The limits of the respondents' imagination is shocking. Nearly every one of them picked a time period in the 20th century. I mean, Manchester in the early 80s? I love the Cure and Joy Division as much as the next indie nerd, but are you kidding me? If material comfort isn't an issue, I think you have to go pre-modern.
@Michael Drew, Not necessarily. I think the "pays for itself" line was for public consumption. And breaking even doesn't strike me as a plausible war aim - the point they were making was that we can remove a threat to American security without spending a lot of money.
@E.D. Kain, Dude, name me one mainstream historian who identifies "plunder" as the sole cause of the Crusades. Some Crusaders were avaricious bastards or penurious second and third sons of the nobility out to make a buck, but other prominent Crusaders GAVE UP estates in Europe to equip their retainers and join the pilgrimage. Outfitting a medieval army for a long journey was expensive. Godfrey of Bouillon - the first King of Jerusalem - actually sold off his estates to pay for the trip. Greed undoubtedly played a role in the Crusades, but it doesn't come close to explaining the whole story.
As for Afghanistan, do you really think Obama has decided to stay so we can plunder the country? Do you really think principled advocates of our military presence were bought off by the military-industrial complex? Hell, Daniel freaking Larison thinks we should stick it out. It's not as if there aren't sound strategic reasons to keep our troops in Afghanistan.
And can't we just say that Iraq was a mistake driven by strategic miscalculations and a dumb ideology and leave it at that? Attributing everything to "plunder" makes you sound like a high school Marxist.
Defensive wars or wars of plunder? Come on - do you really subscribe to such a simplistic notion? The Crusades were partly inspired by genuine religious fervor - contemporary accounts unanimously agree on this point. Unless you consider promises of eternal salvation "plunder," your own example doesn't hold up.
Moreover, Afghanistan clearly started as a defensive response to 9/11. We can argue over the merits of our current strategy, but I'm hard pressed to identify the "plunder motive" behind the 2001 invasion. Or are we now seriously debating the analytical merits of "Fahrenheit 9/11?"
This stuff on wars of plunder smacks of left-wing conspiracism. Wars are started by ideology, religion, nationalism, strategic miscalculations, and a host of other factors. To suggest otherwise is to deny history.
This is a pretty great list, but I feel like Redford in "The Candidate" and Douglas in "The American President" should get honorable mentions for the Best Candidate in a Movie category.
On “Wars of Folly”
@Jonathan, We won, you lost. What more is there to it?
On “Athens, 403-399BC”
@Will, Ahaha I totally wrote that before I got to page two and saw Todd VanDerWerff's comment. A man after my own heart.
"
The limits of the respondents' imagination is shocking. Nearly every one of them picked a time period in the 20th century. I mean, Manchester in the early 80s? I love the Cure and Joy Division as much as the next indie nerd, but are you kidding me? If material comfort isn't an issue, I think you have to go pre-modern.
On “Wars of plunder?”
@Michael Drew, Not necessarily. I think the "pays for itself" line was for public consumption. And breaking even doesn't strike me as a plausible war aim - the point they were making was that we can remove a threat to American security without spending a lot of money.
"
@Mike Schilling, Sure, but that doesn't mean they were out to "plunder" the country.
On “Capitalism, Anarchy & War Part II”
@E.D. Kain, Dude, name me one mainstream historian who identifies "plunder" as the sole cause of the Crusades. Some Crusaders were avaricious bastards or penurious second and third sons of the nobility out to make a buck, but other prominent Crusaders GAVE UP estates in Europe to equip their retainers and join the pilgrimage. Outfitting a medieval army for a long journey was expensive. Godfrey of Bouillon - the first King of Jerusalem - actually sold off his estates to pay for the trip. Greed undoubtedly played a role in the Crusades, but it doesn't come close to explaining the whole story.
As for Afghanistan, do you really think Obama has decided to stay so we can plunder the country? Do you really think principled advocates of our military presence were bought off by the military-industrial complex? Hell, Daniel freaking Larison thinks we should stick it out. It's not as if there aren't sound strategic reasons to keep our troops in Afghanistan.
And can't we just say that Iraq was a mistake driven by strategic miscalculations and a dumb ideology and leave it at that? Attributing everything to "plunder" makes you sound like a high school Marxist.
"
Defensive wars or wars of plunder? Come on - do you really subscribe to such a simplistic notion? The Crusades were partly inspired by genuine religious fervor - contemporary accounts unanimously agree on this point. Unless you consider promises of eternal salvation "plunder," your own example doesn't hold up.
Moreover, Afghanistan clearly started as a defensive response to 9/11. We can argue over the merits of our current strategy, but I'm hard pressed to identify the "plunder motive" behind the 2001 invasion. Or are we now seriously debating the analytical merits of "Fahrenheit 9/11?"
This stuff on wars of plunder smacks of left-wing conspiracism. Wars are started by ideology, religion, nationalism, strategic miscalculations, and a host of other factors. To suggest otherwise is to deny history.
On “James C. Scott at Cato Unbound”
Whoa. That essay blew my mind.
On “Fun campaign lists”
@Lisa Kramer, That speech continues to send chills up my spine.
On “Beer Blogging: Are cans better?”
@JosephFM, Nope. Any other options I should check out?
"
@JosephFM, Whoops. There goes my beer blogging street cred. Regardless, Dale's is delicious.
On “Fun campaign lists”
This is a pretty great list, but I feel like Redford in "The Candidate" and Douglas in "The American President" should get honorable mentions for the Best Candidate in a Movie category.
On “Beer Blogging: Are cans better?”
@JosephFM, Haven't tried Oskar Blues, but Dale's Pale Ale is pretty grand.
On “Shoup Himself Responds to O’Toole”
I've been waiting for this. O'Toole really irks me sometimes.
On “Apologies all around”
Suggestion: You should put the post in question below the fold or something.
On “Beer Blogging: The Gateway Drug”
@Sonny Bunch, I will enthusiastically cosign any raison d'etre endorsement. Dogfish Head is great.
"
@Ryan Davidson, I suspect that has more to do with the weather than the drinking laws. But I did not know that, either.
On “Regime Change”
Hahaha so I usually try to guess the authors of "Off the Cuff" posts before I check. I had this one pegged as Kuznicki for sure.
On “Beer Blogging: The Gateway Drug”
@Mike at The Big Stick, I still have a soft spot for PBR, actually. And after awhile, you really do acquire a taste for American pilsner.
"
@Aaron W, I had no idea. Wisconsinites sound like eminently sensible folks.
On “The Man Who Pretended to Know Too Much”
Speaking as someone who routinely pretends to be erudite, I think this is a venial sin, not a moral one.
I also thought Steorts' essay on Rand was pretty good.
On ““The Great Ghastly Rand””
@Sam M, Ha - you just summed up my reaction to Atlas Shrugged.
On “Beer blogging: Chimay “Red””
As my roommate is fond of saying: "Chimay; she may not."
On “Will blog for food”
Holy Jesus we need to get in on this racket.
I'm also shocked, shocked to discover Riehl is a paid shill.
On “That’s just going to make them angrier…”
Seriously? This is the sort of thing that really gets my goat.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.