3 April 22

The Human Equation
~1000 words

A couple days ago I mentioned Jerry Brown and introduced the word "thumotic." The ancient Greeks (Homer, Plato, particularly) were trying to figure out the relationships between what we now in modern times call "emotions" and what seems like logical relationships observed among perceptions. Plato saw the human soul in three parts nous being intellect and reason, thumos being passion, and epithumia appetite and affection. So "thumotic" means something related to passion(s). The Greeks were very capably blazing the path to understanding how and why human beings acted the way they seem predictably to do. Millennia later we are still dealing with the questions the Greeks asked and trying to make better sense of the processes of the brain and mind.

I would have to say that we have more shades of gray in this quest than we had two and a half millennia ago. As a practical matter, though, among the civilizations on our planet we have not yet established an easily understood way of thinking about this, for which we have sufficient certainty that it could be transmitted to children and to which adults would be held responsible. Our civilizations seem to be based on rational processes and ideas, the nous part of our minds' outputs, but emotions seem to be involved in ways that loudly suggest that it is an error to separate them from anything and everything going on in our heads. This suggests that, as matter of "wiring" everything goes through parts of the brain associated with emotions. Remember, the reasons we have governments is because of what our human nature is. (Note: this will be on the final examination.)

One of the results of this quandary today is what Jerry Brown refers to as "Washington's Crackpot Realism," his review essay of six different books about international affairs in the New York Review of Books. Gov. Brown sees in many of the recent books about the "China threat" or the "Nuclear threat" as being concoctions of pseudo-rational thinking with emotional aspects reified into bumper-sticker mantras about the nature of enemies and therein the emotional logic of international affairs processes, or in the case of nukes, unconscionably ignored. He is mostly concerned with the not-quite-abrupt turn toward China as the next item on the US menu of countries to confront—or else. It looks like Brown is aware of the Iron Mountain hypothesis, and the authors he reviews are agents of that awful idea, especially, as now, they glibly imagine nuclear war, as if they were sure of surviving it.

Being more concerned at the moment with Russia, the idea of "thumotic" postures or even existences struck me hard when I think about the "grievance nationalism" of the Russians, both that they "naturally" have because of their agonizing history and that which is generated in the propaganda mills of the ruling elite. I had to ask myself if "thumosis"—angry passion sickness—is really the final answer to why Russia is what it is today, or at least why they keep acting out this way with belligerent, hostile, self-righteous, indignation at the random slights by other nations as probable intentions to pillage Russia once again. I doubt this is the final insight, but I think they like it this way. Clearly it is a backward-looking animus for their civilization.

I did not have to think twice about this before I began to see the radical right of the United States in the same way. White grievance is central to Trumpism, but it existed to be exploited long before he became a television star on NBC-TV. We in the US are trying to be a multi-cultural democracy, but tribalism defeats that hope so easily. White tribalists have been okay with the Experiment as long as their tribe, as they perceive it, is dominant. Let there be a drastic recession in which millions of people are flensed of their savings and homes, but only the poorest are recognized as injured—the poorist being minorities and "others" automatically—and you have the meat and potatoes for the same political expression of angry grievance.

Everything going on in our human heads is the issue. We do not yet have a public science of this, but thanks to deep convolutional neural network high functioning AI computer technology we may be getting closer to nailing down some of it. We have been able to devise AI computers that learn from their own experiences with data. That suggests that cognition, nous, is becoming understood. But AI computers today do not have thumos, they don't get angry and they do not have endocrine subsystems that act as force multipliers in their cognitive processes. We suspect, therefore, that Ai's do not have epithumia, either, they do not have appetites or desires, so far as we know.

Modern social psychology gives strong emotions more room to be acceptable, to be valued, to be understood as normal indications of healthy brain activity. My mind wanders a bit when I try to imagine how to approach white American grievance or Russian national grievance and the posturing and responses it creates in the real world with social psychology. I think Jerry Brown, the one-time novitiate, knows more about this than I do, but I am not sure he knows how to persuade politicians and national security specialists to look at everything through a less reactive and military-competitive lens.

Finally, history looms over all of this. Yes, we did look backward to find patterns among all the things happening on the savannah, the steppe, and we did this to be able to predict future dangers to our own survival. It is healthy to look to the past for analogies and, even, for consolations that suggest we are on a good path. But, as the saying goes, doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different, more satisfying result, is not good thinking, it is perhaps a form of insanity or neurosis. Doing different things requires courage, because at issue is survival. Clearly, right now in the world there are not many processes at work to value "thumos" less and yet value it some.

JB

(War & Peace)

1 April 22

"It's All Too Much"
~1000 words

For me, an edgy, aging, glabrous, retired academic, a lifelong Democrat, an optimist—(or otherwise I wouldn't be writing these essays and tossing them out into the electronic winds)—the hands-down best two hours I spend each weekday are with Nicolle Wallace on her MSNBC show Deadline: White House! Hands down!! Nicolle and her producer staff and assistants and, especially her guests are tops.

Today was the best time for her to have that discussion of how bad it is outside our comfy homes and necessary illusions. From the traitorous jabbering of Trump, the sophomoric mouth of Madison Cauthorn (sp?) and Marjorie T.G., the spinelessness of the Minority Leader in the House, (I keep forgetting his name), and the arrogance of the mush-mouthed Minority Leader in the Senate, that homunculus from Kentucky, and now the scorched-earth bloodbath in Ukraine, the prideful paranoia of the brain-washed Russian people and their willingness to commit mass murder to make a point of their appalling failure to grow up to be a responsible society, to Putin himself, an ugly reminder for us of how simple it was to create a hell-bent monster to rule the people of his country and terrorize the rest of us.

Us! The American experiment in multi-cultural democracy is hanging by a thread. The main reason it is only a thread is because the other political party has decided that they cannot prosper in a democracy, especially one that already threatens their ability to muster up a base of voters who believe in their thinly veiled white supremacist program, their anti-Semitism, their do-nothing, know-nothing conservatism, their flouting of the rule of law ... and truth ... or civility itself! They could well take the Congress this November and bring the experiment to its knees. If so, two years hence and after perverting the election processes around the country, the presidential election will be a farce hidden in a pile of lies and threats of violence. Stocking up on toilet paper will not be sufficient. We must deal with traitors and remove them from society, and those who harbor traitors must suffer the appropriate consequences.

It is hard to say what I am most interested to comment upon, but given all the time and effort I have put into my education, I think that I can teach people with open minds about Russia, and to a lesser degree China, what they are doing. In today's Deadline: White House website video there is a menu of segments/blocks Nicolle covered. The menu is on the right side of your screen, and the item down one from the chat with White House Chief of Staff, Ron Klane, is a segment about Putin featuring Julia Ioffe of Puck news service. Click on that photo of Putin or on the name Julia Ioffe. I hope you take the time to watch it here: Is Putin being misled?. Watch until it closes briefly, please.

Okay, I apologize for having Julia Ioffe deliver more bad news, but, well, on April 30th I did finish the essay on "Sovereignty and Wishful Thinking" with this: "It will be international Cold War for quite a while, time measured in years, I fear. I think we might have the adequate attention spans finally." I agree that Putin or someone else will try to complete the work of destroying Ukraine as a viable country on Russia's border ... or even, as a "difficult" component of Russia itself. If that is the case, and even if it is not, someone—hopefully Attorney General Merrick Garland—will shut down the traitor and his disgusting minions soon.

Well maybe it isn't too much. I got a good bit of it into just about 700 words. It requires nested lists of things to do and not do anymore. It—this new Cold War with Russia—will be "won" by the people with the most truth and stamina.

