Uncategorized

“I Was Mugged, And I Understand Why”: Georgetown Student Triggers Controversy In Op-Ed On Who Is To Blame For His Being Mugged

2381DB3A00000578-0-image-7_1416962691861It is rare for a college student to trigger a national debate with an opinion column in a student newspaper but, to his credit, Oliver Friedfeld, has done precisely that. Friedfeld wrote an op-ed in the Hoya after he was mugged at gunpoint and defended the black youths who robbed him at gunpoint — a column entitled “I Was Mugged, And I Understand Why” that is drawing praise and ridicule across the country.

The senior explained in the column that

“Last weekend, my housemate and I were mugged at gunpoint while walking home from Dupont Circle. The entire incident lasted under a minute, as I was forced to the floor, handed over my phone and was patted down. And yet, when a reporter asked whether I was surprised that this happened in Georgetown, I immediately answered: ‘Not at all.’ It was so clear to me that we live in the most privileged neighborhood within a city [Washington, D.C.] that has historically been, and continues to be, harshly unequal.

The fact that these two kids, who appeared younger than I, have even had to entertain these questions suggests their universes are light years away from mine.”

Friedfeld appears to argue that it is he — and people like him — who have the most explaining to do: “Who am I to stand from my perch of privilege, surrounded by million-dollar homes and paying for a $60,000 education, to condemn these young men as ‘thugs?’ It’s precisely this kind of ‘otherization’ that fuels the problem.”

It is a thought-provoking piece but one with which I have to disagree. I am not sure what value “otherization” has a social theory, but I disagree that “it’s a lot easier for me to choose good than it may be for them.” This was a crime of violence in a city being ravaged by such violence. Indeed, most such crimes occur in improvised neighborhoods. There is a choice that is made for most people before they reach for a gun and victimize others. Friedfeld insists that this is the price that must be paid for our failure as a society:

As young people, we need to devote real energy to solving what are collective challenges. Until we do so, we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins. I can hardly blame them. The cards are all in our hands, and we’re not playing them.

While I commend Friedfeld for writing about his views, I find the sentiments expressed to be more moral relativism that has taken hold of our society. Many families in this country faced terrible poverty but did not turn to violent crime. They made a difficult choice that stayed faithful to the most basic tenets of a moral life. To relieve these men of moral responsibility for their act is to discard any notion of personal responsibility and choice.

I strongly condemn those who are attacking Friedfeld. He offers a personal and genuine view of the relative differences between his privileged life and the life of these muggers. Where I disagree with him is not that comparison, but his conclusion. I can see why Friedfeld does not feel victimized (particularly since he was not shot in the encounter), but that does not make these men any less of criminals. In other words, the wealth differential has more relevance to defining his level of victimization than it does excusing their level of criminalization.

Regardless of the merits, Friedfeld certainly produced something positive from the experience in triggering this national debate. While I disagree with him, the column is an effort by a college student to draw meaning out of such an experience.

104 thoughts on ““I Was Mugged, And I Understand Why”: Georgetown Student Triggers Controversy In Op-Ed On Who Is To Blame For His Being Mugged”

  1. I think that the unreality of this Administration has turned everyone involved with their social networking devices into a reality Youtube, Vine and TV show if they hit the big time. What an opportunity for thematic bs

  2. leejcarroll: “How was saying Bin Laden did not interest him and not going after him square with destroying terrorist networks.?”

    That’s an odd interpretation.

    Obama NSA advisor, Tom Donilon (Meet the Press, 08MAY11):

    GREGORY: Did harsh interrogations help in the hunt for bin Laden?

    DONILON: I’m not, I’m not going to comment on specific intelligence except, except to say the following, that intelligence was gathered from detainees, it was gathered through interrogation, it was gathered from other liaison services, it was gathered technically, it was gathered through human sources, right, over time. And it was gathered, by the way – and this is a very important point I think for your viewers and for Americans generally to understand – this was an effort across two administrations. Indeed, many of the same professionals who worked for President Bush on this project work with us today. Right? So it is not a matter of, of partisanship. And indeed, one of the messages, I think, that goes out from this, is this, that the United States, about its goals, has persistence and determination. That the United States does what it says it’s going to do and, and very importantly, last Sunday night the world saw, it has the capabilities to do so.

