← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr
Thread ID: 20344 | Posts: 18 | Started: 2005-09-23
2005-09-23 03:42 | User Profile
[url]http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110007293[/url] [FONT=Times New Roman]
[SIZE=5]God-Fearing Spartans[/SIZE] [SIZE=4][I] A look at America's "imperial grunts."[/I][/SIZE] [B][SIZE=3] BY DANIEL FORD Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT[/B]
"Forget the crap about it ain't being a culture war," says an American sergeant in Zamboanga, trying to explain why he regards the local Muslims as hostile. In "Imperial Grunts," Robert Kaplan surveys the U.S. military presence around the world. He finds brighter spots than this southern Philippine island but never a more succinct statement of the problem: In "Injun country," as the sergeant notes, you can't afford to be nonjudgmental.
It is Mr. Kaplan's conceit that the U.S. now governs the world and, for efficiency, has carved it into six territories or "commands." For good measure, we have a Special Operations Command to perform unconventional tasks anywhere, though they are required much more in the Middle East or South America than in, say, "Northcom," an area comprising the continental U.S., Canada, Alaska, the Caribbean--and the west coast of Greenland.
Mr. Kaplan set out to visit a hotspot in each command. His grand tour occupied him for two years, during which time he developed an abiding fondness for the men who guard the marches of the American imperium. "I was beginning to love these guys," he writes of a special-forces team in Colombia. "They had amassed so much technical knowledge about so many things at such a young age. They could perform minor surgery on the spot. Yet they had such a reduced sense of self compared to everyone I knew in the media and public policy worlds." [B] One of the more surprising of Mr. Kaplan's findings is that evangelical Christianity helped to transform the military in the 1980s, rescuing the Vietnam-era Army from drugs, alcohol and alienation. That reformation, together with the character-building demands of Balkans deployments of the 1990s (more important, in his judgment, than the frontal wars against Saddam Hussein), created our "imperial grunts."[/B]
The phrase is slightly misleading--even off-putting. As a synonym for American troops, "grunt" came and mostly went with the Vietnam War, evoking the dispirited soldiery of that era. And "imperial," with its adjectival nod to "imperialism," concedes too much to those who argue that the U.S. and the world would be better served if we withdrew behind our own borders. But Mr. Kaplan intends something positive--a way of suggesting that our far-flung troops are the descendants of the cavalry, dragoons and civilian frontiersmen who fought the Indian wars of the 18th and 19th centuries. Indeed, his opening chapter is titled "Injun Country," a term that was also popular in the early days of the Vietnam War and one that soldiers use with respect.
The book is replete with such catchphrases. The military would grind to a halt without them, as surely as if it ran out of gasoline or computer chips. So nouns become verbs: templating, civilianizing, unassetting (which means emptying a helicopter of troops and which in turn is reduced to unassing). Ideas become acronyms, mostly mind-numbing but sometimes soaring to poetry: I was delighted to learn that what we used to call nation-building is now MOOTWA, for military operations other than war.
And in quiet moments the troops explain themselves in terms that call to mind an earlier America: God, country, honor, duty. "The clichés were spoken with utter seriousness," Mr. Kaplan assures us. "That's ultimately why these guys liked George W. Bush so much. . . . He spoke the way they did, with a lack of nuance, which they found estimable because their own tasks did not require it."
The book's structure--an author introducing himself to six geographical areas, then introducing them to us--can be repetitive, so the book sometimes drags. It is most compelling when the subject is the U.S. Army Special Forces. The Green Berets are everywhere. Mr. Kaplan visits them, among other places, at Firebase Gardez in southern Afghanistan, a mud-walled fort over which fly the flags of the U.S., Texas and the Florida Gators.
"We're the damn Spartans," explains Maj. Kevin Holiday of Tampa, "physical warriors with college degrees." A civil engineer with three kids, he is a National Guardsman with an attitude. "God has put me here," he tells Mr. Kaplan. "I'm a Christian. . . . You see this all around you"--the dust, deprivation and anxiety of Injun Country--"well, it's the high point of my life and of everyone else here." It's not just officers, and not only the Green Berets. Cpl. Michael Pinckney, a Marine, tells Mr. Kaplan: "I don't want to be anywhere else but Iraq. . . .This is what manhood is all about. I don't mean macho [stuff] either. I mean moral character."
