6 ms·

Failure Mechanisms in Democratic Regimes – An Army's Role

126 points by tkgally 1y ago

tkgally 1y ago
From the author's note at the end: "An earlier version of this article was submitted to the U.S. Army War College’s War Room blog back in the fall of 2024.... The piece was accepted and scheduled for publication in February. I found out on February 25, 2025 that USAWC had changed their mind and decided not to publish the piece, after having to pull another previously-published piece 'due to sensitivities' of 'unnamed critics that wield the power'."
- nssnsjsjsjs 1y ago
  Can he sue, due to freedom of speech? The fact it was accepted and they then said we are censoring it the speech due to the government.
  - woleium 1y ago
    unlikely, freedom of speech does not extend to forcing others to repeat that which you say.
    - nssnsjsjsjs 1y ago
      What if the government orders your speech not to be said
      - Jensson 1y ago
        Then we wouldn't see the speech here.
        hn_acker 1y ago
        In general it would be a First Amendment violation for a government employee to say "you can't publish your speech here but you can find another place to publish it". Also, in general, a government-funded organization managed by non-government employees has the First Amendment freedom of press to decline to publish an article. The only potential legal wrinkle I can spot centers around the previous piece that the USAWC un-published. > I found out on February 25, 2025 that USAWC had changed their mind and decided not to publish the piece, after having to pull another previously-published piece “due to sensitivities” of “unnamed critics that wield the power.” The USAWC likely had the First Amendment right to voluntarily pull the piece. The question is, did some federal government agency or employee send a coercive or threatening demand to pull the piece? If so, then that federal agency/employee likely violated the First Amendment. But I don't know what actually happened with the previous article yet.
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    Going to court only works to the extent decisions are actually uphold, which looks like very unlikely in current administration.
whatever1 1y ago
Johnathan Wainright admonished soldiers demobilizing from the second World War: “You have seen, in the lands where you worked and fought and where many of your comrades died, what happens when the people of a nation lose interest in their government. You have seen what happens when they follow false leaders. You have seen what happens when a nation accepts hate and intolerance. We are all determined that what happened in Europe and in Asia must not happen to our country…If you see intolerance and hate, speak out against them. Make your individual voices heard, not for selfish things, but for honor and decency among men, for the rights of all people.”
mannyv 1y ago
I would argue that the social contract is a useful fiction, the same as 'divine right.'
- mannyv 1y ago
  "for I have not only grown gray, but almost blind in the service of my country."
- lo_zamoyski 1y ago
  Useful in what way? Usefulness presumes value. Social contract per se is a construct of liberalism. Divine right, not a notion ever endorsed by the Catholic Church, was certainly one embraced by Protestant rulers as it legitimated kings who now claimed both temporal and spiritual authority [0]. Which is to say, I don't think we have any need for fictions, and not fictions like these. [0] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137c.htm https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137c.htm
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - worik 1y ago
    What fictions?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- worik 1y ago
  > I would argue that the social contract is a useful fiction, the same as 'divine right.' What argument are you making? What do you think the social contract is? E.g: I am interested if you believe that the government derives its power from the consent of the governed?
- keybored 1y ago
  You are not making an argument. You are making a statement.
__turbobrew__ 1y ago
As a military professional how do you determine morality? If morality is the letter of the law, that law can be changed by an unjust majority. If the majority of Americans think it is OK to put dog collars on prisoners in Abu Ghraib, who are you to deny them that? What else do we have to base our morals off of, religion?
- citizenkeen 1y ago
  Why must a human look outside themselves to determine what is right?
  - mmooss 1y ago
    We're not very good at doing it ourselves, as every religion and culture has implicitly and strongly agreed. Who says, 'everyone should determine for themselves what is right'? Maybe I think it's right to shoot you for stepping on my lawn, or looking me in the eye for too long.
  - __turbobrew__ 1y ago
    Internal human morals are made up entirely of external influences. People are not born with morality.
    - keybored 1y ago
      I see no reason to believe that moral judgement is completely external. Hume and Adam Smith argued for an internally derived sense of morality.
      - __turbobrew__ 1y ago
        It is a deeply philosophical question, I think an unconditioned human will have no “morals” as modern society sees it.
        keybored 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
komali2 1y ago
> Hamas instead went to war with its coalition partner (Fatah, who remains in control of the West Bank) and took control of Gaza by a program of internal repression and political assassination. One interesting note about the Hamas example is that it was the last election for the same reason a lot of countries have a last election: a powerful foreign imperialist nation intervened. In this case, Israel intervened directly to prop up Hamas in order to ensure Palestine destabilizion and prevent the election of a more leftist government. This was achieved through assassinations by the IDF of Palestinian politicians as well as directly funding Hamas. Here is Benjamin Netanyahu quoted directly (https://m.maariv.co.il/journalists/opinions/Article-1008080 https://m.maariv.co.il/journalists/opinions/Article-1008080), translated from Hebrew: > Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank. Netanyahu's associate and a high ranking IDF member said: (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-11/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-needed-a-strong-hamas/0000018b-1e9f-d47b-a7fb-bfdfd8f30000?v=1697032057551 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-11/ty-article/.p...) > Openly Hamas is an enemy. Covertly, it’s an ally. To broaden the scope back to beyond just Israel and Palestine and focus more on globally the destabilization of democratic governments through the efforts of imperialist nations, perhaps the army's role may also include efforts against said imperialist nations or their local allies and representatives. In the USA I wonder if that means there'll be USA military units operating against what are functionally proxy arms of the PRC "turncoat" (but in their minds supporting democracy) units of the USA military. Living in Taiwan I can't fathom ever finding myself on the same side as the PRC on anything... Unless the nightmare situation of a full American slide into hyper imperialist fascism happens and there's basically only a couple superpowers on Earth capable of resisting them. Their jokes about invading Greenland and Canada are really sounding less like jokes every day...
- YZF 1y ago
