Why do I always visualize a whining child when I hear that word from one of the President's opponents?
You're in denial, Scott.
Anonymous said…
Dear Bob,
Please come up with some new material. You've already stated the status of my denial.
I note that you don't deny that this is fearmongering. Does this put you in non-denial? Is that acceptance?
As an aside - about the header on your blog. Is the 'Lutheran Center Right' an ecclesiastical definition, or a desciption of your perception of your political nature?
Seriously, please don't be offended. I don't know many Lutherans, and am honestly curious. Are there different labels for types of Lutherans? I attended a Presbyterian church for a while, and I know that's a complicated group.
Back to the denial bit. What exactly do you think I deny?
I'm not offended, Scott. It's just that in order to accuse the Administration of fear mongering, it's necessary to assume that the state of affairs is less dangerous than the Administrations suggests that it is, and it's not!
It's that you- and the Left- need to get some material. "No, it's not" may work for a recent quadruple amputee knight in a Monte Python movie, but it's not a very good political argumetnt!
And having read your comment elsewhere on your political affiliation, I have to admit that your characterization is even more puzzling now.
Anonymous said…
Yea, inconsistency can be my hallmark. Sometimes.
And for the record, I'm accusing Tony Blankley of fearmongering. I'm pretty sure he holds no elected or appointed positions in this Administration.
If using fictional or hypothetical negative outcomes to frighten the reader to further support your position isn't fearmongering, then I've seriously misunderstood the technique.
And I don't deny that the situation is dangerous. But knowing that the road is wet is not an excuse for speeding, even if it means you'll spend less time in the rain.
I don't see your speeding analogy, Scott. Though the likelihood of the scenario does seem to be a variable you're not taking into consideration.
I think you've very, very seriously misunderstood the technique.
Anonymous said…
Yeah, my skill with analogies is like my carpentry. No, wait, that's my skill with similes.
My skill with analogies is even worse.
Yes, things could get worse. They could get worse if we appease; they could get worse if we attack. We could spin stories all day, trying to come up with more devastating outcomes. Then we could discuss which story is more based in reality (my guess: neither). In the end, they're just both stories, designed to affect an emotional response.
Fearmongering plays into the hand of the authoritarian. It reduces the ability of the citizenry to rationally review the stiuation by emphasizing emotion.
But again, it's only fearmongering if it's not a realistic addressing of probability. Otherwise, it's simply a sober assessment of an outcome which needs to be guarded against.
Similarly, just because something has emotional content doesn't make it an appeal to the emotions. Nor does a realistic appeal which has an emotional content constitute fearmongering. It can also- as in the President's case- be an appeal to simple common sense.
Anonymous said…
I assume our difference is this: you think Mr Blankley's hypothetical is a "realistic addressing of probability", whereas I can only call it a possibility. And addressing one worst-case (which the author says the administration's critics would pursue) without addressing any other worst-case scenarios based on other courses of action, is fearmongering.
I write the following mostly free-form - that is, off the top of my head. I have only limited knowledge of naval warfare, current deployments, and weapons capabilities. But, in general, the facts are accurate. Please trust that any inaccuracies are of my recall and not intentional misrepresentation. The conclusions are my own.
In the open sea, the defensive dispersal of a carrier group is spread over 200mi r. from the main body. The Persian Gulf is much, much narrower (about half that). In naval warfare, distance give you time to react and respond. Our surface fleet's defensive capabilities are severely limited in the Gulf.
Iran has many anti-ship missiles. It's possible that, in the event of a shooting war, we would lose one or more ships, perhaps even a carrier. Iran owns a bunch of rocky shoreline that covers half the Strait of Hormuz and would be ideal for hiding small emplacements of anti-ship missiles. Almost certainly, they can shut down the Strait (narrowest point of the Persian Gulf) for all traffic, most especially oil tankers.
If we withdraw our surface fleet from the Gulf, we lose the ability to resupply forces in Iraq. Airdrop can only supply so much. Probably less than a third of operational requirements.
Not to mention Iran's likely MRBM, with conventional warheads, that could disrupt oil fields from Kuwait to Quatar and most of the main Saudi fields.
If you want to look at worst-case scenarios, consider what happens when the US loses a carrier battle group, loses most of the 130,000 troops currently in Iraq, and the world economy loses half its oil supply.
