T Nation

Awaiting the Rebellion by Fred Reed

Sorry, Comrade Lenin…Comrade Trotsky has the ‘trots’…the revolution won’t happen!

What a laughable post, NP! Thanks, been teaching trig today, needed a chuckle!

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed110.html[/quote]

Summary, a former marine ex-pat, and a vietnam vet journalist shoot the shit. They talk about congitive dissonance and denial (whether they know it or not!), explain in a very biased manner the officer/enlisted relationship (is it really that mysterious?), and conclude without anything resembling facts that the Iraq war will collapse in on itself like Vietnam.

Overall, I give it a D+, neither the author nor the interviewee are experts or insiders by any means. No new information was presented nor was any current parallel between the past conflict and the current one drawn (other than ‘We will fail.’). On top of that, the thematic comparison of Iraq to Vietnam is cliche at best.

I like Fred, he’s like Andy Rooney except you don’t want to punch him in the face while he’s talking. This was one of his poorer pieces.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Sorry, Comrade Lenin…Comrade Trotsky has the ‘trots’…the revolution won’t happen!

What a laughable post, NP! Thanks, been teaching trig today, needed a chuckle![/quote]

It was not about revolution, it was about rebellion. About enlisted soldiers refusing to die for a war they don’t care about and they feel they can not win.

I’ve seen a lot more logic in this article then I’ve seen from you HH.

Perhaps it was over your head?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Sorry, Comrade Lenin…Comrade Trotsky has the ‘trots’…the revolution won’t happen!

What a laughable post, NP! Thanks, been teaching trig today, needed a chuckle![/quote]

You can’t use your favorite epithet against me. I make it a point to pull all of my info that’s critical of the current admin from right wing sources. It would be far too easy to find negative articles penned by liberals. Plus, I wouldn’t agree with them, at any rate, since I’m not a lib and neither is anyone else who posts here. We’re all right-wingers. Some are neocons, others libertarians, and the rest moderates. There’s not a single Democrat in the house. Never has been.

By the way, I’m sure you are aware that Irving Kristol, father of renowned neoconservative commentator Bill Kristol, started out as a Trotskyist? And that many of today’s neocons have ideological roots on the far left?

Who woulda thunk it?

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:

Summary, a former marine ex-pat, and a vietnam vet journalist shoot the shit. They talk about congitive dissonance and denial (whether they know it or not!), explain in a very biased manner the officer/enlisted relationship (is it really that mysterious?), and conclude without anything resembling facts that the Iraq war will collapse in on itself like Vietnam.

Overall, I give it a D+, neither the author nor the interviewee are experts or insiders by any means. No new information was presented nor was any current parallel between the past conflict and the current one drawn (other than ‘We will fail.’). On top of that, the thematic comparison of Iraq to Vietnam is cliche at best.

I like Fred, he’s like Andy Rooney except you don’t want to punch him in the face while he’s talking. This was one of his poorer pieces.[/quote]

It wasn’t intended as a formal academic thesis. If you know Fred then you know that that’s how he writes.

Why did I find this worthy of posting? Because it contradicts the popular claim made by neocons on this board that “the troops are 100% behind the war” and “it’s the liberal media that is undermining the war effort by portraying it in a false light”.

Libertarian sources claim that the mass media is “pro-war and pro-establishment” and that the non-bureaucratic sector of the military has opposed the war from the start. Neocon sources state precisely the opposite.

So, which source to believe?