by Patrick Lang (bio below)
Robin Wright, the WaPo Mideast writer, has been to Baghdad three times now since the capture of the city by US Forces. In these trips she has been in the entourage of the US Secretary of State, first Powell, and now Rice.
Wright finds that the circle of security is shrinking in the International (Green) Zone. When first she went there it was possible to stay at the Rashid Hotel, wander the city and walk about the International Zone.
On her second trip the delegation was flown into the country for a day, kept under a close watch and then flown out before the sun set.
On her latest trip, she found the following:
On this latest trip to Baghdad, the bubble shrank even more. No roaming the Green Zone. Not even a stop at the convention center. The press corps, including veteran war correspondents, was sequestered in Hussein’s old palace for most of the seven-hour stay. We were discouraged from wandering the palace and were provided escorts to go to the bathroom.” (Washington Post)
In the ’80s I used to stay at the Rashid for extended periods, go out and run through the neighborhoods with a colleague, and drift around in the Baghdad “suq” looking for trinkets. On the morning runs, the guards in front of public buildings would look up from their tea and sleepily call out “Good for you, mister! Good for you.” The “Leader” had decreed that exercise was good for you. Politically, that period may have been a low point for US-Iraqi relations, but it stands in marked contrast to a situation in which a visiting journalist of Ms. Wright’s experience in the Middle East is required to have an escort to go to the bathroom INSIDE A GOVERNMENT FACILITY.
It also stands in stark contrast to Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) anytime between Tet, 1968 and the Fall of the town to the communists in 1975. In that period we drove our cars anywhere. We dined out as time allowed and were principally concerned (in the city) with pickpockets, traffic and beggars. I spent a lot of time in that period in the field where the war was and the contrast with the quiet in the city was striking.
Question: Why is the perimeter of security shrinking in the capital city if the government’s influence over the people is growing? The situation should be the exact opposite.
Pat Lang
Col. Patrick W. Lang (Ret.), a highly decorated retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence and U.S. Army Special Forces, served as “Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, South Asia and Terrorism” for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and was later the first Director of the Defense Humint Service. Col. Lang was the first Professor of the Arabic Language at the United States Military Academy at West Point. For his service in the DIA, he was awarded the “Presidential Rank of Distinguished Executive.” He is a frequent commentator on television and radio, including MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann (interview), CNN and Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room (interview), PBS’s Newshour, NPR’s “All Things Considered,” (interview), and more .
Personal Blog: Sic Semper Tyrannis 2005 || Bio || CV
Recommended Books || More BooTrib Posts
Novel: The Butcher’s Cleaver (download free by chapter, PDF format)
“Drinking the Kool-Aid,” Middle East Policy Council Journal, Vol. XI, Summer 2004, No. 2
Incredible. Almost as incredible as the poopr reporting we keep getting out of Baghdad.
Maybe I’m being dense (it wouldn’t be the first time), but isn’t there a relationship between poor reporting and how much access the reporters actually have to what is going on? If they are sequestered in one part of a palace and even escorted to the bathroom, how much chance do they have of talking to anyone other than those approved by the administration and the military. At that point, the reporters are reduced to parroting back whatever tales the powers-that-be wish to feed them with no way of ascertaining the truth. It sounds like a win-win for the neo-cons.
It was snark
raises an historical question about why the Vietnamese rarely resorted to terrorism in and around Saigon. They certainly could have used that tactic quite effectively.
Boo
It is an interesting question. The possibility was sufficiently present that restaurant owners wanted to look at you before they unlocked the door, and occasionally there would be some incident in the streets but it was a rarity. A more frequent thing would have been 122mm rocketing into the government offices part of the city or military bases.
I think it was their policy not to kill or wound the Vietnamese (as opposed to Montagnards). They did not observe this policy during major actions, like Tet ’68.
I was in a fight (1968)in Phuoc Long Province in a Catholic re-settlement village in which we (SVN Rangers) and an NVA battalion of infantry were all tied up together in the streets. after dark the Ranger unit commander went to a meeting in the church with the NVA commander. The parish priest hosted the meeting. when the Ranger came back. He said “they will withdraw tonight to avoid further damage to the town.” In the morning they were gone and we followed them into the woods. pl
the NVA’s strategy more honorable than the strategy being employed by the Iraqi resistance. However, they had the option to fight and win without targeting their own population. I don’t see how the Iraqis could succeed with any other strategy than the one they are employing.
