Great post. Thanks for the clarity.

Today, Max Boot has an editorial in the LA Times entitled (I am not making this up) "Let Israel take off the gloves".

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot19jul19,0,3628616.story?track=tothtml

There will never be enough war to satisfy these people.

There is among the neocons and the wingnuts an ultimate sense of nihilism if the alternative is facing up to the horrific mistakes and misjudgments.

And as regards to Bushco, a sense if they go down, they want to bring the rest of us down with them.

They are well on their way.

It's not that the skeptics prevent the hawks from getting the war they want — they usually don't — but that they deny them the moral certainty they so desperately yearn for. And that cannot be tolerated.

Word. Great post, sir.

Isn't it a sad commentary on mankind that the leaders we have chosen (yes, we're all to blame, even if he didn't get our vote) to lead us are not creative enough to come up with anything better than war to resolve conflicts and differences.

I am not sure that it is the seeking of moral certainty that drives them. It's more likely that they are motivated by the sense of their ubermenschness and the threat to it posed by brownies with weird religions.

Kevin quotes Etgar Keret: ... a war fought against a ruthless enemy who attacks our borders, a truly vicious enemy, not one fighting for its freedom and self-determination ...

It is my understanding that Israel's attacks on Lebanon have now killed at least 250 Lebanese civilians and have "displaced" at last half a million Lebanese civilians from their homes. I don't understand how Mr. Keret obtains a comforting sense of righteousness from that.

Not moral certainty, but maybe the sense that it might one day be established.

It's a fascinating time to watch, as the U.S. is evacuating itself of any solid references that are presumed to underlie a moral code. Consider John Bolton, asked Monday to comment on Lebanon:

"US Ambassador John Bolton said there was no moral equivalence between the civilian casualties from the Israeli raids in Lebanon and those killed in Israel from 'malicious terrorist acts'... 'I think it would be a mistake to ascribe moral equivalence to civilians who die as the direct result of malicious terrorist acts,' he added, while defending as 'self-defense' Israel's military action, which has had 'the tragic and unfortunate consequence of civilian deaths'."

[FROM: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060717/pl_afp/mideastconflictlebanon_060717204728]

--We are all, of course, enormously edified by Mr Bolton's bringing the tablets down from on High, to tell us when the killing of innocents is not equal to the killing of other innocents.

He may have some difficulty in citation from Authority, however. The Pope, the Christian Church, and indeed every other religion in the world is against him on this. And as for the precept of International Law, Mr Bolton himself has already long advised us that it only needs to be followed when it is convenient. No moral authority remaining there, either.

So what's left?

Today, Max Boot has an editorial in the LA Times entitled (I am not making this up) "Let Israel take off the gloves".

And Charles Krauthammer is in the WaPo today talking about how Israel should "liberate south Lebanon and give it back to the Lebanese." Because there just aren't enough non-Arab armies occupying Arab nations these days.

Look, I'm not a pacifist - Afghanistan was a necessary reaction to 9/11, and Kosovo was a necessary measure to prevent entire ethnic groups from being wiped off of the map - but the way that the cons are falling back on military power as their answer to every rogue state that doesn't have nukes is disturbing. There was a time when we were able to keep Hezbollah under control without threatening to overthrow Syria or Iran.

So, if we don't keep starting new wars, then we might be held responsible for being wrong about the current one. And if we're held responsible for being wrong, then that means we could be wrong about other things, too, and that might be uncomfortable, not to mention unmanly.

Oh holy hell, is this really how they think? Are they so lost in their action-figure world that they're willing to risk a world war?

One of the more baffling elements of Israel's operations in Lebanon is the attacks on targets that cannot be easily construed as attacks on Hizbollah assets or (to punish it for tolerating Hizbollah)the Lebanese government. Today's Daily Star (Beirut) reported on systematic attacks against Lebanon's largest dairy farm, plastics factories, and other economic targets. Why? Does Israel want an economically crippled and unstable Lebanon? Or is this some sort of demonstration to Iran, showing that Israel would have no qualms about an extended campaign of strategic aerial bombing meant not to weaken a regime or modify its behavior, but destroy the quality of life of its citizens, guilty or innocent? One of the most interesting aspects of the current discussion over Lebanon is how Israel's actions are framed as proportionate or disproportionate response, when the real issue seems to be whether or not collective punishment is defensible. Judging from the silence on this issue, it seems that the answer is collective punishment is OK. Once collective punishment is condoned, there is no practical obstacle to unlimited war--the vision of fighting with the gloves off unhindered by law or moral qualms, that hawks consider a panacea for all the difficulties of an aggressive foreign policy. In this sense, it is possible that an important Rubicon--more important than "9/11 changed everything"--is being crossed in Lebanon.

