are serious things. And many soldiers are there not for George, but for their mates.

when they are dead?
"oaths" are a pretty thought, nothing more.
you'd sacrifice your life so your buddies can win Bush's war? that's just lame, do-as-your-told thinking.
I'm all for sacrifice for an ideal, Jesus Christ and all that, or sacrifice in the name of defense, even. (maybe, it's still just pretty thoughts) Or acting as a collective.
But never in the name of an aggressive war.
You've all been hoodwinked by fictitious stories of spat upon Vietnam vets into supporting the troops, rah-fucking-rah.

THEY'RE JUST FUCKING CANNON FODDER and the sooner they take responsibility for enabling this war to continue, the better.

you don't see these Buddhist monks picking up rifles do you? and they could very well be killed in the next moment. THAT is sacrifice for the collective, not this bullshit war and its non-thinking enablers of corporate wealth. and it ain't just the soldiers....

After all, it's a promise. To yourself, to your mates, to your superiors, to your country, that you'll do your best, take orders, give orders, act alone, work as a team, whatever it takes to get the job done.

If you see an oath as merely pretty words, you must live a lonely, distrustful life, devoid of love and caring, secure in your paranoia that you're the only one you can rely on or trust.

These guys were not cannon fodder, fucking or otherwise. They were soldiers doing the best they could to get themselves and their guys home in one piece.

Seeing these soldiers as cannon-fodder is a qintessentially Republican view: that people exist only for Them to use, to accomplish Their ends. Objectivisation like that borders on sociopathy, and is similar to what one might see in case studies of serial killers.

Yes, it can be argued that these soldiers had the choice of refusing their orders.....bull. In that position, one does not see any other choice but to work within the framework of the system to accomplish the mission. To refuse orders is insubordination, and a one-way ticket to the stockade, or, if in a combat situation, to a bullet in the back. Your trope of 'choice' is a false dichotomy of the worst sort, because you're plainly intelligent enough to know it's a lie.

If you really hate this war, show us how you're working to bring it to an end. Denigrating the motives or actions of the dead who died for their country (including you) only shows the inherent cowardice and moral bankruptcy of your argument.

If you think these men were losers, show us how, in putting them down, you're the kind of winner they could have been. I doubt you can, since you didn't have the courage to volunteer and fight as a member of the military. You have no appreciation for the difficulty of the job, or the sacrifices made to get to the point they did when they died.

Crawl back under your rock and suck your thumb some more, and return once you've grown up.

-5.75,-4.05
Certainly there are things in life that money can't buy, but it's very funny--
Did you ever try buying them without money?
-- Ogden Nash

perhaps, I wasn't clear. read my comments and their titles again, lemme know if it makes more sense where I'm coming from. if not, so be it, I'll learn not to express myself so poorly someday. peace

...to give subject-lines a passing glance and concentrate on the content of the post itself. Too many trolls post subjects that get one's attention one way, but the content turns out to be very different.

It appeared to me that despite your initial statement to the contrary, that you were denigrating the soldiers through the choice they made to 'join up'. This elicited an angry response from me, as I look at these men and see my cousins, uncles, sister (USCG), and schoolmates, and realise 'there but for the grace of God...'

Our soldiers aren't angels...if they were, they wouldn't be soldiers, no? ;-) By and large, though, they're decent people either trying to get some money and experience for civvie life, or serving because they see it as the 'right thing to do' or the only option they might have to get out of a bad situation at home.

Because of this, and my family history (more than 5 generations in the military, from what I can find so far), I respect them and their choices, and hope they can get back home as soon as possible. In these troubled times, I think I can understand your reaction at your nephew's decision to join up...chances are, he may get deployed before a new president enters office, and begins scaling back on the numbers deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. When the fighting is open-ended and nasty (as in Iraq), the decision to join the military doesn't look so smart. Who in their right mind would want to wear the uniform, when it may get one shot or blown-up? How many have thought about this possibility when they signed on the dotted-line?

