Comments for When Awards don't matter...

When Awards don't matter...

2005-02-25T12:24:40Z

Both sides of the coin division.

First off - Over at Strategy Page there's something on a subject near and dear to several reader's hearts... the true mobilization of the people in support of the Global War on Terror. I might have a quibble or two with the author, but nothing substantive jumped out - and I am a fan of Harry Summers. Go read, come back, and continue.

Over at Confederate Yankee, Bob wonders:

Wired.com has given combat journalist Kevin Sites the 2005 Wired Rave Awards for Blogs, though apparently "relevancy" was not one of the criteria for judging.

You should go visit, and read the rest. And not just because Bob mentions the Castle in a positive manner... (preen), but because he has a good point. Not that the folks at Wired are going to see it...

Okay, that takes care of Real Awards that don't matter, cuz' we didn't get one. In fact, I bet they never even saw this place. Let's move on to Bogus Fantasy Awards that don't matter, too. Today is a short-time-available-for-blogging-day. Perhaps my compadres Dusty and Bill will have time to keep you entertained. But, to keep you out of the liquor cabinet (yeah, right - hosting costs for this blog don't even begin to approach the booze bill) I leave you this picture to have fun with. And yes, you may mock artillerymen. I can always ban you if you manage to scandalize me... and no, Barb, you can't get Bill to let you back in - he doesn't have the keys!

Comment from SangerM on 2005-02-26

2005-02-27T00:48:04Z

Barb: thank you. "Sanger - I agree with you wholeheartedly." Same back at you. John posted something a bit ago about the blogs not being the replacement for the Mainstream, but in fact, if not its replacement, then this medium is permanent symbiote. I suspect the future will bring a more interesting mix between what we call the media and what we call blogs, with some bloggers actually taking on hack roles for the media, but freedom of the press belongs to whomever owns one, and blogs are the press if they are nothing else. Antidote indeed; I say blogs and essayists and all the rest of the opinionated outlets are what the media USED to be: the pest in the corner who won't stop yelling "The Emperor has not clothes!!!" As for WMD stockpiles, I was disappointed too, but I just figured Hussein outsmarted us and moved them to Syria. And of course, I blame the UN, France, Russia, and Germany for giving him the time to do that. Boquisucio: Thank you too. "Again, great observations." Though I just air my opinions, maybe more than some folks would like (in fact, I am going to ease off that some) But anyway, I also agree with YOU wrote, completely. On both parts. We are fighting the war anyway. We need not declare all our enemies at once, which would only force them into coalition; instead, we take them on in pieces, as we would a puzzle. I think this is absolutely true, and very, very Machiavellian. The Prince's job is to preserve the kingdom, by hook, crook, or otherwise, and every subterfuge and scheme is valid, within the constraints of the law and the times... I think we are seeing that in action. As for attacking the traitors and seditionists, well two problems, mostly as you wrote, but also, some innocents might get take up with the bad guys. And of course toasting people like Moore would have martyred them, whereas leaving him to his dirty work just means he'll fade from history all the more quickly. As I've said before, arguing is validating, and as you wrote, attacking them "would only serve to polarize our enemies against us." And as for Gaddafi and others folding, well, Sun Tzu basically said a war won without fighting is still a win (paraphrased badly, I know). And it really is all just a game of poker, isn't it. Anyway, All in all, I think you hit it nail on the head. And as for the Zydeco suggestions, I'd be glad to hear them. -SangerM

Comment from Cassandra on 2005-02-26

2005-02-26T19:58:09Z

No mocking of the King of Battle, thank-you-very-much - not only would they have to go through Neffi, but they risk deadly rearguard action from the Flounce Brigade...

Comment from name muffy on 2005-02-26

2005-02-26T17:17:01Z

>>hzzzz. barb lady find little puppy of war. nice leg wax, but not not see bowie knofe. Sarge B in Action

Comment from MKL on 2005-02-25

2005-02-26T04:51:35Z

Do not forget your dogs of war, your big guns, which are the most-to- be respected arguments of the rights of kings. Frederick the Great

Comment from Neffi on 2005-02-25

2005-02-26T03:20:01Z

...'mock artillerymen'??? John- laddie- no soldier who ever grovelled in his hole while someone screamed on the radio for ARTY would ever do that... except in fun or when they'd been 'friendly fired' hehehe. Anyone who feels they need to diss arty can come through me first- and they'd best bring their A game

Comment from Barb on 2005-02-25

2005-02-25T19:14:30Z

In fact, the troops strong faith in their mission and each other is one of the things that energizes me! I have a friend in Afghanistan right now with SF, and he is always positive. I don't know if the whiners would get the value of listening to the real news from the troops, though, if they are already inclined to believe the doom and gloom stuff.

