I didn't anticipate having as a category here, but I do now.
It shouldn't have come about this point.
Or at least so it seems.
Let's be clear about that, however. Iran has been colliding violently with the entire globe since it became a Shia Islamic Republic in the 1970s. It's a radical theocracy that's bent on spreading its branch of Islam by any means necessary. It's subverted much of the current Iraqi government and it's sponsored anti government forces in Lebanon. It's also propped up the government of Syria. It maintains militias in Iraq.
There's nothing about the current government of Iran that we can admire, and we also can't admire its lending of its guerrilla commanders, or volunteers, to forces outside of its border. Indeed, in its behavior, we might compare to Fascist Italy in the 1930s, which propped up the fascist cause elsewhere and which lent volunteers to the civil war in Spain.
We've been contesting Iran's efforts now for forty years.
But over those forty years domestic support for the country's theocracy has waned and was disappearing. We've managed to temporarily reverse that now almost over night.
In doing that, we've removed a single Revolutionary Guard commander, but that's not going to change the success rate of Iran's foreign adventures in any fashion. On the weekend news shows the Administration's line was that "America's safer", but that seems rather far fetched. Indeed, in taking out a single man we've violated, once again, the Clausewitzian maxim that if you hit a foreign power, you have to go all in. We haven't done that, and there's no sign we will. Indeed, at this point that would be an extraordinary action that Congress and the public would not support.
So a troubled Iranian government will see Iranians rally to it, and it will have to act in some fashion that will result in an increased loss of life.
Given this, at the present time, the Administration really should lay bare its reasons for taking this action. If we see that Iran was planning something like 9/11 in some fashion, or something like the USS Cole, well, perhaps we can then understand why this seemed necessary. Indeed, that would have effectively have been Iran taking the first step. But in order to make this move wise strategically it would require something on that order. If it isn't there, the public can judge if the use of force was wise or not.
It wouldn't be the first time that the public has made such calculations. Indeed, far more American wars have been unpopular with the population than generally imagined, with the Mexican War perhaps being the most unpopular we've experienced to date. At any rate, it's not disloyal to want answers, and with wars they should be forthcoming.
Which is also not to say that this is going to become a full scale war. Indeed, as noted, that's the Clausewitzian maxim we have violated. Clausewitz warned that limited wars were wars by the weak and the risk they entail is extreme. If we're in a war, it'll be a very low grade and long lasting one, not one that sees masses of men in the field. And its those low grade wars that we're the worst at fighting.
Monday, January 6, 2020
January 6, 1920. Peace Secured. Protestants Unite? Suffrage Advances.
The headline news for this day, January 6, 1920, was that a treaty was to be signed between the victorious Allies and the Germans. Or, more properly, a protocol to the Versailles Treaty
More properly, this was an amendment to the Versailles Treaty altering and amending some of its terms. Germany's reluctance to enter into a protocol had lead the Allies and Germany back to the brink of war several months earlier, an event now wholly forgotten, but in the end the amendment had been worked out.
The U.S. Senate had not ratified the original text and would still not be ratifying the treaty in its entirety.
The Casper paper was also reporting that a new Wyoming corporation had been formed to build or take over the manufacturing of the Curtis Aircraft line. I've never heard of this before and Wikipedia sheds no light on what was going on with this story. Does anyone know the details?
Also making headlines was an effort to unite the nation's Protestant churches into a single organization. The headlines are apparently a bit misleading as they would suggest that the individual denominations were set to be united, which was not the proposal.
Also misleading, today, is the use of the term "United Church of Christ". That denomination would not come about until 1957.
On the same day, Kentucky and Rhode Island passed the 19th Amendment.
More properly, this was an amendment to the Versailles Treaty altering and amending some of its terms. Germany's reluctance to enter into a protocol had lead the Allies and Germany back to the brink of war several months earlier, an event now wholly forgotten, but in the end the amendment had been worked out.
The U.S. Senate had not ratified the original text and would still not be ratifying the treaty in its entirety.
The Casper paper was also reporting that a new Wyoming corporation had been formed to build or take over the manufacturing of the Curtis Aircraft line. I've never heard of this before and Wikipedia sheds no light on what was going on with this story. Does anyone know the details?