  Which Palestinian politicians did the IDF assassinate? It's true that Netanyahu likely wanted to divide and conquer so benefited somewhat from having the Hamas in Gaza and the Fatah/PA in the West Bank but really the alternative to Hamas in Gaza were other armed factions or chaos, it wasn't like the PA was going to retake it if Netanyahu prevented funds from getting into Gaza. There was also a lot of international pressure to allow those funds in to "rebuild" Gaza. So that story has a lot more nuance to it. So yes, the Israeli right benefited from the lack of a unified Palestinian government but that was not the sole reason why Israel did [not] try to forcibly remove Hamas and tighten the transfer of funds and aid to Gaza. Also worth noting that all this calculus was after the Hamas took control that was a result of Israel's leaving. Sharon did not intend for this to happen, his intention was to try and prove that Israel can end the conflict by unilaterally withdrawing. The main reason why there wasn't another election was because the PA didn't want to have one because it would have lost to Hamas.
apisashla 1y ago
The speed with which the author diverts focus away from the perpetrators of the Abu Graib atrocities and toward Washington is, I think, a reason to take some of these conclusions with a grain of salt. I do think his linked evidence supports the argument that Washington played a key role in eroding norms behind PoW treatment, but I do not think it supports the idea that Washington is somehow more responsible than the soldiers and officers perpetrating, and complicit in, those acts. The broad failure of human rights enforcement required for these events absolutely could not have happened over the objections of all, or even most, on the military side. Tacit and widespread approval of Washington's agenda on 'terrorism' was, at the very least, a precondition. Taking this in context of his broader point: I can see why it would be comforting to believe institutional norms tend to be stronger than petty politics, but if that's the case he wants to make, I'm not convinced. To me, the preponderance of evidence, and the typical patterns that occur when a military attempts to circumvent democratic processes to 'safeguard rule of law', would indicate that military norms around human rights tend to break down, in fact, much quicker than the norms of democratic civil procedure. I also have no good reason to believe the US military is exceptionally ahead of the curve in this regard. Could there be a situation where military intervention prevents a democratic state from deteriorating further? Theoretically. Are military leaders, generally, excellent judges of when such intervention would be in the public interest? Most of the history of military coups seems to indicate 'no.'
- TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
  Civil leadership defines policy, the military execute policy. This isn't just about explicit goals, but about rhetoric and tone. Leadership normalises moral expectations. If those are perverse, the entire machinery of government will be perverse. Including the military. Occasionally you get dissidents like Smedley Butler who call out moral shortcomings. But generally those kinds of ruminations are above the Pentagon's pay grade. The Bush admin painted military action and torture as legitimate responses to real external threats, and that's the narrative the footsoldiers bought into. So it's very unlikely the military in the US will ever directly challenge the elected civilian leadership. There may be thoughts and even discussions, but direct action would split the military down the middle - even after today's West Point fiasco.
niemandhier 1y ago
The author has a quite narrow definition of democracy. I’d argue that any definition that makes checks and balances non democratic should be revised.
- barry-cotter 1y ago
  What a fantastic example of using “democratic” as a synonym for good and “not democratic” as bad. Thank you for illustrating the author’s point so well. By the way, the term of art for what you’re doing, of defining democracy I like as real democracy and democracy I don’t like as not democracy is to call democracy I like “liberal democracy”.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - niemandhier 1y ago
    I spend the last 40 minutes revisiting definitions of democracy, to figure out if your point was valid. If have to conclude that I disagree with you. As probably most words that are used for complex concepts, the word democracy was used to label a wide range of different definitions. There might be a cultural divide here, but a an European and in particular as a German I use the definition of the democracy advocated by the EU, its courts, and most of European political scholars. The EU defines democracy as a system of government where citizens participate in decision-making, either directly or through elected representatives, and where there are safeguards against the abuse of power, including a strong rule of law, protection of human rights, and an independent judiciary. This might sound academic, but it has important implications in how we deal with member states such as Hungary that slowly erode the rule of law through actions taken elected leaders. As said, there are many possible definitions of democracy, but I’d still call those that fail to contain a system of checks and balances less suitable.
    - aidenn0 1y ago
      That's interesting. I suspect that this is a difference in continental usage vs American (I am unsure about the UK). The first Wiktionary definition of democracy is fairly close to what I learned in school as an American: > Rule by the people, especially as a form of government; either directly or through elected representatives[1] The first half of the EU definition is much weaker ("participate in" vs "rule") and the second half directly contradicts the Wiktionary definition: > ...where there are safeguards against the abuse of power, including a strong rule of law, protection of human rights, and an independent judiciary. To the extent that the majority want to destroy the rule of law, violate human rights, and capture the judiciary, those things are antidemocratic. Now I think it's a good thing that (for example) an AfD majority in the Bundestag would be limited in its ability to dismantle those 3 things, but it's certainly not "Rule by the people." 1: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/democracy#English https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/democracy#English
mmooss 1y ago
> in the present moment we now call anything we favor “democratic” and anything we oppose “un-democratic.” I think the author, like many today who try to disparage democracy, gets too caught up in the founders as scripture and old word usages. The modern usage of democracy is at least a century old, per the article itself - hardly the 'present moment'. Democracy is superior not because some founders wrote some scripture, but because of its moral and rational foundation, that all are created equal, all have universal, inalienable rights that include liberty, and thus nobody else has the right to tell them what to do without their consent. Thus only the people can legitimize a government, and governments exist to protect the people's rights. And yes, oppression of the minority is a danger, but the solution isn't to have some self-selected people take power from the democracy and call themselves a 'republic' (and what stops those people from oppression, corruption, etc. Why would they be superior?). The solution is human rights, as implemented in the Bill of Rights. The majority can't violate the rights of the minority.
- throwaway173738 1y ago
  If the majority can simply erase the rights of a minority with a vote then nothing stops them from doing so. The Bill of Rights is worthless unless the courts enforce it. And judges are appointed experts in the law with absolute power within their jurisdiction. They’re as far from democracy as you can get. The majority can’t violate the rights of the minority as long as some enlightened people are empowered to enforce the Bill of Rights.
