Here’s Cole on Jonah Goldberg:
Goldberg helped send nearly 1500 brave Americans to their deaths and helped maim over 10,000, not to mention all the innocent Iraqi civilians he helped get killed. He helped dragoon 140,000 US troops in Iraq. And he does not have the courage of his convictions. His excuse is that he couldn’t afford to take the pay cut!
What is Goldberg going to say to the tens of thousands of reservists he helped send to Iraq, who are losing their mortgages and small businesses and have been kidnapped for 18 months at a time (not what they thought they were signing up for) by Rumsfeld? “Well guys, thanks for carrying out the policy I wanted to see, and for putting your own little girls into penury. I’d have loved to help out, but my little girl is more important than yours and besides, I like a good meal and I hear you only get MREs.”
See, Goldberg is a – wait for it – chickenhawk.I’ve talked about the political and intellectual bankruptcy of that charge before.
It is, primarily, a slur designed to end debate rather than an argument intended to advance it, and I’m way past surprised that Professor Cole would use it.
But hey, I guess I’m a chickenhawk too by his standards, so here’s my white flag of surrender to those who make it an issue.
Can we just let the military serving in Iraq vote on the war and abide by their choice?
I’d be happy to, although I fear that Dr. Cole might be less so.
But hey, he’s not serving either, so why should he have a voice in it?
Hey, Maj. Gen. Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC, would be all for it.
I was in the military, but never saw anything like a battle. I refuse to believe all the best thinking on the topic must come from veterans. There is definitely one angle of it which only they can understand.
You are wasting your time standing up for Goldberg? Do you think his original argument had any merit? I am not an expert on Iran’s 97 election, but Cole sounds infinitely more informed than fatty Jonah.
Just so other readers of this blog don’t get the wrong idea, I’ll quote from Cole’s real main point (hint: not the chickenhawk stuff) …
To take just one tiny example of the problems Jonah Goldbergian thinking can produce, let’s look at the recent elections. It looks so far like the “Sistani list” has won a massive victory. Great. But from the viewpoint of American foreign policy goals, this might be very very problematic. Will we be happy when they write harsh Sharia codes into the new constitution? Will we go when they tell us to? What if they decide to work out their 300-year-old grudge against the Sunnis?
Goldberg was urging “faster, please.” Cole was arguing “slow down and think this through.”
Which one will look more foolish in five years?
Preview is a valuable resource. I urge others to use it, as I did not. The paragraph with the mysterious hanging tag (
Not to flog a recently-deceased horse, but apparently I’m channeling Sistani tonight. (And I bet on the Patriots, too.)
“Don’t count out Sharia yet.”:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/afp/20050206/wl_afp/iraqvotereligion
Shiite leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and another top cleric staked out a radical demand that Islam be the sole source of legislation in the country’s new constitution.
And now I’ll refill my tankard and quietly go elsewhere for the evening.
Stickler,
> Which one will look more foolish in five years?
Cole will most definitely be seen as the more foolish, by everyone except probably the professor himself.
And I’ll take a page from Hubert Humphrey–if I turn out be wrong, I’ll eat the electrons this is written on!
stickler-
“Will we be happy when they write harsh Sharia codes into the new constitution? Will we go when they tell us to? What if they decide to work out their 300-year-old grudge against the Sunnis?”
Or maybe “not”:http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/02/new-form-of-tyranny-not-that-easy.html
“I chose to wait until the next news hour and of course until I chill out a little bit after the disturbing news and then I heard this update on the story ‘Haider Al-Khaffaf, a senior Sistani’s aide says that no such statement was released’.”
…then again, Omar hasn’t written any books about Iraq, he just lives there.
stickler, I’ll clearly grant some authority to people who – for example read the language or have lived someplace. But I won’t let themn argue from that authority. It’s perfectly true that there are hundreds of thousands of PhD’s in any number of topics who are perfectly wrong about any number of issues – including those “close to their own subject”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006191.php .
A.L.
Better a chicken-hawk than a chicken-chicken.
The chickenhawk attack is a fun one. Not only does the name invoke a picture quite different from the intended (chickenhawks, aka Conner’s hawks, are particularly effective killers that happen to like prey sometimes larger than themselves, namely chickens), but this childish name-calling is laughable with even the slightest of inspection.
Beyond the implications that those that throw this taunt would prefer to eliminate civilian control of the military, it is also readily apparent that they generally don’t have a very good handle on what the majority opinion of those in the military is. Military members, be it active duty, resevres, or vets, are more inclined than the general public towards aggressive use of the military overseas.
