Oh, The Irony
Dave Price
Remember when Dems boycotted that Democratic presidential debate on Fox News, because they said Fox was biased? Now it turns out CNN rigged the Republican presidential debate with a bunch of planted Democratic activists, through some egregious combination of incompetence and malice. Michelle seems to have the most thorough round up.
You just can't make this stuff up.
In other media idiocy, Chris Matthews introduces new criteria for victory that result in the revelation that we lost WW II, the Korean War, and just about every other war we've ever been in. Apparently that surrender on the Missouri was just another bogus "Mission Accomplished" moment. Time to revise those history books and calendars! (via Glenn)
CNN planted Clinton sympathizers in the Republican debate.
CNN planted Clinton sympathizers in the Democratic debate.
What could be more even-handed?
Because if we can‘t ever come home, we can‘t ever say we won.
You have misread this to mean (I gather):
Because if we
can‘t everdon't come home immediately, we can‘t ever say we won.The fact that we did not come home immediately after victory in Japan and Europe did not mean that we COULDN'T have come home. That's the distinction that you missed.
But the real problem is the very notion of victory and defeat. That notion is for children. In the real world, war is an extension of policy, not a football game.
Who would have thought that the Caliphate News Network would pull such an unethical stunt as this?
I had no idea that this GOP debate was for the GDNC primaries.
Ethics? What are those?
Negative, in the real world, war is the shortened form of condensed diplomacy.
So, who cares about Bill Clinton's wife, what's her name ?
Negative, in the real world, war is the shortened form of condensed diplomacy.
The two statements are similar (although my version is closer to Clausewitz's wording).
But my definition of a defeat is you can‘t leave. If we can‘t leave that country in the foreseeable future, we are losing.
By that definition, we lost both WWII and Korea.
I remember as late as the '80s, our troops were still in Europe as a defensive garrison. At no point between VE day and the August Putsch could we have withdrawn our troops.
The fact that American troops remain in Germany even today does not mean that we lost WWII. We occupied Germany and could have left as soon as the peace was settled, but we chose to remain because a NEW enemy appeared: the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was our ALLY during WWII. Therefore, the continued presence of American forces in Germany did not in any way reflect a failure to terminate hostilities with Germany.
Besides, as I have already pointed out, the concepts of victory and defeat really don't mean very much.
Well, except the War of 1812, in which the only winner was Peter Ilyitch Tschaikowsky.
1812 overture by Piotr Ilich Tchaikovsky. Berliner Philharmoniker. Seiji Ozawa, conductor
Cat
Cat
My, but that is rich. So every war that resulted in total occupation by the victor was in reality a loss?
Tibet is the victor in its conflict with China? The Anglo-Saxons lost in Britain? And we Americans lost the Western Territories. Hmmm. Gotta tell that to the Sioux.
So while you dislike the concepts of victory and defeat, your own example leads to one of the more decisive claims of victory in Iraq that I've ever seen. We occupied Iraq and could have left as soon as the army was disbanded; but we chose to remain because a NEW enemy appeared: al Qaeda and the terrorist insurgency. Therefore, the continued presence of Coalition forces in Iraq does not in any way reflect a failure to terminate hostilities with Saddam Hussein's regime.
And even today, we could -- your criteria, here -- readily depart without suffering a significant penalty. But we choose to remain, so that's a different matter.
So please tell me, when Mr. Matthews said...
...how was he not wrong, even given your somewhat strained literalism here?
Face it: Mr. Matthews's "can't leave" criteria is a product either of historical ignorance or sour grapes and partisan goalpost-shifting. And since I know the man to not be ignorant (once upon a time, he was a pretty decent journalist), we're left with the grapes and the goalposts.
We defeated Saddam and occupied Iraq and could have left, but new enemies arose so we stayed to defend democracy.
We had troops in Japan and Europe for the same reason.
BTW, you should read, sometime, what the Japanese thought of Russians invading. They knew when they surrendered that we were the lesser of evils. And Germans fled the Reds into our hands even before the war ended, long before the Berlin Wall.
We can choose to defend democracy, or not. It's rarely "win and go home."
Old Enemy New Enemy
Germany Soviet Union
Iraq Iraqi insurgents
As you can see, Germany != Soviet Union, but Iraq ~= Iraqi insurgents.
But I emphasize for the third time, any discussion of winning and losing is rather like counting angels dancing on pin heads. I propose we talk substance rather than labels. I again refer you to my quick strategic analysis of the Iraq War at:
http://civildiscussionbetween.blogspot.com/
A much meatier discussion.
This becomes especially important if you're linking to a long URL. PowerBlogs barfs on those in the clear text, but is fine with them in the link.
Again, Dean actively encourages you promoting your own blog here in the comments, and actively encourages front-page authors to link to their other pages in their posts. You shouldn't spam the comments sections with a lot of off-topic links; but other than that, Dean has made it clear: go ahead and link. (And on open thread nights, he wants you to link whatever you like, because nothing's off topic there.)
