Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..: April 13, 2008

by Kat on Apr 19, 2008 | Historical Stuff

Weekend Reading

Something old, something new... a few more bits.

Powerline points out someone who plays the double-standard card with more convincing detail than I've seen anywhere else. But whatever you do, don't call Obama "elitist," you racist.

The media reports from Basra at the end of March drove me absolutely nuts. They were contradictory, fragmentary and incomprehensible. At the time, I missed the explanation for that. It was a matter of geography. Once again, I shouldn't be surprised. *sigh*

We've already heard about a U.S. Navy Destroyer with a blogging XO, but did you know the Navy has an official policy of encouraging blogging? BZ, Navy!! Now if someone would just by the Air Force a clue...

The media does it again - outright lies. I don't see how it could be called anything else. As I said to an empty-headed fellow citizen who exclaimed to me with horror how she'd read on the front page of the NYT that an "entire Iraqi unit" deserted despite the Americans begging them to stay (of course she didn't know it was comprised of about 20 people, or that the thousands of earlier deserters had led to Iraq leadership being fired), our country is endangered by the lack of a competent, honest, accurate, professional media. God help us.

Nobody seemed to notice, but the long-awaited opening of Iraq's southern oil fields to outside investment began this week. Successful implementation will be the determining economic factor in Iraq's full recovery and reconstruction.

If you haven't read this from Michael Totten, you really should.

by FbL on Apr 19, 2008 | Denizen Link-Fest!

From my "Kos can kiss my sweet a$$" files

True story.

-Attila sends.

by Dusty on Apr 19, 2008 | Citizenship

H&I Fires 18 April, 2008

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite.

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

Time to add a new caveat, because from email it's not clear to some folks (mind you, if you don't read this it won't matter...) Being an open post, people (collectively, the Denizens) other than I post in the H&I. They sign their work (most of the time) - keep that in mind when you want to flame someone in email please - if it doesn't say "The Armorer" or "John" then I didn't write it! And honestly - if you don't like something said or posted... leave a comment, and hash it out (within the context of The Rulez which are clearly posted on the comment form, I would add).
*******************************************************
The new commander of the Dutch military, General Peter van Uhm, was sworn in yesterday. Today, he lost his son in action.

A roadside bombing killed the son of the Netherlands' top military officer on Friday, a day after his father assumed command of the Dutch armed forces, officials said.
Lt. Dennis van Uhm, 23, was one of two Dutch soldiers killed in the explosion 7 miles northwest of Camp Holland, the Dutch military base in Uruzgan province, spokesman Lt. Gen. Freek Meulman said.

My condolences to the family.

This is the sort of high-profile kill the Taliban have been looking for, and I discuss the effect this may have on Dutch morale, and the parallels that could be drawn with the Canadian experience over at The Torch. - Damian

************************************
Something funny. (Now, if only we could have this level of success in the war against beets.)
--ry
*************************************

Heh. Stupid Self-Inflicted Campaign Wounds, Republican edition? Over at the HuffPo, David Weiner broke a story on Cindy McCain's "Family Recipes lifted from Food Network by an intern? Ignore the politics of the source, look at the evidence, and ask yourself how long it would take how many monkeys to replicate those recipes in a purely random fashion... Heh. I was standing around yesterday talking with a mixed-politics group of 30-50 year old folk, and we all agreed - we're sick and tired of the campaigns already. And most of us aren't going to pay full attention to them until Sept/October, with a brief bit during the conventions. Except the blogger, of course, I have the monster to feed. -the Armorer

*********************************
Now, for something from the "this will make your head explode" school of thought:

We like to joke about the "very serious" traditional media. The truth is that while they claim exclusive lordship over integrity and professionalism -- not to mention a corner on the world's supply of pants made of smarty -- they're really a freak show with serious haircuts and suits. They're a wing of the Republican corporatist conspiracy against America. And the very serious moderators of last night's Democratic debate couldn't have been less serious if they had been wearing clown suits made of dildos while simultaneously tickling each other with monkeys.

From where I sit, that sentence makes no sense. But, as I've moved among the left side of the blogosphere at conferences and panel discussions and such, I have come to understand how they can say things like that, while we marvel their heads don't explode. Most of them think that *they* represent the "true center* of opinion in the eyes of the American public. Just as people on the Right who say things that should make heads explode do so from within the same strictures of their bubbled existence.

Heh. It's one reason that I try to make this place at least suitable for an overnight visit by people of the center-leftish persuasion. It doesn't protect me from my bubble (the narrow extent of which was revealed to me *by* my blogging and the other's that it brought me into contact with) but it does serve to keep my bubble expansible, and not, in fact, become a granite sphere with a hollow center. I do love Cesca's line about "pants of smarty" though! -the Armorer

*********************************
(Maybe Big Tribble mit Leggs won’t trample all over it this time.)
It’s Al’s birthday. So I give the gift of bacon.
--ry
**********************************

by Denizens on Apr 18, 2008 | General Commentary

Why vigilance (and informed, vice emotional, voting) matters.

I'm not a fan of the death penalty, which makes me a minority around here among the people who have expressed an opinion one way or another on the subject, but Justice Scalia's shot at Justice Stevens in the recent decision regarding Kentucky's Death Penalty methods was, well, interesting.

But actually none of this really matters. As JUSTICE STEVENS explains, " 'objective evidence, though of great importance, [does] not wholly determine the controversy, for the Constitution contemplates that in the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.' " Ante, at 14 (quoting Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304, 312 (2002); emphasis added; some internal quotation marks omitted). "I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty" is unconstitutional. Ante, at 17 (emphasis added).

A classic "Living Constitution" argument, since the Founders didn't seem to have any huge problems with the death penalty... A classic example of "rule by judicial fiat" so beloved of people who can't convince the people of the merit of their ideas, and so instead rely on finding "right-thinking" judges to enact their will.

A slippery proposition to be sure. Because both good and bad has come from it.

However, the only way we the people influence this is through our choices for President and Congress. We have no direct input on the Judicial branch at all.

Yet that branch has been imbued in the last 100 years with a vast amount of essentially unchecked (on a day to day basis) power, the only checks being over generational time spans as Judges retire and new ones are appointed.

It means we really, really, really should be paying attention. And keeping that in mind when choosing.

And it's a really good argument to keep the levers of power churning around between the centers of gravity, and for heaven's sakes don't let either herd of asses or elephants hold all the levers.

The potential for mischief is great.

As Justice Scalia further notes:

Purer expression cannot be found of the principle of rule by judicial fiat. In the face of JUSTICE STEVENS' experience, the experience of all others is, it appears, of little consequence. The experience of the state legislatures and the Congress—who retain the death penalty as a form of punishment—is dismissed as "the product of habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process." Ante, at 8. The experience of social scientists whose studies indicate that the death penalty deters crime is relegated to a footnote. Ante, at 10, n. 13. The experience of fellow citizens who support the death penalty is described, with only the most thinly veiled condemnation, as stemming from a "thirst for vengeance." Ante, at 11. It is JUSTICE STEVENS' experience that reigns over all.

More accurately, it is the experience of 5, mostly unaccountable people, that reigns over all. Which makes picking the people who do the picking important, even if those people as individuals are really nowhere near as important as politicians are wont to believe they are.

The Supremes, however...

by John on Apr 18, 2008 | Politics

Confessions of a Bitter Neo-Con, Warmongering, Chicken Hawk, Small Town, Typical White Person

[Kat - yeah, the last one was too serious, so I thought I'd try a different approach]

Starting with "Why Obama Just Doesn't Get It"

I am a bitter neo-con, warmongering, chicken hawk, small town, typical white person.

I've been wanting to say that for some time now. There are very few people who own up to that title anymore. Everywhere you read or watch, the term "neo-con" is disparaged as the great bogeyman, equal to or part of the small, but powerful Jewish kabal that somehow manages to run the world. I wouldn't mind meeting this group of folks and learning the secret of how a few bankers and corporate CEOs manage to rule the world between the Sabbath, the many Jewish holidays, bat mitvahs, golf and their kids' piano and Hebrew recitals. I mean, you've got to admit, it takes sheer genius to run the world, oppress a billion Arabs and a few other hundred million people, instigate wars, crash and build economic markets, put out tons of propaganda, assassinate world leaders, read the New York Times, develop incurable viruses to wipe out whole populations and run a huge business consortium in a four day week. Don't forget, keeping the wife happy.

