It was with surprise that I read in my email that Bill Faith has died. Bill Faith was the blogger who wrote "Small Town Veteran," one of the early milblogs -- he was a Veteran of the Vietnam conflict. He also founded Old War Dogs, which is where the poetry of Russ Vaughn is first published. That fact shows the quality of the men who chose to associate with him.
I hope his family finds peace in his memory. Though I knew him only online, he seemed to be a noble and kind man.
Bill Faith
Bill Faith:
Dead stick into the Hudson river.
I used to live on the Jersey side of the Hudson. Its pretty big, actually. But I wouldn't want to try to ditch an airliner into it.
This video on CNN shows the actual ditching, as captured by some security cameras.
(there's some audio too, of 911 calls, a couple of people astonished at what they have just seen).
The pilot, it turns out, is a safety expert. The Smoking Gun has managed to come up with his resume.
As the Smoking Gun said in its email: "All hail "Sully" Sullenberger, the hero of Flight 1549."
I used to live on the Jersey side of the Hudson. Its pretty big, actually. But I wouldn't want to try to ditch an airliner into it.
This video on CNN shows the actual ditching, as captured by some security cameras.
(there's some audio too, of 911 calls, a couple of people astonished at what they have just seen).
The pilot, it turns out, is a safety expert. The Smoking Gun has managed to come up with his resume.
As the Smoking Gun said in its email: "All hail "Sully" Sullenberger, the hero of Flight 1549."
The Exclusionary Rule and "Heroic Disobedience"
The Exclusionary Rule and Heroic Disobedience:
Yesterday, Jonah Goldberg at NRO published this article on the exclusionary rule (evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court), with some follow-up from readers here and here. I remember similar arguments from NR in the 1980's - that if the evidence is unlawfully obtained, it shouldn't be suppressed, but the officer who obtained it should be disciplined. The heart of his argument is this:
In setting heroic ideals, we admire the man who is dedicated to the mission, to the right end, and culturally we like the heroic figure who puts himself at risk for those all-important ends. A Few Good Men - an excellent film, but not a truthful one - creates just such a situation for the heroic defense attorney, who risks a court-martial of his own in order to attack the corrupt colonel.[1] If police could obtain useful evidence by ignoring the rules, the dull voice of pensions, paperwork, and disciplinary hearings would be saying "get warrants, read rights, obey rules" - but the heroic crime-fighting voice would be saying, "You know who did what - break in, seize what you need, intimidate the witness, and take the consequences!" And in your heart of hearts, which voice would you want him to hear loudest?
With the exclusionary rule in place, that dilemma is not there. If the officer wants to fight crime, however heroic his heart, he has every incentive to keep the rules. The exclusionary rule isn't designed to punish the police, the public, or anyone else (though a dedicated officer, like a dedicated prosecutor, may feel punished if his work is ruined). It's designed to make it pointless to break the rules, and to make the incentives all point the right way, and for this purpose it is well designed.
[1] This depiction is as false as false can be; in my experience, military defense attorneys attack the command freely, eagerly, and with no fear whatsoever. It only makes sense; blaming the leadership fits well with military notions of responsibility, and when a Soldier steps far over the line, at least a few people are thinking, where did his leaders go wrong? (Whoever angrily declares that the troops "aren't being treated like adults" is likely forgetting that the leaders are given the responsibilities of parents...but that is another story.)
Yesterday, Jonah Goldberg at NRO published this article on the exclusionary rule (evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court), with some follow-up from readers here and here. I remember similar arguments from NR in the 1980's - that if the evidence is unlawfully obtained, it shouldn't be suppressed, but the officer who obtained it should be disciplined. The heart of his argument is this:
According to the exclusionary rule, a cop who breaks the rules to arrest a serial child rapist should be “punished” by having the rapist released back into the general public. (Or as Benjamin Cordozo put it in 1926 when he was a New York state judge, “The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered.”) But the officer, while frustrated, isn’t really punished. The people punished are the subsequent victims and their families.Leaving aside the legal issue of how the rule was derived - in the military confessions context, Congress enacted it in section (d) of this statute - I believe his focus is wrong, and there is a good reason for having the rule that he and his readers didn't touch on. It's a matter of incentives, of heroic disobedience, of Nelson's blind eye to the spyglass.
