Subscribe via RSS Feed

If You Like Counterproductive Imperialism, You’ll Love McCain

[ 10 ] July 25, 2008 |

Ilan Goldberg explains why imperialism is not a sound strategy for dealing with Iraq. Matt is correct to note that Charles Krauthammer “wants an imperial relationship with Iraq, Bush wants an imperial relationship with Iraq, and McCain wants an imperial relationship with Iraq, but Iraqis don’t and thus Maliki prefers Obama.” The key graf:

McCain, like George Bush, envisions the United States seizing the fruits of victory from a bloody and costly war by establishing an extensive strategic relationship that would not only make the new Iraq a strong ally in the war on terror but would also provide the U.S. with the infrastructure and freedom of action to project American power regionally, as do U.S. forces in Germany, Japan and South Korea.

Ah, yes, “infrastructure.” This would seem to mean “permanent military bases, which, in distinct contrast to those in Germany, Japan, and South Korea would be maintained despite the strong opposition of the Iraqi government and Iraqi population, and hence will present the likelihood of perpetual conflict for no obvious benefits.” But at least American military presence in a major Middle Eastern nation hasn’t played a large role in motivating a recent major terrorist attack on an American city or anything. Oh wait…

See also Ackerman.

Share with Sociable

Shunning war criminals

[ 180 ] July 25, 2008 |

As Jack Balkin points out, for both “legal” and “political” reasons it’s unlikely that any U.S. court will prosecute war crimes committed by members of the Bush administration. This circumstance highlights both the moral and practical importance of the question asked recently by Maj. Gen. Anthony Taguba: will those who, among many other things, ordered American soldiers to torture people, be held to account, and if so how?

Consider the case of John Yoo. Yoo, a law professor at Berkeley, played a key role in making it the official policy of the United States government that it (we) could and indeed should torture people suspected of being terrorists, and, if necessary, small children.

Unlike German lawyers who helped facilitate Nazi war crimes, Yoo and other Bush administration lawyers will almost certainly not be prosecuted by U.S. courts. (Standard disclaimer: I don’t think the Bush administration is as bad as the Nazis. Disclaimer to standard disclaimer: I don’t think “not as bad as the Nazis” is an appropriate standard for legal exculpation).

It’s been suggested that the University of California investigate Yoo’s conduct, to determine if he should face employment sanctions. That, too, isn’t going to happen, for both good and bad reasons having to do with the nature of academic politics.

Given that Yoo and his ilk are very unlikely to face either criminal or civil penalties, can anything be done? One possibility is social and professional shunning. For example, earlier this month I took part in a conference at which Yoo was appearing on another panel. I wasn’t aware of this until I arrived at the conference itself (it was a large event with a couple of hundred participants), but in retrospect I wonder whether I could have justified taking part in the event if I had known Yoo was participating.

Now I acknowledge that from an academic and historical standpoint, it’s a good thing to get Yoo’s views on questions regarding the limits of presidential power, the definition and legality of torture, etc., and therefore the idea of simply refusing to invite him to conferences and the like is problematic. But subject to such caveats, I wonder (this isn’t a rhetorical device — I’m sincerely wondering) the extent to which it’s either desirable or defensible to continue to treat Yoo as an ordinary colleague, as opposed to, say, a man who at the very least is arguably a war criminal, who for legally and morally dubious reasons cannot be criminally prosecuted, or even formally sanctioned by his employer.

A natural objection to all this is that limiting the “punishment” of Bush administration officials for their crimes to things like not inviting law professors to conferences, or refusing to participate in conferences to which they’re invited, is a profoundly pathetic response to the situation. And it is indeed pathetic. But it may be better than nothing.

Share with Sociable

Bears Shift to Wolfpack Tactics

[ 0 ] July 25, 2008 |


Terrified workers at a mining compound in one of Russia’s most isolated regions are refusing to go to work after a pack of giant bears attacked and ate two of their colleagues.

At least 30 of the hungry animals have been seen prowling close to the mines in northern Kamchatka in search of food, where the mangled remains of the two workers, both guards, were found last week.

