On Iraq: General Potemkin, Gettysburg on the Tigris, Whither The Netroots?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 08:53:05 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Kevin Drum continues his stellar work exposing General ~~Potemkin~~ Petraeus. From a WaPo article:

[V]isits to key U.S. bases and neighborhoods in and around Baghdad show that recent improvements are sometimes tenuous, temporary, even illusory....Even U.S. soldiers assigned to protect Petraeus's showcase remain skeptical. "Personally, I think it's a false representation," Campbell said, referring to the portrayal of the Dora market as an emblem of the surge's success. . . . [T]he Dora market is a Potemkin village of sorts . . .

Frederick Kagan, of the ~~Fighting~~ Writing Kagans compares Anbar to Gettysburg and Bush's trip there to Lincoln's trip to Gettysburg. I kid you not. Write your own snark. My one observation - when did Bush become President of Iraq?

Finally, I continue my ~~whining about~~ cajoling of the Netroots on Iraq in my most recent piece in the Guardian Online's blog, "comment is free." [Note: The piece was edited by a Guardian editor.]

< NY Times Opposes Three-Strikes Laws | John McCain Wants to Ramp Up War on Drugs >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

On Iraq: General Potemkin, Gettysburg on the Tigris, Whither The Netroots? | 47 comments (47 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Good Guardian piece (5.00 / 4) (#32)
by Maryb2004 on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 12:53:22 PM EST

I agree with andgarden that, some day, a real historian is going to do a history of the netroots and the story is going to look so different than what is coming out now.

I do think, though, that if you want to track the change in the netroots you can't just focus on Moveon and Bowers/Stoller. Big Orange is the 800 pd. gorilla in the room and if you are going to do a complete and valid criticism on what the netroots has become, you can't exempt it from the analysis. You have to talk about the move to give DailyKos legitimacy in the eyes of whoever it was that they wanted to appear legitimate to. And you have to honestly evaluate whether that move to appear legitimate stifled (intentionally or not) the people-powered activisim that might have broken out.

I am not an unbiased observer (none / 0) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 01:31:40 PM EST

Now that's funny. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by oculus on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:03:21 PM EST

If you mean (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by Maryb2004 on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:21:06 PM EST

that you were a part of it, yes you were.

But I don't see that as valid excuse for completely exempting dKos from any part of the analysis of the problem.

NOT talking about it creates bias too.


True (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:53:32 PM EST

Ok, I'll talk about it.

That it will be labelled "sour grapes" by many is just my cross to bear.


: They already think this (none / 0) (#46)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:48:09 PM EST

And aren't quiet about it either.

: Jlvgnsten says narcissist. I say (none / 0) (#48)
by oculus on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:53:08 PM EST

martyr complex!

No (2.00 / 1) (#12)
by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:05:29 AM EST

Because the substance was not the issue for me. The issue was your attempt to make it sound as if it were a piece for the guardian, which you subsequently changed. The Guardian hosts the free comment blog with about 500 bloggers or so and i like the forum. But your "piece" was not as you had originally described it, rather it is a blog entry.

I am afraid you are wrong on this (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:09:52 AM EST

The Guardian is not "hosting" a site open to "about 500 bloggers."

Indeed, it is not "open" to anyone.

To put it bluntly, the Guardian pays people to write pieces for its online blog, "comment is free."

If the experience of other writers was like mine, the pieces are edited by a Guardian editor.

I believe you have bad information.

The substance of course is the issue that should be discussed imo.


Not that great an editor though: (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by oculus on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:45:23 PM EST

Indeed, as I have come to consider it, that post by Obama, I have come to see that it complete misunderstood the netroots and also gives a glimpse into what I think is wrong with Obama's political style

(Emphasis added.)


That was not great (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:56:13 PM EST

buuut, there were a lot of GOOD edits.

Ironically, some of them were geared towards making this all more comprehensible to a UK audience.

Ironic because of the attacks made on me in this thread.


: The Brits can't comprehend (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by oculus on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:20:44 PM EST

American spellings apparently. Nice work though.

great analysis in the Guardian! (none / 0) (#1)
by seabos84 on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:04:41 AM EST

in MY flat earth language

insider cliques of kewl-kids replacing cliques of outta touch DC slimeballs

accomplishes what?

some factions (yeah, 'faction', see Federalist #10) of the netroots seem to be following the paths laid down by christianity

they all know what the big guy REALLY said and REALLY meant, and they are the ONLY ones who REALLY know and they are the only ones people SHOULD really listen to.

ha ha.

rmm.

It is not a "piece" in the Guardian (none / 0) (#2)
by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:08:34 AM EST

It is a piece on a blog page hosted by the guardian. Let us know when the Guardian "publishes" one.

: Petty. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Molly Bloom on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 10:24:12 AM EST

: Can anyone (none / 0) (#3)
by pontificator on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:19:38 AM EST

Post on the Guardian blog? Or do you have to be invited?

