You assume that calling Ralph Peters morally repugnant for advocating the murder of journalists who don’t report propaganda is ‘micromanaging individual actions on the field of battle”;
You assume I am “thwarting victory” by pointing that out;
You assume I am an academic;
You assume I have never been in combat.

Assumption is a dangerous game, Dennis.

You’re not; that’s the problem.

“And since when were means irrelevant to the ends?”

Micromanaging individual actions on the field of battle, with criminal prosecution hovering over every decision, a la Chessani, has a tendency to cause hesitation at crucial moments. Maybe having been an actual combatant would help you understand the point. But, as an academic, it’s just too easy to talk your way through a fight. Now be honest about your own ends, vis a vis thwarting victory, and the means you use to pursue them.

Sarcasm aside, this comment reveals a very silly attitude, but one that
infects the liberal mindset. Entering a war with less than a determination to
win is suicidal. When Sherman said that “war is all hell,” he didn’t just
describe the cosmetic appearance of war; he described the effect that must be
created by any army intent on winning. It must create hell to win.
If it isn’t hell, the reluctant combatant might as well stay home.

That said, the author above apparently believes that it is better to lose a wary
and, I suppose, a nation, than to be seen as dirty. The rules of engagement
imposed by liberal political regimes generally reflect this mindset, and, too
often, result in unnecessary deaths of our own. Conveniently, the author
doesn’t address this sad fact. Often, those rules are made in a desire to
please the sideline critics like this author. Thus, this type of media busybody
does, in fact, kill friendly warriors.

All of this is okay, as long as confused faux moralists like the author stay out
of the way while a war is being fought. But it’s never enough just to be a
media hack; they must see themselves as important media hacks. And the
measure by which they gauge their importance, how much they can
stymie the war effort, almost always results in friendly deaths.

It’s worth noting something else Ralph Peters observed: The use of the pen is an indulgence we can afford only because better men and women grip the sword on our behalf.

I second Fabius Maximus. Peters newspaper columns often irritate me but his professional work is first rate – and I’m pretty sure that was the case with his work as an intelligence officer.

I view the “war god” rhetoric that Peters frequently uses in his columns as unserious shtick designed to get attention, speaking gigs and satisfy his employer, the Post. His AFJ pieces, while aggressive, are not exercises in lunacy.

Many of his professional publications are IMO excelent. To cite just one of many:

“The Human Terrain of Urban Operations“, Ralph Peters, Parameters, Spring 2000

URL:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/00spring/peters.htm

The core world of Islam, stretching from Casablanca to the Hindu Kush…

…and leaving out almost 700 million Muslims in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia? Seems like an odd definition of “core world” to me.

Josh, I don’t know if you’ve read Nick Schmidle’s book yet, but I was STAGGERED to find Peters cited in the acknowledgments. I will never understand how or why sane people occasionally cite him as “provocative” or “thoughtful.” Sure, he’s provocative, because the stuff he writes is absurd.

We have been at war for 8 years. That has to affect us, probably in unpleasant ways. I supect the growing blood-thirst seen in Peters and others is just the first visible effects. War, like all powerful social forces, shapes us — often in unexpected ways. Slow to become seen and long-lasting ways.