If that's what it is, it is exactly what Russia wants, an excuse to be the "thumotic" empire of northern EurAsia. Yes, it has both slowly and rapidly become very complicated again. I could not even complete a short essay before that happened. This weekend we will look at "thumos" as former-Governor of California, Jerry Brown, finds it in his essay in The New York Review of Books of March 24th, about how Washington is preparing again for the full elaboration of the Iron Mountain hypothesis, this time with China.

JB

(Society War & Peace)

28 March 22

Dealing with Putin
~800 words

On Saturday the 26th of March, President Joe Biden uttered a surprising comment about President Vladimir Putin, who is thought by Biden (and me), aloud, to be a war criminal, a killer. He said: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power." After saying what most of us believe, he has been persuaded by the diplomats that the comment plays into the Russian ultra-nationalist narrative that the US and the West generally want to pick Russia apart. For some reason this "diplomatic sentitivity" ignors the fact of ongoing Russian interference in US politics, including messing with our elections, i.e., the method WE use to install people into or remove them from power.

The US media, particularly, among the more general group of "western" media, cling like grim death to the concept of imagined neutrality on as many issues as they can, including all the questions Russia has about itself since Peter the Great began the great process of modernizing Russia "along the lines of what the west had done already." I have written here several times about the great struggle between the so-called "westernizers" and the slavophiles, (sometimes referring to themselves as Russophiles). The angst over Biden's rageous comment (not outrageous) fits right into the great Russian internal schism, and (lo!) Biden takes a side, of course, in that seemingly endless Russian debate.

I believe that when you boil the Russian schism down to its main parts, it resolves into the mantra "catch up and surpass" versus "the west does not and cannot understand our national personality because our histories are so different." Buried in that are two and half centuries of being under the burden of the Mongol Yoke, unable all that precious time to muster the might to free themselves, incapable of modernizing for the lack of freedom at all the levels of society necessary for that kind of evolution, and the paranoia that the west not-so-secretly looks down its historical nose at Russia for what it always is and becomes, backward, looking for that imaginary time when it can finally throw off the shame of the Psychological Mongol Yoke, of being a subserviant culture.

The edifice of slavophilism is grievance based and paranoid. I try to assemble a list of qualities that the vocal slavophiles of the 19th century contend add up to a culture they believe is uniquely admirable. It could be said that the doctrine of sobornost' lies at the heart of the major element of slavophile thinking. "Sobor" means meeting or assembly; "nost'" means "-ness," so sobornost' is a culture where individualism is downplayed and subordinated in favor of community, especially, and particularly, the peasant "commune" sometimes called the obshchina or the mir, the former meaning "the about-us thing" and the latter meaning "the village world in which we live." The slavophiles reified the peasant commune as a natural culmination of social evolution. No such thing actually evolved in the west. In the 19th century the slavophiles saw "cooperation" as a key concept about Russian culture, and failed to see it in the west, seeing instead the vicious interactions of individuals in the various markets.

It is almost needless to say that, in basing their ideas of polity on the peasant commune in a state of feudal subjugation, the slavophiles inhibit themselves from taking a strong affirmative view of social evolution itself. It is self-satisfied in a way that western cultures are, instead, seeking betterment and social progress at the same time as scientific, technological, cultural (literary, artistic, musical) evolution through experimentation. I am saying that slavophilism is inherently hyper-conservative, status-quo-ante seeking. When Biden said recently nothing will be the same after the invasion of Ukraine, that the world will change, the Putins and ultra-nationalists of Russia heard blasphemy or just noise they do not understand.

It is by now trite to say that Putin and the ultra-nationalists—the current slavophiles—want to re-establish the Russian empire, something we knew in the 20th century as the Soviet Union. Why? It is because their worldview looks backward. The grievances of the past become the "lifeblood of the future," a word that has much less in it among them as it does for us.

So, back to the so-called issue about Putin's tenure in office. It is, most of the experts say, up to the Russians to decide. Introducing democratic responsibility to the Russian people may be a bridge too far. What experience or ability do the Russians have to remove someone as powerful as Putin and his retinue? Moreover, are we to ignore the bloody fact that Putin has devastated a neighboring country in contravention to every rule of civilized behavior? I do not think so. I am not a Clemenceau to exact reparation revenge on Russia, but I am a Harry Truman who treated defeated Japan as it needed desperately to be, to control it temporarily, to foster that illusive democratic responsibility among the Russians, to assure that Russia never does this again.

JB

(Russian and China)

26 March 22

The Pope and The Patriarch
~750 words

I read several Catholic news media to get a better idea of what Catholics under the unusually Christian teachings and ministry of Pope Francis think about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Boston Pilot, for instance, has taken an unsurprising "accommodationist" approach to the Russian Orthodox Patriarch and his flock, and even to the Russian people, but not the government, they say. The Vatican newspaper says very little about the March 2022 "meeting" between them, and seemed to think that their "understandings" of the 2014 Donbas affair were operable still. Most of what I read were platitudinous signs of failed ecclesiastical diplomacy.

Perhaps I should disclose that my mother was an old world Roman Catholic from an eastern European country. My father was Yankee Methodist. They raised me to be a Protestant Episcopalian, which after Confirmation and in the fullness of time I rejected entirely despite being slightly spiritual in nature. I have studied religions generally and, like Ronald Reagan's perspicuous son, have come up to now not wanting to study any but the Tao and Zen. Like Ron I am not afraid of religious mythology and write what I need to.

As you can see and easily understand from this Reuters piece last week, although Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis discussed the war in Ukraine, they did not get very far. The reason for that is not that Pope Francis was inept; it was that Patriarch Kirill supports the war (!!!) because of "the decadence of the west," presumably in full flower in Kyiv and the whole blooming country of Ukraine. This theme energizes Vlad Putin as well, as it has for generations of Russians since "Westernizers" became a major part of Russian society. So, if you find it at least unusual that a "man of God" would still in the 21st century see WAR as a cure for his moral issues with us, then please understand that Patriarch Kirill is not actually in the 21st century—and is very unlikely to ever be.

When I was in the Soviet Union I managed to see the celebration of an Orthodox rite commemorating I know not what in the Saint Nicholas of the Sea Cathedral in Leningrad. I saw the Metropolitan (the diocesan archbishop of Leningrad Region) surrounded by lesser priests pass through the crowd and disappear behind the iconostasis, that is, the screen that separates the place where the people stand (no pews) from the sanctuary where the rites actually take place. I mention this, especially, to underline the point that in the Orthodox Church there is a detachment in formal services that is not normal in western Christian religions. Remember that the Orthodox Church owned millions of serfs prior to the 1861 Emancipation and during the period afterward (all the way to the Great War) as the serf/peasants paid off their redemption dues. I also visited a large and famous church in Moscow on that trip and observed again the total lack of commoner participation in the proceedings, and also the Red Army people ordered to be there as a semi-quiet disruptive force, which belied the much more important truth that the Orthodox Church in Russia was at least "accommodating" to the Soviet regime, partly because they had no choice, but also because they had something then and now the Kremlin and Lubyanka wanted—the content of interesting confessions.

After very nearly 70 years of Bolshevik and Stalinist rule in Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church is now thoroughly in the manger with the government. Putin is Orthodox in this perverse sense. It is true that the final settlement of the Ukraine War will involve Patriarch Kirill, but not as a facilitator, but as an obstacle. Pope Francis needs to open his eyes, as do the curia surrounding him, and the various centers of western Catholicism, France, Italy, Boston, Baltimore, etc.

