Home | Hegemony | Archives | Blogroll | Resume | Links | RSS Feed | subscribe by email    


to Reason


blog roll

    widespread systematic abuse at the direction of unaccountable superiors..., 2004-12-08 10:56:40 | Main | new boss worse than the old boss..., 2004-12-08 14:05:36

    all around wack-job:

    much a'tif aboot this angry flibbertigibbet. Beinart seems to be talking about some alternate reality: progressive forces need to get tough on terror, he says, yadda yadda yadda, must endorse war on terror, anti-war left needs to be marginalized more than it already has, I, Peter Beinart, miss the days of aboveboard sectarianism, it's time to mow the grass and chew bubblegum, etc. etc. Wacky, wacky stuff.

    If there was a war on terror I would endorse it, but there is none. A war on terror would be just what I want, in fact. Presently what is called the war on terror is arbitrarily anything that serves the "national interest" and a light show in a wide range of colors to keep us entertained. There are sensible people left and right that are, well, we'll call it "objectively anti-terror", just for the fun of it, and this guy isn't one of them. We'll even keep our hands tied behind our royal back by using the status quo dictionary revisionism in which states are somehow incapable of terrorism:

    On Cuba present policy is objectively pro-terror, on Iran present policy is objectively pro-terror, on Iraq policies have been objectively pro-terror. There's a longer list. If you're going to declare a "war" on terror you have to stop supporting terrorism. This is required by the logic of the phrase, it's a moral necessity, and pragmatically it's a pre-requisite to the effective persual of non-state actors who are engaged in private wars against the United States, creating an environment where the collective action necessary to upset terrorist networks is possible. Throwing entire countries into dazzling arrays of chaos creates environments where terrorist networks can thrive - doing so is blindly pro-terror, which is why you use proportional force against specific, sound targets when engaging militarily. Nevermind that sometimes the best offense is a good defense.

    Just accepting the terms of the discussion is a step towards the absurd.

:: posted by buermann @ 2004-12-08 13:19:58 CST | link

    go ahead, express that vague notion

    your turing test:

journals, notes,
other curmudgeonry

- A Timeline -

Oil for Nothing:
US Holds On Humanitarian Supplies
Iraq: 1997-2001

the good book
and other cultural

The Autobiography
Mother Jones

Contact Info:

"Any man who is not a radical at 20 has no heart. A man who is not a cynic at 50 has no mind."