The Dumbest & Most Intelligent

Throughout this past week I heard occasional news reports about yet another helicopter crashing in Iraq or Afghanistan, killing several troops. I don't like it, but it happens — it's a war, as Dear Leader frequently reminds us.

Here's what I don't get: the unseemly rush by the pentagon to release word that none of these cases were the result of enemy fire. No! No! They were all equipment malfunctions.

Now, if you're in a war and your helicopters are crashing, which would seem the most desirable spin, that 1) your helicopters are being shot down; or 2) the equipment is junk or your boys can't fly them?

At the same time, of course, we keep hearing reports that insurgents in Iraq are planning coordinated attacks on our helicopters! Why should the pentagon be surprised that its enemy might be making plans to shoot own its helicopters? Isn't this a war, in which people A shoot at people B's things and try to hurt them?

Is this just another example of the fear-building tactic that was so evident post 9/11 about the hijacking terrorists: that they were incredibly cunning and brilliant in carrying out a precisely timed, extremely well-coordinated attack, at the same time that they were culturally backward, towel headed idiots who could barely fly the planes (and never learned how to land anyway) and couldn't even appreciate freedom and democracy?

Which is worse: the absurdly dualistic propaganda or the number of people willing to believe it all, even before breakfast?

Posted on February 20, 2007 at 15.26 by jns · Permalink
In: All, Splenetics

9 Responses

Subscribe to comments via RSS

  1. Written by S.W. Anderson
    on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 at 18.29
    Permalink

    Indeed, any notion the assortment of bad-guy types in Iraq wouldn't/couldn't and in fact aren't trying to shoot down choppers seems absurd on its face.

    I'll go your question one better. If you're a chopper pilot, crewman or passenger, what's worse, that you can't trust your equipment or its maintenance, or that the enemy is getting good at shooting choppers down choppers? Either way, it's not a welcome prospect.

    As for the evident spin, I've wondered about that myself. I suspect it's a reflex.

  2. Written by jns
    on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 at 18.44
    Permalink

    It seems that we have a need to make our enemies out to be 1) dumb as shit and barely worthy as human beings; and 2) crafty, cunning, and almost unhumanly intelligent so that we need to stay on our toes and use all our wiles to fight back. Think of Hitler's Jews: smelly vermin like rats who nevertheless manage to infiltrate and control everything imaginable with their cunning machinations.

    Maybe it's like a defense lawyer: my client couldn't possibly be guilty because of A; but if A doesn't work, there's also B.

  3. Written by S.W. Anderson
    on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 at 18.59
    Permalink

    Your point about the obvious inconsistency is a good one. Still, it's possible to be tactically crafty and strategically dumb. What the U.S. has done — and failed to do — in Afghanistan is a fine example.

  4. Written by jns
    on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 at 19.12
    Permalink

    True, SW, although with this administration I feel it's necessary to point out that it's also possible to be tactically dumb and strategically dumb.

  5. Written by S.W. Anderson
    on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 at 23.23
    Permalink

    If we're focusing on this adminstration exclusively, I'll add organically dumb to the list.

  6. Written by S.W. Anderson
    on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 at 23.32
    Permalink

    BTW, Jeff, I find the short answers required by your captcha a delight after some I've run into on Blogger blogs. A few days ago on one of them I was well on my way to typing in what looked remarkably like a big excerpt from "The Hut Sut Song."

  7. Written by rightsaidfred
    on Thursday, 22 February 2007 at 15.27
    Permalink

    This seems to be a bit of Blackhawk Down Redux. The word in Somalia circa 1992 was that RPGs could not shoot down a helicopter when fired from the ground, because the exhaust blast was too great. The Iranian paramilitaries taught the shooters to dig a pit in the ground, or fire from a platform. Now we seem to be fighting Iranian surrogates again.

    I'm sure the military doesn't want to offer too much encouragement to the shooters, thus the downplaying of any success.

    I'm thinking an analogous situation was with the AIDS pandemic. The Gay community downplayed the lifestyle issues that aided the spread of the disease, while the fundamentalists overplayed such. Both communities overplayed the risk of transmission in the hetero community.

  8. Written by S.W. Anderson
    on Thursday, 22 February 2007 at 23.35
    Permalink

    "Both communities overplayed the risk of transmission in the hetero community."

    I distinctly remember reading a few years back how the growth rate of HIV/AIDS cases was greatest among heterosexuals — a surprising and increasing portion of those people 60 and older.

    As for overplaying the risk of transmission in the hetero community, how can the risk of spreading a life-threatening disease be overplayed?

  9. Written by rightsaidfred
    on Saturday, 24 February 2007 at 05.21
    Permalink

    -how can the risk of spreading a life-threatening disease be overplayed?-

    I suppose it can't. But some of the popular notions in play, "we're all at risk", "all it takes is one time", did not mesh with the epidemiology.

Subscribe to comments via RSS

Leave a Reply

To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.

I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.