What, Me McWorry?
Now we know why “King David” Petraeus fainted like a girl at his Senate testimony [.pdf] two weeks ago. Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin put Petraeus on the ropes by asking if his allegiance to President Obama’s withdrawal timeline for Afghanistan reflected his “best personal professional judgment.” Petraeus rope-a-doped his way out of that one with his “qualified yes” answer, but he hit the canvas when John McCain dared him to deny an open-source report that he’d promised Obama his 18-month timeline would work. Petraeus sputtered something about how he didn’t see anything productive in discussing an Oval Office conversation, McCain gave him a yeah, right wink, and Petraeus did a half-gainer into his microphone.
The Teflon General has faced tough questions before and lived to prevaricate another day. The difference this time, I’m pretty certain, is that he knew his former protégé Stan McChrystal was about to pull a Barnum-class stunt that would vaporize Petraeus’ hopes of escaping to safety before everyone realizes the situations in Iraq and the Bananastans* are irretrievably botched and that he’s the one who botched them.
It’s obvious from information above and below the radar that Petraeus has been hiding in the background behind his phony laurels for the past year or so, hoping to let his little buddies McChrystal and Ray “Desert Ox” Odierno take the falls for the Bananastans and Iraq. That’s been Petraeus’ standard operating procedure throughout his meteoric career: take charge of a situation, slap a band-aid on whatever troubles exist, let the underlying problems fester, and then bail out in time for the disaster to erupt on his successor’s watch. He played this stratagem three times in Iraq.
As commander in Mosul after the fall of Baghdad, he spread around enough bribes to keep a lid on the insurgency in that region. Four months after he left, the police chief defected to the militants, and Mosul remains a trouble spot to this day. During his next Iraq tour, when he was in charge of training Iraqi security forces, Super Dave allowed nearly 200,000 AK-47 rifles and pistols to fall into the hands of militants. As commander of all forces in Iraq Dave blamed Iran for giving the insurgents all those guns, and created a false perception of a successful “surge” by cooking the violence statistics and bribing the insurgents to lay low with money and arms. Today’s Iraq, the one he left hapless Odie, still looks like a big-ride theme park 10 minutes after the earthquake hit.
There’s a good chance that Odierno isn’t sufficiently sentient to realize that his mentor Petraeus has set him up on a blind date with a red-hot poker, but McChrystal clearly saw what was going on, and he was not about to let his boss play him for a Shemp.
The son of a two-star general, McChrystal was always better connected than any boss he ever had prior to Petraeus, and every boss he ever had prior to Petraeus knew it. Cadet McChrystal racked up demerits galore while at the Military Academy, but no one in charge of West Point ever seriously thought of expelling him. McChrystal began to attract a following of like-minded hooligans eager to share the sanctuary of his high cover. Years pass, McChrystal’s networks grow, he is given command of the Bananastan theater of war, and voilà, we have Gen. Stan and His Howling Entourage, an unholy collection of assassins, spies, frogmen, snake eaters, bull-feather merchants, fighter pilots, lawyers, and other patriotic personality disorders who called themselves “Team America” and who are in virtual control of U.S. foreign policy.
We meet this cross-section of our nation’s finest in a Rolling Stone article by Michael Hastings titled “The Runaway General.” Drunk as Blazes Boylan, the boys are, spouting suppressed angst at an Irish pub in Paris named Kitty O’Shea’s, bellowing a haunting lilt about dear old Afghanistan, and mouthing the vilest sorts of slanders pertaining to their civilian superiors that they oughtn’t be flinging about among the general population, and most assuredly not in front of a reporter from the Rolling bloody Stone.
President Obama appears to be “uncomfortable and intimidated” by military brass, and he doesn’t “seem very engaged” in the war he wants McChrystal to win for him, young Hastings relays. Special Bananastans envoy Richard Holbrooke is dangerous as a “wounded animal” because he fears he’s about to get the axe. National Security Adviser James Jones is a “clown.” Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, who in a stunning piece of understatement recently noted that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is “not an adequate strategic partner,” is trying, McChrystal himself tells Hastings, to “cover his flanks for the history books.” Politicians like John Kerry and John McCain are “not very helpful,” and the Team’s pet name for Joe Biden is “Bite Me.”
