Sic Semper Tyrannis

"Turbulent Priests"

"Chicago's top Catholic leader condemned Pfleger's comments. Cardinal Francis George said in a statement that Pfleger had promised him not to publicly mention any candidate by name this summer and fall and that he would abide by the "discipline common to all Catholic priests."

George said Pfleger's words crossed a line. "Racial issues are both political and moral and are also highly charged," he said. "Words can be differently interpreted, but Father Pfleger's remarks about Sen. Clinton are both partisan and amount to a personal attack. I regret that deeply."

Pfleger's maverick style has set him apart from Chicago's Catholic clergy dating to his seminary days, when he protested the Vietnam War and befriended Black Panthers.

But it also helped the priest turn a dwindling South Side congregation at St. Sabina into a thriving, predominantly African American parish. More than 2,100 parishioners call the church their spiritual home. In his three decades of ministry, it has been Pfleger's first and only assignment.

He turned things around at St. Sabina by highlighting black church traditions, hanging African art on the walls and featuring a black Jesus with his hands outstretched above the altar."  LA Times

------------------------------------------------------------------

To paraphrase TS Eliot, "Who will rid me of these turbulent priests?"  Obama has not said that, but it would be understandable if he did.

Wright and Phlegar are representative of the same phenomenon, religion as politics, religion as  revolutionary philosophy.   

The Catholic Church in the United States does not wish to be a church solely devoted to the needs of middle class people.  The ministry to the poor and deprived is an old tradition.  There used to be "national parishes" of Irish, Italian, French, etc., immigrants and their children where services were held in the vernacular of the people who inhabited the parish.  This tradition continues on a smaller scale.

A friend of mine is an auxiliary bishop in a major city.  His ministry is to the inner city poor there.  I wonder how he would deal with this priest.

Father Phlegar has now been reprimanded by his ecclesiastical superior and has evidently promised to behave appropriately.  The Catholic Church is not a democracy.  Its structure, traditions and governance are those of the late Roman Empire in the West.  Diocletian might find that amusing.  For the diocesan clergy, there is no doubt at all as to who is in charge in a bishop's territory.  It is he.  For Francis Cardinal George to say he "regrets deeply" something that one of his people has said or done is to declare to that priest and the world that this behavior must not be renewed or therapeutic action will be taken.

Nevertheless, the damage is done.  The image of Phlegar's racist rantings will circulate endlessly on the internet.  The MSM are now powerless to prevent the dissemination of information no matter how much they try.   Then there is the continuing effect of Wright's similar ravings.  There are also rumors of yet more video waiting to be released at well timed moments, video involving Mrs. Obama.

None of this indicates a happy future for the Democratic Party in the presidential race.  America is probably ready for a Black president if the candidate is someone who inspires the confidence of the generality of white people.  If the candidate does not inspire that confidence, then...

We could easily have a situation in 2009 in which the Democrats have large majorities in both houses of Congresses but John McCain with all his evident emotional difficulties is president.

If that happens then Obama's "friends" will have much to think about.  pl

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pfleger31-2008may31,0,6551455.story

Birthday Salutation

On the occasion of my birthday I send you all greetings.  To quote my father, "if I had thought that I would live this long, I would have taken better care of myself..."  pl

"There Will be Blood" Part 2 - Futures speculation and the price of crude

"The commission said it is investigating potential abuses in the way crude oil is purchased, shipped, stored and traded nationwide, but did not reveal details. Also on Thursday the agency announced a handful of other initiatives designed to increase transparency of U.S. and international energy futures markets.

For example, the trading commission said it will immediately require monthly reports from institutional investors who manage funds designed to mimic the price of crude oil and other energy futures. The goal, the agency said, is to identify the amount of such index trading and to "ensure that this type of trading activity is not adversely impacting the price discovery process."

The agency also said it has reached an agreement with its British counterpart and with InterContinental Exchange Inc.'s Futures Europe to expand surveillance of energy futures contracts with U.S. delivery points, including the benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude, which trades on the Nymex."  SFGate

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have thought for some time that the recent catastrophic rise in crude prices is not directly related to long term supply and demand issues, although those are certainly there in the background.

No, there is a short term supply problem caused by politically motivated regional suppliers who have found it easy to toy with the spot market enough to encourage traders of one kind or other to drive up prices of future deliveries in what can only be described as a "tulip" scenario.  The announcement of increased surveillance of these traders and their allies in the business intelligence world will stress the "skin" of the bubble and we will see something interesting.  It has already begun.  pl

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/29/BUMG11068I.DTL

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/38914.html

War Against the American People - McClellan Speaks

"...in a chapter titled "Selling the War," he alleges that the administration repeatedly shaded the truth and that Bush "managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option."

"Over that summer of 2002," he writes, "top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage."

McClellan, once a staunch defender of the war from the podium, comes to a stark conclusion, writing, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary." "  WAPO

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

" "If I had served my God", the Cardinal said remorsefully, "as diligently as I did my king, He would not have given me over.." " (Wiki)

Change a couple of words and this probably will serve as an epitaph for Scott McClellan.  Perhaps if McClellan had had the welfare of his country closer to his heart than the idea of service to his emperor then fate might have been kinder to him.  Or perhaps not; duty is a hard thing.   "Duty is the most sublime word in the English language"   Apparently, McClellan has only recently developed a sense of duty that the epigramist would have understood.

McClellan's book will be believed by those who have known or suspected the truth of the massive and continuing propaganda campaigns waged by the Bushies and the Jacobin flatheads.  It will not be accepted by those who still believe that Saddam hid his nuclear program in a lake somewhere, or in Syria or maybe in Ruritania.  In the end his book will have little impact.  I hope it makes him a few dollars.  He will need them.  In Texas where the easily deceived seem legion, he will find it hard to go home again.

I recommend meditation in the Rothko Chapel in Houston as a kind of way station on his journey to the future.

The administration manipulated the "sources" of public opinion?  Really?  Can that be?  (irony alert)  The administration and its Ziocon allies systematically drove truth speakers out of the public square? Really?  Well, folks, the American people were stupid enough and gullible enough to have allowed that....  Are we to believe that the American people have become smarter and more discerning in the eternity of the last years?

