the Greater Nomadic Council

Wow. That's quite a rant. Not nearly long enough to be truly impressive, but it has a high enough outrage/facts ratio to qualify. If you want people to share your feelings about Sullivan, you'd do better giving a rational explanation for why he's wrong instead of just insulting him and screeching.

Well....Jesus, when you're faced with something like this there is really little point in making such an effort.

Andrew seems to believe, contrary to all evidence, that killing the insurgents at Fallujah and Najav is the key battle in a phantastical war against Islamofascism. Apparently, this sort of delusional propagandizing is what he needs do to feel good about himself. The misrepresentation involved is disrespectful not only to the variety of Iraqi factions fighting for a variety of reasons, but also to the dead being piled up on both sides because people like Sullivan refuse to face the facts.

And yes, a media discourse where the likes of Sullivan are moderate and conventional is sick, whether saying so is ranting or no.

And in case you can't take a joke, my words in Sullivan's mouth are obviously tongue and cheek.

I agree that a "kill em all" strategy isn't ideal, but a number of people think it is (though it's not clear that's what Sullivan is even advocating). If you're actually concerned about changing peoples' minds, or even making them question their own beliefs, then you need to give reasons. Just bashing someone only makes those who agree with them agree even more since clearly the opposition is irrational. At least Sullivan tries to make rational arguments to support his positions.

Well, I'm clearly not interesting in doing anything more than jolting, rather than convincing Sullivan-admires with a post like above. Further, I obviously dispute the idea that the post I quote above is "rational". When I make a post like this, I am trying to point out to frequent Sullivan readers (including those who contribute to this board) that I don't think either Sullivan's views or "kill em all" views are even remotely rational, or ought to have any place in the discourse on Iraq. And for the record, I don't think Sullivan is an inhuman "kill em all" type, he's just an irresponsible fool with a computer that needs to learn some shame and humility.

Sullivan and his ilk have been proven wrong time and time again, yet people continue reading him, and he continues to be a major figure in the formation of conventional wisdom. There are a variety of ways to combat this, and some of them are purely emotional in nature.

I've begun to think of people who believe in force as an effective anti-terrorism measure as parallel to people who are religious. Their beliefs are not based on facts or logic. Some are self-aware about this shortcoming, struggling with their own beliefs and operating through a Kierkegaardian leap, but tending to act in good faith.

The rest are raving, ignorant loonies like Sully who, as we've all learned, live in trailers and have tumultuous, alcohol-clouded relationships (I was gonna link to the Onion thing, but their archives now only go back four issues).

Seriously though. I can see the value of insisting on some clarity, but this really is patently retarded.

But if we could build an even BIGGER missile, with even BETTER laser guidance, THEN we could blow all the terrorists up!

It's fine to disagree with him, but I just don't think this sort of outburst does any good except for maybe yourself. It's nice to let loose like that, but it's going to change anyone's mind. Maybe if you were a major writer, then it might have some effect. Since you're not, you should rely on reason. Those who can't be swayed by it probably aren't going to change their mind no matter what you do. Those that can, aren't going to be swayed by poorly argued rants. You don't even give any reasons *why* what he's writing is foolish.

Whether more force is the answer or not is, in fact, a valid topic to discuss, especially since so many people think it is. Just because an idea is obviously wrong to you, doesn't mean it is to everyone else. Claiming that it's so foolish as to not even warrant discussion is an arrogant mistake.

ludwig,

I can tell you're upset so I'll simply make one observation. I think Sullivan's "moderate" title is more a way of saying "he's hawkish on the war/foriegn policy, and liberal on social issues" That is to say I don't think people mean that all of his views by themselves could be called moderate; rather that the average of the sum of his views would come out as average.

Piraeus,

What you say is right on. Still, maybe it's just me and my own frustration with punditry, but I'm not sure everyone catches on or wants to catch on. In fact, many key writers at TNR and elsewhere take pretty much the same line as Sully and they are still considered moderates or even liberals. Christopher Hitchens, for example, is still considered a leftist, even though he has made it clear that the war on terror is the only issue of real consequence to him.

If the war continues as it is, I feel that the level of sensitivity towards Arabs and respect for their divergent ideologies will continue to decrease and like in Vietnam, an emphasis on kills will come to the fore, as the various enemies gradually unite into one enemy. This is extrodinarily frustrating to behold.

As long as we're talking about petulence, grandstanding, and the war, I'll take the opportunity to do some of my own -

Itoldyouso. Nanny nanny boo boo.

So Scott, what you're proposing is essentially a litmus test for whether one can be considered a liberal or a moderate? If you support the war, then you're automatically a conservative? Or do you get your liberal card back if you later renounce that support like Yglesias has done?

Hmmm.... well I don't know. I wouldn't say Paul Berman is a conservative. Or even Joe Liebermann. Sully, however, is certainly a conservative--and he would say so himself. I don't think that's really the issue, however. The issue is what is recognized as responsible and irresponsible journalism and POV. I feel Sully's rhetoric has gone way over the edge. He is lumping together a wide range of ideologies and cultural groups (many of which were supposed to be the ones we are fighting for) and advocating that they are essentially one enemy--I'm tempted to argue there is already an unconscious form of racism at work here--certainly there is a repulsive cultural hubris. The next step is pondering the acceptibility of genocidal methods (i.e. napalm style bombing) and evaluating the success of an occupation in terms of indigenous rebels killed (as Sully has already begun to do). This is all dehumanizing, counterproductive and totally unacceptable IMO.

Ok. I was really only responding to this:

In fact, many key writers at TNR and elsewhere take pretty much the same line as Sully and they are still considered moderates or even liberals. Christopher Hitchens, for example, is still considered a leftist, even though he has made it clear that the war on terror is the only issue of real consequence to him.

Whether Sullivan thinks they're all just a buncha barbarous towel heads is another matter. It's a pretty serious charge, though, so I would recommend finding a good deal of evidence for it before making such speculations.