"Progress and peril"

[Administrator]

IN READING THE ARTICLE BY RALPH PETERS, “Progress and peril” [February], one is struck by the infantile approach we as a culture are making to the global war on terrorism. We continue to grope in the dark, searching for new systems, techniques and methods by which we can defeat the Islamic insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/03/2538733

[The Universal Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Administrator

IN READING THE ARTICLE BY RALPH PETERS, “Progress and peril” [February], one is struck by the infantile approach we as a culture are making to the global war on terrorism. We continue to grope in the dark, searching for new systems, techniques and methods by which we can defeat the Islamic insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I am quite surprised that Mr. (I presume) Rodgers can start so well, and end up looking like such an abysmal ass.

That surprise is compounded when he can make such an accurate observation as "However, we have yet to question the fundamental premises or our own worldview and thinking on which all of this is based. We have forgotten the basic logical concept that says: If a premise is false and the logic is correct, the conclusion is still false. Until we challenge and change our premises, all of our “new” systems will amount to nothing.".

However, once he goes on to say "Pluralism and tolerance are not values, because by their very definition they are valueless. As soon as somebody stakes a belief in anything, he becomes intolerant of its opposite." he manages to dive into the deep end of the drivel pond by showing that he simply doesn't understand the meaning of words like "tolerance" and "values".

He starts to redeem himself with "We continue to slip into the fantasy world that everyone wants what we have." but then duck-dives down into the mire again by going on to say "It never dawns on us that many in the world don’t even want freedom." compounding his logical errors by thinking that everyone in the world defines "freedom" in exactly the same manner as he does.

His statement "Most people, even in this nation of ours, prefer security, which is the antithesis of freedom." verges on the ludicrous. A society can be secure if it has an open, honest, and honourable government that actually governs in the best interests of all (or almost all) of the people (yes it is possible).

And then his "But, the more security we have, the less freedom we get, or deserve, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin." again confuses what he thinks the words "security" and "freedom" mean with some sort of universal value.

I would really like to dissect the idiocy of his statements about "intolerance and cheating", but that would mean that I would have to read them again and, right after eating, that isn't something that I want to do unless I feel like lowering my food retention quotient.

He does, however, return to something that could be confused with contact with reality when he says " Unfortunately, our opponents on the other side of the asymmetric fight don’t think like us. And as a result, any serious student of history can see that we are in deep, serious, trouble.". Of course that statement is so trite that any reasonably well informed sixth grader could have come to that conclusion.

If Mr. Rodgers didn't realize that "the other side" isn't fighting the same war that the government of the United States of America has been fighting - and hasn't for over 50 years - until now, then I don't think that there is much more for him to do but sing "It's a beautiful day in the neighbourhood." until he can move to someplace "... where life is beautiful all the time ....".