I can't imagine that many other presidents would have acted differently, to be honest. The fact is, a trial of bin Laden would have been a political nightmare, as would have not trying him but detaining him anyway. That doesn't excuse an execution, if that's what it was, but it's a political calculus that would likely have determined the actions anyone in either of the two political parties. That, I suppose, says all I need to know about our political system.
I don't know if I'm agreeing with Bob here, but it pains me to be even this close to doing so, but here goes.
For me, it isn't about the legality of it. I'm not sure whether it was legal, not only because I'm ignorant of the relevant law, but because I, and I imagine most of us, don't know exactly what went down either in the lead up to the raid of in the actual raid itself. I am pretty damn sure that nothing would ever come of it if it were illegal. There are plenty of members of the last administration who did legally questionable things, and last I checked, none of them have been tried, or even investigated.
However, for me the legal question is secondary at best. The more important question is the principle, or the morality, however you want to think about it, of the actions and the orders that instigated them. If a person who was hundreds of miles from any fighting, and unarmed, was gunned down in cold blood, under orders to do just that, then that's wrong, to me, whether it was legal or not. And it doesn't seem like the sort of thing a government, any government, much less one that represents me, should be doing.
To me, bin Laden was a criminal, one whose crimes were, of course, historically heinous, but a criminal none the less, and I don't know of any civilized nation that authorizes the killing of unarmed criminals, without trial, in the process of apprehending them, simply because of the nature of their crimes, however horrific those crimes might have been. That's pretty much what being civilized means.
By the way, the 328th Infantry Division headquarters were not, in case you're wondering, headed by Eisenhower.
And if you read the book from which that order is quoted, you'll find that the order was generally not followed, or at least that there's no evidence that it was.
Anyway, if you find evidence that Eisenhower issued that order, or that it was followed by anyone, I'll chime back in. Until then, have fun attacking me personally. I'm sure it will make you feel better.
What evidence? You said he gave an order that no SS prisoners were to be taken alive. That's a bold statement, one with implications about the American armed forces in World War II and about Eisenhower specifically. You've provided no evidence for such an order. You've merely repeated what I said in my first couple posts on the subject: that American troops murdered SS prisoners, and that Eisenhower used inflammatory language that probably exacerbated the problem. That's not issuing an order. But if you don't see that, it's not my problem. I've put it out there. You've flailed away with personal attacks and repeating more of what I've already admitted.
By the way, have you noticed that you can't respond to me without attacking me personally? It's true, I've responded to you a lot, because you say a lot of blatantly false things with some frequency. It's a bit of a pathology with me. I've done the same to others when I think they're full of shit (ask Tom or Bob, who are at least principled and honest; I don't know what you are). And with the exception of making a jab at you about your personal stories (have you looked up General Ivolgin yet? He's a character in The Idiot, though lest you get offended by the title alone, he's not the Idiot himself), I haven't said a thing about you personally until just now.
Oh, and my spelling is atrotious (OK, that one was on purpose; I'm on Firefox now so I have automatic spell check). You and every teacher I had from the first grade on have noticed it. Good on ya. And I'm not a clinical psychologist, by the way. There are other kinds.
Spotsylvania has never been the symbol of that wars horror for me in the same way that some later battles have, or even the Wilderness that preceded it, largely because unlike those bloody battles, it served a real and important strategic purpose. If Grant gets behind Lee, the war is all but over for Lee's army, and therefore for the South.
I think of the pointless slaughter at Franklin because of Hood's wounded ego -- a thousand casualties an hour for five hellish hours. No strategic purpose, no purpose whatsoever. Just charge after charge at Union breastworks, destroying an army, because a general was angry.
yup, but saying he ordered it is not only wrong, it's libelous. Eisenhower had his faults, but bloodlust wasn't one of them. I am not being a naysayer; I am pointing out a blatant and character-damaging untruth. Why you uttered it? I'm no psychologist... Well, OK, I am a psychologist, but why you say the stuff you do is beyond me.
Inciting repraisals and making them the official policy of the supreme commander are two very different things. I can't imagine someone as smart as you can't see the difference, or why I might feel compelled to point it out.
