[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I don’t think anyone will argue that opposition to our forces in Iraq is done in such a way as to maximize political pressure here.
[/QUOTE]
So? If I’m protesting about something, be it a war or the regulation of ostrich feathers’ color, I sure will want to maximize political pressure. Protest generally isn’t done for fun (even though it happens), but in order to achieve a goal. What would you expect?
You say you’re providing context but actually your point is a truism.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
So? If I’m protesting about something, be it a war or the regulation of ostrich feathers’ color, I sure will want to maximize political pressure. Protest generally isn’t done for fun (even though it happens), but in order to achieve a goal. What would you expect?
You say you’re providing context but actually your point is a truism.
[/QUOTE]
I was speaking of those shooting our troops or setting IEDs, not those protesting. And if you think their behavior isn’t calculated to affect yours, you’re kidding yourself.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I was speaking of those shooting our troops or setting IEDs, not those protesting.
[/quote]
Sorry. I misunderstood your point.
Maybe, but I’m not convinced this would be their primary goal.
I’m curious if there was anything happening to prompt sudden spikes in anti-war rhetoric. It seems unlikely to me that they just happen spontaneously. Odds are, they’re done in reaction to some initiative or policy statement from the White House. If that’s the case, then it seems logical to me that the subsequent increase in insurgent activity is much more likely to be a reaction to the same thing that prompted an increase in protests, and not to the protests themselves. In other words, George Bush does something stupid in Iraq, and a whole bunch of Americans hear about it and think, “That’s bullshit! I’m going to go out and protest.” And a whole bunch of people in Iraq hear about it and think, “That’s bullshit! I’m going to go out and kill a bunch of marines!”
Miller, if you’re referring to this study, I’ll say again, with feeling: This is not a study of anti-war rhetoric.
This is not a study of outspoken critics. This is not a study of loud protests.
THIS IS NOT A STUDY THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANTIWAR STATEMENTS!
This is a study of statements by the Bush administration purported to be about other people “emboldening” the enemy. What would you guess the Bush administration’s message was when making such statements? I would suppose that whenever they made a statement about others “emboldening”, it was in the midst of arguing that we have to stay the course, wouldn’t you?
This study is bullshit.
THIS IS NOT A STUDY OF ANTI-WAR STATEMENTS!
Horton, can you hear me?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I’d just like to reiterate that I don’t see how anyone can be free of moral responsibility for the consequences of an act when they (if) they are aware of a causal relationship between their action and the consequence.
[/QUOTE]
Going with your hypothetical: if (loudly but peacefully) protesting an immoral war indirectly causes deaths, while potentially saving more lives (provided that the powers-that-be are swayed by the protest and end the war), then the moral protester should (being aware of their moral responsibility for the consequences of their acts) work to maximize the effectiveness of their protests such that the powers-that-be are swayed as quickly as possible to end the war.
One question that arises in my mind: if loud but peaceful protests were shown to cause deaths (per the OP’s hypothetical), but not to sway the powers-that-be to end the war then what should the moral protester do?
Not protest the immoral war?
Only make their protests not-loud (and presumably equally ineffective)?
Continue to protest loudly but peacefully (and ineffectively) knowing that they were indirectly causing deaths?
Escalate their protest efforts (to not peaceful) in an attempt to sway the powers-that-be?
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I don’t think anyone will argue that opposition to our forces in Iraq is done in such a way as to maximize political pressure here.
[/QUOTE]
I’m hardly the first one to notice that the Bush Administration’s conduct of the war seems to have been designed more to play to the homefront than to the circumstances of the war.
I think that’s a great deal more disturbing.
[QUOTE=Squink]
Sure, individuals bear some responsiblity here too, but I’m not seeing the utility of discussing the impact of individual raindrops in the US when there’s a gullywashing thunderstorm in Iraq. Is there any purpose other than an attempt to spread blame?
