Edward Luttwak, neo-con of a sort, says it's time to go home from Iraq.
Well, actually, despite the title of his piece, he doesn't say to go home.
" Coalition forces should not abandon Iraq, but they should withdraw to remote desert garrisons and let Iraqis try to govern themselves. "
. . .
UPDATE: Calpundit, not to be confused with the rats of the title, wonders if the writing is in fact on the wall.
Intel Dump, discussing the recent bombing and attacks in Baghdad, says:
" Recent strikes indicate an evolution in terrorist tactics, techniques and procedures "
Every attack is a learning opportunity. Every attack is an opportunity to evaluate tactics, yes, but also an opportunity to evaluate strategy.
The guerillas are learning. Every day, they are learning more about how we react, about our responses, about our best practices. They are incorporating their learning into their strikes, using our responses as a part of their strategy. Being unable to prevent or predict or interdict such attacks invites more, persuades more people that their safety lies on the side of the attackers or in silence, and emphasizes the contrast between draconian policies, rosy statements, and the actual disorder.
Right now, they are on the offensive, they are pulling the strings, they are seeing how we jump. Every day we have been in Iraq our enemies have been given a free lesson in how to fight the US military - and in how Americans respond to crises.
The flypaper didn't catch the terrorists. It caught us.
. . .
UPDATE: USA Today on 11/04 follows up:
" U.S. military, intelligence and law enforcement officials say that after six months of intensifying guerrilla warfare, Iraqi insurgents know more about the U.S. and allied forces — their style of operations, convoy routes and vulnerable targets — than the coalition forces know about them. "
(via Daily Kos)
Donald Sassoon interviews Karl Marx about the issues of today and his legacy.
Very funny and dead on.
(via Arts & Letters Daily)
There is a general principle which is well known to everybody who works in conflict situations:
Steps toward peace increase the likelihood of a violent action by people or groups with an interest in the continuation of the conflict.
Obviously, they do this in order to stop progress toward peace for whatever reason. I should add that there are often actors on all sides of a conflict, including government actors, who see the continuation of a conflict as being in their interest. Thus, we see sudden "losses of discipline", factional splintering, violent law enforcement, showy terrorizing of civilians, etc whenever there is movement in a peace process. Unfortunately, many of the people engaged in high-level negotiations on a conflict do not appear to factor this into their strategies. And a single act of violence is often enough to derail peace-talks for weeks - if not forever.
Do not be so quick to criticize George Bush simply for drawing the parallel between "progress" and "acts of violence". The correlation is often real. By denying that this correlation could ever be true, we back ourselves into a corner where every bit of progress toward peace and stability becomes hostage to the violent.
(Tim Dunlop suggests we not over-interpret Mr Bush either. He disputes the talking point that the Bush Administration, in this case, is reversing the association stated above and is attempting to suggest that acts of violence mean progress is being made.)
The problem with the remarks by the Bush Administration is that the type of progress being made in Iraq is not the type of progress that provokes violence. What progress has been made in Iraq has largely been material progress (the now famous schools, the less famous clinics, the never-ending process that is water and electricity) and has been made despite the fighting. Material gains are certainly important for rehabilitation and for the post-conflict society, but they are not progress toward "peace", they are not progress toward less violence.
There appear to be no serious discussions underway to resolve the hostilities other than with force. As there is no progress toward peace, these bombings and attacks cannot be attempts to challenge that progress.
. . .
From above:
" many of the people engaged in high-level negotiations on a conflict do not appear to factor this into their strategies "
This is being charitable, but not naively so. There are, in fact, politicians and negotiators who are unaware of this dynamic. Yes, it does seem quite odd to me that people whose task is to "solve" the conflict should lack this understanding, but some do. Whether they should be involved in negotiations is of course the obvious question.
There are also politicians who are aware that their negotiations may well prompt violence. Some of them make this awareness a part of their strategy for ending the conflict. There are also, unfortunately, those who use this tendency to upset their own negotiations (the violent elements within both the Palestinian and Israeli leadership groups are well aware of this dynamic and they are both shameless about using it).
Today's bombing of the Red Cross office in Baghdad is bad. Very bad. The UN, for example, can be spun as a US ally (or lapdog). Spinning the ICRC that way is difficult - and probably isn't being attempted.
There are forces in Iraq trying to drive all outside eyes away.
"Opening" schools is a meaningless statistic. It is very easy to build, staff1, have a ceremony dedicating, and open a school that no student will ever attend. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of such schools across the globe - and in the glossy brochures of multi-national corporations and NGO yearly reports.
When I assess a conflict, I always look for children walking to and from school. If they are unaccompanied by an adult, the security situation is usually pretty good. If there are no children on the streets, then I know the security situation is rotten. If parents are walking kids to school, security in general is not good, but certain hours are safer than others.
. . .
1 Well, actually it is really, really hard to adequately staff schools - especially if you are trying to open more than one. Teachers don't grow on trees; a lot of resources go into building a teacher.
I follow the conditions on the ground in Iraq very carefully because I might be sending someone there.
Two sets of comments on the situation in Iraq have come to my attention today.
