by liberal japonicus
There are a ton of articles, so any list is going to suffer from selection bias. This 1-2 punch from LGM sums up my feelings
Dan Nexon‘s take concludes with
Events in Afghanistan do not necessarily provide retrospective justification for a continued presence there or buttress future arguments for U.S. intervention, military or otherwise. But they do underscore the need to tolerate debate about what progressive values imply in terms of U.S. involvement, military or otherwise, overseas. Anyone who makes appeals to international ethical duties to justify restraint should, at a minimum, be appalled by some of the Biden administration’s missteps and support policies designed to mitigate harms. That includes non-military tools associated the responsibility-to-protect, such as proactive efforts to help refugees.
And Lemieux collects Yglesias tweets here
I also feel that the template of the decision of negotiating with the Taliban as an equal gave them the leverage and justification to claim that they were fighting against a US invasion and they therefore represented the interests of the people of Afghanistan, which has in turn led to the situation we have now and I believe the same dynamic applies to North Korea.
[ed] A double post that left this note out
I think that this timeline is detailed and not biased and will allow us to at least agree on dates.
I imagine this can get a little heated, so I hope everyone can mind their manners.
Twenty years and well nigh unlimited resources to do your job is enough I should think. Our foreign policy establishment needs a new one. Blowing off billions of $/year could really do a place like Haiti a lot of good.
And I generally like Dan Nexon’s stuff, but restraint as a first principle does not strike me as something in need of a great deal of justification.
But, hey….have a nice Sunday.
Twenty years and well nigh unlimited resources to do your job is enough I should think. Our foreign policy establishment needs a new one. Blowing off billions of $/year could really do a place like Haiti a lot of good.
And I generally like Dan Nexon’s stuff, but restraint as a first principle does not strike me as something in need of a great deal of justification.
But, hey….have a nice Sunday.
Disagree with the well nigh unlimited resources part. Bush and Rumsfeld made it a back burner project the moment that they decided to go for Iraq. Since that moment it was already doomed to suffer from less of a commitment than it would have required (iffy as the outcome still would have been). The window of opportunity was closed long ago, leaving only sunk cost and a desire to shape the narrative in ways that leave us not losing.
Disagree with the well nigh unlimited resources part. Bush and Rumsfeld made it a back burner project the moment that they decided to go for Iraq. Since that moment it was already doomed to suffer from less of a commitment than it would have required (iffy as the outcome still would have been). The window of opportunity was closed long ago, leaving only sunk cost and a desire to shape the narrative in ways that leave us not losing.
The conclusion that “the Biden administration failed” seems to assume that either a) its resources really were/are unlimited, or b) that Afghanistan deserved to have a higher relative priority than, for example, working on the nation’s recovery from the previous administration.
Neither of which I would buy in to. It is always possible to say “my pet cause won’t take that much, so we should get it done.” But add up all the pet causes, and resources get spread so thin that nothing gets done. So even when it’s my pet cause, I recognize that someone who is forced by her position to focus on the big picture may have to prioritize, and will do so differently than I would have. (Or maybe not, if I had access to a lot more information.)
In short, having things go wrong somewhere isn’t necessarily a failure so much as a necessary orioritization. Regretable, but unavoidable in the absence of unlimited resources — financial, human, and of political capital.
The conclusion that “the Biden administration failed” seems to assume that either a) its resources really were/are unlimited, or b) that Afghanistan deserved to have a higher relative priority than, for example, working on the nation’s recovery from the previous administration.
Neither of which I would buy in to. It is always possible to say “my pet cause won’t take that much, so we should get it done.” But add up all the pet causes, and resources get spread so thin that nothing gets done. So even when it’s my pet cause, I recognize that someone who is forced by her position to focus on the big picture may have to prioritize, and will do so differently than I would have. (Or maybe not, if I had access to a lot more information.)
In short, having things go wrong somewhere isn’t necessarily a failure so much as a necessary orioritization. Regretable, but unavoidable in the absence of unlimited resources — financial, human, and of political capital.
But for Afghanistan, restraint as a first principle certainly not an option for Biden. Which I guess is the point? The last part seems like it was being written to specific people with specific opinions.
But for Afghanistan, restraint as a first principle certainly not an option for Biden. Which I guess is the point? The last part seems like it was being written to specific people with specific opinions.
Here’s another timeline:
1842 (Jan): British army withdraws from Afghanistan
1842 (Oct): British army withdraws from Afghanistan
1881: British army withdraws from Afghanistan
2014: British army withdraws from Afghanistan
2021: British army withdraws from Nato mission in Afghanistan
Some withdrawals were better managed than others (see William Elphinstone). But the record suggests that whereas a sufficiently resourced Western army can successfully invade Afghanistan, it cannot create an Afghan army able and willing to maintain in power a government we approve of.
On this occasion, it looks as if the withdrawal could have been handled better. But the underlying choice was, as usual, to stay forever, or to withdraw and the stronger Afghan force prevail.
Here’s another timeline:
1842 (Jan): British army withdraws from Afghanistan
1842 (Oct): British army withdraws from Afghanistan
1881: British army withdraws from Afghanistan
2014: British army withdraws from Afghanistan
2021: British army withdraws from Nato mission in Afghanistan
Some withdrawals were better managed than others (see William Elphinstone). But the record suggests that whereas a sufficiently resourced Western army can successfully invade Afghanistan, it cannot create an Afghan army able and willing to maintain in power a government we approve of.
On this occasion, it looks as if the withdrawal could have been handled better. But the underlying choice was, as usual, to stay forever, or to withdraw and the stronger Afghan force prevail.
I don’t have much time at the moment, but here’s a good twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/ZeeshanAleem/status/1426997164568363010?s=19
I don’t have much time at the moment, but here’s a good twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/ZeeshanAleem/status/1426997164568363010?s=19
9/11, 2019, Trump negotiated a deal with the Taliban for them to leave us alone while we get ready for the pull out that was to happen in May 2021.
Biden inherited that deal, and delays the withdrawal a bit.
and all the time, since 9/11 2019, the Taliban has been planning for this. they knew we weren’t going to have the troops to stop them, and they knew the Afghan army was tissue paper. so they patiently waited for us to fulfill our end of Trump’s deal, and then went to town – all the towns.
and regardless of who is to ‘blame’, it’s the right thing to do. if 40 Friedman units weren’t enough, 45, 50, 60 weren’t going to be enough either.
it’s over. should never have begun.
9/11, 2019, Trump negotiated a deal with the Taliban for them to leave us alone while we get ready for the pull out that was to happen in May 2021.
Biden inherited that deal, and delays the withdrawal a bit.
and all the time, since 9/11 2019, the Taliban has been planning for this. they knew we weren’t going to have the troops to stop them, and they knew the Afghan army was tissue paper. so they patiently waited for us to fulfill our end of Trump’s deal, and then went to town – all the towns.
and regardless of who is to ‘blame’, it’s the right thing to do. if 40 Friedman units weren’t enough, 45, 50, 60 weren’t going to be enough either.
it’s over. should never have begun.
Per cleek’s timeline, the Trump administration had over a year to put measures in place to deal with what should have been expected…i.e., the need to accommodate a stream of refugees upon our departure.
Was that Trump’s fault or due to the fact that our FP establishment could not foresee a failure of this magnitude?
Am I appalled? You bet. But then I have been appalled by our foreign policies since 1967.
nous: Thanks for the correction. But at over two trillion, that’s some “back burner”. When it comes to domestic spending a “trillion” (over ten years mind you) is enough to get Susan Collins in a snit.
Per cleek’s timeline, the Trump administration had over a year to put measures in place to deal with what should have been expected…i.e., the need to accommodate a stream of refugees upon our departure.
Was that Trump’s fault or due to the fact that our FP establishment could not foresee a failure of this magnitude?
Am I appalled? You bet. But then I have been appalled by our foreign policies since 1967.
nous: Thanks for the correction. But at over two trillion, that’s some “back burner”. When it comes to domestic spending a “trillion” (over ten years mind you) is enough to get Susan Collins in a snit.
Trump was never going to accept a stream refugees from Afghanistan. his xenophobic moron base wouldn’t let that happen.
but Biden has already more than quadrupled the number of refugees allowed. and plans to double that number again by the end of the fiscal year.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/03/993216680/biden-raises-refugee-cap-to-62-500-after-earlier-criticism
and, he put 100s of $Ms in place to help with Afghan refugees.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-authorizes-100-million-emergency-funds-afghan-refugees-2021-07-23/
Trump was never going to accept a stream refugees from Afghanistan. his xenophobic moron base wouldn’t let that happen.
but Biden has already more than quadrupled the number of refugees allowed. and plans to double that number again by the end of the fiscal year.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/03/993216680/biden-raises-refugee-cap-to-62-500-after-earlier-criticism
and, he put 100s of $Ms in place to help with Afghan refugees.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-authorizes-100-million-emergency-funds-afghan-refugees-2021-07-23/
Josh Marshall, who I take as more of a centrist, has a bit of a surprising take (to me)
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/after-sunday-its-even-more-clear-biden-was-right
and Fareed Zakaria
https://twitter.com/fareedzakaria/status/1426965701525389315?s=21&=
Josh Marshall, who I take as more of a centrist, has a bit of a surprising take (to me)
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/after-sunday-its-even-more-clear-biden-was-right
and Fareed Zakaria
https://twitter.com/fareedzakaria/status/1426965701525389315?s=21&=
what cleek said
what cleek said
I agree with Josh Marshall.
I agree with Josh Marshall.
…and Kevin Drum.*
Our Afghan allies, trapped in Kabul’s airport, are not the only ones rushing for the exits.
*I still remember that time long ago when he gave a good deal of serious good liberal thought and finally concluded that invading Iraq was “an OK” thing to do.
…and Kevin Drum.*
Our Afghan allies, trapped in Kabul’s airport, are not the only ones rushing for the exits.
*I still remember that time long ago when he gave a good deal of serious good liberal thought and finally concluded that invading Iraq was “an OK” thing to do.
I am too heartbroken by all of this to read all the links. But I did read Josh Marshall, and think he may be right.
As I said on another thread, I supported the war in Afghanistan (but not Iraq) because of the laws of war (they were sheltering OBL), and (most of all) because of the situation of Afghan women under the Taliban. I’ve known for some years that this was a mistake, in my head, but not my heart – because of Afghan women.
Of course, I blame Trump for the appalling mess that was Doha, and perhaps if it had been negotiated by others something better could have been bargained for the eventual pull-out, but it really does look as if Afghanistan is insoluble long-term, at least from any point of view most of us would recognise, at least for the foreseeable future.
The thought of the future of Afghan women, who have been able to believe for twenty years that they had what we would call a future, torments me.
I am too heartbroken by all of this to read all the links. But I did read Josh Marshall, and think he may be right.
As I said on another thread, I supported the war in Afghanistan (but not Iraq) because of the laws of war (they were sheltering OBL), and (most of all) because of the situation of Afghan women under the Taliban. I’ve known for some years that this was a mistake, in my head, but not my heart – because of Afghan women.
Of course, I blame Trump for the appalling mess that was Doha, and perhaps if it had been negotiated by others something better could have been bargained for the eventual pull-out, but it really does look as if Afghanistan is insoluble long-term, at least from any point of view most of us would recognise, at least for the foreseeable future.
The thought of the future of Afghan women, who have been able to believe for twenty years that they had what we would call a future, torments me.
it was lost the moment it became a nation building operation lead by the US military.
it was lost the moment it became a nation building operation lead by the US military.
60.000 refugees is a joke. Iran has taken in 3.3 million and Pakistan 1.4 million since 2001. Similar amounts during the Soviet war.
Also, the US doesn’t seem to want to facilitate refugees actually making the journey to the US, so good luck with that.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/02/us-afghanistan-refugee-admissions-taliban
60.000 refugees is a joke. Iran has taken in 3.3 million and Pakistan 1.4 million since 2001. Similar amounts during the Soviet war.
Also, the US doesn’t seem to want to facilitate refugees actually making the journey to the US, so good luck with that.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/02/us-afghanistan-refugee-admissions-taliban
It makes me sick to the marrow that the second half of my life must be lived out as a witness to this colossal American disgrace, and no one’s hands are clean.
At least it was exceptional in its exorbitant expense, much of which dropped to the bottom line of our corrupt, conservative, tax-hating balance sheets, as only America can bid up the cost of a steaming pile of dog shit and refuse to pay for it.
But we have subhuman domestic Taliban, as malignantly and conservatively bent on our genocide as their similarly God-bent Afghan brethren, to wipe off the face of the Earth with what’s left of our squandered resources.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/florida-school-board-chair-osgood-mask-mandates
https://digbysblog.net/2021/08/16/short-memories/
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/8/15/2045966/–Lamb-walking-into-a-slaughterhouse-Three-Florida-educators-die-of-COVID-19-complications
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/proud-boys-anti-vaxx-violence-los-angeles_n_6118888de4b01da700f6785c
FOX News is a suicide bomber.
Trump and company, like al Qaeda, continue exhorting America’s destruction from their caves and safe houses, including from within the halls of government.
Please continue arming the American population, conservatives, and then stealing elections from us and murdering our American children, teachers, and care-givers with the self-righteous exhalations of your diseased, infected, death-loving fake Christian breath.
At least you aren’t hiding behind masks.
Our Afghani allies perhaps are lucky to now be murdered in their home country, rather than arrive here to be hated, maligned, and attacked in our streets by the white-trash, peckerwood confederate zombies now ascendant and exalted by the conservative movement these last 50 years.
Think if those Afghani interpreters dared installing upscale countertops in their new American homes.
It makes me sick to the marrow that the second half of my life must be lived out as a witness to this colossal American disgrace, and no one’s hands are clean.
At least it was exceptional in its exorbitant expense, much of which dropped to the bottom line of our corrupt, conservative, tax-hating balance sheets, as only America can bid up the cost of a steaming pile of dog shit and refuse to pay for it.
But we have subhuman domestic Taliban, as malignantly and conservatively bent on our genocide as their similarly God-bent Afghan brethren, to wipe off the face of the Earth with what’s left of our squandered resources.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/florida-school-board-chair-osgood-mask-mandates
https://digbysblog.net/2021/08/16/short-memories/
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/8/15/2045966/–Lamb-walking-into-a-slaughterhouse-Three-Florida-educators-die-of-COVID-19-complications
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/proud-boys-anti-vaxx-violence-los-angeles_n_6118888de4b01da700f6785c
FOX News is a suicide bomber.
Trump and company, like al Qaeda, continue exhorting America’s destruction from their caves and safe houses, including from within the halls of government.
Please continue arming the American population, conservatives, and then stealing elections from us and murdering our American children, teachers, and care-givers with the self-righteous exhalations of your diseased, infected, death-loving fake Christian breath.
At least you aren’t hiding behind masks.
Our Afghani allies perhaps are lucky to now be murdered in their home country, rather than arrive here to be hated, maligned, and attacked in our streets by the white-trash, peckerwood confederate zombies now ascendant and exalted by the conservative movement these last 50 years.
Think if those Afghani interpreters dared installing upscale countertops in their new American homes.
cleek, I think you’re right about pretty much all of this.
cleek, I think you’re right about pretty much all of this.
nous: Thanks for the correction. But at over two trillion, that’s some “back burner”. When it comes to domestic spending a “trillion” (over ten years mind you) is enough to get Susan Collins in a snit.
Agree. The US is more than happy to waste money on military vanity so long as it appeals to the us self-image as being the world’s tough guys and doesn’t cost enough US lives to erode support.
What I’m talking about, though, is not just wasting revenue on military vanity (foolish as that is). I’m pointing to the sort of resources that are reflected in the chart from this 2011 article: https://www.npr.org/2011/06/10/137102440/q-a-can-the-u-s-find-success-in-afghanistan
When you look at the troop levels for Iraq vs Afghanistan, and start to consider that Iraq had a strong central government before we invaded and Afghanistan did not, then it’s pretty clear to me that we never actually committed ourselves to the goal of a stable Afghanistan at the start and all of the resources were spent on keeping up appearances and hoping for a miracle.
O’Hanlon had it right in that NPR article back in 2011 and the last decade was just a series of kick-the-can.
I, too, feel horrible for the people in Afghanistan who’s hopes we betrayed. But we never made a serious attempt to do what we claimed. It was all false pretenses and empty promises.
nous: Thanks for the correction. But at over two trillion, that’s some “back burner”. When it comes to domestic spending a “trillion” (over ten years mind you) is enough to get Susan Collins in a snit.
Agree. The US is more than happy to waste money on military vanity so long as it appeals to the us self-image as being the world’s tough guys and doesn’t cost enough US lives to erode support.
What I’m talking about, though, is not just wasting revenue on military vanity (foolish as that is). I’m pointing to the sort of resources that are reflected in the chart from this 2011 article: https://www.npr.org/2011/06/10/137102440/q-a-can-the-u-s-find-success-in-afghanistan
When you look at the troop levels for Iraq vs Afghanistan, and start to consider that Iraq had a strong central government before we invaded and Afghanistan did not, then it’s pretty clear to me that we never actually committed ourselves to the goal of a stable Afghanistan at the start and all of the resources were spent on keeping up appearances and hoping for a miracle.
O’Hanlon had it right in that NPR article back in 2011 and the last decade was just a series of kick-the-can.
I, too, feel horrible for the people in Afghanistan who’s hopes we betrayed. But we never made a serious attempt to do what we claimed. It was all false pretenses and empty promises.
I, too, feel horrible for the people in Afghanistan who’s hopes we betrayed. But we never made a serious attempt to do what we claimed. It was all false pretenses and empty promises.
Agreed. With the heaviest of heavy hearts, agreed.
I, too, feel horrible for the people in Afghanistan who’s hopes we betrayed. But we never made a serious attempt to do what we claimed. It was all false pretenses and empty promises.
Agreed. With the heaviest of heavy hearts, agreed.
Plane tickets out of Kabul have doubled and tripled as the private sector and its enabling gummints extort their last tribute from these victims.
I don’t know who is behind this twitter feed, picked up from Balloon Juice, but it’s admirably cracked:
https://twitter.com/SenMiltonYoung?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1427264474227122180%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F
Dreher today is showing little sympathy for woke Afghani trans folks facing vivisection by his like-minded haters in Kabul, while of course elevating fascists Orban and Buchanan to Confederate General sainthood.
OK, back to lurking. There is reading to be done under the light of the rising mushroom cloud that is America.
Plane tickets out of Kabul have doubled and tripled as the private sector and its enabling gummints extort their last tribute from these victims.
I don’t know who is behind this twitter feed, picked up from Balloon Juice, but it’s admirably cracked:
https://twitter.com/SenMiltonYoung?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1427264474227122180%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F
Dreher today is showing little sympathy for woke Afghani trans folks facing vivisection by his like-minded haters in Kabul, while of course elevating fascists Orban and Buchanan to Confederate General sainthood.
OK, back to lurking. There is reading to be done under the light of the rising mushroom cloud that is America.
The thought of the future of Afghan women, who have been able to believe for twenty years that they had what we would call a future, torments me.
I would hope, but not at all expect, that we put in place a policy here reminiscent of our policy for Cuba: any Afghan woman who makes it to the US gets automatic instant asylum. (Plus any minor children she gets here as well.)
It would be the right humanitarian gesture. And it has, as a side benefit, the possibility of leaving the Taliban with a similar situation to what China faces as a result of their One Child policy.
The thought of the future of Afghan women, who have been able to believe for twenty years that they had what we would call a future, torments me.
I would hope, but not at all expect, that we put in place a policy here reminiscent of our policy for Cuba: any Afghan woman who makes it to the US gets automatic instant asylum. (Plus any minor children she gets here as well.)
It would be the right humanitarian gesture. And it has, as a side benefit, the possibility of leaving the Taliban with a similar situation to what China faces as a result of their One Child policy.
Had it been up tu Rummy, they would have skipped Afghanistan (“not enough targets”) completely and went straight to Iraq.
It would be a truly cruel irony, if that would have been actually better.
And the 99% self-inflicted disaster in Iraq prevented an even greater one in Iran (“were true men go”).
And then there is the invasion of Cuba and Venezuela Jabbabonk dreamt about but proved unable to set in motion.
Count your cursed blessings.
Had it been up tu Rummy, they would have skipped Afghanistan (“not enough targets”) completely and went straight to Iraq.
It would be a truly cruel irony, if that would have been actually better.
And the 99% self-inflicted disaster in Iraq prevented an even greater one in Iran (“were true men go”).
And then there is the invasion of Cuba and Venezuela Jabbabonk dreamt about but proved unable to set in motion.
Count your cursed blessings.
O’Hanlon had it right in that NPR article back in 2011 and the last decade was just a series of kick-the-can.
Scratch this on second read. I alternate between agreeing with O’Hanlon and with Menon in hindsight. Pretty much stick with whomever has the more pessimistic analysis on any individual question.
The whole of the invasion/occupation was run like a dot com startup. Put someone out front who can talk a good line and project a can-do attitude. Find some hopeful metrics that you can wave about to secure funding for another budgetary round. Hope that more of the same thing that is not working eventually builds enough critical mass to become too big to fail, or at least big enough to cash out and let someone else worry about keeping it afloat.
O’Hanlon had it right in that NPR article back in 2011 and the last decade was just a series of kick-the-can.
Scratch this on second read. I alternate between agreeing with O’Hanlon and with Menon in hindsight. Pretty much stick with whomever has the more pessimistic analysis on any individual question.
The whole of the invasion/occupation was run like a dot com startup. Put someone out front who can talk a good line and project a can-do attitude. Find some hopeful metrics that you can wave about to secure funding for another budgetary round. Hope that more of the same thing that is not working eventually builds enough critical mass to become too big to fail, or at least big enough to cash out and let someone else worry about keeping it afloat.
“It was all false pretenses …..”
I’m more in fear of true American pretenses and the post-tenses to follow.
“It was all false pretenses …..”
I’m more in fear of true American pretenses and the post-tenses to follow.
I can’t find much above to really disagree with. I supported the Iraq invasion because of WMD in possession of an inherently instable regime that would likely fall to one of Saddam’s sons. I agreed that 9/11 required a very clear and unequivocal response in Afghanistan. My view then–and it is essentially unchanged–is that unwanted regime change is untenable and stupid. That said, if a country chooses to host an organization that attacks American citizens, that country can expect a sustained and profoundly unpleasant military visit which will be repeated until it quits hosting organizations that attack Americans. If we leave things worse than they were, that’s the fallout from bad decision making by the host country.
I will note the relative benefits for women (and everyone else) of modern western liberal democracy over the benefits of life under these indigenous, non-capitalist, non-white but deeply faithful adherents of a non-Christian faith.
I can’t find much above to really disagree with. I supported the Iraq invasion because of WMD in possession of an inherently instable regime that would likely fall to one of Saddam’s sons. I agreed that 9/11 required a very clear and unequivocal response in Afghanistan. My view then–and it is essentially unchanged–is that unwanted regime change is untenable and stupid. That said, if a country chooses to host an organization that attacks American citizens, that country can expect a sustained and profoundly unpleasant military visit which will be repeated until it quits hosting organizations that attack Americans. If we leave things worse than they were, that’s the fallout from bad decision making by the host country.
I will note the relative benefits for women (and everyone else) of modern western liberal democracy over the benefits of life under these indigenous, non-capitalist, non-white but deeply faithful adherents of a non-Christian faith.
That said, if a country chooses to host an organization that attacks American citizens, that country can expect a sustained and profoundly unpleasant military visit which will be repeated until it quits hosting organizations that attack Americans.
America might have to visit America, depending on how you define “host.”
That said, if a country chooses to host an organization that attacks American citizens, that country can expect a sustained and profoundly unpleasant military visit which will be repeated until it quits hosting organizations that attack Americans.
America might have to visit America, depending on how you define “host.”
non-white
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The truth will out.
non-white
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The truth will out.
McKinney, your statement of the principles seems largely independent of any lessons to be drawn from the historical context of the last 20 years.
Have we, in your opinion, learned anything in these 20 years that should alter our attitude towards or execution of those principles?
“You mess with the bull, you get the horns” doesn’t strike me as having been a very productive approach to our foreign policy, and I can’t imagine that you think it all that effective either. You seem to be more grounded than that, at least when pressed to provide a more extended account of your views.
McKinney, your statement of the principles seems largely independent of any lessons to be drawn from the historical context of the last 20 years.
Have we, in your opinion, learned anything in these 20 years that should alter our attitude towards or execution of those principles?
“You mess with the bull, you get the horns” doesn’t strike me as having been a very productive approach to our foreign policy, and I can’t imagine that you think it all that effective either. You seem to be more grounded than that, at least when pressed to provide a more extended account of your views.
That said, if a country chooses to host an organization that attacks American citizens, that country can expect a sustained and profoundly unpleasant military visit which will be repeated until it quits hosting organizations that attack Americans.
I think “repeated brief and profoundly unpleasant visits” would be a better way to go. But no “sustained” — all that does is build up expectations for nation building and cultural change which, as we have seen repeatedly, are rarely successful.
Best to get in and out quickly, and with limited casualties. Take out (or at least smash up) the terrorists. Take out the existing government, explicitly including those in charge. And then come home.
That said, if a country chooses to host an organization that attacks American citizens, that country can expect a sustained and profoundly unpleasant military visit which will be repeated until it quits hosting organizations that attack Americans.
I think “repeated brief and profoundly unpleasant visits” would be a better way to go. But no “sustained” — all that does is build up expectations for nation building and cultural change which, as we have seen repeatedly, are rarely successful.
Best to get in and out quickly, and with limited casualties. Take out (or at least smash up) the terrorists. Take out the existing government, explicitly including those in charge. And then come home.
McKinney, your statement of the principles seems largely independent of any lessons to be drawn from the historical context of the last 20 years.
Have we, in your opinion, learned anything in these 20 years that should alter our attitude towards or execution of those principles?
I’m not sure what your reference point here is. I am addressing a situation in which a sovereign state knowingly hosts an organization that has attacked, and continues to attack, US citizens.
I think beating the living hell out of a country that does that is the right thing to do. Not occupy, pacify, uplift, convert or any other thing unless we are positioned to compel unconditional surrender at an acceptable (to us) price.
WJ, I intentionally chose “sustained” because prospective adversaries need to believe that the exposure to murdering US citizens is not a finite, performative expression of deep approval. On something of the 9/11 scale, a year to three years of sustained and highly punitive military/infrastructural campaigning would be about right. We set the timetable, we don’t negotiate and we make it clear that we can come back if need be.
Getting in and out with limited casualties is a price the Taliban can pay again and again.
The option available to every state actor is to not murder US citizens.
Nous, what do you suggest the lessons of the last 20 years to be and, along these lines, what should we have done immediately post 9/11 re Afghanistan?
McKinney, your statement of the principles seems largely independent of any lessons to be drawn from the historical context of the last 20 years.
Have we, in your opinion, learned anything in these 20 years that should alter our attitude towards or execution of those principles?
I’m not sure what your reference point here is. I am addressing a situation in which a sovereign state knowingly hosts an organization that has attacked, and continues to attack, US citizens.
I think beating the living hell out of a country that does that is the right thing to do. Not occupy, pacify, uplift, convert or any other thing unless we are positioned to compel unconditional surrender at an acceptable (to us) price.
WJ, I intentionally chose “sustained” because prospective adversaries need to believe that the exposure to murdering US citizens is not a finite, performative expression of deep approval. On something of the 9/11 scale, a year to three years of sustained and highly punitive military/infrastructural campaigning would be about right. We set the timetable, we don’t negotiate and we make it clear that we can come back if need be.
Getting in and out with limited casualties is a price the Taliban can pay again and again.
The option available to every state actor is to not murder US citizens.
Nous, what do you suggest the lessons of the last 20 years to be and, along these lines, what should we have done immediately post 9/11 re Afghanistan?
“You mess with the bull, you get the horns” doesn’t strike me as having been a very productive approach to our foreign policy, and I can’t imagine that you think it all that effective either. You seem to be more grounded than that, at least when pressed to provide a more extended account of your views.
It’s nice having an afternoon relatively free. I don’t subscribe to a “mess with the bull, you get the horns” foreign policy. Many countries “mess” with the US as a matter of daily hygiene. I yawn along with pretty much everyone else. I am speaking directly to murdering–mass murdering in fact–US citizens here and abroad as a byproduct of the tacit approval of a sovereign actor.
IOW, an act of war by proxy, or near enough as to make no difference. I’m open to hearing about non-military responses that would be effective.
“You mess with the bull, you get the horns” doesn’t strike me as having been a very productive approach to our foreign policy, and I can’t imagine that you think it all that effective either. You seem to be more grounded than that, at least when pressed to provide a more extended account of your views.
It’s nice having an afternoon relatively free. I don’t subscribe to a “mess with the bull, you get the horns” foreign policy. Many countries “mess” with the US as a matter of daily hygiene. I yawn along with pretty much everyone else. I am speaking directly to murdering–mass murdering in fact–US citizens here and abroad as a byproduct of the tacit approval of a sovereign actor.
IOW, an act of war by proxy, or near enough as to make no difference. I’m open to hearing about non-military responses that would be effective.
I guess we’re a little late on bombing Saudi Arabia.
I guess we’re a little late on bombing Saudi Arabia.
whatever was right, we didn’t do it. whatever we should have learned, we didn’t. whatever we should have done, wasn’t.
it’s over.
move on.
with any luck we won’t do it again for a while.
whatever was right, we didn’t do it. whatever we should have learned, we didn’t. whatever we should have done, wasn’t.
it’s over.
move on.
with any luck we won’t do it again for a while.
Getting in and out with limited casualties is a price the Taliban can pay again and again.
If those limited casualties are, in essence, “troops in the trenches” then sure. But if it’s the leadership getting taken out? Much bigger disincentive.
Sure, some of them may be willing to be what amounts to a suicide bomber. Or, at least the first couple times, willing to take the chance they can evade paying the price personally. But mostly you don’t see a bin Laden personally flying a plane into a building; they leave the actual risks and bleeding to others.
Getting in and out with limited casualties is a price the Taliban can pay again and again.
If those limited casualties are, in essence, “troops in the trenches” then sure. But if it’s the leadership getting taken out? Much bigger disincentive.
Sure, some of them may be willing to be what amounts to a suicide bomber. Or, at least the first couple times, willing to take the chance they can evade paying the price personally. But mostly you don’t see a bin Laden personally flying a plane into a building; they leave the actual risks and bleeding to others.
I guess we’re a little late on bombing Saudi Arabia.
Fair point. The Saudi’s have a lot to answer for. I lack the detailed insight to offer an informed opinion on ‘how to deal with the Saudi’s’. Their support for Al Qaeda was not as open and obvious as the Taliban’s, but it is fair to ask why we keep those assholes as allies, if that’s what we think they are.
That said, the Taliban hosted Al Qaeda which ran the 9/11 operation from Afghanistan. That’s undisputed. The Taliban had *something* coming for that support. My preference is just a crap ton of bombs and bullets with a really high bad guy body count to make it clear that doing so has a high price. I’m open to alternatives.
I guess we’re a little late on bombing Saudi Arabia.
Fair point. The Saudi’s have a lot to answer for. I lack the detailed insight to offer an informed opinion on ‘how to deal with the Saudi’s’. Their support for Al Qaeda was not as open and obvious as the Taliban’s, but it is fair to ask why we keep those assholes as allies, if that’s what we think they are.
That said, the Taliban hosted Al Qaeda which ran the 9/11 operation from Afghanistan. That’s undisputed. The Taliban had *something* coming for that support. My preference is just a crap ton of bombs and bullets with a really high bad guy body count to make it clear that doing so has a high price. I’m open to alternatives.
Poisoned daggers in the night maybe?
(not a serious proposal. Less collateral damage maybe but also some nasty side effects longterm).
Poisoned daggers in the night maybe?
(not a serious proposal. Less collateral damage maybe but also some nasty side effects longterm).
But if it’s the leadership getting taken out? Much bigger disincentive.
I don’t think we had the leadership’s address. I still don’t think we have it. Even then, if a lot of Taliban rank and file are killed along with a lot of bridges and stuff getting blown up, the next Taliban gov’t will have more to worry about before bringing in another Al Qaeda.
But if it’s the leadership getting taken out? Much bigger disincentive.
I don’t think we had the leadership’s address. I still don’t think we have it. Even then, if a lot of Taliban rank and file are killed along with a lot of bridges and stuff getting blown up, the next Taliban gov’t will have more to worry about before bringing in another Al Qaeda.
“I trust the capacity of the Afghan military, who is better trained, better equipped, and more competent in terms of conducting war.” “There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of a embassy in the — of the United States from Afghanistan. It is not at all comparable.”
Four Administrations have spun their own, semi-unique BS about “what’s going on in Afghanistan and here’s what the plan is”, and so it’s probably the case that Biden got stuck holding the bag and tried to put the best face on it he could. For whatever reason, he now has a lot of egg on his face.
What gives me a rash is that either he just blew a lot of smoke or someone gave him a crap ton of bad info. I sense it’s the latter, and if that’s correct–this is something I’d think we would all want to know–who the hell is analyzing intelligence from that region and are they still employed? Biden was unnecessarily optimistic and declarative about future events. Did someone set him up (that’s what I think) or did his capacity for extemporaneous BS get away from him again (a possibility that I raise but will not, until I see evidence, endorse).
“I trust the capacity of the Afghan military, who is better trained, better equipped, and more competent in terms of conducting war.” “There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of a embassy in the — of the United States from Afghanistan. It is not at all comparable.”
Four Administrations have spun their own, semi-unique BS about “what’s going on in Afghanistan and here’s what the plan is”, and so it’s probably the case that Biden got stuck holding the bag and tried to put the best face on it he could. For whatever reason, he now has a lot of egg on his face.
What gives me a rash is that either he just blew a lot of smoke or someone gave him a crap ton of bad info. I sense it’s the latter, and if that’s correct–this is something I’d think we would all want to know–who the hell is analyzing intelligence from that region and are they still employed? Biden was unnecessarily optimistic and declarative about future events. Did someone set him up (that’s what I think) or did his capacity for extemporaneous BS get away from him again (a possibility that I raise but will not, until I see evidence, endorse).
I sense it’s the latter, and if that’s correct–this is something I’d think we would all want to know–who the hell is analyzing intelligence from that region and are they still employed
it’s the same people who have fucked this thing up from day 0.
I sense it’s the latter, and if that’s correct–this is something I’d think we would all want to know–who the hell is analyzing intelligence from that region and are they still employed
it’s the same people who have fucked this thing up from day 0.
For the record, Afghans who have settled in America are considered by the U.S. Census Bureau to be white caucasians.
Given the multi-century history of Afghanistan’s tribal on-the-ground success against all military and non-military foreign interventionist actions, magical thinking is all we have left.
Ask the Russians.
Perhaps we should drop another 7.5 million tons of ordnance on North Vietnam and learn if we can be twice as successful.
bin Laden and the mullahs’ long term military strategies were accurate. Evil, but accurate.
And, by the way, those radical conservatives in America who characterized the 2016 election as the Flight 93 election and all liberals and Democrats as the murderous hijacking mortal enemies of American conservatives’ pretentions are due a visit from serious killers as well.
“My preference is just a crap ton of bombs and bullets with a really high bad guy body count to make it clear that doing so has a high price.”
and
“if a lot of Taliban rank and file are killed along with a lot of bridges and stuff getting blown up,”
But, you got that in spades. The only alternative is nuclear.
That will be up next with China, should some (radical nationalist conservatives in the CCP and their radical nationalist American cohorts) get their way.
Good luck to all of us.
For the record, Afghans who have settled in America are considered by the U.S. Census Bureau to be white caucasians.
Given the multi-century history of Afghanistan’s tribal on-the-ground success against all military and non-military foreign interventionist actions, magical thinking is all we have left.
Ask the Russians.
Perhaps we should drop another 7.5 million tons of ordnance on North Vietnam and learn if we can be twice as successful.
bin Laden and the mullahs’ long term military strategies were accurate. Evil, but accurate.
And, by the way, those radical conservatives in America who characterized the 2016 election as the Flight 93 election and all liberals and Democrats as the murderous hijacking mortal enemies of American conservatives’ pretentions are due a visit from serious killers as well.
“My preference is just a crap ton of bombs and bullets with a really high bad guy body count to make it clear that doing so has a high price.”
and
“if a lot of Taliban rank and file are killed along with a lot of bridges and stuff getting blown up,”
But, you got that in spades. The only alternative is nuclear.
That will be up next with China, should some (radical nationalist conservatives in the CCP and their radical nationalist American cohorts) get their way.
Good luck to all of us.
wj,
Your point about giving asylum to any Afghan woman who reaches US is almost meaningless. There is very few ways for an Afghan to reach American soil without the US government’s say-so. Cubans can cross the strait to Florida, but there is no way for an Afghan too cross the Atlantic. No airline or ship is going to accept them as passangers without a visa, and the human smugglers at the Southern US border know what is good for them. Getting involved in trafficking Middle Eastern refugees would be a surefire way to get the shop closed down, as that would attract very unwelcome authority attention.
In practice, no European country has been able to return Aghan asylum seekers to Afghanistan, as the country is not willing to accept forcible returns. In fact, if the Taliban can keep their Sharia to a somewhat moderate level, will not conduct random executions, and will accept returned asylum seekers back, they have a good chance of being in the receiving end of EU development aid also in the future.
wj,
Your point about giving asylum to any Afghan woman who reaches US is almost meaningless. There is very few ways for an Afghan to reach American soil without the US government’s say-so. Cubans can cross the strait to Florida, but there is no way for an Afghan too cross the Atlantic. No airline or ship is going to accept them as passangers without a visa, and the human smugglers at the Southern US border know what is good for them. Getting involved in trafficking Middle Eastern refugees would be a surefire way to get the shop closed down, as that would attract very unwelcome authority attention.
In practice, no European country has been able to return Aghan asylum seekers to Afghanistan, as the country is not willing to accept forcible returns. In fact, if the Taliban can keep their Sharia to a somewhat moderate level, will not conduct random executions, and will accept returned asylum seekers back, they have a good chance of being in the receiving end of EU development aid also in the future.
What was to be expected with absolute certainty was the 180° turn Jabbabonk and the GOPsters (who will play at the next presidential inauguration, be sure of that) would make.
Just a few days ago they blasted Biden for trying to stay there longer than DJT wanted out of pure spite, and now it’s (I kid you not) critical race theory and climate change at home that got Biden to recklessly abandon Afghanistan (again just to make The Orange One look bad).
Whatever one thinks of Biden’s actions concerning the case, this was inevitable.
Personally, I think he should have started the rescue operations for Afghanis (and their families) that helped the US earlier than he did (he got flak for that months ago including offers from the Marianas to take the refugees (like after Vietnam), so there would be enough time to deal with their final relocation to the US or elsewhere (knowing well that the US Right would demagogue against that with all their might, so a safe space outside the mainland US would be necessary).
What was to be expected with absolute certainty was the 180° turn Jabbabonk and the GOPsters (who will play at the next presidential inauguration, be sure of that) would make.
Just a few days ago they blasted Biden for trying to stay there longer than DJT wanted out of pure spite, and now it’s (I kid you not) critical race theory and climate change at home that got Biden to recklessly abandon Afghanistan (again just to make The Orange One look bad).
Whatever one thinks of Biden’s actions concerning the case, this was inevitable.
Personally, I think he should have started the rescue operations for Afghanis (and their families) that helped the US earlier than he did (he got flak for that months ago including offers from the Marianas to take the refugees (like after Vietnam), so there would be enough time to deal with their final relocation to the US or elsewhere (knowing well that the US Right would demagogue against that with all their might, so a safe space outside the mainland US would be necessary).
But, you got that in spades. The only alternative is nuclear.
Not really, not as a matter of stated policy. It was a byproduct, cumulatively, over the longest US war in history.
My proposal, going in: we are going to wreck as much as we can and kill as many bad guys as we can until we think we’ve done enough and we’ll be back if you do something stupid again.
The above is the lessons I’ve learned from 60 years of asymmetrical, non-total war: don’t fight them except as a matter of tactical, finite necessity.
That will be up next with China, should some (radical nationalist conservatives in the CCP and their radical nationalist American cohorts) get their way.
Another kettle of fish entirely. If Biden wants to lead, he can start building an effective pro-Taiwan coalition. This is definitely a case where a war deferred is a war won.
But, you got that in spades. The only alternative is nuclear.
Not really, not as a matter of stated policy. It was a byproduct, cumulatively, over the longest US war in history.
My proposal, going in: we are going to wreck as much as we can and kill as many bad guys as we can until we think we’ve done enough and we’ll be back if you do something stupid again.
The above is the lessons I’ve learned from 60 years of asymmetrical, non-total war: don’t fight them except as a matter of tactical, finite necessity.
That will be up next with China, should some (radical nationalist conservatives in the CCP and their radical nationalist American cohorts) get their way.
Another kettle of fish entirely. If Biden wants to lead, he can start building an effective pro-Taiwan coalition. This is definitely a case where a war deferred is a war won.
For the record, Afghans who have settled in America are considered by the U.S. Census Bureau to be white caucasians.
If I remember my Anthropology course info correctly, “Caucasian” includes not only people in Europe but also those in a) Northern Africa (the bit north of the Sahara) and across southwest as far as (and including) India. So Afghans would naturally meet that criteria.
For the record, Afghans who have settled in America are considered by the U.S. Census Bureau to be white caucasians.
If I remember my Anthropology course info correctly, “Caucasian” includes not only people in Europe but also those in a) Northern Africa (the bit north of the Sahara) and across southwest as far as (and including) India. So Afghans would naturally meet that criteria.
Your point about giving asylum to any Afghan woman who reaches US is almost meaningless. There is very few ways for an Afghan to reach American soil without the US government’s say-so. Cubans can cross the strait to Florida, but there is no way for an Afghan too cross the Atlantic. No airline or ship is going to accept them as passangers without a visa
Except that, if everybody knows they have automatic asylum, that’s as good as a visa.
Or we could do the same with any Afghan woman reaching a US embassy. Might actually be a better way to go, now that I think on it.
Your point about giving asylum to any Afghan woman who reaches US is almost meaningless. There is very few ways for an Afghan to reach American soil without the US government’s say-so. Cubans can cross the strait to Florida, but there is no way for an Afghan too cross the Atlantic. No airline or ship is going to accept them as passangers without a visa
Except that, if everybody knows they have automatic asylum, that’s as good as a visa.
Or we could do the same with any Afghan woman reaching a US embassy. Might actually be a better way to go, now that I think on it.
Hartmut, two points:
Sure, it’s never a bad bet to bet on DT and his crowd taking whatever cheap shot comes to hand. Not that this makes him unique. However, in this instance, it’s just talk. Biden is making the policy and whatever static comes from the peanut gallery is just that: static.
Second, yes, Biden or someone in the decision making process, should have started getting “our” Afghan supporters out of the country some time ago. That failure is fairly laid at this administration’s feet, not that any prior administration would likely have done differently.
Hartmut, two points:
Sure, it’s never a bad bet to bet on DT and his crowd taking whatever cheap shot comes to hand. Not that this makes him unique. However, in this instance, it’s just talk. Biden is making the policy and whatever static comes from the peanut gallery is just that: static.
Second, yes, Biden or someone in the decision making process, should have started getting “our” Afghan supporters out of the country some time ago. That failure is fairly laid at this administration’s feet, not that any prior administration would likely have done differently.
Some German conservative assholes (many of whom are likely to end up in the very next elected government in less than two months) are currently quite angry that they CAN’T freely deport Afghanis ‘back home’ and rant against the courts deciding that Afghanistan is not a ‘safe country of origin’.
Btw a young Afghan woman was recently murdered over here by her brothers because she divorced her husband (and kept the kids). There is a hot debate among candidates for Merkel’s job about whether the terms ‘honor killing’ or ‘femizide’ are proper to describe this crime (the first term was criticised because there is nothing honorable about this and thus adopts the frame of the perpetrators, the latter for being too unspecific and putting a different kind of spin on it).
Some German conservative assholes (many of whom are likely to end up in the very next elected government in less than two months) are currently quite angry that they CAN’T freely deport Afghanis ‘back home’ and rant against the courts deciding that Afghanistan is not a ‘safe country of origin’.
Btw a young Afghan woman was recently murdered over here by her brothers because she divorced her husband (and kept the kids). There is a hot debate among candidates for Merkel’s job about whether the terms ‘honor killing’ or ‘femizide’ are proper to describe this crime (the first term was criticised because there is nothing honorable about this and thus adopts the frame of the perpetrators, the latter for being too unspecific and putting a different kind of spin on it).
Biden ripped the bandaid off:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/afghanistan-your-fault/619769/
A message from resident domestic American Evil, our mortal enemy right in front of our eyes:
https://twitter.com/AndrewSolender/status/1427021089541087232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1427024275467276290%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdigbysblog.net%2F
“My proposal, going in: we are going to wreck as much as we can and kill as many bad guys as we can until we think we’ve done enough and we’ll be back if you do something stupid again.”
That was a TV show broadcast from Iraq. I watched it.
That war broke this other rule: “don’t fight them except as a matter of tactical, finite necessity.”
Biden ripped the bandaid off:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/afghanistan-your-fault/619769/
A message from resident domestic American Evil, our mortal enemy right in front of our eyes:
https://twitter.com/AndrewSolender/status/1427021089541087232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1427024275467276290%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdigbysblog.net%2F
“My proposal, going in: we are going to wreck as much as we can and kill as many bad guys as we can until we think we’ve done enough and we’ll be back if you do something stupid again.”
That was a TV show broadcast from Iraq. I watched it.
That war broke this other rule: “don’t fight them except as a matter of tactical, finite necessity.”
Second, yes, Biden or someone in the decision making process, should have started getting “our” Afghan supporters out of the country some time ago.
we did. thousands are in the US right now.
Second, yes, Biden or someone in the decision making process, should have started getting “our” Afghan supporters out of the country some time ago.
we did. thousands are in the US right now.
Nous, what do you suggest the lessons of the last 20 years to be and, along these lines, what should we have done immediately post 9/11 re Afghanistan?
Well, for starters it seems like the best way to deal with the Taliban giving shelter to a terrorist leader would be to capture or kill that leader and thus discrediting the Taliban and making it look weak and ineffective. On that account, having fewer than 10,000 troops committed and allowing OBL to slip through your fingers is a massive FUBAR.
To then take attention from that clear and well defined military goal that is well supported by the international community and commit fifteen times as many troops to invading a country that had no relation whatsoever to 9/11 on the weakest of unverified intelligence?
Nope.
Keep focus on OBL. Keep focus on Afghanistan.
Iraq flushed the whole thing.
If you’ve been telling the international community that you are there for human rights reasons (antiquities, treatment of women) then you have to implement and support policies that can achieve those goals. That is not a military operation. War is only politics by other means if the policy you are supporting can be implemented by force. Economic and cultural transformation would require soft power and be slow, expensive, and not very spectacular.
The US doesn’t do any one of those three well. We have a two year attention span for anything. Longer than that and it has to involve explosions that look impressive on TV or the public will turn on the project and vote people out if they support it.
What we should learn from all of that is that more of our FP budget and effort should go to soft power and multilateral agreements that we mostly keep out of the spotlight and we should avoid flashy military flexes that have no clear outcome and no clear benefit.
Never trust a militarist, be they a Bush, Clinton, or Blair. It doesn’t matter how they dress up their flex, it’s just a flex for domestic political gain. They want to look strong for the camera. Military force should only be used in much more dire and immediate circumstances, or in clear and limited circumstances. I’m not a big fan of Powell, but the Powell doctrine would have helped us a lot here.
Nous, what do you suggest the lessons of the last 20 years to be and, along these lines, what should we have done immediately post 9/11 re Afghanistan?
Well, for starters it seems like the best way to deal with the Taliban giving shelter to a terrorist leader would be to capture or kill that leader and thus discrediting the Taliban and making it look weak and ineffective. On that account, having fewer than 10,000 troops committed and allowing OBL to slip through your fingers is a massive FUBAR.
To then take attention from that clear and well defined military goal that is well supported by the international community and commit fifteen times as many troops to invading a country that had no relation whatsoever to 9/11 on the weakest of unverified intelligence?
Nope.
Keep focus on OBL. Keep focus on Afghanistan.
Iraq flushed the whole thing.
If you’ve been telling the international community that you are there for human rights reasons (antiquities, treatment of women) then you have to implement and support policies that can achieve those goals. That is not a military operation. War is only politics by other means if the policy you are supporting can be implemented by force. Economic and cultural transformation would require soft power and be slow, expensive, and not very spectacular.
The US doesn’t do any one of those three well. We have a two year attention span for anything. Longer than that and it has to involve explosions that look impressive on TV or the public will turn on the project and vote people out if they support it.
What we should learn from all of that is that more of our FP budget and effort should go to soft power and multilateral agreements that we mostly keep out of the spotlight and we should avoid flashy military flexes that have no clear outcome and no clear benefit.
Never trust a militarist, be they a Bush, Clinton, or Blair. It doesn’t matter how they dress up their flex, it’s just a flex for domestic political gain. They want to look strong for the camera. Military force should only be used in much more dire and immediate circumstances, or in clear and limited circumstances. I’m not a big fan of Powell, but the Powell doctrine would have helped us a lot here.
McKT, nothing specific for DJT. I remember the GOP and their allies in the media to recycle actual Nazi propaganda under the younger Bush in trying to create a stab-in-the-back legend against the Democrats for the Iraq disaster.
And when I say ‘actual’ I mean e.g. detailed recreations of certain images that over here any child knows from history books at school (the commie replaced by the DEM donkey and the uniform of the soldier americanized. The helmet shape has stayed the same, so no change necessary there. Otherwise nearly a carbon copy).
After every less than successful war the US conducts (under presidents of both parties) the same game replays (under Bush the lesser it was simply a wee bit more blatant and shameless).
Not likely to change in the future or, as you said, essentially ‘static’ (or brown noise, which would be my term for it)
McKT, nothing specific for DJT. I remember the GOP and their allies in the media to recycle actual Nazi propaganda under the younger Bush in trying to create a stab-in-the-back legend against the Democrats for the Iraq disaster.
And when I say ‘actual’ I mean e.g. detailed recreations of certain images that over here any child knows from history books at school (the commie replaced by the DEM donkey and the uniform of the soldier americanized. The helmet shape has stayed the same, so no change necessary there. Otherwise nearly a carbon copy).
After every less than successful war the US conducts (under presidents of both parties) the same game replays (under Bush the lesser it was simply a wee bit more blatant and shameless).
Not likely to change in the future or, as you said, essentially ‘static’ (or brown noise, which would be my term for it)
Also, I think now is a good time for me to re-read Bacevich’s The New American Militarism to see how it stands up in hindsight as Afghanistan crumbles. He seemed like a sane voice on the center right when I read it back in the Iraq War days and I’m interested to see if my views of his arguments have changed based on current views and circumstances.
Also, I think now is a good time for me to re-read Bacevich’s The New American Militarism to see how it stands up in hindsight as Afghanistan crumbles. He seemed like a sane voice on the center right when I read it back in the Iraq War days and I’m interested to see if my views of his arguments have changed based on current views and circumstances.
In my very humble and limited opinion, a strong military response to the Al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan and their Taliban sponsors was reasonable after 9/11.
I’m at a loss to say what we should have done after that.
Just leaving would have left a vacuum that would probably have been filled by… the Taliban. Them, or some other crew of warlords.
Trying to create a fresh new polity on the liberal western model was, IMO, naive and wrong-headed. The Afghans aren’t us, and don’t need to be us.
Afghanistan has been involved in some kind of internal civil war continuously for almost the last 50 years, with various foreign actors feeding all of that for their own purposes. I’m not sure it was within our power to fix all of that, even if we had been acting without self-interest and purely for the benefit of the Afghan people. Which we were not, and had not been at least since the Soviet invasion in ’79.
I hope the Afghan people find a way to the other side of all of this. I don’t think our presence there has been all that helpful.
No doubt our departure could have been handled better. No doubt our mistakes are getting a lot of people killed. Maybe this will be an occasion for us to think realistically about the limits of power.
Shorter me: this is a horrible mess, following on 50 years of horrible mess, and I have no idea what we ought to have done instead of what we did do, with the exception of making better provision for protecting people whose association with us is going to get them killed.
In my very humble and limited opinion, a strong military response to the Al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan and their Taliban sponsors was reasonable after 9/11.
I’m at a loss to say what we should have done after that.
Just leaving would have left a vacuum that would probably have been filled by… the Taliban. Them, or some other crew of warlords.
Trying to create a fresh new polity on the liberal western model was, IMO, naive and wrong-headed. The Afghans aren’t us, and don’t need to be us.
Afghanistan has been involved in some kind of internal civil war continuously for almost the last 50 years, with various foreign actors feeding all of that for their own purposes. I’m not sure it was within our power to fix all of that, even if we had been acting without self-interest and purely for the benefit of the Afghan people. Which we were not, and had not been at least since the Soviet invasion in ’79.
I hope the Afghan people find a way to the other side of all of this. I don’t think our presence there has been all that helpful.
No doubt our departure could have been handled better. No doubt our mistakes are getting a lot of people killed. Maybe this will be an occasion for us to think realistically about the limits of power.
Shorter me: this is a horrible mess, following on 50 years of horrible mess, and I have no idea what we ought to have done instead of what we did do, with the exception of making better provision for protecting people whose association with us is going to get them killed.
Well, for starters it seems like the best way to deal with the Taliban giving shelter to a terrorist leader would be to capture or kill that leader and thus discrediting the Taliban and making it look weak and ineffective. On that account, having fewer than 10,000 troops committed and allowing OBL to slip through your fingers is a massive FUBAR.
There is a bit of question-begging here that, ISTM, is somewhat off point. Just killing OBL as a reprisal for 9/11 falls way short of what a country owes to its citizens. Second guessing a military operation in rural Afghanistan with a plainly partisan formulation (“allowing OBL to slip through your fingers”) is not a useful description of a plan or a strategy, unless your strategy is “never fail”, which no one has yet successfully employed.
The Powell Doctrine calls for overwhelming force and a stated objective. How is that different from my proposal?
If Taiwan is a free democracy in 20 years, I’ll grant your point on soft power. Otherwise, not so much.
Well, for starters it seems like the best way to deal with the Taliban giving shelter to a terrorist leader would be to capture or kill that leader and thus discrediting the Taliban and making it look weak and ineffective. On that account, having fewer than 10,000 troops committed and allowing OBL to slip through your fingers is a massive FUBAR.
There is a bit of question-begging here that, ISTM, is somewhat off point. Just killing OBL as a reprisal for 9/11 falls way short of what a country owes to its citizens. Second guessing a military operation in rural Afghanistan with a plainly partisan formulation (“allowing OBL to slip through your fingers”) is not a useful description of a plan or a strategy, unless your strategy is “never fail”, which no one has yet successfully employed.
The Powell Doctrine calls for overwhelming force and a stated objective. How is that different from my proposal?
If Taiwan is a free democracy in 20 years, I’ll grant your point on soft power. Otherwise, not so much.
I think beating the living hell out of a country that does that is the right thing to do.
You can’t beat up a country. All you can do is kill and maim people. The people you kill and maim in war are seldom the people responsible for the actions of their country’s government. And their loved ones will hate you for it.
Yes, the US and its allies were justified in invading Afghanistan. But Bush and his accomplices made a complete mess of it.
I think beating the living hell out of a country that does that is the right thing to do.
You can’t beat up a country. All you can do is kill and maim people. The people you kill and maim in war are seldom the people responsible for the actions of their country’s government. And their loved ones will hate you for it.
Yes, the US and its allies were justified in invading Afghanistan. But Bush and his accomplices made a complete mess of it.
I remember the GOP and their allies in the media to recycle actual Nazi propaganda under the younger Bush in trying to create a stab-in-the-back legend against the Democrats for the Iraq disaster.
And when I say ‘actual’ I mean e.g. detailed recreations of certain images that over here any child knows from history books at school (the commie replaced by the DEM donkey and the uniform of the soldier americanized. The helmet shape has stayed the same, so no change necessary there. Otherwise nearly a carbon copy).
I know a bit about Nazi Germany. Can you provide a cite? Thanks.
I remember the GOP and their allies in the media to recycle actual Nazi propaganda under the younger Bush in trying to create a stab-in-the-back legend against the Democrats for the Iraq disaster.
And when I say ‘actual’ I mean e.g. detailed recreations of certain images that over here any child knows from history books at school (the commie replaced by the DEM donkey and the uniform of the soldier americanized. The helmet shape has stayed the same, so no change necessary there. Otherwise nearly a carbon copy).
I know a bit about Nazi Germany. Can you provide a cite? Thanks.
Iraq flushed the whole thing.
yeah, that too.
Iraq flushed the whole thing.
yeah, that too.
There is a bit of question-begging here that, ISTM, is somewhat off point. Just killing OBL as a reprisal for 9/11 falls way short of what a country owes to its citizens. Second guessing a military operation in rural Afghanistan with a plainly partisan formulation (“allowing OBL to slip through your fingers”) is not a useful description of a plan or a strategy, unless your strategy is “never fail”, which no one has yet successfully employed.
That’s a very shallow reading of what I actually said there. And how is stating a logistical fact a partisan formulation?
Too few troops. Too great a policy of force protection. We were spread too thin and our positions were too fixed. At least that is what I have gathered from having watched a number of documentaries and talked to people who were embedded there. We did not match the scale of the challenge.
Bush used 150,000 troops to gain control of Iraq and to narrowly transfer power in a country that had a history of successful governance. If we owe our citizens more than just eliminating the person who planned 9/11 (by which I assume you mean extracting some cost from the Taliban for their aid that goes beyond removing them from power and discrediting their ability to protect an ally) it seems to me that your plan requires occupation. If Iraq took almost a decade and in excess of 150,000 troops, then saying that relying on 10,000 troops to both apprehend OBL and punish the Taliban seems like it’s an odd assumption on your part.
If you are going to commit to doing a thing in Afghanistan, then actually put resources in place to be able to do those things. To do less is to show that you were either incompetent or not actually serious about your stated goals.
There is a bit of question-begging here that, ISTM, is somewhat off point. Just killing OBL as a reprisal for 9/11 falls way short of what a country owes to its citizens. Second guessing a military operation in rural Afghanistan with a plainly partisan formulation (“allowing OBL to slip through your fingers”) is not a useful description of a plan or a strategy, unless your strategy is “never fail”, which no one has yet successfully employed.
That’s a very shallow reading of what I actually said there. And how is stating a logistical fact a partisan formulation?
Too few troops. Too great a policy of force protection. We were spread too thin and our positions were too fixed. At least that is what I have gathered from having watched a number of documentaries and talked to people who were embedded there. We did not match the scale of the challenge.
Bush used 150,000 troops to gain control of Iraq and to narrowly transfer power in a country that had a history of successful governance. If we owe our citizens more than just eliminating the person who planned 9/11 (by which I assume you mean extracting some cost from the Taliban for their aid that goes beyond removing them from power and discrediting their ability to protect an ally) it seems to me that your plan requires occupation. If Iraq took almost a decade and in excess of 150,000 troops, then saying that relying on 10,000 troops to both apprehend OBL and punish the Taliban seems like it’s an odd assumption on your part.
If you are going to commit to doing a thing in Afghanistan, then actually put resources in place to be able to do those things. To do less is to show that you were either incompetent or not actually serious about your stated goals.
And what is it that this country owed to its citizens following 9/11? How is it that the plan as actually implemented, with the resources it had, actually supported in any way accomplishing whatever it is you mean by “what this country owed to its citizens.”
And what is it that this country owed to its citizens following 9/11? How is it that the plan as actually implemented, with the resources it had, actually supported in any way accomplishing whatever it is you mean by “what this country owed to its citizens.”
I was referring to this specific poster
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:1924_(D)_Archives_1924_00_00_Deutschnationalen_Reichstag_1924_Wahlplakat_der_Deutsch-Nationalen_Deutschnationalen_Volkspartei_DNVP_Berlin_Dolchsto%C3%9Fl%C3%BCge_Dolchsto%C3%9Flegende_gegen_SPD_Low_res.jpg
I just noticed that this one was from the DNVP not the NSDAP but the motive itself was used by both extensivly (this one is just the most ‘popular’).
Unfortunately, I cannot find the US adaptations with a quick google search, so I cannot prove my claim there. I can only say that when I first saw them my jaw dropped down. That the idea itself got recycled was one thing but from what I saw several ‘artists’ clearly used the image linked above as a direct template.
(later it became a cottage indistry to put Obama into Nazi images like ‘Hitler as a condottiere’ or ‘drumming SA man’ but imo that was more ridiculous than perfidious, while the above clearly was the latter).
I was referring to this specific poster
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:1924_(D)_Archives_1924_00_00_Deutschnationalen_Reichstag_1924_Wahlplakat_der_Deutsch-Nationalen_Deutschnationalen_Volkspartei_DNVP_Berlin_Dolchsto%C3%9Fl%C3%BCge_Dolchsto%C3%9Flegende_gegen_SPD_Low_res.jpg
I just noticed that this one was from the DNVP not the NSDAP but the motive itself was used by both extensivly (this one is just the most ‘popular’).
Unfortunately, I cannot find the US adaptations with a quick google search, so I cannot prove my claim there. I can only say that when I first saw them my jaw dropped down. That the idea itself got recycled was one thing but from what I saw several ‘artists’ clearly used the image linked above as a direct template.
(later it became a cottage indistry to put Obama into Nazi images like ‘Hitler as a condottiere’ or ‘drumming SA man’ but imo that was more ridiculous than perfidious, while the above clearly was the latter).
A Bacevich quote:
“The key point, however, is this: Somewhere right around the end of the Cold War, Americans said yes to military power. If you wanted to pick a specific moment, that moment might be in early 1991, back when Operation Desert Storm ended in what appeared to be a historic victory. Right then, the skepticism about arms and armies that had informed the American experiment from its founding vanished. Political leaders—as Joanne suggested, liberals and conservatives alike—became enamored with military might. And American military leaders, who ought to have known better, became complicit in marketing alluring visions of future warfare that had no basis in history and that events soon revealed as fraudulent.”
His premise is incomplete and mistaken. Beginning with the Civil War, the majority of US wars began with an unexpected if not a surprise attack at a time when we were militarily unprepared for war, to our cost militarily and in lives. South Carolina fired on Ft Sumpter and the the North experienced a series of losses before it could arm sufficiently and get the necessary leadership.
The Spanish American war began with what was widely thought to be a surprise attack on the USS Maine (I’m not a student of whether this was a hoax, so I’m leaving that aside).
WWI was a war of choice, more or less.
WWII began with Pearl Harbor.
The Korean War began with a surprise attack, a very successful surprise attack, by N Korea and well armed by the Soviets and the PRC.
We were grossly underprepared for both wars.
Vietnam supposedly began with the Gulf of Tonkin attack (again, not here to debate “what happened”, just noting that the causus belli was touted as a “surprise attack”).
The Cold War ebbed and flowed. Ultimately, the Soviet Union imploded and *we* began unilateral disarmament.
The next surprise was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
The most recent was 9/11.
The lesson of history is that war comes when it is least expected and often when we are least prepared for it. Except for Vietnam, no one started a fight with the US during the Cold War when we had the horsepower to not only fight but to win decisively, and even then, it’s hard to say that N Vietnam “started” a war.
Our history is not one of military skepticism–Bacevich is pulling that out of thin air–it is one of unpreparedness.
Our last two wars–Kuwait and Iraq/Afghanistan–are lessons in dichotomy. In Kuwait, we had overwhelming force and a limited goal, notwithstanding all of the post hoc bitching about not finishing the job. We won but left the bad guys standing (like the Korean War)and so the open wound remained. But, there was no doubt as to whether our goal was accomplished and because we had the infrastructure in place, getting from Point A to Point B was mostly a matter of planning and execution.
Iraq/Afghanistan were different. Even if Iraq featured overwhelming force, there was no follow-on strategy other than hostile occupation, which is stupid on too many levels to count. Afghanistan was hostile occupation without overwhelming force. The fundamental lesson: in non-existential warfare and absent national mobilization, only fight when and where you have to and only for the limited purpose of making whatever point needs to be made and only with overwhelming force.
We think our military is invincible because it really does its job–fighting–pretty well. At least, so far. The PRC, should that come to pass, may be more than our much-reduced navy and air force can handle.
We have a political class that revels in basking in the reflected glory of a cool military operation gone well, e.g. killing OBL. That’s a fairly recent phenomena, that began with Clinton, continued with “Mission Accomplished” and has yet to end. Maybe that is Bacevich’s message, but he missed the part about being the biggest kid in the room–that’s what keeps everyone else from picking a fight.
A Bacevich quote:
“The key point, however, is this: Somewhere right around the end of the Cold War, Americans said yes to military power. If you wanted to pick a specific moment, that moment might be in early 1991, back when Operation Desert Storm ended in what appeared to be a historic victory. Right then, the skepticism about arms and armies that had informed the American experiment from its founding vanished. Political leaders—as Joanne suggested, liberals and conservatives alike—became enamored with military might. And American military leaders, who ought to have known better, became complicit in marketing alluring visions of future warfare that had no basis in history and that events soon revealed as fraudulent.”
His premise is incomplete and mistaken. Beginning with the Civil War, the majority of US wars began with an unexpected if not a surprise attack at a time when we were militarily unprepared for war, to our cost militarily and in lives. South Carolina fired on Ft Sumpter and the the North experienced a series of losses before it could arm sufficiently and get the necessary leadership.
The Spanish American war began with what was widely thought to be a surprise attack on the USS Maine (I’m not a student of whether this was a hoax, so I’m leaving that aside).
WWI was a war of choice, more or less.
WWII began with Pearl Harbor.
The Korean War began with a surprise attack, a very successful surprise attack, by N Korea and well armed by the Soviets and the PRC.
We were grossly underprepared for both wars.
Vietnam supposedly began with the Gulf of Tonkin attack (again, not here to debate “what happened”, just noting that the causus belli was touted as a “surprise attack”).
The Cold War ebbed and flowed. Ultimately, the Soviet Union imploded and *we* began unilateral disarmament.
The next surprise was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
The most recent was 9/11.
The lesson of history is that war comes when it is least expected and often when we are least prepared for it. Except for Vietnam, no one started a fight with the US during the Cold War when we had the horsepower to not only fight but to win decisively, and even then, it’s hard to say that N Vietnam “started” a war.
Our history is not one of military skepticism–Bacevich is pulling that out of thin air–it is one of unpreparedness.
Our last two wars–Kuwait and Iraq/Afghanistan–are lessons in dichotomy. In Kuwait, we had overwhelming force and a limited goal, notwithstanding all of the post hoc bitching about not finishing the job. We won but left the bad guys standing (like the Korean War)and so the open wound remained. But, there was no doubt as to whether our goal was accomplished and because we had the infrastructure in place, getting from Point A to Point B was mostly a matter of planning and execution.
