Playing With Fire

After visiting a few conservative web sites, the following e-mail appeared in my in-box. Bob had something he wanted me to know:

You demonstrate a basic understanding of warfare, and how it is to be used to keep the peace. I pity people such as yourself who cannot come face to face with reality, but instead cower behind false visions of "peace" and universal brotherhood. Nobody ever wants war, but when waged, it has to be absolute, devastating, complete and triumphal to serve its purposes. Humanity in the long run will be better served if we quickly eradicate 100% of these terrorist thugs

So I responded to Bob thusly:

"Bob:

Thanks for the e-mail. You've clearly got an evangelical zest to change minds and alter viewpoints. Or maybe you're just angry and in a provocative mood. Either way, you've done a splendid job of encapsulating the position for a full-throttle war in the Middle East; at least from the perspective of a belligerent patriot. Staying true to the long traditions of belligerent patriotism, you're also assuming that those of us that feel that this war is an incompetent and ill-conceived mess are ideological pacifists. But hey, that's to be expected. It would be counterproductive to your own interests to entertain any position that might slow the calcification of your own beliefs. That we are fighting terrorists today in Fallujah is a convenient (if not altogether true) characterization. But this is the kind of reductionism that characterizes all wars. And you know what? If it helps the soldiers to win by temporarily engaging in this kind of skewered reductionism, then fine. But it still isn't true. And don't expect those of us that know better to trundle into your bandwagon because you fling around epithets like 'coward'.

And by the way, wars most assuredly do not need to be 'absolute, devastating, complete and triumphal'. If they did, we'd all have been vaporized by nuclear weapons a long, long time ago."

Bob, it seems, forwarded this message to Stephen. Stephen, it turns out, was none to happy with what I wrote and decided to take it upon himself to give me piece of his mind. To wit:

Interesting phrase above..."those of us that feel.."In this phrase you have unconsciously betrayed yourself, as you have identified that the basis for your argument is the way that you feel. I expect that you will argue otherwise, but you have tipped your hand. I would not expect you to think logically, because that is not the way you will approach this issue.

I have a question for you; have you graduated from a US Military academy? Have you ever taught at a War College? Have you served in a planning, or strategic capacity for any branch of the US Armed services, or for NATO? Do you have any expertise, whatsoever, about matters military?

I fond your arrogance above to be stunning; I am quite certain that the answers to all the above questions are no, yet you presume to "know better" than the emtire chain of command of the US Military. Sorry sister, you don't and you are an amateur.

You know little about war, the history of war, and you are not even well educated enough to know what was meant by the phrase "absolute, devastating, complete and triumphal"...in this you have displayed your ignorance yet again. Read up a bit on the history of warfare and perhaps you will come accross the hidden meaning, which is not so hidden, at all of this statement. Until then, you are just another whiney peacenik who doesn't know shit about shinola....

Regards,

Someone Who Does Know

P.S. Look on a map and see if you can figure out where Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE are....what do YOU know of these lands, and of these people? Ever lived there?

Guess what ...I have and I do....

Thoroughly whupped by Stephen's linguistic lashing, I finally set out to calm the waters and sooth the smokin' brows of my conservative brothers. I responded to Stephen thusly:

"Thank you for straightening me out. You're absolutely right that I 'feel' that some characteristics of our military policy are inappropriate and would benefit from being changed. I didn't know (until now) how that statement really does betray a deep ignorance of "fact" on my part; and a concomitant over-reliance on emotion.

I'm sorry to have stunned you with my arrogance. While I'm not altogether sure what I wrote that was arrogant, I'm willing to concede the overarching tone of my previous correspondence was, frankly, haughty.

Finally, I'm awed by your impressive command of the 'facts' – as multivalent and often contradictory as 'facts' can sometimes be. Although I have no verifiable data to suggest that your are a vast reservoir of brilliance, I nonetheless concede that your are. That's what I do. I concede things because it's convenient and emotionally rewarding.

I must go away now, and conduct some research on the relative dissimilarities that exist between shinola and shit."

Hopefully the matter is now resolved. But the moral of this story is clear: engaging in dialogue with pissed off vets, red state gun enthusiasts, and GOP foot soldiers is a risky enterprise. Unfortunately, someone has to do it.