Winds of Change.NET

Yesterday's Heroes

2009-11-06T19:09:05Z

When I took shooting classes with Jeff Cooper back in the 80's he dismissively referred to female LEO's as "copchicks." Today, many look at the women who serve in harm's way in the military and police forces questioning their ability to perform in extremis.

Well, we've written about female soldiers in combat before, but today's news brings us this:

(photo: New York Daily News)

The hero cop who ended the bloody rampage at Fort Hood by pumping four bullets into the crazed gunman even though she was wounded is known for her toughness, friends say.

...

"She was born and bred to be a police officer. If you were ever to be in a fight, she'd be the first person to stand up next to you and back you up. She's a tough cookie."

Munley's toughness and grace under pressure were on display Thursday when she and her partner responded within three minutes of reported gunfire, said Army Lt. Gen. Bob Cone.

Munley, who had been trained in active-response tactics, rushed into the building and confronted the shooter as he was turning a corner, Cone said.

"It was an amazing and an aggressive performance by this police officer," Cone said.

Munley was only a few feet from Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan when she opened fire.

Wounded in the exchange of bullets, the 34-year-old Munley was reported in stable condition at a local hospital.

The story's not all in, and we're a long way from the facts, but if she did stop the shooting by dropping Maj. Hasan, she's my hero. And if she didn't stop him and just entered the building and went to the sound of the guns, well ... she's my hero, too.
-

NY Times: From Dowdification to "We Just Make it Up..."

2009-11-06T00:57:19Z

If quality and ethics were a factor in media personnel decisions, Maureen Dowd would have been demoted or fired some time ago. Christian Lowe details the new-told lie:

"Yes, the president's Oct. 29 trip to Dover Air Force base in the dark of night to greet a C-17 carrying fallen Americans killed in Afghanistan was a vivid example of the reality of that war and should pause to those who call for increased commitment there. And it was honorable of Obama to see for himself the human cost of his decisions -- as every commander and chief should.

But to reflexively defend the photo op engineered to create news about the president's "sobering reminder" by claiming that the man who got us into Afghanistan in the first place never faced them is just plain bunk....

We wrote a wide-ranging investigative piece on the conduct of the services during the killed-in-action notification process and the support they provided along the way.... For, unlike Dowd, who I doubt has ever spoken with the family of a fallen servicemember, I was forced to confront the world I obliquely reported from afar -- to hear the quavering voices of mothers whose sons had been obliterated by roadside bombs. And you know who else did that very same thing dozens of times in his eight years as president?"

You can guess where this is going...

"In my conversations with those who sacrificed a son, a husband, a brother, or a boyfriend, all were universally grateful for George W. Bush's sincere -- and private -- conversations with them either before or directly after an event or speech at a military base. As a routine, Bush would meet behind closed doors with family members who'd lost loved ones as part of his stop at military installations.

These were not simply pro-war, anti-war, pro-Bush or anti-Bush families -- they were all of the above. Some were against the Iraq war; others were steadfast, despite their unimaginable sacrifice, for victory there. But to a man and women, these grieving Americans appreciated the president's heartfelt compassion and deep understanding of their sacrifice -- and of the weight of the decision to send potentially more of America's young to their deaths."

I'm not sure this will matter to a narcissist viper like Ms. Dowd, because I doubt that truth means very much to her. She has a narrative to sell, and lies are justified in the telling.

Bill Whittle has a pretty good video post about that mentality, which actually has a strong set of philosophical defenders and underpinnings in the Left.

It's a philosophically valuable piece, albeit not nearly as funny as his "The Dowd Conundrum" Star Trek episode takeoff, complete with sets. Hell of a Shatner imitation, Bill, and an interesting point or two along the way about intellectuals and power.

Ft. Hood Murders

2009-11-05T23:08:20Z

There will be plenty of time to discuss what this means and what to do. Right now, we need to mourn the dead and aid the wounded and bereaved. If you live in the area, Scott & White Hospital In Temple is looking for blood donors.

I'm going to ask people here to shut down the politics and sociology of what happened for at least a day. We have no idea what happened yet, so let's take care of people and then argue.

Please.
-

Shooting at Ft Hood SRP Site

2009-11-05T20:54:00Z

I'm here working at Casey Library on post, and we're on lock down as there was a shooting rampage (that's what people are calling it) at the SRP site at the former Sports USA down the street from us. Apparently 7 are dead and 15 injured. They're still trying to catch all the perpetrators. Pray for the victims and their families, please. Story here.

Update: One thing about being on lockdown is I probably know less than people can get from the news. Lots of sirens throughout the day, but we're told to stay inside. More here, including increasing casualty numbers as information gets updated.

I posted this here rather than at my own site because it seemed to make more sense, but no rational reason.

Update II Local newsreader mentioned "chaos" on Fort Hood. I think just a throw-word used regardless of its meaning. Suffice to say there's no chaos: It's like the news people who speak about "people panicing in New York during 9/11". There wasn't really panic - natural fear and people were understandably upset and moving rapidly, but without panic.

There is no chaos here that is detectible, everything is very orderly and people are doing what they need to. The use of the word "chaos" just set me off. There will probably be a lot of bogus descriptions used by the ignorati we rely upon for information.

Now 12 dead, 31 wounded reportedly.

Live Feed here.

Moronic: Drudge currently has this photo up on his front page:

Note that's not an image related to the current event at all; it's a stock photo of the urban warfare training site. I have no idea why he would use that except for pseudo-dramatic effect. That site is nowhere near where the shooting took place and its use gives a misimpression of what's going on.

I don't have any special information, but I can tell something of what isn't accurate.

Update III: 1740 local time (CST) MPs were out with weapons drawn searching all vehicles in the parking lots nearby.

