re: "DIPLOMAT Articles on All and Sundry"

Charles Crawford at Blogoir ("A digital hybrid of blog and memoir presented on a daily basis, or not.") provides a nice block of excerpts from his recent article at DIPLOMAT, "Diplomatic Drafting and Wikileaks."

Money quote(s):

"(T)the Wikileaks document dump exists in a category of its own.

The material is so powerful precisely because it blows away Assange’s banal anti-Americanism. Yes, it’s horribly embarrassing for Washington that all these cables have leaked. Confidences have been ruined. Sources endangered. In terms of writing style the cables often err on the dense and overlong side.

However, far from exposing the dark side of American/Western policies they show as never before the strengths and values of the Western Anglosphere diplomatic method. The documents uncover mile after mile of sensible, balanced, practical, timely and reasonable analysis and comment by American diplomats, often with amusing extra insights and personal touches..." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Which is nice of him to have said. One tries, after all.

"The UK has of its own free will (at least as expressed through Parliament when ratifying the Lisbon Treaty) accepted EU voting rules which allow this to happen, just as the Treaty also provides a procedure to enable a Member State to leave the Union and get back all its sovereignty once again.

Nonetheless, as the eurozone crisis gathers momentum, the existential question of sovereignty is coming back to the fore even in placid, postmodern Europe. What claims, if any, do (say) Greeks have on (say) German resources and hard work by virtue of EU ‘solidarity’? What claims do eurozone members have on (say) the UK, smugly watching the disarray from across the Channel? Tricky."

These are not exactly idle questions nowadays.

11/3

re: "When "Expat" Becomes Enemy"

Robert at Atlantic Crossings ("Between the Hudson Highlands and the South of England…") noted how greatly things have changed since WW2.

Money quote(s):

"(T)his killing should come as no shock given how policy has developed in the last decade. If anything, it is just another example of those perhaps new “gray areas” to have emerged from the confused mess of the reaction to 9/11. Not only is the issue what is “an active battlefield” (especially when civil law is effectively non-existent), but more generally what precisely constitutes “war”, given that it now appears no longer nearly as easy to define as in 1917 or in 1941? Indeed, what is a “battlefield” now and what is not?: “front lines” are increasingly difficult to identity most of the time."

When your enemy is waging multidimensional warfare against you, your country, your allies, your people, and your civilization, it behooves you to respect that choice, to honor the threat. And to respond in kind.

10/3

re: "Will There Be War?"

Adam Yoshida at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") thinks about the unthinkable (somebody should).


Money quote(s):


"An American credit downgrade. Europe in turmoil. Israel menaced by an Iran with nuclear ambitions. Mexican drug cartels run amok. Chinese ghost cities. With each passing day the news gets worse. To my amateur historian's eye, we seem to be drowning under the greatest flood of crisis, both international and domestic, since the 1930s. We all know how that ended. Will it be possible, in terrible 2010s, to resolve the world's problems without war? I'm not so certain."

The American credit downgrade, among other economic faltering, continues without much (non-OWS related) turmoil just yet. The Eurozone is breaking trail where no currency union has gone before, but that's been true all along; it's very existance is unprecedented.

Still, at least some folks in the consular racket are a little concerned. I hope our folks in CA and EUR bureau are leaning forward with their contingency planning.

"(E)ven a decade ago, it was clear to some that we were headed towards some sort of cataclysm. Nations all over the world have made promises that, because they have been undermined by demographic change, cannot possibly be kept. It was always clear that, eventually, the laws of fixed numbers would catch up with us and that there would be a day of judgement. It's just that, until very recently, it had always appeared that it would be in a further future and that maybe -- just maybe -- the white heat of technological advance would propel us faster than the danger."

The possibility that technology will let us cheat the hangman isn't completely closed out just yet, but each day's headlines make it increasingly unlikely.

"The world's problems are so entrenched and so far-reaching that it seems doubtful that they will be resolved without the resort by some to the expedient of war. Worse, it now seems possible that a cascade of conflict will wash over the entire world as it did some seven decades ago."

The "rational actor" fallacy keeps a lot of folks from seeing just how likely some national leaders are to resort to warfare as solutions to their domestic problems.

"The worst-case scenarios all share a common root cause: the failure of our politicians to recognize that, in the words of the late Enoch Powell, "the supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils." "


8/10

re: "Are We Going to Do Anything to Those Who Kill Americans?"

Michael Ledeen at Faster, Please! looked at a decades-old problem (which the British will likely face very soon).

Money quote(s):

"At first, I thought all the statements — about Iranian support for terrorists (in both Iraq and Afghanistan) who kill Americans — were parting messages from government officials on their way out, and therefore free to say such things. They knew the facts all along, but repeatedly soft-pedaled them and on occasion even denied having such evidence. So when Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen (finally) said “the Iranians are killing our guys,” I wasn’t impressed. “NOW you tell us!” was my gut reaction. “So how come we didn’t hear about this many years ago?”

And that’s still my reaction, up to a certain point."

As it happens, I visited wounded milblogger Lumberjack In A Desert during his stay at Walter Reed. He was in no doubt as to whom he owed his injuries. And that was back in 2006.

"But then came a similar statement from Ambassador Jeffrey in Iraq, and I had to say “whoa!” And then Panetta said the same thing. Those are different, those come from officials who are there right now, and their words count for a lot more than those of guys entering retirement. Indeed, I think we must now read the Gates and Mullen statements as part of an administration campaign to raise public consciousness."

Would that it were so.

"It would be churlish to blame Obama and his minions for the ongoing Iranian-sponsored assault against Americans — it’s been going on for decades. And every president since Jimmy Carter has appeased the Islamic Republic, believing that a “grand bargain” was days away. But the other presidents’ search for rapprochement with Iran was, for the most part, conducted secretly, while Obama put himself in front of the appeasement bandwagon."

True enough. There's plenty of room at the bottom of this pile-on for presidents and prime ministers going back the past three decades.

"Does anyone remember the Iranian assault against our Tehran Embassy in 1979? When a mob attacked, the Marine Guards did not shoot. Indeed, they did not even have live ammunition in their weapons. The Embassy was overrun, hostages were taken, and the countdown for Jimmy Carter had begun.

The first rule is that self-defense is legitimate and important. Failure to actively defend Americans under assault will only multiply the number of assaults against Americans. Dithering encourages our enemies; we have to be decisive.

The second rule is that we must strike — politically in almost all cases, not militarily — directly at the heart of the regimes that organize the killing of Americans. We must support their enemies, who, in both Iran and Syria, constitute a clear majority of the Iranian and Syrian people.

The third rule is that those responsible for killing Americans must be held accountable. When the Quds Force killers appear in areas where we can operate, we should hunt them down. When their political leaders travel, we must demand that Interpol arrest them. And we should strike violently at the terrorist training camps from which the Iranian proxies emerge, as well as against the assembly points for the explosive devices and rockets that are used to kill and maim our men and women.

