We're a republic, after all

The VodkaPundit worriedly recommends that we read Michael Kelly's latest column, and comment on it.

What I find to worry about is that all the mechanism that Kelly thinks necessary exists already, and has long before 11 September 2001.  The current conflict about it represents gross misunderstandings by both sides.

We are at war, but have not declared war on anybody.  Some commentators find this a meaningless and outmoded step, but I think it is not -- internally.  Let the Congress say (at the behest of Bush or on its own initiative) that we are actually, legally, at war, and a lot of the legal basis for the objections of the political left vanish out from under them.

You object that al-Qa'ida, not being a country, cannot have war declared on it?  Fine; let the Congress pass a joint resolution declaring them to be the enemies-general of the U.S., and indeed of all humanity.  You object that such a resolution would have no legal force?  OK, let us pass a Constitutional amendment stipulating that it does; that what the amending mechanism in the Constitution is for.

(A lot of the aura of sacredness surrounding the Constitution is there because the courts are wont to throw it out in considering the permissibility of legislation and executive action, rather than requiring its explicit amendment.  Consider the scope of amendments necessary to bring current practice in line with a strict constructionist view of the Constitution.)

A legal state of war, or even of Congressionally-mandated national emergency, would have two great advantages:

1. It would take us out of the legal limbo represented by the back-and-forth debate (if I may dignify it with that word) of "That's a violation of civil rights!"  "It's necessary in war time!"  "But we're not at war" and so forth.
2. It would have, in theory at least, a well-defined end; when the Senate ratifies a peace treaty, or the Congress revokes its declaration of war, the war is (legally) at an end.

I have previously suggested that Bush go before Congress and say, "I want you declare war on countries X, Y, and Z", and then let the Congress debate the matter on C-SPAN.  If Bush is reluctant for whatever reasons, good or bad, then some member of Congress, Republican or Democratic, ought to stand up and say, "This legal limbo is no good; let us consider a formal declaration of war.  I may be against it, but I still think that a legal state of war is better than giving the administration all of the powers without any of the trappings."

Who will do this?

Bloggers on parade

N.Z. Bear, that rapidly rising star in the blogosphere, calls for more blogs, by more people, on every subject imaginable.

I'll buy it.  I'll only add two recommendations:

1. Some update discipline is called for.  If I know that Jane Doe updates her Universal Soccer Mom blog on Wednesday afternoons, I'm more likely to read it than if I know that she updates it once a week or so, but Heaven only knows when.  Maybe bloggers ought to announce a schedule.
   (And yes, the schedule will be missed, some people will get tired of blogging in a few months or so and leave "ghost blogs", etc.  I'm not suggesting that announcing a schedule should be tantamount to a vow; merely that if one expects others to read one's wordss, it is wise to say when those words will be available.)|
   
2. In addition to the blog-tracking tools that Bear mentions, another good one (which I notice that Bear uses) is Roll Your Own Me-Zine.  It does have the disadvantage that a blogger must purposely sign up to be included.  On the other hand, it does the work of checking to see when a blog has been updated itself.

 

He hit me before I could hit him!

Rich Hailey wonders about the morality of pre-emptive strikes.  I don't think he has anything to be worried about.

In the movies, a lot of things are possible, including firing fifteen shots from a six-shooter without reloading and invariably outdrawing the black hat.  Life would be much simpler if we could reliably.  We could just sit around waiting for villains to draw box cutters, revolvers, or dirty bombs, and cut them down at our leisure, secure in the knowledge that we could do so.  Indeed, we could even use that to determine morality, not in a "might makes right" sense, but certain that Heaven has granted the good guys the faster reflexes.

Alas, it is not so.

When the black hats announce that they will strike, that they will cause as much suffering and death as is in their ability, are we still constrained to sit quietly and wait for them to do so?  Let us note that we are not even talking an individual basis here; rather, it is those who are ostensibly responsible for our safety whose hands would be stilled here.