However, I think some of these bombings are counterproductive. In fact, some are so counterproductive that I wonder whether they are being carried out by Americans. Bush’s reported willingness to bomb Doha certainly adds fuel to that speculation.
As for Vietnam, had they made Siagon as insecure as Baghdad is, they may have ultimately won sooner and spared many lives of their countrymen. Yet, I am glad they chose to fight as they did. There is something truly repulsive about suicide bombing. For me, it is the brainwashing of the bombers that I find most offensive. They are offered rewards in heaven and posterity that are not worth the sacrifice. I find the whole business deeply disturbing. Perhaps that is the point.
Booman,
The NVA defined “their own people” rather narrowly. Cambodians, Laotians, Thai and all the other peoples of Indochina did not fit their description and they acted accordingly. pl
Col. Lang please feel free to correct me if my assumptions are off base.
In teaching various peoples English as a Second Language(ESL) for 16 years, as well as having students as residents in my home, I found huge cultural differences between East Asians and Mid Easterners.
Asians have a much clearer idea of who they are, who their ancestors are, and to which country they owe their first allegiance as opposed to country of residence. Ex. I met a woman from Vietnam in the early 70’s. I apologized for what was happening in her country. She quickly stated “We are not Vietnamese. My family has ONLY lived there for 30 generations(Her tone suggested just a drop in a bucket). We are Chinese”.
Mid Easterners are more tribal with allegiance to extended family and then tribe rather than country. After a while I realized Asian cultures had ALWAYS had more civil order, even in war time. Arab countries have always been chaotic, with civil authorities main purpose being to protect which whichever clan of emirs/sheiks were currently in power.
Asians are also scrupulously clean about their person and belongings. Arab countries have no problems burning pots or cooking dishes and barely cleaning them after use.
In Asian countries the underlying philosophy is Confucism and Taoism mixed. Buddhist ceremonies are used only for death or marriage. The Confucius/Tao method is to honor the spirit of God within each person and environment. Hence all the bowing, tea ceremonies and other rituals. The Arabs Allah is a God out side of them and the environment is important only to farmers in their culture. Other than tribal elders and parents, Arabs are rude by comparison.
Vengeance is not inculcated in Asian countries as it is in Arab countries. Even their gulags are different. Vietnam had re-education camps where the prisoners did road construction and infrastructure work that benefited the population as a whole (I am not talking about the Cambodian Killing Fields here). In Arab countries, being a prisoner means torture and confinement.
IMHO, these differences in culture and attitude, make
Asians less brutal than Arabs. Asians have no real conflicts between their countrymen. Arab countries, being tribal, have long unsettled grievances dating back generations.
My two cents on why Asians were less willing to destroy their populations or cities during war time.
Trying to compare those we were fighting with in Vietnam to Iraqi resistance is comparing apples to oranges IMO. The only true comparison I see is the American ignorance of the country cultures, which is why we are repeating all the same mistakes.
I disagree with the implication that these two exhibits (assuming for the sake of argument that the latter is true, which it isn’t) are inversely proportional or even necessarily related. While you could say that the rule of law in the U.S. is very high, the sense of safety of specific locales (Harlem, Northeast DC, South Central LA, etc.) is very low. Obviously, the Green Zone would be considered the most target-rich environment for those fighting the occupation, and their tactics to attack it are, by design, very difficult to detect and prevent.
What I think the shrinking Green Zone shows is that “insurgents” have become more capable and numerous, and that the last thing you want to do is fuel an insurgency that is virtually impossible to defeat militarily. (See Jack Murtha for details.)
In short, the quote above is probably incorrect to imply direct causality, but the overall point that many parts of Iraq have become less safe is undoubtedly correct.
