one of the wisest things ever said about philosophy (I'm paraphrasing here): Philosophy being an examination of the nature of man, it is best to discard, in its entirety, any philosophical theory formulated before 1859.

I'm guessing 1859 is a reference to Darwin's Original of Species and that makes sense as a qualifier but I'm still puzzled at the extremity of why such thought should be totally discarded?

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

...I'm still puzzled at the extremity of why such thought should be totally discarded?

Well, I was not (nor was the originator of the statement, I presume) suggesting that every thought of the ancient philosophers should be discarded, only that their philosophical theories, i.e., the epistemology that constituted the framework of their theories, was likely to be deeply flawed if not altogether incorrect.

they sure weren't a conservative. 1859 means Darwin, and Origin of Species routinely makes their lists of Top Ten Most Dangerous Books, right up there with The Communist Manifesto and Capital. Indeed, to listen to a few, your formula should be reversed, and any philosophy written after 1859 should be treated with great suspicion-- guilty until proven innocent, if you will.
   Not that this is possible, really. The Founders were very much influenced by Hobbes, and especially Locke; since at least one Supreme Court Justice has declared that the original intent of these Founders should be the best standard to judge law, I don't see the answers Hobbes and Locke gave fading from importance any time soon.
   Would this be desirable if it ever became possible? Personally, I think a world that discarded Samuel Johnson would be poorer for that omission, though whether he can be considered a philosopher proper is an open question. If Foucault is right, modern power as it's applied came about in the second half of the 18th century, and the first half of the 19th-- Jeremy Bentham died in 1832, but his Panopticon was rather typical, apparently, of current intellectual thought as applied to individuals. Much of what happened in the 20th century would make little sense if this scaffolding was removed, IMHO. And then there's Machiavelli . . .
   Was the quote from someone famous? It sounds like something Wittgenstein might have said, from what I've heard.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

...they sure weren't a conservative...Origin of Species routinely makes their lists of Top Ten Most Dangerous Books...

I'm not sure why you think conservatives necessarily disbelieve in the theory of evolution. They certainly tend to believe that way more than self-identified liberals do, but it's not an absolute divide. (One poll of Americans showed that  25% of conservatives believed in human evolution, compared to 40% of moderates and 56% of liberals.)

Personally, I think a world that discarded Samuel Johnson would be poorer for that omission...

What about a world that discarded Kant?

It sounds like something Wittgenstein might have said...

I think it was from someone more contemporary. It was in a book about evolution, but I can't recall which one.

   I know I've mentioned this before, but I shelve a lot of books, and see a lot more-- what I stock comes entirely (at least 97%) from trading with customers, so I see the contents of a lot of bookshelves every week.  When confronted with tons of books in the same vein as Politically Incorrect Guide To Darwinism (just look at that review title!), being promoted by  top selling conservative publishers like Regnery . . well, it's easy to jump to generalizations, especially in intellectual circles. It's hard to explain in a post just how lopsided is the publishing history. Don't know if this will convince you of anything, but you asked me "why", and that's one reason.
    I wouldn't trade Johnson to ditch Kant, not in a million years. Have you read much of Sam? Hard to explain the attraction if you haven't . . though many who have might not agree with me anyway :)

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

Philosophy being an examination of the nature of man, it is best to discard, in its entirety, any philosophical theory formulated before 1859.

Even so, how is this a critique of the writeup? Hobbes and Kant are cited mainly to provide historical context. Carl Schmitt wrote in the 1920s and 1930s, John Rawls just died a few years ago, and Agamben is still alive and actively publishing. Did you even bother to read the links before you went off, or did you just assume this was a kneejerk attack on the military that didn't deserve your attention?

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

...how is this a critique of the writeup?

It's not.

Carl Schmitt wrote in the 1920s and 1930s, John Rawls just died a few years ago, and Agamben is still alive and actively publishing. Did you even bother to read the links before you went off...

Excuse me? I mentioned Hobbes and Kant in my comment above. Perhaps you failed to notice that, or perhaps you thought it was a coincidence.

...or did you just assume this was a kneejerk attack on the military that didn't deserve your attention?

