Afghan Wars, Strategic Necessity, Iraq -
Rereading The Great Game:
I've been a little preoccupied lately, but I did find time this week to reread a splendid book on 19th-century conflict in Central Asia - Peter Hopkirk's The Great Game - which I can't too highly recommend. This time through, I spotted some analogies I missed before, that might be of interest. (As I get older and busier, I increasingly appreciate the value of well-written history; if I can't read it speedily, I'll never have time to read it again, and I always miss so much the first time through.)
The Great Game itself (I'm going to eschew further Wikipedia links here; you know how to go there!) arose quite simply, though the course was fascinatingly complex. Great Britain held India, which was a major source of its wealth and prestige (whether it should've is a separate question; it did). Britain had a stragegic interest in keeping India free from invaders; and Russia, which was often at odds with Britain over one thing and another, had a strategic interest in being able to threaten India. Afghanistan and Persia were, by themselves, moderately dangerous (both had invaded India in the past, and many Afghan tribes were still warlike and fond of plunder) - but as invasion routes to India (particularly after the Russians seized the central Asian khanates that gave them long borders with Persia and Afghanistan) they were appallingly dangerous. Russian officers in central Asia were quite forthright that they were wargaming just such an invasion in the event of war (they also had a nasty habit of acting beyond orders in carrying out attacks; the Czar tended to be very forgiving in the event of success).
Responding to (or learning about) a Russian invasion only when the first of the Czar's troops crossed the Indian border would've been an extremely bad idea; and Afghanistan was not the kind of powerful, secure nation that could resist such a thing alone, even if it wanted to (a recurring theme in Russian plans was to encourage Afghanistan to join in, and share the plunder, as it had long before). This in turn gave Britain a strategic interest in the rulership and foreign policies of Persia and Afghanistan (or, to use one of John Derbyshire's phrases - Afghanistan was in India's strategic backyard).
A couple of examples of where this led, summarized brutally: in the 1830's, Persia was allied with Russia; Afghanistan and Punjab (not yet part of British India) were allied with Britain, but they had a large dispute with each other over a province that Punjab had seized, and the British refused to make Punjab disgorge. The king of Afghanistan (Dost Mohammed) began receiving Russian ambassadors (possibly to hint to the British that keeping him happy was much in their interest); the British responded by unseating him and placing one of his several rivals (Shah Shujah, who had no quarrel with Punjab) on the throne (controversial decision even at the time; the British agent in Kabul highly recommended leaving Dost Mohammed in place) (Around the same time, the Persians, with Russian advisors, besieged the border town of Herat - a couple of British advisors helped Herat hold out; and the Persians withdrew when the British dispatched a relief column.) Shah Shujah proved much less popular than the British thought; the natives ended up overthrowing him and massacring his British advisors. Britain, worried that it would appear weak and vulnerable in the faces of this, mounted a punitive expedition. A few months later, they allowed Dost Mohammed to return -- and he remained friendly to the British for the rest of his reign (they, in turn, let him seize Herat - which had been independent - without objection). Later, the British discovered the existence of viable invasion routes through Tibet; and they found it necessary to map Tibet secretly (the rulers did not allow it). Later still, having intelligence that the Russians were being received in Lhasa, the British invaded Tibet and won some extreme concessions from its rulers. Hopkirk dedicated a separate book, an excellent one, to that story. And he did not miss the tragedy of it all - for the British intelligence was false, the Russians had no significant presence in Tibet, and the Tibetans (unlike the Afghans and Persians) didn't exhibit a single foreign policy goal beyond simply being left alone.
The point, to me, is that dreadful and uncertain as these events were - as long as Britain held India, and had an interest in keeping it secure, the British could not simply ignore its neighbors or leave them strictly alone. "Should the current ruler of Afghanistan stay in power?" "How much control should we attempt to exert over him?" and "How strong do we let him grow?" were fair questions; "I don't care" was not a practical or permissibile answer. "How do we gain intelligence and advance warning in the event our enemies come through Tibet?" was a fair question. "Let's just stay in the dark" was not a practical answer.
In the end, the British and Russians settled their differences by treaty in 1907; agreeing that Afghanistan and southern Persia were in the British sphere of influence, and northern Persia (including Tehran) in the Russian; Russia would have no agents in Kabul but Britain would not "change the political status of" (i.e., annex) Afghanistan. (This wonderful, final settlement lasted all of ten years; the Bolsheviks took over, tore the treaty up, and started their own campaign to dominate Persia and Afghanistan, and eventually India - to which Hopkirk dedicated another book, which I haven't read.)