  - mmooss 1y ago
    > If the majority can simply erase the rights of a minority with a vote then nothing stops them from doing so. The Bill of Rights is worthless unless the courts enforce it. And judges are appointed experts in the law with absolute power within their jurisdiction. They’re as far from democracy as you can get. Only if you define democracy as mob rule and not in the modern sense of self-determination, which includes self-determination by people in the minority. Everything always depends on politics, but universal human rights has held up for centuries now. The people who instituted them had very little to work with - universal human rights as institutions were new in significant ways - we've been handed everything. We can certainly uphold it if we like. (Also, judges are appointed democratically.)
BeetleB 1y ago
> Having won the largest block of legislative seats, it was to govern in coalition with other political parties. Hamas instead went to war with its coalition partner (Fatah, who remains in control of the West Bank) and took control of Gaza by a program of internal repression and political assassination. As with anything involving Israel/Palestine, the article takes an extremely simplistic view of the conflict between Hamas and Fatah. Anyone who followed the events in 2006/2007 after the election knows that both parties were equally to blame. Hamas had good reason to believe Fatah was planning a violent takeover, and there were assassination attempts on Hamas's leader, widely believed to be by Fatah members. At the same time, Hamas committed their own crimes against Fatah. There isn't a clean "They instigated, and we responded" event here by either side. They had been in conflict since prior to the election. (Somewhat unrelated, but supporters of Hamas do correctly point out that "playing nice" hasn't worked out well for the Palestinians in the West Bank). I pretty much stopped reading the article after this statement. It stinks strongly of "I have a thesis and let me bend reality to convince you of it".
- energy123 1y ago
  > supporters of Hamas do correctly point out that "playing nice" hasn't worked out well for the Palestinians in the West Bank They do not correctly point that out. The Second Intifada ("playing nice"?) obliterated Israel's left and increased support for occupation in the West Bank under the belief it's necessary for security. Look at opinion polling inside Israel before and after it. This is not an attempt at a broader commentary on anything else about this conflict, but the sociological and psychological explanations that only ever get deployed one direction do in fact run both ways.
  - lazyasciiart 1y ago
    That’s not a counterpoint. That’s an argument that violent attacks have also not worked out well for the Palestinians. To counter the original comment, you would need to give an example of Palestinian quiescence producing actual gains.
    - 1y ago
netcan 1y ago
#5: conflict between ethnic groups is, IMO, our big blindspot. An amnesia regarding the story of modern politics. Some version of "Rwanda 1994," occurred in many places, at the transition to modern nation state from whatever came before. Before nation states, the world wasn't as divided geographically into nations. It got to be that way through violent conflict. Empires like Austria-Hungary, Russia or the Ottoman Empire were multicultural. Places like Poland, Czechoslovakia had communities of Czechs, Slovaks, Germans, Jews, Hungarians, Roma. "German" ethnicity was spread out all over europe... and all the way to Kazakstan. The whole world was like this. We "sorted" mostly through conflict... in the latter examples of transition to National democracies, or non-democratic nation states. Ireland was partitioned along religious lines, in 1921. The world wars moved borders and people until strong majorities were created. When the Ottoman empire divided, Greeks and Turks kicked eachother out. When India gained independence Muslims and Hindus kicked eachother out. Yugoslavia divided violently at a later date... as soon as totalitarianism ended. Cyprus divided in in 1974. Iraq divided internally into ethnic regions and neighbourhood after Sadaam. Syria is currently shedding its ethnic diversity. Conflicts in Sudan and Yemen are civil wars between different religions. Democratic nation states with familiar features like left-right politics and a widely respected constitutional order... those generally appear post "sorting." The Military is always involved here. We have some good ideas about defending an order. This text makes more sense in that context. Defending a democratic order. It doesn't tell us much about generating such an order. I think that a stronger narrative understanding of this history would serve an officer well. Allows a distinction between a defensive and offensive mission.
- defrost 1y ago
  > When India gained independence Muslims and Hindus kicked eachother out. My understanding is that partition was driven by the British, starting with the 1905 partition of Bengal and ultimately leading to the greater partition of (formerly) British India. Had it not been for the British obsession with drawing lines on map both India and the middle east would be very different today with (possibly) considerably less inter ethnic group strife.
  - sieve 1y ago
Simon_O_Rourke 1y ago
This piece seems to suggest Napoleon was a bad thing for France, when he gave them the civil code and the grand architecture. In contrast to "democratic" Britain, where Wellington's legacy was the poor law and the workhouse.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- tim333 1y ago
  Wikipedia lists some downsides to Napoleon: >He abolished the free press, ended directly elected representative government, exiled and jailed critics of his regime, reinstated slavery in France's colonies [...], banned the entry of blacks [...] reintroduced a hereditary monarchy and nobility, and violently repressed popular uprisings against his rule.
  - Simon_O_Rourke 1y ago
    Those are downsides?
zkmon 1y ago
Democracy is just a different arrangement of same malice that exists in all other earlier forms of the rule. It's zero sum game. You focus on a few things at the cost of the other things. Overall, there is no net gain. You don't need to look beyond the coalition politics of Europe, for example. In non-democratic systems, people are assumed to be not having the expertise needed to choose the ruler. In a democracy with a large number of political parties, people's vote will be highly fragmented, leaving the decision to coalition politics, making the people's vote meaningless. Also, the assumption that crowd is right about what policies should a government have, is also questionable. 100 monkeys, or the leader elected by them, can't make a better decision than a single subject matter expert. Since non-democratic systems give far more power and duration to their leaders, a good leader in these systems provide a superior rule than a good leader in a democratic system, while bad leaders in non-democratic systems is worse than bad leader in democratic system. Over a long-term of multiple generations, both even out.
- f1shy 1y ago
  > In a democracy with a large number of political parties, people's vote will be highly fragmented, leaving the decision to coalition politics, making the people's vote meaningless. I do bot think in Germany there are large numbers of parties. Still this seems to aplly very much.
- agarsev 1y ago
