Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
On Drones
In case you missed it or have not forked over the money to buy a copy of the New Yorker, Jane Mayer -- who is even more powerful than Nate -- has written perhaps the very best piece on the use of unmanned drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan. (A good summary can be found here.) There are all kinds of good questions this piece explores, like why Americans get so fired up over targeted killing programs (allegedly cooked up by the Vice President) which utilize special operations forces but do not get too bothered by targeted killing programs that actually exist and use remotely piloted drones. Or what happens when the Central Intelligence Agency takes over what are essentially military operations without the check and balances -- like the UCMJ -- that govern the military when they conduct such operations?
Since Dave Kilcullen and I have written a little bit about these strikes, Mayer asked me what I thought. She slightly mangled my quote, but here it is:
“Neither Kilcullen nor I is a fundamentalist—we’re not saying drones are not part of the strategy. But we are saying that right now they are part of the problem. If we use tactics that are killing people’s brothers and sons, not to mention their sisters and wives, we can work at cross-purposes with insuring that the tribal population doesn’t side with the militants. Using the Predator is a tactic, not a strategy.”
What I actually said was that while drone strikes were part of the problem, they can also be part of the solution. (Mayer thought I said "strategy" instead of solution.) I really think drone strike can be part of an effective, integrated CT and COIN strategy, but they cannot substitute for such a strategy, and I worry that the CIA is carrying out their own campaign in part because a) it's been getting kicked around so much since 9/11 that it is now overly focused on killing high-level al-Qaeda targets rather than gathering intelligence and that b) it's trying to justify and defend its budget through what it can claim is a successful program.
My worries have always centered around how the attacks are perceived on the ground, so it has been frustrating to read careless readers of our argument mistakenly assume we agree with open-source reporting out of Pakistan. To the contrary. I focus on Pakistani press reports because, in a war of perceptions, I am less concerned with how many civilians we are actually killing and more concerned with how many civilians the neutral population thinks we are killing.
There is something else about drones which bothers me. We are all slaves to culture, and I worry that a combination of a background in the light infantry, an upbringing in East Tennessee, and a classical education leaves me repulsed by the very idea of remote-controlled war. Mayer mangled another quote of mine (again, insignificantly), when I said, “As a classics major, I have a classical sense of what it means to be a warrior.” As I recall, I asked that more as a question and included a "maybe" somewhere in there. But maybe I do in fact have a cultural predisposition against drones. I know that undermines my other arguments somewhat, but I feel I should be honest with the readership about my own potential biases here.
I am not sure, on the other hand, that my bias does not have some use. One of the best parts in Pete Singer's latest book
"Yeah," Pete wisely asks, "but weren't the humans the heroes of those movies?"
Indeed.
At the very least, though, the classical warrior spirit is alive at 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue. Nate was also a classic geek, and I have been known to steal the Roman helmet Nagl inexplicably keeps in his office and wear it to staff meetings.
Update: Hahahaha. Perfect. Just perfect. Thanks, J.
In my previous comment, the first and second to last sentences are quotes taken from Greyjoy's comment. The other sentences are my responses to them.
Nothing in Mencius's blog indicates he is pro-zionist (I always got the indication that he was anything but suspicious of political religions a'la Voegelin).
Archive-binge UR a few times if you have to. His opinion about "political religions" is irrelevant in this case. He doesn't relate to it as a political religion, but as a nation and people that he has ties with.
Also, the blog links that Anderson linked to are HILARIOUS. They don't even support his assertion. Two of them have nothing to do with Jews, and one of them is a quote taken out of context.
My "assertion" regarding those blog links was that "some of his major claims have been debunked - through simple fact checking with Wikipedia." It wasn't supposed to be about Jews.
One of the blog posts is a post against a commentator, NOT mencius, the other is the Jewish out of context quote, and another is historical nitpicking.