I think you can see the analogy I have in mind. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are to us as India was to Britain - a major source of wealth (though happily we've been wise enough not to annex them - no Sepoy mutinies for us - but simply to purchase what we need), and their neighbors are thus in our "strategic backyard." Iraq under Saddam was something like Afghanistan under Czarist control - a serious threat, with an interest in gaining prestige by controlling the wealth of the Gulf states and humiliating us. Those states had nothing like the power to defend themselves from what he could muster; and keeping an army in the Arabian desert (as we did during and after the first Gulf war) to defend them created extra problems for us. Creating spheres of influence in buffer states wasn't an option because there weren't any; attempting to end the threat by treaty (as we did in 1991) didn't work, because Saddam did not hold to his treaties. Our ultimate decision, and I think it was the best available, was to replace Saddam with something else - something that did not have an interest in threatening the neighbors. A democracy at least avoids the problem of picking Shah Shujah over Dost Mohammed - you don't have to guess which leader has the most popular support (and you can avoid at least some of the problem Shah Shujah faced - since he was seated and supported by foreign troops, he was an affront to national pride). Which isn't to say that, like all options available to us in 2003, it didn't have its share of problems, or of controversy, or require a massive amount of guesswork.
Whether we should've - let's say - long ago switched completely to nuclear power, so as to end our strategic interest in the Gulf states, is a completely separate question, and quite beyond the scope of what I'm writing here. What the Great Game analogy illustrates for me is this: as long as we do have a material interest in the Gulf states and who controls them, we cannot (much as we might wish to) simply ignore the question of who, or what, is in control of their neighbors. It's hugely tempting to adopt a viewpoint that says, "This is all stupid. It can't be worth it. If they're not attacking us, right now, let's just leave them alone." Or to insist that we can avoid messy entanglements, and stick with the Powell Doctrine or something like, while we have interests like that. If books like Hopkirk's were more often read, these temptations might be more often resisted, and foreign policy debates take place on a higher level.
Women
Can't Trust Women:
Turn your back on them for a few months, and you start getting emails asking if they can't please just go buy a little something...
Watch how he seems to float at the trot. That's the old warhorse blood in the Friesian. Goliath, from Ladyhawke, was one of that breed -- you can see the resemblance in how the colt moves. No doubt he's a beauty, or will be in a couple of years.
Not sure what they were thinking with their musical selection for that video, though.
EXCLUSIVE: Col. Boylan Apologizes Abjectly To Glenn Greenwald!!!!
From: "Boylan, Steven COL MNF-I CMD GRP CG PAO"
To: ggreenwald@salon.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 8:15 AM
Subject: Groveling Apology for Daring to Say Things You Disagree With (about A War That I Am Fighting) And Stipulation That Virtually Every Single Person Who Supports The War Is A Rabidly Right-Wing Partisan
Dear Glenn:
Dude...
The inspiring way in which you continually seize the moral high ground, nobly abjuring base ad hominid attacks and calmly employing facts and logic, has raised the tone of our discourse to such a rarified level that I now feel ashamed of my earlier communication with you. Who could face such a soaring example of the Left's oft stated belief in civility and respect for others without shrinking in shame?
Largely as a result of your moral leadership, I'm writing to say I've had a change of heart. I now wish to confess my fault; my most grievous fault: indeed, my most manifold sins and wickedness against You and - with an humble and contrite heart - beg your forgiveness.
1. First, let me apologize for daring to voice an opinion at all. Not to put too fine a point on it, what the hell was I thinking? Looking back, I now realize this was way inappropriate.
Members of the armed forces should never presume the First Amendment rights they fight and die to defend apply to them; the Hatch Act and UCMJ notwithstanding. As every educated person knows, our fragile freedoms would evaporate in an instant if dangerous ideas lurking in the minds of rough, untutored military folk were allowed to compete in the marketplace of ideas with those voiced by their vastly superior civilian masters. When the subject is war, the danger becomes even clearer as the military are the undoubted subject matter experts possessing both professional expertise and first hand knowledge while civilians are, of necessity, far less well informed by virtue of their training, experience, and proximity to events. In such cases, it is absolutely vital that only those military members who voice sentiments critical of the armed forces and the war effort be allowed to speak their minds. Theirs are the only honest, authentic, and non-partisan voices. For reasons that should be obvious to any thinking progressive, it is vital to our national debate that they be allowed to Bravely Speak Truth to Power. Under no circumstances must they be Silenced!
Those who support illegal, immoral military occupations, on the other hand, are obviously rabidly right-wing partisan hacks who must be stifled for the good of the nation. Mr. Greenwald, (can I call you Mr. Greenwald?) I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for showing me the logical errors in my former way of thinking. Surely only abject stupidity can explain such egregious lapses in judgment.