  I don't think democracy is about having the "best" government, that'd be technocracy, I guess. Democracy is about sharing the power, and having the most legitimate government based on the principle that everyone's voice is equal. Also, it's not a zero sum game at all. First, even if the long stretches of good and bad governments equalized over the long term, it's much worse to live all your life under a bad government than have one half the time. Also,thinking as an engineer, think about the stability implications of a wildly swinging signal vs a smoothly swinging one, even if both are centered. In any case, coming from a country which had a long dictatorship until not so long ago, it's fairly clear it's not a zero sum game.
  - zkmon 1y ago
keybored 1y ago
(1/2, continued in reply along with footnotes) I do tend to associate military coups with democratic regimes that get too democratic. Post note: after writing this I might go too hard on the admittedly widespread (but stupid) practice of using “democracy” in two senses: real democratic practice and calling governments that we like[0] democratic if they use that name (nominative democracy) and in turn saying that every action was “by the democratic government” or “by democracy”. But the article does go into the point about using “democracy” for propaganda: > Indeed, in the present moment we now call anything we favor “democratic” and anything we oppose “un-democratic.” So it still seems relevant. [0] Long-standing democracies including, as we shall see, Myanmnar. ----- > (“When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest, both the public good and the rights of other citizens”). Just on the face of it without context this doesn’t say anything. Except maybe something like: when you include people outside our own circle of friends and associates, all kinds of shit can happen. On the rights of other citizens: the democracy envisioned by the American founders was supposed to protect the rights of the opulent.[1] > The allure of democracy is simple: by allowing people to collectively express their collective will, a representative government should be entitled to rely on their support in carrying out its political agenda. The allure to who? The founders who wanted to protect their own rights? Do you need popular support? There’s a Princeton study that showed that for 70% percent of Americans, their own policy preferences have no correlation with what is implemented.[2] A modern democratic theory is that elites govern with the occassional input from regular people. Those are election cycles. But the input of regular people is more to do with settling inta-elite disputes. With a well-oiled smoke-filled room you don’t need their input that much.[3 > Nevertheless, in the 20th Century, as the memory of monarchies faded and the threats of fascism and communism blossomed, Americans have gradually come to believe that democracy embodied the American project. Despite America’s traditional suspicion of pure democracy (and James Madison’s plea for a government run by enlightened delegates), “democracy” came to stand for all that is good and holy in a world threatened by godless collectivism and/or authoritarianism. Beginning with President Wilson’s exhortation to “make the world safe for democracy” our Founders’ strong philosophical misgivings about mob rule appear to have been discarded as part of America’s search for common ground with allies against authoritarian alternatives. Unlike the Founders, 20th Century Americans weren’t trying to rise above the shortcomings of western European governments in such as those in France or Britain, but rather trying to find common cause with them. Let’s talk about communism. Italy was dealing fine with getting rid of fascism. They worked against it towards the end of the war (lynching people like Mussolini) and they didn’t go home at the end of the war either. But these were socialists. So the CIA intervened in Operation Gladio, where they empowered fascists in order to get rid of the socialist influence. Democracy? The US would rather Italy have fascism. The rest of that paragraph is just political science buzzwords. > Indeed, in the present moment we now call anything we favor “democratic” and anything we oppose “un-democratic.” Indeed, the author just takes utterances at face value without thought. Democracy for most people is good. That’s why they say it. Do they (the politicians, the pundits, the propagandists) mean it? Well do they mean it when they say they love peace, freedom, equality? Democracy to them is another propaganda word. Don’t overthink it. > We do this even when the problem we are concerned with is itself an inherently democratic one, only reluctantly acknowledging the very significant role played by the pervasive (and anti-democratic) “checks and balances” built into our own federal constitution. Don’t worry. Democracy that you don’t like can just be called “mob rule”. See previous sloganeering. Or populism. > The fault lines inherent in democracies—so well known to the Founders—can be showcased by (mostly) contemporary examples. People who quote the Federalist Papers tend to think that whatever the founders said is the eternal truth, ipso facto they said it. So what are they? > The problem of having the “last” election – electing anti-democratic government. This is as much of a problem with democracy as an absolute monarch abolishing monarch. In other words it isn’t. Nothing is permanent. Nothing can be protected forever and flawlessly with the impeccable foresight of some founders.
hn_acker 1y ago
> [Author’s note: An earlier version of this article was submitted to the U.S. Army War College’s War Room blog back in the fall of 2024, was put into their excellent editorial process, and benefitted greatly from their editor’s feedback. The piece was accepted and scheduled for publication in February. I found out on February 25, 2025 that USAWC had changed their mind and decided not to publish the piece, after having to pull another previously-published piece “due to sensitivities” of “unnamed critics that wield the power.” I’m grateful you can see it here, but I am sad that our Army’s institutions appear to have retreated so quickly from our shared values.- GBH] I don't know whether "having to pull another previously-published piece" means that the USAWC received a coercive memo from the federal government, but after un-publishing the first piece the USAWC chilled its own press functions in declining to publish the contents of TFA and implicitly is doubting its own freedom of press. An adjacent article with a legal focus, "A Politically Neutral Military Is Not Always Obedient", likely did not involve a First Amendment violation but did undergo a similar `almost published, then published elsewhere` process [1]: > After a series of edits, the article was almost ready for publication, but the author reached out to withdraw the submission, citing intense pressure from his institution, the United States Military Academy West Point, to do so. This occurred on Jan. 23, three days after the inauguration. [1] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-politically-neutral-military-is-not-always-obedient https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-politically-neutral-m...
anonu 1y ago
Great point on Gaza in the article: many often say "well the Palestinians voted for Hamas". But they don't clarify that it was a plurality not a majority and that subsequently Hamas killed off its opponents. Yes democracy may have worked part way, but it has to work all the way to be able to make the argument.
sc68cal 1y ago
> Hamas instead went to war with its coalition partner This is revisionist history. The events of the Hamas/Farah civil war are far more complicated than just the typical "Hamas is evil" So really, what hope do we have for some "enlightened" military stepping in to save the country?

