3,000

When it comes to Saddam Hussein’s execution, the word of the day, Joshua Holland notes, was “milestone.” As in Bush’s statement marking Saddam’s death: “Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not end the violence in Iraq, but it is an important milestone on Iraq’s course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain, and defend itself.” By Holland’s count, it was the sixteenth “turning point” or “milestone” (along with one chance to “turn the tide” and a “watershed event”) in the last three and a half years.

But so long as “milestones” are open for discussion, a far more tragic one was reached yesterday.

The number of U.S. service members killed in Iraq since the war began in 2003 reached 3,000 on Sunday, a symbolic milestone at a time when the Bush administration is rethinking its strategy for the increasingly violent conflict.

As the year drew to a close, the U.S. military announced that a soldier was killed Saturday by a roadside bomb while on patrol in a southeastern neighborhood of Baghdad. Two soldiers were injured in the attack. Their names were not released.

The Defense Department also announced that Spec. Dustin R. Donica, 22, of Spring, Tex., was killed by small-arms fire Thursday in Baghdad.

According to the Associated Press and the independent Web site iCasualties.org, both of which keep counts of war fatalities, the deaths raised the American toll to at least 3,000.

There are a couple of ways to look at this painful milestone. One is by examining the numbers, and E&P compiled an interesting analysis. Another is to note that the results don’t include the number of Americans wounded during the war (more than 20,000), nor the number of Iraqis killed (anywhere from 100,000 to 600,000).

And then, of course, there’s the politics of it all.

In June, after U.S. fatalities in Iraq reached 2,500, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow was asked if the president had “any response or reaction.” Snow responded, “It’s a number, and every time there’s one of these 500 benchmarks, people want something.”

In this case, I think Snow was right; people do “want something.” We want a president who understands reality. We want an administration with an effective policy. We want U.S. troops to get out of the middle of a civil war.

In short, we want to avoid number 3,001.

Here’s to a far less tragic 2007.

Amen.

  • What impresses me about the US death rate in Bush’s Iraq Quagmire is the relentlessness of it. No matter how many “turning points” or “mileposts” there have been, the graph showing those events along the line of accumulate deaths almost never varies, except that the rate has increased during the last few weeks.

  • That’s a really handy way for regular people to keep track of how many soldiers have died in Iraq.

    In March we’ll have been there since March 2003, 4 years. There are 365 days in a year, so on average, even discounting the number of troops that probably would have been killed by accidents/training/natural causes from among the number of forces stationed in Iraq if they had not been stationed there (I’m guessing it can’t be more than a few hundred), probably at least one soldier has died for each day we’ve been there.

    As of January 1, 2007, we’ve lost exactly 3,000 people. Add one for each day that passes and you know about how many we’ve lost in Iraq.

  • Here’s how “I” spell milestone.

    MILLSTONE.

    As in “another politicized, policy millstone of the Bush sham-ministration to which the United States of America has been shackled….”

  • Bush hasn’t been good at creating any “milestones” of anything tht could be contrued as progress. But he has been very good at creating headstones. Lots of them. The fabled surge will launch us to the net milestone of 4,000, I fear.

  • If you want to remove the millstone, Dems have to start working together. That means accepting authority. A lot of liberals would like to believe that concensus is the only way people can be organized in a way that’s normatively optimal and efficient. But obviously people organize by both authoritarian hierarchies and concensus. Hierarchies have proved the tried and true successful method for most of history. Consensus may work more in the future than it has, especially among self-actualized people who know they work together well, but for emergency situations hierarchy has to be the way to go.

    Authority is a precondition. Without it you can’t know what you can achieve. It’s like the social contract, there wasn’t society without it, and that’s no less true today.

  • The NYT has a Flash tribute to our fallen brothers and sisters, Faces of the Dead.

    Mouse over the little squares and click to see names and information of those who’ve given their lives. Not the way I wanted, to start my New Year, but this is the reality of the day.

  • Did you ever see To Have And Have Not? That guy on the boat who tries to wrestle Humphrey Bogart can’t be running things. That guy needs to sit down and shut up and know that he can give his opinion but he can’t decide what the orders are going to be.

    Authority means there can be only one leader.

  • It’s like the social contract, there wasn’t society without it, and that’s no less true today. – Swan (#6)

    No offense, but the “social contract” is a myth. Humans, being members of the biological family Hominidae, have always been social, at least in the sense of living in extended families. Thomas Hobbes’ description of life prior to the Social Contract — “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” — may have formed an excellent basis for the royalist doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, but it was lousy observation (lousy social science if you prefer). Locke and Rousseau, whatever their contributions to political philosophy and the theory of representative government, shared the same erroneous belief, namely, that there ever was a time when individual humans were on their own, in a war of each against all, that society is only possible through a social contract.