The Russian Orthodox Church has yet to have a thorough "reformation." despite the reforms of Patriarch Nikon in 1652 through 1666, in which the liturgy was altered, giving rise to stubborn Orthodox who became known as "Old Believers." Russian Orthodoxy is rigid and at every important juncture in the social and political life of the nation it is for itself as a nexus of power. The babushki don't care; faith is not an intellectual journey among them. I have only a few ideas what will happen when Russia finally has a modern liberal political revolution, but it is quite clear that Kirill and Co. will not be for it. My hope is that the Russian Church survives just long enough to give solace to those who need it, and that it will slowly disintegrate into quiet sects over the course of a century.

JB

(Russia & China, War & Peace)

25 March 22

Existential Criminality
~500 words

A Kremlin spokesperson for Putin, Dmitri Peskov, assured us this week that Russia would only use nuclear weapons in an "existential situation." We were to understand that, if Putin or someone else with access to lauch authority in Russia felt (maybe even with cool reason) that the current Russian regime would surely be annihilated, they must then and there according to their "security doctrines" take drastic action.

In the theater of the absurd, this statement boils down to "If we think we are going to be annihilated, then we will initiate the process by which this will actually take place." There are several ways to read between the Cyrillic and the Latin orthography of this idea.

First, it means that Russia will not nuke Kyiv or Kharkiv or Mariupol or even Lviv, unless Ukrainian or other troops are out on Red Square threatening to topple the regime.

Or does it mean that, if the Russian population bestirs itself to a full blown revolution or just a credible coup d'etat, the threatened regime will nuke somebody?

In fact, is it not already clear that Russia's protracted invasion of Ukraine, concentrating on destruction of civilians of all ages, is their declaration that they have initiated the process by which the annihilation of their regime must take place?

Does the Kremlin understand that Russia is not the same thing as its government, especially not in the configuration we see there these last twenty years? If probably not, then the "existential crisis" is about one or a handful of bitter, defeated, doctrinaire, war criminals. Are we supposed to take that seriously? Is there not one among them hoping to go home for dinner that evening? ... or ever again?

Personally, I do not see how to live on the same planet with Vladimir Putin in a future where the military action has terminated. News analysts have wondered about how the members of the G-20 or any body of national representatives could sit at the same table, much less shake hands with these bastards!

In the game of Texas Hold'em you get to bluff and reason and make a series of bets based on objective and subjective knowledge of the cards and the players. As I see it, we are now at "the turn". With almost all of everyone's cards in front of us, Russia and the world, at this point. They've got nothing! Russia should fold, go back to mama, lick its 40,000+ wounds, and figure out what to do with two handfuls of criminal bastards holed up in the medieval fortress on the Moskva River.

We have already told Putin and the Russian people that we are willing, able, and are now currently strangling their economy until they quit being the world's worst and most incompetent bullies. If they understand that this means the "existential crisis" they fear is real, we have been telling them this for over a month ... and they have not nuked anyone yet. We have been calling their bluff ever since February 24th. Now every day they have spent destroying Ukraine will be leveled against them in the inevitable ugly end to this horror.

JB

(War and Peace)

19 March 22

The Ugly Calculus of This War
~1850 words

Understanding a war your country has not initiated is full of conflicting emotions and a few surprises. There is history, of course, and in the case of Putin's War against Ukraine the history is of Putin's incremental military nibbling and gobbling of bits and pieces of territory of weaker neighbors adjoining the Russian Federation territory. In the case of Soviet Russia fighting in Afghanistan, a country that bordered the Soviet Central Asian Republics of the USSR, it was an adventure to extend the Soviet hegemony for many possible reasons, perhaps to later engage Iran or Pakistan. In the case of the civil war in Syria, aligning with and supporting the Assad dictatorship, it was a strategic move to establish a alliance-presence and port for the Russian navy on the Mediterrean Sea and to be closer to the oil-rich nations on the Arabian Peninsula.

To understand Putin's Ukraine War one must consider the aims and goals of all parties. Once those are established one must gauge the likelihood of success in terms of the weapons that may be brought to bear and to inaugurate an on-going process to understand the dynamics of success and failure of all parties. Dynamics means the causes and effects of and between many moving pieces. Think of the classical war-table with models of ships or tanks and staff pushing them around the table with long sticks, but add to that "image-labels" indicating the effect of a piece being at its location in relation to all the others.

In all modern wars intelligence is essential to making war plans as well as assembling one's forces, and for the other side, organizing and deploying a defense and, if successful in that, how much of an offense can you entertain within the limits of your arms and your principal war aims. Public information and propaganda are also extremely important for all parties. Along with these two areas, there is a less definitive aspect that will come into play, which I am going to call "stones," which is more than "heart" or courage.

Putin's immediate aim was to subjugate Ukraine, maybe even to incorporate it into Russia itself, which meant overturn the government and install his own by any level of force necessary. The reason shades off into his own conception that Ukraine is part of Mother Russia historically.¹ Behind this Putin intends to set up Russia as a great power with which he can perhaps, if not dominate, then strongly affect world geopolitics in favor of Russia and, particularly against—to defeat—the "morally corrupt" west led by America.

So, in this sense the Ukraine War, if the US with NATO only supply Ukraine, but do not get physically involved in combat, is also deliberately a proxie war with the US. But if the US gets physically involved in combat, Putin believes he can decide whether to make the war a direct confrontation with the US or not, and that means also NATO. Morphing from a proxie war to a direct confrontation is not by any means a decision to be made soley by Putin. NATO or any single nation thereof can introduce direct combat involvement in many different ways, silently and stealthily or not, but probably incrementally and obliquely enough to confound Putin's planning.

I think he will when he is at the end of his rope. It is more than "just likely" to bring in³ the US, if not all of NATO—a fight to the finish. Putin is not suicidal, but he is stubborn, self-righteous, and believes he has no other choice ... in history. Having said that, when Putin is at the end of his rope, his retinue of supporters are not at the end of their ropes necessarily. Putin will give the order and it will be ignored and he he may be terminated on the spot, it depends on how many among them have the stones to thwart him. (I lived in the home of a latter-day Leningrad Bolshevik for a week, and I saw in him ample good common sense.)

Ukraine wants to be a constituent member of the EU. They would also like to be a member of NATO, and that will happen sooner, if Russia does what it needs to do to Putin, or possibly if NATO does combat with Russian forces for a prolonged period. And, of course, when Ukraine or all the allies expel Russia from Ukraine there is the matter of reparations. I think this is going to be a big problem, because the Russian economy is already damaged and may end up being on western life support before Putin is removed.

Putin is the main problem, of course, but there are others in his tight group that must go as well. The problem, rightfully, belongs to the liberal forces within the Russian population. So they may be 65% of the voting population, the young, the well-off, the urban populations, those with international travel experiences, but not the rural, villagers, the aged, those with lesser education. Putin is a war criminal by any definition. He is worse than just that, though. He is a monster who has specifically ordered the mass killing of civilians and their children. Just keep in mind that he does not consider Ukrainians to be human beings worthy of life itself. Personally, I cannot imagine a peace with him still running Russia. So, he and his crowd must be thoroughly removed from power. How the Russians themselves do that is imaginable, but will they? Stones?

One of the most likely scenarios is that, with effectively minor combat involvement of NATO and allied Stones, the Russians and mercenaries will be driven out of Ukraine, but during which—without NATO combat support—many, many additional thousands of innocent Ukrainians will killed or grievously wounded. That is the ugly calculus of this war; it is the fulcrum of NATO and Ukraine decisions.