That means changing the intended recipient of the outstretched hand from the tyrants to the people, and brandishing a clenched fist at the tyrants." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Sounds like a plan to me.


______

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.


7/11

re: "Obama's Absolutely Unbelievable Press Conference"

DrewM. at Ace of Spades HQ had a laundry list of observations.

They included:

"First...who is defending Gadaffi? No one.

Second...Remember when Obama demanded that Democrats like himself stop criticizing Bush over Iraq lest it send something other than "a unified message" to Saddam or al Qaeda in Iraq?

And finally...standing up for the constitutional role of Congress in matters of war and peace is a "cause célèbre". This is how the President of the United States views the constitutional responsibilities of a co-equal branch of government."

Old news in terms of NATO's Libyan intervention, but the war-powers issue isn't going to go away. It transcends the current administration and the roots of the current Constitutional dilemna reach back beyond the Gulf of Tonkin all the way to the Korean War.

6/29

re: "Children"

Francis W. Porretto at Eternity Road ("where my shorter emissions will appear") is keeping tabs on broader trends.

Money quote(s):

"The Palestinian irredentists, as you're almost certainly aware, are demanding to be recognized as a nation-state by the United Nations. Their claim is hardly compatible with Westphalian criteria for statehood:

o Clear borders and the ability to maintain them militarily;

o The ability to maintain order within those borders, including the ability to suppress insurrections and avert civil war;

o Independence from external agents as regards domestic matters.

The absence of all three conditions from the autonomous zones along the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip hasn't slowed the Palestinian demand for recognition of state-sovereignty one little bit. They want it. They demand it. And for the other nations of the world to deny it to them is just not fair!

Mind you, the supposed president of this would-be nation-state won't grant Israel's sovereignty. Indeed, he's said he'll never do so. I have little doubt that anyone in his position would say so. Palestinians are quick to murder anyone who dares concede the legitimacy of Israel. Certainly no one who maintains it openly could rise to the top of their society. Yet Israel is a sovereign state by Westphalian criteria, and one of the most advanced nations in the world, at that. " (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

CAA bows to none in his appreciation, even reverence, for the extraordinary civilizational artifact that is the Westphalian nation-state system. Yet, from its beginning, it has incorporated exceptions, some of which persist to this day.

"(T)he Greeks, whose country will collapse entirely without an infusion of cash from other European Union states, are unhappy about the terms of the deal the Eurozone central bank has concocted for them. It involves "going on austerity," a deadly phrase in European politics. The exact dimensions of that "austerity" are unknown to me, but they're probably pretty savage: you know, forty-hour work weeks and no retirement until age 62."

The horror. The horror.

CAA has a few Amcit relatives residing within the greater Athenian metropolitan area, including one whose recent retirement was greatly in advance of her sixtieth birthday.

It should be noted, to be fair, that although she retired more than two years ago, she has yet to begin receiving her promised retirement pay.

Where do you even start to fix a country like that?

11/2

re: "Kimberly Webb Joyner, 1970 to 2011"

Please join me in offering veteran, writer, blogging colleague, and editor James Joyner most sincere condolences at the sudden and tragic loss of his wife, Kimberly Webb Joyner, mother of two young daughters.

re: "Quiz: Where Are Parents Required To Produce "Original Passports/ Visas"?"

Robert at Atlantic Crossings ("Between the Hudson Highlands and the South of England…") exhibits a firm grasp of the issues and consequences.

Money quote(s):

"American states had never felt impelled to look for evidence of enrolled children’s U.S. “legal status”. One reason was probably because if there were illegal immigrant children in school, their small numbers did not seem to justify the effort. That seems no longer so."

Local school districts are much more concerned about truancy by school-age children than by their immigration status. And I believe this can reasonably, until quite recently, be extended to the individual states. It's a case of conflicting priorities: local school districts (and states) should not tolerate the fostering of a generation of un-schooled children. That's not their mission.

"(I)n allowing non-U.S. resident children in school, the U.S. has big-heartedly and accidentally ended up doing at least partly what Justice Brennan thought that ruling would prevent. Leaving aside that enrolling them could encourage illegal parents “to root” themselves in the country as they could not otherwise if their children could not be schooled, larger collateral damage that was unforeseen has been those children’s enrollment a decade on creates the tragic “imagined American” teen illegal. Have we not heard far too much about kids who had been through school and mistakenly THOUGHT they were U.S. citizens, only suddenly to discover they are not…when they tried to obtain a driving licence, apply to college or seek a job?

That is where the desire on the part of many for a “Dream Act” comes from. But any such “Dream Act” too is worrying precisely for yet another issue it would also create. And no one seems to be be thinking ahead on that either, but yours truly raised it previously.

The U.S. should be asking: if they are to be schooled, what can be done to prevent the arising of children who come to think they are U.S. citizens when they are not? And if we are genuinely to assist those now trapped of no fault of their own, if all illegally present children are now perhaps to be granted anmesty to do so, how are we possibly to stop millions more parents from entering with young children illegally and hoping for the same outcome for their own kids eventually?"

Although citizenship laws aren't really written this way, most real Americans know in their heart-of-hearts that being an American is much less about the circumstances of a person's birth than about their commitment to American values. That's something that legislators just can't craft into law, no matter how much they might try. They are, after all, lawyers (most of them) so they approach the question of nationality in a legalistic fashion.

"Immigration is rarely able to be dealt with in policy isolation. It is not just about schooling. Anyone pushing (liberals especially) also for universal health cover in the U.S., would, if it ever came about, certainly have to confront then how to cope with non-residents? If you admire European universal systems, understand they “work” because they are limited. Break your leg in Britain as an American tourist, and you had better have travel insurance or lots of cash at the ready, because the British National Health Service (NHS) treats “for free” ONLY legal UK residents." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

10/4

re: "State snubs House request to examine Argentina-Iran ties"

José R. Cárdenas at Shadow Government ("Notes from the Loyal Opposition") assembled a nice summary of the issues.

Money quote(s):

"(T)hree members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) -- Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Subcommittee Chairman Connie Mack (R- FL), and freshman member David Rivera (R-FL) sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing their concern over information they had received on suspicious activity involving Argentina, Venezuela, and Iran and asking the State Department to investigate whether any nuclear cooperation is at play between the three countries."

This could bear watching. Argentina discontinued its own military nuclear program some years ago. Which is not the same thing as saying they no longer have any military nuclear know-how.

8/10

re "Are The French Backing Down On Military Action In Libya?"

DrewM. at Ace of Spades HQ made an interesting prediction.

Money quote(s):

"So after going to war (yes, that's what it is) because France badgered us into it, we might get left holding the bag? Who could have seen that coming?

I'd say that the odds are better than 50/50 that before this is all over France surrenders to Libya and cedes some territory to it."

