previous post next post  

Acting vice bloviating.

By The Armorer on June 5, 2006 | | Comments (38)

Over at Greyhawk's famously Instalanched post on the media and Haditha, I ran into this from one of the participants, "WW", and it piqued my interest,

As for Murtha, I have yet to see anyone at any of the so-called Milblogs successfully impeach a single thing he has said. Murtha has done absolutely nothing but tell the truth. For that he is fiercely hated by those who, in the words of the whackjob colonel in that movie you all love, "can't handle the truth."

I responded:

Having said all I have to say and therefore falling silent in this - I pipe up to ask...

Apropos of nothing else in the discussion and not trying to move the thread...

WW - why "so-called milblogs" vice "milblogs"?

We return this thread to it's original, rambling gait.

WW responded:

John, I say "so-called Milblogs" because I think the Milblogosphere mainly consists of far-right-wing cranks who use military issues as a means to push their far-right-wing agenda.

The best evidence I can offer is the nearly complete silence from the so-called Milblogs about the horrendous problems in health services for returning veterans. Wouldn't you think that, if these were really "Milblogs," the many problems would get more attention? Nary a peep about it at Mudville, Blackfive or any of the rest. It's all right-wing politics, all the time.

To which I responded (in a long delayed post that popped up late, after the dicsussion moved on:

WW, Dave - speaking only for me (I'm in the tier of milbloggers just below your cited sites)...

I've seen discussions on the paucity and inadequacy of PTSD care.

We've followed the travails of wounded soldiers in the system.

Then, rather than write about it, beat our breasts, and wrap ourselves in smug self-satisfaction for having 'spoken truth to power'... we act. Enough so that it was noticed by the BBC. Chuck Ziegenfuss is a "so-called" milblogger, btw.

We can't fix it all, so we picked something we could fix.

Project Valour-IT

Blackfive, Greyhawk, Smash, Lex, and many others (see Project Valour-IT blogroll at my site) have raised, via our blogs, hundreds of thousands (yes, hundreds of thousands) of dollars for that and other projects which directly benefit the soldiers.

There is a milblog cottage industry on the subject. Soldiers Angels.

We just don't brag about it that much.

And then, just today, I went whacking at Congress (admittedly from the Right, though I'm a RINO, not a card carrying Republican) for their cynical use of the VA laptop theft to propose 1.25 billion, yes, billion, dollars to make the VA provide a service the credit agencies already provide for free. I'll take that 1.25 billion. And put it in the health accounts - like I said - here.

Just sayin'. We might not be talking about it on the blogs because we're *acting* on it.

I'm a retired soldier and a 70% disabled one at that, gents. You betcha we pay attention.

What have you guys done besides bitch in the comments of right-wing bloggers?

Update: I see that WW did respond to my last, directly, I missed it in the mass - I owe it to him to put it up here, rather than add it at the bottom:

John, you're right. And let me answer you. I supported the Iraq War for slightly more than a year. And even since then, believe it or not I continue to donate to charities that help the returning vets and I send care packages through Any Soldier -- along with resolutely non-political greetings, on the theory that the last thing someone over there needs to get is a package full of stuff along with a letter that says, "Oh by the way, I'm against your mission."

Good on ya. Now to pick up the thread again.

And looking around, I see that a lot of us *act* vice just whine about it.

I read the left, I see crie de coeurs about how I should think, and how stupid, mean and venal I am. I see them standing around holding signs, the more extreme of them trashing businesses as they "speak truth to power"

I see them earnestly lay out fevered plans, and organizing organizing organizing.

I see lots and lots and lots of telling me how I'm supposed to think, to live, and how I should just shut up and give the government my money, and call me mean-spirited when I object.

But I don't see a lot of productive "acting". I mostly see lots of organizing and moralizing (even where they implicitly reject that a moral stance is possible, since all things are relative) and finger wagging.

I'm sure there is acting going on. I just don't see it around here that much, and I'm just laying out why you might not see lots of blogging on particular subjects... because people are out *acting* instead.

Heh. Interestingly enough, in addition to blogging, I *act*. I literally put my money where my mouth is.

I've sent money for natural disaster relief here and abroad and encouraged others to do the same. I've helped raise money for military-focused charities. As in hundreds of thousands of dollars via blog-groups.

