This article remains the only editorial I have ever been asked to write for the Journal that they did not publish. And I immediately sensed the reason why. What was it? A portion of my essay gave the following warnings: A SPECIAL MESSAGEThose who are aligned with the terrorist movement, whether logistically, or in a training environment, or operationally, should be considered legitimate targets and should not be spared. But random bombings and the deliberate destruction of populated areas without such a connection should be avoided. Over the long term this approach would deny terrorist armies not only their support base, but also their present justification that the United States and its allies are conducting a broad war against the Muslim people. Do not occupy territory. The terrorist armies make no claim to be members of any nation-state. Similarly, it would be militarily and politically dangerous for our military to operate from permanent or semi-permanent bases, or to declare that we are defending specific pieces of terrain in the regions where the terrorist armies live and train. We already have terrain to defend - the United States and our outposts overseas - and we cannot afford to expand this territory in a manner that would simply give the enemy more targets. There was a bit of kabuki going on here. The country had entered unknown waters. Knowing of the Journal's previous positions, I was writing about Iraq without using the word, and after years of working with editors at that paper it seemed clear to me that they knew it. They were beginning to push again for an invasion of Iraq without yet saying the word, and after they declined to run the article I knew it. In those hectic days immediately after the attacks, public opinion was being shaped in a hurry. This was clearly not the message that some on the editorial page of the newspaper that had been advocating a "MacArthurian Regency in Baghdad" during and since the first Gulf War wanted to print. Thus, on September 12, 2001, I had no doubt that the neoconservatives were again intent on going after Baghdad. I posted the article on my personal Web page, where is has since remained. Jim Webb, A Time To Fight
A SPECIAL MESSAGE
Those who are aligned with the terrorist movement, whether logistically, or in a training environment, or operationally, should be considered legitimate targets and should not be spared. But random bombings and the deliberate destruction of populated areas without such a connection should be avoided. Over the long term this approach would deny terrorist armies not only their support base, but also their present justification that the United States and its allies are conducting a broad war against the Muslim people. Do not occupy territory. The terrorist armies make no claim to be members of any nation-state. Similarly, it would be militarily and politically dangerous for our military to operate from permanent or semi-permanent bases, or to declare that we are defending specific pieces of terrain in the regions where the terrorist armies live and train. We already have terrain to defend - the United States and our outposts overseas - and we cannot afford to expand this territory in a manner that would simply give the enemy more targets.
There was a bit of kabuki going on here. The country had entered unknown waters. Knowing of the Journal's previous positions, I was writing about Iraq without using the word, and after years of working with editors at that paper it seemed clear to me that they knew it. They were beginning to push again for an invasion of Iraq without yet saying the word, and after they declined to run the article I knew it. In those hectic days immediately after the attacks, public opinion was being shaped in a hurry. This was clearly not the message that some on the editorial page of the newspaper that had been advocating a "MacArthurian Regency in Baghdad" during and since the first Gulf War wanted to print.
Thus, on September 12, 2001, I had no doubt that the neoconservatives were again intent on going after Baghdad. I posted the article on my personal Web page, where is has since remained.
Jim Webb, A Time To Fight
About half way through the book now. I have resisted the temptation to post more quotes. There is quotable material on almost every page. I don't want to wear out my welcome here, or Webb's. Suffice to say that I highly recommend this book. It is a good read. Webb is not a politician who has written a book or two. He is an accomplished writer, and a deep and independent thinker, who now just happens to have a voice and a vote in the United States Senate. Somewhere in cyberspace, the ghost of de Chardin is smiling.
I just wish he was less of a boy's own militarist and had reasoned views about the other half of the community. keep to the Fen Causeway
I think Webb is more populist than liberal, at least as the word seems to be used these days, but he is closer to where I think liberalism ought to be than many who claim the label for their own. And he is not without his faults.
And the idea that he is a militarist I think goes right back to the two or three stereotypes that are always attached to Webb in the media. Like most old soldiers, he is less likely to choose a military solution than almost anyone. A theme he develops at length in A Time to Fight is his own evolution from a Marine platoon commander, arguably much closer to the stereotype, to a strategic analyst much more interested in finding longer term trajectories that do not require military action.
I could dig up a quote or two, but Webb is much like Al Gore in that regard. One paragraph is never enough. His ideas do not easily translate to a media sound bite or a lazy quote. Somewhere in cyberspace, the ghost of de Chardin is smiling.
However, when it comes out in paperback I'll try and get hold of it. No point right now as I'll be away for 6 weeks soon. keep to the Fen Causeway
His attitude about race relations pretty clearly evolved during his time in the field in Vietnam. Given the reality of the draft and American attitudes at the time, it is a given that at times his platoon in the field would have had more black faces than white. He came to know black Marines quite well as fellow soldiers and as honorable men who fought well and bravely for a country that treated them as something less than full citizens both before and after their service. During his time as a counsel involved in veterans' affairs, again and again Webb went to bat for individual vets, more often than not blacks, who were routinely short changed by the VA bureaucracy, almost always on his own and against the company line. Timberg dwells on that in The Nightingale's Song.
I would like to think that Webb's attitudes about women in the military also evolved over time. During his time as Navy Secretary he opened many previously forbidden billets to women. I suspect that if he had served in the much more gender integrated military that he had a hand in creating, his own ideas on the subject would have evolved much as they did about race in Vietnam. But that's only my opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it. Somewhere in cyberspace, the ghost of de Chardin is smiling.