Iraq/Afghanistan were different. Even if Iraq featured overwhelming force, there was no follow-on strategy other than hostile occupation, which is stupid on too many levels to count. Afghanistan was hostile occupation without overwhelming force. The fundamental lesson: in non-existential warfare and absent national mobilization, only fight when and where you have to and only for the limited purpose of making whatever point needs to be made and only with overwhelming force.
We think our military is invincible because it really does its job–fighting–pretty well. At least, so far. The PRC, should that come to pass, may be more than our much-reduced navy and air force can handle.
We have a political class that revels in basking in the reflected glory of a cool military operation gone well, e.g. killing OBL. That’s a fairly recent phenomena, that began with Clinton, continued with “Mission Accomplished” and has yet to end. Maybe that is Bacevich’s message, but he missed the part about being the biggest kid in the room–that’s what keeps everyone else from picking a fight.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia-says-afghan-president-escaped-with-four-cars-and-helicopter-full-of-cash?via=newsletter&source=CSAMedition
He’s headed for Mar-a-Lago.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia-says-afghan-president-escaped-with-four-cars-and-helicopter-full-of-cash?via=newsletter&source=CSAMedition
He’s headed for Mar-a-Lago.
If you are going to commit to doing a thing in Afghanistan, then actually put resources in place to be able to do those things. To do less is to show that you were either incompetent or not actually serious about your stated goals.
Then we may be saying the same thing differently. OBL knew he was a wanted man within 24 hours of 9/11. He was on the run in some of the most hostile, desolate country on the planet. The idea that he would be caught fleeing the scene is naive. He *might* have been caught, but it was a long shot, even with five times the troops we had which I suspect was in excess of our near term transport capability to that corner of the earth.
Protection from future attacks by prophylactic alertness/deployment/operational intervention and pounding the bejesus out of the perpetrators and their accomplices to send the clear message that copious amounts of death and destruction are the price one pays for killing Americans.
How is it that the plan as actually implemented, with the resources it had, actually supported in any way accomplishing whatever it is you mean by “what this country owed to its citizens.”
It wasn’t. That’s my point. We fiddle-fucked around in both places, clueless as to goal or how to get out and bled our military resources white. It was a failure of leadership and imagination. In this formulation, leadership = judgment.
If you are going to commit to doing a thing in Afghanistan, then actually put resources in place to be able to do those things. To do less is to show that you were either incompetent or not actually serious about your stated goals.
Then we may be saying the same thing differently. OBL knew he was a wanted man within 24 hours of 9/11. He was on the run in some of the most hostile, desolate country on the planet. The idea that he would be caught fleeing the scene is naive. He *might* have been caught, but it was a long shot, even with five times the troops we had which I suspect was in excess of our near term transport capability to that corner of the earth.
Protection from future attacks by prophylactic alertness/deployment/operational intervention and pounding the bejesus out of the perpetrators and their accomplices to send the clear message that copious amounts of death and destruction are the price one pays for killing Americans.
How is it that the plan as actually implemented, with the resources it had, actually supported in any way accomplishing whatever it is you mean by “what this country owed to its citizens.”
It wasn’t. That’s my point. We fiddle-fucked around in both places, clueless as to goal or how to get out and bled our military resources white. It was a failure of leadership and imagination. In this formulation, leadership = judgment.
So, McKinneyTexas, are you saying you have read Bacevich’s book to see the grounds on which he built that summary from a talk he gave about that book, or are you saying that you haven’t seen his evidence, but the claim strikes you as off based on your own reading and opinion?
It’s fun to cherry pick a fight, but it’s work actually trying to come to terms with someone’s book-length argument.
So, McKinneyTexas, are you saying you have read Bacevich’s book to see the grounds on which he built that summary from a talk he gave about that book, or are you saying that you haven’t seen his evidence, but the claim strikes you as off based on your own reading and opinion?
It’s fun to cherry pick a fight, but it’s work actually trying to come to terms with someone’s book-length argument.
You can’t beat up a country. All you can do is kill and maim people. The people you kill and maim in war are seldom the people responsible for the actions of their country’s government. And their loved ones will hate you for it.
Sorry ProB, did not mean to overlook your comment. I think you understand that (1) I was using “country” in context, meaning the guilty parties and (2) my references to the “bad guys”, in context, means focusing on military targets with the understanding that the Taliban will hide among civilians creating undesired but unavoidable civilian casualties (I don’t like collateral damage as a phrase or as a concept). That, unfortunately, is the product, or result, of starting a fight in the first place. It is to be hoped that enough bad stuff happening as a consequence will deter future bad conduct.
You can’t beat up a country. All you can do is kill and maim people. The people you kill and maim in war are seldom the people responsible for the actions of their country’s government. And their loved ones will hate you for it.
Sorry ProB, did not mean to overlook your comment. I think you understand that (1) I was using “country” in context, meaning the guilty parties and (2) my references to the “bad guys”, in context, means focusing on military targets with the understanding that the Taliban will hide among civilians creating undesired but unavoidable civilian casualties (I don’t like collateral damage as a phrase or as a concept). That, unfortunately, is the product, or result, of starting a fight in the first place. It is to be hoped that enough bad stuff happening as a consequence will deter future bad conduct.
We have a two year attention span for anything. Longer than that and it has to involve explosions that look impressive on TV or the public will turn on the project and vote people out if they support it.
And yet, we have been successfully nation-building, in a completely unspectacular fashion, with the Peace Corps for decades. Even Trump didn’t bother to shut it down. It doesn’t involve explosions, but it doesn’t seem to get people voted out of office either.
We have a two year attention span for anything. Longer than that and it has to involve explosions that look impressive on TV or the public will turn on the project and vote people out if they support it.
And yet, we have been successfully nation-building, in a completely unspectacular fashion, with the Peace Corps for decades. Even Trump didn’t bother to shut it down. It doesn’t involve explosions, but it doesn’t seem to get people voted out of office either.
https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1427022022618624004%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F
Two groups of killers are producing selfies right now …. murderous Afghan Taliban released by Trump and Pompeo now taking the reins of that gummint, and Trump, Pompeo and murderous stop the steal, pandemic-loving American Taliban filth planning the same thing for our gummint.
https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1427022022618624004%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F
Two groups of killers are producing selfies right now …. murderous Afghan Taliban released by Trump and Pompeo now taking the reins of that gummint, and Trump, Pompeo and murderous stop the steal, pandemic-loving American Taliban filth planning the same thing for our gummint.
Just killing OBL as a reprisal for 9/11 falls way short of what a country owes to its citizens.
IMO – had we been able to actually capture or kill Bin Laden and the leadership of Al Qaeda and neutralize their training operation, it seems to me like that would have been a sufficient response to 9/11. Whether we ousted the Taliban from political power or not.
Whether we like them or not, the Taliban actually represent a constituency in Afghanistan, I’m not sure it was or is our job to restructure the Afghan government.
Just my opinion.
As far as military preparedness, we spend more on the military than the next 11 biggest spenders combined. I understand that “spending” does not automatically equal “preparedness”, but seriously, what the hell.
If we’re not prepared, we’re doing something seriously wrong.
Just killing OBL as a reprisal for 9/11 falls way short of what a country owes to its citizens.
IMO – had we been able to actually capture or kill Bin Laden and the leadership of Al Qaeda and neutralize their training operation, it seems to me like that would have been a sufficient response to 9/11. Whether we ousted the Taliban from political power or not.
Whether we like them or not, the Taliban actually represent a constituency in Afghanistan, I’m not sure it was or is our job to restructure the Afghan government.
Just my opinion.
As far as military preparedness, we spend more on the military than the next 11 biggest spenders combined. I understand that “spending” does not automatically equal “preparedness”, but seriously, what the hell.
If we’re not prepared, we’re doing something seriously wrong.
If you are going to commit to doing a thing in Afghanistan, then actually put resources in place to be able to do those things.
we spent $2,600,000,000,000 in Afghanistan.
what we lacked was the support of the people we were trying to change.
If you are going to commit to doing a thing in Afghanistan, then actually put resources in place to be able to do those things.
we spent $2,600,000,000,000 in Afghanistan.
what we lacked was the support of the people we were trying to change.
And yet, we have been successfully nation-building, in a completely unspectacular fashion, with the Peace Corps for decades. Even Trump didn’t bother to shut it down. It doesn’t involve explosions, but it doesn’t seem to get people voted out of office either.
Thank goodness the Peace Corps doesn’t require our attention or affirmation, and only costs $400m or so a year.
If it did require our attention, or if some media pinhead became fixated on it as an arm of the Deep State, it would probably be borked.
And yet, we have been successfully nation-building, in a completely unspectacular fashion, with the Peace Corps for decades. Even Trump didn’t bother to shut it down. It doesn’t involve explosions, but it doesn’t seem to get people voted out of office either.
Thank goodness the Peace Corps doesn’t require our attention or affirmation, and only costs $400m or so a year.
If it did require our attention, or if some media pinhead became fixated on it as an arm of the Deep State, it would probably be borked.
Our history is not one of military skepticism–Bacevich is pulling that out of thin air–it is one of unpreparedness.
As for the unpreparedness, well, that’s been a theme, for sure, but you overstate a very weak case. As for the skepticism I give you the War of 1812 (dumb), The Mexican-American War (pure theft), our century long undeclared war against the native american peoples (genocidal theft), our numerous military interventions in Latin America (might makes right), Viet Nam, and last but not least – Iraq II(massive unwarranted hubris).
So…what are we left with? Civil War, (Spanish American War – nice try, but a dodge on your part), and WW II. I’ll give you Korea and Iraq I.
Our history is not one of military skepticism–Bacevich is pulling that out of thin air–it is one of unpreparedness.
As for the unpreparedness, well, that’s been a theme, for sure, but you overstate a very weak case. As for the skepticism I give you the War of 1812 (dumb), The Mexican-American War (pure theft), our century long undeclared war against the native american peoples (genocidal theft), our numerous military interventions in Latin America (might makes right), Viet Nam, and last but not least – Iraq II(massive unwarranted hubris).
So…what are we left with? Civil War, (Spanish American War – nice try, but a dodge on your part), and WW II. I’ll give you Korea and Iraq I.
Our real love affair with military might arose out of the massive institutional inertia built up to win WW II and rolled right into the start of the Cold War.
If there is any one institution that has bipartisan support in Congress, it is the military.
Our real love affair with military might arose out of the massive institutional inertia built up to win WW II and rolled right into the start of the Cold War.
If there is any one institution that has bipartisan support in Congress, it is the military.
It’s fun to cherry pick a fight, but it’s work actually trying to come to terms with someone’s book-length argument.
True statement and worth keeping in mind. I have not read the book, but I did read some reviews and came across a speech he made and I quoted from that speech directly. My comments were focused on his speech, not his book, and if that wasn’t clear in context, I’m making it clear now.
s far as military preparedness, we spend more on the military than the next 11 biggest spenders combined. I understand that “spending” does not automatically equal “preparedness”, but seriously, what the hell.
If we’re not prepared, we’re doing something seriously wrong.
I’ve never cared for this metric because it proves way to much as insightful jurists like to say. We are not configured for homeland defense and we do not draft. We are configured to project against substantial conventional forces who possess the homefield advantage and who outnumber us. Thus, we need particularly capable and survivable force multipliers. For example, a US fighter jet, managed by a state of the art command and control (remote) battlespace management system should be able to engage and destroy X times that one fighter. A US attack submarine is expected to outperform a numerically superior opposition by being much better built, more stealthy and so on.
It isn’t an apples to oranges problem. It’s meat vs vegetables. Our military needs are unique in the truest sense of the word and no one needs or builds a military along the lines our strategic interests require.
It’s fun to cherry pick a fight, but it’s work actually trying to come to terms with someone’s book-length argument.
True statement and worth keeping in mind. I have not read the book, but I did read some reviews and came across a speech he made and I quoted from that speech directly. My comments were focused on his speech, not his book, and if that wasn’t clear in context, I’m making it clear now.
s far as military preparedness, we spend more on the military than the next 11 biggest spenders combined. I understand that “spending” does not automatically equal “preparedness”, but seriously, what the hell.
If we’re not prepared, we’re doing something seriously wrong.
I’ve never cared for this metric because it proves way to much as insightful jurists like to say. We are not configured for homeland defense and we do not draft. We are configured to project against substantial conventional forces who possess the homefield advantage and who outnumber us. Thus, we need particularly capable and survivable force multipliers. For example, a US fighter jet, managed by a state of the art command and control (remote) battlespace management system should be able to engage and destroy X times that one fighter. A US attack submarine is expected to outperform a numerically superior opposition by being much better built, more stealthy and so on.
It isn’t an apples to oranges problem. It’s meat vs vegetables. Our military needs are unique in the truest sense of the word and no one needs or builds a military along the lines our strategic interests require.
You can’t beat up a country. All you can do is kill and maim people. The people you kill and maim in war are seldom the people responsible for the actions of their country’s government. And their loved ones will hate you for it.
This.
McT, it sounds like what you’re proposing is just some kind of naked punitive expedition. Only when the provocation is grievous enough, granted, but it’s still very much just a variation of “…get the horns”. Bomb the crap out of / shoot stuff up for a while, then wander away when there’s no more stuff to blow up.
I’m at a loss to see how there could be any upside to that. I gather the intent is some gesture at “pour encourager les autres” but I don’t see how it works in practice. The most likely result would be that the real villains simply fade into the hills until the explosions and massacres stop, then reemerge to exploit the subsequent chaos.
If the working assumption is that leaders like OBL or the Taliban heads care less about individual lives than ‘the cause’, then the whole affair would be nothing but a great gift to them. A new generation of grievously wronged and righteously enraged youth to exploit, neighbor regions destabilized by refugees and fertile for radicalization or takeover, and the destruction and erosion of what little civic/economic institutions and infrastructure might once have existed to point a path toward modernization…
Not altogether different from what actually happened, I suppose. And not actually better by any measure other than time and money.
I’ve always found it darkly amusing that so many neocon types picture themselves to be the very model of cold hard logic, and yet when you scratch the surface, there’s nothing but raw emotion. It’s never realpolitik, just a yearning for some kind of blind, bloodthirsty revenge catharsis*.
The actual cold, hard fact is that sometimes the correct response to getting punched in the nose won’t be very emotionally satisfying.
And like it or not, the correct response to 9/11 was not any kind of invasion or military action at all. It was a bunch of boring non-explody stuff. Police work. Reforming intelligence sharing procedures. Financial investigations into funding networks. Strengthening ties with friendly(-ish) governments and foreign intelligence services. Rethinking the whole strategy of uncritical support for Israel and bases in Saudi Arabia. Non-military development aid and soft power expansion in appropriate places. Etc.
—-
* This is the generous interpretation, actually. Unfortunately, I think there’s also a ‘cui bono’ question hovering around here that points toward at least some of those in power at the time being at least as interested in just helping buddies in defense-related industries get some nice fat contracts.
You can’t beat up a country. All you can do is kill and maim people. The people you kill and maim in war are seldom the people responsible for the actions of their country’s government. And their loved ones will hate you for it.
This.
McT, it sounds like what you’re proposing is just some kind of naked punitive expedition. Only when the provocation is grievous enough, granted, but it’s still very much just a variation of “…get the horns”. Bomb the crap out of / shoot stuff up for a while, then wander away when there’s no more stuff to blow up.
I’m at a loss to see how there could be any upside to that. I gather the intent is some gesture at “pour encourager les autres” but I don’t see how it works in practice. The most likely result would be that the real villains simply fade into the hills until the explosions and massacres stop, then reemerge to exploit the subsequent chaos.
If the working assumption is that leaders like OBL or the Taliban heads care less about individual lives than ‘the cause’, then the whole affair would be nothing but a great gift to them. A new generation of grievously wronged and righteously enraged youth to exploit, neighbor regions destabilized by refugees and fertile for radicalization or takeover, and the destruction and erosion of what little civic/economic institutions and infrastructure might once have existed to point a path toward modernization…
Not altogether different from what actually happened, I suppose. And not actually better by any measure other than time and money.
I’ve always found it darkly amusing that so many neocon types picture themselves to be the very model of cold hard logic, and yet when you scratch the surface, there’s nothing but raw emotion. It’s never realpolitik, just a yearning for some kind of blind, bloodthirsty revenge catharsis*.
The actual cold, hard fact is that sometimes the correct response to getting punched in the nose won’t be very emotionally satisfying.
And like it or not, the correct response to 9/11 was not any kind of invasion or military action at all. It was a bunch of boring non-explody stuff. Police work. Reforming intelligence sharing procedures. Financial investigations into funding networks. Strengthening ties with friendly(-ish) governments and foreign intelligence services. Rethinking the whole strategy of uncritical support for Israel and bases in Saudi Arabia. Non-military development aid and soft power expansion in appropriate places. Etc.
—-
* This is the generous interpretation, actually. Unfortunately, I think there’s also a ‘cui bono’ question hovering around here that points toward at least some of those in power at the time being at least as interested in just helping buddies in defense-related industries get some nice fat contracts.
As far as military preparedness, we spend more on the military than the next 11 biggest spenders combined. I understand that “spending” does not automatically equal “preparedness”, but seriously, what the hell.
If we’re not prepared, we’re doing something seriously wrong.
Yup, doing something seriously wrong. In part, we spend so much because we have a fondness for big, spectacular, and expensive hardware. A nuclear aircraft carrier is incredibly expensive to build. And not cheap to run. These days, vastly cheaper technology can take one out. But we just can’t seem to let the old stuff go.
Admittedly, part of the cost is also that we aim to be able to fight a conventional war anywhere in the world. Possibly even in a couple of places at once. And have bases and resources already in place to do so. Nobody else has anything like that expansive a view of their military requirements. (See, in contrast, the British response to the Argentinean invasion of the Falkland Islands. Got the job done, even without an American-style military infrastructure in place.)
As far as military preparedness, we spend more on the military than the next 11 biggest spenders combined. I understand that “spending” does not automatically equal “preparedness”, but seriously, what the hell.
If we’re not prepared, we’re doing something seriously wrong.
Yup, doing something seriously wrong. In part, we spend so much because we have a fondness for big, spectacular, and expensive hardware. A nuclear aircraft carrier is incredibly expensive to build. And not cheap to run. These days, vastly cheaper technology can take one out. But we just can’t seem to let the old stuff go.
Admittedly, part of the cost is also that we aim to be able to fight a conventional war anywhere in the world. Possibly even in a couple of places at once. And have bases and resources already in place to do so. Nobody else has anything like that expansive a view of their military requirements. (See, in contrast, the British response to the Argentinean invasion of the Falkland Islands. Got the job done, even without an American-style military infrastructure in place.)
we spent $2,600,000,000,000 in Afghanistan.
what we lacked was the support of the people we were trying to change.
Again, though, a price tag is not the same thing as a feasible plan. I fully agree that the policy we tried was both expensive and ineffectual.
What I am saying, ultimately though, is that choosing to start a war with Iraq while OBL was still at large and with a power vacuum still in Afghanistan meant that Afghanistan was never going to get the attention or resources to have a chance of succeeding or to win enough support to make it self-sustaining and able to keep the Taliban out of power. All the attention got lavished on Iraq.
Afghanistan stopped being a priority long before the US accomplished any goal beyond seizing control of Kabul and propping up an incompetent and corrupt leader in their place.
we spent $2,600,000,000,000 in Afghanistan.
what we lacked was the support of the people we were trying to change.
Again, though, a price tag is not the same thing as a feasible plan. I fully agree that the policy we tried was both expensive and ineffectual.
What I am saying, ultimately though, is that choosing to start a war with Iraq while OBL was still at large and with a power vacuum still in Afghanistan meant that Afghanistan was never going to get the attention or resources to have a chance of succeeding or to win enough support to make it self-sustaining and able to keep the Taliban out of power. All the attention got lavished on Iraq.
Afghanistan stopped being a priority long before the US accomplished any goal beyond seizing control of Kabul and propping up an incompetent and corrupt leader in their place.
Just killing OBL as a reprisal for 9/11 falls way short of what a country owes to its citizens.
This is a rather bizarre statement.
What the heck does “owes to its citizens” mean?
IMHO, whpat the US — and the Bush administration in particular — “owed to its citizens” was competent intelligence work to prevent the attack in the first place. After that, it’s just different kinds of failure.
But imagine an alternate universe where, for example, the Afghani government had simply arrested and extradited OBL (and other culpable Al Qaeda leaders) for trial, as they were asked to.
Wouldn’t that have been the ideal outcome?
How the heck would a few thousand extra unrelated deaths and explosions in Afghanistan have helped the US pay what was “owed to its citizens”?
Just killing OBL as a reprisal for 9/11 falls way short of what a country owes to its citizens.
This is a rather bizarre statement.
What the heck does “owes to its citizens” mean?
IMHO, whpat the US — and the Bush administration in particular — “owed to its citizens” was competent intelligence work to prevent the attack in the first place. After that, it’s just different kinds of failure.
But imagine an alternate universe where, for example, the Afghani government had simply arrested and extradited OBL (and other culpable Al Qaeda leaders) for trial, as they were asked to.
Wouldn’t that have been the ideal outcome?
How the heck would a few thousand extra unrelated deaths and explosions in Afghanistan have helped the US pay what was “owed to its citizens”?
I think you understand that (1) I was using “country” in context, meaning the guilty parties…
I have a strong negative reaction to euphemisms for killing people. If your objective would have been to kill people, then how many and who? How would you identify them? How many ordinary Afghans would you be willing to kill to achieve it?
I think you understand that (1) I was using “country” in context, meaning the guilty parties…
I have a strong negative reaction to euphemisms for killing people. If your objective would have been to kill people, then how many and who? How would you identify them? How many ordinary Afghans would you be willing to kill to achieve it?
whpat the US — and the Bush administration in particular — “owed to its citizens” was competent intelligence work to prevent the attack in the first place. After that, it’s just different kinds of failure.
You seem to have a view of intelligence work rather at odds with reality. It’s possible that better intelligence work could have prevented, specifically, 9/11. But there is no realistic way to prevent every terrorist attack. Our intelligence agencies are not, and in the real world cannot be, anything like omniscient. Calling them incompetent for that shortcoming is nonsense.
That being the case, it’s worth thinking about what a good response should look like. Simply lumping them all together as “just different kinds of failure” is just a way to avoid addressing the question.
whpat the US — and the Bush administration in particular — “owed to its citizens” was competent intelligence work to prevent the attack in the first place. After that, it’s just different kinds of failure.
You seem to have a view of intelligence work rather at odds with reality. It’s possible that better intelligence work could have prevented, specifically, 9/11. But there is no realistic way to prevent every terrorist attack. Our intelligence agencies are not, and in the real world cannot be, anything like omniscient. Calling them incompetent for that shortcoming is nonsense.
That being the case, it’s worth thinking about what a good response should look like. Simply lumping them all together as “just different kinds of failure” is just a way to avoid addressing the question.
Don’t bite hooks. Even if the person setting them doesn’t realize they are….
Looking for the transcript, but here’s Biden’s speech
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/16/watch-biden-afghanistan-speech-live.html
Damn good speech
Don’t bite hooks. Even if the person setting them doesn’t realize they are….
Looking for the transcript, but here’s Biden’s speech
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/16/watch-biden-afghanistan-speech-live.html
Damn good speech
We are not configured for homeland defense and we do not draft. We are configured to project against substantial conventional forces who possess the homefield advantage and who outnumber us.
See also “doing something seriously wrong”.
Our understanding of our strategic interests requires us to project overwhelming force any and everywhere in the world, whether the target of that force presents a realistic threat to the United States and the people who live here.
I’m not surprised nobody else finds this necessary.
We are not configured for homeland defense and we do not draft. We are configured to project against substantial conventional forces who possess the homefield advantage and who outnumber us.
See also “doing something seriously wrong”.
Our understanding of our strategic interests requires us to project overwhelming force any and everywhere in the world, whether the target of that force presents a realistic threat to the United States and the people who live here.
I’m not surprised nobody else finds this necessary.
What I am saying, ultimately though, is that choosing to start a war with Iraq while OBL was still at large and with a power vacuum still in Afghanistan meant that Afghanistan was never going to get the attention or resources to have a chance of succeeding or to win enough support to make it self-sustaining and able to keep the Taliban out of power.
nous,
This is admittedly what happened, but I would amend to say it was a policy choice, not necessarily a resources constraint. We tried to implement a grand strategic goal on the cheap (a relative term I guess when folks discount $2.6 trillion as no big deal).
What I am saying, ultimately though, is that choosing to start a war with Iraq while OBL was still at large and with a power vacuum still in Afghanistan meant that Afghanistan was never going to get the attention or resources to have a chance of succeeding or to win enough support to make it self-sustaining and able to keep the Taliban out of power.
nous,
This is admittedly what happened, but I would amend to say it was a policy choice, not necessarily a resources constraint. We tried to implement a grand strategic goal on the cheap (a relative term I guess when folks discount $2.6 trillion as no big deal).
I will note the relative benefits for women (and everyone else) of modern western liberal democracy over the benefits of life under these indigenous, non-capitalist, non-white but deeply faithful adherents of a non-Christian faith.
McKinney, I meant to ask earlier, do you imagine that there’s anyone on ObWi who thinks life for women is not better in the democratic west than Afghanistan? “And everyone else” is a separate question; presumably for e.g. misogynistic fundamentalist men, life in Afghanistan now is (or is about to become) just how they think it should be. As for your characterisation of these indigenous, non-capitalist, non-white but deeply faithful adherents of a non-Christian faith, I am absolutely unable to understand what you are getting at. Seriously. What on earth do you mean by this?
I will note the relative benefits for women (and everyone else) of modern western liberal democracy over the benefits of life under these indigenous, non-capitalist, non-white but deeply faithful adherents of a non-Christian faith.
McKinney, I meant to ask earlier, do you imagine that there’s anyone on ObWi who thinks life for women is not better in the democratic west than Afghanistan? “And everyone else” is a separate question; presumably for e.g. misogynistic fundamentalist men, life in Afghanistan now is (or is about to become) just how they think it should be. As for your characterisation of these indigenous, non-capitalist, non-white but deeply faithful adherents of a non-Christian faith, I am absolutely unable to understand what you are getting at. Seriously. What on earth do you mean by this?
FWIW, and not that it’s relevant to anything whatsoever or matters in the least, but Afghan people are not especially ‘non-white’. They aren’t especially any particular color.
Kind of like Europeans. Kind of like Americans, except probably lighter skinned than us on average.
My guess is this is McK poking all us liberals with his anti-PC stick again.
FWIW, and not that it’s relevant to anything whatsoever or matters in the least, but Afghan people are not especially ‘non-white’. They aren’t especially any particular color.
Kind of like Europeans. Kind of like Americans, except probably lighter skinned than us on average.
My guess is this is McK poking all us liberals with his anti-PC stick again.
Lots of free-market capitalism in the opium marketplace, also, too.
Okay, they don’t float shares on the NYSE, but who amongst us here does?
Lots of free-market capitalism in the opium marketplace, also, too.
Okay, they don’t float shares on the NYSE, but who amongst us here does?
Yes, Snarki, I had that self same thought exactly, and as for non-white, you’d think McKinney had never seen that famous photo (National Geographic, was it, or Life?) Afghan Girl.
No, I knew McKinney was trying to yank our liberal chains, russell, I just didn’t see how that loony string of (anyway inaccurate) description was supposed to do it. I still don’t, really. I guess it just shows what a strange caricature of liberals conservatives have, or (as Janie has sometimes expressed it) the straw men in their heads.
Yes, Snarki, I had that self same thought exactly, and as for non-white, you’d think McKinney had never seen that famous photo (National Geographic, was it, or Life?) Afghan Girl.
No, I knew McKinney was trying to yank our liberal chains, russell, I just didn’t see how that loony string of (anyway inaccurate) description was supposed to do it. I still don’t, really. I guess it just shows what a strange caricature of liberals conservatives have, or (as Janie has sometimes expressed it) the straw men in their heads.
As McK points out, you gotta’ be careful around those indigenous folks.
As McK points out, you gotta’ be careful around those indigenous folks.
@wj:
You seem to have a view of intelligence work rather at odds with reality. It’s possible that better intelligence work could have prevented, specifically, 9/11. But there is no realistic way to prevent every terrorist attack. Our intelligence agencies are not, and in the real world cannot be, anything like omniscient. Calling them incompetent for that shortcoming is nonsense.
I never used the word incompetent. It is entirely possible for competent people to fail.
I stand by what I said: if there’s anything owed to the American people, it’s competence. If there’s a failure nevertheless, I don’t think any unpaid debt exists. Certainly not one denominated in dead Afghan civilians.
(Also: I thought it was more or less received wisdom at this point that 9/11 in particular very likely could have been prevented. That is, all the salient facts had been collected and were known by various US agencies beforehand, just not all at the same time or in the right place. So, a great deal of competence, actually, ultimately undermined by a systematic failure of coordination and leadership at the highest levels.)
That being the case, it’s worth thinking about what a good response should look like. Simply lumping them all together as “just different kinds of failure” is just a way to avoid addressing the question.
The very next paragraph considers exactly this sort of question of ‘least worse’ outcomes, so I’m not sure how I’m avoiding it.
But it’s important to keep things in perspective. And there’s no way to characterize something like 9/11 as anything other than a failure. Even if it wasn’t avoidable (dubious), unavoidable failure is still failure. I mean, it certainly wasn’t just another Tuesday. And I don’t think you can call it a success…
So, the question after that really is about different kinds of failure. Some are even worse than others, sure. Failure can be like that. But none of them would have resulted in those 3,000 people going home to their families.
Punitive expeditions to Central Asia certainly won’t/didn’t accomplish that — rather the opposite.
@wj:
You seem to have a view of intelligence work rather at odds with reality. It’s possible that better intelligence work could have prevented, specifically, 9/11. But there is no realistic way to prevent every terrorist attack. Our intelligence agencies are not, and in the real world cannot be, anything like omniscient. Calling them incompetent for that shortcoming is nonsense.
I never used the word incompetent. It is entirely possible for competent people to fail.
I stand by what I said: if there’s anything owed to the American people, it’s competence. If there’s a failure nevertheless, I don’t think any unpaid debt exists. Certainly not one denominated in dead Afghan civilians.
(Also: I thought it was more or less received wisdom at this point that 9/11 in particular very likely could have been prevented. That is, all the salient facts had been collected and were known by various US agencies beforehand, just not all at the same time or in the right place. So, a great deal of competence, actually, ultimately undermined by a systematic failure of coordination and leadership at the highest levels.)
That being the case, it’s worth thinking about what a good response should look like. Simply lumping them all together as “just different kinds of failure” is just a way to avoid addressing the question.
The very next paragraph considers exactly this sort of question of ‘least worse’ outcomes, so I’m not sure how I’m avoiding it.
But it’s important to keep things in perspective. And there’s no way to characterize something like 9/11 as anything other than a failure. Even if it wasn’t avoidable (dubious), unavoidable failure is still failure. I mean, it certainly wasn’t just another Tuesday. And I don’t think you can call it a success…
So, the question after that really is about different kinds of failure. Some are even worse than others, sure. Failure can be like that. But none of them would have resulted in those 3,000 people going home to their families.
Punitive expeditions to Central Asia certainly won’t/didn’t accomplish that — rather the opposite.
I knew McKinney was trying to yank our liberal chains
We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be
Kurt Vonnegut. Mother Night
I knew McKinney was trying to yank our liberal chains
We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be
Kurt Vonnegut. Mother Night
Lots of free-market capitalism in the opium marketplace, also, too.
Indeed. And ‘non-capitalist’ covers a lot of ground, but the Taliban are rather famously not communists, if that’s the alternative implication. At least their mujahideen forebears certainly weren’t.
We should probably be wishing they were. My understanding is that actual Afghani communism was dominated by secularists who, at least on paper, strongly supported things like universal education and women’s rights.
So. ‘Non-white’ and ‘non-capitalist’ is out. And I think “indigenous” might be an interesting point of discussion too, given the complicated history of conquest and migration over the millennia.
What’s left? “Faithful” and “non-Christian”?
I guess the latter is true enough. Of all the major religions you could probably name off the top of your head, I think Christianity might be the only one Afghanistan hasn’t taken for a good spin over the centuries. (Well, Judaism too, I guess.)
Which is all very interesting, but I’m not sure how much it has to do with anything.
Lots of free-market capitalism in the opium marketplace, also, too.
Indeed. And ‘non-capitalist’ covers a lot of ground, but the Taliban are rather famously not communists, if that’s the alternative implication. At least their mujahideen forebears certainly weren’t.
We should probably be wishing they were. My understanding is that actual Afghani communism was dominated by secularists who, at least on paper, strongly supported things like universal education and women’s rights.
So. ‘Non-white’ and ‘non-capitalist’ is out. And I think “indigenous” might be an interesting point of discussion too, given the complicated history of conquest and migration over the millennia.
What’s left? “Faithful” and “non-Christian”?
I guess the latter is true enough. Of all the major religions you could probably name off the top of your head, I think Christianity might be the only one Afghanistan hasn’t taken for a good spin over the centuries. (Well, Judaism too, I guess.)
Which is all very interesting, but I’m not sure how much it has to do with anything.
I could easily quote a number of devout Christian authors that have/had as despicable views about women and their ‘proper’ place as the Taliban. That includes theologians that consider the creation of women the greatest blunder G#d ever committed.
I could easily quote a number of devout Christian authors that have/had as despicable views about women and their ‘proper’ place as the Taliban. That includes theologians that consider the creation of women the greatest blunder G#d ever committed.
@jack lecou:
I never used the word incompetent. It is entirely possible for competent people to fail.
You said “what the US — and the Bush administration in particular — “owed to its citizens” was competent intelligence work to prevent the attack in the first place.” Which pretty strongly implies that, since the attack did take place, the intelligence work was not competent. Even if you didn’t type the word “incompetent”, that’s what you said.
@jack lecou:
I never used the word incompetent. It is entirely possible for competent people to fail.
You said “what the US — and the Bush administration in particular — “owed to its citizens” was competent intelligence work to prevent the attack in the first place.” Which pretty strongly implies that, since the attack did take place, the intelligence work was not competent. Even if you didn’t type the word “incompetent”, that’s what you said.
I could easily quote a number of devout Christian authors that have/had as despicable views about women and their ‘proper’ place as the Taliban.
Some of them lead evangelical churches in the US.
I could easily quote a number of devout Christian authors that have/had as despicable views about women and their ‘proper’ place as the Taliban.
Some of them lead evangelical churches in the US.
Christians figured out misogyny long before Mohammed was even born. A lot was copied off Aristotle and likeminded Greeks but they easily managed to top him.
Remarkable given that the biblical Jesus just once insulted a woman and that was his own mother when she pestered him about providing extra booze for a wedding.
Christians figured out misogyny long before Mohammed was even born. A lot was copied off Aristotle and likeminded Greeks but they easily managed to top him.
Remarkable given that the biblical Jesus just once insulted a woman and that was his own mother when she pestered him about providing extra booze for a wedding.
What russell said – and at least one insider from back then agrees with him.
Sceptical as I am about Frum’s opinions, this in not unconvincing.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/bin-laden-2001-end-war-afghanistan/619767/
Had the United States caught and killed Osama bin Laden in December 2001, the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan would have faded away almost immediately afterward. I cannot prove that. It’s only an opinion from my vantage point as one of President George W. Bush’s speechwriters in 2001 and 2002.
Yet I strongly believe it. The U.S. stayed for 20 years in Afghanistan because first Bush and then his successors got trapped in a pattern of responding to past failures by redoubling future efforts…
The occupation was neither planned, nor financed as nation building – though far too late elements of that crept into it, even if the vast majority of aid went (uselessly) to the armed forces. Had that been the wholehearted aim at the outset, there’s an outside chance it might have succeeded.
One last thought, the shockingly quick collapse of the government, however embarrassing it might be to the Biden administration, has if nothing else minimised the bloodshed involved in a Taliban takeover. The alternative anticipated by our planners was an 18 month civil war.
Whether that is any great consolation will depend on whether this Taliban regime is as brutal and backward as was their previous one. There are tentative suggestions that it might not be, but I’m far from optimistic on that point.
What russell said – and at least one insider from back then agrees with him.
Sceptical as I am about Frum’s opinions, this in not unconvincing.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/bin-laden-2001-end-war-afghanistan/619767/
Had the United States caught and killed Osama bin Laden in December 2001, the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan would have faded away almost immediately afterward. I cannot prove that. It’s only an opinion from my vantage point as one of President George W. Bush’s speechwriters in 2001 and 2002.
Yet I strongly believe it. The U.S. stayed for 20 years in Afghanistan because first Bush and then his successors got trapped in a pattern of responding to past failures by redoubling future efforts…
The occupation was neither planned, nor financed as nation building – though far too late elements of that crept into it, even if the vast majority of aid went (uselessly) to the armed forces. Had that been the wholehearted aim at the outset, there’s an outside chance it might have succeeded.
One last thought, the shockingly quick collapse of the government, however embarrassing it might be to the Biden administration, has if nothing else minimised the bloodshed involved in a Taliban takeover. The alternative anticipated by our planners was an 18 month civil war.
Whether that is any great consolation will depend on whether this Taliban regime is as brutal and backward as was their previous one. There are tentative suggestions that it might not be, but I’m far from optimistic on that point.
And … they’re off!
https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-warns-invasion-millions-afghan-refugees
https://www.mediamatters.org/war-afghanistan/laura-ingraham-it-really-our-responsibility-welcome-thousands-potentially-unvetted
The best way to make room for the Afghan refugees is to deport Rupert Murdoch and every FOX employee now Talibaning the American political landscape with their cobbled-together conservative IEDs.
They can take their maligned Mitt Romney and the rest of his Neo-Con crew with them, perhaps to pound sand in Saudi Arabia.
Both sides of the subhuman Republican Party have done it to us.
If the Republican Party was The Price Is Right, behind every door would be a steaming pile of dog shit inside of which would be a free pass from the IRS.
Come on down!
Lest anyone believe I’m anywhere close to fully endorsing the Democratic Party, when I’m offered as my only choices two shot glasses on a tray, one whose contents are laced with LSD, and the second whose contents are pure uncut strychnine with a chaser of coughed up Christian Covid phlegm, I’ll take the LSD, if you please.
And … they’re off!
https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-warns-invasion-millions-afghan-refugees
https://www.mediamatters.org/war-afghanistan/laura-ingraham-it-really-our-responsibility-welcome-thousands-potentially-unvetted
The best way to make room for the Afghan refugees is to deport Rupert Murdoch and every FOX employee now Talibaning the American political landscape with their cobbled-together conservative IEDs.
They can take their maligned Mitt Romney and the rest of his Neo-Con crew with them, perhaps to pound sand in Saudi Arabia.
Both sides of the subhuman Republican Party have done it to us.
If the Republican Party was The Price Is Right, behind every door would be a steaming pile of dog shit inside of which would be a free pass from the IRS.
Come on down!
Lest anyone believe I’m anywhere close to fully endorsing the Democratic Party, when I’m offered as my only choices two shot glasses on a tray, one whose contents are laced with LSD, and the second whose contents are pure uncut strychnine with a chaser of coughed up Christian Covid phlegm, I’ll take the LSD, if you please.
because What did you expect from right wing fundamentalists?
Taliban bans COVID vaccine
because What did you expect from right wing fundamentalists?
Taliban bans COVID vaccine
I miss Kurt Vonnegut.
I miss Kurt Vonnegut.
Remarkable given that the biblical Jesus just once insulted a woman and that was his own mother when she pestered him about providing extra booze for a wedding.
I’ve heard of God-bothering, but Jesus-pestering is a new one.
Remarkable given that the biblical Jesus just once insulted a woman and that was his own mother when she pestered him about providing extra booze for a wedding.
I’ve heard of God-bothering, but Jesus-pestering is a new one.
My guess is this is McK poking all us liberals with his anti-PC stick again.
Well, occassionally, conservatives poke back, but actually it is not a poke. I will address in detail later today. I had to break off yesterday when my mediation heated up and this morning is busy, but I wasn’t doing a drive-by and the responses to me merit a reply.
Here’s a hint: both LJ and GFTNC commented either on this thread or in another within the last week with implicit criticism of Western Civilization, which with the exception of WJ, usually passes with no comment here, largely because it is, to one degree or another, a commonly held view. The reality of other cultures, e.g Afghanistan, as alternatives to Modern Western Liberal Democracy points up that the alternatives are actually uniformly quite shitty.
I’m still waiting for someone to identify a superior alternative to what we have right here in America.
Also, if this is considered a thread-jack, I can take it somewhere else or everyone can just give this one a pass. Not here to ruffle feathers. Civilized (western-style civilized) Engagement, that’s me.
My guess is this is McK poking all us liberals with his anti-PC stick again.
Well, occassionally, conservatives poke back, but actually it is not a poke. I will address in detail later today. I had to break off yesterday when my mediation heated up and this morning is busy, but I wasn’t doing a drive-by and the responses to me merit a reply.
Here’s a hint: both LJ and GFTNC commented either on this thread or in another within the last week with implicit criticism of Western Civilization, which with the exception of WJ, usually passes with no comment here, largely because it is, to one degree or another, a commonly held view. The reality of other cultures, e.g Afghanistan, as alternatives to Modern Western Liberal Democracy points up that the alternatives are actually uniformly quite shitty.
I’m still waiting for someone to identify a superior alternative to what we have right here in America.
Also, if this is considered a thread-jack, I can take it somewhere else or everyone can just give this one a pass. Not here to ruffle feathers. Civilized (western-style civilized) Engagement, that’s me.
And here I go, biting at hooks….
Oh noes, implicit criticism, vaguely sourced to be either in this thread or something that was written at some time on this blog! How will poor little ole defenseless Western Civilization be able to handle the one-two punch of LJ and GftNC? It’s sooooo unfair!!!
Here’s a hint: you have a problem with something someone said, you bring it up and quote it then rather than vaguely waving at other comments (‘err, I know you said something like that, if it wasn’t this last week, it was certainly in the past!’). Identify it when it comes up. Otherwise, it just seems like the typical AlaMcT stinkbomb. (no, I haven’t forgotten that one). Or maybe you’ll just define Afghanistan as Democratic perfidy by starting the timeline in June of 2021. It worked for defining away the holocaust, right?
And you are welcome to take your musings about the “non-white” Afghani masses somewhere else. Vdare may be looking for content…
And here I go, biting at hooks….
Oh noes, implicit criticism, vaguely sourced to be either in this thread or something that was written at some time on this blog! How will poor little ole defenseless Western Civilization be able to handle the one-two punch of LJ and GftNC? It’s sooooo unfair!!!
Here’s a hint: you have a problem with something someone said, you bring it up and quote it then rather than vaguely waving at other comments (‘err, I know you said something like that, if it wasn’t this last week, it was certainly in the past!’). Identify it when it comes up. Otherwise, it just seems like the typical AlaMcT stinkbomb. (no, I haven’t forgotten that one). Or maybe you’ll just define Afghanistan as Democratic perfidy by starting the timeline in June of 2021. It worked for defining away the holocaust, right?
And you are welcome to take your musings about the “non-white” Afghani masses somewhere else. Vdare may be looking for content…
I’d suggest that, rather than having an overly broad discussion during which everyone can easily talk past each other, whether on purpose or otherwise, we stick to more specific and defined topics. Here’s something to start with (from GftNC):
McKinney, I meant to ask earlier, do you imagine that there’s anyone on ObWi who thinks life for women is not better in the democratic west than Afghanistan?
But we might all agree on this point, which would be unsatisfying to anyone looking for a food fight.
I’d suggest that, rather than having an overly broad discussion during which everyone can easily talk past each other, whether on purpose or otherwise, we stick to more specific and defined topics. Here’s something to start with (from GftNC):
McKinney, I meant to ask earlier, do you imagine that there’s anyone on ObWi who thinks life for women is not better in the democratic west than Afghanistan?
But we might all agree on this point, which would be unsatisfying to anyone looking for a food fight.
I will note the relative benefits for women (and everyone else) of modern western liberal democracy over the benefits of life under these indigenous, non-capitalist, non-white but deeply faithful adherents of a non-Christian faith.
My last comment for a good long while: I am bowled over by the fact that the most anyone can come up with in response to this racist gibberish is to point out that the Afghans aren’t really non-white, and maybe McK is just joshing us.
He affirms that he isn’t.
“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” ~Maya Angelou
Or the second, or the seventeenth…..
I will note the relative benefits for women (and everyone else) of modern western liberal democracy over the benefits of life under these indigenous, non-capitalist, non-white but deeply faithful adherents of a non-Christian faith.
My last comment for a good long while: I am bowled over by the fact that the most anyone can come up with in response to this racist gibberish is to point out that the Afghans aren’t really non-white, and maybe McK is just joshing us.
He affirms that he isn’t.
“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” ~Maya Angelou
Or the second, or the seventeenth…..
Cross-posted with lj. Thanks for that.
Cross-posted with lj. Thanks for that.
I am bowled over by the fact that the most anyone can come up with in response to this racist gibberish is to point out that the Afghans aren’t really non-white, and maybe McK is just joshing us.
for my part, i was sitting back, assuming i read it wrong, and hoping that someone else would illuminate a meaning in there that i missed.
I am bowled over by the fact that the most anyone can come up with in response to this racist gibberish is to point out that the Afghans aren’t really non-white, and maybe McK is just joshing us.
for my part, i was sitting back, assuming i read it wrong, and hoping that someone else would illuminate a meaning in there that i missed.
You said “what the US — and the Bush administration in particular — “owed to its citizens” was competent intelligence work to prevent the attack in the first place.” Which pretty strongly implies that, since the attack did take place, the intelligence work was not competent. Even if you didn’t type the word “incompetent”, that’s what you said.
Well, again, I don’t think that’s actually the implication, but I also don’t see that it matters much.
It’s really not about competent or incompetent. You can correct me if you disagree, but in context, I believe my point was clearly that the only obligation that mattered was a best effort at prevention. As opposed not to incompetence, but rather to the vicious notion that a failure, for whatever reason, creates some kind of debt that can or should be paid back in the currency of Afghani blood.
Now, it’s possible I could have added the word “attempt” there, to make it crystal clear to you that I don’t subscribe to any absurd strawman ideas that every attack, ever, is in principle preventable. At this point, I’m sincerely sorry for the omission.
You said “what the US — and the Bush administration in particular — “owed to its citizens” was competent intelligence work to prevent the attack in the first place.” Which pretty strongly implies that, since the attack did take place, the intelligence work was not competent. Even if you didn’t type the word “incompetent”, that’s what you said.
Well, again, I don’t think that’s actually the implication, but I also don’t see that it matters much.
It’s really not about competent or incompetent. You can correct me if you disagree, but in context, I believe my point was clearly that the only obligation that mattered was a best effort at prevention. As opposed not to incompetence, but rather to the vicious notion that a failure, for whatever reason, creates some kind of debt that can or should be paid back in the currency of Afghani blood.
Now, it’s possible I could have added the word “attempt” there, to make it crystal clear to you that I don’t subscribe to any absurd strawman ideas that every attack, ever, is in principle preventable. At this point, I’m sincerely sorry for the omission.
cleek — Coming back one more time to apologize for the self-righteousness. I just remain baffled at the way McK gets people to engage him on his own terms, when those are his terms.
cleek — Coming back one more time to apologize for the self-righteousness. I just remain baffled at the way McK gets people to engage him on his own terms, when those are his terms.
Here’s a hint: both LJ and GFTNC commented either on this thread or in another within the last week with implicit criticism of Western Civilization, which with the exception of WJ, usually passes with no comment here, largely because it is, to one degree or another, a commonly held view.
I’d be interested to see the quote from me, but I can say that my mentions of it are normally a slight dig (I admit it) at the unquestioned assumptions by so many Americans (and Brits, and other Europeans) of Western superiority by every metric, represented on ObWi by McKinney, for his sins. It’s not that I hold the view that “the West” is inferior, it’s that those unquestioned assumptions are a) usually fairly historically ignorant (we’ve been through this a million times) and b) pretty poisonous in their knock-on effects.
As far as Janie’s 10.14 is concerned, I treated McKinney’s list as so nonsensical and ungrounded in anything to do with the true situation, or the views of anyone here, that it wasn’t worth it (or necessary) to rebut every point. Particularly when russell, and was it hsh or Nigel (?) had already pointed out the irrelevance of white or non-white. I brought up Afghan Girl as an example of the (surely known worldwide) inaccuracy, not because I thought the issue of whether Afghans are white or not of any intrinsic importance.
“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” ~Maya Angelou
I believe this, but actually I am by no means sure that McKinney is any more racist than many of the rest of us. I do not mistake his sometimes clumsy digs at strawmen for a reflection of his real beliefs, I see them as part of his ongoing struggle to come to terms with the realisation that “liberals” may have had a better grip than “conservatives” on some of the stuff happening in the US in recent years, and his rearguard attempts to fight the battles he thinks he has a decent handle on.
Anyway, whatever the truth of my mindreading, as we have discussed in the past many or all of us probably have some kind of unconscious or suppressed racism, and I for one am determined not to join in on the casting of stones for fear of the integrity of my own glass house.
And, for a last word on McKinney’s long list, I quote Jack LeCou:
What’s left? “Faithful” and “non-Christian”?
Hartmut has pointed out some of the long history of sanctioned Christian misogyny, and I’m pretty sure someone more knowledgeable could give chapter and verse on the same Jewish phenomenon. As is widely understood, the Taliban version of Islam is (according to most actual scholars) a weird, semi-illiterate (at least in understanding) version fomented and inculcated in the madrassas of Pakistan by ignorant but fanatical mullahs.
Where misogyny and brutality are concerned, none of the Islamo-Judeo-Christian monotheistic religions come off particularly well historically, and Islam is considerably younger than Judaism, and even somewhat younger than Christianity. Perhaps when the human race evolves past the point of needing stories of omnipotent sky-gods, some of these excesses will disappear. But nobody should hold their breath.
Here’s a hint: both LJ and GFTNC commented either on this thread or in another within the last week with implicit criticism of Western Civilization, which with the exception of WJ, usually passes with no comment here, largely because it is, to one degree or another, a commonly held view.
I’d be interested to see the quote from me, but I can say that my mentions of it are normally a slight dig (I admit it) at the unquestioned assumptions by so many Americans (and Brits, and other Europeans) of Western superiority by every metric, represented on ObWi by McKinney, for his sins. It’s not that I hold the view that “the West” is inferior, it’s that those unquestioned assumptions are a) usually fairly historically ignorant (we’ve been through this a million times) and b) pretty poisonous in their knock-on effects.
As far as Janie’s 10.14 is concerned, I treated McKinney’s list as so nonsensical and ungrounded in anything to do with the true situation, or the views of anyone here, that it wasn’t worth it (or necessary) to rebut every point. Particularly when russell, and was it hsh or Nigel (?) had already pointed out the irrelevance of white or non-white. I brought up Afghan Girl as an example of the (surely known worldwide) inaccuracy, not because I thought the issue of whether Afghans are white or not of any intrinsic importance.
“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” ~Maya Angelou
I believe this, but actually I am by no means sure that McKinney is any more racist than many of the rest of us. I do not mistake his sometimes clumsy digs at strawmen for a reflection of his real beliefs, I see them as part of his ongoing struggle to come to terms with the realisation that “liberals” may have had a better grip than “conservatives” on some of the stuff happening in the US in recent years, and his rearguard attempts to fight the battles he thinks he has a decent handle on.
Anyway, whatever the truth of my mindreading, as we have discussed in the past many or all of us probably have some kind of unconscious or suppressed racism, and I for one am determined not to join in on the casting of stones for fear of the integrity of my own glass house.
And, for a last word on McKinney’s long list, I quote Jack LeCou:
What’s left? “Faithful” and “non-Christian”?
Hartmut has pointed out some of the long history of sanctioned Christian misogyny, and I’m pretty sure someone more knowledgeable could give chapter and verse on the same Jewish phenomenon. As is widely understood, the Taliban version of Islam is (according to most actual scholars) a weird, semi-illiterate (at least in understanding) version fomented and inculcated in the madrassas of Pakistan by ignorant but fanatical mullahs.
Where misogyny and brutality are concerned, none of the Islamo-Judeo-Christian monotheistic religions come off particularly well historically, and Islam is considerably younger than Judaism, and even somewhat younger than Christianity. Perhaps when the human race evolves past the point of needing stories of omnipotent sky-gods, some of these excesses will disappear. But nobody should hold their breath.
both LJ and GFTNC commented either on this thread or in another within the last week with implicit criticism of Western Civilization, which with the exception of WJ, usually passes with no comment here, largely because it is, to one degree or another, a commonly held view.
FWIW, I consider myself an equal opportunity critic of human civilizations. They all have their good points and their bad points.
Also FWIW, as a product of western civilization, I’m generally fine with it.
And finally FWIW, the biggest difference I see between ‘western civilization’, which at present seems more or less co-equal with the OECD nations, and most other places, is money. We have it, they don’t.
The question of whether open and tolerant societies generate more wealth, or whether wealth results in a more open and tolerant society, is an interesting one. Best of luck untangling it all.
The reality of other cultures, e.g Afghanistan, as alternatives to Modern Western Liberal Democracy points up that the alternatives are actually uniformly quite shitty.
Afghanistan is a fucking poor country. By our standards, people who live in fucking poor countries have shitty lives.
They might trade for ours given the option, they might not. Depends on the person and what they value.
In the case of the Taliban in Afghanistan, specifically, it’s worth noting that they emerged as a response to gross corruption in Afghani governance, and to unwanted intrusion in Afghani domestic affairs by outside actors. There is a reason they have a constituency, and that reason is not purely the innate retrogressive thuggishness of Muslims.
I’m still waiting for someone to identify a superior alternative to what we have right here in America.
You probably haven’t gotten an answer because there is no universal answer. It depends on what’s important to you, and it depends on the position you occupy right here in America.
both LJ and GFTNC commented either on this thread or in another within the last week with implicit criticism of Western Civilization, which with the exception of WJ, usually passes with no comment here, largely because it is, to one degree or another, a commonly held view.
FWIW, I consider myself an equal opportunity critic of human civilizations. They all have their good points and their bad points.
Also FWIW, as a product of western civilization, I’m generally fine with it.
And finally FWIW, the biggest difference I see between ‘western civilization’, which at present seems more or less co-equal with the OECD nations, and most other places, is money. We have it, they don’t.
The question of whether open and tolerant societies generate more wealth, or whether wealth results in a more open and tolerant society, is an interesting one. Best of luck untangling it all.
The reality of other cultures, e.g Afghanistan, as alternatives to Modern Western Liberal Democracy points up that the alternatives are actually uniformly quite shitty.
Afghanistan is a fucking poor country. By our standards, people who live in fucking poor countries have shitty lives.
They might trade for ours given the option, they might not. Depends on the person and what they value.
In the case of the Taliban in Afghanistan, specifically, it’s worth noting that they emerged as a response to gross corruption in Afghani governance, and to unwanted intrusion in Afghani domestic affairs by outside actors. There is a reason they have a constituency, and that reason is not purely the innate retrogressive thuggishness of Muslims.
I’m still waiting for someone to identify a superior alternative to what we have right here in America.
You probably haven’t gotten an answer because there is no universal answer. It depends on what’s important to you, and it depends on the position you occupy right here in America.
the most anyone can come up with in response to this racist gibberish is to point out that the Afghans aren’t really non-white, and maybe McK is just joshing us.
there was a lot in there to address, I just figured I’d pick on one piece.
only so many hours in a day.
and no, I don’t think McK was joshing us. I think he thinks we’ve all been hypnotized by PC anti-western-civilization hogwash.
which can be taken as condescension, but McK also contributes stuff that I think is worthwhile, so I just let it roll off.
the most anyone can come up with in response to this racist gibberish is to point out that the Afghans aren’t really non-white, and maybe McK is just joshing us.
there was a lot in there to address, I just figured I’d pick on one piece.
only so many hours in a day.
and no, I don’t think McK was joshing us. I think he thinks we’ve all been hypnotized by PC anti-western-civilization hogwash.
which can be taken as condescension, but McK also contributes stuff that I think is worthwhile, so I just let it roll off.
It’s not that I hold the view that “the West” is inferior, it’s that those unquestioned assumptions are a) usually fairly historically ignorant (we’ve been through this a million times) and b) pretty poisonous in their knock-on effects.
Yes. And if I were to play a reverse McKinney, I’d pose a question like, “Does anyone here deny that indigenous, non-white, non-Christian, non-capitalist peoples who formerly populated what is now the United States were not massacred, subjugated, and robbed of their lands?”
Of course, when you use the phrase “modern, Western, liberal democracy” you can say that the treatment of Native Americans (or the enslavement of millions of Black people) doesn’t count. All the bad parts are aberrations.
It’s not that I hold the view that “the West” is inferior, it’s that those unquestioned assumptions are a) usually fairly historically ignorant (we’ve been through this a million times) and b) pretty poisonous in their knock-on effects.
Yes. And if I were to play a reverse McKinney, I’d pose a question like, “Does anyone here deny that indigenous, non-white, non-Christian, non-capitalist peoples who formerly populated what is now the United States were not massacred, subjugated, and robbed of their lands?”
Of course, when you use the phrase “modern, Western, liberal democracy” you can say that the treatment of Native Americans (or the enslavement of millions of Black people) doesn’t count. All the bad parts are aberrations.
My last comment for a good long while: I am bowled over by the fact that the most anyone can come up with in response to this racist gibberish is to point out that the Afghans aren’t really non-white, and maybe McK is just joshing us.
My goodness. Racist. Yep, that’s me. Not too long ago, several lead posters argued seriously, with pushback from me and virtually no one else, that the West was responsible for the Holocaust. It is standard fare here that systemic, white supremacist, capitalist racism is at the core of the US, with the worst offenders being male, white, Christians. The current progressive thinking, or at least part of it, is that “whiteness” is a thing, i.e. that being white actually makes a person defective in some kind of way (I really don’t have a handle on what all it means because it’s a kind of racial Calvinball where the rules change if, as and when needed). Reality is (1) these formulations are 90% BS and (2) whatever faults you find with the modern West which may not even be majority white anymore pale in comparison to every other part of the world. If that’s racist, then the capacity here for discernment is zero. In fact, if my positions are really deemed “racist” here, then the issue is you, not me. I’m sensing a real inability to discuss race in any kind of objective fashion whatsoever. So much for that longed for “honest conversation on race.”
As for the technical definition of Afghans as Caucasian and therefore white, that too is 90%, or more, BS. Indians (from India) are technically Aryan, but maybe not all. Here, pretty much anyone who is not of white, European extraction is a POC. Afghans definitely fall outside the white paradigm currently employed by race-focused progressives.
My initial point–too subtle obviously–was simply that the intersectional point system doesn’t travel well. Sorry if that makes people unhappy.
But, if comparing the progressive white bogeyman with non-whites with demonstrated capacities for unspeakable cruelty is racist, then I really don’t have an answer.
My last comment for a good long while: I am bowled over by the fact that the most anyone can come up with in response to this racist gibberish is to point out that the Afghans aren’t really non-white, and maybe McK is just joshing us.
My goodness. Racist. Yep, that’s me. Not too long ago, several lead posters argued seriously, with pushback from me and virtually no one else, that the West was responsible for the Holocaust. It is standard fare here that systemic, white supremacist, capitalist racism is at the core of the US, with the worst offenders being male, white, Christians. The current progressive thinking, or at least part of it, is that “whiteness” is a thing, i.e. that being white actually makes a person defective in some kind of way (I really don’t have a handle on what all it means because it’s a kind of racial Calvinball where the rules change if, as and when needed). Reality is (1) these formulations are 90% BS and (2) whatever faults you find with the modern West which may not even be majority white anymore pale in comparison to every other part of the world. If that’s racist, then the capacity here for discernment is zero. In fact, if my positions are really deemed “racist” here, then the issue is you, not me. I’m sensing a real inability to discuss race in any kind of objective fashion whatsoever. So much for that longed for “honest conversation on race.”
As for the technical definition of Afghans as Caucasian and therefore white, that too is 90%, or more, BS. Indians (from India) are technically Aryan, but maybe not all. Here, pretty much anyone who is not of white, European extraction is a POC. Afghans definitely fall outside the white paradigm currently employed by race-focused progressives.
My initial point–too subtle obviously–was simply that the intersectional point system doesn’t travel well. Sorry if that makes people unhappy.
But, if comparing the progressive white bogeyman with non-whites with demonstrated capacities for unspeakable cruelty is racist, then I really don’t have an answer.
if I were to play a reverse McKinney
Please god no, isn’t one iteration of lawyerly argumentation and misdirection already too much for any blog to handle?
if I were to play a reverse McKinney
Please god no, isn’t one iteration of lawyerly argumentation and misdirection already too much for any blog to handle?
Don’t worry, I’m sure you can pick up some Afghani folks, either as interns or relatives (maybe even adopt them!) so you can use them as shields against accusations of racism. God forbid you consider what _you_ are saying when you reel off your list of adjectives.
Don’t worry, I’m sure you can pick up some Afghani folks, either as interns or relatives (maybe even adopt them!) so you can use them as shields against accusations of racism. God forbid you consider what _you_ are saying when you reel off your list of adjectives.
Not too long ago, several lead posters argued seriously, with pushback from me and virtually no one else, that the West was responsible for the Holocaust.
Nope. The point was that the Holocaust was a Western phenomenon – that is, you can’t carve it out from the West’s history. I don’t even know what it means to say that the West, in general, was responsible for it. That’s just a goofy formulation.
The current progressive thinking, or at least part of it, is that “whiteness” is a thing, i.e. that being white actually makes a person defective in some kind of way
I’d be surprised if anyone here believed this. The phrase “at least part of it” is doing a lot of work. I’m not even sure if such view falls under progressivism.
Not too long ago, several lead posters argued seriously, with pushback from me and virtually no one else, that the West was responsible for the Holocaust.
Nope. The point was that the Holocaust was a Western phenomenon – that is, you can’t carve it out from the West’s history. I don’t even know what it means to say that the West, in general, was responsible for it. That’s just a goofy formulation.
The current progressive thinking, or at least part of it, is that “whiteness” is a thing, i.e. that being white actually makes a person defective in some kind of way
I’d be surprised if anyone here believed this. The phrase “at least part of it” is doing a lot of work. I’m not even sure if such view falls under progressivism.
Of course, when you use the phrase “modern, Western, liberal democracy” you can say that the treatment of Native Americans (or the enslavement of millions of Black people) doesn’t count. All the bad parts are aberrations.
I wrote a very long piece on precisely this point. I’m sorry you missed it. LJ and Janie didn’t understand it (not surprising), but I made the historically accurate point that, over time, beginning in the US with our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and continuing through the Civil War and up through the end of WWII and *informed by a series of historical events* including slavery, the Native American near-genocide, Jim Crow etc, a thing called “change” has taken place. The pace of change accelerated dramatically post-WWII–again, I documented all of this historically. The punch line is that what we have today in the US and much of the modern world is as good a system as one is likely to find given the huge populations we have and whatnot. The reason why the West has improved is, because of traditional liberalism, we do look back at what we did wrong, we acknowledge the wrong and we try to fix it. No one is perfect but we are not nearly the train wreck the progressive left claims. For reasons I cannot articulate, progressives can’t get over any past but their own, e.g. Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, etc. So, any mention that things might have gotten better is met with “but what about the Indians and slavery?” It’s tiresome retreading the same ground. You aren’t saying anything new when you point to past evils. But, thinking you are the only one who gets it is truly hubris.
Of course, when you use the phrase “modern, Western, liberal democracy” you can say that the treatment of Native Americans (or the enslavement of millions of Black people) doesn’t count. All the bad parts are aberrations.
I wrote a very long piece on precisely this point. I’m sorry you missed it. LJ and Janie didn’t understand it (not surprising), but I made the historically accurate point that, over time, beginning in the US with our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and continuing through the Civil War and up through the end of WWII and *informed by a series of historical events* including slavery, the Native American near-genocide, Jim Crow etc, a thing called “change” has taken place. The pace of change accelerated dramatically post-WWII–again, I documented all of this historically. The punch line is that what we have today in the US and much of the modern world is as good a system as one is likely to find given the huge populations we have and whatnot. The reason why the West has improved is, because of traditional liberalism, we do look back at what we did wrong, we acknowledge the wrong and we try to fix it. No one is perfect but we are not nearly the train wreck the progressive left claims. For reasons I cannot articulate, progressives can’t get over any past but their own, e.g. Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, etc. So, any mention that things might have gotten better is met with “but what about the Indians and slavery?” It’s tiresome retreading the same ground. You aren’t saying anything new when you point to past evils. But, thinking you are the only one who gets it is truly hubris.
Nope. The point was that the Holocaust was a Western phenomenon – that is, you can’t carve it out from the West’s history. I don’t even know what it means to say that the West, in general, was responsible for it. That’s just a goofy formulation.
Fine, take that up with LJ, Nous and the Frankfurt School. I am 100% right on this.
Nope. The point was that the Holocaust was a Western phenomenon – that is, you can’t carve it out from the West’s history. I don’t even know what it means to say that the West, in general, was responsible for it. That’s just a goofy formulation.
Fine, take that up with LJ, Nous and the Frankfurt School. I am 100% right on this.
I forget his name, but one of those young republican pure american filth with a hispanic name expressed solidarity with the Taliban’s homophobia, anti-gay marriage, vaccine-banning, family values when it comes to keeping women on their knees, eliminating abortion, you name it.
https://digbysblog.net/2021/08/17/america-hating-america-lovers/
The Taliban’s elimination of its domestic enemies is an aspirational data point for the malign American conservative movement.
None of them are woke, politically correct liberals threatening my fucking life. They are all goddamed fucking stinking forever second amendment solution threatening republicans.
This is how bad they are. They hate McKinney and Marty more than they hate me and will eliminate them first. Libertarian Rand Paul hates Charles, and will kill the latter with the Covid-19 the first chance he gets.
Unfortunately, Charles will being a knife to that gunfight because he doesn’t like the noise of gunfire (which is one of the more hilarious statement ever made here since forever) not that any gummint-mandated noise ordinances will pass muster with him. It’s knives and earplugs all the way down.
Remember when we were told we must kill them over there before we have to kill them here.
Time to reverse that policy.
It’s late in the day.
The wait-it-out Taliban strategy for upending all rational, secular governance seems modeled on the American conservative movement’s takeover and consolidation via election-stealing and superspreading deadly diseases these last decades in Texas, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, South Dakota, name any red state you wish.
The Taliban is keeping a close eye on the all-America Stop the Steal vermin and Texas’ and Florida’s banning of mask and vaccine mandates for pointers regarding how to consolidate their murderous power over those they hope to eliminate from that polity.
It’s conservative all the way down, just as is the now former Afghan President loading all the cash into duffel bags and hightailing it out of dodge. It’s pure republican trump.
