Not antiwar, just... an insane killer

I like Glenn Reynolds, and I think he's usually pretty fair-minded. But to the extent he's being serious with this post, I have to take him to task for it. It reads:

NOT ANTIWAR, just on the other side: "Disturbed anti-war protester can't find soldier, kills civilian with axe instead."

"Not antiwar, just on the other side" is something of a catchphrase, generally used to point out particularly egregious instances of bad behavior by the most radical of the antiwar crowd. For example, giving money to Iraqi insurgents, or chillin' with suicide bombers, or suggesting that coalition soldiers are legitimate targets. In those sorts of cases, it's an appropriate moniker, the point being that these traitorous idiots are claiming the mantle of "antiwar" and if the real, legitimate antiwar crowd -- the loyal opposition -- doesn't want its good name smeared, it should condemn them in no uncertain terms.

In this case, though, I think Glenn has gone rather too far. The story he linked is about an obviously deranged person whose actions clearly have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with either psychological illness or sociopathic evil -- with politics being nothing more than an excuse or a trigger. I'm no psychologist, but that's fairly obvious, isn't it? I mean, he walked into a train station and killed some random guy with an ax. That's not really what I would call a political act. There is no indication that he's involved with any antiwar group, nor that his actions are in any way consistent with others in even the most radical extremes of the antiwar crowd. So I think it's a rather significant stretch to use the "not antiwar, just on the other side" label on this particular story. It would be a bit like saying, nine years ago:

NOT SO PRO-LIFE after all: "Sniper Kills Abortion Doctor Near Buffalo."

That would be highly inappropriate, and so is this. There's some serious guilt-by-association smearing going on here, and I guess I just draw the line at holding political groups (of whatever persuasion) implicitly responsible for the depraved acts of deranged murderers.

Now, in Glenn's defense, maybe he's just having a little fun (albeit with regard to an event that isn't terribly funny, but hey, I like dark humor as much as the next guy) and isn't trying to make a serious point, and I'm reading too much into his post. That's certainly happened to me before, so I can sympathize if that's the case. However, given how he and others have used the phrase "not antiwar, just on the other side" before, I think he needs to be careful, because that phrase means something very specific in the right-blogosphere, and so people are going to assume that's how he's using it in this case too.

Comments

[Glenn Reynolds]

Oh, I'd say the same thing about the sniper. And don't forget, this guy *meant* to kill a soldier. That's what the other side does, no? Then he killed a random civilian. That's also what the other side does when they can't get soldiers . . . .

[Joe Mama]

"Not antiwar, just on the other side" is something of a catchphrase, generally used to point out particularly egregious instances of bad behavior by the most radical of the antiwar crowd. For example, giving money to Iraqi insurgents, or chillin' with suicide bombers, or suggesting that coalition soldiers are legitimate targets.

I would also add Dennis Kucinich shamefully sucking up to Bashar al-Assad on Syrian TV to that list.

[I R A Darth Aggie]

There's some serious guilt-by-association smearing going on here, and I guess I just draw the line at holding political groups (of whatever persuasion) implicitly responsible for the depraved acts of deranged murderers.

Oh, wait, the pro-abortion crowd didn't hang Eric Rudolph or the guy who wacked the abortion practicioner in Pensacola, Fl around the pro-life crowd's neck?

Glenn, I see where you're coming from, and at some level it makes sense. However, I just think it's painfully obvious that this person was deranged, and is not in any way representative of any anti-war cause or movement. If we start seeing repeated incidents of anti-war activists attacking soldiers and/or civilians with axes, then that would be a different story.

I R A Darth Aggie, I'm not denying that people (on both sides of the aisle) do this all the time. I'm saying they shouldn't.

Argh. Why is it that, whenever I make a point like this, even when I'm careful to use examples that demonstrate I apply the same logic to both sides of the ideological spectrum, somebody always feels the need to jump up and down and say, "But they did it first!!!"?

[Angrier and Angrier]

Brendan-

I actually think your "not so pro-life" thing was pretty damn funny. Glenn's comment teeters on the verge of absurdist humor. If he was serious, then it is pure camp.

There are a lot of things that are offensive about this war - on both ends of the political spectrum. I don't think this is one of them.

[dcl]

Brendan, I understand some of your ire here at the not anti-war, on the other side issue. However, in very basic terms what makes a SOLDIER not a target in a WAR ZONE? A chaplain not a target, sure thing. A medic not a target, probably, though they tend to get shot at first (strategically it is helpful to take them out even if it is rather nasty). The other examples of on the other side? I'd agree with. Does it suck that our guys keep getting shot at, attacked, and killed? Absolutely. Do I want them to stop getting shot at, attacked, and killed? Absolutely. There is no question about that. But as a point of logic just because I don't want them to get hurt does not make it illegitimate for those we've declared war upon (did we declare war? I'm still kind of fuzzy on that logic) to try and hurt our soldiers. It being a war, and that being war by definition. Actually, that's my biggest beef with calling this a WAR on terrorism. To call it a war on terrorism legitimizes the other side--after all they are in a war--it legitimizes attacks on military targets to call it a war on terrorism. Better to call it a police action to stop mass murderers (but that's not near as sexy in rhetoric) calling it a war legitimizes additional violence saying it is a police action does not--it says the people on the other side are criminals that need to be punished (which they absolutely are) and not some sort of warrior taking legitimate action in an armed conflict. Does that make sense? It's sort of a rhetoric versus logic thing. I understand the rhetoric of it but the logic is wanting. But then pointing out that the logic is wanting got Bill Maher in a lot of trouble with ABC so perhaps I should let sleeping dogs alone.