Qadhaf senior: dead. Qadhafi juniors: dead or imprisoned. Still, this story has chapters more to go.


7/ 11

re: "Islam Does Not Belong in Europe"

Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna ("At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.We are in a new phase of a very old war.") shared the translation of an essay in German.




6/29

Thanksgiving

This year, as every, CAA is thankful for the many blessings of liberty and prosperity which were secured by his forefathers (and fore-mothers) over the past several centuries.

CAA is thankful for family, for friends, and remembers his many colleagues and comrades around the world who are serving on our country in, and out, of uniform.

re: "Barack Obama: Anti-Terror Warrior?"

MikeM. at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") still has a liberal friend (or two).

Money quote(s):

"(H)e was also exercised that al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was not given a proper civilian trial before being executed. Irony challenged, my acquaintance.

As to Awlaki's citizenship, the facts are clear. Awlaki was an American citizen, but a citizen who took up arms against America. We know this because he explicitly told us, many times, that he was at war with America. We know that he was a top enemy commander and that he was directly involved in the planning and execution of attacks against America, American interests and Americans, attacks resulting in American deaths, the Fort Hood attack being only a single example.Arguably, this would make Awlaki guilty of treason, and if captured, he could be tried for that offense. However, capture and trial were not required for one very powerful and well understood—legally speaking—reason: we are at war.

It is hard for most Americans to understand this simple fact: we are at war and have been since at least the first attack on the World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993 and probably since the Islamic takeover of Iran in late 1979. Because most Americans have to make no sacrifice, because the ongoing war does not disrupt or directly affect their lives in any way, the very concept of war seems a matter of semantics, a debating topic, not a deadly, personal or national reality. We will almost certainly be at war for a generation or more. We may not consider ourselves to be at war with our Islamist enemy, but he does not share our peaceful convictions.

In war, our declared enemies may be killed whenever and wherever they are found. This simple fact does not change because of the nationality of the enemy. This too is a well-settled fact of law. There are no clear demarcation lines on a worldwide battlefield. Americans have, in past wars, gone over to the side of America's enemies and have as a result become indistinguishable from any other enemy soldier or leader. We have killed them when necessary and captured them when possible. When captured they were tried by military commissions." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

These are facts, stated plainly and without adornment. It pains me how many of my fellow citizens, even some of my FS colleagues, seem not to understand them.

"Some have suggested that due to the unique nature of our current world wide conflict, the Congress should enact standards for stripping Americans of citizenship so that they may be killed without trial when acting as an enemy of America, but this is unnecessary and likely designed to impede rather than assist America in her war fighting efforts. American and international laws and standards are quite clear on all of the issues involved and have been since the early 1900s."

Standards already exist for expatriation (i.e., loss of citizenship) as part of the public law, incorporated as part the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. I'm sure I don't understand why this hasn't been utilized, but I'm not sure it's ever even been considered in cases like these. Perhaps the legal bar is simply too high, would provide a public soapbox for avowed enemies of the U.S. as they (or their lawyers; i.e., lawfare) appealed such measures, and it's purely simpler (and just as legal) to kill them.

10/2

re: "Triumphs Of Smart Diplomacy: #28,764"

MikeM. at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") noted the failure of a host nation to protect an embassy.

Money quote(s):

"The seizure of the embassy of a foreign nation is normally considered an act of war."

Sure, when a government does it.

On the other hand, when a government fails to protect a diplomatic mission, it fails in its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. It's less clear to me that this can/should be considered an act of war.

Lots of things can be considered to be causus belli, but if every government went to war every time something that could be considered an act of war happened, then there'd be a lot more wars.

9/9

re: "Culture of Conformity"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") remarked upon an article at Defense Policy.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he authors stray into the dual and anti-republican traps of elitism and credentialism: Intelligence is only loosely correlated with socioeconomic attainment. And unrewarded genius, as Calvin Coolidge noted, is almost a proverb. In any case IQ is not a birthright; even among the brightest parents there is a tendency for their descendants’ intelligence to revert towards the mean. Sure, Muffy and Biff may get accepted into all the better prep schools and get preferential admission to the Ivies based upon parental largesse, but this is no guarantee of future success. The stories of scions and heirs who have squandered their parents fortunes upon inheritance are so manifest as to be almost unremarkable. The halls of Congress are full of highly credentialed graduates from Harvard, Yale and Columbia.

And look where that has got us." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

The Army is a solidly middle and working class organization, the American yeomanry, if you will. While the upper-middle and upper socioeconomic quintiles pitch in during a more general panic, er, mobilization, year in and out the membership comes from those unafraid to work with their hands.

8/9

re: "Breaking: Children of Diplomats Getting US Citizenship!"

Peter Spiro at Opinio Juris looked a report about improperly granted U.S. citizenship.

Money quote(s):

"Yes, it’s true. There must be dozens, perhaps even hundreds of newborns who are extended US citizenship every year even though they are “not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Find the evidence in a report from the restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies here.

Perhaps I shouldn’t be so snarky: the report is a pretty interesting one."

Not only that, but certainly the children of foreign diplomats can be assumed to have a higher national loyalty to their parent's country rather than our own. That'd be one reason that at least that much of the "not subject to the jurisdiction thereof" restriction actually sticks and hasn't been reduced to Constitutional filler verbiage.

"It considers the single operative exception to the otherwise universal rule of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. (There is one major exception — those born into Native American tribal jurisdiction — but that hole was plugged by statute in 1924.) It’s generally understood to be a minor qualification to the otherwise absolute rule, but leave it to the folks at CIS (who run some very useful programs, including a daily wrap of media items relating to immigration) to check out its (non)effect on the ground.

Turns out that nobody is policing the exception. Children of diplomats born in the US get ordinary birth certificates, which is all you need to demonstrate citizenship."

This is something that consular officers abroad are expected to keep an eye out for when we encounter citizenship cases like this abroad. The State Dept. publishes an annual "blue book," IIRC, that lists all those foreign diplomats to whom this restriction might apply. In cases of doubt, we're supposed to refer back to Washington so they can make a determination.

There's still the exception for children born to members of an occupying army, but there's never been a case where that was operative. Hopefully there never will be.

7/ 11

re: " Senate Ethics Committee Forced to Clarify Travel Cash Rules"

Tom Fitton at Big Government looked at Judicial Watch's investigation of Congressional ethics.

Money quote(s):

"According to Senate rules Members of the U.S. Senate can neither simply “keep the change” and pocket the unused portions of their travel per diems nor use them to buy gifts for campaign donors. That seems like common sense to me. These per diems, after all, are paid for by the taxpayers."

Just about every FSO has worked with, as a "control officer," a CONDEL (congressional delegation) or a STAFDEL (congressional staff delegation) at some point or another in their careers.

Part of preparation for being "control officer" for a CODEL or STAFDEL is picking up (and signing for), from the embassy cashier, a set of cash envelopes for each of the CODEL's members. Said cash being the estimated per diem costs for their individual lodging and M&IE (meals and incidental expenses) allowances for stays in that particular foreign country and/or city.

