Shaking the Foundations
UK Secretary of State for Defence John Reid recently gave a widely publicized speech called "20th-Century Rules, 21st-Century Conflict". Defence News (follow the link to the speech) summarized Reid's theme: the era of great power wars is probably over and the system of laws which stemmed from them may no longer be suitable for the wars of the 21st century.
Mr Reid said that the strategic landscape and its threats were new and unprecedentedly complex, with interlocking uncertainties in the ecological, economic, political and social spheres. The barbarism and lack of constraint of our terrorist opponents made it necessary to consider considering the legal framework in which they and we operated. The Defence Secretary said that without making specific proposals, it was time to ask whether current international law-originally developed for a world of state-to-state conflict now needed to be rebalanced between security and freedom, as UK domestic legislation has been. In particular, did international law adequately now address:
- the threat from international terrorists, who can now threaten mass casualty attacks -and where there might be a case for new Geneva Protocols ?
- the potential need to take pre-emptive action against imminent attack?
- the possible requirement to intervene to stop mass murder and genocide?
Although delivered in quiet, non-inflammatory phrases, Reid's speech nevertheless managed to impugn three of the basic pillars of international law. His first question is whether the Geneva Convention needs to be updated.
For centuries conflict between tribes, cities and states was completely unbridled and savage. Very gradually, mankind developed a range of conventions that they applied to constrain and moderate what is in essence a brutal activity. Eventually, these agreements became rules, which became laws. ... But warfare continues to evolve, and, in its moral dimensions, we have now to cope with a deliberate regression towards barbaric terrorism by our opponents. A few weeks ago I spoke to students at King’s College here in London about the uneven nature of the modern battlefield, and the unconstrained enemy ranged against us. ... Historically, of course, laws have always been adapted to better suit the times. When they have become out-dated, or less relevant, or less applicable to the realities of the day they have been modified or changed. This is true of all laws, domestic or international.
Reid's second point enters the disputed waters of when pre-emptive military action may be legitimately undertaken. It is widely believed that pre-emptive attacks are illegal except where authorized by the UN Security Council or in national-self defense. (A discussion on the legality of pre-emptive force against Saddam Hussein's Iraq may be found here.)
The UN Charter reads in article 2(4): "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." ... This principle is now considered to be a part of customary international law, and has the effect of banning the use of armed force except for two situations authorized by the UN Charter. Firstly, the Security Council, under powers granted in articles 24 and 25, and Chapter VII of the Charter, may authorize collective action to maintain or enforce international peace and security. Secondly, Article 51 also states that: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right to individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a state."
John Reid asks whether in a time when small groups of combatants can inflict first-strike mass casualties it is still feasible for governments to await authorization from the UN or await actual attack before striking to remove the danger.
In 2004, my colleague the Attorney General explained the current position under international law when he said: "International Law permits the use of force in self-defence against an imminent attack but does not authorise the use of force to mount a pre-emptive strike against a threat which is more remote…military action must only be used as a last resort….the force must be proportionate." Difficult as it is, I think all of us here – including representatives from academia, the legal profession, diplomacy and journalism need to consider these issues now rather than waiting for the next threat to come along, and I’ll explain why. ...
But what if another threat develops? Not Al Qaeda. Not Muslim extremism. Something none of us are thinking about at the moment. The proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction has coincided with the growth of those prepared to use them. We know that terrorist groups continue to try and acquire such weapons and that they have described their willingness to use them. We also know that they continue to seek opportunities to launch attacks on a similar or greater scale as 9/11. Hopefully, we would learn of any such threat before any atrocities had been committed. I believe we would have strong legal grounds to take action to protect ourselves against attack. I also suspect that others would disagree. A debate would centre around "imminence". The very significant consequences of action or inaction in these circumstances should give us all pause for thought.
John Reid's last point challenges the principle of territorial sovereignty which has underpinned international law since the Peace of Westphalia. "Following the Thirty Years' War ... the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 established the notion of territorial sovereignty as a doctrine of noninterference in the affairs of other nations." The doctrine of noninterference resulted in the opacity of sovereignty, in which the community of nations was literally blind to acts committed by sovereigns within their borders, however brutal those might be. Saddam Hussein for example, could gas the Kurds and the US actions to topple him for these and other reasons are perceived by some (such as by the Christian Peacemaker Teams, for example) as "illegal". But Reid asks whether this opacity can still be sustained.
Again, we can illustrate the relevance of the question by reference to our own domestic history. Most of us in this room can remember an ethos in our culture in this country whereby it was accepted that police would arrest a man for punching his neighbour, but would decline to get involved if he did the same to his wife. Society and the law's approach to domestic violence changed, thankfully, and I am extremely proud that this government has done so much to reflect those changes with the new legislation and public campaigns. The question is how far we need to go in considering similar developments in international law. Just as in the Balkans in the early 1990s, we can find ourselves operating in situations where the state is either unwilling or unable to protect its citizens from murderous attacks.
Commentary
Reid's points taken together comprehensively call into question the international constitutional system. It is unlikely the issues raised by those questions will be resolved any time soon because those issues are typically addressed by the victors after a war (Utrecht, Westphalia, Vienna, Versailles, etc) to codify a consensus that has emerged in the course of events. All one can say with the conflict still in progress is that current concepts of the Rules of War, pre-emption and territorial sovereignty will be called into question; that they will change under the pressure of future events is all but certain; but what they will change into is anybody's guess.
Reid, before becoming the UK equivalent of SecDef was "a former member of the Communist Party of Great Britain (of which he has said: 'I used to be a Communist. I used to believe in Santa Claus')" and his views may be colored by his background. But I have no doubt that Reid's remarks, whatever their actual merit, are the first stirrings of a debate which will eventually reshape the international environment of the 21st century. And the world is changing. Austin Bay links to a long article in the National Journal which talks about a new "strategic convergence" within NATO which basically asserts the alliance is gradually going to war as concretely expressed by its growing commitment to combat in Afghanistan. One of the implied objectives of NATO's Afghan commitment is to gain experience in a new kind of warfare for which most of its members are unprepared but a recent hearing of the Senate Committee for Foreign Relations on Islamic Extremism in Europe strongly suggests that for the Continent at least, the war will also have a significant domestic component.
Daniel Benjamin, a NSC staffer for the Clinton Administration testified that:
It is an unwelcome irony that Europe, which emerged from the Cold War more united, peaceful and prosperous than at any other time in history, may be threatened by jihadist violence as much as any other part of the world outside Iraq. Europe, as home to the world's largest Muslim diaspora, is at the heart of the battle over Muslim identity. ... For example, according to a 2002 survey of Muslims in Great Britain, 41 percent of the respondents under thirty-five years of age described themselves as solely “Muslim,” rather than “British and Muslim,” which was one of the other choices on the questionnaire. ... Let me simply note that, without a doubt, European Muslims had ample discontents before the U.S. toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein. ...
Prospects for the containment of radicalism must be seen in the near term as limited. ... Not surprisingly, Britain’s Muslims are not particularly happy with how they are treated by the wider society. ... Two in three stated that anti-terrorism laws are applied unfairly against Muslims, nearly half would oppose an oath of allegiance to Britain ... When some of the British government’s top civil servants met after the Madrid bombings to discuss how to defeat al Qaeda domestically, the picture that confronted them was deeply unsettling. Muslims had three times the unemployment rate of the entire population -- only 48 percent of the Muslim population was working ...
The other experts testified more or less in the same vein: Europe was smack in the middle of the War on Terror and the danger was real. And if its undersized militaries were unsuited to fight Al Qaeda in Central Asia they were little better off at home. It is in this context that some of Reid's most disturbing remarks must be read.
Here at home, we in the UK have recognised the need to update our approach. In the face of the new terrorist threat, we have made appropriate legal changes in our domestic legislation. For instance, we have changed our domestic legislation relating to maximum period of detention before charge. We may disagree about the length of time that we should hold people but there is a general consensus that there was good reason to extend that period. We have also introduced a new offence of "Glorifying Terrorism"
The issues that Reid raised were all prefigured in one way or the other by the US experience from 2002 to the present. They find their echoes in the Plame Affair. Guantanamo Bay. The McCain Amendment. In Iraq. That these problems are now coming to the general attention of Europe suggests that the problems themselves are real. If so, there is no Last Helicopter out of the situation unless it can take us away from the 21st century.
posted by wretchardthecat at 4/09/2006 02:59:00 AM
141 Comments:
9/11 seems to have been a wake-up call for a relatively small number of people. The vast majority on the Left still seem to be fixated on the concept of nation-states as the sole actors in a genuine war. Everything else is simply a crime, to be dealt with as crimes always are: with evidence gathering, manhunts, arrests, hearings, trials and jail time.
In their world, a jihadi with a nuke is simply a well armed crook.
A STRATEGY FOR IRAN?
The buzz is growing over the discussion of tactical nukes to be used against Iranian nuclear facilities. The Left, MSM, many foreign pundits and hopefully the Iranians believe Bush is smart enough, dumb enough, crazy enough or reckless enough to do it. There is talk about a bazillion ton explosive test in Las Vegas and members of JCS resigning in protest over proposed nuclear weapon use. This is the background music you would want if the decision were to put an ultimatum to Iran.
