The U.S. and the Genocide in Rwanda 1994: Information, Intelligence and the U.S. Response

Ten Years On:

The Rwanda genocide took place ten years ago. George Washington University has released a new study, which includes access to newly declassified documents and previously unavailable insights. The study can be read here.

Its conclusions are mixed. The analysts were greatly impressed by the intelligence resources available to the Clinton Administration.

[C]onsiderable U.S. resources-diplomatic, intelligence and military-and sizable bureaucracies of the U.S. government-were trained on Rwanda. This system collected and analyzed information and sent it up to decision-makers so that all options could be properly considered and 'on the table'..... Despite Rwanda's low ranking in importance to U.S. interests, Clinton Administration officials had tremendous capacity to be informed--and were informed--about the slaughter there; as noted author Samantha Power writes "any failure to fully appreciate the genocide stemmed from political, moral, and imaginative weaknesses, not informational ones."

From the conclusion:

In sum, the routine-let alone crisis-performance of diplomats, intelligence officers and systems, and military and defense personnel yielded enough information for policy recommendations and decisions. That the Clinton Administration decided against intervention at any level was not for lack of knowledge of what was happening in Rwanda.

Why, then, did they choose not to act? Was it because they were "internationalists," and other countries had no interest in or will for intervention? The report does suggest this is part of the answer:

While some countries argued early for action, few actually ever brought any means to bear-the "lack of resources and political commitment" was "a failure by the United Nations system as a whole" as the Independent Inquiry on the UN noted. The U.S. did not encourage a UN response because it saw two potential outcomes: the authorization of a new UN force and a new mandate without the means to implement either; and worse, the very real possibility of the U.S. having to bail out a failed UN mission. For the recently-burned Clinton Administration, this looked like Somalia redux.

Finally, though, the blame falls on:

[T]he structure and personalities of U.S. decision-making during that late spring of 1994 when hundreds of thousands were killed as the U.S. and other nations stood by.

There are lessons here for the future. Intelligence is only part of the answer to any problem: "political, moral, and imaginative weakness" can undo even the best our Intelligence service careerists can provide. The Rwandan genocide is almost a mirror image of the Iraq invasion: the intelligence was spot on, and correctly interpreted and analyzed by the Administration. However, due to a lack of moral and political courage, as well as an inability to understand and use military force, the US (non)response allowed hundreds of thousands to die.

In Iraq, the intelligence was murky; the parts of the intelligence that were strongest were ignored by the Administration in favor of the parts that fit their own picture best; but their moral and political courage, and ability both to imagine a better future and the military means to bring it about, these things were unmatched in recent history. As a consequence, Rwanda ended in the worst genocide of recent decades; Iraq, though it is too soon to say it has ended, has emerged from war with the first chance at liberty and human freedom it has known.

There are those among you--Deuddersun, I recall, asked the question directly--who wonder how I can support George W. Bush in spite of his many mistakes and flaws. This is why.

KeepMedia | Esquire:Hired Guns

Life in the Mercenary Service:

Thanks to Doc Russia, I read this article from Esquire, entitled "Hired Guns."

The pay was good--up to almost $155,000 a year, most of it tax free, plus full expenses--but Iraq is a dangerous place to live. So dangerous that DynCorp also had to hire security contractors, many of them veterans of elite special-operations units in the U. S. military, to keep the cops from getting killed once they got there....

A moment later, we made our pit stop for guns. I was busy scribbling in my notebook when one of Kelly McCann's men, a former marine sniper named Shane Schmidt, walked over with an AK-47. Do you know how this works? he asked. I nodded. The week before, Kelly had shown me the basics on his firing range. (Designed by the Soviets to be effective in the hands of teenaged peasants, the Kalashnikov is not a complicated weapon.) Schmidt handed the gun to me. "Take care of it," he said. "If we get hit, don't panic. Collect your thoughts and shoot back."

He stepped back a foot and narrowed his eyes, sizing me up to see if I was the sort of person who might start pulling the trigger indiscriminately once trouble started. "Select your fire. You've got sixty rounds of Iraqi-made ammunition. That's it. Make each one count." I said I would, then racked a cartridge into the chamber, pushed the selector to safe, and got in the car.

It's not all guns and glory. Lots of contractors are back Stateside, where the taxes are outrageous and the guns are frequently banned by various levels of government. Still, there's work to be had if you've got the right skills. In addition to DynCorp, MPRI is a good opportunity if you're looking for this kind of work. There are some British outfits, too, including Sandline.

Tactical Information Operations

Tactical Information Operations:

Captain Daniel Morgan writes for Army Times on "lessons learned" in Iraq. He writes on everything, top to bottom, but the part that interests me most is how IO (Information Operations) play out at the company level.

Information operations are simple at the company level. IO has two purposes. First, you must distribute information to the people. Uninformed citizens in a country we just subjugated in war have the potential to demonstrate and possibly riot. You must inform them of your goals and actions. Second, IO involves not only passing out information, it requires the collection of information. The development of an informed populace and involvement of community leaders by a commander leads to information about hostile threats and benevolent projects.

The first step in CMO/IO [Civil-Military Operations / Information Operations] is to identify in priority areas to be funded for CMO. Simultaneously, commanders need situational understanding of the mindset of the sector. There are many TTPs that help in accomplishing this assessment. First, commanders need to determine who can help them. I broke my focal groups into business, education, political, and religious. Since we were the first forces into Mosul, Iraq, my soldiers and I had to get out into the streets and meet people. We developed a "list of influence" and began developing relationships.

On 13 September 2003, one of my platoons was ambushed, wounding three of my soldiers. The platoon was ambushed in a congested urban area with narrow alleys. After linking up with the platoon and conducting an aerial medical evacuation, a member of an Iraqi political party called me and said he saw the ambush and knew the attackers. The attackers were not home, but these men watched the houses of the attackers for 48 hours. They called me at 0200 to inform me they were home. The brigade commander gave us approval to conduct a cordon and search. We infiltrated the neighborhood, linked up with our "informants," and grabbed the attacker. This ambush cost the leg of one of my soldiers and through relationships we caught the culprit.

Leaders must understand the environment prior to committing blindly to some CMO plan. I had no true understanding of the mindset of the citizens in my sector. In addition, there were no performance measures of effectiveness to determine any success we were having in our efforts. Consequently, I developed a survey of attitudes and needs in Arabic that was common across all my sub-sectors. My soldiers hated this at first, but in the end we saw where we needed to be and what we needed to do. This situational understanding is vital to CMO/IO.

I imagine most bloggers think of IO as being propaganda and disinformation, played at the wide strategic level. It's that too, of course, but it is integrated into US military competency all the way to the ground.

Hat tip: Chapomatic.

Grim's Hall

Send the Texas Rangers!

The Sage of Knoxville has a post up excoriating MSNBC for a fairly pathetic mistake:

BUSH CAN'T GET A BREAK: Now he's being blamed for not invading Afghanistan in 1998! Here's the relevant passage from MSNBC:

The report revealed that in a previously undisclosed secret diplomatic mission, Saudi Arabia won a commitment from the Taliban to expel bin Laden in 1998. But a clash between the Taliban's leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, and Saudi officials scuttled the arrangement, and Bush did not follow up.

Damn him -- governing Texas while Rome burned! Why didn't he send the Texas Rangers to finish off Bin Laden? ("One mullah, one Ranger!")

This seems like a good time to point out that I've been arguing for using The Texas Rangers in Afghanistan for quite a while. I think they're an excellent model for the challenges faced in that particular part of the world (see also this piece). Those articles were from August, but in the months since, the challenges haven't changed.

ParaPundit on Clarke

On Clarke:

ParaPundit has a good post up examining the Clarke claims. My own sense is that they're probably mostly fair. Certainly the impulse to stovepipe--that is, to hear only those parts of the intel picture that support the world view you brought to the table--is one of the biggest challenges in intelligence work. It takes years to get good at this, and an administration lasts only a short four, or eight on the outside. On this topic, I wrote elsewhere:

[T]he administration has several known intel sources, all of which are large corporate bodies of professional men who are devoted to improving their product.

Intel failures are nothing new (see Soviet Union, Unexpected Collapse of the), and in fact, they're part of the game. Still, when you've got several structures in competition (CIA/DIA, for example), with internal procedures to try and filter and improve information, you've got something a bit better than what Ijaz is drawing upon. It's still going to have some glowing failures, intel being intel.

I hope that the civilians in the Bush administration have been learning from their mistakes, of which there have been some several. I'm not sure the situation can be improved by introducing a new crowd of people with a similar ideological bent, who will have to relearn all those lessons about stovepiping... the very ones Clarke is complaining about. But of course, one never knows--it could be that Bush administrators don't learn, or that Kerry could put together a team that would be too wise to make those mistakes.

Human nature being what it is, I doubt either proposition is entirely true. Still, this kind of stovepiping will happen given the amateur nature of our leadership (a four- or even eight- year administration is just really getting good at things by the time it has to vacate office); as a consequence, the best we can do is try to pick people who will tend to stovepipe in the least harmful ways.

For myself, I'd rather have a president at this juncture whose instinct is to go for the throat when it isn't warranted, than one whose instinct is to hang back until a threat is proven beyond a doubt. Others may prefer the one who will insist on proof, and indeed, they may even be right. When the topic is terrorism, I suppose I am distracted by visions of what form that proof might take.

