There’s a big difference between carrying out punitive revenge against people who actually attacked us (Al Qaeda and its supporters) and carrying out punitive revenge against people who have not attacked us (Iraq).  Bush’s crime was to misdirect the legitimate Jacksonian urge to vengeance of the American people against a target innocent of the crime. 

I appreciate that many posters here see vengeance as un-Christian and morally wrong in itself.  But even they must appreciate that there are different levels of wrongness.  On any calculation the invasion of Iraq is a far bigger crime, and sin, than the invasion of Afghanistan.

Is it even possible to have punitive vengeance against people who have never done you or your country any wrong?

Our Mesopotamian adventure was the wrong war, waged the wrong way, against the wrong enemy, for the wrong reasons.

Worse than a crime, a blunder.

Greatest strategic mistake by the United States in my lifetime?  I think so.

Kilted:
“Is it even possible to have punitive vengeance against people who have never done you or your country any wrong?”

Apparently when polled, most Americans believed Iraq committed 9/11 and that the invasion was in righteous response, so I think so.  They were wrong, but their belief made more sense than the truth.
There may also have been a vague belief that Iraq somehow committed aggression against the USA in the first Gulf War.

Apparently when polled, most Americans believed Iraq committed 9/11 and that the invasion was in righteous response, so I think so.  They were wrong, but their belief made more sense than the truth.

In several speeches after Sept 11, The Bride and I were watching Bush speaking on TV and I clearly recall noting how often he mentioned 911 and Iraq in the same paragraph.

“Damn it. That bastard KNOWS Iraq was not responsible for 911 but he is putting them into the same speech because he KNOWS Americans will make the link for themselves while he can claim he never said Iraq was behind 911.”

I don’t know who wrote the speeches for him but it was devilishly clever and absolutely just what I expect from my govt which I hate.

I’ll have to go mine Leftism Revisited for a retort on KL That said, do you deny that the mainstream conservative position, including among most paleoconservatives, during the Cold War was for an aggressive response to the Soviet Union, a harsh prosecution of Vietnam, and unease with things like detente and arms treaties? 

It was the move to continue this emergency situation and create an American Empire for its own sake post-89 that really fractured the alliance of the many disparate factions of conservatism in anti-communism.  Just as it was unease with the Iraq War and Bush’s Wilsonian rhetoric, and not the legitimate and retaliatory Afghanistan War, that has widened the fault-lines of neoconservatives and paleoconservatives.

As for “distrusting” government, that seems more a libertarian position. I support or at least defer to government in its proper sphere.  Most arrested criminals are guilty.  The military did a pretty good job of toppling Saddam, even if they were left to stick around.  The trains seem to run on time and potholes get fixed and prisons keep bad guys behind bars and all that.  And, even if mistakes are being made in detaining people, these mistakes are not affecting the rights of American citizens, and that surely matters in terms of the weight we accord the suffering, however unfortunate, of those wrongly detained. Do you accept this distinction of neighbor and fellow citizen and strange alien?

Finally, since when did conservatives demand that we follow the mandates of international treaties that do not apply to a situation based on their text and precedent? And since when do we think it a good thing for the Supreme Court to involve itself in military affairs?

K-L referred to himself as an “extreme conservative arch-liberal.”

“Finally, since when did conservatives demand that we follow the mandates of international treaties that do not apply to a situation based on their text and precedent? And since when do we think it a good thing for the Supreme Court to involve itself in military affairs? “

This has to be the most liberal argument of all your liberal sounding drivel.  The living document version of international treaties.  Different situations demand different actions?  What utter nonsense. Conservatives by nature do not look for loopholes to get them out of their responsibillities as humans.  To someone who reasons things out as you do can easily be convinced that abortion is necessary where the situation demands.

The living document crowd says ignore the text and follow the spirit and general purpose of a treaty or statute or Constitution.  A lawyer says the text is the text is the text. We want “textualists” after all on the Supreme Court.

Incidentally, both the purpose and text of Geneva are aligned in this particular.  The goal is to reward behavior that makes civilians safer in war time.  One such behavior is wearing a uniform and carrying arms openly.  The failure to do this is not rewarded under Geneva by the text, and the purpose does not demand it either.

It is the liberal tactic to continually further identify things that are obvious to normal humans to their own ends.  Hate crimes, hate speech, an enemy combatant, a living human being.  The living document crowd suggest that the constitution is not relevant anymore because it does not have specific language that describes modern technology among other things.  A true conservative knows right from wrong without specific wording.  A strict constitutionalist knows that the intent of the constitution has never changed and can be applied universally even where the wording does not seem to fit.

“As for “distrusting” government, that seems more a libertarian position.”

I understand that conservatism and libertarianism are not the same and not always in agreement and will butt heads on any number of issues, but I doubt that they are antithetical to each other or that their differences are so complete that there are no shared views between them.

As for distrusting the government, there seems to be plenty in the conservative canon to give credence to putting ‘prudent limits on power’ and placing government under extreme scrutiny.  I would think men like Solzhenitsyn would know full well that one cannot always trust one’s government.

I for one live in an area where the local, state, and federal government seam in general agreement that guns are dangerous in the hands of civilians, there is a “right” to infanticide, that grade-schoolers should be given condoms in class, that Western civilization in general and Christianity especially are inferior etc. etc.

I do not think that my distrust of government--the government that I have, at least--is a sign of a failure in my conservatism, but a failure in the state to be trustworthy.