These are considered to be a "cash advance" of the CODEL members' travel expenses.

Most government (including State Dept.) travelers are limited to getting only 75% of their per diem expenses as a cash advance; they are reimbursed the difference, if eligible, sometime after they file their expense reports at the completion of their travel.

IIRC, CODEL travelers get a cash advance of 100% of their estimated lodging and M&IE costs.

(Someone please correct me if I'm mis-remembering that or if it's changed.)

"With regard to how Members of Congress may have misappropriated the funds, according to the article: “Sometimes they give it away; sometimes they pocket it. Many lawmakers said they didn’t know the rules for repayment.”

Former Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), The Wall Street Journal notes, admitted that it’s “fairly standard” policy for lawmakers to use the leftover money “for shopping or to buy souvenirs to bring back to constituents.”

Personally I find ridiculous the notion that Members of Congress simply did not realize pocketing per diems is a no-no. First off, it’s basic commons sense. And secondly, this behavior is in violation of explicit House and Senate rules governing the reimbursement of travel expenses."

Control officers have each CODEL member sign for their cash envelopes shortly after their arrivals (most will be expecting it, being familiar with the drill) so that the control officer is no longer responsible/accountable for the relatively large sums of cash involved.

("large," in this instance, is defined as: 'more than CAA usually has in his wallet when he's not in either Las Vegas or Atlantic City')

CODEL members are presumed to follow Congress' rules regarding the filing of expense reports.

"(W)what a sad story that United States Senators need to be reminded that they can’t keep taxpayer cash for their own personal use.

And regarding the obvious per diem abuses by Members of the U.S. Senate, we believe a more thorough investigation is warranted. The Senate Ethics Committee shouldn’t give a pass to Members to misappropriated taxpayer funds, whether they are merely “confused” or purposely ignoring the policy for their own personal gain."

For most of us peons, the lodging costs are going to match, just about exactly, what the hotel or other lodging charges us. After all, the lodging per diem rates are published and the (smart) hotels charge exactly that as their "government rate."

(The really smart hotels throw in a lot of little, and not-so-little, extras for government travelers in order to attract their business.)

Just about anyone who's been a control officer can probably tell you a funny story about a CODEL they worked one time or another, perhaps even regarding how a CODEL member or two misunderstood how their travel advances were to be handled.

(But FSOs are a fairly discrete bunch, even the ones who blog, so those stories are saved for each other.)

6/29

re: "Prodding a Sleeping Giant"

Andrew Stuttaford at The Corner ("a web-leading source of real-time conservative opinion") had this to say about the European bailout situation.

Money quote(s):

"Greece is falling into the abyss, and we already know that the new rescue package will not be big enough either to bail out Athens or to halt the contagion that is spreading rapidly elsewhere. Meanwhile, Germany’s political class appears to have declared war on its own people."

Calling it "war" would be a stretch but calling it 'ignoring popular sentiment' would be sugar-coating it.

"Germany’s regulators should at least be insisting that its banks are (truly) well capitalized enough to cope with any storm that may come. That might encourage the French to do what they have to do with their banks too…"

This gets into that area known as "moral hazard." Major banks in all the country's mentioned above (and our own) hold a lot of paper assets issued by polities without the economic wherewithal to ever make them real. So they're looking for a bailout package that doesn't make them write them off or down. It's that "too big to fail" syndrome again. We know how well that turns out. Unfortunately for European bankers, when their own "Occupy" movement gets started "Over There," it's not likely to be as (relatively) well-behaved as ours has been.

10/2

re: "A new Great Generation?"

Guest poster Free0352 at blonde sagacity ("the conservative that liberals hate to love") laid out the generational implications for America.

Money quote(s):

"The 9/11 Generation? I guess it's as good a name as any. I was born at the tail end of Generation X in 1979. However, I grew up more Nu-Metal than Grunge. We were tech savvy, introspective kids - we didn't have much in common with our weepy, overly socially conscious older siblings. The X'ers were individuals, we were almost collective joiners. If the Boomers had Woodstock, the X'ers had Kirk Cobain's death and a youth of unmatched prosperity they didn't appreciate and complained constantly about... we had Columbine and a certain stained blue dress. Nobody expected much from us beyond the hope we wouldn't become addicted to Ecstasy and blow each other away at school. The Boomers and X'ers screamed at the world, they wanted to be heard. We were quiet and withdrawn - encased in our computers off in la-la land. If Bob Dillon spoke to the world and Kirk Cobain screamed at it the best we could muster was a lengthy text message. We didn't want to be heard. As children of divorce when we grew to become young adults, we wanted to belong.

Then some of us went to war. Less than 1% of Americans serve today in the military. That's a pretty far cry from the WWII Generation, who even if they didn't go away to war stayed home and fed the arsenal of democracy and made huge sacrifices in austerity to see the war effort through. Back then celebrities sold war bonds, today they call us war criminals. Did this generation sacrifice. Well, 1% of them did.

Many Boomers lost their innocence in the jungles of Vietnam, forced into a war they had not interest in fighting via the draft. It was traumatic for all concerned, and veterans did their best to forget and civilians did their best to ignore them. We haven't been forgotten, we've been honored and thanked and taken care of better than our WWII forbears. We were even TIME's 2003 "Person" OF THE YEAR. When you thank us, we awkwardly thank you back and carry on. We don't expect all this, and wonder why the Vietnam veterans didn't get it. We wish you'd thank them." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

The young troops, who are the captains and staff NCOs (and below) who enlisted or were commissioned after 9/11 do make up the bulk of this 1%. They joined a post-Vietnam, post-Reagan build-up (and post-Cold War draw-down) military which had as its architects the military leadership which cut its teeth in Vietnam. While most of those (Boomer) prime movers retired in the decade after Gulf War I, today's military remains their legacy.

The more senior troops of this 1% are themselves either Boomers or X-ers. And having been among them, I learned to have a full measure of respect for what I then termed "the Nintendo generation" but which had even then already moved on to the XBox.

"My generation is very pain averse... so seeking out discomfort and pain was the ultimate act of rejection and rebellion. My generation suffered the highest divorce rates of any before it. My peers and I were young men raised by women. Most of my fellow Marines were looking for something masculine. The ultimate rejection of the female way of life forced on us at home, in school, and in popular culture. We were sick of everyone getting a trophy just for playing. We wanted to see what we were made of when mommy wasn't there to pick us up when we fell. The Marines were our own little Fight Club. It's mostly that way for Soldiers too."

Mostly. Although the "be all that you can be" mentality was sadly replaced by someDamnthing or another even as Uncle Sam's Misguided Children kept a death grip on their "looking for a few good men" brand.

