That Not So Fine Line Between Nuance and Coherance

Fine Dave.  Just to amuse you, as you have nothing better to do, I'll play along.  After all, I've been itching to take your nuance to task all day.

Shorter Dave Budge:

Others are myopic because they don't see the consequences of losing.  The horror!  (Fear my vocabulary!)

Just so that I don't miss the subtlety of Dave's stance, allow me to characterize his position.  He is conflicted about our occupation in Iraq, as are many, but he feels we must win because it's going to be very bad for our foreign policy if we lose.  Mind you, he has no idea what winning is, except that somehow, Iraq morphs  into the stable democracy that we want it to be.  Is that a fair characterization?  (Consider the irony of that statement for half a second, and I'm certain that we've just crossed that coherence line that Dave was on about.  To put a very fine point on it, our desires mean fuck-all to another country's democratic will.)

Allow me to cast a spotlight on the hidden actor in this play.  What if, just suppose for a second, what if 'winning' isn't an option?  Come on, there's a bunch a' folk out there who've played chess, and having pulled a bold but stupid opening they were doomed to losing from the first or second move.  That's not nuance, or an emotional point of shame; it's just the simple facts of the case.  So, as Dave works through his angst regarding the war we must win, think for a moment about the idea that we have already lost.  To attack Iraq in the first place was the wrong thing to do.  It ensured our failure.  Isn't that a very real possibility?

Don't get me wrong.  Dave's not the only one following this line of 'proud warrior' bullshit, and completely ignoring the idea that we've already lost.   There's Steve, who feels that by God, Jesus and our soldier's valiant efforts, we can accomplish that which ... no one knows how to accomplish.  There's Geeguy, who accepts that we are in a mighty battle against evil.  There is a certain compelling nuance in all of their arguments, yet a complete dismissal that Iraq is a lost fight.  To that degree, they have all lost coherence.  Yeah and holy shit, I'd like to win.  But how?  Show me who to kill, and why I should kill them, and I will.  This isn't subtle.  It's in your face.  Save for one thing, Dave, Steve and Geeguy all have a great point.  The one thing they are all missing is a coherence when discussing reality as opposed to fantasy.

Geeguy links to Jules Crittendon (and what an asshat he is) writing a true fantasy of the State Of The Union address.  In his fever dream, George Bush admits defeat, and it's all our fault.  We fucked it up.  We have no stomach for winning.  Bush picked a fight with a non-enemy, and we are failing to take his back.  Sucks to be us, because we will now have to face the consequences of not supporting our incompetent Bully-In-Chief.  We're wienies who aren't willing to fight, when, God dammit all to hell, we ought to be willing to blow the fuck out of anyone who we want to.  Good God, aren't we just bastards who deserve that we will face consequence for the choices of our elected leaders!

Which brings me back to Dave.  There will be ramifications from our failure to achieve victory in Iraq.  Except that we did achieve victory, it just wasn't as sugary sweet as we thought it would be.  Take out a dictator?  Done.  Have free elections?  Done.  Get what we want?  There's no nuance to that, Dave.  There is only coherence, and to say that we have or will or can is just foolishly incoherent; we will not get what we want, because those people don't share our desires (save perhaps, for peace).  We set the conditions for a civil war.  Now, we are only spectators while others fight it out for control of 'our' destiny.  Prepare for the consequences, because they are coming and no hopeful will is going to alter that outcome.

Face the simple, UN-NUANCED truth.  We didn't poke the cyclops in the eye.  The Fire Giant punched us, so we diddled  the Cyclop's wife, and are now flailing around wondering exactly why his friends (and the Fire Giant's) are all pissed off.  We've already screwed the pooch here.  Notice the past tense, or is that too much nuance?

We can still be a force for good in international affairs.  Crittendon is (a fucking idiot) wrong.  So is that jackass Hanson.  The American people aren't as weak as they would have us believe that we are, and we *are* often willing to do the right thing.  Our current bunch of leaders did the wrong thing, and we're going to have to speak many 'mea culpas' in the future.  Too bad.  The fine line between nuance and coherence is drawn right about the same place dividing those who are adult enough to accept that we screwed up, and those who want  everything to be better if we can just save face (blow enough shit up).

