padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
it all seems dangerously like geek cocktail chatter.

ha! well that's a new one, anyway. as opposed to indignant, self-righteous, finger pointing, of course, which is tried & true.

so, let's rehash. McChrystal issues a devastatingly pessimistic report on Afghanistan and the military is trying to ramp the war up for their own benefit, while Obama initiates a large drawdown (not fast enough for some people, it seems) in Iraq almost immediately after being elected and he's a "Bush clone". alright, then.

I do like your boy's use of "diplomats" in scare quotes.
 
Last edited:

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
That said, do you really believe in a rock solid demarcation between the 'civilians' and military.

rock solid, no - there's too much back & forth between the military, DoD, think tanks etc - but clear cut, yes.

the thing about the military is this; once you let them get their foot in the door, that's it. that's when it becomes self-perpetuating in the way you're talking about. as a civilian leader you have the most power before you decide to deploy the military. but, crucially that decision to deploy them is yours. as is the decision to bring them home.

clearly there is a military-industrial complex. but again, it is not a monolith. after all, the Sec Def can get into the news for forcing Congress to cut funding to obsolete, expensive weapons systems the military doesn't actually want.

anyway, I'm on the record numerous times as saying we should get out of Afghanistan. I just think - this is the key really - that if you're going to fight a war you have to fight it to win. that is, go big or go home, to borrow a phrase. this kind of half-in, half-out we've got in Afghan right now is the worst of all possible worlds.
 

Dial

Well-known member
ha! well that's a new one, anyway. as opposed to indignant, self-righteous, finger pointing, of course, which is tried & true.

A little bit of self-awareness never goes amiss, wouldn't you agree?

so, let's rehash. McChrystal issues a devastatingly pessimistic report on Afghanistan and the military is trying to ramp the war up for their own benefit, while Obama initiates a large drawdown (not fast enough for some people, it seems) in Iraq almost immediately after being elected and he's a "Bush clone". alright, then.

Fragments upon fragments amount to.......?

C'mon Padraig you can do better than that. We both know that Obama has been a massive disappointment whose major drive - alongside Rahm Emmanuel - has been to retain Democratic party power. The result has not been particularly brave and principled. If you can explain this to me as a good thing I'd be glad to love the man again. Really.
 

Dial

Well-known member
k

@Padraig

"anyway, I'm on the record numerous times as saying we should get out of Afghanistan. I just think - this is the key really - that if you're going to fight a war you have to fight it to win. that is, go big or go home, to borrow a phrase. this kind of half-in, half-out we've got in Afghan right now is the worst of all possible worlds."

Ah, I'm feeling a bit prickish about the whole thing. On another day I'd agree with you completely, if only so as to fuck up so terribly terribly badly that everyone learns some real lessons. Which certainly won't happen in this painfully, neither really in nor out position.

Granted...

I'm off to bed mate. Different time zone. I trust my 'witticisms' have been water off a ducks back.
 

vimothy

yurp
Dial: I hope I'm not coming across as a complete cnut. A bit of a pretentious dilettante / geek -- that's probably fair.

Now, on monads and black boxes, I agree that we needn't constantly qualify, and that we need to be able to "zoom out" to the aggregate or composite level. But we should also be careful with our isomorphism. "The possibility of metaphor is disappearing in every sphere," as dem man say. So perhaps it can help to be able to say "the military wants perpetual war". I don't doubt that you can say it. From one perspective Baudelaire is wholly mistaken. The possibility of metaphor is increasing, the potential returns to metaphor are increasing (he says...) -- however, this may not be helpful in the long run.

But I think that we probably agree here. The military is lots of machines plugged into lots of other machines, plugged into lots of other machines... and on and on.

Given that, it may be more fruitful to discuss Greenwald's article, or at least, the somewhat generic point that Greenwald is making. Let me then link to a couple of germane pieces. The first is "The Cheney Fallacy", by Jack Goldsmith. (Goldsmith, a conservative legal scholar, worked for the Bush administration and battled with them over detention / torture laws). Goldsmith basically makes a similar argument to Greenwald, minus the histrionic tone and the evil empire angle. The second is a comment to a related post at Opinio Juris, a well respected liberal international law blog -- scroll down this page to the first comment, by Charlie Martel.

OT, but: I'm a big fan of Latour, BTW. And Callon, and MacKenzie. I've actually just read this, which is excellent, and am currently reading this, which is also very interesting. That's your required sociology for the day. As you were, folks...
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
And this debate is coming back to Tilly and Noth and the question of how society (global society, that is) solves the problem of violence...
 

scottdisco

rip this joint please
i admit i'm way below the bar on the theory side of things here so my detour is really rather under the radar, but, nonetheless, on i go in my idiosyncratic way

Some powerful villains/principles to refer to.