Then what? Well, rebuilding begins within Ukraine with help from everywhere, but the world is not at peace with Russia until Putin's gang is gone. We must let both the brain-washed and our allies in the Russian population know that removal of the current regime will be the necessary end of WWIII. This will be accomplished by "strangulation." It might not be pretty inside Russia, but the other option is unacceptable. Russia is weak enough that a war on its own territory could take a very long time to recuperate from, and therefore, given the other geopolitical issues, it is not a good idea to actually destroy Russia. Sanctions applied like tourniquets and untightened at each promising event or tightened again for relapses will work. The global economy will suffer, too, but the costs in Russia and the world will be infinitely less than having Putin or his ilk in power.⁴

² — Sergey Naryshkin, (from a very old family in Russia) has been fired as head of SVR, the foreign intelligence service, indicating that Putin is angry. Angry is not good. Soon enough he will find that the successor foreign intelligence person will feed him b.s., too. Very angry is not good, either. But this means a) the SVR is on higher alert than usual, but b) somewhat disorganized likely less competent.

³ — How the US or NATO will "come into" the fighting depends on why and whether we have the "stones" for it or not. Zelenskiy's pleas so far have not brought NATO or individual nations into the fray, but one hopes that before Zelenskiy seriously considers surrender of any kind, he will have discussed it with Biden and NATO, and they will advise him not to, and therefore, that they must commit to enter the combat. I think the US is already on the ground inside Ukraine, mainly training for new weapons. It is just a matter of time that this leaks out and becomes part of the propaganda war. Putin may choose to take American presence as a pretext to do something really horrific, or it is possible he will play rope-a-dope and lead the US further and further in. I don't think he is that smart. I do think it is INEVITABLE that some NATO and, accordingly US, ground and air forces will end up in combat ... and that will not in and of itself launch nuclear weapons.

⁴— Removing all the nuclear weapons from post-WWIII Russia is appealing. The problem is that the nuclear club around the world contains actors and understudies whose motives are suspect all the time. Moreover, there is China on the border of what will become something like the Konfederatsiya Rossiyskikh Shtaty. President Xi is pragmatic and, so far, not driven by phantoms of the imagination. He knows that Taiwan is Chinese, but that is all he gets to know until the government of China attains a sufficient level of democracy and liberal values.

JB

(War & Peace)

17 March 22

Immanuel Kant
~550 words

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is thought to be the central figure in modern philosophy. Kant is known widely, if not thoroughly, as the author of the Critique of Pure Reason and two other Critiques which are not as prominent. He is known for his statement of the categorical imperative, which is something like "the Golden Rule," but more formal and Prussian. And, Kant is also known for having his "dogmatic slumbers interrupted" by David Hume, the Scotsman, and thought, perhaps, to be the most important of the native English-speaking philosophers. Kant lived in the ancient city of Königsberg, but really had nothing to do with the seven bridges of Königsberg Problem, only two of which remained after the Red Army swept across Lithuania, Poland, and East Prussia during the last months of WWII. You probably have heard at one time or another of all of these high-lighted link topics. What you probably have not heard much about, if anything, especially recently, is what happened to the German city of Königsberg.

Well, as you have just read from the last link, it has been called Kaliningrad for the past 67 years. In 2010 there were about 940,000 persons living in the Kaliningrad region. As of 2010 86% were Russians, 3.7% Ukrainians, 3.6% Belarusians, and 1.1% Lithuanians. In the city Kaliningrad itself, there were about 440,000 persons. A few Germans have found their way back into the region, but after more than two generations, for all practical purposes it is no longer a German or Prussian-German place. In 1945 the Red Army evicted all the Germans they had not yet killed.

Anyway, as one important part of the settlement to be accepted by the new government of the new Russian Confederation after Putin's Ukraine War¹, Kaliningrad shall be sumarily removed from its connections to Russia. It was unavoidable "booty" for Stalin at the Potsdam Conference, pragmatically understandable then, but completely out of the question now. One proposal is to award everything of the Kaliningrad Oblast east of 21st-E meridian to Lithuania, and award everything west of 21-E to Poland, which would include the City, to be renamed, once again, as Miasto Immanuela Kanta, (Immanuel Kant City), perhaps. The Russian people living there would be politely asked if they want to leave and return to Russia, if opting not to, they might, nevertheless, be subject to some reasonable mid-term political restrictions. The Polish and Lithuanian authorities will find productive accommodations for these people, many of their parents having been herded into the region by Stalin et al against their better judgement or will.

In his remarks to the Russians on March 15, 2022, President Putin said that the West was already carving up the Russian Federation. Quite the opposite and more in keeping with the existential issues of planetary climate change and over-population geopolitics, I am persuaded that the 84 remaining oblasts of present-day Russian Federation be converted and consolidated into perhaps from six to a dozen states, each an equal part of a Confederation of Russian States (Konfederatsiya Rossiyskikh Shtaty, such that the states each have rights reserved to them for the efficient modernization and development of their economies, arts, education institutions, with adequate police, but no armed military forces. We believe that retaining the term "Russian," rather than some ideological terminology, recognizes the best, positive, historical heritage of Russian culture and definitely acknowledges and promotes the dignity of modern Russian peoples seeking liberty and happiness (schast'ye).

¹ — How this comes about is complicated, but not very much in doubt. The stages of the process leading to this will be discussed here later this week.

JB

(War & Peace)

16 March 22

"Close the Sky"
~950 words

Today, President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, appeared virtually before the Congress of the United States to reiterate his pleas to the UK and Canada and anyone else who will listen to provide his country with lethal weapons that could end the bombardment of his cities by Russian short-range ballistic and cruise missiles and high flying Russian aircraft that shoulder launched Stinger SAMs cannot reach. Ukraine needs to close off the sky to Russian armed forces, because although they have brought the "behemoth" to its knees on the ground, it is reducing Ukraine's cities to rubble and dust.

Ukraine has a few Mig 29's, no more than 30 probably. It has more pilots than planes. It wants more of these almost modern jet aircraft, but NATO critics say that Ukraine is not using what it already has, and others say, that is for a very good reason. Kyiv is the jewel, capital city and cannot be allowed to be taken by the Russians. Accordingly, given that the war could last months before Kyiv is in immediate danger of occupation, using the existing Ukrainian Mig 29's now would likely result in losses and reduce the number of operable planes and thus capability of the armed forces at the critical hour for Kyiv. Meanwhile, Kharkiv, and Mariupol, and other large cities are being destroyed.

Of course the NATO response has been centered on the problem of inadvertently sparking WWIII with Russia by providing planes to shoot down Russians. Well, Russia has lost 77 aircraft and 90 helicopters according to the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians have done this with Stinger SAMs from the U.S. mainly. The media has wondered aloud (meaning audible in Russia) what the difference is between a Mig-29 and a Stinger, both provided by NATO? The answer has been vague and dismissive. Maybe we are already in WWIII, or we are not, and still fretting about problems we have already gotten an answer to. Putin does not want WWIII, but he does want to create a new Russian Empire and hold sway over much more than that. Already, thanks to the ineptitude of his Army, none of that dream will come to pass.

