~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
Friday, November 21, 2003
Mia Culpa, Mia Maxima Culpa
This morning in this post I originally wrote that the M2 had a 20mm autocanon, when it has a 25mm autocanon. I regret the error, especially since, irony of ironies, it came in the form of a correction of a letter writer. Well, at least when readers corrected me (thanks, btw), it was my error. I'm somewhat embarrassed because this isn't the kind of mistake I make. Or it isn't the kind of mistake I used to make. I knew that, but had forgotten it.
It exposes the fact that I've passed a threshold: my memory isn't as reliable as it used to be. What used to be a strength has become unreliable. This kind of started to show up in ICQ discussions with a friend of mine, where I mis-remembered things (from rules sets). I'm just going to have to start looking stuff up that I'm not used to having to look up because I used to know this stuff (accurately, I mean. Not "know stuff that just ain't so").
I also want to revise and extend a point I made in this post, a point I wrote rather slapdashedly in an effort to put together what became a fairly long post quickly. Where I wrote:
The fourth (spending someone else's money on another person) is the worst.
I neglected to explain why it's the worst. It's the worst because it's most likely to produce results that neither the person whose money is being spent nor the person on whose behalf it is ostensibly being spent would choose. That is, results that neither the payer nor the recipient would choose if it was up to them. They might get something kinda close to what they wanted, but the preferences of the third party (the person who is spending someone else's money on another person) can interfere. This doesn't happen all the time, but it's more likely to happen in this case than in the other three.
Thus what a lot of people see as the first option for addressing any problem, people for whom "we need to devote attention and resources to X" means "we need to devote federal attention and resources to X" - that is, it means we need a government program - may not be the best choice. That is, a lot of people (and I'm not saying Lucas Moody is one of them, remember) go to a government solution first rather than last. This doesn't mean one should never have a government program to address something, but it does mean that we might want to consider other options first, and also that it's better to, when possible, have government supplement, rather than replace, other ways of dealing with a concern.
But of course there are also things that government can and should do which cannot be effectively done any other way. If I'm not a Libertarian, I'm certainly not an Anarchist of any stripe.
I thought of an example to illustrate what I mean by producing results that neither the person paying for something nor the person on whose behalf the money is being spent would choose if they were making the decision. Take the money that EU countries have given to the Palestinian Authority to spend on welfare of the Palestinian people. Much of that money has gone to the welfare of Yasser Arafat's bank account. Maybe this is a bad example, though, because the EU governments don't seem to mind. But then one remembers that they're the third party spending the money of others: the taxpaying citizens of the countries of Europe.
But then I thought about that example and maybe it doesn't work very well. After all, the taxpaying citizens of Europe don't seem too outraged that their money has been used to enrich Yasser Arafat - as long as it serves the purpose of giving Israel the finger, they're getting what they want out of it. And it certainly does that. Similarly, the Palestinian people, who know that Yasser has diverted these funds from improving their lot to expanding his personal bank account and paying his cronies also don't seem to mind - he's as popular as ever because, like the taxpaying citizens of Europe, they're happy as long as it serves the purpose of giving Israel the finger. The money gets siphoned off to private bank accounts, the EU and the Palestinian people blame Israel for the plight of the Palestinians, and everyone involved in the transaction is happy enough.
So with that example, originally intended to illustrate the potential pitfalls of this method of spending money, ends up illustrating that it doesn't always work out in ways that neither the person whose money is being spent, nor the person choosing how to spend the money, nor the person on whose behalf it is ostensibly being spent, wouldn't chose. It can work out in ways in which all three parties are happy with the results. And Yasser Arafat as well.
So I have to add to today's apology: In trying to come up with an example to illustrate my point, I failed miserably and illustrated the opposite point. For that, I am sorry.
Lucas Moody writes, via e-mail, in response to the Smackdown! post, as follows:
I find it interesting the references and such, being that I am 24 and generally called a neo-conservative, which tends to well amuse me lets just say.
A little background, I grew up in a military family where generally both of my parents did work, my father being in the Navy and my mother doing electronics work. I was left to my own devices often enough growing up mostly when I was older. I grew up reading Sci-Fi and Fantasy books; I did not watch much T.V. I was an active kid playing generally at least one sport sometimes two or three at once. And I am generally considered intelligent. All that being said, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, I am very neutral, not in my beliefs, but in that one must vote with the needs of the country.
Saying all this I do not particularly care what Bush's economic policy is as long as the economy is moving forward and not backward, perhaps that is naive, but as long as the economy is growing and the government is not regulating it to death I generally find things to be well with the world. What I do not believe in is regulation, tariffs annoy me, but sometimes they must be used even when they hurt, why, well China is a case in point, do I like what’s going on, nope, do I think there is a possibility it could build into a full scale trade war, maybe, do I wish there was something other we could do certainly, but am I going to bad mouth the President over it not a bit. Why? All I can say is it is the best of a poor set of options.
About NASA, I was in school when the challenger blew up, I was watching it on TV. Did that faze me one bit about wishing to go to the stars? Not one little bit, but as I grew older and watched nothing truly revolutionary happen over the past decade I have become disillusioned with NASA. They have went from being a government agency that was a model on getting things done, to a government agency that is well as decrepit and as worth while in many respects as Welfare. Both do good things, but both need a redirection of their energies. NASA personally should be about scientific research, the branch that currently controls space flight should be broken off into a secondary agency that has nothing to do with scientific research, because on the scale we are talking about only the government can fund this type of research, and work much like the FAA regulating space flight and let the companies that are currently working towards it work towards it without the interference that is currently going on. I know a new agency for the government, but at least it would not have its hand in the actual building and construction of space flights, it would only be involved in safety, something as dangerous as manned flight into space does need oversight, :shrugs: but it does not need to be the strangle hold NASA currently has, if it was a private company it would be called a monopoly.
About Welfare, lets just say that I have no problem helping others out that through birth, chance, or in the case of those who served in the military are unable to support themselves, but I do have issue with the support given to women who have multiple children out of wedlock, with today’s birth control methods this is inexcusable, I am sorry but I take issue supporting these people. I take issue with people who say I have this mental problem, yes there are mental problems that cause people to be unable to work, but I have one friend who is unless he takes his meds is a manic and another who gets depressed if she does not take her, both take the meds and deal with the problems that cause, but both are productive members of society and both lead generally happy lives on part with my own. People need to take responsibility for their actions, and well I have to take exception to those on welfare who do not, I am sorry but kick them off welfare and force them to get a job. I have no problems with people being on welfare for 6 months due to losing a job and having to search for another, but I do take issue to people who refuse to work a service job or fast food because they have a college degree and sit on unemployment for years, I know people like this and it pisses me off to no end, particularly since I worked fast food and service jobs sometimes two at a time to pay the bills.
