We will remember them, but who are "we"?

LONDON -- Harry Patch, Britain's last survivor of the trenches of World War I, was a reluctant soldier who became a powerful eyewitness to the horror of war, and a symbol of a lost generation.

Patch, who died Saturday at 111, was wounded in 1917 in the Battle of Passchendaele, which he remembered as "mud, mud and more mud mixed together with blood."

Mr Patch was the last fighting soldier of any nation in that conflict, and with his passing the Great War (WW1) will soon pass almost into myth.

I was asked last Remembrance Day to give a speech as a veteran to a local high school. I accepted rather reluctantly, not because it's not worth doing (quite the opposite) but because I can't put my experiences in the same league as the men who fought in the World Wars. This being said, I was all they had so I stepped up.

A key point I tried to make to the kids was that the veterans of the mass-army wars of the 20th Century are nearly gone. That is pretty parochial I suppose, as there are lots of survivors of the Iran-Iraq war, loads of American soldiers who saw a lot of shit in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the wars for the soul of Western Civilization are the ones that really got our attention.

Time will tell if those of us who served in the GWoT in it's various guises will be accorded any sort of equivalence for what we were trying to do but I'm guessing not. There are several reasons for that.

First is that it's not the epic struggle that were the World Wars. Korea was on that scale, at least locally, and even that first successful example of the Cold War strategy of "containment" (remember Communism?) never caught the public the same way.

Second, and not really separate from the first, is the sense of sacrifice. Right now, Canada's Army is at war, but the country (and even the other branches of the CF) is not. There is no rationing, no conscription, no "We Want YOU" posters everywhere, and bluntly, not enough soldiers are dying. This is war reduced to personal, not national, tragedy and it directly effects hardly anyone.

Third, it's the lack of a sense in the public of an existential threat to our way of life. Part of that problem is that few people give much thought to what exactly is "our" way of life, and our Diversity agenda has a lot to do with that. Beer companies are about the only thing I can think of offhand that present a "Canadian" identity, but the "I am Canadian" spots etc. aren't the sort of thing that will draw the youth of the country to the colours to defend it. Osama Bin Laden is no Kaiser Bill (except that they're in all likelihood just as dead), and not a lot of people are concerned about the jackbooted tread of Islamic zealots stomping over our precious institutions.

What we have now is "The Long War", which will never be one to end all others. I don't know that Remembrance Day will mean much to most people in 20 years when the last of the WW2 vets has passed away. I guess that it'll be left to people like me, but I can't imagine the King, PM, etc. will make much of an address when the last of us passes away.

That's for the best, as it would mean that there was never again the mass slaughter of the WWs, but I hope that people won't completely forget those generations when they're no longer around to speak for themselves. They did a lot for us and suffered terribly for it.

The last straw?

Time to leave:

Unsure of whether civilians were inside the compound, the Marines had an interpreter talk to the insurgents, said an official who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak publicly. After some time, a number of women and children left the compound, the military official said.

The insurgents denied that any more civilians were inside, the official said, but the Marines held their fire anyway. About 4 p.m. (7:30 a.m. ET), in the midst of the standoff, another group of women and children emerged from the compound, the official said. As of 4:30 p.m., the Marines were holding all fire and waiting out the insurgents, the official said.

Finally, a screaming woman emerged from the compound with a bullet wound to her hand, Pelletier said. Then, another group of women came out, covered from head to toe, according to custom, he said. The Marines attended to the wounded woman while the others walked away.

When the Marines went into the compound, they discovered that it empty, Pelletier said. That's when they realized the fighters had dressed up as women to escape, he said.

This is an absolute farce. Despite the rather abysmal level of writing demonstrated by this CNN piece, it is obvious that the RoE (Rules of Engagement) in Afghanistan have tightened to the point that they have throttled any hope we may have had of getting the upper hand on these fanatics.

If it's as simple as waiting until you find some women (rarely seen, but not scarce in Afghanistan) and hiding amongst them long enough to get changed, we'll never kill any Taliban again.

I had hoped to stay away from this subject, but even if Despair is a sin, I'm feeling a bit of it about the prognosis for any of these fights. Some of that was triggered by an article on Algeria that I read yesterday, suggesting that the government is beating them militarily, but the pressure the Salafists are putting on the average Mohammed on the street is getting the job done.

Balance of force, balance of terror, whatever you want to call it. People can be intimidated by those who show themselves capable of killing and torturing them. Rare is the person who will prefer to be killed (unpleasantly, at that) than to knuckle under.

