Hi Bob,

Got a lot of questions, but will limit it to just a few.

Was Curveball an actual chemical engineer or simply a cab driver with an active imagination?

Had he actually worked at the site that he said had the mobile labs?

Who did the initial screening of Curveball?

They cranked out 100 IIRs which is impressive, from a guy that didn't really know what he was talking about? Is their any indication that he was coached?

Posted at October 22, 2007 3:50 PM in response to CURVEBALL: Spies, Lies and the Con Man who Caused a War

"Suicidal Statecraft" as in the main cause of the collapse of empires . . . isn't that what Arnold Toynbee called it?

Posted at December 21, 2006 1:46 PM in response to Surging into the Abyss

Interesting comments on the Surge plan . . . Stalingrad on the Tigris

The concept seems to be based on the notion that Shia militias exist because of Sunni violence against them rather than as expressions of a Shia drive to political dominance in Iraq. Based on that belief the authors seem to believe that if the additional US and Iraqi forces to be employed in the Capital area defeat (destroy?) the Sunni insurgent groups, then the Shia militia armies will "wither away" from a lack of need. . .

Of course as Juliette mentions, the real reason for this plan is to get Sadr, who Bush&Co seem to expect to simply sit back while the Sunni resistance is wiped out, and await his turn. . . all the while "our Iraqis" - fighting with us - serve the empire loyally . . . not bloody likely.

Posted at December 19, 2006 11:00 AM in response to The Surge

sanger. Yes, but this ruling class seems to have changed their attitudes towards "democracy" and the maintenance of the rule of law, which to me is more important. Max Weber and Walter Lippmann both doubted that democracy as an ideal form of government was possible at all in the modern mass state, but retaining the rule of law and a rational bureaucratic public administration seemed to be in everyone's interest. At some point our elite gave up not only on democracy, but also on the rule of law, establishing in effect a crudely-masked tyranny which wages wars as the continuation of private interests/profit by other means. . .

Posted at December 19, 2006 9:33 AM in response to The Surge

Sad, very sad.

Odierno as Bush's choice says it all. He'll go in hard and he'll let his colonels do as they please, since he doesn't "want to hear the bad shit" (Fiasco, p289). . . which is why he was chosen, that and the message it sends to the Iraqis, which is "we'll let another couple of hundred thousand die till you bunch come around" and accept BushCo calling the shots. Oil, and empire, and all that. . . Just don't call it America. Not like the DNC is much in disagreement. . .

Posted at December 17, 2006 3:17 PM in response to The Surge

I find it interesting what (the assumption) was. . .

Fundamentalism = traditional Christianity (= "Christian Nationalism"). I never said that, rather that Christianity, or even religion have nothing to do with this phenomenon in any spiritual sense, at least above the individual level. Rather this is a political movement that uses the trappings of Christianity (remember it is not the Christianity of one hundred years ago) as a sort of windowdressing of symbols to confuse and bambuzzel. . .The Nature of the bureaucratic administration wielded by a patrimonial form of domination (an ideal type construction which explains the rational lawlessness of the regime) would have a certain look. A party dedicated to such a program, in a sense the reestablishment of a "monarchy" would obviously see great effect in playing the religious card mercilessly, traditional religion in the West being the historic foundation of a monarchy. The great cleavage is between the individual believer and the administration of the form of domination.

Posted at May 26, 2006 1:12 PM in response to What is to be done?

Good, it seems we agree. We are not talking about Religion, at least not in the traditional sense. Rather politics which is something else. . . back to value spheres back to absolute ethic. . . back the to basic confusion in values. . .

Posted at May 26, 2006 12:48 PM in response to What is to be done?

Fundamentalism = traditional Christianity. I think perhaps first of all we need to be clear about what we are talking about. While you make a very articulate argument, Michelle, you seem to be operating with the same set of assumptions as those you portray as "Christian Nationalists".