    I recently finished an excellent book, Animals in Translation: Using the Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal Behavior, by Temple Grandin (who is autistic, has a PhD in animal behavior and is a much sought after consultant in the commercial world of larger animals such as cows and horses). She cites recent research suggesting that the relation between man and dog is much older than had been thought. Rather than man having domesticated wolves at the end of the last Ice Age (30,000 years ago), she suggests the reverse — that wolves domesticated man, about 100,000 years ago. She notes that the rest of the hominids have a very simple social structure, essentially familial. Wolves, by comparison, have many more extra-familial (i.e., strictly social) arrangements … things like enduring male-male friendships, task-oriented work groups, and multi-family child care and play groups. She contends that a major factor in transforming us from our ape-like ancestors — who, like other animals and most autistic people, thought in pictures rather than words — was when we added verbal thinking and communication to those social structures we inherited from wolves.

  • Ed#9,

    When people refer to the social contract, they’re not referring to an actual event, unless (but probably not even then) they’re someone from 300 years ago. The social contract in contemporary parlance refers to the fact of organizing by division of labor and hierarchy of decision making authority to achieve greater efficiency and wealth. The distinction between whether this is achieved instinctually or conceptually- as a form of consciously developed technology- almost doesn’t matter for purposes of what I’m talking about.

    Thanks for the comment though.

  • December 29, 2006 By Riverbend, Baghdad Burning,
    riverbendblog.blogspot.com

    End of Another Year…

    You know your country is in trouble when:

    The UN has to open a special branch just to keep track of the
    chaos and bloodshed, UNAMI. Abovementioned branch cannot be run
    from your country.

    The politicians who worked to put your country in this sorry
    state can no longer be found inside of, or anywhere near, its
    borders.

    The only thing the US and Iran can agree about is the
    deteriorating state of your nation.

    An 8-year war and 13-year blockade are looking like the country’s
    ‘Golden Years’.

    Your country is purportedly ‘selling’ 2 million barrels of oil a
    day, but you are standing in line for 4 hours for black market
    gasoline for the generator.

    For every 5 hours of no electricity, you get one hour of public
    electricity and then the government announces it’s going to cut
    back on providing that hour.

    Politicians who supported the war spend tv time debating whether
    it is ‘sectarian bloodshed’ or ‘civil war’.

    People consider themselves lucky if they can actually identify
    the corpse of the relative that’s been missing for two weeks.

    A day in the life of the average Iraqi has been reduced to
    identifying corpses, avoiding car bombs and attempting to keep
    track of which family members have been detained, which ones have
    been exiled and which ones have been abducted.

    2006 has been, decidedly, the worst year yet. No – really. The
    magnitude of this war and occupation is only now hitting the
    country full force.

    It’s like having a big piece of hard, dry earth you are
    determined to break apart. You drive in the first stake in the
    form of an infrastructure damaged with missiles and the newest in
    arms technology, the first cracks begin to form.

    Several smaller stakes come in the form of politicians like
    Chalabi, Al Hakim, Talbani, Pachachi, Allawi and Maliki. The
    cracks slowly begin to multiply and stretch across the once solid
    piece of earth, reaching out towards its edges like so many
    skeletal hands. And you apply pressure. You surround it from all
    sides and push and pull. Slowly, but surely, it begins coming
    apart- a chip here, a chunk there.

    That is Iraq right now. The Americans have done a fine job of
    working to break it apart.

    This last year has nearly everyone convinced that that was the
    plan right from the start. There were too many blunders for them
    to actually have been, simply, blunders. The ‘mistakes’ were too
    catastrophic. The people the Bush administration chose to support
    and promote were openly and publicly terrible- from the con-man
    and embezzler Chalabi, to the terrorist Jaffari, to the militia
    man Maliki. The decisions, like disbanding the Iraqi army,
    abolishing the original constitution, and allowing militias to
    take over Iraqi security were too damaging to be anything but
    intentional.

    The question now is, but why? I really have been asking myself
    that these last few days. What does America possibly gain by
    damaging Iraq to this extent? I’m certain only raving idiots
    still believe this war and occupation were about WMD or an actual
    fear of Saddam.

    Al Qaeda? That’s laughable. Bush has effectively created more
    terrorists in Iraq these last 4 years than Osama could have
    created in 10 different terrorist camps in the distant hills of
    Afghanistan.

    Our children now play games of ‘sniper’ and ‘jihadi’, pretending
    that one hit an American soldier between the eyes and this one
    overturned a Humvee.

    This last year especially has been a turning point. Nearly every
    Iraqi has lost so much. So much. There’s no way to describe the
    loss we’ve experienced with this war and occupation.

    There are no words to relay the feelings that come with the
    knowledge that daily almost 40 corpses are found in different
    states of decay and mutilation. There is no compensation for the
    dense, black cloud of fear that hangs over the head of every
    Iraqi.

    Fear of things so out of ones hands, it borders on the
    ridiculous- like whether your name is ‘too Sunni’ or ‘too Shia’.
    Fear of the larger things- like the Americans in the tank, the
    police patrolling your area in black bandanas and green banners,
    and the Iraqi soldiers wearing black masks at the checkpoint.

