Misreading the History of the Iraq War

[dubya]

One of the biggest problems I see with the current state of the "Long War" is that we've mis-identified the enemy to maintain "political correctness." bin Laden and Saddam are/were both only bit players in the real struggle.

The real enemy is irrational, religion-inspired totalitarianism that demands that individuals enslave themselves to some "supernatural" being and "sacrifice" themselves to some mythical world inhabited by the dead. Islam is the biggest offender here, and the source of that Islamic totalitarian impulse is the mullahs and ayatollahs based in Tehran.

Opposed to the Islamists is the equally mythical and false philosophy of altruism: the belief that the collective is of greater value than the individual. This is the philosophy of socialism and christianity that demands that individuals "sacrifice" their well-being, happiness, and indeed their lives to the "greater good."

I invite you to read an excellent article about the so-called "Just War Theory" which is based on this philosophy of altruism:

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/...war-theory.asp

[dubya]

A perfect illustration of the moral falsehood of "Just War Theory" is the story of "Lone Survivor" Marcus Luttrell who was on the Seal team with Medal of Honor "winner" Michael Murphy when Murphy was killed.

Three goatherds came across Murphy's team and the team sacrificed themselves rather than prevent those goatherds from reporting the team's presence to the Taliban forces. Murphy was awarded the MoH for exposing himself to Taliban fire to call for backup. The backup forces were destroyed by the Taliban who shot down their hellicopter.

22 of America's finest, most highly-trained warriors were "sacrificed" for 3 ignorant religious zealots. If that is "Just" then somebody's got their concept of Justice wrong!

[Ken White]

You should go here (LINK) and add an introduction of yourself to the thread. Thanks.

[jcustis]

Three goatherds

warriors were "sacrificed" for 3 ignorant religious zealots.

Ummm...yeah, we need to wind down a little bit. Being an Afghan does not make one a religious zealot no more than being a goatherd makes one ignorant.

Advancing arguments this way is not how business is done withing the Small Wars Council. We love arguments, and get into them all the time...but we try to make sure they are substantive and well-thought out.

And yes, please post that intro.

[dubya]

Ummm...yeah, we need to wind down a little bit. Being an Afghan does not make one a religious zealot no more than being a goatherd makes one ignorant.

Advancing arguments this way is not how business is done withing the Small Wars Council. We love arguments, and get into them all the time...but we try to make sure they are substantive and well-thought out.

And yes, please post that intro.

Are you saying the Taliban are not religious zealots? If Taliban are such zealots, then being a supporter of the Taliban makes one either a) a religious zealot or b) intimidated by religious zealots.

WRT to ignorance, I don't disagree there is no evidence they are ignorant (i.e., uneducated), but the likelihood is high. What passes for "education" in much of Pakistan and Afghanistan and many other areas where islam is the state religion is memorization of the Koran. This is indoctrination, not education.

I take the goatherds' reporting the presence of Murphy's team to the Taliban as evidence of the goatherds' support of the Taliban, whether by affinity or by intimidation and ignorance.

[jcustis]

I take the goatherds' reporting the presence of Murphy's team to the Taliban as evidence of the goatherds' support of the Taliban, whether by affinity or by intimidation and ignorance.

That is your take, and you are entitled to it, but you also seem to be inflammed by the incident. As I said, advancing an argument that way is not how we do business here.

You couldn't have know it, but I had my moderator hat on when I replied to your post in this thread. For all you know, I may adhere to Islam and may not take to kindly to an open attack on my religion...I recommend that you take a deep breath and explore the site for a while. It will make for a more enjoyable posting experience.

[Ken White]

Let me give you a couple of things to ponder, Dubya.

First, this isn't a political site; if one wants to discuss political ideologies, there are plenty of places on the internet to do that. Your posts thus far indicate you'd be far happier posting on one of those than here.

Second, most everyone who does post here has years of experience watching people tap dance on the head of a pin and blather about nothing for hours and they're rarely impressed by it.

At a minimum, you should take JCustis excellent suggestion and get a feel for where you're posting to insure that you really wish to do so.

Thanks.

[skiguy]

If Taliban are such zealots, then being a supporter of the Taliban makes one either a) a religious zealot or b) intimidated by religious zealots.

Not trying to add to the argument, this just made me think of a question.

Couldn't there be a c) The people support those who are providing social services to them. Religion is secondary.

Or am I giving the Taliban too much credit here?

[wm]

One of the biggest problems I see with the current state of the "Long War" is that we've mis-identified the enemy to maintain "political correctness." bin Laden and Saddam are/were both only bit players in the real struggle.