Well, Joe Biden can bite me too. McCain and Kerry aren’t very helpful; they never have been. Karzai isn’t an adequate partner, Eikenberry is trying to cover his kiester, banquet-circuit beast Holbrooke has ample reason to worry about losing his job, and Obama’s palpable fear of his generals is a national embarrassment.
But those aren’t the sorts of things a general and his staff – even an Animal House-variety general and staff like McChrystal and company are – blab to a cub reporter from a magazine for long-haired freaky people; unless, of course, the general and his staff want to get fired from being responsible for a catastrophe they manage to compound with every move they make. If they’d wanted to party with a reporter they could trust to keep his mouth shut, they would have brought along Dexter Filkins of the New York Times, who has dutifully kept mum about their shenanigans and faithfully passed along every propaganda message they’ve fed him.
The Rolling Stone piece by Hastings recalls the April 2008 Esquire article by Thomas P. M. Barnett on then-head of Central Command Adm. William Fallon, who was about to collide with the doorknob on his way out of a job. Barnett’s article gave Fallon the opportunity to take a parting shot at “a**-kissing little chicken s***” Petraeus and the neocon “crazies” before transitioning to a new career in beltway banditry.
McChrystal’s predicament was far more precarious than Fallon’s had been. He had executed a blatantly insubordinate display of information warfare designed to pressure Obama into going along with further escalation of the Bananastans conflict that culminated with his September 2009 infomercial on 60 Minutes. The next month, when asked at a speech to a right-wing tank thinkery in London if he could support a decision on Obama’s part to heed Joe Biden’s proposal to fight al-Qaeda with drone and special forces strikes alone, McChrystal replied, “The short, glib answer is no.”
According to The Promise, a recent book by Jonathan Alter of Newsweek about Obama’s first year in office, McChrystal’s October 2009 London antic was the camel straw that prodded Obama into doing what a man had to do. Alter – who has become the hagiographer to Obama that Dexter Filkins is to McChrystal and Tom Ricks is to Petraeus – tells us that the president and his senior staff believed McChrystal’s hijinks “had [Joint Chiefs chairman Mike] Mullen’s and Petraeus’ fingerprints all over it. They were using McChrystal to jam the president, box him in, manipulate him, game him.” Not a bad assumption.
Obama and McChrystal supposedly had a me-father-you-son talk aboard Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, and shortly after that Obama invited Mullen and Defense Secretary Bob Gates over to the Oval Office for a taste of cheese grater. Obama wanted to know “here and now,” Alter says, if the Pentagon would be on board with any decisions he might make. Alter reports that Mullen “described himself as ‘chagrined’ after the meeting” and that Gates put out the word through back channels that generals should give their advice “candidly but privately.” Things looked all hunky-bunky to the administration. “They swore an oath of loyalty,” a senior official told Alter, and the feckless White House chose to believe that oaths mean anything to the likes of Gates and Mullen.
The part of the Alter narrative that McCain confronted Petraeus with in the recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearings involved a November 2009 Oval Office meeting at which Petraeus was present.
Obama asked Petraeus, “David, tell me now. I want you to be honest with me. You can do this in 18 months?”
“Sir, I’m confident we can train and hand over to the ANA [Afghan National Army] in that time frame,” Petraeus replied.
“Good. No problem,” the president said. “If you can’t do the things you say you can in 18 months, then no one is going to suggest we stay, right?”
“Yes, sir, in agreement,” Petraeus said.
As Alter tells it, Obama got the drop on Mullen and Gates as well.
“Yes, sir, Mullen said [agreeing that no one would suggest we stay in Afghanistan beyond 18 months].
The president was crisp but informal. “Bob, you have any problems?” he asked Gates, who said he was fine with it.
The president then encapsulated the new policy: in quickly, out quickly, focus on al-Qaeda, and build the Afghan Army. “I’m not asking you to change what you believe, but if you don’t agree with me that we can execute this, say so now,” he said. No one said anything.
