The ex-military man in the post below (who stunned his co-worker by explaining that self-control was the most important thing he learned in the military) gave me permission to identify him: He is Steve Skubinna, and someone in Seattle owes him a beer for me. (or up there, should it be a latte?)

“JB” aka “long-haired country boy” says nice things about Howard Owen’s and my dialog in his blog ‘Long Haired Country Boy’. Plus it’s fun to read…

Howard Owens quickly replied to my quick reply, leaving me with one significant question:
How the heck does he write so quickly and lucidly? I get away with a kind of breezy, conversational style which buys me a lot of room in structuring my arguments. He doesn’t, damn his eyes.
But here’s a breezy, conversational reply:
Hey! I read Adam Smith, too, ya know. (here I start feeling like Matt Damon defending his interpretation of the post-Revolutionary economy in the South). I don’t think that what I believe violates what he suggests, or what Locke suggests for that matter. I believe that it is a matter of degree and emphasis. Remember, in the overall spectrum of political positions, the positions held by contemporary American conservatives and liberals occupy a very narrow band.
But I do believe the distinctions are important, and more importantly, I am grasping for a different construction – it’s out there and maybe I’ll find it or help articulate it.
Look, the State cannot solve everyone’s problems through direct intervention. But state policies, combined with individual action and responsibility, can go a long way to doing so while still defending, and even encouraging individual action and responsibility. I’m trying to articulate a kind of “4th Generation” politics that includes and involves, one that, most importantly, somehow can operate on a finer grain than the massive, almost Stalinist programs of the 60’s and 70’s.
Historically, a lot of what I’m trying to get to was included in the culture out of which Smith, Locke, and the Founders came. They had no need to articulate it in their politics, because it was the water in which they swam. We don’t have that embracing – and stultifying – culture any more, and we are trying to extend the kind of politics that have worked so well for us to vastly different cultures (your talk of democratization throughout the world). It won’t work.
It isn’t working well for us today in the U.S., it isn’t working in Europe, and it sure as hell won’t work when we attempt to transplant it like a rose cutting to countries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.
Note: Just paged over to his site to get the permalink, and the no-goodnik has stolen my thunder for what was to be my third and reply to Steve Cohen. Read this, and watch for my comments later this morning. It worries me sometimes that I agree with him so much…

My earlier correspondent, Steve Cohen (not the BRIE Steve Cohen or the Russion historian) got in touch with me and permitted me to give him attribution. Here is the second of three replies:
For it’s no secret that the hawkish position must almost inevitably lead, if not to genocide, to a situation where no Arab nation is allowed to exist as a sovereign entity. Expelling the Palestinians from Israel cannot be accomplished without destroying any force determined to resist it. Iraq and Iran will both have to go, along with Syria and probably Jordan too, as independent entities, followed by the Saudis too. The wealth that comes from oil will not be permitted to stay in Arab hands.
I’ll take this as a question in the form of a statement.
There are two real issues here. One of them is about intentions and root causes, and goes to two very broad worldwide trends – the rise of the romantic, as opposed to bourgeois, worldview in the West and elsewhere – and the rise of what Joe Katzman is talking about in 4th Generation Warfare. The other is about tactics and specific mechanisms.
On the front of intentions and causes, the core issue is that the Arab cultures have brewed a combination of anti-Western and anti-bourgeois values that will make it very difficult for us to have a dialog with them – forget that, that are making it very difficult to have a dialog with them, as we from our specific cultural and historic perspective understand a diplomatic dialog. Because the issues under debate are not only the kind of rational, objective discussion over actions and commitments to action that we expect when we negotiate, they have to do with understandings, perceptions, and worldviews.
This fits neatly into the 4GW (4th Generation Warfare – see Winds of Change) model of “diffuse warfare”, in which states may only indirectly be the actors in wars, and in which the power of the state itself is limited by extra-state actors.
One of the problems is that everyone has fallen into orbit around the question of the Palestinian State. So here is the $64 question:
If the Palestinians had a state, could they maintain a monopoly on inter-state violence?
I don’t think so, not today. The fundamental characteristic of a state is its ability to exercise a monopoly in interstate violence. If a bunch of American militia types decided that they wanted Baja California, and started mounting cross-border raids into San Felipe, it would be expected that the US would use it’s military and police forces to find and stop them. And we certainly would (although there were periods in our past – a hundred or more years ago – when that was not the case).
Tactically, the question is what actions by us will permit the moderate voices in the Arab world to be heard? By moderate, I do not mean pro-Western, non-Islamic, or even pro-Israel. I mean simply the voices that do not believe that the interests of the Muslim community will be advanced solely through violence and the threat of violence.
I don’t think that the hawkish position leads inevitably to genocide; I think in combination with some common sense and an amazing restraint on the part of Israel, it leads to the best possibility we have for avoiding genocide. I believe that inaction or acquiescence leads us to a higher liklihood of genocide, as the Islamists remain convinced that our military power is a hollow shell and that we are afraid of them, and that escalating their violent rhetoric and actions will gain them more than political or economic action.
I don’t doubt that the wealth of the Arab states figures into the equation at some level. But I also don’t doubt that if the WTC was still standing, and if the Saudi and Iraqi governments had shipped the dozens of possible suspects living there over to us, that we would not be considering any military action.

