That's my point--I think this is indicative of the sort of "progress" we can expect. Well, this and other clues.
Mike,
I do not think that what happened to Gaddafi can be used as a generality.
Look what happened to Bagbo: trained troops arrested him and followed orders.
Look what happen to anyone with FARDC (DR Congo) and SPLA (South Sudan) (two conventional armies): you get tortured and executed without any legal ground, just for fun. And they receive training, at least for FARDC, from 5 major military powers; US, Belgium, France, South Africa, China, Angola.
The world is better with the rules than without. Application is, at least for the momment, to be perfected.
That's my point--I think this is indicative of the sort of "progress" we can expect. Well, this and other clues.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Well the Western media are up in arms over his death, no shock there. Lets face it though, for the people who were actually there when it had happened, as people have said with no real clearl sense of command, pumped up and angry are we shocked? The people of Libya are clearly chuffed to bits, seeing his bruised and bloody corpse in a storage container has been cathartic, they can see for themselves that he's dead. It will help to close that chapter for Libya. As this article of Foreign Policy nicely sums up (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...w_qaddafi_nato page two), the length process of an ICC trial would have proved painful for the people. Does this muddy the waters? I wouldn't say so, what is far more important is how the next few months pan out, how the country moves on.
What was the question???
JMM has it right. 'Idealism' has killed and will kill more people then will unfettered evil. There really are some evil folks in the world but there aren't that many; the idealists believe that they can pass a law that will restrain that evil. It will not. Better to just dispose of the evil types and not try to legislate niceness, morality -- or warfare, an act which by its very nature is the antithesis of restraint. From Thomas Jonathan Jackson:
"People who are anxious to bring on war don't know what they are bargaining for; they don't see all the horrors that must accompany such an event."
The idealists are not anxious to bring on war. They are anxious to define and restrain those horrors -- but their view will always be superficial and thus their goal never achieved. War isn't nice but it will occur and as Billy Sherman said a long time ago, you cannot refine it. That's reality and it strikes me as rather hypocritical to call for or support violent efforts to change the behavior of some evil types and then bemoan the type and degree of violence that may ensue. As ye sow, so shall ye reap and all that jazz...
How Moammar died, what the 'Rebels' did or didn't do is really sort of irrelevant and it became that way once NATO and Europe, assisted by the US, decided to be Idealists and remove the regime -- with the support of a cheering section of other Idealists.
Important to remember that recent events in Libya are "merely" a milestone in what has been, and will continue to be, a centuries long journey of cultural/governmental evolution. Reducing external manipulations has been, and will likely continue to be, an difficult challenge. Romans, Muslim Caliphs, Ottoman Sultans, European Colonists, Modern day "helpers", etc. will always seek to exert their will and interests into the process. Within all of this the ideas of "nation" and what form of governance best serves that idea will continue to evolve, be hijacked, devolve, etc in a rollercoaster effect that is naturally chaotic. This is true everywhere.
The US challenge is to resist our impulse to exercise too much control over what takes place there, while at the same time somehow being helpful where appropriate and if possible helping to guard against those who would sieze upon this opportunity (internal or external, state or non-state, friend or foe) for their own interests in a manner that would excessively retard this process.
To date, we have not proved particularly adept at that.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Noble all the same. The sad truth however is that the populace is almost always the net loser in this game. Government abuses populace, populace generates motive and will to resist, self-serving party hijacks populace for own agenda, new government abuses populace...(repeat as necessary)
Ok, so "noble" is not the best word. I prefer "natural." Insurgency is natural, but those who leverage those conditions are rarely noble.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
This is just a point of philosophical disagreement. It makes little difference in the real world; if you see a poisonous snake you kill it, it isn't important if you get the genus and species right.
That being said, boy are you wrong. There are a lot of evil people in the world, all around you. You (the rhetorical you) know a lot of them and deal with them daily. Most all are restrained by societal controls, mainly the fear of getting caught, so you don't see the evil that is there, unless you are a police officer or in a similar line of work. Then you see it, because you work with people for whom the societal controls have no meaning or who miscalculated their chances of getting caught.
The other times you will see it is when those societal controls break down or are perverted in some way. Then the evil comes out, the little, cruel, smirking, for the fun of it evil that M-A mentioned. You can go on and on listing those occasions.
Then of course we have the historically significant major killers. It is true there aren't many of those guys because there just aren't that many people who have the manifold genius to pull that off. They aren't primarily motivated by idealism. Their primary motivation is the acquisition and maintenance of personal power, and what I believe is just the plain old simple satisfaction of offing people you dislike.
