SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Ahmadinejad At The Lebanese-Israeli Border—Another Obama...

THE SPINE OCTOBER 15, 2010

Ahmadinejad At The Lebanese-Israeli Border—Another Obama Debacle

BY MARTIN PERETZ

Of course, it’s not only Obama’s debacle.

The debacle started when the world’s self-appointed enforcers of what they imagined as peace put the squeeze on Israel as it fought Hezbollah in the summer of 2006. It is true that the fighting was not going as well as it might have for the Jewish state. But by the time everybody was in the panicky spirit to intervene for a truce the Israel Defense Forces had actually turned the tides of battle against the wild and crazy Shi’a militia whose casualties were more Lebanese than Israelis. 

The United Nations was the center of the panic, what with the American secretary of state, Condi Rice, playing the role of peacemaker and Tsipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister, being the plaintiff for a cease-fire that was not in her country’s interests. Why not? Because cease-fires are not kept in the Arab world. I wrote about the cease-fire phenomenon as the war limped to its close.

The prime minister in Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert, had many other things on his mind. A very nice man, he was burdened by accusations of personal caprice and corruption that would impede any politician anywhere from doing his duty. In any case, Security Council resolution 1701 was passed. It stopped the fighting but did not stop the transfer of arms from Syria and Iran to the martyr-terrorists commanded by Hassan Nasrallah who is sane only if you compare him to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself.

Now some four years later Hezbollah is roughly one-third part of the Lebanese government, the military of which has no control over the armed corps of the regime’s various factions. Hezbollah commands more force with and without uniforms than make up Lebanon’s perfume soldiery.

For some time, the Obama administration feigned support for the Sunni center dominated by the Hariri many-billions kleptocracy which allied itself with the mostly Maronite Christians and the Druze. But Christians, including those associated with a neo-fascistic general Michel Aoun, also defected to the Shi’a, as did the congenitally untrustworthy Druze, always ready to make a deal they will break.

But, then, Obama decided he could sway or swirl Syria into the Western camp. He enlisted savvy Senator John Kerry to broker the wish list. But Kerry caught on. Assad was not playing, and maybe even the president now sees reality at least half way of what it is. Will he still try to press his nominee as ambassador to Damascus? I doubt it.

What was, of course, confusing was that Obama was also trying to court Ahmadinejad while saying he was trying to court Assad away from his pal in Tehran. Well, nothing worked. Nothing.

Dr. A’jad has won all the battles. To be sure, time was one of the battlefields. And the president ceded more than a year and a half to the vicious and virulent opposite number in Tehran.

Iran now has three frontiers with Israel. The line with Gaza, patrolled by Hamas. The line with Syria proper. And the line with Lebanon which is not Lebanon at all. But Hezbollah land. These are all unstable fields of battle. Israel may be forced to deal directly with Iran itself. 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 260 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

260 comments

Ok. That's it. Mr. Peretz is writing like a hack. Lets just save some ink and time. If Obama does something, it's bad. If Bush's policies are responsible, Obama's still bad. If it's Arab, it's probably bad. A mixed race American president with an nominally Muslim father, certainly bad. If a militaristic pro-Israeli stance? Then very good. Sprinkle in some relative empathy that maybe witholding first amendment rights for Muslims is a step too far, or that whole-sale expulsion of Israeli Arabs maybe isn't so nice. That seems to about cover the bases.

- sokol8

October 15, 2010 at 1:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, Mr. Peretz - sokol8 has a point. The whole mess in Lebanon really isn't Obama's fault. That goes back decades - Obviously, too, the UN has been totally ineffective at enforcing 1701 or 1556 before that - meanwhile, Lebanon is home to many "refugee camps" with all that entails... It is maddening though to think of Mr. Holocaust Cartoon Contest standing right next to an Israeli town, for all intents and purposes looking like he's trying to start a war.

- Sophia

October 15, 2010 at 2:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Peretz's insanity is finally evident. He has lost track of the sequence of time completely. It is sad, but he needs 24 hour care.

- roidubouloi

October 15, 2010 at 7:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The prime minister in Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert, had many other things on his mind. A very nice man, he was burdened by accusations of personal caprice and corruption that would impede any politician anywhere from doing his duty. " You should not attempt to mitigate for this pusillanimous incompetent PM, Marty. He made lousy lousy decisions and he allowed an incompetent general to run a war he was not prepared for. 136 soldiers were killed in that war. Many soldiers were caught behind enemy lines, exhausted and hungry. Better not to have fought than to have fought in this half-hearted, confused way. But you are right that Ahmadinjad's meteoric rise to global fame and favour, especially in the Middle East is much due to Obama's clueless foreign policies. Better that he shouldn't do a thing than to make a bad situation worse. Here is from a Rupert Murdoch speech a day or two since: "That brings me to my second point: the importance of good relations between Israel and the United States. Some believe that if America wants to gain credibility in the Muslim world and advance the cause of peace, Washington needs to put some distance between itself and Israel. My view is the opposite. Far from making peace more possible, we are making hostilities more certain. Far from making things better for the Palestinian people, sour relations between the United States and Israel guarantees that ordinary Palestinians will continue to suffer. The peace we all want will come when Israel feels secure – not when Washington feels distant. Right now we have war. There are many people waging this war. Some blow up cafes. Some fire rockets into civilian areas. Some are pursuing nuclear arms. Some are fighting the soft war, through international boycotts and resolutions condemning Israel. All these people are watching the U.S.-Israeli relationship closely. In this regard, I was pleased to hear the State Department's spokesman clarify America's position yesterday. He said that the United States recognizes "the special nature of the Israeli state. It is a state for the Jewish people." This is an important message to send to the Middle East. When people see, for example, a Jewish prime minister treated badly by an American president, they see a more isolated Jewish state. That only encourages those who favor the gun over those who favor negotiation." http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/Murdoch_Soft_War_Israel.htm On a lighter note, Ahmadinejad was the recepient of a valued gift from his generous host, the pasty-faced Nassralah (pasty from the lack of contact with sunlight this last 3 or so). "It was an Israeli assault rifle captured during the militant group's 2006 war with the Jewish state. Sheik Hassan Nasrallah presented the weapon - in a felt-lined box with a row of bullets - during a meeting at the Iranian embassy in Beirut late Thursday, Hezbollah said in a statement." Just note the juvenile level of these people's pleasures. Imagine Obama meeting the Queen of England and presenting her with a Kalatchnikov gun taken from a taliban as a gift.

- noga1

October 15, 2010 at 8:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have it on good authority that Barak Hussein Obama, not John Willkes Booth, shot Abraham Lincoln.

- miceelf

October 15, 2010 at 8:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But you are right that Ahmadinjad's meteoric rise to global fame and favour, especially in the Middle East is much due to Obama's clueless foreign policies. Better that he shouldn't do a thing than to make a bad situation worse." Utter nonsense. Let us recall that whenever Peretz has criticized Obama's policies toward Iran, he has been asked, repeatedly, to suggest what in his mind would be the better course. Not once has Peretz had so much as a word to offer in that regard. Peretz and his ilk like to ascribe god-like powers to Obama to change the world in any way he wants in order to avoid the responsibility for their own severely addled thinking about politics, policy and strategy. This post is but the most recent and obvious example. None of the Peretz acolytes has done any better. In order further to avoid responsibility for the inevitable failure of their delusions, hacks like Peretz not only confuse the sequence of events but like to re-write history so that their failures can be ascribed to someone else. Israel was not forced from Lebanon by the UN and the US. It undertook a war without any sensible, achievable strategic objective and without any thought as to how to conduct it. (Sounds just like George W. Bush, doesn't it? That's because everyone on the right drinks the very same Kool-aid. They think they flex their muscles, flaccid though they be, and the bad guys fall down or run away.) By the time of the UN resolution, Israel was in a losing situation, not because it was going to be defeated in the field, but because it plainly could not accomplish its declared objectives, had no other reasons for being there, was taking casualties at an unacceptable rate, and had no means of extricating itself other than turning tail and slinking off in humiliation. The UN resolution and the US pressure were the figleaf for Israel to declare mission accomplished, rescuing it from its own fecklessness. On the other hand, the criticism above that Peretz writes like a hack is grossly unfair. How should a hack write but like a hack? It is unkind to demand that the man rise above his severe moral and intellectual deficits.

- roidubouloi

October 15, 2010 at 9:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It is unkind to demand that the man rise above his severe moral and intellectual deficits." Only "severe moral and intellectual deficits" are to account for anyone who is a trenchant critic of Obama's policies. Marty, I suggest that when you read this comment from roi you pay attention to the only thing of value he has uttered in this otherwise purely venomous rant. And that you adopt his charitable view in assessing the worth of his comment.

- noga1

October 15, 2010 at 9:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Simply marvelous the way the right-wing allows itself to indulge in any sort of absurd, vicious criticism of Obama, wholly detached from any reality other than the right's own florid fantasies, but cannot abide criticism of its criticism or of its own icons. The extent of the moral cowardice and hypocrisy is mind-boggling. The words "trenchant criticism" and "Peretz" uttered in the same breath is as good a definition of oxymoron as I think you can find.

- roidubouloi

October 15, 2010 at 9:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't you have a paper to write, roi? How come all of a sudden you have so much time on your hands? I thought you were too busy improving yourself to come back here full time. All it takes is one kind word from someone and you are all over the place like an avalanche. Where is your self-esteem, man?

- noga1

October 15, 2010 at 10:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good God! Ahmadinejad rants and raves and does nasty things - and it's Obama's fault. The Palestinians are unreasonable and intransigent - and it's Obama's fault. The Israelis pursue a self-destructive settlement policy - and it's Obama's fault. The UN passes resolutions unfavorable to Israel - and it's Obama's fault. Hamas is brutal and violent - and it's Obama's fault. Muslims hate Israel - and it's Obama's fault. Human beings don't much resemble angels - and it's Obama's fault. Some of Mr. Peretz's blog posts lately have been so obsessive and incoherent that I truly wonder about his mental state.

- K_Wilson

October 15, 2010 at 10:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes Lebanon has been a mess for years and yes Bush didn't know how to deal with Iran, in fact maybe no president knew how. The point is Obama, "Yes We Can", viewed all foreign policy problems has misunderstandings. It seems that he was terribly and dangerously naive. At this point in time Obama has to take the blame or credit for his domestic and foreign policy.

- jneuberg

October 15, 2010 at 10:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

....Don't you have a paper to write, roi? How come all of a sudden you have so much time on your hands? I thought you were too busy improving yourself to come back here full time. All it takes is one kind word from someone and you are all over the place like an avalanche. Where is your self-esteem, man?... More superb, incisive, to the point, god faith argument. Way to go. What Sophia said.

- basman

October 15, 2010 at 10:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tough luck for you, noga. Still have to write the study of endogenous technical change, but I have blocked out time over the week-end. And I missed you so! We just don't tolerate mewling, whining and self-pity at home and sometimes I get these cravings for a dose. Thankfully, I always know where I can find some.

- roidubouloi

October 15, 2010 at 10:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is a long battle, and the road ahead unclear. The Iranian regime is trying to build itself a mini-NATO alliance to counter the effects of new sanctions (not to mention that interesting little virus in their nuclear program's IT system) and a potential air strike. Some of this is purely tactical, but some of it -- concerning Turkey, for example -- may be a deeper shift in strategic orientation in the region. We are not exactly drowning in options here, and who is in the White House has little to do with developments that began a long time ago. However, the idea that it's Obama's fault that A'jad is visiting Lebanon is infantile. In fact, it might just as well be an indication that Iran feels under tighter pressure and is trying to show how far its reach is.

- ironyroad

October 15, 2010 at 10:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Infantile? What is wrong with you, irony? Do you not understand "trenchant criticism" when it is set before you like a feast?

- roidubouloi

October 15, 2010 at 10:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Pitiful explanatics, roi. You crave someone's, anyone's, good opinion. Why not admit your real cravings for attention and adulation (such as it is)? I assure you that confronting your neediness will do you a world of good. This: "Simply marvelous the way the right-wing allows itself to indulge in any sort of absurd, vicious criticism of Obama, wholly detached from any reality other than the right's own florid fantasies, but cannot abide criticism of its criticism or of its own icons. The extent of the moral cowardice and hypocrisy is mind-boggling." is as good an example of "mewling, whining and self-pity" as can be found on these pages. ________________ BTW, what is "endogenous technical change"?

- noga1

October 15, 2010 at 10:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Debka reports: "Iranian military installation was struck by a triple blast Tues. Oct. 12 the day before Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Lebanon. debkafile's military and intelligence sources report the site held most of the Shehab-3 medium-range missile launchers Iran had stocked for striking US forces in Iraq and Israel in the event of war - some set to deliver triple warheads (tri-conic nosecones). The 18 soldiers officially reported killed in the blasts and 14 injured belonged to the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) main missile arm, the Al-Hadid Brigades. The Imam Ali Base where the explosion occurred is situated in lofty Zagros mountain country near the town of Khorramabad in the western Iranian province of Lorestan. This site was selected for an altitude which eases precise targeting and the difficulty of reaching it for air or ground attack. It lies 400 kilometers from Baghdad and primary American bases in central Iraq and 1,250 kilometers from Tel Aviv and central Israel. Both are well within the Shehab-3 missile's 1,800-2,500-kilometer operational range. Our Iranian sources report that Tehran spent hundreds of millions to build one of the largest subterranean missile launching facilities of its kind in the Middle East or Europe. Burrowed under the Imam Ali Base is a whole network of wide tunnels deep underground. Somehow, a mysterious hand rigged three blasts in quick succession deep inside those tunnels, destroying a large number of launchers and causing enough damage to render the facility unfit for use. In its official statement on the incident, Tehran denied it was the result of "a terrorist attack" and claimed the explosion "was caused by a nearby fire that spread to the munitions storage area of the base." In the same way, the regime went to great lengths to cover up the ravages wrought to their nuclear and military control systems by the Stuxnet virus - which is still at work." http://www.debka.com/article/9087/ If the information is accurate, I wonder how coincidental are these explosions (with what I hope is massive damage) with the timing of A'jad's reception of a gift of an Israeli gun from Nassralah? And who is responsible?

- noga1

October 15, 2010 at 10:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Self-evidently you have not the slightest idea what mewling, whining, or self-pity is, noga. If you did, you could not possibly behave as you do. The only other explanation, that I simply refuse to entertain, is that you are so completely lacking in self-regard that you actually want to appear to the world as you do. That is too awful to contemplate. Endogenous technical change is the idea that the rate of change of techniques of production (what would be referred to as growth in productivity) is the result of the macroeconomic state of the economy, rather than of non-economic processes -- in response to other social forces or even occurring at random intervals. A demonstration of endogeneity would be based on a statistically significant relationship between macroeconomic indicators at one time period and the rate of technical change at some future, not-too-distant, time period. I think I have a nice one. BTW.

- roidubouloi

October 15, 2010 at 11:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The problem with you roi is that you take everything literally, so pointing out to how your statements are interpreted as dramatic irony is a waste of time. One hopes. One learns. It is not really your fault if you are constructed that way and there is very little to be done. Thanks for the explanation which didn't really say much to me. You had a chance to explain something in such a way as would make sense to her but instead you opted to show off your command of the jargon.

- noga1

October 15, 2010 at 12:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"..but rather three scorpions in a bottle, each with their own hegemonic ambitions in the region, each seeing the others as tactical partners for the moment but as strategic rivals for the long haul." Well put, malahat "three scorpions in a bottle". Here is a comment I found following an article more or less supporting malahat's contention that Turkey and Iran will be "strategic rivals for the long haul.": "Turkey and Iran have neither fought nor re drawn their mutual borders since the 1639 Treaty of Zuhab. This fact is commonly used in explaining why Turkey has an extremely consistent and constant policy towards Iran. As Turkish Historian İlber Ortaylı correctly said " There are no two civilizations with so many common values. The Turkish language has tracesof Persian and its literature has traces of Persian literature . Turks and Iranians are twin sblings that don't know each other." The Safawid Dynasty was established by the Turkomans from Anatolia.. The trade between the two countries exceeded ıı billion dollars. Turkey's energy dependent on Iran, as well as Russia,.Plus Turkey is not worried of Tehran's nuclear activities. Turks think they can one way or another co-exist with a nuclear Iran.. " http://www.rferl.org/content/Iran_and_Turkey_Friends_Today_Rivals_Tomorrow/2078363.html

- noga1

October 15, 2010 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I mean the article supports but the comment dissents...

- noga1

October 15, 2010 at 12:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nope. Nothing to be done. But rest assured, noga, that I have never entertained any hope that anything can possibly be done about you. When you get going in your abusive mode, which is most of the time, the best that can be hoped for is to administer a good paddling, purely so that you at least gain nothing by your behavior and with the possibility that, in the manner of B.F. Skinner, you can be conditioned to exercise greater restraint. My apologies for "resorting to jargon." It was a good faith effort on my part, but, living as I do at the moment in the world of professional economic jargon, I have plainly lost touch with ordinary speech about such matters. "Productivity" refers to how much output (net income) we gain for the amount of labor and capital we use in production. The term can be applied to production of a single thing or to everything an economy produces. Our per capita income only grows when we increase productivity, get more for the same quantity of resources. This is most true of labor as one person can only produce a person's worth of work. So, if we do not get more income from that work, people on average cannot have a higher income. Growth in productivity is called technical change, or technological change, because it is the change in the technique of production that generates a higher income for the same input of finite resources, labor and capital. Many economic models just assume that change in productivity comes from somewhere outside of the economy, somehow. When the evolution of the technology is thought to be outside of the economy, from some deus ex machina, -- people say just inventing new techniques because it intrigues them to do so, or because they get lucky -- it is said to be "exogenous." A theory of endogenous technical change, in contrast, would try to show that it is conditions within the economy that are responsible for the rate of technical improvement. The reason it matters is that if one can account for technical change endogenously, then one can start to imagine how economic affairs could be better managed in order to increase the rate of change and therefore the growth of per capita income. If the change is just coming from "somewhere out there," then there is nothing to be done about it. We get what appears and that is that. If that is no improvement of explanation, the fault lies with me.

- roidubouloi

October 15, 2010 at 12:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is a picture to warm one's heart 9i mean it): http://simplyjews.blogspot.com/2010/10/mahmoud-mad-ahmadinejad-under-beirut.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Israelated+%28Israelated+-+main%29

- noga1

October 15, 2010 at 1:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh great pic:) Roi, you have cats? :)

- Sophia

October 15, 2010 at 2:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, sophia. I like them and had one when I was a kid but became allergic to them as an adult. We're going to get a dog though next year when we move out of Manhattan and back into a house. I am lobbying for a Yellow Labrador. Why do you ask? Or am I just missing some not explicit meaning to the question?

- roidubouloi

October 15, 2010 at 2:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Cats are known to have becalming effect on people suffering from hypertension and high blood pressure due to stress. Le chat/ Guillaume Apollinaire Je souhaite dans ma maison: Une femme ayant sa raison, Un chat passant parmi les livres, Des amis en toute saison Sans lesquels je ne peux pas vivre.

- noga1

October 15, 2010 at 3:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, that's good to know. In my case, however, I have low blood pressure, always have, and eat all the salt I want to no apparent effect. Lucky me. I gather that you all find these arguments stressful and thus infer that I do too. Perhaps then you should refrain. Difficult as it is for you to understand, they don't disturb me overmuch. I do this semi-professionally. Hence, I look at you as a kind of problem to be solved, and hardly the most difficult that I encounter in political life. In real public life, you have to choose your words very, very carefully. Here, there is very little downside, hence much less . . . stress. I get to deal with you as I wish I could deal with political opponents but can't. Easy. The mystery is why you are always picking these fights that you apparently find so painful. Some sort of masochism?

- roidubouloi

October 15, 2010 at 3:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"three scorpions in a bottle" Is that the Levantine answer to Three Coins in a Fountain?

- ironyroad

October 15, 2010 at 3:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Really roi. Where do you get that ego? Hard to believe someone could be as obtuse as you. Anyway I'm not sure that was sophia's intenion. It was just a conjecture. _________ ironyroad: "Is that the Levantine answer to Three Coins in a Fountain?" I posted this in the past but it fits the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmffgIqlAYA

- noga1

October 15, 2010 at 4:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BtW roi, the cure to low blood pressure is coffee. Anyone with low blood pressure would know that. I've known that since I was very young. It's the first time I hear that taking in quantities of salt is supposed to be good for BP. One can learn so much from you.

