perfidy

Virginia Postrel, via Tacitus, thinks, as I do, that the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is really, really, dumb. Where are the great, cryptic, epic, operation names of yesteryear? Operation Desert Storm! Operation Overlord! Operation Enduring Freedom! Operation PantyDesert Shield!

Please visit Tacitus and scroll down to the comments for a host of alternate suggestions, such as:

Operation Wellington
Operation Guillotine
Operation Return of the King
Operation Beverly Hills Cop IV
Operation Hide The Saladin
Operation Shifting Rationale

Windy City Mike, DITTO on everything you said, from your thoughts on casual empire to questions about the potential for us to see an Alien & Sedition Acts Redux. Patriot II is in fact in the works, and if it passes, Bush will become exactly as poor a President as John Adams by that scorecard. The government has already taken the opportunities presented by the War on Terror to pass opportunitistic legislation, and if that legislation contains provisions to ensure that nobody arrested under certain provisions can ever appear in court to challenge it, thus preventing judicial review, then where does that leave the balance of power?

p.s. I have been meaning to write a longer essay on fear and government. Someday I will get to it. Threat, or promise? You decide.

Texas Senator John Carter is proposing that the government bust a few teenagers for file trading and send them to prison to make an example of them for the other, like, billion people who do this. 

I think this strategy of deterrence is a GREAT allocation of time and money. It's already worked like magic against pot smokers! I mean, nobody smokes pot anymore, do they? 
 

What do you think the chances are that this news, about a new wave of violent government repression of dissent, will inspire marches and demonstrations from the activist Left in the USA? 

Since it's happening in Cuba, (aka, "happyland"), and not in the fertile plains of their imaginations, I think the chances are pretty fucking slim indeed. 
 

Yes, I know we've seen this before, but it's too good not to revisit:

Greetings, 

There is no new information about the war, and I have completed tomorrow's lecture, so I have returned. In reviewing previous posts on the matter of empire, I've had a few additional thoughts. 

Let's start with the war and Iraq. The United States is, if successful, going to dictate an awful lot about policy in a new post-Hussein Iraq. Assuming things roll out according to plan (I reiterate, that doesn't happen often), Hussein will be removed and a representative government installed. Depending on how much influence the United States exercises, it may or may not follow along imperialistic lines. If the U.S. dictates what kind of government Iraq will have, that's skirting the edge, and more than a little arrogant, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's an imperial exercise. Imperialistic at most. The imperialism that follows would probably be more cultural and economic in nature, and that is what informal empire is all about. By cultural, I mean western media, clothing, products, Blue jeans and Beatles tapes, not to mention Mickey D's, essentially. Of course, the Iraqis might not mind that none too much. Hussein himself is not so anti-western as some might believe. He wears suits, except in war time, when he wears western style military clothing. But in the suit, he'd blend right in to a Lebanese American wedding in Toledo. 

Which leads me to another thing, piggybacking on a previous Bucketman point. Hussein is the kind of leader who, in times past, was precisely the type the United States liked. He was secular, ruthless, and more western than the leaders of neighboring states. The Bucketman has reminded us (although I said the same thing during my lecture on Tuesday, prior to seeing the post) that there are no permanent friends, only permanent interests. Even so, I would very much like an explanation from the government as to exactly why Hussein went from ally to enemy in so short a time. I heard today that Rumsfeld himself was adamant about keeping Hussein in power even after the nerve gas attack incident or incidents. Maybe that's not true, but I'd like to hear more about it from a reliable source, and I mean published material or corroborated documentation. I am, after all, in a direct educational line of descent from Von Ranke, so let's see the documents. Beyond that, I want the government now, many of whose members were also affiliated in some way with the Reagan administration that backed Hussein, to explain itself. What changed your mind? Was it just the invasion of Kuwait? Did the U.S. cut him off? Why? Why, Mr. Big hat funny pants Uncle Sam, did you go to war against people carrying weapons with made in the USA stamped on them in 1990? Why are we really going to war with them now? Was it okay for him to nerve gas people before or do God knows what, but it's not okay now? What's really going on here? I think there's a lot we're not being told, and I want to know what it is. We should aspire to a more democratic government, and secrecy is anathema to democracy. So let's have it. 

While I had the war on TV, shots were fired here in the neighborhood. Irony, yeah? All wars foreign and domestic.

Gentlemen, 

Points of clarification always seem a necessity to me after a post. Let's begin. 

1) Scare quotes. I will respect sensibilities and will refrain from the use of scare quotes. 

2) Frustration. The frustration to which I referred was with the utter uselessness of dissent, not the members of our cyber-panel. Nor was I claiming that I had been attacked, nor was I expecting one. I just didn't want to leave the impression that I intended to be less than civil. Neurotically so, perhaps. As to my frustration with the futility of dissent, like I said, I and anyone else can oppose, oppose, oppose, and decisions have already been made. Objections are irrelevant. It is the way of the world, but it bugs me. On a similar topic, the Bucketman's optimism is duly noted viz-a-viz representative republics. But in my short lifetime I have seen so many governmental abrogations of individual rights and liberties, such as the de facto dismissal of the Fourth Amendment, that my pessimism makes me wonder just how representative the American republic will be in the future, and whether or not it will even be a republic. 

