re: "Breaking: Major Hassan, Fort Hood Jihadi Shooter, Will Be Tried By Court Martial, Will Be Eligible for Death Penalty"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ had this good news.

Commenting on the expense of a death-penalty case, he observed:

"(L)ike a Jaguar, it's worth every penny."

re: "American Denial"

Steve McCann at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") shared a little doom-saying to brighten our days.

Money quote(s):

"Many of us who immigrated to the United States from either war-ravaged or totalitarian countries, where freedom was either unknown or the quintessence of daydreams, find ourselves baffled by a trait common to the majority of Americans: the belief, consciously or subconsciously, that the worst cannot happen here. That somehow the demoralizing images and disturbing experiences of those elsewhere are confined to those poor souls and will never find their way to American shores."

Oddly, we import by the tens of thousands (as refugees) the very people whose folkways and cultures make this more likely.

"Is this mindset a by-product of 66 years of unprecedented peace and prosperity? Is there something unique in the American character that revels in denial? Is there over-confidence that Americans can accomplish anything? Is this outlook the end-product of a lack of education and appreciation of how the success of the United States is extraordinary and of the fact that since modern man took his first tentative step on the plains of Africa 200,000 years ago until the present less than 9% of all humanity has ever experienced true freedom?"

Yes and no. There's nothing uniquely American about denial. But there are uniqueties about the American character, however it might currently be alloyed.

"The United States is unique among nations because of its founding principles, geography and mix of cultures and races. Those factors enabled the country to overcome a myriad of tribulations in its early years and develop an atmosphere conducive to an overwhelming barrage of creativity, ingenuity and individual advancement."

The "mix of cultures and races" part actually something of a recent development. For most of the four centuries of America's modern history, America's non-indigenous cultures and races were a fairly homogenous blend of Western Europeans; Indians and Blacks were outsiders to it.

"The American populace is no longer taught the basics of the the founding the United States and how it was able to achieve the peace and prosperity that is the hallmark of the present day. Nor are they aware that the annals of history are littered with the refuse of once invincible cultures whose citizenry never thought the worst would ever happen to them. All succumbed to greed, complacency and hubris; traits which have also begun to dominate American society.

While some Americans are waking up to the potential economic and security disasters that loom over the horizon, the vast majority are not. There still exists, deep in the recesses of the American mindset, the entrenched thought that none of this will really happen. That somehow, because this is the United States, there will be an easy and painless way to offset the potential problems -- that is if these dilemmas really are genuine.

Those of us who have first-hand experience from other nations of what the worst can be, say with great assurance that it can happen in the United States and it will unless Americans, and in particular the governing class, awaken from their self-induced stupor and honestly face that reality."

Words of warning indeed.

_____

Hat tip to Col. B. Bunny at Eternity Road.

re: "I remember Carter's Army"

Bill at Castle Argghhh! reminds us of the bad-old-days (before the Reagan build-up).

Money quote(s):

"We could probably scare the rest of you for hours with tales of how over 50% of our equipment was deadlined because there was no money in the budget for parts, maybe 30% of the remainder was parked in the Motor Pool because there was no money in the budget to pay for fuel for them, but it didn't matter much that we couldn't drive them to the training areas, because there was no money in the budget to pay for training ammo."

Yours Truly recalls how things improved as resources began to trickle down to the troop level during the early years of the Reagan administration, and as how things dried up again during the Clinton years.

"A reporter interviewing the commander of NATO's land forces asked him what equipment the Sovs would need to reach the English Channel if they decided to crash through Fulda, and he answered, "Shoes."

Carter's military, not just Carter's Army, was hollower than the Keebler elves' tree, and we all knew it. It still amazes me is that enough of us were yet willing to fight World War III if it happened..."

We happy few.

re: "Did the U.S. Stretch International Law In Order to Recognize Libyan Rebels?"

Julian Ku at Opinio Juris ("a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations") found someone to answer this question:

"The U.S. government has recently announced it will recognize the Benghazi authority as the “legitimate” government of Libya. But is it departing from international practice or the international law relating to statehood and recognition in order to do so?"

re: "On Nation Building"

Andrew at Abu Muqawama ("a blog that focuses on small wars and insurgencies in addition to regional issues in the Middle East") considers the do-ability of nation-building.

Money quote(s):

"I firmly believe that when you decide to go to war, you should be prepared to use any and all means at your disposal to effect victory. If that means building institutions of the state, as we have done in both Iraq and Afghanistan, okay. You can't "win" in either place, after all, without at least creating strong police forces to take your place and keep public order so that a peaceful political process and economy can thrive. You have to create a secure environment in any post-conflict state, and unless you plan on staying forever, that means building up competent local security forces. That's a form of nation-building that I can support."

I remain unconvinced that victory is unattainable unless some sort of nation-buiding is implemented by the military victor. Of course, if you make that part of your definition of victory, then the prophecy becomes self-fulfilling. Or self-defeating.