    Again, I can’t help but ask myself why this was all done? What
    was the point of breaking Iraq so that it was beyond repair?

    Iran seems to be the only gainer.

    Their presence in Iraq is so well-established, publicly
    criticizing a cleric or ayatollah verges on suicide. Has the
    situation gone so beyond America that it is now irretrievable? Or
    was this a part of the plan all along? My head aches just posing
    the questions.

    What has me most puzzled right now is: why add fuel to the fire?
    Sunnis and moderate Shia are being chased out of the larger
    cities in the south and the capital. Baghdad is being torn apart
    with Shia leaving Sunni areas and Sunnis leaving Shia areas- some
    under threat and some in fear of attacks. People are being openly
    shot at check points or in drive by killings…… Many colleges have
    stopped classes. Thousands of Iraqis no longer send their
    children to school- it’s just not safe.

    Why make things worse by insisting on Saddam’s execution now?

    Who gains if they hang Saddam? Iran, naturally, but who else?
    There is a real fear that this execution will be the final blow
    that will shatter Iraq.

    Some Sunni and Shia tribes have threatened to arm their members
    against the Americans if Saddam is executed. Iraqis in general
    are watching closely to see what happens next, and quietly
    preparing for the worst.

    This is because now, Saddam no longer represents himself or his
    regime. Through the constant insistence of American war
    propaganda, Saddam is now representative of all Sunni Arabs
    (never mind most of his government were Shia).

    The Americans, through their speeches and news articles and Iraqi
    Puppets, have made it very clear that they consider him to
    personify Sunni Arab resistance to the occupation. Basically,
    with this execution, what the Americans are saying is “Look –
    Sunni Arabs – this is your man, we all know this. We’re hanging
    him – he symbolizes you.”

    And make no mistake about it, this trial and verdict and
    execution are 100% American. Some of the actors were Iraqi
    enough, but the production, direction and montage was pure
    Hollywood (though low-budget, if you ask me).

    That is, of course, why Talbani doesn’t want to sign his death
    penalty – not because the mob man suddenly grew a conscience, but
    because he doesn’t want to be the one who does the hanging- he
    won’t be able to travel far away enough if he does that.

    Maliki’s government couldn’t contain their glee. They announced
    the ratification of the execution order before the actual court
    did.

    A few nights ago, some American news program interviewed Maliki’s
    bureau chief, Basim Al-Hassani who was speaking in accented
    American English about the upcoming execution like it was a
    carnival he’d be attending. He sat, looking sleazy and not a
    little bit ridiculous, his dialogue interspersed with ‘gonna’,
    ‘gotta’ and ‘wanna’… Which happens, I suppose, when the only
    people you mix with are American soldiers.

    My only conclusion is that the Americans want to withdraw from
    Iraq, but would like to leave behind a full-fledged civil war
    because it wouldn’t look good if they withdraw and things
    actually begin to improve, would it?

    Here we come to the end of 2006 and I am sad. Not simply sad for
    the state of the country, but for the state of our humanity, as
    Iraqis. We’ve all lost some of the compassion and civility that I
    felt made us special four years ago. I take myself as an example.

    Nearly four years ago, I cringed every time I heard about the
    death of an American soldier. They were occupiers, but they were
    humans also and the knowledge that they were being killed in my
    country gave me sleepless nights. Never mind they crossed oceans
    to attack the country, I actually felt for them.

    Had I not chronicled those feelings of agitation in this very
    blog, I wouldn’t believe them now.

    Today, they simply represent numbers.

    3000 Americans dead over nearly four years? Really?

    That’s the number of dead Iraqis in less than a month.

    The Americans had families? Too bad. So do we.

    So do the corpses in the streets and the ones waiting for
    identification in the morgue.

    Is the American soldier that died today in Anbar more important
    than a cousin I have who was shot last month on the night of his
    engagement to a woman he’s wanted to marry for the last six
    years?

    I don’t think so.

    Just because Americans die in smaller numbers, it doesn’t make
    them more significant, does it?

  • From the NYT, via TPM:

    [J]ust about everything in the 24 hours that began with Mr. Hussein’s being taken to his execution from his cell in an American military detention center in the postmidnight chill of Saturday had a surreal and even cinematic quality.

    Part of it was that the Americans, who turned him into a pariah and drove him from power, proved to be his unlikely benefactors in the face of Iraq’s new Shiite rulers who seemed bent on turning the execution and its aftermath into a new nightmare for the Sunni minority privileged under Mr. Hussein.

    . . .

    Iraqi and American officials who have discussed the intrigue and confusion that preceded the decision late on Friday to rush Mr. Hussein to the gallows have said that it was the Americans who questioned the political wisdom — and justice — of expediting the execution, in ways that required Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to override constitutional and religious precepts that might have assured Mr. Hussein a more dignified passage to his end.