One of the key problems in Algeria that tipped the balance against the non-islamists was the government's decision to disarm all of the civilian "Patriot" units in the towns and villages. These were standard Local Defence groups (from what little I've been able to find about them), apparently quite effective at keeping the bad-asses out, and were disbanded by the government when the islamists had been "defeated".

Those fuckers are defeated when they're all dead, which takes a lot of work and a relentless bloody-mindedness. There is the eternal argument that if you give arms to these local groups there's no saying who will end up with them. This is a valid point if there is a scarcity of weapons, but in this early 21ieme siecle those are about as hard to get as the clap. Assault weapons are readily available to anyone that c an afford them, and they're not too expensive. What does make them scarce is government control.

The best way to contain the bad guys is to allow people to defend themselves in a locally-organized fashion, to fill in the gaps that the army and police can't manage. That may not work in Afghanistan, so a different plan is necessary.

As a refinement of my previous position on splitting the country and backing the non-Pashtun parts of it, go back to backing warlords. Support the ones who oppose the Taliban, and obliterate their compounds from orbit if they turn on you. Your aid should be lots of tanks, artillery, low-tech stuff that needs to be centralized to be effective. That gives them firepower, and gives you fixed targets to hit if they step out of line. Divide and contain, if not conquer, has worked forever.

In any event, get the hell out of Afghanistan because our current capacity is rapidly being shown to be incapacity. Some Surge; more troops just gives more chances to not do the job.

Panic-demic

I was hoping this whole "swine flu" thing would fade away when it was obvious that hardly anyone was dying from it, but no such luck as yet.

The WHO is claiming 90K cases reported so far, but I'm sure there are a lot more. There have been at least one and possibly two cases in my immediate family, and we didn't panic or report it. There are the vague reports of "flu parties" where parents try to generate some herd immunity amongst their offspring. Were this another Spanish Flu this would be grounds for criminal child endangerment charges, but with the almost negligible death rate I personally think it could be useful, or at least not harmful.

If one remembers the hoof-and-mouth livestock epidemic in the UK a few years back you can see one way of treating an epidemic. Burning everyone who contracts H1N1 would cause an armed revolution in most places, and should in the rest, so the comparisons are not meant to be direct. I have heard that a certain level of herd immunity can be generated if things are allowed to run their course. I don't know if that is in fact the case, but it sounds plausible; that said, economic factors in the agricultural business would never permit that to happen.

So what is driving the WHO and various agencies in keeping this "pandemic" bandwagon rolling? The media "helps" this along of course, but the whole thing smacks of bureaucratic momentum to me. Whole staffs have been expanded at the UN and elsewhere as new empires are carved out of any current crisis.

That could lead to various screeds about ever-expanding bureaucracies and governments, but not right now. No, I was just noting the persistence of this swine flu thing despite the fact that the regular garden-variety flu is still killing at least ten times as many people with (almost) no one remarking upon it. Good old media and special-interest scare mongering.

It's a bit like like passing a crippling carbon tax bill in the US with absolutely no actual evidence that it needs to be done, let alone that the 1500 pages of the Waxman-Markey bill will do anything other than hasten the decent of the USA into de-industrialization and thence to bankruptcy and irrelevancy. Happy July 4th, by the way...

There will always be an English.

I wrote an essay in university about the “Cultural Legacy of the British Empire”, and this article in Foreign Policy comes to the same (largest) conclusion that I did, albeit from a different angle.

The English language (in various forms) is overtaking the other largest cultural artefact of the B.E., football (soccer). There are already far more Indians speaking English than there are Brits, full-stop, and the numbers continue to rise worldwide. I won’t rehash the linked article, but I wanted to make a point about it’s conclusions as to the cause of this.

The article mentions a linga franca, and English is certainly that for the foreseeable future. I contend, however, that the reason this is so is because of the historical accident that the two succeeding world-spanning empires both spoke English (or near enough in the case of the Americans).

The 350 million or so Indians who speak English don’t do so because of America; neither do any of the Anglophone African countries, the former Dominions (Australia, Canada & New Zealand), or even the USA itself. The USA is itself a legacy of The British Empire 1.0, one which absorbed most of the potential of the U.K. and created a continental power that stepped into the colonial power vacuum after WW2.

If anyone can find a contrary example I’ll stand corrected, but I do not believe that there has ever before been two successive empires that spoke the same language, certainly not any big enough to have more than regional influence.