Howard Owens, who writes the terrific Global News Watch wrote:

I’ve got a question for you … I understand why you’re armed, but I don’t understand why you consider yourself a liberal?

Well, I’ve touched on it, but haven’t completely gone into that yet. I’ll suggest two broad areas:
1) To be vulnerably broad and fuzzy, that governments have the right and duty to make things better for those who are poor and powerless; and that the duty of government to defend freedom and property is balanced by a duty to defend justice and mercy. As noted in all my comments on equality and legitimacy, I think the role of the government here and in Europe in reifying the economic and social stratification is a terrible and dangerous thing;
2) The classical ‘liberal > conservative’ continuum in American (and to an extent European) politics has to do with the appropriate role of government versus the role of individuals and other nongovernmental organizations (businesses, unions, social and cultural organizations). The basic ‘conservative’ point tends to blend (with varying degrees of success) a kind of Von Mies-ian distaste for central planning and authority with a belief that the appropriate role of government is to defend the stability and interests of business and the ‘social order’. I believe that central planning and authority have been crucial to the success of the American model, and that the real history of American success is written not only in the energy and abilities of our individual citizens but in the great actions of the central and state governments that built schools, universities, railroads, created the financial mechanisms that made widespread homeownership possible, have defended the environment, and promoted and enforced an end to racial and sex discrimination.

You say you believe we should make the world a better place. But how does that differ from what conservatives believe? I consider myself a conservative and I want to make the world a better place. And I believe the path to a better world is found in freedom, not tyranny. I believe in democracy and free markets. The more democracy we have, the more we have of the rule of law and of property rights and free trade, the more we will have of peace, love and understanding.

Well, since we both want to make the world a better place, we’d both do well in a beauty contest…*grin*. The devil is, as always in the details. I am not a complete fan of democracy. I believe in the American constitutional system, and think the Founders did a hella job here, and I believe that when we blithely say “we want to make ________-istan a democracy” we are either making polite and meaningless noises or smoking crack. Look, we aren’t a democracy, and that’s a good thing.
A democratically elected Saudi government would, today, doubtless launch a suicidal attack on Israel.
I think freedom is a great thing, but that it has to grow from a cultural environment (ours isn’t the only culture that can support it, but it has worked here) that can sustain it. And, bluntly, I don’t think that freedom to, which I believe is the kind of freedom you are talking about, is the only kind of freedom; I think that freedom from – from hunger, poverty, disease, ignorance – is equally important.

I don’t know any conservatives that would disagree with that goal.

I know conservatives who would be appalled by what I’ve said above; if they aren’t, it’s my failure for not saying it clearly enough.

I can’t say I’ve ever seen much in your blog that would suggest you are really a liberal.

Well, again, that’s my fault as an author, and I’ll ask you to give me some time and we’ll see how you feel then.

One other point — The jokes are funny, but I don’t believe even the people who first thought of them really believe in ethnic cleansing or genocide. I don’t know any conservatives that seriously want to destroy Arab nations or Islam. What we do want is peace. What we do want is safety. And the best way to do that is through regime change. Democracy is the answer. That has no hint of any suggestion in it that cultures or races should be destroyed or even harmed.

I think you are 100% wrong here; the issue is the culture, not only the regime. Now I will agree that the regimes have helped create the cultural memes that are driving the crises we’re talking about. But, to be honest, I believe they are equally the captive of them. And you must not be talking to the same conservatives I talk to…seriously.
I’ll try and expand on this as time allows. As I’ve noted in our emails before, I am awed and amazed at the quality and quantity of information you put out. I’ve still got my training wheels on, but give me some time and I’ll keep up.

