On Fri, 28 May 2004 17:16:14 GMT, Robey Price
wrote:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following as a follow-up to Walt:

Uhhh, well I actually thought you were calling me a "dedicated
liberal." But I am not offended by that at all. I confess I also
thought you meant it in a pejorative context. Which made me laugh, "If
Ed thinks that'll hurt my feeling, he's crazier than I thought!"

I suggested you were using the rhetorical techiques of the dedicated
liberal, not that you were one yourself. I'm not sure whether calling
you a liberal would be as great an affront as you're characterization
of me as crazy.

He failed to address the question and he couched
his comments in the terms I indicated.

Pffft. Ed you must have missed my long retort on 25 May (that you
didn't respond to) where I clearly disabused you of the notion that
ONLY liberals refer to Bush's elite as neocons. I cited The American
Conservative magazine (which you **should be aware of** if you are
indeed a "dedicated conservative" as you profess) and Karen
Kwiatkowski (LtCol USAF-Ret). Neocon is a term used by Pat Buchanan...

John Shinal posted a link to an excellent Wall Street Journal piece
that explains where the neo-con terminology came from. No, I don't
read "The American Conservative", nor do I regularly peruse The
American Spectator or the New Republic. Ms Kwiatkowski has enjoyed her
fifteen minutes of Wharolian fame, but brought no great distinction to
the debate other than adding to the the list of women in the military
who seem to be rising to the surface of infamy. As for Pat Buchanan,
the less we say, the better.

March 24, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative

[title]Whose War?

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of
wars that are not in America’s interest.

See, I really have a difficulty with work that starts out with "A
neoconservative clique..." Doesn't that seem that the author's first
intent is to inflame rather than enlighten?

"Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends.
Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by
these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to
forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations
in the Cold War."

Excuse me, but did I miss something on 9/11/01? Or at Khobar Tower? Or
the USS Cole? Or the Marine Barracks in Beirut? Or Mogadishu? Is that
the years of peace we are forfeiting by not turning the other cheek?

Hmmm, Ed it would appear that you were not aware that some
"traditional conservatives," consider gwb's top advisors NEOCONS.

If you went beyond your single citation to explore neo-conservatives,
you might expand from the pejorative to a greater understanding of the
work of Straus and Kristol. But, that would endanger your strawman.

Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform. I understand
very well the difficulty in being at the point of the spear of
national policy. I also understand very well the difficulty of being
out there at the point while nay-sayers, pacifists, defeatists and
"America-lasters" undermine the support of the mission. Been there,
experienced it first hand.

This is where I'll raise the BULL**** flag. It's BULL**** to say
opposition to flawed foreign policy should take the blame for that
flawed policy. Next you're gonna tell us that our negative thoughts
are gonna get troops killed (like we're holding an RPG aimed at US
troops). That is just so intellectually weak. Blame the French, blame
the Germans, blame the liberals and the folks at The American
Conservative.

You stretch my argument a bit. I don't "blame the French,....et.al." I
don't think "negative thoughts" will get us killed. I don't even seek
unanimity in the national policy debate. I merely acknowledge that
there are some who will oppose war regardless of the circumstances.
We've become a nation of McNews and MTV. We want instant solutions to
complex problems and aren't willing to offer the blood, sweat and
treasure it takes to get there.

That is so friggin lame to blame voters for this **** up...okay let me
rephrase that, you're right to blame the voters that voted gwb into
office for this ****ed up foreign policy. But don't blame folks like
me that oppose gwb (and his neocons as described by the American
Conservative).

So, you'd prefer the steady, well-reasoned leadership of Al Gore that
we heard this week?

Our military is undefeated on the battlefield since Korea. We'll kick
ass and take names (and strip'em, cuff 'em, pose them in sexual
positions etc) but we won't lose on the battlefield. Ten thousand
attaboys and one "aw-****" wipes the entire slate clean. This is a big
"aw-****!"