Sheer genius and masters of quantum physics, mathematics and time traveling time management based on everything they are allegedly responsible for in history. I have seriously got to meet these folks. How do you get a promotion in this organization anyway?

[continued in flash traffic]

Even among conservatives, the term "neo-con" has taken a bad wrap. Many have bought into the left's propaganda that it was this small band of radicals that not only pushed President Bush to war with Iraq, but some how caused the war to be prosecuted badly. Apparently, our genius Jewish Kabal masters were on a four year vacation and only came back recently to institute COIN theory. See, you know its a Jewish conspiracy because the acronym is "COIN". We are actually using this idea and turning people away from radical Islam into materialistic zombies who only want food, electricity, clean water and some say so in how their government is run. Little do they know...ha-ha! feel our power.

Pardon me, if I sound bitter, but its hard to write a good rant while I am desperately clinging to my bible and gun, Especially when I have to pause every few minutes to throw darts at my favorite "wanted" poster of Poncho Villa while simultaneously tossing matches on my piles of clothes, household appliances and camouflage car seat covers because they are products of "free trade" with little tags that say "made in Honduras" and such.

Really though, I want to learn that mind control thingy. I've taken some classes, but I definitely don't have it down like the Masters. Two weeks ago I was at this sporting event and they were playing the national anthem. I stood up real quick and folks followed my lead, though some a little slowly. Then I looked at my nephew who still had his hat on so I bumped him with my elbow. He looked over at me with this "huh?" look so I stared at him real hard, then at his hat, then at him and then at his hat. Finally, my Jedi mind tricks worked and he took his hat off and put it over his heart. About ten or so men around us got the idea and did the same. Some women even put their hands over their hearts.

I could see other people looking around. I couldn't tell if it was heat stroke or dazed horror at seeing a near on Nazi like display of people actually saluting and honoring the flag of the US KKK of A. I could tell some of them were scared. You could almost smell it over the popcorn and hot dogs.

Obviously, though, I need to work on that mind control thing because not everyone followed my silent orders. However, I was certain there must have been a bunch of other neo-neo-cons in the crowd with the same green belt in mind control because I saw little patches of people all over the stadium doing the same thing. Yes! Still, I think I need to send a message to the masters because some folks aren't doing their jobs. I can remember when we used to have the power to make almost everybody in the stadium stand up, take their hats off or put their hands over their hearts. The Masters are apparently too busy on the golf course to keep this little charade going.

You know, I am bitter though about the Clinton and Bush administration. I voted for Clinton and all I got was higher taxes and a bunch of people telling me that having an affair with different women while in office was NOT sexual harassment or demeaning to women. I have to admit, I was really confused. That whole time I was being told that sexual harassment in the work place was bad and that women had to stand up for equality and respect in the work place. I even lectured some guy about smacking women on the butt in our office. Then they said, yeah, butt smacking was bad, it's better to use a cigar.

Boy, was I confused. So, I got out my bible and my gun and prayed a lot. Then this voice came out of nowhere, kind of like God speaking to Moses, but it sounded like Karl Rove. It said I should vote for Bush. I was praying at the time, so I started looking for a burning bush, but all I saw was some guy on TV called George Bush.

I got the message and I voted for Bush. I kept seeing messages from people that said we neo-cons were paid agents of Karl Rove. I have to say, I'm a little ticked off about that, maybe even bitter. I never got a secret decoder ring, a personal message and not one damn check for all my jumping up and down yelling, "freedom and democracy". (Heh. My mind control, ESP is getting stronger. Just as I was typing "freedom and democracy", my brother started singing "Freedom". Of course, he could have picked somebody other than George Michael to sing. Guess I need to work on that a bit.)

Anyway, Karl must have been THE Master of mind control because that whole time I thought I was shouting about freedom and democracy of my own accord. Wait, did I spell that write? I was waching Jon Kary one day and he said that stupid peeple went to Irak. So, quik like Iran (get it, Iran..I ran) down to the rekrute station (I don't know why they call it a "station", kuz they weren't sellin' no gas thar). I figured iffen I spelt stuff wrong I'd be a shoe in fer the army.

Then this brown shirt, Nazi looking dude told me I had to pass the ASSFAB. I got all ticked off again and I tolt him this was the United States Army and it didn't matter how fab my a$$ looked in a uniform, I just wanted to kilt somethin'. Anyway, he made me take this test and I got a 92% on it, but then they had some other brown shirt Nazi do all these tests and he said I had a torn rotator cuff. I asked him why he was looking under my car hood, kuz how else could he know I had a bad rotor? This was America, dagnabit, and no one had any right to look under my hood without my permission. We still got some rights to privacy 'round here.

Anyhoo, he sent me home so I had to go find some other organization to join and support the war effort because, you know, war is good. I found this group of people called "chicken hawks". That sounded like my kind of organization because here in the bitter midwest, chicken hawks are some bad a$$ birds of prey. I figured if a bunch of people were calling me a bird of prey, I might as well live up to it and join. I got a cool patch and everything, much better than what I got from the Rovian Neo-con Kabal.

I decided that, if I was going to be some grand pubah in the Bitter Neo-con, Warmongering, Chicken Hawk, typical white person world, I'd have to find somebody to pattern my self after. I stopped reading my bible long enough to look in my old, battered history books. There he was, the bitterest, most radical mid-westerner of all: John Brown, complete with bible and gun in hand. Dude was, like, totally freedom for everybody, even if it had to happen at the point of a gun.

It brought back memories of the time our class took a pilgrimage to the site of the Pottowatamie Massacre. I know, I'm from Missouri now, but back then I was pure, Grade A Kansan and John Brown was kind of a hero. That whole "liberty and equality" for all men, regardless of color, went really great with the whole "neo-con" persona I was trying to cultivate (I found my dictionary, too), but it created a whole new conundrum (dictionary) with my "anti-pathy for people who don't look like me, typical white person" persona. It's like having schizo-phrenia.

So, I prayed a bunch more and then went outside to shoot a poor defenseless squirrel that kept tossing acorns on my roof. I felt a lot better after that. Cleared my mind, so to speak. I realized that I did have some antipathy for people who didn't look or sound like me. Truth is, I never looked good in pink. I found balance, you could say.

Then I called my friend Alonzo and confessed that I was a typical white person. He asked me what the f*&# I was talking about. I just told him to roll with it and let me get it off my chest. He asked me if it could wait until the KU game was over. Anyway, we're all good now. We're going bowling this weekend. (No, really, we are.)

I just wanted to thank Senator Obama for pointing out my whole duel personality thing and making me so introspective. Until now, I had no idea I was so confused and bitter.

If you're a confused, bitter, typical white person who clings to your bible and gun because life just sucks, do what I did and have a come to Obama moment. You'll feel so much better afterwards.

� Secure this line!

I sympathize with your bitterness. I mean, it must suck when the political party that professes to share your beliefs has the bad graces to grow the federal government by leaps and bounds, lock down on personal rights, write your own version of federal laws, casually spend billions of dollars a month in a war without meeting its own metrics for success for years, casually discuss how torturing Americans and kidnapping foreigners is okay, refuse to fund US veterans' health and education issues, and piss off 85 percent of the modern world.

And let's not even get into the strange world of how many Republicans are getting arrested, forced out of the closet, and are for some reason declaring in masse that they don't intend to serve another term of office. It's almost as if they sense the mood of the nation swinging against them and they frankly don't want to clean up the mess that they've created (pottery barn rule doesn't apply to domestic politics). If I were to lose office after controlling the three branches of government for twelve years, losing two-thirds of the American public, crashing the economy, and running a war into a ditch after five years, I guess I would be a bitter warmonging chickenhawk neocon too.

Fortunately, I'm not.

posted by Jason on April 18, 2008 8:48 AM

Good thing you weren't "too serious" in this one.

Wasn't there an earthquake out by you this morning? Now that's serious.

posted by Fishmugger on April 18, 2008 9:04 AM

Read David Ickes sometime, if you want the real scoop on all this neo-con, Halliburton, Illuminati, secret society, Joooish, reptile alien, Babylonian Brotherhood conspiracy thing! LOL

He's got all the bases covered. The really frightening thing is how much the loony left and the Democratic Party sounds just like him now.

posted by fdcol63 on April 18, 2008 9:14 AM

Heh. You all didn't like my roll through every stereo-type ever thrown around the blogosphere?