Let me see if I understand Mr. Roach’s monomania about uniforms.  Mr. Roach has stated that his brother is serving in Iraq.  It is his misfortune to be captured.  Mr. Roach expects his sibling’s captors, whoever they are, to afford his brother protection under some set of laws of war, while his captors listen to reports of their comrades’ torture and execution.  All because of the clothing that the American captive wore.  And it’s those who do not to his line that are naive.  Can someone tell me who has the right to resist?  Mr. Roach, were the Germans right to torture and execute the French maquis and other civilian clothed resistance fighters?  I am waiting to hear this one, oh Glass Parking Lot.

Here is an example of how Bush rhetorically conflated 911 and Saddam. He had to know that repeatedly coupling 911 and Saddam would tempt his listeners to make the false connection he desired.

Sadly,his calculated manipulation worked.

Trust my Govt when it comes to war? Please

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

The goal [of the Geneva Convention on civilians] is to reward behavior that makes civilians safer in war time.

Which incidentally is the reason behind the granting of due process to terrorists and other unlawful combatants, according to the ICRC commentary on that Convention.  The idea is that the charge of “terrorist” will be thrown around rather loosely by governments and by their collaborators during wartime.  That may even apply to Iraq, I don’t know.

I agree with Mr. Roach on the Geneva Conventions, if not on all the vengeance stuff.  I think he’s expressed himself quite clearly against the “Zeitgeist” interpretation and all that, so it’s puzzling that so many here have decided not to understand his comments.

“Mr. Roach expects his sibling’s captors, whoever they are, to afford his brother protection under some set of laws of war, while his captors listen to reports of their comrades’ torture and execution”

I’d expect him to be beheaded like every other American captured by insurgents in Iraq.  Knowing this, I think we should show them no quarter so long as we are there.

As for the Germans, their execution of resistance partisan fighters was allowed and was explicitly approved at Nuremberg. Even the killing of hostages--up to ten!!--was allowed as a proportionate response.  It was their egregious murdering of civilians and uniformed POWs (mostly Soviet) in retaliation that was the subject of the Nuremberg trials, as well as dubious charges against industrialsits promoted by the Russians.  Read the Hostage Cases out of Yugoslavia if you don’t believe me. 

Look, the law is the law.  Learn about it and quit talking like you know what the hell you are talking about. Partisans know what they’re up to and what happens if they’re caught.  The Germans didn’t execute our uniformed guys, and we didn’t execute theirs--except the out-of-uniform spies and saboteurs, such as the Operation Grief commandos--because that’s what the law of war provides. 

Look, laws are written down in not-so-little books.  Expets get paid to read and interpret them.  That’s what law means; it’s not just shooting-from-the-hip moralizing.  You read these books and cases that interpreted them and the text of treaties to understand what is and isn’t allowed.

If you want to play civilian-clothed commando, then you get shot when you’re captured. That’s how it works. That’s been the law of war since the Treaty of Westphalia and the compilations of Hugo Grotius.  Seems fair enough to me.  But even if it isn’t, it’s the law.  It’s enforced reciprocally, and the remedy when your enemy ignores it--like al Qaeda has--is to engage in various reprisals.

Incidentally, I didn’t bring up my brothers’ service or my uncle’s death to win every debate about Iraq and Afghanistan forever. There are reasonably criticisms of both campaigns, in particular at the operational and strategic level. I did bring this up because Sean Scallon suggested I’m some insensitive, neoconservative armchair commando out of touch with the impact of this war, which I am most certainly not.  I don’t believe in argument by testimonial, nor do I want to personalize this debate. 

I simply disagree with my critics and think they’re wrong and are re-writing conservative history and ignoring other important conservative principles. That doesn’t make them dishonorable or evil, nor even does being a pacifist.

...were the Germans right to torture and execute the French maquis and other civilian clothed resistance fighters?

I’ll take a shot at this one, even though you didn’t ask me.  The 1929 Geneva Convention on POWs refers to the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention, in which Article 1 includes “militia and volunteer corps” fulfilling certain conditions, one of which is that they fight according to “the laws and customs of war”.  So legally, it depends on whether these partisans or whatever satisfy the conditions of the Hague Convention, Annex, Article 1.  Of course terrorist tactics are not part of “the laws and customs of war”.

I should have stated above, that one of the conditions of the 1929 Convention (from the 1907 Hague Convention) is “To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance”.  So civilian clothed fighters, if captured, were not covered by the 1929 Geneva Convention.  Does that mean they’d be “outside the law”, or just treated as criminals in the occupied population?

Ploni, as for “due process,” there’s some issues with that commentary, namely whether the treaties are in force at all based on nature of this conflict, whether due process under an international treaty also requires what would be due process under US law to US civilians (i.e., whether commissions are acceptable) which no treaty provision provides, and, finally, there is the issue of US law that the President has always had the ability to interepret law of war treaties and, until a few days ago, combatants had no standing to challenge those interpretations in civilian courts.  But the point you raise is a matter of debate, and I’m a little rusty on all the details of what is required. 

The view of most critics is that one is either a civilian or a combatant, even though field manuals in place since the 90s have acknowledge unlawful combatants. Most critics also deny that a group judgment of unlawful combatant status can be made.  If I recall correctly, there is some issue of whether that provision only relates to a mistaken capture versus a general right to challenge status, even if one is in fact an al Qaeda member, on some other grounds.  The Geneva Conventions obliged signatories to convene a “competent tribunal” to determine the status of any captive “should any doubt arise” as to their proper status. The US provision is that for claims other than complete innocence where some credible proffer of evidence is made, guys like KSM and RBA can be held without such status reviews.