In setting heroic ideals, we admire the man who is dedicated to the mission, to the right end, and culturally we like the heroic figure who puts himself at risk for those all-important ends. A Few Good Men - an excellent film, but not a truthful one - creates just such a situation for the heroic defense attorney, who risks a court-martial of his own in order to attack the corrupt colonel.[1] If police could obtain useful evidence by ignoring the rules, the dull voice of pensions, paperwork, and disciplinary hearings would be saying "get warrants, read rights, obey rules" - but the heroic crime-fighting voice would be saying, "You know who did what - break in, seize what you need, intimidate the witness, and take the consequences!" And in your heart of hearts, which voice would you want him to hear loudest?
With the exclusionary rule in place, that dilemma is not there. If the officer wants to fight crime, however heroic his heart, he has every incentive to keep the rules. The exclusionary rule isn't designed to punish the police, the public, or anyone else (though a dedicated officer, like a dedicated prosecutor, may feel punished if his work is ruined). It's designed to make it pointless to break the rules, and to make the incentives all point the right way, and for this purpose it is well designed.
[1] This depiction is as false as false can be; in my experience, military defense attorneys attack the command freely, eagerly, and with no fear whatsoever. It only makes sense; blaming the leadership fits well with military notions of responsibility, and when a Soldier steps far over the line, at least a few people are thinking, where did his leaders go wrong? (Whoever angrily declares that the troops "aren't being treated like adults" is likely forgetting that the leaders are given the responsibilities of parents...but that is another story.)
Ahem
Thank You, Mr. Broccoli:
This reminds me of an old post from 2005.
A bold plan to restore glory to the Colosseum:
Gladiators are to return to Rome's most famous fight arena almost 2,000 years after their bloody sport last entertained Roman crowds, local authorities announced.There's also a "gladiator slide show."
According to Umberto Broccoli, the head of archaeology at Rome's city council, 2009 will be a time for the five million people who visit the Colosseum each year to experience "the sights, sounds and smells" of ancient Rome.
"We do not need to enshrine historical sites and monuments, we need to make them more spectacular. Museums and monuments must speak to the public in a new way," Broccoli told the daily La Repubblica.
This reminds me of an old post from 2005.
Dennis the Peasant is an accountant by trade.
Its always interesting (to me anyway) to see a SME (Subject Matter Expert) comment on people who themselves, are commenting on subjects in the SME's knowledge domain.
It always makes me consider again the source. And that's a skill that is only going to be more and more important these days.
Its always interesting (to me anyway) to see a SME (Subject Matter Expert) comment on people who themselves, are commenting on subjects in the SME's knowledge domain.
It always makes me consider again the source. And that's a skill that is only going to be more and more important these days.
Proportionality - a reminder
Proportionality - a Reminder
Terms like "proportional" and "disproportionate" are being thrown around in relation to current events in Gaza, and seem to be causing some confusion.. This is just a little reminder that the word really does have a meaning in the law of war. To quote from Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare:
Thus, in international law as read and taught by the U.S., an attack is "disproportionate" if the civilian deaths or property damage are out of proportion to the military objective being gained, rather than to, let's say, the damage done by the enemy beforehand or the weapons being used by the enemy. If an enemy is attacking with rifles, it is perfectly acceptable to destroy him with artillery or missiles; and you don't have to wait for the enemy to kill any of your troops or civilians before causing massive casualties among his fighting forces.
There is also a common-sense kind of "proportionality" that applies to self-defense (and not to warfare generally). This is found in the Joint Chiefs of Staff Standing Rules of Engagement (scroll to pages 16-17). It states that the force used must be limited in scope, intensity, and duration to that which is necessary to neutralize the threat. Notice again that this has nothing to do with the amount of damage the enemy has done, or the type of weapons he is using; it relates only to what is necessary to neutralize the threat (i.e., once again, the military objective). If twenty enemy ambush you, and they're lousy shots and haven't hit anyone yet, you can still kill them all. If there's one man sniping at you from a hidden place with a rifle or even a crossbow, most assuredly you can destroy him with explosives - use what you need to neutralize him, not necessarily what he's using.
