Yeah and as with a lot of the West Wing this storyline is a critique of the Clinton administration and their response to Rwanda which was shaped by the wake of Somalia (Black Hawk Down etc.).
I used to re-watch The West Wing once a year and then after 2016 I stopped cold turkey. It was just too hopeful and of a different era. It's been really nice to re-visit it with you guys. That being said, this episode gave me that same stomach twisting feeling considering it's about genocide and how our government is currently reacting to it.
Something to add on the post reaction takes you came with. You mentioned economics was a big part of it. But remmember that Yugoslavia was doing much bette rthan the rest of Eastern Europe, and some may even argue did better than Spain and Portugal at the time. Still somehow ended up with pretty much all sides comitting genocides against eachother.
America's history is also one of dictating foreign policy through our armed forces that has done little but increase hate towards this country. And unfortunately, the lesson we learned from Vietnam is that the American public has a threshold of how many soldiers we're willing to lose on foreign soil. But... boy, I think you read that last scene completely wrong. Wallowing in the tragedy doesn't accomplish anything. Maybe you can revisit that after part 2, especially when you were given the flash forward about a dramatic change in foreign policy.
I love the back and forth between the State Dept. guy and Will: This white house has to be careful about the use of force. It's a hostile congress. Well, personally I'd have no problem using force on congress. But that's not my call. ..... Are you rewriting the section? Yes, sir. Dramatically? Well, I like to think that I have a certain flair. He was letting people know that he could handle himself in "sticky" situations. He was told by Toby to have a bad conversation with the guy and that's exactly what happened. That part that made me laugh was shortly afterwards he was talking to Toby and Toby said something like what you're looking for won't just come in and announce itself and set down on the top of this pile. And that was exactly what ended up happening right after Toby said it. Will was letting people know that he wouldn't be pushed around on his principals and values but he wouldn't let that diminish his talent as a writer or what was expected of him as a staff member. Will goes 100% in everything he does no matter how major or minor it is.
I really think that you missed the context of the conversation between Leo and Hutchinson. It was a military conversation, not an ethnic or racial one. When he asks, “And that’s acceptable to you, in Kundu?”, he meant that a poor country (regardless of race) and a weak national army, should not have a 150,000 force depletion impact on the Greatest Military in the world (the US). Also, while the United States can influence other countries and aid in stopping horrific acts across the world, the President’s first priority is American Lives. A (insert foreign country here)’s life SHOULD be worth less than an American life. That’s what the UN is for.
@@VolrinSeth It absolutely should, because the implication is that if we are the best military force in the world, losing so many American troops against a poor nation, with limited resources and training, is UNACCEPTABLE. It’s part of why Vietnam was so devastating…yes it was a jungle war, but we were under the impression that we could win against a guerrilla army, in any terrain! We lost so many men, it destroyed our perception of our military strength, and it questioned our readiness.
@SixFour0391 You're comparing appels to oranges. The Vietnam war was to keep an American puppet in power. The conflict in this episode would be about preventing genocide.
@@VolrinSeth Regardless of the reason for the war, the outcome is what affects the perception of cost. Is preventing a genocide, worth the cost of American lives? I’m not commenting here to answer this question, only to provide the context to the discussion that MUST be had when preparing for war. It wasn’t about RACE. I think Leo made an erroneous assumption about Hutchinson’s meaning. Do we risk 150,000 American troops in a poor country, even to stop a genocide? Hutchinson’s point is he is questioning the absurd cost, and very little gain. Mortality is often the last option considered in WAR.
I know you are ahead on Patreon - do you guys post your UA-cam videos on Patreon as well? I know you post the full length watch-alongs, but I tend to stick with the shortened versions because of time. Just curious!