As to a specific instance, of course, it is our right - our obligation, in fact -- to demand facts and details.  If the Bush administration, or such as follow him, announce, "We are pre-emptively striking against X", it is right and proper for us to say such things as, "What is the history?  What are the indications that X intends to strike us in the near future?"  An reply of, "You should have been following the news; then you would such things" is not acceptable.

Neither is the argument, "They haven't done anything yet, therefore we may not".  No doubt the loony left will deride this as macho posturing.  It is in fact the opposite; it is macho posturing to pretend that we can always wait for the black hats, and then draw and shoot afterwards.  It is a sign of maturity to acknowledge that we cannot do this even with the degree of reliability that Heaven grants to mortal men, that we need to think and to plan in this floating world.

Small Earthquake in China; Not Many Killed

Glenn Reynolds wonders at the lack of attention that North Korean famine gets, and asks, "Do people just not care?"  Kathy Kinsley notes a poll that the attention of U.S. citizens to foreign news has not increased significantly since 11 September last, and rather discouragedly says, "Seems to me there's a large groups out there still saying, 'I don't know, and I don't want to know.'"

Yes and of course.

The ideal of a republic whose citizens were filled with Machiavellian virtù, which by definition includes paying attention to the news that could affect them and that republic, and knowing enough to decide which news items fell in that category, never really existed.  The past history of the U.S., however, provided a closer approximation to it.  Somewhen in that history (people will argue for times and causes between the Civil War and the post-Watergate political "reforms"), after a steady drumroll of, "Leave things to Us, the people on a much higher plane, and everything will be just fine", we began to believe it.  And of course, if we aren't offering arguments that influence those high debates, why should we pay attention to news that might inform those arguments?  Reading, hearing, or seeing that news, and thinking about it, just takes up valuable time that could be spent blogging.  Even those who cry for "the people" to be more concerned about politics (save for those confused souls who thought that Nixon was being sincere about "the silent majority) are saying, "Vote for us at every election, and otherwise don't worry your pretty little heads about affairs; we'll take care of things".

It's a truism that all politics (even non-electoral ones) are local.  The corollary, of course, is that what isn't local doesn't penetrate into the political world, save perhaps at that rarified height at which the government hires a Permanent Undersecretary of Boring Stuff to pay attention to those things that we can't be bothered with.  A newspaper editor once wrote that a dogfight downtown was of more interest to people than a famine in China.  This, of course, both because the dogfight is more likely to affect them ("What, I can't get in to Filene's?"), and they are less likely to affect the famine, or even the debate on it.

The irony is, of course, that in the wake of the Islamofascist attacks last September, Bush solemnly told us that we should go back to business as usual...which of course included ignoring news.  A more principled and energetic statement would have been, "Don't go back to business as usual; stay involved and concerned; there's a freaking war on now, folks, not one of those little bushfire conflicts like Panama, but an honest-to-Heaven Warre, like World War II, and it can't be fought without you!"

Of course, that would have required far more virtù on Bush's part than he has.  Or any of his opponents, for that matter.

Hormonal urges

Lynn has interesting and, I think, meaningful contributions to the "Bikini Wars" transblog discussion.

She's so on the mark that I think there's very little to be said in response or amplification.  I'd just note that, to 15th century male eyes, the 15th century ideal of female beauty would probably look just as good to them in a string bikini fitted to her as the 21st century ideal does to us.  (Actually, I expect that if 15th century men saw women in string bikinis, they'd probably go up in flames...but would enjoy doing so immensely :) ).

Ave atque vale

Glenn Kinen finds that blogging no longer provides him with appropriate distraction (basically because he no longer has a thesis to be appropriately distracted from) and therefore announces his determination to take his blog down "within a week or two".

This weird nerd is sorry to see you go, Glenn.  You've written quite a bit with a maturity far beyond that normally attributed to a man of your years.  May you be even more successful in the world than you have been in the blogosphere.