All that said, we as free citizens who love the Republic must be honest and admit that there have been some stiff intel failures. Clarke's claims may be a bit overblown, but they are probably accurate at base: some stovepiping probably did go on with Bush and his close advisors. We can hope they've learned, but like all nature, human nature: Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret. That is, "You can drive nature out with a pitchfork, but she always comes back in." The only defense--and it is an especially poor one--is to try to make sure the people who are doing the stovepiping are bringing the right instincts to the table.

AnAmericanSoldier

An American Soldier:

Welcome to new Milblog An American Soldier. It's apparently run by a US Army Drill Sergeant, which was my own father's profession once. It's an interesting site, although I am a bit shocked to learn that the Army has adopted Brazilian Jiu Jitsu as its close-combat form, and I wonder at the assertion that the Marines 'are not really a self-sustaining force'; but we'll let it go for now in brotherly friendship. If you do drop by, check out the short history of the Seventh Cavalry, which includes the following bit of poetics:

Let Bacchus' sons be not dismayed
But join with me, each jovial blade
Come, drink and sing and lend your aid
To help me with the chorus:

Chorus
Instead of spa, we'll drink brown ale
And pay the reckoning on the nail;
No man for debt shall go to jail
From Garryowen in glory.

We'll beat the bailiffs out of fun,
We'll make the mayor and sheriffs run
We are the boys no man dares dun
If he regards a whole skin.

It'd be fun to know just how many of the great songs of America were originally bawdy drinking ballads to which we just set new words.

The Corner on National Review Online

Killing the Enemy v. Not Stirring Them Up:

Over at The Corner, Brit expatriates John Derbyshire (now a naturalized US citizen) and Andrew Stuttaford are having this conversation. I'm firmly in the "kill the enemy" camp. I realize that harsh acts of war do stir up the enemy and improve their recruitment--at least at first. Yet, as a son of the South, I also know that it's only Sherman's March that defeats. You have to keep up the pressure until the enemy does the worst he can do, and still breaks. That is the only road to victory.

Honorable persons in the other camp believe that victory is not necessary, and that peace can be had through negotiation. Well enough, if in fact it's true. For Israel facing Hamas--or for the West, facing Islamism--I'm not sure that it can be. The evidence points strongly in the other direction.

FreeSpeech.com

Sudanese Pharms:

Over at FreeSpeech there are several debates going on about Clarke and his credibility. One topic that keeps coming up is the destruction of the Sudanese Pharmecutical plant by cruise missile strike. After a few comments from the resident Canadian antiwarrior, I noted this:

This is, of course, why it's important to have a President or, at least, a SECDEF who understands the military's capabilities as they relate to intel issues. If they were sure this factory was producing chemical weapons for terrorists, the thing to do was to deploy a MEU(SOC) to take control of it, and have DIA sift through the records and equipment for intel and evidence. Then, if it's a real terrorist source, you get all kinds of useful information--and if it's an asprin factory, you still have an asprin factory.

Of course, there's a chance some Marines could be killed using this approach, unlike with the cruise missiles. But, on the other hand, there's much less chance of noncombatants being killed (as well as lowering the likelihood of people dying from absent medications), and protecting the lives of noncombatants is one of the moral duties when using military force. Marines are professionals, and they understand that duty.

Unfortunately, the politicians decided they'd rather kill some faceless Sudanese than risk front page headlines about dead American fighting men. Our intel on this topic is poorer as a result, and the anti-American legions have a talking point too.

I should reiterate that it isn't just understanding, but moral courage that is needed here. We've got the best fighting men in the world, and like everyone who is really good at something, they love what they do. They're willing to take risks to be sure it gets done right, and so the innocent don't suffer--the big lesson of the Iraq war was just what huge lengths our fighters go to in order to avoid harming the noncombatants. This is a confluence of the practical and the moral--but unhappily, no one with the courage or understanding to seize the moment was at the tiller.

Samizdata.net

Socialists & Terror:

Sovay points to the Spanish Socialist government's statements on terrorism, which is to be their "absolute priority," although Zapatero maintains that "We can't win against terrorism or rout it through wars, (which) are never an efficient way of eliminating or combatting groups of fanatics, radicals and criminals." Sovay notes approvingly that this approach "may not be as macho as the methods the Bush administration prefers[.]"

Meanwhile, Antoine Clarke at Samizdata reminds us of the methods used by the last Spanish Socialist government:

GAL was the name assumed by a anti-ETA terror group in the 1980s that entered France and murdered ETA members and supporters. I no longer have the details but there was a spate of terrorist attacks on Basques living in the Bordeaux area, as well as closer to the Spanish border.

Following the arrest of several GAL members it transpired that they were all either members of law-enforcement agencies and the armed forces, or recently had been. It later emerged that the money to finance GAL came from the Ministry of the Interior and was signed off ultimately by the Minister. Whilst the Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez himself was never proven by documentary evidence to have sanctioned the GAL death squad, let me just say that if he ever wins a libel action on the issue, I will be amazed.

Two things are worth noting, firstly that both the French and Spanish governments were under Socialist control at the time, second that Spanish public opinion was firmly on the side of the death squads[.]

Mr. Clark finishes, "There is a strand of Western Socialist thought that takes the secular State seriously. I seriously doubt if there will be any safe-haven for Islamist terrorists in Spain for the forseeable future." If this is what Zapatero has in mind, I think this may be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

IMRA - Monday, March 22, 2004 Background: Marginal Cost Of Post-Yassin Attacks Zero?

Economics:

I have considered this proposal, which I saw on Allah's blog, for a little while now. Considered coldly as an economic question, I can't see anything wrong with the logic.

There is every expectation that the killing today of Ahmed Yassin, head of
the Hamas terrorist organization, may lead for the various terrorist
organizations to make a maximum effort to carry out a "reprisal" attack or attacks.

With the killing of Yassin, Israel's decision makers find themselves in the curious situation that the marginal cost of killing more terrorist leaders in the coming days, at least in terms of terrorist response, is zero - and probably negative as the killing of additional terrorist leaders could disrupt terror operations.

Considered as a question of military science--the same. Unless the actions against terror groups bring actual state actors into the fray, escalation is not now possible. Which state actors would involve themselves in this fight? Syria? Lebanon? Both border Iraq, where the 101st Airborne and 1st Marines are currently stationed. Declaring yourself outright in support of Hamas against Israel might get you on the wrong side of the Bush doctrine--which is to say (and indeed, I find myself a bit shocked to say it) that the Middle East may, as a result of the Bush doctrine and the war in Iraq, enjoy more stability now than it has had in decades. The probability of an actual nation-state war against Israel is lower than it has been in our lifetimes, regardless of who you are reading this.

Egypt? I don't think they can afford it--they are now the second largest receipient of American foreign aid, but their military situation is weaker than it's been recently, and there will be no allies in this invasion. Iran is distracted by internal revolt, and too distant. It's not the time for the Gotterdammerung.

Terrorism has been a proxy weapon for these states for quite some time. The next few weeks will be a test of that weapon. Israel has committed itself, and there is no reason in economics or probability that it shouldn't carry through to the knife. There might be a reason in religion, but not in the Jewish religion as I understand it.

The word for the third food, "Karsi," leeks or cabbage, sounds like the word "kares," "to cut off/destroy." We therefore say a Yehi Ratzon that asks "may... our enemies be destroyed."

The word for the fourth food, "Silka" or beets, sounds like the "siluk," meaning "removal." We therefore say a Yehi Ratzon that requests "may our adversaries be removed."

The word for the fifth and final food "Tamri" or dates, sounds like the word "sheyitamu," "that they be consumed." Hence, we sat a Yehi Ratzon that implores "may... our enemies be consumed."

No peace is coming out of all this, though. That much seems certain. We have seen much of the promises of revenge from Hamas and others, and they echo the promises we have seen from each of these terror groups when they suffer some setback. But their enemies in Israel can promise too:

2 God is jealous, and the LORD avenges; The LORD avenges and is furious. The LORD will take vengeance on His adversaries, And He reserves wrath for His enemies;
3 The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, And will not at all acquit the wicked. The LORD has His way In the whirlwind and in the storm, And the clouds are the dust of His feet.
4 He rebukes the sea and makes it dry, And dries up all the rivers. Bashan and Carmel wither, And the flower of Lebanon wilts.
5 The mountains quake before Him, The hills melt, And the earth heaves at His presence, Yes, the world and all who dwell in it.

There is no doubt in my mind that we are going to see increased violence in the weeks ahead. There is now nothing to restrain either the terrorists or the Israelis--in the last case, not even the chance that state actors might involve themselves. Irony abounds, for stability among nation-states has made this war between Israel and non-state armies the more likely. Gotterdammerung may not be here, but these few poor mortals look ready to cast themselves into a tragedy no less wrenching. I see no alternative but to hope, or to pray, that good comes from it at last: to mourn for the doomed, and to hope for the valiant. If more good than that can be done, I can't imagine what.

UPDATE: The Belmont Club has its own thoughts, entitled "Survival Strategies in a Barroom Brawl."

Mudville Gazette

Mudville:

Welcome back to the Mudville Gazette. New server, Greyhawk says. I say the Weekly Standard broke him. Nice writeup, by the way.