: They just did (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:40:38 AM EST

in the Guardian Online.
Is that your beef? That I did not write "online"? I thought it was obvious.
Indeed, this is my third reference to writing in the Guardian online and thought it was clear every time.
But I tell you what, I'll add the word online if it makes it seem better to you.

How about the guardian online BLOG pages (none / 0) (#6)
by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 10:29:36 AM EST

It is not running in their paper or the pages, it is running in their blog along with 500 other bloggers they allow.

Trying to make it sound as if the "piece" you wrote was picked up by a major publication is a clear demonstration of your unwarranted narcissism.

When one of your "pieces" "runs" in the guardian let us know.

: I leave it to Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 10:42:10 AM EST

to judge whether your comment is proper on this site.
Personally, I simply find it bizarre.

: Petty (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by squeaky on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 10:49:07 AM EST

And that you would be impressed if of one of BTD's "pieces" (sic) if it appeared in a major publication, as opposed to evaluating the content of his writing wherever it appeared, seems quite shallow.

Was it part of the Guardian Online (none / 0) (#9)
by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 10:57:32 AM EST

Or part of a blog hosted by the guardian? He took the liberty of posting this note to make it appear as if he were published by the Guardian.

It is a blog in the comments area of the online site, not a piece in the guardian.

: For the record (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:00:07 AM EST

The name of the Guardian Online blog is "comment is free" - it is NOT the comments section of the blog.
The piece was edited by a Guardian editor. Presumably, they think of it as part of the Guardian Online, and properly so one would think.
But I must ask, do you have anything to say about the SUBSTANCE of the piece?

if you insist on comparisons, (none / 0) (#11)
by cpinva on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:03:46 AM EST

let's consider one of the more famous useless losses of life during the battle of gettysburg: pickett's charge.

the good general tried to talk lee out of it, pointing out the futility of attacking entrenched forces, after walking across a long, open field, under constant artillery fire.

lee was wrong, pickett was right, and 1.000's of young men paid with their lives for lee's stubborness. unlike bush, lee recognized, to his horror, what he'd done.

there's an apt analogy for the current "surge" in iraq.

Kagan insisted (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:05:31 AM EST

Me, I questioned the comparison.


: sorry, (none / 0) (#50)
by cpinva on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:27:28 AM EST

i didn't mean you, that was a generic you.

who said open? (none / 0) (#15)
by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:13:01 AM EST

Here are all the contributors to the site.

Were you compensated?

IS it your business if I was? (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:22:10 AM EST

But I answered your question already.

The Contributors to the site are people who have, shocking, CONTRIBUTED, to the site.

What do you think that means? Take a guess.

My gawd, what a strange obsession you have.


So you changed the wording (none / 0) (#19)
by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:25:14 AM EST

Because i felt it was misleading or you knew that you were misrepresenting where it was "published"?

Your "piece" was not in the Guardian, and it sounds like you and 500 other bloggers are compensated to some degree which is nice. But it is not the "guardian" and methinks you were AFRAID of them calling you out, not pleasing me.

you are pretty easy to see through.


Actually (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:30:53 AM EST

I was trying to address YOUR concern in a gracious way.

I do not fear that the Guardian will disavow its on Online publication.

Did you happen to look at the list of the contributors?

My gawd, is this how you entertain yourself.

I am gracious to you out of respect to the gracious and wonderful Jeralyn Merrit. This is HER blog. If it was my blog, my words to you would be quite different.


Sticks and stones (none / 0) (#22)
by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:38:05 AM EST

So, when someone calls out your self aggrandizing, and that is exactly what you were attempting to do with your "piece" in the guardian you want to get nasty with them but you cannot because it is not your blog?

Ironic isn't it? You post on someone else's blog about misprepresenting about a piece and you get bent out of shape?

That may very well be at the core for many of the readers here who think you are pompous and boorish. But of course I only speak for me. And for me it is all quite revealing. After I read the book, I may comment but of course that will be months away so it will be lost at that point.


: It Appears As If (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by squeaky on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 12:13:12 PM EST

You had no interest in making BTD's link more accurate. It looks like your correction was an excuse to launch a long standing personal attack.
a clear demonstration of your unwarranted narcissism.
Even with BTD's self acknowledge very "healthy" ego your attack really seems way off base here.
BTW- Did you read the piece? You don't have to read the book to get BTD's point. Whether or not you would like the book or not is another story which is not particularly relevant to his points.

: I submit that you review the rules of THIS site (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:58:36 AM EST

Jeralyn has made them abundantly clear.
You know you violated them.
If it were MY site, you would not have, and I would have called YOU out for your behavior in ways similar to your personal insults of me.
I have never been a big fan of faux civility and clearly neither are you.
But I abide the rules of this site and you have not.

: For the record (none / 0) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 12:05:25 PM EST

Here is the rule you violated:

Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by TalkLeft will not be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice.
This comment is just a taste of what you did:

Trying to make it sound as if the "piece" you wrote was picked up by a major publication is a clear demonstration of your unwarranted narcissism.
This was clearly a personal attack in violation of the site rules. That it was an inaccurate bizarre attack based on your ignorance on the matter has become manifest.
But honest ignorance (defined as uninformed) is not an excuse for a personal attack.