I often used to say that America needs its lunatic fringe, as they are really the protector of individual rights, but they have been increasingly marginalized. The ACLU is often perceived as an aggregate of clowns and fools when they attempt to protect those rights. Given the current outbreak of war, my pessimism forces me to ask, will we be revisited by the Alien and Sedition Acts? Iraqi nationals have already been detained. On the other hand, Daschle really blasted the President, and unlike the Democratic-Republicans of the Federalist era, specifically Matthew Lyon, he has not been imprisoned. So we'll see, but I'm never optimistic. No, I'm not a Libertarian, because I am virulently opposed to laissez faire capitalism, but I am a great-great-step-grandchild of the Enlightenment. Postmodernists would call me a racist and an elitist because of that, and they can stick it up their ass. I think what I think and I don't care so much what side that puts me on. According to academic perceptions, for example, I'm a right-wing extremist. Funny how that happens. 

3) Israel. I'll ask for clarification within my clarification. Is your perspective, Mr. Buckethead, that the Palestinian state or the Palestinian people or both are what you describe? I will respond with the assertion that however you perceive the Israeli state, in contrast, I see them as a occupying force who routinely murder and abuse the subject people they conquered. Granted, that’s what happens to subject people, just ask an American Indian, but that doesn't make it right. Many Israelis, particularly those I've heard interviewed on NPR, state that they are the legitimate authority in Palestine because they fought for and conquered the country. One young lady, I distinctly recall saying in the course of an NPR interview, "This is our country. We fought for it." I found her statements curious considering she had recently arrived there from Brooklyn. But there are other, longer-standing residents who echoed her sentiments. That is a might makes right argument, and under that stipulation, the Palestinians are justified in doing the same thing in attempting to reconquer the country. 

4) Empire. Dictionary definitions are all fine and good, but there are other factors. The historiography of British Imperialism (a topic of my recently passed comprehensive exams) clearly demonstrates a debate on the nuances of formal versus informal empire. I could easily supply a decent bibliography on the subject, but that's probably a story for another time. The United States is on its face a formal empire in that the entirety of it was conquered and seized from the indigenous peoples. It is more loosely a formal empire in that the United States has overseas possessions, such as Puerto Rico and American Samoa. They don't seem to mind too much, and it's a very benign formal empire, but a formal empire nonetheless. The United States possesses an informal empire in terms of the economic control it exercises over many parts of the world. That is much less benign. 

Okay, I'm going to pay more attention to the war show on TV. Plus, I need to write a lecture for tomorrow. Take it easy, gents.

Well, what I tried to say, however ineptly, was this: It seems to me that the presidency of George W. Bush is unfolding much as Reagan's did. He is pursuing some similar policies, prosecuting a war against forces who would destroy American values, going ahead with SDI, enacting conservative social policy, etc. At the same time, he is suffering some of the fallout that Reagan did; e.g. coming across to some as alternately callous and clueless, and inspiring rabid, ad hominem attacks. The parallels between them are striking to me. Those things that can't be helped-- that people hate Bush as they did Ronnie-- are there, as are the resemblances that Bush could cultivate if he wanted to-- the policy decisions, the date with history, Dick Cheney, the rest of his cabinet sans Condi, and the whole idea of "compassionate conservatism" (empty as that has proven to be). 

• Do you think these parallels are as apparent as I think they are?
• Do you think Bush sees himself as Reagan's spiritual heir?
• If so, is he right?

As for my thoughts about Reagan, history so far has been very kind to him. I'm embarrassed to say that, since I spent the years 1981-1989 playing Dungeons and Dragons in various basements in Hooterville, Ohio, my firsthand recollections of Reagan's presidency are mainly the big moments, certain bits of invective, and Alex P. Keaton. Even worse, since I spent my history education studying the nineteenth century, I haven't filled in that hole in my knowledge.Can someone please recommend me a good biography of him as President that is neither hatchet job or hagiography? 

[update]This is starting to turn into a thing, and I didn't mean it to. I'm just trying to find out if you other guys share my feeling that Bush reminds me of Reagan a little.

In the mid nineties, there was a brief shining hope for space enthusiasts. The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), descendent of Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, had a spaceship. Known as the DC-X, for Delta Clipper – Experimental, this spaceship could not reach orbit. DCX was a one third scale prototype of a single stage to orbit (SSTO) vehicle. Unlike traditional expendable rockets or even the space shuttle, the full size DCX would take off vertically, travel to orbit, and return in one piece. 