Clearly, if our invasion of Iraq was actually tied to GWOT-related goals, then "draining the swamp" so that whatever replaced Saddam is no longer a supporter and enabler of terrorism has to be part of your war aims. And at least a limited reconstruction is then required. This goes double for Afghanistan but is complicated by Pakistan's role as both a sanctuary and a supporter for the Taliban. Similarly, our efforts in Iraq are complicated by Iran's operations against us there and, to a lesser extent, by Syria's.

"(E)mploying whatever means you need after the United States enters a conflict and deciding to intervene in the first place are two different things. I, for one, in large part because I am all too familiar with what a "resource suck" wars can become, am reluctant to intervene in places like Libya in the first place. And, had anyone asked me about Iraq in 2002 or 2003, I would have offered the same opinion there. But I whole-heartedly endorse the U.S. decision to rebuild and train Iraqi military and polices forces after the invasion."

This is why the differences between a punitive raid or expedition and an invasion are so critical. U.S. (and Coalition) forces immediately develop a "footprint" that becomes a magnet for those who would do us harm, either as a local resistance or as transnational actors.

" In Afghanistan, at least, our aid and development projects have arguably exacerbated the drivers of conflict. We have created a rentier state on steroids, and as we begin to withdraw the majority of our aid and development funds, it will take a minor miracle to avoid Afghanistan's economic collapse. The only area in which we are reasonably competent is in building military organizations, which we have a lot of experience doing, but even there, we are better at building military organizations in our own image rather than the kinds of police/gendarme forces countries like Afghanistan really need.

Why do we suck at nation-building? A lot of reasons. Here are just a few: (1) We are ignorant. We do not know enough about the cultural, political and social contexts of foreign environments to fully appreciate how our interventions will affect those environments. Thus our aid and development spending (and military operations, to be fair), meant to ameliorate drivers of conflict, often exacerbate them. (2) We do not provide enough oversight and accountability for the projects we initiate. This is boring but important. We have spent ungodly sums of money in both Iraq and Afghanistan and have not provided enough contracting officers to effectively oversee the money we have spent. How do we just give tens of millions of dollars to agencies and departments in the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan without any oversight? Lack of contracting officers. How are contracts in Afghanistan divided up between shady sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors, with tax-payer money falling into the hands of the Taliban and warlords? Lack of contracting officers. (3) We do not have any patience -- and we have limited resources. Nation-building takes time. Where we can nation-build at relatively low-cost over an extended period of time, as in Colombia, we can be successful. But asking Americans to spend massive amounts of money for an extended period of time in Iraq or Afghanistan is a recipe for ... turning your average U.S. tax-payer into an isolationist. " (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Disclosure: CAA is not a contracting officer. Not anymore, at least.

re: "I Guess We’re Done with Afghanistan"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") examines the menu of strategies, as only he can.

Money quote(s):

"So I guess we’re kinda leaving Afghanistan now. They’ll be withdrawing 30,000 troops in mission “Reelect Obama”. So did we win? I never understand these modern conflicts. Seems like it would be so much easier if we just trashed a country and left and declared victory; it’s this trying to help the country out that’s so complicated and makes it hard to tell when you win.

Except, with how the Taliban sheltered al Qaeda, shouldn’t the win conditions be the total extinction of the Taliban? Shouldn’t they be gone forever without even the possibility of them being genetically resurrected and having rocket launchers put on them?"

Aside from the issue of grafting rocket launchers onto Taliban clones (sort of a recurring theme or running joke at IMAO), this goes straight to the heart of a basic question of strategy: punitive expedition vs. defeat & reconstruction.

"(M)aybe this is part of that strategy. We’ll be all like, “We’re leaving Afghanistan now. Bye bye. Hope the Taliban don’t come back, but if they do, not our problem.” Then the Taliban will run in and be like, “Yay! We’ve chased out the Americans! The country is ours again!” Then the Americans troops will be like, “Ha! We were just hiding behind the bushes! Now we kill you! BANG BANG BANG!”

That’s strategery; I don’t know if Obama is up for something like that. That would take the mindset of winning, and the Democrats don’t really seem to have that. Like they kept complaining about Iraq taking away focus from Afghanistan, but as soon as focus went back to that country, all they wanted was to get out."

I guess I'd call this proposed strategy the "double-reverse whack-a-mole." It's a bit more oblique than most American military strategies tend to be, and suffers the serious drawback of relying on future leaders and commanders to actually implement it rather than stopping after the getting-run-out-of-Dodge phase of the plan.

"(W)hat exactly are our goals in the Middle East anyway? Do we really expect there to eventually be another country there than Israel that doesn’t act like it’s run by barbaric three-year-olds? I guess it could happen, but I think we’d have to be a stronger example than a country that just comes in and occupies until it decides it’s bored of it."

Whatever one thinks of this characterization of the nations formerly part of the Persian or Roman civilizations, the second point about setting examples sort of stings a little bit. Wonder why that is?

re: "ThinkProgress Flips Out, Unaware of Links to US Muslim Brotherhood Group"

Dave Reaboi at Big Peace reports on old news made new again.

