#3
[Imitating a Frenchman] Fu- you Americans! Uncultured, crass Americans! We hate all of you! Oh Fu-!... The Germans are here! Hello Americans! We love you!
~ Robin Williams.
#4
To maître-de: "And don't seat anyone with honor next to Obama; too much of a clash, makes the wine taste bad."
Posted by: ed in texas ||
06/06/2014 7:34 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Putin, with his KGB training, will no doubt keep a straight face if Hollande harangues him for committing the first annexation of territory in Europe since World War II while at the same time selling him sophisticated warships. A lesser man would laugh out loud.
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/06/2014 8:01 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Perhaps a little dance number to break the ice?
In case you missed it, this clip it titled: US Rangers storm the cliffs of Utah Beach.
[The Diplomat] Prime Minister Narendra Modi's invitation to leaders of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation countries to attend his swearing-in ceremony has been termed a "foreign policy masterstroke." The highlight was arguably Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's attendance, despite a delay in accepting the invitation.
Modi's BJP party has in the past criticized the ex-UPA government's Pakistan policy as too soft, and had vowed in the run-up to elections to take a tough stance against Pakistan. However, Indian leaders must recognize the psychological underpinnings of the Pakistani state, which is central to taming the famously fractious relationship.
Pakistan's military has built the identity of the Pakistani state in opposition to India, and this perpetuation and sustainment of the Indian threat is what has made the Pakistan Army the most powerful and omnipresent institution in its polity. This siege mentality has legitimized its rule in the eyes of ordinary Pakistanis and enabled it to extract the exorbitant funding and revenues that it does, consequently derailing pro-democracy forces and civil society. The military's unprecedented monopoly over Pakistani politics, and the inflated revenue that the myth of the Indian threat derives explains the lack of incentive for the army to better relations with India.
While a tough line on Pakistan may have been appropriate for New Delhi a few years ago, in recent years the state of affairs seems to have somewhat altered. There is a growing realization in Pakistan that India no longer poses the largest threat to the country, and in this realization lies Pakistan's greatest hope of becoming a "normal" country, and not the dysfunctional security state that it currently is. The biggest security risks are those stemming from within the country, and not from external sources like India, a realization that frames the military as part of the problem, rather than the solution. Perhaps nothing can better capture Pakistan's miscalculations and militancy culture than Mohsin Hamid's catchphrase, "To fight India, we fought ourselves."
The Army itself is starting to see the light; evident in its new doctrine's shift in threat assessment, as militant groups they once propelled turn against the state and attack its security apparatuses. According to acclaimed Pakistani author Ahmed Rashid, "The anti-India rhetoric that has been part of Pakistan's entire make-up for over 50 years has now dramatically altered even within the army, which recognizes that we have to deal with the Taliban threat." Indeed, even Pakistan's feared Inter-Services Intelligence has acknowledged that homegrown militants have surpassed India as Pakistan's greatest threat.
Additionally, there is a growing perception that engaging with India is an opportunity to resuscitate Pakistan's stagnant economy, as evident in Islamabad's recent overtures to New Delhi on liberalized trade deals, as well as its three-year economic reform agenda program with the IMF that emphasizes trade ties with India.
India-Pakistan relations are at a pivotal point in history. As India experiences a change of guard in New Delhi, the first Pakistan government to experience a transfer of power from one civilian regime to another is marking a year in office. The timing is good for the bilateral relationship to move beyond conventional differences, and capitalize on the enormous economic potential of the relationship. India must adopt a constructive and robust, rather than belligerent and reckless, approach to Pakistan, especially in light of this progressive narrative change in internal Pakistani politics. It must be innovative in "normalizing" its relations with Pakistan and review other tactics, including collaborative attempts with other states to diplomatically pressure and stabilize Pakistan, support for civilian structures and accelerated economic engagement. Under the leadership of an assertive and dynamic Modi, India is now well positioned to take these steps.
No argument. Pakistan is at a crossroads; they can be consumed by the Jihadist and become a Taliban state or they can put down the Jihadist and enjoy the economic benefits of joining the rest of the world. The economic benefits of normal relations with India would be huge.
BLUF (Bottom line up front):
Like government, it [the military] must be kept small. Conservatives can't coherently preach against the evils of big government, while exempting the military mammoth."
Better still, if the military is government -- and it is -- fanatical militarism is a facet of statism. And if the military is government -- and it is -- then the missions on which the government sends the military must be questioned. An equally distinctive characteristic of the current military statism is to extend the worship of The Man in Uniform to His Mission. We worship the men and women in uniform and their mission without question. The 'men and mission worship' is in my view, an inaccurate lumping by Mercer.