- noga1

October 15, 2010 at 4:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Let us recall that whenever Peretz has criticized Obama's policies toward Iran, he has been asked, repeatedly, to suggest what in his mind would be the better course. Not once has Peretz had so much as a word to offer in that regard." roi: Pointing out Obama's incompetence in this matter does not mean that one must present option for the POTS although if you read through the countless papers, articles and essays that deal with this matter, there is no lack of suggestions. Of course one can see the results of Obama's policy and they are not good. Since Obama's elections Turkey, Lebanon and Syria moved closer to Iran. Iran seems to be on the verge of controlling Lebanon, threatening Israel on it's Norther border and in Gaza and all that the administration can comment about it is that it is not "helpful"? Are the strong words like "condemning" reserved only for Israel? It's obvious to all who are not blind supporters of this administration that all those foreign policy failures are a result of wishful thinking on the part of the decision makers and a lack of coherent foreign policy vis a vis Iran. Noga's quote of Rupert Murdoch is right on the money. This administration is clueless regarding the ME. Even more than GWB.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

October 15, 2010 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

KWilson: Obviously not everything is Obama's fault however, the opposite view that nothing is Obama's fault is just as deranged.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

October 15, 2010 at 5:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The other little corporal, “Ahmadinejad: Checking On His investment.” http://mideastparalleluniverse.blogspot.com/2010/10/ahmadinijad-checking-on-his-investment.html

- jdyer

October 15, 2010 at 5:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The Other Hitchens Visits PA and Gaza" The better Hitchens, that is... http://mideastparalleluniverse.blogspot.com/2010/10/other-hitchens-visits-pa-and-gaza.html

- jdyer

October 15, 2010 at 5:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, I meant POTUS.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

October 15, 2010 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Makover, Why don't you share with us the best single suggestion for policy toward Iran that you have gleaned from all of those papers, articles and essays. There is one essay right here on TNR now that says we should stop pretending that we can stop Iran's nuclear program and that bombing it to achieve only delay would be a disaster. Is that what you had in mind? Anything concrete would be welcome, just so we have SOME idea what Obama is doing wrong other than not succeeding in stopping Iran's nuclear program or from engaging in mayhem in its neighborhood of the world. For extra credit, give us the best single suggestion made to date by Martin Peretz. (Hint: That's a trick question, because has had nothing to whatsoever to offer that he thinks would be more successful than what we are now doing. But if you can find such a thing, you get extra-double super credit.) Criticism that so-and-so doesn't know what he is doing in the absence of any concrete notion, no matter how general, about what should be done instead is almost certainly meaningless spite. The critic has no obligation to provide an alternative, but the inability to do so means that the criticism should be given little credit. _________________ I do drink lots of coffee, noga, and I never suggested that I was eating salt as a cure for low blood pressure. Only that I can partake of as much salt as I like without, so far, suffering any apparent adverse consequences. I don't know what sophia had in mind either, but we know what you had in mind, don't we?

- roidubouloi

October 15, 2010 at 6:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...but we know what you had in mind, don't we?" It wasn't a riddle, roi. It's pretty obvious that you sound like you are about to pop a vein every time someone dares to criticize Obama or suggest that Israel has some rights vis a vis the Palestinians. If all this is just a show you put on, then I must say I underestimated you. I thought you were authentic and yet you tell us you are an excellent poseur. I wish you would share some tricks. How do you come across as though you are seized by some demonic tantrum that makes you spew the most extraordinary invective and yet you tell us it is all pretend? Petruchio comes to mind if I could only imagine YOU as Richard Berton.

- noga1

October 15, 2010 at 6:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry. Burton.

- noga1

October 15, 2010 at 6:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

when people say they have "low blood pressure" they could mean one of two things: 1) blood pressure that is abnormally or dysfunctionally low; or 2) blood pressure that is within the normal range, but on the very low end of the normal range and so mainly serves as a good thing (i.e., not having to worry about salt or the various bad things that can happen with high blood pressure). I am fortunate enought to be in that second category, and thus by low blood pressure has never needed a "cure". I am by no means stress free, it's just that my body expresses it in other ways.

- miceelf

October 15, 2010 at 6:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You really have to start reading your own prose, noga. You appear to have no notion of what you say. The charge that I don't think that Israel has "rights" vis a vis the Palestinians is a fiction. Of course it is a fiction. You have nothing coherent to say to the criticisms that I do make and hence need to invent things that I neither think nor say to try and stick your verbal shiv in. I have said ceaselessly that Israel has a perfect right to occupy and control the West Bank to the extent that security so requires, in the absence of a peace agreement. This is clear under international law. But it has no right to do more to the Palestinians than what security rationally demands. Security does not require colonizing them (and even the Fourth Geneva Convention allows the transfer of the occupiers population to occupied territory if security so requires.) My criticism of the Israeli right-wing is that it is dishonest, incompetent, and jeopardizes Israel's security because it harbors illicit designs upon land that does not belong to Israel. That doesn't subtract an iota from Israel's rights. As for invective, I reserve that for those who choose to direct it towards me. It is easy, comes right off the tongue. You have no idea what professional politics demands and thus no idea how trivial this is compared to the camels you must force through needles out in the real political world.

- roidubouloi

October 15, 2010 at 6:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes miceelf I belong to that category too. Even during pregnancies. But I never understand why, if everything is good, the doctor makes a point of remarking: oh, your BP is a little low. Go have a cup of coffee. I mean if it's not a problem, why mention it?

- noga1

October 15, 2010 at 7:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The principal culprit for Hizbollah's hyper-militarization of Israel's Lebanon frontier is neither the hapless Olmert nor Condeleeza Rice (and certainly not Obama). Instead, it is Ehud Barak, who betrayed the Christian-populated security strip to Hezbollah in 2000. Israeli voters had grown tired of an eight-year guerrilla scenario, where an occasional rocket attack killing an Israeli soldier in the security strip would be met with Israeli air raids on Hezbollah territory. But why did Israeli governments persist in this fruitless strategy? Hizbollah's rulers did not care about either military or civilian losses; both were useful propaganda. The effective Israeli response would have been: For each rocket that lands in the security zone, distraught residents of the zone will launch a rocket at the Presidential palace in Damascus. (Israeli authorities could play dumb about how ordinary Arab Christian farmers could gain access to such sophisticated missiles.) Out of self-preservation, the real rulers of Lebanon would have shut down Hizbollah's missile operations. The circumstances of Barak's withdrawal were uniquely disgraceful, abandoning Israel's Christian friends to the dubious mercies of Hizbollah. Perhaps Barak did not want to absorb a few thousand more Arabs in Israel. With a little effort, however, he could have arranged their safe passage to friendly powers like the USA.

- hcunn

October 15, 2010 at 7:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga: thanks for the Debka report on the mysterious explosions at Iran's "Imam Ali Base ...near the town of Khorramabad in the western Iranian province of Lorestan." Very encouraging that they are either 1) incompetent at basic fire control and security, 2) perhaps not everyone in Iran's military is totally loyal to the Islamo-state, and/or 3) rumours of special ops ground teams are true. The location is in the Lur-dominant part of Iran. Wiki is weak on the very tribal Lur, who have tended to be yet another independent-minded ethnic minority not enthused by any central government in Teheran. I suppose one could hope that a UN-loving president would try harder to have enforced Resolution 1701, which I thought was supposed to keep Hezbollah from re-arming, let alone from having veto power inside the Lebanese government ... Sophia on cats, probably read :) http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/cat-people-are-people-too/?src=me&ref=homepage

- K2K

October 15, 2010 at 9:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

one should not underestimate the historic links between the Shi'a of Lebanon, Assad's Alawites, and Shi'a as official religion of Iran since the 17th century. Someone should force Lebanon to have a proper census and finally stop the illusion that the Maronites are the 'rulers'. Not that that would change much, but at least we would know, or not, if the Shi'a are the majority in Lebanon.

- K2K

October 15, 2010 at 9:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hcunn, I more or less agree with your spin on the withdrawal from Lebanon. In Barak's defence it should be remembered that he felt compelled to keep a campaign promise he had made to the "Four Mothers" that had lobbied very successfully for this move. I met a Lebanese Christian here in Montreal who was absolutely livid about what he called Israel's "betrayal". He scared the hell out of me, I can tell you. I think the withdrawal was shabbily done and caused a lot of mischief and did not resolve the situation in the northern border.

- noga1

October 15, 2010 at 9:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have what micelf has. Lucky us.

- roidubouloi

October 15, 2010 at 11:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 "hcunn, I more or less agree with your spin on the withdrawal from Lebanon." The same goes for the withdrawal from Gaza. It should have been done through negotiations. Unilateral withdrawals will always be interpreted by one’s enemies as a flight and surrender.

- jdyer

October 15, 2010 at 11:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Some people here like Eric Alterman more than I do, but he has just written the best one paragraph put down I have read in a long, long time: “Something about Christopher” By Eric Alterman “HAS THERE ever been anyone quite like Christopher Hitchens? As a writer and a thinker, Hitchens may be the greatest performance artist the profession has ever produced. He is Oscar Wilde without the plays; Gore Vidal without the novels; Edmund Wilson without the ideas; George Orwell without the integrity; and Richard Burton without the movies (and Elizabeth Taylor). What he is not, however, is the author of lasting works of reportage, criticism, philosophy, or, dare I say it, literature.” http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=3685

- jdyer

October 15, 2010 at 11:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi: Why don't you start reading other material but NYT and the Nation. But since obviously you don't, I will give you few suggestions. A good and serious condemnation of Turkish alliance with Iran would be a good start followed by a threat of expulsion from NATO if this continues. This should be followed by realistic foreign policy toward Syria and Lebanon rather than supporting Syrian and Iranian imperialist designs in Lebanon with hardly an peep. It should involve costly consequences for Syria and Iran if they interfere with Lebanese democracy. It also would be a good start to stop entertaining the "Hizballah Option" in the State Department. And yes, a threat of real military action. How about some selective "brinkmanship"? It defeated the Soviets. You still remember them do you? US still has a military or is it all tied up in Afganistan? It still has naval battle groups crisscrossing the seven seas, cruise missiles, SAC, special forces or are all those just toys for boys? Bowing down to bullies has never been a good foreign policy options.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

October 16, 2010 at 7:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's it, makover? Peeps and threats that we cannot carry out for a variety of reasons? The worst conceivable diplomacy is empty threats. Do you think we have a credible threat of war against Syria or Iran? What costly consequences can we impose on Iran other than cutting off its oil exports which, given western dependence on oil, is truly the option of last resort. Fire a bunch of missiles somewhere? Then what? Do you think that that will suffice to cause bad guys to abandon their strategic objectives? How many wars do you think we can manage at one time? If Bush should have taught us anything it is that bluster and chest-pounding are ineffectual and worse. That's how we got here. And it is not brinksmanship that succeeded with the Soviet Union but containment. Pretty much like I thought, makover, other than atmospherics, the critics of Obama's policy toward Iran have nothing even remotely useful to propose. What the right always wants is a lot of BS jawboning about how tough we are, how bad they are, what we are going to do to anyone who doesn't do what we want, etc., etc. That is not policy, it is cowboy movie silliness. "Bring 'em on." And, of course, the fact that it has been an epic failure is the reason why the right just wants to do more of it. As usual. If their policies bring disaster, economic, military, they insist that the answer to failure is to do it again.

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 8:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arguing with roi is like eating jello with a fork. His complaints shift form as soon as you meet them head on. He complains that critics of Obama's FP are not offering their own solutions. You point out the role of a critic is exactly that, someone who highlights what's wrong and is not bound by any job description to offer solutions to the President. One can criticize Christopher Hitchens's writing without being obliged to offer better writing, or alternative writing. The primary role of the critic is to point out weaknesses, incongruities, fractured thinking, etc, in something. Roi will have none of it. If you don't have solutions, don't criticize. "Why don't you share with us the best single suggestion for policy toward Iran that you have gleaned from all of those papers, articles and essays." he invites you, menacingly, like the spider that he is. OK. You say. I'll play along and give you a few possibilities. But roi's beef has already morphed into some other kind of meat. He is no longer griping about the lack of solutions. He can't. There are other ways of conducting FP which would be obvious to any kid who was ever bullied in kindergarten. So he is already slithering away from his previous gripe and challenges you with a different set of beefs. Notice how he never says: These are indeed possible solutions but I disagree with them. He never accepts that his previous beef was baseless. He never accepts that you are arguing from a good faith position. He has already changed the coordinates of the discussion. Notice the incontinent contempt, for the interlocutor and for the author of this article: "For extra credit, give us the best single suggestion made to date by Martin Peretz. (Hint: That's a trick question, because has had nothing to whatsoever to offer that he thinks would be more successful than what we are now doing. But if you can find such a thing, you get extra-double super credit.) both" roi fancies himself in a position of power and all-knowledge. He KNOWS the right answers and he can GRADE the level of your success in rebutting him. In the neigbouring thread willjames refers to him as a jihadist. But I think roi is really more of a tyrant. Brooking no opposition and meting out approval or punishment. I mean of course, if he could. Fortunately for us :) From my experience in the internet I find that virtual posters can never pull off perfect posture. If they concoct a certain personality they cannot keep up the appearance consistently and over time. Posters behave on line in pretty much the same way they behave in real life, only more so.

- noga1

October 16, 2010 at 9:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not bad for you, noga. A bit of misdirection here, a few insults there, just sort of slipped in. But, here and there, you manage to offer a few tidbits of what might actually be considered an argument. "There are other ways of conducting FP which would be obvious to any kid who was ever bullied in kindergarten." So, let's deconstruct a bit. You seem to think that the essence of my complaint with the critics of Obama's Iran policy is that they don't offer alternatives. As ever, you manage to miss the point. Yes, I certainly do think that their failure for the most part to offer an alternative, and then carry the weight of explaining why a rational person should expect it to have a better outcome than the current policy, or at least carry lower risk, is reason enough to discredit their criticism. Because we are not here to review Martin Peretz's literary style (well, maybe you are). The question before us is whether his criticism advances our understanding of what is to be done. Remember that, noga? Remember the long discourse in which I was constantly posing and re-posing the question, what is to be done? inciting you to rage with that alone? But, you see, in matters of policy, that is the only question, what is to be done? It is not an aesthetic undertaking, but a practical undertaking that has no meaning other than when measured by outcome or, when the outcome remains uncertain as is usually the case, by what we can rationally expect the outcome to be. That's it. That's all you get. So, with that in mind, criticism that merely recites how awful the current policy is without being able to suggest an alternative cannot be taken very seriously. Of course, the critic has no obligation to offer an alternative. The critic is not barred from the public square for the failure to offer an alternative. But how are we to value the criticism if we cannot weigh one alternative against another? If indeed there is no alternative, then there is no basis for criticism. The policy is then inevitably what it must be. You think this is all a parlor game, or an opportunity to demonstrate to the world what a wonderful, passionate human being you are. I think the purpose rather is to understand the world of policy and the opportunities it offers. Hence, when makover offers up his best policy alternatives to what we are now doing OF COURSE THE TERMS OF DEBATE SHIFT to the substance of what he has do say. Speaking of kindergarten, did you think the purpose of my question was just to see if makover can make some kind of list, any list, of alternatives in which case, if he can, he has won the game? You think it is a game. It isn't a game. Makover offers what I take to be his best alternatives, and, without expending too many words on the subject, I try to respond to the substance. Do you think the proper response should be, "Oh, gee, I didn't know we had missiles we could fire at some country that does not do what we want. What a good idea! Now I realize that we do have policy alternatives." The things that makover proposes are either unexecutable, have rather obvious consequences much worse than what we are experiencing now without any hope of accomplishing anything, or amount to a demand for empty rhetoric. Did it require a lot more detail on my part for that to be clear? I didn't think so, but I may be overestimating the audience. Okay, so now we have something against which to weigh Obama's policy, which is not to court Iran but to use a posture of conciliation with Iran to court the cooperation of the other nations that we need, indispensably, for effective action against Iran. Subtle, I know, for you. But, you see, that is the difference between you and Obama. You lack all subtlety, all ability to frame any problem in any but the simplest and most childish terms. It is you, my dear, who are stuck in kindergarten. Obama may be wrong, but he does see the subtleties. In my opinion, his response to them is rational and offers under present circumstances the best hope we have, although that is a slim hope. Why? Because the fat-mouthed blusterers of the right who are now complaining wasted all the time we had, all the cooperation we needed, with their empty bluster. I am the first to admit that I cannot think of anything to be done at this juncture regarding Iran that is likely to be better than what Obama is doing. But if someone can suggest something, I am more than happy to jump ship and advocate for that. I haven't hear a thing that could even be considered a contender for that honor. As for Martin Peretz, he deserves only scorn and contempt. He has no good-faith intentions and excretes only scorn and contempt, as most recently evidenced by his complaint that Obama is blameworthy because Ahmadinejad is a guest in Lebanon. That is so moronic (that word again), so bereft of even the barest threads of intellectual integrity, that the only decent response to Peretz is contempt. I try to do my share of that work. As for posters behaving in real life as the do here, only more so, do we take that to mean that your general relations with the adult world are also characterized by childishness, childish thoughts, childish complaints, childish misunderstandings, only more so? And, by the way, why are you so fascinated by me, who I am or who you imagine me to be? Why is this a subject that constantly draws your attention away from discussion about policy and politics, the ostensible subjects of this blog? Who cares, why is it relevant? Why must you waste time with this? I have no such interest in you. If you could manage to stick to the subject -- policy and politics -- I would be delighted.

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 10:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And, by the way, why are you so fascinated by me, who I am or who you imagine me to be? " I've been expecting this question. I can only explain my "fascination" with you in terms of the joke about the man who goes to the zoo and finds himself lingering next to the giraffe cage: there is no such animal, he says.

- noga1

October 16, 2010 at 11:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I have no such interest in you. If you could manage to stick to the subject -- policy and politics -- I would be delighted." The prospect of "delighting you" makes my skin crawl in disgust. The fact is that your domination of the threads and the abusive and verbal violence that go with it are not conducive to peaceful communication of the kind that we hope to find in these boards. In order to respond to your "arguments" one has to wade through garbage, invective, noise, slurs which make the "sticking to the subject" a bit difficult. Some commenters try to do that but you will notice that very few, if any, stick around to actually develop a proper conversation with you. That's because no one likes to have to dig through garbage in order to get to some reasonably formed identifiable idea. What I do is actually address your garbage in the vain hope of reducing it by making you reduce the pace of its production. This can't be very difficult to understand, is it?

- noga1

October 16, 2010 at 11:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: I just pointed out solutions however they are not acceptable to somebody like roi who believes in the charms of "soft power". However let me stress again that threats and rebukes by a superpower and a risk of being expelled from NATO are serious enough and will be taken seriously by the geniuses of Anatolia if the President of the United States will issue them but yes, he must follow on his threats not just mouth them. And yes roi, "a bunch of missiles fired somewhere" have magical effects on bad guys. Look at the fabulous effect it had on the Khadaffi regime. Suddenly they talking soccer rather than jihad. I don't know how many wars US can manage. From the what I am able to read in the news, one seems to be too much. Now US will "talk to the Taliban". Than it will "talk to Hizballah". I guess all those carrier groups designed to project American power overseas are just cruise ships. Very sad. I don't know what the scary "right" wants in the US and frankly I don't care but I do know what the left wants. It wants to play nice. It wants multi-culti approach to foreign policy. It wants to engage in Polyanish hallucinations that everything can be give and take. They want to fight a "deluxe" war. A war with both hands tied behind their back. A humanistic war, a war in which the life of the enemy is more important than the life of their own soldiers. Screw that. I have a surprise for them. The enemies of the West don't want to negotiate. They have issued an ultimatum and they expect the West to surrender. Very soon the time will come when US will have to seriously consider what it is going to do about Iran, Lebanon, Hizballah, Syria, Hamas, Israel and Palestinians and also Egypt where leadership is about to change hands. Right now the mavens of Obama seem to think that the road to Teheran goes through Jerusalem. They are going to be up for a serious disappointment when the Iranian mullahs with the help of Assad start really running Lebanon and a military pact is signed between Turkey and Iran.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

October 16, 2010 at 11:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh good, if your skin is crawling in disgust, then I am delighted. Because any sort of expression of common humanity coming from one such as yourself would be about as welcome as being licked by a sadist holding a very sharp knife. You continue to be baffling oblivious to the simple, inarguable fact that the initiator of personal attacks is always you, never me. You are invariably the protagonist. Given that, I can honestly say that I have never in my life encountered someone whose detachment from reality is as complete as yours. But, like I said, I no longer think of you as a liar, as I once did. You are quite plainly added. I hope you at least know how to look both ways before crossing the street.

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 11:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

10/16/2010 - 10:32am EDT is a superb critique of psycho drama mama who prefers extended insult to garnish her main course of paranoia and defensiveness and who is unwilling/incapable of extended argument on the merits, who plays games, psychological games, such that the bulk of her posts become a series of traded insults. "Games" is an operative word. My only criticism of the post is this: "you manage to offer a few tidbits of what might actually be considered an argument." Let's not torture objective reality, shall we: whatever argument is to be gleaned from her extended spewing is, generously, provided by you on her behalf, making the best of a bad, psycho dramatic situation. (Never mind that I am briefly here as her--my excuse, I don't this type of thing too much.) Here's the ratio of the post, which has the resident queen of drama “...formulated, sprawling on a pin... pinned and wriggling on the wall” ...And, by the way, why are you so fascinated by me, who I am or who you imagine me to be? Why is this a subject that constantly draws your attention away from discussion about policy and politics, the ostensible subjects of this blog? Who cares, why is it relevant? Why must you waste time with this? I have no such interest in you. If you could manage to stick to the subject -- policy and politics -- I would be delighted...