    Bush’s point was that bin Laden’s personal effective threat viz AQ had been reduced. The first goal of Operation Enduring Freedom was to take away bin Laden’s AQ operational base in Afghanistan and degrade AQ as an effective global threat. At that point, the goal had been achieved.

    To wit, David Schanzer, Director of the Triangle Center of Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy, April 2013:
    news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130420-homegrown-terrorism-tsarnaev-brothers-boston-marathon-bombings-islam-radicalism/

    As the 9/11 attacks demonstrated, al Qaeda was a powerful and dangerous organization 12 years ago, but is now a shell of what it once was. Central al Qaeda and its affiliate organizations around the globe still aspire to execute attacks inside America, but their capabilities to do so are dramatically diminished. The threat is present, but no longer acute.
    . . .
    The counterterrorism strategy against al Qaeda that has been executed since 9/11 has been extremely effective. We eliminated the safe haven that al Qaeda enjoyed in Afghanistan and captured or killed hundreds of senior leaders and thousands of rank and file militants.

    However, that does not mean the manhunt for bin Laden and other individual terrorists was ended when we dislodged AQ from Afghanistan.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/al-qaeda-couriers-provided-the-trail-that-led-to-bin-laden/2011/05/02/AFNSH5ZF_story.html

    John McLaughlin, who was deputy CIA director at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks, said that in any manhunt, counterterrorism officials take the smallest clue to leverage more information until they exhaust a line of inquiry or find their target. Bin Laden “was one of the highest priorities in the CIA’s menu, and there was never a question of giving up,” he said.

    More from McLaughlin on the Bush-Obama admins-spanning hunt for bin Laden:
    http://www.npr.org/2011/05/07/136084843/mission-accomplished-for-cias-special-bin-laden-unit

  3. leejcarroll:

    And last fall, in Texas, this president seemed to confirm the personal nature of this conflict.

    I don’t understand why you’re still guessing at the reasons for OIF. I cited and even linked them for you a while ago: have you not read yet the primary sources for the law and policy, fact basis of Operation Iraqi Freedom?

    That said, the assassination attempt is included in PL 107-243. Saddam’s attempt to assassinate the former US President in 1993 contributed to Iraqi regime change being made a US mandate – by the sitting US President in 1993.

    Excerpt from the Clinton White House summary on Iraq:

    Destroyed Baghdad intelligence headquarters in July 1993 in retaliation for Iraq’s assassination plot against former President Bush.
    …
    December 19, 1998 … The President announces that U.S. policy toward Iraq would seek the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.

    leejcarroll:

    when it was a lie into which we were lied, your persistence otherwise notwithstanding

    If you must insist, regardless of the facts, that we were lied to war and must blame a President, then blame Clinton. If Bush’s case against Saddam had been a school assignment, he would have failed for plagiarism – Bush’s case against Saddam was really Clinton’s case against Saddam. After all, the Saddam problem didn’t reboot when Clinton handed it to Bush.

    President Clinton, 1998:

    Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act. But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow, simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago, now. One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.

    Saddam Hussein’s Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and, when necessary, action.

    In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals, who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity — even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

    But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international community does have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era.

    President Clinton, 2004:

    Noting that Bush had to be “reeling” in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush’s first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining “chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material.”
    “That’s why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for,” Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.
    “So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, ‘Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.’ You couldn’t responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks,” Clinton said.

    The fact is, though, we were not lied into war with Iraq by either President. The Gulf War ceasefire enforcement was compliance-based and Saddam was noncompliant.

