Damn you, archives. Damn you!
It’s too delicious. Purveyor of pejoratives, Juan Cole of Misinformed Comment has put his war face on – Raawwwrr! Or should I say, bok-bok-ba-kok:
I would like to urge the Left to learn to chew gum and walk at the same time. It is possible to reason our way through, on a case-by-case basis, to an ethical progressive position that supports the ordinary folk in their travails in places like Libya. If we just don’t care if the people of Benghazi are subjected to murder and repression on a vast scale, we aren’t people of the Left.
It’s not that they can’t “reason their way” into Libya, it’s that it is a direct contradiction from every position they vehemently supported for the most memorable moments of the last, easily researched decade. To make the strident case for Liberal Hypocrisy on military intervention in Libya’s Civil War.
We can’t just stand idly by while “ordinary folk” are murdered and repressed on a “vast scale”. Funny. That’s exactly what you did on Iraq and Afghanistan. Are you saying that Libyan scale is more vast than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq? It couldn’t be that your thumb is on that scale now that a Democrat is in the White House.
Before Obama’s gas prices go up any more, let’s take a trip down memory lane:
2/28/2006 – While tut-tutting on the news of over 1,300 people killed in sectarian violence in Iraq and arguing for reducing our overburdened, stretched-thin troops in Iraq so that Iraqi “ordinary” folks” wouldn’t be subject to murder and oppression on a “vast scale” -
The LA Times reports that the recent violence in Iraq has provoked a debate in the Pentagon about planned troop draw-downs in Iraq. Some officers think it is crazy to reduce the number now. Others believe that the Iraqis will never step up to the plate as long as they can call in US soldiers. The article quotes Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute (Likud Branch), who is a civilian chickenhawk even though he is young enough so that he could have joined the military and served in Iraq, as saying that it is not the right time to bring home the troops.
My, my, my. We’re still in Iraq yet now Colonel Cole is willing to send those brave souls to Libya and not let them come home. Encourage your readers to join the military and bring home something Not Victory, since we’re not imperialists in Libya. I’d hate for you to be a Chickenhawk ™, Juan.
2/6/05 – Re-posting a letter from one of his lickspittle minions to Jonah Goldberg:
In your post titled “EMPIRICISM”, you quote a reader who seems to value concepts above experience. In many ways, this may be a good explanation of the root of your feud with Cole. By all appearances, you view the war in Iraq much the way you might treat today’s Superbowl. Its something about which you feel free to state strong opinions and something which might provoke a certain amount of emotional argument.
You might win or lose a few dollars and/or the ability to gloat for a few days. But, in the end, its simply entertainment. Certainly, despite the strength of your convictions about aspects of the game, you don’t feel yourself qualified to actually take the place of Belichick or Reid. You wouldn’t consider for a moment strapping on a helmet and lining up in place of TO.
Cole, on the other hand, knows that war is not a game. He lived in war-torn Beirut and knows the realities of civil strife.
Do you feel any responsibility for the real and empirical deaths that have occurred due to your mistakes of concept and theory? Finally, I really appreciate your frankness in explaining why you are not currently serving in “the kill zone”. It is the best and most honest display of chickenhawk hypocrisy I have yet to come across. It confirms my belief that the war in Iraq is little more than a game to you.
Game on! I’ve never seen a Superbowl where the teams just switched sides like this. Now Cole wants to be the chickenhawk hypocrite. Your helmet is waiting in “the killzone”, sir.
9/22/03 – On Max Cleland comparing our unnecessary intervention into the peace-filled, protester friendly streets of Iraq:
Iraq and Vietnam
Max Cleland, former Georgia senator and a decorated war hero from the Vietnam era, who lost three limbs in that war, is comparing Iraq to the Vietnam War. When he says it, it is chilling. (Note, he was defeated in his campaign for another term in the senate by some chickenhawk Republican who characterized Cleland as unpatriotic for not supporting the Iraq war).
Apparently Max never learned how to “roll and chew gum at the same time”.
4/2/03 – On intervention in Iraq creating instability elsewhere and the utopianism of the chickenhawks:
But if unrest continues to brew over this issue in Indonesia, an anti-American government could come to power in Indonesia eventually, and Islamists could become powerful. They aren’t, now, and Indonesia’s experiment in open society has certainly been damaged by the US war in Iraq. People like Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz think they can have their cake [war in Iraq, support for Sharon in Israel] and eat it too [spread of liberalism and democracy in the Muslim world]. But it is possible that these two goals are incompatible with one another. Isaiah Berlin warned us about incompatible ideals. The chickenhawks in Washington are imbued with a utopianism (at least in their rhetoric) of which he would have disapproved.
But attacking Qaddafi and leaving open the option of him remaining in power is going to create Heaven on Earth when the civil warring factions are left without an occupying army to watch over them.