The co-workers at the compound in the Olyotorsky district are trapped and frightened: the gruesome discovery has left them too scared to venture out. A team of snipers, with orders to shoot the bears, is now being dispatched to confront the invasion after government officials authorized an off-season hunt.

A spokesman for the local government in the capital, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, said that the area was so isolated that it would take until at least Saturday to get there. Attempts to reach the scene by helicopter had to be abandoned because of thick fog.

The Kamchatka brown bear is one of the world’s largest, with males growing to around 10 feet and weighing up to 1,540 pounds. They can also reach speeds of up to 30 mph despite their size.

This really sounds like a setup for a horror movie; packs of giant ravenous bears, thick fog, no hope of outside assistance… hopefully the situation can be resolved without the infliction of excess further harm on either the humans or the bears.

Share with Sociable

Bush Administration Lawbreaking

[ 0 ] July 25, 2008 |

An interactive guide.

Share with Sociable

Political Parties and American Empire

[ 5 ] July 25, 2008 |

Daniel Walker Howe, reviewing Walter Nugent’s Habits of Empire, asks a good question:

The most significant deficit of “Habits of Empire” is that the book pays too little attention to the perennial opposition to American imperialism. However common, imperialism has been consistently controversial throughout American history, and objections have been raised to the imperial impulse from all corners of the American political stage. It would be interesting to know why, for example, the Democratic party, which enthusiastically supported Empire I under Jefferson, Jackson, and Polk, largely opposed Empire II [which included the acquisition of Caribbean and Pacific real estate after the Civil War].

That would be, I think, primarily due to the Democracy’s traditional pretensions to being the party of white yeoman supremacy — claims that were much more plausible as an excuse for continental expansion than as an excuse for, say, colonizing the Philippines or acquiring Cuba. Before the party foundered in the 1850s on the question of extending slavery into the territories, it could always defend the acquisition of new land (Louisiana, Florida, Oregon, etc.) in terms of gunfighter/settler mythology. That is, Western lands could be idealized as vacant — and thus a source for agrarian fantasies — while being temporarily occupied by people who required extermination or expulsion. Through the 1840s, Democratic expansionists insisted that such gains would be (a) consistent with the proper fulfillment of national destiny and, thus, (b) egalitarian in their economic and social consequences.

That illusion was strained, first by the debate over the annexation of Texas and then by the aftermath of the Mexican War, the latter of which proved to many Northern Democrats that the gains of that war amounted to a land grab for the slavocracy. When representatives of the execrable Franklin Pierce sought to acquire Cuba, and when pro-South mercenaries organized an array of filibustering schemes to take land in Central and South America, the cause of overseas expansion was firmly associated with the ominous designs of the Slave Power. No one pretended that Cuba or segments of Nicaragua, for example, would play host free white American farmers; these were to be plantation aristocracies and nothing more. The cultural mythology of the antebellum Democracy, then, had no place in these plans.

After the Civil War, there were a variety of concerns that fed Democratic opposition to the (generally) Republican-led efforts to widen the American imperium. It didn’t help that Republicans retained their commitment to high tariffs, which Democrats tended to oppose, and it didn’t help that the party of “Free Soil, Free Labor, and Free Men” had matured into the instrument of Big Business. Quite simply, Democrats (and a variety of insurgent populists) were skeptical of Republican notions of a global American presence, because they couldn’t imagine Republicans would structure such a system to their benefit.

It also didn’t help that many Republicans were proposing to “civilize” — and potentially absorb as citizens — millions of non-white peoples whom most white Americans were unwilling to acknowledge as their peers. (Then again, even Republican voices could be heard arguing against further “amalgamation,” for the same reasons they tacitly accepted segregation ; The Nation, for instance, argued against Hawaiian annexation because it would only feed racists’ “inextinguishable passion” for blood.) For Southern Democrats especially, the ideology of the “white man’s burden” posed a challenge to the ideology of Jim Crow; they weren’t completely incompatible species of white supremacy, but neither were they easily combined into a bipartisan rationale for imperialism.