    Excerpt from http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html :

    [President Clinton announcing Operation Desert Fox, 1998:]

    I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq’s own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. . . Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq’s cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM’s chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan. … Saddam’s deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors. This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act, and act now.

    …
    Two, it is undisputed that Iraq was noncompliant at the decision point for Operation Iraqi Freedom. The compliance standard for Iraq was set by UNSC resolution (see, at minimum, UNSCRs 687, 688, and 1441) and enforced by the US President under US law (see, at minimum, P.L. 105-235 and P.L. 107-243).

    On September 12, 2002, President Bush pledged to the UN General Assembly that the Gulf War ceasefire UNSC resolutions would be enforced:

    The Security Council resolutions will be enforced — the just demands of peace and security will be met — or action will be unavoidable.

    On October 16, 2002, Public Law 107-243 affirmed “that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced”:

    Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

    On November 8, 2002, UNSCR 1441 “determined to secure Iraq’s full compliance with its [UNSC] decisions”:

    Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
    … Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism [and] pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq,
    …
    Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
    Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
    1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991),

    …
    Pursuant to UNSCR 688 and related resolutions, numerous observers documented Saddam’s “systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror” (UN Commission on Human Rights).

    Pursuant to UNSCR 687 and related resolutions, UNMOVIC reports throughout the UNSCR 1441 inspection period made clear Iraq had failed to sufficiently account for proscribed weapons, including stocks, and cooperate to the mandated standard along with other violations.

    On March 7, 2003, the UNSCR 1441 inspection period concluded when UNMOVIC presented the 173-page Cluster Document to the UN Security Council with findings of “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” (Cluster Document):

    UNMOVIC evaluated and assessed this material as it has became available and … produced an internal working document covering about 100 unresolved disarmament issues …
    … [for example] UNMOVIC has credible information that the total quantity of BW agent in bombs, warheads and in bulk at the time of the Gulf War was 7,000 litres more than declared by Iraq [and] … With respect to stockpiles of bulk agent stated to have been destroyed, there is evidence to suggest that these was [sic] not destroyed as declared by Iraq.
    … UNMOVIC must verify the absence of any new activities or proscribed items, new or retained. The onus is clearly on Iraq to provide the requisite information or devise other ways in which UNMOVIC can gain confidence that Iraq’s declarations are correct and comprehensive.

    The UNMOVIC Cluster Document confirmed “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687” (UNSCR 1441) and triggered OIF in March 2003 in the same way that the UNSCOM Butler Report confirmed Iraq’s material breach and triggered Operation Desert Fox in December 1998.

    Three, albeit irrelevant to the enforcement procedure at the decision point for OIF, the post-war findings in the Iraq Survey Group’s Duelfer Report corroborated the confirmation by UNMOVIC that “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687” (UNSCR 1441). Among Iraq’s violations, the ISG found “a large covert procurement program”, “undeclared covert laboratories”, “clear evidence of [Saddam’s] intent to resume WMD”, “preserved capability”, “Saddam clearly intended to reconstitute long-range delivery systems and that the systems potentially were for WMD”, and “denial and deception operations” (Duelfer Report).

  4. @happypappies

    Oh, it was nobody in particular. Some people think that people with notions adverse to their own, must still have the same mind set, and if only they can convince them of the error of their ways. . .

    But sometimes, people are just plain rotten. I doubt Friedfeld’s mugger sat down and considered the economic imbalances inherent in society, and thus turned to a life of crime. More likely, the mugger was the lazy thuggish sort, and found robbery much easier work than going to some job and working 8 hours a day. And thus the “life of crime” mindset is itself the reason for the resulting inequality, and not the case that inequality led to a life of crime.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky – that is a character in a quartet of novels that the author – a famous one who wrote The Last Picture Show and Terms of Endearment created – just as I think was created by this young man. I don’t believe his story. I think he knew these guys. Bought them a drirk or a dinner or something and did something along the lines of the Veteran Fake out. You see, everything is a reality show today. So much so that people have forgotten what reality is imo. I am very good at spotting a bs story as in I have a great bs detector. Nothing gets past me anymore. Just think of that ridiculous sappy line he puked out. Come on. Be real. This did not happen. It’s a set up. He is a budding politician and he has everyone going so he must be a Democrat. lmao.

