[lit-ideas] Re: Muhammed and the Giant Peach
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 17:31:55 -0800
You say "Lawrence, geez": as though I must agree with our assumptions. I
don't agree with them. I heard some commentators use the "flower" term as a
symbol for what happened in France and some of the other European countries
after WWII, but they were using that as one end of the spectrum of possible
responses. I don't recall anyone seriously thinking that was going to
happen, but regardless that isn't what I was talking about. I was talking
about the negative expectations, the "bad things" that some feared might
happen. And they didn't happen. Compared to other wars this one was
superbly fought and amazing in what it achieved. And yes they did have a
plan for what to do after Saddam fell. I listened to several discussions of
Iraqi intellectuals on C-SPAN talking about what would happen after we
defeated Saddam. They were ready to move back and take over. They had
plans. They were in discussion with the government about them. And they
did go back. And they did take part in the government.
As to our experience, we have been the most successful nation builder in
modern times. We rebuilt Japan, and we rebuilt Europe. We are now
concentrating upon Iraq and we are succeeding there as well. Did we foresee
all the difficulties, of course not. We proceeded by fits and starts in
Japan and Europe as well. Did everything go perfectly? No, but no one with
any sense of history would expect that it would. We have managed all the
difficulties we have encountered, and the fears that Berman mentions the
head of Pasadran having are in the process of being realized. The
Democratic government is succeeding. The Sunni Ba'athist insurgents are
losing heart. And some of them are negotiating a return. The Ba'athist
insurgents are firing upon the Al Quaeda and Iranian infiltrators.
In regard to who respect the bad things I mentioned, these were experts at
the time who were commenting upon what might happen, not the military
carrying out the action. Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks expected things to go
well and they did. I have in mind the Generals, Colonels and diplomats CNN,
MSNBC, Fox and other stations hired as "experts." They didn't actually
say these things would happen but they feared that they might.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 4:59 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Muhammed and the Giant Peach
It stands to reason that if they expected flowers, they would hardly expect
any of the other consequences. They had no plan for after the Saddam fell,
none whatsoever. If they expected all the bad things you quote and were
that unprepared, Lawrence, geez ...
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 2/5/2006 7:50:39 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Muhammed and the Giant Peach
You quote me saying I perform a (cold analysis of the evidence. You then
draw a conclusion about my conclusions. As evidence you provide an
incomplete quote from me with an emphasis upon on of those old bugaboo words
none. [Does none mean none without exception or none of the major
ones, or none of a certain sort? The context ought to guide you.] I used
the word advisedly expecting no one would engage in this sort of quibble.
Note the entire quote which you do not provide: And in the aftermath, none
of the expectations of failure occurred. The Iraqis did not rise up in
support of Saddam. The Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis did not begin an immediate
Civil War. The various religious and political elements did not reject
democracy. The Iraqis did not want us out immediately.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 4:01 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Muhammed and the Giant Peach
"I am an ancient who performs a (cold) analysis of the evidence,"
As I see it, you don't analyze the evidence, you spin the evidence to suit
your conclusions. For example, in another post you write, "And in the
aftermath, none of the expectations of failure occurred."
What expectations of failure? They expected flowers. Bremer said the
insurgency took them by surprise. What evidence was there of expectation
of failure? They went in with an army even the Army laughed at, they
thought it would be so easy. Extensive reading of one point of view, yes.
Analysis, I don't see it.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 2/5/2006 5:18:46 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Muhammed and the Giant Peach
Yesterday I saw a few minutes of a C-Span discussion of Michael LeGault's
book Think, Why Crucial Decisions cant be made in the Blink of an eye. He
said that moderns have lost the ability and desire to engage in critical
thinking. In earlier times one developing an argument would analyze the
evidence and draw conclusions based upon it. But today it is considered
better to draw conclusions based upon the right emotion. I thought of the
very brief Let us reason together period Mike and I had Friday. He saw
that we had some things in common and proposed that we reason together.
In listening to LeGault on C-Span, it seemed to me that Mike and I might be
exemplifying the difference he was referring to. I could never say wars
ought not to be engaged in until I analyzed wars and the reasons for
engaging in them. Mike could presuppose Never again war.
He started with rejecting the idea that the US was the good guy. He asked
why we couldnt just see the world as Just Guys Seeing the Things from
their own perspective. I indeed believed that we each saw things from our
own perspective, and I could accept the pluralism of allowing for that, but
I couldnt go all the way based on the evidence. I couldnt accept the
consequences no matter what. If the Islamist seeing things from his own
perspective wants to kill me, I am not willing to be quite pluralistic
enough to allow him to do so.
Further down he said Lets start with the end to war. I could never start
there. I need to start with an analysis of war. I need to study the
reasons that wars start, their commonness, their effects and a variety of
other things. As it happens Ive already done a considerable amount of
that. I have concluded that while wars are not desirable, they are
sometimes necessary.
But my purpose here isnt to rehash our two note discussion of Friday, it is
to wonder whether Mike and I clash because I am an ancient who performs a
(cold) analysis of the evidence, while Mike, a modern seeks the right (warm)
emotions and is able to draw unerring conclusions from them.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