Money quote(s):

"ThinkProgress sent a few of their precocious ‘reporters’ to cover the Western Conservative Summit in Denver, and tried to ambush Frank Gaffney on Herman Cain’s recent and ill-considered meeting with Islamic Society of America (ISNA) President Mohamed Magid.

The breathlessness with which ThinkProgress reports on Gaffney’s comment is unintentionally quite funny. ThinkProgress’ Scott Keyes is so out of his depth on this issue, he runs an entire story on something pretty unremarkable: that ISNA is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

This "news" is news only to those who either haven't been paying attention or who believe that the "A" in CAIR signifies anything other than geography.

"It’s always fun to trip up ThinkProgress on the logic train; Mother Jones, DailyKos, and the others who’re running with this story and have never heard of the Holy Land Foundation Trial and the Muslim Brotherhood in America will continue to spin their wheels and work themselves into a lather."

The alphabet soup of interlocking MB front organizations amount to little more than the modern day Bund; in other words, in a saner time they would have withered away in shame after 9/11.

"What’s more troubling than ThinkProgress, of course, is why Herman Cain felt the need to meet with the president of the Islamic Society of North America, a group, “among those organizations created by the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood.”"

That's a little troubling, I'll admit, but hardly unprecedented among U.S. politicians. ISNA (and CAIR, &tc.) will continue to present a problem of continuing education until such time as they, and their adherents, are either outlawed, interned, exiled, or treated as hostile combatants.

AO - BDF, Guat loggers in Chiquibul gunfight!!

Lots of countries have trouble securing their borders.

re: "Unfinished Business"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") knows who's been naughty.

Money quote(s):

"Iran is stepping up their nasty little tricks in neighboring Iraq"

Well, why wouldn't they? Is there an imaginable possible downside?

"(W)hile it’s true that the military’s nation building capacity is already stretched to its limits, much of our nation breaking capacity is idling. As an oil exporting country that is hugely reliant on imported processed fuel, Iran is vulnerable at sea and in the air. Just four weeks of the kind of effort undertaken against the strategically meaningless Libyan regime would bring the mullahcracy to its knees and help liberate the creative energies of a rising generation that has no personal memory of the SAVAK, the shah or the revolution.

We have expended enormous sums of blood and treasure rebuilding Iraq, and what happens there as we draw down forces matters. The Iranians simply cannot be trusted to play a useful role. And whether you call it a Global War on Terror, a War Against Violent Extremism or Overseas Contingency Operations, there is little doubt that we have been very much trimming around the edges of the problem rather than digging at its roots. Iran supports terrorists in the Levant who attack a US ally, and the country’s leadership is elbow deep in the blood of US soldiers – it has been for decades."

Iran has been consistent in implementing its policy stance (i.e., implacable hostility) towards the U.S. since the revolution overthrew the Shah's government.

"The bottom line comes down to this: Iran is in a de facto state of war with the United States.

There ought to be a reckoning."

Gotta love those Serenity/Firefly allusions.

re: "Afghanistan, the Way Forward -- You Know What's Coming -- Send In the Expeditionary Ones"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") anticipates a mighty surge.

Money quote(s):

"One side is not happy with any substantial withdrawal from Afghanistan, the other side is not happy that it's not fast nor substantial enough. When 33,000 troops come home by next summer, we will still have some 70,000 troops in that war zone not counting the civilians."

Remember: this is not the "war of choice." This one had to be fought. Whether we should still be fighting it is a very good question, and proceeds directly from one's vision for a post-war Afghanistan. If you follow the Pottery Barn model of postwar reconstruction, then trying to turn Afghanistan into Switzerland makes a lot of sense.

"I expect that the call for more diplomats and civilians to go to Afghanistan will follow whatever size, shape or form the military drawdown in that country will take shape."

I'm gonna have to go with Domani Spero on this one, barring a major change in strategic direction for Afghanistan.

"This is not the first time we've heard the idea of a civilian expeditionary corps. Remains watching if it will stick this time.

But as in Iraq, the transition from military to eventually civilian-led, because that's where it's going -- will be challenging.

We are now seeing the "surge" of contractors in Iraq to continue reconstruction work and to provide personal security for our civilian workers. As we move to a "smaller" military footprint in Afghanistan, there will be additional requirement for diplomats and civilians to take over. Only it will be in a much larger scale when it happens and much more expensive. Afghanistan is much larger in size than Iraq and has a more difficult terrain which means bringing in civilians and protecting, feeding, housing them will be much more complex without the US military."

Don't worry, this will all be attempted during a reductionist budget environment where "discretionary spending" gets chopped. What could go wrong?

re: "Japanese Heavy Equipment Company Leaves Iran Over 'Crane Hangings' "

El Cid at Big Peace reported on an intersection of two shame cultures with a guilt culture.

Money quote(s):

"A Japanese heavy machinery manufacturer said it has cut business ties with the Iranian government following a report that its cranes have been used for public executions."

Hard to believe nobody at any of these crane manufacturers ever noticed any pictures of cranes in the media of one of the custumers. After all, who could possibly ever recognize their own product being prominently displayed.

