His latest article clearly implied that *if* we were sending enough troops over to implement Boer War tactics, then he would approve.
Trevino's pompous you're-not-smart-enough-to-read-me bullshit aside, the history books are full of crap like his -- "someday, doubtless, severe methods will have to be used to address the Jewish Question," etc. Many of them by one A. Hitler.
(My new motto, with apologies to Brad DeLong: "I'll Quit Breaking Godwin's Law When They Quit Using Mein Kampf as an Operations Manual.")
I also treasure the implication that if you oppose the Iraq War you're the one who favors genocide...
Note too JT refers to "Nazi-style concentration camps and indiscriminate killing" in his non-denial denial, which none of his critics brought up.
Trevino gives weasels a bad name.
He must have had his meds adjusted and just read back over what he had previously written. And then realized he was batshit insane.
In fairness, I did mention indiscriminate killing--for the obvious reason that he explicitly advocated it.
I think that some degree of ruthlessness in war is necessary, but that doesn't mean that we have to devolve into Roman style brutality and repression. If Trevino thinks that some form of literal decimation would be effective in Iraq, he ignores the consequences we would face in the wider world, and particularly in Islamic countries.
Unfortunately, as highly destructive modern weapons become available to Islamic facists, the probability that a high casualty event in this country increases. That would precipitate a similarly destructive response. It is important to understand that our enemies are willing to involuntarily "martyr" millions of fellow believers to achieve their goals of terror and subjugation. This is a type of irrationality that we never faced when dealing with the Soviet Union.
Josh did say he say endorsed cruel things in war, and it would have helpful if he defined what he thought was cruel. But war is cruel by its very nature, even if both sides abide by the Geneva Conventions.
But to say Josh explicitly endorses Boer War tactics is a perfect case of you reading miscomprehension, Scott. The main point of his post--which you apparently missed completely--is that 20,000 additional troops is too few to mount an effective counterinsurgency campaign under our present rules of engagement. Josh used the Boer War as an example to stress how under-manned we are, and it explains why he is so pessimistic about Bush's new plan. So in this basic misreading and response, Scott, you have now represented yourself as one of the "fulminating left" that Josh has derided.
Sorry about that butchered sentence above. 
It should read "...the probability that a high casualty event will occur in this country increases."
Check out this essay from Ralph Peters in the commentary section of the Armed Forces Journal.
"The lessons of all these transitions from unaddressed discontents to religious fanaticism hold true for violent outbreaks down the centuries on virtually every continent and in all major faiths. When regimes insist that time must hold still and deny traditional or perceived rights, fundamentalist religion is always lurking nearby. At the beginning of "The Plague," Albert Camus speaks of how a bacillus can lurk, dormant and undetected, only to reappear unexpectedly when conditions are right. Extremist religion has its own bacillus, and it has proven impossible to exterminate: There are no proven antibiotics for the plague of fanaticism. When political sanitation goes wanting, it strikes.
Yet, that does not mean religious extremism can be addressed strictly through political measures (or through diplomacy, that great Western superstition). The only chance to minimize the violence is to intervene early on to create political and social breathing space for restive populations. Once religious extremism has taken hold, the pattern cannot be reversed. This is an absolutely vital point for American leaders to grasp. If the banner of jihad (or a crusade) has been raised successfully, the peaceable kingdom is finished. Only shedding blood ruthlessly can eliminate or at least reduce the problem — the enemy enraptured by faith must become more terrified of you than he is of his god. Usually, you must kill him."
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/
Josh did say he say endorsed cruel things in war, and it would have helpful if he defined what he thought was cruel. But war is cruel by its very nature, even if both sides abide by the Geneva Conventions.
But to say Josh explicitly endorses Boer War tactics is a perfect case of you reading miscomprehension, Scott. The main point of his post--which you apparently missed completely--is that 20,000 additional troops is too few to mount an effective counterinsurgency campaign under our present rules of engagement. Josh used the Boer War as an example to stress how under-manned we are, and it explains why he is so pessimistic about Bush's new plan. So in this basic misreading and response, Scott, you have now represented yourself as one of the "fulminating left" that Josh has derided.