“Tell me now,” Obama repeated.
“Fully support, sir,” Mullen said.
“Ditto,” Petraeus said.
Alter asserts, “Obama was trying to turn the tables on the military, to box them in after they had spent most of the year boxing him in.” The thinking was that if “conditions didn’t stabilize enough to begin an orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces” in 18 months, the generals “couldn’t say they didn’t have enough time to make the escalation work because they had specifically said, under explicit questioning, that they did.”
If Obama has the sociopaths who run his military in a box, they needn’t worry too much: it’s a box with an escape hatch in the bottom and no lid. At the June 15-16 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Gates and Mullen stressed the need for “patience” with the Bananastan strategy. (If you haven’t noticed, everyone from the Pentagon calls it “Obama’s strategy” and everyone in the administration’s camp refers to “McChrystal’s strategy.”) Petraeus, who swore allegiance to Obama’s timeline both in Alter’s book and at the hearings, also assured McCain and the committee’s other war mongrels that the July 2011 date is “the beginning of a process,” and is “not a date where we race for the exits. It is the date where we, having done an assessment, begin a transition.” So I guess we should conclude that July 2011 is a conceptual deadline, or perhaps it’s a virtual deadline, or maybe it’s just total motherf***ing bull****.
If you think Obama got the military back under control by firing McChrystal, you need to quit taking those statin drugs. Replacing “Bananas” Stan with King David was like shooting the rabid sheepdog and turning the flock over to the head wolf.
Next: Surging Back to the Future.
* The Bananastans are Afghanistan and Pakistan, our banana republics in Central Asia.
Read more by Jeff Huber
- $80 Billion Down the Plumbing – November 1st, 2010
- Bull Feather Merchant Marines – October 25th, 2010
- Don’t Ask, Don’t Care – October 20th, 2010
- Long Warfare Theory – October 11th, 2010
- Uncle Bob Wants You – October 4th, 2010





Tweets that mention What, Me McWorry? by Jeff Huber -- Antiwar.com -- Topsy.com
June 28th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Antiwar.com, Ken Schaefer. Ken Schaefer said: What, Me McWorry? by Jeff Huber — Antiwar.com http://ping.fm/3eBjg [...]
Stephen
June 28th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Bite me for Biden is not even funny. If that is the best insult they can come up with they all deserve to be sacked for uselessness rather than for what they said.
Bidet would make a far better name cos it is French and thus "gay" (South Park not homosexual) and it is what you use to wash the shit off where the sun don't shine which seems to be Biden's job..
Debbie(aussie)
June 29th, 2010 at 4:26 am
oh my! you could almost forget the horendousness of this entire 'soap opera' if it weren't for all the dead and dying, eh?
E. A. Costa
June 29th, 2010 at 4:45 am
"May 14, 2008 – Congressman Rahm Emanuel (5th District-IL), one of the highest-ranking members in the House of Representatives, recently came to Stern Pinball. Emanuel, who represents Chicago and its outlying areas, brought his family to see how pinball machines are made.
Gary Stern and Ray Tanzer, Director of Mechanical Engineering, gave the Emanuel family a tour of Stern's 40,000 sq. ft. factory. Along the way, Ray showed the Emanuel children how various pinball playfield mechanisms work by giving them a pinball to strike against bumpers and drop targets. The children were ecstatic.
Gary Stern says, 'We are honored to have Congressman Emanuel stop by and visit our factory. We appreciate his interest in pinball and the success of our business.'"
[sternpinball.com]
The ball is still in play.
Remember–you heard it here first.
E. A. Costa
June 29th, 2010 at 4:48 am
In French it is called "Le Flipper."
E. A. Costa
June 29th, 2010 at 5:09 am
"Before putting a bullet through his head, Westhusing had been deeply disturbed by abuses carried out by American contractors in Iraq, including allegations that they had witnessed or even participated in the murder of Iraqis. His suicide note included claims that his two commanders tolerated a mission based on "corruption, human rights abuses and liars. I am sullied — no more. I didn't volunteer to support corrupt, money grubbing contractors, nor work for commanders only interested in themselves." One of those commanders: the future leader of American forces in Iraq, and then Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus.