1. The Taliban.

2.= Other insurgent groups.
2.= in some cases though not always and not to slur an entire body, the ANP, for some severe reported abuses


3.= Pervasive corruption (as pervasive as that other Afghan vulture, hunger)
3.= NATO/ISAF etc attacks that go tragically, monstrously wrong (which will get worse if a certain sort of American right-winger gets their suggested strategy way, which is to leave the Compact & Afghanistan, and any bothersome radical Islamist sorts around, say, the border region Uncle Sam doesn't care for can be taken out via an accurate drone fired by some bod on Diego Garcia etc.)

4. International actors in general, up to you to place these how you think fit (e.g., ISI foremost? etc - Christian Aid workers and Canadian well-drillers clearly less malign than the ISI, for instance)

P.S.
i'm afraid i'm w Tea in the real ale corner: not sure how this impacts the cocktail water cooler convo mind
:p

Vim drinks BRAINS of course

brainsbrewerymobilebar-1.jpeg


P.P.S.
Vim: great Charlie Martel comment
 

scottdisco

rip this joint please
Foust: An Artificial Bifurcation

The reality is, across vast tracts of the country, the vast majority of U.S. troops are not being utilized effectively—with so must waste built into the system, it would be silly to advocate sending thousands more troops for a marginal increase in troops actually doing counterinsurgency.

So in that sense, I agree with Chandrasekaran—maintaining the status quo is a really bad idea. The challenge is, going all in—sending thousands more troops—is also repeating the status quo, only more so. The troops we have now need to be used differently before we think about sending more.
 

scottdisco

rip this joint please
to add a (probably unnecessary, but you never know) clarification to my list of earlier, awry NATO attacks leave people as dead as a calculated insurgent attack (duh), so, same list is obviously a very loose framework, some sort of inchoate moral league table (as arguably offensive to one's sense of ethics as that may sound)
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
We both know that Obama has been a massive disappointment whose major drive - alongside Rahm Emmanuel - has been to retain Democratic party power. The result has not been particularly brave and principled. If you can explain this to me as a good thing I'd be glad to love the man again. Really.

he hasn't been disappointing to me, mainly cos I wasn't expecting all that much in the first place, certainly not anything "brave & principled". not sure what other people were expecting, exactly. this is electoral politics, and American electoral politics at that. I'm not defending him, just saying that he & Bush have enormous differences between them to go along with their similarities, and I think it's rather asinine - & self-defeating, if you are a disillusioned leftist - to pretend otherwise.

JFK sold the left wing of his party down the river even faster, after using them to get elected. word to the wise - the Democratic Party is not, as a general rule, something to get excited about. and once in power it will always be shifted to the center, rather than shifting the terms of the debate to the left (the Republicans are, for all their blundering, much better at that part of the game).

as regards Afghanistan I'm not a big fan of his work but not for any particular moral reasons. rather because it just seems like bad policy, this vacillating halfway business which seems very likely to prolong the war without actually producing any positive results. make a decision. I also suspect he's sticking with it largely for domestic political concerns, which is a terrible reason to fight a war.

no need to apologize. my back is broad enough to shrug off a few message board jabs, I should think.

also in re: villains - I'm with Scott, they are many & diverse. those jerks from Blackwater - sorry, Xe - who shoot at Iraqi civilians for kicks. feckless AQ types who travel the globe terrorizing local Muslim populaces. Donald f**king Rumsfeld. the assholes who run the Iranian security state. there are so, so many w/out having to resort to jumping at military-industrial shadows (tho, there's numerous villains in there as well, no war being immune to the disgusting practice of war profiteering) or shouting j'accuse at the JSOC or whoever.
 
Last edited:

Dial

Well-known member
Can

1. The Taliban.

2.= Other insurgent groups.
2.= in some cases though not always and not to slur an entire body, the ANP, for some severe reported abuses


3.= Pervasive corruption (as pervasive as that other Afghan vulture, hunger)
3.= NATO/ISAF etc attacks that go tragically, monstrously wrong (which will get worse if a certain sort of American right-winger gets their suggested strategy way, which is to leave the Compact & Afghanistan, and any bothersome radical Islamist sorts around, say, the border region Uncle Sam doesn't care for can be taken out via an accurate drone fired by some bod on Diego Garcia etc.)