Does that herring stink? We were talking about the correctness of
response to terrorism and whether a democracy replacing Saddam in Iraq
was a worthy foreign policy goal. The Abu Ghraib prison atrocities are
not in any way excusable. (But, extending responsibility above the
brigade commander level is going to take a stretch. It might happen,
but I doubt it.)

The Sadaam regime was toppled in ten days, not ten weeks, months or
years. If that equals mismanagement, then your standard is different
than mine.

I'm pretty sure he was addressing the events following those
fortuitous 10 days. Things like the looting in cities to which
Rumsfeld correctly observed, "Democracy is messy." Sure but Iraq is
not a democracy yet...not even close. The USA is a democracy, it's
messy, and it surely beats all of us singing the praises of gwb and
the neocon advisors.

Dare I say "faulty syllogism"? Because the sun comes up post-rooster,
doesn't imply cause/effect. There was looting after the fall of Hitler
as well. Ditto fall of Saigon. Unfortunate, but you might recall that
some of the reports were exaggerated as well--remember the
archeological artifacts in the tens of thousands that were
looted....oops, they were in the basement.

The situation in Iraq is not a made-for-TV scenario. There are three
distinct factions competing for supremacy--Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd. They
don't much like each other, and it isn't suprising that they also
don't like an occupation force trying to keep things balanced.

So Ed, did you assume that we would be greeted as liberators? I
didn't. Nor did I expect to see photos of US troops abusing prisoners
(another "aw-****")

There's a disconnect between what I see on CNN and what I'm getting
from "boots on the ground" sources. In fact, I do see (hear, actually)
a lot of greeting as liberators. There is also a lot of competition
for political power.

Have you considered the disconnect in the rhetoric between the demands
for us to withdraw and turn over sovereignty from the left and the
simultaneous questioning of how could Bush possibly keep the June 30
deadline for just that?

Have we heard from the opposition in America what they would
specifically do different? Cut and run? Turn it over to the UN--those
are the folks that gave us "oil-for-food" and made billionaires out of
several less than savory functionaries.

Well during the 2000 campaign gwb expressed the opinion that the USA
should not be in the business of "nation building." And yet here we
are. I think he was right...that we should not be in the business of
nation building.

Must I point out again that there was a significant event intervening
between Campaign 2000 and today? I think we all agree that
"nation-building" is not a desireable role. But, we must also agree
that in this small, inter-connected, increasingly inter-dependent
world, we must participate in efforts to enhance stability. We can't
be everywhere in the Wilsonian sense, but there are some places we
must get involved.

Sincerely. I don't think any of us, (what were the terms you used for
us? oh yeah) nay-sayers, pacifists, defeatists and "America-lasters"
would have invaded Iraq. So to ask what we would do NOW...good
question. Kinda hard to blame us for opposing a course of action that
we wouldn't have taken (I personally wanted UN support before we
kicked SH's ass). gwb squandered all that international goodwill we
had earned becasue of 9/11...poor diplomatic skills.

That's an opinion. Personally, I'll take Colin Powell over Madeline
Albright any day. Ditto Condi Rice in preference to Sandy Berger.
Appeasement on all fronts may seem warm and friendly, but it isn't
always the best course, Mr. Chamberlain.

Trust me. I teach political science at the local college. I teach
international relations as part of the job....
I am not particularly prone to emotionalism...

But like all of us, you are not without this personal failing from
time to time regardless of what you might wish.

I confess to the flaw of convictions.

and I like to couch my political discourse in objective
analysis...

Interestingly enough, you give the short shrift to mere mortals here
but gladly acknowledge that Generals (Zinni, Clark) can have a
difference of opinion (offering the same critiques).

Certainly Zinni and Clark have much to thank Bill Clinton for in their
successful careers. I respect their opinion, even if I find it in
Clark's case to continue to be politically driven rather than
objective. I also like to consider other Generals' opinion as
well--guys like Dick Myers, Hugh Shelton, Norm Shwartzkopf, Chuck
Horner, Tommy Franks, etc. They differ from Zinni and Clark in their
estimations.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8