- basman

October 16, 2010 at 11:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The threat to expel Turkey from NATO is not credible as, for various strategic reasons, we and the rest of NATO are at this point more concerned about Turkey leaving than Turkey is about being expelled. As the Islamist movement gathers strength in Turkey, it becomes more and more likely that Turkey will move out of the western orbit into the Islamist orbit. Missiles and aircraft carriers are not going to prevent that from happening. The US is not going to do anything about Iran, Lebanon, Hizballah, Hamas, Israel, the Palestinians or Egypt other than more or less what it is doing now because it does not have the power to do much other than what it is doing now -- build up countervailing local powers when regional hegemons threaten to emerge and use carrots of various sorts to try and induce useful, cooperative behavior from would-be allies, who are not in fact allies but clients, and generally more useless as such than useful -- exhibit number one in that regard, the State of Israel. The real uses of military power for a state such as the US whose primary interests are transnational commerce are rather more limited than you imagine, makover. Existential threats can be fought with existential wars. The rest of the time, some sort of balance between means and ends has to prevail. When it doesn't, as in Iraq, we end up exhausting our resources for nothing. Then we are not safer or more feared, we are more vulnerable and less feared. Fear is a state of mind. In the absence of the actual ability to dominate the world, one must be judicious with threats if they are to produce the intended fear. They have to be credible, they have to be implemented when necessary, and then the outcome had better be what you planned. Exhibit number one in that regard is Israel's war against Hizballah. It did quiet the border, but it certainly didn't succeed in destroying Hizballah or disarming it. To the contrary, by all accounts Hizballah is much more heavily armed than before the war, and with weapons that are much more lethal and of longer range. Is that what you mean by effective use of military power? Has it never once occurred to you that Israel's tactical and strategic situation would be significantly enhanced if it were not occupying the West Bank so long as it is enable to prevent the importation of weapons?

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 11:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, one other small thing. I am not a believer in "soft power" over "hard power," or disdainful of the use of force. But I am quite clear that the means to use force are distinctly finite, and force used over a broad front is quickly exhausted. You have to pick your spots with care, and there are always economic, diplomatic, and moral considerations to be weighed, along with the question of likely military outcome. Soft power is a lot cheaper than hard power and carries many fewer risks. It also does not have the same resource limitations as hard power. Thus, a great power that wants to succeed prefers to rely on soft power to the greatest possible extent and refrains from using force unless it is absolutely necessary or at the very least the chances of success at an acceptable cost are high. One of the downsides of easy resort to force is that, unless all enemies are to be reduced to ashes, the use of force tends to evoke a countervailing response over time. One therefore has to think about not only the immediate tactical advantage, but the strategic consequences. It is a lot to think about, to be sure.

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 11:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, basman, you really made me laugh with that one. :-)

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 12:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makover: A-propo, Gaddafi, have you read this? http://mickhartley.typepad.com/blog/2010/10/a-gaddafi-apology.html

- noga1

October 16, 2010 at 12:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The threat to expel Turkey from NATO is very credible and will have to be done sooner or later unless US and it's allies want NATO's resources to be transferred to Iran. The Turkish military which is now hampered and replaced by Islamic regime of Erdogan might finally find its power if threatened this way. Noga is originally from Turkey and can probably enlighten us more on this issue. The fact that US is not going to do anything about Lebanon and Syria is obvious for now. This administration is not able to develop any coherent approach to the problems of Levant. Unless a full regional war involving Syria, Hizballah, Hamas and Iran is desired by United States it will be forced to do something or at least more than it is doing now. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that within less than two years Hizbollah will be the ruler of Lebanon and then Iran is going to have a border with Israel. If you think that this is conducive to regional peace than you are deluded. You said the magic world. Existential. If you think that Iranian hegemony is not existential threat to the well being of United States and the West then you are not looking seriously at the consequences of such a hegemony. But this is academic. I think the events will overcome this administration as they always do and it will be forced to act. The Hizballah is more heavily armed than before not because of Israeli actions but because of reluctance of international bodies to engage it and it's masters. However, believe me when I tell you that Israeli military doctrine has changed drastically as the Operation Cast Lead in Gaza demonstrated. This war will be fast and furious and Israel will not longer honor Lebanese deniability. Finally, West Bank occupation. I said over and over again that West Bank occupation is foolish and is ill serving Israel, however, you must admit that right now there is practically no occupation. The Palestinian society is running itself. The smuggling of weapons is a big issue but it can be resolved. The settlements issue will resolve itself once the Palestinians agree that they want Palestine. All the rest is empty rhetoric.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

October 16, 2010 at 12:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Makover, you are wasting your time arguing with Roi on any issue. He has only two answers to any interlocutor who addresses his blunt comments. He agrees with people who agree with him. He attacks people who disagree with him. There is nothing in between for him, no nuance, no subtlety. What Talleyrand reportedly remarked of the restored Bourbon rulers that they had "learned nothing and forgotten nothing" applies to him as well. Having said that, American policy towards Iran is ineffective, blame whom you will. Obama as the President is responsible for that policy and it’s natural for people to lay the blame on him. We need a policy with teeth, Ahmadinejad needs to know that if he provokes confrontation with us or any of our allies, that he will pay a heavy price. If on the other hand we don’t have the wherewithal to deal with the later day little corporal we should just stop pretending that we are a world power.

- jdyer

October 16, 2010 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Turkey will likely end up out of NATO unless, for internal political reasons, it changes course. Unless the Turks are stupid, they know that. The threat would only provoke them to act precipitously. Hence, it is not a credible threat. You can be sure that NATO is curtailing the extent of cooperation with Turkey in a variety of ways intended to limit the damage of a Turkish withdrawal. As to the Levant, once again there needs to be a rational alternative. It is not in the interest of the US to stimulate every threatening situation at once. It is in the interest of the US to pacify with words as much as possible and limit the number of crises it must confront in the present. Threats either prove empty or provoke a crisis. Nothing that the US does toward Syria will deter Iran. Iran has hegemonic aspirations and, right now, there is no obvious way to balance its rising power. If we got our act together with regard to China and Russia, we would have a much better chance to deal with Iran. Our diplomacy toward both has been wretched under Bush and we are barely beginning to climb out of the hole he dug for us. A little more light with Russia than with China because Russia no longer sees us as the principal threat to its ambitions (although we threaten to be a threat) and China does. There was never any realistic prospect of the UN restraining Iran from arming Hizballah. That was always a figleaf to allow Israel to withdraw. The UN does not "exist" as a corporate entity able to act on its own. It is a medium for great power action, nothing more, nothing less. When they act, it acts. When they don't, it doesn't. Implicit in your complaint is that the US is something more than primus inter pares in the world. It is not. It is not a hyperpower. It cannot command the other great powers to do its bidding. A more adroit diplomacy than what the Republicans gave us may over time enlarge the sphere of great power cooperation. Absent that, we are always going to be putting out fires. The bipolar world was an organizing principle that maintained a kind of international discipline. That world is gone. The settlements are not merely an issue for the future. Continued construction is a constant provocation and discredits any PA government that is trying to create a secure situation and cooperate with Israel. Israel cannot have it both ways. If it wants the PA to grow into a responsible partner, it must allow political space for it to do so. Finally, as far as the US "forced to act" against Iran, it is only possible to act against Iran if the world is willing to do without is oil. That would be effective, but it is very unlikely that the US is going to turn off the oil tap. What other action can you possibly envision? Bombing Iran? To what end? Another full-blown war in the Middle East for no reason? The first casualty of that would be Iraq.

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 12:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh good. Here is jdyer to display his mastery of "subtlety" and "nuance" for the assembled admirers, as he so often does. Commence. master, at will! All eyes and ears are upon you, jdyer.

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 12:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What other action can you possibly envision? Bombing Iran? To what end? " Is this the only option involving "bombing" that exists? You don't have to bomb Iran in order to get and destroy its nuclear facilities. Israel has twice destroyed nuclear facilities without bombing any of the two countries where they were located.

- noga1

October 16, 2010 at 12:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Really? I missed that. I recall Israel bombing nuclear facilities in Iraq and nuclear facilities in Syria, both far more vulnerable that what Iran has. Were there some other nuclear facilities destroyed by Israel that we didn't here about? Jordan? Abu Dhabi?

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 1:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here I thought that Roi was in heaven, but he chose to remain in purgatory with us lesser mortals. Isn't that noble of him?

- jdyer

October 16, 2010 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

thanks malahat, noga, and jdyer, for your endurance in the face of tyranny. The next U.S. congress will cut off all military aid to the Lebanese military - why should the U.S. be arming Hezbollah even indirectly? Ros-Lehtinen will make an execllent chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee. Even the Dems are pushing back against Turkey's path to Islamism - a recent delegation of Turkish parliamentarians were quite miffed when only five members of Congress could find the time for meetings. NATO's Anders Fogh Rasmussen now commenting on the benefits of NATO "cooperation" with Russia, Turkey's greatest fear since their sole use to NATO was during the Cold War. IAF just conducted joint exercise with Greece. Turkey has more historical enemies than Iran. Unfortunate for the world that they have to endure two more years of an American president who puts his personal political interests ahead of everything and everyone. At least everyone except the mentally blind and morally deaf now know this.

- K2K

October 16, 2010 at 1:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi, I was teasing you:) Sorry, couldn't resist:) All this complaining about "mewling," got me thinking, because I have 3 cats. Lots of mewling. Not to mention they can sound like peacocks:) especially at 3 AM:) Maybe we should send a few to Ahmadijenad. He'll be too tired to bother people:)

- Sophia

October 16, 2010 at 2:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Cats, peacocks, whatever works. They already have the Peacock Throne, stolen from India. :-)

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 2:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makeover: "The enemies of the West don't want to negotiate. They have issued an ultimatum and they expect the West to surrender." I happen to agree with this. But the logical conclusion I draw from this is that it's a good idea to defeat the enemies, and not a good idea to work energetically toward increasing their number. If we have policies that bring more people over to our way of thinking, and indeed policies that encourage constructive neutrality also, they are policies that should be applied, because there are also policies that open the door to every demagogue from here to Kuala Lumpur who can point to the fact that we tortured and sexually humiliated Iraqi muslims while proclaiming American democracy as our gift to humanity. This isn't Guadacanal, this is a war fought in obscure places and in idelogical and even theological environments and a carrier group is next to useless if the key target is sitting in an internet café mailing a defense of jihad. Looking at the foreign policy of conservatives over the last few years, I think any leftwing policy would have to strain hard to be worse. We did Teheran the massive favor of knocking over their one major strategic competitor in the reqion, Iraq, and bought ourselves a trillion-dollar war, the results of which are entirely uncertain at this moment. We have a second (or first) war in which we are potentially in a worse position than the moment we went in. We have an uphill battle restoring our global authority after a world economic crisis that we caused, at least in part, and our one stroke of luck is that Iran is behaving in a way that permits a new consensus to be formed to -- potentially -- at least make it difficult for them to keep going on this path. So yes, gimme that new foreign policy and I don't care wtf you call it if it makes you feel good. Furthermore, it's an infantile insult to suggest that anyone who opposes saber-rattling and shooting from the hip cares more about the enemy than our own soldiers. Stuff like that makes vanilla pudding out of the rest of your argument, no matter what substance it may have.

- ironyroad

October 16, 2010 at 3:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi: You just simply wear me out. You are so damn boring and repetitious. I guess that's how the administration is attempting to defeat Iran, no bombing, no action of any kind, just bore them to death. They hit them one or twice with the "audacity of hope" and they are goners.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

October 16, 2010 at 3:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I understand, makover. You find actual detailed consideration of the policy implications of doing one thing or another boring. You like slogans. You like aircraft carrier landings. You like shaking your fist and telling the bad guys they will pay if they don't behave. You like all of the juvenilia of the right-wing. The problem is that the enemies are real, the world is actually dangerous, and all of that stuff you like so much simply doesn't work because, pick as many as you like: (1) it is unexecutable, (2) unsustainable, (3) the resources don't exist, (4) there is unacceptable collateral damage or blowback of various kinds, (5) the force contemplated is insufficient to change the will of the enemy, (6) it is any empty threat for any of the foregoing reasons, (7) it takes inadequate account of countervailing forces. It is frustrating how difficult a world full of dangerous opponents is. But it is precisely the right's boredom and unwillingness to pay attention to the realistic details of policy that are so much the cause of the mess we are in. The right-wing crapola just, simply does not work in the real world. The enemy is not brought to its knees by bombast. The cost and opportunity cost of the failures are more than we can bear. Obama is trying to clean up the mess. The mess is monumental, both in security and economic affairs. Yet the same very people whose ideas and failures caused this mess cannot stop complaining that it isn't cleaned up yet. Preposterously, they just want to go back to doing more of the same with predictably hideous results. Why don't you watch war movies? I recommend Top Gun, a favorite of mine. You can get all the vicarious thrills you want from saber-rattling and heroic rides to the rescue without being a danger to yourself or others.

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 3:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi, this is what I said: "You don't have to bomb Iran in order to get and destroy its nuclear facilities. Israel has twice destroyed nuclear facilities without bombing any of the two countries where they were located." And you repeated what I said while pretending that you were saying something else: "Really? I missed that. I recall Israel bombing nuclear facilities in Iraq and nuclear facilities in Syria..." Clearly you don't understand the difference between bombing facilities by pin-point operations and "bombing Iran".

- noga1

October 16, 2010 at 4:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I think to win this war or at least to avoid losing it, requires us to be determined and ruthless in killing our enemy and to continue broadcasting our determination to continue killing them ruthlessly until and unless they either are unable," This is what drone aircraft are for. They don't require an invasion at huge cost of the wrong place where enemies are not located. Obama seems to be a much more effective warrior than Bush for no other reason than he is a whole lot smarter than Bush. The general principle is fine, the application still requires a great deal of thought in all but the cases where the enemy is actually engaging in violence against us or a conspiracy to that end. Other nations engaged in projecting their power, just as we do, are not necessarily the occasion for open warfare. Countries we don't like have the means to retaliate while the terrorists we destroy are already doing whatever they are capable of doing to harm us anyway. _______________________ Noga, in the English language, your sentence means exactly what I talk it to mean and I had not the slightest idea what else you might have meant. Even re-reading the sentence now it makes no sense. In any case, there is no possibility of destroying Iran's nuclear facilities with pinpoint bombing. They are quite different in nature from what was destroyed in Iraq and Syria, small and buried.

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 5:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Furthermore, it's an infantile insult to suggest that anyone who opposes saber-rattling and shooting from the hip cares more about the enemy than our own soldiers." But who says such things? And why the "furthermore" as if it is an argument regularly made on this website or its patronizers? Are you arguing against Sara Palin or against anything anyone has suggested here?

- noga1

October 16, 2010 at 5:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"In any case, there is no possibility of destroying Iran's nuclear facilities with pinpoint bombing" And you speak as a military expert now, I presume...

- noga1

October 16, 2010 at 5:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Military expert to military expert of course.

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, I'm not a military expert. But I can read.

- noga1

October 16, 2010 at 5:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is pertinent: "Norway recently announced that it would no longer allows its facilities to be used by Germany and Israel for the deep water trials of the two new submarines the former is building for the latter. No doubt another location will be found to carry out the tests but that’s beside the point. There can’t be any human rights argument for Norway’s decision as the submarines could have no impact (apart from protecting them from nuclear annihilation by deterring an Iranian attack) on the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza. By denying Israel and Germany facilities for testing the submarines Norway is making it more difficult for Israel to maintain a second strike capability and thus - in objective terms and regardless of whatever explanations it might choose to offer for its decision - favoring an Israeli decision to launch a preemptive strike, either conventional or nuclear, on Iran." http://blog.z-word.com/2010/10/norway-favors-israeli-preemptive-attack-on-iran/#more-1769

- noga1

October 16, 2010 at 6:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: "But who says such things?" Er . . . makeover does, in his post at 11:26 a.m.: "I do know what the left wants. It wants to play nice . . . . A war with both hands tied behind their back. A humanistic war, a war in which the life of the enemy is more important than the life of their own soldiers." The "furthermore" in my post indicated that my rejection of this assertion was an additional, but somewhat separate, point to the points I had already made.

- ironyroad

October 16, 2010 at 6:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And this: "To thunderous applause he denounced the “Zionist regime” of Israel and said Israel would “disappear”. “The occupying Zionists today have no choice but to accept reality and go back to their countries of origin.” http://blog.z-word.com/2010/10/ahmadinejad-an-honest-anti-zionist/#more-1766

- noga1

October 16, 2010 at 6:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm sorry, ironyroad, but I cannot see that: "anyone who opposes saber-rattling and shooting from the hip cares more about the enemy than our own soldiers." is a direct translation of: "A war with both hands tied behind their back. A humanistic war, a war in which the life of the enemy is more important than the life of their own soldiers." As I understand it he is referring not to "anyone who opposes saber-rattling and shooting from the hip" but to peacenik bleeding-hearts for whom it is better that more American soldiers get killed and not civilians who are intermingled with enemy combatants. Two different cases, I think. You are describing a policy position (as in, Obama who opposes saber-rattling and shooting from the hip) and makover is referring to realities on the battlefield and how American soldiers may be endangered by interference from human rights groups.

- noga1

October 16, 2010 at 6:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

American soldiers have not been interfered with by any human rights group, nor will they be. This is just another right-wing canard meant to teach us that the right is tough and the left is soft. What it really teaches us that the right is stupid and has more success with straw men than real enemies, against whom it has not much because it is always betrayed by its fantasies about how the world works. You see, it just cannot get the enemy to follow the script it is always playing in its head, that Rambo thing. Forget both hands tied behind your back. Do you think modern warfare can be fought successfully by the witless? Technology levels the playing field, the witless lose. As to Ahmadinejad above, are you trying to tell me that he wants to destroy Israel? I didn't know that!

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 6:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, makover has an idea. Between sending cats, peacocks and boredom maybe we can avoid a war:)

- Sophia

October 16, 2010 at 6:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't follow the logic how Norway's grandstanding crap increases the likelihood of Israel It's a tongue-in-cheek argument, malahat. McDonagh likes to play with these high moral ground grandstandings by taking things to their absurd conclusions.

- noga1

October 16, 2010 at 6:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: "Er . . . makeover does, in his post at 11:26 a.m.:" No I don't. What I say is that the left constraints and hampers the military by inventing new restrictions on what's allowed and what is not allowed. By inventing new rules of engagement everyday that supposedly are to "win the hearts and minds" of the enemy population but all they do is to cause great operational difficulties and heavy casualties to it's own forces practically rendering combat impossible. The Western military is hampered enough by it's own rules and traditions of combat and it does not need anymore. It is fighting an enemy that is constraint by nothing, no care for non combatants, no rules of engagement not Geneva convention, nothing. It blows up civilians in buses, churches, mosques. And what does US do? Talking about to negotiations with it's tormentors out of misplaced believe in some ridiculous leftist Nirvana that peace can be achieved without thoroughly defeating the enemy. This is war G.. Damn it. Not a picnick. The Government announces timetables for withdrawal precisely to make the populations turn against US out of fear. And then complaints about shooting from the hip. And a lot of this misunderstanding is a result of United States being able to afford a "volunteer army". No serious outlook or understanding of war and combat is ever going to be achieved by United States as long as this is a fact. Unless a fair draft is instituted and everybody have somebody in the army this charade is going to continue. Drone war. Wow. Now that is winning hearts and minds when to kill one barefoot 20 year old with an RPG you blow up a village of 300 people. I see the villagers in Pakistan just waiting in line to hug an American. This is what I said before. A deluxe war. So somebody like roi does not have his beauty sleep disturbed and will not miss his latte. So the privileged can tell the poor shmocks who do the fighting for them to do it fast, clean and quietly as not to wake them up or have them watch unpleasant images on CNN. roi: Don't teach me about saber rattling. I have done some of the real thing so unlike you, I don't need to watch a movie. I know what a war is I bet hundred times better than you. I know when I did it and I know what it is when my kids go for a 30 days reserve duty. So don't teach me about chest beating or saber rattling because I do none of it. I tasted as the commercial says "the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat". And you know what? I like victory better!

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

October 16, 2010 at 6:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"American soldiers have not been interfered with by any human rights group, nor will they be. This is just another right-wing canard meant to teach us that the right is tough and the left is soft." Hey roi: Ever heard of this guys? I bet not. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/world/asia/17gates.html?_r=1&ref=world

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

October 16, 2010 at 7:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So then, makover, what we should do is invade Pakistan? And what price is that exactly that we are going to impose on Syria? Do you think that if we were just blowing up villages in Afghanistan without restraint we would then be "winning" that war and that it is only our sweet natures that prevent us from doing so? There is nothing more vicious than the United States at war. We invented modern warfare. We kill anything, in numbers that boggle the mind, with whatever weapon we have. But in the absence of some sensible strategy and tactics, and an achievable goal, even war fought the American way cannot be won. I hope you were not an officer, at least nothing above mefaked. Your unit would have been in great tactical difficulty. You may not think so, but it is empty chest-thumping. You are unable to match means and ends. You may have been a terrific infantryman or tank driver, but you would have made a really crappy general. And to the extent that war is politics fought by other means, an even worse political leader.

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 7:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yea, I've heard of those guys. We have all sorts of media in the United States. You'd be surprised. And your point is?

