dagblog - Comments for "Undumbing Down "Progressive Realism""

How often leftists couldn't

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 22 Mar 2022 04:26:18 +0000

In reply to It's intriguing how the New

How often leftists couldn't respond to Puting because "it'll cause WWIII!" And thus WWIII starts in slow motion rl- a whimper? - rather than a Sarajevo outburst.

It's intriguing how the New

artappraiser — Tue, 22 Mar 2022 02:13:44 +0000

In reply to Undumbing Down "Progressive Realism"

It's intriguing how the New Right shares the same underlying precepts of the old hippie left:

1. The US is incapable of doing good in the world, and historically has been a force for evil

2. Everything that happens in the world is the direct result or responsibility of the US
— Antonio García Martínez (agm.eth) (@antoniogm) March 20, 2022

The Ukraine situation makes this even more explicit.

The Putin fans (in temporary retreat, sublimating their views via Ukraine criticism) really think Russia some anti-woke example, despite having lower birthrates and suffering even more from postmodern ills than the West.
— Antonio García Martínez (agm.eth) (@antoniogm) March 20, 2022

Ditto the Berkeley hippies who really thought Cuba an egalitarian utopia, when it was precisely the opposite.

Of course neither camp has any reason for knowing the reality: they both stay in the bosom of the capitalism they claim to despise, never venturing to Havana or Moscow.
— Antonio García Martínez (agm.eth) (@antoniogm) March 20, 2022

Similarly, the hippie thought that every political event that happened anywhere in LatAm, from Chile to Nicaragua, was a masterfully executed CIA plot, not the reflection of that society's complex inner workings in which the US was but one (often minor) factor.
— Antonio García Martínez (agm.eth) (@antoniogm) March 20, 2022

Likewise, in Ukraine we've got a swirl of uninformed chatter about supposed biology labs, the 'color' revolution (which happened a while ago and didn't put anyone now relevant in power), and this or that US official and their phone calls...all irrelevant to the war right now.
— Antonio García Martínez (agm.eth) (@antoniogm) March 20, 2022

It's an odd mix of oikophobia (hate for one's country, originally coined by a conservative to mock the left) and American narcissism (which thinks everything in the world downstream of US politics).

Right or left, it's a recurring US brain worm, now eating the UKR conversation.
— Antonio García Martínez (agm.eth) (@antoniogm) March 20, 2022

First, Lulu above refers to a

artappraiser — Thu, 17 Mar 2022 07:58:53 +0000

In reply to I first posted the article

First, Lulu above refers to a post he made in the "In The News" section but doesn't link to it. To minimize confusion, THAT IS HERE

http://dagblog.com/link/what-progressive-realism-33564

However his links to NONZERO.ORG are no longer working because the site is not working anymore. What a surprise, NOT

A lot of Lulu's favorite sites which he would post long polemic tomes from, and after which he would argue the rest of us needed to read lest we have no "balance" are no longer working because they have been found to be pro-Russian propaganda machines or wells of misinformation. What a surprise, NOT

There's a difference between facts and propagandistic polemics and the latter are not worth spending a lot of time on. What a surprise. NOT

Not one American soldier has died in the Ukraine war. What a surprise, NOT.

Anthony Blinken is not a warmonger. Putin is a warmonger. What a surprise. NOT

Here's someone I would like to see guys like Lulu argue with, YES. (Not the least of which because I would like to see how he would react to so much crap about how he needs to read long worthless polemics and propaganda)

I hope Ukrainians learn the lessons Syrians had to against Russia fast. Never reveal the locations of shelters for women and children, field clinics or breadlines. Russia will target them first. Don’t reveal the locations to the UN. Russia will access them, and target them first.
— Oz Katerji (@OzKaterji) March 16, 2022

They will not spare your children, they will target them first. Syrians have lived through 8 years of this already.
— Oz Katerji (@OzKaterji) March 16, 2022

Oz is a British-Lebanese freelance conflict journalist & filmmaker. Interested in human rights. Currently reporting from Ukraine.

I would also love to see more guys like Lulu make statements like Franklin's here:

I am utterly ashamed of myself for not understanding that this was happening in Syria. Utterly and completely ashamed.
— Franklin M Gauer III (@PirPiraan) March 16, 2022

But instead, a lot of them just disappear.

