If they had a happy bond with the Word–if It nourished them, consoled them, delighted and surprised them–then they could easily understand that others have a like relation to the Word. But for these folks, the Word has always been delivered (and indeed received) by angry and twisted men, who treat it as a whip, a lash and a scourge. The Word, for them, only stings, and burns, and makes a loud cracking sound in their ears. Small wonder, then, that they piss on the Word wherever and whenever they find it. They piss on the Word when they speak in their own mother tongue, as we see in the damaged language coming from the mouth of that piece of damaged goods we’ve chosen to call our President. Well, some folks just won’t put up with this sort of thing, and they blow the pissers to smithereens. Do they spend their own lives to doing so? A small price to pay, when someone’s fated to save what’s sacred.

Posted by: alabama | Jun 7 2005 2:03 utc | 4

“No, this little triumph belongs to those folks in Iraq and Afghanistan, the ones who know how to blow the American war machine to smithereens. And they’ve blown it to smithereens.”
Gloating just isn’t attractive, especially when it is gloating over a common disaster. Worse, is to gloat over things that aren’t true. This is not a triumph of “these folks” nor have they blown the American war machine to smithereens. Head chopper offers are not nice people. Apparently the Iraquis are well aware of that and a little embarrassed by it.
This sort of misery goat talk makes the left untrustworthy in American politics, and, from a man who defends the godfather of the transforming war on Islam, Strauss, no less.
The American military machine has destroyed the Taliban (in a LAND LOCKED theatre) and Hussein’s army. Currently all concerned with barrel of gun power, rather than rhetoric, agree that American military power is still the dominant power in Iraq. It is the dominant military power with far less troops than it needs to get the job done, and even though the troops were given a political mission they lacked the power to accomplish the day when the nuts hatched their invade Iraq plan right afte 9.11. The troops are overwhelmingly young and/or weekend warriors who need the opportunity the more fortunate passed on. That they could have dominance is an amazing sociological fact. And the ugly clean up logic that may soon emerge is that the sulking Sunnis, who are now the single biggest problem, seem intent on picking a losing fight. Maybe some Sunni should think of consulting for democrat presidential candidates, or calling on Bob Schrum for his help.
If the dreaded civil war breaks out “those folks” are going to be blown to smithereens by shiites with grievances and the hammer of American military power. America will be far worse off, nuclear Iran better off. American power for violence will have lost respect and so will mean less, but the American military machine as a military machine will have again proven superb. Ground truth uber alles.

Posted by: razor | Jun 7 2005 2:23 utc | 6

@Razor:
I think your analysis of both Iraq and afghanistan is full of shit.
But it was highly entertaining, nonetheless.

Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 7 2005 2:52 utc | 8

“the American military machine as a military machine will have again proven superb. Ground truth uber alles.”
Posted by: razor | June 6, 2005 10:23 PM | #
Right… All Hummer and no Human.

Posted by: pb | Jun 7 2005 3:11 utc | 10

Man on man. What’s the fun of disagreeing with me when there is no disagreement?
The American military machine is intact, not in smithereens. The military’s strategic and tactical value have decreased because it was used to do something it could not – such as control outcomes – and in such a way that whatever long shot it did have at a miracle in Iraq was destroyed.
I feel like I am hearing the flip side of the neo con mistake. They inexcusably pretended military force is transforming. The flip side being that the military force can be seen for what it is, because, that would be an endorsement of the neo cons, with the corollary, that Sunni murders must be glorified because they are checking hubris. “those folks.” THose folks who are blowing up whoever they can because the Americans are to hunkered down to kill more than a few a day.
It is just plain wrong not to appreciate that small town 20 year olds are dominant in Iraq, and that the United States destroyed one government and installed another when it didn’t have a corridor to enter the nation. These are stunning military facts. And the bad guys are bad guys. This is not an anti American morality play.

Posted by: razor | Jun 7 2005 3:20 utc | 12

well razor the United Nations forces in Afghanistan didn’t destroy a government and replace it with another. They replaced the warlord in Kabul with another. neither Kabul power controls/ed a centralised govt in the sense that we in the west understand it. Hell I wouldn’t even go so far as to call the Taliban ‘bad guys’ they gave a measure of peace to Afghanistan that hadn’t been there for a long time or have you forgotten the chaos that ensued once the soviets were driven out. There was less opium coming out corrupting afghanis as well as the kids of europe. They weren’t good guys but they were certainly no worse than hundreds of other governments on this planet.
As far as delivering power to 20 year olds isn’t that what all wars do? When you’ve been shot or raped, you’ve been shot or raped whether or not the people who landed the shooters and rapists amongst you has some meisterplan would seem to be a bit irrelevant while the 20 something is doing the shooting and raping.
The US invasion of a country that had already largely been starved into submission for 10 years was no sociological wonder. What was a wonder, sociological or not, was the speed with which it came unstuck. Just an ounce of comonsense combined with a dash of compassion for the people would have prevented the anarchy that now reigns in Iraq.
There is never any glory or marvel in conventional war. The most biggest guns always wins in the short term.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 7 2005 4:14 utc | 14