The world has heard this song before from this administration. Iran gives no credibility to the EU negotiations. They know the EUros are feckless. They also believe that Bush could do it. They know that Bush is in trouble in Iraq and would like to fix that. De-fanging Iran would take some of the starch out of Iranian leaning Iraqi Shiites. In the ME, strength attracts, weakness repels. Bush does not need a ground presence in Iran to do major damage to Iran. I am no fan of Bush but you have to take him seriously. The Iranians do. The increased tempo of Bush going it alone and as Dr. Strangelove may start some serious negotiations. May, but maybe not.
If not, Bush has the whole world in a panic. He moves forward deployed assets to advanced battle readiness, air assets out of EU bases that may not allow nuclear missions from these bases. Two members of the JCS take an early out "in protest". The Iranians know he is not kidding. Maybe not.
THE STING.
The US takes out all Iranian naval, air, missile and air defensive assets. All conventional. All Iranian nuclear facilities are ignored. The deep underground facilities are untouched. Command and control facilities are heavily targeted. The world takes a deep sigh of relief that neither the nuclear facilities were hit nor TNW were used. Iran has a huge gaping hole in its military structure and will have to pay for and restore that. The mullahs are humiliated leaving some room for indigenous counter regime response. The nuclear option is all still on the table.
I do not know that war with Iran is inevitable, desirable or even necessary. It never was with the Soviet Union and they had steel teeth. I suggest what I see as a possible developing strategy for your Sunday entertainment.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Wretchard said...
"The other experts testified more or less in the same vein: Europe was smack in the middle of the War on Terror and the danger was real. And if its undersized militaries were unsuited to fight Al Qaeda in Central Asia they were little better off at home."
The Europeans have effectively halted further muslim immigration into Europe. They have made a good commitment to Afghanistan and in varying degrees in Iraq.( including not helpful) They have at least recognized the problems in Iran. We need to encourage their increased cooperation and resolve
I wonder if we are trying to apply the modern concept of Situational Ethics - and its corollary, Situational Punishment - to international relations - or if we are merely trying to escape from it.
Situational Ethics holds that the definition of a crime must be driven by the type of person that committed it, and that punishment for a crime must similarly be meted out in the same way. A drug dealer often beats the arresting policeman back to the scene of the crime. An honest man who digs an unauthorized hole on his private property is locked up for months.
Under this concept, those who live by the sword are forgiven of much more than those who escue its common and daily use.
Some struggle to apply this internationally - while others have come to the realization that such an approach is at best immoral and at worst criminally stupid.
But, rwe, most posters here demand situational ethics be applied in US Policies.
We are allowed to "preempt" a distant Iranian threat, Mr Cheney demands that the Iranians abandon what is allowed under the NPT. If not "all options are on the table"
This is cheered, cause we're the "good guys"
That includes nuclear weapons, according to Mr Hersh and others reporting.
In Iran's War with Israel, Israel should be "wiped of the map". according to the Iranians. Seems they want "all options on the table" as well.
In other than situational ethics the two threats would balance. Like the threat / counter threat of the Cold War. Like the rhetoric of US selling the Soviets the rope to hang ourselves, overlooked.
Instead the US proposes to abandon past International accords, like those in the UN Charter referenced by our host, and attack Iran because of extreme rhetoric, while little real threat exists.
The absence of a serious threat, from Iran, permeates most of the posts made, here. Most believe the US will be like a hot knife in butter, slicing and dicing to our hearts content, with no recriprical threat seen.
If Iranians do not pose a Military threat to US in Iran, there can not be a signifigant Military threat to US, elsewhere.
If the Iranians REALLY supported International Terror, if there was PROOF and not just conjecture, the US would have already moved forward, as per the Bush Doctrine. Or the ethics of Mr Bush's Policies are situationaly driven.
If the real issue was Nuke polifieration the Pakistanis, Indians and Israelis would all be on the target list, as well.
The reason the laws of war must change is because they already HAVE CHANGED or rather NEVER EXISTED for the kind of suicidal, state-less enemies we met on 9/11.
Shaking the Foundations may be an underestimation of the tectonic changes occurring across the globe. Maybe only phrases like "clash of civilizations" and "battle for modernity" can place speeches like John Reid's into any meaningful perspective.
These are big issues. It's unfortunate that they are occurring at a time when the institutions best positioned to confront them, national legislatures, mass media, religious organizations, and 'intellectuals' are the least prepared for the confrontation.
We hear ad infinitum about the President's approval ratings but almost never that only one in four Americans has any confidence in the ability of US Congress. The Left has been successful in removing God from the public square but at the cost of trashing the ethical-moral roadmap the religious tradition had provided.
There's much to be done. I would start by slapping the complainers. If the Conversation doesn't move from crude auditions for People magazine our grandchildren will pay a heavy price.
MEET THE PRESS..Kerry is looking for a Swift boat to get him out of the studio......
Ralph Peters wieghs in on Iran
"... The crucial question is whether the Iranians are still playing at brinksmanship, hoping to spook us into passivity as they build nuclear weapons, or if they've already convinced themselves that a conflict with the United States is inevitable.
Given the closed nature of Iran's ruling clique, it's impossible to know. The most-probable situation is that differing factions within the leadership are at different stages of willingness for war, with some ready to fight and others fearful. ... "
" ... The most worrisome possibility is that they may have convinced themselves they can win.
FROM the Iranian perspec tive, it may appear that we're fully committed militarily - and they've probably wildly over-estimated the "anti-war" constituency in the U.S. Tehran certainly evidences no understanding of the depths of America's military resources, of our decision-making processes - or of NASCAR America's inevitable reaction to attacks on our Navy (or on the fuel supplies for our SUVs). ... "
" ... The extremists in Tehran actually may believe that they could win a military exchange, that they could stymie our Navy in the Gulf, interrupt oil exports and make any conflict so costly to us and to the world economy that we'd be forced to back down. They doubtless count on support from Beijing and Moscow - much as Saddam did.
Their calculations would be devastatingly wrong.
We can hope otherwise, but Iran's leaders may already have concluded that war is unavoidable - and even desirable, for religious, regional and domestic reasons. ... "
That is similar to what Mr Phares at counterterrorism blog wrote, the Iranians see US attacks not as a negotiating point, but as guarenteed. Mr Hersh made the same point.
" ... SHOULD Tehran ignite a combat exchange, we need to ensure not only that Iran's nuclear-weapons program is crippled, but that its broader capabilities are shattered. ... "
" ... BUT a half-hearted military response to Iranian aggres sion would only strengthen the confidence of our enemies and invite future confrontations.
We pulled too many punches in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and now we're paying the price. If Tehran drags us into war, we should make the conflict so devastating and painful that even our allies are stunned. ... "
Stunning, one can only hope, but if past performance is an indication of future performance, not likely.
The link to Mr Peters at the NY Post.
Mr Hersh is now on of the sources used in this Timesonline report. Although there are others cited.
Sarah Baxter has written a lengthy piece. She envisions a massive conventional air strikes, taking out Iranian Nuclear capacity, in one night, in the run up to the election, in '08.
There is to much "good stuff" to even attempt a cut and paste.
Gunning for Iran. Check it out.
while the drums beat on.
Germane to this topic, David Reiff's New Age of Imperial Liberalism, written in 1999:
The conclusion is inescapable. At the present time, only the West has both the power and, however intermittently, the readiness to act. And by the West, one really means the United States. Obviously, to say that America could act effectively if it chose to do so as, yes, the world's policeman of last resort, is not the same thing as saying that it should. Those who argue, as George Kennan has done, that we overestimate ourselves when we believe we can right the wrongs of the world, must be listened to seriously. So should the views of principled isolationists. And those on what remains of the left who insist that the result of such a broad licensing of American power will be a further entrenchment of America's hegemony over the rest of the world are also unquestionably correct.
But the implications of not doing anything are equally clear. Those who fear American power are-this is absolutely certain-condemning other people to death [...]
However controversial it may be to say this, our choice at the millennium seems to boil down to imperialism or barbarism. Half-measures of the type we have seen in various humanitarian interventions and in Kosovo represent the worst of both worlds. Better to grasp the nettle and accept that liberal imperialism may be the best we are going to do in these callous and sentimental times.
Indeed, the real task for people who reject both realism and the utopian nihilism of a left that would prefer to see genocide in Bosnia and the mass deportation of the Kosovars rather than strengthen, however marginally, the hegemony of the United States, is to try to humanize this new imperial order-assuming it can come into being-and to curb the excesses that it will doubtless produce.
The primary international legislation are the Geneva conventions, descended from the Hague conventions. These were framed by Imperial powers as rules of fair play between themselves. Consequently, except for the left side of the political spectrum looney interpretations, it is clear from the text that the conventions were never meant to apply to uncivilized opponents (who do not respect the laws and customs of war).
They may be treated in any manner appropriate with national legislation.
Of course, the US sponsored 1949 version of the Geneva convention in a surge of compassion (for lack of a better description) rather unfortunately outlawed the taking of hostages, and any proactive means against civilians. Hostages were one of the time honored means of dealing with irregular opponents, from the Pax Romana onwards. This puts us 100% on the defensive, since one cannot (legitimately) oppress pre-terrorists (a.k.a The Arab Street. Think Hamas kids with toy bomb belts or the madrassas or Islamoid mullahs)). The terrs have the initiative by law.
