Fallujah - Sunni Triangle

[NousDefionsDoc]

I never said "pick the right audience" Very rarely do you get to choose the audience, and then it is preaching to the choir almost always.

I said basically "Pick the right delivery method for the audience you have"

Agreed, the message will have to overlap to various audiences. That's where the nuance comes in. The basic message is always the same, or should be.

[pulque]

Originally posted by D9
I agree with you NDD. But do you see the need to change the context of the discussion? To reforge our policy on the anvil of self-interest?

American people are definately divided over whether or not the action is needed for security reasons (self-interest). It IS divided, and no hopeful thinking is going to change that.

So in essence, the policy proposal is that it doesnt matter if all the of people are on board. I dont think you will ever get that policy change with the current political system.

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
NDD response - "Feel free to go right on in to Fallujah and start interviewing people, ....Have a very SF Day."

Uhhhh, I have to warn you: if you tell them that, they are likely to start a probe into whether or not your comments were too meanspirited.

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by pulque
So in essence, the policy proposal is that it doesnt matter if all the of people are on board. I dont think you will ever get that policy change with the current political system.

With the current political system or the current political climate? It is the job of our President to do what is necessary to secure and protect the rights of Americans as guaranteed in The Constitution, from threats foreign and domestic. It is not to drift with the tides of public opinion. So I don't see anything about the form of our government, so much as the cultural and political climate, as the primary impediment to a rational policy.

[NousDefionsDoc]

You can't ever get everyone to agree, hence the 80% solution, but I think in this case, the admin could do better than what they have with a little change in delivery.

I agree with you NDD. But do you see the need to change the context of the discussion? To reforge our policy on the anvil of self-interest?

Sorry, I missed this somehow. Well, according to the chants of those not on board, the context of the discussion on Iraq was WMD. Since WMD has not been produced, they feel vindicated. Granted, there will always be a point of contention, if not WMD then something else. granted, alot of this is about the man, not the situaiton. Granted, their point is invalid as far as I'm concerned. I think he had them and I think we will find them.

My point is, how did WMD become the context of the discussion?

Grossly oversimplified example:

Message - We are taking out Sadaam Hussein
Audience/Delivery:
1. Libs - we are taking out Sadaam Hussein for the same humanitarian reasons Clinton went in to Kosovo and Haiti.

2. RW - we are taking out SH because he is a terrorist aider and abettor and may have WMD.

3. Shiites - we're taking out SH because you, as a minority, have no voice and he and his sons were killing your people. Start thinking about what you want. No Sharia state and Iran is next if you can't get right.

4. Sunnis - we're taking out SH because he was a secular tyrant, but you will not have a Sharia law state. Start thinking about what you want.

5. Kurds - we're taking out SH. Start thinking about what you want - Kurdistan ain't on the table and we won't protect you from the Turks.

6. England - we're taking out SH because he gave all the oil contracts to the Phrench. Tell BP to get ready, but they have to hire one Iraqi for every Brit they send over. OBTW, he may have WMD and he is aiding and abetting terrorism.

7. Israel - We're taking out SH. Stay out of it.

8. Syria/Iran - We're taking out SH because of the same kind of shit you're doing. Get involved, move up on the list. North Korea is none of your fookin' business.

9. EU - We're taking out SH. Shutup.

10. UN - We're taking out Sh. Shutup. Or we'll put the FBI on the Oil for Food program and revoke your diplo parking permits and immunity.

11. All - We're taking out SH. Everybody that voted no, give us one good reason why not so we can start investigating your links to his regime.


Now, this is pretty much the way it went. Except for a couple of groups. You can't sell WMD to the left, because they don't think anybody but the US would ever actually use them. The message never changed in the example. Just the focus on a cause.

[pulque]

Originally posted by D9
With the current political system or the current political climate? It is the job of our President to do what is necessary to secure and protect the rights of Americans as guaranteed in The Constitution, from threats foreign and domestic. It is not to drift with the tides of public opinion. So I don't see anything about the form of our government, so much as the cultural and political climate, as the primary impediment to a rational policy.

Well, lets say you really want a policy change that reflects a patriarchal/constitutional approach. What do you think you need to do to get it?

What creates the current cultural and political climate?

isolated events (9/11)?
long term polarization between people of very different dispositions?

In the postmodern day, the president wants to keep people supporting him, because he needs the swing votes. He doesnt get to be the protector of all, because there are extremely different notions going around of what it means to be patriotic and american.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by D9
With the current political system or the current political climate? It is the job of our President to do what is necessary to secure and protect the rights of Americans as guaranteed in The Constitution, from threats foreign and domestic. It is not to drift with the tides of public opinion. So I don't see anything about the form of our government, so much as the cultural and political climate, as the primary impediment to a rational policy.

I agree with climate. I think after President Bush wins the next election and we don't have all the "Selected not elected" crap, the climate will improve. At least I hope it does.

[Roguish Lawyer]

LMAO! F'ing brilliant, NDD. Yes, State is perfect for you. Tell 'em what they want to hear, but no BS. LOL

[pulque]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
My point is, how did WMD become the context of the discussion?

