Bravo, Zenpundit. That was extremely well-said. And hits right to the crux of the issue. Unfortunately, the first and third groups tend to get painted into the corner of the second group, just by proximity.
Bravo, Zenpundit. That was extremely well-said. And hits right to the crux of the issue. Unfortunately, the first and third groups tend to get painted into the corner of the second group, just by proximity.
Jimbo, thanks, and call me what you want... John, JohnT, etc. No, it's not all the media's fault, jc. But, as I said in the original post, they do bear a part of the blame. Mostly, it is due to incompetence rather than anything else, I think. Consider the diminished quality of journalistic writing and research over the last 30 years. (If one goes back far enough, however, the writing gets even more partisan than it is today)
Zenpundit, you are dead on. I would just add that dissent and self criticism is a hallmark of the Western way of war - and one of its greatest strengths - as Victor Davis Hanson points out in his numerous books (see Carnage and Culture for example). This still doesn't change the fact that the enemy draws comfort from that dissent and seeks to use it to his advantage a la Zawahiri. Again, the issue is whether a greater good is served. But the answer is not to suppress the dissent but rather to, as John S. Mill would have us do, counter the arguments with fact and logic. That, I submit, is much of what takes place in this forum
Cheers
JohnT
It's 4 years and holding with troops still on the ground, a government in place, some economic growth and infrastructure development, the Iraqi military is slowly developing and the police are engaging . Actions speak louder than words and in that respect, so maybe the words of Bacevich, Cindy Sheehan and the Dixie Chicks have much strenghtened the resolve of the jihadists. No doubt the strategists and financiers are encouraged by the anti-war forces. The jihadists were already convinced that we are weak, corrupt and Godless and if anything, I suspect a true jihadist would regard Bacevich as weak and afraid more than anything. He has chosen to aire his son's death and politicize it and to me, he is feeling alot of guilt but is not dealing with it.
What takes place in this forum is radically different from Joe D. Citizen regurgitating the latest quip that he heard from the latest pundit (of either side of the aisle) which happens on a far more regular basis than rational discussion/argument.
As has been seen, once the "public" has accepted an idea wholesale (Bush lied, etc.), there's not really much you can do to change it, regardless of historical fact such as the entire intel community, White House, Congress, et al believed that Iraq needed to be invaded. If everybody was having rational discussions there wouldn't be any problem.
Sorry mate,such as the entire intel community, White House, Congress, et al believed that Iraq needed to be invaded.
That fact as stated above is more opinion. The intel community was hardly in consensus; even Tenet's waste of trees says that. I agree that much of what has been released from either view point has been slaved to an agenda. But in terms of fact, the justification for the invasion and the use of intelligence to support the justification has been shifted and respun repeatedly.
This I will state as my opinion. John Q. Public is not as stupid as some (and that includes pundits) might assume; the loss of credibility with John Q is a self-inflicted wound. Yes the media plays a role, perhaps helping point the gun. Spin masters pulled the trigger. Once that credibility is lost it is lost. GEN McCaffrey essentially said that on his last situation report.
Best
Tom
Thanks for the clarification on the intel issue, I was using my rather bad memory from before we invaded Iraq.
I also don't believe that John Q. Public is stupid (I hope not, as I am John Q. Public!), but easily swayed maybe? I don't want to fall into the trap that democracies are mobs and victims of emotion and all that, but after conversations I've had with people rational discussion is not the term I'd use to describe it. I've come to the conclusion that people, in general, aren't interested in coming to a joint conclusion during an argument, but forcing their idea on you and refusing to grant anything you say. This, to me, is more hurtful than anti-war protests.
But what if the idea or opinion is correct? I'm not purposely going off topic, I'm just going to use this as an an example to make my point:
How's the economy doing?
Now if you ask that to your average, blue collar, Joe Q public guy, who get's his "news" from Katie Couric and the local newspaper only (because he doesn't have the time or interest), most will say it sucks. All the while his 401k is skyrocketing, he's paying less taxes, and he's been steadily working full time and, in many cases, OT for the past 6 years.
I'm sorry, perhaps I was incorrect placing all the blame on the media in my previous comment, but they are still guilty for a LOT of the problems when it comes to public support. In the case of economics, the Bush administration did come out and counter the misinformation...many times. But guess what happened? The media ignored or buried it.
The MSM hardly ever reports on how many schools are being built by our Soldiers and the locals in Iraq or Afghanistan, but I can almost guarantee it will be on the front page or be the lead story when one gets blown up. I don't see how anyone can blame the administration for that.
Last edited by skiguy; 06-07-2007 at 09:50 PM. Reason: punctuation
In a rational discussion/argument between two people that are cooperating with each other (trying to come to the "right" answer) then they will end up at the correct opinion/idea, regardless of whose it is or if it directly opposed one's original viewpoint. My point is that most discussions/arguments are not of this nature. There is a lot more give and take in the discussions/arguments as stated above that doesn't happen today. Watch any "Crossfire" type show and you'll see what I mean. These are debates that are trying to achieve nothing but entertainment. This closed and non-cooperative argument/discussion is more hurtful to our efforts than anti-war protests.
That is all too true on the issues avoidance and it has become the style of US debate (or non-debate). It is easy to start the name calling etc and then you don't have to think. John Q will go along with that mode for so long and then start looking for new faces and voices.Thanks for the clarification on the intel issue, I was using my rather bad memory from before we invaded Iraq.
I also don't believe that John Q. Public is stupid (I hope not, as I am John Q. Public!), but easily swayed maybe? I don't want to fall into the trap that democracies are mobs and victims of emotion and all that, but after conversations I've had with people rational discussion is not the term I'd use to describe it. I've come to the conclusion that people, in general, aren't interested in coming to a joint conclusion during an argument, but forcing their idea on you and refusing to grant anything you say. This, to me, is more hurtful than anti-war protests.
Best
Tom
Bookmarks