Aggression

The discussion of the war crime of aggression has been long; it is still perhaps of interest. I’m going to post a series of photographs of philosopher Michael Walzer’s arguments about it.* I don’t intend this as an endorsement of his position, only an attempt to inform our discussion with what might be called the standard position of contemporary Just War Theory. 

Marriage among the Young

AVI linked an interesting discussion of the forces pulling young people away from marriage. The study attempts balance, but I think it is broadly describing the value of marriage in terms of female happiness. It's ready to grant the value of feminist criticisms of marriage's fairness and desirability; the counterpoint the study makes is that all the data on happiness, as opposed to fairness, points to women being very much happier if they marry.

Our research at the Institute for Family Studies routinely reveals that the women in America who are forging the most meaningful and happy lives are married mothers. In fact, married mothers are nearly twice as likely to be “very happy” with their lives as their single, childless peers.

And while marriage rates increasingly fall along ideological lines, female happiness doesn’t: the newest data show that married liberal women with children are now a staggering 30 percentage points more likely to say they are “very happy” or “pretty happy” than liberal women who are single and childless. What’s even more striking is the trend among prime-aged women 25 to 55: happiness among single, childless liberal women has plummeted since “the Great Awokening” of the last decade while it remains high for their peers who have managed to marry and have a family. The tragic irony is that the very group of women who are most likely to think marriage and family are an obstacle to happiness—women on the left—are less happy than their peers on the right, in part, because they are less likely to be married with children.

They don't really consider the perspective of the young men, whom they chiefly describe in terms of the female complaints against them. They do add some context about how the same forces making young men less marriageable are also making young women so in other ways, which is an attempt at balance, but they don't entertain any of the expected perspectives about how marriage is a bad deal for men.  

I realize that the advocates for that position are often bitter, angry, or otherwise unlikeable figures. However, there's an important aspect of the problem that they have identified, one that is persuasive to a lot of young men. The institution of marriage has inherited very high guardrails to protect the interests of the mothers and children that it is expected to produce. In an era in which women initiate most of the divorces, however, these guardrails have not been rebalanced to protect the interests of the men who join the institution. A man wagers his lifetime capacity to earn a decent living disproportionately, while the odds of him getting to retain access to the children the marriage produces is also greatly unbalanced. There's something like a 50/50 shot that he'll end up without his children while subjected to punishing alimony and child support payments to a woman who decided to cheat on him and leave him. 

The zero-sum-game aspect of any rebalancing on that score means that making marriage more attractive to young men would make it less attractive to young women. That's a hard problem not tackled by the article.

Another serious problem is their treatment of the question in terms of the parents' happiness. Marriage's basic value as an institution is that it sets up an environment in which child rearing is more stable: marriage is not really about the good of the parents but about the good of the children, in other words. That it makes the women happier is well-studied and adequately demonstrated, but also beside the point. The point is that men and women who have sex are likely to produce children, and those children need to be supported, educated, and fitted out to join society over the course of decades. An enduring institution that achieves that most difficult of tasks is necessary for humanity's continuance. 

Thus, this sort of commentary is entirely missing the point:

The nature and content of digital offerings are degrading men’s marriageability and women’s, especially liberal women’s, interest in putting a ring on it. Neither sex is developing the capacity to embrace self-sacrifice or long-suffering commitment, precisely the virtues which marriage requires. They’re also what makes marriage so life-giving, character building and personally gratifying. Psychologists have long documented this paradox: deep, lasting happiness is much more strongly tied to meaning than it is to pleasure. 

No doubt, if you are selling marriage in terms of happiness, "self-sacrifice" and "long-suffering" as requirements are going to make the whole project seem like insanity. It may in fact actually produce happiness as well, but it doesn't seem likely to; and all of us who have been married a long time will attest that self-sacrifice and long-suffering are in fact highly accurate descriptions (both for ourselves and our spouses!).

Very likely the real problem is that the institution is failing because it no longer fits the civilization we've evolved into. I don't know how you sustain marriage in a civilization that treats the children as trivial non-considerations, and the 'happiness of the adults' as the only thing that matters. 

Who gives a damn if the parents are happy? It turns out they will be, more likely than if they remain unmarried; but that's not the point at all. It's just a good thing that falls out of it, as the old virtue of chivalry -- the quality that allows a man to tame a horse and ride it to war -- happens to produce gentlemen who can treat women better than other men normally do. That's good, but the point wasn't the gentle treatment of women: the point was the cavalry. 