Thank you for the information regarding partisan activity.  It gives me food for thought.  Seems the rules are stacked in favor of states or state agents, no matter how murderous.  After all, the State is everyone, everything is the State.  All of the insurgents are the same - heartless killers who deserve extermination. But not just the insurgents but also any civilians, especially in heavily populated area, because the sons of Arab hashiesh smokers had it coming.  No quarter given, no quarter asked.  Because you wear a uniform, you can murder with impunity, but only if you are an American.  No insurgents ever wear even ragtag uniforms, such as Sadr’s forces, they are in telepathic contact with one another. Tamerlane must be smiling as his spirit has found many dwellings

The insurgents are the ones who make this so damn difficult by blending in with the civilians.  Notice how relatively unmolested Iraq was in phase one of the war and also how well the regular Iraqi army were treated upon capture.

This business of uniforms and being an agent of a state grew out of the Thirty Years War, which was a bloody genocidal affair, marked by lawless mercenary armies ravaging the country side, switching sides to the highest bidder, outright murder of the wounded, and a complete breakdown in any code of chivalry.  Unaffiliated private armies, like pirates, were anathmetized by general agreement of nations and later treaties.  This has unraveled a bit in the modern era of “war of national liberation,” but the principles remain the same. 

Sadr’s thugs are a ragtag group, but they don’t need uniforms since they all have cell phones.  We, not they, have trouble telling them apart from ordinary civilians.  Surely you’ve seen pictures of insurgents looking like a motley crew with civilian clothing, keffiyahs, and the like. 

Look, law is law.  Perhaps it should be changed. But so long as it is in force, we should acknowledge that our forces, unlike the insurgents, are observing it in their day-to-day activities in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  It’s notable in Fallujah we gave civilians a chance to escape--a good thing in my view--but just today, like so many other days, insurgents purposely targeted civilians in Baghdad.  Negligence, accidents, and unavoidable collateral damage are a far cry from deliberate targeting of civilians without justification.

You’re talking to fanatics, Mr. Roach.  For them, it is insufficient to fault discrete elements of a policy.  If they object to any aspect of our current wars, you must object to *all* aspects:  strategy,tactics, the execution, the aftermath, the proximate ends, the ultimate ends, the actors, etc.  Rearrange as need be, everything must be at fault.

That seems a good point, Tobias.  Fanatics re-write everything so it “fits.” Even the past must be re-written.  Lawrence Auster had a good piece on how some in the anti-war right have become alienated that the entirety of America and the West are evil in their eyes.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={3F9A6CA8-10CF-488E-80CE-3630748174FF}

If conservatives are in the wrong war today and WWI, then cold war must be wrong too, and WWII.  If we’re in an unwise and overly ambitious and thereforce imprudent war in Iraq, it must also be the height of injustice and our means must be the worst in human memory, our enemies the modern day equivalent of Paul Revere and the Minutemen.

War proponents do this too.  Our enemy is always cowardly and unmanly and the worst ever.  It’s no such thing. It’s evil.  It’s a very serious inconvenience, but the Nazis and Soviets it is not.

Mr. Roach, would you please repost the link or provide the title?  The current link does not
work.  Thanks.

Yes, such fanaticism does apply to the pro-war right as well.  I remember when Saddam was
captured.  Some people seemed to mock him for surrendering to his captors instead of fighting
back.  “Who’s so powerful now?!” Yet if he had shot American soldiers, he would have killed
our men (bad objectively, and bad for us) and he certainly would have been committing
suicide (stupid from his point of view).  Was he supposed to take out an American GI with
him?  Would that have been “braver” than surrendering peacefully?  When you’re grossly
outnumbered and have no way to resist successfully, isn’t surrender peaceful?  To mock him
in the sense, “How the mighty have fallen; where are your palaces now?” makes sense.  To say
that he was a coward is at best unclear, and at worse distorts our own capacity to analyze
behavior objectively.

“ isn’t surrender peaceful”

Instead of “peaceful,” I meant “prudent.”

I also think it’s weird people want to call these fanatical people cowards.  They’re many things--cruel, single minded, fanatical--but cowards, they ain’t. Cowards don’t go on suicide missions.

Tobias and Mr. Roach, you are right.  I do believe that the US centgov has fought mainly unjust wars.  I agree with Rothbard that the US has engaged in only two just wars, the War of Seccession and the War of Southern Seccession, but that only in the first war did the right side win.  If that makes me a fanatic then so be it.  Yes , Mr. Roach, you have reminded me of the Treaty of Westphalia and its purpose to limit war’s destructiveness.  But the powerrs that be were then as now covetous of the monopoly of force in their geographic areas (basic def of a state and all that). Cannot have the peasantry getting uppity about the boot in the face, forever.  I do not accept the legitimacy of any State, but have greater problems with the more aggressive ones, such as what the US has become, especially since I live here, am forced to pay taxes to support the Leviathan, and have to live with the blowback while our lords and masters have the best security federal extortion can buy.  Mr. Roach, you believe the centgov has the right to kill anyone it so desires as long as said centgov can get away with it. I do not.  Your stements are clear and numerous that the victims of our aggression get what they deserve not matter how murderous.  I disagree.  I believe that Bushco is the greatest mass murderer of the 21st century, ahead of monster Putin and probably ahead of the sociopaths who blight Africa. You do not.  I do not care if Stalin leads the insurgents who opposes us - we are all God’s children and all deserve basic human decency and Christian charity.  Yu do not.  , n

You’re talking to fanatics, Mr. Roach.  For them, it is insufficient to fault discrete elements of a policy.  If they object to any aspect of our current wars,...