I am going to offer a "radical" theory of this terribly awkward situation in which Ukrainian civilians are being slaughtered daily. My theory is deliberately reminiscent of the Eisenhower strategy in WWII. Ike was annoyingly cautious, too, but he knew from the outset that, unless Hitler were assassinated and Germany pulled back all their forces, the Allies would have to take western Europe back by invading and pushing the Nazis out by main force. He knew that battle-hardened troops and generals would be far more successful in the coming invasion than those who were not. So, he waited until the North African campaign had turned into the bloody Sicilian and Italian campaigns. And he waited until he had overwhelming materiel in England to be deployed. So, perhaps, NATO and Biden's US are doing that: getting central Europe better ready for possible encounters with Russian forces, getting Naval forces where they need to be in the Mediterranean and Black and White Seas, as well as, deployed intelligently in the western Pacific, perhaps, say, the Sea of Japan, of Sea of Okhotsck, the Philippine Sea.

Fifty-five years ago during my fourteen consecutive months at sea in the Med, very few USN ships went into the Black Sea, but 21st century naval operations have been different, have peaked and now amount to many fewer actual ship days in the Black Sea than, say, ten years ago. The Black Sea is not a pond or a lake, but the only way in (or out) is through the Bosporus at Istanbul, Turkey, which President Erdogan has declared closed to warships. Turkey is a NATO country, though, and has supplied low-tech lethal drones to Ukraine already. Meanwhile, there are protocols for US nuclear submarines regarding extended deployments and missions in "restricted waters." If there were just one Los Angeles Class boat and one Ohio Class boat lying quietly on the sea bottom waiting, that part of the calculus has to be factored in.

Closing the Sky over Ukraine is relatively easy, but hedging the bet against Putin flipping out completely and nuking Kyiv, for instance, is much more difficult. Allied intelligence about Putin himself and his close henchmen may be more dire than we will ever publicly know. I worry, though, that NATO might cower in the shadow of the necessary secrecy. As former Ambassador McFaul said on MSNBC, the media needs to stop chattering about munitions details, and the allies should just get these resources quietly into Ukraine for both military and humanitarian reasons. I think President Biden needs to heed the personal political liability he is incurring by not doing so.

Readiness is the watch-word and I have no idea what the actual state of NATO ground, air, and naval readiness might be. Suffice it to say, it is better than the readiness of the Russian Army. The Sixth Fleet carrier groups have been impressive for many decades. The Amphib Forces are not less impressive, but considerably less fascinating. Logistics is a proven science in the US Navy. So, I said my theory would be "radical." I can assure you that it is 100% realistic and a set of plans to counter any use of any kind of WMD by Putin (or his inner circle) has already been drawn up and parts of it communicated in varying degrees to every head of state in NATO and to the House Intelligence and Senate Select Intelligence Committees. Some of the pieces have to shift position and some need augmentation, but we are ready for hell if Putin wants more of it.

JB

(War and Peace)

11 March 22

Ukraine War Aims
~1200 words

Maybe Vladimir Putin wanted only (a) to quickly change the regime in Ukraine back to one that leaned closely to the Kremlin for guidance, and (b) to reduce the puny Ukraine military to nothing, to complete impotence. I think regime change was the forethought, but he had other objectives, or cunningly, a fall-back plan, which he thought could (with the same forces) be implemented on the fly, if—as things almost always do in war—the invasion required more than simple adjustments, as when one's army gets bogged down by incompetent logistics, magical thinking among the generals, and poorly trained and motivated troops. So replacing Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy with his own hand puppet is not going to be as easy as he thought.

Retired Lt.Colonel Alexander Vindman quietly suggested sometime last week that Russia's war aims would quietly shift from regime change to massive humbling destruction of Ukraine's economic and civil infrastructure. Vindman also said of this switch of aims that setting Ukraine back a century physically would achieve the same security goal that Putin's War was initially intended to achieve. Adding civilian targets adds terrorism to the means and the ends. I think most analysts believed that the first plan would cost Russia not very many lives, even while visiting horrors on the Ukraine army. In reality, now that we know the Ukraine army is anything but puny, that allied military materiel is flowing in rapidly and effectively, the scorched-earth and rubbled-cities war-strategy of Russia means they will be burying many thousands of their soldiers. And since this is a televised war everywhere but Russia, Putin's weak hand is an open secret now.

So, in a war, the party(ies) on the other side also have aims, the first is to stop the invasion and push the invaders back to where they came from, but as time passes and casualties mount, the defenders make additional, more detailed decisions about what their intermediate and end goals might be, assuming a range of final outcomes, including worst-case surrender or defeating the enemy and reprisals including enemy regime change and reparations. Decisions like these must take into account the strength and prowess of the enemy and, therefore, one's own chances and prospects. Prospects for Russia include how many of its own armed forces and civilians might be killed before the situation becomes literally intolerable. Allies must do the same. Non-combatant allies have a slightly different calculus to consider: how many "friendlies" might be killed before the situation becomes not only geo-politically, but also morally intolerable.

For many of us outside of Ukraine the situation is already intolerable, but the situation is understood to be militarily and geo-politically dynamic, meaning that one's own actions may change the enemy's means and ends—use of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, specifically. But what would it mean, for instance, if San Marino sent in a platoon of sappers to blow up Russian HQ buildings? Would Putin nuke tiny San Marino? What if Liechtenstein confiscated all the Russian kleptocash in their bank vaults? Would Putin bomb them? What if the US or another nation in NATO gave Ukraine two or three dozen combat and intel drones? It is pretty easy to figure out what the military effects would be, but the geo-political dynamics are very hard to precisely discern. As former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul said today on MSNBC's Deadline White House on Thursday: do not talk or debate about it, just ... do it.

So, for the US-led NATO countries, the paramount consideration is maintaining unity. That puts a dab of grease on the sole of every NATO shoe. In fact, the longer this war goes on and for every inch taken by Russians in Ukraine, the bordering NATO countries know and are publicly stating, Putin must lose this war ... There can be no negotiated settlement. He must be defeated and removed, otherwise they are next.

Still, if you were drawing lines in the sand and were to pose the question: "How many Ukrainian casualties are we (NATO) willing to tolerate? Would the answer be 44 million? 22 million, 4 million, 2 million, 200,000 or 100,000 or 10,000 beautiful, sacred, Ukrainian lives.

As I watch these beautiful people and their infants and kids slaughtered by wanton terror-tactics of the Russian army and air forces, I have long since crossed over my moral line and would, if I were 50 years younger, be there fighting wearing the American and the NATO flag patches on my coat. I am telling President Biden that standing there with a red line staring him in the face, that he has to stop imagining he can see or predict the future. He is the leader of the "free world" and the moral challenge he faces is, in reality, already made. The longer he waits the worse it gets.

My proposal for allied war aims are: (a) driving all Russian military forces out of Ukraine, (b) demanding their unconditional surrender on their own territory, (c) imposing regime change in Moscow and Minsk and reparations on Russia and Belarus like, perhaps, a conscripted CCC/WPA until Ukraine is rebuilt.

It is clear enough to me—as a person well-educated (and experienced) in the history of Russia and the Soviet Union and post-1991 Russia— that the Russian "Federation" is an unmanageable colossus that must be reorganized completely, that the dissidents and other civilized citizens of present-day Russia are not equipped emotionally or in practical experience to carry this out by themselves—although we would have Russians, including people like Alexei Navalny and perhaps fifty others, involved in every significant decision. It will probably take five years to complete the political reorganization of the territory now occupied by the Russian Federation, and so there must be direct McArthur-style administration imposed until it is manifestly no longer necessary.

The hardest part of all this is bringing 70 to 80 million Russians up to speed about contemporary reality. The other 70 to 60 million are "woke". Russians are people almost just like those in Texas where I lived recently for five years, full of their own traditions, curious, inventive, artistic, competitive, literate, poetic, adventurous, congenial, hospitable, spiritual, and deserving of fulfilling lives. The world does need Russians; they have many things to show us; our world would be even more impoverished without them as friends!