Jason obviously took that really serious. LOL

J...Dude, come November, if you're guy wins, I'll buy you a steak dinner.

posted by kat-missouri on April 18, 2008 9:16 AM

Kat,

Haha, sounds like Jason has a crush on you. And fdcol, you forgot the 32nd order Masons. But seriously, I'm pretty turned off of the Repubs because of their alignment with the "cultural conservative" movement, the massive increase in the defecit, and an improperly handled foreign policy (note: I agree with the surge and COIN strategy, but I still think we should've stayed out of Iraq in the first place). But, I'm not running with open arms to the Dems either.

posted by LT Nixon on April 18, 2008 10:11 AM

I must need new reading glasses because I never know when to take you or ry or John seriously anymore. It must be the stress of work affecting my humor. Kat, you're on, if your guy wins in November, I will treat you to a good Northern Virginia steak dinner.

posted by Jason on April 18, 2008 10:14 AM

Haha, sounds like Jason has a crush on you.

In which case, maybe I shouldn't have offered to buy him a steak dinner. He might get the wrong idea. LOL

posted by kat-missouri on April 18, 2008 10:15 AM

I never know when to take you or ry or John seriously anymore.

LOL Dude, that's like a compliment or something. I worked hard for that. LOL

posted by kat-missouri on April 18, 2008 10:23 AM

I will treat you to a good Northern Virginia steak dinner.

Jason - we're from where all the good cows come to become steak. Good thing you stated that as an absolute to Northern Virginia vice a relative to the heart of beef country!

I never know when to take you or ry or John seriously anymore.

Heh. I think that has more to do with your being so wrapped up in the glow of Senator Obama has fogged your lenses than my not being clear. Kat and Ry, however, I understand that... ;^ )

posted by John of Argghhh! on April 18, 2008 11:30 AM

LT Nixon, welcome to my club on Iraq, anyway.

As for the "cultural conservatism" we may have to do some area-by-area delineations to see where we might align there.

posted by John of Argghhh! on April 18, 2008 11:31 AM

Kat and Ry, however, I understand that... ;^ )

Now, hold up, there. I was sure this sentence gave it away.

So, I prayed a bunch more and then went outside to shoot a poor defenseless squirrel that kept tossing acorns on my roof. I felt a lot better after that.

I mean, I don't have any oak trees around my house, you all ought to know that. ;)

posted by kat-missouri on April 18, 2008 11:54 AM

Kat,

Have you read Shadow Warriors by K. Timmerman? The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender. Well I guess it's told now.

It's a slow read cause I kept flinging it across the room.

"Thay who are you, boy?"
"I'm a chicken hawk and I eat chickens"
"Well I'm a dawg, but that's a chicken over yonder"

Sorry...I just couldn't help myself. Rhode Island Red is my fovorite.

posted by Fishmugger on April 18, 2008 12:32 PM

Kat, to be a tad more serious, the Bush administration did screw up in more than a a couple of areas. Jerry Pournelle has been lambasting Bremer and Company for years; you gonna tell me he's a crazy leftie? ;)

A more specific example is how the administration completely ignored the sheiks and other local authorities, and even tried to cut them off until the last year or so.

Another one: until just before the surge, the policy was "clear and leave," not clear and hold. Yep, the Merkans would roll into town, shoot all the bad guys (they could see), intone "our work is done here" and go to the next town.

Jason, I'll agree that the budgets have been absurd, but it's not all Dubya. I won't mention earmarks; they're small change. Go back and check the voting records for all those budget-busters. You'll find a whooole lot of Democrats voting not just "Yes," but "Heck, Yeah!" I'll highlight the Medicare and No Child Left Behind bills especially.

On the other hand, I can act all superior because I voted for, and am represented by the honorable John Boehner, pork-fighter. So nyaaa!

P.S. It's pronounced "bay-nor," not "boner." Just so's everyone knows... ;)

posted by Casey Tompkins on April 18, 2008 12:36 PM

Casey,

If you want tad...here's tad.

The leadership in congress has more then let us down. Newt (resigned in disgrace), the guy from Texas, (resigned in disgrace), Dennis from Illinois (resigned from a sinking ship), that left your buddy "bay-nor". I like him. He's articulate and presentable but gives the impression of standing around with his finger in a dike. He's been in charge of getting more like him elected. We really need him to succeed in order to have any influence over what laws are about to be passed.

I too, have a Republican Congressman; and from New Jersey that's saying something. It takes a lot more effort to keep him elected then it does to re-elect Mr Boehner. And...his name is Rodney how tough is that?

Our leadership has to grab a hold of their ears and pull their heads out of their...ah..you know.

I won't waste time on the Senate, my two are just behind Obama as most liberal. Oh the shame.

posted by Fishmugger on April 18, 2008 1:55 PM

Fish..Th-th-th-that's all folks!

No, I haven't read that book. Kind of felt like I was living it the last few years, though.

Casey...
One thing I'm not is crazy nor deluded as some would like to content. ;)

I am not unaware of mistakes, nor in how they will be recorded in history. I am aware of history and understand that, sometimes, it's the idealists that persevere and get things done, even if it is rocky and ugly.

I took my cue on this war from history and my own ideas about what was necessary or not. I really do believe that freedom and democracy, right in the middle of Jihad world, is a good thing. Obviously, we approached that with a little "too" much enthusiastic idealism and not enough anthropological, social studies and information. I think there is a long term place for that in our long term strategy to defeat extremist Islam.

I think most people mistake that belief as some sort of worship or brainwashing from Bush, et al.

That is simply wrong. I came to that conclusion after I read a bunch of books and pamphlets written by none other than our enemy and the founders of extremist Islam.

Whatever our reasons for going to Iraq, however the idealists may have placed the lofty goals of democracy and freedom above pragmatism, I believe that Iraq, as a free nation, is a dagger in the heart of extremists islam and their "caliphate". They could not resist going to Iraq or trying to wrest Baghdad from us because it is the historical heart, the cross roads, of every previous caliphate prior to the decadent ottomans (which AQ doesn't like either).

By creating democracy and freedom in Iraq, in Baghdad, we are stealing history from them. Since they place so much pride and emphasis on the history of Islam, it seems to me the first best step to end it, short of total war or, in fact, bombing any number of nations while simultaneously cutting our own throat for necessary resources, is to stake a flag for freedom and democracy in the ground right in the center of everything they dreamed of and defend it at all costs.

There is plenty of blame to go around for the conduct of the war to date and plenty of things to praise. I'll leave that to the historians (if I can), but I will not leave the outcome to political partisanship. Mistakes do not mean all is lost and losing a battle here and there does not mean the war is lost. We need to win this one. that's it.

posted by kat-missouri on April 18, 2008 2:41 PM

Boy, was I confused. So, I got out my bible and my gun and prayed a lot. Then this voice came out of nowhere, kind of like God speaking to Moses, but it sounded like Karl Rove. It said I should vote for Bush… I got the message and I voted for Bush. -Kat

That was very humorous!

posted by Ledger on April 19, 2008 3:32 AM

At last I'm in Adhmiyah neighborhood

by Kat on Apr 18, 2008 | General Commentary

National Defense University and Zawahiri Concur: Iraq is a Mess

[Kat]

Keeping in mind this was written last fall after some really bitter fighting to secure Iraq from Al Qaida and force them up to Mosul:

Pentagon institute calls Iraq war 'a major debacle' with outcome 'in doubt'

And it's reported by McClatchy, nearly six months after it was written, which I sometimes think is the second Al Qaida propaganda wing.

Updated: Small Wars has the details. This report is definitely not what the media is making it out to be -

The Miami Herald piece on a NDU "occasional paper" (Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath), quoted alternately as a Pentagon or NDU study, raised some flags here at SWJ. So we asked the author, Joseph Collins, to provide some context. His reply:
The Miami Herald story ("Pentagon Study: War is a 'Debacle' ") distorts the nature of and intent of my personal research project. It was not an NDU study, nor was it a Pentagon study. Indeed, the implication of the Herald story was that this study was mostly about current events. Such is not the case. It was mainly about the period 2002-04. The story also hypes a number of paragraphs, many of which are quoted out of context. The study does not "lay much of the blame" on Secretary Rumsfeld for problems in the conduct of the war, nor does it say that he "bypassed the Joint Chiefs of Staff." It does not single out "Condoleeza Rice and Stephen Hadley" for criticism
.