But you keep attacking me personally if you want. I've made and overmade my point.
I would ask for reputable sources to back your claim, but as I know no such sources exist, I won't bother. Thousands of Waffen SS soldiers were taken prisoner, and no order was ever given to kill then, not by Eisenhower or any other general at least (some Second Lieutenant, maybe). No evidence exists for such an order. You made it up, and pointing to Eisenhower's incendiary rhetoric is just ass-covering, as are the insults.
Yeah, no such order existed, and orders were even issued to take them alive, because they tended to provide the best intelligence, which was being lost through repraisal killings.
Anyway, I know you were there and all, fighting for both the French and Dutch Resistance (with a stint among the Ukrainian partisans), but no such order was issued. Pulling it out of your butt doesn't make it true.
In the case of the Franco-Prussian War and World War I, the causal chain is pretty direct and unbroken (and one often noted by historians). I think one could probably argue that the causal chain from the 30 Years War to World War I is a bit... tangled.
I can't speak for anyone else, but if that's the way it went down, particularly if it was an execution ordered from above, then yes, I'm very disturbed.
What I don't understand, Jason, is why you focus on the more loopy elements in the dominant religion in our country (and by focus, I mean post something about it once every few blue moons), but never, ever say anything about the craziness of religions that, while they might have small to nonexistent footprints in our country, are dominant in some other country halfway accross the world! It's almost as if you're biased towards writing about stuff that might actually affect you or your readers, which would be disappointing. I am looking forward to your posts on the silliness of fundamentalist New Guinea animism to rectify this.
You know, that's not entirely unreasonable. I don't know a whole hell of a lot about the 30 Years War, except what was happening in the Commonwealth ('cause I really dig Sienkiewicz' trilogy), but I do know that Lothringen (Lorraine) was one of the focuses of early German nationalism, and German nationalism was an impetus for the Franco-Prussian War.
Plus, we've already talked about Blucher and his baby elephant. So, Thirty Years War, Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian War, World War I, World War II, 1982 World Cup semifinals! It all makes sense, now.
Plus, we've already talked about Blucher and his baby elephant.
Oh, I was mostly being facetious, but it's a mistake to treat 1871 and 1914 as "qualitatively different" (not sure what that means, in this case). First, Germany took French territory, and as a result, the two were essentially in a state of "cold war" from 1872 until 1914. Remember the charges in the Dreyfus Affair? The entire French military culture was built up around an inevitable war with Germany (they wanted another war -- taking back Alsace-Lorraine was an obsession in the military, and in the government). World War I, or at least a second Franco-Prussian war, was pretty much a foregone conclusion after the Treaty of Frankfurt, and that's to say nothing of the power balance issues that the unified German state created.
So, since World War I was in many ways a result of the Franco-Prussian War, and since World War II was in many ways a result of World War I, the Franco-Prussian War is the start of a 75 year war between France, Germany, and their allies at various points.
By the way, you're now quibbling over the particulars of an example that serves as evidence against your position. Unless India, Canada, and Northern Europe are the good guys in Sri Lanka. In which case, weird.
Anyway, when you provide some facts that support your law, I'll be happy to acknowledge them. Until then, it's like most of what you say: it sounds nice, but crumbles under the slightest scrutiny.
The battle of Thames was fought between a vastly outnumbered British force that, upon learning of its naval support's defeat, promptly retreated, barely having engaged the Americans. The bulk of the land fighting, then, was done between the American force and Tecumseh’s force, which held its ground until Tecumseh was killed, and then promptly retreated. But hey, if you want to claim that as a victory that shows how good the American army is, go ahead.
Pat, this is precisely what I was getting at (strangely, an example like Afghans moving into Pakistan support my point, not Blaise’s, but he uses it anyway). I thought of adding that refugees also run to areas with ethnic or otherwise culturally similar populations, but that’s not always the case, so I don’t think it’s a good idea to include it in any “law of refugees.” A perfect example would be so many Tamil refugees ending up in India, despite India’s explicit support for the people fighting the Tamil rebels. India wasn’t the good guy to Tamils, and they were precisely the cultural group against which the Tamils were fighting, but they were nearby and there weren’t gun fights and suicide bombers there (mostly), so it was a safe place. The refugee camps within Sri Lanka were just as far from the center of fighting as they could get.
