Are war critics helping the enemy?

[headscratcher4]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060111...kV8J2.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

Once again, the President has made a speech defending his Iraq policy. Once again he has implied – in spite of the requisite words that debate is a healthy thing in a democratic society – that criticism helps the enemy. In this case, of course, he means Democratic criticism helps the enemy. Of course, it is suggested that such criticisms is a partisan activity where we should be non-partisan – by implication like Bush – when it comes to the defense of this country.

Now, getting away for the moment of how Bush and partisan Republicans use the war for partisan purposes (in short, the war is non-partisan until it isn’t – and you can bet that if the war were still popular there would be more partisan crowing to counter democrat harping), here is the question:

Does criticism, in a non-declared war, help the enemy?

What is legitimate criticism? Who gets to decide?

Beyond free speech being at the core of our liberties, isn’t criticisms necessary to insure that policies make sense? Even partisan criticism?

If partisan criticism has resonance, doesn’t it suggest that the Administrations explanations and counter arguments are weak, ineffective or even sur-real?

Personally, I feel patriotic when I criticize. Is that not the essence of my civic responsibility – to not only speak my mind but act, politically, on those beliefs?
Question, for Democrats, would (and have) likely reverse the argument if they were in charge…as happens with foreign policy. So, generally, isn’t criticism necessary to the safety of the Republic? Without criticisms – very public criticisms, how can bad policy be made good, and correct policy better?

Deeper still, I like many others on these boards, have criticzed the war and Bush...do you who defend the war think that descussions like these aid the "enemy"? Do you think I am unpatriotic as opposed to being wrong?

If it helps the enemy, should I and others be silenced? If you silence me, where do you stop?

 

[Mark]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060111...kV8J2.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

Once again, the President has made a speech defending his Iraq policy. Once again he has implied – in spite of the requisite words that debate is a healthy thing in a democratic society – that criticism helps the enemy. In this case, of course, he means Democratic criticism helps the enemy. Of course, it is suggested that such criticisms is a partisan activity where we should be non-partisan – by implication like Bush – when it comes to the defense of this country.

Now, getting away for the moment of how Bush and partisan Republicans use the war for partisan purposes (in short, the war is non-partisan until it isn’t – and you can bet that if the war were still popular there would be more partisan crowing to counter democrat harping), here is the question:

Does criticism, in a non-declared war, help the enemy?

What is legitimate criticism? Who gets to decide?

Beyond free speech being at the core of our liberties, isn’t criticisms necessary to insure that policies make sense? Even partisan criticism?

If partisan criticism has resonance, doesn’t it suggest that the Administrations explanations and counter arguments are weak, ineffective or even sur-real?

Personally, I feel patriotic when I criticize. Is that not the essence of my civic responsibility – to not only speak my mind but act, politically, on those beliefs?
Question, for Democrats, would (and have) likely reverse the argument if they were in charge…as happens with foreign policy. So, generally, isn’t criticism necessary to the safety of the Republic? Without criticisms – very public criticisms, how can bad policy be made good, and correct policy better?

Deeper still, I like many others on these boards, have criticzed the war and Bush...do you who defend the war think that descussions like these aid the "enemy"? Do you think I am unpatriotic as opposed to being wrong?

If it helps the enemy, should I and others be silenced? If you silence me, where do you stop?

Well, you know we would have won in Viet Nam if it weren't for those pesky war protestors.

The fact that a foreign power can almost never invade and then hold a country---once the indigenous population has risen up against them---has nothing to do with it. Ask England about India. Or France about Viet Nam for that matter.

And before anyone trots out that tired, lame b.s., no, I am NOT calling the Iraqi terrorists/insurgents "freedom fighters."

 

[Lurker]

Well, you know we would have won in Viet Nam if it weren't for those pesky war protestors.

The fact that a foreign power can almost never invade and then hold a country---once the indigenous population has risen up against them---has nothing to do with it. Ask England about India. Or France about Viet Nam for that matter.

????

Where are the American Indians today? Aztecs? Incas? Didn't the Normans invade France and take it over? Our whole history is comprised of countries invading other countries and consuming them. I'd say your premise is questionable.

Lurker

 

[headscratcher4]

Mark, as you know, we often agree on this topic. So, the question to you is: is there any limit to criticism?

While I would agree that criticim followed the failure of our policy in Vietnam, it arguably did give comfort to the North...should that matter?

Take the current war out of it, when are critics no longer using free speech but calling fire in a theater?

Personally, it is hard to see where it ever is wrong...that politicians persuing the right policies need never fear critics...is that so?

 

[Mark]

????

Where are the American Indians today? Aztecs? Incas? Didn't the Normans invade France and take it over? Our whole history is comprised of countries invading other countries and consuming them. I'd say your premise is questionable.

Lurker

We are talking about 2 different things: surely a people can invade an hold a country when they stay permanently and make it their new native land. But that is not what we are talking about.

Or are you suggesting that we intend to stay and start emmigrating to Iraq?

