Streetwise Professor

Snowden pulled a couple of stunts in the last couple of days.  The first was to release a document describing British and US successes in hacking into the communications of other nations-including Russia’s Medvedev-during a G20 Summit in London in 2009.

A couple of things stand out about this.

First, the timing.  The Guardian released the information just when Cameron and Putin were meeting.  Meaning that Snowden is either willingly or witlessly participating in political games to discredit Cameron.  (BTW: why didn’t Greenwald have a byline in the article disclosing this information?)  (And it also undercut Obama, who met with Putin on Monday, a day after the Guardian story.  A meeting which gave the world this priceless photo of two people who would rather be anywhere than with one another.  Like getting a root canal or colonoscopy.  Anything.) (Note too: undermining Cameron and Obama, and boosting Putin and Russia enables slaughter in Syria.  Just saying.)

Second, this has nothing-zero, zip, nada-to do with alleged invasions of the privacy of ordinary individuals, let alone the violation of the Constitutional rights of American citizens.  This is about as shocking as gambling at Rick’s Cafe Americain.

So much for Snowden’s high-minded principles and delicate conscience about the violations of privacy and Constitutional rights.  Political manipulator or political tool of the likes of Greenwald and the Guardian?  Does it mattter?

His second stunt was a webchat from Hong Kong.  Most of it was additional unsubstantiated and lurid accusations for which he claims he will provide confirming evidence “later”.  The rest of it was more grandiose statements about his impending martyrdom, e.g., his claims that the US government was going to murder him, and his justification for taking flight, stating that the US government was “openly declaring me guilty of treason.”  Um, the “government” can’t “declare guilt” on anything, least of all treason, a crime that is unique in that the Constitution specifically sets out requirements for conviction (which is different than “declaration of guilt”).  You’d think that someone who pontificates on the intricacies of FISA and the 4th amendment rights of Americans would be aware of the black letter Constitutional language on treason.

In other news related to Snowden’s credibility, or lack thereof, the President of Switzerland expressed doubts on Snowden’s account of an alleged CIA operation in Geneva, and said that the Swiss government would support his prosecution:

“It does not seem to me that it is likely that this incident played out as it has been described by Snowden and by the media,” Maurer was quoted as saying in the Der Sonntag and SonntagsBlick newspapers.

“This would mean that the CIA successfully bribed the Geneva police and judiciary. With all due respect, I just can’t imagine it,” SonntagsBlick quoted him as saying.

He added that Snowden was just 23 at the time, and unlikely to have had knowledge of such an operation, and that the CIA usually dealt with terrorism rather than financial espionage.

Most of Maurer’s argument is circumstantial, but that’s to be expected.  No doubt he’s been briefed by American officials (recall that Switzerland demanded an explanation), and more importantly, by the very excellent Swiss intelligence and law enforcement services.  He would not be pulling a statement like this on such a highly charged issue out of his . . .ear.  (And don’t tell me that the Americans have coerced him into covering up.  That would just mean you don’t have a refutable hypothesis, and it’s no point engaging you.)

Another interesting aspect of Snowden’s webchat.  He explained the discrepancy between the Guardian report that he earned $200K at Booz Allen Hamilton with BAH’s statement that he earned only $122K thus:

I was debriefed by Glenn and his peers over a number of days, and not all of those conversations were recorded. The statement I made about earnings was that $200,000 was my “career high” salary. I had to take pay cuts in the course of pursuing specific work. Booz was not the most I’ve been paid.

Pursuing specific work.  Very, very interesting.  Like, maybe, taking a  job at a big pay cut for the specific work of getting access to classified information with the intent of releasing it?  Note well: he was in touch with Poitras (and perhaps Gellman) and Greenwald before he took the BAH job.  Hatching a little plot were they, perhaps?  If not, what was so appealing about the “specific work” he took (and left after a little more than a month) that made him willing to take a 40 percent pay cut?

One last thing.  For Beck and various libertarians who are grabbing the Snowden-Greenwald banner, perhaps you might want to take a close look at whom you’re bedding down with.  Greenwald spoke at a meeting of the International Socialist Organization (a hardcore Marxist group), and defended Al-Awaki, and said that the damage from 9-11 attacks was “minimal in scope.”  He also endorsed the view that the US is the “most brutal, sprawling prison state on earth” (though perhaps he’ll take the “retweets are not an endorsement weasel”, though the “Yep” in his RT kind of forecloses that option).  Greenwald is virulently anti-American (as is the other pusher of this story, Poitras).  That’s material in assessing the credibility of Greenwald and Snowden.  Again, fools rush in where angels fear to tread.  Beware snow jobs.  Or Snowden jobs, as the case may be.

One last last thing  Scroll to about the last 20 minutes of this podcast with Richard Epstein (and John Yoo).  Epstein rightly excoriates the foolish-consistency-is-the-hobgoblin-of-little-minds libertarians, and advances a very persuasive classical liberal position on NSA surveillance that is predicated on the fundamental libertarian/liberal position that protection of human life and property from violence is the primary principle that should guide policy.  For his labors (notably his Chicago Tribune oped on this issue with Roger Pilon of Cato, for crissakes) Epstein has been subjected to shrieks of outrage.  Libertarian stridency on this issue also brings to mind my post from a couple years ago: “What’s My Name Again?” (Warning! Hyperbolic comparisons of Ron Paul-esque libertarians to the Khmer Rouge! Make sure you take these totally literally! Totally!)

