McCaffery coming to Springfield
Barry McCaffery is speaking at MSU on Tuesday the 11th of October. The News-Leader includes his attacks on the Administration with a rebuttle from a MSU professor. Several related stories take the same defeatist tone. Here, Here, and Here. The last link, "Poll finds scant support...," seems to reflect the coverage. I wonder of one causes the other. If they both cause the other, we have a feed-back loop.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Trouble for Transformation
Defence Tech has a piece on problems implimenting transformation. It certainly appears that the solution is fewer armored vehicles and more personal armor. Of course some changes, shifting from divisions to brigades as core units, smarter weapons, better communications are already under way. Making units lighter is the area where troubles remain. Rapid deployment is the benefit, but the ability to stand up in a fight is threatened. I suspect that combat endurance will be achived by abandoning heavy technologies (armor and vehicles) and protecting troops with the lighter technologies, smart weapons, communications, tactics, and training.
Defence Tech has a piece on problems implimenting transformation. It certainly appears that the solution is fewer armored vehicles and more personal armor. Of course some changes, shifting from divisions to brigades as core units, smarter weapons, better communications are already under way. Making units lighter is the area where troubles remain. Rapid deployment is the benefit, but the ability to stand up in a fight is threatened. I suspect that combat endurance will be achived by abandoning heavy technologies (armor and vehicles) and protecting troops with the lighter technologies, smart weapons, communications, tactics, and training.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
More Renaissance Conference: reviews
Here is the schedule
Attended "The Shakespearean Stage" though I was tempted to attend "Art History, North and South" but ended up in Shakespear and stayed put. The most interesting paper was "Antitheatrical Tracts" because these issues, and as it turns out, these arguments are still with us today.
Attended "Classical and Humanist Influences in the Late Renaissance." Interesting, but all three papers were heavy on text analysis, such as comparisons of versions of Daphnis and Chloe, assumed qualities (in Bembo and followers) of particular word choices and patters, and so on.
The Museum Demonstration was nice. I've been there many times before, but the presentation was pleasing and informative. Its always interesting to have art de-coded.
Dinner was excellent.
The Plenary talk, "The Facetious Renaissance" was on humor, and focused mostly on how humor operated in the Renaissance with specific attention to how some things they found funny are not commonly funny now, and the reverse. The speaker's personality was strong in the choices made, but given the subject, that's inevitable.
I would have attended "Belief and Ethics in English Thought" but I visited friends the night before, and slept in.
I started Saturday off with "Art History, Images and Patrons." As a graduate student, I had given a gallery talk on the patronage of Marie de Medici of Reubens, and as far as art history goes, patronage and thertefore the political content of art, is the only place I am strong. The Sistine paper reader wasn't there, so we heard about sculpture pieces of St George and John the Baptist above doors, and related objects in Genoa. The speaker, Madeline Rislow of KU argued that Genoa's artistic heritage is undervalued, indeed almost dimissed, but this has more to do with the kinds of art created than the quality of Genoese art production. The second speaker gave a longish (45-50 min) illustrated biography of Alphonso V, Isabella and Ferdinand. It should have found a focus and stuck with that, but it was otherwise interesting. I am reasonably well versed in these figures and had some differences with the speaker, but otherwise enjoyed the paper.
"Faith and Last Things" was the end of the day, and was a very interesting session. The first paper was on a minor author's apocalyptic writings. The second was on the Roman Inquisition, in which the speaker, Jane Wickersham, argued that the Inquisition intended both the recovery of souls and the supervision of the wayward. The last paper was on Mary Magdalene and her use by early modern Protestants (mostly English) as a redeemded sinner. An interesting observation was that where Catholic works theology saw the Virgin Mary as the ideal model, Protestant grace theology saw Mary Magdalene as the ideal model.
Here is the schedule
Attended "The Shakespearean Stage" though I was tempted to attend "Art History, North and South" but ended up in Shakespear and stayed put. The most interesting paper was "Antitheatrical Tracts" because these issues, and as it turns out, these arguments are still with us today.
Attended "Classical and Humanist Influences in the Late Renaissance." Interesting, but all three papers were heavy on text analysis, such as comparisons of versions of Daphnis and Chloe, assumed qualities (in Bembo and followers) of particular word choices and patters, and so on.
The Museum Demonstration was nice. I've been there many times before, but the presentation was pleasing and informative. Its always interesting to have art de-coded.
Dinner was excellent.
The Plenary talk, "The Facetious Renaissance" was on humor, and focused mostly on how humor operated in the Renaissance with specific attention to how some things they found funny are not commonly funny now, and the reverse. The speaker's personality was strong in the choices made, but given the subject, that's inevitable.
I would have attended "Belief and Ethics in English Thought" but I visited friends the night before, and slept in.
