The Fog of Peace

The Weekly Standard ^ | 09/30/2002 | David Brooks

[Long Cut]

Man, you have an AWESOME homepage! I'm glad you're on OUR side!

And I do find myself with somewhat of an attitude today. Probably because I have a midnight-to-0800 watch tonight. Those ALWAYS leave me slightly bent.

[Long Cut]

Right you are! You were wrong then, too. Still thinking "inside the box, I see.

[joeyman]

You are, though, guilty of being what Mr. Brooks was talking about: parochial. For you, it's all about what happens here.

Sir, you are spot on accurate! You have me pegged perfectly. That is my position and it's set in concrete.

As for your nuclear bomb aniexty, I suggest you move out to the country. Dick Cheney has warned we will/might be nuked. I believe him. I do not believe the govt can protect us from this threat no matter what they do.

[rdb3]

Midnight to Zero-Eight on a Saturday? Yeah, I'd have a 'tude, too! I did my share of 'em.

And I appreciate the compliment.

[okie01]

"...so libertarian would be closer to the truth. (OK I voted for Bush and I am a Republican - but that doesn't obligate me to support their policies when they do something stupid.)"

No, you're not obligated to support stupid policies.

But, as a libertarian, you are obligated to think through your characterization of them as stupid. How would a libertarian deal with the current threat, as you yourself described it?

"But I thought they [the terrorists] were already here, their sleeper cells are already here, their weapons of mass destruction are already here.

"If those facts are true (and I believe they are, specficially since every govt spokemans who talks about this issue says, "It's not if but when...) then regardless of what we do over there...we will reap the whirlwind."

Let us start afresh. Please, sir, what is the libertarian solution to this dilemma? By all means, let us hear it.

[Long Cut]

"I suggest you move out into the country" A statement absolutely breathtaking in its inherent self-centeredness, Sir!

I live nowhere near New York City OR the Pentagon (although two men in my Rate were killed there), but that did not stop me from becoming, and staying, enraged at the perpetrators of those heinous acts, and their client states. The attacks were aimed at ALL of us, not just those unfortunates.

Nice job of sweeping 3,000 dead under a rug! What a wonderful way to represent your cause!

[joeyman]

I am not a libertarian because I do not agree with their policies, especially that of open boarders. For the 2nd or third time, I would shut the boarders and remove illegals and those of questionable foreign background from our mist.

[wretchard]

"Mr Brooks, it's easy to argue for war when you can't see yourself doing the dying."

Actually, we will likely be doing the dying. Most of Saddam's or the Islamist's countermeasures , be they anthrax dispersals or Scud missiles or suicide bombs, will be directed against civilian targets. In the war to date, there have been more than 3,000 civilian deaths as against a handful of uniformed military casualties. This ratio is likely to continue in any forseeable scenario.

We are noncombatants in the same sense that the people of Dresden, London and Hiroshima were noncombatants.

Mr. Brooks' question remains relevant, because it amounts to this: 'will the danger to my son increase or decrease if the Peace Lobby has it's way?' You seem to argue that it will decrease if nothing is done. John Pilger says, "don't fan the flames". Noam Chomsky warns, 'they will retaliate if we fight back'. Still others have suggested that we overwhelm terrorists with love. Seriously.

I guess that nonresistance or surrender is an intellectual position which should be debated on its merits in a fair and honest way. However, it is not accurate to say that Mr. Brooks is exhorting others to risks he would not run. Anyone could have been on Flight 93. Anyone could have been in the World Trade Center towers. And anyone could be the next suicide bomb or anthrax victim. We have a right to participate in the debate over whether we should live or die. The Peace Lobby has no real right to tell everyone to shut up.

[joeyman]

(I really hate to get into it with you, but here goes....)

"I suggest you move out into the country" A statement absolutely breathtaking in its inherent self-centeredness, Sir!

If you hold the position that no matter how good the intentions are, the govt cannot protect our cities from attack (and again I repeat myself The VP and the SecDef have as much said so) than aren't we all really on our own?

If you hold that as true, is not my recommendation to move to the country a logical and rational idea (not to mention the best shot at survival)? Isn't that smarter than staying in the battlezone waiting to get hit?

(And if it makes you feel better, I am sorry those people died, all they were trying to do was earn a living. I am also sorry that our President didn't fire the FBI and CIA directors for their intelligence failure and the fact that there were no intercept jets on duty at Andrews AFB on the day of the attack.)

[joeyman]

The Peace Lobby has no real right to tell everyone to shut up.

I agree. If you look at the responses on this thread, you'll see that the only ones who seem to want people to shutup (ck out longcut's remark (lead follow or step aside) are the pro war crowd.

And yes I do think we'd be much safer if we don't go to war because of the escalation potential to WWIII.