Department of Homeland Turf Wars

Wagimoko has suggested to me that, regardless of the innate merit (or lack thereof) of a Department of Homeland Security, it will be useful in pointing out the problem children within our government.  Look for the people who whine about it (not who make principled objections, but who make complaints like, "Geez, this would cut into my agency's budget!").  They're a problem; fire them.

I'm not entirely sold on this idea, but it certainly has virtues to recommend it.

I get taken down

And by Ginger Stampley, too (not that I'm surprised by her ability to do so, just that I hoped it wouldn't be her; she's intelligent and erudite enough that she's difficult to refute).

First of all, Ginger, no offense taken.  I work on the principle that if I don't want it heard, I don't say it; and if I don't want it read, I don't write it and publish it on my blog.  Contrawise, if I do so, it becomes public knowledge (subject to U.S. copyright law), and you or anyone else who reads it is free to comment on it, even negatively.

However, I do note that you apparently failed to note the "if"s in my screed.  Based on your writings (and not just that reaction to mine), I don't blame you if you were unable to get any further than the paragraph you quoted without having to run from the computer to take a shower and/or throw up.  It might be instructive, though, if you were to get someone to copy it to the WP program of their choice, delete the offending paragraph, and print out the rest for you to read.

My perception (to say nothing of everyone else's perceptions) of the relationship between sex, commitment, and romance is too complex to go into a single article here (possibly if I were to write about nothing else for a month...just kidding!).  Suffice to say that I view your perception as a perfectly valid one; just not the only valid one.

And, should you ever become a fantasy of mine, rest assured that you will not know about it.  Whatever my failings, "kiss and tell" is not among them.  Neither is "fantasize and drool".

For better, and hopefully for worse

• "Staying married" is not the same thing as "not getting divorced", legally, religoiusly, socially, or emotionally.
• Shut that hole in the middle of your face; the draft is giving me a stiff neck.  And if it gives me a pain in the neck, imagine what it does to someone who has to listen to you.
• Before you start your mouth running, engage your brain.
• You don't need to wear your heart on your sleeve, let alone on a cord around your neck.  Your psych professor was full of shit (he's also about to be busted for boffing underage co-eds in exchange for giving them "A"s).
• Your mate cannot make you deliriously happy on a 24x7 basis.  No one can.  Deal with it.
• "Cookin' lasts, kissin' don't".  Deal with that.

Wham, bam, thank you ma'am

Steven Den Beste wrote articles about attracive young women, in string bikinis and in other garb (I don't link to the first because searching the depths of his blog causes my computer to lock up, and I'm not going to reboot a half-dozen times for the purpose of writing this).  Eric Olsen was (or at least pretended to be) horrified by this.

This is because Olsen is an idiot.

Oh, not really.  Olsen writes better than I do, and has been involved in several small but sucessful projects in dead-tree publishing and CD producing (and if this seems to be damning him with faint praise, then I belong in a lower circle of Hell than he does; my involvement in such projects, let alone successful ones, is precisely zero).  Nonetheless, it seems to me that is missing the point by a wide margin when he writes

None of this matters unless you want to ACTUALLY SPEAK TO WOMEN and interact with them as human beings. [...] Sexual attraction can never be based purely upon looks alone: there is no real person who consists of only looks, therefore it is counterproducive, at best, to find most-attractive women with whom there is no hope of actual interaction.

Olsen is here, I think, confusing "sexual attraction" with "relationship".  If I am sexually attracted (and nothing else) to a woman, I want to do exactly one thing:  screw her.  I don't care if she vanishes in a puff of greasy smoke immediately afterwards (save that I then have to hunt down and seduce another woman to whom I am sexually attracted).  I don't want to interact with her as a human being; it would just get in the way of my having a good time.  A purely sexual relationship lasts, depending on the refractory period if a man is involved, between 15 minutes and 24 hours.

I will concede Olsen's point that sexual attraction is not based on looks alone; I know several very sexy-looking lesbians, and the woman who is nothing whatsoever to look at, but is great in the sack, is practically legendary.  On the other hand, a whole lot of sexual attractiveness is in the looks.