The man had been genuinely impressed by the things he'd seen: the schools, the clinics, the usual suspects. However, when my dad mentioned my company and the possibility of some of us going to Iraq, his response was immediate and unequivocal:
"Don't go. It is much too dangerous."
The short answer is still "yes", but with the caveat that in their latest security analysis concern has gone up. The long answer is, and I paraphrase, "the sooner we can schedule this the better because we forsee the situation getting worse". Interestingly, they added that it is now impossible for large groups to meet (they offered no immediate explanation for why this is so; I've asked, so if/when I get a reply...).
It should be obvious by now that there are good things and bad things going on in Iraq. Trying to emphasize one at the expense of the other is irresponsible at best. Demanding balance in the reporting, however, is disingenuous. It encourages people to focus their attention on what they want to hear and not on the whole range that constitutes the reality of the situation.
The professionals, by which I mean the people who have the most experience working (as opposed to fighting) in conflict situations, by which I mean the NGOs1, are currently deeply concerned about security and about sustainability. If the security situation doesn't improve, none of the positive efforts - and there are quite a few - will survive.
. . .
1 This is a point often overlooked: some (but by no means all) NGOs have more experience working in conflict situations than any military. The ICRC, for example, has worked in all of them. The organizations without much experience in conflict situations are finding Iraq almost impossible and many are withdrawing.
I've received more hits for "G.H.W Bush in Winter" than anything else I've written here. Clearly people have linked to it. And just as clearly I don't check Technorati nearly enough.
My wife understands now. So does Bill Simmons'.
" Anyway, my wife understands now. She only jumped on the bandwagon a few years ago, thanks to me. Now her Sox virginity has been taken; she was near tears last night. 'I finally understand why you're so crazy about this team,' she kept saying. 'I can't imagine going through this for my entire life. This is horrible.' Add another one to the list. "
Yeah. I had that exact conversation last night. This morning too. I expect it again tonight.
. . .
On my way to work this morning I passed a funeral. I knew it was too soon, but I had to ask. The guy from the funeral home grimaced, "No, not this one. But, yeah, a couple."
I can't leave it alone quite yet, it seems.
Jim Caple tells it exactly the way it is:
" Little's decision to stick with Pedro far too long is so much worse than manager John McNamara's failure to put in a defensive replacement for Bill Buckner in the 1986 World Series. Worse than the move to take out Jim Willoughby in the 1975 Series. Worse than the decision to start Galehouse instead of Mel Parnell, in the 1948 playoff game against Cleveland. ... " This isn't second-guessing. "
That's right, folks. It really isn't second-guessing. All the apologists, all the objectively pro-manager fellow-travellers out there who are shoveling this line and the one about how these games are complicated and the decisions are never easy are useful idiots and stupid fools. Either they don't know better and therefore shouldn't be writing about sports, or they do know better and therefore they are flat out lying.
All opinions are not created equal; all decisions aren't equally hard, and they don't have the same potential for good or ill. With over one-hundred years of baseball experience behind us, we know what the signs are when a pitcher is struggling, we know how to think about match-ups, we know the odds and the probabilities, and we know the hot hand from the cold one. Yes, the Yankees might have come back against the Red Sox bullpen. That's the story we'll never know. But the story that happened, the one we witnessed, the one where a tired ace was facing the best and most battling line-up (outside of the Sox), was predictable down to the last tear.
. . .
For some reason the Boston papers have chosen to be gentle. Sure they blame Grady, but oh so carefully. Why do I have to go to other outlets, to other papers, to find people speaking the truth? Gutless and unworthy.
Unfortunately, a whole bunch of us were under it too.
Normal, non-baseball blogging will resume shortly - as soon as my homicidal rage at Grady Little subsides.
As the 7th inning wound down, I said to Mrs Martial, "That's it for Pedro. He's out of gas." When Pedro walked out to start the eighth, I turned to her and said, "That is a big mistake. If anyone gets a hit, Grady will have to take him out."
By the end of the Yankee rally I was hoarse from screaming, "Take him out! Take him out! For the love of god, take him out!"
You punk, Grady Little, there is a special seat in Hell being prepared for you. What happened? Did the voices in your head tell you the game wasn't dramatic enough? Did you temporarily misplace your little book, "Managing Baseball for Dummies"? It isn't about Pedro, Grady. There are other guys on the team, Grady, who want to go to the World Series. There is all of Red Sox Nation on the edge of their seats, Grady. It isn't about what Pedro wants or what Pedro says or about respecting Pedro. It's about winning the game!
This time is different. This time, I'm not heartbroken. The team played well, the team gave their all, the team did us proud. But this time I know, we all know, that we - every blessed one of us - could have managed the game better. The Yankees didn't win, Grady. You lost. This time, I'm not heartbroken. This time, I'm mad.
Grady Fuckin' Little.
David Pinto of Baseball Musings offers a thoughtful perspective on the fan response to the unprofessional antics and goings on in Game Three. Thoughtful - but wrong.