"It seemed the longer I was part of the Military Culture the more alien civilians became. It was like I was from strange foreign culture to them, and they to me. I was from Accountability, Responsibility, No-Excuses Land, they from somewhere else that involved MTV, video games and complaining. I found myself gravitating more to Vietnam and WWII veterans than people my own age, whom I had nothing in common with anymore.

Now after ten years we are coming home for real - for ever. Coming home and staying there. The military is drawing down in the next few years, 45,000 Soldiers alone will be forced out of the only home we've known for a decade. Likely many more will follow as the Air Force and Navy contract even more. Some veterans have done a tour or two, others as many as eight. Now we put down our gear and take off our uniforms and look around and find ourselves on that alien planet called America and wonder what to do now. We are not part of whatever this generation is called. We're it's aliens. Prodigal son's returned home. Very alien, very different.

No, The 9/11 Generation isn't special in and of it's self. But 1% of it is, because unlike our peers we don't consider ourselves special. We've been part of a team. Today we're banding together, taking care of each other as we did in war. In a way we're the newest wave of refugees from Iraq or Afghanistan - the places that have dominated every segment of our lives these last ten years." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

CAA hopes earnestly that this group of "refugees" doesn't inflict its national cuisine (MREs) on America the way other immigrant groups usually do.

"We are taking our rightful place in America. We're running for Congress, starting businesses, we're in your neighborhood. Our peers whine about everything, they are slow and weak and complain constantly when they don't get a trophy simply for playing. But we're out there, under the radar now. Different. Alien. But like our Greatest Generation Grandfathers we might save you - though there are considerably fewer of us.

So is this over all, the Second Greatest Generation? Probably not. But we veterans - the tiny 1% might be. Maybe what America needs to save it, are a few veterans? Why not, they certainly did after WWII? Perhaps the Military loss is America's gain?

Soon thousands of disciplined, hard working, courageous, focused young people will be injected into the labor force or graduate college on the Post 9/11 GI Bill. America is a wreck and it's only going to get worse... but we veterans have seen failed states and anarchy and worse. This bad economy and chaos doesn't scare us. We've fixed broken countries before in far worse condition."

For values of "fix," of course. Hopefully the U.S. won't pose the sort of obstacles ("Mahdi Army," Taliban, AQI, &tc.) that the other ones did.

"We don't have an "entitlement mentality," our greatest gift is our "NO EXCUSES" mentality. We've learned to do, and do it quietly, without thanks or complaint. We've learned the world isn't fair, and not to quit. In short, the war gave us the tools our peers lack to make it in this economy, or any economy. We reshaped the most volatile piece of geography on Earth, the United States should be easy in comparison.So will whoever gets elected in 2012 save us? Maybe. But don't trust to that. Trust to that small, tiny 1% of young Americans. I have had the chance to witness them do things that defy imagination, both in work and in heroism. Wait to you see it in your neighborhood."

&

"It's been a lot longer than any of us thought, and it's still not completely over. But now we are beginning to come home - and we bring with us our skills, our discipline, our hard work, and our heroism. It's as if all that was good in the post 9/11 Generation were encapsulated in this small band of brothers... the 1% that can change the tide... coming to a neighborhood near you."

9/7

re: "Rhetoric vs. Reality"

MikeM. at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") eloquently described the American Dream.

Money quote(s):

"America is, more than anything, an idea. It is a set of beliefs and values that bind together peoples from all over with the world because they believe that only in America, only in a nation where individuals truly have inalienable rights, where there exists the rule of law, and where the government exists to ensure equality of opportunity, only there can they live in freedom. Only there do they have the opportunity, with the sweat of their brow, with their intellect and abilities, to thrive, to prosper and to instill the American ideal in their children. When enough of the residents of this nation no longer believe, when enough of those who live within our borders no longer see any advantage in being known as an American, America is over."

The rest of his post a bit less positive.

8/9

re: "Fort Hood jihad murderer's trial: "People will want to hear the other side during the court-martial, but what could he possibly say in his defe"

Robert at Jihad Watch ("dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts") urged letting this defendent testify on his own behalf.

Money quote(s):

"Let the world hear him preach Islam and jihad and explain that that was why he murdered thirteen people in cold blood. Let the world see a jihadist justifying his actions."

That would almost certainly qualify as educational television.

7/10

re: "Europe Does Not Need American Protection Anymore"

Joerg Wolf at Atlantic Review ("A Press Digest for Transatlantic Affairs") summarized like nobody's business.

Money quote(s):

"Secretary Gates' words have fallen on deaf ears in Europe, because we don't see a particularly productive use for our militaries. America has global aspirations and has the Pacific to worry about, whereas Europeans are just concerned about their neighborhood and don't feel the need to maintain strong militaries. This trends towards demilitarization is probably dangerous, but it is not a sign of decadence or free-riding. We don't want to be on the "ride" that has taken us into Iraq and Afghanistan."

6/28

re: "Greece's Dangerous Gamble"

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") looked at the Greek financial crisis.

Money quote(s):

"As much as the Germans and French resent having to bail out profligate Greece, the Greeks resent having their core political decisions dictated from Paris and Berlin even more."

Likewise for Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Iceland. To name a few.

"European integration has been achieved through stealth and technocratic maneuvering on the part of elites, quite frequently bypassing the clear preferences of the ostensibly democratic populations in various countries. The passing of so much authority to the European Central Bank and to appointed officials in Brussels has been inexorable, with little input from the European publics and often against the expressed wishes demonstrated via referenda."

This is not a bug in the European experiment: it's a feature.

11/1

re: "No Foe, No Friend"

Richard Fernandez at Belmont Club discussed having it both ways (or not).

Money quote(s):

"Walter Russell Mead, writing in American Interest, believes the root of the problem is that the President wants to fight terrorism in two potentially contradictory ways: as a war and a non-war; as combat and as law enforcement. In his view the Al-Awlaki operation highlights the problem of trying to have it both ways at once."

It's interesting how this circle has been squared. Rightly or wrongly, then-presidential candidate Sen. Kerry was vilified for comparing international terrorism for comparing international terrorism to a law enforcement problem such as prostitution (IIRC). But keeping one's options open is generally thought to be a good thing.

"(W)hat Walter Russell Mead believes and what Barack Obama believes are two different things. While Mead may want clarity, Barack Obama is following the time honored political tradition of creating two sets of rules which he can separately invoke as convenience demands. When it suits him to act the “law enforcement officer” in order to mollify his left wing base and European opinion, then he will don that hat. When it suits him to act like a Commander in Chief to prevent the eventuation of a threat (which would lose votes), he will don the other other hat."

We should be thankful that sufficient motivation exists for acting like a commander in chief.

"The basic cultural problem is the media has conditioned the public not to be able to handle the truth. Certain segments of the public want safety but don’t want to be told how it is obtained."

"You can't handle the truth!"?

Well, judging by what we've seen of the Occupy Wall Street phenomena, Solyndra, and other stories, there's no desire on the parts of many to be told the truth, at least not by those who those many are likely to be listening.

