“Long wars are better than short wars because grievous violence builds character and teaches valuable lessons.”

Obviously you don’t agree with the argument laid out by the author in the TNR piece, but I thought it was convincing in the context given.

And it’s understood that TNR is not a conservative mag. But that doesn;t mitigate the idiocy of the argument presented: Long wars are better than short wars because grievous violence builds character and teaches valuable lessons.

Frameone,

By the way TNR is not a conservative mag as you suggested above.

I do not see where any of the quotes you have provided condone or accept terrorism.

First, you’re artificially conflating “condone” with “accept,” which I’m sure you’re aware is deceptive. Accepting something does not automatically mean you condone it…the meanings are quite distinct.

Second, I wasn’t suggesting that the provided notes do any such thing. I was merely noting that Rumsfeld’s rhetorical style in these most recent comments — i.e. basically saying that there’s an acceptable level of terrorism without coming right out and saying there’s an acceptable level of terrorism — is consistent with his circumlocution in other cases. Rumsfeld rarely says anything outright … he dances around the point ad nauseum because he comes from a school of political thought that places plausible deniability above all else. He can always protest that he never said there was an acceptable level of terrorist activity, when in fact that is exactly what he said.

I’m not twisting his words at all, neither am I “excoriating” him for anything other than a persistent unwillingness to speak clearly — and I can certainly see why you wouldn’t consider that a problem.

I happen to think he’s saying that eliminating terrorism is not a reasonable measure of success for our endeavor in Iraq. Rather if we make significant progress in other areas then a certain level of violence will be acceptable within our definition of victory.

That isn’t twisting his words, unless you misunderstand how I’m using the word “acceptable.” I’m not saying Rumsfeld thinks terrorism is acceptable, but he is saying that a certain level of terrorism has to be acceptable because that’s reality folks.

That makes sense to me, but it also made sense to me when Kerry expressed the same idea in the campaign when the Right went for his throat. You see, JD, you cannot defend Rumsfeld now without indicting the entire administration as the most viscious sort of hypocrites. You seem to know that but you can’t bring yourself to accept it. Instead you play the same old rhetorical games. “I’m not defending anyone, I don’t speak for these people, we’re not monolithic.” And yet now you can’t even answer the question put forth by a mainstream leader of the Republican party, Giulliani. You won’t do it. Because you know that the standard Giullani set for Kerry condemns Rumsfeld too. Back when Giulliani set that standard he was doing this administrations dirty work: attacking the truth with viscious smears and lies. Now that this administration has discovered the truth, now that it has been forced to accept it, we have to forget what was said, we have to look away from the past, we can’t answer the questions we used to ask. Unbelievable.

Pray tell us again, in your own words, what you think the speaker intends?

Frankly, I think Rumsfeld really did mean “acceptable.” For better or worse, he and his superiors find lots of things “acceptable.” After all, a certain level of looting was acceptable after Baghdad fell, because freedom is messy. Apparently, a certain level of detainee abuse is acceptable, because we need to get information out of those sorry fuckers at any cost. A certain number of civilian and friendly-fire casualties are acceptable…c’est la guerre.

It’s all of a piece, to me. This is exactly the kind of talk we’ve come to expect from the Bush Administration, and most particularly from Rumsfeld…these soft circumlocutions that dance around the point without ever quite making it firmly enough to trigger any real alarms.

He could have been more judicious in his choice of words, but he was not wrong.

Speaking of dancing around the point, those are really nice tap shoes. Is it really that hard to type the phrase “John Kerry might have chosen his words more judiciously, but he was right”? Sure, I’m doing the same kind of hairsplitting I’m accusing you of, but only because I think it’s funny. “Not wrong” and “right” are not equivalent, of course, but they’re functionally identical in this context. I just find it amusing that you apparently can’t bring yourself to put “Kerry” and “right” in the same sentence.

Dugger gave a great example earlier – would you define Israel as a success, despite the continued existence of terrorism there ?

By the way, you will be hard pressed to show that I repudiated Kerry’s comments. He could have been more judicious in his choice of words, but he was not wrong.

“How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we re going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we ll stop thinking about it?”

How ’bout it JD? Give us a draft of the speech Bush will give to address all the beheadings and killings that happen after we declare victory based on a wide range of other metrics? Again, Rumsfeld is speaking the truth now but durng the campaign those who spoke the same truth were pilloried as pussies and traitors. Look at the difference in tone between Rumsfeld, Dugger and you now compared to your right-wing brethern Giulliani then. Now its all metrics and complexities and levels of success. But back then it was all bloody rhetoric about beheadings and murdered innocents. It doesn’t matter what you said then, you are now defending this totally bankrupt administration. Way to go.

Unlike you, I am not speaking for these people. I do not see where any of the quotes you have provided condone or accept terrorism.

Now you are criticizing me for defending something you admit to be true? And I am morally and ethically bankrupt ?!

I intended to say he was “not wrong”, simply because, as I pointed out, his choice of words left something to be desired.

Would you please go sit in your corner now and let Ian fight his own battles? He’s a big boy, after all.

And JD, I think Frame’s closer to the facts on this one than you. This is the same class of rhetoric from Rumsfeld that we got when we were told that “freedom is messy.” He’s looking for wiggle room. I understand and agree that there are different metrics for success. But Frame is correct in pointing out that Rumsfeld is essentially suggesting that our final definition of “success” is likely not to include the criterion “total elimination of terrorist acts.”

Which is, no matter how you slice it, an admission that there is a certain level of chaos that we’re willing to live with. A level that is “acceptable.” That, of course, is exactly the sort of reasonable statement that Rumsfeld’s leashholders demonized Kerry for making.

The problem here is not what Rumsfeld says. He’s right, for once. There’s no reasonable way that we can quantify “success” in Iraq as “the absence of terrorist acts.” Or at least not with the money and troops we’re willing to commit. Congratulations to him for admitting the truth.

The problem is that his bosses and allies slagged Kerry left and right for admitting the same truth — that we cannot and will not be able to eliminate terrorism completely. At some point, you have to decide that you’re willing to live with a certain level of risk. We all do this every day…I’m not sure why this calculus should be different.

If you’re willing to call Rumsfeld “right,” but not willing to admit that Kerry was also right, and that Giuliani and the assorted other Republican mudslingers were wrong to characterize his remarks as they did, then Frame’s right … you’re ethically bankrupt.

“The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we re going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we ll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry s thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking.”
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15504

During the campaign an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. Now according to Rumsfeld and guys like Dugger and you, there is an acceptable level of terrorism and not only that, when we hit it, we can declare victory. I’ll say it again, totally, completely bankrupt.