Conservatives question government programs. War is a government program. If they hope to retain a modicum of philosophical integrity, conservatives will have to include a critique of the state's warfare machine in their case against its welfare apparatus. Powerful Liberals have already conducted the 'critique.' Welfare has clearly triumphed. There's plenty for conservatives to criticize about the military, and we do so frequently. We also recognize, unlike liberals, that we need a military and that said military needs to be strong. We could have avoided a couple wars in our history had our military been seen to be prepared.
The blanket chant -- "thank you for your service; thank you for fighting for our freedoms" -- is the hallmark of a propagandized people in the grip of fanatical militarism. Even the most irrational person has to recognize how tentative are the ties between "helping" toothless Pashtuns to be more like Americans and protecting Americans like granny. The'granny' Mercer speaks of is the hapless Obamacare recipient. Her perspective is no doubt clouded by Lord Kitchener's grand invasion army and it's disastrous results. A case could certainly be made for comparing British colonial expansionism to modern day 'nation building.' Not certain Mercer has achieved that connection in this writing.
#1
If one reads the Federalist Papers, one of the main arguments for having a central government of some authority was the existence of national defense. Mercer, obviously never read the intellectual arguments for the existence of the country. If you chuck national defense, then there is no reason to have central government beyond what was the old Common Market arrangement of Europe.
#3
We could have avoided a couple wars in our history had our military been seen to be prepared.
Maybe. War of 1812 and Korea? Strong enough in Vietnam but maybe not prepared?
#4
Korea, yes, but we deliberately provoked the War of 1812 for internal reasons, and a substantial standing army would only have encouraged the British to pre-position regiments in anticipation of the attack. Note that the war was driven by and popular among westerners and southerners with no economic or territorial interest in the border disputes and impressment controversies which were the nominal causa belli. They were just in an expansive and pugnacious mood and wanted to seize Canada, drive out the British traders on the southern frontier, and resolve the Indian wars on both frontiers.
Perhaps the initial disasters on the Canadian fronts would have been less comprehensive if the armies had been composed of regulars instead of an undisciplined rabble of volunteers, but they would have been facing a more-professional enemy as well.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
06/06/2014 10:57 Comments ||
Top||
#5
we deliberately provoked the War of 1812 for internal reasons...
If those internal reasons were settlement of the Northwest Territories (Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan). The Brits were exploiting the native Americans to act as a buffer to stop it. Actually, not much different that us supply the Mujahedin in Afghanistan. Proxies, pawns in the game.
Read up on the Battle of Fallen Timbers, particular the part of chasing the natives to the gates of a British fort on American territory. They thought the people who provided them gun and shot would shelter them after doing their business along the frontier for so long.
As late as Harrison campaign in 1811, the frontier press tagged the Brits with their interference in American 'internal' affairs with terms like the Anglo-Savage War. "The war on the Wabash is purely British" said the Lexington Reporter, "the scalping knife and tomahawk of British savages, is now, again devastating our frontiers". - Lexington Reporter, Nov. 23, 1811 and March 12, 1812. The grievances had been long in coming, partly because way in distant Washington (by contemporary time of travel) both money and priorities were low, something to be put off till you had no choice but to act, something left to fester.
Is it much different than the view that the problem with Afghanistan today really is the issue of Pakistan being the base of operation, support and sympathy for the other belligerent.
--
BTW, the 'regulars' in 1812 were just as much rabble as the militia. It wouldn't be till Winfield Scott started to implement some sort of training program on the Niagara frontier that some semblance of a force more in line with standing European armies would appear in the American ranks. Most of those would be expended at Lundy's Lane.
It would always be an issue/problem for the army, used extensively as a frontier constabulary, never prepared to fight a conventional war.
#8
Are all liberal "intellectuals" such light weights? Geez, why can't we have libs that can quote Kant or Nietzsche or Proust or Plato? Must they all blather about how terrible and immoral our military is?
By my measure, had we been better prepared in 1941, we, perhaps could have given the Imperial War Staff in Tokyo and the Reichskanzlerei come pause before pulling the trigger on WWII.
I also believe a little more heavy handed diplomacy by Truman might have stalled Korea and a little more heavy handed behavior by Clinton might have prevented 9/11.
Our problems with China and throughout the Middle East are because no one FEARS us anymore.
Obama is not complex and nuisance in his thinking, he is indecisive and a typical peace at any cost liberal who does not think any liberty or freedom is worth fighting for.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
06/06/2014 18:13 Comments ||
Top||
#9
...well, we know by their actions, they certainly have no use for the Constitution. What's there to defend other than absolute power at home?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[The Diplomat] Prime Minister Narendra Modi's invitation to leaders of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation countries to attend his swearing-in ceremony has been termed a "foreign policy masterstroke." The highlight was arguably Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's attendance, despite a delay in accepting the invitation.
