The Two Sides of Trump
Bolton’s foreign-policy revelations show a president crass in pursuit of electoral gain, but admirably circumspect about making war.
By Michael Brendan Dougherty
National Review Online
The leaked extracts of former national-security adviser John Bolton’s book have put into relief two sides of Donald Trump.
The first is the charlatan. There’s nothing inherently wrong with a president’s thinking about his electoral chances while conducting foreign policy. In fact, American presidents are in an enviable position of doing so almost all the time. The preeminent global position of America on the world stage has a way of aligning America’s national interests with the electoral interests of the president. Win the war, win the election. Strike a deal that’s a boon for the country, and it’s a boon for you too.
And yet there are still ways of committing a kind of fraud in this enterprise. And if we believe the accounts Bolton has given of the president’s dealing with China, Donald J. Trump has done so. In Bolton’s account, Trump simply and slaveringly asked for Chairman Xi’s intervention to help him win in 2020. Bolton says Trump “turned the conversation to the coming U.S. presidential election, alluding to China’s economic capability to affect the ongoing campaigns, pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win.” The specific request was increased agricultural purchases in key states for Trump.
This request is, of course, a total betrayal of those who trusted Trump to rewrite our “bad deals” with China on trade. Trump promised to lower trade deficits, repatriate military-critical industry, and win back the kind of industry that would re-skill the American population and halt the downward mobility of our former industrial working class. It’s also a wasted opportunity, as even Trump’s phony trade war with China came at a very propitious time for American interests, and a difficult one for Chinese financial institutions. If Trump had patience and follow-through, he could have won lasting concessions.
Showing posts with label Just War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Just War. Show all posts
Wednesday, 1 July 2020
Thursday, 16 January 2020
Restating and Refining the US War Doctrine
Suleimani and the Surly Wolverine
Douglas Wilson
Blog&Mablog
Introduction
So the Iranian general Suleimani was taken out by an American missile a few days ago, and this has resulted in a good deal of agitated discussion. And there is a pressing temptation, whenever things like this are done, for all the participants in our public life to default to their factory settings. Conservatives like to support our military and so their suspicion of the deep state vanishes, and liberals like to display their anti-Americanism from time to time, and so they do that.
But there are layers to this thing, and we cannot simply support or oppose. We need to learn how to combine an odd mix of both. We need to learn how to say it depends. What aspect of this are we talking about? In what follows, I offer just a short punch list of issues related to all of it.
Suleimani Himself
The Iranian general was a bad actor, and he was in Iraq because—as a military analyst might say—he was “up to no good.” Our embassy had just been attacked, and an attack on an embassy is tantamount to an attack on the United States itself. Whether you believe U.S. troops should be in Iraq or not, there is certainly no objection to an embassy being there. So this was not an assassination of an Iranian general in Iran—rather it was a strategic strike against an enemy combatant in the field of battle. And so, as a general matter, his demise, coming in this way, was richly deserved. So whatever else we say about it, we shed no tears for Suleimani.
Declarations of War
The Constitution is very clear about two things with regard to war.
Douglas Wilson
Blog&Mablog
Introduction
So the Iranian general Suleimani was taken out by an American missile a few days ago, and this has resulted in a good deal of agitated discussion. And there is a pressing temptation, whenever things like this are done, for all the participants in our public life to default to their factory settings. Conservatives like to support our military and so their suspicion of the deep state vanishes, and liberals like to display their anti-Americanism from time to time, and so they do that.
But there are layers to this thing, and we cannot simply support or oppose. We need to learn how to combine an odd mix of both. We need to learn how to say it depends. What aspect of this are we talking about? In what follows, I offer just a short punch list of issues related to all of it.
Suleimani Himself
The Iranian general was a bad actor, and he was in Iraq because—as a military analyst might say—he was “up to no good.” Our embassy had just been attacked, and an attack on an embassy is tantamount to an attack on the United States itself. Whether you believe U.S. troops should be in Iraq or not, there is certainly no objection to an embassy being there. So this was not an assassination of an Iranian general in Iran—rather it was a strategic strike against an enemy combatant in the field of battle. And so, as a general matter, his demise, coming in this way, was richly deserved. So whatever else we say about it, we shed no tears for Suleimani.
Declarations of War
The Constitution is very clear about two things with regard to war.
Monday, 24 December 2018
Establishing Just Cause Is Substantial Obstacle
Thinking Through The US Withdrawal From Syria
Mollie Hemingway
The Federalist
The United States claimed its goal in Syria was to defeat ISIS. That has happened, so the goalposts are now being shifted to endless defeat of ISIS, a standard by which no war would ever be won, no victory ever claimed. With Wednesday’s announcement, Trump’s campaign pledges returned to the discussion.
“This is a good decision made in a bad way, through a process nobody would want to emulate,” said Benjamin Friedman of the defense think tank Defense Priorities in a call with reporters on Wednesday. That’s a good summation of the overall situation. The process has been an embarrassment and the communication of it outright contradictory, but the overall effect of departing Syria is sound.
Here are some arguments against an endless presence in the region.