Anyhow, Nugent’s book seems worth a read. As does Howe’s, of course….

Share with Sociable

An Angry Rant that I Can Get Behind

[ 18 ] July 25, 2008 |

First, check out this angry rant against the United States Air Force.

It’s a rant that I can appreciate for obvious reasons, but the ranter also makes some very solid points; the criteria by which Air Force officers move up the chain of command appear to be different than those of the other services (or at least most branches of other services), and these differences are consequential for development of leadership potential. As such, leadership of the service might well suffer relative to the Army and Navy. I think it’s an empirical question as to whether Air Force leadership is actually worse than Army or Navy leadership, but I’ve read a lot of anecdotes along these lines, and the theory makes intuitive sense.

The argument here is different from my own case against the Air Force, which concentrates instead on problems presented by the Air Force’s structural position within the national security bureaucracy. However, I would say that the case made here is consistent with the argument I’m making; if we conceived of the Air Force as part of a military organization geared towards the realization of combined arms victory, rather than as its own independent entity, then problems associated with the promotion of technical experts (fighter pilots) to leadership positions wouldn’t be as significant. I also have to wonder how much the victory of the fighter faction over the bomber faction has made a difference regarding the quality of Air Force leadership. I tend to think that the bomber faction has a wrongheaded and destructive approach to theorization of strategic warfare, but at least it has a firm grasp on the idea that the use of military force ought to be geared toward political outcome. I’m not sure that’s the case for the fighter faction; air superiority is a operational, not strategic concept, and ground attack a tactical, not strategic mission. The argument made by the poster at Op-For would seem to back this conclusion up.

Anyway, like I said; it’s a rant worth reading.

Share with Sociable

You Are The Sucker: Chuck Schumer Edition

[ 0 ] July 24, 2008 |

Some eminently predictable buyer’s remorse:

When President Bush tapped Michael B. Mukasey to lead the scandal-plagued Justice Department nine months ago, Senator Charles E. Schumer could not say enough good things about his fellow New Yorker. Mr. Schumer ran out of time in ticking off Mr. Mukasey’s accomplishments at his Senate hearing, and the senator’s vote of support ensured his confirmation as attorney general.

Yet at a hearing this month, face to face with his pick for attorney general, Mr. Schumer, a Democrat, did not hide his disappointment in what he saw as Mr. Mukasey’s reluctance to move more aggressively in investigating accusations that the Justice Department had brought politically inspired prosecutions against Democratic politicians.

Mr. Schumer was still fuming a short time later as he went to the Senate floor for a vote. “That was terrible,” Mr. Schumer told a colleague privately in assessing Mr. Mukasey’s performance, an official privy to the conversation said.

Why Schumer would find this surprising remains a mystery. But I, for one, don’t trust the Judiciary Committee to protect us against a bad Supreme Court appointment if McCain gets elected, especially since Feinstein is even more of a wet.

Share with Sociable

"Our Greatest Vulnerability Is That We’re Complete Morons Willing To Spend Unlimited Amounts of Time Developing Insane Theories About Trivia."

[ 1 ] July 24, 2008 |

Evidently, PUMAs who are also Obama Birth Certificate Truthers are ipso facto among the most pathetic conspiracy theorists in history. But if you’re going to be pathetic you should at least seek the highest levels of unintentional humor, and one has to admit that they’ve reached them:

Jackson, I’m not sure that any info on the COLB is fake, but perhaps the document was set up to appear to be fake, so that we would spend hundreds of hours studying it…

Yes. That must be it.

Share with Sociable

Is there a word for projection in ancient Greek?

[ 0 ] July 24, 2008 |

As I’ve noted elsewhere, right-wing media hacks sound more and more like old guys in bars using tired pickup lines, and nobody sounds more torn and frayed than America’s leading bellicose classicist, Victor David Hanson. Hanson & Co. seem to be trapped in their own special pyschedelic version of Groundhog Day: everything apparently circles back to some midnight showing of Barbarella that went horribly wrong, and by this point the cliches flow so naturally that columns like this are probably generated automatically by Hoover Institute software before Hanson’s name is affixed to them.

