Comments for Kings of War http://kingsofwar.org.uk Wed, 30 May 2012 19:16:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on What we talk about when we forget about treason by Neil http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2012/05/what-we-talk-about-when-we-forget-about-treason/comment-page-1/#comment-15789 Neil Wed, 30 May 2012 19:16:28 +0000 http://kingsofwar.org.uk/?p=6980#comment-15789 Hi Jack: point taken on the necessities of framing or deploying one's own analytic or conceptual inspirations; indeed, we seem to implicitly talking around and through these thinkers (how can one not be?). I'm certainly not advancing a unitary zero-sum approach to power or relations of power. That said, what is moot, I think, is the concern for not wanting COIN to intervene in/intersect with the integrity of legal definitions about enemies or adversaries (as described in the original post) - not because it isn't a worthy concern but because a spirit of counterinsurgency (if you will) animates the controls, molds, and techniques of government in modern liberal enclosures and the relations between ways of life, rule, and war. The state (as in the sovereign state) is one site of such a way of rule. Indeed, irregularities and contingencies do emerge to trouble, contest, oppose, or refuse the determining (and modular and modulating, even) forces or formations we could identify as part of the band of contemporary security practices. Security here is less a matter of security in the proper military-police sense (though still important), and more a matter of securing and protecting the capacities of and critical infrastructures for a population, closer to how a shepherd conducts and conveys her flock. I mention this mostly to address your connections between religious prohibitions and security; as you probably well know, Foucault identified the Christian pastorate as the embryonic form for his investigations of governmentality - pastoral power freed from the ecclesiastical institutions. Anyway... Hi Jack: point taken on the necessities of framing or deploying one’s own analytic or conceptual inspirations; indeed, we seem to implicitly talking around and through these thinkers (how can one not be?).

I’m certainly not advancing a unitary zero-sum approach to power or relations of power. That said, what is moot, I think, is the concern for not wanting COIN to intervene in/intersect with the integrity of legal definitions about enemies or adversaries (as described in the original post) – not because it isn’t a worthy concern but because a spirit of counterinsurgency (if you will) animates the controls, molds, and techniques of government in modern liberal enclosures and the relations between ways of life, rule, and war. The state (as in the sovereign state) is one site of such a way of rule.

Indeed, irregularities and contingencies do emerge to trouble, contest, oppose, or refuse the determining (and modular and modulating, even) forces or formations we could identify as part of the band of contemporary security practices. Security here is less a matter of security in the proper military-police sense (though still important), and more a matter of securing and protecting the capacities of and critical infrastructures for a population, closer to how a shepherd conducts and conveys her flock. I mention this mostly to address your connections between religious prohibitions and security; as you probably well know, Foucault identified the Christian pastorate as the embryonic form for his investigations of governmentality – pastoral power freed from the ecclesiastical institutions. Anyway…

]]> Comment on What we talk about when we forget about treason by Jack McDonald http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2012/05/what-we-talk-about-when-we-forget-about-treason/comment-page-1/#comment-15786 Jack McDonald Wed, 30 May 2012 18:16:49 +0000 http://kingsofwar.org.uk/?p=6980#comment-15786 Don't get me wrong, those approaches are important, but at the same time I don't feel the need to refer to Foucault etc every time I write about the topic, much in the same way that I don't feel the need to quote Clausewitz every time I write about war. Personally I find alot of work on biopolitics to be a bit too 'neat', self-referential and all-encompassing. In particular, the relentless focus on 'security discourse' tends to overlook the fact that internal enemies (or the spectre thereof) are nothing new and probably predate both the word 'security' and the state which Foucault etc are so fixated upon. Furthermore, one only has to refer to religious texts to see the application of law to living beings (don't consume X, don't tattoo your body, rest on the Sabbath), the third of which could be considered the 'disciplining' of the body by authority. None of the above should be taken to mean that I'm 'against' the ideas, more that I don't regard Foucault etc as sovereign (hah!) in discussing such matters. As for making matters 'moot' - I disagree, if only because that relies upon a somewhat Hegelian determinism (power unconsciously wants X, so X will happen). Real world politics is full of 'annoying' irregularities (such as the general availability of firearms in America vs Europe) and that's what I'm more interested in than anything else. Don’t get me wrong, those approaches are important, but at the same time I don’t feel the need to refer to Foucault etc every time I write about the topic, much in the same way that I don’t feel the need to quote Clausewitz every time I write about war. Personally I find alot of work on biopolitics to be a bit too ‘neat’, self-referential and all-encompassing. In particular, the relentless focus on ‘security discourse’ tends to overlook the fact that internal enemies (or the spectre thereof) are nothing new and probably predate both the word ‘security’ and the state which Foucault etc are so fixated upon. Furthermore, one only has to refer to religious texts to see the application of law to living beings (don’t consume X, don’t tattoo your body, rest on the Sabbath), the third of which could be considered the ‘disciplining’ of the body by authority. None of the above should be taken to mean that I’m ‘against’ the ideas, more that I don’t regard Foucault etc as sovereign (hah!) in discussing such matters.