Moral war. Just war. Pre-emptive war. They are all pushed aside for the profitable war.

On the other hand, the endless talk-talk-talk liberal EU governments only delay the inevitable conflict. When the other side wants you dead at all costs, how in the world do you negotiate with that?

This is a great post, Kevin.

Great post, Mr. Drum, and a useful psychological insight into many of the followers of fascism.

But as to the people at the helm of the current fascist regime, you may be underplaying the degree to which the lust for war is just part of a drive for domestic political power. War is fun, but what's really fun is being a War President.

And what's the point of being a War President? Well, let's hear it from the Loser in Chief:

'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'

In this regime, all policy is politics. And all politics is local. Even if it involves the deaths of hundreds of thousands of nameless foreigners, it's all about the mid-terms, the earmarks, and the pork-barrel for them.

Everyone who hasn't, should read Barbara Ehrenreich's Blood Rites. She attempts to trace the evolution of war from primitive societies to the present.
Part of her argument (and of course I am tremendously oversimplifying) is that, as hunting became less important to the survival of the tribe, those men whose prestige had been based on their hunting prowess were looking around for other ways of enhancing their status and discovered -- guess what? -- similarly underemployed hunting bands in other tribes!
Yee-hah!
The rest is history. (A cliché that's all too applicable here; 10,000 years of bloody history, to be exact.) Our fundamentalists need their fundamentalists, their war party needs our war party, and the rest of us are treacherous scum.

Kevin wins the thread.

When the other side wants you dead at all costs, how in the world do you negotiate with that?

You know, when you start with a bad premise...

Who was it that observed that "war is not a foreign policy but ALWAYS a domestic policy."

"Moral certainty denied." Brilliant, Kevin. Sums up the differences between Red (thrives on black and white certitude) and Blue (thrives on uncertain probabilities).

It is, often, not so much war itself that people long for, but the moral certainty that comes with it

It seems to me that, especially with preventative or wildly disproportionate wars, the simplistic moral certainty of "US = unconditionally good; THEM = unconditionally bad" must, of necessity, precede the war, rather than be a product of it.

Great post Kevin. What would make it even better would be if you could invite Chris Hedges, the author of War is a Force that Gives us Meaning, to guest blog on the subject. Since talking about Israel vs. the Arabs is such a touchy subject, maybe this is a topic worth further discussion.

Just want to add to the chorus...great, great post. I hope all the lefty blogs link to it.

I don't have anything to add, just some kudos.

I have to agree with others that this is a great post -- one of your best.

"I am not sure that it is the seeking of moral certainty that drives them. It's more likely that they are motivated by the sense of their ubermenschness and the threat to it posed by brownies with weird religions."

I don't think they see "brownies" as the threat. I think they see the people who could run a society without the bloated military infrastructure they depend on for economic security as a threat. These are deeply insecure people who only feel validated when their side is beating up on someone.

I mean, look at Bill Kristol. I'll bet if you had a dollar for every wedgie Bill got in school, you could buy a car.

I'll add to the chorus of praise.

cmdicely here is a bad premise for you;
Hezbollah says "Death to Israel!"

And now should Israel compromise and negotiate a peace plan to only be half dead?

Do you actually think Israel refusing to fight will stop the killing? Get a grip on reality.

Kevin wrote: It is, often, not so much war itself that people long for, but the moral certainty that comes with it

The sad truth is that the only "moral" certainty that we can ever have when we embark upon war is the certainty that we will do hideous and terrible things.

Oooh, very well said Kevin. You should expand this into an article for the Monthly or an op-ed column somewhere.

Orwell,
How much killing will stop the killing?

cmdicely here is a bad premise for you;
Hezbollah says "Death to Israel!"

And now should Israel compromise and negotiate a peace plan to only be half dead?