JB

(War and Peace)

9 March 22

Nuclear Nihilism
~500 words

Last evening on The Last Word Lawrence O'Donnell mentioned, not quite in passing, a statement made by an unidentifed Russian, in some vaguely referenced venue in Russia as saying:

In fact, as reported by The Moscow Times the statement was made on February 28th on state television by their news anchor—Dmitry Kiselyov. It is extremely unlikely that Kiselyov decided to say this by himself or phrase it in just that way. It is directly from Putin his own fiesty self, as I am sure Lawrence understood it to be.

It obviously is more rattling of nuclear sabres. It is a special kind of Russian nihilism, which Putin knows is fairly unfamiliar and jarring in the west and quite the opposite in Russia, but certainly not comforting there or anywhere else on the planet, all of which raises the question of why McDonnell chose to add this statement to the waning moments of his show and why with such deliberate vagueness?

Clearly, to me at least, it is because Lawrence is understandably frightened about Putin actually using nuclear weapons. He hints at it all the time. I am pretty sure the whole world understands the threat Putin poses already. I and many others have questioned the sophistry and dissembling being carried out by NATO regarding getting into so-called "direct" combat with Russia. So far the most faint-hearted voice in NATO is the prominent voice, and so who can gainsay a small country hoping to avoid being nuked into real oblivion by Putin? Most of us are clear about that, especially those who feel like their survival stores are secure and their cellars comfy. Most of us, though, are not equipped to deal with any kind of nuclear holocaust, so Putin has again waxed and put his personal seal to the nuclear blackmail note he publishes every so often.

My criticism of Lawrence is this: if he is going to pass along important bits of Putin propaganda, the importance of it demands that it be inspected by experts on his show, especially the wide-open question of exactly how nihilistic the Russians themselves are. I think we know that Putin is definitel NOT a nihilist. His ego is much too fat for that.

It occurs to me, though, that the invisible Putin avatar out there in the snowstorm is beginning to take shape. Putin may well have been calculating the wisdom of nuking Kyiv all along as part of his fall-back Plan D. He does not know what the NATO or the separate US response might be to that level of brute force. To me that is the main question: what would the west, the EU, NATO, or any part of those do if Kyiv were nuked? It is hard to discuss such a thing, much less in public, without giving the enemy an advantage we do not want them to have. Which takes us right back to the shrewdly nihilistic statement that begs everyone to understand that if Russia is destroyed her submarines will attempt to destroy the rest of the world more or less automatically. I think, nevertheless, that someone other than President Biden must say something tantalizing about using nukes on Ukraine.

JB

(Russia & China and War & Peace)

8 March 22

Cowardice
~800words

What is that old saying: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity"? The conduct of the democracies throughout the 20th century and on into the present has missed that point.

One cannot countenance bullies. Rogue political leaders will bully, kill, destroy, and therefore they must be eliminated. The earlier you catch it, the better. The later you respond the worse!

A no-fly-zone is a statement, a precise statement that the governing authority of the zone declares its airspace off limits to all, well, all but those enforcing the statement. There are no-fly-zones all over the place. My former brother-in-law flew his Cessna over the White House years ago. He was lucky they did not shoot him down or put him in prison. They got him at Reagan International airport, where he claimed not to have known where he was and that his radio went out. They let him keep his pilot's license. Isn't that what is going on right now in the west, permitting Putin to wage genocide against Ukraine?!

The Ukrainian President Zelensky has declared the skies over his country a NO-FLY-ZONE and, guess what, he does not have the full capability of backing up his declaration, but has asked that NATO and Washington, London, Paris back up his words with their words. They all have declined to do so. Not coincidentally, President Putin, the outlaw invader of Ukraine has said in Russian words that as far as he is concerned a NATO declaration of a no-fly-zone over Ukraine along with supplying Ukraine with munitions is and would be an act of war. If your neighbor says he is at war with you, you are at war. It is like divorce; it only takes one to un-tango.

The legalists are trying to keep Poland, Hungary, Romania, the Baltic states, indeed all of the NATO countries, including those in North America from being attacked by Putin's war machine, particularly with nuclear weapons, which are—we all fully understand—might be the end of humanity on its home planet. I call them legalists because although we have not received the "normal" (heaven help us!) format of a declaration of war, we are already at war, because Putin has already declared our actions to be acts of war against him and his country.

President Zelensky is absolutely correct in saying that the deaths of Ukrainians are now "equally" on the heads of the western nations who are LEGITIMATELY afraid of being attacked. Zelensky is no fool in saying this, because it is true, but there are OTHER TRUTHS at play. Putin is a black box, out of which no one but Putin himself knows what will leap out and rain hell up whom. I have written about the local and distant targets of Putin's war machine. The legalists are helpless in their arguments along with the rest of us. The question out here in the hustings is: what, if anything, do they know that they are not telling us? It is obvious that NATO is just now relearning the full meaning of "collective security," and that frayed cuffs on that uniform are visible from here. Anything else, Joe? Lawrence?

The fact is that Putin is trapped, hoist by his own petard. He is trapped by the incompetence of his army and air forces, neither of which has been able to do more than murder random civilians and their children and to reduce apartments and other buildings to rubble. Putin knows now he is much weaker than he or we thought he was. Does that knowledge lead him to the nuclear option? What are the real chances of that? Think about it from the combined points of view of the skippers of our nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines toting about 1,700 strategic nuclear warheads ... and the point of view of Russians who have access to Putin and who have families and feelings for Mother Russia!

Cowards are people, those men and women who cannot see the big picture all at once. They do not understand "opportunity cost accounting and thinking." It may well be our leaders have information that we out here do not, and it may be Top Secret with further restrictions, but a huge majority of Americans think that at a minimum NATO should declare the no-fly-zone, whether they intend to enforce it or not. Also please set DefCon Three. The private defconlevel.com says 3, but US government says 4.

JB

(War and Peace)

10/7/21

On September 15th the Biden administration made public a new strategic alliance with Australia and the UK. A central part of the alliance was the US agreement to provide nuclear submarines to the Australians. The French protested because they were in the "midst" of negotiating the sale of diesel-electric submarines to the Aussies, a project of considerable value to the French economy and the French military industrial base.

Here is a link to the New York Times version of an article by a pair of expert voices on international affairs, Adam Mount, PhD, and Van Jackson, PhD, both scholars and, it seems, also public intellectuals / pundits from serious academic backgrounds.
"Biden, You Should Be Aware That Your Submarine Deal Has Costs."

According to the NYTimes version, "Mr. Mount is a senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists, focused on U.S. nuclear strategy. Mr. Jackson, a former Pentagon official, is an expert on Asian security and U.S. foreign policy." This article is also published at several other websites by one or both of the authors, such as The Federation of American Scientists and several news outlets, like NBCNews.com.

Here, immediately below and in a slightly larger font, is the introductory first paragraph of the article, which caught my attention almost instantly because of the slightly and overtly discourteous address to President Joseph Biden as simply "Biden" in the title. The title is, itself, a subterfuge for a broader purpose, one which is given a treatment they believe will appeal to the older, more seasoned, but less intellectually agile members of their "crowd." That discourtesy to Biden was just the beginning. And for the record, truthfully, I have read much better and much worse articles in this genre. This one nicely illuminates part of our contemporary foreign policy Greek chorus (Google—a group of 'performers' who are usually unrelated to the central action of a story, but comment on the central action to provide the audience with a what might be called a third dimension of the story.)

