Ed Showing disrespect for her own son?

[quixotecoyote]

No, he said he would bribe MPs. MPs are Military Police. If he had meant politicians, he should have said so.

Umm, isn't JJ British?

MP's are Members of Parliament.

Politicians.

^----- What he said.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

So defeating and removing murderous tyrants is one of the things you don't think soldiers should be doing. Fine. Some of us are glad that it was done, however.....and do you really think it was just about someone's personal gain?

If that was really what we went to Iraq for, why the need to lie? I have no real problem deposing tyrants...however, tell me that's why we're going. Don't try to wrap it up in false pretenses just so that you'll be sure to have support.

Nice poisoning the well effort though

 

[Wudang]

It's an old story http://www.shakespeare-literature.com/Henry_V/18.html.

I would suggest though that most soldiers assume that, when they are deployed as they have agreed to be, that they are deployed for a good purpose. Not, to pluck a wild example, because their PM has decided that he will have a close relation with the US president come hell or high water. See for example John Kampfner's "Blair's Wars".

 

[Sabrina]

^----- What he said.

drkitten made the analogy, not JJ.

ETA: However, if that IS in fact what drkitten meant, I retract that part of my statement. It's just that I'm American, and when I see an abbreviation, I typically associate with something I'm familiar with. I was not aware that MP's in Britain meant Members of Parliament because I've never heard that before. Logical mistake on my part.

 

[ddt]

Here's a clue. I was stating that it does not matter if the war is just or not that it is STILL an overreaction when soldiers die to start calling it a shocking tragedy.

I'm with you there. We (Holland) have some soldiers in Afghanistan, and I'm surprised at the reactions each time one gets KIA. Getting killed is a job hazard.

I wasn't stating that Tony and George can ride off into the sunset free of any guilt, but that guess what? Soldiers die in wars, and complaining about it is monumentally stupid.

However, I'm firmly with drkitten that it is fully proper to complain about a solider's death if it's in the wrong war. The fact that death is a job hazard as a soldier does not mean it has to be here and now. Just like the coal mine owner who willfully neglects mandated safety measures and thereby causes deaths among his employees, the US/UK administrations are responsible for the deaths of their soldiers and should account for that.

I'm no lawyer, but I think the case is really simple that the Iraq war was illegal. Both Tony and George knowingly lied to their respective parliaments, who OK'd their war plans. The same holds for Jan-Peter, who withheld from Dutch Parliament that the Dutch intelligence service called bollocks on the British sexed-up reports about Iraq. So, as the parliamentary OK was for a war against an Iraq-with-WMD, and the executive knew Iraq didn't have WMD, the war was illegal. Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

And then we don't even have to consider the "crime against peace" doctrine from the Briand-Kellog pact and the Nuremberg principles.

 

[Fnord]

Nobody objected to me going into a warzone...

 

[Darth Rotor]

Nobody objected to me going into a warzone...

Nor me. Hell, I didn't object either.

*frowns in puzzlement*

Should I now condemn my parents for not screaming at the top of their lungs, at our elected representatives, for me being sent off to a war zone? Oh my Lord, they didn't cry and moan and rend their garments in public! There was no public keening!

How can they hate me so?

Oh, wait, they raised me, maybe they wrote a few letters trying to rectify that night of wild passion, and its aftermath ...

 

[Fnord]

Should I now condemn my parents for not screaming at the top of their lungs, at our elected representatives, for me being sent off to a war zone? Oh my Lord, they didn't cry and moan and rend their garments in public! There was no public keening! How can they hate me so?

Yeah ... whining about it is ridiculous ... but golly, Wally ... I'd feel a helluva a lot better about having been there and come back with a disability if someone had said, "Please, don't go" or at least, "Be careful" before I'd left.

Ah, well ... at least there's Veterans' Day, when everybody takes a day off to treat us vets to all the free drinks and gratituous sex we can handle.

 

[Sabrina]

Yeah ... whining about it is ridiculous ... but golly, Wally ... I'd feel a helluva a lot better about having been there and come back with a disability if someone had said, "Please, don't go" or at least, "Be careful" before I'd left.

Ah, well ... at least there's Veterans' Day, when everybody takes a day off to treat us vets to all the free drinks and gratituous sex we can handle.

We get gratuitous sex now?

Hell, where was I when this was decided, durnitall? *pouts*

 

[JihadJane]

Nor me. Hell, I didn't object either.

*frowns in puzzlement*

Should I now condemn my parents for not screaming at the top of their lungs, at our elected representatives, for me being sent off to a war zone? Oh my Lord, they didn't cry and moan and rend their garments in public! There was no public keening!

How can they hate me so?

Oh, wait, they raised me, maybe they wrote a few letters trying to rectify that night of wild passion, and its aftermath ...

Being sent off to a war zone isn't the issue. It's being sent to fight in an aggressive war launched and sustained with lies and deception.

 

[Fnord]

Being sent off to a war zone isn't the issue. It's being sent to fight in an aggressive war launched and sustained with lies and deception.

... and then coming back to a country wherein your fellow citizens scorn you for having gone in the first place.



