Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

"And he came on a white horse, carrying a bow with no arrow"

Posted by Dennis Wingo at April 14, 2007 02:47 PM

I'll take death for $500 Dennis.

PS, did you get any of my follow on emails to you r lycos account last month?

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 14, 2007 03:30 PM

Now that's a truly Orwellian concept; "Department of Peace".

Some say fascism will come to the US wrapped in the Star and Stripes and carrying a cross but it seems more likely to come wrapped in a white flag of surrender carrying a newspaper with a massive headline "Bush = Hitler!" covering the entire frontpage...

Posted by Habitat Hermit at April 14, 2007 03:54 PM

Sorry about the typo, it should be "Stars and Stripes" of course.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at April 14, 2007 03:56 PM

Ah yes... peace through bureaucracy, that's the ticket! What's next, the Department of Fluffy White Bunnies and Rainbows??

Posted by Ryan at April 14, 2007 04:25 PM

How about replacing the current Department of Murder, Torture, and Terrorism with a revolutionary new organization called the Department of Defense, whose purpose would be to forcefully end aggression and redress war crimes rather than committing them?

As for the alleged proposal in question, a "Department of Peace & Nonviolence" has several arguments in its favor (not including the cumbersome name): The Pentagram is a tireless advocate of military solutions to every problem and contingency, and has a budget that can only be described as a threat to the republic in itself. But meanwhile the job of the much less-funded State Department has been largely to delay, limit, and then make up excuses for what the Pentagram does. Their function is based on an anachronistically frosty concept of achieving cordial "relations," as one might expect of a baroque monarchial institution rather than something truly constructive.

So what exactly would a department do whose purpose was "Peace & Nonviolence"? First, it's important to recognize what peace is--not the mere abstraction of conflict into diplomacy, but a process of creation in stark contrast to the destruction of war. Community based on economics, culture, ideas, and all other aspects of society would be fostered, and connections on every level from the individual upward would be encouraged strategically while opposite strains--e.g. national animosities, militarism, etc.--are parried and countered. Such an organization would also attempt to convince other nations to create their own institutions with similar functions, and rather than pursuing any given country's parochial interests, they would be mutual conduits between nations at every level of society.

In a case (e.g. North Korea) where the government makes that impossible, this hypothetical department would focus on clever, nonviolent ways to undermine the power of that government and connect directly with its people. The State Department currently does this to a limited extent, but its efforts mainly involve allying with other diplomatic organizations and largely failing to operate at any deeper level. No matter how low a level it must begin at, even with (for example) just a handful of Palestinians willing to risk and probably give their lives for a better future side by side with Israelis, this organization would pursue it while State wouldn't bother "wasting its time."

Therefore, what we need is an institution every bit as dedicated to the above described mission as the Pentagram is currently dedicated to fostering chaos and disaster, perhaps funded equivalently, and with the State Department folded into it. If both they and a newly reformed Department of DEFENSE do their jobs properly, their missions would complement each other rather than interfering.

This probably is a bit more ambitious than the proposal in question, but it's what I suggest. And it needs a much better, less political, and less negative or equivocated name than "Department of Peace and Nonviolence." Both terms are negatives in most people's minds--good things, but described only by the absence or mitigation of something. My suggestion: "Department of Humanity."

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 14, 2007 04:35 PM

You're not against fluffy white bunnies and rainbows, are you, Ryan?

Posted by Mark at April 14, 2007 05:33 PM

I don't have a problem with having a Department of Peace:

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:9).

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 14, 2007 05:45 PM

Mike

Sorry, I did not get any of your emails. Do me a favor, send me an email with the subject, to Dennis from MIke.

That way I can give you my real email address. I use the mailcity one for my spam toilet.

Thanks

Posted by Dennis Wingo at April 14, 2007 06:04 PM

If nothing else, Brian is completely predictable in his hatred of the administration and his own country. Sometime, I might write his response preemptively, just to see how nonplussed he gets.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 14, 2007 06:04 PM

"Blessed are the peaceMAKERs..."