I started Saturday off with "Art History, Images and Patrons." As a graduate student, I had given a gallery talk on the patronage of Marie de Medici of Reubens, and as far as art history goes, patronage and thertefore the political content of art, is the only place I am strong. The Sistine paper reader wasn't there, so we heard about sculpture pieces of St George and John the Baptist above doors, and related objects in Genoa. The speaker, Madeline Rislow of KU argued that Genoa's artistic heritage is undervalued, indeed almost dimissed, but this has more to do with the kinds of art created than the quality of Genoese art production. The second speaker gave a longish (45-50 min) illustrated biography of Alphonso V, Isabella and Ferdinand. It should have found a focus and stuck with that, but it was otherwise interesting. I am reasonably well versed in these figures and had some differences with the speaker, but otherwise enjoyed the paper.
"Faith and Last Things" was the end of the day, and was a very interesting session. The first paper was on a minor author's apocalyptic writings. The second was on the Roman Inquisition, in which the speaker, Jane Wickersham, argued that the Inquisition intended both the recovery of souls and the supervision of the wayward. The last paper was on Mary Magdalene and her use by early modern Protestants (mostly English) as a redeemded sinner. An interesting observation was that where Catholic works theology saw the Virgin Mary as the ideal model, Protestant grace theology saw Mary Magdalene as the ideal model.
More on Intel
Strategy Page has more on some of the same kind of thing I wrote about in the previous post, with specific interest in OPSEC (Operational Security).
Strategy Page has more on some of the same kind of thing I wrote about in the previous post, with specific interest in OPSEC (Operational Security).
Problems at the Pentagon
Andrew C. McCarthy has a good peice on some things wrong over at Defense. Its unfortunate that institutions operate this way, but as James Q Wilson and others have shown in their studies of bureaucracy, this kind of turf activity is as natural as breathing. I am not as familiar with the business literature, but I have seen the same kind of thing there too. Reasons can include glory seeking, empire building, worry that someone else will screw things up, or just being so accustomed to keeping secret information secret that telling someone, even another intelligence agency seems like the wrong thing to do. In business, refoming the old tired ways is so common that Dilbert makes sport of ridiculing the attempts to improve operations. Indeed the reforms are not a panacea, and often are as bad as the problem they are meant to solve. What one must keep in mind is that these shifts are not a question of better or worse, they are a question of shifting the costs around. Peter paying Paul. In its most general sense, one can choose to err on the side of keeping secrets, knowing that some analysis might fail because secrets were too secret; or one can choose to err on the side of analysis, knowing that some secrets might get out. Enter a new problem. When analysis fails, its normally never known to anyone. Does the CIA know where Vladimr Putin is right now? If they don't, the consequences are probabaly very small. Occassionally failures of this kind result in a Pearl Harbor or a 9-11. On the other end of the table is loose lips sinking ships. When secrets get out, its more likely to get noticed, and that means trouble for whoever should have been keeping that secret. So, under normal circumstances, there is a tendency to favor keeping secrets, because it avoids more routine and regular loss of secret information, even though it means occassional lapses in analysis that result in Pearl Harbors and 9-11's.
The US intelligence community used to have to operate with a very aggressive KGB attempting to winckle secrets out of it. The result was a tremendous emphasis on secrecy. Keep in mind all of this follows some spectacular examples of Soviet spies being discovered in American government. Al Qaeda doesn't have spies in the FBI or the CIA, but careless handling of information can still result in operational details or the names of moles (and one hopes we are developing them) getting into terrorists' hands. One example we may all remember is Geraldo Rivera drawing operational maps in the Iraqi sand. Ooops.
Nevertheless, it still appears that US intelligence is still too concerned with secrets at the expence of analysis, which means sharing intelligence with anyone who can help interpret it. This a cultural issue, because lessons have been learned in the intelligence community that go way back to before any of its current members were doing this kind of work. The CIA is over fifty years old, the FBI a few decades older, and Army intelligence, older still. Institutional memory makes an organization risk averse. Since there is more routine risk in sharing secrets than there is in keeping them, that's what intelligence organizations will default to, without strong leadership to do otherwise.
Andrew C. McCarthy has a good peice on some things wrong over at Defense. Its unfortunate that institutions operate this way, but as James Q Wilson and others have shown in their studies of bureaucracy, this kind of turf activity is as natural as breathing. I am not as familiar with the business literature, but I have seen the same kind of thing there too. Reasons can include glory seeking, empire building, worry that someone else will screw things up, or just being so accustomed to keeping secret information secret that telling someone, even another intelligence agency seems like the wrong thing to do. In business, refoming the old tired ways is so common that Dilbert makes sport of ridiculing the attempts to improve operations. Indeed the reforms are not a panacea, and often are as bad as the problem they are meant to solve. What one must keep in mind is that these shifts are not a question of better or worse, they are a question of shifting the costs around. Peter paying Paul. In its most general sense, one can choose to err on the side of keeping secrets, knowing that some analysis might fail because secrets were too secret; or one can choose to err on the side of analysis, knowing that some secrets might get out. Enter a new problem. When analysis fails, its normally never known to anyone. Does the CIA know where Vladimr Putin is right now? If they don't, the consequences are probabaly very small. Occassionally failures of this kind result in a Pearl Harbor or a 9-11. On the other end of the table is loose lips sinking ships. When secrets get out, its more likely to get noticed, and that means trouble for whoever should have been keeping that secret. So, under normal circumstances, there is a tendency to favor keeping secrets, because it avoids more routine and regular loss of secret information, even though it means occassional lapses in analysis that result in Pearl Harbors and 9-11's.