 

[aerocontrols]

Does criticism, in a non-declared war, help the enemy?

Of course it can, and often does. Whether the war is declared or not is irrelevant, isn't it?

What is legitimate criticism? Who gets to decide?

The voters get to decide what criticism is legit. They also get to decide who our enemy is.

Beyond free speech being at the core of our liberties, isn’t criticisms necessary to insure that policies make sense? Even partisan criticism?

The ability to criticize is necessary. As is the ability to criticize the critics. If a criticism aids the enemy, it's vital for supporters to be able to point that out.

If partisan criticism has resonance, doesn’t it suggest that the Administrations explanations and counter arguments are weak, ineffective or even sur-real?

Appeal to popularity fallacy.

Personally, I feel patriotic when I criticize. Is that not the essence of my civic responsibility – to not only speak my mind but act, politically, on those beliefs?

I don't agree with your implication that only criticism is the essence of your civic responsibility. The results of criticism or support must be weighed, good and bad. Certainly in every war there have been critiques one could make that do more harm than good. For instance, the first Bush administration lied about how effective the Patriot missile was in knocking out scuds. People who knew could have made that argument during the war in an effort to end the war (we obviously weren't prepared and able to protect our Israeli and Arab allies) or they could choose to remain silent until after the war.

Question, for Democrats, would (and have) likely reverse the argument if they were in charge…as happens with foreign policy. So, generally, isn’t criticism necessary to the safety of the Republic? Without criticisms – very public criticisms, how can bad policy be made good, and correct policy better?

Deeper still, I like many others on these boards, have criticzed the war and Bush...do you who defend the war think that descussions like these aid the "enemy"? Do you think I am unpatriotic as opposed to being wrong?

They can aid the enemy. When I think you're being unpatriotic I will let you know.

If it helps the enemy, should I and others be silenced? If you silence me, where do you stop?

Of course not. Who has suggested any such thing?

 

[headscratcher4]

aerocontrols, thanks for responding. I have no real issue with your responses, nor has anyone (save an occasional wing-nut) accused me of being unpatriotic or that I be silenced.

Indeed, the level of respect for the discourse in these threads is really quite high.


In my inarticulate way, I am/was trying to get to a broader issue of free speech and if/when it should be limited.

You seem to say -- and I completely agree -- that if/when criticism helps the enemy, that it should be pointed out, especially when the criticsm is wrong.

Is that enough?

 

[Pauliesonne]

**** George W and his ******** war!!!

 

[DavidJames]

Mark, as you know, we often agree on this topic. So, the question to you is: is there any limit to criticism?

While I would agree that criticim followed the failure of our policy in Vietnam, it arguably did give comfort to the North...should that matter?

Take the current war out of it, when are critics no longer using free speech but calling fire in a theater?

Personally, it is hard to see where it ever is wrong...that politicians persuing the right policies need never fear critics...is that so?

If I was fighting a war and I saw my opponents squabbling over their participation, no doubt I would feel some level of comfort.

But, the flip side is squashing dissent, which means administrations can do whatever they want without any fear of backlash, except possibly at the next election.

Eliminating free and open debate about our governments actions is unacceptable in a democracy. Doing so furthers our enemy's attempts to influence our society and help them achieve their goals without raising a fist. They don't need to, our leaders are doing it for them.

 

[pgwenthold]

I heard something last week I think where one of the generals claimed that Murtha's opposition was "hurting moral of the troops" and therefore helping the enemy. He said, "It sends the wrong message."

If opposing the war sends the wrong message, then I guess the "right message" must be to support the war, eh? That's a nice situation. Everyone must support every war we are in, regardless of whether we support being in that war or not.

 

[Beth]

Does criticising the war aid/comfort the enemy? Yes, I think it probably does. Personally, I think that's one reason it's important to make sure your population supports the war prior to entering into it. You can't expect to have a war without enduring some criticism for it. If the war is broadly supported, critics will mutter and grumble, but there won't be enough of them for the criticism to have an impact on the fighting. If the critics are numerous and loud enough to have an impact on the outcome, that fact should have been taken into consideration before going into the war, not used to justify attempts to silence dissent.

 

[aerocontrols]

aerocontrols, thanks for responding. I have no real issue with your responses, nor has anyone (save an occasional wing-nut) accused me of being unpatriotic or that I be silenced.

Indeed, the level of respect for the discourse in these threads is really quite high.


In my inarticulate way, I am/was trying to get to a broader issue of free speech and if/when it should be limited.

You seem to say -- and I completely agree -- that if/when criticism helps the enemy, that it should be pointed out, especially when the criticsm is wrong.

Is that enough?

I think if criticism helps the enemy, it should be pointed out, and I'm not sure it matters whether the criticism is wrong. I thought my Patriot missile example would make that clear. Exposing the inadequacy of the Patriot missiles would surely have been a correct criticism.