By that token, if you don't have horses anymore you won't get much chivalry; and if you don't care about the children predominantly, marriage is going to fail. Slowly, as chivalry did, but surely, all the same.

Cowpens

In a discussion of 'America's art of war,' historian VDH notes: 

[T]hroughout the American Revolution, Patriots exhibited a singular ability to create their own capable military forces ex nihilo. And they ingeniously supplied and equipped local militias in addition to their eventual establishment of a Europeanized and professional army.... [T}he spirited “army” that began the war at Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill in 1775 bore little resemblance to the multifaceted and lethal military that defeated the British at Cowpens and at Yorktown in 1781 to end the war.

I've walked the battlefield at Cowpens, which isn't all that far from here. 

It was in fact a combination of untrained militia similar to the Lexington and Concord forces and hardened militia from Maryland, Delaware, Georgia, and Virginia that was key to the victory there. The Continental commander, Brigadier General Daniel Morgan, deployed these forces in an innovative manner, similar to the Zulu "bull's horn formation" that was developed some years later and deployed against (also) the British in Africa. 

Specifically, Morgan deployed the unblooded irregulars in two lines at the very front of his formation, and the hardened militia in two mutually-reinforcing lines closer to his command position. He did this between two rivers, which created a funnel that couldn't be avoided. As he anticipated, the first two lines quickly broke and withdrew in the appearance of a rout. Because they couldn't flee in any direction except towards his stiffer lines, they fled towards his hardened units. This drew the British cavalry into a charge against what they thought was a rout that separated them from the rest of their forces. 

When they hit the hardened infantry, they were defeated in detail -- indeed, slaughtered so thoroughly that the unit couldn't be reconstituted, the few survivors having to be broken up and sent to other units. The Continental forces then charged with bayonets, capturing two cannons, forcing the surrender of a Highlander unit, and causing what remained of the British cavalry to flee and the rest to withdraw in the best order they could manage. 

This followed the victory of the "Overmountain Men" at King's Mountain (the town of which is in North Carolina, also relatively nearby, but the battle a few miles south in South Carolina) and led to the ultimate victory at Yorktown, as this whole wing of the British Army in the South was crippled and had to withdraw to Cornwallis' forces. Quoting Wikipedia:

Along with the Loyalist defeat at Kings Mountain, Cowpens was a serious blow to Cornwallis, who might have defeated much of the remaining American troops in South Carolina had Tarleton won at Cowpens. Instead, the battle set in motion a series of events leading to the end of the war. Cornwallis abandoned his pacification efforts in South Carolina, stripped his army of its excess baggage, and pursued Greene's force into North Carolina. Skirmishes occurred at the Catawba River (including the Battle of Cowan's Ford on February 1, 1781) and other fords. Yet, after a long chase Cornwallis met Greene at the Battle of Guilford Court House, winning a victory but so weakening his army that he withdrew to Wilmington to rest and refit. Later, when Cornwallis went into Virginia, Washington and his French ally Rochambeau, seized this opportunity to trap and defeat him at the siege of Yorktown, which caused the British to seek peace terms with the Americans that would acknowledge the United States' independence.

In the opinion of John Marshall, "Seldom has a battle, in which greater numbers were not engaged, been so important in its consequences as that of Cowpens." It gave Greene his chance to conduct a campaign of "dazzling shiftiness" that led Cornwallis by "an unbroken chain of consequences to the catastrophe at Yorktown which finally separated America from the British crown".

"You Can Still Hunt"

In nearby Canada, allegedly soon to be the 51st state, the 2nd Amendment doesn't yet apply. 

I did see someone comment the other day: "The government will never ban your hunting rifle. They'll call it a 'sniper rifle' first."

Yuletide

The Winter Solstice was today; we are in winter true from about ten o'clock in the morning local time.

Christmas is still a little ways off. The Yuletide starts a few days before the Christmastide. 

The Hall Alit

More Shenanigans

Once again Blogger has been moving comments from regulars to the Spam folder. Eric Hines alerted me to the matter, and I found that a number of valued regulars had commented but had them vanish. We seem to have rounds of this irregularly, for reasons that Alphabet leaves opaque but would probably blame on AI if there were any way to ask them. 