Hitchens wrote a piece a couple years back on this issue, and takes it to task with his usual skill.
http://www.slate.com/id/2073772/
Stickler,
Your entire argument in this and most other threads is “What if this all goes to hell? Then you hawks will regret it!!!”
If it goes to hell, I’ll regret it. But it hasn’t, yet, and given that things look, to me, to be getting better all the time, I’m not going to apologize yet.
And so long as we’re weighing hypothetical costs, you would do well to weigh the hypotetical cost of inaction, which isn’t zero.
But it hasn’t, yet, and given that things look, to me, to be getting better all the time, I’m not going to apologize yet.
Really? Did you predict in the summer of 2003 that we’d still need 150,000 troops in Iraq? That the Administration would be asking for another $80 billion supplemental? That our forces still wouldn’t be able to control the road from the Green Zone to the Baghdad airport?
By what objective measure are things getting better? Number of dead and wounded American soldiers? Safety of the “skies?”:http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,12169265%5E663,00.html
And now, the Shiites have won a massive victory in the polls. This was, like so many other developments in Iraq, entirely predictable and predicted. And it will prove to be enormously inconvenient for our foreign policy.
you would do well to weigh the hypotetical cost of inaction, which isn’t zero.
Well, there’s the rub. Was the hypothetical cost of “inaction” greater than the costs so far incurred by “action?” 1,447 dead. 10,770 wounded. Yawning budget deficits as far as the eye can see. American prestige at all-time lows from Europe to China to South America. National guard “rapidly becoming a broken force.”:http://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/01/12/ed.edit.reservewoes.phn.0112.html
And no end in sight.
_Can we just let the military serving in Iraq vote on the war and abide by their choice?_
The world waits with bended ear for the vote of US Marine Lt. Gen. James Mattis (“It’s fun to shoot some people”)…
stickler: _1,447 dead. 10,770 wounded._
You forgot to count the Iraqi dead. And I mean that in more ways than one.
PD Shaw:
We’re bringing the blessings of liberty and civilization to the People Sitting in Darkness. Some of them will probably not survive the process. We can’t complain about the numbers, though, if the Pentagon makes no attempt to count them.
“This world-girdling accumulation of trained morals, high principles, and justice, cannot do an unclean thing, an unfair thing, an ungenerous thing. It knows what it is about. Give yourself no uneasiness, it is all right.”
“Juan Cole is also being absolutely factual. Juan Cole reads Arabic and Farsi. He has actually written books on the subjects at hand. ”
And lots of people who read Arabic and Farsi and have written books on said subjects agree with Jonah, and not Cole. And, as has been pointed out, lack of knowledge of Hebrew doesnt stop Cole from making assertions about Israel, its politics, etc.
The fact is that in his blog Cole is just one more argumentative blogger – and is no more deserving of deference than anyone else.
As for all the stuff thats screwed up in Iraq, we knew all that two weeks ago. Whats CHANGED is the elections. Which Cole, despite his erudition, failed to predict.
Cole: Jonah Goldberg knows absolutely nothing about Iraq … He knows no Arabic. He has never lived in an Arab country. He can’t read Iraqi newspapers …
Cole doesn’t know Hebrew. Therefore he has no business talking about Israel, and all Cole articles that mention Israel should be ignored.
Cole speaks “some” Turkish, according to his website. When reading one of Cole articles about Turkey, skip every other paragraph.
And what the hell does Cole know about Jonah Goldberg? Does Cole even subscribe to National Review? I frankly doubt it.
Cole doesn’t know Hebrew. Therefore he has no business talking about Israel, and all Cole articles that mention Israel should be ignored.
But, as stated above, he’s lived in Lebanon while Israel was deeply involved in Lebanese affairs. And he’s presumably pretty up-to-speed on how Israeli policies are perceived in the Arab and Persian world, no? And how those policies are seen as reflections on America?
Many, many posters on the “conservative” side of the blogosphere just discount Cole because he’s not complimentary toward Bush policy. There’s nothing inherently wrong with discounting him because you disagree with him. But don’t pretend he’s some kind of ignoramus. And don’t try to pretend that Goldberg’s bloviation is based on deep and nuanced understanding of Middle East culture.
“Many, many posters on the “conservative” side of the blogosphere just discount Cole because he’s not complimentary toward Bush policy”
Many bloggers, including Andrew Sullivan, Belgravia dispatch, etc are not complimentary toward Bush policy. Cole has a virulent hatred toward US policy in the mideast, one that colors his commentary, as much as say Goldbergs conservatism colors his.
