In related news, UN inspectors are shocked and appalled to find Saddam Hussein living in a four walled concrete structure with metal bars:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1489581,00.html

apparently this "prison" is seemingly inescapable, meaning Hussein is unable to come and go as he wishes. Worse, he has been consistantly denied the lifestyle he is accustomed to including golden toilets, satellite tv, and the ability to torture entire towns to death. This may well constitute a violation of various international laws.

Joe,

Thanks for the introduction to Bill's excellent writing. I very much enjoyed his Sanctuary, and can well appreciate why he's been added to your "Circle of Ten."

Straw men, misrepresentation and bad reasoning.

I'm actually shocked that you linked to something that was so badly argued.

There is one very good point made in the article - insurgents disguised as civilians is a horrible blending of what should be a bright line between civilian and combatant. And so our troops need to be given some understanding of the violence they undertake, because that is what they are dealing with. (Sanctuary, in the authors understanding).

But - my God - so many other misleading, statements, not connected to the realities of the situation.

For example, you can simply read the New York times article of the abuse in Afghanistan the other day, to see that the "rule of sanctuary" did not describe the situation AT ALL that occured there. There was systematic physical abuse occuring on a daily basis, leading to deaths. Reading through all the various literature, on Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, various extraordinary rendition article, the historical record is clear: brutality was permitted. Not encouraged, but permitted, by the relevant authorities.

There is the conflation and confusion of Al Queda and associated Islamic fanatics, with the homegrown Sunni insurgents. There are three forces acting in Iraq - the Sunni who are out of power, and so are basically committed to civil war. The Al Queda insurgents, basically committed to terror. And generalized "NIMBY" resentment and resistance to american force.

By the way, one and two are both equally illegitimate, brutal, and inhumane - but its necessary to be CLEAR about what is happening, at least.

Also, no mention of the fact that occupying armies that are more powerful OFTEN the occupied resent them - and turn to conflating civilian and combatant. This is well known.

And finally, the generalizing from one example to everyone, or the airport story.

Sure, that guy is an idiot - but I can show other examples of idiocies.

There was an article on Daily Kos called Wingnuts in a Star Wars line. Go read it, when you have a second.

Since the 20-something wingnuts in question, were CRITICIZING actual military guys, on leave from Iraq, should we assume that all such "support for the troops" from wingnuts, is as hollow as this group of young fools is?

How is this article helpful, how does it bind people together, how does it help lead anyone forward, with so much misleading?

You would have been better off taking the idea of "sanctuary", and writing it up yourself, because the confusions and exaggerations of the article irresponsibly invalidate the one decent point made.

I am not so fool as to attempt to duplicate one of Bill's essays, in style or in time invested (my Yalta, Freedom & the Future overview of freedom promotion as foreign policy was enough for a while).

And Bill has more than one good point.

The section about the reason behind Sanctuary, and the line between civilian and combatant, is indeed one. It is forgotten far too often these days.

We can debate the points re: Afghanistan et al., and you're correct that in the cases you mention it is not a Sanctuary issue. Bill also makes a point in his essay out of noting the importance of upholding traditions of honour. In other cases within this war, however - such as the energetic attempts to give Geneva protections (which would, I'll note, prevent interrogation) to those who have flouted them at every turn, and in some of the ridiculous hand-wriinging over combat actions... yes, Sanctuary is the defining issue.

So Bill can grant all of the points you raise, and still have a valid and important argument re: Sanctuary. As you yourself note.

So... one.

There's also an issue of perspective involved. It's one thing to seek to end abuses, a laudable thing. It's entirely another thing to portray them as the most salient or emblematic aspects of the current war, or to define torture in ridiculous ways - and when that happens there's a not-particularly-hidden agenda involved.

Bill's note that there are indeed quite a few people who are rooting for defeat and working to help bring it about is another. Keith Thompson just published an article in today's San Francisco Chronicle entitled Leaving the Left - his reasons are familiar, for he has not been alone over the past 4 years by any means. We've chronicled enough of that, and seen far too much.