In short, safety, not who's good or bad, is all that matters to refugees, and as often as not you can't tell anything about who the "good guy" is by where refugees go. But hey, it's a nice little saying.
Except Plattsburgh was primarily a naval victory. The American navy, particularly on the rivers and lakes, faired quite well in that war. They had experience. The American army was a joke.
As for your history lesson about where we got the land, I haven't the slightest clue what that has to do with whether the army performed well enough to earn respect in that war. But I hadn't heard of this Louisiana Purchase thingie before, so thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Seriously, though, I’ll stop being “obtusely pedantic” when you point to one historical source that suggests that the U.S. army (not navy) became a respected force as a result of its performance in the War of 1812. One source. I’m willing to believe there’s one out there. I’ll wait (and no, telling me an anecdote about your time in Zimbabwe curing polio and killing pirates doesn’t count as an historical source on the War of 1812).
Yeah, one major victory against a significant British force, after the war was over, when the bulk of the British military was busy fighting a much more formidable foe on another continent, doesn't inspire much confidence. I doubt it seriously affected the perception of the U.S. army, particularly since it was fought largely by irregulars: Lafitte's pirates, militia from 3 different states, and Native Americans. I've never seen anything to suggest that after the War of 1812, the American land forces were suddenly respected by anyone, except perhaps anyone thinking of trying to invade U.S. territory while fighting total war half a world away at the same time.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “America, Forever At War”
I can't imagine that many other presidents would have acted differently, to be honest. The fact is, a trial of bin Laden would have been a political nightmare, as would have not trying him but detaining him anyway. That doesn't excuse an execution, if that's what it was, but it's a political calculus that would likely have determined the actions anyone in either of the two political parties. That, I suppose, says all I need to know about our political system.
"
I don't know if I'm agreeing with Bob here, but it pains me to be even this close to doing so, but here goes.
For me, it isn't about the legality of it. I'm not sure whether it was legal, not only because I'm ignorant of the relevant law, but because I, and I imagine most of us, don't know exactly what went down either in the lead up to the raid of in the actual raid itself. I am pretty damn sure that nothing would ever come of it if it were illegal. There are plenty of members of the last administration who did legally questionable things, and last I checked, none of them have been tried, or even investigated.
However, for me the legal question is secondary at best. The more important question is the principle, or the morality, however you want to think about it, of the actions and the orders that instigated them. If a person who was hundreds of miles from any fighting, and unarmed, was gunned down in cold blood, under orders to do just that, then that's wrong, to me, whether it was legal or not. And it doesn't seem like the sort of thing a government, any government, much less one that represents me, should be doing.
To me, bin Laden was a criminal, one whose crimes were, of course, historically heinous, but a criminal none the less, and I don't know of any civilized nation that authorizes the killing of unarmed criminals, without trial, in the process of apprehending them, simply because of the nature of their crimes, however horrific those crimes might have been. That's pretty much what being civilized means.
"
By the way, the 328th Infantry Division headquarters were not, in case you're wondering, headed by Eisenhower.
And if you read the book from which that order is quoted, you'll find that the order was generally not followed, or at least that there's no evidence that it was.
Anyway, if you find evidence that Eisenhower issued that order, or that it was followed by anyone, I'll chime back in. Until then, have fun attacking me personally. I'm sure it will make you feel better.
"
What evidence? You said he gave an order that no SS prisoners were to be taken alive. That's a bold statement, one with implications about the American armed forces in World War II and about Eisenhower specifically. You've provided no evidence for such an order. You've merely repeated what I said in my first couple posts on the subject: that American troops murdered SS prisoners, and that Eisenhower used inflammatory language that probably exacerbated the problem. That's not issuing an order. But if you don't see that, it's not my problem. I've put it out there. You've flailed away with personal attacks and repeating more of what I've already admitted.