I hitched hiked throughout Spanish Sahara, Morrocco, Algeria and Tunisia. All arab countries some 20 years ago. I never had a problems with anyone. The Only problem was the hospitality of everyone who wanted you to stay and their house and have dinner at their house. This was still a time of tension in the Arab world with Israeal and to a lesser degree the United States.
The dangers in this world are created by the provinicial US. They create the danger in Iraq and all other nations with their mad foreign policy. Robin Wright worried about pickpockets, I have never been pickpocketed or attacked. Only in the United States.
In this country we have real fear of violence and we are simply exporting it. Look at what is happening with the exporting of LA gangs to El Salavador. These gangs ….of US origin are now in SPAIN!
The United States is a virus. It doesn’t have to be. But the people of this country are allowing it to be.
I agree
A friend of mine and his wife had a 15 year tradition of celebrating the period before lent, in Quebec. When they went up in early 2005, they were told they were no longer welcome until Americans did something about their insane leaders. It was the first time they had been treated so rudely or coldly, and they came back within 2 days instead of staying their usual 7 days.
I am chewing on how this fits into the argument that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would result in what Hillary and others have claimed will be a jihadist Iraq. Is that the Iraq War version of the old domino theory that was so often used to prop up our policy in VN? Or does the shrinking security perimeter suggest that civil war is not only inevitable but is been underway and has been for some time?
Interesting article in the LA Times today on this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-benjamin24nov24,0,4137156.story?coll=la-news-co
mment-opinions
“Jihadist Iraq just won’t happen” by Daniel Benjamin
There is a civil war going on too. Lots of tit for tat assassinations and bombings going on. As far as I can see, none of that will go away when we do. I would actually expect it to escalate as it gets easier to move around with carloads of explosives.
I don’t expect a jihadist takeover so much as an escalation of civil/tribal/sectarian war, which will probably result in horrific human rights violations that we will be blamed for enabling.
If there is a reason to stay, it is to prevent such an outcome if possible. Just as Bosnia became a battleground between Catholics/the Orthodox/Muslims, where support for each side was predicated on which religion prevailed in which country… the Turks, Kurds, Persians, and Sunnis and Shi’as of the region will not long suffer watching their compatriots getting slaughtered.
If Iraq is too rebuild, let alone become a model for a better Middle East, it needs to avoid this outcome. Can we help at this point? Maybe a slight bit for a short time. But most of this is out of our control at this point. We can’t be the stabilizing force for long, because we are ultimately destabilizing.
Once the new government is sworn in, they cannot depend on us for long or they will lose whatever legitimacy they have. The best time to announce we are leaving is the day they ratify their constitution.
Well put Booman!
“I don’t expect a jihadist takeover so much as an escalation of civil/tribal/sectarian war, which will probably result in horrific human rights violations that we will be blamed for enabling.”
Who else is to blame?? They didn’t have these problems so close to the surface before we arrived.
“There is a civil war going on too.”
Or maybe that’s all that has ever been going on there. Perhaps what we’ve done in Iraq is set up the conditions for civil war, inflamed underlying tensions, and started fighting in the civil war two years ago as proxies for the wobbly and unpopular government we were setting up. I’m sure there are jihadists, including some foreign, in the crowd, but maybe the average roadside bomber is just an Iraqi in revolt. What does an insurgency mean if not open revolt?
Iraq is a diasaster of monumental proportions, and we’ve yet to begin the payments of our folly.
I’d been of a mind that since we were there, we needed to see it through. But not with these yahoos in charge. They seem to have the reverse Midas touch.
We’re between a rock and a hard place, and I have yet to hear of a single way out.
from a Knight Ritter article quoting a recent Army War College report:
There are disturbing parallels to “Vietnamization” in Iraq, in terms of the neglect of the non-military (political-diplomatic) side, e.g., the rather basic issue of the legitimacy of the government.
The good news is that we’ve already failed. That takes at least one of the horns off the table of dilemma. We really only need to ask whether we should stay or not.
This seems to be something no one really wants to say or admit to….that we’ve lost and we lost quite awhile ago. I know I’ve said it before but Rummy lost when he barreled hellbent for Bagdad without securing towns/cities along the way to Bagdad. However if there was any tipping point at all it was the torture that was ongoing in Abu Ghrabe(sp)(and other prisons of ours there)which the Iraqi’s were aware of long before the American public was.