Israel, if you'll pay attention to what's going on rather than the rhetoric coming from the Israeli government, isn't fighting Hezbollah exclusively, its prosecuting a war against Lebanon targeting every important bit of economic infrastructure it can, as well as a more focussed effort directed at Hezbollah.

Even if Hezbollah seeks the destruction of Israel, that's only somewhat relevant, because Hezbollah isn't who Israel is fighting against.

Do you actually think Israel refusing to fight will stop the killing?

The choice is not between Israel's current policy and "refusing to fight"; and, yes, I do, in fact, think that the only policy that ever stops the killing involves a much greater degree of Israeli restraint.

You seem to see the world as a set of binary decisions between polar extremes.

When the other side wants you dead at all costs, how in the world do you negotiate with that?

"Orwell," you eternally dishonest reprobate (how George must be spinning in his grave at your appropriation of his pen name to spew your lies!), there's no evidence that the Lebanese people want Israel "dead at all costs."

Israel, on the other hand, is showing precious little compunction about killing Lebanese civilians and attacking civilian targets.

I asked the other day how destroying Beirut International Airport -- to say nothing of the civilian targets mentioned upthread -- can be said to be anything other than collective punsihment against civilians, an act rightly regarded as morally abhorrent, to say nothing of illegal. I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer.

war is the force that gives us meaning.

...war, war, and more war...

The old fashioned name for this kind of foreign policy is ‘imperialism’. Imperialists were always in conflict with the consciousness of the nation-state (embodied by the parliament and the free press) because the state is based on norms, laws and justice but war and expansionism are predicated on the destruction of norms and justice in the name of national power. The only way to motivate the nation in this most un-nationalistic enterprise is to cultivate a sense of besiegement and common purpose.

As Robert Belcher at Middle East Report points out “By lumping together these different struggles (the Palestinians, Hamas and Hizballah) and tying them to Damascus and distant Tehran, Israel casts resolvable political disagreements as unfathomable, irrational hatred, thereby justifying its broad and violent offensive.”

Fourth Generation Warfare and a long, grinding slog against multiple weak enemies you cannot defeat, on the other hand, takes the verve out of the sense of superiority and national purpose.

Peter Lee,
As I understand it, the Israelis are sending Lebanese civilians, including the elites, a message. They are trying to impress upon them that Hizballah is too expensive to tolerate.

Ticketwood, a Real Time Price Comparison Ticket Site, Finds You the Lowest Ticket Prices on the Web for Concerts, Sports, Theater, NBA, MLB, NFL and More.

Concert tickets Concert tickets
tickets tickets
baseball tickets BASEBALL tickets
MLB tickets MLB tickets
NBA tickets NBA tickets
basketball tickets BASKEBALL tickets
NFL tickets NFL tickets
football tickets NFL tickets
NHL tickets NHL tickets
hockey tickets NHL tickets
concert tickets concerts
sports tickets sports
theater tickets theatre
nascar tickets NASCAR
rodeo tickets RODEO
ncaa tickets NCAA
tennis tickets tennis
wwe tickets WWE
ticketwood tickets
ticketwood.com ticketwood.com tickets
ticketwood tickets ticketwood tickets

Winston Churchill, while reporting on the Kitchener expedition to the Sudan, noted the demoralizing effect of Western industrialized war.

While watching Dervish cavalry who were charging the British being mowed down by gattling guns, he noted that war no longer achieved any moral resolution but rather effected the the technological destruction of man.

To win by technological means, be it gattling guns or F-16's, is inherently illegitimate.

What Arabs have been revolting against is not merely Western imperialism, this technological destruction. ( The Chinese, BTW, faced the same problem, felt the same way, and - through Maoist guerrilla techniques - developed the first effective response. )

Therefore, for the United States to deploy high tech shock and awe in Iraq or for Israel to devastate Lebanon solves nothing.

"It is, often, not so much war itself that people long for, but the moral certainty that comes with it ...

The sad truth is, that for typical Bush-supporting right-wingers here in the USA, it is not so much war itself that they long for, but the chance to turn on Fox News and watch stuff get blowed up real good while they chug beers and chant "USA! USA! USA!"