Deuddersun

Deuddersun:

Left-leaning Marines are kind of an oddity in my experience, but--though the smallest of the services--the USMC is big enough for all kinds. Well, all kinds ready and able to take and keep their oath of enlistment or oath of office. Welcome to Deuddersun. Ooh-rah, Semper Fi.

pandagon.net - your fifth rental is free

On Topic:

I'm not usually one to post a lot of links without analysis, but this one (like the last one) is deserving. Ezra Klein at Pandagon has a really good piece. It all started when, in the course of writing an essay attacking Donald Rumsfeld's latest op-ed, he admitted that he kind of liked the SECDEF...

From the Halls to the Shores

Mike:

Mike the Marine has a letter you should read.

Media Release: SWORDS TO BECOME PROHIBITED WEAPONS

Gentlemen:

A gentleman, I recall the Oxford English Dictionary says, is distinguished by the right to bear arms. The kind of arms they mean are symbolic--that is, heraldic arms. That symbol arose from a genuine, historic right to bear real arms, however: a right, and in fact, a duty. Swords in particular were a symbol of free men in England, such that even the Normans did not disarm the free Saxon Yeomanry--and wisely not, as they later relied upon the Yeomanry heavily for their successes in war, such as at Crecy.

So it is with some real sadness that I note the new law in Australia to ban all swords, and confiscate them from existing owners. It happens to be a consequence of their tremendously successful gun-eradication program which has also led to spiraling crime rates, particularly against women, the elderly and the very young, as well as an increase in shootings. There must be some reduction in the availability of guns, though, as the ban has led to an explosion of swordfighting. Street gangs roving about with clattering steel--it is like Alexandre Dumas' Paris in The Three Musketeers.

New Zealand's police show better sense. Asked about a similar measure there--only to register, not to ban and confiscate all swords--they said this:

Police say they are not looking at seeking laws requiring owners of samurai swords and similar weapons to register them.

Inspector Joe Green, of Wellington, said yesterday one problem was that people unlikely to pose a threat were likely to comply with such requirements, but people most likely to pose a threat were unlikely to fall into line.

Well, indeed, that was always the problem, wasn't it? The Normans couldn't make it work either. Instead, they turned the armed yeomanry into allies in the defense of the state and the common peace. That is still the function of the armed citizen today: to defend himself, his family, his community, and the common peace of the Republic. It is sad to see Victoria so intent on the degradation of her citizens.

3/11 Bombings

3/11:

Some are arguing with passion and eloquence that the Spanish elections represent a surrender to al Qaeda. One of my friends from Spain wrote the following article, which he has kindly permitted me to reprint below.

The Spanish elections, Al-Qaeda and the 3/11 Massacre
by Ricardo Carreras Lario

An easy interpretation about the surprising electoral victory of Spain's main opposition party, the Spanish Socialist Worker's Party or PSOE, at the recent polls in Spain is that voters have blamed the support given to the US-led coalition by the conservative People's Party for the terrible attacks of Madrid, probably undertaken by Al-Qaeda mass murderers.

Nevertheless, the party that most vehemently opposed the Iraq war and that could more clearly launch this accusation is the United Left (IU) coalition centered around the Communist Party. This IU Coalition obtained a worse result than in the 2000 general election with its representation in the Spanish House of Representatives falling from 8 to 5 deputies, out of 350.

How can we explain this? There are other factors we should consider.

For starters, Spanish electoral rules forbid the use of polls during the last seven days prior to an election. This always causes a "tunnel effect" and a considerable gap between the last polls a week before and the actual result. In this case, the dynamics of the race were favoring the PSOE, which had already cut in half the distance with the People's Party from 8 to 4% a week before the elections. And they were ascending. This means that even before the 3/11 tragedy, results would have been tighter than foreseen a week in advance.

On the other hand, we have the participation factor. In a country like Spain, ideologically center-left, a high turnout always helps the parties of that political tendency. Unlike what happened in 2000, when the apathy of many center-left voters gave the PP the absolute majority, it is clear this high turnout has favored PSOE. In that sense, the tragedy has had an indirect effect, increasing the feeling that voting was a moral, patriotic duty, as a civic reaction to the massacre.

Finally, another indirect effect has been the communication management of the crisis. Many voters have felt that the government was not accurately informing the public about the tragedy's investigations. The government insisted that the ETA terrorist band was behind the massacre and some interpreted this as evidence that the People's Party wanted to benefit from it politically. It also reinforced pre-existing perceptions about prior crisis, in which many believed the government was not being completely honest, such as the ecological disaster brought last year by the Sinking of the Prestige ship, or the crisis around an airplane accident that killed more than 60 military men coming back from Afghanistan -- and finally, criticism about the partiality of the public media.

Spanish public TV was condemned by the Supreme Court for not informing fairly about a general strike. The message "no more lies, no more manipulation" was part of the PSOE campaign before the tragedy.

All these effects combined and reinforced themselves mutually, and also caused an increase in a "useful vote" for the PSOE the Spanish electoral system favors big parties- and against the People's Party.

The conclusion is that this horrible massacre affected the result, but only indirectly, through the civic reaction to it and the poor management of the crisis by the government.

Bin Laden did not win the election. Democracy did -- in Cuba or North Korea there are no electoral surprises.

To suggest, simplistically, that Spaniards are cowards who give in to the desires of Al-Qaeda terrorists, is to deeply ignore both our history and the fact that our domestic ETA terrorism has caused more than 800 dead without achieving any of its objectives.

The Heroic Life

The Heroic Life:

The quote of the month has generated some vigorous discussion, and so I figured I'd bring it back up to the top of the board. Grim's Hall, according to my sideboard, is meant to be about:

[P]olitics, ethics, mythology, history, and the heroic life.

Today we get to talk about the last.

I don't know du Toit at all, so I can't say whether or not he has demonstrated a failing of character by having been twice divorced. I know other men, with a similar number of ex-wives, who are of the highest character themselves--they've just had poor taste in women. In fact, one of the oldest and best friends of our family is in just that position, and he is a king among men.

I'm no fan of no-fault divorce. I think it has done more to undermine marriage than anything, or everything, else. Still, it's the law, and if we're going to trust people to decide that question as a "personal matter," we ought to trust them in fact.

In any event, I disagree with Eric's reading, which is that

du Toit is preaching a sort of endless adolesence, and I have lately lost all patience with such nonsense. It is not an excellent argument if you think about it at all.

Mr. du Toit isn't advocating that you should go out drinking and carousing all the time. He's only advising it for when 'life gets a little too much.' That happens to everyone, in any life, and you need one remedy or another for it.

The one he suggests is a good one: throw yourself back into life with vigor. Edward Abbey--about as different a character as possible--wrote that:

As a confirmed melancholic, I can testify that the best and maybe only antidote for melancholia is action. However, like most melancholics, I suffer also from sloth.

What's being advised here is a way of dealing with the hard parts of life. In my experience, it's the best way. It's the only way that really works. You can substitute other things for drinking and shooting guns, which just happen to be du Toit's favorite things. Maybe you prefer judo to good-natured fistfights, or singing old country songs with your buddies to hitting the shooting range.

The thing to be avoided is the Prozac. The thing to be avoided is letting some so-called "scientist" from the so-called "helping professions" convince you that you need to be altered. They've got a lot of models of the mind, and a lot of drugs that change how your brain works. Their models, though, are untestable, and their drugs may be turning off the parts of you that make you worth having. It is astonishing how widely accepted these poisonous philosophies, psychology and counseling-by-medication, have become.

Life gets hard for everyone. There are times when it is too much for the best of us. There are two cures on offer, one healthful, and one poison. The one option is to poison yourself, so that your body loses the capacity to feel the things that bother you. You are therefore left with no better way to address whatever problems life has thrown you than cold reason. I have known people on Prozac, and other things, and this is what I have seen: that instead of laughter, they have only irony; that instead of joy, they have an absence of pain; that instead of pain, which at least unites all humanity and leads to true sympathy and understanding, they have a gulf of emptiness between them and all mankind. Standing off alone, watching and thinking without really or fully feeling, they are poorer than when the pain had them by the throat.

There is another way. Throw yourself into life. Cure too much, as it were, with even more. Take on new challenges that remind you of what is best in life: to be brave, to be strong, to be of mighty spirit. Address the weight of sadness with an equal weight of joy, and thereby find your balance: or better, unbalance with joy, and crash into mirth. When you rise again from that fall, you rise with new strength and a fellow-feeling for all sufferers. That sympathy ennobles anyone, and it brings charity and mercy into the heart.

Charity, mercy, strength and courage. If you know a better vision of a heroic life than that, I'll be glad to hear it.

Excelsis Ratings/Reviews - Ranma & Shampoo

Grim's Hall:

As longtime readers know, I always try to link to anyone who links to me. (If you link to me, and I don't link to you yet, email me.) While trying to snuff out any new blogs that have linked to me, I ran across an anime site that mentions this place. I'm not sure who Ranma & Shampoo are, exactly, but I am honored by their description of this place: "For those who like a mix of Tolkien-like prose and shrewd political commentary."

Thank you. It's a most kind thing to have said.

Sir Walter

Sir Walter Scott:

John Derbyshire over at The Corner states this:

Readers of my own pro-Crusader piece will be aware, but others may not be, of the greatest of Crusader novels, Sir Walter Scott's THE TALISMAN.

I am amazed that there aren't periodic -- once a decade, perhaps -- Scott revivals. He is a wonderful storyteller (though you can't take the history too seriously).

John earlier wrote a piece on the crusades which cited The Talisman and a book by Alfred Duggan called Knight with Armour. I actually ran down copies of both of these and read them, being a fan of historical novels, and particularly Medieval ones. The Duggan novel is without question the most concentrated piece of despair and misery I have ever read.

