zenpundit.com

[ by Charles Cameron — a meander in praise of, variously, Piers at Penn, Alice in Wonderland, Caitlin Fitz Gerald, and Benjamin Wittes ]
.

Strategic theology:

Goliath, distracted by David's awesome moves, didn't see the stone coming.

Bréviaire de Belleville, vol. II (partie été), c.1323-26 pic.twitter.com/kLe9MOSxzD

— Emily Steiner (@PiersatPenn) July 31, 2017

Compare Nigel Howard, in Confrontation Analysis: how to win operations other than war, writing:

the problem of defense in the modern world is the paradoxical one of finding ways for the strong to defeat the weak.

**

Okay — Alice, in Wonderland, asks:

And what is the use of a book without pictures or conversation?

**

By dint of sickness, I haven’t been able to purue my efforts to see Caitlin Fitx Gerald‘s fabulous Clausewitz for Kids make its brilliantly-deserving way into print:

That image is from Caitlin’s work, as praised by Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare blog — whom I know not because he’s become a go-to source on many things Trump / Comey —

Suddenly, he was D.C. famous; the very next day, Collins and Wittes bumped into each other in the Morning Joe greenroom. “It used to be that what was going to be written on my tombstone was ‘Benjamin Wittes, former Washington Post editorial writer,’ or ‘Benjamin Wittes, who wasn’t even a lawyer,’?” he says. “Now it’s just, like, ‘Benjamin Wittes, who’s a friend of Jim Comey’s.’?”

— but way before that, because he knew Caitlin and her work:

The other day, Wells drew my attention to what could be the single most excellently eccentric national security-oriented project currently ongoing on the web: It is called Clausewitz for Kids. I am apparently not the first to discover it. Spencer Ackerman had this story about it last year. But I had missed it until the other day, and I suspect most Lawfare readers are unto this very day unaware that a woman named Caitlin Fitz Gerald is currently writing a comic book edition of Clausewitz’s On War–entitled The Children’s Illustrated Clausewitz–featuring lectures in a Prussian forest by a hare in a military uniform. To make matters all the more fun, she is blogging the process to boot.

Hey, “single most excellently eccentric national security-oriented project” is pretty damn high praise, eh?

**

Benjamin Wittes and his tick, tick, as seen and summarized by Rachel Maddows:

Ben Wittes now runs a well-regarded blog that`s called Lawfare, which I think is kind of a pun on warfare, Lawfare, warfare. Anyway. Lawfareblog.com.

So, Ben Wittes. On May 16th .. Ben Wittes, he did this online, on Twitter, which is a weird thing, right? Nobody knew what was wrong with him. Nobody knew exactly what this was about.

tick tick tick tick tick tick

— Benjamin Wittes (@benjaminwittes) May 16, 2017

You can see the time stamp there right beneath the tick, tick, tick, tick. He sent it at 3:18 p.m. on May 16th. Hey, Ben Wittes, what`s that about?

Well, then later, boom – literally the word boom. Two hours and eight minutes after that initial tweet, we now know in retrospect what that tick, tick, ticking was about. Ben Wittes tweeted “boom” and a link to that huge story that had just been posted at “The New York Times”.

Quote: Comey memo says Trump asked him to end Flynn investigation.

That was a huge story when it broke and apparently somehow Ben Wittes knew it was coming out because he tweeted, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, two hours before it came, and then boom once it landed. That was May 16th.

And then two days after that, Ben Wittes started ticking again.

[ read the rest.. ]

**

Go Caitlin, go Wittes!

Go Clint Watts too, if you know what I mean!

[ by Charles Cameron — on imbalances in public interest, reporting, just one example ]
,

David Hardy at Of Guns and the Law posted Eagle deaths: an interesting contrast today, Jonathan at ChicagoBoyz picked up on it, and when I looked at it myself, I saw the first two of Hardy’s three paragraphs as a DoubleQuote — making two points in counterpoint, as a musician might say, Hardy’s phrase “interesting contrast” meaning much the same thing. I like to use my DoubleQuote graphic formulations for such juxtapositions, as I’ve done here with Hardy’s “DoubleQuote in the wild”:

Hardy’s third and final paragraph reads thus:

When worked at Interior, a quarter century ago, I was told that bird deaths due to wind farms were massive, but orders were to do and say nothing, because wind power was fashionable. Hmmmm..

Ouch.

**

If you took all the world’s potential “compare and contrast” pairs, and tried to balance them all equably, so that no comparisons ever had the kind of imbalance Hardy exposes here, there would be too many subjective factors for everyone to agree on, and worse thasn that, all too frequently balancing one pair of issues would almost certainly imbalance others..