Why is anyone still paying attention to that tiresome twit?
Good point, Chas. Nowhere did Trevino actually suggest that US Troops learn Afrikaans. Well done.
“There can be no rational discourse with people who claim to own reality.”
And there is with those who think that they create their own? As I've said before, Treviño is like H. L. Mencken with all of the vocabulary and none of the wit.
CD,
You're not going to get very far quoting Ralph Peters around here. He gets it right about as often as a digital clock that's been unplugged.
Josh Trevino: What I wrote is plainly not what I meant, and all the analysis in the world can't convince me that I meant what I said. That should be obvious to you stupid leftists.
Chas--maybe that would be colorable if it wasn't for his previous writings, but in context that's just untenable.
No, no, no, you all fail to understand. You can't pay attention to what someone "says" as if the text had some meaning independent of the speaker (or hearer's) interpretation. What someone says is always, already, a product of their shifting positionality within an uncentered sphere of discourse. Don't you get that we're all Derrida(dada)ists now? You can only pay attention to what you want them to mean, and even then what you want them to mean only counts if you speak from a position of privilege. Which is as much to say that what you want someone to mean only matters if you can shout louder than them LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
Pfaw. Stupid Enlightenment mentality.
In fairness, I did mention indiscriminate killing--for the obvious reason that [Trevino] explicitly advocated it.
I would call you a liar, but that presupposes awareness of falsehood. I can, however, call you ignorant: suffice it to say that "exterminate all the brutes" is hardly an apt description of British strategy in the Boer War (or French strategy in Algeria, for that matter). I know this isn't your field -- but it's a pity you don't.
The referred piece was about what it said it was about, and you -- and many others -- drew your fantasy conclusions from it. That you must find external evidence post facto to support that which the internal evidence does not only highlights your original error. That the external evidence still does not support your original contention only makes you look the fool.
This is, incidentally, a pattern with you, Lemieux: you have a strange habit of reading strange things -- usually the worst possible strange things -- into the statements of those whom you dislike. I am thinking specifically here of your anxious hand-wringing over my purported thuggishness in mentioning that you are a professor at Hunter College. Surely this fact cheapens the institution for the students who pass through it; but it is no secret. Nonetheless, your hysterics were suitably impressive, admirably mimicking the anguish of someone done an actual wrong. So too here, with your insincere outrage over a manufactured offense.
As it is, I have no illusions about dissuading you from acting as you know best: concocting fantasies about your foes, and shrieking about them with the amplification that only your keyboard may provide. This is what your character calls you to, and you have the discernment to listen. But at the end of the day, it is Scott Lemieux, Ph.D., of Hunter College, who is continually reacting to Josh Treviño -- and not vice versa.
Cheers.
Jesus, Chas. The man says he endorses cruel tactics in war. He complains that Bush isn't sending enough troops to quell the insurgency. He describes some very cruel tactics that defeated an earlier insurgency and presents them in a positive light... but if we get the idea he's endorsing those particular cruel tactics in Iraq, we can't read!
I propose two alternative theories.
1) Trevino doesn't support Boer War-style tactics in Iraq. But he inadvertently wrote an article that gave people the wrong impression because he's a lousy writer with no understanding of how to control the implicit content of his writing.
2) Trevino is a smart guy who understands how to write an article that strongly suggests the US should be engaging in indiscriminate slaughter to intimidate the Iraqi population into cowed submission, yet leaves himself just enough breathing room to express mock outrage when somebody claims that this was his intent.
I lean strongly toward explanation #2, personally.
Hold on while I make some popcorn...
Who is this "Josh Trevino" character? Isn't he that guy who ran the hermaphrodite furry page that got shut down by the feds?
Sigh.
This is so tired. We've been through the "I don't care what you write about me, it says more about you than me, you're obsessed, and I'll demonstrate my not caring by going to you blog and writing long comments" before. Trevino is so self-obsessed that you have to spell his name T*rev*ino unless you want him to show up trolling your comments.
Although I do love the "you're such a hack that you brought in external evidence, such as my previous writings" defense... I'll have to try that one in the future.