But Reid is hardly speaking of changing the rose tinted glasses provisions of the conventions back to the more realistic pre-49 version. He may mean rewriting international law to mean - well, what it already means, but like you know, understandable even to pinko politicians.
Though now that I think about it, that may be be some advance :).
International law already now, and has always, allowed virtually ANY indignity/horror to be visited on terrorists. Given the overreaction to the very mild abuses at Abu Ghraib, the question is rather how much society will stomach.
Hey, peter boston, better find another Gitmo cot, this retired Marine Corps Lt General is complaining.
I'd stack his service to the Republic against anyones, including yours.
" ...
Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war. Here, for the first time, Newbold goes public with a full-throated critique:
In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again. To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam. To those of us who were truly counterculture—who became career members of the military during those rough times—the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it. Never again, we thought, would our military's senior leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement. It's 35 years later, and the judgment is in: the Who had it wrong. We have been fooled again. From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq—an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat—al-Qaeda. I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough. ... "
" ... To those of you who don't know, our country has never been served by a more competent and professional military. For that reason, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that "we" made the "right strategic decisions" but made thousands of "tactical errors" is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting. The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it. ... "
" ... the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department. My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions—or bury the results. ... "
" ... Flaws in our civilians are one thing; the failure of the Pentagon's military leaders is quite another. Those are men who know the hard consequences of war but, with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard. When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. ... "
" ... The consequence of the military's quiescence was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy, al-Qaeda, became a secondary effort. There have been exceptions, albeit uncommon, to the rule of silence among military leaders. Former Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki, when challenged to offer his professional opinion during prewar congressional testimony, suggested that more troops might be needed for the invasion's aftermath. The Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense castigated him in public and marginalized him in his remaining months in his post. ... "
A Marine Corps General speaks his mind
Sounds a lot like what I've been saying for over a year.
It's great, peter boston, I've got a new roomie.
point: what the governments WONT do, the people will..
in eurabia i see an ever hostile islamic population, living in SELF imposed Ghettos (from venice, the 1st FORCED area (canon foundry) for Jews) (funny aint it?)
where this hostile population will demand food, electricly, aid, funding as part of their civil rights (sounds like the paleio's doesnt it?)
at one point, when the economies of eurabia (europe - old tense) cannot support BOTH the natives and the newbies in a lifestyle of their lazy choosing, they will clash, the "police" will be impodent, the ghettos will burn, populations will flee and be exchanged...
at the same time, populations IN the islamic world will understand WHOM is the enemy and will start to take matters in their own hand, i see mosques burning in the middle of the night, i see car bombs thru out the islamic world, not just at the infidel, but rather BACK at the Imams.
at the same time, look to the USA to preach Islam is the ROP!
I see that outstretched hand, clasping the weapon of our Nation... That hand, clasping the symbol that we hold so dear, that terrifies Islam...
I see that hand, clasp with a cold one....
A cold Beer will save our Republic!
Funny thing is it's true...
It has been interesting, at least to me, to observe the ascendency of Liberal international law theory in the past five years, which is really what Reid's statement is all about.
The theoretical faultlines in the past were between Realism and Liberalism (an excellent primer on this topic can be found here).
Excerpt:
The dominant approach in international relations theory for virtually the past two millennia, from Thucydides to Machiavelli to Morgenthau, has been Realism, also known as Political Realism. Realists come in many stripes, but all typically share the following assumptions. First, they believe that States are the primary actors in the international system, rational unitary actors who are functionally identical. Second, they assume that State preferences, ranging from survival to aggrandizement, are exogenous and fixed. ...
To grasp the defining characteristics and theoretical force of Realism, it is necessary to understand not only what it includes within its analytical framework, but also what it excludes: national ideologies, from nationalism to fascism to communism; domestic regime type, from democracies to dictatorships; and transnational actors, from multinational corporations to non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Liberalism, however, is different:
Liberals assume that the nature and intensity of State preferences, determined as the aggregation of the preferences of individual and group actors represented in a particular State, will determine the outcome of State interactions. ...
Liberal theory explicitly takes domestic regime-type into account in its analysis of State behaviour. ...
The best-documented empirical distinction between different types of States by scholars working within the Liberal paradigm concerns the frequency of war among liberal States, as compared to war between liberal and non-liberal States or among non-liberal States alone. ...
If the model of law among liberal States developed here holds as a positive model, it will present international lawyers with a new set of normative challenges. We will have to redefine existing principles of international law and develop new principles to govern actors and processes that remain obscured when viewed through the lenses developed by Realist international relations theory and traditional international law to view the international system. ...
To the extent that the existing catalogue of fundamental human rights expands to include a right of ‘democratic governance’, a right Thomas Franck proposes based in part on empirical evidence of peace among liberal States, international law will take the first step toward an explicit distinction among States based on domestic regime-type.
If it is true that domestic political conditions have consequences at the level of international relations--and I believe this is inarguable--then "sovereignty" must be disaggregated to take this into account.
This is what is happening. Liberal International Law is no longer merely theory. It has now been reduced to practice.
Welcome to the new world order.
Aristides
- waiiit - thats a little complex, but corect me if I'm wrong, is the gist like this :
They (the US government) are talking about something like US style judicial activism being applied to international law i.e. some kind of "rights" being deduced outside of specifically written international treaty?
Not judicial activism, but a new way to think about Sovereignty.
In essence, a liberal State is left to its own vertical devices to interpret and enforce international norms within its borders. Because its constituent parts have reached the level of sovereignty, the state as a whole enjoys that distinction. This is what is meant by "disaggregating" sovereignty. The billiard-ball theory of state interaction no longer applies in a world of sub-State, trans-State, and supra-State actors.
Because of this, non-liberal States are distinquishable from liberal ones because they lack this type of vertical sovereignty. With them, International Law must be enforced horizontally, even if this means violating the classic realist definition of sovereignty: the inviolability of state policy within its borders.
In essence, "sovereignty" stems from inter-State and intra-State activity. Because intra-State dynamics can have a substantially effect on other State actors, sovereignty is no longer a domestic blank-check.
In essence, sovereignty is an effect, instead of a cause, of intra-State political reality. If the the State lacks the constituent parts that make up Liberal society, it is, by definition, a pre-sovereign territory.
I don't agree with all of the prescriptions of Liberalism, but as a way to approach and analyze international relations--for instance, the idea that one must make distinctions between regimes when applying international law--it is more realistic than realism.
desert rat said..."Hey, peter boston, better find another Gitmo cot, this retired Marine Corps Lt General is complaining. I'd stack his service to the Republic against anyones, including yours. ... Sounds a lot like what I've been saying for over a year. "
dRat, thanks for the link to the article by General Newbold. I read it carefully and while I greatly respect his service to the country I found his "critique" to fall flat. Here's why.
The title and lead of the article read this way: Why I Think Rumsfeld Must Go: A military insider sounds off against the war and the "zealots" who pushed it.
A title and lead that begin with the word "Why" creates a certain expectation in the reader- an expectation that an ARGUMENT will follow. I read the article slowly, line by line, and found little of anything resembling an argument. Instead I and other readers are treated to a list of complaints about and criticism of the handling of the war by the civilians and military leadership.
There is no doubt that Gen. Newbold is a patriot of the highest order, but even from someone with his credentials a list of complaints, even legitimate complaints, simply does not substitute for an argument.
In the final analysis what the General did was treat his readers to the same complaints that have been levelled since day one. I'd have liked to know more of what his alternative vision for the past was and for the future is. Instead we got this
" So what is to be done? We need fresh ideas and fresh faces. That means, as a first step, replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach. The troops in the Middle East have performed their duty. Now we need people in Washington who can construct a unified strategy worthy of them."
I have to believe that Gen. Newbold has more original ideas and more vision than this. At the conclusion of this essay I couldn't help but wish that he had started with and answered the question "What is to be done?" rather than the one he set out to answer and barely did.
Saying "the other guy should be replaced because he made mistakes" just isn't good enough for me.
bon air,
Re: your 5:24 AM
Since the First Iraq War, the armed forces of the United States have been cleaved of 40% of active duty personnel. Even if Mr. Rumsfeld had been so inclined, and he might have been, to field a far larger force in the Second Iraq War, the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker would have had to be thrown into battle. You cannot fight with ghost armored and infantry divisions.
By the way, General Shinseki and his peers, now claiming that the small force utilized and now deployed to Iraq is proof of Mr. Rumsfeld's incompetence, were mute as their services were eviscerated by the Bush I and Clinton administrations.
2164th,
Re: "war with Iran is inevitable"
War with Iran, by one means or another, is inevitable, and has been so since the unavenged deaths of hundreds of my Marines in Beirut, 1983. When a government allows the proxies of a fascist regime to violate international law and commit mass-murder without consequence, the fascists are, thereafter, irretrievably emboldened.
As Wretchard has indicated, international understandings come into being after victory. Historically, however, the shelf-life of these treaties has never been of the duration anticipated by the framers. Aggressors care less, and there will ALWAYS, yea, verily, Amen, ALWAYS be aggressors.