The real enemy is irrational, religion-inspired totalitarianism that demands that individuals enslave themselves to some "supernatural" being and "sacrifice" themselves to some mythical world inhabited by the dead. Islam is the biggest offender here, and the source of that Islamic totalitarian impulse is the mullahs and ayatollahs based in Tehran.

Opposed to the Islamists is the equally mythical and false philosophy of altruism: the belief that the collective is of greater value than the individual. This is the philosophy of socialism and christianity that demands that [U individuals "sacrifice" their well-being, happiness, and indeed their lives to the "greater good."

I invite you to read an excellent article about the so-called "Just War Theory" which is based on this philosophy of altruism:

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/...war-theory.asp

The referenced article is a caricature of just war theory. As a counterweight to this invective, I suggest a reading of
this relatively short essay by Karl Jaspers.

[dubya]

The referenced article is a caricature of just war theory. As a counterweight to this invective, I suggest a reading of
this relatively short essay by Karl Jaspers.

I'm not sure how what appears to be a philosophical treatise on "German Guilt" is relevant to your charge that the article I referenced exaggerates or distorts a theory which places higher value on the lives of non-American "civilians" than on the lives of American soldiers.

[Steve Blair]

If you want to have an intelligent discussion, fine. But by putting anything you disagree with in "quotes" you just make yourself appear either ignorant or agenda-driven. The majority of the folks who come here are looking for an intelligent exchange based on ideas and evaluation of past and current events, not pandering or "quotation-riddled" statements that might find a better home on more politically-oriented forums.

Thank you and good day.

[Ken White]

you're entitled to your opinion, of course -- but so far you have, IMO, established zero credibility for your statement.

[J Wolfsberger]

I read part of the article you cited - up to the point where it became obvious the author hadn't read, or hadn't comprehended, Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars. (I should point out that I've read it three times over the last 20 or so years. I didn't recognize it from what the author attributed to it.)

By that point, it had also become obvious he was more interested in attacking a caricature of Just War Theory than in critiquing its reality. I suggest you read Walzer, and then dig into some of the more balanced discussions of JWT. The Wikipedia entry provides a good starting point.

(On a side note, when reading anything by an Objectivist, its a good idea to do your own reading of whatever they're attacking. They frequently attack straw men.)

[dubya]

I seem to have unintentionally pushed some hot buttons.

My first comment attempted to point out what I believe is mis-identification of the enemy. I take from the lack of disagreement on that point that some or all of you agree with that.

It certainly is the soldiers' call as to the value of their own lives. My intent was not to start a political argument, rather to question the philosophy of a particular school of thought which in my opinion goes against placing American self-preservation first.

As to the excessive quote marks: well ok, but I hardly think a guy who's got a vest or belt full of explosives and ball-bearings under his jacket is a civilian. Nor do I believe that anyone who votes into power a repressive theocracy is an innocent or blameless when that theocracy starts a war by proxy.

[wm]

(snip) . . .I hardly think a guy who's got a vest or belt full of explosives and ball-bearings under his jacket is a civilian. Nor do I believe that anyone who votes into power a repressive theocracy is an innocent or blameless when that theocracy starts a war by proxy.

A little justification for the above stated beliefs would not be a bad place to start. Jaspers' book might provide some enlightening insights regarding the voters in the second claim. Facts to support the final part of that second claim would also be greatly appreciated.

[davidbfpo]

Have a look at the commentary on the Gentile - v- Mansoor debate, on the KIngs College London website of the Insurgency Research Group: http://insurgencyresearchgroup.wordpress.com/

Nicely commends SWJ: Via the ever-useful Small Wars Journal I came across this super piece in the Wall Street Journal by Yochi Dreazen on the recent contributions of LCOL Gian Gentile to the on-going US defence reform battles.

The author is David Betz, who has written 'Redesigning Land Forces for Wars Amongst the People' : http://kingsofwar.files.wordpress.co...sp-article.pdf

davidbfpo

[wm]

I'm not sure how what appears to be a philosophical treatise on "German Guilt" is relevant to your charge that the article I referenced exaggerates or distorts a theory which places higher value on the lives of non-American "civilians" than on the lives of American soldiers.

It is often worthwhile to read a reference before launching into a diatribe against it based on a cursory viewing of the title. Remember that old kindergarten rule--"Don't judge a book by its cover"

By the way, just war theory places a different value on non-combatants than on combatants. In doing so, it makes no distinction between nationalities or citizenship. The crucial difference is what one's function is, not where one happens to be residing.