Apex Predators, Mesopredators, and Man

2009-11-05T02:44:35Z

The journal Bioscience (October 2009) recently published "The Rise of the Mesopredator" [PDF]. Science Codex covers the researchers' coclusions:

"In case after case around the world, the researchers said, primary predators such as wolves, lions or sharks have been dramatically reduced if not eliminated, usually on purpose and sometimes by forces such as habitat disruption, hunting or fishing. Many times this has been viewed positively by humans, fearful of personal attack, loss of livestock or other concerns. But the new picture that's emerging is a range of problems, including ecosystem and economic disruption that may dwarf any problems presented by the original primary predators.... "The economic impacts of mesopredators should be expected to exceed those of apex predators in any scenario in which mesopredators contribute to the same or to new conflict with humans," the researchers wrote in their report. "Mesopredators occur at higher densities than apex predators and exhibit greater resiliency to control efforts." The problems are not confined to terrestrial ecosystems...."

Interesting article. Hopefully, it will lead to smarter interactions with nature. We're the apex species, which means stewardship whether we like or not. Might as well get good at it.

One wonders, too, if there may be some applications to human predators, as well.

$389,679

2009-11-05T01:42:14Z

As a part of what I'm reacting to in the Watertown Times editorial last week (note that I'm not necessarily weeping and rending my garments over the election outcome - I don't know enough about Owens to have an opinion yet), let me toss this out. In the LA Times today, there was an op-ed which - to a large extent I agree with. the author complains about the political idiocy that's ruling California today:

The ineffective response to the current financial crisis reflects trends that have been hurting California public education for years. To win votes, political leaders mandated long prison sentences that forced us to stop building schools and start building prisons. This has made us dumber but no safer. Leaders pandered by promising tax cuts no matter what and did not worry about how to provide basic services without that money. Those tax cuts did not make us richer; they've made us poorer. To remain in office, they carved out legislative districts that ensured we would have few competitive races and leaders with no ability or incentive to compromise. Rather than strengthening the parties, it pushed both parties to the fringes and weakened them.

When the economy was good, our leaders failed to make hard choices and then faced disasters like the energy crisis. When the economy turned bad, they made no choices until the economy was worse.

In response to failures of leadership, voters came up with one cure after another that was worse than the disease -- whether it has been over-reliance on initiatives driven by special interests, or term limits that remove qualified people from office, or any of the other ways we have come up with to avoid representative democracy.

So what's not to like?

He goes on:

My story is not unique. It is the story of California's rise from the 1960s to the 1990s. Millions of people stayed here and succeeded because of their California education. We benefited from the foresight of an earlier generation that recognized it had a duty to pay it forward.

That was the bargain California made with us when it established the California Master Plan for Higher Education in 1960. By making California the state where every qualified and committed person can receive a low-cost and high-quality education, all of us benefit. Attracting and retaining the leaders of the future helps the state grow bigger and stronger. Economists found that for every dollar the state invests in a CSU student, it receives $4.41 in return.

So as someone who has lived the California dream, there is nothing more painful to me than to see this dream dying. It is being starved to death by a public that thinks any government service -- even public education -- is not worth paying for. And by political leaders who do not lead but instead give in to our worst, shortsighted instincts.

But there's a problem...let me give some examples.

CSU LA, one local campus of the California State University - the author was a Trustee of the statewide institution - has 119 employees who make over $100K in annual salary - plus 40% burden, I'd guess. The campus President makes $389,679.

Take a look at the job descriptions and salaries below (I've deleted the names, but all this information is available courtesy of the Sacramento Bee). And there's the rub.

I don't mind a whit supporting the cost of building out a university system that could be available to everyone in California (side issue: does everyone really have to go to college?). I think that ladder of opportunity is vital to our success as a state and as a nation.

But when the ladder-builders are getting this fat, lots of people are going to look at their demands for better ladders and wonder whether those ladders are really worth funding.

Job Title

Total Pay

PRESIDENT

$ 389,679

ADMINISTRATOR IV

$ 230,262

ADMINISTRATOR IV

$ 209,862

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 197,296

ADMINISTRATOR IV

$ 193,482

ADMINISTRATOR IV

$ 191,022

ADMINISTRATOR IV

$ 188,916

ADMINISTRATOR IV

$ 184,600

ADMINISTRATOR IV

$ 164,964

ADMINISTRATOR IV

$ 163,983

ADMINISTRATOR IV

$ 163,806

ADMINISTRATOR IV

$ 163,128

ADMINISTRATOR IV

$ 161,272

ADMINISTRATOR IV

$ 159,816

ADMINISTRATOR IV

$ 159,234

ADMINISTRATOR IV

$ 159,048

PHYSICIAN

$ 157,036

NETWORK ANALYST -12

$ 155,508

GRANT-RELATED/SPECIALLY FUNDED INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY

$ 151,987

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 150,875

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 147,246

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 145,746

ADMINISTRATOR II

$ 142,289

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 140,952

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 139,866

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 137,742

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 136,902

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 136,884

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 136,392

DEPARTMENT CHAIR - 12 MONTH

$ 135,191

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 134,816

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 134,463

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 134,124

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 133,296

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 131,862

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 130,254

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 128,862

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 128,634

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 127,747

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 126,726

LIBRARIAN - 12 MONTH

$ 126,416

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 125,334

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - 12 MONTH

$ 123,817

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - 12 MONTH

$ 122,426

DEPARTMENT CHAIR - 12 MONTH

$ 122,126

ADMINISTRATOR IV

$ 121,254

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 120,972

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 120,138

SERGEANT

$ 119,900

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 119,082

ADMINISTRATOR IV

$ 118,759

DEPARTMENT CHAIR - 12 MONTH

$ 118,508

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 118,434

ADMINISTRATOR IV

$ 117,160

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 116,466

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 114,812

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 114,424

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 113,603

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 112,602

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 112,434

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 112,117

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 112,038

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 111,925

ADMINISTRATOR II

$ 109,620

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - 12 MONTH

$ 109,217

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 109,104

ADMINISTRATOR II

$ 109,086

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 108,816

ADMINISTRATOR II

$ 108,786

ANALYST/PROGRAMMER -12

$ 108,624

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - 12 MONTH

$ 108,127

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 107,594

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 107,426

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 107,411

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 106,360

ADMINISTRATOR II

$ 106,296

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 106,204

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 106,103

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 105,159

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 105,071

LIBRARIAN - 12 MONTH

$ 104,485

HEAD COACH - 12 MONTH

$ 104,365

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 104,072

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 103,976

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 103,868

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 103,758

SUPERVISING LIBRARIAN - 12 MONTH

$ 103,575

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 103,412

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 103,410

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 103,410

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 103,290

ADMINISTRATOR III

$ 102,631

LIBRARIAN, PROGRAM SERVICES - 12 MONTH

$ 102,365

ADMINISTRATOR II

$ 102,354

LIBRARIAN - 12 MONTH

$ 102,209

ADMINISTRATOR II

$ 102,090

SERGEANT

$ 101,861

ADMINISTRATOR II

$ 101,532

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 101,484

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 101,484

PHARMACIST II

$ 101,449

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 101,400

ANALYST/PROGRAMMER -12

$ 101,373

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - 12 MONTH

$ 101,299

SERGEANT

$ 101,292

ADMINISTRATOR II

$ 101,070

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 100,975

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 100,819

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 100,819

ADMINISTRATOR II

$ 100,794

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 100,790

STUDENT SERVICES PROFESSIONAL, ACADEMIC-RELATED II

$ 100,676

ADMINISTRATOR II

$ 100,565

ANALYST/PROGRAMMER -12

$ 100,548

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 100,514

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 100,334

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 100,286

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 100,234

INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY - ACADEMIC YEAR

$ 100,053

SkyBox Exodus?

2009-11-04T22:24:54Z

Armed Liberal has discussed "skybox liberalism" here on several occasions, as well as the conceit that the future of our cities belongs to a "creative class" that just so happens to correlate with that political tendency (the "Teixeira vs. Kotkin" debate). It appears that actual evidence suggests the reverse - a "skybox exodus" that is hollowing out the middle class, and pushing city growth away from the "hip".

The kind of hostile environment that skybox liberalism creates for people who are upper lower to lower middle class is definitely part of all this, but a pair of questions occur to me that go beyond the "Red State/ Blue State" dynamic. Maybe you'll find them interesting, too, and i'd welcome comments.

One question is the connection the skybox exodus might have with the current role of the financial sector in the economy, which includes the bubble-creating mentality entrenched in the Fed.

Another involves the long-term viability of the "service economy" paradigm itself, even as I wonder whether this sort of hollowing out might even be a move toward a "service economy" country's natural steady state. Lewy had asked that in the comments a while back, basically what if you created an economy that just needs a small percentage of highly-trained smart people, and the rest are just menial services or a drag? Is this the natural steady state of an economy that abandons the physical production of exportable things? Can an economy like that really prosper or even last, over the long term? If the steady state hypothesis is true, can a free republic?

My answers lean toward: probably, probably not, and no. But maybe you have different answers, or a different take....

Aftermath

2009-11-04T04:25:28Z

So since I'm still getting emails asking how I'm doing after last week, let me take a moment and tell everyone.

Shortest version: pretty much fine. Thursday and Friday were hard; I've got to say that I am in awe of the emotional strength of people who deal with stuff like this every day. I doubt that I could. But the tips that I got from the professionals on managing my recovery were all extremely useful.

Saturday I went to the racetrack with my motorcycle. On one hand, I was distracted enough to get black-flagged and moved down to the beginner group, where I pretty much just rode around. On the other hand, I managed to transfer a fair amount of my stress onto the pavement:

Yeah, that's pretty much how I'd been feelling...but here's what made a difference.

First, I got a lot of attaboys. In On Combat, Grossman talks about the fact that many officers and solders who go through hyperstressful events walk out and don't get those. No one shot at me, nothing blew up, I took no meaningful risks - but I got a lot of warm feedback, and it made a difference. Friday morning I was furious with myself for not, somehow, doing better and changing the outcome and making that guy one of the 4 or 5 percent who survive traumatic arrest. Hearing, over and over, from people who'd BT and DT that I'd done the right things, and that there was no simple magic "McGuffin" that I'd forgotten or didn't know to do showed me how irrational that response really was. And once the logical underpinnings of the bad feelings were kicked away, the sheer emotional support made a huge difference.

That's a lesson, people. When you see a EMT, or a police officer, or a soldier, all those dumb-a** "thank you for your service" remarks that we're all a little embarrassed to say - well, say them. That man or woman you're saying them to has or will go through some things that make what I went through look like Pla-Dough time at preschool.

Second, I talked about it. Ad nauseam. I blogged it, and Facebooked it and talked it into the ground with TG. I processed and processed it and at some point became kinds desensitized to it. I'm sorry I subjected everyone to that, and appreciate the patience.

Third, I tried to learn from it. there are some concrete things that I took away as I've played it out that I know I'd have done differently, and while I hope like heck that there is never, ever a next time, if there is I have a few new cards in the deck. Specifically, I should have mobilized some of the other bystanders immediately, instead of waiting - I should have had one or two people helping me; I should have cut away the whole side air bag and had better access to the victim; I should have gloved up before I went into the car, rather than halfway through the process; and if I can find a c-collar that folds flat enough to carry in the back pouch of my Aerostich, I just might get one. I'm not at all sure I would have used it in the situation Thursday - the injury was just too traumatic for me to really do much at all. But on a lesser but similar injury it could be useful.

Finally, I'm going to keep working on my skills, and am building a library of classes I want to take.

There's always more to do.
-

On Asymmetric Warfare: Byzantine Grand Strategy in the 11th and 21st Centuries

2009-11-03T16:35:05Z

This follows my first and second posts in this series, as well as other related posts.

As is obvious by my web-name, it's no state secret that I'm into the Eastern Roman (aka "Byzantine") Empire. Back when I was a Freshman in Uni I read Edward Luttwak's excellent Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, a work I highly recommend. Well he has completed the obvious sequel, a book on the Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire.

In Foreign Policy Luttwak has an article recommending the essential features of this strategy to the United States. I would argue that we already follow most of them, including a pernicious corruption of them that the Byzantines themselves engaged in during the 11th Century.

