[lbo-talk] We can lose, or we can just lose later

[Carl Remick]

>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>
>Carl Remick wrote:
>
>>>From: boddi satva <lbo.boddi at gmail.com>
>>>
>>>That's why it's such a shitty job in wartime. You have to do terrible
>>>stuff as a matter of course, take terrible risks and you don't have a
>>>choice unless the orders are illegal. That's why I thank them.
>>>
>>>You guys have really got to think about this a little harder.
>>
>>That's rich.  You may be the most befuddled poster I've encountered on 
>>this list.
>
>Befuddled? He seems to have a point of view - it's just wrong.

[I'll grant you this:  Egregious as Boddi's simpleminded POV may be, it's 
preferable to the utter contempt toward US troops shown by neocon Robert D. 
Kaplan in his new book _Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the 
Ground_.  This is from the NY Times review of Kaplan's book yesterday:]

... [I]t turns out we've been too thrifty with our troops; to prevail in the 
war on terror, he [Kaplan] advises, we ought to become more tolerant of 
American casualties. So what's the holdup? "It was the elites that had a 
more difficult time with the deaths of soldiers and marines." Their concern 
is misplaced. The grunts have an "unpretentious willingness to die," which 
is in part "the product of their working-class origins. The working classes 
had always been accustomed to rough, unfair lives and turns." ...

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/27/books/review/27lipsky.html?pagewanted=all>

Carl