The US intelligence community used to have to operate with a very aggressive KGB attempting to winckle secrets out of it. The result was a tremendous emphasis on secrecy. Keep in mind all of this follows some spectacular examples of Soviet spies being discovered in American government. Al Qaeda doesn't have spies in the FBI or the CIA, but careless handling of information can still result in operational details or the names of moles (and one hopes we are developing them) getting into terrorists' hands. One example we may all remember is Geraldo Rivera drawing operational maps in the Iraqi sand. Ooops.
Nevertheless, it still appears that US intelligence is still too concerned with secrets at the expence of analysis, which means sharing intelligence with anyone who can help interpret it. This a cultural issue, because lessons have been learned in the intelligence community that go way back to before any of its current members were doing this kind of work. The CIA is over fifty years old, the FBI a few decades older, and Army intelligence, older still. Institutional memory makes an organization risk averse. Since there is more routine risk in sharing secrets than there is in keeping them, that's what intelligence organizations will default to, without strong leadership to do otherwise.
Analysis of British in Iraq
There is an interesting piece up at Belmont Club (new addy, blog got too big to publish) about British operations in Iraq.
There is an interesting piece up at Belmont Club (new addy, blog got too big to publish) about British operations in Iraq.
How Evan Blew It
Evan Thomas has moved from being reputable to being disreputable because of his Katrina coverage. The fallacies involved in Thomas' coverage have become too burdonsome to excuse henceforth. The fundamental flaw in his coverage is of this kind: The President has characteristics x, y, and z; I am unsatisfied with the Federal responce to Katrina; therefore not only is the President responsible, but his characteristics x, y, and z are the cause of his poor performance. Thomas is now in the Paul Krugman catagory of partisan hacks, as far as I am concerned.
Evan Thomas has moved from being reputable to being disreputable because of his Katrina coverage. The fallacies involved in Thomas' coverage have become too burdonsome to excuse henceforth. The fundamental flaw in his coverage is of this kind: The President has characteristics x, y, and z; I am unsatisfied with the Federal responce to Katrina; therefore not only is the President responsible, but his characteristics x, y, and z are the cause of his poor performance. Thomas is now in the Paul Krugman catagory of partisan hacks, as far as I am concerned.
Monday, September 26, 2005
More Renaissance Conference
One of things that puts a little difference between me and the rest of those attending CRC this past weekend is our notions of what the Renaissance actually is. There were art historians, who have a very clear and quite useful sense in terms of art. For example, attention to details like fingers, attempting to portray a figure realistically rather than stylistically, interest in landscapes, and a preference for natual colors rather than expensive materials. The shift from International Gothic to Early Renaissance is clear and makes sense. Something new is at work. The same is true for literature. I am not in a position to describe what is different, but I have enough of a sense of then difference to accept that something new is going on. But for me, the new thing occuring, the thing that needs a name to distinguish it from that which happened before, concerns the nature of the state. For me, the Renaissance is a new era for the state which involves a new emphasis on Roman Law, Roman concepts of soveriegnty invested in a monarch, professional bureaucracies, and a seperation between the person of the monarch and the office of the monarchy. I also look to the new permanent diplomacy, the new structure of international relations, and the military revolution. For me, these are the markers of the Renaissance, not new arts and letters. Certainly I am aware of what the new arts and letters mean for the new thinking, and they are important, but aside from issues of patronage and the political uses of art, the items I have mentioned prove to be much better markers for the Renaissance in the areas in which I work. I probabaly ought to write a paper on this subject for the next time I go to this thing.
One of things that puts a little difference between me and the rest of those attending CRC this past weekend is our notions of what the Renaissance actually is. There were art historians, who have a very clear and quite useful sense in terms of art. For example, attention to details like fingers, attempting to portray a figure realistically rather than stylistically, interest in landscapes, and a preference for natual colors rather than expensive materials. The shift from International Gothic to Early Renaissance is clear and makes sense. Something new is at work. The same is true for literature. I am not in a position to describe what is different, but I have enough of a sense of then difference to accept that something new is going on. But for me, the new thing occuring, the thing that needs a name to distinguish it from that which happened before, concerns the nature of the state. For me, the Renaissance is a new era for the state which involves a new emphasis on Roman Law, Roman concepts of soveriegnty invested in a monarch, professional bureaucracies, and a seperation between the person of the monarch and the office of the monarchy. I also look to the new permanent diplomacy, the new structure of international relations, and the military revolution. For me, these are the markers of the Renaissance, not new arts and letters. Certainly I am aware of what the new arts and letters mean for the new thinking, and they are important, but aside from issues of patronage and the political uses of art, the items I have mentioned prove to be much better markers for the Renaissance in the areas in which I work. I probabaly ought to write a paper on this subject for the next time I go to this thing.