The error consistently made by civilized men is to project their own sense of decency onto their barbarian foes, e.g. Islam is the "religion of peace." Consequently, the cost of reordering the international system is exponentially increased.
It is a truism, incontestable even to international politics, that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Aristides,
I see that, but any law is only relevant as its enactment. Since that means enforcement, it sounds like a series of weasel excuses to get inside other countries business at every turn. Considering the [sarcasm] brilliantly successfull [/sarcasm] interventions in Kosovo and Somalia that is rather worrying.
I may be dense, but where exactly is seen the need to move away from the existing system to deal with terrorists?
le rat,
The forehand for you and the back of it for le general. Belly aching is not a plan. Never has been. Never will be.
It's impossible to imagine that a UN that can't agree on a definition of terrorism will agree on a new treaty defining sovereign states' right to act against terrorists. It's also exceedingly unlikely that the UN will agree on a treaty legitimizing the right of pre-emption while the drums of war are beating out the tune of "It's time to bomb Teheran."
As Wretchard suggests, these things will have to wait until after the war is over, when the victors can dictate their demands.
As a practical matter, the right of self-defense will justify actions of the US and any coalition of the willing.
desert rat, 7:47 AM
"could stymie our Navy in the Gulf, interrupt oil exports and make any conflict so costly to us and to the world economy"
When you hear a newsreader report that the mechanical failure of a ship in the Straight of Hormuz has temporarily halted shipping, thereby, causing a price jump in the spot market, the war is on.
robin
Of course I stick to the storyline, I percieve it to be true.
Like trish & the General I share in the perspective of both a veteran and one with loved ones out on the wire.
That a three star Marine Corps General speaks, as they say now adays, truth to power, is enlightening. Most often, in Public, three stars represents the power, not the truth.
As to sterling's comments on the Generals lack of "where do we go from here", I agree, the General falls short.
I proposed, here, months ago an alternative scenario in Iraq.
1. Begin with drawing US conventional force, to be completed in aprox 18 months.
2. Obtain basing rights for prepositioned equipment and the troops to maintain and defend it. aprox 20,000 - 25,000, about the same as our Korean contingent.
3. Increase US troop intergration into the ISF and Police. Develop a ratio of from 1 to 8 or 1 to 10 US to Iraqis throughout the ISF and Police. aprox 30,000-35,000 troops.
Close air support could be handled from the equipment depots of from off shore.
The integrated troops would remain for an indetermined length of time, but aprox 5 years would be needed for influencing their Military culture, positively.
At this point I'd encouurage the gridlock in the Iraqi Government. I would not interfere with the process.
I would focus on further developing the ISF, in Turkey's old model.
After SDH's post, I decided to take a look at D'Rat's self-justifying "authority." I am, to say the least, unimpressed. Newbold writes:
I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq—an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. ...
The cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid in blood.
Ironically, Newbold writes in the idiom of zealotry to accuse his opponents of being zealots. His word choice demeans his subject matter and casts a pall of ridiculousness on the whole article.
That's what I thought even before I began to substantively critique his message.
Firstly, it is obvious that Newbold's analysis of the war has been colored by his continued opposition to it. (He states that the rationale for war "made no sense," and that OIF was "unnecessary.")
Newbold expresses concern that a precipitous withdrawal would "reinforce the jihadists' message that America can be defeated, and thus increase the chances of future conflicts", yet he doesn't mention the message that would have been sent had Saddam been able to defy the UN, and even more significantly the US, and stare down the international community. Nor does he mention the utility to the jihadist recruitment effort of having Americans stationed in Saudi Arabia.
He talks about the "failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder", yet doesn't mention that our primary concern was getting the Kurds and Shiites to buy into a unified Iraq--something that would have been impossible without a thorough de-Baathification of the army and government.
Newbold criticizes the "alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq", yet doesn't name these willing-but-sensitive partners for peace. Surely he can't be talking about France, who actively worked against us on all fronts to protect its investment in Saddam Hussein's Iraq; or Russia, whose ambassador was actively trying to help Saddam fight and win the war; or China, whose foreign policy can most aptly be characterized as a determination to frustrate any expression of American power anywhere on the globe. Surely Newbold cannot mean them.
Newbold states that our commitment to the war was one of "casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions—or bury the results." Who is he talking about here? What is he talking about? The war-plan, all the way through to phase four stabilization, was put together and implemented by military men, men who have seen battle and buried friends.
So, to Newbold's demagoguery, we must now add irrationality. I can see why Time magazine liked him.
Newbold states twice that "intelligence [was] distorted to justify a rationale for war", but doesn't provide any evidence for this. Several bi-partisan investigations have now been concluded, and all of them refute this point. Newbold, it seems, is someone who will hold onto his opinions at any cost--not the best attribute in a general.
Newbold says our only enemy is al'Qaeda. Even if this were true, which it's not, Newbold's analysis would still fall flat. If al'Qaeda is our sworn enemy, willing to fight us to the death of their last man, then we can do nothing about their intentions. The only thing we can affect is their capabilities. Eliminating the most obvious nodes of WMD supply then becomes the corollary imperative to eliminating al'Qaeda itself. That means going after Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. I remember someone saying something about that trio, once. 'Axis' of something or other. Must have slipped my mind.
So, in summary, Newbold sounds like an idiot. Now, I don't think an idiot gets to be Lieutenant General, so there must be something else going on.
Perhaps we should delve into his motives and objectives for this "unnecessary" critique, because his rationales "make no sense."
where exactly is seen the need to move away from the existing system to deal with terrorists?
I am obviously failing at communicating this idea. Either it's my prose, or the idea itself has a high entry-barrier. I apologize, either way.
War with Iran?
In Oct 1987 the Ayatollah Kohoumeni declared war on the United States. The takeover of our embassy in Tehran occured 8 years earlier, in 1979.
We have been at war with Iran for a minimum of 18 years - using the declaration of its leader - or 27 years, judged by its actions. I hardly think that a justification for action against that country is required; a justification for inaction may well be.
As for the statements of Gen Newbold, my years in the Pentagon indicated that very few of the General officers there were capable of strategic thought - most especially those who were in the area titled "operations." The cutbacks of the immediate post-Cold War years, combined with the "invasion of the month club" approach of the Clinton Admin caused most, if not all, to focus on the immediate problems at hand - including, most especially, protecting favored programs and careers.
aristide,
well your reading of the Generals article MAY be right on. As to his motives or intelligence, I have little insight. Except that three stars are HARD to come by if you're an idiot, incompetent, or mentally defecient.
Three stars can often wrong, though.
Your idea "That means going after Iraq, Iran, and North Korea." is not idiotic but leaves out the Wahabbist nuclear capacity in Pakistan, the one the Saud funded.
That is actually the greatest WMD threat in the World. Nuclear weapons in a country engaged in a Mohammedan Civil War, or at least an Insurgency, or at least a Jihadist terror campaign.
Whose definitions are we to use.
Desert,
Thanks for your link to Gen. Newbold's article. He lists all the things we've done wrong in this "invented war" such as Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department.
I wish he had spent more time on why he believes Iraq is an "invented war." We and the rest of the world had instituted UN sanctions and enforced them with no-fly zones for over a decade. It seems prudent that we acted more vigorously after 9/11.
We now know the Oil-for-Food thing was fatally flawed by a huge payoff to our former "allies" in France and Russia, therefore contrary to popular opinion it was not "working."
I wish Gen. Newbold would project what would have happened if we didn't go into Iraq, even given all the horrible-in-hindsight mistakes. It seems likely the sanctions regime would be done by now, and instead of one potential wmd enemy in Iran in the ME, we would now be facing two, Iran and Iraq.
And what more would our resources have done to attack Al Qaeda - invade Pakistan? Invade Saudi Arabia? C'mon, gimme a clue.
What should we have done instead, that's what I wish knowledgeable military guys would tell us - not micromanage in hindsight, tell us what the grand strategy should have been after 9/11.
Also, I notice Gen. Newbold has a personal ax to grind with Rummy. Here's snip from Gertz' "Inside the Ring" from 8/2/02:
General retires
Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, director of operations for the Pentagon's joint staff, is retiring after more than 30 years. But he is not being allowed to step down without taking a few more jabs from his bosses.
Gen. Newbold, in a briefing for reporters last year, said U.S. airstrikes had "eviscerated" Taliban military capabilities shortly after bombing raids began Oct. 7.
A few days later, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld publicly chastised the craggy Marine combat veteran for overstating the effect of the initial airstrikes, even though what the three-star general said eventually came true.
To mark Gen. Newbold's departure, Mr. Rumsfeld cued a videotape made up of broadcast comments of the general making the remarks. Shown to reporters in the Pentagon press briefing room, the tape was followed by the ribbing he took from Mr. Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard Meyers, who joked on a Sunday television show that he was surprised a Marine even knew what "eviscerated" meant. The soundtrack for the video was Johnny Mathis' 1957 classic "It's Not For Me To Say."
The video ended with a clip of a much-younger Mr. Rumsfeld talking about fish being "eviscerated" in the 1970s, when he was an economic adviser.
Asked by Mr. Rumsfeld to make some comments, Gen. Newbold joked that he would use only one-syllable words.
Please, somebody, lay it out for me how we'd be further along now without invading Iraq at all. (I can lay it out for you how we'd be a lot further along if we'd been more vigorous from Day One.)