When China went after video game culture, you could hear the gigantic sigh of relieved agreement from the American conservative movement regarding THAT commie gummint action. Not that any of them, there and here, minded the bullying, woman-hating aspect of video game culture, which has to do with big swinging conservative dicks, both American and Chinese.
When McKinney was hypnotized to come over to the dark side in favor of gay marriage, he went full anti-western-civilization hogwash, according to republicans, of which he is not one.
That’s on the credit side of the ledger, in my book.
I forget his name, but one of those young republican pure american filth with a hispanic name expressed solidarity with the Taliban’s homophobia, anti-gay marriage, vaccine-banning, family values when it comes to keeping women on their knees, eliminating abortion, you name it.
https://digbysblog.net/2021/08/17/america-hating-america-lovers/
The Taliban’s elimination of its domestic enemies is an aspirational data point for the malign American conservative movement.
None of them are woke, politically correct liberals threatening my fucking life. They are all goddamed fucking stinking forever second amendment solution threatening republicans.
This is how bad they are. They hate McKinney and Marty more than they hate me and will eliminate them first. Libertarian Rand Paul hates Charles, and will kill the latter with the Covid-19 the first chance he gets.
Unfortunately, Charles will being a knife to that gunfight because he doesn’t like the noise of gunfire (which is one of the more hilarious statement ever made here since forever) not that any gummint-mandated noise ordinances will pass muster with him. It’s knives and earplugs all the way down.
Remember when we were told we must kill them over there before we have to kill them here.
Time to reverse that policy.
It’s late in the day.
The wait-it-out Taliban strategy for upending all rational, secular governance seems modeled on the American conservative movement’s takeover and consolidation via election-stealing and superspreading deadly diseases these last decades in Texas, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, South Dakota, name any red state you wish.
The Taliban is keeping a close eye on the all-America Stop the Steal vermin and Texas’ and Florida’s banning of mask and vaccine mandates for pointers regarding how to consolidate their murderous power over those they hope to eliminate from that polity.
It’s conservative all the way down, just as is the now former Afghan President loading all the cash into duffel bags and hightailing it out of dodge. It’s pure republican trump.
When China went after video game culture, you could hear the gigantic sigh of relieved agreement from the American conservative movement regarding THAT commie gummint action. Not that any of them, there and here, minded the bullying, woman-hating aspect of video game culture, which has to do with big swinging conservative dicks, both American and Chinese.
When McKinney was hypnotized to come over to the dark side in favor of gay marriage, he went full anti-western-civilization hogwash, according to republicans, of which he is not one.
That’s on the credit side of the ledger, in my book.
The current progressive thinking, or at least part of it, is that “whiteness” is a thing, i.e. that being white actually makes a person defective in some kind of way
I’d be surprised if anyone here believed this. The phrase “at least part of it” is doing a lot of work. I’m not even sure if such view falls under progressivism.
Actually, the progressive thinking (as I understand and agree with it) is that “whiteness” is what lets you not be scared for your life when the cops stop you to tell you one of your rear lights isn’t working, versus the feelings of one of your fellow (black) attorneys when stopped for the same reason.
McKinney, this really is absurd. hsh is right about the Holocaust argument, and your squiggly attempts to get out from under the truth of it are a byword for sophist argumentation (when for example you defined your vaunted western civilisation as dating from 1946).
But, get a grip on the racism front. Your idiotic list (as I keep calling it) was a provocative, blunt stick with which to beat strawmen who weren’t here. If your inclusion of “non-white” in the list leads to accusations of racism you should not be surprised. You were trying to provoke, using stereotypes which didn’t apply to your audience, and you succeeded. You should take some responsibility.
And, speaking for myself, I still believe there is value in people with widely differing views being able to exchange them, civilly. I think lots of people here believe the same thing.
The current progressive thinking, or at least part of it, is that “whiteness” is a thing, i.e. that being white actually makes a person defective in some kind of way
I’d be surprised if anyone here believed this. The phrase “at least part of it” is doing a lot of work. I’m not even sure if such view falls under progressivism.
Actually, the progressive thinking (as I understand and agree with it) is that “whiteness” is what lets you not be scared for your life when the cops stop you to tell you one of your rear lights isn’t working, versus the feelings of one of your fellow (black) attorneys when stopped for the same reason.
McKinney, this really is absurd. hsh is right about the Holocaust argument, and your squiggly attempts to get out from under the truth of it are a byword for sophist argumentation (when for example you defined your vaunted western civilisation as dating from 1946).
But, get a grip on the racism front. Your idiotic list (as I keep calling it) was a provocative, blunt stick with which to beat strawmen who weren’t here. If your inclusion of “non-white” in the list leads to accusations of racism you should not be surprised. You were trying to provoke, using stereotypes which didn’t apply to your audience, and you succeeded. You should take some responsibility.
And, speaking for myself, I still believe there is value in people with widely differing views being able to exchange them, civilly. I think lots of people here believe the same thing.
Remarkable given that the biblical Jesus just once insulted a woman and that was his own mother when she pestered him about providing extra booze for a wedding.
Hardly the only place where modern fundamentalist Christianity bears no resemblance to what Jesus actually taught. Only the label remains, to confuse the ignorant.
For those with a taste for low amusement, try quoting parts of the New Testament to fundamentalists. Then, when they scream “socialism!!!”, cite chapter and verse. Won’t change their minds, of course. But the sputtering can be amusing.
Remarkable given that the biblical Jesus just once insulted a woman and that was his own mother when she pestered him about providing extra booze for a wedding.
Hardly the only place where modern fundamentalist Christianity bears no resemblance to what Jesus actually taught. Only the label remains, to confuse the ignorant.
For those with a taste for low amusement, try quoting parts of the New Testament to fundamentalists. Then, when they scream “socialism!!!”, cite chapter and verse. Won’t change their minds, of course. But the sputtering can be amusing.
My initial point–too subtle obviously–was simply that the intersectional point system doesn’t travel well. Sorry if that makes people unhappy.
Ahhhhh. All becomes clear.
Let me give you an analogy, to show you how you sound:
IOW, I don’t think subtlety was your problem there. The problem — and hear me out here, because this is going to blow your mind — is that nobody here believes in any such thing as an “intersectional point system”. To the extent that, AFAICT, nobody could even figure out what the heck you thought you were lampooning.
My initial point–too subtle obviously–was simply that the intersectional point system doesn’t travel well. Sorry if that makes people unhappy.
Ahhhhh. All becomes clear.
Let me give you an analogy, to show you how you sound:
IOW, I don’t think subtlety was your problem there. The problem — and hear me out here, because this is going to blow your mind — is that nobody here believes in any such thing as an “intersectional point system”. To the extent that, AFAICT, nobody could even figure out what the heck you thought you were lampooning.
As for the technical definition of Afghans as Caucasian and therefore white, that too is 90%, or more, BS.
First, Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic state. Afghani people may be from any of a variety of ethnic groups, including combinations of those groups.
My point about “non-white” is that, if you look at pictures of Afghani people, their skin color ranges from pretty light to about as dark as a southern European. So your point about “non-white” was kind of… obscure.
From your reply, I think what you mean is “non-European”.
As an aside, the equation of “Caucasian” and “white European” has always struck me as odd. The Caucasus are mountains that are partially or mostly in western Asia, and many of the people who live there are kind of swarthy.
As for the technical definition of Afghans as Caucasian and therefore white, that too is 90%, or more, BS.
First, Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic state. Afghani people may be from any of a variety of ethnic groups, including combinations of those groups.
My point about “non-white” is that, if you look at pictures of Afghani people, their skin color ranges from pretty light to about as dark as a southern European. So your point about “non-white” was kind of… obscure.
From your reply, I think what you mean is “non-European”.
As an aside, the equation of “Caucasian” and “white European” has always struck me as odd. The Caucasus are mountains that are partially or mostly in western Asia, and many of the people who live there are kind of swarthy.
Fine, take that up with LJ, Nous and the Frankfurt School. I am 100% right on this.
one more hint: quoting actual prose from me and nous rather than make vague connections is how argumentation _should_ operate. I realize you think that reading the wikipedia page about the Frankfurt school gives you unassailable knowledge, but it really doesn’t.
One reason one does this is to make sure that they aren’t revising the argument in their head. The idea that you ‘proved’ to me and Janie (which is hilarious, since Janie has the good sense not to waste her time on you and I’d bet left the thread in disgust when you showed up. I could look it up, but why bother, you’ll just go off the image in your head of you dealing with the ignorant masses of progressives here who don’t know a fraction of what you are so sure you know) is certainly not the way I remember it, but I’m not going to waste my time proving you wrong cause you wouldn’t believe it if I showed it to you. You just reveal that you are a blowhard who comes here to blow off steam.
I’ve made it a point to not look up people’s first posts unless they ask, but you obligingly asked, so let’s take a look at the first line of your first comment here 13 years ago.
I had to come over here to see what the populists and class warriors would have to say about all of this.
It’s really pathetic that you are unable to change. Go join some Proud Boys site and raise the average IQ in both places.
Fine, take that up with LJ, Nous and the Frankfurt School. I am 100% right on this.
one more hint: quoting actual prose from me and nous rather than make vague connections is how argumentation _should_ operate. I realize you think that reading the wikipedia page about the Frankfurt school gives you unassailable knowledge, but it really doesn’t.
One reason one does this is to make sure that they aren’t revising the argument in their head. The idea that you ‘proved’ to me and Janie (which is hilarious, since Janie has the good sense not to waste her time on you and I’d bet left the thread in disgust when you showed up. I could look it up, but why bother, you’ll just go off the image in your head of you dealing with the ignorant masses of progressives here who don’t know a fraction of what you are so sure you know) is certainly not the way I remember it, but I’m not going to waste my time proving you wrong cause you wouldn’t believe it if I showed it to you. You just reveal that you are a blowhard who comes here to blow off steam.
I’ve made it a point to not look up people’s first posts unless they ask, but you obligingly asked, so let’s take a look at the first line of your first comment here 13 years ago.
I had to come over here to see what the populists and class warriors would have to say about all of this.
It’s really pathetic that you are unable to change. Go join some Proud Boys site and raise the average IQ in both places.
The current progressive thinking, or at least part of it, is that “whiteness” is a thing, i.e. that being white actually makes a person defective in some kind of way
“The current thinking with astronomers is that Sagittariuses born on a full moon during periods of high sunspot activity are defective in some way.”
(Which, I’m pretty sure, wouldn’t even sound coherent to astrology believers, but that’s kind of the point. Can someone tell me if there is such a thing as “fractally not even wrong”?)
The current progressive thinking, or at least part of it, is that “whiteness” is a thing, i.e. that being white actually makes a person defective in some kind of way
“The current thinking with astronomers is that Sagittariuses born on a full moon during periods of high sunspot activity are defective in some way.”
(Which, I’m pretty sure, wouldn’t even sound coherent to astrology believers, but that’s kind of the point. Can someone tell me if there is such a thing as “fractally not even wrong”?)
McKTX Not too long ago, several lead posters argued seriously, with pushback from me and virtually no one else, that the West was responsible for the Holocaust.
hairshirthedonist Nope. The point was that the Holocaust was a Western phenomenon – that is, you can’t carve it out from the West’s history. I don’t even know what it means to say that the West, in general, was responsible for it. That’s just a goofy formulation.
McKTX I wrote a very long piece on precisely this point. I’m sorry you missed it. LJ and Janie didn’t understand it (not surprising), but I made the historically accurate point that, over time, beginning in the US with our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and continuing through the Civil War and up through the end of WWII and *informed by a series of historical events* including slavery, the Native American near-genocide, Jim Crow etc, a thing called “change” has taken place.
Throw the stick again. Maybe someone will chase it.
I’d wager that McKinney has read as much of the Frankfurt School as he has read Bacevich, which means that he has never actually grappled with any of the ideas that he is busy deploying.
I’d be bowled over if I ever watched him ask a genuinely critical question that he did not believe he already had the answer to that came anywhere danger close to his fundamental views.
(Don’t anyone ask me too much about the Frankfurt School, either. I did go through the Critical Theory emphasis in grad school, but my methodology is more rooted in Kierkegaard and Rhetorical Hermeneutics than in Adorno. You can see the Kierkegaard clearly in my critique above.)
McKTX Not too long ago, several lead posters argued seriously, with pushback from me and virtually no one else, that the West was responsible for the Holocaust.
hairshirthedonist Nope. The point was that the Holocaust was a Western phenomenon – that is, you can’t carve it out from the West’s history. I don’t even know what it means to say that the West, in general, was responsible for it. That’s just a goofy formulation.
McKTX I wrote a very long piece on precisely this point. I’m sorry you missed it. LJ and Janie didn’t understand it (not surprising), but I made the historically accurate point that, over time, beginning in the US with our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and continuing through the Civil War and up through the end of WWII and *informed by a series of historical events* including slavery, the Native American near-genocide, Jim Crow etc, a thing called “change” has taken place.
Throw the stick again. Maybe someone will chase it.
I’d wager that McKinney has read as much of the Frankfurt School as he has read Bacevich, which means that he has never actually grappled with any of the ideas that he is busy deploying.
I’d be bowled over if I ever watched him ask a genuinely critical question that he did not believe he already had the answer to that came anywhere danger close to his fundamental views.
(Don’t anyone ask me too much about the Frankfurt School, either. I did go through the Critical Theory emphasis in grad school, but my methodology is more rooted in Kierkegaard and Rhetorical Hermeneutics than in Adorno. You can see the Kierkegaard clearly in my critique above.)
The problem — and hear me out here, because this is going to blow your mind — is that nobody here believes in any such thing as an “intersectional point system”.
conservatives are very angry with the left they are 100% sure exists outside of their imaginations.
The problem — and hear me out here, because this is going to blow your mind — is that nobody here believes in any such thing as an “intersectional point system”.
conservatives are very angry with the left they are 100% sure exists outside of their imaginations.
And I cross posted a few people and GftNC wrote
And, speaking for myself, I still believe there is value in people with widely differing views being able to exchange them, civilly. I think lots of people here believe the same thing.
The thing is, misrepresenting what people say is not civil. There is always a question of intention, and it is possible that you just don’t know that you do it. You simply spew out whatever it was you thought we said (‘LJ and nous love the Frankfurt school, yeah, of course they do! Hey, what is the Frankfurt school?’) and you may honestly believe that is what we think and no matter how many times we show you that you are wrong, you can’t accept it. But I see no need to be civil with someone who can’t understand that, whether it is purposeful or not.
Civility requires that you take the other person’s argument seriously, quote it accurately and try to understand it. But again, I don’t think you will ever understand that.
And I cross posted a few people and GftNC wrote
And, speaking for myself, I still believe there is value in people with widely differing views being able to exchange them, civilly. I think lots of people here believe the same thing.
The thing is, misrepresenting what people say is not civil. There is always a question of intention, and it is possible that you just don’t know that you do it. You simply spew out whatever it was you thought we said (‘LJ and nous love the Frankfurt school, yeah, of course they do! Hey, what is the Frankfurt school?’) and you may honestly believe that is what we think and no matter how many times we show you that you are wrong, you can’t accept it. But I see no need to be civil with someone who can’t understand that, whether it is purposeful or not.
Civility requires that you take the other person’s argument seriously, quote it accurately and try to understand it. But again, I don’t think you will ever understand that.
the left they are 100% sure exists outside of their imaginations.
I’m pretty sure that parts, perhaps even most, of it does exist. It’s generally a microscopic and powerless group of people. But not actually nonexistent. Which seems to be what they love about it — and it’s definitely a love/hate relationship. .
the left they are 100% sure exists outside of their imaginations.
I’m pretty sure that parts, perhaps even most, of it does exist. It’s generally a microscopic and powerless group of people. But not actually nonexistent. Which seems to be what they love about it — and it’s definitely a love/hate relationship. .
Me: the West was responsible for the Holocaust.
LJ:
Morning all, interesting stuff but all to sprawling that a single comment will suffice. So just a turd in the punchbowl: Why is the Holocaust not considered part of what the West has wrought?
Posted by: liberal japonicus | February 03, 2021 at 05:43 PM
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2021/01/openish-thread/comments/page/2/#comments
I rest my case.
Me: the West was responsible for the Holocaust.
LJ:
Morning all, interesting stuff but all to sprawling that a single comment will suffice. So just a turd in the punchbowl: Why is the Holocaust not considered part of what the West has wrought?
Posted by: liberal japonicus | February 03, 2021 at 05:43 PM
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2021/01/openish-thread/comments/page/2/#comments
I rest my case.
The thing is, misrepresenting what people say is not civil.
You get no argument from me there, lj.
But your point about the intention is well-made. And those straw men, they clearly loom like colossi. I don’t know how to address this, assuming it’s possible.
The thing is, misrepresenting what people say is not civil.
You get no argument from me there, lj.
But your point about the intention is well-made. And those straw men, they clearly loom like colossi. I don’t know how to address this, assuming it’s possible.
Germany is part of the west, always has been. you can’t carve it out for rhetorical shenanigans.
i rest my case. and i’m 100% correct, as always.
Germany is part of the west, always has been. you can’t carve it out for rhetorical shenanigans.
i rest my case. and i’m 100% correct, as always.
That’s a fascinating thread, McKinney, and repays rereading in my opinion. If you rest your case there, it seems to me you lose. The Holocaust was demonstrably “part of what the West has wrought”, if not exactly (and let us be exact in these serious matters) in the formulation “The West was responsible for the Holocaust”, and everything in that thread supports it.
Also: what cleek said. And to repeat, not just Germany. There were enthusiastic collaborators with the Nazi project all over Western (as well as Eastern) Europe.
That’s a fascinating thread, McKinney, and repays rereading in my opinion. If you rest your case there, it seems to me you lose. The Holocaust was demonstrably “part of what the West has wrought”, if not exactly (and let us be exact in these serious matters) in the formulation “The West was responsible for the Holocaust”, and everything in that thread supports it.
Also: what cleek said. And to repeat, not just Germany. There were enthusiastic collaborators with the Nazi project all over Western (as well as Eastern) Europe.
But of course, it is ridiculous to play out the same argument again and again. I guess this is the “biting hooks” phenomenon, but we’re all guilty,
But of course, it is ridiculous to play out the same argument again and again. I guess this is the “biting hooks” phenomenon, but we’re all guilty,
I rest my case.
And your response to lj in that thread included this:
There is nothing unique to the West about wartime atrocities.
With which I am 100% in agreement.
And that said, while there is nothing unique to the west, neither is the west immune.
And since the phenomenon of “the west” encompasses both the Nazis and the nations who fought them, I’m unclear on what we’re even talking about when we talk about “the west”.
Europe? Europe and North America? Europe except for the Mediterranean part, plus North America except Mexico?
Some people drag ancient Greece and Rome into the mix, which only adds to the confusion. If we are going to exclude history from 50 or 100 years ago, because “that’s all in the past”, how do folks from 2,000 or more years ago come into it?
America is Thomas Jefferson writing the stirring words of the Declaration of Independence, and America is Thomas Jefferson taking his teenage chattel property to bed, siring children upon her, and then keeping his own children in chattel bondage.
America encompasses all of that. You can’t pick the parts you like best – or worst – and ignore the rest. It is intellectually dishonest to do so.
Everybody wants to think they’re special. Everyone wants to think they’re the best. The reality is mixed.
I’m horrified by what is going on in Afghanistan right now, and I’m also hard pressed to think of what anyone can do to stop it or mitigate it or make it better.
Let’s help the people we can help, and see if we can learn from the mistakes we made there.
The one thing that is most likely to prevent us from learning those lessons is our own overweening self-regard.
I rest my case.
And your response to lj in that thread included this:
There is nothing unique to the West about wartime atrocities.
With which I am 100% in agreement.
And that said, while there is nothing unique to the west, neither is the west immune.
And since the phenomenon of “the west” encompasses both the Nazis and the nations who fought them, I’m unclear on what we’re even talking about when we talk about “the west”.
Europe? Europe and North America? Europe except for the Mediterranean part, plus North America except Mexico?
Some people drag ancient Greece and Rome into the mix, which only adds to the confusion. If we are going to exclude history from 50 or 100 years ago, because “that’s all in the past”, how do folks from 2,000 or more years ago come into it?
America is Thomas Jefferson writing the stirring words of the Declaration of Independence, and America is Thomas Jefferson taking his teenage chattel property to bed, siring children upon her, and then keeping his own children in chattel bondage.
America encompasses all of that. You can’t pick the parts you like best – or worst – and ignore the rest. It is intellectually dishonest to do so.
Everybody wants to think they’re special. Everyone wants to think they’re the best. The reality is mixed.
I’m horrified by what is going on in Afghanistan right now, and I’m also hard pressed to think of what anyone can do to stop it or mitigate it or make it better.
Let’s help the people we can help, and see if we can learn from the mistakes we made there.
The one thing that is most likely to prevent us from learning those lessons is our own overweening self-regard.
As for the technical definition of Afghans as Caucasian and therefore white, that too is 90%, or more, BS. Indians (from India) are technically Aryan, but maybe not all. Here, pretty much anyone who is not of white, European extraction is a POC. Afghans definitely fall outside the white paradigm currently employed by race-focused progressives.
I’m preeeeeetty sure that modern progressives didn’t invent the whole paradigm of designating some people ‘white’ and treating them differently than people with other designations, like ‘black’ or “Irish”.
To be sure, I might be *way* off base here — I don’t think this stuff was ever really covered formally in my schooling, interestingly enough — but I somehow got the impression that people have been inventing such distinctions, postulating a parade of spurious justifications for them (religious, phrenologic, bell curvical, etc.), and enforcing them in various ways at least as far back as, oh, the age of sail.
It’d be real nice if they stopped at some point, of course. But until then, it will unfortunately be the only way to model and explain a lot of real-world social phenomena.
It’s a hidden variable to explain, for example, why certain otherwise identical rental or employment applications receive systematically fewer callbacks. Or to cast some light on what possible reason a real estate developer might have for viciously campaigning to bring back the death penalty — for five particular men — or for continuing to insist on their guilt long after they had been conclusively exculpated.
As to “90%, or more, BS”: The question is not really whether this or that group of people from the mountains of Central Asia are objectively “white”. That makes the erroneous assumption that “whiteness” is, at root, actually some kind of objective classification. And it’s not.
The question is, as GFTNC alluded to, what subjective coding a police officer (or cashier, loan officer, hiring manager, etc.) will hand out arbitrarily on any given occasion after glancing at someone’s face. Judging by the Afghans I know, I think the answer might hinge on ephemeral details like haircuts or the quality of the lighting as much as anything else.
As for the technical definition of Afghans as Caucasian and therefore white, that too is 90%, or more, BS. Indians (from India) are technically Aryan, but maybe not all. Here, pretty much anyone who is not of white, European extraction is a POC. Afghans definitely fall outside the white paradigm currently employed by race-focused progressives.
I’m preeeeeetty sure that modern progressives didn’t invent the whole paradigm of designating some people ‘white’ and treating them differently than people with other designations, like ‘black’ or “Irish”.
To be sure, I might be *way* off base here — I don’t think this stuff was ever really covered formally in my schooling, interestingly enough — but I somehow got the impression that people have been inventing such distinctions, postulating a parade of spurious justifications for them (religious, phrenologic, bell curvical, etc.), and enforcing them in various ways at least as far back as, oh, the age of sail.
It’d be real nice if they stopped at some point, of course. But until then, it will unfortunately be the only way to model and explain a lot of real-world social phenomena.
It’s a hidden variable to explain, for example, why certain otherwise identical rental or employment applications receive systematically fewer callbacks. Or to cast some light on what possible reason a real estate developer might have for viciously campaigning to bring back the death penalty — for five particular men — or for continuing to insist on their guilt long after they had been conclusively exculpated.
As to “90%, or more, BS”: The question is not really whether this or that group of people from the mountains of Central Asia are objectively “white”. That makes the erroneous assumption that “whiteness” is, at root, actually some kind of objective classification. And it’s not.
The question is, as GFTNC alluded to, what subjective coding a police officer (or cashier, loan officer, hiring manager, etc.) will hand out arbitrarily on any given occasion after glancing at someone’s face. Judging by the Afghans I know, I think the answer might hinge on ephemeral details like haircuts or the quality of the lighting as much as anything else.
There were enthusiastic collaborators with the Nazi project all over Western (as well as Eastern) Europe.
And, in the US, right up until Pearl Harbor.
It became de trop after that.
There were enthusiastic collaborators with the Nazi project all over Western (as well as Eastern) Europe.
And, in the US, right up until Pearl Harbor.
It became de trop after that.
Hitler observed American racist and segregationist practices for future reference and honing.
Then Americans filled Madison Square Garden at the start of WWII as a hat tip in his direction.
Racist Woodrow Wilson should have been shot in his head, as should have every racist white Democrat in America.
That way, change could have taken place over their dead bodies instead of glacially over their proffered dead bodies.
As it is, too bad they stuck around long enough for the Republican Party to take them under their wing.
Yes, change for the better has occurred. But never mind the centuries-long shiftless foot dragging and the relentless, deliberate sabotage of forward movement every step of the way by white (yeah, if the shoe fits, there is something endemically faulty about us) Democratic and Republican conservatives, and NONE of it punished nor paid reparations for and we are undergoing another inevitable back-sliding spell of that as we speak, but this time it will be stopped by every means necessary.
Conservatism hates change and will stand athwart it and yell stop while waving guns around while shifting the gerrymandering borders.
And that goes for Putin and the CCP as well.
How many generations of lives were ruined, stunted, and shortened by William F. Buckley’s and Jesse Helms’ and Strom Thurmond’s brand of stiff-necked, heels dug-in racist conservatism, and all of that coming on top of enough bullshit to cause the sun to go cold.
But we are expected to thank them for finally, but grudgingly relenting and allowing the bestowal of God-given rights on the aggrieved, while of course their racist political ancestors now work over time to sabotage the progress.
It is stated that the above persons were products of their time and should be understood for not knowing right from deadly wrong, yet every black, every Mexican, every Jewish, Irish, Asian, and Italian refugee and immigrant hazed and prevented by law and social standards from achieving the American bounty were also products of their time, and knew, to a man and woman and child, that their treatment by native white Americans was goddamned wrong and a betrayal of stated with fingers crossed behind the back American and western-civilization ideals.
So yeah, they were better and smarter than us from the get-go. In fact, we need to adjust those Bell Curve readings to account for that.
We survived only because of their everlasting forbearance and the certain knowledge that American whites would kill them if they moved too fast. And because they believed hallowed words more than white America did.
Heck, if the situation had been reversed with white Americans being the en masse recipients of full-on racism, we wouldn’t have cooled our heels and tugged our forelocks for two and half centuries hinting around at progress at the back of the bus and at the water fountains and the employment centers, we’d have slaughtered everyone, because we whites are imbued, it seems, including me, with a solid sense of our own snowflakey self-importance and place in the fucking hierarchy.
We have finally been schooled through sheer repetition.
We may have to stay after school yet again.
Was the Rape of Nanking an Eastern responsibility?
I hereby STFU.
However, I am, at best, 51% right.
Hitler observed American racist and segregationist practices for future reference and honing.
Then Americans filled Madison Square Garden at the start of WWII as a hat tip in his direction.
Racist Woodrow Wilson should have been shot in his head, as should have every racist white Democrat in America.
That way, change could have taken place over their dead bodies instead of glacially over their proffered dead bodies.
As it is, too bad they stuck around long enough for the Republican Party to take them under their wing.
Yes, change for the better has occurred. But never mind the centuries-long shiftless foot dragging and the relentless, deliberate sabotage of forward movement every step of the way by white (yeah, if the shoe fits, there is something endemically faulty about us) Democratic and Republican conservatives, and NONE of it punished nor paid reparations for and we are undergoing another inevitable back-sliding spell of that as we speak, but this time it will be stopped by every means necessary.
Conservatism hates change and will stand athwart it and yell stop while waving guns around while shifting the gerrymandering borders.
And that goes for Putin and the CCP as well.
How many generations of lives were ruined, stunted, and shortened by William F. Buckley’s and Jesse Helms’ and Strom Thurmond’s brand of stiff-necked, heels dug-in racist conservatism, and all of that coming on top of enough bullshit to cause the sun to go cold.
But we are expected to thank them for finally, but grudgingly relenting and allowing the bestowal of God-given rights on the aggrieved, while of course their racist political ancestors now work over time to sabotage the progress.
It is stated that the above persons were products of their time and should be understood for not knowing right from deadly wrong, yet every black, every Mexican, every Jewish, Irish, Asian, and Italian refugee and immigrant hazed and prevented by law and social standards from achieving the American bounty were also products of their time, and knew, to a man and woman and child, that their treatment by native white Americans was goddamned wrong and a betrayal of stated with fingers crossed behind the back American and western-civilization ideals.
So yeah, they were better and smarter than us from the get-go. In fact, we need to adjust those Bell Curve readings to account for that.
We survived only because of their everlasting forbearance and the certain knowledge that American whites would kill them if they moved too fast. And because they believed hallowed words more than white America did.
Heck, if the situation had been reversed with white Americans being the en masse recipients of full-on racism, we wouldn’t have cooled our heels and tugged our forelocks for two and half centuries hinting around at progress at the back of the bus and at the water fountains and the employment centers, we’d have slaughtered everyone, because we whites are imbued, it seems, including me, with a solid sense of our own snowflakey self-importance and place in the fucking hierarchy.
We have finally been schooled through sheer repetition.
We may have to stay after school yet again.
Was the Rape of Nanking an Eastern responsibility?
I hereby STFU.
However, I am, at best, 51% right.
Here’s a question: Is there a functional difference between modern, liberal democracy and modern, Western, liberal democracy? Is it the case that all modern, liberal democracy has been based on something originating in the West, so it’s all Western, even if it’s not exclusive to countries that are usually considered part of the West?
I don’t think many of us “liberals” (if that’s what any of us are, according to whatever definition) are opposed to modern, liberal democracy, as such, Western or otherwise.
Here’s a question: Is there a functional difference between modern, liberal democracy and modern, Western, liberal democracy? Is it the case that all modern, liberal democracy has been based on something originating in the West, so it’s all Western, even if it’s not exclusive to countries that are usually considered part of the West?
I don’t think many of us “liberals” (if that’s what any of us are, according to whatever definition) are opposed to modern, liberal democracy, as such, Western or otherwise.
(Just a quick aside to note that my marxist friends all consider it a personal insult when someone calls them a liberal, while the culture warriors on the right all work on the idea that liberal = marxist. I leave it to you which one is correct – hint: the marxists have read a lot more marxists.)
(Just a quick aside to note that my marxist friends all consider it a personal insult when someone calls them a liberal, while the culture warriors on the right all work on the idea that liberal = marxist. I leave it to you which one is correct – hint: the marxists have read a lot more marxists.)
In college, I read “One Dimensional Man” and a couple of (very good) things by John Berger.
I later participated in some stuff to organize farm workers which, unbeknownst to me, was run by some commies. They wanted me to attend some really annoying meetings so I stopped.
I occasionally contribute to a prison books charity that is run by communists. Nobody else seems to want to do it.
And that is the sum total of my commie affiliations.
All in the interest of full disclosure.
In college, I read “One Dimensional Man” and a couple of (very good) things by John Berger.
I later participated in some stuff to organize farm workers which, unbeknownst to me, was run by some commies. They wanted me to attend some really annoying meetings so I stopped.
I occasionally contribute to a prison books charity that is run by communists. Nobody else seems to want to do it.
And that is the sum total of my commie affiliations.
All in the interest of full disclosure.
I don’t think many of us “liberals” (if that’s what any of us are, according to whatever definition) are opposed to modern, liberal democracy, as such, Western or otherwise.
Modern, liberal, and democracy is all good stuff. If anything, I think some of us probably want more of it.
Workplaces, for example, mostly aren’t especially liberal or democratic (or, in some ways, even modern). To the extent that those things are what makes civilization great, more of them should be even greater.
For that matter, we could use a little more democracy in our democracy.
There are a bunch of folks out there — led by a certain real estate developer turned politician — trying very hard right now to make things less liberal and less democratic. Maybe we should stop them.
And then there’s the longer term problem where the policies produced by our “democracy” somehow seem to invariably reflect the preferences of a certain wealthy donor class, regardless of the preferences expressed by the majority.
I don’t think many of us “liberals” (if that’s what any of us are, according to whatever definition) are opposed to modern, liberal democracy, as such, Western or otherwise.
Modern, liberal, and democracy is all good stuff. If anything, I think some of us probably want more of it.
Workplaces, for example, mostly aren’t especially liberal or democratic (or, in some ways, even modern). To the extent that those things are what makes civilization great, more of them should be even greater.
For that matter, we could use a little more democracy in our democracy.
There are a bunch of folks out there — led by a certain real estate developer turned politician — trying very hard right now to make things less liberal and less democratic. Maybe we should stop them.
And then there’s the longer term problem where the policies produced by our “democracy” somehow seem to invariably reflect the preferences of a certain wealthy donor class, regardless of the preferences expressed by the majority.
my marxist friends all consider it a personal insult when someone calls them a liberal, while the culture warriors on the right all work on the idea that liberal = marxist. I leave it to you which one is correct – hint: the marxists have read a lot more marxists.)
It is perhaps worth noting that, back in the day, there was a massive difference between the beliefs and actions of those who were actual believers in communism and those who were really just supporters of the Soviet Union (and/or communist China). These days the latter are not much in evidence. But they remain what the right typically means by “communist!”. Being, as noted, generally ignorant of what Marx actually wrote.
my marxist friends all consider it a personal insult when someone calls them a liberal, while the culture warriors on the right all work on the idea that liberal = marxist. I leave it to you which one is correct – hint: the marxists have read a lot more marxists.)
It is perhaps worth noting that, back in the day, there was a massive difference between the beliefs and actions of those who were actual believers in communism and those who were really just supporters of the Soviet Union (and/or communist China). These days the latter are not much in evidence. But they remain what the right typically means by “communist!”. Being, as noted, generally ignorant of what Marx actually wrote.
my marxist friends all consider it a personal insult when someone calls them a liberal
Mine too, and I think true of all marxists I’ve ever encountered.
Not for the first time in this thread, and elsewhere, what jack lecou said @02.02
my marxist friends all consider it a personal insult when someone calls them a liberal
Mine too, and I think true of all marxists I’ve ever encountered.
Not for the first time in this thread, and elsewhere, what jack lecou said @02.02
Just a quick aside to note that my marxist friends all consider it a personal insult when someone calls them a liberal, while the culture warriors on the right all work on the idea that liberal = marxist.
I’d say those are really two different words, in roughly the same way that the “hots” in “hot chili” and “hot soup” are.
I guess the marxists have the right of it, inasmuch as the word they’re talking about is actually the same one used in “liberal democracy”. The one where George Bush and Hillary Clinton are both “liberals”, despite their nominally distant positions on the US political spectrum. (They’re not wrong about it being an insult, either. Liberalism, at least flavors, has some problems. Like the inherent tension between private property rights and freedom.)
Just a quick aside to note that my marxist friends all consider it a personal insult when someone calls them a liberal, while the culture warriors on the right all work on the idea that liberal = marxist.
I’d say those are really two different words, in roughly the same way that the “hots” in “hot chili” and “hot soup” are.
I guess the marxists have the right of it, inasmuch as the word they’re talking about is actually the same one used in “liberal democracy”. The one where George Bush and Hillary Clinton are both “liberals”, despite their nominally distant positions on the US political spectrum. (They’re not wrong about it being an insult, either. Liberalism, at least flavors, has some problems. Like the inherent tension between private property rights and freedom.)
And that is the sum total of my commie affiliations.
i really like Stereolab, who sometimes sing about Marxist things but i don’t look to them for political advice. and because they sing with French accents everything just sounds sexy somehow.
on the other hand, i don’t really like Rage Against The Machine, who are as radically left as any modern American band.
oh, and i directly and indirectly received welfare benefits as a child.
that’s my commie testimonial.
And that is the sum total of my commie affiliations.
i really like Stereolab, who sometimes sing about Marxist things but i don’t look to them for political advice. and because they sing with French accents everything just sounds sexy somehow.
on the other hand, i don’t really like Rage Against The Machine, who are as radically left as any modern American band.
oh, and i directly and indirectly received welfare benefits as a child.
that’s my commie testimonial.
I have not heard of the “intersectional point spread”. Is it something that I can bet the middle?
I have not heard of the “intersectional point spread”. Is it something that I can bet the middle?
psst….whatever you do, don’t tell McKinney about the Stuttgart school.
Yours for the revolution,
liberal bobby
psst….whatever you do, don’t tell McKinney about the Stuttgart school.
Yours for the revolution,
liberal bobby
Before we get too far astray…here’s a little nugget for you.
So. Is Frederick W. Kagan “of the West”? And how does a pig like him rate space on the NYT editorial page? Is it systemic, or just another intersectional?
Before we get too far astray…here’s a little nugget for you.
So. Is Frederick W. Kagan “of the West”? And how does a pig like him rate space on the NYT editorial page? Is it systemic, or just another intersectional?
all of this reminds me of this T-shirt.
a roommate of mine used to own and wear it all the time. he was in grad school and was making the transition from an interest in church history to a deep dive into guys like Gramsci.
this was while I was being recruited for a job at a defense contractor, and the Defense Investigative Service were looking me over. they of course wanted to have a long chat with my roomie to make sure I was on the up and up.
they didn’t really care about his new-found commie leanings, or about the weed he was growing in the closet. they were all over me for having been behind in self-employment taxes, however.
cherche de l’argent!
all of this reminds me of this T-shirt.
a roommate of mine used to own and wear it all the time. he was in grad school and was making the transition from an interest in church history to a deep dive into guys like Gramsci.
this was while I was being recruited for a job at a defense contractor, and the Defense Investigative Service were looking me over. they of course wanted to have a long chat with my roomie to make sure I was on the up and up.
they didn’t really care about his new-found commie leanings, or about the weed he was growing in the closet. they were all over me for having been behind in self-employment taxes, however.
cherche de l’argent!
Before we get too far astray…here’s a little nugget for you.
hey, anybody remember good old Richard Perle and Trireme Partners?
hard to pick the right circle of hell for some of these people.
third? fourth? down in the eighth circle, maybe, carrying his head before him like Bertran de Born?
sick greedy bastards.
Before we get too far astray…here’s a little nugget for you.
hey, anybody remember good old Richard Perle and Trireme Partners?
hard to pick the right circle of hell for some of these people.
third? fourth? down in the eighth circle, maybe, carrying his head before him like Bertran de Born?
sick greedy bastards.
My granpappy down there in Middletown, Ohio, where I was born and where my grandparents, whom I loved and still do, bless their souls, did alls they could to point out that we youngins should stay away from “black” folks t’other side a town AND by all means steer clear of them JD Vance peckerwood Mamaws and Papaws and trashy caucasian people down the other side a ‘town, told me point-blank (Grandpa died before J Edgar revealed his Vivian Vance wardrobe with matching accessories) Martin Luther King was a Communist when I was a kid so I set out contrary-wise to be just like MLK but it never took on account of my secret desire never to be shot for being one.
The Governor of Texas is now telling restaurant and bar owners he will revoke their liquor licenses if they install Covid vaccine and mask mandates in their private establishments.
Looks like Texas is going to be the proving ground for the conservative challenge, which will bear watching, that a heavily armed population is the best guard against intrusive, fascist, overbearing gummint encroachment, but I doubt they have it in them, being the pussies they are, to put their firearms where their all hat and no cattle mouths are in the face of crippled fuckers like Abbott his fellow virus afficianados.
Why, if John F. Kennedy had mandated masks and vaccines back in the day, someone woulda shot that Commie in the head in the great state of Texas.
Stay tuned, maybe Abbott will try rescinding barbecue licenses and we’ll see the real men stand up, which I guess leaves out Abbott.
Now, in Florida, we have a deadly murderous corruption of another conservative commie sort, for DeSantis is fighting tooth and nail against masks and vaccines, but as it happens a company called Regeneron (this commie right c’here might buy some of their stock) has a pretty effective new medication, that if applied early in the infection stage of Covid-19, can stave off some of the worst symptoms and hospitalizations.
Welp, turns out DeSantis’ second biggest republican political donor is a money manager, Citadel Capital, I believe, who owns a ton load of Regeneron shares and, well, if people protect themselves too well with masking, and social distancing, not taking cruises with conservative murderers, and vaccination, and such like, product sales, and thus bottom lines and political donations might suffer, don’t ya just know.
Again, lots of guns but no threats to kill these fuckers unless they try to give people healthcare at a low cost or maybe dress up on the sly in their mothers’ underthings and work the local public bathrooms.
Maybe conservatives love the killing and maiming power of military weaponry but they got sensitive ears to the noise.
Don’t take no communist to ascertain the direction things are headed.
My granpappy down there in Middletown, Ohio, where I was born and where my grandparents, whom I loved and still do, bless their souls, did alls they could to point out that we youngins should stay away from “black” folks t’other side a town AND by all means steer clear of them JD Vance peckerwood Mamaws and Papaws and trashy caucasian people down the other side a ‘town, told me point-blank (Grandpa died before J Edgar revealed his Vivian Vance wardrobe with matching accessories) Martin Luther King was a Communist when I was a kid so I set out contrary-wise to be just like MLK but it never took on account of my secret desire never to be shot for being one.
The Governor of Texas is now telling restaurant and bar owners he will revoke their liquor licenses if they install Covid vaccine and mask mandates in their private establishments.
Looks like Texas is going to be the proving ground for the conservative challenge, which will bear watching, that a heavily armed population is the best guard against intrusive, fascist, overbearing gummint encroachment, but I doubt they have it in them, being the pussies they are, to put their firearms where their all hat and no cattle mouths are in the face of crippled fuckers like Abbott his fellow virus afficianados.
Why, if John F. Kennedy had mandated masks and vaccines back in the day, someone woulda shot that Commie in the head in the great state of Texas.
Stay tuned, maybe Abbott will try rescinding barbecue licenses and we’ll see the real men stand up, which I guess leaves out Abbott.
Now, in Florida, we have a deadly murderous corruption of another conservative commie sort, for DeSantis is fighting tooth and nail against masks and vaccines, but as it happens a company called Regeneron (this commie right c’here might buy some of their stock) has a pretty effective new medication, that if applied early in the infection stage of Covid-19, can stave off some of the worst symptoms and hospitalizations.
Welp, turns out DeSantis’ second biggest republican political donor is a money manager, Citadel Capital, I believe, who owns a ton load of Regeneron shares and, well, if people protect themselves too well with masking, and social distancing, not taking cruises with conservative murderers, and vaccination, and such like, product sales, and thus bottom lines and political donations might suffer, don’t ya just know.
Again, lots of guns but no threats to kill these fuckers unless they try to give people healthcare at a low cost or maybe dress up on the sly in their mothers’ underthings and work the local public bathrooms.
Maybe conservatives love the killing and maiming power of military weaponry but they got sensitive ears to the noise.
Don’t take no communist to ascertain the direction things are headed.
on the other hand, i don’t really like Rage Against The Machine, who are as radically left as any modern American band.
I read an interview with Tom Morello where he mentioned RATM fans who were shocked to find out he was Black and that RATM was not only political, but leftist. So maybe I understand not knowing Morello was Black, but I don’t know why it would be shocking. And I really don’t get how anyone who’s supposed to be a fan of RATM couldn’t be aware of their politics. I don’t always pay close attention to lyrics, but FFS. It’s not like they’re Napalm Death. You can readily understand the words, which are not exactly subtle.
on the other hand, i don’t really like Rage Against The Machine, who are as radically left as any modern American band.
I read an interview with Tom Morello where he mentioned RATM fans who were shocked to find out he was Black and that RATM was not only political, but leftist. So maybe I understand not knowing Morello was Black, but I don’t know why it would be shocking. And I really don’t get how anyone who’s supposed to be a fan of RATM couldn’t be aware of their politics. I don’t always pay close attention to lyrics, but FFS. It’s not like they’re Napalm Death. You can readily understand the words, which are not exactly subtle.
More communist full disclosure:
decades ago, I was in a small town in Italy for a month. The inhabitants had threw a “block party” (well, okay, a piazza festa), and I went, with some friends.
Turns out it was run by the Italian Communist Party, not that you could tell by the grandmothers serving pasta, or the teens up on the stage playing Beatles and Rolling Stones numbers.
Good food, good wine, enjoyable music, good company, low cover price. It was a “get-out-the vote” for an upcoming election, as far as I could tell.
Kinda wish political parties threw block parties like that nowadays.
More communist full disclosure:
decades ago, I was in a small town in Italy for a month. The inhabitants had threw a “block party” (well, okay, a piazza festa), and I went, with some friends.
Turns out it was run by the Italian Communist Party, not that you could tell by the grandmothers serving pasta, or the teens up on the stage playing Beatles and Rolling Stones numbers.
Good food, good wine, enjoyable music, good company, low cover price. It was a “get-out-the vote” for an upcoming election, as far as I could tell.
Kinda wish political parties threw block parties like that nowadays.
Abbott has made a breakthrough of sorts.
Abbott has made a breakthrough of sorts.
Abbott has made a breakthrough of sorts.
You could say his view of covid is now even more positive.
Abbott has made a breakthrough of sorts.
You could say his view of covid is now even more positive.
geez AlaMcT, if you didn’t understand the word ‘wrought’ you could have just asked….
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/wrought
On another planet, circling around another star, the conversation could have gone like this.
Morning all, interesting stuff but all to sprawling that a single comment will suffice. So just a turd in the punchbowl: Why is the Holocaust not considered part of what the West has wrought?
“Gee, what exactly do you mean by ‘wrought’? Does it mean that the West planned the Holocaust and carried it out?”
[conversation goes on to discuss how to consider how we should or should not consider civiliations and cultures ‘responsible’ for what happens with them, allowing participants a chance to reflect on various subjects]
Unfortunately, _yet again_, you grab at it as evidence, wave it around like a bloody glove and come back with a smug ‘I rest my case’. It just indicates your inability to look beyond anything other than winning an argument.
As a teacher, I always hope that people can realize things and just because they don’t get it one time, they might get it the next. Or the next. Or even the next.
Yet, after watching you demonstrate repeated lacunae of realizations, I pretty much knew that you typing ‘non-white’ was just going to be another example of you being called on your rhetoric and you retreating to say you aren’t the problem, everyone else is.
Janie asked why everyone else just let it pass, and the answer is two fold. 1)It’s become normalized, McT is just the guy who can’t help himself and if you point it out, he’ll go ballistic and 2)It just isn’t worth the effort, he’ll just spew a lot of verbiage and then leave, claiming he’s too busy to reply.
GftNC continues to engage. On one level, it is admirable, a commitment to civility that I really can’t muster. On the other hand, it is a blind spot, thinking that somehow there is a sliver of a chance to make you reflect.
Y’all can continue to polish a turd, I’ll confine myself to pointing out that it still is a turd.
geez AlaMcT, if you didn’t understand the word ‘wrought’ you could have just asked….
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/wrought
On another planet, circling around another star, the conversation could have gone like this.
Morning all, interesting stuff but all to sprawling that a single comment will suffice. So just a turd in the punchbowl: Why is the Holocaust not considered part of what the West has wrought?
“Gee, what exactly do you mean by ‘wrought’? Does it mean that the West planned the Holocaust and carried it out?”
[conversation goes on to discuss how to consider how we should or should not consider civiliations and cultures ‘responsible’ for what happens with them, allowing participants a chance to reflect on various subjects]
Unfortunately, _yet again_, you grab at it as evidence, wave it around like a bloody glove and come back with a smug ‘I rest my case’. It just indicates your inability to look beyond anything other than winning an argument.
As a teacher, I always hope that people can realize things and just because they don’t get it one time, they might get it the next. Or the next. Or even the next.
Yet, after watching you demonstrate repeated lacunae of realizations, I pretty much knew that you typing ‘non-white’ was just going to be another example of you being called on your rhetoric and you retreating to say you aren’t the problem, everyone else is.
Janie asked why everyone else just let it pass, and the answer is two fold. 1)It’s become normalized, McT is just the guy who can’t help himself and if you point it out, he’ll go ballistic and 2)It just isn’t worth the effort, he’ll just spew a lot of verbiage and then leave, claiming he’s too busy to reply.
GftNC continues to engage. On one level, it is admirable, a commitment to civility that I really can’t muster. On the other hand, it is a blind spot, thinking that somehow there is a sliver of a chance to make you reflect.
Y’all can continue to polish a turd, I’ll confine myself to pointing out that it still is a turd.
I read an interview with Tom Morello where he mentioned RATM fans who were shocked to find out he was Black and that RATM was not only political, but leftist.
I’ve always been amazed that Chris Christie is such a fanboy of Bruce Springsteen, and why that hasn’t made him reflect on, well, anything.
https://www.newsweek.com/history-chris-christie-bruce-springsteen-relationship-368540
I read an interview with Tom Morello where he mentioned RATM fans who were shocked to find out he was Black and that RATM was not only political, but leftist.
I’ve always been amazed that Chris Christie is such a fanboy of Bruce Springsteen, and why that hasn’t made him reflect on, well, anything.
https://www.newsweek.com/history-chris-christie-bruce-springsteen-relationship-368540
FWIW, I’m not the only one who continues to engage, lj. Whether there is the sliver of a chance to make McKinney reflect or not, I believe there is value (of various kinds) in the discussion.
FWIW, I’m not the only one who continues to engage, lj. Whether there is the sliver of a chance to make McKinney reflect or not, I believe there is value (of various kinds) in the discussion.
You can kind of be a Springsteen fan without grasping the criticism or irony in some of his ballads if you are a particular brand of clueless and self-centered.
Rage Against The Machine does not do irony, they just throw bombs.
You can kind of be a Springsteen fan without grasping the criticism or irony in some of his ballads if you are a particular brand of clueless and self-centered.
Rage Against The Machine does not do irony, they just throw bombs.
…these indigenous, non-capitalist, non-white but deeply faithful adherents of a non-Christian faith
My goodness. Racist. Yep, that’s me.
My father’s parents were about as indigenous (not at all), non-white (a bit) and non-Christian as the Taliban.
And yet they felt no special urge to oppress women.
The adjectives are irrelevant, and therefore racist.
I understood McKinneyTexas to be using racist language on purpose to provoke us. I’m surprised that he should object to being called out for it.
…these indigenous, non-capitalist, non-white but deeply faithful adherents of a non-Christian faith
My goodness. Racist. Yep, that’s me.
My father’s parents were about as indigenous (not at all), non-white (a bit) and non-Christian as the Taliban.
And yet they felt no special urge to oppress women.
The adjectives are irrelevant, and therefore racist.
I understood McKinneyTexas to be using racist language on purpose to provoke us. I’m surprised that he should object to being called out for it.
Sure, and apologies if it came out like you are on some quixotic attempt. But (and this is a bit of mind-reading, so apologies in advance) I feel like others react to AlaMcT because these are blog comments and that is what you do in blog comments while you are specifically trying to get both AlaMcT and everyone else to reflect. Well, you have gotten me to reflect, but not on the value of civility but on how someone can hijack it as a way to avoid self-questioning. That’s not on you, but it seems clear that he’ll keep using your engagement as a way to avoid taking responsibility for his words.
Sure, and apologies if it came out like you are on some quixotic attempt. But (and this is a bit of mind-reading, so apologies in advance) I feel like others react to AlaMcT because these are blog comments and that is what you do in blog comments while you are specifically trying to get both AlaMcT and everyone else to reflect. Well, you have gotten me to reflect, but not on the value of civility but on how someone can hijack it as a way to avoid self-questioning. That’s not on you, but it seems clear that he’ll keep using your engagement as a way to avoid taking responsibility for his words.
Modern. Western. Liberal. Democracy.
Words that mean whatever McKinney wants them to mean, when he uses them.
And he’s entitled to use words as he likes, just like French people are entitled to say “formidable” when they mean “superb”. But just like those snooty French are not entitled to be understood by non-Francophones, so McKinney is not entitled to get his panties in a bunch when people who are NOT McKinney ask him to translate.
McKinney was explicit (though possibly joking) when I asked him when American liberal democracy, specifically, became “modern”: 1954, he said — the year both Brown v Board and his good self came along. Maybe he’d specify a different date for other “Western” liberal democracies.
Not being racist, McKinney would probably stipulate that Japan and Italy, as well as Germany of course, are modern liberal democracies. But then his “Western” needs translating. Perhaps “originating in the Italian Renaissance”, or “derived from the French Enlightenment”, or “connected to the Protestant Revolution”, while unwieldy, might be clearer expressions of his meaning.
“Liberal”, in McKinney’s usage, is sometimes praise and sometimes opprobrium. Perhaps he should use more specific words to differentiate his meanings. I’m tempted to think that “Capitalist” might be one of those words.
And “Democracy” ain’t a lay-up, either. McKinney probably has never explicitly declared that the US is a republic, not a democracy. But he has been clear that the Constitutionally-elected POTUS cannot order the popularly elected Governor of, say, Texas to allow the popularly-elected mayor of, say, Austin to make public restroom regulations for the city. So I, at least, need further and better particulars about the level at which McKinney defines “democracy”.
To me, “modern Western liberal democracy” best translates as “science-accepting, religion-ignoring, individual-rights-respecting, non-monarchy”, more or less. I have no clue whether that captures any of McKinney’s understanding of The Best of All Possible Systems.
–TP
Modern. Western. Liberal. Democracy.
Words that mean whatever McKinney wants them to mean, when he uses them.
And he’s entitled to use words as he likes, just like French people are entitled to say “formidable” when they mean “superb”. But just like those snooty French are not entitled to be understood by non-Francophones, so McKinney is not entitled to get his panties in a bunch when people who are NOT McKinney ask him to translate.
McKinney was explicit (though possibly joking) when I asked him when American liberal democracy, specifically, became “modern”: 1954, he said — the year both Brown v Board and his good self came along. Maybe he’d specify a different date for other “Western” liberal democracies.
Not being racist, McKinney would probably stipulate that Japan and Italy, as well as Germany of course, are modern liberal democracies. But then his “Western” needs translating. Perhaps “originating in the Italian Renaissance”, or “derived from the French Enlightenment”, or “connected to the Protestant Revolution”, while unwieldy, might be clearer expressions of his meaning.
“Liberal”, in McKinney’s usage, is sometimes praise and sometimes opprobrium. Perhaps he should use more specific words to differentiate his meanings. I’m tempted to think that “Capitalist” might be one of those words.
And “Democracy” ain’t a lay-up, either. McKinney probably has never explicitly declared that the US is a republic, not a democracy. But he has been clear that the Constitutionally-elected POTUS cannot order the popularly elected Governor of, say, Texas to allow the popularly-elected mayor of, say, Austin to make public restroom regulations for the city. So I, at least, need further and better particulars about the level at which McKinney defines “democracy”.
To me, “modern Western liberal democracy” best translates as “science-accepting, religion-ignoring, individual-rights-respecting, non-monarchy”, more or less. I have no clue whether that captures any of McKinney’s understanding of The Best of All Possible Systems.
–TP
Abbott has made a breakthrough of sorts.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/17/politics/texas-governor-greg-abbott-covid-19/index.html
This explains why there are no speed limits or laws against fraud or murder in Texas.
Abbott has made a breakthrough of sorts.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/17/politics/texas-governor-greg-abbott-covid-19/index.html
This explains why there are no speed limits or laws against fraud or murder in Texas.
It took me ages to work out since it was so weird, but in the end I understood McKinney to be saying that to progressives “indigenous, non-capitalist, non-white etc” people were, by definition, beyond criticism, unlike say white Christian capitalists who are their regular whipping boys. And he categorised the Afghans (or maybe the Taliban?) as, on the contrary, being the perpetrators of terrible acts (correct) while belonging to all those categories (largely incorrect or inconsistent). Now obviously, nobody here held what he characterised as the progressive view, and the whole formulation was in any case wrongheaded, but I’m not entirely clear, if my reading of his intention is correct, that he was being particularly racist. I do not myself favour continued civility when people are being genuinely, intentionally racist.
It took me ages to work out since it was so weird, but in the end I understood McKinney to be saying that to progressives “indigenous, non-capitalist, non-white etc” people were, by definition, beyond criticism, unlike say white Christian capitalists who are their regular whipping boys. And he categorised the Afghans (or maybe the Taliban?) as, on the contrary, being the perpetrators of terrible acts (correct) while belonging to all those categories (largely incorrect or inconsistent). Now obviously, nobody here held what he characterised as the progressive view, and the whole formulation was in any case wrongheaded, but I’m not entirely clear, if my reading of his intention is correct, that he was being particularly racist. I do not myself favour continued civility when people are being genuinely, intentionally racist.
GftNC, hence the quote from Mother Night.
Whether he is or he’s just pretending, it’s pretty obvious it was intended to provoke.
GftNC, hence the quote from Mother Night.
Whether he is or he’s just pretending, it’s pretty obvious it was intended to provoke.
McKinney, like many of the conservatives I interact with on my St. John’s College alumni list, seems to have decided that wokeness is a form of racial penance that liberals perform to show contrition for their sins and demonstrate their virtue (which could, conceivably, be true for a subset of woke liberals who really don’t understand what is meant by “structural”). It’s all a weird atheistic version of Calvinism.
Meanwhile, the people who actually do Critical Theory of whatever stripe (marxist, non-marxist, anti-colonial, etc.) don’t see how guilt or contrition weigh into anything to do with being a part of something that creates racist outcomes no matter what the individual does or doesn’t do. All that matters is whether the individual works to dismantle racist structures or to preserve them when such structures are identified.
But I’ve said versions of this before, and I don’t expect that this latest formulation will sink any further into the rocky soil of the culture warriors’ understanding.
McKinney, like many of the conservatives I interact with on my St. John’s College alumni list, seems to have decided that wokeness is a form of racial penance that liberals perform to show contrition for their sins and demonstrate their virtue (which could, conceivably, be true for a subset of woke liberals who really don’t understand what is meant by “structural”). It’s all a weird atheistic version of Calvinism.
Meanwhile, the people who actually do Critical Theory of whatever stripe (marxist, non-marxist, anti-colonial, etc.) don’t see how guilt or contrition weigh into anything to do with being a part of something that creates racist outcomes no matter what the individual does or doesn’t do. All that matters is whether the individual works to dismantle racist structures or to preserve them when such structures are identified.
But I’ve said versions of this before, and I don’t expect that this latest formulation will sink any further into the rocky soil of the culture warriors’ understanding.
Not that I think McKinney is a Calvinist. He seems to come to this congregation strictly for the ritual call-and-response.
Not that I think McKinney is a Calvinist. He seems to come to this congregation strictly for the ritual call-and-response.
Whether he is or he’s just pretending, it’s pretty obvious it was intended to provoke.
My take is that in his outside-the-blog life McKinney makes a conscious effort, generally successfully, to avoid acting racist. But as the “these indigenous, non-capitalist, non-white but deeply faithful adherents of a non-Christian faith” comment shows, he (like all of us) has some blind spots. And gets (self-righteously) defensive when that is pointed out. Not that the way in which it is pointed out is particularly conducive to non-confrontational reflection.
In short, his comment comes across (to most of us) as racist, even if it wasn’t intended as such. But suppose we said “That come across, intentionally or not, as racist” instead of saying flatly “That was racist!.” Might improve the chances of getting the reflection that some of you say you look for.
Whether he is or he’s just pretending, it’s pretty obvious it was intended to provoke.
My take is that in his outside-the-blog life McKinney makes a conscious effort, generally successfully, to avoid acting racist. But as the “these indigenous, non-capitalist, non-white but deeply faithful adherents of a non-Christian faith” comment shows, he (like all of us) has some blind spots. And gets (self-righteously) defensive when that is pointed out. Not that the way in which it is pointed out is particularly conducive to non-confrontational reflection.
In short, his comment comes across (to most of us) as racist, even if it wasn’t intended as such. But suppose we said “That come across, intentionally or not, as racist” instead of saying flatly “That was racist!.” Might improve the chances of getting the reflection that some of you say you look for.
my take, fwiw, is that McK is not at all racist, and his comment was intended to call out what he sees as an inability on the part of liberals to remove the beam from their own eye before requiring conservatives to remove the speck from theirs. I.e., we lack self-awareness.
McK may or may not wish to affirm or correct my reading.
the reality is that folks’ points of view here are more varied and nuanced than McK appears to believe.
also FWIW, Afghanistan was a mess before we invaded, and is probably no better off for our 20 years of engagement. let’s get as many of the folks who will be in danger as a result of their cooperation with us the hell out as we can. I don’t think we can do any more than that.
sometimes you succeed, sometimes you fail. sometimes you fail because your motives and objectives are so mixed and compromised that you cannot find your own ass with both hands and a flashlight. maybe, someday, we’ll stop making this same freaking bag of mistakes.
if that sounds cavalier, please believe that it is not.
if I ever meet Tucker Carlson in person, I am highly likely to punch him in the face. he is an opportunistic verminous scoundrel.
good night, all.
my take, fwiw, is that McK is not at all racist, and his comment was intended to call out what he sees as an inability on the part of liberals to remove the beam from their own eye before requiring conservatives to remove the speck from theirs. I.e., we lack self-awareness.
McK may or may not wish to affirm or correct my reading.
the reality is that folks’ points of view here are more varied and nuanced than McK appears to believe.
also FWIW, Afghanistan was a mess before we invaded, and is probably no better off for our 20 years of engagement. let’s get as many of the folks who will be in danger as a result of their cooperation with us the hell out as we can. I don’t think we can do any more than that.
sometimes you succeed, sometimes you fail. sometimes you fail because your motives and objectives are so mixed and compromised that you cannot find your own ass with both hands and a flashlight. maybe, someday, we’ll stop making this same freaking bag of mistakes.
if that sounds cavalier, please believe that it is not.
if I ever meet Tucker Carlson in person, I am highly likely to punch him in the face. he is an opportunistic verminous scoundrel.
good night, all.
McKinney’s comment was racist.
But many of his comments are thoughtful and interesting, made from a perspective shared by few if any other commentators here, and worth considering and replying to. I think he’s profoundly wrong about a lot of things, but that’s OK, if I wanted to hear only comments I agree with I’d sit in the corner and talk to myself.
McKinney’s comment was racist.
But many of his comments are thoughtful and interesting, made from a perspective shared by few if any other commentators here, and worth considering and replying to. I think he’s profoundly wrong about a lot of things, but that’s OK, if I wanted to hear only comments I agree with I’d sit in the corner and talk to myself.
flatly “That was racist!.”
This is why it’s important to quote, cite, identify. Not vaguely wave at some past comment. I’ve said multiple times that McT is probably quite different in real life than he appears on this blog. But all I can go by is what he says here. And here he just wants to ‘own the libs’.
flatly “That was racist!.”
This is why it’s important to quote, cite, identify. Not vaguely wave at some past comment. I’ve said multiple times that McT is probably quite different in real life than he appears on this blog. But all I can go by is what he says here. And here he just wants to ‘own the libs’.
One more point before this thread is over and done. I do note the attempts McT does attempt to reach out. I note that he agreed with me on a point about Reason’s COVID coverage here
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2021/08/spreading-the-love.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e202788040ec39200d#comment-6a00d834515c2369e202788040ec39200d
And also here
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2021/08/the-most-openest-open-thread-evah.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e20282e117db84200b#comment-6a00d834515c2369e20282e117db84200b
And I appreciate those. Which is why it is so baffling to me that he can’t at least take on some points about the way he argues here and act on them. Drive by posts to provoke a reaction are, imo, the opposite of civility. Trying to find words that will provoke a reaction, the same. There is far too much of that out there and we certainly don’t need it here.
One more point before this thread is over and done. I do note the attempts McT does attempt to reach out. I note that he agreed with me on a point about Reason’s COVID coverage here
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2021/08/spreading-the-love.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e202788040ec39200d#comment-6a00d834515c2369e202788040ec39200d
And also here
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2021/08/the-most-openest-open-thread-evah.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e20282e117db84200b#comment-6a00d834515c2369e20282e117db84200b
And I appreciate those. Which is why it is so baffling to me that he can’t at least take on some points about the way he argues here and act on them. Drive by posts to provoke a reaction are, imo, the opposite of civility. Trying to find words that will provoke a reaction, the same. There is far too much of that out there and we certainly don’t need it here.
https://www.insideedition.com/maskless-man-yells-1776-and-i-respect-freedom-while-berating-elderly-woman-on-subway-69200
Makes you kinda long for the days of Bernie Goetz and the NRA implementation of a weapon present in every fucking American public, economic, and social transaction, open and concealed, which they are still working for when their murderous leaders aren’t vivisecting elephant parts into footstools, waste baskets and hat racks.
Liberals didn’t goad that conservative snowflake Trump pussy into assaulting that innocent woman with his tiny dick Covid breath.
The First and Second Amendments have been entirely weaponized by subhuman conservatives.
Bullets and words, and viral droplets are now interchangeable fatal projectiles in made conservative pigfucking America.
Act accordingly.
https://www.insideedition.com/maskless-man-yells-1776-and-i-respect-freedom-while-berating-elderly-woman-on-subway-69200
Makes you kinda long for the days of Bernie Goetz and the NRA implementation of a weapon present in every fucking American public, economic, and social transaction, open and concealed, which they are still working for when their murderous leaders aren’t vivisecting elephant parts into footstools, waste baskets and hat racks.
Liberals didn’t goad that conservative snowflake Trump pussy into assaulting that innocent woman with his tiny dick Covid breath.
The First and Second Amendments have been entirely weaponized by subhuman conservatives.
Bullets and words, and viral droplets are now interchangeable fatal projectiles in made conservative pigfucking America.
Act accordingly.
Monetize, you stinking fucking subhuman conservative vermin:
https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/sean-hannity-plugs-my-pillow-americans-family-stuck-kabul
Monetize, you stinking fucking subhuman conservative vermin:
https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/sean-hannity-plugs-my-pillow-americans-family-stuck-kabul
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a37328466/governor-doug-ducey-arizona-mask-mandates/
Like the $200 billion dollar socialist swales in Houston, why the fuck am I paying for this murderous dogshit?
The takeaway, which is Australian for shitty fast food:
“The mortuary trailers from the Federal Emergency Management Agency will be stationed in San Antonio and sent around the state at the request of local officials. Department of State Health Services spokesperson Doug Loveday said the trailers were requested Aug. 4 after officials reviewed data about increasing deaths as a third wave of the coronavirus struck the state. “We are anticipating a need within the state of Texas for these trailers as Covid cases and hospitalizations continue to increase,” Loveday said.”
I hope FEMA is outfitting the body bags with eternal Pillow Guy sleepwear.
Again, where is the much advertised conservative gunfire as Texas gummint slaughters their citizens.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a37328466/governor-doug-ducey-arizona-mask-mandates/
Like the $200 billion dollar socialist swales in Houston, why the fuck am I paying for this murderous dogshit?