"Gentle people sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell (quoted from memory)

 

[Darth Rotor]

Being sent off to a war zone isn't the issue. It's being sent to fight in an aggressive war launched and sustained with lies and deception.

I understand your position, and that you feel it more justified to object to one war than another. Part of the deal in modern democratic societies, where we have a thing called civilian control of the military, is the fundamental contract: I agree to go out and risk killing and being killed, I trust you to make sure you use sound judgment in deciding when and where to expend our blood and treasure. As soon as you trust another human being, in any way, you are at risk. Being sent to war always has the potential to result in the soldier and the sailor polishing a policy turd with hot lead is flying. Nothing new under the sun. Not sure how it works in the UK, but it sure seems to me that a lot of Congress was asleep at the wheel a few years back. The check didn't balance.

Gratuitous whinging has always made me react with contempt. Given her son's risk decision, she's dissing him. I do not for a minute begrudge her her grief. Losing a child is pain, pain, pain ... no matter when or where it happens.

As a thought exercise, can you name a war not sustained and waged by use of deception?

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

We get gratuitous sex now?

Hell, where was I when this was decided, durnitall? *pouts*

Were you going to vote against?

*note to self*
Should we invite Sabrina to the next meeting/voting enclave? Depends on her answer.

DR

 

[Sabrina]

Were you going to vote against?

*note to self*
Should we invite Sabrina to the next meeting/voting enclave? Depends on her answer.

DR

Dude, are you serious?

So long as it's protected sex, count me in!

 

[drkitten]

As a thought exercise, can you name a war not sustained and waged by use of deception?

That's almost a deceptive question yourself.

Of course deception is necessary in waging a war -- we're not going to tell them where we parked the battleships -- but generally the deception is not aimed at the politicians who make the decision to go to war in the first place.

The Second World War, or at least, the American involvement in it, was fairly straightforward and involved no deception. "They bombed us, the sneaky little devils, now let's go kick their little yellow butts." And indeed, there wasn't a lot of information that was withheld from Congress except for operational details. Marshall made a point of keeping Congress in the loop even during the '44 presidential election.

The First was much more problematic, and,.... just like Iraq, ended up biting the militarists in the butt. "The Myth of the Great War," while having enough other problems of its own, tells a very good tale about how the French GHQ systematically misled the French government to keep them from being able to learn how badly the first stages of the war were going, and how this ended up keeping the French from being able to deploy useful weapons and tactics in the middle stages. (Why did they need to, when the Generals kept insisting that the old ones had worked perfectly well?)

The checks-and-balances system, where you tell the policitians and the media as much of the truth as you can, actually works better in the long run than a series of systematic lies to support the policy of the day. Because if your policies are actually working and you tell the truth about it, people can confirm it for themselves. If your policies aren't working, and you lie about it, then not only are you losing credibility when other reports crop up, but you're also trapped in a non-working policy and you've lost the good will and best efforts of the very people who might be able to devise a better policy for you.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Dude, are you serious?

So long as it's protected sex, count me in!

You are on the attendees list, of course.

 

[Darth Rotor]

That's almost a deceptive question yourself.

Deceptive? No. But I did choose each word deliberately.

Of course deception is necessary in waging a war -- we're not going to tell them where we parked the battleships -- but generally the deception is not aimed at the politicians who make the decision to go to war in the first place.

We will differ here. Any Senator or Congressman, Republican or Democrat, who claimed that "they lied to me" as the excuse for the failed oversight role, the failed to get off the old duff and ask the hard questions and get serious about blood and treasure risks and expenditures ... ya know, do actual oversight in prep for that critical vote in 2002, gets ZERO sympathy from me. A raspberry is more likely. That W and his executive branch group had already convinced themselves of the necessity to go to war was, how shall we say this -- obvious. The checks and balances failed due to two things as I see it:

1. Laziness on the part of Congress, both houses, somewhat induced by moral fear of possible "not looking good" if one objected to the Iraq war. A bit of moral cowardice and self centeredness, in action, two parties, though I offer a bit more blame to GOP due to weight of numbers.
2. Among the GOP, no small amount of arm twisting and threats/loyalty checks, internal, of consequences for not going along. No such leverage was wieldable against the Dems.

The Second World War, or at least, the American involvement in it, was fairly straightforward and involved no deception.

Riiiiight. Lend Lease wasn't a shell game, a bit of the old sleight of hand. Come on.

FDR's internal opposition to WW II involvement was non trivial. (FWIW, I recently read the account of Rhoald Dahl and Ian Fleming in DC in re US/UK involvement and such -- The Irregulars. A most excellent narrative of the inside game, some of which involved the propaganda campaign directed at the US public).

"They bombed us, the sneaky little devils, now let's go kick their little yellow butts."

Aye, that does not explain the Europe First strat the US undertook, does it? (What genius bribed Hitler into declaring war on the US, I wonder, in Dec of 41?)
Admiral King was rather blunt in his objections to that Europe First strategy.

And indeed, there wasn't a lot of information that was withheld from Congress except for operational details.

???

Marshall made a point of keeping Congress in the loop even during the '44 presidential election.

OK, I see what you mean.

The First was much more problematic, and,.... just like Iran, ended up biting the militarists in the butt.

