Warblogging: It's Fun! It's Easy!

Now, you may look at those fine pro-war blogs and think, "I couldn't possibly do that. It's just too hard. Those guys--and gals--just know too much, they're too smart." Well, I'm here to tell you that's just not so. And, here at Bri's VT School of Warblogging, we show you some simple tips to make war-blogging the fun, and easy, past-time it really is. And, free for the readers of this fine site, we'll give you some of the basics.

--Tough Love: The very first rule of war-blogging is that there is no situation that can't be fixed by just getting a little tougher. No matter how bad it looks, or what came before, just a little more military muscle is needed to make any situation come out OK for the USA. Now, sometimes it's important to adopt a tone of "more-in-sadness-than-in-anger" when you call for tougher measures (don't want to look rabid, sometimes), but the fact remains: more war is better. That's why we call it war-blogging! The corollary to this is that every situation got to be a mess because of a lack of toughness. If you're stuck, blame it on Powell's appeasers in State (that's Secretary of State Colin Powell and the career diplomats at the State Department for you aspiring war-bloggers; don't worry, for a low, low price you can attend Bri's VT School of War-blogging online and learn all about the who's who of appeasers and tough-guys). Of course, if it's a long-term problem, you guys know who to blame it on! Do I have to spell it out? Clinton!

--Repeat after me: Fog of War!: If you're stuck with how to make a case on how things could be improved by more war, simply point out how confusing everything is. It looks really, really cool if you use the phrase "fog of war" to show how inscrutable the current situation is. See, you can look at a situation with seemingly no good option involving force (oh, a massive uprising against the American military, for example) and just say, "Boy, we really don't know what's going on here. This looks like a real 'fog of war' kind of thing. I'm in a wait and see mode here." Bingo! Off the hook. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, now he's the master of this. His "this Valerie Plame stuff is just so confusing, I can't make sense of it" post was a classic of the genre, even if it wasn't really a war post. Watch him, and learn.

--Castles Made of Straw: Now, it is occassionally useful to engage the leftist appeaser bloggers in debate, but never, never let them draw you into a substantive discussion. They'll trick you, bringing in all sorts of history and details to try to trip you up. So, grab an out-of-context quote and drum up a frothing rage about it. That's one way to do it. But, if that's too much work, just make up what they think and argue against that! Oh, I know what you're saying, "But, Bri, I have enough trouble keeping track of what I think, how can I make up another side of the argument"? Really, it's not so bad. It doesn't have to be a good argument on the other side. It's better if it isn't. Try it, you'll see. If you need any help, just read Andrew Sullivan for a week or so. You'll get the hang of it.

--All enemies are the same, except when they're different: This is a good one, but a bit more advanced than the rest, so try to follow along. Every enemy is a "terrorist," and "Islamofascist" (don't worry if you don't understand what an "Islamofascist" really is; who does?) and all are working together to undermine this great nation. Except, don't make the mistake of thinking all Iraqis, for example, are this. The quiet majority are with us, except those who are against us. But the ones against us, they're just Islamofascists. Mostly foreign, too, or under foreign influence, or just brain-washed. See that's when they're different. But they're the same because they're all funded by Islamofascists somewhere. Damn, I told you it gets confusing. Try to stay away from this one in your first weeks. If someone is trying to kill Americans, they're a terrorist. Stick with that for a while, and you'll do fine.

Those are just a few simple rules to get you started. There's more where this came from at Bri's VT School of War-blogging--although, to be frank, not much more; I told you it was easy--but you don't want me to give away the store for free, do you? Capitalism, after all, is what we're fighting for. I think. Or is it freedom? Democracy? Christianity? Hell, I don't know. But, who cares? Keep those posts coming, and remember: we're fighting the good fight, whomever we may be fighting for whatever reason.

•  Dear Brit,

  I'm confused about Old Europe and New Europe. Which one is bad and which one is good? For that matter which one is which and what foods should I recommend my readers avoid?

  by fly on Tue Apr 13, 2004 at 06:22:50 AM PST

  •  Red wine with Old Europe, vodka with New?

    by RonK Seattle on Tue Apr 13, 2004 at 06:25:58 AM PST

    •  Mitteleuropa

      Liebfermilch and Riesling separate the two.

      by Dana Houle on Tue Apr 13, 2004 at 07:02:48 AM PST

  •  Good question

    Old Europe: bad; New Europe: OK for now.

    It's easy to remember: if they were our allies in NATO against the Russians and speak a foreign language, they're bad. Except if they are Italians. They're OK. The Spanish used to be OK, even though they were Old Europe, but now they're probably not. New Europe: former commies. But not Russians. They're still right out, although Putin has a really nice, attractive soul.

    On second thought, maybe it's not so easy. USA, good. Stick to that. And only eat things you can pronounce very easily. Better safe than sorry, I always say.

    by BriVT on Tue Apr 13, 2004 at 06:28:42 AM PST

•  Toll on Democracy

  A good diary entry.

  Some similar points to this recent diary entry: War Rhetoric's Toll on Democracy.

  by i dunno on Tue Apr 13, 2004 at 06:25:15 AM PST

•  Beautiful!

  Great post, had me grinning so hard it hurt.

  You have great style.

  by a gilas girl on Tue Apr 13, 2004 at 07:05:54 AM PST

•  Dear Brit,

  We have long discussions and arguments about which types of nuclear strikes to use in Iraq.

  Some people like the "sheet of glass" type of bombing and others say that neutron bombs are the best because they only kill people but don't damage oil facilities.

  I'm leaning towards the sheet of glass approach because it's always nice to start with a clean sheet. Who needs all those old, dirty buildings anyway? We're going to rebuild the whole place anyway, right?

  What are your views on this?

  by fly on Tue Apr 13, 2004 at 07:09:34 AM PST

  •  Another fine question

    Knock down the buildings. You don't get reconstruction projects without knocking down some buildings.

    Besides, making an "example" is always a good justification for things. And that works better with some physical destruction.

    I'll caution against advocating the "nuclear option," though. Some people get a little squeamish over the whole thing. Carpet bombing is OK, though. Flatten a city with a wing of B-52s=fine; doing it with nukes=a little dicey.

    by BriVT on Tue Apr 13, 2004 at 07:16:15 AM PST

    •  I understand what you're saying

      But my readers see B52s as soooo 20th Century and want to exploit the modern technologies.

      by fly on Tue Apr 13, 2004 at 07:27:13 AM PST

•  Sorry to bother you again

  Another question that often comes up is how much freedom is enough? Do you have any guidelines for this? I mean, we can't let these people have unlimited freedom, that would make no sense at all.

  So we have to define what the limits of freedom are. We can't be letting those people make any old decisions they want.

  by fly on Tue Apr 13, 2004 at 07:41:09 AM PST