As long as the military and/or the public can’t/won’t admit we’ve lost then this senseless killing of Iraqi’s and our troops will continue.
And it seems only a matter of time before the Green Zone sees a Tet Offensive done on it. The noose is already be tightened around the GZ daily.
I kept telling myself, there might be a way out of this.
Until I saw the August poll of Iraqi’s. 81% of Iraqi’s don’t want us there. Up to 65% feel attacks against Coalition forces are justified.
This means it isn’t just the Sunni’s that hate us. They are, at most, 25% of the population.
There’s not a chance in hell of us winning this one. The fat lady has sung.
“Question: Why is the perimeter of security shrinking in the capital city if the government’s influence over the people is growing? The situation should be the exact opposite.”
Answer: Because what we are being told is a lie.
Duh.
My God, man. You are old enough to remember Vietnam. Probably SERVED there, right? You spent your entire adult life in the armed forces?
And you can still ask a question like that with a straight face?
That is POLICY. National policy at LEAST since Vietnam.
Lying about…casualties, success rates, security, etc. etc etc.etc etc.
“Yup. We’re doing JUST FINE.” say the talking heads.
And then “suddenly”…the Tet offensive.
The grunts on the ground knew what was up in Vietnam. Hell, I was there as a civilian in the fall of 1965, and they told me THEN what was going to happen. In fact…they didn’t HAVE to tell me. All you needed to do was look around. It was just a matter of time.
The grunts on the ground know what is up in Baghdad, too.
Bet on it.
You can safely disregard the institutionalized lying going on.
Iraq is a lost cause.
It is just a matter of time.
You know that scene in Peter and the Wolf? Where the duck swims into the pond to get away from the wolf and every day as winter comes on the unfrozen part of the pond gets smaller and smaller?
Yup.
Wolf be COMIN’.
Winter, too.
Even in Iraq.
Brrrrr…!!!!
“Baby it’s COLD out here…”
Yup.
Cold as death.
Cold.
AG
that is not the point.
It is not a matter of whether Iraq is going well. It’s a matter of why the Green Zone is less secure even as the new Government begins to exert itself.
Which leads to your point about a lost cause. Is Iraq a lost cause for us, or a lost cause period? In other words, does the future of Baghdad look like the past of Beirut, Mogadishu, and Sarajevo? And is there anything that can be done to prevent that outcome?
It would be helpful if we got honest appraisals of the situation. We don’t. But Pat is making a point about the bleakness of the situation, using the symbolism of the Green Zone and comparing the situation to South Vietnam.
I don’t understand why Pat and Larry’s writings always attract the same subset of this community that feel the need to be disrespectful of them because they used to work in our intelligence agencies. Respect is a rule at the Pond. It is not to be reserved for front-pagers, but for everyone.
It annoys me to have to point this out.
You write:
It is not a matter of whether Iraq is going well. It’s a matter of why the Green Zone is less secure even as the new Government begins to exert itself.
That is EXACTLY the point.
This is a severely compromised “government” which is being propped up by our presence in the region. Let’s not mince words, here. It would last about two days if we pulled out, and that is WHY we are not pulling out.
“… is there anything that can be done to prevent that outcome?”
Not as long as our continuing STRATEGIC goal is to stay in the Middle East and keep working on our ongoing economic imperialist efforts.
We simply cannot run that game much longer.
But we do not admit the possibility of other options.
So we try to prevaricate and lie and doubletalk our way through an increasingly dangerous minefield.
I have been reading both Col. Lang’s and Mr.Johnson’s writings with great interest. Mt. Johnson has been making great sense, most of the time. Mr. Lang…in the two posts to which I have taken exception…has not, in my opinion.
As I said here earlier, I do not give a rat’s ass what their background is. They could both be the finest pupils of Noam Chomsky, for all I care. When someone posts something this (seemingly purposefully) dense, they are either a fool or quite consciously spinning. Either way…I’m calling them on it.
It is the UNDERTONE of those sentences that bother me.