At a reception on the occasion of Russia Day, Putin held court, and talked about . . . the United States. After awarding the State Prize to Sergei Nikulin, head of the bureau that designed a new nuclear missile designed specifically to defeat US missile defenses, Putin launched into a disquisition on American history:

Pooling together traditional Soviet-time propaganda clichés, Putin recalled the US “genocide” of Native Americans, slavery and racial segregation that is still, according to Putin, very much evident in the United States today. Putin deplored the US nuclear bombing of Japanese cities in 1945 and expressed doubt that Soviet dictator Josef Stalin would have dropped an atom bomb on Nazi Germany if the USSR obtained nuclear weapons in 1945, when an overall victory was already assured. After expressing his “personal opinion” that Americans and their leaders are worse than Stalin, Putin acknowledged that the US is basically a democratic country, built on the principle of individual rights and freedoms, whereas Russian society is built on “collectivism,” which makes it fundamentally different. The Russian national soul, according to Putin, is eternal and directly connected to God, unlike, apparently, the pragmatic American one—“so it is very hard for us to understand each other, but it is possible sometimes”.

Russian soul, blah blah blah.  Interesting, that, during a week when a survey was released showing that Russians were among the least religiously observant people in the world. And as Felgenhauer notes, rather than being a narod united in collective solidarity, Russian society is atomized: the Russian social capital account is heavily overdrawn.  In other words, Putin’s characterization of Russia is a crock.

We are so in Putin’s head.  He is obsessed with the US.  Can you imagine any US president discussing, say, Russian conquests in the Caucasus, or Central Asia?

There is one part of Putin’s remarks that is particularly outrageous:  ”Putin deplored the US nuclear bombing of Japanese cities in 1945 and expressed doubt that Soviet dictator Josef Stalin would have dropped an atom bomb on Nazi Germany if the USSR obtained nuclear weapons in 1945, when an overall victory was already assured.”

That is more than a crock: it is an ahistorical outrage.  Allied victory over Japan might have been assured, but the cost would have been horrific.  It took almost 3 months for the US 10th Army to take Okinawa.  It cost about 12,500 American lives (5,000 on Navy ships, killed in Kamikaze attacks).

But it cost over 200,000 Japanese lives, about 107,000 Japanese soldiers and over 100,000 Japanese civilians.

Okinawa followed the appalling battle at Iwo Jima.

American B-29s were firebombing city after city, night after night.

Yet Japan’s military steadfastly refused even to contemplate surrender, and was preparing for a defense of the home islands to the last ditch and the last man.  And the last woman and child.

Contrary to Putin’s insinuation, the war against Japan was not in its denouement.  It was approaching a gruesome climax that would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives.  Most of them Japanese.

Truman weighed the facts, and made a decision.  The fates of millions of American and Allied soldiers rested on his shoulders.  I cannot imagine any American president reaching a different decision.  The only reason Stalin would have chosen invasion over the use of atomic weapons is that the lives of Soviet soldiers meant little to him.

Note that even after the US dropped atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese military resisted surrender.  Hirohito made the decision, and even then, the military attempted a coup to prevent the broadcast of the Emperor’s surrender statement.  Achieving the “assured” victory against Japan would have been a humanitarian catastrophe, won against a fanatical enemy at a cost against which the toll of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as horrific as it was, would have paled in comparison.

Putin’s slur is particularly disgusting coming from a man who has attacked WWII revisionism, and supported laws criminalizing criticizing the Soviet role in the war:

“We must keep and defend the truth about the war,” he said after attending the opening ceremony of a Red Army World War II memorial in the Israeli city of Netanya.

The rewriting of history is a crime to the millions of people who gave their lives for the victory in WWII and future generations who should know the true heroes of the war and be able “to distinguish the truth from blatant and cynical lies,” Putin stressed.

Yeah.  Take your own advice: distinguish the truth from blatant and cynical lies.

And remember, Russia has criminalized criticism of its role or tactics in WWII.

Sergei Shoigu, the respected emergency situations minister, has called for a law, based on Holocaust denial legislation in Germany, that would make it a criminal offence to suggest that the Soviet Union did not win the War.

Mr Shoigu indicated that the legislation would also seek to punish eastern European or former Soviet states which deny they were liberated by the Red Army. The leaders of those countries could be banned from Russian soil, he said.

The minister’s comments appeared particularly aimed at Estonia, which relocated a statue a Red Army soldier from a central square in the capital city Tallinn two years ago to a nearby war cemetery, prompting outrage in Russia.

“Our parliament should pass a law that would envisage liability for the denial of the Soviet victory in the Great patriotic War,” Mr Shoigu said. “Then the presidents of certain countries denying this would not be able to visit our country and remain unpunished.”

I suggest reading that whole article.  Shoigu, by the way, is currently Russian Defense Minister.

Putin’s obsession with the US would actually be pathetic, if it weren’t so destructive.  The catastrophe in Syria, for instance, is a direct consequence of this obsession, and the zero sum attitude Felgenhauer mentions (and which I’ve written about repeatedly in the past). Russia is “led” by a warped, cynical, twisted man.  The destination to which he is leading it is frightening to contemplate.

Addendum: Victory over Nazi Germany was assured in April, 1945, yet Stalin ordered a relentless assault on Berlin, pitting Zhukov against Konev to goad them to getting to Berlin quickly.  The casualties were appalling.  Official estimates of Soviet dead are around 81K, but it is widely believed that actual deaths were far in excess of that. Probably 100,000 Germans were killed.  Do you doubt Stalin would have used everything at his disposal to hasten the conquest of Berlin, despite the fact that victory was assured?  And what about Stalin’s launching war against Japan in August, 1945 . . . again when the ultimate outcome was assured.