‘Enduring Defeat’ Means Endless War
As noted above, proponents of sustained involvement in Syria changed the goal of our presence there from “defeat of ISIS” to “enduring defeat” of ISIS. Enduring is a very non-specific word that makes it easier to change the metrics of success and avoid political accountability for our warfighting efforts. It’s a word that suggests no time constraints by definition.
For much of its 17-year history (Yes! 17 years!), the war in Afghanistan went by the name Operation Enduring Freedom. But that operation also covered operations as far away as the Trans-Sahara and the Philippines. It was generally about the “Global War on Terror.”
But while you can go to war with a country or particular group, you can’t go to war against a method of killing. You can’t defeat it in the conventional use of the term, and using traditional nomenclature and paradigms for non-traditional opponents can further confuse the strategy. When you use fuzzy qualitative terms you make defining victory impossible. And you cannot win a war if you don’t define victory before you begin. And if you cannot define victory, you’re ensuring your own defeat.
When Trump-style critics were saying to avoid too much involvement in Syria lest it become an endless situation, they were told that the military action was very specific and manageable: the defeat of ISIS. But now that ISIS has been defeated in Syria, the proponents of Syrian involvement have changed the metric to “endless defeat.” That’s a mighty convenient change, but an unfair one to the American people who bear the physical and financial costs of warfighting there.
This change to “enduring defeat” is an obvious ploy to expand the war into the nation-building situation that has failed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mollie Hemingway
The Federalist
The United States claimed its goal in Syria was to defeat ISIS. That has happened, so the goalposts are now being shifted to endless defeat of ISIS, a standard by which no war would ever be won, no victory ever claimed. With Wednesday’s announcement, Trump’s campaign pledges returned to the discussion.
“This is a good decision made in a bad way, through a process nobody would want to emulate,” said Benjamin Friedman of the defense think tank Defense Priorities in a call with reporters on Wednesday. That’s a good summation of the overall situation. The process has been an embarrassment and the communication of it outright contradictory, but the overall effect of departing Syria is sound.
Here are some arguments against an endless presence in the region.
‘Enduring Defeat’ Means Endless War
As noted above, proponents of sustained involvement in Syria changed the goal of our presence there from “defeat of ISIS” to “enduring defeat” of ISIS. Enduring is a very non-specific word that makes it easier to change the metrics of success and avoid political accountability for our warfighting efforts. It’s a word that suggests no time constraints by definition.
For much of its 17-year history (Yes! 17 years!), the war in Afghanistan went by the name Operation Enduring Freedom. But that operation also covered operations as far away as the Trans-Sahara and the Philippines. It was generally about the “Global War on Terror.”
But while you can go to war with a country or particular group, you can’t go to war against a method of killing. You can’t defeat it in the conventional use of the term, and using traditional nomenclature and paradigms for non-traditional opponents can further confuse the strategy. When you use fuzzy qualitative terms you make defining victory impossible. And you cannot win a war if you don’t define victory before you begin. And if you cannot define victory, you’re ensuring your own defeat.
When Trump-style critics were saying to avoid too much involvement in Syria lest it become an endless situation, they were told that the military action was very specific and manageable: the defeat of ISIS. But now that ISIS has been defeated in Syria, the proponents of Syrian involvement have changed the metric to “endless defeat.” That’s a mighty convenient change, but an unfair one to the American people who bear the physical and financial costs of warfighting there.
This change to “enduring defeat” is an obvious ploy to expand the war into the nation-building situation that has failed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Saturday, 12 August 2017
Just Warfare?
Don’t Whitewash the Hiroshima Bombing
Peter Van Buren
The American Conservative
August 6 usually doesn’t make headlines in America. But mark the day by what absence demonstrates: On the 72nd anniversary of the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and some 140,000 non-combatants, there is no call for reflection in the United States.
In an era when pundits routinely worry about America’s loss of moral standing because of an offish, ill-mannered president, the only nation in history to employ a weapon of mass destruction on an epic scale, against an undefended civilian population, otherwise shrugs off the significance of an act of immorality.
But it is August 6, and so let us talk about Hiroshima.
Beyond the destruction lies the myth of the atomic bombings, the post-war creation of a mass memory of things that did not happen. This myth has become the underpinning of American war policy ever since, and carries forward the horrors of Hiroshima as generations of the August 6 anniversary pass.
It reveals a dangerous strain of vengeance in U.S. foreign policy.
Peter Van Buren
The American Conservative
Ruins of the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall on August 6, 1945. Everett Historical / Shutterstock
In an era when pundits routinely worry about America’s loss of moral standing because of an offish, ill-mannered president, the only nation in history to employ a weapon of mass destruction on an epic scale, against an undefended civilian population, otherwise shrugs off the significance of an act of immorality.
But it is August 6, and so let us talk about Hiroshima.
Beyond the destruction lies the myth of the atomic bombings, the post-war creation of a mass memory of things that did not happen. This myth has become the underpinning of American war policy ever since, and carries forward the horrors of Hiroshima as generations of the August 6 anniversary pass.