"United Against Nuclear Iran published on its website a list of seven international manufacturers exporting cranes and other heavy equipment to Iran, along with pictures of the cranes being used for public executions.

Crane-hanging has become a common in the Islamic Republic. According to the op-ed, “Amnesty International estimates that as many as 13 people had been hanged in public by the end of April, compared to a total 14 in all of 2010. In a number of instances, those executed have been left hanging high in the air on construction cranes for all to see.”"

Still, whatever the delay, whatever the motivator that stops future imports of foreign cranes, let Iran build its own cranes for this purpose, if it can.

Now, about all that nuclear technology....

re: "Errors Were Made"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") posted as good a recap of why this is important as any I have seen.

Money quote(s):

"In the era of the Soviets, reforms were quietly enacted by bureaucrats with the concession that “errors had been made” by their predecessors. It was a nifty way for current party apparatchiks to distance themselves from policies that had resulted in the death of millions, while attempting to reassure citizens that things were now in good hands.

Of course, the new gang would end up being pretty much the old gang, and errors would continue to be be made by the nomenklatura."

All that studying on the habits and habitats of our onetime enemies is still paying off. Nomenklatura indeed!

"(T)he Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms – which many wags have said ought more to be a privately owned convenience chain than a federal office – allowed the sale of AK-47s through known gun runners to Mexico in order to round up the “big fish” south of the border, irrespective of how many “little fish” had to pay with their lives." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

"(T)hings got serious when US Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was killed by a weapon sold to southron drug cartels by agents of the US government.

It’s hard, in modern times, to imagine a policy more deliberately amoral."

As they say, it's all fun and games until somebody (on our side) gets hurt. Of course, if your agents and employees are just pawns, you know, the sort of people who didn't go to the right schools, then eggs and omelets, right?

"(S)enior US officials – including SecState Hillary Clinton – were using the reality of such activity as an ostensible reason to burden the legal purchases of firearms to law abiding US citizens.

Hanlon’s Razor applies: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”"

Hard to believe Sec. Clinton, who is way too smart to be tarred by this brush, would have been stupid enough to become incriminated, er, involved. If you follow the embedded link you find that her statement had much more to do with drugs than with guns.

re: "Does the acquittal of Geert Wilders signal a changing Netherlands?"

Robert Zeliger at PASSPORT ("A Blog By The Editors Of Foreign Policy") marked a significant development in Holland.

Money quote(s):

"The Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders has called the Quran a "fascist book" that ought to be banned. He has referred to the Prophet Mohammed as "the devil," and said all Muslim immigration to the Netherlands should be stopped and immigrants currently there should be paid to leave. He's said women who wear the hijab should have to pay a tax and if Muslims continue immigrating, it would mean the end "European and Dutch civilization as we know it.""

Clearly offensive speech (at least to Muslims, and certainly at least some others) but Constitutionally-protected speech in an American context. It's nice to see this sort of thing (free speech, that is) catch on in foreign parts.

"(H)e was acquitted on charges of inciting racial hatred."

If a member of parliament can't speak freely, what hope is there for the average citizen?

"(T)he truth is that the social and political ground have been shifting in the supposedly tolerant society for years. Last year, Wilders's Party for Freedom won 15 percent of the vote in national elections, making it the third largest in parliament. And his ideas are slowly creeping into mainstream politics: The Netherlands has some of the strictest immigration laws in Europe, and has banned face-covering attire like the niqab.

The current government depends on Wilders and his party to remain in power. Though not formally part of government, they are at the very least a silent partner. Without their votes, the minority-government wouldn't be able to pass its legislation."

Good political analysis, answering the question: "So what?"

"Wilders's judge today said that while some of his statements were "crude and denigrating," they were nevertheless protected speech. But the decision might widen the scope of the debate on multiculturalism in Dutch society, and embolden Wilders to take his anti-Islam and anti-immigration crusade further."

Widening "the scope of the debate on multiculturalism" should be considered a feature, not a bug. Why should a social construct or consensus (which is apparently far from universally held) be exempt from debate?

re: " diminished president, a diminished global power"

Peter Feaver at Shadow Government ("Notes From The Loyal Opposition") shared some observations from Singapore.

Money quote(s):

"Traveling abroad is a great opportunity to look at American foreign policy and politics with fresh eyes. And this time, with the debt ceiling debate receiving prominent attention in every corner of the globe, the effect was especially vivid."

How so?

"(W)hen I talk with government insiders, people with actual experience dealing with the U.S. government (as opposed to watching it on BBC and the Daily Show), there is often a quietly expressed nostalgia for earlier administrations -- even, gasp, the Bush administration. A grudging consensus appears to be emerging"

How can this be?

"(Interestingly, my interlocutors are much quicker to give Secretary Clinton strong marks. They seem to attribute any good things to her and any bad things to the president.)