The media?  Has the catastrophe of our foreign policy changed the media?  Let us see how much "play" McClellan's book receives.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052703679.html?hpid=topnews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Wolsey

http://www.rothkochapel.org/

"I will never surrender in Iraq! Never! Never!" McCain

"The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.

Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.

The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that that the US plans an  air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region.

Targets could include IRGC garrisons in southern and southwestern Iran, near the border with Iraq. US officials have repeatedly claimed Iran is aiding Iraqi insurgents. In January 2007, US forces raided the Iranian consulate general in Erbil, Iraq, arresting five staff members, including two Iranian diplomats it held until November. Last September, the US Senate approved a resolution by a vote of 76-22 urging President George W Bush to declare the IRGC a terrorist organization. Following this non-binding "sense of the senate" resolution, the White House declared sanctions against the Quds Force as a terrorist group in October. The Bush administration has also accused Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons program, though most intelligence analysts say the program has been abandoned."   Asia Times

----------------------------------------------------------------------

McCain said today that "he will never surrender in Iraq!"  What the hell is he talking about?  Surrender to whom?  To Al-Qa'ida? (alkayda) They have been beaten to a pulp by the Sunni rising against them and Petraeus' new-old tactics.  McCain would have to find Al-Qa'ida before he could surrender to them and then everyone else in the country would have to go along with the idea.  This is unlikely.  Surrender to Muqtada al-Sadr?  Have I missed something?  "Mooky" is now the leading Shia factional leader in the country?  I guess you never know...  Maybe the Mahdi has anointed him.  Surrender to Maliki and actually let him run the country?  I have had a couple of people (American) say to me recently things that demonstrate a reflexive idea that we are going to "call the shots" in Iraq indefinitely.  Is that what McCain means?

And then there is the matter of the IAEA's plaint today that Iran has not yet answered all its questions.  That's what it said, folks.  Read it.  This was immediately seized upon by McCain as proof that the Iranians are intent on bomb making.  Then that was followed quickly followed by a CNN lady anchor who asked Christiane Amanpour what the IAEA statement had said about Iranian INTENTIONS.  Sweet Jesus, save us from these people. Iranian intentions? 

Bush/Cheney will bombs things in Iran?  Well, why not?  At least that would be consistent with the stupidity of the rest of their reign.  Things have come to an interesting pass when Olmert appears to be a real statesman by comparison.  pl

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

Download IAEA_Iran_Report_May2008.pdf

"SUNRISE AT OMAHA" Sidney O. Smith III

Like the rest of us, none of these soldiers wanted to die.  None of them wanted to fight a war.  In fact, these men despised war as much as any generation.  In their hearts, they wanted to be back home, in America, with their families and loved ones.  Yet, at sunrise on June 6, 1944, when they crossed the stormy English Channel headed for a French beach code-named Omaha, they certainly knew they were going to their slaughter.  Only God truly knows the anguish of their prayers. But even in this agony, when their landing crafts finally ran ashore and the ramps splashed down into the waves, these Americans did not hesitate.  They all headed straight into a violent death and left us what is now an eternal scene – dead bodies floating in the water, cries of the young dying, and dark red blood soaking the sand.

Yet amazingly, this eternal scene – this passion at Omaha – was just one drop of blood in a generation's sacrifice, for blood was spilled the world over.  The number of casualties staggers the mind.  At Omaha Beach alone, America suffered over 8000 casualties.  By war's end, nearly 300,000 Americans had died – white Americans, black Americans, Americans of all heritages.  France and the British Commonwealth each sustained over 500,000 deaths.  Poland suffered 120,000 battlefield deaths and, incredibly, over 5 million civilian deaths.  And then there was the USSR, where the suffering becomes unimaginable.  20 million killed, 7 million of whom were civilians.  In China, 13 million people died, 10 million of whom were civilians.  And certainly in the heart of this sacrifice was the innocent Jew – 6 million men, women and children gassed.  All told, Allied deaths reached 44 million. 

This kind of suffering is impossible to fully comprehend, but it does establish forever that this generation was one of supreme sacrifice.  Like few others, the WWII generation saw its darkest moment during the prime of youth – a time when other generations enjoy the most life has to offer – weddings, families and careers.  So, some sixty years later, when you step back and see the sacrifice endured, you can't help but wonder if during this most tragic time, when so many good people were dying the most horrible of deaths, their silent cry was, "My God, why have you forsaken me?". 

Habakkuk on BAE, the Saudis and the Slush Fund

I think Harper is absolutely right in suggesting that, important though the corruption story may be, the political element -- centering around the 'slush fund' -- is the really significant element in this story. I am curious about, and slightly surprised by, his calling this a 'MI6 slush fund'. From what little I know of the story -- and I have not followed it closely -- it seems quite likely that we are dealing with linkages involving elements in Saudi Arabia, Britain, and the United States. Looking back at the coverage of the 'Welch Club' and related matters on this blog and elsewhere from a year back, I recalled a comment quoted in Seymour Hersh's 'Redirection' piece, from a 'Pentagon consultant'. There were, the 'Pentagon consultant' remarked: 'many, many pots of black money, scattered in many places and used all over the world on a variety of missions'. Given the involvement of Bandar both in Iran-Contra and recent hi-jinks, as well as Al-Yamamah, there certainly seem grounds for suspecting that one of the functions of the contract, from the outset, may have been to create such 'pots of black money'. An interesting discussion of the 'slush fund', in an article in the Financial Times last July by Stephen Fidler hardly dispels these suspicions. (See http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?sortBy=gadatearticle&queryText=yamamah+fidler&y=7&aje=true&x=15&id=070702000587&ct=0.)

More on BAE in the news

"A Department of Defense Inspector General [DoD IG] report, unearthed yesterday and first reported by DANGER ROOM, said that "the advanced aviation and weapons technology for the JSF [Joint Strike Fighter] program may have been compromised" because procedures for securing classified material weren't fully followed. In particular, the report called into the question the relationship between BAE and government overseers from the Defense Security Service. The civil servants failed to identify a number of "security weaknesses" at company facilities, the audit alleges. And BAE rebuffed Defense Security Service attempts to examine their internal security audits."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a pattern of sloppiness in the way this company (BAE) has administered contracts given to it by the US Department of Defense.