Trevino, unless and until you can answer the following question point-blank, you have absolutely no grounds to criticize anyone for "misreading" your article.
Do you, or do you not, believe that a hypothetical strategy of placing women and children in concentration camps, and conducting collective reprisals against the remaining population, would be preferable to withdrawal from Iraq?
You wrote an article in which you criticized the President for not sending enough troops for the "surge" to work. Yet you claimed that Bush was "on a higher moral plane" than those who support withdrawing troops from Iraq because he cares about victory.
In this same article, you explicitly said that you endorse cruel tactics in war. You also described the cruel tactics used by the British in South Africa, without saying anything negative about these tactics except to say that they were cruel. (You endorse cruel tactics, remember?) You provide this example to show the sort of tactics that actually defeat insurgencies.
The clear, strong, unambiguous implication of your article is that regardless of what your ideal policy may be, you would prefer the type of counter-insurgency fought against the Boers to either the President's proposal or the Democrats' proposal.
If you do not, then tell us what you actually do support.
Josh, if you weren't such a crappy and tendentious writer, maybe people wouldn't be so prone to mistake your meaning. Just a thought.
Disappointing--I was looking forward to a substantive reply. Oh, wait, no I wasn't.
suffice it to say that "exterminate all the brutes" is hardly an apt description of British strategy in the Boer War
But you opposed those tactics anyway right Josh? Because they were, uh, cruel?
And you don't support cruetly in war. Only when you say you do. Which you say quite frequently.
But when you say you do support cruelty, and then describe the cruel tactics used in Algeria and the Boer War you're not really suggesting that those would be suitable to use now. Except when you say they would be.
But no one should conclude anything from any of those statements. To do so would be to concoct fantasy.
Bravo.
And aj nakes a good point: perhaps Trevino means that because women and children were put in camps and only men were subject to collective reprisals, the killing was not wholly "indiscriminate." Point conceded! I should have said that Trevino supports indiscriminate killing of some classes of the population and indiscriminate imprisonment of other parts of the population.
Eric Martin, you beat me to it. Yes, Treviño's comment here is a tacit admission that he does exactly what he denies doing: support the use of Boer War-style tactics in Iraq.
The quick and the dead Tom.
What a dumbass. He and Althouse should *not* be allowed to breed.
What he wrote:
Consider the Boer-era strategy for victory as it might apply in Iraq. Consider it because in doing so, one considers the course of action that arguably maximizes efficacy per soldier, thereby yielding a plausible figure for needed soldiery.
If you're not planning to do what the Brits did, then how does it yield any relevant number? Oh wait, it doesn't.
The purpose of these garrisons would be, first, to monitor and repair the wires stretching from blockhouse to blockhouse.
These purely imaginary garrisons.
The secondary task of these posts would be to conduct limited civil affairs work and intelligence-gathering with whatever local population was not resettled into camps.
And purely imaginary camps.
What a ridiculous person.
I think my favorite part was when Josh Trevino wrote
But at the end of the day, it is Scott Lemieux, Ph.D., of Hunter College, who is continually reacting to Josh Treviño -- and not vice versa.
in the comments section of Scott Lemieux's blog.
That's some funny shit.
I would call you a liar, but that presupposes awareness of falsehood. I can, however, call you ignorant: suffice it to say that "exterminate all the brutes" is hardly an apt description of British strategy in the Boer War (or French strategy in Algeria, for that matter). I know this isn't your field -- but it's a pity you don't.
Was that an original comment from the original Ben D., or was it a cut and paste job from a Ben D. imposter commenting exactly as Ben would while undertaking a large-scale abuse of the "youthful indiscretion" canard?
Also, nobody spits out the word "fool" as well as JT, save the Emperor in Star Wars. I wonder if these fools are suffered lightly? What about the poisoned chalice??? Good show!
Damn, Duss beat me to it. It's particularly insidious considering Trevino doesn't have a comment section himself. (Or maybe it's down today?)
Typical coward.
Oops, i meant to post the Lemieux responding to Trevino quote. above.
i wasn't calling Duss a coward.