Price Gouging
The Missouri Attorney General, Jay Nixon, is on a bender against price gouging. Apparently, the Democrat belives he knows better than the market what the best price of gas is. He also proudly claims Nixon v Shrink, a case heralded on his website as reinstating "Missouri’s campaign contribution limits and cleared the way nationally for campaign finance reform. " This kind of paternalism, including censorship and price controls, is the kind of illiberal regulation of an otherwise free society that makes government the problem.
The Missouri Attorney General, Jay Nixon, is on a bender against price gouging. Apparently, the Democrat belives he knows better than the market what the best price of gas is. He also proudly claims Nixon v Shrink, a case heralded on his website as reinstating "Missouri’s campaign contribution limits and cleared the way nationally for campaign finance reform. " This kind of paternalism, including censorship and price controls, is the kind of illiberal regulation of an otherwise free society that makes government the problem.
No Pork
One of Missouri's Senator's, Kit Bond, is good at bringing home the pork. His website frequently advertises what Federal dollars and programs he has brought home. There are various ways to position yourself as a representative of the people. One could advertise your spots on committees or chairmanships of same regarded as important to constituents. One could champion a few issues near and dear to the voters. Or, one can bring home the bacon. Kit Bond is invincible in Missouri, because he can win in Kansas City as well as Republican areas of the state. Looking at his press releases today, its the same as it ever was.
Bond honors hurricane heroes
$23 million for agriculture
Funds for Danforth Plant Science Center
$2.3 million for transportation in Columbia
Bond honored for supporting spending money for HIV/AIDS
Bond speaks to conference, advocates spending money on waterways and infrastructure
Bond keynotes at the opening of a bridge
Kit Bond's theory of government is to spend money to make the people happy. Because he's a Republican, he seems to view infrastructure projects as better than welfare, but he's a big government guy all the same. Tax and spend. He's a reliable Republican vote, but all of his own initiatives involve spending Federal dollars in Missouri. How much more valuable it would be if we had a Senator who championed things that would improve the lives of Missourians and other Americans without spending nearly so much money, such as the Fair Tax, Social Security Privatization, Military Transformation, repealing Campaign Finance censorship, supporting free trade, and otherwise advocating limited government in ways that show up in the press releases.
One of Missouri's Senator's, Kit Bond, is good at bringing home the pork. His website frequently advertises what Federal dollars and programs he has brought home. There are various ways to position yourself as a representative of the people. One could advertise your spots on committees or chairmanships of same regarded as important to constituents. One could champion a few issues near and dear to the voters. Or, one can bring home the bacon. Kit Bond is invincible in Missouri, because he can win in Kansas City as well as Republican areas of the state. Looking at his press releases today, its the same as it ever was.
Bond honors hurricane heroes
$23 million for agriculture
Funds for Danforth Plant Science Center
$2.3 million for transportation in Columbia
Bond honored for supporting spending money for HIV/AIDS
Bond speaks to conference, advocates spending money on waterways and infrastructure
Bond keynotes at the opening of a bridge
Kit Bond's theory of government is to spend money to make the people happy. Because he's a Republican, he seems to view infrastructure projects as better than welfare, but he's a big government guy all the same. Tax and spend. He's a reliable Republican vote, but all of his own initiatives involve spending Federal dollars in Missouri. How much more valuable it would be if we had a Senator who championed things that would improve the lives of Missourians and other Americans without spending nearly so much money, such as the Fair Tax, Social Security Privatization, Military Transformation, repealing Campaign Finance censorship, supporting free trade, and otherwise advocating limited government in ways that show up in the press releases.
Conference
I returned yesterday evening from the Central Renaissance Conference in Columbia Missouri. It was very interesting, although since the period was a bit early for me and a lot of the presentations were literary, I was aware of being in a little over my head. There were four papers on Titus Andronicus, for instance. I saw a few people I knew- always a pleasure to renew contacts. I'll review the papers in a subsequent post, all were impressive, some were also interesting.
Since I'm not supported by any institution, I get no travel support and have to take off work to go to these, so I only attend the ones reasonably close to home. This means that I'll go to stuff that isn't in the heart of my academic area or period. I don't go very often, either, but it does a good job of re-connecting me to the values and culture of the acadamy. Being away, either in education or some other employment, carries a different culture and values. Its a sad statement that the culture and values of education and higher ed are so different and so often incompatable, but they are.