There is evil. Getting modern Americans to really accept that is a hard thing to do because they can live their whole lives without having to come face to face with it.
Last edited by carl; 10-26-2011 at 04:03 PM.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
The first rule of holes; stop digging. Do not violate the hockey law -- if it's not yours, don't puck with it. One cannot do what one does not know how to do...That's okay...The US challenge is to resist our impulse to exercise too much control over what takes place there, while at the same time somehow being helpful where appropriate...(emphasis added / kw)That, however, becomes meddling and will absolutely lead to our ignoring your excellent advice that I placed in italics above. Once again, you're in conflict with yourself. Can't have it both ways...and if possible helping to guard against those who would sieze upon this opportunity (internal or external, state or non-state, friend or foe) for their own interests in a manner that would excessively retard this process.
Last edited by Ken White; 10-26-2011 at 04:32 PM. Reason: Typo
It happens to be an historical fact. Too many wars have lasted too long and done too much damage to all involved because of a misplaced idealistic vision. Afghanistan and Iraq -- as well as Libya -- are just the latest examples.Bad simile. Lot of folks can't tell poisonous from non-poisonous. There you go, advocating the killing of innocent and helpful types...It makes little difference in the real world; if you see a poisonous snake you kill it, it isn't important if you get the genus and species right.That would be different...That being said, boy are you wrong.I've been a cop; left that line of work because I saw too many old guys who had that attitude and were excessively convinced the thin blue line was the only route to salvation. It is not. Nor are Cops the only good guys. I also have two sons who are Cops and have been for 35 and a little over ten years and on the West and East Coasts respectively. They acknowledge there are those they work with who believe as you do -- both contend they do not so believe. One does not have a thin blue line sticker on his vehicle, the other does. Different strokes.There are a lot of evil people in the world, all around you... unless you are a police officer or in a similar line of work.
It should also be noted that any soldier with much combat experience is likely to see more raw evil in a year or so than many Cops will in a lifetime. It's all relative.Of course there is evil, tons of it. Bertrand Russell had it about right I expect. So did Pareto. The evil 20% are out there. The other 80% are less evil and are restrained by laws -- and society -- and themselves...There is evil.I'd say not most, just some Americans, perhaps 20% or so. Those would be the unfettered idealists...Getting modern Americans to really accept that is a hard thing to do because they can live their whole lives without having to come face to face with it.
You said, idealism kills more people than evil. You did not say idealism makes some wars last longer. I addressed what you said and I gave examples. You may disagree. Your disagreement does not constitute historical fact.
Geesh I hate it when I have to explain things that I know you get already. But it is my own fault for not taking the time to write clearly enough. You walk around in the bush and you see a snake that you know is dangerous, because you learned somehow or other that it is so you kill it. It doesn't matter much if you can name the genus and species.
Well that straw man is well and truly dead. However I didn't say anything at all about cops feeling superior to other citizens. I said that police officers and people in similar lines of work see evil face to face whereas other most other citizens don't.
Granted. But what does that have to do with anything? You get hit hard and you know it hurts. You get hit hard more often and you still know it hurts; if you know what I mean and I think you do.
That was the point of my comment. 20% isn't "aren't that many".
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
You may wish to think about what you wrote there. I suggest my example states that idealism wrongly lengthens war and that longer wars invariably kill more people. Your examples OTOH constitute your opinions which I acknowledged have credence, particualrly in the LE community but simply countered with my own and my sons example of members or former members who do not subscribe to your opinion.Possibly. It's also possible that I don't take things as seriously as you do.Geesh I hate it when I have to explain things that I know you get already. But it is my own fault for not taking the time to write clearly enough.No you did not -- I did because I've seen it. I got your point, merely pointed out that I had seen that syndrome taken to excess.I didn't say anything at all about cops feeling superior to other citizens. I said that police officers and people in similar lines of work see evil face to face whereas other most other citizens don't.Actually, I don't know. My point was simply that evil is indeed about but that it take many forms and how or what is seen as "evil" is relative.Granted. But what does that have to do with anything? You get hit hard and you know it hurts. You get hit hard more often and you still know it hurts; if you know what I mean and I think you do.I'm sorry, I don't understand that either. If you mean that 20% is too many to be "aren't that many" and in fact constitutes your "... a lot of evil people in the world..." then we can disagree. Been my observation that 20% rule is reasonably accurate in most divisions of human behavior and performance. Thus, to me, that's pretty much a norm and doesn't approach "a lot" -- that implies to me near parity.That was the point of my comment. 20% isn't "aren't that many".
