We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
US Army Generals have been much discussed lately, and not for the right reasons. For the most part, discussion has been based on the criticism of US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, by a faction of recently retired officers who have lost confidence in his handling of the insurgency. Discussion has taken two tacks- firstly the etiquiette of senior officers criticising their political superiors, and then the actual merits or otherwise of Rumsfeld. I haven’t been following recent events in Iraq that closely. However for a good description of the case for the prosecution (of Rusmfeld) The Belgravia Despatch has been all over the story.
However, my ruminations were triggered by a story in the Daily Telegraph where American commanders have been criticised for their style and operational methods by British Brigadier Alan Sharpe. There is a long and not entirely honourable tradition of British officers looking down on US Army commanders, going back to the Second World War if not earlier, motived partly by the different traditions of the two Armies, and partly by envy. However, after thinking about this story, I think the thrust of British views on the US Army might have a point.
Since the Second World War, the British Army has changed radically. It has changed from being a force which was designed to defeat an enemy army on a battlefield to a force designed as often as not to keep the peace, and to use military means to create a political climate in which a political solution can be used to solve disputed issues. This means that there has been a great deal of change in the way in which the British Army operates. The United States Army, however, has not changed in this way. It remains designed mostly to defeat an enemy army in battle. It is frighteningly good at this job, as witnessed by the mauling it gave the Iraqi Army in the invasion of 2003. However it is not so good at being a force that uses military means to create the desired political climate.
This is not to be critical of the US Army. It is simply a rumination about why the British Army is perceived as being better then the US Army at one particular style of military operations. The British Army has evolved in this way because it suits the strategic requirements of the United Kingdom to do so. However, in the long term, it is likely that the US Army is going to be increasingly involved in Iraq style counter-insurgencies. If the US political establishment continues to require the US Army to serve as a sort of ‘firefighting’ role in strategic hotspots around the world, then we might see the US Army evolve into a force with an operating ethos more in the style of the British Army.
The First Test between Bangladesh and Australia is going right down to the wire, and the final day’s play tomorrow will see a very tight finish. There is a good chance that Bangladesh might pull off one of the biggest upsets in Test cricket history. Australia need 95 runs to win, with only two established batsmen left, and six wickets in hand.
In truth, Australia are fortunate to even be in the game at all, because they were comprehensively outplayed in the first two days of this Test match. Needless to say, this state of affairs has caused plenty of amusement for English cricket fans and other wicked folk.
But regardless of the result, this match has been, to use a cliche, good for the game. It comes as the editor of Wisden Cricketer’s Almanack has released his latest offering in which he takes a small minded view of the game and denounces the ‘globalisation’ of cricket. The way in which Bangladesh were rushed into playing Test cricket was misguided and done for the wrong reasons, but the game is slowly but surely taking a foothold in the country, in terms of playing success.
That is good for cricket. It is even more good for Bangladesh, one of the poorest countries in the world. Bangladesh is famous for being poor, having lots of disasters, and not much else. When the Champions Trophy one-day International cricket tournament was held in Dacca in 1998, one observer said to a shocked editor of Wisden Cricketer’s Almanack that the event was the most positive event in the country’s history since Independence.
With the football World Cup two months away, there may well be quite a bit of tut-tutting in the media about how sport and nationalism are a dreadful combination. And there is something to that. However, I think that sport and national pride, which is something else entirely, is a positive thing. No matter what actually happens tomorrow, the future of Bangladesh cricket looks bright, and I think that is a wonderful thing.
It has been a relatively quiet year so far in Australian politics, with the main story being an investigation into a scandal involving the Australian Wheat Board, which was accused of paying huge bribes for wheat contracts to Saddam Hussain’s Iraq. The political controversy relates to what the government knew about it and what it did about it.
It seems that the government did not know very much about it, and did absolutely nothing about it. The Cole Enquiry that has been formed to investigate this matter and Prime Minister John Howard will testify tomorrow. I have generally taken the view that the enquiries have been a political circus and conducted for partisan reasons, so I’ve not followed it very closely. Other people have taken a greater interest, and have come to different conclusions. However I still feel that this matter is more a case of cock-up rather then conspiracy.