If we're talking about an honest-to-Heaven relationship, though, we're not really talking about sex at all.  A relationship that is based on emotional satisfaction on both sides may be reached through, it may even have sex and sexual compatability as an important part of it (as Olsen notes, there is no real person consists of looks alone; on the other hand, there is also no real person who doesn't have looks), but as anyone as handicapped by disease as I (and who is still alive, an important qualification), sex is not a necessary part of such a relationship.

(I don't know what den Beste's love and sex lives are like; I don't want to know.  As long as he doesn't spook the cattle into stampeding, it's None Of My Business.  That statement might be profitably be tattooed on the stomaches of quite a few people, even if it would decrease the sexual attractiveness of some hot young women in string bikinis.)

Both den Beste and Olsen have written replies to each other; I still don't think that Olsen gets it (den Beste doesn't seem to be in the same debate).  Everyone who is anyone in the blogosphere seems to be commenting on them, too.  I'm nobody in the blogosphere, but I might as well throw in my two cents' worth, too (besides, it might me some extra hits).

Let's just call them "murdering thugs"

Demosthenes tries his level best to give his readers their RDA of smoke and mirrors.  His worst attempt at obscuring the issue in the war between the U.S. and the Islamists (or Islamicists, or Islamofascists; in addition to the suggested appellationin the title, I also like "losers") is

Ok, so let me get this straight. It's a war against "Islamists", not Muslims. The former are our enemy because they are taught to hate us, but the latter aren't because... it doesn't?

Exactly.  You have proven that, as in the case of Trotsky, it is possible to get something through your skull.

Islamists hate us.   They are taught to hate us.  More than that, they are taught that we must be destroyed.  Therefore, we shall and must destroy them first.

By the way, Demosthenes, have you seen Commando?  When next the impulse to act as a useful idiot for Islamofascism strikes you, you may wish to consider Col Matrix's words to Sully.  They're the same ones that the Islamofascists will be saying to you.

The something or other of Afghanistan

Back (for this article, at least) to the points raised by Michael Gebert.

• Nation-building in Afghanistan, to ensure that a few years from now we aren't facing a strongman there (to be initially fawned over by certain parts of our government, as Saddam Hussein and others were in their time)

Now, this is a diffcult statement to parse.  There are a few alternative definitions of "nation-building".

One thing that I have absolutely no faith in (and that I don't think Gebert was proposing):  "Nation-building" in the sense of "The Loya Jirgah adopts a European-style constitution, holds elections (in which center-left parties invariably win a parliamentary majority), and the Afghans live happily ever after".  Not going to happen.  Probability zero.  Afghans (and Afghanistan) are not ready for democracy.

But, you cry, this is surely a racist position!  Afghans are just like you and me (except that they kill other people more frequently)!  Aren't all people naturally democratic and pacifistic?

Nope.  If they were, history would look a lot differently that it does.  "Legitimacy", in terms of political structures, boils down to:  what ruler people are willing to tolerate.  Not necessarily how they think they should be ruled; anyone who says, "There ought to be a law..." is implicitly putting himself up for the position of king (as Robert Heinlein said, people very rarely ask for a law that will stop themselves from doing something they know is bad for them; it's always those no-goodniks doing disgusting things behind that tree that need regulating).  It's what, in the final analysis, they are willing to put up with as an alternative to picking up a bamboo spear, a threshing flail, or a hunting rifle, and starting a revolution.

Facing down the royal army with an improvised weapon and a guy on your left who might decide at any moment to bug out and go back to the farm is a fearsome thing.  Don't let anyone kid you that the Revolution is going to consist of fearless and brawny workers storming the barricades whilst the capitalist mercenaries run away in fear.  It's much more likely that the brawny workers will be running from the barricades whilst the mercenaries shoot them in the back (and mutilate the corpses afterwards).  That why jacqueries can be counted on the fingers, instead of happening every other week.