But all this is quite beside the point of my post, and the post from Billmon that caught my attention in the first place! It was all about pissing on the Koran. I believe that the American military and political performance in Iraq and Afghanistan is an explosion of ethnocentric, racist and religious bigotry on the part of the most regressive elements in our body politic–a poison that has to be fought, and a disease that has to be cured. Pissing on the Koran serves very nicely as a metonym for the thoughts and deeds of those elements, and most certainly invites whatever fate may attend us at the hands of the truly offended. If you believe that we’re acting in Iraq out of a thoughtful fidelity to our own deepest values of compassion and respect for our fellow man, then I can certainly see how we might be passing each other like ships in the night on this particular thread.

Posted by: alabama | Jun 7 2005 4:24 utc | 16

The point of the war is to give the president war powers authority and to stoke the with me or against me political rhetoric. The best part about Iraq, from the neocon presidency’s standpoint, is that it is not endible.
The fact that no one knows why we are fighting, including his nibs himself is proof that the war more about power than it is about terror.
A side benefit is the torture archipelego where the chickenhawks are able to outlay there psychotic gratification.
None of the international policies make sense. They are all destabilizing and incite instability. Its like a bull in a china shop. Yet they want you to treat them like they know what they are doing. Its, to use Bush’s words “ubsurd”. (Bush might be right, that Amnesty International’s report is absurd; but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
We once were a compassionate nation. Now we are just a bunch of thugs. We deserve no respect. And, we hardly getting any either.

Posted by: Timka | Jun 7 2005 4:50 utc | 18

Despite all the rhetoric, winning the war against terrorism really isn’t all that important to the wingnut right ………………
I wonder if a side reasoning to invading Iraq was to use it to puff up the alledged threat from terrorism, to make sure there is always plenty of blood in the water. I’m assuming that after 911the administration knew full well that the attack itself was largely a one trick pony, albeit a pretty big one. I think they knew fullwell, in spite of the “its a not question of if , but when” nonsense, that maintaining the level of opportunity, read: climate of fear — would soon evaporate after the Afgan training camps were routed. In retrospect, all the heightened surveiliance, the terror alerts, and the overblown powers of the Patriot Act have produced almost no immanent threat(s) waiting out there to strike. Couple this with the total lack of interest in secureing chemical, nuclear facilitys, and ports etc. and it begins to look like further threats of attack were never taken seriously as effective precaution was superceded by “the sky is falling” fearmongering as a domestic political tool.
In this light the war in Iraq was a sure fire winner in two ways. Further demonize Sadaam as a terrorist with 911 WMD capacity and AQ linkage so the war on terror can be broadened and sustained which produces either: 1) the long term military/economic presence (with major bases) along with the eventual privitization of Iraqi economic assets, or if things go “badly” 2) a long term low casuality extension of the war on terror that is self sustaining in the production “bad guys” at a manageable rate contained within Iraq. Number 1 being the light at the end of tunnel number 2, with lots of (US & Iraqi) government money transferred to the multi-nationals in the process.
Billmon is right to point out that these rhetorical scrimmages as used by the right to justify on moral terms some facit of this foreign policy debauchery, are by and large last nights lover reconsidered as a one night stand — hey! I thought I was in love.

Posted by: anna missed | Jun 7 2005 6:52 utc | 20

@Lupin – at least we learn a little on MoA ..

Ragnarok (“Doom of the Gods”), also called Gotterdammerung, means the end of the cosmos in Norse mythology. It will be preceded by Fimbulvetr, the winter of winters. Three such winters will follow each other with no summers in between. Conflicts and feuds will break out, even between families, and all morality will disappear. This is the beginning of the end.

.. a bit more

Posted by: DM | Jun 7 2005 7:07 utc | 22

…winning the war against terrorism really isn’t all that important to the wingnut right
Oh, but killing Arabs is. The wingnut right understands that ‘winning the war on terrorism’ is a hypocritical excuse – a coded message, an accepted slogan. They understand it far better than the left, some of whom still seem to believe this fiction and moan about how US foreign policy is *increasing* terrorism. If one discounts the guerrilla warfare in Iraq and refuses to call ‘insurgent’ actions there ‘terrorism’, that isn’t even true.
(Well. one might quibble about the numbers, but they are so terribly small – more people die world wide from eating rat poison..say..)
All the precautions the US has taken against ‘terrorists’ have been to control US citizens (plus some for economic protectionism and many to fleece the US taxpayer). There there will not be a major terrorist attack perpetrated by Arabs/Muslims on US soil. There is no need to protect the Homeland.

