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.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
99.7%
Two posts in almost as many days, look out!
While we're on the topic I wanted to make mention of a story that had me craning my neck towards the radio as I arched a brow the other day. Apparently the visitors center to the Capitol Rotunda caused a stir some years back when it rang in at a svelte 600 million dollars. The consensus was, it's nice, but not a half billion nice if you get my drift. It was chalked up to yet more evidence of government's inability to be efficient with our money, reminiscent of the old $500 Pentagon toilet seats (or was it a hammer?). Well, not so.
Apparently their is a heretofore secret underground lair (insert Dr. Evil laugh here) beneath the visitor center. A state of the art, protected (sound proofed and the works) facility where top secret meetings, or more accurately, "cases" are held. This is where the FISA Court warrants are issued. It's also where precedent is being set on what the feds can and can not "gather" domestically. The word is that SCOTUS level 4th Amendment decisions are being meted out there, which in turn is what the NSA, FBI, and even the CIA use as legal backing. In other words, this may be the source from which the NSA draws when Director Hayden claims, "We're working completely within the law."
My source on this? That rabid right wing dog... The Washington Post. You can read the full article here. And I quote, "The public is getting a peek into the little-known workings of a powerful and mostly invisible government entity... Critics, including some with knowledge of the court’s internal operations, say the court has undergone a disturbing shift. It was created in 1978 to handle routine surveillance warrants, but these critics say it is now issuing complex, classified, Supreme Court-style rulings that are quietly expanding the government’s reach into the private lives of unwitting Americans... The government can get virtually anything."
Apparently eleven members, federal judges each, serve on this court for an average of seven years. They are hand selected by one man, the Chief Justice, and the current eleven were all picked by Roberts... but we know we can trust him, right? Cough...ahem...Obamacare.
It's an interesting read, and may be the source of our current concerns over civil liberty violations, whereas the NSA is merely the end result. By the way, my post title... it's the rate at which this court approves government requests.
While we're on the topic I wanted to make mention of a story that had me craning my neck towards the radio as I arched a brow the other day. Apparently the visitors center to the Capitol Rotunda caused a stir some years back when it rang in at a svelte 600 million dollars. The consensus was, it's nice, but not a half billion nice if you get my drift. It was chalked up to yet more evidence of government's inability to be efficient with our money, reminiscent of the old $500 Pentagon toilet seats (or was it a hammer?). Well, not so.
Apparently their is a heretofore secret underground lair (insert Dr. Evil laugh here) beneath the visitor center. A state of the art, protected (sound proofed and the works) facility where top secret meetings, or more accurately, "cases" are held. This is where the FISA Court warrants are issued. It's also where precedent is being set on what the feds can and can not "gather" domestically. The word is that SCOTUS level 4th Amendment decisions are being meted out there, which in turn is what the NSA, FBI, and even the CIA use as legal backing. In other words, this may be the source from which the NSA draws when Director Hayden claims, "We're working completely within the law."
My source on this? That rabid right wing dog... The Washington Post. You can read the full article here. And I quote, "The public is getting a peek into the little-known workings of a powerful and mostly invisible government entity... Critics, including some with knowledge of the court’s internal operations, say the court has undergone a disturbing shift. It was created in 1978 to handle routine surveillance warrants, but these critics say it is now issuing complex, classified, Supreme Court-style rulings that are quietly expanding the government’s reach into the private lives of unwitting Americans... The government can get virtually anything."
Apparently eleven members, federal judges each, serve on this court for an average of seven years. They are hand selected by one man, the Chief Justice, and the current eleven were all picked by Roberts... but we know we can trust him, right? Cough...ahem...Obamacare.
It's an interesting read, and may be the source of our current concerns over civil liberty violations, whereas the NSA is merely the end result. By the way, my post title... it's the rate at which this court approves government requests.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Terrorism and Safety, Specifically...
You're right of course, I didn't really address that specifically and rather used the opportunity to vent my ever darkening mood towards the future of the country I love.
