Double-blogged at The Conjecturer.
Defense & The War
- Really, people who insist PMCs like Blackwater operate in a lawless environment enabled by a corrupt executive branch are just fooling themselves. It’s not like the State Department ever intentionally helped Blackwater cover up killing civilians, or assisted Blackwater employees in getting away with murder. No, despite the new Congressional findings that note salient facts like Blackwater fires first 80% of the time, it’s just silly and ignorant to pretend there is zero legal accountability to the PMCs—after all, there are clearly laws to prevent this sort of thing.
- Maybe the hearings will eventually result in some kind of accountability… six years after the fact.
- A fascinating look at how the Bush administration horribly distorted American grand strategy by denying the role of probability when calculating strategic threats. In essence, they relied on “possibility rather than plausibility,” while suddenly assuming the very dictators they had considered rational on 9/10/01 (in the sense that they did not seek their own destruction) were in fact irrational. They conflated the suicide tactics of al-Qaeda and the aggressive rhetoric of Saddam Hussein (and, potentially, Khameini). This provided the basis for preemptive warfare, which was the abandonment of containment and deterrence—the calling card of Bush’s American, and one of the reasons why we are more hated than loved around the world today.
- The Robot Economist, who provided incredible insight into foreign policy issues (like his calling out President Bush’s self-righteous and counter-productive speech before the UN), has decided to self-censor after the State Department blew his cover during a background check. There is nothing nefarious in this, in fact such a thing is standard issue (and such a day may come for me as well). But it is nevertheless sad, and his writing will be missed.
- Do you think the Washington Post‘s coverage of the strategic blackhole of IEDs is nothing but shrill, biased reporting? Stanley “9/11 Proved Huntington Right” Kurtz certainly does. Meanwhile, Noah Shachtman, who could never be accused of being anti-military or anti-war, thinks Rick Atkinson, the author of that series, is Pulitzer-worthy. The difference? Shachtman is retired military; Kurtz is a former “social scientist specializing in family life and religion,” according to his bio at the Hudson Institute. That seems about right—much of the pro-war rhetoric these days has taken on the patina of religious faith anyway, in which all circumstances, no matter their actual meaning, indicate the pressing desire for us to stay in the fight. Does the recently lower numbers of civilian deaths matter much? Shachtman suggests caution when looking at these things, Axe notes endemic security problems we have yet to resolve after 4.5 years of combat, and Kurtz complains the numbers aren’t given sufficient weight on the front page. But really, if you persist in thinking it’s all a grand conspiracy to trick people into thinking the war is going worse than it is, continue to do so—no one could really change your mind anyway. (Note: this is probably a subject worth its own post.)
Around the World
- No wonder China likes them so much: the junta in Burma has apparently murdered thousands of monks, if a high-level defector is to be believed. Both China and Burma have a habit of slaughtering peacefully protesting monks who create politically inconvenient situations, like highlighting the egregious conditions within their country. Roger Williams has more on Than Shwe.
- Meanwhile, satellites are helping human rights investigators try to keep track of what’s going on in Burma. It is difficult, depressing work. Sylvester Stallone, whose latest Rambo movie was inexplicably set in Burma instead of Afghanistan (Rambo 3, recall, has perhaps the awesomest action sequence ever, involving a burning arrow and a HiND assault chopper), claims to have documented some of the atrocities in Burma. Will he release them?
- Luckily, I don’t rely on Ted Turner for my world news. I also don’t watch CNN.
- Speaking of which, Afghanistanica (purveyor of filth) makes a keen complaint: “I have to go to Al Jazeera, Canadian or British TV to get regular TV reports on Afghanistan. That’s sad. At the moment CNN is reporting the serious news: The Britney Spears child custody scandal.” Which is why I don’t watch CNN, or any American news channels.
- Oh Mikhail. When I have the chance, I’ll puff this out on Registan.net, where I usually cover all the political churning of the Caucasus.
- Speaking of reading things I write, that’s usually a good idea before you try attacking my positions. The guys here at ASHC are very good at that—when they zing me on sloppy argument, it’s usually with good cause (especially in these briefs, where I sometimes let brevity get the better part of clarity). I’m afraid I can’t say the same thing for Lee at Post Political, who just can’t seem to wrap his head around the fact that I can claim Iran has legitimate justifications for its actions without apologizing for or excusing them.
- I also reviewed a book on post-Soviet Russia I highly recommend reading. Not only was it cleverly and lucidly written, it is deeply revelatory of the Russian mindset, and goes leaps toward explaining the current general acquiesance of Putin’s authoritarianism.
Back at Home
- Well, I must say I vastly prefer the DC Metro to the NYC Subway. It is not even a percentage point as filthy, the ceilings are higher, the stations are air conditioned. Annoying as the proto-fascist rules on eating and drinking are, they result in immaculate trains that don’t make my shoes stick to the floor. The only thing missing is convenience—I love having a metro stop two blocks away from my house, but the system doesn’t take me to enough places in the city itself. That is one area where the Subway has unquestioned superiority (in addition to train frequency).
- Has AT&T really decided to forbid trash talking AT&T in their new EULA? That is a bad business move, coming as it does on the heels of that embarrassing class action lawsuit about their complicity in the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program. But perhaps I shouldn’t say anymore—I rather enjoy my mobile phone, thank you very much.
So is this your example of classy? Or do you like your being rhetorically thrashed? ‘Cuz I’ve got more if that’s the way you want to do it.
Instead you could follow what I would deem the “classy” approach and comment in the post addressed to you, or write a post specifically addressing it yourself.
