March 29, 2003
Reflections from a regular.
I will probably be too busy to blog for the next two or three days. However my friend A Regular Correspondent ("A.R.C.") has written a wide ranging email-cum-article to fill the gap. He is a shooter, and his line of thought got started when he received a poster from the police on the latest gun amnesty with a request he display it on the club premises. "Does this," he asked, "show a contrast with our current foreign policy or a reflection of it?" His answer follows:The contrast to our foreign policy is that abroad, requests that Saddam disarm having failed, we rationally use force on him while at home, as gun crime soars, we ask holders of illegal guns to hand them in while doing very little to force them to do so. (I suppose, to fully reflect the aburdity of sending such posters to holders of legal weapons, we should imagine Blix et al spending half their time touring the British countryside looking for illegal arms to avoid the appearance of bias).
The reflection of our foreign policy is that we spent 12 years asking Saddam to disarm before coercing him, announcing ineffectual sanctions and other pressures on him the while. Perhaps 12 years will elapse here before any government goes beyond announcing ineffectual 'crack-downs' and 'new initiatives' on armed crime.
This in turn sets me thinking about the contrast between Tony Blair's spin-laden vote-chasing domestic style and his current foreign policy. Edmund Burke, noting that England's fundamental political structure took less damage from the period of Cromwell's dictatorship than it might have, remarked that, 'Cromwell was a man in whom the sentiment of ambition had not extinguished but only suspended the operation of conscience' (quoted from memory). Is Blair a man in whom political ambition had suspended but not extinguished knowledge of principles, so that when confronted by a very important moral issue he rose above his domestic level?
It is ironic (and perhaps also just, but those who do it are not just) that he now finds himself the target of much spin. Leaving aside the grosser aburdities (e.g. 'War for oil' when even such a sceptic about Blair's honesty as myself can see at a glance that he could be trusted to administer the oil fund correctly and hand it to the successor Iraqi regime, even if under less political pressure to do so than he is), today one hears on every channel that, "They told us it would be easy but ...". Maybe there were such remarks that I missed but what I clearly remember in the days before it started was, "Weeks not months", from Rumsfeld and consistent warnings against overoptimism from Bush and Blair. Depending on how you define the phrase, the 'weeks not months' deadline will expire sometime between May 20th and June 20th, with either the war decided or Rumsfeld and others exposed as too optimistic. Meanwhile, I always assumed that 'weeks not months' also meant 'weeks not days'. Many people expressed a hope that there would be a sudden Iraqi collapse but a hope is not a statement of probably outcome.
There is also intermittent silliness; bias in the correct sense of semi-willful ignorance. This morning I heard a pundit on BBC1 damning coalition strategy because "it's basic to war that you don't allow your flanks to be attacked and you don't allow your supply lines to be threatened". Since WWII and blitzkrieg, this, if applied in a simple minded fashion to mobile operations as he was doing, has simply been untrue. A common remark in histories of WWII panzer operations is, "At times we were not sure whether we had surrounded the enemy or they had surrounded us", and they are always full of accounts of bypassed enemy forces trying to break-out, threatening lines of communication and generally causing trouble.
These rules of war were worth breaking even earlier. In the U.S. Civil War, general Grant abandoned his supply lines, in an area garrisoned by a larger confederate force, to take Vicksburg in a key campaign without which the war might not have been won. His subordinate, Sherman, warned him that, "You are placing us in a position the enemy would be glad to maneouvre for a year to achieve", but events proved Grant right. However Sherman was also right that, at that time, Grant was 'breaking the rules', albeit by showing they were not always right. My point is that since Guderian and Fuller invented blitzkreig, these are no longer rules unless understood in a much subtler sense than the pundit grasped. Obviously, the coalition should be somewhat concerned if a motivated Iraqi corps is poised to sieze all its roads back to Kuwait; mere pressure from bypassed forces is the norm for mobile operations.
(My 'somewhat' in the sentence above reflects the fact that the coalition prefers to engage Iraqi forces in the desert rather than in cities, and exposing apparent weakness is one way of persuading them to go there. It's clear that they intended the U.S 4th Divison to be there at the start; Turkey's non-cooperation is why it is not yet on the front line. As regards the extra forces coming from the U.S., we will doubtless learn after the war what the truth is between the general's explicit "always part of the plan" and the media's implicit "they were not merely hoping for but actually relying on less resistance".)