Carry on.
Is it just me or does all Josh have to do to satisfy the critics is change "Nazi-style concentration camps" to "Boer War-style concentration camps and the tactics of the Algerian War"?
Apparently Josh's fans also can't read.
Apparently Josh's fans also can't read.
Shit, I think *he* wrote that. Or it's someone who admires his prose. Brrrrr.
That Conservative Times piece is a sterling example of an all-too-common phenomenon: right-wingers patting themselves on the back for having the seriousness to ponder grave and unpleasant truths about the need to be ruthless in war, yet becoming outraged when anyone suggests they actually approve of such ruthlessness.
Look, folks, we all understand that war is hell. Some of us didn't want the war for precisely this reason. You, however, wanted the war. You're now complaining that we aren't doing enough to win. If you aren't suggesting we adopt more ruthless methods, what the hell ARE you suggesting? A draft? Mercenaries? Vat-grown Yakuza hitmen? You've got some 'splaining to do, people.
Shit, I think *he* wrote that. Or it's someone who admires his prose. Brrrrr.
Ooo...it's Paul J. Cella, and original is on Redstate. Some of the commentariat are...uncomfortable.
I would call you a liar, but that presupposes awareness of falsehood. I can, however, call you ignorant: suffice it to say that "exterminate all the brutes" is hardly an apt description of British strategy in the Boer War (or French strategy in Algeria, for that matter). I know this isn't your field -- but it's a pity you don't.
Oh, damn, somebody else was already doing the joke. I suck. Nothing to see here...
So... like... if you're going to comment on somebody's blog about how they didn't understand your position, wouldn't it be helpful to everybody involved to clarify your position?
"Was that an original comment from the original Ben D., or was it a cut and paste job from a Ben D. imposter commenting exactly as Ben would while undertaking a large-scale abuse of the "youthful indiscretion" canard?"
The second, unless the real Ben D. is going around with plagarism.org as his homepage.
Not that I'd rule that out entirely.
"Vat-grown Yakuza hitmen? "
That was good. 
As to Rob's assertion that quoting Ralph Peters won't get me far, well, I merely point out that the piece is published...and in Armed Forces Journal at that. You can ignore it, but many other people in uniform are reading it. I honestly don't know whether to agree with it or not, although it seems that the laws of land warfare are observed more in the breach then otherwise. If we were to be really honest about how ruthless war MAY need to be, perhaps we would be less anxious to start one, as ajl pointed out.
That was a vintage Tac comments section appearance. What makes it especially charming is the usual Solemn Recounting of Blogwar Grievances Past. He sounds like he has a hard drive dedicated solely to storing every instance of someone calling him a bad name on the Internet.
I merely point out that the piece is published...and in Armed Forces Journal at that.
My time in grad school was largely a waste, but it did immunize me from the notion that publication is any gauge of merit. That part comes in handy.
I believe all that remains to be said at this point is that the gentleman who derides people who draw "fantasy conclusions" by assuming words mean what they mean believes that liberals objected to a twelfth-rate wingnut hack being hired by the Washington Post because they hate parents.
"My time in grad school was largely a waste, but it did immunize me from the notion that publication is any gauge of merit. That part comes in handy."
Fair enough. It still bears mentioning that the people who fight wars, write manuals and implement policy DO read AFJ. If you wish to comment on the quality of thought shown in that particular essay, then by all means, go to AFJ and do so.
As to the crux of this entire excersise, I think that Scott Lemieux was reaching a little in his characterization of the piece by Josh Trevino. Pointing out that another army was able to use effective, if excessive and amoral, tactics to quell an insurgency does not amount to an endorsement of Balkins-style mass murder. If he did imply that, then he really does have a problem...and I would advise him to seek counseling.
War is messy and brutal enough without devolving into a "Rape of Nanking" scenario to subjugate and brutalize a population.
Ralph "Free Baluchistan" Peters?
C. Dragon, evidently people can disagree about what Trevino meant, but I gotta say, if he wasn't trying very hard to imply that the Boer War was the way to go, then he's a very poor writer.
And, come to think of it, Trevino *is* a very poor writer.