Still do. That's two.

And The Great Pharaoh Cheops transported to a 7-11 store? Classic. That one deserves a post all its own. And will get it.

Three.

And the airport line story was great. As the TSA employee noted afterward, it isn't an isolated event:

"I just wanted to thank you for sticking up for us like that,” he said. “We get that all the time.”

I never really thought about it before. I guess they do. The original screener, the Nazi Latino in his mid fifties, thanks me for defending him. So does a young black woman Nazi in her mid twenties. “We really appreciate it when people get what we’re trying to do. We get stuff like this all the time.”

And I stand there, looking around at the multi-racial, multi-cultural menagerie swirling around me, and I think to myself – yet again – that this whole thing works. Not perfectly, but it works, by God. And I think that this greasy, grey little one-man phalanx of narcissism and protest should in fact bow his head and take a knee to simply be allowed to walk through this gate of miracles and fly six miles high at nearly the speed of sound and nurse his grievances against the people who are in fact protecting him, while he fetishizes and romanticizes those that would kill him in a heartbeat.

I know what I did. I thanked those men and women for what they have done and are doing and continue to do to make my life the safe, pleasant and prosperous affair I am so accustomed to.

Sitting there, drinking my $2.00 aviation-grade bottled water, I wondered how someone could seriously make such a comparison: remove your shoes versus forcibly removing your gold fillings.

Well, these are the consequences of not knowing about what life is really like, outside of the Sanctuary."

Personally, I thought that was a great point. Not a thing to argue with there AFAIC.

And Bill would also be the first guy to stand up for Richard, the guy on leave in the Star Wars line.

There is, unsurprisingly, not 100% unanimity in the verdicts rendered by those who are there. If there was, it would weird me out. So Richard has his view, many others say things are rather better there than commonly portrayed, still others have different takes. Dadmanly, above in the comments, is over there right now as we type.

We make our own judgments.

So why do I say with confidence that Bill would have considerable respect for Richard's judgment? Because it's informed by direct experience, and an appreciations of the way the world outside actually works that is missing all too often.

I read Bill's post, and that whole theme rang my bell, strongly. I recalled of a friend of mine who told me, recently and with a straight face, that World War 2 was won through dialogue. It's certainly not the only personal example of same, and at these times, one is simply at a loss. To span that gap is a chasm between universes - and Bill gets at some of the stuff underneath that. Victor Davis Hanson speaks in older terms about luxus, and means the same sort of thing. Not remembering what life is like, outside the Sanctuary.

Four.

Four strong and important points in one article is pretty good. (Actually, speaking as an editor now, it verges on too many.) He's hitting on some key issues: [1] Sanctuary and the nature of war, [2] Important Parts of the Culture Siding With the West's enemies, [3] The wonders of the civilization we've built, and [4] Widespread, reality-removed decadence.

All real and serious issues - and when Bill Whittle writes, he reaches people on a different level. In a way that, candidly, I do not.

In the words of Dirty Harry, "it's a wise man who knows his own limitations."

My estrangement hasn’t happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming for more than three decades; yet refused to truly see. Now it’s all too obvious. Leading voices in America’s “peace” movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World people because it hates George W. Bush more than it loves freedom.

Lots are walking away from the moonbats and the mantras and joining the conversation.

A revolution of sorts has happend in the conservative sphere too, Barry Goldwater.

Eventually I joined the staff of U.S. Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio. In short, I became a card-carrying liberal, though I never actually got a card. (Bookkeeping has never been the left’s strong suit.)

From the champion of the Boland amendment to this ?

Joe, that Guy is hard core, he reminds me of Ronald Radosh and David Horowitz when they left the Left.

You wont hear them arguing the head choppers of old brit school teachers and those that send bomb cars into crowds of kids deserve Geneva protection.