The stakes of the outcome in Iraq are huge.

Yup, that much is very true.   Not very nuanced, is it.

For what it's worth, I'm not very likely to follow whatever ensues from this post until tomorrow.  I'm likely to ignore the liar from Connecticut (by way of Texas) and just play Doom 3 all evening.  To be honest, I'm getting pretty tired of the whole damned blog experience.  Too much ego, too much silly 'gotcha', and too damned little thought for others.  So have fun, Dave.  I hope this was the amusement you so desired. 

Comments

[Gee Guy]

"To be honest, I'm getting pretty tired of the whole damned blog experience. Too much ego, too much silly 'gotcha', and too damned little thought for others."

There's a lot of truth there. And I am as guilty as anyone.

[Justin]

Whatever you do, don't give up the blog experience that you're getting so tired of. I have too many friends that still think "libruls" are the enemy. Guys like you make it a lot easier to prove them wrong.

I do agree however, this war was lost before it was ever started. As far as I'm concerned it's basically another Vietnam, the only winners are the defense contractors. We could've taken out Hussein with a sniper and a single bullet, not a multi billion dollar war, and the results would've been the same: utter chaos and civil war. Western "civilization" has been attempting to meddle in the afairs of the middle east for thousands of years, and in most all cases they've meddled at their peril. Why should George Bush think he's so different? No amount of military might can convince a population dominated by religious fundamentalists, regardless of affiliation, that compromise is in their best interest. Whether Christian, Muslim, or otherwise, fundamentalists do not know the meaning of the word "compromise", and until they do they'll understand nothing but perpetual war and bloody ethnic conflict. The idea that we could march into the streets of Baghdad and change thousands of years of history is ludicrous, or at least it is to people that can think farther ahead than the end of their own peckers. ;)

[Wulfgar]

Guys, thank you very much for the thoughts. Here's the truth of it: for the most part, I'm not very happy with who I am online, anymore. That's why I quit (for the most part) participating at MetaFilter. When I start getting the urge to drive across the state and punch people, it's time to pull back. That's about where I am.

[Steve]

Wulfgar, I finally had a break from work, and find that you have included me in your rant. Thank you, I am indeed honored. However, I disagree with some of your assertions of fact that may not be fact at all. For instance,
"To attack Iraq in the first place was the wrong thing to do. It ensured our failure. Isn't that a very real possibility?"
Umm, I am not sure that I follow your logic. If initiating an attack is an automatic recipe for failure, then no attack can ever be successful. Doesn't seem to be historically true. You seem to argue that illegal intervention in another country is predetermined to fail, and I wonder if you mean Haiti, Bosnia, or Serbia? Although perhaps you are right.
"To put a very fine point on it, our desires mean fuck-all to another country's democratic will." Do you mean to imply that Saddams "reelection was the height of democratic will? Curious, in light of Florida 2000 and the voting machine irregularities in Ohio in 2004. But using your analyses, these must be a true expression of the democratic will. Therefore, you argue in effect that Bush is legitimate, therefore, exercising democratic will of the American people. I would never have thought that you would support that position, but perhaps I am mistaken.
But this is the part that confuses me the most: "as Dave works through his angst regarding the war we must win, think for a moment about the idea that we have already lost." When did we lose? was it when we had the Dunkirk like evacuation from the beaches of Kuwait? Or maybe the surrender of 150,000 troops to al-Zaqarwi? Nope, I just checked the news on that, and it still hasn't happened. While I agree that we need to be specific in our definition of victory, could you please specify what defeat means, and how it was acheived?
Let's address a possibility, a stable and democratic Iraq (I know a fantasy at the moment) and ask the question - is that desirable? If yes, what do we need to do to accomplish that aim.
Alternatively, let's assume a fractured Iraq with continuing sectarian violence. Of what benefit is it to leave that as the status quo? Should we not do everything within our power to prevent just such an occurence, or should we say that it is impossible and we need to move on to Dafur?
Not trying to nitpick or play gotcha, but I don't understand your logic, and think that it succumbs to facts.
Maybe I am wrong, I look forward to your clarifying it for me.