These concepts and definitions make a lot of sense - I don't think anyone would like to see us modify our laws or treaties to abolish the concept. Keep them in mind in evaluating whether Israel's current response is really "disproportionate" (in a meaningful, legal sense) or not.
Update: I linked to Michael Totten as an example of "confusion" on the issue; but if he was confused at all before, he isn't now.
Terms like "proportional" and "disproportionate" are being thrown around in relation to current events in Gaza, and seem to be causing some confusion.. This is just a little reminder that the word really does have a meaning in the law of war. To quote from Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare:
Particularly in the circumstances referred to in the preceding paragraph, loss of life and damage to property incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. Those who plan or decide upon an attack, therefore, must take all reasonable steps to ensure not only that the objectives are identified as military objectives or defended places within the meaning of the preceding paragraph but also that these objectives may be attacked without probable losses in lives and damage to property disproportionate to the military advantage anticipated. Moreover, once a fort or defended locality has surrendered, only such further damage is permitted as is demanded by the exigencies of war, such as the removal of fortifications, demolition of military buildings, and destruction of military stores (HR, art. 23, par. (g); GC, art 53).HR refers to the Annex to Hague Convention IV, and GC to the Geneva Convention Related to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (the relevant quotes are about property damage; see Article 51 of this Additional Protocol, forbidding "indiscriminate attacks," for the application to humans, particularly subsection 5(b)).
Thus, in international law as read and taught by the U.S., an attack is "disproportionate" if the civilian deaths or property damage are out of proportion to the military objective being gained, rather than to, let's say, the damage done by the enemy beforehand or the weapons being used by the enemy. If an enemy is attacking with rifles, it is perfectly acceptable to destroy him with artillery or missiles; and you don't have to wait for the enemy to kill any of your troops or civilians before causing massive casualties among his fighting forces.
There is also a common-sense kind of "proportionality" that applies to self-defense (and not to warfare generally). This is found in the Joint Chiefs of Staff Standing Rules of Engagement (scroll to pages 16-17). It states that the force used must be limited in scope, intensity, and duration to that which is necessary to neutralize the threat. Notice again that this has nothing to do with the amount of damage the enemy has done, or the type of weapons he is using; it relates only to what is necessary to neutralize the threat (i.e., once again, the military objective). If twenty enemy ambush you, and they're lousy shots and haven't hit anyone yet, you can still kill them all. If there's one man sniping at you from a hidden place with a rifle or even a crossbow, most assuredly you can destroy him with explosives - use what you need to neutralize him, not necessarily what he's using.
These concepts and definitions make a lot of sense - I don't think anyone would like to see us modify our laws or treaties to abolish the concept. Keep them in mind in evaluating whether Israel's current response is really "disproportionate" (in a meaningful, legal sense) or not.
Update: I linked to Michael Totten as an example of "confusion" on the issue; but if he was confused at all before, he isn't now.
You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.
Roland Burris Has Already Constructed His Terrifying Death Chamber
Governor Blagojevich has a sense of humor, that's for sure.
(via doubleplusundead)
Roland Burris Has Already Constructed His Terrifying Death Chamber
Governor Blagojevich has a sense of humor, that's for sure.
(via doubleplusundead)
Congratulations
Congratulations:
At the end of the last hymn, the chaplain said, "Now we must blow out the candles. Perhaps we should sing happy birthday." And we did.
Iraq's government declared today an official holiday, and issued congratulations to Christians here on the birth of Christ. Iran, after a fashion, did the same thing.
The message begins with Ahmadinejad congratulating Christians and the people of Britain on the anniversary of the birth of Christ, which Christians celebrate on Christmas Day.Christmas is nearly over here -- the sun is setting even now. I hope your Christmas is a good one. As for me, I had the occasion to listen to the son of an African King give a sermon while wearing the uniform of an officer of the United States; a sermon he read to a chivalry gathered in a foreign land in order to free it of a heritage of tyranny.
"If Christ were on Earth today, undoubtedly he would stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers," he says.
At the end of the last hymn, the chaplain said, "Now we must blow out the candles. Perhaps we should sing happy birthday." And we did.