Posted by: Noisette | Jun 7 2005 8:15 utc | 24

@ Noisette. I actually believe there *will* be attacks on US soil.
If the Brits and the French with their far more draconian laws and experienced security services couldn’t stop the IRA and the GIA to deliver bombs on their respective homelands, what make you think the inept US of A will succeed in preventing such strikes?
(After all unlike us, the French did stop the GIA from crashing a plane into a Paris building once.)
As long as we breed enemies (and plutonium) at the current rate, it’s almost a given, IMHO.
I wish I had a rosy alternative to offer, but by its own actions, Ametrica will have brought not only the strike(s) but the fascistic, Constitition-shredding measures that will likely follow upon its own head.

Posted by: Lupin | Jun 7 2005 8:33 utc | 26

Shortly after watching the tragedy of 9/11 unfold live on cable, I thought that this was now a pivotal point in Americas and consequently the Wests mid-term future … would reason and reflection result in a review and analysis of what had led to this event and a re-alignment of policies going back decades ?
Sadly, it was apparent almost immediately that the tragedy was seen as an opportunity to be cynically exploited, a morbid ‘gift’ … just as the ReichStag fire in ’30’s Germany hastened the destruction of rule of law to Fascist dictatorship so was 9/11 siezed upon as a tool of the Neo-cons and the Right to create a new ‘reality’ both Domestic and International …
The speed with which the Patriot Act (the name itself provides an insight into thier cynical exploitation of jingoism) was forced into law was breathtaking and much like the trickle effect of systemic change in ’30’s Germany we see the same happening here one step at a time … the intention is to try to cement power and control domestic by a steady pace incremental changes … sadly the civic ignorance and largely political apathy of the polity appears to indicate thier probable success …
The Administration and its agents have clearly demonstrated the ability to be able to committ almost any act in breach of civil, military and International law with impunity …
Re-read the history of the Nuremberg trials … our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as against civilian populations and ‘unlawful combatants’ (a cynically fictional definition) are, dare I be so blunt, Crimes of Aggression and War Crimes … and not by others standards, but by the standards we set under law when we led the prosecution of the Nazi’s after WWII … how far we have fallen, how blind as a people we have become …
Why are we so well informed of our own history, i.e. the War of Independence, and able to identify with our revolutionary struggle under the occupation and military/political domination of the then British for the exploitation of our resources … yet totally incapable of empathising with the people of Iraq and Afghanistan as they strive to resist a foriegn military occupation …
Is there a racism, bigotry, inhuman indifference as an undercurrent of the ‘average’ American that we can be so easily swayed to see Arabs/Muslims as ‘Untermenshen’ …
I heartily despair of the cynical jingoism and rabid nationalism that is being exploited for the benefit of an increasingly powerful/wealthy elite to the detriment of it’s own citizens let alone our fellow humans throughout the world …
Lies, propaganda, deciet, hyprocrisy of the most blatant and overt kind are now effectively accepted as the norm without consequence …
Rummy decries the ‘build-up’ of China’s military and advises them to better spend thier money elsewhere … their budget is 15% of ours (the publicly acknowledged budget) … by Rummy’s logic, by what right do we have to spend 8 times as much on our military … goddamnit, are we some sort of new western democratic super-race of Aryans, by birthright to dominate Terra ?
Is ‘The War on Terra’ an amorphous euphemism for the maintenance of continual conflict and instability throughout the world to justify our exploitation, acts and the continuance of our new birthright ?
The classic tool of authoritarian rule is the creation of enemies external in order to better control the Domestic polity for the goals of the State … in our supposed ‘Democracy’ are Arabs/Muslims now to us as the Jews were to the Nazi’s in the early thirties ?
When will we awake … will we … If we as a nation do, what will be the cost, this time ?