Yup. 150,000 or so of the American ones are in Iraq, and another chunk in Afghanistan. Then there are the Brits, Aussies, and (to significantly lesser extent, because of ROE restrictions) many others.

To all our serving military personnel and veterans, thank you.

Posted by M G at April 14, 2007 06:42 PM

To all our serving military personnel and veterans, thank you.

Posted by M G at April 14, 2007 06:42 PM

Agreed. Absolutely right.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 14, 2007 06:54 PM

I hope it's peace through superior firepower.

Posted by Paul Dietz at April 14, 2007 06:54 PM

"If nothing else, Brian is completely predictable in his hatred of the administration and his own country."

In the United States of America, torture and aggressive war are crimes, Rand. Loosen that tinfoil centurion helmet and maybe you'll recognize who it is that hates this country.

"Sometime, I might write his response preemptively, just to see how nonplussed he gets."

Don't get too good at it, buddy. Reason is infectious.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 14, 2007 07:43 PM

Reason is infectious.

The sad thing is that I really believe that you believe your insanity.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 14, 2007 07:52 PM

I think the biggest trib of Denial is Moral Equivalence. Brian is apparently trying to drown himself in it.

Common sense tells us us a paper cut and an amputation are both wounds but it also tells us there are several orders of magnitude that seperates those for comparison purposes.

Brian would have us believe a couple of over zealous interrigators held to account by their own people are the same as a certain teutonic organization symbolized by double lightning bolts that existed from the mid 1930's to April of 45.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 14, 2007 07:59 PM

Reason is infectious.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 14, 2007 07:43 PM..

Actually Brian it (meaning "reason") isnt.

People either train themselves to "reason" situatinos out or they dont. If they dont it just doesnt spread in the populace like wildfire, it stays with people who have trained themselves to "reason" things out.

In a brush of offending doubtless "most", Rand's post sometimes are no more or less reasoned out then your's are.

LOL

Both of you swing frequently with your ideology and less with the reality of life.

You are swinging with ideology on the "torture" crap.

Look, there mere mention of the word gives me pause, but you seem to imply that 1) it is rampant and 2) that it is done willy nilly. At least in this country it is neither. YES Alberto has talked about it (and that bugs me) and YES some ill managed people "did" some form of it at AbuG and YES we are probably doing some forms of it at various "undisclosed" locations...

but you act as though all this is "new" and that all this signals some massive problems in The REpublic.

I had instructors when I was a "lad" who had been in the Phillipines at the liberation. They talk openly about "doing things" that would make your hair light on fire and make AbuG seem pale...My favorite story is the guy who liberated one of the POW camps, after the Japanese had lite all our POW's on fire.

As he put it "The officers smelled of gasoline, there were charred bodies of our guys lying around, we lined all the Japanese officers up and they died in combat."

You and a lot of people like you seem to think that war can be waged by some "Really nice" code of behavior and it cannot. It is nasty, it is basically the most evil form of human activity and yet at times a moral people, a reasoned people, must lower themselves to it, to survive against a foe who has no morals and no honor.

Rand (and some others of the Bush cheering section here) have crossed swords and will again. But you have not spent much time in the real world. Or even read about it.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 14, 2007 10:34 PM

Paul: "I hope it's peace through superior firepower."

In other words, not peace. Hegemony.

Rand: "The sad thing is that I really believe that you believe your insanity."

No, Rand. The sad thing is that you think this childish flailing hides your lack of ideas; sputtering insults and umbrage like Matthew Harrison Brady. Now, while I appreciate your attempts at telepathically judging my character, emotions, and motives, you might for once consider sticking to the subject you yourself chose instead of retreating to your favorite hideaway, the merry old land of Ad Hominem.

Mike: "I think the biggest trib of Denial is Moral Equivalence."

Denial is usually far more dangerous in its inverse manifestation, Moral Superiority. People enthralled to this mentality believe "It can't happen here" despite evidence to the contrary, "It isn't happening here" even as it happens all around them, and "It didn't happen here" after the whole world watched it happen. They don't actually believe what they say, but collective ego is a higher value with them than truth, so people who value truth higher are immoral in their eyes. The same people to this day call Daniel Ellsberg a traitor, and have made life a living hell for the soldier who leaked the Abu Ghraib photos.

