Go to Making Light's front page.
Forward to next post: Journalism
Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)
There’s been a huge flap in the blog world over Kos’s (of The Daily Kos) lack of sympathy for the four mercenaries who were recently killed, incinerated, and dismembered in Iraq. Partly this was because they were mercenary security personnel, and Kos, who grew up in El Salvador, has no reason to think well of contract mercenaries as a class. Partly it was because five members of the regular US ground forces in Iraq were killed the same day, but got no attention paid to them. Kos is former U.S. military. It would bother him.
What I wanted to say was that I heard the news about the four mercenaries getting torched from an old friend of mine who’s former career US military himself, and has experience in field operations in areas where mercenaries are also active. My friend, who normally laments each new report of casualties in Iraq, was not all that concerned about the well-being of a bunch of contract mercenaries in Iraq. “Maybe it was retaliation for something they did,” he said, “but maybe it was random, and they’d have done the same to any foreign military coming along that stretch of road just then.” He also observed that “Contract mercenaries are the guys you use to do the stuff the regular military refuses to do,” but that the regular military gets blamed for it.
Kos and my friend have a right to their opinions. Besides, they know a lot more about this than I do.
The “independent contractors” scene from Clerks keeps going through my head.
If you haven’t seen it, here’s the script. Search for the phrase “cup of joe”, and read down from there.
Partly it was because five members of the regular US ground forces in Iraq were killed the same day, but got no attention paid to them. Kos is former U.S. military. It would bother him.
Except that the reason the killings in Fallujah got more press is not because contrac workers/mercenaries were killed, but because of what happened to their bodies afterwards. It's the same reason the killings in Mogadishu got covered the way they did.
And while your friend is entitled to his opinion, it's worth noting that from everything I've heard the men who were killed were providing security for a convoy of trucks delivering food to the Iraqis.
Oh, and you should check out Phil Carter's blog. He's got some interesting posts up about the issues surrounding contract workers in Iraq; apparently the government requires the civilian companies it's contracting with in the reconstruction to provide their own security (although the government pays for it). Apparently the civilian companies are looking for ex-special operations forces veterans, and are willing (and able) to pay far more than the Army. As a result, it's entirely possible that a number of veterans who might otherwise re-up with the military are signing on as private security.
Whether they were mercenaries or missionaries, soldiers or social workers, they were killed horribly and their corpses terribly violated. None of us can see into the hearts of the dead men to discern whether they deserved such a fate, but all of us should fear the kind of mob mentality reflected in the gleeful faces of the men and boys who committed these crime.
I'm former U.S. military too, and that's my two cents worth...
The dextral side of the blogosphere is gleefully using Kos's gaffe--since he's apparently repudiated the words he used, if not so much the sentiment, "gaffe" is pretty appropriate--anyway, the sorts of people who oh so helpfully point out to Democrats they steps they should take to run a "better" campaign are howling for Kos's head, and Democratic apparatchiks are all too ready to hand it over. --So much for the Popular Front.
The problem with arguing
Kos and my friend have a right to their opinions
is that it makes it look as if there's another side to the argument.
NO ONE, to the best of my knowledge, has ever argued that Kos and others don't have the right to their opinions. Some of us just argue that those opinions are nasty, cold-hearted, and wrong.
See also: Atrios' recent post on this and his link to Mark Stoller's statement:
I'm going to describe a character assasination attempt, the first one of import, in the blogosphere. This is a complicated story. It involves exploiting a heavily reactionary media environment to strike at speech for political purposes. It reveals a bipartisan problem, because blogs carry some characteristics that make them uniquely vulnerable to exploitation. And it's something that's going to happen, again and again, to both Republicans and Democrats, because of the surfeit of information and mainstreaming of online politics.
Whatever you feel about Kos' retracted statement, I think it's a mistake to let Bush advocates turn it into a talking point for their campaign. The Bush campaign has begun to show a certain amount of fear over the Blogosphere similar in kind, if not in degree, to their fear over Richard Clarke's testimony. They're attempting to apply the same smear-innuendo-outrage tactics to weblogs.
Followed their mercenary calling,
And took their wages, and are dead.
What is the class of contract mercenaries?
Who is the you in "the guys you use"?
I think the US has gone entirely too far with outsourcing the military.
Sure, it started with outsourcing food service to civilians, and maybe that made sense (though I could make a good argument that it makes no sense at all). Then we had the civilian techreps tagging along to keep the more advanced gear working. But then there's outsourcing security and front-line combat to civilians, and that goes beyond the pale. We're giving military missions to people who aren't in the chain of command, who don't fall under the UCMJ, who have a murky legal status, who answer to, who are accountable to ... who? If the taxpayers are paying for them in any case (at inflated rates, I might add), the troopers with firearms in a combat zone should be people who stuck their hands in the air and swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, and are legally held accountable for doing just that.
Security is the legitimate concern of the state, and, in my opinion, the state is the sole legitimate source of lethal force.
Requiring contractors to provide their own armed security brings us back to the railroads and coal companies hiring Pinkertons. That had a horrifying enough history that it should lead us to think twice, then three times, before commiting similar mistakes now in a foreign land.
Clark --
Houseman was talking about a 'mercenary army' in the sense of one that is enlisted on terms of being paid a salary, rather than one enlisted on the basis of concern for some civil duty or noble passion, or one socially constructed by a means involving land tenure and social class.
Specifically, he meant the Edwardian Imperial British Army, the one that got itself killed in 1914 holding the line in France for long enough for the mass volunteer army to get put together and shifted in behind it.
There was a lot of late Victorian controversy over having a (nominally) class blind army; the reforms involved were in part opposed on the basis that such an army would lack the proper motivation, and refuse to fight at any excuse.
So despite Dickson's use of it in the Dorsai books, the Houseman poem isn't really about what Machiavelli or modern usage would describe as a mercenary; it's an ironic remnant-feudal use, addressing a viewpoint where war is a class-linked trade and not a profession. (A viewpoint Houseman is kicking in, at best, the shins.)
In Kos' case, I figure a Salvadoran has an involuntarily earned complete pass on anything he cares to say about the presumed motives and putative conduct of mercenaries paid for by American money.
In the specific case, well, look, it's not like mutilating the corpses is surprising. It's not even (to my mind) a big deal; it's one of the things that traditionally happens in every culture, and something Americans have engaged in from time to time. It's no more disturbing than what people look like after DPICM hits them, and certainly not as disturbing as traditional Afghan tribal practise, which involves keeping the victim alive for a day or so.
Being assaulted by a mob is one of the things that happens, will happen, that you certainly choose to have happen when you start that kind of war and engage in that sort of occupation. It's a predictable, straightforward part of the butcher's bill. (And I doubt this is the first time it's happened, too; I think it's just the first time the video footage has escaped American censorship and been seen by a wide audience.)
BushCo have been cranking up the pressure on this particular powder keg for months, in a display of military incompetence unequalled in US history. Should it stop venting and become a general uprising, as it increasingly has the potential to become, it's going to result in the destruction of the majority of the combat power of the US Army.
Any idiot can see this happening. Minimal competence would take steps to address it. Instead, we've got a bunch of the sort who benefited heavily from the introduction of Velcro shoe closures yeeking about barbarity as a distraction from their incompetence.
A barbarity they themselves chose -- along with a great many others -- when deciding to support an unjust, aggressive war irrelevant to the actual security concerns of the United States.
