Sennacherib’s Return

Advance to Barbarism, FJP Veale

The exclusion of non-combatants from the scope of hostilities is the fundamental distinction between civilized and barbarous warfare.

FJP Veale

Sennacherib, the great king,

And their small cities, which were beyond numbering I destroyed, I devastated, and I turned into ruins. The houses of the steppe, (namely) the tents, in which they lived, I set on fire and turned them into flames.

Over the whole of his wide land I swept like a hurricane. The cities Marubishti and Akkuddu, his royal residence-cities, together with small towns of their area, I besieged, I captured, I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire.

In the course of my campaign, Beth-Dagon, Joppa, Banaibarka, Asuru, cities of Sidka, who had not speedily bowed in submission at my feet, I besieged, I conquered, I carried off their spoil.

As for Hezekiah the Judahite, who did not submit to my yoke: forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small towns in their area, which were without number, by levelling with battering-rams and by bringing up seige-engines, and by attacking and storming on foot, by mines, tunnels, and breeches, I besieged and took them.

I captured their cities and carried off their spoil, I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire.

Furthermore, 33 cities within the bounds of his province I captured. People, asses, cattle and sheep, I carried away from them as spoil. I destroyed, I devastated, and I burned with fire.

The cities which were in those provinces I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire. Into tells and ruins I turned them.

…strong cities, together with the small cities in their areas, which were countless, I besieged, I conquered, I despoiled, I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire, with the smoke of their conflagration I covered the wide heavens like a hurricane.

Veale continues his examination of the Advance to Barbarism, focusing first on the World War II bombing of areas outside of the battlefield and culminating in the carpet bombing of German cities.  This bombing marked the complete repudiation of one of the cornerstones of the concept of civilized warfare: warfare should be the concern only of the armed combatants engaged; non-combatants should be left outside of the scope of military operations.  It marked the return, or advance as Veale puts it, to a form of warfare for which Sennacherib the Assyrian was well known.

May 11, 1940

 Veale introduces J. M. Spaight and his book “Bombing Vindicated.” Spaight describes the awesomeness of this day, the “splendid decision” to bomb German targets well outside of the area of military operations.  The next day, newspapers announced that “eighteen Whitley bombers attacked railway installations in Western Germany.”

Looked at from today’s eyes, there is nothing shocking in this statement; however, compared to what came before in European wars, this was news:

Western Germany in May 1940 was, of course, as much outside the area of military operations as Patagonia.

At the time the battle for France was in high gear, yet the pilots flew over these battlefields to reach their objective:

To the crews of these bombers it must have seemed strange to fly over a battlefield where a life and death struggle was taking place and then over a country crowded with columns of enemy troops pouring forward to the attack…Their flight marked the end of an epoch which had lasted for two and one-half centuries.

…against a background of prosaic twentieth railway installations we can imagine the grim forms of Asshurnazirpal and Sennacherib stroking their square-cut, curled and scented beards with dignified approval….

This was only the beginning, with the culmination to come in Dresden some five years later, but this is to get too far ahead in the narrative.

Poland Sees Reality

It seems certain of the Central European countries are not going along with Washington’s desires to isolate Russia due to the issues in Ukraine.  Some combination of reality and realpolitik has overcome the situation, even for several members of NATO:

So let’s consider Hungary, a NATO member whose prime minister recently named Putin’s Russia as a political model to be emulated. Or NATO member Slovakia, whose leftist prime minister likened the possible deployment of NATO troops in his country to the Soviet invasion of 1968. Or NATO member Czech Republic, where the defense minister made a similar comparison and where the government joined Slovakia and Hungary in fighting the European Union’s sanctions against Russia. Or Serbia, a member of NATO’s “partnership for peace” that has invited Putin to visit Belgrade this month for a military parade to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Red Army’s “liberation” of the city.

That’s three members and one partner.  Several of these complaints were registered early on.  What has changed?

Then there is Poland, which until recently was leading the effort within NATO and the European Union to support Ukraine’s beleaguered pro-Western government and punish Putin’s aggression.

For many reasons, I consider the critical player in this match to be Poland: historically, a buffer zone between east and west in Europe and a pawn of western powers in the run-up to World War II.  Currently a member of NATO, one who previously led the charge for tough talk and tough actions against Russia.

When Poland was talking tough in this most recent calamity, I openly questioned the sanity of their political leadership.  Regardless of one’s views on the situation in Ukraine or the role played by either the Russian or US governments, one look at a map might suggest to Poland’s political leadership a more tempered position.  A consideration of the true value of an American guarantee might be in order.  A moment’s pause to consider the transitioning relationship between Germany and Russia could be expected.  A consideration of the different views of Poland’s immediate neighbors might be wise.