The FBI and DoJ career people have become very aggressive in the last few years in prosecuting cases that they have been building for long periods of time.  The AIPAC espionage case comes to mind as another example.  There are others and the only thing many of these cases seem to have in common is civil service frustration over an inability to prosecute them earlier.  I have the impression that these public servants have been frustrated for a long time because politicians of both parties have blocked prosecution of some of these cases.  Why now?  I do not know, but there has probably been some "horse trading" in deciding what will be allowed to be prosecuted and what not.

Several commenters have made off hand comments to the effect that they think American companies routinely bribe overseas officials to obtain defense contracts.  On the basis of many years of listening to such companies complain bitterly of how much they are disadvantaged by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and by subsidies provided by many overseas governments to their manufacturers, I doubt that it is true that US defense contractors do this.  pl

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/stealth-fighter.html

BAE in the News

"Col Lang,

I wanted to flag your attention, and the attention of your readers, to some new dramatic developments in a story you reported last year. The U.S. Department of Justice is agressively pursuing their case against BAE Systems, the British arms company, which is accused of paying billions of dollars in bribes to Saudi officials, including the former Ambassador in Washington, Prince Bandar. Bandar alone is said to have received over $2 billion in BAE kickbacks, for his role in the "Al Yamamah" deal between Britain and Saudi Arabia (I hear that the actual figure paid to Bandar and some of his henchmen was closer to $10 billion). On May 12, two top executives of BAE, Chairman Mike Turner and an outside director who is also vice chairman of Barclay's Bank, were detained by U.S. officials as they arrived at Houston and Newark airports, respectively. They were handed grand jury subpoenas, and had their laptops, cell phones and papers temporarily confiscated. The latest from the DOJ is that the career prosecutors are so furious at the British government's stonewalling, that they are threatening RICO prosecutions against BAE. Remember, that the real story behind the BAE "Al Yamamah" scandal is that, under the arms-for-oil barter deal, the British accumulated well-over $100 billion, in off-the-books, offshore funds, that have been used to finance covert operations, for the past 23 years (the deal was first signed in 1985, and has been regularly updated ever since). The other nagging matter around the BAE case is that Prince Bandar "inadvertently" helped finance the 9/11 attacks, through funds provided by him and his wife to two Saudi intelligence operative in California, who, in turn, bankrolled two of the hijackers. This sordid tale is spelled out in Philip Shenon's admirable expose of the 9/11 Commission investigation, in the 2008 book, The Commission--The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation. My own sources have independently corroborated much of what Shenon reports. For their part, the Saudis and the British are not at all happy about what is going on at the DOJ. The Sunday Telegraph and other British papers have been ranting about the "heavy handed" treatment of the BAE execs, and they worry about a deeper rift, going into the upcoming G-8 summit in Japan in early July. A treaty is pending before the U.S. Senate, that would give British arms manufacturers equal access to Pentagon contracts, and a hearing was held this past week on the treaty at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Biden, Lugar and Feingold all expressed apprehension over the treaty, and there is fear that the BAE flap will further complicate its passage. Again, the biggest aspect of the BAE/"Al Yamamah" story is the offshore fund. To summarize: BAE delivered about $40 billion in arms and services to Saudi Arabia. BAE padded the bills substantially, up to nearly $80 billion. The pad was used, in part, to bribe Saudi officials who helped swing the deal, including Bandar and Prince Turki bin-Khaled, a top official of the Saudi Ministry of Defense. That part is fully detailed in the Guardian and other British coverage of the BAE scandal, going back three or four years. What is not covered in the British press is the fact that Saudi Arabia paid for the arms with oil. The oil was sold on the spot market, and this generated an estimated (in current dollars) $160 billion in cash. I am told by former U.S. Treasury Department officials that the funds generated from the oil sales, after BAE got their cut, went into offshore bank accounts. Those funds were invested by the usual hedge funds, etc. in places like the Cayman Islands, BVI, etc., and the profits over the past 23 years from those investments, multiplied the size of the fund tremendously. I look forward to any comments on this very big story, that has never gotten adequate media or Congressional attention, in my humble opinion.

Harper"

David Killcullen and his Power Point Show

Killcullen is all the rage these days in the trendy counterinsurgency set.  A friend at RAND sent me this PP show of his.  It was presented at a trendy conference in Washington.  I leave the content to your judgment without comment although I must say that his "cheek" in putting his picture on the same page as that of Bernard Fall is disturbing. pl

Download kilcullen_rand_insurgency_board_presentation_8_may_2008.ppt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kilcullen

Yet another Flathead Jacobin Triumph - Lebanon this time

"After five days of fraught negotiations among Lebanon’s rival political groups in Doha, the Qatari authorities said the agreement called for moves within 24 hours for Parliament in Beirut to begin the process of electing Gen. Michel Suleiman, the commander of Lebanon’s army, as president.

The deal was also expected to lead to the formation of a cabinet in which Hezbollah, supported by Iran and Syria, along with its allies will enjoy the veto power it had sought in the negotiations .

Under the terms of the agreement, the government will also debate anew electoral law designed to provide better representation in the country’s sectarian system of power-sharing.

Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani, the Qatari Prime Minister, told a formal ceremony in Doha that Lebanon’s feuding parties “agreed that the speaker of Parliament will call within 24 hours for the election of Gen. Michel Suleiman as president of the republic.”""  NY Times

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Another day of joy (irony alert) for the likes of Friedman, Brooks and Rice.  What was it Brooks wrote last week?  "What possible coalition could Hizbullah participate in in Lebanon?"  (paraphrase) 

The funny thing is that we Americans and Saudis pushed the Lebanese so hard and so obviously that they finally had no choice but to make a deal (always a thing the Lebanese can do).

I am going on a road trip or the next two days but I wanted to throw this ball up in the air for you all to play with in my absence.  pl

ps.  Syria and Israel are going to make another "day of joy" for the Flatlanders.  Do you all remember them among the minor and oft forgotten peoples whom Gulliver visited?  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/world/middleeast/22lebanon.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nybooks.com/shop/product-file/93/mist3693/product.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nybooks.com/shop/product%3Fproduct_id%3D3693&h=467&w=300&sz=42&hl=en&start=1&sig2=F_dPMfXPlyNxK0_qTM3ZFQ&um=1&tbnid=eQD2WCvct9QSUM:&tbnh=128&tbnw=82&ei=cQ40SMPeL42mevm6gOsN&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMistress%2BMasham%2527s%2BRepose%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4RNWN_enUS268US268%26sa%3DN

A Truce with HAMAS? Shocking!

