New Policy at SST on re-prints

After a particuarly egregious incident, I have decided to make it the policy at SST that we will not re-publish material previously published in other blogs, magazines, etc.  This does not include links in comments or quotations.  pl

Comments

[Walrus]

Col. Lang,

Care to elaborate?

[turcopolier]

walrus

I havw decided that SST deserves better than to be blog of last resort. pl

[CTuttle]

If it's any consolation, Col, you're the blog of 'first resort' in my daily reads...! ;-)

[Redhand]

This is a bit too cryptic for me, Col. Lang. I visit SST daily, though I haven't been commenting much due to work pressure. But I haven't a clue what the "particuarly egregious incident" was/is. Did you or one of your other regular posters (vs. comment writers) link-as-post to another piece you're unhappy about? Very hard to say.

[turcopolier]

redhand

Let it go. pl

[David Habakkuk]

Colonel Lang,

Like Redhand, I visit this site every day, but haven't been commenting as much as I would like recently, due to pressure of work.

I really would doubt that there are many people who would see SST as a 'blog of last resort'. Of course, as long as very many members both of the American elites and the American people cannot grasp the dangers of the combination of hubris and wilful refusal to learn from experience so aptly characterised by yourself and Professor Brenner in your comments on the National Journal blog, you can expect a restricted audience.

However, if such dangers are not grasped, heaven help us all. A United States which can be inveigled into conflict on the basis of a ludicrous exaggeration of threats together with equally ludicrous exaggeration of what can be done about them is not in anyone's interest. Indeed, it is liable to become a security risk for its allies, as well as for actual or potential antagonists.

Indeed, in relation to Israel – as that country's fellow-travellers in the United States seem congenitally incapable of realising – it comes to play the role of the friend of the chronic alcoholic, who keeps on buying him bottles of whiskey. (Ironically perhaps, discussion in the Israeli media seems far less circumscribed by fatuous conventional wisdoms than discussion in either the American media or the British.)

If this situation is going to change there has to be a resurrection of traditional strategic thinking – based upon a realistic assessment of the strengths and weaknesses both of United States and other players in the state system.

One characteristic of such thinking is that technical military considerations – with which people like yourself, or Neil Richardson, or the Twisted Genius, or F.B. Ali, are very thoroughly familiar, but in which civilians like myself lack basic expertise – are commonly critical. Another is that military aspects have to be put together with all kinds of other considerations, requiring different forms of expertise.

Yet another characteristic of serious strategic thinking derives from the fact that it demands understanding both of others and ourselves. Accordingly, it requires experience and knowledge of other countries, and also, critically, grasp of their history – and also of our own. As we are all the products of our distinctive pasts and the idea that any of us are simply going, as it were, to emerge into some ahistorical future like butterflies emerging from a chrysalis is borderline lunatic, strategic thinking is inescapably historical.

Precisely because it not only deals with military technicalities and sets them in broader context, and in particular historical context, SST has provided, for myself and I think many others, an invaluable and irreplaceable forum to educate ourselves – and hopefully sometimes help others educate themselves – in strategic thinking. And long may it continue to do so.

In relation to the specific question of commenters reproducing material from other sources, certainly it is inappropriate if this is done simply to disseminate such material. In general, quotations and links are appropriate. However, as a 'wondook' noted in the discussion of the National Journal blog posts, sometimes material which contributes to a discussion is behind a pay wall – in which case reproducing a full article can help carry a discussion forwards.

[turcopolier]

David Habakkuk

Don't be concerned There will be little difference. What I do not want is to be the recipient of material "shotgunned' to the "market." pl

[Morocco Bama]

PL, I think that's a very wise policy. There will be, and has been, a handful who will attempt to use your blog, as well as a select few other blogs, as proxies for their meme spam. This handful will try, and are trying, to leverage your critical analysis of American foreign policy to their own prescribed ends, and in that sense, it's duplicitous. For example, it's quite possible Iranian agents are hitting this blog. We know Israeli agents are, and have been, so it stands to reason Iran has its own contingent. Pattern recognition usually gives it away. There are some cultural aspects that just can't be deciphered and mimicked, and it's at that point you realize that the angel has hooves.

[PhoneyBaloney]

A very smart move for many reasons. The same info is only one click away.

[Cronin]

A hearty three cheers to Mr. Habakkuk for accurately summing up a lot of what had been on my mind regarding history -- it seems to me the perpetual (and insanely rosy) present of the elite media and those who use it as their lodestone is one of the chief obstacles we face today in looking at our problems clearly. And to Col. Lang, I second the others praising this space as the oasis it is -- do what you've got to maintain it as is. Many thanks,
Cronin