Trump's Achilles Heel
Pride and Vainglory
We find ourselves uneasy with the sight and sound of the President of the United States matching Kim Jong-un bluster for bluster. It is not just that it is unseemly. It is rather that such behaviour undermines the threat Trump is delivering. It can be seen far too easily as braggadocio and empty boasting, designed to augment Trump as a showman, a role-playing announcer at a pro-wrestling match, or the mouthing of a cheap Grade D actor.
Ironically, that's precisely the way Kim Jong-un comes across. By trading blusters, Trump has descended into the ring of puerility. But it is not just the optics. Rather, when braggadocio enters the ring, cool-headed calmness coupled with relentless execution evaporates. The showdown can deteriorate into pride and vainglory so very easily. When the schoolyard bully (Trump) is called out by a vainglorious idiot (Kim Jong-un) what then?
We find ourselves uneasy with the sight and sound of the President of the United States matching Kim Jong-un bluster for bluster. It is not just that it is unseemly. It is rather that such behaviour undermines the threat Trump is delivering. It can be seen far too easily as braggadocio and empty boasting, designed to augment Trump as a showman, a role-playing announcer at a pro-wrestling match, or the mouthing of a cheap Grade D actor.
Ironically, that's precisely the way Kim Jong-un comes across. By trading blusters, Trump has descended into the ring of puerility. But it is not just the optics. Rather, when braggadocio enters the ring, cool-headed calmness coupled with relentless execution evaporates. The showdown can deteriorate into pride and vainglory so very easily. When the schoolyard bully (Trump) is called out by a vainglorious idiot (Kim Jong-un) what then?
Saturday, 15 July 2017
In A Time of Peace . . .
The US Secretary of Defense and the High Schooler
This is an interesting story on a number of levels. The first is to acknowledge that a high school reporter in the US managed to score a personal interview with Secretary of Defense, James Mattis. Another aspect is the apparently quirky way the mind of the Secretary works--that he would grant the time for an interview. A third facet is the way Mattis does not talk down to the high school student, but answers in an adult fashion. And, finally, there is the content itself.
High School Reporter’s Interview With Secretary Of Defense James Mattis
Dana
Patterico
No matter how one feels about Donald Trump being elected president, I think it’s safe to say that most Americans are pleased with his selection of James Mattis for Secretary of Defense.
With that, back in May when the Washington Post published a photo with James Mattis’s phone number on it, a motivated reporter called the number, and then texted Mattis to request an interview. To the young high school reporter’s surprise, Mattis said yes. Teddy Fisher is a reporter for the Mercer Island High School Islander newspaper.
The interview took place on Memorial Day, but did not appear in the school paper until late June. Here are a few excerpts from the excellent, content-rich and informative interview. Subjects covered, and providing much to chew over, include foreign policy, national policy, political ideologies, the Middle East, Iran, and advice for high schoolers. But if you think the interview is geared for high schoolers, think again: “I speak the same to high schoolers, college grads, or congressmen,” [Mattis] said. “I’ve found high schoolers to be plenty bright.”
Excerpts:
Saturday, 22 April 2017
Trump's War Doctrine
Bombast, Money, and Technology
With the advent of Donald Trump "wartalk" has suddenly assumed much greater weight. Jehu drove his chariot furiously, as does Trump. This represents a radical change from Barack Obama, who appeared to like the blood and guts, but only cerebrally, you understand. Obama, we suspect, was the ultimate arm-chair general. He pondered extensively over the minutia of the matter. He insisted (we were told) on personally authorizing each drone strike against Islamic mujahideen, He thought himself into a blue funk over Syria, announcing a "Red Line" which overnight morphed into an "Invisible Line drawn with Fading Ink".
Meanwhile, he struck great blows for human rights within the military. He recognised homosexuality in the ranks, striking down "don't ask, don't tell"; he strove to achieve gender equality; he wanted the military to resemble a modern liberal arts campus. Obama was a feckless president. He was also ideologically blinded. He refused to see any real threat in Islam, preferring instead to see the whole matter as little more than a Marxist struggle on the part of Islamic nations for self-respect and independence. His role, as he saw it, was not to make things worse, but to cut the mujahideen lots of slack. Hence, he forbade calling terrorist attacks upon the US "Islamic"terrorist acts. He proclaimed that Afghanistan was a war the US had to fight (as opposed to finishing the job in Iraq); within months the Afghan war morphed into "nation building", requiring a time frame of over twenty-five years.
Donald Trump is none of these things. But this does not make him right.
With the advent of Donald Trump "wartalk" has suddenly assumed much greater weight. Jehu drove his chariot furiously, as does Trump. This represents a radical change from Barack Obama, who appeared to like the blood and guts, but only cerebrally, you understand. Obama, we suspect, was the ultimate arm-chair general. He pondered extensively over the minutia of the matter. He insisted (we were told) on personally authorizing each drone strike against Islamic mujahideen, He thought himself into a blue funk over Syria, announcing a "Red Line" which overnight morphed into an "Invisible Line drawn with Fading Ink".