  5. Actually, I wrote a poem last year about robberies and class distinctions. . .

    An UR-Rational Number
    A Poetic Koan by Squeeky Fromm

    “Your actions are not rational!”
    The Libertarian said.
    “You’re demanding all my money.
    With a gun held to my head.”

    “But your epistemology
    Is filled with contradiction.
    And Tort-wise, have you heard the phrase,
    “Intentional infliction???”

    “Let’s look at this objectively,
    For I’m certain you’ll agree.
    Initiating the use of force
    Makes no sense rationally.”

    The Robber thought for just a bit,
    Then, made a brief reply,
    “My pistol-mology says this,
    “You can cough it up or die!”

    “I hope that you are rational.
    I did not come to kill.
    The Bible says that that’s a sin.
    I don’t want to, but I will!”

    The Libertarian just sighed,
    And smirked in tone, ironic,
    “Dude, there is no Higher Power,”
    To think so is moronic!”

    “Really, your belief in a God,
    And Commandments carved in stone,
    Just proves you are illogical,
    And can’t think on your own!”

    The Robber thought for just a skosh,
    Then. . . BANG BANG his pistol went.
    There lay the Libertarian.
    But . . . he won the argument!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky – was his name Jim Snow like the Sin Killer guy in Larry McMurtry’s book series The Sin Killer – I commented on this earlier when someone called Oliver a Sin Eater. Yeah, we need these kinds of peoples for sure because they are right and they won the argument. They killed it 🙂

      Reminds me of someone lolol

    2. Anyway, that is very clever. Enter it in a box top contest or something 🙂

  6. Oliver Friedfeld is trying to tell you all something, but you are not listening. Not hearing, Not thinking. Or something. Even Jonathan Turley, as smart as he is.

    Oliver, I don’t think we are going to get anywhere with these folks. America is pretty hopeless.

    1. Oliver, I don’t think we are going to get anywhere with these folks. America is pretty hopeless.

      Ben Hyatt

      Try me

  7. It sounds like this guy thinks that the poor can’t live up to the same standards of behavior as the rest of society.

    I recall my father saying that whenever he passed through Polish poor neighborhoods in DC years ago, he saw women out at the crack of dawn every day, scrubbing their stoops. The families were poor, but proud, and their homes were meticulously clean. Being poor does not mean that you cannot control your impulses or follow the law.

  8. Excusing violent crime perpetuates violent crime.

    I wonder if he would have had the same opinions if he or his friend had been injured. That it was all okay due to income inequality, which by definition must have been entirely outside the realm of control of the muggers. Because surely they paid attention in class, studied hard, earned a scholarship to college or a trade school, and did their best with every opportunity they had.

    Does this guy think that poor people are not required to have values, morals, or ethics? Because that’s what it sounds like. The poor are expected to steal. How offensive. I’ve been poor and struggled, and I would be shamed beyond bearing if I had mugged someone at gunpoint. Facing my parents’ disappointment would have been worse than jail time. Why didn’t these two muggers feel the same?

  9. And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: “After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.” Yes that’s a good reason to go to war. http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

    and this: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90764&page=1&singlePage=true

    “Bush has stocked his administration with senior officials who have for years supported the United States toppling Saddam, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and others.

    These officials have expressed their views in no uncertain terms. “Saddam Hussein is a liar. He lies every single day,” Rumsfeld said.

    A Personal Vendetta?

    Some Americans have wondered whether the president’s determination to take on Saddam is a personal obsession — one born in the aftermath of the Gulf War his father launched, when Saddam was left in power.

    And last fall, in Texas, this president seemed to confirm the personal nature of this conflict.