[Long Cut]

I'm glad you're "sorry" those people died. Now how about ENRAGED? Enraged against their killers and their clients?

The ONLY way to ensure that no such outrages, or worse, occur again is to systematically destroy any individual, group, or nation that was complicit in them. This includes Iraq, whose dictator publicly praised the terrorists responsible for 9-11. Those who don't think he was involved are in serious need of some streetsmarts and a reality check.

"I do think we'd be much safer IF WE DIDN'T GO TO WAR because of the escalation potential to WWIII"

See one of my previous posts. We ARE ALREADY AT WAR! It's been "game on" now for over a year, or didn't you notice? And please, don't bust me up with the "WWIII" rhetoric. The Soviet Union no longer exists, and THAT boogyman's been dead for 12 years.

And I did not tell you to "shut up". I said that there are three options: help out, stay out of the way, or help the Bad Guys. Sorry, but no middle ground exists. The fact is that the naysaying, the pacifism, the continual demands for evidence (already provided, more than enough) have the effect, intended or not of helping the enemy. Do you think they do not?

I guess it's okay, though. They didn't attack YOUR town, so why worry? Man, do you REALLY not see this?

[okie01]

"I am not a libertarian because I do not agree with their policies..."

Sorry. Could've sworn you wrote...

"...so libertarian would be closer to the truth."

So, we'll try it one more time:
***********************************
But, as a libertarian Populist, you are (still) obligated to think through your characterization of them as stupid. How would a libertarian Populist deal with the current threat, as you yourself described it?

"But I thought they [the terrorists] were already here, their sleeper cells are already here, their weapons of mass destruction are already here.

"If those facts are true (and I believe they are, specficially since every govt spokemans who talks about this issue says, "It's not if but when...) then regardless of what we do over there...we will reap the whirlwind."

So, let us start afresh, anew. Please, sir, what is the libertarian Populist solution to this dilemma? By all means, let us hear it.

[justshe]

Great column, Long Cut. Thanks for the ping. And I couldn't improve on your comments here.

[rdb3]

We now have our own Fifth Column to contend with. And I'm NOT talking about Leftists here.

Before any more damage is done, I say we take note of them, but refuse to respond to them.

[Long Cut]

I think you're right. I often tell myself that same thing, but silly me, my New Yawk Dago temper gets the better of me. I really should try to cool off, but this whole thing - the willful, self - centered denial of the brutal reality staring us all in the face, just gets to me.

[Long Cut]

Have you seen that there's even one nut running around the board claiming that we shouldn't attempt to take away Saddam's weapons because - get THIS - "he's got a right to keep and bear arms, the same as anybody".

Notice how, the closer the attack gets, the more absolutely ridiculous the arguments get (when they're not being repeated ad nauseum, that is)?

[okie01]

"We now have our own Fifth Column to contend with. And I'm NOT talking about Leftists here.

"Before any more damage is done, I say we take note of them, but refuse to respond to them."

It would appear the Birchers and the Brigadiers have allied with the anti-war left. Philosophically, many have -- joining with the anarchists in their anti-globalist fixation (while mistaking Bush and the Republican right for globalists, who actually inhabit the Democrat left).

I am reminded, though, of Spring, 2000. Vicious flame wars were fought on Free Republic between vile tempered self-styled Brigadiers and pompous self-styled Bushies. But a little digging revealed that the people behind some of the screen names on both sides were actually DNC-types trying to drive a wedge between conservatives.

This may be the case once again -- the anti-war left hiding behind a "conservative" coloration. And, in any event, your advice is well taken.

It is amazing, though, how the nay-sayers on this thread (and others like it) have conformed precisely to Brooks' specifications. They are universally unwilling to address the consequences of inaction.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Have you seen that there's even one nut running around the board claiming that we shouldn't attempt to take away Saddam's weapons because - get THIS - "he's got a right to keep and bear arms, the same as anybody".

You HAVE to be kidding, Long Cut. I thought I'd seen it all. I'm speechless.

[joeyman]

See MY POST # 6 this thread.

[rdb3]

But a little digging revealed that the people behind some of the screen names on both sides were actually DNC-types trying to drive a wedge between conservatives.

Wink! ;-|

Now you're getting it.

All, step back for a second. Remove yourselves temporarily from the debate and observe both openly and honestly. Of all of our small but vocal "anti-war" element, ask yourselves this one simple question:

What do they all have in common?

The answer to this question, above all others, makes the picture become crystal clear.

We are about to embark upon a war-effort through just cause, and we have an extremely important election coming up in a few short weeks. If America's interests are to be served, as many piously preach here, then we (conservatives) realize that the time for unity is right now. I mean right now! But what is with this tearing at our fabric?

Think. Then act accordingly, for both now and in November. The stakes are far too high not to do so.