Obsidian Wings

Playing the Violin

by Robert R. Mackey, LTC, USA (Retired)

All--Sorry I haven't posted in a while. I blame Red Dead Redemption and getting the first kid off to college.

Crossposted from HuffPo.

I read Huffington Post daily, and not just because they were nice enough to allow me to blog.  I like the spread of news available; it gives a good balance to other news sites.

However, I keep looking for something on a serious internal debate inside the U.S. military, which has yet to be discussed outside of the cloisters of the Pentagon--an ongoing discussion of the ability of the U.S. armed forces to disobey orders they don't like.

We aren't talking Me Lai, or Dachau, or waterboarding.  We aren't talking the ethical, moral, and legal requirement of military officers to disobey orders that are unconstitutional, violate U.S. or international law, or are obviously of such crass evil to be disobeyed out of hand. 

No, we are talking about an underground current in the U.S. military's officer corps, in which some officers believe that their legally elected civilian leaders can be disobeyed if the individual officer believes the order to be "immoral."

In the newest edition of Joint Forces Quarterly, Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Milburn openly states "There are circumstances under which a military officer is not only justified but also obligated to disobey a legal order." 

While this might be music to the ears of some, thinking that Milburn is referring to "illegal" wars in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, that is not what is being batted around the officer corps.  No, Milburn's argument is being used by the adherents of the Disobey Lawful Orders School to support resistance to the ending of Don't Ask/Don't Tell.

Well, so what?  This is what. The American people, since the 1970's, have depended upon an All Volunteer military.  The result has been a very professional, well-trained, and highly respected force that literally can dominate nearly any adversary on the modern battlefield with ease.  However,  it also created a separate professional military caste, with its own language, belief structure, and living on their isolated compounds separate from many of the issues that plague non-military communities.

Add to this that, due to misguided and short-sighted policies by many of our liberal universities, ROTC was banned from campuses and the armed forces banned from recruiting...ostensibly to show that the military would get no support from said institutions until gays and lesbians could serve openly.  The result, however, has been somewhat different.  Instead of military officers coming from a wide variety of educational, social, and religious backgrounds, we have a military caste that is predominantly white, Southern, evangelical Protestant and staunchly Republican.

Was this the Department of Agriculture or IBM, would we care?  No, most likely not. The problem is that IBM or the DoA does not possess nuclear missiles, tanks, machine guns and warships.  We have, basically, allowed for the politicization of the "managers of violence" (as said by Samuel Huntington in his classic work, The Soldier and the State).

The U.S. military today is not the military of the civil rights era--we cannot expect, as Ike, JFK and LBJ did--to send in the 101st Airborne to enforce laws that some officers found distasteful and "immoral," such as the right to an equal education and the end to racist terrorism. 

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a real problem.  We can discuss a senatorial candidate's teenage witchcraft for fun and profit, but things suddenly get very real and very dangerous when we discuss the possibility of armed troops disobeying the orders of the President.  When I taught military history at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, I would tell my students that "the first time a tank shows up on the Capitol steps and begins spraying machine gun bullets, our democracy is over."

It is my opinion, after 24 years of military service, from the rank of buck private to Lieutenant Colonel and after three wars, that the role of the professional officer is to obey the "orders of the President and the officers appointed over me."  It has been that way since the Roman legions--you take the King's Shilling, you obey the King's orders.  Our entire civil-military structure is based upon that one truth--that the orders of civil authorities are the highest form of authority.  If an officer disagrees with a policy or order, they have the right to resign their commission and take the issue public.  They do not have the moral, ethical or legal right to disobey but still wear the uniform.

The military is not the same as the other branches of government or the civilian world. They have their own laws, rules and system of control.  You can, for example, commit adultery in the civilian world, and your punishment (if any) will happen in divorce court.  In the military, you go to jail.  The same for a broad swath of transgressions that would see minor in civilian life--from littering to going to an off-limit bar.  Why? Because the system requires absolute obedience to authority--and it requires it most of all from its senior officers. 

I leave you with this essay, written by Major General Charles Dunlap (USAF, Retired) many years ago.  For the good of our Republic, let us hope that the warning of Major General Dunlap, and others, is heeded well before we listen to the words of Lieutenant Colonel Milburn and his ilk.