It’s always unpleasant watching a dog chase an SUV, especially an armored presidential one, even if you’re not that fond of the dog.

Further my post of yesterday.  Today’s main revelation about Snowden is that he revealed confidential information about NSA hacking of China to a Chinese paper.  But I’m sure Glenn Beck and Fox News are totally cool with that. Because they are in solidarity with the PRC.

Um, how long do you think it would take me to find a Fox News story or Beck bit freaking out about Chinese hacking of the US?

The mere fact that Snowden decamped to Hong Kong-i.e., China-should raise alarm bells.  And spare me the BS about Hong Kong being a bellwether of free speech and civil liberties.  We aren’t partying like it’s 1999 anymore.  Hello.

Look.  Snowden and Greenwald obviously have an agenda.  Greenwald has been totally upfront about that agenda.  The agenda is that the US should not be collecting intelligence on anyone, anywhere, anytime.  Snowden has said as much.

Is that really the conservative position now? If not, why are many conservative outlets implicitly endorsing it, by continuing to flog the Snowden/Greenwald line? Are we now all Henry Stimsons, circa 1941 updated to the Internet age: “Gentlemen do not read other gentlemen’s emails”? If so, say so.

And if you’re a libertarian, a man with unimpeachable libertarian credentials and encyclopedic knowledge of the law and the Constitution says, categorically, that the collection of metadata is legal and Constitutional.  And bonus points: he’s joined in this opinion by a legal scholar at Cato.

Attention idiots: this will not harm Obama in the least, and you are being played by people with a deeply-held anti-American agenda.  You are playing into Greenwald’s hands, and are enabling the activities of people who are willing to betray highly confidential information to China.

Can you be more stupid?  Don’t answer that.  I think I know the answer.

Update. I’ve focused on Glenn Greenwald, but Laura Poitras deserves attention too.  She’s had an anti-NSA agenda for some time, as evidenced by this “Surveillance teach-in” that she put on last year.  Note the usual suspects involved-specifically, William Binney and Jacob Appelbaum.  I’m curious as to whether Appelbaum facilitated communications (e.g., help with encryption or the use of Tor) between Snowden, Greenwald, and Poitras.  She’s obviously had an agenda for quite a while. Then there’s this little tidbit about Poitras’s dalliance-and perhaps far worse-with insurgents in Iraq who ambushed an American patrol.  Lovely.   The WaPo gave her a byline, why, exactly, since it seems to be directly contrary to its policy not to give one in a news story to a political activist?

There is a little cabal here.  I further note that Poitras and Greenwald were in communication with Snowden before he removed classified items from NSA computers.  If they asked him to provide proof for his stories, I’m thinking accessories before the fact.

And oh look, Sean Hannity is giving a platform and a wet kiss to William Binney, who is also adored by OWS.  Bizarro World doesn’t come close to describing all of this.

The NSA story has dominated the news in the past couple of days.  The initial allegations were indeed explosive, and I was outraged, but upon further review, and considering the source, and who’s pushing the story, there is little that is truly news.  Indeed, it’s quite possible that this is anti-news: that is, that the claims are fundamentally wrong. Moreover, the political response has created the strangest of bedfellows, and reveals the fundamental cluelessness of far too much of the right.

The gravamen of the allegation is that the government is collecting vast amounts of information, including metadata from at least one phone company (Verizon), and pretty much every electronic communication that goes over the Internet.  The insinuation of the leaker, Edward Snowden, as pushed by the reporters who wrote the story, notably Glenn Greenwald, is that the government is routinely accessing this information, or can do so at will.  The response from the administration, and throughout most of the Congress, is to draw a distinction between what information was collected, and how the information is used.  Despite the initial mischaracterization by DNI Clapper, it  seems that it is widely acknowledged that yes, the NSA does collect this vast amount of information, but access to that data for any investigative purpose requires a warrant approved by a court, the FISA court for intelligence purposes, for instance.  This access is supposed to be limited to foreign targets, though here the “51 percent confidence” standard means that the government no more than guarantees coin flip odds that this is true.

There are obviously major civil liberties concerns here about the misuse of this data.  It cannot be misused if it isn’t collected in the first place, and the absolutist, no risk of civil liberties violation view that the government should not collect this data is predicated on that view.  If you believe that it is possible to design safeguards that permit use of this data for legitimate national security purposes (and note, under there is no legal way to use this data for domestic law enforcement purposes), the collection may be worrisome, but the issue becomes whether the safeguards in place strike the right balance.

Based on what I know now, I believe that a thoroughgoing re-evaluation of the process, and possible change in the law, is warranted.  The old expression is that the power to tax is the power to destroy: in the information age, information gives the power to destroy.  We need to be constantly vigilant to ensure that this power is securely fenced in, monitored, and controlled, and subject to popular oversight through the democratic process.

All that said, there are more than enough reasons to be highly skeptical about those who are pushing this story, and the ultimate source.  There is a serious danger that people with an agenda hostile to the US down to their last fiber will stampede us into an overreaction that will lead to an entirely unhealthy balance between privacy and national security.  And sadly, many who are taking up their call claim to be patriotic Americans.

The reporters, namely Greenwald and Poitras, are highly hostile to the US.  Indeed, it would not be overstating things to say that they are virulently anti-American: Greenwald believes the US is evil.  Greenwald does not believe there is such a thing as Islamic terrorism; to the contrary, he believes that the US is waging an aggressive war against Islam, and that the very word “terrorism” is racist.   Poitras is also  a “who is the real terrorist?” type. These people have an agenda.  An anti-American agenda that aligns quite nicely with the interests of Islamists.  Moreover, Jake Appelbaum, he of the perv protecting Tor, is lurking around this thing.