"In Cairo, Egyptian go-betweens laid out Israel’s terms for a ceasefire deal to the Hamas team from Damascus as presented by defense minister Ehud Barak Monday, May 19, to Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and intelligence minister Gen. Omar Suleiman at Sharm el-Sheik. Israel wants kidnapped soldier Gilead Shalit included in the ceasefire deal. It has offered to include 72 convicted murderers in the list of jailed terrorists for release. Hamas is demanding 350.

Prime minister Ehud Olmert and Barak, after opting for a truce in Gaza rather than an effective military operation against Hamas, are expected to compromise on this question too.

Olmert’s statement at the Sunday, May 18, government session in Jerusalem that the Gaza situation cannot go on and Israel “is very close to the point of a decision” on this issue, is seen by inside sources as an attempt to mislead the public which is demanding that the IDF give Hamas a real thrashing. He hopes the deal will go down more smoothly if Gilead Shalit is freed. "  Debkafile

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. Yes.  I know it is Debkafile.  Remember - Evaluate the information and the source separately.

I have been babbling about the need for an Israeli-HAMAS truce for several years.  Can it be that someone is listening?

Everyone in Palestine/Israel needs some "time off" from their mutual hatred and despair.  I was there in March.  The mentality of both sides has become awful, just awful.  The Israelis are filled (mostly) with a great complacency and sense of their superiority.  This verges on contempt for the Palestinian and Arab untermenschen.  The Palestinians are filled with self pity and a resignation to their fate which does not become this branch of the human tree of life.

Olmert and Barak want a truce?  For God's sake give them one, and then when this one expires give them another one, and another!

You would rather have no loaf than half a loaf?  Well then to hell with you all!  pl

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5285

Jalal Talabani - Rogue president?

""Those who make such claims against Iran only express their personal views which don't reflect those of the Iraqi government," he said in interview with the Al-Arabiya TV on Friday.

"I, as the president of Iraq, do not agree with such views," he added.

"Our Iranian brothers are ready for dialogue on any such issues," Talabani said.

"As far as Iranian weapons are concerned it should be mentioned that during Saddam Hussein's rule Iran provided weapons for the Iraqi opposition groups," he added. "  Talabani in the Iranian News Agency

------------------------------------------------------------

Talabani has a long history of political opportunism.  His Kurdish faction, the PUK, has a long if uneven history of alignment with Iran in the various political feuds of the region surrounding Iraq. 

It should be remembered that both he and his rivals the Barzanis of the KDP endlessly shifted sides in the decades long struggle between the Kurdish groups and in their inter-actions with the Iraqi and Iranian governments.

Both the PUK and KDP were aligned with Saddam's government at various points, including after the gas attack on Halabja in Kurdistan.  Then there was the long history of covert alliance with CIA, the Israelis, etc.

Bush and Co. want us to believe that their "allies" are angels from the realms of glory.  No angels in the Middle East, folks..

As Marshal Lyautey said, "Empires are not built using virgins as tools."  pl

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=56077&sectionid=351020201

President Bush and the Saudis

"Mr. Bush’s visit here was, in many respects, a reprise of a trip he made to the king’s ranch in January, when he asked for an increase in production and was rebuffed publicly by the oil minister and privately by the king. This time, the Saudis again resisted Mr. Bush, while offering at least the appearance of a concession.

The Saudi oil minister, Ali Al-Naimi, told reporters that the kingdom had decided on May 10 to increase production, not in response to Mr. Bush but because customers, mostly in the United States, had asked for it. He said that over the last few months, as supplies from other countries had declined, the Saudis had filled in the gap."  NY Times

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is most unusual for the Saudis, always the most polite of men, to act like this.  It is the measure of their unhappiness with Bush and his policies that they can bring themselves to act in so boorish a way.   It must make them uncomfortable to do so.

It used to be prattled in the media that the Saudis loved the Bushies (and the Bushes) and would always do what could be done to help them in the matter of oil production.  It should have been clear then, and it is very clear now that this was never so.  The Saudis are, like all people, concerned with their own wants and desires.

A continuing war in Iraq in which American policy has placed the despised Shia in control of the country is not among the things the Saudis would have hoped for.  An unremitting hostility towards Iran which demands Saudi acquiescence in a policy likely to involve Saudi Arabia in war with Iran is not among the things the Saudis would have hoped for.  The Saudis believe in dealing with problems like Iranian expansiveness with; some subtlety of negotiation, minimal but effective violence, and strategically useful bribery.

A presidential visit to the region which begins with an ecstatic presidential speech to the Knesset swearing undying and unconditional loyalty to Israel is not one of the things the Saudis would have wanted.

So then, he went to Riyadh to demand/beg for the Saudis to increase crude production (at some inconvenience to themselves).  They did not agree?  How can that be?  Is he not God's pro-consul on earth?  How can that be?

Akiva Eldar wrote in Ha'aretz that he should stay home to avoid the increased mischief that the mere presence of his transcendent foolishness and that of his army of compromised and one-sided handlers would do.  He was right, as usual.

We Americans should add our own plea that he stay home home until January to avoid embarrassing us further.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/world/middleeast/17prexy.html?ref=middleeast

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/982402.html

David Brooks and "implacable enemies"

"Hezbollah is one of the world’s most radical terrorist organizations. Over the last week or so, it has staged an armed assault on the democratic government of Lebanon."  Brooks

***********************************************************************

"Does Obama believe that even the most intractable enemies can be pacified with diplomacy? What “Lebanese consensus” can Hezbollah possibly be a part of?"  Brooks

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, actually, David, it is the consensus that the Arab League is busy negotiating today.

