The new Libya: various aspects

[Bob's World]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Lots of people love the idea of revolution... noble populace stands up and expels the despot, all very pretty. The reality is often less pretty. This is to be expected.

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.

[carl]

Originally Posted by Ken White

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;...

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.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by Bob's World

To date, we have not proved particularly adept at that.

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...

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's okay...

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.

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...

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by carl

This is just a point of philosophical disagreement.

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.

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.

Bad simile. Lot of folks can't tell poisonous from non-poisonous. There you go, advocating the killing of innocent and helpful types...

That being said, boy are you wrong.

That would be different...

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.

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.

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.

There is evil.

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...

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.

I'd say not most, just some Americans, perhaps 20% or so. Those would be the unfettered idealists...

[carl]

Originally Posted by Ken White

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ken White

Lot of folks can't tell poisonous from non-poisonous. There you go, advocating the killing of innocent and helpful types...

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.

Originally Posted by Ken White

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ken White

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ken White

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...

That was the point of my comment. 20% isn't "aren't that many".

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by carl

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.

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.

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.

Possibly. It's also possible that I don't take things as seriously as you do.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That was the point of my comment. 20% isn't "aren't that many".

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.

[motorfirebox]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

I guess you could draw some sort of distinction between a spontaneous, thus "accidental", execution and a planned execution, but I'm not sure whether there'd be much point in it. He's dead, he reaped what he sowed, end of story. Next chapter in progress...

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.

[Bob's World]

Originally Posted by Ken White

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...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...

Not in conflict with myself, but merely attempting to describe our national dilemma. I personally find a great deal of value in George Washington's farewell address. Certainly I cringe as hard as you when ideas like "R2P" are given serious consideration.

[carl]

Originally Posted by Ken White

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....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'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...

[jmm99]

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.

Why not backoff ? Why not bypass it ? Why not capture it ?

Do you exclude those COAs ?

If you don't exclude alternative COAs, what are your criteria to select among them ?

Regards

Mike

[Ken White]

as the Actress said to the Bishop...

Originally Posted by carl

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.

I agree with that as written. Not to be nit picky but I don't think that's very near what you wrote earlier.

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.

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 lines

[carl]

Originally Posted by jmm99

Why not backoff ? Why not bypass it ? Why not capture it ?

Do you exclude those COAs ?

If you don't exclude alternative COAs, what are your criteria to select among them ?

Regards

Mike

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?

[carl]

Originally Posted by Ken White

...though I did write that you seemed to think along those general lines

It may be more productive to ask me direct.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by carl

It may be more productive to ask me direct.

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:

That being said, boy are you wrong. There are a lot of evil people in the world, all around you.

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."

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.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by 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.

If you must... personally, if I meet a poisonous snake I leave it alone and avoid it. Plenty of people get bit trying to kill a snake that was pretty much minding its own business.

Originally Posted by Bob's World

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)

True often enough... but in the death of Daffy we saw revolution in its pure state, unhijacked, unleveraged. Angry men with guns, fired up on that potent cocktail of adrenalin and testosterone, face to face with the face they despise. That's not about self-serving parties hijacking anything, that's about Daffy sticking around way too long and ending up in the wrong place at the wrong time. So it goes. One hopes a few others were observing.

Originally Posted by motorfirebox

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.

You speak as though this happened by the decision was made by the NTC, or by some authority, or as though there was some conscious plan in all this. There isn't. The decision was made by an angry guy with a gun, and it's not likely he was thinking about international perceptions or trials or human rights or rules of war or what the NTC would think or say. It's likely he didn't even plan to pull the trigger until he did it.

These things are actually less likely to happen in a revolution waged by a structured movement with a military arm that's been fighting for some time: unstructured spontaneous revolt is a lot harder to control. Of course when a revolution waged by a structured movement succeeds, the structured movement almost invariably takes over as the new despot. Something similar may or may not happen in this case. We don't know: there's a lot yet to be seen. Realistically, though, trying to hold people accountable for all the nastiness that went down on both sides in the heat of the moment is probably going to be a perfunctory exercise that goes nowhere.

[carl]

Ken:

You're right. I gotta write more clear. For example, when I initially wrote "...you don't see the evil that is there, unless you are a police officer or in a similar line of work", it was part of a paragraph that contained a preceding sentence that made it clear, I thought, that all the "you"s in the paragraph were rhetorical. That made the whole paragraph more of a comment upon a part of human nature than anything else. And in context, more applicable to America than other places, at least that is what I thought.

Edit after the initial response alert! I also should have made a new paragraph after "Boy are you...". That would have helped too.

The snake thing was a metaphor. Poorly carried out obviously enough. It was meant to illustrate that whether bad thing is done because of "idealism" or "unfettered evil" doesn't make much difference. The result is the same and you stop it if you can.

The "boy are you wrong." is just plain old colloquial American English which I still rather like. Though I will admit that telling somebody directly they are wrong is rather frowned upon in modern America.

You should actually try asking me direct. I might surprise you.

I guess I ended up doing my rhetoric homework after all.

[jmm99]

You elected not to answer them. That's your right.

My right is to ignore your comments.

Regards

Mike

[carl]

Mike:

If I offended you, I apologize. I though you were fooling around. Another thing I got wrong.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by carl

The "boy are you wrong." is just plain old colloquial American English which I still rather like.

I have no problem with it -- in person, where expressions and nuances can be seen and felt. On an internet caht board it can come across as a flat statement. It's, as they say, an imperfect medium ...

Though I will admit that telling somebody directly they are wrong is rather frowned upon in modern America.

For some maybe. Most will take it the way it's meant if they can see no hostile intent. I'm good -- but I can't quite see you...

You should actually try asking me direct. I might surprise you.

I can do dat...

[motorfirebox]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

You speak as though this happened by the decision was made by the NTC, or by some authority, or as though there was some conscious plan in all this. There isn't. The decision was made by an angry guy with a gun, and it's not likely he was thinking about international perceptions or trials or human rights or rules of war or what the NTC would think or say. It's likely he didn't even plan to pull the trigger until he did it.

I'm trying to say the opposite--that the NTC appears to be barely in control of itself. It seems somewhat unlikely (though not impossible!) that any orders passed down by the NTC regarding Gaddafi included sodomy. But to the extent that the NTC is organized, they seem to be organizing the murder of a lot of people. Which is what we went in to stop in the first place.