Monday, May 26, 2008

No, You Haven't

"Sticking with the facts" requires actually reporting them

...But unfortunately, some people don't seem to understand that.

Yesterday, the irredeemably intellectually lazy ideologue who calls himself Mentarch took some time out of his busy schedule to pout about being referred to as a historical revisionist naysayer.

And insisted that he "stick[s] with the facts - as I have labored to time and time and time and time and time and time and time again."

Except that he really hasn't. Upon examining any number of Mentarch's Afghanistan posts, any number of factual errors can be identified -- some of them actually quite prevalent in the mainstream media coverage of Afghanistan (upon which he overwhelmingly relies when he isn't just vainly linking to his previous posts), others not so much.

A few examples?

Treating the Taliban as an umbrella term for all of the various insurgent groups active in Afghanistan right now -- currently, at least seven -- many of whom actually have differing and opposing goals, and are as likely to fight one another as they are to fight NATO troops.

Or insisting that the Kabul government is negotiating with the Taliban when they call upon American troops to not arrest Taliban insurgents -- despite the fact that this is actually part of a calculated government program to undercut the insurgency's manpower by pardoning their foot soldiers so long as they disarm themselves and agree to accept Afghanistan's constitution. (As it turns out, the Taliban leadership is actually ineligible for such a pardon.)

Or cherry picking examples of failures in Afghanistan -- it would be naive to pretend there haven't been any -- while willfully ignoring any successes, which really has become the modus operandi of Mentarch and some of his braying associates.

All of this will be elaborated on in a future post, research for which is currently being conducted, and not merely via computer keyboard, either.

But the matter really comes down to one of two things: either Mentarch has not done any research other than what can be turned up via a rudimentary Google search, and thus has not "labored" to "stick to the facts", or has done so and is simply ignoring any information that may serve to undercut the case he wants to make about Afghanistan.

Noam Chomsky developed a cogent term for this -- he referred to it as "historical engineering", and reminded his readers of one important fact: it's easier to revise history while it's still being written. And if Mentarch has shown us anything, it's that if you're a "Progressive Historian" for whom the actual "historian" part of that label takes a backseat to the ideology, revising history while it's still in progress really is just the ticket.

But one shouldn't be surprised if someone as abrasively arrogant as Mentarch -- an individual who actually believes he can politicize the very concept of incompetence -- either doesn't understand this, or simply won't admit it.

Sadly, it's all par for the course.

4 comments:

  1. - "Treating the Taliban as an umbrella term for all of the various insurgent groups active in Afghanistan right now -- currently, at least seven -- many of whom actually have differing and opposing goals, and are as likely to fight one another as they are to fight NATO troops."

    Actually, the Taliban "umbrella" term, as well as the conflation with al Qaeda, are *exactly how this is presented to us by NATO, our politicos, the US politicos and the media.

    - "Or insisting that the Kabul government is negotiating with the Taliban when they call upon American troops to not arrest Taliban insurgents -- despite the fact that this is actually part of a calculated government program to undercut the insurgency's manpower by pardoning their foot soldiers so long as they disarm themselves and agree to accept Afghanistan's constitution. (As it turns out, the Taliban leadership is actually ineligible for such a pardon.)"

    I am not insisting - this is what *they* are saying and I have linked to genuine reports to this effect. *You* are speculating while at the same time holding your own speculation as fact - as you all too often do.

    - "Or cherry picking examples of failures in Afghanistan -- it would be naive to pretend there haven't been any -- while willfully ignoring any successes"

    Of course - this is exactly what *you* did on your post about "some signs of successes" in Afghanistan, all the while missing the point that failures have been fair outweighing "successes". No cherry-picking on my part, but rather reality pure and simple.

    - "the irredeemably intellectually lazy ideologue who calls himself Mentarch"

    Why, Mr. Ross, I am *shocked* that you omitted calling me also "stupid, because he doesn't understand that incompetence doesn't have 'principles'", as you are fond of doing in your comments at other blogs.

    But it's "all par for the course", eh?

    That is why shant bother anymore ...

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Actually, the Taliban "umbrella" term, as well as the conflation with al Qaeda, are *exactly how this is presented to us by NATO, our politicos, the US politicos and the media."

    So then you mean to tell me that you, as a "Progressive Historian", mean to "correct the public record" (in your view) by relying on the same oversimplified terminology that the media and politicians use?

    That makes precisely ZERO sense.

    Here's a good question for you: why don't you try naming some of the differing insurgent groups for me.

    "I am not insisting - this is what *they* are saying and I have linked to genuine reports to this effect. *You* are speculating while at the same time holding your own speculation as fact - as you all too often do."

    Wrong. You've linked to various reports of Hamid Karzai telling American troops not to arrest Talibs who return to Afghanistan.

    It's part of the Afghan government's Takim-i-Solh, which translates as the Stengthening Peace Program, "designed to weaken the resolve of the Taliban by breaking their ranks into good and bad Talibs".

    Pardons have also been offered by the Peace and Reconciliation Committee.

    Taliban leaders and any individuals suspected of war crimes are ineligible for the pardons.

    So when Hamid Karzai tells American troops not to arrest Talibs, it is not so he may further "negociations" with the Taliban -- they are ineligible for the pardons the program offers. It's to undercut their manpower.

    Considering that numerous links you linked to actually say nothing about negotiations, your flagrantly inept interpretation puts the cart before the horse. Or, as I always say when talking about you, the jack before the ass.

    "Of course - this is exactly what *you* did on your post about "some signs of successes" in Afghanistan, all the while missing the point that failures have been fair outweighing "successes". No cherry-picking on my part, but rather reality pure and simple."

    You mean despite the fact that I refer to the casualties suffered by Afghan police forces within the same post?

    How about the fact that you and your cohorts can't seem to explain to anyone how the episode in question doesn't qualify as a success?

    At least I acknowledge the failures. However, I treat them for what they are -- not signs of imminent defeat, but challenges we have yet to meet.

    Unless you think Rome was built in a day. Which would be a whole other bag of amusing worms.

    "Why, Mr. Ross, I am *shocked* that you omitted calling me also "stupid, because he doesn't understand that incompetence doesn't have 'principles'", as you are fond of doing in your comments at other blogs."

    Hey, when it's been said, it's been said. And when it becomes obvious that you aren't smart enough to comprehend precisely why that is so, I'm more than content to leave you to your delusions -- ignorance being bliss, and all.

    I just think it's funny that something you promote as some sort of philosophical epiphany completely unravels based on its premise alone.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To think that it is you who label me as being "abrasively arrogant".

    Simply amazing!

    ReplyDelete
  4. So then you really can't name a few insurgent groups other than the Taliban for me?

    Don't worry. I'll enlighten you in a couple of days.

    ReplyDelete

Post your comments, and join the discussion!

Be aware that spam posts and purile nonsense will not be tolerated, although purility within constructive commentary is encouraged.

All comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read. Also, if you begin your comment by saying "I know you'll just delete this", it will be deleted. Guaranteed. So don't be a dumbass.