INDC Journal

« E-Mailing Kos: Part 1 | Main | Random Beauty in DC »

April 03, 2004
E-Mailing Kos: Part 2

Posted by Bill

For background read this post, and read part one below.

Here is my response to his e-mail back to me - I tried to work in a bit more condemnation and see if he would possibly agree to accept responsibility without rationalization:

From : WilliamXXXX@hotmail.com
Sent : Friday, April 3, 2004 1:32 AM
To : kos@dailykos.com
Subject : Re: Kos, Regarding Your Post About Fallujah

Mr. Zúniga,

Actually I read both via links from (what you might describe as) a conservative blogger (Roger Simon). Regarding your original post:

"That said, I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. they aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."

Obviously this post was born out of spontaneous anger. But seriously, how much of the anger that you feel should really be directed at the "mercenaries," and how much stems from your disagreement with the policies of the Bush administration regarding the war? And is it really a humane reaction to prioritize the emotion of anger that is centered around strong political convictions or feelings of derision towards the pay of private contractors over the sadness and horror that most people feel after these gruesome deaths?

In the second post you clarified:

"I was angry that five soldiers -- the real heroes in my mind -- were killed the same day and got far lower billing in the newscasts. I was angry that 51 American soldiers paid the ultimate price for Bush's folly in Iraq in March alone. I was angry that these mercenaries make more in a day than our brave men and women in uniform make in an entire month. I was angry that the US is funding private armies, paying them $30,000 per soldier, per month, while the Bush administration tries to cut our soldiers' hazard pay. I was angry that these mercenaries would leave their wives and children behind to enter a war zone on their own violition."

Once again, I completely disagree with you about whether this is a worthy cause, but I can fathom why someone who does not agree with that basic concept would be very angry that lives are being wasted. But I've got to point out how you crossed the line of what I consider gravely offensive and baffling commentary:

You throw out a salary figure of $30,000 per month for the men who were killed and devalue their sacrifice because you consider them war profiteers. Assuming that these salary statistics are independently verifiable, the concept that these men were not serving a noble task is misguided and offensive; they were security consultants charged with protecting convoys that deliver food aid. Just as the individuals that are delivering lifesaving food and medical supplies are serving a worthy cause, so are the men that protect them. The choice for them to leave their families behind to serve this purpose isn't all that different than an engineer charged with restarting water purification facilities, with the primary factor that draws your scorn being the fact that they were well-compensated. It's morally bankrupt to use this distinction to devalue their deaths.

But even embracing your point, let's ask: why is the Pentagon using private contractors to provide security? Does it have something to do with insufficient force allocation? That we don't have enough active military to provide for the security requirements of the civilian contractors that are trying to rebuild the country? Would this even be a fair criticism? If you examined these points in another context, it's possible that you may have a legitimate issue regarding the policies of the Pentagon and the post-war force structure that was pushed by the Bush Administration. Whatever. But immediately channeling your personal anger over politics into such callous comments over the shocking deaths of these men is a reaction that's something less than human. Can you understand this point of view?

The paragraph is littered with references to the actions of the Bush Administration. I'm sorry, but my most objective analysis finds something telling about the fact that your anger at these men is so closely intertwined with your anger at Bush.

Also, you make the point that you are angry that the previous sacrifices of active military personnel have been overlooked by the media, and that America is not being accurately exposed to the full horrors of war. Once again, this is a legitimate point in a larger context, but can you not rationally admit that the uproar and focus on the death of these men is a direct result of the horrific way their bodies were mutilated and displayed? You are correct in expressing that the sacrifices of all servicemen should merit attention, but this ignores the reality of a media environment that is not unique to this conflict. If active military personnel had been burned and dismembered, the focus would have been just as sharp and the public outcry just as real.

As I mentioned before, I wrote you in an attempt to really understand your motivations for making these comments. The crticism that I and many others have is that we are vehemently angry that your reaction to such horrible events could be expressed in such callous terms and be motivated by political belief and scorn for pay grade. It's a bizarre prioritization.

You've admitted that your comments were "stupid," and that there are "more civil ways to make a point," but all I can do is offer a piece of advice: what is needed for you to regain any legitimacy among a huge swath of readers that do not generally agree with you is a direct, non-rationalized apology. No distinction about mercenaries vs. soldiers, no larger points about the Bush Administration that seek to validate or provide cover for your initial words. Rather, an apology. Whatever the analysis or explanation for your motivations, I'm not sure that you fully realize how big of a line that you've crossed.

I personally will likely never hold your opinion in high esteem because of your initial reaction to this situation, but I also acknowledge that we all make mistakes in anger. Your only shot at rejoining a legitimate constructive left-right debate is to grasp exactly what was so infuriating and wrong about your initial reaction, and take responsibility for it.

Take it for what it's worth, and I would be very interested to hear your reaction to any of these points or questions.

Regards,

William

I have no idea if he'll respond, but let's see ...