There are lots of folks who speak arabic who disagree strongly with Cole. There are not so many who are tenured Mid east Studies professors, but that has a whole lot to do with bias in Mid east studies departments, as has been extensively documented by Martin Kramer, Daniel Pipes, et al. All of whom speak arabic and are published authors on the region.
Again, so Goldberg isnt a Mid east studies prof. Neither are Kos, Michael Moore, Chomsky, Atrios, or many others who give forth their opinions on the mid east.
Actually we discount him because he’s behaved like a dishonest jerk.
Rather than challenging the actual points that were raised, he tried to distort Goldberg’s argument and when corned played the “I’m a professor and you’re not so my opinion is what counts” card. Seriously, if this man’s reaction to a debate is to engage in such shoddy and cowardly bullying, I shudder to think what sort of abuse he might be heaping on the students who take his courses.
Many, many posters on the “conservative” side of the blogosphere just discount Cole because he’s not complimentary toward Bush policy.
Does that mean that many, many posters on the “liberal” side of the blogosphere believe Cole just because he’s not complimentary towards Bush policy? Not because he can read the Arabic al-Jazeera website, and once stayed at the Beirut Hilton?
Anyway, what do you know about the blogosphere, Bush policy, or conservatives? Do you have a blog? Are you a member of the National Security Council? Can you draw a Laffer curve on a cocktail napkin? In the bar of the Beirut Hilton, during a mortar attack? I doubt it.
Stickler wrote (#2, way back up there, but the point’s been raised again):
You could, I suppose, condemn this as just some academic crank arguing from authority. But — slight problem here — Juan Cole is also being absolutely factual. Juan Cole reads Arabic and Farsi. He has actually written books on the subjects at hand. He was actually living in Beirut during Lebanon’s civil war, not just hiding in his ivory tower.
Bernard Lewis, to pick one example, is also credentialed in this area of study, in terms of academic degrees and in terms of linguistic (etc.) abilities. Slight problem here: Authority Lewis’ interpretations differ markedly from Authority Cole’s.
Are all of us interested parties on the sidelines (no PhDs, don’t speak Farsi) required to throw up our hands in despair? Defer to the expertiest expert? Regard the consensus opinion of MESA as Received Wisdom?
Perhaps we might be permitted to use our native facilities, evaluate the experts’ writings, read news reports, commentaries, translations, even Johhny-on-the-spot reports from reporters, soldiers, and Iraqis.
I will think less of folks who quickly resort to Arguing from Authority. And folks who aim to sell a lazy readership on “sleazy,”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/004274.php “discredited”:http://www.slate.com/id/2073772/ arguments like “Chickenhawk” (fr. A.L. & #8 above). But that’s just me.
I regard Cole as unreliable for a variety of reasons, his blaming Israel for what happened at Abu Gharib among them. I only really started disliking the man, however, when he accused Michael Ledeen and Michael Rubin of desiring regime change in Iran so that Israel can take back southern Lebanon. Coming from someone who has met and knows both men, that’s nothing short of a vile smear and Cole has yet to retract it.
Doesn’t that depend mightily on what the referent of “it” is? And don’t think that the cost-of-inaction argument refers to Iraq alone, either. It’s the whole Islamofascist package that needs to be dealt with, which was very much tending towards “going to hell” all on its own steam.
Are all of us interested parties on the sidelines (no PhDs, don’t speak Farsi) required to throw up our hands in despair? Defer to the expertiest expert? Regard the consensus opinion of MESA as Received Wisdom?
Well, no. This is reductio ad absurdam. But when confronted by two wildly different interpretations, one of which is offered by a Ph.D in the field and one of which is offered by a young beneficiary of nepotism, I’d be tempted to at least hear the Ph.D out.
Does that mean that many, many posters on the “liberal” side of the blogosphere believe Cole just because he’s not complimentary towards Bush policy?
Here we run into a problem. I’m not a liberal, so I am not going to speak for them. Whenever you use “liberal” or “leftist” as shorthand for “people who disagree with Bush’s conduct of the war,” you’re confusing things pretty profoundly. Is Pat Buchanan a “liberal?” How about Tom Clancy? Or Gen. William Odom? Brent Scowcroft? Charley Reese?
I’m not a liberal, so I am not going to speak for them.
Did I say liberal? I meant to say sophist. Next to Professor-Doctor Juan Cole (PhD) himself, I can’t think of anybody better qualified to speak for the sophists than you.