I. Avoid war by every possible means, in all possible circumstances, but always act as if war might start at any time. Train intensively and be ready for battle at all times -- but do not be eager to fight. The highest purpose of combat readiness is to reduce the probability of having to fight.

America has, critics to the contrary notwithstanding, typically followed this, including in the latest war, where, as many have noted, they "were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them", and even in the "rush to war" against Iraq that took a decade.

II. Gather intelligence on the enemy and his mentality, and monitor his actions continuously. Efforts to do so by all possible means might not be very productive, but they are seldom wasted.

I shall elide over this a bit for the time being, because it is clearly one area where one might say we fall short of the highest standards. However, I will note that we do better than are given credit for, including in the current conflict where we must be right all the time in our counterterrorism efforts to foil attacks against us, while one intelligence failure on this front can lead to catastrophic results and the pointy finger of blame being directed at poor intelligence, flawed analysis of intelligence we did have, failure to recognize the value of intelligence or what it meant, and the like. But the Byzantines also had such failures: Just ask Nicephoros I or Manuel Komnenos. Nothing human is perfect.

III. Campaign vigorously, both offensively and defensively, but avoid battles, especially large-scale battles, except in very favorable circumstances. Don't think like the Romans, who viewed persuasion as just an adjunct to force. Instead, employ force in the smallest possible doses to help persuade the persuadable and harm those not yet amenable to persuasion.

Again I would say that by and large and for the most part, the invidious Powell Doctrine to the contrary notwithstanding, we do this. Sometimes to excess: Witness the initial attempt at a small footprint in Afghanistan. Arguably that was a good strategy, however, depending upon what ones goals in Afghanistan are. If they are simply to defeat our foes and keep them on the run, than this, in conjunction with the use of native forces as allies and proxies, is enough. If our goal is to build a strong democratic state there, then it is insufficient.

IV. Replace the battle of attrition and occupation of countries with maneuver warfare -- lightning strikes and offensive raids to disrupt enemies, followed by rapid withdrawals. The object is not to destroy your enemies, because they can become tomorrow's allies. A multiplicity of enemies can be less of a threat than just one, so long as they can be persuaded to attack one another.

Iraq is the one recent counter-example to this that people may point to. Afghanistan is becoming a counter-example in part because of the limitations of lightning-strike warfare. This is not to say that such strikes are always a failure, but they are not a panacea either. Note that in Iraq itself, pre-surge, this was the operational method that was preferred: Minimize American presence in the cities and neighborhoods, and conduct strikes from basecamps instead. The Surge meant occupying more areas to produce security.

V. Strive to end wars successfully by recruiting allies to change the balance of power. Diplomacy is even more important during war than peace. Reject, as the Byzantines did, the foolish aphorism that when the guns speak, diplomats fall silent. The most useful allies are those nearest to the enemy, for they know how best to fight his forces.

This is done more quite often. The same people who will on the one hand criticize American "militarism" will often on the other hand condemn our "proxy-wars". I'll note that in Afghanistan we recruited local forces from the outset, and neighboring countries. I'll also note that in my tour in Iraq, I got the chance to work for a couple weeks with a SF Team that was responsible for training the ISOFOR. During that time, Iraqi recruits were subjected to a psychological screening conducted by military psychologists from friendly Arab country bordering Iraq (I'll leave it to the reader to guess which one): So even there, more allies were recruited to help than is generally known.

VI. Subversion is the cheapest path to victory. So cheap, in fact, as compared with the costs and risks of battle, that it must always be attempted, even with the most seemingly irreconcilable enemies. Remember: Even religious fanatics can be bribed, as the Byzantines were some of the first to discover, because zealots can be quite creative in inventing religious justifications for betraying their own cause ("since the ultimate victory of Islam is inevitable anyway ...").

This is done more often than we're given credit for, and indeed when critics of American foreign policy note it, it is to condemn any efforts to subvert or suborn enemies from within. I will note that we largely won the Cold War in Eastern Europe, however, in no small part through the use of such tactics, and that to the extent to which there was a period when Saddam was "friendly" with America, it was during a spell when we were employing this strategem against both Iran and Iraq and the Soviets.

VII. When diplomacy and subversion are not enough and fighting is unavoidable, use methods and tactics that exploit enemy weaknesses, avoid consuming combat forces, and patiently whittle down the enemy's strength. This might require much time. But there is no urgency because as soon as one enemy is no more, another will surely take his place. All is constantly changing as rulers and nations rise and fall. Only the empire is eternal -- if, that is, it does not exhaust itself.

Here also we have invested quite a bit of effort and creativity into just that over the last three or four decades.

But I want to turn the rest of my post on this to what could be called the Dark Side of Byzantine Strategy, an internal conflict that burst into the open in the 11th Century to the ultimate detriment of the Eastern Roman Empire, and again at the dawn of the 13th. Proxy forces can be waged against external enemies, but those engaged in internal political squabbles may consciously or unconsciously tempted tengage in warfare by proxy against their opponents, to humiliate, weaken, and discredit them in the struggle for political dominance.

After the death of Basil II Makedonion, the already existing tensions between Byzantium's "Civil" and its "military" elites flared up, worstening throughout the next five decades. The American counterparts of this are the Blue State "Georgetownist" Transnational Progressives and the Red State "Arlingtonist" nationalists. In Byzantium this conflict included the elimination of opponents from positions of influence even if (ultimately, especially if) they were competent, diverting funding (for example, Constantine IX Monomachus' demobilization of the forces of the Dukate of Armenia, at the time when Turkish raids were starting), sabotaging military campaigns (the most obvious being the withdrawal of half the army at Manzikurt, leaving Romanus III Diogenes to be defeated), and ultimately paying Turkish proxy forces to fight against each other in civil wars during the 1070s, even as the Turks conquered Anatolia.

One hundred years later, the son of a deposed Emperor recruited Crusaders to help place his father (or him) back on the throne, resulting instead in the conquest of the capital by said Crusaders and untold destruction.