I am a Rotarian - via that venue I've helped almost completely eradicate polio - and done so in conjunction with... the UN. My club has provided funds for water projects in Panama. Our District has funded many water projects in Panama. This year, in addition to water projects, we're moving into equipping medical clinics. Medical professionals in my fairly right-wing club (we reflect our community) routinely donate of their time in the third world providing medical services - on their own dime, many via their (shudder) churches.

I do Meals on Wheels. I've participated in literacy programs. My club has spent thousands of dollars sending thousands of dollars of school supplies to Army units in Iraq to help re-start Iraqi schools. We give out thousands of dollars in scholarships every year. We participate in Group Study Exchanges by which Rotary International sponsors groups of non-Rotarians who travel to foreign climes to study and we host the foreign groups headed this way.

I sit on the local advisory board of a brand-name charity, helping them deliver services efficiently - and through them and the network of local charities I have a real sense of the level of need in my community.

I sit on the regional parent board of that charity - legally responsible for a 15 million dollar a year charitable effort in northeast Kansas. A charity that spends 91 cents of every dollar on services, not salary or perks.

The firm I work for (full of guys and gals like me in our local office) just raised tens of thousands of dollars for the American Heart Association, by being the people who put together the local Heart Walk, from soup to nuts, with yours truly out whacking signs in the dirt, marking the course.

In other words, I'm fairly well connected in the "acting" portion of our community.

And you know who I *don't* see? Aside from the kids in the local schools getting their community service credits? I don't see a whole bunch of lefties. That's not to say that I don't see liberals - though outside of Johnson County and Lawrence, liberals in Kanas are a pretty muted group - I don't see the kinds of people that I read on lefty blog sites.

I do see the kinds of people I read on right-wing blog sites.

I see people who *act*.

Not just bloviate.

Most of whom are so busy acting, they don't have time to blog. Me, I'm a blog-junkie, I pretty much gave up television in order to feed the monster.

Just sayin'

Like all these fine right-wing, mostly milbloggers who choose to *act* vice just beat their digital chests and fire up a bong.

Speaking of which - why don't you act - right now, and give to Project Valour-IT?

imparmwantsyousm.jpg The Following Castle Argghhh! Fighting Fusileers for Freedom! Support Project Valour-IT!


Share This Article:

Categories:

38 Comments

By Dusty on June 5, 2006 7:15 AM
Superb post, my friend, superb post. Did he ever answer you? I envy your eloquence and lament the fact that rarely, if ever, do the "WWs" of this world listen, much less understand. We live in interesting times and I fear only great trauma will shake that huge cohort of the blind out of their blindness. Cheers, Dusty
 
By AFSister on June 5, 2006 7:31 AM
I have the most overwhelming urge to stand up and yell HELL YA! right now, John. A most excellent, and spot-on rant.
 
By Anna on June 5, 2006 7:44 AM
I salute you, John! I, too, hear a lot of talk, but I don't see a lot of action on their part. Me-Project Valour IT, Soldiers's Angels, Adopt-A-Platoon and use my blog for moral support, I can't thank you guys enough!
 
By Skippy-san on June 5, 2006 7:57 AM
While I am not willing to stoop to the levels that WW has gone to, particularly over at Salamander's blog, I do think that at the core of his bombast he has a certain point. Within the Milblogs there is a general theme that , if deviated from, gets beat up on or worse yet simply ignored. Namely that one is supposed to be and ardent supporter of the intervention in Iraq. If one believes, as I do, that the intervention in Iraq was in the long term counter to US interests and a detour in the long term road to build global security ( I hate the term "war on terror"; terror is a tactic, this struggle is about building a more secure world) one is opening himself up for verbal abuse or worse. It seems by reading lots of Milblogs that if one does not support the "mainstream" causes one is somehow not "patriotic enough". What if I supported a different charity than the ones you have above? Does that make my blog unworthy? About Haditha, I think the remarkable thing is how rare an event like this is, especially in a war where the enemy hides among their fellow Arabs. Nonetheless it is dangerous because it gives politicians of all walks ( including the Iraqi Prime Minister) a vehicle to attack the US presence in Iraq. That will grow to a ground swell if any evidence is uncovered of a cover up. Point being is that, despite assertions to the contrary, the Milblog community seems unfriendly to those who have a contraian view of what is considered "right" in terms of military and foreign policy. What ever happened to maintaining a higher level of discussion? WW may be a troll, but because we in the milblog community are not more inclusive, we invite his kind to spam us. ( And I have every right to be a milblogger as anyone else........)
 
