You’re probably right. I guess you go to war with the administration you have, not the one you wish you had?

I know that’s not a very good response.

I like your list of media and would add the Weekly Standard – it’s as predictable in its own way as Time and Newsweek, only difference is it’s got really smart, talented people working for it and unlike T&N it doesn’t sufficate them with a dumbed-down regime of relentless editorial cheer.

Hey, the sooner we can get through the “war” phase and into the “recriminations” phase, the happier I’ll be. I just think it’s prudent to wait for phase II … however, modern communications tech has rendered the two indistinct.

Kumbayaaaaaa, my lord … kumbayaaaaaaaaaaa ….

1) People like Cindy Sheehan become the pinata or the hero of the day — depending on your perspective — because they symbolize a controversy, and the heat of the controversy draws viewers and readers. It’s easier for many people to argue about Terri Schiavo than abstractions like what is the legitimate role of the state in end of life issues. So even if they become caracatured and distorted in the media, I think there is some value because it provokes people to think about issues which otherwise would be largely ignored.

I also think there are media which discuss and analyze issues intelligently: the Economist, the New York Times Sunday magazine, and the Wall Street Journal come to mind. Also, I think, Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, and (until now) Ted Koppel. When you screen out the noise of the screamers and chest thumpers on cable talk shows, I think there is a lot of substance around.

2) I don’t see a sinister conspiracy regarding torture, but I think you let Rumsfeld and Cheney off the hook too easily. We are quite visibly ignoring human rights and Geneva Conventions by incarcerating people at Gitmo and elsewhere with no charges against them. Our government’s laissez-faire approach to torture is equally evident in its use of extraordinary rendition. Soldiers of rank were not punished for Abu Ghraib, despite the fact that in the military responsibility goes up the chain of command. I belive that Cheney and Rumsfeld are culpable both because of these events (acts of commission) but also because they did not provide explicit guidelines to soldiers on where the limits are (an act of omission). If you do not restrain adrenalized twenty-somethings in war from doing what to some comes naturally, you are culpable for their actions. So I don’t see it as naivete or ineptitude at PR: I belive it is wrong and (dare I say it) evil — not to mention entirely counter-productive.

Aside from those minor things, however, I believe that your points are perceptive and right on the money –

Peter: i totally agree. While you and I probably come at it from different angles, the conclusion is the same: the media are engaging in a punch-and-judy show with many hydra heads, from Michael Moore to Cindy Sheehand to, god love him, Oliver North. (That’s not even going into Aruba). Some might think they’re carrying water for the administration, I see them as profit- and scandal-driven camera vultures.

If Sheehan and pals would realize that we are in a new historical moment, and a revamped 60s Magical Mystery Tour will break like a fart in a windstorm …

… and if the Administration had had the moral courage to, from the beginning, be honest about this war, its origins [see, I sound like a wombat myself here, except I wanted to hear less, not more, arguments made for the war] and its duration …

The conversation we’d be having would be a serious one.
Instead we are all reduced to groping at different parts of the elephant – while events unfold at dizzying speed.

The Alyosha-Stalin death match is an interesting point, and reminiscent of hypothetical Ghandi-Nazi matchups. You can’t rollerskate in a buffalo herd. We should be alarmed at any instances of torture, and guard against the slippery slope, but we can’t come into this with historical naivetee.

Our soldiers abused prisoners at Nuremberg, too. Big time. It’s something that should always be prosecuted, and I’d agree that it’s not being prosecuted sufficiently under this administration, but again, we draw different conclusions – where some might see a sinister conspiracy, I see a disorganized, desperate, bad-at-PR (and, just like their domestic critics, naive, just in another way) group of people in what they see as a fight for the fate of the world.

I see it as that, too, and there were reasons to see it as such well before September 11th. The Second Hundred Years’ War is not over yet – it’s wrong to see this either as a result of recent wars and policies, but equally wrong to see it as the most recent phase of some eternal Jihad.

What it is is a civil war within the (post)modern West, catching up to the neglected corners of the world three generations later. Islam is just the olive in the martini.

My opinion: economic leverage is a great thing to use when used properly. We do not have to trade with every nation in the world. I have no problem with using American trade policy and tariffs as levers to reward friends and punish foes. For example, I think we are right not to trade with Cuba.

I think the use of American military power is justifiable when it stops mass murder or genocide, as in Bosnia. Then the question becomes: how do you determine in which instances American force should be applied. I think the answer here depends on the circumstances: what is the risk to American lives, how likely are we to be successful, etc. Maybe these criteria say Bosnia yes, Rwanda no.

However, the point of my earlier post is that in no circumstances should we send emissaries abroad to lecture other people how they should restructure their societies. If we spend American blood and treasure to save lives abroad, we add to our moral standing and influence throughout the world. If we send messengers to give speeches, we invite the world’s contempt.

If you gave me a lab coat, designed medical instruments, developed a ‘procedure’, wrote laws protecting it, developed a culture that accepted it, and made it part of a ‘mother right to choose’- I suppose I could put a screwdriver in the back of a baby’s head. Would that meet the Karamazov definition?

Silly me, it isn’t alive til it’s outside the womb. Wonder whether dostoevsky would have the same take…

Sorry if I tried to extrapolate your argument beyond its elastic limit. For sure, extreme moral certainty can be just as dangerous as extreme cultural relativism, but I still prefer Wolfowitz’s approach to Kissinger’s.

So it’s no use saying we can’t tell other countries how to handle their affairs (human rights campaigns by Jimmy Carter, anyone?). We simply must push the Middle East to adopt values closer to ours (not ours, America’s, but ours, modern, capitalistic democracies). The question is how best to do so without alienating everyone in sight…it’s a tricky business, to be sure…

Whether the Arab world contributed anything in 400 years or whether progress came as a result of the Enlightenment has no relevance here. My point was simply the historical fact that various armies have gone through the Middle East over the past few millennia, and their worldview was shaped as a result of that. Our country has never been invaded – theirs have. So their perception of an American occupation of an Arab land would be a little different than someone from, say, Canada.

I didn’t say that Western culture is better or worse than Arab culture – nor did I say they were equal – rather, I said that it is not our role (or our government’s role) to lecture them on how their values would be better if they were closer to ours. And it is emphatically not our role during a time when our soldiers are on their soil and our tensions with the Arab people are as bad as they have probably ever been.