re: "Abdicating Iraq"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") waxed pessimistic about U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hat do you call cutting and running from victory before it has solidified?"

"Abdication" works for me.

It also represents the creation of our second-largest potential hostage situation.

"Iran is our biggest enemy in the Middle East and this naive and misguided action leaves the playing field to them and they will certainly take advantage. We could have a good friend and ally on the free country of Iraq, a la Japan or Germany or Korea."

&

"Iraq is free to choose its own path in a dangerous region and that is a good thing. But they do not act in a vacuum. Iran and Syria and others attempt to influence them and not in ways that are good for peace-loving people. We sacrificed the lives of thousands of US troops to allow millions of Iraqis to taste freedom."

10/18

re: "Sic Transit Gloria Mundi"

COMJAM at The Lexicans ("A home for us all.") marked the end of an era and the loss of a national asset.

Money quote(s):

"It’s oft said in Our World that you can tell a person’s journey through their time in the service by the little bits of colored ribbons on their chest. While that’s often the case, when it came to the folks who flew in VQ-2 (and VQ-1 as well) that really wasn’t very true. For as was written by SJS, they were in the shadows. Deliberately and with intent. You don’t advertise where you went or what you did. For many years, not even their aircraft were marked with much more than maybe the star-and-bar, a small Modex and a US flag. When they stepped off their land-based aircraft, when far afield, they wore a coat and tie, and you never departed with more than a military ID card, cash and dog tags." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Like the t-shirt says: "It's a small world, but a Black one."

(Those who know, will know.)

"(W)hat they did mattered. It mattered to the Flags. It mattered to the Task Force Commanders, the Fleet Commanders, the Regional Commanders. It mattered to Langley and to Ft. Meade. It mattered in the EOB and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It mattered to the few folks in the Air Wing who maybe, once upon a time, had Been There and Done That, then slipped away, usually to ride the Cadillac and spout offense ‘trons at those who grieve them and their fellows and it mattered to the few who’d been “read in.” They were a rag-tag bunch of loveable hooligans and cast-offs oft as not, and that led to some memorable pairings, when CAG would insist that someone, some has to, you see, “take care of the VQ Det, please.”

Sometimes it was, remarkably, the fighter squadrons who took them under their protective embrace, ensuring that they became as much a part of the Ready Room as their own." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Smart commanders want the collectors to feel they're part of the team, because they are.

"The Bean Counters won, in the era of The Great Unilateral Disarmament. The Cold War was won, and we were experiencing the End of History. We had other things to do, and after all, there were land-based planes to Do The Work, and they didn’t shoot things nor dropped stuff, so what good were they really? The “program” had cost lives; many, many lives lost over the decades. Planes that went out and simply did not come back; maybe some wreckage, maybe an angry accusation from someone, somewhere; maybe some rumors from the depths of the Gulag. It was all very, very messy. But the beans must be counted and the budgets paid mind to. The turf battles for what money there is continue. Since they now flew only one kind of aircraft, the two subject-matter expert squadrons were brought “home,” leaving behind decades in-theatre, where they built up a breadth and depth of unsurpassed corporate knowledge. Because it mattered.

Now, because counting beans trumps tactical knowledge and in-house expertise. Because PowerPoint Promises and “maybe-might-ought-to-work” robotic dreams far surpass the hard facts of actual reality and because all the decades in the shadows meant recognition and visibility that leads to advocacy within Big Navy were not to be, the VQ “we” will become, as of Thursday, May 17th, 2012, a singularity. http://www.vq2.navy.mil/ And the defense of the nation will be diminished by yet another brick in the wall." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

&

"And still, other than a knowing glance, a quiet word and the odd bit of ribbon with a bland description noting the entire squadron’s work at a place or at some time, they say nothing. For that is the way of the Shadows."

5/16

re: "Ann Coulter Says, and I Am Not Making This Up: “Three Cheers for Romneycare!” "

Patterico at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") noted Ann Coulter throwing her support to Mitt Romney some months ago.

Money quote(s):

"I get her point that a state mandating purchase of health insurance is not unconstitutional in the same obvious and insulting way as a mandate from Congress is."

2/1

re: "Publishing In A Handbasket"

Sarah A. Hoyt at According to Hoyt ("playing the authorial game") discussed conspiracies, propaganda, disinformation, and "the narrative."

