Measuring Democracy

← →

Assignment 7

March 1st, 2011 · 4 Comments

1. Fair Play by John Holbo

One of the most provocative, thoughtful blog posts I have read. Holdo presents two distinct sides to the debate on organized labor, and does a thorough and exceptional job of breaking them down.

I had originally gone through the top 5 politics blogs on Technocrati, and was not impressed by anything I found. The author wrote a post FAR different than anything you’ll find on the major “journalistic” (to borrow from Prof Nyblade) blogs. I can get my news from anywhere, and usually all at once (scroll down google news and you get the general idea of what is going on in a day).

A post like this though forces you to critically think about the debate. I like thinking.

Holbo asks questions that actually engage the reader; I found myself really pondering my own views on where I stand with regards to the situation in professional sports and elsewhere in society.

2. Preparing for War in Australia? by Randall Hoven

If the piece above was intelligent, this one sets the benchmark for stupidity. Great example of the problem with blogs; it gives everyone a voice, no matter how incompetent it may be.

In regards to the style; too many rhetorical questions that don’t really ask the reader anything. Hard to follow what Hoven is really getting at, the title is terrible (but maybe has the “what in the hell is this guy talking about” factor), and he speaks to his reader’s like they are children.

Not to mention, the quote that sparked his rant is taken WAY out of context.

Tags: Assignments

4 responses so far ↓

  • Randall Hoven // Mar 2nd 2011 at 8:36 am

    Assignment 8. Maybe this article will exceed my benchmark for stupidity.
    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-gates-letter-20110302,0,1837356.story

  • nknoop // Mar 2nd 2011 at 9:08 am

    Randall, your benchmark is still well in place. I am unclear as to how a reader submission to the Baltimore Sun is supposed to bolster your argument, or change my opinion on your piece in the American Thinker.

    Here is a clip from Gate’s speech. Perhaps it is all a matter of interpretation, but I woud submit that he is referring to the fact that the US Army can not fight wars like they used to. The nature of terrorism and the potential enemies we may face in the future does not call for a large land army.

    I will admit, though, hearing him discuss the budget problems to the cadets felt a bit off to me.

    We can’t know with absolute certainty what the future of warfare will hold, but we do know it will be exceedingly complex, unpredictable, and – as they say in the staff colleges – “unstructured.” Just think about the range of security challenges we face right now beyond Iraq and Afghanistan: terrorism and terrorists in search of weapons of mass destruction, Iran, North Korea, military modernization programs in Russia and China, failed and failing states, revolution in the Middle East, cyber, piracy, proliferation, natural and man-made disasters, and more. And I must tell you, when it comes to predicting the nature and location of our next military engagements, since Vietnam, our record has been perfect. We have never once gotten it right, from the Mayaguez to Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the Balkans, Haiti, Kuwait, Iraq, and more – we had no idea a year before any of these missions that we would be so engaged.

    The need for heavy armor and firepower to survive, close with, and destroy the enemy will always be there, as veterans of Sadr City and Fallujah can no doubt attest. And one of the benefits of the drawdown in Iraq is the opportunity to conduct the kind of full-spectrum training – including mechanized combined arms exercises – that was neglected to meet the demands of the current wars. Looking ahead, though, in the competition for tight defense dollars within and between the services, the Army also must confront the reality that the most plausible, high-end scenarios for the U.S. military are primarily naval and air engagements – whether in Asia, the Persian Gulf, or elsewhere. The strategic rationale for swift-moving expeditionary forces, be they Army or Marines, airborne infantry or special operations, is self-evident given the likelihood of counterterrorism, rapid reaction, disaster response, or stability or security force assistance missions. But in my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should “have his head examined,” as General MacArthur so delicately put it.

    By no means am I suggesting that the U.S. Army will – or should – turn into a Victorian nation-building constabulary – designed to chase guerrillas, build schools, or sip tea. But as the prospects for another head-on clash of large mechanized land armies seem less likely, the Army will be increasingly challenged to justify the number, size, and cost of its heavy formations to those in the leadership of the Pentagon, and on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, who ultimately make policy and set budgets

  • Randall Hoven // Mar 2nd 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Thanks for the speech, but I read it before, in context. That’s why I embedded the source in my article. (Words in blue on the AT site are embedded links.)

    Gates said more than what I quoted that gave his context:
    “the Army also must confront the reality that the most plausible, high-end scenarios for the U.S. military are primarily naval and air engagements”

    “But as the prospects for another head-on clash of large mechanized land armies seem less likely, the Army will be increasingly challenged to justify the number, size, and cost of its heavy formations to those in the leadership of the Pentagon, and on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, who ultimately make policy and set budgets.”

    I read his words as ruling out future large land wars, almost everywhere, but particularly in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. I have trouble even trying to twist his words to mean anything else. (Bombs OK. Cruise missiles OK. Drones OK. Small special forces teams OK. No-fly zones OK. But no ground wars.)

    Even if that is our intent, should we be telegraphing it to people like Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il?

    And if we are ruling out large ground wars on the two continents where most our enemies reside (which I will not say is a totally bad idea), then it seems we are spending WAY too much on defense, whatever “defense” has come to mean.

    But at least I still hold the record on stupidity. But come to think of it, you never pointed out what exactly was stupid. I guess that’s why it is an “assignment”.

  • nknoop // Mar 2nd 2011 at 1:48 pm

    – It is an assignment because this blog is for a college class I am taking on democracy. I was told to find a blog post I liked and one I didn’t. I have 2 readers; my prof and the TA for the class. And now you (I’ll take what I can get).

    – I like the fact you track down all of your criticism even to the lowliest of blogs. Respect.

    – I took issue with lines like (from your article) “I guess a ground war in Sweden, Canada, or Australia would be OK with Secretary Gates.” That’s not what he was saying at all. And that would be you twisting words.

    – l liked your response much more than your article. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

    – I still am not convinced how “getting your head examined” implies never doing it. More like, you better be damn well sure that what you’re doing is right. If he meant never, he would have said “as prospects for another head on clash of large mechanized armies seems like a thing of the past” not “less likely” as Gates explained.

    – Isn’t a missing piece to your formula for war identifying an enemy? To me that’s the issue; tough to call out radical islamists, etc and wage a major ground war against an enemy that isn’t defined by national border.

    – Definitely shouldn’t be broadcasting it to the world. The blogosphere doesn’t help that, though, does it?

Leave a Comment