I write this with sincere respect for Gen. Newbold and our military.
There's a spate of articles purporting to describe a bombing campaign against Iran led by a piece from Seymour Hersh. A bombing campaign on Iran makes no sense to me unless there are further plans for a regime change. But this is precisely the situation the US was in vis-a-vis Iraq three and a half years ago and even earlier, during the Clinton era. The Iraq bombings solved nothing, though there will those who argue that occupying Iraq solved nothing either. In recognition of that fact some have advocated allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon ("get over it" as some commenters have said) and then negotiating with them, like the EU, to moderate the Mullah's behavior. But oops! That solves nothing either. Those are plans A, B and C. Is there a plan D?
A vision for an unified Iraq, get the Kurds and Shiites to "buy in"?
We postponed the Elections the Shia were desperate for. They had bought in from day one.
And where is this unified Iraq, today?
Who has not "bought in"?
Not the Shia, but the Sunni. The folk we have been fighting for the past three years. They are afraid of a dominent majority, as well they should be.
The Kurds, their enclave is safe & secure, no matter the outcome in Baghdad. They are not ill effected by the lack of a Federal Iraq. In fact it seems to be in their advantage, Federal gridlock with international Kurdish Security guaranteed by US.
D'Rat, your comment re: Pakistan is well taken.
I wonder, though, if Pakistan distinquished themselves by siding with America after 9/11. The character of a regime is just as important as it's possession, or lack thereof, of WMD. I think Pakistan's ruling elite, and their solid power-base comprised of educated, upper-middle class internationalists, made all the difference for Bush, as he sat down to divide the world into "us" and "them".
Plan D:
1. Economic and naval blockade
2. Sustained bombing of military and economic assets.
3. Delivery of light arms to opposition groups. (rpg, mines, riffles, cellphone/ cameras, etc)
4. Wait.
W,
There is a school of thought that believes a massive bombing campaign to eliminate regime elements, military assets, and nuclear sites, followed by a nation-wide restriction on flights (both fixed-wing and rotor) and on convoy movements, could just possibly lead to a revolution and regime change. The thinking is this: the Mullahs are hated by enough Iranians that if one were to remove the regime's advantage in firepower and logistics, the Mullahs would meet the same fate as a Mussolini or Ceausescu.
Add to the above remote lilly-pad bases connected and supported by air-lift, where Iranian town and city leaders can meet with the Americans to discuss subsistence, counter-insurgency, and rehabilitation monies, and you have a workable battle plan that avoids much of the messiness of Iraq.
That, at least, is what the advocates say.
peterboston,
Re: your 10:24 AM
On this site I have previously laid out for consideration the "misdeeds" of a number of flag officers (general and admiral): Fiscus, Hassan, Byrnes. Also, I have pointed out the bigoted opinions of Major General Lambert (retired). Moreover, I have referenced General Shinseki. I have not spoken to General Zinni.
Now we learn of the complaints of a retired Marine Lt. General. Something is rotten in the Pentagon.
In 2000, retiring Air Force Chief of Staff gave an exit interview to the Air Force Times. Among other things, the General was truly impressed with his ability to meet 60% of the mission, i.e. keeping planes operational. At the time, I wondered why a gentleman with such low expectations had been retained, much less elevated to the Air Force's highest office.
Again in 2000, the Army Times carried a report of the shortage of small arms ammunition. It was reported that the shortage had affected training, in that, there were instances of NO training. What or Who, I wondered, brought about such events. Why had Army general officers either ignored or countenanced this sad state of affairs?
For those without personal experience, general officers are, for the most part, political creatures. All too often their ascensions are predicated on what they say, not what they know. I seem to recall the late Barbara Olsen having written that President Bush had inherited the flag officer corps of Mrs. Clinton. Reportedly, all such officers were personally interviewed by Mrs. Clinton and had to pass her muster for advancement. If true, this might say something about the difficulties in the execution of the Second Iraq War. Even if my recollection is faulty, who can disagree that there is an obvious disconnect between the civilian policy formulators and the military executioners?
When Mr. Bush finally won the election in early 2001, I had hoped he would have the good sense to purge the Pentagon. With draconian ruthlessness, I hoped for the mass removal of most officers above the rank of Lt. Colonel. Retrospectively, my assessment might have been correct.
No matter how magnificent our fighting forces, they are stymied by a failure of leadership. Not since WW I has there been such a patent dichotomy.
aristide,
There are large numbers of Pakistanis, Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, et al that are distinguished, that are deserving our respect and even admiration.
Iraqi and Afghan soldiers, working in hand with US.
The Pakistani that are on the Front, fighting their Insurgent Taliban elements.
The Publisher and Editors of the Daily, in Pakistan.
Iranian bus drivers that went out on strike, protesting the Government.
Most of sterling's students.
That is why I've always thought that Mr Jefferson could trump Mr Mohammed.
That is why I supported Mr Bush and his fight for human liberty, the freedom to think, independently.
I still support the Strategic Idea of exporting Liberty.
It is in the implementation of that Strategy that US, as well as General Newbold, have fallen short.
Bush likes permanent solutions.
Any military "option" that falls short of Iranian regime change is not permanent.
Whatever action is taken will of necessity have a major military component but Bush will not waste military lives, money, or effort "swatting at flies".
He will remove the source of the problem.
IMHO.
Here's an interesting factoid that, until yesterday, I did not know:
During OIF, in addition to the carrier battle groups we had in-region, we had one stationed in the Pacific to keep a lid on China and North Korea. While not surprising, perhaps, I do find this fascinating.
I wouldn't count the era of big wars over just yet. Not with China's miitary buildup. So we might not be looking for any conventional wars anytime soon, give it 10 years and a lessening of America's global reach and someone will step up and challenge us in a conventional war.
Egglant's 64k question--maybe the assumption is that western intelligence knows everything already anyway, and releasing the info might further invigorate anti-war westerners.
Aristides said... "I decided to take a look at D'Rat's self-justifying "authority." I am, to say the least, unimpressed. "
it's late in Dubai and I will momentarily retire for the evening. Just quick note to say I appreciated the more in-depth analysis of the Lt. General's arguments or lack thereof. thanks to to drat for proposing some of the things the Lt. General might have addressed.
g'night
It is hard to argue that war with Iraq was necessary. It requires a yet to be proven postulate. It is easy to argue war with Iraq was avoidable. It would take a brave man to argue defense for the post-war debacle. It is unfortunate that a superb, albeit reduced US military, is governed and directed by a mediocre civilian administration. The politics practiced by this crowd is inept on a good day. I have to agree with Dan to a point. But what exactly does the position of Cammaner in Chief mean?
Commander in Chief
Compliments to Wretchard for that killer last sentence (in the post), and to rat for the "Agent Muldar" reference, as a spokesman for the Heritage Foundation just used it (re the same topic) on national tv. Someone is reading this blog.
Also, I'm wondering about British politics--top officails are running to the right of GWB, yet popular voting patterns run way left. Are the Brits hard-bifurcating, a la USA?
Today three years ago, the famous Saddam-Statue video was made. Three years ain't THAT long a time, considering how more we know now re the enemy, and how much more the world has learned about our tenacity--and how much much the new extra-terrestial discipline of open-government has, despite all, gotten into the minds of the general population of the mideast.
eggplant, welcome to the Hotel California.
trish, 12:05 PM
Re: "That's simply obnoxious"
Too true. It is also disgusting and imbecilic. That, however, does not make it less true.
I leveled criticism of both immediately prior administrations to a) indicate a systemic flaw and b) demonstrate personal non-partisanship.
Even at the risk of your displeasure, many having active military service since the First Iraq War will readily attest that hacks and toadies are to be found elsewhere than the MSM.
By the way, do you disagree that flag officers have become, if they always were not, political creatures?
You have a better chance at meeting "Bigfoot" than a general officer that is not a political animal.
Some old Greek, I think his name was Harry Stottle, said "man is by nature a political animal".
From the "Gunning for Iran" article:
The Sunday Times was last week given the same message. A senior White House source said Bush and Cheney were determined not to bequeath the problem of a nuclear Iran to their successors. “It’s not in their nature,” he said.
Whose nature? As I read the declarative embedded in the last sentence, I thought the author might be referring to a Democrat administration; i.e., "It's not in their nature. The Dems won't fix this problem, so W is compelled to do it." For everyone's good.
The Heritage Foundation, you say, buddy?
We're movin' on up!
Why treat the Newbold article as anything other than just another People magazine audition? It's as informative as another What Did Paris Hilton Do Today?
trish, 12:05 PM
Addendum
"the current administration's sh*t doesn't stink"
That would not represent my viewpoint. For example, I have here observed that I find the Friday, last, State Department's intention to fund the "Palestinian people" not merely laughably absurd, but morally corrupt and criminally negligent. They will rue the day, count on it.
However you wish to cut it, to have so many flag officers out of a population of approximately 439 - 13 March 2005, Air Force Times- so philosophically off-track MUST say something of the ascension process.
