I could use the same reasoning that guy uses and say that Public Musings, by remaining silent on Haditha, is afraid of speaking truth to power.
But I know that isn't the case. You are taking something of which you disapprove of (soldiers killing innocents) but silencing your disapproval because you see bigger fish to fry. (You don't want to blow one incident out of proportion and undermine the overall military mission you find tremendously important.)
Same thing with Drum. He doesn't want certain elements of the Iran dicussion to get blown out of proportion and undermine American efforts to formulate a sane policy on Iran.
What's the problem, aside from the fact that you may disagree with his assessment of the Iranian threat? We all subordinate certain principles to larger ones all the time.
i admittedly haven't followed the haditha story that closely, so i don't know all the details. but, yes, i disapprove of soldiers killing civilians unnecessarily. i feel there is a duty to not kill civilians unnecessarily. i feel those soldiers should be punished. i also know that inevitably in wartime situations, soldiers will act inappropriately and make bad decisions. and i believe when that occurs, they deserve to be punished.
it's not that i silence myself in the face of injustice, it's that my position is basically uncomplicated and straight forward and not really interesting to write about.
the issue that you bring up with haditha and other such massacres is that you blame rumsfeld and bush and the higher ups for mismanaging the war and setting conditions where hadithas and such massacres are more likely to happen and therefore THEY bear responsibility (either in addition to the soldiers or independent of the soldiers).
so while i disapprove of haditha, i assign blame to those who committed the injustice and I rely on the higher ups to bring them to justice.
now, if for instance, bush and rummy said we weren't going to punish the soldiers for torturing and massacring innocents, if indeed the evidence proved that they had, well, then they should be fired.
I used Haditha as an example more for theory than as a concrete example. We don't know the whole story yet, so I agree we shouldn't pass judgment.
But your logic still applies to Drum and Iran: he could say he isn't silent in the face of injustice, but that his position on evil regimes is uncomplicated and straightforward, and thus not interesting. I mean, Iran has a lot of company throughout the world when it comes to corrupt tyrants oppressing their peoples.
What makes Iran stand out is their attempt to get a bomb and their sponsership of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. Drum writes a lot about both of these aspects of Iran.
3 comments:
As you might expect, I disagree.
I could use the same reasoning that guy uses and say that Public Musings, by remaining silent on Haditha, is afraid of speaking truth to power.
But I know that isn't the case. You are taking something of which you disapprove of (soldiers killing innocents) but silencing your disapproval because you see bigger fish to fry. (You don't want to blow one incident out of proportion and undermine the overall military mission you find tremendously important.)
Same thing with Drum. He doesn't want certain elements of the Iran dicussion to get blown out of proportion and undermine American efforts to formulate a sane policy on Iran.
What's the problem, aside from the fact that you may disagree with his assessment of the Iranian threat? We all subordinate certain principles to larger ones all the time.
i admittedly haven't followed the haditha story that closely, so i don't know all the details. but, yes, i disapprove of soldiers killing civilians unnecessarily. i feel there is a duty to not kill civilians unnecessarily. i feel those soldiers should be punished. i also know that inevitably in wartime situations, soldiers will act inappropriately and make bad decisions. and i believe when that occurs, they deserve to be punished.
it's not that i silence myself in the face of injustice, it's that my position is basically uncomplicated and straight forward and not really interesting to write about.
the issue that you bring up with haditha and other such massacres is that you blame rumsfeld and bush and the higher ups for mismanaging the war and setting conditions where hadithas and such massacres are more likely to happen and therefore THEY bear responsibility (either in addition to the soldiers or independent of the soldiers).
so while i disapprove of haditha, i assign blame to those who committed the injustice and I rely on the higher ups to bring them to justice.
now, if for instance, bush and rummy said we weren't going to punish the soldiers for torturing and massacring innocents, if indeed the evidence proved that they had, well, then they should be fired.
I used Haditha as an example more for theory than as a concrete example. We don't know the whole story yet, so I agree we shouldn't pass judgment.
But your logic still applies to Drum and Iran: he could say he isn't silent in the face of injustice, but that his position on evil regimes is uncomplicated and straightforward, and thus not interesting. I mean, Iran has a lot of company throughout the world when it comes to corrupt tyrants oppressing their peoples.
What makes Iran stand out is their attempt to get a bomb and their sponsership of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. Drum writes a lot about both of these aspects of Iran.
Post a Comment