I know you didn’t intend it to be so, but, that is funny as hell.

The entire history of Joe American desiring to stay the hell out of other people’s troubles is now crystallised into “fanaticism” when it truth it is a position as American as Apple Pie and Lying Presidents lying us into war.

The idea one ought be described a fanatic because one intellectually decamps on ground that has habitually been previously occupied by countless numbers of his like-minded progenitors is an idea like the one described by John Randolph:

It is like a dead carp in the moonlight. It is shiny and it stinks.

Once again, many pardons for my last post’s numerous typos. Peace.  ST

I am not Spartacus,

I’ll tell you why I wrote that.  Because of what started all of this—the Supreme Court
ruling.  They said that 1.) unlawful enemy combatants 2) who are not U.S. citizens, and 3)
are detained on foreign soil somehow have a right to habeas corpus from U.S. civilian courts.
And some people here defend the Court’s ruling.  Even if you disagree with the war in Iraq
(by all means do so!  I’m not criticizing that position at all), the Court’s ruling is utterly stupid.  But a number of people have
protested against Roach’s case.  That is why I made my remark.  It is not enough for these
critics to object to our invasion of Iraq, or Afghanistan, but they have to make some
absurd claim that war criminals should be able to appeal to civilian courts.  And I *assure*
you, if George W. Bush had given them the right to habeas corpus, many of the same people
would instinctively oppose the same policy.  There is no discretion.  *Even if* the war was
a mistake or a lie or a sin, the position taken by the executive branch in this court
case was the correct one.  And if you disagree with that, you’re alot more like Spartacus
than you might think.

Mr. Roach, the insurgents and militia members in Iraq are not primarily radical Islamist bent on establishing a world wide Caliphate. They are primarily Iraqis fighting for a particular side in a civil war for control of Iraq. They want the US out of there and victory for their side. To conceptualize them as terrorists or as an arm of al-Q or whatever is to misunderstand what is going on there.

Paleos predicted this would be the result of our invasion, and they were entirely right.

It almost seems to me that you have talked yourself into a corner with your reckless rhetoric. Now you feel obligated to defend the indefensible. Perhaps you need to quit sawing.

I find some of the rhetoric of the anti-war right troublesome. At the least it is unhelpful. And I think someone could rationally critique the recent Supreme Court decision, for example. (My issue with the enemy combatant status is more along the lines of what Daniel L. brought up. I am troubled by the unlimited power of the fedgov to identify who is and who isn’t. This is less of an issue on a real battlefield, but if you just declare world-wide terrorism in general the enemy then this is an extremely dangerous power.) But it seems to me that it is you who has lost the ability to use nuance and make distinctions. Criticize what rightly needs criticizing. Don’t just react to “anti-American” rhetoric you find distasteful or whatever by knee-jerk embracing the obnoxious war rhetoric of the pro-war crowd.

I think you are correct that opposition to government in general is a libertarian impulse. Conservatives are not anarchist. But I think opposition to the current government is a conservative imperative. The current government is a godless, run amok, abomination. Some of the nationalist/paleo divide comes down to how much of a problem you have with the current Regime. (Not just Bush and company, but the government’s current status as unconstitutional monstrosity regardless of who is in charge.) That is why some paleos are more OK with extremely harsh rhetoric about and characterizations of the current state. That is not anti-American, but it is certainly anti-current Regime.

BTW, I don’t think the Cold War is sacrosanct. I think those conservatives do need to re-examine our thoughts and actions during the Cold War. That is why I was sympathetic to Lukacs’ anti-anticommunism even though I wasn’t sympathetic to his review. A good case could be made that the Cold War ruined modern conservatism and much of the militarism and bellicosity that plagues it today is a remnant of the Cold War.

The Pueblo was a United States military vessel.  Saddam was a man in a hole with a revolver.
Sometimes surrender is not “cowardly.” In fact in order to be brave, your action needs to be
prudent.  Imprudent boldness is the vice of rashness.  My point had more to do with rhetoric
than with the actual situation.  If Saddam had gone out blasting, the war hawks (and I’m not
that, as surprising as that may seem to you) still would have called him a coward.  Not a
coward for surrendering, but a coward for “taking out one last innocent with him instead of
surrendering peacefully as any sane man would have.  He committed suicide because he was too
much of a coward to face justice.” Since these people were going to paint him a coward no
matter what he did at that moment, the war hawk’s criticism of his behavior on that occasion was
trivial.

Red Phillips, “the insurgents and militia members in Iraq are not primarily radical Islamist bent on establishing a world wide Caliphate. They are primarily Iraqis fighting for a particular side in a civil war for control of Iraq. They want the US out of there and victory for their side. To conceptualize them as terrorists or as an arm of al-Q or whatever is to misunderstand what is going on there. Paleos predicted this would be the result of our invasion, and they were entirely right.”

