US Military Strategery

Okay this is supposed to be a snarky criticism of the American military but perhaps unintentionally it also captures a key feature behind the success of the US military and the country at large: We're quite comfortable with a certain level of chaos.

Now that may not seem like much of an advantage until you realize just how poorly most other nations and cultures do handle it. Many places in the world are far better organized than we are - both government-wise and business-wise and even culturally. So in times of stability they will tend to do quite well since they're able to focus lots of national resources with far less inefficiency than the US does e.g. pretty much all the things which give Thomas Friedman a mental erection.

Which is great. Until times aren't so stable.

Then their organization and efficiency turns out to be quite brittle - when there's no official  in charge and hence no 'official' way to keep the system running people will tend to just stop and wait for someone(else) to come handle it. You get paralysis instead of initiative.

But one of the hidden strengths in America is that while we tend to chafe at authority - especially the more centralized and organized it is - we are also very good at self-organizing. Throw a bunch of Americans together along with a challenging task and pretty quickly they'll come up with plan(s) and someone (or someones) will step up to take charge. It won't be pretty and it won't be very organized and it may not be the 'best' solution and it'll sure *look* like chaos, but it is likely to get done and work.

And because this kind of organization is organic it's also more robust - if the task changes or people come and go, the group can adapt and improvise on the fly. After all this isn't all that different from how most Americans operate in their daily lives at work.

So we'll never win awards for our national organization or have the trophy projects to show off like some countries, but when chaos does come we're able to deal with it, adapt, and even thrive on it. For us chaos = opportunity.

Which is good because I suspect there's going to be a good deal of chaos coming down the road.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:25 PM | Comments (589)
Post contains 1167 words, total size 13 kb.

I have a good excuse. I went squatching.

Posted by: Ace at 04:30 PM | Comments (680)
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

No, not Sarah Palin. They still love talking about her from time to time.

One time liberal icon and Democratic nominee for President John "She's Dying And I Need To Get Laid" Edwards? Never heard of him.

Today at his federal trial, Mr. Two Americas gave us this touching father-daughter moment.

John Edwards' daughter left the courtroom crying during testimony on Wednesday about a confrontation between her father and deceased mother over the onetime presidential candidate's extramarital affair.

Former Edwards aide Christina Reynolds was testifying about an argument Elizabeth Edwards had with her husband on the day in October 2007 that a tabloid published a story about his affair. As Reynolds was beginning the account about what happened at the Raleigh airport, Edwards turned to his daughter Cate, who was seated in the front row.

"I don't know what's coming; do you want to leave?" Edwards was heard asking.

She responded inaudibly to him, then walked away wiping tears. Edwards was heard saying, "Cate, Cate" as she walked out. Cate Edwards later returned to court after a recess.

This is the quality of human beings liberals swoon for.

Not mentioned in that story? The words "Democrat" or "Vice Presidential Candidate".

Posted by: DrewM at 01:52 PM | Comments (484)
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

But no one wanted to be Liz's Injun Friend

“I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off,” said Warren.

People like her? You mean, "People pretending to be Native American in order to get a cushy gig at an Ivy League law school"?

I'm shocked! Shocked! to find out that no one took her up on that.

Via @slublog and co-blogger Andy

Added: The media wants you to know this subject is closed. Nothing to see here, move along.

[Update - Andy]: Liz "Taxagawea" Warren began airing a new campaign ad here in Boston today to confront this issue head-on. It appears below the fold. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 12:54 PM | Comments (298)
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

It turns out "Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers", isn't a valid legal argument.

Former NFL star Junior Seau is dead. Seems like a suicide.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:30 AM | Comments (351)
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

"It's no secret boys. So you can step out of that closet any time you like. All over the world, Saudi Arabia has long had a reputation as a gay country--a country with one king and millions of queens."

Pat Condell's latest video essay. more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 09:56 AM | Comments (292)
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

LINK NOW AVAILABLE WITH CROSSTABS
WALKER TRAILS BARRETT 46-47 AMONGST REGISTERED VOTERS.
WALKER BEATS FALK 49-42 IN SAME POLL OF REGISTERED.

LIKELY VOTER MATCHUPS:
WALKER 48% TO bARRETT 47%
WALKER 49% TO FALK 43%
PREVIOUS POLLING:
PPP (D-KOS) WALKER 50 BARRETT 45 WALKER 50 FALK 43
PREVIOUS MARQUETTE RELEASE GAVE WALKER 47-45 LEAD OVER BARRETT 49-45 LEAD OVER FALK

*UPDATE* LITTLE CHANGE IN WALKER FAVORABLES. PER POLL DIRECTOR FRANKIN: "VOTERS HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY MADE UP THEIR MINDS"

MORE UPDATES:
BARRETT CRUSHING FALK IN PRIMARY RACE BUT PLENTY OF UNDECIDEDS LEFT (HINT HINT GOP VOTERS CONSIDERING VOTING IN D PRIMARY FOR FALK): 38% TO 21%.