Also making headlines was an effort to unite the nation's Protestant churches into a single organization. The headlines are apparently a bit misleading as they would suggest that the individual denominations were set to be united, which was not the proposal.
Also misleading, today, is the use of the term "United Church of Christ". That denomination would not come about until 1957.
On the same day, Kentucky and Rhode Island passed the 19th Amendment.
Suffrage supporters watching the Governor of Kentucky sign his state's passage of the 19th Amendment.
And Walt experienced something that I routinely do a century later.
Sunday, January 5, 2020
Asymmetrical War and Gross Overreaction
Dear readers, it is important to note that Pearl Harbor has not been struck by the Japanese in a second sneak attack.
Eh?
Well, the reason I note that is that event was the last one which caused the United States to declare war on anyone. Sure, we've fought several undeclared conflicts since then, one, or two, of which were illegally fought in that they required, in my view, a declaration of war, but there's no risk of "World War III".
None the less, some in the Press are even kicking around World War III headlines, which provides evidence of why people who are deeply informed on any one topic tend to take the Press with a very high dose of salt.
At the same time, we'd note, basically historical ignorance combined with people's basic love of panic, and people do love a good panic, is contributing to the complete and utter nonsense that's circulating right now.
Okay, what's this about and what's really going on, to the extent we know.
Death from above. Starting with the Obama Administration and continuing now onto the Trump Administration individual enemies of the US and those near them have found themselves alive one moment and in eternity the next through strikes conducted by Predator drones, such as this one in Iraq. Last week Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani found himself in the situation of flying into Baghdad to consult with those he lead in the name of the spread of Shia Islam to being in the next world and finding out if the 7th Century founder of Islam was right. . or wrong. . . or perhaps a now greatly misunderstood Gnostic preacher who wasn't sending a message as now understood.
Last week President Trump, without informing Congress, ordered a drone strike on Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani. Soleimani, in an acting of stunning hubris, flew into a nation where Iran maintains client militias in the Iranian's government effort to subvert the Middle East for the purpose of spreading the Shia theocracy, even while its own people are leaving Islam in droves and declaring they've had enough of the Shia theocracy.
Indeed, were the Iranian government lead by men with flexible minds overall, they'd democratize the country immediately, which would give Shia fundamentalism a much better chance of retaining influence in Iran, assuming its not too late, than their current course. The course they're on right now will result in the secularization of the nation through disgust, sooner or later, and an educated Iranian population is already well into the process of pondering Islam's contradictions and problems.
But that's not the course of action they're going to take. They're going to go down with the ship, and make it worse for themselves.
And part of that is sponsoring guerrilla war against all sorts of forces and states in the region, including subverting the Iraqi government and sponsoring militias there.
Gen. Qasem Soleimani had been instrumental in it and he met a fate he basically deserved.
He deserved it as he was an instrument in a struggle that depended at its core on Iran's opponents not behaving like Iran. And just like the rude motorist who finds himself cutoff by a tow truck driver who has had enough, Iran is complaining about it.
Citing Gasoline Alley may seem odd here, but in essence, Iran is behaving like Doc.
Iran of course feels this way as its been allowed to. Western powers have restrained themselves from taking on the theocracy since its first creation, no matter how difficult that nation has been, for a variety of reasons. And there's real logic to that approach. Sooner or later, Iran's going to collapse under its own oppressive weight and the problem will be solved.
None of which means that anyone must tolerate their violent misbehavior in the meantime.
Which also doesn't mean that killing a top general of their's is wise
Indeed, all of this is very problematic. For one thing, it's extremely odd to be using killer drones over the downtown street of a country you theoretically are aiding. Indeed, as we are the guest, and they are the host, we presumably would want permission to act in this fashion.
We didn't get that, and we wouldn't have received it either. Iran has strong influence in the Iraqi government.
Additionally, flat out killing an Iranian general in this fashion, while technologically impressive and oddly honest in a way as well, isn't really strategically sound for a variety of reasons, first and foremost of which is that overall any one general's ability to influence the long term outcome of a struggle is always questionable.