I agree with much of this, believe it or not.  There are, as you know, many factions there.  Some Islamist, but most Iraqi nationalist, or sectarian for Sunni or Shia interests within Iraq.  But that doesn’t change that many are very nasty and dishonorable, both to their own people and to our forces.  Our rule there has been gentle and just by the measure of any other occupation I can imagine. But it’s also been unwise, drawn out, unnecessary, costly, fraught with ambiguity, annoying to normal Iraqis, and ultimately mistaken. 

That said, I think our military’s actions and its conformity the laws of war should be noted and not re-imagined just to make everything Bush and the govenrment does painted as evil, rather than as merely stupid or wassteful or unwise. 

It’s one thing to say it’s understandable insurgents are fighting to expel us, even without going through all the moral complexities.  It’s quite another to say that they’re doing so in an honorable way.  They’re not.  Consider all the suicide bombings and power drilings to the head and head-cutting-off and the use of retards to carry suicide bombs and the like. 

The US and its fighting men are good people fighting an unwise and mistaken cause, though not exactly an unjust one, unless democracy for Iraq is the most unjust thing ever.

The Iraqi insurgents, on the other hand, are mostly nasty and opportunistic people fighting for an understandable cause, though not necessarily a just one, but using the most despicable means imaginable.

The analogy I can think of is if I, unhappy with my elected government’s decisions, started shooting up illegal immigrants and their locales (as well as any cops that try to stop me) to force them out of the country.  That’s what’s going on in Iraq in the name of nationalism.

If I’ve painted myself in a corner, so be it. I think my position makes some sense.  I also think we shouldn’t confuse ends and means, nor re-write the present or the past to be more consistent.  Life’s complicated.

McBrown:  But I don’t see why cruelty is really a
species of cowardice.  It’s not bravery either, it just isn’t on that scale.  Courage, rashness,
and cowardice have to do with the boldness.  A man may be cruel and wasteful of others’ lives while
still taking risks, even great ones, that are subjectively “prudent” given his overall aims.  In
classical literature, you’ll find Alexander the Great, Hannibal, and Caesar frequently condemned
for homicidal megalomania, perfidy, and cruelty (not Caesar on the latter two counts), but never,
ever for cowardice.

As for the spiderhole, the liberals in the United States—guys like Keith Olberman—made a big deal
about each day that Saddam was still on the loose.  His evasion of capture was defiance of the United
States govt., or at least American liberals painted the war as a failure because “and we STILL haven’t
caught Saddam!” So there were reasons for him to hide other than cowardice.  But of course what
he did was consistent with cowardice, so if you choose to explain that way, I really can’t argue.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

But that doesn’t change that many are very nasty and dishonorable, both to their own people and to our forces.  Our rule there has been gentle and just by the measure of any other occupation I can imagine. But it’s also been unwise, drawn out, unnecessary, costly, fraught with ambiguity, annoying to normal Iraqis, and ultimately mistaken.
Aw, the big, bad, sole remaining “superpower” gets upset when its victim-subhumans fight back.  Oh, the humanity! 
Let’s see, country invaded under false pretense (a Nuremburg special) has perhaps a fifth of its population murdered, maimed, or disposed.  Infrastructure ruined, interlocking and constantly changing sectarian and internecine violence now endemic.  But this is a gentle and just occupation. Yes, compared to a Soviet death camp.  Look, Ma, we can do mass murder to a supine people, but (based on your last sentence) it’s just an argument among friends.  God forgive us our latest enormity.  ST

For one, the poet Lucan in his epic poem “Pharsalia” (some call it “De Bello Civili) casts Caesar in the mold of Hannibal.  You’re right, Caesar could be cruel, but he was generally known for his
clemency toward the vanquished.  It’s always a pleasure to talk with someone else who gives a damn for
dead Romans!

Tobias. I appreciate your explanation but the phrase remains funny as hell. (It is fanatical to oppose our current wars...)

My response to our current wars is based upon Just War and,as I wrote, the immoral actions of our enemies adjudicated at Nuremberg.

What the Nazi’s were found guilty of doing (cited earlier) is what we have done, in our current wars (which, admit it, suggests we have more of the damn things on the way).

I am not even broaching the old American idea of practicality. Just how’h’hell are we gonna win when the very same damn men, like Cheney, back in the day, publicly stated the reason we didn’t go in and take-out Saddam when Dad Bush was Pres is because we knew it’d be a no-win situation and Satan’s Sand-trap would be ungovernable.

As to which Three Branches of our govt is currently acting UnConstitutionally, I’d say it is a three way tie; for last, or first.

But, to just scold the SCOTUS seems, to me, to be unjust and disproportional.

Maybe a fair and equitable solution would be to throw Bush, the Congress, and the SCOTUS into Gitmo and throw away the damn keys.

No, McBrown, it was directed at Mr. Roach.  Thank you for the inquiry.  Regarding contra-Spartacus and this last paragraph, I second the motion.  I hear there are sharks infesting the waters off Gitmo ... no, I fancy not.  The sharks would suffer food poisoning.  Liberty.  ST

Wait, McBrown, there’s no reason for some ironic response.  Caesar was much more merciful
than Sulla before him or Marc Antony and Octavian afterward.  As far as we can tell, he did not
plan to kill Pompey, and he tried to prevent Cato’s suicide.  There were no proscriptions under
Caesar, which is why the people he pardoned were able to assassinate him.  The second batch of
triumvirs learned from his mistake.  Of course, Lucan points out that the pardons were all part of
Caesar’s plot to gain power, and hence were a function of his tyranny.

“(It is fanatical to oppose our current wars...)”