2. Secondly, regarding my gross unprofessionalism, let me apologize for thinking it was in any way appropriate for me (as a career military Public Affairs Officer) to attempt to correct the record on matters of fact regarding the military or the war effort. Again, WHAT THE HELL WAS I THINKING? This is not what Uncle Sam is paying me for. Enough said.
No, wait a minute. I am letting myself off too easily, aren't I?
I was (again) guilty of "abject stupidity" (not to mention gross partisanship) in accusing you of inaccuracy:
In reviewing your exact words, I am at a complete lost to understand how I could have been so abjectly stupid as to think the words "the U.S. military in Iraq has become staffed with pure Republican political hacks" meant that Schmidt and Bergner were actually WORKING for the military, or that your statement that "these partisan and politically-motivated people" were "shaping U.S. military conduct" amounted to any kind of assertion on your part! Only a rabidly partisan political hack would make such an abjectly stupid error:
Again, though anyone with even a passing familiarity with military assignments would surely know this, military aides cannot "choose" their jobs. We serve under both Democratic and Republican administrations (making the charge that a career military officer chosen by a MILITARY selection board to serve as a White House aide must be a "rabidly Republican partisan hack" highly debatable - what, pray tell, does that say about Clinton-era White House military aides?). But no doubt since you are a lawyer and a civilian, you know best. General Bergner was undoubtedly tainted by his tour in the White House and should have been cashiered immediately; perhaps taken out and shot for good measure. No doubt you would recommend exactly the same treatment for all former Clinton era aides since their loyalties are likewise suspect. It is best to be strictly non-partisan in these matters, don't you think?
3. Regarding the "increasing politicization of the military". Oh, you are so right, and the proof is in all these leaks that just keep on happening. Suspicious, aren't they?
I mean sure, there have been an awful lot of "leaks" of actual, classified (as in secret) information to the press. And oddly, you did not consider those leaks to be harmful, much less evidence of "politicization of the military" (or of the CIA) when they occurred. In fact, you were quite pleased and considered them a sign of a healthy democracy in which brave truth tellers are not "afraid" to come forward and break the law!
I must admit I am a bit confused on the point of exactly why you never seem to fulminate about "politicization" when opponents of the war illegally leak classified documents damaging to the administration or the war effort, but if non-classified information that conflicts with your preferred narrative is leaked, you immediately begin demanding investigations and accusing the military of malfeasance:
So, when classified documents that harm the war effort are continually leaked to the media, is the U.S. military (perhaps that part of it that you all keep tell us is, any minute now, preparing to jump over to the DNC) "using the standard DNC/Left-wing model for trying to shape the news in politically beneficial ways?"
Amazing. Didn't think them fellers were that smart.
And then there's that whole PFC Beauchamp thing you keep going on about. Again, I remain a bit confused by why you don't smell a cover-up in the fact that the New Republic not only lied about the Army censoring Beauchamp but tried to pressure him into remaining silent so they could "control the story". That TNR wished to prevent Beauchamp from talking to anyone is corroborated by Foer himself:
Is Foer in league with those increasingly politicized scoundrels at CENTCOM and DoD too? What a rabidly right-wing partisan... the man is obviously in cahoots with the those Republican hacks at the administration. Good thing Foer (a completely disinterested and nonpartisan party if ever there was one) was able to keep Beauchamp from "leaking" the truth to the press, all while claiming the Army was trying to censor him against his will. We wouldn't want the corrupting influence of rabid political partisans with an agenda politicizing the military!
4. Finally, on the issue of the military's ongoing efforts to suppress bad news on the war:
Well, the proof is in the pudding, is it not? I mean, if there is one thing America has not seen much of during the past four years, it is bad news coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is what I'd consider prima facie evidence that the military's brutal attempts to intimidate the mainstream media have been an overwhelming success.
After all, the military are associated in the popular consciousness with guns and violence. Therefore, the mere act of verbally disputing any fact, opinion, or point of logic held by a civilian constitutes a veiled threat. It is all so obvious, isn't it?
The entire point is to terrify the recipient by reminding him a combat-addled, psychotic veteran may just show up on his doorstep when he least expects it and beat him senseless in some frenzied act of PTSD-induced rage... just like those Marines who suddenly snapped in the heat of cold blood from the stress of war and murdered innocent men, women and children at Haditha.
It's like Winter Soldier all over again: deja vu a grisly tale of repressed memories, the looming threat of imagined violence, and above all, the pseudo-intimidation:
Yes, there are few things in life more terrifying than pseudo-intimidation. Unless, of course, it's real intimidation. No doubt this explains why the number of combat embeds in Iraq has fallen, in a war the New York Times calls "worse by every conceivable measure" from a high of nearly 800 to fewer than 100 - all those brave truth tellers must have been ultra, ultra pseudo scared off.