No cold war with China over

artappraiser — Mon, 22 Nov 2021 04:25:54 +0000

In reply to Undumbing Down "Progressive Realism"

No cold war with China over Africa under Biden:

.@John_Hudson on the road w/ Blinken in Africa https://t.co/J3zJr4O3xj
— Alex Thompson (@AlexThomp) November 22, 2021

very on topic and the Twitter

artappraiser — Mon, 06 Sep 2021 18:11:09 +0000

In reply to Undumbing Down "Progressive Realism"

very on topic and the Twitter thread has interesting comments as well:

This review of @attackerman is an exercise in tone policing. https://t.co/hwaxFo3iGf
— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) September 5, 2021

surprised to see Jeet Heer of The Nation pointing out "tone policing" by the review author tho!

There are already, of course,

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 15:54:11 +0000

In reply to Undumbing Down "Progressive Realism"

There are already, of course, among politicians and pundits and a variety of other idiots, fevered proclaimations that the U.S. must send a clear message/threat that any attack on the Kabul airport will be met with massive military reaction. And of course the threat must be cerdible they say, we must be willing to carry out the threat. They are fucking idiots that continue to display their fucking idiocy. The Taliban could shut down that airport at any time they choose to do so and we could not effectively retaliate against the force that did it.

IMO, every soldier sent to protect that base until evacuations are completed merely adds to the number of people caught in an indefensible trap. What could we target that would significantly hurt the Taliban or would provide protection for the airport as a facility that could allow planes our to land and take off without the Taliban's implicit permission? The airport or the city of Kabul? What weapons would we threaten them with that they haven't alredy faced for years and how long would it take to gather them and get them in place? Can the U.S. soldiers on that little island round up enough up-armored vehicles from inside the airport to send a couple thousand of them into the city with an expectation that they could do anything useful to protect the airport? Could they even survive? Air support comes from far away and who would the aircraft target when it arrived, and where could the B-52's drop their carpet of bombs? On the city center which is three miles from the airport and so close enough to hide and support the Taliban in positions they could hit the airport from?

That is not to say that the Taliban will spring the trap, I don't believe they will and fervently hope they won't, it is just to say just that they could and that, on the far end of the spectrum of possibilities, they could wipe out every single life within that airport perimeter if they chose to do so and there is nothing the U.S. could do in real time to stop the massacre from happening. It seems to me that the Taliban have good pragmatic political reasons and probably the good sense, to stay a bit chill and let the transition to their government be as smooth and violence free as possible until the U.S. is out and the Taliban victory is consolidated. After that, who knows, but we can be sure that we will hear many terrible stories.

So, that is where we are at now but natually we, or at least some of us, ask: Could we have been somewhere different, somewhere better, if our actions had been guided by a different mind-set which had led to different policies? Maybe, maybe not, but I think it is worth thinking about.

Edited to ad the important word "not" to the last sentence of the first paragraph.

Last first - for 2020 we were

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 04:40:00 +0000

In reply to You ask, “Where did I defend

Last first - for 2020 we were down to 4000 troops. Non-Taliban still controlled most of the cities, where literacy was up near 50% or more, basic human rights (like for females) were ok in the cities. If that status quo could be maintained for another 20 years at minimal cost, might be worth it. Kick *that* can down the road. Cost-benefits analysis. $50 billion in prior years was too much, but maybe $10-20 billion/year worthwhile?

First second - Taliban had sheltered Al Qaeda to attack the US - so yes, a punitive mission of less than 6 months with specific military/political objectives was well worth it - fuck Taliban, fuck Al Qaeda. I said that in 2001 and never stopped saying it.

Third - ObL tricked "us" into a boots-on-the-ground presence in-region - both Iraq and Afghanistan. Since i didn't vote for Bush and thought the GOP stole the election in 2000, I'm rather pissed, and think Al Gore's recipe of mostly treating terrorism as an international policing matter was the unsexy but most effective approach, i consider the Neocon RoughRiders foray into terra incognita plain stupid, especially without a plan. I thought Obama giving his General David wasshisname political opponent (forget name) a gig "training the Afghan military" with always unicorn lying rates of success and then pushing the surge as very stupid.