As for Snowden himself, despite all the fawning coverage, it is pretty clear that he is an exaggerator, not to say fabulist.  He is grandiose, bordering on the narcissistic: hell, he might even have crossed that border, with amnesty.  Many of the details he provided to Greenwald and Poitras are highly implausible.  A 23 year old IT geek under CIA diplomatic cover in Geneva?  Really?  Despite the well-known principles of compartmentalization and access to information on a need to know basis, this guy had a hunting license to access virtually any highly sensitive information held by the NSA?  Again-Really?  Experts are calling BS: note well the description in the article of the extensive monitoring anyone like Snowden would have been subjected to.

His timeline also raises questions.  He claims he received the Rosetta Stone Powerpoint while working at Booze Allen Hamilton, where he started to work in February.  But he contacted Poitras in January.

Even his biographical details are dubious.  Greenwald hypes his enlistment in a Special Forces training program, and claims that he had to leave before completing it due to two broken legs.  The Army confirms that Snowden did enlist in the 18X program, which provides a path to SF school without prior military service.  This enlistment option involves a 17 week program at the outset that combines Basic with Advanced Infantry Training; after completion of those programs, the enlistee goes to Special Forces training-where the washout rate is high, meaning that even many of those who get past Basic plus AIT never become Green Berets.  But Snowden didn’t complete even the first part of the program.  The Army says he did not complete “any training”, meaning he might not have even made it out of Basic (though since Basic and AIT are combined int he 18X program, it’s possible the Army means that he washed out during AIT).  He also received an administrative discharge-sometimes this can be routine, and characterized as Honorable, but often not.  Did Greenwald ask to see Snowden’s DD-214 (i.e., his discharge papers)?

The alleged broken legs may have-may have-occurred in parachute training.  (Why no certainty? Why no proof?)  But note that 18X recruits don’t go through Airborne training until after completing AIT.  Er. Glenn?

A lot rides on this guy’s credibility, and given the prominence Greenwald gives to Snowden’s military background, it would seem imperative to verify the basic facts of his service career, including the terms on which he left it.  Isn’t a guy willing to reveal national secrets willing to do the Full Monty on his personal background?

The high likelihood that Snowden is a grandiose serial exaggerator should make people very reluctant to take what he says at anything close to face value.  (He reminds me of the rogue traders at UBS and SocGen.) Every aspect of his account should be scrutinized skeptically and carefully, especially given the weightiness of the charges and the gravity of the information he purports to have revealed.  Moreover, one should be very alive to the inherent problems of letting someone-anyone-take the law into his own hands, as Snowden has done.  And particularly in the way he has done it.  He provided zero evidence that he attempted to find some other way to make proper authorities aware of his concerns.  Indeed, since it is unclear that anything he alleges is actually illegal, rather than just an affront to his conscience, it is hard to consider him a whistleblower in the true sense of the word.

Moreover, Snowden has provided little real evidence, beyond a rather cheesey Powerpoint of unknown provenance.  He claims to have a lot more.  Claims. Given the likely constraints on access to some of this information, if he does have it, he probably would have have to have hacked it.

And look who Snowden went to to air his grievances.

Now to the politics. Snowden and Greenwald have been lionized by certain loud elements of the right, notably Glenn Beck-but there are many others too-just check out Twitter if you have your doubts about that.  Yes, the same Glenn Beck who said Obama should resign for covering up the involvement of a Saudi student in the Boston bombing (or something).  The same Glenn Beck who thinks that Obama is basically a front man for the Muslim Brotherhood.  The same Beck who has gone off on Bradley Manning-who is one of Greenwald’s heroes.  The same Greenwald who savaged Margaret Thatcher on the occasion of her death.  Furthermore, Beck had another NSA whistleblower-William Binney-on his show the other day, and paid Binney fawning attention.  Um, does he know about Binney’s associations with Occupy? Talk about strange bedfellows. (Full disclosure: I did not listen to Beck voluntarily. It was the result of a spillover from my mother’s headphones:-P)

Uhm, do y’all know how to use Google? (And BTW, Google et al have all your data: NSA either gets it from there, or on its way there-more likely the latter.  The data is Google’s: they just let the NSA use it for far more limited purposes than Google does. Yes, they don’t have the coercive power of the state, but the Power to Abuse Information Is the Power to Destroy or Manipulate is there even if the information is in private hands too: or haven’t you noticed that Larry Page is funding a For Democrats Only political consulting/data mining operation?)

I definitely agree that the government is vastly too large and intrusive, and this is evidently part of the motive for Beck et al to embrace Snowden-and hence Greenwald and all his fellow travelers.  But methinks that Beck et al really see this as another cudgel to take up against Obama.  As much as I dislike and disagree with Obama, I groan every time I see one of these campaigns, all of which have not just failed miserably, but have actually strengthened Obama by making it possible for him to discredit his most vocal critics as loons.  Word up: the mushy middle may have its doubts about Obama, but they have no doubts about you, especially when you go on fact-free diatribes.  And believe me, going all in with Greenwald and Snowden is likely to be a totally fact-free diet.

It’s not like this hasn’t happened before.  I was going to compare Beck et al to Charlie Brown and the football, but then I remembered that at least Charlie Brown hesitated and agonized before talking off towards the ball.  Beck et al, not so much.

