The failure of torture, as well as the use of terror-against-terror, was amply demonstrated during the Algerian war of independence. The French used torture against anyone they thought might have useful information; they also employed terror-against-terror methods. They had short-term gains, and they lost Algeria. The Algerians who might have been prepared to accept the status quo, or even anything short of full independence, changed their minds as a result of the French tactics.
The military side of the Pentagon has been studying this war very closely these days; the civilian side seems to have jammed their fingers in their ears and chanted "la-la-la-la-la-la-la" any time Algeria is mentioned.
We are in the process of making every single mistake the French made, if we haven't made them already.
#50--Juli, I do recall that bit, which was pretty much an ongoing gag, along with Happy Dan's boots, which were great-looking but much too tight. However, as I recall it, Felicity was saying "Petite pomme" and "Petite poire"--that is, "little apple" and "little pear"; the French exercise was IIRC, about a girl who'd been told to say "Petite pomme" to make her mouth look smaller (the 'm' sound purses the mouth up a bit) but got confused and said "Petite poire" instead, which made her mouth look bigger. This sounds like I've memorized the book, but I think that bit, the female pirate who kept referring to herself in the third person (e.g. "one would...") in an effort to seem posh, and the fighting over the Elizabeth Arden products among the female characters are the only parts that really stayed with me. There were pirates in it, I know that, and a combined land-sea assault on every cliche from every pirate movie ever made.
Noelle, of course the Pentagon has a plan somewhere in its files dealing with an invasion of Canada. Somewhere in its files, the Canadian military has a plan for war with the US. The unlikeliness of such things taking place has nothing to do with it. When it's not fighting, a well-run army, navy, or air force, and the overall commanders of these forces, concentrate in two things: Planning and Training. The one thing all such groups reliably have in common is the tendency to look at a plan, ask "What if" and then come up with plans for all the What-ifs they were able to think of. It begins to resemble an obsessive-compulsive disorder, and can make a family decision to take a short road trip to visit friends and go shopping in another city turn into a planning orgy that makes the Army-Navy joint planning for the Pacific island-hopping campaign in World War II look loose and disorganized.
I am told by People Who Know that one reason officer training often uses unlikely targets (like, say, a neighboring country your country is on good terms with, or even an imaginary country) is that it keeps the trainees from using what they already know about the plans for the enemy du jour in their own planning exercises, so they have to work from scratch.
Since the alternate to all this compulsive planning is the Bushco tendency to follow the Jiminy Cricket School of Planning (if you wish upon a star...), I can live it with, even if it is occasionally embarassing, or seems ridiculous.
A few weeks ago, I saw my financial adviser, also known as my brother-in-law the stock broker. While admiring my high mobile great-niece (his granddaughter), we also talked briefly about the new investment options my 401k offers, and he gave me his perspective on both Social Security and retirement savings generally. In a nutshell, the safest retirement investment is an annuity--returns are limited, but are guaranteed. From his perspective, Social Security is an annuity with some advantages over one from an insurance company--the overhead (for salaries and other compensation for its employees, advertising, and other administrative costs) is much lower (if you don't believe that, compare the salaries for the people involved, starting at the very top) and a couple of drawbacks, these being that you can't voluntarily change the amount you allocate (preferably to increase it) and the whole thing is vulnerable politically, which is sometimes of less concern than it is at others.
His reaction to the suggestion of converting Social Security into private accounts uses language unfit for his granddaughter's tender ears--especially since she's at the parrot stage.
One of things we need to remember about the attitude of earlier generations toward the Social Security program is that it was set up by people who had seen good planning and careful saving comme to naught in the Great Depression--not just for a few people, but for hundreds of thousands. The people who worked to carry it forward to our time either shared that experience, or had been raised by people who had also vivid memories of that failure of planning and saving. There are, no doubt, people who could invest the same amount of money more profitably, just as there are those who wouldn't bother to make any effort to save at all. Social Security is supposed to be there as a guaranteed basic annuity for all participants--whether retired or disabled--and to provide for dependents and survivors. We need to keep the image of the basic annuity in mind when we look at it, I think, because it makes it easier to evaluate how well the whole thing functions, and what changes and adjustments might be required to keep it as that basic, reliable annuity.
#294, Mr. Ford, I might, but I'd be even more likely to pay for a chapbook of the various 419 letters you've produced here over the years.
#301 et al. Thermoses, Thermi, Thermoi
try Thermides.
