John Kerry At Newsweek: ‘Beware The Revisionists’

Full article here.

Kerry has some good advice:

“Now we must choose a smart way forward so no one asks whether we’ve made a mistake in staying. The main lesson that Obama must absorb from Vietnam is the necessity to explain our goals in Afghanistan, and to choose clear and realistic strategies to meet them.”

…so we can avoid:

“Let me be clear: more than 58,000 American troops died because they were sent into battle based on false assumptions, flawed goals, and faulty strategies”

It was all flawed?  Here’s what Henry Kissinger also said at Newsweek as well, though I think he was leaning toward more troop involvement:

“For the immediate future, it is essential to avoid another wrenching domestic division and to conduct the inevitable debate with respect for its complexity and the stark choices confronting our country.”

Related On This Site:  From Bloomberg: More Troops To Afghanistan? A Memo From Henry Kissinger To Gerald Ford?…From The NY Times Video: ‘A Schoolgirl’s Odyssey’…From The WSJ: Graham, Lieberman and McCain “Only Decisive Force Can Prevail In Afghanistan…From Commonweal: Andrew Bacevich “The War We Can’t Win: Afghanistan And The Limits Of American Power”

From CATO: ‘New York Times “Celebrates” The Fall Of The Berlin Wall’

Full post here.

In your ideological discontent with ‘capitalism,’ do you have to get into bed with some of Slavoj Zizek’s ideas…especially on the 20th anniversary of the day the Berlin Wall came down?

Still waiting on the Times to stop the ideological retreat…

Also On This Site:  Adam Kirsch In The New Republic On Slavoj Zizek: The Deadly Jester…Slavoj Zizek In The New Republic: Responding To Adam Kirsch

A Few Thoughts On Relativism In The Wake Of The Fort Hood Shootings: The NY Times PTSD Theory

Full post here. (From Althouse, with interesting comments)

There is an argument attached to the Hasan killings; namely that Hasan may have been giving signs of a belief in a more radical Islam that would conflict with his military duties (though it’s perhaps not reasonable to suspect that such extreme and violent action would ever be taken).  The argument states that an environment of fear (or oversensitivity, at least) has been created and potentially institutionalized in the military.  Such an environment (motivated by an overly pc cultural climate) might have led some who were alarmed at Hasan’s behavior to turn their heads and avoid the problem, and thus may have helped to prevent the extreme outcome.

As the facts are discovered, it seems Islam was likely a motivating factor in Hasan’s decision to attack soldiers who would soon deploy to fight Muslims, and it may even be that he was connected with specific groups that would support such an action.  Muslims of course, are free to practice their religion, and to follow the laws, and most do. However, there are clearly an issues of concern here for further consideration (also some on the American right which will too easily incite the passions into a mold of religious conflict for political gain…mostly thanks to Hasan).

Addition:  Or perhaps people were monitoring him but he fell through the cracks.

——————————–

More broadly, a friend of mine further on the right than me is making the argument there are at least two issues:

1.  the real threat of radical Muslims willing to attack American targets from abroad and potentially at home, in the name of their religious beliefs…and how to best handle this threat…and the underlying reasons which help to cause it.

…as well as:

2.  An overly relativistic and confused set of ideas guiding the political left, which might not be deep enough to handle the type of situation that Hasan has presented us with.  In addition, such lack of depth (on full display in the Times article) forces us into more bitter partisanship, creating deeper rifts in the body politic.

——————————————————-

A few facts and a lot of generalizations…your thoughts and comments are welcome.  Here’s a quote from Simon Blackburn I put up a while ago:

“Nigel: Has relativism had its day as an influential philosophical position?

Simon: No – and I don’t think it should ever die. The danger is that it gets replaced by some kind of complacent dogmatism, which is at least equally unhealthy. The Greek sceptics thought that confronting a plurality of perspectives is the beginning of wisdom, and I think they were right. It is certainly the beginning of historiography and anthropology, and if we think, for instance, of the Copernican revolution, of self-conscious science. The trick is to benefit from an imaginative awareness of diversity, without falling into a kind of “anything goes” wishy-washy nihilism or scepticism….”

See Also On This Site:   From YouTube: Roger Scruton On Religious Freedom, Islam & Atheism…How do you reasonably deal with relativism anyways?: From Virtual Philosophy: A Brief Interview With Simon Blackburn…From The NY Times: Review Of Christopher Caldwell’s Book “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West”

Gerard Russell at Foreign Policy: ‘The Avoidable Death Of Afghan Democracy’

Full article here.