[Aaron]

Careful Brendan, by engaging with Reynolds on these kinds of things, you risk eroding some of the mis-placed admiration you have for the guy.* Yes, you were right to call him out on his silly comparison, and yes, he was serious about it (as his comment here indicates.) Any chance to take a shot at the anti-war people will do for Glenn. Also note how the follow-up on his blog - But I'd absolutely do his pro-life sniper post counterexample, too. So maybe I'm just mean to deranged ideological killers - manages to rather spectacularly miss the point. The problem with the hypothetical sniper comment would be that it's mean... to the sniper??? Wow.

*Please note, I'm sure Reynolds is a perfectly good guy in person. And I suppose he deserves some respect for his role as "Blogfather." But there are so many other contemporary political bloggers who are more worthy of your attention. A few of them are even war supporters. ;)

[Don Meaker]

Soldiers are only legitimate targets for other legal combatants. The terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan do not wear uniforms or distinguishing marks visible at a distance, do not protect prisoners in accordance with the law of war, and do not avoid damage to civilians or civil structures. Because of that NOTHING the illegal combatants do is legitimate. Because they are illegal combatants, the terrorists forfeit any protection from the laws of war. Of course if they start following the laws of war, then they would receive such protection. See Michael Yon's post about how the Iraqi "1920s Brigades" are now wearing recognition devices, and are being treated as peers by our Soldiers.

[dcl]

There observations:

a) The there are rules of war thing has always seemed a bit odd--you are fighting a war because you can't agree on "rules". There are certainly conventions and it would be nice if everyone followed them but they don't, not even us. Like I said, the language of war legitimizes the other side using the language of police action does not--but police action is no where near as sexy in a speech as going to war--but police action did ultimately do wonders with the Northern Ireland conflict.

b) correct me if I'm wrong, but we wear camouflage to reduce our visibility from a distance--granted this is not the same as walking about in civilian clothing but does beg the question what is necessary and sufficient military branding? Would everyone walking about in a bowler hat suffice? Or do they need to wear red coats and a tricorne hat? I will grant that we are nice enough to label the mine field on the DMZ between North and South Korea -- but is that a measure required by the rules of war? And of course snipers do everything possible to make themselves completely invisible.

c) the one we always catch flack for bringing up... By your definition a substantial number of colonists during the Revolutionary war would meet your definition of terrorists, waging an insurgent style attack without consistent uniforms or identification outside of the traditional field of battle and deliberately targeting officers -- all things that were against the rules of war at the time.

[Andrew]

However, I just think it's painfully obvious that this person was deranged, and is not in any way representative of any anti-war cause or movement.

Isn't it painfully obvious that most of the anti-war movement is deranged?

[Aaron]

Pretty clever, Andrew. Did you come up with that one all by yourself?

[Angrier and Angrier]

Ah, Andrew. Because there is nothing deranged about putting hoods on the heads of naked Iraqis and stacking them in a pyramid for a photo-op.

[dcl]

Andrew, I don't particularly think that is a constructive course of argument to take. What is it about the internet that makes people mean?

[Alasdair]

Andrew - I don't think I agree that "most" of the anti-war movement is deranged ... seriously misguided, yes ... well-intentioned, quite possibly ... but it's only the highly-visible and vocal minority thqat is actively deranged - the Cindy Sheehans and this guy ...

The sniper being "Not so Pro-Life, after all" is a highly appropriate and targeted example of irony ...

A&A - the pyramidal photo-op is hardly deranged ... inappropriate, tasteless, seriously misguided, yes - but not deranged ... deranged is setting children on fire, or feeding folk into tree-shredders feet-first ...

[Admiral Halsey]

Nice Fargo reference, Alasdair. I liked that movie too.

[Aaron]

Alasdair,

It's true, the hypothetical sniper comment could be intended merely as irony. It could also be intended as a pretty nasty insinuation about people who oppose abortion rights. Likewise with Reynolds' comment.

But honestly, I don't think at this point Reynolds really thinks about these things enough to know whether he means to be ironic or insinuating. Just glib and insulting will do fine.

[Andrew]

Pretty clever, Andrew. Did you come up with that one all by yourself?

I get by with a little help from my friends. But yes, thank you for the compliment, I'll be here all week.