The difference between saying "Oops!" after shooting him in the back of a truck, versus actually putting him on trial--even a kangaroo court trial--is the difference between lining up civilians against the wall versus actual integration of the winners and the losers into a whole (or wholer, or whole-ish, or not completely dominated by mass executions) society. Right now, we've got Gaddafi dead in the back of a truck... and civilians being lined up against walls.
Maybe this is just a phase, and after a while the 'noble revolutionaries'--the ones who couldn't revolt their way out of a wet paper bag--will get their stuff together and form a real, peace-oriented government. Stranger things have happened. People survive skydiving without parachutes, hurricanes leave single structures standing while everything else is flattened, and massacre squads become functioning governments.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
I'll try once more, though the passive resistance is wearing me down. My opinion, just this little small point, is that police officers and those in similar lines in the US, see evil face to face more so than the average citizen. Now there may be some officers who don't subscribe to that opinion but I would guess, guess mind you, nothing else, that they work in a pretty boring jurisdiction.
That is not an attitude nor is it a syndrome taken to excess, it is an opinion.
Mr. Jones:
Now I'll deal with you.
I really liked what you wrote in the second paragraph of your 0640 post. An additional reason to restrain our impulse to exercise too much control is sometimes we don't have any control to exercise, even though we always like to think we do. In the "Arab spring" cases I think that is the case. There isn't all that much we can do even if we cared to.
I liked the being helpful when possible and if appropriate part to. If we had been able to be more helpful in Russia after WWI history would have changed for the better I think. It may have been appropriate but probably wasn't possible. Alas...
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
Why not backoff ? Why not bypass it ? Why not capture it ?from Carl
It makes little difference in the real world; if you see a poisonous snake you kill it, it isn't important if you get the genus and species right.
Do you exclude those COAs ?
If you don't exclude alternative COAs, what are your criteria to select among them ?
Regards
Mike
as the Actress said to the Bishop... I agree with that as written. Not to be nit picky but I don't think that's very near what you wrote earlier.I don't think I said any Cops would disagree with that and I doubt many if any would. I did say that some -- not in boring jurisdictions, big cities rarely provide that for any office with more than a few years service -- did agree with my stated "too many old guys who had that attitude and were excessively convinced the thin blue line was the only route to salvation." "That attitude" being that most everyone not a Cop was inclined to be evil and only the might of the law kept that -- barely -- in check. Nor did I say or think you subscribed to that though I did write that you seemed to think along those general linesNow there may be some officers who don't subscribe to that opinion but I would guess, guess mind you, nothing else, that they work in a pretty boring jurisdiction.
You guys remind me of a SGT I had who used to cross out "hit" and make me use "struck" or "impacted" instead.
This isn't rhetoric class and I ain't going to do the homework assignment if I feel like reading "McAuslan in the Rough", by Fraser which is a very good book by the way, as is "The General Danced at Dawn", where was I...instead.
You get it. I thought you gave up lawyering?
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
Though it would probably save time if you wrote what you meant in the first place. Not a knock just a suggestion for your consideration. When you read something here that arouses you a bit, you tend to come across as aggressive -- not passive aggressive, just aggressive. That's okay in person but in this medium it can lead to misperceptions -- as you and I have already noted.
Good example is the JMM interchange. You suggest killing all poisonous snake and he -- reasonably, I thought, mentioned there were other options. You took it as Lawyerlike twisting of words, to me they were fair questions. Nor do I see the relationship between your Sergeant and his weasel wording with Mike asking about alternatives to your suggestion. For all Mike knew, you may have considered those things and just not mentioned them. Similarly, for all I knew initially, when you wrote "...you don't see the evil that is there, unless you are a police officer or in a similar line of work" you may have disagreed with the statement but ordinarily most of us will figure that's your position. IOW, I didn't ask if you really believed what you wrote, I took it at face value. You later clarified and refined it to this:"I didn't say anything at all about cops feeling superior to other citizens. I said that police officers and people in similar lines of work see evil face to face whereas other most other citizens don't. which is a bit different and with which I agree.
This is indeed not a rhetoric class nor is anyone passing out homework that I can see. It's okay to disagree with people but one doesn't have to be disagreeable in the process.
When all's said and done, it appears that this:rather condescending comment got thrown right back at you and our real disagreement in this case seems to merely be over what percentage of people constitute "a lot."That being said, boy are you wrong. There are a lot of evil people in the world, all around you.
All that said I agree with you about all three G.MacD F. books in that trilogy. All three are great. If you haven't, you should also read his "Quartered Safe Out Here." IMO it's one of the best war memoirs I've read if not the best.
Bookmarks