Since I participate on several academic mailing lists and do a lot of academic reading, its not so much the ideas of the academy I get back in contact with. Like the latter, I overheard one sustained anti-Bush rant by three literary types which wandered way off the path of sense and reason. I heard one of the participants give a paper, and it was well reasoned and contained solid evidence. Why its possible to abandon these standards in contemporary politics strikes me as very odd.
I returned yesterday evening from the Central Renaissance Conference in Columbia Missouri. It was very interesting, although since the period was a bit early for me and a lot of the presentations were literary, I was aware of being in a little over my head. There were four papers on Titus Andronicus, for instance. I saw a few people I knew- always a pleasure to renew contacts. I'll review the papers in a subsequent post, all were impressive, some were also interesting.
Since I'm not supported by any institution, I get no travel support and have to take off work to go to these, so I only attend the ones reasonably close to home. This means that I'll go to stuff that isn't in the heart of my academic area or period. I don't go very often, either, but it does a good job of re-connecting me to the values and culture of the acadamy. Being away, either in education or some other employment, carries a different culture and values. Its a sad statement that the culture and values of education and higher ed are so different and so often incompatable, but they are.
Since I participate on several academic mailing lists and do a lot of academic reading, its not so much the ideas of the academy I get back in contact with. Like the latter, I overheard one sustained anti-Bush rant by three literary types which wandered way off the path of sense and reason. I heard one of the participants give a paper, and it was well reasoned and contained solid evidence. Why its possible to abandon these standards in contemporary politics strikes me as very odd.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
The Nature of Love
MSN Lifestyle has a piece on the two kinds of husbands. To my eighteenth century eyes, this looks like the distinction between Enlightened love and Romantic love. Using the MSN terms, it would seem that a marriage to Husband was the ideal in the early eighteenth cenury, and by the very end of the century and into the nineteenth, Boyfriend was the ideal partner. There is a missing stage, between Englightenment and Romanticism, was the Age of Sensibility, and love in this period is love of the soul mate, the abandoning of the rest of the world for a immursion in the couple. Its the most domestic love. It lacks some of the passion and fire of Romantic love, but none of the depth.
MSN Lifestyle has a piece on the two kinds of husbands. To my eighteenth century eyes, this looks like the distinction between Enlightened love and Romantic love. Using the MSN terms, it would seem that a marriage to Husband was the ideal in the early eighteenth cenury, and by the very end of the century and into the nineteenth, Boyfriend was the ideal partner. There is a missing stage, between Englightenment and Romanticism, was the Age of Sensibility, and love in this period is love of the soul mate, the abandoning of the rest of the world for a immursion in the couple. Its the most domestic love. It lacks some of the passion and fire of Romantic love, but none of the depth.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Clinton on This Week
Powerline has a dead on decription of Clinton's truth-challenged performance. John Hinderaker writes:
"Again and again, President Bush has tried to work with the Democrats as if they were loyal Americans first, and partisans second. He has treated Bill Clinton with a friendship and respect that, candidly, is disproportionate to Clinton's meager accomplishments. Again and again, the Democrats have rebuffed Bush's overtures and taken advantage of his patriotism and good faith. Clinton's politically-motivated tissue of lies and distortions is just the latest example out of many. But it is unprecedented, coming from a former President. That is a sad thing: the latest wound inflicted on the body politic by the Democratic Party."
Powerline has a dead on decription of Clinton's truth-challenged performance. John Hinderaker writes:
"Again and again, President Bush has tried to work with the Democrats as if they were loyal Americans first, and partisans second. He has treated Bill Clinton with a friendship and respect that, candidly, is disproportionate to Clinton's meager accomplishments. Again and again, the Democrats have rebuffed Bush's overtures and taken advantage of his patriotism and good faith. Clinton's politically-motivated tissue of lies and distortions is just the latest example out of many. But it is unprecedented, coming from a former President. That is a sad thing: the latest wound inflicted on the body politic by the Democratic Party."
German Elections
Its still being described as a tie, in so much as we don't know who will be Chancellor. Checking out the history of elections in Germany (here) you can see how things have changed in the past decade or so. From market liberalism to socialism. Go Free Democrats!
Its still being described as a tie, in so much as we don't know who will be Chancellor. Checking out the history of elections in Germany (here) you can see how things have changed in the past decade or so. From market liberalism to socialism. Go Free Democrats!
Home Made Software Upgrades
Those who take a regular look at Jeff Jarvis' site have no doubt noticed the discussions of how products that are out there are now being improved by consumers and the ideas and techniques disseminated by internet. I've been over at the boards for Imperial Glory (see previous post) and players are updating and improving the look for their favorite countries as well as improving things like the way smoke works. Value added indeed.
Those who take a regular look at Jeff Jarvis' site have no doubt noticed the discussions of how products that are out there are now being improved by consumers and the ideas and techniques disseminated by internet. I've been over at the boards for Imperial Glory (see previous post) and players are updating and improving the look for their favorite countries as well as improving things like the way smoke works. Value added indeed.