“If the Afghan government can use the lessons from this election to build some protection for the Afghan people against fraud and corruption, then those who died and suffered because of the last vote will not have done so in vain.”

Yet who will help to maintain the democratic structure that has been cobbled together?

—————————————–

And now that Abdullah Abdullah has pulled out, it’s going to be time for Obama to make a decision.  Anthony Cordesman outlines what he thinks ought to be considered here.

Related On This Site:  From Bloomberg: More Troops To Afghanistan? A Memo From Henry Kissinger To Gerald Ford?…From The NY Times Video: ‘A Schoolgirl’s Odyssey’…From The WSJ: Graham, Lieberman and McCain “Only Decisive Force Can Prevail In Afghanistan…From Commonweal: Andrew Bacevich “The War We Can’t Win: Afghanistan And The Limits Of American Power”

Megan McArdle At The Atlantic: ‘The Death Of Newpapers, Continued’

Full post here.

“The problem is, newspapers were losing business before the recession.  Newspapers have been losing business for decades.”

And she finishes with:

“And I just don’t think that in ten years, the newspaper business model will be able to support very many newsrooms of any size.”

And newer business models are being developed and tested as we speak.  I suppose it depends on where you’re sitting, but the technology is currently available to broadcast and discuss ideas on the web at next to no cost (not necessarily free).  I’m not convinced that the vital role of newspaper as responsible institution of its own….watching even more responsible institutions for the public good (political watchdog, finder of facts) won’t be filled by someone else.  Mickey Kaus has a good list here (scroll down) of some necessities.

I’d also argue (showing my political stripes, and perhaps nothing else) that aside from the business model and ad revenue problem, there is the ideology problem at the NY Times (and many other outlets, not all on the left).  They are drawing themselves within an ever narrower set of ideas with which to interpret and report on events.  I think there are other, deeper reasons for this.

Yet, the NY Times still offers value, and important ideas, and much of the blogosphere relies on the Times’ shrinking newsroom for their own success at the moment.

Also On This Site: Here in Seattle, Bill Virgin says newspapers built up their value, and slowly let it die: From The Seattle Post-Intelligencer Via Sound Politics: Why Did The PI Die?..Who Reads The Newspapers?…The Newseum Opens On The Mall: More From The Weekly Standard

Two previous two posts which have some links of interest:  From The New Yorker: Malcolm Gladwell’s “Priced To Sell”…From The Becker-Posner Blog: The Future Of Newspapers.

From CSIS: ‘Schieffer Series-A Discussion Of U.S. Policy In Afghanistan’

Full video here.  Anthony Cordesman and some thoughtful journalists have a discussion.

Matthew Hoh’s resignation here.

Stanley McChrystal’s original report here.

Still looking for alternative strategies beyond graceful exit (potentially without meeting our security goals) or further troop commitment that would meet the Afghan people and protect our interests (and our moral commitment to the Afghans but only through our military)…your thoughts and comments are welcome.

Related On This Site:  From Bloomberg: More Troops To Afghanistan? A Memo From Henry Kissinger To Gerald Ford?…From The NY Times Video: ‘A Schoolgirl’s Odyssey’…From The WSJ: Graham, Lieberman and McCain “Only Decisive Force Can Prevail In Afghanistan…From Commonweal: Andrew Bacevich “The War We Can’t Win: Afghanistan And The Limits Of American Power”

From The New Yorker-’Close Read: Resigning Over Afghanistan’

Full post here.

I’m a little wary of the people who will use Matthew Hoh’s resignation (included at the link) to tell us “I told you so,” or to avoid the depth of the reasons we’re there.  In fact, at the very least, it should be incumbent upon all of us with any doubts to come up with other strategies to deal with the threats we face.  There are young men in the Arab world (from relatively successful all the way down to failed states), rallying to the cry of Islam’s defense.  I see many sources of continued conflict, and many points of contact, and also many opportunities for understanding.  Not just ‘understanding,’ as some would use it, but hard fought, hard won, vigorously debated ideas that require sacrifice on everyone’s part.

That’s enough glibness from me.