Democracy requires the belief that democracy is a legitimate form of government, that 50% plus one has the right to make the rules, and that the 50% minus one should sit patiently waiting for the next election, instead of picking up AK-47s and blowing the ruling clique.  Historically, democracy has not been "one man, one vote" but "one sword, one vote".  (The struggle in classical times was not over this principle, it was over who should have swords.  Athenian demokrateia came about because the "naval mob", the low-class, poorly-paid-if-not-a-rower citizen could actually sit on a bench, pick an oar, and make a significant contribution to the war-making capability of his city.)  We now joke about the Golden Rule being "he who has the gold, makes the rules", but the truth has been, "he who has the steel, makes the rules".  Machiavelli has a few stories to tell about rich Italian cities who forgot that gold cannot always get good soldiers, but that good soldiers can always get gold.

Afghans do not believe in democracy (not surprisingly; it's been thirty years since they've had even a whiff of it).  I've said before that the best thing Zahir Shah could do would to have Magna Carta translated into Pushtun and put it before the Loya Jirgah as the new Afghan constitution.  Douglas Turnbull has had much the same idea (he doesn't specifically say, "Magna Carta", but from his post I'd guess it was in the back of his head).  A more-or-less stable feudal government isn't the ideal, but it will be a lot better for Afghanistan than a "democratic" government that nosedives into tyranny and/or warlordism five minutes after the TV cameras are turned off.

Dying off the land

Liz wrote (no permalinks; look for the entry for 06/06/2002, 0905):

I just went down to get a cup of tea and it dawned on me how horrible that is. That fresh fruits and veggies are a luxury item when you are "poor." And people wonder why poor people (a great deal of them) are overweight, because cheap foods tend to be loaded with very unhealthy carbs.

which I thought provided an interesting contrast with Alana writing (permalinks aren't working; look for the entry for 06/06/2002 1027)

In Howland [Maine], apparently people don't know very much about nutrition.  It has been suggested to me that this is because people there are poor, but this bothers me. In the city, there's no room to have your own vegetable garden... but a lot of people up North have one. So it seems like access to fresh veggies should actually be less expensive, since produce is pretty expensive to buy at the grocery store.

Except, of course, that gardening isn't a matter of throwing some seeds on the ground and then spending all one's time in self-criticism groups whilst a bountiful harvest grows itself.  With modern pesticides, fertilizers, and power equipment, it is a laborious and expensive task.  Without them, it is far more laborious, albeit somewhat less expensive.  After doing the direct and indirect tasks necessary (weeding, pest control, harvesting, canning, tilling, loaming, and repairing one's tools -- and there's probably a category or two that I've forgotten), there's enough time to choke down the withered (no longer fresh!) vegetables from last year and fall exhausted into bed.

Those who have one tomato plant, and will therefore spend August reveling in fresh tomatoes every other day, may think that this picture is unduly pessimistic.  I would point out that a tomato salad every other day, with no additional source of food (such as Cheez Doodles and TV dinners) is a sure way to starve to death within a couple of months; fresh vegetables and fruits are excellent sources of vitamins and fibers, but have no caloric content to speak of (vegetable stored over the winter don't even have many vitamins; the reason that Southerners thought that pellagra was caused by fresh vegetables was that niacin deficiency usually took until harvest time to manifest itself.

Actually growing one's own food is back-breaking labor (I've tried).  This, of course, is one of the reasons why inexpensive foods are filled with carbohydrates; starches (cereals and potatoes) are relatively easy to grow (if you've got modern machinery and a few hundred acres), and our diets haven't caught up yet with the realities of fin du siecle life.  Great-Grandpa could eat three eggs and a pound of bacon every day for breakfast because he then went out and did fifteen hours' of hard labor (he also died at fifty, before his diet really caught with him, but that's another story).  There's a couple of megacalories difference between doing that and sitting at a desk all day, watching a computer monitor (a "dietary calorie" is one thousand times the size of a scientific calories, in case you were wondering where the "mega" came from).