My "main" computer has been in the shop all week. My CD drive died, and I elected to upgrade to a DVD drive. I also added 80 gig of HD goodness. My other compluter is dedicated to video and doesn't allow me much time to use it for amusements. I tried to install my new Napoleonic war game (Imperial Glory) but it won't work with Intel video chipsets. I tried the fix on their tech site, but it didn't work. So far its still installed on my video machine, but that means I have yet played the game only once. Well, I once again have a computer I can actually use, rather than just having one that renders video all day long.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Too Naive?
The neo-neocon posts on the motives of the soft-left and center-left, and then concludes by wonder if she is too naive or giving too much benefit of the doubt. I say that she is not. The left regards the right as bad people because they don't try and get to know people on the right, or Republicans. If they did, they would continue to disagree with them, but they couldn't regard them as bad people. It is by knowing people on both sides that makes it easy to disagree in a honorable way that assumes that the other side has different ideas, but are essentally good people with different values, and hence advocate different policies. The other side can be way off on a few things, but mostly they are just applying a different set of first principles. On both the far right and the far left are those who can't do this and end up regarding even people on their own side as comprimised and unworthy, let alone people on the other side. Such extremists are almost always nuts.
Keeping in touch with people who know the other side, either because of personal experience, or because they sit on the other side, is valuable. Hating people who are bad is neccesary, hating good people because you mistakenly think they are bad is itself bad.
The neo-neocon posts on the motives of the soft-left and center-left, and then concludes by wonder if she is too naive or giving too much benefit of the doubt. I say that she is not. The left regards the right as bad people because they don't try and get to know people on the right, or Republicans. If they did, they would continue to disagree with them, but they couldn't regard them as bad people. It is by knowing people on both sides that makes it easy to disagree in a honorable way that assumes that the other side has different ideas, but are essentally good people with different values, and hence advocate different policies. The other side can be way off on a few things, but mostly they are just applying a different set of first principles. On both the far right and the far left are those who can't do this and end up regarding even people on their own side as comprimised and unworthy, let alone people on the other side. Such extremists are almost always nuts.
Keeping in touch with people who know the other side, either because of personal experience, or because they sit on the other side, is valuable. Hating people who are bad is neccesary, hating good people because you mistakenly think they are bad is itself bad.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
More on Pacification
Last week I made mention of Robert Kaplan's artical, Imperial Grunts. A few days ago, the LA Times ran a story on the improvements in Sadr City that makes some of the same points.
Last week I made mention of Robert Kaplan's artical, Imperial Grunts. A few days ago, the LA Times ran a story on the improvements in Sadr City that makes some of the same points.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
The Classical Academy
Number 2 Pencil links to The Classical Academy in Colorado Spring as a reference on the value of memorization of foundational information. I have at various times looked forward to school choice as a source of just such a school with a classically inspired curriculum. The website is impressive and its sources and inspirations are classically grounded. I wonder how much of a classical curriculum it has. I see two years of world literature, in addition to 9th grade English and one year of American. I hope that this is a Great Books approach based heavily on the work of classical and classically influenced works, light on modernism, romanticism, and other 19th and 20th century works, except where merit is overwhelming and to juxtapose how such works are not classical. I would rather students read one too many plays of Sophocles than one too many modern novels. There are three required semesters of world history and geography, followed by a year of American history and a year of Civics. This would appear to support my social studies curriculum with a semester of the Greeks, a semester of the Romans, a semester of English history all building to a knowledge of the Founding and the ideas which are essential to a knowledge of the American experiment. I would cover the rest of world history in an 8th semester.
Regarding character education, my own preference would be for an Aristotelian approach. I see that they integrate character education rather than making it a seperate study. This is the correct approach. Their basic statement in this area is: “We will demonstrate the virtues of integrity, honesty, respect and responsibility, upholding others to that standard.” I was at first given pause when I read the following, "A classroom dialogue which resembles situational ethics is also discouraged. Therefore teachers are encouraged to resist the temptation to create artificial moral dilemmas for students which pit character traits against each other (e. g. family loyalty vs. honesty). " Immediatly the importance of competing values got my back up. Aristotle's middle path is only complete by understanding that an excess of loyalty can lead to the kind of blindness that was characteristic of the US Grant administration. Then I continued to read, "However, issues in history can provide an appropriate place for students to explore the meaning of responsible judgment and action, and to study events that involved complex ethical issues. " Yes! It is indeed better to confine conflicting values to historical examination rather than conjectural situations because in historical examples, the consequences are natural, and not supposed by the author of the dilemma. As in my example of Grant, the specific problems of Grant's loyalty and his assumption of the honesty of his officials are factual. In a hypothetical, the right balance can be struck according to the aesthetics of the author, but in a historical situation, it is the nature of things that governs what is and what is not. This preference for the empirical over the rational pleases your humble author.