Yet the parameters of the debate were further damaging to our global leadership. The choice appeared to be between, on the one hand, joining the ranks of bankrupt failed states who default on their financial obligations or, on the other hand, drastically slashing those parts of the government budget that are most crucial to our global role (defense and international operations). There were few voices, on either side of the aisle, making the case for adequately funding these key pillars of American power and the inference that many would draw seems inescapable: Americans are heeding the siren song of isolationism and global retreat. No one I talked to wanted to see the United States walk any further along this path. But few were confident we could or would reverse course soon."

It's fascinating how Sec. Clinton (or "S" in FSO-speak) has politically managed to both be part of the administration and not tarred with the brush of its problems. My admiration for her political chops increases nearly daily.

re: "Biden calls Republicans terrorists"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") is all out of love for the vice president.

Money quote(s):

"I realize that politicians sometimes wrestle with difficult issues and tempers can flare, but the number of times that Democrats have compared the opposition to terrorists during these debt discussions is disgraceful. It is low and shameful, and I wish I could say I expect better. But I don't, even from the second highest office holder in the land, a man elevated far above his abilities."

&

"As for the rest of the Dems who think that fiscal responsibility equates to slaughtering innocents, well prepare yourselves for the chopping block come next November. The American people are sick of a bunch of jackasses who think that they have first claim on the fruits of our labor. Wrong answer. We the people do not owe Washington our earnings with whatever they feel they don't need grudgingly returned to the productive class. Looters and moochers have overstepped their bounds. Time to set them straight and shut the redistribution of wealth machines down."

re: "If Somaliland is an "Island of Stability" why don't we recognise it? "

Gawain Towler at England Expects asks some solid questions.

Money quote(s):

"(I)t is one of the "Islands of stability and order" in the area. So why on earth is he celebrating the Independence of Southern Sudan, which does not fulfil;l; the criteria set by the African Union for sovereign state status (the pre colonial borders) and failing to do so for Somaliland?

Britain should take the lead, if we accept, as we do the remarkable and peaceful existence of Somaliland over the past 20 years, why on earth do we not go the extra mile to support their accession to the Commonwealth. After all as a former British protectorate they have more right to be there than Mozambique or Rwanda?"

Pay no attention to "international law." It functions, like road signs in the Third World, more as decoration and, perhaps, guidelines, than anything binding on sovereign states. It binds no one, except when someone wants to be bound.

(Or to have an excuse for inaction.)

Not being an "Africa hand" in anything but the most broad (and mostly academic) senses, I can't explain why Somaliland gets the cold shoulder from the international community.

re: "War Crime! Taliban: Yes, We Murdered Brit. Scott McLaren (bumped)"

Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at The Jawa Report ("Sand people, get it?") enjoys moral clarity.

Money quote(s):

"Can you imagine the reaction from the European and American Left had this been a Taliban insurgent who was murdered at the hands of our soldiers? Not only would there be widespread protest, but our military would do the right thing and treat those responsible as criminals." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Our "right thing" and their (the Taliban's) "right thing" are two different.... things. Ours is based on a centuries of law of warfare which had quite different aims than that based on the koran.

"(T)here is a difference between us and them. We're the good guys. They are simply evil." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

&

"They captured him alive and murdered him in cold blood.

I get the arguments for abandoning Afghanistan based on the notion that the country and its people are just so backwards that there is nothing that really can be done. I also get the argument that if we don't send at least another 100k troops more than Obama's "surge" then there's really no point. I think these are legitimate arguments."

re: "Attack on American Convoy in Baghdad Kills USAID Contractor, Wounds Three"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") plotted to two data points.

Money quote(s):

"This is the second time in several days that a civilian convoy was attacked in Iraq."

It's not as if the bad-guys in Iraq have ever differentiated between civilians and military in terms of attacks.

"Two is not a trend, but this is worrisome; how much worse can this get post-military withdrawal?"

Lots.

re: "On the one hand, on the other hand ... "

Helen at Your Freedom and Ours ("A blog about politics and other things... ....but always from the right perspective.") shows that pluckiness still abides in Finland.

Money quote(s):

"Finland is not about to give up its own representations abroad."

re: "National Security Part 5: The Power Elite"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road takes a dim view of where we're headed.

Money quote(s):

"(C)itizen morale is an important -- nay, indispensable -- component of the national security. It determines how many of us will answer a "call to the colors," and how ardently we'll undertake the tasks it demands.

For most of its history, the United States was a high-morale society. Indeed, Albert Jay Nock, one of the premier cynics of his time, described our morale as like unto "an army on the march." It was so high that it sent millions of men into combat to protect and liberate faceless others, not once but twice."

"From the standpoint of the private individual, convinced by the words and deeds of the power elite that he is merely fodder for the State's schemes, disaffiliating from the nation and concentrating on personal security and gain is both reflexive and purely rational. Why should he take up arms to defend something that ceaselessly strives to shackle and mulct him? Why should he accept a politician's plea that he sacrifice for the greater good? He's been persuaded that a sacrifice is all he'll ever be. There's no future in it."

"Matters become particularly grave when the power elite acquires a general reputation for considering itself above the law. Law in a Western nation is nominally superior to any individual; that's the basis of republican governance. Lawbreakers are supposedly conceded no immunities because of their station in life. But in recent years, the practice has diverged greatly from the theory.