I could go on and on about this and that, but I guess what it all comes down to is a belief that if the government is going to use the money that I pay it in taxes it must be done in such a way that it actually shall bring about improvement or help those who truly need help, the government must be held accountable for its actions, the same as a single person needs to be held accountable for their own. There should be no double standard, and the government should not be bloated by agencies that serve no other purpose than to be the nanny for people who believe they are not accountable for their own actions.
That last bit reminds me of something Thomas Sowell once wrote (I donno that he came up with it). There are, roughly, four ways of spending money: You spend your money on yourself, you spend your money on someone else, you spend someone else's money on yourself, and you spend someone else's money on a third party (another person all together). When it comes to responsible spending and accountability, the first (you spending your money on yourself) is the best; you're budgeting yourself, buying what you need (or at least what you want), and the consequences of your decision are on you. The second (you spending your money on someone else) works pretty well, too; you're going to try and get them what they would really want and get the best deal you can. The third (you spending other people's money on yourself) is ok in that you're bound to get something you want, but cost containment isn't as big a priority. The fourth (spending someone else's money on another person) is the worst. Sure, sometimes it works well but it's the most likely to be reckless and wind up with you getting something you think they want or need but they don't - mistakes are more common here, as is reckless spending. But enough about Congress and the Federal budgeting process. Now, yes, we have to do some things this way and, as I said, I'm not a Libertarian.
Also I think we've become trained to think of helping people as meaning helping them through government programs. I'm sort of using Lucas Moody's mail to backdoor into one of the things I wanted to write about last Friday but never got to. (Don't get me wrong; it's a good mail and by and large and for the most part I agree with him, but one of the reasons it's a good mail is it gives me an opportunity to make a point I've been wanting to make anyhow).
Lots of things bug me, as you can tell. After all, when it comes right down to it the reason for blogging is that things vex me and I write on subjects pertaining to what's bothering me. Well, one thing that's irritating is, as I mentioned above, how there are rather deliberate efforts to confuse helping people and giving with doingso via the government; you're only a generous, compassionate person if you're for having the government spend other people's money on this or that thing. Last friday Andrew Sullivan blogged on the Generosity Index. He drew a partisan point from these rankings, which is all fine and well.
But what bothers me is; you know all those statistical breakdowns that show where countries rank, statistically, as a percentage of GNP devoted to aiding underdeveloped countries? Those rankings are always skewed in a variety of ways, deliberately skewed in what they count and what they don't count. One of the biggest ways of skewing the rankings is that it only counts what is budgeted by governments. It doesn't count private, non-governmental contributions (from your Sally Struthers type stuff to religious charities funding hospitals and the whole gamut). I suspect that if all forms of aid, not just government but privately funded aid, were included, the U.S. would skyrocket on the rankings. And a lot of the private aid is much better than any government's (be it ours, or France's, or whomever's) Kleptocrat Enrichment Program, such as the one all the Good People of the World, in their Enlightenment and Wisdom, want us to re-start up for Kim Jong Il. Gotta keep him happy, you know. No telling what may happen if we don't.
Well, ok, this blog isn't just about what annoys me. Not really. But if it wasn't for those things that vex me, it probably wouldn't exist.
Reaching back into the mailbag, Mike Lunday writes, via e-mail, in response to Tanks For the Memories, as follows:
I am at home today and following your blog with great interest. Hope I am not 'pummeling a deceased steed', but I cannot resist the urge to write you concerning the ongoing reorganization of the US Army. Specifically, regarding the balance of Infantry / Armor and type of armored vehicles to be used in the near future.
Your title 'Tanks for the Memories' and some of the comments in the article indicate a belief that the time of the MBTs has come and gone.
Before the mail goes any further I want to jump in here. If I left the impression that this is what I think, then I wasn't clear enough. My bad. I'm not saying replace the MBT with a light tank, I'm saying suppliment it, as part of expanding the force structure and adding on some units dedicated to post-"Major Combat Operations" situations. It's all part of an argument emphasizing versatility and that we need more than we have, not part of an argument saying we don't need what we do. (The title was just me trying to be cute, I didn't mean to imply that I thought the Tank was obsolete. Not like Steven Den Beste). Mike goes on:
As a retired Armor Officer, I certainly do have some personal opinions on this! Is an MBT appropriate for use in Iraq, i.e. for peace keeping / nation building? In limited numbers, sure. Nothing scares the, ummm, bejezus out of potential bad guys than 60 tons of evil metal sitting in the road. Many reports from the field support this conclusion.
I agree with that.
However, one of the new Stryker Brigades is now on its way to Iraq. I have seen the vehicle and talked with crewmen who operated it in their train-up prior to deployment. The Vehicle Commander and Crewmen seemed very happy with it - both in capabilities and effectiveness. Yes, there is some institutional resistance to the Stryker concept. However, it's here and it just may fill the bill for what we need. Personaly, I will be happier when the proposed 105mm turret version and 120mm Mortar Carrier are finished / improved. In the mean time, I am sure the Stryker Brigade will include in its Task Organization some MBT capabilility. During rotations at the National Training Center, it is common to provide at least a Company of M1 series tanks to the organization during operations.
The real questions are the organization of the unit equipped with the Stryker. First, the advantages: 1) More Infantry. 2) Specialized Staff Officers and 3) Information collection / management capabilities. The disadvantage of the organization is, at least in my opinion, is the relatively light Combat Service and Support organization.
We shall soon see how well this new organization operates in theater. I am sure things will change over time as we learn and gain experience with both the equipment and the organization.
I have some questions about the Stryker in that I've heard some troubling things about it, both about its deployability and more. Maybe it's good and maybe the bad things I've heard were overblown. In any case, here's a previous post, a guest blog post, focusing on the Stryker and here's my post that prompted it. I think the criticisms vs. the validations of the Stryker may rest on different things, people evaluating one aspect and finding it deficient (for example, in deployability) vs. others evaluating something else and finding it to work well on those grounds. One then has to decide, I suppose, whether the merits outweigh any demerits and also the accuracy of the evaluations (I only know what I've been told). Mike Lunday's mail continues:
okay, I can't resist . . . Bradley M2 armament - 25mm cannon capable of firing either Sabot and HE. Both type rounds are carried ready to fire, a flick of a switch choses the type of round for an engagement. Two TOW missiles are carried ready to fire (prior to firing the 'hammerhead' must be raised - takes a bit of time) more missiles are carried internally, but it takes at least 5 minutes to reload the launcher (depending on the training level of the Crewmember in back of the vehicle). 7.62mm COAX machine gun. The infantry firing ports are passe. I have never seen them used, the Bn/TF and Co/TM planning includes dismounting the infantry prior to assaulting their objectives.