“Question: Why is the perimeter of security shrinking in the capital city if the government’s influence over the people is growing? The situation should be the exact opposite.”
That and my memory of Col. Lang’s take on the French riots. “Send in the SWAT guys”, essentially.
Maybe he was being ironic. If so, he should write better, because it doesn’t read like that. It reads as if he WANTS the situation to be the exact opposite. That is, that this puppet government SHOULD be working. But the reason it is NOT working is because it is not really a government of the people.
Can such a thing exist in Iraq now?
COULD it have existed before we invaded?
I don’t know.
But it certainly does not exist now, nor DID it exist under our last puppet, Saddam Hussein.
Maybe we ought to get out of the puppet game and take our losses.
And…maybe I am hypersensitive to things like that. Too many blogs, not enough brains.
If so…sorry about that.
I think I’ll go out and walk the dog.
While I still can here in Baghdad-on-the-Hudson.
Later…
AG
it seems to me that you are purposively dense.
You want the government in Iraq to fail? That makes you a hell of a humanitarian. Your analysis of the situation is totally worthless and wrong. The government in Iraq would not fall in two days if we left. To whom would it fall? What would happen is that the level of assassinations and mayhem would go up, making any semblance of civil life impossible. The immediate problem would not be that some faction would seize power but that no faction would be strong enough to do so, while the government in place would not be strong enough to provide basic security. In other words, a prolonged anarchy would ensue that would cost many Iraqis their lives and would do nothing to improve the economy. And much worse things might follow.
The only hope for Iraq is that the central government prevails and hopefully prevails without having to resort to genocide. I’m not too hopeful on that score, whether we go or stay. And it certainly our fault for having invaded Iraq without a plan, enough troops and allies, and any legitimacy. But, if you care about Iraqis you should not hope for the failure of the current government.
The idea that Pat is being dense in pointing out that security should be getting better is stupid on its face. Of course it should be getting better. Only a jackass would wish otherwise.
As for this government being our puppets that is getting more laughable every day. Iran’s puppets maybe. Not ours. The only leverage we have over them is that we provide some security for them and we have a lot of money to throw around. The people that were elected to run the government were not our chosen leaders. Most of them are not our friends and only cooperate with us for the aforesaid reasons.
We will probably do some things to help our allies in the upcoming elections, and that may detract from the overall legitimacy of the elections. But they will still choose their own candidates, and our allies are not likely to do particularly well.
We don’t have enough control or leverage to get a puppet government in place. And that might be a good thing in the long run.
“You want the government in Iraq to fail? “
No.
I simply do not think that it can succeed under the sponsorship and protection of the United States, and I do not want to see the UNITED STATES fail (USSR/Afghanistan style) in a hopeless situation. A hopeless situation of our own making, by the way.
You write:
“In other words, a prolonged anarchy would ensue”
Prolonged anarchy IS a fall.
The question is…would even THAT eventuality be any worse for Iraqis than what is happening now under the U.S.?
You write:
“The idea that Pat is being dense in pointing out that security should be getting better is stupid on its face. Of course it should be getting better. Only a jackass would wish otherwise.”
Old Irish proverb. “If wishes were horses” (or even jackasses…) “beggars would ride.” To “WISH” that security would get better under the current occupation of the land (For the SOLE purpose of controlling the oil…do NOT give me that humanitarian bullshit. It’s not in the mix. Or if it is, it’s white phosphorus/Abu Ghraib style humanitarianism. Which I can WELL do without.) is an empty wish. At BEST.
Maybe sheer bullshit at worst.
You write:
‘As for this government being our puppets that is getting more laughable every day. Iran’s puppets maybe. Not ours. The only leverage we have over them is that we provide some security for them and we have a lot of money to throw around. The people that were elected to run the government were not our chosen leaders. Most of them are not our friends and only cooperate with us for the aforesaid reasons. “
Security and money. In HUGE amounts. Even an uncooperative puppet understands who holds the strings.
You write:
“We don’t have enough control or leverage to get a puppet government in place.”
Under a gun, we are ALL puppets.
You are wrong here, Boo. Sorry. I wish that you were right. It would make things much easier and better for all concerned. But I do not believe that you are.