I am struck by the way that war, always the province of rumour, is made more so by continuous reporting so that more media attention actually tells us less.
"Turkey has invaded northern Iraq - no they haven't - 40,000 Turkish troops are in Northern Iraq - no they're just in the border zone - no, it's only 1,500 Turkish troops and they were there all along - ... ."
"We hold Basra - no, we've stopped near Basra - no, we've isolated Basra - there's an uprising in Basra - no, the regime is killing people in Basra - no, there's an uprising in northern Basra - no, people are fleeing Basra ..."
I sometimes feel that a short summary at the end of each day would tell us more. It's quite understandable that reporters encounter many rumours; what they need to do is spend more time checking them out and less rushing to tell us. The news has always had this vice but it used to work on a daily basis. The war has given us a chance to see what news on an hourly basis is like. This relates to another effect. When you're told to talk about the war for hours every day and only a finite amount happens in a day, you tend to exhaust rational remarks and reasonable questions and, after doing all you can with repetition of the obvious, must ask unreasonable questions and explore less likely contingencies. In this mental state, prejudices are apt to come more to the surface as the commentator's mind searches for something else to say.
I was struck by the way that coverage of the suspected Iraqi murder of two British prisoners spent most of its time discussing the British government's failure to inform the families of this suspicion before announcing it and little (none that I saw on the day the story broke) on the Iraqi government's failure to discipline its troops that makes such an incident likely.
That is not to say that the secondary issue is not important or does not deserve coverage and rectification. I don't know whether Tony's mentioning of the suspicion before the families were told was desire for swift PR (culpable) or merely error, e.g. he was told 'the families have been informed of their deaths' and failed to realise that an old army tradition (dating back to WWI at least) is always to imply a clean quick death (e.g. the Canadian sergeant bayonetted to a door by German's in 1915 whose family were only told the facts much later by private initiative, although it too got into the public domain earlier).
But the ratio of coverage of this compared to coverage of the primary issue was more than odd. I was reminded of the way that coverage of the HMG report on Iraqi methods of fooling UN inspectors spent disproportionate time on its failure to credit a US academic whose work it used.
Comparison with the 1991 Gulf war is interesting, albeit tricky in details. It lasted 5 weeks or three days depending how you count, which makes it hard to say whether this one is going quickly or slowly. In 1991, Saddam held back his republican guard forces for a final showdown with his own people (just as Stalin did in WWII) and left conscripts in Kuwait, all of whom knew they had somewhere to run to (Iraq). Now we encounter republican guard formations who have, in a sense, nowhere to run.
What most frustrates me about the coverage is that they don't seem to have enough understanding to ask the questions of interest. So far (with sensible exceptions, e.g. a BBC reporter on the ground last night who noted that while each casualty was tragic for the family involved, the overall numbers were in military terms slight), they have described as a campaign with battles what seems to me to have been mostly an advance to contact with skirmishes. With the partial exceptions of the Medina Divison at Nasiryah and the swiftly-destroyed column from Basra, the Iraqi forces described in fighting seem to be small - a hundred here, a thousand there, and likewise with casualties. Instead of talking them up (phrases like "fierce fighting"), they should be talking them down and asking "Where is the main body of the enemy?". [My ten year old daughter's] remark "But in World War II, hundreds died every hour" shows more grasp than much I hear.
Take a moment to re-read one particular paragraph from the article above that does describe very well the processes that have led some journalists and commentators who are not usually so flighty into unwontedly foolish pronouncements during the last week:
When you're told to talk about the war for hours every day and only a finite amount happens in a day, you tend to exhaust rational remarks and reasonable questions and, after doing all you can with repetition of the obvious, must ask unreasonable questions and explore less likely contingencies. In this mental state, prejudices are apt to come more to the surface as the commentator's mind searches for something else to say.
Emphasis mine. Before signing off, A.R.C. added a word about an oddly appropriate juxtaposition of words that he hit upon by accident:
BTW, I tried to type Medina and found I had typed Media - the Media division of Saddam's Republican Guard. :-)
March 28, 2003
I take a certain angry pleasure from writing things like that. What usually happens is that people make hesitant criticisms of the cult of "inclusivity" or of "no fault" programmes that purport to deal with bullying and then a representative of The Blob lashes out and says, "Ooooh, riiiight, you are willing to just abandon children, are you, just do nothing for the most vulnerable members of society?" and the wimps backtrack. So I might as well short-circuit the outrage. Yup. Abandon them. You think that's unethical? You educate them, then: I'm not stopping you.