Get out of here! The media distorting something? Say it ain't so, Joe.

But, Zawahiri Concurs, Five Years Later, Iraq is a Mess for the US (he doesn't mention his own problems there, of course)

To redeem McClatchy a bit, I would point to their Iraqi bloggers:

The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend

Please Let Me Marry Her and Then Kill Me

by Kat on Apr 18, 2008 | ~~GWOT~~ Whatever it is...

Lessons from History: American Independence

[Kat]

As some of you might know, I'm reading David McCollough's "John Adams". I don't think this book is for everyone. It's very detailed and very long. However, I have to say that it has really got me thinking lately.

I suppose, if you look hard enough in history, you can find certain moments, quotes and deeds that seem to reflect our modern endeavors, our conflicts, our triumphs and our losses as a nation. Our modern ideas of independence and diplomacy are reflected throughout McCullough's book on Adams.

McCullough, writing about Adams in France, quotes a letter to congress on April 18, 1780:

Although I am convinced by everything I see, and read and hear, that all the powers of Europe...rejoice in the American Revolution and consider the independence of America in their interest and happiness...yet I have many reasons to think that not one of them, not even Spain or France, wishes to see America rise very fast to power.

[continued in flash traffic]

We ought therefore to be cautious how we magnify our ideas and exaggerate our expressions of the generosity and magnanimity of any of these powers. Let us treat them with gratitude, but with dignity. Let us remember what is due to ourselves and our posterity as well as to them. Let us above all things avoid as much as possible entangling ourselves with their wars and politics...America has been the sport of European wars and politics long enough.

Some might say that the shoe is on the other foot these days. However, it might behoove us to remember, when people are screaming about imperialism and war for oil, however, deep our own interests lay, there is always another's that we see as bound to ours and vis-a-versa, but also and often opposing.

McCollough again writing about Adams in 1781 to negotiate a peace treaty with Britain, notes a discussion Adams had with Richard Oswald who charged Adams with being afraid of becoming the tool of the powers of Europe. Adams replied, "Indeed, I am."

"What powers?" says he [Oswald]. "all of them," says I. "It is obvious that all the powers of Europe will be continually maneuvering with us, to work us into their real or imaginary balances of power....I think it ought to be our rule not to meddle, and that of all the powers of Europe not to desire us, or perhaps even to permit us, to interfere, if they can help it."

In an earlier letter he wrote to Congress on learning that the ambassadors have been directed to do nothing without the agreement or direction of the French court, quoting John Jay:

I cannot express it better than in his own words: "to be honest and grateful to our allies, but to think for ourselves."

Adams went on with the other commissioners to insist, even against France's wishes, that negotiations could not start unless Britain first recognized the United States' independence. France, for its part, had already indicated to Britain that the recognition of independence was not a primary concern for them in negotiating peace. Of course, France had helped the United States, but had also helped itself into severe debt. It was interested, at this point, in "peace at any price." Adams et al stuck to their guns and the British finally returned with instructions to negotiate with "the United States of America" instead of the "colonies".

It is interesting how Adams was at once excoriated by some members of congress for being "too rigid" and not deferential enough to our allies. Then, when he secured the peace treaty with all that congress could ask, he was praised by some who had questioned his abilities and others, even at the moment of triumph, still wrote him letters demanding to know why he had done this or that, or not done another.

At the beginning of our inception as a nation, the same questions, the same issues existed about how to conduct foreign affairs, the type of diplomacy or diplomats we used and how deferential to be to our nominal allies, particularly those in Europe, that exist today.

In closing, in response to those who lament the American image in Europe and abroad, I will quote from one more letter from Adams to a young merchant who was going to Europe and who had asked what manners he should cultivate while touring Europe:

You tell me, sir, you wish to cultivate your manners before you begin your travels...permit me to take the liberty of advising you to cultivate the manners of your own country, not those of Europe.

� Secure this line!

http://northshorejournal.org/index.php/democracy-is-hard

Morning Kat,

In reading John Adams I found it necessary to brush up on world geography in 1781. The map was very different then what my minds eye remembered. To appreciate all the interplay I had to take into consideration so many other issues for the British Empire, vs France and Spain. What were the Ottomans doing? What about the goings on in India? Who was marrying who and what for?

It seems all the heads of state at that time, could have had breakfast at a Dennys instead of needing all those buildings in New York and Geneva.

posted by Fishmugger on April 18, 2008 6:56 AM

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 04/18/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

posted by David M on April 18, 2008 9:45 AM

KAt, I did an analysis of our first forty years a while ago and called it "Democracy Is Hard".

It's amazing just how hard. If it were not for men like Adams, I think my list would end far shorter than it does.

posted by Chuck Simmins on April 18, 2008 10:34 AM

To appreciate all the interplay I had to take into consideration so many other issues for the British Empire, vs France and Spain. What were the Ottomans doing? What about the goings on in India? Who was marrying who and what for?

Yes, exactly. Particularly the issue with the Ottomans and India. England was really, really far stretched and was trying to hold on to all its possessions instead of a few important ones. I read a considerable amount about the East Indies company and India about that time. We were fortunate.

Then there was that whole "holy roman empire" thing with the hapsburgs, et al and the king of France feeling a little squeezed.

It is interesting to read our history as an adult with information about world history.

posted by kat-missouri on April 18, 2008 10:35 AM

I'm at work and it won't let me access your site, chuck. I'll check it out this evening and see about adding it to my next "history lesson".

posted by kat-missouri on April 18, 2008 10:41 AM

I found that book hard to stay with at first, but worth the time it took, and extremely informative (especially in re: life styles, and what happened to his daughter, etc). John Adams was an amazing man, but if the part where he meets the English King as Ambassador for the U.S. doesn't give you goose bumps and the biggest smile you ever had, then I just don't know what to say....

And yes, it gets you thinking.

Right now I am reading both Cicero's Republic and The Federalist Papers, which are amazingly similar in their focus, and very much relevant to today's discussions. What strikes me, though, and is relevant to this post is the continuity of thought and the evident value of a classical education. Adams was surely as much a student of Plato and Socrates as was Cicero, and as were Adams' revolutionary contemporaries. And look what it got us! More to come on this...

SangerM

posted by SangerM on April 18, 2008 6:40 PM

by Kat on Apr 18, 2008 | General Commentary

IPB Hash: What Have We Learned?

[Kat]

Since I'm home sick, I have time to read and write about some subjects here. Ry linked to an article called "What Have We Learned?"

At first, I was kind of going along with the guy about not learning important lessons from history and that, yes, globalization has a way of turning shared experiences on their heads as well as bringing out all sorts of crackpots and petty grievances that can effect a nation state. People are no longer solely dependent on a national history or identity, but can choose from many different ideas and data points. We know this because this is exactly how terrorists recruit around the world from people who, normally, should have no complaints about their lives.

He points out that Americans (USA) may have not learned important lessons like our European friends because, unlike them, we have never really experienced war directly and totally as a nation. For instance, Europeans, Chinese, Russians, etc have all lost not only millions of soldiers, but millions of citizens that have necessarily changed their point of view about war. You could almost agree with him accept that, instead of making us more willing to tromp around and start huge global wars like our European and Asian friends in history, we have become very select in what actions we will take about what.

More so, we have become casualty averse. I believe that we can certainly chock that up to our experiences in war, losing large quantities of men, money and materials while staving off the worse of the European causes. Including, I might add, the Viet Nam war which he points to without ever mentioning that it is post-colonial France that leads to that war. It is not a stand alone war we chose to entertain without cause or reason.

[continued in flash traffic]

Yet, I find the authors somewhat wistful praise of the Euro/Asian model of "pacifism" ridiculous and, frankly, disingenuous because, as modern history has shown, the Europeans, Russians and Chinese are not adverse to war, they are just more adverse to risking their own military or their political prestige at home with their own casualties. To that effect, they have used small wars, proxy wars and various other support of violent movements to obtain their political means with little military expense to themselves.

The French in Rwanda and the Ivory Coast, the Chinese in Sudan, the Russians (name a place they are not) giving nuclear capabilities to Iran or selling unknown quantities of arms around the world. I do not find the European model something to aspire to or somehow containing a better memory, thus aversion to war. All I see they have learned is how to avoid risking their own population and military. Period.