    “There’s no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us,” Bush said. “There’s no doubt he can’t stand us. After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time.

    To all these criticisms, however, the president has always had one response: The threat he believes Saddam’s Iraq poses must be confronted — now.

    In October, Bush spoke resolutely on Iraq. “The course of action may bring many sacrifices. Yet delay, indecision and inaction could lead to a massive and sudden horror. By timely and resolute action, we can defend ourselves and shape a peaceful future,” the president said.

    And Bin Laden and Al Queda brought us Isis. Bush wanted to topple Hussein regardless . Bin Laden was behind the attack on 9/11 and Bush knew it but cared more about his hawkish buds then going after the perpetrators of 9/11 which he said was behind going after Hussein,.(Also helped to fill Cheney’s pockets with the millions made by Halliburton.

  11. Eric – that is very historically interesting – please tell me where in George W Bush’s records that he was not going to let Maliki and his government go. I want to see it in writing. Because I have made a science out of this and over and over and over again I come up with that in the end George was going to let him go and that is why Barack did. Now that time has passed you see all kinds of articles like this
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/380508/no-us-troops-didnt-have-leave-iraq-patrick-brennan
    Fascinating.
    Let me be clear that I think it was a mistake to let the Government go now that we were there, but Americans have such a way about them that does not ingratiate them with the people they are among. Not all of them of course, its the double crossing of the higher ups and their callousness. I know all about it. My husband was a Navy Seal in Vietnam and he is in the Veterans home now.

    I happen to know how much we have done for these people agriculturally being in the SE Missouri area next to SEMO which really helped them out. Most people know nothing about this. They wouldn’t like it anyway and would consider it a cost above and beyond as it was humanitarian out of the USA. Liberals don’t like that.

    My opinion about Fairfield is the same as LTMG He is a Sin Eater or kind of a Sin Killer like in Larry McMurtry’s books’ Jim Snow-the Mountain Man preacher that would preach the sin out of people and when he did he would kill them. Well, this kid is gonna eat their souls up with this puerile brand of crap as you well know. As far as I am concerned, it never even happened. They were his friends and it was all a set up using the civil rights activism right now as a platform to advance his agenda 🙂

    1. happypappies – it is unfair to ask for Bush’s records from Eric since it will be many years before it will come out, if it ever does. There is still stuff that is classied top secret from Pearl Harbor. For all I know there may be stuff classified from the Civil War. 😉

      2. said ==> Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

        “”Actually, I wrote a poem last year about robberies and class distinctions. . .

        An UR-Rational Number
        A Poetic Koan by Squeeky Fromm

        “Your actions are not rational!”
        The Libertarian said.
        “You’re demanding all my money.
        With a gun held to my head.”

        “But your epistemology
        Is filled with contradiction.
        And Tort-wise, have you heard the phrase,
        “Intentional infliction???”

        “Let’s look at this objectively,
        For I’m certain you’ll agree.
        Initiating the use of force
        Makes no sense rationally.”

        The Robber thought for just a bit,
        Then, made a brief reply,
        “My pistol-mology says this,
        “You can cough it up or die!”

        “I hope that you are rational.
        I did not come to kill.
        The Bible says that that’s a sin.
        I don’t want to, but I will!”

        The Libertarian just sighed,
        And smirked in tone, ironic,
        “Dude, there is no Higher Power,”
        To think so is moronic!”

        “Really, your belief in a God,
        And Commandments carved in stone,
        Just proves you are illogical,
        And can’t think on your own!” “”

        The Robber thought for just a skosh,
        BANG BANG ! his victim’s pistol went.
        There lay the robber.
        Guess he lost the argument!

  12. Black kids have been accused of a crime by a privileged white guy. And they don’t get to defend themselves because the accuser has the “noblesse oblige” to “let it go”. Charming.

  13. Jane:

    Yes, Eric, it has all been “US-led peace-keeping operations”, keep telling that to yourself, wherever we invade with our weaponry and nice soldiers we are only trying to ennoble and help.