This came in today; again I’ve emailed the author, haven’t heard back, and want to get it out there so I have redacted his name.
Let me hereby state the offical Armed Liberal mail policy that I just made up: All emails that I get from non-bloggers are fair game for posting without attribution – I will withold your name and email. If you don’t want it published, tell me. If you want your name or email or url on it, tell me. If you are a fellow blogger, I’ll assume it is for attribution and give you recognition and a link. Seem fair?
Read this, it’s great:

You wrote:
I know several people who are either highly skilled martial artists or highly skilled firearms trainers, and in both groups there is an interesting correlation between competence (hence dangerousness) and a kind of calm civility – the opposite of the “armed brute” image that some would attempt to use to portray a dangerous man or woman.
This one grabbed me. I served in both the Army and the Navy. My father was a career Navy officer and was away from home much of my young life – serving in, among other places, Vietnam. Even after leaving the Navy I took work with the Department of the Navy as a civilian, one of those few who worked overseas (southeast Asia, Persian Gulf, and other interesting spots) and had to maintain weapons qualifications.
Finally I left that job because I wanted to live a “more normal” life, in a more fixed location, in my own house on my own property. I took another government job, this time with the US Courts in Seattle (maybe the most politically correct and leftist city in America). For the first time in my life I was among people who had never served, many of whom never even knew anyone who had served. Many of my new coworkers were distinctly uncomfortable around me. Reasonably so, from their perspective – I was a creature of violence, one of the hard men Orwell wrote about who do rough things to protect our freedom, and who were satirized by Jack Nicholson’s thuggish Colonel Jessop in A Few Good Men. “You want me on that wall, you NEED me on that wall!” and “The Truth? You can’t handle the truth!”
Most of the excessively “liberal” (it appears your definition of that word differs somewhat from theirs) people I worked with never said anything overt, but they were definitely concerned at having such a brutal goon working alongside them. Many of them, I think, doubted that I was fitted for such a delicate position amongst such genteel people. Finally, one coworker asked me what was the most important thing I learned in my military training.
“Self control” I replied.
He was astonished and thought I was kidding. His perplexed statement was a treat – obviously my answer was far outside anything he expected. He asked me to elaborate, and I said that when the military teaches you to use deadly force, they spend almost as much time on the ethics of using it. They teach that it’s just as important to know when to kill as how to do it, and that an out of control killing machine was as dangerous to your own side as to the enemy. The military does not want mindless automatons, but reasonable, thinking people who use judgement as well as skill.
I don’t think he believed me at first, but over the next few days he seemed to be absorbing what I had said. Eventually it seemed to me that he treated me with a bit more respect and a lot less uncertainty.
[name witheld]

I’m glad they asked, impressed (but not surprised) with what you answered, and incidentally, please know that I’m grateful to you for your service.

Here is my first pass at a reply to the letter below (I’d give the author credit, but while I’ve emailed him and asked, I haven’t received a reply. What’s the blogger etiquette on that, anyway?). I think the questions posed are close enough to the “basic questions” to start a good discussion.
First Question:
My question to you is whether your A position is strong enough that you will continue to fight for a peaceful Middle East, even if SOME Arabs continue to “follow the path they are on.” Or is B is cop-out that will allow you to say “I told you so, but it’s not my fault” after your fear in A is realized? Are you opposing genocide or making excuses for it?
Well, I hope I was clear – I’m opposed to it. But being opposed to it doesn’t imply that I am in all circumstances opposed. I’ll quote another of my posts:

Bluntly, at the moment I am under threat, I don’t care why they do it. My response is not very different from my response to my friends who said that “America had it coming” on 9/11. “Maybe. So what?” People who attack me or mine need to be stopped. If the only way I have to effectively stop them is to kill them, so be it. Once I am out of danger, I am happy to consider what it will take to improve education and job opportunities in the central cities, or to talk thoughtfully about helping the Palestinians figure out how to become a nation and a state.

I want to reach peaceful, mutually respectful terms with the Arab world (and I single them out because I do believe that the core Islamists – I’ve been using the word Islamicists, and been corrected – are culturally Arab). But, simply, they have to stop threatening to kill Americans for me to have that discussion. They don’t all have to stop…we have a nutball fringe here in the U.S.A….but the core organs of government and culture have to back away from their frenzied rhetoric of hate, violence, and threat.
I do believe that there are a set of actions that the Islamist world could take that would lead me to decide that simply killing them all, or enough of them so they stopped existing as an effective culture, would be an acceptable response. I think that for me to come to that position, the actions they would have to take would be so horrific as to be unimaginable – I don’t believe they have the physical capability to do the things that would make “nuke ‘em all” even my reluctant position – but I’m probably pretty far along the continuum. Take a thousand people, a thousand average Americans, and I’ll bet that ten of them are pretty close to that position already. I’d probably be the 850th or so to take that position.
And I’ll reply with a question to you: Can you imagine any circumstances, any form of threat or attack by the Islamists on the US or the West that would lead you to support nuking them all? If they developed aerosolized Ebola? If they had twenty suitcase nukes and started using them?
What would you do?