Grossly oversimplified example:

Message - We are taking out Sadaam Hussein
Audience/Delivery:
1. Libs - we are taking out Sadaam Hussein for the same humanitarian reasons Clinton went in to Kosovo and Haiti.

2. RW - we are taking out SH because he is a terrorist aider and abettor and may have WMD.

3. Shiites - we're taking out SH because you, as a minority, have no voice and he and his sons were killing your people. Start thinking about what you want. No Sharia state and Iran is next if you can't get right.

4. Sunnis - we're taking out SH because he was a secular tyrant, but you will not have a Sharia law state. Start thinking about what you want.

5. Kurds - we're taking out SH. Start thinking about what you want - Kurdistan ain't on the table and we won't protect you from the Turks.

6. England - we're taking out SH because he gave all the oil contracts to the Phrench. Tell BP to get ready, but they have to hire one Iraqi for every Brit they send over. OBTW, he may have WMD and he is aiding and abetting terrorism.

7. Israel - We're taking out SH. Stay out of it.

8. Syria/Iran - We're taking out SH because of the same kind of shit you're doing. Get involved, move up on the list. North Korea is none of your fookin' business.

9. EU - We're taking out SH. Shutup.

10. UN - We're taking out Sh. Shutup. Or we'll put the FBI on the Oil for Food program and revoke your diplo parking permits and immunity.

11. All - We're taking out SH. Everybody that voted no, give us one good reason why not so we can start investigating your links to his regime.

Now, this is pretty much the way it went. Except for a couple of groups. You can't sell WMD to the left, because they don't think anybody but the US would ever actually use them. The message never changed in the example. Just the focus on a cause.

D9's policy change would mean that the only stated reason would be #2 and 8. Even if the real reason at the time were #1 or #3.

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by pulque
Well, lets say you really want a policy change that reflects a patriarchal/constitutional approach. What do you think you need to do to get it?

"Patriarchal?" Is that your anthropology background talking?

It is my impression that we still have a Constitutional Republic. I don't understand what you're getting at here.

Originally posted by pulque
What creates the current cultural and political climate?

Concisely, the intellectual leadership. Always has been. Look at who is ensconced in American academia today, and source of the great contradictions in our culture is obvious.

Originally posted by pulque
He doesnt get to be the protector of all, because there are extremely different notions going around of what it means to be patriotic and american.

No, he does get to be the protector of all so long as he fulfills the lawful obligations of his office - which are to protect the individual rights of all Americans. His mandate is to do so, irrespective of public opinion, or whether or not majority of the electorate agrees with him at a given point in time.

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by pulque
D9's policy change would mean that the only stated reason would be #2 and 8. Even if the real reason at the time were #1 or #3.

Without going item by item, I agree I would not use #1 or #3 as those are not morally legitimate reasons to send our military anywhere IMO. However, I do think it is fine to point those out as incidental benefits to the appropriate audience.

If, for instance, you are going over to Iraq because you think WMD is a big threat to American Rights, but in the process the Shi'ites will benefit if they place nice, then I have no problem pointing that out.

But I do not think you should ever be embarrassed about the fact that your interests are the primary motive in your policy. At a tactical level, I can imagine there are some situations where deception and ruse are valuable options. At a strategic level, I think it is completely self-defeating.

[D9 (RIP)]

Maybe we should make a new thread about this, given the change in focus from Fallujah to Casus Belli.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Without going item by item, I agree I would not use #1 or #3 as those are not morally legitimate reasons to send our military anywhere IMO.

You don't think stopping genocide or massacres is a morally legitimate reason to send troops to an AO?

[pulque]

Originally posted by D9
"Patriarchal?" Is that your anthropology background talking?

yes, I'm not as disgusted by academia as some here. but enough about that..

if I were to use Occam's razor on this, I would say that contradictions exist in public because contradictions exist in individuals. (note, I said individuals, not warriors).

back to the topic..

No, he does get to be the protector of all so long as he fulfills the lawful obligations of his office - which are to protect the individual rights of all Americans. His mandate is to do so, irrespective of public opinion, or whether or not majority of the electorate agrees with him at a given point in time.

regardless of the job of the president, he is still acting like a politician. why?

answer: the constitution is not a dead document, nor is the law petrified and stuffed. we all enjoy the "protections" of being americans, and this is why I feel sorry for the executive branch. all they have to pursue for their lives is power.. and it is not surprising that it appears corrupt.

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
You can't ever get everyone to agree, hence the 80% solution, but I think in this case, the admin could do better than what they have with a little change in delivery.

Sorry, I missed this somehow. Well, according to the chants of those not on board, the context of the discussion on Iraq was WMD. Since WMD has not been produced, they feel vindicated. Granted, there will always be a point of contention, if not WMD then something else. granted, alot of this is about the man, not the situaiton. Granted, their point is invalid as far as I'm concerned. I think he had them and I think we will find them.

My point is, how did WMD become the context of the discussion?

Now, this is pretty much the way it went. Except for a couple of groups. You can't sell WMD to the left, because they don't think anybody but the US would ever actually use them. The message never changed in the example. Just the focus on a cause.

You sold me, Doc.

I like your logic.

TR