Americans also badly need this moral clarity. Not long ago they also were intruders, settling in land that was not empty, fighting the indigenous population with far superior fire power. This analogy always strikes me when I see the similar style and easy mutual understanding in foreign policy of Israel and the United States.

Very nice point, Kevin. I think you're right about this. And it doesn't stop with war, given the present state of the country. Those who support this administration want to believe in its infallibility, and they become enraged when those of us who don't try to point out perfectly good reasons why we don't. It's not about facts - it's about clarity of beliefs. Like the 50s, when everyone knew his place, all families were perfect, and life was good...

I think I would prefer it if conservatives returned to the moral clarity of isolationism was what they were after. At least weren't burying our young to bring an end to 2000 year old diplomatic problems in countries not our own.

Winston Churchill, while reporting on the Kitchener expedition to the Sudan, noted the demoralizing effect of Western industrialized war.

While watching Dervish cavalry who were charging the British being mowed down by gattling guns, he noted that war no longer achieved any moral resolution but rather effected the the technological destruction of man.

That's all war has ever done; "moral resolution" through war was always a comforting lie that victors told to justify themselves.

To win by technological means, be it gattling guns or F-16's, is inherently illegitimate.

Is this somehow less true of bombards, trebuchets, longbows, pikes, better metal for swords, stone axes vs. pointy sticks, etc.?

Winning through force proves who is better at applying force, or more fortunate, not whose claim is "legitimate" or "moral".

The degree of technology employed has no bearing on the truth of that.

Americans also badly need this moral clarity. Not long ago they also were intruders, settling in land that was not empty, fighting the indigenous population with far superior fire power. This analogy always strikes me when I see the similar style and easy mutual understanding in foreign policy of Israel and the United States.

I gotta say...at the risk of sounding Un-PC, while I basically agree with you, this comment is more than a little unseemly coming from "Jorgen in Germany." If anyone should keep their traps shut about Israel it's the Germans.

As I understand it, the Israelis are sending Lebanese civilians, including the elites, a message. They are trying to impress upon them that Hizballah is too expensive to tolerate.

Isn't that the same message suicide bombers are sending to Israel with regard to the occupation and domination Israel exercises over Palestinian lands? And sent by the same method—deliberately inflicting costs, including death, on the civilian population?

What would you expect from people who learned all they know playing video games? Who masturbate to the Military Channel?

Jung had some theory about how individuals act out or become the thing they fear most. The dark spectre of our unconscious. Israel has been serving that part of itself that abhors the Holocaust so much it is willing to become the destroyer of all else.

Ticketwood wrote:

football tickets NFL tickets
NHL tickets NHL tickets
hockey tickets NHL tickets
concert tickets concerts
sports tickets sports
theater tickets theatre
nascar tickets NASCAR

I strongly disagree with your underlying thesis, especially the remark about "hockey tickets NHL tickets." Frankly I think this sort of ad hominem is beneath the both of us.

However, feel free to elaborate, as I may be misconstruing your point amid all the rhetorical barbs. As I'm sure you agree, it's quite an emotional topic.

Any guesses on how many people have died in the Middle East because of war over the last 3000 years.Does anyone really think it will ever change.Columbus was willing to sail of the edge of earth to find a way to avoid the Middle East,What does that tell you?

The Smartest thing G.W. ever said was back in 1999 when running for Pres. (My approach to foreign policy is a hands off policy).

>I gotta say...at the risk of sounding Un-PC, while
>I basically agree with you, this comment is more
>than a little unseemly coming from "Jorgen in
>Germany." If anyone should keep their traps shut
>about Israel it's the Germans.
Oh good grief! This old canard again??? "Jorgen in Germany" almost certainly was not an adult when the Nazi's were in power HALF A CENTURY AGO! But as all younger Germans know, there will always be fools who try to silence their opinions with this idiocy.
Grow up!
Jim ("currently in Germany" and a Brit, longtime resident in the US)

My sense has always been that conservatism in general is about placing personal security and comfort above all other considerations. To the extent that the "moral clarity" which comes from willfully viewing the world in black and white terms is much more comfortable (and requires less effort) than engaging with the nuance and complexity that is reality, I'd say I'm right on target.

Orwell:

"On the other hand, the endless talk-talk-talk liberal EU governments only delay the inevitable conflict. When the other side wants you dead at all costs, how in the world do you negotiate with that?"