UPDATE: No response.

Posted by Bill at April 3, 2004 01:41 AM | TrackBack (1)

Comments

Nice job Bill. You engaged him in a way I could not. My email to him was a bit shorter, dismissive in nature and full of invective and not at all civil. Ah, well.

One point he makes justifying his 'anger' that the 5 marines killed that same day did not garner the same attention has me stumped: were the corpses of those five marines charred and kicked stomped and drug around and generally defiled amid screaming and cheering animals? I can't remember hearing if they were or not, or if they were in the same place even. I'm thinking they weren't. The fact that the corpses of those civilians were defiled in the manner they were is most likely the reason they attracted more attention and outrage than the death of the marines. It's strange to me that this seems to elude him.

An attitude that seems to permeate the ranks of the left is that people who support this war do not care about the lives that are lost and sacrificed. It still never ceases to amaze me. The loss of the marines was no less important than the lives of those civilians, but considering the aftermath, it is no surprise to me why the amount of attention each group got seemed to differ so greatly.

Posted by: willow at April 3, 2004 03:04 PM

Exactly Willow. Kos was playing semantics to justify his offensive comments. I'd like it if he could come around to this conclusion, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Hopefully he'll respond.

Posted by: Bill at April 3, 2004 06:11 PM

I've found his explanation completely implausible on a number of counts, but what gets me the most is his insinuation that our soldiers in uniform are unwilling slaves pressed into service by the wicked Bush administration, wailing and gnashing their teeth that they should be forced to participate in such barbarity.

This is, I think, an outgrowth of the fact that so much contemporary American leftist thought has been hobbled by the fact that we no longer have a draft army. Their response to every detail of this conflict has been to gleefully dust off their Vietnam playbooks. What they don't realize is that this is read, I think accurately, as contempt for the armed forces in general, since most soldiers don't actually share their belief in the sheer, unmitigated awfulness of American might.

Posted by: Sage at April 3, 2004 08:27 PM

As C.S. Lewis observed in his Space Trilogy, evil is not grand and magnificent in a dark way; rather, it is as small-minded and tedious as a schoolyard bully taunting a hapless victim.

Kos' gyrations are about protecting himself from criticism, not a healthy reevaluation of what he may have done wrong.

In an unguarded moment, he revealed the truth that the left is not rooting for peace, it is rooting for the enemy, period.

Posted by: rebmiami at April 3, 2004 08:54 PM

I think that sentiment sums it up rather well ...

Posted by: Bill at April 3, 2004 09:01 PM

Bill, you have saintly patience.

Posted by: Powderfinger at April 3, 2004 09:38 PM

Excellent email and post. You showed self control and eloquence in an emotional sphere; well done. I would truly hope that he not only answers your email and continues the discussion, but also takes your advice.

Posted by: stevieboy at April 3, 2004 09:59 PM

I hope you get through to him, Bill.

Excellent clarity and professionalism.

Posted by: Blackfive at April 3, 2004 11:04 PM

For what it's worth, Kos put up another comment today posing as the victim of right wing nutters and ended it with this: “I’ll simply echo Kerry. Bring it on.”

And now John Kerry’s campaign site has delinked him: “In light of the unacceptable statement about the death of Americans made by Daily Kos, we have removed the link to this blog from our website.”

Heh

Posted by: mikem at April 3, 2004 11:30 PM

"In an unguarded moment, he revealed the truth that the left is not rooting for peace, it is rooting for the enemy, period."

Fuck you. You really believe war opponents want the United States to lose in Iraq. I can assure you that we want a peaceful and democratic Iraq, but have serious doubts if it can ever be achived. This type of rehtoric does nothing to futher the kind of civil left-right debate William discussed in his letters to Kos. And if I didn't make my self clear the first time, again, Fuck you. To suggest that liberals want the enemy to win makes me want to vomit.

Posted by: andrew R at April 4, 2004 01:27 AM

Wow, rebmiami's statement really pissed me off.

Ann Coulter made a statement about the NYT building which was extremely offensive, we all know what I am talking about. A bomb as large as the one used on the OKC federal building would kill hundreds if one were to ever be detionated in Times Square. Her sick and twisted comment doesn't shape how I feel about conservatives and Republicans. Likewise Kos, while exteremely popular, doesn't represent all liberals. He made one offensive comment which was way over the top and is too stubborn to back down. Kos and Coulter said bad shit, but neither statement reflects the views of their respective ideological brothers.

Posted by: andrew R at April 4, 2004 01:43 AM

Andrew,

I think what gets people riled up enough to declare many liberals on "the other side" is their initial reaction of shadenfraude when something bad happens that could help take down Bush.

Examples of this are seen on Democratic underground every minute of every day - it was somewhat of a jolt to see a popular blogger like Kos have that initial reaction, coupled with how despicable his comments were about them being worthless mercenaries.

