This was inspired by something jackbabalon23 posted about civilian boredom with the Iraq War (though not by his solution of drafting second-tier celebrities to go fight over there).

I keep resisting drawing parallels between Iraq and other American wars - each one provides only a partial analog.

To World War II:

like:
- America drawn into the conflict by a sneak attack (Pearl Harbour, 9/11).
- Stupendous initial public reaction and within 1 1/2 years is engaged in major ground conflict (5/43, 3/03).

unlike:
- US actually declared state of war with one or more nation states.
- Isolationist lobby crushed by massive and enduring popular support for the war in 1942; today many Americans are more xenophobic and isolationist than ever.
- World War II had an end - American involvement in the war clocked in at 3 years, 6 months. Four years and counting in Iraq.
- No rationing; in fact, civilians are encouraged to go shopping by the CinC.
- Germany and Japan bombed flat in war but rise again with moderate American help (the Marshall Plan). Halliburton hasn't helped anyone but the Vice President.

to the Korean War:

like:
- No declaration of war with one or more nation states.
- America was drawn in by its self-appointed "global policeman" role; got stuck in a static war of attrition. Still a large US garrison there today.
- Moderate public reaction initially but within 1 1/2 years American people forget there's a war on, and bravely kept shopping.

unlike:
- Korean War had a sort-of end - American involvement lasted less than 2 1/2 years before armistice.
- Generally positive effect on US economy; launches Japan on its way to becoming an economic superpower.

to Vietnam:

like:
- No declaration of war with one or more nation states.
- "We gotta stop them here or they'll invade Oakland."
- Precipitating incident (Gulf of Tonkin/ 9/11) probably not fabricated but still used as an excuse to intervene.
- After four years of direct US intervention (1965-69), war is entering its "Iraqization" phase as US troops withdraw to huge "firebase" enclaves.
- American combat troops were finally withdrawn in early 1972; it's conceivable US troops could be out by 2010.
- Domestic opposition to the war peaked after 4-5 years; though a majority of Americans opposed the war by 1969-70, there was still a hard core of 25-30% that still favoured all-out military victory.
- Domestic opposition heavily stimulated by revelations of atrocities by US forces.
- Civilians continued shopping, though some paused to refuse to pay the excise tax on their phone bills (this, along with calling in sick on Moratorium Day, being the gesture of popular resistance to the Vietnam war).
- Financing the war while maintaining the "Great Society" at home began US government's slide into deeper and deeper deficit spending (slight difference in that from 1968 on high war and domestic government spending helped fuel a deficit, while today high war spending and regime of tax cuts worsen the deficit)

unlike:
- Reserves and National Guards never mobilized for Vietnam.
- Vietnam War had not only one, but two ends; once when Americans finally withdrew in 1973, and again when South Vietnam fell to a mechanized army that had more armoured vehicles than the Germans used to defeat France in 1940.


Anyway, just some thoughts. I might add to this later.

Oh, for Ah Pook's sweet sake:

***
$2 million US settlement in Boston TV ad bomb hoax

Last Updated: Monday, February 5, 2007 | 1:07 PM ET
CBC Arts

Turner Broadcasting Systems and ad firm Interference Inc. have agreed to pay $2 million US in the wake of an ad campaign that caused a widespread bomb scare across Boston last week.

The two companies agreed to pay several state and local agencies to resolve any potential civil or criminal claims against them, state Attorney General Martha Coakley said Monday.
( Read more... )

I don't friggin' believe this.

"planting a hoax device" - a hoax of what? They looked like, acted like, and pretty much were Lite-Brite boards that blinked. Somehow it doesn't make sense to build a bomb that advertises its presence by blinking brightly. Boston's pants-wetting display over its inability to tell an advertising one-liner from an IED should be its own damn financial responsibility.

I was listening with half an ear last night to the TV news - one of the top stories was about two Canadians who were wounded by stray gunfire from a drive-by shooting in Acapulco, Mexico. What made my pricks ear up was the statement of the victim's families that the Canadian government should forbid people to travel to Mexico until, um, some time in the future because they might get hurt.

People, people, people....

Essay by Chris Crawford, a computer game designer who, once upon a time, made me waste many hours.

http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/Politics/DulceBellumInexpertis.html

***
Dulce bellum inexpertis
(War is sweet to the inexperienced)

People who don't know how bad war is always underestimate its horrors, and get themselves into unnecessary wars. Many {65|2400} years ago, the West tottered on the edge of disaster. A powerful enemy {Germany|Persia} threatened to conquer the world and destroy freedom. But one country {America|Athens} led the battle against the enemy and triumphed, saving the world from tyranny. This great victory ushered in a new golden age in which {America|Athens} led the world in science, art, and trade. Realizing the need for unity, a new international organization {United Nations|Delian Confederacy} was formed to insure that the world would never again be threatened by tyranny.