Even if he is key, however, doing it outright will cause the Iranian people to rally to their government, no matter how much they might otherwise detest it. Deeply Orthodox Russian soldiers fought for the atheistic Soviet Union heroically, as Mother Russia had been attacked.
Red Army soldier, likely a Soviet Pole, and a Catholic, during World War Two.
And while it may be a bad or disturbing example, German soldiers fought tooth and nail during the final months of World War Two against the advancing Soviets. Viet Cong solders, increasingly youthful as the war went on, fought hard in the 1970s for a cause they only understood loosely at best simply because the other side was there, in their concept of another side.
The point is that this actually may serve to prolong the struggle with Iran.
Which is why, if it was necessary, most nation's would have gone about this differently. In Baghdad nobody would have though much of a couple of RPG rockets slamming into a car followed by concluding bursts of AKM (AK47) fire. It'd look like another Iraqi militia had done it.
Indeed, a colleague of mine who had once been a Navy SEAL told me that in his day, for sidearms they carried Browning Hi Powers. They were used by so many nations at that time that if one was dropped, you could never tell what military had been there.
This assumes, of course, that it was necessary to kill Soleimani, which is a big assumption. It's difficult for me to see how that would have been true. Of course, the New York Times is now declaring he was no big deal, but the Times, like Chuck Todd, has become so partisan its lost all objectivity. Suffice it to say, however, taking us to a higher level of conflict with Iran right now really raises some questions.
One question it doesn't raise is whether or not we're going into "World War III".
There's actually some outright moronic speculation of this type. On Twitter, for example, the Twitter Twits are causing this to trend today:
Politics · Trending
#Iranattack
Trending with: #IranUsa, #WWIIl
That's just silly.
But perhaps not as silly as this:
Due to the spread of misinformation, our website is experiencing high traffic volumes at this time. If you are attempting to register or verify registration, please check back later today as we are working to resolve this issue. We appreciate your patience.
Eh gads, any narcissistic fool who seriously is calling the Selective Service as they think there's going to be a resumption of conscription is truly a bed wetter. Head out of the phone bucko, and read some real history.
There isn't even going to be a conventional war between Iran and the United States. Iran would loose it and they know that. All of which makes the public freaking out about this downright dumb.
Indeed, probably the most amusing freak out was that of Rose McGowan. She's an actress, and therefore is part of the vapid set, who posted a gif of an Iranian flag with a sunny and a smiling bear, or something, on it, with this text:
Deaar #Iran, The USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us. #Soleimani
That's really stupid.
That it was stupid became pretty obvious really quickly and she began to back-peddle enduing up with this:
Ok, so I freaked out because we may have any impending war. Sometimes it’s okay to freak out on those in power. It’s our right. That is what so many Brave soldiers have fought for. That is democracy. I do not want any more American soldiers killed. That’s it.
Oh horse sh**. This was an example of vapidness blowing up on the commentator. There's a lot of it around right now. And its just not very smart.
There's going to be no conventional war with Iran. We aren't going to engage in one, and the Iranians aren't either. Neither side, in fact, could easily do it, but it it occurred, it would be the end of the Iranian theocracy, and they likely know deep down that its winding down anyhow and they don't want to accelerate that. At some foreseeable point in the near future the Shiite mullahs of Iran will have the same level of influence on Iran that the Church of Sweden has over that county's affairs. That's not to say none, in either case, but it won't be what it is now.
Speculation about the effectiveness of the Iranian military has been rampant for a really long time, but the best evidence is that it isn't. The common citation to their effectiveness is the example of their war that Iraq fought with Iran from 1980 to 1988 in which both sides actually demonstrated a raving level of military incompetence.
Fighting to a draw with modern weapons and World War One technology isn't an example of military prowess. At that time Iran had a western trained 1970s vintage military with 1970s vintage military equipment and Iraq had a Soviet trained 1970s vintage military with 1970s vintage military equipment. Both side managed to forget their training nearly immediately and fought with their respective 1970s equipment as if it was 1917.
Iran still has 1970s equipment but now are largely internally trained and, in a conventional war, would be even less competent than they were in the 1980s, much like the Iraqis were in the 1990s and 2000s. And they likely have no illusion about being able to fight anyone.