It is increasingly clear that David Brooks is not an editorial columnist.  He is a propagandist for the hard right in this country and in Israel.  "Implacable enemies?"  "..an armed assault on the democratic government of Lebanon?"  Brooks is not a stupid man.  He knows very well that the various Lebanese factions are engaged in a struggle over re-alignment of power in the government that has been in progress for most of a year.  He knows that Hizbullah, Amal, the Aounis and others all hold seats in the parliament and are for that reason, in fact, part of the "government of Lebanon" that he writes of just as members of Congress are part of the government here.  He knows exceedingly well that todays's "terrorists" are often tomorrow's rulers, (Kenyatta, Begin, Shamir, etc)  He knows very well that his factional allies in the Bush Administration and in Israel favor the Siniora Cabinet in Beirut because they are supremely biddable and useful tools.  Siniora is so much an instrument of US and Saudi policy that he should be provided a federal judgeship to retire to when when he is finally ejected from office. (Maybe Guam would be a good place.  That was suggested for Thieu long ago)

"Implacable terrorist."  I suppose that is what the British called Menachem Begin and Begin's hero Michael Collins before they became heads of government.

Brooks understands all this, but he also knows it is his assigned duty to spout rubbish for his pals.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

4th Generation Warfare? What about 5th and 6th Generation?

"In unusually strong language, Gates warned against what he described as a tendency in the Pentagon to fall back on Cold War mentalities and said he feared that lessons from the U.S. struggle against insurgencies in Iraq could fade unless military commanders understand that today's enemies are the foes of the future.

Gates said there must be a balance between meeting today's demands and tomorrow's contingencies, but he expressed concern that the defense establishment is not concentrating hard enough on what might be needed in future conflicts. He said the armed services and their corporate counterparts should steer technology and resources toward battling insurgencies. "  Washpost

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

With respect for the opinion of my colleagues who count Gates among their close friends, (or at least close associates) this is not very profound.

Yes, it is true that the military would prefer to deal with enemies whose vagaries are more easily perceived and estimated in mechanistic sensor driven and applied mathematical kinds of ways.

The US Army did turn away from what it learned in the counterinsurgency wars of the 20th Century.  That was a bad thing.

Nevertheless, it seems clear that there is not some sort of evolutionary development in the nature of war.  There never was such a thing.  War is war.  It has always existed in many forms and usually simultaneously.  The metaphor of generational development in warfare is essentially flawed.  This image was created in the last decade or two to provide existing military leadership with a psychological crutch that enabled them to say that they had not been so woefully ignorant of history as to not know that irregular warfare had always been a major factor in conflict.  No.  The "4th Generation" label allowed the generals to tell each other that something new had appeared on the world scene - guerrilla war.  They could not be expected to have anticipated this new thing, guerrilla war, could they?

Now, Mr. Gates, who seems to be a sensible man, is espousing the idea that the armed forces should configure themselves to fight guerrillas as the main kind of enemy. Such an idea is superficially attractive, but not a viable solution for doctrinal thought and force structure design. 

The future is not really knowable.  It is, in fact, the undiscovered country.  History gives us a ghostly image of what people have done over the millennia.  Will people do the same things in the future? Perhaps they will not, but the record of the past is the only real indication we have of what mankind tends to do.

War remains a social activity which relies on basic attributes of the evolved human beast.  Weapons change but people do not in any time scale that is useful for contemplation.

The record of the past indicates that future wars will be fought in many different forms and often in many different forms within the same war.

Let us be careful that we do not prepare to fight only one of the many forms of war.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/13/AR2008051301265.html

Cat-fights

I was on a "road trip" until yesterday evening and did not have the time to deal with the personal dispute that erupted ove several days among two of our commmenters.

A reminder - conflicts that descend into personal attacks will lead to disciplinary action by the curmudgeon who runs this rodeo.  pl

Luttwak and Obama's "Apostasy"

"As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant.

Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.

His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).

With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings. (Some may point to cases in which lesser punishments were ordered — as with some Egyptian intellectuals who have been punished for writings that were construed as apostasy — but those were really instances of supposed heresy, not explicitly declared apostasy as in Senator Obama’s case.) "  Luttwak

---------------------------------------------------------------

Edward Luttwak was allowed to publish the above quoted oped in the NY Times today.  What do I think of it?

I think it is a poorly veiled attack on Obama's candidacy.  I doubt if Luttwak was the originator of this attack.  I have heard it before.

I will not argue the Islamic law point, but my comment would be - So What!

Are Americans to allow Luttwak and people like him to influence their choice of president on the basis of a denial of religious freedom by people who generally have no use for freedom of choice in anything?

This argument originated overseas.  You can work out the point of origin for yourselves.  pl

Israel, A country like the ones almost all of us came from?

"Growing up at Congregation Olam Tikvah, Michelle Pearlstein remembers how Israel was taught at religious school: "Black and white -- you can't trust anyone, and it was a united front in support of Israel." Today, Pearlstein, 35, is the Israel specialist at the Fairfax (Virginia) synagogue, where she teaches what is now the mainstream approach: "We call it 'Israel, warts and all.' "

The change in curriculum is but one manifestation of the changing relationship between American Jews and the Jewish state, even as the country celebrates its 60th birthday this week.

Multiple new polls show that younger American Jews feel less of a connection to Israel than older Jews. And while there is heated debate about some of the polls' methodologies and conclusions, most Jewish leaders are very concerned about the data. The leaders see them as a long-term byproduct of intermarriage, assimilation and controversial Israeli policies, including settlement expansion in the occupied territories."  Michele Boorstein

-------------------------------------------------------------------

In Alexandria, Virginia (my home town)  There is a beautiful Episcopal Church, one of several actually.  It is called Christ Church.   There is also a regrettably modern looking but suitably ancient synagogue, Beth El.  For as long as anyone can remember these two congregations have been celebrating Thanksgiving together.  They alternate between sanctuaries.  Although not congregants of either, we were invited by a VMI classmate to the joint service at Christ Church one year.  He is a member of Beth El.  It was as satisfying an experience as one could hope for. 

"You can't trust anyone?"  My God!  Here?  What was the justification for teaching children such a thing?  Not everyone liked Jews?  So what!  I have an original sign in my office from 1908 that reads "Help wanted.  No Irish Need Apply."  My father used to laugh about a sign he saw over the door of a women's dormitory at Hunter College in New York back in the 1930s.  It read "No dogs or soldiers allowed within."  Fortunately we did not need jobs in 1908 and my father had no interest in Hunter girls.