The takeaway, which is Australian for shitty fast food:
“The mortuary trailers from the Federal Emergency Management Agency will be stationed in San Antonio and sent around the state at the request of local officials. Department of State Health Services spokesperson Doug Loveday said the trailers were requested Aug. 4 after officials reviewed data about increasing deaths as a third wave of the coronavirus struck the state. “We are anticipating a need within the state of Texas for these trailers as Covid cases and hospitalizations continue to increase,” Loveday said.”
I hope FEMA is outfitting the body bags with eternal Pillow Guy sleepwear.
Again, where is the much advertised conservative gunfire as Texas gummint slaughters their citizens.
Afghanistan Is Your Fault
The American public now has what it wanted.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/afghanistan-your-fault/619769/
Afghanistan Is Your Fault
The American public now has what it wanted.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/afghanistan-your-fault/619769/
the disconnect between the media and the public on Afghanistan is remarkable. nearly all of the pundits are in full white-knuckle pearl-clutching mode.
makes it easy to see how we got in this mess in the first place.
the disconnect between the media and the public on Afghanistan is remarkable. nearly all of the pundits are in full white-knuckle pearl-clutching mode.
makes it easy to see how we got in this mess in the first place.
Not that I think McKinney is a Calvinist. He seems to come to this congregation strictly for the ritual call-and-response.
Made me laugh, by the way.
if I ever meet Tucker Carlson in person, I am highly likely to punch him in the face. he is an opportunistic verminous scoundrel.
Enthusiastically agreed. Although in my case, I’d probably try devastating insult first. Not that it would matter to him….
Not that I think McKinney is a Calvinist. He seems to come to this congregation strictly for the ritual call-and-response.
Made me laugh, by the way.
if I ever meet Tucker Carlson in person, I am highly likely to punch him in the face. he is an opportunistic verminous scoundrel.
Enthusiastically agreed. Although in my case, I’d probably try devastating insult first. Not that it would matter to him….
i’d reach for my revolver.
i’d reach for my revolver.
It’s a new game: what would you do if you met Tucker Carlson? Let’s trademark it and put the proceeds into the (no doubt already overflowing) ObWi account.
It’s a new game: what would you do if you met Tucker Carlson? Let’s trademark it and put the proceeds into the (no doubt already overflowing) ObWi account.
Bluntly induced quadriplegia in combination with permanent cancelation of his health insurance.
If that proves insufficient, severing of the aural and visual nerve should follow.
In that case the resulting locked-in patient should be kept alive for as long as possible.
It is said that hell is other people but locked-in is believed to be worse.
Bluntly induced quadriplegia in combination with permanent cancelation of his health insurance.
If that proves insufficient, severing of the aural and visual nerve should follow.
In that case the resulting locked-in patient should be kept alive for as long as possible.
It is said that hell is other people but locked-in is believed to be worse.
Of course I would leave at the least the second part to medical professionals.
Of course I would leave at the least the second part to medical professionals.
(trigger warning, some church latin in here)
Boy, that’s tough. Being in Japan, I have really seen the power of simply ignoring someone, but my Western (omg, what a confession! mihi ignosce pater nam peccavi…) upbringing really wants a denouement, something to but an ending to the narrative. ‘And then, I said …’
I’d love to get him to the point where he would say ‘do you know who I am’ and I could say ‘no, I’ve got no idea who you are, you just seem like some total arsewipe to me.’
Yeah, I’d be lying, but it would be a lie in the service of the truth….
(trigger warning, some church latin in here)
Boy, that’s tough. Being in Japan, I have really seen the power of simply ignoring someone, but my Western (omg, what a confession! mihi ignosce pater nam peccavi…) upbringing really wants a denouement, something to but an ending to the narrative. ‘And then, I said …’
I’d love to get him to the point where he would say ‘do you know who I am’ and I could say ‘no, I’ve got no idea who you are, you just seem like some total arsewipe to me.’
Yeah, I’d be lying, but it would be a lie in the service of the truth….
Cut him dead.
Cut him dead.
Nigel, by far the most elegant option, but only if you are introduced. If you happened to see him out in public, and ignored him, it could be construed as “considerately giving a famous person space and privacy”.
Nigel, by far the most elegant option, but only if you are introduced. If you happened to see him out in public, and ignored him, it could be construed as “considerately giving a famous person space and privacy”.
Modern. Western. Liberal. Democracy.
Words that mean whatever McKinney wants them to mean, when he uses them.
Not really. Some time back, I made quite an effort to explicate my precise views. Here’s a link:https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2021/02/deep-in-the-heart-of-texas-1/comments/page/3/#comments
Feel free to comment substantively, to dismiss or raise any questions.
my take, fwiw, is that McK is not at all racist, and his comment was intended to call out what he sees as an inability on the part of liberals to remove the beam from their own eye before requiring conservatives to remove the speck from theirs. I.e., we lack self-awareness.
McK may or may not wish to affirm or correct my reading.
Happy to. You get it 95% right, which is about the best anyone can do, since none of us are completely free of noting and perhaps adjusting to someone of a different race. I’m mindfull of Pro Bono’s statement, “McKinney’s comment was racist” while also expanding on my response here.
First of all, the term “racism” and its cognates is often used today in much the same way as Satan was 300 years ago–it (and he) are everywhere. One difference is that everyone back then had a pretty good idea who Satan was and what he was up to. I have yet to find or hear of a useful definition of racism/racist. I invite our linguists here to weigh in on this.
I am fairly confident that I interact daily with Muslims, Hispanics and Blacks as colleagues, clients, friends, judges, peers, etc. more than most who comment here. I’m also confident that I have done so for much longer that pretty much anyone here. Plus, I have the benefit of being 67, of having traveled a lot in Mexico, Central and South America and having met and married a woman who did not speak English when we met. I also have the benefit having tried cases from San Antonio south to the Border with and against Hispanic attorneys and in front of invariably Hispanic judges (until fairly recently).
Add to this that, beginning with my wife (we were married and had our first child as undergrads) and from law school onward, I began encountering significant numbers of women who were better than me by every metric other than perhaps combativeness (still an issue, but I’m working on it). I learned a lot about being a lawyer and a husband from having a lot of female colleagues and friends. Today, my law firm is 9:6 female to male attorneys.
At some point, now having long since outgrown my roots (small town Texas), pigmentation, plumbing (creepy!), culture give way to affinity. IOW, the more one is around and works with people who are different, the less you notice the differences. That’s pretty much my situation. Having spent decades working with all kinds of people, the differences just don’t matter unless a particular individual wants to make an issue of their difference (this happens occasionally, it’s not a big deal to me). I’m going to change gears for a minute and then link back to my personal perspective.
To one degree or another, I think most right-thinking people of reasonably good will try to be open to others’ differences, even if it is somewhat awkward (for some white people in particular) to engage with someone different for the first time (hint: start by saying “Hi” and looking that person in the eye and just see where things go). But, we are all human, so no none of us achieve the ideal. My sense is that when we meet someone new, particularly for people who rarely interact with *others*, we take in a range of first impressions: ethnicity (maybe), hygiene, appearance, demeanor, etc. IOW, race diminishes in significance the more routine close interaction becomes. Race goes from a concept to not so much of a much the more frequent the encounter. That said, people who present in a particular way–this spans the color spectrum–can be off-putting not because of ethnicity but because of a perceived lack of affinity or commonality.
For example, I’m personally bewildered by the tattoo/piercing thing. Probably a function of age and background. Consequently, I tend to pre-judge. Frequently, once I get past the visual and engage, I find my reflexive reaction was off target. Sometimes I get the stoner vibe (which I will never warm up to), but usually it’s just a much younger person doing what is cool for younger people. I probably looked like an idiot back in the day with long hair and overalls with no shirt. Go figure.
So, over time but quite some time ago, race just didn’t seem like that much of a thing to me. Plus, from my observations out and about in Houston, I’m not even close to being alone. Hell, even sitting here in the Hill Country on the back patio next to our pool in what can fairly be described as upper middle class elitist splendor (and our modest casa is at the lower end of capitalist excess), we have gay couples, couples of color, mixed race couples, etc. I do assess overall commonality and affinity and form first impressions. They are sometimes right, and often wrong. Whatever. I’m human. The point is, my personal experience and observations (every time I try a case, my jury panel runs from 36 to 90 people) which are atypically much broader than average are that race/gender are a lot less of a thing for large majority of people who are not fixated on politics.
So, moving along to what I hope will eventually be a coherent point: In addition to hanging out at ObWi, I do a daily read that includes Slate, Salon, The Atlantic and other left and center left sites. My only right of center read is National Review. Over time, one thing has become crystal clear: a large portion of the visible left, i.e. the writers, bloggers, politicians, are obsessed with sex, gender and race. From the outside looking in, it is almost insane the way people go on and on about this kind of thing, thinking that these metrics define our world and should drive policy.
It is an article of faith, ISTM, that we (the US) is foundationally racist/misogynist, has been from day one, is functionally no different today than it was 50 or 100 or 200 years ago and that white people have some kind of compact to order society in such a way that they remain on top.
Has anyone but me spent any time in large, urban commercial district? Seriously. WTF?
Someday–not today–I would like have a discussion about systemic racism, or structural racism, and ‘what is racism?’. Today and yesterday have been useful for me as insights in others’ reactions to a truly race neutral observation: hey look, you can have all of the metrics that bring progressives to rapture and still get a completely shitty outcome (oh, and for a group that routinely vilifies conservatives and other dissenters, y’all are incredibly thin-skinned–good thing Marty, Charles WT and I don’t fall apart every time someone disagrees with us or calls us names. Jesus, what a bunch of twinkies.).
My point: There is nothing magic or special about skin color or plumbing (I know, creepy!). I have 41 years as a lawyer to prove that point. Which means I can call out someone for being a douche without worrying about goring someone’s PC ox. My personal, possibly over-inflated, opinion is that we’ll all be better off when we can get past first impressions and get down to business.
I’d like to respond to everyone else, but I just don’t have the time. Apologies.
Modern. Western. Liberal. Democracy.
Words that mean whatever McKinney wants them to mean, when he uses them.
Not really. Some time back, I made quite an effort to explicate my precise views. Here’s a link:https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2021/02/deep-in-the-heart-of-texas-1/comments/page/3/#comments
Feel free to comment substantively, to dismiss or raise any questions.
my take, fwiw, is that McK is not at all racist, and his comment was intended to call out what he sees as an inability on the part of liberals to remove the beam from their own eye before requiring conservatives to remove the speck from theirs. I.e., we lack self-awareness.
McK may or may not wish to affirm or correct my reading.
Happy to. You get it 95% right, which is about the best anyone can do, since none of us are completely free of noting and perhaps adjusting to someone of a different race. I’m mindfull of Pro Bono’s statement, “McKinney’s comment was racist” while also expanding on my response here.
First of all, the term “racism” and its cognates is often used today in much the same way as Satan was 300 years ago–it (and he) are everywhere. One difference is that everyone back then had a pretty good idea who Satan was and what he was up to. I have yet to find or hear of a useful definition of racism/racist. I invite our linguists here to weigh in on this.
I am fairly confident that I interact daily with Muslims, Hispanics and Blacks as colleagues, clients, friends, judges, peers, etc. more than most who comment here. I’m also confident that I have done so for much longer that pretty much anyone here. Plus, I have the benefit of being 67, of having traveled a lot in Mexico, Central and South America and having met and married a woman who did not speak English when we met. I also have the benefit having tried cases from San Antonio south to the Border with and against Hispanic attorneys and in front of invariably Hispanic judges (until fairly recently).
Add to this that, beginning with my wife (we were married and had our first child as undergrads) and from law school onward, I began encountering significant numbers of women who were better than me by every metric other than perhaps combativeness (still an issue, but I’m working on it). I learned a lot about being a lawyer and a husband from having a lot of female colleagues and friends. Today, my law firm is 9:6 female to male attorneys.
At some point, now having long since outgrown my roots (small town Texas), pigmentation, plumbing (creepy!), culture give way to affinity. IOW, the more one is around and works with people who are different, the less you notice the differences. That’s pretty much my situation. Having spent decades working with all kinds of people, the differences just don’t matter unless a particular individual wants to make an issue of their difference (this happens occasionally, it’s not a big deal to me). I’m going to change gears for a minute and then link back to my personal perspective.
To one degree or another, I think most right-thinking people of reasonably good will try to be open to others’ differences, even if it is somewhat awkward (for some white people in particular) to engage with someone different for the first time (hint: start by saying “Hi” and looking that person in the eye and just see where things go). But, we are all human, so no none of us achieve the ideal. My sense is that when we meet someone new, particularly for people who rarely interact with *others*, we take in a range of first impressions: ethnicity (maybe), hygiene, appearance, demeanor, etc. IOW, race diminishes in significance the more routine close interaction becomes. Race goes from a concept to not so much of a much the more frequent the encounter. That said, people who present in a particular way–this spans the color spectrum–can be off-putting not because of ethnicity but because of a perceived lack of affinity or commonality.
For example, I’m personally bewildered by the tattoo/piercing thing. Probably a function of age and background. Consequently, I tend to pre-judge. Frequently, once I get past the visual and engage, I find my reflexive reaction was off target. Sometimes I get the stoner vibe (which I will never warm up to), but usually it’s just a much younger person doing what is cool for younger people. I probably looked like an idiot back in the day with long hair and overalls with no shirt. Go figure.
So, over time but quite some time ago, race just didn’t seem like that much of a thing to me. Plus, from my observations out and about in Houston, I’m not even close to being alone. Hell, even sitting here in the Hill Country on the back patio next to our pool in what can fairly be described as upper middle class elitist splendor (and our modest casa is at the lower end of capitalist excess), we have gay couples, couples of color, mixed race couples, etc. I do assess overall commonality and affinity and form first impressions. They are sometimes right, and often wrong. Whatever. I’m human. The point is, my personal experience and observations (every time I try a case, my jury panel runs from 36 to 90 people) which are atypically much broader than average are that race/gender are a lot less of a thing for large majority of people who are not fixated on politics.
So, moving along to what I hope will eventually be a coherent point: In addition to hanging out at ObWi, I do a daily read that includes Slate, Salon, The Atlantic and other left and center left sites. My only right of center read is National Review. Over time, one thing has become crystal clear: a large portion of the visible left, i.e. the writers, bloggers, politicians, are obsessed with sex, gender and race. From the outside looking in, it is almost insane the way people go on and on about this kind of thing, thinking that these metrics define our world and should drive policy.
It is an article of faith, ISTM, that we (the US) is foundationally racist/misogynist, has been from day one, is functionally no different today than it was 50 or 100 or 200 years ago and that white people have some kind of compact to order society in such a way that they remain on top.
Has anyone but me spent any time in large, urban commercial district? Seriously. WTF?
Someday–not today–I would like have a discussion about systemic racism, or structural racism, and ‘what is racism?’. Today and yesterday have been useful for me as insights in others’ reactions to a truly race neutral observation: hey look, you can have all of the metrics that bring progressives to rapture and still get a completely shitty outcome (oh, and for a group that routinely vilifies conservatives and other dissenters, y’all are incredibly thin-skinned–good thing Marty, Charles WT and I don’t fall apart every time someone disagrees with us or calls us names. Jesus, what a bunch of twinkies.).
My point: There is nothing magic or special about skin color or plumbing (I know, creepy!). I have 41 years as a lawyer to prove that point. Which means I can call out someone for being a douche without worrying about goring someone’s PC ox. My personal, possibly over-inflated, opinion is that we’ll all be better off when we can get past first impressions and get down to business.
I’d like to respond to everyone else, but I just don’t have the time. Apologies.
Damn. “41 years as a lawyer with a lot of interaction with others and as an active participant in society”. I’m not appealing to my own authority, just trying to convey the perspective I’ve been fortunate to have come my way.
Damn. “41 years as a lawyer with a lot of interaction with others and as an active participant in society”. I’m not appealing to my own authority, just trying to convey the perspective I’ve been fortunate to have come my way.
thanks for your reply here McK.
briefly – this:
none of us are completely free of noting and perhaps adjusting to someone of a different race.
and this:
the more one is around and works with people who are different, the less you notice the differences.
seem right on to me. I’m happy to cop to the first, and the second seems like the best possible path to getting past our national conflicts about race. Don’t know how to make that happen, but it’s harder to hate somebody once you get to know them.
As the great Thelonious Monk said, “They tried to get me to hate white people, but somebody would always come along and spoil it”.
McK and I are not on the same page regarding the persistence of this country’s legacy of white supremacy. That said, I recognize the progress that has been made. I just think there’s a lot more of that old poison hanging around than McK does.
And all of that said, I’m in Boston and he’s in Houston, and I find it completely believable that reflexive animus toward people of color is more of a problem here than there. So environment may account for some of the difference in our points of view.
We’ve come a long way, we have a way yet to go. Members, don’t get weary.
thanks for your reply here McK.
briefly – this:
none of us are completely free of noting and perhaps adjusting to someone of a different race.
and this:
the more one is around and works with people who are different, the less you notice the differences.
seem right on to me. I’m happy to cop to the first, and the second seems like the best possible path to getting past our national conflicts about race. Don’t know how to make that happen, but it’s harder to hate somebody once you get to know them.
As the great Thelonious Monk said, “They tried to get me to hate white people, but somebody would always come along and spoil it”.
McK and I are not on the same page regarding the persistence of this country’s legacy of white supremacy. That said, I recognize the progress that has been made. I just think there’s a lot more of that old poison hanging around than McK does.
And all of that said, I’m in Boston and he’s in Houston, and I find it completely believable that reflexive animus toward people of color is more of a problem here than there. So environment may account for some of the difference in our points of view.
We’ve come a long way, we have a way yet to go. Members, don’t get weary.
By the way, if all that “creepy!” is for me, rest assured McKinney it is purely a linguistic ick. I don’t find you at all creepy, it is just the word “plumbing” to describe the biological difference between the sexes is (to an English ear? maybe just to my ear) slightly creepy. A cultural difference, perhaps.
By the way, if all that “creepy!” is for me, rest assured McKinney it is purely a linguistic ick. I don’t find you at all creepy, it is just the word “plumbing” to describe the biological difference between the sexes is (to an English ear? maybe just to my ear) slightly creepy. A cultural difference, perhaps.
A cultural difference, perhaps.
And, come to think of it, probably related to my personal very marked dislike of euphemism. “Plumbing” seems to me trying to convey a kind of sanitary overtone, which (to my ear) seems sort of creepily euphemistic. But again, not personal to you!
A cultural difference, perhaps.
And, come to think of it, probably related to my personal very marked dislike of euphemism. “Plumbing” seems to me trying to convey a kind of sanitary overtone, which (to my ear) seems sort of creepily euphemistic. But again, not personal to you!
McTX: I am fairly confident that I interact daily with Muslims, Hispanics and Blacks as colleagues, clients, friends, judges, peers, etc. more than most who comment here. I’m also confident that I have done so for much longer that pretty much anyone here.
Delurking to comment on a trend that I’ve noticed. It seems that many progressives who apply “racism” more readily than I would tend to have few if any meaningful interactions with black and brown folks. I think the DiAngelo discussions both here and elsewhere really brought this home for me.
By meaningful, I mean spending time at each other’s home in small group settings or significant one-on-one time.
McTX: I am fairly confident that I interact daily with Muslims, Hispanics and Blacks as colleagues, clients, friends, judges, peers, etc. more than most who comment here. I’m also confident that I have done so for much longer that pretty much anyone here.
Delurking to comment on a trend that I’ve noticed. It seems that many progressives who apply “racism” more readily than I would tend to have few if any meaningful interactions with black and brown folks. I think the DiAngelo discussions both here and elsewhere really brought this home for me.
By meaningful, I mean spending time at each other’s home in small group settings or significant one-on-one time.
Again, not a single quote or citation, not any kind of indication of exactly _what_ makes you think this. Nada. Instead we get this
It is an article of faith, ISTM, that we (the US) is foundationally racist/misogynist, has been from day one, is functionally no different today than it was 50 or 100 or 200 years ago and that white people have some kind of compact to order society in such a way that they remain on top.
Without a quote or a reference, this is obviously what you are taking away from the conversation. You toss in the ISTM, but I’m not sure you know what the acronym means. It’s not a rune you can cast to protect you from the implication you try to drop.
And it’s not ‘we in Houston (as opposed to Boston)’ it is we (the US). I am not in the US, so you could tell me that I just don’t realize the kind of giant steps that have been made in making African Americans feel like they too are part of this country. But I’m pretty sure that that dog ain’t gonna hunt…
I read things pretty closely here and I am confident that no one, certainly none of the regulars, has made the claim that things have exactly the same as they were in the past few decades, let along 5, 10 or 20 of them. In fact, everyone appeals to their knowledge of how things have changed. Which is unsurprising, given that this blog is probably 90% 50+ White English Speaking Male. Until you acknowledge that you may not taking away the correct reading, there isn’t much that can be done.
I’d also note that the
y’all are incredibly thin-skinned–good thing Marty, Charles WT and I don’t fall apart every time someone disagrees with us or calls us names. Jesus, what a bunch of twinkies
appeals to that male-centric kind of thinking, oh just take it like a man. Certainly, there is something to be said about not complaining about certain things, but why is it always the men who feel so put upon end up suggesting that being more like a man is what everyone else needs to do? And why is it that you are the one who goes off on long comments whenever someone observes that something you _wrote_ is racist. (and everyone is pretty careful not to call _you_ racist, we all understand that in that direction lies accusations of mind-reading and demands of apologies. No, people pretty much focus on what you write, not who you are. It is only your insistence that makes it so) No one snuck in and typed non-white in your comment. That was all you.
I will assume that you are actually interested in having a dialogue. So why don’t you start by re-reading this portion of this _post_, helpfully quoted below.
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2020/11/on-racism-and-other-isms.html
I’ve said any number of times here, I think everyone is racist, including me, and overcoming that requires constantly checking what you are thinking and saying and doing. Or doing, saying and thinking. Because thinking about one’s thinking is most important for the individual, but stopping the doing and then the saying, in that order, is most important for society. So if anyone takes umbrage at what I point out, know that I’m saying I’m subject to the same flaws. Recasting what I say as ‘so you’re telling ME I’m racist’ is wrong. I’m saying that WE are all racist.
If you disagree with that, fine, but nothing I have seen in my 60 years on earth nor has anything anyone said here convinced me otherwise. I think because it is baked into our society and our lives in so many ways, and because it can be reinforced by any sort of communal differences, it’s not going to disappear.
I imagine you’ll read ‘baked into our society’ as meaning me saying things have never changed. You’d be wrong, but I fear that it will provide you with the thin reed to ignore everything I say. I hope it won’t, but after trying to explain any number of times, I’m not too optimistic.
And I’ve got no problem if you disagree. Really. But trying to prove that we are wrong by tossing up a word salad of things like non-white, intersectional point scoring and Frankfurt school, that isn’t disagreeing, that is just throwing a temper tantrum.
You say that you want to hang out here after retirement, which is fine. It really is. But if you don’t reconsider, if only for a bit, the way you interact with everyone here, I don’t think it will be a very fruitful exchange. That’s not a threat, that’s just how I see discussion playing out. I don’t know, maybe the collective take will be that if we don’t point to when you write racist things, we won’t force you in a corner and therefore everything will be hunky-dory. Because that has worked so well in US society up to this point.
But returning to the first point, until you come up with actual evidence that regulars here feel that things have not changed in 5+ decades, I really don’t think any conversation that I could have with you is going to be meaningful.
Again, not a single quote or citation, not any kind of indication of exactly _what_ makes you think this. Nada. Instead we get this
It is an article of faith, ISTM, that we (the US) is foundationally racist/misogynist, has been from day one, is functionally no different today than it was 50 or 100 or 200 years ago and that white people have some kind of compact to order society in such a way that they remain on top.
Without a quote or a reference, this is obviously what you are taking away from the conversation. You toss in the ISTM, but I’m not sure you know what the acronym means. It’s not a rune you can cast to protect you from the implication you try to drop.
And it’s not ‘we in Houston (as opposed to Boston)’ it is we (the US). I am not in the US, so you could tell me that I just don’t realize the kind of giant steps that have been made in making African Americans feel like they too are part of this country. But I’m pretty sure that that dog ain’t gonna hunt…
I read things pretty closely here and I am confident that no one, certainly none of the regulars, has made the claim that things have exactly the same as they were in the past few decades, let along 5, 10 or 20 of them. In fact, everyone appeals to their knowledge of how things have changed. Which is unsurprising, given that this blog is probably 90% 50+ White English Speaking Male. Until you acknowledge that you may not taking away the correct reading, there isn’t much that can be done.
I’d also note that the
y’all are incredibly thin-skinned–good thing Marty, Charles WT and I don’t fall apart every time someone disagrees with us or calls us names. Jesus, what a bunch of twinkies
appeals to that male-centric kind of thinking, oh just take it like a man. Certainly, there is something to be said about not complaining about certain things, but why is it always the men who feel so put upon end up suggesting that being more like a man is what everyone else needs to do? And why is it that you are the one who goes off on long comments whenever someone observes that something you _wrote_ is racist. (and everyone is pretty careful not to call _you_ racist, we all understand that in that direction lies accusations of mind-reading and demands of apologies. No, people pretty much focus on what you write, not who you are. It is only your insistence that makes it so) No one snuck in and typed non-white in your comment. That was all you.
I will assume that you are actually interested in having a dialogue. So why don’t you start by re-reading this portion of this _post_, helpfully quoted below.
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2020/11/on-racism-and-other-isms.html
I’ve said any number of times here, I think everyone is racist, including me, and overcoming that requires constantly checking what you are thinking and saying and doing. Or doing, saying and thinking. Because thinking about one’s thinking is most important for the individual, but stopping the doing and then the saying, in that order, is most important for society. So if anyone takes umbrage at what I point out, know that I’m saying I’m subject to the same flaws. Recasting what I say as ‘so you’re telling ME I’m racist’ is wrong. I’m saying that WE are all racist.
If you disagree with that, fine, but nothing I have seen in my 60 years on earth nor has anything anyone said here convinced me otherwise. I think because it is baked into our society and our lives in so many ways, and because it can be reinforced by any sort of communal differences, it’s not going to disappear.
I imagine you’ll read ‘baked into our society’ as meaning me saying things have never changed. You’d be wrong, but I fear that it will provide you with the thin reed to ignore everything I say. I hope it won’t, but after trying to explain any number of times, I’m not too optimistic.
And I’ve got no problem if you disagree. Really. But trying to prove that we are wrong by tossing up a word salad of things like non-white, intersectional point scoring and Frankfurt school, that isn’t disagreeing, that is just throwing a temper tantrum.
You say that you want to hang out here after retirement, which is fine. It really is. But if you don’t reconsider, if only for a bit, the way you interact with everyone here, I don’t think it will be a very fruitful exchange. That’s not a threat, that’s just how I see discussion playing out. I don’t know, maybe the collective take will be that if we don’t point to when you write racist things, we won’t force you in a corner and therefore everything will be hunky-dory. Because that has worked so well in US society up to this point.
But returning to the first point, until you come up with actual evidence that regulars here feel that things have not changed in 5+ decades, I really don’t think any conversation that I could have with you is going to be meaningful.
FWIW, I’m not sure anyone here is in a position to have an opinion about how often or deeply anyone else here interacts with people of other races. And/or whatever other demographic dimension may be under discussion.
Folks may or may not offer that information about themselves. If they don’t, making assumptions may be skating on thin ice.
Not saying there is zero merit to pollo’s comment, just saying it’s probably wise to tread lightly.
To answer one of McK’s questions, I’ll offer a simple definition of racism that suffices for me, other’s MMV:
Racism is making assumptions about people based on the color of their skin.
Some folks may want to amend that to making negative assumptions. For purposes of the kinds of discussions we have around race, that amendment seems reasonable and I’m fine with it.
I’m not sure there’s much more to it than that.
FWIW, I’m not sure anyone here is in a position to have an opinion about how often or deeply anyone else here interacts with people of other races. And/or whatever other demographic dimension may be under discussion.
Folks may or may not offer that information about themselves. If they don’t, making assumptions may be skating on thin ice.
Not saying there is zero merit to pollo’s comment, just saying it’s probably wise to tread lightly.
To answer one of McK’s questions, I’ll offer a simple definition of racism that suffices for me, other’s MMV:
Racism is making assumptions about people based on the color of their skin.
Some folks may want to amend that to making negative assumptions. For purposes of the kinds of discussions we have around race, that amendment seems reasonable and I’m fine with it.
I’m not sure there’s much more to it than that.
Jesus, what a bunch of twinkies
Can I (as a person so unafraid of mind-reading) just mention that this just made me laugh?
Jesus, what a bunch of twinkies
Can I (as a person so unafraid of mind-reading) just mention that this just made me laugh?
russell: Not saying there is zero merit to pollo’s comment, just saying it’s probably wise to tread lightly.
I’ve been lurking here since the aughts. If folks here have significant/meaningful relationships with black and brown folks, they have remained remarkably well hidden.
russell: Not saying there is zero merit to pollo’s comment, just saying it’s probably wise to tread lightly.
I’ve been lurking here since the aughts. If folks here have significant/meaningful relationships with black and brown folks, they have remained remarkably well hidden.
oh, and for a group that routinely vilifies conservatives and other dissenters, y’all are incredibly thin-skinned
Fascinating. Are you referring to the responses to “Afghans are non-white, etc.” business? This is one of those times where a quotation would help make your point, without it, this observation is even more…baffling.
It may depend on what you mean here by “thin-skinned”. I usually associate that descriptor with the sort of subjective feeling one would have upon receiving some keenly felt criticism or insult. Something you take very personally — maybe because you feel wronged by it, maybe because it hits too close to home. Example: your mother-in-law asks if you’ve gained weight.
FWIW, given that definition, it doesn’t match what I felt subjectively about your posts on this thread. At all.
I think the reaction I felt — and AFAICT, saw from the others — was much more akin to the reaction one might have upon witnessing someone drop trou and do a massive #2 in the middle of the street.
It’s something that provokes a very strong reaction, to be sure. But it’s certainly not a personal one. The reaction is a natural mixture of disgust, concern, and bafflement, all directed entirely outward — at the do-er of the business. Why would we take it personally?
The apparent fact that you are oblivious to this — that you actually think you landed some blow on our beliefs — is one of the things I find so intriguing about your posts here.
In many ways, you seem like a smart guy. At least you seem able to process inputs and outputs in a broadly functional way. And you’ve conversed with people here on this blog for years, people who’ve told you over and over, in some detail, about what they believe.
But then you pull down your trou and drop loads like that ‘indigenous non-white’ business, intimating that you were aiming that comment at some belief we’re purported to have about an ‘intersectional point system’.
It breaks the suspension of disbelief. It makes you sound like a brainless troll who’s come here straight from some dumb Tucker Carlson rant in order to “drop a truth bomb” and “own the libz” or something.
Are you actually unaware, even after all these years on this blog, that that’s not what anyone believes? That, for example, “intersectional point systems” in no way resembles how anyone thinks anything works? Or that, at the very least, maybe grifters like Tucker Carlson (or whoever it is you’re getting this stuff from) isn’t a trustworthy source of information about actual “librul” beliefs? Certainly not more than the people you know right here?
The disconnect is just…fascinating.
So, over time but quite some time ago, race just didn’t seem like that much of a thing to me…
…From the outside looking in, it is almost insane the way people go on and on about this kind of thing, thinking that these metrics define our world and should drive policy…
…Someday–not today–I would like have a discussion about systemic racism, or structural racism, and ‘what is racism?’
You can’t really talk about racism without talking about systemic racism. Maybe that’s the part you don’t get, that makes any discussion of the problem seem “almost insane” to you.
Here’s the incontrovertible fact: black people in the US do poorly. In a systematic way. You can pick almost any metric you like: employment, income, education, poverty rates, home ownership, incarceration rates, etc.
Those gaps are too big and too persistent to be statistical flukes. There must be an explanation for them.
And there are really only two possibilities: either (1) there’s something intrinsic to black people that makes them do badly, or (2) there’s something in our society and its institutions that treats them badly.
Taking you at your word about overcoming personal racism, presumably you’d agree that leaping to conclusion (1) is, well, premature at the very least.
On the other hand, we know there’s at least some of (2), and it has been even more blatant in the past. It seems like it might be worth looking deeper into that “something” in our society and institutions to figure out what’s going on. That doesn’t seem at all “insane” to me. You?
oh, and for a group that routinely vilifies conservatives and other dissenters, y’all are incredibly thin-skinned
Fascinating. Are you referring to the responses to “Afghans are non-white, etc.” business? This is one of those times where a quotation would help make your point, without it, this observation is even more…baffling.
It may depend on what you mean here by “thin-skinned”. I usually associate that descriptor with the sort of subjective feeling one would have upon receiving some keenly felt criticism or insult. Something you take very personally — maybe because you feel wronged by it, maybe because it hits too close to home. Example: your mother-in-law asks if you’ve gained weight.
FWIW, given that definition, it doesn’t match what I felt subjectively about your posts on this thread. At all.
I think the reaction I felt — and AFAICT, saw from the others — was much more akin to the reaction one might have upon witnessing someone drop trou and do a massive #2 in the middle of the street.
It’s something that provokes a very strong reaction, to be sure. But it’s certainly not a personal one. The reaction is a natural mixture of disgust, concern, and bafflement, all directed entirely outward — at the do-er of the business. Why would we take it personally?
The apparent fact that you are oblivious to this — that you actually think you landed some blow on our beliefs — is one of the things I find so intriguing about your posts here.
In many ways, you seem like a smart guy. At least you seem able to process inputs and outputs in a broadly functional way. And you’ve conversed with people here on this blog for years, people who’ve told you over and over, in some detail, about what they believe.
But then you pull down your trou and drop loads like that ‘indigenous non-white’ business, intimating that you were aiming that comment at some belief we’re purported to have about an ‘intersectional point system’.
It breaks the suspension of disbelief. It makes you sound like a brainless troll who’s come here straight from some dumb Tucker Carlson rant in order to “drop a truth bomb” and “own the libz” or something.
Are you actually unaware, even after all these years on this blog, that that’s not what anyone believes? That, for example, “intersectional point systems” in no way resembles how anyone thinks anything works? Or that, at the very least, maybe grifters like Tucker Carlson (or whoever it is you’re getting this stuff from) isn’t a trustworthy source of information about actual “librul” beliefs? Certainly not more than the people you know right here?
The disconnect is just…fascinating.
So, over time but quite some time ago, race just didn’t seem like that much of a thing to me…
…From the outside looking in, it is almost insane the way people go on and on about this kind of thing, thinking that these metrics define our world and should drive policy…
…Someday–not today–I would like have a discussion about systemic racism, or structural racism, and ‘what is racism?’
You can’t really talk about racism without talking about systemic racism. Maybe that’s the part you don’t get, that makes any discussion of the problem seem “almost insane” to you.
Here’s the incontrovertible fact: black people in the US do poorly. In a systematic way. You can pick almost any metric you like: employment, income, education, poverty rates, home ownership, incarceration rates, etc.
Those gaps are too big and too persistent to be statistical flukes. There must be an explanation for them.
And there are really only two possibilities: either (1) there’s something intrinsic to black people that makes them do badly, or (2) there’s something in our society and its institutions that treats them badly.
Taking you at your word about overcoming personal racism, presumably you’d agree that leaping to conclusion (1) is, well, premature at the very least.
On the other hand, we know there’s at least some of (2), and it has been even more blatant in the past. It seems like it might be worth looking deeper into that “something” in our society and institutions to figure out what’s going on. That doesn’t seem at all “insane” to me. You?
Racism is making assumptions about people based on the color of their skin.
I’d give a similar, but somewhat broader definition. Mostly because I’ve seen racism based on other characteristics. Specifically eye shape/epicanthic folds — because my experience is that this, rather than skin tone, is the marker racists use for East Asians (vs Caucasians).
I have noted that there are those (sorry, lj, no citation from me either) who broaden the term to cover pretty much any ethnic difference as well. (Admittedly “ethnocentricism” would be a seriously awkward term in normal conversation.) I’m disinclined to go that far.
Racism is making assumptions about people based on the color of their skin.
I’d give a similar, but somewhat broader definition. Mostly because I’ve seen racism based on other characteristics. Specifically eye shape/epicanthic folds — because my experience is that this, rather than skin tone, is the marker racists use for East Asians (vs Caucasians).
I have noted that there are those (sorry, lj, no citation from me either) who broaden the term to cover pretty much any ethnic difference as well. (Admittedly “ethnocentricism” would be a seriously awkward term in normal conversation.) I’m disinclined to go that far.
If folks here have significant/meaningful relationships with black and brown folks, they have remained remarkably well hidden.
In case you think it’s relevant, I’m in an interracial marriage. My in-laws run to surnames like Suzuki and Ichino.
If folks here have significant/meaningful relationships with black and brown folks, they have remained remarkably well hidden.
In case you think it’s relevant, I’m in an interracial marriage. My in-laws run to surnames like Suzuki and Ichino.
Delurking to comment on a trend that I’ve noticed. It seems that many progressives who apply “racism” more readily than I would tend to have few if any meaningful interactions with black and brown folks. I think the DiAngelo discussions both here and elsewhere really brought this home for me.
By meaningful, I mean spending time at each other’s home in small group settings or significant one-on-one time.
I want to open this up a little bit because I am not sure how to take “racism” and “black and brown folks.” I’m pretty thoroughly embedded in Southern California at the moment and the people around me are from all different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Is “black and brown folks” meant in an American way to be mostly African-Americans and “racism” meant to point towards the legacy of Jim Crow specifically? Is “racism” about colorism and the “black and brown folks” a more UK usage that includes other people marked by dark skin? Are latino/hispanic people (white and other) included? Are asians included?
My circle of friends is pretty reflective of the local demographics. It’s racially and ethnically mixed. It includes immigrants. It has a significant number of people who are mixed/hapa. I really can’t tell, for example, how many of my friends have Mexican heritage because many of them are white and speak unaccented English, but they are also culturally involved in the Mexican-American community. My social group is also fairly well-educated and cosmopolitan, so all that mixing and cultural exposure does facilitate more easy relations. We are practiced at being open to difference.
The conversations about racism, though, are not just handwringing from the whites. They involve all of us, together, trying to work through our experiences and find a way to balance it all. We have conversations about this a lot in the group I hang out with every Friday, which includes one mixed married couple with children (he’s white and from rural Kentucky, she’s African-American/Chinese) and a Mexican-American with an English last name who could pass if he wished. I talk about racism not because I’ve read DiAngelo, but because it’s a natural thing to have to work through when you are part of a mixed and cosmopolitan society that works, and there are people on the outside of it trying hard to demonize and dismantle the things that make it work.
It’s precisely because my part of Southern California is so mixed that it makes it so hard for me to get worked up over the sort of demographic change that puts my former schoolmates in Wisconsin into such an agitated state. Diversity is no big deal, and their fear of losing status and respect is warranted, but misplaced.
Delurking to comment on a trend that I’ve noticed. It seems that many progressives who apply “racism” more readily than I would tend to have few if any meaningful interactions with black and brown folks. I think the DiAngelo discussions both here and elsewhere really brought this home for me.
By meaningful, I mean spending time at each other’s home in small group settings or significant one-on-one time.
I want to open this up a little bit because I am not sure how to take “racism” and “black and brown folks.” I’m pretty thoroughly embedded in Southern California at the moment and the people around me are from all different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Is “black and brown folks” meant in an American way to be mostly African-Americans and “racism” meant to point towards the legacy of Jim Crow specifically? Is “racism” about colorism and the “black and brown folks” a more UK usage that includes other people marked by dark skin? Are latino/hispanic people (white and other) included? Are asians included?
My circle of friends is pretty reflective of the local demographics. It’s racially and ethnically mixed. It includes immigrants. It has a significant number of people who are mixed/hapa. I really can’t tell, for example, how many of my friends have Mexican heritage because many of them are white and speak unaccented English, but they are also culturally involved in the Mexican-American community. My social group is also fairly well-educated and cosmopolitan, so all that mixing and cultural exposure does facilitate more easy relations. We are practiced at being open to difference.
The conversations about racism, though, are not just handwringing from the whites. They involve all of us, together, trying to work through our experiences and find a way to balance it all. We have conversations about this a lot in the group I hang out with every Friday, which includes one mixed married couple with children (he’s white and from rural Kentucky, she’s African-American/Chinese) and a Mexican-American with an English last name who could pass if he wished. I talk about racism not because I’ve read DiAngelo, but because it’s a natural thing to have to work through when you are part of a mixed and cosmopolitan society that works, and there are people on the outside of it trying hard to demonize and dismantle the things that make it work.
It’s precisely because my part of Southern California is so mixed that it makes it so hard for me to get worked up over the sort of demographic change that puts my former schoolmates in Wisconsin into such an agitated state. Diversity is no big deal, and their fear of losing status and respect is warranted, but misplaced.
I talk about racism not because I’ve read DiAngelo, but because it’s a natural thing to have to work through when you are part of a mixed and cosmopolitan society that works, and there are people on the outside of it trying hard to demonize and dismantle the things that make it work.
It–racism–doesn’t come up much in my day-to-day stuff. I’ve told my POC employees that if they ever have a problem they are not comfortable with, to come see me. In one instance, I asked a POC associate if the fact that the party on the other side was Black Female against whom we would be taking a very aggressive position (Black, female and batshit crazy) was a problem for her and if so, no worries. She looked at me kind of oddly, and said “no”. The signal she gave was “of course not, why would I?” and she is now enthusiastically hammering the other side on the ‘batshit crazy’ part. BTW, the judge is a POC also and the judge concurs with the batshit crazy diagnosis, just so that everyone here is clear that this is not just me subconsciously channeling Nathan Bedford Forest. One more reason why I don’t see race as that much of a thing and why I say what I say with a clear conscience, even if it makes some people queasy.
I talk about racism not because I’ve read DiAngelo, but because it’s a natural thing to have to work through when you are part of a mixed and cosmopolitan society that works, and there are people on the outside of it trying hard to demonize and dismantle the things that make it work.
It–racism–doesn’t come up much in my day-to-day stuff. I’ve told my POC employees that if they ever have a problem they are not comfortable with, to come see me. In one instance, I asked a POC associate if the fact that the party on the other side was Black Female against whom we would be taking a very aggressive position (Black, female and batshit crazy) was a problem for her and if so, no worries. She looked at me kind of oddly, and said “no”. The signal she gave was “of course not, why would I?” and she is now enthusiastically hammering the other side on the ‘batshit crazy’ part. BTW, the judge is a POC also and the judge concurs with the batshit crazy diagnosis, just so that everyone here is clear that this is not just me subconsciously channeling Nathan Bedford Forest. One more reason why I don’t see race as that much of a thing and why I say what I say with a clear conscience, even if it makes some people queasy.
You can’t really talk about racism without talking about systemic racism. Maybe that’s the part you don’t get, that makes any discussion of the problem seem “almost insane” to you.
Actually, I certainly *can* talk about racism without talking about systemic racism, but since you’ve brought it up, please define your terms: systemic, racism and systemic racism.
Along with definitions, I’d like 3-4 concrete examples of systemic racism. On this topic, you have the burden of proof. I invite you to carry it.
I’m blowing off work today. Screw it. Golf later, this now.
You can’t really talk about racism without talking about systemic racism. Maybe that’s the part you don’t get, that makes any discussion of the problem seem “almost insane” to you.
Actually, I certainly *can* talk about racism without talking about systemic racism, but since you’ve brought it up, please define your terms: systemic, racism and systemic racism.
Along with definitions, I’d like 3-4 concrete examples of systemic racism. On this topic, you have the burden of proof. I invite you to carry it.
I’m blowing off work today. Screw it. Golf later, this now.
McKinney,
Your definition of Modern Western Liberal Democracy (MWLD) was explicit and admirably concise:
And you were clear that MWLD in this sense arose in the US after WW2. You cited Truman’s integration of the military and SCOTUS’s ruling in Brown v Board as substantial nails in the framework, firmly attaching the M to WLD.
So here are a couple of substantive questions for you:
1. What aspect of your MWLD definition do you believe us libruls reject?
2. When you use “liberal” as a pejorative, are you defining the word differently than the “Liberal” in MWLD?
3. Before you claim it’s not liberals but “woke liberals” that you deplore, please explain in what sense Truman and the 1954 SCOTUS were NOT “woke”.
4. Do the black and brown friends you lounge beside pools with get any more anxious than you would when a cop pulls them over?
And finally, a question I and others have repeatedly tried to get a straight answer to. It’s a multiple-choice question, not requiring a lot of biographical background.
5. The statistical differences in various measurable “outcomes” between Blacks and non-Blacks in the US are due to:
a. Some systemic factors about the US
b. Some inherent traits of Blacks
Feel free to dismiss any or all of these questions. This is not a deposition pursuant to a subpoena.
–TP
McKinney,
Your definition of Modern Western Liberal Democracy (MWLD) was explicit and admirably concise:
And you were clear that MWLD in this sense arose in the US after WW2. You cited Truman’s integration of the military and SCOTUS’s ruling in Brown v Board as substantial nails in the framework, firmly attaching the M to WLD.
So here are a couple of substantive questions for you:
1. What aspect of your MWLD definition do you believe us libruls reject?
2. When you use “liberal” as a pejorative, are you defining the word differently than the “Liberal” in MWLD?
3. Before you claim it’s not liberals but “woke liberals” that you deplore, please explain in what sense Truman and the 1954 SCOTUS were NOT “woke”.
4. Do the black and brown friends you lounge beside pools with get any more anxious than you would when a cop pulls them over?
And finally, a question I and others have repeatedly tried to get a straight answer to. It’s a multiple-choice question, not requiring a lot of biographical background.
5. The statistical differences in various measurable “outcomes” between Blacks and non-Blacks in the US are due to:
a. Some systemic factors about the US
b. Some inherent traits of Blacks
Feel free to dismiss any or all of these questions. This is not a deposition pursuant to a subpoena.
–TP
Along with definitions, I’d like 3-4 concrete examples of systemic racism.
you’ve been given dozens over the years. you always brush them off.
Along with definitions, I’d like 3-4 concrete examples of systemic racism.
you’ve been given dozens over the years. you always brush them off.
She looked at me kind of oddly, and said “no”.
As a normal person would do, I think. Because, yes, why would she?
Maybe there’s more to the background of this interaction, but the vibe I’m getting here is that you think other people treat race as some kind of tribal loyalty, and you were asking her that question in much the same way as one might ask a newly recruited sportsball player if they’re ok going up against their former teammates. It’s no wonder she gave you a strange look.
One more reason why I don’t see race as that much of a thing and why I say what I say with a clear conscience, even if it makes some people queasy.
It’s not clear to me how any of the above gainsays the idea that race is a thing.
It rebuts the idea that race is a team sport of some kind. But nobody ever thought that in the first place.
Nor is it clear why you think saying this would make anyone feel queasy.
Again, you seem oblivious to what real people are concerned about. You’ve addressed and rebutted some kind of twilight zone ‘tribal identity politics’ version of race relations that exists only in your head, but haven’t engaged with or even appear to be aware of what’s going on out in the real world.
She looked at me kind of oddly, and said “no”.
As a normal person would do, I think. Because, yes, why would she?
Maybe there’s more to the background of this interaction, but the vibe I’m getting here is that you think other people treat race as some kind of tribal loyalty, and you were asking her that question in much the same way as one might ask a newly recruited sportsball player if they’re ok going up against their former teammates. It’s no wonder she gave you a strange look.
One more reason why I don’t see race as that much of a thing and why I say what I say with a clear conscience, even if it makes some people queasy.
It’s not clear to me how any of the above gainsays the idea that race is a thing.
It rebuts the idea that race is a team sport of some kind. But nobody ever thought that in the first place.
Nor is it clear why you think saying this would make anyone feel queasy.
Again, you seem oblivious to what real people are concerned about. You’ve addressed and rebutted some kind of twilight zone ‘tribal identity politics’ version of race relations that exists only in your head, but haven’t engaged with or even appear to be aware of what’s going on out in the real world.
you’ve been given dozens over the years. you always brush them off.
Yep. There was one literally in the post he replied to.
I think I’ll wait for a response to that.
you’ve been given dozens over the years. you always brush them off.
Yep. There was one literally in the post he replied to.
I think I’ll wait for a response to that.
McKinney, since you’re back, I’d really appreciate a reply to my two comments about “creepy!”. Because you highlighted it twice, it had clearly made an impression on you, and I’d very much like to hear either that you understood what I was saying, and no hard feelings, or that you didn’t understand (or believe) and you thought it had been an insulting/outrageous/peculiar thing for me to have said. Either way, I’d rather it not just dissipate off into the ether. Thanks.
McKinney, since you’re back, I’d really appreciate a reply to my two comments about “creepy!”. Because you highlighted it twice, it had clearly made an impression on you, and I’d very much like to hear either that you understood what I was saying, and no hard feelings, or that you didn’t understand (or believe) and you thought it had been an insulting/outrageous/peculiar thing for me to have said. Either way, I’d rather it not just dissipate off into the ether. Thanks.
wj: In case you think it’s relevant, I’m in an interracial marriage. My in-laws run to surnames like Suzuki and Ichino.
Not that it’s irrelevant, but (a) I wouldn’t put you in the category of someone who has an itchy trigger finger on calling someone or something racist; and (b) in referring to black and brown folks I was not diminishing the experience of Asian Americans, but the racial challenges facing that community are different (ranging from being the “model minority” to the overt discrimination that resurfaced due to COVID).
Candidly, part of this is just who you are exposed to. I’ll admit to not having any Asian friends who are not in my socioeconomic/professional group and I can’t recall a time where I’ve had an opportunity to have a “real talk” on these issues since college (my undergrad is well known for international business and we had many Japanese students).
I’m fully aware that part of what the Asian community struggles with is that black and brown issues tend to suck up all the oxygen. I just have not had an opportunity to go beyond “reading stuff on the internet” regarding this community.
wj: In case you think it’s relevant, I’m in an interracial marriage. My in-laws run to surnames like Suzuki and Ichino.
Not that it’s irrelevant, but (a) I wouldn’t put you in the category of someone who has an itchy trigger finger on calling someone or something racist; and (b) in referring to black and brown folks I was not diminishing the experience of Asian Americans, but the racial challenges facing that community are different (ranging from being the “model minority” to the overt discrimination that resurfaced due to COVID).
Candidly, part of this is just who you are exposed to. I’ll admit to not having any Asian friends who are not in my socioeconomic/professional group and I can’t recall a time where I’ve had an opportunity to have a “real talk” on these issues since college (my undergrad is well known for international business and we had many Japanese students).
I’m fully aware that part of what the Asian community struggles with is that black and brown issues tend to suck up all the oxygen. I just have not had an opportunity to go beyond “reading stuff on the internet” regarding this community.
Actually, I certainly *can* talk about racism without talking about systemic racism,
I mean, that’s technically correct. Which to some people is the best kind.
You can talk about racism without talking about systemic racism. In roughly the same way you could talk about, say, your personal CO2 emissions without talking about global warming and society wide trends in car ownership or whatnot.
You can do. It just wouldn’t be very interesting. Or relevant. Or prove anything. It might even undermine everyone else’s confidence that you even have any understanding of the issue.
Actually, I certainly *can* talk about racism without talking about systemic racism,
I mean, that’s technically correct. Which to some people is the best kind.
You can talk about racism without talking about systemic racism. In roughly the same way you could talk about, say, your personal CO2 emissions without talking about global warming and society wide trends in car ownership or whatnot.
You can do. It just wouldn’t be very interesting. Or relevant. Or prove anything. It might even undermine everyone else’s confidence that you even have any understanding of the issue.
just a note that every minority has a different relationship with the majority.
the black relationship to the white majority in the US is wildly different than the Hispanic/white relationship, which is wildly different than the Asian/white relationship, etc.. these relationships are built on history and every minority has a different history.
and there are differences between subsets within those groups and the white majority. ex. African emigres are treated differently than dark-skinned Americans.
and they change over time: Italians in the US were considered to be ‘white’ but of a race inferior to Anglo-Saxon ‘white’ race. now, nobody of any consequence thinks that way.
just a note that every minority has a different relationship with the majority.
the black relationship to the white majority in the US is wildly different than the Hispanic/white relationship, which is wildly different than the Asian/white relationship, etc.. these relationships are built on history and every minority has a different history.
and there are differences between subsets within those groups and the white majority. ex. African emigres are treated differently than dark-skinned Americans.
and they change over time: Italians in the US were considered to be ‘white’ but of a race inferior to Anglo-Saxon ‘white’ race. now, nobody of any consequence thinks that way.
1. What aspect of your MWLD definition do you believe us libruls reject?
Very broadly:
Traditional liberals don’t disagree with any of it. The discussion tends to be around the borders: marginal tax rate, regulatory reach, degree of affirmative intervention in economy, etc.
I think the farther left you go, there is animus to the entire concept. When you hear someone say “disrupt”, they mean “destroy”. Too many lefties simply will not put the past in context: obviously horrible, but the better people, over time, have pretty much won the debate. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
2. When you use “liberal” as a pejorative, are you defining the word differently than the “Liberal” in MWLD?
I don’t think I use “liberal” any more pejoratively than I do “conservative” and I am a conservative.
Leaving that aside, yes. Liberal as in MWLD does mean something different from politically liberal. One is a system, the other a place on the political spectrum.
3. Before you claim it’s not liberals but “woke liberals” that you deplore, please explain in what sense Truman and the 1954 SCOTUS were NOT “woke”.
“Woke” is another semantical moving target. There is nothing “woke” about recognizing and giving life to the 14th Amendment and our general founding principles.
4. Do the black and brown friends you lounge beside pools with get any more anxious than you would when a cop pulls them over?
I’ve never asked. My last two pull overs were by a Black and Hispanic officer respectively. We are pretty diverse down here law enforcement wise, so I suspect it’s not a thing these days. Twenty years and more ago, yes, probably a lot more of a thing. Change.
And finally, a question I and others have repeatedly tried to get a straight answer to. It’s a multiple-choice question, not requiring a lot of biographical background.
5. The statistical differences in various measurable “outcomes” between Blacks and non-Blacks in the US are due to:
a. Some systemic factors about the US
b. Some inherent traits of Blacks
Again, “systemic” is a concept that everyone uses but no one seems to want to define. “No” on b. I have discussed this before, but it’s been a while. I suggest this is a worthwhile topic for a separate post.
Feel free to dismiss any or all of these questions. This is not a deposition pursuant to a subpoena.
Along with definitions, I’d like 3-4 concrete examples of systemic racism.
you’ve been given dozens over the years. you always brush them off.
and
you’ve been given dozens over the years. you always brush them off.
Yep. There was one literally in the post he replied to.
I think I’ll wait for a response to that.
Ok, humor me. I have no idea what either of you are talking about, so since apparently the answers to my questions are blindingly obvious, pls share. Thanks.
1. What aspect of your MWLD definition do you believe us libruls reject?
Very broadly:
Traditional liberals don’t disagree with any of it. The discussion tends to be around the borders: marginal tax rate, regulatory reach, degree of affirmative intervention in economy, etc.
I think the farther left you go, there is animus to the entire concept. When you hear someone say “disrupt”, they mean “destroy”. Too many lefties simply will not put the past in context: obviously horrible, but the better people, over time, have pretty much won the debate. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
2. When you use “liberal” as a pejorative, are you defining the word differently than the “Liberal” in MWLD?
I don’t think I use “liberal” any more pejoratively than I do “conservative” and I am a conservative.
Leaving that aside, yes. Liberal as in MWLD does mean something different from politically liberal. One is a system, the other a place on the political spectrum.
3. Before you claim it’s not liberals but “woke liberals” that you deplore, please explain in what sense Truman and the 1954 SCOTUS were NOT “woke”.
“Woke” is another semantical moving target. There is nothing “woke” about recognizing and giving life to the 14th Amendment and our general founding principles.
4. Do the black and brown friends you lounge beside pools with get any more anxious than you would when a cop pulls them over?
I’ve never asked. My last two pull overs were by a Black and Hispanic officer respectively. We are pretty diverse down here law enforcement wise, so I suspect it’s not a thing these days. Twenty years and more ago, yes, probably a lot more of a thing. Change.
And finally, a question I and others have repeatedly tried to get a straight answer to. It’s a multiple-choice question, not requiring a lot of biographical background.
5. The statistical differences in various measurable “outcomes” between Blacks and non-Blacks in the US are due to:
a. Some systemic factors about the US
b. Some inherent traits of Blacks
Again, “systemic” is a concept that everyone uses but no one seems to want to define. “No” on b. I have discussed this before, but it’s been a while. I suggest this is a worthwhile topic for a separate post.
Feel free to dismiss any or all of these questions. This is not a deposition pursuant to a subpoena.
Along with definitions, I’d like 3-4 concrete examples of systemic racism.
you’ve been given dozens over the years. you always brush them off.
and
you’ve been given dozens over the years. you always brush them off.
Yep. There was one literally in the post he replied to.
I think I’ll wait for a response to that.
Ok, humor me. I have no idea what either of you are talking about, so since apparently the answers to my questions are blindingly obvious, pls share. Thanks.
It’s also worth noting that, despite the differences that cleek is pointing out, whites are on the dominant side and are the ones who are unmarked in conversation – to the point where the backlash against “identity politics” largely arises from white people’s reactions to being marked as “white people.”
See also “male,” “able,” “straight,” “cis.”
So much anger at being, and effort to continue to avoid being, marked.
It’s also worth noting that, despite the differences that cleek is pointing out, whites are on the dominant side and are the ones who are unmarked in conversation – to the point where the backlash against “identity politics” largely arises from white people’s reactions to being marked as “white people.”
See also “male,” “able,” “straight,” “cis.”
So much anger at being, and effort to continue to avoid being, marked.
Let me take a shot at “systemic racism.” Not from some kind of expertise, which I don’t pretend to. Just from observation.
I live in a county (Contra Costa), just east of San Farncisco, which is predominently suburbs. People traditionally commute to San Francisco and Oakland; more recently to Silicon Valley. The population is predominantly white, albeit with a substantial Hispanic population dating to the Mexican land grants long ago. More recently, we’ve become 10%/15% Asian.
But there is one city (Richmond) for much of the late 20th century had a black majority, and still has a black plurality. Its schools are also the worst in the county: 75% graduation rate vs, for example, 98%+ in my town.** That pattern has persisted since I was in school half a century ago.
Other than the race of the population, there’s no obvious reason for the disparity.
** And minority students, including blacks, do just as well as anybody else. IF they’re lucky enough to live here, rather than there. It’s the system, not the people.
Let me take a shot at “systemic racism.” Not from some kind of expertise, which I don’t pretend to. Just from observation.
I live in a county (Contra Costa), just east of San Farncisco, which is predominently suburbs. People traditionally commute to San Francisco and Oakland; more recently to Silicon Valley. The population is predominantly white, albeit with a substantial Hispanic population dating to the Mexican land grants long ago. More recently, we’ve become 10%/15% Asian.
But there is one city (Richmond) for much of the late 20th century had a black majority, and still has a black plurality. Its schools are also the worst in the county: 75% graduation rate vs, for example, 98%+ in my town.** That pattern has persisted since I was in school half a century ago.
Other than the race of the population, there’s no obvious reason for the disparity.
** And minority students, including blacks, do just as well as anybody else. IF they’re lucky enough to live here, rather than there. It’s the system, not the people.
nouse: I want to open this up a little bit because I am not sure how to take “racism” and “black and brown folks.”
First a little context. I was raised in a small town in the Deep South where racial issues were literally and figuratively black and white.
Then I attended grad school in the southwest and learned to appreciate nuance really fast. Not all Native American tribes are the same; we had folks who considered themselves European Spanish and the chicano community could either be immigrant or the border moved south on land their family had owned for generations. The only thing that united these groups was “Anglos are the worst” LOL. So I made a habit of listening more than speaking; a lesson I first learned when my undergrad roommate turned out to be the black son of a barber and my dorm room became the local barber shop.
Now I live in a diverse, but still southern city.
In my experience, “black folks” are African Americans; “brown folks” can be hispanic, Arabian, Persian, South Asian and so on. It’s clumsy and imprecise, but I didn’t make the rules.
My social group is also fairly well-educated and cosmopolitan, so all that mixing and cultural exposure does facilitate more easy relations. We are practiced at being open to difference.
I have black and brown friends who are colleagues and clients (i.e., same socioeconomic group). The relationships are meaningful and I have no difficulty having candid discussions about race with them, but my most illuminating conversations are with public school teachers that I’ve become friends with over the years through volunteer work (I teach constitutional law to fifth graders at an inner-city school).
I talk about racism not because I’ve read DiAngelo, but because it’s a natural thing to have to work through when you are part of a mixed and cosmopolitan society that works, and there are people on the outside of it trying hard to demonize and dismantle the things that make it work.
It’s precisely because my part of Southern California is so mixed that it makes it so hard for me to get worked up over the sort of demographic change that puts my former schoolmates in Wisconsin into such an agitated state. Diversity is no big deal, and their fear of losing status and respect is warranted, but misplaced.
Likewise, I talk about racism and and gender inequality and LGBTQ issues with all of my friends. It’s not the only thing we talk about, but it’s a frequent topic.
nouse: I want to open this up a little bit because I am not sure how to take “racism” and “black and brown folks.”
First a little context. I was raised in a small town in the Deep South where racial issues were literally and figuratively black and white.
Then I attended grad school in the southwest and learned to appreciate nuance really fast. Not all Native American tribes are the same; we had folks who considered themselves European Spanish and the chicano community could either be immigrant or the border moved south on land their family had owned for generations. The only thing that united these groups was “Anglos are the worst” LOL. So I made a habit of listening more than speaking; a lesson I first learned when my undergrad roommate turned out to be the black son of a barber and my dorm room became the local barber shop.
Now I live in a diverse, but still southern city.
In my experience, “black folks” are African Americans; “brown folks” can be hispanic, Arabian, Persian, South Asian and so on. It’s clumsy and imprecise, but I didn’t make the rules.
My social group is also fairly well-educated and cosmopolitan, so all that mixing and cultural exposure does facilitate more easy relations. We are practiced at being open to difference.
I have black and brown friends who are colleagues and clients (i.e., same socioeconomic group). The relationships are meaningful and I have no difficulty having candid discussions about race with them, but my most illuminating conversations are with public school teachers that I’ve become friends with over the years through volunteer work (I teach constitutional law to fifth graders at an inner-city school).
I talk about racism not because I’ve read DiAngelo, but because it’s a natural thing to have to work through when you are part of a mixed and cosmopolitan society that works, and there are people on the outside of it trying hard to demonize and dismantle the things that make it work.
It’s precisely because my part of Southern California is so mixed that it makes it so hard for me to get worked up over the sort of demographic change that puts my former schoolmates in Wisconsin into such an agitated state. Diversity is no big deal, and their fear of losing status and respect is warranted, but misplaced.
Likewise, I talk about racism and and gender inequality and LGBTQ issues with all of my friends. It’s not the only thing we talk about, but it’s a frequent topic.
I’ve never asked. My last two pull overs were by a Black and Hispanic officer respectively. We are pretty diverse down here law enforcement wise, so I suspect it’s not a thing these days. Twenty years and more ago, yes, probably a lot more of a thing. Change.
That’s an interesting attempt to reframe, shifting focus from the person being subject to the power of the state to focusing on the person acting as the agent of the state’s power.
It’s a response, but a refusal to engage and an attempt to shift the grounds of engagement.
This is entirely what I expect in every such discussion with McKinney, and it’s why the conversation never goes anywhere.
I’ve never asked. My last two pull overs were by a Black and Hispanic officer respectively. We are pretty diverse down here law enforcement wise, so I suspect it’s not a thing these days. Twenty years and more ago, yes, probably a lot more of a thing. Change.
That’s an interesting attempt to reframe, shifting focus from the person being subject to the power of the state to focusing on the person acting as the agent of the state’s power.
It’s a response, but a refusal to engage and an attempt to shift the grounds of engagement.
This is entirely what I expect in every such discussion with McKinney, and it’s why the conversation never goes anywhere.
McKinney, since you’re back, I’d really appreciate a reply to my two comments about “creepy!”. Because you highlighted it twice, it had clearly made an impression on you, and I’d very much like to hear either that you understood what I was saying, and no hard feelings, or that you didn’t understand (or believe) and you thought it had been an insulting/outrageous/peculiar thing for me to have said. Either way, I’d rather it not just dissipate off into the ether. Thanks.
I wasn’t entirely sure, but I’ve tried to take pains to point out that my skin is pretty thick, so even if I had wept silently and briefly, I would have been able to put it behind me, but the fact is you’re a pretty congenial amiga, and only occasionally overwrought (kidding, you get that, right?), so I really didn’t read much into other than a chance to give me a poke and then for me to fire back with a couple more friendly pokes. We’re all good.
just a note that every minority has a different relationship with the majority.
the black relationship to the white majority in the US is wildly different than the Hispanic/white relationship, which is wildly different than the Asian/white relationship, etc.. these relationships are built on history and every minority has a different history.
and there are differences between subsets within those groups and the white majority. ex. African emigres are treated differently than dark-skinned Americans.
and they change over time: Italians in the US were considered to be ‘white’ but of a race inferior to Anglo-Saxon ‘white’ race. now, nobody of any consequence thinks that way.
Generalizations like this are highly problematic. Region, locale, a whole crap ton of things play into the equation *plus* a whole lot of people in every group remain fully open to not having an issue with pigmentation period and the topic almost never comes up. Moreover, it implies that every ethnic group has characteristics that spring from their ethnicity as opposed to their individuality. Sorry, I do not agree.
BTW, I often get the impression that you take what I say personally. If that is the case, I wish you wouldn’t. FWIW, you often say things that I wish I had said and, from time to time, I try to recognize that.
You can do. It just wouldn’t be very interesting. Or relevant. Or prove anything. It might even undermine everyone else’s confidence that you even have any understanding of the issue.
I guess this is as good a lead-in as I will get before heading off to the links: there is a subset of lefties that strike me as modern day Cotton Mathers’, but instead of witches and witchcraft, they find racists and racism. They are uniquely able to not only ferret out the sinner, but to judge and render punishment. They, and they alone, truly get it. And, whatever else you do, don’t disagree with them. You’ll be tied to the stake next. Also, they are really, really thin-skinned.
I’m willing to engage, but not to be lectured. I’ll say my piece, take what you have to say on the substance of it, and try to respond in kind. Otherwise, it’s LJ Redux, who I largely ignore.
McKinney, since you’re back, I’d really appreciate a reply to my two comments about “creepy!”. Because you highlighted it twice, it had clearly made an impression on you, and I’d very much like to hear either that you understood what I was saying, and no hard feelings, or that you didn’t understand (or believe) and you thought it had been an insulting/outrageous/peculiar thing for me to have said. Either way, I’d rather it not just dissipate off into the ether. Thanks.
