GWB’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Board »
By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:
(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.
(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.
(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.
(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.
(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.
(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:
(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.
(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.
(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.
(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.
(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.
(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.
(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.
Disclaimer:
--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.
--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.
--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.
--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.
Read and Post at your own risk.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:27 am
Bacevich is a thinking man’s conservative (as opposed to the knee jerk variety) and being familiar with his work and quite fond of it, I found my eyes welling up when I read of his awful loss.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Many will like this, but the chickenhawk argument needs to be brought up. Those most in favor of this MessinPotamia aren’t sacrificing much in the prosecution of this war. This man has lost a son to W’s war, even though he is a harsh critic, his son served his country. What the Bacevich, Webb and McCain families have shown is a love of this country and paid that back with military service. This is in the form of generations serving in the military, regardless of public sentiment of a “just” or “unjust” war. Bacevich’s son and Pat Tilman gave their lives serving in a war that they may have personally opposed. What is the Bush and Cheney family done except posturing on Navy vessels and telling the public to go shopping at the mall. No Victory Gardens or material recycling, just hollow rhetoric about the GWOT. Neil Bush’s son defended W during the Dubai ports conterversy, maybe it’s time for Grampa Geogre and Babs to see their grandsons and granddaughters off in service of their country.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:49 am
I would like to second the praise given Bacevich’s book “The New American Militarism”. Well-focused, and quite harsh, especially since it’s coming from a conservative.
May 15th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Swaraaj -
This was actually a thoughtful link from you for once.
BTW - just to poke a stick at you and reiterate an early point of mine, with the exception of the posts around whether you are biased and posting too much on India, of your last 11 articles, 6 generated 0 replies, and 3 had 2, and 1 had three (this one, and now 4).
May 15th, 2007 at 8:47 am
AR Is it just as bad when the young Dutch lad posts on EU and Holland? With India and Pakistan both nuclear and former combatants, news and opinion over there is just as relevant as the ME.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Rudi - I am just poking fun at Swaraaj, and he brought it upon himself.
I said in the other threads I don’t have a problem with his posting on India, and want him to continue.
My initial reply (that seems to have started this little insignificant firestorm) was just in light of his comment that Americans posted too obsessively about America.
Believe it or not, and despite my snarkiness, I actually like his posts a lot. Not only are the a different view of the world and the US (even if I don’t always agree, and I think he is anti-US), it is not only the information itself, but the style of writing.
He expresses himself with a use of language that at times I find very fascinating, separate from what he is actually saying.
I guess it is similar to my liking Rage Against the Machine as a band, even though I am about as diametrically opposed to the political message of their music as can be.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Just out of curiosity… How does one prove one’s love for America? Or, for that matter, that one is not anti- America?
May 15th, 2007 at 9:33 am
When an American says that he loves his country, he means not only that he loves the New England hills, the prairies glistening in the sun, the wide and rising plains, the great mountains, and the sea. He means that he loves an inner air, an inner light in which freedom lives and in which a man can draw the breath of self-respect. ~Adlai Stevenson
——
America is much more than a geographical fact. It is a political and moral fact - the first community in which men set out in principle to institutionalize freedom, responsible government, and human equality. ~Adlai Stevenson
——
America is a passionate idea or it is nothing. America is a human brotherhood or it is chaos. ~Max Lerner, Actions and Passions, 1949
May 15th, 2007 at 9:46 am
I don’t think this discussion should be had on a comment thread about the death of a soldier or the death of the son of a fine IR scholar.
That said, since it has been engaged now, I’ll state the test that I think differentiates when someone is biased. Basically, it is a test of consistent application of standards of judgment. If someone uses standards of judgment when judging one actor that are more harsh or even contradictory with the standards they use in judging another actor, then that person can be fairly seen as biased in their judgment.
Do I think Swaraaj is biased against the United States? Sometimes, yes. I’ve seen several posts from Swaraaj (who posts an exceedingly large number of posts on this site, a prolific nature that tends to exaggerate the impact of any perceived bias) that display a pattern of inconsistent and even contradictory standards used in judging the behavior of U.S. actors versus other actors.
Does bias = anti-Americanism? I think they differ in degree. Bias against the United States need not necessarily go to the degree of actually wishing harm upon the country or its citizens. I don’t think there is any evidence that Swaraaj wishes harm on the United States or its citizens. My perception of Swaraaj’s errors in judging the behavior of the United States and its officials is based on intellectual differences, not moral condemnation (at least from my side).
May 15th, 2007 at 9:54 am
BTW, Rudi, Pat Tillman volunteered explicitly and intentionally for the war in which he was killed — Afghanistan.