They have a nice page of recomended books. I clicked and picked up three of them.
Number 2 Pencil links to The Classical Academy in Colorado Spring as a reference on the value of memorization of foundational information. I have at various times looked forward to school choice as a source of just such a school with a classically inspired curriculum. The website is impressive and its sources and inspirations are classically grounded. I wonder how much of a classical curriculum it has. I see two years of world literature, in addition to 9th grade English and one year of American. I hope that this is a Great Books approach based heavily on the work of classical and classically influenced works, light on modernism, romanticism, and other 19th and 20th century works, except where merit is overwhelming and to juxtapose how such works are not classical. I would rather students read one too many plays of Sophocles than one too many modern novels. There are three required semesters of world history and geography, followed by a year of American history and a year of Civics. This would appear to support my social studies curriculum with a semester of the Greeks, a semester of the Romans, a semester of English history all building to a knowledge of the Founding and the ideas which are essential to a knowledge of the American experiment. I would cover the rest of world history in an 8th semester.
Regarding character education, my own preference would be for an Aristotelian approach. I see that they integrate character education rather than making it a seperate study. This is the correct approach. Their basic statement in this area is: “We will demonstrate the virtues of integrity, honesty, respect and responsibility, upholding others to that standard.” I was at first given pause when I read the following, "A classroom dialogue which resembles situational ethics is also discouraged. Therefore teachers are encouraged to resist the temptation to create artificial moral dilemmas for students which pit character traits against each other (e. g. family loyalty vs. honesty). " Immediatly the importance of competing values got my back up. Aristotle's middle path is only complete by understanding that an excess of loyalty can lead to the kind of blindness that was characteristic of the US Grant administration. Then I continued to read, "However, issues in history can provide an appropriate place for students to explore the meaning of responsible judgment and action, and to study events that involved complex ethical issues. " Yes! It is indeed better to confine conflicting values to historical examination rather than conjectural situations because in historical examples, the consequences are natural, and not supposed by the author of the dilemma. As in my example of Grant, the specific problems of Grant's loyalty and his assumption of the honesty of his officials are factual. In a hypothetical, the right balance can be struck according to the aesthetics of the author, but in a historical situation, it is the nature of things that governs what is and what is not. This preference for the empirical over the rational pleases your humble author.
They have a nice page of recomended books. I clicked and picked up three of them.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Monday, September 05, 2005
Why do academics lack the ability to apply their academic methods to news items?
As I follow the responce of Katrina on academic lists, I am shocked by the fact that so called scholars fail to employ elemental methods, such as source criticism, let alone a general thoughtfulness. As I learned various methods of seperating reliable from unreliable information, the historical method, the scientific method, the quantitative method, and so on, I regarded these as useful for distinguishing between reliable and unreliable information. Apparently, this is not typical. It seems that not only do many academics only apply their method to their narrow field, and use wishful thinking for everything else, but most other academics don't seem bothered enough to call them on it.
As I follow the responce of Katrina on academic lists, I am shocked by the fact that so called scholars fail to employ elemental methods, such as source criticism, let alone a general thoughtfulness. As I learned various methods of seperating reliable from unreliable information, the historical method, the scientific method, the quantitative method, and so on, I regarded these as useful for distinguishing between reliable and unreliable information. Apparently, this is not typical. It seems that not only do many academics only apply their method to their narrow field, and use wishful thinking for everything else, but most other academics don't seem bothered enough to call them on it.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Divisions between Liberals and Conservatives
A good piece on the divsisions in the Republican Party between its liberal and conservative wings.
A good piece on the divsisions in the Republican Party between its liberal and conservative wings.
A Strategy for the War on Terror
My own view, based on my study of history from Suchet to Vietnam is that the proper style of war for the War on Terror is counter-insurgency. As such, I am troubled by Bill Bennet's, Bill Kristol's, and others' call for a more aggressive posture in the war on terror. These statements strike me as too much Westmoreland. General William Westmoreland once replied in a press conference that his strategy for counter-insurgency was firepower. His attrition strategy is largely responsible for making the Vietnam war a costly and unpopular war. Aggressive search and destroy missions ripped up the North Vietnamese and their Viet Cong allies, but at too great a cost in American lives. The rival strategies advocated by Lewis Walt, Sir Robert Thompson, Victor Krulak, William Colby and John Paul Vann strike me a much closer to the right approach. You can read about the basics of this approach as advocated by the Marines here and here.
In this month's Atlantic, Robert Kaplan has a great article called Imperial Grunts. Kaplan is right on and puts his analysis right up front in the very first sentences. He draws the right lessons from our various small wars, notes the Small Wars Manual, and demonstrates the success of unconventional warfare approach of the Special Forces.