Westhusing, 44, had been found dead in a trailer at a military base near the Baghdad airport in June 2005, a single gunshot wound to the head. At the time, he was the highest-ranking officer to die in Iraq. The Army concluded that he committed suicide with his service pistol and found his charges against the commanders unfounded. Petraeus would later attend Westhusing's memorial service back in the U.S…
"When he was in Iraq, Westhusing worked for one of the most famous generals in the U.S. military, David Petraeus," Bryce observed. "As the head of counterterrorism and special operations under Petraeus, Westhusing oversaw the single most important task facing the U.S. military in Iraq then and now: training the Iraqi security forces"….
In Iraq, Westhusing worked under two generals: Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, and Petraeus, then a lieutenant general. But Bryce continued: "By late May, Westhusing was becoming despondent over what he was seeing." When his body was found, a note was found nearby addressed to Petraeus and Fil. It read:
"Thanks for telling me it was a good day until I briefed you. [Redacted name]–You are only interested in your career and provide no support to your staff–no msn [mission] support and you don't care. I cannot support a msn that leads to corruption, human right abuses and liars. I am sullied–no more. I didn't volunteer to support corrupt, money grubbing contractors, nor work for commanders only interested in themselves. I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored. I trust no Iraqi. I cannot live this way. All my love to my family, my wife and my precious children. I love you and trust you only. Death before being dishonored any more
Trust is essential–I don't know who trust anymore. Why serve when you cannot accomplish the mission, when you no longer believe in the cause, when your every effort and breath to succeed meets with lies, lack of support, and selfishness? No more. Reevaluate yourselves, cdrs [commanders]. You are not what you think you are and I know it."
Huff. Post
RogueBuddha
June 29th, 2010 at 5:50 am
These are just office politics, wont make a whit of a difference to our policy. Its only the common working John Doe who has to worry about things like a job and keeping a roof overhead. No worries like that for these folks. As for the whole who's scared of who charade, regular street corner theatrics.
News for Iran is being ramped up so no surprises there. How smart do you have to be to realize that the demographic you are fighting against is your own?
RogueBuddha
June 29th, 2010 at 5:56 am
Jeff, when is your new novel coming out?
camus10
June 29th, 2010 at 6:41 am
So I guess we should conclude that June 2001 is a conceptual deadline
….do you mean 2011
thanx for the insight. Cant wait to hear your take on the missing aid billions in Af-b-stan
bogi666
June 29th, 2010 at 10:06 am
Vietnamese society wasentirely mobilized for war and prevailed depite having more bombs dropped there than all the bombs by everyone during WW2. Afghanistan doesn't even have a society to mobilize and they have held the self vaunted Pentagon to a standstill after 9 years. Why? This means that the Pentagon is either incapable of "winning" a conflict which would jeopardize their funding or its stratgy is not to win to ensure greater future funding.Their is no or less profit in peace or non violence as well as less graft and corruption. Anyone whom thinks that the U.S. isn't profiting from bribery, graft and corruption is a fool. USG corruption originating outside the U.S. is not audible due to the foreign bank accounts and money laundering through sub contractors. Check Dubai's growth which coincided with the M.E. invasions. COIN is a cute term which means the COIN'S is the tax monies of American taxpayers being bilked. The Bush gang was all about graft and corruption, that was its purpose and mission.
Jeff Huber
June 29th, 2010 at 10:06 am
Thanks for asking, Rogue. It's still in the process of writing itself (see the article above, heh-heh).
ghouri
June 29th, 2010 at 11:06 am
I have read not a single General who is going to accept his defeat and this typical mind set of a General but there is only one possibily to win this war i.e. to kill all the Pakhtuns. Other alternative is not there.
For accepting the truth you need courage and general don,t have as he is not in field only soldiers are fighting and are main victim.
MoT
June 29th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Stern pinball? I LOVE those guys along with Williams and the rest.