Again: excuse me? The story is not an attack on the military, but a mundane examination of the psychology of the profession of arms. It certainly deserves attention, but not for the reasons you have outlined. When you wrote, "even our most highly trained troops, when placed under 'combat stress', seem willing to act... what, exactly, did you mean by "our most highly trained troops" and why did the term "combat stress" deserve scare quotes?

As far as whether this "deserve[d] [my] attention," have you noticed any comments here other than replies to mine?

it's not

In comment 5, you quoted skeptic's statement that "The write up does a lovely job of giving relevant precedent and philosophical background material" by replying that anything written before 1859 wasn't worth examining. You wrapped up by specifically mentioning Kant and Hobbes. Since you went from the general to the specific, I assumed you were making a general critique of all the philosophers I mentioned. If that was not the case, I stand corrected. Likewise, you first post comes across as a simple dismissal of the entire writeup - it's terse and has no background or explanation. I still don't really know what your opinion is on the subject...am I being dense, or are you being obtuse? Maybe both.

what, exactly, did you mean by "our most highly trained troops"

The Marines are generally considered the most highly trained branch (overall, in terms of ground combat) of the military. Arguably the Army Rangers or Delta Force or whatever have more rigorous combat training, but my understanding has always been that, on average, as a branch, the Marines receive the most demanding combat training. In the quote that I presented in the first paragraph, it cites that 1/3 of the Marines surveyed were willing to condone illegal behavior.

why did the term "combat stress" deserve scare quotes?

Because it's a disputed term that's not easily defined. You'll note that I like scare quotes. I also put them around "liberal", "Western Civilization", and "state of exception". I'm not saying combat stress isn't a problem, I'm saying that it's an inevitable and unsolvable problem that will always come with war. Presenting it as a psychological problem makes it seem like something that only happens to defective / abnormal soldiers. I just want to problematize the whole notion.

The story is not an attack on the military, but a mundane examination of the psychology of the profession of arms. It certainly deserves attention, but not for the reasons you have outlined.

I agree that I was not attempting to attack the military. I disagree that this story is about psychology - I think that what's interesting is that an issue that is a fundamental contradiction in the classical liberal paradigm (the inherent violence of the law versus the liberal desire to remove violence from politics, and the amoral nature of the law) is being framed as a psychological problem. Is it really a psychological defect to want to protect your friends, even when it requires breaking the law? Is it a psychological defect when someone that is being told it's okay to invade a country to impose democracy decides that it's okay to kill a few innocent civilians to save his platoon?

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Since you went from the general to the specific, I assumed you were making a general critique of all the philosophers I mentioned

A general critique would be to say that none of the philosophers you mentioned had anything relevant to say about reactions to combat stress. And I think that's fairly evident, but you apparently disagree.

I still don't really know what your opinion is on the subject...am I being dense, or are you being obtuse?

I'd prefer "oblique" to "obtuse." To anyone who expressed any surprise whatsoever that "even our most highly trained troops, when placed under 'combat stress', seem willing to act as if nothing at all separates us from the state of nature" I would say: You're surprised? Really?  I would suggest that surprise stems from adhering to otiose philosophies that are not based on sound science.

[Combat stress is] a disputed term that's not easily defined

I'm not sure who you think disputes the term. It certainly has been well studied, and the causes and behaviors associated with combat stress are well understood.

Presenting it as a psychological problem makes it seem like something that only happens to defective / abnormal soldiers...

...I disagree that this story is about psychology - I think that what's interesting is that an issue that is a fundamental contradiction in the classical liberal paradigm (the inherent violence of the law versus the liberal desire to remove violence from politics, and the amoral nature of the law) is being framed as a psychological problem

On the contrary, presenting combat stress as a psychological problem is the only way that makes any sense. The behaviors we are talking about are normal, and should be approached using standard psychological tools. Approaching the issue as being one of political philosophy is absurd, and can only lead to bad conclusions and bad policy.

To the extent that reality contradicts "the classical liberal paradigm" the only logical conclusion one can draw is that "the classical liberal paradigm" is wrong.

To the extent that reality contradicts "the classical liberal paradigm" the only logical conclusion one can draw is that "the classical liberal paradigm" is wrong.