By the way, have you noticed that you can't respond to me without attacking me personally? It's true, I've responded to you a lot, because you say a lot of blatantly false things with some frequency. It's a bit of a pathology with me. I've done the same to others when I think they're full of shit (ask Tom or Bob, who are at least principled and honest; I don't know what you are). And with the exception of making a jab at you about your personal stories (have you looked up General Ivolgin yet? He's a character in The Idiot, though lest you get offended by the title alone, he's not the Idiot himself), I haven't said a thing about you personally until just now.
Oh, and my spelling is atrotious (OK, that one was on purpose; I'm on Firefox now so I have automatic spell check). You and every teacher I had from the first grade on have noticed it. Good on ya. And I'm not a clinical psychologist, by the way. There are other kinds.
On “Foote’s Civil War: Spotsylvania and the Death of Jeb Stuart”
Spotsylvania has never been the symbol of that wars horror for me in the same way that some later battles have, or even the Wilderness that preceded it, largely because unlike those bloody battles, it served a real and important strategic purpose. If Grant gets behind Lee, the war is all but over for Lee's army, and therefore for the South.
I think of the pointless slaughter at Franklin because of Hood's wounded ego -- a thousand casualties an hour for five hellish hours. No strategic purpose, no purpose whatsoever. Just charge after charge at Union breastworks, destroying an army, because a general was angry.
On “America, Forever At War”
yup, but saying he ordered it is not only wrong, it's libelous. Eisenhower had his faults, but bloodlust wasn't one of them. I am not being a naysayer; I am pointing out a blatant and character-damaging untruth. Why you uttered it? I'm no psychologist... Well, OK, I am a psychologist, but why you say the stuff you do is beyond me.
Inciting repraisals and making them the official policy of the supreme commander are two very different things. I can't imagine someone as smart as you can't see the difference, or why I might feel compelled to point it out.
But you keep attacking me personally if you want. I've made and overmade my point.
"
Dude, I mentioned repraisal killings already. Keep up.
"
I would ask for reputable sources to back your claim, but as I know no such sources exist, I won't bother. Thousands of Waffen SS soldiers were taken prisoner, and no order was ever given to kill then, not by Eisenhower or any other general at least (some Second Lieutenant, maybe). No evidence exists for such an order. You made it up, and pointing to Eisenhower's incendiary rhetoric is just ass-covering, as are the insults.
"
Oh yeah, well they taught me something completely different in interrogator training!
"
Yeah, no such order existed, and orders were even issued to take them alive, because they tended to provide the best intelligence, which was being lost through repraisal killings.
Anyway, I know you were there and all, fighting for both the French and Dutch Resistance (with a stint among the Ukrainian partisans), but no such order was issued. Pulling it out of your butt doesn't make it true.
"
Eisenhower issued an order no SS prisoners were to be taken alive after the massacre of American soldiers at Malmedy.
That's not true, of course.
"
In the case of the Franco-Prussian War and World War I, the causal chain is pretty direct and unbroken (and one often noted by historians). I think one could probably argue that the causal chain from the 30 Years War to World War I is a bit... tangled.
"
I can't speak for anyone else, but if that's the way it went down, particularly if it was an execution ordered from above, then yes, I'm very disturbed.
On “The Rapture in Stereo”
What I don't understand, Jason, is why you focus on the more loopy elements in the dominant religion in our country (and by focus, I mean post something about it once every few blue moons), but never, ever say anything about the craziness of religions that, while they might have small to nonexistent footprints in our country, are dominant in some other country halfway accross the world! It's almost as if you're biased towards writing about stuff that might actually affect you or your readers, which would be disappointing. I am looking forward to your posts on the silliness of fundamentalist New Guinea animism to rectify this.
On “America, Forever At War”
Somehow, that sentence ended up there twice. Stupid smart phone.
"
You know, that's not entirely unreasonable. I don't know a whole hell of a lot about the 30 Years War, except what was happening in the Commonwealth ('cause I really dig Sienkiewicz' trilogy), but I do know that Lothringen (Lorraine) was one of the focuses of early German nationalism, and German nationalism was an impetus for the Franco-Prussian War.