Iran? Are your referring to the Iran/Iraq war of the 80's here?

"The Myth of the Great War," while having enough other problems of its own, tells a very good tale about how the French GHQ systematically mislead the French government to keep them from being able to learn how badly the first stages of the war were going, and how this ended up keeping the French from being able to deploy useful weapons and tactics in the middle stages. (Why did they need to, when the Generals kept insisting that the old ones had worked perfectly well?)

See also Admiral Lockwood's fights agianst Bureau of Ordnance, and US torpedoes, WW II, Pacific fleet, and duds clanging off of Japanese hulls.

The checks-and-balances system, where you tell the policitians and the media as much of the truth as you can, actually works better in the long run than a series of systematic lies to support the policy of the day.

I agree, and do not feel that Senate and Congress ought to sit complacent and demand "feed me," but get off the old backside and get to work. Be pushy. Ya know, do their damned jobs. See JFK, Profiles in Courage, for my perceptual baseline here.

Because if your policies are actually working and you tell the truth about it, people can confirm it for themselves. If your policies aren't working, and you lie about it, then not only are you losing credibility when other reports crop up, but you're also trapped in a non-working policy and you've lost the good will and best efforts of the very people who might be able to devise a better policy for you.

Don't disagree with you. But I disagree with what is (I think) implied on what portion of that ought to be public arena, once war is undertaken, and what isn't. Even in the run up to war, in this information age, one must be mindful of how to use deception strategically to get the edge on one's opponents, and prospective opponents, my empahsis being abroad. Play in continuous, in politics, of which war is a mere subset.

Can Congress apply OPSEC? I don't know. The evidence is mixed. Some in that body can, some can't. I know for damned sure that the Executive Branch, at the suit level, is horrible at it.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm no lawyer, but I think the case is really simple that the Iraq war was illegal.

Good thing you don't make your living at the law.

 

[drkitten]

Don't disagree with you. But I disagree with what is (I think) implied on what portion of that ought to be public arena, once war is undertaken, and what isn't. Even in the run up to war, in this information age, one must be mindful of how to use deception strategically to get the edge on one's opponents, and prospective opponents, my empahsis being abroad. Play in continuous, in politics, of which war is a mere subset.

But there's a difference between making information merely "not public" and active deception. And there's a similar difference between making information "public" and making classified information available to people not only have the appropriate classification but have an active need to know the information in order to do their jobs.

I already cited the First World War example, where the French government was literally not told what areas were German-held or not. For example, IIRC, the Vauquois ridge was taken by the Germans in September 1914 and not recaptured until 1917, but the French government was told that it had been recaptured in December. This caused problems during the battle for Verdun, because that ridge controlled the major rail line and therefore supply line for Verdun, problems that could have been averted if the government had been able to put better supply infrastructure into the other areas near Verdun. Similarly, when the ridge was finally recaptured in 1917, this relieved a tremendous amount of pressure on Verdun, but the government wasn't able to use this success for propaganda purposes (and that at the height of the 1917 mutiny) precisely because it's no big deal to capture something that you've been telling people they've already had for three years.

But isn't that more or less what happened with the Iraq-has-WMD claim? The executive branch lied to Congress about the situation, and as a result, Congress shifted funding priorities to pour more resources into Iraq and less into Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we're reaping the effect of those misplaced priorities now.

Can Congress apply OPSEC?

Doesn't really matter. Congress doesn't need to know operational details, but they do need to know strategic ones. The Executive Branch didn't need to say that Iraq had WMD. They didn't need to say that they didn't, either. (Indeed, I would think that the Iraqi government would know whether or not they had WMD without our telling them, so I'm not sure who we would be keeping the weapons a secret from....) Indeed, it's not even clear (in hindsight) that we needed to be in Iraq at all.

But that, of course, is the point. If they had just pressed for authorization to use force against Iraq without deliberately lying about the WMD and the Al Qaeda tie-in, Congress might have balked (as you point out, that was their job). But the Bush administration deliberately deceived their own Congress in order to get authorization without proper oversight, and reaped the expected whirlwind.

 

[Darth Rotor]

But that, of course, is the point. If they had just pressed for authorization to use force against Iraq without deliberately lying about the WMD and the Al Qaeda tie-in, Congress might have balked (as you point out, that was their job). But the Bush administration deliberately deceived their own Congress in order to get authorization without proper oversight, and reaped the expected whirlwind.

A good case can be made to support your summary here, and that leaves me where I was: Congress was asleep at the wheel. What do you think might have helped our generic Congressman, our generic Senator? Perhaps a little of Ron Paul's skepticism,(actually in his case, contrarianism).

What a concept.

I have about three points that I will not bother with, as derail city is about to happen.

However, WMD isn't as black and white as you wish to pretend. Remember, his programs remained in place, albeit moribund and in disarray. Saddam his own self admitted to that during post capture interviews. (The temporal proximity of the threat found versus sold obviously did not match).

That confession by Saddam doesn't change the Executive's attitude of necessity. It only changes arguments over the purity of jistification. We've seen enough band width wasted on that already that I see little use in trying to drink the water from under that bridge yet again.

DR