So we’d always have room to complain that something or other wasn’t fair.. Sort of like a Gödel’s incompleteness theorem for idealists?

Sigh.

**

Sources:

Associated Press, Bald eagle threat: Lead ammo left behind by hunters

Politifact, Trump inflates wind turbine eagle deaths

[ by Charles Cameron — sources for my previous post with tweet & DoubleQuote]
.

In fairness, because I questioned & implicitly critiqued Jenkins on one of the tweets in this series in my previous post, here’s the whole series for your consideration:

1. In light of last night's Make America Great Again hymn (?), some notes about what I call an emerging Trumpian Christian Nationalism. https://t.co/MkFXparb6b

— Jack Jenkins (@jackmjenkins) July 2, 2017

2. First, Trump and/or his advisers have been crafting a form of Christian nationalism since his inauguration. https://t.co/4UNBaJijtU

— Jack Jenkins (@jackmjenkins) July 2, 2017

3. Christian nationalism per se isn't new; Fusions of patriotism and piety are as old as America itself.

But Trump's version is…different.

— Jack Jenkins (@jackmjenkins) July 2, 2017

4. He uses common themes, such as the idea that America is a Christian nation ("our God"), and that faith is inherently patriotic.

— Jack Jenkins (@jackmjenkins) July 2, 2017

5. Here's some lines from his inauguration speech, as well as his speech to Liberty University in May. pic.twitter.com/Tc4ls7vNR9

— Jack Jenkins (@jackmjenkins) July 2, 2017

6. The fusion of faith and patriotism is old, and Trump (or his speechwriters) know it.

He harped on the "In God we Trust" at Liberty. pic.twitter.com/K3r7YIuh4e

— Jack Jenkins (@jackmjenkins) July 2, 2017

7. "In God we trust," of course, only showed up on U.S. currency in 1954 during the Red Scare.

But his point is they were right to do it.

— Jack Jenkins (@jackmjenkins) July 2, 2017

8. Trump's Christian nationalism, however, diverges from the traditional strain (preached by many) in two key ways.

— Jack Jenkins (@jackmjenkins) July 2, 2017

9. The first is subtle: his line about Americans worshipping "God not government"—used last night and in other speeches—appears partisan. pic.twitter.com/8sB9fy5ibE

— Jack Jenkins (@jackmjenkins) July 2, 2017

10. Many a preacher has endorsed the GOP small government approach, but few politicians have framed it as brazenly as Trump does.

— Jack Jenkins (@jackmjenkins) July 2, 2017

11. But the truly unusual part of Trump's Christian nationalism is how he appears to place HIMSELF at the center of his theology—as a savior

— Jack Jenkins (@jackmjenkins) July 2, 2017

12. At his inauguration, he appeared to imply that God will keep America safe BECAUSE he is president.

That is, as they say, not normal. pic.twitter.com/eMc4nCAMsO

— Jack Jenkins (@jackmjenkins) July 2, 2017

13. Trump's allies echo this: Rev. Jeffress, who emceed last night, delivered an inauguration sermon entitled "When God chooses a leader." pic.twitter.com/MkryYbkoKk

— Jack Jenkins (@jackmjenkins) July 2, 2017

14. Granted, the idea that presidents are imbued with divine purpose is NOT unique to Trump. Some likely thought the same of Obama.

But…

— Jack Jenkins (@jackmjenkins) July 2, 2017

15. Implying God's protection = a byproduct of your rule? Having choirs sing your campaign slogan?

That's a new, untested mix in America.

— Jack Jenkins (@jackmjenkins) July 2, 2017

16. Long story short: keep an eye on Trump's faith cadre—Jeffress, etc—going forward.

Trends suggest this theology will only grow bolder.

— Jack Jenkins (@jackmjenkins) July 2, 2017

Here you can find Jenkins’ ThinkProgress article, Trump is creating a new form of Christian nationalism centered on himself.

[ by Charles Cameron — semantics of the theology of presidency, seen from the left ]
.

Jack Jenkins, in ThinkProgress and on his Twitterstream:

It’s interesting how expression differs across media, no?

**

Jack Jenkins is a Harvard Divinity alum, I’m from Christ Church, Oxford, myself, and we both think informed religious reporting is important. In short, he’s a natural ally.

My tweet to Jack:

Can you document this @jackmjenkins? Religious reporting is v important and under-represented, but pls consider this point non-obvious

— hipbonegamer (@hipbonegamer) July 4, 2017

I might grant you High Priest, maybe — but Savior?

[ by Charles Cameron — oy, there’s nuance, even among one’s enemies ]
.

Consider:

The media’s portrayal of jihadi groups’ horrific rule in the Sahel is a double-edge sword in the fight against these armed movements. On the one hand, their typical coverage provides a classic and possibly efficient form of war propaganda, which calls for unity against the common enemy.

