The Medium Lobster Writes About Eggs and Omelettes

It's a wise crustacean. Is there a discount if you order it before 6?

Fafblog! the whole worlds only source for Fafblog.: sPerhaps, at this time, you may require some reassurance. Perhaps, if you are one of the handful of Americans not otherwise occupied with Amber Alerts and runaway brides and the curious sleepover habits of washed-up eighties pop stars, you may have accidentally happened upon a few bodies halfway across the world (Afwhatsistan? Bagrawho?), which may or may not have pricked whatever remains of a long-dormant and desensitized National Conscience. And you may be asking yourself what the point of all this has been, what has driven Americans halfway around the globe to sieze innocent men, beat their legs to pulp, and chain them to ceilings until they die.

Regrettable, yes, but let us remember that these two eggs, like the dozens before them, and the tens of thousands before them, were broken to make the greatest and worthiest of omelettes, the most succulent of breakfasttime generational commitments, the proudest and most visionary of truck stop slop. And when it is finished and served, to whomever it is served, will it not have been worth the mound of eggshells, the broken crockery, the shattered glass, the mountain of murdered cooks, the acres of burning kitchen, the unbroken stench of dead flesh? And if that omelette is never made, won't the idea of the omelette - finer and purer and more pristine than the thing itself - have been worth them all, in the end?

We must remember that for each complete failure the media reports - the innocents tortured to death without reason - there are hundreds of mere semi-failures we can never know about for reasons of vital national security, when the torture and murder of innocents stops a treacherous ticking bomb. Indeed, we must believe - no, assume - that with each new horror a new blow is struck for freedom, that with every new atrocity a fresh-painted Iraqi school blooms like a rose bud in spring.

The day will come when the justice of this is made manifest, when these heaps of corpses will be vindicated as unquestionably righteous. That day is ahead of us, a bright light at the end of this dark tunnel. Can you see it growing closer, brighter, louder? Victory is bearing down on us with the sound of thunder.

Comments

[qwerty]

> may or may not have pricked whatever remains of a long-dormant and desensitized National Conscience

What conscience? This nation is founded on bellum omnia omnes. Jesus loves you - all others pay cash.

[Lee A. Arnold]

A satirical ironical tirade upon the "greater good" theory of torture. Since this entry will easily be dismissed by the "war is hell" apologists, it could be that what we have in reality are the pro- and anti-war factions in the U.S. babbling foolishness at each other. Missing from all of it, are ideas from the anti-war people on exactly what to do to get both sides in the "war on terror" to stop the killing, nor even ideas from the pro-war people on what victory in their "war" might look like. Meanwhile torture radicalizes moderates to rally for the enemy, so while a mass destruction or two might be averted, we are handed a strategic failure by leaders intellectually incompetent, emotionally childish, spiritually bereft. You will recall they were elected in a country that still has freedom of speech and assembly. That would mean none of us is free of blame, at this point.

[Bruce Webb]

"You will recall they were elected in a country that still has freedom of speech and assembly. That would mean none of us is free of blame, at this point."

Umm. I voted against the Bushwhacker. And I was kind of outspoken against the War before the War started. And last I heard Armed Insurrection was unlawful under the Constitution. So while it is nice of you to share the blame with the PNAC boys, (if they had consciences, I am sure they would be resting more easily tonight after this endorsement) you can leave me right out. At this point I feel pretty free of blame, I was screaming about boys and girls in boxes before the first boy or girl came home in their "transfer tube".

[Unstable Isotope]

Fafblog! is the smartest blog on all the internets. That post just made me incredibly sad, though.

[Dubblblind]

Lee,

I, as another one who opposed the war even as I saw it coming months in advance, must join with Bruce in saying you are too broad with your condemnation. There are a significant number of Americans of our ilk who, unfortunately, have been largely silenced and shunted by the confluence of a corrupt government and media and who remain as the one hope for America's future.

[Lee A. Arnold]

Bruce and Dubblblind: it hardly matters what we think. We are being painted with it. Whatever is happening, whatever we are doing, it isn't enough. Tirades can be fun, though.