If "Imperial Grunts" serves no other purpose, it is a wonderful corrective to the disenchanted troops we sometimes see on the television news or in the new TV series "Over There," or read about in the dispatches of reporters and pundits who are themselves disenchanted by the war on terror.
[I] Mr. Ford is the author of the Vietnam novel "Incident at Muc Wa," which was made into the film "Go Tell the Spartans," starring Burt Lancaster. You can buy "Imperial Grunts" from the OpinionJournal bookstore[/SIZE].[/I][/FONT]
2005-09-23 04:17 | User Profile
Religious themes such as those used by Bush, along with pseudo-patriotic bromides about "honor," "duty," "wearing the uniform," and "answering the call," are very useful for brainwashing young men into doing the dirty work of corrupt, cowardly politicians and plutocrats.
2005-09-23 11:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE][U]"I was beginning to love these guys,"[/U] he writes of a special-forces team in Colombia. "They had amassed so much technical knowledge about so many things at such a young age. They could perform minor surgery on the spot.[/QUOTE] The main reason Kaplan "love"(s) these guys I suspect lies in his last name and the nation he really serves. [QUOTE]Yet they had such a reduced sense of self compared to everyone I knew in the media and public policy worlds."[/QUOTE] Like Kaplan.
Angler,
While I understand your thrust here I have to point out that terms like "duty, honor and country" are noble. While I think some of these guys are misguided and operating under false precepts, (they don't realise just how sorry a person Bush really is) I have to admire their spirit. The nation needs folks that do have these attitudes. Indeed, I would like to put them in a hypothetical fire extinguisher cabinet with the sign "break glass only in emergency". Even more importantly, they need and deserve leaders that will not abuse these attitudes. To do otherwise is not only a disservice to them, but treason to the nation as whole.
2005-09-23 12:44 | User Profile
You got it, Sert.
Betcha Bucks to Bagels that Mr. Kaplan was as energetically opposed to the war in Vietnam (which served no Tribal interest) as he's now in favor of seeing non-Jewish American kids fight as a collective Golem to make Southwest Asia safe for the Zionist Empire.
...especially when those kids have been brainwashed by Dispensationalist, Rapture-Cult Theology into thinking they're partaking in a grand "End Times" drama as extras.
2005-09-23 13:03 | User Profile
Howard,
I'd bet that you are correct about Kaplan.
That is part of what I meant about laboring under false impressions. When they get older they'll realize how their trust has been violated and they will be pissed. The people responsible for that, Neocons and "Liberals", should pay dearly.
2005-09-23 14:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]You got it, Sert. Betcha Bucks to Bagels that Mr. Kaplan was as energetically opposed to the war in Vietnam (which served no Tribal interest) as he's now in favor of seeing non-Jewish American kids fight as a collective Golem to make Southwest Asia safe for the Zionist Empire. [/QUOTE]I have read a lot of Kaplan's works. He's a different sort of writer, though I am pretty sure he leans liberal. He is usually ahead of 'everyone else' (reporting wise) by about three to five years, in terms of finding hot spots. I find some of his themes a bit trying, but his ability to get to the heart of a place (he started as a [u]travelogue[/u] writer) has few peers.
He's been publishing articles from weird corners of the world in Atlantic Monthly, in places where small groups of American attache's and SF types are doing remarkable work well below the radar horizon, for about 15 years.
I like most of his stuff. He's a Jew, so be it, I don't think he's a neo con.
A comment on the Evangelism issue in uniform.
Man, that's an understatement.
One of the themes that has been disturbing me in the post-Reagan, post piss test, US military -- I will say the Army and Air Force have this disease worse than the Navy and Marines do, though not by much -- is the return to "holy warrior" as a part and parcel of the American Warrior Ethos. It is no surprise to me that the AF Academy is having a very public mess over hard core evangelism. Who, in uniform, couldn't see that one coming? The use of position to evangelize has been going on for about thirty years. What has changed is that more and more commanders and generals are more sincere in their Faith, and thus more likely to sponsor the movement, or turn a blind eye to the ethical matters on undue influence when evangelism is the issue. There are still a few independent/liberal thinkers in uniform, but they are growing scarcer.