In closing, Mr. Greenwald, let me say that you have opened my eyes to a new way of thinking. Previously my abjectly stupid prefrontal cortex would have been unable to grasp the near-perfect circular symmetry of your distinctive argumentation techniques. Luckily, right after I learned that Air America host Randi Rhodes had not, as her co-host had reported on air, been beaten up by conservatives I happened upon this mildly ironic comment at The Moderate Voice and suddenly you began to make perfect sense:
It's all about those progressive values: tolerance, open mindedness, the refuse to engage in ad hominem attacks, integrity. That's what makes you guys better than the Other.
And that's why I owe you an apology.
Steve
Steven A. Boylan
Colonel, US Army
Public Affairs Officer
From: "Boylan, Steven COL MNF-I CMD GRP CG PAO"
To: ggreenwald@salon.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 8:15 AM
Subject: Groveling Apology for Daring to Say Things You Disagree With (about A War That I Am Fighting) And Stipulation That Virtually Every Single Person Who Supports The War Is A Rabidly Right-Wing Partisan
Dear Glenn:
Dude...
The inspiring way in which you continually seize the moral high ground, nobly abjuring base ad hominid attacks and calmly employing facts and logic, has raised the tone of our discourse to such a rarified level that I now feel ashamed of my earlier communication with you. Who could face such a soaring example of the Left's oft stated belief in civility and respect for others without shrinking in shame?
The fact that a right-wing blogger spews serious accusations based on complete idiocy is ordinarily not worthy of comment. That happens virtually every day. That is what the right-wing blogosphere is, more or less; it is why it exists.
...I'm honestly interested in knowing: what else besides abject stupidity can explain this? I mean that as a serious question.
Largely as a result of your moral leadership, I'm writing to say I've had a change of heart. I now wish to confess my fault; my most grievous fault: indeed, my most manifold sins and wickedness against You and - with an humble and contrite heart - beg your forgiveness.
1. First, let me apologize for daring to voice an opinion at all. Not to put too fine a point on it, what the hell was I thinking? Looking back, I now realize this was way inappropriate.
Members of the armed forces should never presume the First Amendment rights they fight and die to defend apply to them; the Hatch Act and UCMJ notwithstanding. As every educated person knows, our fragile freedoms would evaporate in an instant if dangerous ideas lurking in the minds of rough, untutored military folk were allowed to compete in the marketplace of ideas with those voiced by their vastly superior civilian masters. When the subject is war, the danger becomes even clearer as the military are the undoubted subject matter experts possessing both professional expertise and first hand knowledge while civilians are, of necessity, far less well informed by virtue of their training, experience, and proximity to events. In such cases, it is absolutely vital that only those military members who voice sentiments critical of the armed forces and the war effort be allowed to speak their minds. Theirs are the only honest, authentic, and non-partisan voices. For reasons that should be obvious to any thinking progressive, it is vital to our national debate that they be allowed to Bravely Speak Truth to Power. Under no circumstances must they be Silenced!
Those who support illegal, immoral military occupations, on the other hand, are obviously rabidly right-wing partisan hacks who must be stifled for the good of the nation. Mr. Greenwald, (can I call you Mr. Greenwald?) I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for showing me the logical errors in my former way of thinking. Surely only abject stupidity can explain such egregious lapses in judgment.
2. Secondly, regarding my gross unprofessionalism, let me apologize for thinking it was in any way appropriate for me (as a career military Public Affairs Officer) to attempt to correct the record on matters of fact regarding the military or the war effort. Again, WHAT THE HELL WAS I THINKING? This is not what Uncle Sam is paying me for. Enough said.
No, wait a minute. I am letting myself off too easily, aren't I?
I was (again) guilty of "abject stupidity" (not to mention gross partisanship) in accusing you of inaccuracy:
Most of Col. Boylan's claims of inaccuracy in what I wrote are grounded in his invention of "facts" that I did not assert. I never, for instance, said that Steve Schmidt (the Bush/Cheney P.R. flack and ex-Cheney "communications" aide) was currently on staff with the U.S. military in Iraq. Rather, I linked to an interview given to Hugh Hewitt by Mike Allen of The Politico, in which Allen reported that it was Schmidt who was sent to Iraq to improve the political efficacy of the U.S. military's war communications in Iraq...
In reviewing your exact words, I am at a complete lost to understand how I could have been so abjectly stupid as to think the words "the U.S. military in Iraq has become staffed with pure Republican political hacks" meant that Schmidt and Bergner were actually WORKING for the military, or that your statement that "these partisan and politically-motivated people" were "shaping U.S. military conduct" amounted to any kind of assertion on your part! Only a rabidly partisan political hack would make such an abjectly stupid error:
Throughout this year, the U.S. military in Iraq has become staffed with pure Republican political hacks -- including long-time Bush/Cheney P.R. hack Steve Schmidt and former White House aide Gen. Kevin Bergner. These are the most partisan and politically-motivated people around shaping U.S. military conduct. And it shows, as the Army's behavior in the Beauchamp case is exactly what one would expect from an increasingly politicized, Republican-controlled division of the right-wing noise machine.