"You can't trust anyone."  Let us hope that we Americans are coming to end of that kind of idea.  I am not surprised that young Jewish Americans are not so gullible as to cower before the fears of their ancestors.  They have looked around them and have seen that there is no need.

I congratulate the Israelis on the birthday of their country.  I hope it prospers in justice and freedom for all.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/10/AR2008051002247.html

The Bushies and Beirut (The gang that can't shoot straight)

"...humiliating blows made clearer than ever the power and determination of Hezbollah, a Shiite group backed by Iran and Syria, and its allies. By Friday afternoon, armed Shiite fighters were riding joyfully through west Beirut in a long column of trucks, cars and scooters, shouting and firing their weapons into the air in a raucous victory celebration.

The government majority issued an urgent appeal for help from other nations on Friday evening, calling Hezbollah’s actions an “armed coup” against Lebanon and its democratic system using “weapons sent by Tehran.” Some government lawmakers, including the Druse leader, Walid Jumblatt, and Saad Hariri, the son of the assassinated former prime minister Rafiq Hariri, spent the day holed up in their compounds, protected by Lebanese Army contingents and the police."  NY Times

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this the best we can do?  What happened to the much feared covert interventions of the CIA, dreaded across the world by "liberation" movements for decades.  Is this the best we can do?

Our toadies (the government of Lebanon) are "holed up" in government offices and private compounds behind the protection of an "army" that specializes in parades and refereeing Beiruti political squabbles?

The Iraqi Arabs I have been teaching lately make a specialty of mocking most Beirutis.  They imitate their "cute" accent, lisp and swish away when laughing at them.  They don't feel that way about the Shia militiamen (Hizbullah and Amal).  I have never asked them about the Aounis.  I should do that.

If I were Saad Hariri, I would "get out of Dodge."  That "army" is not going to protect him if its own safety is at stake.  Siniora (Sonora)?  Nice is nice this time of year.  He probably has a place there.

We Americans (well, the Bushies) brought this on with our insistence that Shia numbers and electoral success would not be reflected in the division of power within the government of that sad little country.

Did we encourage the Sonorans to think that they could demand the self-disembowelment of Hizbullah?  Did we really think the Government of Lebanon actually could do that.  We may well have.  It would be of a piece with the fantasy driven policy of the last eight years.  Any gamble, no matter how absurd and improbable of success has fit the pattern of desperate longing that has driven American policy this last decade.

Would McCain's policy in the region be any more grounded in real calculation of the odds?  Doubtful.  Would Obama's be better?  I wonder.  Look at his advisers.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/world/middleeast/10lebanon.html?th&emc=th

Qustioning the Value of Our Culture - ?

"Just remember, inside every zip there's an American trying to get out."  The crazy cavalry colonel spoke this line on the beach in "Apocalypse Now.  A marine DI said much the same thing in "Full Metal Jacket."  The attitude was so sadly typical of our entrance on the scene in Vietnam.   Maybe one was quoting the other...  In any event, I used to joke about this attitude.  I no longer think it is funny.  In the last year or so I have wandered the country a lot giving talks to college and other audiences.   In doing that it has become more and more clear that many, if not most Americans still, (not the right word) as always (better) have a deeply embedded reflexive belief that mankind is evolving socially toward a unified world culture and that this culture is the culture of the West, more specifically of Anglo North America. 

After a recent talk at a small college, a faculty member in the business sciences asked me if I had really meant to say that the Iraqis and other Middle Easterners did not want to be "us."  When assured that I had meant it, he said that this was most disturbing and that the thought had not occurred to him before.  He continued that such a notion was threatening because, if believed, it would require a re-appraisal of the worth of Western culture. He said that he had always assumed that people who lived in significantly different ways did so either from ignorance or because the structure of their societies functioned to hold them in subservience to a primitive way of life.  He said that if that were not true and in fact most non-Western people wanted a better life in material terms without adopting the values of the West, then much of his life had been lived in error.  "I think of all the foreign students whom I assumed were just waiting for enlightenment."

I asked him, "why can't you just accept the idea that there are many authentic and legitimate ways of life and forms of governance, and that what is good for us is not necessarily wanted by others?"   I hope he is still wrestling with the issue.  pl

End Game in Beirut?

""The decisions (of the government) are tantamount to a declaration of war and the start of a war ... on behalf of the United States and Israel," a defiant Nasrallah said at a rare press conference via video link.

On Tuesday, the government launched a probe into a communications network Hezbollah has set up in Lebanon and reassigned the head of airport security over his alleged links to Hezbollah."  AFP

---------------------------------------------------------------------

It should be apparent by now that Dick Cheney is touring the Middle East lately for some purpose.

In Jerusalem the Olmert government seeks an opening to settle its problem with Syria.  Bashar Assad seems to want the same thing.  Cheney is said to have arrived in Israel with the message that the Bush Administration rejects the conclusions of last year's NIE on Iran in favor of some mysterious and super secret "evidence" that the Israelis supposedly have that contradicts the NIE.  Olmert's government is now threatened with removal.  What a coincidence!

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the forces of information management are doing all they can to beat the drums for further war in the Middle Eastern region. 

Now we have the Siniora government (the Sonora government in the Bush pronunciation) in Beirut seeking a confrontation with Hizbullah?   We have come to the end of the "fiddling around" in the Lebanon?  Have the Jacobins, their Israelis allies and whatever it is that Cheney is, decided to end the suspense and trigger a war on Hizbullah and maybe Syria.   We live in interesting times.  pl

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gitppiJxG2wQdk1DG2SCvgiiK92w

