Posted on 03/10/2003 1:05:42 AM PST by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:12:34 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
ISPENT last month in Africa, pausing for a respectful visit to Robben Island, the former prison that confined Nelson Mandela for two decades. It was a physically beautiful setting spoiled by humankind's past intolerance and by the crocodile tears of European tourists.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Like Lincoln at Gettysburg, Peters has captured something so succinctly yet so perfectly, the only thing one can do is repeat it.
The European anti-war movement? Necrophiliacs licking the corpse of Josef Stalin.
The inmates have indeed taken over the asylum.
Does this mean the author can be arrested if he goes to France?
The European anti-war movement? Necrophiliacs licking the corpse of Josef Stalin.
However he neglected to blame left wing Americans in his excellent ramp. So lets change this a little.
The American/Answer/Ramsey Clark anti-war movement= Necrophiliacs licking the corpse of Josef Stalin.
What about the Zimbabweans? Don't they matter to you?
Bush Doctrine Unfolds :
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | Bush Doctrine Unfold | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
What a great article...half way through it I KNEW he was going to get to our new allies, Poland, Romania, Latvia, et al. And we're much the better for it.
I would much rather have as friend and supporter, a country with a newfound and dearly won, appreciation for freedom and its costs; than former psuedo-allies (France, Germany, Belgium) who have spent the last few decades throwing away their freedom in favor of creeping socialism.
What shall we make of those who would let millions die at the hands of tyrants while accusing America of aggression for opposing the killers?The short answer is: Not much. In the longer term, though, we must accept the fact that states such as France and Germany have declined to the mentality of yesteryear's Mexico, blaming the United States for all their failures and defining themselves not in positive terms, but merely as the anti-America.
We must accept, from today onward, that America shall often need to act alone or with a handful of courageous allies. Increasingly, we will need to do that which we recognize as strategically and morally necessary, disregarding those states, in Europe and elsewhere, that weep so readily for the dead while caring so little for the living.
So true! Bumpity, bump.
A behind-the-scenes discussion of Ralph Peters' article
A little back ground on Peters:
______________________________________________________
______________________________________
A behind-the-scenes discussion of Ralph Peters' article,
"The New Strategic Trinity" Parameters, Winter 1998
Dear Ralph:
I'm receiving outraged e-mail concerning your new article in Parameters, "The New Strategic Trinity." I just got one with the subject heading, "Blasphemy!!!" Personally, I liked the piece.
On the other hand, don't you think you're using Clausewitz as a strawman, a la mode van Creveld/John Keegan? (Ooohh, a low blow!) After all, Clausewitz's core trinity, as you point out, is NOT "people, army, and government," but reason, chance, and emotion--he doesn't predict the relative proportions in which they will be present. Indeed, his point is that the mix constantly changes.
Also, Clausewitz never said that governments act rationally (which would have contradicted all of his own experience), only that they should.
The line about his underestimating the importance of information in war is truly a cheap shot: he insisted throughout On War that we need to know as much as possible about our specific enemy and the specific situation--in short, good information/intelligence is vital. His caustic observations about the ACCURACY of most immediate battlefield intelligence hardly contradicts that basic thrust--and I'm not at all sure those observations are obsolete, either.
Still, a good piece.
Chris Bassford
Dear Chris,
You are, of course, correct on all counts. And yes--I was using Clausewitz as a strawman of sorts. You know how endlessly fascinating I find Clausewitz... yet who actually reads him now, to say nothing of understanding him? I wanted to write about the crucial role of information in military, economic, societal and cultural success now and, even more so, in the future. But, as with pop music, ya gotta have a hook. The hook which I knew would grab plentiful attention was Clausewitz.
Clausewitz, like Shakespeare, is robust enough to withstand any amateurism or assaults, by either admirers or detractors. In a way, he's like the Hydra, growing more heads every time you think you've lopped one off. And I like to tease the pompous and self-righteous, who often have spent far more time citing Clausewitz than they have reading him or thinking about him.
Recently, Jack Madigan [editor, Parameters] and I had one of our "God and the world" discussions and got onto Clausewitz. I said that you are the only American I know who, in my view, genuinely understands him, front to back and top to bottom. I still think your work, Clausewitz in English, is a classic.
You also know, though, that I view Clausewitz as a High Romantic--that part of the essay is heartfelt vis-a-vis old Karl. I do believe that, on a subconscious level, he resisted finishing the work, having set himself a task so Promeathean it was ultimately unrealizable. Recall that he was a contemporary of Novalis and Co. While Novalis died young, he set the intellectual tone--the love of the failed attempt, of the gorgeous fragment, of the beauty of what might have been. I do believe that analysts of Clausewitz have failed to place him in the greater context of his times--they set him against the wars of Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, but fail to venture beyond the military realm. [Ed.: I'd suggest that Peter Paret did a marvelous job of doing what Ralph suggests, in his book Clausewitz and the State: The Man, His Theories, and His Times (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976). Unfortunately, Paret is just as hard to read as Clausewitz is.] Even the narrowest martinet cannot escape the influence of his times (and Clausewitz, though focused to the point of obsession, was no narrow intellect). And in the early Biedermeier period during which Clausewitz did his mature writing, Prussia--and Berlin--dominated the not-yet-united Germanies culturally. I am not trying to set C. up as a lover of morbid poetry, graveyards, and tubercular romances, only suggesting that he was of his age as we are of ours.
Ah, well. Whether my thoughts are right, wrong, or only muddled, I have been fascinated by Clausewitz for two decades now. He is complex, and even contradictory. But none before or since has risen to the richness of his vision of warfare. We are all dwarves stumbling in the footsteps of a giant. As for the charge of blasphemy, I fear I'm just a heretic by nature. My heroes include Jan Hus, Martin Luther, and Thomas Muentzer, as well as Swedenborg. So, depending upon your religious orientation, I may seem a blasphemer indeed.
"Not farewell, but fare forward, voyager!"
Ralph
Dear Ralph:
Good answer. Can I post our exchange to our link to your article and as a note to the bibliography entry on the Clausewitz Homepage?
Chris
Dear Chris:
1. You are free to post the exchange on the website.
2. I had not seen either the web site or your "modest proposal." I try to minimize my time and focus on the web, due to the seductive nature of the beast and the ferocious time constraints of my daily life (if one supports oneself by writing, one must write). I must say that, having checked both out, I am extremely impressed with the home-page and will come back for a longer visit. Also, I will actively look about for a potential backer for your proposal. I think it's a super idea. I wish I could free you up to do your chosen work--but my books don't sell quite that well!
Best regards, Ralph Peters
Return to the Clausewitz Homepage
Sounds a lot like I feel sometimes. I like Peters' writing. I've read tons of his articles, now I'm gonna have to start on his books.
Very interesting. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.