And it’s even worse here, because in the search of short-term political gain they are vouching for the credibility of someone who hates them, and who is categorically and furiously opposed to most everything the US right believes in.  Beck may hate Obama, but Greenwald hates the US.  There’s a difference. And Greenwald would hate it all the more, if that’s possible, if Beck’s guy was elected president.  Moreover, not only would the advancement of Greenwald’s agenda empower Islamists, other beneficiaries would include countries like China and Iran: is that really what those on the right who have taken the bit in their teeth on this issue really want?  And once you’ve bedded down with Greenwald, don’t think for a moment that the world won’t be reminded of that the next time you attack him, or any cause he is associated with.  It’s like political VD.  It’s just one night, but the gift keeps on giving.

So on the substance, the magnitude of the surveillance state is disturbing, but not really surprising.  It needs a thorough review-as does the corporatist symbiosis between the big tech companies and the government, which is far more likely to involve an intrusion on the privacy of American citizens. The Augean Stable that is the IRS also needs a thorough cleaning.  Obamacare is another impending privacy disaster, especially given that Obamacare and the IRS are joined at the hip.  All of these programs are far more likely to result in a true invasion of your privacy than what the NSA is doing, and have nothing to do whatsoever with protecting national security.  The trade-offs are hard to evaluate on security issues.  On the IRS or Obamacare-not so much.

Crucially, moreover, the specifics of the Snowden revelations are dubious, and the specifics matter if you want to make a reasoned judgment about the trade-offs involved.  He is a very flawed and uncredible accuser who seems prone to wild exaggeration-both of his own importance, and of the programs he is allegedly unveiling.  Most worrisome, his message is being broadcast by those with a well-known antipathy to the US, especially on matters related to terrorism and national security.  So I’d step back, and wait for a more sober appraisal of the Snowden story, before drawing any new conclusions from it.  Fools rush in where angels fear to tread, and sadly, too much of the American right, and most notably its loudest voices, fit that bill all too well.

Commenter Michael brought up an excellent question: what about the Turkish army?  From the beginnings of the Turkish Republic in 1923, the army was the final arbiter of Turkish politics, and viewed itself as the defender of the Kemalist secular state.   Erdogan and Gul recognized this, and after the AKP ascended to power they went after the military, primarily through judicial means.  It has largely neutered military opposition.  At present, something like 20 percent of Turkey’s flag officers are in jail on a variety of charges, from plotting coups to far more sordid crimes.

As a result, the military is back on its heels, and poses far less of a threat to Erdogan’s government.

But the protests might change everything, because it changes the game and the players’ beliefs.  No doubt the military is nursing its hurts, but heretofore has been unwilling to act because the government appeared popular and on the march.  The protests demonstrate that there is serious opposition to Erdogan, and protests can be self-feeding: as protests gain mass, others who disagree with the government learn that more people than they had believed also disagree, which makes them more likely to oppose the government publicly.

This also provides information to the military, telling the officers in particular that Erdogan is more vulnerable than they had believed.  This makes them more likely to become emboldened to challenge him.  Military opposition, even if scattered, can in turn embolden the civilian opposition.

The military can also use any excesses by Erdogan’s government to justify intervention, saying that they are acting on behalf of the people, protecting them from oppression.  They can wrap self-interested intervention in patriotic and populist justifications.

This is now a plausible scenario.  Though not the only one.  The opposition has a varied agenda, and inherently faces coordination problems that the government can exploit.

But the military can potentially determine the balance of power.  Whereas it was reluctant to act independently after Erdogan’s purge, its calculus is now likely to change, because it now knows that there is widespread public opposition to Erdogan: this increases its estimate of the odds that it can prevail if it challenges the government.  It can serve as a power broker, either by throwing its support to the opposition, or by threatening to do so, and negotiating with Erdogan to restore its dominant position in the Turkish state.

It surprises me that little of the commentary has considered the military’s role going forward: the coverage has focused on the turmoil in the streets.  (I plead guilty too-Michael’s comment snapped me out of it.)  This reflects a Romanticism that dominates popular perceptions of revolution.  But in revolutions, the military typically plays the decisive role.  This is likely to be true in Turkey too, especially given the military’s role in the Turkish Republic for the last 80 years. A new Kemal, or a Turkish Franco, is a very real possibility.

So keep an eye on the Turkish military.  Hopefully the media will figure out it should be watching it more closely too.

Those who have been paying attention to Russia’s line on its supplying weapons to Syria for the past two-plus years might recall an early defense, offered by both Putin and Lavrov: “Russia is not supplying any weapons that could be used in a civil conflict.”

The S-300 SAM system has dominated the news lately, but the Washington Post has just published the weapons shopping list that Assad provided to Russia.  It includes AKs, various machine guns, grenade launchers, sniper rifles, grenades, small arms ammunition, mortar rounds, and night vision goggles.

All of which is eminently suited for use in a civil conflict.

The Russian story was self-evidently farcical when Putin and Lavrov told it with straight faces.  Now the evidence of the farce is there for all to see.

Not that it will make any difference.  But this makes it obvious that nothing that the Russians say about their role in Syria has any relationship to reality.

Not much about Russia late, because not much is new.  Putin is increasing his python-like stranglehold on civil society.  The economy is sputtering.  Both foreshadow a period of social and economic stagnation.  This stagnation, in turn, will put pressure on Putin and Putinism.  Putin has always been the equilibrator of the elite, and his ability to do so has depended on the perception that he is popular, and his access to a stream of rents that he can dole out to buy support, and withhold to punish those who cross him.  His crackdown indicates that he realizes that he is no longer broadly popular, and is dependent on the support of the most reactionary elements of Russian society: the elites can see that too, and calculate accordingly.  Further, economic stagnation constrains the ability to use rents to buy support.  Both of these developments can be expected to lead to intensifying conflicts among the elite as Putin’s grip slips, and there is evidence of this: they mysterious departure of Surkov, and the attack on anyone attached to Skolkovo (Medvedev’s pet project) being the most prominent examples.

