Rick the Mouseherder thinks I should have warned you about Pete Hegseth, Iraq veteran and founder of Veterans for Freedom. "The Mouseherder" says "Vets for Freedom is a front organization run by a GOP PR firm dedicated to defeating candidates who what to end the war in Iraq." "…this organization Lt. Hegseth fronts is really kind of a GOP Swift Boating in reverse."
Fair enough, I'll identify Hegseth as a conservative thinker that unabashedly pushes conservative issues but, um… that's exactly why I was quoting him and linked to his article and website. He made an excellent political argument. I'm also a conservative thinker and anyone who has been on my blog for very long knows exactly where I'm coming from.
But partisan punditry is what Mouseherder also does from the secular progressive side. Mouseherder's own blogger profile lists his interests as: "energy independence, climate change, pushing back American fascism, social justice, ending the war in Iraq, defeating the Christian Taliban, new technology, great books, great ideas, TED, alternative energy, LOHAS, and ecological living." So here we have an environmental activist who thinks America is led by fascists, wants to defeat the "Christian Taliban," and wants to end our efforts in Iraq. Should we dismiss Mouseherder's opinions as quickly as he did Lt. Hegseth's?
Then Mouseherder makes a dubious statement, "Pete is only a very part-time soldier who fools around a little bit in the Army NG. I honor his service." Really? So a year in Iraq and a year at Guantanamo is "fooling around a little bit"? That sounds a lot more like Mouseherder is belittling Lt. Hegseth's service and dismissing his well-crafted arguments through ad hominem attacks (bashing the person instead of the argument). It's as if Mouseherder was saying, "He's not a real soldier, he's just a GOP political hack. Therefore instead of countering his argument, I'll just disqualify him from having a valid opinion."
A conservative opinion is not invalid just because it's conservative. But what do I know? I'm just part of the Christian Taliban.
3 comments:
I'll certainly take your challenge. Exposing Mr "Aw shucks, just a soldier" Hegseth's affiliations is similar to exposing faux scientific studies conducted by tobacco companies, scientific smoke screens that allowed them to claim the "science isn't in yet".
As one with a near lifelong association with the military in general and the Army in particular(beginning with Vietnam combat service), I feel competent to judge Hegseth's military choices. The Army National Guard, until a couple of years ago, was the least likely of any armed ground force to see deployment and action overseas. Only the Air NG was less likely to see combat, until halfway through the current Iraq struggle. In fact, other military dilitanttes famously hid out in the national guard to avoid combat duty, such as President Bush. Hegseth's was the most tangential service choice anyone could make while still claiming military service, but still he lost his bet and had to go.
But let's look at his arguments, or rather what he left out of his essays, particularly any evidence that any western power has ever had a successful longterm occupation of an Arab country. Brits in Afghanistan? Nope. Brits in Iraq? Nope. Jews in Palestine? Nope. Russians in Afghanistan? Nope. French in Algeria? Nope. Not to mention that our allies the Turks have insisted they will never accept a Kurdish state on their border.
We've won the war, every battle. What we're losing is the occupation. There is no historical evidence of American exceptionalism in the history of occupational forces upon which to base any optimism for our future success in Iraq.
Heard a Marine Lt. Col on the radio the other day, been in Iraq since almost day one. His assessment? "right force, right mix, too little, too late".
Hegesth's is not a conservative opinion as much as NeoCon Wishful Thinking, which is what got us into this mess. Daddy Bush, a pragmatic diplomat and statesman, took good advice in the first Gulf War when it came to invading Iraq. Advice which Colin Powell offered and was rejected by Bush Jr, "You break it, you buy it."
You may or may not be part of the Christian Taliban. Did you celebrate or grieve when one of the founding fathers of the movement, Pat Robertson, passed on?
Sorry, wrong nut in the Christian fruitcake, meant Falwell.
And yes, if you define fascism as I do, a co-opting of the political system so that it is society is run in the interests of the businesses and corporations to the harm of the common citizen, then you might be anti-American fascism, too.
I'd assume a person who was a believer, much less a minister, and a father would be quite interested in taking better care of the natural gifts God has given us to maintain stewardship over so that his children and grandchildren would have some natural wonder to inherit, much less a bit of fresh air to breath and clean water to drink. Seems on Christian.
As for energy independence, the world produces and uses about 200 billion barrels of oil per year, which has been steady or in slight decline. At its current rate of economic and industrialization, China alone is projected to need about 200 billion barrels of oil per year by about 2025, not to mention India, the rest of the West and the United states (which has had an annual rate of 15% per year in gasoline usage for the last decade). I'd think a Christian and a father would be quite concerned that if we don't change our wasteful ways, our children and grandchildren will be fighting endless world wars over something as stupid as a non-renewable resource like oil.
After all, by my lights, we didn't have terrorist problems when oil was $20/barrel. Now with $60/barrel oil, the middle east is aflood with free money and they are actually forcing us to pay for both sides of the war on terror, our military and their aggression.
If we don't change the game-- consume less, invest in efficiency, invest in alternative energy, and probably build a lot more nuclear power plants--we're going to be hostage to the middle east for our energy needs for decades to come.
You know, there is actually a nexus of interests that actually brings all those groups together--eco, enviro, people concerned about stewardship of their God's gift, energy independence hawks, and people concerned about the world their children will inherit--it could be we could start the dialog on a higher plain.
Rick,
A few notes:
•You seem to have a hard time arguing without making personal jabs. Are you really that bitter against Christians? Conservatives? Something else?
•You're extraordinarily pessimistic. Do you always assume the worst?
•I don't celebrate the demise of fellow Americans, even oddballs I don't agree with. Grief is my usual response when I hear someone has passed. What about you? You seem to relish the death of Falwell.
•I define fascism as the dictionary does. Look it up. Do you honestly think the GOP meets that definition?
•I do take care of the environment but I don't worship it or think my primary religious duty is LOHAS. As a Christian I know better.
•Oil was $20 a barrel as recently as 2002. The West has had problems with radical Islam dating back to AD 680.
•I agree; build more nuclear plants, drill in ANWR, develop clean sources of energy, and work our way to where we import zero barrels of foreign oil.
Post a Comment