    It’s not a euphemism – peace operations is a technical term. Try googling it. Different organizations will provide you various definitions with the same theme. Peace operations simply is the technically correct categorization for the US mission in post-Saddam Iraq.

    This is the Department of Defense definition of peace operations:

    Peace operations: (DOD) A broad term that encompasses multiagency and multinational crisis response and limited contingency operations involving all instruments of national power with military missions to contain conflict, redress the peace, and shape the environment to support reconciliation and rebuilding and facilitate the transition to legitimate governance. Also called PO. See also peace building; peace enforcement; peacekeeping; and peacemaking. Source: JP 3-07.3

    This is how I defined peace operations in one of my college writings:

    What are peace operations? Essentially, they are the full-spectrum processes that transform failed regions into viable states that are secure, can sustain development and integrate into the international community, and are stable and effectively governed. Peace operations also encompass the organizations—private sector, government, international, and military civil affairs—that engage in humanitarian intervention, development, and aid.

    Jane:

    p.s. Please stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

    I do sympathize with your worldview because I thought like that when I was a child. When I joined the Army, I didn’t do so out of patriotism. Nothing about me personally nor my politics said soldier. While my motivation was not quite the ‘poverty draft’ stereotype, enlisting was an urgent, if not yet desperate, economic decision.

    This is how naive I was: When I was given orders for Korea as my 1st duty station, I believed I was going there as a predatory American occupier like your caricature upthread.

    Then I actually served as a US soldier in Korea. It was a wake-up call. The lightbulb moment was my introduction to our top-secret go-to-war plans. Contrary to my expectation beforehand, all my experience in Korea had shown that I really was there to defend South Korea in case of a north Korean attack. Just like the brochure said. I thought, if there was a hidden purpose in the US mission in Korea, it would have to be in the go-to-war plans. Except there was no hidden purpose there. The go-to-war plans entirely matched my training: the US Army and I were in South Korea to defend the country in case of a north Korean attack. In fact, the go-to-war plans strongly implied that our real purpose was to absorb the 1st full-strength nK artillery barrage and blunt the 1st full-strength nK assault – not stop it, most likely – in order to buy (hopefully) enough time to, one, evacuate the Korean civilian population clustered around Seoul – including the Koreans who participated in the weekly protests outside US bases – and, two, for US-led UN forces coming from Japan and elsewhere to muster for the defense and counter-attack. I found out what the “speed bump” joke was about. How long we held out until we died would decide how many Koreans survived the 1st assault wave and whether our side would have enough time and space to rally to hold onto South Korea.

    Should Korean lives be paid for with American soldiers’ lives like mine? I don’t know. But I knew my mission was the same mission as for the American soldiers who died to turn back the north Koreans and Red Chinese 1950-1953, passed down to me over the decades.

    Should Iraqi lives be paid for with American soldiers’ lives? I don’t know that, either, but I understood the nature of their mission. And I understand American soldiers have not “killed hundred of thousands of Iraqi civilians and made homeless more”. That’s our enemies’ doing, and up to 2011, American soldiers were doing their best with peace operations in Iraq to stop our enemies’ atrocities and save Iraqi lives, even at the cost of American soldiers’ lives.

  14. Bob White: “If Georgetown was an affluent black neighborhood, I’m sure the same robbery would have taken place, but the victim would have been black.”

    Friedfeld’s attitude is most damaging to the people who most likely are easiest for his muggers to prey on: poor and lower middle-class people.

    I’ve worked as a crime-victim advocate. Friedfeld’s view on the matter does no favors to vulnerable people in our society.

  15. This kid is a fool. The two *cough* “youths” who held him up do not care about his political affiliation or his privileges or anything of the sort. If they raped his girlfriend in front of him would that be permissible too because privilege?