I got thinking about the case from a different angle though, about the bribes. The fact that bribes needed to be paid at all for a straightforward commercial transaction is a shocking indictment of the regulatory stranglehold Saddam Hussein and the UN had placed on Iraq. This is small beer compared to the literal stranglehold that the tyrant kept his people under. But bribery is a natural part of things in so many parts of the world, in various and many degrees. It is by no means restricted to ‘third world’ countries either. But it occurred to me that the more you need to bribe agents of the state to get anything done, the worse the control the state has over the economy, and is a passable indicator of real, as opposed to nominal, economic freedom in a society.
Patrick Porter, a recent reinforcment for Oxblog, noted the other day that writing history is not as easy as it looks. He was referring to the recent practices of US historians, writing about US social practices of the past that have political implications for today.
Cynics have long known that ‘history is written by the winners’, but the 20th century showed that history could be used and abused to fight political battles that are in dispute. Unlike more traditional readers, I myself have no objection to writers of history using their works to advance an agenda, so long as they are upfront about what that agenda is. Much value can be gained by looking at an old question with the different view that a blatently political or social agenda can provide, regardless of whether or not I agree with that agenda. As a blogger writing for Samizdata.net, it should be obvious that I do have an agenda of my own- the advancement of liberty and against statist values. Given the nature of this blog, that hardly requries disclosure on every post.
The benefits of this are obvious- the reader knows exactly what the intellectual meta-context I am operating from, and can read into what I write to take from my writing what they will. I think that is far more honest then pretending an objectivity that I can not in all honesty claim.
I was moved to remark on this subject not by any historical event, but by a series of historical novels, Colleen McCullough’s Masters of Rome series. For those that are not familiar with these six novels, Colleen McCullogh has novellised the fall of the Republic of Rome and the rise of Julius Caesar, based on the best historical information that she possesses, and uses her writer’s talent to ‘fill in the gaps’. While not to everyone’s taste, I have enjoyed the series and they have sparked in me a great deal of curiousity about classical history. However, I must raise the objection that McCullogh seems far too partisan towards Julius Caesar then seems to be reasonable. At times in the later novels, one is left wondering if this is not hagiography. What is the agenda here? Or is it just that with my libertarian meta-context, I have too much objection to someone who was ‘Dictator’?
I so need to go and drink football and watch beer.
A Samizdatista, who shall remain nameless, explaining his priorities for the day. I myself have been guilty of a few slips of the tongue. Explaining my vices to an Australian blogger, I admitted that:
I drink like a train and smoke like a fish.
My doctor agrees that I should be smoking like a fish, and he has a point. Meanwhile, I will now remove my foot from my mouth.
I just received an SMS message from our Samizdatista at large, Michael Jennings, who is currently in Shanghai, China, expressing his relief at arriving in a Starbucks coffee house.
It should be no surprise that Starbucks, that monolith of globalisation and spearhead of Western Imperialism, decadence and coffee beans, should be found in Shanghai, fast becoming one of the key cities of the 21st century.
The ambience of a coffee house generates rational discussion. Many of the key figures of the 18th Century Enlightenment honed their ideas around Java beans. Naturally, with coffee providing a stimulus, it is the natural clearinghouse of ideas for clever people, as sociable as a pub, but without the side-effects of a pint of ale.The culture of coffee beans was gradually displaced by tea in the tastes of English people in the 19th century, and coffee only gradually emerged as the favourite beverage of Americans.
Of course, it may or may not be a coincidence that since Starbucks was founded in 1971, technological change and artistic innovation based on the sort of ‘grass-root’ initative that Glenn Reynolds talks about in his new book has skyrocketed. And it continues to grow at an ever expanding rate. This has done a great deal to enrich our current post-industrial civillization, and the humble coffee bean has proven itself to be a great support for all manners of high culture.
Properties that twenty years ago were inhabited by collectivised Bulgarian peasants can now be purchased by anyone, thanks to the magic of the Internet.
Ideal for, erm, renovators!
Even Homer J. Simpson is affected.
So if the United Kingdom is in the grip of a “Blairite Tyranny“, what is the proper response?
After all, few would question the ethics of assassinating Adolf Hitler. The main complaint about the attempt on Hitler’s life is that it took as long as it did to be set in motion.
Even today, the ‘Third World’ is full of dodgy dictators whose death by tyrannicide would not be condemned by many, least of all their own victims.