As for making matters ‘moot’ – I disagree, if only because that relies upon a somewhat Hegelian determinism (power unconsciously wants X, so X will happen). Real world politics is full of ‘annoying’ irregularities (such as the general availability of firearms in America vs Europe) and that’s what I’m more interested in than anything else.

]]> Comment on What we talk about when we forget about treason by Neil http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2012/05/what-we-talk-about-when-we-forget-about-treason/comment-page-1/#comment-15780 Neil Wed, 30 May 2012 14:55:49 +0000 http://kingsofwar.org.uk/?p=6980#comment-15780 I wonder if this discussion is, for all of its merits, operates in a bit of a vacuum? While pursuing the history of juridico-legal classifications is important, there is no shortage of work on these matters following from Foucaultian-inflected war and security studies and a whole tradition of work on the concept of biopolitics and governmentality - to which we could link Agamben and Schmitt's work on exception, emergency, and friend/enemy distinctions. The spectre of an unspecified internal enemy is crucial - discursively and practically - in terms of legitimizing security discourses, especially vis-a-vis the normalization of pre-emptive measures that are increasingly status quo. Perhaps this discussion would benefit from a broader consideration of how these questions have addressed philosophically and speculatively in other less conventional traditions...? Regarding the counterinsurgency drift: the increasing indistinction between external defense and internal matters of 'security' (where the contingency of human life itself seems to be the fundamental threat or 'enemy' to the maintenance of (new) liberal political economic and social infrastructures) seems to make any concern about not wanting to 'use' COIN internally (i.e., within domestic liberal enclosures) moot. The semantic and discursive drift is ongoing, and the travel of martial-military idioms between inside and outside is not exceptional but rather normative, which is to say COIN doctrine will, among other things, certainly play a role in how states' determine and make visible/utterable their internal enemies. I wonder if this discussion is, for all of its merits, operates in a bit of a vacuum? While pursuing the history of juridico-legal classifications is important, there is no shortage of work on these matters following from Foucaultian-inflected war and security studies and a whole tradition of work on the concept of biopolitics and governmentality – to which we could link Agamben and Schmitt’s work on exception, emergency, and friend/enemy distinctions. The spectre of an unspecified internal enemy is crucial – discursively and practically – in terms of legitimizing security discourses, especially vis-a-vis the normalization of pre-emptive measures that are increasingly status quo. Perhaps this discussion would benefit from a broader consideration of how these questions have addressed philosophically and speculatively in other less conventional traditions…? Regarding the counterinsurgency drift: the increasing indistinction between external defense and internal matters of ‘security’ (where the contingency of human life itself seems to be the fundamental threat or ‘enemy’ to the maintenance of (new) liberal political economic and social infrastructures) seems to make any concern about not wanting to ‘use’ COIN internally (i.e., within domestic liberal enclosures) moot. The semantic and discursive drift is ongoing, and the travel of martial-military idioms between inside and outside is not exceptional but rather normative, which is to say COIN doctrine will, among other things, certainly play a role in how states’ determine and make visible/utterable their internal enemies.

]]> Comment on Setting the Record Straight on Eradication in Helmand by Dick Scott http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2012/05/setting-the-record-straight-on-eradication-in-helmand/comment-page-1/#comment-15769 Dick Scott Tue, 29 May 2012 20:49:16 +0000 http://kingsofwar.org.uk/?p=6971#comment-15769 The "undefined" item above is from me. See my website:www.scottshelmandvalleyarchives.org The “undefined” item above is from me. See my website:www.scottshelmandvalleyarchives.org