In other words, the stagnation dynamic is progressing inexorably, and there is little in prospect that will change that.

But Putin will hang on.  What choice does he have?  He is like Midas.  He has, according to credible reports, and in accordance with basic logic, accumulated huge sums of wealth.  Sums that he cannot enjoy fully while President, but which he would lose in a trice if he were to leave power.

There is one story that did catch my eye.  Echoing Putin (more on that below), Rogozin the Ridiculous is sounding the alarm about the parlous state of the Russian naval building program.  The naval rebuilding is the centerpiece of Russia’s exhorbitant rearmament program (accounting for a full 25 percent of expenditures on new equipment), but it is in the hands of state-owned behemoth Russian Shipbuilding Corporation, which mashed together virtually all of the multiple shipyards and design bureaus inherited from the USSR.  The company has proved utterly corrupt and incompetent, and cannot deliver the ambitious shipbuilding program:

The Russian government is ready to step in to sort out the crisis in Russian naval shipbuilding which is threatening to derail the defense procurement program, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said on Friday.

The government’s direct intervention in the situation is the only way of averting further problems, he said at a meeting with shipbuilding company heads.

“I can see only one option: Direct dialog between the government, the United Shipbuilding Corporation, and private companies working in this field to ensure that all plans are implemented and all problems that have emerged recently are rectified,” said Rogozin, who oversees the defense industry.

“We are planning to sink, and have already sunk big money into shipbuilding but I can’t see any payoff yet,” he said.

Rogozin made his comments the day it was revealed the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) is looking for money that was allocated to complete the Nerpa nuclear submarine for India’s Navy. A total of 500 million rubles ($15.9 million) has been lost.

He urged shipbuilders to employ specialists from abroad if they cannot find enough at home and promised to facilitate the granting of Russian citizenship to experts from other countries.

The fact that Rogozin-a pugnacious nationalist-is urging the employment of foreigners tells you everything you need to know about how desperate the situation must be.

There are other signals.  Medvedev just announced that USC would receive state guarantees amounting to billions of dollars to permit it to secure credit for working capital needed to deliver on contracts:

The Russian government will provide 265 billion rubles ($8.5 billion) in state guarantees to defense industry enterprises this year, to ensure weapons are delivered on time in accordance with the national procurement program, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said on Monday.

“The resolution [signed by Medvedev] provides for the allocation of 40 state guarantees worth 265 billion rubles for loans which will be granted to 26 companies from the defense and industrial complex,” Medvedev said.

The provision of state guarantees is the first this year, Medvedev said, and stressed the beneficial effects it would have on the economy as a whole.

“Everything invested in the defense industry has an influence on industry. Actually, the defense sector helps boost adjacent industries,” he said.

State guarantees allow defense enterprises to obtain loans at a time when they face a shortage of working capital and have no other sources of financing, Medvedev said.

Over a half of the state loan guarantees for defense producers this year will go to shipbuilders and developers of intercontinental ballistic missiles, according to the government resolution.

Working capital, folks.  Meaning that the firms don’t have sufficient cash flow and short term financing to deliver on contracts.  That is a sure sign of sick companies.  No other source of financing.  Need I say anything else?

Last Tuesday, Putin delivered one of his hissy fits, this one directed at United Shipbuilding:

Russian President Vladimir Putin criticized the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) on Tuesday for delays in delivery of warships to the Russian Navy and demanded the shipbuilders improve efficiency.

“Problems still remain with deadlines and the quality of implementation of orders, including defense projects. In particular, the construction of a number of nuclear submarines and surface ships and their delivery to the navy has been unjustifiably delayed,” Putin said at a meeting with USC officials.

Putin also encouraged the hiring of foreign experts.

This is a pattern for Putin.  He issues ukasi. They are ignored.  So he calls the delinquents together, gives a stern lecture that they must get their act together . . . and nothing changes.

Here’s the irony, which none of the reporting on the subject points out (imagine that): USC is a Putin creation.  It is one of the state owned behemoths that Putin created during the mid-2000s: others include United Aircraft and Oboronoprom.  In his construction of the vertical, Putin created several state-owned monopolies that were intended to be national champions, and achieve efficiency by exploiting economies of scale.  Instead, they have proven to be efficient only at their parasitical ability to extract resources from the state.  They have become black holes, sucking in money, spitting out very little in the way of ships or planes.  Putin’s creations are obstacles in the way of achieving Putin’ ambitions.

The irony is too rich.  Putin is reaping precisely what he sowed.  Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

The fecklessness of the Obama administration’s approach to Russia beggars description.  Suffice it to say that the more earnestly Kerry implores the Russians to facilitate some less messy (not neat, just less messy) transition in Syria, the more abusively Putin and Lavrov behave.  The Moscow “spy” fiasco is part of that.  So are many other things-which I’ll discuss in a bit.

Kerry and Obama should wear “kick [or something more vulgar] me, Vlad” pinned to their backsides.  Hell, maybe they already do.  That would be consistent with the evidence, because Putin and Lavrov are kicking hard, kicking fast, and kicking often.

Look.  The Russians are doubling down on supporting Assad.  They are deploying large pieces of their ramshackle navy to the eastern Med.  (Including tugboats!  There must be tugboats! And I mean plural!) There is one reason and one reason only to do this: to make it virtually impossible for the US to use naval assets to do anything in Syria, including enforcement of a no-fly zone, or more drastic measures.  It is a tripwire.  The extensiveness of the deployment, given Russian naval capabilities, is such that even the blind should see that the Russians are making a major commitment to Assad.