Again, though anyone with even a passing familiarity with military assignments would surely know this, military aides cannot "choose" their jobs. We serve under both Democratic and Republican administrations (making the charge that a career military officer chosen by a MILITARY selection board to serve as a White House aide must be a "rabidly Republican partisan hack" highly debatable - what, pray tell, does that say about Clinton-era White House military aides?). But no doubt since you are a lawyer and a civilian, you know best. General Bergner was undoubtedly tainted by his tour in the White House and should have been cashiered immediately; perhaps taken out and shot for good measure. No doubt you would recommend exactly the same treatment for all former Clinton era aides since their loyalties are likewise suspect. It is best to be strictly non-partisan in these matters, don't you think?
3. Regarding the "increasing politicization of the military". Oh, you are so right, and the proof is in all these leaks that just keep on happening. Suspicious, aren't they?
I mean sure, there have been an awful lot of "leaks" of actual, classified (as in secret) information to the press. And oddly, you did not consider those leaks to be harmful, much less evidence of "politicization of the military" (or of the CIA) when they occurred. In fact, you were quite pleased and considered them a sign of a healthy democracy in which brave truth tellers are not "afraid" to come forward and break the law!
I must admit I am a bit confused on the point of exactly why you never seem to fulminate about "politicization" when opponents of the war illegally leak classified documents damaging to the administration or the war effort, but if non-classified information that conflicts with your preferred narrative is leaked, you immediately begin demanding investigations and accusing the military of malfeasance:
As the Beauchamp/TNR "story" demonstrates, the U.S. military is using the standard GOP/right-wing model for trying to shape the news in politically beneficial ways -- feeding supposedly secret and classified documents to Matt Drudge; using The Weekly Standard as its primary propaganda outlet, and working hand-in-hand with their apparent comrades in the most extremist precincts of the right-wing blogosphere. From the beginning, the U.S. military has refused to answer questions from the press, cut off The New Republic, cited classified and secrecy doctrines to suppress information, and all the while, worked secretly through selective leaks and back-channels with the most rabid right-wing partisans to shape the story in the most politicized way possible. Doesn't that merit at least some commentary?
The overt politicization of our military in Iraq -- working closely and in secret only with Drudge, The Weekly Standard and right-wing blogs -- seems at least as important as the monumental issue of what Franklin Foer knew and when he knew it.
So, when classified documents that harm the war effort are continually leaked to the media, is the U.S. military (perhaps that part of it that you all keep tell us is, any minute now, preparing to jump over to the DNC) "using the standard DNC/Left-wing model for trying to shape the news in politically beneficial ways?"
Amazing. Didn't think them fellers were that smart.
And then there's that whole PFC Beauchamp thing you keep going on about. Again, I remain a bit confused by why you don't smell a cover-up in the fact that the New Republic not only lied about the Army censoring Beauchamp but tried to pressure him into remaining silent so they could "control the story". That TNR wished to prevent Beauchamp from talking to anyone is corroborated by Foer himself:
Beauchamp, with the Army's encouragement, had agreed to talk to The Washington Post and Newsweek on Sept. 6, but canceled the interviews at the last minute at Foer's urging. Foer said yesterday that "given everything we have on the line, we have a right to have this exclusive line of communication with him."
Is Foer in league with those increasingly politicized scoundrels at CENTCOM and DoD too? What a rabidly right-wing partisan... the man is obviously in cahoots with the those Republican hacks at the administration. Good thing Foer (a completely disinterested and nonpartisan party if ever there was one) was able to keep Beauchamp from "leaking" the truth to the press, all while claiming the Army was trying to censor him against his will. We wouldn't want the corrupting influence of rabid political partisans with an agenda politicizing the military!
4. Finally, on the issue of the military's ongoing efforts to suppress bad news on the war:
Well, the proof is in the pudding, is it not? I mean, if there is one thing America has not seen much of during the past four years, it is bad news coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is what I'd consider prima facie evidence that the military's brutal attempts to intimidate the mainstream media have been an overwhelming success.
After all, the military are associated in the popular consciousness with guns and violence. Therefore, the mere act of verbally disputing any fact, opinion, or point of logic held by a civilian constitutes a veiled threat. It is all so obvious, isn't it?