Let me suggest the case of former Air Force Maj. General Hassan (now Colonel). Among other things, this officer was a foot fetishist - comedic, but true - who practiced the fine art of the digital seduction of subordinates at the Pentagon. Now, had he been in charge of uniform protocol, his predilections might have been relatively harmless; however, the general headed the office of the Air Force that selected senior military officers, senior NCOs, and senior civil servants for advancement. Could that say something about the present situation, do you think? Furthermore, how did he, and former Major General Fiscus, whose philandering had an obvious decade long history, arrive a their positions of authority. Finally, how came such officers to be honorably discharged at the rank of Colonel, in the face of a host of criminal behaviors that both had sternly punished in subordinates?
Because, peter boston, the fellow is a three star General, well beyond Airborne Engineer Company Commander authenticity.
That is the rub, more so than that other Marine, Mr Murtha. If a three star General is not to be believed, why should a four star?
If it is ALL bogus and partisan, than are not General Myers or Pace, also to be discounted?
If the Generals are, as Mr Bush has said, to define Victory, we had better know what is up, with them, no?
hope it ain't to that dee-lux apartment in the sky!
No, really, the reference was identical, to missing GWoT/Iran/Iraq connecters that someone somewhere knows--but that we the people are not (yet) prepared to handle. The guy (missed his name, was on FoxNews noonish) gave the cold outlines, then tried to lighten the finish with a smile and "Well, the Truth is Out There, as Agent Muldar would say".
Just tryin' to influence that West Wing, buddy, now that Mr Sheen has moved along.
I think that the real problem for the liberal one worlders is that the global wot may have bolixed their framework formula for one world government.
The idea for the last 20 years that has come out of the cfr and is the overarching idea of annual meetings like davos has been that instead of one step to world government there -- would be a gradualist move with the first moves taking place in Europe and america. The europeans would glom together legally by fiat from above through agreements between their nomenclatura and north america would glom together illegally by illegal immigration. The wheels are flying off both ideas because the europeans model called for the addition of turkey to the mix and the north american model called for the mexico to be added to the mix.
In the end good fenses make good neigbors.
If Allen and Rat are right, that the vetting for high command is rotten, then we're in deep doo-doo, of such depth that one would expect to be hearing more on the subject from the ace reporters at NYTimes and CBS. Is there any chance that you guys are exercising insufficient rigor in contexting these anecdotes?
Buddy Larsen,
If the military high command were fundamentally incompetent then changing strategies would only put the same group of incompetents in charge of the new one. The strategy of containment was run by Clinton's general officers and that didn't go too good. If the current crop are incompetents too, then if Iran is to be bombed what confidence can there be in the execution of that campaign? Why would Moe, Larry and Curley Joe be expected to do better Chess after failing at Bridge?
The US just been through a reorganization of Intelligence, after the 9/11 Commission hearings. Has that helped? How does one solve this problem?
Perhaps, buddy, but if the discourse here is an indication, then many believe the Generals are not to be trusted.
I recall floating that idea a few weeks ago, that most of the Generals should be replaced, as exampled by Mr Lincoln, in an attempt to achieve Victory.
The condemnation of the idea by my fellow Clubbers was substantial. That thread, Generals were competent and patriotic, of the highest caliber and dedicated to Victory.
Now that a General publicly demurs from Presidental Policy, there is general condemnation of large portions of the past General Staff.
But most objections on the past thread were of a personal nature, few addressed the real issue, as is so often the case.
Outside of Panama and Grenada the US has not won a War since 1946.
Yet our Military is thought to be omnipotent, by most of US.
Our Enemies sees US as a paper tiger, that has had no Military Victories, since 1946.
If Victory is the Objective, well we have a problem, don't we?
If there is some Military Objective, other than Victory, we're fine.
"Intelligence" and "High Command" are doomed in the image department--anything less than perfection is incompetence, since the stakes are just so damned high, and the operations are are so difficult for the laity to assess.
That's why we like to watch press conferences (rather than read the ytranscript)--we want to study faces, like around the campfire ten-thousand years ago.
desert rat, 12:51 PM
Re: "If a three star General is not to be believed, why should a four star?"
For sure, perception is reality in politics. But for the sake of this site, results are of more consequence than rank.
Personally, when asked to judge the integrity of a general officer (or any other, as a matter of fact) I fall back on the example of Colonel Robert E. Lee. When confronted by what he considered the overreach of his federal government he did not succumb to the temptation of accepting the most plum job in the military of the time, command of the Federal army; rather, he stated his intention to resign his commission and return to private life, unless called to the defense of the sovereignty of his state.
He could have remained in service, undermining the Union cause by philosophic inertia or outright sabotage. He could have retired to Virginia and engaged himself in propaganda, rife at the time. He could have thrown his hat into the political ring.
If and when a flag officer acts with such integrity, then, and only then, should he be taken seriously. Retroactively mouthing the mantra of the Left is not demonstrable integrity.
The heart of the matter is who are the civvies running the Pentagon? Most of what we don't like now is the result of the Clinton regime, and if we let this "incompetence" theme balloon past its inherent probity, guess what we'll have another one of? I know what I'm saying, and I know it sux to say that we should filter everything through the fact that the enemy is a-march, and we can easily cede the war in the Novembers of '06 and '08.
Exactly my point, allen.
We all subscribe to Authority, in one way or another.
A General is representitive of authority, as well as responsibility. In our Culture a General has "gravitus" or he would not be a General. That is the common perception, is it not?
If ALL Generals are not of high moral fiber, intelligence and fidelity, how do we citizens pick and choose the truthful?
The yardstick for success in the Military is not Victory in Battle, battles are few and far between.
I learned that, decades ago.
In the reality of my experience, the normal Officers were intimidated and the NCO's envious or mystified by "peace time" combat veterans.
That was in '81 - 83.
When most of today's Generals were just gettin' started in the Military.
The only problem I have with this discussion is that general officers who 'toady' to civilian authority are doing what they are supposed to do. "Integrity" can never be a substitute for a defective national policy unless we want juntas. Chester argues, for example, that the Second Fallujah was delayed until after the November 2004 elections because "Bush could not risk the media's coverage of a dirty, urban battle while he was shoring up his own electoral position at home" and speculates that the elections of 2006 are exercising the same baleful influence.
Is that bad? Operationally it's disastrous because tempo and timing are often everything. Yet I'm not sure that even were we to resurrect Nelson, Napoleon and Robert E. Lee that they could avoid toadying to their political superiors. If policy is infirm can military strategy succeed? Part of the problem is politics, both in Iraq and in the US. And I don't there are complete military fixes to politics.
McClellan had 4 stars. That didn't prevent him from being the fool. Newcomb has 3 stars. That doesn't make his article any less shallow, his glaring lack of factual back-up any less obvious, or his failure to support his conclusions any less sophmoric.
If that article says anything about the quality of his military analysis the fool should have been run out of the military before he made major.
buddy larsen, 1:05 PM
Re: "expect to be hearing more on the subject from the ace reporters at NYTimes and CBS."
Why should you find such reporting at this juncture? Officers, who may have been in part responsible for the jeremiad "quagmire" declarations of the NYT or CBS, follow the Leftist party-line. Therefore, they are the heroes of the MSM. If ever a flaw can be found in Marine General Peter Pace, you will find no such reluctance.
I take no pleasure in what you call "rotten." The system is what it is; I have simply stated here facts that are the matter of public record. When a small subset of the military culture contains a disproportionate number of perverts and perps, what is to be said?
Yes, we are in deep doo-doo. We would be up "that" creek without a paddle were it not for the heroic application of doctrine by our junior level officers and their NCOs. What should concern all are the grandiose plans of the Air Force brass, for example, to forcibly "retire" several thousand of its "deadwood" lieutenants. To write that causes an almost uncontrollable gag reflex.
But he was not, peter boston, he stayed the course and became a three star General.
That is the quality of man in the General Staff. Mr Powell came through the same System, he examplifies it, as does this General.
They are representitive of today's Military. One that manages battlespace, but does not win Wars.
If that is caused by political considerations, then perhaps all is good.
I'm just glad Jr is out of the Corps, come August.
Back to the enemy-of-enemies, dishonesty itself. It this case, that of an American press--and those who support it--keeping foreign policy forever standing on one leg. This is ancient, and built-into democracy, it was how the Hellenes destroyed themselves, how the endless Peloponnesian War became endless.
A general is a mere man with specialized knowledge and experience. Insofar as his opinion is derived from his area of expertise, he should be paid close attention to. Insofar as his opinions drift into realms not contemplated in his experience or training, he is as fallible as the next man, and as vulnerable to criticism.
Newbold's is a critique of geo-political strategy. Just reading this one piece, it seems he knows and comprehends less than the average Belmonter on this issue.
Furthermore, I think it is absolutely fatal when attempting to write a serious paper to offer criticism based on innuendo, errors, and omissions. We know, to the degree anything can be known, that Bush believed the intelligence he had was credible, and credibly alarming. To assert otherwise after all the investigations into the intelligence question is indicative of many things, none having anything to do with the subject matter asserted. When I read stuff like that, it tells me the author is a) ill-informed, b) disingenuous, or c) both.
Newbold seems like someone who has a point to make, and will use whatever is at hand to make it stick. This argumentative tactic--throwing shit at the wall--is a favorite of the left, and the hallmark of an advocate. Newbold may not be the former, but he is definitely the latter, and therefore, much like a Supreme Court nominee's written opinions when he was someone else's attorney, should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
VDHanson 101: from the foundation of the west forward, the totalitarians lose because property is worth fighting for, open enquiry produces better weapons, and meritocracies produce better leaders. Is any of this triad in relative retreat?
