Pejman Yousefzadeh, in his fantastic March 2002 article about fleeing oppression and growing up American:
"Without an army of the mind spurring on the powerful, the army of righteous might whose individual members call themselves American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, will never be able to win. By continually reminding others why their battle is justified, by showing them that we are grateful for their skills, and awed by their courage, we are giving them invaluable support. No Daisy Cutter is as powerful as a thinking and impassioned American. So to all my fellow bloggers, I have this to say: Keep writing. Keep thinking. Keep arguing. Keep confronting. Keep challenging. Keep seeking to persuade. Every myth that you knock down, every tawdry tale of moral equivalency that you seek to destroy, every amnesiac mind to which you seek to restore memory, every malevolent mind whose warped reason you lay bare for mocking, for ridicule, for righteous indignation, and for - we hope - universal rejection - all of that matters. It will help strengthen policy. It will help save the lives of the innocent. And it will help curtail the freedom, and end the lives of those who would wish us another September 11th, and a hundred times worse. It matters. Many of us were driven to blog because of September 11th. We have something to say. So keep saying it. And remember that there are many thousands, if not millions, who listen to us, who are influenced, and who believe it matters too."
Such a delightful phrase: The Army of the Mind. Thanks to so many of you for signing up to play your part in it.
Triumph of the Will indeed.
YES YES YES
That was my point in writing this piece:
How to Lose a War
What more do the leftist and the MSM want?
Read More
well, I cant disagree that serious blogging about the war IS of value, and one need not be ashamed of being in the "keyboard brigade" keyboarding is SPEECH, and in a democracy, speech matters. Bringing information and sound analysis to the table is clearly a good thing, whether you are read by policy makers, by journalists, or by just plain folks. So two cheers for warbloggers.
that said, I must respond with two caveats
1. Keyboarding, valuable though it may be, is STILL not as dangerous as being in a warzone (yes, I know everywhere is a potential warzone). I despise the chickenhawk meme - but I also have big problems with keyboarders ive seen (not here that I can recall) who disparage the courage of our muslim allies, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere, from the relative safety of a keyboard in North America. This has come up wrt to Kharzai several times, he not being as gung ho as some keyboarders would like, and also wrt to (proUS) Iraqi pols who want to negotiate with insurgents. And the general meme of attacking moderate muslims for not speaking out more, when we all know that moderate muslims who do so risk their lives.
2. If keyboarding is important (as it is) that brings with it a certain responsibility. Not just for accuracy, but for a certain civility of discourse. There are some pretty uncivil, pretty destructive memes going around on both sides. I wont rehash them - I think we all know what they are. Bloggers on both sides need to acknowledge and their real influence, and potential value, and act accordingly.
Liberalhawk,
You have a good point. While we in the Blogos are not directly in the line of fire we can have a great impact in the "war of words."
The GWOT is a war of ideas, culture, ideology, and religion. We can't win this war on the ground alone. We must win this war of ideas.
We must show the world that Islamofascism is a failed ideolgy just like other tryannical ideologies of Nazism, Communism, and Fascism that couldn't provide for the needs of its people and provide for the equitable distribution of goods and resources. Further these ideologies failed because they do not recongize the universial truth of the free will of men and women.
The LL and MSM in their narcistic ruminations are spewing disinformation. The American people and the free world are left confused. The Blogos now has the power to bring objective information to the people without blocking or filtering by the MSM.
The Blogos can work to ensure the free flow of news/info into these repressive regimes and also give a forum to those brave bloggers who literally risk life and limb to report to the world their firsthand accounts.
Liberalhawk,
You might have been better to stop at 2 cheers.
A warblogger analyzing the course of the war has every right to comment on events. Fallujah's first assault was called off because the Iraqi government wanted it so. We now know that this was a major factor in the growth of the Iraqi insurgency. The word for people who pointed this out at the time is called "correct," and noting their degree of physical risk doesn't affect that. To say so is an ad hominem in the classic sense - attacking the person instead of the argument.