Apparently, times have changed:

This month its new prime minister, Ewa Kopacz, ordered her new foreign minister to urgently revise its policy. As the Wall Street Journal reported, she told parliament she was concerned about “an isolation of Poland” within Europe that could come from setting “unrealistic goals” in Ukraine.

Some common sense on this topic coming from Poland’s leadership.  Again, whatever one’s view of the backstory of this conflict, Polish security requires a reality-based assessment of the situation – not action based on promises from the West that will prove to be as impossible to keep as were the British and French guarantees of 1939.

More, from Bloomberg:

“We shouldn’t rush to become part of this military conflict,” Kopacz said as she presented her cabinet. “When the big European family decides that we want to help” Ukraine, “then we should take part in providing help, but together with other countries.”

If actions follow these words, it represents a marked change from Poland’s previous stand on this issue; it also increases the likelihood of a calmer, peaceful resolution.

Finally, it continues to develop the possibility for the integration of Germany toward the east.

War is for Control

Not oil, not military-industrial profits, not the bankers; war is for the purpose of control.  Control of the most valuable, renewable resource on the planet – people.  Control through the toolkit of regulatory democracy if possible, authoritarian rule where the population is not as easily fooled.

The elite of the Anglo west pursue this objective; since the Great Rapprochement between Britain and the United States in the late nineteenth century the primary tool for western control of the world’s population has been the United States government.

Justin Raimondo is out with a post entitled “Why This War?”  In it, he describes Progressivism as the motor behind this push – progressivism rooted in early twentieth century America just at the time when the elite purposely moved their primary tool from Britain to the United States:

America’s ruling elite has been "progressive" since the dawn of modernity, right before the first world war.

Raimondo then cites Rothbard, writing of this period and movement; from Rothbard:

In his editorial in the magazine’s first issue in November 1914, Herbert Croly cheerily prophesied that the war would stimulate America’s spirit of nationalism and therefore bring it closer to democracy…. True, European war collectivism was a bit grim and autocratic, but never fear, America could use the selfsame means for ‘democratic’ goals…. As America prepared to enter the war, the New Republic eagerly looked forward to imminent collectivization, sure that it would bring “immense gains in national efficiency and happiness.” After war was declared, the magazine urged that the war be used as “an aggressive tool of democracy.”

Somewhere in the back of my mind I recall that when many use the term “democracy” (and here I refer to Croly, not Rothbard), they do not mean Switzerland; they mean something akin to communism.

Raimondo points out that it was usually the democrats – the liberals – that led the effort or push for war and for global-reaching institutions.  Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ.  Bush II could be considered an exception to this rule.

This ideology has a name: we call it "progressivism." It has a long history, starting with Teddy Roosevelt and his intellectual publicists, continuing through the Great War and the run-up to World War II – when it was the left that was screaming for US intervention in the European conflict – and its aftermath.

There was no US interest in the great wars of the first half of the twentieth century, not if by “US interest” one means of interest or benefit to the vast majority of people living within the geographic boundaries of the United States.  There was certainly a necessity for the US to involve itself in these wars if it was to fulfill its calling as the replacement tool for global government. 

This is why our foreign policy consists of "endless war," as Greenwald puts it: because if your goal is world domination, then the war to establish a global authority – with Washington as its capital – must be necessarily open-ended. That’s because there will always be resistance to such a project: once a rebellion is put down in the Middle East, for example, another one is more than likely to pop up in Africa, or eastern Europe, or someplace else.

It is the intent toward global control and the rebellion to it that is the answer to “why the wars.”  People rebel – not oil, not gas pipelines.  People.

It is the people that are to be brought under control.  Globally.

The empire builders will, in the end, fail; we are living through the transition – it may be a long one.

“Pedantic” Austrians Blamed for Central Bank Strong-Arming

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (AEP) is out with a new post, entitled “ECB's treatment of Ireland and Italy is a constitutional scandal, yet nobody held to account.”  What’s the connection of this scandalous conduct by a central bank and the Austrian school of economics?  Patience, my friends, patience.

First, the scandalous conduct:

So the truth comes out at last. The EU/IMF Troika – actually the ECB – compelled the Irish state to take on the vast liabilities of Anglo-Irish and other banks in the white heat of the financial crisis.

It threatened to pull the plug on ECB support for the Irish banking system, in breach of its own core duty to act as a lender-of-last resort, unless the Irish taxpayer took the full losses.

This protected bondholders from their condign fate, even though these creditors were fully complicit in Ireland’s credit bubble.

Where are the Austrians?  Most call for an end to monopoly backing of the banking system – I have yet to read of an Austrian economist who suggested improving central banking via blackmail.  Is there a Peter Schiff video on this?

AEP has known about this for some time:

Patrick Honohan, Ireland's central bank governor, told a group of foreign journalists in Dublin some time ago that this had occurred. We knew, but were sworn to silence, forced to bite our tongues every time we had to listen to the usual pack of lies from certain quarters.