I wasn’t entirely sure, but I’ve tried to take pains to point out that my skin is pretty thick, so even if I had wept silently and briefly, I would have been able to put it behind me, but the fact is you’re a pretty congenial amiga, and only occasionally overwrought (kidding, you get that, right?), so I really didn’t read much into other than a chance to give me a poke and then for me to fire back with a couple more friendly pokes. We’re all good.
just a note that every minority has a different relationship with the majority.
the black relationship to the white majority in the US is wildly different than the Hispanic/white relationship, which is wildly different than the Asian/white relationship, etc.. these relationships are built on history and every minority has a different history.
and there are differences between subsets within those groups and the white majority. ex. African emigres are treated differently than dark-skinned Americans.
and they change over time: Italians in the US were considered to be ‘white’ but of a race inferior to Anglo-Saxon ‘white’ race. now, nobody of any consequence thinks that way.
Generalizations like this are highly problematic. Region, locale, a whole crap ton of things play into the equation *plus* a whole lot of people in every group remain fully open to not having an issue with pigmentation period and the topic almost never comes up. Moreover, it implies that every ethnic group has characteristics that spring from their ethnicity as opposed to their individuality. Sorry, I do not agree.
BTW, I often get the impression that you take what I say personally. If that is the case, I wish you wouldn’t. FWIW, you often say things that I wish I had said and, from time to time, I try to recognize that.
You can do. It just wouldn’t be very interesting. Or relevant. Or prove anything. It might even undermine everyone else’s confidence that you even have any understanding of the issue.
I guess this is as good a lead-in as I will get before heading off to the links: there is a subset of lefties that strike me as modern day Cotton Mathers’, but instead of witches and witchcraft, they find racists and racism. They are uniquely able to not only ferret out the sinner, but to judge and render punishment. They, and they alone, truly get it. And, whatever else you do, don’t disagree with them. You’ll be tied to the stake next. Also, they are really, really thin-skinned.
I’m willing to engage, but not to be lectured. I’ll say my piece, take what you have to say on the substance of it, and try to respond in kind. Otherwise, it’s LJ Redux, who I largely ignore.
wj
Are there any consistent economic differences in where you live and Richmond?
wj
Are there any consistent economic differences in where you live and Richmond?
My last two pull overs were by a Black and Hispanic officer respectively. We are pretty diverse down here law enforcement wise, so I suspect it’s not a thing these days.
It is very interesting — revealing, even — that you think this is responsive to the question, or that having more black and hispanic officers is evidence of reduced police racism (on the receiving end, anyway).
Again, “systemic” is a concept that everyone uses but no one seems to want to define.
“Of or to do with systems”
What is so mysterious about that?
Suppose you have a machine where you pour M&Ms in on one side, and the colors come out the other side on (mostly) different chutes. Suppose you’ve satisfied yourself that there’s no concomitant variation in shape or size or weight that could explain the results.
Then what you’ve shown is that the machine — the system — is itself discriminating based on color.
That would be simply a fact.
Figuring out how it’s doing that — which exact cams and sensors and circuit connections within it are doing the job — is a lot more work. Making it stop even more so. It requires qualified people to pore over the schematics, take off the access hatches to poke around, and ultimately to develop and test theories about the machine’s operation. There are people doing that.
But you don’t necessarily need to know everything about how it does what it does to observe that, sure enough, it does.
My last two pull overs were by a Black and Hispanic officer respectively. We are pretty diverse down here law enforcement wise, so I suspect it’s not a thing these days.
It is very interesting — revealing, even — that you think this is responsive to the question, or that having more black and hispanic officers is evidence of reduced police racism (on the receiving end, anyway).
Again, “systemic” is a concept that everyone uses but no one seems to want to define.
“Of or to do with systems”
What is so mysterious about that?
Suppose you have a machine where you pour M&Ms in on one side, and the colors come out the other side on (mostly) different chutes. Suppose you’ve satisfied yourself that there’s no concomitant variation in shape or size or weight that could explain the results.
Then what you’ve shown is that the machine — the system — is itself discriminating based on color.
That would be simply a fact.
Figuring out how it’s doing that — which exact cams and sensors and circuit connections within it are doing the job — is a lot more work. Making it stop even more so. It requires qualified people to pore over the schematics, take off the access hatches to poke around, and ultimately to develop and test theories about the machine’s operation. There are people doing that.
But you don’t necessarily need to know everything about how it does what it does to observe that, sure enough, it does.
Are there any consistent economic differences in where you live and Richmond?
Sure. If you don’t get the education, you don’t get the jobs.
Also, while much of the county is suburbs there are also farming communities and cities (Pittsburgh, Antioch, Martinez) with lots of industry. They all outdo Richmond, too.
Are there any consistent economic differences in where you live and Richmond?
Sure. If you don’t get the education, you don’t get the jobs.
Also, while much of the county is suburbs there are also farming communities and cities (Pittsburgh, Antioch, Martinez) with lots of industry. They all outdo Richmond, too.
It’s also worth noting that, despite the differences that cleek is pointing out, whites are on the dominant side and are the ones who are unmarked in conversation – to the point where the backlash against “identity politics” largely arises from white people’s reactions to being marked as “white people.”
See also “male,” “able,” “straight,” “cis.”
So much anger at being, and effort to continue to avoid being, marked.
This is why I ask for definitions. Otherwise, we get this completely non-specific but self-certain categorization of *everything*. To me, it’s just a trendy, academic (meaning never meaningfully tested by anything approaching the once rigorous scientific method) shorthand for “white people have been treating people of color shitty forever and now that they are being called out for being white and mean, they don’t like it.” OR, at least that’s how it comes across. But, the beauty of the lack of specificity is that it’s actually a moving target and no matter how someone who disagrees tries to interpret it, they always get it wrong. Intersectional Calvinball.
Feel free to take me up on providing actual definitions and examples and I will address substantively.
It’s also worth noting that, despite the differences that cleek is pointing out, whites are on the dominant side and are the ones who are unmarked in conversation – to the point where the backlash against “identity politics” largely arises from white people’s reactions to being marked as “white people.”
See also “male,” “able,” “straight,” “cis.”
So much anger at being, and effort to continue to avoid being, marked.
This is why I ask for definitions. Otherwise, we get this completely non-specific but self-certain categorization of *everything*. To me, it’s just a trendy, academic (meaning never meaningfully tested by anything approaching the once rigorous scientific method) shorthand for “white people have been treating people of color shitty forever and now that they are being called out for being white and mean, they don’t like it.” OR, at least that’s how it comes across. But, the beauty of the lack of specificity is that it’s actually a moving target and no matter how someone who disagrees tries to interpret it, they always get it wrong. Intersectional Calvinball.
Feel free to take me up on providing actual definitions and examples and I will address substantively.
Golf later
Fiend!
Golf later
Fiend!
It’s a response, but a refusal to engage and an attempt to shift the grounds of engagement.
I will assume we are talking past each other. AFAIK, no one I know who is POC worries about the police pulling them over. However, I am (a) not a mind reader, (b) I confined my answer to metropolitan areas and (c) I suspect that what is true today was not true 20 and more years ago. On further reflection, I would imagine that in Louisiana and Mississippi, particularly the rural areas for sure, a POC would be on high alert if they were pulled over.
It’s a response, but a refusal to engage and an attempt to shift the grounds of engagement.
I will assume we are talking past each other. AFAIK, no one I know who is POC worries about the police pulling them over. However, I am (a) not a mind reader, (b) I confined my answer to metropolitan areas and (c) I suspect that what is true today was not true 20 and more years ago. On further reflection, I would imagine that in Louisiana and Mississippi, particularly the rural areas for sure, a POC would be on high alert if they were pulled over.
Apparently, linguistics are just trendy academic Calvinball. Who knew?
Apparently, linguistics are just trendy academic Calvinball. Who knew?
Suppose you have a machine where you pour M&Ms in on one side, and the colors come out the other side on (mostly) different chutes. Suppose you’ve satisfied yourself that there’s no concomitant variation in shape or size or weight that could explain the results.
Then what you’ve shown is that the machine — the system — is itself discriminating based on color.
That would be simply a fact.
Figuring out how it’s doing that — which exact cams and sensors and circuit connections within it are doing the job — is a lot more work. Making it stop even more so. It requires qualified people to pore over the schematics, take off the access hatches to poke around, and ultimately to develop and test theories about the machine’s operation. There are people doing that.
But you don’t necessarily need to know everything about how it does what it does to observe that, sure enough, it does.
Is this a longer version of: we infer a stacked deck based on continuous, disparate outcomes? Or, if I’m missing your point, can you be a bit more precise? Thanks.
Suppose you have a machine where you pour M&Ms in on one side, and the colors come out the other side on (mostly) different chutes. Suppose you’ve satisfied yourself that there’s no concomitant variation in shape or size or weight that could explain the results.
Then what you’ve shown is that the machine — the system — is itself discriminating based on color.
That would be simply a fact.
Figuring out how it’s doing that — which exact cams and sensors and circuit connections within it are doing the job — is a lot more work. Making it stop even more so. It requires qualified people to pore over the schematics, take off the access hatches to poke around, and ultimately to develop and test theories about the machine’s operation. There are people doing that.
But you don’t necessarily need to know everything about how it does what it does to observe that, sure enough, it does.
Is this a longer version of: we infer a stacked deck based on continuous, disparate outcomes? Or, if I’m missing your point, can you be a bit more precise? Thanks.
Suppose you have a machine where you pour M&Ms in on one side, and the colors come out the other side on (mostly) different chutes. Suppose you’ve satisfied yourself that there’s no concomitant variation in shape or size or weight that could explain the results.
Then what you’ve shown is that the machine — the system — is itself discriminating based on color.
That would be simply a fact.
Figuring out how it’s doing that — which exact cams and sensors and circuit connections within it are doing the job — is a lot more work. Making it stop even more so. It requires qualified people to pore over the schematics, take off the access hatches to poke around, and ultimately to develop and test theories about the machine’s operation. There are people doing that.
But you don’t necessarily need to know everything about how it does what it does to observe that, sure enough, it does.
Is this a longer version of: we infer a stacked deck based on continuous, disparate outcomes? Or, if I’m missing your point, can you be a bit more precise? Thanks.
Suppose you have a machine where you pour M&Ms in on one side, and the colors come out the other side on (mostly) different chutes. Suppose you’ve satisfied yourself that there’s no concomitant variation in shape or size or weight that could explain the results.
Then what you’ve shown is that the machine — the system — is itself discriminating based on color.
That would be simply a fact.
Figuring out how it’s doing that — which exact cams and sensors and circuit connections within it are doing the job — is a lot more work. Making it stop even more so. It requires qualified people to pore over the schematics, take off the access hatches to poke around, and ultimately to develop and test theories about the machine’s operation. There are people doing that.
But you don’t necessarily need to know everything about how it does what it does to observe that, sure enough, it does.
Is this a longer version of: we infer a stacked deck based on continuous, disparate outcomes? Or, if I’m missing your point, can you be a bit more precise? Thanks.
Besides graduation outcomes are there specific systemic inadequacies? Funding per student, physical facilities in disrepair, student/teacher ratio? Is the non black student to graduation percentage the same?
Besides graduation outcomes are there specific systemic inadequacies? Funding per student, physical facilities in disrepair, student/teacher ratio? Is the non black student to graduation percentage the same?
Golf later
Fiend!
Elitist fiend, if you don’t mind.
Golf later
Fiend!
Elitist fiend, if you don’t mind.
The Color of Law, by Richard Rothstein.
The New Jim Crow, by Michelle Alexander.
I’m sure bobbyp and others could come up with more.
The Color of Law, by Richard Rothstein.
The New Jim Crow, by Michelle Alexander.
I’m sure bobbyp and others could come up with more.
Unsolicited statement: when I am challenged to state my position, I try to do so and to do so in a meaningful, e.g. my lengthy piece of MWLD. So, I feel perfectly justified in asking for reciprocity and being be blunt when I don’t get it.
One of the many pluses about this ongoing debate is the chance to rethink my own BS. When I started in yesterday about the wonders of MWLD, I found myself wanting to put an asterisk by the “Western” bit of it. I think MWLD was born in the West, but that its application is universal which is why, for example, the folks in Hong Kong are totally on board. So, it’s not a comparative or a qualitative modifier. Rather, it’s a descriptor as to origin.
Unsolicited statement: when I am challenged to state my position, I try to do so and to do so in a meaningful, e.g. my lengthy piece of MWLD. So, I feel perfectly justified in asking for reciprocity and being be blunt when I don’t get it.
One of the many pluses about this ongoing debate is the chance to rethink my own BS. When I started in yesterday about the wonders of MWLD, I found myself wanting to put an asterisk by the “Western” bit of it. I think MWLD was born in the West, but that its application is universal which is why, for example, the folks in Hong Kong are totally on board. So, it’s not a comparative or a qualitative modifier. Rather, it’s a descriptor as to origin.
I guess this is as good a lead-in as I will get before heading off to the links: there is a subset of lefties that strike me as modern day Cotton Mathers’, but instead of witches and witchcraft, they find racists and racism. They are uniquely able to not only ferret out the sinner, but to judge and render punishment. They, and they alone, truly get it. And, whatever else you do, don’t disagree with them. You’ll be tied to the stake next. Also, they are really, really thin-skinned.
I think there are at least half a dozen fallacies packed into that paragraph.
I guess we’re presupposing that racism is, just like witchcraft, fictional? Unsubstantiable?
That racists are being (literally?) burned at the stake based on these unsubstantiated accusations? (Name one.)
That racism can never be objectively felt, observed or documented.
That disagreeing with such an observation is just another, like, opinion man.
That it’s unreasonable that someone might disagree with that disagreement right back — and maybe draw conclusions about you based on the nature of your disagreement.
That any of this has anything to do with being “thin-skinned”. (I’m genuinely not sure how this can even come into play: it’s not “thin skinned” in and of itself to be mad about racism, nor to get mad about people dismissing racism. You might be able to detect “thin-skinnedness” if you’re also just calling people names, I guess. Are you?)
I guess this is as good a lead-in as I will get before heading off to the links: there is a subset of lefties that strike me as modern day Cotton Mathers’, but instead of witches and witchcraft, they find racists and racism. They are uniquely able to not only ferret out the sinner, but to judge and render punishment. They, and they alone, truly get it. And, whatever else you do, don’t disagree with them. You’ll be tied to the stake next. Also, they are really, really thin-skinned.
I think there are at least half a dozen fallacies packed into that paragraph.
I guess we’re presupposing that racism is, just like witchcraft, fictional? Unsubstantiable?
That racists are being (literally?) burned at the stake based on these unsubstantiated accusations? (Name one.)
That racism can never be objectively felt, observed or documented.
That disagreeing with such an observation is just another, like, opinion man.
That it’s unreasonable that someone might disagree with that disagreement right back — and maybe draw conclusions about you based on the nature of your disagreement.
That any of this has anything to do with being “thin-skinned”. (I’m genuinely not sure how this can even come into play: it’s not “thin skinned” in and of itself to be mad about racism, nor to get mad about people dismissing racism. You might be able to detect “thin-skinnedness” if you’re also just calling people names, I guess. Are you?)
The Color of Law, by Richard Rothstein.
The New Jim Crow, by Michelle Alexander.
I’m sure that McKinney has read critiques of those books that dismiss them as unrigorous and he’s gone in search of an article that quotes them both in a way that strikes him as being frivolous or contrary to his own understanding, so those books do not need to be read and can be dismissed out of hand.
Do you have any books to suggest that he has read and that he already finds valuable?
The Color of Law, by Richard Rothstein.
The New Jim Crow, by Michelle Alexander.
I’m sure that McKinney has read critiques of those books that dismiss them as unrigorous and he’s gone in search of an article that quotes them both in a way that strikes him as being frivolous or contrary to his own understanding, so those books do not need to be read and can be dismissed out of hand.
Do you have any books to suggest that he has read and that he already finds valuable?
Apparently, linguistics are just trendy academic Calvinball. Who knew?
The strength of one’s position is 100% congruent with the ability to define and defend it. Logic 101. Still waiting.
Apparently, linguistics are just trendy academic Calvinball. Who knew?
The strength of one’s position is 100% congruent with the ability to define and defend it. Logic 101. Still waiting.
FWIW, I live in a blue city and county with Democrats holding the mayoral offices, chief of police, sheriff, and DA. Many of these are black folks. All of my black friends have more anxiety than I do if they get pulled over. Not even close.
That constitutional law class I teach to the inner-city fifth graders is basically me giving them “the talk”.
If McTex doesn’t know this about his black friends, then it borders on willful ignorance.
FWIW, I live in a blue city and county with Democrats holding the mayoral offices, chief of police, sheriff, and DA. Many of these are black folks. All of my black friends have more anxiety than I do if they get pulled over. Not even close.
That constitutional law class I teach to the inner-city fifth graders is basically me giving them “the talk”.
If McTex doesn’t know this about his black friends, then it borders on willful ignorance.
Is this a longer version of: we infer a stacked deck based on continuous, disparate outcomes? Or, if I’m missing your point, can you be a bit more precise? Thanks.
No, I think that’s about it.
If you observe outcomes that aren’t explained by random chance, by definition there must be some non-random explanation.
There might initially be more than one such you can identify. If you’re more comfortable with a cards analogy then I guess maybe it’d be something like: 1) stacked deck, 2) marked cards, 3) cards hidden up the sleeve.
If, upon further observation or consideration, you’re able to eliminate the latter two, then indeed only one possibility remains: the deck is stacked.
So, again:
Outcomes for black Americans differ*. Far too grossly and persistently to be random.
So there seem to be just two possibilities to consider:
1. there’s something wrong with black people
2. there’s something wrong with the system
You and I agree that (1) doesn’t fit. The conclusion seems inexorable.
Or do you see a third option that everyone else has missed?
Is this a longer version of: we infer a stacked deck based on continuous, disparate outcomes? Or, if I’m missing your point, can you be a bit more precise? Thanks.
No, I think that’s about it.
If you observe outcomes that aren’t explained by random chance, by definition there must be some non-random explanation.
There might initially be more than one such you can identify. If you’re more comfortable with a cards analogy then I guess maybe it’d be something like: 1) stacked deck, 2) marked cards, 3) cards hidden up the sleeve.
If, upon further observation or consideration, you’re able to eliminate the latter two, then indeed only one possibility remains: the deck is stacked.
So, again:
Outcomes for black Americans differ*. Far too grossly and persistently to be random.
So there seem to be just two possibilities to consider:
1. there’s something wrong with black people
2. there’s something wrong with the system
You and I agree that (1) doesn’t fit. The conclusion seems inexorable.
Or do you see a third option that everyone else has missed?
The strength of one’s position is 100% congruent with the ability to define and defend it. Logic 101. Still waiting.
I’d say you got the definitions you asked for of “racism” “systemic” and “systemic racism.” Perhaps not as rigorous as you want, but at least enough to engage on the specifics of the definitions proposed. Certainly possible to improve on those, on some points. But it’s clearly not just untethered labels now.
Until we get that agreed to, defense isn’t likely to succeed, is it?
The strength of one’s position is 100% congruent with the ability to define and defend it. Logic 101. Still waiting.
I’d say you got the definitions you asked for of “racism” “systemic” and “systemic racism.” Perhaps not as rigorous as you want, but at least enough to engage on the specifics of the definitions proposed. Certainly possible to improve on those, on some points. But it’s clearly not just untethered labels now.
Until we get that agreed to, defense isn’t likely to succeed, is it?
I’m sure that McKinney has read critiques of those books that dismiss them as unrigorous and he’s gone in search of an article that quotes them both in a way that strikes him as being frivolous or contrary to his own understanding, so those books do not need to be read and can be dismissed out of hand.
So, a bigger moving target. Now I have to respond to two books. Very brave. My questions stand.
I’m sure that McKinney has read critiques of those books that dismiss them as unrigorous and he’s gone in search of an article that quotes them both in a way that strikes him as being frivolous or contrary to his own understanding, so those books do not need to be read and can be dismissed out of hand.
So, a bigger moving target. Now I have to respond to two books. Very brave. My questions stand.
Thank you for answering me, McKinney.
and only occasionally overwrought (kidding, you get that, right?)
I get that, being no kind of twinkie. I would also say, in the interests of fairness, that my occasional pokes at you about “western civilisation” are provocative, and I take responsibility for that. I may not stop, but I take responsibility for that.
Good golfing.
Thank you for answering me, McKinney.
and only occasionally overwrought (kidding, you get that, right?)
I get that, being no kind of twinkie. I would also say, in the interests of fairness, that my occasional pokes at you about “western civilisation” are provocative, and I take responsibility for that. I may not stop, but I take responsibility for that.
Good golfing.
nous: Do you have any books to suggest that he has read and that he already finds valuable?
I was going to write the rest of your comment, more or less, along with the titles, but you did it better. Anyhow, time wasted on lost causes is … lost. Back to work. (Me.)
nous: Do you have any books to suggest that he has read and that he already finds valuable?
I was going to write the rest of your comment, more or less, along with the titles, but you did it better. Anyhow, time wasted on lost causes is … lost. Back to work. (Me.)
If McTex doesn’t know this about his black friends, then it borders on willful ignorance.
Or not. If I say the subject doesn’t come it, it’s because the subject doesn’t come up. One of my African American attorneys is a former DA and firmly believes in the death penalty. She does not walk in fear of law enforcement in Houston. Cannot speak for your neck of the woods.
If McTex doesn’t know this about his black friends, then it borders on willful ignorance.
Or not. If I say the subject doesn’t come it, it’s because the subject doesn’t come up. One of my African American attorneys is a former DA and firmly believes in the death penalty. She does not walk in fear of law enforcement in Houston. Cannot speak for your neck of the woods.
The strength of one’s position is 100% congruent with the ability to define and defend it. Logic 101. Still waiting.
I note that, when seeking truth, strong positions are often not correct positions.
And when you say logic, what you usually mean is rhetoric, which is why you focus on having strong positions rather than on asking productive questions.
Which is why you get to keep waiting.
The strength of one’s position is 100% congruent with the ability to define and defend it. Logic 101. Still waiting.
I note that, when seeking truth, strong positions are often not correct positions.
And when you say logic, what you usually mean is rhetoric, which is why you focus on having strong positions rather than on asking productive questions.
Which is why you get to keep waiting.
All of my black friends have more anxiety than I do if they get pulled over. Not even close.
That constitutional law class I teach to the inner-city fifth graders is basically me giving them “the talk”.
If McTex doesn’t know this about his black friends, then it borders on willful ignorance.
Bravo, PdM. And I suspect (expert mindreader that I am) that his willful ignorance of it (which has been clear for ages) is because he wants to keep the comforting (and comfortable) certainty of how very much better the whole racism thing has got since (fill in the year of your choice).
All of my black friends have more anxiety than I do if they get pulled over. Not even close.
That constitutional law class I teach to the inner-city fifth graders is basically me giving them “the talk”.
If McTex doesn’t know this about his black friends, then it borders on willful ignorance.
Bravo, PdM. And I suspect (expert mindreader that I am) that his willful ignorance of it (which has been clear for ages) is because he wants to keep the comforting (and comfortable) certainty of how very much better the whole racism thing has got since (fill in the year of your choice).
Finally, an answer. Why didn’t you just say so? You write, “So there seem to be just two possibilities to consider:
1. there’s something wrong with black people
2. there’s something wrong with the system
You and I agree that (1) doesn’t fit. The conclusion seems inexorable.
Or do you see a third option that everyone else has missed?
Not everyone else has missed it, just those who heard “systemic racism” and quit listening, much less employed any kind of actual, does-this-hold-up-under factual longitudinal and latitudinal analysis. Have you carefully examined your basic premise, i.e. two and only two possibilities?
Unfortunately, there is someone standing over my shoulder so today’s fun and games must come to an end. I will not yield the field. I should have some time tomorrow to continue.
Finally, an answer. Why didn’t you just say so? You write, “So there seem to be just two possibilities to consider:
1. there’s something wrong with black people
2. there’s something wrong with the system
You and I agree that (1) doesn’t fit. The conclusion seems inexorable.
Or do you see a third option that everyone else has missed?
Not everyone else has missed it, just those who heard “systemic racism” and quit listening, much less employed any kind of actual, does-this-hold-up-under factual longitudinal and latitudinal analysis. Have you carefully examined your basic premise, i.e. two and only two possibilities?
Unfortunately, there is someone standing over my shoulder so today’s fun and games must come to an end. I will not yield the field. I should have some time tomorrow to continue.
I suspect (expert mindreader that I am) that his willful ignorance of it (which has been clear for ages) is because he wants to keep the comforting (and comfortable) certainty of how very much better the whole racism thing has got since (fill in the year of your choice).
It is entirely possible to believe that things have gotten very much better (and I do), while agreeing that they are still very not good in a number of areas (which I also do). Those are not mutually exclusive positions — although I have observed quite a few people on both right and left, who seem to think that they must be.
I suspect (expert mindreader that I am) that his willful ignorance of it (which has been clear for ages) is because he wants to keep the comforting (and comfortable) certainty of how very much better the whole racism thing has got since (fill in the year of your choice).
It is entirely possible to believe that things have gotten very much better (and I do), while agreeing that they are still very not good in a number of areas (which I also do). Those are not mutually exclusive positions — although I have observed quite a few people on both right and left, who seem to think that they must be.
If I say the subject doesn’t come it, it’s because the subject doesn’t come up.
Perhaps you could ask all the people of colour you work with, as a sample for information-gathering purposes. If they are prepared to say, you might be surprised.
(Suggested script: I’m having an argument with a bunch of people online, and they maintain that POC when stopped by the police experience varying degrees of fear. I thought that probably wasn’t true anymore. Is this your experience?)
Mind you, the interesting question is why, when this is frequently talked about (recently by a black serviceman, who was in uniform when he was stopped), and a rich black entrepreneur I linked about a couple of years ago, and there are many, many examples in the media all the time, why don’t you listen to the black folks talking about it? To the black mothers agonising about having to have the talk with their teenage sons?
If I say the subject doesn’t come it, it’s because the subject doesn’t come up.
Perhaps you could ask all the people of colour you work with, as a sample for information-gathering purposes. If they are prepared to say, you might be surprised.
(Suggested script: I’m having an argument with a bunch of people online, and they maintain that POC when stopped by the police experience varying degrees of fear. I thought that probably wasn’t true anymore. Is this your experience?)
Mind you, the interesting question is why, when this is frequently talked about (recently by a black serviceman, who was in uniform when he was stopped), and a rich black entrepreneur I linked about a couple of years ago, and there are many, many examples in the media all the time, why don’t you listen to the black folks talking about it? To the black mothers agonising about having to have the talk with their teenage sons?
wj: of course that’s right, and I too believe it. But people who have a vested (intellectual) interest in denying e.g. systemic racism sometimes don’t want to consider how bad parts of the system (like criminal justice and law enforcement) still are.
wj: of course that’s right, and I too believe it. But people who have a vested (intellectual) interest in denying e.g. systemic racism sometimes don’t want to consider how bad parts of the system (like criminal justice and law enforcement) still are.
Not just law enforcement, either. It’s instructive to type “black man stopped” into the google search box, and see what comes up. A tiny selection:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6bgWQXhrdw
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/02/us/san-antonio-black-jogger-charges-dropped-trnd/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/19/starbucks-black-men-feared-for-lives-philadelphia
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/beverly-hills-versace-designer-police-searched-being-black/2438121/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/black-man-michigan-tried-deposit-checks-his-bank-manager-called-n1122011
Not just law enforcement, either. It’s instructive to type “black man stopped” into the google search box, and see what comes up. A tiny selection:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6bgWQXhrdw
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/02/us/san-antonio-black-jogger-charges-dropped-trnd/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/19/starbucks-black-men-feared-for-lives-philadelphia
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/beverly-hills-versace-designer-police-searched-being-black/2438121/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/black-man-michigan-tried-deposit-checks-his-bank-manager-called-n1122011
wj, I just posted a comment with lots of links and forgot to call myself GftNC. It would be a pain to choose the links again, would you be kind enough to resurrect my comment from the spam trap?
Done!
wj, I just posted a comment with lots of links and forgot to call myself GftNC. It would be a pain to choose the links again, would you be kind enough to resurrect my comment from the spam trap?
Done!
people who have a vested (intellectual) interest in denying e.g. systemic racism sometimes don’t want to consider how bad parts of the system (like criminal justice and law enforcement) still are.
And some of those on the other side appear to have a serious vested interest in insisting that nothing has changed. Sigh.
people who have a vested (intellectual) interest in denying e.g. systemic racism sometimes don’t want to consider how bad parts of the system (like criminal justice and law enforcement) still are.
And some of those on the other side appear to have a serious vested interest in insisting that nothing has changed. Sigh.
McTX: Or not. If I say the subject doesn’t come it, it’s because the subject doesn’t come up. One of my African American attorneys is a former DA and firmly believes in the death penalty. She does not walk in fear of law enforcement in Houston. Cannot speak for your neck of the woods.
At the beginning of class, I give my fifth graders a list of 10 of the well known rights from the Bill of Rights and ask them to rank them. God or guns will come in 1-2 every time. You’d think that I’m in MAGA country. Most black folks that I know don’t have a problem with the death penalty per se; they have a problem with the disparate application of the death penalty.
As an aside, I think that by the end of my class, those fifth graders have a better appreciation for juries, protection against illegal searches, and right to remain silent, but God and guns would still with the popularity contest.
McTX: Or not. If I say the subject doesn’t come it, it’s because the subject doesn’t come up. One of my African American attorneys is a former DA and firmly believes in the death penalty. She does not walk in fear of law enforcement in Houston. Cannot speak for your neck of the woods.
At the beginning of class, I give my fifth graders a list of 10 of the well known rights from the Bill of Rights and ask them to rank them. God or guns will come in 1-2 every time. You’d think that I’m in MAGA country. Most black folks that I know don’t have a problem with the death penalty per se; they have a problem with the disparate application of the death penalty.
As an aside, I think that by the end of my class, those fifth graders have a better appreciation for juries, protection against illegal searches, and right to remain silent, but God and guns would still with the popularity contest.
I’ll attempt an answer at another of McK’s questions – what does ‘systematic racism’ mean.
There is racism that is the product of individual animus toward people of a different race or ethnic background. That isn’t systematic racism.
There is racism that consists of differential opportunities, social and economic context, and outcomes, that are attributable to race, but which don’t really require any individual person to be particularly racist. That’s systematic racism.
Some of that is the legacy of many generations of deliberate and explicit racism, resulting in the failure to build wealth or establish stable family structure. The de jure aspect of that is in the past, but ‘the past’ in this case is basically two generations back, in the context of a couple hundred years of history.
Some of it is just people’s reflexive reaction to people who aren’t like them, and who they may not specifically dislike, but who they simply don’t prefer. Which is all when and good when you’re planning the guest list for a dinner party, but is less good when you’re talking about things like making a small business or mortgage loan, or considering somebody for a job. If your name is Pete, you might get a second look that somebody named DeShawn would not.
Does anyone think stuff like that doesn’t happen?
And it’s not specific to black people, but it does happen to black people often enough to make a difference in their outcomes.
And, there are also pockets of society where it’s simply acceptable to assume black people are sub-par. Cops in a lot of places come to mind.
Marty asks wj if there is some economic difference between mostly black Richmond and mostly not black nearby communities. I’m sure there is an economic difference. And that’s kind of the point. Black people, as a generalization, have less wealth than other people, and especially less than white people.
Why is that? Are they congenitally stupid and lazy? Is it just how things randomly played out?
I’m not really invested in whether anybody calls it ‘systematic racism’ or not. If folks want to confine the term ‘racism’ to personal animus toward people of other races, fine with me, we can come up with some other term.
But the phenomenon is real.
I’ll attempt an answer at another of McK’s questions – what does ‘systematic racism’ mean.
There is racism that is the product of individual animus toward people of a different race or ethnic background. That isn’t systematic racism.
There is racism that consists of differential opportunities, social and economic context, and outcomes, that are attributable to race, but which don’t really require any individual person to be particularly racist. That’s systematic racism.
Some of that is the legacy of many generations of deliberate and explicit racism, resulting in the failure to build wealth or establish stable family structure. The de jure aspect of that is in the past, but ‘the past’ in this case is basically two generations back, in the context of a couple hundred years of history.
Some of it is just people’s reflexive reaction to people who aren’t like them, and who they may not specifically dislike, but who they simply don’t prefer. Which is all when and good when you’re planning the guest list for a dinner party, but is less good when you’re talking about things like making a small business or mortgage loan, or considering somebody for a job. If your name is Pete, you might get a second look that somebody named DeShawn would not.
Does anyone think stuff like that doesn’t happen?
And it’s not specific to black people, but it does happen to black people often enough to make a difference in their outcomes.
And, there are also pockets of society where it’s simply acceptable to assume black people are sub-par. Cops in a lot of places come to mind.
Marty asks wj if there is some economic difference between mostly black Richmond and mostly not black nearby communities. I’m sure there is an economic difference. And that’s kind of the point. Black people, as a generalization, have less wealth than other people, and especially less than white people.
Why is that? Are they congenitally stupid and lazy? Is it just how things randomly played out?
I’m not really invested in whether anybody calls it ‘systematic racism’ or not. If folks want to confine the term ‘racism’ to personal animus toward people of other races, fine with me, we can come up with some other term.
But the phenomenon is real.
Most black folks that I know don’t have a problem with the death penalty per se; they have a problem with the disparate application of the death penalty.
In my observation, blacks (and Hispanics, perhaps even more so) are notably more conservative overall than whites overall. A party which was focused on conservative values (outside of a return to old-time racism, if you want to call that a “value”) could do something with that. But our sometime conservative party is determined to go the other way.
Not that they haven’t been told, both from the outside and by internal reviews, that they should become more inclusive. But the Confederacy fans among them are in control. Just a reprise of the Lost Cause; likely with a similar result in the long (more likely medium) run.
Most black folks that I know don’t have a problem with the death penalty per se; they have a problem with the disparate application of the death penalty.
In my observation, blacks (and Hispanics, perhaps even more so) are notably more conservative overall than whites overall. A party which was focused on conservative values (outside of a return to old-time racism, if you want to call that a “value”) could do something with that. But our sometime conservative party is determined to go the other way.
Not that they haven’t been told, both from the outside and by internal reviews, that they should become more inclusive. But the Confederacy fans among them are in control. Just a reprise of the Lost Cause; likely with a similar result in the long (more likely medium) run.
(wj, don’t worry, I found another bunch.)
And it’s not just law enforcement that would make McKinney’s black colleagues have a different experience from his. Try putting “black man stopped” in the google search bar, and see what comes up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6bgWQXhrdw
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/beverly-hills-versace-designer-police-searched-being-black/2438121/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/15/us/starbucks-philadelphia-black-men-arrest.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/oklahoma-delivery-man-blocked-homeowner-group-president-thinks-it-was-n1207221
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/michigan-black-realtor-clients-handcuffed-b1899385.html
(wj, don’t worry, I found another bunch.)
And it’s not just law enforcement that would make McKinney’s black colleagues have a different experience from his. Try putting “black man stopped” in the google search bar, and see what comes up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6bgWQXhrdw
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/beverly-hills-versace-designer-police-searched-being-black/2438121/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/15/us/starbucks-philadelphia-black-men-arrest.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/oklahoma-delivery-man-blocked-homeowner-group-president-thinks-it-was-n1207221
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/michigan-black-realtor-clients-handcuffed-b1899385.html
Huh, sorry, I didn’t see you’d done it when I refreshed the last time.
The black realtor and clients were an additional link!
Huh, sorry, I didn’t see you’d done it when I refreshed the last time.
The black realtor and clients were an additional link!
If McTex doesn’t know this about his black friends, then it borders on willful ignorance.
The ignorance is hardly surprising, and the willfulness (or…something, anyway) is in plentiful evidence elsewhere, IMO, but I’m not sure about it here.
I think he’s right that it just doesn’t come up.
After all, based on that anecdote about the odd look given to him by his “POC associate”, among other things, do you think it’s probable that anyone in his orbit would feel particularly inclined to volunteer personal concerns or stories with him? Or even discuss them within earshot?
If McTex doesn’t know this about his black friends, then it borders on willful ignorance.
The ignorance is hardly surprising, and the willfulness (or…something, anyway) is in plentiful evidence elsewhere, IMO, but I’m not sure about it here.
I think he’s right that it just doesn’t come up.
After all, based on that anecdote about the odd look given to him by his “POC associate”, among other things, do you think it’s probable that anyone in his orbit would feel particularly inclined to volunteer personal concerns or stories with him? Or even discuss them within earshot?
Generalizations like this are highly problematic. Region, locale, a whole crap ton of things play into the equation *plus* ….
Sorry, I do not agree.
you don’t agree that blacks and asians in the US have different relationships with white people?
[yes, in general]
Generalizations like this are highly problematic. Region, locale, a whole crap ton of things play into the equation *plus* ….
Sorry, I do not agree.
you don’t agree that blacks and asians in the US have different relationships with white people?
[yes, in general]
I’ve been pecking away at this in between doing other stuff, so some of it has been said better by others already. Here goes anyway:
McTX: Traditional liberals don’t disagree with any of it.
“It” being your definition of MWLD, that would seem to make you a “traditional liberal”. Formidable!
McTX: I don’t think I use “liberal” any more pejoratively than I do “conservative” and I am a conservative. Leaving that aside, yes. Liberal as in MWLD does mean something different from politically liberal. One is a system, the other a place on the political spectrum.
I note with interest that “system” is a concept familiar to you.
McTX: “Woke” is another semantical moving target. There is nothing “woke” about recognizing and giving life to the 14th Amendment and our general founding principles.
Who do you think is moving the target? Did “conservatives” in the political-spectrum sense applaud Truman and the 1954 SCOTUS, or denounce them? Had “woke” been a word back then, do you doubt they’d have used it?
McTX: I’ve never asked.
So, mainly golf, the weather, recipes, and grandkids? Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
McTX: Again, “systemic” is a concept that everyone uses but no one seems to want to define. “No” on b.
“No on b” would seem to imply “Yes on a”. But you avoid that by claiming “systemic” is a nebulous concept. So let me try to explain it to you, working off the fact that you find “system” clear enough to base your “liberal vs. Liberal” distinction on.
When The Law in its majesty forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread, The Law is treating everyone alike. But The Law is not The System, it’s only a part of it. Other parts include the way The System apportions things like housing, cash, and food between the poor and the rich. In a free-market-capitalist System (the first element of your MWLD definition) the apportionment is done mainly by money. It’s not The Law that prevents poor people, of whatever color, from living in a house with a swimming pool, buying a law school education, or eating and drinking well. It’s The System’s proclivity to provide those things more readily to people with money than to those without. If people of a certain color start out mainly poor at the dawn of MWLD (because of a legacy of pre-MWLD laws as well as majority attitudes and practices) they have a harder time buying the tools to build wealth with. The System, not The Law, keeps them at a statistical disadvantage.
Spare me any rags-to-riches anecdotes unless you can find statistics on the relative frequency of successful up-by-their-bootstraps Blacks versus non-Blacks. Whatever “systemic” means, it doesn’t mean “anecdotal”.
BTW, jack lecou did a great job explaining “system” with M&Ms while I was pecking away at this comment. His analogy works on Boolean logic, not Aristotelian rhetoric. I’m sure you know the difference.
–TP
I’ve been pecking away at this in between doing other stuff, so some of it has been said better by others already. Here goes anyway:
McTX: Traditional liberals don’t disagree with any of it.
“It” being your definition of MWLD, that would seem to make you a “traditional liberal”. Formidable!
McTX: I don’t think I use “liberal” any more pejoratively than I do “conservative” and I am a conservative. Leaving that aside, yes. Liberal as in MWLD does mean something different from politically liberal. One is a system, the other a place on the political spectrum.
I note with interest that “system” is a concept familiar to you.
McTX: “Woke” is another semantical moving target. There is nothing “woke” about recognizing and giving life to the 14th Amendment and our general founding principles.
Who do you think is moving the target? Did “conservatives” in the political-spectrum sense applaud Truman and the 1954 SCOTUS, or denounce them? Had “woke” been a word back then, do you doubt they’d have used it?
McTX: I’ve never asked.
So, mainly golf, the weather, recipes, and grandkids? Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
McTX: Again, “systemic” is a concept that everyone uses but no one seems to want to define. “No” on b.
“No on b” would seem to imply “Yes on a”. But you avoid that by claiming “systemic” is a nebulous concept. So let me try to explain it to you, working off the fact that you find “system” clear enough to base your “liberal vs. Liberal” distinction on.
When The Law in its majesty forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread, The Law is treating everyone alike. But The Law is not The System, it’s only a part of it. Other parts include the way The System apportions things like housing, cash, and food between the poor and the rich. In a free-market-capitalist System (the first element of your MWLD definition) the apportionment is done mainly by money. It’s not The Law that prevents poor people, of whatever color, from living in a house with a swimming pool, buying a law school education, or eating and drinking well. It’s The System’s proclivity to provide those things more readily to people with money than to those without. If people of a certain color start out mainly poor at the dawn of MWLD (because of a legacy of pre-MWLD laws as well as majority attitudes and practices) they have a harder time buying the tools to build wealth with. The System, not The Law, keeps them at a statistical disadvantage.
Spare me any rags-to-riches anecdotes unless you can find statistics on the relative frequency of successful up-by-their-bootstraps Blacks versus non-Blacks. Whatever “systemic” means, it doesn’t mean “anecdotal”.
BTW, jack lecou did a great job explaining “system” with M&Ms while I was pecking away at this comment. His analogy works on Boolean logic, not Aristotelian rhetoric. I’m sure you know the difference.
–TP
Have you carefully examined your basic premise, i.e. two and only two possibilities?
I mean…yes?
I shouldn’t have to look too hard, right? You’d think somebody would have published a book about it or something by now…
So don’t leave us all in suspense. What’s the third possibility?
Have you carefully examined your basic premise, i.e. two and only two possibilities?
I mean…yes?
I shouldn’t have to look too hard, right? You’d think somebody would have published a book about it or something by now…
So don’t leave us all in suspense. What’s the third possibility?
Ok, I’ve got a minute. First of all, it is an enormously complicated issue that is Black-centric by and large. My fundamental problem with the concept of systemic racism is that I see no structure (we can talk about law enforcement in a bit) as such that singles out African Americans for disparate treatment (outcomes are different) and plenty of other POC’s do just fine in the US and, assuming we remain a free market enterprise, 2-3 generations hence, our discussion will be ancient history for nearly every category of POC’s except possibly African Americans.
Painting on a very large canvass and in very general terms, earlier, actual de jure and de facto discrimination (synonymous with racism? Same species, different subsets IMO) including segregation created a pre-existing set of socio-economic dynamics that, between the 60’s and the 80’s transitioned/evolved positively in some ways and negatively in others for African Americans in particular.
Generations of being on the outside looking in makes an uncomfortable fit when it looks like the inside might be opening up. Certainly, in my earlier days, a Black lawyer starting work at one of the silk stocking firms would be wondering, among other things, “ok, where’s the catch and lunch is likely to be pretty lonely.”
One by-product of this granular dynamic is self-segregation. Michelle Obama wrote of this in her autobiography. This is another factor in the overall picture. One of many.
While this seems completely non-controversial to me and many others, I’m confident that few in the Nous camp (this is a value-neutral choice of words simply to achieve brevity–you will know when I’m taking a dig) will agree that the extremely high number of young black males raised by single mothers is a major issue. Plenty of data supports a nexus between no father and problems with the law that cross racial lines.
The crime rate among young, male African Americans is off the charts, far beyond any other ethnic group, but I’m pretty sure it co-relates most closely with single mother homes (the problem with sociological and related stats is that the zone is flooded by stats “gathered” by people looking to prove a point). This produces an out-sized number of police encounters *and* a somewhat understandable (but still wrong) phenomena that African American over-representation in the criminal ranks is viewed as endemic. I don’t think it’s endemic. I think it’s tied to familial instability and peer pressure from other similarly situated young, unsupervised males. But others, less given to deeper analysis, often arrive at the superficially simpler answer: Blacks commit a lot more crimes, it must be a Black thing. Similar in some ways to: Blacks are under-represented across the board, it must be the system.
The schooling data I’ve looked at–not systematically, mostly anecdotally–is mixed. One example: The last time I looked which was a while back (so if this is dated, pls let me know) DC schools supposedly outspend most schools everywhere with modest improvement in outcome. Is that because the teachers suck, because the student body is unmotivated or because high school age Black students have already decided it’s not worth the effort due to it being a white person’s world (how anyone would know this reliably is beyond me, but a rigorous analysis of why DC schools don’t do a better job would be worthwhile).
Paying bad teachers good money doesn’t move the needle.
Good teachers are good teachers, no matter what they are paid.
School isn’t that hard, so learning shouldn’t be that difficult.
Do Teachers’ Unions do for bad teachers what Police Unions do for bad cops?
One point failure source is schooling. Based on what I’m seeing in recent law school graduates, teacher quality and student expectations are down.
What a child is taught at home and parental engagement are key elements in educational outcome? This, along with the qualitative issues in the education establishment, are factors that go far beyond “Blacks are under-represented, ergo the system is rigged.”
So, at this point: familial instability, earlier, widespread de jure/facto discrimination/segregation, educational deficiencies and possible student motivation issues are part of the picture.
Ok, I’m hitting “post’ without proof-reading. I’ve done enough for one day.
Ok, I’ve got a minute. First of all, it is an enormously complicated issue that is Black-centric by and large. My fundamental problem with the concept of systemic racism is that I see no structure (we can talk about law enforcement in a bit) as such that singles out African Americans for disparate treatment (outcomes are different) and plenty of other POC’s do just fine in the US and, assuming we remain a free market enterprise, 2-3 generations hence, our discussion will be ancient history for nearly every category of POC’s except possibly African Americans.
Painting on a very large canvass and in very general terms, earlier, actual de jure and de facto discrimination (synonymous with racism? Same species, different subsets IMO) including segregation created a pre-existing set of socio-economic dynamics that, between the 60’s and the 80’s transitioned/evolved positively in some ways and negatively in others for African Americans in particular.
Generations of being on the outside looking in makes an uncomfortable fit when it looks like the inside might be opening up. Certainly, in my earlier days, a Black lawyer starting work at one of the silk stocking firms would be wondering, among other things, “ok, where’s the catch and lunch is likely to be pretty lonely.”
One by-product of this granular dynamic is self-segregation. Michelle Obama wrote of this in her autobiography. This is another factor in the overall picture. One of many.
While this seems completely non-controversial to me and many others, I’m confident that few in the Nous camp (this is a value-neutral choice of words simply to achieve brevity–you will know when I’m taking a dig) will agree that the extremely high number of young black males raised by single mothers is a major issue. Plenty of data supports a nexus between no father and problems with the law that cross racial lines.
The crime rate among young, male African Americans is off the charts, far beyond any other ethnic group, but I’m pretty sure it co-relates most closely with single mother homes (the problem with sociological and related stats is that the zone is flooded by stats “gathered” by people looking to prove a point). This produces an out-sized number of police encounters *and* a somewhat understandable (but still wrong) phenomena that African American over-representation in the criminal ranks is viewed as endemic. I don’t think it’s endemic. I think it’s tied to familial instability and peer pressure from other similarly situated young, unsupervised males. But others, less given to deeper analysis, often arrive at the superficially simpler answer: Blacks commit a lot more crimes, it must be a Black thing. Similar in some ways to: Blacks are under-represented across the board, it must be the system.
The schooling data I’ve looked at–not systematically, mostly anecdotally–is mixed. One example: The last time I looked which was a while back (so if this is dated, pls let me know) DC schools supposedly outspend most schools everywhere with modest improvement in outcome. Is that because the teachers suck, because the student body is unmotivated or because high school age Black students have already decided it’s not worth the effort due to it being a white person’s world (how anyone would know this reliably is beyond me, but a rigorous analysis of why DC schools don’t do a better job would be worthwhile).
Paying bad teachers good money doesn’t move the needle.
Good teachers are good teachers, no matter what they are paid.
School isn’t that hard, so learning shouldn’t be that difficult.
Do Teachers’ Unions do for bad teachers what Police Unions do for bad cops?
One point failure source is schooling. Based on what I’m seeing in recent law school graduates, teacher quality and student expectations are down.
What a child is taught at home and parental engagement are key elements in educational outcome? This, along with the qualitative issues in the education establishment, are factors that go far beyond “Blacks are under-represented, ergo the system is rigged.”
So, at this point: familial instability, earlier, widespread de jure/facto discrimination/segregation, educational deficiencies and possible student motivation issues are part of the picture.
Ok, I’m hitting “post’ without proof-reading. I’ve done enough for one day.
the extremely high number of young black males raised by single mothers is a major issue. Plenty of data supports a nexus between no father and problems with the law that cross racial lines.
This figures into the “systemic” part. Look at how differently The Law (as written) treats powdered (mostly used by whites) vs crack (mostly used by blacks) cocaine. Here and elsewhere, we see blacks getting disparately more and longer sentences for similar crimes. Which results in fewer black fathers being present to raise their kids. Which circles around to the higher crime rate among black teens and young men. And thus to incarceration and more single mothers.
It’s a system because it has multiple reinforcing parts.
the extremely high number of young black males raised by single mothers is a major issue. Plenty of data supports a nexus between no father and problems with the law that cross racial lines.
This figures into the “systemic” part. Look at how differently The Law (as written) treats powdered (mostly used by whites) vs crack (mostly used by blacks) cocaine. Here and elsewhere, we see blacks getting disparately more and longer sentences for similar crimes. Which results in fewer black fathers being present to raise their kids. Which circles around to the higher crime rate among black teens and young men. And thus to incarceration and more single mothers.
It’s a system because it has multiple reinforcing parts.
School isn’t that hard, so learning shouldn’t be that difficult.
For you, and for me, that was doubtless true. But consider if you are living in a house with no books. And, these days, no access to the Internet. Add in insecurity from violence being pervasive in your neighborhood. Add in inadequate food (yes, even with food stamps, etc.) Etc., etc. Now, learning becomes far more challenging.
Some manage to overcome all those handicaps. But on average? It’s just not a level playing field.
School isn’t that hard, so learning shouldn’t be that difficult.
For you, and for me, that was doubtless true. But consider if you are living in a house with no books. And, these days, no access to the Internet. Add in insecurity from violence being pervasive in your neighborhood. Add in inadequate food (yes, even with food stamps, etc.) Etc., etc. Now, learning becomes far more challenging.
Some manage to overcome all those handicaps. But on average? It’s just not a level playing field.
“where’s the catch and lunch is likely to be pretty lonely… extremely high number of young black males raised by single mothers…crime rates…white person’s world…This, along with the qualitative issues in the education establishment…
I mean, I could quibble here and there with some of the details and framing, but, broadly what you’ve just done here is lay out a pretty decent summary of a number of systemic mechanisms which effect black underperformance.
So, where’s the beef?
I guess maybe this?:
My fundamental problem with the concept of systemic racism is that I see no structure as such that singles out African Americans for disparate treatment
Because that seems like a fundamental misunderstanding. “Systemic” certainly doesn’t imply any actual structure.
What’s usually meant, in fact, is the opposite of structure. A collection of uncoordinated elements and forces, interacting with each other — in sometimes fairly byzantine ways — to produce a predictable, emergent outcome.
Something like the water cycle. It’s not like protons fusing in the Sun are planning to drop rain on the plains of Spain. There’s no “water cycle board” that meets yearly to discuss the sinister water agenda, and whether evaporation in the Mediterranean is behind target. None of the elements or forces involved in this process are even capable of thinking or planning. Yet, happily in this case, the rains still fall and the rivers still flow.
All of the phenomena you’ve just described up there fit that definition to a tee.
“where’s the catch and lunch is likely to be pretty lonely… extremely high number of young black males raised by single mothers…crime rates…white person’s world…This, along with the qualitative issues in the education establishment…
I mean, I could quibble here and there with some of the details and framing, but, broadly what you’ve just done here is lay out a pretty decent summary of a number of systemic mechanisms which effect black underperformance.
So, where’s the beef?
I guess maybe this?:
My fundamental problem with the concept of systemic racism is that I see no structure as such that singles out African Americans for disparate treatment
Because that seems like a fundamental misunderstanding. “Systemic” certainly doesn’t imply any actual structure.
What’s usually meant, in fact, is the opposite of structure. A collection of uncoordinated elements and forces, interacting with each other — in sometimes fairly byzantine ways — to produce a predictable, emergent outcome.
Something like the water cycle. It’s not like protons fusing in the Sun are planning to drop rain on the plains of Spain. There’s no “water cycle board” that meets yearly to discuss the sinister water agenda, and whether evaporation in the Mediterranean is behind target. None of the elements or forces involved in this process are even capable of thinking or planning. Yet, happily in this case, the rains still fall and the rivers still flow.
All of the phenomena you’ve just described up there fit that definition to a tee.
one of the most striking things, to me, in the last few years was Charles Murray’s discovery, documented in his book “Coming Apart”, that when white people began losing the economic and social support systems that helped create the middle class, they began acting just like those underperforming minorities.
marriages failed or simply not attempted, suicide, drug abuse. poverty and an inability to build and hold wealth.
he chose to focus on white people because he wanted to make the point that it’s an issue that cuts across race. and he’s correct in that. but it’s an issue – a set of social and economic dynamics – that black people have been living with for generation upon generation.
funny that it gets his attention now that white people are bearing the burden.
one of the most striking things, to me, in the last few years was Charles Murray’s discovery, documented in his book “Coming Apart”, that when white people began losing the economic and social support systems that helped create the middle class, they began acting just like those underperforming minorities.
marriages failed or simply not attempted, suicide, drug abuse. poverty and an inability to build and hold wealth.
he chose to focus on white people because he wanted to make the point that it’s an issue that cuts across race. and he’s correct in that. but it’s an issue – a set of social and economic dynamics – that black people have been living with for generation upon generation.
funny that it gets his attention now that white people are bearing the burden.
The last time I looked which was a while back (so if this is dated, pls let me know) DC schools supposedly outspend most schools everywhere with modest improvement in outcome. Is that because the teachers suck, because the student body is unmotivated or because high school age Black students have already decided it’s not worth the effort due to it being a white person’s world (how anyone would know this reliably is beyond me, but a rigorous analysis of why DC schools don’t do a better job would be worthwhile).
DC spends more per student on average than does Virginia on average, but DC spends about the same on average as do the schools in affluent neighboring counties of VA. A lot of the cost of education is driven by local cost-of-living.
DC schools also have high special education and language support needs, as do the affluent surrounding counties. That’s largely a product of population density.
Neither of those are in any way associated with school performance (except at the structural level where exempting special needs students from the testing averages used to determine school budget losses for poor test achievement, so all schools try hard to cherry pick who counts and err on the side of caution with diagnoses – in the affluent schools those diagnoses are sought by parents looking for testing exemptions that get their students better SAT scores).
DC schools also have to spend more on feeding their students to make up for household food scarcity. And, you guessed it, food scarcity negatively affects both the learning environment and test scores.
In my experience, student preparedness has gone down at the university level and that has a knock-on effect. The preparedness has gone down because of standardized testing. Schools teach to the test and that leads to more attempts to pre-digest facts for students and to theach them how to better game the format of the standardized test. All of that content replaces things like project learning or discovery learning that emphasizes critical thinking and learning to apply old knowledge and practices in new ways (i.e. thinking on your feet).
Finland, where they teach project based learning that focuses more on learning how to find and put together the information you need to solve a novel situation, and focuses less on testing, does better at producing well educated students all across the economic strata.
WRT teachers’ unions vs. police unions – if we swapped how we measured education and law enforcement effectiveness, teachers and school administrators would be promoted based on how many students they expelled from school or took out of the classroom, and police officers and DAs would have their budgets slashed every time too many people in their jurisdiction broke the law. Just a thought.
The last time I looked which was a while back (so if this is dated, pls let me know) DC schools supposedly outspend most schools everywhere with modest improvement in outcome. Is that because the teachers suck, because the student body is unmotivated or because high school age Black students have already decided it’s not worth the effort due to it being a white person’s world (how anyone would know this reliably is beyond me, but a rigorous analysis of why DC schools don’t do a better job would be worthwhile).
DC spends more per student on average than does Virginia on average, but DC spends about the same on average as do the schools in affluent neighboring counties of VA. A lot of the cost of education is driven by local cost-of-living.
DC schools also have high special education and language support needs, as do the affluent surrounding counties. That’s largely a product of population density.
Neither of those are in any way associated with school performance (except at the structural level where exempting special needs students from the testing averages used to determine school budget losses for poor test achievement, so all schools try hard to cherry pick who counts and err on the side of caution with diagnoses – in the affluent schools those diagnoses are sought by parents looking for testing exemptions that get their students better SAT scores).
DC schools also have to spend more on feeding their students to make up for household food scarcity. And, you guessed it, food scarcity negatively affects both the learning environment and test scores.
In my experience, student preparedness has gone down at the university level and that has a knock-on effect. The preparedness has gone down because of standardized testing. Schools teach to the test and that leads to more attempts to pre-digest facts for students and to theach them how to better game the format of the standardized test. All of that content replaces things like project learning or discovery learning that emphasizes critical thinking and learning to apply old knowledge and practices in new ways (i.e. thinking on your feet).
Finland, where they teach project based learning that focuses more on learning how to find and put together the information you need to solve a novel situation, and focuses less on testing, does better at producing well educated students all across the economic strata.
WRT teachers’ unions vs. police unions – if we swapped how we measured education and law enforcement effectiveness, teachers and school administrators would be promoted based on how many students they expelled from school or took out of the classroom, and police officers and DAs would have their budgets slashed every time too many people in their jurisdiction broke the law. Just a thought.
School isn’t that hard, so learning shouldn’t be that difficult.
weren’t you just complaining about over-generalization?
School isn’t that hard, so learning shouldn’t be that difficult.
weren’t you just complaining about over-generalization?
look at stop, arrest, conviction, sentencing and sentence length disparities.
if group A is 1% more likely to be stopped, 1% more likely to be searched, 1% x arrested, 1% x charged and 1% x convicted than group B … at the end of the process, there will be 9% more of group A in the system than group B. that can add up.
in reality, blacks are 600% more likely to be charged [for the same crime] than whites *.
so,
* https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/
so put that machine in motion – keep up a steady reaping of black people (young men especially) from society. then add the ever-present black/white pay gap for those who don’t have criminal records.
black income is less than white income!? ya don’t say.
then look at redlining and its lingering effects. then look at unequal lending practices. look at mortgage and appraisal differences. there’s a black/white wealth gap? holy cats!
then proclaim it’s because black people aren’t trying hard enough. that they aren’t overcoming the resistance white people keep putting on them.
look at stop, arrest, conviction, sentencing and sentence length disparities.
if group A is 1% more likely to be stopped, 1% more likely to be searched, 1% x arrested, 1% x charged and 1% x convicted than group B … at the end of the process, there will be 9% more of group A in the system than group B. that can add up.
in reality, blacks are 600% more likely to be charged [for the same crime] than whites *.
so,
* https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/
so put that machine in motion – keep up a steady reaping of black people (young men especially) from society. then add the ever-present black/white pay gap for those who don’t have criminal records.
black income is less than white income!? ya don’t say.
then look at redlining and its lingering effects. then look at unequal lending practices. look at mortgage and appraisal differences. there’s a black/white wealth gap? holy cats!
then proclaim it’s because black people aren’t trying hard enough. that they aren’t overcoming the resistance white people keep putting on them.
Schools teach to the test and that leads to more attempts to pre-digest facts for students and to theach them how to better game the format of the standardized test. All of that content replaces things like project learning or discovery learning that emphasizes critical thinking and learning to apply old knowledge and practices in new ways
Which, as usual, probably hits poorer students even harder.
Even aside from simply opting out of the process with private schools, families with more than one parent, nine-to-five jobs, stable incomes, etc. are going to be better off here. Better able to pick up at least some of that educational slack with extra parental attention, paid-for after school activities, trips to the science museum on the weekend, etc. Others, not so much.
This might be a decent example of how systems can be “designed” to fit the needs of those in power — to the exclusion of others — without necessarily being intentional about it.
Schools teach to the test and that leads to more attempts to pre-digest facts for students and to theach them how to better game the format of the standardized test. All of that content replaces things like project learning or discovery learning that emphasizes critical thinking and learning to apply old knowledge and practices in new ways
Which, as usual, probably hits poorer students even harder.
Even aside from simply opting out of the process with private schools, families with more than one parent, nine-to-five jobs, stable incomes, etc. are going to be better off here. Better able to pick up at least some of that educational slack with extra parental attention, paid-for after school activities, trips to the science museum on the weekend, etc. Others, not so much.
This might be a decent example of how systems can be “designed” to fit the needs of those in power — to the exclusion of others — without necessarily being intentional about it.
let’s not forget last-hired / first-fired!
so, a black person is less likely to get that job that pays less than their white counterpart, they’re also more likely to be let go before their white counterpart.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2011/07/25/9992/the-black-and-white-labor-gap-in-america/
harder to get a job, get paid less, harder to keep the job, less likely to have a two-income household, more likely to have a record, less likely to get favorable lending rates.
structural? youbetcha!
let’s not forget last-hired / first-fired!
so, a black person is less likely to get that job that pays less than their white counterpart, they’re also more likely to be let go before their white counterpart.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2011/07/25/9992/the-black-and-white-labor-gap-in-america/
harder to get a job, get paid less, harder to keep the job, less likely to have a two-income household, more likely to have a record, less likely to get favorable lending rates.
structural? youbetcha!
A lot of water under the bridge. I’m stepping in, not to speak to McT, cause it is clear that we just antagonize each other, but to talk about Pollo’s comment, which was
Delurking to comment on a trend that I’ve noticed. It seems that many progressives who apply “racism” more readily than I would tend to have few if any meaningful interactions with black and brown folks. I think the DiAngelo discussions both here and elsewhere really brought this home for me.
By meaningful, I mean spending time at each other’s home in small group settings or significant one-on-one time.
Russell counseled caution and Pollo replied
I’ve been lurking here since the aughts. If folks here have significant/meaningful relationships with black and brown folks, they have remained remarkably well hidden.
The obvious reply is ‘oh no, I have lots of experience’ and then catalog them. Which then moves down the road to the personal, and you weigh how authentic each experience is. I believe that is why Russell urges caution.
But there is also a parallel phenomenon. During the 70’s and 80’s, I was living in a small Southern town and then moved to a slightly larger Southern town, I had meaningful relationships with ‘black and brown folks’ (note, the euphemism acts to blur exactly what that means).
Well, I mean, I believe I had, but I’ve not kept in touch with any of them, only in touch with a smaller subset who have stayed on facebook and are generally in my ‘class’, though I’m not sure if that descriptor has any meaning, as it’s not like we can compare houses or paychecks. And it’s not like I pop up in their facebook timeline to ask them to explain what is so darn wrong about BLM. So that dearth of meaningful relationships with ‘black and brown folks’, which I would prefer to term ‘the other’, is probably true.
But here is the thing. I don’t know if I would have realized how problematic things are and (totally imo) that DiAngelo is correct about a lot of what she writes about it, had I not left and saw things from the outside.
Had I stayed in Mississippi, I might be defending whatever liberal gestures I could make and deploring the radicalism of BLM. I’d like to think I wouldn’t, but I don’t know. My facebook feed is full of high school classmates who still think that if Kaepernick hadn’t been so self centered and had the nerve to protest, all this crap wouldn’t have happened. I sometimes feel that the reason I left was not to find my fortune someplace else, but it was because I didn’t have the energy or stamina to deal with that, which I would have had to. But interrogating choices you made 40 years ago is a mug’s game. Despite the fact that I often do so.
Maybe DiAngelo doesn’t package the argument in a way that people like, maybe she is not the best courier for the message. But separating out her from the message, I think the message is correct.
There is also a parallel phenomenon, where we (note that pronoun) use experiences as a shield to protect our opinions. I love to tell stories, but when I’m defending what I think, I try not to pull up a story from my mental rolodex because it is likely that it will get embellished to make exactly the point I want to make. I try to make it about evidence I can marshal that is not tainted by my ability to subtly recast it to make it work. With a research paper or someone else’s experience recorded somewhere, I have the advantage of other people being able to poke at it and say ‘wait, why do you think that is the case??’
I make this example with wj, because I know (I think!) that he won’t take it the wrong way. So if I were feeling bloody minded, I’d ask him to point to exactly where anyone has called McT racist and link to it. If anyone said it straight out, I imagine it occurs either at the end of a long, contested thread or in a thread immediately after such a thread. But he’s got it that our framing of what we are saying to McT is what is making McT say what he says. While you could find evidence of this, that wouldn’t be all the evidence. And if you don’t consider the totality of the evidence, or at least try, you may be tempted to walk away thinking your point is proven. You can play the game like that, but that is playing for your ego, not for figuring out what is going on.
So this is why I hammer on providing sources, reading things. That unfortunately leads to the phenomenon of searching around on the internet for something to support your view, a ha, look at this, I’m right!
We saw that recently with Charles pulling up what was actually a pretty notorious piece of anti-semitic literature to support his position. I initially responded to it and when I googled to find out exactly what the rest of it was BOOM!. Like I said, I don’t think Charles is a holocaust denier, I think he just went down the wrong internet alley. But if you don’t give a person who has done that an out, you end up driving them into defending it.
That seems to be what has happened with a lot of people, most recently anti-vaxxers. It is unfortunate, and I understand it animates wj and others concern about how arguments are presented. Certainly, the presentation of arguments has affected the uptake of the vaccine and the fact that people are in information silos often means that they can’t get out of them. But to simply accept that as a given and not get them out means that you end up having the situation you seem to have now in the US. (the situation in Japan, while related, is subtly different and I may have a post about that)
This isn’t to take away from wj’s points about the absence of a level playing field. I’d suggest that wj’s own meaningful relationships both make him more sensitive to questions of systemic problems. But they also may make him more concerned about issues of face and confrontation.
Anyway, it’s _still_ raining here
https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14417798
I’m fortunate to be in a place that is safe and the systems that have been put in place mean that if there is a break, the water gets out, but the weather forecast has the first break to be Sunday, so it has been almost two weeks of constant rain. Strange times.
A lot of water under the bridge. I’m stepping in, not to speak to McT, cause it is clear that we just antagonize each other, but to talk about Pollo’s comment, which was
Delurking to comment on a trend that I’ve noticed. It seems that many progressives who apply “racism” more readily than I would tend to have few if any meaningful interactions with black and brown folks. I think the DiAngelo discussions both here and elsewhere really brought this home for me.
By meaningful, I mean spending time at each other’s home in small group settings or significant one-on-one time.
Russell counseled caution and Pollo replied
I’ve been lurking here since the aughts. If folks here have significant/meaningful relationships with black and brown folks, they have remained remarkably well hidden.