Either way.
So I guess they should let the VBIEDs smash into the State Dept. convoys before firing? Or only, say, 30% of the time? What’s the right percentage?
yours/
peter.
Michael – oh tosh, I didn’t see that post, I’ve been out of town for many days.
Peter – I must have missed the time a car with an unarmed woman and her child was a VBIED. The military has gotten far better at avoiding accidental civilian casualties, in part because they don’t fire at everything that even hints at coming near their convoys. The Blackwater guys do—which is why they have a 100% protection rate for their principals… and the deep ire of both our own military and the Iraqis we’re supposed to be winning over. You don’t do that by screaming 100 mph down crowded streets machine gunning every car that doesn’t get out of your way quick enough.
Michael – I should follow that up with I don’t always have the time to meticulously respond to every single point you droned on about in that post, and felt a shorter format like this made my point far more succinctly. If you prefer, I’ll paste the bullet point into that post’s comments.
Really? So you just linked to it totally by chance? Sort of the Brownian Motion of blogging? Neat trick.
Don’t worry about what I prefer, Josh. Maybe just show some guts. It was you who decided to take potshots at me. You were and are wrong. Anybody with and ounce of honesty knows it. It happens, so get over it and do the right thing.
Or not, it’s up to you. After all, it’s your credibility that hangs in the balance.
I’m wrong, along with the entire military-congressional-academic complex.
Got it, we’re all wrong.
Josh, if you believe that that entire complex agrees with you you are quite simply wrong. I could keep you up all day with links to people in those complexes who disagree with you. Your characterization of Blackwater’s behavior is completely over the top. Are some of those incidents worth investigating? Yes. Portraying them as a bunch of trigger happy cowboys would be wrong even if every incident you have identified were of grave concern and the evidence undisputed. Of course it isn’t that simple. In the recent case the diplomats stand by Blackwater. I am not saying they are right, but the evidence I have seen shows a tragedy, not people who shoot at every car that doesn’t get out of their way. Your hyperbole (assuming it is) obscures a complex set of events. If it isn’t hyperbole it is ridiculous on its face for the casualty list would be far higher given the number of times Blackwater faces potential danger, such as any street they drive down. Hundreds if not thousands of dead bodies would be the issue.
You have moved from raising valid concerns to ranting, assuming facts not in evidence and summary judgments. Nobody has claimed that Blackwater employees may have committed crimes or other inappropriate behavior. There is no evidence for the type of sweeping statements you keep making.
From P.W. Singer’s take on the Blackwater hearings yesterday:
Yep, I’m exaggerating and completely disconnected from reality. Lance, to pretend this isn’t a critical issue in serious danger of completely derailing the bits of progress we’ve seen in Iraq, I’m not sure what to say. Remember: you and I both want the Iraq mission to succeed. The use and behavior of groups like Blackwater indicate to me that our government is simply not interested in an appropriate solution to the conflict. That deeply concerns me.
War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2441:
Erica Razook, Amnesty International; Presentation to House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, June 19, 2007:
Who says it isn’t? I am calling you on your exaggerations.
That is an issue. The State Department has always viewed their mission in somewhat counterproductive terms. maybe protecting them shouldn’t be given the priority it is. That however isn’t Blackwaters fault, or that they are private contractors. If they gave the same orders and priorities to some military group the issue would still exist.
Without getting into the argument (not enough time) your seizing on the word apology is misplaced. You are engaging in the act of offering an apologetic. That does not mean you have sympathy for the mullahs. It doesn’t make you on the other side. The use of the word apology has over the last sixty years become progressively narrower in meaning in common parlance, but that more traditional meaning seems to be the sense that Lee is using the word. The same goes for excusing. He is not claiming you are saying what they are doing is okay. So whatever the merits of your opposing positions on Iran’s actions, he isn’t using either word in the sense you seem to be taking it.
Lee has used “making excuses” and “apologizing” interchangeably. The first was meant as a pejorative, as if I am agreeing with their actions by explaining them. The second, as you say, can have other meanings, but the way Lee used it certainly didn’t imply moral neutrality.
I disagree. You are making excuses for why the evidence and their behavior doesn’t implicate them. You are. He is right about that. He is not saying that you think the regime is soft and cuddly, or that if they are doing what Lee and most of the known world believes they are doing that it is okay that they do that. He quite clearly uses the term “apologia.” That is what you are doing, there is no ambiguity on that.
As for his use of the term excuse, here it is:
That is the context within which he uses the term excuse. Notice he is pointing out that you are saying they are not aiding the Taliban, and couldn’t be. That is the sense in which he uses the term excuse. He isn’t saying you are excusing aiding the Taliban or other such things, which would be unfair. What he is saying is quite fair, though you can debate whether your excuse for why they could not be aiding them is valid or not.
I don’t think the paragraph above can be said to carry that weight. He in fact says that he is aware you are not sympathetic to the regime.
But he also says I don’t know what I’m saying, and I’m secretly saying it’s all okay.
Look, if he wasn’t assigning my analysis a morally negative value, I don’t know why he would have bothered writing such a long series of posts, because it would amount to “Josh has an alternative take on Iran’s actions and motivations.” Instead, he used provocative language… I think quite intentionally.
“Provocative?” Heh, well I give you that. Of course, you kind of ask for that when you make all the provocative claims about why other people might disagree with you, including on this issue.
As for the morally negative value, maybe, but I was making a more narrow point, which is this characterization of what he is saying is misleading:
To say someone has legitimate justifications for actions is the very definition of excusing and apologizing. The moral weight of that is another matter.