Since military intervention isn’t a tool of the articulate, he believes it must fail axiomatically.
//

No he shows a long list of failed interventions. From that he concludes they fail

The problem that I had with Wes was that he would constantly try to construct straw men. Most often it was pretty blatant, and he would even go so far as to say that I had taken a position the opposite of what I had actually typed.

This is not an acceptable tactic in a reasoned debate. Disagreement is welcome, even treasured if the opposing view brings something of value.

James

Look, Wes read Shannon’s post and made some comments that most here seem to disagree with. Fine. So disagree…

The problem as I see it is that Wes’s arguments are very stereotyped and nothing that I have not argued about ad nausea before. I have seen this pattern over and over again. I will argue that this or that intervention succeeded and then Wes will define it a failure by fiat. I suppose I could keep a bank of such arguments on hand so I could just cut and paste but what is the point?

I wanted to nail Wes down and see if he actually had any concept of what a real world successful military intervention would look like. It appears to me that he defines the results of any intervention as a failure virtually by definition. If this is so, why bother arguing with him? No evidence I can provide will convince him that direct military interventions can succeed, even in principle.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking we are arguing over the facts of particular historical events. Instead, we are actually arguing over the differing world models. Wes clearly argues from the perspective of the articulate intellectual in which only the tools and methods of the articulate ever produce a net positive outcome. His entire world view is wrapped around that one concept. Since military intervention isn’t a tool of the articulate, he believes it must fail axiomatically.

I was struggling to try and shake him out of his conceptual rut and perhaps learn something new by forcing him to lay out some type of objective measure of the success or failure of military interventions. He refused just as I expected him to. From experience, I infer that he actually has very little knowledge about such intervention and is instead merely interested in using their axiomatically defined failure as a political rhetorical tool.

Since he was forced to concede my main point that Leftist models of the conflict in Indochina turned out to be massively flawed, he tried to turn the debate to an area he imagined he would have complete rhetorical control over. However, I refused to fall for his gambit.

You are correct in that I should have bumped his first comment to the forum.

“The original post was very interesting. I’m sorry to see that this thread has once again been coopted by someone disinterested in discussing the points of the original post, but instead interested only in mouthing leftist talking points.

Please let me know when the Chicagoboyz once again have some editorial control over the site, and I can read a thread without wasting most of my time searching through student union debating drivel for something relevant to the topic.”

Shannon Love:

“If you give me some kind of real world standard by which to judge the success or failure of an intervention I will debate you. Otherwise, its just a complete waste of time.”

James Rummel:

“The biggest problem with debating someone with a Leftist political outlook is that they cannot do so honestly. This is a prime example.”

Jonathon:

“Looking more closely at “Wes” I see that he strongly resembles our old friend Bunkerbuster, who I banned from this blog because he was destroying comment threads with his relentless chomskyite mush. Back to your hole, son.”

+++++++++++
Obviously, the animus toward “the Left” on this site is palpable, but it becomes even more distressing to see the ad hominem approach toward anyone who disagrees. Certainly, Jonathon’s comments about banning someone from this site should be considered. The desire to create solely an echo chamber here, rather than any cogent discussion about any issue of the day, seems to far outweigh any notion of a marketplace of ideas. (Cass Sunstein was right on years ago with “Republic.com”)

Look, Wes read Shannon’s post and made some comments that most here seem to disagree with. Fine. So disagree. Or make this a password-entry site. Otherwise, can’t you just attack the argument, and not the man? Obviously, that’s too much to ask when the opponent is the “Left”, but it’d be a start.

So, the Leftist wants to bring everything back to the school environment. They like teach-ins, committees, dialogues, lectures, seminars, books, and articles. Those are the tools they are familiar with, and those are the tools they want to use to solve problems. Those tools don’t work very well against the crass lumpen in the marketplace, so they concentrate their attention on government and non-profits where they can avoid competition. Or, better yet, they beat a path back to the safety of school and broadcast a carrier wave of social criticism.

On February 27, Amy Goodman interviewed General Wesley Clark. Clark said this:
About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

Socialist intellectual methodology has its roots in the medieval monastery. One of history’s great paradoxes was how, time and time again, monks would seek out the most remote, most inhospitable location for a monastery, take vows of poverty, and then by using their daily work as prayer, become enormously wealthy. From the monks socialists adopted two principles:
1) From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
2) Personal possessions are wrong because they lead only to self aggrandizement

Socialists have replaced the monastery with the medieval village or (in Russia) THE MIR. This word refers to a village or community with the idea that all members of a community must work together cooperatively to assure mutual survival (thus the sharing of work, food and in the cold winter months warmth). The Mir survives if the two principles are followed. The Mir is populated by Peasants. They farm land owned the local lord and are regularly cheated by merchants (the bourgeoisie) in the towns and cities. The bourgeoisie are despicable because they reject the 2 principles and, together with the nobility and the Church, are the source of Greed, Sloth, Gluttony, Avarice, Anger, Pride, and Extravagance.