At first, it looked as if a glorious new age had dawned. As the beneficent leader of the free world, {America|Athens} helped other countries and acted as the ultimate guarantor of their security. But after a while, {America|Athens} began to feel its power, and to regard its leadership as a right rather than a responsibility. It was furious that lesser nations in the {United Nations|Delian Confederacy} would dare question its policies. It often invaded small countries to enforce its own concept of justice. And when other countries lodged objections, it ignored them, thinking that its vastly greater power rendered their objections meaningless.

Slowly the goodwill that had been earned through so much sacrifice was dissipated by {America's|Athens'} overbearing behavior. Diplomatic support for {America|Athens} declined, but the {Americans|Athenians} believed that they were so powerful that they did not need diplomatic support. Then {al-Qaeda|Sparta} declared war on {America|Athens}. Each side scored victories against the other. {America|Athens} was overcome with angry pride; a historian wrote that {America|Athens} was full of "young men whose inexperience made them eager to take up arms." Based on inaccurate information and a sense of self-righteousness, and placing its trust in a charismatic but unwise leader {Bush|Alcibiades}, {America|Athens} attacked {Iraq|Syracuse}. {America|Athens} claimed that it was defending {the Iraqi people|Leontini} against {Saddam's|Syracuse's} tyranny, but most other countries saw the attack as unjustified. Worse, {America|Athens} underestimated the amount of military force required to carry out the plan. Alarmed by this unprovoked attack, others began to provide aid to the resistance.

Eventually all of {Islam|Sicily} was united against {America|Athens}. The military adventure failed and {America|Athens} was defeated. Its economy was ruined by the costs of the war. The defeat signaled to the entire world the end of {American|Athenian} supremacy, and more countries turned against {America|Athens}. The government was consumed with political conflict and gross abuse of the laws; many people suffered from the political turbulence. Yet {America|Athens} still had the finest military in the world, and the conflict continued to grind on for more than a decade, with successes and failures on both sides.

Inevitably, the weight of numbers exacted its toll. The {American|Athenian} military was worn down by all the fighting. It took years for the {Americans|Athenians} to accept the brutal reality that they were no longer the greatest and most powerful country in the world. Exhausted by war, broken by poverty, torn apart by political discord, {America|Athens} negotiated a final humiliating end to the conflict. It never recovered, receding into the mists of history as a once-great nation broken by its own pride.

***

In the days after 9/11 I happened to find a passage from Thucydides, on the Peloponnesian Wars (III, v.82), though he was talking about a civil war elsewhere in Greece:

"To fit in with the change of events, words too had to change their usual meanings. What used to be described as a thoughtless act of aggression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member; to think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one's unmanly character; ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action. Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was perfectly legitimate self-defense. Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted and anyone who objected to them became suspect."

Most of you know I've written a fair bit about revolutionary warfare, and "low-intensity conflict" generally. The topic of relations between the army (standing or guerrilla) and the populace is always relevant, and the written codes of conduct that have been adopted from time to time are interesting to scan as signs of what behaviours need to be corrected - normally, notices about refraining from cannibalism do not need to be posted near swimming pools unless that has been both a recurring problem and something the Management wishes to correct.

A compare and contrast exercise:

The Three Main Rules of Discipline and Eight Points for Attention

In 1927, Mao Zedong laid down for the Red Army of the Chinese Workers and Peasants the Three Main Rules of Discipline and then in January 1928 the Six [later Eight] Points for Attention. These disciplinary regulations became part of the mythology of the Chinese People's Liberation Army and are still taught as the basic code of conduct for every member of the CPLA.

***

Three Main Rules of Discipline:
1. Obey orders in all your actions.
2. Do not take a single needle or piece of thread from the masses.
3. Turn in everything captured.

Eight Points for Attention:
1. Speak politely.
2. Pay fairly for what you buy.
3. Return everything you borrow.
4. Pay for anything you damage.
5. Do not hit or swear at people.
6. Do not damage crops.
7. Do not take liberties with women.
8. Do not maltreat captives.