Hey JC, the proper way to deal with them is a pistol bullet thru the brain, on site, thats within the scope of Geneva, the only reason we dont, is the information we might get, and their public confessions on Iraq TV of late is also usefull to us. in return, they dont get the bullet thru the brain, and theres a chance they might walk free one day.

But, thats our poragative, you and your fellow leftists attempts to tie us down with lilliputian strings so we cant defend ourselves is seen exactly for what it is.

The leftist media is earning the reputation of Tokyo Rose.

What the left did to us in the past isnt working this time.

Yeah, he was hardcore.

An issue that JC raises indirectly, and which you might want to think about as well Raymond:

Assuming we wanted to produce more "Kronstadt-moment conversions" from folks like Keith Thompson, and thereby produce more unity... how would one best go about that task?

That's the million dollar question. How do you deprogram someone without their knowing it?

"Deprogramming" is a strong term. Let's confine the disussion to the non-fanatics, and think of it in terms of stadndard ideological persuasion.

But wouldn't those people of standard ideological persuasion already be questioning some of the things they're seeing on the left? Perhaps the constant hammering away at the enormous gulf between the Left's deeds and their professed beliefs will gradually change the views of non-fanatics. We should make sure that all hypocrisy is commented on. This goes for Left and Right. I guess the answer if just be honest and name bullshit when you see it.

lindsey-- not "deprogramming".
Subtle memetic engineering. The cognitive neuroscience model involves memes and meme complexes presented to "receptors" belonging to the target-- a new meme that is radically different in orientation from the currently held memeset will be rejected-- you want to present memes just slightly different.

Slightly different than what ?

How much must we blur the distictions between right and wrong ?

Do I have to be half wrong, half evil, to reach out to evil ?

Yes given 2 weeks with a moonie chained in the back of a camper you can deprogram him, and that includes the infliction of pain when he goes off into one of his delusional other reality rants...

Otherwise, it can take years, and an epihany, and like many of us, the "conversion" was the result of our own eyes and ears and our own thought.

Something you too might experience one day, when you no longer view your fellow humans as souless machines biological, but as something more.

And look at those societies, and what happens to them, when they see them as nothing more.

Jc: no mention of the fact that occupying armies that are more powerful OFTEN the occupied resent them - and turn to conflating civilian and combatant. This is well known.

What was that fact again?

Note that US forces have been occupying South Korea for decades. Some Koreans don't like that. Does that mean it's immoral for us to help defend South Korea from North Korea?

If there is a "well known" rule of occupations - one that covers the German occupation of France, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, MacArthur's occupation of Japan, Sherman's occupation of Georgia - it is certainly unknown to me.

JC:

Concerning the dialogue on Kos (though I don't know why you'd point to a Kos dialogue if you're so interested in conergence) the 2nd Looey's either right or wrong that an "insurgent" victory in Iraq is inevitable. If he's right, then odds are we'll see a WWIV eventually, in which the number dead will dwarf those of WWII. I wonder what folks like him and his pals think they're advocating or promoting? If we're not winning in Iraq, then perhaps we need to become more aggressive, devote more troops, launch more missions?

But somehow (and this is just a hunch) I think they're probably Copperheads, who figure retreat is victory, even if it means a continuation of slavery (at the least). The only piece of credible analysis was the following:

If we're winning, how come the insurgents are even able to stage these large attacks? If we had that level of control, they wouldn't have any safe assembly areas from which to attack us in any numbers. All we can do is react to them, which means they have the initiative. That's bad," I said.

The inhabitants of the villages that were recently hit in Operation Matador requested the US. What that tells me is that the "insurgents" aren't all that welcome even in those areas where they're able to operate, but they do so in typical fasion by terrorizing the inhabitants... which is the way they'd run the country if we left. An anti-insurgent strategy requires a timetable, and it's entirely possible that someone at the 2nd Looey level simply wouldn't "get it."

