(Posted on behalf of Steve Hays.)
Ron Paulettes typically refer you to the same handful of books and authors to justify a foreign policy predicated on non-interventionism. But there are two basic problems with this appeal.
One is the presumption that you can't understand the present conflict unless you understand the past. When we were hit on 9/11, there was a flurry of books and articles attempting to analysis the historical causes leading up to this event.
That can sometimes be useful. If you lack firsthand knowledge of today's enemy, studying the historical background of you enemy can sometimes bring you up to speed.
At the same time, that can also misdirect you. For today's enemy may not be the same as yesterday's enemy. As you know, one of the problems with old generals is that they tend to keep fighting the last war. The war they lost. That prevents them from adapting to the new threat.
The only way of knowing your enemy is to fight your enemy. After you've been fighting him for a few years, the history books are irrelevant or obsolete. For you now have real-time knowledge of what the enemy is like. His methods and motives.
Another obvious limitation with history books is that historians are not ideologically neutral. A historian who supports the war effort will be apt to interpret historical events in a way that lends credence to the war effort, while a historian who opposes the war effort is apt to interpret historical events in a way that undermines the war effort.
So there's a sense in which we understand the past via the present, rather than vice versa. You know which historical interpretation is either correct or at least germane to the current situation by knowing the current situation. That selects for the best interpretation of the past as it bears on the historical causes leading up to the current conflict.
Another problem is with the lopsided character of their appeal. It's not as if the viewpoint expressed in their selective reading has gone unchallenged. Consider, for example, some of the reviews:
1. The 9/11 Commission Report
[review here]
2. Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers Johnson
[review here]
3. Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror by Michael Scheuer (the former Chief of the CIA's bin Laden Unit, Alec Station)
[review here, here, and here]
4. Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Professor Robert A. Pape of the University of Chicago
[review here]
5. Perfect Soldiers by Terry McDermott
[review here]
6. The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright
[review here]
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteAre you serious?
No one has said that their analysis has gone unchallenged. However, before fishing to obtain reviews for you to put in your "quiver", you may actually want to read the books you listed. It's quite apparent you've not read them. I really don't see how your points necessarily refute any of the books you've listed.
You also may want to choose some better reviews (hint: David Frum, in particular, is a hack in both economics and foreign policy and referring to Scheuer as anti-Semitic just doesn't cut it) - some that give analysis or that refute the depth of analysis given. It is interesting that you would post a review from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, considering that others in the CIA, DIA and elsewhere have insisted that the Israel lobby is a driving force behind our foreign policy.
Also, fish for a refutation of the Defense Task Science Board Report (US Department of Defense) that pretty much affirms the books you've listed, in particular Mike Scheuer's.
Oh, and you forgot about Chalmer's other two excellent books, The Sorrows of Empire and Nemesis. I thought both were better than Blowback, which primarily focuses on the situation in Asia. Happy fishing on Google....
anonymous said...
ReplyDelete“No one has said that their analysis has gone unchallenged.”
Ron Paulettes may not say that. They simply act as if that’s the case.
“However, before fishing to obtain reviews for you to put in your ‘quiver’, you may actually want to read the books you listed.”
The reviewers read the books. And the reviews present an opposing viewpoint.
Life is short. We read books reviews to find out if a book is worth reading. Or have you worked your way through the Library of Congress?
“It's quite apparent you've not read them.”
You may actually want to read the reviews you’ve attacked. It’s quite apparent you’ve not read them.
“I really don't see how your points necessarily refute any of the books you've listed.”
I really don’t see how any of your vacuous assertions necessarily refute any of the book reviews which were listed.
“You also may want to choose some better reviews (hint: David Frum, in particular, is a hack in both economics and foreign policy.”
For all we know, you, in particular, are a hack. At least Frum is a graduate of Harvard law school. What are your credentials in economics and foreign policy?
“And referring to Scheuer as anti-Semitic just doesn't cut it)”
And making another vacuous denial just doesn’t cut it.
“It is interesting that you would post a review from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, considering that others in the CIA, DIA and elsewhere have insisted that the Israel lobby is a driving force behind our foreign policy.”
Sounds like the sort of thing an anti-Semite would say. Not to mention a conspiracy theorist. Make sure your tinfoil cap is tightly fastened, lest it blow away on a breezy day.
“Also, fish for a refutation of the Defense Task Science Board Report (US Department of Defense) that pretty much affirms the books you've listed, in particular Mike Scheuer's.”
Surely you’re not naïve enough to trust a DOD report? Don’t you know the DOD is just a front organization for the International Jewish Conspiracy?
steve,
ReplyDeleteactually ron paulians don't act like that. perhaps it's just your unfamiliarity with the material that they reference.
so you choose to post reviews to support your position against noninterventionism before you've even read the books (or even positive reviews) and then excuse your hackiness with "Life is short. We read books reviews to find out if a book is worth reading. Or have you worked your way through the Library of Congress"? that is priceless!
and by the way, you don't know if the reviewers read the books nor do you know how effective their reviews are since you don't even know the issues dealt with in the books, so stop dreaming. I'm not sure if you could get any sillier.
This is why it's so hard to take you seriously when it comes to these issues...
anonymous said...
ReplyDelete“Steve, actually ron paulians don't act like that. perhaps it's just your unfamiliarity with the material that they reference.”
You’re Exhibit A of a Ron Paulette who acts just like that. Perhaps it’s just your unfamiliarity with the man in the mirror.
“So you choose to post reviews to support your position against noninterventionism before you've even read the books (or even positive reviews) and then excuse your hackiness with ‘Life is short’.”
I haven’t said if I did or didn’t read them. But I’m under no more obligation to read “Mike” Scheuer’s version of American foreign policy than I am to keep up with Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, or Ed Said.
Have you read all the books and articles by the necons you so despise? If so, please list the titles, along with chapter-by-chapter synopses to show that you really read them. If not, then you have no excuse for your “hackiness.”
BTW, I don’t have to read a *book* by Scheuer to read (or hear) Scheuer make his case. There’s plenty of online material in which he spouts off.
I also don’t need a crash course on modern American history from Scheuer et al. I wasn’t born yesterday.
I realize that Ron Paul is a drawing card for some of the younger generation. A high school student hasn’t lived through the period in question, so his knowledge of the past is limited to what he’s read rather than what he’s seen or heard.
I wasn’t born in 1990. I don’t depend on “Mike” Scheuer to tell me who did what when, why, and where.
I don’t have to vouch for the book reviews—any more than I have to vouch for the books they review. I’m merely drawing attention to an opposing viewpoint. Readers are free to draw their own conclusions. Why do you feel so threatened by a handful of book reviews?
I don’t shoulder the burden of proof since I’m not the one who has to defend Scheuer et al. Rather, the onus is squarely on the wobbly shoulders of folks like you to refute them. You have yet to offer a single substantive reply.
You launch ad hominem attacks against the book reviewers instead of addressing their counterarguments. I'm not sure if you could get any sillier. This is why it's so hard to take you seriously when it comes to these issues...
Just two more examples:
ReplyDeleteThe 9/11 Commission Report documents:
"By his own account, KSM's (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) stemmed not from his experience there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." p.147
p.147 references footnote 7 which says, "(in this regard, KSM's statements echo those of (Ramzi) Yousef, who delivered an extensive polemic against U.S. foreign policy at his January 1998 hearing)."
For you to impose conspiracy type motivations on people for their actions is quite disingenuous. You'll never solve the terrorism problem until you take away their motivations, not motivations that you attribute to them.