BTW (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:33:58 AM EST

Who said it was open? You did:

"It is a piece on a blog page hosted by the guardian. Let us know when the Guardian "publishes" one."

What do you call "a blog page hosted by the Guardian?" For being such a stickler, you are pretty loose with words.


It still isn't there (none / 0) (#23)
by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:39:14 AM EST

Open.


: page hosted by the Guardian? (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:56:30 AM EST

page hosted by blogger?
hosted by __?
What were youimplying there? Now whio is being deceptive?
Come clean. You thought I was deceiving because YOU thought I just posted something on an open "comments page."
You were wrong. I accept that you were honestly wrong.
Now you are game playing.

post (none / 0) (#16)
by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:13:36 AM EST

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/contributors_a-z.html

: A superior exemplar of how to (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by oculus on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:34:47 PM EST

attempt to divert attention away from substance.

: And? (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:23:05 AM EST

Your piece in the Guardian (none / 0) (#24)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:41:47 AM EST

was excellent. I think you've found further evidence that journalists tend not to have very deep knowledge or understanding of the topics on which they write.

I'm waiting for a real historian to write an academic work about the netroots--in 15-30 years (if it's deemed a worthy subject).

I agree (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by squeaky on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:55:41 AM EST

It would be ironic though if Moveon and other netroots "leaders" took up the defunding issue and hammered it relentlessly enough to make the democratic congresscritters come out of their slumber and defund the Iraq war.

Then, it could be argued, incorrectly, that Matt Bai was right and the netroots is top-down driven movement.


: Do you have a direct view into (none / 0) (#47)
by oculus on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:50:50 PM EST

Kos's mind? Prescient.

Ok (none / 0) (#35)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 01:33:07 PM EST

Let me know when you attack next time.

Sheesh.

Your participation in this thread is one you are proud of I take it?

: Still no open found (none / 0) (#49)
by Jlvngstn on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 08:07:14 AM EST

And still the same reversal of blame. Reminds me of a certain president...

It's worse than that (none / 0) (#36)
by Alien Abductee on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 01:49:19 PM EST

Today the netroots faces a new challenge of avoiding being seen as a top-down driven movement... A real acid test is now before the netroots: will it be what Bai describes - a top-down group who take direction from its self-appointed leaders?

The problem is not just becoming "a top-down group who take direction from its self-appointed leaders" but from a top-down group of self-appointed leaders co-opted by the very people that need to be pressured and influenced to do their/our will and not the other way around.

It's all really quite depressing. Two steps forward and ten back.

A year ago the netroots were directly pressuring elected Democrats. Now we've split into a wild and a tamed force - the tamed being the Democratic Party associated big blogs like dailykos, the wild being the many smaller community blogs spun off from that hub through vicious disparagement of certain approaches that many people favor but that are inconvenient to the party (agitation for impeachment, agitation for defunding, advocating third parties, condemnation of Israeli policy and its influence on U.S. policy, favoring actual progressive candidates like Kucinich, etc. etc.). People favoring those ideas are ridiculed and marginalized or outright banned to cut them off from the blogosphere's biggest megaphone.

Now instead of pressuring the Democrats directly, progressives in the netroots are spending their time trying to pressure the A-list bloggers.

A few more years of netroots "progress" like that and maybe we'll find ourselves fighting for the right to basic civil rights for minorities and the enfranchisement of women.

Not sure about "banning," but I (none / 0) (#38)
by oculus on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:09:48 PM EST

otherwise agree with your third paragraph.

Gettysburg?!? Lincoln?!? Is he insane?!? (none / 0) (#45)
by kovie on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:38:04 PM EST

Not to mention profane for even thinking this. What unmitigated gall, and idiocy. Gettysburg was a SOUTHERN attempt to change the course of the war and it miserably FAILED--not through the fault of southern troops, who fought bravely and admirably, but through the fault of southern generals who stupidly and I believe immorally miscalculated and overestimated their strength and position and sent their men into doomed battle. To compare the "surge" to Gettysburg is to compare it to a massive and decisice historical FAILURE that did turn the tide--in favor of the north, which from then on would be permanently on the offensive (albeit ineffectively until Grant took over).

Or was Kagan equating the "surge" to the Northern position, which after seizing the high ground on the first day before the bulk of the Southern army arrived was purely defensive and reaction, hardly a "surge", even if it succeeded. Is Petraeus supposed to be Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain in this scenario, defending Little Round Top? Pickett, leading his doomed charge? Longstreet, who strongly advised against it? Hancock? Meade? Seriously, WTF is he talking about?!?

That this man is considered to be a military historian, let alone one who teaches at West Point, is beyond comprehension. I can only wonder what his analyses of Napoleon's invasion of Russia and Hitler's Operation Barbarossa are. Ech.