He wrote:

As a consequence, the United States today is the only advanced democracy where public figures glorify and exalt the military, a sentiment familiar in Europe before 1945 but quite unknown today.

Really? That's why Buckingham Palace has the trooping of the guard and the French have their regular air shows? Or, even the French who will more boldly claim that they would use nuclear weapons directly against a particular nation than any President of the United States would so boldly claim?

Politicians in the US surround themselves with the symbols and trappings of armed prowess; even in 2008 American commentators excoriate allies that hesitate to engage in armed conflict. I believe it is this contrasting recollection of war and its impact, rather than any structural difference between the US and otherwise comparable countries, which accounts for their dissimilar responses to international challenges today.

I address that above. I am not so sure I find any such behavior where proxy wars and arms sales become the predominant act of Euopeans and Asians to avoid risking their own populations, but providing for the death of hundreds of thousands or even millions of some other nation while not getting their hands dirty. This is elitism at its worst, not its best. And, while we have certainly participated in such actions, it certainly does not prove any superiority of these other nations that they have avoided participating in conflict while pushing proxy wars.

Indeed, the complacent neoconservative claim that war and conflict are things Americans understand—in contrast to naive Europeans with their pacifistic fantasies —seems to me exactly wrong: it is Europeans (along with Asians and Africans) who understand war all too well. Most Americans have been fortunate enough to live in blissful ignorance of its true significance.

And then he blows it all away claiming that it is "neoconservatives", the great bogeyman of the modern American politics, that claim that war and conflict are things that Americans understand. Sorry, in fact, the two men who most embodied those statements are long gone and dead. Theodore Roosevelt and Patton made those claims long before the advent of the neo-conservatives.

I would also add, as I am reading the book now, John Adams who notes that the United States was born in war and, as freedom and democracy are an anathema to much of the world, then as now, that war is likely the long term effect for any who seek those two paramount desires.

Empires may be dead and the writer may look longingly upon Europe for his models, but it does not necessarily mean that European nations or any others have ended their obsession with shaping the world, even through military means. They have simply pushed it below the radar so that they can pretend to some detachment from it and its outcomes.

� Secure this line!

http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW1/causes.htm

American liberal fantasies of European sophistication, diplomatic prowess, and pacifistic maturity.

What rubbish.

The truth is more "Steynian": Europeans were able to call on the United States to save them from their self-created horrors in WW1 and WW2. We rebuilt their infrastructure with the Marshall Plan, and then we stayed and provided the defensive umbrella that safeguarded them during the Cold War from the Communists who American liberals also wanted to emulate.

During the 2 world wars, entire generations were lost, leaving "old" Europe with nothing more than immature and inexperienced adolescents running their societies, free to spend their own money creating socialistic Utopian and pacifistic Fantasylands while Uncle Sam paid for the security from the Soviet Bear.

Their present focus on "pacifism" is a result not of their alleged "sophistication", "maturity", or diplomatic "prowess", but rather their current inability to defend themselves militarily as a result of their almost complete reliance on the United States for the past 60-odd years.

Quite frankly, I don't think we need to be lectured by American liberals on the "superiority" of those who created 2 world wars, the horrors of the Holocaust, the atrocities of Serbia / Bosnia / Kosovo, and the present disintegration of their cultures and civil rights by unassimilated Muslim immigrants.

posted by fdcol63 on April 17, 2008 1:03 PM

"Most Americans have been fortunate enough to live in blissful ignorance of its true significance."

I pray that we keep this so, by fighting the wars they help create on THEIR land, not our own.

posted by fdcol63 on April 17, 2008 1:05 PM

I would say also that the United States has always been far more democratic than any of the European powers, hence our populace is more sensitive to large numbers of casualties, although the Civil War demonstrated that Americans can and will accept those losses if convinced of the necessity.

As for "not understanding war" at that level, I have to say anyone who holds to that view has never met anyone reared south of the Mason-Dixon line. Several well-known WW2 flag officers had fathers who fought in that war, so the cultural memory is not that remote.

But since we are a democracy, the electors tend to expect unambiguous and speedy results. I cite the "three year rule" in evidence. While it is frequently quoted with tongue in cheek, in most of our wars the American citizen has become markedly impatient after three years of war. I don't doubt that is one of the primary motivators of recent pessimism with respect to the Iraq war.

Kat's Flash Traffic extension is very much to the point. The only observation I would make is that Europe entered the Great War in a gay and feckless manner (the last real war having occurred a century before), and the Second World War just reinforced the learned trauma, after having completely pooch-screwed the first war.

In short, most of Europe forgot the meaning of true victory. Considering that the Soviet Union took over nearly literally half of Europe after the war, it's not surprising that the locals acquired a sour view of war. I think it's also telling that most of our current most-reliable allies in Europe are former Warsaw Pact members. They remember what it's like to truly be oppressed, as opposed to Tim Robbins/Susan Sarandon oppressed.

posted by Casey Tompkins on April 17, 2008 10:56 PM

[Sorry. Your comment has been deleted by the neo-con, Jewish Kabal. Feel my power.]

[Ah, the estimable Mr. Dingleberry. Again stealing bandwidth for his off-topic diatribes, he makes his quarterly visit. For all the blogs he visits to dump his junk upon, he has a grand total of 3,418 visits when I checked. Clearly, his message resonates with the masses, and his marketing skillz are legendary!]

posted by DEAN BERRY on April 18, 2008 12:49 AM

I would make is that Europe entered the Great War in a gay and feckless manner (the last real war having occurred a century before), and the Second World War just reinforced the learned trauma, after having completely pooch-screwed the first war.

Mmm..yes, though we eventually did enter WWI to some great "hurrahs", we also did so with some serious debate and previous demand to stay out of it. SAme with WWII. We don't exactly run into war these days with some sort of "gay and feckless" joy of sending the troops off.

Nor bringing them back for that matter.

posted by kat-missouri on April 18, 2008 12:51 AM

... I would make is that Europe entered the Great War in a gay and feckless manner (the last real war having occurred a century before) ...

Not to be pedantic, but I'm a little confused by this. Which "last real war" a century before are you talking about?

This sounds like you're saying Europe hadn't seen a real war since the Napoleonic Wars, but my reading of history is much different:

1859: Franco-Austrian War (or Austro-Sardinian War)
1866: Austro-Prussian War
1870-1871: Franco-Prussian War
1912-1913: Balkan Wars

Not to mention others on the fringes, like the Crimean War, Greek War of Independence, or all their colonial wars.

posted by fdcol63 on April 18, 2008 7:23 AM

Maybe he would have been better to say "great war", with millions killed?

Maybe, more succinctly, it would be the last war where the gallants rode off on chargers.

posted by kat-missouri on April 18, 2008 8:11 AM

No wars in Asia, Africa and Europe because millions haven't died??? They didn't need to invade their neighbors, they were quite busy internally.

How many Chinese died since Mao took over in 1949?
How many Africans died since 1960?? Biafra, Congo, Angola, Algeria (France), Chad, Ruwanda, Ethiopia, Ivory Coast, Liberia and other places I have trouble spelling.
Then there is the old Soviet Union. Not counting the millions of people that didn't die all over the world because of them; how many died internally?

According to how one classifies a war and in a discussion with my daughter; I tried to add up all the places in the world where people are killing people...I stopped at 30. Over 20 had something to do with religion...OK Muslims.

Yup...no wars here.

posted by Fishmugger on April 18, 2008 8:44 AM

Sorry, fdcol63, you are correct; I should have been more specific.

Yes, I was referring to the Napoleonic wars. Armies numbered in the hundreds of thousands, and occasionally topped the million mark if counting both sides. Casualties numbered in the hundreds of thousands. For example, the Grande Armee entered Russia with 650,000 men, but escaped with only 40,000.

By those metrics, the above wars hardly count.

True, the troop counts were not inconsequential, but all of the first three mentioned were of short duration and limited damage. The Franco-Austrian war lasted about 2 1/2 months (April 29 - July 11 1859), the Austro-Prussian is also known as the Seven Weeks War, and the Franco-Prussian war only 10 months. In fact, the latter war (begun July 19, 1870) was in effect over after the Battle of Sedan (September 2, 1870) so that part of the war which actually decided anything was over in 6 weeks.

The Prussians lost c. 28,000 dead out of c. 128,000 casualties for the entire 10 months. The bloodiest battle was Gravelotte, where the Prussians lost 4,500 dead and 15,000 wounded, out of 146,000 men. By comparison, Meade lost 23,000 out of 82,000 at Gettysburg.