(pdf) "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012"

Confederate History Month, The Conclusion (?)

by Robert R. Mackey

crossposted from the Huffington Post

This is the third, and unless there is a major gaffe tonight from Richmond, the final part of my writing on the serious problems with Confederate Heritage Month in Virginia.

In the first entry, I noted the slight "omission" by Governor McDonnell of the institution of slavery in his proclamation. It was corrected by his office, which was kind enough to note that slavery was a distinctly unpleasant thing. Thank you Governor.

The following day, I wrote that the Governor should correct the entire document, rename it "Civil War Heritage Month" and note the involvement of Virginians, black and white, who fought and died for the United States. That, sadly, has been ignored by the Governor's office and many others. I expect that it will continue to be ignored by many.

In this final part, I want to discuss the entire issue of "why" from both an historical view and from a modern political view. Why should we remember the American Civil War? What should we study about it? And why would a modern politician, well aware of the impact that announcing "Confederate Heritage Month" would have on not only his constituents but the media-blogosphere as well, do such a thing?

First, let's discuss the history. Simply put, the Civil War was about slavery. It was not about anything else. Had there been no slaves, there would have been no Civil War. For those who cry that the causation of the war was "States Rights" I have to ask--which right were they seceding over? The right to print their own money? The right to issue letters of marque and reprisal? The right to sign treaties with foreign powers?

No. The 'right' that so strongly defended, and by doing so murdered 650,000 Americans, was the right to own other human beings and their labor. That was the State Right so steadfastly defended. If you do not believe me, just read the collective writings of Jefferson Davis, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Roger B. Taney, or of the 'moderate' plutocrats of South Carolina. It was obvious to those men why they were fighting. Or put in a more accurate way, why they were sending poor white Southern men to their deaths by the tens of thousands--to protect their property and their 'way of life.' These tyrants cared nothing for the men they were sending to die. First person accounts of the era show how many of these die-hard secessionists soon were less concerned with the Glorious Cause than they were in making sure that no one took their property away from them--to include the Confederate government.

So why should we study and discuss the Civil War? Military historians study the war as a perfect example of early Industrial Age conflict, technological change, logistics, operational art and grand strategy. For social historians, it is a moment of great change in American society, from the role of women and minorities to shifts in immigration and urban/rural issues. Political historians can see no better example of the issues, strengths and weaknesses of a representative democracy than in a conflict like the Civil War; great statesmen, speeches that still resound, the impact of assassination on a government.

Yet there is another reason to study the war. We need to study the Civil War--objectively and factually--in order to finally heal the rift that the war and slavery caused. Young people need to discuss, without propaganda or Lost Cause mythology, why the war started. Older students need to study the great decisions that put the nation on the road to disunion. And modern political leaders need to study the mistakes that were made before the war that split the nation in two and murdered a generation.

What were those mistakes that our present day political leaders need to reflect upon? I list a few for your consideration:

• The false idea that individuals in a republic are only responsible for themselves and their well-being, that they owe nothing to their fellow citizens past a grudgingly paid tax for national defense, and the associated false idea that somehow everyone will be just fine without laws, regulations, or taxation and that our responsibility is for the upholding of not human rights but the upholding of 'property' rights;

• The false idea that one race or one group is "American" when all others are not, including those with different beliefs, ideas, lifestyles, background and origin, for along those lines lies the belief that one group is not only more American, but morally superior to another and has both the right and responsibility to oppress another;

• The false idea that God is always on your side...which leads to a firm conviction that whatever you do, you are doing "God's Will" and all others are not only against you politically, but against God--a quite convenient situation for immoral and unethical leaders and one that Confederate leaders used to motivate an entire generation of poor white Southern men to die on the battlefield for slavery;

• The false idea that the Federal government is somehow inferior (or ineffective or inefficient) when compared to local or state governments, that local government "always knows best"; this view of reality quickly leads to localized suppression of civil rights, destruction of liberties, and violates the most hallowed compact of our Republic, the Constitution; and lastly,

• That the American people can be fooled only part of the time; even those that gain the most from a society but believe themselves to be the most downtrodden will ultimately discover the extent of the lies told to them by their political leaders. To paraphrase one Confederate soldier after the war, "I fought for my country [the C.S.A.] but I'll be damned if I ever fight for it again."

