Shout From The Pack

I've been a huge fan of Sergeant Stryker for a long, long time. He's the first milblogger I ever blogrolled, and he remains a very frequent read.

Stryker has gotten some play from this piece, which whacks at both sides on the terrorism debate.

It starts with the "hysterical woman/Syrian band/probing our defenses" story from last week.

The story, and the response to it from the (forgive the pun) reactionary portion of the blogodome, is telling. Most of the blog responses to the story from the conservative wing or the “single-issue voters” was one of fear. “Could this be a dry run?", “This is why we need to profile all Arab males!", “The security doesn’t work, it’s up to us!” were all common responses to the story, which is odd because most of them base their support of the current Administration on the very fact that it has done a lot to protect us from future terrorist attacks. If you believe that this Administration is our last, best hope for Victory, then why do you carry-on as if nothing has changed or improved in the past three years? How do you rationalize the paradox?

There's no rationalization needed.

Part of the improvement is that the goverment is responding to the larger threats.

Part of the improvement is that more of we, the people, know that "the authorities", whoever they are (government, management, whomever) don't have a monopoly on wisdom, intelligence, prescience, or even competence. The CIA and the other organs of government flubbed terrorism for years; the citizens on Flight 93 figured it out in seconds. 911 operators told people on the 83rd floor of the World Trade Center to stay put after the first plane hit - and they likely died for trusting authority.

The parts of our safety that are within the government's purview are probably better-handled these days. The parts that we, the people, have do deal with - damn straight they are.

Most of the responses to the panicked woman story were indictments against the current Administration on the very issue that they say represents their over-riding decision to support the Administration. It doesn’t add up.

Unless "the Administration" is riding in every plane with me, in disguise and carrying a concealed MP5K, they are really two different issues.

Most of you conservatives say we’re at war, yet you’d hardly know it from your actions. You engage in the same stupid partisan bickering and arcane gamesmanship as in peacetime. You say this Adminstration is strong against terrorism, yet your very actions and words betray your confidence in it. You support it because it uses strong words and invaded Iraq. When you eliminate all of your paradoxes about this Administration, that’s all you have left: you support this Adminstration because it talks tough and it invaded Iraq. Are you safer now than you were 3 years ago? You wouldn’t know it by listening to you.

Now, Stryker is arguing like a liberal; "Inconsistency=Hypocrisy!".

I'm confident that the economy is picking up - but I keep my resume polished up just in case. Does that make me a hypocrite, or merely prudent?

Most of you liberals say we’re at war, but your war is against the President. You’re more concerned about defeating Bush than you are about defeating the enemy. To you, Bush is the enemy. Just like your conservative brethren, you’re more interested in political showmanship than doing anything to seriously help win this war. You oppose the President because he uses strong words and he invaded Iraq. Unlike the conservatives, you think that the security apparatus put in place after 9-11 does it’s job too well and does it against the wrong people. Are you safer now than you were 3 years ago? Obviously not. You think we’re on the verge of the Third Reich.

I'm too close to this to comment fairly.

Do you want to know why I’m an independent? It’s because you conservatives and liberals are a stupid and silly people. You bicker and posture as if we have all the time in the world to defeat international terrorism. You say we’re at war and things need to be done right now when it’s politically convenient for you to do so, but you carry-on as if we’re still at peace. We have Americans dying overseas while they’re obstensibly trying to protect you, but all you can do is paint them as either untouchable heroes or pathetic victims. You can’t seriously debate the course of this war because for you, this isn’t a war against international terrorism, this is a war about personalities, specifically one personality: George W. Bush. For you, this isn’t a real war with real consequences, this is just another phoney war of opinion. You aren’t conservatives and liberals, you’re Phobos and Deimos: Fear and Panic. One of you uses the fear of external threats to win elections, the other tries to frighten you with internal threats. You both serve the same Master and that is why your supposed differences are as illusory as the fears you try to frighten us with. You’re more concerned with winning the next election than you are the real war. It’s a farce. This would make for a great comedy if it wasn’t so fucking tragic.

Stryker?

Bullshit.

The election is important - vital - for how this war will be fought. Or have you forgotten the Clinton Years in the military already?

There's nothing wrong with being an "independent", in and of itself - but it tends to engender a smug "above the fray" sense of superiority - like "Moderates", they are often passive-aggressives who never take stances of their own, but have no problem pecking at other people's actions.

The bleat from the "independents" often resembles Stryker's - "We're playing politics while the terrorists are getting ready to strike again!". That's right. That's because we live in a Democracy, and that's how decisions are made. Do you suggest a dictatorship? Or are you suggesting that in a representative republic, a people who stuck religiously to the middle would ever made any decisions at all?

Posted by Mitch at July 26, 2004 06:59 AM | TrackBack