Just for the record, I don't think anybody deserves to be shot dead and have their corpse defiled. As I observed at the time, they may have been mercenaries or contract employees or whatever, but they had mothers and sweethearts and other people who loved them.
Also for the record, I think if I'd grown up in El Salvador and then served honorably in the regular US military, as Kos did, I might well have said something very much like what Kos said.
Also for the record, it was a dumb thing for him to say and he took too long to climb down from it.
Also for the record, very few of the people acting as if Kos had personally defiled the Statue of Liberty have the moral standing to shine Kos's shoes.
Also for the record, I think the Kerry campaign is being foolish, but to Kip Manley I'll remark that the "Popular Front" concept means that sometimes the people you ally with will do things you think are stupid. If it's "so much for the Popular Front" every time that happens, it wasn't much of a front. The reason I'm for Kerry and expect to continue being for Kerry isn't because I think the Kerry campaign "deserves" my support. It's because I think I deserve to live in a country not run by the Bush gang. As I keep saying, we're not fighting for a liberal utopia; we're fighting for the re-establishment of normal American political life, which compared to what's now happening to our country seems like a pretty worthwhile goal, complete with all its uncomfortable compromises and corruptions.
We're busy this weekend. Very likely I'll have more to say about this in a bit. Meanwhile, a big "what he said" to Atrios, and I'm definitely going to be thinking over the changes he's instituting.
"Kos and my friend have a right to their opinions. Besides, they know a lot more about this than I do."
Certainly. Kos has every right to say that the multilation and murder of four men causes him to feel nothing, and to say "screw them". Even if his reaction depends on not anything the men did but just which legal occupation they belong to. I'm sure you'll take the same open-minded attitude to similar comments about spammers, trial lawyers, tax collectors and teacher's union officials.
It seems obvious to me that "contract security" is as much a euphemism for mercenary now in Iraq as "special volunteer" was a euphemism for mercenary in the Congo in 1964.
We as a people should be questioning the reason we are employing troops who need to operate under a euphemism.
One reason these people are being employed at all could be that Rumsfeld is discovering that our allies aren't hurrying to provide troops and that the UN isn't interested in hauling our steaks out of the fire, while Gen. Eric Shinseki was quite right when he predicted the force level that would be required. Rumsfeld is trying to cover his own errors by hiring "contract security."
Pith does not necessarily equal communication, and short and pointed does not necessarily equal pith, and evolving circumstances notwithstanding, anyone who's kept in mind my cantankerous voting history is certainly spot-on in reading what I said as "Pfft! I'm taking my ball and going home, since once again the Democrats have failed to live up to my ideals," when what I really meant was, "Given the way the rules on this one have been drawn up by the other side, anybody hanging Kos out to dry has pretty much given up on the Popular Front, and boy does that seem like a stupid idea, hence my snarky dismissiveness."
I hesitate to tinker with perfection, but maybe we need a corollary? "Just because you're on their side, doesn't mean they have any idea you're on their side"? Atrios has a good point about how Kerry himself almost certainly has no idea this controversy is brewing (yet), so boy, is it dumb to blame him. --"Just because they aren't on your side doesn't mean you don't have good reasons to be on their side for the next few months"? I pretty much decided I wouldn't vote for Kerry when he came out in favor of amending the Massachusetts constitution to forbid same-sex marriage (but allow civil unions, yes yes). But I have every reason in the world to want to consign Bushco to the outer darkness; that desire will almost certainly in November translate to my blackening the bubble next to Kerry's name.
So maybe I'm not the best cheerleader for said Front. But whatever happens, this attempt to villify Kos and any campaign contributions from Kos's site and by extension Kerry has got to be stomped and stomped hard. There's outrage brewing, but we need some kind of full-court press or some other sports metaphor, stat. In a sane universe, the Democratic party as currently constituted would make a perfectly respectable opposition party for the sort of stuff I'd like to see happen. --But we've got to get to that sane universe first, agreed.
(And really, I don't mind being held up as an object lesson here. It's an important lesson.)
Gareth Wilson addresses Teresa:
"Kos has every right to say that the multilation and murder of four men causes him to feel nothing, and to say 'screw them'. Even if his reaction depends on not anything the men did but just which legal occupation they belong to. I'm sure you'll take the same open-minded attitude to similar comments about spammers, trial lawyers, tax collectors and teacher's union officials."And I'm sure that the right-wing bloggers and pundits who have been piling on to Kos will of course repudiate eliminationist rhetoric whenever it emits from one of their own, like for instance Bill O'Reilly's recent call for a "final solution" in Fallujah.
Or all those lovely remarks from the Reverend Moon recently, delivered to adoring audiences of right-wing lobbyists and congressmen, about how we'll be "solving" the "problem" of homosexuality shortly, just as soon as the Reverend achieves his God-given destiny as overseer of the nations of the earth. I trust the weblogs of the Right will be all over this.
I'm certainly sure that highly placed officials in the Bush Administration would never appear on radio shows hosted by people with years-long records of race-baiting and bigotry. Indeed, I'm quite sure that Republicans, conservative webloggers, and the White House will be very careful never to associate with, or link to, people who talk freely and enthusiastically about killing overseas civilians, or blowing up the New York Times, or forcibly converting other countries to Christianity. Or people who put up a picture of a thirteen-year-old girl and compare her jokingly to a dog.
Because of course the political Right in this country is so very, very careful to police itself and dissociate itself from extremist or violent sentiments. So naturally it's incumbent on every single liberal in America, certainly including every weblogger and political campaign, to get out there and grovel if one single prominent person says one single dumb thing.
Oh wait. No, I don't think that at all.
Hey, come to think of it, neither do you.
Nice try, though.
These are asides, no doubt including run-on sentences. I do not mean them to be particularly argued. I intend rather to point out or acknowledge differences of something - framing or perspective perhaps.
Oh surely not military incompetence unequalled in all of U.S. history? - I'd vote for MacArthur but I'm not that sure myself.
I'd argue too that as usual with contractors or industrial temps the pay is reasonable and total cost not so bad. I wonder am I to take it that there exists a fair rate?
(fair as distinct from market of the sort people often mean when they call the market rate price gouging)
The published figures often encompass housing allowance, mess and uniform and all the rest - medical and family allowance and transient housing, space available transportation and many more things. With contractors there is an automatic cut-off and cheap readjustment.
That is doing it with expanding and contracting regular forces (with all the politics of base siting, growth and closures) may well be the better way to go. Using reservists implies more casualties than using regulars; not using reservists implies more deaths too. Reservists make delays inevitable; delays mean deaths. (you can't win, you can't break even and you can get killed sitting the game out)
Who would argue for snatching critical skills with a draft and plunging them immediately into this or any conflict?
I suggest the contractor pay is not exorbitant in the marketplace under the circumstances. Given cost to train, a fair rate might well match a private practice dentist in a well set-up office with 3 chairs and a hygienist don't you suppose?
Defining a mercenary or what the regular military refuses to do might be an interesting historical exercise. Notice the folks in the Dock in France for actions performed in one uniform (perhaps not an Army uniform but how else to describe it?) at Oradour-sur-Glane were mostly active duty French Army at the time of trial.
Abraham Lincoln Brigade good; contract security bad?
Kos and my friend have a right to their opinions
Why, yes. Just as Ann Coulter has the right to say all liberals are traitors, Fred Phelps has the right to say that gays are evil and should burn in hell, George Bush Sr. has the right to say that atheists aren't really citizens....
You're deflecting the point of the discussion by raising an argument nobody made--whether or not a person "has a right" to a particular opinion. The question is not the right to hold opinions, it's the quality of the opinion.