]]> Comment on Setting the Record Straight on Eradication in Helmand by Dick Scott http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2012/05/setting-the-record-straight-on-eradication-in-helmand/comment-page-1/#comment-15768 Dick Scott Tue, 29 May 2012 20:41:05 +0000 http://kingsofwar.org.uk/?p=6971#comment-15768 As I have been suggesting since about 1998 to USAID, INL and others, our primary problem has been not to address the opium poppy problem with a broad scope integrated reconstruction program which would have included support for the traditional cash crops the farmers have been cultivating for some decades. Instead we focus on single issues like eradication (the cops approach) and treat these farmers that we have been working with to improve their economy for something over half a century. The US had a virtual continuous presence in Helmand working on the central irrigation system, the present center of opium cultivation, from 1946-79. And wit eradication we use it as a punishment and guarantee its failure with bad timing and mis-management. Poppy fields can be distinguished from wheat in central Helmand when the fields are prepared for planting: the irrigation paddies are of different configurations. Poppies can be taken out at least soon after germination allowing other crops to be planted. But with eradication and the associated corruption near harvest time when the crop has such high value, we guarantee eradication teams' pay offs not to destroy the crop, and in the farmers minds this process is associated with central government and occupational forces involvement. In 02 when we reduced opium cultivation in Nad-i-Ali by 85% in one crop year (just before our funding was cut) it was done with a drainage rehabilitation project that hired some 3000-5000 men to work on their own irrigation system for pay, some $1.75 a day, start support for the cotton gin that had not had any spare parts for some 20 years, back payments for cotton delivered to the gin but not yet paid for, promises for a continuing reconstruction effort (which did not happen) early warnings not to plant poppy and eradication at germination time, in time to replant with wheat. The farmers in at least Nad-i-Ali were into peanuts big time with Pakistani and Iranian markets, starting in early vegetables with crude green houses and several other innovations which did not get support. The price paid for cotton was and is very low at this time when the international cotton market has recently hit all time highs and the gin set a limit of buying only 3000 tons of cotton compared with some 9000 tons that the ineffective Taliban were able to buy (mostly on credit) toward the end of their time. One of the key reasons for the developing drug based economy has been our ineffectiveness (understatement) in addressing the issue for the past 10 years. As I have been suggesting since about 1998 to USAID, INL and others, our primary problem has been not to address the opium poppy problem with a broad scope integrated reconstruction program which would have included support for the traditional cash crops the farmers have been cultivating for some decades. Instead we focus on single issues like eradication (the cops approach) and treat these farmers that we have been working with to improve their economy for something over half a century. The US had a virtual continuous presence in Helmand working on the central irrigation system, the present center of opium cultivation, from 1946-79. And wit eradication we use it as a punishment and guarantee its failure with bad timing and mis-management. Poppy fields can be distinguished from wheat in central Helmand when the fields are prepared for planting: the irrigation paddies are of different configurations. Poppies can be taken out at least soon after germination allowing other crops to be planted. But with eradication and the associated corruption near harvest time when the crop has such high value, we guarantee eradication teams’ pay offs not to destroy the crop, and in the farmers minds this process is associated with central government and occupational forces involvement. In 02 when we reduced opium cultivation in Nad-i-Ali by 85% in one crop year (just before our funding was cut) it was done with a drainage rehabilitation project that hired some 3000-5000 men to work on their own irrigation system for pay, some $1.75 a day, start support for the cotton gin that had not had any spare parts for some 20 years, back payments for cotton delivered to the gin but not yet paid for, promises for a continuing reconstruction effort (which did not happen) early warnings not to plant poppy and eradication at germination time, in time to replant with wheat. The farmers in at least Nad-i-Ali were into peanuts big time with Pakistani and Iranian markets, starting in early vegetables with crude green houses and several other innovations which did not get support. The price paid for cotton was and is very low at this time when the international cotton market has recently hit all time highs and the gin set a limit of buying only 3000 tons of cotton compared with some 9000 tons that the ineffective Taliban were able to buy (mostly on credit) toward the end of their time.
One of the key reasons for the developing drug based economy has been our ineffectiveness (understatement) in addressing the issue for the past 10 years.