Got this email this morning, and I think it very clearly sets up a dialog on some of the issues I worry about. Today is chore day, plus I’ve promised to take Tenacious G (the SO) shooting, and this asks good enough questions that I want to think about answers. So here’s the letter, and later today I’ll intersperse some responses. I hope the writer answers, and we’ll play out a couple of rounds here in public.
Thanks to him for reading, for responding by setting out his positions, and for doing so in way that encourages mutual respect.

Armedliberal –
New to your blog. Certainly interesting material.
Re: “FEAR” I’m afraid you haven’t made your point as crystally clear as you might have wanted to. I still have a question.
Actually I hadn’t seen the “Arab genocide” jokes before I read them on your site, although I’m not surprised that they exist. Thanks, I guess, for having the guts to make them known. They are not as widespread as you may have thought.
A. You say, “And here’s my fear. I don’t want to be a part of a society that eradicated another culture; I don’t want to commit genocide.”
Fair enough.
B. You then go on:
“I don’t want to be put in a position where genocide is either a reasonable option, or where my fellow citizens are so enraged that they are willing to commit it, and my opposition will be washed away in a tide of rage.
I want a calm, prosperous Middle East, and believe that the Palestinian Arabs who have been royally screwed by everyone…by the Europeans and Americans who established Israel without planning or compensation; by their leaders who have led them into several suicidal wars; by the leaders of the other Arab states who use them as cheap labor, exploit them economically, and exploit them politically…deserve decent lives.
They won’t get them following the path they are on.”
My question to you is whether your A position is strong enough that you will continue to fight for a peaceful Middle East, even if SOME Arabs continue to “follow the path they are on.” Or is B is cop-out that will allow you to say “I told you so, but it’s not my fault” after your fear in A is realized? Are you opposing genocide or making excuses for it?
For it’s no secret that the hawkish position must almost inevitably lead, if not to genocide, to a situation where no Arab nation is allowed to exist as a sovereign entity. Expelling the Palestinians from Israel cannot be accomplished without destroying any force determined to resist it. Iraq and Iran will both have to go, along with Syria and probably Jordan too, as independent entities, followed by the Saudis too. The wealth that comes from oil will not be permitted to stay in Arab hands.
Yes, yes, if only all Palestinians would adopt Gandhian non-violence strategies. It would be a wise move. I hope they do it. Maybe Jesse Jackson can convince them of that. Until that happens, however, we must continue to live in the real world.
I think the right position is still that America must use its power to force peace. The Israelis bear a significant piece of responsibility for the current situation and they couldn’t do what they do without the uncritical aid check from the United States.
Do you believe that the 2000 peace plan was generous? (The tactical question of whether the Palestinians should have accepted it is a different question). What can Arafat actually do to stop the violence now that the Palestian Authority has had all of its authority taken away? If he stopped talking out of both sides of his mouth would anyone notice? Or care? Isn’t the demand for all terrorist acts to cease before talks begin a call for unconditional surrender? Aren’t the Israelis acting as allies of the extremists by giving them what they want at the expense of whatever moderates are out there?
In short I am not willing to say that the behavior of the Palestinians must change without making a similar demand on the Israelis.
Do we disagree?
[name witheld pending author’s OK]

So today, it’s officially a month. A couple thousand people (sorry about deleting the graphic for the counter a week ago…), some great email acquaintances who may become friends and a chance to work on expressing what I see, feel, and sometimes know.
This is cool.
There is a scene in Spiderman where Tobey Macguire first climbs a wall, then turns to the camera with a look that perfectly combines excitement, fear, and pure glee. I know just how he felt.

This from Politics in the Zeros:

Perot Systems caught with hands in two cookie jars
As with many political scandals, the Enron trail leads to some unusual places. This time to Perot Systems, who simultaneously designed the California power system then sold software to trading companies teaching them how to game the system. That “giant sucking sound”? Why boy howdy, that was just Texas energy companies vacuuming money from California by whatever barely legal or outright illegal ways they could devise. And lest we forget, Perot Systems is headed by the very same Ross Perot who, when he ran for President, lectured us all about the virtues of being upright and moral. What a bunch of sleazy hypocritical weasels.

Why doesn’t anyone ban these guys from California contracts for a couple of years??
Oh…sorry…they are probably contributors to Governor SkyBox.