dagblog - Comments for "A War of Choice.Not"

Just ran across another piece

artappraiser — Mon, 29 Sep 2014 05:43:08 +0000

In reply to I think it's good to see that

Just ran across another piece on the topic of "Arab identity" @ Asia Times:

Gaza and the end of 'Arab gallantry'
The lack of reaction on Arab streets and among the region's governments as Israel savaged Gaza civilians raises doubts over notions of gallantry that define Arab identity. There is a similar lack of gallantry within the ruling Palestinian classes, however, with the war's aftermath seeing the Ramallah political class attack the former Hamas government, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas fret over his position.
- Ramzy Baroud (Sep 26, '14)

A reaction to a provocation

Flavius — Mon, 29 Sep 2014 01:56:49 +0000

In reply to A reaction to a provocation

A reaction to a provocation is not a strategy..

Well put. !

I'll leave you to have the last word . Unless someone else decides to rattle your cage.

A reaction to a provocation

moat — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 23:13:53 +0000

In reply to Politics eliminates some of

A reaction to a provocation is not a strategy. If one has the power to implement a strategy, the response to a particular act becomes part of some larger plan. Realizing this element cannot help one wonder what are the details of that larger plan.

There probably is a larger plan underway because that is what people do, plan things.

But let us say there is no larger plan. The people in charge right now are only responding to what is emerging as a problem that popped up suddenly without relation to the other issues they were dealing with. The language becomes like that used by the George II administration:

How could we be expected to expect this?

A sudden- not very thought out reaction- becomes more acceptable then.

This doesn't mean the response is all theatrical but it is worth noting that it has all the components of manufactured consensus.

Perhaps the resemblance is pure coincidence.

Politics eliminates some of

Flavius — Sat, 27 Sep 2014 06:16:22 +0000

In reply to A War of Choice.Not

Politics eliminates some of the possible strategies. In theory Obama could have decided to make no response. Perhaps in order to address Michael's concern that we shouldn't allow our actions to be dictated by ISIL. After a few more beheadings without response ISIL might very well decide to stop.

But that strategy would be very difficult to implement because of the public's probable disgust that we were being insufficiently macho. Although it probably be expressed as annoyance with Obama because he was not defending our citizens at least some of the reaction would be pure chauvinism.'Don't let them kick us around this way".

Even tho this "passive" response would probably result in fewer American deaths than the approach that is now underway

I agree with your assessment

moat — Sat, 27 Sep 2014 01:39:32 +0000

In reply to Oh Lord, I’ve got to

I agree with your assessment that "something" had to be done in the face of such bold provocation. It is not an argument against that point to notice that being goaded to act is a common means of manipulation. Your original post spoke of the IS- (whatever the hell anybody wants to call them) going for the most provocative message possible. In that context, what M Wolraich said about the logic of who controls the initiation of war is an important question; Always has been.

I am not arguing against the Obama response. I am glad to see that much effort is being made to support the tactical decisions that were decided upon. In that respect, the present effort is much more focused and professional than the fight George the Younger brought against OBL back in the day. The deals made at the beginning of that combat turned into serious liabilities as the fight dragged on. That could happen again, of course. We will see.

By suggesting there were more possible responses than the ones being taken, I didn't mean to say that we were morally required to "educate" the people over "there." Our military actions have set off all kinds of wars that were just waiting for the opportunity to get underway. In terms of strategy, the situation is developing into exactly the black hole some people were hoping for back in nineties on those neocon websites urging regime change by direct force.

Remember?

Oh Lord, I’ve got to

Flavius — Fri, 26 Sep 2014 04:58:58 +0000

In reply to The enemy that you say we

Oh Lord, I’ve got to discriminate.

I try to stay away from words like must and necessity because they don’t reflect my belief that life is full of matters of degree and the trick is to choose among them.

I actually think that Presidents Bush the younger and Obama got it about right in November 2001 and May 2011. 9/11 was horrible and what was done afterwards to the Taliban and OBL was well deserved. I only regret that we couldn’t resurrect him daily so we could shoot him over and over again.

Now comes March 2003 and August 2014 otherwise known as last month.

The invasion of Iraq and the later execution of Saddam were not proportionate to any harm that Saddam and co had done to us. I’m well aware that Baghdad was well stocked with people with good reason to hate his guts. We didn’t. We should have stayed home. Had we did so many things would have been different perhaps including the appearance of ISIS and its unspeakable proclivity for beheading completely innocent Americans.

It wasn’t necessarily the case that Obama was required initiate air attacks on the ISISites but according to me it was necessary that he did something. He’s President and ISIS’s behavior to us put Obama under an obligation to re-teach them that those who “live by the sword etc.”

As part of that should Obama have tried to start the process of educating the inhabitants of that hot and dusty part of the world? Perhaps .But not if trying to do that interferes with the simple understandable message he/we started to send them three days ago: if you kill Americans you’ll soon wish you hadn’t.

I'll attempt to provide a

Flavius — Fri, 26 Sep 2014 02:59:45 +0000

In reply to Then what was the opposite of

I'll attempt to provide a composite answer at your further intervention below.

Then what was the opposite of

moat — Fri, 26 Sep 2014 01:35:17 +0000

In reply to I did not mention necessity.

Then what was the opposite of choice you had in mind?

The enemy that you say we

moat — Fri, 26 Sep 2014 01:31:15 +0000

In reply to A War of Choice.Not

The enemy that you say we must fight emerged from the confluence of many different civil wars happening right now simultaneously. Some of these wars get reported on extensively; others are buried in the back pages of obscure journals. Obama acknowledged this general condition when he said local members of the "coalition" needed to stop exporting violence to their neighbors. But militating against that condition probably won't be possible while waving a banner so many of the warring contingents have found brief common cause to march behind. This observation isn't an argument against this or that policy, just a reminder that the "choice" in this case is not an individual act of decision like an example of Augustinian Free Will. It is also a refusal to choose who should be helped or not in this sprawling network of war except those who declare themselves against the bad thing.

For the sake of discussion, let us call a choice something that not only opposes a bad thing (from the point of view of many people) but helps address why the bad thing keeps happening.