    The Americans’ concerns seem certain to have been heightened by what happened at the hanging, as evidenced in video recordings made just before Mr. Hussein fell through the gallows trapdoor at 6:10 a.m. on Saturday. A new video that appeared on the Internet late Saturday, apparently made by a witness with a camera cellphone, underscored the unruly, mocking atmosphere in the execution chamber.

    This continued, on the video, through the actual hanging itself, with a shout of “The tyrant has fallen! May God curse him!” as Mr. Hussein hung lifeless, his neck snapped back and his glassy eyes open.

    . . .

    American officials in Iraq have been reluctant to say much publicly about the pell-mell nature of the hanging, apparently fearful of provoking recriminations in Washington, where the Bush administration adopted a hands-off posture, saying the timing of the execution was Iraq’s to decide.

  • ***That means accepting authority.***
    ————————————————————Swan@post6

    Query the first: In accepting authority—from whom shall Democrats accept?

    ***Authority means there can be only one leader.***
    ——————————————————————————-Swan@post8

    Query the second: And who, may I ask, is that “one leader” to be?

    The elemental failure of any social contract—whether it be Ed’s yours, Hobbes’ or any other—is that is driven by the insatiable need of some for power over others. It’s one of those “Give me your Liberty, and I shall offer you a scrap or two Security” mantrae that the Founders warned against over two centuries ago.

    I accept authority from one person only—me. I do not submit to the ramblings of the current administration; I’ve personally no need for them.

    With or without your ideologue-esque “leader,” I can wake up in the morning, enjoy a pot of tea, sit down and read a book, participate directly in the full-time education of my son, grow vegetables for my family’s dinner-table, and an entire plethora of other tasks necessary for survival and comfort. In short, Swan—I am your “society’s” worst nightmare; a physio-intellectual blending of Thoreau and twenty-first-century technology; a Majority of One with a hard-drive, and the means to wield it as is needed.

    I know what I have in past achieved, what I currently achieve, and what I in future can achieve—all without your imaginary “social contract authority.”

    I stand against conservative issues, not because I am a member of a political party, but because conservativism is inherently wrong. It is a ploy, used by those who have, in order to gain more from those who have not. It is, in a word: “wealth.” Your own words, Swan—“greater efficiency and wealth.” Can you define “efficiency?” Was it in the name of “stand-alone efficiency” that millions of jobs—including some quarter-million from Ohio alone—were exported? No—if was done in the name of “fiduciary efficiency”—greater wealth; more bang for the buck, whatever-else. Is the distribution to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan of substandard body-armor, and the banning of recompense to families who provide their loved ones with suitable-quality body armor, a form of stand-alone efficiency? Again, the efficiency is dollar-based; a driving force for greater wealth.

    Wealth is a concept destined for the scrapheap—and any society that cannot relinquish its incessant addiction for wealth, will find itself relegated to that scrapheap. Not through violence or revolution; not through fiduciary irresponsibility or financial collapse—but merely through the simplicity of an ideology becoming passe, and obsolete….

  • Given that the basis for this war was deliberate lie backed by a callous and calculated abuse of international sympathy for the U.S. after Sept. 11th, the first death was a painful (and avoidable) milestone. 30, 300, 3,000, 300,000, what difference does it make? None, to the people responsible. 3,000 is “just a number;” A number of unecessary deaths caused by the Drunken Draft Dodger and Mr. Deferment. And now, when they’ve nothing left to lose, does anyone really think ShrubCo will suddenly start to give a damn about the humans they keep stuffing into the meatgrinder? Sure they will. And BushBaby will slow dance with Sheehan on Valentine’s Day while Snow and Rove snog in the corner.

    Sorry, I have very mixed feelings about the count of the 500s. (Is there a “unit” for this? Rumsfeld Unit?) Yes we should know, but I’m sure Rove sat down and did THE Math to calculate the “acceptable” number of U.S. deaths in this war. (‘Cos, like, fuck the ‘Raqis, theys all terrist anyways.) That is, the number of bodies that can pile up before people stormed the Whore White House. I suspect it is about 10,000. So ShrubCo will say “[focus group-tested sound bite]” at anything less than that. (BTW Afghanistan: 357 U.S. soldiers, dead, why don’t we hear about Afghanistan?)

    I guess I would ask, what, exactly are we counting, or why exactly are we counting? Isn’t it enough to know (where Iraq is concerned) each death did not have to happen? Or perhaps I need to switch cold medicines.

    tAiO

    p.s. OT – AiT is an excellent book. Grandin’s meeting with Skinner (another clue-deficient, bloviating fuckwit who thought he knew all the answers) alone was worth the price of the hard back. And yes, I’m sure the wolves are wishing they’d eaten all the funny looking apes when they had the chance.

