A discusion with Wulfgar

Wulfgar and I have been having a discussion over at Left in the West. I am realizing that it is taking up too much for Matt's site, so I have decided to move it here:
Earlier, in a response to Squid, Wulfgar said:

# Wulfgar Says:

Squid, don’t you find something inherantly dangerous about having a lame duck President … 3 years before he leaves office … in war time? For all your tough talk about respecting the military, stances like the one you profess here proves that you really hate the troops, only slightly less than you hate Democrats.
# Squid Says:
September 9th, 2005 at 6:03 pm

Hey, I’m just stating a fact. You democrats can’t nominate one decent candidate, so you leave us with absolutely no choice at all. I voted for Ross Perot and helped elect Clinton, so I damn sure wasn’t going to vote for either Gore or Kerry. I totally disagree with Bush and his spending habits, ala shades of the democratic party that they are, and his failure to address the border situation is a disaster. I do agree with his position on terrorism and had Gore or Kerry been elected we’d still be taking it in the shorts from the radicals of Islam who can smell the odor of pacifism even with their noses in the sand. Your statement that I hate the troops is asinine and deserves no response, but here’s mine anyway. The vast majority of those serving believe in their mission, in Iraq, and I support them. They’re all volunteers and as much as the democrats(politicos)say they support our troops, they’re secretly hoping for their failure for the political advantage they anticipate will follow. The American people are not stupid, even though the democrats treat them as if they are. They will reject your next candidate for the presidency unless a miracle happens to the democratic party platform. And as they say in Japan, at least when I was there, neva happen boysan. Neva happen with the likes of Howard Dean and his ilk in charge.
. . . .
Then Wulfgar said:

Squid, you completely avoid the accusation, which I mean with all seriousness. If you support a lame duck president against any accusation (which you did right in this very post) then youi support an incompetant leading our fighting men and women inthe field. Well done. You hate our soldiers, and the proof is right here.

# Squid Says:
September 10th, 2005 at 10:32 pm

Wulfgar, you are hopeless. You’re on the wrong side and know it and you attempt to transfer your negativity of the war effort to those who support it. I admit I support GWB’s policy against terrorism, but I’ll also admit that Bush doesn’t go far enough in bringing this Iraq campaign to a conclusion by utilizing what ever means it takes. This I attribute to his appeasment of the pacifists in both the republican and democratic parties. That being said, I will continue to believe that this country is far far better off with him at the helm instead of either Gore or Kerry or for that matter any of the other candidates that the democratic party has chosen to consider for the presidency.

I will not support accusations until they are proven to be justifiable. The bull**t the democrats throw up against the wall, time and time again, hoping upon hope that one or more might stick, have not been proven to be justifiable so why in the hell would I support them.

Lastly, George Bush is not leading our troops in the field. Others have that responsibilty and even if he was, I’d rather have him there instead of someone who requested and was awarded a Purple Heart for having rice fragments penetrate his rear end.
# Steve Says:
September 11th, 2005 at 9:27 pm

Wulfgar, you are starting to sound like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass. By your logic, if you oppose Bush, and are encouraging the terrorists to blow up Americans soldiers, then you are supporting the troops.
As a former troop, I would prefer that you not help.
# Wulfgar Says:
September 12th, 2005 at 8:00 am

Then Wulfgar said:

Former troop or not, Steve, your preference is hardly of any concern to me. What is is your poor understanding of logic, as well as survival of our combat forces. My logic is very simple and very clear: an incompetant CIC, who behaves as a lame duck (acts based on his non-concern for re-election, which is exactly what Squid favored) will hurt our troops. Supporting an incompetant CIC is, therefore, clearly anti-troops. That a rah-rah jingoist like Squid doesn’t understand that doesn’t surprise me at all. You, on the other hand, by pulling specious arguments from your butt surprise me quite a bit.

