Bunding from Lancaster PA

Yep... deep in the heart of Amish country, I'm posting to the Bund.  On vacation with the family in a beautiful part of the country, seeing the rolling farmland and (literally) countless barns, wagons, covered bridges and vegetable stands.  We've been to Hershey Park (exhausting but fun), a huge Amish buffet, the Pennsylvania Renaissance Faire (doubly exhausting, unbelievably fun... and crushingly expensive) and we've found at least one REALLY good winery (six bottles down).  Today we're going into Lancaster and visiting the famous Central Market... charcuterie, baked goods, produce, crafts, wine and beer... what more could a family need?

Liz might not want to leave here...

Roughing it... Gangnam-style, and other observations

My son Jacob and I went "camping" last night.  We set up the tent in the backyard, piled in a bunch of blankets and pillows, lit a fire, roasted some marshmallows, looked at the stars, then went to bed.  We weren't roughing it by any stretch of the imagination, of course... he brought a laptop for a "scary movie" and I brought my phone and my Kindle.  The battery crapped out in our camp light, so we "plugged in" a lamp from the house with the extension cord for the pool.  It was a good time... a few hiccups but nothing big enough to get in our way.

Now, sitting here having coffee as the sun burns off the morning fog and the fire is just getting stirred back to life, I'm compelled to write about just how freaking cold it got last night!!!!

It is July 25th!  We are in the middle of summer, literally... yet the temperature dropped to 47 degrees last night!  Even now... at 7:20am, it is only 50!  I'm no longer the "jackpine savage" that I was in my youth, but I have enough experience with camping to know that you should expect the dew to fall and collect on the tent walls if your fly isn't all the way to the ground.  I know that fog can make things damp and sticky... but that wasn't the problem, either.  It was the cold.

I'm sorry, people... I don't recall 50 degree is July, even from my youth on the shores of Lake Superior!  It is beautifully clear and bright, now that the fog is burned off... and with breakfast under our belts (bacon, muffins, eggs, and pancakes) it is still only 55!

Perhaps the Holocene really is ending?  Are the ice sheets going to march across continents?

I'd have sworn to it last night!

I don't love Tom Brady...

... but I get your point.  I love his shows.  Carlin, I mean... NOT Brady.

The long and short of this is simply put by saying that you (and I and all of the rest of America) are used to the mainstream manner in which opposing points of view are presented:  Two people slugging it out in a 3 minute sound byte but accomplishing nothing and resorting to personal slights and slanders, OR two (or more) people in complete rapturous agreement bashing everyone that isn't agreeing with them.  Even "alternative" news and commentary (i.e. Beck, or Wilkow, or Savage, or Mike Church) have stopped being objective and started presenting selected information to make their points, rather than to inform a broader public.

Carlin (and other podcasters... there are hundreds) follow a more old-school approach to political/historical commentary.  Carlin's is the best, though... he poses a question, then finds a possible answer and expects YOU, the listener, to come to your own conclusions.  He doesn't say his solutions/answers are the ONLY ones, or even the best ones... he simply presents as "devil's advocate" and starts the discussion.  You don't have to buy his facts (although I have checked and checked, and his sources are solid)... but he can't be dismissed without counter facts, and if you can't find those... then you can't be right, right?

I do recall the episode where he spoke of a MAD deterrent for every state if every state had a nuke.  It wasn't his contention that his idea was the only idea, or even the best idea... he said that at least twice.  He was positing the proposition to change the perspective that has been the norm since 1948... that the nuclear club was CLOSED and everyone worried about being attacked by nukes had only to associate in one way or another with one of the two (later three) developing "umbrellas" of protection that the superpowers provided.

More to the point, I think the general question was "Is NATO valid now that the USSR is no longer a threat to regional and global peace?"   Specifically, he was asking if the US public would support the expense of lives, treasure and prestige if Russia "invaded" a NATO member in the way that they sent troops into the Ukraine.  I know Ukraine isn't a NATO ally... but it very nearly was.  And Latvia is.  As is Poland.  If the time would ever come when Russia does (and we did nothing to stop them in the Crimea, or Georgia, or Chechnya, or Moldavia...), would we be willing to send the same weight of effort to defend them that we would have to save Western Europe from a Warsaw Pact invasion in 1985?  I don't think we would have.