Farfetched, you say? Defeatist? No more so than Mr Blankley's projection. And no more reliable. But certainly possible. Hyping threats doesn't help distill a reasonable course of action. And yes, I define a reasonable course of action as one that likely avoids war.
Based on past performance, I don't trust the current Administration to fully weigh the costs and risks associated with military ventures. I did once, and I regret it.
So I ask you, if you are anywhere near the center in your self-described 'center-right' political nature, do you truly trust that Mr Rumsfeld will be more successful this time? And if so, why?
First, you miss the point. Blankley simply lays out a set of hyptothetical possibilities if the President's critics got their way. To describe an article which is speculative on its face as "fearmongering" strikes me as absurd on its face, given that none of the things Blankley speculates might happen are at all unrealistic.
Secondly, your speculation is considerably less likely than Blankley's hypotheticals- and even if it weren't, so what? Iran doesn't have much of a navy at all, and you vastly overestimate Iran's capacity to wage naval warfare. They probably could theoretically do some damage with their limited missile arsenal. Iran might well be able to close the Straits, and would certainly not be a pushover in the event of war. Maybe they might sink a carrier. Maybe they might want to do a great many things.
However, Rumsfeld isn't suggesting that we go to war, so I'm not sure where you're coming from. Personally, I don't think it likely that we'll even have to take out Iran's nuclear capability, should they develop one. It's a lead-pipe cinch that Israel will.
But more to the point, if war were necessary to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, sure we might lose a carrier. Sure- as a worst-case scenario- some damage to our bases might be done. But it is not merely a "worst-case scenario," but a likelihood (based on Iran's track record) that the alternative would be a nuclear war between Israel and Iran- something that risking some damage would be worth to prevent.
I get the point that you don't trust Rumsfeld, probably largely on the basis of the not altogether accurate reporting of the war in Iraq by the MSM. I myself disagree, as I've said before, with his unwillingness to commit the resources necessary to get the job done in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I'm afraid that's about all of your point I get.
Anonymous said…
My point, which you missed, isn't that I can spin a more fanciful tale than Mr Blankley.
Your reaction - digging into the likelihood of the various scenarios, weighing them as if they are either-or options - validates my point.
My point: using the fact that things can get worse to demonize your opponents is a cheap rhetorical trick. A trick that only works if the rhetoric is echoed with approval.
You disapprove of my rhetoric, so you dismiss it. You approve of Mr Blankley's, so you link to it with glowing praise. You're part of the propoganda.
And mine, Scott, is that do do indeed spin a fanciful tale, while Mr. Blankley does not- and that by seeking to evade that very point by unjustifiably characterizing what he writes as "fearmongering" and as an emotional appeal, you are not arguing, but whining. Characterizing, rather than rebutting (with personal attacks being a frequent alternative) is a traditional response by the President's critics. Hasn't worked before. Still doesn't. Whining just isn't a useful rebuttal to much of anything.
Steve, the U.S. nuclear umbrella is the protection provided other allied nations by our nuclear capability.
Comments
Scott H
You're in denial, Scott.
Please come up with some new material. You've already stated the status of my denial.
I note that you don't deny that this is fearmongering. Does this put you in non-denial? Is that acceptance?
As an aside - about the header on your blog. Is the 'Lutheran Center Right' an ecclesiastical definition, or a desciption of your perception of your political nature?
Seriously, please don't be offended. I don't know many Lutherans, and am honestly curious. Are there different labels for types of Lutherans? I attended a Presbyterian church for a while, and I know that's a complicated group.
Back to the denial bit. What exactly do you think I deny?
Scott H
I'm not offended, Scott. It's just that in order to accuse the Administration of fear mongering, it's necessary to assume that the state of affairs is less dangerous than the Administrations suggests that it is, and it's not!
It's that you- and the Left- need to get some material. "No, it's not" may work for a recent quadruple amputee knight in a Monte Python movie, but it's not a very good political argumetnt!
And for the record, I'm accusing Tony Blankley of fearmongering. I'm pretty sure he holds no elected or appointed positions in this Administration.
If using fictional or hypothetical negative outcomes to frighten the reader to further support your position isn't fearmongering, then I've seriously misunderstood the technique.
And I don't deny that the situation is dangerous. But knowing that the road is wet is not an excuse for speeding, even if it means you'll spend less time in the rain.