But on the other hand, the depiction of Islamist presence and political influence as unequivocally oppressive misses some critical points: namely, the jihadis’ interest in managing their use of coercion rather than just unleashing it; and their ambition to govern aspects of life through both violent and non-violent ways, sometimes in accordance with local customs.

That’s what you’ll find under the subhead Easy narratives vs. difficult thinking in an African Arguments post titled Mali: The stoning that didn’t happen, and why it matters. That’s almost a disappointing headline, isn’t it? I mean, what? — was there nobody there who was without sin to cast the first stone?

**

The idea that there was a stoning — in Mali, which I for one have never visited and was not even remotely thinking about until that headline popped up in my news feed — had a sort of immediate appeal, a frisson, of the type that characterizes clickbait. So I clicked.

Stonings, however, are abhorrent in my culturally conditioned view, and it’s fairly convenient for me to abhor them at a distance when indulged in by those I like to think of unkindly, the damn jihadists.

The thing of it is, there was no stoning.

That’s a hard thing to report, however. Breaking news — no stoning occurred near Aguelhoc in northern Mali — Christiane Amanpour reports!

Reporting that there has been a stoning, on the other hand, by jihadists — those damn jihadists — that’s not only easy to report, it’s welcome news. Somehow. Despite, or perhaps because of, our abhorrence of stoning — as a punishment for adultery — by, and this is the final twist in our abhorrence, those jihadists.

That’s welcome news, even if stoning is unwelcome, as are jihadists, and even if there was no stoning, despite them.

**

Even if sharia law is not the monolith we tend to think it is — and, returning to that African Arguments post — specifically to those punishments “which are mandated and fixed by God and are applicable in cases of fornication, apostasy etc”:

Questions over these penalties (known as had, plural hudud) were debated at length in 2012 when allied Islamist movements occupied Mali’s three main northern regions: Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) in Timbuktu; the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO) in Gao; and Ansar Eddine in Kidal.

At that time, judiciary decisions were delegated to local Islamic judges (cadis). Crucially, there were many differences in the application of hudud across these three regions. For instance, there were multiple cases of amputations for robbery in Timbuktu and Gao. But in Kidal, Ansar Eddine agreed with local Islamic judges that sentences would be maintained in line with local customs that historically prefer detention over physical punishment.

Oops. As the writers go on to note, there was actually one stoning for adultery in Aguelhoc in 2012, though the one-time leader of the Ansar, Iyad Ag Ghaly, apparently didn’t know about it. And:

Such complexities and variations between regions supposedly governed by the same Shariah provisions demands additional investigation. Why would hudud, a pillar of political and social legitimation across jihadi movements, be suspended in some places but not others?

**

Okay, now I don’t really know who the Ansar are, and if you’d told me they are Malian jihadis and Iyad Ag Ghaly is or was their leader, I wouldn’t off the top of my head imagine he would disfavor huhud pubishments — as mandated by Allah — in favor of detentions.

But Boko Haram.

I’ve heard of Boko Haram, they don’t like western education, and they abducted the Chibok and other girls, marrying some and selling others into sexual slavery, if that’s a valid distinction. They too are, in a word, abhorrent.

And then I read this, in the same article:

In the Lake Chad area, several organisations – including The International Crisis Group – have documented that a significant number of young Kanuri women have voluntarily joined Boko Haram in order to find a suitable husband or benefit from new economic opportunities. For some women living in particularly impoverished rural areas, joining the jihadi insurgency may be more attractive, at least to start, than their daily routine in the strict patriarchy of rural villages.

The idea of members of Boko Haram as suitable husbands somehow hadn’t occurred to me. But then I’m not a young woman, nor even a local.

**

If what I’ve written thus far interests you, I’d encourage you to read the whole article. There was no stoning in Aguelhoc, despite the reports in Agence France-Press (reporting from Bamako) and Radio France Internationale (reporting from Paris), picked up by Le Monde and The Guardian.

In sum:

Most media accounts depict an unequivocal reign of terror under Islamist rule in northern Mali. But field interviews reveal a more ambiguous situation in which egregious violence by radical groups coexists with a non-violent governance agenda and willingness to deliver services.

In central Mali, jihadi movements forcibly gather local population to preach. They also regularly assassinate those perceived to be collaborating with state officials and foreign armed forces. But at the same time, these groups provide mobile justice courts in places where judges have long been absent. They advocate for the suppression of land rights that benefit a tiny and contested aristocracy. They offer much-needed protection to cattle herders during seasonal migrations. And the simplified marriage procedures they impose allow youths to escape elder’s control over marital engagements.

How much simpler the world is, if we see it from a distance.