I agree - but doesn't that trouble you? The governments of every Western country, and the guiding political philosophies of all of those countries, are based in large part on that very classical liberal paradigm. If it is impossible to defend, perhaps we have a problem?

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

...the guiding political philosophies of all of those countries, are based in large part on that very classical liberal paradigm. If it is impossible to defend, perhaps we have a problem?

You seem to be very selectively reading my comments - only the parts that you think support your thesis. As I explained above, the mental health report that we are discussing can only be understood from a psychological standpoint; political philosophy is useless here. (Or did one of the philosophers you mentioned claim that the social contract applies in all situations*, including in situations where people are trying to kill you every day? )

Let me put it to you another way. Criminals exist in even the most lawful Western societies. Does the fact that some people are willing, even eager, to break the law suddenly undermine any philosophical basis for government and laws?

*There is, of course, a type of social contract at work in the military: some of the findings of the mental health survey are clear evidence of that.

Let me put it to you another way. Criminals exist in even the most lawful Western societies. Does the fact that some people are willing, even eager, to break the law suddenly undermine any philosophical basis for government and laws?

It's not that it undermines any basis for government and laws, but rather that crime (or, more to the point, the use of state violence to suppress crime) challenges liberalism in a way that can only be dealt with in an illiberal manner.  Your question deserves a longer response, but I don't have the time to write it at the moment.  The wikipedia entries on Foucalt's Discipline and Punish (particularly the idea of the self-disciplining subject) and Agamben's work can give you an idea of where I'm coming from with this.  Personally, I don't reject liberal ideals, but I do think that there's something substantial to the modern critique of them that can't simply be ignored - yet at the same time, I find most "solutions" to be lacking and quite pie-in-the-sky.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

...crime (or, more to the point, the use of state violence to suppress crime) challenges liberalism in a way that can only be dealt with in an illiberal manner

I think it bears repeating: to the extent that reality contradicts "the classical liberal paradigm" the only logical conclusion one can draw is that "the classical liberal paradigm" is wrong. There are several facets of liberalism that are deeply flawed, and you have identified one of them. Perhaps that means all of liberalism collapses into a heap of immature, utopian, sentimental good intentions. Or perhaps the tattered shreds of liberal philosophy can by saved and incorporated into a more realistic paradigm. I'll leave that for you to decide.

Maybe I'm not really adhering to classical liberal thought, but I've got to think "compassionate liberalism" is aware of the necessity of force in certain situations...abortion, euthanasia...I've got to think there's no problem with being "liberal" and holding that judicious use of force is a necessary part of the political equation.

I'm not necessarily trying to argue for the correctness of an -ism here. War is sometimes necessary but I don't think attrocities are. If "conservatism" pushes from the attrocities are cool side and "liberalism" pushes from the war is not ok side, then I think the training of our soldiers should be able to find a "war with limited attrocities" middle ground.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

...I've got to think "compassionate liberalism" is aware of the necessity of force in certain situations...

What the hell is "compassionate liberalism"?

...the training of our soldiers should be able to find a "war with limited attrocities" middle ground

Which is exactly where we are, don't you think?

What the hell is "compassionate liberalism"?

some shit I made up.

Which is exactly where we are, don't you think?

I think our military is there but I think our current executive administration was actively hindering its attempts in this direction, at least until Rumsfeld stepped down. The man was actively in favor of electro-fried testicles. Leadership comes from the top as us conservatives like to say.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

Criticisms or defenses of the write-up aside, I think it's a key question to our military's political effectiveness -- that "our most highly trained troops, when placed under 'combat stress', seem willing to act..." in morally unjustifiable ways -- if you accept that "war is politics by other means" or "politics is war by other means" or whatever. Less morally complex governments like say Hitler's Germany or those of the 90's Serbian conflict exacted war crimes that were of the top-down type. Theoretically, at least, that isn't the aim of our military. Yet at the ground level, there are these types of "savage" incidents. Say what you will about an individual soldier's ability to defend him or herself but we are employing them to carry out our political will by other means. If their misteps are setting us back in our aims, which in the case of fighting terror I believe they are, then the question I think that we as a society should study then is are these misteps avoidable?