I'm rather disappointed in the retreat to such a flimsy rhetorical trick.
There's another little something here, on which Body and Soul recently touched: why is the nation that wields the single greatest, the most overwhelmingly unopposable military force in the world hiring itself a bunch of Myrmidons? I can think of no clean reason not to do military jobs with military personnel, but I can think of plenty of dirty ones. Much the same goes for requiring civilian contractors to provide their own security.
There's a difference between saying "X has no right to this opinion" and "X is being stupid." I read a little of the flameup on Kos and some people went way beyond "X is being stupid."
There's also a difference between saying something and saying it in a specific context. Coulter can say whever she wants on her TV show. Phelps goes way over the line when he spews hatred at people's funerals, as he is wont to do (like picketing the very straight, very Presbyterian minister Fred Rogers for daring to say "I like you just the way you are.").
The so-called Kerry blog dumped Kos off the blogroll for that statement, whereupon Atrios announced a new policy. He wrote and asked to be removed from the blogroll at the blog site, and while he will urge donations, he closed the account at the Kerry campaign that would track donations through his blog.
Basically, if the so-called Kerry blog lets right wing astroturf affect their behavior, Atrios is not willing to be directly associated -- he'd rather have his freedon of speech.
You know, the right never feels disgraced by hate speech from its supporters. It would behoove the Democrats not to yield to demagogues, because it is that sort of yielding and oversensitivity that gets them branded as weak.
Howard Dean! The spine transplant is being rejected! Help!
Scorpio
Eccentricity
But that's exactly the point. Saying that somebody "has a right to his/her opinion" is a dodge--it throws up an argument nobody has made as a distraction, and fails to address the actual criticism, e.g. whether the argument is stupid, venal, expressed in an unacceptable manner, or what have you.
I'm sure Phelps's supporters offer the same "right to his opinion" comment to divert criticism of the real issue, namely his inexcusable protest tactics.
Issues about how paleocons on the other end of the spectrum would never apologize for their outrageous crap, or how criticism of Kos went over the line, are entirely separate issues. They do not address the point of whether liberals should be condemning Kos and whether his opinion is justifiable.
And because I just can't keep up:
You know, the right never feels disgraced by hate speech from its supporters.
So we should sink to their level?
I tried looking back through the Daily Kos to find the commentary in question, but I'm not able to locate it, unless it's the bit where he (Kos) discusses the reasons why hiring mercenaries in a war like this (impunity, etc) seems like a questionable practise. Which post was it precisely?
(BTW, Kos's comments, while they sound a little incendiary based on what I've heard, hold no candles to some of the opinions I've seen out there. Suffice it to say, there are supposed doves out there that look like utter shitheads. As Patrick notes, nobody deserves to be shot dead and have their corpses defiled in such a manner.)
Speaking of independant contractors, we just learned that my BF's dad (ex-military, but currently a civilian) is likely headed to Iraq to work on the water supply and filtration systems there. He might be there for as long as two years, and I worry about him going over there, particularly reading stories like this in the news. Sigh.
Scorpio said:
The so-called Kerry blog dumped Kos off the blogroll for that statement, whereupon Atrios announced a new policy. He wrote and asked to be removed from the blogroll at the blog site, and while he will urge donations, he closed the account at the Kerry campaign that would track donations through his blog.
Basically, if the so-called Kerry blog lets right wing astroturf affect their behavior, Atrios is not willing to be directly associated -- he'd rather have his freedon of speech.
Well, actually, that's more or less the opposite of what Atrios actually said, which was, if the right-wingers are going to be able to hold John Kerry accountable for every thing said by any blogger who accepts John Kerry's paid ads, Atrios thinks it would be better for John Kerry if Eschaton put some distance between itself and the Kerry campaign.
So, same effect, completely different motivation.
Deprived of context
That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.
.....
Unlike the vast majority of people in this country, I actually grew up in a war zone. I witnessed communist guerillas execute students accused of being government collaborators. I was 8 years old, and I remember stepping over a dead body, warm blood flowing from a fresh wound. Dodging bullets while at market. I lived in the midsts of hate the likes of which most of you will never understand (Clinton and Bush hatred is nothing compared to that generated when people kill each other for politics or race or nationality). There's no way I could ever describe the ways this experience colors my worldview.
No need to say that my mindreading skills are lacking - not all fan are Slans - but from what I knew of Blackwater before this happened I would not say the dead were trying to make war for profit. For fun and for free maybe, that I might say. There may well be merchants of death in the world just as there are merchants of oil for palaces. I doubt the DLI type is merchants of death though I don't doubt they dealt in it.
The problem with "contract security" is that it's a vague term. It could mean anything from the guy who keeps hackers off your hard drive, to the rent-a-cop down at the mall, all the way to the paramilitaries and the esquadrones de muerte. It's amorphous. One group sees "contract security" and imagines the rent-a-cop, another sees "contract security" and imagines Mad Mike Hoare. Who the hell knows what Rumsfeld thinks when he imagines "contract security"?
Kos seems to look at "contract security" and see death squads. Teresa's friend seems to look at "contract security" and see "deniable black ops."
Were the men in Iraq either kind of thing? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it is not a good thing for a major democracy to leave that question open in its own citizens' minds, let alone the minds of the rest of the world.
Clark --
MacArthur had big holes in his head, but he had a notion of objective, and I don't think he ever expected -- metaphorically or literally -- a man he'd just kicked in the balls to thank him.
The entire BushCo Iraq strategy is predicated on the idea that if they just kick the Iraqis hard enough, the Iraqis will learn to say thank you.
The problem with a mercenary is that they're responsible for their conduct, not the contracting power. Avoiding the appearance that this a desirable thing is supposed to prevent respectable governments from hiring any.
Kos and my friend have a right to their opinions. Besides, they know a lot more about this than I do.
This seems to me as if the word "earned" belongs between "have" and "a."
In other news, seven US troopers died today, in rioting and insurrection by the Shiites of Iraq.
I seem to recall that the Shiites, if no one else, were supposed to be the big supporters and beneficiaries of the US invasion. They're also unlikely to number a lot of unreconstructed Baathists.
Unless I'm wrong about this, the rioting today is a result of the arrest of a Shiite cleric's deputy, an arrest at first denied then confirmed by the US. That arrest followed the cleric's declaration that he was now the sword of Hamas and Hezbollah, or words to that effect.
I'd been under the impression that one of the goals of the invasion was to create a stable, secular, pro-Israel state in Iraq.
I don't see how the current situation is any kind of a step on that path.
This seems to me as if the word "earned" belongs between "have" and "a."
So, what, those of us who haven't served in the military can't criticize Kos in this situation?
I said:
[snip]
Basically, if the so-called Kerry blog lets right wing astroturf affect their behavior, Atrios is not willing to be directly associated -- he'd rather have his freedon of speech.
Kevin Maroney replied:
Well, actually, that's more or less the opposite of what Atrios actually said, which was, if the right-wingers are going to be able to hold John Kerry accountable for every thing said by any blogger who accepts John Kerry's paid ads, Atrios thinks it would be better for John Kerry if Eschaton put some distance between itself and the Kerry campaign.
So, same effect, completely different motivation.
True enough either way. They can't pin an Atrios misstatement on Kerry that way -- it leaves Atrios the freedom to err without making any backlash point directly to the Democratic campaign.
What Kos said would not have reflected there if they had not taken that reflection upon themselves by listening to the outraged wingnuts.