So, while the 1870 was was not inconsequential, there was arguably not much immediate impact for most Europeans. I would say that the French remember the suppression of the Commune in 1871 far more vividly than their combat losses to the Prussians.

I must conclude that none of these wars made much of an impression on the general populace, with the exception of France, wherein a deep thirst for revenge (or revanche) against Germany was introduced. It never seemed to occur to the froggies that they might be beaten again. I would even so far as to say that most Frenchmen were quite eager to kick Prussian buttocks in 1914.

Finally: yes, the military leaders, at least, should have paid attention to the results of the Balkan wars; but hey, it's the Balkans, right? Who cares what happens to those losers? {/snerk} Seriously, I can't think of a single military leader in the West who paid any attention to those wars, much less took away any lessons, especially in the use of machine guns.

Bottom line: none of those wars introduced any sort of serious comprehension of what real war was like in the hearts of Europeans, which made the shock of reality even worse when it did hit. Some historians, such as H. Stuart Hughes would say that the first world war had a far greater emotional impact on Europeans than the second, even though the latter caused far more widespread death and destruction.

posted by Casey Tompkins on April 18, 2008 1:53 PM

Casey,

Thank you for the history lesson! If you want to discount all these small European wars as relatively "inconsequential" compared to the Napoleonic Wars, and immaterial to the larger point that I was making about European belligerancy as opposed to the modern American liberal fantasy of pacifism, that's certainly your prerogative.

However, I would offer the following as substantiation of my belief that you're wrong in this belief. There may be better, more authoritative examples elsewhere, but I think the chart at the following link highlights the major impacts that all of these smaller wars had on the alliance structures created by European nations between 1879-1914, and how they helped fuel the "consequential" horror that became WW1:

Contrary to your view, I think it's clear that all of those smaller wars were serious enough to compel European nations to form these alliances in an attempt to protect themselves from future such wars.

But as is often the case, Murphy's Law and the Law of Unintended Consequences prevailed. Instead of just another of the smaller wars ensuing, these alliance structures ultimately created the conditions that led to the continent-wide campaign that killed millions.

posted by fdcol63 on April 18, 2008 3:10 PM

by Kat on Apr 17, 2008 | General Commentary

IPB* 17 APR 2008

Before anyone starts saying this is all crap they should note that some of the opening paragraphs contain ideas/philosophy many of us around hold to be near Divine Truth. While much of this is, well, the truth being strained, it does ask some very important questions. And if you don’t have the answers, well, then maybe you ought to think a little more on your rationale for supporting the GWOT.
--
A couple of tidbits from SpaceWar.com. The first two are about the specific problems with ‘Big Deck’ (nautical strategy) thinking and the last about not thinking an idea all the way thru to see an obvious (or not so obvious) limitation or weakness.

--
One from Juan Cole (I know, Juan Bleeping Cole. Who would’ve thought he’d show up at Castle Argghhh! in anything but a fit of derision?) about how there may be a problem with the general model of how we (general public) conceive of the insurgency and troubles in Iraq.
--
Never mind all the bacon silliness in the comments (hmmmmmm, bacon), but Al asks a good question: when is ‘corporate welfare’ good and when is it bad? Why is it okay to, say, keep steel and arms manufacturing afloat but not, say, farming? (UnkaBill will grade this when he gets back, with extra points for large powerpoint presentations being somewhere in the syllabus. Or so I’ve heard.)
--
Dr. Grimsly, along with others, asks a decent question: How much should credibility should ‘outsiders’ be given in critiquing or commenting on military matters, and how much does having worn The Colo(u)rs grant you credibility on matters outside an exact area of expertise?
--
One J turned me onto over at Abu Muqawama. Is aQ more advanced as a political machine than we thought?

--ry

UnkaBill will grade this when he gets back, with extra points for large powerpoint presentations being somewhere in the syllabus.

Even with the extra credit for the pretty slides and the Abu Muqawama link, you're still in the hole for grammar, punctuation and spelling.

posted by BillT on April 17, 2008 11:26 AM

Um, Ry, did that first graf get published before you proof-read it? Because this

Before anyone starts saying this is all crap they should not that some of the opening paragraphs contain ideas/philosophy many of us around hold to be near Divine Truth.

especially seems incoherent.

Or did some punctuation get left out?

posted by Casey Tompkins on April 17, 2008 11:49 AM

Uhhhh, Casey, he *does*

*wince*

proof-read his stuff...

posted by BillT on April 17, 2008 12:12 PM

Gaw damnit, in the word documnet the 'e' is there. I swear it is. No bs. It's there in the word file. I don't know how it disappeard. (John, do we have 'tron gremlin infestations again)?
--
Grammar? Again. Man.

Sometimes what I know is right and what Microsoft says is right don't agree. Knowing I'm a chitty grammarian and so I go with MS.

(And no, I didn't check this one much at all. Did a spellcheck at 2am last night, a quick once over to make sure all the links were in the right place, and published. Oh well. It wouldn't be a work of mine if it wasn't highly flawed in some way, neh?)

posted by ry on April 17, 2008 12:44 PM

Hey - I figure I'm doing good to get him and Kat to spellcheck - once they get in typing mode...

And it took some serious whaling on both of 'em!

Oh, and does he go in to *fix* the problem? No. I did.

No cheetos for you, boyo!

posted by John of Argghhh! on April 17, 2008 3:36 PM

Oh, like you've not been skimping on getting the knock off ones anyway. Sheesh. Slave labor on the Firebase and cheapo cheetos? You go to far.

Sorry. Picking the wife up from work, doing laundry, and making Her Highness dinner took precedence over grammatical and spelling mistakes. ;)

So, what's up with capping on us for bad spelling and grammer? Do they feed you less when we mess up or something?

posted by ry on April 17, 2008 9:13 PM

Ry..we're messing up his status with the white house. You know how these paid agents are, any little mistake could blow their cover. ;)

posted by kat-missouri on April 17, 2008 10:24 PM

Whoa. It's amazing how one little "e" can change things.

"I can see clearly now, the rain is gone..." he sings. :)

posted by Casey Tompkins on April 17, 2008 11:00 PM

Well, it isn't all crap, but it _is_ mostly crap, and really not even worth the fisking.

Funny thing is, given the amount of stuff I've been sifting through recently, I've found myself reverting to a method of BS detection that I used to rely on a lot more before I got me a gud edukashun , i.e., if I find myself more aggravated at the end of an essay than when I started, then it must be crap. Simple, eh?

Now I certainly do understand the problems with that method, no need to waste time telling me where the logic fails, but amazingly, for me at least, this method really does work. The reason, I suspect, is that I don't really get as upset by opinions that differ from mine as I do by poor reasoning, misdirection, specious logic, ig'nance, and other peripherals. For example, I hate it when writers use emotionally charged words or labels, and often, regardless of the value of the overall piece, for me it only takes one or two comments to consider something 'crap' or the writer an idiot. In the case of this essay, there were many more than one or two stupid things, but one paragraph will suffice to stand for the rest:

1) "War, in short, prompted behavior that would have been unthinkable as well as dysfunctional in peacetime."

This is just plain specious nonsense. What "peacetime.?" What behavior? There has never been a time of complete peace on this planet, not that I'm aware of in any event. Whether the wars were large or small, tribal or feudal, personal or political, humans have been fighting with one another since even before they climbed down out of the trees, and they have been doing awful non-war related things to each other for just as long. I just finished an excellent book titled "Things Fall Apart" about tribal Nigeria at the time of the forward edge of European Colonization. It was a very good book, but a primary theme was the contrast between the traditional (and therefore 'acceptable') violence of the old world and the inexplicable (somehow less acceptable) violence of the new world. This is a common theme of many books that revile the white Europeans for destroying supposedly pure and innocent native cultures. Certainly colonialism and even our own 'manifest destiny' engendered violent excesses, but I'd say that killing one's own children because a tree-god said to, or cutting the scalps off of slain enemies, or making drinking cups from the skulls of enemies constitutes dysfunctional by any measure of today's standards. To be honest, I find it funny that Judt write an essay seemingly bemoaning the lack of true historical memory when he himself is so cavalier with the truth and with his claims? And I won't even get into the kinds of heinous and disgusting crimes one reads about now that have nothing to do with war, which to me, makes them all the more disturbing. At least war-driven excess can be understood, whereas many so-called peacetime crimes defy reason.

