Letters to the Editor
DCLaw1
Published Letters: 808 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Even IF Iran were supplying "insurgents,"
[Read the article: The NYT on the administration's "debate" over whether to attack Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]a predicate which is still quite unproven, the striking element in the "debate" is how it's simply assumed that this means we must attack them.
In the early 80s, we covertly supported the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, in a strategy akin to creating a draining, preoccupying "Vietnam" for our Communist rival. Would the USSR have been justified in launching missiles directly at the United States? Would it have been justified in invading Alaska? Even though we certainly were supporting the mujahideen, would taking either of these actions have been anything but utterly stupid and disastrous for the USSR?
Invading or bombing Iran would be similarly stupid and disastrous for the US, in no small measure because of our already overstretched presence in so many other places, but certainly also because of our plummeting stature and credibility in global public opinion, Iran's geographical advantages and geopolitical allies, and so many other factors.
What our little Machiavellis need to understand - though by no means do I expect them to - is that we don't just march off to full-scale war with any country that ever undermines us in any way, regardless of all other considerations. When did our national self-confidence become so embarrassingly brittle that we feel we must reflexively attack every country or group that even merely taunts us, like some overcompensating bully that can't tolerate the possibility that the other kids will see how weak and insecure he really is?
-
jhill
[Read the article: The NYT on the administration's "debate" over whether to attack Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Also keep in mind that most people will move heaven and earth just to avoid truths and thoughts that they find uncomfortable or challenging. You're right, though, if you provide a reasoned, rational voice of dissent to their anodyne internal narratives, those thoughts do have a way of breaking through in unguarded moments.
The key with convincing people (as opposed to simply winning an argument for others' gratification or your own edification) is to prevent an adversarial dynamic from developing. Avoid the attack, or even the suggestion of stupidity or malevolence on their part. Throwing in "I see what your saying" or "I completely understand your point" before gently turning it back to your own point is a great way of lowering their guard and subconsciously establishing yourself as the authority in the conversation. The soft-sell is much more powerful than many people think, though it takes tremendous restraint and an ability to set aside pride.
On the other hand, if you know you have a person who will never question their own beliefs, and who sees you as an enemy of some kind, aggressive push-back is both necessary and appropriate.
-
jhill
[Read the article: The NYT on the administration's "debate" over whether to attack Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The comment was mine, not Paul D's. I wasn't suggesting destroying or eradicating a perceived enemy in argument, but merely the point that a person who enters a debate with no intention of yielding ground must not be accorded any pretense of openness.
Far too many times, on TV and elsewhere, we have seen a rabid partisan on the right debate a person on the left who is all too eager to yield and concede some of his or her opponent's most dishonest premises. When dealing with a Sean Hannity type, one must aggressively - but fairly and rationally - challenge every poisonous presumption they hold.
That's all I meant to say. As arguments go, a bully must be publicly discredited and brought down to size. This doesn't require rudeness or anger, but firmness and resolve.
-
responsibility
[Read the article: The NYT on the administration's "debate" over whether to attack Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn Greenwald wrote: "Ultimately, I think all American citizens bear some resonsibility for the actions of their government, and I use "we" in order to emphasize that, and to highlight the fact that "we" - including those of us who despise what our government is doing - have both the obligation and ability to change it."
No, Glenn; for once, you are wrong. You can not say that; not after 2000. We the People elected Al Gore; and had our wishes been respected there probably wouldn't have been a 9/11, and there sure as hell wouldn't be a "war" in Iraq, much less Iran. If the U.S. were a democracy, you would be correct; but as we all saw to our horror in 2000, it is not. We did everything within the law to prevent tyranny in 2000; and it still wasn't enough.
We the People absolutely bear responsibility for the debacle in Iraq (among other things). Parse out the 2000 election results all you want, support for invading Iraq in 2003 was overwhelming, including among many Democrats. Poll after poll shows that the American public were thoroughly eager to bloody another Mid-East nose - regardless of whether they were fooled by the government and a complicit media.
Let me put it this way - anyone who's been oversees (Europe, for example) in the past several years understands that an American is an American in the eyes of most foreigners, and they tend to look at even Bush opponents with utter disbelief at what our country has done.
Even including people such as myself who were adamantly against this misadventure from the very start - we absolutely bear responsibility for the actions of our government, and, much more importantly, now bear an even greater responsibility to make things right. This is why I find the occasional defeatist cries of "the system is rigged, so why bother trying to change anything" on the left so disgusting and pathetic.