Let's hope the present Administration doesn't make their nihilistic wet dream come true, and set the entire Middle East on fire...or many of us (myself included) will find we're not too old to serve.

-5.75,-4.05
Certainly there are things in life that money can't buy, but it's very funny--
Did you ever try buying them without money?
-- Ogden Nash

...from, and I hear the personal investment, frustration and fear. (One thing that folks don't commonly understand that being the one back stateside is harder than being the one down range.) Do understand, however, that there are thoughtful people who do see service even in this war as something bigger than the foolish enterprise it is, narrowly defined. This is an insurgency - it's a type of conflict that chews people up by the thousands, it can knock entire nations off their moral foundations, causing them to question their core beliefs and founding compacts - exactly the same sort of thing (though with quite different manifestations) as happened with Vietnam is starting to happen now. Given that your country is very firmly involved, how your people wage this war matters a very great deal, and there are starting to be disturbing signs of slippage, let me tell you (putting out bait for sniper teams is not on, for example). There are many people downrange who, though they do not believe the stated objectives of the enterprise are valid (and quite apart from the duty they have to their fellows), continue to fight because they believe it is important that they influence how the fight is conducted. They view that as their duty to their nation. Stupid as it may seem, there are worse things than waging an aggressive war.

As to the spitting incidents, contrary to the views of some academics, though they are cultural tales, such things did occur. If you need verification from folks that it directly happened to, you can ask Pat Lang and Eric Margolis. By my recollection both have written that it happened to them and I believe both men.

"Ambiguously loose statements on the one hand, and euphemisms that link terrorism and fascism to Islam on the other, have created confusion and resentment on all sides." ~ Fariborz Mokhtari

... is that you assume that the soldiers in this war will actually make a difference. Tactically and temporarily, maybe, maybe not. But strategically? Politically? No. The war is lost. Simply throwing more resources at the problem will not fix it.

>> "how your people wage this war matters a very great deal... [they] continue to fight because they believe it is important that they influence how the fight is conducted" <<

Rubbish. This is the stuff of self-deception, rationalization, and outright lunacy. What could they possibly accomplish in Iraq? Painting schools? Building bakeries? Handing out candy? Come on. These soldiers are in the meat-grinder, and they should know it. They don't know it, because they're too coked up on "honor, duty, god, country, corps". Idiotic brainwashing. Mindless zombies.

The longer you continue to sing their praises, the longer they will wage this war.

The pitiful thing is... they really did die in vain. All of them. By their own choice.

It is not for you to say. Its beyond arrogance for you to assert any of them died in vain, much these honorable young men, regardless of the circumstances.

"The longer you continue to sing their praises, the longer they will wage this war."

This is utter BS. No one outside the US government has any influence on how long this war will last, least of all non-citizens who post at the Agonist. Or haven't you been paying attention?

The character of this nation resides in its people. I am utterly grateful and awe struck by the courage and depth of character shown by the best of them who, despite their misgivings about the war or the nation's leadership, continue to fulfill their duty as they said they would. Its the ultimate in selfless sacrifice to give ones life this way whether you serve 20 years and retire, die in battle, or get run over by the bus on the way to the recruiting station.

Your judgment on this matters not one whit. Nor mine for that matter. It iss their judgment, and only their judgment that holds sway here as their actions indicate very clearly.

We don't have the standing to make such calls. Not without betraying a shallow moral character, anyway.

Oh, then do tell: What exactly *did* they die for? Don't bother to answer; it's a rhetorical question.

And it seems that I struck a personal chord with you. Try not to get too hysterical next time in your knee-jerk need to defend the troops.

please refrain from lobbing personal attacks on other members.

Who lobbed what now?

...given my comment below), you're presuming that soldiers ever die for something. They don't - they live in a manner that risks death, for a purpose, until their luck runs out. No one can achieve anything in Iraq (or anywhere else) by dying - but they may achieve something by living in particular ways, even though living that way may kill them.

"Ambiguously loose statements on the one hand, and euphemisms that link terrorism and fascism to Islam on the other, have created confusion and resentment on all sides." ~ Fariborz Mokhtari

in that last sentence.