So you may be right.
Anderson:
I left a comment at your blog regarding a suggestion for a book. You or anyone else here are, of course, welcome at my blog. In any event, I think this thread is dying...
Yah, I replied but it got Bloggered. Trying again now, & then away from the PC for a few hours ... thanks!
Trevino could end all this by simply telling us what, precisely, the useful and non-monstrous lesson of the Boer war actually is. But, of course, he can't because he has no idea what that would be.
Bush's escalation isn't going to "win" (whatever set of glittering generalities that bar is set at this week).
We have to "win".
The English knew how to win.
Of course, that's just an example I threw out there like an impromptu jazz riff.
Besides I'm a serious history student and it wasn't like they just "killed all the brutes".
What do you mean I'm trying to rehabilitate concentration camps?
You're an asshole and your school sucks
Do have this right?
Have I misread Tacitus?
Josh Trevino claims that "[t]here’s little to be done for the reading comprehension of the online left," and that his bringing up the Boer War was "not to make a policy prescription but to conduct a thought-experiment to demonstrate the insufficiency of the President’s 'surge.'"
Trevino's obvious implication--by him bringing up the Boer War--is that he would advocate that Bush provide for a larger escalation (sorry, surge) precisely so that Bush could use the increased troops level to institute Boer War-like tactics in Iraq. Otherwise, why would he bring up the British tactics in the Boer War at all?
It makes no sense, otherwise.
The irony here is that the two things that Trevino had going for him in the original post - a degree of honesty, and the willingness to at least carry through his beliefs to their logical conclusion - are lost in the followup post.
He's still a monster, but now a dishonest monster. Way to go Josh, your moral bankruptcy is now complete.
But at the end of the day, it is Scott Lemieux, Ph.D., of Hunter College, who is continually reacting to Josh Treviño -- and not vice versa.
This is simply because anyone, however talentless or hackish, can make other people react by being unpleasant enough. It's a scaled-down version of Hobbes' notion that we are all equal in that we are all capable of killing each other. No matter how dense you are, if you fling enough of your own shit at passers-by one of them will eventually kick your teeth in.
Oh, one more thing Josh. Scoring points??!! Scoring points??!! You think this about scoring points??!! Fuck you. Josh, you may believe that the left is deluded, unserious, etc., etc., but at least do us the favor of understanding that we mean what we say. Whether you meant for the Boer War concentration camps to be a policy prescription, or merely a salutory lesson which will lead us to brutal (but slightly less brutal) measures "necessary" to "win" the war in Iraq, we really do think that your policy prescriptions are, literally, monstrous. The last thing this is about is point scoring.
Not to mention the fact that your sick fantasies would lead inevitably to a civilizational war killing tens of millions. No, I don't think you "want" that result, but it's clear that you're perfectly willing to advance policies that will lead to that result. So fuck you, and fuck point scoring, you evil fucking piece of shit.
And with all of that, I'll even recongnize that you are, in a certain sense, an idealist. So was Lenin, and so was Hitler. Some of the biggest monsters in history were idealists. God save us from a certain strain of idealist, who is so sure of the justice of his cause that he will adopt virtually any method to achieve it.
Oh, one last thing Josh. In one sense I don't care what you meant by your last post. By endorsing the tactics of the British in the Boer War, the French in the Algerian War, and the United States in the Phillipines insurection, you reveal yourself as a monter regardless of your policy prescriptions of this war. Three of the most shamful episodes in those three nation's colonial histories. Jesus, Christ, man, after that are you really surprised at the reaction you get?
Vat-grown Yakuza hitmen
Do you take paypal?
The only thing better than the Victor Davis Hanson Lite gobbledeegook he opens up with is his inevitable flop sweat-drenched encore in every comment section that can be bothered to notice him (above a certain traffic threshold, naturally), complete with that Bic-raising classic "BWA-HA-HA (In An Ironic Twist, It Turns Out My Critics Are The REEEEAL Dummies After All!)" Josh Trevino is a national treasure.
I'm naming my pet turtle "Lou Siffer". Discuss.
Commenting by HaloScan