The Scott novel, however, is indeed grand, though it's not only the history that is implausible--the geography, and one of the key plot devices are equally so. By far the most excellent piece of Scott's writings is Ivanhoe, parts of which I can quote from memory.

In any event, I've been trying to spark a Scott revival for some time. For a while now, Scott's collected works have been listed under "Honor & Virtue," to the right and down. His poetry is good too, although it lacks the power and the variety of Chesterton's. Still, some of it is rollicking, like "Harold the Dauntless," which is about a Viking:

Woe to the realms where he coasted, for there
Was shedding of blood and rending of hair,
Rape of maiden, slaughter of priest,
Gathering of ravens and wolves to the feast!
When he hoisted his standard black
Before him was battle, behind him was wrack!

If you're looking for a hearty way to spend a day or two, take up Ivanhoe. It's worth the time and effort, if only to read the scene where Richard Coeur de Leon shares wine and songs with Friar Tuck.

UPDATE: I had forgotten how good John's piece on the Crusades was. He has a habit of saying things that challenge the ear, but he doesn't do it to shock or get attention. He does it to knock you out of the easy assumptions we all rely upon. One of these things, taught as Gospel in most textbooks, is that the Crusades were bad. John replies:

Is there anything at all redeeming that can be said about these sorry episodes? Well, yes....

[I]f we are to take sides on the Crusades after all these centuries, we should acknowledge that, for all their many crimes, the Crusaders were our spiritual kin. I do not mean only in religion, though that of course is not a negligible connection: I mean in their understanding of society, and of the individual's place in it. Time and again, when you read the histories of this period, you are struck by sentences like these, which I have taken more or less at random from Sir Steven Runciman's History of the Crusades: "[Queen Melisande's] action was regarded as perfectly constitutional and was endorsed by the council." "Trial by peers was an essential feature of Frankish custom." "The King ranked with his tenant-in-chief as primus inter pares, their president but not their master."

If we look behind the cruelty, treachery, and folly, and try to divine what the Crusaders actually said and thought, we see, dimly but unmistakably, the early flickering light of the modern West, with its ideals of liberty, justice, and individual worth. Gibbon:

The spirit of freedom, which pervades the feudal institutions, was felt in its strongest energy by the volunteers of the cross, who elected for their chief the most deserving of his peers. Amidst the slaves of Asia, unconscious of the lesson or example, a model of political liberty was introduced; and the laws of [the Frankish Kingdom of Jerusalem] are derived from the purest source of equality and justice. Of such laws, the first and indispensable condition is the assent of those whose obedience they require, and for whose benefit they are designed.

No sooner had Godfrey of Bouillon been elected supreme ruler of Jerusalem, eight days after the Crusader victory (he declined the title of "king," declaring that he would not wear a crown of gold in the place where Christ had worn a crown of thorns), than his first thought was to give the new state a constitution. This was duly done, and the Assize of Jerusalem--"a precious monument of feudal jurisprudence," Gibbon calls it--after being duly attested, was deposited in the Holy Sepulchre (which had been reconstructed some decades before)....

[T]he virtues of men like Saladin rose as lone pillars from a level plain. They were not, as the occasional virtues of the Crusaders were, the peaks of a mountain range. The Saracens had, in a sense, no society, no polity. Says the Marquis to the Templar in another great crusader novel, Sir Walter Scott's The Talisman: "I will confess to you I have caught some attachment to the Eastern form of government: A pure and simple monarchy should consist but of king and subjects. Such is the simple and primitive structure--a shepherd and his flock. All this internal chain of feudal dependence is artificial and sophisticated." Well, artificial and sophisticated it may have been, but in its interstices grew liberty, law, and the modern conscience.

If we are to have the Crusades thrown at us by the likes of Osama bin Laden, let us at least not abjure them.

There is much to be said for that position. Leaving aside the question of whether the Crusaders are "spiritual kin" in terms of religion after all--not only is the West less united on the question, but also their particular form of Catholicism would be hard to find today--he is certainly right about the early developments of Western liberty. The Roots of Liberty has been a frequent topic of discussion here. A good bit of it predates the Crusades, as we talked about when discussing the question of paganism in schools. But this part does not: the idea of a separation of powers in government, and their balance. As John correctly writes, it was the tension between those opposing powers that provided the space for our idea of liberty. That tension opened spaces where a man couldn't be pushed around by one power without having an appeal to another. Having done so, we that human nature flourishes when liberty is assured. The Magna Carta, the Declaration of Arbroath, the Scottish Covenanters, the English Civil War, the Jacobite Risings, the American Revolution, and even the American Civil War have been battles in the attempt to preserve and reinforce those spaces, and to maintain that tension. We owe its origin to feudalism, and the kind of men who went on Crusade.

DragonRiders: Sovay

Who is Sovay McKnight?

Now that I have given in to the evil cause of Left Liberalism--just far enough to help Sovay McKnight set up a blog--some of you are probably wondering who she is, besides, obviously, an old friend of mine. Thanks to the magic of Google, we have several possible answers from the OSINT.

Answer #1: Sovay, Dragonrider of Pern!

Sovay is a meek person. She loves Faluril with all her heart and would never do anything to displease him. In fact, displeasing him is her greatest fear. Life Story : Sovay grew up sitting at the feet of her mother and learning everything about managing a household. Her greatest dream was having a home of her own with a loving husband with many children.

Answer #2: Sovay, Female Highwayman!

Sovay, Sovay all on a day
She dressed herself in man's array
With a sword and a pistol all by her side
To meet her true love to meet her true love away did ride.

Answer #3: Sovay, Demi-Fox Queen of Terra!

[Note: click the black & white picture to see Sovay in full color glory!]

Due to the rather quirky sense of humor the Atlantian artifact, she not only was given a rather larger breast size, but was also youthened to a young woman only a bit YOUNGER than her daughter, Exotica. Also, the rather "perky" nature of the demifox rather agrees with this woman, and enjoys it very much. Very energetic.

Intelligence is always speculative, of course, so it could be that the truth is somewhere in between.

ParaPundit

An Interesting Point of View:

Via ParaPundit, I found an article from The Atlantic on the US military liason to Outer Mongolia, Colonel Tom Wilhelm. There's quite a bit that will be interesting to PRC watchers, but there's also this little tidbit from the Colonel himself:

The full flowering of the middle ranks had its roots in the social transformation of the American military, which, according to Wilhelm (a liberal who voted for Al Gore in 2000), had taken place a decade earlier, when the rise of Christian evangelicalism had helped stop the indiscipline of the Vietnam-era Army. "This zeal reformed behavior, empowered junior leaders, and demanded better recruits," he said. "For one thing, drinking stopped, and that killed off the officers' clubs, which, in turn, broke down more barriers between officers and noncoms, giving the noncoms the confidence to do what majors and colonels in other armies do. The Christian fundamentalism was the hidden hand that changed the military for the better. Though you try to get someone to admit it!

Drinking did what now? Maybe among the soldiers stationed in Mongolia... I hear rarg isn't the usual cantina fare. Still, I doubt it's true even there. Certainly the Mongolians have a way to encourage drinking:

The way to drink is special there: when guests have a meal, some beautiful girls in traditional costume stand beside the table and sing songs. And then they'll go to guests respectively, holding hada [silk scarves]... in their hands and a little silver bowl with spirit in their right hands. The spirit can't be refused and must be "bottomed-up". If somebody refuses to drink, the singer will continue singing until the guests drink all the spirit in the little bowl.

I've had this kind of spirit, and I'm here to tell you, the singing is necessary. To explain it in Western terms, I'll relate one of my father's favorite stories:

A man was out hiking around the hills of Tennessee when he came across an old man walking up a road, carrying a jug under one arm and a shotgun under the other. They got to talking and, after a while, the old man offered him a swig. When the man tried to refuse, the old fella leveled the gun at him and said, "Boy, around these hills, when a man is offered a drink, he takes a drink."

Seeing his point, the man took the jug and had a swig. He nearly died trying to choke it down, but finally managed to finish the swallow.

"Stuff's awful, ain't it?" laughed the old man. "Here, you hold the gun on me while I take a drink."

The tale is entirely unfair to the quality of Appalachian moonshine, which is often excellent. Lots of those fellows up in the high hills are Christian Evangelists too, but that moonshine still seems to get made. Another thing my father always said was, "The difference between a Baptist and a Methodist is that a Methodist will share his beer with you," and I suspect that our Colonel may have forgotten the truth behind that jest.

Spain

Spain:

For those of my readers who can do Spanish, and in honor of the 11-M bombings, I have added El Pais to the News links.

Guardian Unlimited | Life | Chess! What is it good for?

Chess & War:

The UK Guardian has this look at how modified games of chess can be used to study warfighting:

By modifying key variables, such as the number of moves al lowed each turn, or whether one player can see all of the other's pieces, they are investigating the relative importance of a host of factors that translate to the battlefield, such as numerical superiority, a quick advance and the use of stealth....

One major difference between chess and war is that chess does not contain what the military terms "information uncertainty". Unlike a battle commander, who may have incomplete intelligence about his opponent's level of weaponry or location of munitions depots, one chess player can always see the other's pieces, and note their every move. So Kuylenstierna and his colleagues asked players to compete with a board each and an opaque screen between them. A game leader transferred each player's moves to the other's board - but not always instantaneously. For instance, one game modification resulted in a player being prevented from seeing their opponent's latest two moves.