What’s worse, in addition to sending Syria advanced S-300 and Pantir AA missiles, the Russians are supplying Syria with advanced Yakhot supersonic anti-ship missiles.  The Yakhot is a capable system.  The US has been aware of it for some time and presumably has many countermeasures in place, but they do represent a substantial increase in Syria’s capability and will dramatically increase the difficulties of any carrier operations in the eastern Med.

The Pentagon went ballistic at the news. Even Hagel bestirred himself to criticize the move.

But that’s what gets us to what’s worst: the State Department response.  According to Foggy Bottom, there’s no problem because these are not “new sales”:

Jennifer Psaki, a State Department spokeswoman, said Russia had disclosed the sale of the Yakhont missiles in 2011, and she added that U.S. and Russian diplomats were still planning the Geneva conference next month.

FFS.  That’s exactly the Russian line.  Exactly.  Gee, Jennifer, great job you got there, being Sergei Lavrov’s parrot.

I am sure the Navy (and the Israeli Navy) is so pleased that they will only be targeted by previously contracted for weapons, not new sales.  And John “Reporting for Duty” Kerry isn’t the one who will be painted by the Yakhot’s terminal guidance system.  Maybe he should think about those who could be, rather than sucking up to Sergei.

And all this BS about “defensive weapons” is just that.  They provide Assad a shield behind which he can slaughter the opposition with substantially less fear of any intervention.

And insofar as the sanctity of contracts is concerned.  First, since when have contracts ever meant jack to the Russians?  Second, to give an example of how this can be done, just look at how the US stiffed Pakistan for years over F-16 sales.  Where there’s a will, there’s a way.  Russia isn’t delivering weapons because their compelled to: they’re delivering weapons because they want to.  (Uhm, and how would the Syrians enforce a breach, anyways?)

Meanwhile, Kerry and the Brits and the UN are nattering on about some meeting in Geneva between the contending forces in Syria.  Yeah, like meetings in Geneva ever accomplish squat where existential and brutal civil wars are involved.

The Russians are making it very clear they are doubling down on Assad, and will defend his regime to the last.  Their deeds speak volumes.

I’m not advocating or even supporting US action in Syria.  Obama frittered away that opportunity a long time ago.  When wars get to the eating the eating your enemy’s hearts stage (and this by the “moderates” no less), the situation is pretty much beyond salvage, even by Russian tugs.

But it’s best to recognize what Russia is up to here, and state that forthrightly.  Make it plain who is ultimately responsible for the horror that is occurring in Syria.  Chasing after Putin and Lavrov like some pitiful suitor, and regurgitating the Russian party line in a way that undercuts our own military’s serious concerns, is just nauseating.  It’s worse than that.  It’s craven.  Cosmically craven.  And Putin will note that, and act accordingly in other things that matter.

Benghazi is beginning to resemble some horror movie monster.  Obama, Hillary, and the rest of the administration had thought that they had killed it-with the active connivance of the media.  But the supposedly dead creature is coming back to life.

The cause of its rejuvenation is the testimony of 3 “whistleblowers” whose accounts flatly contradict every aspect of the Party Line.

The most eye-opening revelation was by deputy mission chief in Libya, Gregory Hicks.  Not only did he claim that he believed that the assault in Benghazi was a terrorist operation “from the get go”, he also revealed that a Special Operations team in Tripoli was denied permission to fly to Benghazi.  This flatly contradicts claims that no “stand down” order was ever given.  (Though I should note that the claim is that the “White House” gave no such order.  That does not mean DoD or the AFRICOM commander, General Ham, gave no such order.)

l had immediately discounted the account (given to Fox News) of an alleged Special Operations individual that a Special Operations team training in Croatia could have been deployed in time.  And others more knowledgeable than I discount this as bulls*t. But Tripoli is a totally different matter.  This revelation is like a bolt from the blue: there had never been any mention, to my recollection, of US operators in Tripoli.

So why weren’t they deployed?  This is the heart of the debacle, IMO.  Hicks also testified that no air assets-zero, zip, nada-were available to attack in Benghazi.  There were F-16s in Aviano, in Italy, but no tankers available to refuel them. I think that the Pentagon or General Ham was loath to reinforce failure, and to put a Special Operations team into an area taking mortar and heavy weapons fire, and under assault from a large number of insurgents, without air support.

As a tactical decision, this makes sense.  But it just emphasizes the prior, criminal failure.  A failure to have contingency plans in place, and the means available to carry them out, in the event that Benghazi was attacked.  It is said of our unpreparedness at Pearl Harbor: “At dawn we slept.”  In Benghazi, it can be said of our unpreparedness: “At dusk we slept.”

This is particularly criminal given two facts about Benghazi.  First, it was an Al Qaeda snakepit.  Second, the US was clearly up to something in Benghazi.  Something involving weapons: no, not smuggling them to rebels in Syria, but trying to collect them to keep them from radical hands.  And likely something involving interrogations of Al Qaeda captives.

Either activity-or both-made the “consulate” in Benghazi and the CIA annex prime targets for terrorists.  The place was lousy with terrorists.  Motive plus opportunity.  It was a virtual certainty that something bad would happen there, meaning that we should have been prepared for that something.  But we weren’t.

So why was the US so unprepared for a terrorist attack?  On 911 no less? Admiral Kimmel and General Short were paragons of preparedness, compared to Panetta, Petraeus, Hillary, and Obama.  It is beyond criminal, actually.