Mike: "Brian would have us believe a couple of over zealous interrigators"

Mike, how long are you going to repeat this Baghdad Bob mantra? What you're saying was discredited shortly after Abu Ghraib broke, upwards of three years ago, and I showed that to you in several posts after which you simply stopped responding. Now here you are, acting like you didn't hear a word of it, and robotically repeating the same discredited claims.

"held to account by their own people"

Like the soldier who was demoted and docked pay for suffocating a prisoner to death during interrogation? Nobody in the Pentagon, CIA, or White House has ever been held to account for ordering, rewarding, facilitating, tolerating, or attempting to rationalize the torture. They just let a few footsoldiers get punished when photos got leaked, and quickly implemented security measures to make sure no more photos would--that's one reform you can be sure they did pursue.

Mike: "are the same as a certain teutonic organization symbolized by double lightning bolts that existed from the mid 1930's to April of 45."

Does evil become something else if it wears an American flag? Funny, but folks in your circle never seem to think so when the flags are on the ATF, creeping up your lawns instead of torturing or murdering some foreign abstraction you can't seem to identify with as equally human.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 14, 2007 10:46 PM

Brian, peace through hegemony isn't particularly great, but it works. If you have a better idea, maybe you ought to mention it.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 14, 2007 11:16 PM

Reading the story, I see it's Kucinich and some democrat allies from the House of Representatives. He proposed this in his 2004 platform and has now put it in a bill. It doesn't appear to be endorsed by the Democrat party at large. In particular, I don't see the sign that anyone is serious about this aside from Kucinich and a few other outliers. So the usual suspects want the usual things in a bill that will go nowhere. Where's the story?

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 14, 2007 11:25 PM

We have a department of peace - the State Department. We also have a backup department of peace when that one doesn't work - Defense.

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at April 14, 2007 11:51 PM

Robert: "People either train themselves to "reason" situatinos out or they dont."

Reason isn't just a process, but an aesthetic taste for consistency, objectivity, and parsimony. That aspect is infectious, and makes people receptive to reasoned arguments.

Robert: "You are swinging with ideology on the "torture" crap."

As you may be, albeit not the same ideology that rationalizes or belittles it. I'm not familiar enough with your positions to know if this applies, but there are some who flee from anything that might burden them with onerous moral responsibilities. Rejecting the word "torture" for activities that clearly constitute it is a typical way of keeping the subject from going in that direction.

"but you seem to imply that 1) it is rampant and 2) that it is done willy nilly."

The fact is that thousands of people have been through Gitmo and Abu Ghraib alone, not counting facilities elsewhere, and descriptions given by released prisoners are consistent with whistleblower testimony and ICRC findings. But whether it's thousands, hundreds, or dozens who are systematically tortured, the question must be asked: How rampant do you need it to be?

Secondly, I've never said it was "willy nilly." Abu Ghraib perhaps was less organized since it had to function as a regular prison at the same time they were torturing suspected insurgents, but Rumsfeld had already established a highly organized "gulag archipelago" across various locations, and those facilities are dedicated with personnel specializing in torture.

"YES Alberto has talked about it"

A bit of an understatement, don't you think?

"and YES some ill managed people "did" some form of it at AbuG"

DoD contractors and CIA personnel operating under explicit guidelines from Rumsfeld, in addition to soldiers placed at their disposal, tortured hundreds of people continuously for over a year, and engaged in limited abuse against thousands. Not a single CIA or DoD employee was ever even questioned, including those who were personally involved in interrogations. The White House made it clear they were off limits to Congress, and the GOP Congress obliged them.

"They talk openly about "doing things" that would make your hair light on fire and make AbuG seem pale..."

Surely you see the difference between actions being ignored versus planned, orchestrated, and permanently institutionalized from the highest levels of government? Moreover, they will never give up these gulags and torture chambers, and you know they will find new reasons to use them and new people to send there, expanding them over time until they become general-purpose instruments of government power.