The entire point is to terrify the recipient by reminding him a combat-addled, psychotic veteran may just show up on his doorstep when he least expects it and beat him senseless in some frenzied act of PTSD-induced rage... just like those Marines who suddenly snapped in the heat of cold blood from the stress of war and murdered innocent men, women and children at Haditha.
It's like Winter Soldier all over again: deja vu a grisly tale of repressed memories, the looming threat of imagined violence, and above all, the pseudo-intimidation:
The type of hostility, pseudo-intimidation, and stonewalling expressed by Col. Boylan here (in the emails of undisputed authenticity) is the type to which reporters are frequently subjected when they step out of line, particularly with war reporting. That is one reason why so few of them ever do.
And just survey the long list of media outlets and journalists which have been the target of swirling, right-wing lynch mob campaigns for perceived offenses in reporting about the war -- The Associated Press, Reuters, Eason Jordan, The New Republic, Ashleigh Banfield. There is a clear attempt to create strong disincentives for any journalist or commentator to do anything other than cheerlead loudly and deferentially.
Yes, there are few things in life more terrifying than pseudo-intimidation. Unless, of course, it's real intimidation. No doubt this explains why the number of combat embeds in Iraq has fallen, in a war the New York Times calls "worse by every conceivable measure" from a high of nearly 800 to fewer than 100 - all those brave truth tellers must have been ultra, ultra pseudo scared off.
In closing, Mr. Greenwald, let me say that you have opened my eyes to a new way of thinking. Previously my abjectly stupid prefrontal cortex would have been unable to grasp the near-perfect circular symmetry of your distinctive argumentation techniques. Luckily, right after I learned that Air America host Randi Rhodes had not, as her co-host had reported on air, been beaten up by conservatives I happened upon this mildly ironic comment at The Moderate Voice and suddenly you began to make perfect sense:
It’s not a huge leap to jump from viewing conservatives as those for whom ‘lying is second nature, if not first’, who make up the most corrupt Administration in history, who trash the Constitution and who stop at nothing to get their way to accusing them of committing violence. C’mon, if the GOP was willing to steal the 2000 and 2004 elections, beating up a woman who dares to speak truth to power is no big deal. Once you tell yourselves enough times that the right hates women, especially women with brains, it’s a small step to figuring they’re no longer satisfied with abusing women verbally. Since the right obviously isn’t happy limiting themselves to violating our civil rights on a daily basis, it makes sense that they’d turn to beating up their critics.
False story, but accurate… because every conservative is a potential mugger. If they haven’t yet turned to beating up their critics, it’s just a matter of time.
It's all about those progressive values: tolerance, open mindedness, the refuse to engage in ad hominem attacks, integrity. That's what makes you guys better than the Other.
And that's why I owe you an apology.
Steve
Steven A. Boylan
Colonel, US Army
Public Affairs Officer
Cassidy
On the Children of War:
Cassandra asks a hard question: What do we owe the children of our dead? The answer seems self-evident; and the sad thing is, we all know that there is not one chance that they'll get it out of American society.
Ouch
Oof!
Talk about a beating. Man alive.
Nobody likes being on the wrong side of serious security arrangements. We've got Ugandans here too. They are a little distant, but that's because they're not thinking of you as a person -- they're thinking of you as a potential suicide bomber, who will kill them first if you kill anyone. If they're a bit cold, it's because they're scared of you, and everyone else they see, and they see ten thousand people a day who might be coming to kill them.
It's respectable enough to regret the necessity for such things, and to hate that we have to treat each other -- even fellow Americans -- with suspicion. I hate it myself.
But it's not the guards. It's the terrorists.
UPDATE: The post is gone, which is a shame because the 197 wrathful comments were a joy. Greyhawk captured the post, however.
Running Man
Running Man:
Wretchard asks how far you can run without a support structure. The answer really depends on who "you" are, and where you are. It is possible to live off the land, if not easy to do so; and don't miss his story of the Japanese soldier who fought his war for thirty years after surrender.
Contractors
Diplomatic Contractors:
I'm fascinated by this concept. I'm accustomed to military contractors, being one myself; but watching State do what MPRI does is really interesting. We know why the story is in the news now, but it's still bigger news than most people realize. My sense is that this story is correct: State and CIA are both so tied to Blackwater in Iraq that they hit a period where they were stalled because it was stalled.
That's something that shouldn't be allowed to happen; but it's not clear why it did happen. If State were guarding its own convoys with internally owned security assets, it wouldn't allow them to become shut down. The separation here is artificial -- State needs these assets, whether it owns them or contracts them -- but it allows State to plausibly deny responsibility.
For a diplomat, that would be a useful advantage. "It's not me!" he can cry, pointing his finger at the guy he hired to do the job. It won't hurt Blackwater, not in the long run, because the country needs what they've got. It isn't honest, but then, diplomacy often isn't.