Caritas:
Si linguis hominum loquar, et angelorum, caritatem autem non habeam, factus sum velut æs sonans, aut cymbalum tinniens. Et si habuero prophetiam, et noverim mysteria omnia, et omnem scientiam: et si habuero omnem fidem ita ut montes transferam, caritatem autem non habuero, nihil sum. Et si distribuero in cibos pauperum omnes facultates meas, et si tradidero corpus meum ita ut ardeam, caritatem autem non habuero, nihil mihi prodest.... Nunc autem manent fides, spes, caritas, tria hæc: major autem horum est caritas.Such was the reading tonight, before the hymns. It was the hymns, though.
If I speak with the languages of men and of angels, but don't have love, I have become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but don't have love, I am nothing. If I dole out all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but don't have love, it profits me nothing.... Now faith, hope, and love remain--these three. The greatest of these is love.
Watergate
Could Watergate Be Uncovered Today?
On the subject of conspiracy-outing, however, let me suggest a more dangerous problem than lack of editors: confirmation bias.
We know that the Bush administration couldn't keep a secret. It seems like the New York Times or the Washington Post broke a new story about some secret program or activity by the CIA or DOD based on anonymous testimony. Deep Throat is now Old Hat. State, CIA and even DOD are riddled with people who feel it is their constitutional right to talk to the press about secret programs if they have concerns about them.
The press hammered the Bush administration with this, year in and out. There is no doubt that Bush's high negatives track to a large degree to the unrelenting negative coverage he has received throughout his presidency. They did not bring down the President, but he certainly wasn't allowed to run any conspiracies -- not even the ones a President might ought to be running.
This is an example of the confirmation bias at work: once you have decided a person is bad, you readily believe bad things about them. Indeed, it may make something seem bad that you might have thought was good if a "good person" was doing it.
Now comes a new President, and his relationship with the press is different. They chose him. Barack Obama is our President-elect because the media wanted him to be. The positive coverage he has received over the last year is unprecedented in my lifetime; Popes don't usually get this kind of coverage.
We've seen an initial taste of the problem in the FISA controversy. If you were a strong Bush-blaster, the FISA issue was the worst thing in the world. It was about an end to civil liberties, the destruction of privacy, an out-of-control President trying to build a power to spy on the American people. If you were a hardcore Bush defender, it was about a noble man trying to use carefully limited power to fulfill his duty to keep Americans safe at home. The rhetoric was hot and heavy.
Since Obama reversed himself on FISA, it has largely dropped off the radar. People who previously derided it as the worst thing ever haven't changed their mind, as far as I know. But now the President will be Obama, a deliberate and thoughtful man of decent principles, so it's not so bad. We can take some time to work it out. The rhetoric has cooled.
By the same token, people who were glad to have Bush at the helm to guard their families must now consider whether a shady Chicago-way politician with inexplicable foreign ties can be trusted with such power.
As for the media, it elected Obama. He is their guy. If you went to them and laid out a conspiracy, gave them the phone numbers to call, gave them photos of the people they needed to interview, and just asked them to go confirm it -- would they?
Frankly, I doubt it. Confirmation bias is very powerful stuff, and lives right at the foundation of our thinking. I believe they would look at the facts, say to themselves, "There's doubtless some explanation for all this," do a pro forma inquiry just so they felt they had done their duty (the results of which would likewise be colored by confirmation bias), and declare there was nothing to the story.
If that's the case, the problem isn't the lack of editors -- and the new technology may not be enough to save us. Perhaps Obama will enjoy more leeway to carry out the conspiracies that a President ought to carry out. He is likely also to enjoy the leeway to carry out the sort that a President ought not to carry out. But we don't have to worry about that -- he's a good guy. Right?
The Washington Post considers the question given the passage of the infamous "Deep Throat," and decides it's really gotten easier:
New technology actually makes investigative reporting somewhat easier. We can now use computers and the Internet to search records and other information, and we can use pre-paid cell phones for conversations with confidential sources. Of course, an administration under siege would also have more sophisticated resources for investigating leaks and marshaling counter-attacks in the news media and the blogosphere.But, ah -- will it remain easier?
Reporters working today on a story such as Watergate would be unlikely to be left relatively alone, along with their sources, for as long as Bob and Carl were. Now, from day one, the story would be all over the Internet, and hordes of reporters and bloggers would immediately join the chase. The story would become fodder for around-the-clock argument among the blowhards on cable television and the Internet. Opinion polls would be constantly stirring up and measuring the public's reaction.