No, we don't have to sink as low as Republicans who shelter Coulter and Limbaugh and Phelps, but we don't have to go bat$hi+ and act like Kos has cooties, either.
I don't really *care* what nutcases "hold Kerry accountable" for -- but if making a case out of plastic flowers is your thing, if you feel a need to answer every poo-bit that their two-year-old games playing raises -- well, have at, and excuse me while I tune you out.
Scorpio
Eccentricity
Those who weren't in El Sal during the 1980s shouldn't criticize the visceral reaction to the phrase "contract security" that Kos seems to have.
When I see "contract security" I think of a local man I know who is, at the very minute, gearing up to leave his home and his life here for a one year contract in Iraq to provide protection for a technical crew there, and also to provide financial security (read "pay off the mortgage" here) for his family.
No, we don't have to sink as low as Republicans who shelter Coulter and Limbaugh and Phelps, but we don't have to go bat$hi+ and act like Kos has cooties, either.
What is the proper response to someone whom one usually thinks is thoughful and intelligent, but who puts up an outrageous, indefensible opinion and then sticks by it out of stubbornnes long after it's clear that opinion is vile and wrong?
a) Insist "he has a right to his opinion"
b) Criticize anyone who criticizes the opinion on the grounds that the other side supports their people who say ridiculous things
c) Note that there are worse opinions
d) Warn that criticism of this opinion leads to fracturing a united front
e) Go ballistic and attack the speaker in a foam-at-the-mouth manner
I'd say "none of the above," myself. But e) is apparently what Kos got a lot of on his blog, and a) through d) have all been posited here as defenses to Kos's statement.
I guess I am just stunned at the idea that anyone could respond to Kos's statement with something other than revulsion. Civilly worded revulsion, perhaps.
Mark Atwood is quite right. Not every "contract worker" toting a weapon in Iraq is a former South African commando getting $100,000/year to perform "wet ops". A lot of them are just people taking on some extra risk in exchange for a shot at a slightly better life, and trying to do a good job under difficult circumstances. Also, as I observed before, they all have mommies, even the former South African commandos. Or at any rate somebody who loves them and probably doesn't deserve to see their incinerated body parts hung off a bridge.
Jim Macdonald is also right: if anyone has a right to a little slack for popping off about mercenary soldiers, it's probably someone who (1) grew up in Central America and (2) served with distinction in the regular military of the United States.
Which brings us to Josh, who asks: "So, what, those of us who haven't served in the military can't criticize Kos in this situation?"
I dunno. I've criticized Kos, I haven't been in the military, and so far, no lightning bolt. What exactly are you suggesting?
Teresa's observation that Kos "has a right to his opinion," much criticized in this thread as a nefarious attempt at misdirection, was in the context of the torrent of liquid pigshit being directed Kos's way. Hard though it may seem to believe, even in the blogosphere, there's such a thing as proportionality.
As Randy Paul has pointed out, Glenn Reynolds has said some pretty nasty and poisonous things on occasion, like gloating over the heat-related deaths of elderly French people, or using the bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq as an occasion to slag off the UN, before the bodies of the dead relief workers were even cold. Somehow I forget the immense wave of disapproval pointed Glenn's way on those occasions, and the coordinated attempts by left-wing activists to shun and shut down the guy's blog, while poisoning his professional relationships to the greatest extent possible.
The point isn't that Glenn Reynolds is evil (he's not); the point is that the response to Kos has been disproportionate. Mark Kleiman went so far as to say that associating with Kos was the same as "lying down with dogs." Tacitus announced that money raised by Kos for Democratic candidates was now "dirty money."
This sort of rabid language isn't merely levelling justly-earned criticism at a stupid remark. This is a campaign to obliterate the guy and his works. Kos should have realized earlier that he's now a public figure who puts a lot at risk when he shoots off his mouth. The question for the rest of us is, what does this herald for other webloggers with audiences that reach beyond the immediate circle of our family and friends? As Atrios has observed, nobody wants to be the next Sister Souljah moment. I want to sleep on it before deciding, but I'm definitely tempted to adopt the Atrios Rules.
Oh, look. It's Mark Atwood.
Mythago, I'm sorry that parts of this discussion fall outside your previous imaginings. I'm at a loss for what to tell you. I can't prove via my own protestations that I'm not a cold-blooded monster with alien motivations and sensibilities. I will point out that several other people in this conversation, whom you'll have previously seen being quite human in all observable respects, have also had these supposedly incomprehensible reactions to the recent news and to Kos' take on it. Perhaps there's something more complicated going on.
Jim Macdonald is right. I should have said that Kos and my unnamed friend have earned a right to their opinions. I stand by my observation that they know a lot more about this than I do. Jim Macdonald's no slouch on this subject--saw service in-country in Panama, if I'm not mistaken--and I'm surprised that there hasn't been more engagement with his several substantial posts here.
As for Kos:
First, I am just plain amazed that so many lefties can't think of a single reason why someone who's from El Salvador might have pungent opinions about contract mercenaries. Granting him the right to those opinions only if they're expressed in suitably mournful, pious, and genteel terms strikes me, if you'll excuse me for saying so, as a piece of mealymouthed prissiness.
Kos doesn't represent himself as a military analyst, but is there anyone here who'll claim to know more than he does about the US military presence in Iraq, or do better sociological analyses of everyday life in the US military? Who among you didn't read his weblog when the war was in its hot early stages?
Kos is a man of substance, a thoughtful and knowledgeable commentator, and he's earned the right to have his opinions given more consideration than we've seen these last few days. If in this instance we heard the voice of the man rather than the political commentator, who is going to stand up and say that that's contrary to the spirit and practice of blogging?
I have no time for, and no respect for, right-wingers who feign a horror and distress they manifestly cannot feel over Kos's language in this one instance. We've all seen the kind of language they commonly countenance--when it's spoken in their own cause. This is hypocrisy on par with fornicating vulgarians like Gingrich, Hyde, Livingston, and Chenowith pretending to be shocked by misdeeds of Clinton's that would scarcely have filled a long weekend in their own social calendars.
Those further toward the center and left of the political spectrum who've jettisoned Kos with such unseemly haste are fools. Kos has been their help and support all along. I doubt they're as concerned as they should be over leaving him vulnerable to those who wish him ill, but I wish to hell they'd notice that they've left him vulnerable to those who wish them ill.
I dunno. I've criticized Kos, I haven't been in the military, and so far, no lightning bolt. What exactly are you suggesting?
I wasn't suggesting anything, I was legitimately asking, because what I wrote seemed the most likely implication of Jim Macdonald's comment.
I can't prove via my own protestations that I'm not a cold-blooded monster with alien motivations and sensibilities.
With all due respect, huhwhat?
I pointed out that you (and others, as you note) made a common and lame rhetorical defense of an opinion, which is to say that the holder is entitled to it. Well, yes, we're all "entitled" to our opinions, whether or not we've earned them. That does not in any way address the defensibility of those opinions.
As long as I'm being baffled here, I'll add that I don't think it's "mealmouthed prissiness" to condemn people for cheering on mutilating and displaying corpses like trophies. That has nothing to do with Kos's opinion of contract soldiers, what the contractors' actual jobs are, whether the invasion of Iraq was justified, or the price of tea in China. "Mercenaries are evil, and I ought to know," however correct--and I'm certainly not disputing Kos's experiences here--do not, in my opinion, justify saying "...so it was OK to mutilate, burn and hang those corpses from a bridge, because after all, they were mercenaries before they died."