  • Steve, you’re a fucking kid, man. The problem with the baby boomer generation and subsequent generations is they’ve abandoned basic know how, like how to pick leaders. The answer of who makes a good leader is, if you’re a guy like the guy who gets himself shot on the boat on To Have And Have Not, “not that guy,” and if you’re talking about a guy like Humphrey Bogart in To Have And Have Not, “a guy like that guy.” People who are only smart enough to follow general strategy on their own- general principles that apply in most situations they will face in the particular field of endavor- don’t make good leaders; people who know when and how to bend the rules know a specific strategy, and do make good leaders. People who know more make better leaders, and people who know less, less.

    People like Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias know a lot, but they’re not Bill Clinton, and when Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias are in the same room with Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton should be the leader. Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias should only be adjutants, advisors, in a chain of command. What they do is more about knowledge than about judgment.

    Every kid who’s barely seen the outside of a boarding school or an upper-class neighborhood isn’t a Machiavelli just because mommy and daddy wuv them a lot. When there’s a liberal office, let’s say, the head of a campaign shouldn’t be someone who gets the job because of connections, it should be someone who gets the job because of merit. Too many of you are people who think that you can fight by not fighting. You think your competing politically against mental morons, but they’re only dumb enough to not accept your values. They’re still smart enough to frustrate you from doing what you’re trying to do.

    And we shouldn’t be hearing any more talk about herding cats.

    That’s all I meant.

  • Steve, it’s a fact of life and society that people divide up labor and specialize so that we can have products made better, by one guy who spends all his time to figure out how to make that one product better. I’m speaking metaphorically of course, as I often do- how good would our computer programmers be if there was some law that required them to spend half their waking hours each week working on handicrafts or something? In a word, they’d be worse. Some people are better at some things than are others; we have better doctors because people can choose whether they want to be doctors or not.

    Ed, I looked at your comment quick and I really didn’t respond to it adequately. First, you’re being really unfair if you think that’s what Locke and Hobbes are about. If you’re lumping in Locke with Hobbes, especially, you’re wrong- Locke specifically spent the whole First Treatise on Civil Government refuting the Divine Right of Kings, and then he wrote the marvelously concise Secone Treatise explaining why we must be free. Hobbes is only a step behind Locke, and to make him sound like some kind of a monarchist is unfair. Even if he was a monarchist in fact, his own point was that it’s just and proper to overthrow a sovereign when it oversteps its authority. His thought was the kernal of Locke, and to talk about him as if his legacy is a monarchist legacy is a gross mischaracterization. You definitely don’t know what you’r talking about. If you want the Divine Right of Kings you have to go back to St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine- some Catholic monk from the dark ages.

    Besides that, I think the observation that people were in a more impoverished existence when their organization was less sophisticated- nasty, brutish and short- is a fact of life; they were barbarians before they were civilized. Medieval people and aboriginal people had to contend with more murder; when society became more legalistic, organized, specialized, and fair people had to deal with less threats.

    Also, this is what I mean when I say wealth. It’s just a shorthand way of saying better leaders, better doctors, better pottery makers, better everything because society is organized properly; we have systems of merit based selection to try to get people into graduate school if you can pass the MCATs, only. I just don’t write all this out because I don’t want to spend my whole day writing blog comments, although maybe I should. I wish you would give me the benefit of the doubt, though. I don’t mean to jump down your throat by calling you a fucking kid but you should know from seeing my comments here all the time that I’m one of the ones who talks some sense. You all need to listen to me more and other people less.

  • First off, Swannie, I’m no kid. Been there, done that, got the battle scars to prove it. Secondly, knowing how to pick good leaders doesn’t mean finding people who know how to bend the rules. A real leader knows how to work within the rules, and still get the job done. Only a spoiled child depends on rule-bending; you’ve obviously not learned that lesson yet. Thirdly, Bill Clinton—a good leader, yes—should not simply be leader by default. A proper representative government mean that the people select the leaders. Whiners who go on about such things as “the maniacal, inbred stupidity of Nascar Man” possess no right to complain about Nascar Man voting for “the other guy.” You insult someone; you get screwed by them, come Election Day. THAT is how the system works, so none of this “societal cat-herding,” if you please. It makes you sound too much like that FallenWoman character.

    Then, there’s the “Too many of you are people who think that you can fight by not fighting” comment. Now if you want to talk about being a kid, that’s got to be the dumbest, most fucked-up, childish thing I’ve seen you write in a long time. You want support for your ideals, then give people a solid reason to support those ideals—and this stupid, decades-old, trash-talking methodology just doesn’t cut it, boy. Calling people names doesn’t shame people to your way of thinking; it alienates them.

    And—I “can” fight by not fighting. Maybe you’ve forgotten your world history, but England lost its grip on India in just that way.

    There’s more than one way to “fight” the Iraq mess, m’boy. You want people to march for the cameras—I sit down with an 18-year-old kid and convince him not to enlist. In the end, your method probably gets ignored bythe media, and has no effect—mine, on the other hand, has effect. It doesn;t matter how big your herd of sheeple is—the lone wolf always inflicts the greater damage.