Death & Women
Death & Women:
The Economist tells us that men die young from chasing girls. It makes a good counterpoint to the discussion on socialized medicine, below. The concept at work there applies also here -- smoking or drinking can reduce your lifespan, and incur costs that spread beyond yourself; but, because you died young, you're saving society from other costs that it would incur on your behalf if you lived to an old age. This includes a vast array of medical expenses (15 pills a day for forty years, numerous operations, etc) as well as retirement/pension benefits.
There are then two questions. The lesser one is the one we've asked here: If there are social costs either way, why not let people be 'drunk or sober, just as they please'?
The bigger question: Aren't women worth dying for? I always thought so.
AAR
AAR:
Greyhawk couldn't make it out here a week ago, but he did come by last night. It was a pleasant dinner. He and I turn out to have a lot more in common than you'd expect, and I greatly enjoyed the evening. He has some good stories, including even some horse stories pertaining to his sister's family, that you've not heard yet. If you run into him, pry them out. :)
FREEDOM AND THE HEALTH OF THE REPUBLIC
FREEDOM AND THE HEALTH OF THE REPUBLIC
Those are the themes of two books that I enthusiastically recommend to the readers of this fine blog. The first book, Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children, deals with exactly what the title states. Although I have not finished reading this book I am very impressed with what I have read so far. Nevertheless, the author, David Harsanyi, deals with a subject that has been a great concern of mine for some time, the rise of the therapeutic welfare state and the corresponding loss of individual freedom and the damage this development is doing to the American character. Additionally, Mr. Harsanyi touches on something that has never ceased to disturbingly amaze me when he observes:
“The fact that politicians, bureaucrats, and activists long to be our parents is not new. What is inexplicable, though, is the swiftness with which Americans have allowed these worrywarts to take on the job. It’s a dramatic about-face from our traditional attitudes toward overreaching government. Some Americans (still too few) are beginning to wonder: When exactly did we lose our right to be unhealthy, unsafe, immoral, and intolerably foolish?”
Hmmm. Over to you Mr. C.K. Chesterton:
“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man more than a dog.”
What do you think John Wayne?
“Republic. I like the sound of the word. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober, however they choose. Some words give you a feeling. Republic is one of those words that makes me tight in the throat - the same tightness a man gets when his baby takes his first step or his first baby shaves and makes his first sound as a man. Some words can give you a feeling that makes your heart warm. Republic is one of those words.”
Read the book!
The other book is The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money. This book details how, contrary to public perception, big business loves big government and regulation and how both parties, Republican and Democrat, love big business. The book also illustrates how taxpayers are footing the bill for this love affair. If you think regulations on business are there for your protection think again. Warning, don’t read this book if you don’t want to get mad.
Oh, by the Way, Gene Simmons, the front man for KISS, is coming out with his own edition of Sun Tzu’s Art of War. The only thing necessary to complete this circle of insanity would be for Gen Mattis to record a cover of Love Gun.
Those are the themes of two books that I enthusiastically recommend to the readers of this fine blog. The first book, Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children, deals with exactly what the title states. Although I have not finished reading this book I am very impressed with what I have read so far. Nevertheless, the author, David Harsanyi, deals with a subject that has been a great concern of mine for some time, the rise of the therapeutic welfare state and the corresponding loss of individual freedom and the damage this development is doing to the American character. Additionally, Mr. Harsanyi touches on something that has never ceased to disturbingly amaze me when he observes:
“The fact that politicians, bureaucrats, and activists long to be our parents is not new. What is inexplicable, though, is the swiftness with which Americans have allowed these worrywarts to take on the job. It’s a dramatic about-face from our traditional attitudes toward overreaching government. Some Americans (still too few) are beginning to wonder: When exactly did we lose our right to be unhealthy, unsafe, immoral, and intolerably foolish?”
Hmmm. Over to you Mr. C.K. Chesterton:
“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man more than a dog.”
What do you think John Wayne?
“Republic. I like the sound of the word. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober, however they choose. Some words give you a feeling. Republic is one of those words that makes me tight in the throat - the same tightness a man gets when his baby takes his first step or his first baby shaves and makes his first sound as a man. Some words can give you a feeling that makes your heart warm. Republic is one of those words.”
Read the book!
The other book is The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money. This book details how, contrary to public perception, big business loves big government and regulation and how both parties, Republican and Democrat, love big business. The book also illustrates how taxpayers are footing the bill for this love affair. If you think regulations on business are there for your protection think again. Warning, don’t read this book if you don’t want to get mad.
Oh, by the Way, Gene Simmons, the front man for KISS, is coming out with his own edition of Sun Tzu’s Art of War. The only thing necessary to complete this circle of insanity would be for Gen Mattis to record a cover of Love Gun.