In no argument I have ever given, nor any that has ever been proven does opposing Bush = encouraging terrorists to blow up American soldiers. And obviously, encouraging terrorists to blow up American soldiers != supporting the troops. So, your conclusion may be valid, if only one is goofy enough to believe the stupid premise you propose. Doesn’t it make much much more sense to posit that electing a competant CIC, who actually gives a crap in his final term in office, is a necessary condition for supporting the troops? Seems pretty clear to me. Why doesn’t it to you?
# Steve Says:
September 12th, 2005 at 3:26 pm

Wulfgar, I usually admire your reasoning, even if I do disagree, however, let me expand upon my premise.
The terrorists cannot win militarily, period. They are incapable of sustained military action that can drive us from the battlefield. Therefore, the only way that they can defeat us is to attack our will. In order to attack that, they exploit our communications systems, primarily television news. They make attacks that accomplish little militarily, but are designed to demoralize the American public. Those who succumb to the demoralization will bring pressure upon political leaders to end the war without a satisfactory military conclusion. Therefore, if you oppose the war, you are an instrument of the terrorists.
Now, let’s say that you in particular were to say “I oppose Bush, but the only way to end the war is to create a stable and freely democratic government that will allow us to withdraw when they have taken over their security.” This would prevent the terrorists from hoping that domestic opinion would be swayed and they would have to face the reality that they are not going to win.
I suppose that this will be considered rah-rah or jingoistic, but I don’t see an alternative. Since 1979 in Iran, ‘83 in Lebanon, ‘93 in Somalia, etc., we have presented the confusing image that we are unwilling to sustain a presence that is in our national interest. I am sure that there are many in the Middle East who have expected us to bug out a long time ago. However, we need to put a stop to that now, so that we won’t have to do this again. I know that you think Bush is incompetent, but I think that this could very well be the greatest geo-strategic move since the Monroe doctrine, and we couldn’t even enforce that at the time that it was enunciated.

September 12th, 2005 at 6:24 pm

The terrorists cannot win militarily, period.

Incorrect assumption, the first. They can win militarily if they can escalate the conflict beyond the reach of our resources or our resolve to commit immoral acts. We can win this thing today, by nuking the whole of Iraq. Is that winning? Are the bleeding and deseased remainders afforded the sweet sweet gravy of democracy? Or have we simply succeeded in destroying what Saddam could not? Yay us.

In the meantime, 1 billion muslims will watch our actions. Do you think we can win that war? Really?

Therefore, the only way that they can defeat us is to attack our will.

Incorrect assumption, the second. They can win by getting us to behave as immorally as they themselves do, or more immorally that the American people (who last I checked, still control our government) are willing to accept. They want to win, and are willing to kill every man, woman and child in Iraq (or elsewhere) to do that. We can win, if we’re willing to do the same (and impoverish our own while doing so). A victory of will? Putting oneself on the inevitable path of destruction, to claim a specious point? Excuse me? When was cutting off your nose to spite your face considered moral? When was sacrifising your children for your sense of (arrogant, prideful, the first sin) will an act of a “good people”?

They make attacks that accomplish little militarily, but are designed to demoralize the American public.

Incorrect assumption, the third. Which is more demoralizing, the thought that the media might show us bad stuff? Or the sure and certain knowledge that our own government, supposedly of, by and for the people, lied us into a war, and continues to do so until this very day? You can blame the Islamofascists for lying to us about their strength, but I will be far more horrified that my government did the same exact fricking thing. There was absolutely no reason, regarding national defense, that we invaded Iraq. None.

However, we need to put a stop to that now, so that we won’t have to do this again. I know that you think Bush is incompetent, but I think that this could very well be the greatest geo-strategic move since the Monroe doctrine

I would likely agree with you … if this had been performed even modestly honestly or competantly. It wasn’t. Our greatest threat in the ME remains Saudi Arabia … period.