So perhaps your point is valid... Russia hasn't attacked a NATO ally, and possibly that is because they are NATO allies.  NATO has not shown a "unified front" in every situation that has arisen since 1999, though... does that factor into your defense of the alliance?  At least two did not endorse the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  Two did not support (or allow their airspace to be utilized) when Reagan bombed Tripoli, either... and that was at the height of the Cold War, and in clear violation of treaty grounds.  We were attacked in 2001... no one disputes that... yet only four nations in NATO vowed military support for operations in Afghanistan prior to the invasion in 2001.  The rest simply said "good luck".  Is the possibility that the US would be the ONLY nation defending Poland or Latvia if Russia moved in acceptable to you?  Does it still validate the existence of the organization?

Again, I'm not saying he's right... or that he is wrong.  I am simply saying that the fact he has gotten us talking about the question at all is a very good thing.

You "love" Dan Carlin?

Really?

As my New England Patriots loving son would tell you, the only time it's okay for one man to tell another man he loves him is when one of those men is Tom Brady.

Look, I know you're about one burrito away from seeing Carlin's image in a tortilla, but there are some serious flaws within the two Common Sense podcasts I've listened to thus far. Now don't fret, I am not at all commenting on Hardcore History, as I haven't listened to them yet, but respecting your standards for accuracy and detail for history as I do, I'm optimistic about that series.

Neither am I retracting my previous statements that I love the way he first frames every issue within their historical context. My problem is the conclusions he draws after that framework of historical context  is set up. His "solutions" leave much to be desired in my estimation. In his defense he does often say that he's not saying point A or B is right or wrong, just that we should be asking ourselves these questions. But when he does make a finite statement I find we are in wild disagreement. I'll address the two to which I am referring.

1) Episode: Riding the Chaos to Stasis (the Mid East problem/solution podcast you recommended):

He takes two contrary points without realizing it, or at least without acknowledging it. First of all, neither I nor he said the large Pan-Arab State (or caliphate) was good for us because we could defeat that state militarily (although we could). What he and I said was we have a better track record out maneuvering, manipulating, or in his words "using a carrot and stick" to illicit preferable behavior from nation states, unlike our experience in quelling insurgents. But to my point - he made it very clear that "of course you end up with a Saddam using Stalinist tactics" in Iraq because the cobbling together of three very distinct vying groups into one nation post WWI was a mistake. He went on to say that an iron fist naturally follows such a cobbling because it's the only style of governance that could maintain peace and order in a country made up of so many distinct, vying factions.

He then goes on to say (which you echoed in your post) that a massive Pan-Arab state (or quasi caliphate) would be good for the US because (among other things) when you have so many different, vying factions being ruled by a single government that the government would have to moderate its'  positions in order to maintain peace and order.

Wait, what?

I thought cobbling together groups that are have religious, ethnic and clan based differences required an iron fist to rule? And what's worse is he thinks that a US lead conference that sets this in motion could peacefully expedite what would otherwise occur in war. Isn't that sorta what the UK and France did after WWI that he so (rightfully) decries as unworkable?

My problem with his avocation is this episode is that on the one hand he's saying it's destructive to maintain the Iraqi borders as one single nation because with so many varying sects you either get a strong man or perpetual civil war, when on the other hand  he says consolidating the various sects under one uber government's rule would result in moderate leadership and a chance for peace. I don't see how these two views can be held simultaneously.

2) Cashing The Doomsday Cheque:

This is a Common Sense episode I'm assuming you listened to, but if you didn't you should because it's right in your wheel house - Russia.

He flat our advocates that NATO should have been dissolved immediately following the fall of the Soviet Union.

I'm sorry.... WHAT? His reasoning is that "of course Russia feels threatened" because we keep slinging out NATO memberships in their neighborhood like a pitch dealer on a $3 snapper game. The problem here is two fold. One, Vladamir Putin's grand designs of a reemerging Russian Bear, if not Russian Empire, DO exist in a vacuum. They would not have been abated by a non existent NATO. Second, it is clear that a NATO membership is the only thing preventing you from getting invaded by the Federation. The Chechs, Ukranians and Georgians are not NATO members. Poland is. See any difference in the status of Russian troops within those three?

Carlin further points out that Americans won't initiate a WWIII over some nation they've never heard of like Latvia. Look, that may be true if you do a man on the street Q&A. However, it is clear that NATO is the line in the sand Vlad will not yet cross. I don't know if the Kremlin has a ball room, but they will build one to house the party that will be thrown if NATO suddenly dissolves. Oh, the Vodka will flow boys! Can you imagine the free reign to "annex" former satellite states Russia would feel if such a thing occurred?

And all of that is not half as bad as what he says - and he was being serious - he would replace NATO with, the "Carlin Solution" as he calls it. In a nut shell, post dissolution of NATO, he would give each of the former members (presumably we're talking about Eastern European nations) a nuke. This is so they would have the means to deter Russia - and their 2000 nukes - themselves. Uh huh, sure, that oughta do it. He then amended that to say that he would give them one nuke for every two nations and they'd have to both "turn the key" so to speak to use it, like some sort of nuke buddy system. Oh ya, that sounds workable. Everybody gets .5 nukes and Russia will stay home, everybody can relax now.

As an aside he thinks this is also the solution to world wide nonproliferation - every, and I mean EVERY nation (or every two) gets the bomb says he, including Iran because (he claims) our efforts at non proliferation among bad state actors has failed. Excuse me, no it hasn't. Nations that we don't want to have the bomb almost never get them. North Korea is the exception that proves the rule, and if you're screaming "Iran", believe me when I say Israel will never let that happen.

Back to my point - if you think that doling out NATO memberships has in essence provoked the "bear" to the point of an aggressive foreign policy, what do you think doling out nukes would do? Putin would go ballistic, maybe literally. The Ruskies flipped out when we wanted conventional missiles in Poland (which Bush advocated and Obama bailed on). Vlad might literally consider handing the Chechs a nuke, an act of war. And Carlin unequivocally advocated doing just that.

If it weren't so dangerous it would be silly.

Again, I do think he does an impressive job (better than any other pundit) of setting up the current event or geopolitical issue in a historical context prior to delving into "solutions." I like that contextual set up. It's detailed and serious, very solid work. But the solutions that then spring from that set up are thus  far lacking, well.... common sense.

On NATO...

I got a text from F Ryan saying he was not happy with the direction Mr. Carlin was going in a discussion on NATO.  I'd like to hear more on this.

If I'm not mistaken (and I may very well be), there was a Common Sense episode where he discussed the crisis in the Ukraine earlier this year.  Russia "invades" the Crimea, Kiev is in meltdown mode, protesters are being shot in the streets... it was very dramatic and painful to watch.  Carlin's comments were that Ukraine was... literally... about six months from joining NATO.  It wasn't until an election scandal derailed the process that the membership in NATO fell through.  He was asking:  What if Ukraine was a NATO member?

Would the US have committed troops and arms to the effort as its NATO membership required?  To treat the attack on the Crimea as an attack on the US itself?  Would it have been right to do so?  Is there a purpose to expanding NATO now that the Soviet Union is gone?  Russia is not the USSR, but it is still a major global power and still maintains a "sphere of influence" every bit as vital to herself as ours is to us.  Most of the former Warsaw Pact nations are now in NATO (at least the biggest are), as are several of the former Soviet republics... but to what end?  If Russia's next "grab" is for one or more of the Baltic states... will we commit 100% of our military and fiscal power to stop them?  Will any other NATO member?  If the answer is "No" then what is the purpose of the alliance?  What is the reason to expand if adherence to the treaty isn't a priority?

More importantly, would the American people support such measures?  Would they willingly support troops in places like Poland, Ukraine, Latvia or Slovakia?  If the answer, again, is "No" then what good is NATO?

I love Dan Carlin...

... and I'm damn glad you finally listened to him.  Both formats are fantastic, but it is Hardcore History that has stolen my time completely.  I will listen to his shows over and over again... seriously.

That said, I'm concerned that you and I listened to the same podcast... but came to completely different conclusions about what he was saying.

Why would a solution that presented the least problem for us to overcome militarily be the one you would advocate in regards to the crisis in Iraq and Syria?

His half-hearted endorsement of a modern "caliphate" was not because it was something we, as a superpower, are good at winning wars against.  It was to show that one cannot govern THAT many people of THAT many varied ethnic and denominational differences and NOT be far, far more moderate than the extremists we are so afraid of now.  Saddam would still be in power now, crushing the life out of 25 million Iraqis with nary a word of rebuke from the US, if he hadn't overplayed his hand and invaded a sovereign neighbor... Kuwait.  Iran is still a thorn in the side of the US because they haven't overtly done anything to tip the scales against them in the ponderous but fluid game of international diplomacy.

One cannot successfully govern Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd, Berber, Arab, Afghan, Turk, Somali and Pakistani without a degree of moderation and even-handedness that simply doesn't exist today... but it has existed in the past.  His point, as far as I can tell, was that with a caliphate-like structure, there would be a central authority that simply doesn't exist now... and hasn't since the end of the Ottoman Empire in 1918.

More importantly, as you hear more of his podcasts, I think you will see that Mr. Carlin is a big fan of allowing people like the Iraqis (or anyone else we are desperately trying to manipulate) the freedom to determine their own form of government... something we should be behind 100%, regardless of what that form takes.  This harkens back to the debate we had when Lebanon finally had "free" elections and elevated Hamas to the heights of power.  You were outraged... incensed, even.  Yet it was exactly what we had hoped they would do:  elect a government that best represents their interests.  I don't like Hamas any more than you do... but that is the price of the democratic process, isn't it?  Hitler was elected, after all.

Putting aside the question of a caliphate, though...

The three-state solution could work.  Worrying about ISIS overtaking the entire middle east seems a bit much.  They have overrun most of northern Iraq and eastern Syria only because the Shi'ite minority of the area has chosen NOT to fight with any real effort.  That is the reason we hear reports of 800 "terrorists" routing 12,000 US-trained Iraqi infantry.  The ISIS groups have nearly full logistical support from the Sunni populous, but are risking intervention from Iran (if it hasn't come already) AND Hamas.  They are living large on the reputation that the videos and pictures of street murders and mass killings provide them... but even a small bit of actual supported resistance could curb their gains very quickly.

There will come a time when the politics of the few will cost the majority so much in blood, fear and hunger that the support (voluntary or otherwise) will end, and you will see the REAL fruits of an Arab Spring.  ISIS can instill fear and terror, as they have so clearly demonstrated.  I am 100% confident that they will be even more incapable of actual rule than the Taliban, or the PLO, or Hamas.

Therein lies the problem, though, doesn't it?  I am sure that F Ryan is NOT ready to wait for ISIS to fail any more than he was the Taliban, the PLO or Hamas.  As you said, should an attack from Iraq (in any of its future forms) be made on America, then we respond with overwhelming force and total victory.  Not before though... preemptive actions and operations do not allow for a clear strategic grand strategy, but defensive or retaliatory actions and operations do.  That is the ingredient that we were missing since long before 2001... in fact, all the way back to the end of the First Gulf War.

Finally, now that you have discovered the wonder that is Dan Carlin... you simply MUST listen to the Wrath of the Khans.  It is a four-part (I think) series that I have listened to at least four times.  Utterly fascinating, and delivered in a manner that even my children have enjoyed... and that is saying something.

Pan-Arabia and my uncle Pat

I've been devouring national security style fiction novels at the rate of about one every 10 days because for some reason I fancy myself a writer and am in the process of arranging a book. So much of my "intellectual time" (if you want to call it that) has been devoted to this endeavor. However, setting my phone's home page to the Bund has had its’ intended effect, and not only did I read your posts but I finally caved and download and listened to your much touted Dan Carlin.

I have an uncle that works at NASA. I also have a cousin, from the paternal side, that works for that same little outfit. Yes, I have two honest to goodness rocket scientists sitting on the ol’ family tree. And I remember asking my uncle once, "Why do you love science so much?" He responded, "I am fascinated by how stuff works."

To me history is a "how stuff works" guide to politics. It is my favorite form of political discussion, taking what is known about our past and applying it to what may be in our future. It is exactly what the Glenn Beck radio program once was. Either Glenn has spread himself too thin or he's choosing to dump that format into his daily hour television show, but whatever the cause I find myself rolling my eyes as he spends one radio broadcast minute after another discussing religious platitudes. There are few things that I loathe more than platitudes. Don't get me wrong, I believe he is sincere; it's just that he is at a different place than I am on our path of learning, and discussing religious solutions to specific geopolitical or domestic problems doesn't appeal to me at present. To be honest I think he's so fed up with both parties and the system in general that he's sort of arrived at a forget it, only God can sort this out stage. Maybe he's right, I'm just not there yet as discussion forums go.

 Now this Carlin character seems to be waste deep into the form of politics I (and by extension the Bund) most favor. I've only listened to the one podcast, on the middle East, but if this format is the rule and not the exception I may have found a new favorite current events show. I also took the liberty and downloaded the free Hardcore History episodes (13 of them, the others are labeled "classics" such as Hitler vs. Alexander and cost $2.99), and a select handful of Common Sense episodes. I see now why you listened to it twice. For one, there's a ton of information in there, and second they're only released at a rate of once to twice a month.

So thanks for the repeated recommendations, I'm glad I finally caved. That being said, allow me to comment on the specifics of that episode.

First, at one point Carlin stated flatly the same thing I did a few posts ago - that the US is much better at dealing with hostile nation states than small, rogue terrorist or insurgent groups. Although his proposed solutions varied from mine. My point in that post was that if ISIS turns Iraq into another Iran, we will - from a strategic standpoint - be able to deal with Iraq more effectively. Out maneuvering or fighting a nation state is something we are well skilled at. Wading into a civil war to play referee, we are not.  He takes that sentiment much, MUCH further however.

He makes a solid argument that the arbitrary lines of post WWI European design must not be placed on some sacred mantle to be protected, that it takes a Saddam to enforce such boarders or direct Western intervention, and as such are unnatural. I think we can all agree that the European designed map of the Near East has failed. Now as to what will become of these lines in a post US invasion/withdrawal of Iraq and Afghanistan... Essentially he is predicting one of two outcomes. One, ISIS (or ISIL) fights within the borders of modern Iraq until they receive sufficient push back from the Kurds in the North, and the Shi'ites in the South, and the three state solution that Joe Biden was laughed off the stage for will naturally form and stabilize. Second, ISIS or some similar group, will not be stopped by Kurds or its' rival Islamic sect and eventually a Pan-Arab super state will form, made up of perhaps four or five smaller states. In essence, a caliphate. 

Now his point is that either solution is preferable to what we have now because if you increase the number of Arab states via Iraq you'll have natural boundaries that create a stable stasis. If you decrease the number of Arab states to four or five under the umbrella of a large Pan-Arab  government (that is undemocratic either through theocracy, monarchy, or dictatorship) that you will have essentially created a Soviet or Chinese model of statehood that we are well schooled in dealing with. We have either defeated or contained such large, top heavy, oppressive regimes in our past whereas we have a poor record dealing with insurgents. In addition, he notes that in such a regime the youth and the otherwise oppressed will eventually rise up and throw off their oppressors. And that this revolution will either be a hard landing, as with the Soviets, or a soft landing, as with the Chinese in which the Communist Party is trying to manage the transition to capitalism; or as they describe it “Communism with Chinese characteristics.” Yeah, and Kim Jung Un can talk to dolphins…  you’re not fooling anybody there chairman.

I found the entire diatribe fascinating. Especially the ideas on a Pan-Arab state. He's equating fundamentalist Islam's style of rule (and a theocracy is the most likely outcome in this scenario) with communism, in essence noting they are both unsustainable because they run contrary to natural human desires. So he's asking why not let them form, take their shot at rule, and watch them topple naturally from within? 

I read the man's bio on Wikipedia, and while I'm reluctant to take that site's information as gospel, I do hope they got one quote right. He said (and I'm paraphrasing) that the only two politicians he thinks could honestly address our problems are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. These are two diametrically opposed ideologs, but they at least say what they mean and mean what they say, and aren't afraid to challenge the status quo or be called nut bags because of their bold proposals. Now what I hope is he admires them based on that, and not because he embraces them fully, especially Kucinich (although I don't know how that would be possible, ideologically). 

My point for bringing that up in relation to his Mid East proposals is that these proposals are unique, and sure to be labeled as nutty by some. But they are also bold, and historically based, so I do not dismiss them out of hand. However, we should bear in mind how much death and destruction was wrought by the Bolsheviks and the Great Leap Forward. In other words, I agree that we are much better at managing, containing, and ultimately defeating large oppressive nation states than we are at fighting small oppressive bands of militants, and I also agree that eventually - like communism - a large oppressive theocracy (as represented in a Pan-Arab state) would crumble providing the best chance for an organic democratic revolution to spring up. However, the "in between" time could make the Great Leap Forward and the Bolsheviks (respectively) look like pikers. They were committed to a political ideology and loyal to Party. The presumed rulers in this instance would be zealots committed to religion and loyal to God. I see that as a much tougher bond to break. The Soviets killed what, 20, 30 million of their own to establish and maintain order? Mao killed easily more than double that. So we have to be careful what we wish for. And that's before getting into the threat of an aggressive foreign policy of a grand caliphate that mimics the Soviets.

Now in his defense, he points out how awful this in between time could be. That no one would want to live in this time of the European "bandaid" being ripped off, and admits it may not be the right solution. He advocated a US foreign policy that calls a summit and tries to establish by peaceful treaty what would be the presumed resulting boarders of a three-way Iraqi civil war, or even a future Pan-Arab state, so he's certainly not blind as to what this thing could devolve into while it's transitioning into a peaceful "stasis", if left to its own devices. As for myself I am inclined to believe that despite our best intentions any "peace conference" in which we draw up what our best guess would be of natural boarders, things would still descend into civil war. In other words, it may be true that ISIS will be stopped in the north by the Kurds, but it may take the actual fight to convince ISIS of this, rather than a piece of paper drawn up by outsiders.

The bottom line for me is one he articulated well - we are now at a point where there is no path to peace that doesn't involve war. There is no "good" way to untie the Gordian Knot formed by the post WWI victors when they drew up the spoils of the Ottomans. What we have found in Iraq - at least thus far - is what doesn't work. Namely, a superior foreign power implanting democracy within the boarders of a nation drawn up in a British sitting room. After all our blood and treasure it would be indeed tragic to just leave. But isn't it more tragic to not learn from our mistakes? To keep doing the same thing expecting a different result? I'm not willing to risk one more Marine to enforce boarders that haven't worked for 100 years. I'd prefer to put them on our own boarders, but that's a different post. The result of our withdrawal will be bloody, no question, but it won't be the blood of our soldiers. It is time for them to come home, but with a very clear parting message - no matter who wins their civil wars, no matter what "natural" boarders are established by the indigenous populations, if any one of the new nations states that arise out of Iraq, Syria, et al come at us, we will annihilate you, period. If we leave I want them all to be on notice that nation states have boarders and capitals, parliament houses and presidential homes, and every one of those will be on the B2 Stealth Bomber targeting list if you decide to poke this eagle.