"For more than a decade, Washington has struggled to prioritize what it calls great power competition with China—a contest for military and political dominance. President Biden has been working hard to make the pivot to Asia that his two predecessors never quite managed."

Forgive me, if I seem picky about this, but introductory paragraphs are designed to catch the eye of followers and potential recruits, or to annoy the people about whom the writers have scant respect. So—whatever—I have to deal with a few of the authors' key words and expressions, just as if these terms really are deliberate hooks to catch the imagination of people they both believe to be massively mistaken about international statecraft ... which I believe also to a greater or lesser extent. I believe I have in that regard the advantage of five years as a naval officer some time ago.

Just for a starter to give you an idea of my way of doing things, the word DECADE seems innocent enough, but is it? No, it is deliberately an indefinite time. First, it is a key to the authors' point of view, which is to say "not ground level" but perhaps not as high as 30,000 feet in the sky, either. They could have told us that the current situation has something to do with the emergence of China or of Xi Jinping, himself, as General Secretary of the CCP in 2012 or President of the PRC in 2013. I suspect the latter, but I think the inspecificity is excessive rather than just deliberately foggy. Perhaps they think calling a spade a spade would compromise something they will say later on. I don't know for sure, but surely Xi will know all about this AUKUS thing by now. The authors believe AUKUS is a(nother) reversion to tried and basically flawed first principles. Yet, it is fairly obvious that it is also much more and much less than that. Stay tuned.

We are all used to the collapsing of bureaucracies and administrations into collective terms like "the White House," "the Pentagon," "the Vatican," and so forth. We are inured to it. Our authors use the term WASHINGTON and pronoun a short bit later IT (not they). Of course we all know that there's more than one entity in DC involved here. In fact, though, in every office competing interests vie for attention. Most are muffled, some re-emerge, some are leaked to the media when and where they will do the most harm, and so forth. So, to my point, the metonymy reifying the city over its parts perpetuates a false impression of agreement among the parts, and in DC that would be rare indeed. Why do this? It tends to shut some of the parts up.

They use the term STRUGGLE in their opener. It could be called a struggle, but debate (and discussion) are more the modus operandi with individuals feeling the heat as their arguments are successful or fail to impress. I will admit that life in lots of organizations takes on a kill or be killed flavor, but after a couple of losses one learns that the idea is not actual death, but living on, perhaps, to discuss another day. Maybe these two voices feel their position is being given short shrift, so they are seeking an "underdog" flavor to their essay. I believe their fundamental point is more like a "large and complicated and unfashionable new dog" on the block, and as such may be facing the inevitable dominance routines.

PRIORITIZE is another commonly used word. As used here it suggests that the authors believe statements about Great Power Competition can be ranked as correct, less correct, and wrong, and as a given that there must be winner, as if Washington can only juggle one ball at a time. There can be ties and even bundles of good ideas. I will write about "multiple working hypotheses" fairly soon. Suffice it to say, the best policy taken will have back doors and sometimes multiple front doors to avoid getting trapped in, say, a "domino theory" or "containment." The authors need to pound out the deep background to their position more thoroughly, so that their understanding of the new foreign policy is not bogged down at every turn by explaining the psychology of PTSD among veterans and layed-off workers. The three parties to the alliance are not nearby neighbors to one another, but more deeply—to the great chagrin of the authors—the new pact smacks of Bismarck, Tallyrand, Kissinger, and every other person whose fundamental belief is that inevitably nations will resort to war to achieve the goals of some few or a slender majority of their constituents.

At the theoretical heart of the author's endeavor is the expression CONTEST FOR MILITARY AND POLITICAL DOMINANCE, used to define what they believe is the gut essence of the recently popular terminology: "great power competition (GPC)," supposedly a refined school of thought in international relations. First, I think it is salutary that these authors left out the ECONOMIC and the FINANCIAL/MONTETARY domains. There are four different domains of thought relevant to this situation where, remember, the US has been dominant in all four in the region since, yes, the Spanish American War and across the entire world since WWII. Leaving these two+ domains out, is crucially wrong. It must be said that GPC is meant to detach policy toward great powers from the more run of the mill policies via-a-vis not-great powers, acknowledging that one shoe does not fit France and Italy and Turkey equally, especially since one has nukes.

In the east-Asian / western-Pacific region, logistics and sheer proprinquity now strongly favor China, but their ability to take advantage of these in any of the four domains is, of course, problematic and always uncertain. So, the AUKUS defense pact is both regional and obviously global. President Obama had to give up the Trans-Pacific (Trade) Partnership (Agreement) for the lack of domestic agreement (see WASHINGTON and IT, above). The idea is not dead, you should know, but the loss of the airbase and naval base in the Philippines, caused by the cataclysmic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo and ensuing inept policy and diplomacy, was extremely serious and had to be responsibly accounted for and replacement achieved. That, military bases, is the regional strategic part of the alliance and the essence of this move by President Biden (and his closer advisors). Yes, military bases are hammers seeking nails, but for now they are necessary, given current asymmetries of policy around the world and especially in east Asia.

The notion of PIVOT emerged with the Spanish-American War, but has been more salient since the US found itself involved in a two ocean war in 1941. The concept is that old and recognizes that there may have been some in the military and in the relevant administrations who could not easily hold two ideas in their heads at the same time. The authors are misusing the term, but are acknowledging publicly that Biden has achieved at least part of the replacement of lost Philippine assets issue, but it—PIVOT— misleads the public into thinking Asia dropped off Washington's agendas after the Vietnam War. In a wound-licking sense, yes, but clearly the TransPacTradeAgreement, years in the attempt, was all about Asia, and, oh yes, the Seventh Fleet has been out there at considerable expense all the while. So this so-called "pivoting" comment recalls the walk and chew gum analogy, as if our interest in NATO is somehow less because of AUKUS. Not so. At the granularity of individuals in various DC departments and offices, there is always a flux of expertise and focus.

There is so much more to criticize about this article, but we need to arrive with the current evidence at the realization that some people, including the authors, believe the American public will only understand US foreign policy in terms and concepts that they were taught many decades ago in our high schools. In general the authors have the right idea that we must be much smarter in foreign affairs than we were in the 20th century. Foreign policy cannot remain hostage to the former division of labor in Washington. The most important US foreign policy in the 20th century, it should be remembered, was the Marshall Plan, and if you look at it carefully you will see all four of the domains of thought and activity brought together about as well as any large project since, well, since Ghengis Khan decided to conquer the EurAsian land mass!

My meta-analysis of the article and the fact that the NYTimes published it is this: the article is not (yet) a seminal work that will guide US foreign policy, but it does raise issues that will surely deserve treatment later on. The Times Editorial Board probably understands this very well.

JB

(War and Peace, Foreign Affairs)

Post Scripts: (1) For those who would appreciate a fictional, but bluntly realistic, background to the AUKUS saga, I recommend the Netflix series "Pine Gap"

(2) In Quora Paul Hannah writes that "Australia’s current submarine fleet consists of these boats. This is a Collins Class submarine. It was built in Adelaide. It is quite a good submarine, if you don’t mind all the things that go wrong on it, the cost blowing your budget and our limited construction capability.

"For a submarine to be any good, it needs all of its functions to work well. It needs to sense what is around, be able to attack threats but above all it needs to be quiet.

"The first two eventually came good with the Collins, but the third never did. Diesels are noisy machines and if your enemy can hear your sub, it can kill it.