It's absolutely pitiful to read a bunch pajama people critique an article by a three star general.
???
I'm assuming that was sarcasm. If not...heh.
desert rat, 1:42 PM
Well said.
Amateurs think about battle; the professionals think logistics.
It is a matter of fact and public record that in 2000 troops at Fort Sam were not being given adequate small arms training because of a shortage of small arms ammunition. Now, somewhere was a general officer whose job it was to anticipate and prevent this circumstance in the first place. He/She/Sheit failed.
In 2003, the Chief of the Air Force, General Jumper, ordered the wearing of the service blue uniform for two duty days per week. Since the BDU had been the normal service wear since 9-11, there was a run on the military stores. As might be expected, the shops could not meet the immediate demand. To make matters worse, no instant fix was to be found because the Air Force had contracted with a single contractor to manufacture the requisite cloth; that contractor had declared bankruptcy and had halted production. In short, blues had to be rationed, when they could be found. What had this to do with command leadership? How could General Jumper (by the way, an excellent Chief) have been so ignorant of something so basic, so fundamental, and so vital to the service as the availability of uniforms? Now, think up-armored Humvees and body-armor.
Wretchard has just pointed out the potential problems of civilian policy defects. But, whether those policies would have been perfect or abysmal is irrelevant to the defects I have just pointed out. Again, there is something rotten in the Pentagon.
There is something imperfect in the Pentagon, sure. But this is still the same institution that went from zero to invading a land-locked country 7,000 miles away in a 30 days. Next to that, I would say the lack of blue uniforms is rather insignificant.
habu_1, 2:01 PM
Please, do not drift into ad hominem.
Where did you see those things in today's postings of which you complain?
Technically, no man (he/she/sheit) may "know" the "other." Nevertheless, some men recognize obvious stupid.
Rufus,
I thought the same thing about the General's motives. When you put enough money on a position, sooner or later you'll get people to advocate it; and right now, there's a lot of money in anti-war rhetoric.
Generals aren't any different in that respect. Also noted is Tony's observation that the General has, historically, not been a big fan of Rumsfeld's work.
no it was not, aristide.
The CIA invaded Afghanistan.
The used a few hundred agents and, as I recall, three or four hundred spec ops people. It was run, not from the Pentagon, but from Langley.
The Pentagon did not send troops to Tora Bora. By the time Afghanistan had US Troops, the War was all but over.
how could Rummy's transformational policies *not* make enemies? The shiny end of the military is the sword & shield of the nation; the arse end is that it's a government bureaucracy. The arse end of anything is where you aim your kick.
buddy larsen, 2:17 PM
Re: "relative"
"Nothing is great or small, save by comparison." (?)
I wake every morning and give thanks that our enemies are marginally dumber than we. I wake every morning and give thanks that we have been materially able to overwhelm our adversaries. If either dynamic changes, we are in seriously deep trouble.
rufus, 2:26 PM
Indeed!
Victors write history; the vanquished - the vanquished are history.
habu, cheer up, ole hoss--it's springtime and da swallerz is retoinin' to Capistrano.
habu_1, 3:02 PM
You will have the respect you deserve, nothing more, nothing less.
C'mon rufus, get on down to Turtle Bay, they do a Kumbala you would not believe.
Sudan, Libya and Cuba they are all on the "How to define Terrorism" working group.
After hours, their conga line is killer
Aristides @ 2:34,
Also notable that Gen. Newbold was being mocked by Rummy for claiming that we had "eviscerated" the Taliban at that early date.
So, Rummy didn't think so, Newbold claimed so, and now Newbold is coming back and saying we didn't devote enough resources to AlQ.
Unless the General is making a vast distinction between the Taliban Base and AlQ Operations, what do you do after you "eviscerate" an enemy? Bury him with pig parts?
I really do not mean to insult or impugn a General Officer, especially one in the Marines, for God's sake! But this did appear in Time, and he does have an existing beef with Rummy, so I'm taking the out that even Marine Lt. Gen.'s are human.
Rufus,
Russia is not a nation state. Neither is China. Neither is Iran. Neither is Libya, Syria, or any other "Arab" state. These are all Empires. That is why they're authoritarian, and why they resist democracy. And that is why all we need do is follow "Plan D" as prescribed.
re: demise of nation state
I'm not reporting it. Nor am I championing it. But you are correct: the nation state as an entity of uniform laws and common defense is not going anywhere.
Again: a Liberal state is sovereign because it consists of those elements from which sovereignty is derived. Non-liberal states are pre-sovereign, and therefore pre-law, territories.
Note: America is sovereign. Iran is not.
I always wondered about the reciprocal of Dostoyevsky's "Without God, everything is permitted".
He could've added, "Also without Man, everything is permitted".
Buddy,
About Me
I am a sick man. ... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man. I believe my liver is diseased. However, I know nothing at all about my disease, and do not know for certain what ails me. I don't consult a doctor for it, and never have, though I have a respect for medicine and doctors. Besides, I am extremely superstitious, sufficiently so to respect medicine, anyway (I am well-educated enough not to be superstitious, but I am superstitious).
Were the information gained per unit time be constant for all intervals on the graph it would draw a slope.
How does one add a picture next to their blob name
I'm afraid you must wait for another article by a three star general.
Mika, you probably had too many of these.
habu, here's your pic.
Buddy,
Must be my poor Cartesian geometry skills. That slope is starting to sloth on me.
just trying to avoid that blue on blue
\;-D
Habu1,
GED? Good Enough Degree? :)
slope is slope, but are we learning our way up it or back down it, is da question. Bobby Lee wrote his orders in the pluperfect subjunctive preterite future conditional.
GED: Got Enuff Dumbass
Habu1,
If you log in you'll solve Buddy's logarithmic riddle.
That little girl sent Mr Goldwater back to his shortwave radio and photography for a couple of years, buddy.
She, amongst others, but at least Mr McGovern did worse than Barry. AZ is not home to the "biggest" loser ever in the Presidental Race.
Reality TV, notice that many pundits are discovering Mr John McCain, another AZ Presidental hopeful, is really a Conservative.
Why, he even met with Jerry Falwell!
Rufus wants to be "delivered"
danmyers, 4:28 PM
Re: Robert E. Lee
I made no assessment of his morality, as that is now apprehended. Hindsight is sometimes 20/20.
Are you questioning Lee's integrity as described?
serious note, Rufus, that was such a HUGE foul up--and against his best general's foreboding, I sometimes wonder if way down deep--in the subconscious--he didn't want to see the Union preserved. Shet my mouth fer sayin it. but after all, if he'd won Gettysburg, he'd a had DC to run.
You're "old school" my friend, very old school.
It must be chill, the Supremes went for the deal. No Free Speach, every buddy got to pay.
It's all part of aristide's new world order.
Big John, he's the son of a son of a sailor, ya' know.
Crown Prince of the Pacific,
once upon a time.
danmyers, 4:28 PM Continued
Is there such a thing as mediocre integrity? That is like being a little pregnant.
In terms of Civil War commanders, the “upper bound” would include Scott, Lee, Jackson, Grant, and Sherman. Those of questionable integrity, to my mind only, would have to include McClellan, Longstreet, and Custer. The nominees at either pole will be subject to the prejudices of the compiler. I just don’t see any middle ground.
Ha, right, a little foreplay'd make it easier to play the banjo.
Since Goldwater and "integrity" have come up close by, someone should someday straighten out that image. He never got out from under it, and it is maybe the most unfair mud ever slung. Goldwater was the least corrupt pol we ever had on the national stage in modern times. That campaign was foul. All I remember from it at the time was my Uncle Bill in N Louisiana, a Korean War vet, celebrated LBJs victory by blowing his tv to pieces with a 12 ga shotgun. I know because Aunt Ruth and the kids stayed with us awhile 'til he cooled down.
danmyers, 4:59 PM
"pee in my beer"
You, sir, are a gentleman without peer.
buddy larsen, 5:03 PM
To their credit, during the '64 campaign the Dems did'nt drag the cold, dead body of JFK out of the grave for parade. Maybe, looking back, they didn't think about that.
That was soooo wrong, wasn't it? C'est la vie.
amateur psychologist/meteorology dept: a hurricane is how the seas get rid of heat. what'd happen to all that heat without a hurricane, we won't ever know because there'll always be a hurricane when the ocean gets hot enough. A sunconscious Unionist might win many a battle, bleeding off that heat, but he couldn't let himself win the one the Union couldn't lose.
lookit how he made peace, when, and how mysteriously loved and respecteds he was by friend and foe alike.
Given there had to be a hurricane, save the thing you can't lose, honor--for the whole country, north and south.
Lookit it now, the defense of odious slavery is in our minds seperated--firewalled--from the military valor of the Confederacy. Lookit Bobby Lee--any aura of 'loser' anywhere about him?
danmyers,
Are you aware that General Winfield Scott offered his resignation to President Lincoln in favor of Colonel Robert E. Lee?
While the definition of "integrity" has a wide spectrum of meaning, apparently, that single act of patriotic selflessness by General Scott has always endeared him to me.