"You and a lot of people like you seem to think that war can be waged by some "Really nice" code of behavior and it cannot."

You've profoundly misinterpreted what I'm saying.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 15, 2007 12:07 AM

Karl: "Brian, peace through hegemony isn't particularly great, but it works."

That depends how hegemony is achieved, and what it means in a specific case. We're no longer the technological, scientific, or cultural prodigy we once were, and nations aren't going to tolerate being ordered around forever just because we presently have more money and bigger guns.

Karl: "If you have a better idea, maybe you ought to mention it."

I did mention it, earlier in the discussion.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 15, 2007 12:26 AM

Brian

I think that general John J. Pershing had a better idea about what to do with terrorists during the Phillipine insurrection.

When they were killed, they were buried face down along with pig entrails.

No afterlife, no virgins. That stopped the fighting.

This is not the first time that the U.S. Army has had to deal with this type of insurgency.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at April 15, 2007 01:16 AM

Dennis: "When they were killed, they were buried face down along with pig entrails."

A pointless, crude, and barbaric insult to the living.

Dennis: "No afterlife, no virgins."

Most Filipinos are Catholic.

"That stopped the fighting."

Can I see a source on that? I don't doubt the tactic was used, but I find your attribution a little far-fetched.

"This is not the first time that the U.S. Army has had to deal with this type of insurgency."

It may be the first time they created it.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 15, 2007 01:52 AM

Brian, you seem to be rather excercised by Guantanamo Bay.

I agree. However, my conclusion is somewhat different. By now, the question of whether any particular individual is a jihadist or not has been settled, and any information we were ever going to get has been got - not forgetting that intelligence information has a shelf life, either.

So those people left are those who have been actively fighting the armed forces of the United States in what the President himself has called a war, and I very much doubt that any of them were wearing an identifiable uniform. So they are either murderers or conspirators to it, or enemy belligerents out of uniform, and the legally allowed, and appropriate, solution to either is obvious.

Kill them all. I would go a little further, and say that disposal of the remains ought to involve bacon fat and a garbage dump, and be advertised as such, with a comment that any further dead Islamic terrorists in Allied hands will be treated similarly.

One way of using their 1300-year-old Dark Ages superstition against them.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at April 15, 2007 05:55 AM

My only fear for a "Department of Peace" is that it will become the "Department of Appeasement."

Posted by Mac at April 15, 2007 06:52 AM

"Department of Appeasment" seems just about right. Going with the Orwell theme we can add "Department of Love" the purpose of which will be destroying the careers of people who dare to say politically incorrect things.

Posted by MarkWhittington at April 15, 2007 07:02 AM

I always thought that the Department of Peace was Strategic Air Command. After all, it is their profession.

Posted by Adrasteia at April 15, 2007 07:18 AM

If you want to refer to Orwell's 1984, then refer to Orwell's 1984. Orwell's Ministry of Peace was the military of Oceania. It railed against foreign threats to keep the public in a perpetual state of fear and hatred, and the nation in a perpetual state of war. It also chronically declared victory without credibility.

Draw your own lessons for the state of the world today.

Posted by at April 15, 2007 07:24 AM

No afterlife, no virgins. That stopped the fighting.

This is not the first time that the U.S. Army has had to deal with this type of insurgency.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at April 15, 2007 01:16 AM

Dennis.

History on all fronts is something you know little about.

this continues that tradition.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 15, 2007 08:34 AM

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 15, 2007 12:07 AM

Brian.

reason is a process.

It is not a "taste" for anything.

After that misconception your logic flounders..

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 15, 2007 08:37 AM

"Mike, how long are you going to repeat this Baghdad Bob mantra? What you're saying was discredited shortly after Abu Ghraib broke, upwards of three years ago, and I showed that to you in several posts after which you simply stopped responding. Now here you are, acting like you didn't hear a word of it, and robotically repeating the same discredited claims."

And you keep sheepishly denying my point and my point obviously to everyone else stands. Even if you are right about gitmo and grhab-ass(you aren't), it still stands. You are trying to compare a paper nick to an amputation. Shades of grey and all that libtard stuff you know.