The lessons they've extracted so far appear to be applicable to all similar games--checkers, for instance. The lessons will sound familiar to students of modern American warfighting:

[A] fast tempo can be important, particularly in combination with "deep planning". Deep planning involved, at every move, each agent considering all their previous moves and their opponent's responses, and their responses to those responses, and using this to develop a "tree" of possible strategic paths they could follow to win. "A deeper planner is one who can search deeper into time, and has more possible end points," says Calbert. In general, deep planning plus a fast tempo was devastating - even if the opponent was numerically superior.

Do they apply to real war? It sounds very similar to the Afghan campaign, where the US footprint was tremendously limited, but used tempo and intel to take a much smaller and embattled Northern Alliance to victory over dug-in Talibani in short order. And Iraq?

The build-up to the war in Iraq coincided with the first results from the chess simulations run by Jason Scholz and his team. "We watched with great interest the dialogue between General [Tommy} Franks, who wanted to use more materiel, and Donald Rumsfeld who wanted a fast tempo and lighter units," Scholz says. Based on the chess results, which favoured a fast, decisive attack strategy, Scholz says his advice would have been to go along with the US defence secretary's ideas. "In the end, there was a compromise," he says. "But a relatively fast tempo did really gain a very decisive, rapid advantage in Iraq."

Hat tip, Arts & Letters Daily.

The Liberal Conspiracy - Satire, Informed Commentary and 9-11 Research

Catblogging:

Sovay--who lives a few miles away from me--has decided to carry on the old CalPundit tradition of catblogging. I should note that she left off one of Sam's several names: Assassin. That cat dropped a metal stool on my head once, from off the top of her refrigerator.

AllRefer Encyclopedia - Bob Dole (U.S. History, Biographies) - Encyclopedia

Honor & Nonfeasance:

If you appoint somebody to repair your roads, and pay them the monies promised, and then they don't bother to show up and do it, you've got a situation called "nonfeasance." If some small-town official doesn't perform the duties they've been elected or appointed to perform, but takes the money, they're subject to penalties under the law.

But what of a high official, say, a Senator? The Senate requires both more and less, as it turns out. For the man of honor, it demands more. A Senator takes a Federal oath of office:

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

All Senators are entitled to be called "Honorable." Alas, not all of them live up to the honorific, or to the honor of their office or their oath. Some do:

In June, 1996, Dole resigned from the Senate in order to devote more time to the presidential race[.]

Some, alas, do not:

Presidential hopeful John F. Kerry [related, bio] has been a virtual no-show in the U.S. Senate over the past 14 months, but he hasn't missed a paycheck, even though a dusty federal law says some of his $158,000 salary should have been withheld.

During his run for the presidency, Kerry has missed every one of the 22 roll call votes in the Senate this year and was absent for 292, or 64 percent of the roll call votes last year, according to a Herald review of Senate records.

That means the Massachusetts senator has been away from his post in the Senate chamber for at least 128 days over the past 14 months.

Kerry is not the only political truant. U.S. Sen. John Edwards [related, bio] (D-N.C.), the runner-up behind Kerry in the hunt for the Democratic nomination, has also missed every roll call this year and skipped 178, or 39 percent of the votes last year.

Kerry, when the assets of his wife are included, is one of the wealthiest members of the Senate with a reported net worth somewhere between $198 million and $838 million.

The first duty of a Senator is to represent their constituents. That is the most important of the duties of office that they swear faithfully to discharge. We cannot be there in the Senate, hearing the testimonies and voting on the laws. We entrust that to Senators. We trust them to keep their oath of honor.

When they do not, there is a penalty.

However, he and the other AWOL candidates have been spared the automatic paycuts called for in a long-ignored federal law passed in the 1850s.

Section 39 of the United States Code Service requires the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Administrative Officer of the House to deduct daily pay from members for each day they are absent.

The only legal excuse is if the senator or representative, or one of their family members, is ill, the law states.

Or at least, the law says there is a penalty. In fact, there is none: the Secretary of the Senate has apparently never enforced this federal law, and the current one is citing that as a good reason to carry on not enforcing it.

This is no surprise. The lesson we ought to have learned by now is this: no law can restrain the honorless. No one who will not be restrained by his oath of office is fit to sit in the Senate, nor any judgeship, nor any other position of authority. We have seen that the law cannot restrain the powerful if their word will not restrain them.

Kim du Toit - Weekly Rant

Quote of the Month:

Good lad Kim du Toit has what I think may be the finest thing I've read in quite a while. If it doesn't strike you so, you're entitled to your own opinion.

Note to Virginia Postrel: real men don't take Prozac.

If life gets a little to much for a real man, he gets drunk, has sex, goes to the shooting range or gets into a fistfight while getting drunk. 'Twas ever thus, and men did quite fine thereby for centuries, until some pussywhipped doctors decided that it would be soooooooo much better just to medicate men into being women.

Yeah, "sound medical reasons", "ameliorating effects" blah blah blah.

You tell 'em, mate.

Spain

Spain:

I've been asked to share this with anyone interested.

The Embassy of Spain convenes a silent demonstration tomorrow, Friday, March 12th, to express its outrage for today's terrorist attack perpetrated in Madrid, in which approximately 200 people have died and 900 have been injured.

The demonstration will take place at the Washington Circle (Pennsylvania Ave and 23rd St NW) at 12 am.

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China doctor calls 1989 'mistake'

Communist Awakening:

Dr. Jiang Yanyong, subject of the People's Republic of China, is a very brave man. Last year he exposed the Chinese government's coverup of the SARS virus. Now, he is calling for the Chinese Communist Party to admit that the Tiananmen Square massacre was a mistake:

Jiang cited former President Yang Shangkun as telling him that "the June 4 incident is the most serious mistake committed by our party in history."

One thinks of the Great Leap Forward (which left thirty to sixty million people dead of starvation) as a competitor for that title. There's also the Cultural Revolution, and the repression of the Hundred Flowers period, the founding of the Red Guards... but let's not quibble. It's a bold step, and I wish them well with it.

Yahoo! Mail - bjarnr@yahoo.com

Spymaster:

The Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday heard DIA Director Vice Admiral Jacoby. His testimony is available at that link (PDF warning). It's a balanced report, and one of the most complete world-sitreps I've seen available as OSINT. I assume our enemies will take advantage of the opportunity to read it; you might as well too.

Pandagon: A Real Pro-Growth Agenda

Um, what?

Via our beloved friend at The Liberal Conspiracy, we have to ask a question about Pandagon's "Pro-Growth Agenda". Pandagon says:

By reframing the health care initiative, you get businesses on your side and end the idiotic cries of socialism -- this is about keeping American workers competitive, why are you anti-American? You want all our jobs to go to France?

The United States has an unemployment rate between four and six percent, from year to year. France's rate is from nine to thirteen percent. That health-care thing isn't working out. Nice try, though, Pandagon.

UPDATE: The aforementioned beloved Liberal, Sovay, demands that I expand on my comment. Pandagon was just joking about France, she tells me, and so focusing on the joke is missing his point.

I'm not sure I agree--Pandagon probably is joking, but joking to make a point. The point ought to be refutable by refuting the joke. Sovay is a bit humorless on occasion--only now and then, when she's on about politics--so I'm going to go ahead and rebutt formally.

The policy Pandagon suggests isn't sound for this reason: health-care costs affect the economy regardless of who foots the bill. We aren't losing jobs to France, we're losing them to the Third World. We're not losing them to Socialist safety-net states, but to states which have no net at all. Their costs are lower, therefore wages and other structural expenses can be lower.

Health care is one of those structural expenses, yes. If the employer is paying for insurance, the cost of employing a worker is higher. However, if the employer gets a "tax credit" from the government for that expense, the money is still being spent. Unless the government is suddenly going to become willing to cut spending--pardon me a moment while I laugh bitterly--the government is going to need higher tax revenues to offset the tax credits. Those revenues are almost certain to be collected in the form of higher tax rates, which tax increases add to the cost of doing business just as much as paying for the insurance in the first place. (Indeed, Pandagon suggests paying for it by repealing the Bush tax cuts, which is to say, by raising tax rates from where they are now.) Moreso, the Pandagon policy adds a middleman--you now have to pay for the people who process all that tax-credit paperwork, government employees who have to be paid out of tax revenues. How are we going to pay for these new salaries on the public dole? Oh, right, there go those tax rates up again.

There's a reason that governments, like France, which have a thick socialist safety net also have massive structural unemployment. If you're really serious about outsourcing and unemployment, there are a few options, but increased socialist spending--even if it's disguised as tax credits--is not one of them. Protectionist trade policies are one response; a dismantling of parts of our own safety net, to make us more competitive with the Third World, another. Right now the Republican party seems to prefer the latter, and the Democratic party (including, I suppose, me) the former. There are not many other realistic options, but one thing that definitely won't fix the problem is drifting off into fantasies like these, whereby we can have increased socialist spending and also lower market unemployment.

Southern Appeal

Southern Appeal:

Southern Appeal is being especially clever. :)

Secrecy News 03/09/04

USNORTHCOM:

The JAG is talking about the "drastic" change in the way the US military conducts domestic ops. There are quite a few documents on the topic that have become available recently. Essentially, the main change is that the military is doing a lot more inside the US, where civilian law enforcement has traditionally been the mainstay. From Secrecy News (a contradiction in terms, yes?):

In the absence of clear guidelines and effective oversight, the U.S. military is becoming increasingly involved in domestic operations, including surveillance activities that blur the traditional distinction between foreign intelligence and domestic security.