Sigh.  Where did I say that opponents of our current wars were fanatics simply for opposing the
current wars.  No, I did not say that.  I said that alot of critics of the war adopt invalid bullshit
ad hoc arguments in order to oppose the war.  You see, you’re basically saying, “How dare someone
criticize people who oppose the war.” I can criticize those who oppose the war for the wrong
reason.  And your further point that such critique is irrelevant shows that you don’t care about
maintaining the proper level of seriousness and principle when engaging in political discourse.  God
forbid I point out a major mistake made by a number of critics of the war.  No, I’m supposed to spend
100% of my energy criticizing the war.  This policy of “No enemies among war opponents” is irrational,
and yes, fanatical.

The second quotation I cited above is from “I am not Spartacus” (sic).

Oh, good, McBrown.  I generally miss irony, and then overcompensate.

And your further point that such critique is irrelevant shows that you don’t care about maintaining the proper level of seriousness and principle when engaging in political discourse.

Balderdash. In the first place, that was not my point. All you have to do to identify my point (s) is to read what I wrote and not spend your time attacking a phantom point(s)you falsely attribute to me.

Tobia, Mr. Will has a column that appeared in my paper this morning that noted your reaction (not dissimilar to McCain’s) is not impeccably reasoned.

Mr. Will cites Cato’s amicus brief and notes the decision of The SCOTUS does not mean that a “detainee” will have a guarantee to a hearing but “..it guarantees only a right to request a hearing.”

http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/boumediene_vs_bush.pdf

Now, I do not know who it is you think is telling you to spend all of your time opposing our current wars (perhaps the ghost of John Adams?)but let me reassure you that I so value liberty I think you should spend your time on whatever you desire.

Mr. Roach,

You love to simply assert.  I especially love this one,

“The US and its fighting men are good people”

Care to back that up?  How about my counter assertion,

The US and its fighting men are - at least for a disturbingly large number of them - ignorant, brainwashed, steroid using, alcohol abusing, drug abusing, fornicating, tattooed-up, fools, who rape their fellow female soldiers and have murdered, displaced and otherwise ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children.  I can’t wait until these guys come home and become cops and the like and then we’ll see how “good” they are.

By the way, how many of them (and their more uncritical supporters – like Roach) know that Bush and his cronies have nothing but contempt for them?  For Pete’s sake, it was only a few years back that Bush was joking around and laughing it up about not finding WMD’s in Iraq.  Even more recently, Bush dishonored each and every man in Iraq by lying about giving up golf to show solidarity with them.  Finally, last time I checked Bush and his crew weren’t exactly enthusiastic about serving in Vietnam.  I really wish people like Roach would wake up: today’s ruling elite are a bunch of sociopaths who have nothing but contempt for us and traditional values.

Anyhow, I dare say my assertion fits the known facts better than yours.  And by the way, I could care less what self-serving “laws” states have passed to make things easier for them; all I care about is what’s true and just.  Indeed, isn’t that what conservatism is or should be about: what’s true and just?

I usually don’t write in anger (like the above) but when someone (Roach) uses the words “just” and “gentle” to refer to our manifestly unjust and brutal occupation of Iraq, I can’t help it.  You’d think a government that has cheerfully enabled the slaughter of 30 million unborn children would give a Catholic like Roach a moment of pause.  Now he wants to grant that same government (specifically, comrade Bush) the power to designate anyone it wants an enemy non-combatant and hold them and abuse them indefinitely and without being subject to any kind of external oversight and review.  Wake up, Roach.

Joseph, your entire post was spot-on.  As you have noted, we have sown the Hydra’s teeth in Iraz, but its children are returning to our country.  Iraq is a training ground for unknown numbers of gang members who are the spawn of our warfare/welfare state.  They are returning with an arsenal of skills to practice in our cities.  The technical training they now possess is bad enough, but most ominously many now have small unit leadership experience that will allow them to prey on societal infrastructure in lethal ways. As with the insurgents in Iraq, the weak have been pruned.  These new urban fighters will not only refine their techniques, but will train future cadres..But rest assured that Bushco and his ilk will be safe and sound, and possibly amused by the spectacle of cities aflame, much as the legendary Nero, whose shares many of the traits of our current “elite”.

The kind of repellant anti-military, pacifist (not just anti-interventionist) drivel I’ve seen on some of these replies is an example of how ever since Dr. Francis passed paleoconservatism has become a rogues gallery of social gospel nuts and would-be philosopher kings who see themselves as eternally persecuted by the legions of Rome.  Chris, don’t even pay attention to these losers and cowards, except in noting that it is important that anti-intervention conservatives distance themselves from such people, more so than it is to distance ourselves from the occasional over-the-top anti-Semite.  People like that make the real right an easy (and entirely not undeserving) target for attacks like those of Frum, whose attacks on the paleocons’ politically incorrect views on race would have made HIM an easy target on the right if his enemies could be said to be innocent of associations with anti-American pacifism.  If more America First conservatives were like Chris Roach, we would be influencing real political action instead of sitting around talking shit on the internet.  Which of course is exactly what these losers are afraid of.