Money quote(s):

"“I entered our section offices through a washroom booth in MacArthur Station. You won’t find our offices in the phone lists. In fact, it does not exist. Probably I don’t exist either. All is illusion. Another route is through a little hole-in-the-wall shop with a sign reading RARE STAMPS & COINS. Don’t try that route either – they’ll try to sell you a Tu’ penny Black.” Robert A. Heinlein, The Puppet Masters."

Forget the movie version, read the book.

(Although CAA quite enjoys Donald Sutherland in general and thought Julie Warner was scrumptious as "Mary.")

"There is nothing so inherently human as feeling a frisson of excitement at the idea that behind the rational, dry world we know, conspiracies move in the shadow, manipulating men and societies to their whims."

Not that conspiracies don't exist in the real world. Quiet the opposite. The thing is there are so many conspiracies (for values of "conspiracies"), each working at cross-purposes, that it's hard to see any one or another getting much in the way of an upper hand.

The most successful conspiracies develop a narrative, a world-view, into a consensus that is self-perpetuating over the long term. (Which is a subject for another time and a better writer.)

"Science Fiction and Fantasy is particularly rife with conspiracies and long-held secrets. Part of this is that for some of our premises, say “there are aliens among us” or “the fairies have always been here” or even “of course there are vampires. They all work for the IRS.” "

The best science fiction takes just a single fact about reality or possible futures (or pasts) and twists it just so, and lets the logic flow therefrom.

"(E)ven in Puppet Masters, Heinlein had the UFO landings be real and the government has sat on them.

Yesterday I was talking to a young friend about conspiracies and the possibility of conspiracies, particularly by the US government. You have to understand, my own young self was convinced that the US government well well-night omnipotent, and I think so are most Europeans of all ages. I remember when, a few years ago, I told my parents that our passports were going to take – I think – six months (aftermath of 9/11) and was told I was lying. This was impossible. “Big country like that. Such an efficient government.”

I think I preferred it that way. Yes, yes, I saw all the movies with evil CIA does something evil. Sorry. I still preferred the idea that our government was sharp like a well-honed blade and capable of doing things and keeping them secret for years. Why don’t I believe that? Well… I first came to the States as an exchange student during the Carter presidency. Very few illusions can survive killer rabbits."

Just so.

"(F)or the record let me say right now that I don’t believe there are UFOs hiding among us. If the IRS employs vampires, they must survive on blood sausage. And the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy. Well, duh. Of course it was. It was a soviet conspiracy. That was why Oswald was trained. He came to the US to kill Kennedy. Look, children, sometimes things are what they appear to be, and that’s the greatest conspiracy. (And why, you ask. Oh, tons of reasons, including the fact that our sainted president WAS on prescription drugs that lessened his self control. But it’s also possible it was an agit prop operation, something the Soviets were VERY GOOD at. Look at its effect: it succeeded in radicalizing the leftwing of US politics as nothing before it had. And sometimes the effect is exactly what it was meant to be.)" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Remember what I said about above about the most successful conspiracies? Communism or bolshevism or marxism or whatever narratival expression of the "original" conspiracy did of course exist and many unspeakable (or least barely spoken-of) and fell deeds were committed in its furtherance and in its behalf. And that just scratches the surface. Adding Kennedy to that body count, justifiably or not, is in essence the merest feather-weights increase to that weighty collection of evils.

(Look, you can take CAA out of the Cold War, but you can't take the Cold War out of CAA!)

"I don’t believe in conspiracies, but I do believe in misinformation. As all of you know, I stop short of being Roman enough to deify Heinlein. BARELY short. So I will refrain from saying that his starting with the conspiracy and then leading us to the real way something really big can keep secret RIGHT UNDER OUR NOSES was deliberate and a work of genius. Perhaps it was. Ginny is no longer alive for me to ask.

It’s also entirely possible he just used the conspiracy to draw us in, and of course the misinformation was part of what he saw with World War II and the Cold War. The juxtaposition is possibly accidental.