Related On This Site:  From Bloomberg: More Troops To Afghanistan? A Memo From Henry Kissinger To Gerald Ford?…From The NY Times Video: ‘A Schoolgirl’s Odyssey’…From The WSJ: Graham, Lieberman and McCain “Only Decisive Force Can Prevail In Afghanistan…From Commonweal: Andrew Bacevich “The War We Can’t Win: Afghanistan And The Limits Of American Power”

From Foreign Policy: Fabrice Pothier’s ‘Time For An Afghan Surge’

Full article here:

There are some good ideas, and suggestions at cooperation:

“For too long, the West has thrown troops and money at Afghanistan, without any clearly articulated objectives for the mission.”

And thinking on McChrystal’s report (who is also the head of NATO command):

“The real story is what the report only indirectly alludes to and what has been seldom debated until the electoral crisis: the Afghan political “context” in which Afghans will be given reasons to bet on their government rather than sit on the fence or support the Taliban.”

But it also seems to be a suggestion on how to pull out as gracefully as possible.   In fact, I suspect European public opinion may be even lower for the war right now that American public opinion.

But what about American national security interests?  European interests?

Islam is the main glue that unites the tribes together, likely deeper than most national interests.  The Taliban are Muslims, but also warlords.   This country has been in and out of war for decades.  It’s not exactly clear what Afghan opinion is of the Taliban, but I’m open to ideas on how to create a government that could work to serve the people in some way, as this is probably our deepest moral commitment to the Afghan people.

There is also enough anger and resentment across the Muslim world (for many reasons, some valid) that Afghanistan became a training ground for a radical, extreme and violent defense of Islam.   Such problems obviously can’t be addressed by U.S. and NATO military operations alone (think of all the points of contact), but neither are such problems fully addressed by a pull-out either…

…unless I’m missing something.

David Rohde At The NY Times: ‘Inside The Islamic Emirate’

Full article here.  (The second in a series)

Rohde was the NY Times reporter kidnapped for months inside Afghanistan and Pakistan.  He is writing a series of articles about his experiences.  Let this be a lesson to young journalists…risking your life can be worth it…

Also On This Site:  Dexter Filkins Book On Afghanistan And Iraq: “The Forever War”…Sarah Chayes On Afghanistan In The Boston Review: Days Of Lies And Roses

Jack Shafer At Slate: ‘Nonprofit Journalism Comes At A Cost’

Full post here.

Journalism, of course, is going through some major changes, and Shafer puts his finger one of the main problems on the rising influence of nonprofit journalism:

“Nonprofit outlets almost always measure their success in terms of influence, not audience, because their customers are the donors who’ve donated cash to influence politics, promote justice, or otherwise build a better world.”

Slate, of course, is for profit, and its idealism at least must meet the demands of the market:

“To borrow a tidy phrase from the business world, donors to nonprofits seek not payouts from their investment but psychic income.”

As Shafer points out, such idealism comes with costs (the Christian Science Monitor is nonprofit for example…and provides good reporting but may still want something from you, despite its depth).

Even NPR isn’t excluded, as Shafer quotes James Ledbetter:

“[NPR's] quirky mission statement stabs at the coarseness of modern American life; it reads almost as if it were written by a team of existential psychologists. NPR pledged it would “serve the individual: it will promote personal growth; it will regard the individual differences among men with respect and joy rather than with derision and hate; it will celebrate the human experience as infinitely varied rather than vacuous and banal; it will encourage a sense of active, constructive participation rather than apathetic helplessness.“

What was that again?

It’s not that NPR doesn’t provide quality coverage (and the most popular argument being ‘better than the the mindless inanity on the rest of the radio’) but it’s simply that such idealism comes with other costs.  As Shafer’s argument goes, perhaps as in a bureuacracy, under such ideals and vague language huddle all sorts of people protected from the demands of the market…which regular newspapers had to deal with in the past before many of them also became overtly ideological and also had to deal with the internet.

Personally, I get worried when I listen to NPR and hear the moral good too easily confused with politics, or an artist’s actual achievement confused with social programs that will be promoted on the taxpayer’s dime…and whose efficacy is questionable.

When was the last time you saw a for-profit company not showing a public face of moral concern for some cause anyways?

Also On This Site:   Idealism is working at for profit companies too, like Dove’s Campaign For Real Beauty:  Dove’s Campaign For Real Beauty: Pascal Dangin And Aesthetics…From Slate: Jack Shafer On The Pulitzer Prize-Who Cares?…Who Reads The Newspapers?…

Remember The Maine! The good old days…by malik2moon