Meanwhile, he struck great blows for human rights within the military. He recognised homosexuality in the ranks, striking down "don't ask, don't tell"; he strove to achieve gender equality; he wanted the military to resemble a modern liberal arts campus. Obama was a feckless president. He was also ideologically blinded. He refused to see any real threat in Islam, preferring instead to see the whole matter as little more than a Marxist struggle on the part of Islamic nations for self-respect and independence. His role, as he saw it, was not to make things worse, but to cut the mujahideen lots of slack. Hence, he forbade calling terrorist attacks upon the US "Islamic"terrorist acts. He proclaimed that Afghanistan was a war the US had to fight (as opposed to finishing the job in Iraq); within months the Afghan war morphed into "nation building", requiring a time frame of over twenty-five years.
Donald Trump is none of these things. But this does not make him right.
Saturday, 1 April 2017
Strange Things In An Odd World
And Your Problem Is . . . What, Exactly?
Public bread and butter in New Zealand has been covered with a thick, oozing dollop of sanctimony these last few days. Nicky Hager has been going full tilt offering the benefit of his investigation into the killing of innocent non-combatants by NZ SAS soldiers in Afghanistan.
Over the years we have learned to treat everything Nicky says with a lashings of cynical scepticism. Nicky, for his part, is always sure he is right. Self-critical he ain't. But then again, one never gets headlines if one mumbles or appears in public as two handed: that is, "one the one hand . . . " and "on the other hand . . . " Nicky has always been blessed with truckloads of self-certitude. He is a thorough "one-handed" man, you may say.
Nicky is infallibly certain that the secretive SAS has been guilty of a massive cover-up where "in retaliation" against the death of one of its soldiers, shot innocent Afghan villagers in a "revenge" attack. Maybe. It's possible. But note right off the "framing" of the incident. "Retaliation". "Revenge". Note the high moral dudgeon, the self-righteous sanctimony on display.
The first thing that we find odd is Nicky's display of an infallible righteous code which seems to project from every part of his being. In our modern world, this does appear a bit strange. A bit antediluvian. It's one thing for a Christian to hold to standards and ethics which have stood since the Garden of Eden. It's one thing for a Christian to tremble before a holy God and the interdictions of His Word commanding the Church to be perfect, even as He is perfect. But a Modern? An Unbeliever? It seems so alien coming from the mouth of an Unbeliever--this righteous indignation against an alleged war-crime.
Public bread and butter in New Zealand has been covered with a thick, oozing dollop of sanctimony these last few days. Nicky Hager has been going full tilt offering the benefit of his investigation into the killing of innocent non-combatants by NZ SAS soldiers in Afghanistan.
Over the years we have learned to treat everything Nicky says with a lashings of cynical scepticism. Nicky, for his part, is always sure he is right. Self-critical he ain't. But then again, one never gets headlines if one mumbles or appears in public as two handed: that is, "one the one hand . . . " and "on the other hand . . . " Nicky has always been blessed with truckloads of self-certitude. He is a thorough "one-handed" man, you may say.
Nicky is infallibly certain that the secretive SAS has been guilty of a massive cover-up where "in retaliation" against the death of one of its soldiers, shot innocent Afghan villagers in a "revenge" attack. Maybe. It's possible. But note right off the "framing" of the incident. "Retaliation". "Revenge". Note the high moral dudgeon, the self-righteous sanctimony on display.
The first thing that we find odd is Nicky's display of an infallible righteous code which seems to project from every part of his being. In our modern world, this does appear a bit strange. A bit antediluvian. It's one thing for a Christian to hold to standards and ethics which have stood since the Garden of Eden. It's one thing for a Christian to tremble before a holy God and the interdictions of His Word commanding the Church to be perfect, even as He is perfect. But a Modern? An Unbeliever? It seems so alien coming from the mouth of an Unbeliever--this righteous indignation against an alleged war-crime.
Tuesday, 16 February 2016
Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow
A Six-Inch Swath of Orange Shag
Douglas Wilson
Blog&Mablog
So the other night at the recent Republican debate, three candidates said they would be fine with women having to register for the Selective Service. Those three were Christie, Bush, and Rubio. After the debate, Cruz said that he thought the idea was “nuts.” “We have had enough with political correctness — especially in the military,” Cruz said.
So let us talk about this for a minute, shall we? I have some random thoughts on the subject, which will probably require systematic organization later.
First, I want to say that there are a number of striking things about Rubio’s conservatism that I like. I like his free and open confession of Christ. I like how unabashedly pro-life he is. But this answer of his reveals that he is not functioning with an integrated biblical worldview at all. This is a profound and radical inconsistency in his professed conservatism.
Once you have signed off on the nation/state conscripting your daughters to go serve in combat roles, whatever it was you thought you were conserving — thus allowing you to call yourself a conservative — has had a fork stuck in it and is done. Nothing really to conserve any more.
A nation that conscripts its daughters for its defense is a nation that no longer deserves a defense. We may have to fight later as a practical matter, but this is a matter of rudimentary allegiance.
The compromise runs deep also (as it does with Christie and Bush), because the formal legality of women serving in combat roles is merely weeks old.