MoT
June 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Sad end. Honestly now… Here is a man who could simply give up his commission, not his life, and then speak the brutal truths out in the open. Why kill oneself when it will likely be covered up or ignored? If ANY of these generals or admirals where truly "honorable" they wouldn't go along to get along. Sad.
Jeff Huber
June 29th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Holy errata, Batman. Thanks for the catch, camus, we'll try to get that corrected.
Best,
Jeff
Martin Brock
June 29th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
"Lost control" suggests that Obama had control at some point. "Obama's waking up" is a better subtitle.
E. A. Costa
June 29th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
"On joue sa vie comme on joue au flipper
On gagne, on perds, et toujours on espère
Pouvoir s'en refaire une petite
Gratuite, gratuite."
J-L Aubert
RogueBuddha
June 29th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
MoT do some digging, cui bono?
http://www.rense.com/general69/cwol.htm
E. A. Costa
June 29th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
One of the earliest pinball machines–German circa 1750:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3…
Note the candle-holders for playing in the dark.
E. A. Costa
June 29th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
"In 1777, a party was thrown in honor of the King and his wife at the Château de Bagatelle, owned by the brother of the king. The highlight of the party was a new table game featuring the slender [pre-pinball] table and cue sticks, which players used to shoot ivory balls up an inclined playfield. The table game was dubbed Bagatelle by the King's brother and shortly after swept through France.
Some French soldiers carried their favorite bagatelle tables with them to America while helping to fight the British in the American Revolutionary War. Bagatelle spread and became so popular in America as well that a political cartoon from 1863 even depicts President Abraham Lincoln playing a tabletop bagatelle game."
wikipedia
Buonparte, as is well known, usually cheated at chess, and one knows of no reference that he played Bagatelle, except magnificently on the battlefield.
MoT
June 29th, 2010 at 10:00 am
That's some wild stuff there. Pretty much answers my question about whether he killed himself or not. He didn't. I wouldn't put it past those rats to off their own in order to protect their own hides. So it makes me wonder if McChrystal had himself "outed" so a similar fate wouldn't happen to him?
E. A. Costa
June 29th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
As always, it often serves a purpose reproducing a passage [slightly edited] rather than merely giving a link:
Part 1
"Colonel Theodore S. Westhusing (November 17, 1960 – June 5, 2005)[1], a West Point professor of English and Philosophy, volunteered to serve in Iraq in late 2004 and died in Baghdad from an allegedly self-inflicted gunshot wound in June 2005. At the time he was the highest ranked American to die violently in Iraq since the start of the March 2003 United States-led invasion. He was 44 years old, married with three young children.
Westhusing was born in Dallas, Texas and attended high school at Jenks High School in Jenks, Oklahoma where he was an outstanding student and starter for the basketball team. He attended West Point, where in his senior year he was selected as honor captain (the highest-ranking ethics official within the cadet corps) and graduated third in his class. He served in the 82nd Airborne Division among other duties, and eventually became a professor at West Point. In 2003, he wrote a dissertation in philosophy at Emory University in Atlanta, "The competitive and cooperative aretai within the American warfighting ethos". The dissertation explores "an ideal functional description of the American warrior [which] makes heavy demands of the warrior's entire being in supporting and defending the United States Constitution to which he has sworn his allegiance." He held degrees and majored in Russian, Philosophy and Military Strategy.