"But trying telling the truth on the air and a whole line of pundits will queue up to call you a bigot and warmonger; except when the same set of people aren’t demanding that you do the opposite to be kept safe. Walter Russell Mead is right. You can’t have it both ways. But it is politically incorrect to say so. Therefore people like Judyth Hill of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation can say with a straight face that our response to September 11 should be to “make soup … Breathe in terrorists and breathe out sleeping children and fresh mown fields”. This passes for wisdom and if you disagree you’re a bigot.

And since logic like that can stand as public policy, we will inevitably reap its logical conclusion. We’ll get fantasy for fantasy. A fantasy strategy will eventually result in an imaginary victory for the protection of imaginary rights. Because what goes around comes around. You get what you pay for. So what does US citizenship count for? What in a war or under law enforcement? It is ironic that no one realized that when the clear bright line between enemy and dissident was muddled that everyone would wind up in the same pot. When there are no enemies — except sometimes, then there will be no rights — except sometimes."

10/2

re: "Democrats, Who Spent Months Arguing for "Compromise," Now Insist Obama "Throw Down The Gauntlet" "

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ vented more spleen.

Money quote(s):

"Is this worth a post? I don't know. It's more of the same, isn't it? While they mau-mau Republicans to pray at the altar of compromise, they demand Obama fight, fight, fight.

Why, it's almost as if they are entirely lacking in principle or intellectual integrity and are just freelance political strategists in service of the DNC and Organizing for America, eh?

The point is so obvious (and so obviously true) it's a waste of time to even spend pixels on it.
But yes, the devotees of compromise are now promoting the slogan "If you're not with me, you're with the economic terrorists.""

9/6

re: "Can Kerry save the State Department on the “supercommittee”?"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside the Foreign Policy Machine") asked a very important question.

Money quote(s):

"Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA) will be on the "supercommittee" that's charged with slashing government spending, but will he use that power to rescue the State Department from its looming budget nightmare?"

The world waits.

"Kerry, who always denies he is jockeying to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she steps down (probably after the 2012 election), certainly looks like the leading candidate for the post. He has traveled frequently to hotspots like Afghanistan and Pakistan on behalf of the administration, led the push for Senate ratification of New START nuclear arms reductions, and is beginning a new push to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty. He even toed the administration's line that the war in Libya does not amount to hostilities.

The State Department, meanwhile, is preparing for what could be its worst budget year in a very long time. After two years of budget increases during the Obama administration, the dire fiscal situation has placed diplomacy and development funding on the chopping block. In April, the Obama administration voluntarily cut $8 billion from the State Department budget as part of the deal to avoid a government shutdown."

Sen. Kerry certainly seems, at least in the major media, to be a leading candidate to succeed Sec. Clinton if and when she decides she's spent enough years heading-up the State Dept. But presidents sometimes surprise with their appointments. And by "sometimes" I mean most-of-the-time.

(Well, at least I'm always surprised.)

"Whether Kerry is able to stand up for diplomacy and aid funding, in opposition to his GOP counterparts, will determine the functionality of the State Department he one day hopes to lead. "

(8/9)

re: "Why call it 'Pakistan'?"

The Anti-Jihadist at Jihad Watch ("dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts") had some tough words for Pakistan (and Sudan).

Money quote(s):

"South Sudan's hopeful creation as a new nation is a glorious moment, as well as a sobering one. We should remember as to why South Sudan's existence became necessary in the first place. We must remind the world over and over that the birth of South Sudan as a independent state was long required precisely because Muslims cannot long live amicably with followers of other belief systems."

Sudan is (or was) an amalgamation of, roughly, four (now three) historical kingdoms, sultanates, or whathaveyou and could probably use a little more devolution, leaving even less of its territory (and people) in the hands of "President" Bashir.

"South Sudan's secession from Sudan is in many way a mirror image of another 'secession' that took place over 60 years ago. In the waning days of the British Empire, British India was to be divided into two countries, a Muslim one and a Hindu one, and India was to be cleaved forever into those two parts."

A distorted mirror image, but a mirror image to be sure. The historical differences (and parallels) would suffice for a master's thesis (if not a doctoral dissertation).

"While the larger Hindu India has found a modicum of political stability, has enjoyed decades of economic success, and exports its vibrant culture via its booming film industry worldwide, its Muslim counterpart Pakistan flirts with failed-nation status.

Pakistan is in fact a nightmare of state-sponsored jihadist terrorism inside and outside of its borders. Except for a tiny elite, the country only offers unimaginable squalor and poverty for its people. It has featured a string of unbelievably incompetent and corrupt governments that have exported Islamic terrorism to distant continents, as far as the UK and the USA. Pakistan harbors the world's top terrorists who are allowed to live inside its borders with impunity, free to continue conspiring and plotting mass murder. Pakistan has launched three wars of aggression in its blood-soaked history, all against India, all of which Pakistan lost. Pakistan builds nuclear weapons and nuclear-capable missiles, which it sells the technology for to any and all comers, no questions asked. Pakistan sucks up gifts such as weapons and supplies, intelligence data from the US, and especially financial aid packages from the rest of the world, and either squirrels the money away into various numbered accounts, or passes along as loot to jihad terrorists and other enemies of the Free World. Barbarous shariah laws viciously run riot and leave an ever-growing pile of broken and dead bodies in its wake. Pakistan's police and military murder journalists who question how and why such a horrid state of affairs has come to pass. And on and on."

Pretty damning stuff, to be sure.

"(M)ay I humbly suggest that Pakistan no longer be referred to as "Pakistan", the so-called 'Land of the Pure". Merely mentioning the name is, in a way, tacitly accepting its existence, which right-thinking people everywhere should instantly reject. So, from this point onwards, let us call that place by a more culturally and historically correct name: "Muslim-occupied India". For India was a Hindu land for thousands of years before the invading barbarians of Islam appeared to seize Hindu lands and slaughter its inhabitants, which laid the groundwork for the eventual Muslim calamitous maladministration of that same land."

(7/9)

re: "Understanding Germany"

Joerg Wolf at Atlantic Review ("strives to be the center for news analysis and thoughtful online discussions on contemporary transatlantic relations issues ranging from defense to economics and culture") examined a Wall Street Journal piece on Germany.

Money quote(s):

"(M)ost Germans are not convinced that America's current wars are advancing our security significantly. We are war-weary rather than pacifist. To understand why most Germans do not want to send troops, I would add to the above reading recommendations the movie Das Boot, which is based on the book by Lothar-Günther Buchheim. The battle of Stalingrad is still very strong in the collective memory and informs many Germans' positions on contemporary wars IMHO, but I don't know if any movie or book is responsible for it."

If the U.S. was only sixty years (two generations) past the last time the U.S. had been on the losing side of a major land war, we might have a similar stance. That we didn't, historically, is probably due to our being both sides of the American Civil War.