Iranian F-14s in the 1980s. The F-14 was a great plane, but old airplanes with no parts don't stay great and technology has moved on.
Indeed, they don't really try. The Iranians like asymmetrical, irregular war, and that's what we'll likely see. But we will see that.
Which does bring us back around to a more tense situation. Will Iran try to close the Persian Gulf and what will the Europeans do if they do (they depend on it being open more than we do)? Will Iran ramp up terrorism?
Indeed, the latter appears to be a certainty, as Iran has already stated that its retaliation will be "against military sites". That's worrying, but what that suggest is that they'll engage in asymmetrical war at a calculated level. Basically, like Arab nations did with Israel for decades. Just enough violence to not really provoke a war terminating their state.
All of which means that this will go on, most likely, for years. . . depending upon our reaction, which is proving to be the difficult one right now. And that's the weird situation that Iran finds itself in. Like a habitual rude driver, they suddenly find themselves having angered somebody who appears to be irrational and are now in the "oh crap. . . did that tow truck driver cut me off and is he getting out of the cab with a beer and a gun. . . ?" Nobody knows what any reaction from the United States will be right now.
Including Americans.
But it won't involve World War Three and it won't involve conscription.
It'll be more analogous to the the long Arab Israeli struggle, at least for the time being. Which means that panicked might have to do a little studying.
The Oppressed and the Vapid
I don't know who Rose McGowan is. A review of her bio puts her pretty much in the Mindless Left wing Entertainment Set whose views and claimed personal attributes are whatever is currently on the far left, which means today she advocates for an animal, is "non binary", etc. If it was 1920, and not 2020, she'd advocate for deporting Socialist to revolutionary Russia and for Prohibition. If it was 1930 she'd be a Communist and a wet.
It's progressive, you know, to be on the "right side of history", even though that often isn't where history actually goes.
Anyhow, she apparently made a statement (I think on Twitter) apologizing for the American strikes in Iraq against an Iranian backed militia, and, more recently, the noted Iranian general Soleimani, apologizing to Iran and saying something about people moving there.
That was stupid.
Most Iranians aren't all that keen on Iranian militias or the Iranian quasi theocratic government. The Iranian quasi theocratic government, for that matter, would find every single thing Rose McGowan says abhorrent, and pretty much take the necessary steps to shut her up, and cause her to put more clothing on. There is, we might note, no sanctioned "Me Too" movement in Iran. An apology in this context is pretty much like apologizing to Nazi Germany for Nazi agitators in pre Anschluss Austria. A person would have to be a real dumb ass to do it.
Naturally, this proved predictable responses on Twitter. . .sort of.
The most interesting ones I saw, however, were from young women.
Young Lebanese women.
Young Christian Lebanese women.
Some writing in English, others in French, they really wanted McGowan to go to Iran and stay there. they were also pretty much advocating for any level of violence necessary to deal with Iran and its militias, and they knew just what that meant. They were glad to see Soleimani dead.
It's interesting how the vapid set doesn't exist where backs are up against the wall.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Update:
We had an error in this thread. McGowan didn't say anything about going to Iran, and she's since qualified and somewhat apologized for her earlier comments. We noted that in another thread put up today, here:
Having said that, McGowan's comments are stupid and really show why the American habit of listening to actors or actresses on anything is likewise stupid.
It also shows, I think, why the young Lebanese women I noted acted with rage. The Lebanese have put up with around three decades of a dedicated Iranian backed effort to destroy the Lebanese democracy and replace it with a Shiite theocracy. I'd be made in their situation too.
And again it shows a difference in prospective. A bunch of American's running around panicking about being drafted and the like doesn't mean much if you've been under some species of siege for thirty years.
It's progressive, you know, to be on the "right side of history", even though that often isn't where history actually goes.
Anyhow, she apparently made a statement (I think on Twitter) apologizing for the American strikes in Iraq against an Iranian backed militia, and, more recently, the noted Iranian general Soleimani, apologizing to Iran and saying something about people moving there.
That was stupid.
