politburo diktat 2.0

libarbarian wrote:

The fact that she is apparently an expert on counterinsurgency doctrine doesn’t mean she can’t hold dovish and idealist policy positions as the article argues.

Oh, come on.

If Dean Barnett wanted to make that point he could have made it. He could have acknowledged her work and then said what you just said.

The fact that he chose to ignore her credentials, entirely omitting any discussion of her experiences other than being a “Disarmament Activist”, indicates to me that he had no desire to make a logical case on the merits but was instead playing the propagandist and trying to just conjure up stereotypes of mushy-headed peaceniks in the minds of his readers.

Posted 28 Mar 2008 at 2:50 pm ¶

David C. wrote:

indicates to me that he had no desire to make a logical case on the merits but was instead playing the propagandist and trying to just conjure up stereotypes of mushy-headed peaceniks in the minds of his readers.

Well, he is a propagandist. The Weekly Standard makes no claims to objectivity. But you seem to be reading too much into it and making unwarranted assumptions. The way I read it is that he lumped her into a foreign policy category as someone who represents a particular school of thought. The fact that she wrote the intro to the U.S. counterinsurgency manual means precisely nothing, with regard to whether or not she holds policy positions that fit Barnett’s characterization.

David is “just one of those high-minded Neocons whose comments evidence a certain fondness for hawkish unrealism.”

If I was part of loose group of foreign policy experts that advocated certain right-wing positions, I could see opponents making that sort of argument. And if I had written the intro to something like “Multilateral Intervention: A Manual for U.N. Peacekeeping Force Organization”; it would have nothing in particular to do with whether or not my opponents’ criticism was valid. I could still hold unrealistic, hawkish neo-con policy views, while also being an expert on U.N. peacekeeping operations.

Posted 28 Mar 2008 at 5:54 pm ¶

libarbarian wrote:

Well, he is a propagandist. The Weekly Standard makes no claims to objectivity.

I am aware - my point is based on it.

But you seem to be reading too much into it and making unwarranted assumptions.

I think you have it backwards. I think you are the one who is reading more into it.

It appears to me that you are reading a level of thoughtfulness into what Dean Barnett said that simply isn’t there. Just because an argument can be made that a person who has experience or knowledge which caused her to be selected to help author the CI-Manual doesn’t mean that she can’t hold dovish and idealist policy positions, doesn’t mean the author was making it.

The author in question is a propagandist writing for a propaganda outfit. What he wrote corresponds exactly to the characteristics of a piece of cheap propaganda which includes only details that serve the purpose of making her look like a dovish idealist and leaves out details, even relevant ones, that might serve to undermine this image.

There is NO evidence that Dean Barnett was just using simple language to convey a more complex reality and I think there is every reason to think that he was using simple language because his reasoning (and underlying worldview) is simplistic - “She was for disarmament therefore she is a liberal hippie idealist therefore Obama must be equally soft-headed to listen to such a leftwing peacenick. QED.”

Posted 28 Mar 2008 at 6:31 pm ¶

David C. wrote:

I think you have it backwards. I think you are the one who is reading more into it.

It appears to me that you are reading a level of thoughtfulness into what Dean Barnett said that simply isn’t there.

You may be right. And he may be totally mischaracterizing Sewall’s views. But when I read it it seemed that he was just acting as if Sewall’s position are well-known.

My point is that if he wanted to make that argument he could have. He could have said “She helped write the CI-Manual but … “ and then offered a quick explanation on why it doesn’t necessarily counter the idea that she is a dovish idealist.

True, but it’s a short article and Sewall is only one of the three advisors he mentioned. I think he was trying to make his overall point, which he goes into more detail on with regard to Samantha Power than with Sewall.

And really my only issue with Stephen’s post, is the idea that her authorship of the counterinsurgency manual somehow negates Barnett’s argument.

Posted 28 Mar 2008 at 8:40 pm ¶

David C. wrote:

Stephen,

The funny thing is, when I first read your post I was all set to agree with you. I looked up Sewall’s bio and saw that it was even more impressive than just writing the counterinsurgency manual. But then I read Barnett’s article and it just seemed to me that he was attacking her broader policy ideas (in conjunction with the positions of Obama’s other foreign policy advisors), making the “gotcha” thing about the counterinsurgency manual irrelevant to his actual argument. That and I’m the naturally argumentative type who often argues based on points of emphasis and detail :).

As for Basra, I’m not sure we have enough information yet to make any really solid analysis. I view it primarily as a question regarding the performance of the Iraqi military/security forces. In my opinion, the key to stabilizing Iraq to the point where we can take a backseat supporting role, depends on the establishment of an effective Iraqi military that can control its own country — or at least largely fight its internal enemies with much less U.S. assistance.

If the Iraqi military operation is successful and they can establish government control over the Basra region, I view that as a major step forward. On the other hand, the fighting in that area has the potential to destabilize other areas — as we are seeing in Sadr City. I think this article in the Washington Post is a pretty good summary of the situation. I guess my current postion on it could be summarized as: It’s a positive sign that the Iraqi’s are actually able to take a lead role and launch a major operation of their own — as long as the whole thing doesn’t blow up in their faces.

Posted 29 Mar 2008 at 8:17 am ¶

canuckistani wrote:

As others have pointed out elsewhere, if violence goes up, it’s proof the Surge is working, and if violence goes down, it’s proof the Surge is working.
I’m just basking in the memories of being told that Basra is the model community where all Iraqis have learned to live in peace together under their own police and that other Iraqi cities would be following that pattern.
Is there anything the neocons can’t get wrong?
Maybe - just maybe - and to tie in the post subject - the lefties who don’t like war are the ones who know what they’re talking about.
Naah. Actually, we just hate America.

Posted 29 Mar 2008 at 9:18 am ¶