Just on the foreign policy element of this: atrocities like the one described is evidence as to why foreign policy is complicated and why I pay little credence to those that instinctually bemoan America as “the world’s policeman”. I’m not American - so perhaps one could make the case that I don’t have the skin in the game to make a pronouncement on the subject. However, whilst I acknowledge the pitfalls that exist with taking a hawkish posture - the brass tacks is that if America doesn’t intervene, no one will. The UN is a toothless organisation and history has shown that even when they can make a decision to intervene in a conflict, they turn tail as soon as any level of pressure is applied. The quandary is then if your position is that america shouldn’t act as “world policeman” and mind it’s own business, one must get comfortable very quickly with atrocities being carried out with impunity.
Something I never understood. This isn't the first time they had trouble from Secretary Hutchinson, he's obviously a thorn in Bartlett's side when it comes to Defense Dept issues. But, they had the entire Cabinet resign, so that the President could ask the people he wanted to stay into the second term...why didn't they show Hutchinson the door?
It's politics. Although the administration does not like Hutchinson, the Pentagon loves him so not hiring him would strain tensions. Also, he's a qualified Democrat who has respect in the military which cannot be extremely easy to find.
Me, personally, if I were in that situation, I'd ask to be sworn in on the US constitution or Bill of Rights... Or even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...
It is not a Genocide Genocide was coined to describe something so massive that nothing had ever been seen before. I can not stand to see such a word be devalued. This was based on what we did in Mogosishu and what we didn't do in Rwanda.
That's not what genocide means. The word has nothing to do with scale. Yes, the word was originally coined in relation to the Holocaust, but that doesn't mean a massacre of fewer than 6 million isn't genocide. Genocide means the systematic extermination of a national, racial, religious or ethnic group. If a recognised ethnic group consisting of only 100 people were all murdered because of their ethnicity, that would be a genocide by definition.
@@zakkrulez Well since that is not what israel is doing. I mean it is what Hamas wants to do to Israel. I find it rather in bad taste. Also Arabs are in no danger of being wiped off the earth.
Rwanda was the reference. It was horrific
Yeah and as with a lot of the West Wing this storyline is a critique of the Clinton administration and their response to Rwanda which was shaped by the wake of Somalia (Black Hawk Down etc.).
I used to re-watch The West Wing once a year and then after 2016 I stopped cold turkey. It was just too hopeful and of a different era. It's been really nice to re-visit it with you guys. That being said, this episode gave me that same stomach twisting feeling considering it's about genocide and how our government is currently reacting to it.
Something to add on the post reaction takes you came with. You mentioned economics was a big part of it. But remmember that Yugoslavia was doing much bette rthan the rest of Eastern Europe, and some may even argue did better than Spain and Portugal at the time. Still somehow ended up with pretty much all sides comitting genocides against eachother.
America's history is also one of dictating foreign policy through our armed forces that has done little but increase hate towards this country. And unfortunately, the lesson we learned from Vietnam is that the American public has a threshold of how many soldiers we're willing to lose on foreign soil.
But... boy, I think you read that last scene completely wrong. Wallowing in the tragedy doesn't accomplish anything. Maybe you can revisit that after part 2, especially when you were given the flash forward about a dramatic change in foreign policy.
I love the back and forth between the State Dept. guy and Will:
This white house has to be careful about the use of force. It's a hostile congress.
Well, personally I'd have no problem using force on congress. But that's not my call.
.....
Are you rewriting the section?
Yes, sir.
Dramatically?
Well, I like to think that I have a certain flair.
He was letting people know that he could handle himself in "sticky" situations. He was told by Toby to have a bad conversation with the guy and that's exactly what happened. That part that made me laugh was shortly afterwards he was talking to Toby and Toby said something like what you're looking for won't just come in and announce itself and set down on the top of this pile. And that was exactly what ended up happening right after Toby said it. Will was letting people know that he wouldn't be pushed around on his principals and values but he wouldn't let that diminish his talent as a writer or what was expected of him as a staff member. Will goes 100% in everything he does no matter how major or minor it is.
13 button trousers are on the enlisted winter dress uniform, Jack wouldn't wear this since he's an officer.
So how many buttons are on that one? (the officer dress uni)
I really think that you missed the context of the conversation between Leo and Hutchinson. It was a military conversation, not an ethnic or racial one.
