Chicago-style politics enters the WH
Bookworm on Feb 09 2009 at 8:35 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
As you recall, Obama never ran a really contested election before his Presidential run. Instead, in miraculous fashion, horrible stuff emerged about his opponents and they were forced to withdraw. Obama clearly intends to keep those miracles coming now that he’s in the White House.
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
2 Responses to “Chicago-style politics enters the WH”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
One of the reasons, one of the other reasons you may say, that I was so interested in psychological warfare was because of the impact upon feudal and pre-feudal societies. Tradecraft (spy masters) and various other techniques of subterfuge were used to (indirectly) defeat an opponent. The cunning of an opponent ensured that they wouldn’t need armies to defeat their opponents. This means, ultimately, that there weren’t any real stable empires like Rome. Without militarily might, the organization falls apart once the charisma and cunning of the leader goes (with death or coup de tats).
The better you are at subterfuge in war, the worse, generally, you are at the combative parts. It is usually a result of limitations in resources. If you don’t have an army, or lack the ROman legions, then you need cunning and tactics to make up for it. Instead of just smashing your enemies with greater force, you learn to outthink your opponents by first weakening them and trapping them in something they cannot escape.
The side effect of being good in military affairs means that you must have courage, discipline, strength, and honor. Spies work on completely different premises, even though soldiers and spies may work for the same nation or organization. Soldiers don’t get along with spies for the exact reasons why spies don’t get along with lawyers or lawyers with soldiers. Incompatible values and methodologies.
Obama has chosen subterfuge and spycraft because he prefers to avoid open confrontations. Unlike Petraeus, however, Obama avoids open confrontations not because he wishes to avoid civilian casualties but because he prefers his victories through cheating, for he values victory over ethics or standards. That is the requirement of a spy. That you be willing to stab your friend in the back, if required. Something soldiers abhor and lawyers deem murder.
The basis of good tradecraft is to be unassuming or acquiring an unbreakable facade. It requires the ability to know people, get them to give you information or betray their comrades. It involves the use of subterfuge, bribery, assassination, and numerous other in the dark methods. Nerves of steel, good organization, extremely good operational security and need to know, and sources are the spy or the spymaster’s attributes.
The basis of good soldiering is training, teamwork, loyalty, honor, valor, and tactical know how. Physical conditioning combined with well drilled activities. Whereas spies focus on assuming a normal everyday set of traits, in order to blend into local cultures. Whereas lawyers deal with the laws of the local fief, kingdom, or nation.
The basis of lawyering consists of the fine line between the word “party” and “parties”, where Latin, precedent, and stacks of verbiage determines the outcome. Part rhetoric, part demagoguery, part logic. Part Athenian mob, part high aristocrat judge, and part biased advocates. Between the three, justice can be produced through the framework of law.
Spies, of course, would get the task done without anyone knowing, let alone needing to have a trial about it.
Soldiers would follow laws, up to the point where it was kill or be killed and then a whole lot of people are going to be dying, rather than going to jail and then maybe being released and tried again.
Obama wouldn’t had the qualities to rally routed troops or turn defeat to victory or hold the wall against the barbarians. He lacks fundamental virtues required for open war. But he has all the traits of those with more shadowy specialties.