Yah, I corrected the bonehead mistake about the M2 having a 25mm gun rather than, as I originally posted, a 20mm gun. My bad - I misremembered (I did know it had a 25mm gun, really, honest; I forgot. My memory used to be very good but it's starting to be unreliable). I also know about the firing ports thing - IIRC, more recent production models don't even include them. As I said, it was one of the concepts that turned people off about the whole Bradely concept, but it's never been used the way people feared it would and has been good at what it does.
I knew it had limited ATGMs; IIRC, the M3 Cav variant is better in this regard. But the point is it's not a tank-substitute. The Bradely is good at what it was built for but it's not a tank, even of the light variety. IMO. John Allison writes, via e-mail:
The army had a string of light tanks during WWII and up through Korea and into the early stages of Vietnam that provided valuable service. We had a doctrine that had a place for them. For a short time in the 50s, we also had heavy tanks. These both had a place in the tank batallion of the time. However this gave the batallion maintenance folk three different armored fighting vehicles to support and supply. The lights and heavies both went by the wayside in the interests of economy and simplicity in favor of having a one size fits most main battle tank. The light tank hung on in the reconnaissance units and the airborne division.
I've mentioned this other times, in other places but a number of things combined in the 60's to put us into an acquisition hell that we didn't get out of until well into the 80s. (At least, with respect to the army. One might say that the USAF is in one as we speak, but that's another rant. ;)) Part of this hell was the M551, neither fish nor fowl and about two decades ahead of the technology that might have actually made it work. I started my career on the M551 Sheridan AR/AAV (Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle) (aka light tank). Our reconnaissance doctrine at the time emphasized stealth (the sneak-n-peek school or you might think of it as the english solution) so the armored cavalry was lightly armed and armored. The light not-a-tank was included as the guided missile launcher that it carried was seen as being able to provide long range overwatching fire in support of the scouts to it's front.
During my first couple of years in service, the army was developing and adopting a new doctrine, call it 'Active Defense'. It's centerpiece featured the covering force battle that would force an opponent to deploy for battle, thus slowing him down as well as beginning the process of wearing him down before he crashed into the main defense line. This required the Cavalry to get seriously beefed up as they were now expected to carry out this covering force battle as their raison d'etre and required actual tanks to fulfill their mission, exit the Sheridan. (This was the fight it out for information, or german school of recon). Have I mentioned the army's love affair with things wehrmacht? Nother rant.
The army has had a love-hate relationship with wheeled armored vehicles since at least WWII. Adopting wheeled armor has long been seen as heralding a europeanization of the army as we felt that wheeled armor depended upon a
developed road network such as could be found in europe to be able to maneuver of a sort not needed by tracked armor. The other side of the coin is that wheeled armor tends to be less costly to build, maintain and operate then tracked armor when used in line with it's limitations.
Now, back to the light tank thing. Our doctrine, currently, has no place for a light tank. There is no role for it that an MBT, Bradley, or Hummer on steroids isn't already seen as being capable of fulfilling. The Styker brigade(s) may be useful as a policing force or against an opponent lacking in significant armored forces and in situations requiring lengthy road moves against disorganized, lightly armed opponents. Convoy escort comes to mind, as well as MPs with attitude. The small number of light tanks that might be built aren't going to offer significant cost savings because AFVs just don't come cheap and small quantity buys drive up unit costs.
Part of the strife is a jockeying for resources and prestige between proponents of wheeled armor vs the tracked armor community. A similar jerking around took place in the 60s between the proponents of the new improved wonder weapon, the anti-tank guided missile vs the stodgy old stuck in the mud fans of the large caliber high velocity cannon as the preferred tank-killer du jour. The compromise solution (let's do both, at the same time, on the same vehicle!) resulted in the 551 and the M60A2, rightfully relegated to the ashheap of dumb ideas. (Actually, if you're a wargamer, the M60A2 is beautiful, but in real life, it sucked dirt).
Personally I'd love for there to be light tanks. I think light tanks, operating semi-independently, are the class act of armor and would be where all the cool folk would go, like moi ;)
And a bit of errata, the Bradley carries a 25mm auto-cannon.
Ya'll got me on that one. It'll probably be on my tombstone now. 8-)
Also, mechanized infantry divisions are organizationally identical to armored divisions, they're both referred to as heavy divisions and retain the Mech or Armored designation as historical tradition, only.
Last I knew, the Mech Infantry had an additional infantry battalion, and Armored Divisions one more Tank Battalion than the Mech IDs had. But maybe that got shorted out when I wasn't paying attention.
The lightfighters are another kettle of fish and it seems like each division has a unique organization (101st Air Assault, 82d Airborne, 10th Mountain, 7th Infantry, etc)
Yes, they tend to be organizationally distinct and I wouldn't even try to pretend I remember all the details now. Especially since, like everything else, it's probably changed a bit since last I looked at it in detail.
So I was gonna write something up on this excellent Torygraph editorial, but indolence and fecklessness got in the way (passive voice for "my indolence and fecklessness got in the way") and Steven Den Beste beat me to it
The above is just a way of saying go ahead on and read his post. I might have more to say later myself but who knows?
Some further discussion on the Kagan post on military matters, and it's follow up. Said follow-up prompted a short, derisive mail from one reader who wanted to express his contempt for me. It wasn't substantive so I couldn't really do much with it, so I sent him a mail offering that, if he would write up a coherent argument about why he disagreed with me, I'd post it. I even said he could include some insults if he felt the need to, as long as it was, on the whole, substantive. I haven't heard from him since, which must mean that he knows his limitations. Some people's aptitudes are confined to snotty remarks. That's fine; each of us are given different talents.
In any event, that is by way of saying that this post would have gone up yesterday but I wanted to give that writer an opportunity to take me up on my offer. But here are some other mails on the subject. One Mike Fisher (not the guy I was talking about in the above, I want to make that clear so there's no confusion) wrote, via e-mail, as follows:
I agree with your assessment in that we sometimes don't need 70 ton MBTs, much as we don't need the Crusader. But aren't Bradley Fighting Vehicles just such a Compromise? I mean, they can have a pretty heavy armament (TOW missiles and 23mm chain guns at least) and are about 25 tons. Still pretty heavy, but you need some mass of armor. For even lighter, less armored vehicles we have HumVees that can carry different armaments from .50 cals to missile launchers.
First (and sorry to niggle over details, but the last thing we need is another corrective mail over a small point), the Bradley has a 25mm autocanon, not 23mm (I'm pretty sure we don't have a 23mm gun in our inventory; that's a Soviet caliber).
The Bradely has ended up being a pretty good vehicle for doing what it was designed to do, but still has a lingering bad reputation in a lot of quarters. One of the things that got IFVs such as the Bradely that bad reputation was concern that it would be used operationally in detrimental ways: the infantry wouldn't really be infantry anymore. One early idea for the use of the Bradely, for example, was to have the infantry troops it carries fight from within the vehicle. A lot of people rightly thought that was a bad idea and looked at the M2 negatively because of it. But that concept has been dropped.