By John of Argghhh! on June 5, 2006 8:02 AM
While not exactly what I was after in this post, Skippy-san, you'd probably be comfortable here at the Castle. I wasn't a fan of the invasion, and have said so. I'm a real not-fan of the planning, and have said so. I also believe in finishing what we start, if we can. I tolerate dissent, and in fact encourage it by squashing mindless troll-bashing. Only *I* get to mindlessly bash trolls.
 
By FbL on June 5, 2006 8:09 AM
( And I have every right to be a milblogger as anyone else........) Skippy, who said you didn't?
 
By brogonzo on June 5, 2006 8:22 AM
I jumped into that conversation towards the beginning, and dropped out eventually in order to watch the unfolding debate between WW and others. I was somewhat surprised at how quickly he was labelled a "troll," since I didn't think what he was posting was trollish at all -- just a different opinion, and as Skippy said, he raised some good points. I had thought actual forum trolls were grouchy cranks who simply selected some newbie or other legitimate forum poster for abuse, and proceeded to call them names. WW hasn't done that -- he's just been pretty enthusiastic about posting, because I think he's been genuinely interested in debate. Dismissing responses to his questions and assertions as "troll feeding" (as several commenters did) is a cheap way out of the ring.
 
By John of Argghhh! on June 5, 2006 9:02 AM
Brogonzo - you're correct. One reason I'm glad I'm not quite as large as Matt, Smash, and Greyhawk is that I have a very low troll-quotient. And you are also correct in that people are too quick to label dissenters trolls. The single easiest distinguishing feature of trolls (on either side of the debate) is the descent into personal attacks, or nit-picky snipes at spelling and such as a deflector for argument. I generally don't tolerate much of that here, as my instructions on the comment box indicates. I will, and have, put Denizens into 'time-out' because they lose the bubble on subjects about which they have great passion. You should have been here during the Terry Schiavo fiasco. We also have a periodic left-leaning professional journalist who sticks his head in, Owen Dyer. It's taken some training, because he's by nature a snark-sniper, but we've gotten him to play well here, and I now and again have to smack a Denizen. Okay, time to shut up, I'm typing in circles.
 
By FbL on June 5, 2006 9:05 AM
brogonzo, I'd define troll as someone who goes to a forum/blog looking for an argument/fight over a topic, not rational discussion (or else they simply want to preach their point--in that case, get a blog!). Usually they use varying varying degrees of inflammatory language/statements. Other marks of a troll are excessive posting, saying the same thing over and over, and claiming things they can't back up with facts. WW has a long and sordid history over at Greyhawk's place under other names (he's said/done some pretty despicable things). He's actually being pretty rational this time around.
 
By Maggie on June 5, 2006 9:11 AM
You do all that.........keep SWWBO happy...........and find time to indulge me by posting stuff about the Navy..........youa re amazing!!!!
 
By John of Argghhh! on June 5, 2006 9:25 AM
Fuzzy - one of the things I noticed in my exchange with Dave and WW was I was polite and rational with them, they were with me. Other conversations didn't go that way. A lesson, methinks.
 
By Beth on June 5, 2006 9:28 AM
There are times when I have to literally pull John away from the blog, because I need some extra attention, but he mostly does pretty well!
 
By John of Argghhh! on June 5, 2006 9:29 AM
Maggie - because I have a good, flexible job, much of what I do can be done within the context of a long workday, and I recognize that gives me flexibility that many people don't have. If you work retail, there isn't much opportunity for doing stuff during the day, unless it's company sponsored. And younger people, especially ones that have kids have further limits placed on them. As for keeping SWWBO happy... well, yes and no. She gets a little jealous of the blog sometimes, as she prolly should. I was mostly repsonding to the assertion from the left that we milbloggers don't do anything but post Rumsfeld's talking points and blindly defend everything, even the indefensible. And I'm sure the lefties do more than they take credit for on their blogs, too - which I invite any who visit here to lay out. Or post about and we can link-whore about it and create a back-slapping, I Do More Than You Do competition. More productive than most of the repartee we engage in.
 
