Becoming the enemy
I have had my share of people telling me that “if we adopt the tactics of the enemy we become worse than them”. Bullshit. You do what you have to do to win. Then you remember that you did hard things to overcome, and you teach your children the meaning of what you did, and why. This goes for politics and war.
21 comments Og | Uncategorized
Yep I think things were better before the media had free reign on the battlefield.
I don’t know the context of what prompted your post but I must disagree.
In war, the object is to sunder the enemy. To overpower them until they either capitulate, or are rendered incapable of further resistance. To that end, there is no need to demonstrate that you are the “good guy”. You may WANT to demonstrate that to other parties in order to entice them to join in the bludgeoning, but it is not really necessary.
In politics, however, you can’t just kill the “enemy” to get your way. The object is persuasion. You must convince the mindless majority that your position is morally, pragmatically or functionally superior to that of the enemy. In the course of convincing, if the prospective convincee can credibly argue that “you’re no better than the other guy”, you’ve already lost him.
Case in point: John Lott. No one argues about whether his scholorship is legitimate, no one has ever credibly undermined his research. When he is dismissed out of hand, it is because his credibility was tainted by the “sock puppet” episode. I don’t even mention him when arguing gun rights issues because inevitably his credibility will become the focus of attention rather than the issues themselves…even though he did nothing any worse than the anti-gunners do regularly and it was really a pretty mild incident. His credibility was damaged beyond repair because he “adopt[ed] the tactics of the enemy”.
The issue is not whether it is morally right or wrong to do so, the issue is whether, in the political realm, it is effective. In many cases it is not.
“Then you remember that you did hard things to overcome, and you teach your children the meaning of what you did, and why.”
It’s the BIGGEST responsibility we have. Period. It applies across the board….
Libs: “We’d be lowering ourselves to their level”
Me: Whatever it takes to win.
When the other side has declared all-out war on you, you don’t sit idly by and say, “oh, well played, old chap, please, by all means give me another.”
Sorry, Sailorcurt, but you’re wrong. I want to see my conservative representatives tearing their libsoccommie counterparts to shreds, not sitting tamely by and saying “well, there’s always next time.” There may not be a next time.
Limited war produces limited gains. Total war is what we need, but because we’re the “nice guys”, we won’t take it to the enemy. Well, bah humbug to that.
Kill them all. God will know his own.
Sorry, Sailorcurt, but you’re wrong. I want to see my conservative representatives tearing their libsoccommie counterparts to shreds, not sitting tamely by and saying “well, there’s always next time.†There may not be a next time.
If anything goes, then why not just assassinate every Democrat (and Rino) politician? Heck, we’re the ones with the guns. If all’s fair, let’s have at it. You start, I’ll be along presently.
That’s the kind of attitude that prompts ant-abortion fanatics to shoot doctors and firebomb clinics. Damn the innocents, it’s all about winning right?
Yes, I realize you were using hyperbole but the point is valid. Are you saying that you would condone Republican politicians committing Bribery? Fraud? Intimidation? How far are you willing to go? Is murder a viable option? Why don’t we just form goon squads to break the knees of any dissenters?.
What I think you are really talking about is playing political hardball in DC or the State Capital. I’m right with you there. I’m very tired of wimpy Republicans refusing to use the tools available to forward our agenda (or stymie the demos) because of some misplaced sense of fair play that is not at all shared by the enemy. As long as it doesn’t involve outright criminal behavior, I’m all for it. If it DOES involve criminal behavior, then I’m of the “We’re no better than…” mind.
But that’s not what I was talking about before. What I was talking about is in dealing with the general public. Until we incorporate “Goon Squads R Us” the way we affect policy is through public opinion. In order to sway opinion, we cannot be seen to be engaging in the same tactics as the Dark Side or we undermine our own credibility. That means no manipulating or misrepresenting facts and statistics, no dissembling or trying to mislead the public, etc. We must be direct, honest and forthright. That is the way to convince the fence sitters which is what we need to do in order to prevail.
History and the truth are on our side. We don’t NEED to creatively interpret the facts.
SailorCurt, your philosophy is well-stated, but sophistic none the less.
Of course, “Morality ends at the point of a gun”. That’s a given. In an ideal world, the winners and losers of debate would be the winners and losers in life, but this isn’t an ideal world, and from my study of history, never has been.
I won’t argue morality with you, and there’s no purpose in such debate anyway, since it is the fuel of dreams and not reality.
What I WILL argue with you is history.
Two points of history. The first concerns war. Name for me, please, ONE example of a war won by the stronger side when the weaker side was determined to sacrifice all, and the stronger side limited their battle for “moral” purposes. Hint: this nation was in an example of such a war, and lost it.
The second point: Name one war involving religious conflict which has been won by ANY MEANS except the total vanquishing of the side which lost.