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 7:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you don't see my point then you are blind.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

October 16, 2010 at 7:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, I was not an officer. There is no doubt that US has a terrifying war power. The problem is that US does not know how to win a conventional war against dedicated guerrilla force because it is unwilling or unable to do what needs to be done which is to be ruthless.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

October 16, 2010 at 7:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The US was nothing if not ruthless in Vietnam and had half a million troops there. We were bombing the shit out Hanoi and North Vietnam and Cambodia. Guess what? We lost. True, we might have incinerated the entire country, but I don't know that even we would have considered that victory. Means and ends. War, other than a war of annihilation, is politics by other means. You have to have the means to break the enemy's will to fight or you cannot win. You may be able to conduct war indefinitely, but you cannot win. And then who ever has the endurance wins, most likely whoever is local over the invader. Same reason the British lost the American revolution. I once heard a brilliant description of what I took to be the war in Vietnam -- the expeditionary force dominant in arms, winning every tactical battle but then having its gains reoccupied the moment it moved on, extended supply lines, rebel leaders, the ultimate withdrawal because the enemy could never be defeated, etc., etc. The punchline was that what was being described was the American revolution. But the resemblance was not merely accidental. The tactics employed by the Vietnamese were invented right here in the good old US of A by Washington and his generals. The point you seemed to be making is that American warfare in particular is constrained by human rights groups to be ineffectual. There is nothing to that. A pure invention. No human rights group has ever interfered in the slightest degree with American military operations, much as some of them might like to. Are you now saying that this group that is releasing purloined documents about military operations is the same thing? Call me blind. That is nonsense.

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 7:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

United States refused to win in Vietnam. Not the military, the home front. As I said before, the weak link of American military is the home front. Clausewitz non withstanding. I just posted an article from NYT describing the left's involvement in leak of classified documents describing US operations and strategies in Afganistan. Is that not interference? Do you think Wikileaks collected those documents all be themselves, in Denmark or whatever the hell they are? Are you for real?

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

October 16, 2010 at 8:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi: This was my last point for today. Have to get some sleep.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

October 16, 2010 at 8:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You are unable to match means and ends. You may have been a terrific infantryman or tank driver, but you would have made a really crappy general. And to the extent that war is politics fought by other means, an even worse political leader." How do you know all this? Have you ever fought in any battle or appointed any generals? What is this?

- noga1

October 16, 2010 at 8:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wherever wikileaks gets its documents, it has not managed to impose any constraint on military operations, which was your original point, makover. There is no reason to believe that the US could have won the war in Vietnam. It would have had an earlier settlement, perhaps, and then the North Vietnamese would have overrun the south anyway. Things were so bad that the American generals had to invent fictional war accounts, which is what ultimately destroyed public confidence. But things were not going particularly well before the falsification came to light. Remember, the Pentagon Papers only disclosed to the public in a way it could understand what the Pentagon already knew was going on. ______________ How do I know all this noga? I can read, as someone once said You should dabble in military history, and the theory of war and strategy, noga. It would be a nice counterpoint to Jane Austen.

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 8:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, enjoy your rest, makover.

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 8:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You dabble in military history, and the theory of war and strategy, roi. And it shows...

- noga1

October 16, 2010 at 10:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You couldn't possibly tell one way or the other, noga. What you understand about politics and policy, war and strategy, economics, engineering, the sciences in general, law and rhetoric, business and organization wouldn't fill a thimble. But romantic novels? You are the queen!

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 10:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"policy, war and strategy, economics, engineering, the sciences in general, law and rhetoric, business and organization" "I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed to him - his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination - and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another, who had still higher philosophical pretensions, and my conclusion was exactly the same. [-] At last I went to the artisans, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and in this I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets; because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom - therefore I asked myself on behalf of the oracle, whether I would like to be as I was, neither having their knowledge nor their ignorance, or like them in both; and I made answer to myself and the oracle that I was better off as I was."

- noga1

October 16, 2010 at 11:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah, definitely. Go with the oracle. It's your best shot at wisdom (beyond the wisdom you already possess of knowing nothing and knowing you know nothing). Finally, something upon which we agree!

- roidubouloi

October 16, 2010 at 11:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makeover, if you say you didn't say what I thought you said, then I accept it. However, I'm confused as to how to respond now because after you claim you didn't say what I originally understood you go and repeat exactly the same accusation with different vocabulary. What is this "left" who is doing all these things? What "left" is changing U.S. rules of engagement. The most recent and significant arguments about how to fight an insurgency with new methods came from two generals, Odierno and Petreus. Are they "left"? I also note that, unlike malahat, you didn't address a single one of my substantive points, so again, I'm unsure what the actual grounds of argument are.

- ironyroad

October 17, 2010 at 12:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

the "left" changing military rules of engagement must be all the military lawyers who have to approve so many actions. maybe irony should watch James Webb's story in film "Rules of Engagement" to interpret what makover meant. I just like seeing the photo of the High Line urban park next to this, and needed to post again to answer makover's question - that smiling young man below the comment box is Gilad Shalit, long before his capture by Hamas. So we do not forget he is still held captive by those insane gangsters of Gaza.

- K2K

October 17, 2010 at 12:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah, must be. What would irony know anyway? The guy's a total fraud. An empty suit.

- ironyroad

October 17, 2010 at 12:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sir!

- ironyroad

October 17, 2010 at 2:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Major Irony. No beating yourself up." Why ever not? A little introspection has never hurt anyone and might do your Major a world of good, Colonel.

- noga1

October 17, 2010 at 7:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me." I can only wish that those who call me "a lying sack of shit" had some inkling of how badly crafted their metaphors really are. Noga, just curious, where is the quote from?

- willjames77

October 17, 2010 at 7:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"An empty suit." I don't believe it. English Profs do not wear suits. _____________ "So we do not forget he is still held captive by those insane gangsters of Gaza." "Insane" legally means not responsible. Those people who hold Gilad are fully conscious of the evil they do and consider it a moral duty. These terrorists are the consummate torturers. They torture because they derive pleasure and solace from it, not because it serves any useful purpose. Now what kind of human beings, would with such glee and sadism, inflict so much unnecessary pain on a boy's parents?

- noga1

October 17, 2010 at 7:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Noga, just curious, where is the quote from?" It's from "The Apology", Socrates speaking to the jury that has to decide his fate. Willjames, If you see what roi took away from the quote you would understand that he suffers from some limitation in capacity to understand what is beyond the strictly literal. This week's horoscope tells me: "When someone perpetrates evil, it’s hard not to wish them ill. That’s human nature. However, as much as they may deserve it, sometimes the bad shit that befalls them turns into even more evil going down later. The only way out of a spiraling mess of misery may be to take the high road, let go, and move on. That is, of course, an incredibly hard thing to do, especially for you occasionally bloodthirsty Scorpios. However, I guarantee that should you manage to actually do it, you’ll feel lighter and more free than you have in ages." There is some good advice there which I'll try to heed :)

- noga1

October 17, 2010 at 8:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, since makeover has gone to bed and I'm freshly out of mine, I wanted to pick up just one thread of his argument. How are we supposed to react when it turns out that five or seven or twelve Afghanis who were killed when a house was blasted appear to have been civilians rather than guerillas? Possibly the attack was was based on misinformation deliberately provided. Or, perhaps, it came about as a result of an incorrect reading of surveillance photos or an error in designating the target. Or, the soldiers on patrol were shot at and, in the stress of trying to stay alive, they returned fire to the wrong house. Wouldn't most people agree that the number of incidents, like My Lai, where American soldiers simply go ape-shit and start slaughtering the villagers are few and far between? Yet, when we read the news about Afghanistan, don't you feel that there is a certain zeal behind the reporting of each civilian casualty? The news makes the front page of the NYT; we read about how Karzai is really pissed-off this time; the military, on the defensive, promises an immediate and thorough investigation. What is the purpose of such detailed coverage of our errors, if not to make us feel that such accidental deaths are unacceptable and unforgivable, and that a war fought in this way is not worth pursuing? Why is it that, by comparison, the reporting of incidents of girls shot by the Taliban on their way to school is rarely considered newsworthy? If you want to learn about how the Taliban feign peace negotiations, lure the leading citizens of a village to meetings, and then murder them all, you have to read The Long War Journal rather than the New York Times. Isn't it odd how we accept ruthless treachery as par for the course for our enemies, while we are expected to beat our chests and feel shame for every accidental death that we cause? When makeover suggests that a pacifist-leaning, masochistic, guilt-ridden public on the home front is undermining our war efforts, I find it hard to dismiss his claim out-of-hand.

- willjames77

October 17, 2010 at 8:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great minds sting alike. My bday is coming up at the end of this month. I'll do my best to heed the oracle's sage advice until such time as I can shed this carapace and assume my true aquiline form. In the meantime, let me be among the first to send my warm wishes: Tanti auguri a te, Tanti auguri a te, Tanti auguri cara Noga, Tanti auguri a te!

- willjames77

October 17, 2010 at 8:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Grazie mille, Will! And in case I forget, let me reciprocate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfMyxn08MY4&feature=related

- noga1

October 17, 2010 at 8:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you for that most unusual birthday greeting! I really didn't know that these guys had made aliyah: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9OO0S5w2k

- willjames77

October 17, 2010 at 10:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: "What is this "left" who is doing all these things?" Frankly irony I am perplexed by your question. You seem not to know what is this "left" I am referring to and yet you were never in question who is this mythical "right" that you and roi refer to on a regular basis. One answer would be that it is the antithesis of this "right". But I don't want to get into a smart ass remarks. So I will try explain my position and I will attempt to define what I mean by this "left": For me it is a loose collection of liberal activists and groups, various liberal think-thanks, some liberal politicians who are members of the US Congress, majority of the media both print and electronic and finally some advisers of the President including the President himself. I want to stress that I mean "liberal" or "progressive" in the American meaning rather than European or Israeli. Those groups or individual are identified by certain ideology that favor government-funded or enforced programs that address inequalities that they view as having been derived from historical discrimination. They believe that most if not all of foreign policy problems are a result of Western colonialism and imperialism and because of that the West bears the utmost responsibility for the poverty and violence sweeping the Third World countries. They believe that the Islamic fundamentalism is a result of the West's encroachment on Islam's lands, the deprecation of Islamic values and culture and it's support for the Zionist regime in Israel. That's it in a nutshell. I hope that this answers your question. The "hearts and minds" tactic was not "invented" or was first suggested by either Odierno or Petreus. It was first published in a 1991 book by Martin van Creveld "The transformation of War" which became a required reading in American military colleges as part of the officer training. This book has claimed that organized military forces have no chance of defeating ragged bands of insurgents due to the insurgency ability to penetrate the civilian population that hides them. Martin van Creveld also declared in 2004 that the Iraqi war will end up in a disaster. Due to continuous revelations by the US and international media of American torture campaigns against prisoners, the Abu Ghraib scandal, the Guantanamo detention center tortures and accusation of murder of civilians by US tactical groups, United States army decided to adopt this new tactic recommended by van Creveld and based on trying to win the trust of local population. This tactic was adopted due to the inability to stop continuous terror attacks by small groups of fighters, suicide bombings, murders for hire etc. However, this tactic never succeeded until the United States started bribing the Sunni leadership with money, turning them against the foreign insurgents as long as money was flowing. I understand that now, they are returning to the insurgency. The population's "hearts and minds" were never won since the population never had any say anyway. Although the tactic was and is a failure the liberal watchdog groups continue to sing it's praises thus forcing the US forces in Afganistan to fight a political rather than military battle while suffering serious casualties. In addition, this "left" as willjames77 aptly describes "that a pacifist-leaning, masochistic, guilt-ridden public on the home front is undermining our war efforts". I have specifically referred to Wikileaks posting of secret or classified documents on the Web. Do you think they were published to help the war effort? Do you seriously think the the posters had the best interests of the US soldiers in mind? So that's it. I would answer your other point by point but quiet frankly I don't know what they are. So if you like to post them again, I will try.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

October 17, 2010 at 12:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makeover, I believe that there is no contradiction whatsoever between "groups or individual . . . identified by certain ideology that favor government-funded or enforced programs that address inequalities that they view as having been derived from historical discrimination" and fighting a war effectively. That would be tantamount to saying that only social and economic conservatism can win wars, something that history refutes completely -- see the Civil War and WW2 for good examples. In any case, I was trying to point out that attempts to develop laws of warfare, to bring legal accountability to military action, to promote the peaceful resolution of conflicts, to protect civilian life during hostilities, and other achievements that mark our ethical culture at its best are quite long-standing and have nothing in particular to do with an ideological "left" of the contemporary era. Indeed there's a strong "left" tradition that rejects ethical thinking as a fraud -- hence the current venomous, almost hysterical, polemics against human rights thinking as simply a new packaging for imperialism and global capitalism. Such attempts had and continue to have a great deal to do with religious belief and convictions, as well as shifts in public sensibility (changing standards of decency, in other words). From the Catholic "Just War" proposition through Quakers and the Red Cross to the people who developed the Geneva Conventions, individuals and groups of many different kinds of motivation and background, and certainly including conservatives (if the name is worth anything), have had an input into formulating, contradictory though it may sound, a set of humane constraints for warfare. Surely this is an achievement of civilization? I have never heard of van Creveld but the question of how to fight a force that is interwoven with the civilian population is a lot older than 1991. Even as a kid I knew that the War of Independence in Ireland in 1919-1921 was won by the IRA because the British authorities had succeeded in alienating the bulk of the population. "Hearts and Minds" was a concept applied in Vietnam, which was wonderful in theory but difficult in practice, especially when the political assumptions it was based on were complete fantasy. The concept of the guerilla goes back at least to the Spanish Peninsular war, and involves fighting an invading force in a situation where traditional military methods are either unavailable or destined to fail. Petreus and Odierno were trying to find a way to fight a war that needed more thinking rather than more armor. My broader point, however, was this: In a way it's a good idea to defeat our enemies, and not a good idea to work energetically toward increasing their number. If we have policies that bring more people over to our way of thinking, and indeed policies that encourage constructive neutrality also, they are policies that should be applied, because there are also policies that are dangerously counter-productive. In particular, we should keep in mind that this is a war fought in obscure places and in idelogical and even theological environments. Being in someone else's country uninvited is always a dicey option and even if there are good reasons (as there are in Afghanistan) we should always realize that the locals have an advantage. And it's worth saying finally that, while Western imperialism and colonialism did not create all problems in the Third World, they did create a few of them, and it's simply willed amnesia to pretend otherwise. The ironic problem for the United States is that we've often found ourselves, from the Philippines to Iraq, struggling with the results. And we once had our own struggle against a colonial power too, a long time ago, and perhaps that might give us a moment's thought.

- ironyroad

October 17, 2010 at 3:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a declared, certified member of the left (no more nor less mythical than the right that I routinely refer to as it is quite clear for most purposes who and what is being referred to): Makover's description of who populates the left is reasonable enough, although his inclusion of the media is dubious. It would have been plausible in a time when the media stood separate from corporate interests. That time is long gone. The media in the US are largely of the right and there is nothing on the left comparable to the frank propaganda and demagoguery of Fox. But, with that small qualification, I find his description of the membership recognizable. His description of what the left believes, however, is largely a caricature derived from the opinions of that very small and largely ineffectual portion of the left that lives on college campuses and at a few NGOs. If you polled the Democratic party, largely of the left, and excluded academics and college and university students (primarily limited to upper tier institutions as well -- not your agricultural and community colleges), you would find very few who hold even one of the beliefs that makover ascribes to the left. True, the academics are noisier, but they are very far from being representative of the left. They have no political clout, elect no one to office (with very, very rare exceptions), are almost unrepresented in the Democratic party hierarchy, and no one but the right pays much attention to them. Specifically, those of the left who favor government programs and management to not do so because they think bad stuff is the result of discrimination (in some cases, but not generally). Rather they observe that there exist many forms of market failure that are manifestly not self-correcting and will not self-correct in the absence of government intervention. Paul Krugman, today the most effective spokesman for the left economic view, does not obsess about discrimination. He is quite observant about the many forms of market failure we suffer from today as a result of the rightwing deregulation mania. As a group, excluding again the academics, the left barely think about the legacies of colonialism and imperialism, although there are such legacies. If any single view characterizes left-wing foreign policy it is that the United States does not have the means to "go it alone" except perhaps in the case of existential threat, and perhaps not even then. They therefore believe that the US needs to find means of cooperating with other nations, both allied and not allied, so that we can achieve an international environment favorable to our interests and relatively free of threats with the resources of all kinds that we have available to us. We do not in general observe that threats are efficacious or that the US has sufficient carrots and sticks to discipline the world. We observe that this cartoon-ish approach to world affairs more often brings about the opposite of what is sought or worse. The juvenile right-wing ascribes the desire to cooperate with other nations as being due to some mawkish sentimentality that analogizes relations among nations to personal relationships. Not in the slightest. It is pure pragmatism and is the philosophy behind the various international institutions created at the behest of the US after World War II -- to manage the international environment at the least cost. There is certainly a recognition that cooperation with other nations requires some respect, both rhetorical and in the form of compromise, for their point of view and interest. Telling them how it is and how it will be is not likely to garner the cooperation that we need. When to compromise or defer and when to be firmer in pressing our own view is a matter of mature and informed judgment, nowhere in evidence on the right. As for the view of Islamism, there is not a great deal of agreement. Most are not terribly interest in the reasons for Islamism, only in how to combat it effectively - e-f-f-e-c-t-i-v-e-l-y. That is because the characteristic of the left is pragmatism, not rigid ideology. The far left, the academics and such? Yes, they are the counterparts of the ideologically rigid modern right, but they do not count for much. There was a time when there was a moderate right-wing the views of which were not so different from the bulk of the left -- more skeptical of government intervention, more skeptical of anything that redistributes wealth, less patient with the demands of international cooperation than the left, more willing to use force first or sooner, but not so very different. Thus, as has been pointed out relentlessly in TNR, the Obama healthcare plan is largely the recycling of proposals made by Republicans in an earlier time. Today the right things that those same proposals are a socialist plot to destroy America. That moderate right-wing has vanished. The right is now populated by extremists and nuts, the counterparts of the extreme left that makover describes. Of course, that is the origin of the caricature of the left. The now extremist, ideologically hidebound right wing wants to portray the left as being in its image. But it isn't. That is a fiction. To the extent that the non-academic left does contemplate the origins of Islamism, I believe it is regarded primarily as an indigenous phenomenon that results from the absence of any Islamic counterpart to the Christian reformation which was, in many respects, the struggle to reconcile religion with modernity. In the Christian west, modernity won. There is certainly, however, an awareness that our naked support, out of our own self-interest, for oppressive, sometimes extremely oppressive, regimes in the Moslem world has a role in making us a target in the internal struggles of the Moslem world. Again out of pragmatism, the left would prefer some greater distance from such regimes. While the hysterical right talks about the threat of Moslems taking over and imposing sharia upon us, there is a lot more to be said for the reality that, through our support for oppressive regimes, it is we who impose our interests on the Moslem world. That is not a "legacy of imperialism;" it is a reality in the present. Again out of pragmatism, the left believes that rhetorical respect for Islam may help and cannot hurt and is in any case cheap. The right apparently thinks that rhetorical bashing of Islam is going to help protect us. Needless to say, the mechanics of this protective effect of hostile rhetoric are never explained. Objectively, the idea is absurd but typical of the comic book views of the right. "Bring 'em on," indeed. As for makover's description of the current conduct of our wars, the claim that the left has anything at all to do with it is, to be kind, preposterous. The left is not the source of the doctrine being employed nor is it the locus of decision to employ it. While we can concede that wikileaks is a bunch of leftists, the claim that whatever they have leaked or threaten to leak has the slightest impact on the war effort is just silly. These are not the Pentagon Papers. This meme that the left is undermining the war effort is a classic bit of right-wing propaganda. It goes back at least to Germany in the aftermath of World War I and probably a lot further than that. (Was it also employed by the French right in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussion war?) It is just the reiteration of the "stabbed in the back" propaganda employed so effectively by Hitler in his rise to power. Right wing ideas don't generally work because they are the product of ideology, rarely of pragmatism. When they flop, leading to one sort of disaster or another, the charge is invariably made that it wasn't the failure of the right and its cartoonish, juvenile ideas, but the result of left-wing perfidy. We see exactly the same in the claim that the US would have won the war in Vietnam but for the left. The US was never winning the war in Vietnam and would never have won the war in Vietnam without the deployment of military resources vastly in excess of the plausible. Now that our Middle East wars are falling apart in fairly predictable ways, predicted by more than a few including Obama, once again the right starts claiming that the failure is due to being forced to fight "with one hand tied behind our backs." This claim deserves exactly as much credit as it did when it was made by Hitler. For the slow of foot, that would be none.

- roidubouloi

October 17, 2010 at 3:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you, Malahat, for the well wishes! You have a valid point, and it behooves us to remember that every death is a terrible loss. The alternative is to become insensitive and to diminish our own humanity in the process. Yet I wonder how many people can look at the horror of war, feel the sorrow of it, and still know that it's worth pursuing because the alternative is even more dreadful. My fear is that the focus on our failings and transgressions will ultimately demoralize us and tempt us to throw in the towel. Perhaps in an ideal world we could mourn every accidental death without losing our resolve to win the war. But if I had to choose between becoming less sensitive to collateral deaths or abandoning the field to the Islamofascists, I would not hesitate to choose the former.