Should the power elite manifest a disdain for the requirements of the law through its actions, it will be exceedingly difficult to conceal that attitude from the citizenry. As no one ever thinks of himself as "below" anyone else, the inevitable consequence is the evaporation of respect for the law as such. Citizens will ignore, evade, and outrightly break the law whenever it's possible, safe, and to their advantage. Even the most popular laws will be indifferently enforced, as the enforcers will progressively more often "sell exemptions" -- i.e., look the other way for a consideration -- than act according to the black-letter law and their public responsibilities. They, too, have their individual interests to serve.

Domestic law and the prevailing level of respect for it might not seem relevant to national security. Yet there are forces, some overtly hostile, that exploit our willingness to break our own laws. The general incoherence of our attitude toward illegal immigration provides an excellent case study: it's not just job-hungry Mexicans that flow across our borders. The ongoing traffic in illegal drugs, and the intentions of those whom it funds, provide another." (Bold typeface added for emphasis.)

&

"(A) set of dynamics have operated, since the end of World War II at least, to reduce American national security. In part, it's because we've accepted more external commitments than we can honor, whether because of the finity of our forces or the strains on our pocketbooks. But in greater part, it's because of the social, economic, and political deterioration we've allowed here at home.

Your Curmudgeon must reluctantly assess America's national security as low, perhaps dangerously low. The extreme risk-aversion of our major foreign enemies is our main protection at this time. Even a small chance that the awesome military power we command might be deployed against them is enough to deter them...for now. But individuals and groups already within our borders that have acted to undermine our law, our economy, and our morale from within are exposed to no such risk -- and their successes to date have emboldened still other persons and groups, including some that are nominally, but in no other way, American."

re: "Now It Is Up To Us To Arrange The Meeting...."

Deebow at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") has some harsh words for MAJ Hasan's chain-of-command.

Money quote(s):

"The US Army needs to make an example of this guy for what he has done, and show the world that this is how we deal with those that commit these kinds of acts, but I will reiterate, I hope that the chain of command that was supervising this guy has some giant rubber stamp across each of their service records saying in 2" block letters NON-PROMOTABLE. They are at least 50 percent culpable here because they had a chance to fight at least a fairly serious delaying action in seeing that this guy wasn't promoted, was assigned to someone to be out processed from the US Army, reported to US Army CID, the FBI, and after being tossed out on his ear, placed on a terrorist watch list. But evidently, instead they decided that they didn't want our "diversity" to become a casualty either. Do you think if he was sexually harrassing female colleagues, US Army Civilian office staff or patients that he would have not been taken action against and sent packing by his superiors?"

A generation of political correctness, and (justifiable) fears of career repercussions led directly to this result. While, as a group, I would hesitate long and hard before criticizing the physical courage of army officers, I would hesitate nearly as long before saying anything positive about their moral courage.

And when I finished hesitating I'd note that military officers know a thing or two about strategy, about tactics, about operations. And that these fields apply as much to the non-kinetic realm of Pentagon politics as anywhere else. And that there's such a thing a not fighting battles you know you can't win, deciding which hill it is you want to kill your career on, which sword upon which you wish to fall.

Unfortunately, in the case of MAJ Hasan, a long list of officers made their calculations and decided he wasn't worth it.

And they were wrong.

re: "Look out, Foreign Policy! Here comes Talyn!"

Charles Crawford at Blogoir ("1. A digital hybrid of blog and memoir presented on a daily basis, or not. 2. fig. A quixotic attempt to make sense of the senseless; a spark of hope. 3. v. To narrate in a not necessarily coherent way one’s life and views") tackled some commentary on an article he'd written.

Money quote(s):

"(I)f you want to be paid to do a job, do the job as best you can (which is not always easy). If you have real qualms about the wisdom or morality of what you are told to do, go and get another job. Foreign Policy moves on, with you or without you."

It wasn't that long ago that I'd hear rumblings, from prospective FSO candidates, about their disagreements with the Bush administration's foreign policies, and about their moral qualms about it and how they'd have to resign in protest.

Generally, my advice to such is to maybe see about getting that job before deciding to resign in protest.

U.S. foreign service officers, and our British counter-parts, do not, by and large, make or set our nation's foreign policies. We carry it out, we communicate it, we implement it, but except at the very highest levels, we have Damn-all to say about what it's going to be on any given day.

FSOs do (or can) have some influence. We develop personal expertise in foreign areas and regions, obscure languages, personal contacts. We communicate, coming and going, what we learn and know to our superiors at post and, in our reporting, to Washington, D.C. And, until Wikileaks caused that conduit to dry up, our reporting cables could be accessed and read by analysts and policy-makers across the U.S. national security, defense, and intelligence communities.

So my advice to actual FSOs (not those wannabees in high dudgeon) is to make your reporting opportunities count. But tell the truth. Tell what you know and how you know it. Tell what you believe and why you believe it. Tell what you surmise and both its relevance and how you came to your conclusions. But above all tell the truth, not what you'd like to be true (though the Heavens fall).