[Pepys]

Is it possible to invade another country and overthrow a dictator without as you say "breaking eggs"? Obviously, no. The question then is, was the "breaking of eggs" kept to a minimum and did the invading force investigate instances of abuse? I think the answer is yes, most here obviously do not. However, I think you are operating from the assumption that *any* evidence of "broken eggs" is damning and conclusive evidence that the invasion was wrong. That is not the case. In WWII there were a lot of "broken eggs" yet I think few here would have written the above if they were alive then. Bottom line, the majority of you were against the war from the beginning and therefore consider *any* "broken eggs" evidence of your wisdom and the war's wrongness. I seriously doubt anyone in favor of the war from the beginning has changed their position because of the *limited* number of cases of abuse or even outright torture. By the way, limited is used in comparison to the intensity of conflict, commitment of the opposition and size of the opposing parties.

[Bruce Webb]

Pepys. Dresden was a war crime. Hiroshima and Nakasaki were not. It is a matter of means and ends.

Was Saddam a brutal dictator? Obviously yes. Are the Generals who run Myanmar brutal dictators? Again obviously yes. But I am not seeing a big push for invasion of Rangoon from NRO.

Was Saddam enough of a threat to this country that you would have invested 1600 American lives and $200 billion IN ADVANCE? Answer that question honestly and we can have a conversation. But you can't. Not and sleep at night.

On the first day of the war we dropped a bomb on a restaurant where we had some belief Saddam might have been eating. We missed him but they pulled a headless 13 year old girl out of the rubble.

Was it all just worth it? Would you repeat it? Would you reproduce it somewhere else? Are you ready to send the 82nd Airborne to Cuba?

I know war is messy. I know war is bad for little girls and other living things. Which is why we don't do it unless we absolutely have to. We didn't have to.

(Hitler declared war on the United States. Absent that the Republican Party was fully prepared to sit the European War out. Invoking WWII in defense of this clusterfuck is contemptible.)

[PaulC]

I think the hawk principle is less like the old saying and closer to "If we don't have an omelette yet, it's because we haven't had the conviction to keep breaking eggs." To make an omelette, you also need a stove, and skillet, and some idea of what you're doing.

[Pepys]

BW: I personally think the invasion of Iraq was worth the present cost. I accept that you do not. My point is that the transgressions by the US are not sufficient to change a reasonable persons mind about the appropriateness of the undertaking.

[Jennifer]

I am a reasonable professor, and I assure you that I and every friends I have find the war in Iraq a tragedy for us and for the Iraqis.

[Jennifer]

I know no one who has not been shaken by the "transgressions" of the occupation, though some feel there is no recourse now but to try to gain a peace in Iraq. Tragic indeed.

[Ari]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/30/opinion/30herbert.html?ex=1118116800&en=f934f0b34f50a31f&ei=5070

America, a Symbol of . . .
By BOB HERBERT

This Memorial Day is not a good one for the country that was once the world's most brilliant beacon of freedom and justice.

State Department officials know better than anyone that the image of the United States has deteriorated around the world. The U.S. is now widely viewed as a brutal, bullying nation that countenances torture and operates hideous prison camps at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in other parts of the world - camps where inmates have been horribly abused, gruesomely humiliated and even killed.

The huge and bitter protests of Muslims against the United States last week were touched off by reports that the Koran had been handled disrespectfully by interrogators at Guantánamo. But the anger and rage among Muslims and others had been building for a long time, fueled by indisputable evidence of the atrocious treatment of detainees, terror suspects, wounded prisoners and completely innocent civilians in America's so-called war against terror.

Amnesty International noted last week in its annual report on human rights around the world that more than 500 detainees continue to be held "without charge or trial" at Guantánamo. Locking people up without explaining why, and without giving them a chance to prove their innocence, seems a peculiar way to advance the cause of freedom in the world.

It's now known that many of the individuals swept up and confined at Guantánamo and elsewhere were innocent. The administration says it has evidence it could use to prove the guilt of detainees currently at Guantánamo, but much of the evidence is secret and therefore cannot be revealed.

This is where the war on terror meets Never-Never Land.

President Bush's close confidante, Karen Hughes, has been chosen to lead a high-profile State Department effort to repair America's image. The Bush crowd apparently thinks this is a perception problem, as opposed to a potentially catastrophic crisis that will not be eased without substantive policy changes.

This is much more than an image problem. The very idea of what it means to be American is at stake. The United States is a country that as a matter of policy (and in the name of freedom) "renders" people to regimes that specialize in the art of torture....

[matt]

BW:

Dresden was a war crime; Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not...

Knowing now about the planning for those events and the fact that each was negligible in the prosecution of the war to its end, I beg to differ. The reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and the firebombing of Tokyo, for good measure) weren't war crimes was solely because we were the victors.