"Since September 11, 2001, the role of the military in domestic operations has changed drastically," according to the 2004 Operational Law Handbook of the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps.

"Prior to September 11, military involvement in domestic operations was almost exclusively in the area of civil support operations. Post-September 11, the military's role has expanded to cover 'homeland defense' and/or 'homeland security' missions, somewhat undefined terms," the JAG Handbook stated (p. 355).

Several instances of "an expanding military role in domestic affairs" were reported today in the Wall Street Journal.

In one case, an Army intelligence officer demanded that a University of Texas law school turn over the videotape of an academic conference in order to identify "Middle Eastern" individuals who had made "suspicious" remarks....

One military intelligence organization with a domestic presence is the low-profile Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA).

Quietly created post-September 11, CIFA has a broad charter to provide counterintelligence and security support to the Defense Department around the world and within the United States.

"Worldwide, more than 400 civilian and military employees work for CIFA with the ultimate goal of detecting and neutralizing the many different forms of espionage regularly conducted against the United States by terrorists, foreign intelligence services and other covert and clandestine groups," according to the Defense Security Service.

"The threats posed by these adversaries include actions to kill or harm U.S. citizens; to steal critical information or assets (military or civilian); or destroy critical infrastructures."

CIFA was established in 2002 by Department of Defense Directive 5105.67.

There has been a lot of debate in Congress about establishing a domestic counterintelligence agency, like the British MI-5, so that the FBI won't have to try to carry counterintelligence as well as law enforcement. The two disciplines are very different, and the firewalls the FBI has to put up to make sure that the rights of citizens are protected makes them quite poor at CI. I've always been opposed to having a domestic CI branch, though there are good arguments on both sides. It looks a bit as if the DOD has gotten ahead of the Congress, and simply begun handling domestic military intelligence. I have complete faith in our military professionals, but I suspect that the Congress is going to resent the initiative as they become aware of it.

Rantingprofs: IF FOREIGN LEADERS BACK KERRY DOES THAT HELP HIM OR HURT HIM?

Kerry Breaks the Logan Act:

Rantingprofs asks this about Kerry's announcement today (emphasis added):

And at what point did it become appropriate for a candidate for office to have contact with foreign leaders? Doesn't Kerry realize the damage that can do? If he leads any foreign leader to believe that he'd be more sympathetic to their arguments and interests -- which clearly he's done -- how isn't that a signal to those countries to hold off any dealings with this administration in the hopes it will soon be sent packing and they'll be able to do better? And if that's the case, then why isn't Kerry now interfering with American foreign policy in a way that could potentially benefit him (by reducing the level of success this administration can chalk up between now and the elections since at least some leaders will be stonewalling hoping for a better deal)? No doubt some of that kind of stonewalling is likely with other governments during any election season -- should Kerry be explicitly encouraging it?

In fact, if Kerry has been involved in talks of these kinds with foreign leaders, he is guilty of violating the Logan Act, which has been on the books since 1799:

Sec. 953. - Private correspondence with foreign governments:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Three years in a Federal prison is the penalty for this--that makes it not only a Federal crime, but a felony. Kerry won't be prosecuted, of course, for the simple reason that Bush can't afford to prosecute him--having Kerry arrested for any crime would appear to be a political assassination, regardless of guilt. But the point here is the same as the point below: Kerry, master of nuance, has been twenty years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He knows what the law is. Yet, he not only has responded to these advances from more than one foreign leader, he trumpets them to the press. Beware him.

UPDATE (2005): In later discussions on the Logan Act, it became clear that there were some important facts about it not clear to me at the time I wrote this piece. The first is that it has never been enforced; the second is that a sitting Senator may very well claim to have proper authority to speak for at least his part of the government, and constituents. Kerry's Vietnam-era negotiations in Paris appear still to have been a violation of the (never enforced) Logan Act, but this would not appear to be. The final position at the end of the debate was here. I say that Senators are 'obviously' exempt, though plainly it wasn't obvious to me at the beginning. It only became so on examination.

Newsday.com - AP World News

Viking Harbor:

Archaeologists have discovered a Viking harbor in Norway, the oldest preserved to our age.

The ancient harbor complex at Faanestangen, near the west coast city of Trondheim and some 250 miles north of Oslo, was discovered when a local landowner started work on a small boat dock on the same spot selected by his ancestors a millennium earlier.

It will be very interesting to see what is uncovered as the dig progresses.

In Sweeping Critique, Kerry Condemns Bush for Failing to Back Aristide

Unilateralism:

John Kerry is talking foreign policy in an NYT interview:

Had he been sitting in the Oval Office last weekend as rebel forces were threatening to enter Port-au-Prince, Senator John Kerry says, he would have sent an international force to protect Haiti's widely disliked elected leader, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Yes, that's right there in the Constitution, Article II: 'The President is the commander in chief of international forces.' You know, those fast-reacting ones that can be on the spot in time to stop a sudden rebel uprising that, in the course of a few days, overthrows a country. Like the European Rapid Reaction Force, which... well, it doesn't actually exist yet, does it? But when it does come into existence in 2007--in theory Kerry could still be President, assuming this EU project is actually on time for a change--plans are for it to be deployable in 15 days. NATO does rapid-reaction forces, but on a localized basis--they are setting one up for the Olympics this year, for example, but it won't be able to deploy across the world because it won't have the transportation capacity to do so, and I am fairly certain that they do not keep one handy in the Carribean in case of sudden accidents.

The uprising lasted just 24 days even if you count from the rebel's seizure of the town of Gonaives, but at that point there was no reason to think that Aristide would be ousted. It wasn't until the 16th that refugees returned from the Dominican Republic and seized Hinche, which was the sign that the trouble was mounting; and the rebels 'advancing on Port-au-Prince' was, as noted, just over the weekend. France got around to calling for a UN authorized force on the 25th, four days before the fall of Aristide--but France conditioned any UN resolution on such troops on Aristide's withdrawl from the country, which Kerry says he didn't want. Presumably France, even if it had the capacity to devote troops to Kerry's 'international force,' would not have done so to prop up Aristide.

The fact is that there is no 'international force' that can respond to a crisis on that timeframe. I think it's fair to say that there is only one organization that can put that many troops on the ground, that fast. You might give the benefit of the doubt to another politician speaking on the issue--but Kerry proudly trumpets his mastery of nuance, and has been almost twenty years on the Foreign Relations Committee. A man trying to get away from his youthful claim that he was an "internationalist" who felt that US forces should only be deployed wearing blue helmets might take the opportunity to recognize that this is an example of when only US forces will do. A man who runs on the line, "I know something about aircraft carriers for real!" might like to demonstrate that he also knows about the men who serve on them. A man who dares to command them ought to demonstrate that he respects them and their abilities: abilities that are not merely extraordinary, but unique.

Bonus question for the nuance-lovers among you: how does the claim that he would have chosen to send troops to Haiti mesh with this one:

"But if I am President, the United States will never go to war because we want to, we will only go to war because we have to."
-- John Kerry 9/2/03

So, what? It doesn't count as war if it's just a little Carribean country? Or, we had to send troops to prop up Aristide? Or, as seems most likely, Kerry didn't mean what he said?

The Ballad of the Alamo

1836:

Remember the Alamo. If you happen to think the brave old days are gone forever, they're not. The Free State Project is still looking for people who believe in Davy Crockett's tradition. For those of you interested more in the history than the movement, you can find some history right here.

USMC in Georgia

USMC in Georgia & Points South:

This is the other Georgia. The USMC is training Georgian security forces in combined arms, still a new concept over there. There's a brief, but interesting write-up over at USMC.mil.

Meanwhile, Marine Corps Times has published the "Lessons Learned" doc for OIF, USMC Reserve. I've worked on docs like this in the past, though not for the Corps. Doc-in-the-Box will be glad to know that they include this gem:

Corpsmen. Mobilize them on the same schedule as their SMCR unit.

Meanwhile, as always, I'm taken by the dedication. Ten Marines gave their lives in the course of the events that led to these suggested improvements. It's good to know the Corps takes that seriously--but we, of course, expect nothing less.

Georgia Primary

Georgia Primary:

I spoke to the family over the internet--we here at Grim's Hall have one of those cheap video-com webcams so that the grandparents can visit with wee Beowulf--and asked after the recent primary back home in Georgia. The whole family voted in the Democratic primary (regular readers will know that Grim comes from a very long line of Southern Democrats, in a tradition right back to James Jackson). The whole family voted for Edwards, who lost narrowly, mostly due to the Atlanta vote. Georgia is becoming a microcosm of America, divided on urban-rural lines. Atlanta has almost exactly half the population of the whole state, and is fervently liberal. The rest of the state is quite rural with only a few small cities, and quite conservative. Conservative Democrats voted for Edwardian populism, entirely familiar to the Southerner; liberal Democrats, reasonably, voted for Kerry and his lifetime 93% rating from the Americans for Democratic Action.

The other issue in Georgia was the flag, with the new flag winning out. There was, again, unanimity in my family on the question, although for different reasons. My father voted for the flag, I gather, just so they'd quit changing the damn'd thing. My mother preferred it because it didn't have the Confederate Battle Flag on it anywhere, whereas the blue flag had a very small version of the Battle Flag. She was not aware that the new flag was based entirely on the Confederate National Flag, which actually left the voters without an option for a truly non-Confederate flag; but then again, they didn't have the option of voting for the Battle Flag, either. Therefore is Georgia a republic, I suppose, not a democracy.

