm not convinced that this administration won't take bold action on Iran, even though many think that window closed a while ago. Of course, if they don't, maybe I'll concede your point and buy you a beer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

When this started after the release of the study it literally shook me enough that I obtained a permit to carry a concealed handgun (and seldom am more than a few feet from my Glock except when I'm in the office).

---

Of course as a counter insurgency expert you do realize that the single place that you can be found is in your office and that is the likely vector of any attack. At least that's where they shoot PhD's around here. I hear they have OTC tags on em' too. I keep worrying about the tree stands in the parking lot, but I'm still a button buck not worth shooting yet.






Tom Odom at least might get a laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by selil

Of course as a counter insurgency expert you do realize that the single place that you can be found is in your office and that is the likely vector of any attack. At least that's where they shoot PhD's around here. I hear they have OTC tags on em' too. I keep worrying about the tree stands in the parking lot, but I'm still a button buck not worth shooting yet.






Tom Odom at least might get a laugh.

---

Well, my office mate (Max Manwaring) walks with a cane. You know the old saying that you don't have to be able to run faster than a bear, just faster than your buddy.

Steve, have you had any other problems since then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by selil

Of course as a counter insurgency expert you do realize that the single place that you can be found is in your office and that is the likely vector of any attack. At least that's where they shoot PhD's around here. I hear they have OTC tags on em' too. I keep worrying about the tree stands in the parking lot, but I'm still a button buck not worth shooting yet.

Tom Odom at least might get a laugh.

---

Button bucks taste great :wry:

As I signed into Fort Huachuca ages ago, a troop went haywire, took a weapon, and shot his CO and 1SG in their offices. I was unaware that the shooter had barricaded himself in and was shooting at folks outside. The kill zome included the troop medical clinic and I found that the front door was locked at 1000 hours. No one would open so I went around back where a SSG let me in with "once your in, Sir, your in." I asked what was going on and he told me. The staff had been watching me--the young butter bar--walk around in the kill zone to see if I got tagged.

The MP react team took the shooter out later that morning. The 1SG made it. The CO did not.

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

Steve, have you had any other problems since then?

---

Nothing terrible. What spooked me was that the nuts were using Yahoo People Search and then calling me at home. I still find things posted on web sites like this and this. Interestingly, some of the people who initially contacted me thought that I had stumbled on the massive government/DIA/CIA/military mind control conspiracy and they wanted to warn me, while others thought that I was an avatar that had been invented to trial balloon the idea. One retired sergeant posted on a discussion board that he had been able to confirm that I was, in fact, a real person. I was glad to hear that.

For some reason, the issue has been popping up again on conspiracy sites. That must have prompted the voice mail last week which accused me of engineering the demise of the human race. I found that so silly--I gave up trying the engineer the demise of the human race WEEKs ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by selil

Of course as a counter insurgency expert you do realize that the single place that you can be found is in your office and that is the likely vector of any attack. At least that's where they shoot PhD's around here. I hear they have OTC tags on em' too. I keep worrying about the tree stands in the parking lot, but I'm still a button buck not worth shooting yet.

Tom Odom at least might get a laugh.

---

Actually, some of the anti-terrorism training that we attended in West Point (VA) concentrated on two places or instances: Going from home to work and the return. That is, you will definitly be at home or work, but when. You however will always travel between the two. If you lack more than one means of doing said, we were instructed to hang out and hope the party didn't come to you !

Hi guys. The most common attack is the one you experienced Verbal Attack By Phone. Any arrival or departure area is the prime area for attack. You are most easily patterned by your arrival or departure from home!!
You might want to read my post on 5 rings analysis of stalkers and my own personal experience of being ambushed in front yard to see how this works in real life. In your case with very the little information I have unless they start writing you or leaving notes on your car (second most common point of attack) you are probably dealing with folks who think you are a lousy writer.:wry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

Actually, some of the anti-terrorism training that we attended in West Point (VA) concentrated on two places or instances: Going from home to work and the return. That is, you will definitly be at home or work, but when. You however will always travel between the two. If you lack more than one means of doing said, we were instructed to hang out and hope the party didn't come to you !

---

No problem--I always travel in disguise.


http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i162/ssif21/Mick.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

Nothing terrible. What spooked me was that the nuts were using Yahoo People Search and then calling me at home. I still find things posted on web sites like this and this. Interestingly, some of the people who initially contacted me thought that I had stumbled on the massive government/DIA/CIA/military mind control conspiracy and they wanted to warn me, while others thought that I was an avatar that had been invented to trial balloon the idea. One retired sergeant posted on a discussion board that he had been able to confirm that I was, in fact, a real person. I was glad to hear that.

For some reason, the issue has been popping up again on conspiracy sites. That must have prompted the voice mail last week which accused me of engineering the demise of the human race. I found that so silly--I gave up trying the engineer the demise of the human race WEEKs ago.

---

After reading those links I feel kind of dirty... Mentally infected. I read your paper when you posted it originally it seemed kind of tame to me. As the one pundit wrote "Its technofascism".. Trust me if "nerds" wanted to take over the world it would happen, nobody would notice... err wait Never mind Mr. Bill Gates doesn't want me to say that. Instead be free and happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by selil

After reading those links I feel kind of dirty... Mentally infected. I read your paper when you posted it originally it seemed kind of tame to me. As the one pundit wrote "Its technofascism".. Trust me if "nerds" wanted to take over the world it would happen, nobody would notice... err wait Never mind Mr. Bill Gates doesn't want me to say that. Instead be free and happy.

---

Oh, they are amusing. Check out this and this.

I still think these are unmedicated/undiagnosed parnoid schizophrenics. The Internet allows them to link up and reinforce each other which allows them to conclude that they must not be insane since other people have the same experience as they do.