Westhusing served with what the U.S. Department of Defense calls the "Multi-national Security Transition Command – Iraq". His primary duty was to oversee the training of Iraqis for civilian police duty, in collaboration with USIS, a private military company. In mid-May 2005 he received an anonymous letter alleging fraud, waste and abuse by USIS. He also witnessed many of the following charges as well. The accusations included the following:
* forged employees' résumés claiming elite forces background
* inadequate skills and competence of trainers
* insufficient numbers of trainers in order to maximize profits
* disappearance of large quantities of weapons, radios, and other equipment
* employees boasting of killing Iraqis
E. A. Costa
June 29th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Westhusing Part 2:
Although Westhusing initially wrote to his commanders only seven days before his death that the allegations in the letter were false, many have determined that he was forced to write to his commanding officers, General Petraeus and General Fil, in order to keep his position and his commanding officers and USIS's cover on their activities, or perhaps until he could get the information to a source that would not cover up the illegalities. According to documentation, Colonel Westhusing then decided to go forward with the allegations about the illegalities to his commanders and the management of USIS, feeling that his life was now threatened and that he needed to get the information to outside sources before something happened to him. He did this regardless of the consequences to himself, to confront the injustices and to have the allegations exposed. He had also planned on returning to the U.S. to bring these allegations forward, but now feared for his life. This decision led to a subsequent, final confrontation and to his untimely death. There is evidence that something happened in those remaining seven days that caused him to turn angrily upon the management of USIS because of threats, referring to them with intense disgust as "money grubbing" and to their participation in illegal activities with members of the Iraqi police and others.
His anger soon extended to his own commanders for taking no action on his recommendations to bring honesty and efficiency to the Army's training of Iraqis, with particular reference to USIS' role in that training and many illegal activities within the Iraqi Army and police. These commanders included the current Commander of Multinational Force – Iraq, 4-star General David Petraeus (then a 3-star General in charge of U.S. operations in northern Iraq).
Colonel Westhusing died at Camp Dublin outside Baghdad, Iraq in June 2005, leaving a note saying, “I cannot support a mission that leads to corruption, human rights abuses and liars.”
Westhusing, who was left-handed, was found in his trailer with a gunshot wound behind his left ear from his own 9mm Beretta service pistol on June 5, 2005, a month and three days before his tour of duty was to end. He had a heated and confrontational meeting with General Petraeus and General Fil that morning concerning these issues with USIS. A DOD Army report also stated that an administrator near his trailer had heard a very loud argument in Colonel Westhusing's office trailer before he was found dead by the contractor. Approximately an hour after this argument and the earlier meeting with Generals Petraeus and Fil and the USIS contractors that morning, he was found by a USIS contractor who then altered the death scene before reporting it. A note was found at his side in which he wrote, in addition to a short explanation, "I am sullied – no more". Three of the seven numbered pages of the document by his side were not disclosed in the investigation. This note was part of a journal he was keeping to document these issues. Other pages were excluded from the Army's final report because of what was considered sensitive government issues."
Wikipedia
E. A. Costa
June 29th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Has one noticed a slight postural change in photos of Petraeus lately by an chance–the head hanging and stooped over a bit?
Ballet is very sensitive to posture and gesture.
E. A. Costa
June 29th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
What's the difference between "iterate" and "reiterate"?
Anyway, the ball is still in play.
RogueBuddha
June 29th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
EAC
Sorry to stray off topic. I posted something in response to your Churchill post in the news about Korea but I guess it didnt make it. You wrote something about US and UK attacking Russia in 1917 or 1918 to nip the Bolsheviks in the bud. I'll try to post it again here.
RogueBuddha
June 29th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Testing. Is anyone else having a problem with posting comments here?
RogueBuddha
June 29th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Strange. If you reply to someone your comment doesnt show up but if you post a new comment it does..
RogueBuddha
June 29th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
@EAC I posted a response to your comment about US and UK attacking Russia(1917 or 1918) on the news about Koreas page. It didnt make it so I will post it here.
E. A. Costa
June 29th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Though it is mentioned by contemporary sources, no military historian has had the insight to get the gist of WHY Buonaparte cheated at chess, or what it had to do with his military tactics.
Shows how slow they really are.
It is the way that Buonaparte "cheated" that is fascinating.
E. A. Costa
June 29th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Eisenhower was extremely well-read. As was Patton. Either one would have got it.
RogueBuddha
June 29th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Look at the paragraph titled International joose. Looking at it in context of the full article its pretty harmless. But if you look at it from a slightly different angle and trace the different lineages it takes on a whole different meaning.