The English peasantry of the 18th century didn't flood into the factories because they wanted to be oppressed by godless capitalism; they did so because it was easier work and paid better than trying to scratch out a living in the fields.

(UPDATE:  I forgot to put in a link to Alana's blog before.  Note to self:  don't bother trying to write before finishing first cup of coffee.)

Episode V, not of Star Wars

Another twofer today.

• A well-funded program to help the former Soviet states keep track of their nukes—and their nuclear scientists

Again, nothing that a reasoonable person can object to, save that it moves us a little closer to Empire -- in this case, something that I think could be dealt with.

• Serious pressure on the Saudi government to stop the funding of terror and of extremist madrassas in other countries, both by the government and by Saudi citizens

This takes a little thinking about.  How much pressure?  Or, let me re-phrase that:  given the actions (and lack of same) by U.S. administrations in the past couple of decades, how much pressure is needed to impress the Sa'udi goverment that, no fooling, we mean it this time?

Given the severe lack of clue by military officers more interested in preserving their careers than their troops' lives (and also given the civilian officials' pressures on them -- the military didn't come up with this idea themselves), can we cause the Sa'udis (and their associated terrorists) to believe us?

Nuking Mecca would probably do it, of course, but that's rather out of proportion.  Twenty years of reversal of our previous craven policies would probably do it also, but I rather doubt that Gebert would be willing to wait so long (and, for that matter, neither would I).

So, once again, readers, I appeal to you for ideas.  What policies would impress upon the Sa'udis (in months rather than years) that we're serious (short of arbitrarily killing immense numbers of Arabs).  Note that I am not ruling out "regime change" (a euphemism for overthrowing the House of Sa'ud, with or without the cooperation of the population of the Arabian peninsula), nor, for that matter, am I rejecting military action.  I'm merely ruling out arbitrary military action; the sort of thing that a reasonable person (not a sock puppet for Chomsky) would condemn as "state terrorism".

What is to be done?

Bizarre search requests II

I got a hit on a Google search for "rat sex".

I've often told people that I'd get a life only if they could prove that it would be better than what I have now.  On the other hand, I don't sit around Googling on "rat sex", either.

Get a life, dude.  Or at least a different search term.

Bizarre search requests

I got a hit from a Google search for "cat whisker eating death".

I vaguely recall an urban legend that, a cat whisker being stiff, eating one with cause death from peritonitis because it will poke holes in the intestines.  However, as Nezumi-chan usually spends several hours each night sleeping next to me, I've probably swallowed several whiskers (not to mention less savory cat by-products) by now.  No disceernable ill effects yet.  If I live through the night, I'll let you know.

Give them the raspberry, men

A few days ago a rather sharp argument was going on at DailyPundit.  A certain commentator insisted that National Guard troops were unfit for anything approximating military service, and that it was therefore a blessing that they were stationed at airports with empty weapons.