Thank you for illustrating Kevin's point so brilliantly.

I have no doubt that members of Hezbollah, as well as various Palestinians and others, have said, very stupidly, that they would not stop until Israel was driven into the sea. That does not mean that all people of these various groups believe that.

It's all too easy to achieve a sense of "moral clarity" by seizing on every negative thing your opponents have done or said, and using that to demonize them. Thereafter, anything you do "in response" is clearly justified. No further necessity to think. No need to rein in your worst impulses. Nice, simple world where you and yours are Superman and they and theirs are Lex Luther. Problem is, in conflicts, people on all sides have legitimate grievances and people on all sides have blood on their hands.

Both you and these members of Hezbollah illustrate Kevin's point perfectly. And you're all probably incapable of understanding this, and will continue to live in your illusional world, will continue to "show" the other side how morally superior you are by killing them and expecting them to recognize your moral superiority. You will continue to be baffled by their lack of "understanding" and their refusal to knuckle down to your "moral superiority".

I also agree with Gregory above that you do not understand what George Orwell actually wrote.

I'm not usually one to pile on, but this is a great post Kevin. I agree with the above. One of your best.

Brilliant post, Kevin.

But it is only the illusion (delusion?) of moral certainty. The venom is directed at those who have the temerity to suggest that longed-for certainty is anything but. Cognitive dissonance is always hated--as are those who hear the dissonance and name it for what it is.

Israel got da war fever, It's as plain as dat.

Thoughtful post. Thanks.

I also agree with Gregory above that you do not understand what George Orwell actually wrote.

Thanks, Wolfdaughter, but I suppose our friend could have mistaken 1984 for a how-to manual...

Many people want to believe there is a clear demarcation of Right and Wrong but the uncertainties of our contingent world often spoil their attempts to sustain that belief. War, as Kevin says, clears the picture of all those confusing contingincies and gives, at least for the moment, a sense of moral certainty. Chris Hedges wrote similarly in his book, War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning (highly recommended). War, for all its terrifying aspects, makes us feel alive and certain about our direction.

War, like a torrential downpour, clears the air of the smog of uncertainty and gives us, if even for a brief moment, a feeling that the path forward is clear. War, like a forest fire, clears out the underbrush choking the forest so that new trees can grow.

But floods and fires also drown and burn. Floods and fires are forces of nature, unleased in nature's own time for nature's own purpose. War, if it is to be seen as a force of nature, should never be seen as something desirable. It is, at best, a consequence of the natural process of life and, like death, something that comes in its own time and its own way.

It makes no more sense to sound the drumbeats for War, to see War as a good thing, than it would be to cheer on the burning of a forest or the flooding of a coastal village.

Those who think they can be the Masters of War are creating a false idol. And, like all idolators, they will burn in the fire of their own arrogance and drown in the flood of their own hubris.

We will never be the masters of War. The best we can do is learn how not to be its slaves.

What else makes war so common? When Ted Koppel interviewed gang-bangers out in Los Angeles a few years ago, something scary happened on-camera. The Crip (or Blood) interviewees were sitting at a picnic table, answering Ted's questions, and sounding VERY sensible about how they don't want their own kids getting caught up in all this nonsense, when suddenly the interview stopped. An opposing gang car of enemies began circling around the park's perimeter. Ted's interviewees became excited and energized by the confrontation. They were smiling, and revving into addictive feud anger mode.

Feuds, like drugs, are addictive; probably for the same bio-chemical reasons.

We will never be the masters of War. The best we can do is learn how not to be its slaves.

Well said! But I'm not optimistic...

Feuds, like drugs, are addictive; probably for the same bio-chemical reasons.

An interesting point. War pumps the adrenaline and the rush of adrenaline can be an addictive sensation (just ask any extreme sports enthusiast). It makes you feel alive. It makes you feel like you know what you need to do in order to survive.

When the rush passes then comes the eventual crash and burn in which people's sensibilities return and they realize that the feelings that came with the rush were a false sense of confidence. But when the opportunity for the rush presents itself again, the addict rush back in, despite all their rationalizations.

Is America overdue for an intervention?

Chris Andersen wrote: War pumps the adrenaline and the rush of adrenaline can be an addictive sensation (just ask any extreme sports enthusiast).