[/QUOTE]
It is not my goal to spread blame. For the past, we can assume even the most vociferous protester did not know that his actions might be causing U.S> deaths. That was the opinion of mine and others, but it was just an opinion. If I couldn’t convince them then they had absolutely no reason to go right on with their mind told them. The same way I was free to go on with my beliefs.
My point goes to the future. If (hypothetical again) it is shown that these protests do indeed cause U.S. deaths, what responsibility falls to the protesters? I think this is not a problem for someone like Der Trihs. The consequences of his actions would be in concert with his deeply held beliefs: that the more U.S. soldiers that die the better. (As much as I might find that offensive, ridiculous and childish.) But what about those who say that they want the troops home so no more harm comes to them, someone like Cindy Sheehan, say. I think she is sincere in what she says. I also think that she might redirect her energies, because she would not want her actions to cause another mother to cause the same kind of loss she suffered.
Now, there are also people for whom this war is mainly a bludgeon with which to beat George Bush about the ears. Many of this group profess to want end the war because the best way to prevent the loss of more of our young men and women is to simply bring them home. Some do this while equating Bush with Satan or Hitler, etc. Would the knowledge that their actions are causing U.S. deaths give them pause, force them to find other means to achieve their goal. For some, probably. For others, I don’t think it would. They get too much glee out of attacking Bush & Co. (Not that they don’t deserve it.)
In the end I think people going through their own personal calculations would be beneficial. I think it would tone down the vitriol over all. And I do think that a good thing. Not because Bush doesn’t deserve it, but because when it is vitriol we give him license to simply ignore it. I’d be curious to see what new ideas might pop up if people didn’t thing that the best thing they could do would be to march with some silly chant holding up a sign of Bush drenched in blood or some other such nonsense.
Sorry about the rather long answer to a very direct question, but I hope it helps flesh out where I’m coming from.
[QUOTE=El_Kabong]
I personally feel responsible for the invasion-related deaths, and have felt that way for a long time.
Basically, whether realistic or not, I feel I could have done much more to register my opposition to the invasion, and my disgust with the Bush Administration for launching it. I feel somewhat ashamed that I have basically given up since the invasion, feeling that nothing further could be done. In my mind, therefore, there is no question that I bear some responsibility for the carnage that has ensued.
So there you go. Total agreement with the OP’s premise, if that is indeed the premise.
[/QUOTE]
I share your regret. While I don’t regret not marching and protesting in a way that I believe (right or wrong) emboldens the enemy, I do wish I had written more letters like the one I wrote on this board and found a way to get them into the right hands. I mainly wish I had formulated this plan prior to the invasion, as I’m really not sure what the best course of action is from this point.
[QUOTE=sqweels]
It may very well be that opposition to war is emboldening the insurgents. From the looks of things, these folks will press any advantage, exploit any weakness, and portray any non-defeat, any slight setback for their enemies as a morale-boosting victory.
[/QUOTE]
Well put.
[QUOTE=sqweelsHowever, a few observations:
[ul]
To an even greater extent, these people are vengeful and defiant. They’re not easily intimidated. The see this war as a continuation of the crusades. The fact that seemingly every Muslim kid wants to grow up to be a martyr should give us pause.[/ul]
[ul]The situation in Iraq is far more complex with all the factions (incl. Iran) than one of a single insurgent group of otherwise marginal resolve pushing back against the US.[/ul]
[ul]The anti-war movement is very chaotic, broad-based and grass-roots. It’s a lot easier to point the finger of blame for the whole shootin’ match on the Bush administration and the Republican rank-and-file.[/ul]
[ul]Bush supporters have been saying “you’re emboldening the enemy” (along with “support the troops”) since day 1 not just to keep that from happening, but to silence their political opponents and to score points in the broader political landscape. I don’t know if they see the War on Liberals as the central front in the War on Terrorism or vice-versa.[/ul]
[ul]What if we had stayed focused on Afghanistan? There was and still is very little opposition to the operation there. We could have avoided the problem of Muslims seeing a pattern of US intervention in Muslim country after Muslim country.