You know, there are a lot of "sanctuary" related ideas that could motivate and galvanize and justify the left... but they'd have to start being consistent before they'd be credible. You could argue that workers attempting to make it in the independent contractor sector of the economy, or who are transitioning from one job to another, need some sort of "sanctuary," because they don't have an off switch that they can throw until the economy decides it needs them. And that sanctuary makes the larger sanctuary more robust and resilient. But if you're unwilling to do what it takes to secure the larger sanctuary, including expanding and consolidating liberal/demoscratic society... you don't have much credibility in those other areas. We won't be handing you the keys to the family car any time soon, no matter how many tantrums you throw.

You need to purge the wishful thinking, or what a friend of mine calls the "lust for peace" before you'll be able to see clearly.

"Lust for peace", or hoping for failure ?

There may well be failure, as we see the left undermine and discredit every pretense they said they stood for,

Which is why the thoughtfull among them, are leaving

The sheepskin has slipped off the wolf, the disguise isnt working any more.

Raymond:

"Lust for peace", or hoping for failure ?

Paul Berman calls it wishful thinking, but that's a bit tame and doesn't quite capture the self-annihilating aspect of it. A "lust" seems more apropriate. My friend actually coined the term in relation to the peace movement in Israel, and the desire to trade land for peace. In that context it was predicated on a certain war-weariness. Ultimately many of these people came to the realization that the Arabs didn't want peace, and they didn't really care about the land much either. What they wanted was to annihilate Israel. The current shift in strategy there has more to do with creating a manageable defense than trading land. But there is some hope that at least some of the Arabs are fed up enough with their lot that they're willing to start constructing rather than destructing. In that sense a desire for peace is a good thing. Anyway, not many really believe in "land for peace" any longer.

In the case of the US there was a lust for peace during the Civil War that nearly led to a settlement that would have given the South most of what it wanted. Now, these folks weren't Marxists, they just had a desire that was intense. I'm not sure we could be so charitable to our current peace movement, because there have been no killing fields recently like Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, The Wilderness, Antietam, Gettysburg, Manassas, etc. Their lust is full blown and fantastic, rather than a weariness of war. They cringe at the very idea of a fight, not merely its effects.

I once thought that way, for a few seconds, but remember they are not shy about using force, just as long as they are the ones doing it.

Ask those labeled as "enemies of the people" (bushitler syndrome) what the left do when they control that force, well we could if they didnt fill mass graves.

They certainly have nothing to say when its a leftist butcher doing their normal workaday murder progroms, other than a shrug, a denial, or an excuse.

M Moore and bagdag Mc Dermot, standing on mass graves of iraq kids making propaganda in support of a butcher, Patty McMurray, and so on.

And now they are in a fuss because the PolPot of babylon, the butcher of bagdad, the leader of the clan that kidnapped 14 year old girls for sex toys and live tiger food at the schools like they was a flesh supermarket,,, is dared shown in his underwear. or that those that send bomb cars into crowds of kids and saw the head off old Brit NGO school teachers might have had to edure the sight of a koran falling into the potty.

This really leaves no room for that interpetation.

No, I say they are against the idea that the USA, that they hate, might defend itself, its a US Victory, of any kind, that they are against.

Vietnam was on the ropes, near surrender, and the left thru them a lifeline for 2 years, and then cut funding to the south.

So that the Vietmin, guilty of a 5% murder quota and other crimes against humanity, could bring their crimes against humanity south, in a progrom so horrific that 500,000 drowned in the south china sea attempting to escape.

From the USSR and its 61 Million Murdered to the killing fields of Babylon, they have an unbroken record of opposing the USA in confrontation of Socialist butchers guilty of crimes against humanity

All their protestations is to act like a million Lillipution strings, to hamper our ability to defend ourselves.

Its a lust for another USA failure that they want.