Scott Palter sends this e-mail

THE WAY THINGS REALLY WORK: Unlocked and Unloaded

June 1, 2002; After September 11, 2001, thousands of soldiers from the
National Guard and reserves were assigned to help provide security in U.S.
airports. Then the media discovered that these troops had unloaded weapons.
This should not come as a surprise, as it has been a standard procedure in
the U.S. military since the 1970s. After the Vietnam war, one of the
generally unnoticed changes in the military was a reluctance to take
chances. Giving a soldier, sailor, airman or marine live ammunition was
considered too risky, especially the career of that soldiers commander.
There was a practical aspect to this. Since 1900, the number of troops in
the military who actually use weapons has steadily declined. Today, only
about ten percent of the people in the military handle weapons as a regular
part of their job. But many others have weapons (usually rifles or pistols)
assigned to them. When our armed forces go off to a foreign battlefield,
most of them have a weapon with them, "just in case." It's these people that
tend to have accidents if they are on guard duty with a loaded weapon. At
their home bases, security is handled by Military Police or civilian guards.
But when the troops go off to "the field" (any place that is not their home
base or another American base), they have to take their turn providing
security ("guard duty.") This is what the National Guard troops are doing in
air ports (you may hear some of them muttering among themselves about "all
this goddamn guard duty.") Before the 1970s, commanders noted that in the
vast majority of cases, guard duty did not require any of the guards to
actually fire their weapon. And when the people on guard did fire, it was
usually an accident. The commander got chewed out for "not having his troops
properly trained" and saw his promotion prospects dim. So in the 1970s it
became customary to not let troops "lock and load" (carry a loaded weapon
with a round in the chamber, ready to fire.) The navy even dropped weapons
training for its recruits (those who needed it later, got it on their ship,
although they rarely got to carry or use a loaded weapon.) So in 1983, one
reason the Marine barracks got bombed in Beirut, Lebanon was that the marine
guards were not allowed to carry loaded weapons. When the USS Cole got
bombed in 2000, the armed sailors on the deck were carrying unloaded
weapons. So it should come as no surprise that National Guard troops in
airports are carrying unloaded weapons. Careers are at risk, and you can see
where the priorities are.

I daresay that we should be thankful that they were allowed to carry guns; one or two terrorists might have been fooled into thinking that they could have been resisted.

Twofer Tuesday...no, wait, it's Wednesday

In the continuing series looking at Michael Gebert's points of how the U.S. should be acting in light of 9/11, I take two of his bullets today.

• A bipartisan congressional investigation into intelligence failures

This is the reason that I took two bullets today.  With the exception of the loony left fringe who believe that Congress was part of the conspiracy to give Bush an excuse to oppress the Afghans, and of the freakazoid right fringe who have bought into the "criticism==treason" propaganda that the Administration should be ashamed of, I think that the consensus for straightening out just what happened in the months prior to 9/11, and why, is so broad as to make this item unremarkable.  The only reasonable objection to it could be that it might break down in partisan bickering; this objecton, I think, could be reasonably dealt with (there will also be unreasonable objections, but the proper way of handling those is to stare at the objector in cold contempt) by setting a few ground rules (e.g., no "leaks", no interviews on "deep background") and then letting the chips fall where they may.

•The termination of SDI, our Maginot Line in space, since it is now obvious that the bomb that comes our way will not be carried on an ICBM launched from a recognizable state

Here is where I take major exception to Gebert's view.  SDI cannot, of course, protect the U.S. from a terrorist nuclear weapon or (more likely IMO) a "dirty" bomb (chemical explosives used to spread radionuclides) brought on to U.S. territory by, say, ocean freighter.  Neither can improved intelligence, or even improved "black ops" teams, defend us against an H-tipped ICBM.  To terminate either would be to publish the strike route that our enemies should take.

The next nuclear bomb that comes our way may very well not be carried on an ICBM launched from a recognizable state (and, of course, any nation implicated in that strike will not remain a recognizable state for more than about 20 minutes).  But the bomb after that one?  Gebert seems (I may well be misinterpreting him, of course) to be calling for a permanent regime of identifying WMD assets and launching, at a minimum, pre-emptive strikes to destroy them (we might suppose this to be restricted to those assets targeted at the U.S., but the problems of determining targeting and retargeting seem to me to be so great that the effort involved would surely be wasteful; much more efficient to determine merely that they exist and then destroy them).  This differs, in my view, only a hair's-breadth from an outright call for Empire. 

The transition from the status quo to Empire is, IMO, a "natural" one.  Of course, I do not accept the watermelon propaganda here (or elsewhere) that equates "natural" with "good".  Rather, I hold that the inertial flow, as it were, of civilization, is towards Empire; it will take intentional effort to turn that flow.  Actions that reinforce that flow, I think, ought not to be contemplated if we are serious about preferring Republic to Empire.  Of course, neither do many people think about what Republic would look like; leftist apparently envision an American Republic as the anti-Empire, with its military and economic resources at the disposal of any NGO that gets the approval of the EU and UC-Berkeley; libertarians and rightists seem to hope that the clock can simply be turned back to 9/11/2001, after which they can get on with the serious business of abolishing the income tax.