As for Hussein, he *was* trying to reconstitute his long(er) range missiles and *biochemical* WMD program (not the nuclear one that Cheney trumpeted) to poor success, which our Hans Blix(sp?)-led UN inspectors discovered after 3-4 months discovered after we finally forced Hussein to cooperate under threat of force (AUMF 2002 as a reminder). He didn't like it, but he finally did - hooray.

I always supported overflights and sanctions as a low commitment way of keeping Hussein in check (inflated Lancet reports of the humanitarian effects notwithstanding), but after 9/11 *maybe* that relatively "don't look too close" approach couldn't be justified anymore.

And then March 2003, Bush/neocons used UN success as a pretext for failure and attacked anyway - without a plan, just "my best oil buddies and me". I have noted many times that Nixon brought US presence in Vietnam from 500,000 to near zero in 3 1/2 years but the left pummel his memory for dragging out the war, whereas under Obama we kept 100,000 in place for years while supposedly "disengaging" and "we'll step back as the step up" illusionary counting - the Afghans especially were never successfully trained. The Iraqis were always looking to bolster Shi'ite/Sunni Fighting.

I *did* support Obama's work with a coalition to kill off ISIS (which Trump+Russia let slip away at the last moment but mostly was a great year's success). But elsewhere i don't think I ever said we shouldn't leave Afghanistan (and should have prepared a razor sharp entry & exit initially - see Peter Hopkirk, "The Great Game"). I don't think it was even that painful to leave until the last 4-5 years, but i haven't thought about it much - i never wanted us to stay, never thought us sustainable, thought it a huge money-and-soldiers-trap til *maybe* the last year.

So no, just because I supported a reasonable quick retaliation for the 9/11 attacks that would keep Taliban from giving Al Qaeda full refuge to continue attacks, i never signed onto the full Neocon "nation building" game plan, thank you very much. I did suggest removing the Taliban leader, out in a replacement, warn him "fuck up and we'll be back" (but not permanently, just to do it again) and leave. Got a problem with that?

You ask, “Where did I defend

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 01:16:02 +0000

In reply to Well, i thought Bush a

You ask, “Where did I defend what?” You defended going in to Afghanistan and kicking ass just like most Americans did. You said that you thought that the dumbass Bush should have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11 and kicked ass. That sounds to me like defending *going in* after we had seen what happened to Russia. You say that you supported going in for six months of ass kicking and then getting out. I don’t doubt the first part but I also do not recall you agreeing with anyone who said repeatedly for the last twenty years that we should get the hell out . But, no snark intended, maybe I just don’t remember. Then you say that OBL tricked us back in to Iraq. Not to put too harsh a spin on it but that is a ridiculous statement. OBL, whose plan and its execution on 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq but it gave the war mongering neocons the “Pearl Harbor” moment they said would probably be needed to implement their Project for the New American Century. They jumped at the excuse to attack Iraq that they fabricated out of that 9/11 attack. OBL didn’t drag us into Iraq. Or Syria. Or Libya. or ,,, ,,, .

And what’s this about? "If 4000 troops on the cheap could keep Afghan literacy high and levels of human rights reasonable, well go for it ... ... ." In what part of the entire 2 decade long debacle was it ever the case that even a far larger commitment of troops than 4000 could accomplish that?

Well, i thought Bush a

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 16 Aug 2021 22:23:16 +0000

In reply to Do you see any irony in

Well, i thought Bush a dumbass, and that we should have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11 and kicked ass and then left no later than 6 months with a caretaker government and a warning. But i did think the Iraq overflights under Clinton were a good compromise to keep Hussein in check without waging an "endless (and futile) war" of boots on the ground (ObL tricked us back in). So where did I "defend" what? If 4000 troops on the cheap could keep Afghan literacy high and levels of human rights reasonable, well go for it - we certainly piss away money on worse things. But no, Afghanistan's not important strategically.

Do you see any irony in

A Guy Called LULU — Mon, 16 Aug 2021 21:29:33 +0000

In reply to I hate to intrude in your

Do you see any irony in clelbrating us giving Russia its own Vietnam, Vietnam being our greatest military disaster to that point, but defending the U.S. for grabbing it right back and losing even more there [although probably not enough to completely break us] after that gift had broken Russia?