Habakkuk on Sir John Scarlett et al

"J:  The British do not think that the U.S. is their 'colony/state to use and abuse at their whims.' The key divisions here are less between states, than within them. The problem is that the neocons have gained ascendancy both in your country and mine. In both, there is a very visible reaction against this. In Britain this has probably had less effect than in the U.S. at the level of high politics -- probably more at the mass level. Tony Blair really is a neocon -- so are influential figures around the Tory leader David Cameron. As for what used to be the conservative press: I go the Times website, and find Irwin Stelzer -- author of "The Neocon Reader". I go to the Telegraph website, and find Irwin Stelzer. I open the Spectator, supposed to be the Tory ideas magazine. Who do I find -- Irwin Stelzer! As to Sir John Scarlett,  there is an irony here -- in that he was case officer for Oleg Gordievsky, who was a double agent working for us, rather than the Russians. This was the reverse of the situation depicted in Le Carré's novel, where the 'bureaucratic whore' Percy Alleline is persuaded that the Russian spook who Bill Haydon runs is our double agent, while in fact Haydon is theirs. But the evidence produced by the Hutton Inquiry made clear that Scarlett is a 'bureaucratic whore' -- although perhaps 'corrupt courtier' would be a more appropriate term. As chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee -- supposed to apply a filter of critical analysis to material produced by the agencies -- Scarlett played a key role in the dissemination of the intelligence which suggested, quite incorrectly as it turned out, that Saddam had WMD he could launch at 45-minutes notice, and had sought uranium from Niger. In so doing, he played a played a significant role in getting both you and us into a disastrous war. That he should be colluding with elements in Israeli intelligence -- and doubtless, elements in the U.S. -- in what appear to be moves to soften public opinion up for another disastrous war is hardly surprising. Unfortunately there is a lot of evidence that the rot at MI6 goes a lot deeper -- as also the rot in British journalism. When Scarlett was appointed as head of MI6, the Observer journalist David Rose defended him against the suggestion that his role in the Iraq intelligence fiascos disqualified him for the job. Explaining why his colleagues had come round to think Scarlett the best man, Rose wrote: "What has changed? The biggest factor is the evidence to Lord Hutton, which suggests that if Scarlett did cross the politico-intelligence frontier, then others were also culpable - none more so than the current C, Sir Richard Dearlove. On 12 September 2002, in response to a last, desperate call for new content for the dossier, it was Dearlove who went to see Blair at Downing Street, bearing the false and fateful claim that Iraq could deploy its WMD within 45 minutes. "At the time, there had been no attempt to assess this report by passing it to the JIC's intelligence analysts, nor to the acknowledged WMD experts at the Defence Intelligence Staff - including David Kelly. Supplying raw intelligence to a Prime Minister 'is just never done,' one official says. 'It's rule number one. Dearlove was undermining Scarlett's position - and it's just not fair that Scarlett alone should be blamed.' "Moreover, the final dossier was 'signed off' by all the members of Scarlett's committee, Dearlove included, who had the support of all his most senior colleagues - some of them eventual rivals for Scarlett's new job. As for the Butler report, it will deal with methods, not individuals. If it did, all four men who were candidates to be the next 'C' might have been criticised." (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/may/09/davidkelly.uk.) So it seems that even if an incoming prime minister had actually wanted to appoint a head of MI6 who would tell him the truth, rather than what he wanted to hear, he could not have found one within the organisation. But apparently this does not worry David Rose one bit -- which is hardly reassuring, particularly as he writes for the independent Guardian group, not the Times or Telegraph. Not long after retirement, incidentally, Dearlove signed the Declaration of Principles of a new organisation called The Henry Jackson Society, which champions the agenda for 'global democratic revolution' beloved of the neocons, and involves both leading American neocons and their British fellow-travellers. I suppose if one has an intelligence chief who is happy to associate himself with the memory of 'Scoop' Jackson, whose record at threat inflation and the politicisation of intelligence is almost unrivalled, one should not be surprised that one ends up with a dysfunctional intelligence organisation. "  David Habakkuk

Put up or shut up. (Israeli intelligence and Iran)

"Scarlett, 59, is likley to be briefed by Meir Dagan, 63, the head of Mossad, on Israel’s latest information about the Iranian nuclear programme. It is understood that Israel has made a breakthrough in intelligence-gathering within Iran.

There is mounting concern in Israel that Iran’s nuclear capability may be far more advanced than was recognised in a declassified assessment by the US National Intelligence Estimate last December, which concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons development programme in 2003 in response to international pressure.

One source claimed the new information was on a par with intelligence that led Israel to discover and then destroy a partly constructed nuclear reactor in Syria last September.

Israeli officials believe the US will revise its analysis of Iran’s programme. “We expect the Americans to amend their report soon,” a high-ranking military officer said last week."  Timesonline

----------------------------------------------------------------

"It is understood that Israel has made a breakthrough in intelligence-gathering within Iran." 

Oh yeah?  Let's see it.  Out in the open where the ordinary people of the world can look at it.  No?  Prefer to use it in private where the politically appointed grandees of the world's intelligence communities can be bullied into accepting a lot of crap in the same way that happened before Iraq?  That's not intelligence.  That's just political bullying.

What could the Israelis possibly have?  Something grand from their little photography satellites?  Something spooky from HUMINT in Iran?  How could we possibly verify anything from their HUMINT ops in Iran?  Do they have something from the world banking or technical communities?  OK.  Let's see it.

"Sources and Methods?"  Ha Ha.  Do they really think that the security of their sources are worth another war to the rest of us? 

I can only imagine the pressure they have exerted on the British and American spooks to get them to accept your views.

Scarlett sounds remarkably like one of the bureaucratic whores who took over "The Circus" in Lecarre's books, but, I confess that I do not know him.   The Robin Hood legend is a major part of "The Matter of Britain."  {Arthur, etc.} (political science people should ignore this part.  It might interfere with your "clarity")  In the recent anachonistic, but fun, Robin Hood series on BBC America (perhaps they don't watch this kind of thing in Britain any longer), the legend is described as "lying at the heart of England."  I surely do hope that this is true. pl

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3867880.ece

A Tale of Two Incompetents (Bush and Rumsfeld)

""Yes, sir. Our report validated everything you told us — that Franks issued the orders to discard the original twelve-to-eighteen-month occupation deployment, that the forces were drawing down, that we were walking away from the mission, and that everybody knew about it. And let me tell you, the Secretary did not like that one bit. After we went in to brief him, he just shut us down. 'This is not going anywhere,' he said. 'Oh, and by the way, leave all the copies right here and don't talk to anybody about it.'"

"You mean he embargoed all the copies of the report?" I asked.