People also were concerned that it would be seen as a sort of substitute tank, when it isn't. It's an anti-armor vehicle, and is equipped with ATGMs for that reason. The autocanon is pretty good but the rounds are small. The M2 doesn't carry a lot of ATGMs at any one time, and those are mainly intended for use against armored vehicles (though they're good against bunkers, too).
However, we're not talking about a situation where the enemy is using armored vehicles (in that case, that's where the Abrams tank should be used). What we're really talking about is a situation where the tank would be used closer to the purpose tanks were invented for (before someone quibbles: "closer to" is not the same as saying "identical to"), before their primary job became facing off against other tanks (thus necessitating heavier armor and penetrating rounds; one doesn't use Sabot against soft targets, for example).
So it would be good, in my opinion, to have a vehicle that could withstand RPG rounds, carried one or two heavy MGs, and which carried a 105mm or at least 75mm gun and loads of HE (and some HEAT for use against bunkers) rounds. The Bradley doesn't really fill that role, IMO. I could be wrong (and indeed did not present myself as an expert in either of the preceding posts in this discussion, insinuations of the snotty mail writer to the contrary notwithstanding). This new nanotech armor sounds intriguing. I don't know enough about it to do more than speculate; it's expensive now, but the unit-price would come down if and when put into larger scale production. I'm not sure if it would be possible to make a somewhat thick layer on a light(ish) tank that would then be well protected, have a low profile, good speed, robust enough to carry a good sized main gun, but be smaller than our MBT.
Speaking of the earlier discussion, the anonymous writer from that post responds again:
I am the anonymous responder you referred to. My name is Matt Noto, I a 36 yr-old veteran (of the U.S. Navy) and the descendant of THREE generations of U.S. Marines, all of whom were combat veterans (WWI and II, Korea and Vietnam). In addition, I am an amateur historian (won't consider myself a pro until I finish up that BA in Western Civ) with a keen interest in the history and evolution of warfare.
In response to Mr. Davenport's assertion that I was incorrect in my estimate of a) the number of infantry divisions in today's Army of One and b) the numbers of tanks in an infantry division, I submit the following:
1. I may have underestimated (I admit to not checking the facts and was working from memory) the number of divisions designated as infantry.
2. Perhaps my English wasn't clear enough (and I admit, perhaps it wasn't) and may have given him the impression that I believe that airborne/airmobile formations are tank heavy. It was my assertion that our present INFANTRY divisions are tank heavy. I apologize if this caused any confusion.
As for your assertion that what the Army needs is a light tank, I agree, but believe the concept has been overtaken by politics, inside the Army itself, and not within the government. Light tanks are not seen as "sexy" by many field commanders, who honestly, have no experience with such vehicles. Light tanks during the Second World War and Korea, provided valuable service as scouts, convoy escorts, rear area security and light support for infantry (ask the Marines about their light tanks in island-hopping against the Japanese, they'll tell you!). Unfortunately, we are dealing with a mindset within the military that is still fighting the Soviet Union, where what was needed was a heavy MBT, and so, the light tank went the way of the dodo, along with the tank destroyer concept (which was a bad idea to begin with). Since today's generals cannot envision a military without a light tank, we get a Stryker vehicle, which is basically heavy artillery on a souped-up wheeled vehicle (which begs the question -- if this is a good idea now, why was the LAV-75 program cancelled?). It's supposed to LOOK like a tank and wield a tank's firepower, but it ain't a tank. It's a compromise between mobility and firepower and as such, will probably be a dismal failure in combat.
What's needed is a smaller, tracked vehicle, with a lower profile, which can still mount effective firepower. With the proliferation of sabot rounds, depleted uranium, high-velocity cannon, smaller AT missiles, automation and technology, this should not be impossible. It just hasn't been done because no one in authority wants to do it.
P.S. Silly me, I forgot all them armored formations in my count of 10 combat divisions! My bad.
Fair enough.
Update: Oh, and before anyone writes: Yes, I know I have aptitude in the snotty department, too. But also in the sphere of substantive argument. So I combine both to make the fullest use of my talents. {*_+}
Additional: Originally I had ascribed a 20mm autocanon to the M2, now fixed in the text above. Adam D'Arcy sent me a kind mail correcting me. The funny - or unfunny - thing is, I knew that but misremembered it. My bad.
So I'm not really liking the wall-to-wall news coverage of the Michael Jackson trial (I know the trial hasn't even been scheduled, but we know what I'm talking about here). Don't get me wrong - I hope that, if he's guilty, he gets everything that's coming to him. Same with Scott Peterson and Kobe Bryant.
But I don't really feel the need to have every detail obsessively fed to me at every hour of the day by the news channels. I have no interest in that whatsoever.
I suppose I should be grateful, though. I mean, if you look at it the right way, the fact that the news channels are devoting so much coverage to the Peterson trial, then to the Bryant trial, followed by the Jackson trial, means things must be going pretty well in the world overall. I mean, if these are the biggest stories of our day, worth the closest scrutiny down to the smallest detail up to and including how much traffic a car is encountering on the way to or from the pokey, then it's a sign that we don't have any great problems at the moment and the reporters have a lot of free time on their hands. I mean, it's not like there's a war on or anything else important, right?
To start the day off on a somewhat lighthearted note, my mother sent me an e-mail of these:
1. *Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
2. *We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. --Winston Churchill
3. *A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. --George Bernard Shaw
4. *A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. -- G. Gordon Liddy
5. *Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. --James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
6. Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. --Douglas Casey, Classmate of W.J. Clinton at Georgetown U. (1992)
7. *Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. --P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
8. Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. --Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)
9. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. -- Ronald Reagan (1986)
10. *I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --Will Rogers
11. *If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free. --P.J. O'Rourke
12. *If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist. --Joseph Sobran, Editor of the National Review at one time (1995)
13. *In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. --Voltaire (1764)
14. *Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you. --Pericles (430 B.C.)
15. *No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session. --Mark Twain (1866)
16. *Talk is cheap-except when Congress does it.
--(Unknown)
17. The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. --Ronald Reagan
18. *The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. --Winston Churchill
19. *The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin. --Mark Twain
20. *The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. --Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)
21. *There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress. --Mark Twain
22. *What this country needs are more unemployed politicians. -- Edward Langley, Artist 1928-1995
I like 'em all, but my personal favs are #2, #3, #4, #8 (which proves that at one point there were sensible French economists! It's true!), #9, and #14.
In other news, just because I'm not sure where else to put it, don't miss this Tom Friedman piece.