The facts of the Kennedy assassination are right in the open. Have always been. But even those who know Oswald was a communist and had a Soviet wife, will say “yes but…” and then on go on blab about the climate of hatred or evil conservatives. Why? Because all the books, most of the articles and ninety nine point nine percent of the dramatizations involving Kennedy go haring off those points and leaving the obvious, visible truth by the way side as something of little importance." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Misdirection. It also works in magic, politics, and other stage performances.

"(W)hile I can’t believe in conspiracies – particularly conspiracies by bureaucracy (wikileaks, anyone?) I do believe in the efficacy of “the big lie”. It works because it doesn’t try to cover up every proof of what really happened. Instead, it suppresses the truth by repeating the lie so often and so loudly, and by accusing anyone who challenges it of being crazy or worse, until truth shuts up and goes away. It’s still there. It’s just that no one looks at it." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Just because Hitler used it (and did so successfully) doesn't mean others don't use the same technique. He also used staircases, automobiles, sidewalks, and tableware.

"(H)ere’s the thing, right now (wikileaks, Journolist) the levers of power and the “shut up, we’re smarter” aren’t working. There are to many other channels of communication, people are talking and posting phone videos of what they actually saw. Oh, some of it still works. The whole Arab Spring thing is not going anywhere as positively as it was painted. I’m sure the readers of this blog, innocent and fragile flowers all, will be shocked to know in most cases it might just be a way to more extremist religious regimes." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

CAA hasn't, yet, read any of Mrs. Hoyt's books but, if her fiction is as good as her web log, that is going to have to change!

"They learned at college that they are smart because they believe a set of things their professors told them — and that only ignorant people believe otherwise. And they want to go on thinking they are smart. They want to be able to tell all those squabbling bloggers and indie writers to “shut up” and “you’re irrelevant” and “we’ll never invite you to the nice parties.” "

10/17

re: "Afghanistan: America's Willful Deception"

John Bernard at American Thinker (" a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans ") had harsh words for our wartime national political and military leadership.

Money quote(s):

"The battlefield is as fluid as diplomatic efforts to shape the outcome are convoluted. While diplomacy during peacetime can be described as the efforts between two national representatives to overcome obstacles to a good, healthy, and mutually productive relationship, diplomacy during hostilities cannot. "Diplomatic efforts" during an ongoing conflict are at best an oxymoron. The failure of two parties to work out problems with one another is what leads to war, and if war is the ultimate outcome of a failure of diplomacy, then it stands to reason that the successful outcome of the war can be defined only when one warring nation capitulates to the battlefield prowess of the other." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

War is sometimes described as the failure of diplomacy, and there's more than little truth in that. Diplomacy has also been described as the continuation of warfare by other means, and vice versa.

"What is truly amazing is that the level of morale in the ranks of our war-fighting community has remained as high as it has. High morale is not, however, an accurate indicator of how our military views our successes on this battlefield, especially at this point in history. The reason it does not is because this is one of the only times in our history when a draft has not been used to maintain numbers in the ranks. Those who have served both in Iraq and Afghanistan have done so willingly, and their overall perception of time served is generally more positive than that of conscripts." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

The result, although we are now engaged in disassembling and dispersing it, is the most experienced and professional army, in all components (regular, guard, and reserves) since World War II.

Granted, the army we had at the end of the (first) Gulf War was the product of both the Reagan build-up and the officer corps that overcame the post-Vietnam hangover, but we disassembled and dispersed much of that as well.

"(T)he lexicon has morphed. While success on the battlefield has historically been defined as victory, even the word "battlefield" has been carefully expunged from the public dialogue. Success has been co-opted by "compromise" and victory remanded to the dustbin of unacceptable words and phrases. Enemy prisoners of war (EPW) are now future leaders in the new coalition government envisioned by the luminaries in D.C. General grade officers have been carefully selected for their willingness to capture the vision and then translate it into conduct on the battlefield that reflects the intent of their commander in chief.

The American population have been exposed to military jargon they don't understand as well as historically incorrect details about Afghan society and Islam, and they have been force-fed these carefully manicured stories of successful encounters with Afghan society for at least eight years." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Damning assertions one and all, and none of them incorrect.

It was an American general, once upon a time, who said "There is no substitute for victory."

We've come a long way from that time, but not all progress necessarily represents an improvement.

