January 5, 2007

Chap’s Corollary To Godwin’s Law

Filed under: — Chap @ 12:20 am

As an unmoderated comment string gets longer, the discussion will invariably devolve to rehashing the 2003 decision to invade Iraq. At that point no further useful communication will be possible.

12 Responses to “Chap’s Corollary To Godwin’s Law”

  1. JPS Says:

    Oh, I like this very much. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the House Democrats planning all sorts of hearings to rehash the 2003 decision to invade Iraq?

  2. Skippy-san Says:

    Of course, God forbid that one would get to the base decision that led to all the other bad decisions…………

    It gets back to that because 0f the lack of accountabilty for the decision. GWB will fade from the scene, never having been made to account for his bad decisions as President. So its frustrating.

    However that does not mean that endeavour to rehash the decisionis not worth while, if in the process, it discloses the fundamental hypocisy that is the Bush administration….and has been when it comes to defense issues since 2001. If we can learn from that and keep it from happening in the future, then it will be worth while.

    In the interim it still feels good to shout at the moon.

  3. JPS Says:

    Well, Skippy-san, you make my point for me. The point will be to call Bush to account for bad decisions…disclose the fundamental hypocrisy…and shout at the moon because it feels good. Doesn’t much help us in terms of where we should go from here, though.

    So I wish the Congressional Democrats could maybe focus on that for now, and then after we’ve reached some sort of acceptable outcome, they can berate Bush and seek all the political advantage from this they want. I won’t complain.

  4. Consul-At-Arms Says:

    Chap’s Corrollary is dead on target; the discussion is. . . . (what’s a more trivial version of saying

    something is purely academic?) once you’ve backtracked to this point.

    The essential question, for anyone who actually “supports the troops” (you know the ones who

    are actually in harm’s way) is where do we go from here. Assigning the blame is unnecessary,

    the President made the call and isn’t shirking responsibility for it. Jumping up and down and

    flinging poo is fun for primates but supremely unhelpful if you’ve got a dog in the fight already.

    And my dawgs are in the fight!

  5. Skippy-san Says:

    Its only trivial to those who disagree with the premise that it was a bad call. If you agree with the premise, then it is a perfectly legit activity.

    Oh, and another thing, I’m tired of being told I do not support the troops because I want to see senior DOD leaders held to account for NOT supporting the troops-in equipment, resources, end strength, and everything else they failed to do in the last 6 years.

    If the surge works and it is surmised that more troops were needed all along, will Rumsfeld be sued for negligence? Nope.

  6. Consul-At-Arms Says:

    BTW, I’ve linked to you here:

    Skippy-San, being wrong (I’ll happily stipulate that there have been some bad decisions on our side, at every level, in the

    conduct of the Iraq campaigns thusfar) doesn’t equate to negligence. Resourcing, deploying and conducting combat operations

    on the far side of the planet is a non-trivial exercise and if you expect perfection in war, you should get yourself measured for

    a strait jacket, because it’s just going to drive you crazy.

  7. chap Says:

    See? The corollary works. Could be a post about cheese, or farming techniques, or pretty much anything…let the string get longer and it’ll get there.

  8. Consul-At-Arms Says:


    They just don’t get it.

    Instead of dealing with today’s problems, oh, maybe perhaps, TODAY, they’d rather our senior military people spent hours in front of congressional committees (and even more hours, plus all the many-time man-hours of their staffs preparing for testimony) instead of DOING THEIR JOBS DEALING WITH TODAY’S (and tomorrow’s) PROBLEMS TODAY.

    And while yes, it’s also in their job descriptions to be responsive to Congress, but the unvoiced agenda is to throw so much sand into the gears and additional obstacles that the U.S. can’t help but fail.

    It’s a source of unending frustration for many that our troops haven’t lost.

    Those are not people I see as “supporting” anyone but our enemies.

    OT: I was recently “home” on leave and going through some of my stored effects. When I got to my personally-owned sidearm (a military-model M9 Berreta 9 mm pistol), without thinking I immediately cleared and inspected it to ensure it was unloaded.

    And then I realized what I’d just done without even thinking about it.

  9. chap Says:

    Thus the other half of the corollary…

  10. Skippy-san Says:

    Give me a break! C o A, you sit in your splendor and casitgate the rest of us who have served and don’t quite see the world the same way. Since I have done my bit for King and Country every bit as much as you have , you will forgive me if I turn back into the fight. I’ve got the gas and the airspeed.

    Lets start backwards shall we? I am not supporting our enemies any more than you are. (working hard now to control my impulses to use swear words). The issue comes down to proof…e.g that continued loss of life in support of ARAB interests, that are not in concert with those of AMERICANS is somehow right. (Its not.)Secondly, its not wrong to demand an accounting from those who got Americans killed with nothing to show for it. Your approach is to dismiss the messgenger as being unworthy, instead of understanding the passion of his argument, or the validity of it.

    As for testimony, there were a lot of people within the services who asked pertinent questions in 2003 , specifically why now? That gets ignored quite often.

    Finally, I’ve got friends over their too. Their assesment is not as rosy as your friends seems to be. Mostly they just want to know when they can leave and put this behind them. I would also advise you to examine the results of the Army Times poll which shows that career military are souring on the war in Iraq.