    The definition of nature is things killing other things. In the animal world you keep only what you can violently defend or steal. Those are the rules and those are the rules “youths” play by. Human rules were developed by white men so that our society can spend time developing technology rather than constantly defending our homes against each other. Blacks have *no* history of this and Africa is one long story of violence, rape, theft, and murder. They behave and adhere to the laws of the jungle so appealing to this is the only effective way to deal with them.

    The proper response to jaboonery is immediate horrific counter violence that is gruesome and cruel in the extreme. Up until the 1950’s blacks were afraid of whites and for good reason and rates of crime were much much less. NOw whites are afraid of blacks and society is dying. So that’s your choice – stop cow towing to the blacks and violently put them down or accept that you are going to have to tolerate them raping / stealing / killing 24×7 because that is what they do. Want to stop this without mass concentration camps and ethnic cleansing? Ok…

    Place the severed toothless heads of the “youths” along with a bag of their broken teeth at the corner of Malcom X Blvd and Martin Luther King Jr. Street. Let the “youths” know exactly and precisely what happens if they engage in jaboonery. Make note that the teeth were removed *before* the “youth” had his head chopped off. This is the *only* way to deal with animals. Political theories and white guilt only make them think you are weak and encourage them to prey on others. In the end your choice is to live with their violence until you society becomes Somalia with its daily terrors, sod huts, living in filth, and the complete destruction of human progress -OR- finally put down and make an example of those who are attacking you. People used to understand this and they will again whether they want too or not. Sadly, this incident wasn’t clockwork orange enough for this weak douche bag to see the truth. I guess he’ll have to live through a Newsom and Channon incident before the light switch finally comes on. Maybe he’ll figure it out when the last words he hears and the last thing he sees is his lovely girlfriend screaming in pain while being gang raped by a bunch of “under privileged victims”. Of course by then its too late isn’t it?

    Idiot…

  17. Yes, Eric, it has all been “US-led peace-keeping operations”, keep telling that to yourself, wherever we invade with our weaponry and nice soldiers we are only trying to ennoble and help. I get it now, you were a soldier, and must be you are seeking to assuage your guilt at being a part of America’s “global peacekeping operations”. How else to explain such denial? As the old English proverb goes, “With friends like these who needs enemies?”
    I wish you well. Au revoir.
    http://www.theguardian.com/gall/0,8542,1211872,00.html

  18. 99guspuppet: “complete with flag waving , jingoism and amygdala-driven filtering.”

    President John Kennedy, 1961:

    Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans–born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage–and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

    Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

    President Bill Clinton, 1998:

    In the century we’re leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we’ll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

    President George W. Bush, 2004:

    For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability, and much oppression. So I have changed this policy. In the short-term, we will work with every government in the Middle East dedicated to destroying the terrorist networks. In the longer-term, we will expect a higher standard of reform and democracy from our friends in the region. Democracy and reform will make those nations stronger and more stable, and make the world more secure by undermining terrorism at it source. Democratic institutions in the Middle East will not grow overnight; in America, they grew over generations. Yet the nations of the Middle East will find, as we have found, the only path to true progress is the path of freedom and justice and democracy.

    President Bill Clinton, 1998:

    Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and lawabiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region. The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian makeup. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life. My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

    1. Bush said (from your post) :In the short-term, we will work with every government in the Middle East dedicated to destroying the terrorist networks” How was saying Bin Laden did not interest him and not going after him square with destroying terrorist networks.?
      http://www.businessinsider.com/schultz-bin-laden-bush-msnbc-video-2011-5

      and in his own words ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

      (I believe I responded to you upthread, when we go to war, we go in the name of all Americans therefore yes, when it was a lie into which we were lied, your persistence otherwise notwithstanding, that was done in my name, which makes it imperative for some to rationalize that war.
      Since only 2 links per post another one (or 2 to follow)

  19. Jane: “these atrocities ARE being done in our name”

    Like I asked to leejcarroll, how do you figure that Saddam loyalists and Qutbist terrorists have been doing atrocities in our name?

  20. Jane:

    We wanted/needed permanent military bases in the Mideast.