Bennett has an axiom which states that you are either on offence or defense. And its clear that one does not win on the defensive. If, according to the principles of conventional war, the object is to defeat the enemy in battle and break his will to fight, being on the offensive is pretty strait forward. However, in guerilla and other unconventional wars, offensive actions can be counter productive and the benefits of offensive and defensive can appear to be reversed. To make sense of this we need to understand the principle of strategic offensive and tactical defensive. This phrase has been applied to the campaigns of then Duke of Wellington. Wellington would advance into Jospeh Bonaparte's Spain threatening ket targets, such as Madrid (strategic offensive) but when the French began to prepare to face him, Wellington would adopt a tactical defensive. When Wellington was on the strategic defensive in Lisbon, the French could just go about the business pacifying Spain, but when Wellington advanced into the heart of Spain and then adopted a tactically defensive position, the French had to push him out. Yet, because of his defensive posture, Wellington chose the battlefield and was able to eliminate many of the advanatges of the French artillery and column formations. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the Coallition is on the strategic offensive. We have advanced into the world of the Islamic jihad and the terrorists must drive us out lest we convert these places into modern, liberal states. In Zarqawi's message last year, he expressed concern that as the Iraqi government endures it gains legitimacy and the police and security forces will look like the people and be of the people, making it harder to portray the terrorist campaign there as anything but attacks by Al Qaeda on the people of Iraq. Recall that in Vietnam, the North played the nationalist card, because the Americans did a lot of the fighting directly. If the Americans train, assist, and support local forces instead, nationalist claims wither. Likewise Islam vs the Infidel.
When you look at the Marine strategy of the Small War, you find that its about providing security to the locals, not attacking the enemy. Its about building schools, roads, hospitals, and water treatment. Its about hearts and minds, not about body count. Its not about adopting a more aggressive posture. When I hear that we should get more aggressive, I think I am hearing from someone of the Westmoreland school. This is spot on for conventional war. But off the mark for unconventional warfare.
My own view, based on my study of history from Suchet to Vietnam is that the proper style of war for the War on Terror is counter-insurgency. As such, I am troubled by Bill Bennet's, Bill Kristol's, and others' call for a more aggressive posture in the war on terror. These statements strike me as too much Westmoreland. General William Westmoreland once replied in a press conference that his strategy for counter-insurgency was firepower. His attrition strategy is largely responsible for making the Vietnam war a costly and unpopular war. Aggressive search and destroy missions ripped up the North Vietnamese and their Viet Cong allies, but at too great a cost in American lives. The rival strategies advocated by Lewis Walt, Sir Robert Thompson, Victor Krulak, William Colby and John Paul Vann strike me a much closer to the right approach. You can read about the basics of this approach as advocated by the Marines here and here.
In this month's Atlantic, Robert Kaplan has a great article called Imperial Grunts. Kaplan is right on and puts his analysis right up front in the very first sentences. He draws the right lessons from our various small wars, notes the Small Wars Manual, and demonstrates the success of unconventional warfare approach of the Special Forces.
Bennett has an axiom which states that you are either on offence or defense. And its clear that one does not win on the defensive. If, according to the principles of conventional war, the object is to defeat the enemy in battle and break his will to fight, being on the offensive is pretty strait forward. However, in guerilla and other unconventional wars, offensive actions can be counter productive and the benefits of offensive and defensive can appear to be reversed. To make sense of this we need to understand the principle of strategic offensive and tactical defensive. This phrase has been applied to the campaigns of then Duke of Wellington. Wellington would advance into Jospeh Bonaparte's Spain threatening ket targets, such as Madrid (strategic offensive) but when the French began to prepare to face him, Wellington would adopt a tactical defensive. When Wellington was on the strategic defensive in Lisbon, the French could just go about the business pacifying Spain, but when Wellington advanced into the heart of Spain and then adopted a tactically defensive position, the French had to push him out. Yet, because of his defensive posture, Wellington chose the battlefield and was able to eliminate many of the advanatges of the French artillery and column formations. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the Coallition is on the strategic offensive. We have advanced into the world of the Islamic jihad and the terrorists must drive us out lest we convert these places into modern, liberal states. In Zarqawi's message last year, he expressed concern that as the Iraqi government endures it gains legitimacy and the police and security forces will look like the people and be of the people, making it harder to portray the terrorist campaign there as anything but attacks by Al Qaeda on the people of Iraq. Recall that in Vietnam, the North played the nationalist card, because the Americans did a lot of the fighting directly. If the Americans train, assist, and support local forces instead, nationalist claims wither. Likewise Islam vs the Infidel.
When you look at the Marine strategy of the Small War, you find that its about providing security to the locals, not attacking the enemy. Its about building schools, roads, hospitals, and water treatment. Its about hearts and minds, not about body count. Its not about adopting a more aggressive posture. When I hear that we should get more aggressive, I think I am hearing from someone of the Westmoreland school. This is spot on for conventional war. But off the mark for unconventional warfare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)