The obvious reply is ‘oh no, I have lots of experience’ and then catalog them. Which then moves down the road to the personal, and you weigh how authentic each experience is. I believe that is why Russell urges caution.
But there is also a parallel phenomenon. During the 70’s and 80’s, I was living in a small Southern town and then moved to a slightly larger Southern town, I had meaningful relationships with ‘black and brown folks’ (note, the euphemism acts to blur exactly what that means).
Well, I mean, I believe I had, but I’ve not kept in touch with any of them, only in touch with a smaller subset who have stayed on facebook and are generally in my ‘class’, though I’m not sure if that descriptor has any meaning, as it’s not like we can compare houses or paychecks. And it’s not like I pop up in their facebook timeline to ask them to explain what is so darn wrong about BLM. So that dearth of meaningful relationships with ‘black and brown folks’, which I would prefer to term ‘the other’, is probably true.
But here is the thing. I don’t know if I would have realized how problematic things are and (totally imo) that DiAngelo is correct about a lot of what she writes about it, had I not left and saw things from the outside.
Had I stayed in Mississippi, I might be defending whatever liberal gestures I could make and deploring the radicalism of BLM. I’d like to think I wouldn’t, but I don’t know. My facebook feed is full of high school classmates who still think that if Kaepernick hadn’t been so self centered and had the nerve to protest, all this crap wouldn’t have happened. I sometimes feel that the reason I left was not to find my fortune someplace else, but it was because I didn’t have the energy or stamina to deal with that, which I would have had to. But interrogating choices you made 40 years ago is a mug’s game. Despite the fact that I often do so.
Maybe DiAngelo doesn’t package the argument in a way that people like, maybe she is not the best courier for the message. But separating out her from the message, I think the message is correct.
There is also a parallel phenomenon, where we (note that pronoun) use experiences as a shield to protect our opinions. I love to tell stories, but when I’m defending what I think, I try not to pull up a story from my mental rolodex because it is likely that it will get embellished to make exactly the point I want to make. I try to make it about evidence I can marshal that is not tainted by my ability to subtly recast it to make it work. With a research paper or someone else’s experience recorded somewhere, I have the advantage of other people being able to poke at it and say ‘wait, why do you think that is the case??’
I make this example with wj, because I know (I think!) that he won’t take it the wrong way. So if I were feeling bloody minded, I’d ask him to point to exactly where anyone has called McT racist and link to it. If anyone said it straight out, I imagine it occurs either at the end of a long, contested thread or in a thread immediately after such a thread. But he’s got it that our framing of what we are saying to McT is what is making McT say what he says. While you could find evidence of this, that wouldn’t be all the evidence. And if you don’t consider the totality of the evidence, or at least try, you may be tempted to walk away thinking your point is proven. You can play the game like that, but that is playing for your ego, not for figuring out what is going on.
So this is why I hammer on providing sources, reading things. That unfortunately leads to the phenomenon of searching around on the internet for something to support your view, a ha, look at this, I’m right!
We saw that recently with Charles pulling up what was actually a pretty notorious piece of anti-semitic literature to support his position. I initially responded to it and when I googled to find out exactly what the rest of it was BOOM!. Like I said, I don’t think Charles is a holocaust denier, I think he just went down the wrong internet alley. But if you don’t give a person who has done that an out, you end up driving them into defending it.
That seems to be what has happened with a lot of people, most recently anti-vaxxers. It is unfortunate, and I understand it animates wj and others concern about how arguments are presented. Certainly, the presentation of arguments has affected the uptake of the vaccine and the fact that people are in information silos often means that they can’t get out of them. But to simply accept that as a given and not get them out means that you end up having the situation you seem to have now in the US. (the situation in Japan, while related, is subtly different and I may have a post about that)
This isn’t to take away from wj’s points about the absence of a level playing field. I’d suggest that wj’s own meaningful relationships both make him more sensitive to questions of systemic problems. But they also may make him more concerned about issues of face and confrontation.
Anyway, it’s _still_ raining here
https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14417798
I’m fortunate to be in a place that is safe and the systems that have been put in place mean that if there is a break, the water gets out, but the weather forecast has the first break to be Sunday, so it has been almost two weeks of constant rain. Strange times.
I make this example with wj, because I know (I think!) that he won’t take it the wrong way. So if I were feeling bloody minded, I’d ask him to point to exactly where anyone has called McT racist and link to it. If anyone said it straight out, I imagine it occurs either at the end of a long, contested thread or in a thread immediately after such a thread.
(Not taking it the wrong way. I think.)
I don’t know that anyone here has called McT a racist. But he was told earlier in this thread that something he wrote (specifically including “indigenous, non-capitalist, non-white but deeply faithful adherents of a non-Christian faith”) was racist. Cf. this — “racist gibberish”. Though there were other similar comments. Which he took (as far as I could tell) as an accusation of racism on his part.
Mind reader that I am not, I don’t think it was intended as an accusation that he is a racist. But I can also see how he could reasonably read it that way.
I make this example with wj, because I know (I think!) that he won’t take it the wrong way. So if I were feeling bloody minded, I’d ask him to point to exactly where anyone has called McT racist and link to it. If anyone said it straight out, I imagine it occurs either at the end of a long, contested thread or in a thread immediately after such a thread.
(Not taking it the wrong way. I think.)
I don’t know that anyone here has called McT a racist. But he was told earlier in this thread that something he wrote (specifically including “indigenous, non-capitalist, non-white but deeply faithful adherents of a non-Christian faith”) was racist. Cf. this — “racist gibberish”. Though there were other similar comments. Which he took (as far as I could tell) as an accusation of racism on his part.
Mind reader that I am not, I don’t think it was intended as an accusation that he is a racist. But I can also see how he could reasonably read it that way.
I’m fortunate to be in a place that is safe and the systems that have been put in place mean that if there is a break, the water gets out, but the weather forecast has the first break to be Sunday, so it has been almost two weeks of constant rain. Strange times.
Glad you’re safe, lj.
Let us all give thinks that climate change is a myth. Else we would be in far worse trouble. Instead of just flooding, wildfires, and other “once in a hundred years” stuff happening annually. Or even more often.
/sarcasm (which, I hope it is obvious, is not directed at you)
I’m fortunate to be in a place that is safe and the systems that have been put in place mean that if there is a break, the water gets out, but the weather forecast has the first break to be Sunday, so it has been almost two weeks of constant rain. Strange times.
Glad you’re safe, lj.
Let us all give thinks that climate change is a myth. Else we would be in far worse trouble. Instead of just flooding, wildfires, and other “once in a hundred years” stuff happening annually. Or even more often.
/sarcasm (which, I hope it is obvious, is not directed at you)
LJ-
I don’t think that DiAngelo or anyone who finds merit in her work or training to be operating in bad faith, I just think that her perspective when internalized by a liberal white person who doesn’t have meaningful black friends results in a tragicomedy when that liberal white person attempts to interact with black folks. It’s almost a trope … oh wait, it is:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhiteGuilt
The fawning deference that I see when I invite progressive white friends over to a small gathering with black friends is, frankly, embarrassing. Black folks are not Fabergé eggs; they are, in general, much tougher than white folks (sorry to generalize, but that’s my experience). You can question and challenge them; just know when to shut up and listen.
Obviously I’m applying something I’ve seen in meatspace to this online group and I recognize that it may not be fair or productive, but I noticed similar patterns from many of the posters in the DiAngelo thread back in the day and it’s stuck with me.
LJ-
I don’t think that DiAngelo or anyone who finds merit in her work or training to be operating in bad faith, I just think that her perspective when internalized by a liberal white person who doesn’t have meaningful black friends results in a tragicomedy when that liberal white person attempts to interact with black folks. It’s almost a trope … oh wait, it is:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhiteGuilt
The fawning deference that I see when I invite progressive white friends over to a small gathering with black friends is, frankly, embarrassing. Black folks are not Fabergé eggs; they are, in general, much tougher than white folks (sorry to generalize, but that’s my experience). You can question and challenge them; just know when to shut up and listen.
Obviously I’m applying something I’ve seen in meatspace to this online group and I recognize that it may not be fair or productive, but I noticed similar patterns from many of the posters in the DiAngelo thread back in the day and it’s stuck with me.
My operation in meatspaces in the states has been rather limited. I mean, the last time I was back was for my dad’s funeral 7 years ago. But it seems that that white guilt is one of the things that DiAngelo is referencing when she talks about white fragility.
I can also see how a diet of those kind of encounters might make black people just shut up and want it to stop, which then accounts for McT’s observation that no one around him has said anything.
My operation in meatspaces in the states has been rather limited. I mean, the last time I was back was for my dad’s funeral 7 years ago. But it seems that that white guilt is one of the things that DiAngelo is referencing when she talks about white fragility.
I can also see how a diet of those kind of encounters might make black people just shut up and want it to stop, which then accounts for McT’s observation that no one around him has said anything.
Sorry, working my way up on my way out
Which he took (as far as I could tell) as an accusation of racism on his part.
Sure, and he says we are twinkies. No matter how many times we say it’s not him, it’s what he’s writing, he is immovable. Apologies for LJ 2.0.
Sorry, working my way up on my way out
Which he took (as far as I could tell) as an accusation of racism on his part.
Sure, and he says we are twinkies. No matter how many times we say it’s not him, it’s what he’s writing, he is immovable. Apologies for LJ 2.0.
I just think that her perspective when internalized by a liberal white person who doesn’t have meaningful black friends results in a tragicomedy when that liberal white person attempts to interact with black folks.
Well, yeah, in part because it forces the POC into the role of POC Ambassador to the Clueless Whites. Again. Which, I’ve been told, is exhausting.
It’s easier, I think, in smaller mixed groups where the burden of communication is shared and no one is feeling outnumbered or singled out.
This is one of the biggest reasons, BTW, why I insist that universities need diversity more than they need whichever students score most highly on whichever achievement test of dubious value the university is bragging about in US News ranking results.
I just think that her perspective when internalized by a liberal white person who doesn’t have meaningful black friends results in a tragicomedy when that liberal white person attempts to interact with black folks.
Well, yeah, in part because it forces the POC into the role of POC Ambassador to the Clueless Whites. Again. Which, I’ve been told, is exhausting.
It’s easier, I think, in smaller mixed groups where the burden of communication is shared and no one is feeling outnumbered or singled out.
This is one of the biggest reasons, BTW, why I insist that universities need diversity more than they need whichever students score most highly on whichever achievement test of dubious value the university is bragging about in US News ranking results.
Achievement tests (e.g. the SAT) were useful when they allowed students to get admitted on ability, rather than connections (e.g. parents who were alumni and/or big donors). Once high schools started “teaching to the test”, their value dropped significantly.
That said, it would still be valuable to have an objective way to evaluate potential college students. No doubt a new approach would result in new ways to game the system. They always do — see the families who miraculously discover an ancestor who somehow qualifies them for Affirmative Action, i.e. “diversity”. Perhaps we need to add DNA scans to prove quualification.
But stiil, one can dream.
Achievement tests (e.g. the SAT) were useful when they allowed students to get admitted on ability, rather than connections (e.g. parents who were alumni and/or big donors). Once high schools started “teaching to the test”, their value dropped significantly.
That said, it would still be valuable to have an objective way to evaluate potential college students. No doubt a new approach would result in new ways to game the system. They always do — see the families who miraculously discover an ancestor who somehow qualifies them for Affirmative Action, i.e. “diversity”. Perhaps we need to add DNA scans to prove quualification.
But stiil, one can dream.
I don’t think he was a twinkie for thinking he was being called racist. First (and understandably) Janie said what he had said was “racist gibberish” and then (I think this was the sequence but I am in bed on phone so can’t check) she quoted Maya Angelou’s thing about how when somebody tells you who they are, believe them. So I think that made his assumption at least understandable. Now, I have explained that I thought what he said was idiotic and wrong headed, but by my analysis it was not actually properly racist, it was all about progressives and their foolish contempt for western civilisation. Now, that’s not to say that I think McK is entirely free of racism, partly because I agree with DiAngelo that probably almost nobody is (mind you, not just white people). And I have come to absolutely include myself in that, which I can tell you is a bloody bitter pill to swallow given my family history.
Anyway,I’ve now lost the thread of any further point I had to make, and on the phone I stand no chance of refinding it. But I thought lj’s penultimate (or thereabouts) long comment was very interesting, and I may well come back to it tomorrow when I am back on a proper device. Good night all.
I don’t think he was a twinkie for thinking he was being called racist. First (and understandably) Janie said what he had said was “racist gibberish” and then (I think this was the sequence but I am in bed on phone so can’t check) she quoted Maya Angelou’s thing about how when somebody tells you who they are, believe them. So I think that made his assumption at least understandable. Now, I have explained that I thought what he said was idiotic and wrong headed, but by my analysis it was not actually properly racist, it was all about progressives and their foolish contempt for western civilisation. Now, that’s not to say that I think McK is entirely free of racism, partly because I agree with DiAngelo that probably almost nobody is (mind you, not just white people). And I have come to absolutely include myself in that, which I can tell you is a bloody bitter pill to swallow given my family history.
Anyway,I’ve now lost the thread of any further point I had to make, and on the phone I stand no chance of refinding it. But I thought lj’s penultimate (or thereabouts) long comment was very interesting, and I may well come back to it tomorrow when I am back on a proper device. Good night all.
Achievement tests (e.g. the SAT) were useful when they allowed students to get admitted on ability, rather than connections (e.g. parents who were alumni and/or big donors). Once high schools started “teaching to the test”, their value dropped significantly.
The College Board was initially intended to ensure that all of those students who got admitted to the twelve colleges and universities on the board (Columbia, Colgate, University of Pennsylvania, NYU, Barnard College, Union College, Rutgers, Vassar, Bryn Mawr, Goucher, Princeton, Cornell) were most worthy of that elite honor. They were surprised when a number of applying students from private Hebrew schools outscored students from the elite preps that they had been drawing most heavily from. Donor panic ensued, and legacy admission was the universities’ way of providing a lucrative back door that let the old families keep their bragging rights.
I always thought it worked the other way, too.
It’s never been clear just how useful or predictive those tests have ever been. It does make for an easy first filter though.
Achievement tests (e.g. the SAT) were useful when they allowed students to get admitted on ability, rather than connections (e.g. parents who were alumni and/or big donors). Once high schools started “teaching to the test”, their value dropped significantly.
The College Board was initially intended to ensure that all of those students who got admitted to the twelve colleges and universities on the board (Columbia, Colgate, University of Pennsylvania, NYU, Barnard College, Union College, Rutgers, Vassar, Bryn Mawr, Goucher, Princeton, Cornell) were most worthy of that elite honor. They were surprised when a number of applying students from private Hebrew schools outscored students from the elite preps that they had been drawing most heavily from. Donor panic ensued, and legacy admission was the universities’ way of providing a lucrative back door that let the old families keep their bragging rights.
I always thought it worked the other way, too.
It’s never been clear just how useful or predictive those tests have ever been. It does make for an easy first filter though.
Interesting reading about the SAT from Frontline:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/lemann.html
Interesting reading about the SAT from Frontline:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/lemann.html
Shouldn’t be doing this in a meeting, but I feel I need to make one more comment.
If I would’ve picked out one comment that you would’ve hung them on, it would’ve been that one by Janie, but not because it shows any kind of Animas, anyone who’s read this blog for the past three months even should be able to tell that she’s pretty much at the end of her rope with regards to McT, so taking that as an example is problematic to say the least. Of course, this is one way to win arguments on the Internet. Get the other person so mad that they say something like that, and then pounce on it as evidence of the persons underline animus. It’s not something that’s unique to McT, i’m certainly guilty of it, but like our discussion of rules, you need to keep it within the rules rather than reaching outside them.
Also, in for a penny in for a pound.
I don’t think he was a twinkie for thinking he was being called racist
But that word is one that McT used to describe everyone but the the musketeers. To bring that in and simply say oh no McT isn’t a twinkie is to take his definitions and make them the frame of the discussion. Does he know that is what he is doing? No idea, but that is what happens everytime.
Shouldn’t be doing this in a meeting, but I feel I need to make one more comment.
If I would’ve picked out one comment that you would’ve hung them on, it would’ve been that one by Janie, but not because it shows any kind of Animas, anyone who’s read this blog for the past three months even should be able to tell that she’s pretty much at the end of her rope with regards to McT, so taking that as an example is problematic to say the least. Of course, this is one way to win arguments on the Internet. Get the other person so mad that they say something like that, and then pounce on it as evidence of the persons underline animus. It’s not something that’s unique to McT, i’m certainly guilty of it, but like our discussion of rules, you need to keep it within the rules rather than reaching outside them.
Also, in for a penny in for a pound.
I don’t think he was a twinkie for thinking he was being called racist
But that word is one that McT used to describe everyone but the the musketeers. To bring that in and simply say oh no McT isn’t a twinkie is to take his definitions and make them the frame of the discussion. Does he know that is what he is doing? No idea, but that is what happens everytime.
I believe that is why Russell urges caution.
Just to be clear – it struck me that pollo was drawing a conclusion based on limited information.
I don’t really know how many people here interact with black, brown, yellow, red, or green people on a deep and daily basis. I don’t know that, because not everybody shares that information.
I read and post here a lot, so if I don’t know, the information is probably simply not available. Not saying I know it all, just saying if folks were sharing a lot of their multicultural experiences here, it would probably have sunk into my thick skull by now.
So, probably best to not make assumptions.
That is all.
Personally, I am a suburban white guy who lives near Boston, which is actually a pretty segregated city. I do play music in a variety of styles that are rooted in the American black community. So, not a lot of black neighbors, but a number of black friends and musical collaborators. So, a mix.
As far as ‘people of color’, my day job is in the tech sector, so I interact with South Asian and Chinese people all the time, all day long, every working day. Also Russians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, and Turks. A previous job fielded a lot of Spanish language applications, so lots of Hispanic folks, plus I used to live in what passes for a Dominican ghetto next town over.
And those are my POC point of contact bona fides. If any of that matters.
FWIW, I have almost no opinion about DiAngelo. Never read her book, never watched her videos other than when there was a thread about her here on ObWi. I guess she has some useful things to say, and some things that are less useful, at least to me. I have nothing against her, in general she seems to be a sincere and earnest academic who found herself in the middle of a popular culture crapstorm.
Mostly I just thought pollo was making assumptions about things that were not in evidence. So, my idea was that it was probably best to tread lightly. pollo is under no obligation whatsoever to be influenced by anything I say.
Carry on.
I believe that is why Russell urges caution.
Just to be clear – it struck me that pollo was drawing a conclusion based on limited information.
I don’t really know how many people here interact with black, brown, yellow, red, or green people on a deep and daily basis. I don’t know that, because not everybody shares that information.
I read and post here a lot, so if I don’t know, the information is probably simply not available. Not saying I know it all, just saying if folks were sharing a lot of their multicultural experiences here, it would probably have sunk into my thick skull by now.
So, probably best to not make assumptions.
That is all.
Personally, I am a suburban white guy who lives near Boston, which is actually a pretty segregated city. I do play music in a variety of styles that are rooted in the American black community. So, not a lot of black neighbors, but a number of black friends and musical collaborators. So, a mix.
As far as ‘people of color’, my day job is in the tech sector, so I interact with South Asian and Chinese people all the time, all day long, every working day. Also Russians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, and Turks. A previous job fielded a lot of Spanish language applications, so lots of Hispanic folks, plus I used to live in what passes for a Dominican ghetto next town over.
And those are my POC point of contact bona fides. If any of that matters.
FWIW, I have almost no opinion about DiAngelo. Never read her book, never watched her videos other than when there was a thread about her here on ObWi. I guess she has some useful things to say, and some things that are less useful, at least to me. I have nothing against her, in general she seems to be a sincere and earnest academic who found herself in the middle of a popular culture crapstorm.
Mostly I just thought pollo was making assumptions about things that were not in evidence. So, my idea was that it was probably best to tread lightly. pollo is under no obligation whatsoever to be influenced by anything I say.
Carry on.
Almost forgot – also, a couple of Armenians. Don’t want to leave them out.
I subscribe the to McK theory of racial harmony. The more people you get to know, the less animus you’re going to have toward them and people like them.
Get to know people. It’s fun and rewarding. Except for the jerks, but you can just weed them out.
Almost forgot – also, a couple of Armenians. Don’t want to leave them out.
I subscribe the to McK theory of racial harmony. The more people you get to know, the less animus you’re going to have toward them and people like them.
Get to know people. It’s fun and rewarding. Except for the jerks, but you can just weed them out.
new sign on bobbyp’s lawn:
BLACK FRIENDS WANTED
INQUIRE WITHIN
new sign on bobbyp’s lawn:
BLACK FRIENDS WANTED
INQUIRE WITHIN
FWIW, I found PdM’s assumption about people here’s life experiences such an obvious faulty presumption that I resisted the immediate urge to respond with personal details. I will continue to resist. It’s just one more person being wrong on the internet. I acknowledge that I fall within the demographic that a previous commenter described for folks here. So not all generalized observations are wrong.
FWIW, I found PdM’s assumption about people here’s life experiences such an obvious faulty presumption that I resisted the immediate urge to respond with personal details. I will continue to resist. It’s just one more person being wrong on the internet. I acknowledge that I fall within the demographic that a previous commenter described for folks here. So not all generalized observations are wrong.
Seriously, what happened to: do not feed the troll?
Seriously, what happened to: do not feed the troll?
Didn’t that die when Trump was elected?
I’m home and it was sunny today, despite a forecast of rain. So I’m feeling much better and happy to answer questions about the points I raised. I’ll resist the urge to explain or correct my last comment.
Didn’t that die when Trump was elected?
I’m home and it was sunny today, despite a forecast of rain. So I’m feeling much better and happy to answer questions about the points I raised. I’ll resist the urge to explain or correct my last comment.
Get to know people. It’s fun and rewarding.
Yes it is. But racism is usually about how you treat people you don’t know.
Get to know people. It’s fun and rewarding.
Yes it is. But racism is usually about how you treat people you don’t know.
To bring that in and simply say oh no McT isn’t a twinkie is to take his definitions and make them the frame of the discussion.
The only reason I said that Mckinney wasn’t a twinkie was this, between you and wj:
wj: Which he took (as far as I could tell) as an accusation of racism on his part.
lj: Sure, and he says we are twinkies.
I just thought it was only fair to point out that it wasn’t completely crazy of him to think he was being accused of being a racist, and that, contrary to your implication above, it didn’t make him a twinkie.
(Side note: maybe accusing someone of being a twinkie is a deadly insult in the US. Or, as previously mentioned, a macho way to denigrate sensitive people. But personally, I think it’s funny, partly because the word itself makes me smile. Probably because twinkies are unknown to me.)
Anyway. As far as Janie being at the end of her rope, of course I understand this. A similar thing happened to me with sapient: if you contrast the way I reacted to her for years with the way I reacted to her near the end, when she kept taunting me about nazis, fascists etc, you can certainly see that I was at the end of my rope and reacting in ways that weren’t part of my normal temperament. And speaking of my normal temperament, I’m generally pretty easygoing, and find it useful (in the sense of more productive) and natural to think the best of people, but I have occasionally gone full-bore at McKinney (and others) when I have felt strongly enough about specific issues.
But I only made my comment from bed last night in the interests of fairness, and I still think it was fair to give some context.
To bring that in and simply say oh no McT isn’t a twinkie is to take his definitions and make them the frame of the discussion.
The only reason I said that Mckinney wasn’t a twinkie was this, between you and wj:
wj: Which he took (as far as I could tell) as an accusation of racism on his part.
lj: Sure, and he says we are twinkies.
I just thought it was only fair to point out that it wasn’t completely crazy of him to think he was being accused of being a racist, and that, contrary to your implication above, it didn’t make him a twinkie.
(Side note: maybe accusing someone of being a twinkie is a deadly insult in the US. Or, as previously mentioned, a macho way to denigrate sensitive people. But personally, I think it’s funny, partly because the word itself makes me smile. Probably because twinkies are unknown to me.)
Anyway. As far as Janie being at the end of her rope, of course I understand this. A similar thing happened to me with sapient: if you contrast the way I reacted to her for years with the way I reacted to her near the end, when she kept taunting me about nazis, fascists etc, you can certainly see that I was at the end of my rope and reacting in ways that weren’t part of my normal temperament. And speaking of my normal temperament, I’m generally pretty easygoing, and find it useful (in the sense of more productive) and natural to think the best of people, but I have occasionally gone full-bore at McKinney (and others) when I have felt strongly enough about specific issues.
But I only made my comment from bed last night in the interests of fairness, and I still think it was fair to give some context.
please, not another solid day about McTx.
please, not another solid day about McTx.
What Cleek said!
What Cleek said!
But racism is usually about how you treat people you don’t know.
That is correct. And, if you get to know them, you’ll probably end up treating them differently.
And, of course, it begs the question, because people generally won’t make the effort to get to know people about whom they harbor negative prejudices.
So yes, my comment was basically a useless bit of fluff. A shame, that.
And what cleek said.
But racism is usually about how you treat people you don’t know.
That is correct. And, if you get to know them, you’ll probably end up treating them differently.
And, of course, it begs the question, because people generally won’t make the effort to get to know people about whom they harbor negative prejudices.
So yes, my comment was basically a useless bit of fluff. A shame, that.
And what cleek said.
please, not another solid day about McTx.
Fair enough, and sorry all!
please, not another solid day about McTx.
Fair enough, and sorry all!
Maybe back on topic a little, this interview wandered across my bowsprit yesterday.
Apparently Chayes lived in Afghanistan for several years toward the beginning of the late adventure, and her take on the subjective experience of the kind of democracy established there is…illuminating:
Maybe the problem in Afghanistan wasn’t so much that we failed to create a modern US-style democracy, but that we did too good a job.
Maybe back on topic a little, this interview wandered across my bowsprit yesterday.
Apparently Chayes lived in Afghanistan for several years toward the beginning of the late adventure, and her take on the subjective experience of the kind of democracy established there is…illuminating:
Maybe the problem in Afghanistan wasn’t so much that we failed to create a modern US-style democracy, but that we did too good a job.
The Afghan people have their own traditions of representational governance, see also loya jirga.
It’s not the same as ours, the representation falls along tribal lines, rather than being organized around states or geographically defined districts. Although our state and district version has its own tribal affiliations, FWIW.
But it’s not clear to me that they need American style democracy. They have their own history and their own social organization.
We keep trying to make the whole world into America. And we keep failing at it.
Maybe we should stop doing that.
The Afghan people have their own traditions of representational governance, see also loya jirga.
It’s not the same as ours, the representation falls along tribal lines, rather than being organized around states or geographically defined districts. Although our state and district version has its own tribal affiliations, FWIW.
But it’s not clear to me that they need American style democracy. They have their own history and their own social organization.
We keep trying to make the whole world into America. And we keep failing at it.
Maybe we should stop doing that.
We keep trying to make the whole world into America. And we keep failing at it.
Maybe we should stick to trying to make America into America.
We keep trying to make the whole world into America. And we keep failing at it.
Maybe we should stick to trying to make America into America.
What Janie said.
Sometimes, you need to focus on cultivating your own garden.
What Janie said.
Sometimes, you need to focus on cultivating your own garden.
Maybe we should stick to trying to make America into America.
‘zactly.
Like maybe a little less venality. I don’t know when that became a core American value.
Maybe we should stick to trying to make America into America.
‘zactly.
Like maybe a little less venality. I don’t know when that became a core American value.
We keep trying to make the whole world into America. And we keep failing at it.
Well, certainly we keep failing to create functional governments and civil institutions.
I think the provocative idea here is that maybe part of that is because we’re mimeographing America. A place that is not, at least at the moment, particularly noteworthy for its functional government and civil institutions…
Which is not to say I think we should be mimeographing someplace else onto foreign cultures instead — we obviously shouldn’t be doing that at all — but rather that maybe there’s an opportunity to look into this mirror we’ve created, and use it to help see what might need fixing back at home.
We keep trying to make the whole world into America. And we keep failing at it.
Well, certainly we keep failing to create functional governments and civil institutions.
I think the provocative idea here is that maybe part of that is because we’re mimeographing America. A place that is not, at least at the moment, particularly noteworthy for its functional government and civil institutions…
Which is not to say I think we should be mimeographing someplace else onto foreign cultures instead — we obviously shouldn’t be doing that at all — but rather that maybe there’s an opportunity to look into this mirror we’ve created, and use it to help see what might need fixing back at home.
I don’t know when it became a core American value, but God knows it is now.
Deep into the third hour of testimony in federal bankruptcy court by Dr. Richard Sackler, a former president and co-chairman of the board of directors of Purdue Pharma, a prescription opioid manufacturer founded by Sackler family members, a lawyer posed a chain of questions:
“Do you have any responsibility for the opioid crisis in the United States?”
“No,” Dr. Sackler, 76, replied faintly.
“Does the Sackler family have any responsibility for the opioid crisis in the United States?”
Again, “No.”
And finally:
“Does Purdue Pharma have any responsibility for the opioid crisis in the United States?”
More firmly: “No.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/health/richard-sackler-purdue-testimony.html
And FWIW not just American. The recent saga of David Cameron and Greensill in the UK springs to mind.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56578838
I don’t know when it became a core American value, but God knows it is now.
Deep into the third hour of testimony in federal bankruptcy court by Dr. Richard Sackler, a former president and co-chairman of the board of directors of Purdue Pharma, a prescription opioid manufacturer founded by Sackler family members, a lawyer posed a chain of questions:
“Do you have any responsibility for the opioid crisis in the United States?”
“No,” Dr. Sackler, 76, replied faintly.
“Does the Sackler family have any responsibility for the opioid crisis in the United States?”
Again, “No.”
And finally:
“Does Purdue Pharma have any responsibility for the opioid crisis in the United States?”
More firmly: “No.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/health/richard-sackler-purdue-testimony.html
And FWIW not just American. The recent saga of David Cameron and Greensill in the UK springs to mind.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56578838
It’s far worse than the Sacklers just profiting from opoids in the first place. Once they knew it was happening, they started scheming to profit from addiction treatments as well.
I can’t actually think of any punishment that would be severe enough for these people.
It’s far worse than the Sacklers just profiting from opoids in the first place. Once they knew it was happening, they started scheming to profit from addiction treatments as well.
I can’t actually think of any punishment that would be severe enough for these people.
I can’t actually think of any punishment that would be severe enough for these people.
Maybe aversion therapy? Repeatedly get them addicted and then forced thru withdrawal.
Combined, of course, with fines reducing them to a cheap apartment (or a trailer park) and a lifetime, non-inheritable trust paying only lifetime welfare-level income. Just to help them relate to their previous customers.
I can’t actually think of any punishment that would be severe enough for these people.
Maybe aversion therapy? Repeatedly get them addicted and then forced thru withdrawal.
Combined, of course, with fines reducing them to a cheap apartment (or a trailer park) and a lifetime, non-inheritable trust paying only lifetime welfare-level income. Just to help them relate to their previous customers.
Yeah, I could go for that, wj.
Yeah, I could go for that, wj.
The opioid crisis is another problem that wasn’t so bad that government couldn’t make it a lot worse.
The opioid crisis is another problem that wasn’t so bad that government couldn’t make it a lot worse.
Maybe we should stick to trying to make America into America.
I’m thinking of Krugman’s evolution of thinking on Japan’s economy. Economists, to a man (and yes, they were almost all men, I have to point out) were convinced that Japan’s approach to the bubble was just wrong and boy, were they going to pay.
https://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/japans_trap.pdf
Krugman wrote that in 1998, but in 2014, wrote this
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/opinion/paul-krugman-apologizing-to-japan.html
The point, however, is that the West has, in fact, fallen into a slump similar to Japan’s — but worse. And that wasn’t supposed to happen. In the 1990s, we assumed that if the United States or Western Europe found themselves facing anything like Japan’s problems, we would respond much more effectively than the Japanese had. But we didn’t, even though we had Japan’s experience to guide us. On the contrary, Western policies since 2008 have been so inadequate if not actively counterproductive that Japan’s failings seem minor in comparison. And Western workers have experienced a level of suffering that Japan has managed to avoid.
As I’ve said, I don’t do economy. But I do have a dog in this fight, though it’s not like Japan needs someone to defend it. The dog is more you ought to be a lot more cautious dismissing things from other cultures.
Or maybe, just a lot more cautious in dismissing period. Say what makes you unhappy, but don’t draw any judgements. Easier said than done, but that’s my take.
Maybe we should stick to trying to make America into America.
I’m thinking of Krugman’s evolution of thinking on Japan’s economy. Economists, to a man (and yes, they were almost all men, I have to point out) were convinced that Japan’s approach to the bubble was just wrong and boy, were they going to pay.
https://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/japans_trap.pdf
Krugman wrote that in 1998, but in 2014, wrote this
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/opinion/paul-krugman-apologizing-to-japan.html
The point, however, is that the West has, in fact, fallen into a slump similar to Japan’s — but worse. And that wasn’t supposed to happen. In the 1990s, we assumed that if the United States or Western Europe found themselves facing anything like Japan’s problems, we would respond much more effectively than the Japanese had. But we didn’t, even though we had Japan’s experience to guide us. On the contrary, Western policies since 2008 have been so inadequate if not actively counterproductive that Japan’s failings seem minor in comparison. And Western workers have experienced a level of suffering that Japan has managed to avoid.
As I’ve said, I don’t do economy. But I do have a dog in this fight, though it’s not like Japan needs someone to defend it. The dog is more you ought to be a lot more cautious dismissing things from other cultures.
Or maybe, just a lot more cautious in dismissing period. Say what makes you unhappy, but don’t draw any judgements. Easier said than done, but that’s my take.
Forgot to add, Krugman has kind of recanted his recantation
https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/LISCenter/pkrugman/Its-baaack.pdf
Which I think is good, I think that what Japan could do before the coming of the 5 Cs (Clickbait, COVID, Climate Change and China) is quite different than what they can do after.
Forgot to add, Krugman has kind of recanted his recantation
https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/LISCenter/pkrugman/Its-baaack.pdf
Which I think is good, I think that what Japan could do before the coming of the 5 Cs (Clickbait, COVID, Climate Change and China) is quite different than what they can do after.
The opioid crisis is another problem that wasn’t so bad that government couldn’t make it a lot worse.
Care to expand on what it was in particular that the government did to make it worse? Not arguing here that it didn’t, just looking for information.
The opioid crisis is another problem that wasn’t so bad that government couldn’t make it a lot worse.
Care to expand on what it was in particular that the government did to make it worse? Not arguing here that it didn’t, just looking for information.
The opioid crisis is another problem that wasn’t so bad that government couldn’t make it a lot worse.
Probably shouldn’t take this bait at all, but I do think this really illustrates a frightfully popular conservative fallacy: the idea that “government” is a single thing. A sort of idealized, uniform, standardized commodity, like wheat or crude oil.
And since government is a uniform fluid, it follows that if something goes wrong, obviously the only question that needs to be investigated, the only variable to adjust, is “how much”.
The opioid crisis is another problem that wasn’t so bad that government couldn’t make it a lot worse.
Probably shouldn’t take this bait at all, but I do think this really illustrates a frightfully popular conservative fallacy: the idea that “government” is a single thing. A sort of idealized, uniform, standardized commodity, like wheat or crude oil.
And since government is a uniform fluid, it follows that if something goes wrong, obviously the only question that needs to be investigated, the only variable to adjust, is “how much”.
One of many articles on how the government has had an adverse impact on the opioid crisis.
“Opioid overdose deaths have risen dramatically in the United States over the past two decades. The standard explanation blames expanded prescribing and advertising of opioids beginning in the 1990s.
This “more prescribing, more deaths” explanation has spurred increased legal restrictions on opioid prescribing. Federal and state governments have enacted a variety of policies to curtail prescribing and doctor shopping, and the federal government has raided pain management facilities deemed to be overprescribing. Supporters believe these policies reduce the supply of prescription opioids and thereby decrease overdose deaths.
We find little support for this view. We instead suggest that the opioid epidemic has resulted from too many restrictions on prescribing, not too few. Rather than decreasing opioid overdose deaths, restrictions push users from prescription opioids toward diverted or illicit opioids, which increases the risk of overdose because consumers cannot easily assess drug potency or quality in underground markets. The implication of this “more restrictions, more deaths” explanation is that the United States should scale back restrictions on opioid prescribing, perhaps to the point of legalization.”
Overdosing on Regulation: How Government Caused the Opioid Epidemic
One of many articles on how the government has had an adverse impact on the opioid crisis.
“Opioid overdose deaths have risen dramatically in the United States over the past two decades. The standard explanation blames expanded prescribing and advertising of opioids beginning in the 1990s.
This “more prescribing, more deaths” explanation has spurred increased legal restrictions on opioid prescribing. Federal and state governments have enacted a variety of policies to curtail prescribing and doctor shopping, and the federal government has raided pain management facilities deemed to be overprescribing. Supporters believe these policies reduce the supply of prescription opioids and thereby decrease overdose deaths.
We find little support for this view. We instead suggest that the opioid epidemic has resulted from too many restrictions on prescribing, not too few. Rather than decreasing opioid overdose deaths, restrictions push users from prescription opioids toward diverted or illicit opioids, which increases the risk of overdose because consumers cannot easily assess drug potency or quality in underground markets. The implication of this “more restrictions, more deaths” explanation is that the United States should scale back restrictions on opioid prescribing, perhaps to the point of legalization.”
Overdosing on Regulation: How Government Caused the Opioid Epidemic
We instead suggest that the opioid epidemic has resulted from too many restrictions on prescribing, not too few.
SMFH
We instead suggest that the opioid epidemic has resulted from too many restrictions on prescribing, not too few.
SMFH
We
find littlelargely ignored support for this view.We
find littlelargely ignored support for this view.One of many articles on how the government has had an adverse impact on the opioid crisis.
I’m sympathetic to the idea of ending drug prohibition, with a commensurate increase in treatment and so forth.
But that article is, to use a technical term, crap.
I only skimmed it, but it roughly looks like it spends half the time complaining about the restrictions meant to reduce drug diversion enabled by overprescribing. And it backs this up by pointing out that most opioid deaths aren’t from prescriptions, but from…wait for it…diverted pills obtained from friends or family.
I mean, really?
I have no doubt that some regulations and programs are more and less effective/counterproductive than others, but the “oxycontin prescriptions aren’t the problem” case presented here is just rotten.
One of many articles on how the government has had an adverse impact on the opioid crisis.
I’m sympathetic to the idea of ending drug prohibition, with a commensurate increase in treatment and so forth.
But that article is, to use a technical term, crap.
I only skimmed it, but it roughly looks like it spends half the time complaining about the restrictions meant to reduce drug diversion enabled by overprescribing. And it backs this up by pointing out that most opioid deaths aren’t from prescriptions, but from…wait for it…diverted pills obtained from friends or family.
I mean, really?
I have no doubt that some regulations and programs are more and less effective/counterproductive than others, but the “oxycontin prescriptions aren’t the problem” case presented here is just rotten.
On casual inspection, the Cato paper is nonsense.
One line shows legal opioid consumption – I assume that means prescription opioids – increasing sharply from 1999, peaking in 2011, and then gradually declining. Another line shows deaths from “nonheroin or synthetic” opioid drug overdoes increasing sharply from 1999, peaking in 2011, and then gradually declining. So the conclusion is that opioid drug prescriptions cause opioid overdose deaths?
No of course not, how would that get published by Cato. One has also to look at the line which shows deaths from “heroin and synthetic” opioid overdoses increased rapidly from 2010. Obviously, the reduction in opioid prescriptions from 2011 caused illegal opioid overdoses to increase from 2010.
On casual inspection, the Cato paper is nonsense.
One line shows legal opioid consumption – I assume that means prescription opioids – increasing sharply from 1999, peaking in 2011, and then gradually declining. Another line shows deaths from “nonheroin or synthetic” opioid drug overdoes increasing sharply from 1999, peaking in 2011, and then gradually declining. So the conclusion is that opioid drug prescriptions cause opioid overdose deaths?
No of course not, how would that get published by Cato. One has also to look at the line which shows deaths from “heroin and synthetic” opioid overdoses increased rapidly from 2010. Obviously, the reduction in opioid prescriptions from 2011 caused illegal opioid overdoses to increase from 2010.
Cato is almost always a confirmation bias gig. Start with the conclusion you want and work to find something that fits the curve.
Cato is almost always a confirmation bias gig. Start with the conclusion you want and work to find something that fits the curve.
people are prescribed opioids. they become addicted to them, and work around the limitations on prescribing by begging, borrowing, or stealing them from friends or family. or, they substitute heroin.
because they are now addicts.
the obvious solution here is… let them have as many opioids as they want.
am I mischaracterizing the argument?
people are prescribed opioids. they become addicted to them, and work around the limitations on prescribing by begging, borrowing, or stealing them from friends or family. or, they substitute heroin.
because they are now addicts.
the obvious solution here is… let them have as many opioids as they want.
am I mischaracterizing the argument?
If opioids were noisier, like guns, rational individuals, otherwise not dissuaded by the fact that either can fucking kill you (in the case of guns, a product expressly designed to kill human beings and other sentient beings) would resist them.
My sister was justifiably prescribed opioids for indescribable pain resulting from a horrendous leg injury, but, by her account and my and everyone around her witness, she became addicted to them, utterly dysfunctional in her daily life, and suicidal.
Happily, after 18 months, she went cold turkey and off them, with terrible withdrawal symptoms, but successfully.
Beside, where would JD Vance be today without his relatives’ and hillbilly friends’ addictions to opioids. Most are poor and Vance would never allow them to afford prescribed reduction via socialist gummint assistance, so they would have to rely on the black market for their opioids anyway and keep on reducing the white republican base via death via drug overdose and COVID infections, because mask and vaccine mandates only have the unintended consequence of causing a third of pig fucking otherwise rational Americans to rush TOWARD the pandemic virus, inhaling like crazy and then shedding it on to their victims as a matter of constitutional right, which I guess is a shared socialism of some perverse sort, since they are giving it away for free.
America is full of shit.
If opioids were noisier, like guns, rational individuals, otherwise not dissuaded by the fact that either can fucking kill you (in the case of guns, a product expressly designed to kill human beings and other sentient beings) would resist them.
My sister was justifiably prescribed opioids for indescribable pain resulting from a horrendous leg injury, but, by her account and my and everyone around her witness, she became addicted to them, utterly dysfunctional in her daily life, and suicidal.
Happily, after 18 months, she went cold turkey and off them, with terrible withdrawal symptoms, but successfully.
Beside, where would JD Vance be today without his relatives’ and hillbilly friends’ addictions to opioids. Most are poor and Vance would never allow them to afford prescribed reduction via socialist gummint assistance, so they would have to rely on the black market for their opioids anyway and keep on reducing the white republican base via death via drug overdose and COVID infections, because mask and vaccine mandates only have the unintended consequence of causing a third of pig fucking otherwise rational Americans to rush TOWARD the pandemic virus, inhaling like crazy and then shedding it on to their victims as a matter of constitutional right, which I guess is a shared socialism of some perverse sort, since they are giving it away for free.
America is full of shit.
people are prescribed opioids. they become addicted to them, …
Only a very small percentage of people prescribed opioids become addicted to them.
“Whatever the media’s motives, the narrative does not fit with what we’ve learned over two decades since the opioid crisis began. We know now that the vast majority of patients who take pain relievers like oxycodone and hydrocodone never get addicted. We also know that people who develop problems are very likely to have struggled with addiction, or to be suffering from psychological trouble, prior to receiving opioids. Furthermore, we know that individuals who regularly misuse pain relievers are far more likely to keep obtaining them from illicit sources rather than from their own doctors.
In short, although accidental addiction can happen, otherwise happy lives rarely come undone after a trip to the dental surgeon. And yet the exaggerated risk from prescription opioids — disseminated in the media but also advanced by some vocal physicians — led to an overzealous regime of pill control that has upended the lives of those suffering from real pain.”
The truth about painkillers
people are prescribed opioids. they become addicted to them, …
Only a very small percentage of people prescribed opioids become addicted to them.
“Whatever the media’s motives, the narrative does not fit with what we’ve learned over two decades since the opioid crisis began. We know now that the vast majority of patients who take pain relievers like oxycodone and hydrocodone never get addicted. We also know that people who develop problems are very likely to have struggled with addiction, or to be suffering from psychological trouble, prior to receiving opioids. Furthermore, we know that individuals who regularly misuse pain relievers are far more likely to keep obtaining them from illicit sources rather than from their own doctors.
In short, although accidental addiction can happen, otherwise happy lives rarely come undone after a trip to the dental surgeon. And yet the exaggerated risk from prescription opioids — disseminated in the media but also advanced by some vocal physicians — led to an overzealous regime of pill control that has upended the lives of those suffering from real pain.”
The truth about painkillers
Gavin Newsom, a hypocrite who violated his own Covid social distancing restrictions, may be replaced by Larry Elder, a rancid conservative, whose first order of business will be to validate Newsom’s stupidity by getting rid of all mask and vaccine mandates in order to better spread his favorite killer virus.
But Americans would prefer to unseat a hypocrite who hypocritically is NOT trying to kill them in favor of installing an actual mass murderer who means what he says and will keep his promise to kill as many of them as possible, if of course he also eliminates their taxes, otherwise, ya know, no deal, because we drive such a hard bargain.
My money, or my life! What’s it gonna be?
Sincerity was Hitler’s, Pol Pot’s, and Stalin’s selling point too. Those guys had integrity.
I understand the Lieutenant Governor of Texas, who tried to sell elderly Texans on the notion of giving up the ghost on behalf of the common good, though he himself was nowhere to be seen on the morgue slabs, to our great misfortune, is now touring Texas elementary schools and going up and down the classroom rows designating eeny, meeny, moe volunteers among the kids as unmasked super spreaders and encouraging infected sputum show and tell hours.
The winning kids will be rewarded liquor licenses for their tree houses and sleepovers.
I’ll give him that he is right about one thing, school teachers should be heavily armed to protect the kids from mass murderers entering school grounds and shoot to kill.
Gavin Newsom, a hypocrite who violated his own Covid social distancing restrictions, may be replaced by Larry Elder, a rancid conservative, whose first order of business will be to validate Newsom’s stupidity by getting rid of all mask and vaccine mandates in order to better spread his favorite killer virus.
But Americans would prefer to unseat a hypocrite who hypocritically is NOT trying to kill them in favor of installing an actual mass murderer who means what he says and will keep his promise to kill as many of them as possible, if of course he also eliminates their taxes, otherwise, ya know, no deal, because we drive such a hard bargain.
My money, or my life! What’s it gonna be?
Sincerity was Hitler’s, Pol Pot’s, and Stalin’s selling point too. Those guys had integrity.
I understand the Lieutenant Governor of Texas, who tried to sell elderly Texans on the notion of giving up the ghost on behalf of the common good, though he himself was nowhere to be seen on the morgue slabs, to our great misfortune, is now touring Texas elementary schools and going up and down the classroom rows designating eeny, meeny, moe volunteers among the kids as unmasked super spreaders and encouraging infected sputum show and tell hours.
The winning kids will be rewarded liquor licenses for their tree houses and sleepovers.
I’ll give him that he is right about one thing, school teachers should be heavily armed to protect the kids from mass murderers entering school grounds and shoot to kill.
Only a very small percentage of people prescribed opioids become addicted to them.
Only a small percentage of people who get COVID die from it.
Anytime you post an article that starts with ‘the truth about’, I think you are handicapping yourself…
Only a very small percentage of people prescribed opioids become addicted to them.
Only a small percentage of people who get COVID die from it.
Anytime you post an article that starts with ‘the truth about’, I think you are handicapping yourself…
“otherwise happy lives rarely come undone after a trip to the dental surgeon.”
Well, if we got rid of all regulation of the dental industry (why can’t I have lead fillings, anyhoo, sez right in Reason Magazine) we could quickly change that trend for the worse.
There’s no happier people than my dentists after a weekend on their his and her boats I paid for. When I show my face in their offices, they greet me with an “Ahoy, matey!”
If realtors weren’t forced to smile like lunatics on those yard signs, American dentistry would go down the tubes.
I have a crown, which thru time, has worn down, so that food bits now get trapped between that tooth and its neighbor. I’ll get it replaced in good time, but during my last office visit, after the the dental hygienist got done making my cry, the dentist, who kind of sneaked up on me from the opposite side, took a look and said “That spot is obviously becoming a food trap,” to which I shot back “And now it looks like it’s going to become a money trap!”.
The dental hygienist, standing by after her grim work, and who always asks me “Is it safe?” while trying to charm me into prising my jaws open, burst into laughter and had to grip a chair and bend over as she was overcome with hilarity.
The dentist herself managed a smirk.
I request opioids upfront.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bhb0Xy26eys
“otherwise happy lives rarely come undone after a trip to the dental surgeon.”
Well, if we got rid of all regulation of the dental industry (why can’t I have lead fillings, anyhoo, sez right in Reason Magazine) we could quickly change that trend for the worse.
There’s no happier people than my dentists after a weekend on their his and her boats I paid for. When I show my face in their offices, they greet me with an “Ahoy, matey!”
If realtors weren’t forced to smile like lunatics on those yard signs, American dentistry would go down the tubes.
I have a crown, which thru time, has worn down, so that food bits now get trapped between that tooth and its neighbor. I’ll get it replaced in good time, but during my last office visit, after the the dental hygienist got done making my cry, the dentist, who kind of sneaked up on me from the opposite side, took a look and said “That spot is obviously becoming a food trap,” to which I shot back “And now it looks like it’s going to become a money trap!”.
The dental hygienist, standing by after her grim work, and who always asks me “Is it safe?” while trying to charm me into prising my jaws open, burst into laughter and had to grip a chair and bend over as she was overcome with hilarity.
The dentist herself managed a smirk.
I request opioids upfront.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bhb0Xy26eys
Only a very small percentage of people prescribed opioids become addicted to them.
noted.
and…
the solution for those people – the people who are more likely to become addicts, for whatever reason – is to let them have all the opioids they want.
that’ll work!
Only a very small percentage of people prescribed opioids become addicted to them.
noted.
and…
the solution for those people – the people who are more likely to become addicts, for whatever reason – is to let them have all the opioids they want.
that’ll work!
Only a very small percentage of people prescribed opioids become addicted to them.
small percentages become big numbers, when multiplied by even bigger numbers.
and we prescribe a LOT of opioids.
Only a very small percentage of people prescribed opioids become addicted to them.
small percentages become big numbers, when multiplied by even bigger numbers.
and we prescribe a LOT of opioids.
It’s not surprising that people with addiction problems were most likely to become addicted. Isn’t that part of the problem – the indiscriminate distribution of opioids? Maybe if they were super careful, the crisis wouldn’t have happened. Golly!
It’s not surprising that people with addiction problems were most likely to become addicted. Isn’t that part of the problem – the indiscriminate distribution of opioids? Maybe if they were super careful, the crisis wouldn’t have happened. Golly!
I’ll make one point for the libertarians: diamorphine is the best pain-control medicine there is, it’s a blessing that it’s available for medical use here, a crime that it’s unavailable in the USA.
I’ll make one point for the libertarians: diamorphine is the best pain-control medicine there is, it’s a blessing that it’s available for medical use here, a crime that it’s unavailable in the USA.
US drug policy — prescription and otherwise — is a shambles. But, to paraphrase:
The opioid crisis is another policy debate that wasn’t so bad that libertarianism couldn’t make it a lot worse.
US drug policy — prescription and otherwise — is a shambles. But, to paraphrase:
The opioid crisis is another policy debate that wasn’t so bad that libertarianism couldn’t make it a lot worse.
Ok, does anyone think the Administration has gotten this right? ISIS, already?
Is it good news that you can buy art from the president’s highly regarded son starting at 75K a copy *anonymously*?
Ok, does anyone think the Administration has gotten this right? ISIS, already?
Is it good news that you can buy art from the president’s highly regarded son starting at 75K a copy *anonymously*?
we don’t control Afghanistan. we lost that war. Trump negotiated the surrender.
if you would like us to do yet another surge and spend another trillion fucking dollars chasing the Taliban around the mountains for 10 years, just say it.
but pretending there’s a way out of this in which we are both in control of the country while simultaneously leaving it is disingenuous.
and, feel free to point out the law that says an adult child has to abandon his career if his father becomes President. and be sure to point out the exceptions you made for Eric, Don Jr and Ivanka.
we don’t control Afghanistan. we lost that war. Trump negotiated the surrender.
if you would like us to do yet another surge and spend another trillion fucking dollars chasing the Taliban around the mountains for 10 years, just say it.
but pretending there’s a way out of this in which we are both in control of the country while simultaneously leaving it is disingenuous.
and, feel free to point out the law that says an adult child has to abandon his career if his father becomes President. and be sure to point out the exceptions you made for Eric, Don Jr and Ivanka.
Ok, does anyone think the Administration has gotten this right? ISIS, already?
Do I think that they’ve gotten it perfectly? No. Do I think anybody else (any other politician, just to be clear) would/could have done better? Also No.
It’s easy to critique from the sidelines with 20/20 hindsight. But all of the alternatives I’ve seen suggested (and most of the critics are too canny to even try to suggest anything) assume either perfect intelligence, or that we could magically accomplish something there that 20 years’ shows no sign of having done.
Ok, does anyone think the Administration has gotten this right? ISIS, already?
Do I think that they’ve gotten it perfectly? No. Do I think anybody else (any other politician, just to be clear) would/could have done better? Also No.
It’s easy to critique from the sidelines with 20/20 hindsight. But all of the alternatives I’ve seen suggested (and most of the critics are too canny to even try to suggest anything) assume either perfect intelligence, or that we could magically accomplish something there that 20 years’ shows no sign of having done.
I recommend what I would call The Trump Test:
If Trump had done the same thing, how would you have reacted?
This is an epic fail and Biden just made first big mistake of his presidency. Blaming the Afghans for their misery was the icing on the cake. It will be hard for him and the US to rebuild international credibility.
I recommend what I would call The Trump Test:
If Trump had done the same thing, how would you have reacted?
This is an epic fail and Biden just made first big mistake of his presidency. Blaming the Afghans for their misery was the icing on the cake. It will be hard for him and the US to rebuild international credibility.
another vote for forever war, then.
another vote for forever war, then.
Ok, does anyone think the Administration has gotten this right? ISIS, already?
What freaking control do you think ‘this administration’ has over where ISIS is or what they do? What control do you think any administration has over any of that?
The choices here were these: stay, or leave. Both options suck.
There is no ‘get it right’ available.
Is it good news that you can buy art from the president’s highly regarded son starting at 75K a copy *anonymously*?
I don’t give a rat’s @ss about it either way.
I could give you my personal laundry list of how to keep people from grifting off of the fact that they have family in high office. You wouldn’t like any of it, is my guess.
This is an epic fail and Biden just made first big mistake of his presidency.
It’s a 20 year long epic fail. Biden’s just trying to salvage what he can out of it.
I’m still waiting for anybody, anywhere, to explain exactly what we should do that we aren’t doing.
Stay, or leave. Pick one. Either choice sucks, just in different ways.
Ok, does anyone think the Administration has gotten this right? ISIS, already?
What freaking control do you think ‘this administration’ has over where ISIS is or what they do? What control do you think any administration has over any of that?
The choices here were these: stay, or leave. Both options suck.
There is no ‘get it right’ available.
Is it good news that you can buy art from the president’s highly regarded son starting at 75K a copy *anonymously*?
I don’t give a rat’s @ss about it either way.
I could give you my personal laundry list of how to keep people from grifting off of the fact that they have family in high office. You wouldn’t like any of it, is my guess.
This is an epic fail and Biden just made first big mistake of his presidency.
It’s a 20 year long epic fail. Biden’s just trying to salvage what he can out of it.
I’m still waiting for anybody, anywhere, to explain exactly what we should do that we aren’t doing.
Stay, or leave. Pick one. Either choice sucks, just in different ways.
I just don’t understand why they didn’t get more people out sooner. Other than that, it was going to be a sh*t show no matter what.
I just don’t understand why they didn’t get more people out sooner. Other than that, it was going to be a sh*t show no matter what.
I recommend what I would call The Trump Test:
If Trump had done the same thing, how would you have reacted?
This is an epic fail and Biden just made first big mistake of his presidency. Blaming the Afghans for their misery was the icing on the cake. It will be hard for him and the US to rebuild international credibility.
Have I not been clear about my feelings about Trump? His negotiations with the Taliban were awful and Pompeo is an idiot. However, Biden has overridden every Trump policy he disagreed with, so it is BS to say he was somehow magically bound by Trump’s stupidity in Afghanistan. Therefore, you are correct, this is a huge foreign policy fail.
This is Biden’s and his separation from either reality or the truth is patent for all to see.
I mentioned Hunter because of the prior, ongoing outrage here over the Trump family’s self-dealing. It seemed a bit selective given the passes for WJC, HRC and their Foundation, and now I’m sure of it.
Doesn’t mean anyone was wrong about Trump, just that you really can’t be expected to be taken seriously if your own champion does the same stuff, even if on a smaller scale.
I recommend what I would call The Trump Test:
If Trump had done the same thing, how would you have reacted?
This is an epic fail and Biden just made first big mistake of his presidency. Blaming the Afghans for their misery was the icing on the cake. It will be hard for him and the US to rebuild international credibility.
Have I not been clear about my feelings about Trump? His negotiations with the Taliban were awful and Pompeo is an idiot. However, Biden has overridden every Trump policy he disagreed with, so it is BS to say he was somehow magically bound by Trump’s stupidity in Afghanistan. Therefore, you are correct, this is a huge foreign policy fail.
This is Biden’s and his separation from either reality or the truth is patent for all to see.
I mentioned Hunter because of the prior, ongoing outrage here over the Trump family’s self-dealing. It seemed a bit selective given the passes for WJC, HRC and their Foundation, and now I’m sure of it.
Doesn’t mean anyone was wrong about Trump, just that you really can’t be expected to be taken seriously if your own champion does the same stuff, even if on a smaller scale.
Blaming the Afghans for their misery was the icing on the cake.
they got the keys to their country and they gave them to the Taliban. how is that anybody’s fault but their own? better question – what are we supposed to do about it? either we’re occupiers, or we’re leaving.
there is no third way.
Blaming the Afghans for their misery was the icing on the cake.
they got the keys to their country and they gave them to the Taliban. how is that anybody’s fault but their own? better question – what are we supposed to do about it? either we’re occupiers, or we’re leaving.
there is no third way.
Yes Biden got it mostly right, except for the visa situation mainly. He also screwed up ( or his advisors did) thinking the government could hold together longer. The only way to do better was to negotiate a peaceful surrender and that was politically impossible.
The failure was the 20 year shitshow that led to this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/26/opinion/afghanistan-us-withdrawal.html
Yes Biden got it mostly right, except for the visa situation mainly. He also screwed up ( or his advisors did) thinking the government could hold together longer. The only way to do better was to negotiate a peaceful surrender and that was politically impossible.
The failure was the 20 year shitshow that led to this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/26/opinion/afghanistan-us-withdrawal.html
I mentioned Hunter because of the prior, ongoing outrage here over the Trump family’s self-dealing.
as soon as Hunter Biden becomes a paid advisor to his father, and sets up a studio in the WH, this will be a much better point.
I mentioned Hunter because of the prior, ongoing outrage here over the Trump family’s self-dealing.
as soon as Hunter Biden becomes a paid advisor to his father, and sets up a studio in the WH, this will be a much better point.
The Trump test is interesting but means little except that people sometimes hold views for dumb partisan reasons. One could also consider a Sanders test. If Sanders did this it would also change some people’s views. If so, it only means that partisanship sometimes causes hypocrisy. Not a big surprise.
It’s been a bipartisan catastrophe of lies and bs going back 20 years, as outlined here and in the previous Klein piece and also in an Eric Levitz piece and probably others.
https://scholars-stage.org/we-must-learn-from-our-defeat/
The Trump test is interesting but means little except that people sometimes hold views for dumb partisan reasons. One could also consider a Sanders test. If Sanders did this it would also change some people’s views. If so, it only means that partisanship sometimes causes hypocrisy. Not a big surprise.
It’s been a bipartisan catastrophe of lies and bs going back 20 years, as outlined here and in the previous Klein piece and also in an Eric Levitz piece and probably others.
https://scholars-stage.org/we-must-learn-from-our-defeat/
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1331342325981741056?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1331342325981741056%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnotthebee.com%2Farticle%2Famerica-deserves-to-know-who-is-in-charge
Worth remembering.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1331342325981741056?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1331342325981741056%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnotthebee.com%2Farticle%2Famerica-deserves-to-know-who-is-in-charge
Worth remembering.
https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1430737262887776262
https://twitter.com/Anand_Gopal_/status/1430951141525835789
Anand Gopal is always worth reading.
Incidentally, if the US had international credibility before withdrawing from Afghanistan and lost it for that, it tells you something about the international idiots who bestow credibility. Some of them were quoted in the NYT yesterday. Maybe they can scrape up some money from their own taxpayers, build up their military and then bomb some villages.
https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1430737262887776262
https://twitter.com/Anand_Gopal_/status/1430951141525835789
Anand Gopal is always worth reading.
Incidentally, if the US had international credibility before withdrawing from Afghanistan and lost it for that, it tells you something about the international idiots who bestow credibility. Some of them were quoted in the NYT yesterday. Maybe they can scrape up some money from their own taxpayers, build up their military and then bomb some villages.
Last link for the day—
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/documents-database/
Last link for the day—
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/documents-database/
This is an epic fail and Biden just made first big mistake of his presidency.
OK, you think it’s a huge mistake. What, exactly, should he have done differently? And how would it have worked better? Simply saying it was bad, without offering something better, just won’t cut it.
P.S. I will happily concede that revamping our visa system would have helped. (And needs doing anyway.) Not with getting everybody out better, but with getting them settled sooner ince they were clear.
This is an epic fail and Biden just made first big mistake of his presidency.
OK, you think it’s a huge mistake. What, exactly, should he have done differently? And how would it have worked better? Simply saying it was bad, without offering something better, just won’t cut it.
P.S. I will happily concede that revamping our visa system would have helped. (And needs doing anyway.) Not with getting everybody out better, but with getting them settled sooner ince they were clear.
I’d put it this way. As a foreign policy decision goes, I don’t think that Biden has done any worse than anyone else would have done in the same circumstances. The outcome is about what the outcome would have been given any other actual withdrawal scenario. On this, the US lumps it and everyone else armchair quarterbacks what they would have done to make things less awful.
Staying longer would not have changed the outcome, only delayed it. We have made no headway there since Obama’s tenure. Obama did what was best for his own domestic prospects and kicked the can. Biden didn’t feel he could pass on this one.
The public relations around the withdrawal could have been handled more adroitly by someone else, sure. Biden handled it in public as Biden always handles such things. He’s got one way of doing everything for public speaking and that’s what he did. Does anyone expect different? He is what we elected because the alternative was catastrophically worse.
Can we imagine any of the other Democratic candidates for the presidency to have handled this any better? I can’t see any of them having done much different except in the messaging, and all of them would have been painted as inexperienced and weak and taken it on the chin for that.
No win situation.
I’d put it this way. As a foreign policy decision goes, I don’t think that Biden has done any worse than anyone else would have done in the same circumstances. The outcome is about what the outcome would have been given any other actual withdrawal scenario. On this, the US lumps it and everyone else armchair quarterbacks what they would have done to make things less awful.
Staying longer would not have changed the outcome, only delayed it. We have made no headway there since Obama’s tenure. Obama did what was best for his own domestic prospects and kicked the can. Biden didn’t feel he could pass on this one.
The public relations around the withdrawal could have been handled more adroitly by someone else, sure. Biden handled it in public as Biden always handles such things. He’s got one way of doing everything for public speaking and that’s what he did. Does anyone expect different? He is what we elected because the alternative was catastrophically worse.
Can we imagine any of the other Democratic candidates for the presidency to have handled this any better? I can’t see any of them having done much different except in the messaging, and all of them would have been painted as inexperienced and weak and taken it on the chin for that.
No win situation.
I mentioned Hunter because of the prior, ongoing outrage here over the Trump family’s self-dealing.
Have US government funds been spent on Hunter’s art? I must have missed that.
Somebody cashing in on their relative’s name/position/etc. is sleezy IMHO. But nothing like the Trump family’s corruption.
I mentioned Hunter because of the prior, ongoing outrage here over the Trump family’s self-dealing.
Have US government funds been spent on Hunter’s art? I must have missed that.
Somebody cashing in on their relative’s name/position/etc. is sleezy IMHO. But nothing like the Trump family’s corruption.
Well, I deleted a perfect desert storm of a stemwinder responding to McTX. For the best, all around, I’d venture.
“Doesn’t mean anyone was wrong about Trump, just that you really can’t be expected to be taken seriously if your own champion does the same stuff, even if on a smaller scale.”
By all accounts, Clinton was a warmonger who would have laid waste to our enemies. But the third party guy who didn’t know what a Falluja was deserved your vote?
Course, we’d have soon found out that all three sides do it. I don’t believe anyone here has referred to our voting choices as champions, except as champions of the nose-holding somewhat less wrong.
Trump, natch, was the exception. “Wrong” doesn’t approach an accurate description.
McTX, what world do you live in that being wrong on a smaller scale isn’t worlds ahead of being wrong on a colossal scale? It certainly couldn’t be Texas.
And if we measured your condemnations of Trump and conservatives by the column inch and ink, they pale next to the epic stuff against “our” side.
As Mr Yomtov responded to your utterly dispassionate and “look, no flies on me” one sentence criticism of red state Republican leaders’ deadly response to mitigating the spread of the pandemic some posts back, “That’s just not good enough.”
Didn’t you vote for some of those characters, perhaps even championed them.
If you are going to engage the both sides equally fuck things up argument, then put some equal oomph into going after BOTH sides. That way, we can hold you as the completely rational, unbiased observer of the scene, as advertised.
Only a perfect person would make the everyday hypocrisy and partisanship of others into such an imperfect fetish for eye-poking.
I relinquish the floor to Donald, but I disagree that we will learn from our defeat. We’ll merely find new ways to be wrong next time. We’re disruptively and entrepreneurially exceptional that way.
If at first we don’t succeed, try, try again to not succeed.
I, however, am right 49% of the time.
Well, I deleted a perfect desert storm of a stemwinder responding to McTX. For the best, all around, I’d venture.
“Doesn’t mean anyone was wrong about Trump, just that you really can’t be expected to be taken seriously if your own champion does the same stuff, even if on a smaller scale.”
By all accounts, Clinton was a warmonger who would have laid waste to our enemies. But the third party guy who didn’t know what a Falluja was deserved your vote?
Course, we’d have soon found out that all three sides do it. I don’t believe anyone here has referred to our voting choices as champions, except as champions of the nose-holding somewhat less wrong.
Trump, natch, was the exception. “Wrong” doesn’t approach an accurate description.