126 points by tkgally 1y ago

From the author's note at the end: "An earlier version of this article was submitted to the U.S. Army War College’s War Room blog back in the fall of 2024.... The piece was accepted and scheduled for publication in February. I found out on February 25, 2025 that USAWC had changed their mind and decided not to publish the piece, after having to pull another previously-published piece 'due to sensitivities' of 'unnamed critics that wield the power'."

nssnsjsjsjs 1y ago
Can he sue, due to freedom of speech? The fact it was accepted and they then said we are censoring it the speech due to the government.
- woleium 1y ago
  unlikely, freedom of speech does not extend to forcing others to repeat that which you say.
  - nssnsjsjsjs 1y ago
    What if the government orders your speech not to be said
    - Jensson 1y ago
      Then we wouldn't see the speech here.
      - hn_acker 1y ago
        In general it would be a First Amendment violation for a government employee to say "you can't publish your speech here but you can find another place to publish it". Also, in general, a government-funded organization managed by non-government employees has the First Amendment freedom of press to decline to publish an article. The only potential legal wrinkle I can spot centers around the previous piece that the USAWC un-published. > I found out on February 25, 2025 that USAWC had changed their mind and decided not to publish the piece, after having to pull another previously-published piece “due to sensitivities” of “unnamed critics that wield the power.” The USAWC likely had the First Amendment right to voluntarily pull the piece. The question is, did some federal government agency or employee send a coercive or threatening demand to pull the piece? If so, then that federal agency/employee likely violated the First Amendment. But I don't know what actually happened with the previous article yet.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  Going to court only works to the extent decisions are actually uphold, which looks like very unlikely in current administration.

whatever1 1y ago

Johnathan Wainright admonished soldiers demobilizing from the second World War: “You have seen, in the lands where you worked and fought and where many of your comrades died, what happens when the people of a nation lose interest in their government. You have seen what happens when they follow false leaders. You have seen what happens when a nation accepts hate and intolerance. We are all determined that what happened in Europe and in Asia must not happen to our country…If you see intolerance and hate, speak out against them. Make your individual voices heard, not for selfish things, but for honor and decency among men, for the rights of all people.”

mannyv 1y ago

I would argue that the social contract is a useful fiction, the same as 'divine right.'

mannyv 1y ago
"for I have not only grown gray, but almost blind in the service of my country."
lo_zamoyski 1y ago
Useful in what way? Usefulness presumes value. Social contract per se is a construct of liberalism. Divine right, not a notion ever endorsed by the Catholic Church, was certainly one embraced by Protestant rulers as it legitimated kings who now claimed both temporal and spiritual authority [0]. Which is to say, I don't think we have any need for fictions, and not fictions like these. [0] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137c.htm https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137c.htm
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- worik 1y ago
  What fictions?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
worik 1y ago
> I would argue that the social contract is a useful fiction, the same as 'divine right.' What argument are you making? What do you think the social contract is? E.g: I am interested if you believe that the government derives its power from the consent of the governed?
keybored 1y ago
You are not making an argument. You are making a statement.

__turbobrew__ 1y ago

As a military professional how do you determine morality? If morality is the letter of the law, that law can be changed by an unjust majority. If the majority of Americans think it is OK to put dog collars on prisoners in Abu Ghraib, who are you to deny them that? What else do we have to base our morals off of, religion?

citizenkeen 1y ago
Why must a human look outside themselves to determine what is right?
- mmooss 1y ago
  We're not very good at doing it ourselves, as every religion and culture has implicitly and strongly agreed. Who says, 'everyone should determine for themselves what is right'? Maybe I think it's right to shoot you for stepping on my lawn, or looking me in the eye for too long.
- __turbobrew__ 1y ago
  Internal human morals are made up entirely of external influences. People are not born with morality.
  - keybored 1y ago
    I see no reason to believe that moral judgement is completely external. Hume and Adam Smith argued for an internally derived sense of morality.
    - __turbobrew__ 1y ago
      It is a deeply philosophical question, I think an unconditioned human will have no “morals” as modern society sees it.
      - keybored 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

komali2 1y ago

> Hamas instead went to war with its coalition partner (Fatah, who remains in control of the West Bank) and took control of Gaza by a program of internal repression and political assassination. One interesting note about the Hamas example is that it was the last election for the same reason a lot of countries have a last election: a powerful foreign imperialist nation intervened. In this case, Israel intervened directly to prop up Hamas in order to ensure Palestine destabilizion and prevent the election of a more leftist government. This was achieved through assassinations by the IDF of Palestinian politicians as well as directly funding Hamas. Here is Benjamin Netanyahu quoted directly (https://m.maariv.co.il/journalists/opinions/Article-1008080 https://m.maariv.co.il/journalists/opinions/Article-1008080), translated from Hebrew: > Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank. Netanyahu's associate and a high ranking IDF member said: (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-11/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-needed-a-strong-hamas/0000018b-1e9f-d47b-a7fb-bfdfd8f30000?v=1697032057551 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-11/ty-article/.p...) > Openly Hamas is an enemy. Covertly, it’s an ally. To broaden the scope back to beyond just Israel and Palestine and focus more on globally the destabilization of democratic governments through the efforts of imperialist nations, perhaps the army's role may also include efforts against said imperialist nations or their local allies and representatives. In the USA I wonder if that means there'll be USA military units operating against what are functionally proxy arms of the PRC "turncoat" (but in their minds supporting democracy) units of the USA military. Living in Taiwan I can't fathom ever finding myself on the same side as the PRC on anything... Unless the nightmare situation of a full American slide into hyper imperialist fascism happens and there's basically only a couple superpowers on Earth capable of resisting them. Their jokes about invading Greenland and Canada are really sounding less like jokes every day...