As to the point about Iraqi insurgents, I'll remind you that the insurgency is a many-headed hydra, involving a number of factions. Yes, there are al-Qaeda, but there is also Iranian involvement -- which has no connection at all with al-Qaeda. There are foreign mujahadeen who have nothing to do with al-Qaeda but who do want to kill Americans. There are a variety of militias associated with various clans and sects. There are some outright criminal elements, and a variety of leftover Baathist groups. And let's not forget the Kurds. And I wouldn't be surprised if we caught some Chechens and Yemenis.
Nevertheless, the bulk of these various forces are Iraqi nationals, and so we are still fighting Iraqis. It's complicated, and black and white characterizations are misleading, but, if we return to the basic point, the situation in Iraq right now is nowhere near what it was at the same relative time to WWII. It has been four and a half years since Baghdad fell. Four and a half years after Berlin fell was late 1949 -- and the situation in Germany in 1949 was hugely different from the situation in Iraq today.
But saying that Baghdad apples are nothing like Berlin oranges is a trivial statement. No situation is much like any other situation, if you look closely. That doesn't mean analogies aren't useful. We could leave Iraq any time without any major penalty to ourselves -- your generous interpretation of Mr. Matthews's meaning -- unless you count the possible collapse of the Iraqi nation. And we could've left Germany in 1949 without any major penalty to ourselves, unless you count Soviet takeover of most of Germany. Regardless of who the combatants are, your "leaving without major penalty" criterion would be met in both cases.
If we were to leave Iraq right now, there would be a civil war, lots of killing, and a despotic Shiite regime would emerge, with close ties to Iran. Iranian prestige in the Middle East would skyrocket and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would be in threat.
Of course, if we leave Iraq in five years, the same thing will happen anyway. This is the basis for my argument that we might as well get out now: there is no benefit to be gained by continuing the battle. We chose the wrong fight, and we're bound to come out badly. So we might as well cut our losses sooner rather than later.
I agree; but in your narrowly construed interpretation of Mr. Matthews's statement, the two situations are either both what he should define as victory, or both what he should define as defeat. And that vindicates Dave's post: by Mr. Matthews's newly-minted criterion, we lost WWII. Or we lost the Cold War, if you prefer. Or we won Iraq. But there's no logically consistent way for him to claim Iraq as a defeat while claiming WWII as a victory.
Really, Mr. Matthews is a boat anchor on your whole position. Much of what you're saying is true, or mostly so; but since you started saying it as a defense of Mr. Matthews's statement, it makes you look more wrong than you are. Cut him loose! Let him sink! Say it with me: "Mr. Matthews's definition of 'defeat' is merely goalpost-shifting, because he can't stomach having been so wrong about the situation in Iraq."
There we'll have to agree to disagree. For nearly five years now, I've been hearing how the Iraqi people will let us down because they don't have what it takes to run a civil society, and civil war is due any day now; and for nearly five years now, they've been proving the naysayers wrong. Oh, they've stumbled now and then, but they've been getting better and better. My faith in the Iraqi people remains strong.
And besides, if someone had argued in 1949, "Oh, the Soviets are going to take over Europe sooner or later, and we're bound to come out badly; so we might as well cut our losses sooner rather than later," they would've been morally wrong; and history shows they would've been factually wrong as well. If we have to maintain a significant presence in Iraq to help the stability for some time to come, so be it. If peace in Europe was worth five decades of US troop presence, then peace in the Middle East is worth no less.
I vote 'yes' given all I've seen reported about him.
I can certainly agree that the attempt to formally define defeat (or victory) is an inherently pointless exercise. I can accept such talk when it is used loosely, but this entire discussion we've been having is quite scholastic in its thrust. Mr. Matthews is indeed wrong to declare that we have been defeated. It is also false to declare that we have NOT been defeated. A pox on both houses!
For nearly five years now, I've been hearing how the Iraqi people will let us down because they don't have what it takes to run a civil society, and civil war is due any day now; and for nearly five years now, they've been proving the naysayers wrong.
I read the evidence differently. They still haven't established a stable government; it's being propped up (and restrained) by the Americans. I strongly urge you to read my explanation of why they cannot establish a stable democracy anytime soon at (check out the high-tech use of "link" here!) this location.
Of course, no mention about whether or not the questions were legit. Only the questioner matters.
Zero.
How many Republican campaign chairs posing as "ordinary citizens" got to ask questions in CNN's Dem OR Republican debates?
Zero.
I'm all for allowing challenging questions posed by the opposition. But here's the deal: BOTH parties get to question the opposition. That's not a privilege reserved for Dems only. Also, each questioner discloses which campaign or political cause he works for, if any. Then, everyone's happy, and CNN doesn't look like a DNC shill or a company of incompetents.
And the Dems are big tittybabies for not going on Fox. Sorry, but it's true.
Uh, Germany 1945-89? Fulda Gap?
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.