Most Iranians aren't all that keen on Iranian militias or the Iranian quasi theocratic government. The Iranian quasi theocratic government, for that matter, would find every single thing Rose McGowan says abhorrent, and pretty much take the necessary steps to shut her up, and cause her to put more clothing on. There is, we might note, no sanctioned "Me Too" movement in Iran. An apology in this context is pretty much like apologizing to Nazi Germany for Nazi agitators in pre Anschluss Austria. A person would have to be a real dumb ass to do it.
Naturally, this proved predictable responses on Twitter. . .sort of.
The most interesting ones I saw, however, were from young women.
Young Lebanese women.
Young Christian Lebanese women.
Some writing in English, others in French, they really wanted McGowan to go to Iran and stay there. they were also pretty much advocating for any level of violence necessary to deal with Iran and its militias, and they knew just what that meant. They were glad to see Soleimani dead.
It's interesting how the vapid set doesn't exist where backs are up against the wall.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Update:
We had an error in this thread. McGowan didn't say anything about going to Iran, and she's since qualified and somewhat apologized for her earlier comments. We noted that in another thread put up today, here:
Indeed, probably the most amusing freak out was that of Rose McGowan. She's an actress, and therefore is part of the vapid set, who posted a gif of an Iranian flag with a sunny and a smiling bear, or something, on it, with this text:
Deaar #Iran, The USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us. #Soleimani
That's really stupid.
That it was stupid became pretty obvious really quickly and she began to back-peddle enduing up with this:
Ok, so I freaked out because we may have any impending war. Sometimes it’s okay to freak out on those in power. It’s our right. That is what so many Brave soldiers have fought for. That is democracy. I do not want any more American soldiers killed. That’s it.
Oh horse sh**. This was an example of vapidness blowing up on the commentator. There's a lot of it around right now. And its just not very smart.
Having said that, McGowan's comments are stupid and really show why the American habit of listening to actors or actresses on anything is likewise stupid.
It also shows, I think, why the young Lebanese women I noted acted with rage. The Lebanese have put up with around three decades of a dedicated Iranian backed effort to destroy the Lebanese democracy and replace it with a Shiite theocracy. I'd be made in their situation too.
And again it shows a difference in prospective. A bunch of American's running around panicking about being drafted and the like doesn't mean much if you've been under some species of siege for thirty years.
January 5, 1920. The first Monday of the year. Ice, Raids, Long and Bobbed Hair, and Fighting the Reds
It was the first Monday of the New Year, and the New Decade, the date, being the first of a full work week, when the new year really begins, at least for adults.
So how did it start off?
Joseph and Thomas Leiter skating on the basin, Joseph takes a fall. Washington D. C., 1/5/20.
Washington D.C. was apparently having a cold snap, as the Tidal Basin was frozen and children were taking advantage of it for ice skating.
Miss Betty Baker, daughter of the Secty. of War and Miss Annie Kittleson skating on the Tidal Basin, Washington D. C., 1/5/20.
Admiral Jellicoe was still making the rounds.
Admiral Jellicoe photographed in Secty. Daniels office at the Navy Dept. 1/5/20.
The Supreme Court upheld the Volstead Act thereby wiping out booze for good, or so it would seem, right down to the ultra light beer level.
At the same time, things were developing and heating up in Ireland, where separatists Republicans were fighting the British in their effort to form a separate republic. A familiar map was beginning to take place there.
Closer to home the Palmer Raids were still being celebrated and a new effort was underway for a sedition act designed to take on home grown Reds, described by the Casper headline writer as "long haired men and short cropped women". That headline actually did catch a hair style trend in radical women, albeit on that was about to spread. As described by Whitaker Chambers in Witness, radical women of the time bobbed their hair. Soon, that style, perhaps boosted by the daring radicalism, would spread to the female population in general.
By 1924, bobbed hair would be a flapper thing. In 1920, it was a Red thing.
Reds and their opponents were at it tooth and nail elsewhere.
In Poland the Battle of Daugavpils concluded with the Soviets retreating into Latvia and being taken into custody there. That was possible as Poland and Latvia, which had been fighting, had concluded an armistice in the struggle between them and had asked the Poles for help. The anti Red forces were approximately half Pole and half Latvian, and fought successfully under Polish command.