Here's another example where critics could have 'correctly' criticized, but wisely chose not to.

http://www.30thinfantry.org/exercise-tiger.shtml

 

[Dan Beaird]

The right of free speech is specifically outlined in our constitution to protect political speech. If people cannot say whatever they want for political purposes then there is no real freedom of speech is there? Of course that works for both sides.

I feel the rhetoric on both sides has gone off the deep end on the war, making the war nothing more than a political point which will cause a party to gain or lose seats in the next election. Since there are people out there fighting and dying at the orders of our elected representatives then it is reprehensible for any responsible person to say things which make their mission more difficult or put them in danger but at the same time a law preventing such speech defeats the very principles that these men and women have sworn to protect.

So ultimately people can say whatever they want about whoever they want because brave men and women are willing to fight for their right to do so. In the end the worst thing that can happen to politicians and reporters is facing a family grieving for a loved one lost because of a stupid comment. In previous wars we said "Loose Lips Sink Ships"...nowadays it seems Loose Lips Win Seats.

 

[Upchurch]

????

Where are the American Indians today? Aztecs? Incas?

To be fair, drought, disease, and famine did these people in more than invading forces. It's hard to rise up against small pox when you don't even know what germs are.


eta: I highly recommend the book Guns, Germs, and Steel.

 

[Ryokan]

????

Didn't the Normans invade France and take it over?
Lurker

Not at all, the piece of land called Normandy was given to the Viking chief Rollo if he promised to stop raiding them. From Rollo came the Norman Dynasty.

Given as ransom in battle, yes. Invasion and taking over the country, no.

 

[Ziggurat]

Does criticism, in a non-declared war, help the enemy?

Let's take a step back from that question for a moment (because I think it's actually far too vague), and ask a slightly different one:

During a war, is it POSSIBLE to help the enemy by criticizing the war?

I think the answer is yes. Not everyone agrees with that, and if you do not, then there is little more to discuss. So I'll assume that you take the position that it is possible.

Now the question becomes, what kind of criticism does that, and does any of the current criticism of the war do that?

The answers here, of course, are much more difficult. But it is possible for some criticism to aid the enemy while other criticism is constructive. Where one draws the line is going to depend a lot of subjective evaluations.

But the fact that such a line could exist is hardly surprising (as long as you haven't discounted the possibility altogether). And since we do live in a democracy, and the solution to bad speech is not censorship but more speech. If enemy-friendly speech is occuring then criticizing that speech is the appropriate response - it is more speech used to address the problem of bad speech, it is not censorship at all. So I don't see why you bring up the question of being silenced, because I don't see that as an issue here at all.

So now we arrive at the question of, does such enemy-friendly speech exist? And is the President correctly characterizing what criticism is enemy-friendly and what criticism is not? Those are the real questions I think you need to focus on. My opinion is that such speech does exist, and that I do not trust the AP to correctly characterize where Bush really drew the line between legitimate criticism and enemy-comforting criticism. If you want to attack Bush, I think you either need to show that such criticism doesn't exist (a hard task for a number of reasons) or that he drew the line in the wrong place. I don't see that in your argument yet. You seem to be treating this as an absolute categorization of all criticism as aiding the enemy, but that's just not the position Bush has taken.

 

[Manny]

Just as an aside, the Iraq was was declared as much as any war has been since World War II. Congress' force authorization acts as a declaration of war, just as their force authorization acted as a declaration of war in the first Gulf war, Viet Nam, Korea, etc. etc. etc. And it's not like we sneaked up and attacked Iraq, either; they knew exactly what was coming.

 

[shecky]

I help the enemy every time I speak.

 

[bob_kark]

I think we may be asking the wrong question. I don't believe we will be able to conclusively prove that criticism of the war does or does not aid the enemy. However, I believe that it is at least possible if not probable that it does. The real question as I see it is can criticising the war be justified even if it aids the enemy?

I believe that it is justified. Criticizing the war is not only covered by the 1st amendment, it strengthens the country by keeping the system of checks and balances in place. In addition, I doubt troop morale in Iraq would be too high when the troops learn that their country has weakened their right of free speech by intimidation and guilt. Of course, I'm not a soldier, so what do I know?

 

[Beerina]

Once again, the President has made a speech defending his Iraq policy. Once again he has implied – in spite of the requisite words that debate is a healthy thing in a democratic society – that criticism helps the enemy. In this case, of course, he means Democratic criticism helps the enemy. Of course, it is suggested that such criticisms is a partisan activity where we should be non-partisan – by implication like Bush – when it comes to the defense of this country.

...

If it helps the enemy, should I and others be silenced? If you silence me, where do you stop?

They're both right -- the Democrats are right to criticize, and the President is right that this helps the enemy. Of course the knowledge the country might get out prompts the enemy to entrench harder. Of course it does, and we shouldn't pretend it doesn't.

So, although you have freedom of speech, with it comes the responsibility to know that, if you open your mouth, you may be making it difficult over there as those opposed to the US are looking for any help they can get, and dissention over here leading to political pressure to pull out prematurely is indeed help. Entrench and wait. Wouldn't you?