No, no, and...no. The commenter is regurgitating Mencius' views. And it's not "historical nitpicking" to point out that major empirical claims upon which grand, Byzantine theories are based are refuted by simple fact checks through Wikipedia. Deluded Moldbug supporters are so enthralled with these grand theories that can supposedly explain everything that they can't stand the fact that simple Wikipedia fact checks can render these theories untenable. Don't worry though, I'm sure Mencius is working hard to refine his theories so that they will be completely unfalsifiable (like Freudianism or something). Then you guys will enjoy grand, absurd theories that can explain everything, ever, and can't be refuted, ever.
Anderson, why don't you give an example of a pro-Zionist quote from MM?
Mencius is plainly pro-Israel (nothing wrong with that, I am too), but has never stated that the U.S should have any involvement there, and has given no indication of having ties there. He thinks it is the U.S which is holding Israel back, because it's actually anti-Israel, and without it the Israelis would conquer the Middle East or something like that. Anderson's first link is to a commenter explicating his own version of molbuggism (and in which n/a says that MM himself is smart enough to fact-check with Wikipedia), but the second debunks MM's writings themselves. I interpret the quoted text in the third link as semi-sarcastic trolling of anti-semites, but MM has been open about wanting to create good enough governance to provide safety & prosperity, for Jews as well as everyone else.
While there are many words I would use to describe Mencius, lots of them pejorative, "crypto-Zionist" wouldn't appear anywhere on the list.
Then again, I don't look at everything through the prism of "how does this benefit the Joo Conspiracy."
I specifically wrote, "To put it perhaps a bit crudely, but nonetheless accurately, Mencius Moldbug basically wants the international arena to be safe for Israel, and diaspora Jews safe from both potential anti-Semitic right wing movements and violence perpetrated by lower-class criminals in their host countries."
Never did I use the term "Zionist," "pro-Zionist," "crypto-Zionist," or any other variation thereof.
Mencius is plainly pro-Israel (nothing wrong with that, I am too), but has never stated that the U.S should have any involvement there, and has given no indication of having ties there. He thinks it is the U.S which is holding Israel back, because it's actually anti-Israel, and without it the Israelis would conquer the Middle East or something like that.
Right. He doesn't want US involvement there because he sees it as detrimental to Israel's safety and long term prospects. Without US involvement, Moldbug believes that Israel would (and should) use its military power to "conquer the Middle East or something like that," ensuring its safety and its long term prospects. If native Israeli ability, talent, military power, material resources, etc., were not sufficient to maintain and expand Israel's safety and prospects, and thus US involvement was absolutely necessary for Israel's survival, then he might have a different opinion on it.
Then again, I don't look at everything through the prism of "how does this benefit the Joo Conspiracy."
You don't have to. It's clear that his background as, say, a computer programmer, a grad student, a son of USG employees, etc., has shaped his views. There's no reason to believe other aspects of his background haven't shaped them either.
Anderson: You are high. Your claim that MM advocates a "wholly authoritarian" government composed of cognitive and commercial elites *that are favorable to Jews and to Israel*" (emphasis mine) comes from a fever dream.
Yes, MM wants a wholly authoritarian Govt, and yes it should be run by cognitive and commercial elites, but the concerns of those elites should be the patch of land they are governing. If there is a single clear thread on UR, that is it.
Where do you get that Jews and Israel part? Do you have a Jew problem? I recommend you get that seen to.
If you disagree, please bring up a single quote or post from UR when MM recommends a "a "wholly authoritarian" government composed of cognitive and commercial elites that are favorable to Jews and to Israel". Just one.
Zanon, Anderson's third link featured Mencius saying "This is the bottom line on democracy: it's been bad for the Jews. I'm aware that others have other criteria, but this is mine and I like it just fine. " I interpret that as sarcasm, others may not. Elsewhere he declared "UR, of course, is a pro-Jew blog [...] Anti-Jew comments are hereby prohibited", but he does not actually prohibit them, supporting my interpretation that he is being sarcastic. In another post he says "Moving on: to the Jews. Obviously this is a favorite subject here at UR, which is a pro-Jew blog and always has been. (Jabotinsky is my nigga.) The road to the New State is long, long, long, and we have barely started down it. But we know one thing: the New State will be a Jew State. Or at least, it will be chock-full of Jews. (And of Tamil Brahmins, for the same reason.)". That strikes me as less sarcastic, though still intentionally provocative.