Warbloggers can also be wrong, of course, and they can have emotional reactions to what's going on about the war (Sullivan certainly does). They can also be civil or uncivil, just as their opponents can be civil (Drum) or uncivil (Kos).
Precisely because The Army of the Mind is not a regimented army but a chaordic assembly of free citizens expressing views freely, there will be a lot of variation. There WILL be memes others dislike. Ultimately, they must be faced in the melee of ideas, and dealt with accordingly.
If you're asking to remove the messiness, never happen. If you're setting standards for the blogs you'll support and patronize, good on you for playing your part. Millions of others will do likewise, and they are valid targets of persuasion. Just recognize that it is a persuasion process.
Ultimately, a cause-based blogger has 2 responsibilities:
[1] To themselves. To thine own self be true.
[2] To the greater cause they support, to be the best they can be. Note that the exact nature of that cause and definition of what constitutes "best" will differ. And so we're back to the wide range, and the melee of debate.
"A warblogger analyzing the course of the war has every right to comment on events. Fallujah's first assault was called off because the Iraqi government wanted it so. We now know that this was a major factor in the growth of the Iraqi insurgency. The word for people who pointed this out at the time is called "correct," and noting their degree of physical risk doesn't affect that. To say so is an ad hominem in the classic sense - attacking the person instead of the argument."
i was actually thinking of more recent critisms, but lets take Fallujah one, since you raise it. Critiquing the policy is one thing. Attacking the Iraqi pols as cowards, is another, even if they were mistaken.
"If you're asking to remove the messiness, never happen"
Well im not asking for govt censorship. Of course messiness will always be there - and of course it was there BEFORE blogs - for those who read small opinion mags, underground papers, etc. NOt all conventional media is mainstream. Just not nearly as easily produced or accesible.
But I am doing more than making a statement of my own standards. Im trying to persuade people who read me (isnt that what bloggers do?) to adopt my standard. And yes, I think people have moral obligations, even when no law can enforce them. And I think civility is one of them.
Memes that clash in the battle ideas are well and good. But some by their nature detract from rational discourse, and focus on ad hominem. At some point responding to such arguments is a distraction.
Sullys emotionalism has certainly detracted from his site for me. But emotionalism is NOT the same as incivility. Sully is generally not uncivil, except towards those in this world who murder innocents, and whom we are fighting. The incivility that most concerns me is that which needlessly divides Americans, and which has been a problem for several years, certainly before blogs or Bush.
RE #6: Attacking politicians for internal motives is always a chancy proposition, since we can't know them. The fewer instances of behaviour we have to generalize from, the chancier it is.
Anyone is free to speculate, and since they "whys" are important to people that's inevitable. To characterize the first Battle of Fallujah as "a failure of nerve" isn't so far wrong to my mind. But the proper objection is that a characterization of motives for politicians you know almost nothing about is likely to be incorrect.
And the proper response is to offer (taking your responsibility concept seriously) other possibilities that help educate readers on what the choices are really like, so their understanding improves too. It is not to respond that the person is not himself in physical danger, and so is unqualified to speak - to my mind, that's the very incivity you protest.
I said at the time we'd see mistakes as the Iraqis played more of a role, and that they'd learn over time, and they did (in the case of Allawi, at very personal expense).
RE #7: In terms of persuading others to adopt the standard of civility, as I noted in #5 that's a most worthy goal. I'm also glad you choose to be here as part of that effort.
My only thought there is that it's wise to focus on the benefits of following that precept when reaching toward a mutually shared goal, as well as swinging away at those who don't. Both are necessary.
Read all about it!
