Read other letters about this article

• Saturday, May 10, 2008 10:34 AM

  @jaronson

  A few commenters here so far are trying to say that these "analysts" are motivated by duty, idealism, or some sort of loyalty to a Commander in Chief. That would be honorable, wouldn't it?

  Note that the quote you pasted was from the 'supply side', not a statement by the Brass Hacks (Paul Dirks ... was that you?) themselves. (But note also the schemers were uniformed officers in the Press Operations div doing the civilians bidding)

  I think that positing (questionably) honorable motives is a healthy exercise. We sometimes do the good-guys-bad-guys thing to excess, when it's either a red herring or isn't necessary in order to show what happened or to understand how things can go catastrophically wrong. I keep thinking of Arendt's 'Eichmann' article, reading all this (though we are not at the point yet where any of the generals can use the excuses Eichmann might have proferred). Not to say there *aren't* bad guys here, just that the frame is, IMHO, misleading.

  It's the mechanisms that matter, not the motivations. Probably, some of them thought they were doing the right thing, or didn't give it much thought at all. Maybe they thought they were following a 'higher law'. or maybe they thought there was nothing to it. Others were more interested in making a buck. The latter will all claim the former. We'll never actually know. It doesn't much matter why they did what they did, or what we think about their motivations. Actions and outcomes, the capture and cooptation of our institutions, and damage thereof.

  Please forgive my cynicism, and please quit calling it a "war". You military folks should know better.

  It's not a war? Why not? What would you call it (serious questions, not flames)?

  —quickstrategy Read quickstrategy's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel