RumsfMoon
I absolutely cannot wait for the next Rumsfeld press conference. I would give anything to hear his answer if a reporter asked him, "Sir, is it true that the US military plans a forward base on the Moon for the purpose of shooting at UFOs?"
I hope there's a cameraman handy, too. I'd love to see the look on Rumsfeld's face.
SpcVT
Specialist Van Treuren adds context from an AP report to an NY Times report about the bombing at an Iraqi hospital this week. Then, Major K. adds still more context absent from both reports. Readers who follow the MilBlogs are thus much better informed than readers of AP wire reports, and at least twice as well informed as those who are still getting their news from the NY Times.
Katrina-Iraq-MOE
"MOE" is military-speak for anything you can use to measure and track progress toward a given goal. Here are two, for the success of the mission in Iraq.
I. A Gift
Iraq's Red Crescent Donates $1 million to Katrina victims. (H/t Greyhawk).
"I wish we could have a billion dollars to give," Said Hakki, the organization's president, said by telephone from Baghdad. "Even then, it is not enough to show our appreciation for what the U.S. has done for Iraq and is still doing."In the early days after Katrina, Bangladesh donated $1 million as well. It was a great shock, as the government of Bangladesh is run by a coalition of three parties, two of which are Islamist in outlook. They remembered what we had done during the tsunami, though, and wanted to do right by us in turn.
How much does that mean in the 'hearts and minds' war? Bangladesh's Islamist movement has what Daniel was calling 'shame cultures,' so it is possible to read the generosity in the wrong way. The motive in Bangladesh is less likely to be a sense of love, than the desire to avoid the shame of being seen less generous than the American. So, a generous gift from Bangladesh does not prove that we have won hearts or minds.
On the other hand, it doesn't have to: establishing reciprocal bonds of honor and duty works almost as well. Love is better, because it will drive actions taken in secret as well as those taken in public. But if you can't have love, honor and duty is the next best thing.
How does the Iraq gift appear in that light? Iraqi Muslims also participate in a shame culture. The gift in this case, however, appears to be given not out of a sense of duty, but out of a sense of love. The Red Crescent is a self-selecting group, made up of people who are likely to express fellow-feeling through charitable giving. It can't be read as revealing for all of Iraqi society. Nevertheless, with those caveats said, we have to read this as a strongly positive MOE.
II. Iraqi Operations
Iraq's vice president reports that Iraqi forces now implement 70% of security operations. Mackubin Thomas Owens notes that, if the standard is "US-Iraqi or independent Iraqi operations," the figure is 80%.
Bill Roggio noted in an email yesterday traveling on a certain highway in Iraq, the name of which I will leave out for OPSEC reasons. It was, as he reminded us, a highway that had always been extremely dangerous -- until Iraqi forces were able to take it over. They are more effective at many kinds of security operations because (a) they speak the language, and (b) they all naturally understand the culture, and (c) they can more easily spot someone who doesn't belong. That leaves them especially capable of handling the "hold" part of "clear and hold" operations, and other similar security ops.
But wait, that's not all. As the COUNTERCOLUMN points out, the Iraqi Army is now conducting air assault missions.
Air assaults are very challenging, involving a great deal of staff work and specialized troop training. They can stretch officers and NCOs to the limit. The fact that Iraqi troops are now capable of conducting air assaults alongside the 101st, the masters of the art, is very encouraging. Will any national news outlets grasp the significance of this development? Nope.Again, the MOE here is strongly positive. Far from depressed, we ought to be most encouraged by the recent progress.
Thanksgiving
We gather today to feast with some of our friends and family, and to miss the ones who are not there with us. It can be hard to be as thankful as the holiday calls for when those you care about are far away. My respects to all of you who must endure that, and manage still to remember the purpose in your hearts.
I see that InstaPundit is recipe-blogging in preparation for the holiday. We've been known to do that here, though mostly with recipes for cooking over open fires (see also the comments). I've encountered a couple of good cookbooks lately, by the way. The first one is mostly for people who, like me, prefer to cook over an open fire: Barbecue, Biscuits and Beans by the founders of the Western Chuck Wagon Assoc.
There's also The All American Cowboy Cookbook. What's interesting about this one is that it's got recipes from rodeo riders, cowboy poets, owners of ranches, and also actors who have famously played cowboys. As a result, the type of food on offer is widely varied and will suit any taste or skill level.
For example, Baxter Black and his wife submitted a great recipe for cooking barbecue ribs in a fire pit that requires you to hose the sand and dirt off them the next day before you chow down on them. This is real cowboy cooking. Some of the ranch recipes are very simple ("Cowboy Beans: 1 pound dry beans, 1 tsp garlic powder, 1 tsp onion powder, 1 tsp salt"). On the other hand, Clint Eastwood entered a recipe he calls "Spaghetti Western," which features shrimp and sea scallops... so if you like to eat fancy food, there are several recipes from Hollywood gourmets and the fancier dude ranches.
Also, though it's the wrong time of year, I remember I offered my recipe for PETA Pie, in honor of Eat An Animal For PETA Day. It's pretty good if you like meat pies, which I learned to do because of a fondness for medieval history. You don't encounter pies in America much that aren't sweet -- chicken pot pie is the only one that comes to mind. Still, give it a try sometime.
Enjoy the feast.
CENTCOM Cares
A few weeks ago, we had a soldier from CENTCOM PA drop by and spam our comments section. Eric remarked, as I recall, "We just got spammed by CENTCOM! CENTCOM cares what we think! Cool!"
Well, they do indeed care. They sent me an email this morning asking me to link to them, and they sent along an appropriate image as well. I'm only too happy to add the link: just click on the CENTCOM badge, on the sidebar.
Wrong Way
I've been speaking to points of etiquette lately. Here is a point at which the traditions of etiquette have reached their limits. It comes in a letter directed at Captain Jason von Steenwyck:
I'm not ignorant. I don't like bigots or liars. Moore included. You included.The Army forbids its officers from fighting duels, which was the traditional response to such a challenge. The Captain responds gallantly, according to the forms which are still allowed:
Don't bother to respond.
I hold that neither has been established.... So let the evidence be brought forth! It will either be an opportunity for self-examination and growth, or it will be an opportunity for much laughter, mirth and merriment at the expense of some frothy-mouthed morons.That is too much. The honor of an officer of the United States military should not be a light matter, against which the word of any fool can stand. It is not right that a man of his proven valor should have to invite "evidence" of his bigotry and deceitfulness. The challenge has no right to be entertained.
In the days before the duel, the ancient Germanic code held that oath-swearing could take the place of trials by combat. It was a complicated process, but in short, the oaths of the honorable could outweigh any charge, so long as enough such men were willing to swear by their fellow. In a time before forensics, that could be a useful way of asserting the confidence of a close community in a man known by all to be of good heart. In a time after dueling, perhaps it can again serve as a way of asserting the confidence of a community of fighting men in the honor of one of their own.
I'll take my oath by the Captain. I defy anyone to say he is either a liar or a bigot.
SoA
Another fellow I met on that evening was "Sandy" Shapero, CEO of Spirit of America. They're doing some work in Iraq, and are raising funds for:
- Helping Iraqi and American school children build crucial bonds ofIt's good work they do, and they don't get any government money. If you're thinking of giving to charity this holiday season, or wanting to help the mission in Iraq, Spirit of America is a good way to go about it.
trust and understanding.
- Helping the Marines set up women's centers in both countries that
can provide job training, Internet access, day care services, and a
place where women can meet to exchange ideas and form mutual support
networks.
- Working with the Army in Najaf to improve health care services by
setting up a central cardiac monitoring system at a key teaching
hospital.
- Improving relations between Iraqis and Marines in Al Anbar Province
by donating school supplies, shoes, sports equipment, watches, and
other gifts to Iraqi children.
- Assisting the Marines as they help local farmers rejuvenate their
land.
SF Democ
Don't miss this piece from Foreign Policy by Green Beret James A. Gavrilis. It describes how he and his company set up a functioning democracy in the early days of the Iraq war.
The story reminded me of the evening I spent listening to LtCol Couvillon, USMC, describing his stint as "military governor" of Wasit. Obvioiusly these good ideas aren't limited to the Special Forces. (I also met Omar and Mohammed on the same evening, though they don't know they met me -- I only shook their hands, thanked them, and left them to talk to more important people than me.)
As we have apparently decided to take stock of Iraq right now, we can usefully remember how far it has come in those two years. A tyranny that had known no self-government for decades now has flourishing small communities like this. They exist in spite of the violence, which seeks to blot out these small acts of freedom and return a new tyranny to the land. It will not be.
Ralph Peters
He writes mad better than most, but this time, he's really mad.
I am absolutely astonished by the calls for withdrawal, coming as they do at this time. Of course, they've been coming all along from certain parties, but I can't see any reason why now would be the time you decided to believe that it wasn't going to work. As I wrote in an email to certain parties (with certain details redacted):
In April '04, we had insurgents holding eleven cities across Iraq openly against the US Army. In September '04, the Army had shut all that down, but there were still strongholds in Anbar. In November '04, after Fallujah, those strongholds started to fall one by one. By this summer, we're seeing Sunni tribes who had been somewhat loyal to the insurgents breaking off and supporting the government. Now, we're seeing even some of the more serious tribes negotiating with the government, and we've got clear-and-hold operations throughout Anbar.That's the question that baffles me. I realize those who know nothing at all about military science get their opinion of the progress from the media, which apparently also knows nothing about military science. Their reports mention every explosion, but contain no context of increasing stability. Even the Jordan bomb, so clearly a disaster for al Qaeda, was reported as proof of their influence. The image you might take away is of an insurgency that's no less powerful today than it was last year, or a year and a half ago: an enemy that makes no mistakes, whose every attack is an unqualified success.
Last winter, we were having insurgent attacks in force against American military posts -- remember when the general officers had to take up arms in Ramadi? When was the last time they tried to overrun a US firebase? January? I know the *** is demoralizing, but they do *** because they can't do assaults.
All the evidence is that our boys are rolling them up, and the new Iraqi government is starting to get its feet under it. I don't see why anyone has any doubt that we're winning, and winning big. Meanwhile, al Qaeda's use of murder squads aimed at civilians is cutting the heart out of their support among Muslims. Zarqawi was disowned by his tribe today; last week, we had the largest Muslim organization in the world condemn suicide bombing. If we get to the point that Muslims in general are opposed to groups that carry out suicide attacks, we've won the GWOT for all intents and purposes. After that, we just need to focus on penetrating and capturing the cells in the West, while encouraging democracy and openness abroad.
That's not to say that it isn't still a long road with some dark places along it. But it is to say -- what are people thinking? How can anyone stand up and say that the war isn't winnable, when we are so clearly winning it?
Still, why have these calls suddenly jumped to the front page and the top of the agenda? Why now? There have been no events on the ground in Iraq to explain a sudden sense of failure. There has been no Tet offensive to misread as an enemy victory. Even if you judge only from the media, without any context to explain the progress being made, surely things don't appear to be getting sharply worse. They just don't explain how it's getting better.
Is it just because Bush's poll numbers are bad, and so the political opposition -- as Peters suggests -- is piling on for that reason? Can it really be that the opposition is so uninterested in national security and the success of America's military and her foreign policy? Can it really be that the only thing driving this is domestic politics -- that the leadership of one of our two policital parties is willing to lose a war purely in pursuit of domestic politics? Whether or not that is so, it's certainly driven the leadership of both parties into playing high-profile games with what ought to be an issue of serious thought.
I want to hear a convincing argument that this is not the case. I will be happy to embrace it, if someone can make it to me. So far, I'm not seeing it. What I'm seeing is a political class that needs an education. It's not just senior officials saying that the dispute is hurting morale -- I've been hearing it from fighters in the field and from their families. The New York Times decided to ask some soldiers, and reports that the dispute between Congress and the President has little effect on morale. Maybe that's true, and I've just heard from people who feel differently than most.
Still, in the last line of the article, they mention this: "Many in uniform say it is the job of the nation's political leaders to communicate the importance of the mission and the need for national sacrifice to a new generation of soldiers." I agree -- the leaders do need to communicate that. They need to show that they understand how important it is to succeed in the mission. These political games need to end. You can't play at standing behind the soldiers and their mission. You have to really be behind them.
Boys
I'm not sure exactly why, but my son has recently developed an interest in guns. Both my wife and I carry concealed sometimes (with legal permits, of course), my wife in particular, but we have always taken pains not to have him aware of it (if only so he won't pipe up in public and say, "Mommy, will you take your gun out?"). The guns are locked out of sight and unloaded, separate from their ammo, except the firearms for night defense -- which are also locked out of sight in a safe, and in a condition where they can't be used without some knowledge of how they operate. The safe is sealed and locked every morning before he gets up, so I'm pretty sure that it's not my behavior that has caused this interest. He doesn't see me carrying a gun, in other words, or handling them, or whatever.
I'm not opposed to teaching him about them, just the opposite -- but he's only three. I thought swords would be enough for a while yet. And indeed, the other day we took a long walk, and he carried his wooden sword along. Every few feet, he'd stop and pretend to fight "another monster!" It's very endearing.
However, he has for some time also been picking up sticks that are kind of gun-shaped, and carrying them around. He makes a gun noise: "jugga-jugga!" I guess he got the idea from Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, or Raiders of the Lost Ark, or The Lone Ranger, or one of the other adventure movies he likes to watch when he isn't watching Kipper the Dog.
He has also been begging me to buy him a toy gun. I resisted for a long while. Guns are not toys, I keep telling him; they are a serious business. Still, he's playing "guns" anyway with the sticks; and, I reflected, with a toy that had some semblance to how a real firearm operates, I could start teaching him firearms safety in an enviornment with no consequences if he screws up (e.g., "Don't point that at me!" won't cause anyone to get shot if he does anyway). By the time he's old enough, if I'm dilligent about it, he should know the rules of firearms safety as second nature. I hope, in other words, that I'm doing the right thing by encouraging his interest rather than creating a forbidden object to desire; and by taking the opportunity to teach him how to behave safely and with responsibility. Besides, I had toy guns as a kid.
I weighed and considered this for a long time. I finally made up my mind to go ahead with it, if he continued to show interest, yesterday afternoon. He was playing with his stick gun again. "I've got a gun, daddy!" he said.
I sighed, and pointed to his sword. "You've also got a sword," I replied. "What do you need a gun for anyway?"
He looked at me seriously, and said, "For shooting bad guys."
Well, I couldn't argue with that. It's the very reason I own guns.
So, since he was pleasant and good today, I offered to buy him a toy; and he insisted that he wanted a gun. So we went to WalMart, and he picked out a toy shotgun (the "Montana," of a line of toys that replicate old cowboy guns -- he passed up Star Wars stuff for this). I gave him the initial lecture about gun saftey (which I'm sure went right over his head, but by the time he's ten he'll be able to recite it backwards in his sleep). Then I gave him the thing, and took him home.
A few hours later, I'm up in my office working, and I can hear him operating the thing down below. He's in the bedroom, watching a movie. His mother's voice drifts up.
"Beowulf! Are you shooting Bambi?"
A pause while he answers.
"You're shooting Bambi's Mom?!?!?"
Well, uh, boys will be boys, you know.
Iraq
You've probably all seen the new group blog, No End But Victory. I entirely support the concept behind it.
I have not written about Iraq in a little while, but only because I haven't seen anything to change my opinion of the place. The September before last I wrote "Clausewitz and the Triangle" while guest-blogging at the Mudville Gazette, which laid out the forces at work in Iraq from the perspective of military science. I think, a year and more on, that it still is the correct understanding.
Events have played out as the analysis suggested they should. The insurgent attacks have undermined their cause more than they've helped it, with the result that talk of "inkblots" or "oil spots" is now on our side instead of theirs. The tribes who had been in support of the insurgency have increasingly been splitting off and supporting US military efforts, as Bill Roggio has been reporting all summer and fall. The January elections enjoyed a large turnout and little violence, and the more recent elections enjoyed both a wider turnout and even less violence than the January elections.
Over the summer I posted two pieces to Bill's site that were the same sort of large-scale analysis. "In Response to a Question" was the first. It looked at the insurgents' problem again, and found it to be the same problem but at a later stage of development. Whereas in the September 2004 piece, the insurgents were creating no-go areas and holding towns against the United States for certain periods, the Fallujah campaign marked the start of a grinding away of any insurgent strongpoint. By the summer, the only places the insurgents could "hold" were the places no one was bothering to attack yet -- fewer and fewer as time went along. By this point, we are managing successful "clear and hold" operations throughout the Sunni Triangle, with the aid of increasingly capable Iraqi military units. Even tribes who are genuine allies of the insurgency must now reconsider their long-term future. That process is ongoing, with more and more even of the hardcore tribal insurgents shifting their stance to one amenable to the government's existence.
The other piece was "A Question of Victory," which proposed a test for victory not merely in Iraq, but in the larger GWOT. It predicted that al Qaeda's victory -- in Iraq, and elsewhere -- required that they create and maintain a sense of family bond with their various supporters in Iraq and elsewhere:
Victory is possible when and if al Qaeda's claim to a family bond fails. At that point, the tribal component will not be honor-bound to support the insurgency. If they are not family, they are enemy.Activity type one is something the military is working on, building relationships among Iraqi army units and American ones. Reconstruction projects, always under-reported but always ongoing, are another. But activity type two is of increasing importance, as demonstrated by the recent attacks in Jordan. The attacks were an attempt to strike at forces beyond Iraq, for the small reason of disrupting broader Coalition activity, and the large reason of appearing more powerful than the insurgency really is. The effect was to create a vision of kinslaying:
What kind of activity can break that bond? There are only two types.
1) Activity on the Coalition's part that makes the tribes feel a stronger family bond to us than to al Qaeda.
2) Activity on al Qaeda's part that will be interpreted as kinslaying.
Zarqawi in particular and Al-Qaeda in general have attracted a measure of support from the Jordanian underclasses, creating a dilemma for the Government of King Abdullah II as he attempts to build on the softly-softly work of his late father, King Hussein, in simultaneously forging ties with the Jewish state, appeasing Jordan's chief foreign aid donor, the US, with limited democratic reform, lifting living standards for its have-nots while retaining credibility on the Arab street. Yet in the battle for hearts and minds which runs parallel to the hot war on terror, Zarqawi might have over-reached himself with the Amman attacks.But these are the only kinds of attacks the insurgency can manage. They have no alternative strategy, because they have no capacity for an alternative strategy. They cannot concentrate on holding territory because they can hold none. They cannot negotiate because their ideology forbids it. They cannot defeat the American military, so no strategy based on that is available. They can use IEDs to bomb American and Iraqi military targets, but as those targets become hardened each successful attack requires more planning and expertise -- which means that a strategy based on that kind of attack means fewer successsful attacks over time, which the insurgency cannot afford. They must appear to be growing in power, not diminishing.
They cannot stop bombing civilian targets because they would fade out of the public mind, which for an insurgency is exactly equivalent to military defeat. They must continue bombing civilian targets, in more and more horrific fashion, if they are to continue the illusion of being a powerful, undefeatable foe. That this illusion might lead to a political decision by US politicians to withdraw is their only hope.
Yet the very means by which the illusion is maintained are the very means by which they are achieving our major condition of victory in the GWOT -- not just in Iraq, but worldwide. As they carry on in this fashion, they convince the Muslim world that they are not defenders of Muslims and Islam, but evil men. More protests against al Qaeda will result. More Islamic clerics will come out against suicide bombings, as Hasyim Muzadi did last week. Who is he, you ask? He is the leader of Nahdlatul Ulama, which with forty million members is the largest Muslim religious organization in the world.
I haven't written about Iraq much lately, because all there is to say is the same things again. These forces were and are the crucial forces at work in this war. All that is required is time and leverage, and al Qaeda must provide us with ever-increasing leverage in order to fight us at all. Victory is certain.
What I cannot predict is when al Qaeda's capability in Iraq will collapse, but there is no doubt at all that it will. They are exhausting their one critical store, the sense among Muslims that they represent defenders of Muslims and Islam. Their resiliance to date has come only from that store, as it has so far allowed them to replenish their ranks with new volunteers. When it is gone, al Qaeda in Iraq will be no more dangerous than Jemaah Islamiyah is in Southeast Asia. They may be able to carry out the occasional bombing, but they won't represent a danger to the stability of even weak, third-world nations.
The project of democracy in Iraq will then be like the project in Indonesia or Malaysia -- a project with a long way to go, that is to say, but one in which there is nevertheless notable progress.
All that the American people need to do is be patient and have faith. All that the American military needs to do is allow its men to carry on as they are doing, kicking the insurgents down every time they stand up, holding territory, building the Iraqi army and infrastructure, and building "family" ties through honorable action. That was my analysis in September 2004, and it remains my analysis today.
No End But Victory, indeed.
Hook Sends
Sergeant Hook wants you to read this. Hook's been around a long time, and I've never gotten an all-hands MilBlog request from him before now. Go and read what he has been asked to share with you.
Military honors
JHD sends this story about USMC casualty notification. It is called "Final Salute."
Cassandra suggests you read another piece, called "What we owe them." It is about another of our fallen 2/2 Marines, Lance Corporal Nickolas Schiavoni.
The guys over at Edefense Online have put up a very interesting article about the Serbian Air defense battery that managed to knock down an F-16 and F-117 during the Kosovo war. These were not some ill trained Arabs led by thugs. Instead, these were some competent soldiers led by a smart and bold professional officer, getting the most out of what he had. How many more Colonel Zoltans are out there?
That incident, like the reports about the Indian Air Force handing the USAF its collective butt in some top gun exercises in 2004, should be a warning that technology doesn't win by itself--you need people, leadership, training, and above all, don't underestimate your opponent.
But we all knew that, right?
First, we have The Republicans stepping on their collective training aid in the Senate. At random, see Hugh Hewitt. Et tu, Fristus? And I have a message for the Senator: Don't even think about running for President in 2008, you fool.
And today, we have Representative Murtha, unmanning himself. I also have a message for the Representative: You are a walking advertisement for term limits. Resign now, and mitigate some of your disgrace.
Do these 'honorable' men have any idea the message that their actions sends? Apparently not. Go take a gander at memeorandum and just see what's being said.
UPDATE:
via Hugh Hewitt again, the transcript of Hugh and Mark Steyn discussing the situation.
Some side notes
Aaron's "deck of death" for bloggers is still ongoing. It appears to me that we may have succeeded in voting Doc a card, for which I thank you. Aaron hasn't yet posted the totals for clubs, but I appreciate everyone who took the time to get over there and vote for Doc. I didn't think to endorse someone for the hearts (although I voted for Baldilocks -- no offense to Soldier's Angels, but Baldilocks and I are old mates from Easy Company. There's a group photo and everything.
It looks like spades are about to get started. I'll gladly endorse The Nation of Riflemen. Good luck to them.
I also added The Donovan to the sidebar today. It's another one of those places I never quite realized I hadn't already linked. Anybody else who wonders why I haven't linked to you, feel free to drop me a line. It's probably just that I'm too busy with my (ahem) other job that I don't get around to editing the template often.
OSM
It looks like the launch for Open Source Media, or OSM, or whatever it will actually be called, went reasonably well (except for that copyright thing). Dennis the Peasant will be amused to know that I learned the address for the new OSM website from his blog. I imagine they'll email me about it sometime soon. Or not -- since we're meant to be Open Source specialists, I suppose it's not unreasonable to expect us to find these things out for ourselves.
"THOSE BOYS ARE WINGING IT!" Dennis says. Well, indeed they do appear to be. Nothing wrong with that. Those of us who score 92% "Indiana Jones" (h/t Geek w/a .45) don't mind a little bit of making it up as you go along. This is supposed to be fun, after all. If the money doesn't turn up, it's no big deal. I was doing this anyway, and my only plans for it were to give to my wife to invest in her flower garden. If it doesn't show up, she'll just invest my money instead. :)
So far, it has been fun, and more importantly it's been a good learning experience. Blogs are going to revolutionize the media experience even more than they have. PJM/OSM/whatever is a good first effort. I've always thought of it along the lines of the early labor unions. It may yet pull out the initial difficulties and be the next AFL/CIO; or it may yet be the Knights of Labor, and pave the way for the next AFL/CIO. It's a worthy effort either way, and I'm happy to help as much as I can.
Which isn't much, I will be the first to admit. Still, I do wish them well.
Logan
Captain Ed invokes the Logan Act. Nathan at Hoosier Illuminati calls foul.
I think Nathan puts it a bit too strongly when he says, "invoking the Logan Act ought to be the equivalent of Godwin’s Law—whoever mentions it first, loses." The Logan Act really is the law, and it is strongly worded. The fact that it has never been successfully enforced doesn't change the fact that it's on the books.
Nevertheless, we had a good go at the Logan Act here and at Del's FreeSpeech. What we discovered was that:
1) No one had ever been convicted of it, as Nathan points out, and
2) Furthermore, Senators are obviously exempt.
The text of the law is here. The relevant clause:
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.Emphasis added. Senators do indeed have authority to carry on correspondence and intercourse with foreign governments, and indeed to authorize others to do it on their behalf and that of their constituents. So do Representatives. It's one of their formal duties: witness Henry Hyde's recent letter on behalf of a statue of General MacArthur.
The Logan Act might someday be enforced, even though it never has been -- it is the law, after all. But it can't be enforced against a Congressman.
An Example
Dr. Helen (whom I only just realized was also the InstaWife) has this post on the importance of promoting increased harmony between the sexes:
Every once in a while, I make a crack about women--I might call a particular woman a jerk or a bully or some other name. I often do it for effect as much as anything else. Why, you may ask, would she say something negative about someone of her own gender?Dr. Helen cites a number of examples to reinforce her point about society's treatment of men. Although I have argued against her position that men are suffering from society in the past, I will grant it for the purpose of this particular argument. What I'd like to take issue with today is her proposed remedy, and the reasoning behind it.
Because I believe that women can take it. Men, for the longest time, have been the subject of jokes, putdowns and just downright rude expletives, mainly by women, but also by men.... Joking about people and making crass comments is seen as the weapon of the minority against the majority. You can do it if you are the right gender or race. The psychological reason that society lets women and certain minorities get away with it is that they are seen as the underdog--they are viewed as weak and not able to tolerate a joke or a negative comment for fear they will crumble. But I think women and minorities are stronger than that. I do not see women as people who are weak--but rather who are strong and autonomous--those types of people do not need the government to intervene on their behalf everytime a negative word is said. In a free society, we should have the right to make offensive remarks and jokes without fear of punishment--even of so-called minorities.
Allow me to suggest that the last thing America needs is more public rudeness. If we succeed in "making the playing field level" at the cost of making it acceptable to be rude to anyone at any time, I will consider that we have damaged rather than improved society.
The discipline that is needed is not the discipline of being ready to challenge others to accept rudeness, but the discipline of etiquette. Part of this is learning to assume the best of people. I imagine that if a gentlemen should open the door for Dr. Helen, she would assume that he is demonstrating a desire to show a kindness to a fellow person, rather than suggesting that he assumes she is too weak to open the door. We can better improve society, not by making it easier to make fun of women and minorities, but by raising the threshold at which "offensive" behavior becomes actionable. A great deal of that is learning, personally, to forgive and assume the best when there is any doubt about the other person's intent.
Etiquette also includes the ability to defend yourself, kindly. Miss Manners demonstrates the way to do this regularly, which is one reason her column deserves more attention than it gets. Consider this academic example:
Dear Miss Manners:As Miss Manners points out, the elevation in rudeness ends the debate -- it doesn't further it. Dr. Helen appears to regard this as a psychological problem rather than a problem of manners; as such she advocates what would appear to be a sort of aversion therapy. That will tend to destroy the atmosphere in which a serious consideration of the problem could be made. It will ruin any hope of actual improvement.
As an educator in a graduate professional education program, I frequently invite guest lecturers. I've had two dilemmas:
The first lecturer informs the class that certain research has been cross-culturally "universally" validated. I know that the research was done only with males. Is it rude for me to bring it up? What if I won't have the chance to correct the information with the students on another occasion?
The second lecturer, an African American female, presents views of her social reality that are disturbing to two white male students, who challenge her views and ask for statistics to verify them. When the lecturer cites her PhD, one student calls out, "I don't care about your PhD" and leaves the room. Should I, as host educator, have intervened, or would that have been paternalistic?
It would be paternalistic to treat an African American female professor more protectively than you would any other guest lecturer. This brings us back to your underlying dilemma, which is that you feel torn between maintaining decorum and permitting debate.
Miss Manners is afraid that you, like many others, believe these goals to be incompatible. On the contrary, it is decorum that allows dissent to be aired, and it is your job to ensure both. Academic lectures should always allow debate, and decorum should always prevail, there as elsewhere.
In the first example, your own dissent was suppressed. There would have been nothing rude about your using the question period to ask for a demographic breakdown of the research.
The second was characterized by neither decorum nor debate. The request for statistics was reasonable, and the lecturer was rude in dismissing it by citing her credentials. At that point, you could have intervened by saying, "Of course, but we would all be interested in hearing your data."
Instead, the student turned rude. What you could have said after the student left was, "I apologize for the outburst. Now we would all be interested in hearing your data."
I respectfully suggest that it is also rude to assume that people who behave in ways you don't like are sick, and in need of treatment. They may simply be in need of a good example. Even if they do need treatment, though, they have every right to resent it being diagnosed, prescribed and administered without their consent. Involuntary treatment of patients ought to be something undertaken only under the most rigorous ethical guidelines, if only because of the unreliable quality of psychological diagnoses. Even as society would be improved by more rather than fewer manners, psychology would benefit from more rather than fewer ethics.