***

The Taliban Code of Conduct

In a worldwide exclusive the Swiss weekly, Die Weltwoche, published the new Taliban Codex in November 2006. I have been unable to find what exactly it replaced, but notable along with the many prohibitions (no ransoms, no independent contracting with Non-Government Organizations, no smoking, no young boys allowed in barracks) are the injunctions (share captured weapons and equipment equally, kill teachers who won't heed your warnings, destroy things built by outside agencies, remember to post sentries - what's that doing in here?).

***
Layeha (book of rules) for the Mujahideen

From the highest leader of the Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan.

Every Mujahid must abide by the following rules:

1) A Taliban commander is permitted to extend an invitation to all Afghans who support infidels so that they may convert to the true Islam.

2) We guarantee to any man who turns his back on infidels, personal security and the security of his possessions. But if he becomes involved in a dispute, or someone accuses him of something, he must submit to our judiciary.

3) Mujahideen who protect new Taliban recruits must inform their commander.

4) A convert to the Taliban, who does not behave loyally and becomes a traitor, forfeits our protection. He will be given no second chance.

5) A Mujahid who kills a new Taliban recruit forfeits our protection and will be punished according to Islamic law.

6) If a Taliban fighter wants to move to another district, he is permitted to do so, but he must first acquire the permission of his group leader.

7) A Mujahid who takes a foreign infidel as prisoner with the consent of a group leader may not exchange him for other prisoners or money.

8) A provincial, district or regional commander may not sign a contract to work for a non-governmental organization or accept money from an NGO. The Shura (the highest Taliban council) alone may determine all dealings with NGOs.

9) Taliban may not use Jihad equipment or property for personal ends.

10) Every Talib is accountable to his superiors in matters of money spending and equipment usage.

11) Mujadideen may not sell equipment, unless the provincial commander permits him to do so.

12) A group of Mujahideen may not take in Mujahideen from another group to increase their own power. This is only allowed when there are good reasons for it, such as a lack of fighters in one particular group. Then written permission must be given and the weapons of the new members must stay with their old group.

13) Weapons and equipment taken from infidels or their allies must be fairly distributed among the Mujahideen.

14) If someone who works with infidels wants to cooperate with Mujahideen, he should not be killed. If he is killed, his murderer must stand before an Islamic court.

15) A Mujahid or leader who torments an innocent person must be warned by his superiors. If he does not change his behaviour he must be thrown out of the Taliban movement.

16) It is strictly forbidden to search houses or confiscate weapons without the permission of a district or provincial commander.

17) Mujahideen have no right to confiscate money or personal possessions of civilians.

18) Mujahideen should refrain from smoking cigarettes.

19) Mujahideen are not allowed to take young boys with no facial hair onto the battlefield or into their private quarters.

20) If members of the opposition or the civil government wish to be loyal to the Taliban, we may take their conditions into consideration. A final decision must be made by the military council.

21) Anyone with a bad reputation or who has killed civilians during the Jihad may not be accepted into the Taliban movement. If the highest leader has personally forgiven him, he will remain at home in the future.

22) If a Mujahid is found guilty of a crime and his commander has barred him from the group, no other group may take him in. If he wishes to resume contact with the Taliban, he must ask forgiveness from his former group.

23) If a Mujahid is faced with a problem that is not described in this book, his commander must find a solution in consultation with the group.

24) It is forbidden to work as a teacher under the current puppet regime, because this strengthens the system of the infidels. True Muslims should apply to study with a religiously trained teacher and study in a Mosque or similar institution. Textbooks must come from the period of the Jihad or from the Taliban regime.

25) Anyone who works as a teacher for the current puppet regime must recieve a warning. If he nevertheless refuses to give up his job, he must be beaten. If the teacher still continues to instruct contrary to the principles of Islam, the district commander or a group leader must kill him.

26) Those NGOs that come to the country under the rule of the infidels must be treated as the government is treated. They have come under the guise of helping people but in fact are part of the regime. Thus we tolerate none of their activities, whether it be building of streets, bridges, clinics, schools, madrases (schools for Koran study) or other works. If a school fails to heed a warning to close, it must be burned. But all religious books must be secured beforehand.

27) As long as a person has not been convicted of espionage and punished for it, no one may take up the issue on their own. Only the district commander is in charge. Witnesses who testify in a procedure must be in good psychological condition, possess an untarnished religious reputation, and not have committed any major crime. The punishment may take place only after the conclusion of the trial.