I'm not trying for a cheap shot after you got personally attacked, believe me.

Soldiers, a different story.

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

I guess my gut take on it would be that suicide bombs have no place in warfare. There have been examples of suicide bomb attacks on purely military targets, but they are very, very much in the minority with any strategy founded on their use. Strictly reduced, I concede your point, but in the application I'm pretty agnostic. And yes, that may be weaseling. ;)

"Ambiguously loose statements on the one hand, and euphemisms that link terrorism and fascism to Islam on the other, have created confusion and resentment on all sides." ~ Fariborz Mokhtari

in the persistence of existence after death, suicide isn't really suicide the way we perceive it, is it?

"Ambiguously loose statements on the one hand, and euphemisms that link terrorism and fascism to Islam on the other, have created confusion and resentment on all sides." ~ Fariborz Mokhtari

to "behaviour that risks life" from a suicide bomber's perspective might be behaviour that "risks damnation". Damnation = loss of persistence of existence = death.

In that understanding lies the key that would radically cut down on the recruitment pool for suicide bombers. But this administration won't be finding it - or it would astonish me if they figured out how to use it if they did find it.

...is that substantially all of the guys practicing suicide bombing don't view it as suicide, from the perspective of Islamic law (which of course, forbids suicide). They neatly sidestep [okay, yes, this is my biased view] the issue by asserting that such attacks constitute martyrdom and are not just permitted, but religiously praiseworthy. What I don't have a great handle on is how many of these guys would view these types of attacks as a religious requirement - my sense is that this is probably a pretty small number. One of the core fundamentals of hardline Islamism is that the call to jihad becomes a personal, rather than collective, duty (and hence there is risk of damnation if one doesn't fight), but I don't think that it requires a certain mode of attack.

Thank you and mole for the thought provoking notion - I was looking at it too much as a secularist. I will ponder some more.

"Ambiguously loose statements on the one hand, and euphemisms that link terrorism and fascism to Islam on the other, have created confusion and resentment on all sides." ~ Fariborz Mokhtari

Very well. When they're not *dying*, these soldiers in Iraq are *living* to continue this war. (Presupposing, of course, that they haven't killed their superiors and run off to join the evil brown horde that is the threat to the very thing that the soldiers are fighting for, which is, well, the fight itself.)

Now, in living to fight this war, the soldiers *may* experience death (their "luck" having "run out" and all). In that, we must praise them and claim that they *did* in fact die NOT IN VAIN but for a noble cause, namely, the war itself, even though we categorically condemn the war and everything to do with it, except, of course, those who actually wage it (in our name). Now it just so happens that *some* of those who wage this war also condemn it, but they do so under the higher ideal-delusion-ideal that what they are fighting for is not the *fight* itself, but an *end* to the fight. To clarify, they fight the fight so that they won't fight the fight.

It's a complex arrangement. Some may even think it retarded. But it's certainly not an absurd arrangement. At all. In any interpretation. Of reality. Whatsoever.

...may well be that you're failing to make a distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello (fancy three dollar latin for "justice of war" and "justice in war"). I would argue that continuing to fight, presuming that the fight is going to continue (and flatly, it is and there's nothing an 11B down on the ground can do to change that), according to the laws orf war is a worthy endeavour and that it is essential to any American disengagement that doesn't damage their interests further than they have already been damaged.

Just because you don't fully grasp the argument does not make it absurd.

"Ambiguously loose statements on the one hand, and euphemisms that link terrorism and fascism to Islam on the other, have created confusion and resentment on all sides." ~ Fariborz Mokhtari

For someone who claims to want to see America out of Iraq, you certainly are grasping for reasons to stay in. You've done nothing but blubber on about America's moral image, its interests, and the worthiness of this conflict *if* conducted in a manner that is acceptable.

Seriously: Are you a troll, or a rightist pretending to be an intellectual?