2) "It is war, not racism or ethnic antagonism or religious fervor, that leads to atrocity. War—total war—has been the crucial antecedent condition for mass criminality in the modern era."

This is so just wrong in so many ways that it's painful to even think about!

-- War did not cause mass criminality in the 20th century, rather mass criminality caused people to go to war, either to defend themselves from the leaders of the criminal nations or to help those who were attacked.

-- Atrocity is caused by war?!?!? What a load of inane bull$hit. The inquisition was not caused by war. Burning people at the stake was not driven by war. The Crusades were wars fought for religious reasons (ostensibly). Racism is a modern disease, at least as we define it now; however, racial and cultural hatred have been around a long time, and those things too have been the cause for wars. Atrocity needs no war to exist or to flourish, for that it just needs criminals who face no stalwarts willing to stand up to them.

-- Total war is a crucial antecedent for mass criminality?!? Again just plain bull$hit. Aside from the total war practiced by people like the Mongols, for example, if we only talk about the modern era, then I think there are a number of examples that counter Judt's claims. Pick a country: Venezuela, Argentina, South Africa, Zimbabwe, DR Congo, Rwanda, Uganda? Total war has not been seen in any of those countries, not by any standard we'd use to call something total war today. No, those places are just plain old pressure cookers of racial, economic, or colonial vs. tribal tension--and atrocities abound! For just one example of non-war caused atrocity in the modern world read 'Aiding Violence' by Dr. Peter Uvin. His experience seems to indicate that too much development aid (of all things), inappropriately applied, is as much a reason for what happened in Rwanda as anything else. There are scores of other examples.

3) "The first primitive concentration camps were set up by the British during the Boer War of 1899–1902."

Aside from things we don’t know about the past, I'll stake a claim for the first 'primitive concentration camp' of the modern era actually being in the U.S. during the Civil War--if by concentration camp we mean a place where people are imprisoned solely to warehouse them until they are killed or die. Andersonville prison was a hellhole where Union soldiers were treated so badly that after the war, the camp commandant, Henri Wirz (a Swiss born medical doctor) became the first person ever hanged by the United States for 'war crimes.' He was also the only person so charged by the United States until WWII.

4) "Without World War I there would have been no Armenian genocide and it is highly unlikely that either communism or fascism would have seized hold of modern states."

This just reeks of a poor education and equally poor reasoning skills--or an intentionally feigned ignorance. Armenians were just as likely to be murdered by Turks then as not, given the existing tensions. WWI may have 'enabled' the event, but it was not the cause of it. Nor did WW I have much to do with communism or fascism taking hold in so-called modern states! The nations overcome by such 'evils' were monarchies or outright dictatorships, and at the outset, communism and fascism were just alternatives to rival political systems like capitalism and anarchy. Consider Russia, Spain, Italy, Germany, and China. Every one was ruled by 'Royalty' and every one was transformed into something else by people seeking the same thing we in America originally sought: freedom from kings.

Consider especially China, which is an interesting case. The communist takeover there was not a result of WWI, but of WWII, and then only by way of distraction. It actually began near the turn of the century when Chaing Kai Shek and Mao Tse-Tung were fighting together against the Chinese Emperor and the Warlords, and it was only as the struggle against the Warlords progressed that the two split into rival political camps (though initially Chaing also sought help from the communists). Had Chaing not turned from fighting the nearly-defeated communists to fight the Japanese, China might not have become communist, but his ill-timed move against the Japanese sapped his strength and gave Mao time to recover. The Chinese civil war that followed WWII was just the final stage of a struggle that had been taking place for almost 50 years, and WWII was just an annoying, albeit significant, side event.

5) "Without World War II there would have been no Holocaust."

This shows an _astonishing_ lack of real education or understanding. The Shoah was utterly independent of the war prosecuted by the Nazis, and actually started before the war! It was a program of annihilation carried out on orders of Hitler, who, but for the Shoah might actually have been hailed even today as no less a hero of Germany than Napoleon is of France. If one were to blame a war for the Shoah, then WWI would be the more logical and correct choice, given the treaty of Versailles was the reason for the economic ruin of Germany that gave rise to the Nazis and allowed the rationalization of killing Jews for economic reasons. Of course, the Germans may have perfected assembly-line mass murder, the Russians were no less expert at killing Jews, and even had Hitler not been killing Jews by the trainload, there is plenty of evidence to support the notion that Stalin would have done at least as much. In fact, I'd guess that if Hitler had not begun the war with Russia and France, he might very well have been able to get away with killing all the Jews in Germany without anyone coming to their aid. Certainly the U.S. would not have gone to war with Germany just to save the Jews. Who would have? (assuming anyone was able even to learn what was going on).

6) "Absent the forcible involvement of Cambodia in the Vietnam War, we would never have heard of Pol Pot."

Who says. Again, this is just nonsense. It may be true, but "may be" is not "is" and given the way that part of the world is today and was before the Vietnam was, I'd say there was as likely a chance such a person would have risen to power anyway. There has never been any lack of despots and tin-pot dictators needing a whooping, and there still isn't. War did not create those people, the lack of moral excellence allowed and allows them to gain and hold power. We need only look to Venezuela to see that happening in real-time.!

And so on....

As I said, it isn't all crap, but it _is_ mostly crap, and while I may not feel like fisking the entire sludge ball, that doesn't make me wrong.

V/R
SangerM

P.S. Hi everyone. :-)

posted by SangerM on April 18, 2008 1:07 AM

Hey sanger...you and I came to the same conclusion. I was going along, reading the guy and then he said "neo-conservatives".

Not that I was buying all of his stuff, but I had to stop there.

posted by kat-missouri on April 18, 2008 1:48 AM

"Absent the forcible involvement of Cambodia in the Vietnam War, we would never have heard of Pol Pot."

True. Not that he wouldn't have come to power, because he was primed to toss Sihanouk out when Lon Nol staged his coup. Without the Vietnam War link, the media wouldn't have said "boo" about Pol Pot...

posted by BillT on April 18, 2008 3:42 AM

Good point, bill

posted by kat-missouri on April 18, 2008 9:26 AM

I have succeeded. Sanger came up from the mental swamp he's been trapped in. ;)

THough I would disagree about Russia. The toll of the war(mass conscription, loss of food among the gen pop to feed the army leading to starvation among the gen pop, etc) wer the straws that broke the camel's back. Things were bad, people complained, but the deprivations of the war were one step too far. The war lead to the fall of the Romanovs(sp, blow me John and Bill). The war caused the conditions that led the gen pop to feel a rev was necessary. In that snes it did cause the Russian Empire to become communist. It's a very limited sense, but no less true.

posted by ry on April 18, 2008 12:02 PM

Oh, and Sanger, I thnk I lost about an inch of hairline reading that first piece. You aint' the only one pissed off by it.

posted by ry on April 18, 2008 12:06 PM

Hi Bill!

> True. Not that he wouldn't have come to power, because he was primed to toss Sihanouk out when Lon Nol staged his coup. Without the Vietnam War link, the media wouldn't have said "boo" about Pol Pot...

I grant your point. I wasn't thinking so much about the 'notice' him part as the 'him exiting' facet of things. You're probably right that we wouldn't have noticed if not for the focus on that part of the world, but might not the same have happened if the French had stayed on? Or even if Ho had taken power in the early 60s?

But yeah, we most likely would not have paid any more mind to him than we are to what's going on in Sudan right now, or than we did in Rwanda in the early 90s. Just not our food fight.

posted by SangerM on April 18, 2008 6:51 PM

Hi Ry,

> I have succeeded. Sanger came up from the mental swamp he's been trapped in. ;)

I've just been really busy for a couple of months with a lot of stuff that has kept me in waiting rooms and on other peoples couches, so I've had a chance to read a lot, but not much time to write, or visit. Tomorrow I am going TDY, however, for about 3 weeks, and I am looking forward to being able to spend the evenings writing again. Should be nice.

Re: Russia. Yeah, I know. There has to be a 'moment of choice' somewhere, and WWI did seal the Romanov's fate, but there were 3 'revolutions' in Russia, the first in 1905. The 2-phase 2nd Revolution (February and October 1917) fueled by WWI did end the Tsarist reign, but it had its roots firmly in the 1905 revolution, so while true that WWI changed Russia, I think it just as true that there was no certainty then that the Communists would be the final power there.