Anderson, could you provide any support for your contention that MM would favor intervention were Israel not strong enough? I can't recall anything like that. His usual take on geopolitics is that it is unstable for weak nations to exist independently and so they ought to be conquered by those strong enough to seize and maintain control.
TGGP: Thanks for the quotes. I think they are all tongue in cheek -- a much more straightforward reading of MM is ""wholly authoritarian" government composed of cognitive and commercial elites focused on extracting the maximum long term wealth from the land they govern". To be utterly humorless about it, Mencius's biggest beef with democracy is hardly "it's bad for the Jews".
And I agree, his take on geopolitics is that weak states should be conquered and run by stronger ones.
As for Anderson, he has a racist, colonialist, reactionary in his sights, it should be like shooting fish in a barrel. His decision to go after this bizarro Zionist angle suggests a deep pathology.
To be utterly humorless about it, Mencius's biggest beef with democracy is hardly "it's bad for the Jews".
His "biggest beef" certainly isn't poor public roads or something. He thinks historically. It was "bad for the Jews." Democracy led to "Bonapartism" led to Hitler led to Nazism, etc.
As for Anderson, he has a racist, colonialist, reactionary in his sights, it should be like shooting fish in a barrel. His decision to go after this bizarro Zionist angle suggests a deep pathology.
Of course, you can be critical of anything and anybody pretty much with impunity, but the moment you say anything at all about Jews you get accused of going after a "bizarro Zionist angle" and having some sort of "deep pathology."
I'm not interested in going after anything. I'm interested in pointing out an aspect of his identity that has salience as far as his analysis and prescriptions are concerned. Like I wrote above: "It's clear that his background as, say, a computer programmer, a grad student, a son of USG employees, etc., has shaped his views. There's no reason to believe other aspects of his background haven't shaped them either."
Anderson, your reason is actually part of why I don't take the Jewish angle that seriously. His father rather than his mother was Jewish, making him not Jewish according to Jewish law. His parents divorced when he was young, replacing the Jewish father with the State department father. He's given no indication of being that knowledgeable about the Yiddish language or Jewish religion, culture, history and so on, which leads me to conclude his parents didn't raise him with much of a Jewish identity and he didn't become some kind of born-again Jew as an adult. He sometimes talks about the early "revisionist" Zionists like Jabotinsky or the Stern gang, but not too much about contemporary Israeli politics even though he often writes about what U.S foreign policy is and ought to be. Contrast that to someone like David Bernstein, who won't shut up about Israel despite writing at a blog supposed to be dedicated to libertarian legal matters. He says his first real exposure to the American right was in blogs like Powerline, and the same sort of attitudes found there are reflected in his writings. His ethnic identity is like that of a person with some portion of Irish ancestry who proclaims their Irishness & wears green on St. Patrick's Day but isn't Catholic or all that interested in Ireland.
TGGP: Yup. Or you could read UR.
ANDERSON: LOL! You are too funny. Mencius' biggest issue with Democracy isn't that it lead to Hitler either. MM is a reactionary, more right wing than right, and his tying Hitler to Democracy was to blunt the association that the right has with Facism. He tries really hard in that post to argue that, Hitler aside, authoritarian dictatorial rule is good.
Frankly you would be closer to the mark arguing that Mencius' views were driven by him being a lesbian. Then you could be merely incorrect instead of being 180 degrees off.
Mencius wasn't trying to blunt the association of fascism with the right. Some righties, particularly libertarians but also fans of Voegelin & Kuehnelt-Leddihn, try to associate it with the left, but he says its most definitely right-wing (for some reasons I find lame). He does say fascism is "demotist", an attempt by normally anti-demotist right-wing forces to use the methods of the left against the left. Since the Nazis did actually win reasonably fair elections and came to power constitutionally, they are arguably a more democratic phenomenon than the Bolsheviks, who came to power in a coup. Mencius has not relied on that strike against democracy though. He flip-flops in a love-hate relationship with "real democracy"; there is the Scylla of ignorant populist mob rule (the eternal threat of right-wing rabble in modern "democracies" and identified with the urban machines of pre-Progressive america) and the Charybdis of neutered bureaucratic fake-democracy, exemplified by the EU and always slouching toward Brezhnev.