Stickler (#23) wrote:
bq. Are all of us interested parties on the sidelines (no PhDs, don’t speak Farsi) required to throw up our hands in despair? Defer to the expertiest expert? Regard the consensus opinion of MESA as Received Wisdom? (quoting AMac #20)
bq. Well, no. This is reductio ad absurdam. But when confronted by two wildly different interpretations, one of which is offered by a Ph.D in the field and one of which is offered by a young beneficiary of nepotism, I’d be tempted to at least hear the Ph.D out.
This does not address the point raised. There is no meaningful consensus of Mideast experts. To the extent a consensus does exist, say among MESA membership, it excludes the most original opinions, such as those of Bernard Lewis, Fouad Ajami, Daniel Pipes, Martin Kramer, Fareed Zakaria. Such experts often don’t agree with one another–but the goal shouldn’t be to replace one talking-head with another.
Folks without Cole-style credentials will have other insights and other expertise, and it is often profitable to read their views on the Mideast. Ralph Peters, Iraqi bloggers, WoC’s Dan Darling, “Randall Parker,”:http://www.parapundit.com “Wretchard,”:http://belmontclub.blogspot.com even Thomas Freidman (NYT) come to mind.
Juan Cole offers up a sour public persona and makes a habit of disparaging those he disagrees with. That doesn’t speak to the quality of his ideas. Unfortunately, he has a tendency to mischaracterize his adversaries’ positions, sometimes ignores his own past statements, and does not seem to have compiled a very good track record in predicting events in Iraq, the subject of his blog. These are not powerful endorsements.
The casual characterization of Goldberg is, in its context, a smear. It says nothing about the quality of his ideas.
Did I say liberal? I meant to say sophist. Next to Professor-Doctor Juan Cole (PhD) himself, I can’t think of anybody better qualified to speak for the sophists than you.
Sophist, eh? Scan upthread where I raise some disturbing data points after somebody argued that “things are getting better.” Has anyone refuted them? No.
I’d be willing to consider that things in Iraq, despite mismanagement, might be improving. But I won’t be convinced by warhawk demands that I clap louder. Facts matter. Show me facts which support the presumption. Provide a fact-based explanation for how a) the “USA cannot secure basic surface transport from the Green Zone in Baghdad to the Baghdad airport,”:http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/10835370.htm and b) this is proof of improving conditions.
Or convince me that the “downing of a British C-130”:http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,12169265%5E663,00.html portends improvements for our military mission in Iraq.
If you can’t really wrap your head around the fact that a conservative might have grave suspicions about remaking the entire Middle East — especially after the casus belli as presented to the Congress and the people turned out to be bunk — then you need to expand your horizons a bit.
Convince me that the downing of a British C-130 portends improvements for our military mission in Iraq.
There you go, a shot of pure sophistry! I knew you could do it.
“A plane crashed in Iraq, therefore our policy is failing” is not a rational argument. “The Shi’ites might decide to kill all the Sunnis” is not a rational argument. “Everything sucks, and can only get worse” is not a rational argument. Do not expect people here to answer these statements, because there is no refuting obsessive morbid speculations. That’s a job for a physician, not a philosopher.
Besides which, everyone has heard these “arguments” before, after the fall of Marcos, Noriega, the Sandinistas, the Berlin Wall, and the Soviet empire. Somehow the human race has survived all of those potentially disastrous and de-stabilizing events (God save us all from “de-stabilization”, which is apparently worse than genocide) and it’s too late to get any of those things back now. Or Saddam Hussein, either.
How reactionary can you get? (That’s a rhetorical question, not another challenge.)
Didn’t Cole support the war?
Why, yes he did!
So what were Cole and Goldberg actually arguing about? I think it’s Cole’s contention that the 1997 Iranian elections were more democratic than the election in Iraq last week. Anyone want to argue about this instead?
Though I think that’s beside the point anyway, which is that during their disagreement Cole has tried to bully his way by arguing from authority while hurling insults and epithets, while Goldberg stuck to facts and was mostly civil.
Convince me that the downing of a British C-130 portends improvements for our military mission in Iraq.
There you go, a shot of pure sophistry! I knew you could do it.
Um, as a great movie character once said, “I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
Didn’t Sophists try to deny that truth exists? Didn’t they use ingenious arguments to deceive? You might notice that’s not what I’ve been doing. I asked a couple of questions. You have clumsily avoided answering them. They might have answers which would bolster the pro-Bush-Crusade cause. They might not.
The C-130 in question — did you click through? — was, the Brits now think, brought down “when at least six heatseeking SA-18 missiles were fired at it.”