...pacifist drivel ... losers ... cowards ... talking s**t ... Thank you, A. MacGarr, for moving the level of discourse to a new level.  Your refreshing outlook on such vicious parasites as Quakers and others of relious scruple is to hailed.  Perhaps you can make further temperate and considered comments on how such traitors to humanity, and their fellow travellers, can be put in their places.  I know that such a big, tough war hero such as yourself has little time to provide us with his wisdom, what with the time you spend at the veterans’ hospitals, cheering your former companions who were not as fortune as yourself, given the horrific damages they received and that you fortunately avoided, despite the lack of support from those like the posters above who dare diagree with your Solomonic wisdom.  I would like you to share with me your war experiences, unless you were, like many of your former comrades-in-arms, too traumatized to discuss the matter, especially with sufficient details to permit verification.  By the way, what does the A in your name denote?  Freedom.  ST

Yes I have spent time with wounded vets and the ones who smear them as rapists, murderers, and sociopaths are the ones poisoning the discourse.  Pacifism, as an ethic and an ethos, is what is poisoning the West and stripping it of its ability to defend itself.  The neocons do not concern me as much, as I have come to believe their cause, like the Roundhead, Jacobin, and Bolshevik causes before them, cannot survive being in power for very long.  Maistre on the Jacobins expresses my views on, among other things, the neocons.  But pacifism is the moral carcinogen of the West, the essence of cultural Marxism and the agent of Western death.  One only has to look at Europe today to see that.  It is also what holds back a revival of America First conservatism.

A. Macgarr, thank you for the reply.  Joseph seems more than well equipped to defend his position, if he so deigns, but I find myself in agreement with him.  Given the hellish environment they are thrust into, as well as the military’s own admission of greatly lowered standard, one would expect it.  Add gang members and women into the mix, and you are not going to get Christian socials.  Murderers and sociopaths?  Transpose what the media DOES report of the civilian deaths by US military to an invader behaving so here and you would probably be strapping on a bomb vest yourself.  We are at opposites on this.  But you miss the point on what is the greatest threat to Western civilization.  Pacifism is one of its crowning achievements.  The greatest danger to the West is the State-sponsered destruction of Christianity.  PC, forced intergration, State worship, non-Christian immigration preferences, you name something that weakens God’s Word, and the State backs it or is trying to implement it. Recommend you google the latest from the Oklahoma legislature - it is an eye-opener.  Gives one hope.  Liberty.  ST

Mr. MacGarr,

Point well taken.  Like I said, I wrote in anger - something I don’t often do.  No doubt large numbers of US soldiers have tried their best, under near impossible circumstances, to do the right thing; no doubt many US soldiers are men of honor; no doubt much of the blame belongs to the politicians who put them there.

As a side note: I’m not a pacifist.  Rather, I take seriously the natural moral law as applied to war.  Please see the Catechism of the Catholic Church for a brief but authoritative statement regarding the morality of war.

Nevertheless, based on what I’ve read and seen it seems to be the case that a “disturbingly large number” (not the majority, not on average) of US troops have done exactly what I’ve accused them of.  The rapes have been reported in the main stream press; the invasion and occupation are unjust and this and this alone makes many US soldiers guilty of unjustly taking innocent human life; lives have been ruined and people’s property destroyed because of our presence over there.  I’ve seen numerous videos of US soldiers laughing it up as they brutalize, mock and torment Iraqi civilians (and puppies); I’ve seen the pictures of and have read about the atrocities at Abu Ghraib; we know US soldiers are actively torturing people; I’ve seen the pictures and videos of Black Water mercs in action; I’ve read the press accounts about gang bangers being enlisted in the military.  And you know what – and this really troubles me – to the best of my knowledge but one US soldier (Lt. Watada) has publicly refused to deploy to Iraq. 

So, please forgive me if I get angry when Roach writes of our “gentle” and “just” occupation, knowing full well that it is a Jacobin, ideological occupation of the worst and most brutal kind, erected on lies and deceit, and one that I am being *forced* to pay for!  Perhaps this fact would be clearer to you and Roach if some country invaded and occupied these Unites States under transparently false pretenses. 

Perhaps you and Roach should be angry with the bastards who put those boys and girls there in the first place - the elite that have nothing but contempt for us all. 

Finally, I fear the day is rapidly approaching when they (the government) will come for my only son and turn him into a pagan killing machine - something I will not let happen.

“Pacifism, as an ethic and an ethos, is what is poisoning the West and stripping it of its ability to defend itself.”

A. MacGarr, your comments are bunkum. Pacifism is not the problem, indeed quite the opposite. The West is currently lashing out blindly and unjustifiably in an unwinnable war against the Muslim world. If you bothered to check a few history texts you would discover that there is probably no surer way of self-destruction than for a country to engage in protracted, unnecessary wars.

There are many reasons why the West is near-destroyed. One of them is the total ascendancy of mealy-mouthed politicians who lack principles and will say and do whatever ensures a short-term favourable result. Conversely, there is a near total absence of politicians who are unafraid to speak the truth whatever the subject. If you think that the way forward for conservatism is to join the ranks of the mealy-mouthed on issues like race and immigration etc, then I believe that you are wrong. Conservatism needs disciplined, fearless straight-shooters.