6/27

re: "The Pound of Flesh"

Richard Fernandez at Belmont Club examines where sub-state warfare is heading.

Money quote(s):

"Warfare is older than the modern state. When the Strategy Page described what it calls “vigilante warfare” by Israeli settlers on members of Hamas it might have been talking about a process of “going native”. In the Middle East the tradition of pre-Westphalian warfare is strong. Private war, from the action of clans against other clans to the sponsorship of belligerence by warlords never completely went out of style."

It took centuries for it to go "out of style" even in the Westphalian-style nation-states of Western Europe, where it never truly died out. Inter-state warfare is something of a historical curiousity really, sort of like jousting.

"One of the great innovations of the Westphalian system was that private individuals who had previously been responsible for visting retribution, were supposed to leave justice — and warfare — to the state. For as long as the population trusted the King (or the State) to punish criminals and protect them from foreign attack, private individuals were content to leave things in the hands of uniformed officialdom.

But a strange thing happened on the way to the 21st century: political correctness as imposed by a variety of lawyers, human rights activists and the like progressively reduced the power of the state to defend its population against external aggressors to the point where it failed to provide an adequate level of protection. When private individuals could no longer rely on uniformed officialdom to protect them, they did the natural thing. They took the matter of warfare back into their own hands."

The truly scarey thing isn't mentioned by Mr. Fernandez; what happens when political correctness so contrains Western law enforcement that Western citizenry again takes up torches, pitchforks, and hayrakes? We're likely to see this sooner in places like France, the Benelux, Nordic states, and British isles before here (but I could be wrong about that).

"(I)n doing away with the Westphalian system, political correctness unintentionally — or perhaps unthinkingly — undermined the Laws of War. The whole panoply of uniforms, ranks, discipline and obedience — so hated by pacifists — were all Westphalian mechanisms designed to ensure some kind of law and order on the battlefield. By taking the armies out of the game, the disciples of political correctness didn’t end war; they merely ended the old rules of war and returned the field to private warfare.

Maybe that isn’t too bad. If the 20th century is any gauge, Westphalian Armies did precious little to prevent widespread loss of life. Indeed World War 2, a Westphalian War, was the most devastating episode of belligerence in human history. For all its ugliness, one might argue that private war sheds less blood than the regular kind per unit of time. Unfortunately it also did away with that other Westphalian innovation, Victory. World War 2 for all its destructiveness had one great virtue. It ended. Today wars are far less destructive. The bad news is they never end.

Today warfare is no longer entirely a matter of soldiers fighting each other under the Geneva Convention. Instead, it every man for himself; it is the knife in the dark, the molotov cocktail thrown from the passing car and the IED along the road."

Modern armies operating under the Geneva Conventions as various international jurists would have them interpret it do suffer from systemic disadvantages. But the laws of warfare, as written, aren't actually intended to disadvantage those who follow them.

"It is what happens when vigilantes take a leaf out of Hamas’ book and start waging non-Westphalian warfare on the international agencies that should keep them up at night. The Strategy Page notes that nonstate actors have long had recourse to methods of intimidation denied to Westphalian states."

State actors have their own advantages, but they must be willing to exercise them.

"At the limit non-state actors can simply frighten the UN or the humanitarians into agreeing to their demands out of pure fear. The Canal Hotel bombing, directed by al-Qaeda in Iraq against the United Nations, killed a top UN bureaucrat and 22 others and ultimately led to the withdrawal of most UN staffers from Baghdad. The UN responded by declaring The World Humanitarian Day — they could have hardly taken a hard line against the private warfare directed against them."

This is why lots of people no longer view many international and "humanitarian" actors as being neutrals. There's a reason why the Colombians (IIRC) were able to rescue some long-held hostages by posing as members of an NGO whom the kidnappers believed to be neutral-in-their-favor.

10/31

re: "Why I Like "Pan Am" "

Robert at Atlantic Crossings ("Between the Hudson Highlands and the South of England…") makes some excellent points about the new TV lineup this Fall.

Money quote(s):

" “Pan Am” struck a personal chord: my first international flight (a lot more, ahem, recently than 1963!) was on Pan Am.

But “Pan Am” sparked my interest not only owing to that. Pan Am was murdered by terrorists; and its memory since has been stolen by that terrorism. So in a wider sense it is damn well about time we were all reminded the real Pan Am was not only about Lockerbie.
For just as the life of any murder victim is NOT — and absolutely should NOT be — only about his or her murder, Pan Am had had quite a “life” before 1988; and that deserves to be remembered too. That existence stretched back to an era that is recalled fondly as constituting a “golden era” in international flight."

CAA is of an age to not only have experienced (as a child) some of what it was like when there truly was a certain "glamour" to air travel but to have witnessed first-hand (as an airline employee) what it was like when deregulation (among other depredations, like Texas Air and Frank Lorenzo) began the not-so-slow destruction of America's flagship passenger carriers.

Present-day consular officers will already be aware of how the Lockerbie/Pan Am bombing changed, for the better, how we do some of our own work.

"(T)hat past is certainly viewed on the ABC screen at times through rose-tinted glasses, but that does not make those memories any less worthy of reflecting on. To those today accustomed to air travel as hardly better than buses in flight, catching glimpses of when commercial jet travel was barely a decade old, VERY special and the preserve of those who had money, is only to reveal various historical truths. While there is no way we should want to return to that era in its entirety for reasons too numerous to list here, that also does not mean that era was utterly devoid of any positives whatsoever and doesn’t deserve dramatic portrayal.

The pilot was stylish, pacey, likeable and contained enough touches of the serious to show the program has potential if the storywriting and character development proves itself solid longer-term."

10/1

re: "Is Obama doubling down on a risky gamble in Iraq?"

Peter Feaver at Shadow Government ("Notes from the Loyal Opposition") had questions about that murky interface between military and national strategy, where political leaders do their decision-making.

Money quote(s):

"According to several unnamed sources, military commanders are "livid" with President Obama's decision to authorize a plan that is resourced at a fraction of the level that the military considered to be the minimum -- and even that minimum would only work "in extremis." Obama's approach appears to involve several multiples of risk beyond what the military consider prudent. Reportedly, even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton argued for a level of resources above what Obama appears to have authorized.

Reasonable people can disagree whether it makes national security sense for Obama to adopt such a risky path. For my part, I wish he had invested more effort in the Iraq file, especially working more closely with Prime Minister Maliki to push the process towards an outcome that is more favorable to American (and, I would argue, Iraqi national) interests.

The part that mystifies me is why his team thinks it makes political sense to have taken this course. His administration has already pocketed as much political benefit as there is to be wrung from Bush's surge -- and the media has generously refrained from pointing out that whatever positive developments came in Iraq came because of policies Obama and Biden tried strenuously to thwart in 2007. Given that the administration has already claimed Iraq as a great achievement, why take so risky a course now, one that could result in a great unraveling during the presidential campaign?"