"Buying nuclear powered subs from people who make lots of them solves all these problems. Plus it makes you very good friends with a couple of the big players in the game and in the defence realm, having very good friends is a very useful thing."

4/10/16

In America we have storms and fires that displace people from their homes. These people number in the thousands sometimes, but rarely. The number of refugees from the Syrian Civil War no longer in Syria is 4.6 million human beings, and on top of that there are 6.6 million children and their parents displaced within Syria, half are children, most are hungry, thousands are starving to death. This Davide Monteleone photograph from National Geographic online of one child seeking refuge who stares from northern Greece into a future not yet accessible in Macedonia riveted me. She is vulnerable and in this picture she is alone. One hopes there are parents or relatives nearby to protect her, but we do not know. She is brave ... now ... but what will be her fate? I try to see our world as she must see it, but as normal as this picture portrays her, you know she is frightened and that her prospects are not good. She wonders why it is so difficult to live on this planet.

Do you remember the controversy about whether the U.S. or its allies in Europe should become engaged in this war? France was in early, Iran has a client relationship with President Assad of Syria and is implicated in the stresses that promoted the rebellion and war in the first place. The controversy in America was lucid for a moment and then turned toward soundbytes about WMD and heinous, hideous activities by Assad and his supporters. As we came to the conclusion that anyone would be better than Assad — clearly only a pious hope in a muddle of complex tribal and religious nightmares — did we for one moment consider this child and millions like her? Did we gear up our better selves to deal with the aftermath, the midmath, the general math of civilians in wars?

It is not too late to do something. Go online and find one of the relief agencies and contribute $100, right now!

It also is not too late to bring into focus the more important issue that the world's singular super-power must acknowledge. Military operations produce horrors and we are responsible for those horrors. I am saying, yes, sometimes we must go in and kill the deranged bastards, but we must also take full responsibility for the damage to innocent people we do.

JB

1/3/10

It is not without purpose that we begin this new year (and the last year of the first decade of the 21st century ... please) with an article about nuclear weapons. I mean this as something of a wake-up call. President Obama understands the unreality of the policies undergirding the present nuclear strategy, and so the question is whether he will have the moxie and clout to actually make a serious change to those policies ... with so many macho generals and admirals defending the status quo ... for lack of imagination or for too vivid imaginations.

The Boston Globe has a good, interesting article on this in the Sunday edition. I am amazed, for instance, to learn that our planet-destroying capability is still aimed at Russia. I do not doubt for a moment that theirs is aimed at us and China ... and clearly this sort of thing MUST change.

When you took stock of the world the other night, as 2009 was passing into oblivion and history, did you notice any place on the planet that really needs to be bombed by us with nuclear weapons? ... especially if we adopt a new policy of "No First Use" from here on out? Yes, one thinks of deep underground Iranian nuclear facilities and perhaps a situation developing in Pakistan that we just cannot tolerate, but seriously nuclear weapons are for 99.99% of all military situations just way too much muscle and way too much political fallout.

Now to tell the Air Force generals that their mission is not what they though it was and to tell the Navy admirals that they need to pare down the boomers by at least half. This could get sweaty!

JB

12/20/09

This short video provides some hope that what we are doing in Afghanistan has the potential for good. Notice the vocabulary relating to the Afghans.

JB

12/13/09

As Maureen Dowd explains in her Sunday column Bob Gates was the messenger when Obama's bluff was called by Afghan "President" Hamid Karzai this week. This was not widely reported in the news, but it should have been. The words spoken at West Point just days ago, barely, have been mooted. The "Plan" is already defunct. It may be that Karzai is defunct as well, but it will make little difference. If the U.S. strategy is to continue to "go around" Karzai, the fact that he is a corrupt prophet of doom diminishes what he said. But, folks, Karzai knows the lay of the land in Afghanistan and he is correct: eighteen months of U.S. support is laughable and twenty or thirty years worth is the only hope for these beleaguered people. Sell that on Main Street, Gates, Obama!

JB

12/11/09

This speech does not have the ring of the pulpit or the brashness of the stump, but it has a complex structure and message worthy of thinking men and women everywhere.

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." A gradual evolution of human institutions.

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.

And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.

I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There's no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it's military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that's the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)

Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you very much.

JB

12/2/09

On the evening of December 1, 2009, President Barack Obama spoke to the cadets of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the nation, and the world about the commitment of 30,000 American troops to the struggle in Afghanistan. It was, as Rachel Maddow recognized, not at all a flowery, slogan wielding, poetic speech. It was matter of fact and contain enumerated lists of reasons and participants, and expected outcomes. It was not meant (I believe) to convince or to sway or cajole anyone. It was a complex answer to scores of questions where positions have already been staked out and defended with various degrees of certitude and skepticism.

We, the Americans and our allies from NATO and our partners from Afghanistan and our partners in Pakistan, are to find and destroy as much of al Qaeda as can be found and destroyed. We are to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and, hopefully, in Pakistan, understanding that the Afghans believe Taliban are essentially Afghans and so deserve an opportunity to relinquish their arms and to commit themselves to defending their country against those who will not. The first task is essentially military; the second is jointly military and civilian. The overall goal is to leave Afghanistan in a position to take its fate into its own hands and to become a nation, rather than a failed state.

The overarching goal is to bring stability to Pakistan, which possesses nuclear arms, a stability that will prevent any of these weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists like al Qaeda, terrorists that have promised to use such weapons when they get them.

President Obama spoke in a way that had a "military precision" to his words. Yet, there was a counter-factual conditional sense to virtually everything he said about our aims. It is as if he were speaking to a corps of teachers and saying, go forth until sometime in 2011 and teach the Afghans how to be a nation. Give report cards, keep the administration fully apprised of what the conditions are on the ground and then, if all goes well, we will leave Afghanistan on its own, but if not, we will have done what we could, but we must attend to our own economic wounds and woes at home ... understanding that terrorism has not been thwarted.

General McChrystal has his work cut out. He has to perform and the students have to learn, and if not, McChrystal will have failed and the students will have failed, will have surrendered their homeland to terrorists and/or the Taliban, whose close relationship with terrorists is a world threat. In other words, President Obama's plan is to give McChrystal and NATO about a year and a half to win the hearts and the minds of Afghanistan ... a nation notable primarily for being illiterate (fewer than 10% can read), a nation notable equally for being corrupt, a nation dependent on the sale of opium for ready cash, a nation which is really just an assemblage of warlords, peasants, ethnic rivalries, and bitter war-weary Islamic people.

Given all that, Obama really is saying that we have about a year and a half to come up with a better solutions, solutions that will be distasteful to Pakistan in all likelihood, solutions that involve both Russia and China and India and Saudi Arabia and maybe even neighboring Iran. This is so because the final threat of Afghanistan and nuclear Pakistan is world-wide terrorism on a scale that the world cannot abide.

The world has left much of this battle up to America, the recipient of the 9/11 attack and, therefore, the most aggrieved of all countries this decade. It is unlikely that radical groups will give up terrorism as a tool for imposing their will on others, for instilling democracy-destroying fear among the peoples of the world. So, the stage is set. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has her work cut out for her, and the result had better be a more realistic solution set than was presented Tuesday evening.

JB

11/11/09

On this Veterans Day Tom Englehardt, of TomDispatch a feature of The Nation magazine, writes about Predator drones and their cousins on the drawing boards of the M-I Complex. This is an excellent treatise on the relationship of our militarized society to technology, including, btw, a strong undercurrent of the jingo arrogance that propels common citizens into a sense of righteousness when these things are discussed. Enjoy!

JB