Douglas Wilson
Blog&Mablog
So the other night at the recent Republican debate, three candidates said they would be fine with women having to register for the Selective Service. Those three were Christie, Bush, and Rubio. After the debate, Cruz said that he thought the idea was “nuts.” “We have had enough with political correctness — especially in the military,” Cruz said.
 |
| You traditionalists need to develop a more realistic view of what it would actually be like to have women in combat. |
First, I want to say that there are a number of striking things about Rubio’s conservatism that I like. I like his free and open confession of Christ. I like how unabashedly pro-life he is. But this answer of his reveals that he is not functioning with an integrated biblical worldview at all. This is a profound and radical inconsistency in his professed conservatism.
Once you have signed off on the nation/state conscripting your daughters to go serve in combat roles, whatever it was you thought you were conserving — thus allowing you to call yourself a conservative — has had a fork stuck in it and is done. Nothing really to conserve any more.
A nation that conscripts its daughters for its defense is a nation that no longer deserves a defense. We may have to fight later as a practical matter, but this is a matter of rudimentary allegiance.
The compromise runs deep also (as it does with Christie and Bush), because the formal legality of women serving in combat roles is merely weeks old.
Tuesday, 24 November 2015
French Mobilisation: Theatrics Or Resolute Policy?
Early Signs of Waging War
Following the recent Paris attacks and President Hollande's immediate declaration of war we wrote expressing scepticism about the will of France to conduct war against Islamic guerilla fighters or what used to be called irregulars, or commandos. We pointed out that the "fronts" of that war are actually found in Europe, not in the Middle East. Military strikes on ISIS--which constituted the initial French response--are largely irrelevant at this stage.
To go to war against the guerillas operating in Europe would require a resolve and discipline of France and its people actually to wage war on home soil. We were, and remain, sceptical of the resolve of Europe, in general, and France in particular to undergo the privations and difficulties of fighting on the domestic front. France, we suggested, was far too wedded to the comforts of chardonnay and the cafes to proceed with any kind of militancy requiring mobilisation for the armed forces for war in France. Therefore, we reasoned, Hollande's "declaration of war" was likely little more than a theatrical, rhetorical flourish.
Over the past week, however, the French authorities have been very active in tracking down and killing those involved in the military strikes against French citizens in Paris.
Following the recent Paris attacks and President Hollande's immediate declaration of war we wrote expressing scepticism about the will of France to conduct war against Islamic guerilla fighters or what used to be called irregulars, or commandos. We pointed out that the "fronts" of that war are actually found in Europe, not in the Middle East. Military strikes on ISIS--which constituted the initial French response--are largely irrelevant at this stage.
To go to war against the guerillas operating in Europe would require a resolve and discipline of France and its people actually to wage war on home soil. We were, and remain, sceptical of the resolve of Europe, in general, and France in particular to undergo the privations and difficulties of fighting on the domestic front. France, we suggested, was far too wedded to the comforts of chardonnay and the cafes to proceed with any kind of militancy requiring mobilisation for the armed forces for war in France. Therefore, we reasoned, Hollande's "declaration of war" was likely little more than a theatrical, rhetorical flourish.
Over the past week, however, the French authorities have been very active in tracking down and killing those involved in the military strikes against French citizens in Paris.
Friday, 15 May 2015
Knowing One's Limitations
A Mistake
It's encouraging to see some Republican candidates for US President articulating a much, much more responsible doctrine of war. We have often noted in this blog that the United States has shed more blood in warfare than any other nation on the globe over the past fifty years. Instead of talking softly and carrying a big stick, it has shouted loudly and used a stick to kill people all over the world.
Christians often get confused over war. Because we worship and serve the Prince of Peace, some Christians unfaithfully and ignorantly elide into pacifism. They forget that the Prince ordained the magistrate to bear a sword to punish evil doers. Moreover, because there are many evils in the world, and the US has the most powerful, global military force, other Christians think it right to use the nation's military might to solve problems and conflicts anywhere on the globe. "Because we can, we should" is the argument. This latter folly represents naivete and arrogance way beyond the norm.
Remember when President Obama decided that the US had to "nation-build" in Afghanistan.
It's encouraging to see some Republican candidates for US President articulating a much, much more responsible doctrine of war. We have often noted in this blog that the United States has shed more blood in warfare than any other nation on the globe over the past fifty years. Instead of talking softly and carrying a big stick, it has shouted loudly and used a stick to kill people all over the world.
Christians often get confused over war. Because we worship and serve the Prince of Peace, some Christians unfaithfully and ignorantly elide into pacifism. They forget that the Prince ordained the magistrate to bear a sword to punish evil doers. Moreover, because there are many evils in the world, and the US has the most powerful, global military force, other Christians think it right to use the nation's military might to solve problems and conflicts anywhere on the globe. "Because we can, we should" is the argument. This latter folly represents naivete and arrogance way beyond the norm.
Remember when President Obama decided that the US had to "nation-build" in Afghanistan.