We shall see…
Very soon, I think.
VERY soon.
AG
Wrong about what?
I don’t even see that you rebutted anything I said.
Maybe Bush cares only about the oil. Pat cares about other things like whether or not the situation can be stabilized for the benefit of virtually everyone.
I want the Iraqi people to see an end to all this violence and I don’t want them to descend into some Hobbesian nightmare (it’s bad enough as it is). I see the best chance for Iraqis in their government, which (if the Sunnis participate) is about as representative as possible. Frankly, I don’t care too much whether they can keep their democracy (although that would be nice), and I don’t care too much if they are taken over by political mullahs (although that would be a shame).
But to suggest that wanting the current government to succeed is a bad thing (which you clearly did suggest) and then to be disrespectful of someone who is nice enough to post here (I’m not talking about disagreement), is out of line, Arthur.
It would be out of line even if your position was correct. The fact that you argument sucks only makes things worse.
I simply disagree.
Totally.
Is this:
‘My God, man. You are old enough to remember Vietnam. Probably SERVED there, right? You spent your entire adult life in the armed forces?”
“And you can still ask a question like that with a straight face?”
What you call being “disrespectful”?
I have relatives who are ex-career officers. And they appear to be TOTALLY blind to the possibility that the entire administration (and those career officers who submit to its criminality) are just spinning numbers rather than getting much done. They were the same way during Vietnam as well.
Is it “disrepectful” to suspect that possibly a career military intelligence officer…especially one who suggested a fairly extremist reaction to the riots in France…might be of the same mind?
I don’t think so.
And frankly….I think that it is disrespectful of YOU to suggest it.
Do you think that because my history and position are not so officially sanctioned as Col. Lang’s I must therefore be some kind of fool?
If so, then how can you possibly criticize pros like Rumsfeld and Cheney…people with 40 years in the game. What are YOUR credentials?
I am NOBODY’S fool, sir, and I think that our position in Iraq is totally untenable. I have traveled all over the world in my life, and lived among the relatively poor almost everywhere I have gone because they are often just about the only ones with the sense to really love the great music in which I am involved.
We shall see, of course.
One of us are right here. There will be no middle ground, I fear. We will either wake up from this nasty dream of world domination and take our place among the rest of the world or we will be taken down within the next ten to twenty years.
USSR style.
Maybe sooner.
And end up with a nakedly kleptocratic spookocracy instead if the quondam one under which we now live.
Sadly, if I were a betting man…judging from the predominantly blindingly lame opposition to what is happening that I see on left blogworld…I would bet on the latter.
Like I said…we shall see.
I hope I’m wrong.
Bu… I think I am right.
And therefore I keep on putting these ideas out.
If THAT is “disrespectful”…so be it.
I personally think that it would be disrespectful NOT to.
AG
You can be a prophet of doom all you like. It reads like Maoist bullshit to me. But that is just my take on it.
What concerns me is the fact that you find it necessary to insult the intelligence of people that disagree with you.
I read Pat’s article and it seemed to me to be making a simple point: “Things are getting worse in Iraq, this is not good.”
Instead of agreeing with him, you suggested he was dense to point out the obvious, and wrong to wish things were going better.
Did Pat say our position in Iraq was tenable? Not that I noticed. Did he say that the official line coming out of the Pentagon was accurate? No, he did not, and he has spent three years saying they were full of shit.
It unpardonable to attack him for saying the opposite of what he is saying.
But even if you were making real critiques, your tone is not acceptable.
Whatever the merits, you are just rude.
I do not fit into your little pigeonholes.
I didn’t learn what I know from reading Mao’s little red book. Nor from attending meetings OR classes. I have LIVED what I know..
And do not give lectures about disrespect when you indulge in it yourself.
“Stupid.”
“Bullshit”
“Jackass”
“Sucks”
Your words.
Did I use those words on Col Lang?
No.
You have distorted what I am saying to the point of total incomprehension, and I guess I should have recognized what is going on here earlier.
Argument over.
You win.
AG
you come to the site and insult our posters, who do not receive any payment and have no special desire to take shit from morons. All you do is make it unpleasant for Pat or Larry to post here and make them not feel like participating here any longer.