Torture & Virtue
Torture, Virtue & Virtue Ethics:
This piece seems to agree, and suggests that the study is flawed in that it can't address the question ("the sort of self-report questionnaire used by psychologists before such experiments can tell us little about subtle differences in upbringing and education that contribute to [some people being virtuous]"). The study is still valuable, however, in that it shows that "normal" people are strongly predisposed to turning to viciousness in bad situations. That is not the mark of a flawed character. It is the mark of a normal character.
That creates an interesting problem. In order to be virtuous, you have to have as your goal to be a better person than is normal: you have, in other words, to have a personal commitment to being special, better, different. But the belief that you are any of those things is just the kind of belief that can give rise to the most serious sorts of abuses:
Even when the system is better, however, there is plenty of evidence of failure. It can happen because the system becomes broken, so that priests become pardoners. It can also happen because the great refuse to accept that they are not good:
We've talked about the famous Zimbardo study before, where people were divided into prisoners and prisonkeepers, and immediately became bestial. If you remember the discussion, you will still find this article to be interesting -- just skip down to "the shocking events of the SPE..." and following.
The author concludes:
People, moreover, are not all alike. The research described by Zimbardo shows a surprising level of bad behaviour in the experimental situations, but nothing like uniformly bad behaviour. First, there are active perpetrators and fearful but humane collaborators. Both of these are morally defective, but in different ways. Finally, there are whistle-blowers who do have the strength to challenge the system, and Zimbardo devotes his final chapter to the characteristics of such people. So he himself knows that the individual does matter, and he is actually very interested in asking not only how situations can be better designed but also how people can be brought up to be good actors in bad situations.This is the whole point of virtue ethics: to create the kind of man who rises above his situation, who does what is right because it is right. Yet, as Aristotle noted, it takes "the proper upbringing" to create such a man. You must put him in the right kind of situation in order to train him to object to, and reform, the wrong kind.
This piece seems to agree, and suggests that the study is flawed in that it can't address the question ("the sort of self-report questionnaire used by psychologists before such experiments can tell us little about subtle differences in upbringing and education that contribute to [some people being virtuous]"). The study is still valuable, however, in that it shows that "normal" people are strongly predisposed to turning to viciousness in bad situations. That is not the mark of a flawed character. It is the mark of a normal character.
That creates an interesting problem. In order to be virtuous, you have to have as your goal to be a better person than is normal: you have, in other words, to have a personal commitment to being special, better, different. But the belief that you are any of those things is just the kind of belief that can give rise to the most serious sorts of abuses:
One particularly chilling example involves schoolchildren whose teacher informs them that children with blue eyes are superior to children with dark eyes. Hierarchical and vindictive behaviour ensues. The teacher then informs the children that a mistake has been made: it is actually the brown-eyed children who are superior, the blue-eyed inferior. The behavior simply reverses.All ethical systems have to either struggle with that problem, or ignore it; they have to endorse the idea that the great are good, as Maoism did, or else try to remind the great that they are also sinners, as Catholicism does. That is one sense in which Catholicism is categorically better than Maoism.
Even when the system is better, however, there is plenty of evidence of failure. It can happen because the system becomes broken, so that priests become pardoners. It can also happen because the great refuse to accept that they are not good:
"For my vow," said the Templar, "our Grand Master hath granted me a dispensation. And for my conscience, a man that has slain three hundred Saracens, need not reckon up every little failing, like a village girl at her first confession upon Good Friday eve."Then, of course, there is the problem of bad men: for just as the worst situation does not produce universal viciousness, so there are some men who will not turn to virtue even in the best of times and places. The world is what it is, and humanity is, and at last we can only do the best that we can.
A Mother's Love
A Mother's Love:
Something I wish I'd understood earlier in life is how much my parents loved me. It's something you don't comprehend until you are a parent yourself; there just is not a comparable experience in life. Even romantic love, which can send a man into the greatest heights or make him long for death, is not of the same quality as the love of a parent.
As a result, I was as this young man is, always headed out the door. I'm sorry for that.
JSOTF-P II
JSOTF-P Part II:
The second part of that series is now up. As I noted at BlackFive, the MILF and the AFP held a joint medical operation this week. What Colonel Maxwell wanted to create, is happening just as he wanted it to happen.
It's interesting to watch a COIN operation that is hitting on all cylinders. We're starting to see the early formations of this kind of potential in Iraq with the Anbar Awakening and -- even more -- with the Concerned Citizens' Program outside Anbar. It's still at a much earlier phase, but then, we don't have the investment in Iraq that we have in the RP. We've been there, in one form or another, for a hundred years.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)