By BloodSpite on June 5, 2006 10:04 AM
Well written, well said, and excellent aim. What more can you ask for from a Castle Post? Wait....There's no Gun Pr0n here.....or trains....or trucks...or prisons...you'll have to add another verse :)
 
By kat-missouri on June 5, 2006 10:34 AM
Sorry, my conversation with WW started out with him making some assertions that could not be proved yet and insisting anyone that was saying other than he (milblogs) were liars and possibly part of the great conspiracy to cover up the truth. He may present some interesting facts, but he's a conspiracist who thinks everyone is part of a government/military conspiracy to lie about the entire war and I don't have time for conspiracy theorists. So far, milbloggers are liars (from commander salamander comments) and "so called milblogs" (implying liars). Is there anything to debate with this fellow really or anything that one can say or prove that would somehow make anyone a non-lying legitimate milblogger? I highly doubt it unless you suddenly put up a giant post denouncing the military and headlining war crimes as proved by the Haditha massacre. These are the tactics the left always uses. They start out with the immediate assumption that anyone that doesn't agree with them is a liar or a fake (even though the left has the highest tendency of fronting fakes to "prove" their theories) and they attack from that strategy in order to force people to defend themselves instead of actually debating the issue at hand and the facts which is just as bad if not worse than labeling dissenting commenters as trolls. Maybe worse because the real point of doing that is because THEY CANNOT answer your points; they're over matched so the debate now has to turn to the personal attack. as they say in debate (they call it rhetoric now?), if you have to result to personal attacks, you've lost the argument already. I don't care for the fellow. But, the rant was a great segway into the "support project valour". Did you study advertising and marketing somewhere along the line?
 
By Maggie on June 5, 2006 10:55 AM
It wasn't sarcasm. I was saying a) you do a good job and b) I'm happy and that's what really matters.
 
By John of Argghhh! on June 5, 2006 11:17 AM
And I wasn't meaning to imply that it was sarcasm, Maggie. I was mostly speaking to others, I guess, explaining that I do understand why not everybody can be *quite* as involved as I am in stuff.
 
By MaryAnn on June 5, 2006 4:38 PM
Great post, John and your subject of acting vs. bloviating is an interesting one which I've observed often. I think it has something to do with not understanding the basic concept of "We the People", i.e. the people are the government, in a broad sense. The government is not a distinct "other" responsible for providing everything to "the people". Taking this view puts one in the position of being able to do little more than complain and be against (participation in demonstrations, etc.) policies and actions which are perceived to be thrust on one from without. Lacking sense of ownership or responsibility, in other words. If I felt that powerless and helpless perhaps I'd be just as frustrated. Yes, you were able to have a civil discourse with him. You were treated with the same respect you demonstrated. The conversation moved in circles however, leaving me to question whether it was worth your - or his - time and energy. But well done nevertheless. Maybe I'm just not very hopeful.
 
By John of Argghhh! on June 5, 2006 4:43 PM
Sometimes the conversations are for the observers, vice the participants. And, unlike others, I eventually get out of the inner lane of the roundabout, and go on about my business. There are some who never leave.
 
By MaryAnn on June 5, 2006 4:55 PM
I know. I am often undecided as to whether I should feel sorry for someone who never makes it out of the inner lane of the roundabout, or whether I should kick in his teeth.
 
By Maggie on June 5, 2006 6:08 PM
Hey Maryann - Why don't you have a beer and think it over, lol. Here in Boston, I must tell you that the State Police are looking for drivers with *road rage* in the rotary (roundabout WTF?).
 
By John of Argghhh! on June 5, 2006 6:41 PM
Regional differences, Princess Crabby, regional differences. If there weren't any, it would all be Boston, and how could you rub our noses in that, eh?
 
By CoRev on June 5, 2006 9:08 PM
Nice job John. In the action groups remember Marty at Any Soldier.
 