"What's odd in fact is how few diplomats ever feel their bodily nerves a-rebelling against their instructions. Are diplomats insensate, wicked creatures little more than slaves whose servitude comes with better than average accommodation and lots of dull receptions?

Or is it that they know that as part of the way the world works and always will work there need to be ways for messages to be sent frankly between countries and leaders, even (especially?) when things get tough and unpleasant? A dirty job sometimes, but someone has to do it.

I report. You decide."

Remember the definition of a diplomat as an honorable man sent abroad to lie for his country? That honorable man retains his honor by never knowingly sending lies back to his country.

Policy-makers are going to make policy. It's what they do. And as frustrating as it sometimes is for intelligence analysts and for diplomats, your job is to serve as a conduit for information, adding whatever value you can along the way.

re: "How We Became a Nation of Warriors"

Stephen Glain published a condensed version of his new book at Salon ("the award-winning online news and entertainment Web site").

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF):

"State vs. Defense, the century-old competition between those who would confront America's overseas challenges through diplomatic means and those who would subdue them by force of arms, is all but decided. The economic and political resources commanded by the latter group are vast and powerful, while the former has been reduced to a cadre of supplicants forced to beg before the lavish table of the national security state. Such a lopsided state of affairs has been abetted by a citizenry generally uninterested in the policies carried out in its name and unwilling to share in the burden of their prosecution. Only now, with the specter of bankruptcy looming over the national accounts, are some in Washington daring to contest the bill for, if not the value of, unchecked global hegemony."

_____

Hat tip to The SWJ Editors

re: "Nuke the News: Unpopular in the Arab World"

As always, Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") summarized the news like no one else can.

Money quote(s):

"Maybe if our credit gets low enough, no one will lend us money anymore. Then we’ll finally have to buckle down balance our budget. Though, more likely, we’ll just declare bankruptcy. Oh, selling off our assets is going to be painful; I always liked Hawaii." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

&

"(H)ard to get worried over us being unpopular in the Arab world. It’s if we’re suddenly really popular there, then we should get worried. “Hmm… we have 90% popularity in the Arab world… OH NO! DID WE ACCIDENTALLY DO A HOLOCAUST?!!!” "

Impossible to argue with iron-clad logic like that, so why try?

re: "Obama Continues to Ignore Iran's Arming and Training of Shiite Militias as American Soldiers Die"

Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") defines an enemy.

Money quote(s):

"American soldiers in Iraq are being attacked and killed with increasing sophisticated weapons provided by Iran"

That statement has been true since at least 2004.

"Training is being provided by the Revolutionary Guards, which supports Shia terrorism worldwide.

A stern response in the form of a series of "accidents" at Iranian Revolutionary Guards bases or among IRG commanders might get Iranian attention, and if carefully targeted, could decapitate the leadership authorizing the attacks without overt war. It would be fighting Iran on its own terms, in the kind of guerilla warfare fighting Americans have excelled at since Major Benjamin Church led the first American ranger units in King Philips War a hundred years before we were an inkling of a nation.

We know how to defeat Iran at their own game. We simply need the political will to engage in this kind of conflict and win.

Of course, there doesn't seem to be the political will to counter Iran"

A truly lovely idea.

re: "Diplomatic Carrots, Undiplomatic Sticks"

Charles Crawford at Blogoir ("aims to explain in a open-minded, reasonable way how diplomacy works in practice") made some excellent points about diplomatic (and other) negotiations.

Money quote(s):

" Do the Chinese/Russians/N Koreans think that a key aim of negotiation is to 'reach agreement'?

Hell no. They want to WIN, or failing that win as much as possible. Negotiation and 'agreement' are simply possible methods to get there.

So is another outcome - negotiations crashing in failure - that shows steely resolve, as the Poles this very week have been keen to demonstrate within the EU.

In other words, very often a negotiation is not about what it says it is about. On the surface it is about EU Emissions Targets, or Global Climate Change, or new World Trade regimes. In substance it is more likely to be about who decides what, this time round and on into the future." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Sometimes I wonder if U.S. diplomacy suffers from an internal, systemic flaw our negotiations must result in some, er, result. That in some fashion our diplomat's next annual evaluation simply must include a successful treaty or something.

And that for our political leadership the motivation is even stronger to get some agreement, any agreement.

Just once I'd like to see a U.S. diplomat publicly receive an award, a medal even, for refusing to settle for a bad deal.

"Most negotiations are all about one thing: who in fact is weaker?"

How one measures weakness doesn't matter at that point, the negotiation will settle who is the weaker negotiator.

"The whole point of Moscow's time-honoured diplomatic negotiating style is to project a sense of depersonalised inexorable doom for anyone or anything which gets in the way of whatever Moscow currently wants.

This can be countered, of course, by hanging in there very tough: some of it is bluff, and Russian diplomacy can be as inept as everyone else's. But the very fact that the Russians set about their business in this way helps frame issues and likely outcomes on their terms and projects toughness/determination. A handy way to start." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Again, sometimes you need to walk away from the table in order to win.