Is it the Austrians that recommended lies and silence?  I don’t recall reading or hearing such a thing.

Honohan has now written a book, spelling it all out; hence, AEP feels free to come clean.

"The Troika staff told Brian in categorical terms that burning the bondholders would mean no programme and, accordingly, could not be countenanced," he said. "For whatever reason, they waited until after this showdown to inform me of this decision, which had apparently been taken at a very high-level teleconference to which no Irish representative was invited."

Blackmail by the Fed doesn’t sound much like End the Fed (I know, it’s the ECB, but give me a bit of creative license here).  Where’s Ron Paul?

As another aside, AEP defends the ECB’s ends in these actions; he just doesn’t like the means.

The Irish, having publicly learned of this scandal, want answers:

There is now pressure to haul former ECB-chief Jean-Claude Trichet before an inquiry in Ireland, chiefly to determine exactly what he wrote in a confidential letter to the Irish finance minister in November 2010.

Jean-Claude Trichet…did I miss his latest presentation at the Austrian Economics Research Conference?

The ECB, despite having “no legal or constitutional mandate” for such actions, gave Italy and Spain the same treatment in 2011.

If you were charitable, you might say that the ECB was forced into this role because there was no other European institution capable of taking charge, but that is to admit that the EMU construct is by its nature an authoritarian monstrosity outside all democratic control, a form of soft monetary tyranny. If you admit that, how can you continue defending EMU at all?

This is what the Austrians say!  Having come so far in exposing this reality, what does AEP conclude?

Mario Draghi has been a breath of fresh air at the ECB, a modern mind in the dank dungeon of Austrian School pedantry.

Oh.

Libertarians and Religion

Kevin Vallier has an essay posted at Cato Unbound, entitled “A Genuinely Liberal Approach to Religion in Politics.”  The topic is of interest to me only to the extent that religion is often used as a tool for promoting nationalism (which is a religion unto itself in any case) and war-mongering (which writers such as Laurence Vance have covered quite well).

Vallier begins his assessment:

…I begin by contrasting my approach with three more familiar alternatives: I term these the libertarian, religious conservative and secular progressive views about religion in politics.

The topic as introduced by Vallier interests me little, except for his statements regarding libertarian views on the topic and his introduction of Murray Rothbard’s views (or as Vallier complains, lack of views) on the topic.

Given the venue, I begin by assessing the libertarian approach, or more accurately, what I see as libertarians’ lack of an approach to religion in politics.

In terms of a lack of libertarian views on this topic, this should be of no surprise. Libertarian theory is concerned with one question – when is the use of force justified?  Many concepts around the security of property and life fall out naturally from a thoughtful consideration of this question, but this question is the root.

Therefore, libertarians as libertarians will have little to say on this topic.  Vallier demonstrates, at least partially, one reason for why this is so:

…the more general attitude is that religion in politics is uninteresting because democratic politics should be dramatically weakened or abolished…

It is one reason, but a very secondary reason.  It is true that libertarians as libertarians consider that “democratic politics [more accurately, monopoly government] should be dramatically weakened or abolished….”  However, the primary reason that libertarians are uninterested in this question is because libertarian theory is only concerned with the question of the proper use of force – from this, the position on “democratic politics” is a natural result.

Vallier, starting down the wrong path, cannot help but compound his mistakes. The general attitude of libertarians, he claims, is that…

Barbarism’s Opening Salvo

In the previous chapter, Veale described the civilized warfare of eighteenth century Europeans…civilized at least when fighting other Europeans.  In this chapter, Veale begins by exploring the nineteenth century – and what I would describe as this civilized interlude’s beginning-of-the-end.

He describes the transition from Kings’ Wars to Peoples’ Wars – basically, from wars involving the warriors to wars necessitating the buy-in and involvement of the general population (also so well described by Hoppe).  This transition was greatly aided by propaganda, in order to generate the necessary emotion, hatred, and fear in the people: emotional engineering, as Veale calls it.

To wage war, it had become necessary to generate hatred.  If the reasoning powers of the man on the street could be paralysed by a sufficiently vivid portrayal of a real or imaginary danger…he would fight better in a state of blind hatred.

Veale traces this slow evolution in warfare from “Carnot’s  levée en masse, in 1793” to “the Dresden holocaust of 1945” (watch this, please; I insist).  The fall to barbarism occurred in stages.

Nineteenth Century Slide

During the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars (1792 – 1815) the standards of European civil warfare suffered a marked decline…the armies of France shamelessly plundered the countries which they overran.

Veale points out that the plundering was primarily limited to churches and art galleries, as opposed to the broader and more general plundering to be found by the end of this period in question – 1945.

