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.
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.
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.
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 Moveon.org 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.
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.
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.
Jeff Lewis has a good article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists on minimal vs. robust deterrence. The latter, advocated by folks like Albert Wohlstetter, asserts that nuclear deterrence is a delicate flower that will collapse if not nourished properly by thousands of warheads in multiple launch configurations. The former suggests that states that can be deterred from launching a nuclear attack will be so deterred by even a minimal chance of second strike response. Jeff Lewis is squarely in the former (minimal) category, as am I. The cost of absorbing a nuclear response from even a small nuclear power is so high, even for continent-spanning states, that a nuclear offensive will appear virtually suicidal. France, for example, could easily have destroyed the industrial heart of the Soviet Union if the Soviets (who had presumptive superiority) had launched an attack, even excluding the likely response of the other nuclear powers.
The question continues to have some policy relevance. For example, the irritatingly stupid arguments about how we need the RRW (Reliable Replacement Warhead) program in order to credibilate our deterrent vanish if minimal deterrence is taken seriously. Similarly, if minimal deterrence holds then there’s no need for the United Kingdom to pursue ridiculously expensive replacements for its Vanguard class nuclear ballistic missile submarines; the need to hide from Soviet attack submarines vanished, and no conceivable aggressor will be more deterred by the submarines than by some other, much cheaper delivery system.
A surprising development (to me at least) has been the mass media’s recent rehabilitation of Tommie Smith and John Carlos. The same cultural institutions that almost universally excoriated the two American athletes for giving a Black Power salute from the medals stand at the 1968 Olympic games are now praising their heroism. Few things are more mainstream than ESPN award shows, and last night that network gave Smith and Carlos the Arthur Ashe Courage Award for their gesture. Meanwhile back in 1968, Brent Musberger, who today is one of ESPN/ABC’s top announcers, called Smith and Carlos “black-skinned storm troopers.” In 1999 Musberger granted that his comments at the time were “a bit harsh,” but emphasized that he still objected to “using the Olympic awards stand to make a political statement” — a view we can be sure is enthusiastically shared by the Chinese government, which will be hosting the Olympics next month. (It never occurs to people like Musberger that the traditional Olympic awards ceremony itself is about as pure a political statement as can be imagined).
Anyway, there’s a good deal of nervousness in Beijing and elsewhere that there may be unpleasantness in the form of (the wrong kind of) political gestures from athletes.
Of course the whole idea of keeping politics out of the Olympics is farcical. NBC, which pays billions to be the network of the Olympics, does so because network executives clearly believe that presenting the games as an of orgy of nationalist triumphalism is profitable (USA! USA!). The Chinese government is spending billions on hosting the Olympics, because it understands that the games are among other things a kind of global legitimation ritual.
Which is precisely what Smith and Carlos recognized 40 years ago.
If you’ve never seen Joy Nash’s awesome Fat Rant you should do so soon.
…So English should be the “official language” of Germany now too?
Here’s Patrick Ruffini on Obama’s German flyers (for an event IN GERMANY):
This is pretty extraordinary. A candidate for the American Presidency is using flyers printed in German to turn people out for his campaign rally in Berlin on Thursday. This flyer can be found on a bilingual page on BarackObama.com advertising the event:
The German flyers bear Obama’s campaign logo and say “Paid for by Obama for America.”
I’m surprised at this lapse in judgment in an otherwise well-oiled and professional Obama campaign.
The stupidity just never ceases.
The news that John McCain doesn’t understand even basic facts about the strategy around which he’s conducting most of his campaign is obviously extremely important. First, CBS’s judicious editing demonstrates the extent to which the media is still willing to cover for Maverick McStraightTalk. But more importantly, is also reminds us that Wes Clark was right. McCain’s war heroism is admirable, and can even be seen as some sort of qualification for the presidency, but it most certainly does not constitute foreign policy expertise. In fact, McCain has both awful substantive views on foreign affairs and frequently has no idea what he’s talking about. Given that he can barely even bother to pretend to know anything about domestic policy, this makes his case to be president exceedingly weak.