"(T)he reason why Carrots and Sticks work (or don't) in diplomacy has little to do with their 'objective' size and plausibility.

It's all much more 'subjective'. It's about how the person with the carrots/stick is seen by the supposed target, and even more about how both the carrot-sticker and the target perceive themselves and what they believe the other one believes about the problem, the balance of forces and how this situation plays into other situations."

See above: negotiations will hinge on who is the better negotiator. (And I make no great shakes about being much of a negotiator myself.) Of course, holding a strong hand makes up for a lot.

re: "Hussein strikes out"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") rakes Pres. Obama over the coals.

Money quote(s) of a non-ad hominem nature:

"just how much clout the NY Times and MSNBC have in the Arab world"

Just about none. Don't believe me? Check overall literacy rates in the Arab world (litaracy in any languages, even their own), look into how often (for instance) Al Jazeera cites MSNBC, and do the math.

"because the vast majority of the Muslims.... live in tribal and honor cultures and they only respect the strong horse"

Nice placement of a UBL "strong horse" reference there.

"the hated cowboy W because say what you want about him, he would kick your ass if you crossed him"

I believe it was the Kennedy administration which followed the adage "Don't get mad, get even." Words to govern by.

re: "Mastering the Foreign Service exam"

Some worthwhile reading, for aspiring FSOs, was put up at Two Crabs ("A wanderlust couple exploring the world... one pub at a time!") some time ago. It's still good reading.

re: "On Jose Antonio Vargas"

Daniel Foster at The Corner ("a web-leading source of real-time conservative opinion") tells the tale of an illegal alien.


Money quote(s):


"Vargas was sent to California by his Filipino mother at age twelve. He was raised there by his (naturalized) grandparents, and did not discover he was in the country illegally until he brought his green card to the DMV at age 16 and was told it was a forgery."

Minor children are victims (at worst) or merely passengers (at best) when it comes to illegal immigration. And under current law no legal penalty (aside from deportation) attaches to them thereby. But read on.


"Vargas entered the country illegally after his grandfather paid a coyote $4,500 to smuggle him in. The grandfather then obtained a fake passport and green card for Vargas, which they used to acquire a valid Social Security card. But that card, which subjected Vargas’ right to work to the approval of the then-INS, was illegally doctored, allowing Vargas to secure job after job for more than a decade by showing nothing more than a photocopy of a fake document."

Grandpa ought to be getting a visit from various federal agencies regarding his multiple crimes in this matter.


"(A) fear- and shame-driven Vargas, with the aid of his family, perpetuated and compounded those crimes (Vargas eventually got around to what you might redundantly call fraudulent tax fraud, repeatedly reporting himself as a citizen rather than a “permanent resident”, when in fact he was neither), elicits from me nothing like the outpouring of support Vargas is already enjoying on the Left.


Punishing a minor by removing him from the culture he’s adopted as his own, for the crimes of his parents, does strike me as fundamentally unfair. But what liberals leave out of this story, time and again, is a competing — and in my view overriding — unfairness. Reihan has argued repeatedly, and effectively, that we should treat access to the U.S. economy, not to mention its extensive welfare state, as a scarce resource. We can debate and debate the best way of distributing this resource– from “not at all” to “come one, come all” and everywhere in between. But distributing it based on who manages most successfully to violate the law, at the expense of would-be immigrants who are honoring the process, is surely not a valid option."

Fear and shame notwithstanding, Mr. Vargas had a choice upon reaching age 18. Actually, he had a six month window at that point where, even though he was accuring unlawful presence in the U.S. for which he, having reached age 18, was now legally responsible, it wasn't until he had reached six months of unlawful presence that he'd even incurred a visa ineligibility!

You understand that correctly: he could have flown back to Manila, turned around and legally submitted an application for a U.S. visa, and there would have been no automatic visa ineligibility for all the years of living illegally in the U.S. right up until he was 18 years and six months of age.

re: "Curious, Strange, Whatever -- Victoria Nuland is Officially Announced as New State Dept Spokesperson"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe") provided a run-down on issues relating to this appointment.

Money quote(s):

"The Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs is the head of the Bureau of Public Affairs within the United States Department of State. Typically, the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs is also the official spokesperson of the State Department. The Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs reports to the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs ("R").

On May 26, 2011, the State Department announced the appointment of Ambassador Victoria Nuland as State Department spokesperson. She takes over PJ Crowley's old gig at the podium but unlike PJ, she will not be dual-hatted as Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs."

Those two jobs probably should be kept separate, if they're going to be done competently and without burning the office-holder to a cinder.

"(C)an you really say "no" if POTUS or VPOTUS asks you to serve in such and such a position? And if you say "yes" does that mean you're also saying goodbye to your career as a professional diplomat when a next administration is sworn in?"

It's nice to see a career officer not being tarred by the faithful execution of their sworn professional duties under a different presidential administration.

As of last month (if not earlier), Amb. Nuland was on the job as spokesperson.