Richard Nixon left a complicated legacy, of which I wrote last year, on his hundredth birthday. My views have not changed much in the interim. As a statesman, Richard Nixon was an adept strategist and visionary, who would rank in the company of our greatest presidents if his crimes in Watergate did not render him an epochal failure. Worse, some of his abuses of power that drove Nixon from office are in danger of becoming normalized and institutionalized or exceeded. Nixon’s accomplishments cannot be separated from his misdeeds because we are living with the consequences of both.
Resignation of the Office of the Presidency of the United States was not provided for in the original U.S. Constitution, but was mentioned in the 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967. Characteristically, Nixon ignored the spirit of the amendment in choosing to submit his resignation to Henry Kissinger, the Secretary of State and his Executive Branch subordinate, rather than to his co-equal peers, the Constitutional officers of the US Congress, as is specified in the 25th Amendment for cases of presidential disability, though not resignation.
Even in being forced from office, Nixon found a technicality to deny his political adversaries that point of satisfaction.
[ by Charles Cameron -- second of (at least) three posts, mostly about Gaza -- high wire stuff ]
Here are two young women poets, the hope of the world, mirroring one another in a rare balancing act that leaves neither political / military side of the Israeli-Arab conflict uncritiqued, while the humanity of both sides is respected ansd loved:
It may be that the balance here is still too young and perfect…
Here, then, are two tweets from Gershom Gorenberg, Israeli journalist and my admired Center for Millennial Studies colleague, attempting the delicate balancing act of loving his country with intelligence and nuance:
Having finally completed a dissertation on Talmud and the development of the moral imagination, Joshua (a Conservative rabbi by training), is now a professor of Jewish education. An erstwhile contributing editor at the Jerusalem Report, he is available for speaking, teaching, writing, editing…
Gutoff’s longer piece, can we talk?, is worth your consideration.
In such a poisoned climate, we should strive to maintain a certain moral courage and razor-sharp distinctions for our own sanity, if not for others. Terrorism aims to deliberately target civilians, and benefits specifically from their death or injury as a matter of policy. Hamas has this policy.
On the other hand, recklessly killing civilians in breach of the international laws of proportionality, while issuing warnings and apologies -– and while trying to target rocket launch sites that Hamas has based in mosques and hospitals –- results in a terrible and disproportionate number of deaths. It is deeply troubling, it must stop. But it is not terrorism.
No civilian death is justified. However, laws rightly differentiate types of killing, from accidental death, manslaughter, murder, to war crimes and terrorism. We must maintain level heads and some nuance if we are to approach this poisonous debate at all.
Nawaz, too, is seeking the right balance, the mot juste to explain what is indeed a subtle question.
Henry Siegman, an Orthodox rabbi — one time head of the Synagogue Council of America, executive director of the American Jewish Congress and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations — now serves as president of the U.S./Middle East Project. Interviewed on Democracy Now, under the header, Leading Voice of U.S. Jewry, on Gaza: “A Slaughter of Innocents”, had this to say:
It [Israel] has what seems on the surface a justifiable objective of ending these attacks, the rockets that come from Gaza and are aimed — it’s hard to say they’re aimed at civilians, because they never seem to land anywhere that causes serious damage, but they could and would have, if not for luck. So, on the face of it, Israel has a right to do what it’s doing now, and, of course, it’s been affirmed by even president of the United States, repeatedly, that no country would agree to live with that kind of a threat repeatedly hanging over it.
But what he doesn’t add, and what perverts this principle, undermines the principle, is that no country and no people would live the way Gazans have been made to live.
Again, the delicate balance is sought — and it interesting to see these two comments together, Nawaz the ex-Muslim terrorist sympathetic to the Israelis vs Hamas, Siegman the rabbi sympathizing with the inhabitants of Gaza…
I have been a long time fan ofJohn Robb’sGlobal Guerrillas blog for many years and strongly recommend his military theory bookBrave New War for anyone interested in changes in warfare in the 21st century. If you have been following GG, you know that John’s interests have turned in recent years from the destructive part of Boyd’s strategic continuum (tactics-operations/grand tactics -strategy) more toward the constructive ( grand strategy – theme for vitality and growth) with increasing examination of economic, ethical, legal, cultural and moral dimensions of societal rule-sets.
John has a new E-Book out, first of a series, that lays out his thinking in this area and how we can fix what ails America.
If you are wondering what is wrong with America. This booklet provides a concise answer.
Also, this booklet provides a way to get us back on a path towards economic progress.
Be forewarned, this booklet is just the start. I’ll have more concrete ways to do it in booklets to be released over the next three months.
PS: I’ve got a booklet on iWar coming out next month too.
John gave me a preview of the manuscript and I thoroughly endorse the direction in which he is going with The American Way. America’s economic and political problems and strategic dysfunction have epistemological and moral roots.
And you can’t lose $1.5 billion if you didn’t have $1.5 billion at some point to lose.
How about the “caliphate”?
Here’s the Jabhat vs ISIS — now IS, aka the “caliphate” — comparison:
Among other things, ISIS “made off with £256 million in cash and a large amount of gold bullion from Mosul’s central bank during its takeover of the city” as the Telegraph reported. That’s a half billion dollars, give or take.
And now IS is presumably “worth” 2 billion. Give or take.
To put those figures in perspective, let’s compare IS today with AQ in 2001:
Business Insider calculated bin Laden‘s ROI at the time of his death at 2,514,000 to 1:
Al-Qaida pulled off the Sept. 11 attacks for approximately $500,000, according to the 9/11 Commission report. By the end of fiscal 2011 the U.S. will have spent $1.3 trillion, or 9% of the national debt, fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq according to the Center for Defense Information. But when it’s all said and done the total cost of the wars will make Bin Laden’s 2,514,000:1 return at the time of his death multiply dramatically. It has been projected by Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and others that the lifetime cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will run to approximately $3 trillion, or over 20% of current federal public debt, when long-term medical care for the wounded and other costs are factored.
And here’s the current cost comparison with Iraqi losses:
I have to confess my mind is a little bit numb with the numbers at this point.
If I had time and talent, I suppose I’d make theis whole thing more comprehensible, at least to people like myself, by treating dollar amounts the way XKCD treats radiation — but I don’t, so here’s my attempt to give a wider overview, sorted in ascending order of magnitude to make it easier for me to notice how $millions become $billions become $trillions.
Zenpundit is a blog dedicated to exploring the intersections of foreign policy, history, military theory, national security,strategic thinking, futurism, cognition and a number of other esoteric pursuits.