[/ul]
[/QUOTE]
I agree with most of this. I will comment though on your fourth bullet. I do not blame Bush & Co. for attempting to silence their opposition and put as good a face on the invasion and later, the war, as possible. I think any administration would do—and have done—the same thing. The fact is that it helps the effort to have the country behind you. Working toward that end seems quite rational.
Look, I’ll be generous and go with the assumption that more negative news coverage of the war creates an uptake of 7 to 10% in attacks. But you haven’t proven anything meaningful by that at all, because you haven’t proven that void of media criticism there would be less attacks overall.
Perhaps, and this is entirely reasonable, a lack of media pressure would result in sloppier tactics, more human rights violations, more violent reactions, etc. Unfortunately for your argument, you can’t disprove any of that would happen, so your point is… what?
[QUOTE=CalMeacham]
Let me ask you a hypothetical – let’s say that the study is, indeed, true, and pans out after repreated studies? What the?
Let’s say that protestors maghically cease all protesting. There are no more negative statements to embolden the enemy.
Do you really think that they’re going to sit on the thousands of poumnds of explosive and not build and use any more IEDs, just because there are no more negative statements to give them an excuse? Having been angered and motivated by the US actions and the opportunities offered, will they simply sit on their hands in frustration? Will a relative peace ensue?
[/QUOTE]
Thank you for your question. No, I think not. But I think it would be helpful in that we would not be ceding the moral high ground. I think some protesters have helped AQ and other groups in recruiting by allowing them the position. “We are fighting on the righteous side. Bush is an evil infidel. Even his own people say that he is evil and that WE are fighting the righteous fight. So, whataya say, Achmed, wanna join up and help defeat the man that even his own people know is evil and get to those 72 virgins? By the way, what size vest do you wear?”
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
So, what would you want, ideally? That people opposed to the war protest it only in ways they’re sure will go completely unoticed? Isn’t the point of a protest to be noticed by the medias and the government, so that it could result in a change in policies?
[/QUOTE]
No, I’d actually love it if a war should actually be prevented or stopped, that they (we) find a more effective may to do it. For me personally that would mean that in the meantime that I wouldn’t make things rougher for our men and women over there. They have a shitty enough existence. And I certainly would not any of their deaths on my hands in any way. I think that while our soldiers are over there that they should feel nothing but our support. Not only do I think that that is possible, I think that the current strategy of the angry left has been grossly ineffective. I mean, we’re still there, aren’t we.
I asked a friend of mine (a Bush despiser) who wants the war to end yesterday this question. If we could stop all killing and pull out tomorrow, all troops inside of six months (yes, a hypothetical), but Bush would be hailed as a brilliant leader and would serve another four years, would you agree to it. He still hasn’t been able to answer me.
[QUOTE=vibrotronica]
I find it difficult to believe that a war opponent would make the “stabbed in the back” argument, but whatever.
[/QUOTE]
I was wondering how you could possibly follow up your previous post. You answered with a one liner ending with “but whatever”. My only wish now is that you don’t know why that is so funny.
[QUOTE=Miller]
I’m curious if there was anything happening to prompt sudden spikes in anti-war rhetoric. It seems unlikely to me that they just happen spontaneously. Odds are, they’re done in reaction to some initiative or policy statement from the White House. If that’s the case, then it seems logical to me that the subsequent increase in insurgent activity is much more likely to be a reaction to the same thing that prompted an increase in protests, and not to the protests themselves. In other words, George Bush does something stupid in Iraq, and a whole bunch of Americans hear about it and think, “That’s bullshit! I’m going to go out and protest.” And a whole bunch of people in Iraq hear about it and think, “That’s bullshit! I’m going to go out and kill a bunch of marines!”