If this happens to you, please let me know. I can restore them, and have, if they’ve been sent to Spam. 

A Happier Story

Separated from her family and lost since Hurricane Helene, local cat Gabby was reunited with her family thanks to a microchip. 

Georgia 2020

I told you it was stolen way back when (as did Rasmussen, and 2022 didn't look clean either). At least the documentation is finally following; it would be nice if people came to realize how crooked this system really is. 

Massive scandal: 

Fulton County admits they "violated" the rules in 2020 when they certified ≈315K early votes that lacked poll workers' signatures 

"We don't dispute the allegation."

Here's the map:

Fulton County reported at 72% for Biden; even more in neighboring Dekalb County. Wikipedia notes that this was the first time that anyone had broken 70% in Fulton County since FDR did it 1944, at the height of the war when Georgia was part of the "Solid South." Here's what that map looked like, when FDR did it, for comparison.

So FDR in '44 I buy. It's a plausible result. 2020 was plainly stolen.

Acts of War and War Crimes

The field that likes to call itself "international law" has rules that are functionally guidelines ignored by the powerful. It has rules even if it lacks any power to enforce them on anyone. This makes them a laughingstock, but they seem devoted to the project even if it never goes anywhere. (One might think of the devotees of Esperanto as a world language on similar terms.) 

We're getting a chance to observe this right now as the Trump administration commits acts of war against Venezuela. These are not necessarily crimes in any sense, even the 'international law' sense: nations are permitted to conduct wars against each other. A blockade of Venezuela is by definition an act of war; it isn't obviously a crime. 

However, blockades can become crimes -- either war crimes or crimes against humanity -- if they meet certain criteria. Although otherwise legal, there are limits in the rules as to how the nations are allowed to fight. 

Meanwhile, the imposition of the blockade by the United States in order to extract control of Venezuela's oil fields -- which the President outright says is his intention -- may be an act of aggression. Aggression is a crime, indeed in some sense it is the crime, under the international laws of war. The only argument against this being US aggression is that Venezuela decades ago nationalized oil fields that US companies had developed, which the President describes as theft (as, indeed, it was; but nations are permitted to steal, too, at least things in their own territories). So far none of these companies are agreeing to take back their old facilities even if the President can extract them by blockade or other force. What happens if you conquer an oil field and nobody will operate it? 

An aside: Venezuela asked for a UN Security Council emergency meeting to discuss the charge of US aggression, which led to a rather laughable display by the Chinese Communist government, backing Venezuela's play: 

“China supports Venezuela’s request to convene an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun told a news conference in Beijing.

Guo said China “opposes all forms of unilateral bullying and supports countries in safeguarding their sovereignty and national dignity,” according to the Beijing-based daily Global Times.

Yes, famously; tell it to the Philippines, to say nothing of Taiwan. Tibet and the Uighur have their national aspirations suppressed genocidally, but sure. Still, just because the Chinese government are hypocrites doesn't mean they're not right that the US is engaging in the war crime of aggression here: very likely the administration is committing that crime before our eyes. 

To return to the discussion: Blowing up Venezuelan-based cartel smugglers is not necessarily an act of war, since it's aimed at stateless actors not clearly aligned with any government. There is some discussion of whether it is nevertheless a war crime. It might seem strange that an act of non-war could be a war crime, and there's only a narrow path to finding it so, but that's where you end up with 'international law.' 

It seems very likely to me that the Trump administration is committing the war crime of aggression by blockading Venezuela; it is certainly already committing acts of war against Venezuela, which means that even absent a declaration we are already at war with Venezuela. That doesn't matter legally, since the United States is a permanent member of the Security Council and will certainly veto any attempt to hold it responsible for doing so. 

It merits notice, at least. We should at least speak the truth. These laws aren't really laws, and they're not enforceable, and the institutions that claim the power to enforce them are jokes at best; the diplomacy around it is hypocritical to the point of being ridiculous. Nevertheless, it does look as if the US is committing an act of war that is a war crime against a nation that has not in fact attacked us in any way that would violate the rules. 

Custody agreement done

In my neighbor's custody case, mom, dad, and grandma have all signed an agreed order giving custody to grandma and arranging for the minimal child support that is all the unemployed mom and dad can afford. Dad's auxiliary disability benefits for his daughter have been duly transferred to grandma. Dad continues to show signs of good faith in reconciling with his alarmed daughter, and she's very willing to try, as well, as long as he's not threatening to remove her from grandma's home. I can't say enough good things about grandma's family lawyer, who was worth every penny.