If you want to know the sad truth, don't ask an "extreme sports enthusiast." Ask someone who has returned from a real war with post-traumatic stress disorder and wakes up screaming every night and contemplates suicide every day.

At home and abroad, it allows you to cast everyone who disagrees with you as either an appeaser or an apologist for tyrants.

It's not that the skeptics prevent the hawks from getting the war they want — they usually don't — but that they deny them the moral certainty they so desperately yearn for. And that cannot be tolerated.

Sigh. Along with a host of other key issues, the question of military response/intervention cannot be honestly discussed today if it ever could. Of course the flagwavers behave as described. But try telling a left-of-center university student you think Bush bungled the Iraq war in such and such way (implying--heaven forefend--that there might be a right or less bad way to prosecute a war), or that perhaps Israel and the US are not the only parties responsible for the hateful actions of Israel's neighbors, and watch the fireworks - you're a (fill in the tired, Manichean epithets: warmonger, neocon, 101st keyboardist, Likudnik, imperialist, hegemonist, fascist, state terrorist, and on and on. Kind of weakens the message to know that some third of them would say exactly the same thing about even intervention in Darfur or the Congo--like the fine youngins of SDS who said Clinton was in Somalia for the oil.)

What a laugh to suggest that one side needs "moral certainty"--as if both sides (on this particular issue) didn't claim it as their absolute possession. "Cast everyone who disagrees with you as X" - this is SOP across the board in the public discussion of military force. If at all possible, make sure the "argument" is ad hominem as well, just so there's no risk of any real exchange of ideas. 99% of these people wouldn't know a measured, honest discussion of the merits if it came up and hit them in the face.

Among the widely read bloggers, Kevin is one of a tiny handful who don't settle for such empty talking points, and for that, kudos.

don't ask an "extreme sports enthusiast." Ask someone who has returned from a real war...
Sad Truth is absolutely right. The junkies enjoying the rush aren't (in most cases) the ones doing the actual fighting, but the cheerleaders. Do we know any former cheerleaders who've risen to prominence?

Therefore, for the United States to deploy high tech shock and awe in Iraq or for Israel to devastate Lebanon solves nothing.
Posted by: Thinker on July 19, 2006 at 2:23 PM |

Here's a thought. For the US, shock and awe solved the problem of dealing with an Iraq under the complete control of Saddam. For Isreal, the devastation of the military capability of Hezbollah will solve the problem of their cities being bombed. You can the debate the merits of the actions, but they did solve the problems. Try thinking alittle harder.

q wrote: ... try telling a left-of-center university student you think Bush bungled the Iraq war in such and such way (implying--heaven forefend--that there might be a right or less bad way to prosecute a war ...

Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is a crime, a war of unprovoked aggression which has so far killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and maimed and impoverished many tens of thousands more, a war based on lies about a nonexistent threat from nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" and nonexistent "links" between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda, the real and only purpose of which was the deliberate misuse of the US military for corrupt purposes of financial gain for the members of the Bush administration and their cronies and financial backers.

To wish that this war could have been prosecuted more effectively or successfully is to wish that a crime of colossal theft and mass murder had been prosecuted more effectively or successfully.

The only way the criminal war in Iraq can "succeed" is for it to fail, and for its perpetrators to be impeached, indicted, prosecuted, convicted and imrisoned for their crimes against humanity.

For the record I am not a left-of-center university student.

Chicounsel wrote: Here's a thought. For the US, shock and awe solved the problem of dealing with an Iraq under the complete control of Saddam.

That is not much of a thought. The problem of dealing with Saddam was merely replaced with much more difficult, destructive, dangerous and costly problems.

But try telling a left-of-center university student you think Bush bungled the Iraq war in such and such way (implying--heaven forefend--that there might be a right or less bad way to prosecute a war), or that perhaps Israel and the US are not the only parties responsible for the hateful actions of Israel's neighbors, and watch the fireworks

As a left-of-center (part-time) student, I can say that this is a ludicrous overgeneralization, as not only do I not respond like this when people say these things to me, but they are actually things I say myself.

Though, in this case of Bush's war in Iraq, there was no right way to prosecute that war since it was an unjustified war to start with, nevertheless, that a war is unjustified doe not require that it also be run incompetently, as Bush's war in Iraq has been, which has (by increasing the resulting suffering) magnified the scope of the wrong in the war.