You also have no evidence that Bacevich’s son opposed the Iraq war. As the Cindy Sheehan roadshow fiasco has shown, the beliefs of the parents do not always reflect the beliefs of their children. Fortunately, I think it is unlikely that Bacevich will appropriate his son’s sacrifice into his personal political agenda like Sheehan did. I certainly think you should avoid assuming that linkage.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:56 am
It blows my mind how threads can go haywire. This thread began innocently with praise for a fine scholar who, from all accounts, has lost a fine son, and has now degenerating into name calling.
Can’t we have some respect for the dead?
May 15th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Shaun - you are correct. This was a particularly inappropriate post for me to use as a platform to poke fun at Swaraaj. I apologize.
May 15th, 2007 at 10:26 am
JS - Bacevich Sr is who I claim ti be a critic of the war. Webb of Virginia is also a strong critic, who had an altercation with W over his sons service in Iraq. I am only making the point that critics of the war send their sons to fight in Iraq, to continue a family tradition of military service. I also recall the Tillman family speak in front of a Congressional hearing speaking of their families military involvement. The Webb and Bacevich families show more patriotism, courage and sacrifice than the families that orechstrated(sp) the war. The Cheney deferments and W’s National Guard record says it all…
May 15th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Rudi, that argument only works if you are selective about choosing your data. There are a lot of pro-war people who actually do have a personal connection to the military and there are a lot of anti-war people who have avoided military service.
Are you seriously trying to make the argument that the only people who can speak an opinion about the war are those who have a personal military connection? Or are you trying to make the argument that the only people who can be pro-war are those who have a personal military connection?
And are either of those arguments that you really want to be called upon to defend all their implications?
Maybe the whole “chickenhawk” theme is nothing but a BS way to try to skew the debate anyway. Let’s try dealing with the arguments instead of trying to ad hom away all opposition, ok?
May 15th, 2007 at 11:03 am
JS - I have relatives and friends who fought in Vietnam, Korea and WWII. Those who fought and seen the carnage of war aren’t nearly as cavilier as the pro war crowd who loves any war to prove the US superiority over others. Those who have been shot at or seen someone die are more circumspect about war than a Poderhortz, Boot or Hansen.Galloway writes about the actual war experience, the others talk about “soft soldiers sipping lattes”.
May 15th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Rudi, I don’t disagree with your observation that some pro-war types are trivial and/or ignorant. What I reject is your extension of that observation to the assumption that all pro-war advocates that don’t have a personal connection to the military must also be trivial and/or ignorant.
I also don’t think that triviality or ignorance is unique to the pro-war side. I’ve seen lots of triviality and ignorance from anti-war types as well.
I did 15 years in the military and, while it did not include combat, it did instill a measure of understanding for what combat soldiers have to go through. But I also found that the combat soldiers themselves are generally contemptuous of the trivialities of both pro-war and anti-war varieties.
So let’s focus on rejecting trivialities and ignorance generally instead of only from one side, ok?
May 15th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Oh, BTW, it is simply not true that the entire “pro war crowd” is comprised of people who “loves any war to prove the US superiority over others”. If that is what you think is the totality of all the various pro-war positions, then you haven’t been listening very well.
May 15th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Jason:
May I respectfully submit as an antiwar war veteran that you put a cork in it and say a prayer in memory of Andrew Bracevich? It probably won’t feel as good as flapdoodling, but perhaps would be more appreciated by those of us horrified by this turn of events.
May 15th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Wait, Shaun, you’re saying that the meaning you extract from this death is that anti-war people get to keep talking (and using the death for their own purposes) but that those who might disagree with them in any small degree should “put a cork in it”?
Very nice.
You have no knowledge about what prayers I may already have said. You also have no evidence about what my personal reaction to this event was. If you did know, you would also know how completely offensive your personal attack on me is.
May 15th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Jason:
May I respectfully submit as an antiwar war veteran that you put a cork in it and say a prayer in memory of Andrew Bracevich? It probably won’t feel as good as flapdoodling, but perhaps would be more appreciated by those of us horrified by this turn of events.
May 15th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I went off on a little tangent, I thought the posts by J Cole and the Critter to be tacky. The Critter post was both tacky and self absorbed. Bacevich looses a son and Critter injects his 11 year old into the discussion. I hope the lad doesn’t sprain an ankle playing soccer, we’ll have to send your condolences, even if they aren’t welcome.
May 15th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Sorry, Shaun, you can spam all you want, but you don’t get to order people to shut up according to your whims. You don’t own this event, this thread, this issue, or this site.
I admire Dr. Bacevich more than you could possibly know. I mourn the loss of his son more than you know or care about. This event changes my thinking about the war more than I expected and more than you know or care about.