Further, Veale comments that the critical question is the peace that follows the war:

What is most important about any war is the peace which it brings about.  From this point of view, the wars of 1792 – 1815 maintained the highest standards.  The moderation of the victors in 1815 appears to modern eyes simply superhuman.

Veale regularly reminds that these rules of civilized warfare were only recognized for wars between European states.  He offers several examples of uncivilized war by Europeans when fighting non-Europeans, or when Europeans are not involved at all: the first major example offered of uncivilized war, in all aspects, is the American (misnamed) Civil War:

It was the Northern or Federal armies which produced this historic reversion to primary or total warfare.

Before examining this return to barbarism further, a brief review of how and why this occurred is offered.  Those on the American continent had little experience with civilized warfare as practiced in Europe in the eighteenth century.  Instead, they “had undergone long experience of primary warfare against the American Indians….”  For this reason, Veale offers:

…it is not strange that the first serious departure from the European code by a people of European descent should have taken place in the United States.”

Civilized warfare was practiced for the most part during the American Revolution, somewhat less so during the War of 1812.  So, the idea that the Americans had little experience with this code seems reasonable.  In the meantime, Americans gained experience by fighting those considered less-than-human – primarily the Indians, but also Mexicans.  No code was recognized; war was hell.

So, when fighting each other (north vs. south), perhaps this is all they knew.  Which brings us back to the barbarity of the Northern Army in the war:

There has been a traditional habit of saddling the responsibility for the Northern departure from civilized warfare on General William Tecumseh Sherman who conducted the famous march through Georgia from Atlanta to the sea, and continued it along the Atlantic seaboard.  This is quite unjust.  Sherman only executed the most dramatic and devastating example of the strategy which was laid down by President Lincoln himself and was followed by General Ulysses S. Grant as commander-in-chief of the Northern armies.

Veale cites as a source for the connection to Lincoln such books as Collin R. Ballard’s The Military Genius of Abraham Lincoln and T. Harry Williams’ Lincoln and His Generals:

Hence, it is apparent that Sherman was only carrying out effectively the military policy which Lincoln and Grant adopted.

When Cheating is (Reluctantly) OK

There are times when Jeffrey Tucker can be brilliant and insightful.  Then there are other times.  The ratio of the former to the latter seems to have diminished significantly and markedly beginning around the time he left the Mises Institute.  A search of this site will lead to a few posts regarding the “other times.” 

Tucker is out with a piece on the cheating by the teachers and administrators in the Atlanta schools regarding the test scores for students, entitled “A (Reluctant) Defense of the Cheating Atlanta Teachers.”

…the Atlanta public school scandal, in which investigators identified 178 teachers and principals in 44 of the system’s 100 schools involved in cheating on student tests.

After collecting all the students’ tests, a group of teachers nicknamed “the chosen” would meet behind closed doors. They sat in a big room and went over each test, erasers in hand, looking for incorrect answers to fix.

The scores showed that 86 percent of eighth graders passed math compared with 24 percent the year before. The same was true for reading: 78 percent passed versus 35 percent the year before.

Tucker identifies, properly, the root cause of the cheating:

Every government plan gives rise to cheating and manipulation. This is true for the smallest cases or the biggest.

If only he stopped here; instead, he decided to compare this situation to another example:

This is easier to understand if you consider more famously epic cases.

Consider an example. It is 1935 Russia. Grain crops keep failing, despite the Five-Year Plan Stalin imposed. He’s sick of it. It’s embarrassing. So this year, he decides to crack some skulls. Already tens of thousands have died, and everyone knows he means business. It’s the same in every industry actually, from steel to cars to railways.

What happens? The new farmer or plant manager faces either professional or real death or he fudges the records. He figures out a way to survive. And the difference between Soviet five-year plans and public school five-year plans seem to me to be mostly a difference of degree.

Look, I understand using extreme examples to make a point; Walter Block is so good at doing this.  But Stalin’s murder of tens of millions used to make a point about teachers cheating to keep their jobs?  In a land where losing your job results in a middle-class income from the state?

The teacher is stealing; the poor farmer in Stalin’s Ukraine stole from no-one when his crop fell short of Stalin’s plan.  Stealing from an employer – you lose your job.  Not meeting a government mandated grain quota – you lose your life.

This is bad enough.  Worse, his logic is completely wrong.  The teacher has no right to the job, and no right to have his students (superficially) excel at the tests.  The teacher takes a salary to do a job.  The cheating teacher has cheated both his employer and his employer’s customers. 

The farmer, on the other hand, has a right to his life and a right to defend it by appropriate means.  Cheating, to the extent it occurred in this scenario, is a perfectly acceptable form of self-defense. 

To be fair, Tucker identified his defense as “reluctant.”  Sometimes reluctant thoughts are better left unsaid.

This should have been one of those times.