Graham, Carolyn, Dave Bell--thanks for reminding us that we aren't just placing our own people in harm's way with these adventures. I am afraid that every single thing Graham has said about our press is true. I don't know if they're stupid, bought, or intimidated, but the results are the same whichever it is.
I live about fifty miles from Ft. Campbell, the home post of the US 101 Airborne Division, and as they are returning from Iraq (again), you can see the entire area take a deep breath and exhale in relief. Of course, there's the picking-up-the-pieces-of-people's-lives to do now, and hope that this deployment hasn't done, and the next deployment won't do, more damage than can be fixed. Last week I assisted on a PTSD claim for an Iraqi war veteran (we've also had plenty of claims on immigrant refugees from Saddam's era over the years) and I am certain there will be more to come.
For those interested in LBJ bios, here's a list from Wikipedia, which may not be complete but is detailed.
General biographies
Robert A. Caro. The Years of Lyndon Johnson. 3 volumes as of 2006]]: The Path to Power (1982); Means of Ascent (1990); Master of the Senate (2002). The most detailed biography, extends to 1960.
Dallek, Robert. Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960 (1991); Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1961–1973 (1998); also: Lyndon B. Johnson: Portrait of a President (2004), 400-page abridged version of his 2 volume scholarly biography
Kearns Goodwin, Doris. Lyndon Johnson & the American Dream. (1977), a character study
Reedy, George Lyndon B. Johnson: A Memoir (1982) ISBN 0-8362-6610-2, a memoir by the press secretary
Woods, Randall. LBJ: Architect of American Ambition (2006) highly detailed scholarly biography (1000 pages)
[edit]Presidential years
Bruce E. Altschuler; LBJ and the Polls University Presses of Florida, 1990
Bernstein, Irving. Guns or Butter: The Presidency of Lyndon Johnson 1994.
Bornet, Vaughn Davis. The Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. 1983
Divine, Robert A., ed. The Johnson Years. Vol. 1: Foreign Policy, the Great Society and the White House. 1981.
Divine, Robert A., ed. The Johnson Years. Vol. 2: Vietnam, the Environment, and Science. 1987.
Divine, Robert A., ed. The Johnson Years. Vol. 3: LBJ at Home and Abroad. 1994.
Firestone, Bernard J., and Robert C. Vogt, eds. Lyndon Baines Johnson and the Uses of Power. (1988), essays
Gould, Lewis L. Lady Bird Johnson and the Environment. 1988.
Lichtenstein, Nelson, ed. Political Profiles: The Johnson Years. 1976. biographies of 400+ key politicians
Mann, Robert. The Walls of Jericho: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell, and the Struggle for Civil Rights. 1996.
Redford, Emmette S., and Marlan Blissett. Organizing the Executive Branch: The Johnson Presidency. 1981.
Shesol, Jeff. Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud That Shaped a Decade 1997.
White, Theodore H. The Making of the President, 1964 1965.
Zarefsky, David. President Johnson's War on Poverty 1986.
As a matter of fact, Shrub does have a living sister, Dorothy Bush Koch.
The Caligula comparison would make Barabara Bush Agrippina the Elder, of course--even though she may seem more like Livia to some.
How about Commodus? I realize the Marcus Aurelius had a great deal more eloquence than the elder Bush, but it's the dressing-up-like-a-gladiator bit that gets me.
#94--Which one of the Gracchi would Al Gore be?
I'm not sure. In fact, he might not be either of them; I think Al is a bit twistier than either of Cornelia's boys ever were.
#82, #77, and others
The "Glory of War" meme is not a new one--the ancient Greek and Roman writers were fond of it, and one popular story has Lycurgus, the semi-mythical founder of the Spartan Consitution, demonstrating the virtues of warfare and rough living by overfeeding and fondling a hunting dog into uselessness, and starving a lapdog into cunning ferocity. See also the writings and speeches of whichever Cato Elder and Younger, and others, as well as the remarks over on ML's Open Thread 70 about the reasons the Romans took the kiddies to see the gladiators.
Western Society has been fond of this meme ever since. However, it's worth noting that the Greeks and Romans didn't shy away from putting their own hides on the line--Demosthenes fought in the Greek phalanx against Philip of Macedon at Thebes, in a war he'd done his very best to start, and Crassus' transformation into tableware took place fighting in a war he'd set up for his own benefit. In fact, the entire Roman system of devleoping Old Senators, the Cursus Honorum, required a combination of military service and public office. The Victorians expected their public school sprats to be willing to bleed in distant lands for Queen and Country, and the demogogues of both sides in the American Civil War were prepared to take the field themselves--however incompetent they might be at it.