I've been watching this holy warrior movement grow since about 1992, most profoundly among Army colleagues. Their zealotry on moral issues preceded the Bush administration considerably. It contributed to the anger at Clinton's betrayal of the man in uniform for 8 years. That is how most saw it, which is why Wesley Clark is held in such low regard by many folks in uniform: he turned lapdog late in his career. The backstab began with Clinton's first major initiative in office: "get more pole smokers into uniform." He has never been forgiven for that, nor for his destruction of the military medical system. I don't forgive either. It was stupid, and a deliberate political payback to the homosexuals who voted for him and his lesbian/bi wife, as well as the one health care system he COULD mess with, and of course screw up.
Back to the point. Why is the evangelical strain growing rather than shrinking?
I think I have part of the answer.
The sincere Christian believes in something bigger than himself. Sacrifice is a core value, a core belief, that sustains a Christian in day to day life. Selfless service empowers people, it raises them above the mob, and it makes the world a better place. This is true in fields other than military, for certain, particularly in the medical field. You see tribute to this behavior all over the place within the military community, and have for years: our entire awards system is based on it. (I agree with Hackworth on what has been done to the awards system) Since Bush got into office, the theme has been borrowed and spread shamelessly all over the shill media.
In the military social clique, and particularly on AF and Army bases that provide via thousands of housing units an insulated "Fort Apache" island in America's Indian Country of increasingly "whore of Babylon-like" society, military families can thrive and raise their children expecting minimal contact with the scum based mess many see America's society becoming. That's a huge retention feature.
On overseas posts; big, medium, or small; the insular social microcosm of old school, pre-breakdown, European based American values binds the folks in uniform tightly to one another, and seems to me to create a bunker mentality. A lot of the "minority" servicemen buy into that norm, and discard the social slag they came from, though not all do.
I am not so sure the insular, monastic approach is healthy for America's military, since it tends to separate the military from their fellow citizens. For the civilians, the Army (the military) becomes "those other people" not "us" which is a core American social myth, or theme: that the citizen is a capable soldier and every soldier is a citizen "like you and me."
For the military family, this schism creates a potential resentment along the lines of "you folks don't get it, don't appreciate our sacrifice." The martyrdom feature of many born again Christians, including those who go out of their way to get into public disagreements so they can play out the martyr by being sneered at by athiests and secularists, is an undercurrent in the feeling of "we are special."
Bush and his shills have been harping on the sacrifice angle, and putting money against it, for 5 years, whereas Clinton used the military and basically gave a sh about the sacrifice. Is it any surprise so many folks find that appealing? It's almost like the teenage boy who keeps "saying the words" to the teenage girl in order to get into her pants, but all he is doing is telling her what she wants to hear so he can get what he wants. (Paradise by the Dashboard Light.)
The irony is Bush and his crowd, even though they present empathy via evangelical rhetoric a la "we appreciate your sacrifice," are using the military more cavalierly than Clinton ever did, vis a vis Iraq. What is different is that while using, and pretty much abusing, the military, he's backing it up with money. (Hmmm, tax dollars, which he has to print since he put two tax cuts into place and then undertook and expensive war. I get mad every day when I wake up and think about that.) Clinton abused and used the military, but then never backed it up with money.
Some of us are/were not impressed with the leadership of the last 5 years. Most are loyal to the person, rather than the office, because it is in their nature to be loyal, because they still serve the flag. The Constitution. The Nation.
Sert, you seem to be pointing out that they have the 50 stars in their eyes, and are not seeing very clearly the man behind the curtain. (If I understood your comments correctly.)
They remember all to well the contempt with which they are held by the Clinton crowd, the sneering elites of the Left. Heck, I still do.
I used to get this crap all the time back in the 80's, and to a lesser extent in the 90's when I was obviously going to make it a career: "So, what are you going to do when you get out? You are going to get out when your required service (read, indentured bondage in their eyes) is up, aren't you?" The subtext was 'only a fool wouldn't.'
As I understand the discussion on this board, there are plenty of sneering elites who aren't Leftists who hold the military in a different sort of contempt, that of rubes willingly duped. As I look back on some of the card carrying smart guys I have met over the years, the veil begins to lift. The evangelism is a by product of a PR campaign, and a hook into the discontent of the betrayal of the Left when they had the keys to the military car.
A reckoning is long overdue on the abuse of that theme, and of the betrayal of trust in "civilian leadership of the military."