]]> Comment on What we talk about when we forget about treason by SEAl 6 http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2012/05/what-we-talk-about-when-we-forget-about-treason/comment-page-1/#comment-15763 SEAl 6 Tue, 29 May 2012 15:12:31 +0000 http://kingsofwar.org.uk/?p=6980#comment-15763 Dear Mr. McDonald, please let me thank you for your reply, in the same time we should both feel fortunate that i took 10 minutes from my extremelly-busy time in a week, to open my internet-access today(i usually open the connection in the last day of the week, only: which also happened the precise time when i did it so, a few days ago when there was a national Governmental debate about treason in the country i live, and i instantaneously found your question on terrorism, onto my Inbox). Contrary to your official assumptions on the American system of law, and to everybody's common experience while looking tv-series or movies like 'The Good Wife' and 'Law and Order' or CSI, and in spite i didn't have the official possibility and/or free time, to read at least half from a book i have on the comparative system of international laws, please let me not trust your comments on the American law, as they may be found in your blogpost, here. What is more, contrary i am only a Master comparing to you, i have 4(four) years of study in one different faculty and university, followed by a Batchelor Degree with a top score, in that; and afterthat, i have another degrees in different universities in my country you know(?!): which summed up, in nmbs. of formal and superior education, make a full Ph.D.(10-11 years of high education and a lot more experience, at least) In the end, during my recent and last Master in Foreign Affairs, i've noticed the world and the policies of all-or the majority of-the countries, have deep roots and philosophies in Communism and Marxism, or in that false idea that different people are 'equal' in their brain composition and psychological patterns, at least, if they are 'good but evil or bad'. But i believe the lives of bright people or intellectuals-like you are-could never be regarded as having the compulsory common-standard idea on 'terrorism' , if you are permitted to mention that, about the American system of laws, right? Because, if this is Right, i wonder why you are rich with a good not-common life in your policies, while i am poor and neglected and also offended, in my country, for what i have done with my brain, and i will do!? I am looking forward to your reply..at the end of the week. (Cheers to you!) Dear Mr. McDonald,
please let me thank you for your reply, in the same time we should both feel fortunate that i took 10 minutes from my extremelly-busy time in a week, to open my internet-access today(i usually open the connection in the last day of the week, only: which also happened the precise time when i did it so, a few days ago when there was a national Governmental debate about treason in the country i live, and i instantaneously found your question on terrorism, onto my Inbox).
Contrary to your official assumptions on the American system of law, and to everybody’s common experience while looking tv-series or movies like ‘The Good Wife’ and ‘Law and Order’ or CSI, and in spite i didn’t have the official possibility and/or free time, to read at least half from a book i have on the comparative system of international laws, please let me not trust your comments on the American law, as they may be found in your blogpost, here.
What is more, contrary i am only a Master comparing to you, i have 4(four) years of study in one different faculty and university, followed by a Batchelor Degree with a top score, in that; and afterthat, i have another degrees in different universities in my country you know(?!): which summed up, in nmbs. of formal and superior education, make a full Ph.D.(10-11 years of high education and a lot more experience, at least)
In the end, during my recent and last Master in Foreign Affairs, i’ve noticed the world and the policies of all-or the majority of-the countries, have deep roots and philosophies in Communism and Marxism, or in that false idea that different people are ‘equal’ in their brain composition and psychological patterns, at least, if they are ‘good but evil or bad’. But i believe the lives of bright people or intellectuals-like you are-could never be regarded as having the compulsory common-standard idea on ‘terrorism’ , if you are permitted to mention that, about the American system of laws, right?
Because, if this is Right, i wonder why you are rich with a good not-common life in your policies, while i am poor and neglected and also offended, in my country, for what i have done with my brain, and i will do!?
I am looking forward to your reply..at the end of the week. (Cheers to you!)

]]> Comment on What we talk about when we forget about treason by Jack McDonald http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2012/05/what-we-talk-about-when-we-forget-about-treason/comment-page-1/#comment-15753 Jack McDonald Mon, 28 May 2012 15:22:46 +0000 http://kingsofwar.org.uk/?p=6980#comment-15753 The reason that I'm interested in treason is that the act of accusing someone of treason (widely utilised in popular discourse) is not numerically mirrored by officials legally entitled to do so. Furthermore, in the American judicial system, a separate branch of law has evolved over the past couple of hundred years that gives the executive the freedom to remove constitutional protections from a person, without the attendant process stipulated in the Constitution (naming someone an 'enemy combatant' vs accusing them of treason). In regards to detention, this debate hinges on the due process afforded citizens accused of terrorism/treason, whereas the American executive's use of targeted killings means that the act of naming an American citizen an enemy combatant effectively allows for their legitimate killing by the American state. I am not necessarily 'for' or 'against' targeted killings, but I am very much interested in political philosophy, and the effects that such Constitutional circumnavigation has on the relationship between the citizen and the state. As for 'this hour and today' - I'm currently re-drafting my thesis, and this makes up a significant chapter chunk. I believe in productive procrastination, hence the blog post! The reason that I’m interested in treason is that the act of accusing someone of treason (widely utilised in popular discourse) is not numerically mirrored by officials legally entitled to do so. Furthermore, in the American judicial system, a separate branch of law has evolved over the past couple of hundred years that gives the executive the freedom to remove constitutional protections from a person, without the attendant process stipulated in the Constitution (naming someone an ‘enemy combatant’ vs accusing them of treason). In regards to detention, this debate hinges on the due process afforded citizens accused of terrorism/treason, whereas the American executive’s use of targeted killings means that the act of naming an American citizen an enemy combatant effectively allows for their legitimate killing by the American state. I am not necessarily ‘for’ or ‘against’ targeted killings, but I am very much interested in political philosophy, and the effects that such Constitutional circumnavigation has on the relationship between the citizen and the state.