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/…
RogueBuddha
June 29th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
EAC
Look at the paragraph titled International —-. Looking at it in context of the full article its pretty bland. But if you look at it from a slightly different angle and trace the different lineages it takes on a whole different meaning.
http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHMO_en___US3…
E. A. Costa
June 29th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Platonov is extremely well-read. Medvedev obviously isn't. An interesting passage to contemplate:
"NAPOLEON. No, because the English are a race apart. No Englishman is too low to have scruples: no Englishman is high enough to be free from their tyranny. But every Englishman is born with a certain miraculous power that makes him master of the world. When he wants a thing, he never tells himself that he wants it. He waits patiently until there comes into his mind, no one knows how, a burning conviction that it is his moral and religious duty to conquer those who have got the thing he wants. Then he becomes irresistible. Like the aristocrat, he does what pleases him and grabs what he wants: like the shopkeeper, he pursues his purpose with the industry and steadfastness that come from strong religious conviction and deep sense of moral responsibility. He is never at a loss for an effective moral attitude. As the great champion of freedom and national independence, he conquers and annexes half the world, and calls it Colonization. When he wants a new market for his adulterated Manchester goods, he sends a missionary to teach the natives the gospel of peace. The natives kill the missionary: he flies to arms in defence of Christianity; fights for it; conquers for it; and takes the market as a reward from heaven. In defence of his island shores, he puts a chaplain on board his ship; nails a flag with a cross on it to his top-gallant mast; and sails to the ends of the earth, sinking, burning and destroying all who dispute the empire of the seas with him. He boasts that a slave is free the moment his foot touches British soil; and he sells the children of his poor at six years of age to work under the lash in his factories for sixteen hours a day. He makes two revolutions, and then declares war on our one in the name of law and order. There is nothing so bad or so good that you will not find Englishmen doing it; but you will never find an Englishman in the wrong. He does everything on principle. He fights you on patriotic principles; he robs you on business principles; he enslaves you on imperial principles; he bullies you on manly principles; he supports his king on loyal principles, and cuts off his king's head on republican principles. His watchword is always duty; and he never forgets that the nation which lets its duty get on the opposite side to its interest is lost."
G.B. Shaw
E. A. Costa
June 29th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Corr: Lebedev–not Platonov. A very Byzantine mnemonic glitch indeed.
RogueBuddha
June 29th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
People change.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/US_Counteri…
E. A. Costa
June 29th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
NB: "fainted like a girl"?
The convention referred is obvious. On the other hand, by making "fainted like a General at a hearing of Congress" the new convention, any potential accusation of sexism or male Chauvinism in language or concept is nicely canceled.
Anyway this is purely cultural.
With Petraeus, someone should release a mouse at the next opportunity and see if he jumps up on the table, pulls up his skirts, and screams.
What the Freudian or the Lacanian can do with such an image pales besides a Deleuzian who would clearly be tempted to mention the hole the General feared the mouse might run up his leg into.
E. A. Costa
June 30th, 2010 at 12:31 am
It has noting to do with "people" in that sense.
The Classic British Liberal Social Darwinists did not "change".
Thatcher and Thatcherism are direct throwbacks, for example. So are most of the "Neo-Liberals", including in Germany and Latin America.
The type was also reconstituted in the US, though under a lot of misleading blather, economic, political, and religious.
"American exceptionalism" is another echo.
The American Neo-Cons are just an especially vicious, blatant variation.
Fred. B.
June 30th, 2010 at 3:53 am
Thank-you for posting, was news to me, from a search can see a few outlets reported on it.
Jeff Huber
June 30th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
"fainted like a girl" was meant as a satiric comment on the macho ranger mythos. Next time I reckon I'll use "fainted like Blanche Dubois."
1todd_sheen
July 26th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Good to know what this Mc is all about.
Todd
Jeff McNeill – Publishing, Marketing, Southeast Asia | Jeff McNeill – Publishing, Marketing, Southeast Asia
October 4th, 2012 at 3:15 am
[...] investment despite turmoil http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/business/global/30rdbseathai.html #http://original.antiwar.com/huber/2010/06/28/what-me-mcworry/ #Either repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or say something true–and [...]