Under our "favorites" section, you will find a link to a podcaster named Dan Carlin. This is MUST HAVE ear candy for anyone associated with the Driveway Bund... period.
This is the most in-depth, well-researched look at current affairs (the Common Sense podcasts) and historical reviews (Hardcore History) available to anyone willing to listen to podcasts at all. I have done more deep-thinking while listening to his shows then I have since the last face-to-face meeting of the Bund in 2008.
I am particularly driven to think of the Bund when I hear his comments on the impossibility of divorcing any single facet of history in favor of all other facets. In other words, you cannot allow the "good" side of an historical situation to counter or off-set the "bad" side of an historical situation.
We have done this countless times, and (according to Carlin) this is nothing short of pure, revisionist history... something we have all voiced our collective and individual abhorrence to.
Example: One cannot separate the tactics, strategies and actions of the Wehrmacht in WWII from those of the Nazis and their goals regarding the "Final Solution". Were there no Wehrmacht, there would have been no opportunity to attempt the "Final Solution" by the Nazi elite.
Example: How many times have I taken a pro-Confederate position in discussions about the American Civil War? I routinely put aside the "question" of slavery in favor of the CSA's policies and positions regarding States rights vs Federal authority. According to Carlin, I cannot do this without taking a revisionist position, because I cannot rationally divorce slavery from the Confederate side of the debate simply because I don't want to try and make that objectionable part of history fit into my view.
Example: How many times have I argued with Ryan about some obscure facet of Reagan's foreign policy agenda that didn't mesh with the "constitutionalist-ideal" that Ryan and others so want Reagan to fit? By arguing that any wrongs done or questionable policies applied were easily over-looked in the long term view is "revisionist" and not only rhetorically in error, but morally objectionable to boot.
Please, give the guy a listen at the earliest opportunity, and let me know what you think.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Friday, September 13, 2013
On Ryan's last...
I had actually stopped checking the Bund for new posts... its been THAT long. Had you not sent me the text, I'd still not have read it.
I think I see your point... but let me make mine and you can tell me if I do or don't.
The US has its "bread and butter" in FREEDOM, and we advocate representative democracy as the means by which all nations and states can gain what we have. Tyranny and despotism are BAD, democracy and republicanism are GOOD.
However, this "bread and butter" foundation to our foreign policy framework has some HUGE drawbacks...
If the despotic tyrants are "over-thrown" and a new, democratically elected government is set up and operating, what happens when that elected representative system goes against American interests? Hamas in Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hezbollah in Lebanon... all now function as "legitimate" political bodies within their respective governments (or maintain outright elected control, as in Palestine). Suddenly, we are faced with the prospect of preferring the former despot to the elected government. As despotic and tyrannical as the Shah of Iran was in 1978... surely, we preferred him to the Revolutionary Council that kept Americans hostage for 444 days, right? Arafat was bad as a terrorist leader... but wasn't he worse for American foreign policy as an elected official in the Palestinian government?
The failing in American foreign policy right now is that it is still entrenched in the dogmatic paradigm of the Cold War... we support those that are "with us" and oppose those that are "against us", regardless of the means or manner in which that government takes and maintains power over its people.
Our formative years as a nation were spent almost entirely in an "isolationist" mentality. Unless attacked by outside forces (War of 1812), fighting in the US of A was a strictly internal, "domestic" sort of fighting and expansion. We crushed the Native Americans, fought a small war with Mexico, and nearly tore ourselves apart during the Civil War. On a "global scale" though, we did nothing until the imperialistic nationalism of a very select few took us to war with Spain over a few island territories.
In the last 25 years of American foreign policy, we seem to have forgotten that "all men are created equal" and that all people have the right to determine their own means of government. Tragic as the Syrian war is... it is up to the Syrians to determine their future. We should be supporting relief efforts to refugees in other nations, rather than picking sides and giving material support that WILL lead to more death and destruction.
I am rapidly losing faith in our government's ability to safely determine what is in the best "interests" of this nation... and that loss of faith has NOTHING to do with the party affiliation of the majority in Washington. Democrat or Republican... I think they are ALL idiots.
I think I see your point... but let me make mine and you can tell me if I do or don't.
The US has its "bread and butter" in FREEDOM, and we advocate representative democracy as the means by which all nations and states can gain what we have. Tyranny and despotism are BAD, democracy and republicanism are GOOD.
However, this "bread and butter" foundation to our foreign policy framework has some HUGE drawbacks...
If the despotic tyrants are "over-thrown" and a new, democratically elected government is set up and operating, what happens when that elected representative system goes against American interests? Hamas in Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hezbollah in Lebanon... all now function as "legitimate" political bodies within their respective governments (or maintain outright elected control, as in Palestine). Suddenly, we are faced with the prospect of preferring the former despot to the elected government. As despotic and tyrannical as the Shah of Iran was in 1978... surely, we preferred him to the Revolutionary Council that kept Americans hostage for 444 days, right? Arafat was bad as a terrorist leader... but wasn't he worse for American foreign policy as an elected official in the Palestinian government?
The failing in American foreign policy right now is that it is still entrenched in the dogmatic paradigm of the Cold War... we support those that are "with us" and oppose those that are "against us", regardless of the means or manner in which that government takes and maintains power over its people.
Our formative years as a nation were spent almost entirely in an "isolationist" mentality. Unless attacked by outside forces (War of 1812), fighting in the US of A was a strictly internal, "domestic" sort of fighting and expansion. We crushed the Native Americans, fought a small war with Mexico, and nearly tore ourselves apart during the Civil War. On a "global scale" though, we did nothing until the imperialistic nationalism of a very select few took us to war with Spain over a few island territories.
In the last 25 years of American foreign policy, we seem to have forgotten that "all men are created equal" and that all people have the right to determine their own means of government. Tragic as the Syrian war is... it is up to the Syrians to determine their future. We should be supporting relief efforts to refugees in other nations, rather than picking sides and giving material support that WILL lead to more death and destruction.
I am rapidly losing faith in our government's ability to safely determine what is in the best "interests" of this nation... and that loss of faith has NOTHING to do with the party affiliation of the majority in Washington. Democrat or Republican... I think they are ALL idiots.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Six of one may not be a half dozen of the other...
Bolsheviks. French Jacobins. Nazis. What do they all have in common with Syria?
I'm going to give you my take on US intervention within Syria, Egypt, Libya, and the rest of the Near East, but this entire debacle known as "The Arab Spring" must be seen within a certain context. During a time of revolution, upheaval, turmoil -insert your favorite platitude here- nation state after nation state all fall victim to one overriding truism. Organized minorities can corral unorganized majorities. The question for the US, regarding the Near East, is which organized minority group is preferable? The militaristic dictatorships of the Mubarak and Assad variety, or the Jihadists? Because what is clear, what is undeniable, is that at this point in world history stable democracies In the Middle East (and I use both terms loosely) must be enforced at the end of a US Marine rifle to have any chance of survival. And given 12 years of doing just that in two nations has soured the American electorate on attempting this enforcement on yet a third country, we are left with a very difficult, and tasteless choice. Difficult because "freedom" is our bread and butter, so backing despots - despite their secular/friendly nature to us - doesn't sit right. And tasteless because in either choice, innocent "live and let live" Muslims will have rights trampled and lives lost. However, it is imperative that we look at Syria through the lense of this very dark choice.
Assad. I saw a instant gram message picture online that sent me down a trail of thought. The message included a photo of his wife in Nike workout gear, expensive running shoes, the works. And it occurred to me that this is one despot that has secular skin in the game. He has palaces to lose, expense accounts to consider, gold necklaces and silver plated pistols to keep dust free (or is it silver necklaces and gold plated pistols?). Plus, he has a military stranglehold. A military that is winning, more than not, this bloody little civil conflict in which 100,000+ have lost their lives. So if you are Assad you're in your late 40's. You have a sweet life. Ya, Tehran treats you like their lap dog, but you like the palaces and women, so it's all good. And this bothersome rebel group, consisting more often then not of those damned no fun having Jihadists, have given you a good scare but you have tanks, Russian ones, and in the end you know that "tanks" beat "no tanks." So you look around and you're fairly confident that you're going to come out of this much better than Mubarak, or that dog Qaddafi. So you say to yourself, what is the one thing I could do to give the Americans an excuse to lunch two million dollar missiles at my ten dollar barracks? I know! I'll gas 1,400 people. That way I can get some tomahawks slammed right into my tanks, and screw this whole thing up.
Is this what happened?
Let's set aside our odd obsession with what I call our "moral math." I mean, 1,400 dead by chemicals is enough to wage war, based on our WWI treaties (yes, World War ONE), but 100,000 dead by Ak's and machetes, that's no violation of "international norms." Something seems off there to me. And instead lets focus on whether the above scenario is the most plausible. Not "possible", which of course it is because when gaming the Middle East one must always leave room for crazy, but is it plausible? In case my sarcasm left room for ambiguity, I have my doubts. Then there's the Russian bear. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trust ol' Vlad Putin with an unloaded gun, but he now flatly claims that our SoS is lying and says he has proof that it was in fact the rebels who gassed their own people in order to play the only strategic card available to them - get us to destroy Assad's tanks (read: heavy weapon advantage).
This introduces the other angle... if you are a hardened Jihadist, and you see the various despotic regimes within the 22 Arab states as apostates, then you have to figure out how to depose them. You're organized and devoted, but despite the Imam's fiery rhetoric ginning up the 19 year old Saudis trying to "find themselves" at the underground Mosque, you have seen real battle and you also know that in the end tanks beat no tanks. So what would be even better than destroying those tanks yourself? Why getting the great satan to do it for you! In fact, manipulate them into thinking it is their duty. And there was that "red line" statement of the president, that could be useful. So you murder...err...martyr 1,400 souls to further the greater goal of a united PanArab caliphate, and just like that the American president lines up to slice your opponent's throat with those damned Tomahawk missiles... maybe cruise.
To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. I'm not quite there yet, despite my commentary above, but I'm damn close.
Of course it is possible some rogue Syrian general ordered a chemical strike. Again though, we must weigh possible against probable. What is clear to me is that unless we are willing to put boots on the ground, we really have only those two original choices - militaristic despots, or Jihadist theocracies. Left to their own devices the Middle East seems - at this point in history - capable of producing only those two forms of government (and for you sticklers out there, the Saudi and Jordanian monarchs exercise control because they can afford to pay the military apparatus). It may be awful to contemplate, but if you are an official charged with the responsibility to safeguard American lives, clearly a Mubarak is safer than a Muslim Brotherhood, and a Sha is safer than an Ayatollah. Which brings me back to Assad. If you are Bashir (his first name), the best "strike" you can make right now is to release a YouTube video addressing the West, and America in specific (and I mean the average Joe American, not the National Security Council), and say, "Look, I am the stop gap between you guys and these Jihadists. I will deal with the radicals whom want to bring down two more of your towers. I will lend stability to your oil markets, and I will do my best to avoid civilian casualties, but understand you are about to arm and aide Al Qeda in Syria. The same men killing your troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. We may not always agree, but right now we have the same enemy." Then make sure those photos of your wife in work out gear get out there. Along with you in a suit and tie eating dinner with Kerry in a nice restaurant (from some years back), juxtaposed against the picture of that rebel eating a man's heart on the battlefield. By the way, that's not hyperbole. That is an authenticated video on the web.
Just to be clear - far be it from me to "advise" a despot and butcher like Assad. I'm simply trying to wargame this thing out. The administration keeps talking about what will happen if we don't strike, and few are talking about what will happen if we do. Russia has a warm water port in Syria, and Assad is their man. Will Putin sit on his hands? What if Iran set up that chemical strike and as soon as we launch our missles the Iranians arrange to kill 10,000 this time with chem weapons, baiting us into boots on the ground in a third nation? Not to mention going into Syria hot may reignite the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. Libya is still a mess and Egypt is one battle away from full out civil war. The Egyptian military is considering making the Muslim Brotherhood illegal as an institution after winning an election eight months ago. Think about that rallying cry - "We tried democracy, it's a joke, Allah Uh Akbar!" Does anyone think the brotherhood will simply disband and open up a fried date stand?
What is clear to me is the Arab Spring has become a debacle for both the entire region and the West. And the one place where it could have proven useful to the West, Iran, we refused to back the revolutionaries. So again I say if the American electorate feels the end of a Marine rifle is no longer an acceptable mechanism for enforcement of a democratic regime (an oxymoronic phrase if I've ever written one), than we must make our dark choice. Which organized minority will we back? The theocracy or the despot? Despite who we invite, they are the only two guests showing up at this party.
To be honest, what scares me more than anything at this moment is our president is just vain enough to delude himself into thinking he, through the power of his will, can forge some third option. Men like that have started world wars.
I'm going to give you my take on US intervention within Syria, Egypt, Libya, and the rest of the Near East, but this entire debacle known as "The Arab Spring" must be seen within a certain context. During a time of revolution, upheaval, turmoil -insert your favorite platitude here- nation state after nation state all fall victim to one overriding truism. Organized minorities can corral unorganized majorities. The question for the US, regarding the Near East, is which organized minority group is preferable? The militaristic dictatorships of the Mubarak and Assad variety, or the Jihadists? Because what is clear, what is undeniable, is that at this point in world history stable democracies In the Middle East (and I use both terms loosely) must be enforced at the end of a US Marine rifle to have any chance of survival. And given 12 years of doing just that in two nations has soured the American electorate on attempting this enforcement on yet a third country, we are left with a very difficult, and tasteless choice. Difficult because "freedom" is our bread and butter, so backing despots - despite their secular/friendly nature to us - doesn't sit right. And tasteless because in either choice, innocent "live and let live" Muslims will have rights trampled and lives lost. However, it is imperative that we look at Syria through the lense of this very dark choice.
Assad. I saw a instant gram message picture online that sent me down a trail of thought. The message included a photo of his wife in Nike workout gear, expensive running shoes, the works. And it occurred to me that this is one despot that has secular skin in the game. He has palaces to lose, expense accounts to consider, gold necklaces and silver plated pistols to keep dust free (or is it silver necklaces and gold plated pistols?). Plus, he has a military stranglehold. A military that is winning, more than not, this bloody little civil conflict in which 100,000+ have lost their lives. So if you are Assad you're in your late 40's. You have a sweet life. Ya, Tehran treats you like their lap dog, but you like the palaces and women, so it's all good. And this bothersome rebel group, consisting more often then not of those damned no fun having Jihadists, have given you a good scare but you have tanks, Russian ones, and in the end you know that "tanks" beat "no tanks." So you look around and you're fairly confident that you're going to come out of this much better than Mubarak, or that dog Qaddafi. So you say to yourself, what is the one thing I could do to give the Americans an excuse to lunch two million dollar missiles at my ten dollar barracks? I know! I'll gas 1,400 people. That way I can get some tomahawks slammed right into my tanks, and screw this whole thing up.
Is this what happened?
Let's set aside our odd obsession with what I call our "moral math." I mean, 1,400 dead by chemicals is enough to wage war, based on our WWI treaties (yes, World War ONE), but 100,000 dead by Ak's and machetes, that's no violation of "international norms." Something seems off there to me. And instead lets focus on whether the above scenario is the most plausible. Not "possible", which of course it is because when gaming the Middle East one must always leave room for crazy, but is it plausible? In case my sarcasm left room for ambiguity, I have my doubts. Then there's the Russian bear. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trust ol' Vlad Putin with an unloaded gun, but he now flatly claims that our SoS is lying and says he has proof that it was in fact the rebels who gassed their own people in order to play the only strategic card available to them - get us to destroy Assad's tanks (read: heavy weapon advantage).
This introduces the other angle... if you are a hardened Jihadist, and you see the various despotic regimes within the 22 Arab states as apostates, then you have to figure out how to depose them. You're organized and devoted, but despite the Imam's fiery rhetoric ginning up the 19 year old Saudis trying to "find themselves" at the underground Mosque, you have seen real battle and you also know that in the end tanks beat no tanks. So what would be even better than destroying those tanks yourself? Why getting the great satan to do it for you! In fact, manipulate them into thinking it is their duty. And there was that "red line" statement of the president, that could be useful. So you murder...err...martyr 1,400 souls to further the greater goal of a united PanArab caliphate, and just like that the American president lines up to slice your opponent's throat with those damned Tomahawk missiles... maybe cruise.
To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. I'm not quite there yet, despite my commentary above, but I'm damn close.
Of course it is possible some rogue Syrian general ordered a chemical strike. Again though, we must weigh possible against probable. What is clear to me is that unless we are willing to put boots on the ground, we really have only those two original choices - militaristic despots, or Jihadist theocracies. Left to their own devices the Middle East seems - at this point in history - capable of producing only those two forms of government (and for you sticklers out there, the Saudi and Jordanian monarchs exercise control because they can afford to pay the military apparatus). It may be awful to contemplate, but if you are an official charged with the responsibility to safeguard American lives, clearly a Mubarak is safer than a Muslim Brotherhood, and a Sha is safer than an Ayatollah. Which brings me back to Assad. If you are Bashir (his first name), the best "strike" you can make right now is to release a YouTube video addressing the West, and America in specific (and I mean the average Joe American, not the National Security Council), and say, "Look, I am the stop gap between you guys and these Jihadists. I will deal with the radicals whom want to bring down two more of your towers. I will lend stability to your oil markets, and I will do my best to avoid civilian casualties, but understand you are about to arm and aide Al Qeda in Syria. The same men killing your troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. We may not always agree, but right now we have the same enemy." Then make sure those photos of your wife in work out gear get out there. Along with you in a suit and tie eating dinner with Kerry in a nice restaurant (from some years back), juxtaposed against the picture of that rebel eating a man's heart on the battlefield. By the way, that's not hyperbole. That is an authenticated video on the web.
Just to be clear - far be it from me to "advise" a despot and butcher like Assad. I'm simply trying to wargame this thing out. The administration keeps talking about what will happen if we don't strike, and few are talking about what will happen if we do. Russia has a warm water port in Syria, and Assad is their man. Will Putin sit on his hands? What if Iran set up that chemical strike and as soon as we launch our missles the Iranians arrange to kill 10,000 this time with chem weapons, baiting us into boots on the ground in a third nation? Not to mention going into Syria hot may reignite the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. Libya is still a mess and Egypt is one battle away from full out civil war. The Egyptian military is considering making the Muslim Brotherhood illegal as an institution after winning an election eight months ago. Think about that rallying cry - "We tried democracy, it's a joke, Allah Uh Akbar!" Does anyone think the brotherhood will simply disband and open up a fried date stand?
What is clear to me is the Arab Spring has become a debacle for both the entire region and the West. And the one place where it could have proven useful to the West, Iran, we refused to back the revolutionaries. So again I say if the American electorate feels the end of a Marine rifle is no longer an acceptable mechanism for enforcement of a democratic regime (an oxymoronic phrase if I've ever written one), than we must make our dark choice. Which organized minority will we back? The theocracy or the despot? Despite who we invite, they are the only two guests showing up at this party.
To be honest, what scares me more than anything at this moment is our president is just vain enough to delude himself into thinking he, through the power of his will, can forge some third option. Men like that have started world wars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