BARRETT DISAPPROVAL NUMBERS NOW VIRTUALLY MATCH APPROVAL, TAKING HIT FROM FALK AND WALKER. FALK NUMBERS DOWN TOO, SAME DEAL. WALKER NUMBERS VIRTUALLY UNCHANGED

17% OF "DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS" ACTUALLY REPUBLICANS.

More updates in bold:
Crosstabs: Walker wins substantial share of non-white vote against both Falk and Barrett (low 30s) these voters not as likely to show up
Crosstabs: Walker wins with Indies against both Falk and Barrett
Crosstabs: Little partisan gap between Rs and Ds, slightly more Ds in poll

I have an inkling that last statistic about Republican meddling will explode on polling like this, but I still hope that Rs vote in their own as a sign of solidarity.

Before anyone says don't follow the polls, they matter this close to an election. The Democratic primary leader from this poll will likely get a further boost, especially if they are really leading Walker in head-to-head polling.
THAT said, there has been an astonishing drought of polling data for so critical a race, but that will change after next week's Democratic primary.

One bright glimmer of hope- the election is five weeks away, and we saw what the polling deficit for Prosser did to his chances in getting re-elected last year: nothing.

Posted by: CAC at 09:20 AM | Comments (165)
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.

We missed this one two weeks ago, during Dogtroversy. But it's kind of a big deal.

CHICAGO, April 17, 2012— In an audacious rebuke to President Obama, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops threw down the gauntlet.

USCCB issued a “Statement on Religious Liberty”. The statement calls for the repeal of the contraception mandate put on employers by the Department of Health and Human Services.

..............................................

The bishops state emphatically this is an unjust law and unjust laws “must not be obeyed”. They are including lay employers in their statement. Employers, who for reasons of faith or conscience, may not want to provide or pay for contraceptive, sterilization, or abortifacient services.

According to the bishops, there can be no accommodation made for an unjust law. An unjust law “must not be obeyed”, not merely objected to.

The link to the Bishops' statement is in the article. In addition to rejecting any notion of obeisance to this law, the statement lists a number of infringements of religious liberty the Church has had to suffer in recent years.

So not only is this a KABOOM across the bow of this administration about the mandate, but it also reads as a "We've had ENOUGH," statement; a refusal to accommodate the anti-religious bigots anymore.

A taste:

What is at stake is whether America will continue to have a free, creative, and robust civil society—or whether the state alone will determine who gets to contribute to the common good, and how they get to do it. Religious believers are part of American civil society, which includes neighbors helping each other, community associations, fraternal service clubs, sports leagues, and youth groups. All these Americans make their contribution to our common life, and they do not need the permission of the government to do so. Restrictions on religious liberty are an attack on civil society and the American genius for voluntary associations.

Emphasis mine.

It's surprising how little press this got, considering how much the make-believe-media loves to bash Christians. Explicitly calling for Americans to ignore or disobey a law beloved to the Left is certainly otherwise newsworthy, no?

Perhaps the media wants to ignore this because polls show most Americans agree with the Church that the mandate is a violation of our liberty. A call for open rebellion like this could start an embarrassing preference cascade.

Posted by: LauraW at 08:45 AM | Comments (205)
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

Michael Tomasky, a professional annoyance, essentially writes "Suck It" 300 times and calls it a column. I don't want to link him, but you can find a link at Hot Air. Here's what he says:

How the GOP Became a Party of Whiners Over Osama

by Michael Tomasky May 1, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

Republicans love to act like tough guys. Yet it’s the Democrat in the White House who got bin Laden—and the GOP that’s throwing a temper tantrum about a modest Obama ad.

See, it works like this. The rule is: Only Republicans are allowed to even mention September 11. Because it happened on their watch, you see. In a rational world, that would count as a demerit—and indeed might have led to George W. Bush’s removal from office, or at least to far more strenuous demands that he offer proof that he took that August 6 PDB seriously. But in the ‘Americaland’ parallel-universe amusement-park ride the GOP took us all on over the past decade, it actually registers a plus, because it gives them the right to speak about how it felt to be in charge on that awful day, how hideously unknowable the burden was, etc. They own, so they believe, the stories, the images, the pain. So they’re allowed to speak for America on the subject in a way they believe Democrats are not.

“Given this context, it really grates their cheese that Obama, of all people, is the one who has earned the right to boast about killing bin Laden. Bush had seven years. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, no stone would be unturned in the search, he vowed. A mere few months later, Bush was ‘truly not that concerned about him.’ This was one of the most jaw-dropping things I’ve ever heard a president say. Imagine if Roosevelt had said that in the spring of 1942 about Admiral Yamamoto. Or indeed, imagine if Obama had come into office saying that. He’d have been … I guess I’m not allowed to say crucified, but something close to that. Instead, Obama did the opposite. He actually was concerned about where bin Laden was, and he did the brave thing that Bush notably and demonstrably failed to do.”

Here's my big problem: Regarding the "whining" accusation, he's right, and we have to stop.