Should I put on my tinfoil hat now?
I guess I am just stunned at the idea that anyone could respond to Kos's statement with something other than revulsion.
What stuns me is the number of conspicuous-compassion assholes falling all over themselves to express their revulsion. Kos made me wince with his ill-phrased opinion; the resulting plague of whited sepulchres is making me sick to my stomach.
mythago :
....cheering on mutilating and displaying corpses like trophies.
Who did that? When?
I read the Kos quote. He didn't do any such thing. He didn't cheer it on ... he said he didn't care.
He failed to weep for them. Given his background, you probably wouldn't weep for them either.
Josh:
No, the implication didn't have anything to do with being in the military; lots of people have been in the military without ever having met a mercenary. The implication was about growing up in a country filled with US trained-and-backed mercenaries, graduates of the School of the Americas, paramilitares, contract security. It would color your perception when you heard that some contract security died.
Gah. I was almost hoping you'd not involve yourselves in this mishegoss. When Jordin first outlined the thing to me I basically shrugged. I'm afraid those deaths, yea even the mutilations, didn't have that sort of visceral effect on me either. Which shocked Jordin I think, but I've always maintained he's a nicer person than I. He said perhaps his view was affected by too much Dickson and the Dorsai, and I think he's probably right. The only thing that kept the Dorsai admirable was their absolutely iron code of honor and the culture around it. Permit me to suspect that mercenaries hired from all over the world, who're only there for the money don't have that sort of iron code. No, no one deserves to die, horribly or otherwise but I just can't get all bent out of shape about this one. Now, the 20 year old kids who are being killed and maimed and sent back to battle when they're not ready. That I can get upset about.
I'm also pretty upset about the attack on Kos and the attempt to set up a meme that you're responsible for what anyone says on a blog you link to or advertise on. I really think Matt on Blogging of a President does a good job at laying out the story and what's wrong. I'm sorry Atrios has taken it all to heart and done what he did. I think it's letting the purveyors of pseudo-scandal win. I link to both items in my blog (marykay.typepad.com/gallimaufry). I find the trend very scary as I see it as an attempt to undercut the power the internet gives us to affect the political world. I wish I had more time to write about this. It's nearly 1am though and I have to get up early tomorrow...
Patrick: Glenn Reynolds may or may not be evil; I don't know. I do know that he is intellectually dishonest which I seem to think is worse. (Interesting the things you learn about yourself after all those years) And it's why I quit reading him.
MKK
I have to agree that the essential problem here is the amount of ground that "contract mercinary" covers.
In Israel, for instance, much of the security for public places is handled by private security companies. Were someone to explain how they were unmoved by the death of the guy wanding people at a bus terminal because that guy was a private citizen and the bus company mostly owned by the government, I'd think it a rather stupid remark. This is independent of what they think about the situation in Israel, or where they grew up. Yes, these people have guns, and are authorized to use them, at their discretion. And, yes, the government is employing them through a proxy.
This is completely different from a situation where the government is hiring mercinaries to deniably kill trouble makers, or to engage in military adventurism without having the numbers show up on casualty rolls, or any of the other situations where paying people with guns plays a more sinister role.
I mean, even in those cases, those are still people, and being completely unmoved by people's deaths isn't necessarily an admirable trait, but where people are doing bad things, I've got no problem with that.
The thing is, in Iraq, you have a complex situation. Unless the US government is willing to provide security for every single organization, local or foreign, that does business in Iraq, there is going to be a need for armed security guards. Maybe this is something that the police should be handling, but given that things in Iraq are the way they are, I see nothing immoral in hiring people with guns to keep various business interests safe. And I can't see much reason to deny those people the same moral standing as the guy with a metal detector outside a bus station.
But, in Iraq, you have an ongoing military campaign. And this campaign is of the sort that I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear involves mercinaries hired to do very bad things to people, for reasons that are moraly problematic, at best.
(As an aside, the level of military training that these people will have gone through isn't a filter that can reliably be used to tell the difference between the sort of functions mercinaries are being used for; if you're hiring a man to carry a gun, hiring ex-military is a perfectly reasonable way of knowing certain pre-requisites are met.)
Given that we don't know what sort of job the guys killed were doing, it seems reasonable to give them the benefit of the doubt. Given the relatively low cost of sympathy, witholding it is rather petty, and public airing of the lack of sympathy seems rather dumb. Yes, there are reasons why Kos is less inclined to grant that benefit of the doubt. That doesn't change the fact that I find his statements in this case rather dumb. I'd like to think that I've earned the right to say that, here. By being a person with a computer, and all.
That said, the rush to disavow Kos, and attacks on those who fail to disavow Kos are. . . well, they're a number of things, all of them bad. This is the sort of thing that the Bush campaign has been doing -- being shocked and hurt by the other guy doing things that they do all the time. Kos said something tactless, and in my opinion at least, dumb. If you generate a sufficient quantity of prose, sooner or later, you'll say things that are tactless and dumb. If I were a daily reader of a blog in which I saw something like that, I might put in a comment. Hell, I might even talk about it other forums. But this isn't the sort of thing that needs a communal shunning, and by implying that it is, those whose politics are opposed to Kos', they're playing a dirty game. If he gets shunned, it reduces the number of their outspoken opponents by one, and serves warning to others to reduce their output, lest they say something less than perfectly smart. It also establishes their side as the one of moral probity, and Kos' as the side of dangerous lunatics. If Kos isn't shunned, well, obviously, anyone who doesn't shun him is in complete agreement about everything he had to say.
It is for this reason, more in sorrow than in anger, I urge people to remove from their blogrolls, and return donations made in the names of anyone who've attacked those who failed to attack Kos. It is my deepest regret that they've chosen to use tactics of this sort, and I hope only that something, something, something, and etc.
In terms of American military incompetence, you can find many, many examples of both strategic and tactical foolery, if you go back and look closely, same as anywhere else in the world. My vote is for the Battle of the Crater, but I could suggest a number of others for the crown of least intelligent thing the US Arned Forces have done.
I would like to respond to lots of different things in this thread, but given that so many of them are at the top of the thread it doesn't seem a reasonable usage of the comment box.
That said I'll observe on MKK's point: "Glenn Reynolds may or may not be evil; I don't know. I do know that he is intellectually dishonest which I seem to think is worse. (Interesting the things you learn about yourself after all those years) And it's why I quit reading him. "
An intellectually honest evil person would at least be able to tell you something about their motivations, in cases of extreme intellectual dishonesty such as Reynolds most of your effort has to be in parsing out the misdirection and lies, I'm sure a good libertarian such as himself would recognize this is not a good use of resources and would compliment you for ignoring his b.s.
I would also recommend today's Knight-Ridder article about how Arabs are just not so shocked about these 4 guys' gruesome deaths. Why, because they have been watching gruesome footage from Iraq of Iraqi civilians dying that US citizens have not seen. Also, they see gruesome footage of Palestinians being killed on a daily basis as well, the most noteworthy recent example being Shaikh Yassin. The fact that the guys are mercenaries does not make it easier to summon up the requested outrage.
I am outraged at the fact that the American people were bamboozled into a repeat of the 19th century British model of colonialism, for reasons which were not true. Because of this adventurism, these 4 guys, and lots and lots of Iraqis, and lots and lots of american soldiers and other soldiers from "coalition countries" are dead and there will be a lot more to come. That is the tragedy.
The discussion's reached new depths over at Kathryn Cramer's blog, where someone has been forging obscene comments from, among other people, me and Kathryn herself.