AE
2005-09-23 15:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]The phrase is slightly misleading--even off-putting. As a synonym for American troops, "grunt" came and mostly went with the Vietnam War, evoking the dispirited soldiery of that era. And "imperial," with its adjectival nod to "imperialism," concedes too much to those who argue that the U.S. and the world would be better served if we withdrew behind our own borders. But Mr. Kaplan intends something positive--a way of suggesting that our far-flung troops are the descendants of the cavalry, dragoons and civilian frontiersmen who fought the Indian wars of the 18th and 19th centuries. Indeed, his opening chapter is titled "Injun Country," a term that was also popular in the early days of the Vietnam War and one that soldiers use with respect.
I can't say if the turn of phrase is related in any way, direct or indirect, but "Imperial Grunts" is the exact translation of "Les grognards impériaux", who were the soldiers of Napoléon's Great Army.
2005-09-23 15:37 | User Profile
AE,
Well written and I believe to be on target. I do believe you do get my drift. I can understand why a large number of the troops would consider Bush to be some sort of leader precisely because of the crap the Clinton gang pulled and the condescending attitude that a number of civilians hold. I can relate to that because I was active during the Ford/Carter years prior to being active reserve and remember the contempt and verbal abuse. A person that gets kicked all the time will show appreciation to a stranger that shows him/her kindness, even if the stranger has evil intent.
Yes, like you, I also get mad as hell about this for this is not the purpose of the Armed Forces, nor the sort of thing to be promoted, and as you and I both noted, they use this for nefarious purposes.
I have been out since 1991 and didn't realize that evangelism had made so many in roads.
2005-09-23 15:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howling Privateer]I can't say if the turn of phrase is related in any way, direct or indirect, but "Imperial Grunts" is the exact translation of "Les grognards impériaux", who were the soldiers of Napoléon's Great Army.[/QUOTE] I'll bet Kaplan used it deliberately. Was not the Grande Arme[size=4][size=1]é [/size][/size]exporting "liberte, egalite, fraternite" to the whole of Europe, in an attempt to tear down the Ancien Regime? See the export of "American way of life/governance" in a similar light, and it's just too "cute."
AE
2005-09-23 15:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]AE, I have been out since 1991 and didn't realize that evangelism had made so many in roads.[/QUOTE]I am guessing you were in Desert Storm?
What the Army did with the success of Desert Storm was, in some ways, self destructive. If you want to look in wonder on an epic work of self congratulation, read Certain Victory (When I did, I was in awe of how much hubris was in that work) authored by General Robert H. Scales, the Director of the Desert Storm Study Project. Copyright 1993. From the triumphant braying about the big 5 weapons systems, Bradley, Apache, Abrams, I forget the others, to the discussion of logistics (which I found interesting) the lessons were not, to my view, accepted by the Clinton administration.
Post Desert Storm, the Navy threw a party at Vegas and covered up the shennagians, and planted the seeds of its own self immolation. The Army took a different path. The Marines stayed pretty much intact, and the Air Force did what they always do, sold the Silver Bullet story to all and sundry, and found new and useless ways to spend money by the bushell basket.
Rather than better balance the reserve and active force structures of CS and CSS assets, the same old inane "tooth the tail" game was played out in Congress, so the Army kept sending CS and CSS units into reserves, with the result that Clinton deployed reserves for 6 years all over the world with no major war -- one that requires mobilization -- underway. This set the stage for the current over use of the Reserves who are
Reserves.
Have people forgotten what that word means? I wonder.
I found the US Naval Institute Press On Point (COL Gregory Fontenot (USA, Ret) and his team, Copyright 2005) a better, albeit more ambitious, work analyzing the early lessons learned of 2003 Iraq War. (And specifically up to the fall of Bagdad.) It is probably out of date already, in terms of the nature of the war, but it had some fascinating nuggets on the deliberate 12 year effort aimed at the creation of the logistics base in the Persian Gulf necessary to conduct a major land war in "the land between two rivers." This strategy/policy match predates Bush by a LONG, LONG, time. Oh, wait, a man named Cheney was Sec Def when all this started. :blink:
AE
2005-09-23 19:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Angler,
While I understand your thrust here I have to point out that terms like "duty, honor and country" are noble. While I think some of these guys are misguided and operating under false precepts, (they don't realise just how sorry a person Bush really is) I have to admire their spirit. The nation needs folks that do have these attitudes. Indeed, I would like to put them in a hypothetical fire extinguisher cabinet with the sign "break glass only in emergency". Even more importantly, they need and deserve leaders that will not abuse these attitudes. To do otherwise is not only a disservice to them, but treason to the nation as whole.[/QUOTE]No argument here.