So that evil can have another victory, they have always been evils champions.

when you no longer view your fellow humans as souless machines biological,

I do so believe in souls, psyches, personalities, whatever you want to call them-- unique accretions of thought and memory generated by the electro-chemical patterns formed by activity in the cerebral cortext!
That is no fair point of contention between us.

And sure, there can be epiphanies, but what of the art of persuasion? Humans are more willing to accept a slightly altered meme than one that is completely orthoganal to their current belief.

I give Whittle credit for having the balls to justify torture openly.

Although the whole "Sanctuary" bit is a laughable pile of crap. The line between civilian and combatant is defined by necessity first, honour is a distant second. i.e. Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, etc.. all attacks on civilians I essentially condone.

Do we need to be able to torture people to death to win this war (or preserve or civilization)? Invariably many of them will be innocent, what do you think?

SAO, you consistantly ignore the fact that we are all nasty hobbesian barbarians under the skin, and that this is basically a Hobbsesian universe. As much as you would like to pretend that third world world dictatorships, the foul UN, and dissipated souless Europe are actually shining exemplars of either embryo or full blown Lockean societies, it just ain't so.
The Rule of Law is the only thing that separates us from the jungle, and "nature red in tooth and claw". The Rule of Law was upheld at Abu Ghraib. Those who broke the law are consistantly punished. Now quit your whining and help praktike form a consensus of sane, high IQ liberals who can actually accomplish something. ;)

jinnderella: we are all nasty hobbesian barbarians

In fact, I specialize in Nasty. Somebody else will have to cover Solitary, Poor, Brutish and Short.

SAO, if you read Whittle, he is not justifying torture. That's pretty clear from his actual words. He may not consider "anything that makes a terrorist feel bad" as torture, however.

It is true that Mr. Whittle has zero problem with pre-emptively shooting people who may be faking surrender if investigation would put American troops at risk (ditto, this was actually incredibly common in the Pacific during WW2), or treating mosques as legitimate bombing targets once a pattern of their use as arsenals of war is established (ditto).

As for the Hobbesian quatro... Solitary... hmm... did any of our readers perchance take a lightsaber replica to Revenge of the Sith on opening night?

did any of our readers perchance take a lightsaber replica to Revenge of the Sith on opening night?
mememememememe!!!!
(umm, but not opening night)
BTW, i am heartily sick of everyone dissing starwars and trying to map bizarro political symbolisms onto it.

The fifteen year old guy part of my brain was estactic! I really, really liked it!!
So, how 'bout all the rest of 'chu starwars dissers just STFU and let us childlike and simple starwars geeks just enjoy it?

Take your sophisto analysis elsewhere! ;)

I'm just glad Jinn didn't go all Zell Miller on me and challenge me to a duel.

ha ha! You would so lose.
I was the captain of my fencing team in college. ;)

Its more than nurons and transmitters and receptors Jinn, Humans are more than the sum of their parts.

And reality can be orthoganal to their current belief. perhaps you have noticed that, a time or two.

More than half of humanity thinks "electricity" come out the postive terminal of a battery, they get away with it because the effects such backward thinking can have, they are insulated from by not having to deal with it on more than a prefab functional level.

But its the opposite, something you need to know when you try to do somehting other than what somebody else and provided to you.

The leftist model of how the world works is full of the opposite and the inverted. truly orthoganal.

Joe, yes, cant forget your laser samuri.

As for torture, it seems we dont need to do that, all we need to do is strip em naked and let dogs growl at them, lead em around on a leash, swat em with kotex that look used and dunk their holy books in the potty.

And so far we havent caused even slight physical disconfort, gee sure hope we are doing a lot of that .... ahem ....

Since when have the left been so sensitive to christians, so i guess now the cross dunked in urine or the dung covered virgin mary is now out of the question right ?

As well as the schools pushing sexual perversions at the kids in elementary ...

Nice that the left have discovered a new PC code to avoid offending the faithfull ...

Yeah Right.