Here's a disengagement plan: Get the fuck out. Hightail it out of there. Yes, you will look like losers. Yes, there will be a rain of spittle and baby-killer comments. But you'll get over it. More importantly, you won't be tried for war crimes (though you should be), you'll have your life (minus a limb or two, plus some mental instability), and maybe you could even settle down and reflect (with a bit of revisionism) on the glory of having fought against the dark evil of your time.

Knock it off. You obviously have not read enough of the Agonist to be making any judgement calls on trolls or any member here. Any further insulting posts will be removed.

If you don't like it, censor away.

care how you see but how you express it. Is it your intention to be banned here? You are welcome to be part of the community but you will have to follow the same rules as everyone else. If you can't make that adjustment you will leave us no choice but to ban you. The choice is up to you.

The words 'troll' and 'blubber' appear to be quite offending to some. Please provide me with a list of similar terms and I will make sure to avoid their usage...

Thank you, Tina. You are a most forgiving moderator. Carry on.

The Agonist editors try to provide a place for thoughtful people to raise and discuss issues of the day, even heatedly. Occasionally a drink gets tossed, a face gets slapped, but generally the inhabitants are interested in what others think of an issue.

Wading into a thread with guns blazing and calling another member a troll, in complete ignorance of their body of work here, illustrates a great deal to the community about one's agenda and methods.

There's no need for the editors to ban you; if you keep up this line of attack, the community will simply ignore anything you have to say. Your choice. We will, however, snip persistent, offensive personal attacks. Go ahead and call it "censorship", few others are likely to care.

_{Turn back to the Constitution - and READ it.}

Christ, I've stepped into a soap opera.

I was being sarcastic with Tina. Do you know why, *Rick*?? Because this thread really *has* taken a turn for the absurd. And here you are reinforcing it with your irrelevant fine-print distractions.

Regarding the *egregious* and *oh-my-god-over-the-fucking-top* 'troll' comment: Context matters, NOT history. I don't give a damn if JPD started this site. If he comes off sounding like a troll, I'll call him on it. Regardless of his "body of work", his character, or his freaking sexual orientation. If he disputes it, *he* calls *me* on it. And we continue to engage in the argument.

What we SHOULD NOT be doing, and yet what we ARE doing, is going off into boo-hoo territory, side-stepping the original argument, and howling for censorship.

Oh, and by the way, *Rick*: I will call it censorship, even though you state that few others "are likely to care". And yet, calling someone a 'troll' should get your collective panties in a bunch. Imagine that.

So go ahead, censor me. As far as I'm concerned, my respect for this site has suddenly gone through the floor.

_{Turn back to the Constitution - and READ it.}

Internet Troll

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online community such as an online discussion forum, especially GameFAQs, or USENET, with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.[1]

(...)

The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem.

(...)

The word troll is often and easily (mis)used as an ad hominem attack against someone whose viewpoints and input cannot otherwise be silenced (i.e., via banning). Its successful use and misuse reveals much about how starkly different the world of technicians is compared to normal social and political discourse.

The term troll should be used with attention since it is a very easy way of undermining an opposing point of view. Sometimes, overly using the word "troll" may constitute trolling in itself.

As far as I'm concerned, my respect for this site has suddenly gone through the floor.

That is indeed saddening; I live for your approbation. But somehow we must dry our tears and find the strength to carry on.

Dave's a longtime regular and a contributor in very good faith, and you're getting viciously personal here.

We aren't fans of banning here, but the few bans that have been enacted have been for that sort of behaviour. These are emotional issues and I may be sympathetic to some of your root points, but I'd support you getting your hat handed to you if you keep that up.

By using the word 'troll'???

Is this a taboo term with you people? I want to know.

Or can you shine that bright light of analysis upon yourself?

...speaking about the laws of war since the beginning. From my perspective your disengagement plan is just a hope - America is not going to follow it. They're just not going to do that, full stop, no matter how much you or I or anyone else may wish it. America is firmly wedged in "peace with honour" mode and they haven't been whipped badly enough that they are just going to pick up and leave. Look at the positions of the major candidates - most all of them see continued military presence there, couched to varying degrees depending on party. If they are not going to leave and they can't be compelled to leave, then the options left are pretty much all about harm reduction. How they conduct the war figures prominently there.