So, it is up to you Governor and the members of the Virginia Legislature to do the right thing and learn some of these lessons of the great American bloodletting. And if you do
not, it is ultimately up to the voters of Virginia to decide whether you should be the elected representative of the all the people--white and black, descendant of Union soldier or Confederate--and not just a small, unhappy portion of the electorate.

May God bless our beloved Union.

Confederate Heritage, Part II

by Robert R. Mackey

Yesterday, I wrote on the subject of Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell's proclamation of "Confederate History Month" and the misuse of history. 

In response, the Governor's office issued a statement noting that "a major omission" in the original proclamation.  That oversight?

That there were actual slaves in Virginia in 1861.  And that they might not have been very happy about being forced to support an illegal government in rebellion against the United States.  Yes, believe it or not, there were SLAVES in Virginia, and they JUST MIGHT have had something to do with "a four year war between the states for independence that concluded at Appomattox Courthouse."

Governor, you need to fix this proclamation...FAST.  The damage has already been done to some extent; the NAACP and other civil rights organizations have already come out in protest to this planned celebration of all things Confederate.  You've taken the first step by recognizing "...that the institution of slavery led to this war and was an evil and inhumane practice that deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights and all Virginians are thankful for its permanent eradication from our borders."

Take the next step. Recognize the valor, sacrifice and patriotism of UNION soldiers, black and white, from Virginia.  Recognize the fact that they--not the poor misguided victims thrown away by the Confederacy at Antietam, Gettysburg and the numerous battlefields in Virginia for some amorphous mixture of "states rights" and human bondage, sprinkled with a heavy dose of racism--were the true Virginian heroes of the Civil War.  They stood by the Old Flag when their fellow Virginians went mad. They watched their homes and families scattered by bands of Rebel guerrillas and the Confederate government.  Recognize the fact, that in the end, they returned home the victors but watched their victory be reviled by their neighbors, hated in their old age, and forgotten by their grandchildren.

Lastly, recognize, on the same level as the Confederate 'gods' Jackson and Lee, General George Henry Thomas, the Rock of Chickamauga, whose grave now lies in the loyal soil of Troy, New York.  Whose loyal and patriotic service to the United States of America resulted, even in death, his banishment from his native Virginia.  His service in Reconstruction should be recalled as well, as he led the suppression of the Ku Klux Klan, jailed local leaders who denied Constitutional rights of freed slaves and did all within his power--to include the use of military force--to uphold the rights of African-Americans and loyal white Unionists against the resurgence of racism and violence after the war. 

Do the right thing Governor. Recall the proclamation.  Reissue it as "Civil War History Month."  Recognize all Virginians--not just white male secessionists--for whom the Civil War was the great crisis of their lives and left all Americans with issues that are still being addressed today. Use the month as an opportunity to discuss the hard questions of racism, war, and Federal vs. local government.

Crossposted from Huffington Post

Confederate 'Heritage' and the Suppression of Truth

by Robert R. Mackey

(cross-posted from Huffington Post)

I opened this morning's Washington Post to find that the governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell, has determined that the state's tourism demands requires a renewal of "Confederate History Month," which has lain dormant for the past eight years.

Ok, I get it. The state needs money and the Civil War is a big draw--from hotels to gas stations to trinkets bought at the battlefield park gift shops.  It should be a big draw for the state.  Every American should spend at least a day in their lives standing on the slopes of Little Round Top at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and think about how a handful of loggers and lobstermen from Maine, led by a college professor, saved the Republic on a hot summer's day in 1863.  Or in the remains of the trenches at Petersburg, Virginia, imagining the brutality of war, as fifteen and fifty year old men lived, fought and died in muddy holes in the ground.

However, to proclaim a special month for the bloody secession movement that killed 650,000 Americans, that kept African-Americans in bondage, and whose 'beloved memory' prevented any meaningful civil rights changes from taking place for another 100 years, is wrongheaded and just plain historically incorrect.  I've defended, on this blog, what has seemed to be pro-Confederate speeches and writings from political leaders and others.  In those cases, I defended their right to say what they believe, and to hopefully help others to understand why those men died and to aid in ensuring that such good soldiers should never die in such a bad cause again.