Are we at that stage yet? Clearly not. Our current situation resembles the 1040s more than the 1070s, much less 1200s. But all the elements are in place, including a ruling class that is tougher with domestic opponents than with foreign enemies, always ready to advocate extending understanding and diplomatic, tactful treatment of foreign enemies while having nothing but the harshest, hatefully vituperative and merciless treatment of their domestic opponents. They have already rhetorically at minimum on numerous occasions used foreign enemies as proxies, and their mentors marched under the banner of more than one foreign foe, openly rooting for their victory, believing it would help discredit their domestic political opponents and advance their own cause.

These are facts: Pointing them out is only an act of intellectual honesty. It is simply chronicling current history accurately. None the less, it is extremely controversial to take note of this reality, except in the most indirect or praising way (that is, you can note it without controversy if you share their perspective). It is also not unfair to say that the outcome of what passes for their sage wisdom on the waging of war, and their fundamental transformation of traditional International Law and the Laws of War hinder their own nation's efforts and make it easier for their country's enemies (see previous posts in this series). This is what makes "asymmetric warfare" possible at all. It is this kind of "warfare by proxy" that results in dictators getting their job through the New York Times, and even now regularly speak power to truth in their efforts to advantage undemocratic enemies of their country abroad at the expense of integrity. Once you've read about international law untainted by their manipulations, or what the drafters of the real Geneva Conventions had to say:

"(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil [sic] the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

you then realize that these people have turned reality on its head. It is no exaggeration to say that they now offer far more protection to what are, under true international law, unlawful combatants who in a sane era were not extended the protections given uniformed combatants, than anyone ever extended to lawful, uniformed combatants. It should surprise no one that deciples of 'Franz Fanon' (sic) would behave in such a fashion, and that they would be drawn to concepts aimed at persuading people that fighting insurgencies is futile (which flies in the face of actual historical experience in defeating insurgencies). One is to be portrayed as a wild-eyed extremist for noting in a non-laudatory way what they say in their own words, which itself represents 1) the enforced detachment from reality that we are nudged into and 2) one aspect of the very internal conflict under discussion here, where war methods are waged with ruthlessness against internal dissent. (Language is an important expression of mentality: a "War Room" is what one has to combat domestic enemies; a "Situation Room" is what is now used to address overseas crises).

They are not to be seen as extremist for behaving this way: You to be treated as an extremist nut engaging in un-American activities, even as a terrorist for opposing them at home and for highlighting such behavior in an unflattering way. The degeneration of our governing class is all the more evident in the fact that they are sincerely delusional, thinking of themselves as outsider underdogs "speaking truth to power" when they are the ones in power, and are everywhere speaking power to truth in their efforts to destroy all opposition root and branch, and the fact that even ostensibly sensible people like Steven M. Teles thinks that this is not only a legitimate attitude towards those who disagree with them at home, but "necessary": The idea of a "loyal opposition", legitimate institutions other than ones they control, has become so foreign to not only the core of this group, but its sympathizers, that they believe they have "no choice but to use the... tools at its disposal to destroy its opponents root and branch". Since they "agree with Mao that power comes largely from the barrel of a gun", it should not be a surprise that they are not above using proxy forces in an attempt to discredit and destroy their domestic political opponents in this way.

I could invoke far more examples to drive this point home, but those in the "reality-based community" that dismiss empirical reality would pooh-pooh it regardless. Suffice to say that the attitude of domestic warfare that our governing class displays, when combined with the incontrovertible fact that they are as grounded in reality as O'Brien, forms a dire combination that bodes ill for the future.

Bonus for Extra Credit: Compare and contrast a typical example of the sage military advice offered up by these people with Luttwak's and other real experts, as well as those with actual experience, and remembering that the British defeated an insurgency in Malaysia even while the "typical example's" conception was taking root. Which passes for conventional wisdom, and who does it serve that this is maintained as conventional wisdom, all empirical evidence to the contrary notwithstanding?

Pointed fact to keep in mind when addressing the Extra-Credit Question: FDR's America would have had no problem employing the means necessary to crush opponents we now are expected to take for granted cannot be beaten militarily.

Note also that another real expert on matters military connects this outlook to a real ideology, whose aims you can judge for yourself.

Response to Potential Objection: Yes, in spring they sent more troops to Afghanistan, and they haven't followed through on their previous rhetoric about Iraq, behaving, now that they are in office, in a more responsible way. But note that they do not embrace this outlook as a means of discrediting themselves, it's only for the utility of destroying their domestic political opponents. So, when a process like this is underway, we should naturally expect their own behavior to differ from what their rhetoric was when they were assailing their opponents. At minimum temporizing and an obvious tension about what decision to make, as they struggle with the internal conflict of their ideology pulling them one way while their instinct for political survival tugs them the other way.

Nothing illustrates this better than Obama's recent speech. I believe he is sincere when he said ""I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way. I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary, and if it is necessary, we will back you up to the hilt."

I'm positive he sincerely perceives himself that way, just as he sincerely holds a contrary idea in his head (cognitive dissonance is not alien to these people). However, it is simply not part of his mental process that he already made such a decision (last spring, in sending additional troops), and he is now Hamlet over whether to back to the hilt or not, because of the tension between the siren song of their base, which is where their heart lays, where their own beliefs rest.

So we are served a public rationalization over why there is a delay in decision and why the forces necessary for victory ought to be denied which no rational people could possibly believe is sincere. We're to believe that a circle of Chicago Pols with close ties to the likes of ACORN and George Soros and benefit from shenannegans of all kinds are shocked, shocked! to have suddenly discovered that there is political corruption in Afghanistan. Roman, please! If you sincerely believe that, as opposed to pretending to believe it because you're a sycophantic courtier speaking power to truth like the rest of the coterie surrounding this faction, I have only one question for you: Do you have your own cup to drool into, or do you have to share one?