- willjames77

October 17, 2010 at 3:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “There is no reason to believe that the US could have won the war in Vietnam. It would have had an earlier settlement, perhaps, and then the North Vietnamese would have overrun the south anyway.” So now, roi is clairvoyant as well. He knows what would have happened no matter what. So, do you also think that ‘there is no reason to think that Obama will lose the midterm election no matter what he might have done?’ As for Vietnam, the strategic then don’t coincide with today’s wars against the Jihadists. Vietnam was protected by very powerful States: the Soviet Union and China. The US did have its hands tied in the sense that it couldn’t invade the North and take out it army on its home ground. (Yes I know about the French defeat in the North, but the French were a minor power with a large communist party at home. Add to that colonial guilt and you will see that it couldn’t maneuver very easily in their former colony.

- jdyer

October 17, 2010 at 7:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ok, colonial guilt was there -- but not felt by everyone in France. However, let's not forget the strength of Vietnamese nationalism, something that we showed an almost pathological inability to grasp. One of the reasons the Hanoi communists kept a significant handle on the whole country, not just North Vietnam, was that their nationalist credentials were a heck of a lot more convincing than than the rulers in Cochin China. The Chinese "protection" of Vietnam was a fairly cynical deal, and as soon as the U.S. was gone the Chinese suddenly discovered how they had always thought the Vietnamese were irritating pushovers who didn't know what was good for them, and in 1978 got their asses kicked for it.

- ironyroad

October 17, 2010 at 9:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad “Ok, colonial guilt was there -- but not felt by everyone in France.” Not an intelligent beginning, Irony, did I say that “everyone” in France felt colonial guilt? The intellectual left did and they set the political trends at that time. Camus had a hard time because he didn’t embrace their sense of “colonial guilt,” and Raymond Aaron was unusual in that he warned against it. But then he wasn’t a “man of the left.” “However, let's not forget the strength of Vietnamese nationalism, something that we showed an almost pathological inability to grasp.” That part about our “pathological” inability to grasp “Vietnamese nationalism” never made sense to me. We grasped it just as we grasped that Josef Stalin appealed to nationalist fervor in order to motivate the Russian masses to fight against the German invader. We didn’t like it, we didn’t think that the communist in Hanoi were a hundred percent sincere, but we did grasp it. “One of the reasons the Hanoi communists kept a significant handle on the whole country, not just North Vietnam, was that their nationalist credentials were a heck of a lot more convincing than than the rulers in Cochin China.” I don’t know how you can prove that. The communists operated in cells that intimidated those South Vietnamese who refused to give them support. Kill a family member as a warning and you will have a lot of “convinced” supporters. Those people weren’t stupid, they knew that the Americans would live someday while the communist (nationalist or not) gangs will still be there pressing for support. ”The Chinese "protection" of Vietnam was a fairly cynical deal, and as soon as the U.S. was gone the Chinese suddenly discovered how they had always thought the Vietnamese were irritating pushovers who didn't know what was good for them, and in 1978 got their asses kicked for it.” Not cynical at all. They were sincere in the fear of having the paper tiger at their door steps if they took over the North. They may not have liked the Vietnamese anymore than the Russians like the Poles, but they still would not have want them to be allied to the West.

- jdyer

October 17, 2010 at 11:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The South Vietnamese establishment was essentially a snooty Catholic oligarchy that was used to brown-nosing the French and having its way with an intimidated peasantry. It tried to dress it up in "democratic" costume to fool us, but it didn't really fool anyone else. The people weren't attracted to the communists in Hanoi per se, but there were a lot of Vietnamese at the bottom of the pile who thought their message wasn't so bad in comparison. Actually, regarding, sincerity. I think the Northern communist bosses were schizophrenic -- they did genuinely regard themselves as nationalists, but they had been long enough with the Soviets to see that as the only option. I do think it quite relevant that China's attempt to bully Vietnam ended badly. I admit upfront I admire the Vietnamese a lot (I don't mean just the communists). I think they are a lot more like Americans than many other nations in the region, which may be a tragic historical irony. I wish we had found a way in the early 1950s to manage it differently.

- ironyroad

October 18, 2010 at 1:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: Your question was "who is this left" and i gave you the answer and the definition as I see it and as you requested. As whether this "left" is capable to support effective waging of war particularly a war with no clearly identified enemy is an open question. In my opinion, this left is not capable of doing so because war is a contradiction of it's own reason de etre. The West have clearly developed the current rule of wars however, I think that now we need to look at this issue again, through "multi-cultural" glasses if you will. The rules of war and rules of engagement need to be adjusted to the type of the enemy we fight and to new technological development. Just like we adjusted the old rules to provide humanitarian concerns, we must adjust it to deal with a new type of enemy. What this will be, I don't yet know however, I think it will be something on the level of new Israeli doctrine as practiced in Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. Van Creveld is probably most influential military theorist in existence today. This from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_van_Creveld I agree with you that fighting small group of fighters within their home base has always been difficult. I mentioned van Creveld only in relation to the current military doctrine of the United States and other Western States in fighting non state actors. I think this policy is mistaken and will be abandoned. The new Israeli military doctrine follows this priorities: 1. Mission 2. Well being of Members of Team 3. Well being of Non combatants 4. Well being of Commanding team. I think that the US will be forced to adopt something similar in view of the fact that the current approach is disastrous. Your last point fine. So? Shall we destroy the Wester Civilization because centuries ago the West was involved in colonialism. Let me just point out the the West also created the institutions and philosophy that put an end to this adventures. roi: How is my description a caricature? I have described the major tenets of the left or the so called progressive movement. I think that my description is both factually and historically accurate.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

October 18, 2010 at 8:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If anything clarifies roi's perception of reality, it is the paranoid distortion expressed in this statement: "The media in the US are largely of the right and there is nothing on the left comparable to the frank propaganda and demagoguery of Fox. " When people think of major news media "Fox" is not exactly the first example that comes to mind. CNN, MSNBC, Al-jazeera, BBC, etc are more like it. But the fact that roi can determine that "The media in the US are largely of the right" by singling out "Fox" goes to show the level of his commitment to truly democratic values.

- noga1

October 18, 2010 at 9:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Makover's critique of the Left, that needless to say I agree with, comes not from the belly of the mythical "Right" monster, as ironyroad and roi would have it, but rather from the Center-Left. It is the same kind of critique that gave the impetus to the Euston Manifesto. An, if you like, "Orwellian" critique: "There is not the slightest doubt, for instance, about the behaviour of the Japanese in China. Nor is there much doubt about the long tale of Fascist outrages during the last ten years in Europe. They happened even though Lord Halifax said they happened. The raping and butchering in Chinese cities, the tortures in the cellars of the Gestapo, the elderly Jewish professors flung into cesspools, the machine-gunning of refugees along the Spanish roads - they all happened, and they did not happen any the less because the Daily Telegraph has suddenly found out about them when it is five years too late". roi prefers to cite the Right in Nazi Germany blaming the Left for Germany's misfortunes as the characteristic precedent to makover's critique ("This meme that the left is undermining the war effort is a classic bit of right-wing propaganda. It goes back at least to Germany in the aftermath of World War I and probably a lot further than that. "). It's the fallacy of guilt by association, even if the association exists only in roi's mind, who would never accept such argument were it to be pointed at Obama's very real, years-long association with unsavoury types. A much more reasonable and honest historical analogy would be to compare makover's critique to Orwell's critique of the Left in the years leading to WWII. "There is no real alternative between resisting Hitler and surrendering to him, and from a Socialist point of view I should say that it is better to resist; in any case I can see no argument for surrender that does not make nonsense of the Republican resistance in Spain, the Chinese resistance to Japan, etc. etc. But I don't pretend that that is the emotional basis of my actions. What I knew in my dream that night was that the long drilling patriotism which the middle classes go through had done its work, and that once England was in a serious jam it would be impossible for me to sabotage. But let no one mistake the meaning of this. Patriotism has nothing to do with conservatism. It is devotion to something that is changing but is felt to be mystically the same, like the devotion of the ex-White Bolshevik to Russia. To be loyal both to Chamberlain's England and to the England of tomorrow might seem an impossibility, if one did not know it to be an everyday phenomenon."

- noga1

October 18, 2010 at 9:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Shall we destroy the Western Civilization because centuries ago the West was involved in colonialism. Let me just point out the the West also created the institutions and philosophy that put an end to these adventures." Makeover, this is a point that unfortunately get lost in much of current education and contemporary political discussion. In all the recriminations about bad things done by the West, no one mentions that almost EVERYONE ELSE did as bad or worse. The rest of what you say deserves to be played over a loud-speaker system on trucks that drive through the streets all night. The West did indeed take the lead in abolishing slavery and creating the institutions and philosophy for a post-colonial world. Affirmations of human rights, along with laws to promote racial, religious and gender equality, are relatively recent Western inventions, still unknown and unpracticed in much of the rest of the world. The fact the we fail to communicate this crucial insight to our kids along with their mother's milk leaves them vulnerable to the preachers of anti-Western hatred whom they encounter in their later years.

- willjames77

October 18, 2010 at 10:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makeover, I think you missed my point that the pressure for constraints on warfare came not from some ahistorical "left" but rather from religious and/or ethically motivated constituencies.

- ironyroad

October 18, 2010 at 10:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You really cannot read English, can you Noga? Parse, parse, parse to try to catch me in some error and invariably you demonstrate nothing but what a complete ninny you are as to anything at all other than romantic literature. I did not say at all that US media is if the right because or even exemplified by Fox. I said it is of the right because, with changes in ownership, due to changes in both rules and expectations I might add, media are no longer separate from corporate interests that dominate American political life. They are a part of the corporate establishment. AND, I noted, there is no counterpart on the left to a network frankly devoted to propaganda and demagoguery. Makover, the fact is that the views you describe as being those of the left are held only by the ineffectual fringe of the far left that inhabits academia. If you went to any meeting large or small of Democratic party regulars and started talking like that people would think you were a communist nut. The best way to gauge what the left thinks is the rhetoric that elected use to address the party faithful. Whether the elected believe it or not themselves, it shows what they expect the base to respond to. It sounds nothing like what you claim is indicative of the left. Then listen to right wing campaign rhetoric. It is as nutty and paranoid as I describe it to be. Truly insane fantasies. That tells you who rightwing voters are in the eyes of the very people courting them. Wackjobs. It is worth repeating that nothing in US military doctrine is a product of leftists.

- roidubouloi

October 18, 2010 at 11:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Our children are not being preyed upon by anti western haters. That is a paranoid fantasy typical of the fascist right that worries constantly about moral pollution. Our problems in conducting our affairs sensibly, both in the economic and security spheres, are rather more practical. A large minority of Americans and virtually the entire organized Republican party is seized by some form of true insanity that denies basic elements of reality.

- roidubouloi

October 18, 2010 at 12:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You really cannot read English, can you Noga? " No. I fully admit it, I can't read English. Certainly not the kind of English you write in which words have a mysterious tendency to change meaning from one comment to another.

- noga1

October 18, 2010 at 12:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Democratic Party is not the "Left" that I mean when I speak of the "Left". It is only that kind of left when it includes those whom roi decides to discount as "very small and largely ineffectual portion of the left that lives on college campuses and at a few NGOs." However, it's irresponsible to dismiss the impact of these far lefties in academia since they are the ones who are entrusted with the way the future generation will see the world. And their kind of knowledge and ideology does seep through osmosis to more mainstream Democrats. So as long as roi and his like are focused on the 'Right' as the source of all evil, these new contents and ideas whose essence is indeed hatred of the West have a free field in which to proliferate and flourish. Think how it happened in Germany: while they were focused on the evil of communism, they cleared ample space for and facilitated the spread and rise of the Nazis. Here is one pertinent example as to how it works in our times: http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/2010/10/start-with-two-palestinians/

- noga1

October 18, 2010 at 12:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We have fascist ideas circulating openly and widely within an extremist right that actually dominates one of the two major political parties in the United States and the ever over-wrought noga worries thatvwe must focus our energies on combatting the ideas of the fringe leftwing that exists only on college campuses. As ever, the extremist right does what it can to divert our attention from the rightwing cancer that has real power within a substantial part of the polity toward leftwing dragons who have no authority, no power, and no credibility within the broad left. Think, noga. Think hard. Whose political tactics and memes do you embrace? Who are your political mentors whether you are conscious of it or not?

- roidubouloi

October 18, 2010 at 1:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"As ever, the extremist right does what it can to divert our attention from the rightwing cancer that has real power within a substantial part of the polity toward leftwing dragons who have no authority, no power, and no credibility within the broad left." A while ago on the subject of the Ground Zero Mosque you said that you are not worried about dangerous ideas coming out of any such project because you have a very robust confidence that America's institutions and constitution are absolutely able to deal with any such dangerous ideas and practices effectively. Now you say that "fascist ideas circulating openly and widely within an extremist right" are a dangerous cancer in America's political body. Apparently the institutions and constitutions that you so totally trusted in the former case have been degraded in the time that elapsed. Can you explain what exactly caused this dramatic erosion in your utter confidence in these said institutions that now you are so worried about dangerous fascists ideas being like "cancer"?

- noga1

October 18, 2010 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"AND, I noted, there is no counterpart on the left to a network frankly devoted to propaganda and demagoguery." Please roi, are you joking. What about Pacifica, CNN, BBC? Are they chopped liver? By the way, I agree with everything that Noga posted. Your distinctions between Democratic party, academia, fascists, communists is incoherent and illogical. "Our children are not being preyed upon by anti western haters." Have you been to Berkeley, UCLA or Columbia University lately? "noga worries thatvwe must focus our energies on combatting the ideas of the fringe leftwing that exists only on college campuses." Hell yes we do, do you seriously trying to suggest that ideas emanating from the academia are immaterial? If that is the case then why getting college education at all if the ideas promoted by college education are irrelevant? On a contrary, those ideas will be forming the future perception of young persons! Forgive me roi, you are talking nonsense.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

October 18, 2010 at 4:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was at UCLA for several years. What's your problem?

- ironyroad

October 18, 2010 at 5:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Also, nobody listens to Pacifica, the BBC belongs to another country, and by no standards is CNN 'left.'

- ironyroad

October 18, 2010 at 5:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi: I have no problems. You seem to have a lot of them though. Fascists on the street, fascist media, reactionary forces of darkness, Foxes everywhere, women stampeded, cattle raped. Get hold of yourself yingaleh. irony: are you serious? The last I remember BBC America is an American media group however even if they were not, seems that they are free to broadcast in the US whatever they want, or am I wrong? When I was in the US last time BBC was regularly broad-casted on cable and on NPR. In fact I think they even have a cable station. So even international media is engaging in promoting the leftist view in the US. By the way, NPR is not what I would call a "fascist" or "right wing" media either. When I lived in the US they were regularly called National Palestinian Radio. CNN is definitely left of center and Pacifica is a regular Bolshevik media. I have no listener statistics for Pacifica but the fact that nobody listens to their programs just proves my point. Americans are smarter than roi would have it.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

October 18, 2010 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The institutions that we rely on noga include most prominently free speech. That means we are not to be silent in the face of the perversities of the right. We need to comment on their stupidity, their paranoia, their extremist fantasies. I never suggested that Moslems in general or any ideas that might emerge from the Cordoba Center should not be criticized. But there are no particular ideas embodied in the Cordoba Center, at least as expressed by it's organizers, that were being criticized. Just the fact that they, Moslems, are building there. Makover, academia in the US has been the home of the far left for a couple of generations now. Where are the legions of anti-colonialist hand wringers who are the brainwashed product of higher education? Nowhere to be found in the real world. thus, as a matter of lengthy experience at this point, your fears are simply groundless. At the end of the day, students manage to emerge from biology class without the views you imagine are imparted there. American students may admire their professors, but at the end of the day they really don't rely on them as political mentors. Many are sort of fashionablynleftist while in the academic milieu, but it doesn't last long once they hit the job market. If it did, how could our political life possibly look the way it does? Other than declaring what I say to be wrong, you have nothing at all on which to base your description of the American levy, if by that you mean the portion of the population, vastly exceeding the number of academics, who vote left. Real people, not the paranoid fantasies of the right. On the other hand, rightwing extremists do exist in very large numbers and are pretty much in control of the Republican party. The threat of extremism In the US is entirely on the right, as a matter of fact, not fantasy. What flaw in Israeli education accounts for popular passivity in the face of settler extremism? Don't Israeli students get an education in morality, ethics, political history, the development of rules of international that were in direct response to the crimes of the Holocaust? Do theynget any sort of Jewish education?

- roidubouloi

October 18, 2010 at 5:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Makover, you seem to think that because there exists anything in the US that could be described as left media that the left dominates. You make the error that noga accused me of. Media in the US is overwhelmingly to the right. You seem to think the clock froze in 1972, or maybe your view of reality did.

- roidubouloi

October 18, 2010 at 5:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Makover, academia in the US has been the home of the far left for a couple of generations now. Where are the legions of anti-colonialist hand wringers who are the brainwashed product of higher education?" In the White House.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

October 18, 2010 at 6:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I was at UCLA for several years. What's your problem?" I don't understand what's the relevance of this statement, ironyroad. Are you denying that UCLA is a center for far leftist activism? Do you think that you rational presence there for a few years can counterbalance the extremism of Judith Butler?

- noga1

October 18, 2010 at 6:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You're painting yourself as one of the paranoid, extremist right-wing nuts, makover. Are you? Your answer, in essence, is an admission that your characterization of the American left is baseless, because the reality is that very few hold the beliefs that you attribute to the left as a whole and you have nothing to point to that suggest otherwise. You don't like Obama's foreign policy and that turns into the standard Rush Limbaugh rant about a non-existent left.

- roidubouloi

October 18, 2010 at 7:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"a non-existent left."?? And roi complains about paranoid, extremist wingnuts ? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_LWXfO_9CJtc/Seq0b72ij6I/AAAAAAAAEu8/VgphQYayuW8/s400/Chavez2.jpg

- noga1

October 18, 2010 at 7:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am having trouble using copy and paste on function on this thread, other pages on these web site seem to working fine. Does any one else have problems with copying and pasting on the Peretz thread?

- jdyer

October 18, 2010 at 7:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is an extremely interesting article arguing that the right wing Tea Party movement has similar roots to that of the movement the so called beat generation embraced: “The Beat Generation and the Tea Party” By LEE SIEGEL “The counterculture of the late 1950s and early 1960s appears to be everywhere these days. A major exhibition of Allen Ginsberg’s photography just closed at the National Gallery in Washington. A superb book, by the historian Sean Wilentz, about Ginsberg’s dear friend and sometime influence Bob Dylan recently made the best-seller list. “Howl,” a film about Ginsberg and the Beats, opened last month. And everywhere around us, the streets and airwaves hum with attacks on government authority, celebrations of radical individualism, inflammatory rhetoric, political theatrics. In other words, the spirit of Beat dissent is alive (though some might say not well) in the character of Tea Party protest. Like the Beats, the Tea Partiers are driven by that maddeningly contradictory principle, subject to countless interpretations, at the heart of all American protest movements: individual freedom. The shared DNA of American dissent might be one answer to the question of why the Tea Partiers, so extreme and even anachronistic in their opposition to any type of government, exert such an astounding appeal….” Read the rest of the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/books/review/Siegel-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print I was no fan of the beat writers and less of a fan of the Tea Party people. Still each movement draws some more elemental mythic deep structure of individual “self fashioning” (to borrow a phrase).

- jdyer

October 18, 2010 at 7:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The left is not non-existent, noga. The left as described by makover and Limbaugh is non-existent. It consists of a handful of people who inhabit academia and some NGOs. The paranoid, wacko, flat-earth right-wing, on the other hand, both exists and is substantial. It is difficult not to conclude that those who are oblivious to the difference between the trivial numbers of the extremist left and the very large numbers of the extremist right are not themselves part of the extremist right -- characterized as it is by its ability to ignore obvious reality. Reality isn't a strength of yours, is it noga? You like the imaginary world of novels, and you struggle painfully with elementary facts about the real world and with any sort of discourse about the world. The meaning of words in that context constantly eludes you.

- roidubouloi

October 18, 2010 at 8:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi is repeating in part what Sean Wilentz says here: “Glenn Beck: Drawing On 1950s Extremism?” “In the Oct. 18 issue of The New Yorker, historian Sean Wilentz examines "how extremist ideas held at bay for decades inside the Republican Party have exploded anew — and why, this time, party leaders have done virtually nothing to challenge those ideas, and a great deal to abet them."” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130534982 There is a lot of truth in what Wilentz’ has written, but it’s not the whole story. Lee Siegal has shown that it’s not that easy to separate “right from left” in this society and that European yardsticks are not accurate measuring tools for gauging American social movements. Beat and hippies have more in common on many issues with right wing Libertarians than either of them cares to acknowledge.

- jdyer

October 18, 2010 at 8:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And must it be repeated that characteristic of the paranoid and insufferably juvenile right-wing of which you and Martin Peretz are a part, noga, is the belief that the proper purpose of diplomacy is simply to berate one's enemies so that people like you can indulge their self-righteousness? It is surely obvious by now that real world outcomes are the last thing that would interest someone such as yourself. The play is the thing for you. The moral narrative. The drama, above all. Well, you people sure get your money's worth in drama. Everything you touch turns into a disaster and then there is lots and lots of drama.