I have nothing against "duty, honor, country" in principle, when those refer to selflessly defending the nation. And of course I don't condemn soldiers who honestly think that that's what they're doing. But what military personnel need to understand is that there's nothing honorable in merely putting on a uniform and doing whatever one is ordered to do. The Nazis, Japs, and Commies did that as well as anyone. Hell, even any trained attack dog will obey orders without question or hesitation.
That's why I only judge people by what they do (or at least their apparent intentions), not by how obedient they are or even how courageous they are. If I were to respect people only by how much courage and selflessness they displayed, I would have to pay my highest respects to the Japanese Kamikaze pilots. They objectively showed more courage than practically any other soldiers I've ever heard of. Yet the Japanese were exceedingly brutal and criminal during that war and others (Bataan Death March, etc.), so I can't help but look down on them no matter what.
Stil, rather than merely condemn those US soldiers who are acting as Bush's "Glorious Imperial Legions" (as Vietnam vet and former mercenary Thomas Chittum calls them), I think current and potential recruits should be taught to see through all the pretty-sounding words that are used to brainwash them into serving unworthy turds like Bush. If enough young people become aware that their enthusiasm, patriotism, and other good qualities are being used to manipulate them into serving the cause of evil (at least in many cases), then the US military just might undergo a recruiting crisis that will only subside when its leaders actually decide to stop using the military for imperialistic purposes. That would go a long way toward putting the "defense" back in the Department of Defense. It would also save a lot of lives, both American and otherwise.
Speaking of Thomas Chittum, here's an interesting article he wrote a while back called "A Vietnam Veteran's Advice to the Troops in Iraq":
[url]http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/6-02-03/discussion.cgi.64.html[/url]
2005-09-23 20:48 | User Profile
Angler,
I thought I was cynical. Chittum makes me Mr. Optimist. I don't know enough about him to do him justice. I'll just say this, I think that he takes his conclusion to an extreme that I wouldn't. Some vets are like that. I'd also question him about D.P. and its penetration qualities (antitank) but, that is a different subject.
As for what we have written, I think that you and I are on the same sheet. We just have different ways of saying it. The key to this problem is having people at a young enough age have a thorough education in Civics and American History. I would have them take the quarterly Civics course in their senior year. (assuming it is still taught) I had to take it as a subfreshman. (1970) That's too early. As a Senior one doesn't have time to forget everything one learned.
At some point the troops are going to have to think about their oath and where their loyalty lies. I hope that it doesn't get to that point for if it does I fear that it will not only result in the destruction of the Armed Forces, but also genuine patriotism that is based on nation and not "leaders". If that comes to pass, patriotism and duty will truly be foul words. That's what I hate the most about Bush/Clinton, is the cynical way they exploit it for their own evil purposes. Bush has really been pissing me off lately with his constant use of the colors of the various sevice branches and personel as props for his speeches and press statements.
2005-09-25 03:14 | User Profile
[I]Stil, rather than merely condemn those US soldiers who are acting as Bush's "Glorious Imperial Legions" (as Vietnam vet and former mercenary Thomas Chittum calls them), I think current and potential recruits should be taught to see through all the pretty-sounding words that are used to brainwash them into serving unworthy turds like Bush. If enough young people become aware that their enthusiasm, patriotism, and other good qualities are being used to manipulate them into serving the cause of evil (at least in many cases), then the US military just might undergo a recruiting crisis that will only subside when its leaders actually decide to stop using the military for imperialistic purposes. That would go a long way toward putting the "defense" back in the Department of Defense. It would also save a lot of lives, both American and otherwise. [/I]
Well put. Yes, as things currently stand, these brainwashed Dispensationalist morons are the perfect cannon-fodder for scum like the Chimp and his kike handlers. Somehow they must be made to understand that they're not noble knights for Christ crusading for Freedom against the Mohammedan infidel, but dupes for cowardly filth who don't give a shit if they die screaming "Mommy!!", just as long as [I]their[/I] pampered offspring don't have to.