"(W)e have had further confirmation of an ongoing effort by U.S. representatives to reconcile with the Taliban and to release battle-hardened Taliban fighters back to Afghan society. While we have chosen to abandon the battlefield in a quest for a magic potion to make the Taliban like us, they, are doing their level best to "explain" to us that they have no interest in peace, an example of which is the killing an Afghan "peace negotiator." They are also exploiting our weakness on the battlefield due to our apparent unwillingness to bring the fight to them!"

&

"(M)any questions are raised by all of this, but none is as important as this one: why did we ever let this government convince us that rebuilding Afghanistan was somehow better for the United States? This question is important simply because there are those of us who are serving in that part of the world who have been led to believe they are there for the security of the United States. Regardless of the apparent inanity of the mission, the overwhelming evidence of IED placement, VBIED traffic, the obvious lack of measurable support from the local population, and the incessant stories of moral and ethical failure in the Kabul government, these war fighters press on. The government that has compelled them to serve in a hostile environment owes them at least the ability to defend themselves when fired upon. The ROE, however, denies them use of the basic tools of the trade: artillery, close air support, use of organic weapons systems like the 60mm mortar, and even small arms fire if their proximity to civilians cannot absolutely guarantee safety for the civilians."

This is a legitimate question: Is rebuilding Afghanistan necessarily to the advantage of the U.S. and, if so, in what way? Simply making the assertion doesn't make it so.

"(T)he conditions in Afghanistan are hardly normal, and no matter how much the general grade officers and their counterparts in D.C. want Afghanistan and Afghans to reflect their vision for them, it isn't going to happen. One thing is certain: as the number of service members in Afghanistan is drawn down, the real threat to our war fighter community will grow exponentially." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

&

"The truth is, in spite of the narrative, the actual evidence suggests that things in Afghanistan are turning in favor of the Taliban. The danger to our forces will not only continue, but will grow in intensity as more and more control of the battle space is handed to the Taliban. And this giving over of control is a direct consequence of our having chosen not to hold the Taliban accountable on the battlefield -- a battlefield created by a failure on the part of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other like-minded Islamic cells to choose peaceful coexistence with the rest of the world. It is also a complete failure of the remainder of the so-called peaceful Muslim ummah to denounce the violence perpetrated by these groups." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA)

A negotiated withdrawal with a Taliban-dominated (or coalition government which includes them), with the kind of exposed lines of supply and communications we endure in Afghanistan, is a recipe for catastrophe, subject to the meagre mercies of one history's most merciless foemen.

"Those in the highest levels of governance in this country and appointed to highest echelons of authority in the DOD have willingly rendered their consciences and their minds incapable of considering the threat, the motivation, and the determination of this enemy, and the proper response to the threat. Instead, they have done what too many men in this age have done. They have been seduced by a lie that allows their weakened character to take the less painful road rather than the road that would have led to victory.

And in so doing, they have purposefully deceived a nation and a nation's most valuable asset: its war-fighting community."

5/16

re: "Punching Down"

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. ") provided examples of why free speech rights shouldn't be optional for governments to respect.

Money quote(s):

"Fear is in the air.

Fear of what Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff had to say about Islam prompted the Austrian authorities to prosecute her for “denigrating” the Religion of Peace."

There are crucial differences between the free speech rights of the Anglospheric tradition, enshrined in our Second Amendment, and those permitted under continental European constitutions. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater is permitted, for instance, when the movie theater is actually on fire.

"Fearing the truths told by Geert Wilders, the Dutch government prosecuted the PVV leader, and when that failed, prosecuted him again.

In Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Australia, and Belgium, ordinary citizens and politicians alike have been harassed or prosecuted for speaking out against Islamization and mass immigration."

Some opinions are clearly too dangerous for citizens or even lawmakers to possess or express. Perhaps expressing the desire for Holland to remain a country inhabited by the Dutch is example of this.

"(W)hen the decent law-abiding people are thrust aside, driven into obscurity, and jailed, what sort of activists will remain?

The current system is nearing its endgame, and will not persist much longer. Who will take the reins of power when the dominant paradigm falls?"

Both Ralph Peters and Tom Kratman have explored this "what-if" and neither path is pretty.

"(B)y denying decent, honorable, law-abiding people the right to preserve themselves, their families, and their way of life — the Powers That Be have cleared the deck for the emergence of forces that are much darker, much more ruthless, and far beyond their ability to control.