4. International actors in general, up to you to place these how you think fit (e.g., ISI foremost? etc - Christian Aid workers and Canadian well-drillers clearly less malign than the ISI, for instance)

This is a fine list of villains, that somehow leaves me unsatisfied. Perhaps I ache for that so called 'generic' critique that in the very first instance is suspicious of any actual US presence in Afghanistan. I feel the details pale in comparison. It's not the discussion taking place here, however, which all involved seem to be enjoying.

i admit i'm way below the bar on the theory side of things here so my detour is really rather under the radar, but, nonetheless, on i go in my idiosyncratic way

Don't worry mate, me, too. A couple more exchanges with Vim would/will soon call my bluff.

he hasn't been disappointing to me, mainly cos I wasn't expecting all that much in the first place, certainly not anything "brave & principled". not sure what other people were expecting, exactly. this is electoral politics, and American electoral politics at that. I'm not defending him, just saying that he & Bush have enormous differences between them to go along with their similarities, and I think it's rather asinine - & self-defeating, if you are a disillusioned leftist - to pretend otherwise.

'Disillusioned leftist'? Na, not really. I would say, again with Greenwald, that Obama should be praised when he commits actions that are praiseworthy, and condemned/criticized when he acts in ways that deserve criticism. He's acted in numerous ways that deserve criticism - simple as that. Is he better than Bush? I think he is, for sure. Is he better within the context as set forth by Wills in his NYTR article? I'm not really convinced to be frank.

He's a middle, tending right, technocrat of great charm, personal charisma, and intelligence, who gives a damn fine speech. That's sort of special as far as it goes I suppose. What else do you want me to say?
 

Dial

Well-known member
But I think that we probably agree here. The military is lots of machines plugged into lots of other machines, plugged into lots of other machines... and on and on.
Yes, and all the more need of metaphors to make sense of it all.

Given that, it may be more fruitful to discuss Greenwald's article, or at least, the somewhat generic point that Greenwald is making. Let me then link to a couple of germane pieces. The first is "The Cheney Fallacy", by Jack Goldsmith. (Goldsmith, a conservative legal scholar, worked for the Bush administration and battled with them over detention / torture laws). Goldsmith basically makes a similar argument to Greenwald, minus the histrionic tone and the evil empire angle. The second is a comment to a related post at Opinio Juris, a well respected liberal international law blog -- scroll down this page to the first comment, by Charlie Martel.

Thanks for this. But Goldsmith and Greenwald making the same argument? Ha. Sure, save that one - Greenwald is filled with righteous fury at the situation thus described, while the other - Goldsmith - seems to think its all on a good roll.; I wouldn't call it the same argument, but rather the same fundamental depiction of the situation, with a very different set of values at work.

Still, enjoyed reading the Goldsmith. And, I'm intrigued by your Tilly and Noth teaser. Any links you'd like to suggest?
 

vimothy

yurp
Dial -- why don't you give us a tentaive outline of a general critique of US presence in Afghanistan...? Not from the perspective of Obama being like Bush (i.e., a critique rooted in "liberal" readings of international law, and Obama's perceived failure to updhold it), but a critique of the logic of the intervention itself. Then move to Obama's role, options and choices -- including if you like his international treaty obligations, but I think that stuff is less interesting, in the sense that almost everyone agrees (or says they agree) that everyone should uphold international law.
 

vimothy

yurp
Yes, and all the more need of metaphors to make sense of it all.

Heh, well I was trying to be slightly ironic ("return" on metaphors, etc). Metaphors can help or harm in equal amounts, I'd say.

Thanks for this. But Goldsmith and Greenwald making the same argument? Ha. Sure, save that one - Greenwald is filled with righteous fury at the situation thus described, while the other - Goldsmith - seems to think its all on a good roll.; I wouldn't call it the same argument, but rather the same fundamental depiction of the situation, with a very different set of values at work.

I'm not sure I agree that their values are so very different. You are of course correct that Greenwald is rather self-righteous (appropriately so, at times), but I tend to think that two people can share very similar value systems while recommending very divergent policies, because they conceive of those policies and their outcomes in different ways. N'est ce-pas?

And I suppose this is semantics, but it does appear to me to be the same argument (that the "Cheney fallacy" is, in fact, a fallacy), except that Greenwald doesn't like the implications and Goldsmith isn't sure.

I'm intrigued by your Tilly and Noth teaser. Any links you'd like to suggest?