2005-09-26 13:28 | User Profile
As a way of comparison, members of an ultra-Orthodox Jewish sect "Gush Emunim" are beginning to dominate more and more certain elite units of Israeli army, and this is making secular Israelis nervous:
[url]http://www.theunjustmedia.com/The%20nature_of_gush_emunim_settlement.htm[/url]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=DarkRed]"[B]Worth noting here are the two unique schemes devised for young NRP followers in an organized fashion to serve in and penetrate the combat and elite units[/B]. The first scheme was formulated as an arrangement, not governed by law, between two independent parties: the Israeli defense ministry and the rabbinical heads of the NRP's Hesder Yeshivot religious schools. According to this arrangement, Hesder Yeshivot students receive a special kind of draft service. They are not inducted into the army in the normal way and thus do not serve continuously for three years in units assigned by the army according to its needs. The regular army units almost always consist of soldiers holding differing religious and secular views. [B]The Hesder Yeshivot students instead are inducted into the army as a group and serve in their own homogeneous companies, accompanied by their rabbis who are responsible for and watch over the students' "religious purity." [/B] They serve for eighteen months rather than for the full three years. The eighteen-month period is not continuous but is rather divided into three six-month periods. After each period of army service, the Hesder Yeshivot students leave the army for a six-month period of talmudic study in a yeshiva wherein the presumably negative influences of having met secular Jewish soldiers are supposedly countered. The Hesder Yeshivot soldiers continue to serve in reserve units under the usual conditions. The political pressure exerted by Gush Emunim and the sympathy for its members felt by army generals in the 1970s were partly responsible for this special arrangement. The major reason for its continuation, however, is the excellent military quality and record of Hesder Yeshivot students. [B]Their performance is far above the average of those in the Israeli army and their dedication is even greater. [/B] Not only the generals but also other soldiers hold this view. During the three years of the Lebanon War (1982-85) and in the aftermath of fighting in the "security zone," for example, Hesder Yeshivot students continued fighting and winning even after a high proportion of Israeli soldiers had been wounded and killed. [B]Soldiers in Hesder Yeshivot units also distinguished themselves during the suppression of the Intifada; they were noted for their cruelty to Palestinians, which was from many perspectives much more severe than the Israeli army average[/B]. The homogeneous composition of Hesder Yeshivot companies of soldiers is another reason for the continuation of the special arrangement. [B]When the army commanding officers have wanted to inflict especially cruel punishment upon Palestinians or others, they have most often relied upon and used religious soldiers."[/B][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]
Petr
2005-09-26 13:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The Hesder Yeshivot students instead are inducted into the army as a group and serve in their own homogeneous companies, accompanied by [B]their rabbis[/B] who are responsible for and watch over the students' "religious purity."[/QUOTE] The Bolsheviks called their version of these rabbis "Commissars".
2005-09-26 14:04 | User Profile
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=Red][B][I] - "The Bolsheviks called their version of these rabbis "Commissars"."[/I][/B][/COLOR][/FONT]
Israel Shahak argues that before the dawn of modern era practically [B]all [/B] Jews were under this kind of rabbinical commissar-command:
[url]http://www.abbc.net/islam/english/books/jewhis/jewhis1.htm#anchor29utopia[/url]
[SIZE=3][COLOR=Indigo] [FONT=Georgia]"[SIZE=3]According to Hadas, a crucial feature of the Platonic political system, adopted by Judaism as early as the Maccabean period (142-63 BC), was '[B]that every phase of human conduct be subject to religious sanctions which are in fact to be manipulated by the ruler'. There can be no better definition of 'classical Judaism' and of the ways in which the rabbis manipulated it than this Platonic definition.[/B] In particular, Hadas claims that Judaism adopted what 'Plato himself summarized [as] the objectives of his program', in the following well-known passage:
[I] "The principle thing is that no one, man or woman, should ever be without an officer set over him, and that none should get the mental habit of taking any step, whether in earnest or in jest, on his individual responsibility. [B][U]In peace as in w[/U]ar he must live always with his eyes on his superior officer... [/B] [B]In a word, we must train the mind not to even consider acting as an individual or know how to do it." [/B] [/I] (Laws, 942ab)
[B]If the word 'rabbi' is substituted for 'an officer' we will have a perfect image of classical Judaism.[/B] The latter is still deeply influencing Israeli-Jewish society and determing to a large extent the Israeli policies.[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
With this cultural background, it was easy for Leo Strauss and his followers to recruit Plato's concept of "noble lie" into the service of Judaism:
[COLOR=Indigo][FONT=Georgia][SIZE=3] The difference between the two kinds of policies was well expressed by Hugh Trevor-Roper in his essay 'Sir Thomas More and Utopia' 3 in which he termed them Platonic and Machiavellian:
[B]"[I]Machiavelli at least apologized for the methods which he thought necessary in politics. He regretted the necessity of force and fraud and did not call them by any other name. But Plato and More sanctified them, provided that they were used to sustain their own Utopian republics[/I][/B]."[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
Leo Strauss condemned Machiavelli as the father of "modern" (very dirty word in Straussian vocabulary) thinking precisely because he was too [B]honest[/B] and open about his nihilistic philosophy, unlike "wise ancients" like Plato.
