March 16, 2007

Impeccable blogic

We all know blogging is the art of typing before you think, but Mickey Kaus has outdone himself this time. MK is responding to this New York Times article about an attack on the mayor of Sadr City.

If "gunmen" ambush the mayor of Sadr City, wounding him and killing an Iraqi military officer, that doesn't seem like a good thing. But are we sure that it "Hinders Antimilitia Effort," as the NYT headline says. Couldn't it easily help the antimilitia effort if people in Sadr City resent the attack and turn on the gunmen?

Do I really have to spell this out? When a representative of a dormant militia is attacked, the "people" who resent that attack so much that they turn to violence in order to enforce extralegal justice in the absence of effective legitimate authority are what is known as "a militia." So yes, Mickey, an event that leads to renewed militia activity does indeed hinder antimilitia efforts.

Update: Yep

Posted by Daniel Radosh


That's hardly fair to Kaus. People can "turn" on gunmen without resorting to violence by withholding previously offered civilian support (food, shelter, safehouses) or cooperating with the antimilitia effort to report gunmen.

So you're saying it's not that he doesn't know the definiton of "militia," just that he's totally clueless about the situation in Sadr City? I guess I can believe that.

Post a comment

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2