Hmm... when I was paying my way through university by working as a security officer my mates and I used to say that the kinds of people who became security officers were those who couldn't even manage to get themselves a taxi license... and we also used to say that the first place to look when something went missing from a site was inside the duty guard's bag.
In my own experience security guards tend to be fairly unpleasant and amoral people (I would say immoral, but I don't think they've given enough thought to questions of ethics for them to have made a choice to do the wrong thing) and whenever I hear of security personnel being involved in any context I suspect the worst. I don't know whether the individuals killed in Iraq were involved in any morally culpable activities but it certainly would not surprise me to find out that they were.
In any case, leaving aside my feelings about the security industry as a whole, I would have to admit that I didn't feel an awful lot when I saw the footage of these guys' deaths. But then, I don't feel terribly much when I read of regular soldiers being killed either. In my view they are all legitimate targets in an ongoing conflict. The manner in which these men died was unfortunate and unpleasant, but none of the armed personnel serving in Iraq were conscripted and all of them willingly signed up for jobs that they knew involved the prospect of shooting people and being shot at by others.
I'm not in any way glad that these four men died and I find it hard to believe that the mutilation of their corpses was at all justifiable, but we invaded Iraq and can't pretend to be surprised that some Iraqis aren't too happy about it. If we want the killings in Iraq to stop then we either need to convince an overwhelming majority of Iraqis that we did them a favour by invading their country (which seems a bit unlikely) or suppress their resistance through overwhelming force (which seems to be impossible).
But if we can't convince the Iraqis to stop killing our personnel or force them to stop doing so then the killings are just going to continue. I suppose we could always withdraw our occupying forces, but then, given that the coalition governments had to make up stories before they could even convince themselves that they had any right to invade Iraq in the first place, running home again before the conflict was actually over might just make them all look a little bit silly...
"Because he had a good agent, he had a good contract. Because he had a good contract, he was in Singapore an hour after the explosion. Most of him, anyway."
According to the AP, the Iraqi Press Office is is packed with party hacks. One hopes they all have very good contracts.
Well, leaving aside the question of how much we should or should not condemn Kos comment, what thoroughly cynical use is being made of it by his political opponents and a few useful idiots closer to home and how far guilt by association is supposed to go in our little online world, there is what I think is a slightly more urgent question.
According to Time, people who are currently in the military and stationed in Iraq feel more or less the same way Kos and Teresa's friend do about the contractors, and say that the iraqi people feel the same. Lot of cowboys, everyone over there seems to feel, just in it for money and kicks. Natural targets.
One reason: we're sending men over there who are completely unprepared for what they're going to be facing. The for-profit contracting organizations, which appear to be taking a huge rake-off from that thousand or two a day, ship out warm bodies without giving them adequate training. Some of them are entering a war zone without having taken a defensive driving course.
That's not just wrong, it's incredibly stupid.
It seems to me that what we have here is not only a public relations disaster where we can least afford one, but another situation where pious demands to support our men and women overseas by not saying anything Instapundit finds objectionable is joined with a profoundly callous disinterest in making the minimum effort to keep those men and women from dying for no good reason.
I really don't see Bush's adventure ending anywhere except with the creation of an Islamic Republic in Iraq, firmly anti-US and anti-Israel, controlled by the clerics, supporting international terrorism with money and men.
And Osama laughing.
OK, we're at war and some guys died. Nastily, apparently. For them, it's the end of their world. For their families, it's probably mind-numbing tragedy.
...
This is very frustrating. Words are not coming here.
...
My father in law served in Vietnam as a combat pilot. My grandfather was a sargeant who earned a battlefield commission in World War One. I imagine there were days where they saw more than five of their own killed horribly in less than an hour. Why am I supposed to cry over five guys who weren't even drafted?
And that's not even starting on why Kos should be expected to have any favorable feelings at all towards American mercenaries.
One the one hand, if we don't want the boys getting killed, we should bring 'em home so they can go back to getting killed in smaller numbers at wargames. On the other hand, if Kos wants to be not sorry that some American mercenaries got killed, I'm all for letting him and us all goign on with our lives and finding someone else to virtually dismember.
I wish this were better written, but I've spent half an hour staring at it, and I really have to get back to my Passover cleaning. Only an hour left to burn my chommetz.
And while I was hemming and hawing, John (B) said it much better. Oh well.
What stuns me is the number of conspicuous-compassion assholes falling all over themselves to express their revulsion.
Sorry, but I'm not about to express or refrain from expressing my opinion because a bunch of other people might say the same thing, for whatever reason. If that makes me an asshole in your eyes, I believe that says more about you than about me. (Amusing as it is to be accused of being
a "whited sepulchre." First time for everything, I s'pose.)
He didn't cheer it on ... he said he didn't care.
My error, then, though I still believe Kos's opinion (which, let's all not forget, he has a right to) is incredibly wrong. However evil or loathsome or "I hate him" a person may have been in real life, what happened to the slain men in Al-Fajullah was wrong Even the Islamic clerics of the town, who certainly had zero sympathy for the killings, spoke out against this.
I mean, shoot, if it's no big deal to mutilate and display human corpses if they were scumbags in life, maybe the US should bring back gibbets for particularly disgusting criminals.
There are miles and miles of moral space between, say, Wackenhut and Blackwater. Security guards are substantially different from mercenaries (and make no mistake -- these guys, were the later -- soldiers of fortune). Even the latter doesn't deserve what these men got, but there's a world of difference between them, salaried employees of a private military organization, getting it, and a guard or member of the actual, governmental military getting it.
On a side note, these are exactly the "Private Security Forces" that hardline libertarians see being paid by insuraance companies to take over the work of the military.
And while your friend is entitled to his opinion, it's worth noting that from everything I've heard the men who were killed were providing security for a convoy of trucks delivering food to the Iraqis.
Actually, the official story is that
A Blackwater spokesman said the men were guarding a convoy on its way to deliver food to troops under a subcontract to a company named Regency Hotel and Hospitality.Food to troops, not food to Iraqis. But even that's raising questions.
Warblogging.com asks what happened to the food shipments (no signs of any feasts that night in Fallujah), and notes
It's certainly a possibility that these Blackwater employees weren't providing security for food shipments while driving through Fallujah. After all, why route the food shipments through Fallujah? Fallujah is a town so dangerous that the American military personnel — heavily armed and armored or not — completely avoid the town unless executing a specific military mission within the town. Why on earth would "civilians" — even armed civilians — be escorting food through such a town driving in unmarked white SUVs?Furthermore, Billmon points out that the company they were allegedly delivering food to -- Regency Hotel and Hospitality -- does not appear to exist prior to this incident. It's not in Google nor LexisNexis, nor has anybody been able to find records of who these people are.
You might find these two links illuminating when talking about who these guys are and what their mission was:
'A Blackwater spokesman said the men were guarding a convoy on its way to deliver food to troops under a subcontract to a company named Regency Hotel and Hospitality'
The new Prime Minister would like two sacks of raw potatoes, a company of Heavy Pike, and the New Sepran treasury sent up as soon as possible.
Why am I supposed to cry over five guys who weren't even drafted?
You know, of all the reasons to argue about these issues, this completely baffles me. What does being drafted have to do with anything? Humanitarian aid workers aren't drafted--they're not even like members of the armed forces, who signed up but have no choices as to where or whether they're deployed--yet I like to think we're all horrified when some militia group decides to make a point by killing a Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders volunteer.