You do this. And you don’t care. You make up little bullshit arguments about how you are not being disrespectful when anyone can see that you are being disrespectful.
Don’t try to make this about your positions. Your positions can be stated in a manner that is respectful. You choose not to do so.
You want to know why I told you your argument sucks and sounded like Maoist bullshit? Because, aside from being the truth, it shows you how it feels to be denigrated rather than just disagreed with. Makes you kinda feel like not participating anymore, doesn’t it?
So, knock it off, or I will have to ban you.
it will be because of what I am saying.
And the fact that you disagree with it.
Which is your privilege.
It’s your site.
But it will NOT be for the “insult” reason being given.
And if you do…your site suffers for it.
I have NOT “insulted” Larry Johnson. I like what he is writing.
And I have refrained from insulting Col. Lang.
OR you.
I simply disagree.
And you know what…? Judging by the comments and ratings I have been getting…a AWFUL lot of people here seem to agree with me.
But you don’t.
Fine.
Now I have seen it said here many times that the salient feature of this blog is your openness to divergent opinions.
And now, absent ANY “insults” besides pointing out that Col. Lang is ex-military intelligence and appears to me to be quite right wing in many of his stances… if you consider THAT to be an “insult” then you have no reason WHATSOEVER to ban me….you brandish the big boot.
Where is THAT coming from?
Interesting…
AG
If I ban you from this site it will be for a very specific reason.
The reason will be that I don’t believe that you are willing to abide by the rules of the site, which demand that you be respectful of other’s opinions.
Now, I am not going to pretend that the isn’t more to it than that. I do not run this site as an autocracy. I listen and consult with the other front-pagers and I listen to the emails I get from members of the site. And I have only banned about 5 people from this site in 8 months. I go to great lengths to avoid banning people.
In this case, I am being lobbied to ban you and I decided to issue a warning instead. The warning is this: please be respectful of other people on the site or you will be banned.
Your positions are probably to the left of mine. Your positions are probably to the right of DuctapeFatwa. I actively campaigned for Ductape to come back to the site even though we don’t agree on a whole lot. Your positions have nothing to do with this at all. Zip. Bet on it.
My warning is simple. Pat Lang has agreed to have his writings posted here. I value his contribution. I do not expect the BooTrib audience to agree with everything he writes. At some points I expect some members to take exception to some things he writes. I think Pat understands that this site is not politically aligned with him 100%. We are a lot more left-wing than he is. But he doesn’t deserve disrespect and he probably won’t continue posting here if he gets a lot of disrespect.
Disrespect is an entirely different animal from disagreement. Disrespect is calling someone ‘dense’.
I don’t always agree with everything Susan writes. She doesn’t always agree with what I write. I interviewed Larry Johnson and I didn’t agree with everything he had to say in that interview. But you know what? I respected his opinion and I conveyed his opinion as accurately as I could and I was grateful for his opinion. And he agreed to post here even though he knew that I don’t see eye to eye with him on many things. I have respect for him. I have a ton of respect for Pat Lang who has served this country with great distinction, even though I don’t agree with everything he says or every policy he has had a part in in his life.
And I respect your right to hold opinions that may be different than mine. But I will not tolerate you making people feel it is not worth their time to contribute to this communuity through your rudeness. So, this is a last warning. And if you do not heed it your banning will not be about your positions.
Let’s see just what you mean by “disrespect”.
That way I can avoid committing such a mortal sin.
Lay it on me, Boo.
How have I been “disrespectful”?
I’m serious here.
You show what it is that I have said that has been dirsespectful, and I will not repeat the error.
AG
P.S. Those that are lobbying you to ban me…if I were to bring this to the main list with a diary instead of confining it to this little thread, what do you think the percentages would be?
Or…do certain people hold MORE than one vote on this blog?
I would understand if that was so…THAT would be “business as usual” as well.
not interested in debating with you the finepoints of being a prick. Just don’t be one and you will be fine.
I am not interested in stifling your opinions. Some of your opinions are highly valuable and an asset to the community.
What I want is for you to cease being a cause of irritation to the community that I have to address rather than doing other things that will help me provide valued content.