"Ambiguously loose statements on the one hand, and euphemisms that link terrorism and fascism to Islam on the other, have created confusion and resentment on all sides." ~ Fariborz Mokhtari

Pragmatically speaking, I agree that America will not simply "pick up and leave" just yet. But not for the reasons you assert. Rather, there's been too much investment by the government and the corporate sector for the US to pull out. It would just not make financial sense to abandon this lucrative enterprise at this point in the game. No matter how much blood has to be spilled.

The war is a lost effort. The waves of men and women who enlist to Iraq, who believe they're doing a good thing -- these are the people I can not in good faith respect. They are dying for a senseless cause. Sure, one can mindlessly prattle on about how their "ultimate act is selfless"... but it is also goddamn foolish, and they should be slapped across the face for it. Because these men and women only enable this criminal war by waging it for someone else's profit.

I will also note that not once in this conversation has there been a single reference to the true victims of this war: the Iraqis. It is they who were invaded, shock-and-awed, tortured, and brutalized by the Americans. They. Not the invaders. So you can imagine that I have no pity for those who *willingly* sign up for this murderous adventure, who think that they are doing it for their country and the greater good.

Harm reduction? Go home. Go AWOL. Desert the fucking platoon. Get out of Iraq because it is not your place to be there.

...you'll find that the reason that I advocate a withdrawal that occurs over a longer timeframe is because I fear that too quick a withdrawal could result in genocide and is much more likely to spread the conflict into the surrounding nations. I worked for many, many years in Jordan - I've spent a fair amount of time in all of the countries in the Mediterranean littoral; these people are a lot more than faceless ciphers to. When I advocate a drawn-out withdrawal, I do so knowing that it entails significant loss of American life and I do it because I fear that the alternatives would be worse for the Iraqis. That a drawn out withdrawal would be less damaging to American interests makes it easier to sell.

"Ambiguously loose statements on the one hand, and euphemisms that link terrorism and fascism to Islam on the other, have created confusion and resentment on all sides." ~ Fariborz Mokhtari

Hmm, somehow I don't believe the Iraqis' welfare is truly considered here. I mean, we're on version 7.0 of the justification for war, right? Even the Iraqis are beginning to think they've been duped.

No, I'm afraid the fear-of-genocide argument is only another selling point in the pitch to continue the war.

"Ambiguously loose statements on the one hand, and euphemisms that link terrorism and fascism to Islam on the other, have created confusion and resentment on all sides." ~ Fariborz Mokhtari

The problem with your reasoning is that in a counter-insurgency, more than just about any other type of conflict, the tactical, operational, strategic, and political levels are all deeply co-mingled. In conventional conflict, one level blends into the next - in an insurgency this is at its maximum and the overlap between them is enormous, far, far greater than the areas where they do not overlap. Tactical and operational effects are very, very important in this conflict and they affect the strategic and political levels disproportionate to their effect in other forms of conflict.

What they can good soldiers do in Iraq? I would suggest that what they can do is very far from your painting schools strawman - what good people can do at this point is keep things from sliding any further into moral quagmire. I would have thought that the mention of morally reprehensible tactics such as putting out military items as bait, so that sniper teams can blow away any Iraqi who picks them up and tries to walk away with them would make that clear.

The other thing that you might note, having apparently drowned it out in your enthusiasm for your position, is that I'm one of the folks saying that the Americans need to get out. The issue I focus on, however, is that getting out is more complicated that people seem to think - what good people in the service can do is help extract America from this cauldron without harming their interests even more grievously than they have already, and without compromising the moral ideals of America more than has already occurred. Absolutely they're in a meat grinder - helping to place limits and boundaries on what is done to get out of that meat grinder is vitally important.

To be blunt, as I've previously noted, there's fuck all to win in Iraq, but there are still things to lose.