Posted by: Outraged | Jun 7 2005 15:46 utc | 28

If the Brits and the French with their far more draconian laws and experienced security services couldn’t stop the IRA and the GIA to deliver bombs on their respective homelands, what make you think the inept US of A will succeed in preventing such strikes?
It is impossible to stop terrorists by building moats, setting up rigid border controls, implementing racial profiling on the inefficient computer, creating lists of names, new IDs, or any of that.
Endless controls will help NOT. As any adolescent can explain right away. The impressive Israeli war machine and all its nukes does not stop Pal. kids from throwing rocks (and occasionally hitting someone) or suicide bombers. This is known. It is obvious.
The US is inept, for sure. Their reaction has been e.g. to slap controls and tariffs on Swiss chocolates (they might be poisoned!) and hold up suspicious ppl. at the Air America counter. These often turn out to be Ted Kennedy or a 3 year old child…
It is all fake, grist for the minor functionary mill, moves to frighten and control the US citizens, a scam. Inducing paranoid hysteria is a big money maker. For big corps, security companies, gvmt. officals, Big Pharma (vaccines, etc.) and so on.
Much of the dire terrorism touted in the press -and it is still minor, does not kill many – is in fact State terrorism. Either implemented by the Gvmt. itself, on its own people, or by X nation(s) in foreign lands, a masquerade, a provocation.
You do realise that the only survival mechanism the US has left is its military clout and deceptive tactics?
The US has no need to prevent such strikes. Nobody is striking the US, nobody intends to in the future. If anyone wants to kill Americans they just go to Iraq. Everyone realises that any ‘terrarist’ attack in the US will just serve the US’s purpose. And bring nukes raining down on the ME.
I have said it before: examine 9/11. The lost in America or the hapless Democrats cannot ever have any effect without examining this – incident. As it is sometimes called.
Soccer Moms need no duct tape. They can sleep safe. No Muslims will rape them or nuke their homes. Their children … well that is another story.

Posted by: Noisette | Jun 7 2005 17:38 utc | 30

This since sept 11 has seemed almost biblically true: The whole extended essay is at the link and is a wonderful piece of paranoid writing.
So it is that thousands of plots in favor of the established order tangle and clash almost everywhere, as the overlap of secret networks and secret issues or activities grows ever more dense along with their rapid integration into every sector of economics, politics and culture. In all areas of social life, the degree of intermingling in surveillance, disinformation and security activities gets greater and greater. The plot having thickened to the point where it is almost out in the open, each part of it now starts to interfere with, or worry, the others, for all these professional conspirators are spying on each other without really knowing why, are colliding by chance yet not identifying each other with any certainty. Who is observing whom? On whose behalf, apparently? And actually? The real influences remain hidden, and the ultimate aims can barely be suspected and almost never understood. So that while no one can be sure he is not being tricked or manipulated, it is rare for the string-puller to know he has succeeded. And in any case, to be on the winning side of manipulation does not mean that one has chosen the right strategic perspective.

Posted by: drunk as a rule | Jun 7 2005 22:16 utc | 32

Got the message there, DAAR.

Posted by: Soused Ham | Jun 7 2005 22:37 utc | 34

There’s some gems in there from Debord:

The spectators must certainly never know everything about terrorism, but they must always know enough to convince them that, compared with terrorism, everything else must be acceptable, or in any case more rational and democratic.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 7 2005 23:51 utc | 36

Soused Ham
Your comment has no substance. I was asking a question. I also notice attacks like yours are seldom accompanied by justification: the hallmark of the dumbfuck who deserves no riposte.
As for Debord, I’d encourage everyone here to read what drunk linked to above.
As to whether, Mcluhanesque, we delude ourselves about the power of new media to short-circuit “the spectacle,” Debord would say yes, yes we are deluded:

If occasionally a kind of unregulated disinformation threatens to appear, in the service of particular interests temporarily in conflict, and threatens to be believed, getting out of control and thus clashing with the concerted work of a less irresponsible disinformation, there is no reason to fear that the former involves other manipulators who are more subtle or more skilled: it is simply because disinformation now spreads in a world where there is no room for verification.

That is, the utterly discursive nature of new media actually expand “the spectacle” by reducing verifiability.
I’m not saying this is really true, but Debord nonetheless raises an interesting point.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 8 2005 0:37 utc | 38

As I understand it, one of the basic insights of “society as spectacle” is the universalization of value (“exchange value”) also universalizes/homogenizes the relative truth of statements. So, I’d agree, in the ambit of such totalizing illogic, my thought/”philosophy” can never be more true than a song by George Straight.
This is why the fascists are so presently advantaged.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 8 2005 1:54 utc | 40

Keep on doing it if it amuses you, slothrop.
It’s entertaining.

Posted by: Soused Ham | Jun 8 2005 2:11 utc | 42

Soused Ham
I don’t know what you mean to say. you’ve attacked me without cause. hmmm. perhaps you’re a christian or something: reality “outside” of me; world not of humans but god, etc. beats me.
but that’s also a part of the “spectacle”: any opposition muted by the assertion nothing is true except that which nis unprovable (but only what is permitted, permitted by power). It’s a very rigtwing thing to do.
facism is easy, as we know.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 8 2005 2:27 utc | 44

It’s very amusing to be called a dumbfuck and a fascist all in the same night.
I’ll be goose-stepping off, now.

Posted by: Soused Ham | Jun 8 2005 2:41 utc | 46