In fact, while you're at it, why not make a profit doing it? Earlier I was thinking about private education for children who are thick through no fault of their own. There ought also to be a large and growing market for private education for difficult and indeed outright psychopathic children. Perhaps there already is: a surprising number of special schools are wholly or partly fee paying.
But, just to make things clear, if a child is so vicious that no one is willing to take him on whatever the fee, then yes, he should just not be educated. Abandoned by the system.
March 27, 2003
No arrests were made.
Rioting, vandalism, theft, assault all caught on camera - but no one seems interested. Guess why.LATER: I forgot to say when I put this post up that I do admire the principled stand made by those anti-war people in Barcelona. As John says, it is the only decent thing about what happened.
No wonder
that Adam Swift article in the Guardian I posted about earlier was so logical (but still wrong.) Apparently Swift is widely known in the field of political theory. My late father, well-respected in the family lawyer line, was once introduced at a party to another chap with some words from his hostess along the lines of "Come and talk to Tom, he's in the law too." He was always rather relieved that he didn't take the opportunity to sound off as Tom turned out to be Lord Denning.Some legal bigwig like that, anyway, and I'm sounding more like Bertie Wooster every day. The point being that Chris Bertram certifies that Swift is the biz though adding, with Jeevesian hauteur, that his opus is "aimed at a somewhat broader audience."
This line of thought, such as it is, was kicked off by a post in Political Theory, a heavyweight new blog about rabbits, sunspots and traction engines of the early twentieth century.
March 26, 2003
Saddam Fan Gets Clue?
Ceefax is reporting that a man from Manchester who went off to fight for Saddam has given himself up to the Irish Guards, saying he wants to go home. Ceefax attributes the story to the Scottish Daily Record.I have my doubts about this story. For one thing I can't find it on the Daily Record website. For another I would have expected the army to put the guy on TV double quick; his surrender might persuade others to do the same, and would be good PR generally.
Still, the story may be true. If it is, then the man might just now be waking up to the fact that it is still treason to bear arms for the Queen's enemies whether or not you have fired those arms. I would, however, soften the penalty quite a bit in recognition of his surrender.
UPDATE: So much for my deductive genius: now Sky has the same story. It adds that the captive taunted the Irish Guards with the thought that he would be back home receiving social security benefits before they were. Given the well-known phenomenon of the "welfare terrorist" he might have grounds for thinking so. Maybe we shouldn't soften the treason penalty after all.
Henscher and his attackers miss the point. Why shouldn't private education be aimed at thickies - not just the Timothy Nice But Dims of this world but at those who really, tragically are way below average mentally? They need it more.
Just in case
any readers were in tears over my poverty, I would like to say that a kind donor hit the tips jar most generously over the weekend. Thank you.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
Not to mention unto you Guardian-reading parents who send your offspring to the private schools you think should not exist. But the charitable Adam Swift argues such people are not necessarily hypocrites.A startling argument. I am tempted to say, "I refute it thus!" and kick Michael Moore in the leg, but he isn't available.
Another reason for keeping my twitching Doc Martens under control is that Swift does make some very logical points. I might make some use of them myself, seeing as I am the mirror image of his rich socialists, a poverty stricken enthusiast for capitalism. I send my children to a state school funded by extortion - that's "taxes" to the non-libertarians among you. Even if I could afford the money for any of the fee paying schools in the area or the time to home educate I would still send my kids to their present school because they like it most of the time and we can walk there. It would be nice if our village school were once again funded by voluntary contributions, but that's not likely to happen for decades.
Oops. You know I just mentioned "affording the time"? That's reminded me that I can't afford to spend much more time at this today. I had wanted to say more about why it is factually wrong to say that the existence of private schools makes state schools worse (quite the contrary) and to track down some very cutting remarks of Milton Friedman's concerning redistributive socialists who hold their riches in trust for the masses while awaiting the Glorious Day. Instead I'm going to cut straight to the climax. When it comes to judging those who want to ban private schools their frequent hypocrisy is a side issue. What I condemn them for is their support of tyranny. Allowing only state schools is as bad as allowing only state newspapers. The temporary and conditional authority of any parent or school over any child is susceptible to abuse. Yet these arrogant people plot to control every child in the country and kill off the very possibility of experiences of education other than the one they favour. How dare they.