    Stigmatizing military and State Department (embassy) infrastructure for the US-led peace operations in post-Saddam Iraq is like stigmatizing surgeries for a hospital or classrooms for a school.

    You need only observe the precedents of the US-led peace operations of the 20th century, including Germany, Japan, and Korea following World War 2, to understand that robust, long-term military and State Department infrastructure was a necessary, intrinsic feature for an effective “multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq, including for the purpose of ensuring necessary conditions for the implementation of the timetable and programme as well as to contribute to the security of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, the Governing Council of Iraq and other institutions of the Iraqi interim administration, and key humanitarian and economic infrastructure” (UNSC Resolution 1511, 2003).

    Now, I understand that I know this about Iraq because I served as a US soldier in a similar US-led, UN-mandated mission protecting South Korea. We had military bases and an embassy, too. I guess we could have lived and worked out of tents in the field for decades, but I’m rather glad the Army built bases with barracks before I was assigned the duty. I’m guessing you haven’t had a similar experience to share the perspective.

    Jane:

    Hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths?

    US strategy, even in the 2003 regime change preceding peace operations, has been to minimize civilian casualties. Unfortunately, Saddam loyalist – regime and insurgency – strategy and Qutbist terrorist strategy has been to maximize civilian casualties.

    Common sense is the solution for reducing Iraqi civilian casualties is to neutralize the actors whose strategy is to maximize civilian casualties. Logically, empowering the competitive actors with a civilian-casualty-maximizing strategy by withdrawing the most effective actor with a civilian-casualty-minimizing strategy would not reduce civilian casualties in Iraq – and tragically, it hasn’t.

    Jane:

    A horrendous disruption of the civil society of a sovereign nation?

    To be fair, Saddam’s civil society did happen to be characterized by “systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror” (UN Commission on Human Rights) which was in material breach of UNSCR 688’s “Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression”.

    Under international law, sovereign status is a legal protection but it is not a blanket legal immunity from war. Basically, under international law, war is permitted in defense and by UN authorization.

    The US-led enforcement of UN mandates with Iraq was conducted with UN authorization, UNSCR 678.

    UNSCR 678, adopted on November 29, 1990, states, “Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions, Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, … Authorizes Member States … to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.”

    Jane:

    It turned out the “blowback” was incorrectly calculated. We have sown the wind and shall reap the whirlwind. We have Isis.

    I disagree. The ‘blowback’ was calculated correctly: in 2010-2011. President Obama was warned clearly and often of the danger of prematurely withdrawing the US-led peace operations from Iraq. But he did it, anyway. Obama’s errors not only with Iraq, but also Libya, Syria, etc, have been obvious, elementary. and catastrophic. Worse, as the warned-of danger manifested in Iraq, Obama then refused to return to help Iraq as the ISIS attacks escalated in 2013 into 2014.

    The proximate causes of the current crisis in Iraq are, one, the construction of ISIS in Syria that combined with, two, the U.S.-abandoned vulnerability of Iraq. Both conditions arose from post-Bush events, such as the degeneration of the Arab Spring, that are related to policy course changes made by President Obama that fundamentally deviated from President Bush’s traditionally liberal foreign policy.

    President Obama was wrong to leave Iraq prematurely. Just as in Europe and Asia for the long term following WW2, America’s protection was needed for the continued progression of Iraq’s pluralistic liberal reform and constructive role in the Middle East and the welfare of the Iraqi people. Instead, the feared danger of Obama’s feckless ‘lead from behind’ approach to the Arab Spring and irresponsible exit from Iraq is being realized.

    1. Try viewing Ray Liotta ( 6 seconds into video ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUf-WOeVQyI

      ” It’s not what you say …… It’s what you do ”

      There is a lot of talk and a lot of writing about what happens in the world and what is planned for the world. All that matters is what actually happens ….. not some Orwellian description of what happened … complete with flag waving , jingoism and amygdala-driven filtering.

Comments are closed.