Danmyers, thanks for the reminder--i went and put my teeth in, do i sound any better now?
li'l known facts: state congressman Lincoln was out of politics in the cycle before 1860 due to losing a senatorial race over his opposition to the Mexican War (he thought it "insufficiently provoked"), which General Scott won, and from which Robert Lee emerged "top soldier".
another tidbit, the USA population in 1860 was roughly 30 million, or one-tenth of what it is now, meaning that the 600,000 casualties % would today be six million. No wonder Lincoln said (after the Wilderness) "The Heavens are hung in crepe".
"Outside of Panama and Grenada the US has not won a War since 1946."
In th long run, we won Korea, and even Vietnam, if you compare Vietnam today to Thailand and Singapore. Vietnam stopped the comunist advance. We also one other little conflict - the Cold war.
The behaviors of the great military officers can be instructive to us.
While at Valley Forge, General Washington did not pretend that he had sufficient manpower, supplies, and funding. To the contrary, he was prone to hyperbole, inflating his strength in dispatches he knew would come into British hands and painting the most awful picture for review by the Continental Congress. Be that as it may, again, he did not pretend that he had sufficient troops, perfect equipment, or that he agreed with the political powers-that-be.
Washington became such a pest because of his tongue lashing of his civilian masters that, of all people, Benjamin Franklin seriously questioned Washington's martial ardor and privately confided that the General should be relieved.
Although the anger of members of Congress was known to Washington, he would not pretend that the war could be won given the status quo.
Just something to think about, as the thread examines the integrity of modern flag officers.
Washington "lost" six of his nine battles--but the one thing he could not allow, his hardest task, was keeping his army together and in the field. In a way, even his losses were victories, as they shewed the British officers that he, Gen. Washington, did not intend to quit, and neither did the core of his army. good thing CBS wasn't around.
buddy larsen, 5:53 PM
The war was "The time(s) that tr(ied) men's souls."
A great-great grandfather, a recent, unlearned immigrant joined an Illinois infantry regiment. Within months he was dead of camp disease, the scourge of both armies, and by far the greatest killer of all.
At war's end, entire Confederate counties had not a single able-bodied white man.
Long, long ago I did a statistical analysis of casualties on both sides. While the numbers no longer leap to muddled mind, I do recall that the probability of being killed in battle was, per capita, 10 times greater for a brigadier than a private soldier. In camp, a brigadier had almost no chance of dying, while private soldiers died by the thousands.
habu_1, 6:15
As stated earlier, "You will have the respect you deserve, nothing more, nothing less."
rufus, 6:32 PM
I thought you might be interested in a recent production of A&E's History Channel, titled, interestingly enough, "Valley Forge." For the specialist and non-specialist alike, the DVD offers a short but fully packed review of recent archaeology at the site, with accompanying period literary excerpts.
"The sting of insult is truth." - Franklin
habu_1, 6:47 PM
I used to give one to each of my little ones at bedtime. If it makes you feel more secure, OK.
Dolly Madison ran back into the burning White House to grab that Gilbert Stuart portrait of GW that is reproduced on the dollar bill.
Trenton was an amazing feat of arms. "Stolen" crossing of the Delaware with thousands of soldiers and baggage train in the dead of winter. Not a man to be trifled with, that George Washington.
buck,
the NorKs are a Charter member of the Axis of Evil, we have 25,000 troops deployed against their forward positions, to this day, 50 years after the cease fire.
My father, myself served there and Jr just left.
The NorKs have gained nuclear weapon and missle technology. If that is defined as Victory, to you, we went to different schools.
As to 'Nam, the domino loss of upwards of 4 Million Cambodians and possibly one Million Vietnamese killed after US withdrawal from Indochina forever diminishes claims of US Victory.
If there have been post war advancements made in Indochina, they have not been made by the US Military, but by business and political interests.
rufus, 6:56 PM
"It was a damned close thing." - Wellington
In looking at the great events in American history, there is reason to think of Wellington.
There is in the "Old Testament" a divine admonition to the effect, "Don't ever forget who has your back." Our ancestral heroes appear to have known this, faults and foibles, notwithstanding. All too often, our modern would-be heroes appear completely oblivious to the frailty of man; bringing to mind another proverb, “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”
At this late hour, I cannot say with certainty how any of the above has relevance to the various conversations within the day's postings. But viscerally, I think they do.
rufus, 7:28 PM
Then, brother, you also heard, "Ho Chi Minh, number one."
even just the promise of USAAF over Hanoi as long as it took to stop the attack on the south, would've probably done the trick. I guess it *did* do the Paris trick--poor choice of expression. Jeez, what bad, bad days, Nixon being knocked arounds the ring like a bum. The Pentagon Papers. the Berrigans. Ellsburg. John Dean. Ugh, bah, fooey.
Goodnight all,
May every he/she/sheit get from life what he/she/sheit deserves, nothing more, nothing less.
Last minute thought: Is there something about a militarily/foreign policy focused site that brings out the latent homosexuality in some correspondents?
Last week, I had to deal with a writer who had a fixation with male genitalia. Tonight, I had a guy wanting to smooch.
To each his own, I guess, but I don't swing that way (forgive the gross pun). While to those having the little-man complex or to those of low self-esteem, a sexual ad hominem attack may seem effective, I am unpurturbed. As a general rule, little riles me other than incompetence, complacency, and treason, on the home front. On the merits and from personal inclination, I detest the culture of Islam, in toto.
may need to smooth that out a little, to get into Bartlett's.
I think it was a peace offering, Allen--not a offer of romance. I wuz thinking after reading Rufus--he wants a little extra over what he deserves, and, hell, if he's going to get extra, why not me too? As far as the bad stuff I deserve, someone else can have my share, free. Hey Free Trade!
ha, I've just got to say something. Allen, in defense of Habu, that was just a little locker-room ribbing. Nothing homosexual about it.
As Harvey Mansfield would say, it is the essence of manliness to boast and demean. It is only very recently, historically speaking, that Habu's comment would be interpreted as anything but manly. Alas.
Tex,
Point taken. A discussion on the finer points of international legal theory is a little academic in light of present threats.
However, it is worth thinking about because these theories impact our policy elites. And worth noting that Bush's rhetoric is decidedly Liberal, or neo-Liberal, as the case may be.
My interest here is less theoretical than linguistic. It's nice to know the language so one can communicate, and persuade.
Rufus,
ha, i don't know...that wasn't in Mansfield's book.
TYex, me too--always want to believe in rationality. But look at this, we were talking about the Civil War earlier. Hitler and Tojo, just a couple gens removed from Pickett's Charge and with Pershing's army just yesterday, despite this well-known history and the vast intelligence services at their disposal, STILL built their war plans on the lax, weak, soft American soldier.
They weren't stupid, but it fit the picture they'd been preaching, and they found themselves locked-in to their own rhetoric, their own animating philosophy, their own reason-for-being.
If the Mullahs--and the jihad--aren't past that point, too, then they'll never be. Or so rationality would suggest.
Rufus, it IS pretty lonesome around here, and I DO have a banjo.
\;-D
Yeh, me too, sandman call. As Jackie Gleason said when he visited Italy, "Harry Bederchi"
I'm just trying to work my way up the Pentagon.
There is in the "Old Testament" a divine admonition to the effect, "Don't ever forget who has your back."
Well, Allen, the left, with their creeds of multicuturalism, self-hatred, and relativism has our backs.
Feel better now?
Good morn'n gentlemen.
Sarcasm requires a finely tuned intellect; good locker room humor a bit less. To good naturedly give or receive either, however, demands humility, empathy, and a capacity for self-deprecation.
Having lived during the time when Marine DIs did not give "timeouts" or suffer the angst of the oppressor but, rather, shined their boots on the backsides of the errant lads in their charge, scatology comes easily. However, as I must repeatedly admonish a sixteen-year old son, there is a time for all things, and the dinner table and the polite conversation between gentlemen is not the time to prove you have sh*t for brains; save the BS for your putz pals, who will not doubt stand in awe of your supreme coolness.
To get the panties in a twist and tempestuously insinuate that your virtual fellow correspondent is a liar is beyond contempt. Electron Cowboy.
"unperturbed"
rufus, 6:32 PM
"Ben Franklin, undoubtably the most conniving rogue in American Politics. But, smart as a whip and wrote a good almanac."
For over two centuries, the reputation of Franklin has had its periodic ups and downs. Most recently, Isaacson et al, make the case that he was the first true American.
He had his critics: Jefferson for one. To keep it fair and balanced, Hitchens says of Jefferson, "We must thus, from the first, appreciate what becomes ever clearer as the story proceeds: we are studying a man with very little sense of humor.” Franklin was a hedonist (non-pejorative, classic sense). The jovial Franklin and he were opposites. Franklin also had the advantage of not being a pompous, aristocratic hypocrite. The dour John Adams and Franklin, likewise, were polar extremes.
It is easy for some (not you, of course) to belittle the accomplishments of an all too human historical personality. Included within a host of other reasons, every time lightning strikes, I lift my head to heaven and thank the bonhomme Doctor Franklin.
habu_1,
Agreed, friend.
1/9 "The Walking Dead"
Post a Comment
<< Home