" I would suggest what is really bothering people ... is that there was a shift of virtue from the Red Sox to the Yankees Saturday. It's been going on for a while, but Saturday the fault line moved. When it was Nettles and Jackson and Rivers against Lynn and Fisk and Lee, it was easy to see the Yankees as the evil team that deserved to be vanquished by the Red Sox. But on Saturday, it was Pedro and Manny who caused the trouble. Here they were in game the Red Sox had to win, and their antics came close to having them thrown out. ... Someone watching a baseball game for the first time would come away from Saturday thinking the Red Sox are a bunch of evil jerks and the Yankees were just defending themselves. [...] " Red Sox fans no longer have the high ground; they are no longer the nice losers who are worth rooting for. Their stars are jerks ... People who have based the allegiance on the virtuousness of the Sox have a lot to think about today. "
Let's get this out of the way: people who base their allegiance to a sports team based on said team's "virtuousness" aren't fans. Virtue has nothing to do with it, but geography, baby, is destiny.
High ground? I piss on your higher ground. No Yankees fan I have ever met has said, "Sorry about those teams of ours from the 70s, old chap. They were bastards, right enough. Come to think of it, the world would be a better place if they hadn't been successful." Nor would I expect them to.
I want my Red Sox to win this series. That the Yankees are the foe adds some spice, but I'd want the Sox to beat whatever team was across the diamond. I want my Red Sox to win the World Series. Period. Full stop. Pretty much the be all and end all of my fanaticism.
I don't care if we have to empty the prisons and consort with dark powers. I don't care whose soul we have to sell or if the city sinks beneath the waves after the last out. I certainly do not care if Pedro is a world-class jerk or that Manny has issues that prevent his talent from inspiring the awe it should.
What was bothering me during Game Three? My selfish self was bothered by a twenty minute delay in the middle of a playoff game. My manager self was bothered by how unprofessional it all was (I don't get to yell at people, much less throw things at them or wrestle, no matter how mad I get). My fanatic self was bothered that players on my team were actively hurting the team's chances; I was worried about the psychic carryover from one game to the next.
Virtue? Doesn't come into play, really. It's just a game, man. I want to see it played well and - no matter what - I'm going to root, root, root for my team. And if they don't win it's a shame. But you know, it's still one, two, three strikes and you're out.
In the increasingly tense eight inning of the Red Sox-Yankees game, Mrs Martial staggered to her feet and strode from the room. As she passed into the kitchen, she tossed a fastball back over her shoulder:
" Never ask Aleve to do vodka's job. "
Cubs fans are just now beginning to know what it feels like to root for the Red Sox. Of course they have had their own agonies over the years, but there is really nothing like seventh game pain.
It began last evening as a faint queasiness underlying the euphoria as Trot Nixon crossed homeplate after his 9th inning homerun made Game Seven inevitable. The feeling gained momentum as I watched the Cubs go down - then up! - then down - then way, way down against the Marlins.
Work has all but stopped at my office. We're all drained, of course, but today everyone is staring out the window, playing out their own visions of both glorious triumph and agonizing defeat on the wide, blue screen of the sky. I'm sure the same expressions are playing across my face in the same terrible loop:
eyes shining and face turned up toward the sun ... shuddering and shivering in shadow ... blossoming flower ... crumbling knot of pain ... glowing rapture ... rictus of horror . . .
Learning is not a cloak to be worn lightly on the mind, to be casually tossed aside when the breeze is summer fair and the sun is in our hair. Learning is a fire: it needs constant stoking to be kept ablaze. These flames may bring discomfort when our season is ripe and we may we may be tempted to let the fire fade, perhaps even to smother the fitful embers. But this is the heat which preserves us in the inevitable, inexorable winter, when our thoughts – and all our striving efforts – would otherwise be frozen and fruitless.
There is a shallow drift of mind that is swept up by facile words, finding itself channeled into well-worn streams and into already over watered fields. Such a mind catches hold of a pretty turn of phrase, seemingly graven with images of eternity and truth. Clever aphorisms, removed from context, are apprehended as absolute certainties and are copied down as epistles for living, shouted as slogans for action, hummed as the jingles of profound thought. Yet their meaning is never again sounded against experience and their useful history is washed away.
Let me offer as an example an aphorism considered an eternal flame of the English-speaking world, but whose gilded surface proves vulnerable to an inner rot, that a learning lightly worn has seized upon as cold fact, a brave truth to be firmly grasped and boldly lived.
Consider Lord Acton's grand maxim: "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The Bush Administration seems to have taken this aphorism not as a warning, but instead . . . as a duty.
. . .
Actually believing that all power corrupts offers no compelling reason - once you happen to be in a position of power - to check your own corrupt behavior. Since you expect others to abuse their position, you feel that abuse is expected of you.
This is the true, destructive cynicism at the heart of the Bush Administration. They seriously believe that corruption in government is business as usual, that everybody does it, that everybody expects it. This is the reason why their ideology suggests that less government is better, but also why they and their ilk never reduce it when they are in power.
. . .
FURTHERMORE: Dave Trowbridge alerts me to the fact that Jim Henley is also thinking about power.
"It Lord Actons when it's Lord Acton time."