There was no need to annihalate all those people who weren't combatants and who provided no material basis to Japan's war efforts.

As a veteran myself, let me ask you a question: Was the burning of hootches in Indian territory a war crime? Was the killing of a family's only water buffalo a war crime? Were free-fire zones and the deaths in the box war crimes? I was in Vietnam for 21 months and the more I think of it the more I am convinced that I'm not an innocent at all, albeit not as much a criminal as Dr. K or the current line-up running things.

Pepys: The "undertaking" as you call it has yet to restore electrycity to the majority of the country; children and innocent people are dying daily from lack of potable water; the nation's resources are being siphoned off to pay exhoritant contractor's fees. Believe it or not, these are crimes under international law, or they were until the US so nicely installed a government through "elections." I think you are talking to the wrong "majority" when you say that there is acknowledgement that the undertaking was worthwhile.

And if you are of military age and you think the current morass is worth the cost, then you should be signing up right now to make your own selfless contribution instead of supporting the troops by your sincere belief that they are serving a noble cause in this complete clusterfuck of a war.

PS BW: I wouldn't send the 82nd Airborne out for milk (this from a jarhead).

[Dubblblind]

Pepys,

Would you please explain the reasonableness of condoning, supporting and promoting torture? Would you please explain the appropriateness of waging an illegal war of aggression under false pretenses with the net result of increased rather than decreased safety for America? Would you please explain the appropriateness of leaving the perpetrator of 9/11, Osama-Bin-Who, free as a result of the redirection of effort from Afghanistan to Iraq?

Lee,

While I agree with you that we are all collectively paying the price as a result of those in America who have sold their souls in suppport of the Bush administration, it does matter what we think. Bush's ratings are low as is the support for the Iraq war. If the war drags on the day will come when Bush will have more American blood on his hands than Osama. America will take notice when the death toll of Americans in Iraq exceeds that of the Twin Towers. There is still the potential for reclaiming America if the Democratic party is willing to rise to the occasion and the media recovers itself and gets off its knees at the feet of the Bush administration.

[Ian Welsh]

Mmm, more justification of torture. Good job Pepys.

[spencer]

Pepys -- I am glad you find it worth the cost.

Tell me we have gained that makes it worth the costs.
Their were no weapons of mass destrution. Just as I believed before the war Saddam proved to be a toothless tiger that could not even control all of his own country -- the kurds -- let alone pose a threat beyond his borders.

There were no connections between Iraq and 9/11, so the claim that they attacked us is baseless. And by shifting out of Afghanistan we let the AQ leadership excape at Tora Boar. Read Sean Naylor's "Not a Good Day to Die: The Untold Story of Operation Anaconda".

Just today the Wash Post has an article on how the administration finally adknowledges that the enemy is using Iraq as a training ground for a cadre that will be attacking US and Western Europe for decades.

Two years ago the military said their were 5,000 insurgents, a year ago the estimate was for 10,000,
now it is over 20,000. Because this administration has refused to give the military the resources it needs to win in Iraq the military is now weaker then it was two years ago. The only time in history the the US military has gotten weaker as the war progressed.

I've given you some topics to talk aroung, now, you tell us what makes the disaster in Iraq worth the costs.

[dogfacegeorge]

"I personally think the invasion of Iraq was worth the present cost."

Pepys, the present cost you have borne to date hasn't really been all that great, has it? You probably haven't even noticed - all that's really happened to you is that the national debt has been increased, but we can expect our kids to pay that, right? And you haven't had your own leg blown off, have you? And your kids haven't had any intenstines splashed all over the road in Baghdad, have they? Is is just possible that you might think that getting Saddam out of a hole was not really worth the cost if the cost in lives and injuries had been borne by you and yours rather than by others?

[spencer]

What does the breaking of eggs analogy have to do with anything?

Because the US invaded without sufficient troops to maintaint the peace after the quick military victory the US is worse off then if we had not invaded.

My questions remains, what has the US gained from this operation?

How has the US ability to induce other countries to act in our interest been advanced by this operation?

How has this operation made the US more secure?

US foreign policy -- including war -- is suppose to be
targeted at these two objectives. The Iraq war has done nothing to advance our ability to achieve either of them, rather it has made it more difficult.

We can not judge your statement that it was worth the costs unless you tell us what the benefits are.