Since we don’t have reliable surface transportation now, the downing of a C-130 poses some interesting new challenges for resupplying our forces. No? If the insurgents can down one (and, by the way, did you notice the losses of a Sea Stallion and a Kiowa just a few days earlier?), they can down more. At the very least this doesn’t sound like “things are getting better.”
But maybe I’m wrong. Use those laser-like insights into the nuances of the Middle East and reassure me.
Cole has tried to bully his way by arguing from authority while hurling insults and epithets, while Goldberg stuck to facts and was mostly civil.
I believe you mean “Goldberg insulted Cole and then grossly oversimplified his comment on the Iranian election”. Cole called Goldberg an ignorant fool, explained why Goldberg was an ignorant fool, and then answered his criticism. Goldberg responds with the equivalent of “I’m right because lots of people agree with me! And I can’t go to war, because they pay cut is just too drastic! Think of my children!”. And on. And on.
This whole sorry mess just reminds me of an old saw about arguing on the Internet and the Special Olympics . . .
Stickler wrote:
But when confronted by two wildly different interpretations, one of which is offered by a Ph.D in the field and one of which is offered by a young beneficiary of nepotism, I’d be tempted to at least hear the Ph.D out.
Exactly. Grownups do not blindly listen to one person or another based solely on one particular qualification. Instead, as human beings we are more or less likely disposed to trust someone’s opinion based on a number of factors, including their experience, education, political allegiances, past statements, and the degree to which their opinion jibes with our own experience. The key is to be mindful of how we prioritize those factors, especially when there’s so much at stake.
Goldberg is a political hack, prone to hyperbole and ad-hominem attacks, whose actual knowledge of the Mideast doesn’t seem to go much beyond kebabs and White House press releases. Cole is a political hack, prone to hyperbole and ad-hominem attacks, who has been studying the Mideast for about as long as Goldberg’s been alive.
Neither is terribly appealing, however Cole actually bothers to put some research into his essays, and some of his opinions jibe with my own experience and knowledge. So I lend his analyses more credence, albeit with a big fat grain of salt.
Finally, to address AL’s original point. I wouldn’t dismiss someone’s pro-war opinion out of hand simply because they refuse to serve in the military. There’s plenty of defensible territory there. But, when someone demands that teenagers die and is unwilling to make even a small sacrifice himself for the same cause (cf. Goldberg’s revealing “pay cut” defense), I’m not too inclined to listen to what they have to say.
Cole didnt noticed world changed. He’s saying that Iranian Elections were free was a Shame, now it’s free to have an election where a Religious court reviews who can and who cant run? Forgeting the intimidation, hack justice and violence by religious police? If a Canadian-Iranian journalist can die because of beating in a jail what can happen to comon people?
Matt McKeon: Cole is a political hack, prone to hyperbole and ad-hominem attacks, who has been studying the Mideast for about as long as Goldberg’s been alive.
So we’re back to the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy again, where we are apparently doomed to remain.
This goes to show that Cole is well on his way to becoming the new Chomsky. Like Chomsky, he will enjoy the invulnerable cloak of alleged authority. The more preposterously biased the claims become, the more the authority will be asserted – along with the incompetence of all criticism. No matter how wildly far removed from reality his judgments prove to be, he will be considered “right” in some way that only he and his sycophants are intelligent enough to understand.
Scientific knowledge which is not combined with a critical scientific approach is worthless. Combined with dogmatic political prejudice (Biology + Bolshevism = Lysenko) it’s worse than useless. That’s why Cole could get thirty-seven more doctorates and still be a fool.
Scientific knowledge which is not combined with a critical scientific approach is worthless.
Ooooh. Good insight! So why don’t we engage in a little “science” here. What facts might you muster to prove that the impending denial of air support to, say, Mosul, is a sign of “improvement?”
Or, maybe, that the election of a Shiite-majority slate is good for American interests?
Mr. McKeon above was more on-point than I was. So to return: Cole has been pessimistic about our chances for success in Iraq. Goldberg has been optimistic. Using actual, verifiable, facts, which of the two might we prove to have been more correct, so far?
Hm?
So, stickler, we have a verifiable hypothesis – that we’re going to see a bunch of airplanes shot down in the next few (weeks? months?). Want to take a stand on that?
I’ll suggest that if the insurgents had the tools (organization, weapons) they’d have shot down a lot more aircraft between April of 03 and today.
So my hypothesis is that we’ll see airplanes shot down – infrequently, and at an ever-slowing pace.
Let’s watch and see who turns out to be correct.
A.L.