Petr
2005-09-26 14:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Israel Shahak argues that before the dawn of modern era practically all Jews were under this kind of rabbinical commissar-command:[/QUOTE] These fanatics certainly were evident in Josephus' book.
2005-11-05 17:08 | User Profile
[quote=Sertorius]These fanatics certainly were evident in Josephus' book.
I finished the book last week, it has been put on the shelf. Here's what I think.
Kaplan seems to be a fan of Empire, or maybe someone who looks at the present condition of U.S. foreign policy and observes "It's an Empire no matter what you choose to call it." He then explores, by a series of vignettes, who the practically minded men of Empire are and what they are doing. He basically ignores the State Department. Focus of book is guys in uniform.
The most consistent observation he makes is that the low key, "a few sharp guys working among the Third Worlders" approach, embodied by a Special Forces A team, is a far more effective approach than the bludgeon of Military Force writ large. (Somalia, again . . .) The "building relationships" model is an old tried and true method of working with foreign nations. Whether at the ceremonial level, via plenipotentiaries (ambassadors and their ilk) or at the grass roots level, relationships color and define the success of constructive engagement without a need for conquest. Or they can, if the relationships are made with the right people. (Uh, not pultoons like Diem, for example.)
Kaplan points out that when he was young (I didn't know this previously about him) he served in the Israeli Army. (Early 70's.) He states that he left Israel and the Army, apparently disillusioned, due to what he describes as acute mental claustrophobia and tunnel vision in Israel.
Why does that matter?
Him being a former soldier informs his profoundly sympathetic treatment of the NCO's and officers whom he profiles. I'd say that he's become a fanboy of military men at work. He also has an insider's access, and endorsement, and thus has an ability to get to places that most journalists probably don't, except guys like Joe Galloway and Rick Atkinson if they bother to leave New York and Washington anymore.
I checked the acknowledgements. He has a significant personal connection with an insider in the Army's insider group: Dr Robert Berlin of the Army's School of Advanced Military Studies in Fort Leavenworth, KS. That institution was highlighted in Rick Atkinson's "Crusade" (covered Desert Storm), and produces what some Army guys derisively call "Jedi Knights." These are Majors and LTC's who man the division and corps G3 staffs. Some also call that institution "finishing school for generals."
It is no surprise, therefore, that Kaplan gets general officer support to go out and research his tales, since the generals probably know his stories will be sympathetic to anyone wearing green, and he is "a trusted agent." That doesn't make him a trusted agent of the civilian leadership.
This understanding leaves one wondering at Kaplan's objectivity. Is this book a PR effort by the Army to brighten up its image, and the image of the military in general? Not by detailed design, since some of the articles first appeared in Atlantic Monthly (I read the Mongolia piece in that mag a few years ago) but by outcome. I don't think the generals and their Public Affairs staffers ever intended otherwise when they provided Kaplan access to Special Operators in Afghanistan, Columbia, Venezuela, and the Philippines, and Marines in Djbouti. The Fallujah narrative is rather striking.
Does this book serve a different purpose, which is to point out how good the men in green are, and how their political leadership doesn't know how to employ the tool at their disposal?
I think so, and I think the Army brass are complicit in this aim and message.
The book is well written and organized. I enjoyed some of the vignettes, and the unvarnished look at the NCO's in the field as masters of their craft. I was left with the feeling that this first, of apparently two or three volumes, is part of the Joint Chief's public relations campaign with a know sympathetic reporter hired on for the job. I don't mind good press for the men in uniform. OK, I am biased in that feeling due to my own years under the colors, but I think a grain of salt is in order for anyone reading this book.
There were moments when I pondered the author's relationship with Army insiders and mused that a bit of sedition ([I]vis a vis[/I] the civilian head of DoD, among others) was underway.
AE