Kos doesn't express outrage at the death of four "food delivery" guards. And he's automatically evil, and the Democratic party flak in Washington does the predictable, and throws him to the dogs.
But Kathleen Parker calls for the murder of somewhere around, oh, three-to-five million people. She starts...
I suppose it would be considered lacking in nuance to nuke the Sunni Triangle.
But so goes the unanimous vote around my household - and I'm betting millions of others - in the aftermath of what forevermore will be remembered simply as "Fallujah."
So, where's the outrage? Let's nuke the whole "Sunni Triangle." How many towns and cities is that? Where does the fallout go?
And, yet, some party flack decides that Kos is now an untouchable. This is one reason why the Democrats keep losing. When an ally is attacked, they hide -- or join in the attack.
By the way, this food convoy? Where are those trucks? Why did this four hang, but the truck drivers, in far less maneuverable, and far slower, flatbeds manage to get away? Of course, the raiders were perfectly happy, after nailing the lead and trail vehicles, to let a few trucks, loaded with supplies, walk away.
It's almost as if they perfectly executed page one of the standard urban ambush guide (nail the lead and trail vehicles, trapping the rest in between the wrecks) but forgot to turn the page, and just wandered away while the flatbeds got around the wrecks and headed onwards.
And why did these "professionals" drive into a city that was so hostile that the Marines would only enter it when carrying out very specific strikes, and would then leave the city as soon as the mission comes out. Yet, these four just happen to be driving though in two white SUVs and a bunch of flatbed food trucks, which have never been seen, and have dissappeared into the mists.
And if this food was for troops, where are those troops? They weren't in the city. Where was this delivery supposed to go?
This doesn't add up. Hell, this isn't even math. The cover story is so full of holes that Hollywood would reject the plot.
But we can just nuke them, so why should we care?
Besides, Kos is evil.
You know, I don't have a blog, and I'm not the most articulate guy, but this link pretty much sums up my opinion on this topic:
http://www.fightingdemocrat.com/images/supportkos.png
Erik, Kathleen Parker is the poor man's Ann Coulter. There's no point in reading her crap except to wonder if, perhaps, liberals ought to rethink their position on the strictness of involuntary committment laws.
The anger and hatred of Americans I can certainly understand. The wanting Americans out of their country I can understand. I can even understand the killing of Americans.
But nobody deserves to have their bodies dragged around and mutilated and paraded to the media like carnival trophies.
The difference between the reception of outrageous statements from the left and right is that when the right express indifference to the deaths of non-Americans, most people don't care. When the left expresses indifference to the deaths of Americans, people are upset.
Strangely enough, if the same Russian who we were willing to nuke 15 years ago comes to the US and takes out citizenship papers, or an Iraqi exile does the same, all of a sudden we care for him.
This seems like weird behavior, but I believe it has deep genetic roots. I see national identity as an abstraction of kinship relations, and our in-group preference is an attempt to promote the survival of "people like us."
It may seem that ideally, we should value all people across the planet equally. But that is not a point of view that can succeed in national politics right now.
Conflating mercenaries and emergency aid workers just doesn't work. Both chose to be there, yes, but there are a few differences beyond that.
That guys toting guns at the head of a convoy into enemy-held territory get killed is not surprising and not to my mind tragic. If they were peopel who were sent there against their will and had no desire in the world to be the guys toting guns in a convoy, that lends tragedy to the affair. Today's military is all volunteers, although rather a lot of them weren't exactly counting on something like this coming up. Mercenaries don't even have the "Hey, just because I enlisted doesn't mean I expected to go to war" excuse.
Not sure about the geographical size of "the Sunni Triangle" but if the population is in 3-5 million range (up to 1/5th Iraqi pop?), would a similar scenario be the UK using its nuclear weaponry to take out Eire & Northern Ireland if the IRA similarly treated some if the occupying troops in N Ireland? There are quite a few IRA sympathizers scattered around that island. Let God sort 'em out!
Of course, the UK mainland is a bit close. They might worry about fallout. Perhaps if some warlike Maori activists terminated the British High Commissioner/US Ambassador & attached staff with extreme prejudice, Aotearoa (pop ~4M) would cop it.
After all, those pacific islanders are used to having radioactivity floating around: French fallout, American ...
Both chose to be there, yes, but there are a few differences beyond that.
More than a few. I was addressing your point that those guys "weren't even drafted." I just don't believe that whether one was drafted has much to do with anything. If a WWII soldier eagerly signed up because he believed he was saving the world from the bad guys, would that have made his death any less tragic?
Am I the only one who thinks this discussion has gone...well, off the deep end? Only wackos ever seriously discuss nuking anybody, ever. Does that need to be part of our presumed-sane discussion at all?
I don't feel competent to express an opinion about the central matter of this thread, but I'm reading it with interest. I hate to see it derailed by discussing such things, though the fact that right-wingnuts are saying it is relevant.
Xopher --
I don't think anyone [except Kathleen Parker] is being serious about nuking anyone. I read Epacris's statements as facetious. Er, at least I hope they were.
Mythago --
I agree, it doesn't matter what anyone's status in Iraq is when they are killed. They were still human beings who are still just as dead, and Dubbya is still ultimately the one responsible for putting them in harm's way in Iraq, whether directly or indirectly.
colleen, I meant that there's no point in discussing why Parker's idea is wacko - we can assume that.
Just using the SF idea of putting some odd idea in a familiar place/over-familiar idea in an odd place to point out the inherent properties of the idea, myself.
Ronald Reagan completely lost any of my human sympathy (already disagreed with policies) when I heard him joking about raining millennium-toxic fire-death onto innocent civilians (who he called "The Evil Empire" to disguise their humanity).
The more people use that kind of hateful rhetoric, the more likely some of the loopier types who can get their fingers onto buttons might do something. Unfortunately, some of the religiously inclined might also think they'd welcome it.
One tries not to be to depressed with these thoughts. After all, there's lots of other things closer to hand to be depressed by.
I agree. I also agree about Reagan. (I've gotten shocked responses from friends when I've said that I hope his Alzheimer's is making him suffer terribly...I remind them that I have friends from college who might be alive today had he made some attempt to deal with AIDS in a timely fashion.)
Captain Arnold's Armpit Avengers are 'contractors'!?
Xoph, no one on this thread is actually discussing nuking anyone; they're just mentioning the fact that assorted right-wing nutmonkeys have no problem talking a HUGE line of militant shit in their own little echo chambers, and that their teeth-gnashing in response to the occasional "too hot for blogdom" comment by a lefty/centrist is comical hypocrisy.
I used to read InstaPundit on a daily basis, and I think Mary Kay has the situation cold: Glenn was, at one point, tolerably balanced, but a persistent lack of self-examination has set in, and nowadays the "indeeds" fly thick enough for self-parody.
Or, to paraphrase Kevin Drum: "Boy, I bet the self-correcting nature of the blogosphere will kick in, and you'll be retracting your factual errors any minute now, right Glenn? Any minute now... still waiting... any minute now..."
Anyhow, I'm not so sure that the topic of nukin' people is so untouchable that it should preclude us from even discussing people who like to talk about nukin' people. Especially when we verbally kick the shit out of them. Does that make sense?
Sadly, my in-laws talk perfectly seriously about nuking large numbers of people as retaliation for terrorist or mob violence. Their favorite idea for a suitable reaction to the WTC attacks was "turn Afghanistan into a sheet of glass". Last spring, at least my father-in-law was all for doing the same to Iraq. I got an earful from both of them when I suggested that, as practicing Christians, perhaps their first response shouldn't be "an eye for an eye". Apparently, in their universe, "turn the other cheek" only applies when you've been lightly slapped, not when you've been really hurt.