Mustered Polish armor in the form of French tanks at Daugavpils.
Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: St. Ann's Catholic Church, Saratoga Wyoming
Churches of the West: St. Ann's Catholic Church, Saratoga Wyoming:
This is St. Ann's Catholic Church in Saratoga Wyoming. It's obviously a relatively modern church, but I don't otherwise know anything about it.
St. Ann's Catholic Church, Saratoga Wyoming
This is St. Ann's Catholic Church in Saratoga Wyoming. It's obviously a relatively modern church, but I don't otherwise know anything about it.
Best posts of the Week of December 29, 2019
The best posts of the week of December 29, 2019.
Clothing
Looking back on the 1910s
December 31, 1919, New Year's Eve, and . . .
End of the Decade and Ten plus Years of this Blog. A retrospective
New Years Resolutions For Other People (and maybe some for everyone) 2020.
The 2020 Election, Part 5
Hubris and Hostilities. The Death of Gen. Qasem Soleimani
The Oppressed and the Vapid
Operation Vengeance. The targeting of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
Saturday, January 4, 2020
Operation Vengeance. The targeting of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
The crash site
On April 18, 1943 United States Army Air Corp P-38 Lightening's,operating out of Kukum Field on Guadalcanal intercepted two Japanese G4M "Betty" bombers and shot them down on the Bougainville coast. The action is notable as it intentionally and successfully targeted Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who died of woulds before the planes crashed to earth. The American action was a remarkable tactical success in that the distances and time involved made such an action more likely to fail that succeed. It was only possible in the first instance as the US was intercepting, famously, Japanese encoded message and, because of that, the mission was risky in that it risked alerting the Japanese to that fact. To cover up that aspect of it, the US created a fictional story of coast watchers having seen the plans and the action simply being fortuitous. Amazingly, the Japanese seem to have been convinced by that questionable deception.
But did it do any good?
The US got Yamamoto as he was know to be the central figure of the planning of the attack on Pearl Harbor. He was a major and celebrated Japanese military figure in Japan, but we now know that he was not terribly enthusiastic about fighting the United States. It's not clear that he opposed it either, contrary to the sometime popular view.
His death deprived Japan of Yamamoto, to be sure. Maybe it deprived the US of him too as it is clear, now, in retrospect, that Japan couldn't have won the war. Maybe it meant that brilliant planning he would have done in defensive campaigns in the Pacific would now not occur. . . or maybe it meant that a voice that was familiar with the United States and the American mind was now silenced. It's known that Yamamoto feared what getting into a war with the US would mean, although its not really clear if he uttered the words attributed to him following Pearl Harbor, "I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.".
Maybe his death made no real difference in the progress of the war at all.
I note all of this as the historically minded are now looking this event up to draw conclusions from it. Maybe it offers no real comparisons with the just occurred strike on an Iranian general in Baghdad. The killing on Yamamoto was tactical and strategic, but it also had an element of revenge to it and of propaganda to it, as had the earlier Doolittle Raid. The killing of Qasem Soleimani was more of a strategic decapitation.
Both events are extraordinary. Yamamoto was the only senior officer in World War Two that I'm aware of that was the specific target of a mission. Such an action is not an illegitimate act of war, but it's a risky one. In taking on Japan in that fashion, the US was targeting an enemy that lacked the capacity to reply and, although largely unknown to us at that time, was in the progress of starving senior officers that it held in captivity. Nobody attempted any such actions against senior German military figures except, as it would turn out, the German army, unsuccessfully, itself. We were vulnerable in the west to a counterattack.
Just all things to consider.
Hubris and Hostilities. The Death of Gen. Qasem Soleimani
Gen. Qasem Soleimani was a bolt and brave man.
Which doesn't make him somebody we should admire.
Nathan Bedford Forrest was a brave and bold man, but he served an evil cause and went on to found the Klu Klux Klan.
Joachim Pieper was a bold and brave man. But he was a nasty Nazi as well. His special SS commandos were responsible for the Malmady massacre, for example, the 75th anniversary of which was just passed.