About that "mood", let me just add this... although brewing for some time it has no doubt redoubled after two events. In back to back fashion I took a class exclusively on "The Old Testament" (taught as a history class), and then plunged myself into The History of Rome Podcast (of which I'm on episode 77, of 179). And what I was forced into realizing was that the country I love so much and who's founding I believe was divine providence (how else one explains the accumulation of genius in what we collectively refer to as the founding fathers is beyond me), may be - and I stress may be - nothing more than a blip on history's radar. What I gleam from these two historical story lines is a people that again and again had the opportunity to right their ship, and just didn't. And what's even more evident is that their enemies were never able to conquer them externally until they first disabled themselves internally. With that model in mind I look at our historic arc and I fret. So, prior to this, did I expect that the United States of America would last the proverbial "forever." Short answer? Ya. I kinda did. Naive, sure. But that was in fact my world view - we're big, we're bad, we're here to stay. That admittedly juvenile world view has been shattered. And what's worse, the internal disabling that seems to afflict all of history's great nations (pick one, Britain, Rome, et al) is so slow (as Titus eluded), so plodding and pedantic that if you stand up and shout about its' existence you're dubbed a crazy man. Will America be relegated to a few vague acknowledgements among the dominant culture 500 years from now? The name Washington most recognized as a casino resort? Will the more informed citizens do little more than reference a podcast or own a copy of Gibbons' equivalent? We certainly seem to be destined for such a fate in that no other great power has found themselves capable of avoiding it. It may be long after we are set to rest in the hills of this land, but a moment when our descendants see the Visigoths come crashing across those hills, is inevitable.
Everybody feeling cheered up yet? Hehehe... ok, to another cheery subject: Islamic terrorism.
I thought about your question Titus (now asked twice), and two points came to mind. 1.) Between 9/11 and the moment we complete our troop "wind down", or whatever autocratic label they've given it now, yes, we have been safer. Let me explain. The admirable aspects of the Patriot Act (allowing the CIA to communicate info to the FBI comes to mind), and the billions pored into hiring translators, and technology has indeed made us safer. Bare in mind, I'm not judging their impact on Civil Liberties here, only their impact on physical safety from Islamic Fascists. That we went over a decade without another major attack (I'm counting Boston as the bookend to 9/11) is evidence of this safety. In addition, whatever else you can criticize Bush for he did accomplish one bit of logistical genius. As of September 11th, 2001 the enemy had brought the theater of war to our backyard. Bush firmly reaffixed that theater to their backyard. This had a real advantage for our homeland. Every wannabe Jihadi and terrorist with half a brain and a whole prayer rug wanted to fight the American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, seeing it as their "duty" to drive the wicked West off Muslim land. I have no doubt that thousands of the (oft foreign) insurgents our boys smoked in those two theaters would have lined up as Jihadist cell members destined for our shores had Bush not reestablished the front lines "over there." So post 9/11 have we literally been physically safer? Yes. Unquestionably.
However, and here's point number 2.)... We did not secure a decisive WWII style victory against a very radical, very determined enemy over there. Our boys could whip them any day of the week, and twice on Sunday, but that's not the issue. Political correctness and the general softness (I don't know what else to call it) of our culture and modern leadership unequivocally preclude such a thing. Our new "victory model" over seas looks closer to a Korean style win (and in time, perhaps closer to Vietnam). What does this mean? When our troops really do leave, thousands of battle hardened, experienced, explosives trained Jihadists could follow us home. In essence only delaying the homeland as a theater of war. Or, equally as bad, the battle hardened Islamists could systematically attempt to topple the secular regimes of the Near East (monarchs, dictators or democrats, it makes no difference to them - if they're not Wahhabi, they're dead); and thus produce a half dozen or more little Irans (or big ones). By the way, the latter looks to be the Islamist strategy de'jour for the moment, and the current US leadership seems to be spinning the Big 6 Wheel to decide whom they're going to support from day to day.
So to be as succinct as possible - From 9/11 to our total disengagement of Iraq/Afghanistan (currently underway), yes I believe we were indeed physically safer here in the US. However, post troop withdrawal going into the future? The civil liberties we relinquished in the previous decade combined with the battle hardened enemy we leave behind may, in the long term, leave us less safe indeed. The bottom line, bringing the battle to them was logistically sound. But our tactic - namely the unwillingness to unconditionally defeat and disable our foe's ability to wage war - was not. The lesson? Don't go to war unless you intend to decimate the enemy's capabilities. Otherwise you could end up less safe than when you started. And at this moment, I would argue that's the most likely outcome for us... so be a dear and cue up the next podcast of "The Rise and Fall of America", it's really starting to get interesting.