Monday, 9 March 2015
Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow
Ukraine #1
Douglas Wilson
March 2, 2015
In the
past, I have made passing references to Ukraine, and those references
have made clear my distaste for Putin’s brand of Russian adventurism,
along with my sympathies for Ukraine, stuck as they are with us on their
side, us being such a hapless chump of a superpower. For example, after
the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine had a bunch of nukes. We
talked them into surrendering those nukes in exchange for us
guaranteeing their borders. They were stupid enough to believe us, so it
is partly their fault I guess.
Unfortunately, the latter kind of issue is the kind that winds up in shooting wars, when the issues are often far more murky than people like to pretend, while the former kind of issue is the kind where people are prone to adopt a live and let live approach.
Wednesday, 15 October 2014
Clear and Present Danger It Ain't
Degrade and Destroy--But Whom?
Is anyone getting a sense of deja-vu over what is unfolding in the Caliphate? We have a vague memory of the sixties as President Kennedy was mulling over what to do with a tiny "country" in South East Asia called Vietnam. Initial attempts to neutralise communist armed forces were failing dismally. Should the US commit ground troops? Yes, it should. Thus began the Vietnam war in earnest. Disaster for the US beckoned--and eventually came to pass.
Fast forward to 2014. Isis proclaims a Caliphate. It captures some civilians and turns them into gruesome political theatre. How dare they! Ever a "can do" people, the United States demand action of their ineffectual President. He admits that he does not have a strategy for ISIS. But he needs something. Nation-building is so overrated--and in any event that was the last term's policy. He decides upon air-strikes--the preferred weapon of armchair, left-wing Commanders-in-Chief. (The preferred option of Republican Presidents tends to be "boots-on-the-ground" but only because they usually have more respect for the Joint-Chiefs of Staff, who know what it takes to win wars. But that, too, has its pitfalls and beckoning disasters for a war-weary nation--like body bags.)
So, air-strikes it is. How is it going? Here is an assessment from Patrick Cockburn:
Is anyone getting a sense of deja-vu over what is unfolding in the Caliphate? We have a vague memory of the sixties as President Kennedy was mulling over what to do with a tiny "country" in South East Asia called Vietnam. Initial attempts to neutralise communist armed forces were failing dismally. Should the US commit ground troops? Yes, it should. Thus began the Vietnam war in earnest. Disaster for the US beckoned--and eventually came to pass.
Fast forward to 2014. Isis proclaims a Caliphate. It captures some civilians and turns them into gruesome political theatre. How dare they! Ever a "can do" people, the United States demand action of their ineffectual President. He admits that he does not have a strategy for ISIS. But he needs something. Nation-building is so overrated--and in any event that was the last term's policy. He decides upon air-strikes--the preferred weapon of armchair, left-wing Commanders-in-Chief. (The preferred option of Republican Presidents tends to be "boots-on-the-ground" but only because they usually have more respect for the Joint-Chiefs of Staff, who know what it takes to win wars. But that, too, has its pitfalls and beckoning disasters for a war-weary nation--like body bags.)
Part of the strength of the fundamentalist movement is a sense that there is something inevitable and divinely inspired about its victories, whether it is against superior numbers in Mosul or US airpower at Kobani. |
So, air-strikes it is. How is it going? Here is an assessment from Patrick Cockburn:
Wednesday, 1 October 2014
Another Military Misadventure Coming Up
How to Put Stars on the Banner of ISIS
There are few things more dangerous than when politicians get smitten with nationalistic hubris, replete with lumps in throats and tears on cheeks, whilst they are deciding or voting on military affairs.
In the US House of Representatives a recent vote was taken as to whether the Congress would approve the arming of "moderate" Syrian rebels. Despite all the evidence and experience of disastrous outcomes of decisions to arm such groups in the past, the House duly voted to approve the action. Can politicians really be this dumb? Yes they can.
But not all. Some of those who voted "no" explained their reasons. Their justification for voting against the resolution to arm the "moderate" Syrian rebels shows up their yea-saying colleagues to be dumb, dumber and dumbest. Here are the words of Justin Amash, a so-called Tea-partying congressman:
There are few things more dangerous than when politicians get smitten with nationalistic hubris, replete with lumps in throats and tears on cheeks, whilst they are deciding or voting on military affairs.
In the US House of Representatives a recent vote was taken as to whether the Congress would approve the arming of "moderate" Syrian rebels. Despite all the evidence and experience of disastrous outcomes of decisions to arm such groups in the past, the House duly voted to approve the action. Can politicians really be this dumb? Yes they can.
But not all. Some of those who voted "no" explained their reasons. Their justification for voting against the resolution to arm the "moderate" Syrian rebels shows up their yea-saying colleagues to be dumb, dumber and dumbest. Here are the words of Justin Amash, a so-called Tea-partying congressman:
Tuesday, 12 August 2014
Western Double Standards
Siege Warfare and Urban Assaults
There are few military actions more difficult, more deadly, more dangerous, and more risky for non-combatants than house to house, urban assaults. It is thus inevitable that whenever Israel invades Gaza, as it recently has, civilians (that is, non-Hamas fighters) would be caught up in the violence of war, and would lose their lives. To our knowledge there has never been an urban military assault that managed to prevent all harm to civilians living in the city. This does not make the death of any civilian less tragic. It is simply a statement about reality.