It's just silly to say Anderson is 180 degrees off. That would mean something like Mencius seeking the opposite of what Anderson claims. Rather, the outcomes are corollaries of a larger set of outcomes and what's in question is their priority. We might say that Anderson has been successfully "trolled", but as trolls enjoy pissing off their ideological opposites, their inflammatory statements are rarely 180 degrees from their honest beliefs.
There's no doubt that Moldbug's philosophy has more than a tinge of philosemitic bigotry: he's always harping on the evil WASPs and ignoring the many Jewish socialists and communists that were often their inspirations and their comrades. But Zanon's description of his foreign policy is basically correct, and is one this thoroughgoing Gentile strongly agrees with: we should either mind our own business and stop interfering with their affairs (preferred) or we should engage in proper conquest and colonial occupation. This pansy-assed Vietnam-style strategy being promulgated by our she-male academics is a recipe for many more futile American deaths. You'll notice these ivory tower wankers who think they should command our troops don't strap on machine guns and do any actual fighting themselves. They are too afraid to even read the accounts of real men who once actually did real fighting and actually won, god forbid. Pussies and cowards, getting other Americans killed for the sake of the precious philosophies of losers.
Mencius' biggest issue with Democracy isn't that it lead to Hitler either.
I never said that it was his "biggest issue."
Frankly you would be closer to the mark arguing that Mencius' views were driven by him being a lesbian. Then you could be merely incorrect instead of being 180 degrees off.
This isn't a question of whether he is or isn't. He clearly is. It's a matter of degree. The only thing up for debate is how much.
TGGP: I think Mencius knows that any authoritarian, right-wing political approach has a Hitler problem. Thus his very long post about Hitler, arguing that the problem was his Democraticness more than this authoritarian right-wingness. I think a straight forward reading of this is an attempt to blunt, or nuance, or whatever you like, the straight forward and obvious connection between Nazis and the Right. As you say, attempts to characterize them as Left are obviously wrong.
Anderson claims that Mencius is pro-Zionist because he hates Democracy, as it lead to Hitler, who was bad for the Jews. Quote: "It [Democracy] was "bad for the Jews." Democracy led to "Bonapartism" led to Hitler led to Nazism, etc."
This is an 180 reading because Mencius is kind-of, sort-of sympathetic to Hitler, as Hitler was a reactionary figure and Mencius is sympathetic to reactionary figures. Mencius would have supported Hitler if only he had turned out to be more of a mensch. (Oops! Maybe it is all a conspiracy after all!)
I think we've violated Godwin's laws about 57 times too many, so I'm calling it quits. I think the key point still stands: you have an Reactionary, Racist, Authoritarian, and the best Anderson can come up with is "he did it, at least a little bit, because he is a Joo!" Not impressive.
You are right that he sort-of sympathizes with Hitler. That's actually one reason that I didn't think he was trying to "blunt" the association of Nazism with the right. He wrote that Nazi Germany really was clean and orderly compared to Weimar or the Soviet Union, and this is because it was right-wing (right-wing good, left-wing bad!). The claim that he's pro-Zionist because he's anti-democracy would be ridiculous. The original Zionists were social democrats, and Israel today is at least as democratic as the U.S (even Arab muslims vote, as long as they live in Israel proper). They did recently ban a couple minor parties, but I think their Supreme Court declared that unconstitutional.
Well, no one wants to be seen as being sympathetic to Hitler. Hitler!
But the point remains, MM hates democracy because it lead to the Allies. And that is why Anderson has the whole thing so laughably backwards.
My point isn't to explain the complete origin of all of Mencius Moldbug's views.
Clearly his Jewishness has some degree of influence. You can debate about the magnitude of the degree, but it's still there.
Add your comment