Many people often wonder what they can do to help the troops, either in Iraq or Afghanistan or elsewhere (there are military personnel deployed all over). Steven Den Beste writes encouraging people who are related to or know a soldier to write them. Often.
What contribution can those of us who don't know anyone there make? Well, here's a site that makes it possible for people to "adopt a soldier", write them, and make other contributions. Check it out. It's a good way to give thanks, and help someone out.
For those of you coming late to a phrase I haven't used in awhile, enter "Restored Carolignian Empire" into my search engine (located to screen left) and its relative, "Frankenreich". That said, here is a piece in Canada's National Post on the vision that a union between France and Germany would expound:
This vision of the EU encompasses a bureaucratically "harmonized" state with a semi-command economy, a kind of glass-cockpit socialism for the 21st century. Such a Franco-German construct would be "nuanced" and "civilized" -- the code words denoting a state with a pragmatic bent, flexible ethics and a commitment to realpolitik. It would have a defence force separate from NATO, and held as aloof as possible from Anglo-American cultural, political and judicial influences.
In short, it would split Western civilization into an Atlantic and a continental branch. . .
This concern has prompted them to consider either a stronger union between the two European giants of France and Germany, or possibly a two-tiered EU in which a core group -- i.e., France-Belgium-Germany -- would forge ahead, then invite second-tier countries in the "euro-zone" to join them. Join them, that is, as long as these minor or new-EUers are prepared to commit to what Strauss-Kahn and his co-authors described in an earlier article in Le Monde (June 20, 2001) as "a model of social solidarity and external independence" -- the code words meaning a state of centralized bureaucracy that is as resistant to Anglo-American as it is receptive to Franco-German influence.
This is the polite way to describe the Strauss-Kahn model of anti-Anglo-American statism. Less polite would be euro-national socialism sans genocide: Nazism with a human face.
Well, there you go (that last phrase there is I suppose rather harsh and begs for the invocation of Godwin's Law, but, well...). As I was saying. . .
The attempt to resurrect the ancient Frankish empire of Charles the Great as a counterbalance to American "unilateralism" is no doubt motivated by what I once described as phallUS-envy, but even more by historic opportunism. France and Germany are glimpsing a chance. Having been continually frustrated in their global ambitions, they don't want to see Europe slip out of their grip. Charlemagne, legendary ruler of the "First Reich" in the 9th and 10th centuries, is a hero in the national mythology of both France and Germany. It seems the two heavy hitters of old Europe, having failed to build their empires in modern times, are now hoping to excavate one.
Check out the whole piece though, because there's a more positive alternative vision.
One of the reasons I liked Clinton in '92 was that he was talking a tough line on dealing with China in economic matters. One of my early disappointments was, after he took office, his position on relations with China ended up being not very different than Bush's were (the father, that is).
Now, back then I liked free trade and all in the abstract and I favored NAFTA all along, for example but - well, I didn't agree completely with the Prestowitz (remember Clyde?) or Robert Reich or Lester Thurow or Robert Kuttner or Paul Krugman, but I inclined that way and bought their books.
Now I'm not sure Clinton was wrong in not taking the sort of line he talked about during the campaign, and I'm not sure Bush is right to impose import curbs on Chinese textiles. It's part of a disturbing pattern of the Bush Administration, a lack of commitment to free trade, which has a potential for dangerous ripples that might undermine global economic prospects. China is already preparing a response.
However - well, one of the reasons I'm not a Libertarian is that I'm not sure that, in practice, carrying that ideology to its furthest extents works well. For example, it's sort of an absurdity to have free trade with a country that still, for all its market reforms, has unfree labour producing much of what is manufactured for export. So, though I'm more free market oriented than I was ten years ago, I still have some qualms when it comes to how far we should open our economy to a Chinese economy that is still, in many ways, closed (and in many ways is closer to what Clyde Prestowitz claimed the Japanese were up to than Japan really was, especially when it comes to what the attitudes of the Chinese ruling elites - which control the government and also its export industries - have towards America).
So I can see why Bush made the decision he did, but I'm also more than a bit troubled by it. That is, I understand the rationale behind it but I'm not so sure it's a good idea. In fact, as I said, the ripple effects threaten to be very bad, especially within the context of the Farm Bill (aka "the gawdawefull Farm Bill") and the Steel Tariffs (aka "those damnable Steel Tariffs"). I mean, we do these things and then wonder why trade liberalization conferences, such as the recent meeting in Cancun, Mexico, don't produce anything.
Since Seattle '99 things have been moving slowly, but consistently, in the wrong direction. I had hoped that by this time Bush would have gotten rid of the Steel Tariffs and negotiated farm subsidies down with Europe (we cut back and they cut back). But things are still moving in the wrong direction. Meanwhile, in Miami today, it's like deja vu all over again.
Update: by "unfree labour" I don't mean "they don't have a Union or Dick Gephardt to represent them", I mean in many cases they aren't free; it's forced labour, or "coerced" in the lexicon. And yes, yes, I know that Libertarians are for freedom for everyone, including Chinese laborers. But the Libertarian position on trade is to, in the meantime, accept lowcost goods as a "gift" regardless of source. Well, some gifts aren't worth the price and some are of the large wooden horsey variety, if you get my drift (if not, read more Homer, mmmnkay?)
Additional: More on Bush's trade vision here. Hardly positive.
My country tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing.
Land where my fathers died!
Land of the Pilgrim's pride!
From every mountain side,
Let freedom ring!
My native country, thee,
Land of the noble free,
Thy name I love.
I love thy rocks and rills,
Thy woods and templed hills;
My heart with rapture fills
Like that above.
Let music swell the breeze,
And ring from all the trees
Sweet freedom's song.
Let mortal tongues awake;
Let all that breathe partake;
Let rocks their silence break,
The sound prolong.
Our father's God to, Thee,
Author of liberty,
To Thee we sing.
Long may our land be bright
With freedom's holy light;
Protect us by Thy might,
Great God, our King!
God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us;
God save the Queen!
O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies
And make them fall;
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all!
Thy choicest gifts in store
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign;
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the Queen!
Not in this land alone,
But be God's mercies known,
From shore to shore!
Lord make the nations see,
That men should brothers be,
And form one family,
The wide world over.
While I'm doing musical tributes, the USS Vandegrift is in Saigon harbor. Apparently, at least from the BBC this morning, no music played as it sailed into port. Me, I'd have played this:
Let martial note in triumph float
And liberty extend its mighty hand
A flag appears 'mid thunderous cheers,
The banner of the Western land.
The emblem of the brave and true
Its folds protect no tyrant crew;
The red and white and starry blue
Is freedom's shield and hope.
Other nations may deem their flags the best
And cheer them with fervid elation
But the flag of the North and South and West
Is the flag of flags, the flag of Freedom's nation.
Hurrah for the flag of the free!
May it wave as our standard forever,
The gem of the land and the sea,
The banner of the right.
Let despots remember the day
When our fathers with mighty endeavor
Proclaimed as they marched to the fray
That by their might and by their right
It waves forever.
Let eagle shriek from lofty peak
The never-ending watchword of our land;
Let summer breeze waft through the trees
The echo of the chorus grand.
Sing out for liberty and light,
Sing out for freedom and the right.
Sing out for Union and its might,
O patriotic sons.
Other nations may deem their flags the best
And cheer them with fervid elation,
But the flag of the North and South and West
Is the flag of flags, the flag of Freedom's nation.
Hurrah for the flag of the free.
May it wave as our standard forever
The gem of the land and the sea,
The banner of the right.
Let despots remember the day
When our fathers with might endeavor
Proclaimed as they marched to the fray,
That by their might and by their right
It waves forever.
At the beginning of the week terrorists attacked the Jewish residents of Constantinople Istanbul. Not "Israeli residents", for those who believe it's all about Israel and the radical Islamists have no problem with Jews living peacefully with Moslems. They bombed the Jewish residents of Istanbul.
Now at the end of the week these same terrorists attack the interests of a European country, Britain, in the same city. This city is in a country, Turkey, that is currently governed by an Islamic Party, a government that refused to give permission to the U.S. to base troops for the Iraq war, and which recently rescinded an offer to send troops to help keep security in Iraq. What am I saying with this?
That, if this will not convince the people who are calling for peace that there is no compromising with the extremists who make up these terrorist organizations, then nothing will. They are blind who will not see. I am reminded of the editorial the Jerusalem Post published in the wake of the first attack:
This attack illustrates the indivisibility of terrorism. The issue is not whether it was against Jews, Turkey, or the West: it was all of the above. The attempt to dissect such attacks is often, consciously or not, an attempt by those not yet affected to pretend that the circle of victims will not spread to them.
Jews were attacked because of hatred of Israel, we are told. Or Turkey was attacked because it is close to America and Israel. Maybe, so goes the logic, if we do not cooperate with America or Israel, we will be spared.
Don't count on it. How many countries have to be hit before Europe concludes, in an operational way, that we are in this together?
The heart of the strategy of terrorism is to bank precisely on Europe's ability to deceive itself. If the West were as united and single-minded as its attackers, the terrorists would not stand a chance. . . . The terrorist network sees that this is not happening and concludes, with some logic, that continued terrorism is necessary to reenforce and deepen the divisions between Europe and the United States.
I have written much the same thing myself: that if we were to be resolute, there is no way that they could defeat us. It is our past irresolution that has made them think they could win by such tactics. The steady drip of casualties in Iraq causes some to think the price is too high to pay, but my Grandfathers and Grandmothers endured far worse during WWII and, while that generation mourned its losses it did not believe them a reason to quit the field. They did not see the price, as lamentable as it was, as too high to pay for victory.
If you didn't follow the Instapundit link to this post, it's worth reading. I'm about a half-generation older than he is (the wrasslin figure I might allude to, even more than Hulk Hogan, would be the Nature Boy, Ric Flair - always a "heel", but, whooo!, with a. . .flair). A few observations:
We SDCs grew up in interesting times. (This is an appeal to history argument)
Probably everybody could say that, but the content of the "interesting times" impacts people's outlooks; the obvious contrast is with those whose interesting times were Vietnam, Watergate, people hanging from helicopter skids on the embassy roof in Saigon and boat people after the Congressional Class of '74 cut off support for South Vietnam, and Carter-era malaise (to go back another half generation; boy, the Dems really are rackin' up a bunch of markers with young people these days, aint they? The memories of the half-generation following Daniel Moore's will consist of the bombing of the Cole, Sept. 11th, Iraq, and the antics of the current Democratic politicos on each).
The Challenger blew up while we were in elementary school.
I was in High School and I remember that day vividly. I had gone to the AV room because they had a TV on to show the Shuttle launch. I was standing there, getting late for class, grumblingly I left while it was still on the launch pad. I got to class, sat down, and less than ten minutes later came the announcement over the loudspeaker.
The Soviet Union fell before we were strongly politically active and we wonder why we do not celebrate V-SU Day.
I was pretty interested in politics even back then, and I have memories of debates in Social Studies class over this or that policy towards the Soviets. The assumptions of those involved tended to be that they had legitimate security concerns and we shouldn't rock their boat, we'd have to live with them (essentially forever) and a confrontational attitude like Reagan's was dangerous and bad for relations. Peace was only threatened by what we did, not by what they did. I went to a Chomsky speech at the UW, the whole bag (I wasn't Left Wing to that extent, though and never went so far as some of my friends to praise Socialism and see Social Democracy as a good system to try and implement here). A lot of the attitudes - well, you can see them now in a completely different context. Oh, and I'm old enough to remember the anti-Reagan protests in Europe and at home. Many of the same figures (Leslie Cagan and their ilk) were at the forefront then, too.
I tended to be on the "minority" side of those foreign policy & defense debates. I was very dubious about Reagan back then, but hardly convinced that if we just didn't engage in a provocative arms build up and confrontational rhetoric the Soviets would be nice to everyone. The first political rally I went to was a Mondale rally up at the State Capital, but the memory that has stuck most deeply with me from that campaign is: "there's a bear in the woods. . ."
I'm also old enough to remember that Reagan faced close to the same level of resistance within the professional State Department cadre that Bush does now, and at least as big a deal was made of it back then (as "proof" that the people who worked on these things knew better and Reagan was following a policy that was amateurish, that those in the know knew wasn't the right one to pursue).
We saw a brutal dictator invade another country and then watched liberal countrymen declare that we were going to war for oil.
A.N.S.W.E.R. was behind a lot of those protests, too. I remember.
We SDCs believe strongly in these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Well, not everyone does. But Mitch isn't a conservative.
Read the rest of Daniel Moore's post, though.
Update: Dean Orvik writes:
I remember fairly vividly some of the things you referred to in "Smackdown!" I remember when the Challenger exploded; I was a sophomore in high school that day; I was taking a swimming class and didn't find out about it until almost an hour after it happened. But somewhere between there and you next ref, the fall of the Soviet Union, I remember a couple of other things. I am from North Dakota, originally. During the cold war we knew we were target number one because there were missile fields covering large portions of the state and two nuclear bomber bases. I recall hearing it mentioned that if ND had seceded from the union we would've been the world's third largest nuclear power. Sometime later in freshman year, I was on a high school trip to Winnepeg Canada. We were going to do the halftime show at one of the Canadian pro-football league games. While there, we went to a mall; at the mall there was a group of people with a loudspeaker and a booth set up... They were protesting the fielding of the MX missile and had a petition. There were people lined up to sign it, but I couldn't let that slide. I went up to the guy with the microphone and started asking him questions, leading up to my final one; "if you're protesting against the deployment of MX missiles, but not against all of the other nuclear missiles, doesn't that make your protest basically meaningless?" The main speaker's reply was "YES! But..." and then he kind of petered out. He got very hostile to me then, so I left, but so did almost everybody lining up to sign his stupid petition. That was when I realized that the anti-(fill in the blank)s were a bunch of clueless knobs. They do not respond well to realistic assessments of their stances... Sorry that took so long to tell, but it just popped into my head for the first time in years, and I thought I'd pass it on (I went on to join the USAF in 1986, and still proudly serve).
So I'm driving into work on Monday morning and listening to the BBC World Service news report. Among the stories they covered was the upcoming (that is, happening now) State visit by President Bush and the planned protests. They had one of those roundtables where the BBC gets their opinions in on the story-of-the-moment, and the last question the anchor asked was "has any American President ever been this unpopular in Britain?" and the expert-of-the-moment referred to how well received Clinton was.
Ahh, the greater historical depth of our European friends; their historical horizon is the Clinton years. It is of course true he was more their kind of guy, but see here and here. Well, all I could think then, sitting in my car, was "what about Reagan?" (see, my historial horizons extend to Reagan; had I thought about it, I'd have recollected that their attitudes towards Republican Presidents are historically consistent).
Austin Bay details the parallels between the reception Reagan got then and Bush got now. Rhetorical question of the day, of course, is who proved more prescient and insightful twenty years ago, dumb ol' cowboy Reagan or the sophisticated, wise, and enlightened European (and American) skeptics of his dangerous foreign policy views?
Btw, I know where I stood twenty years ago and I'd like to think I've learned something since. ("When I was young and foolish, I was young and foolish"). The protests seem like deja vu all over again, though.
I guess that proves Yogi right again: "There are some people, if they don't already know, you can't tell 'em."
Reacting to this post and this one, David Blue writes from Australia, via e-mail:
I used to find it very annoying and arrogant how the American government was always on about America alone in its defense and diplomatic statements, when as the key player in the West, its actions are affecting everyone, and other countries are rightly supporting America. Why are we not even noticed?
Well, Americans can be fairly insular, but not nearly to the degree that we're portrayed as being. Most Americans are very appreciative of the support we've gotten from other countries - when they know about it. The problem is that, since the news pushes the same meme that the Democrats do (that we "went into it alone" and "without the support of allies" engaging in "unilateral action"), it's in their interest to downplay the rather significant contributions that a good number of countries made and continue to make. So it doesn't become part of the story, as David concludes as his letter goes on:
Because of the war on terror, and the biased media coverage and that the White House seemed to be telling the truth more than its critics, I started to skip past media reports and go straight to the American State Department site. I was looking at the transcripts, not the news reports of them. And so a great light dawned: the Americans do talk about security for themselves and their allies, plans that include themselves and their allies, working together with their valued allies to do good things and so on, constantly. It's like an obsession, the relevant public figures can hardly get through a speech without adding "and our allies" several times.
All in vain. The media systematically cuts this stuff out, I assume as irrelevant. Or dishonest? In any case, you hear very little of it, whereas actually there's a whole lot of it.
Then the media talk about the government as being arrogant and inward-looking and offensive to people in other countries. That's true of America in its public statements as distorted by the media. But it wouldn't be true if the media would stop gagging a message that the White House obviously want to get out to every foreigner (especially in allied countries) who becomes aware of American pronouncements: We're in this together, and we're aware of that. We're not going to forget our allies, we're not going to screw them over.
Kind of an important message, don't you think?
Yes, true. I don't really have anything to add to that, it's spot on.
A squad of Marines were driving up the highway between Basra and Baghdad.
They came upon an Iraqi soldier badly injured and unconscious.
Nearby, on the opposite side of the road, was an American Marine in a
similar but less serious state. The Marine was conscious and alert.
As first aid was given to both men, the Marine was asked what had happened.
The Marine reported; "I was heavily armed and moving north along the
highway. Coming south was a heavily armed Iraqi soldier."
"What happened then?" the corpsman asked.
"I yelled to him that Saddam Hussein was a miserable ass hole, and he yelled
back: 'Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton are miserable ass holes'.
"We were standing there shaking hands when a truck hit us."
What I wanna know is, who was driving the truck?
Couldn'ta been Bill - no way he'd be in Iraq. Musta been Hillary!
In response to the anonymous letter writer in this post, David Davenport pays attention to detail but perhaps misses the larger point in responding to what the letter writer wrote here:
Of 10 combat divisions in the current Army, I believe four (1st, 3rd, 4th Infantry, 10th Mountain) are infantry divisions (the rest being airborne or air-mobile) and even these are tank heavy formations.
David writing as follows:
Wrong.
The letter writer wrote without looking it up (just as I didn't go look and make sure that Donald Kagan was Frederick's father, though I'm pretty sure he is, it was an aside). He was making a larger point that I thought was valid and so worth posting his mail. That is that we probably don't have enough of the kind of troops we need. Some people would be surprised, for example, how few 11Bravos are in an Infantry Division, and in any case IMO it's pretty clear, given the strain on force rotation, that we need more than we've got and should think about the force mix that would best suit our needs.
Like I said, I'm not pretending to be the expert, but I do think citizens like ourselves can and indeed should think about these things and then put some push behind the politicians to fund it - and then listen to people more knowledgeable than I claim to be on exactly what we should add to the mix (thus you won't see any detailed TO&E proposals posted here, I know my limits - at least some of my limits if not all of them).
David also somewhat snidely titled his mail:
How many tanks does the 82nd and 101 Divs. have? How many legs in 3td. Div. vs. 4th?
It might be a good exercise for people to go and look at the TO&Es and add up how many 11Bravos there are in a typical 17,000-18,000 man, woman, and dogface division. It's fewer than a lot of people probably think. You include non-divisional troops (which, as a good rule of thumb, almost equal the divisional troops), and - well, probably 10% or less of the troops deployed in Iraq right now are 11Bravo.
Now, don't get me wrong (I can see when we're going to get into a cycle of various people quibbling), all these troops, both combat and non-combat and not just the infantry, are what makes our military as effective as it is. But there are times and situations where having more of what we don't have enough of would be good. And civil affairs, military police, and the like are also vital and we probably don't have enough of them, either. But the poor bloody infantry are the fundamental component, especially in a situation like we have in Iraq & Afghanistan now, and reasonable people can think that we could use a few more units that emphasize infantry, lightish but skilled.
I guess the first part of David Davenport's title, the part about tanks, is aimed at what I wrote regarding my belief that we could use a lighter tank. Because, what I said in the paragraph above is also balanced by an understanding that infantry, including in Iraq, need support of various kinds (not just combat, either. This writer was, after all, in a support battalion, not a infantry battalion). The answer to his rhetorical question is that the 101st and 82nd have as many tanks cross-attached from other units that they feel they need in a given situation, if they can get them, if they're available, and they sometimes lament their absence when they're unavailable. Helos are great but aren't a complete replacement for armor. The Rangers in Mogadishu would have liked to have armor support, but it was denied them.
However, not every situation requires a 70 ton MBT, either. IMO we should think about acquiring a lighter, fast, tank - which wouldn't stand in battle against the best tanks in the world but wouldn't be intended to do that, it would support infantry in "low-intensity conflicts". And hopefully cost less, both to purchase and maintain, than the heavy tank (which, again, I'm not saying we should dispense with; I'm not putting forward an "all this, none of that" type of argument. My argument isn't "we need this but not that" so much as - well, like I emphasized in my remarks in the original post say, IMO versatility is a key for us and my concern is that we have the right mix, the right force composition, not all of one thing at the expense of others, and as I've said in earlier posts, I'd be willing to see it payed for, even unto canceling tax cuts - but not just tax cuts, I mean none of this "other priorities" when IMO winning the war is the priority - to fund it).
I try to write a good blog. I try to cover every nuance and think to include all the details to express what I mean as fully and hopefully clearly as I can. I certainly try to be accurate and not make bonehead mistakes. But I'm not always up to it, not always on my game, for which I apologize. Maybe I hoped that what I said in the first paragraph of the Fog of War post would cut me some slack. I'm sorry the last few days haven't been up to snuff.
On top of other things that I won't impose on readers, this morning I got a hammering headache about an hour before I got David's mail, and I sent him a somewhat testy reply, for which I apologize. The headache &tc is no excuse. Not that I'm not cantankerous normally, but I'll try not to be a jerk just because I'm in a mood.
Limited posting again this morning; lots of stuff to write about but little ability to write about it, again. More later, this afternoon, I hope.
"The way in which you were given life has nothing to do with the way in which you live your life as a human being." - Roger Smith, The Negotiator, The Big O, Episode #25, "The War of Paradigm City".
They may cut your dick in half,
and serve it to a pig,
and though it hurts you laugh,
and you dance a dickless jig!
But that's the way it goes. . .
This weekend Instapundit reader Steve Hornbeck was quoted writing:
isn't it way past time that the news media started looking into the possibility that some of the negative feelings that the rest of the world has about the US are the result of the US news media's behavior?
He was writing about their reportage and cozying up with Ba'athists. But maybe it's even worse than that. Alan Furman writes, via e-mail, pointing me to this story told by an Iraqi.
I do have to say that, well, we here all the time about how people in the rest of the world see Americans as being "arrogant and bullying". Maybe they get that impression from the behavior of American reporters.
The last couple days (at least that long) I've had a kind of mental lethargy. I meant to blog some stuff on Friday, but one thing after another got in the way in "real life" and by the time it was all over the Muse of Blogging had said "see yah, kiddo", and with a blown kiss, a wave, and a wink, she was gone.
With her went whatever ability I might have had to write up a post or two on the weekend. Which disappoints me a bit; there are a couple things I wanted to write up, including a interesting topic a reader suggested last week. All I have in me at the moment are a couple of quick takes on some things.
First, this, confirimed by the Janet Reno Justice Department, should be getting at least as much attention as leaked memos which are unfavorable to the Bush Administration get. On that I certainly agree with Andrew Sullivan.
Regarding the whole "ohmygawdwe'regonnacut-n-run!" brouhaha, I haven't blogged on that topic because I don't think there's any substance to it. It's just the latest in a series of hysterical over-reactions to things (usually initially hyped by the same people who claim the Bush Administration is unable or unwilling to recognize that adjustments in policy are needed, but when they do adjust, there tends to be a overblown reaction).
When stuff like this comes up anymore, I tend to look not at what people are saying, but what they are doing. We just passed a 87,000M$ budget for operations in Iraq, including 19,000M$ for reconstruction. The President expended political capital to keep it from being turned into a loan, in whole or in part. Arguably pushing for this is what caused a ten or so point drop in his approval rating this fall. Now, this money has barely even begun to be spent. It doesn't seem like this is a blueprint for sudden evacuation with people dangling from helicopters hovering over the roof of the U.S. embassy.
This article by John F. Burns is good. One line in it really stuck out to me, though. People have often wondered why the news stories from Iraq still read like they were vetted by the Iraqi Information Ministry. I know I've observed that they still seem that way. Well, if they do - it's because they are:
At the Palestine Hotel, where I was taunted in the last weeks of Mr. Hussein's terror by officials of his information ministry as "the most dangerous man in Iraq" because of my articles about the regime's brutality, some of the same Iraqis, who now work as interpreters for Western news bureaus, caution me against staying in the 16th-floor room I used to inhabit.
So our "free press" are so annoyed by and opposed to censorship that they're employing their own minders now that Saddam is no longer able to pay them. And we wonder why the quotes they get from Iraqis - who aren't stupid and do know who worked for the Ba'athist regime - tell the interpreters the things they do, and the interpreters then tell the reporters, who then report back to America in a certain tone. If we've been wondering why there is such a disconnect between what the news reports are saying about conditions and attitudes in Iraq, and what independent people who go there without hiring on ex-Iraqi Information Ministry minders to screen information for them say about Iraq, well now we know. The BBC, for example, I've long suspected that their "man on the street" quotes are really "Ba'athist on the street" interviews.
Also, this piece by David Aaronovitch on Bush's visit to London, and the different reception he's getting compared to what murderous dictators have received, is worth reading. In unrelated (?) news, has it become a Pavlovian response for France to cozy up to Germany whenever they feel threatened now?
Meanwhile, if he keeps this up, David Davis is going to be declared "UnEuropean" (the horror, the horror!) and the Moral Authoritah of the UN is on display once again.
Update: Where in the World was Mohamed Atta? Crow T Robot has it covered.
A couple people responded last week to this post. I do want to say that, yah, I know Frederik Kagan has a lot of animosity towards Rumsfeld and the Administration, which comes out more in his articles on Slate than in the WSJ piece, and that animosity might cloud his judgement some. But he does raise points that are worth considering, especially for those of us who, in general, have more positive attitudes towards the Administration & Rumsfeld. John Allison writes:
I think Mr Rumsfeld is doing a creditable job during 'interesting times' but I really, really wish he'd take on the fighter mafia over their gold-plated wunderwaffe, the A(?)/F-22. We need tankers and transports, not $100,000,000 a copy, single seat fighters. I would agree that the current crop of F-15 and F-16 airframes are aging, but don't see that the F-22 brings anything to the table t
