Three presidents who have not learned the lessons from September 11, 2001. @jedbabbin
They form the lessons we should have learned from this war and still haven’t.
Osama bin Laden declared war on America in his religious “fatwa” published by a London newspaper in 1996. It called upon every Muslim to kill Americans anywhere they are found and said that his followers had no intention except to enter paradise by killing us.
Our intelligence agencies knew not only of his intent but of his growing ability to carry out his goals. They knew of the training camps that the Taliban used to help train bin Laden’s men. So much was known and ignored. As the Twin Towers burned on 9/11, sources were pouring out information that bin Laden was behind the attacks. I wrote as much in a column that appeared in the Washington Times on September 12, 2001.
Our war against the Taliban began on October 7, 2001 and it continues to this day. Why?
Two presidents — Messrs. Bush and Trump — adopted strategies to try to defeat them and to support the Afghanistan government while our troops fight the Taliban. President Obama only compounded Mr. Bush’s mistake in nation-building, kicking the can down the road so that his successor would have to deal with Afghanistan and Obama wouldn’t be blamed for “losing
President George W. Bush had said he was opposed to nation-building during his 2000 campaign, but he immediately reverted to it in Afghanistan and continued it in Iraq. Why?
De-mythologzing the “White Rat” of Watergate. Max Holland @washingtondecoded.
“…Nixon’s surprise appointment of a dark-horse outsider, Assistant Attorney General L. Patrick Gray, to be acting director within hours stands as one of the most far-reaching personnel decisions ever taken by a president inadvertently. His attention consumed by the upcoming election, geopolitical strategy and the effort to withdraw U.S. ground troops from Vietnam, Nixon was anxious to avoid having Hoover’s FBI become an issue in 1972. For the first time, a director was going to have to win Senate confirmation, and Nixon was leery of giving Democrats on the Judiciary Committee the opportunity to work over a nominee in an election year, possibly even block his confirmation. The president considered the appointment equal to nominating a chief justice to the Supreme Court. Nixon wanted a vigorous man who would occupy the post long after his second term ended. Gray’s acting appointment was roundly criticized on the grounds that he was a Nixon crony. But he otherwise aroused little opposition because he was as colorless as his name.
Gray wasn’t promised the permanent appointment, only that he would be considered for the post if he did a creditable job. Yet the message behind Gray’s interim status—that Nixon was intent on bringing in someone from outside the bureau—was an unmistakable signal to several executives angling for the job, and they decided to retire. The ambitious Felt saw the acting designation, however, as a small opening. It still left six months in which to persuade Nixon to “see the light” by nominating an insider, as Felt wrote in his 1979 memoir….”
In defense of the nation state and in praise of monarchs. Gregory Copley, Defense & Foreign Affairs
A “Crowned Republic”
Most current constitutional monarchies have become indistinguishable in most characteristics from republics, and some republics have the attributes of monarchies.
Why, then, the protracted debate about which is the best, or the inevitable, form of governance? It is difficult to highlight that one form or other performs better or more responsively than another, although it is clear that the societies where the populace and governance act in harmony are usually most productive, or at least most harmonious. This means that the governance or hierarchical forms which are rooted historically in the values (ie: the cultures and logic) of a society achieve that harmony, even if work is needed to sustain the vigor of it.
What seems clear, however, is that the debate now reaching the proportion of a conflict is between the nation-state and the globalist view of the city-state. Thus, retaining security within nation-states becomes critical, given the logical risks of having security services becoming politicized and partisan. It is for that reason that all monarchies — including constitutional monarchies — ensure that the oath of allegiance is directly to the sovereign or the sovereign’s representative (governor-general or governor, in many instances), to attempt to ensure that the armed forces, in particular, remain loyal to the state, rather than to the governing political faction.
In the US, the oath of allegiance by the Armed Forces is to the Constitution, which is also significant, given attempts already by numerous administrations to declare the Constitution as an impediment to governance. This significant, and seemingly ceremonial point, may prove critical as the conflict between globalism and nationalism accelerates.
And it is for this reason that the great ideological effort of urban globalists — and such groups as even Cambodia’s rural-based socialist Khmer Rouge (1968-79) — has been the eradication or transformation of the teaching of history. Little wonder Ethiopia’s Dergue, beginning in 1974, burnt all the books it could of the nation’s three millennia of history.
Little wonder, too, that history has been either eradicated or politicized in most modern, urban-dominated societies.
MIKE MYERS STORMS INDIA: WHY INDIA SUFFERS FROM CULTS, THE STORY OF HUMAN CAPITAL, SOCIAL MOBILITY & THE CHALLENGE OF MODERNITY
EXAMPLE OF SUCCESS IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY ACE VENTURA
PAUL RAHE: REALISM IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SPARTA
CONSCIENCE & TEMPORAL AUTHORITY
POSITIVE LAW vs. CONSCIENCE