In former times, when armies laid siege to a city, they usually followed the laws of siege warfare. They first of all offered terms of peace to the city. Surrender the city, or face a long siege. Everyone knew this was the right thing to do. It was right for the besieging army, since sieges were usually long, complex, and very costly affairs both in terms of materiel and lives. It was also the right thing to do for the city, since sieges were most often deadly to the general population. They usually did not end before thousands died of malnutrition, hunger, and disease. The final reason for offering terms was that the laws of siege warfare permitted a general slaughter, enslavement, looting all of value, and razing the city to the ground once the city walls had been breached. It was regarded as a just reparation for the costs borne by the besieging army.
Against this background, Israel's activities in Gaza seem excessively moral and highly ethical--the shrieks of outrage in the Western media and Commentariat notwithstanding.
There are few military actions more difficult, more deadly, more dangerous, and more risky for non-combatants than house to house, urban assaults. It is thus inevitable that whenever Israel invades Gaza, as it recently has, civilians (that is, non-Hamas fighters) would be caught up in the violence of war, and would lose their lives. To our knowledge there has never been an urban military assault that managed to prevent all harm to civilians living in the city. This does not make the death of any civilian less tragic. It is simply a statement about reality.
In former times, when armies laid siege to a city, they usually followed the laws of siege warfare. They first of all offered terms of peace to the city. Surrender the city, or face a long siege. Everyone knew this was the right thing to do. It was right for the besieging army, since sieges were usually long, complex, and very costly affairs both in terms of materiel and lives. It was also the right thing to do for the city, since sieges were most often deadly to the general population. They usually did not end before thousands died of malnutrition, hunger, and disease. The final reason for offering terms was that the laws of siege warfare permitted a general slaughter, enslavement, looting all of value, and razing the city to the ground once the city walls had been breached. It was regarded as a just reparation for the costs borne by the besieging army.
Against this background, Israel's activities in Gaza seem excessively moral and highly ethical--the shrieks of outrage in the Western media and Commentariat notwithstanding.
Monday, 10 March 2014
Gnashing Teeth
Impotence Over Ukraine Is Not A Bad Thing
The stew bubbling in a Ukrainian cauldron provides an occasion to reflect on how, in a more Christianised world, a nation state ought to act toward other states. We do not claim that the issues are always easy. They are certainly not as far as the Ukraine is concerned. Here are some thoughts.
Firstly, nationalism (which elevates one's nation or people group into ultimate reverence) is a great evil and a false god. All that stuff about love of country and hymns of praise to one's patria, is either dangerously borderline or overtly anti-Christian. If Christians would baulk at singing hymns of praise to the nation's president or monarch or head of state then they ought also baulk at singing stirring hymns of pride and love to "Oh my country . . . " Nations quickly become idols.
It is a striking thing that Christians are called in Scripture to love God, to love the brethren and the Church, and to love all men--but never called to love one's country.
The stew bubbling in a Ukrainian cauldron provides an occasion to reflect on how, in a more Christianised world, a nation state ought to act toward other states. We do not claim that the issues are always easy. They are certainly not as far as the Ukraine is concerned. Here are some thoughts.
Firstly, nationalism (which elevates one's nation or people group into ultimate reverence) is a great evil and a false god. All that stuff about love of country and hymns of praise to one's patria, is either dangerously borderline or overtly anti-Christian. If Christians would baulk at singing hymns of praise to the nation's president or monarch or head of state then they ought also baulk at singing stirring hymns of pride and love to "Oh my country . . . " Nations quickly become idols.
It is a striking thing that Christians are called in Scripture to love God, to love the brethren and the Church, and to love all men--but never called to love one's country.
Monday, 7 October 2013
Marketing
Oh What a Lovely War
In 2012 the UK Ministry of Defence produced a paper giving advice on how to "market" war to the public. The intention was to work out how to increase public support for the various wars the UK was engaged in at the time. One suggestion made was to make less of repatriation and funeral ceremonies of those who had died. Downplay the negative. Accentuate the positive. That sort of stuff. Typical marketing fluff.
But wait a minute. This is war we are talking about.
In 2012 the UK Ministry of Defence produced a paper giving advice on how to "market" war to the public. The intention was to work out how to increase public support for the various wars the UK was engaged in at the time. One suggestion made was to make less of repatriation and funeral ceremonies of those who had died. Downplay the negative. Accentuate the positive. That sort of stuff. Typical marketing fluff.
The document, written in November 2012 and obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act, discusses how public reaction to casualties can be influenced and recommends that the armed forces should have "a clear and constant information campaign in order to influence the major areas of press and public opinion". (The Guardian)The folk don't like hearing and seeing that soldiers and airmen have been killed. It is a negative. It ought to be downplayed. Don't regard these people as heroes who have laid down their lives for the protection of their loved ones, their neighbours, and their nation. That ends up accentuating the negative, which will reduce "market" appetite and demand for war.