YZF 1y ago
Which Palestinian politicians did the IDF assassinate? It's true that Netanyahu likely wanted to divide and conquer so benefited somewhat from having the Hamas in Gaza and the Fatah/PA in the West Bank but really the alternative to Hamas in Gaza were other armed factions or chaos, it wasn't like the PA was going to retake it if Netanyahu prevented funds from getting into Gaza. There was also a lot of international pressure to allow those funds in to "rebuild" Gaza. So that story has a lot more nuance to it. So yes, the Israeli right benefited from the lack of a unified Palestinian government but that was not the sole reason why Israel did [not] try to forcibly remove Hamas and tighten the transfer of funds and aid to Gaza. Also worth noting that all this calculus was after the Hamas took control that was a result of Israel's leaving. Sharon did not intend for this to happen, his intention was to try and prove that Israel can end the conflict by unilaterally withdrawing. The main reason why there wasn't another election was because the PA didn't want to have one because it would have lost to Hamas.

apisashla 1y ago

The speed with which the author diverts focus away from the perpetrators of the Abu Graib atrocities and toward Washington is, I think, a reason to take some of these conclusions with a grain of salt. I do think his linked evidence supports the argument that Washington played a key role in eroding norms behind PoW treatment, but I do not think it supports the idea that Washington is somehow more responsible than the soldiers and officers perpetrating, and complicit in, those acts. The broad failure of human rights enforcement required for these events absolutely could not have happened over the objections of all, or even most, on the military side. Tacit and widespread approval of Washington's agenda on 'terrorism' was, at the very least, a precondition. Taking this in context of his broader point: I can see why it would be comforting to believe institutional norms tend to be stronger than petty politics, but if that's the case he wants to make, I'm not convinced. To me, the preponderance of evidence, and the typical patterns that occur when a military attempts to circumvent democratic processes to 'safeguard rule of law', would indicate that military norms around human rights tend to break down, in fact, much quicker than the norms of democratic civil procedure. I also have no good reason to believe the US military is exceptionally ahead of the curve in this regard. Could there be a situation where military intervention prevents a democratic state from deteriorating further? Theoretically. Are military leaders, generally, excellent judges of when such intervention would be in the public interest? Most of the history of military coups seems to indicate 'no.'

TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
Civil leadership defines policy, the military execute policy. This isn't just about explicit goals, but about rhetoric and tone. Leadership normalises moral expectations. If those are perverse, the entire machinery of government will be perverse. Including the military. Occasionally you get dissidents like Smedley Butler who call out moral shortcomings. But generally those kinds of ruminations are above the Pentagon's pay grade. The Bush admin painted military action and torture as legitimate responses to real external threats, and that's the narrative the footsoldiers bought into. So it's very unlikely the military in the US will ever directly challenge the elected civilian leadership. There may be thoughts and even discussions, but direct action would split the military down the middle - even after today's West Point fiasco.

niemandhier 1y ago

The author has a quite narrow definition of democracy. I’d argue that any definition that makes checks and balances non democratic should be revised.

barry-cotter 1y ago
What a fantastic example of using “democratic” as a synonym for good and “not democratic” as bad. Thank you for illustrating the author’s point so well. By the way, the term of art for what you’re doing, of defining democracy I like as real democracy and democracy I don’t like as not democracy is to call democracy I like “liberal democracy”.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- niemandhier 1y ago
  I spend the last 40 minutes revisiting definitions of democracy, to figure out if your point was valid. If have to conclude that I disagree with you. As probably most words that are used for complex concepts, the word democracy was used to label a wide range of different definitions. There might be a cultural divide here, but a an European and in particular as a German I use the definition of the democracy advocated by the EU, its courts, and most of European political scholars. The EU defines democracy as a system of government where citizens participate in decision-making, either directly or through elected representatives, and where there are safeguards against the abuse of power, including a strong rule of law, protection of human rights, and an independent judiciary. This might sound academic, but it has important implications in how we deal with member states such as Hungary that slowly erode the rule of law through actions taken elected leaders. As said, there are many possible definitions of democracy, but I’d still call those that fail to contain a system of checks and balances less suitable.
  - aidenn0 1y ago
    That's interesting. I suspect that this is a difference in continental usage vs American (I am unsure about the UK). The first Wiktionary definition of democracy is fairly close to what I learned in school as an American: > Rule by the people, especially as a form of government; either directly or through elected representatives[1] The first half of the EU definition is much weaker ("participate in" vs "rule") and the second half directly contradicts the Wiktionary definition: > ...where there are safeguards against the abuse of power, including a strong rule of law, protection of human rights, and an independent judiciary. To the extent that the majority want to destroy the rule of law, violate human rights, and capture the judiciary, those things are antidemocratic. Now I think it's a good thing that (for example) an AfD majority in the Bundestag would be limited in its ability to dismantle those 3 things, but it's certainly not "Rule by the people." 1: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/democracy#English https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/democracy#English

mmooss 1y ago

> in the present moment we now call anything we favor “democratic” and anything we oppose “un-democratic.” I think the author, like many today who try to disparage democracy, gets too caught up in the founders as scripture and old word usages. The modern usage of democracy is at least a century old, per the article itself - hardly the 'present moment'. Democracy is superior not because some founders wrote some scripture, but because of its moral and rational foundation, that all are created equal, all have universal, inalienable rights that include liberty, and thus nobody else has the right to tell them what to do without their consent. Thus only the people can legitimize a government, and governments exist to protect the people's rights. And yes, oppression of the minority is a danger, but the solution isn't to have some self-selected people take power from the democracy and call themselves a 'republic' (and what stops those people from oppression, corruption, etc. Why would they be superior?). The solution is human rights, as implemented in the Bill of Rights. The majority can't violate the rights of the minority.

throwaway173738 1y ago
If the majority can simply erase the rights of a minority with a vote then nothing stops them from doing so. The Bill of Rights is worthless unless the courts enforce it. And judges are appointed experts in the law with absolute power within their jurisdiction. They’re as far from democracy as you can get. The majority can’t violate the rights of the minority as long as some enlightened people are empowered to enforce the Bill of Rights.
- mmooss 1y ago
  > If the majority can simply erase the rights of a minority with a vote then nothing stops them from doing so. The Bill of Rights is worthless unless the courts enforce it. And judges are appointed experts in the law with absolute power within their jurisdiction. They’re as far from democracy as you can get. Only if you define democracy as mob rule and not in the modern sense of self-determination, which includes self-determination by people in the minority. Everything always depends on politics, but universal human rights has held up for centuries now. The people who instituted them had very little to work with - universal human rights as institutions were new in significant ways - we've been handed everything. We can certainly uphold it if we like. (Also, judges are appointed democratically.)