"Ambiguously loose statements on the one hand, and euphemisms that link terrorism and fascism to Islam on the other, have created confusion and resentment on all sides." ~ Fariborz Mokhtari

To be blunt, as I've previously noted, there's fuck all to win in Iraq, but there are still things to lose.

A point seemingly forgotten, it is much easier to believe things couldn't get worse.

I stated that these soldiers can not make (and have not made) an effective difference in this war, which is the counter-argument to your position.

Regardless of the mechanics of this war and the "blending" of its levels, I still contend, after 4 years of observing the resulting mess that is now staring at us from the Middle East, that these soldiers are (here we go again) NOT MAKING AN EFFECTIVE DIFFERENCE in this war.

The game is over. Any attempt to salvage, to do good, to gain the slightest leverage, is piss in the wind. In effect, these soldiers are dying for a worthless cause. Of their own accord. And to all who feel deeply offended by that, I suggest you seek therapy.

If you want to theory-craft your way into some semblance of a defensible position, please continue. I really don't care either way, and quite frankly I find this conversation wearisome.

As to this statement of yours:

>> "What they can good soldiers do in Iraq? ... what good people can do at this point is keep things from sliding any further into moral quagmire." <<

...and this one:

>> "what good people in the service can do is help extract America from this cauldron without harming their interests even more grievously than they have already, and without compromising the moral ideals of America more than has already occurred." <<

I have to laugh. Seriously, are you fucking kidding me? You would invoke America's moral image this late in the game? I smell a troll...

...to the guy that's been here since early 2003. Take a quick pit check, might be why you smell what you smell.

"Ambiguously loose statements on the one hand, and euphemisms that link terrorism and fascism to Islam on the other, have created confusion and resentment on all sides." ~ Fariborz Mokhtari

You're arguing from a position of seniority right now?!? Oh my...

...and contributed in sufficient quantity that it makes me a good deal different than a troll. I don't bother to argue from a position of superiority, I simply accept my superiority as the reality it is. ;)

Edited to add: Oh, oops "seniority" okay, well that makes it a lot less funny.

"Ambiguously loose statements on the one hand, and euphemisms that link terrorism and fascism to Islam on the other, have created confusion and resentment on all sides." ~ Fariborz Mokhtari

[ducks]

...early onset, I think. ;)

"Ambiguously loose statements on the one hand, and euphemisms that link terrorism and fascism to Islam on the other, have created confusion and resentment on all sides." ~ Fariborz Mokhtari

When you say things like this:

The war is lost. Simply throwing more resources at the problem will not fix it.

Many people would interpret that as an assertion regarding winning. One "fixes" a lost war with an aim to winning it.

"Ambiguously loose statements on the one hand, and euphemisms that link terrorism and fascism to Islam on the other, have created confusion and resentment on all sides." ~ Fariborz Mokhtari

In this particular case their death helps further the argument that their article made and that you make. These two stand-up, honorable guys by the terms of their service, can not be denigrated as cowards or quitters by the defenders of the war. They have moved the frame by their deaths. Because these two definitionally honorable men can argue against this war it becomes possible that other men who argue against the war but by other means can be seen as honorable. It is in this way, sacrifice by sacrifice, that we move towards reason.

It would be wonderful if the army ceased to serve its venal masters, but that will only happen step by step, sacrifice by sacrifice. What a shame that it takes this sort of sacrifice by these brave people.

that's certainly seeing it in the big picture viewfinder. but I fear our propoganda operations suck in comparison w/ our opponents.
and again, I have nothing to say about these particular soldiers' deaths that's not my place

I think that propaganda was Ian's intention. Making heroes of these guys helps to move this. Recognizing their particular form of heroism provides some protection in arguing that those soldiers who fight against their masters by refusing to fight their master's enemies are also heroes.

I don't disagree with what you are saying about the greater good and all but we should be able to find a place in our hearts and minds to honor these guys by transforming their useless deaths in Bush's war to meaningful deaths in ours.