Something wicked this way comes."

1/4

re: "Clinton asks Kerry for help on budget"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside the Foreign Policy Machine") was following the back-and-forth at budget request time.

Money quote(s):

"Clinton called the Senate's allocation of $42 billion for State and USAID in 2012 "reasonable," but warned that deeper cuts in the House's proposal would force State to shutter some overseas posts and reduce the number of civilians working in conflict areas, as well as result in the U.S. government "turning our backs on the world's hungry and sick."

The State Department and the development NGO community have been focusing on the idea that the diplomacy and development budgets comprise less than 1 percent of federal spending."

Bearing in mind that foreign affairs is one of the powers and responsibilities for which the federal government is specifically charged by the U.S. Constitution, it can reasonably be asked by this is such a small percentage of the budget.

Setting aside percentages and pretending that this budget sufficient to the task, a reasonable person might question what the other 99+ percent of the budget entails, and if it's going for things that are appropriately the duty of the federal government to fund.

10/17

re: "Quote of the Day"

Andrew Exum at Abu Muqawama publicized a good quote but was having trouble allocating shame/blame:

"The enemy of my enemy isn't really a terrorist if his lobbying is really, really good."

&

"Shameful move by the Dept. of State.

Update: Former Obama Administration State official Tamara Cofman Wittes says I should be blaming the Congress, not the Dept. of State."

Oh, they're terrorists right enough, or were (and have never owned up to it).

5/15

re: "Pearl Harbor Considered"

Victor Davis Hanson at Private Papers looked at the Pearl Harbor attack, on its 70th anniversary.

Money quote(s):

"Why did Japan attack us 70 years ago today, other than the usually cited existential reasons and the fact that they thought they could and get away with it?"

Mostly because they thought they could get away with it.

Herman Wouk, in one of his Winds of War books, had a character (a U.S. naval aviator aboard one of our aircraft carriers, IIRC) explain, pre-Pearl Harbor, that peace (i.e., restraining Japanese aggression) in the Pacific was maintained by three "legs." Those were Russia, Britain, and the U.S.

With Russia and Britain preoccupied fighting Nazi Germany, the peace that had been resting on this three-legged stool was about to fall on its ass.

"(U)ntil August 1945, it was the United States, not Japan, that had a traditional two-front war. We rarely talk of Stalin’s duplicity in this regard: While we were suffering terrible casualties from the Japanese, supplying Russia, conducting bloody campaigns in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and over the skies of Europe, and being hectored by the Soviets to open a second front in Europe, the Soviets honored their non-aggression pact with Japan, freeing up hundreds of thousands of veteran troops to be used against us on the islands. I never understood why history books focus on Stalin’s exasperation with our supposedly tardy invasion of Normandy, when he was completely unwilling to open a second front against Japan — until it was utterly wrecked in August 1945 and there were easy pickings to be had in the region."

Remember, that to a Leftists, "There are no enemies on the Left." Therefore, niggling details like the Molotov-Ribbontrop Pact, the artificial famines, the show trials, the gulag, and the Venona Papers, aren't to be mentioned.

"One final thought. The growth of Japan in the 1920s and 1930s and the alarm that it caused in the Pacific, its increasingly illiberality and nationalism, the enormous industrial and military progress that it had made in emulating European economies and Western armed forces, the concurrent impressions that a Depression-era America was a sinking rather than a rising power, and a general sense that the Japanese model was superior to the alternatives offersome general parallels to the current comparative status of China and America in the Pacific. Let us hope that we learn the lessons of Pearl Harbor, namely that anything is possible at any time, that deterrence ultimately keeps the peace, and that deterrence is a combination of known superior military strength and a certainty among concerned parties that such overwhelming power will be used in defense, and thereby will assure the aggressor that its attack will prove suicidal." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

12/15

re: "This is no time to cut defense"

Paul Miller at Shadow Government ("Notes from the Loyal Opposition") can think of several reasons not to cut defense.