BeetleB 1y ago

> Having won the largest block of legislative seats, it was to govern in coalition with other political parties. Hamas instead went to war with its coalition partner (Fatah, who remains in control of the West Bank) and took control of Gaza by a program of internal repression and political assassination. As with anything involving Israel/Palestine, the article takes an extremely simplistic view of the conflict between Hamas and Fatah. Anyone who followed the events in 2006/2007 after the election knows that both parties were equally to blame. Hamas had good reason to believe Fatah was planning a violent takeover, and there were assassination attempts on Hamas's leader, widely believed to be by Fatah members. At the same time, Hamas committed their own crimes against Fatah. There isn't a clean "They instigated, and we responded" event here by either side. They had been in conflict since prior to the election. (Somewhat unrelated, but supporters of Hamas do correctly point out that "playing nice" hasn't worked out well for the Palestinians in the West Bank). I pretty much stopped reading the article after this statement. It stinks strongly of "I have a thesis and let me bend reality to convince you of it".

energy123 1y ago
> supporters of Hamas do correctly point out that "playing nice" hasn't worked out well for the Palestinians in the West Bank They do not correctly point that out. The Second Intifada ("playing nice"?) obliterated Israel's left and increased support for occupation in the West Bank under the belief it's necessary for security. Look at opinion polling inside Israel before and after it. This is not an attempt at a broader commentary on anything else about this conflict, but the sociological and psychological explanations that only ever get deployed one direction do in fact run both ways.
- lazyasciiart 1y ago
  That’s not a counterpoint. That’s an argument that violent attacks have also not worked out well for the Palestinians. To counter the original comment, you would need to give an example of Palestinian quiescence producing actual gains.
  - 1y ago

netcan 1y ago

#5: conflict between ethnic groups is, IMO, our big blindspot. An amnesia regarding the story of modern politics. Some version of "Rwanda 1994," occurred in many places, at the transition to modern nation state from whatever came before. Before nation states, the world wasn't as divided geographically into nations. It got to be that way through violent conflict. Empires like Austria-Hungary, Russia or the Ottoman Empire were multicultural. Places like Poland, Czechoslovakia had communities of Czechs, Slovaks, Germans, Jews, Hungarians, Roma. "German" ethnicity was spread out all over europe... and all the way to Kazakstan. The whole world was like this. We "sorted" mostly through conflict... in the latter examples of transition to National democracies, or non-democratic nation states. Ireland was partitioned along religious lines, in 1921. The world wars moved borders and people until strong majorities were created. When the Ottoman empire divided, Greeks and Turks kicked eachother out. When India gained independence Muslims and Hindus kicked eachother out. Yugoslavia divided violently at a later date... as soon as totalitarianism ended. Cyprus divided in in 1974. Iraq divided internally into ethnic regions and neighbourhood after Sadaam. Syria is currently shedding its ethnic diversity. Conflicts in Sudan and Yemen are civil wars between different religions. Democratic nation states with familiar features like left-right politics and a widely respected constitutional order... those generally appear post "sorting." The Military is always involved here. We have some good ideas about defending an order. This text makes more sense in that context. Defending a democratic order. It doesn't tell us much about generating such an order. I think that a stronger narrative understanding of this history would serve an officer well. Allows a distinction between a defensive and offensive mission.

defrost 1y ago
> When India gained independence Muslims and Hindus kicked eachother out. My understanding is that partition was driven by the British, starting with the 1905 partition of Bengal and ultimately leading to the greater partition of (formerly) British India. Had it not been for the British obsession with drawing lines on map both India and the middle east would be very different today with (possibly) considerably less inter ethnic group strife.
- sieve 1y ago

Simon_O_Rourke 1y ago

This piece seems to suggest Napoleon was a bad thing for France, when he gave them the civil code and the grand architecture. In contrast to "democratic" Britain, where Wellington's legacy was the poor law and the workhouse.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
tim333 1y ago
Wikipedia lists some downsides to Napoleon: >He abolished the free press, ended directly elected representative government, exiled and jailed critics of his regime, reinstated slavery in France's colonies [...], banned the entry of blacks [...] reintroduced a hereditary monarchy and nobility, and violently repressed popular uprisings against his rule.
- Simon_O_Rourke 1y ago
  Those are downsides?

zkmon 1y ago

Democracy is just a different arrangement of same malice that exists in all other earlier forms of the rule. It's zero sum game. You focus on a few things at the cost of the other things. Overall, there is no net gain. You don't need to look beyond the coalition politics of Europe, for example. In non-democratic systems, people are assumed to be not having the expertise needed to choose the ruler. In a democracy with a large number of political parties, people's vote will be highly fragmented, leaving the decision to coalition politics, making the people's vote meaningless. Also, the assumption that crowd is right about what policies should a government have, is also questionable. 100 monkeys, or the leader elected by them, can't make a better decision than a single subject matter expert. Since non-democratic systems give far more power and duration to their leaders, a good leader in these systems provide a superior rule than a good leader in a democratic system, while bad leaders in non-democratic systems is worse than bad leader in democratic system. Over a long-term of multiple generations, both even out.