During earlier conflicts, like WWII there were studies done which showed that a shockingly low percentage of the troops ever fired their guns even when fired upon. As late as Vietnam the numbers were still very low. That led to a changes training, training that has become much more effective in turning our soldiers into killing machines. The question of how do you turn that off is a very important one.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

If their misteps are setting us back in our aims, which in the case of fighting terror I believe they are, then the question I think that we as a society should study then is are these misteps avoidable?

I am going to make a broad prediction (feel free to tell me why I am wrong): No matter what sort of society-wide hand-wringing that goes on between this war and the next one, and no matter what sort of additional or modified training that "our most highly trained troops" are subjected to in the interim, the next time US forces are engaged in a prolonged war there will be appalling lapses in battlefield ethics. There will be murders and rapes and mistreatment of civilians. There will be torture, even of innocents. There will be casual attitudes about killing, even among Americans who, under other circumstances, would be considered really nice guys.

Our political missteps are, in short, unavoidable.

...training that has become much more effective in turning our soldiers into killing machines. The question of how do you turn that off is a very important one

Indeed. But the answer to the question cannot be found in liberal political philosophy.

"During earlier conflicts, like WWII there were studies done which showed that a shockingly low percentage of the troops ever fired their guns even when fired upon. As late as Vietnam the numbers were still very low."

What's your source for this? S.L.A. Marshall? More recent   studies suggest otherwise.

As for  ""savage" incidents" and "killing machines", from what I can tell there's no equivalance in what's happened in Iraq/Afghanistan and, for example, WWII (and i'm not just talking about how the Air Force has behaved). The difference is today minor incidents get media coverage, while at the same time incidents from WWII have been forgotten/glossed over.

Just my recollection from a history or warfare class I took like 8 years ago but if I have the chance today, I will try to google it up. I'll admit I could be hazy on the vietnam details but I'm positive of the overall findings.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

We are talking about terrorists.  Terrorists set off explosives (car bombs, vest bombs, roadside bombs, whatever) in crowds of people.  They set these bombs off in crowded marketplaces, in restaurants, at  bus stops, anywhere they find large numbers of people.  They have attacked mosques, hospitals, all sorts of places that have no military relevance.  They do not care WHO may be in the crowds that they attack, because to them, everybody is a legitimate target.  No person could possibly be so innocent and inoffensive that terrorists would refrain from killing him or her - most of the time the terrorists don't even know whom they are killing.  The identity of the victims is irrelevant, the point is just to kill lots of people.  They have kidnapped foreign aid workers and in some cases killed them (or people working with them) when these people have had the supreme generosity to come to their country to donate their time and efforts just to help people who are desperately in need of help.  Large numbers of journalists have been murdered, when all that those journalists were trying to do was to help the public to know what is actually happening.

So, do the terrorists struggle with their consciences and have agonized internal debates about killing people?  Perhaps some do, probably most do not, but in any event, the outcome is the same.  They are causing tremendous and indiscriminate carnage.  Are they still human beings with the same hopes and aspirations, human feelings, capability of compassion and love for their families and comrades as everybody else?  Do their hearts thrill at the sight of a beautiful sunset?  Do they have a deep love of poetry?  Sure, but that's not the point.  My point is that they are very ruthless, and they are prepared to kill absolutely anybody, which clearly is the case, based upon their observed actions.  There is no point denying it.  

Terrorists are not supernatural monsters.  They are human beings.  In my original comment I pointed out that the problems we are now facing with terrorism are the result of a long series of foreign policy errors made by the US following WW II.  Terrorists are people who are caught up in global problems that they do not really understand.  They are desperate people who believe that they have no options left other than violence.   In better circumstances, these same people could in most cases be productive and responsible members of society, who would be an asset to their community.  They are not he basic cause of the problem.  They have been manipulated by various political and religious leaders in a very cynical manner.  They are also victims.  But none of that alters the fact that as I said, they are prepared to kill absolutely anybody.  They prove this on a daily basis.  And despite your kind words about them, they would happily kill you as well.