    You want people to pour more money into broken public schools that lack currect textbooks and technology; I show people how easy it is to get their kids into a virtual charter school with up-to-date curriculum materials and a brand-new computer for the student to use. A school that works—and it costs the taxpayers about $2,000.00 less per year, per student. Again—the lone wolf—the individual bucking the system, inflicts the greater impact.

    I’ve got two freezers and a pantry full of food, because of our gardens. “Your” kind? probably a pile of preservative-laced mush that pretends to be food—or is it the criminally-overpriced organic stuff? Sorry—the individual wins this round, as well.

    And in every case, I don’t see anyone who’s “still smart enough to frustrate me from what I’m trying to do.” So go back to your kingdom of lemmings, and while you’re at it, check the Yellow pages under “Neuro-Opthamology.” Methinks your addled brain needs bifocals….

  • Steve # 17 wrote
    knowing how to pick good leaders doesn’t mean finding people who know how to bend the rules. A real leader knows how to work within the rules, and still get the job done. Only a spoiled child depends on rule-bending; you’ve obviously not learned that lesson yet.

    You’re not even looking at what I’m saying. Leaders can be good enough in a role where they’re still a leader, but not delegated that much responsibility, when they only understend and know how to faithfully follow generally applicable principles, and can get other people to follow their orders. These are the commanders of platoons in an army of middle managers in a corporation. It’s better if they have some higher decision making capacity, but adequate if they don’t.

    A higher up leader like the general of an army can’t be a person who just follows general principles of strategy he learned out of a book. Then all you have to do is get the playbook he plays out of and you can beat him every time. To be a real leader you have to have the generative, creative capacity to respond to new situations that aren’t governed by the general, concrete principles as they’re laid out in the rule books, but by resort to the background principles that govern and give life to those background principles. So while strategy you practice might be good to the extent it comports with what you learn out of the rule book, what you learn out of the rule book is only good to the extent it comports with common sense. When you’re faced with a situation not quite contemplated by whatever rule book (or set of experiences, education, apprenticeship, and so on) you learned out of, you have to think and maybe reach a result that doesn’t comport with a literal reading of what the rule book would recommend, because following what the rule book would recommend would ruin you.

    All you liberals describe organizing liberals as herding cats. I know just what you mean because I’ve seen it and it’s pathetic. That why you guys are getting beat. Clinton and these recent election are like blips; you’re not taking back as much as you lose in the interims.

    Which brings me to “Too many of you are people who think that you can fight by not fighting”

    Yeah, that’s it- you’re all not as willing to fight over what the conservatives are fighting back to take as they are, and that’s why they’re winning in the long run. Sure, you might have desegregated society (for now), but you’re going to lose on things like abortion and separation of church and state if you don’t get people to take seriously what’s happening to the media. It’s like swept under the carpet that CNN does hatchet jobs on Democrats and you all are still talking about it like they just slipped on a banana peel or something.

    Yeah, Steve, it’s definitely a lot of guys like you who are still causing a lot of bad things to happen and it’s just because of things like cowardice, not all that blither blather you wrote.

    Please clean yourself up. You’re reacting to my comments in the worst way possible. Grow a brain or shut up. People like you shouldn’t be telling other people what to do unless it’s only in a very limited scope- like the high school students you counsel about whether or not enlisting in the military is a good career path. In other contexts you might not be as good an advisor or leader.

  • I’m one of the ones who talks some sense. You all need to listen to me more and other people less. — Swan, @16

    You’ve got to be kidding or else you’re delusional, at least from where I’m looking. Half of the time, I not only see no sense in your postings, I find them hardly coherent, much less lucid. And that’s even when you put all your thoughts into a single posting instead of your (preferred) drip-drip-method. Even if I wanted to, I couldn’t “listen to you”, because I can’t figure out what you’re saying.

    Ed Stephen and Steve, OTOH, are clear of thought and crisp of expression as well as sensible, so it’s always a pleasure when they contribute (even if Steve is a bit on a “firebrand” side of me most of the time ).

    Then, too, there’s your “philosophy” of the inherent goodness/profit for humanity in following a leader (and your above quote seems to suggest yourself in that leadership position). “My country (party,leader), right or wrong”? No, thank you; I’m a human being, not a lemming or even a sheep. Even as a teenager back in Poland — where Marx and Lenin were being presented as close to gods — I had a tendency to think for myself.

    Sure, I’ll listen, if a argument is made clearly and convincingly, with some evidence to prove its validity (the “I speak more sense than you do” doesn’t make the cut, being unproven). Otherwise, I “steer” by an old Irish drinking toast:

    Here’s to you and here’s to me
    And may we never disagree.
    But, if by any chance we do…
    Here’s to me and the hell with you.

