Colonel H.R. McMaster passed over for BG

COL McMaster passed over for promotion . . . Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over? What an awful message for the young leaders being forged in today's battlefield environment. Men like COL McMaster should be defining the future of the US Army, not passed over for promotion. I also hope that - as the Third Way intimates he is - GEN Petraeus is not being set up for failure in Iraq.

Read the Contrary Peter Principle discussing the COL McMaster issue at the always excellent Small Wars Journal.

Eric

Violence works

"Violence works" was Professor Thad Russell's repeated mantra in his history class, "American Civilization after the Civil War" (Spring 2005, Barnard College). His point was about American activist history and that diplomatic means of political advocacy could not match the change wrought by insurgent tactics.

My gut reaction is that the removal of humanitarian people and organizations from places like Afghanistan and Iraq is devastating to the greater political process because they - perhaps more than our military civil affairs and government-based aid/development orgs - embody the positive (progressive) promise of the Western relationship in its most interactive form.

Further, I believe their introduction, relationship-building, and then removal under threat has been more damaging to our mission and empowering to the insurgents than if they had been absent from the beginning. The tactic of targeting "non-combatants" has been repeatedly validated, and more significantly, the gap left by the aid groups' removal has severely undermined the full-spectrum interactions necessary to bring about the so-called "political" solution in the peace-building process.

Read this and despair: YONHAP NEWS: Afghanistan kidnappings keep Korean missionaries from going overseas

Excerpt:

Rev. Park Eun-jo of Sammul Church in Seongnam, south of Seoul, to which all the hostages belong, said Monday that the church will stop volunteer services unwanted by the Afghan government and is taking steps to pull the remaining volunteers out of the war-torn country. "Some already began preparations to return home," a church official said.

In Afghanistan, volunteer workers affiliated with about 10 nongovernmental organizations were to soon close their medical and educational aid activities and return home. "The South Korean Embassy in Afghanistan sent a public document recommending we immediately leave the country, but we have yet to decide when to leave," a medical aid worker operating in Kandahar told Yonhap News Agency by phone, requesting anonymity.

According to the Middle East Team, a Seoul-based Christian group working to help evangelical missionaries and volunteer workers abroad, seven teams had plans to leave for Afghanistan and other Islamic countries in late July, but three cancelled the planned trips and four postponed trips indefinitely in the wake of the kidnapping.

"They already finished reserving air tickets between April and May, but cancelled or indefinitely postponed their trips after learning about the Taliban's kidnapping of Koreans," said Kim Do-heon, a manager of the group. "We persuaded them to make the decision to cope with a possible recurrence of the kidnapping crisis even if they intended to stay in relatively safer regions."

Four Christian evangelical churches in Seoul and its suburbs also changed their plans to dispatch missionary and volunteer teams composed of 10 to 20 members each to such Middle East countries as Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan, according religious sources.

Update: The SMEs at Small Wars Journal assure me that the actual impact by aid groups, such as the Korean missionary group, has been minor to the point of insignificance.

Eric

Cool Patton (the movie) imitation

First, here is the best overview of the current strategy in Iraq I have seen from the mainstream media: Michael Gordon's US is Seen in Iraq Until 09.

Check out this cool parody on youtube speculating what George C. Scott's Patton might say about the War on Terror:

Compare with the movie speech:
Eric

The oaths I've taken

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962)

"I, (your name), do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and bear true allegiance to the National Government; that I will maintain and defend the sovereignty of the United States, paramount to any and all allegiance, sovereignty, or fealty I may owe to any State or Country whatsoever; and that I will at all times obey the legal orders of my superior officers, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." (The Cadet Oath taken upon entering the United States Military Academy)

Eric

Babe of the day: Phoebe Cates

After my recent "babe of the day" post with a young Diane Lane, I started thinking about contemporary famous actresses whose beauty evolution I can contrast with her beauty trajectory. Diane Lane's beauty was like a flare. It burned magnesium bright in her youth for a preciously short period, then 'burned out' and settled into ordinariness in her mid-late 20s, very much like Brooke Shields - the epitome of a dried-out former beauty.

So, who of Diane Lane's peers has matured well? Who has looked just as good in her 30s and even early 40s as in her teens and early 20s? I say Phoebe Cates.

Cates was born in 1963 and Lane was born in 1965. In their late teens to early twenties, they weren't in the same class. Diane Lane owned an intimidating, preternatural beauty, while Phoebe Cates was a pretty girl in an accessible girl-next-door way. In her most famous movie, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, filmed when she was 18, Cates's looks were still somewhat awkward and immature. If as teenagers, Diane Lane was an 11-on-a-scale-of-10 who stunned, then Phoebe Cates was a cute 7 or 8, albeit a cute 7 or 8 with a 10 body and hair, and gorgeously smooth contours. In their 20s, Cates's beauty matured and leveled out while Lane's rare beauty flared bright and faded.