And you still haven’t proven what you claim to be true …
that claiming that the CIC is incompetant is a support for the terrorists. It isn’t. For your argument to work, you must be able to show this, clearly. You can’t. Claiming that we have an incompetant CIC is quite obviously *NOT* a support for terrorists. It’s a statement of opinion (in my mind, fact). It doesn’t provide any foundation, at all, for your further argument that iopposition to Bush = encouragement of terrorists. None. Notta. Zip.

A question: When you swear alligience, do you swear to a king, or a flag and a country for which it stands? Just askin’? ‘Cause if you posit that discent against the CIC is anti-American, we might as well have a fricking king. Get it, yet?

Okay, maybe I should start with the beginning.

When Wulfgar said "Squid, don’t you find something inherantly dangerous about having a lame duck President … 3 years before he leaves office … in war time? For all your tough talk about respecting the military, stances like the one you profess here proves that you really hate the troops, only slightly less than you hate Democrats."

It raises concerns on many levels. 1. Does any lame duck president escape this charge? If so, why? 2. The comment that Squid proves his hatred for the troops would be objectionable because it assumes facts not in evidence, is inflamatory, and generally unworthy of response. 3. Maybe Squid just disagrees with Democrats, does that actually mean he hates them? I don't know Squid, but I would be willing to wager a cup of coffee that Wulfgar doesn't either.

When Wulfgar said in response to Squid: "Squid, you completely avoid the accusation, which I mean with all seriousness. If you support a lame duck president against any accusation (which you did right in this very post) then youi support an incompetant leading our fighting men and women inthe field. Well done. You hate our soldiers, and the proof is right here."

I renew mhy objections above. But, as to his accusation that Bush is incompetent, I know that it is considered an article of faith that Bush is incompetent among the so called intelligentsia and Democrats in general. However, to test a theory, you don't look to prove your theory, you look to disprove it. I would offer as evidence to disprove it, that Bush has pretty well gotten everything that he has said that he wanted with the exception of Social Security reform, and contrary to some opinions, I don't think that is is dead yet. As to the proof being "right there" I must be too obtuse to see anything but an assertion, without supporting facts.

When Wulfgar said: "Supporting an incompetant CIC is, therefore, clearly anti-troops. That a rah-rah jingoist like Squid doesn’t understand that doesn’t surprise me at all. You, on the other hand, by pulling specious arguments from your butt surprise me quite a bit." Okay, taking this one at a time. First, the assertion that Bush is incompetent, is just that, and as noted above open for dispute. So, if Wulfgar's assertion is found to be false, is not the rest false as well? Second, I repeat that making an assertion is not a fact. If the argument is specious, how so specifically? Is it because I disagree with you that I make specious arguments? Usually Wulfgar is above that, except when he becomes angry.

Then we get to the fun stuff. In response to my clarification, which needed to be done, Wulfgar set out to dissect my argumnet, which is fair, since I am doing the same.

The terrorists cannot win militarily, period.

Incorrect assumption, the first. They can win militarily if they can escalate the conflict beyond the reach of our resources or our resolve to commit immoral acts. We can win this thing today, by nuking the whole of Iraq. Is that winning? Are the bleeding and deseased remainders afforded the sweet sweet gravy of democracy? Or have we simply succeeded in destroying what Saddam could not? Yay us.

Okay, Wulfgar says that I am wrong that the terrorists cannot win militarily, because they can escalate the conflict beyong the reach of our resources. I suppose he means that they are going to be bringing in 10-20 armored divisions, plus a few thousand Migs and Sukhois. Ain't gonna happen. They don't exist. In fact, when Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" he was technically correct. There were no organized enemy units above the platoon level. There was no functioning chain of command that could coordinate the attacks nor were there any organized supply and support structures available to draw resources like replacements or supplies. Now, after April 2003, the enemy changed, but it wasn't the one we went into in March of that year, they were gone.
As to us committing immoral acts, I disagree that there is any organized policy to commit immoral acts. In fact, there have been prosecutions of our soldiers for violating the rules of war. Not to say that they don't exist, but that is also not to say that they are condoned, much less encouraged. As to the only way to win being nukes, I disagree, as I have said before about the utility of nukes. So in review, my statement that the terrorists cannot drive us from the battlefield still stands. One down.