By ry on June 5, 2006 9:32 PM
Oi, this is a can of worms. milblogs. It's an imprecise term. What is, or more importantly what is not, a milblog? And do you make differentiations between teh professionals who do milblogs(The 'Phibian, Matty 'O, John Robb's Global Guerillas, TPM Barnett's blog) vice amateurs who blog(well, me. IF I had a blog. I don't know Murdoc or his experiences. Does he count as an interested amateur too? No slight to the 'Doc intended.)? That's a big question. ANd then there's this tendency of phrase drift. Neocon used to have a specific meaning. Now it's just a catchall derrogatory term to be hurled at anyone supporting this Administration and conservatives in general. Or the label 'liberal' or 'left'. Has the label milblog been misappropriately shifted to mean right wing bloggers we dislike and you should dislike too because we've now declared them to be of a detestable brand? I happen to think the answers to my questions is yes. You must seperate the pros from us amateurs. You have to take into account that in this highly partisan age people will seek to discredit and destroy anything that gives the opposition solid footing, much less an advantage. The amatuers, like my old BBS buddy Mr. Beamish(http://thecrankfiles.blogspot.com/ ) counts as an amatuer. Once in a while he gets back to his roots and talks about the GWOT and OIF. But mostly his blog is a place for taking a pound of flesh out of democrats. I've found this to be the case for many of the amateur milblogger sites. Generally patriotic and pro-Iraq. Generally republican. Generally enthusiastic about firearms. Generally about laying a whoppin' on the opposite side(Castle Philosopher Kat being one of the marked counter-examples. Rarely does she do a post of the template 'Things about democrats/leftists that make you go hmmm?' Cassie does this a lot, but since she has little military content, despite being a dyspeptic Marince Wife(yes, I meant to capitalize that, thank you), she really shouldn't be classified as a milblogger, but I wouldn't be surprised if she is lumped that way.). Just like the 'peace movement' sites run by camp followers really are little more than hate-the-right collective parties. But the professionals are a bit different. Yes, they tend to be very open about their prefered policy choices. TPM Barnett is openly pushing for a dem, JRobb thinks most of the right and conservatives are marginally insane(though he doesn't say it. It's just kinda implied every now and again), John's John, and Blackfive's positions are pretty obvious. But, typically, their posts aren't about policy. Domestic politics doesn't seem to be the big thing(domestic life at times maybe, but rare is the time that comments sections at these four become abortion free for alls). Usually it's their pet subject. Guns. Standing up for their brethren. Networks and rule sets. Terrorism in a box. Though a snark or two might escape once in a while. So Skippy-san and WW may have a point. I mean. I did get put in the Castle Contrarian Corps along with Owen, Jack(anyone heard from him in a while? Hope he's doing okay.), and good Ol' Mr. Alan McCleod for a reason. If it is a minor point that they have. Certain classes of milbloggers tend to be red meat hatefests. The other class isn't. It takes a serious error of judgement to lump them all together and then tar liberally with a broad stroke. But what do I know?
 
By ry on June 5, 2006 9:50 PM
And now having read thru Greyhawks comment thread: there's a difference between flamewar and troll. WW seems to be of the former more than the latter. Though there is an insult implied in the first reply that makes me think that labeling WW as troll is just hasty, not wrong.
 
By FbL on June 5, 2006 10:07 PM
Though there is an insult implied in the first reply that makes me think that labeling WW as troll is just hasty, not wrong. He's largely being called a troll by people who know of his past visits. That probably wasn't the most substantive thing I've ever added to comments here, but oh well... ;)
 
By ry on June 5, 2006 10:25 PM
HAving read more of that thread. 1) SOmetimes venting your spleen is something better done with your local bartender. 2) John, why don't you wear the face you wear over there here more often? 3) Yeah, as someone who wants to win over there in Iraq I'm more about how to spin this than about the truth at this point in time since Hearts and Minds definitely is required to end this positively. So shoot me. We all have our focuses and shortfalls. We all have our moral failings. When I look in the mirror I sometimes see a son-of-a-beach. I can deal with that and accept that. I can accept that maybe the Pearly Gates won't open for me. Cowards can't. I can be wrong. So can anyone in pursuit of something better than what we found. SOmetimes life simply requires we do things we don't like, like beating the snot out of someone near and dear because of all the pain and suffering they cause. Sometimes there is such a thing as 'competing good'. The Japanese have a whole thing set up about it, the Giri and Ninjo balancing act along with the subjugation of personal honor to that of a higher cause. Well, that keeps me from crawling into a bottle and never comming out anyways.
 
By kat-missouri on June 6, 2006 2:40 AM
First, I don't know what I would classify myself as. I know several blogs have had me linked under "milblog" section and when it happens, because I know I am not a member, past or present, of the military and only have tenuous association with it through family and friends, I usually send an email and try to correct it. Some take me out, some leave me in. One soldier in Iraq said he was leaving me in because I covered military subjects and the war. I'm okay with whatever floats people's boats, but, since my blog has undergone several connotations from political to personal to war/freedom/democracy (I think I've settled on that), classification seems non-sensical though I understand if you want consistent readership, you ought to do "theme". Still, I'm definitely an amatuer and try to comment on things I know something about and have serious interest in. Such as winning this war (I do mean the total war against Islamist ideology and its adherents who feel like killing people for it).
 