Plus, we've already talked about Blucher and his baby elephant. So, Thirty Years War, Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian War, World War I, World War II, 1982 World Cup semifinals! It all makes sense, now.
Plus, we've already talked about Blucher and his baby elephant.
"
Oh, I was mostly being facetious, but it's a mistake to treat 1871 and 1914 as "qualitatively different" (not sure what that means, in this case). First, Germany took French territory, and as a result, the two were essentially in a state of "cold war" from 1872 until 1914. Remember the charges in the Dreyfus Affair? The entire French military culture was built up around an inevitable war with Germany (they wanted another war -- taking back Alsace-Lorraine was an obsession in the military, and in the government). World War I, or at least a second Franco-Prussian war, was pretty much a foregone conclusion after the Treaty of Frankfurt, and that's to say nothing of the power balance issues that the unified German state created.
So, since World War I was in many ways a result of the Franco-Prussian War, and since World War II was in many ways a result of World War I, the Franco-Prussian War is the start of a 75 year war between France, Germany, and their allies at various points.
"
It was all just a continuation of the Franco-Prussian War.
"
Peach treaty? My favorite typo in some
"
By the way, you're now quibbling over the particulars of an example that serves as evidence against your position. Unless India, Canada, and Northern Europe are the good guys in Sri Lanka. In which case, weird.
"
Yeah, and who's policing the Tamil cams in India?
Anyway, when you provide some facts that support your law, I'll be happy to acknowledge them. Until then, it's like most of what you say: it sounds nice, but crumbles under the slightest scrutiny.
"
The battle of Thames was fought between a vastly outnumbered British force that, upon learning of its naval support's defeat, promptly retreated, barely having engaged the Americans. The bulk of the land fighting, then, was done between the American force and Tecumseh’s force, which held its ground until Tecumseh was killed, and then promptly retreated. But hey, if you want to claim that as a victory that shows how good the American army is, go ahead.
"
Pat, this is precisely what I was getting at (strangely, an example like Afghans moving into Pakistan support my point, not Blaise’s, but he uses it anyway). I thought of adding that refugees also run to areas with ethnic or otherwise culturally similar populations, but that’s not always the case, so I don’t think it’s a good idea to include it in any “law of refugees.” A perfect example would be so many Tamil refugees ending up in India, despite India’s explicit support for the people fighting the Tamil rebels. India wasn’t the good guy to Tamils, and they were precisely the cultural group against which the Tamils were fighting, but they were nearby and there weren’t gun fights and suicide bombers there (mostly), so it was a safe place. The refugee camps within Sri Lanka were just as far from the center of fighting as they could get.
In short, safety, not who's good or bad, is all that matters to refugees, and as often as not you can't tell anything about who the "good guy" is by where refugees go. But hey, it's a nice little saying.
"
Except Plattsburgh was primarily a naval victory. The American navy, particularly on the rivers and lakes, faired quite well in that war. They had experience. The American army was a joke.
As for your history lesson about where we got the land, I haven't the slightest clue what that has to do with whether the army performed well enough to earn respect in that war. But I hadn't heard of this Louisiana Purchase thingie before, so thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Seriously, though, I’ll stop being “obtusely pedantic” when you point to one historical source that suggests that the U.S. army (not navy) became a respected force as a result of its performance in the War of 1812. One source. I’m willing to believe there’s one out there. I’ll wait (and no, telling me an anecdote about your time in Zimbabwe curing polio and killing pirates doesn’t count as an historical source on the War of 1812).
"
Yeah, one major victory against a significant British force, after the war was over, when the bulk of the British military was busy fighting a much more formidable foe on another continent, doesn't inspire much confidence. I doubt it seriously affected the perception of the U.S. army, particularly since it was fought largely by irregulars: Lafitte's pirates, militia from 3 different states, and Native Americans. I've never seen anything to suggest that after the War of 1812, the American land forces were suddenly respected by anyone, except perhaps anyone thinking of trying to invade U.S. territory while fighting total war half a world away at the same time.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.