The aptly named USAF MQ-9 Reaper.
Nathan Bedford Forrest was a brave and bold man, but he served an evil cause and went on to found the Klu Klux Klan.
Nathan Bedford Forrest
Joachim Peiper
And indeed, both men are good comparisons in some ways. They were radicals for causes they believed in deeply, and they were willing to die for them. They had personal bravery, an attribute we widely admire, and applied it in the service of causes we deeply oppose.
Soleimani has been an instrumental figure in Iranian proxy wars all over the Middle East. A person cannot feel sorry for his death and he died the way that people who live the way he lived die. He who lives by the sword, as St. Matthew noted, die by it.
Islam of course was spread by the sword and for a very, very, long time its two principal Middle Easter branches have contested it other in manners in which swords were occasionally drawn. Iran, for its part, has had no problem whatsoever about violently spreading its Shiia theocracy's point of view violently from day one.
And hence the irony. Soleimani had been allowed to do what he did, mostly because the West tolerated. There are certain rules to war, even dirty wars and proxy wars, and one of them is that you don't assassinate the uniformed general officers of your opponent.
Not that doing such is an illegitimate act of war. Soleimani was a solders. Killing soldiers is legitimate. We've been at war in Iraq now for 20 years, attempting to prop up a government we installed while Iran attempts to completely co-opt it. Iran has no right, or at least not any more right than we do, to have proxy armies in Iraq. At least we have a relationship with the legitimate government. So Soleimani flying into the Baghdad airport was based on the assumption that his Western opponents would abide by the unwritten rule of not targeting the general officers of an opponent even if Iran itself has widely ignored the laws of war.
Apparently the current administration has determined that it won't abide by that rule.
Which brings us to this.
Nobody should weep for Soleimani. Probably even Soleimani wouldn't want people to do that. And he received a fate which, through is life, he had advocated for.
But now what?
Clearly, we're on to some sort of new stage in the long slow struggle with Iran. Iran hasn't played by the written rules and now we're not playing by the unwritten ones. Iran will be obligated to retaliate somehow, but in asymmetric war, they're uniquely exposed as a large established state. Their ability to act as a sponsor of terrorism and proxy militias depended upon the grace of their opponents, which now seems to have been removed. It will try to act, not doubt, but in doing so, it can no longer be certain of anything.
Still, the question remains. What on earth was Soleimani thinking in pulling into an airport in a country where you are maintaining an illegitimate military effort?
A note on yesterday's camel image
Yesterday, we published this:
Lex Anteinternet: January 3, 1920. A Roaring Start:
1920 was certainly off to a "roaring" start.
The image was cross posted on Reddit's 100 Years Ago subreddit, where I learned that the camel, which was baffling me, is the symbol of the Prohibition Party.
I had no idea.
The party still exists.
It's an interesting party and slightly reminds me of the American Solidarity Party in that it takes positions from the left and the right. It's "liberal" on its environmental positions, for example, and "conservative" on social issues. It still runs a presidential candidate for every Presidential election, but since 1976, it's received less than 10,000 votes per year. It peaked in the 1904 Election when it received 260,000 votes.
It's nominees for the 2020 Presidential Election were determined in a telephone conference, which shows how small it is. Phil Collins of Nevada and Billie Joe Parker of Georgia are their Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates.
Camels, it should be noted, are never thirsty in the popular imagination.
Lex Anteinternet: January 3, 1920. A Roaring Start:
January 3, 1920. A Roaring Start
1920 was certainly off to a "roaring" start.
The image was cross posted on Reddit's 100 Years Ago subreddit, where I learned that the camel, which was baffling me, is the symbol of the Prohibition Party.
I had no idea.
The party still exists.
It's an interesting party and slightly reminds me of the American Solidarity Party in that it takes positions from the left and the right. It's "liberal" on its environmental positions, for example, and "conservative" on social issues. It still runs a presidential candidate for every Presidential election, but since 1976, it's received less than 10,000 votes per year. It peaked in the 1904 Election when it received 260,000 votes.
It's nominees for the 2020 Presidential Election were determined in a telephone conference, which shows how small it is. Phil Collins of Nevada and Billie Joe Parker of Georgia are their Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates.