Comment from UtahMan on 2005-02-25

2005-02-25T17:39:38Z

[Dropping lurker cloak] "Now just wait for that last blasted scruple to poke his head up..." Look at the carriage of that thing - riveted steel or iron? I'd hate to be one of the gun crew (or horses) trying to drag that through the mud. BTW John - take a look at one of the armored train pictures from the end of the Boer war. People complain about 'ad hoc armor' now... More seriously, as for support for the war, I get awful worried sometimes. When I hear some of the whining and complaining about "the cost" I wonder how we would do if the situation was more dire. I don't worry about the troops - I've seen and heard enough to have confidence (and thank G*d that we still have men and women like that among us). It's the homefront. That is really our only weak point - and our enemies understand that, while our neighbors and in particular the media do not. (Or they don't care - but I try not to assign malice when ignorance can also explain their actions.) My age group (I'm 26) worries me most - their apathy and naiviete just makes me angry. Especilly when some knows-it-all-but-knows-nothing protestor gets a bunch of face time on the news. Boy, that was a long rant, wasn't it? Enough Sorry about that. I just wonder if we still can mobilize like in WWII if we had to.

Comment from Boquisucio on 2005-02-25

2005-02-25T16:44:16Z

Again, great observations SangerM, On Losing Support, I do agree with your implementational reasons by which our President is losing ground. But to me, the bigger question is why he hasn't taken those steps. This is just me free associating; and please let me know whether I have spent too much time under my Tin Hat. The only way that I can noodle this conundrum, is that from the begining we have prosecuted TGWOT, in a purpously ambigous manner. This has been done so as to keep our enemies off-balanced and disjointed. If on Sept 12th we would have come out and declared war on Jihad and all of its true implications, we would have run the risk of instantly polarizing 1.6Billion Muslims against us. A war in the scope and breath which we haven't seen in over 60 years. True, he would have rallied everyone under the flag; but the cost in lives would have been astounding. Instead of loosing circa 2,000 in the course of 3years, we could have reached that toll in under a week. By sparing us the cost in Blood and Materiel, he has to pay a tremendous political cost. Both are mutually exclusive. If he would have thrown the book on the lefties for sedition & treason, like Hoover did in ages past, it would only serve to polarize our enemies against us. Only risking a gigant conflagration. Instead, we are going at it in bite-size pieces. First taking on the Taliban, then turning on Sadam. Treat both campaigns as different "wars", and in the mean time distabilize others. Qadaffi seems to have folded, and we are distabilizing Siria and Iran. Hopefully, they will turn around without us having to fire a shot in anger. On a lighter note: I'll get back to you on Zydeco latter on.

Comment from Barb on 2005-02-25

2005-02-25T16:27:14Z

Sanger - I agree with you wholeheartedly. I have friends who lost faith when no WMD stockpiles were exposed. To me, this indicates their lack of understanding of the real need for the war in Iraq, as opposed to a lack in the President's ability to communicate. The enemy is indeed the media, and the blogs are an antidote!

Comment from SangerM on 2005-02-25

2005-02-25T15:32:05Z

Ummm.... I may be a bit off the mark myself, but Gross is very much so also. Specifically, Bush did mobilize and has maintained popular support for the war. True, he has had a difficult time maitaining support for the war, but that's because many people, and ESPECIALLY the liberal, faithless, despicable media have taken every opportunity to undermine the President's efforts. Even so, in spite of the best efforts of the vile left, even unto what I consider treason, the people of this country have stood by the President. Gross misses the point. LBJ and McNamara didn't care; however, it is clear Bush and his team care, the difference is that the bigger enemy here is not the Iraqi regime, but the media, which has expanded its proper role in our democracy into inappropriate realms. It is not the media's place to interpret or tell us how to interpret; it is the media's place to tell us what heppened, to give us the facts, and then to shut up and let us think about things. In fact, none of that matters as much as this: Bush was re-elected, not with a plurality, but with a majority. In spite of the very best efforts of his enemies, and the enemies of our nation. The People saw through the shill games, and did the right thing. Now it's true that Kerry was the weak link in the enemy's efforts, but he was a lot better choice than Dean would have been. Anyway, the biggest reason it looks like the president is losing support, and may actually be doing so, is that the government is unwilling to indict and jail people for treason, or at least prosecute for slander, libel, and character assassination. Kennedy and his ilk aren't missing the point, it's people like them who are the reason the President is having problems. And I think THAT is the point that Gross really misses. -SangerM

Comment from WillyShake on 2005-02-25

2005-02-25T14:30:22Z

Speaking of getting people motivated to fight the GWOT, I highly recommend this week's Victor Davis Hanson column which dissects the reasons meely-mouthed naysayers talk down our efforts; my comments on it are here: http://unconsideredtrifles.blogspot.com/2005/02/whence-springs-this-deep-despair.html --Will

Comment from cw4billt on 2005-02-25

2005-02-25T14:13:02Z

Heh. Got some thoughts for you on the origins of milblogs--and some examples, circa 2001. Not in this comment box, though. Barb - I played with the thingumabob the scruples were using to get out and it works for getting into places as well as getting out of 'em. Shhhhhh.

Comment from Lucius Severus Pertinax on 2005-02-25

2005-02-25T13:37:43Z

Montanans excercising their 2nd Amendment Rights, 1902

Comment from Neffi on 2005-02-25

2005-02-25T13:28:20Z

"Dam' and blast! Fotheringill- you speak Afrikaans- go tell that fella to hold still so I can sight this thing in properly! Bloody inconsiderate Boers..."

Comment from gunner on 2005-02-25

2005-02-25T13:19:38Z

A boer long tom. Nice.