Let's start with what the problems are with Virginia's "Confederate History Month."

First, it ignores the 490,865 African-Americans who were slaves in 1860 Virginia, and whose Confederate heritage was the lash, servitude, and a century of virtual slavery after 1865.  Add to this the 58,042 freed slaves who resided in Virginia as well. Were they happy with their lot?  Did they take to the streets and cheer when the slave-owning aristocrats, putting the mantle of states' rights and the Revolution over their illegal act, forced the state out of the Union?  I do not believe so.

Secondly, it ignores the historical fact that a large portion of Virginia itself was so opposed to slavery and to rebellion that it broke away and formed its own loyal state--West Virginia.  Did such overwhelming love for Jefferson Davis fill the hearts of every white man in the Old Dominion? Not in the least; 376,688 white Virginians seceded instead of giving into the demands of the slaveholders for poor white hillbillies to honorably die to protect their 'property.'

Lastly, it ignores the historical fact that thousands of white Virginians fought for the UNION.  From Union General George H. Thomas, the "Rock of Chickamauga" and a great hero of the conflict, to loyalists who filled the ranks of West Virginian and Virginian Federal volunteer regiments to those who joined the volunteer regiments of other states; these men have all been systematically ignored and historically forgotten by the Lost Cause myth-makers that have occupied the Virginia state house since the end of Reconstruction.  Belittled as traitors or scalawags, they stayed loyal to their nation.  While most were not abolitionists, they were Union men and did not believe in fighting "the rich man's war" launched by the slaveocrats in 1861.

If Governor McDonnell wants to promote the Civil War in Virginia, I say more power to him.  Let him call it "Civil War Heritage Month" and encourage the study of not just Stonewall Jackson or Robert E. Lee, but George Thomas, the tens of thousands of white and black Union volunteers from Virginia, and let it address the plight of the slaves, the problems of the free black population, and the atrocity of post-Reconstruction civil rights violations in Virginia.

History is not a pretty thing Governor.  But perhaps we will learn more by confronting the ghosts of our past than making them gods.
 

The truth hurts: Newsweek's Palin cover

By Lindsay Beyerstein  

Newsweek used this photograph of Sarah Palin as this week's cover shot.

The headline reads, "How do you solve a problem like Sarah? She's bad news for the GOP--and everybody else, too."

It's a damned good question, and I couldn't think of a better image to make the point.

Palin posed for this picture as part of a photo essay captioned Governor Palin, The Runner, which ran in the August issue of Runner's World. When I saw this image in its original context, I was appalled that a sitting governor would pose for a shot like this; or this stretching shot that puts the visual center of gravity squarely on her crotch.

Maybe Palin didn't realize that the photographer, Brian Adams, was depicting her this way. If so, he totally fucked her over. [NB: In an earlier version of this post, I misspelled Brian Adams' name "Bryan Adams." Today, I got an email from a firm called Web Sheriff telling me that they'd take legal action if I didn't apologize to the rock star Bryan Adams and ACI for any injury I might have caused to his reputation. So, I sincerely apologize to Bryan Adams. I wouldn't want my name associated with these ridiculous pictures either.] But I think she was on board with the concept. If Palin had assailed Runner's World for making fun of her, I might now take her complaint about Newsweek seriously. She liked the Runner's World spread, though. She thought it was appropriate.

There's nothing scandalous about Palin showing some skin, or wearing Spandex. But this cover image is deliberately styled to make the then-governor of Alaska look like a Vargas pinup girl. Unlike the other images in the series, this one references her status as a governor. As she poses like a swimsuit model, she's clutching one icon of political power--the Blackberry--and leaning on another. The theme isn't Sarah Palin, athlete. The theme is Sarah Palin, Sexy Governor. (As in: one of those dime store Halloween costumes: sexy cop, sexy ladybug, sexy sanitation worker...)

Predictably, Palin complained that Newsweek's use of the image was sexist. Yes, the image was plucked from its original context. The whole point was that the picture was appalling it its original context. Newsweek is holding this picture up to the world and asking: Who does this? 