Another objection of course is: Porphy, aren't you just on the other side? In the largest sense, no. I am chronicling this and hoping people will be aware of it. I certainly have sympathy for one side in this conflict, and as is obvious by what I concentrated on describing, hold the other in at best a minimum of high regard. But I am certainly not asking or hoping for you to become active in fighting against them and for Team B, aka "The Outer Party". That simply fuels the conflict. Additionally, voting, and other conventional political activism is a laughable way of thwarting this, as the locus of their power, is insulated from democratic politics as we normally understand it. Being in office helps the velocity by which they "affect change", marginally, but being out of office does not cripple them, as they are never truly out of power. The tides still flow.

I have no program, and won't offer up the usual "ten point plan for restoring the Republic" of items that range from the futile to the banal that others do and which are always so anticlimactically inconsequential or fantastically outside the realm of the possible (even as they illustrate the point I am making here, in that 70% of the voting public would support them, or something like them, but there aint no way they'll ever get close to be placed on the agenda) as to be depressing.

The last thing I should advocate is "taking sides" in this conflict and fighting it, as tempting as that is. Hopefully someone out there does have some idea of how to resolve this non-catastrophically, and I chronicle and describe it in no small part in the hope that someone shall put their mind to it.

We've Got Ours In NY-23

2009-11-01T18:47:42Z

The special election congressional race for New York's 23rd District has gathered a lot of attention; with the liberal Republican (a New England stereotype) withdrawing in the face of a widely-supported Conservative candidate.

I have no dog in this fight; I don't live there and can't speak to the qualities of the candidates (Iowahawk made his judgement based on wheel wells and secondarily, ideology). I have a mild predisposition to seeing Democrats win, but that has been badly eroded over the last decade.

So why am I writing about this, you ask?

Because a local editorial encapsulated what has me so furious at our political classes that I do think we simply need to turn our statehouses over and shake them very hard.

Here's quote, from the editorial in the 'Watertown Daily Times':

The Democratic candidate has demonstrated a willingness to listen to people about ways in which he could help the district as their representative in Washington. Mr. Owens has remained focused on the economy and job creation throughout his campaign. At the same time, he has shown an understanding of the military, a keen desire to help dairy farmers, an ability to work with labor unions and an eagerness to learn more about the vast, 11-county district that he hopes to represent.

Mr. Owens seems to approach politics and challenges with an open mind, a generous spirit and a can-do attitude. He has conducted a dignified campaign in comparison to Doug Hoffman.

Mr. Hoffman is running as an ideologue. If he carries out his pledges on earmarks, taxation, labor law reform and other inflexible positions, Northern New York will suffer. This rural district depends on the federal government for an investment in Fort Drum and its soldiers, environmental protection of our international waterway and the Adirondack Park, and the livelihood of all our dairy farmers across the district, among other support. Our representative cannot be locked into rigid promises and policies that would jeopardize these critical sectors of our economy.

For a member of Congress, there may be a time to promote reform in Washington, but there is also a time to work within a system that best serves the people you represent.

(emphasis added)

As I read this, in other words - "yeah, there are fatal problems with the overall system, but as long as we get ours, we're OK with that."

And if that doesn't make you feel like hoisting the jolly roger and sharpening your cutlass, I'm not sure what will.

At the Press Club event where I felt I was too harsh on the LA Times guy, what I said was:

"Are you really saying that the LA Times offers quality journalism? Really? I don't agree, and have evidence. Because if the LA Times was a good newspaper over the last 20 years, how is it - exactly - that they were so silent as Los Angeles and California managed to become so f***ed up?"

The attitude it the Watertown Daily Times? - that's exactly how.

If we're going to get out of this, we need to kick that attitude to the curb, and quickly.
-

The Razor's Edge of Now

2009-10-30T06:01:09Z

So I'm home with most of a bottle of Bonny Doon Mourvedre in me.

It's been a day that I'll be digesting for a while.

I had meetings up in LA, so rode my motorcycle up for a morning meeting and a lunch. Meetings were great, and I was heading home from Beverly Hills after lunch, riding west on Olympic Blvd. when traffic stopped just past Century City.

I filtered through traffic to the front, where there was a pretty horrific two-vehicle accident. One was an Escalade or other big GM SUV with a smashed front end. The other was a Nissan Altima smashed on the passenger door.

There was no one in the SUV, but several people standing around the Altima; I rode up and asked if everyone was OK. A bystander said "No."

So I parked, pulled off my gloves and helmet and went to the driver's door where a woman was crying but seemed OK. Her passenger was sitting still.

I went around to the passenger window, and cut away the side airbag. The passenger was still in his seat, his head to the side in a way that made me pause. I grabbed the back of his head and chin to hold his head steady, and he gasped twice, then was silent. The driver was tugging on his shoulder, calling his name and I pushed her away and told her to sit back and be still.

I held his head with my left hand and felt for a pulse in his throat with my right and got nothing. Wrist, nothing. hand on his chest, nothing.

I took a breath and told myself I was just anxious and tried again. Nothing. hand on his chest, no rise or fall. Eyes half open and rolled back, a line of spittle from the corner of his mouth. I checked my watch, opened my pocket and took out the gloves and CPR shield and opened them and put them on the car roof.

The smashed door wouldn't open, and I couldn't get myself far enough into the window to reach him. My motorcycle suit shielded me from the broken glass in the door, but I couldn't get to him.

I turned to a bystander and asked if they would come hold him while I went in the driver's door. They came over to help and as we were trying to position ourselves to make the transition, the firetruck pulled up.

I love first responders, but it sure seemed to me that they were taking a long time to get out of the truck, pulling on jackets and picking up gear. I started screaming. "No pulse! No respiration! No pulse! Hustle!" and one fireman heard me and jogged to the car. He opened the driver's door quickly checked the driver, pulled her from the car, and moved into the driver's area.

He checked for a pulse and suddenly got much more focused. He turned and yelled for a c-collar, then when no one responded immediately, yelled louder. Someone came over and handed him one and we velcroed it around the passenger's still neck. I helped lower him as the firemen took him and pulled him out to lay him on the ground.