3/17/03 - Those Neo-con Jews chickenhawks want to take over Egypt!
*The Muslim Brotherhood representatives in the Egyptian parliament have demanded that Egypt forbid the US to transport war ships to the Gulf via the Suez Canal. They also want the Mubarak regime to refuse to accept the $2 bn. in aid received from the US every year (most of it anyway goes to US firms who supply goods and weapons to Egypt). Next the chickenhawks will be saying we need to occupy the Suez Canal zone.
No, we should occupy Tripoli.
3/9/08 – On Rep. Steve King commenting on what an Obama election would look like to the much bally-hooed “Arab Street”:
Actually, I can’t find any evidence whatsoever of anyone in the Muslim world noticing what Barack Obama’s middle name is. Hussein in that part of the world is like “Steve” over here. Just as I don’t get happy that King’s name is “Steve,” they don’t care what Obama’s name is. And, I presume that King, a chickenhawk, also has a problem with American war hero Omar Bradley being named “Omar.”
No word yet on what platoon Obama served in. Perhaps his DD-214 is locked up in a safe in Hawaii too.
8/14/07 – On a fevered dream about Karl Rove resigning:
An early and avid supporter of war, Rove did everything in his power to prepare the American people for a large scale military conflict. During the Iraq War, he increased his power and influence through shifting alliances with other Republican leaders. By late 2006, the war had turned into a disaster for the Coalition powers, but this only spurred Rove to intensify the propaganda by urging the Americans to accept the idea of total war and mobilization, which he called “the surge.” Rove remained with Bush almost to the very end.
His height exposed him to ridicule and humiliation in a society that worshipped physical prowess. A chickenhawk, he later frequently misrepresented himself as qualified to make pronouncements on war.
Hrm, a physically weak presidential advisor pronouncing thusly on War as opposed to the hulking uber-macho physique of your typical college professor/MSNBC talking head. I guess that would qualify as a Doughboy, technically.
10/15/06 - On the heroism of John Murtha’s call for defeat in Iraq:
Rep. John P. Murtha is among the bravest men in the US Congress. He minds chickenhawks like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush insinuating that he is a coward or a defeatist for arguing that the US should draw down its troops in Iraq and let the Iraqis sort things out for themselves.
Let those Libyan sort things out for themselves. What a novel idea. Glad you thought of it first. Oh, wait.
4/15/06 - On newly retired Major General John Batiste fragging Donald Rumsfeld and complaining that there Weren’t Enough Troops on The Ground:
Retired Major General John Batiste said Friday of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, “We went to war with a flawed plan that didn’t account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime . . .” and added, “We also served under a secretary of defense who didn’t understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant and who didn’t build a strong team.” He is the latest in a string of retired generals to call on Rumsfeld to step down.
There has been some snarking that Gen. Batiste did not speak out while in uniform. These comments come from civilian chickenhawks.
We’ll see how well received any comments criticizing the lack of strategy and clarity on Libya from military personnel about their superiors are from Col. Cole. Nay, they should be encouraged to speak out publicly against their commanders now so that liberal chickenhawks can’t criticize them for retiring to state their opinions. From some strange reason, I can imagine that they’ll be traitors and Qaddafi sympathizing white supremacists.
This is where the Date Rape comes in. First, the suave Obama’s going to play it cool and call the Congress up this week after not seeming too eager to notify them about going out in a War together. The Arab League allegedly vouched for his bona fides and they’re like the Match.com of the Middle East.
After an evening of lively conversation about People Wanting to Live Free, the tipsy strumpet of Congress will be invited to go back to his place where he’ll only want to stick the tip of the US forces into a Libya aching for our troops to fill their gaping holes with smart diplomacy.
First it will be “just for a minute”. Come on, all of the rest of The Coalition is doing it. *Drinks* Then it will be days, not weeks. Then it will be weeks, not months. *Puts his hand on our leg* In fact, it’s already gone to months, not years.
How long is this date going to last exactly?
It will be No Troops on the ground. Until it’s “troops on the ground – limited in scope (under NATO no less and thus not US troops on the ground)- to deliver humanitarian aid and support the relief effort”. Then it will be troops on the ground just to make the area safe for humanitarian aid by clearing out Qaddafi’s terrorists dressed as civilians.
American troops on the ground are protected by the prophylactic rubber of International Consensus.
Then it will be “I never said we would never put troops on the ground – we’ve always maintained we needed troops on the ground and to characterize the President’s position which he has held since the beginning any other way is, quite frankly, a bit disappointing in this unpatriotic line of questioning Mr. Tapper.”
In fact, our little adventure won’t even cost money. It will SAVE money! How many Middle Eastern democracies have been created or saved by bombing Libya with unicorn-powered peace missiles filled with rice and medicine? All of them I bet.