By ry on June 6, 2006 4:22 AM
I'd put you in the milblog section, Kat. THough more along the lines of JRobb and TPM Barnett; as opposed to what John, B5, and what other former soldiers do. The same class of amateur as TDAXP or Zenpundit in that you look at the grand strategy level, what's working there, and who needs to be scalped when responsible for things that aren't. You take on heady topics seriously and with academic rigor---or as best as time and training allows. You're more interested in the larger processes. Not the tactical by play. You're not about pushing units around on a map, but instead looking at the grand objectives are(the old phrase about, 'War being too important to be left to generals comes to mind here.' You aren't interested in smashing opposing formations so much as achieving the grand objectives.) I really empathize with you on that. YOu look at things covered in serious texts like 'How to eat soup with a knife' and other books about non-conventional warfare(or what I call Big War), but just don't realize you're going over the same ground. That's not the same thing as John does for a living, but no less important since it serves the bridge between those who speak the jargon fluently and the masses who have never looked at the subject and are intimidated by it. I just wish you had a larger readership. I find 'mudhuts, chai, and villages with no name' to be more informative about what's important and how this war is being fought than the phrase GWOT or casualty statistics. You might want to copyright that. Ultimately you're about war/freedom/democracry, and that's what makes you a milblogger. I just wish I could write as coherently as you do.(I'm not worthy. I'm not worthy.)
 
By John of Argghhh! on June 6, 2006 5:39 AM
Ry - the point is... at least here... there *is* a Castle Contrarian Corps. And we feed you and everything.
 
By John of Argghhh! on June 6, 2006 5:45 AM
2) John, why don't you wear the face you wear over there here more often? *Do* please elaborate.
 
By ry on June 6, 2006 7:26 AM
"And we feed you and everything." You call this *food*?(tosses boxes of old c-rats and k-rats without opening tool, and worse, no chocolate, in a frenzy). ANd you make me drink from the waterhose. "'2) John, why don't you wear the face you wear over there here more often?' *Do* please elaborate." Simple. There's somewhat a difference between the tone of your posts here, the way you post at Milblogs, and the way you commented in that Greyhawk thread. I could've called it 'wearing hats' I guess and avoid the possibility of the negative connotation of 'face', but I didn't. I'd say 'so shoot me', but you might take that literally. Don't know how much coffee you've had yet. More agressive at Greyhawks. Writting for different audience at Milblogs apparently since it seems to have a slightly different tweak, but also a touch more agressive. But largely it seems like you know you're talking more to peers at Milblogs and it comes thru. I like the home-iness of Argghhh! but I also like the adversarialness you show at the other two places. More chances for Socratic learning---you used to do it here, and that's how I cut my teeth and earned my spot in the CCC, with me contesting and then you countering(not lectures, but chances to lay out what we thought). And you tell them over there about the officialness of 'Military Historian' in your service folder, but don't tell us?(explains why you knew some of those authors I pointed out to you a few months ago personally.) Dude, I may be prone to removing all doubt about me being a fool by opening by big yap, but I'm not crazy enough to dare you to put the Privy Plack back in play so blatantly, doncthaknow. I get the Boot anyways. It's the Privy Plack we worry about(gollum).
 
By John of Argghhh! on June 6, 2006 10:55 AM
Heh. I get in people's faces around here when I need to. Often as not, I can just stand back and watch you guys do it. A difference between here and there is - here I am *also* the referee. There, I'm one of the guys in the corner. As for being an official military historian, I've never hidden that fact here. It's been mentioned. It's also a lot more obvious around here than it is in that evironment over there.
 
By kat-missouri on June 6, 2006 12:42 PM
Thank you Ry, for your kind comments. People are confused about the war because they think of war as two forces meeting and killing each other on the battle field. They think body counts and terroritory gained or loss. That was what was wrong with Vietnam and why we have a problem today. People then and now claim the military is not being truthful about the status of Iraq. We see daily reports of number of people captured or killed. Is this the military that is doing this because they think about war as territory and body counts? Or, do we push them towards that because of our limited understanding of insurgent warfare? Is it both? The media reports on the success of Tal Afar. The next day the insurgents blow up a huge VBIED in that town. Message received: Tal Afar, contrary to the military assertions, is not under control of the coalition and the military is once again "lying". People are inundated every day with commercials, with movies with product placement, etc and yet they don't know a propaganda campaign (from the enemy) when they see it. They don't understand the necessity for our own propaganda war. People do not understand how it forces your enemy to do things and go places. We're too hung up on how it effects us and how to counter those effects. Instead it's about "lying" and "misleading" us.
 