Judt wrote that "Without World War I...it is highly unlikely that either communism or fascism would have seized hold of modern states," and even given your correct point about Russia, I still believe Judt is wrong. His implied point is that _WAR_, in this case WWI, was responsible for making people and societies ripe for plundering by the adherents of these 'evil' political -isms. In fact, as you know socialism, anarchism, and capitalism were fully competing doctrines, even in the United States, and long before WWI. Also, if War is the reason those isms found root, then how does Judt explain the rise of Capitalism and democracy after the end of WWII, especially in the two most devastated countries, AND the eventual fall of communism, in spite of the wars that have happened since. Oh, wait, he doesn't, because in his blindered view, war is just plain bad, and no good can come of it, and apparently never has.

I don't know that I am ready yet to have a firm opinion about the value of war one way or the other, but in fact, I do tend to think sometimes that war is as absolutely necessary for the advancement of our species as sunlight and water. That's a disturbing notion though, so I've avoided looking hard at that thought bubble.

By the way, Ry, you going to be anywhere near Bremen (west o' Goshen) next weekend? Send me a note if maybe.

posted by SangerM on April 18, 2008 8:02 PM

by Ryan on Apr 17, 2008 | General Commentary

Al Qaeda in Iraq : When losing, flail away and kill as many as you can.

At least that's one way to spin this. In a sense, it reads like a document that might have emanated from the Fuerhrer-Bunker in Berlin in April of 1945 (I can only wish in our timeline with AQI we were at the April 45 time tick...) But first...

Yesterday, I linked to Cassandra's crie-de-coeur over at Villainous Company, regarding her view of a rising willingness of the Usual Suspects to express their contempt of those of us who donned the uniform or support those who wear it. Oddly enough, they aren't as contemptuous when the Powers That Be send us off to do thing that the Usual Suspects approve of... well, they aren't as openly contemptuous, anyway.

I'm not reopening that discussion here, so much as I'm going to cherry-pick from her commenter who took issue with her, a Mr. Schwag.

You finally put it all together Casandy. The majority of Americans now feel contempt for the military.
Why is it that the "greatest military of all time" can't defeat a few thousand camel jocks?

Gas is now over $4 and all we hear is about how great are "heros" are.

You and your ilk have trashed our country and soon you will get a major domestic ass kicking.

Heh. So much to work with, so little time.

Of course, Cassandra never said the majority of Americans now feel contempt for the military, that's Mr. Schwag expressing his earnestly held belief and the hopeful vision that helps him sleep at night.

Better yet, Mr. Schwag, carrying the banner of goodness and light and holding himself up as a paragon of progressive virtue and tolerance and all-round cuddly behavior gives us this gem:

Why is it that the "greatest military of all time" can't defeat a few thousand camel jocks?

Snerk. Can I toss the "bigot" flag here on our representative of the progressive Left?

Heh. Oddly enough, in this space, we have more respect for the residents of the Middle East than it would appear Mr. Schwag does. We're going to return to this comment later.

Gas is now over $4 and all we hear is about how great are "heros" are.

Guess that whole "It's all about oiiiiiiiiiiiiillllll!" meme isn't working too well, but $4 a gallon gas (leave aside the $9 a gallon cost in Europe) is apparently directly attributable to we military people, and guys like Jason Dunham, Paul Smith, Michael Monsoor, and Michael Murphy. Gosh, I'm surprised he didn't manage to throw in there that they are all white males, too. I suppose the charitable reading of that is - when gas is over $4 a gallon, that's *all* we're supposed to hear about... because that's personally affecting Mr. Schwag, and, well, as Fred said in the first comment to the post below this one "Pathological narcissism is the defining disease of our age." (Admittedly, this is dangerous ground for a blogger to tread...)

So, I said I'd come back to it, so, let's come back to it:

Why is it that the "greatest military of all time" can't defeat a few thousand camel jocks?

Cassie really pretty much answered this in her response:

Why is it that police can't totally eradicate crime?
Well, they probably could, if they were allowed to turn America into a police state, but who wants to live that way? There are tradeoffs between liberty and security, and we choose how much freedom we are willing to give up in return for a given degree of safety.

If we were allowed free exercise of military power in Iraq, we'd have little trouble guaranteeing security. The political reality is that we are constrained by the chattering classes (that would be people like you) who like to chant idiotic slogans like "No blood for oil!" and "Stop the illegal, immoral occupation of Irak!"

Since I usually try to avoid being a "me too!" blogger, I have something to add, so lets get back to AQI and flailing around and killing people.

We took out the Japanese and the German governments because we effectively waged a war of attritional annihilation on them. One in which we killed a great many people who probably really didn't need killing. And we learned in Vietnam, that fighting a civil war in the mode of a war of attrition, but being unwilling to *really* wage a war of annihilation, causes you to kill a great number of people and not accomplish your goal. Which makes all that killing, well, a bad thing. If you are going to go to the level of killing, you'd certainly like to be successful at what you are doing, and not lose your soul doing it. So now, we've been constrained by our leadership, international opinion, and yes, the "chattering classes" to not do so much killing.

We've constrained ourselves. And we find, among other things, it makes things take a lot longer (but with a helluva lot fewer casualties on both sides) than the "grind them to pulp" approach of WWII. And now we take shite for it from persons like Mr. Schwag.

Let us quote from a recent letter, from Abu Safiyan, in Diyala, intended for Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the non-Iraqi leader of AQI. Just one section will be sufficient.

Economical War: How can we foil the enemy economically? 1- Attack the gas and oil fields, wells and pipelines for the apostate government and focus our efforts on such attacks. 2- Attack each targets such as gas and oil tankers even oil ships in Basra, Kirkuk, and Baghdad. 3- Attack all the targets that strengthen the enemy economically and militarily. Such as the electric stations and lines which feeds the enemy’s military establishments including the Shi’a, the Awakening and the government’s army which belong to Maliki (such as police station and military bases). Blow up all power lines.
Currently we must focus our efforts to attack oil fields and pipelines, why?

Results and Solutions: Because…
1) It will halt payment of the Military and Police salaries and the Awakening movement associated with the occupier and Maliki’s malignant government. Even the American Army will weaken since it depends on the Iraqi oil and gas wealth. The enemy will gradually drown step by step.

Chemical, Biological agents and Nitric Acid War

1) Throw large amounts of Nitric Acid even Bacteria and other materials that can spread illnesses and kill people until the enemy melts in the lakes and valleys. Even place it in the enemy’s water pipes which will spread the killing and dangerous illnesses among them. The enemy will become afraid and confused and think that we have a dangerous chemical weapon. But in fact it’s a psychological war that places fear in the enemy and exhausts them psychologically and they will gradually foil.

2) The enemy must be killed using all dangerous materials such as nitric acid, bacteria and destructive chemical materials against the enemy’s personnel and nature. We need specialists in this sensitive field.

This is how AQI wishes to fight. Anyone not with them, is the enemy and killable. Sounds a lot like the Fuerher Directives emanating from Berlin in those last dark days of despair.

1) Throw large amounts of Nitric Acid even Bacteria and other materials that can spread illnesses and kill people until the enemy melts in the lakes and valleys. Even place it in the enemy’s water pipes which will spread the killing and dangerous illnesses among them. The enemy will become afraid and confused and think that we have a dangerous chemical weapon. But in fact it’s a psychological war that places fear in the enemy and exhausts them psychologically and they will gradually foil.

It's taken this long because we aren't fighting like this. It will take longer because we won't fight like this - and this isn't the native Iraqis talking about doing this - this is the mostly foreign fighters of AQI.

We fight with one hand tied behind us. As, in many respects, we should. But I love the lack of a sense of history that says, "You suck because you can't beat these guys as fast as you beat the Germans and Japanese, but if you fight them like you fought the Germans and Japanese I'll castigate you for being too brutal and "horror" you might sweep me up in your damned military as you mobilize the entire country and that would *really* get in the way of my self actualization."

These people aren't serious. They're just anti-anything not their idea. And when it's their side that wants to do it... I'm guessing they'll man the barricades to call me a traitor for not being all that supportive - just as I was not, and am not, that supportive of our efforts in the Balkans.

Feh.

For a .pdf of the whole letter, Click here.

To get to the Defenselink article with the briefing slides - click here.