The subtext here is the assumption that elected political leaders (or at least this elected political leader) make their big decisions based upon their personal calculus of electoral politics; rather than, say, the national good.

"The cost savings of denying the military the resources they say they need is trivial compared to the stakes. For that matter, the amount of time and effort it would have taken Obama to invest in Iraq policy so as to achieve greater progress with Maliki was probably trivial, too. Yet it seems that when it comes to Iraq, Obama is determined to do whatever is less than the minimum. "

Bug? Or feature?

9/7

re: "Dear London"

Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") authored a heartfelt testament to the Second Amendment.

Money quote(s):

"Our Creator endowed me with certain unalienable rights—stop me if you've heard this—and also the responsibility to defend the life he gave me from oppressors, tyrants, and thugs.
That right extends to defending the lives of my family, and our home. No one has the right to take away my home or threaten my family, and I have the God-given responsibility to ensure their safety and survival by any means necessary.

We're quite adamant about that, and have taken up arms against entire governments on more than one occasion to ensure our liberties, and will likely do so again at some point." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

8/9

re: "Unhappy Medium: The Perils of Annoyance as Your Strategic Default"

Joseph Fouche at Chicago Boyz examined some intellectual sandtraps to which American strategic thinkers are irresistably drawn.

Money quote(s):

"In its nineties heyday, techno-opiates promised a future where U.S. forces moved freely like network packets across an antiseptic information battlespace. These force “packets” would be effectively omniscient since enemy forces would continue to unheedingly mass Soviet style forces in large formations across flat, treeless, and unpopulated terrain. There the enemy could be anesthetized in detail with precision, with laser-guided fluffy down pillows lulling enemy soldiers gently to sleep. The American military would simply interpret resistance “as damage and route around it“. The result of such thinking was an American military that could deter a large country, destroy a medium-sized country, or occupy a small country.

This policy shift from the mass armies of mid-century America to its smaller and more élite just-in-time replacement assumed a strong ability to accurately see the future. This is understandable: part of any defense plan is building the force you want that lets you do what you want to create the future you want. Unfortunately, the most neglected yet important part of a defense plan is building the force you need to survive what you don’t want to do in a future you don’t want. Building a magic bullet force assumes you’ll always enjoy the luxury of fighting whoever, whatever, wherever, whenever, and however you want, protected by an all-seeing eye so powerful and so pervasive that it provides perfect predictive power. The power of prophecy will free you from the margin of safety supplied by the quantitative outputs of the 20th century with just-in-time margins supplied by the qualitative outputs of the 21st.

If the last decade should have taught Americans anything, it should have taught them that contemporary American can’t predict the future. However, the correct solution (stop treating false prophecy as gospel) has been widely ignored in favor of the wrong solution (bet everything on false prophecy, only this time more aggressively)." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA)

In the era of specialization (and over-specialization), military capabilities are best kept across a range of generalizations. To do otherwise creates opportunities for an assymetric opponent.

"In the wars of the 21st century, thousands died and trillions were spent based merely on the authority of prophecy that was little more predictive than the steely glint of Donald Rumsfeld’s bespectacled eyes and the firmness of his jaw. The result was a force that manfully struggled its way to relative operational success despite the obstacles the Pentagon put in its way. The military danced dreadfully close to the edge but escaped operationally unscathed. Strategically, however, the military’s combat forces are depleted by repeat overseas visits, its hospitals are packed with lifelong (patients), and its weaponry has a decade of wear and that will be expensive to replace if it ever is replaced. Such is the fate of a magic bullet force that found itself in wars that were more manpower and resource intensive than anticipated by Pentagon prophets."

Remember going "to war with the army you have"? And that bit of wisdom came from someone who'd had some considerable time to design and develop the sort of army he should have, rather than continuing on his pre-war quest for transformation.

( I was hotly furious when I first heard that soundbite from Sec. Rumsfeld and remain at least coldy so even today.)

" It may turn out that alternative forms for applying social violence like the mass participatory conscript armies that dominated between the American Civil War and Vietnam and the mass participatory electorates that coalesced to sustain them are obsolescent in today’s political economy as the Mongol hordes or the Greco-Macedonian phalanx.

The general principle remains: Master Sun wisely advised the warring kings of the late Spring and Autumn period to mix orthodox and unorthodox to produce victory. However, he would have never advised them to be all unorthodox all the time. The emphasis on élite formations on the scale envisioned by America’s most enthusiastic magic bulletheads seeks to institutionalize the unorthodox. Master Sun would have scoffed at this long-nosed red-headed Eastern barbarian idiocy. He knew that the unorthodox, when overemployed, ceases to be unorthodox and becomes orthodox." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

7/9

re: "I Love the Swiss"

LTCOL P at OPFOR ("Fair Specimens of Citizen Soldiers...") proposed the following:

"Think Swiss. Act Swiss."

Here's why:

"The Swiss have a long tradition of muscular self-defense, and are now intent on beefing up the size and strength of their army. …"

6/27

re: "Wet Work is Better"

Grim at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") gives credit where credit is due.

Money quote(s):

"(T)his is better than what we are doing, with our drone-and-airstrikes program of targeted killing, in at least three ways.

1) It is the mark of a more competent intelligence service."

Some inside baseball here: an intelligence service collects, analyzes, and disseminates intelligence; turning raw data and information from a variety of overt and covert sources into contextualized and/or actionable intelligence then putting it in the hands of those who should have it. There's a bit more to it than that, i.e., the intelligence cycle, but that's the gist of it.

A secret service may do all that, may also include security and counter-intelligence functions, and may go beyond covert and overt collection into the realm of covert action. Covert action is not, strictly speaking, part of the intelligence cycle any more than, say, dropping bombs is part of the intelligence cycle.

This function, if you will, of a secret service puts me in mind of Soviet battle doctrine regarding how to jam radio transmitters: with artillery.

"2) It is more discriminating."

There is that. Of course, even assassins sometimes hit the wrong target or cause collateral damage, even when they're using the up-close-and-personal approach.

"3) It cuts down on political consequences."

Sure, it injects some uncertainty into the scenario. There's not a lot of plausible deniability for the U.S. when a Predator drone drops a Hellfire missile into a remote compound or an AQ convoy somewhere; at this point only one player is known to have and employ them. When it's unclear who's responsible then the blame and its consequences may be avoided; uncertainty also gives other actors, who may privately approve, enough political elbow room to avoid having to publicly condemn the U.S. in order to appease domestic or international constituents.

"If we're going to wage war through the targeted killing of individuals, we ought to engage in 'wet work' instead."

It's an approach. And I don't mean that sarcastically. There's nothing in the Constitution that forbids it, after all, just an executive order and, perhaps, some legislation that makes getting approval a non-trivial exercise, IIRC. When phrases like "all options remain on the table" are used, that includes the option of "direct action" as well.

11/2