Money quote(s):

"There are two major families of threats to U.S. national security today. First, at one end of the state spectrum, are the nuclear-armed authoritarian powers: Russia, China, soon Iran, North Korea as a junior partner, and Pakistan if it falls to jihadists. The latter three are (or will be) new to the nuclear club since the Cold War, and China is vastly more powerful today than it was in 1989. Second, at the other end, is the aggregate global consequences of state failure and anarchy across much of the world -- such as the rise of terrorist groups, organized crime, drug cartels, human traffickers, nuclear smugglers, pandemic disease, and piracy -- that will collectively erode global stability and raise the cost of U.S. leadership. State failure, with its effects magnified by globalization, is also a vastly greater threat that during the Cold War. These two families are the threats we face in the 21st Century."

Pretty good summary of these two "families" of threats.

"Nuclear war with Iran or North Korea would be almost equally dangerous, especially after they have acquired longer-range ballistic missiles capable of hitting U.S. allies and even the U.S. homeland. (Yes, the Soviet Union had thousands of warheads, but you only need a few nukes to cause more damage to us than all the wars we have fought in history, combined, and only a few dozen to effectively wipe out the United States. And if I were a new nuclear power, I wouldn't announce my capability until I already had a few dozen to make sure I could withstand an attack on my arsenal. Which means that North Korea and Iran (when it announces) will almost certainly be existential threats). The difference is that war with them or their proxies may be more likely to actually happen. The latter two countries may be less deterrable, less predictable, and more prone to transfer nuclear technology to proxies and non-state groups, given their history of erratic behavior, sponsoring terrorism, and proliferation."

A multi-polar world is, by definition, a more complex one.

"Militarily, the Allies have underinvested in defense for decades-nothing new there. But the situation is actually getting worse, not better."

And it'll get even worse before it gets better.

(That's if there are any allies left at the end of the "worse" part.)

"What worries me is that I am increasingly convinced that we do not have the capabilities to meet the various threats we face today. We don't need to be omnipotent, but we do need to be able to protect ourselves. Can we stave off state failure in Pakistan? Can we prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, or contain it afterwards? Could we prevent Russia from doing to Ukraine what it did to Georgia in 2008? Can we defeat the drug cartels wreaking havoc in Mexico and Columbia? Is al-Qaida really nearing "strategic defeat," as Panetta claims? Are we prepared to handle a collapse in North Korea -- possibly having to fight a sudden war with a desperate regime, contribute to a multilateral occupation and reconstruction afterwards, and handle the delicate diplomacy with the Chinese?

Until we can, this is no time to cut defense."

10/17

re: "Reclaiming State Department Clarity on Jihad and Sharia"

Andrew G. Bostom at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") had harsh criticism for the State Department.

Money quote(s):

"Islam's defining doctrine of jihad war against non-Muslims, and resultant 14 centuries of sanguinary imperialism, and accompanying acts of terrorism, through the present, notwithstanding, ad nauseum contemporary State Department pronouncements re-affirm what Muslim propagandists insist--that the creed is an enlightened pacifism.

Glaring examples of this corrosive State Department apologetic on Islam have been provided by the two most recent Secretaries of State, Condoleeza Rice, and the current Secretary, Hillary Clinton." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Mr. Bostom provided some examples before continuing.

"(O)bsequious pandering to Islam--despite the daily confirmed, abject failure of these efforts to provide any strategic benefit to the US--was not always enshrined State Department "policy."

Edward A. Van Dyck, then US Consular Clerk at Cairo, Egypt, prepared a detailed report in August 1880 on the history of the treaty arrangements (so-called "capitulations") between the Muslim Ottoman Empire, European nations, and the much briefer US-Ottoman experience. Van Dyck's report--written specifically as a tool for State Department diplomats--opens with an informed, pellucid, and remarkably compendious explanation of jihad and Islamic law (Sharia):

In all the many works on Mohammedan law no teaching is met with that even hints at those principles of political intercourse between nations, that have been so long known to the peoples of Europe, and which are so universally recognized by them. "Fiqh," as the science of Moslem jurisprudence is called, knows only one category of relation between those who recognize the apostleship of Mohammed and all others who do not, namely Djehad [jihad[; that is to say, strife, or holy war. Inasmuch as the propagation of Islam was to be the aim of all Moslems, perpetual warfare against the unbelievers, in order to convert them, or subject them to the payment of tribute, came to be held by Moslem doctors [legists] as the most sacred duty of the believer. This right to wage war is the only principle of international law which is taught by Mohammedan jurists; ...with the Arabs the term harby [harbi] (warrior) expresses not only an unbeliever but also an enemy; and jehady [jihadi] (striver, warrior) means the believer-militant. From the Moslem point of view, the whole world is divided into two parts--"the House of Islam," and the House of War;" out of this division has arisen the other popular dictum of the Mohammednas (sic) that "all kinds of unbelievers from but one people." "

Jihad and Islam aren't something new, after all. Pres. Jefferson found it necessary to educate himself as to the facts due to the depredations of the Barbary pirates against U.S. shipping (and naval vessels).