By ry on June 6, 2006 5:06 PM
It's no effort to say nice things about you Kat. We've had our differences(looks at scars from rhetorical battles). You just make an intellectual leap, one I find hard to put into words, that most people need to get. You get the intent of the line, 'War is too important to be left to generals.' That came out of WW1 when the professional soldiers became fixated on destruction of the opposing force instead of the large goals, not a slam of all war as it has been morphed into. It's about change. TPM Barnett has another phrase I like. 'The Big Bang.' Everything after the BB was different at the start of the universe. So to with the muscular actions by the President(which Barnett gives him credit for, typically right before he tells us about how badly the current administration is doing in progress in securing a positive outcome pathway.). And Kat, you come back to something I've been struggling with greatly. The power of myth and it's relation to the Geo Political Power/Fear yin/yang relationship. Many people get to one, but not the other(I didn't get there 'til last weekend, but you've been there for months). That's what many of the 'why did they attack us is a question we must ask ourselves' crowd have done. That's the 'the media is biased' crowd has done. Found these single elements and stopped. They haven't seen how they both interact. The power of myth really comes into effect here. Look at the veneration of Woodward and Bernstein, Seymour Hersh, Oriana Fallaci, etc. You strain to become your mythic heros. What does this do to how you frame the world and report on it? How does that effect the inate fear people have over those more powerful than themselves? John, yes, you do more history over here. But I can't tell whether that's because you are a professional historian or not. Proll'y cause I'm such an amateur. But lots of folks do similar things who I wouldn't call professional historians. Though it does explain the Castle Library....
 
By John of Argghhh! on June 6, 2006 5:13 PM
That isn't what I meant Ry. I meant I didn't hide it over here. As in, I've publicly confessed. But the rest of your discussion with Kat is fascinating, so, go ahead with that.
 
By ry on June 6, 2006 10:19 PM
No it isn't. I'm re-inventing the wheel(and the sad part is I know I am.). What Kat says makes sense. I just have a horde of jumbled ideas that seem to go over terrain many have gone over before or out into nowhereville. Kat's further along in this endeavour than I. Barnett and TDAXP are lightyears ahead of me. Anyone interested should read them. TDAXP is a proto-professional. Barnett used to do research for the Naval War College. I'm nobody. Kat's got a much better grasp than I do. Read her, people. I'll lead you into the hinterland and we'll never get back out. And I think the post you linked to came before Jonah GOldberg linked to you and the first Whatzis? I played in(the Lee-Martini rifle one).
 
By ry on June 7, 2006 6:50 PM
Okay, a good example of what I'm talking about is over at Dadmanly's place. The film he's talking about over there. There is something there in what the film wants to explore(has US foriegn policy resulted in negative outcomes that has pissed people off?). That's a valid question. The problem comes in when that's the only question that you look at. Context matters. Other events matter. Other peoples actions matter. But if that's the only question you're going to ask and the only deciding factor for you, well, you aren't dealing with reality. You're dealing with your own little mythical binary world. By the same token, it also isn't enough just to say people who do this hurt the nations efforts since that implies that the initial question isn't important or valid. Again, living in a fake world. These issues matter since it gives us insight into the myths and minds of the people were trying to help in Iraq and the ME. Exactly this kind of question lead to a commander in Iraq having his troops point their weapons at the ground and thereby avoid a major incident in Iraq. We've all seen the tape of it. We all cite it as a great example of US sensitivity. The worst part is that it keeps most of us arguing amoungst ourselves instead of looking at how we can build new myths that'll allow the ME to integrate with the Industrialized world without fear, without resentment. This is the work of Barnett. How to establish rule sets(myths in my phraseology) that allows them to not view us negatively and vice versa so we can got on with the business of living. The myths people have shape the rule sets they live by. 'Mudhuts, chai, and villages you've never heard of' goes directly to understand and, more importantly, shaping of those myths and rule sets to one that allows for trully peaceful co-existance. Arguing over whether we did something wrong or whehter asking that question makes one a traitor doesn't move the pile. War is transformative because it forces the myths and rule sets to change for one side or the other. (head hurts. Maybe I'll steal my quota of the tequilla back. There's more to this, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my little gollum head around it).
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.