I had nothing to do to help him, so I walked around the car to the driver, who standing crying while watching them get a respirator bag and defibrillator equipment ready. I pulled her away and sat her down, facing away from the car and the scene on the sidewalk.

"What's your name, miss?"

She told me.

"What's your friend's name?"

She told me. Her boyfriend. He hadn't been wearing his seatbelt.

I did a 30-second assessment, and other than an airbag burn on her forehead, mild pain in her stomach, and tears she seemed OK. I checked her nails and they pinked up, so if she had internal bleeding, I was guessing it wasn't urgent enough to interrupt the work on the sidewalk.

We sat and I asked if she needed to call anyone. She gave me her father's cell number, and I called him, told him his daughter had been in an accident, was upset, but seemed OK. I gave her the phone and she melted down into a torrent of Spanish too fast and too teary for me to follow. She handed me back the phone and said her dad would be right there.

I looked up and saw one fireman doing chest compressions while the others stood by.

Finally, another ambulance showed up and two new EMT came over to help her. I told then what I knew and stepped back. They turned her to get better access to her back and - dammit - faced her back toward her boyfriend, his clothes spread open while another fireman gave him chest compressions and one worked the bag.

I knelt between them, facing her, watching her cry as she talked to the kindly firefighter who was asking her about her pain.

A police officer came up and took her wallet, pulling out her ID and starting to write on his clipboard. He looked at me and I told him I'd stay there, blocking her view, until they lifted him or her onto a gurney. He patted my shoulder and said it was a good idea.

Suddenly I had nothing to do, and all I could do was replay the first moments in my mind. I kept seeing his half-open eyes and hearing his gasps. I kept playing it over and over, trying to think of what I could have done differently. I could have moved the driver and started CPR sooner. I could have put someone in the back seat to hold his head, pulled myself halfway through the window and given him CPR as he sat. A million implausible possibilities.

I held her hand.

And then her dad was there, pushing through the police and firefighters to his daughter's side, and they were moving her onto a backboard and tying her down with strips of gauze.

As I stepped away, they were still doing chest compressions, but the lack of intensity in the crowd of yellow turnout coats standing around the prone figure told me the news wasn't good.

I walked back to the car and took my stuff off the roof. The unused CPR shield and nitrile gloves. My helmet and motorcycle gloves. I'd thrown my earplugs onto the ground, and left them there.

My gear went onto my bike, and I walked over to the police officer who was writing on his clipboard. "Do you need me for anything? I didn't see the accident, just tried to gave aid." "No," he said. "Thank you for helping."

'Tried to give aid' sounded exactly right. I didn't feel like I'd done much, or done the right thing. I kept cycling through possibilities. There must have been something else to do. I tried this, I tried that, all in my imagination.

Put my helmet on and started my bike and rode away; the loud Ducati exhaust sounding somehow offensive as it echoed off the parked ambulances and fire trucks.

I kept thinking about the razor's edge of now; one moment they were in their car talking and laughing together, and then suddenly on the other side of the now they were apart forever.

I was two blocks away when I started crying inside my helmet. My fingers on the brake lever remembered the touch of his still, warm, skin. while the sound of the bike drowned out the sounds of his last breath. I stopped at the closest Starbucks and called for help.
-

Crossposted From My Work Blog - Me on Media

2009-10-29T01:41:12Z

As I was coming back from my bone-liquefying cold (defined as one that leaves you draped over the sofa like a boneless chicken), I got a last-minute request to stand in for Andrew Nystrom of the LA Times on a LA Press Club panel discussing trends in the news industry in the face of all this customer-generated content.

They just sent over some pictures....

Here's the lineup. From the right, Mickey Kaus of Slate, Erin Broadley of Village Voice newspapers, Thomas Kelley of Yahoo, me, Jill Stewart of the LA Weekly.

Here's Jill laughing at my ineffable smugness (I'm putting this picture here to try and train myself not to ever, ever use that facial expression in public again).

I had three basic points, which I'll cover here briefly:

One. Mainstream media as we know it is toast.

...the rest is over at my work blog, Charmed Particles.

Valour-IT - Go Team Army!!

2009-10-26T22:10:24Z

Once again, it's time for 'Operation Valour-IT' in which Soldiers' Angels works to raise money for laptops and other technology to assist the recovery of wounded soldiers. This blog has supported Valour-IT every year, and this year will do so with a much greater intensity...shocking, I know. We have once again joined Blackfive's Team Army, and encourage bloggers reading this to sign on and support the project as well, and each of you reading this site to donate whatever you can.

I'm in for $100 - who will come along with me?

I've heard Chuck Ziegenfuss speak about this, and seen how overcome with emotion he is when he tries to explain what it meant to him - wounded, with injured hands that kept him from dialing a phone or typing on a computer keyboard - when he got his voice-operated laptop. Here's the backstory:

Project Valour-IT began when Captain Charles "Chuck" Ziegenfuss was wounded by an IED while serving as commander of a tank company in Iraq in June 2005.

During his deployment he kept a blog (an online personal diary, opinion forum, or news analysis site-called a milblog or military weblog when written by a servicemember or about military subjects). Captivating writing, insightful stories of his experiences, and his self-deprecating humor won him many loyal readers. After he was wounded, his wife continued his blog, keeping his readers informed of his condition.

As he began to recover, CPT Ziegenfuss wanted to return to writing his blog, but serious hand injuries hampered his typing. When a loyal and generous reader gave him a copy of the Dragon Naturally Speaking Preferred software, other readers began to realize how important such software could be to CPT Ziegenfuss' fellow wounded soldiers and started cast about for a way to get it to them.

A fellow blogger (blog author) who writes under the pseudonym FbL contacted Captain Ziegenfuss and the two realized they shared a vision of providing laptops with voice-controlled software to wounded soldiers whose injuries prevented them from operating a standard computer. FbL contacted Soldiers Angels, who offered to help develop the project, and Project Valour-IT was born.

In sharing their thoughts, CPT Ziegenfuss (now a Major) and FbL found that memories of their respective fathers were a motivating factor in their work with the project. Both continue their association with this project in memory of the great men in their lives whose fine examples taught them lasting lessons of courage and generosity.