Check out these pictures of Phoebe Cates then and now (from the excellent gallery at Phoebe Cates the One and Only):



Cates looked her best in her mid-late 20s into her beginning 30s when she admirably (and sadly for her fans) retired to be a mom. With age and motherhood, Cates's figure is now more matronly than girlish, but her beauty has retained its essence and mellowed and ripened. Her looks as a maturing woman are the best a man can hope for when he marries the pretty girl he'll spend the rest of his life with. Actor Kevin Kline, Phoebe Cates's husband of 18 years, is a lucky man.

Eric

Kilcullen's lexicon and Kagan's (realist?) explanation of the political world order

Two worthy reads of the day:

From the excellent Small Wars Journal blog: David Kilcullen's Call for a "New Lexicon"

Although he does not list particulars of this proposed new lexicon, here are more than a dozen of the Arabic and Islamic words of which he would almost surely approve. They are the words, the semantic tools and weapons, we will need to break out of the habit-of-language box (largely invented by Osama bin Laden himself) which currently depicts us as us the bad guys, the "infidels" and even "the Great Satan" -- and which sanctifies suicide mass murderers as so-called jihadis and mujahideen ("holy guys") and "martyrs" on their heroic way to Paradise.

From Hoover Institution: Robert Kagan's End of Dreams, Return of History

The world has not been transformed, however. Nations remain as strong as ever, and so too the nationalist ambitions, the passions, and the competition among nations that have shaped history. The world is still “unipolar,” with the United States remaining the only superpower. But international competition among great powers has returned, with the United States, Russia, China, Europe, Japan, India, Iran, and others vying for regional predominance. Struggles for honor and status and influence in the world have once again become key features of the international scene. Ideologically, it is a time not of convergence but of divergence. The competition between liberalism and absolutism has reemerged, with the nations of the world increasingly lining up, as in the past, along ideological lines. Finally, there is the fault line between modernity and tradition, the violent struggle of Islamic fundamentalists against the modern powers and the secular cultures that, in their view, have penetrated and polluted their Islamic world.

Eric

Blackfive categories for mil-blogs

See Blackfive's post, WSJ on the 10th Anniversary of the Blog.

His "Resources" category looks especially useful:

Resources - As I said, I think that Small Wars Journal is one of the best. So is StratFor, The Fourth Rail, ThreatsWatch, The Tank, Strategy Page, CounterTerrorism Blog, DangerRoom, US Cav On Point, DefenseTech, The Captain's Journal, etc. for analysis and thought provoking pieces.

Eric

Job search blues

What have I learned so far ...

My resume is good enough to get me interviews, but I'm starting to get the idea I seriously need to suck up the pain of inspection and entirely retool my interview strategy.

Eric

Tom Barnett: Army America needs versus the wars Americans prefer to wage

Once again, Tom Barnett authors a must-read column in which he says what I think, but says it smarter than I can. I completely agree with what he has to say about the long-overdue fundamental transformation our military must make. From a different direction, I touched on the subject in my Columbia Spectator column last semester.

Eric

Babe of the day: Diane Lane

The best of feminine beauty is a transcendent, fleeting quality that can't be manufactured, no matter how much 'make over' effort is put into it. Like a flower, it blossoms into full glory in mature youth, then seemingly fades away just as quickly with age. Diane Lane is a prime example. She's ordinary now. But from her late teens to early-mid twenties, young Diane Lane's physical beauty put her in the rare class of a young Brooke Shields and Grace Kelly.

I first became aware of Lane, born in 1965, in 1995's Judge Dredd and then again in 2000's Perfect Storm. She didn't impress me in either movie. By the end of her 20s, presumably the age she filmed Judge Dredd, Lane was a drier, harder version of her younger self - an ordinary looking actress. Doing a bored, meandering google search one day, I was surprised when I came across pictures of a young Diane Lane. Her beauty was stunning, enough that my breath caught when I saw one particular publicity shot I haven't found again. Later, I caught 1982's Six Pack, co-starring a late-teen Diane Lane transitioning from young girl cuteness to the cusp of fully feminine sensuality and beauty.

Some photo galleries of Diane Lane can be found here and here. I'd like to find that first Diane Lane fan site and publicity shot again.

Eric

Judea Pearl on Moral Relativism and "A Mighty Heart"

Judea Pearl is the father of Daniel Pearl, the American reporter beheaded by terrorists in Pakistan in 2002. He's unhappy with the movie about his son because it equates terrorists with those trying to stop them. I agree with him.

Read Moral relativism and A Mighty Heart by Judea Pearl, July 3, 2007:

I used to believe that the world essentially divided into two types of people: those who were broadly tolerant; and those who felt threatened by differences. If only the forces of tolerance could win out over the forces of intolerance, I reasoned, the world might finally know some measure of peace.

