Archive for the ‘Warfare’ Category

Poor TV Reception


2007
09.04

Pres. Bush and Mr. Paul Bremer in the Oval Office

Prez and Bremer in better times (White House photo by Tina Hager)

The former US proconsul to Iraq, Mr. Paul Bremer, today forwarded internal government letters to the New York Times contradicting Pres. Bush’s statements that the Prez did not know of the dismantling of the Iraqi military before the action took place.

Besides the shocking lapdog mentality (“As I have moved around, there has been an almost universal expression of thanks to the US and to you [Pres. Bush] in particular for freeing Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny.”), Mr. Bremer’s letters demonstrate the Washington Way of sucking up your superiors:

In the northern town of Mosul yesterday, an old man, under the impression that I was President Bush (he apparently has poor TV reception), rushed up and planted two very wet and hairy kisses on my cheeks. (Such events confirm the wisdom of the ancient custom of sending emissaries to far away lands).

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/04bremer-text1.html

Tags:

Related posts

RMA Hubris


2005
12.20

Jonathan Clarke reviews Stephen Walt’s Taming American Power (2005) in December 2005 issue of The Washington Monthly:

There are no two bricks anywhere in the world, one resting on top of the other, that American cruise missiles cannot knock over, on a 24/7 basis under all weather conditions. But, however impressive this capability is in terms of technology, does it really translate into an ability to impose America’s will? Walt writes of “hubris” and the persistent overestimation of this power capability by the American foreign-policy elite. Somewhere out there (preferably not from one of the usual anti-American suspects), there are fundamental questions to be asked about whether the so-called “revolution in military affairs” — the fusion of information technology and airborne platforms to deliver a global precision strike capability — is anything more than a will-of-the-wisp. This would lead into a discussion of how powerful America really is, power being defined as the ability to secure America’s long-term interests, not just in terms of knocking over buildings.

Read more at “New Balance: What other countries can do about American power”.

No tags for this post.

Related posts

The Pentagon Papers


2005
01.12

Daniel Ellsberg, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers (2002)
Daniel Ellsberg, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers (2002)

Even in 1971, most people did not read what was in the Pentagon Papers. As Senator Fulbright said to Ellsberg: “After all, they’re only history.” The public was far more interested in the business of the leaks, in the Mafia-like quality of the Nixon White House, and in the resignation of a President facing the certainty of impeachment. If there was anything American militarists learned from the Vietnam War it was the need — and the way — to control and manipulate the news. The extent to which they have now become masters of damage control is evident when you consider the fact that US troops killed as many innocent bystanders in Afghanistan as New York office workers were killed on the morning of 11 September 2001. A future Watergate remains a possibility: there won’t, however, be another case like the Pentagon Papers.

— Chalmers Johnson, “Who’s in charge?” London Review of Books, Vol. 25, No. 3 (6 February 2003).

Tags:

Related posts

Liberty-loving nations (then and now)


2004
12.09


“On 30th November 1939 at 06:50 a.m. the Soviet Army attacked Finland on all fronts with infantry, navy and air force, without a declaration of war.” (By Elina Ritala.)

To garner support for Finnish people’s struggle in the Winter War, Finnish Foreign Minister Väinö Tanner made a radio speech (RealAudio, 1′ 51″, from www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/laulut.htm) to the people of the United States of America on the National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) on 3 December 1939.

The following is my transcript of the original broadcast. All mistakes — and punctuation decisions — are entirely mine.

ANNOUNCER:

Hello NBC, here is Finland calling. We are broadcasting a statement by the Finnish Foreign Minister, Mr Väinö Tanner.

FOREIGN MINISTER VÄINÖ TANNER:

At the post to which I have been called, I have to try to the best of my abilities to act in such a manner that Finland — which wishes to carry out works of peace — might as soon as possible see Her relations with the Soviet Union became once again peaceful.

I may repeat here what I said yesterday to certain foreign correspondents: the Finnish government will not refuse to take part in negotiations for the restoration of peace.

Nevertheless, anyone who believes that the Finnish people can be brought by the threat of force — and the terror already launched — to make concessions that will denote in reality the loss of the independence, is mistaken.

We shall defend ourselves against such forcefull methods that we can’t bring ourselves to believe that the civilized Western world will not find some means which are more powerful than its invaluable sympathy.

When these means are found, liberty-loving nations all over the world can be certain that Finland’s independence will be preserved, and that the sphere of liberty will not be threatened by a shrinkage in this corner of the world.

Haven’t I heart this very same phraseology recently on a rather different context? Shame, shame on Bush, Rumsfeld et al.

No tags for this post.

Related posts

Cost of the Iraq War (and counting)


2004
12.09

(JavaScript Error)

No tags for this post.

Related posts