And the Spartans--those Rottweilers of the classical world? Until they got into the Peloponesian War, they'd done their very best to avoid wars, after they'd reduced Messene to a slave state. Their reason for militarizing every aspect of their lives was the need to control the helots, and the one war they declared happily, at the start of every new year, was the war against the helots, which gave them the justification of killing any helot any time they felt like it. They did their best to avoid aiding the Athenians against the Persians the first time (the Athenians therefore got the glory of Marathon all to themselves) and had to be dragged into the second round against the Persians kicking and screaming. They glorified warfare, and wrote lots of verses about how much better it was to die young and beautiful, on the field of battle, rather than living to be old and feeble and ugly, but when it came to Foreign Entanglements, the Spartans preferred to Just Say No--they wanted to preserve their strength to keep the helots in line.
Truly, the neocons wouldn't last in the ancient world--because when it came time to put your money where your mouth was, there were no deferments. In fact, there was You Are Banished, Get Out Of Town, You Annoying Loser. However, I expect Al Gore could have been Tribune of the People any time he wanted to. The Romans liked gravitas and sarcasm both.
#74 Fragano Ledgister
I majored in classical studies a good many years ago, and haven't worked in the field or read heavily among the academic publications in a good while. However, while it's possible to study and analyze the Pelopponesian War (or any of the others we have good accounts of, and aren't we lucky we have Thucydides' book to work from in this case?) from a variety of perspectives and schools of thought, Hanson seems to be affirming his membership in the School of Wishful Thnking, which includes the Jiminy Cricket School of Military Doctrine (theme song "When You Wish Upon a Star"). However, when the best comparison you can actually make between the US and the Athenians of that time is the scary resemblence between the war in Iraq and the Sicilian Expedition of Alcibiades (both the result of imperialistic self-infatuated greedheads taking advantage of public credulity to get into a Bad Idea of a war that didn't need fighting), there's a problem.
#71--Not really, Claude.
Now stop trying to turn my head with flattery, because I didn't bring my fan with me today, and thus cannot rap your knuckles with it properly.
#67 Fragano Ledgister
I can't speak for Hanson's professional-level publications, but his popular writing on ancient history has the same tendency to interpret-to-suit-his-preferences as his writings on modern politics. Words like "specious" come to mind. For another take on his latest book, see Gary Brecher's review.
I think his weird angle on the Spartans comes either from a column, or from some fantasizing elsewhere about Thermopylae. I try not to read him if I can help it; I hate getting stupid on me.
#58 and previous--
The choice of "anabasis" could be a cryptic comment on what a bad idea all this was, but I've noticed among neo-con thinkers a tendency to wear the Blinders of Cluelessness when dealing with Great Stuff from History. For example, somehow non-thinkers like Hanson manage to make the police-state eugenicist Spartans into Heroes of Democracy. Xenophon's little screed manages to become the story of a Great Greek Vitory, rather than being identified as the face-saving piece on "How The Boys And I Signed Up To Invade Persia As Mercs And Managed To Get Out With Our Parts Intact When It All Went Pear-shaped" it is. Granted, getting the Greek force out alive when they were that deep in hostile territory was an impressive achievement, and Xenophon had legitimate bragging rights, but it was still a retreat after losing an ill-judged war they'd have been better off avoiding. I've talked to people (you get all sorts in classical studies) who couldn't manage to see that part--they were all about The Glory. They also tended to be convinced that it was Socrates' courage in speaking Truth to Power that got him killed, and not his numerous close associates among the Thirty Tyrants. Incidents like Crassus having his cranium turned into a beverage container and similar somehow get forgotten. Amazingly enough (not), they tended to neo-con ideology in other areas.
That would be #52, not #62.
Clearly, the anti-ragweed pills are wearing off.
#62 Hamletta, stay off the bridge; there are two football games downtown this weekend and if they've blocked the Shelby Street Bridge because it's a crime scene it will make gameday traffic that much worse.
Besides, you need to work on your sitcom treatment. Or maybe you should make it the latest thing in chick-lit, so it can be adapted into a Major Motion Picture and then spun off into a sitcom. After all, Halliburton et al. have not hung back from making a buck, or a few billion from all these crimes and horrors, so why shouldn't you?
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2007 | 1 |
| 2006 | 15 |
Total: 16 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by fidelio:
Show all comments by fidelio.