About that "mood", let me just add this... although brewing for some time it has no doubt redoubled after two events. In back to back fashion I took a class exclusively on "The Old Testament" (taught as a history class), and then plunged myself into The History of Rome Podcast (of which I'm on episode 77, of 179). And what I was forced into realizing was that the country I love so much and who's founding I believe was divine providence (how else one explains the accumulation of genius in what we collectively refer to as the founding fathers is beyond me), may be - and I stress may be - nothing more than a blip on history's radar. What I gleam from these two historical story lines is a people that again and again had the opportunity to right their ship, and just didn't. And what's even more evident is that their enemies were never able to conquer them externally until they first disabled themselves internally. With that model in mind I look at our historic arc and I fret. So, prior to this, did I expect that the United States of America would last the proverbial "forever." Short answer? Ya. I kinda did. Naive, sure. But that was in fact my world view - we're big, we're bad, we're here to stay. That admittedly juvenile world view has been shattered. And what's worse, the internal disabling that seems to afflict all of history's great nations (pick one, Britain, Rome, et al) is so slow (as Titus eluded), so plodding and pedantic that if you stand up and shout about its' existence you're dubbed a crazy man. Will America be relegated to a few vague acknowledgements among the dominant culture 500 years from now? The name Washington most recognized as a casino resort? Will the more informed citizens do little more than reference a podcast or own a copy of Gibbons' equivalent? We certainly seem to be destined for such a fate in that no other great power has found themselves capable of avoiding it. It may be long after we are set to rest in the hills of this land, but a moment when our descendants see the Visigoths come crashing across those hills, is inevitable.
Everybody feeling cheered up yet? Hehehe... ok, to another cheery subject: Islamic terrorism.
I thought about your question Titus (now asked twice), and two points came to mind. 1.) Between 9/11 and the moment we complete our troop "wind down", or whatever autocratic label they've given it now, yes, we have been safer. Let me explain. The admirable aspects of the Patriot Act (allowing the CIA to communicate info to the FBI comes to mind), and the billions pored into hiring translators, and technology has indeed made us safer. Bare in mind, I'm not judging their impact on Civil Liberties here, only their impact on physical safety from Islamic Fascists. That we went over a decade without another major attack (I'm counting Boston as the bookend to 9/11) is evidence of this safety. In addition, whatever else you can criticize Bush for he did accomplish one bit of logistical genius. As of September 11th, 2001 the enemy had brought the theater of war to our backyard. Bush firmly reaffixed that theater to their backyard. This had a real advantage for our homeland. Every wannabe Jihadi and terrorist with half a brain and a whole prayer rug wanted to fight the American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, seeing it as their "duty" to drive the wicked West off Muslim land. I have no doubt that thousands of the (oft foreign) insurgents our boys smoked in those two theaters would have lined up as Jihadist cell members destined for our shores had Bush not reestablished the front lines "over there." So post 9/11 have we literally been physically safer? Yes. Unquestionably.
However, and here's point number 2.)... We did not secure a decisive WWII style victory against a very radical, very determined enemy over there. Our boys could whip them any day of the week, and twice on Sunday, but that's not the issue. Political correctness and the general softness (I don't know what else to call it) of our culture and modern leadership unequivocally preclude such a thing. Our new "victory model" over seas looks closer to a Korean style win (and in time, perhaps closer to Vietnam). What does this mean? When our troops really do leave, thousands of battle hardened, experienced, explosives trained Jihadists could follow us home. In essence only delaying the homeland as a theater of war. Or, equally as bad, the battle hardened Islamists could systematically attempt to topple the secular regimes of the Near East (monarchs, dictators or democrats, it makes no difference to them - if they're not Wahhabi, they're dead); and thus produce a half dozen or more little Irans (or big ones). By the way, the latter looks to be the Islamist strategy de'jour for the moment, and the current US leadership seems to be spinning the Big 6 Wheel to decide whom they're going to support from day to day.
So to be as succinct as possible - From 9/11 to our total disengagement of Iraq/Afghanistan (currently underway), yes I believe we were indeed physically safer here in the US. However, post troop withdrawal going into the future? The civil liberties we relinquished in the previous decade combined with the battle hardened enemy we leave behind may, in the long term, leave us less safe indeed. The bottom line, bringing the battle to them was logistically sound. But our tactic - namely the unwillingness to unconditionally defeat and disable our foe's ability to wage war - was not. The lesson? Don't go to war unless you intend to decimate the enemy's capabilities. Otherwise you could end up less safe than when you started. And at this moment, I would argue that's the most likely outcome for us... so be a dear and cue up the next podcast of "The Rise and Fall of America", it's really starting to get interesting.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Analogy... {sigh}
I'm really not a fan of analogy, but F. Ryan's is appropriate, if nothing else.
Boiling the frog does seem to fit the description of the state of our nation. Were we plunged into "hot" water (i.e. dropped into a political situation where communism ruled all aspects of our lives), we'd all no doubt "jump out" of the pot. This isn't that sort of revolution, though... it is a slow, methodical shift in the national paradigm away from self-reliance and toward a complete dependency on the government.
Two points:
1) Ryan really didn't answer my question. I'm mainly concerned that the War on Terror is not only NOT being won, it is actually costing the US far more in damages over the long run than it is gaining us in short term safety. There is an attrition factor here that isn't being taken into account, and I'm not talking about pure manpower numbers... I'm talking about the "numbness" that comes from a prolonged national effort. We live the "normal life"... the modern "dolce vita" that is sapping our ability to adapt as a society in the face of change, hardship or disaster... while more and more of our individual rights, freedoms and liberties are removed to provide more dolce vita. In the meanwhile, our efforts to "win" the War on Terror are actually contributing to its protraction... perhaps even giving our enemies exactly what they wanted in the first place: a divided America unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to win the effort long-term.
2) I'm not as pessimistic as Ryan seems to be about the future options that America has in this regard. Sure, things look grim now, and probably will get worse in the near future before they ever get better... but that, too, is normal.
I really do think that, unless some outside factor intervenes in the national scene (i.e. another massive terrorist attack as big or bigger than 9-11) the US (and by extension, the world) will see an socio-economic "reset" point. Another great depression seems the most likely scenario. So much wealth is tied to utterly insubstantial matters that it really won't take a huge leap of imagination to see another crash of the sort we saw in 1929. Only the most basic and necessary of governmental services will be provided, and the average Joe on the street will simply have to learn to "make do" with what he has or can do himself.
I don't want this to happen, obviously. I like living the dolce vita, myself. I simply know to the bottom of my soul that it can't continue in an unsupportable environment. Something must provide the means to live that life, and I fear we simply don't have those means anymore.
Boiling the frog does seem to fit the description of the state of our nation. Were we plunged into "hot" water (i.e. dropped into a political situation where communism ruled all aspects of our lives), we'd all no doubt "jump out" of the pot. This isn't that sort of revolution, though... it is a slow, methodical shift in the national paradigm away from self-reliance and toward a complete dependency on the government.
Two points:
1) Ryan really didn't answer my question. I'm mainly concerned that the War on Terror is not only NOT being won, it is actually costing the US far more in damages over the long run than it is gaining us in short term safety. There is an attrition factor here that isn't being taken into account, and I'm not talking about pure manpower numbers... I'm talking about the "numbness" that comes from a prolonged national effort. We live the "normal life"... the modern "dolce vita" that is sapping our ability to adapt as a society in the face of change, hardship or disaster... while more and more of our individual rights, freedoms and liberties are removed to provide more dolce vita. In the meanwhile, our efforts to "win" the War on Terror are actually contributing to its protraction... perhaps even giving our enemies exactly what they wanted in the first place: a divided America unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to win the effort long-term.
2) I'm not as pessimistic as Ryan seems to be about the future options that America has in this regard. Sure, things look grim now, and probably will get worse in the near future before they ever get better... but that, too, is normal.
I really do think that, unless some outside factor intervenes in the national scene (i.e. another massive terrorist attack as big or bigger than 9-11) the US (and by extension, the world) will see an socio-economic "reset" point. Another great depression seems the most likely scenario. So much wealth is tied to utterly insubstantial matters that it really won't take a huge leap of imagination to see another crash of the sort we saw in 1929. Only the most basic and necessary of governmental services will be provided, and the average Joe on the street will simply have to learn to "make do" with what he has or can do himself.
I don't want this to happen, obviously. I like living the dolce vita, myself. I simply know to the bottom of my soul that it can't continue in an unsupportable environment. Something must provide the means to live that life, and I fear we simply don't have those means anymore.
Saturday, July 6, 2013
The consul of Julius and Caesar...
Fans of the podcast that Titus turned me on to will recognize my title as an ancient running joke among Romans of a certain era. Always two consuls stood for election. Always two were elected. Always. Yet with the demise of his colleague, Consul Gaius Julius Caesar didn't bother with ensuring that this colleague was replaced. Hence the consular year was jokingly referred to as "The consul of Julius, and Caesar." And this joke dovetails nicely into my response, as I will focus primarily on the NSA/powers of the state.
So I get a text the other day that reads, "Posted. But read very carefully." I know at that moment that I am not to read said post until I have a solid 45 minutes to respond. Titus has undoubtedly written something just to get my hair up, hoping it will lead to something productive because he's bored that afternoon, so why not screw with Ryan (hehe). But your worries were misplaced my friend. Perhaps this little anecdote will help explain why...
When I was in my early twenties I sat down across the table from the individual who's title was "Chair of the Department of Political Science" at the University of Southern Mississippi. Now, if you can believe it, at that age I was somewhat cocky about my handle on politics, debate, history, and the world in general. Again, I 'm sure you find this a jaw dropping revelation, but stick with me. So there I sat - under the very real pretense of getting "counseled" on how best to earn a PhD in poly sci - and I found myself ITCHING to start a fight with this "chair person." As far as I knew, all egg head PhD's were leftists, and the opportunity to test my acumen against someone deemed a "professional" was simply too much to resist. Damn the credits, I have a pissing contest to win, saddle up. So I broke with the credits this and that, and dissertation rules here and there, blah, blah, blah, and flat out interrupted mid sentence to ask, "Can I ask you something?" And this very gracious "Chairperson X" responded, "Of course." I proceeded. "Are you a Republican or Democrat?" At the time, in my world, these were the only two entities that existed, hence no choice C. She (yes, a she) responded, completely disarming me, with her own question, "Are those my only two choices?"
I'll save you the suspense... I sat there dumbfounded, not saying a word. Pretty suave, huh?
She smiled and went on to give me some advice I never quite forgot. She said, and I quote: "See, you think that politics is a straight line. You have the Right, which the Left hates. The Left, which the Right hates. And the middle, whom everyone hates. But it's not a straight line, it's a circle. The Left and Right separation simply takes you on different paths to the same destination. And at the end of those paths, when the two lines meet to complete the circle, you have total state domination. Hitler is the extreme Right, Stalin the extreme Left, but their method of rule is the same. They end at the same place."
Again, I sat there contemplating, not sure what to say next. Maybe I mumbled something, but who the hell knows. Her chuckling must brought me out my stupor because the next words I remember saying were, "But you're a political science professor, if in the end it doesn't matter, that we're destined to destroy ourselves, why bother?" And she responded, "That's why I'm a Libertarian. Not because I want prostitution legal or people to be able to do drugs, but because governments only do one thing, no matter who is in power... grow."
Now I've thought on that a lot lately. At the time I knew I had been schooled, but I wasn't sure why. Now I am. And listening to these History of Rome podcasts has only reinforced why. No matter the nation or time period, each time a man in any given society is elected, to any post, it is on a campaign pledge to do "something." No one gets elected saying I'm going to keep things exactly the same. And it's just human nature that the "something" be bigger, more. When it came to Roman antiquity I was always caught up in questions like, "Who was the first emperor? When did the Republic officially die?" But there's no demarcation line that you can point to and say "here!", right here is where they switched from a Republic to a dynastic imperium. It doesn't work like that. It's a death by a thousands cuts over generations, at least. Bad precedent, at the moment of its' occurrence, seems to occur in a vacuum, or as an anomaly. But it doesn't, because that precedent is used to create two more, then four, then eight. Until you wake up one day and being 180 degrees from where the Republic was founded is the new "normal." What did Titus say, that the acts taken now, as part of due course, would have had you arrested and hauled in front of a congressional hearing in 1996? We're living it brothers. I listen to these podcasts or read the Old Testament and catch myself shaking my head asking, "How did they not see how awful that would turn out?" or, "That never works, why are you trying that?" And when I catch myself doing that I feel like an idiot. Of course they couldn't see it. Very rarely can anyone see it. The names of those that stand up and try to put the brakes on, or those that really did reduce the power of the office they held (or at least tried to) are inevitably washed away in a tide of, "And furthermore, when I''m elected I will..." Or they are men that really did exist as an anomaly. From Cicero and Sulla to Reagan and Ron Paul. They're momentary heads popping up from the water, grabbing a breath so the body can live just a little bit longer. And whatever else they are, they certainly aren't the norm. And that's why that professor was a Libertarian. She had already traveled on this ideological path and had arrived at the very reasonable realization that there is no power we can grant or allow our government that they will not, in the end, use to curtail our freedom. The temptation is just too great, the arc of history just too clear. So she had decided on the only label that maximized freedom and minimized the government. But she was under no illusion, she knew Libertarian ideas (not to mention parties) had zero chance of penetrating the power structure that is our federal government. Which is why her party admission rung of resignation to our fate.
So this is my really long, elaborate, scenic route to get me here Titus - I agree with you. Our government is so powerful, so large, that when it makes mistakes they are so big that everyone in government is forced to agree that they're not mistakes. Instead, they become the new norm. Jambo wants to convince me that we're not on the back nine. Ok, maybe he's right. But what is undeniable, what he can not argue, is that we will eventually hit that 10th hole. He claims "We've been through worse." But the thing is, whatever does at last do us in, it doesn't have to be "worse." It just has to be last. Just a little bit more than we can take after the long march down. There is no civilization, no defined government or peoples in the history of mankind that did not "end." Then you turn the page... or cue up the next podcast. All we can do as informed citizens, through our vote, standing for office, or launching our post into the cacophony of the vast online universe, is try to slow our march downward. Maybe even bring it to an unrecognizable momentum. But in the end, whether taking the Right's path or the Left's, we will "go away." Our liberties are like frogs in a pot being turned up ever so slowly. Each new temperature is the new normal. And government - under either party - is the hand on the dial.
Don't get me wrong, we can stay that hand for a while. Maybe you get a leader here and there that really does try to do "less", not "more." But at some point our world will begin boiling around us. And like the frogs we will begin saying to each other, "Don't worry, this is normal. We've dealt with worse." And then some wiz kid from the year 2475 will shake his head, turn off his hologram imaging podcact on "The History of America", grab his government approved helmet, and as he hops into his atmosphere friendly hover craft to go pick up his cloned, state issued procreation mate, will mumble, "How did they not see that coming? That could never happen to the United Federation of Gender Nuetral Carbon Based Lifeforms... we're different."
So are we safer? Sure we are. I'm also sure that future boy is safe from an STD...
So I get a text the other day that reads, "Posted. But read very carefully." I know at that moment that I am not to read said post until I have a solid 45 minutes to respond. Titus has undoubtedly written something just to get my hair up, hoping it will lead to something productive because he's bored that afternoon, so why not screw with Ryan (hehe). But your worries were misplaced my friend. Perhaps this little anecdote will help explain why...
When I was in my early twenties I sat down across the table from the individual who's title was "Chair of the Department of Political Science" at the University of Southern Mississippi. Now, if you can believe it, at that age I was somewhat cocky about my handle on politics, debate, history, and the world in general. Again, I 'm sure you find this a jaw dropping revelation, but stick with me. So there I sat - under the very real pretense of getting "counseled" on how best to earn a PhD in poly sci - and I found myself ITCHING to start a fight with this "chair person." As far as I knew, all egg head PhD's were leftists, and the opportunity to test my acumen against someone deemed a "professional" was simply too much to resist. Damn the credits, I have a pissing contest to win, saddle up. So I broke with the credits this and that, and dissertation rules here and there, blah, blah, blah, and flat out interrupted mid sentence to ask, "Can I ask you something?" And this very gracious "Chairperson X" responded, "Of course." I proceeded. "Are you a Republican or Democrat?" At the time, in my world, these were the only two entities that existed, hence no choice C. She (yes, a she) responded, completely disarming me, with her own question, "Are those my only two choices?"
I'll save you the suspense... I sat there dumbfounded, not saying a word. Pretty suave, huh?
She smiled and went on to give me some advice I never quite forgot. She said, and I quote: "See, you think that politics is a straight line. You have the Right, which the Left hates. The Left, which the Right hates. And the middle, whom everyone hates. But it's not a straight line, it's a circle. The Left and Right separation simply takes you on different paths to the same destination. And at the end of those paths, when the two lines meet to complete the circle, you have total state domination. Hitler is the extreme Right, Stalin the extreme Left, but their method of rule is the same. They end at the same place."
Again, I sat there contemplating, not sure what to say next. Maybe I mumbled something, but who the hell knows. Her chuckling must brought me out my stupor because the next words I remember saying were, "But you're a political science professor, if in the end it doesn't matter, that we're destined to destroy ourselves, why bother?" And she responded, "That's why I'm a Libertarian. Not because I want prostitution legal or people to be able to do drugs, but because governments only do one thing, no matter who is in power... grow."
Now I've thought on that a lot lately. At the time I knew I had been schooled, but I wasn't sure why. Now I am. And listening to these History of Rome podcasts has only reinforced why. No matter the nation or time period, each time a man in any given society is elected, to any post, it is on a campaign pledge to do "something." No one gets elected saying I'm going to keep things exactly the same. And it's just human nature that the "something" be bigger, more. When it came to Roman antiquity I was always caught up in questions like, "Who was the first emperor? When did the Republic officially die?" But there's no demarcation line that you can point to and say "here!", right here is where they switched from a Republic to a dynastic imperium. It doesn't work like that. It's a death by a thousands cuts over generations, at least. Bad precedent, at the moment of its' occurrence, seems to occur in a vacuum, or as an anomaly. But it doesn't, because that precedent is used to create two more, then four, then eight. Until you wake up one day and being 180 degrees from where the Republic was founded is the new "normal." What did Titus say, that the acts taken now, as part of due course, would have had you arrested and hauled in front of a congressional hearing in 1996? We're living it brothers. I listen to these podcasts or read the Old Testament and catch myself shaking my head asking, "How did they not see how awful that would turn out?" or, "That never works, why are you trying that?" And when I catch myself doing that I feel like an idiot. Of course they couldn't see it. Very rarely can anyone see it. The names of those that stand up and try to put the brakes on, or those that really did reduce the power of the office they held (or at least tried to) are inevitably washed away in a tide of, "And furthermore, when I''m elected I will..." Or they are men that really did exist as an anomaly. From Cicero and Sulla to Reagan and Ron Paul. They're momentary heads popping up from the water, grabbing a breath so the body can live just a little bit longer. And whatever else they are, they certainly aren't the norm. And that's why that professor was a Libertarian. She had already traveled on this ideological path and had arrived at the very reasonable realization that there is no power we can grant or allow our government that they will not, in the end, use to curtail our freedom. The temptation is just too great, the arc of history just too clear. So she had decided on the only label that maximized freedom and minimized the government. But she was under no illusion, she knew Libertarian ideas (not to mention parties) had zero chance of penetrating the power structure that is our federal government. Which is why her party admission rung of resignation to our fate.
So this is my really long, elaborate, scenic route to get me here Titus - I agree with you. Our government is so powerful, so large, that when it makes mistakes they are so big that everyone in government is forced to agree that they're not mistakes. Instead, they become the new norm. Jambo wants to convince me that we're not on the back nine. Ok, maybe he's right. But what is undeniable, what he can not argue, is that we will eventually hit that 10th hole. He claims "We've been through worse." But the thing is, whatever does at last do us in, it doesn't have to be "worse." It just has to be last. Just a little bit more than we can take after the long march down. There is no civilization, no defined government or peoples in the history of mankind that did not "end." Then you turn the page... or cue up the next podcast. All we can do as informed citizens, through our vote, standing for office, or launching our post into the cacophony of the vast online universe, is try to slow our march downward. Maybe even bring it to an unrecognizable momentum. But in the end, whether taking the Right's path or the Left's, we will "go away." Our liberties are like frogs in a pot being turned up ever so slowly. Each new temperature is the new normal. And government - under either party - is the hand on the dial.
Don't get me wrong, we can stay that hand for a while. Maybe you get a leader here and there that really does try to do "less", not "more." But at some point our world will begin boiling around us. And like the frogs we will begin saying to each other, "Don't worry, this is normal. We've dealt with worse." And then some wiz kid from the year 2475 will shake his head, turn off his hologram imaging podcact on "The History of America", grab his government approved helmet, and as he hops into his atmosphere friendly hover craft to go pick up his cloned, state issued procreation mate, will mumble, "How did they not see that coming? That could never happen to the United Federation of Gender Nuetral Carbon Based Lifeforms... we're different."
So are we safer? Sure we are. I'm also sure that future boy is safe from an STD...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