UPDATE: I've seen several Lord Acton references this week. Maybe all our thoughts turn in this direction because, to coin a phrase, "Power appears corrupt when those in power are corrupt".
Transparency International released their Corruption Perceptions Index on October 7th.
"Seven out of ten countries score less than 5 out of a clean score of 10 in the TI CPI 2003, which reflects perceived levels of corruption among politicians and public officials in 133 countries," explained [Peter Eigen, Chairman of Transparency International]. "Five out of ten developing countries scores less than 3 out of 10, indicating a high level of corruption." ... The CPI 2003 complements TI's Bribe Payers Index (BPI), which addresses the propensity of companies from top exporting countries to bribe in emerging markets. The BPI 2002, published on 14 May 2002, revealed high levels of bribery by firms from Russia, China, Taiwan and South Korea, closely followed by Italy, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Japan, USA and France - although many of these countries signed the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, which outlaws bribery of foreign public officials."The OECD Convention came into force in 1999, but we are still awaiting the first prosecutions in the courts of the 35 signatory countries," said Eigen. "The governments of these countries have an obligation to developing countries to investigate and prosecute the companies within their jurisdictions that are bribing. Their bribes and incentives to corrupt public officials and politicians are undermining the prospects of sustainable development in poorer countries."
Iraq, FYI, has a score of 2.2 out of 10 on the Index (but read the methodology).
To "good pitching beats good hitting", I'd like to add "timely hitting beats good pitching".
. . .
Let us consider the idiocy of Don Zimmer - and the whole "old school" mindset.
First, though, a brief digression into the psychology of Pedro Martinez. Many people have said Pedro should have run away or stepped aside from Zimmer. Think about what you're saying: Pedro, ace pitcher, young athlete in the prime of his life, young man with a huge chip on his shoulder - and the entire city of Boston on both of them - should run away from a seventy-two year old? Sorry, no fan would root for him afterward and I doubt he'd ever be able to pitch again. But also consider Pedro's perspective: for all of those reasons, he was as surprised as anyone in Fenway that Zimmer took a swing at him.
Now let us consider what would have happened if Zimmer or any other Yankee had somehow injured Pedro.
Whether rightly or wrongly, Red Sox Nation, from the fans to the team to the ownership to the whole of New England, believe that Pedro is necessary to carry them to the promised land. Major League Baseball loves the ratings that Pedro brings, never moreso than this past week.
The modern ballplayer and the modern owner understand how fragile fandom is, they understand how much work it took to bring people back to the ballpark after the last strike (juicing up the balls was a group effort; many players gave up their winters to it). No player went anywhere near Pedro - or Clemens - during the brouhaha; they know how their bread is buttered.
Consider Pedro, injured in a brawl, during the playoffs, on national television, by a Yankee. How much does it cost to pay off Hell?
. . .
Many people, silly athletes, goofier ex-athletes, and the puking, pussing commentariat have forgotten that these are just games, just entertainment, and that "respect" is a word that belongs to individuals in many professions, but not to the players of glorified kids' games.
During the Red Sox-Oakland series, some of the commentators complained about "respect" for the game, which had seemingly been violated by the Red Sox. But respect for the game should come from playing the game. You know, touching all the bases, running hard until the play is over, fighting off difficult pitches in crucial situations. That would be the professional way to respect the game.
Equally, it should mean throwing strikes, and not at opposing batters. It should mean hitting strikes - or attempting to - and not the opposing pitcher.
By all means, let us also consider the idiocy of Pedro Martinez.
Outrage is gathered.
The Prophet is quoted:
" There is a tree among the trees which is as blessed as a Muslim ... It is the date-palm tree. "
And I am reminded of the words of Joel (Joel 1: 6-7 and 12), when locusts - like an invading army - came upon the fields and a terrible famine followed.
6 For a nation is come up upon my land, strong, and without number, whose teeth are the teeth of a lion, and he hath the cheek teeth of a great lion. 7 He hath laid my vine waste, and barked my fig tree: he hath made it clean bare, and cast it away; the branches thereof are made white. ... 12 The vine is dried up, and the fig tree languisheth; the pomegranate tree, the palm tree also, and the apple tree, even all the trees of the field, are withered: because joy is withered away from the sons of men.
and Joel 2:20, when God destroys the invading horde.
20 But I will remove far off from you the northern army, and will drive him into a land barren and desolate, with his face toward the east sea, and his hinder part toward the utmost sea, and his stink shall come up, and his ill savour shall come up, because he hath done great things.
Criticizing current US policies and structures by drawing upon the history of Rome is back in style - with a vengeance! I usually find such comparisons both facile and forced. However, Chalmers Johnson, in "The Scourge of Militarism: Rome and America", identifies some themes in the collapse of the Republic which should concern us.
" The history of the Roman republic from the time of Julius Caesar on suggests that it was imperialism and militarism -- poorly understood by all conservative political leaders at the time -- that brought it down. Militarism and the professionalization of a large standing army create invincible new sources of power within a polity. The government must mobilize the masses in order to exploit them as cannon fodder and this leads to the rise of populist generals who understand the grievances of their troops and veterans. "
(via blogorrhoea)
. . .