Second Wulfgar said: Incorrect assumption, the second. They can win by getting us to behave as immorally as they themselves do, or more immorally that the American people (who last I checked, still control our government) are willing to accept. They want to win, and are willing to kill every man, woman and child in Iraq (or elsewhere) to do that. We can win, if we’re willing to do the same (and impoverish our own while doing so). A victory of will? Putting oneself on the inevitable path of destruction, to claim a specious point?

So, I think that Wulfgar leaps here to the idea that we will act as immorally as the terrorists. I guess then, he agrees with the idea that as long as we do not act immorally then we will win. Well, I am in agreement with that. He says that we can win if we kill every man woman and child just like the terrorists do, thereby consigning us to the level of the terrorists. I am sure that this is just anger, and do not believe that anyone (rational) believes that we are the same as the terrorists. Here is an alternate version of victory that differs from his: We establish a functioning Iraqi democratic government that uses its own security apparatus, and relies on the intelligence gleaned from their fellow citizens who are not afraid of the terrorists, nor willing to tolerate them, and their attacks on innocents. Again with the specious points. I am beginning to wonder if that is just a macro. Oh well, two down.

Next: They make attacks that accomplish little militarily, but are designed to demoralize the American public.

Incorrect assumption, the third. Which is more demoralizing, the thought that the media might show us bad stuff? Or the sure and certain knowledge that our own government, supposedly of, by and for the people, lied us into a war, and continues to do so until this very day? You can blame the Islamofascists for lying to us about their strength, but I will be far more horrified that my government did the same exact fricking thing. There was absolutely no reason, regarding national defense, that we invaded Iraq. None.

Okay, let's take this one step at a time. It's not that the tv shows us bad stuff, it is the context. Are 30 new hospitals, 200 new schools, clean water, worth a suicide bomber that kills children? Apparently not. It is only in the lack of perspective that the media fails us. It's not their fault. If it bleeds it leads always sells more commecials than real progress. As to the "Lied us into war," we have already had that discussion. here. I realize I may be unique, but I still believe that there is a difference between a lie and a mistake. As to the reason regarding national defense, I think that it shows a failure of imagination. I wrote about that here. In fact, I would argue that Wulfgar's argument reinforces my original one that we can only be defeated by ourselves.

Lastly, (I know, you are thinking thank God) he said "And you still haven’t proven what you claim to be true …
that claiming that the CIC is incompetant is a support for the terrorists. It isn’t. For your argument to work, you must be able to show this, clearly. You can’t. Claiming that we have an incompetant CIC is quite obviously *NOT* a support for terrorists. It’s a statement of opinion (in my mind, fact). It doesn’t provide any foundation, at all, for your further argument that iopposition to Bush = encouragement of terrorists. None. Notta. Zip.

A question: When you swear alligience, do you swear to a king, or a flag and a country for which it stands? Just askin’? ‘Cause if you posit that discent against the CIC is anti-American, we might as well have a fricking king. Get it, yet?"

Well, it's getting late so I may just skim this argument, although I should admit that Wulfgar deserves full and serious consideration. My assertion is that the terrorists have hope that they can persuade us to throw in the towel. Attacking the President is as American as apple pie, or chop suey for that matter. But if you attack the President, whether Bush or Clinton or whoever, you have to acknowledge that our enemies also attack the President, and you need to seperate yourself from them. How do you do this. Ah, there's the rub isn't it. It requires a deft and intelligent approach that is difficult, as it should be. Otherwise, you start to sound like the country's enemies.

And, when I swore all of my oaths, they were to the Constitution of the United States and the lawful orders of the President, and the officers appointed over me. During our military law classes, we are taught that it is illegal to obey an illegal order, but you better be right, becuase if you aren't you will pay the price.

I look forward to Wulfgar's response.