(UPDATE:  What was I thinking when I formatted this originally?  Absolutely nothing, apparently.)

TROTS

The great thing about taking a post on another blog as a takeoff point for my own articles is that I can get about a week's worth of writing out of it, without actually having to exert myself by thinking of a topic.

That being the case, I continue to parasitize Michael Gebert's Vorpal Blog.   His third bulleted item on necessary reform is

• A serious overhaul of the FBI, dedicated among other things to rooting out sexism the way the Army has worked to rid itself of racism

Gebert's language is less harsh than that which he used WRT the CIA.  This may reflect the relative amount of blame that he assesses to the two agencies -- or, of course, it may not.  As I previously noted, the fault is not assignable solely to either agency, but is to a large extent in the interactions between the two.  I think Gebert knows and agrees with this.

As with the CIA, the next director of the FBI should be an outsider, with enough grounding in the disciplines wanted (she should ideally be a CPA with a Juris Doctor degree, or perhaps a lawyer with an MBA), and with a sufficiently forceful and self-reliant personality that she does not fall into the trap of constantly calling up senior FBI personnel and asking for their "advice" (orders with plausible deniability incorporated).  Reader Matt Harris notes that Rudy Giulani is often mentioned as a candidate for director of the CIA.  We might also see him as a candidate for director of the FBI, but not both, nor should the two agencies be combined in any way (there must be a continued bright line drawn between foreign and domestic operations, if we are to have any hope of avoiding the shift to outright Empire).

One thing stirs some unease in me, as well as in others.  Gebert, let it be noted, has called for reforms "dedicated among other things to rooting out sexism [from the FBI] the way the Army has worked to rid itself of racism".  Jeff Goldstein writes

I can't say I agree with all of these suggestions -- cutting SDI seems to me irrelevant here, as does "rooting out sexism" (please tell me the FBI is concentrating on rooting out terrorist cells just now and not "embedded patriarchal assumptions")

to which Gebert replies

As for rooting out sexism at the FBI, well, that's an indirect weapon to be sure. But surely the good old boy, white socks and black shoes culture at the FBI is a big reason why nobody listened to people like Coleen Rowley—why she was still being blown off until days ago.

To a certain point, we're comparing apples to oranges here.  The rooting out of racism in the Army was largely done without the interference of the political correctness demanded by the loony left.  If that condition is not imposed as a goal of reforms at the FBI, then I think that Goldstein would agree that those reforms are at worst harmless (taking the extreme and extremely unlikely position that there is no institutional sexism at the FBI) and almost certainly beneficial.  If, on the other hand, it is intended by progressives that the FBI should reflect their prejudices, as they tried to remake the armed forces (particularly the surface Navy) during the Clinton administration, then I think that Gebert, on the other hand, would agree that the cure is worse than the disease.

Unfortunately, I feel this debate can only be decided by empirical evidence, which means both adopting Gebert's reforms, and then shutting them down if they are misdirected.  The first will be difficult, the second almost impossible.  It would mean a new director willing to undertake meaningful reform and to resist political manipulation by progressives, a President willing to oversee him and remove him if he veers too far in either direction, and a Congress (and behind a citizenry) willing to make them both toe the line.  I don't see this happening in the first half of this decade, probably not in this decade at all, and very possibly ever.

A Long View

I've mentioned John Reilly a few times in my articles before.  What I've failed to menton, to my discredit, is that he has a blog, The Long View.

His 2 June article is on the current Indo-Pak conflict.  He concludes from the evidence available to him that

1. There probably won't be an Indo-Pak war beyond the level of border skirmishes and terrorist infiltration;
2. If there is, it's unlikely to go nuclear;
3. If it does, India will win decisively.  Not survive it, but win it decisively (i.e., afterwards, there will be a functioning India, but not a functioning Pakistan).

I don't agree with everything that he has to say, but you should definitively read, and think about, what he says.