Don’t be a prick. That’s the rule. You don’t need a doctorate in prickology to figure it out.
Orwell would have understood immediately.
“Just don’t do it.”
“Do WHAT!!!???”
“Whatever is not correct.”
Nice, Boo.
The Newspeak Dictionary.
“crimestop – Orwell’s definition: “The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short….protective stupidity.””
Sorry…I don’t think I have this talent.
Ain’t gonna run scared of what cannot be expressed..
We shall see…
AG
consider yourself protectively stupid. You’ve been advised.
Col Lang I listened to a marine captain awhile ago on NPR radio. Here is a short bio:
Nathaniel Fick, who enlisted in the Marine Corps after graduating as a classics major at Dartmouth; he served as infantry officer in Afghanistan and led a reconnaissance platoon during the invasion of Iraq
Fick left the Marine Corps as a captain in 2003. He’s written of his experience in the book “One Bullet Away: The Making of a Marine Officer.”
His book has the ideas of his men about diviing Iraq into sections which would always have the same troops patrolling and helping with rebuilding, until rotation. Then the new units would be taken aroun to be introduced, just prior to the previous leaving.
The audio is at this link:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec05/bullet_11-11.html
It seemd to me that he had a lot of common sense ideas, but then I am not military. Have you read the book? Do you think any of these ideas would work now, or havs Bush/Rumesfeld et al messed it up so bad its too late?
I bleleive many hear would like to “hear” your opinion.
Thank you.
And it annoys me to have to point out, in reply to this comment …
… that if you’d read the piece, you’d see that he was in Vietnam, and tells a particularly moving — so moving and meaningful, it made me gasp out loud — account of one night in Vietnam.
(I keep hoping that Pat will write a book about his life. He has seen and done so much that most of us can’t even imagine.)
Arthur, will this lead to another diary with Pat Lang’s name in the title?
I’m wrong.
I thought that was part of the post that was still in the quote from the Robin Wright article.
And no…it will not lead to another diary with Pat Lang’s name in the title.
AG
Sorry, Arthur. You’re right. It was in a comment and I forgot that’s where I read it.
Arthur,
Ever heard of a rhetorical question? Duh.
pl
Yes.
But I did not recognize this one.
I’m a pretty good reader, too.
Sorry if I missed it.
Sorry even if it was not written well, also.
But I am NOT sorry that I do not think that we should be “wishing” for better security in Baghdad if that means that we must stay in our currently untenable position in the Middle East.
My own take on the subject is that our entire strategic position in the world must be quickly and thoroughly changed. Our 1/5th of the world population is consuming much more that its share of the fruits of this planet, and we can no longer forcibly impose our will upon the rest of the world.
Time to back WAY off the feed trough.
That is what we are being told in the Middle East, and if we do not pay attention, this Third World War is going to continue to escalate right into nuclear confrontation.
No irony or rhetoric ANYWHERE in what I am saying here, Colonel. Just the straight feed. From the world’s mouth…its hungry and increasingly ANGRY mouth…to your ears.
Listen well.
Or ignore it at all of our peril.
AG
I always appreciate your insights and perspective on the situation in Iraq. Thanks, Pat.
Twenty years from now our current situation is going to be taught at all of the war colleges as the defining example of winning the war and losing the peace. Too bad we didn’t listen to all those smart guys and gals in the military RIGHT NOW (or since resigned/retired due to pressure/disgust) who told us over two years ago that the PLANS for Iraq were a textbook way to win the war and lose the peace.
Many people have suggested that Jack Murtha was speaking on behalf of those in the active military who can’t … the generals, etc …
of course, that reminds me of something that I think Pat wrote a while ago. That generals either go along or they resign. (Or was it Wes Clark who said that?)
But, perhaps in this case, it’s imperative for the generals opposed to the administration to stay in their spots in case we can undo this presidency … so that those reality-based generals can try to wield more influence in the ensuing power vacuum and next administration?
If we keep making progress in Iraq at this rate, the domestic debate about when or if to withdraw will be mute! Imagine, the Iraqi’s must have their own timetable, it would be nice if they let us in on it.