The war
, in the unlikely event that anyone comes to this site as their first source of news, is going worse than I hoped and better than I feared. I'm worn out from talking about it. Perhaps I should have taken a hint from the lesson last Sunday:Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
(1 Corinthians 1:20)
March 25, 2003
Glad I'm not the only one. Bigwig is a news solipsist too. Or he would be, if he existed. Here's what I imagine him saying:
...as I tried to affect the course of the war by sucking down ever larger portions of the information ocean, much I used to try and affect a Carolina free throw by holding a cigarette in my left hand.The universe really starts going to pot when I go on holiday. Be assured (in so far as you can, figments) that this time I am not going anywhere. My hand is firm upon the tiller.I stopped smoking, and the Carolina basketball program collapsed. I go to bed early one night, and the next day's news is full of casualty counts and captured American soldiers.
March 24, 2003
How to make friends and influence people.
It's been a bad day for a bunch of Swedish celebs, who thought they were getting paid around 300 pounds to put their names to a pro-Euro article by an organization called "Foundation Yes to Europe" - certainly a nice little earner for a minute's work. The story implies that the recipients were under the impression that their payments were to be secret. Boy, were they wrong about that.
A Wallop in the wrong place?
Soldiers of the Black Watch found British-manufactured military equipment in a captured arsenal, according to The Scotsman. Wallop Defence Industries (NB: that name is for real - the company is named after Middle Wallop in Hampshire) are best known for making anti-missile decoys. It's not necessarily their fault that their stuff turns up stockpiled for use against British soldiers, among others. But there is going to be a difficult paragraph or two to write in their Annual Report.
The Guardian has discovered Salam Pax.
ADDED LATER: Concerns have been raised that all this publicity may place him in a dangerous position. It is almost certainly absurd to suppose that my few hundred hits will make any difference, but I have nonetheless removed the link.
Whether you are pro- or anti- gun control
Ain't No Bad Dude has spotted an important story. The NAACP are bringing a case against gun manufacturers that centres on whether dealers knew that some of their guns were going to criminals but hushed it up. A gun-industry whistleblower is going to testify for the NAACP.The post below, about Robert Fisk, is hilarious.
The curtain falls.
Jim Bennett writes on the end of the tranzi illusion.Almost in passing, Bennett makes an important point about the way too broad a tent tends to sag:
It's worth considering, however, that exactly these features of the first Gulf War [i.e. the features that "world opinion" liked, such as a very broad coalition] contributed to the need for its successor. In particular, the fatal pause before Baghdad and the survival of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein were to some degree the result of the broadness of the coalition, some of whose members preferred a strong leader in Iraq because of fear of its fragmentation.
I've started
Napoleon and Wellington by Andrew Roberts, a study of the two leaders' attitudes to each other. I came across a painfully apposite quote from Wellington which just cried out to be a Samizdata quote of the day. So it is one.
Peter Cuthbertson's
Conservative Commentary has left Blogspot and can now be found at http://www.ukconservatism.com/weblog. And if you want to test out whether his permalinks work, this one about the consequences of appeasement for the future of Israel would be a good place to start.
It's getting tougher.
Most of the stories I saw on Fox News when I checked the headlines a minute ago were pretty grim; a stray missile hit a bus in Syria killing five, US prisoners paraded on Iraqi TV, a faked surrender disguising an ambush that killed nine.The whole thing still wouldn't add up to a dull hour in Word War II though. Please don't think that I wish the most dreadful conflict in history to be my habitual standard for judging human affairs - but we should be aware that our little patch of space and time is so safe compared to other places and other times that our hopes and fears are absurdly swung by minor fluctuations of fortune.
By "our" hopes and fears I mean my hopes and fears. My husband is much cooler about it, presumably the result of studying military history. He calmly observed this morning - referring to Iraqis treacherously slipping out of uniform and then continuing to fight - that "it does show the usefulness of a militia."