  • OH…this is just too-ooo good. You could get a job with that chimp in the WH without so much as a “Mother May I”—y’know that?

    ***You’re not even looking at what I’m saying.***

    I quoted you, Swannie. Word-for-word, syllable for syllable, and letter for letter. Do you have visions about dressing up like Tony Snow?

    And a leader is a leader. Leadership qualities are leadership qualities. It doesn’t matter whether we’re taslking about a corporal, or a platoon top-kick, or a freaking three-star. Regardless of the situation, there is a set standard of rules; a mandatory collection of parameters beyond which a leader in any position must not cross. To do otherwise is to invite removal of that leadership mantle (a small sample of which was displayed via the recent election event).

    ***…because following what the rule book would recommend would ruin you.***

    Illegal wiretapping.
    MCA
    Gitmo
    Abu Graib
    Extraordinary rendition
    The Swift factory raids
    Invented intelligence of WMD stockpiles in Iraq
    …All courtesy of a mindset that functions exactly as you would have us all function.

    ***Yeah, Steve, it’s definitely a lot of guys like you who are still causing a lot of bad things to happen and it’s just because of things like cowardice, not all that blither blather you wrote.***

    And once again, we find that an individual who so desperately tries to pass himself off as a liberal (when it suits his personal agenda) plays the generic “Defeatocrat” card. I’ve often wondered, by the way, why those who lack “the ethical appendages” to deal with Truth always throw out the “coward” card.

    ***Please clean yourself up. You’re reacting to my comments in the worst way possible. Grow a brain or shut up. People like you shouldn’t be telling other people what to do unless it’s only in a very limited scope- like the high school students you counsel about whether or not enlisting in the military is a good career path. In other contexts you might not be as good an advisor or leader.***

    To quote your “god,” Swampie: There you go again. Your comments deserve to be reacted to as I have reacted to them. They are pathetic, circular excuses for why the world doesn’t bow down and worship your self-created magnificence. You react to the message by attacking, rather than defending your own position. You obviously don’t spend nearly enough time with your combat-games, or you’d have found at least a wee bit of time to know that wars have been lost that way. You don’t like the fact that there are people who do, say, and think things not in accordance with your own delisional prophesies, and as with your masters, you seek to straw-man your way through life.

    Further, I do not counsel as to whether a military career in a good path—I openly counsel against it. There is no this-or-that; there is only the one goal—shut down this illegal war. Period. But you wouldn’t be able to do that, either’ Lacking, once again, those “ethical appendages,” you puff yourself up like a dodo bird—all talk, no walk—and the dodo bird is an extinct species, y’know.

    So stop trying to bend the sidwalk to suit your selfish all-for-one-and-one-for-me philosophy—it’s not going to bend. You can walk in the road if you wish, but beware of the bus. It also detests your visionary blend of Orwellain profitmongery….

  • Steve, when I’m talking about rules I’m not talking about legal rules, I’m talking about rules of strategy like basic ideas about political strategy, or common sense.

  • Even the “rules” for strategy, basic ideas, and common sense have parameters; to declare otherwise is to expose one’s “Messiah Complex.”
    Strategy—in a chess game, a knight canot move like a queen—but likewise, the queen is prohibited from moving like a knight. Basic ideas are governed by rules, as well. An idea requires a theory; a theory evolves into a thesis (the premise), and the premise results in a conclusion. Your vision of society presents a conclusion that is enforced only by means of authority—not by the premise of proven theory. It allows that this is a wealthy nation—regardless of the 15+ percent of the population currently living below the poverty line; the broken, yet mandated education system; children who face cold weather without adequate shoes and coats; families living in shelters, automobiles, and dwellings worthy of Bob Cratchit’s Hamden Town in a Dickens novel.

    *** organizing by division of labor and hierarchy of decision making authority to achieve greater efficiency and wealth.***

    History recalls another individual who preached such a despicable mantra; she also babbled a bit, as that mantra neared its logical conclusion, about letting those without bread “eat cake.” It demonstrated a disconnective form of stupidity not dissimilar from that of a twenty-something “student” calling someone nearly twice his age “a fucking kid.” Such a singular-witted lack of cognitive intellect (about as far away from “common sense” as one can get, I’m afraid), when coupled with a GPA that some might consider “below par,” can be a dangerous thing—should this nation once again find itself in need of its “Selective Service” centers….

  • The only thing the Saddam trial has done is angered the Sunni’s, re-energized the Shia’s, and taught other leaders of the world never to trust Americans and that they’re toast without a real nuclear weapon.

    The new arms race is going to make the Cold War look like child’s play.

  • Steve, you’re full of it, man, and you know I’m not talking about rules like how many spaces a knight moves. I’m talking about rules like “it’s smartest to move to a center square on the first move.” There might be someone who’s played so many games conventionally but is so callow that they would be throw by pushing a pawn from the side or a knight as the first move. Or maybe not. It’s just a matter of dealing with and assessing the reality we’re given.