The granddaughter turned 14 a few weeks ago. In four years, she'll be past even the threat of this kind of thing.

Two Articles on Military Change

Reportedly the US military is about to make a major adjustment to the Combatant Command structure, one that aligns with the Trump administration's view of foreign policy. 

If adopted, the plan would usher in some of the most significant changes at the military’s highest ranks in decades, in part following through on Hegseth’s promise to break the status quo and slash the number of four-star generals in the military. It would reduce in prominence the headquarters of U.S. Central Command, U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command by placing them under the control of a new organization known as U.S. International Command, according to five people familiar with the matter....

The plan also calls for realigning U.S. Southern Command and U.S. Northern Command, which oversee military operations throughout the Western Hemisphere, under a new headquarters to be known as U.S. Americas Command, or Americom, people familiar with the matter said... Combined, the moves would reduce the number of top military headquarters — known as combatant commands — from 11 to eight while cutting the number of four-star generals and admirals who report directly to Hegseth. Other remaining combatant commands would be U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, U.S. Cyber Command, U.S. Special Operations Command, U.S. Space Command, U.S. Strategic Command and U.S. Transportation Command.

USEUCOM and USAFRICOM used to be one command, and are both still co-located in Stuttgart, Germany. AFRICOM remains small, and won't be a particular problem to re-integrate. 

That's not true for USCENTCOM. I used to work at Central Command years ago. It is a huge headquarters, really a whole compound of various buildings and trailers on MacDill AFB near Tampa. They also have a forward deployed headquarters at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. Trying to integrate that monster into an even larger command with massive responsibilities is going to be a fun exercise. 

I wonder if this is the latest version of the 'pivot to Asia' we've been hearing about since the Obama terms, which the military has found difficult to actualize. I notice that USINDOPACOM is not on the chopping block; if the idea is to radically shrink our commitments in the Middle East and Europe, we could focus on the Western hemisphere and on keeping China hemmed in behind the first island chain.

Separately, another article that came to my attention was a significant re-thinking of information warfare by the US Army. It was published in Small Wars Journal. Very long-time readers will remember that I wrote for SWJ in 2007, as an embedded correspondent with Special Operations forces conducting combat operations against the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and Abu Sayyaf. Since then SWJ joined the Foundation for Defense of Democracies for a long stint, but now is no longer there: they've moved out to Arizona State University since the death of their founder, Dave Dillege (another name that long-timer readers will recognize). It's good to see the US Army is using them to release major publications; clearly the move out of the Swamp hasn't hurt their influence in the community. 

The problem they're talking about is one I wrote about extensively during the Security Studies Group era; it's a problem that is bigger than the Army, too. If this latest reshuffle solves every problem the Army has (which is likely won't, though it may improve things), the USG will still have significant issues coordinating its information warfare efforts. If you want a brief introduction to the problem, this panel on Russian disinformation efforts opens with a short talk on that topic. 

No Whining

Here is a poem that occurred to me this morning as I awoke from a dream. I don't recall the dream, as I usually do not, but I assume someone was annoying me with whining in it given the content of the verse I woke up with today.

I’m tired of whiny people
No matter how many there be;
It doesn’t matter if one or two
A half a dozen or quite a slew;
It doesn’t matter if there’s only three
Their whining does not interest me.

The Pardoner's Tale

Technically, we all received a Federal pardon today.

I never expected to receive a Presidential pardon, but I once knew a man who had received one. Dewey Clarridge was quite proud of his. He kept it framed on the wall of his house all the days of his life. 

Australia

Not a great start to Hannukah, but the hero who wrestled a gun out of the hands of the killers was also a Muslim. Islam is a false religion, and Muhammad is no prophet but a liar; but all the same, good men are sometimes Muslims. It happens fairly often, as good men occur everywhere that there are men.

UPDATE: Of course. It's the only way the ratchet is allowed to turn. Strip the people of power, make them weak and submissive before the State, and refuse to acknowledge the truth.

UPDATE: There were in fact four men (3 men and one heroic woman, as Tom points out in the comments) who attempted what only one succeeded in doing. Three died in the attempt. Such gallantry should never be forgotten.