- roidubouloi

October 18, 2010 at 8:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To put makeover and Rush Limbaugh in the same basket is just insane, Roi. It’s like saying that Roid and Rand Paul are similar because both appeal to the first amendment. Try keeping your incoherence and your typing to a minimum, Roi.

- jdyer

October 18, 2010 at 8:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“…characteristic of the paranoid and insufferably juvenile right-wing of which you and Martin Peretz are a part, noga, is the belief that the proper purpose of diplomacy is simply to berate one's enemies so that people like you can indulge their self-righteousness?” Roi must have looking at himself when he typed the following: “Paranoid Juvenile, Indulge in self righteousness,” Though, you left out narcissism, this describes you, Roi, especially the self righteous part. And, btw, often self righteous people like yourself make a lot of enemies and enemies have been known to trigger, paranoia in self righteous people.

- jdyer

October 18, 2010 at 8:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When makover makes the same claims as Rush Limbaugh, then he makes the same claims as Rush Limbaugh. You couldn't slip the thin edge of a piece of paper between the two characterizations of "the left." Not my fault. Can't you think up anything more clever, jackson, then the sort of "No, you are!" taunts that five-year-olds engage in? Come on, big guy. If you are going to do battle, show us some stuff that at least inspires our admiration for being clever, original, something.

- roidubouloi

October 18, 2010 at 8:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“When makover makes the same claims as Rush Limbaugh, then he makes the same claims as Rush Limbaugh.” Did he? I only listened to Limbaugh a few times but I doubt that he has the capacity for thoughtful expression that Makeover does. Now, Rand Paul and Roid, there is a more perfect match. Two professional men, two believers in constitutionally sanctioned free speech, two anti religious rationalists and the list goes on. “Can't you think up anything more clever, jackson, then the sort of "No, you are!" You may be a professional but you still use a few grammar lessons. And yes, can't you think up anything cleverer, Roi, thAn to call people you disagree with paranoid?

- jdyer

October 18, 2010 at 8:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You may be a professional" A professional what is our roi? And what real professional would have all this time on his hands to fill out carpets of comments on some blog?

- noga1

October 18, 2010 at 8:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Paul Krugman is no Obama hater, yet he too has seen fit to excoriate his government. “Rare and Foolish” By PAUL KRUGMAN “Last month a Chinese trawler operating in Japanese-controlled waters collided with two vessels of Japan’s Coast Guard. Japan detained the trawler’s captain; China responded by cutting off Japan’s access to crucial raw materials. And there was nowhere else to turn: China accounts for 97 percent of the world’s supply of rare earths, minerals that play an essential role in many high-technology products, including military equipment. Sure enough, Japan soon let the captain go. I don’t know about you, but I find this story deeply disturbing, both for what it says about China and what it says about us. On one side, the affair highlights the fecklessness of U.S. policy makers, who did nothing while an unreliable regime acquired a stranglehold on key materials. On the other side, the incident shows a Chinese government that is dangerously trigger-happy, willing to wage economic warfare on the slightest provocation….” “Major economic powers, realizing that they have an important stake in the international system, are normally very hesitant about resorting to economic warfare, even in the face of severe provocation — witness the way U.S. policy makers have agonized and temporized over what to do about China’s grossly protectionist exchange-rate policy. China, however, showed no hesitation at all about using its trade muscle to get its way in a political dispute, in clear — if denied — violation of international trade law.” Read it all here, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/opinion/18krugman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

- jdyer

October 18, 2010 at 9:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 "A professional what is our roi? And what real professional would have all this time on his hands to fill out carpets of comments on some blog?" I going out on a limb by taking him at his word, Noga. He claimed to be a lawyer.

- jdyer

October 18, 2010 at 9:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am most certainly denying that UCLA is a center of leftist activism, and not only because Judith Butler doesn't work there. It is, however, a center of sorts for intelligent and critical Islamic thought, as Khaled Abu El-Fadl teaches there.

- ironyroad

October 18, 2010 at 10:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I am most certainly denying that UCLA is a center of leftist activism, and not only because Judith Butler doesn't work there." Sorry. I thought University of California in LA and University of California in Berkeley were the same institute in two different campuses. ______ "It is, however, a center of sorts for intelligent and critical Islamic thought, as Khaled Abu El-Fadl teaches there." By "intelligent and critical Islamic thought," you probably mean the kind music you and others like to hear about Islam when you take a break from critical thinking: "El Fadl’s discussion of jihad is rendered meaningless by a blatant historical negationism of both Muslim and non-Muslim sources. In his analysis of the poll tax (jizya), he relies exclusively upon the sacralized early Muslim historiography of this institution. El Fadl thus attempts to uphold the “virtuous” aspects of the jizya, omitting any reference to the consistent, intentionally humiliating character of its application. El Fadl begins by asserting correctly that “..it was common inside and outside of Arabia to levy poll taxes..” 27, while ignoring, in contrast, the unique sacred, Qur’anic obligation of the Muslim jizya as expounded in 9:29. He then mentions the frequently cited apologetic scenario regarding the imposition of the jizya under Umar b. al-Khattab, based on Muslim sources: “If the Muslim state was incapable of extending such protection to non-Muslims, it was not supposed to levy a poll tax. In fact, Umar…, the second Rightly Guided Caliph and close companion of the Prophet, returned the poll tax to an Arab Christian tribe that he was incapable of protecting from Byzantine aggression.” 28 The actual historical record is more complex, contentious, and less salutary 29 . “Byzantine aggression” is El Fadl’s subjective characterization of the efforts of Heraclius to re-capture the (predominantly) Christian city of Hims in the late spring of 636. Hims had been recently conquered by the Muslim Arabs after their third expedition against the city, in December-January of 635-6. The Byzantines under Heraclius advanced on Hims with overwhelming force, prompting the Arabs to evacuate. Regardless of the validity of the claim of a “tax restoration” by the fleeing Arabs, the jizya was fully re-imposed (according to Muslim chroniclers) after the decisive Arab Muslim victory at the battle of Yarmuk in August 636, and the re-occupation of Hims 30. Moreover, a contemporary Syriac chronicle emphasizes the destruction of Hims and its environs during this Muslim re-conquest 31. El Fadl also fails to discuss how the “contract of the jizyah”, or “dhimma” encompassed other obligatory and recommended obligations for the conquered non-Muslim “dhimmi” peoples 46. Collectively, these “obligations” formed the discriminatory system of dhimmitude imposed upon non-Muslims- Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists- subjugated by jihad. Some of the more prominent features of the system of dhimmitude include: the prohibition of arms for the vanquished non-Muslims (dhimmis), and of church bells; the restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches and synagogues; the inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to overall taxation, and penal law; the refusal of dhimmi testimony by Muslim courts; the obligation for Jews and Christians to wear special clothes; and their overall humiliation and abasement 47. " http://www.andrewbostom.org/loj//content/view/86/27/1/1/ The question for me is, who is he trying to persuade by highlighting one possible if not likely interpretation while dimming other, better known and better studied interpretations? And why, as we can deduce from ironyroad's commendation, does he succeed?

- noga1

October 18, 2010 at 10:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, children! Such silliness.

- roidubouloi

October 18, 2010 at 11:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is another liberal Muslim school, Irony: http://www.investigativeproject.org/blog/2010/10/judge-raps-mas-tied-school-conduct "Judge Raps MAS-Tied School's Conduct" by IPT News • Oct 18, 2010 at 6:27 pm http://www.investigativeproject.org/blog/2010/10/judge-raps-mas-tied-school-conduct "The Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TiZA) in Minnesota has been facing a civil lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union alleging it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by using taxpayer money to promote religion. Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten reported on Saturday that the state-funded school has engaged in legal tactics that "have gone far beyond the usual rough-and-tumble of lawyers in our adversary system." Those tactics include a defamation counter-suit against the ACLU citing an official's statement that TiZA was "a theocratic school." The defamation suit was dismissed by the court. Another chief tactic has been attempted intimidation of potential witnesses. In January, the ACLU filed affidavits by a parent of a former TiZA student and a former TiZA staffer who claimed threats of violence were made against them related to the litigation. The ACLU also asked the court to quash a TiZA secrecy clause in its staff handbook that the ACLU claimed intimidated potential witnesses from testifying against the school. The court ordered the secrecy clause could not be enforced against any TiZA staff in connection with the ongoing suit. TiZA is run by officials with the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society (MAS). In her affidavit, former office assistant Janeha Edwards said there is no distinction between the TiZA school and MAS. "Their mail comes to the same mailbox, their faxes come through the same fax machine, and their telephone calls come to the same phone. MAS runs a daycare in the school building," she wrote. "MAS files and TIZA files are intermingled." In an October 1 court order favoring the ACLU, U.S. District Court Judge Donovan Frank questioned why the public charter school is trying to silence its employees: "In addition, it should go without saying that, apart from the employment contract issue, intimidation and threats will not sit well with a fact-finder such as a jury. From what the Court can discern on the record currently before it, TiZA's behavior during the discovery process thus far in the case has not been consistent with a good faith search for the truth." Though not a party to the lawsuit, MAS has tried to get the ACLU lawyers replaced, prompting Kersten to wonder whether the lawyers have information that could take the issue into deeper and more troubling areas. "Every time we read about this lawsuit," she concludes, "we have to pinch ourselves and say: We're talking about a public, taxpayer-funded school.""

- jdyer

October 18, 2010 at 11:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

- jdyer

October 18, 2010 at 11:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, they are two different universities. There are ten campuses in the UC system, and they are all autonomous institutions, which have their own chancellors, rules, recruitment policies, and the like. UCLA -- whether one likes it or not -- never had and certainly doesn't have now the left activist tradition that Berkeley prides itself on. I don't know who Andrew Bostom is, but I heard El-Fadl speak a couple of times, and found him both interesting and revealing about arguments within Islam. I also read the venomous hostility which his name provoked in the pages of Al Talib, the Muslim Students Association paper at UCLA, which certainly helped clarify my response. Incidentally, a possible misunderstanding: if I read "leftist activism" or a similar phrase about a university campus, I automatically think of student activism, not of professors and their work. Chomsky is at MIT, but that hardly makes MIT a hotbed of activism (!!) Even if Judith Butler were at UCLA, that really wouldn't do much to alter the history and profile of the campus, which as I said is very different to Berkeley's. In fact, looking at it from a wider perspective, it would be difficult to generally pinpoint faculty activism in terms of their work, as you could have a metallurgy professor who was active in anything from GLBT to 9-11 Truther groups, but it wouldn't change metallurgy.

- ironyroad

October 19, 2010 at 2:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I don't know who Andrew Bostom is," Don't you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_G._Bostom "I also read the venomous hostility which his name provoked in the pages of Al Talib," What does that prove? Many Islamic venues were also viscerally venomous about Yasser Arafat whom they found not violent-minded enough after Oslo. The fact that Muslim pages criticize someone does not render that someone any less criticizable from my position. Maybe not yours, though.

- noga1

October 19, 2010 at 7:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Israeli students must be much more impressionable than American students, irony, because the Israelis here think that the presence of a Chomsky or a Butler on a faculty will produce scores of hand-wringing, flaccid leftists unwilling to defend liberal values. That this has not happened despite decades in which the far left (in American terms) has made its home amongst college faculty is unimportant. As we know, facts, reality, don't count for much on the right. That the actual assault on liberal values in our time is from the right, notably from amongst the religious of all faiths, concerns them not at all. Perhaps they don't really care for liberal values all that much.

- roidubouloi

October 19, 2010 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's not a good sign when roi sidles up to ironyroad in a sympathetic nod.

- noga1

October 19, 2010 at 11:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Didn't you mean to say, "offers ironyroad a sympathetic nod." No, of course not. You manufacture whatever reality you need at the moment to advance whatever claim you want to make at the moment -- in the great tradition of rightwing fantasism. It is apparently a fractal phenomenon. No matter the level of detail, you can be found inventing facts to suit. Nothing is too trivial for you to distort through that funhouse mirror that passes for your mind. Addled.

- roidubouloi

October 19, 2010 at 11:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK, so now I know something of Bostom. I have to say that "appears as a commentator on FOX News" is not a particularly reassuring note, but as I haven't read his books I'll reserve judgment -- other than to say that neither he nor his work say anything particular about Brown U or its medical school. As we should try to deal in something more than opinion and subjective impression here, is there the slightest shred of actual evidence against El-Fadl about anything other than his desire to wrest Islam (especially legal thinking) from the fundamentalist Islamists? Because the MSA is savagely hostile to El-Fadl, and some other islamicist entity was hostile to Arafat, that hardly makes El-Fadl Arafat. If you follow that line of reasoning, you're at the unlovely and nakedly stupid "Democrats are against Bush; Al-Qaeda is against Bush; therefore Democrats are Al-Qaeda" argument of a few years ago. Anyhow, the mere fact that Bostom disagrees with him doesn't make him wrong. Everyone disagrees with me here from time to time, but I'm right about a lot of things!

- ironyroad

October 19, 2010 at 12:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“That the actual assault on liberal values in our time is from the right…” So says clueless Roidboy. However, the evidence suggest and equal desire to suppress the free exchange of ideas by the left: “The Hypocrisies of “Post-Modernism”: On Silencing the Israeli Voice” by Richard Landes “One of the more striking lunacies of our day is the way that the Left has adopted the totalistic discourse of the Palestinians and decided that even allowing Israelis to defend themselves is a violation of their principles. As a result we get the ludicrous monopoly of “debates” about the Arab-Israeli conflict by anti-Zionist Arabs and anti-Zionists Jews. “Professor Geoffrey Alderman, one of the few English academics still willing to defend Israel’s interests was invited and then disinvited to a panel discussion on “The Conflict in the Middle East” that has the likes of Avi “Arabs are always sincere in their peace offers, Israelis never” Shlaim and Beverly Milton “let’s talk with Hamas” Edwards. Below is a blogpost with the details from Jonathan Hoffman.” http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2010/10/18/the-hypocrisies-of-post-modernism-on-silencing-the-israeli-voice/ “No Free Speech at Queens Belfast” By Jonathan Hoffman http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/no-free-speech-queens-belfast#new

- jdyer

October 19, 2010 at 12:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“That the actual assault on liberal values in our time is from the right…” So says clueless Roidboy. However, the evidence suggest and equal desire to suppress the free exchange of ideas by the left: Exhibit B Is Roiboy himself whose bullying and hectoring tone shows that he too doesn’t value the free exchange of ideas which is the essence of free speech.

- jdyer

October 19, 2010 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Everyone disagrees with me here from time to time, but I'm right about a lot of things!" About a lot of things, but not the important things, Irony.

- jdyer

October 19, 2010 at 12:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"and some other islamicist entity was hostile to Arafat," Yes, Islamicist entities like Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said. Yes I hear what you are saying ironyroad, but I don't think you are interested enough in the intricacies of Islamic thought to follow patiently Bostom's critique. My guess is you saw that "Fox news" detail and made up your mind, your lip service to intellectual neutrality nothwithstanding. My theory is that it's not convenient to dig too deeply into that kind of information. And one can always excuse one's reluctance by citing one's ignorance of the subject or by thinking oh well, she WOULD think that, wouldn't she? The difference between you and I, ironyroad, is that I can read from sources I find are biased and unpalatable, like Al-Jazeera, and still manage to extract some reliable bits of information. I'm also curious enough to go explore around for a bit on my own before I dismiss anything as mere inflated words.

- noga1

October 19, 2010 at 12:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For Irony, the defender of a "nationalistic" Communist Vietnam. "From the Vaults: Vietnam Workers’ Party, 1953" Michael Ezra, October 19th 2010, 4:12 pm "The Vietnam Communist Party was formed in 1930. It was subsequently known as the Indochinese Communist Party before changing its name to the Vietnam Workers’ Party (Dang Lao Dong Viet Nam) in 1951. Ho Chi Minh was unanimously elected as Party Chairman and the ideology was “Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism and Mao Tse-tung thought.” The Vietnam Workers’ Party had its own poet, To Huu. On the death of Stalin in 1953 he penned the lines republished on page 18 of Bui Tin’s book, Following Ho Chi Minh: The Memoirs of a North Vietnamese Colonel, (Bathurst NSW Australia: Crawford House Publishing Pty Ltd, 1995): Stalin, oh Stalin, alas He is gone! Do heaven and earth still exist? Devotion to father, to mother, to husband, Devotion to Him ten times more than to oneself. Love for the children, for the country, for the race But so much more love for Him. In the old days, we were so withered and desolate With Him there is joy In the old days, there was hunger and torment With Him there is more than enough rice to fill the pot." http://hurryupharry.org/2010/10/19/from-the-vaults-vietnam-workers-party-1953/

- jdyer

October 19, 2010 at 1:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, yes -- I accept that, but I still leaves me wondering why you so quickly and completely dismissed El-Fadl merely on Bostom's say-so. The Arafat comparison also seems grotesque, as El-Fadl is a law professor at UCLA and Arafat was head of the PLO -- I don't see how that parallel would work, as there is nothing as far as I know in El-Fadl's career to suggest he believes in or has carried out acts of terrorism. If there isn't, the analogy is inappropriate and unjust. One reason for your response may be that you have read Bostom and find him convincing, therefore you go with him on this. That's fine, and makes perfect sense. However, the fact that I have heard Fadl several times, and find him convincing, makes sense to me. And yes, the MSA hostility did work to his benefit in my view -- I met some of them and I didn't like them, and I knew why they hated him.

- ironyroad

October 19, 2010 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The extremist left and extremist right are indistinguishable in their zeal for repression. What the thug apologists fail to acknowledge is that the numbers of the extremist left in our era are trivial while the numbers on the extremist right for which the apologize are large and growing. There will always be extremists at both ends of the spectrum. The threat to liberal values in our era is from the right. As ever, it invents threats from the left where none exist to fuel the zeal of followers. Those who participate in this lie are blameworthy as such whether they subjectively share the goals of the extremists or not. This most certainly includes you, jackson. And noga. Less clear to me what is going on with makover who seems to me to be repeating memes that he has not necessarily thought through.

- roidubouloi

October 19, 2010 at 2:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad, it was you who always keeps repeating that an analogy does not necessarily mean moral equivalence. I just wanted to give you an example that when Arab or Muslim extremists criticize someone for being too willing to compromise, it does not necessarily exonerate that person, which seemed to be your argument when you said: "I don't know who Andrew Bostom is, but I heard El-Fadl speak a couple of times, and found him both interesting and revealing about arguments within Islam. I also read the venomous hostility which his name provoked in the pages of Al Talib, the Muslim Students Association paper at UCLA, which certainly helped clarify my response." Now let's see how you twist this case to illustrate how this is an exception to your rule.

- noga1

October 19, 2010 at 3:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, agreed, it doesn't exonerate that person. I have no problem with that part of your comments in a general sense. What I'm asking is a particularity: why this particular person (El-Fadl at UCLA) needs to be "exonerated" in the first place. He hasn't done anything.

- ironyroad

October 19, 2010 at 3:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"He hasn't done anything." You mentioned him. You brought him as an example of Islamic enlightenment when you said: "It is, however, a center of sorts for intelligent and critical Islamic thought, as Khaled Abu El-Fadl teaches there." I'm always on the lookout for reform-minded Muslim intellectuals so I googled about him and found that there was some serious doubt among other academics about how far he merits that assessment. I don't get it. Aren't you pleased that something you said triggered my curiosity?

- noga1

October 19, 2010 at 3:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, surely. But "exonerated" seems a very strong word. One is normally exonerated of suspicion of a crime. I have to say that I liked El-Fadl a lot as a speaker -- he projects a dry humor allied with an almost zentraleuropäischen intellectual energy about him. A kind of a risk-taker, was my impression.

- ironyroad

October 19, 2010 at 4:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, I read some of things he said and wrote and I was not impressed. Example: "To what extent are the September 11 attacks in the US symptomatic of more pervasive ideological undercurrents in the Muslim world today? Obviously, not all social or political frustrations lead to the use of violence. While national liberation movements often resort to violence, the recent attacks are set apart from such movements. The perpetrators did not seem to be acting on behalf of an ethnic group or nation. They presented no specific territorial claims or political agenda, and were not keen to claim responsibility for their acts. One can speculate that the perpetrators' list of grievances included persistent Israeli abuses of Palestinians, near-daily bombings of Iraq and the presence of American troops in the Gulf, but the fact remains that the attacks were not followed by a list of demands or even a set of articulated goals. The attacks exhibit a profound sense of frustration and extreme despair, rather than a struggle to achieve clear-cut objectives." Another example: "[What is your experience of evil?] I don't think that evil is a social infraction or a violation of a norm. I know that evil has a feeling. It reminds me of the justices of the Supreme Court, when they were talking about pornography and they said, "Well, we know what it is when we see it, but we can't describe it." In my experience [of] evil, it feels like a stillness, an emptiness, an absence of life. It has this nearly stale existence to it, that suddenly you get the feeling that nothing lives, nothing exists. That feeling then allows for the emergence of actively ugly and scary things. But evil, it's as if experiencing something where you just feel not only that life is absent, but that there [is] the deconstruction, the breaking down, the tearing apart of life. The Quran, which I believe in as a Muslim, when it talks about evil at one point, it says [that it is] the undoing of what God has put together. The remarkable thing is that is consistent with my expression, my experience of evil. Evil, it breaks down your memories. Evil breaks down your will. Evil breaks down your ability to feel or to appreciate. ... I believe that demons do exist. I think their will is contingent upon ours. In other words, they exploit our own weakness. You can open the door for evil. You can open the door to evil by failing to affirmatively build beauty and undoing and breaking down things, whether it's breaking down, undoing a human being or undoing the product of what human beings built. ... " ___________ "I have to say that I liked El-Fadl a lot as a speaker -- " But you would, wouldn't you? He is probably very charming and you were charmed.