However, few would actually argue that Tony Blair’s conduct of government, while authoritarian in operation and intention, merits his actual death by murder. If merit is involved, in my opinion, Blair deserves a sound thrashing from the Headmaster’s office, and ostracism by civilised members of society, and in any case, violence should always be a last resort in political life as in everything else.
But this begs the question: at what point does a ruler’s conduct become so vile and repulsive that tyrannicide becomes a morally plausible response? Does the democratic process increase the threshold, or lower it? Tyrannicides were applauded in ancient Greece; should we applaud them in this era?
[Editors note: please read this article carefully before commenting. It is NOT suggesting or even discussing whether or not Tony Blair should be assassinated, but rather is a discussion of how to deal with lesser variety tyrants. Comments suggesting Blair et al should be done in will be deleted as both unhelpful and seditious]
Iran made another step forwards towards its long held goal of obtaining nuclear weapons yesterday by restarting its uranium enrichment program.
While Iran’s long term strategic goal is quite possibly insane, it must be conceded from a Realpolitik perspective that Iran is playing a very strong hand, and their tactical moves are precise and well executed.
For Iran has played the Europeans charged with negotiating them out of their nuclear ambitions with finesse and skill. While some European figures, such as the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, have talked a good game about bringing Iran before the United Nations, others are taking measures to ensure talking is as far as it goes.
Thus, even as Iran announced plans to break the IAEA seals on the centrifuges of its Natanz uranium enrichment facility, Austrian Chancellor (and temporary president of the European Union) Wolfgang Schüssel warned that it would be premature to discuss sanctions. Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, added that “every effort must be made to convince the Iranians to return to the previous situation, to negotiations.” Mr. Solana’s idea of getting tough with the Iranians is apparently to beg them to show up for lunch.
Of course, the real negotiating tool is the United States Army, Navy, and Air Force. With American troops still in Iraq, Iran knows that it has to tread warily, but the cunning men in Tehran may well be counting that the US will not feel able to take decisive action before the 2008 Presidential elections change the political landscape in a possibly decisive way.
I personally am very pessimistic about these developments.
For those of you that have enjoyed your Festive break and have not been keeping up with political happenings ‘over the pond’, there has been an eye-opening little scandal going on in Washington.
A member of the Most Honourable Order of Washington Lobbyists, Jack Abramoff, has pleaded guilty to the heinous crimes of fraud, bribery and tax evasion. In a plea bargain deal, Abramoff will face nine to eleven years of penal servitude in exchange testifying against the sundry Congresscritters that may face prosecution.
Clearly, Mr. Abramoff is a menace to society:
Among the allegations in the court documents is that Abramoff arranged for payments totaling $50,000 for the wife of an unnamed congressional staffer in return for the staffer’s help in killing an Internet gambling measure. The Washington Post has previously reported that Tony Rudy, a former top aide to DeLay, worked with Abramoff to kill such a bill in 2000 before going to work for Abramoff.
An internet gambling measure? Not surprisingly, it turns out that Mr. Abramoff was getting a large part of his money from Native American tribes who have a large stake in gambling operations in the United States outside of Las Vegus.
Abramoff’s appearance in U.S. District Court came nearly two years after his lobbying practices gained public notice because of the enormous payments — eventually tallied at $82 million — that he and a public relations partner received from casino-rich Indian tribes. Yesterday, he admitted defrauding four of those tribal clients out of millions of dollars.
As you can imagine, that part of the Washington elite that has emerged from their Holiday cheer is agog with the news. Wonkette, for example, took time out from promoting her book to pass comment on the latest news, which is that Republican politicians are falling over themselves to ‘return’ money that Abramoff donated to them. Starting at the top, President Bush is returning the $6,000 that he donated to his re-election campaign. Abramoff was a generous soul; 24 figures from both political parties in Washington have announced that they are following the President’s lead. Oddly enough, a leading Democrat Senator, Harry Reid, is declining to return his $47,000 booty, saying that it is basically a Republican problem.
I was bemused that there was no follow-up from the media on that point. It would seem that it is okay for Democrats to take money from a crook, but not Republicans. It must be that ‘liberal media’ that they talk about over there. → Continue reading: Mr. Abramoff went to Washington
Veisalgia– the medical term for the common or garden hangover. I suspect that there has been a slight epidemic of veisalgia in the ranks of Samizdata’s contributors and editors lately. A useful word to know when filling out sick leave application forms for work.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