This may get a little long (and my frustration is great, because I am having to retype it, after I managed to screw up an edit in the preview... don't make the mistake of trying to change the viewed text; the part above the comment box, it'll void the transaction), but I've spent the past hour, or so, reading the various materials.
Kos doesn't represent himself as a military analyst, but is there anyone here who'll claim to know more than he does about the US military presence in Iraq, or do better sociological analyses of everyday life in the US military? Who among you didn't read his weblog when the war was in its hot early stages?
I might, and no, I didn't read him back then. :)
I have to say that, apart from general sympathy for the dead, I don't feel much for them. They took a risky job, and they earned a lot of money, and the reason they were offered so much money was that they might get killed.
And make no mistakes about it, they got a lot of money. The going rate for that sort of contract is, roughly, $1,000 a day.
I first heard about it when I arrived to hang out with some friends. One of them pointed to the Blackwater Web Site and said, "I hear they have four openings."
We laughed. Bitter, dark and a trifle empty, but we laughed. The two of us who were back from Iraq, and the one who had just been told he wasn't going.
Mercenaries may have more than the base motive of profit,but whatever other motives they have, the money plays a big part.
Which bothers me less than the other part... lack of oversight. These guys are not Hammer's Slammers, they aren't Dorsai, they aren't even condittieri, the are more like The Cowboys, in the movie Tombstone, answereing to almost no one, and having the local law wink at their misdeeds.
Read the March Esquire. If I'd done the things the writer says he did, I'd be in the brig. Lt. Col.s who did similar things have been cashiered, and rightly so.
I might feel more for them were they actually hired to be an army. Then again I would also expect them to be more answerable if that were the case, but as it is now, when they step over the line (and out into the light) what happens is the company is told to send that worker home.
People have made much hay about the way the bodies were treated, they have even condemned the troops who didn't go out to retrieve them. That doesn't bother me.
I'm not even sure I'd be all that upset if no one had gone out to save them, but then the New Guy gets point.
So I can't condemn Kos for his opinion, and if I were going to censure him, it wouldn't be more than to say, "I disagree," and move on. I certainly wouldn't abandon him.
Nor can I say I am shocked that this was done. Not when I know we paraded the bodies of Udai Qusai.
And I can't agree with those who do rip into him, not when I see the likes of Coulter, and Kramer, and Limbaugh, and, and, and..., being accepted, praised and rewarded for the bile and vitriol they spew, in all its acid horror. as though they did no harm.
I don't recall many of those who are attacking Kos, and his defenders, reacting in horror to suggestions that we use the gold-plated skull of Bin Laden as a ceremonial goblet at presidential inaugurations, nor that it would be wrong to spend days, even weeks, publically executing Ayman al-Zawahiri and then making it a public pissoir.
Until I see more balance, I just have to say that Kos's opinion is just fine with me.
But then I am less civilized than I was a year ago, so perhaps the flaw, if any, is in me.
"People...people who nuke people...are the nuttiest people..."
Scott, I was reacting to Epacris' post wherein an analogy was drawn to nuking Ireland. My point was that we don't need "closer to home" analogies to persuade us that nuking the Sunni Triangle is an insane idea. Since I was trying to keep the discussion from being derailed, I must now confess that it was counterproductive!
Yes, we should point out the coldhearted callous impractical stupidity of people like Parker (and, it appears, Tayefeth's inlaws).
Speaking of which: Tayefeth, perhaps you could point out to them that J of N asked forgivenes ever for the people who were nailing him to the cross...while it was still going on. (I know this would open a can of worms.) If you decide to go with it, I suggest that this coming Friday might be a good time...
I've been under a freeper spam attack all day from (I think) some of the very folks involved in the Kos thing. I've posted many IP numbers that other bloggers might enjoy banning.
Again, cross-posting creates an appearance of undue flippancy...
Thanks for that post, Terry. Thoughtful as always, and clearly expressed.
Anybody know how to track people who are able to change IP addresses fast, especially addresses in sequence?
I didn't read Kos' blog, in fact, this is the first blog I've read and I've only been skimming it since TNH wrote about Andrew & Joe's wedding.
I do, however, know something about working as a contractor in a war zone. In my case, installing software on a sub in the Gulf (before I retired on disability). Not all contractors are what you would consider mercenaries. This was the same kind of work I did for my company regularly, it just happened to be in a war zone. (Why me and not the guys who worked for me? I was better at writing patches in the field and I was single.) I made my regular salary for it.
We all take risks balanced against reward and for some people, the choice to serve in dangerous situations is worth the reward. That the military is outsourcing so much work indicates not just that the military itself can't handle that work, but that they may not have the kind of expertise required.
I'm an atheist, damage to corpses doesn't particularly bother me, but I'm not happy when people get killed supporting a stupid Presidential war.
It seems like burnt bodies now ranks up there with 'the children' when it comes to making a political point.
I am horrified every time I see a charred corpse, whether it's an Iraqi baby with the pacifier still in its mouth (remember that one?), or the recent spectacle.
The display of the proper amount of human compassion in reaction to various atrocities has become political capital. It's like a public show of piety, and turning events into an ouch-fest doesn't help much when it's time to figure out what is actually going on.
The truth is, (as I see it) the Bush administration promised to liberate Iraq and democratize the region. Rumsfeld's strategy, as Jim M. has mentioned, was to accomplish this with a smaller force than his generals wanted.
Well, Iraq is a nightmare now. Whether or not you pity the dead, there are not supposed to be charred bodies hanging from bridges in Iraq. This adventure has gone spectacularly wrong. That's the real issue, not whether or not we shed tears at their passing.
I post regularly on a politics board where one of the posters is a contract security worker in Baghdad. He's a nice guy, based on his online personality. His take on the situation is that this new cleric is making a bid for power and things are looking very, very bad. He is writing evacuation plans, Iraqi workers are not showing up to work, and his colleagues are talking about Saigon.
That mercenary who posts from Baghdad, this is his latest:
Shit, I am still here (and drinking...)
Just heardm a big explosion 10 mins ago (VBIED??), followed by some .50 cal machine gun fire, then 1 min ago 6 outgoing mortar rounds. I think it has started...
Thanks guys for your support, almost have to laugh, I am sitting here with an American Intel Offcier and my boss who is South African, giggling, wondering what will be next.
Terry -
Yours was the first post [or, actually, the first mention I've seen at all in any sort of media] about the way the US military and the US media shamelessly exploited the body of Hussein's son. I remember thinking when I was seeing that poor bastard's bloody photo all over the airwaves that it was a remarkably barbaric thing to do.
My brother, ever the staunch Bush-supporter since 9/11, explained that it was necessary to keep showing off the dead body so that the Iraqi people would know he was dead, to send a message "to those crazy people."
So in a way, I guess the Iraqi militants who paraded the bodies of those mercenaries around were doing the same thing, right? Sending a message to us crazy people here in the United States?
I understand killing your enemy in battle is sometimes necessary. I really do. I don't understand the need to take great pleasure in doing so, which is what it seems happened in both cases.
Either way, it's incredibly barbaric.
Am I happy there are paid mercenaries in Iraq? No. However, do I think a man deserves to die simply because he is paid $1000 to watch over a food convoy with a gun? Not really.
Comments on Cancelled contract: