Ah, Michael Rubin at the American Enterprise Institute (along with Dan Blumenthal and Newt Gringrich) might not drink "Foggy Bottom Kool-Aid" but again the Churchill reference makes you wonder what "Churchill" they've created in their minds. Of course, it's not clear eaxactly what they believe the "Churchillian" response would-be, in North Korea, Iran or Iraq, but they sure love to talk tough. To each other.
"The North Korean nuclear test is significant for two reasons. First, it has stripped any plausibility to arguments that engaging dictators works. Our failure was bipartisan. Clinton’s strategy was ill-conceived, but when push came to shove, the Bush White House drank the same Foggy Bottom Kool-Aid. Second, we are at a watershed. We know our opponents’ playbook. Will we think several steps ahead? Or embrace short-term illusion? This crisis is not just about North Korea, but about Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and Cuba as well. Bush now has two choices: to respond forcefully and show that defiance has consequence, or affirm that defiance pays and that international will is illusionary. Diplomats crave wiggle room, but it has just run out. Multilateralism is like Diet Coke; it may taste good, but it lacks substance. Conversations with foreign leaders aren’t enough if they do not produce results. Nor should consultation or declaration substitute for results. Bush must now choose whether his legacy will be one of inaction or leadership, Chamberlain or Churchill?"
Getting Testy
A Symposium on Pyonyang Policy
By Dan Blumenthal, Michael Rubin, Newt Gingrich
Posted: Tuesday, October 10, 2006
ARTICLES
National Review Online
Publication Date: October 10, 2006
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Monday, October 09, 2006
Ah, the "Iraq Study Group" or as it's also known, "Those Who Seek A Way Out of Folly" and "Drifting Sideways? Give Em Merlot"
James Baker III, William Perry, Rudolph Giuliani, Sandra Day O'Connor, Vernon Jordan are all charged with figuring out how to maintain a US presence ("stay the course") and begin the withdraw ("cut and run"). Yes, according to a New York Times report today, it seems clear that a planned extraction of the US from Iraq is being developed by Baker and friends. This as last week the NYT reported that the US military is beginning to develop a counter-insurgency program especially focused on Iraq, and that the Rumsfeld mandate of reducing the size of the military is being reversed to address the reality of a two-front (at least) war. Late, but possibly not too late. Meanwhile, sacntions against new nuclear-player North Korea? Why? Anyone with the "balls" to pressure China to reign in their naughty neighbor? Seems the scorecard on US versus the Axis of Evil is not in our favor. How about talking and an effective use of force? Appears Mr. Baker is going to suggest to the American Colossus that he talk with Iran and Syria. Maybe Mr. John Yoo should take a break from his abstract, theoretical world of ever-increasing executive power and see what happens when the American Colossus is not as important or as "real" as his advisors. Instead of increasing the range of the executive branch, we should take a "real-world" lesson form the last six years and make sure the other two branches--legislative and judicial--have the nerve and the law to stand-up to an executive branch talking to Yahweh.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
And Then There's That Pesky Colossus On The Koren Peninsula
This from the Brookings Institution.
Wrong on North KoreaAmerica Abroad Weblog, July 13, 2006 cont occurs here -->Ivo H. Daalder, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies
"As for isolation leading to the North's collapse, the problem is that whether to isolate the North or not is a matter for Seoul and Beijing to decide, not Washington. There's little more we can do to isolate the North; we're all sanctioned out. But there's plenty Pyongyang's neighbors can do to life there even more unbearable. Yet, while we may see the collapse of an evil regime like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as an unquestioned blessing, neighboring countries that will have to live the consequences of its implosion have a decidedly different view of the matter. They don't want to be responsible for the destitute millions that would come streaming across their borders - or have to provide the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to turn things around in the North. Instead, their number one priority is to avoid the chaos that comes from collapse and disintegration - which is why basing a policy on the hope that China and the ROK will help bring about the North's collapse is so naïve and wrong-headed. "
Wrong on North KoreaAmerica Abroad Weblog, July 13, 2006 cont occurs here -->Ivo H. Daalder, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies
"As for isolation leading to the North's collapse, the problem is that whether to isolate the North or not is a matter for Seoul and Beijing to decide, not Washington. There's little more we can do to isolate the North; we're all sanctioned out. But there's plenty Pyongyang's neighbors can do to life there even more unbearable. Yet, while we may see the collapse of an evil regime like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as an unquestioned blessing, neighboring countries that will have to live the consequences of its implosion have a decidedly different view of the matter. They don't want to be responsible for the destitute millions that would come streaming across their borders - or have to provide the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to turn things around in the North. Instead, their number one priority is to avoid the chaos that comes from collapse and disintegration - which is why basing a policy on the hope that China and the ROK will help bring about the North's collapse is so naïve and wrong-headed. "
Maybe Kristol Just Needs Pairing With Someone Serious, But Here's Some Sound Advice for the American Colossus
The Consensus for a Larger Army Is about as Complete as It Could Be
By Frederick W. Kagan, William Kristol
Posted: Monday, September 25, 2006
ARTICLES
The Weekly Standard
Publication Date: October 2, 2006
"Now, the fact is that there are more troops available to be sent to Iraq. But we also are stretched too thin, and need a larger military. In a front-page article on September 22, the New York Times's Thom Shanker and Michael Gordon reported that "strains on the Army from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have become so severe that Army officials say they may be forced to make greater use of the National Guard to provide enough troops for overseas deployments." This prospect "presents the Bush administration with a politically vexing problem: how, without expanding the Army, to balance the pressing need for troops in the field against promises to limit overseas deployments for the Guard." Actually, this "vexing problem" has a solution: expanding the Army.
Analysts outside the government are increasingly in agreement: Researchers at conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation call for larger ground forces, as do thinkers at centrist and liberal organizations like Brookings, CSIS, and even the Center for American Progress. The more modest recommendations call for increasing the Army, over the next few years, by 50,000 to 100,000 new troops from its current 500,000. We would urge an immediate expansion toward a 750,000-person Army. In any case, the consensus for a larger Army is about as complete as it could be. Except within the administration.
What's preoccupying the Defense Department, even the top brass at the Army like Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker, is the Future Combat System--the Army's major "transformational" weapons system. Schoomaker has said that he would even cut the number of soldiers in uniform to pay for the system. The key premise of this argument is that Iraq is a blip, and the strain on our ground forces a temporary problem, while the FCS will ensure the Army's superiority for decades to come. But the armed forces have been strained for almost a decade now. And is Iraq really a "blip"? Most of the wars in the last 15 years have led to protracted deployments (the first Iraq war, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, for example). Only Haiti and Somalia--two signal failures--allowed a rapid exit.
The military should not be forced to choose between modernization and manpower. Army and Marine Corps vehicles are more than 20 years old and burned out by years of hard use. They need to be replaced. The president keeps saying that we are a nation at war, but the military keeps having to make budget decisions as though we were at peace. If this trend continues, we could lose in Iraq and break the ground forces as well.
The strain on the soldiers and Marines must be eased. Recruiting and training takes time, of course, and many will argue that it is too late: We'll be out of Iraq before they take the field. That same argument was made in 2003, 2001, 1999, and 1997. If we'd started at any of those times to increase the size of the ground forces, new soldiers would be on the ground today where they are badly needed. How many times are we going to repeat this mistake? How long will it take this administration, properly committed to a robust foreign policy, to provide the tools needed to do the job?"
Frederick W. Kagan is a resident scholar at AEI. William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard."
By Frederick W. Kagan, William Kristol
Posted: Monday, September 25, 2006
ARTICLES
The Weekly Standard
Publication Date: October 2, 2006
"Now, the fact is that there are more troops available to be sent to Iraq. But we also are stretched too thin, and need a larger military. In a front-page article on September 22, the New York Times's Thom Shanker and Michael Gordon reported that "strains on the Army from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have become so severe that Army officials say they may be forced to make greater use of the National Guard to provide enough troops for overseas deployments." This prospect "presents the Bush administration with a politically vexing problem: how, without expanding the Army, to balance the pressing need for troops in the field against promises to limit overseas deployments for the Guard." Actually, this "vexing problem" has a solution: expanding the Army.
Analysts outside the government are increasingly in agreement: Researchers at conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation call for larger ground forces, as do thinkers at centrist and liberal organizations like Brookings, CSIS, and even the Center for American Progress. The more modest recommendations call for increasing the Army, over the next few years, by 50,000 to 100,000 new troops from its current 500,000. We would urge an immediate expansion toward a 750,000-person Army. In any case, the consensus for a larger Army is about as complete as it could be. Except within the administration.
What's preoccupying the Defense Department, even the top brass at the Army like Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker, is the Future Combat System--the Army's major "transformational" weapons system. Schoomaker has said that he would even cut the number of soldiers in uniform to pay for the system. The key premise of this argument is that Iraq is a blip, and the strain on our ground forces a temporary problem, while the FCS will ensure the Army's superiority for decades to come. But the armed forces have been strained for almost a decade now. And is Iraq really a "blip"? Most of the wars in the last 15 years have led to protracted deployments (the first Iraq war, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, for example). Only Haiti and Somalia--two signal failures--allowed a rapid exit.
The military should not be forced to choose between modernization and manpower. Army and Marine Corps vehicles are more than 20 years old and burned out by years of hard use. They need to be replaced. The president keeps saying that we are a nation at war, but the military keeps having to make budget decisions as though we were at peace. If this trend continues, we could lose in Iraq and break the ground forces as well.
The strain on the soldiers and Marines must be eased. Recruiting and training takes time, of course, and many will argue that it is too late: We'll be out of Iraq before they take the field. That same argument was made in 2003, 2001, 1999, and 1997. If we'd started at any of those times to increase the size of the ground forces, new soldiers would be on the ground today where they are badly needed. How many times are we going to repeat this mistake? How long will it take this administration, properly committed to a robust foreign policy, to provide the tools needed to do the job?"
Frederick W. Kagan is a resident scholar at AEI. William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard."
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Sunday Morning with Cioran and Petronius
"One should not forget that philosophy is the art of masking inner torments." E.M. Cioran
Well, and maybe, food: " . . . the servants made a lane, and a calf was brought in on a two-hundred pound plate: it was boiled whole and wearing a helmet. Following it came Ajax, slashing at the calf with a drawn sword like a madman. After rhymically cutting and slicing, he collected the pieces on the point and shred them among the surprised guests." Petronius
And the madness of Ajax? He's slaughtering cattle he believes to be fellow Greeks who have wronged him. Ah, Greek tragedy--the art of unmasking inner torments and letting them breathe; of course, with some Moet on a fine Sunday morning.
Yours Truly,
Mr. Pantagruel
Well, and maybe, food: " . . . the servants made a lane, and a calf was brought in on a two-hundred pound plate: it was boiled whole and wearing a helmet. Following it came Ajax, slashing at the calf with a drawn sword like a madman. After rhymically cutting and slicing, he collected the pieces on the point and shred them among the surprised guests." Petronius
And the madness of Ajax? He's slaughtering cattle he believes to be fellow Greeks who have wronged him. Ah, Greek tragedy--the art of unmasking inner torments and letting them breathe; of course, with some Moet on a fine Sunday morning.
Yours Truly,
Mr. Pantagruel
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Ah, History
Op-Ed Contributor (New York Times)
Pirates of the Mediterranean
By ROBERT HARRIS
Published: September 30, 2006
Kintbury, England
IN the autumn of 68 B.C. the world’s only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome’s port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped.
The incident, dramatic though it was, has not attracted much attention from modern historians. But history is mutable. An event that was merely a footnote five years ago has now, in our post-9/11 world, assumed a fresh and ominous significance. For in the panicky aftermath of the attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty. One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself.
Consider the parallels. The perpetrators of this spectacular assault were not in the pay of any foreign power: no nation would have dared to attack Rome so provocatively. They were, rather, the disaffected of the earth: “The ruined men of all nations,” in the words of the great 19th-century German historian Theodor Mommsen, “a piratical state with a peculiar esprit de corps.”
Like Al Qaeda, these pirates were loosely organized, but able to spread a disproportionate amount of fear among citizens who had believed themselves immune from attack. To quote Mommsen again: “The Latin husbandman, the traveler on the Appian highway, the genteel bathing visitor at the terrestrial paradise of Baiae were no longer secure of their property or their life for a single moment.”
What was to be done? Over the preceding centuries, the Constitution of ancient Rome had developed an intricate series of checks and balances intended to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual. The consulship, elected annually, was jointly held by two men. Military commands were of limited duration and subject to regular renewal. Ordinary citizens were accustomed to a remarkable degree of liberty: the cry of “Civis Romanus sum” — “I am a Roman citizen” — was a guarantee of safety throughout the world.
But such was the panic that ensued after Ostia that the people were willing to compromise these rights. The greatest soldier in Rome, the 38-year-old Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (better known to posterity as Pompey the Great) arranged for a lieutenant of his, the tribune Aulus Gabinius, to rise in the Roman Forum and propose an astonishing new law.
“Pompey was to be given not only the supreme naval command but what amounted in fact to an absolute authority and uncontrolled power over everyone,” the Greek historian Plutarch wrote. “There were not many places in the Roman world that were not included within these limits.”
Pompey eventually received almost the entire contents of the Roman Treasury — 144 million sesterces — to pay for his “war on terror,” which included building a fleet of 500 ships and raising an army of 120,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. Such an accumulation of power was unprecedented, and there was literally a riot in the Senate when the bill was debated.
Nevertheless, at a tumultuous mass meeting in the center of Rome, Pompey’s opponents were cowed into submission, the Lex Gabinia passed (illegally), and he was given his power. In the end, once he put to sea, it took less than three months to sweep the pirates from the entire Mediterranean. Even allowing for Pompey’s genius as a military strategist, the suspicion arises that if the pirates could be defeated so swiftly, they could hardly have been such a grievous threat in the first place.
But it was too late to raise such questions. By the oldest trick in the political book — the whipping up of a panic, in which any dissenting voice could be dismissed as “soft” or even “traitorous” — powers had been ceded by the people that would never be returned. Pompey stayed in the Middle East for six years, establishing puppet regimes throughout the region, and turning himself into the richest man in the empire.
Those of us who are not Americans can only look on in wonder at the similar ease with which the ancient rights and liberties of the individual are being surrendered in the United States in the wake of 9/11. The vote by the Senate on Thursday to suspend the right of habeas corpus for terrorism detainees, denying them their right to challenge their detention in court; the careful wording about torture, which forbids only the inducement of “serious” physical and mental suffering to obtain information; the admissibility of evidence obtained in the United States without a search warrant; the licensing of the president to declare a legal resident of the United States an enemy combatant — all this represents an historic shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the executive.
An intelligent, skeptical American would no doubt scoff at the thought that what has happened since 9/11 could presage the destruction of a centuries-old constitution; but then, I suppose, an intelligent, skeptical Roman in 68 B.C. might well have done the same.
In truth, however, the Lex Gabinia was the beginning of the end of the Roman republic. It set a precedent. Less than a decade later, Julius Caesar — the only man, according to Plutarch, who spoke out in favor of Pompey’s special command during the Senate debate — was awarded similar, extended military sovereignty in Gaul. Previously, the state, through the Senate, largely had direction of its armed forces; now the armed forces began to assume direction of the state.
It also brought a flood of money into an electoral system that had been designed for a simpler, non-imperial era. Caesar, like Pompey, with all the resources of Gaul at his disposal, became immensely wealthy, and used his treasure to fund his own political faction. Henceforth, the result of elections was determined largely by which candidate had the most money to bribe the electorate. In 49 B.C., the system collapsed completely, Caesar crossed the Rubicon — and the rest, as they say, is ancient history.
It may be that the Roman republic was doomed in any case. But the disproportionate reaction to the raid on Ostia unquestionably hastened the process, weakening the restraints on military adventurism and corrupting the political process. It was to be more than 1,800 years before anything remotely comparable to Rome’s democracy — imperfect though it was — rose again.
The Lex Gabinia was a classic illustration of the law of unintended consequences: it fatally subverted the institution it was supposed to protect. Let us hope that vote in the United States Senate does not have the same result.
Pirates of the Mediterranean
By ROBERT HARRIS
Published: September 30, 2006
Kintbury, England
IN the autumn of 68 B.C. the world’s only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome’s port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped.
The incident, dramatic though it was, has not attracted much attention from modern historians. But history is mutable. An event that was merely a footnote five years ago has now, in our post-9/11 world, assumed a fresh and ominous significance. For in the panicky aftermath of the attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty. One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself.
Consider the parallels. The perpetrators of this spectacular assault were not in the pay of any foreign power: no nation would have dared to attack Rome so provocatively. They were, rather, the disaffected of the earth: “The ruined men of all nations,” in the words of the great 19th-century German historian Theodor Mommsen, “a piratical state with a peculiar esprit de corps.”
Like Al Qaeda, these pirates were loosely organized, but able to spread a disproportionate amount of fear among citizens who had believed themselves immune from attack. To quote Mommsen again: “The Latin husbandman, the traveler on the Appian highway, the genteel bathing visitor at the terrestrial paradise of Baiae were no longer secure of their property or their life for a single moment.”
What was to be done? Over the preceding centuries, the Constitution of ancient Rome had developed an intricate series of checks and balances intended to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual. The consulship, elected annually, was jointly held by two men. Military commands were of limited duration and subject to regular renewal. Ordinary citizens were accustomed to a remarkable degree of liberty: the cry of “Civis Romanus sum” — “I am a Roman citizen” — was a guarantee of safety throughout the world.
But such was the panic that ensued after Ostia that the people were willing to compromise these rights. The greatest soldier in Rome, the 38-year-old Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (better known to posterity as Pompey the Great) arranged for a lieutenant of his, the tribune Aulus Gabinius, to rise in the Roman Forum and propose an astonishing new law.
“Pompey was to be given not only the supreme naval command but what amounted in fact to an absolute authority and uncontrolled power over everyone,” the Greek historian Plutarch wrote. “There were not many places in the Roman world that were not included within these limits.”
Pompey eventually received almost the entire contents of the Roman Treasury — 144 million sesterces — to pay for his “war on terror,” which included building a fleet of 500 ships and raising an army of 120,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. Such an accumulation of power was unprecedented, and there was literally a riot in the Senate when the bill was debated.
Nevertheless, at a tumultuous mass meeting in the center of Rome, Pompey’s opponents were cowed into submission, the Lex Gabinia passed (illegally), and he was given his power. In the end, once he put to sea, it took less than three months to sweep the pirates from the entire Mediterranean. Even allowing for Pompey’s genius as a military strategist, the suspicion arises that if the pirates could be defeated so swiftly, they could hardly have been such a grievous threat in the first place.
But it was too late to raise such questions. By the oldest trick in the political book — the whipping up of a panic, in which any dissenting voice could be dismissed as “soft” or even “traitorous” — powers had been ceded by the people that would never be returned. Pompey stayed in the Middle East for six years, establishing puppet regimes throughout the region, and turning himself into the richest man in the empire.
Those of us who are not Americans can only look on in wonder at the similar ease with which the ancient rights and liberties of the individual are being surrendered in the United States in the wake of 9/11. The vote by the Senate on Thursday to suspend the right of habeas corpus for terrorism detainees, denying them their right to challenge their detention in court; the careful wording about torture, which forbids only the inducement of “serious” physical and mental suffering to obtain information; the admissibility of evidence obtained in the United States without a search warrant; the licensing of the president to declare a legal resident of the United States an enemy combatant — all this represents an historic shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the executive.
An intelligent, skeptical American would no doubt scoff at the thought that what has happened since 9/11 could presage the destruction of a centuries-old constitution; but then, I suppose, an intelligent, skeptical Roman in 68 B.C. might well have done the same.
In truth, however, the Lex Gabinia was the beginning of the end of the Roman republic. It set a precedent. Less than a decade later, Julius Caesar — the only man, according to Plutarch, who spoke out in favor of Pompey’s special command during the Senate debate — was awarded similar, extended military sovereignty in Gaul. Previously, the state, through the Senate, largely had direction of its armed forces; now the armed forces began to assume direction of the state.
It also brought a flood of money into an electoral system that had been designed for a simpler, non-imperial era. Caesar, like Pompey, with all the resources of Gaul at his disposal, became immensely wealthy, and used his treasure to fund his own political faction. Henceforth, the result of elections was determined largely by which candidate had the most money to bribe the electorate. In 49 B.C., the system collapsed completely, Caesar crossed the Rubicon — and the rest, as they say, is ancient history.
It may be that the Roman republic was doomed in any case. But the disproportionate reaction to the raid on Ostia unquestionably hastened the process, weakening the restraints on military adventurism and corrupting the political process. It was to be more than 1,800 years before anything remotely comparable to Rome’s democracy — imperfect though it was — rose again.
The Lex Gabinia was a classic illustration of the law of unintended consequences: it fatally subverted the institution it was supposed to protect. Let us hope that vote in the United States Senate does not have the same result.
But Has The American Colossus Learned How to Interpret?
If the American Colossus makes an interpretive claim that may not be challanged, then are we sure the American Colossus has the knowledge and wisdom to interpret for the rest of us? How Hobbesian is this administration becoming?
A fine paragraph by Glenn Greenwald:
"There is a profound and fundamental difference between an Executive engaging in shadowy acts of lawlessness and abuses of power on the one hand, and, on the other, having the American people, through their Congress, endorse, embrace and legalize that behavior out in the open, with barely a peep of real protest. Our laws reflect our values and beliefs. And our laws are about to explicitly codify one of the most dangerous and defining powers of tyranny -- one of the very powers this country was founded in order to prevent."
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/legalization-of-torture-an_115945829460324274.html
And as the NYT states today in their news analysis: "Rather than reining in the formidable presidential powers Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have asserted since Sept. 11, 2001, the law gives some of those powers a solid statutory foundation. In effect it allows the president to identify enemies, imprison them indefinitely and interrogate them — albeit with a ban on the harshest treatment — beyond the reach of the full court reviews traditionally afforded criminal defendants and ordinary prisoners."
It does appear that John Yoo and others are bringing American back to a Hobbesian definition of the soveriegn: "The law is all the right reason we have, and (though he, as often as it disagreeth with his own reason, edny it) is the infallible rule of moral goodness. The reason whereof is this, that because neither mine nor the Bishop's reason is right reason fit to be a rule of our moral actions, we have therefore set up over ourselves a sovereign governor, and agreed his alwas shall be unto us, whatsoever they be, in the place of right reason, to dictate to us what is really good" (Hobbes debate with Dr. Bramhall, Bishop of Derry as qtd. in The Philosophy of Hoobes by W.G. Pogson Smith.)
In place of an objective right, we have the sovereign's right. And in Chapter XXVI of Part II of Leviathan, Hobbes writes:m "The Legislator known; and the Lawes, either by writing, or by the light of nature, sufficiently published; there wanteth yet another very materiall circumstance to make them obligatory. For it is not the Letter, but the Intendment, or Meaning; that is to say, the authentique Interpretation of the Law ( which is the sense of the Legislator,) in which the nature of the Law consisteth; And therefore the Interpretation of all Lawes dependeth on the Authority Soveraign . . . ."
Yet, for The American Colossus, another document curbs his "Authority Soveraign."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html
Especially Seciton 2 of Article III. It's time now for the Supreme Court to have a talk with the American Colossus about his tripe recipes.
A fine paragraph by Glenn Greenwald:
"There is a profound and fundamental difference between an Executive engaging in shadowy acts of lawlessness and abuses of power on the one hand, and, on the other, having the American people, through their Congress, endorse, embrace and legalize that behavior out in the open, with barely a peep of real protest. Our laws reflect our values and beliefs. And our laws are about to explicitly codify one of the most dangerous and defining powers of tyranny -- one of the very powers this country was founded in order to prevent."
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/legalization-of-torture-an_115945829460324274.html
And as the NYT states today in their news analysis: "Rather than reining in the formidable presidential powers Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have asserted since Sept. 11, 2001, the law gives some of those powers a solid statutory foundation. In effect it allows the president to identify enemies, imprison them indefinitely and interrogate them — albeit with a ban on the harshest treatment — beyond the reach of the full court reviews traditionally afforded criminal defendants and ordinary prisoners."
It does appear that John Yoo and others are bringing American back to a Hobbesian definition of the soveriegn: "The law is all the right reason we have, and (though he, as often as it disagreeth with his own reason, edny it) is the infallible rule of moral goodness. The reason whereof is this, that because neither mine nor the Bishop's reason is right reason fit to be a rule of our moral actions, we have therefore set up over ourselves a sovereign governor, and agreed his alwas shall be unto us, whatsoever they be, in the place of right reason, to dictate to us what is really good" (Hobbes debate with Dr. Bramhall, Bishop of Derry as qtd. in The Philosophy of Hoobes by W.G. Pogson Smith.)
In place of an objective right, we have the sovereign's right. And in Chapter XXVI of Part II of Leviathan, Hobbes writes:m "The Legislator known; and the Lawes, either by writing, or by the light of nature, sufficiently published; there wanteth yet another very materiall circumstance to make them obligatory. For it is not the Letter, but the Intendment, or Meaning; that is to say, the authentique Interpretation of the Law ( which is the sense of the Legislator,) in which the nature of the Law consisteth; And therefore the Interpretation of all Lawes dependeth on the Authority Soveraign . . . ."
Yet, for The American Colossus, another document curbs his "Authority Soveraign."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html
Especially Seciton 2 of Article III. It's time now for the Supreme Court to have a talk with the American Colossus about his tripe recipes.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Ah, the Humorous Mr. Kristol!
In response to Bob Woodward's well-timed sea-change on the Bush administration, the King of Comedy Mr Kristol finds more reasons to blame . . . of course, the Democrats. The Democrats have failed plans, whereas Bush is lauded because . . ."Bush, on other hand, understands that the only acceptable exit strategy is victory. (If, as Woodward reports, he's been bolstered in that view by Henry Kissinger, then good for Henry. Invite him to the Oval Office more often!) ."
If only Mr. Kristol had at his fingers the plan for victory that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld have crafted. If only a plan for the inadequate troop level in the Anbar province existed, if only a plan to correct corruption within Iraq and Afghanistan existed, if only a "real" conversation between this administration and the military existed. Good laughs Mr. Kristol, good laughs.
If only Mr. Kristol had at his fingers the plan for victory that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld have crafted. If only a plan for the inadequate troop level in the Anbar province existed, if only a plan to correct corruption within Iraq and Afghanistan existed, if only a "real" conversation between this administration and the military existed. Good laughs Mr. Kristol, good laughs.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Laughing with Hobbes
"Ignorance of the causes, and originall constitution of Right, Equity, Law, and Justice, disposeth a man to make Custome and Example the rule of his actions; in such manner as to think that Unjust which it hath been the custome to punish; and that Just, of the impunity and approbation whereof they can produce an Example, or (as the Lawyers which onely use this false measure of Justice barbarously call it) a Precedent; like little children, that have no other rule of good and evill manners, but the correction they receive from their Parents, and Masters; save that children are constant to their rule, whereas men are not so; because grown strong, and stubborn, they appeale from custome to reason, and from reason to custome, as it serves their turn; receding from custome when their interest requires it, and setting themselves against reason, as oft as reason is against them: Which is the cause, that the doctrine of Right and Wrong, is perpetually disputed, both by the Pen and the Sword: Whereas the doctrine of Lines and Figures, is not so; because men care not, in that subject what be truth, as a thing that crosses no mans ambition, profit or lust. For I doubt not, but if it had been a thing contrary to any mans right of dominion, or to the interest of men that have dominion, That the three Angles of a Triangle, should be equall to two Angles of a Square; that doctrine should have been, if not disputed, yet by the burning of all books of Geometry, suppressed, as farre as he whom it concerned was able."
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
With the Rest of the World Going Mad (read Tom Friedman's op-ed in the NYT today) How About Some Cironian Madness
"I would like to go mad on one condition, namely, that I would become a happy madman, lively and always in a good mood, without any troubles and obsessions, laughing senselessly from morning to night. Although I long for luminous ecstacies, I wouldn't ask for any, because I know they are followed by great depressions. I would like a shower of warm light to fall from me, transfiguring the entire world, an unecstatic burnst of light perserving the calm of luminous eternity. Far from the concentrations of ecstacy, it would be all graceful lightness and smiling warmth. The entire world should float in this dream of light, in this tgransparent and unreal state of delight. Obstacles and matter, form and limits would cease to exist. Then let me die of light in such a landscape." E.M. Cioran, "On The Heights of Despair."
Light for Cioran? "The premonition of madness is complicated by the dread of lucidity in madness, the dread of the moments of return and reunion, when the intuition of disaster is so painful that it almost provokes a greater madness." Let's hope that some in this current madness have the ability to be lucid, light-filled, happy--turning dread into delight.
Light for Cioran? "The premonition of madness is complicated by the dread of lucidity in madness, the dread of the moments of return and reunion, when the intuition of disaster is so painful that it almost provokes a greater madness." Let's hope that some in this current madness have the ability to be lucid, light-filled, happy--turning dread into delight.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Worthwhile Comments on the NIE Report
If you like what you read, click on the title and go to http://blogs.chron.com/bluebayou/
" . . . President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney also have highlighted the war in Iraq as the United States' main thrust in the fight against terrorism, contending that the world is safer without Saddam Hussein in power.
Also, Sunday's newspaper articles on the National Intelligence Estimate -- by the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times -- were "not representative of the complete document," the White House said. That assessment was echoed by National Intelligence Director John D. Negroponte, whose office prepared the report.
In a statement e-mailed to reporters Sunday afternoon, Negroponte said "the conclusions of the intelligence community are designed to be comprehensive, and viewing them through the narrow prism of a fraction of judgments distorts the broad framework they create."
"The Estimate highlights the importance of the outcome in Iraq on the future of global jihadism," he said. If Iraq develops "a stable political and security environment, the jihadists will be perceived to have failed, and fewer jihadists will leave Iraq determined to carry on the fight elsewhere."
Negroponte is probably right about the importance of resolving the situation in Iraq, but again, this is a rather evasive response; it's perfectly reasonable for a report to observe that the war has increased the level of danger, but needs to be won. In other words: we've created a bad situation, but we've got to get out of it.
As for whether this part of the document is "representative," I find myself wondering whether any single part of a document that summarizes a wide range of information is going to be "representative." A more interesting question is whether that part of it is accurate and that's the question that the White House is dodging.
It's important to remember that documents like this are not policy documents; they are information to help those who create policy make good decisions. It would be perfectly legitimate for this or any administration to review this kind of data and conclude that while an action might actually endanger us, there are other policy goals that make it, on balance, worthwhile.
The situation is a bit analogous to scientific data that's presented to Congress and the White House. A scientific study will tell you that a certain chemical poses a health risk, or that current levels of carbon emissions are contributing to global warming. The job of policy makers is to weight that evidence against other concerns and decide how to act.
The response to both kinds of information by the Bush administration is revealing. Rather than make an honest determinations ("We understand this risk, but it is outweighed by the following...") this administration generally simply denies that the information is real.
When the administration reacts to these things by ignoring information, rather than putting it in context and explaining how other issues outweigh it, we should be very suspicious. The entire history of the Iraq war has been characterized by this sort of thing, from the ever-shifting rationales that were revealed as wrong one after the other, to the completely unrealistic predictions of the effort (in terms of time, money, and soldiers' lives) required, and now to the impact of our actions.
Dishonesty or incompetence? It's hard to say. As long as the administration chooses to operate in an alternate reality rather than deal with the one its own advisors are presenting to it, we're unlikely to know. "
Posted by John Whiteside at September 26, 2006 11:05 AM on Blue Bayou
" . . . President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney also have highlighted the war in Iraq as the United States' main thrust in the fight against terrorism, contending that the world is safer without Saddam Hussein in power.
Also, Sunday's newspaper articles on the National Intelligence Estimate -- by the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times -- were "not representative of the complete document," the White House said. That assessment was echoed by National Intelligence Director John D. Negroponte, whose office prepared the report.
In a statement e-mailed to reporters Sunday afternoon, Negroponte said "the conclusions of the intelligence community are designed to be comprehensive, and viewing them through the narrow prism of a fraction of judgments distorts the broad framework they create."
"The Estimate highlights the importance of the outcome in Iraq on the future of global jihadism," he said. If Iraq develops "a stable political and security environment, the jihadists will be perceived to have failed, and fewer jihadists will leave Iraq determined to carry on the fight elsewhere."
Negroponte is probably right about the importance of resolving the situation in Iraq, but again, this is a rather evasive response; it's perfectly reasonable for a report to observe that the war has increased the level of danger, but needs to be won. In other words: we've created a bad situation, but we've got to get out of it.
As for whether this part of the document is "representative," I find myself wondering whether any single part of a document that summarizes a wide range of information is going to be "representative." A more interesting question is whether that part of it is accurate and that's the question that the White House is dodging.
It's important to remember that documents like this are not policy documents; they are information to help those who create policy make good decisions. It would be perfectly legitimate for this or any administration to review this kind of data and conclude that while an action might actually endanger us, there are other policy goals that make it, on balance, worthwhile.
The situation is a bit analogous to scientific data that's presented to Congress and the White House. A scientific study will tell you that a certain chemical poses a health risk, or that current levels of carbon emissions are contributing to global warming. The job of policy makers is to weight that evidence against other concerns and decide how to act.
The response to both kinds of information by the Bush administration is revealing. Rather than make an honest determinations ("We understand this risk, but it is outweighed by the following...") this administration generally simply denies that the information is real.
When the administration reacts to these things by ignoring information, rather than putting it in context and explaining how other issues outweigh it, we should be very suspicious. The entire history of the Iraq war has been characterized by this sort of thing, from the ever-shifting rationales that were revealed as wrong one after the other, to the completely unrealistic predictions of the effort (in terms of time, money, and soldiers' lives) required, and now to the impact of our actions.
Dishonesty or incompetence? It's hard to say. As long as the administration chooses to operate in an alternate reality rather than deal with the one its own advisors are presenting to it, we're unlikely to know. "
Posted by John Whiteside at September 26, 2006 11:05 AM on Blue Bayou
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Click This, Read, And Send the American Colossus A Copy of Politics and the English Language
Noteworthy compilation of Orwell, Bush, Cheney, Chirac and others. Thank Captian Langston.
Captain Langston Illuminates Inwards
Captain Langston: "As Foucault famously shows, time and again, power is a medium, a relationship."
And for Machiavelli and Hobbes, "desire" is the key.
Machiavelli: "It is a thing truly very natural and ordinary to desire to aquire; and when men who are able to do so do it, they are always praised or not blamed; but when they are not able and yet want to do so in every mode, here is the error and the blame" (Prince, Mixed Principates).
Hobbes: "Nor can a man anymore live, whoe Desires are at an end, than he, whose Senses and Imaginations are at a stand. Felicity is a continuall progresse of the desire, from one object to another; the attaining of the former, being still but the way to the later."
Hobbes also establishes knowledge (that which we have when we "pretend to Reasoning") is of consequences--such as, "Science, that is Knowledge of Consequences; which is called also Philosophy" or "Consequences from the Accidents of Politique Bodies which is called Politiques and Civill Philosophy: 1. Of Consequences from the Institution of Common-Wealths, to the Rights and Duties of the Body Politique, or Soveraign. 2. Of Consequences from the same, to the Duty, and Right of the Subjects."
This is what worries us all about the Bush Administration's use of power, which appears to only be able to repeat a status quo without being able to study and learn from the consequences of misapplied force and a population that is not homogeneous. Again Chapter III from the Prince:
"For the Romans, in these cases, did all that wise princes ought to do, which is, to have regard not only for present disorders, but also for future ones, and with all industry to anticipate and provide for them; because, when one forsees them from afar, once can easily remedy them; but if you wait until they are near the medicine is not in time, for the malady has become incurable."
Also, "In this mode you have as enemies all those whom you have hurt in seizing that principate; and you are not able to maintain as friends those who have placed you there, being unable to satisfy them in the mode that they had expected and by your not being able to use strong medicines against them, being obligated to them, for even if one has the most powerful of armies, one always has need of the favor of the inhabitants of a province to enter it." Saddam Hussein's Iraq appears to meet the definition of a mixed principate. But, of course, others might better advise me on this.
And for Machiavelli and Hobbes, "desire" is the key.
Machiavelli: "It is a thing truly very natural and ordinary to desire to aquire; and when men who are able to do so do it, they are always praised or not blamed; but when they are not able and yet want to do so in every mode, here is the error and the blame" (Prince, Mixed Principates).
Hobbes: "Nor can a man anymore live, whoe Desires are at an end, than he, whose Senses and Imaginations are at a stand. Felicity is a continuall progresse of the desire, from one object to another; the attaining of the former, being still but the way to the later."
Hobbes also establishes knowledge (that which we have when we "pretend to Reasoning") is of consequences--such as, "Science, that is Knowledge of Consequences; which is called also Philosophy" or "Consequences from the Accidents of Politique Bodies which is called Politiques and Civill Philosophy: 1. Of Consequences from the Institution of Common-Wealths, to the Rights and Duties of the Body Politique, or Soveraign. 2. Of Consequences from the same, to the Duty, and Right of the Subjects."
This is what worries us all about the Bush Administration's use of power, which appears to only be able to repeat a status quo without being able to study and learn from the consequences of misapplied force and a population that is not homogeneous. Again Chapter III from the Prince:
"For the Romans, in these cases, did all that wise princes ought to do, which is, to have regard not only for present disorders, but also for future ones, and with all industry to anticipate and provide for them; because, when one forsees them from afar, once can easily remedy them; but if you wait until they are near the medicine is not in time, for the malady has become incurable."
Also, "In this mode you have as enemies all those whom you have hurt in seizing that principate; and you are not able to maintain as friends those who have placed you there, being unable to satisfy them in the mode that they had expected and by your not being able to use strong medicines against them, being obligated to them, for even if one has the most powerful of armies, one always has need of the favor of the inhabitants of a province to enter it." Saddam Hussein's Iraq appears to meet the definition of a mixed principate. But, of course, others might better advise me on this.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Lively Debate Between Helprin, Hitchens and Kristol
Certainly one of the best forums I've seen recently. Check C-Span to see if it replays.
Saturday Morning Serving of Hobbesian Power or Gargantuan Power is a Thirsty One
"The Greatest of humane Powers, is that which is compounded fof the Powers of most men, united by consent, in one person, Naturall, or Civill, that has the use of all their Powers depending on his will; such as is the Power of a Common-wealth: Or depending on the wills of each particular; such as i the Power of a Faciton, or of divers factions leagued. Therefore to have servants is Power; To have friends, is Power: for they are strengths united."
"The palaver of the potted.
Then in the same place they started talking about dessert. Then flagons got going, hams trotting, goblets flying, glasses clinking . . . You wine stewards, creators of new forms, from not drinking make me drinking" and "Great God made the planets [planettes] and we make the plates clean [platz netz]."
Therefore to have wine stewards is Power; to have stewed friends is Power.
"The palaver of the potted.
Then in the same place they started talking about dessert. Then flagons got going, hams trotting, goblets flying, glasses clinking . . . You wine stewards, creators of new forms, from not drinking make me drinking" and "Great God made the planets [planettes] and we make the plates clean [platz netz]."
Therefore to have wine stewards is Power; to have stewed friends is Power.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Captain Langston Sees the Gorgons and Raises Them an Alice
"The executioner's argument was, that you couldn't cut off a head unless there was a body to cut it off from: that he had never had to do such a thing before, and he wasn't going to begin at HIS time of life. The King's argument was, that anything that had a head could be beheaded, and that you weren't to talk nonsense. The Queen's argument was, that if something wasn't done about it in less than no time she'd have everybody executed, all round. (It was this last remark that had made the whole party look so grave and anxious.)Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
Yes, of course, the discourse has to have a possiblity of making sense. Given yeserday's UN speeches and that odd man with the beard on CNN interviewing the American Colossus, I suggest that Lewis Carroll be deemed a political philosopher.
Yes, of course, the discourse has to have a possiblity of making sense. Given yeserday's UN speeches and that odd man with the beard on CNN interviewing the American Colossus, I suggest that Lewis Carroll be deemed a political philosopher.
United Nations Debacle or Rabelais for 500?
Sweet, sweet Jesus yesterday's gamut of disorientation was impressive. The American Colossus presented Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon as election-success stories, obviously relegating all this talk of bodies, torture, civil war, corruption, opium, infrastructure ruin to the status of illusion. Will somebody please investigate why the liberals and the media have invented all this "negative" and "unreal" news? Then there's the performance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who responded to a wtiness to Dachau with "I think we should allow more impartial studies to be done on this." And then of course there's Mr. Chavez who tried out his merengue moves on a journalist and kept referring to the presence of Satan, and (this is my favorite) lamented that he had not been able to meet Noam Chomsky before his death (the Noam Chomsky who is still alive). Then of course there is the rejection of UN forces by the President of Sudan because they're in the middle of genocide and would like to get on with it. What shall we say of politics as exampled by the above: "I discovered," said Gargantua, "by long and painstaking experiments a way to wipe my ass, the most lordly, the most excellent, the most expedient that was ever seen." Oh Rabelais! Oh humanity!
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Ah, Pericles . . . or why Mr. Snow Might Want to Have a Conversation with The American Colossus on Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War
"Our policies are considered and evaluated. We do not believe that talking endangers action. The real danger comes when we do not talk the plan through before doing what has to be done. We are unique in the way we combine bravado with reasoned debate about every project."
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Can Someone Help the American Colossus II?
""This debate is ocurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that sauid that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, and that Common Article 3 says that, you know, there will be no outrages upon human dignity. That's like--it's very vague. What does that mean, "Outrages upon human dignity?" George W. Bush, September 15, 2006
Common Article 3 is actually more specific than the President's language would indicate. Read the following.
"Common Article 3
Common Article 3 reads, in its entirety:
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict. "
For more on this issue go to the Center for Derense Information home page. Link to the side of this page.
Common Article 3 is actually more specific than the President's language would indicate. Read the following.
"Common Article 3
Common Article 3 reads, in its entirety:
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict. "
For more on this issue go to the Center for Derense Information home page. Link to the side of this page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)