- noga1

October 19, 2010 at 4:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“The threat to liberal values in our era is from the right. As ever, it invents threats from the left where none exist to fuel the zeal of followers. Those who participate in this lie are blameworthy as such whether they subjectively share the goals of the extremists or not. This most certainly includes you, jackson.” Yea, I am a right wing extremist who has been a life long democrat and has never voted for a conservative or libertarian candidate in my life. As usual you are full of it, Roidboy. As for there not being a threat to liberal values from the left tell that to the victims of Lenin and Trotsky as well as Stalin and their followers. Last I looked the left doesn't like the liberal Obama any more than the right does and Chavez in Venezuela has been going after liberals as enemies of his “revolution.” You are just as dumb as a post who thinks that all totalitarians are on the right.

- jdyer

October 19, 2010 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So Irony, you have nothing to say about your Vetnamese Stalinist nationalistic friends, do you?

- jdyer

October 19, 2010 at 4:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Yes, surely. But "exonerated" seems a very strong word." Yes, it is. And I should not have used that verb in this context.

- noga1

October 19, 2010 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The left against Obama: "Biden’s “Stop Whining” Whining Riles the Left—Against Obama!" http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28190 "The Left Rises Up Against Obama" http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/the-left-rises-up-against-obam.html "Michael Moore Defends the “Professional Left” Against Obama and the Banksters" http://www.infowars.com/michael-moore-defends-the-professional-left-against-obama-and-the-banksters/

- jdyer

October 19, 2010 at 4:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'll get back later JD, I've got to rush. Likewise Noga -- I'll read the El-Fadl extracts soon. I may have to dive under the surface this week.

- ironyroad

October 19, 2010 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I have to say that I liked El-Fadl a lot as a speaker -- he projects a dry humor allied with an almost zentraleuropäischen intellectual energy about him. A kind of a risk-taker, was my impression." Irony Oh he now likes risktakers. What about Bush, wasn't he a risk taker? Is that any reason to like him? Many despicable people have had intelectual energy and were eloquent speakers.

- jdyer

October 19, 2010 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad “I'll get back later JD, I've got to rush.” See Irony run down the road. Run, Irony, run, On the deeply trodden road, Stop when you are done And take a long look at the view Look at those looking back at you And let out an ironic sigh Seeing the others so nigh.

- jdyer

October 19, 2010 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like I said, Jackson, those who participate in the lie are blameworthy whether they subjectively share the goals of the rightwing extremists or not. And that most certainly inludes you, Jackson. You probably do it just to score what you imagine to be rhetorical points or to appear clever. But it is no less discreditable because your subjective motivation is banal.

- roidubouloi

October 19, 2010 at 5:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi Like you keep showing us, you are just an ignoramus with an idee fixe, that's all. Moreover your idea is pure fiction which is why you have to insult anyone who challenges it. You do more damage to your Idol Obama by your pathetically silly defense than a thousand anti-Obama wing-nuts.

- jdyer

October 19, 2010 at 6:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When irony runs he don't stop thinking Looking back west at the sun slowly sinking Wondering where the others are, said they'd share the load Swore they'd keep up but are lost on the road What happened to them all? he meditates From Noga, JD, and NR-four-nine-eight To lib ref back on the ol' West Coast And ginzy with his links to the Jerusalem Post [Not a bad paper, a bit of take and give Enjoyed it over coffee in Tel Aviv!] But now the road is empty, a ribbon in the night Lots of miles to cover before the dawnlight

- ironyroad

October 19, 2010 at 10:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, If others in my household could recognize the names in your poem, I'd put this one on the fridge. Unfortunately, it wouldn't make sense to anybody but me.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 19, 2010 at 10:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid, I'm so glad to see you're still here. I was away for a few days and was unable to access the internet. I wouldn't go quite as far as you do in condemning the right (in my opinion it's really the tea-baggers who are fascistic), but I do think that the more mainstream Republicans have made a very dangerous alliances with these nutters. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. Please, for my sake, continue to write your long posts. They are clearly and cleverly thought out. I'm still confounded by how nobody here seems to understand that you are talking about occupation versus colonization. Somebody else here wrote that the withdrawal from the West Bank cannot be a unilateral decision. It can be, you seem to be saying, as long as it's the settlers and not the soldiers making a retreat. But here's the big question: I'd be curious to know which parts of the West Bank and Jerusalem you think do not belong to the settlers and which part do. I know only enough to say that the Israelis can stay wherever they keep the borders from becoming Auschwitz borders. But I have no specifics. Interestingly, 60 Minutes did a segment this week on Israelis moving into an Arab neighborhood in East Jerusalem. They had a glaring omission, however, when it came to the question of settlers actually buying the land from the Arabs. No coercion has been involved. I have to say I think I'm very mixed up on the facts of Israeli Jews buying property versus Israeli Jews illegally moving in. It would be interesting for someone to find a map of where Israelis have settled fair and square and where not. And how, exactly, does the not-so-fair-and-square happen? How many Palestinians are being evicted from their houses? Are they being evicted from property that's still up for dispute? Do these neighborhoods with a new Israeli Jewish population then get more heavily patrolled by Israeli troops, which is my understanding of the situation. At the end of the day, it seems like this comes down to mapping out some very boring but necessary location coordinates--in the same sense that surveyors could come to my house and tell me whether and where my rose bushes are encroaching on my neighbor's property.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 19, 2010 at 11:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Go hit the road ironyroad and when you get to a fork in the road turn right back ere you are tempted to take the one that goes north or the the one that goes north by northwest Adventures? Golden Samarkand? The seven emerald seas? Mere mirages, who cares? The mirage, supersonic fighter Designed in France by Dassault Aviation Not by Bomabrdier which is located in Montreal A barren city that wants to be Paris and London but is actually a lot like Tel Aviv Don't run. Walk. We ain't going anywhere. Not right away anyway

- noga1

October 19, 2010 at 11:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, of the two excerpts you posted of El-Fadl's thoughts, the first--which reads the 9/11 attack as an expression of despair and frustration--is indeed embarrassing and shameful. The second excerpt, on the other hand, where he reflects on the nature of evil, seemed to me to be quite insightful. It's not the only thing one could say about evil, but it sounded to me like an authentic and interesting take. I'm curious as to why you cited it as evidence of El-Fadl's deficiency as a thinker/scholar?

- willjames77

October 20, 2010 at 5:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And our English teacher warned us, a bit frostily, That all our lives we would hear these words Spoken proudly and loudly by those Who were tone deaf to irony.

- willjames77

October 20, 2010 at 6:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Two roads diverged in a yellow wood," Does one lead to the kingdom of Oz? Where does the other go? I mean, one would like to know these things. I wouldn't want ironyroad to get lost and not come back... ___________________ I found el-Fadl's thoughts about evil shallow and somewhat evasive ("demons"??). He is not trying to define what evil is but explains how HE feels around it and how the Quran supports that feeling. When people of learning ruminate about evil, I expect more depth and clarity as to what IT IS, not what it feels like. Here are two examples how Evil is defined that I find useful: According to Paul Ricoeur “Evil is, in the literal sense of the word, perversion, that is, a reversal of the order that requires respect for law to be placed above inclination. It is a matter of a misuse of a free choice... The propensity for evil affects the use of freedom, the capacity to act out of duty – in short, the capacity for being autonomous.” Emmanuel Levinas: "The essence of evil is its instrumental ambiguity." When I ponder Ricoeur's words, I realize that he gives me rather precise instruments by which to identify evil when it happens. Levinas equips me with a warning about the difficulty in recognizing it. These two are not afraid to take a piece of chalk and write on the blackboard exact parameters. On some subjects you cannot afford to be impressionistic. It's self indulgent and sycophantic. It's useless.

- noga1

October 20, 2010 at 7:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

(Noga, don't you ever sleep?) Irony could always hitch a balloon ride back with the wizard, but there's always the risk he might enjoy hanging out for a while in the land of the Munchkins... Back to the other matter at hand: my take on evil is that it is the kind of phenomenon that defies precision instruments. It's no more susceptible to formal definition and explanation than God, love, or the Primavera. Some interpretations are better and more useful than others, but there are many insights to be had and many ways to approach the territory. You wouldn't suggest that we can only learn about love by others telling us what IT IS, and not by what it feels like, would you? I suspect that Ricoeur's definition, in context, elaborates what is evil within a certain framework that he is discussing, rather than offering it as an all-purpose definition. In you know his early work, The Symbolism of Evil, his notion of evil is quite fluid. He explores the metamorphoses of evil in parallel with the evolution of human consciousness in a sequence that moves from stain to sin to guilt. The earliest experience of evil, "stain", is a quasi-physical sense of defilement half-way between spirit and matter. It would correspond to the experience of an ancient Hebrew who learns that he has inadvertently just sat down in a chair recently traversed by a snake or by a woman who gave birth last week. He goes down to the river for a ritualized washing and ablution and by dusk he is "clean" again. "Sin" refers more directly to actions which are violations of law or social agreement. Amends can be made through actions which set things right, like restoring an ox to your neighbor to replace the one you killed in rage for eating your pot plants. Last but not least, "guilt" requires an internalization of the sense of evil and is characteristic of evolved individuals and advanced civilizations. It presumes that there is a portion of consciousness sufficiently autonomous to be angry with the rest of the self and to castigate it for its real and imagined violations. Of all the procedures of atonement, expiation of guilt is the most complex and requires that one listen to Ahmadinejad's denunciations of the West, take personal responsibility for them and apologize directly to the U.N.H.R.C. So, Ricoeur actually gives us a notion of evil that keeps morphing all the time and its phenomenology depends substantially on who, what, where and when. Following inclination instead of respecting the law, as when one succumbs to the blandishments of the Yetzer-Harah, can be evil. At other times, though, it can be really fun, and surely it is not the whole of the Law.

- willjames77

October 20, 2010 at 10:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, love your third and fourth stanzas, beginning with inspired associative segue from "mirage" in the second. Regarding El-Fadl, I don't find anything so problematic in either of his statements (which presumably have contexts). He says "one can speculate . . ." about the 9/11 attackers' motives, and he trots out a few of the standard menu items, but he then points out that we have little to go on to support that contention one way or the other, given a kind of enigmatic silence on the part of Al Qaeda. It seems to me he's saying that these standard "political" explanations of 9/11 don't hold water. That said, I don't agree with all his arguments, but that's a different matter. JD: I never said the North Vietnamese communists weren't communists, or even Stalinists (it was difficult not to be, in 1953). I said that, for many Vietnamese, the nationalist credentials of the Viet Minh transferred to the communists more readily than to the South Vietnamese political establishment. To that I would add that even ostensible Stalinists could also be covert nationalists in certain contexts (something that was true of Hungary, for example). I have been a risk-taker myself now and again. However, I think there's a distinction to be made between a risk with oneself and one's own assets in the balance and a risk taken with the assets of the nation of which one is the president. And remember too, Iraq (as an example of actual risk-taking) wasn't presented to the American people as a risk but as a sure thing, a cakewalk in fact.

- ironyroad

October 20, 2010 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks to makover, noga, jackson, and willjames for a pleasureable catching-up of the past two+ days of this thread. My special thanks for the two best Spine comments since roid returned: 10/18/2010 - 6:24pm EDT | makover [roid]: "Makover, academia in the US has been the home of the far left for a couple of generations now. Where are the legions of anti-colonialist hand wringers who are the brainwashed product of higher education?" [makover] In the White House. 10/19/2010 - 6:08pm EDT | jdyer [responds to] "roidubouloi Like you keep showing us, you are just an ignoramus with an idee fixe, that's all. Moreover your idea is pure fiction which is why you have to insult anyone who challenges it. You do more damage to your Idol Obama by your pathetically silly defense than a thousand anti-Obama wing-nuts." [K2K adds that exposure to roid has certainly cost the New York Democrats my ticket vote this year by offering so much proof of their intolerance and condescension. I shall be splitting my vote in a very complex way to send multiple signals to the NY Dems. I know how they analyze such votes. My message will certainly be noted when I vote for my reliably liberal congressman and state assemblyman, cast zero vote for state senate (unique situation), GOP for NY comptroller (Wilson was even endorsed by the NYT) and GOP for AG (sorry Schneiderman, but abortion rights and gun control are NOT the top priorities when your legislative comrades are in a queue for corruption indictments). Thanks to roid (Attaboy!), this is the first time since my first vote in 1972 that I shall NOT be voting for Democrats for governor or U.S. Senate. Still undecided how to protest vote for governor, and U.S. Senate, which are protest votes for three different reasons. I am appalled that NY Dems are making abortion rights the key issue to drive voter turnout in the face of the financial disasters in NY and DC. K2K special thanks to noga for Heroic Efforts in Intellectual Curiosity: 10/19/2010 - 12:53pm EDT | noga1 "...The difference between you and I, ironyroad, is that I can read from sources I find are biased and unpalatable, like Al-Jazeera, and still manage to extract some reliable bits of information. I'm also curious enough to go explore around for a bit on my own before I dismiss anything as mere inflated words." [there is also that frustrating search for morsels of pragmatic common sense for reassurance that everything is not totally lost to hyper-partisanship in the United States]. K2K on a housekeeping question: 10/18/2010 - 7:39pm EDT | jdyer "I am having trouble using copy and paste on function on this thread, other pages on these web site seem to working fine. Does any one else have problems with copying and pasting on the Peretz thread?" K2K says YES, but not just in Peretz's blog. I still wander into Chait-world and Citizen Cohn-world, and, without any evidence, have encountered the same intermittent problem, so it may be time-related, or not. But, you are not alone. I think TNR.com is infected by Stuxnet worm :), or somehow being penalized for posting catchy AOL news headlines. I would note that, as I roam the left-to-right blogosphere (you all forgot to cite the NYTimes as a liberal voice on politics and leftist on anything Israel, that retains too much national credibility), I find conservatives to be more civil than those at left-leaning sites, writers and commenters.

- K2K

October 20, 2010 at 2:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So you didn't like my poem?

- ironyroad

October 20, 2010 at 2:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

C'mon Irony. El-Fadl's take on 9/11 is that "The attacks exhibit a profound sense of frustration and extreme despair, rather than a struggle to achieve clear-cut objectives." This is either extremely obtuse or dishonest and despicable. What a way to exhibit one's extreme despair! At least young Werther had the decency to jump into a canal. It's a pity the Jihadists weren't able to find any conveniently located bridges to jump from, or train tracks to lie across, closer to home. Perhaps I'm over-simplifying but to my mind anyone who seeks to "explain" mass murder of civilians as an expression of anything is an abject apologist for terrorism.

- willjames77

October 20, 2010 at 2:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, I agree that makeover saw his opening and hit a homerun with his comment about the anti-colonialist hand-wringer in the White House. It may be unfair, but it made me laugh out loud...

- willjames77

October 20, 2010 at 2:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

willjames, my impression from reading the whole paragraph that Noga cited is that "explaining" is exactly what he's trying to avoid doing. Hence I read the import of it a little differently.

- ironyroad

October 20, 2010 at 3:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad: It's kind of funny that in intending to write a lot of nonsense something deadly serious managed to come out in those two "stanzas"s you mentioned. I feel like someone who has been dressing in a room believing the window curtains are closed, once fully dressed realizing that there is a gap between the two sides of the curtains. Oy. ____________ I agree with william's view of el-fadl's comments about 9/11. He may not MEAN them as explanation but the fact that he could not resist including those extremely familiar arguments and giving them some weight shows that he is not quite successful in suppressing their attractiveness. He is like that Gerges fellow who can never quite bring himself not to mention that the US has to change its policies towards the Arabs because of the perception of the Arabs that they were wronged by the West.

- noga1

October 20, 2010 at 5:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

will, I knew I was not successful in trying to explain why I find Ricoeur's synthesis of what evil is so convincing and useful. I did not like el-Fadl's way of grappling with the issue because he was not really making an effort to configure this phenomenon of evil. He was merely responding to its scariness, externalizing it, so to speak, by bringing in the demons. As if "evil" is an entity, outside human scope of possibilities. I don't like it. It eschews personal responsibility. The most effective description of what evil is I read from Yaacov Ben Moshe, who blogs at The Breath of the Beast (http://breathofthebeast.blogspot.com/2008/10/field-guide-for-fighting-evil-first.html): "As many of you already know, my second youngest son was born with Neurofibromatosis. NF is the perfect paradigm of evil. It is a tumor disorder in which the tumors grow along nerve fibers. Because nerve fibers are uniformly arrayed throughout the body, the tumors may appear anywhere and are usually so inextricably interwoven with the tissues of skin, organs and bone that removing them completely is impossible. That is how I see evil. It is inextricable in the fabric of humanity. What is truly important is how we try to deal with it. Thoreau observed, “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve.” Ask anyone- they will tell you that they are opposed to evil but few understand that (as I pointed out in my post of 9/2) that evil is part of the universe and especially present in the human soul. "

- noga1

October 20, 2010 at 6:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

so, Hezbollah has given an ultimatum to Iraq's Maliki to guarantee the timetable for complete U.S. troop withdrawal in exchange for Hezbollah's support for Maliki as Prime Minister. That expands Iran's frontier to Jordan and thus the West Bank. (and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia). Do the Shi'a secretly believe Moktada Al-Sadr is the 12th Imam? http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/moktada-moktada-moktada/ Is this the Shi'a crescent as the great unintended consequence of Bush's Iraq mis-adventure, with an assist by the NOT-Bush policy with Iraq by the Obami? No wonder Allawi looked depressed on Sunday on Zakaria's GPS. OTOH, maybe a Sunni-Shi'a war is just what everyone needs to take their eyes off Jerusalem. yes, willjames- I also laughed out loud at makover's priceless, succinct, elegant retort. I just read almost 200 comments attached to Ethan Bronner's NYT article about the possible Palestinian declaration of statehood. So, forgive me for actually wanting a Sunni-Shi'a war to the death. The post-WW2 experiment with "limited war" has been a total failure. Screw the bleeding hearts. There are about four billion too many people (yes, I volunteer) in the world for the earth to sustain life anyway. Might as well start with the Persians.

- K2K

October 20, 2010 at 8:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly Simon says: "I'm still confounded by how nobody here seems to understand that you are talking about occupation versus colonization. Somebody else here wrote that the withdrawal from the West Bank cannot be a unilateral decision. It can be, you seem to be saying, as long as it's the settlers and not the soldiers making a retreat. But here's the big question: I'd be curious to know which parts of the West Bank and Jerusalem you think do not belong to the settlers and which part do. I know only enough to say that the Israelis can stay wherever they keep the borders from becoming Auschwitz borders. But I have no specifics." ________________ There is no prima facie problem under international law for Israel to continue to occupy the West Bank militarily as long as security so requires. It cannot be more heavy-handed than necessary, cannot behave in a manner that needlessly provokes conflict and hence the conditions of insecurity that require occupation, and it cannot interfere with ordinary economic life, including imports and exports, more than necessary for purposes of security. In the simplest terms, Israel is entitled under international law to do what is reasonably necessary for its own security so long as the state of conflict continues, but it cannot oppress the Palestinians beyond the reasonable needs of security. Contrariwise, Israel cannot legally transfer its population into occupied territory. The best argument that the settler apologists have been able to muster is that the settlers went voluntarily and hence "Israel" did not effect a population transfer. This is not supported by the language of the Fourth Geneva Convention which does explicitly distinguish forced and unforced population movement as necessary and does not make that distinction in this case. As well, given that Israel is in military and juridical control of the West Bank, the claim that Israel is somehow innocently standing by while settlers magically appear is objective nonsense. The settlers, both legal and illegal under Israeli law, are given all sorts of necessary support by the government of Israel. My reading of the Convention leads to a different outcome as to Jerusalem and the Golan. If land has been incorporated into Israel and the inhabitants there have been accorded the rights of citizens, then I don't think the Fourth Geneva Convention applies any longer. The territory is no longer "occupied" within the meaning of the Convention. The incorporation may or may not have adequate legal justification (as for example under Security Council resolution 242), but that is a separate legal problem. It is not a human rights violation, as settling occupied territory is. As to where settling is or is not legal under the terms of the Convention, it is not hard to tell. Outside of Jerusalem and the Golan, Israel explicitly governs the territories under "military occupation government." Israel has been careful to maintain the legal status of the territories as "occupied" both to limit claimed violations of resolution 242 and to avoid having to accord the residents of the West Bank citizenship rights. This is the essence of the human rights violation; Israel maintains a separate legal status for the residents of occupied territory but settles their land anyway. As for the "Auschwitz borders," ginzy repeated this a while back and I challenged him as to where he would draw the borders in the West Bank based only on the military justification of defensibility. Answer came there none (at least none that I recall). He may have said something about the "central heights," but if Israel extended its borders to the central heights it would be absorbing most of the Arab population. In the age of missiles, it does not appear to me that there are any modifications of the boundary, other than control of the Jordan, that have a rational military justification without at the same time absorbing Arab population that Israel does not want to absorb. Tinkering with the Green Line has only the justification of trying to incorporate illegal settlements in Israel so as to avoid the consequences of their illegal status. It doesn't have any defense justification, at least none that I can see on my own or that anyone who argues in favor has been able to offer. In light of the foregoing, I have never understood why Sharon withdrew the IDF from Gaza along with the settlements. I read something that said Condoleeza Rice forced his hand, but I find that less than credible. _________________ As for K2K threatening to withhold his vote from the Democrats, that is a good long laugh. First, that he still pretends for rhetorical purposes that he IS a Democrat when anyone can see that he shares nothing in common with the Democratic party and, as such, would not be welcome there. He would find a better ideological fit with the Tea party than with the Democratic party. Second, that he imagines his vote in the State of New York to be of some possible consequence. Third, that he imagines Democratic voters in New York to hold opinions similar to his own. Such good fun! As for makover's "priceless, succinct, elegant retort" that the legions of anti-imperialist legions that he imagines swarming out of leftist dominated American universities are to be found in the White House, the diversion does not hide the fact that makover's claims are baseless, that he cannot sustain them on the facts, and that the best he can muster is a quip that is, objectively, no more sustainable than his first thesis. The ninnies among us find this clever. Sure, in just the way Rush Limbaugh is clever, exactly the sort of humor that K2K and his like enjoy. And how do we know that K2K is a barely closeted Limbaugh-ite? Here is a priceless, succinct, elegant expression by K2K of just who he really is: "There are about four billion too many people (yes, I volunteer) in the world for the earth to sustain life anyway. Might as well start with the Persians." One need not wait all that long for the mask to slip.