Besides which, everyone has heard these “arguments” before, after the fall of Marcos, Noriega, the Sandinistas, the Berlin Wall, and the Soviet empire. Somehow the human race has survived all of those potentially disastrous and de-stabilizing events.
Oh, I can’t resist. Did we hear these arguments after, say, October 1967? We must have, since LBJ and McNamara and Westmoreland used up an awful lot of airtime telling us that victory was just around the corner, and that light was visible at the end of some tunnel or other. Did anybody reassure us that deposing Mossadegh would lead to eternal pro-Americanism in Iran in 1953? Probably. I’ll even bet that the Israeli public heard in the late ’70s that their occupation of south Lebanon would be painless and lead to prosperity and security.
I’ll suggest that if the insurgents had the tools (organization, weapons) they’d have shot down a lot more aircraft between April of 03 and today. So my hypothesis is that we’ll see airplanes shot down – infrequently, and at an ever-slowing pace. Let’s watch and see who turns out to be correct.
And here we have a winner. Yes, this is precisely what I want us to monitor. I have my suspicions, but I’m not wearing camo or shaking sand out of my boots. Nor am I employed in the Pentagon. So I can’t know if my blackest of fears are coming true. This will be one measure.
Criminy sakes. I failed to be precise.
Armed Liberal is exactly correct. If we start losing airplanes (shall we include helicopters, or restrict it to C-130s?), things will be un-improving.
I hope — really hope — that I am wrong, and that Armed Liberal is right, and that things are actually improving in Iraq.
Because the alternative is unremittingly ugly.
I swore off arguing these things – sometimes I just can’t help myself. (Just when I think I’m out A.L. pulls me back in!!! Da*n you A.L.!!)
“Cole delivers a fairly comprehensive verbal whipping to Jonah here”:http://www.juancole.com/2005/02/goldberg-v.html
The chickenhawk thing was only one small part of the verbal sparring between Goldberg and Juan Cole. And no, I don’t agree with Cole’s perspective here – but there is something there.
As Kant has said, “the Idea of the will of every rational being as a will that legislates universal law”. (Third formulation of Categorical Imperative.)
I know that, pro-war or not, there are enough smart, historically minded people who both post and read this site, who do have some sympathy for the Kantian formulation. If something’s right to do, it’s right to do. End of story. Regardless of consequences. It’s not right to expect someone ELSE to do it.
Again, I don’t agree – as life is too complicated to do everything. Specialization must apply.
Nevertheless, it is a little…unseemly. Especially given the feeble excuses Jonah offers, he must feel a little of this as well.
Also, factually, there are a few 40 year olds, and even some 50 year old National Guard members who have been called up recently. So it isn’t as if Goldberg couldn’t go.
Let’s put it another way, so perhaps you will understand – Goldberg COULD have served, the way that NFL star Tillman did – but he chose not to. I don’t blame him that choice, but then he really shoudl dial back on the partisan invective, especially when he has been so gung-ho to “kill people”. Again, why leave to others what you can do yourself?
I don’t think there is a right/wrong answer on the chickhawk thing. More of a continuum, I would suppose. Clearly the position to favor war, cheerlead war, and then not go yourself, isn’t the most admirable thing. (Especially when combined with criticsm of and dismissal of those who HAVE served, their service, just because the one who served has another opinion of things – that’s despicable. But let’s not get into chickenhawks criticizing Kerry, water under the bridge.)
Other points in comments – smart choice about “verifiable hypothesis” – choosing airplanes. But as I’ve commented before, the trends haven’t been good in Iraq. “That can’t be denied, and you can’t have it both ways A.L.”:http://globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm
However, after the Iraqi election, was the 1st time I felt hope, truthfully. We should always feel happy at the exercise of democracy, and I do. And this month (in some ways) is looking better.
JC: I don’t think there is a right/wrong answer on the chickhawk thing.
I’m sorry, but there is. It is the answer of the United States, and of all Western democratic societies: Civilian control of the military. Not military control of the civilian.
We have a complementary rule for civil society: It’s governed by the people, not by experts and self-proclaimed authorities, no matter how smart they think they are.
stickler:
You imply that elections resulting in the political pre-eminence of the Shi’a was inherently a setback for US policy.
Unless the US was to tolerate continued rule by the Sunni/Baathist ascendancy under Saddam, or a ‘Saddam-lite’ rule by military dictatorship or party/communitarian tyrrany, this was inevitable.
Non-sectarian parties were never likely given the history of communal mistrust (to put it very mildly) and the reluctance of significant Sunni elements to participate out of fear of insurgents and/or resentment of loss of an ascendancy they had taken as the natural order of things.