War is never a game, but it is ALWAYS lost by those who persist in thinking it is.
BTW, in the example you cited, of conservatives fighting liberals, I’m personally convinced we WILL have to fight that war. When that war is fought, the sides will be so unequal as to almost be a laughing matter, but the weaker conservatives will prevail in it, simply because liberals will demonstrate a lack of courage to continue the fight to the end.
Like you, SailorCurt, I prefer to debate now if debate has even a chance of convincing the other side to cease it’s plans for domination. Unlike you, SailorCurt, I know that there will be an end to that debate (and a start to UNLIMITED hostilities), and that end will come when our side realizes that the other side will not yield after having lost the debate.
So, SailorCurt, which conflict am I speaking of?
SailorCurt;
Funny you should take the tack you have. Because there is something that Our Side can and should be doing to win the fight — and to do so playing fair and above-board. That is to simply engage. It’s not that Our Side Plays Fair, but that Our Side Abandons the Field in the Face of Opposition.
And that’s not cricket.
M
hey, civil discourse and diplomacy really work well so far.
not
This thread has become very insightful.
In war, we should fight in terms our enemy understands — there should be no ambiguity in the enemy’s mind about how serious we are or what we’re willing to do to achieve our aims. The macho Mid East culture understands raw power. IF we apply it unflinchingly, they’ll get the message. If we temporize, they think we’re weak.
In politics, we should engage forcefully and constantly. Someone above said we conservatives too often leave the field when confronted. The Nation needs a civics lesson about the difference between a democracy and socialism (which is where the Dems are taking us). We should be pounding this message into the public’s consciousness incessantly. Instead, what we have in the current crop of Republicans are are a bunch of fools more concerned with their own status and perks; too often they compromise when the Dems squeal about something.
Screw the Left. I spent 3 decades in the US military, and I don’t want the Nation to fall to that I opposed.
Well said Bob1.
That is all…
From Irsapundit (an Israeli view with which I agree)
(1) Do not negotiate with entities that offer phony and temporary peaces. Kill them, to the last man if necessary, until they are no longer capable of offering violence.
(2) Do not acknowledge terrorists and dictators as heads of state who have the right to negotiate with civilized countries.
(3) Terrorism can never be forgiven or excused, and its perpetrators must be fought to the death.
There’s three points to agree with.
Yep.
I know this thread may be getting tired, but check out Kim’s site for this essay:
Soft People, Hard People
By Selwyn Duke
Good read.
Double: I read kims site before I read MINE.
Heh.
Well, you’re both on my daily “to do” list Og.
I was hoping others might see the comment & go there, or to “American Thinker”, the originator of the work.
Best…
Riverdog: I’m not sure how my argument was sophistic. I didn’t set the terms, I’m only debating them. The original statement was “all’s fair in war and politics”. My contention is that that statement is untrue on it’s face. By pointing out things that no one reading this thread would personally perpetrat as examples of activity that would NOT be acceptable in the forwarding of a political debate, I disproved the initial thesis.
In an apparent attempt to illustrate my sophistry, you constructed a straw man by transmogrifying my argument from “everything is NOT acceptable in politics” to “everything is NOT acceptable in war”. Please allow me to quote myself:
In war, the object is to sunder the enemy. To overpower them until they either capitulate, or are rendered incapable of further resistance. To that end, there is no need to demonstrate that you are the “good guyâ€. You may WANT to demonstrate that to other parties in order to entice them to join in the bludgeoning, but it is not really necessary.
My arguments against the “everything goes” policy was obviously not directed toward wartime activities, but toward political debate and maneuvering.
My only contention is that “everything goes” is NOT true in politics. Everything goes within the bounds of reason and the law but the option to asassinate, torture or intimidate all political opponents is not an option to any but tyrants
That is not to say that political issues cannot escalate to the level that requires a war to sort them out. That’s how virtually ALL wars begin.
I would submit that a war IS politics. It’s just the next level after “playing by the rules” didn’t work.
Am I saying that we should accept any level of tyranny from government and never fight back if fighting back would entail breaking the law? Of course not.
All I’m saying is that everything does NOT go until the actual shooting starts.
If you truly believe that my argument is sophistry, then why, praytell, are you not out killing the enemy as we speak?
For the same reason I’m not. Because we are not (yet) at that stage of the political process. When we are, I’ll be fighting right alongside you my friend.
Sailor? you need to go back and read the original post, and the comments, and improve your reading comprehension. You’ve been badly whooshed, and missed the point entirely.
“If we adopt the tactics of the enemy we become worse than them.â€
KdT wrote once about one of his grandfathers who fought in “The Great War” and how brutal and ruthless the trench fighting was, yet his grandfather went home and started a family and was a supporter of his community and never let the deeds he did to win affect how he behaved afterwards.
“If we adopt the tactics of the enemy we become worse than them†is only true if we let it be true.