The bottom line is that Palin's a clown. She doesn't get a pass because her chosen clown persona is stereotypically feminine.

She caricatures herself. Day in and day out. Good for Newsweek for pointing and laughing.

The story is about why Sarah Palin is a problem for the GOP. The picture answers the question. She's a problem because she's a freak with no judgment who regularly makes a spectacle of herself.  Obviously, she's a potential problem for America because she's an incompetent leader who supports terrible policies. But that's not Newsweek's question.

Newsweek's question is why she's bad for the GOP. The answer is that she's dragging down her party because it's impossible for adults to take her seriously. Not because she's beautiful or maternal or fit, but rather because she has no decorum, no dignity, and no common sense. I mean look at her, she's working the goofy MILF persona like that's a perfectly normal thing for a governor with presidential aspirations to be doing. (As a political pro pointed out to me, it's shocking that her staff let her do the shoot without checking the Runner's World contract to make this couldn't happen.)

Palin's not even bad news for her party because she's ignorant or radically reactionary. Lots of American politicians are both and they do just fine. Palin has the double whammy of being ignorant and absurd. She's absolutely not ready for prime time. John McCain plucked her from obscurity as a publicity stunt and he lived to rue the day.

The tighter the wingnut base embraces Palin, the more clownish they reveal themselves to be.

Shorter Douthat: It's embarassing to be such a bigot

By Lindsay Beyerstein

Social conservative NYT columnist Ross Douthat admits that he's uncomfortable discussing gay marriage in public because he opposes it for no good reason:

The question came from Christopher Glazek, a fact-checker at The New Yorker, who wanted to know whether Mr. Douthat and Mr. Salam believed that former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, who has apologized on behalf of his party for the Southern Strategy, should also apologize for the Republican party's gay politics.

At first Mr. Douthat seemed unable to get a sentence out without interrupting himself and starting over. Then he explained: "I am someone opposed to gay marriage who is deeply uncomfortable arguing the issue in public."

Mr. Douthat indicated that he opposes gay marriage because of his religious beliefs, but that he does not like debating the issue in those terms. At one point he said that, sometimes, he feels like he should either change his mind, or simply resolve never to address the question in public. [NY Obs]

It's understandable that Douthat doesn't like debating the issue in terms of his religious beliefs. Because he always loses to the opponent who says: "Who cares about your religion, Ross? We're talking about the criteria for civil marriage, here."

Ross said he doesn't even bother with the standard secular argument against gay marriage because nobody ever takes takes it seriously:

He added: "The secular arguments against gay marriage, when they aren't just based on bigotry or custom, tend to be abstract in ways that don't find purchase in American political discourse. I say, ‘Institutional support for reproduction,' you say, ‘I love my boyfriend and I want to marry him.' Who wins that debate? You win that debate." [NY Obs]

Ross says the notion doesn't "get traction" because it's too "abstract." Notice how the pundit speak absolves him from coming right out and saying that this argument is bunk. He says he doesn't make the case because nobody will listen, not because it's a crazy idea.

Actually, nobody takes the marriage/reproduction argument seriously because any undergraduate can debunk it. It's not abstract at all. Even Ross thinks that sterile opposite-sex couples should be allowed to get married and I'm sure he's aware that some same-sex couples raise children. So, the question is why straight childless couples have more rights than their gay counterparts. If reproductive support is so important, we have a moral obligation to support the children of gay and straight families equally by letting their parents get married.

It's obvious why Ross is uncomfortable talking about gay marriage in public. He wants the state to impose his religion on other people, but he doesn't want to look like a theocrat in front of the liberal cultural elite.

Are Universities Doomed?

by publius

This weekend's Post had an interesting take on whether colleges might soon go the way of newspapers.  The basic gist is that the rise of online long-distance learning makes a lot of the traditional college system unnecessary and redundant.

While these trends are not promising for the Publius family checkbook, it's easy to see their economic logic.  In one sense, you can think of colleges as expensive distribution systems.  You go to the school, listen to the prof, and knowledge is distributed.  It's like going to a really expensive movie rental store.

But the Internets creates a new and extremely inexpensive distribution channel for knowledge.  In the same way that online and on-demand video offerings will eventually kill off rental stores, it's easy to see how these offerings could do the same to many colleges (or at least, to many college instructors). 