McTX, what world do you live in that being wrong on a smaller scale isn’t worlds ahead of being wrong on a colossal scale? It certainly couldn’t be Texas.
And if we measured your condemnations of Trump and conservatives by the column inch and ink, they pale next to the epic stuff against “our” side.
As Mr Yomtov responded to your utterly dispassionate and “look, no flies on me” one sentence criticism of red state Republican leaders’ deadly response to mitigating the spread of the pandemic some posts back, “That’s just not good enough.”
Didn’t you vote for some of those characters, perhaps even championed them.
If you are going to engage the both sides equally fuck things up argument, then put some equal oomph into going after BOTH sides. That way, we can hold you as the completely rational, unbiased observer of the scene, as advertised.
Only a perfect person would make the everyday hypocrisy and partisanship of others into such an imperfect fetish for eye-poking.
I relinquish the floor to Donald, but I disagree that we will learn from our defeat. We’ll merely find new ways to be wrong next time. We’re disruptively and entrepreneurially exceptional that way.
If at first we don’t succeed, try, try again to not succeed.
I, however, am right 49% of the time.
I mentioned Hunter because of the prior, ongoing outrage here over the Trump family’s self-dealing.
The two situations are not comparable. Period. And you are sufficiently intelligent that I don’t really think anyone needs to break it down for you.
It seemed a bit selective given the passes for WJC, HRC and their Foundation, and now I’m sure of it.
A hook I will not bite today.
The situation in Afghanistan is FUBAR.
Maybe Biden should have realized that the president of Afghanistan was gonna beat feet and run with bags of money, maybe he should have realized that the Taliban had paid off half the Afghan army to put their guns down and go home.
Or maybe he did realize it all. What should we have done differently, had we known all of that?
Biden inherited a crap show. No matter what we do, when we do it, or where we do it, there are going to be some people out there who want to kill Americans and/or whoever happens to be nearby. Some people have dedicated their lives to violence. Sometimes – like in chaotic situations like the end of a war and an evacuation of an occupying army – they exploit situations and find a way to achieve their goal of horrific bloodletting.
Has anyone ever made a good job of this kind of thing?
If nothing else, I give Biden credit for having the guts to pull the plug. Nobody else has, for the last 20 years.
It’s a fncking war zone. Afghanistan has been a fncking war zone for the last 40 years. Longer, if you exclude foreign parties.
If you think you know how all of this could have been handled better, you’re probably wrong. At least Biden has the sand to quit half-@ssing it and get us the hell out of there.
Nobody else has, in 20 years.
I mentioned Hunter because of the prior, ongoing outrage here over the Trump family’s self-dealing.
The two situations are not comparable. Period. And you are sufficiently intelligent that I don’t really think anyone needs to break it down for you.
It seemed a bit selective given the passes for WJC, HRC and their Foundation, and now I’m sure of it.
A hook I will not bite today.
The situation in Afghanistan is FUBAR.
Maybe Biden should have realized that the president of Afghanistan was gonna beat feet and run with bags of money, maybe he should have realized that the Taliban had paid off half the Afghan army to put their guns down and go home.
Or maybe he did realize it all. What should we have done differently, had we known all of that?
Biden inherited a crap show. No matter what we do, when we do it, or where we do it, there are going to be some people out there who want to kill Americans and/or whoever happens to be nearby. Some people have dedicated their lives to violence. Sometimes – like in chaotic situations like the end of a war and an evacuation of an occupying army – they exploit situations and find a way to achieve their goal of horrific bloodletting.
Has anyone ever made a good job of this kind of thing?
If nothing else, I give Biden credit for having the guts to pull the plug. Nobody else has, for the last 20 years.
It’s a fncking war zone. Afghanistan has been a fncking war zone for the last 40 years. Longer, if you exclude foreign parties.
If you think you know how all of this could have been handled better, you’re probably wrong. At least Biden has the sand to quit half-@ssing it and get us the hell out of there.
Nobody else has, in 20 years.
We’ll merely find new ways to be wrong next time. We’re disruptively and entrepreneurially exceptional that way.
We think we are so fabulous that the rest of the world needs to be just like us.
Hasn’t worked out that way, yet.
Maybe next time.
We’ll merely find new ways to be wrong next time. We’re disruptively and entrepreneurially exceptional that way.
We think we are so fabulous that the rest of the world needs to be just like us.
Hasn’t worked out that way, yet.
Maybe next time.
If nothing else, I give Biden credit for having the guts to pull the plug. Nobody else has, for the last 20 years.
hell, i’ll even give Trump credit for setting the stage for the exit to happen. there might have been a better deal to be made there – and he probably should have let the actual Afghan government in on it. but the exit itself was long overdue, and Trump at least got things moving in that direction.
If nothing else, I give Biden credit for having the guts to pull the plug. Nobody else has, for the last 20 years.
hell, i’ll even give Trump credit for setting the stage for the exit to happen. there might have been a better deal to be made there – and he probably should have let the actual Afghan government in on it. but the exit itself was long overdue, and Trump at least got things moving in that direction.
It seemed a bit selective given the passes for WJC, HRC and their Foundation, and now I’m sure of it.
I’ve seen plenty of innuendo about the Clinton Foundation over the years, but was under the impression that nothing substantive had ever been found against it. Is this not right? On a quick search I found this from 2020:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/24/us/politics/durham-clinton-foundation-investigation.html
and this as a bunch of factchecking about the foundation, which seems to find that many of the claims it lists were originally on satirical websites:
https://www.factcheck.org/issue/clinton-foundation/
McKinney, given your comment which I highlight above, can you actually produce anything that shows the Clinton Foundation has ever been found to have done something corrupt? I’m prepared to think it may have, but I’ve never been aware that any of the many investigations have turned anything much up, and would be interested to see if they have.
Doesn’t mean anyone was wrong about Trump, just that you really can’t be expected to be taken seriously if your own champion does the same stuff, even if on a smaller scale.
Whose champion is WJC, or the Clinton Foundation?
As far as Biden and Afghanistan is concerned, the whole thing is certainly a clusterfuck, and I do completely understand why added to any civilised person’s dismay and upset for the humanitarian implications, it must be particularly difficult for a patriotic American to bear, even one who despised Trump, and how the temptation to find fault with a Democratic POTUS presiding over a chaotic and tragic endgame must be very hard to resist, and that doing so may even assuage some of the hangover of shame and disgust from the Trump presidency a patriotic American conservative might be feeling.
It seemed a bit selective given the passes for WJC, HRC and their Foundation, and now I’m sure of it.
I’ve seen plenty of innuendo about the Clinton Foundation over the years, but was under the impression that nothing substantive had ever been found against it. Is this not right? On a quick search I found this from 2020:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/24/us/politics/durham-clinton-foundation-investigation.html
and this as a bunch of factchecking about the foundation, which seems to find that many of the claims it lists were originally on satirical websites:
https://www.factcheck.org/issue/clinton-foundation/
McKinney, given your comment which I highlight above, can you actually produce anything that shows the Clinton Foundation has ever been found to have done something corrupt? I’m prepared to think it may have, but I’ve never been aware that any of the many investigations have turned anything much up, and would be interested to see if they have.
Doesn’t mean anyone was wrong about Trump, just that you really can’t be expected to be taken seriously if your own champion does the same stuff, even if on a smaller scale.
Whose champion is WJC, or the Clinton Foundation?
As far as Biden and Afghanistan is concerned, the whole thing is certainly a clusterfuck, and I do completely understand why added to any civilised person’s dismay and upset for the humanitarian implications, it must be particularly difficult for a patriotic American to bear, even one who despised Trump, and how the temptation to find fault with a Democratic POTUS presiding over a chaotic and tragic endgame must be very hard to resist, and that doing so may even assuage some of the hangover of shame and disgust from the Trump presidency a patriotic American conservative might be feeling.
Was McKinney in favor of, or opposed to, Dick and Dubya’s Excellent Adventure in Iraq?
It seems to me that sending the US military on that WMD goose chase, instead of single-mindedly hunting down Osama and his boys, had much to do with our failure in Afghanistan.
BTW, correct me if I’m wrong: ISIS did not start up in Afghanistan.
–TP
Was McKinney in favor of, or opposed to, Dick and Dubya’s Excellent Adventure in Iraq?
It seems to me that sending the US military on that WMD goose chase, instead of single-mindedly hunting down Osama and his boys, had much to do with our failure in Afghanistan.
BTW, correct me if I’m wrong: ISIS did not start up in Afghanistan.
–TP
also, Trump repeatedly said he’d wiped out ISIS.
also, Trump repeatedly said he’d wiped out ISIS.
ISIS = Islamic State in Syria, so that would be some epic misbranding if they did start in Afghanistan.
I believe they call themselves Daesh, though.
ISIS = Islamic State in Syria, so that would be some epic misbranding if they did start in Afghanistan.
I believe they call themselves Daesh, though.
Numbers* are just those squiggles on a roulette wheel to the fucking conservative subhuman lying, election-stealing, insurrectionist bowel movement.
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/08/when-casualties-do-and-no-not-matter-to-the-blob
Republicans, neo- and non-neo, are the violent death of America.
John Podhoretz, among millions of conservative armchair cocksuckers, need to be turned over to ISIS, since we don”t have the guts to execute the lot of them.
*More contractor and subcontractor deaths than professional military deaths on our side. Yet another proof that conservative privatization of government leads to dog shit.
We killed 20 times more Taliban than they killed of our soldiers.
They won.
What did they win? Apparently now a bloody war of attrition between the Taliban and their other enemy, Daesh. I wish the best to both.
By all means, get us out of the way.
And by the way, Trump’s next utterance, forthpuking tonight I expect, should be answered by the Biden Adminstration and my government with deadly killing air strikes on Mar-a-Lago, or wherever that republican c*nt is hidey-holing up and disgracing our country by attempting to overthrow and disgrace our government during wartime.
What other ex-President (fuck him to Hell; he wasn’t a President of this country) has behaved in such a traitorous manner? Can I hear even a passive voiced agreement to that from our purely objective overlords?
He’s a traitor and a terrorist. Don’t jail the 1/6 murderers insurrectionists. Slaughter them. They are no differently anti-American than the suicide bombers at the Kabul airport, and their sponsors and defenders in our hallowed piece of shit gummints at all levels should be savagely executed.
Numbers* are just those squiggles on a roulette wheel to the fucking conservative subhuman lying, election-stealing, insurrectionist bowel movement.
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/08/when-casualties-do-and-no-not-matter-to-the-blob
Republicans, neo- and non-neo, are the violent death of America.
John Podhoretz, among millions of conservative armchair cocksuckers, need to be turned over to ISIS, since we don”t have the guts to execute the lot of them.
*More contractor and subcontractor deaths than professional military deaths on our side. Yet another proof that conservative privatization of government leads to dog shit.
We killed 20 times more Taliban than they killed of our soldiers.
They won.
What did they win? Apparently now a bloody war of attrition between the Taliban and their other enemy, Daesh. I wish the best to both.
By all means, get us out of the way.
And by the way, Trump’s next utterance, forthpuking tonight I expect, should be answered by the Biden Adminstration and my government with deadly killing air strikes on Mar-a-Lago, or wherever that republican c*nt is hidey-holing up and disgracing our country by attempting to overthrow and disgrace our government during wartime.
What other ex-President (fuck him to Hell; he wasn’t a President of this country) has behaved in such a traitorous manner? Can I hear even a passive voiced agreement to that from our purely objective overlords?
He’s a traitor and a terrorist. Don’t jail the 1/6 murderers insurrectionists. Slaughter them. They are no differently anti-American than the suicide bombers at the Kabul airport, and their sponsors and defenders in our hallowed piece of shit gummints at all levels should be savagely executed.
ISIS-K is the name.
ISIS-K is the name.
What group of diseased genocidal murderers are responsible for more needless killings and the terrorist ruination of the healthcare systems and infrastructure in subhuman red states?
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/08/speaking-of-deaths-that-matter-let-us-remember-that-right-wing-media-and-the-republican-party-have-conspired-to-effectively-murder-30000-americans-in-just-the-past-two-months
The Republican Governor of non-Governance in Nebraska is disallowing even the continued reporting of Covid cases as the pandemic rages again.
And yet, the guns remain silent, which seems to justify confiscating all guns, since they aren’t being used, as intended, to kill our murderous enemies.
What group of diseased genocidal murderers are responsible for more needless killings and the terrorist ruination of the healthcare systems and infrastructure in subhuman red states?
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/08/speaking-of-deaths-that-matter-let-us-remember-that-right-wing-media-and-the-republican-party-have-conspired-to-effectively-murder-30000-americans-in-just-the-past-two-months
The Republican Governor of non-Governance in Nebraska is disallowing even the continued reporting of Covid cases as the pandemic rages again.
And yet, the guns remain silent, which seems to justify confiscating all guns, since they aren’t being used, as intended, to kill our murderous enemies.
He’s a traitor and a terrorist.
terrorist is unclear to me. traitor, less so.
they hung Guy Fawkes.
He’s a traitor and a terrorist.
terrorist is unclear to me. traitor, less so.
they hung Guy Fawkes.
USA PATRIOT 802(c)
the term `domestic terrorism’ means activities that–
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended–
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’.
—
i think it’s only fair that a jury decide this one.
USA PATRIOT 802(c)
the term `domestic terrorism’ means activities that–
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended–
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’.
—
i think it’s only fair that a jury decide this one.
https://twitter.com/SlavaMalamud/status/1431039136568385537?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1431039136568385537%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com%2F2021%2F08%2Ftrump-would-have-stayed-in-afghanistan
https://twitter.com/SlavaMalamud/status/1431039136568385537?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1431039136568385537%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com%2F2021%2F08%2Ftrump-would-have-stayed-in-afghanistan
https://www.businessinsider.com/erik-prince-charge-6500-for-flight-seat-out-of-kabul-2021-8
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/florida-er-doctor-removal-medical-opt-out-letters-school-mask-mandates
American Harry Lime disease.
The land of the subhuman conservative opportunist. “The strength …. the STRENGTH …. to do that” Colonel Walter E. Kurtz said of the Vietcong and our homegrown killers.
The Star Spangled Banner and God Bless America at ballgames should be replaced with zither music.
Take me out to the payoff.
The only difference between our home-grown Taliban and theirs is that our god-bothering killers sport higher-end footwear.
I’ll charge nothing to go upriver and hunt down Erik Prince and his sister.
Call me a socialist.
https://www.businessinsider.com/erik-prince-charge-6500-for-flight-seat-out-of-kabul-2021-8
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/florida-er-doctor-removal-medical-opt-out-letters-school-mask-mandates
American Harry Lime disease.
The land of the subhuman conservative opportunist. “The strength …. the STRENGTH …. to do that” Colonel Walter E. Kurtz said of the Vietcong and our homegrown killers.
The Star Spangled Banner and God Bless America at ballgames should be replaced with zither music.
Take me out to the payoff.
The only difference between our home-grown Taliban and theirs is that our god-bothering killers sport higher-end footwear.
I’ll charge nothing to go upriver and hunt down Erik Prince and his sister.
Call me a socialist.
I’m all for killing whatever brain worms have crawled up America’s self-righteous conservative murderous patootie:
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/08/whos-owning-who
https://tennesseelookout.com/briefs/conservative-talk-show-host-phil-valentine-dies-of-covid-19/
https://www.wonkette.com/kinda-surprised-it-took-this-long-to-get-dennis-prager-and-horse-dewormer-in-the-same-headline
American Taliban suicide killers keeping up with ISIS and their many alphabetical genocidal franchises.
I’m all for killing whatever brain worms have crawled up America’s self-righteous conservative murderous patootie:
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/08/whos-owning-who
https://tennesseelookout.com/briefs/conservative-talk-show-host-phil-valentine-dies-of-covid-19/
https://www.wonkette.com/kinda-surprised-it-took-this-long-to-get-dennis-prager-and-horse-dewormer-in-the-same-headline
American Taliban suicide killers keeping up with ISIS and their many alphabetical genocidal franchises.
good ezra klein piece here.
good ezra klein piece here.
….even if on a smaller scale.
LOL, tex. Watching you trip over orders of magnitude is really quite amusing.
….even if on a smaller scale.
LOL, tex. Watching you trip over orders of magnitude is really quite amusing.
JT, in response to your LGM link, I offer you this. A childhood friend’s wife, with whom I’m friends on FB, posted one of those vague “prayers needed” messages. It later comes out in the comments that someone she loves in very ill and hospitalized with COVID. Someone then comments, “DEMAND that they be given Ivermectin NOW!!!” Just like that, she’s all in. “Let me write that down!” This is America.
JT, in response to your LGM link, I offer you this. A childhood friend’s wife, with whom I’m friends on FB, posted one of those vague “prayers needed” messages. It later comes out in the comments that someone she loves in very ill and hospitalized with COVID. Someone then comments, “DEMAND that they be given Ivermectin NOW!!!” Just like that, she’s all in. “Let me write that down!” This is America.
more links…
https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/08/15/what-if-the-us-had-fought-the-saudis-instead-of-the-taliban/
https://www.salon.com/2021/08/16/the-afghanistan-blame-game-begins–and-the-media-immediately-ignores-what-triggered-this-disaster/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/08/the-afghanistan-debacle-this-land-sneak-peek/?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=naytev&utm_medium=social
more links…
https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/08/15/what-if-the-us-had-fought-the-saudis-instead-of-the-taliban/
https://www.salon.com/2021/08/16/the-afghanistan-blame-game-begins–and-the-media-immediately-ignores-what-triggered-this-disaster/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/08/the-afghanistan-debacle-this-land-sneak-peek/?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=naytev&utm_medium=social
That is a good Ezra Klein piece, bobbyp.
That is a good Ezra Klein piece, bobbyp.
just wait till someone finally tries to pull the plug in Iraq.
oh how the hawks will screech. so much screeching.
just wait till someone finally tries to pull the plug in Iraq.
oh how the hawks will screech. so much screeching.
just wait till someone finally tries to pull the plug in Iraq.
oh how the hawks will screech. so much screeching.
If it looks anything like the current exit, what do you figure are the odds they push for embracing Kurdistan independence as a fallback? Just wondering.
just wait till someone finally tries to pull the plug in Iraq.
oh how the hawks will screech. so much screeching.
If it looks anything like the current exit, what do you figure are the odds they push for embracing Kurdistan independence as a fallback? Just wondering.
if it means sending troops to pacify the natives, they’ll be all for it.
if it means sending troops to pacify the natives, they’ll be all for it.
Long distance dedication to US foreign policy (and it’s shallow, callow, cynical, and opportunistic coverage in the deeply complicit media). If US foreign policy is a car crash, then the media coverage of it is the related Ballard novel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv7Y7F-Q2KE
At least Bowie had some clarity.
Long distance dedication to US foreign policy (and it’s shallow, callow, cynical, and opportunistic coverage in the deeply complicit media). If US foreign policy is a car crash, then the media coverage of it is the related Ballard novel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv7Y7F-Q2KE
At least Bowie had some clarity.
ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news paid almost zero attention to Afghanistan last year.
“Out of a combined 14,000-plus minutes of the national evening news broadcast on CBS, ABC, and NBC last year, a grand total of five minutes were devoted to Afghanistan, according to Andrew Tyndall, editor of the authoritative Tyndall Report, which has monitored and coded the networks’ nightly news each weekday since 1988.”
Three major networks devoted a full five minutes to Afghanistan in 2020: It should be no surprise then, that Americans are shocked at the images of violence and the grim political situation on the ground today.
ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news paid almost zero attention to Afghanistan last year.
“Out of a combined 14,000-plus minutes of the national evening news broadcast on CBS, ABC, and NBC last year, a grand total of five minutes were devoted to Afghanistan, according to Andrew Tyndall, editor of the authoritative Tyndall Report, which has monitored and coded the networks’ nightly news each weekday since 1988.”
Three major networks devoted a full five minutes to Afghanistan in 2020: It should be no surprise then, that Americans are shocked at the images of violence and the grim political situation on the ground today.
the media is very mad that their war is over.
ex. the media is very upset about the recent bombings. but those kind of bombings happen all the time in Afghanistan.
the first page of a Google search for “bombings in Afghanistan”, before Aug 1 show separate bombings:
Nov 29
a “wave” in Feb
Apr 30
May 8 – that killed at least 90 at a girls school!
May 20
Jun 8
but suddenly a bombing in Afghanistan is a shocking new development that must be entirely Biden’s fault.
the media (and the Republicans prodding them on) is completely addicted to the narrative that Biden is fucking this up so they have to ignore horrific recent history to try to make their story work.
the media is very mad that their war is over.
ex. the media is very upset about the recent bombings. but those kind of bombings happen all the time in Afghanistan.
the first page of a Google search for “bombings in Afghanistan”, before Aug 1 show separate bombings:
Nov 29
a “wave” in Feb
Apr 30
May 8 – that killed at least 90 at a girls school!
May 20
Jun 8
but suddenly a bombing in Afghanistan is a shocking new development that must be entirely Biden’s fault.
the media (and the Republicans prodding them on) is completely addicted to the narrative that Biden is fucking this up so they have to ignore horrific recent history to try to make their story work.
i mean, just look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2021_Afghanistan_attacks
bombings / attacks against civilians in Afghanistan are (sadly) routine.
but that doesn’t fit their ridiculous new narrative.
i mean, just look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2021_Afghanistan_attacks
bombings / attacks against civilians in Afghanistan are (sadly) routine.
but that doesn’t fit their ridiculous new narrative.
Sadly, 13 service members died in the latest attack. This will be an outrage, despite roughly two thousand having died in Afghanistan over the last 20 years. Not to mention the roughly 4500 in Iraq. It’s selective outrage, of course.
Sadly, 13 service members died in the latest attack. This will be an outrage, despite roughly two thousand having died in Afghanistan over the last 20 years. Not to mention the roughly 4500 in Iraq. It’s selective outrage, of course.
never is the question asked: why have no service members died since Doha ?
never is the question asked: why have no service members died since Doha ?
Afghanistan never fit a media narrative they wanted anything to do with.
Who among the media wanted to tell stories about bad intel given by translators that did not speak the tribal languages that they had been hired to translate, but had to say something to keep their job. (Heard about this from an associate who had embedded. This one took out a wedding party.)
From Wikipedia: Both Dari (Persian) and Pashto are Indo-European languages from the Iranian languages sub-family. Other regional languages, such as Uzbek, Turkmen, Balochi, Pashayi and Nuristani, are spoken by minority groups across the country.
Minor languages include: Ashkunu, Kamkata-viri, Vasi-vari, Tregami and Kalasha-ala, Pamiri (Shughni, Munji, Ishkashimi and Wakhi), Brahui, Arabic, Qizilbash, Aimaq, and Pashai and Kyrgyz, and Punjabi. Linguist Harald Haarmann believes that Afghanistan is home to more than 40 minor languages, with around 200 different dialects.
It’s hard to know what’s going on or to report on what’s going on when all you have to go on is the word of a translator you cannot verify, who may be lying or may be working second hand through a local translator.
And every one of those intermediate voices has their own agenda and concerns, and has to navigate a dangerous local context.
No one wants to hear that, so no one hears that. Those stories do not pay until after the debacle and the initial blame game. Once a scapegoat is secured, the hand wringing and the after analysis can start.
Afghanistan never fit a media narrative they wanted anything to do with.
Who among the media wanted to tell stories about bad intel given by translators that did not speak the tribal languages that they had been hired to translate, but had to say something to keep their job. (Heard about this from an associate who had embedded. This one took out a wedding party.)
From Wikipedia: Both Dari (Persian) and Pashto are Indo-European languages from the Iranian languages sub-family. Other regional languages, such as Uzbek, Turkmen, Balochi, Pashayi and Nuristani, are spoken by minority groups across the country.
Minor languages include: Ashkunu, Kamkata-viri, Vasi-vari, Tregami and Kalasha-ala, Pamiri (Shughni, Munji, Ishkashimi and Wakhi), Brahui, Arabic, Qizilbash, Aimaq, and Pashai and Kyrgyz, and Punjabi. Linguist Harald Haarmann believes that Afghanistan is home to more than 40 minor languages, with around 200 different dialects.
It’s hard to know what’s going on or to report on what’s going on when all you have to go on is the word of a translator you cannot verify, who may be lying or may be working second hand through a local translator.
And every one of those intermediate voices has their own agenda and concerns, and has to navigate a dangerous local context.
No one wants to hear that, so no one hears that. Those stories do not pay until after the debacle and the initial blame game. Once a scapegoat is secured, the hand wringing and the after analysis can start.
A few notes:
For the record, I think the US should withdraw from Afghanistan, but the way this has been undertaken is a complete fiasco and anyone trying to say otherwise should take off their partisan blinders.
Especially since these are for the most part the very same people who defended this war over the past 20 years as the “good war” (as opposed to the Iraq war), never questioned the initial rationale for it and defended or at least tacitly accepted Obama’s escalation of the drone war.
Telling the Afghani people that it’s their own fault is just completely callous and ignorant of the facts.
A few notes:
For the record, I think the US should withdraw from Afghanistan, but the way this has been undertaken is a complete fiasco and anyone trying to say otherwise should take off their partisan blinders.
Especially since these are for the most part the very same people who defended this war over the past 20 years as the “good war” (as opposed to the Iraq war), never questioned the initial rationale for it and defended or at least tacitly accepted Obama’s escalation of the drone war.
Telling the Afghani people that it’s their own fault is just completely callous and ignorant of the facts.
What, exactly, are we doing wrong? What should we do instead?
I’m usually not a fan of “ok but what would you do” as a rhetorical device, but you seem very clear about the fact that what we actually are doing is, as you put it, a complete fiasco.
I don’t disagree that it’s a mess. But what should we do instead?
If there isn’t something better, or at least preferable, to do, then I’m not sure the fact that it’s a mess is a basis for blame.
Maybe this is as good as it gets.
What, exactly, are we doing wrong? What should we do instead?
I’m usually not a fan of “ok but what would you do” as a rhetorical device, but you seem very clear about the fact that what we actually are doing is, as you put it, a complete fiasco.
I don’t disagree that it’s a mess. But what should we do instead?
If there isn’t something better, or at least preferable, to do, then I’m not sure the fact that it’s a mess is a basis for blame.
Maybe this is as good as it gets.
novakant: I think the US should withdraw from Afghanistan, but the way this has been undertaken is a complete fiasco and anyone trying to say otherwise should take off their partisan blinders.
Especially since these are for the most part the very same people who defended this war over the past 20 years.
Still waiting for you to say what you think should have been differently (other than fixing the visa system, of course). And how it would have resulted in a less complete fiasco.
Just for the record, I think we should have gotten out long since. And I definitely don’t see how I, as a Republican, can be accused of partisan blinders in saying that the exit now has been imperfect but far from a fiasco. Perhaps other blinders are in evidence here, too.
novakant: I think the US should withdraw from Afghanistan, but the way this has been undertaken is a complete fiasco and anyone trying to say otherwise should take off their partisan blinders.
Especially since these are for the most part the very same people who defended this war over the past 20 years.
Still waiting for you to say what you think should have been differently (other than fixing the visa system, of course). And how it would have resulted in a less complete fiasco.
Just for the record, I think we should have gotten out long since. And I definitely don’t see how I, as a Republican, can be accused of partisan blinders in saying that the exit now has been imperfect but far from a fiasco. Perhaps other blinders are in evidence here, too.
Cross-posted with russell on this yet again. 😉
Cross-posted with russell on this yet again. 😉
Things I will not do:
…defend Obama’s drone strikes, or much of Obama’s use of military force.
…defend our having stayed in Afghanistan this long.
…pretend that the current situation could be better given a different implementation. This is going pretty much as any person I know who spent time in Afghanistan expected this to go. It was a Charlie Foxtrot at every step.
…call Afghanistan a Good War. At best it was more justifiable and less foolhardy than Iraq.
All this said, I will again say that Biden’s articulation of the rapid fall could have been more politic, but I don’t think he’s capable of or inclined towards the sort of articulation that would require.
Not a partisan position. I’m a D only because of a lack of practical alternatives.
Things I will not do:
…defend Obama’s drone strikes, or much of Obama’s use of military force.
…defend our having stayed in Afghanistan this long.
…pretend that the current situation could be better given a different implementation. This is going pretty much as any person I know who spent time in Afghanistan expected this to go. It was a Charlie Foxtrot at every step.
…call Afghanistan a Good War. At best it was more justifiable and less foolhardy than Iraq.
All this said, I will again say that Biden’s articulation of the rapid fall could have been more politic, but I don’t think he’s capable of or inclined towards the sort of articulation that would require.
Not a partisan position. I’m a D only because of a lack of practical alternatives.
novakant: For the record, I think the US should withdraw from Afghanistan, but the way this has been undertaken is a complete fiasco and anyone trying to say otherwise should take off their partisan blinders.
When Dick and Dubya went haring off after “WMDs”, the fiasco got baked into Afghanistan’s future. When He, Trump’s fanboi Pompeo made his fabulous deal with the Taliban, the fiasco got icing on top. “Partisan blinders”? Kiss my aunt Fanny.
To call the situation a “complete fiasco” is non-partisan truth. To claim that anyone is trying to say otherwise is to stretch a point. To throw in the “partisan blinders” bit is pure self-importance.
–TP
novakant: For the record, I think the US should withdraw from Afghanistan, but the way this has been undertaken is a complete fiasco and anyone trying to say otherwise should take off their partisan blinders.
When Dick and Dubya went haring off after “WMDs”, the fiasco got baked into Afghanistan’s future. When He, Trump’s fanboi Pompeo made his fabulous deal with the Taliban, the fiasco got icing on top. “Partisan blinders”? Kiss my aunt Fanny.
To call the situation a “complete fiasco” is non-partisan truth. To claim that anyone is trying to say otherwise is to stretch a point. To throw in the “partisan blinders” bit is pure self-importance.
–TP
I think the US should withdraw from Afghanistan, but the way this has been undertaken is a complete fiasco
it would have been much less of a fiasco if:
1. ISIS didn’t exist and wouldn’t keep attacking civilian targets.
2. the Afghan army that we were counting on to provide cover while we left didn’t evaporate in the middle of our leaving.
neither of which any American has any control over.
there was a plan, the Afghan army was a big part of it. when they folded, the plan went away and it was time to improvise. and that’s when ISIS decided it needed some more attention. none of that is Biden’s fault.
if you have a way to secure people while they’re leaving a somewhat hostile country where lawless terrorists can attack freely and there is no native security force, let’s hear it.
I think the US should withdraw from Afghanistan, but the way this has been undertaken is a complete fiasco
it would have been much less of a fiasco if:
1. ISIS didn’t exist and wouldn’t keep attacking civilian targets.
2. the Afghan army that we were counting on to provide cover while we left didn’t evaporate in the middle of our leaving.
neither of which any American has any control over.
there was a plan, the Afghan army was a big part of it. when they folded, the plan went away and it was time to improvise. and that’s when ISIS decided it needed some more attention. none of that is Biden’s fault.
if you have a way to secure people while they’re leaving a somewhat hostile country where lawless terrorists can attack freely and there is no native security force, let’s hear it.
“War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it” – William Tecumseh Sherman, to the leaders of Atlanta, in rejecting their request that he spare the city.
We – Americans – have come to think of war as some kind of political surgery. We’ll send in the troops, they will skillfully and selectively excise the bad guys, and all will be well.
It is a very, very naive understanding of war.
War is more like what we see now, as we try to exit Afghanistan. It is violent chaos, destruction, and terror.
I think novakant’s expectations here are not realistic. I don’t disagree that our departure from Afghanistan is calamitous. But given the circumstances it is, as far as I can tell, going as well as can be expected.
It’s the end of a war. Wars are calamitous. Even their endings.
“War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it” – William Tecumseh Sherman, to the leaders of Atlanta, in rejecting their request that he spare the city.
We – Americans – have come to think of war as some kind of political surgery. We’ll send in the troops, they will skillfully and selectively excise the bad guys, and all will be well.
It is a very, very naive understanding of war.
War is more like what we see now, as we try to exit Afghanistan. It is violent chaos, destruction, and terror.
I think novakant’s expectations here are not realistic. I don’t disagree that our departure from Afghanistan is calamitous. But given the circumstances it is, as far as I can tell, going as well as can be expected.
It’s the end of a war. Wars are calamitous. Even their endings.
wrs 9:47
wrs 9:47
Seconded.
Seconded.
Getting 100,000+ people airlifted out of Kabul in a few weeks *is* an accomplishment.
The “fiasco” is only that the war-mongers and enablers aren’t being dumped in Kabul for the Taliban to deal with.
Getting 100,000+ people airlifted out of Kabul in a few weeks *is* an accomplishment.
The “fiasco” is only that the war-mongers and enablers aren’t being dumped in Kabul for the Taliban to deal with.
The “fiasco” is only that the war-mongers and enablers aren’t being dumped in Kabul for the Taliban to deal with.
seconded.
The “fiasco” is only that the war-mongers and enablers aren’t being dumped in Kabul for the Taliban to deal with.
seconded.
So, if you were a citizen (or whatever the appropriate term is for that country’s people) of a country which ceases to exist. Or someone who is born not a citizen of anywhere. How and where do you get a passport? Without which international travel becomes problematic.
Seems like you could find yourself in a position where a) you can’t travel anywhere, but b) you can’t stay where you are either.
So, if you were a citizen (or whatever the appropriate term is for that country’s people) of a country which ceases to exist. Or someone who is born not a citizen of anywhere. How and where do you get a passport? Without which international travel becomes problematic.
Seems like you could find yourself in a position where a) you can’t travel anywhere, but b) you can’t stay where you are either.
The “fiasco” is only that the war-mongers and enablers aren’t being dumped in Kabul for the Taliban to deal with.
To quote Snagglepuss: thirded, even.
The “fiasco” is only that the war-mongers and enablers aren’t being dumped in Kabul for the Taliban to deal with.
To quote Snagglepuss: thirded, even.
The “fiasco” is only that the war-mongers and enablers aren’t being dumped in Kabul for the Taliban to deal with.
I’m guessing that the Taliban would emulate our “Remain in Mexico” policy. Perhaps with a “Remain in Pakistan” one. After all, why would they want these sorts of immigrants?
/sarcasm
The “fiasco” is only that the war-mongers and enablers aren’t being dumped in Kabul for the Taliban to deal with.
I’m guessing that the Taliban would emulate our “Remain in Mexico” policy. Perhaps with a “Remain in Pakistan” one. After all, why would they want these sorts of immigrants?
/sarcasm
To use them as examples for their people to show them how rotten the West is?
Or for target practice?
Or for reviving the old tradition of live Buzkashi balls? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzkashi
To use them as examples for their people to show them how rotten the West is?
Or for target practice?
Or for reviving the old tradition of live Buzkashi balls? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzkashi
I served in Afghanistan as a US Marine, twice. Here’s the truth in two sentences
I served in Afghanistan as a US Marine, twice. Here’s the truth in two sentences
oof. medic!
Fixed. (And it only took 2 iterations to get it right) –wj
oof. medic!
Fixed. (And it only took 2 iterations to get it right) –wj
The truth is that the Afghan National Security Forces was a jobs program for Afghans, propped up by U.S. taxpayer dollars — a military jobs program populated by nonmilitary people or “paper” forces (that didn’t really exist) and a bevy of elites grabbing what they could when they could.
Yes. That is what I heard from everyone I talked to who had been in Afghanistan for any length of time.
I’ve been revisiting Lt. Col John A. Nagl’s counterinsurgency book, Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, which I last read in 2006 or so. I’d mentioned Clausewitz earlier in our Afghanistan discussions, but one of the things that really strikes me from Nagl’s book in our current context is his discussion in Chapter 2 of the difference between Clausewitz theory of war and Clausewitz contemporary, Antoine-Henri Jomini. Jomini favored scientific principles of warfare, military autonomy, and the ability to pursue and destroy the military capability of any foe – pretty much a checklist of what US hawks always preach. Clausewitz always took an “it depends” approach, and talked about the importance of the “remarkable trinity” of the people, the army, and the government. Unlike Jomini, Clausewitz believed that the army had to be subject to the government as the rational driver. Political need drives the strategy, the army adapts that need to changing local circumstances, and both need to be applied in conjunction with the emotional and moral support of the people.
Instead, we had a government pandering to the people for domestic political gain and leaving the army stuck between the demand that they handle all the strategy, and a complete lack of any political goals that can be achieved through the application of force.
We had a dream of a Jomini style victory in a Clausewitz world, and we never did any of the things that might have allowed the (very) slight hope of improving the political situation of the Afghans.
I do still highly recommend Nagl’s book, it got discussed a bit here back in 2006-2009. I remember Gary Farber and Turbulence and I all mentioning it in comments and believe that Andrew and I had discussed it a bit at HoCB/TIO as well.
The truth is that the Afghan National Security Forces was a jobs program for Afghans, propped up by U.S. taxpayer dollars — a military jobs program populated by nonmilitary people or “paper” forces (that didn’t really exist) and a bevy of elites grabbing what they could when they could.
Yes. That is what I heard from everyone I talked to who had been in Afghanistan for any length of time.
I’ve been revisiting Lt. Col John A. Nagl’s counterinsurgency book, Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, which I last read in 2006 or so. I’d mentioned Clausewitz earlier in our Afghanistan discussions, but one of the things that really strikes me from Nagl’s book in our current context is his discussion in Chapter 2 of the difference between Clausewitz theory of war and Clausewitz contemporary, Antoine-Henri Jomini. Jomini favored scientific principles of warfare, military autonomy, and the ability to pursue and destroy the military capability of any foe – pretty much a checklist of what US hawks always preach. Clausewitz always took an “it depends” approach, and talked about the importance of the “remarkable trinity” of the people, the army, and the government. Unlike Jomini, Clausewitz believed that the army had to be subject to the government as the rational driver. Political need drives the strategy, the army adapts that need to changing local circumstances, and both need to be applied in conjunction with the emotional and moral support of the people.
Instead, we had a government pandering to the people for domestic political gain and leaving the army stuck between the demand that they handle all the strategy, and a complete lack of any political goals that can be achieved through the application of force.
We had a dream of a Jomini style victory in a Clausewitz world, and we never did any of the things that might have allowed the (very) slight hope of improving the political situation of the Afghans.
I do still highly recommend Nagl’s book, it got discussed a bit here back in 2006-2009. I remember Gary Farber and Turbulence and I all mentioning it in comments and believe that Andrew and I had discussed it a bit at HoCB/TIO as well.
We had a dream of a Jomini style victory in a Clausewitz world, and we never did any of the things that might have allowed the (very) slight hope of improving the political situation of the Afghans
From your description of Nagl’s book, this seems a perfect description, unfortunately.
We had a dream of a Jomini style victory in a Clausewitz world, and we never did any of the things that might have allowed the (very) slight hope of improving the political situation of the Afghans
From your description of Nagl’s book, this seems a perfect description, unfortunately.
When you think of the list of situations where a Jomini style intervention did not work (Algeria for the French, Vietnam for a French to US handoff, and you could add the Portugese and Belgian colonies in Africa and Dutch colonies in Asia) is rather long, but that doesn’t prevent countries from going back to the same well.
When you think of the list of situations where a Jomini style intervention did not work (Algeria for the French, Vietnam for a French to US handoff, and you could add the Portugese and Belgian colonies in Africa and Dutch colonies in Asia) is rather long, but that doesn’t prevent countries from going back to the same well.
“our invasion can’t have been a mistake. it must have been the handoff that ruined it”
“our invasion can’t have been a mistake. it must have been the handoff that ruined it”
False dichotomy
False dichotomy
Posted without comment
John Pilger on Afghanistan
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/08/25/the-great-game-of-smashing-countries/
Posted without comment
John Pilger on Afghanistan
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/08/25/the-great-game-of-smashing-countries/
“Posted without comment”
That Pilger article, and his numerous others thru the years, IS a thread-stopper, a hamana hamana comment killer, and frankly a both sides do it occasion for all opinionating by any American regarding US foreign policy to take an eternal dirt nap, Donald perhaps excepted.
If the objective of our cold war enemies’ long game and now this latest 30 years of our Middle Eastern WTF was to bring out the worst in us, while at the same time have us thinking, as the collectively oblivious assholes we are, that we are the chosen exceptional good ones on the world stage, I’d say the strategy is top of the line disastrous for us.
“The aim was to spread Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and destabilise and eventually destroy the Soviet Union.”
And now we have the radical Christian isolationist wing of the Republican Party, see The American Conservative, coseying up to Russia and its in-Putin’s-pocket-Orthodox-Christian-church, while nodding and cooing alongside the Taliban regarding many of their “social” policies …. why … I’d say an aim must also have been to spread Christian fundamentalism In America and destabilize and eventually destroy the United States.
We have our very own conservative suicide bombers …..
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-memo/conservative-anti-vax-radio-hosts-keep-dying-of-covid-19
…. our very own genocidal republican mass murderers going about their business IN our governments
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/desantis-doctor-mark-mcdonald-dewormer-covid-treatment
….. although the upside of their actions is via their suicides we are saving bullets to kill our right wing internal enemies during the savage second American civil war looming before us as they subvert our democracy right in front of our eyes as only a Soviet agent or Islamic terrorist could only dream of.
However, our experience with the Taliban and ISIS shows that no matter how many of them off themselves and how many more we kill than they kill us, the murderous conservative worm that has crawled up America’s fundament will prevail, unless it is removed from the face of the Earth.
https://digbysblog.net/2021/08/30/getting-away-with-it/
And now Biden’s poll numbers are plunging, paving the way for conservative murderers to further consolidate their fucking evil in my governments.
All because the conservative American murderers and voting thieves, who will be killed, are sincere and unhypocritical in their pronouncements and aims, and the American people, collectively a bunch of jackasses who prize the certainty of their own good intentions above all other values and want to be told so with utter certainty, rush from one side of the capsizing ship to the other seeking deworming, while most folks from the center and on out to the left wriggle on their own improvisational hooks.
Our death-loving, death-dealing conservative suicide bombers are going to be elected posthumously to high office to kill all of us, because the American people like a sure thing.
Luckily, I’m only right 49% of the time.
“Posted without comment”
That Pilger article, and his numerous others thru the years, IS a thread-stopper, a hamana hamana comment killer, and frankly a both sides do it occasion for all opinionating by any American regarding US foreign policy to take an eternal dirt nap, Donald perhaps excepted.
If the objective of our cold war enemies’ long game and now this latest 30 years of our Middle Eastern WTF was to bring out the worst in us, while at the same time have us thinking, as the collectively oblivious assholes we are, that we are the chosen exceptional good ones on the world stage, I’d say the strategy is top of the line disastrous for us.
“The aim was to spread Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and destabilise and eventually destroy the Soviet Union.”
And now we have the radical Christian isolationist wing of the Republican Party, see The American Conservative, coseying up to Russia and its in-Putin’s-pocket-Orthodox-Christian-church, while nodding and cooing alongside the Taliban regarding many of their “social” policies …. why … I’d say an aim must also have been to spread Christian fundamentalism In America and destabilize and eventually destroy the United States.
We have our very own conservative suicide bombers …..
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-memo/conservative-anti-vax-radio-hosts-keep-dying-of-covid-19
…. our very own genocidal republican mass murderers going about their business IN our governments
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/desantis-doctor-mark-mcdonald-dewormer-covid-treatment
….. although the upside of their actions is via their suicides we are saving bullets to kill our right wing internal enemies during the savage second American civil war looming before us as they subvert our democracy right in front of our eyes as only a Soviet agent or Islamic terrorist could only dream of.
However, our experience with the Taliban and ISIS shows that no matter how many of them off themselves and how many more we kill than they kill us, the murderous conservative worm that has crawled up America’s fundament will prevail, unless it is removed from the face of the Earth.
https://digbysblog.net/2021/08/30/getting-away-with-it/
And now Biden’s poll numbers are plunging, paving the way for conservative murderers to further consolidate their fucking evil in my governments.
All because the conservative American murderers and voting thieves, who will be killed, are sincere and unhypocritical in their pronouncements and aims, and the American people, collectively a bunch of jackasses who prize the certainty of their own good intentions above all other values and want to be told so with utter certainty, rush from one side of the capsizing ship to the other seeking deworming, while most folks from the center and on out to the left wriggle on their own improvisational hooks.
Our death-loving, death-dealing conservative suicide bombers are going to be elected posthumously to high office to kill all of us, because the American people like a sure thing.
Luckily, I’m only right 49% of the time.
We’re surrounded by fucking face-chewing freedom-loving zombies:
https://digbysblog.net/2021/08/30/it-aint-over-3/
https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2020/11/29/man-goes-berserk-in-puerto-ricos-luis-munoz-marin-airport-because-he-was-told-to-wear-a-mask/
FOX News and the entire subhuman conservative movement are organizing these fucks to kill us, just as they organized the 1/6 insurrection, shootings and arson at black churches, every fucking disruption of decent, fallible people trying to govern, including pathetic RINOs who assign motes in eyes equally among everyone, hypocrisy being the worst sin for some,
and do nothing with both thumbs up their butts.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=man+goes+berserk
We have a problem. Declare martial law and kill the problem.
Govern, or Death will govern and the problem will kill us.
We’re surrounded by fucking face-chewing freedom-loving zombies:
https://digbysblog.net/2021/08/30/it-aint-over-3/
https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2020/11/29/man-goes-berserk-in-puerto-ricos-luis-munoz-marin-airport-because-he-was-told-to-wear-a-mask/
FOX News and the entire subhuman conservative movement are organizing these fucks to kill us, just as they organized the 1/6 insurrection, shootings and arson at black churches, every fucking disruption of decent, fallible people trying to govern, including pathetic RINOs who assign motes in eyes equally among everyone, hypocrisy being the worst sin for some,
and do nothing with both thumbs up their butts.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=man+goes+berserk
We have a problem. Declare martial law and kill the problem.
Govern, or Death will govern and the problem will kill us.
Thanks for the link, lj.
Here’s an interesting interview with Steve Coll, whom I regard highly as an expert on the US engagement in Afghanistan since reading his book “Ghost Wars”:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-america-failed-in-afghanistan
Thanks for the link, lj.
Here’s an interesting interview with Steve Coll, whom I regard highly as an expert on the US engagement in Afghanistan since reading his book “Ghost Wars”:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-america-failed-in-afghanistan
Coll’s one criticism of Biden seems to me to be that his comments about Afghan’s willingness to fight were unfair to them given the historical context. Beyond that he seems not to have much to offer on what could have been done differently beyond a continued troop presence there that the US voting public was unwilling to support – for which it is now expressing buyer’s remorse because of how this makes them look.
How many here believe that if Biden had walked back the withdrawal timeline, he would have the support of the people who are now complaining loudly about his following the withdrawal timeline?
I don’t see anything in Coll’s assessment that disagrees with what I have written here. He’s just more vocal about thinking Biden was a dick in how he framed his response.
I don’t think how he framed his response would actually change a single reality about how this all plays out for the Afghan populace.
Coll’s one criticism of Biden seems to me to be that his comments about Afghan’s willingness to fight were unfair to them given the historical context. Beyond that he seems not to have much to offer on what could have been done differently beyond a continued troop presence there that the US voting public was unwilling to support – for which it is now expressing buyer’s remorse because of how this makes them look.
How many here believe that if Biden had walked back the withdrawal timeline, he would have the support of the people who are now complaining loudly about his following the withdrawal timeline?
I don’t see anything in Coll’s assessment that disagrees with what I have written here. He’s just more vocal about thinking Biden was a dick in how he framed his response.
I don’t think how he framed his response would actually change a single reality about how this all plays out for the Afghan populace.
Unfortunately, I’m going to have to wait a month before I can read that, but my own thinking is that Biden, with his experience in the Obama admin, is the only one who would have been willing to actually pull the plug. Doesn’t make Biden some kind of saint, but I can’t believe any other of the people who were running on the democratic side would have been able to chart the same course. If you didn’t have to live in that world, it would be interesting if Trump had a second term and how it would have gone down there.
A lot of people, Pilger being one of them, were disappointed with Obama’s foreign policy. Pilger called him an Uncle Tom, which seemed like the first step to Pilger arguing for Trump over Hillary or saying Brexit was the will of the people. But Pilger was right on Cambodia (in opposition to Chomsky), East Timor and Iraq.
Dealing with nuance can be really tough sometimes.
Unfortunately, I’m going to have to wait a month before I can read that, but my own thinking is that Biden, with his experience in the Obama admin, is the only one who would have been willing to actually pull the plug. Doesn’t make Biden some kind of saint, but I can’t believe any other of the people who were running on the democratic side would have been able to chart the same course. If you didn’t have to live in that world, it would be interesting if Trump had a second term and how it would have gone down there.
A lot of people, Pilger being one of them, were disappointed with Obama’s foreign policy. Pilger called him an Uncle Tom, which seemed like the first step to Pilger arguing for Trump over Hillary or saying Brexit was the will of the people. But Pilger was right on Cambodia (in opposition to Chomsky), East Timor and Iraq.
Dealing with nuance can be really tough sometimes.
In a late night vote, Texas Russian Taliban vote to prohibit late night voting, among other voter suppression measures.
The rules apply to everyone, just like in Russia and Afghanistan, so what’s the rumpus, eh?
The wealthy will no longer be permitted to sleep under bridges, so they bought up all of the territory under the bridges and redlined it to roust out the poor.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/newsletter/the-franchise-%e2%80%8crepublicans-succeed-in-making-it-harder-to-vote-in-texas
In a late night vote, Texas Russian Taliban vote to prohibit late night voting, among other voter suppression measures.
The rules apply to everyone, just like in Russia and Afghanistan, so what’s the rumpus, eh?
The wealthy will no longer be permitted to sleep under bridges, so they bought up all of the territory under the bridges and redlined it to roust out the poor.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/newsletter/the-franchise-%e2%80%8crepublicans-succeed-in-making-it-harder-to-vote-in-texas
Freedom=death and oblivion, apparently the point of the entire founding American experiment:
https://juanitajean.com/a-lot-of-capitol-hill-insurrectionists-are-on-their-own-after-lawyer-hospitalized-with-covid/
I think it was the Nazis who introduced veterinary science into the care of the Jews.
Republicans are genocidal murderers.
Freedom=death and oblivion, apparently the point of the entire founding American experiment:
https://juanitajean.com/a-lot-of-capitol-hill-insurrectionists-are-on-their-own-after-lawyer-hospitalized-with-covid/
I think it was the Nazis who introduced veterinary science into the care of the Jews.
Republicans are genocidal murderers.
Novakant—
I don’t think your position is coherent. You seem to imagine a happy ending that could have been achieved if some nice anti war person were in charge. There was none on offer. If we pull out, the Taliban win. Period. The government collapsed almost as soon as they realized we really were going to leave. Given that fact, even if I think Biden should have anticipated this, it was still going to be a mess. I haven’t seen a single critic who takes your position explain what that happy ending looked like. I can’t picture it. I doubt you can either.
And your worry about partisanship is bizarrely misplaced. It is precisely the people who have ignored or whitewashed or downplayed American corruption, incompetence, lies, and war crimes who are the ones most critical of Biden’s decision. The anti war left is somewhat grudgingly defending Biden because these attacks are teaching an extremely important political liesson— you pay no political price whatsoever for the indefinite extension of a war you can’t win, but if you do a pullout you will be viciously attacked and it will effect your polls in a bad way. You might want to consider that.
I expect Biden to say insensitive things. If we had real accountability, much of our foreign policy elite would be disgraced or in prison. The attacks on Biden’s decision are the exact opposite of accountability— they are led by the liars and warmongers who created this situation.
And there is no such thing as a unified Afghan people, whether one wishes to blame them or portray them all as victims of the US or the Taliban or both.
Btw, you should read Anand Gopal’s “ No Good Men Among the Living”. I can’t possibly summarize. And read his articles on US bombing in the NYT and the New Yorker.
Novakant—
I don’t think your position is coherent. You seem to imagine a happy ending that could have been achieved if some nice anti war person were in charge. There was none on offer. If we pull out, the Taliban win. Period. The government collapsed almost as soon as they realized we really were going to leave. Given that fact, even if I think Biden should have anticipated this, it was still going to be a mess. I haven’t seen a single critic who takes your position explain what that happy ending looked like. I can’t picture it. I doubt you can either.
And your worry about partisanship is bizarrely misplaced. It is precisely the people who have ignored or whitewashed or downplayed American corruption, incompetence, lies, and war crimes who are the ones most critical of Biden’s decision. The anti war left is somewhat grudgingly defending Biden because these attacks are teaching an extremely important political liesson— you pay no political price whatsoever for the indefinite extension of a war you can’t win, but if you do a pullout you will be viciously attacked and it will effect your polls in a bad way. You might want to consider that.
I expect Biden to say insensitive things. If we had real accountability, much of our foreign policy elite would be disgraced or in prison. The attacks on Biden’s decision are the exact opposite of accountability— they are led by the liars and warmongers who created this situation.
And there is no such thing as a unified Afghan people, whether one wishes to blame them or portray them all as victims of the US or the Taliban or both.
Btw, you should read Anand Gopal’s “ No Good Men Among the Living”. I can’t possibly summarize. And read his articles on US bombing in the NYT and the New Yorker.
Here is a test, novakant. See if the people criticizing Biden for the pullout also goes after him for the drone strike that killed the family. A person who really has thought through a humane way to end the war would be horrified by the drone strike. If they brush it off, and don’t criticize Biden for it, then they weren’t really concerned with minimizing harm.
Here is a test, novakant. See if the people criticizing Biden for the pullout also goes after him for the drone strike that killed the family. A person who really has thought through a humane way to end the war would be horrified by the drone strike. If they brush it off, and don’t criticize Biden for it, then they weren’t really concerned with minimizing harm.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2021/08/30/thats-nice-to-know
John Cole gets it. He sees what’s coming.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2021/08/30/thats-nice-to-know
John Cole gets it. He sees what’s coming.
wds. Biden was not my first, second or whatever choice. But I believe that he was the only one who would have done this, not because he’s got some special quality to him, it’s that he had the previous experience and could do it. So I appreciate it when Donald says
The anti war left is somewhat grudgingly defending Biden because these attacks are teaching an extremely important political liesson— you pay no political price whatsoever for the indefinite extension of a war you can’t win, but if you do a pullout you will be viciously attacked and it will effect your polls in a bad way.
Given the way things are, that can’t be an easy thing to do, but it really needs to be done.
wds. Biden was not my first, second or whatever choice. But I believe that he was the only one who would have done this, not because he’s got some special quality to him, it’s that he had the previous experience and could do it. So I appreciate it when Donald says
The anti war left is somewhat grudgingly defending Biden because these attacks are teaching an extremely important political liesson— you pay no political price whatsoever for the indefinite extension of a war you can’t win, but if you do a pullout you will be viciously attacked and it will effect your polls in a bad way.
Given the way things are, that can’t be an easy thing to do, but it really needs to be done.
And… it appears we are out of Afghanistan.
123,000 non-military evacuated in 18 days. A mess, but none the less remarkable.
And… it appears we are out of Afghanistan.
123,000 non-military evacuated in 18 days. A mess, but none the less remarkable.
Afghanistan, hmmm, isn’t that a country over by India somewhere?
I think there was some kind of war there once..
Afghanistan, hmmm, isn’t that a country over by India somewhere?
I think there was some kind of war there once..
A mess, but none the less remarkable.
indeed.
not a lot of wars where the losers get to evacuate their people with no reprisals from the victors. (no, ISIS-K was not the victor)
and, contrary to Donnie Fucko’s latest whine, no, the Taliban is not going to pay for what we spent there. winners don’t cover loser’s war costs.
A mess, but none the less remarkable.
indeed.
not a lot of wars where the losers get to evacuate their people with no reprisals from the victors. (no, ISIS-K was not the victor)
and, contrary to Donnie Fucko’s latest whine, no, the Taliban is not going to pay for what we spent there. winners don’t cover loser’s war costs.
winners don’t cover loser’s war costs.
In a sense the US did after WW2 (at least partially).
winners don’t cover loser’s war costs.
In a sense the US did after WW2 (at least partially).
Ross Douthat weighs in.
“The argument, for instance, that the situation in Afghanistan was reasonably stable and the war’s death toll negligible before the Trump administration started moving toward withdrawal: In fact, only U.S. casualties were low, while Afghan military and civilian casualties were nearing 15,000 annually, and the Taliban were clearly gaining ground — suggesting that we would have needed periodic surges of U.S. forces, and periodic spikes in U.S. deaths, to prevent a slow-motion version of what’s happened quickly as we’ve left.
Or the argument that an indefinite occupation was morally necessary to nurture the shoots of Afghan liberalism: If after 20 years of effort and $2,000,000,000,000, the theocratic alternative to liberalism actually takes over a country faster than in its initial conquest, that’s a sign that our moral achievements were outweighed by the moral costs of corruption, incompetence and drone campaigns.
Or the argument that a permanent mission in Afghanistan would, could come to resemble in some way our long-term presence in Germany or South Korea — a delusional historical analogy before the collapse of the Kabul government and a completely ludicrous one now.”
Joe Biden’s Critics Lost Afghanistan
Ross Douthat weighs in.
“The argument, for instance, that the situation in Afghanistan was reasonably stable and the war’s death toll negligible before the Trump administration started moving toward withdrawal: In fact, only U.S. casualties were low, while Afghan military and civilian casualties were nearing 15,000 annually, and the Taliban were clearly gaining ground — suggesting that we would have needed periodic surges of U.S. forces, and periodic spikes in U.S. deaths, to prevent a slow-motion version of what’s happened quickly as we’ve left.
Or the argument that an indefinite occupation was morally necessary to nurture the shoots of Afghan liberalism: If after 20 years of effort and $2,000,000,000,000, the theocratic alternative to liberalism actually takes over a country faster than in its initial conquest, that’s a sign that our moral achievements were outweighed by the moral costs of corruption, incompetence and drone campaigns.
Or the argument that a permanent mission in Afghanistan would, could come to resemble in some way our long-term presence in Germany or South Korea — a delusional historical analogy before the collapse of the Kabul government and a completely ludicrous one now.”
Joe Biden’s Critics Lost Afghanistan
winners don’t cover loser’s war costs.
In a sense the US did after WW2 (at least partially).
Yeah. But we’re exceptional!!! 😉
winners don’t cover loser’s war costs.
In a sense the US did after WW2 (at least partially).
Yeah. But we’re exceptional!!! 😉
I think its interesting to read Douthat being consistent from 2019. I have to admit I looked back to see how different his tone was, but not really.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/opinion/trump-doctrine-venezuela-afghanistan.html
I think its interesting to read Douthat being consistent from 2019. I have to admit I looked back to see how different his tone was, but not really.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/opinion/trump-doctrine-venezuela-afghanistan.html
In a sense the US did after WW2 (at least partially).
i personally invite the Taliban to come over and help the US rebuild a stable government.
In a sense the US did after WW2 (at least partially).
i personally invite the Taliban to come over and help the US rebuild a stable government.
i personally invite the Taliban to come over and help the US rebuild a stable government.
Given how complimentary some particularly loud voices on the US Right are about the social values of the Taliban (usually the same ones that admire Putin’s moral crusade), the idea seems not THAT absurd.
i personally invite the Taliban to come over and help the US rebuild a stable government.
Given how complimentary some particularly loud voices on the US Right are about the social values of the Taliban (usually the same ones that admire Putin’s moral crusade), the idea seems not THAT absurd.
I didn’t post the Steve Coll link to make a specific point, but because he is one of the people who are able to discuss the issue of Afghanistan withdrawal in all its complexity.
In fact I think one problem with the discussion here is that some want to drive home their idea too hard, be it out of (subliminal) partisan attachment or genuine conviction, and in doing so drastically simplify a very complex issue.
There is no inevitability to how the withdrawal was undertaken and criticizing the way this was done has nothing whatsoever to do with support for the war. There is no way the viewpoints of all those affected can be neatly integrated into one overarching narrative.
And, looking into the future, it’s not even clear what withdrawal will mean: I saw Leon Panetta screaming on TV “we have to go back in, we have to go back in” and Biden / Psaki talking in best Bush manner of hunting down and making pay terrorists. And the last, terrible incident of the drone war killing ten members of a family will certainly not be the last, as we’re discussing “over-the-horizon counter-terrorism” and the issue of the contractors is completely unclear.
So, while I understand the urge to “put all of this behind us”, this is either incredibly naive or wilfully ignorant, and those affected most don’t even have that option.
I’ll lave it now with one last link, by another writer who knows what he’s talking about:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/bidens-chaotic-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-is-complete
I didn’t post the Steve Coll link to make a specific point, but because he is one of the people who are able to discuss the issue of Afghanistan withdrawal in all its complexity.
In fact I think one problem with the discussion here is that some want to drive home their idea too hard, be it out of (subliminal) partisan attachment or genuine conviction, and in doing so drastically simplify a very complex issue.
There is no inevitability to how the withdrawal was undertaken and criticizing the way this was done has nothing whatsoever to do with support for the war. There is no way the viewpoints of all those affected can be neatly integrated into one overarching narrative.
And, looking into the future, it’s not even clear what withdrawal will mean: I saw Leon Panetta screaming on TV “we have to go back in, we have to go back in” and Biden / Psaki talking in best Bush manner of hunting down and making pay terrorists. And the last, terrible incident of the drone war killing ten members of a family will certainly not be the last, as we’re discussing “over-the-horizon counter-terrorism” and the issue of the contractors is completely unclear.
So, while I understand the urge to “put all of this behind us”, this is either incredibly naive or wilfully ignorant, and those affected most don’t even have that option.
I’ll lave it now with one last link, by another writer who knows what he’s talking about:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/bidens-chaotic-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-is-complete
There is no inevitability to how the withdrawal was undertaken and criticizing the way this was done has nothing whatsoever to do with support for the war.
The problem with the criticisms of the way the withdrawl was done have, indeed, nothing necessarily to do support for the war. (Although supporters of the war are among the loudest critics there, they are far from the only ones.)
No, the problem with criticisms of the way the withdrawl was done, including yours here, is that they don’t supply anything about how it could have been done better. At least, nothing realistic — “We should have started sooner” or “We should have put it off longer” neither being real ways to make it, whenever it occurred, better. Anyone wanting their criticism of the withdrawal to be taken seriously has to come up with specifics on what should have been differently. And explain how that would have improved things.
Feel entirely free to do so. In fact, if you’d care to write something long, I expect we could use it to head up a guest thread all its own.
There is no inevitability to how the withdrawal was undertaken and criticizing the way this was done has nothing whatsoever to do with support for the war.
The problem with the criticisms of the way the withdrawl was done have, indeed, nothing necessarily to do support for the war. (Although supporters of the war are among the loudest critics there, they are far from the only ones.)
No, the problem with criticisms of the way the withdrawl was done, including yours here, is that they don’t supply anything about how it could have been done better. At least, nothing realistic — “We should have started sooner” or “We should have put it off longer” neither being real ways to make it, whenever it occurred, better. Anyone wanting their criticism of the withdrawal to be taken seriously has to come up with specifics on what should have been differently. And explain how that would have improved things.
Feel entirely free to do so. In fact, if you’d care to write something long, I expect we could use it to head up a guest thread all its own.
As far as I can tell – Biden didn’t expect the Afghan government and security forces to basically fold in the face of a Taliban surge.
Maybe he should have. Maybe the planning should have accounted for that.
Other than that, I’m not sure what could have been done differently.
As far as I can tell – Biden didn’t expect the Afghan government and security forces to basically fold in the face of a Taliban surge.
Maybe he should have. Maybe the planning should have accounted for that.
Other than that, I’m not sure what could have been done differently.
As wj said, specific criticisms are needed. I might even agree with some. The visa situation seems to have been a mess.
But there really is a problem here— to get all the Afghans out who wanted to come out you would need to do a lot of things that would imply we expected an almost immediate governmental collapse and which would probably precipitate that collapse. I think the mistake Biden really did make was that he expected that the government would last a lot longer and there would be more time to get people out.. Since there wasn’t, it became a mad rush for the exits. But given how fragile the government was, once it was clear we really were leaving and trying to get people out as fast as possible, that collapse would have occurred earlier if we had started a serous pullout earlier. And Biden would have been blamed, probably by exactly the same people.
One could also imagine an explicit negotiated surrender giving us all the time we needed for Afghans who wanted out to leave, but that is politically unimaginable. And we didn’t have the right to surrender on behalf of the Afghan government. As it happens they did a really thorough job of collapsing anyway, but we couldn’t do it for them. ( Except in the sense that for 20 years we helped create a government with the tensile strength of Silly Putty.)
What bugs me about the criticisms is that most are from warmongers who had 20 years to push hard for serious nation building if they knew how to do it at all ( and accepting for the sake of argument the liberal imperialist notion that we have the right to do it). 20 years of lying and corruption and brutality where it turns out from the Afghanistan Papers that people knew we were failing.
And now we finally ( to my own surprise) have a centrist liberal President who is willing to face up to the failure and pull out. Did he do it perfectly? Maybe not. Maybe it could have been done better. ( And maybe not). But the reaction from the liberal press has been one of pure outrage, far exceeding anything we have seen for the corruption and incompetence of the war itself. No sense of the history. No attempt at nuance and no credit to Biden for openly recognizing how badly we have failed. Instead Biden is being treated as a scapegoat for a gigantic history of bipartisan failure and btw, if there is anyone I don’t want to hear from on this subject, it is Tony Blair, unless he is calling from a prison cell. And to some degree the same applies to all the European critics. This goes under the stopped clock category, but Trump wasn’t totally wrong about NATO. If they want to be the great white saviors and relive their glorious ( murderous) days of civilizing the non Western countries of the world, then they can raise taxes and build up their militaries and do it themselves. I hope they don’t. I hope it is all just hot air coming from countries like Britain whose elites still harbor absurd fantasies about being a global power.
I don’t like Biden’s own ideas of continuing the WOT with drone strikes and we saw how that policy works out in practice, but notice how little of the criticism is about that strike. Yet that strike is in microcosm a partial explanation of how we lost. The only difference is that the victims were urban people, not rural villagers. If someone somewhere has done a thorough recap of the entire history and isn’t just using Biden as a scapegoat, I would read that. But I haven’t seen any criticism of that sort. I can’t read your New Yorker clips but I haven’t been impressed by very many New Yorker writers with a handful of exceptions ( like Gopal).
As wj said, specific criticisms are needed. I might even agree with some. The visa situation seems to have been a mess.
But there really is a problem here— to get all the Afghans out who wanted to come out you would need to do a lot of things that would imply we expected an almost immediate governmental collapse and which would probably precipitate that collapse. I think the mistake Biden really did make was that he expected that the government would last a lot longer and there would be more time to get people out.. Since there wasn’t, it became a mad rush for the exits. But given how fragile the government was, once it was clear we really were leaving and trying to get people out as fast as possible, that collapse would have occurred earlier if we had started a serous pullout earlier. And Biden would have been blamed, probably by exactly the same people.