As for ‘this hour and today’ – I’m currently re-drafting my thesis, and this makes up a significant chapter chunk. I believe in productive procrastination, hence the blog post!

]]> Comment on Turned Right, Crashed into Wall by Pericles http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2012/05/crashed/comment-page-1/#comment-15740 Pericles Sun, 27 May 2012 22:26:13 +0000 http://kingsofwar.org.uk/?p=6949#comment-15740 What is missed here by many commentators like Boot is that Obama did exactly what they all advised him to. In 2008 McChrystal barked and the President jumped, being already concerned over the Right's criticism of his (entirely creditable) decision to withdraw promptly from Iraq. The Afghan surge occurred, all the magic wands of COIN were duly waved around, and both the surge and the COIN effort have since failed roundly to defeat the Taliban, who remain an indigenous and politically potent Afghan phenomenon, despite the hundreds of night time raids, covert assassinations, and relentless drone strikes. It would be nice if the Max Boots, Michael O'Hanlons and other right wing war jockeys of this world were held up to account a little more often over their hollow, shallow, and dangerous analyses, which have prolonged a war and increased casualties on both sides to no discernible strategic purpose. To me the analysis that really needs to be done is who replaces Karzai post-2014. There is a deathly silence around this question because everybody knows the alternatives are either politically impotent or (in terms of general corruption) even worse. What is missed here by many commentators like Boot is that Obama did exactly what they all advised him to. In 2008 McChrystal barked and the President jumped, being already concerned over the Right’s criticism of his (entirely creditable) decision to withdraw promptly from Iraq. The Afghan surge occurred, all the magic wands of COIN were duly waved around, and both the surge and the COIN effort have since failed roundly to defeat the Taliban, who remain an indigenous and politically potent Afghan phenomenon, despite the hundreds of night time raids, covert assassinations, and relentless drone strikes. It would be nice if the Max Boots, Michael O’Hanlons and other right wing war jockeys of this world were held up to account a little more often over their hollow, shallow, and dangerous analyses, which have prolonged a war and increased casualties on both sides to no discernible strategic purpose.
To me the analysis that really needs to be done is who replaces Karzai post-2014. There is a deathly silence around this question because everybody knows the alternatives are either politically impotent or (in terms of general corruption) even worse.

]]> Comment on What we talk about when we forget about treason by SEAl 6 http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2012/05/what-we-talk-about-when-we-forget-about-treason/comment-page-1/#comment-15731 SEAl 6 Sat, 26 May 2012 17:24:19 +0000 http://kingsofwar.org.uk/?p=6980#comment-15731 Thank you for that article. Contrary to i am amazed of the high interest on 'treason', i find in both the American and British web sites and comments, since years ago: could you please tell me why are you interested about that topic right now at this hour and today?! I am looking forward to your not-psychologic answer or reply, to me... Thank you for that article. Contrary to i am amazed of the high interest on ‘treason’, i find in both the American and British web sites and comments, since years ago: could you please tell me why are you interested about that topic right now at this hour and today?!
I am looking forward to your not-psychologic answer or reply, to me…

]]> Comment on What we talk about when we forget about treason by Jack McDonald http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2012/05/what-we-talk-about-when-we-forget-about-treason/comment-page-1/#comment-15729 Jack McDonald Sat, 26 May 2012 12:03:24 +0000 http://kingsofwar.org.uk/?p=6980#comment-15729 Thomas, have you read Agamben's works? I have a fair bit of my thesis on him and Schmitt. Thomas, have you read Agamben’s works? I have a fair bit of my thesis on him and Schmitt.

]]>