This is a disaster only if you make the assumption that Shi’a dominance inevitably means theocratic fundamentalism; that Shi’a rule = Iraq-as-Iran. This is not necessarily so. There seems no inherent reason why Shi’a should favour religous totalitarianism more than Sunni.
Sistani has proclaimed a distaste for clerical worldly rule, which is actually seems more in keeping with Shi’a and broader Muslim attitudes after the early Caliphates.
In addition, there have been signs from the Shi’a parties that they will take an inclusive attitude to the Sunni in government and constitution drafting.
Sharia law and it’s relation to the contitution will be an issue, inevitably. Though suspicious of adminstration, Muslim clerics were always the main judges and jurisconsults under the system that predominated until after 1918, one largely lacking the Western concepts of the strands of civil, criminal, canon, traditional, Roman, natural and statute law. A Sharia based legal system is something the Shi’a clerical leadership will seek.
However, the absolute incompatibility of a Sharia-based legal system and a state allowing acceptable levels of liberty and democracy is not a foregone conclusion.
Glen Wishard said
So we’re back to the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy again, where we are apparently doomed to remain.
I really don’t think you read anything else in my post.
I’m always amused when somebody whips out an inappropriate and arcane term to make himself seem like a dignified, educated debater. Especially when he or she espouses the particularly nasty and ignorant brand of anti-intellectualism that you seem to have adopted. As you seem to claim that my argument was an appeal to authority, I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote.
I did not say “I accept Juan Cole’s opinion unconditionally because he’s an authority on the Middle East”. I said “I am more willing to read Juan Cole’s articles than Jonah Goldberg’s articles, because Cole has studied the Middle East and Goldberg is a media barnacle”.
Do you reject your doctor’s opinion if he tells you that you need open-heart surgery, but you feel fine? Do you accept his diagnosis uncritically and go under the knife? If you have even a whit of moral responsibility, you do neither. You take his advice seriously, but you also get a second opinion.
JC (#38) linked to Juan Cole’s Tuesday morning post on his spat with Goldberg, as
bq. “Cole delivers a fairly comprehensive verbal whipping to Jonah here”:http://www.juancole.com/2005/02/goldberg-v.html
If you’re interested in Armed Liberal’s original premise in this thread (instead of not-quite-on-topic issues, ahem), check out Cole’s writing, as JC recommends.
All it does is make me wonder whether Cole is as insufferably thin-skinned, pedantic, and prone to ad hominem argument in person as he shows himself to be on the Web. What a misery it would be to sit though a class taught by somebody like that.
Goldberg’s no prize either. He’s made careless accusations that are untrue (e.g. that Cole doesn’t speak Arabic well). Will he offer retractions and apologies? I doubt it.
They are welcome to each other.
Matt McKeon: I’m always amused when somebody whips out an inappropriate and arcane term to make himself seem like a dignified, educated debater. Especially when he or she espouses the particularly nasty and ignorant brand of anti-intellectualism that you seem to have adopted.
Sorry about that – Heaven forfend we should have arcane terminology floating around, when we’re not even talking about Chaos Theory. But nasty anti-intellectualism? Because I point out that we have popular rule, and not rule by elites? Or because I point out that education is not the same thing as wisdom?
Your argument sure looked to me like an appeal to authority, especially after you seconded the way stickler framed the debate: We evaluate Middle East policy by a) believing Cole or b) believing Goldberg. This is, of course, a false and artificial choice. This is not about which of two people we should “believe”, especially when neither of them is a policy-maker and neither of them has access to any relevant knowledge that is not available to everyone else.
This is about Cole’s attempt to settle his dispute with Goldberg by asserting his own credentials, which is intellectually dishonest – and a logical fallacy. He then further maligns Goldberg by calling him a chickenhawk, which is two more fallacies: the chickenhawk fallacy and argumentum ad hominem (since you are amused by Latin, there’s some more for you). To the extent that you defend any of Cole’s three fallacies, you participate in them yourself.
Which I am not accusing you of doing because … I’m not sure what you’re trying to do. In #38 above, you present the argument that Goldberg’s failure to serve in the military violates the Kantian Categorical Imperative. You then said (much to my temporary relief) that you disagreed with this. Rightly so, because it’s a terrible argument – the Categorical Imperative does not call on an individual to act as his own policeman, fireman, or bomb disposal expert. That would make for a lousy universal law, and a lot of people getting hurt trying to do jobs better left to professionals.
But by the end of the comment, you seem to be back with the faulty argument again – “Again, why leave to others what you can do yourself?” – or are you? I don’t know, Matt, because you didn’t make yourself very clear.