So the conspiracy and the cover-up would unravel much more quickly -- and their political impact would probably be felt much sooner. Nixon was re-elected five months after the burglary in 1972, and Watergate was not much of an issue during the campaign. That would not happen today.
In today's cacophonous media world, in which news, rumor, opinion and infotainment from every kind of source are jumbled together and often presented indiscriminately, how would such an improbable-sounding story ever get verified?That final period is, as they say, "sic." Perhaps he is right that the famous layers of editing and fact-checking have already begun to unravel!
As newsrooms rapidly shrink, will they still have the resources, steadily amassed by newspapers since Watergate, for investigative reporting that takes months and even years of sustained work.
On the subject of conspiracy-outing, however, let me suggest a more dangerous problem than lack of editors: confirmation bias.
We know that the Bush administration couldn't keep a secret. It seems like the New York Times or the Washington Post broke a new story about some secret program or activity by the CIA or DOD based on anonymous testimony. Deep Throat is now Old Hat. State, CIA and even DOD are riddled with people who feel it is their constitutional right to talk to the press about secret programs if they have concerns about them.
The press hammered the Bush administration with this, year in and out. There is no doubt that Bush's high negatives track to a large degree to the unrelenting negative coverage he has received throughout his presidency. They did not bring down the President, but he certainly wasn't allowed to run any conspiracies -- not even the ones a President might ought to be running.
This is an example of the confirmation bias at work: once you have decided a person is bad, you readily believe bad things about them. Indeed, it may make something seem bad that you might have thought was good if a "good person" was doing it.
Now comes a new President, and his relationship with the press is different. They chose him. Barack Obama is our President-elect because the media wanted him to be. The positive coverage he has received over the last year is unprecedented in my lifetime; Popes don't usually get this kind of coverage.
We've seen an initial taste of the problem in the FISA controversy. If you were a strong Bush-blaster, the FISA issue was the worst thing in the world. It was about an end to civil liberties, the destruction of privacy, an out-of-control President trying to build a power to spy on the American people. If you were a hardcore Bush defender, it was about a noble man trying to use carefully limited power to fulfill his duty to keep Americans safe at home. The rhetoric was hot and heavy.
Since Obama reversed himself on FISA, it has largely dropped off the radar. People who previously derided it as the worst thing ever haven't changed their mind, as far as I know. But now the President will be Obama, a deliberate and thoughtful man of decent principles, so it's not so bad. We can take some time to work it out. The rhetoric has cooled.
By the same token, people who were glad to have Bush at the helm to guard their families must now consider whether a shady Chicago-way politician with inexplicable foreign ties can be trusted with such power.
As for the media, it elected Obama. He is their guy. If you went to them and laid out a conspiracy, gave them the phone numbers to call, gave them photos of the people they needed to interview, and just asked them to go confirm it -- would they?
Frankly, I doubt it. Confirmation bias is very powerful stuff, and lives right at the foundation of our thinking. I believe they would look at the facts, say to themselves, "There's doubtless some explanation for all this," do a pro forma inquiry just so they felt they had done their duty (the results of which would likewise be colored by confirmation bias), and declare there was nothing to the story.
If that's the case, the problem isn't the lack of editors -- and the new technology may not be enough to save us. Perhaps Obama will enjoy more leeway to carry out the conspiracies that a President ought to carry out. He is likely also to enjoy the leeway to carry out the sort that a President ought not to carry out. But we don't have to worry about that -- he's a good guy. Right?
Oh, just look at them howl. (Warning: impolite language at the link.)
And here. ("...punching hippies in the face is politically smart...") --I gotta remember that line.
And here. ("...sucktastically ineffective...")
I knew that the President-elect was going to disappoint various segments of his supporters sooner or later, but I did not expect him to do is so quickly.
As for me, I could care less who the President-elect chooses to be his whatever-they-call-the-guy-who-gives-oath. It's his inauguration, after all.
But I am amused and entertained at the reaction to it.
And here. ("...punching hippies in the face is politically smart...") --I gotta remember that line.
And here. ("...sucktastically ineffective...")