This concept for an SSTO vehicle promised to reduce the per pound cost to orbit by several orders of magnitude, because the program did not entail throwing away large parts of the launch vehicle every time it was used. Further, the vehicle was designed using many of the lessons used in the design of large passenger jets, so that it would require much smaller ground crews and less turn around time than the space shuttle. 

The McDonnell-Douglas engineers who worked on the project had several firm rules to guide them. Most important was this: no new technology. The DCX project did not require a single item of new technology. No research was needed. Every component of the DCX was off the shelf technology. Only a few components even needed to be custom designed, such as the fuel tanks and the outer skin of the craft. The DCX team took the flight control system directly out of an MD80 passenger jet. (One engineer quipped that the DCX thought it was a airliner with a very unusual flight path.) 

For $600 million, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), successor to Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) built a working, flying prototype space ship. By comparison to typical NASA expenditures, even in NASA Director Goldin's "Faster, Better, Cheaper" era, this was chump change. The BMDO flew the DCX over twenty times, each time pushing the boundaries, each time learning more of what they would need to know when they built the first full size prototype. (Some of these flights were even broadcast on CNN.) 

However, this happy progress was not to last. With typical government fickleness, the DCX program was transferred to a jealous NASA. NASA crashed the DCX the first time they flew it, and declared that the program was a failure. When the time came for NASA to name a contractor to build an SSTO craft, the contract was awarded to Lockheed's X-33 program. The X-33's success was predicated on the development of novel aerospike engines. At the time that Lockheed was awarded the contract, no one in the world had ever constructed a working aerospike engine. At the time that the X-33 project was cancelled, five years and billions of dollars later, no full-scale working aerospike engine had ever been built. 

Why would NASA, which at least theoretically desired an inexpensive to operate, earth to orbit vehicle, pick the X-33 project over the DCX? Especially considering that the DCX program had actually built a working prototype, and did not require the invention of several new technologies to even have a chance of succeeding? We may never know the answer to that question, but the experience of the last decade should suggest something to those who are planning NASA's next moves. 

Small programs with clear design goals have a much better chance of success than typical NASA programs. Private industry, given a clear mission and a free hand on how to go about achieving it, can achieve wonders. NASA should issue a clear set of specifications, in much the same way that the military does for new combat aircraft. Industry must build a flying prototype (though perhaps with some seed funding from the government.) One of the prototypes will be chosen, and the winner will get a contract to build production versions of the spacecraft. NASA should not have the opportunity to micromanage development, nor to continually change the specifications. And NASA should be forced to pick one of the working prototypes. 

Here is a situation where the government could help the market: primarily by creating a market for SSTO spacecraft. The aerospace industry can justify spending even very large amounts of money designing a spaceship if they know they have a chance of actually selling some once they're done. Boeing spent tens millions of dollars just designing the 777, knowing that they would have a market for them. Boeing would spend at least that much on creating an SSTO, if it were assured that the government would buy them. 

One other important qualification should be that the winning company could also sell the SSTO to private industry. FedEx, among other private companies, did research which indicated if an SSTO with sufficiently large cargo were available at around the price of a 747, they could operate several for point to point cargo shipping on earth, and have a good profit margin. (If you can get to orbit, that same vehicle can reach any point on earth in little over 45 minutes. When it absolutely, positively has to be there in an hour...) But FedEx is not going to pony up the development costs, any more than it would for the cargo jets it flies today. 

Once we have cheap, regular and frequent access to space, then everything will start to happen - orbital hotels, miracle materials developed in zero-g labs, lunar colonies, the works. But we will only get there if NASA is forced to get out of the way, and focus on what it's good at: research and deep space exploration.

As far as semantic arguments over what is and is not an empire go, I tend to fall on the side of the dictionary - if you rule it, own it, use it for your economic purposes without particularly caring what happens to the subject population, you're talking empire. Much as I abhor the term "American Global Hegemony" it is more accurate. We have power, influence and what not coming out of our ears, more in fact than we quite know what to do with. We are first, second and third among equals. But we haven't created an empire. 

Going halfway around the world to terminate the leader of a nation that pissed us off may be uppity, forceful, arrogant, domineering, renegade, of doubtful wisdom, wrong or even evil. But if after we do, we give it back, it's not imperial. Perhaps its more like empire's kindler, gentler, third cousin twice removed on the maternal side. And she has a great personality. 

And as for blogging politesse, I just wanted to assure all of my fellow tuppenny pundits that what I have done up to this point is not an attack on the morals, intelligence, ancestry, judgment, honor, personal grooming habits or sexual orientation of anyone. That way, when I do make a personal attack, it will be obvious that that was what I wanted to do. 

"Cultural Historian," huh? I heard that cultural historians were four-flushing, devious, deviant, dimwitted pinheads who couldn't narrate their way out of a wet paper sack. And that when they weren't failing to write even mediocre history, they spent their time engaged in questionable unsafe same sex practices with their aunt-mothers, brother-fathers, and any filthy goat that happens to be wandering by. And they have the perspicacity, good sense and wisdom of a retarded paint chip on crack.