"We are in desperate need of a strong new Secretary of State willing to purge the State Department of all those dogmatically inculcating such counterfactual, delusive Islamophilia. Diplomats possessed of--or at least receptive to learning--Van Dyck's unapologetic wisdom, must be recruited and installed if we are to survive the violent and non-violent jihad being waged against the US. America employed such informed, clear-eyed patriotic diplomats in the past; we need them now more than ever before."

Sec. Clinton has indicated at least once that she intends her tenure to last no longer than the current president's first term. So regardless of the electoral results this November, we can expect a new secstate sometime within the next 12 months, give or take.

5/12

re: "Diplomatic Political Reporting: Say What You Think?"

Charles Crawford at Blogoir ("A digital hybrid of blog and memoir presented on a daily basis, or not.") gave thoughtful advice to diplomatic report writers.

He urged "the following general rules:

• if you want it to be read, make it readable
• some things are important - but don't matter
• no stupid words!
• don't be boring"

This crossdecks nicely to the U.S. diplomatic context.

"Part of the problem with political reporting is getting right the balance between what HQ wants to know and what it needs to know. Usually HQ is several months behind where any given overseas problem 'is' - standard briefs get word-processed and stale, drawing on expired assumptions.

So just as it is right to try to keep HQ up to date, Embassies also need to remember that HQ usually won't be that interested in anything which significantly changes the 'narrative' unless it is dramatic enough to catch the headlines in the HQ country.

Likewise you can say what you like in an urgent telegram, but the dominant thought about any given overseas development back at HQ will be whatever the media are saying that morning about it. Ministers pay more attention to the newspapers read in the car on the way to the office than to diplomatic cables, since any questions they will be asked during the day will draw on that media reporting, even if it is wrong or stupid..."

All very good advice, simply substitute words like "the Department," "Main State," "the Seventh Floor," or "the Bureau" where "HQ" appears, "secretaries" for "ministers," and understand that "newspapers" actually means CNN, NPR, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.

Urgent messages should relay breaking news; the context and conditions should already have been provided by background cables sent so that desk officers and the like get the "ground truth" and flavor of the place that only on scene reporting can provide.

"(T)here is no easy answer on how a young diplomat should best deal with a situation where the mission and its policy are at variance with reality, honour and common sense. Of course anyone feeling really upset can launch into the various available grievance/appeal processes, but that merely builds up a reputation as a vainglorious boat-rocker and in any case is a hopeless vehicle for changing policy analysis."

Amb. Crawford provided a nice anecdote from his own, occasionally controversial, past. Note that he made ambassador after this episode.

"(I)t ultimately comes down to how you want to live. Most of us rationalise such things away on the grounds that it just takes time to change policies, and that much of what 'policy' is ebbs and flows anyway. Sometimes it's better to avoid fighting a losing battle on one issue for the sake of making a difference in another.

If that isn't your style, resign and do something else. But remember that if you do that, the organisation you've left will have one honourable voice fewer - does that really help either?"

A very good question, but keep your hand on your wallet, and your soul, while you ponder it.

11/20

re: "Random Thoughts"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") cracks me up.

Money quote(s):

"Basically everything bad the left pretended the Tea Party was is what Occupy Wall Street actually is. That’s why they call it “projection.”"

Did anyone actually believe that noise?

"Did we just start another war?

Okay, we’re not starting another war, we’re joining in a war someone else started. We’re just being neighborly."

Frank was talking about Libya, IIRC.

"We’re sending the troops in an advisor status? Usually our troops are advising the enemy to be dead."

Dead or surrendered. Even the Grand Fenwickians understood that much.

(And that about wraps it up.)

10/17