There are three ways to handle Obama's victory lap. One is to rebut it and say, as Romney did, "even Jimmy Carter" would have made this call, and to ridicule Obama for believing this was a tough call.

That directly contradicts the claim/message being made. I support that.

Another is to ridicule Obama's absurd vanity, his smirk, his personal pride about bravery and skill that aren't his. All those "I's" in his bin Ladin announcement? Unearned vanity and misplaced swagger.

But the third approach is to simply insist that "Good manners require Obama to say nothing."

Look, no one's going to buy that. No one. Even I don't buy that. If Bush had killed Osama, I do not believe for one red hot second his campaign would have remained scrupulously silent on the issue.

There is no point peddling a line that everyone recognizes straight out of the box is perfect bullshit. I've said before I can get behind a crafty lie, but a silly lie which persuades no one at all? That doesn't even rise to the level of "lie."

That ad I posted yesterday by the veterans' group had several good lines of attack -- knocking King Barack I and his addiction to the Royal I. Getting justifiably outraged that Obama's ad stated that if SEALs had been captured or killed, it would have been "horrible... for him [Obama]."

Outstanding.

But all the stuff about "Heroes not spiking the ball?" That may be true of soldiers but Obama's not a soldier and neither is Romney. (And I'm not sure it's entirely true of soldiers, either.) It just sounds like people saying "You're not allowed to mention this, because it helps you and hurts us!"

Which is not a useful method of shaping opinion. It contains and implicit confession that What's being discussed here is good for Obama and bad for his opponents. I think people process that automatically.

There's always something that rubs me the wrong way by suggesting You shouldn't say this for any reason other than ...because it's not true. To me, "because it's not true" is usually the only good reason to not say something. (I'm sure in particular situations, like troop movements, there are other reasons, but generally, "because it's not true" is the only reason.)

This reminds me of something Sean Hannity used to do on his TV show almost every night. Sometimes he would get lazy, and he would just read the litany of things that Democrats were saying about Bush. That he lied us into war, and so forth. But he just presented the litany of claims without rebutting them, and expected that the audience would just accept that the claims were inherently uncouth or terrible.

It really just sounded butthurt.

I think people are cynical and tend to not want to believe the best in people. I think they tend to look for a way to knock people down. I think this is even more true among true independents. They don't really love either party, so are even less inclined to think well of their politicians.

So I just think that appeals that rely, ultimately, on making a claim about our own Perfect Couthe are going to be rejected. I don't think they're going to buy that we are so Against Taking Political Advantage of Major Military Victories we wouldn't say anything.

Because I don't buy that. So I don't see why someone Not on the Team would.

The people we're hoping to influence don't want to think anything good of us. They want to think we're just self-serving hypocrites. That's the battlefield we're on -- we need to notice that.

But it's also true they don't want to think much good of Captain Kickass over there. I don't think they believe it was super-heroic to give a no-brainer order, and I do not believe they think Obama did that because He's Just a Super Guy. I think they're inclined to think he gave the order because 1, it's his job, and 2, because if he hadn't, there would have been Holy Hell to pay.

At the end of the day I just don't think you can convince people who aren't already on the team that you're Heroically Ethical and Selfless and Just Super Nice Guys. And any tact along those lines is going to fail.

And sound like bullshit. And sound like whining.

But the public should be reminded that capturing or killing bin Ladin had been a national imperative for ten years, and we have had SEAL teams in the area with the specific task of going after High Value Targets with a half hour's notice, and we have thousands of men and women monitoring phone calls and email exchanges to pin down bin Ladin's location.

With that ten-year national effort and billion dollar infrastructure in place -- what did Obama think all that was for?

I think it was there so that if we got a head's up on Osama's whereabouts, we could kill him. And I think there was a national commitment to that end.

Does he disagree? Does he think that capturing or killing Osama wasn't a national imperative, but rather more like something that would be nice but not necessary?

I think we are losing this issue by overreacting to it, and furthermore, by overreacting in the wrong way ("You mustn't say that!!! Horrors!") that seems to imply guilt on our part.

I think the right way to address it is to state the facts: This was, yes, a relatively easy call, given a ten year, tens of billions of dollars investments into doing exactly what the SEALs did a year ago. Those assets were not there for show. There was the expectation -- and the national imperative -- that they be used to kill bin Ladin, should we find him.

But just yelling "You can't say that!" makes it sound like we have something to hide, and must suppress the truth.

Posted by: Ace at 08:19 AM | Comments (197)
Post contains 1409 words, total size 8 kb.

"It was not political," offered Congressman Jim Moran.

"It was right out of Henry V actually, a touch of Barry, in this case, in the night for those soldiers risking their lives over there," Matthews said.

"Well that's great stuff. I was so proud of the President there, I must say. This has nothing to do with partisanship; this is the Commander-in-Chief meeting with the troops," Chris Matthews gushed on his program today.

Posted by: Ace at 07:35 AM | Comments (225)
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.