UPDATE: I figured out where I'd seen the link to the Chalmers Johnson article. Duly noted.
While engrossed in the baseball playoffs and being rendered nearly helpless by my beloved Red Sox, I missed an anniversary of uncertain distinction.
" October 7, 2003, marked the second anniversary of the beginning of the ‘war on terrorism’. The current status of that war in the two principal battlegrounds - Afghanistan and Iraq – leaves little ground for optimism. "
The professional theologians begin to weigh in - with an atrocious pun in the last paragraph.
" [B]eing a lifelong Cubs fan develops a deep sense of eschatology. Justice may not come in this vale of tears, but vindication of all worthy but hopeless causes will come in the end times. ... " Then there are the Red Sox, not a hope-against-all-the-evidence team that won't ever give up, but rather the epitome of tragedy on an almost Shakespearean scale in sports, and the bearers of the heaviest burden in baseball. ... " Ultimate, cosmic, and eschatological justice will clearly be on the side of either the Cubs or the Red Sox as they face their opponents. But what if they face each other in the World Series? Many baseball fans would respond with rapturous delight to such a World Series, no matter what the outcome, as the whole creation groans for righteousness to finally prevail. And given the events in Iraq, the White House, the CIA, the Middle East, and the California recall, a little justice would be a wonderfully welcome thing just now. "
Condoleeza Rice is going to head the new "Iraq Stabilization Group". Yeah, this will make it all better.
Kremlin-watching, and being sarcastic about a completely different topic, I take this as an indication that she is not one of the leakers in Treasongate.
Why? Because, if she is directly involved in Treasongate, then this reorganization would serve solely to further confuse the efforts in Iraq once her role as a leaker becomes known to the wider public. Further confusion in Iraq carries a political cost that the Administration cannot bear. Q.E.D.
This rationale does confirm what I suspected from the moment lists of the potentially perfidious began circulating. Ms Rice is a wonk and nerd. I get the feeling that she doesn't know how to act like one of the boys. Being serious has led to her success, not her sense of humor or her ability to schmooze. She's not creative enough to come up with the smearing of of Wilson's wife on her own, and she wouldn't be asked to take part in it by anyone else because she wouldn't see the "humor" in it.
Today appears to be "truth" day here at De Spectaculis.
Hunter Thompson doesn't need to channel me to say the right thing for ESPN. After all the words - and the sentiments - are obvious.
" Sure, let's hire Rush Limbaugh to rave on TV, so we can bump up our Ratings. Ah, we should be ashamed of ourselves. And I am. Sorry, we got stupid for a minute. It won't happen again. "
He also adds a truth which I think is self-evident:
" We are pigskin people. We worship the football god, and we don't mind admitting it. Most of us like it. Actually, being addicted to football is good for you. "
Jim Henley patiently points out - once again - the mendacity in equating your liberty and your life:
[T]he salient threat to your liberty is not terrorism. Terrorism is a threat to our lives, not our liberties. Osama bin Laden and his ilk can not take away a single freedom - we can only do that ourselves.
He concludes with a quote from a young, not-yet-even-running-for-President, but still wisest of all Americans, Lincoln.
" No foreign power or combination of foreign powers could by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up from among us, it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die of suicide. "
Neal Gabler calls Bush's Presidency "medieval". The commentary has struck a chord with Meteor Blades at The Daily Kos.
( Obligatory run-on quoting from the article to "prove" that it says what I say it says: )
The difference between the current administration and its conservative forebears is that facts don't seem to matter at all. They don't even matter enough to reinterpret. ... In this administration, everyone already knows the truth. ... In actively denying or changing [the facts], they are changing the basis on which government has traditionally been conducted: rationality. There is no respect for facts because there is no respect for empiricism. ... Like the church confronting Galileo, they aren't about to let reality destroy their cosmology, whether it is a bankrupt plan for pacifying an Iraq that was supposed to welcome us as liberators or a bankrupt fiscal plan that was supposed to jolt the economy to health.
Calling this "medieval" is fine1, but it is also a red herring - and not nearly strong enough. It allows the Bush Administration off the hook. It allows them to deride the point through demonstrating their modernity, while also still allowing them to cite their religious faith as a positive characteristic, and to suggest that their disagreements with their critics are "honest" - and are possibly leading toward a Renaissance.
What this mindset outlined by Gabler in fact resembles most is Communism2. Given the radical leftist education imbibed by some of the ideologues in and around the Administration, this should come as only a slight surprise. Furthermore, there are historians and critics (and bloggers), primarily on the right, who should not be under any illusions.
" The Soviet writer Vassily Grossman had some of the essentials when he wrote that 'the extreme violence of the totalitarian systems proved able to crush the human spirit throughout whole continents'. It wasn’t merely killing people, it was crushing their independent thought. And that, of course, is not simply lying, it is forcing you to believe and assert what you don't believe. Not just lying to you, but forcing the lie deep into your soul. And that, I think, was one of the main points of the ideologies. ... " [T]he capital-I idea then and now had the same basic notions: first that heaven can be constructed on earth. Secondly, that you merge your identify with the movement, with the party or the sect, or whatever it happened to be. And thirdly, that you want it all at once. It is Kirkegaard who says somewhere that the two great mental faults are laziness and impatience. And I think these are the two things which mark, not the actual ideology, but the type of mind which is going to take on an ideology. Laziness, means being unable to bother to cope with the complications of reality—trying to get it all done in one smart fix; and impatience means, you want to have it now. I think this is extremely important to try and get some feel, in this sense, for the sort of people who took on these ideologies. Now, ideologies, you may say, are dead. But this mindset is not dead. It still exists around the world. " [emphasis mine]- "Freedom, Terror and Falsehoods: Lessons From the Twentieth Century", a speech by Robert Conquest.
. . .
1 Calling the mindset of the Bush Administration "medieval" echoes Norman Cohn, but doesn't follow-up Cohn's insight that a "medieval" mindset is precisely what is characteristic of communists and other modern savages.
2 Yes, I do consider calling someone a "communist" an insult. I first travelled to what was still East Germany when I was eight. I have, partly as a result of such opportunities, never believed a word of communist rhetoric. I come by my progressive views honestly: through reading history. Oh, and personal experience.
I do not claim to have had much love for George Herbert Walker Bush's Presidency, its awkward acceptance and then active promotion of Reagan's style over substance, its caution to the point of inertia, its ultimate isolation from the byways of America. However, and despite serious unanswered questions regarding his own scandals, I never questioned his patriotism and his love of country. He was clearly a man who thought about the role of America in the world and his duty to that role.
With a true conservative's realism, and not a little of the true realist's cynicism, Bush's great accomplishment - now perhaps in tatters - was that he laid the foundations for a coherent foreign policy in the post-Cold War world and sought to strengthen (and in some cases create) the international institutions that would serve to promote that policy. I am among the few Americans for whom foreign policy concerns are as weighty as domestic when it comes to the voting booth and I found myself facing a difficult choice in 1992.
G.H.W. Bush is entitled to a peaceful retirement after long and faithful service to the United States of America.
Unfortunately, his foolish son was not content with all the manufactured millions and ersatz existential meaning a powerful father's tacit influence could secure. No, the younger George Bush was not satisfied to stumble through life from paper success to technical triumph to unaccountable accomplishment. He had to run for President too.
Success for the younger Bush has arisen from saying the right things rather than doing them, from cronyism instead of service, confrontation in the face of compromise, and jingoism over patriotism. The result is an Administration where only the words matter while necessary action languishes, where ideology confronts the nation's best interest, falsehoods have the power of authority, and bullying takes the place of leadership. All of this stands in starkest contrast with the elder Bush's stewardship and commitment.
What must a former President think of a successor who, knowing better, makes every mistake? What must a man think of a son who, given every opportunity, has learned all the wrong lessons? How can he stand to read the newspapers?
What, in this atmosphere of continuing conflict abroad, economic uncertainty at home, and deeply disturbing scandal at the heart, are we to make of this?:
"U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy will receive the 2003 George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service. ... Former President Bush has the sole discretion on who receives the award, said Penrod Thornton, deputy director of the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation."
A former President knows better than anyone else how difficult the job is and should refrain from jogging the elbow of the person in the office. A father should love his children. How then can the elder Bush communicate his concerns to the younger? Is anyone listening?
. . .
I am reminded of England's Henry II, successful diplomat, exceptional bureaucrat, and reluctant warrior, and his two famous sons: valiant, vain, and disinterested Richard, ignoring his domestic duties for a glorious crusade of dubious value; and unlucky, untrustworthy, arrogant John, who ruined everything he touched, alienated every people he ruled, and lost an empire. Henry never got along with his sons, never instilled in them the recognition, as Bishop Stubbs said was possessed by Henry, "that the well-being of the nation was the surest foundation of his own power".
I fear that the current Bush Administration will bear as its epitaph that offered of poor, miserable, bad King John by Richard Baker in his A Chronicle of the Kings of England:
" [H]is works of piety were very many . . . as for his actions, he neither came to the crown by justice, nor held it with any honour, nor left it peace. "
. . .
UPDATE: Changed the link to the news article as the previous one had degraded.
I find it nearly inconceivable that the media saturated American blogosphere needs to be told what a big fucking deal it is to out our NOCs. Didn't anybody see the movie Mission: Impossible?
A quick look around the Net through the lens of Google and I note that at least one blogger, Sylvain Galineau of The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid, did. Unfortunately for my attempt at levity, he brings the movie into a post titled in all seriousness "How the Company Really Works". It appears, according to Mr Galineau, that if Paul Krugman had ever seen M:I he'd be, if not a better person, at least a more, um, entertained one? I admit to some mystification about the post since the absurd aspects of M:I's plot details, in particular its treatment of the "NOC list", would seem to preclude any correspondence with reality other than something like my low-key popcult irony.
Before being distracted by Google, I was going to recall that the culture war complaint about M:I was that Jim Phelps would never betray America - and that only in a debased, nihilistic, Clintonian America could patriotic service be twisted into treason (as at least one otherwise long-forgotten op-ed argued - forgotten . . . except for an indelible impression on me). Why, they asked, why would Phelps out the NOCs? What possible purpose could it serve?
ETHAN HUNT Why, Jim? Why?JIM PHELPS ...when you think about it, Ethan, it was inevitable...no more Cold War. No more secrets you keep from everyone but yourself, operations you answer to no one but yourself. Then one morning you wake up and find out the President of the United States is running the country - without your permission. The son-of-a-bitch! How dare he?
Truth, it seems, is only just barely stranger than fiction.
I note by my spam that Arnold's campaign has shirts with that caption.
Now I'm as much of a fan of Terminator and T2 as anyone, but I think I'd feel threatened by such a statement in this context. This is just an election folks, not an action-horror-monsterhunt. Slightly more seriously, if I were Californian and voted for someone else, how exactly would my life be in danger? Does Arnold have a policy that will keep me alive in the face of . . . what exactly? It seems to me that the only person harmed by my voting for someone else would appear to be . . . Arnold - and I hear he's well-armed.
When the next election rolls around in '06, some enterprising journalist (possibly with a blog assist) ought to chart spending on California's public services pre- and post-Arnold and compare that with the actuarial data for the same time period.
Voting might just save your life.
I mention that I might be heading off to Iraq this Fall and in the very next consultation about Terms of Reference, etc it is decided that sending a man in his mid-thirties to Iraq right now is asking for trouble. Sigh. I was looking forward to it.
Instead, my organization is planning - if the security situation remains about the way it is and doesn't get worse - on sending two older, grayharied women. Appearances matter. While two older American-looking women are not inconspicuous, they aren't particularly threatening either.
As a consolation prize of sorts, I am now in discussion about travelling to Liberia.
(Mrs Martial has also weighed in with the opinion that I don't currently carry nearly enough insurance to support her in the lavish lifestyle that would be the only possible consolation to her for my death. You can see why I love her!)
UPDATE: Given that I'm actually attracting some traffic (thanks, Tim!), I should add:
a) My organization has been invited by some NGOs to work with them in Iraq.
b) We do conflict impact analysis. Which means, in a very small nutshell, that we assist organizations (ranging from development and humanitarian to corporate to government or UN agencies) in examining the context and determining the impact that an intervention will have on the conflict. It is a hell of a lot harder to actually get your work done in a situation of rising tension - and the way in which organizations work can in fact increase tensions. We discuss ways in which such tensions might be mitigated.
c) Given what we do, and given our style of working (no bodyguards if we can avoid it), we have to know the risks. We don't knowingly send people into serious danger.
d) No situation of conflict is completely safe. Duh. The reason we have chosen to send older women, rather than men is simply that we feel they would be safer. They might be stopped and interrogated on the street, but they won't be in danger - as I would be - of being beaten or shot or kidnapped. At least that's the hope - but it is hope based on experience.
Rush Limbaugh is gone from ESPN. Good riddance to bad rubbish1, as my great-grandmother used to say.
I appreciate Donovan McNabb's willingness to stand up and say the right things. I think his calling out of the other members of the "Countdown" crew and his expansion of the issue to include all African-American athletes at all levels was what forced ESPN's hand. Yes, Rush resigned, but he would have been fired.
Still, I think ESPN has come off less than well in this affair, preferring mealy-mouthed corporate declaiming of responsibility rather than addressing the issue in a forthright and properly outraged manner. The NFL has been a little better, but not much.
Wouldn't it be neat if someone at ESPN would step up to the plate and say something like:
" Wow. We really fucked up. I admit we brought Rush Limbaugh in for ratings - and it worked . . . and we were happy. But we were also wrong.As an organization that exists to display athletic prowess, as an organization that makes money from these displays, and knowing that much of the talent we work with both on and off of the field is African-American, we should have realized that any appearance of racism would be detrimental to our professional relationships. Furthermore, and more importantly, as people, we - I - should strongly condemn racism in all its forms and wherever and whenever it appears.
Let me be clear upon this matter: Mr Limbaugh's comments from Sunday were in fact racist. Mr Limbaugh contended that Mr McNabb is overrated as a quarterback and his successful Eagles teams had been carried by the defense on those teams. These opinions are interesting and can be debated. Such debates are part of the pleasure of sports. Where Mr Limbaugh's remarks crossed over from civil discourse and became indefensible was in his unsubstantiated suggestion that the 'over-rating' of Mr McNabb was due to the fact of Mr McNabb's skin color.
Some will undoubtedly ask, Why is this racist? Why is this not simply an opinion of one man, as valid in its way as any other?
It is surely an opinion. But it is also wrong - morally, as well as factually.
Mr Limbaugh said, and I quote: 'The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.'
How does Mr Limbaugh know this? More specifically, how does Mr Limbaugh know this in relation to Mr McNabb's career?
The question of Mr McNabb's skin color and his ability to play quarterback at the professional level has never, to the best of my knowledge, ever been raised. No one else on the show that Sunday morning had said anything about Donovan McNabb's skin color. To the best of my knowledge, no one in the frankly rabid, intensely partisan, and sublimely brutal Philadelphia press has ever commented on Mr McNabb's skin color in relation to his ability to play football.
Mr Limbaugh is of the opinion that Mr McNabb is over-rated. He feels that journalists have given more praise where less is due. Mr Limbaugh has found that he needs there to be some reason why other people would arrive at a conclusion different from Mr Limbaugh's. What is the reason for this difference of opinion according to Mr Limbaugh?
'The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.'The difference of opinion between Mr Limbaugh and other, unnamed members of the media does not come from interpretations of Mr McNabb's statistics or comparisons to other quarterbacks. The difference of opinion does not come from considering the relative value to the Eagles of the defensive unit versus the offensive or from debating the value of McNabb to the team's success relative to some other player or group of players. The difference of opinion does not come from any description of what has taken place on any football field over the four seasons of Mr McNabb's career. No, Mr Limbaugh contends that this difference of opinion comes from a consideration of the color of Mr McNabb's skin.
How does Mr Limbaugh know this, that Mr McNabb's skin color is the basis of this difference of opinion? Mr Limbaugh, quite simply, can cite no evidence of any journalist referring to Mr McNabb's skin color. He could, by contrast, cite thousands of pages and hours of interviews and commentaries arguing about what Mr McNabb has or has not done on a football field.
Mr Limbaugh is the only person talking about Mr McNabb's skin color. Apparently, for Mr Limbaugh, Mr McNabb's skin color is more important than what happens on the field during the games.
And that is racist.
Mr Limbaugh's efforts to portray his comments as criticism of the 'media' (an entity of which Mr Limbaugh himself is a member) demonstrate a desperate attempt to avoid accountability. Mr Limbaugh's efforts to somehow portray the outpouring of outrage as a confirmation of his thesis is odious.
Mr Limbaugh, people are outraged not because you are right, but because you are wrong. People are outraged because you use your position as a media celebrity, as a person with an audience, to perpetuate beliefs that are harmful to the ideals upon which America was founded, beliefs that are damaging to our attempts to live up to those ideals, beliefs that have caused and continue to cause social division and social damage. Finally, people are outraged because racism in our country continues to hurt people - real people, Mr Limbaugh, who have worked hard to grasp the American Dream.
Mr Limbaugh should examine his soul and his conscience and he should find it in himself to apologize. Even though Mr McNabb has suggested that an apology is not needed, we at ESPN feel that an apology to Mr McNabb first, and then to the rest of America would probably do Mr Limbaugh some good.
We also would dearly love an apology from Mr Limbaugh for using our network to present a racist perspective, but we feel that having severed our professional ties with him amply serves to demonstrate our outrage over his wrongheadedness.
We, however, also need to apologize.
Let me say, on behalf of all of us here at ESPN (and ABC and Disney), how terribly sorry I am that we served as the conduit for pernicious and nasty ideas. I am also sorry that we made a corporate decision about ratings and profits that did not take into account the hurtful aspects Mr Limbaugh's history and his record of racist views. As a news organization, we are also sorry to have hired someone who, in his professional life, has never demonstrated a commitment to the facts. We did hire Mr Limbaugh to take part in an opinion show, but, as journalists working for a news organization, we must have a commitment to the facts even in our opinions. Our opinions must be based upon facts, and not upon fantasies and most certainly they should not contribute to false and hurtful perspectives of our fellow human beings.
We were wrong. We will work hard to get it right in the future. We will not make this mistake again. We ask, not as ESPN, but as people for your forgiveness.
Thank you. "
And the NFL should issue a statement that goes something like this:
" Do not fuck with our players with your racist bullshit. We DO NOT have to put up with it. "
. . .
1 Yep, good riddance to bad rubbish - not to mention that Limbaugh doesn't know enough about football to contribute meaningfully to the show. I'm a football fan, yes, but I am a serious fan. I want commentary that gives me insight into what is a fantastically complex game (Why did they call that play instead of this? Why this substitution now? Why this strategy and not that? Etc). Opinions based upon a mere understanding of the rules and a passing familiarity with the players is boring to me. And, for the most part, such opinions are wrong.
Anything worth doing, is worth mastering.
Brad DeLong is beating his head against the wall – perpetually, it seems. This time the pounding comes as he reports that the Economist finally recognizes what has been obvious all along: the Bush Administration is “stupid, short-sighted, parochial and economically illiterate”.
Sometimes we’re all a little slow on the up-take, but in this case The Economist had the evidence and their own analysis back in their March 9-15 ’02 issue when they had this to say about the new steel tariffs:
"so wrong it makes other kinds of wealth-destroying intervention feel inadequate."
Why "Plame" now? Why not back in mid-July?
" From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August. " - Andy Card
Looks like the CIA at least is paying attention (and so, apparently, is the Washington Post).
Mark Kleiman, on the other hand, thinks the delay is "inexcusable". While Mr Kleiman has been all over this story on his blog from the beginning (I learned about it from him - and have spent the past two months carefully setting up my Republican friends by having them agree that the next election should be based on national security and the propriety of the Executive in pursuing it), he suggests that we begin our daily reading at Open Source Politics.