For Isreal, the devastation of the military capability of Hezbollah will solve the problem of their cities being bombed.

Unlikely: Hezbollah isn't the only one bombing their cities, and past history has shown that aggressive Israeli military action in Lebanon or Palestine tends to create new enemies, many of which get the capacity to bomb Israel's cities, and all of which do so once they gain the capacity to do so.

In fact, Hezbollah was created as a local resistance movement against Israel when it invaded Lebanon to do the same thing to different enemies.

The sad truth is that all of this "war is a force that gives us meaning" stuff is fine for the Marching Morons who love to watch big fiery explosions on Fox News and daydream about killing ragheads, but for the Dick Cheneys of the world, "war is a force that makes us rich! Rich!! RICH!!!"

For the US, shock and awe solved the problem of dealing with an Iraq under the complete control of Saddam. For Isreal, the devastation of the military capability of Hezbollah will solve the problem of their cities being bombed. You can the debate the merits of the actions, but they did solve the problems. Try thinking alittle harder.

Ah. So Chicounsel's problem with terror attacks against civilians is inasmuch as they don't achieve their goals. Duly noted.

War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense. The machinery of government sets and enforces the drastic penalties; the minorities are either intimidated into silence, or brought slowly around by a subtle process of persuasion which may seem to them really to be converting them. Of course, the ideal of perfect loyalty, perfect uniformity is never really attained. The classes upon whom the amateur work of coercion falls are unwearied in their zeal, but often their agitation instead of converting, merely serves to stiffen their resistance. Minorities are rendered sullen, and some intellectual opinion bitter and satirical. But in general, the nation in wartime attains a uniformity of feeling, a hierarchy of values culminating at the undisputed apex of the State ideal, which could not possibly be produced through any other agency than war. Loyalty - or mystic devotion to the State - becomes the major imagined human value. Other values, such as artistic creation, knowledge, reason, beauty, the enhancement of life, are instantly and almost unanimously sacrificed, and the significant classes who have constituted themselves the amateur agents of the State are engaged not only in sacrificing these values for themselves but in coercing all other persons into sacrificing them.

Randall Bourne, 'War Is The Health Of The State', 1918

the real and only purpose of which was the deliberate misuse of the US military for corrupt purposes of financial gain for the members of the Bush administration and their cronies and financial backers.
i think so!

This post and some of the comments gives me some hope in humanity today. Thank you. - signed, a heartbroken Arab-American

subject-verb agreement: this post and comments GIVE me hope. Signed, a heartbroken Arab-American English major

Mr. Drum, I don't know if you read this far down in the comments thread, but if you do I would like to thank you for your wonderful words in this entry.

Blah, blah, blah.

It's all about money, not moral certainty. Muddy the waters with claims of terrorism and demands for patriotism and many people forget that a small number of people are making shitloads of money ON ALL SIDES. DUH!

I wish you people could try to cut through the bullshit for once.

The old fashioned name for this kind of foreign policy is ‘imperialism’. Imperialists were always in conflict with the consciousness of the nation-state (embodied by the parliament and the free press) because the state is based on norms, laws and justice but war and expansionism are predicated on the destruction of norms and justice in the name of national power. The only way to motivate the nation in this most un-nationalistic enterprise is to cultivate a sense of besiegement and common purpose.



As Robert Belcher at Middle East Report points out “By lumping together these diffe

A Science Fiction note. Have you ever notice how much SF today involves soldiers, wars, and endless war? It's like military pornography. I feel that a lot of today's conservatives are people who grew up reading Heinlein's narcisis libetarianism and wonder if the current neocon movement isn't likewise fueled by too much reading of David Weber.

Good post!

See also the despicable attempts to blame Lebanese civilians for not kicking out the Hezbollah terrorists who are using them as human shields and blame American civilians for taking a vacation in Beirut before Israel started dropping the bombs.

" I feel that a lot of today's conservatives are people who grew up reading Heinlein's narcisis libetarianism"

Well, *this* liberal grew up reading Heinlein and liking it. I certainly don't think he was pro-military or pro-preemptive invasion.

Heinlien wasn't much of a libertarian, despite libertarians trying to claim him as one of their own.