I was struck by a recent reading of David Mitchell's 'Cloud Atlas' ... in which he writes:

"Oh, diplomacy, it mops up wars spillages; legitimises its outcomes; gives the strong state the means to impose its will on a weaker one, while saving its fleets and battalions for weightier opponents. Only professional diplomats, inveterate idiots and women view diplomacy as a long-term substitute for war."

You may think this overly cynical, and uncharitable to women, yet it was a 19 year old woman whom you quoted as being disgusted by diplomacy. But this is entirely the point: the very purpose of diplomacy is to cloak the unthinkable in noble rhetoric, to defend the indefensible, to deny reality in as pretty a fashion as is possible, however implausible.

With apologies to von Clauswitz, "War IS the continuation of diplomacy ... "

To Glenn I say, damn the torpedos! It is neither necessary or desirable to have no critics. Such criticism as I've detected in these comments encourages me that you have hit a sensitive nerve, and its blustering nature puts me in mind of another character of Mitchell's who says "where there is bluster, there's duplicity".

Your own commentary is more lucid, more civil, and more sensible than that of your critics. That in itself is a worthy achievement.

(I also agree with you. The charges of "simplistic moral equivalence" are true: I too hold that ghettoisation, enforced starvation, political repression and wanton deliberate slaughter of helpless penned civilians remain crimes against humanity no matter who performs them, no matter under what circumstances. These charges are themselves merely convenient slogans designed to short-circuit thought and put an end to debate, much as the charge of "racism" serves similarly in this and other contexts.)

My Kindest Regards to you.

SM

Not a word from the OLC-designate on Waco? Ruby Ridge? I did read correctly, did I not, that she served in the Clinton Administration? No "outrage" to spare for the crimes of Democrats, huh?

Yeah, sure sounds like change a'comin ... plus ca change ... right?

Nothing about the plans already openly discussed by Obama with Senate and Congress to bilk the US taxpayers of a further trillion dollars?

But this is the woman who is going to say "No!" to the President? Who is going to keep him within the Constitutional limits of his position?

ha ha ha ha ... I do not know which is sadder: what is happening to Americans or their total commitment to kidding themselves about it ...

I guess you can't have one without the other.

... the many articles documenting the complicity of the Democratic senators and congressmen in the crimes of the Republicans?

Your post is exactly what Glenn was describing in his previous article about tribalism.

None of the egregious acts of international terrorism committed by the western nations could have occurred without the complicity of their avowedly 'liberal' constituencies, and the political operators that represent them.

By the same logic you espouse, the entirety of the world is guilty. And you'd be right, to a degree, but it is rather useless to say so. It is entirely appropriate to point out those most directly responsible, those whose decisions have most directly caused the suffering of so many. Not ALL of the peoples of the USA and other nations have supported the endless wars of the power-mad. Many have sacrificed greatly to oppose them.

Just not enough ...

Thanks for the correction.

However, I don't think it answers the contention that the OLC-designates "outrage" is highly selective, and that this selectivity mirrors the tribal affiliations of the individual concerned.

This is completely in keeping with Glenn's earlier points about Orwell, Tribalism, and etc ...

It may be tolerable in a young person, or someone with minimal exposure to political realities, but in the person who is allegedly going to "Say 'No' to the President" it is unforgivable. It thoroughly disqualifies her for the job, marking her as little (if any) more than another partisan propagandist for her boss and his political allies. While she may well be a far more convincing propagandist, I would argue that this makes her more dangerous, not less.

If anyone who welcomes this appointment can show me some expression of similar outrage over the murderous conduct of federal agencies at Waco (or Bosnia, or the cruise missile attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory, or any other Clintonite crimes) then I will gladly credit her for it and retract my objection. Until then, it stands.

And what about Glenn? Is he immune to the tribalist blind spot? Why did he leave it to me to make this elementary observation?

How desperate are we to believe that Obama really is a good guy, even after he has shown time and time again that he's just one more in a long line of interchangable parts of a throughly corrupted and corrupting political machine?