When he asks, “And that’s acceptable to you, in Kundu?”, he meant that a poor country (regardless of race) and a weak national army, should not have a 150,000 force depletion impact on the Greatest Military in the world (the US).
Also, while the United States can influence other countries and aid in stopping horrific acts across the world, the President’s first priority is American Lives. A (insert foreign country here)’s life SHOULD be worth less than an American life. That’s what the UN is for.
If it is really about American lives, it should not matter whether the country is poor or not or weak or not.
@@VolrinSeth It absolutely should, because the implication is that if we are the best military force in the world, losing so many American troops against a poor nation, with limited resources and training, is UNACCEPTABLE. It’s part of why Vietnam was so devastating…yes it was a jungle war, but we were under the impression that we could win against a guerrilla army, in any terrain! We lost so many men, it destroyed our perception of our military strength, and it questioned our readiness.
@SixFour0391 You're comparing appels to oranges. The Vietnam war was to keep an American puppet in power. The conflict in this episode would be about preventing genocide.
@@VolrinSeth Regardless of the reason for the war, the outcome is what affects the perception of cost. Is preventing a genocide, worth the cost of American lives? I’m not commenting here to answer this question, only to provide the context to the discussion that MUST be had when preparing for war.
It wasn’t about RACE. I think Leo made an erroneous assumption about Hutchinson’s meaning. Do we risk 150,000 American troops in a poor country, even to stop a genocide? Hutchinson’s point is he is questioning the absurd cost, and very little gain. Mortality is often the last option considered in WAR.
I know you are ahead on Patreon - do you guys post your UA-cam videos on Patreon as well? I know you post the full length watch-alongs, but I tend to stick with the shortened versions because of time. Just curious!
Just on the foreign policy element of this: atrocities like the one described is evidence as to why foreign policy is complicated and why I pay little credence to those that instinctually bemoan America as “the world’s policeman”.
I’m not American - so perhaps one could make the case that I don’t have the skin in the game to make a pronouncement on the subject. However, whilst I acknowledge the pitfalls that exist with taking a hawkish posture - the brass tacks is that if America doesn’t intervene, no one will.
The UN is a toothless organisation and history has shown that even when they can make a decision to intervene in a conflict, they turn tail as soon as any level of pressure is applied.
The quandary is then if your position is that america shouldn’t act as “world policeman” and mind it’s own business, one must get comfortable very quickly with atrocities being carried out with impunity.
Can someone please link me to this podcast cause it sounds amazing!
The West Wing Weekly (it´s on spotify)
Something I never understood. This isn't the first time they had trouble from Secretary Hutchinson, he's obviously a thorn in Bartlett's side when it comes to Defense Dept issues. But, they had the entire Cabinet resign, so that the President could ask the people he wanted to stay into the second term...why didn't they show Hutchinson the door?
It's politics. Although the administration does not like Hutchinson, the Pentagon loves him so not hiring him would strain tensions. Also, he's a qualified Democrat who has respect in the military which cannot be extremely easy to find.
Or, you know, don't get sworn in on a bible...
Me, personally, if I were in that situation, I'd ask to be sworn in on the US constitution or Bill of Rights... Or even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...
For Kudu, see Gaza, see Rwanda.
Gaza is not Rwanda. I blame Hamas for Gaza.
It is not a Genocide Genocide was coined to describe something so massive that nothing had ever been seen before. I can not stand to see such a word be devalued. This was based on what we did in Mogosishu and what we didn't do in Rwanda.
That's not what genocide means. The word has nothing to do with scale. Yes, the word was originally coined in relation to the Holocaust, but that doesn't mean a massacre of fewer than 6 million isn't genocide. Genocide means the systematic extermination of a national, racial, religious or ethnic group. If a recognised ethnic group consisting of only 100 people were all murdered because of their ethnicity, that would be a genocide by definition.
@@zakkrulez Well since that is not what israel is doing. I mean it is what Hamas wants to do to Israel. I find it rather in bad taste. Also Arabs are in no danger of being wiped off the earth.