[Pepys]

Spencer: As I have said, I did not post here to convince any of you that the War on Terror in general or the invasion of Iraq in particular were wise. I do not think that is possible. The only points I wanted to make were that the US has been incredibly scrupulous (compared to other countries that have engaged in such endeavors) in its treatment of the opposition and that the current evidence on record of our abuses is insufficeint to turn one against the war or reveal the US as something other than the most decent major civilisation in history. However, to answer your questions, I believe the US is safer in both the short and long term because of the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq in particular. In the short term, we have seen no attacks on US soil and are unlikely to in the near future because we have seriously damaged the most virulent terrorist organizations and tied up what manpower remains in Iraq. In the long term, I believe we will be safer because the spread of democracy in the Middle East is the best way of diffusing the threat posed by radical Islam. I think your suggestion that the willingness of other countries to assist us is not a primary goal of foreign policy. It is possible to imagine a situation where the interests of other nations is opposed to US security and therefore to increase US security is to offend and go against those countries. Thus, while I think it is better to have the cooperation of other countries than not, that goal should be pursued only in so far as it does not impede US security. I assume your point is that Germany and France are opposed to our recent actions and that this is bad. I disagree, in my opinion, the interests of those countries, as understodd by their leaders, was directly at odds with US security after 9/11 and therefore our relationships with them had to take a backseat. I do not pretend that anything I have said will convince you of anything, but you were curious as to my support for the war. I also do not pretend my words will convince you I am anything other than a vile chicken-hawk that deserves a fate worse than death.

[Jennifer]

Pepys

Simply presenting the argument is effective, which telling others what they think lessens the argument and is needlessly insulting or foolish.

[Jennifer]

That is "while"

[Jennifer]

I agree your posts were civil and there is no reason for you to have to apologize, though I do not agree with your conclusions. This war is terribly divisive.

[qwerty]

Pepys: The only points I wanted to make were that the US has been incredibly scrupulous (compared to other countries that have engaged in such endeavors) in its treatment of the opposition and that the current evidence on record of our abuses is insufficeint to turn one against the war or reveal the US as something other than the most decent major civilisation in history.

Decent civilizations do not engage in such "endeavors". Note that you know you are wrong - that is why you are trying to find the words other than war and invasion. And as for being "incredibly scrupulous" in the process, that got to be the biggest joke of the year. Does Agent Orange ring a bell?

[Aunt Deb]

Who is this entity who is being so "scrupulous"?

Perhaps you have mistaken "rigidity" for scrupulousness, Pepys.

[watery, domestic]

Moral bankruptcy in seven words:

"tied up what manpower remains in Iraq."

[Berkeley Rad]

I think we're all focused on the wrong war rationale. The war was not intended to rid the world of a dictator - that excuse and the democracy argument were not emphasized until the WMD evaporated. Also Saddam was our buddy for decades. It also seems unlikely that the administration really believed that WMD existed in any significant quantities. With all the inspectors running around it seems unlikely that much could be hidden away. Didn't Wolfowitz say WMD were just a convenient excuse. Maybe we went to war to help Israel since Iraq was probably their biggest threat, but I doubt it. I think the real reason was brutally pragmatic. We're facing a serious oil crunch and needed to make sure we are first in line.

[Pepys]

Watery: Where do you suggest we fight them? NYC, Detroit, LA, Amarillo? Fighting them somewhere away from the US seems like wisdom to me.

[mds]

"Watery: Where do you suggest we fight them? NYC, Detroit, LA, Amarillo? Fighting them somewhere away from the US seems like wisdom to me."

Ooh, the "flypaper" theory! If we don't fight "them" there, we'll fight "them" here. Neato! So, we enagage in systematic torture, we invade Iraq under deliberately false pretenses and botch the occupation, but at least all the brand-new terrorists we're creating live in other countries? Do you really think that this all works like some sort of pro wrestling match, or a chess tournament? Only if terrorists defeat our troops in Iraq in personal combat, are they permitted to sneak into the United States and carry out acts of terrorism at our unsecured ports or power plants or...

Apparently, the tip-off for 9/11 should have been when bin Laden's minions won that free terrorist attack on a game show. That exempted them from the otherwise unbreakable requirement to battle US troops overseas first.