I guess you just won't learn how to swim.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 15, 2007 09:14 AM

It may be the first time they created it.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 15, 2007 01:52 AM

You and Wingo should go off and start a military history "chair"...

The Klan was an insurgency, the Mauros were an insurgency...all that bad policy by the US government created or more approrpriatly allowed to be created. I could go on.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 15, 2007 01:14 PM

Peace through strength equals hegemony? Holy leapin' logicals, Batman!

Posted by D Anghelone at April 15, 2007 01:43 PM

It depends on what you mean by "strength". Peace through hegemony does equal hegemony. That's just so.

Posted by at April 15, 2007 01:46 PM

Peace through hegemony does equal hegemony.

No, it equals peace. Hegemony, as you state it, would be the method.

In any case, an assumption of hegemony is not logic but partisonship. And Swiderski's purple passion prose is not argument but screed.

Posted by D Anghelone at April 15, 2007 02:25 PM

In any case, an assumption of hegemony is not logic but partisonship.

Yes it is partisanship, but it's nationalist Republican partisanship, not an artificial liberal trope. Here is how John Bolton put it:

There is no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that’s the United States, when it suits our interests, and when we can get others to go along.

There you have it: We're the only real power left in the world. That is exactly the vision of peace through American hegemony.

Posted by at April 15, 2007 03:20 PM

Yes it is partisanship, but it's nationalist Republican partisanship...

Swiderski is a Republican partisan? Or this exists only with a Republican in the White House? What are you saying?

...and when we can get others to go along.

Hegemony just ain't what it used to be.

Posted by D Anghelone at April 15, 2007 03:34 PM

Fletcher: "By now, the question of whether any particular individual is a jihadist or not has been settled"

It's not settled until they're convicted in a court of law, whether civilian or military, which is now improbable because information provided under torture is both inadmissable and unreliable. And since the regime saw fit to torture even those not suspected of any crime who volunteered to give them information, there isn't much untainted evidence left.

"and any information we were ever going to get has been got"

Torture causes amnesia, and also makes victims open to false-memory suggestion by interrogators. While it is likely that most are guilty, even legal interrogations can convince suggestible people of things that never happened, up to and including acts they never committed. I wouldn't rely on such "information" to make a car purchase, let alone decide someone's fate.

"So those people left are those who have been actively fighting the armed forces of the United States in what the President himself has called a war"

Testimony of US personnel and other untampered witnesses would be admissable.

"and I very much doubt that any of them were wearing an identifiable uniform."

That's true, making them subject to either UCMJ trial for unlawful combat or Afghan trial for treason. It does not, however, make them subject to indefinite detention without trial by the US Executive branch; only POWs may be held "for the duration," while war criminals must be tried.

"So they are either murderers or conspirators to it, or enemy belligerents out of uniform, and the legally allowed, and appropriate, solution to either is obvious."

Indeed, trial in a court of law.

"Kill them all."

There may have been a (highly dubious) argument for that if they'd been summarily executed on the battlefield, but what you're suggesting is cold-blooded murder.

"I would go a little further, and say that disposal of the remains ought to involve bacon fat and a garbage dump, and be advertised as such..."

We gave Nazi death camp commanders human rights, lawyers, fair trials, dignified executions, and standard burials, and all it did was reaffirm OUR worth as a nation.

"One way of using their 1300-year-old Dark Ages superstition against them."

A superstition held by guilty and innocent alike.

Robert: "[Reason] is not a "taste" for anything."

Yes, it is. Do you think passionate, emotional people don't know that 1 + 1 = 2? They know, but it's less relevant to them than personal context, so reason flourishes only when an individual or culture finds pleasure in it.

Mike: "And you keep sheepishly denying my point"

What point, Mike? You're saying the Earth is flat and repeating a White House talking point discredited shortly after it was spoken. Donald Rumsfeld openly permitted torture, Gonzales wrote memos attempting to call it legal, and the White House firmly insisted the Taguba investigation not question the CIA or DoD employees who directed interrogations at the facility.

