Memo to Dean Barnett: The plural of anecdote isn’t data.
(And rehashing the ’60s yet again is just fucking played out, man.)
The fact that some individual soldiers are eager to become gristle in the meat grinder is, to be blunt, entirely irrelevant. Just because one can cherry pick a few clean cut upper-class white boys to represent the ‘9/11 Generation’ (and use them to bludgeon the dirty fucking hippies–“See? they’re wealthy and educated yet still look forward to dying in Iraq!”) does not make the current options available to the US military (barring any drastic policy shifts) look any less bleak.
Update: maha cuts herself a switch and gives Barnett’s tortured rhetoric a good lickin’. Remind me never to get on her bad side.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
Jon Swift FTW.
Thanks to also not michael fumento in JS comments for the Jesus Camp vid.
No surprises here. Coming after a week in which Senator Hillary Clinton was chastised by a Defense Department official for boosting “enemy propaganda”, shameless Iraq dead ender William Kristol has accused The Nation and The New Republic (and, by extension, the entire ‘left’) of “betraying” US troops:
With the ongoing progress of the surge, and the obvious fact that the vast majority of the troops want to fight and win the war, the “support-the-troops-but-oppose-what-they’re-doing” position has become increasingly untenable. How can you say with a straight face that you support the troops while advancing legislation that would undercut their mission and strengthen their enemies? You can’t.
Having turned against a war that some of them supported, the left is now turning against the troops they claim still to support…. [The troops] are our best and bravest, fighting for all of us against a brutal enemy in a difficult and frustrating war. They are the 9/11 generation. The left slanders them. We support them.
For some reason, hawks have long considered this dubious line of argumentation the pocket aces of rote pro-war apologia. Hell, Kristol even resorts to Red-baiting The Nation, directly pegging the magazine as a fellow traveller of Stalin. Recognizing a blatant tell, Steve Benen calls his bluff, noting that “conservative discourse [on the war is] stuck in 2003”.