One could also imagine an explicit negotiated surrender giving us all the time we needed for Afghans who wanted out to leave, but that is politically unimaginable. And we didn’t have the right to surrender on behalf of the Afghan government. As it happens they did a really thorough job of collapsing anyway, but we couldn’t do it for them. ( Except in the sense that for 20 years we helped create a government with the tensile strength of Silly Putty.)
What bugs me about the criticisms is that most are from warmongers who had 20 years to push hard for serious nation building if they knew how to do it at all ( and accepting for the sake of argument the liberal imperialist notion that we have the right to do it). 20 years of lying and corruption and brutality where it turns out from the Afghanistan Papers that people knew we were failing.
And now we finally ( to my own surprise) have a centrist liberal President who is willing to face up to the failure and pull out. Did he do it perfectly? Maybe not. Maybe it could have been done better. ( And maybe not). But the reaction from the liberal press has been one of pure outrage, far exceeding anything we have seen for the corruption and incompetence of the war itself. No sense of the history. No attempt at nuance and no credit to Biden for openly recognizing how badly we have failed. Instead Biden is being treated as a scapegoat for a gigantic history of bipartisan failure and btw, if there is anyone I don’t want to hear from on this subject, it is Tony Blair, unless he is calling from a prison cell. And to some degree the same applies to all the European critics. This goes under the stopped clock category, but Trump wasn’t totally wrong about NATO. If they want to be the great white saviors and relive their glorious ( murderous) days of civilizing the non Western countries of the world, then they can raise taxes and build up their militaries and do it themselves. I hope they don’t. I hope it is all just hot air coming from countries like Britain whose elites still harbor absurd fantasies about being a global power.
I don’t like Biden’s own ideas of continuing the WOT with drone strikes and we saw how that policy works out in practice, but notice how little of the criticism is about that strike. Yet that strike is in microcosm a partial explanation of how we lost. The only difference is that the victims were urban people, not rural villagers. If someone somewhere has done a thorough recap of the entire history and isn’t just using Biden as a scapegoat, I would read that. But I haven’t seen any criticism of that sort. I can’t read your New Yorker clips but I haven’t been impressed by very many New Yorker writers with a handful of exceptions ( like Gopal).
Maybe he should have. Maybe the planning should have accounted for that.
of course that would have required him to go against the recommendations of the military and intel communities. now there’s a scenario where he owns it all. but these enormously-well-funded agencies exist, in part, to give Presidents the information they need to have to make the best decisions possible. and AFAIK, they didn’t tell him the plan was shaky, let alone totally doomed.
were there enough (any?) credible predictions about that possibility that we can say Biden took a gamble in following the plan?
There is no inevitability to how the withdrawal was undertaken
per wj, complaining that it was messy is hollow. no, the way it turned out wasn’t inevitable. but that says nothing. almost nothing is inevitable – hindsight can pretty much always find a decision that could have been made differently somewhere, if you rearrange all the pieces just-so and give the actors the critical opinions and facts at the right time.
so what should Biden have done differently? seriously, what information did you have a month ago that Biden either didn’t have or that he ignored? what is this better path he should have chosen and how do you get him to make that decision?
without that, all you have is a narrative called “Biden Screwed Up” which you’re busy slotting new events into as they happen.
Maybe he should have. Maybe the planning should have accounted for that.
of course that would have required him to go against the recommendations of the military and intel communities. now there’s a scenario where he owns it all. but these enormously-well-funded agencies exist, in part, to give Presidents the information they need to have to make the best decisions possible. and AFAIK, they didn’t tell him the plan was shaky, let alone totally doomed.
were there enough (any?) credible predictions about that possibility that we can say Biden took a gamble in following the plan?
There is no inevitability to how the withdrawal was undertaken
per wj, complaining that it was messy is hollow. no, the way it turned out wasn’t inevitable. but that says nothing. almost nothing is inevitable – hindsight can pretty much always find a decision that could have been made differently somewhere, if you rearrange all the pieces just-so and give the actors the critical opinions and facts at the right time.
so what should Biden have done differently? seriously, what information did you have a month ago that Biden either didn’t have or that he ignored? what is this better path he should have chosen and how do you get him to make that decision?
without that, all you have is a narrative called “Biden Screwed Up” which you’re busy slotting new events into as they happen.
(not really directed at you, russell)
(not really directed at you, russell)
As far as I can tell – Biden didn’t expect the Afghan government and security forces to basically fold in the face of a Taliban surge.
Maybe he should have. Maybe the planning should have accounted for that.
Is there anyone left at the top of the foreign policy/military heap that is willing to give an accurate report on the conditions on the ground? Have two decades of people being moved up the chains based on can-do attitudes, desire for advancement, and an ability to put a positive spin on bleak situations left us with a system that gives false positives?
Assuming that we had known that the Afghan army would evaporate, what about the withdrawal could have been changed?
A thorough housecleaning of the people and systems that produced the over-optimistic analysis would not change this outcome, only (possibly) the next.
As far as I can tell – Biden didn’t expect the Afghan government and security forces to basically fold in the face of a Taliban surge.
Maybe he should have. Maybe the planning should have accounted for that.
Is there anyone left at the top of the foreign policy/military heap that is willing to give an accurate report on the conditions on the ground? Have two decades of people being moved up the chains based on can-do attitudes, desire for advancement, and an ability to put a positive spin on bleak situations left us with a system that gives false positives?
Assuming that we had known that the Afghan army would evaporate, what about the withdrawal could have been changed?
A thorough housecleaning of the people and systems that produced the over-optimistic analysis would not change this outcome, only (possibly) the next.
As wj said, specific criticisms are needed. I might even agree with some. The visa situation seems to have been a mess.
Absolutely, the visa situation has been a mess. And continues to be, entirely apart from Afghanistan. The upside of that could have been rebuilding the entire visa system without reference to Afghanistan. Although I’m not sure how long that would take. Especially with the Republicans in Congress having hysterics about anything which would make it work better.
As wj said, specific criticisms are needed. I might even agree with some. The visa situation seems to have been a mess.
Absolutely, the visa situation has been a mess. And continues to be, entirely apart from Afghanistan. The upside of that could have been rebuilding the entire visa system without reference to Afghanistan. Although I’m not sure how long that would take. Especially with the Republicans in Congress having hysterics about anything which would make it work better.
Given the rolling shitshow that was the previous administration’s State Department, I’d not be surprised to find that it has been trashed as badly as the USPS.
Given the rolling shitshow that was the previous administration’s State Department, I’d not be surprised to find that it has been trashed as badly as the USPS.
Given the rolling shitshow that was the previous administration’s State Department, I’d not be surprised to find that it has been trashed as badly as the USPS.
Informants tell me it will take two or three generations (presumably of recruitment) to recover.
Given the rolling shitshow that was the previous administration’s State Department, I’d not be surprised to find that it has been trashed as badly as the USPS.
Informants tell me it will take two or three generations (presumably of recruitment) to recover.
Absolutely, the visa situation has been a mess.
For sure. They should have just printed up a million blank visas and air dropped them on the country.
Given the rolling shitshow that was the previous administration’s State Department, I’d not be surprised to find that it has been trashed as badly as the USPS.
Yup. Have you tried to renew your (US) passport recently?
Absolutely, the visa situation has been a mess.
For sure. They should have just printed up a million blank visas and air dropped them on the country.
Given the rolling shitshow that was the previous administration’s State Department, I’d not be surprised to find that it has been trashed as badly as the USPS.
Yup. Have you tried to renew your (US) passport recently?
Have you tried to renew your (US) passport recently?
Renewed before our trip to Iceland in 2017. Things had already started to back up then, so we jumped on it early.
Have you tried to renew your (US) passport recently?
Renewed before our trip to Iceland in 2017. Things had already started to back up then, so we jumped on it early.
Found an old article from November 2017 (!) showing that already at that stage, 60% of the State Department’s equivalent of 4-star generals had gone. And it only got worse…
Found an old article from November 2017 (!) showing that already at that stage, 60% of the State Department’s equivalent of 4-star generals had gone. And it only got worse…
At the least on the visa front Biden is (imo) blameless. The Miller gang proved extremly competent at sabotaging that process in advance beyond any chance of timely repair.
That’s a case were in a just world the intended victims (or their surviving next of kin) would get the right to do with them* as they desire with no fear of legal consequences (and maybe with some professional tips how to prolong the process, so that as many as possible and willing can partake).
*and some Faux News personalities as bonus
At the least on the visa front Biden is (imo) blameless. The Miller gang proved extremly competent at sabotaging that process in advance beyond any chance of timely repair.
That’s a case were in a just world the intended victims (or their surviving next of kin) would get the right to do with them* as they desire with no fear of legal consequences (and maybe with some professional tips how to prolong the process, so that as many as possible and willing can partake).
*and some Faux News personalities as bonus
renewed my passport this past February. took the expected amount of time – they even used the picture i took of myself against my bathroom wall!
renewed my passport this past February. took the expected amount of time – they even used the picture i took of myself against my bathroom wall!
Most of you are too young to remember the “who lost China?” debate. Some things never change.
Most of you are too young to remember the “who lost China?” debate. Some things never change.
Ah, I’ve missed that version of Hartmut – it’s a long time since we’ve had any inventive descriptions of baroque contraptions containing rabid weasels being strapped to malefactors’ bodies.
Ah, I’ve missed that version of Hartmut – it’s a long time since we’ve had any inventive descriptions of baroque contraptions containing rabid weasels being strapped to malefactors’ bodies.
(not really directed at you, russell)
no worries.
also, too – renewed my passport last year, it took a normal amount of time. at the height of the pandemic, FWIW.
seriously, I invite anyone to look over the historical record of the end of any war we or anyone else has ever been in, ever, and see if any of them have concluded without chaos and the general situation being a shambles.
wars are about breaking stuff. they are about deliberately destroying people places and things. in the modern age, we try to keep the destroying people places and things concept contained within some kind of generally humane boundaries, but it doesn’t always work out, because there is an inherent conflict between ‘destroy people places and things’ and ‘humane boundaries’.
you break stuff until one party either can’t continue to sustain the exercise in breaking stuff, or decides whatever they were trying to achieve isn’t worth breaking any more stuff.
the process of destroying people places and things creates, by intention, an unholy mess. so when you’re done breaking all the stuff you’re gonna break, things don’t work well anymore.
chaos ensues.
I don’t understand what people think war is, and I don’t understand what degree of control anyone thinks we or anyone else has over what happens now in Afghanistan.
we’ve been there 20 years. some of what we did was helpful, a lot of what we did was not. we threw a lot of money at a government and a security force that, in the end, weren’t really very solid. that is often what happens when you try to make a country out of money.
it’s the end of a war, and it’s a mess. ends of wars are a mess. the mess doesn’t always land in our lap, in this case some amount of it does. as bad as it is for us, it’s no doubt much much worse for folks in Afghanistan. they’re still poor, their country has been blown up continuously for the last 40 years, and in terms of government they’re back where they were 20 years ago.
if yelling at Biden makes anybody feel better about any of that, have at it. but he’s just the guy who caught the hot potato.
things can always be better, but they seldom actually are.
(not really directed at you, russell)
no worries.
also, too – renewed my passport last year, it took a normal amount of time. at the height of the pandemic, FWIW.
seriously, I invite anyone to look over the historical record of the end of any war we or anyone else has ever been in, ever, and see if any of them have concluded without chaos and the general situation being a shambles.
wars are about breaking stuff. they are about deliberately destroying people places and things. in the modern age, we try to keep the destroying people places and things concept contained within some kind of generally humane boundaries, but it doesn’t always work out, because there is an inherent conflict between ‘destroy people places and things’ and ‘humane boundaries’.
you break stuff until one party either can’t continue to sustain the exercise in breaking stuff, or decides whatever they were trying to achieve isn’t worth breaking any more stuff.
the process of destroying people places and things creates, by intention, an unholy mess. so when you’re done breaking all the stuff you’re gonna break, things don’t work well anymore.
chaos ensues.
I don’t understand what people think war is, and I don’t understand what degree of control anyone thinks we or anyone else has over what happens now in Afghanistan.
we’ve been there 20 years. some of what we did was helpful, a lot of what we did was not. we threw a lot of money at a government and a security force that, in the end, weren’t really very solid. that is often what happens when you try to make a country out of money.
it’s the end of a war, and it’s a mess. ends of wars are a mess. the mess doesn’t always land in our lap, in this case some amount of it does. as bad as it is for us, it’s no doubt much much worse for folks in Afghanistan. they’re still poor, their country has been blown up continuously for the last 40 years, and in terms of government they’re back where they were 20 years ago.
if yelling at Biden makes anybody feel better about any of that, have at it. but he’s just the guy who caught the hot potato.
things can always be better, but they seldom actually are.
Found a non- paywalled interview with Gopal ( who speaks some of the languages and has been interviewing people on all sides for years). I am very proud of myself- he said what I did, that a negotiated surrender could have given us a smooth transition but was politically impossible to imagine. ( He puts it slightly differently).
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/biden-s-afghanistan-withdrawal-could-ve-gone-so-differently-n1278163
One really crucial point— reporters need to talk to people other than English speakers. Their views and rights matter, but so do the views of rural people who had to live with daily violence.
On visas, I agree that this might not be Biden’s fault at all. His main fault was being too optimistic about the staying power of the. Afghan government, but for someone in the middle of the Blob, he was more clear sighted than most.
So few politicians are ever willing to say that one of our foreign policy disasters was a disaster that I think he ought to be given a huge amount of credit here. There are likely to be plenty of reasons for an anti war person do criticize him on other things ( and yeah, there’s a list I could write) but this decision involved a rare display of guts.
Found a non- paywalled interview with Gopal ( who speaks some of the languages and has been interviewing people on all sides for years). I am very proud of myself- he said what I did, that a negotiated surrender could have given us a smooth transition but was politically impossible to imagine. ( He puts it slightly differently).
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/biden-s-afghanistan-withdrawal-could-ve-gone-so-differently-n1278163
One really crucial point— reporters need to talk to people other than English speakers. Their views and rights matter, but so do the views of rural people who had to live with daily violence.
On visas, I agree that this might not be Biden’s fault at all. His main fault was being too optimistic about the staying power of the. Afghan government, but for someone in the middle of the Blob, he was more clear sighted than most.
So few politicians are ever willing to say that one of our foreign policy disasters was a disaster that I think he ought to be given a huge amount of credit here. There are likely to be plenty of reasons for an anti war person do criticize him on other things ( and yeah, there’s a list I could write) but this decision involved a rare display of guts.
but this decision involved a rare display of guts.
even blond lich Ann Coulter praised Biden for being the first President with the ‘balls’ to make this happen.
but this decision involved a rare display of guts.
even blond lich Ann Coulter praised Biden for being the first President with the ‘balls’ to make this happen.
wj, there is certainly no bigger epistemic burden on those who criticize the withdrawal than on those defending it.
So I can ask you with the same justification to describe why this was exactly the right time to withdraw and not any other time, and why this was the best way of going about it.
I don’t know about you, but usually in life when things don’t go so well – and that’s putting it very mildly in this case – I think it’s useful to question oneself what went wrong, rather than get defensive, blame the victims and insist that things just had to be this way because there was no alternative. Also, I don’t find lots of hand waving about how war is hell, retreats are messy and the benefits of hindsight not very helpful.
I have posted links already on this thread already and if you’re interested, I can post more. Also Donald’s latest link to Anand Gopal describes a road not taken.
Donald, I disagree with your description that this was politically unimaginable and – unsurprisingly – that Biden displayed guts.
wj, there is certainly no bigger epistemic burden on those who criticize the withdrawal than on those defending it.
So I can ask you with the same justification to describe why this was exactly the right time to withdraw and not any other time, and why this was the best way of going about it.
I don’t know about you, but usually in life when things don’t go so well – and that’s putting it very mildly in this case – I think it’s useful to question oneself what went wrong, rather than get defensive, blame the victims and insist that things just had to be this way because there was no alternative. Also, I don’t find lots of hand waving about how war is hell, retreats are messy and the benefits of hindsight not very helpful.
I have posted links already on this thread already and if you’re interested, I can post more. Also Donald’s latest link to Anand Gopal describes a road not taken.
Donald, I disagree with your description that this was politically unimaginable and – unsurprisingly – that Biden displayed guts.
But while assessing the failures of the past, as well as insisting on accountability is important, I think the more pressing issue now is to come to develop a strategy of fending off the pending humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/31/un-chief-warns-of-humanitarian-catastrophe-in-afghanistan
But while assessing the failures of the past, as well as insisting on accountability is important, I think the more pressing issue now is to come to develop a strategy of fending off the pending humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/31/un-chief-warns-of-humanitarian-catastrophe-in-afghanistan
here’s a handy infographic:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/30/infographic-afghanistans-humanitarian-crisis-interactive
here’s a handy infographic:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/30/infographic-afghanistans-humanitarian-crisis-interactive
novakant, thanks for the comments, especially since I missed 10 or so before that since they pushed down before I noticed. Want to second the offer of a guest post to you or anyone else who wants to offer something.
The view from here in Japan is quite limited, and focussed on whether Japan will take refugees or not
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Afghanistan-turmoil/In-rare-move-Japan-prepares-to-offer-refuge-to-Afghans
To give an idea of the numbers, the article suggests that it will be around 500 and it is difficult to imagine them taking any more than that. Interestingly, Korea was much more open and immediately took 378, and designated them as ‘people of special merit’ rather than as refugees
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/26/south-korea-designates-afghan-arrivals-as-persons-of-special-merit
While I think this is good, I was involved, when I was in Korea in 2019, with people helping an Angolan family that were in Incheon airport
https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/913147.html
They were allowed in after 7 months, but face additional reviews and it’s possible that they could be rejected.
Anyway, an open invitation for a post.
novakant, thanks for the comments, especially since I missed 10 or so before that since they pushed down before I noticed. Want to second the offer of a guest post to you or anyone else who wants to offer something.
The view from here in Japan is quite limited, and focussed on whether Japan will take refugees or not
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Afghanistan-turmoil/In-rare-move-Japan-prepares-to-offer-refuge-to-Afghans
To give an idea of the numbers, the article suggests that it will be around 500 and it is difficult to imagine them taking any more than that. Interestingly, Korea was much more open and immediately took 378, and designated them as ‘people of special merit’ rather than as refugees
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/26/south-korea-designates-afghan-arrivals-as-persons-of-special-merit
While I think this is good, I was involved, when I was in Korea in 2019, with people helping an Angolan family that were in Incheon airport
https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/913147.html
They were allowed in after 7 months, but face additional reviews and it’s possible that they could be rejected.
Anyway, an open invitation for a post.
Sorry, and I meant to share this earlier, some interesting links
https://www.npr.org/2013/04/25/178790557/first-western-war-in-afghanistan-was-an-imperial-disaster
https://unherd.com/2021/08/afghanistan-always-defeats-the-west/
Sorry, and I meant to share this earlier, some interesting links
https://www.npr.org/2013/04/25/178790557/first-western-war-in-afghanistan-was-an-imperial-disaster
https://unherd.com/2021/08/afghanistan-always-defeats-the-west/
why this was exactly the right time to withdraw and not any other time
the US had a deal with the Taliban, negotiated by our President and Secretary of State, to be out of Afghanistan in May. we got an extension until August. they weren’t going to keep granting extensions.
and why this was the best way of going about it.
this wasn’t the way anybody thought was best – except the Afghan army, who thought it best to stop existing. everybody else had to improvise.
why this was exactly the right time to withdraw and not any other time
the US had a deal with the Taliban, negotiated by our President and Secretary of State, to be out of Afghanistan in May. we got an extension until August. they weren’t going to keep granting extensions.
and why this was the best way of going about it.
this wasn’t the way anybody thought was best – except the Afghan army, who thought it best to stop existing. everybody else had to improvise.
even blond lich Ann Coulter
cleek, as part of my ongoing ObWi education module, what is a lich?
Before pressing post, I googled it. “A type of undead creature”? Fair enough!
even blond lich Ann Coulter
cleek, as part of my ongoing ObWi education module, what is a lich?
Before pressing post, I googled it. “A type of undead creature”? Fair enough!
While the google or wikipedia may be sufficient for some things, the authoritative source for “lich” would be the D&D Monster Manual:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/lich
Describing Coulter as a lich is sublime.
While the google or wikipedia may be sufficient for some things, the authoritative source for “lich” would be the D&D Monster Manual:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/lich
Describing Coulter as a lich is sublime.
Describing Coulter as a lich is sublime.
Absolutely agree, having read your fuller definition!
Describing Coulter as a lich is sublime.
Absolutely agree, having read your fuller definition!
cleek, as part of my ongoing ObWi education module,
what good is life if you can’t learn about the undead?
cleek, as part of my ongoing ObWi education module,
what good is life if you can’t learn about the undead?
I can ask you with the same justification to describe why this was exactly the right time to withdraw and not any other time, and why this was the best way of going about it.
this was directed to Donald, but I’ll take a stab at answering.
there was and is no ‘exactly right time’ to withdraw. there was and is no ‘best way’ of going about it.
the perfect conditions for leaving would be the presence of a stable and effective government and social and political institutions. unclear to me how to make that happen in Afghanistan, certainly unclear how *we* can make that happen. certainly unclear to me how long it will take for that to emerge organically in Afghanistan.
so in the absence of that happening, or us being able to make it happen, or being able to know when it might happen, all times and means of leaving are probably equally crappy.
if it sounds like I’m “blaming the victims” I’m not. I’m not blaming anyone. I’m recognizing the reality that Afghanistan is not a stable place and has not been one for at least 40 years. A lot of that is not the fault of the Afghan people, but it is the reality.
I don’t find lots of hand waving about how war is hell, retreats are messy and the benefits of hindsight not very helpful.
what you call ‘hand waving’ is basically a simple acknowledgement of the reality on the ground.
leaving a house that is on fire is not the same as leaving a house that is not on fire.
I can ask you with the same justification to describe why this was exactly the right time to withdraw and not any other time, and why this was the best way of going about it.
this was directed to Donald, but I’ll take a stab at answering.
there was and is no ‘exactly right time’ to withdraw. there was and is no ‘best way’ of going about it.
the perfect conditions for leaving would be the presence of a stable and effective government and social and political institutions. unclear to me how to make that happen in Afghanistan, certainly unclear how *we* can make that happen. certainly unclear to me how long it will take for that to emerge organically in Afghanistan.
so in the absence of that happening, or us being able to make it happen, or being able to know when it might happen, all times and means of leaving are probably equally crappy.
if it sounds like I’m “blaming the victims” I’m not. I’m not blaming anyone. I’m recognizing the reality that Afghanistan is not a stable place and has not been one for at least 40 years. A lot of that is not the fault of the Afghan people, but it is the reality.
I don’t find lots of hand waving about how war is hell, retreats are messy and the benefits of hindsight not very helpful.
what you call ‘hand waving’ is basically a simple acknowledgement of the reality on the ground.
leaving a house that is on fire is not the same as leaving a house that is not on fire.
the more pressing issue now is to come to develop a strategy of fending off the pending humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan
on this, we are in complete agreement
the more pressing issue now is to come to develop a strategy of fending off the pending humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan
on this, we are in complete agreement
also:
the Gopal interview seems right on, to me.
and Coulter may bear great resemblance to a lich, but I find it hard to believe she was ever a wizard of any magnitude whatsoever, let alone a great one.
she has the malice, but not the skill
also:
the Gopal interview seems right on, to me.
and Coulter may bear great resemblance to a lich, but I find it hard to believe she was ever a wizard of any magnitude whatsoever, let alone a great one.
she has the malice, but not the skill
maybe she was a pinball wizard?
maybe she was a pinball wizard?
Coulter resembles a lich, but I think she is actually a human warlock of The Undying. Charisma is her bump stat, and she has power over the undead that she is inexorably coming to resemble.
Coulter resembles a lich, but I think she is actually a human warlock of The Undying. Charisma is her bump stat, and she has power over the undead that she is inexorably coming to resemble.
and Coulter may bear great resemblance to a lich, but I find it hard to believe she was ever a wizard of any magnitude whatsoever, let alone a great one.
Folks who knew her at UM law school say that she was very bright and capable, but bugnuts. In other words, she really believes the crap she peddles.
This raises the question: What do lawyers and wizards have in common?
“Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger.”
Like most charlatans, fake lawyers only feign subtlety to cover deficiencies, but there is a grand tradition of charlatanism in both the ranks of wizards and attorneys, so I think there is a connection. Besides, as with specialists in pathology, early career necromancy is where you find the less skilled wizards (though not all pathologists or necromancers are unskilled).
While all of the famous liches can be described as great wizards who turned to necromancy at the end of their lives to extend same (sort of), Coulter seems to be in that class of early career necromancer that would classified with your lesser imps and demons.
and Coulter may bear great resemblance to a lich, but I find it hard to believe she was ever a wizard of any magnitude whatsoever, let alone a great one.
Folks who knew her at UM law school say that she was very bright and capable, but bugnuts. In other words, she really believes the crap she peddles.
This raises the question: What do lawyers and wizards have in common?
“Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger.”
Like most charlatans, fake lawyers only feign subtlety to cover deficiencies, but there is a grand tradition of charlatanism in both the ranks of wizards and attorneys, so I think there is a connection. Besides, as with specialists in pathology, early career necromancy is where you find the less skilled wizards (though not all pathologists or necromancers are unskilled).
While all of the famous liches can be described as great wizards who turned to necromancy at the end of their lives to extend same (sort of), Coulter seems to be in that class of early career necromancer that would classified with your lesser imps and demons.
Coulter may bear great resemblance to a lich, but I find it hard to believe she was ever a wizard of any magnitude whatsoever, let alone a great one.
she has the malice, but not the skill
Completely agree with this, actually.
Charisma is her bump stat
Oh for God’s (any God you care to recognise) sake! You are obviously trying to drive me crazy. I have just googled “bump stat”, and google thinks I am trying to bump start a car. Nobody needs to answer this, I’m going to hide in a cupboard….
Coulter may bear great resemblance to a lich, but I find it hard to believe she was ever a wizard of any magnitude whatsoever, let alone a great one.
she has the malice, but not the skill
Completely agree with this, actually.
Charisma is her bump stat
Oh for God’s (any God you care to recognise) sake! You are obviously trying to drive me crazy. I have just googled “bump stat”, and google thinks I am trying to bump start a car. Nobody needs to answer this, I’m going to hide in a cupboard….
“Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup” also, too.
“Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup” also, too.
and why this was the best way of going about it.
I wouldn’t call it the “best” way. More like an approximation of the “least worst” way. With the exception, as previously noted, of the mess which is our visa “system.” (Which mess Biden inherited. No idea how feasible it was to rebuild it before the Trump-negotiated withdrawal deadline.)
Which is to say, I’m simply not seeing any obvious ways in which it could have been done better. To my mind, timing was irrelevant at this point. If the withdrawl had been done within a year or two, that’s another question. But it’s not like that was an option for Biden.
So that’s why I keep asking for suggested improvements. I’ve read some of the links you’ve supplied. Haven’t noticed any suggestions which appeared both feasible and effective in improving things. Feel free to educate me.
Note: Asking me to defend the position that this was the best way amounts to trying to prove a negative. I trust you do realize that.
and why this was the best way of going about it.
I wouldn’t call it the “best” way. More like an approximation of the “least worst” way. With the exception, as previously noted, of the mess which is our visa “system.” (Which mess Biden inherited. No idea how feasible it was to rebuild it before the Trump-negotiated withdrawal deadline.)
Which is to say, I’m simply not seeing any obvious ways in which it could have been done better. To my mind, timing was irrelevant at this point. If the withdrawl had been done within a year or two, that’s another question. But it’s not like that was an option for Biden.
So that’s why I keep asking for suggested improvements. I’ve read some of the links you’ve supplied. Haven’t noticed any suggestions which appeared both feasible and effective in improving things. Feel free to educate me.
Note: Asking me to defend the position that this was the best way amounts to trying to prove a negative. I trust you do realize that.
the more pressing issue now is to come to develop a strategy of fending off the pending humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan
On this, we are totally in agreement.
I’d go so far as to say we need some tactics right now, to make a start while we develop said strategy. Say, for one, an executive order to waive the existing limits on refugees. If only to get them to a holding area on US territory while their applications are being processed and any required changes to the law are being done.
the more pressing issue now is to come to develop a strategy of fending off the pending humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan
On this, we are totally in agreement.
I’d go so far as to say we need some tactics right now, to make a start while we develop said strategy. Say, for one, an executive order to waive the existing limits on refugees. If only to get them to a holding area on US territory while their applications are being processed and any required changes to the law are being done.
Oh for God’s (any God you care to recognise) sake! You are obviously trying to drive me crazy. I have just googled “bump stat”, and google thinks I am trying to bump start a car. Nobody needs to answer this, I’m going to hide in a cupboard….
Your spidey sense serves you well in suggesting no one respond, but once started, you can’t stop a geek from spouting off on geek stuff.
“Bump stat” refers to character attributes … strength, constitution, dexterity, intelligence, wisdom, charisma. Your “bump stat” is an attribute that is lower than you want, so you use some game mechanism (leveling, lowering other stats) to increase it.
Charisma being Coulter’s bump stat means that she has poured all of her efforts into being famous to the neglect or even detriment of other attributes.
Also, in this case, we would recognize Urgathoa, Orcus or Arazni as dieties as proper deities to invoke.
Oh for God’s (any God you care to recognise) sake! You are obviously trying to drive me crazy. I have just googled “bump stat”, and google thinks I am trying to bump start a car. Nobody needs to answer this, I’m going to hide in a cupboard….
Your spidey sense serves you well in suggesting no one respond, but once started, you can’t stop a geek from spouting off on geek stuff.
“Bump stat” refers to character attributes … strength, constitution, dexterity, intelligence, wisdom, charisma. Your “bump stat” is an attribute that is lower than you want, so you use some game mechanism (leveling, lowering other stats) to increase it.
Charisma being Coulter’s bump stat means that she has poured all of her efforts into being famous to the neglect or even detriment of other attributes.
Also, in this case, we would recognize Urgathoa, Orcus or Arazni as dieties as proper deities to invoke.
Bump stat/dump stat – are role playing shorthand for the attributes that get points added to them to make them better, and those that get points taken from them to pay for the bump.
Bump stat/dump stat – are role playing shorthand for the attributes that get points added to them to make them better, and those that get points taken from them to pay for the bump.
To go all meta on the withdrawal question, pretty much any complex endeavor can be done in a large number of ways. Determining which of them is the absolute best depends on the goals of whoever is making that determination and, even then, you’re more far more likely to end up with something that is among the best options than the one that is truly the best. No one has all the information needed to get there, even if they know exactly what they’re trying to accomplish.
So, to me, the question isn’t whether the Biden administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan was the best of all possible withdrawals. It would take a terrible lack of imagination to think there wasn’t some better way to leave. It’s a question of how much worse was it than anything anyone can realistically imagine. Was it reasonably good given the circumstances? Or was it awful, even in the context of a terribly bad and unavoidably chaotic situation?
It’s really not a matter of defending it so much as a matter of questioning the bases on which people are criticizing it. Maybe is sucked, but no one has really shown how, relative to some other significantly less-sucky withdrawal under the circumstances in place after 20 years of suckiness in our approach to Afghanistan.
No one can say what lever should have been pulled that wasn’t pulled and how pulling that lever would have made things all that much better. That doesn’t mean I think it was great. I have no idea, but, at least so far, I don’t see that any of the critics do, either.
That’s simply the nature of situations that are fundamentally bad AFAICT.
To go all meta on the withdrawal question, pretty much any complex endeavor can be done in a large number of ways. Determining which of them is the absolute best depends on the goals of whoever is making that determination and, even then, you’re more far more likely to end up with something that is among the best options than the one that is truly the best. No one has all the information needed to get there, even if they know exactly what they’re trying to accomplish.
So, to me, the question isn’t whether the Biden administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan was the best of all possible withdrawals. It would take a terrible lack of imagination to think there wasn’t some better way to leave. It’s a question of how much worse was it than anything anyone can realistically imagine. Was it reasonably good given the circumstances? Or was it awful, even in the context of a terribly bad and unavoidably chaotic situation?
It’s really not a matter of defending it so much as a matter of questioning the bases on which people are criticizing it. Maybe is sucked, but no one has really shown how, relative to some other significantly less-sucky withdrawal under the circumstances in place after 20 years of suckiness in our approach to Afghanistan.
No one can say what lever should have been pulled that wasn’t pulled and how pulling that lever would have made things all that much better. That doesn’t mean I think it was great. I have no idea, but, at least so far, I don’t see that any of the critics do, either.
That’s simply the nature of situations that are fundamentally bad AFAICT.
The withdrawal from Afghanistan could have gone better if we, and others, had done about 1,000 other things differently, over the last 20 years.
Also, there are no doubt some things Biden might have done better in this specific case.
There is value in looking at things retrospectively, to see what mistakes were made and to inform our actions going forward. History tells me our success in doing that will be mixed, but yes, the opportunity exists, and has value.
But thinking that the withdrawal could have gone significantly better without somehow un-doing 20 years – or 40 years – of history seems, to me, naive. You can only play the cards you’re dealt. Even if you are the one who dealt them.
The withdrawal from Afghanistan could have gone better if we, and others, had done about 1,000 other things differently, over the last 20 years.
Also, there are no doubt some things Biden might have done better in this specific case.
There is value in looking at things retrospectively, to see what mistakes were made and to inform our actions going forward. History tells me our success in doing that will be mixed, but yes, the opportunity exists, and has value.
But thinking that the withdrawal could have gone significantly better without somehow un-doing 20 years – or 40 years – of history seems, to me, naive. You can only play the cards you’re dealt. Even if you are the one who dealt them.
Just a reminder that history is long. I always knew Alexander had invaded “Bactria”, but had forgotten that his soldiers actually colonized the place. It appears they did not so much withdraw as mingle.
–TP
Just a reminder that history is long. I always knew Alexander had invaded “Bactria”, but had forgotten that his soldiers actually colonized the place. It appears they did not so much withdraw as mingle.
–TP
Dreher, the lying Christian, makes another self-serving tortured point about conceptual art and gender studies “forced” on the Afghan people as the surefire cause of our defeat … setting aside of course the American military killing machine as a cause for concern.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/marcel-duchamp-toilet-afghanistan-conceptual-art/
Well, no doubt, the Taliban, like their conservative Christian brethren in utter close-mindedness infesting us stateside, are pissed off, still … after 100 years, with Duchamp’s pissoir, and talking about all sexy things “down there” with conservative Muslims in Afghanistan certainly may have raised a few hackles, unless of course conservatives everywhere are talking about monitoring every female’s “down there” for modernity’s trespassing.
Much like American Christian missionaries proselytizing the crucified Christ pissed off the Taliban, just as the conceptual Piss Christ would, because of the cultural disrespect.
Much like those Buddhist statues (are those religious symbols, Dreher, or conceptual art, in your anal orthodoxy?) were demolished by the Taliban, just as they would be by our own domestic, party-pooping fake Christian assholes if I successfully lobbied for and had constructed a couple of towering Buddhist statuary on the Washington Mall to further diversity in America, the latter being the same subhumans who wiped, or stole (whichever served more efficiently to fatten the bottom line), Native American culture, religious artifacts, and culture off the face of the Earth, with all due respect.
Hell, the Taliban probably blew up modern USAID-constructed toilet facilities, which featured Duchamps porcelain artwork in all of its practical, quotidian glory.
An Afghan male, dressed as Barbara Streisand, will be forced to stand, not sit, in the men’s room in Kabul …. and Oklahoma City.
Dreher, the lying Christian, makes another self-serving tortured point about conceptual art and gender studies “forced” on the Afghan people as the surefire cause of our defeat … setting aside of course the American military killing machine as a cause for concern.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/marcel-duchamp-toilet-afghanistan-conceptual-art/
Well, no doubt, the Taliban, like their conservative Christian brethren in utter close-mindedness infesting us stateside, are pissed off, still … after 100 years, with Duchamp’s pissoir, and talking about all sexy things “down there” with conservative Muslims in Afghanistan certainly may have raised a few hackles, unless of course conservatives everywhere are talking about monitoring every female’s “down there” for modernity’s trespassing.
Much like American Christian missionaries proselytizing the crucified Christ pissed off the Taliban, just as the conceptual Piss Christ would, because of the cultural disrespect.
Much like those Buddhist statues (are those religious symbols, Dreher, or conceptual art, in your anal orthodoxy?) were demolished by the Taliban, just as they would be by our own domestic, party-pooping fake Christian assholes if I successfully lobbied for and had constructed a couple of towering Buddhist statuary on the Washington Mall to further diversity in America, the latter being the same subhumans who wiped, or stole (whichever served more efficiently to fatten the bottom line), Native American culture, religious artifacts, and culture off the face of the Earth, with all due respect.
Hell, the Taliban probably blew up modern USAID-constructed toilet facilities, which featured Duchamps porcelain artwork in all of its practical, quotidian glory.
An Afghan male, dressed as Barbara Streisand, will be forced to stand, not sit, in the men’s room in Kabul …. and Oklahoma City.
It’s been a tough day, so I haven’t had a chance to read this piece all the way through. Nor do I know the pedigree of Philip Tetlock or Richard Hanania. But, FWIW, this looked like the kind of thing some of you might be interested in.
Imagine that the US was competing in a space race with some third world country, say Zambia, for whatever reason. Americans of course would have orders of magnitude more money to throw at the problem, and the most respected aerospace engineers in the world, with degrees from the best universities and publications in the top journals. Zambia would have none of this. What should our reaction be if, after a decade, Zambia had made more progress?
Obviously, it would call into question the entire field of aerospace engineering. What good were all those Google Scholar pages filled with thousands of citations, all the knowledge gained from our labs and universities, if Western science gets outcompeted by the third world?
For all that has been said about Afghanistan, no one has noticed that this is precisely what just happened to political science. The American-led coalition had countless experts with backgrounds pertaining to every part of the mission on their side: people who had done their dissertations on topics like state building, terrorism, military-civilian relations, and gender in the military. General David Petraeus, who helped sell Obama on the troop surge that made everything in Afghanistan worse, earned a PhD from Princeton and was supposedly an expert in “counterinsurgency theory.” Ashraf Ghani, the just deposed president of the country, has a PhD in anthropology from Columbia and is the co-author of a book literally called Fixing Failed States. This was his territory. It’s as if Wernher von Braun had been given all the resources in the world to run a space program and had been beaten to the moon by an African witch doctor.
Meanwhile, the Taliban did not have a Western PhD among them. Their leadership was highly selected though. As Ahmed Rashid notes in his book The Taliban, in February 1999, the school that provided the leadership for the movement “had a staggering 15,000 applicants for some 400 new places making it the most popular madrassa in northern Pakistan.” Yet they certainly didn’t publish in or read the top political science journals. Consider this a data point in the question of whether intelligence or subject-matter expertise is more important.
Is the moon shot analogy fair? I think it probably strikes many people as odd, but I don’t see why it should. Surely, there were many political scientists who thought what the US was trying to do in Afghanistan given the resources invested was impossible, me among them, and maybe it’s simply the “experts” who were hired by NGOs, think tanks, and the US government that were delusional.
Yet I wonder what the field of civil engineering would say if the US went abroad and tried to build bridges based on principles that violated the laws of physics. I’d like to think the Pentagon would have trouble finding well-credentialed experts to help them, and those that did take a paycheck to help achieve the impossible would lose all credibility in their field. That of course has not happened to the pundits and social scientists who spent 20 years making a living off the idea that the US was doing something reasonable in Afghanistan.
https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/tetlock-and-the-taliban
It’s been a tough day, so I haven’t had a chance to read this piece all the way through. Nor do I know the pedigree of Philip Tetlock or Richard Hanania. But, FWIW, this looked like the kind of thing some of you might be interested in.
Imagine that the US was competing in a space race with some third world country, say Zambia, for whatever reason. Americans of course would have orders of magnitude more money to throw at the problem, and the most respected aerospace engineers in the world, with degrees from the best universities and publications in the top journals. Zambia would have none of this. What should our reaction be if, after a decade, Zambia had made more progress?
Obviously, it would call into question the entire field of aerospace engineering. What good were all those Google Scholar pages filled with thousands of citations, all the knowledge gained from our labs and universities, if Western science gets outcompeted by the third world?
For all that has been said about Afghanistan, no one has noticed that this is precisely what just happened to political science. The American-led coalition had countless experts with backgrounds pertaining to every part of the mission on their side: people who had done their dissertations on topics like state building, terrorism, military-civilian relations, and gender in the military. General David Petraeus, who helped sell Obama on the troop surge that made everything in Afghanistan worse, earned a PhD from Princeton and was supposedly an expert in “counterinsurgency theory.” Ashraf Ghani, the just deposed president of the country, has a PhD in anthropology from Columbia and is the co-author of a book literally called Fixing Failed States. This was his territory. It’s as if Wernher von Braun had been given all the resources in the world to run a space program and had been beaten to the moon by an African witch doctor.
Meanwhile, the Taliban did not have a Western PhD among them. Their leadership was highly selected though. As Ahmed Rashid notes in his book The Taliban, in February 1999, the school that provided the leadership for the movement “had a staggering 15,000 applicants for some 400 new places making it the most popular madrassa in northern Pakistan.” Yet they certainly didn’t publish in or read the top political science journals. Consider this a data point in the question of whether intelligence or subject-matter expertise is more important.
Is the moon shot analogy fair? I think it probably strikes many people as odd, but I don’t see why it should. Surely, there were many political scientists who thought what the US was trying to do in Afghanistan given the resources invested was impossible, me among them, and maybe it’s simply the “experts” who were hired by NGOs, think tanks, and the US government that were delusional.
Yet I wonder what the field of civil engineering would say if the US went abroad and tried to build bridges based on principles that violated the laws of physics. I’d like to think the Pentagon would have trouble finding well-credentialed experts to help them, and those that did take a paycheck to help achieve the impossible would lose all credibility in their field. That of course has not happened to the pundits and social scientists who spent 20 years making a living off the idea that the US was doing something reasonable in Afghanistan.
https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/tetlock-and-the-taliban
I get the part about experts not losing credibility when they should have. But the Taliban hasn’t built a stable democracy. They don’t even want to. They’ve likely plunged Afghanistan back into a perpetual state of civil war, other humanitarian crises, and being a place where human rights don’t mean crap. I don’t know if the US so much as helped them do all that or simply failed to stop them from doing it. Either way, this wasn’t the outcome we were looking for, but achieved by others who should have been far less capable.
It’s more like we failed to get to the moon, but Zambia managed to build a paper model of a rocket and light it on fire. Different goals.
I get the part about experts not losing credibility when they should have. But the Taliban hasn’t built a stable democracy. They don’t even want to. They’ve likely plunged Afghanistan back into a perpetual state of civil war, other humanitarian crises, and being a place where human rights don’t mean crap. I don’t know if the US so much as helped them do all that or simply failed to stop them from doing it. Either way, this wasn’t the outcome we were looking for, but achieved by others who should have been far less capable.
It’s more like we failed to get to the moon, but Zambia managed to build a paper model of a rocket and light it on fire. Different goals.
I get the part about experts not losing credibility when they should have. But the Taliban hasn’t built a stable democracy.
Also, there is some question in my mind whether the experts were wrong because their theories were wrong, wrong because they applied their theory wrongly, or right in many things, but prevented from implementing other necessary parts because other purposes and goals interfered with or prevented following through.
I’d been following Petraeus’ development of the Fourth Generation War concept since the draft stages. I think a lot of what he wrote there was insightful and correct. I also think he was ambitious, and arrogant, and was up to his eyeballs in both civilian and military politics that were not always playing well together.
Not a defense of Petraeus, just an observation from my field notes as a strategy lurker.
The US military culture, and especially the US Army culture, demands that when one leader fails, someone else who wants to make rank is going to have to have (or fake) a can-do attitude and step up. Those who don’t step up retire out somewhere between Major and Lt. Colonel with no prospect of further promotion.
It’s kinda like the all-growth GDP in that way. There is always someone willing to gamble on a situation to make rank, weighing the odds and hoping to get out before the bubble bursts.
I think the jury is still out on whether some of those experts were wrong or not. Correct and capable don’t always align, and sometimes the failure is a matter of hubris rather then doctrine.
I get the part about experts not losing credibility when they should have. But the Taliban hasn’t built a stable democracy.
Also, there is some question in my mind whether the experts were wrong because their theories were wrong, wrong because they applied their theory wrongly, or right in many things, but prevented from implementing other necessary parts because other purposes and goals interfered with or prevented following through.
I’d been following Petraeus’ development of the Fourth Generation War concept since the draft stages. I think a lot of what he wrote there was insightful and correct. I also think he was ambitious, and arrogant, and was up to his eyeballs in both civilian and military politics that were not always playing well together.
Not a defense of Petraeus, just an observation from my field notes as a strategy lurker.
The US military culture, and especially the US Army culture, demands that when one leader fails, someone else who wants to make rank is going to have to have (or fake) a can-do attitude and step up. Those who don’t step up retire out somewhere between Major and Lt. Colonel with no prospect of further promotion.
It’s kinda like the all-growth GDP in that way. There is always someone willing to gamble on a situation to make rank, weighing the odds and hoping to get out before the bubble bursts.
I think the jury is still out on whether some of those experts were wrong or not. Correct and capable don’t always align, and sometimes the failure is a matter of hubris rather then doctrine.
“ They’ve likely plunged Afghanistan back into a perpetual state of civil war, other humanitarian crises, ”
It’s been in a perpetual state of civil war for 40 years, except, oddly enough, right after we took over. That’s part of the thesis of Gopal’s book. The Taliban were gone for a few years— one of the ones Gopal interviewed was making a decent living repairing cell phones and was going to branch out into TV repair if TV’s started to become more common—but the US refused to accept this and was used by various warlords to go after their private enemies by calling them Taliban. Some were and some weren’t, but break down enough doors, arrest or bomb or torture or kill enough innocent people and eventually people start shooting back or else stop thinking the new boss was any better than the old one. The Taliban of course started murdering innocents again, but there were no good guys with guns in their civil war. We helped plunge Afghanistan back into war with our total incompetence. The Pakistani intelligence agencies helped the Taliban, but we helped provide the incentive for the Taliban to come back into existence by acting as the muscle for Afghan warlords and corrupt officials whose own human rights record was often little better than the Taliban.
One of the people in Gopal’s book is a woman who went into politics. I bet she wanted us to stay, but I don’t know if Gopal did a followup. But like all of his interviewees, she was a survivor who did what she had to do. At one point her husband was murdered and she was certain the killer was hired by the local corrupt police chief because her husband criticized local corruption. Her husband also believed the police chief was out to get him, but was a little too macho to flee as quickly as he should have. He was killed and people were terrorizing her and her children at night, so to get the Americans to help her family to relocate to a different part of Afghanistan, she told them he was murdered by the Taliban and they were after her. She didn’t dare tell who she really thought was guilty, because the police chief was on good terms with the Americans.
The Taliban know nothing about governing— they can run crude courts which are fairer than the corrupt government did ( a very low bar apparently). But they know nothing about running a country. Neither do we, apparently. Though to be fair, I don’t think producing a genuine self sustaining democracy was ever a priority. The incentives in our system don’t reward truth telling and there were trillions of dollars involved. I don’t think this is cynicism. You can’t look at the past 20 years and not see the gigantic systemic failure involved. Nobody wants to come out and say that this has been a total waste. That’s why I give Biden so much credit on this one point.
Which is also why Gopal’s proposal of a negotiated surrender was impossible. ( I think he recognizes this.). The US foreign policy establishment and its NATO allies just spent trillions of dollars and thousands of Western lives ( and at least 150,000 Afghan lives) pretending to construct a stable government with a 300,000 man military. How could Biden possibly tell everyone this was an illusion which will collapse in a few weeks once they realize we really are going? Biden presumably really did think it would last longer than it did, but even if he suspected the truth, in what universe would one expect a US President to say “ This is all a charade, we have been lying for decades and now we are going to push the fake government aside and discuss surrender terms?”
As for what we do next, I don’t think it is so easy to separate it from the accountability question, because we will continue to hear advice from people who have been responsible for this disaster. Part of the Taliban support came from air strikes that hit civilians— I haven’t seen a single one of Biden’s mainstream critics include this latest drone strike as an example of American bumbling. Apparently you lose no American credibility blowing up a family. Maybe that behavior is already baked into our reputation. And we may hear from the sanctions ghouls, the people who think you show your concern for human rights by increasing the suffering of ordinary people.
And that’s before we get to the Republican freaks who blame Biden for not saving refugees while not wanting refugees to come here.
“ They’ve likely plunged Afghanistan back into a perpetual state of civil war, other humanitarian crises, ”
It’s been in a perpetual state of civil war for 40 years, except, oddly enough, right after we took over. That’s part of the thesis of Gopal’s book. The Taliban were gone for a few years— one of the ones Gopal interviewed was making a decent living repairing cell phones and was going to branch out into TV repair if TV’s started to become more common—but the US refused to accept this and was used by various warlords to go after their private enemies by calling them Taliban. Some were and some weren’t, but break down enough doors, arrest or bomb or torture or kill enough innocent people and eventually people start shooting back or else stop thinking the new boss was any better than the old one. The Taliban of course started murdering innocents again, but there were no good guys with guns in their civil war. We helped plunge Afghanistan back into war with our total incompetence. The Pakistani intelligence agencies helped the Taliban, but we helped provide the incentive for the Taliban to come back into existence by acting as the muscle for Afghan warlords and corrupt officials whose own human rights record was often little better than the Taliban.
One of the people in Gopal’s book is a woman who went into politics. I bet she wanted us to stay, but I don’t know if Gopal did a followup. But like all of his interviewees, she was a survivor who did what she had to do. At one point her husband was murdered and she was certain the killer was hired by the local corrupt police chief because her husband criticized local corruption. Her husband also believed the police chief was out to get him, but was a little too macho to flee as quickly as he should have. He was killed and people were terrorizing her and her children at night, so to get the Americans to help her family to relocate to a different part of Afghanistan, she told them he was murdered by the Taliban and they were after her. She didn’t dare tell who she really thought was guilty, because the police chief was on good terms with the Americans.
The Taliban know nothing about governing— they can run crude courts which are fairer than the corrupt government did ( a very low bar apparently). But they know nothing about running a country. Neither do we, apparently. Though to be fair, I don’t think producing a genuine self sustaining democracy was ever a priority. The incentives in our system don’t reward truth telling and there were trillions of dollars involved. I don’t think this is cynicism. You can’t look at the past 20 years and not see the gigantic systemic failure involved. Nobody wants to come out and say that this has been a total waste. That’s why I give Biden so much credit on this one point.
Which is also why Gopal’s proposal of a negotiated surrender was impossible. ( I think he recognizes this.). The US foreign policy establishment and its NATO allies just spent trillions of dollars and thousands of Western lives ( and at least 150,000 Afghan lives) pretending to construct a stable government with a 300,000 man military. How could Biden possibly tell everyone this was an illusion which will collapse in a few weeks once they realize we really are going? Biden presumably really did think it would last longer than it did, but even if he suspected the truth, in what universe would one expect a US President to say “ This is all a charade, we have been lying for decades and now we are going to push the fake government aside and discuss surrender terms?”
As for what we do next, I don’t think it is so easy to separate it from the accountability question, because we will continue to hear advice from people who have been responsible for this disaster. Part of the Taliban support came from air strikes that hit civilians— I haven’t seen a single one of Biden’s mainstream critics include this latest drone strike as an example of American bumbling. Apparently you lose no American credibility blowing up a family. Maybe that behavior is already baked into our reputation. And we may hear from the sanctions ghouls, the people who think you show your concern for human rights by increasing the suffering of ordinary people.
And that’s before we get to the Republican freaks who blame Biden for not saving refugees while not wanting refugees to come here.
Glad you are here to chime in on all this, Donald.
Glad you are here to chime in on all this, Donald.
When was the right time, and the right strategy, for getting out of Afghanistan?
Well, the right time is “never get out, because you never went in”.
And the best strategy is “invent a time machine, go back to 2000, scrag 5 a-hole RW Supreme Court justices, and leave a note on Al Gore’s desk ‘watch Al Qaida VERY CLOSELY”.
Gotta get to work on that time machine, there’s no time to spare! Or…wait..hmmm.
When was the right time, and the right strategy, for getting out of Afghanistan?
Well, the right time is “never get out, because you never went in”.
And the best strategy is “invent a time machine, go back to 2000, scrag 5 a-hole RW Supreme Court justices, and leave a note on Al Gore’s desk ‘watch Al Qaida VERY CLOSELY”.
Gotta get to work on that time machine, there’s no time to spare! Or…wait..hmmm.
Apparently you lose no American credibility blowing up a family.
what likely blew up the family is that the car drone hit was full of explosives and was on its way to the airport to potentially kill dozens of people. the family was nearby when the drone’s weapon detonated the ISIS-K explosives.
it’s a shitty enough trolly-problem kind of situation. let’s not make it sound like the US is just indiscriminately tossing bombs into houses for the LOLZ.
Apparently you lose no American credibility blowing up a family.
what likely blew up the family is that the car drone hit was full of explosives and was on its way to the airport to potentially kill dozens of people. the family was nearby when the drone’s weapon detonated the ISIS-K explosives.
it’s a shitty enough trolly-problem kind of situation. let’s not make it sound like the US is just indiscriminately tossing bombs into houses for the LOLZ.
I think the jury is still out on whether some of those experts were wrong or not.
For openers, we’d need to know whether the intelligence experts were
For each of those, there’s a different fix required.
I think the jury is still out on whether some of those experts were wrong or not.
For openers, we’d need to know whether the intelligence experts were
For each of those, there’s a different fix required.
wj and lj, thanks for the offer, I’d have to think about that a bit
wj and lj, thanks for the offer, I’d have to think about that a bit
Cleek, the American account is difficult to square with the family account or the film clip of the site in the NYT story. I see two demolished vehicles inside an enclosed space with homes just feet away. It seems to have been an explosion large enough to destroy two vehicles right next to each other but not the house.
The US tells a vague story about blowing up a vehicle laden with explosives that killed a family that happened to be nearby because of the secondary explosion. The family was right there in their own outdoor compound. The vehicles are next to each other. The building is still standing.
The US has zero credibility on its air strikes. None whatsoever. They tell the truth if it helps them. They don’t kill civilians deliberately or for the fun of it, but they vastly understate the number they kill and have to be dragged into admitting anything.
Btw, I am familiar with John Kirby the Pentagon spokesman because he used to be the State Department spokesman in 2016 who claimed the Saudis killed civilians because of “an imprecision in the targeting process”, while the Russians in Aleppo did it deliberately. ( I read the State Department transcripts and watched the YouTube videos ). Meanwhile, behind the scenes, Steve Department lawyers were worried we were implicated in war crimes. And in 2017 if you look at photos of Aleppo ( bombed by Russia ) and Mosul and Raqqa ( bombed by us), they look exactly the same and so we’re the results. Piles of rubble with thousands of civilians dead.
Cleek, the American account is difficult to square with the family account or the film clip of the site in the NYT story. I see two demolished vehicles inside an enclosed space with homes just feet away. It seems to have been an explosion large enough to destroy two vehicles right next to each other but not the house.
The US tells a vague story about blowing up a vehicle laden with explosives that killed a family that happened to be nearby because of the secondary explosion. The family was right there in their own outdoor compound. The vehicles are next to each other. The building is still standing.
The US has zero credibility on its air strikes. None whatsoever. They tell the truth if it helps them. They don’t kill civilians deliberately or for the fun of it, but they vastly understate the number they kill and have to be dragged into admitting anything.
Btw, I am familiar with John Kirby the Pentagon spokesman because he used to be the State Department spokesman in 2016 who claimed the Saudis killed civilians because of “an imprecision in the targeting process”, while the Russians in Aleppo did it deliberately. ( I read the State Department transcripts and watched the YouTube videos ). Meanwhile, behind the scenes, Steve Department lawyers were worried we were implicated in war crimes. And in 2017 if you look at photos of Aleppo ( bombed by Russia ) and Mosul and Raqqa ( bombed by us), they look exactly the same and so we’re the results. Piles of rubble with thousands of civilians dead.
Say, for one, an executive order to waive the existing limits on refugees. If only to get them to a holding area on US territory while their applications are being processed and any required changes to the law are being done.
Apparently, the US initially wanted to use bases in Korea and Japan for the effort, but decided against it.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/08/24/asia-pacific/us-bases-refugees/
I wonder what was involved in that decision. As a person who thinks history is important, this, from the link I previously gave, was eye-opening to me
Take the puppet ruler — Shah Shuja ul-Mulk — the British tried to install in 1839. He was from the same Popalzai sub-tribe as Hamid Karzai. His bitterest opponents? The Ghilzais, who today are the mainstay of the Taliban’s forces. Taliban leader Mullah Omar was the chief of the Hotaki Ghilzai, just like Mohammad Shah Khan, the warrior who supervised the destruction of the British army in 1841. These parallels were largely invisible to Westerners, but frequently pointed out by the Taliban: “Everyone knows how Karzai was brought to Kabul and how he was seated on the defenceless throne of Shah Shuja” they announced in a press release soon after he came to power.
We in the West may have forgotten the details of this history that did so much to mould the Afghans’ hatred of foreign rule, but Afghans never did. In particular Shah Shuja remains a symbol of quisling treachery in Afghanistan: in 2001, the Taliban asked their young men, ‘Do you want to be remembered as a son of Shah Shuja or as a son of Dost Mohammad?’ As he rose to power, Mullah Omar deliberately modelled himself on the deposed Emir, Dost Mohammad, and like him removed the Holy Cloak of the Prophet Mohammad from its shrine in Kandahar and wrapped himself in it, declaring himself like his model Amir al-Muminin, the Leader of the Faithful, a deliberate and direct re-enactment of the events of First Afghan War, whose resonance was immediately understood by all Afghans.
https://unherd.com/2021/08/afghanistan-always-defeats-the-west/
Dalrymple may over egg the souffle a bit, but I had to shudder when I saw that the next recommended piece was Bernard-Henri Lévy, who was the champion of going into Libya, talking about the Afghan resistance. Just as a quick reminder.
https://www.france24.com/en/20120606-libyan-war-brought-you-bernard-henri-levy-sarkozy-clinton-obama
Say, for one, an executive order to waive the existing limits on refugees. If only to get them to a holding area on US territory while their applications are being processed and any required changes to the law are being done.
Apparently, the US initially wanted to use bases in Korea and Japan for the effort, but decided against it.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/08/24/asia-pacific/us-bases-refugees/
I wonder what was involved in that decision. As a person who thinks history is important, this, from the link I previously gave, was eye-opening to me
Take the puppet ruler — Shah Shuja ul-Mulk — the British tried to install in 1839. He was from the same Popalzai sub-tribe as Hamid Karzai. His bitterest opponents? The Ghilzais, who today are the mainstay of the Taliban’s forces. Taliban leader Mullah Omar was the chief of the Hotaki Ghilzai, just like Mohammad Shah Khan, the warrior who supervised the destruction of the British army in 1841. These parallels were largely invisible to Westerners, but frequently pointed out by the Taliban: “Everyone knows how Karzai was brought to Kabul and how he was seated on the defenceless throne of Shah Shuja” they announced in a press release soon after he came to power.
We in the West may have forgotten the details of this history that did so much to mould the Afghans’ hatred of foreign rule, but Afghans never did. In particular Shah Shuja remains a symbol of quisling treachery in Afghanistan: in 2001, the Taliban asked their young men, ‘Do you want to be remembered as a son of Shah Shuja or as a son of Dost Mohammad?’ As he rose to power, Mullah Omar deliberately modelled himself on the deposed Emir, Dost Mohammad, and like him removed the Holy Cloak of the Prophet Mohammad from its shrine in Kandahar and wrapped himself in it, declaring himself like his model Amir al-Muminin, the Leader of the Faithful, a deliberate and direct re-enactment of the events of First Afghan War, whose resonance was immediately understood by all Afghans.
https://unherd.com/2021/08/afghanistan-always-defeats-the-west/
Dalrymple may over egg the souffle a bit, but I had to shudder when I saw that the next recommended piece was Bernard-Henri Lévy, who was the champion of going into Libya, talking about the Afghan resistance. Just as a quick reminder.
https://www.france24.com/en/20120606-libyan-war-brought-you-bernard-henri-levy-sarkozy-clinton-obama
Not about the strike in Afghanistan, and there are more than just drones involved, but here’s a report on a strike in Yemen done by Safa Al Ahmad for Frontline that encapsulates for me why the official Pentagon reports should be met with a degree of skepticism.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/targeting-yemen/transcript/
The questionable reliability of these official reports do not vary, from what I have seen, across changes of administration. There are other Frontline features about drone strikes from the Obama era that are just as full of false confidence and self-serving omissions.
The only bodies from US strikes that come with a political cost are American ones.
Not about the strike in Afghanistan, and there are more than just drones involved, but here’s a report on a strike in Yemen done by Safa Al Ahmad for Frontline that encapsulates for me why the official Pentagon reports should be met with a degree of skepticism.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/targeting-yemen/transcript/
The questionable reliability of these official reports do not vary, from what I have seen, across changes of administration. There are other Frontline features about drone strikes from the Obama era that are just as full of false confidence and self-serving omissions.
The only bodies from US strikes that come with a political cost are American ones.
the analysts got it right, but the projections got “improved” in the process of being transmitted up the line,
I don’t know about the others, but isn’t a solution to that one, Been going on since intel existed.
One fact that stands out – after two decades of occupation and investment, 80% of the Afghan government’s income came from foreign aid. In no sense could it be thought of as an independent Afghan entity.
Of course that is now going to be an interesting (not in a good way) problem for the Taliban regime.
the analysts got it right, but the projections got “improved” in the process of being transmitted up the line,
I don’t know about the others, but isn’t a solution to that one, Been going on since intel existed.
One fact that stands out – after two decades of occupation and investment, 80% of the Afghan government’s income came from foreign aid. In no sense could it be thought of as an independent Afghan entity.
Of course that is now going to be an interesting (not in a good way) problem for the Taliban regime.
The only bodies from US strikes that come with a political cost are American ones.
hard to know since there is no group of US Presidents who don’t respond to terror attacks with actions that kill innocents.
and all of the surely know that the political cost of not responding to terror attacks would be far greater.
The only bodies from US strikes that come with a political cost are American ones.
hard to know since there is no group of US Presidents who don’t respond to terror attacks with actions that kill innocents.
and all of the surely know that the political cost of not responding to terror attacks would be far greater.
It appears they did not so much withdraw as mingle.
Tony P, I meant to show my appreciation for this! And in fact, it seems that the Alexandrian invasion and mingling is probably what accounts for one of the interesting ethnic strands we talked about in some previous thread, including as an example the green eyes of Afghan Girl.
It appears they did not so much withdraw as mingle.
Tony P, I meant to show my appreciation for this! And in fact, it seems that the Alexandrian invasion and mingling is probably what accounts for one of the interesting ethnic strands we talked about in some previous thread, including as an example the green eyes of Afghan Girl.
“One of the world’s most famous refugees finally has a home. A big home.
Sharbat Gula, who became an instant icon when she peered out from the June 1985 cover of National Geographic magazine as a 12-year-old-refugee, is now the owner of a 3,000-square-foot residence decorated to her liking in the capital of her native Afghanistan.
The house is a gift from the Afghan government to Sharbat Gula, now 45, along with a roughly $700-per-month stipend for living expenses and medical treatment, according to Najeeb Nangyal, a spokesman for Afghanistan’s Ministry of Communication.”
Famed ‘Afghan Girl’ Finally Gets a Home: More than 30 years after she became a refugee from her native Afghanistan, Sharbat Gula has been deeded a permanent house. (December 12, 2017)
“One of the world’s most famous refugees finally has a home. A big home.
Sharbat Gula, who became an instant icon when she peered out from the June 1985 cover of National Geographic magazine as a 12-year-old-refugee, is now the owner of a 3,000-square-foot residence decorated to her liking in the capital of her native Afghanistan.
The house is a gift from the Afghan government to Sharbat Gula, now 45, along with a roughly $700-per-month stipend for living expenses and medical treatment, according to Najeeb Nangyal, a spokesman for Afghanistan’s Ministry of Communication.”
Famed ‘Afghan Girl’ Finally Gets a Home: More than 30 years after she became a refugee from her native Afghanistan, Sharbat Gula has been deeded a permanent house. (December 12, 2017)
“ hard to know since there is no group of US Presidents who don’t respond to terror attacks with actions that kill innocents.”
Easy to know, actually. Yemen had nothing to do with responding to terrorism. We supported the Saudis to keep them happy after the Iran nuclear deal. Trump kept it up because the Saudis pay good money. Like some of our other acts of cruelty, it doesn’t get very much attention.
Killing innocents is not a practice limited to actions conducted against terrorists and there isn’t much of a political cost. There are a minority of Democratic politicians who care and even a handful of Republicans, but it’s sort of a boutique issue. Trying to think of another one like it, something very important morally speaking but not terribly important politically. Maybe global warming, which is the most important issue of all but until the last couple of years it seemed abstract, off in some easily ignored future.
“ hard to know since there is no group of US Presidents who don’t respond to terror attacks with actions that kill innocents.”
Easy to know, actually. Yemen had nothing to do with responding to terrorism. We supported the Saudis to keep them happy after the Iran nuclear deal. Trump kept it up because the Saudis pay good money. Like some of our other acts of cruelty, it doesn’t get very much attention.
Killing innocents is not a practice limited to actions conducted against terrorists and there isn’t much of a political cost. There are a minority of Democratic politicians who care and even a handful of Republicans, but it’s sort of a boutique issue. Trying to think of another one like it, something very important morally speaking but not terribly important politically. Maybe global warming, which is the most important issue of all but until the last couple of years it seemed abstract, off in some easily ignored future.
Here is a very good article about Afghanistan which, amongst other things, explains the success of the Taliban very well.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/the-other-afghan-women
Here is a very good article about Afghanistan which, amongst other things, explains the success of the Taliban very well.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/the-other-afghan-women
“ hard to know since there is no group of US Presidents who don’t respond to terror attacks with actions that kill innocents.”
Easy to know, actually. Yemen had nothing to do with responding to terrorism.
the test is: significant terrorist attack, President does nothing. not: no significant terrorist attack, President does something.
can a President of any party withstand the public pressure a significant terrorist attack causes? doubtful. Presidents judge the cost of reaction to be lower than the cost of inaction.
“ hard to know since there is no group of US Presidents who don’t respond to terror attacks with actions that kill innocents.”
Easy to know, actually. Yemen had nothing to do with responding to terrorism.
the test is: significant terrorist attack, President does nothing. not: no significant terrorist attack, President does something.
can a President of any party withstand the public pressure a significant terrorist attack causes? doubtful. Presidents judge the cost of reaction to be lower than the cost of inaction.