One million words (the number of them now supposedly in the the English language) is a hell of a lot, and that number goes a long way to explain the appeal of English. It’s a mongrel language which takes the best from other languages to cover new concepts. Just like biological mongrels, this hybridization keeps it strong and healthy. I don’t think any of my “words” have made it in yet, but there’s obviously room…

Oh, treasure the use of the weaseling phrase that never quite says what you mean...

I didn't think I had much to say about the ongoing Sotomayor foolishness in the US, but never say never...

In fact, today's post has more to do with the spinelessness of politicians than the judicial activism that runs unchecked in the US (see the post by Steve Setzer about 2/3 down the page here), although that too is something that is of concern to anyone who claims to believe in representative democracy.

In a letter to supporters, the Georgia Republican said that his words had been "perhaps too strong and direct" last week when he called Sotomayor a reverse "racist," based on a 2001 speech in which she said one would hope the rulings of a "wise Latina" with a breadth of life experience would be better than those of a white male without similar experiences. Gingrich's remarks created a furor among Sotomayor's backers and caused problems for GOP figures who have been pushing to bring more diversity to the party.

Gingrich conceded that Sotomayor's rulings have "shown more caution and moderation" than her speeches and writings, but he said the 2001 comments "reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system — that everyone is equal before the law."

 

"Too strong and direct" eh? If that's what you really think and you want to make any claim to being a leader, or at least someone with actual principles, bloody well say it. I've seen left-ish defenders of Sotomayor talking about "context", but it's a red herring. She said what she said, and he said what he said. I have no respect for anyone who won't back up what they say, or if necessary, admit it was stupid/uninformed, etc. Qualified retractions are embarrassing and disingenuous, because it means that you're not willing to take the heat for what you really think.

Next: Purges and the Midwest Gulag?

It never occurred to me that I'd be agreeing with pieces on the state of capitalism that come from Pravda, but this one hits on all cylinders. Example:

'The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?'

Of course Putin warned about this very trend a few months back, and I noted that (somewhere) here. The tone of this one is a bit hectoring, but I can't disagree even with that. The Russians know all about centrally planned EVERYTHING, and the Americans ignore 70 years of that at their peril. Here, peril, peril; come here boy!

There is a lot of talk about the new US Supreme Court appointee, Sotomayor. She's as politically correct as anyone could want, and apparently believes (as many judges do) that it's the courts' job to change or even make laws. Needless to say I don't agree with that; we elect people to do that, but a lot of "progressives" want things to move faster than legislatures generally do.

There's a certain amount of that in Canada, but our political and social structure is (shockingly) far healthier, at least so far. The USA is certainly in trouble, and seems to be digging a deeper hole for itself on all fronts. I've read a lot about the dismal state of the American education system, mentioned in the linked article (but see Jerry Pournelle's blog for a lot more) and the political pork-barrelling going on with the auto bailouts rivals anything Mugabe could come up with.

Plus ca change; the Russians are trying to warn the Americans away from the Marxist edge, and plus c'est le meme chose; the Americans are ignoring them. Sheeple indeed, but they aren't exclusive to the USA...

All is not lost. Yet.

OTTAWA -- The Supreme Court of Canada refused Thursday to hear arguments that Canadian troops in Afghanistan should apply the Charter of Rights in their dealings with prisoners.

That leaves it to the Military Police Complaints Commission to investigate whether foreign captives delivered to Afghan custody by Canadian troops are routinely tortured.

I really hope this comes as no surprise to anyone; it is, after all the CANADIAN Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the last time I checked we hadn't taken Afghanistan over. I had my reservations about the Turks and Caicos joining Canada, but if I must make a choice...

Afghans, particularly ones that are trying to kill Canadian soldiers are, well, Afghans. They have their own government (and they're welcome to it!) to appeal to (ha!) if the ANA or ANP are mistreating them. It is not our troops doing anything untoward with them, it's their own people.

This of course opens questions about what kind of system are we propping up. I personally don't care what they do to each other, because you can see from what NATO (you know who I mean when I say that) is going through to try to hold the place together, that it's a hell of a lot of blood and treasure for little return.

I won't go back to that "well" right now, but I'll keep this short and just say that I'm happy that the idiots who'd like to flood our country and courts with all sorts of fellow (but different) idiots can't do it with these clowns. I might not mind so much letting a few in, as long as I could make them live with these Amnesty types. I'd be curious to see how many of these secular humanist idealists would still be pushing this idea if they had to be responsible for an illiterate Pashtun, etc. jihadi under their own roof. An interesting experiment to separate the real idealists at least...