First, it seems to me what we are experiencing is just the latest manifestation of the end of the "absolute ethic" that existed in Western Civilization at least among most of the population up until the 19th Century. Nietzsche proclaimed that "God is dead, and that we have killed Him." What he was talking about imo, and I think this is common among Nietzsche scholars, is that "science" as in scientific enquiry, and in Nietzsche's case, philology, had shown that the Christian religion was not so much founded, as "forged", as in a metal is forged. Historians of Roman history knew that early Christian texts were crudely written and at odds with themselves. "Family values" from a Roman perspective very much meant the rejection of Christianity as anti-thetical to Classical learning and thought, as Theodore Mommsen pointed out. We see a version of this basic truth coming out now with the Dan Brown book/movie. . .I would of course refer to Nietzsche's famous 3rd Essay in the Geneology of Morals as well. . .

Second, Max Weber, a very Nietzschean thinker, but greatly influenced by Marx as well, carried on this thought with his concept of "disenchantment of the world". In other words we no longer have an absolute ethic to guide behavior in all the various values spheres associated with human existance. The traditional Christian believes that his actions on earth influence his attainment of salvation in the afterlife. In political matters the traditional Christian perspective is one of disinterest, "rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's". Even Puritans, who carried the Christian ascetic ethic to extremes never would have assumed that they "knew" God's will. . . rather it would have been an existance with a high probability of doubt, ceaseless prayer, and constant self-searching, which is the very opposite of what we see among the "religious right" or "Christian Nationalists" today. . .

I think instead that what we are dealing with is a profound confusion of values, whihc may be your argument afterall since I have not read your book. That various interests and individuals hope to "re-enchant" the "old Gods" and provide that missing absolute ethic which will define all the value spheres - political, spiritual, legal, familial, ethical, erotic . . . This will provide the believer with a certain amount of certainty and "meaning to life", but will also open them to endless maniputation and swindle since the interests of their masters are very much tied to this world, not the next.

So in effect we see nothing new here, just another attempt to provide an absolute ethic to define the meaning of life for a culture which is hopelessly polytheistic. . . Communism and Fascism attempted this as well. I would refer to William Pfaff's, The Bullet's Song, since this seems to be his argument as well. . .

Posted at May 26, 2006 11:01 AM in response to What is to be done?

Very Nice.  Wonder why preemptive war, or rather attack, is not simply considered a stratagem, not a strategy, let alone a policy. . . but I guess that takes all the fun away.

Also in dealing with non-state entities that engage in violent acts, why give them legitimacy by referring to their actions as "war"?  Why not keep the definition more limited?  I was one of the ones arguing for use of the term "war" in connection with 9/11, but I don't think so any more.  We would have been better off dealing with it as a police/intel matter and leaving the military out of it, at least for the most part.

Just finished Rupert Smith's Utility of Force - highly recommended. . . 

Posted at December 5, 2005 4:17 PM in response to The Future of Preemption

I think you hit it on the head when you mentioned "escaping history" and "dream".  Both seem to fit.  You can't be too pessimistic at this point imo since we haven't hit bottom yet.  Bush is still where he is and we are looking at unleashing US airpower against an insurgency in the Middle East, in a country we occupy rather imcompetently . . .

Such a mismatch of military means to political purpose would be difficult to find in history.  I guess that is what happens when war is seen as the pursuit of business opportunity by other means.  Our vaunted military prowess has been deflated before our eyes, a force organized and equipped to fight World War III, the problem being that WWIII never came.  Not that the American people can be told that.  Instead of thinking about speaking the obvious, our betters figure that the mass of atomized pulp is ready for a series of violent, egocentric pseudo-dreams to keep us all from paying too much attention to what goes on "in history" over the next six months. . . better that we think of ourselves as "victims" as shown on the big screen.

The money made can be re-invested in the war.  What a deal!

Posted at November 28, 2005 3:28 PM in response to Apocalypse TV