"And the proper response is to offer (taking your responsibility concept seriously) other possibilities that help educate readers on what the choices are really like, so their understanding improves too. It is not to respond that the person is not himself in physical danger, and so is unqualified to speak - to my mind, that's the very incivity you protest"
look, there are serious analyses of the mindsets of Iraqi (or for that matter, Afghan)politicians, or moderate muslim leaders, etc. and there are flippant remarks. I really dont think its that hard to tell the difference. I was addressing the latter, which I see fairly often. I am happy to see serious, strategic analyses of the mindsets and motives of players in world politics. When somebody whos safe behind a keyboard flippantly attacks an Iraqi politician, an Afghan pol, a moderate imam who lives in a country where he can get little protection from jihadi retribution, a Saudi cop, a Pakistani soldier, a US Marine, a Gitmo prison guard, etc, etc I will continue to denounce such flippantry, in terms not terribly different from the chickenhawk meme. Analysis is one thing - disrespect for the dilemma created by life in danger, by someone who is NOT in danger (or barely so) is another.
see I think youre missing my point.
Lets say some Paki soldiers are up in Waziristan. And instead of killing all the local jihadis, they turn in run, apparently putting their selfpreservation above all else. And some blogger makes a remark about the cowardly, laughable,paki troops. From the (relative) safety of a cubicle in the US. Im not necessarily disputing the facts. Im NOT necessarily suggesting that what was going on was a strategic withdrawl. It may very well have been pure panic. What I AM suggesting is that for someone who is living in safety, who has either passed up the opportunity to join the military, or who (like myself) has by age or disability been spared that choice, to mock the panic of someone who has actually been under fire, is inappropriate. Not factually or analytically wrong - emotionally and morally inappropriate.
If you're prepared to use those arguments, then you fundamentally don't get it. But you may be close, and we may be closer than is apparent - so I'll try once more. Your words:
DISRESPECT FOR THE DILEMMA. Yes, that's the valid part. They can come down on whatever side, but they need to able to show real, human respect for the dilemma of the moment of decision and action, and the effects of a policy on those who face it on the front lines. That old Primal Heroic Impulse, as David Blue called it in his excellent Guest Blog.
Those who don't are showing disrespect for the dilemma, and that means disrespect for the people in it. The problem is THE DISRESPECT, and there are numerous ways to point it out and bring it home without resorting to morally slimy and logically invalid "chickenhawk" type arguments.
In the end, however, even when that is resolved, the debate itself still will not be resolved.
Can we agree on this... pointing out that something is dangerous or not doesn't change what the correct course of action is? Or is this the part where we start bringing up historical examples of people who invited far greater dangers because of fear of facing smaller ones?
Ultimately, arguments are about what's right and wrong, not personal experience. Now, that experience is still very useful. It can be used constructively as evidence is discussions about right and wrong ("X has personal experience in a related situation, and that didn't work"), or as input into the respect point ("I understand what you'd like to see, but put yourself in position X. Here's the situation... is it reasonable to expect....? What would a policy have to look like to accomodate this reality and so have a greater likelihood of strengthening friends over time and succeeding?").
If the respect is clearly not there, if the response makes it clear that the Other in the dilemma is just a pawn to be sacrificed or a non-person, by all means open up and blaze away.
What you'll be shredding them for, however, won't be cowardice - it will be more serious than that.
Are we closer to seeing eye to eye here?
Re #11 (Waziristan). My response to said unnamed example:
---
"You may be right about the low quality of the troops, and the need for better next time. Pakistan's Frontier Corps are mostly irregulars, militia. Basically, it's like a bunch of neighbourhood folks grabbing guns and going up against a fortified crack-house stocked with automatic weapons. How would you feel about trying that? But they did.
Read Bravo Two Zero - SAS members can run, too. It isn't always cowardly, and we don't know what the tactical situation was.
The honourable thing to do is to respect and salute the courage of those willing to try such a thing at all. I think you owe them an apology, especially since they died fighting your (and my) enemies.
Will you do the honourable thing?
---
Which response is more likely to bring a warblogger up short and change their mind - that, or a "chickenhawk" accusation?
It is also, not incidentally, the morally and factually correct argument.