Blackfive - The Paratrooper of Love: You Won't Believe This

No, And Hell No:

Our boy Blackfive has the story of a teacher and soldier, called up for duty, who has been told he has to fork over the cost of the substitute out of his military pay. We all know how well paid both soldiers and teachers are, especially considering the service each performs. This is a particularly astonishing example of disrespect for the volunteer military, from people who ought to be damn glad it exists. If you don't want to serve, honor a Reservist or National Guardsman: they're the reason we don't have to have a draft.

Those of us who honor them anyway, simply because they choose to serve, can only be appalled.

InstaPundit.Com

Gun Control:

As you know, today is the Senate vote on S. 1805, which is the bill to protect the gun industry from assault-by-lawsuit. The Puppyblender points out that both Kerry and Edwards, neither of whom have set foot in the Senate in ages, are both returning to D.C. today to cast votes in favor of limiting your rights. That is another attack against the Jacksonian values that the Democratic party has often relied upon.

We expect no better from Kerry, who has famously been dubbed the most liberal Senator of all, although I still can't quite understand why "liberal" means "in favor of restricting rights." Still, Kerry is consistent: he doesn't want you armed, but he doesn't want his country armed either. We might have expected better from the Senator from North Carolina, but we aren't going to get it.

May they reap what they sow here. Seeking to strip Men of the power to defend themselves, may they be stripped of power instead.

From the Halls to the Shores

Interservice Abuse:

Well, not abuse, exactly--the Army has it coming. :) Mike points out that Blackfive's excellent suggestions on how the Army needs to evolve sound familiar. Very familiar.

Iraq

Iraq: Constitution & Religion:

Iraq approved its interim constitution today. The LittleGreenFootballs blog is not at all happy about it; Charles himself is 'not encouraged,' and the commenters are downright growlish.

All this is highly unfair to the Iraqis, who seem to be taking these issues seriously:

The Iraqi Governing Council repealed decree 137 today (the controversial decree bringing in Sharia law passed in December. A group of women came in to lobby against decree 137. They presented their case to the Governing Council as to why Sharia discriminates against women.

The council vote to repeal decree 137 was passed by 15 in favor and 10 against (the full council of 25 was there). The women who had lobbied against decree 137 ululated and shouted for joy at the end of the vote.

Eight members of the council walked out in protest, but today an aide to the most powerful cleric in Iraq, al-Sistani, issued this statement:

And, an aide to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani said on Sunday that even in an Islamic state, people should be free to decide if they drink alcohol or if women should wear veils. "We don't want to put pressure on the people. Everyone was born free," Seyed Ali Abdul-Karim al-Safi al-Musawi, al-Sistani's representative in Basra, told The Associated Press.

Note that link is to a Pakistani newspaper. The whole idea of the Iraq war was that bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq could send shockwaves of reformation through the Middle East. What's the Richter scale on that statement from the spokesman of Iraq's Grand Ayatollah?

We fought in Iraq to make men free. It's their country now, and they can do what they like with it. They deserve credit for the hard choices and difficult considerations they are employing. If it's not what you want--or what I want--well, Iraq isn't ours. That was never the point. De Oppresso Liber is just a rephrase of that line from the Battle Hymn of the Republic:

As He died to make men holy
Let us die to make men free.

I don't wish to pick on LGF, which is an excellent weblog. Nevertheless, the people of Iraq's freedom was bought at a price in blood. To honor the dead, we ought to preserve and respect their exercise of that freedom. It's their country now, free, at last.

How Much Did they Drink?

Medieval Life, or, Another Argument for the Dogged Preservation of Tradition:

Here is an article from the University of Adelaide on Medieval drinking as a part of the daily diet:

Three examples of temperance from the sixteenth century make the exceptions that prove the rule. The Venetian Alvise Cornaro promoted temperance in word and deed. He wrote a book, Discourses in favour of a sober life, in which he advocated a diet of extreme renunciation, confirmed by his own example; he drank only not quite .4 of a liter of wine a day, which is more than half a modern bottle of wine. In The Life of the Duke of Newcastle, written by his wife, the duke received praise for his temperance; she wrote, "In his diet, he is so sparing and temperate, that he never eats nor drinks beyond his set proportion." His set proportion was three glasses of beer and two of wine a day. The final exception to prove the rule was a temperance society founded at Hesse in 1600. Its members agreed to restrict their drinking to seven glasses of wine with each meal.

A temperence society even I could consider joining. But what of those who were not living the sober life, but merely one of monastic relinquishment?

In medieval England the normal monastic allowance was one gallon of good ale per day, often supplemented by a second gallon of weak ale.

"Saint George for Merry England" indeed!

Welcome to AJC!

IRNA Says We Got Him:

The Islamic Republic News Agency, IRNA, is one of the state propaganda--er, news--outfits in Iran. They are reporting as of yesterday that Osama bin Laden has been captured. As the story points out, IRNA was the first to report the capture of Saddam.

The spin they're putting on the story can be set aside--i.e., that we captured UBL 'long ago' and that he's being held as a propaganda stunt for the November elections. IRNA is an official state agency backed by the best intelligence service in the region, though. If they've learned of UBL's capture, they might be trying to "get out ahead" of the story by putting up false rumors of evil US/Bush motives.

It's also possible that they're wrong, of course, or spreading disinformation. This is a particularly explosive kind of disinformation for that region, though. I'd put the chances of them having information that makes them believe the capture to be true at better than 1 in 2. The odds of it being correct information are longer, but Iranian intelligence is very good within their region.

Second defendant takes stand in paintball terror trial

Shameful Charges:

I am fully in support of hanging traitors. The government of the United States, however, had better be damned sure of itself before it charges a former Marine with anti-American conspiracies.

A former Marine who traveled to a militant Islamic camp in Pakistan in 2001 testified Wednesday that he came home after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks because his country was under attack.

Seifullah Champman, 31, of Alexandria, one of three men on trial in federal court for an alleged conspiracy to aid the Taliban and fight U.S. troops, took the stand in his own defense Wednesday.
Acquaintances of Chapman who testified for the government during the three-week trial have said they also attended the Lashkar camp at various times in 2000 and 2001 and considered the camp a training ground for holy war around the globe. Some witnesses have said they traveled to Lashkar after the Sept. 11 attacks with the specific goal of training to join the Taliban and fight U.S. troops.

Chapman, though, testified that he viewed the Lashkar camp as a recreation opportunity, to hike through some of the world's tallest mountains and enjoy the scenery.

He compared the Pakistani mountains to U.S. mountain ranges, saying "over here the colors are browns and greens. Over there it's blues and grays. It's a once in a lifetime thing."

He acknowledged that he spent several days training to use weapons and taking target practice, but said he asked to transfer to a different part of the camp where they engaged in strenuous hikes.

While other witnesses testified that they saw blatant anti-American posters and writings at the Lashkar camp, Chapman said he saw none of that and that he had been unaware of Lashkar's anti-American leanings.

On cross-examination, prosecutor Gordon Kromberg expressed disbelief that Chapman had traveled across the world to attend the Lashkar camp with such a limited understanding of the organization. For instance, Chapman told Kromberg he never visited Lashkar's Web site, which depicted a dagger piercing the American flag.

Chapman, who was raised a Catholic but converted to Islam while serving as a corporal in the Marine Corps, was at the Lashkar camp on Sept. 11, 2001, when he heard radio reports of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

His reaction upon hearing the news was that it was "time to come home. The people who were running the camp, I told them I'm leaving."

He said the Lashkar officials understood his reaction and provided a guide who escorted him down the mountain, and another Lashkar member helped him arrange an expedited flight to the United States.

He said he wanted to return to America because of "fear for my family, and my country was under attack."

Asked if he ever intended to use his Lashkar training in holy war against India or the United States, Chapman said, "Never."

Prosecutors do not dispute that Chapman bore no hostile intentions against the United States, but they argue he illegally provided material support to Lashkar, a terrorist group.

Now, there are lots of Marine and former Marine readers here. Put yourself in the situation: it's before 9/11. There has never been an Islamist terrorist attack on American soil. You're out of the Corps, have developed the taste for adventure, and you get a chance to go hiking with one of the old mujahedeen groups that the CIA used to back in the good old days of the Cold War. The camp has beautiful scenery, and the chance to bust a few caps out of some recovered Soviet firearms. Sound good to you? Yeah, me too.

The government admits openly that they don't believe this Marine had anything but patriotic intentions toward the USA. He's just an adventure tourist. They want to prosecute him for having ties to this terrorist group, but the government itself has had ties to it for two decades and more.

This man is a sworn servant of his country, the same as you and I. He showed his patriotism: when America was attacked, he came home right away to serve in her defense. The state should be ashamed for how it treats him. Semper Fidelis ought to work both ways.

FreeSpeech.com

Curious about Gay Marriage?

A lot of people seem to be. If you're looking for vigorous debate, FreeSpeech seems the place to be. There are advocates on all sides, arguing a number of points. Del's done a good job of providing a meeting ground for various ideologies, and a lot of pure individuals as well. It's worth looking over, although it's as chaotic as a Western-movie barfight just now.

Docnbox

Doc:

Doc Russia--the poor fellow is getting a lot attention here today--had a post a while ago about Corpsmen. For those of you who don't know, they are Navy medical men who serve with the USMC, which has no medical corps of its own. They are beloved by all Marines, and they deserve to be.