I knew that the President-elect was going to disappoint various segments of his supporters sooner or later, but I did not expect him to do is so quickly.
As for me, I could care less who the President-elect chooses to be his whatever-they-call-the-guy-who-gives-oath. It's his inauguration, after all.
But I am amused and entertained at the reaction to it.
Warrants and the BSA:
The SoFA, or "Bilateral Security Agreement" (BSA), contains several things that will change the way we do business here. This is one:
The security pact states that as of Jan. 1, American troops may not search homes or make arrests without warrants "except in the case of active combat operations."This is going to be a challenge, no doubt, but it's worth it in my opinion. "By, through and with" and "rule of law" are two of the most important concepts in bringing a COIN campaign to a close. It's going to be difficult, but 'difficult' is what the US military does.
That will be a big change for the U.S. military _ one of several required under the security pact that allows the Americans to stay for three more years but imposes stricter oversight on their behavior.
The agreement was ratified by Iraq's presidential council on Dec. 4, and U.S. and Iraqi commanders are now meeting to lay out guidelines for how the new rules will work on the ground.
U.S. soldiers - particularly special forces - have in the past staged raids without consulting the Iraqis when going after time-sensitive targets.
Another one who just doesn't get it.
Quite a while ago, I fisked the same sort of academic who was upset over the fact that the US no longer conscripts its troops. (I note for the record that we never actually did hear back from that professor.)
Any way, the writer of this article, one Danielle Allen (who has some sort of post at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton) manages to observe this:
and this:
And finally this:
As I said then, (and I don't really think I can say it any better now):
She manages to make the connection between military culture and "the" culture at large, (I wonder if she read Martin van Creveld's "The Culture of War", he talks alot about the military and culture in that book), notices the distinct lack of military jargon on left-tard sites, and can only come up with the idea that we'd better draft people so that they 'weave a fabric of shared citizenship anew'. Oh, and its supposed to be both 'military and non-military' too.
BUT SHE JUST DOESN'T GET IT.
All those people on left-tard sites could have joined up. but they didn't. They. Did. Not. Of their own free will. 40 years of academia, movies, books, radio, rock and roll etc, etc, etc, running down the military will do that, you know. And now she wants to change it? Good luck with that.
The duty is there whether it performed or not. All you have to is Do. Your. Duty.
Quite a while ago, I fisked the same sort of academic who was upset over the fact that the US no longer conscripts its troops. (I note for the record that we never actually did hear back from that professor.)
Any way, the writer of this article, one Danielle Allen (who has some sort of post at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton) manages to observe this:
Military institutions across nations and throughout time have always been important creators of culture. They strive to develop unbreakable bonds of solidarity among their members based on shared values, experiences and outlooks.
and this:
I spotted the link between military service and regional partisan divisions when I was researching not military history but Internet political communication. After spending time on political Web sites of the right and left, I noticed that posts on right-leaning sites often employed military lingo -- habits of developing monikers and jingles and of using the vocabulary of military tactics and strategy. Left-leaning sites, in contrast, mostly lacked any easily recognizable features of military language.
This is one sign that our public sphere already suffers from a division between military and non-military cultures. The division is not trivial, and without institutional change it is likely to be durable.
And finally this:
It is time to think seriously about a structure for national service -- both military and non-military -- that could successfully integrate young people from different regions of the country so that they will come, at least, to understand each other. We need to weave a fabric of shared citizenship anew.
As I said then, (and I don't really think I can say it any better now):
A universal duty to service is already there. It exists whether or not there is a draft law. To fufill that duty, all it takes is to walk into a recruiting station and say, “I wish to join.” The professor could have done that at anytime in his life. He appears to have chosen not to. In short, the professor himself is at the heart of the professor’s argument that there is a disconnect between the citizenry and the military. Enough of the professor’s generation decided that a draft was unnecessary and made its feelings known quite loudly that the draft was abolished. And now the professor is complaining because there isn’t a draft?
She manages to make the connection between military culture and "the" culture at large, (I wonder if she read Martin van Creveld's "The Culture of War", he talks alot about the military and culture in that book), notices the distinct lack of military jargon on left-tard sites, and can only come up with the idea that we'd better draft people so that they 'weave a fabric of shared citizenship anew'. Oh, and its supposed to be both 'military and non-military' too.