These two (classics) in particular:

http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/files/PERG.North.pdf

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rohloff/www/war making and state making.pdf
 

scottdisco

rip this joint please
This is a fine list of villains, that somehow leaves me unsatisfied. Perhaps I ache for that so called 'generic' critique that in the very first instance is suspicious of any actual US presence in Afghanistan. I feel the details pale in comparison. It's not the discussion taking place here, however, which all involved seem to be enjoying.

i'm certainly enjoying your contributions, though admit your even bringing up theory (never mind this modesty that Vimothy will unmask you!) puts you in a different league to my - in the specific case of Afghanistan - reluctant left-wing interventionism * ;)

give us a 'generic' critique then, do, as i know i would enjoy reading it. i know some objections to the general Yank presence, yes, from some quarters, but always eager to read up.

changing subject from generic American empire into the particular of Afghanistan, wrt Ahmed Rashid's Descent into Chaos (June 2008), this overview (off the Amazon editor page discussing same at time) clearly seems fair

The author blames the unwillingness of American policymakers to shoulder the burden of nation building. According to Rashid, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and subsequently refused to commit the forces and money needed to rebuild it; instead the U.S. government made corrupt alliances with warlords to impose a superficial calm, while continuing to ignore the Pakistani government's support of the Taliban and the other Islamic extremists who have virtually taken over Pakistan's western provinces.

unless i'm mistaken i believe Rashid criticised the US for ignoring Afghanistan's agony pre-9/11, incidentally

* for the record, those are my specific views here, and i know that other contributors are coming at it from other angles
 

scottdisco

rip this joint please
He's a middle, tending right, technocrat of great charm, personal charisma, and intelligence, who gives a damn fine speech. That's sort of special as far as it goes I suppose. What else do you want me to say?

to be fair, that's how anyone worth taking seriously would have described him before he was President (one might quibble on which part of the central axis to place him and say - in context, context being all - he tends a little left, but relatively small potatoes in the scheme of things)
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
He's a middle, tending right, technocrat of great charm, personal charisma, and intelligence, who gives a damn fine speech.

sure, as Scott said all that stuff was on the table well before he was elected. which, again, makes you wonder what people were expecting. you says tends right, others might say left, the real point being that in American politics there isn't that much distance between those terms. everyone's enthralled to lobbyists anyway (health care reform has been a particularly embarrassing episode in that regard).

I'm not very interested in discussing Obama's various merits/flaws anyway. I just wanted tbc that it was silly to call him a "virtual Bush clone".

a critique of the logic of the intervention itself.

exactly. you can shake your finger and rage until you're blue in the face but it's not going to do anything. the audience you're going to reach with that is just preaching to the choir isn't it. also, the fact that it so much more complicated than finger shakers make it out to be strips that righteous anger of most if its power. of course it may just make you feel better, which is far from the worst reason to do something.

the thing about international law & so on is that it only matters if you can't get away with breaking it. that's just the reality, no use in pretending otherwise.

'generic' critique...the details pale

my biggest problem with the generic critique is that reduces many complex, different situations to one common denominator and in doing so blurs out nearly everything important. the details, in these situations, are exactly what does matter.
 
Last edited:

Dial

Well-known member
Dial -- why don't you give us a tentaive outline of a general critique of US presence in Afghanistan...? Not from the perspective of Obama being like Bush (i.e., a critique rooted in "liberal" readings of international law, and Obama's perceived failure to updhold it), but a critique of the logic of the intervention itself. Then move to Obama's role, options and choices -- including if you like his international treaty obligations, but I think that stuff is less interesting, in the sense that almost everyone agrees (or says they agree) that everyone should uphold international law.

That's a nicely outlined challenge Vim. My first fumbled attempt would be to refer back, yet again, to Greenwald. This won't satisfy you in the slightest, I realize. Take it as a vague promissory note; one likely to be defaulted on, I might add ;)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/03/afghanistan/index.html

The question of whether the initial decision to invade Afghanistan was justifiable is completely distinct from whether it should have been made and, even more so, whether the occupation and war should continue.....

And a word or two about Greenwald being histrionic at times. Yes, absolutely. Still, I've witnessed so many run-ins he's had with those claiming to be 'sober and serious' in contrast to his so called 'shrillness'. He simply runs them over by dint of intelligence and marshaling of actual facts. The sober and serious invariably turn out to be heavily compromised by careerism, or money, or some other common tawdry crap.

GG's histrionics may not take fully into account the complexities of the way the world really works, but is it careful measured analysis within the bounds of reason that makes for real change ( I won't say progress), or the sort of passion/happening that surpasses reason? - The evental et al. (sorry, couldn't resist - ha)

I'm a bit of a Glenn Greenwald fanboy, myself. Nothing wrong with fierce moral outrage coupled with a brilliant intelligence. Fucking beautiful, in fact. Why should he be cool in the face of it all? Why should anyone?

Anyway, let me dwell a little upon the 'logic of intevention'
 

Dial

Well-known member
my biggest problem with the generic critique is that reduces many complex, different situations to one common denominator and in doing so blurs out nearly everything important. the details, in these situations, are exactly what does matter.

I'm down with detail. Somewhere along the line ,tho detail/s needs to be framed. I'm guilty of jumping into the middle of a conversation thinking that framing hadn't been made. On reflection I'm guessing it had, implicitly, at least. I still might have made comment about the drift of it all.
 
Top