"Yes, sir, he did." "  Time

-------------------------------------------------------------

This is the characteristic Rumsfeld style; cruel, manipulative, unconcerned with the truth, eager to escape responsibility for failure.  He knows these generals are completely self-serving careerists and that they can be made to do anything that is desired by the implied or direct promise of reward or the threat of punishment.  These modern generals have been cultivatd like plants to have the reactions of people on the way up in the business world where the war of "all against all" is the underlying psychological paragdigm.  The inappropriateness of this mind set in the military world where cooperation and self sacrifice are called for completely escapes Rumsfeld.  For the blind, selfish narrowmindedness that leads to that fatal incomprehension, Rumsfeld must be judged incompetent.  pl

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1736831-3,00.html

""What's probably counterintuitive to you is that this has been a great experience for our family. I've lived in the White House now for seven and a half years, and the furniture is interesting but it's like a museum," he said, the crowd laughing.

"And there's love in that White House, thanks to a good wife," Mr. Bush said of first lady Laura Bush, as the crowd applauded. "She's great ... which is one of the reasons this has been a fabulous experience.""  Washtimes

---------------------------------------------------------------

It is a far, far better place that he goes to... and the sooner the better.  He says he might be a talk show host?  Yes.  He can do an afternoon radio show from Crawford, something akin to the radio fandango in "Tuna, Texas."  The grotesque buffoonery of this man offends the eye and the soul.  "A fabulous experience?"  History will judge him.  A true incompetent.  pl

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080503/NATION/120439342/1001

PTSD and the combat soldier.

"To enhance care for soldiers suffering from PTSD, Gates announced that a security clearance form used throughout the U.S. government would be changed to free troops from an obligation to acknowledge combat-related mental-health care.

That change follows numerous studies that found troops suffering from post-traumatic stress after tours in Iraq and Afghanistan believed their security clearances, critical to their jobs, would be at risk if they sought care.

Question 21, which Gates called "infamous," asks applicants whether they have consulted a mental health professional in the past seven years. If the answer is "Yes," they must list details.

"It now is clear to people who answer that question that they can answer 'No' if they have sought help to deal with their combat stress in general terms," Gates told a news conference.

The form, known as the Questionnaire for National Security Positions, is used throughout the U.S. government, but the change initially affects only troops and the Pentagon's civilian workforce.

RAND Corp estimated that 300,000 troops sent to Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from symptoms of PTSD or depression. Military studies have seen similar results. The Army in February said 17.9 percent of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan experienced acute stress, depression or anxiety in 2007."  Reuters

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess we should ask what "in general terms" means.  Does that mean that if you felt like doing something specific about your inability to think or act like the civilians around you then you would have to report it?  You know, something like fighting in bars, or driving fast enough to forget where you are, or are not.  You know what I mean, something like that.  Like most people who know the green machine well, I am suspicious of such benevolent attitudes.  Why?  It is because the combat forces of the military, especially the ground combat forces exist to kill people and destroy things.  In the process of doing that the green machine uses soldiers up and makes them into "used people."  We all know that, don't we fellahs?  Therefore this level of deep concern sounds strangely mommy-like.  The machine does not really like its broken parts.

Is the policy announced a good one?  Certainly.  Let's see how it works in practise.  How many rising NCOs or officers headed upward on the fast track are going to risk what they have for Bob Gates' opinion?  He will be gone soon, but the green machine will still be there, grinding along relentlessly.

On the other hand, it will be a problem if career soldiers are taught by the doctors and civilians that they are necessarily victims of PTSD and impaired by their experience of combat.  What will be the result of implying to professional sodiers that their metier automatically deforms them as human beings?  What are we going to do, put everyone returning from combat into therapy?

A lot of the attiudes taking hold in the USA on this subject originated in the Israel Defense Force (IDF) where it is practically an article of faith that even short periods of combat cause trauma requiring therapy.  I have discussed this with IDF veterans.  They generally agree that the circumstances of historic combat in the IDF are very different from those of US forces.  Most importantly, Israel has never fought a war in which sustained intensive combat over a long period of time has been the experience.  The sole exception might be said to be their war of independence.  They also do not fight far away from their homeland in expeditionary operations.  Lastly, they are a militia army, made up in the main of reservists.  These are civilians in uniform.  The IDF is more like the US Army National Guard than they are like what the US Army now calls "the active force" (Regular Army)

Sometimes our wars have, of necessity, required (and will continue to require) men and now women to accept protracted experience so utterly different from that of most civilians that we should be careful about making facile comparisons between the psychology of soldiers and those whom they guard.  pl

http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSN01474597

Admiral's Mullen's attitude

"Offering an unusual insight into how senior military leaders are anticipating the transition to a new president, Mullen said he is continually thinking about how military decisions taken today will play out under a new administration.

"There are very few either briefings or meetings that I'm in that I'm not thinking about 'How does what we're talking about right now transition to next spring?' " Mullen said. He said U.S. commanders in regions overseas, as well as chiefs of the different services, are having similar discussions.

The transition is unlikely to be smooth, predicted Mullen, who assumed his position seven months ago for a two-year term. He said he hopes to offer a stabilizing influence as a military leader who will bridge two administrations.

"We will be tested. . . . I'm preparing that this country will be tested, and I have a role in that regard, certainly providing advice to whoever the new president's going to be," he said. He said his current priority is to develop military strategies for the Middle East and the globe to "tee up" for a new president.

Specifically, Mullen said he hopes that the change in politically appointed leaders will unfold at a wartime pace, rather than at a "peacetime" one. "I think it's important for us to get as many principals in positions as rapidly as possible in a time of war," he said. "  Tyson

---------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps Tyson is trying to stimulate discomfort with the idea of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff talking about getting "as many principals in positions as rapidly as possible."  If that is so, then she has succeeded with me.  Mullen is talking about politically appointed civilians in that last sentence, civilians nominated by the president for confirmation by the senate of the United States.

What business is that of his?

We have come a long way in the development of civil-military relations in the US since the time in which George Marshall gave up his promised position as commander of the European Theater of war merely because FDR suggested that he could not cope with the Washington scene in Marshall's absence.   A small sacrifice?  He would have been Eisenhower in the "Crusade in Europe" with all that would have flowed from that.

You have to wonder how much Admiral Mullen's fretting is caused by the prospect of a Democratic Administration.  Perhaps the new president should consider the suitability of present leadership in the Pentagon.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043003363.html?wpisrc=newsletter