28) No lower-level commander may interfere with contention among the populace. If an argument cannot be resolved, the district or regional commander must step in to handle the matter. The case should be discussed by religious experts (Ulema) or a council of elders (Jirga). If they find no solution, the case must be referred to well-known religious authorities.

29) Every Mujahid must post a watch, day and night.

30) The above 29 rules are obligatory. Anyone who offends this code must be judged according to the laws of the Islamic Emirates.

This Book of Rules is intended for the Mujahideen who dedicate their lives to Islam and the almighty Allah. This is a complete guidebook for the progress of Jihad, and every Mujahid must keep these rules; it is the duty of every Jihadist and true believer.

Signed by the highest leader of the Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan


(Editor's note: this Book of Rules was distributed initially to the 33 members of the Shura, the highest Taliban council, at their meeting during Ramadan 2006.)

***

Original Taliban codex translation found at http://www.signandsight.com/features/1071.html

Cost estimate for arming border guards doubles

Andrew Mayeda, CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen
Published: Friday, November 03, 2006

OTTAWA - The Canada Border Services Agency now estimates it will cost $1billion over the next decade to arm land and marine border guards, roughly doubling the previously announced yearly cost of the program.
( Read more... )

Update to http://ltmurnau.livejournal.com/121055.html

A billion dollars for a gun registry that
didn't/
won't/
can't work,

a billion dollars to give pistols to border guards that will
never be used/
used on each other, by accident or design/
only be waved in the faces of uppity tourists,

sigh....

On the weekend I was up late and watched a short film (about one hour) called Strip Search. Made in 2004, think it must have been an HBO TV movie, directed by Sidney Lumet (who made so many great movies in the 70s but not recently), starring Glenn Close and Maggie Gyllenhaal.

The latter plays an American student in the hands of the Chinese police, being interrogated and humiliated over an e-mail she may or may not have sent, and a car she may or may not have rented. Close plays an FBI interrogator working over an Arab man, detained for some similar reason. The action cuts back and forth between both scenes as both interrogators use the same dialogue.

Kind of a clumsy, overstated way to make the point but the performances were good. On looking this up on imdb.com, more than one person noted that this film is rarely if ever broadcast.

Canadians shouldn't fear the U.S. anymore, Harper's editor says

Bush heads sham democracy: Lewis Lapham

HUBERT BAUCH, The Gazette
Published: Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Canada should take the United States less seriously, a leading American liberal intellectual urged yesterday.

Lewis Lapham, editor emeritus of Harper's magazine, told a conference of Canadian self-styled "progressives" that freedom of mind is shutting down in an America that is drifting toward superstition and spectacular misjudgment, as typified by the U.S. Middle East policy.

"I wouldn't be as afraid of the United States anymore," he said. "I think this is the lesson we have taught the world in Iraq."

Lapham, a withering critic of the Republican Bush administration who recently proposed the impeachment of the president in the pages of his magazine, spoke at the opening of a conference organized by Canada 2020, a newly formed think tank of liberal persuasion.

He said he fears that the U.S. experiment with democracy may have run its course under the Bush administration.

"I look at the Bush administration as the antithesis of the idea of democracy as I understand it," he said.

"What we now have is a sham democracy in the United States."

He suggested the essence of democracy lies in caring for others, an idea being lost in today's America where most people think of it as a matter of consensus and parades.

Instead of being quiet and orderly, democracy should be loud and contentious.

"We don't have that at the moment," he said.

Lapham called the current war on terrorism unwinnable - ''a war against an unseen enemy and an abstract noun."

He accused what he called the Republican oligarchy of hating the people and holding the core belief that money ennobles the rich and corrupts poor people, and that there is a class war under way in the United States that the U.S. media pretends isn't happening.

"The regime change the Republicans have in mind is not the one in Iraq, it's in the United States," he said.

Lapham was almost as hard on the Democratic Party, saying he agrees with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's characterization of Democrats as "girly men" or, as he put it, the distaff side of the Republican Party.

"I get the sense that the Democrats don't really want to change anything," he said, adding the Democrats want the world to be a kinder, sweeter place, but aren't prepared to do anything about it.

He said redemption for U.S. democracy lies in the recognition that national security lies in the health, intelligence and freedom of the American people - not in fleets and armies, but in liberties now being eroded.

"We don't have a democracy in the U.S., but we have a chance to make one," he said. "We must find a way to bring stores of energy and hope into the political conversation."

***
Well, I think this sort of thing should make Canadians fear the United States MORE, as it seems to devolve into some kind of bizarre theocracy ruled by people who would actually welcome the Apocalypse...