[Wulfgar]

Steve, to be honest, you have to some degree stepped into a pissing match with some history to it. Because of that, I should clarify that our disagreement, yours and mine, boils down to misunderstanding of the difference between 'facts' and 'opinions'. To illustrate, when Hans Blix found no evidence of any Iraqi WMD programs, the President himself poopooed the findings as just Blix's opinion. No, they were facts. So it is with where we stand right now.

Despite mountains of evidence that the Iraq occupation is an overwhelming and lethal waste of time and money, the call goes forth for those oppose the war to 'prove' we can't win. Sorry, but the facts are on my side. Let's take a look:

If initiating an attack is an automatic recipe for failure, then no attack can ever be successful.

That isn't the case, as you point out, because it is a false inference. You can't infer from the instance to the general. I posit that Iraq-Ataq was a failure from the get-go. Back in 2002-2003, there were aq whole lot of very learned people using facts and reasoning to argue that very point. What countered were opinions (Cheney - we'll be greeted as liberators, Wolfowitz - flowers and statues). Thus all arguments became "opinion", even those that weren't.

Do you mean to imply that Saddam's "reelection was the height of democratic will?

No. And that's a pretty lame straw-man. What I argued was very clear: We want Iraq to be Democratic, as long as it suits us. That's self-defeating, hence an "automatic failure". That's kinda what self-defeating means.

But this is the part that confuses me the most: "as Dave works through his angst regarding the war we must win, think for a moment about the idea that we have already lost." When did we lose?

Be confused no more; You yourself specified the moment of defeat. It was when we invaded with a self-defeating goal. Yup, we still have boots on the ground, and we are still fighting. But who is the enemy, at this point? The Shi'ia, the Sunni, the 85% of Iraqis who want us the hell out of their country? Our objective is no more. Which brings me back to my vilification of Dave's heralding of Hanson's quaint little bit of fear-mongering: We *must* continue because things will be bad if we lose. I'm certainly not the only one who's noticed: things are already really fricking bad.

Let's address a possibility, a stable and democratic Iraq (I know a fantasy at the moment) and ask the question - is that desirable?

Yes, absolutely.

If yes, what do we need to do to accomplish that aim.

Please see the post above this one. I did leave out two possible scenarios, however.

1) We bomb them, kill them, destroy them so severely, that all the Iraqis can focus on is animal survival. Peaceful for us; not so much for them. Mission Accomplished (idea circa 1939).

2) We install another dictator, as harsh and brutal as Saddam was, but one friendly to US interests. Just for the record, it is my opinion that, eventially, this is what we will do. If the history of our country is any indication, then this is a given.

Alternatively, let's assume a fractured Iraq with continuing sectarian violence. Of what benefit is it to leave that as the status quo?

Absolutely *none*, so why do it? Again, the real question is avoided, however. Why should we be involved? I can give you 2 exceptional reasons why we shouldn't be.

1) Money. Shitloads and shitloads of money. An increasing amount of that is being borrowed from the Chinese and the House of Saud. Good friends, those, huh? Some evidence suggests that some of that money is being funneled back to terrorists, just so that the money will continue to flow. Now Dave wanted to agree that we would *look like* a paper tiger if we said to Iraq "Piss off. Have your civil war." I would argue that we are a paper tiger for allowing others to manipulate us into bankruptcy, just so that we don't lose face. Actually, I think I did argue that.

2) Our military is over-stretched. This, Steve, is where I took issue with you. I know that the American fighting personel are the best in the world, and they deserve our respect, admiration and support. But they can't go fight in Darfur, or Haiti, or Cuba, or Iran, or even maintain the fight in Afganistan if they are bogged down baby-sitting a civil war in Iraq. Pride doesn't win fights. Resources, logistics and coherent strategy do. It is not a coherent strategy to stay in Iraq until they finally work things out and get their shit together. It's not our fight. It's theirs.

Not trying to nitpick or play gotcha, but I don't understand your logic, and think that it succumbs to facts.

Yet again with the call that I must bow to the facts. Notice, these are the 'facts' that no one has presented. The facts are ... Iraq is a clusterfuck. I continue to await all of these 'facts' that my argument succumbs to.