- roidubouloi

October 21, 2010 at 5:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, reading the comments on any NYT piece that deals with the Middle East is not for weak stomachs. It's enough to make anyone long for Armageddon. You are duly forgiven. I remember someone on these boards remarking at the outset of the battle between Hamas and Fatah for control of Gaza that he planned to kick-back, make some pop-corn and watch the match on TV. If you can't laugh at the insanity occasionally, it all gets too depressing. Keeping a sense of humor helps, but apparently not everyone has one.

- willjames77

October 21, 2010 at 3:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I'll look forward to continuing the conversation about evil at some future opportunity. I think we both approach it from different places, and it would be interesting to explore that difference. Many thoughts to share but too much going on at the moment to give it what it merits.

- willjames77

October 21, 2010 at 3:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'd like to have that conversation, will. I have a personal interest in the subject that is also purely academic, if you know what I mean.

- noga1

October 21, 2010 at 9:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One cannot shrink the spirit small enough for it to be suited to noga. Hers is the Judaism of occupiers and what, unfortunately, we can expect Israel to become if it remains the occupier long enough. Lord Acton was quite right.

- roidubouloi

October 22, 2010 at 3:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another venue further away from the putrid breath of the beast would be more congenial, if you know what I mean.

- willjames77

October 22, 2010 at 6:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wouldn't liken roi to a beast, will. http://www.bexleytheatrearts.com/images/mouseroared.jpg ... complete with a royal cap. Mighty a-gnawing but basically harmless.

- noga1

October 22, 2010 at 6:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey, Lying-Sack-of-Shit, By all means, find another venue. Your lies and slanders are nothing that civilization needs. Go join a Tea party why don't you where your brand of excrescence and barely closeted racism are celebrated. And take the addled noga with you when you go. A double-mitzvah!

- roidubouloi

October 22, 2010 at 12:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Something for our resident pain-in-the-ass to ease the pain in his soul: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4134J324RWL.jpg

- willjames77

October 22, 2010 at 3:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is there any way we can institute a kind of self-censorship to hit the brakes when we're on the cusp of utterly pointless personal insults? You know, a kind of internal override that kicks in and says something like "I'm a mature adult and I'd like to be perceived that way." Oh, we have one. I believe Freud once called it the superego.

- ironyroad

October 23, 2010 at 1:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mature adults can but not infantile megalomaniacs whose superego is in an arrested state of development. And as long as there are posters who take these IM's seriously and engage with them as if they have important things to say no matter how much shit you must swim through in order to find that something, then "utterly pointless personal insults" is a perfectly natural way to respond to them. "We" are not all responsible for the debasement of the discussion here, ironyroad. It is one commenter who bears that responsibility and you ought to be able to address him without trying to dilute that responsibility with that "we".

- noga1

October 23, 2010 at 6:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I could be wrong, but I think my point was that it's each individual's own "responsibility," and one furthermore that should not have to be outsourced to others.

- ironyroad

October 23, 2010 at 5:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I could be wrong, but I think my point was tha" I can't understand how you could be wrong about what your point was, ironyroad. If you are not sure what it was, who else could it be?

- noga1

October 23, 2010 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, I do seem to be violating that Kantian principle about having to be the subject of an item of consciousness of which one becomes aware, but to be honest I was just joking around a bit with my reputation for irritatingly defensive prose. Incidentally, what I forgot to say was that I was somewhat taken aback that you read "utterly pointless personal insults" as not applying to roid.

- ironyroad

October 23, 2010 at 6:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe your "incidentally"s should be more to the point. Aren't you being a bit reckless, using the italics for one little word like "not"?

- noga1

October 23, 2010 at 7:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At the risk of inviting another scornful sideswipe from JD, I like taking risks occasionally.

- ironyroad

October 23, 2010 at 8:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And in the meantime, Ahmadinejad... "Manolo says, it is common in the modern era for Internet relationships to progress rapidly once the participants meet for the first time in person...." http://shoeblogs.com/2010/10/22/modern-romance/

- noga1

October 23, 2010 at 10:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"We" are not all responsible for the debasement of the discussion here, ironyroad. It is one commenter who bears that responsibility and you ought to be able to address him without trying to dilute that responsibility with that "we". ___________________ You, noga, most certainly are responsible for the debasement of the discussion here. Your only regret is that your moral debasement is not met with equivalent rhetorical skill, either in debate or insult. You are a loser, but you never stop trying to lose and never miss an opportunity to throw the first punch despite your pretty unremarkable skills. Obsessive compulsive disorder at the minimum. And then we can all observe your inevitable orgy of self-pity as you whine about receiving what you are always eager to dish out. Push the button, there you are. Whoever referred to you as the gargoyle of the Spine had it just right.

- roidubouloi

October 24, 2010 at 11:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Incidentally, what I forgot to say was that I was somewhat taken aback that you read "utterly pointless personal insults" as not applying to roid." "And as long as there are posters who take these IM's seriously and engage with them as if they have important things to say no matter how much shit you must swim through in order to find that something, then "utterly pointless personal insults" is a perfectly natural way to respond to them." ____________________ Doesn't it amuse you, irony, that noga is perfectly willing to admit that she engages in "utterly pointless personal insults" as a deliberate means of policing speech here? As for me, my insults have a definite point and purpose that you may or may not agree with. I aim to inflict pain and humiliation on the wanna-be bullies like noga, willjames, etc. -- the jackal pack. It is my goal to ensure that, once they throw the first punch as they always do, they gain nothing from it. Noga's invariable whining tells me that I am generally successful. It is her mental disease that it never occurs to her that, if she were to behave like a civilized human being, she would be treated like one. Actually, it probably does occur to her but she doesn't care. Her disorders plainly include masochism

- roidubouloi

October 24, 2010 at 11:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"noga, willjames, etc. -- the jackal pack." So now will is also one of the jackal pack, roi? Sweet, mild, knowledgeable and wise as he is, in ways that you will never be able to understand?? Is there no limit to your schmuckitude?

- noga1

October 25, 2010 at 9:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, you mean Lying Sack-of-Shit? "Sweet, mild, knowledgeable and wise" in a pig's eye. What has no limit, noga, is my disdain for, and disgust with, you and yours, including Lying Sack-of-Shit. As he does, so he is. He gets exactly what he deserves. You at least provide teachable moments. Disquisition on your perversions of reality and decency can be used to instruct. Lying Sack-of-Shit, on the other hand, doesn't even rise to your level. And that is some accomplishment! His perversion is so complete that it does not even bear argument. It is worthy only of being crapped on. Anything else would elevate him and it.

- roidubouloi

October 25, 2010 at 12:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What has no limit, noga, is my disdain for, and disgust with, you and yours," There is more affirmation of my own merits in your limitless and absolute disgust than ironyroad's ambiguous astonishments. The clarity is welcome and I'm grateful to you for providing it.

- noga1

October 25, 2010 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You're welcome. The pleasure was mine.

- roidubouloi

October 25, 2010 at 6:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The sad thing about you roi is that this is probably all too true, that you do get pleasure from these vituperations and that you do think you are achieving some kind of success with it.

- noga1

October 25, 2010 at 8:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I do, when it comes to you. A small measure of justice in a world with very little. And I am quite certain of the success that I achieve. Your incessant whining is all the evidence I need. Push the button, there you are. Do you really think that I am ever going to give you free reign to indulge your penchant for insult rather than argument without pummeling you for it? You are a very slow learner, noga.

- roidubouloi

October 26, 2010 at 12:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Better be a slow learner than a non-learner. You don't teach by intimidation. That's mafia tactics. And you, roi, are a brutish megalomaniac. Some MM's can get away with their disorder because they have charm. You are lacking in anything remotely resembling social skills. You either bludgeon certain people and suck up to others. And I have noticed a pattern in whom you choose to bludgeon and whom you suck up to. It's not hard to notice that, Mr. Pablo Christiani, schumck extraordinaire, sir..

- noga1

October 26, 2010 at 6:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh. Did you think I was serious when i said you were a slow learner? That's called ironic understatement, noga. The obvious meaning for those whose minds are not as thick and literal as yours is that you are never going to learn anything. I know that is the case. And you do too. It is but a part of your pathology. No, there is no possibility of instruction in your case. Sometime in the near future, you will, as you always do, decide to inject personal insult into the discussion when I say something that you cannot abide but for which you have no intelligent response. Doesn't generally take very long as you are pretty short of intelligent responses as a rule. Molly aptly cataloged the two or three inane things that you repeat endlessly. And then I am going to pummel you all over again. And I will indeed relish doing it just because you so thoroughly deserve it. You think you notice a pattern? Patterns escape you completely. The pattern you are incapable of noticing is exactly who starts every one of these battles. You. You are a very sick person, noga. Truly.

- roidubouloi

October 26, 2010 at 6:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"That's called ironic understatement, noga." Don't be ridiculous roi. You can't do irony. But what you can do is illustrate through your behaviour what dramatic irony is. For example, a person speaking of employing irony as an rhetorical device while using words like "pummel" by way of exemplifying his ironic methods of engagement. Now THAT'S ironic. I'll repeat it again: I have noticed a pattern in whom you choose to bludgeon and whom you suck up to. It's not hard to notice that, Mr. schmuck extraordinaire, sir.. There is an accumulated record for this observation. If it were not for this pattern I would have suspected that indeed you suffer from some mental disorder. But this pattern proves a certain discernment that does not fit in with the pathologies of certain mental diseases. That proves that what motivates you is deliberate malevolent narrow mindedness. And bigotry.

- noga1

October 26, 2010 at 9:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If it's not clear I'd like to simplify: A thug cannot ironize. Brutishness is incompatible with the subtleties of ironic language. Either you are Joe Devola, or you are Jerry Seinfeld. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyEHjdId2EQ

- noga1

October 26, 2010 at 10:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I realize, noga, that for someone as limited as you, who repeats the same non-sequiturs in response to pretty much everything, it is impossible to imagine that anyone could have more than one rhetorical tool available. But, out here in the world, that is really quite common. For the debased and brutish such as yourself, one speaks with the language of brutality. You don't understand anything else. Too thick, to thuggish, too addled. A verbal spike to the head barely makes a dent with you. Rest assured that when I say something to you in any other vein, it is only to amuse myself in the certain knowledge that it will go right by you. And you never disappoint! Push the button, there you are. It's wack-a-mole with you, noga, 24/7, because anything else is quite beyond you. The "pattern" you think you notice is that it is indeed quite unnecessary, not to mention that it would be pointless and self-defeating, to deal with others as I deal with you. You are a goon, a gargoyle. Most of the rest of the people here are not.

- roidubouloi

October 26, 2010 at 11:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And still the pattern is there. Roi. No matter how much you try to emphasize your exclusive hatred to me, it cannot change the statistics. Here, have a laugh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qjj5d2WW4MQ&feature=related

- noga1

October 26, 2010 at 12:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Statistics? I am having a good laugh. As if you have the slightest idea what statistics are or how to use them. You might as well claim that you got the word beamed into your tinfoil hat. At least that would be plausible.

- roidubouloi

October 26, 2010 at 4:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your cringing before certain posters and your bullying of certain others are all recorded on this blog, roi. There is a pattern to this cringing/bullying. It is recorded on this blog, you can't curse it away. You have no self respect, no self esteem, no dignity. You are an empty shell with one pebble in it making a lot of noise.

- noga1

October 26, 2010 at 4:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Cringing? Oh, I like that! Perhaps your most creative insult yet: Undisclosed cringing. Really, that is a cut above your normal drivel and fulminations. Sweet. Next time you observe me cringing, noga, you call that to my attention straight away. Otherwise, I shall just have to continue to believe that you are as absolutely bonkers as you appear to be. And that is seriously nuts. Your fantasies about, and obsession with, my mental state are sufficient evidence of that. But when we get to your various delusions about what has or has not been said in public, we are into serious schizophrenic territory. Tell the truth, are you medicated in some way? If so, I may have to cut you some slack. At least that shows a willingness to address your illness, even if, based on your behavior here, there is not much success to show for it.

- roidubouloi

October 26, 2010 at 5:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually considering you inability to connect words to meanings I have to wonder if we are even talking about the same phenomenon. I mean of course cringe as in "fawn" like this fellow here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT3_UCm1A5I

- noga1

October 26, 2010 at 7:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh. Sure. Next time you observe mean fawning over another poster, noga, you please do call it to my attention. Indeed, make a real spectacle of it why don't you so you can prove what you imagine is your assertion to the world at large. Surely you want to make a convincing demonstration of it, don't you? You are crackers. Absolutely nuts. A major loon.

- roidubouloi

October 26, 2010 at 8:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And yet you cringe and smirk and nudge by way of seeking approval from certain posters while you bully and curse and bludgeon like an orangutang when you address other certain posters. You are very transparent in your neediness.

- noga1

October 26, 2010 at 9:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I bully the bullies, of whom you are exhibit number one - the gargoyle of the Spine. I treat the human beings like human beings. The latter looks like fawning, or seeking approval, or some other such nonsense, because you are more than a few nuts and bolts short of being a human being and cannot understand what normal discourse among human beings looks or sounds like.

- roidubouloi

October 26, 2010 at 10:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The latter looks to you like fawning . . . "

- roidubouloi

October 26, 2010 at 10:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Such angst. I almost feel sorry for you. Good night, roi. You can have the last word.

- noga1

October 26, 2010 at 10:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I knew that would shut you up.

- noga1

October 27, 2010 at 7:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And if I had responded, you would have claimed to have known I would. Get a life, noga. It is perfectly obvious that you are deeply, psychologically engaged in these battles, while I would be more than happy if you could manage to behave in a civilized manner and there was no longer any need for them -- a prospect that you have previously said makes your flesh crawl. You are a profoundly disturbed person.

- roidubouloi

October 27, 2010 at 8:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And if I had responded, you would have claimed to have known I would. " Exactly. That's the fun of it. You are such a cartoonish character and you are so invested in your own image of being in control when you are so obviously not. All I need to do is just throw a two line comment to get you going forever, including the endless stream of verbal abuse.

- noga1

October 27, 2010 at 9:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She says as she keeps going endlessly with verbal abuse. Your inversions of reality never cease to amuse. But let's not pretend that you are having fun at this, shall we? The sort of deep masochism you betray is not the same thing as fun. Your constant whining makes it plain that you are not having fun at all, but, like the Palestinians, you cannot take the exit ramp by stopping your execrable behavior. You are they; they are you. Mirror images on one another. If you happened to be born a Palestinian in Ramallah, you would be demanding Israeli blood. It is only because you reside in a civilized place where your malady finds relatively little to stimulate it and violence has no social blessing that you are not the savage in action that your mentation shows you to be as a person.

- roidubouloi

October 27, 2010 at 10:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But let's not pretend that you are having fun at this, shall we? " I told you once you can't break me. That I'm practically unshockable. I am not having fun in the way you consider fun. Fun for me is spending time in the company "of clever, well-informed people who have conversation and a liberality of ideas." (JA) The time I spend on you I consider a moral duty, to prevent you from contaminating these threads completely. Your need for attention, any sort of attention, is like that of a vacuum cleaner (with one difference: that vacuum cleaners eventually have limits). I keep plying you with this attention you crave in order to make you feel comfortable enough to let relax whatever moral inhibitions you still maintain over that sewer mind of yours and that mafia sensibility.

- noga1

October 27, 2010 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your pathology again. This inversion of reality. I don't want your attention, noga. At all. As to anything. It is a nuisance, like being nibbled at the ankles by vermin. Disrupts the flow of conversation and adds nothing of interest. It is you who quite clearly crave my attention, in matters large and small. One need only observe the behavior to know the truth, no matter how much ink you spend trying to deny the obvious. No matter how many times I invite you to refrain from personal attacks and vituperation and offer that I will do likewise, you always come back and throw the first punch. Always. Without fail. The only possible conclusion is that you deliberately invite what you claim not to want, and therefore it must be what you want. When I say that I would be pleased if you would just stick to the topic of the discussion without your personal attacks, you say the very prospect makes your skin crawl. You are a ghoul. Let's face it noga. The problem is that you are incompetent at rational discussion, incapable of meeting argument with argument. When you encounter an argument you don't like because it leads to a conclusion that emotionally you do not want to accept, and for which you cannot muster a response, your frustration and anger boil over and you erupt. By now, the possibility that you can exercise any sort of self-control seems remote. But, despite that, you will not get a free ride, whether it breaks you or not. It must be clear to you by now that, as long as you persist, I will continue to ridicule you (not hard to do as you provide so much fodder) and do my best to demonstrate to whatever readership is left how perverted you are. So, go ahead, indulge your masochism. While it is not fun in any normal sense, it plainly satisfies something in you.

- roidubouloi

October 27, 2010 at 11:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga says "I keep plying you with this attention you crave" roi foams: "I don't want your attention, noga. At all. " folllowed by 450 words of unadulterated fulmination, (one of many others in response to not needing noga's attention), making it clear that "By now, the possibility that [roi] can exercise any sort of self-control seems remote."

- noga1

October 27, 2010 at 4:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gee, did you take something I wrote and change the names? How terribly clever of you. Did you think that up on your own? And I am so flattered that you actually count my words, not to mention that you seem to have a library of things I have previously written. I don't have a library of things you have written. Not one of them is worth remembering. Just noisome refuse. All a very lame effort on your part to distract from the inarguable reality that the next such battle will be started by you, the gargoyle of the Spine. And the one after that, and the one after that, and the one after that. Followed by your self-pity and whining, all in an endless repetition. I really do pity your family. What a nightmare it must be to live with you. I can barely escape the dread with the whole internet in between us, and anonymity to boot.

- roidubouloi

October 27, 2010 at 4:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's what I meant earlier, roi, about loosening those moral restraints.

- noga1

October 27, 2010 at 5:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, noga, you may know something about restraints as it wouldn't surprise me a bit if you have been forced to wear them from time to time. But the very idea that one such as you should express any opinion about morality is quite laughable. You have about the same relationship to morality as an invariably fatal virus. The only safety is in being far, far away from you. I'm honestly not sure this is far enough.

- roidubouloi

October 27, 2010 at 5:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The moment you start talking about someone's family in a context which has no conceivable legitimacy to do so, you step into mafia territory. Just as expected.

- noga1

October 27, 2010 at 6:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh good, a new frontier. You think that when fending off a pestilence like you one should worry about what territory they are in?

- roidubouloi

October 27, 2010 at 8:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think that YOU don't worry about respecting such boundaries. That was my point. And it's satisfying to get that confirmation from you. AND you can have the last word.

- noga1

October 27, 2010 at 9:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is the last word: YOU think you worry about respecting boundaries? You couldn't if you were moved to (which you aren't) because you have not a clue where any might lie. Far too addled. It shows. The biggest difference between me and you, noga, is that I know what I am doing and say what I say deliberately. You can deplore everything I say, but it isn't thoughtless. You on the other hand imagine yourself to be a pitiful victim when you are in fact a really nasty aggressor. You have no idea who and what you really are. Delusional. The best evidence of what a shit you are is that you imagine yourself to be intentionally seducing me into behaving badly. You boast of it. I would NEVER encourage someone to behave badly. I try to get them to stop behaving badly. In this, you are exactly like the Palestinian terrorists who try to compel Israel to deal with them violently so that they can then claim to be victims. That's because you have the mentality of a terrorist: Complete inversion of reality. Complete lack of scruple. No purpose other than the constant expression of your own consuming anger. You are sick.

- roidubouloi

October 27, 2010 at 9:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And if I had responded, you would have claimed to have known I would. " Exactly.

- noga1

October 28, 2010 at 7:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close