On non-awesome milquetoast

[H2O Man]

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphan,and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?”
Gandhi; quoted in Thomas Merton's “Gandhi on Non-Violence”; New Directions; 1964.

The Democratic Underground is rarely boring. Just this morning, I had an e-mail from a person who I (still) consider a friend, that started: “I take it back. You are not awesome.” I also found a response on a thread I started, from someone I do not know, calling me “milquetoast..” Gracious.

Both less-than-complimentary comments were responses to my expressing my opinion on the manner in which President Obama engaged our military in the civil war in Libya. The first person believes that I do not support a humanitarian effort; the second believes that I lack the courage of my convictions, because I am not demanding the impeachment of President Obama.

Perhaps part of this misunderstanding is rooted in the very nature of internet discussion sites. And other parts are likely the result of people having different opinions – for, indeed, intelligent people can have very different perspectives on issues involving war and peace; the US military's role in the world; and even of President Barack Obama.

Thus, good and decent people can disagree on events involving Libya. In fact, in two recent surveys I posted here – on March 24 and 31 – I made clear that there are no “wrong” opinions. There can be incorrect understandings of facts. As I noted in another essay, many people talk about the “War Powers Act,” without realizing there were actually two congressional War Powers Acts. The second was passed when FDR was President. I suspect people are speaking of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. However, to fully understand that resolution, one benefits from familiarity with those two previous acts, as well as the Constitution's War Powers Clause.

On March 22, I posted an essay, “Schlesinger v Yoo,” regarding these four documents. This included the dangers that scholars from both the left and right have connected with presidents using “war” to expand executive powers. I consider that to be a serious issue – I believe that our country's best chance of dealing with our problems, and assisting other peoples with their problems, comes by following the Constitution. I've had that opinion dismissed by some who disagree with me on events in Libya.

Likewise, I have been admonished for referring to events in Libya as being a “civil war,” rather than a “revolution.” In fact, revolutions are, by definition, civil wars. On January 31, I had posted an essay titled “The Rebellion in Egypt,” that included the widely accepted definitions of the seven types of “rebellions” in the context of the social sciences of sociology, political science, and history. My goal was to improve both the level of individual understanding and group discussions on this forum, for there are benefits from understanding the concepts being discussed.

In yet another disagreement on this forum, a friend who enjoys military history has gone so far as to disagree on if what is happening in Libya is a “war.” His opinion is based, I believe, on his study of military definitions. For this very reason, the Constitution provides for civilian authority over the military. In fact, the Constitution has two levels of civilian control: the President (in theory) controls the military as “Commander in Chief,” and because this puts him/her in a unique position, the Congress is tasked with both the power to declare war, and to control the “purse strings.”

I appreciate the fact that others can hold different opinions on Libya than I do. And I welcome the opportunity to discuss and debate these issues. It can be difficult when people are not familiar with the Constitution; congressional acts and resolutions; and constitutional law (that defined by US Supreme Court decisions). Likewise, when people apply incorrect definitions to words, meaningful discuss can be hard. Yet, it can still be accomplished.

What makes discussion meaningless, and debate impossible, is when people hold that only they advocate humanitarianism, and accuse people who disagree as being “racists” who do not care about “brown-skinned people.” Likewise, the demand for impeachment as the only alternative strike me as being as weak as calling those who hold different opinions “milquetoast.”

Peace,
H2O Man

[freshwest]

1. Nice OP.

[readmoreoften]

2. Very nice.

[Mnemosyne]

3. Hear, hear. K&R n/t

[Ignis]

4. K&R. Your last paragraph highlights the problem nicely.

:kick:

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. You are awesome. Great piece, as usual. n/t

[H2O Man]

6. kick

[bleever]

7. Balderdash.

Seriously, absolutism is such a powerful tendency of the human mind that it's hard to see for what it is when one is under its sway.

Keats wrote this about what he called "negative capability":

"...several things dovetailed in my mind, & at once it struck me, what quality went to form a Man of Achievement especially in literature & which Shakespeare possessed so enormously - I mean Negative Capability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts without any irritable reaching after fact & reason..."

[H2O Man]

8. Oh, I do try

to have an open mind on issues like Libya, etc. I'm not opposed to humanitarian efforts, even when there is the possibility of armed conflict. But I'm not confident that those in government -- from either party -- tend to share a significant amount of important information with the public. Hence, while I recognize that I haven't offered a good theory on how I think the situation should have been handled (in Libya, though I've been clear on in Washington), I believe it could have been approached differently before March, 2011. There have been more open lines of communication between our respective governments in the past decade, and CI had a presence in Libya.

Again, I am not opposed to humanitarian efforts in theory; I do prefer that Americans -- including Congress and citizens -- have far more access to the information that any executive office bases its decisions upon.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Shrillness is a force-play

Lynsey Addario was captured along with male journalists. She was hit in the face at the beginning of the ordeal, and was repeatedly groped, but never with hands going under her clothes. At one point a soldier stroked her hair and told her she was going to die tonight. Not a good time. Not a good bunch of people.

An Al-Jazeera Cameraman was killed in an ambush while riding in an unmarked car with others who were not clearly marked as journalists.

Mohammed Nabous, a popular webcaster was killed while filming in a firefight; it is unclear exactly what the circumstances were, but it does not sound like an execution. He was filming street fighting.

These are the only two journalists killed to date, and the only incident like the first.

Here's how this comes out in Obama's speech: Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed.

The lesson from this from our President is that if you're not with me, you're a pro-rape, soft-on-murder thug. It's akin to the conflation of 911 and Iraq. To me, the image is that numerous journalists are being arrested, raped and then killed while they're in captivity. THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE, and it's calculated to quash all dissent.

The true problem is this: when many people feel wronged, they are released from any bounds of decency, and yet are still somehow the noble ones even as they ostracize, hound, deliberately deceive, intimidate and generally misbehave. It's their right. When they're "bad" and you're "good", it doesn't matter what you do, and you're entitled to do anything. How can you not see this?

These are not the best of times if one is a bit skeptical of his/her fellow species...