Doc in the Box is one such, and has a new blog. I welcome him to the links section, under "Other Halls," to the right and down.

e-Prints - Military Analysis

Special Operations:

Quite a few papers have been turned out lately on the post-9/11 role of Special Operations forces. A partial list, with links to the documents, can be found here. Many are from the Army and Navy War Colleges, but others are from places as diverse as George Washington University and the school at Ft. Leavenworth.

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Politics (Service Mettle)

Kerry's Medals:

Doc Russia had been asking some questions about this earlier. It appears that Snopes has been looking into it, and gives Kerry a clean bill of health based on what he's seen. I haven't been able to find out more than this through official channels, so I'd credit Snopes' reporting until and unless something new emerges.

Hat tip: Free Speech.

TheDenverChannel.com - Politics - Kerry Sends Angry Letter To Bush

What did he say?

From Atlanta, we have an astonishing story:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has sent a letter to President George W. Bush, accusing him of using the painful topic of Vietnam for his "personal political gain.

Let's review for a moment this article from the Washington Post:

"Vietnam" in and of itself has become a rock star brand within Kerry's apparent juggernaut for the Democratic presidential nomination. It is shorthand for Kerry's machismo, his foreign policy credentials and his refusal to succumb to the "Republican smear machine" -- ingredients in the magic dust that many believe will make him the most electable Democrat against President Bush.

"This man knows John Kerry from Vietnam," said Virginia state Sen. Henry Marsh of Vietnam vet Del Sandusky of Elgin, Ill., who would introduce Kerry in Richmond, as he has at many rallies across the country. There were more knowing nods and affirming cheers, both for the men -- Kerry and Sandusky -- and for the asset itself, Vietnam.

Sandusky credits Kerry, the commanding officer on a Navy swift boat, with saving his life. He sanctified Kerry as a "great American." A man in the crowd with a "Veterans for Kerry" sticker on his baseball cap screamed him one better: "The greatest American! He proved it in Vietnam!"

Vietnam is Kerry's best offense and defense: He was there, Bush wasn't. And if the Republicans deride him -- when they deride him -- as a "Massachusetts liberal," Vietnam will be his patriotic armor.

Honestly.

A Bet, II:

Dear Sovay,

In regard to our bet, which we made last year, I think it may be time to consider paying up. May I suggest Sierra Nevada? Also, when you get ready to write that check to the NRA, give me a minute's notice and I'll chip in the extra five bucks so you can get a year's membership. They have a magazine for real feminists, the sort who believe that strong women ought not have to fear rapists, as opposed the the sort of "strong women" who'd prefer it if you were disarmed. I can't help but think you'd enjoy the magazine.

FreeSpeech.com: Words of Wisdom

"A Reply to Emerson"

This poem, by me, is in reference to a Ralph Waldo Emerson poem:

Cincinattus was a legend,
And legends are great and bold;
Britain youthfully did attend
To prophetic blood and cold.

Fear, Craft and Avarice
May not build a State,
But Avarice and Cowardice
Are slain by drink and plate.

There is no perfect state.
There is no perfect home.
There is only man and mate,
Flesh and blood, and bone.

But where are rowdy songs and beer
Are eyes of wrath and fire,
And songs of pipes bring ready cheer
To man and child and sire.

Courage is freedom's fence,
He is her sword and shield.
Before his eternal lance
May tyrants ever yield.

Cincinattus was a legend,
But we are bold and brave
'Tis we the Republic will extend
And year by year, shall save.

U.S. Says China Cooperating on Nukes (washingtonpost.com)

You're Drunk, You're Drunk, You Silly Old Fool:

The diplomats have another whopper for you to swallow: US Praises China's commitment to nuclear nonproliferation. This week, of course, we discovered that many of the items in the Pakistani program, and the Libyan program, were Chinese in origin. This included fully developed diagrams for an implosion-type nuclear warhead, by far the most powerful and difficult kind.

I can't help but be reminded of that charming old song that titles this post (lady readers may wish to avoid the last several verses, or, in fact, the whole thing). Pay no attention. It's nothing but an old sow... with a saddle.

USMCU

Marine Corps University:

Here's a Master's thesis from Marine Corps University that's worth reading (PDF warning). It treats George Washington's role in the development of military intelligence. My congratulations to the author, LCDR Prather, US Navy, both on his thesis paper and on his good sense in choosing the Marine Corps University to pursue his military studies.

Yahoo! Mail - grimbeornr@yahoo.com

Zell Miller:

I get the Honorable Zell Miller's weekly newsletter. I don't think it's available online, so I'd like to post a piece of this week's.

I am also pleased to announce I am a co-sponsor of S.J. Res. 26 along with Senator Allard and others, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage, as well as S.1558, the Liberties Restoration Act, which declares religious liberty rights in several ways, including the Pledge of Allegiance and the display of the Ten Commandments. And I join Senator Shelby and others with the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 that limits the jurisdiction of federal courts in certain ways.

This is going to be a rowdy summer in the Senate. Good on them for that--the Republic needs some clear thinking and forthright speech, just now.

Index

Marine Corps Memoirs:

Friend and former Marine Bjorn sends this website, Marine Memoir. It's a great resource for sea stories and tales from our brothers in arms. I recommend it to you all.

Time to Watch Edwards (washingtonpost.com)

Broder:

David S. Broder has an article in the Post today called "Time to Watch Edwards". He's arguing that Edwards should get ready to step down and take a VP spot. Edwards, of course, came to win...

...and if these allegations are true, he just may. The Democrat polity has already concluded that Dean is a madman. If Kerry blows up, Edwards may be the last man standing.

The Spectre of Vietnam

The Spectre of Vietnam:

For about twenty years, every time the United States has considered an intervention we have heard about the "spectre of Vietnam." Exactly what that spectre represents is different in different minds, but it always boils down to the question of whether American military power can be effective in making changes in the world. Would not Americans be put off by rising casualty rates? By the fear of rising casualty rates? By the fear of brutalities or war crimes committed by exhausted troops? None of this is new; we've all heard it too often before.

America has done quite well in spite of the warnings. Still, it is arguable that the Spectre is responsible for a number of our current problems. It didn't stop us from acting in Grenada, but it might have been the reason that support for the Contras was banned by Congress. It didn't stop us in Bosnia, but it did restrict us to flying high-altitude missions that often struck wrong targets or were far less effective than they might have been backed by ground troops. It quite possibly did stop us from going in to Rwanda during the massacres. We know we had special ops troops ready and all but in the air when they were ordered to stand down.

Now we're in Iraq, having finally finished what was really a twelve-year war encompassing an eleven-year ceasefire-of-sorts. We're handling the guerrillas, and such evidence as there is in the open sources suggests that resistance is getting desperate enough to resort to Muslim-on-Muslim attacks, which will destroy their credibility and recruiting base in the long run. We are, in other words, winning--and the shockwaves of that victory are carrying to Pakistan, where Musharraf had to admit that AQ Khan was in fact guilty and force a confession from him; to Libya, where the Nuclear Black Market has been exposed by Gaddahfi's surrender; to Malaysia, where plants that have been churning out nuclear weapons' parts have been turned over to the CIA. While it is futile to hope that terrorism will cease to exist, it very well might be possible to win the Global War on Terrorism--to break up the international terrorist groups, and restrict terrorism to local or regional causes where it can do less harm.

But now we have a fellow running for President on the single theme: 'I am the Spectre of Vietnam!' He has already raised the ruinous banner of American military incompetence: the GWOT, he says, should not be a military enterprise at all. Yet the military enterprise is the one that has brought us the successes we've had in this war. If intelligence becomes again a powerful tool, it does so largely on the basis of military success--the recovery of mukhabarat documents in Iraq, of Qaeda manuals in Afghanistan, and the surrender of Libya and AQ Khan are all directly attributable to the military successes. They would not--not one of them--have happened otherwise.

Would the world be a better place? If we lay down arms, will it be a better place in five years? I do not see how anyone can argue or believe that.

Shadow Government

Shadow Government:

We've heard the term tossed around now and then, but it ought to be remembered that there really is one. Since the Eisenhower administration, the US gov't has been aware of the possibility of being knocked down by an atomic or nuclear strike. What the Shadow Government would look like is one of the more carefully guarded secrets--it has to be, in order to prevent enemy nations from targeting those assets at the same time that they target the Constitutional Government's assets.

Still, we can get a look at what the earliest days of the Shadow Government were like, thanks to these newly released letters. Most of them are warrants from Eisenhower to the people he wanted to lead the government in the days after a nuclear war, the possession alone of which entitled them to take command of large swathes of governmental power. As Eisenhower wrote, "This letter will constitute your authority."

Iran

Iran:

If you're curious to see what the US Air Force's people, and the NSA, think about the Iranian government, you can read this unclass document (PDF warning). You can get a feel for Iran, but also for some of the social science techniques they're fiddling around with in the intel community. My feeling on the social sciences is that they're really social arts, and OK as long as you don't lose sight of that--conclusions drawn will always lack "scientific" credibility, but might still be useful as guideposts or navigational beacons.

The BBC says that Tax Freedom Day came earlier in the Middle Ages | Samizdata.net

Taxes:

Today Samizdata has a story on taxation in the Middle Ages. An interesting point: medieval peasants worked fewer days of their year to pay their taxes than we do today.