But you did say that there is no right or wrong answer to the chickenhawk argument, which is not true. Besides being a fallacy, the chickenhawk argument undermines two vital concepts of the Western democratic tradition – popular sovereignty and civilian rule. It is a profoundly anti-democratic notion. Human intellect can transcend the limits of human experience – if it weren’t so, then all men would be judged solely by the limits of their circumstances and cultures, and human progress is impossible. Rather the opposite of what Martin Luther King correctly believed.
And it relates directly to the fallacy of appeal to authority. It is not “anti-intellectual” to reject the rule of Plato’s Philosopher-King. It reflects a higher wisdom (earned at great cost) which recognizes that the truth is not the exclusive property of elites. For much more about this, consult that old liberal John Stuart Mill.
Glenn,
You are confusing two people – Matt Mckeon and myself.
For myself, I was simply making the point that there is something in the gut that resonates to the idea, “if you believe a war needs to be fought, and you are capable, then you should go out and fight it”. This idea is one of the reasons why we all think what Pat Tillman did is so admirable. And then I tried to trace that idea – somewhat badly – to a formulation by Kant (again, only his formulation).
You actually know there is something to this idea. C’mon, be honest. It goes too far (and I agree) to call people chickenhawks, but hidden within that insult, is a grain of belief that is true, and resonates deeply. You know this. Any good conservative knows this.
To debate my point, by comparing it with “civilian control” of the military is to miss my point entirely.
The only joke of which I’m aware in the massive, dense and highly influential >i>Summa Theologica of the 13th century’s great St. Thomas Aquinas goes more or less like this:
QUESTION: Is argument from authority the weakest form of argument?
RESPONSE: I say that argument from authority is the weakest form of argument. For as Boethius says …..
JC, re: civilian control of the military, don’t underestimate the contribution of DOD civilian employees and their adjuncts in, for instance, the research labs to our military effort. I was talking today with a Lt.Col. (who had been seleted for battalion command a few years ago and declined due to a terminally ill child – but whose selection “below the zone” suggests high regard from superiors. Many O-5s are never offered battalion command; being offered it early is a strong vote of confidence).
The gist of our conversation was how much of the continuity on research programs, execution and policy – during wartime and peacetime – is actually provided by civilians working in the Pentagon and elsewhere.
Now, Goldberg doesn’t fall in that category and I’m not necessarily defending him. Nevertheless, the “chickenhawk” taunt doesn’t impress me much in general, because I know that a lot of civilians play an important role in our defense without ever wearing a uniform.
Just something to toss into the equation.
JC: You are confusing two people – Matt Mckeon and myself.
So I did – I apologize.
You say that there is a grain of truth in the chickenhawk fallacy. Is there a “grain of truth” in the idea that unintelligent or poorly educated people should not be allowed to vote? Not any grain of truth that I respect. Yet it is essentially the same argument.
Going to war is the decision and action of a State – in our case, a democratic State, in which elderly grandmothers and disabled persons enjoy equal participation with everyone else.
To which you might say, “I was talking about Jonah Goldberg, not your grandmother.” That’s where the fallacy comes in: If Proposition X is true, then it is true regardless of whether it is stated by Smith or stated by Jones.
You can say “I respect Jones, but Smith has no business shooting his mouth off,” which tells us nothing except that you don’t like Smith. There’s your grain of truth, for what it’s worth.
Robin Burk:
The only joke of which I’m aware in the massive, dense and highly influential >i>Summa Theologica of the 13th century’s great St. Thomas Aquinas goes more or less like this:
Actually, there are a bunch of jokes in the Summa. The Dumb Ox was a pretty funny guy. The most common joke is when he’ll write Augustinus dixit and follows it with something dumb that both he and his audience knew very well that Augustinus never dixited at all.
Actually, he wrote Augustinus dicit, didn’t he?
#49 – Augustinus dicit …
Dicit is present tense, dixit is perfect tense. Confucius says he could have written it either way.
Yeah, I know. I’ve read chunks of it in the Latin but not for thirty years. So here’s some:
Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, XVI De Trinitate: Huic scientiae attribuitur illud tantummodo quo fides saluberrima gignitur, nutritur, defenditur, roboratur. Hoc autem ad nullam scientiam pertinet nisi ad sacram doctrinam. Ergo sacra doctrina est scientia.
As you can see, he refers to his sources in the present tense.
Hey stickler –
Here it is three weeks later and I’m not aware of any more aircraft being shot down; do you have any news for us, or a comment??
A.L.