Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Here's what Professor Campos says about Hugh Hewitt and Glenn Reynolds, bloggers I have read every day for about two years now:
My learned colleagues are now busy claiming that the supposed "media frenzy" regarding the apparent massacre of civilians in Haditha, Iraq, is a product of liberal bias, rather than of a sense of professional obligation to report a major news story.
It's a lie. Neither Hewitt or Reynolds have claimed anything of the sort. Here are links to Glenn Reynold's site and what he has written about Haditha, here, here, here, here, and here. Here is what Hugh Hewitt wrote. Here's what his blog partner Mary Katherine Ham wrote, and here and here. There's nothing suggesting the presumption of guilt in the media coverage is a product of left wing bias in any of these links. Hewitt does point out the following about the future:
The media frenzy around the actions of a handful of Marines is now building and, as happened with the illegal acts at Abu Graib, will be used to advance agendas unrelated to the allegations, agendas which trade on the slander of the American military, and which use the very rare exceptions to paint broadly, even as the enemy will.
(Hewitt seems to have predicted just what Campos is now doing--focusing on the actions of a few to blacken with a broad brush the many).
Campos started with slanderous lies about his fellow professors, but he didn't stop there--he trashed all American servicemen.
Of course, for Mr. Campos, the marines in Haditha last November are guilty of murder--that's a given, that's the starting point.
And the main argument Mr. Campos makes is that we are horrible people and terrible, blood-thirsty murderous soldiers who are never punished. Just look at Viet Nam, says Campos.
Then he sums it up with this un- supported jewell:
All wars are terrible, but guerrilla wars in particular practically guarantee that, as in Vietnam, atrocities against civilians will become commonplace; that most such incidents will never be investigated; and that those that are investigated will rarely lead to punishment. (Emphasis added),
So, for Paul Campos, not only are the 10 marines in Haditha guilty, but the murder of civilians in Iraq is commonplace--all the soldiers do it, they do it every day.
And you ask where is the support for that statement? Didn't you read his three examples from Viet Nam? Case closed.
Glenn Reynolds and Hugh Hewitt may be his colleagues, but he's not in their class.
UPDATE: Compare David Limbaugh's reasoned take on the subject to Campos' work. The professor, I think, suffers in the comparison.
UPDATE II: Cal Thomas has a good piece that starts with the 'acquittal' of marines accused of a similar atrocity in Ishaqi. One of the differences between my thinking and the thinking of those on the left is that I'm rooting for the Haditha marines to be cleared. The left, I think, has already convicted them.
why don't you email this ass clown, and link him directly to your factual diligence, regarding what Reynolds and Hewit did NOT say...and see if the paper runs it ??
Or send me his email info and I will do it.
The Tiger force is a sort of lefty legend. They did kill people strongly suspected of being VC. No one can say for sure they got every one right or any wrong. It is the worst sort of smear to accuse Rumsfeld and Cheney of stopping the investigation. The statement that there is overwhelming evidence is not accurate. Vietnamese died for sure but it was, I believe, war not murder. Bob Kerrey has tearfully said the last was a war crime but that he didn't commit it. His buddies do not cop to it, again as I recall. Tough to convict on that sort of evidence.
Lt. Casey was indeed convicted and sentenced to life. However, all he did was serve 3.5 years under house arrest. How's that for justice?
Another point Campos made: all of these cases were initially covered up by the superiors of these soldiers and eventually came to light thanks to the vigilance of the press. That doesn't confirm the case for US exceptionalism either.
And just in case you didn't catch the substance of his column let me summarize it for you:
(1) The US did not punish anyone in three atrocities during Vietnam. (Two of them would be more properly defined as alleged atrocities.)
(2) Atrocities are commonplace in guerilla wars.
(3) (1) and (2) imply that the US should have never go to war in which guerilla war could result. (e.g., Iraq)
(4) Anyone who disagrees with (3) must be a "Bush dead-ender" or a "jingoistic right-wing ideologue."
There's your substance...
Has anyone googled the little twit law prof?
He has written three books. Two are diet books. Ya, he a real deep thinking. I wonder when Ophra or the View will interview him.
Hugh did a good job trying to hold his feet to the fire, but Campos has so little substance it is like nailing jello to the wall.
(1) He doesn't say no one: he says Casey spent 3 years under house arrest and that's a slap on the wrist. One of the other alleged atrocities is still under investigation.
(2) I don't have information to judge how commonplace atrocities are in guerilla wars. You may have a point here.
(3) The phrase we've managed to entangle our troops in yet another nightmarish guerrilla war does not imply that the US should not intervene anywhere. It characterizes the current state of affairs in Iraq.
(4) has nothing to do with (3). Campos says that he is surprised to hear claims of US exceptionalism from an unusual direction, the left.
Actually, it does, because every opponent can turn a US intervention into a guerrilla war. Then the usual suspects will start working for US defeat.
"Once is Happenstance. Twice is Coincidence. The third time it's Enemy action".
Or, as Reynolds put it, those folks are just on the other side.
W, Condy, Rummy. et al all thought the Iraqis would be dancing and singing "Ding, dong the witch is Dead" when we otherthrew Saddam.
This is b/c they have never lived anywhere but here and they never read history.
Meanwhile, back at the hacienda, "Anoinymous the Last" who appeared just south of John Lynch (JL the safety strong?), don't worry about law school professors. Roger and the other lawyers will bear me out here, or maybe bare me out. The axioms are true: people who get A's in law school become law school profs; people who get B's in law school become judges; people who get C's become lawyers. And then there are TC's corollaries which are: people who get D's become politicians and people who get F's become lobbyists.
The only people in law school who are influenced by their profs are people who are either sleeping w/ their profs or people who will become law school profs. They think. They have people do research for them. They expound. They write. They write some more. We in the trenches view them as we do exotic, expensive, and labor intensive pets they we are glad we do not own.
800 years or so b/f the birth of Christ. the poet Archiloshus advised: "Keep a mercenary for a friend to stand by in battle."