BUT SHE JUST DOESN'T GET IT.
All those people on left-tard sites could have joined up. but they didn't. They. Did. Not. Of their own free will. 40 years of academia, movies, books, radio, rock and roll etc, etc, etc, running down the military will do that, you know. And now she wants to change it? Good luck with that.
The duty is there whether it performed or not. All you have to is Do. Your. Duty.
I was treated to a sword fight and abundant array of cheese and crackers!
Advertising I'm sure Grim would approve of.
PASSERSBY in Central London have been treated to the bizarre spectacle of two mediaeval knights fighting to decide what is the best cheese.
The two warriors clashed in Baker Street on Thursday in a
joust for the title of "King of the Blue Cheeses". In the blue, smelly corner was Saint Agur, representing the French cheese of the same name, and in the other blue corner was St Ilton, representing Albion's own Stilton.
Advertising I'm sure Grim would approve of.
Holiday Season in Iraq
Holiday Season in Iraq:
You are probably unaware of this if you're reading it in America, but this is also holiday season in Iraq. The Hajj season is winding down, having been ongoing here for quite a while now. Thousands of Iraqis have traveled to Saudi Arabia to perform the rites of the trip to Mecca. This week is one of the great festivals of the Islamic calendar, Eid al-Adha. Iraqis are celebrating by, among other things, touring Saddam's palace in Babylon. But it's a major celebration all around. I gather that the sheep market is booming, as sheep are used as sacrifices to honor ancestors; apparently sales this year are strongly outpacing last year's.
The media aspect of this war is a well-known difficulty. It's not just that AQI needs only to set off one bomb, anywhere in the country, to make the reporting on any given incident all about them. That's true, and it's a problem -- if they set off a car bomb and kill a dozen or forty people, you lose track of the fact that literally millions more people went about their day untroubled by al Qaeda.
But there is another problem, which is that when al Qaeda isn't able to carry off even a single bomb on a major holiday, there's little news to be found at all. This time, every one of those millions of Iraqis enjoyed their holiday with no violence; but I'd guess that around 1% of America even knows there was a major holiday here last week.
As a consequence of this dual difficulty, every last news story the average American hears about the war is about something violent that AQI did. The truth is that all the extremist groups put together are now only trouble on occasion; and much of the time, no trouble at all.
This place will get more interesting in January, however. The new Bilateral Security Agreement is going to change the way business is done here in some significant ways. I'm not sure how many of those ways have made the press yet, as I don't get a chance to read as much of the news as I'd like. I'm not going to talk out of school about it; let's just say that it's interesting in several ways, and a wise reader who wants something to think about will watch carefully how it is implemented.
However, whatever difficulties it has for us, it represents two invaluable things: a movement to the rule of law, and a chance for the Iraqi people to realize that they really are in control of their destiny. Their laws, and their votes, shall rule this land.
That, I think, is the hardest of Saddam's legacies to purge -- getting people to stop waiting to be told what to do, and to stop believing there is some conspiracy at work in their lives. It's the real gift of our microgrant strategy. The economic gain of such grants is powerful, don't get me wrong. Alexander Hamilton structured American policy after the Revolution to create small pools of capital in private hands, and out of those pools flowered an ever-growing economy.
These microgrants, though they seem small, can help to do much the same thing. Yet more than the economic output of these very small businesses, we're giving them a chance to realize that they have a chance to make a life for themselves. They can buy the tools to repair tires on these rickety old vehicles toddling down the roads. They can fix the vehicles. The guy who owns the vehicle, he may be delivering things for a living, or getting a little money from each of several friends in exchange for giving them a ride to work in a nearby village or town. The farmers bring their crops to market, and people have money to buy them.
There are bigger Civil-Military Operations as well -- canal cleaning for irrigation, filtering programs for drinking water, schools, repairs to public buldings, parks for children, and so forth. These are certainly also important. In the end, though, I think it will be the microgrants that really matter. They target the people who are ready to learn that lesson, and ready to take another step on their own road.
I'm guessing you didn't see it on the news, and you probably won't. I've seen it, and met some of the people involved in it. They're proud of their work, and I hope you're proud of them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)