[/QUOTE]
Greetings, Miller. I think this makes sense. I also think that that may be the general rule AND that when they get wind of Bush’s people calling him a murderer it spurs them on. I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive.
I feel like Ed Begley Jr as The Invisible Man.
What the great fuck is the problem here?
I even tried all caps.
Ah, well, have at your Great Debate.
[QUOTE=Apollyon]
Going with your hypothetical: if (loudly but peacefully) protesting an immoral war indirectly causes deaths, while potentially saving more lives (provided that the powers-that-be are swayed by the protest and end the war), then the moral protester should (being aware of their moral responsibility for the consequences of their acts) work to maximize the effectiveness of their protests such that the powers-that-be are swayed as quickly as possible to end the war.
That’s not my hypothetical. (Mine does not assume that protests of the type mentioned will sway the powers-that-be and/or save more lives.) But I will entertain your hypothetical. If it were factually true that vociferous over-the-top protest would make the war end faster and save lives, I would agree with you.
[QUOTE=Apollyon]
One question that arises in my mind: if loud but peaceful protests were shown to cause deaths (per the OP’s hypothetical), but not to sway the powers-that-be to end the war then what should the moral protester do?
Not protest the immoral war?
Only make their protests not-loud (and presumably equally ineffective)?
Continue to protest loudly but peacefully (and ineffectively) knowing that they were indirectly causing deaths?
Escalate their protest efforts (to not peaceful) in an attempt to sway the powers-that-be?
[/QUOTE]
If we are dealing with those as known variables, I’d say the answer easy. Find some other way to achieve their goal. Now, finding it might be quite difficult, but can you imagine harnessing all those minds and all those man-hours. I think it’s time to get creative. But if everyone simply knee-jerks “Damn, I’m mad. Let’s burn Bush in effigy and march!!!”, that’s all that gets done. What’s the old adage about being crazy: it’s doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I think I made this point when I wrote on these boards a strong letter to Bush. I fully feel it, and other things like, it would be more effective than the protests we’ve seen back to 2003.
[QUOTE=Crocodiles And Boulevards]
Look, I’ll be generous and go with the assumption that more negative news coverage of the war creates an uptake of 7 to 10% in attacks. But you haven’t proven anything meaningful by that at all, because you haven’t proven that void of media criticism there would be less attacks overall.
Perhaps, and this is entirely reasonable, a lack of media pressure would result in sloppier tactics, more human rights violations, more violent reactions, etc. Unfortunately for your argument, you can’t disprove any of that would happen, so your point is… what?
[/QUOTE]
You are correct, nothing has been proven. I never claimed that anything was proven. I found this study interesting as it was on point concerning a previous discussion on these boards. I take it you don’t like hypotheticals, which is where I steered the discussion. So be it.
By the way, have you made it to a sunglass store yet? I’m curious how the lenses might have worked out.
You’re citing a Washington Times report on a study that uses the tern “anti-resolve” and expect me to take that seriously? Taking crap like that seriously is what got us into this mess in the first place.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I asked a friend of mine (a Bush despiser) who wants the war to end yesterday this question. If we could stop all killing and pull out tomorrow, all troops inside of six months (yes, a hypothetical), but Bush would be hailed as a brilliant leader and would serve another four years, would you agree to it. He still hasn’t been able to answer me.
[/QUOTE]
I can. The answer is “Yes.”
Of course, logic dictates that for these outcomes to take place simultaneously, the physical laws of the Universe (and of cause and effect) would need to be repealed, and replaced with whatever preposterous conditions apply to a game of Calvinball. So, while I’m at it, I’m going to order up a retroactive disappearance of monotheism, the fascinated and enthusiastic attentions of several bright, self-actualized, and beautiful women, twenty-five MILLION DOLLARS per day for a year being deposited in a secret numbered Swiss bank account in my name, and to hear the voices of all the children of the world raised together in one simple song of peace.
And a pony.
Can I get you anything?