[pepys]

MDS: The "fly-paper" theory seems to have worked so far or at least not failed to have worked. Personally, I do not know if that was sufficient reason for going to war. However, I believe it is an accurate description of reality at this time and a significant reason why we are safer now than before the War on Teror and the invasion of Iraq. As I understand it, terrorists are like any other military force in that they have limited material and manpower. Thus, they now face the choice of abandoning Iraq and bringing the fight straight to us, diverting needed material and men from Iraq to use in an attack on the US mainland or abandoning the US and focusing entirely on Iraq. To all appearances, they seem to have opted for the third. We can speculate as to why. I think history has shown that it has always been very difficult to mount attacks here and that it has gotten exponentially harder since 9/11. Therefore, I believe the terrorists think they must either abandon Iraq entirely in the hopes of mounting a successful attack here or continuing to fight us there with all they have. Of course, I may be wrong, but I am sure you disagree with my reasoning.

P.S. You state that we are creating terrorists. I understand that is the conventional wisdom, but I do not know that it is true. How do you measure the number of terrorists?

[johne]

Pepys, a while back Josh Marshall mentioned the comparison of terrorists to microbes, and the analogous disease-fighting strategy of picking a hospital that would be pauperized and rendered deficient in every respect, so that germs would go there to fight, rather than infect anywhere else.

[Pepys]

That analogy would be apt if terrorists were able to 1)replicate at the same rate as microbes, 2)were as unreliant on material as microbes and 3) were similarly unconcerned about travel restrictions. I see no evidence that is the case.

[trevelyan]

"At least not failed to have worked..."

Try spinning your "fight them elsewhere" theories to the innocent Spanish, Australians, Americans and other nationalities who died in the Madrid train bombings, in Bali, or in more close contact with their executors in Iraq.

Flypaper theory, indeed.

[alex]

Pepys: I have two points I'd like you to consider.

1. Do you have some point at which you would lose your patience with our adminstration and its actions? Is there some atrocity, that once committed, would change your mind and make you denounce our current leaders? I'm not asking you to let us know what it is; just curious as to whether or not you have one. If not, I invite you to identify the road that you have set your feet upon.

2. The 'flypaper' theory. Bin Laden's terror network hasn't made an attack in the US for one simple reason: it would gain him nothing. The US is furthering his ends with every bullet it fires in the Middle East. Bin Laden wants the downfall of the House of Saud and its replacement with something more Taliban-like. Every dead Iraqi that we are even vaguely responsible for (which is most of them; after you fire the police you are responsible for public safety) is a recruiting tool for him. Do not confuse his motivations with the propaganda that comes out of your TV. Unlike our politicians, he does not need to have some kind of results before the next election. Read Juan Cole on this--while you may well disagree with him, he does have the advantage of actually knowing what's he talking about.

[Barry]

And, for those who haven't thought about already, the 'flypaper' theory contradicts any other theories about democracy and liberation. Anybody who advocates both is thereby a liar.

[piotr]

Flypaper theory ignores certain facts. To wit, al-Qaeda "trained" thousands of "terrorists". Why so many? Because they participated or planned guerilla wars in Kashmir, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Indonesia and Philipines. Most of them were planning to join the anti-Indian jihad on Kashmir. How many terrorists did it take to mount attacks in USA, Madrit, Bali etc.? It is quite possible that the total is under 100.

Physical resources needed for a terrifying attack on our soil are negligible. However, what we have seen that such an attack takes a number of highly motivated and highly qualified people who patiently prepare it for several years.

Eventually, some survivors of "flypaper" meat grinder will return to their home countries and they will have a status of heroes. Will they be able to recruit terrorists for an attack on our soil? It very much depends how popular their cause is among young/middle age people, including the security forces. If the personel of security forces of countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Morocco hates us, we may rue the day "flypaper" was invented.

[Barkley Rosser]

Probably a waste of time to pile on even more on Pepys, but...

Let us not compare the US with other countries but with itself. In what other wars have we or did we engage in the kinds of torture we are engaging in during this one? Seems like some of those ones in the past were much scarier, more dramatic, and had many more people killed, but we somehow we avoided this sort of thing. We have become a disgrace to ourselves. (I would accept that there was probably torture during the Indian Wars)

This argument that the war in Iraq helps the war on terror because "they are all tied up in Iraq" is so much nonsense. We did succeed in overthrowing the Taliban and hurting al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but all kinds of folks, including most recently Schroen in the book _First In_, have documented that we blew it by moving Special Ops out of Afghanistan over to Iraq as early as March 2002. I do not know if we would have had an attack in the US if we had not invaded Iraq (although I fail to see why it would have happened), but I do know that terror attacks around the world have increased in each year since 2001, and most reports suggest recruiting by al Qaeda and its offshoots has been way up and stimulated by our war in Iraq. The war in Iraq has hurt the war on terror, not helped it.