All right, as you can see I wrote in anger too.  Look, there are bad apples in every line of work.  But every time the kind of stories you guys mention appear in the news, it disgraces decent servicemen like the Marines I have had the good fortune of meeting.  As for women, the problem there is that both men and women are more likely to act unprofessionally and have sex, but rape is rare and not condoned by the vast majority of servicemen.  I would say most servicemen are brave, patriotic, morally upstanding but not perfect, usually quite intelligent but not very intellectual (with some exceptions), and very honest.  I get offended by attacks on their character (as opposed to merely attacks on their mission) because in my experience they tend to be of stronger character than most American civilians I’ve met.  I have come across exceptions in both cases, however.  But I think the sense of duty and purpose I see in the Marines like it’s just natural is what’s missing from Western society today, and I get angry when people only see violence in them.  I want to add that civilian killings tend to be from air strikes.  But the men on the ground avoid killing civilians, since they’re the ones who have to look for and maintain allies in Afghanistan and Iraq.  When they are being attacked, they don’t have time to think about whether the grand strategy is wise or just.  For these family men and patriots to kill in self-defense is wise and just, even if the neocons who sent them there are neither.

By pacifism as an ethic and as an ethos I meant a philosophical view, not a policy.  I can see why people would misunderstand that, and I guess I was not very clear.  By writing that I was attempting to make the point that one can prefer diplomacy and deterrence to war and a defensive strategy to an aggressive one, as I do, and still have a deeply anti-pacifist outlook as I do.  History is full of examples.  But if by “the ranks of the mealy-mouthed on issues like race and immigration” ian meant the P.C. positions on these issues, that is one example of what I meant by “pacifism as an ethic and as an ethos.” That is not to say I support any kind of racial violence as a solution to these problems, as I’ve known bad whites and good nonwhites, though I do think the problems we face are good reasons why the (mostly white) respectable citizens should be armed.  But it is more a worldview that I am thinking of, and to me America First policies are not necessarily those of a pacifist worldview at all.  I have repeatedly expressed displeasure at what I consider the overrepresentation of pacifist worldviews in anti-intervention conservatism, but only the characterization of servicemen as criminals bothered me enough to where I admittedly used aggressive language to express my opinion.

AMG, two thoughtful posts.  Find much of value in both, must disagree with you about the actions of US troops in Iraq being self-defense, just, or wise.  I understand that US forces are far too often put in situations of kill or be killed, so their acts of self preservation are normal.  But if I break into your home and kill you in order to save my life from your defense my actions are understandable but still murderous.  You may counter that the US soldiers have no choice but to do as they are told but I would respond that they do control their own actions - they can refuse orders to engage in combat.  They are between the devil and the deep blue, but by signing they allowed themselves to be put into the situation.  Should the troops who kill be charged with murder?  I don’t know - they remind me of a woman who has an abortion.  Strictly speaking, yes, both should, since neither was dragged into the situation causing the loss of life.  But I would really go after the people who put the duped soldiers into harm’s way, as well as shut down the abortionist.  Shelley said it better far better than I could - Man has no right to kill his brother.  That he does so in uniform merely adds the imfamy of servitude to the crime of murder.  Much of the evil that stems from the rotten State is that we have been conditioned from birth to be mostly passive in the face of uniformed aggression, whether just or not.  We hold the State’s minions, in the State’s remaining days, to the Christian standards to which we hold one another.  Freedom.  ST

I am not Spartacus:

“But, to just scold the SCOTUS seems, to me, to be unjust and disproportional.”

I scolded SCOTUS.  Then you said, “Whoa, you can’t scold SCOTUS unless you scold everyone.”
If this were so, then you could not criticize Bush unless you also criticized all of his
opponents, and also criticized all other commanders-in-chief in history, etc.  If SCOTUS
makes a big damn mistake, and that is the subject of conversation (as it was in Roach’s
original post), then I do not need to criticize anyone else in order to be “proportional.”
Your criticism is as logical as if I were to say to you:  “Your criticisms of Bush are unfair,
as you habitually criticize Bush without criticizing SCOTUS at the same time.” If you criticize
person A for his errors, and do so accurately, then criticism of anyone else is irrelevant at that
moment.  I was just to criticize SCOTUS for being idiots, that was the subject, not Bush.  If I had
criticized Bush, I don’t think that you would have said, “That’s disproportionate, SCOTUS and Congress
also suck.” This is why I said that require people to focus solely on criticizing the war, not its
opponents.  Your argument for proportionality boils down to (I repeat):  If you say one bad thing
about war opponents, you also need to say thousands of bad things about Bush.  If you say thousands
of bad things about Bush, you needn’t say one bad thing about war opponents.” On this website you’ll
already find thousands of bad things about Bush.  Mr. Roach pointed out, “Hey, regardless of who the
President is right now, the executive branch was right in this SCOTUS case,” and all sorts of posters
went ape shit.  Their response is disproportionate and unfair:  “Nothing should be said that appears
to give aid or comfort to supporters to the war, even if their position on a given issue happens to
be correct.” So who’s being disproportional?  That said, I have always enjoyed your posts, I regard
you as among the most intelligent posters, and I applaud your exposure of the Acton Institute over
at Fr. Z.’s blog.  But on this we’ll need to disagree.

Tobias, another thoughtful post on your part.  I disagree with you regarding Bushco, but I believe fin giving the devil (in his case, literally), his due.  The White House is correct to try to open Ak and off-shore to drilling, no matter what their motivation.  Mephisto Cheney also spoke out most demonstrably in favor of the Second Amendment, for which I am most grateful.  But then the WH has its shyster file an amicus brief in favor of DC in the Heller vs. DC SCOTUS.  Much is riding on what the nine old crows spew forth - may the black robed little g*ds that walk get it at least partially right.  I support their decision on the Gitmo victims, even if their reasoning was as faulty as Roe v. Wade. You are 100% right about contra-Spartacus - he is a pistol.  Liberty.  ST