Bluntly put, socialists want to turn the world into a giant Mir. Everyone becomes a peasant living in harmony with the land. There are no land owners, no nobles, no church, and no bourgeoisie. Early on the question was debated can socialism exist in one country while the rest of the word is unchanged. Early socialists agreed that the state could not whither away until the entire world was socialist because the nobility and the bourgeoisie are the enemies of socialism. Indeed, socialists believe their economies are constantly being sabotaged by the bourgeoisie.

Cambodia, after the American Army and Navy were chased out of South East Asia, was an experiment in rapid socialization. The cities were emptied so that the people could be brought back to the soil. The bourgeoisie and nobility were hunted down and slaughtered so that they could not stop the revolution. The proletariat was carefully inspected for counter-revolutionary thoughts and were re-educated if possible; otherwise they were killed. Sadly, the proletariat and even the peasantry were so badly polluted by bourgeois thoughts that only the children under 14 could be trusted to safeguard the revolution.

Democracy is not an ideology. It is a Process for determining what to do next. Socialists know what to do next – they don’t need democracy except as a source of legitimacy. Socialists prefer socialist dictators over democratic legislatures.

The liberal arguments in this thread show the continuing Munzenberg influence especially where they cite Wickipedia as reliable source for 20th century history.

Indeed your own article “The Left and Evolution” discusses the tendency the left has for irrational dogmatism (2/24/05).

Without that tactic the Left would crumble to dust.

No, but you did clearly claim that China is no longer a totalitarian regime, and that it was US diplomacy that enabled this miraculous transformation. I disagree with your statements, and I think it is obvious that you are wrong.

You assume that the only way China could re-incorporate Taiwan is via invasion.

No, I recognize that Beijing makes no bones about their ambitions to invade Taiwan. They talk about it openly, and they have done so for close to 60 years.

I even said this in my last comment, but you seem to have missed that for some reason.

I support Taiwanese independence but if you propose invading China to prevent them from threatening to takeover China, I’d have to refer you to the historical examples showing why that approach almost never works.

Please point out where I proposed an invasion of China.

The biggest problem with debating someone with a Leftist political outlook is that they cannot do so honestly. This is a prime example.

James

OK, let us look at the items on your list compared to actual results:

Iran: Compare results to Azerbaijan under the Soviets, Iran was better off. Compare results to Iran under the Mullahs, Iran was better off.

Guatemala: Compare results to Guatemala under Arbenz, Guatemala was better off.

Chile: Compare results to Cuba under Castro, Chile was better off.

Nicaragua: Compare results to Cuba under Castro, Nicaragua was better off.

Compare Yugoslavia to Italy. Compare Vietnam to the Philippines. Compare North Korea to South Korea. And so on and so forth. In terms of blood and treasure, looks like “right-wing militarist” have been batting a 1000.

Wes, you do love comparing chalk and cheese. Hong Kong was leased to Britain, when the lease was up Britain transferred it to China. Taiwan, except for a short period, was never part of mainland Chinese jurisdiction.
Military defense of Hong Kong was not a practical proposition whereas it is of Taiwan.

As for China not being a totalitarian country, why don’t you tell the Tibetans, I’m sure it would make them very happy to know that.

Please let me know when the Chicagoboyz once again have some editorial control over the site, and I can read a thread without wasting most of my time searching through student union debating drivel for something relevant to the topic.

By the way, how did the U.S. respond to Tiananmen? Ah yes, the “left-wing methodology” again, to use Shannon’s grandiloquent terminology. And the result? Have you been to Shanghai lately? The place is booming. Granted, it’s not represented of the whole country and there are massive problems out in Tibet and other hinterlands, but, overall, the country’s improving fast.

Do you really think a right-wing militarist response to Tiananmen would have worked? And if you can’t apply the rightist model against such brazen totalitarianism, where can you apply it?

You are missing the point that this is a comparison of the approach there with the approach in Vietnam, using clearly defined criteria based on outcomes, not hypotheticals.

You assume that the only way China could re-incorporate Taiwan is via invasion. Are you forgetting or denying that Hong Kong was re-incorporated with a shot being fired. Again, diplomacy worked. Are the Hong Kong people better off–not in my view, but that’s a separate question.

I support Taiwanese independence but if you propose invading China to prevent them from threatening to takeover China, I’d have to refer you to the historical examples showing why that approach almost never works.

I have two words for you. Tiananmen Square. Tell me again how China isn’t toatalitarian.

Miki

Beijing has never been shy about pointing out that the very first step in any of their foreign policy plans is to conquer Taiwan. “All Chinese under one government” is a slogan I think they used at one time. Considering the cultural and political pressures that exist inside China, it is a profoundly embarrassing fact that they have never even been close to that goal.

And why not? Because the US Navy would oppose any invasion force that tried to make their way across the Taiwan Strait.

A single US carrier battle group has done more to bottle up Chinese aggression than any diplomatic initiative, no matter how much you might inflate the utility of such efforts. Even today, those of us interested in military affairs can easily see that China is constantly struggling to find ways to defeat our forces in the area and make the invasion happen.

I don’t agree with your assertion that the Chinese have turned their back on totalitarianism since I think the word pretty much accurately portrays Chinese political reality. But your statement that the US relied on a diplomatic approach with China is obviously disingenuous. We might not have directly invaded the mainland, but we certainly have relied on a military counter to Chinese aggression.

And the very same approach is still necessary, and it still works.

James