I bring up the ICRC reports, the injured prisoners hidden from their inspectors, Gitmo, the other facilities, water boarding, murder, stress positions, beatings, threats against families, the claim that prohibitions on torture don't apply to prisoners, on and on, and your response is "screw that, it was a few bad apples." Like some kind of Chuck E. Cheese animatronic in the White House Press Office lobby.

"You are trying to compare a paper nick to an amputation."

Oh, I see. Strangling, waterboarding, kicking, beating, chaining in breathing-restricted positions, choking with soaked rags, sicking attack dogs, sodomy with flashlights, terrorist threats against themselves and family, sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and denial of any form of contact with the outside world, all for years on end, is NOT torture, despite the fact that US and international law say it is, and the fact that you would if you or anyone you cared about were subjected to it.

D Anghelone: "Peace through strength equals hegemony?"

Who said anything about strength? The original comment was "peace through superior firepower." The existence of peace depends on the ability to tell the difference.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 15, 2007 03:47 PM

If you have a better idea, maybe you ought to mention it.

I believe the alternative is 'peace through wishful thinking'.

Truth of the matter is, the forces of chaos are kept in check by lethal force and the believable threat of its use, and nothing else has ever worked.

Posted by Paul Dietz at April 15, 2007 04:00 PM

Truth of the matter is, the forces of chaos are kept in check by lethal force and the believable threat of its use, and nothing else has ever worked.

I can't call that wrong, but it is not the whole truth. Yes, you have to have a credible threat of force to have peace. But that by itself is not enough. You also have to use diplomacy and money for any such threat to have a positive outcome or even to protect credibility.

There was a commenter here who said that when you use carrots and sticks in the Middle East, only the sticks matter. That is exactly the White House approach of the past 6 years, and it is exactly why they failed. You can see it play out in Iraq. Even though they not only threaten force but also use force, their credibility dies by degrees.

Posted by at April 15, 2007 04:11 PM

Who said anything about strength? The original comment was "peace through superior firepower." The existence of peace depends on the ability to tell the difference.

No, that was not the original comment. And I wasn't replying to Paul Dietz.

Let's see...in military terms, strength is not equivalent to superior firepower? No, but the latter sure helps with the former.

Posted by D Anghelone at April 15, 2007 04:18 PM

> nations aren't going to tolerate being ordered around forever just because we presently have more money and bigger guns.

Ah yes, the old "countries will not behave in accordance with their perceived best interests if you're mean/nice to them" theory. Note that there's never any examples of the theory in action, even though there are plenty of times when it should have applied. Instead, all we see are predictions.

The theory wasn't true in the past. Why will it be true in the future?

If we're not the big dog, they're not going to treat us as the big dog, no matter what we do when we're the big dog.

Posted by Andy Freeman at April 15, 2007 09:16 PM

The Klan was an insurgency, composed by former Confederate army personnel, like Gen. Nathan
Bedford Forrest; not unlike Izzat Ibrahim Al
Durri, the Baathist head of the insurgency.
They included irregular fighters ; the Quantrill
squada; not unlike the Fedayeen Saddamm. They were
supported in their efforts by the leading
political and financial power brokers of the region (Like Gulf states, Baathists redoubts,
Iran, etc). Their goal was the restoration of
'honest government' as opposed to the carpet
bagger and native collaborators in the 'occupation
army. Which supported the Reconstruction elements:
ironic that the Sunni are the minority, the reverse of the situation in Iraq. Of course, after the terror campaign of 1876, created
the election crisis, that prompted the removal
of occupation forces, the Bourbon reformers,non unlike theBaathist officials, and jihadi fighters, we see today.