Something that isn’t noted enough is the extent to which this kind of thing is at bottom based on aesthetic objections. For Victor Davis Hanson, tie-dye and jam bands and long hair and patchouli oil and naughty words are deeply distasteful, and therefore harbingers of the collapse of Western Civilization. Hence we get observations like this:

Another permanent ’60s legacy is the assumption that the ends justify crude means. . . .The crass anti-war group was not just content to object to Gen. David Petraeus testifying before Congress last autumn. In the fashion of 1960s agitprop, it had to go the next step in demonizing at a time of war our top-ranking Iraq ground
commander as a traitor — a “General Betray Us” as the group’s ad in The New York Times blared.

Thus it is that a cheerleader for the Iraq war criticizes the use of intemperate language in the pursuit of desired ends, because it is “crude” and “crass.” Meanwhile destroying a country in order to save it while killing several hundred thousand people in the process is, for Hanson, a far less problematic use of means-end reasoning.

As the opening montage of this new ad illustrates, the McCain campaign is going to try to push a similar line.

Barack Obama, like 75% of America, isn’t old enough to remember the 60s. But for the right-wing noise machine — and indeed for John McCain — it’s perpetually 1968 all over again.

Share with Sociable


[ 14 ] July 24, 2008 |

In July 1967, my father was stationed at Ft. Riley, Kansas, where he flew Hueys and waited his turn to not be killed in Vietnam. Shortly after the riots in Detroit broke out 41 years ago today, he was instructed to fly up to the Motor City to provide some kind of assistance to the 8000 National Guardsmen mobilized by Gov. George Romney and Lyndon Johnson. I can’t remember if the purpose of the trip was to bring a Huey to Michigan or to fly a Huey back to Kansas; he’s dead now, and I’m pissed that I did not write these details down when I had the luxury of asking him questions.

Regardless, somewhere between Kansas and Detroit, as they were passing over one aimless corn field after another, my father and his companion began arguing about whether they were in fact on the correct course. The debate continued for a spell, until Dad suggested they drop in somewhere and ask directions. So they did. And somewhere in Missouri, Illinois, or Indiana — and I reiterate my point once more about filling in the details before your parents slough the coil — two Army pilots lowered their Huey onto a country road, hopped out, and asked a baffled old man for directions to one of the worst urban disorders in US history. I’m pretty sure my father won the directional argument, but again…

I have an almost totally unrelated post about the Detroit riots up at Edge of the American West, where I’ll be blogging a little bit — mostly on weird history and Muppets — from now until I drive Eric’s and Ari’s hit counter down to the single digits. This is also part of the wider Troll Sharing Project that I’ve initiated, in an effort to bring LGM’s occasional off-topic asshats to needy bloggers everywhere.

Share with Sociable

No Jindalicious For Us

[ 46 ] July 23, 2008 |

Of course, I’m immensely disappointed that Bobby Jindal will not be introducing his castrating, exorcising, dinosaur-hating, all around weird-ass psychology to a nation desperate for laughs.

We needed you, Bobby Jindal.

You let us down.

We won’t forget this.

Share with Sociable

Starbucks Away

[ 0 ] July 23, 2008 |

It appears that the Starbucks between my Lexington apartment and my office will be closing; this will force me, if I want coffee, to go several dozen feet out of my way to get to the other Starbucks between my Lexington apartment and my office. I’m a bit more surprised that the Wallingford Starbucks (1218 N 45th in Seattle) location will be closing; it seemed pretty well attended, and customers could enjoy regular Dave Matthews sightings.

I am neither a strong proponent for nor a critic of Starbucks; the data on whether Starbucks has driven small coffee shops out of business or created a larger market for fancy coffee seems mixed, and my anecdotal experience leans rather heavily towards the latter. I also wish that people would remember, when considering the quality of Starbucks coffee, that outside of a few cities (and really a few places in a few cities), the form “coffee shop coffee” was a remarkably shitty product before the spread of the chain beyond Seattle.

Share with Sociable