    Why do threads “devolve”.? Because the authors of the threads seem to not want to see people who are equally as passionate as they are…about the opposite opinion. Whne i t comes to Iraq , I am passionate. About how this war was a mistake and a long term detour America did not need to take. About how Arabs always screw up what they have been given. So far, history has proven me right. And about how this is the end result of failing to do the right thing in 1956.

  11. Consul-At-Arms Says:

    Ah, my “splendor,” I’m going to giggle about that for awhile.

    Still, I commend your impulse control over swearing. I often have trouble with that myself. Forgive me, but I didn’t realize you were a veteran also and I apologize sincerely if I sounded patronizing or otherwise castigated you personally.

    The issue comes down to proof…e.g that continued loss of life in support of ARAB interests, that are not in concert with those of AMERICANS is somehow right. (Its not.)

    Let me suggest that leaving Iraq to be dominated by our enemies (any of them, and there are at least three groups in the Iraq snakepit who qualify as our enemies, maybe more) is NOT in American interests.

    Let me further suggest that leaving Iraq in the face of these enemies will constitute a propaganda victory (an information war victory, to use current jargon) even if not a battlefield victory for our enemies who will attempt to capitalize on and propagate the perception that it was in fact a battlefield victory, that the infidels (i.e., us) were cowards &tc. and could be counted on not to have the stomach for facing the holy warriors, yadda-yadda, just a UBL make much propaganda hay from our withdrawal from Somalia after the “Black Hawk Down” events.

    My point is that it’s not in our best interests to pull out now that we’re there, unless it’s unequivably on our terms and can’t be spun against us in the information war. To a certain extent that means that the interests of some Arabs will coincide with our interests and they will benefit from them.

    You’re dead-on right we need to work for our own interests, of course. I wish that went without saying, but there are plenty of chowderheads who can’t parse the distinction.

    Secondly, its not wrong to demand an accounting from those who got Americans killed with nothing to show for it.

    That’s kind of a two-parter. It’s never wrong to expect an accounting from our elected (and appointed) officials, but show trials and witch hunts are another thing entirely. I just don’t buy the “impeach Bush” line.

    And Americans will have been killed with nothing to show for it only if we lose (or let the badguys win, which means the media and politicians lost their nerve and pulled the rug out from under our troops). It’s bad enough they tie our troops hands behind their backs.

    I was not happy to go to Iraq personally. At the time, I didn’t have the information to connect the dots between Saddam’s support to terrorists to Al-Qaida specifically (which has since been established to my satisfaction, if not to the 9/11 plot itself, which seems unlikely but which can’t yet be definitively discounted). If I were the president in 2002-2003, and he/me had the information I had at that point, I wouldn’t have gone into Iraq. But the president had other/more information than I did at that point and he’s the one elected to make calls like that. Even though, at the time, I wouldn’t have made that call I still understood much of the reasoning behind it even based on my limited information at that time. There was reasonable and prudent justification for the invasion and I accept that, much of that justification has stood the test of time, or is still indeterminate, or has even been reinforced as correct.

    Now some of that information wasn’t as accurate as any of us would like in hindsight, but what’s done is done. The thing now is to NOT LOSE. The thing now is to not have let the effort and the lives have been wasted.

    There was way too much optimistic and hopeful planning and execution, but the Darwinian process on our leadership (both military and political) has been steady. Sec. Rumsfeld is out. Iraq experienced combat commanders are moving into top military positions already. A major factor in our future success will simply be not to have had a failure of nerve along the way.

    I won’t comment on the Arabs other than it’s going to take a major effort (and not just in Iraq) for the message to sink in culturally that dicking around with The Great Satan isn’t such a great idea after all.

    I’m aware of the recent Army Times poll, but I question whether it’s dissatisfaction with fighting the war in general so much as having to fight it with the New York Times and federal prosecutors breathing down your neck and second-guessing your tactical decisions, let alone writing the Rules of Engagement.


  12. Skippy-san Says:

    1956 refers to the failure of the United States to stick up for the British Empire while it was still predominatly engaged in the middle east. They and the French had invaded Egypt, beaten them, however the US found that offensive so they were forced to withdraw before crushing Nasser who was the first of the Arabs who tought that Arab nations culd defy Western nations with impunity. One of my central premises is that Europeans , of which I include Americans should be ruling over most of the Middle East. Eisenhower shut the Brits and French down which began the long chain of events that led to the present gloomy era, including the history of Iraq.

    Arabs are scum, and will be until they rid themsleves of Islam.

    My issue with Rumsfeld et al has , and will continue to be, his failure to step up to the plate and resource the armed services for the conflict. He should have been banging on the table on Sept 12 demanding a larger Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. He failed to that and for that, he should be held criminally libel, IMHO. We could have been a lot better off to do business now had he simply awakened to that fact. He did not because he did not really care about the working man in uniform. PERIOD. Accordingly, I want him and his minions, of which I hold David Chu as an example , to suffer.

Trackback URL for Chap’s Corollary To Godwin’s Law:


Powered by WordPress (c) 2002-2009 Chap G.