The situation in the Phillipines, has some similarities and differences with the present
situation. The Phillipines could be argued was
an unneccessary war; as opposed to the Cuba campaign; complete with a "Mission Accomplished"
moment on San Juan Hill. Of course, one could argue, whether The Maine was a trumpted up causus
belli. Interestingly enough, Bryan, the leading Presidential candidate for a generation;did not go against the Phillipine Treaty. He was against it, before he was for it? It was fought with a
mostly volunteer force. The campaign led by Rizal and Aguinaldo, had noble goals, but it rapidly devolved into the more brutal insurgency, that made it part of the Small Wars Manual. The
aggresive response and subsequent stagnation, did
drive Gen. Bell, associated with the Abu Ghraib
type incidents, to rise to Army Chief of Staff.
The Pershing incident, occurs in the last moments
of the wars, against the jihadis of the day, on the Island of Zamboanga, where there is still an
aggressive counterinsurgency campaign being waged
against Abu Sayyaf (read March's Mark Bowden piece
in the Atlantic)

Posted by narciso at April 15, 2007 09:23 PM

My question is, if we take away interrogation then whats next?

I can just see how Brian would handle it:
*Calls bad guy up on phone*
"Sorry to inconvenience you, if I could, uh, just please have a minute of your time - Thanks. I was wondering if you could please tell us the information we need to know about the nuclear weapons. If not then I will think poorly of you and write negative comments about you on the internet. In fact I'm already quite sad just thinking about this unpleasant subject.....No comment; uh okay, well you've forced me to declare a formal protest and you should expect to get some really nasty and brutish correspondence by mail. For quality purposes how would you rate this interrogation - Very Good, Good, Indifferent, Needs Improvement. Thank you for your response, We constantly strive to improve our law enforcement interactions and hope you continue to enjoy your interrogations in the future. Thank you have a nice day!"

BTW, I want a Department of Ice Cream. Heaping handfuls of ice cream for all!!!

Posted by Josh Reiter at April 15, 2007 10:25 PM

Because we all know ice cream, like wealth, and peace occurs naturally and only needs to be fairly distributed.

Posted by Aaron at April 16, 2007 06:01 AM

Karl: "If you have a better idea, maybe you ought to mention it."

I did mention it, earlier in the discussion.

Brian, you basically say it'd be nice if we had an organization (say like the UN and its many directorates or all those NGOs) that pursued nonviolent means of promoting peace in the world. Fine, but that's a tool not a structure for obtaining global peace.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 16, 2007 09:08 AM

D Anghelone: "in military terms, strength is not equivalent to superior firepower?"

No, even in purely military terms. But we're discussing strength in a broader context.

Andy: "Ah yes, the old "countries will not behave "in accordance with their perceived best interests if you're mean/nice to them" theory."

No, just the old "morality and reason are good leadership qualities" theory.

Andy: "If we're not the big dog, they're not going to treat us as the big dog, no matter what we do when we're the big dog."

And this kind of "thinking" is why you don't put Texans in the White House.

Josh: "My question is, if we take away interrogation then whats next?"

Your actual question is, how idiotic and delusional can a torture advocate become without losing the ability to type?

Josh: "BTW, I want a Department of Ice Cream."

Since merely denying your request would be too touchy-feely, and might encourage terrorists, please wait for Bush regime personnel to come smash your kneecaps with hammers. The charge for their services only comes to $599.95 per minute, and comes with a $5 discount on genital electrocution. Agents will sing the Star Spangled Banner during your "patriotism correction session" at no extra charge.

Karl: "Brian, you basically say it'd be nice if we had an organization (say like the UN and its many directorates or all those NGOs) that pursued nonviolent means of promoting peace in the world."

What I suggested was far more comprehensive than any NGO, and would have a very different mission than the UN. The purpose of the UN, like the State Department that interacts with it, is diplomatic--the abstraction of conflict and petty national intrigues into less violent means. But peace is not the absence of war, it is a state of creative interaction and mutual growth. I explained all this.

Yes, the UN and the State Department both have sub-bodies that do something like this on a very small, powerless, and virtually unfunded level. But meanwhile, the Pentagram has a budget that would make Hermann Goering have an orgasm in his grave, and both it and all of its vast army of contractors and their investors busily work to guarantee that conflicts flourish so the gravy train can keep on rolling. There is no significant rival to their power in the US government.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 17, 2007 04:13 AM

But we're discussing strength in a broader context.

Own the context, own the argument. And you believe you do.

The ever "broadening" of a discussion is nothing but a road to meaninglessness.

Posted by D Anghelone at April 17, 2007 08:13 AM

Post a comment