But wait a minute. This is war we are talking about.
Saturday, 14 September 2013
Perpetual War
The Injustice of Even Contemplating War in Syria
As the war drums beat over Syria the controversy about casus belli rises again. What are the just causes for going to war? In the Western tradition what constitutes a just cause for war has become inflated significantly in the past two hundred years. We see the fruits of that inflation in the debates swirling in the United States at present over Syria.
The notion of a just war is rooted in Christian doctrine and in the first Christendom. Whilst the idea of a just war is inherently right, the details can be diabolical. Who or what determines what is just? When you have medieval and post-medieval rulers fixated upon their own vanities the concept of justice can be stretched to cover a mountain of vainglory. Any insult to the Sun-King of the day becomes intolerable; to punish the malefactors becomes cast as an act of retributive justice. Therefore, to be genuinely so, the doctrine of a just war must be grounded in a higher law which defines wherein justice actually lies, not in the vanity of vainglorious rulers or nations.
The situation got noticeably worse during the time of doctrines of the divine right of kings.
As the war drums beat over Syria the controversy about casus belli rises again. What are the just causes for going to war? In the Western tradition what constitutes a just cause for war has become inflated significantly in the past two hundred years. We see the fruits of that inflation in the debates swirling in the United States at present over Syria.
The notion of a just war is rooted in Christian doctrine and in the first Christendom. Whilst the idea of a just war is inherently right, the details can be diabolical. Who or what determines what is just? When you have medieval and post-medieval rulers fixated upon their own vanities the concept of justice can be stretched to cover a mountain of vainglory. Any insult to the Sun-King of the day becomes intolerable; to punish the malefactors becomes cast as an act of retributive justice. Therefore, to be genuinely so, the doctrine of a just war must be grounded in a higher law which defines wherein justice actually lies, not in the vanity of vainglorious rulers or nations.
The situation got noticeably worse during the time of doctrines of the divine right of kings.
Tuesday, 10 September 2013
Different Endings and Unpalatable Outcomes
Postscripts to Western Arrogance
As the war drums sound over Syria, it may be prudent to stop and reflect upon Libya. Remember Libya? The United States (along with NATO) decided that it had to get involved to support Libyan rebels attempting to overthrown dictator, Colonel Qaddafi. The mission was eventually accomplished. Poor old Muammar ended up in a culvert and was shot to pieces by vengeful rebels.
The US felt good. Mission accomplished. The US President and congressional hawks looked in the mirror and raised a few toasts. The Lone Ranger and the Invincibles and the Super Heroes had ridden forth again, vanquished the evil one, and retired from the theatre. They, no doubt, in raising the toast saw in the mirror adumbrations of one of the great fictional heroes of the West: "He was the man who rode into our little valley, out of the heart of the great glowing West and when his work was done, rode back whence he had come. And he was Shane." Whoop-de-do. Yeeeee hah.
But what of Libya?
As the war drums sound over Syria, it may be prudent to stop and reflect upon Libya. Remember Libya? The United States (along with NATO) decided that it had to get involved to support Libyan rebels attempting to overthrown dictator, Colonel Qaddafi. The mission was eventually accomplished. Poor old Muammar ended up in a culvert and was shot to pieces by vengeful rebels.
The US felt good. Mission accomplished. The US President and congressional hawks looked in the mirror and raised a few toasts. The Lone Ranger and the Invincibles and the Super Heroes had ridden forth again, vanquished the evil one, and retired from the theatre. They, no doubt, in raising the toast saw in the mirror adumbrations of one of the great fictional heroes of the West: "He was the man who rode into our little valley, out of the heart of the great glowing West and when his work was done, rode back whence he had come. And he was Shane." Whoop-de-do. Yeeeee hah.
But what of Libya?
Friday, 5 April 2013
Unnecessary Sacrifice
A Spot of Nation Building
The NZ Army is finally returning from Afghanistan. Ten soldiers died over that time. They deserve to be remembered, although it is a very long bow to relate their effort to our own national security. Essentially, the NZ effort was part of the US/UN inspired global war for democracy, peace and justice. It has had nothing to do with defending New Zealand and its citizens from armed aggression.
Consequently, the politicians have lauded the socio-economic contribution of the NZ Army to Bamiyan province in Afghanistan where it served. Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President lauded the NZ Army effort, we are told, in terms of its contribution to nation building and to genuine assistance of the Afghan people. Our Minister of Defence took a similar tack:
The NZ Army is finally returning from Afghanistan. Ten soldiers died over that time. They deserve to be remembered, although it is a very long bow to relate their effort to our own national security. Essentially, the NZ effort was part of the US/UN inspired global war for democracy, peace and justice. It has had nothing to do with defending New Zealand and its citizens from armed aggression.
Consequently, the politicians have lauded the socio-economic contribution of the NZ Army to Bamiyan province in Afghanistan where it served. Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President lauded the NZ Army effort, we are told, in terms of its contribution to nation building and to genuine assistance of the Afghan people. Our Minister of Defence took a similar tack:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)