    For many liberals, the general rule might be “avoid trouble.” It’s a good general rule in llife and it usually should be followed. Sometimes, though, trying to follow it is exactly the wrong thing to do and trying to follow it too much turns you into one of the Jewish Capos in a concentration camp or Jewish Councils in a ghetto- basically traitors to their own people.

    I think you’re just being deceptive. I think you and anyone else can appreciate that point and the point about specialization, and you must realize that it doesn’t make me Marie Antoinette or anyone like that.

  • Leadership on a bigger scale requires a more intelligent kind of a person because once your dealing with those kinds of numbers of persons, the other side will definitely have someone smarter if you’re not putting one of your guys with the best judgment, smartest, in the leadership seat. If you have a real dummy that person is going to fail unless for some reason they have a real dummy too. But someone who’s less capabl can still be just as good as a lower manager because the jobs those people are entrusted with require less intelligence and independent thought and the stakes are less if they go wrong. George Washington relied heavily on his adjutant Alexander Hamilton because Alexander Hamilton was smarter than him. It was the best leadership move to make. Hamilton was the de facto executive of the United States in terms of deciding policy and Washington looks like a rubber stamp. Washington was a leader- officially- because he looked like a leader, but he was also a good leader- de facto- because even though he wasn’t the smartest guy to make all the right decisions he had the sense to know when he was playing in a field that was beyond his abilities and to identify and consult one who could make good decisions in that field.

    Thinking that a competent person instead some Bozo (i.e., Bush) should be president is acknowledging the value of specialization. Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum are really knowledgeable and have good intentions but if they were leading me in some endeavor, I hope they would rely on my judgment because just judging from things they’ve written on their blogs I don’t trust their judgment 100%. Matt used to seem to be trying to show that he wouldn’t go along with just anything any old far left liberal would say, and Kevin used to reach kind of the same result- too moderate- by wanting to look maybe the same as Yglesias was trying to. It was a source of error. I haven’t read either of their blogs recently, and maybe they’ve gotten better; judging from sporadic quotes I see from them here they seem to have.

    If a national political campaign wanted to pick someone to consult about the issues, they’d be well served to pick Matt Yglesias or Kevin Drum. If they wanted to pick someone to tell them what to say about the issues, they’d be ill served to pick Kevin Drum or Matt Yglesias, and better to served to pick CB.

    Every liberal who thinks that they have really good judgment for every thing we’re trying to do and who puts their self in the position of being the only one who will make an effective decision about it (i.e., chooses specialization) isn’t really the best one to make the decision. People shouldn’t pick out who’s going to do what based on considerations that don’t get a minimally appropriate person assigned the job and they shouldn’t delegate everything to consensus decision making unless the circumstances and the kinds of decisions you’re making are ones that would be helped and not hindered by consensus decision making. The kind of consensus decision making some on the left want to usher in just isn’t adequate all the time, despite any other merits.

  • Liberals have too many people far up now (in terms of their prominence or leadership position (public, quasi-public, or private) who don’t have good judgment whereas 30 years ago we had more people with good judgment, it seems to me, because a lot of prominent liberals don’t even say the right things- they’re choosing to speak to the people but they’re saying the wrong things. We’re not even effectively coordinated with each other. Conservatives are much more coordinated.

    We’re losing the fire we need to stay relevant in this country when we’re standing against the long-run challenges we face.

  • Y’know, swannie, Napoleon thought just as you did, and chose to occupy “the center square” on the battlefield. Problem was—the battlefield was a quaint little place called “Waterloo.” Occupying the center square requires that you defend in all directions simultaneously, and even the “invented” generals you’ve boasted about would know that, because it’s a fundamental flaw that often appears when “bending the rules.”

    And your repeated attempts to change the subject just don’t function any more. This isn’t about Matt, or Kevin—it’s about your moronic, half-baked, college-rethuglicanesque dependency on the hierarchical order—and how “your” definition of it is the only valid definition, while all others are inherently misguided. Your insinuations that “we’re facing long-run challenges” is just another cozy, well-primped way of saying to someone: “Give me your Liberty, and I’ll give you a pinch of Security.” There is no “lost relevance,” unless it is the loss of desire for your authority-centric relevance. People don’t need your permission for anything—and the only fire they’re losing is the fire that feeds your obviously-inflated ego. You’ll need to start changing your own diapers now, kiddo.

    And just out of curiosity—what do you know about “people with good judgement from thirty years ago?” Are you even old enough to have experienced that era? Or are you into the mentality of just vomiting out what you read somewhere, to make you appear older than you really are? People like that are worthy of one simple word: LOSER.

    Your wanna-be, twenty-something “Me-isms” are showing, child. Best to tuck them back in….

  • Steve (#30),

    According to his blog, Swannie is a 27 y/o NJ pre-law student whose goal includes humming the theme from Perry Mason. Make of that what you will.

  • Comments are closed.