This shift in distribution networks could truly shake things up.  And in many ways, the shift could vastly improve the quality of college education at a fraction of today's costs.

To take but one example, the Internet could create the mother of all course catalogs, complete with the world's best lecturers.  If a million people wanted to hear Harold Bloom on Shakespeare, or Jonathan Spence on China, they could.

Anyway, I won't repeat the whole article -- but it's definitely worth a read.

I do have a few concerns with the brave new world though.  First, it could put me out of a job.  So I guess it's good that I keep my DC bar license up.

Second, if colleges ultimately shift to an on-demand model, students will be missing what I consider to be the best parts of "college."  The aggregation of years of dining hall conversations, tavern debates, and dorm room bull sessions are my most valuable memories.  And honestly, I learned more -- and gained more "cultural literacy" -- in those 3 AM dorm room debates than in most of my classes. It's sad to think that future students might miss out on all this (though I recognize that it's perhaps an unnecessarily expensive luxury).

One last thought -- even if the revolution doesn't come, I hope we see more of these online classes freely available in the near future.  I've been listening to iTunes U lectures lately on various topics, and I love it. 

It would be nice, then, if more schools created open programs like these -- not to replace college, but to supplement it.  Open Yale Courses is a great start because it allows you to essentially audit complete courses, with video too.  But the course selection is tiny.  A more robust selection would make people who never really wanted to leave college (i.e., me) very happy.

Michael's Best Album

by publius

I've been having this debate with friends, but it's a matter of such weight and importance that I wanted to include you too.

After careful study, I have concluded that Bad is a significantly better album than Thriller.  Yes, Thriller is more iconic.  And yes, Billie Jean is the best single.  But song for song, Bad is the musically superior album. 

Thriller has too many throwaway songs, while Bad is solid throughout.  Consider the lineup:  Bad, The Way You Make Me Feel, Speed Demon, Man in the Mirror, Another Part of Me, Dirty Diana, Smooth Criminal, Leave Me Alone.  It's good stuff.

Resolved:  Bad is significantly better than Thriller.  Discuss.

The Wire

by publius

So after years of resisting passionate pleas from friends, I've broken down and started watching The Wire.  I'm now through Season 4 about to start 5.  And it's absolutely fantastic.

To those who haven't seen it -- go start it right now.  If you are reading this blog, chances are you have a fairly high interest in things like politics and policy.  If you do, you will love it.  I mean, you'll love it anyway, but you'll love it even more.

I missed the whole back-and-forth on the larger Wire debate a year and a half ago, but I'll probably do a few posts on it in the near future (below the thread to limit spoilers).  I actually don't watch much TV or movies anymore other than Sesame Street, Barney, and the Daily Show.  But this one you should make time for.

Michael Jackson

--by Sebastian

I've been strangely sad since hearing that Michael Jackson died.  Strangely because I haven't really liked him much in the past 10 years. 

I loved him growing up.  His voice was so arresting.  His songs were usually encouraging.  He projected an elemental joy in singing that I found captivating.  When I was little I was completely drawn into that.  And as I got older I appreciated his singing even more when comparing it to others. 

But his turn toward extreme strangeness and apparent self-loathing in his non-singing life wore me down somewhat.  And then the allegations of child molestation made me angry at him.  (Though I do remember saying that Michael Jackson was the only person I could imagine who was so weird that it was even remotely plausible that he could be sleeping in the same bed with those kids and not be molesting them).  So for the last 10 years or so whenever I would hear about him, my heart would harden a little and I would turn away.

Yet despite all that in the wake of his death, I'm still sad.  Lots of radio stations on the way home were playing his songs, especially some of his older songs.  Wow, I had forgotten what a good voice he had.  I think there are two parts of me that are sad.  The first is the part that recognizes the death of Michael Jackson as happening many years ago.  The child and then man who so entranced me was gone a long time ago.  I sorrow a bit for all those lost years between that and his actual death.  The second is the part, deep down, that really was rooting for him to snap out of it.  The part of me that believes in redemption stories and getting your life back together.  That will never happen now (and of course it was never very likely).

Hmm.

You can use this as an open thread.