- Scott H
I think you've very, very seriously misunderstood the technique.
My skill with analogies is even worse.
Yes, things could get worse. They could get worse if we appease; they could get worse if we attack. We could spin stories all day, trying to come up with more devastating outcomes. Then we could discuss which story is more based in reality (my guess: neither). In the end, they're just both stories, designed to affect an emotional response.
Fearmongering plays into the hand of the authoritarian. It reduces the ability of the citizenry to rationally review the stiuation by emphasizing emotion.
Scott H
Similarly, just because something has emotional content doesn't make it an appeal to the emotions. Nor does a realistic appeal which has an emotional content constitute fearmongering. It can also- as in the President's case- be an appeal to simple common sense.
I write the following mostly free-form - that is, off the top of my head. I have only limited knowledge of naval warfare, current deployments, and weapons capabilities. But, in general, the facts are accurate. Please trust that any inaccuracies are of my recall and not intentional misrepresentation. The conclusions are my own.
In the open sea, the defensive dispersal of a carrier group is spread over 200mi r. from the main body. The Persian Gulf is much, much narrower (about half that). In naval warfare, distance give you time to react and respond. Our surface fleet's defensive capabilities are severely limited in the Gulf.
Iran has many anti-ship missiles. It's possible that, in the event of a shooting war, we would lose one or more ships, perhaps even a carrier. Iran owns a bunch of rocky shoreline that covers half the Strait of Hormuz and would be ideal for hiding small emplacements of anti-ship missiles. Almost certainly, they can shut down the Strait (narrowest point of the Persian Gulf) for all traffic, most especially oil tankers.
If we withdraw our surface fleet from the Gulf, we lose the ability to resupply forces in Iraq. Airdrop can only supply so much. Probably less than a third of operational requirements.
Not to mention Iran's likely MRBM, with conventional warheads, that could disrupt oil fields from Kuwait to Quatar and most of the main Saudi fields.
If you want to look at worst-case scenarios, consider what happens when the US loses a carrier battle group, loses most of the 130,000 troops currently in Iraq, and the world economy loses half its oil supply.
Farfetched, you say? Defeatist? No more so than Mr Blankley's projection. And no more reliable. But certainly possible. Hyping threats doesn't help distill a reasonable course of action. And yes, I define a reasonable course of action as one that likely avoids war.
Based on past performance, I don't trust the current Administration to fully weigh the costs and risks associated with military ventures. I did once, and I regret it.
So I ask you, if you are anywhere near the center in your self-described 'center-right' political nature, do you truly trust that Mr Rumsfeld will be more successful this time? And if so, why?
- Scott H
Secondly, your speculation is considerably less likely than Blankley's hypotheticals- and even if it weren't, so what? Iran doesn't have much of a navy at all, and you vastly overestimate Iran's capacity to wage naval warfare. They probably could theoretically do some damage with their limited missile arsenal. Iran might well be able to close the Straits, and would certainly not be a pushover in the event of war. Maybe they might sink a carrier. Maybe they might want to do a great many things.
However, Rumsfeld isn't suggesting that we go to war, so I'm not sure where you're coming from. Personally, I don't think it likely that we'll even have to take out Iran's nuclear capability, should they develop one. It's a lead-pipe cinch that Israel will.
But more to the point, if war were necessary to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, sure we might lose a carrier. Sure- as a worst-case scenario- some damage to our bases might be done. But it is not merely a "worst-case scenario," but a likelihood (based on Iran's track record) that the alternative would be a nuclear war between Israel and Iran- something that risking some damage would be worth to prevent.
I get the point that you don't trust Rumsfeld, probably largely on the basis of the not altogether accurate reporting of the war in Iraq by the MSM. I myself disagree, as I've said before, with his unwillingness to commit the resources necessary to get the job done in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I'm afraid that's about all of your point I get.
Your reaction - digging into the likelihood of the various scenarios, weighing them as if they are either-or options - validates my point.
My point: using the fact that things can get worse to demonize your opponents is a cheap rhetorical trick. A trick that only works if the rhetoric is echoed with approval.
You disapprove of my rhetoric, so you dismiss it. You approve of Mr Blankley's, so you link to it with glowing praise. You're part of the propoganda.
- Scott H
Steve, the U.S. nuclear umbrella is the protection provided other allied nations by our nuclear capability.