f1shy 1y ago
> In a democracy with a large number of political parties, people's vote will be highly fragmented, leaving the decision to coalition politics, making the people's vote meaningless. I do bot think in Germany there are large numbers of parties. Still this seems to aplly very much.
agarsev 1y ago
I don't think democracy is about having the "best" government, that'd be technocracy, I guess. Democracy is about sharing the power, and having the most legitimate government based on the principle that everyone's voice is equal. Also, it's not a zero sum game at all. First, even if the long stretches of good and bad governments equalized over the long term, it's much worse to live all your life under a bad government than have one half the time. Also,thinking as an engineer, think about the stability implications of a wildly swinging signal vs a smoothly swinging one, even if both are centered. In any case, coming from a country which had a long dictatorship until not so long ago, it's fairly clear it's not a zero sum game.
- zkmon 1y ago

keybored 1y ago

(1/2, continued in reply along with footnotes) I do tend to associate military coups with democratic regimes that get too democratic. Post note: after writing this I might go too hard on the admittedly widespread (but stupid) practice of using “democracy” in two senses: real democratic practice and calling governments that we like[0] democratic if they use that name (nominative democracy) and in turn saying that every action was “by the democratic government” or “by democracy”. But the article does go into the point about using “democracy” for propaganda: > Indeed, in the present moment we now call anything we favor “democratic” and anything we oppose “un-democratic.” So it still seems relevant. [0] Long-standing democracies including, as we shall see, Myanmnar. ----- > (“When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest, both the public good and the rights of other citizens”). Just on the face of it without context this doesn’t say anything. Except maybe something like: when you include people outside our own circle of friends and associates, all kinds of shit can happen. On the rights of other citizens: the democracy envisioned by the American founders was supposed to protect the rights of the opulent.[1] > The allure of democracy is simple: by allowing people to collectively express their collective will, a representative government should be entitled to rely on their support in carrying out its political agenda. The allure to who? The founders who wanted to protect their own rights? Do you need popular support? There’s a Princeton study that showed that for 70% percent of Americans, their own policy preferences have no correlation with what is implemented.[2] A modern democratic theory is that elites govern with the occassional input from regular people. Those are election cycles. But the input of regular people is more to do with settling inta-elite disputes. With a well-oiled smoke-filled room you don’t need their input that much.[3 > Nevertheless, in the 20th Century, as the memory of monarchies faded and the threats of fascism and communism blossomed, Americans have gradually come to believe that democracy embodied the American project. Despite America’s traditional suspicion of pure democracy (and James Madison’s plea for a government run by enlightened delegates), “democracy” came to stand for all that is good and holy in a world threatened by godless collectivism and/or authoritarianism. Beginning with President Wilson’s exhortation to “make the world safe for democracy” our Founders’ strong philosophical misgivings about mob rule appear to have been discarded as part of America’s search for common ground with allies against authoritarian alternatives. Unlike the Founders, 20th Century Americans weren’t trying to rise above the shortcomings of western European governments in such as those in France or Britain, but rather trying to find common cause with them. Let’s talk about communism. Italy was dealing fine with getting rid of fascism. They worked against it towards the end of the war (lynching people like Mussolini) and they didn’t go home at the end of the war either. But these were socialists. So the CIA intervened in Operation Gladio, where they empowered fascists in order to get rid of the socialist influence. Democracy? The US would rather Italy have fascism. The rest of that paragraph is just political science buzzwords. > Indeed, in the present moment we now call anything we favor “democratic” and anything we oppose “un-democratic.” Indeed, the author just takes utterances at face value without thought. Democracy for most people is good. That’s why they say it. Do they (the politicians, the pundits, the propagandists) mean it? Well do they mean it when they say they love peace, freedom, equality? Democracy to them is another propaganda word. Don’t overthink it. > We do this even when the problem we are concerned with is itself an inherently democratic one, only reluctantly acknowledging the very significant role played by the pervasive (and anti-democratic) “checks and balances” built into our own federal constitution. Don’t worry. Democracy that you don’t like can just be called “mob rule”. See previous sloganeering. Or populism. > The fault lines inherent in democracies—so well known to the Founders—can be showcased by (mostly) contemporary examples. People who quote the Federalist Papers tend to think that whatever the founders said is the eternal truth, ipso facto they said it. So what are they? > The problem of having the “last” election – electing anti-democratic government. This is as much of a problem with democracy as an absolute monarch abolishing monarch. In other words it isn’t. Nothing is permanent. Nothing can be protected forever and flawlessly with the impeccable foresight of some founders.

hn_acker 1y ago

> [Author’s note: An earlier version of this article was submitted to the U.S. Army War College’s War Room blog back in the fall of 2024, was put into their excellent editorial process, and benefitted greatly from their editor’s feedback. The piece was accepted and scheduled for publication in February. I found out on February 25, 2025 that USAWC had changed their mind and decided not to publish the piece, after having to pull another previously-published piece “due to sensitivities” of “unnamed critics that wield the power.” I’m grateful you can see it here, but I am sad that our Army’s institutions appear to have retreated so quickly from our shared values.- GBH] I don't know whether "having to pull another previously-published piece" means that the USAWC received a coercive memo from the federal government, but after un-publishing the first piece the USAWC chilled its own press functions in declining to publish the contents of TFA and implicitly is doubting its own freedom of press. An adjacent article with a legal focus, "A Politically Neutral Military Is Not Always Obedient", likely did not involve a First Amendment violation but did undergo a similar `almost published, then published elsewhere` process [1]: > After a series of edits, the article was almost ready for publication, but the author reached out to withdraw the submission, citing intense pressure from his institution, the United States Military Academy West Point, to do so. This occurred on Jan. 23, three days after the inauguration. [1] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-politically-neutral-military-is-not-always-obedient https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-politically-neutral-m...

anonu 1y ago

Great point on Gaza in the article: many often say "well the Palestinians voted for Hamas". But they don't clarify that it was a plurality not a majority and that subsequently Hamas killed off its opponents. Yes democracy may have worked part way, but it has to work all the way to be able to make the argument.

sc68cal 1y ago

> Hamas instead went to war with its coalition partner This is revisionist history. The events of the Hamas/Farah civil war are far more complicated than just the typical "Hamas is evil" So really, what hope do we have for some "enlightened" military stepping in to save the country?