But there was a problem with my theory, and it was never clearer than in a conversation I once had with a Pakistani friend who told me that he loathed people like President Bush who insisted on dividing the world into "us" and "them." My friend, of course, was taking an innocent stand against intolerance, and did not realize that, in so doing, he was in fact dividing the world into "us" and "them," falling straight into the camp of people he loathed.

This is a political version of a famous paradox formulated by Bertrand Russell in 1901, which shook the logical foundations of mathematics. Any person who claims to be tolerant naturally defines himself in opposition to those who are intolerant. But that makes him intolerant of certain people--which invalidates his claim to be tolerant.

The political lesson of Russell's paradox is that there is no such thing as unqualified tolerance. Ultimately, one must be able to expound intolerance of certain groups or ideologies without surrendering the moral high ground normally linked to tolerance and inclusivity. One should, in fact, condemn and resist political doctrines that advocate the murder of innocents, that undermine the basic norms of civilization, or that seek to make pluralism impossible. There can be no moral equivalence between those who seek--however clumsily--to build a more liberal, tolerant world and those who advocate the annihilation of other faiths, cultures, or states.

Which brings me to my son, Daniel Pearl. Thanks to the release of A Mighty Heart, the movie based on Mariane Pearl's book of the same title, Danny's legacy is once again receiving attention. Of course, no movie could ever capture exactly what made Danny special--his humor, his integrity, his love of humanity--or why he was admired by so many. For journalists, Danny represents the courage and nobility inherent in their profession. For Americans, Danny is a symbol of one of our very best national instincts: the desire to extend a warm hand of friendship and dialogue to faraway lands and peoples. And for anyone who is proud of their heritage or faith, Danny's last words, "I am Jewish," showed that it is possible to find dignity in one's identity even in the darkest of moments. Traces of these ideas are certainly evident in A Mighty Heart, and I hope viewers will leave the theater inspired by them.

At the same time, I am worried that A Mighty Heart falls into a trap Bertrand Russell would have recognized: the paradox of moral equivalence, of seeking to extend the logic of tolerance a step too far. You can see traces of this logic in the film's comparison of Danny's abduction with Guantánamo--it opens with pictures from the prison--and its comparison of Al Qaeda militants with CIA agents. You can also see it in the comments of the movie's director, Michael Winterbottom, who wrote on The Washington Post's website that A Mighty Heart and his previous film The Road to Guantánamo "are very similar. Both are stories about people who are victims of increasing violence on both sides. There are extremists on both sides who want to ratchet up the levels of violence and hundreds of thousands of people have died because of this."

Drawing a comparison between Danny's murder and the detainment of suspects in Guantánamo is precisely what the killers wanted, as expressed in both their e-mails and the murder video. Obviously Winterbottom did not mean to echo their sentiments, and certainly not to justify their demands or actions. Still, I am concerned that aspects of his movie will play into the hands of professional obscurers of moral clarity.

Indeed, following an advance screening of A Mighty Heart, a panelist representing the Council on American-Islamic Relations reportedly said, "We need to end the culture of bombs, torture, occupation, and violence. This is the message to take from the film." The message that angry youngsters are hearing is unfortunate: All forms of violence are equally evil; therefore, as long as one persists, others should not be ruled out. This is precisely the logic used by Mohammed Siddiqui Khan, one of the London suicide bombers, in his videotape on Al Jazeera. "Your democratically elected government," he told his British countrymen, "continues to perpetrate atrocities against my people ... . [W]e will not stop."

Danny's tragedy demands an end to this logic. There can be no comparison between those who take pride in the killing of an unarmed journalist and those who vow to end such acts--no ifs, ands, or buts. Moral relativism died with Daniel Pearl, in Karachi, on January 31, 2002.

There was a time when drawing moral symmetries between two sides of every conflict was a mark of original thinking. Today, with Western intellectuals overextending two-sidedness to reckless absurdities, it reflects nothing but lazy conformity. What is needed now is for intellectuals, filmmakers, and the rest of us to resist this dangerous trend and draw legitimate distinctions where such distinctions are warranted.

My son Danny had the courage to examine all sides. He was a genuine listener and a champion of dialogue. Yet he also had principles and red lines. He was tolerant but not mindlessly so. I hope viewers will remember this when they see A Mighty Heart.

Judea Pearl is president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, an organization committed to interfaith dialogue, and co-editor of I am Jewish: Personal Reflections Inspired by the Last Words of Daniel Pearl.

NY Times: G.I.'s Forge Sunni Tie in Bid to Squeeze Militants

Check out G.I.’s Forge Sunni Tie in Bid to Squeeze Militants in the NY Times.

Eric

Happy birthday, USA.

The Code of Conduct of the US Armed Forces:

I am an American fighting in the forces that guard my country and our way of life, I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

Should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies.

I will never forget that I am an American fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

Bonus treat - "I'm American" by Stuck Mojo:



Bonus treat - "E Pluribus Unum" via the Small Wars Journal blog:



Eric