In the years since its founding in 2005, the project has acted to meet emerging needs and its mission of supporting the severely wounded has expanded. In addition to voice-controlled laptops, Valour-IT now helps provide active and whole-body video games such as Wii Sports, which is used to great effect in physical therapy, and personal GPS systems that help compensate for short-term memory loss and organizational/spatial challenges common in those with brain injuries.

You Have...The Plague!!

2009-10-26T16:42:57Z

Well it wasn't the plague, and it wasn't the flu, but the last week kind of vanished into a blur where the only things I remember are orange juice and the ceiling of our bedroom. I wound up speaking on a panel about teh future of journalism in the world of blogs, and I need to find the name of the LA Times guy who I teed off on; my points were valid but perhaps I should have been more polite in making them. I'd use being sick and drugged as an excuse, but manners ought to hold even then.

..I'm 90% today and will work to catch up.

I did discover and release a huge bunch of comments in the comment queue - please comment or email one of us if your comment gets held up there.
-

Enema of the State: The Galbraith Plan to Destroy Opposition in Action

2009-10-21T16:45:51Z

Cross-posting from here, at the generous invitation of Armed Liberal, but adding a link to this mild Politico article, which is quite relevant to the subject.

We've seen, recently, attacks on Limbaugh by the Left, which is par for the course. But also a war on news entities that are not sufficiently servile, coupled with warning to the others. We've seen a war on the Chamber of Commerce which consists in part of an effort to dismantle it, because they oppose the Administration on some issues (I.E. Cap and Trade) after supporting it on other measures (I.E. the "Stimulus"), and an attempt by the government to gag a private entity, intimidating it and others from using their free speech.

When insurance companies came out against Congressional Health Care proposals, Congress initiated a fishing expedition against them. Meanwhile, entities like ACORN are not investigated.

What is going on here was revealed in Steven M. Teles' review of "The Predator State" by James Galbraith in the March/April 2009 issue of "The American Interest". You may or may not decide to read the book itself, but even the sympathetic review is illustrative. I wasn't blogging in the Spring when this was published, so the below is adapted from an e-mail I wrote on it. I think it's even more self-evident now that the tactics recommended by Galbraith and endorsed by Teles are the ones being employed by the government now.

Before proceeding, I must note the method of Progressives on display here: Projection. It consists of three main steps. First, describe a tactic and declare its use completely outrageous and despicable. Second, claim that the opponents of Progressivism have been engaging in that tactic. Thirdly, use that claim to rationalize their own use of said tactic on a massive scale.

One of the premises of Galbraith's is that conservatives attempted to demolish Progressive opposition. The accuracy of this assertion can be seen in the fact that entities like ACORN were hounded out of existence by the Bush Administration's Justice Department, and how the Republican Congress was completely successful in pursuing a "de-fund the Left" agenda. Right.

On to the review, which I believe illuminates the overarching vision of the current Administration:

"The shift of power to allocate capital from the financial industry to government is, for Galbraith, far from unfortunate. Galbraith sees higher taxes and more debt as serving political objectives as well as economic ones. He wants to dry up the political power of the financial industry that courses through both parties because he is intensely skeptical of the capacity of financial markets to allocate capital in a way that meets the long-term needs of society. The real economic issue, Galbraith argues, is where the 'true seat of economic power' lies. The new liberal regime will be one that empowers 'scientists, engineers, some economists and public intellectuals -- who attempt to represent the common and future interest', and deposes 'banks, companies, lobbyists, and the economists they employ -- that represent only the tribal and current interest.'"

By empowering "some economists", I think we can take it as a given Galbraith does not mean members of the Mises Institute or Cato. He doesn't mean we will turn to Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams for sage advice. He means empowering members of his father's school of thought.

"...The planner rather trhan the entrepreneur will hold the position of honor in the new liberal American regime of political economy. Our system of education will be called upon to disseminate the findings of the professions, and, one suspects, to enshrine the new hierarchy of honor."

One where those who depend upon tax revenues for their existence (NGOs that receive grants from government, and the like) will be elevated, while those who pay taxes or engage in commerce will be looked down upon by the honored the way any entrenched Mandarinate or Feudal Nobility does in Ancien Regime states.

Opposition from these lessers is not tolerable in the face of their honored betters:

"...As Galbraith states bluntly, a key objective of the new liberal regime will be to use political means to produce market outcomes that strengthen its allies and weaken its enemies."

I'm not sure that "political means" so employed produce "market outcomes", but such a phrasing is simply evidence of the Orwellian manipulation of language we are being subjected to. See also "choice and competition" used as a mantra by those who want a government operated health care system.

"This may seem a breathtaking admission, but only to those who haven't been paying much attention to American politics for, say, the past two centuries."

Progressives can only speak for themselves and their own methods, but it is nice to see someone being candid about how they see government power: As a tool with which to destroy their domestic political opponents. Even more candidly:

"...The new regime [Obama's] may adopt many of the measures Galbraith recommends not because it shares his vision, but because crisis [don't want to let one go to waste] will force it to do so. Faced with a full-bore attempt by the deposed regime to reassert itself by obstructing the Administration's agenda, the new regime may find that it has no choice but to use the economic tools at its disposal to destroy its opponents root and branch."

"Cet animal est tres mechant; quand on l'attaque, il se defend"

The use of the phrase "no choice" of course is a deceit meant to keep people from thinking too much about just what is being argued for here: In effect, a one-party state, where nothing like a "loyal opposition" is tolerated. Instead, anything that dissents from the Progressive line and seeks to use the options available to it in a liberal democratic structure is to be crushed. By any means necessary.

Conservative resistance is an attack on Universalist Progressivism, and must be destroyed root and branch - dissent is no longer patriotic, disagreement and efforts to resist policies one disagrees with is the project of wreckers, horders, and Kulaks, who must be ground to dust.

"[W]hen they had the Power in their hands, those Graces were strangers in their gates!" indeed...