Camels, it should be noted, are never thirsty in the popular imagination.
Friday, January 3, 2020
Today In Wyoming's History: January 3, 1920
Today In Wyoming's History: January 3:
1920 The last of the U.S. troops depart France.
1920 The USS Cheyenne (Monitor No. 10), which had originally been commissioned as the USS Wyoming, was decommissioned.
1920 The last of the U.S. troops depart France.
1920 The USS Cheyenne (Monitor No. 10), which had originally been commissioned as the USS Wyoming, was decommissioned.
January 3, 1920. A Roaring Start
1920 was certainly off to a "roaring" start.
The news on January 3 was all about the Palmer raids of January 2, which came one day after the first Palmer raids on January 1. A huge sweep of the nation had rounded up a lot of "Reds", which in this context were simply radicals of all stripes. Indeed, in Russia, where the civil war was raging, the Reds of the Communist Party had proven to be bad news for the socialist left, even the radical socialist left, as well as for anarchists. In the US, however, they were all being rounded up together.
Radicals were even reported lurking in Denver stores.
The Press, which was generally Progressive, didn't shed any tears for the radical right. Now the Palmer Raids are regarded as an embarrassment, but the time, not so much. . . at least for awhile.
Mexico was showing up again on the front page and had been for some time, we'd note. Fighting was still ongoing and an election was scheduled. In the midst of it, Carranza had decided to try to reorganize the Mexican Federal army.
Radicals in store or no, the National Western Stock Show, a big even that's still held annually in Denver, was about to get rolling.
In Washington D. C., famous figures of the recent war continued to visit.
Admiral Jellicoe with Admiral Niblack on the latter's arrival at the Union Station, Washington D.C., January 3, 1920
Thursday, January 2, 2020
Last night, I had a dream in which
a Chinook helicopter, which was very beat up, was landing.
That's all I recall about it.
Odd how that works.
That's all I recall about it.
Odd how that works.
Did you work January 1?
Laborer working a press, January 1, 1920.
Yesterday was a Wednesday, but I didn't post a Mid Week At Work item because it was a holiday.
But I did go out to see if I could find a parts store open so that I could buy oil to change the oil in my truck, as it was overdue. I found that all the chain stores were open, so I spent my day doing that.
When I say I spent my day, I mean it. I haven't changed my own oil for awhile so I couldn't find a tool I needed and had to go to the store twice. And it was a cold day and the 3500 won't fit all the way into the garage, so it was a project. I bought a fuel filter too, but I'd forgotten that getting to the 3500's fuel filter is nearly impossible, so I didn't change that, even though I have the water in the fuel system light on. Chances are a I have a loose connection.
Anyhow, so I spent the day doing something that I thought would take me just half a day, which was a disappointment, but probably not as much of one for people who worked a full day.
Did you work?
January 2, 1920. The peak of the Palmer Raids . . .
came today, although the news was reporting on the raids of yesterday. Technically, the raid of January 1 was a Chicago Police Department raid, although in coordination with the Federal government. Chicago was complaining today about the lack of help from yesterday.
By the end of the raids about 10,000 people would be arrested.
A lot of the warrants were soon cancelled as illegal. 556 resident aliens were deported. Originally the government reported having found a couple of bombs but later the news on that stopped, so whatever the truth of it is, it's vague. Only two pistols were seized. Public opinion turned against Palmer quickly and he went from being a probable contender for the Presidency to not being one.
Wednesday, January 1, 2020
January 1, 1920. New Year's Day. Revelry and Raids.
And so the violent 1910s had end and 1920, not yet roaring, was ushered in. . .ostensibly dry although efforts were already being made to evade Prohibition, both great and small, as the Chicago Tribune's Gasoline Alley made fun of.
January 1, 1920. Gasoline Alley: Happy New Years On Avery
On this day in Chicago undoubtedly sober agents conducted raids on suspected Reds in various gathering places they were known to frequent, arresting 200 people. The same was conducted across the country under J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI, with about 6,000 people being arrested as a result.
U.S. Attorney General Alexander Palmer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)