Some war opponents want us to lose, some don't. On the flip side, I can't stand John Kerry. But if the guy gets elected, I won't be hoping for terrible jobs reports, or take gratification in any deaths that result from his foreign policy. Many of the worst people on both sides tend to take this view, and unfortunately the left is currently taking the lead in showcasing the very worst of poltical animus gone rabid.

What makes the behavior worse is when it revolves around issues like terrorism, war and life and death. We can tear each other to death over taxes, gay marriage and medicare, but disunity regarding the war is shameful.

Posted by: Bill at April 4, 2004 03:40 AM

How come on. The accusations you make are unfounded. In the game of politics one side presents a picture which makes them look good and so does the other. Kerry and other Democrats highlight the level of job creation over the past 3 years and the lack of post-war planning for Iraq (I mean anyone who even suggested we would need more than 130,000 troops to rebuild was told to take a hike by Rummy). These highlights don't amount to treason or rooting for the other side.

"unfortunately the left is currently taking the lead in showcasing the very worst of poltical animus gone rabid."

Maybe it's because the Democrats are don't control the White House or congress. It's a simple matter of who is in power, if we had a president Gore and two Democratic houses of congress the opposite would be true. There is a fine line between shadenfrunde and making a legitimate point. Simply pointing out the lack of job creation under the this president is no different than when Reagan asked "[a]re you better off now than you were four years ago?"

"Some war opponents want us to lose, some don't."

Try very few war opponents want us to lose, most don't.

Ps: Miami, fuck you.

Posted by: andrew R at April 4, 2004 04:52 AM

That should be "Oh, come on." I read the darn thing twice and didn't notice that blunder.

Rightwing rehtoric has caused some serious damage. Partisanship in the Clinton years effectivly handcuffed the man. He couldn't use military force without having his motives questioned by congressional leaders and radio talk show hosts. Conservatives blame Clinton for not acting agaisnt terror when he was president, but cried "Wag the Dog" when he used military force against Iraq or AQ.

Posted by: andrew R at April 4, 2004 05:03 AM

Andrew R.

OK. I rise to the the straw man debate:

"You really believe war opponents want the United States to lose in Iraq."

What Ann Coulter may've or may not've said about Timothy McVeigh has nothing to do with what Zuniga has said about the murder of his self defined 'Mercs' in Iraq.

Your desire to point out a precieved failure on the 'other side' does nothing to mitigate the Zunigas' medacity.

"You really believe war opponents want the United States to lose in Iraq."

Nope. I believe that the supporters of dailykos.com want the United States to lose in Iraq.

It's a sad state of affairs when polictical opponents feel an obligation to cheer on the deaths of those they feel to be 'on the other side'. Being contracted to supply the United States with a necessary service is not yet a capitol crime.

Your medacious apology for Zuniga shows you to be a mouthed fool who thinks that 4 dead Americans are worth less than a Democrat in the White House.

john

Posted by: john at April 4, 2004 05:04 AM

If you want to see the kind of thing that makes many think that many on the Left are rooting for us to lose in Iraq, see the following.

LINK

The fact that this speaker got on the stage at a "peace rally" and was given a warm receiption is only a drop in the bucket. The blogsphere is filled with the "tinfoil hat" types so you can dismiss any example of a blogger, but not a person with the sanction of a protest organization.

Posted by: madmark at April 4, 2004 09:26 AM

We see signs at "peace rallies" advocating the destruction of the U.S., encouraging soldiers to murder their superior officers, urging bandits in Iraq to murder more Americans, boosting ortganizations like MeCHA and the Spartacists who openly advocate violent revolutions against America. We see Saddam-era Iraqi flags. We see American flags shredded, burned, used as symbols of mockery.
Do we see ANY "patriotic peace protesters" protesting AGAINST such things?
Do we see ANY "Pro-American, Anti-War" peace marchers announcing that such things do not belong, have no place in a march that is not anti-America, just anti-war?

andrew R, have YOU ever put your money where you claim your mouth is and told someone carrying one of those signs to leave the march, this was no place for him? Would YOU have stood up and told that speaker, "Fuck YOU!" the way you hve to so many here?

No, I thought not. You claim to be patriotic and pro-America, but in the crunch you would rather join hands with the haters and the traitors.

You have nothing more to offer. Go away.

Posted by: DaveP. at April 4, 2004 10:08 AM

Andrew R, if you're so excited about a peaceful and democratic Iraq, but you just don't think it can be done, then what exactly is it you are proposing? Do nothing? Wow, that's great advice.

Have you heard the phrase, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem?" It applies here. Start being part of the solution and, if you're not going to do so, shut the fuck up about it. Throwing up your hands in despair isn't helping those who are actually making an effort, at great personal risk.

Posted by: Uncle Mikey at April 5, 2004 12:19 PM

I keep looking for an apology, but I am not finding one. Good luck!

Posted by: Eric Scheie at April 5, 2004 04:47 PM