What’s next?  Can we expect bombshells?  Holding the culpable to account?

Count me as skeptical.  Who will hold them to account? Everyone in DC is highly compromised.

The press? Please. They ran cover for Obama and Hillary and Susan Rice from day 1.  Blowing the whistle on them now is blowing the whistle on themselves.

The Senate Republicans, like McCain, Graham, and Chambliss?  Please again.  They had an opportunity in October.  They made harrumphing noises, but did not press the issue.  Why?  Because they likely knew of what was happening in Benghazi (the weapons, the interrogations), and approved of it.   They knew that blowing the whistle on Benghazi would blow the lid on what the CIA was doing there, and leave them in a more than awkward position.  McCain et al played their roles in the Kabuki theater to perfection in the fall.  They will again.

The only way that the truth will out is due to the dynamics between Obama, Hillary, and the Senate Republicans.

This is like the final scene from the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly-a three way standoff.  (Except there’s no Clint Eastwood Good guy here.)  (For a grimmer example, think Stalin, Trotsky, and Bukharin.)

Hillary has ambitions for 2016.  She and Obama are not friends or allies: Obama put her in the cabinet under the “hold your friends close and your enemies closer” theory.  It seems clear that Hillary made catastrophic decisions before and during the assault.  She is the most responsible.  But given her ambitions, power, and connections, most are loath to confront her.

Obama would be hamstrung for the remaining 40-odd months of his second term by anything that laid the fault for Benghazi at his feet.  He doesn’t like Hillary.  She would make a perfect fall gal.

The Senate Republicans can push the direction of any inquiries.  But they are likely compromised.  Who should they align with?

I don’t know for certain the equilibrium in this game, but the most likely reasoning goes as this.  Obama is president now-no changing that.  Hillary wants to be president, and is the most formidable Democrat challenger in 2016.  Siding with Hillary to shaft Obama would result in a crippled presidency during a period of international danger, and reduce the Republicans’ odds of prevailing in 2016.  Siding with Obama to shaft Hillary would help the Republicans in 2016, and give the Republicans some leverage over Obama for the next three-plus years.  So I predict that Hillary will carry the can.  Which will lead to a civil war in the Democratic Party.  This civil war-and Hillary’s existential fight for political survival-is the only way that something of the truth will come out.

Back in October I said the worst outcome would be that the Benghazi issue would be suppressed until after the election, only to resurface in a 2d Obama term, where it would create a political and perhaps Constitutional crisis.

That’s where we are now.  That is not a good place to be.

Our fundamental issue right now is that no one in power is on the side of the truth.  The Pentagon, the CIA, the State Department, the Administration, the President, the press, and the opposition “leadership”, such as it is, are hopelessly compromised. And they are all in the 202 area code, and the main interest of people in DC, regardless of party, is protecting DC.  Meaning that there is no real “opposition” to speak of.

So don’t expect the truth about Benghazi to come out, or for the responsible to be held accountable, except as the unintended effect of a war to the knife between Hillary and Obama.

How sad is that? How sad is that?

Today is the sesquicentennial of the 3d day of the Battle of Chancellorsville.  Jackson’s flank attack on 2 May, 1863 is usually the focus of accounts of the battle, and indeed, it was a daring and brilliant achievement.  But it did not win the battle for Lee and the Confederacy.  Lee only prevailed after a brutal slugging match on this day, 150 years ago.  Wave after wave of Confederates, under command of Jeb Stuart, repeatedly assailed the western side of a Federal salient surrounding the Chancellor house.  And wave after wave was beaten off by Union soldiers of the Third and Twelfth Corps.  What proved decisive was a disastrous decision to evacuate the high ground at Hazel Grove, made by the Union commander, Joe Hooker.  The Confederates seized this commanding terrain, and the artillery planted there proved decisive.  It was perhaps the only time in the war that Confederate artillery decided a battle: there were several fields where Union artillery proved decisive.  Confederate artillerist and memorialist Porter Alexander said of the abandonment of Hazel Grove: “There has rarely been a more gratuitous gift of a battlefield.”

Chancellorsville is often called Lee’s Masterpiece.  And it was, in many ways.  But it also illustrates the ultimate futility of the Confederate cause.  Even after the rout of the Eleventh Corps on the 2d, the Union forces far outnumbered Lee’s and were in a position to carry out a vigorous defense.  Even with the gratuitous gift of Hazel Grove, the Army of Northern Virginia suffered huge casualties to drive the Federals from the environs of the Chancellor House and Fairview.  The casualties were particularly devastating at every level of command.  The battle was a virtual holocaust of division and brigade commanders, field officers, and company officers.  As a result of the battle, Lee had to undertake a wholesale reorganization of his army, and many of those promoted to fill the positions of those killed or maimed on May 3d proved overmatched two months later, on the fields of Pennsylvania.

In brief, even to execute a “masterpiece”, and one facilitated by numerous errors by his opponent Hooker, Lee had to spend lives at an unsustainable rate.  One wonders how it would have been possible to prevail, since even victory was impossibly costly.

Indeed, even the action of the 3d was not decisive.  The Army of the Potomac retreated from the Chancellorsville salient to a more compact position abutting the Rappahannock River, and entrenched it strongly.  It is highly unlikely that it could have been dislodged by an attack by Lee’s spent force.  But Hooker, who had already suffered a loss of confidence and courage on 1 May, and who had been severely concussed by a shell on the 3d, wanted no more of Lee.  Even though a majority of his corps commanders favored fighting it out on the new line, Hooker decided to retreat.  The ultimate victory was due more to Lee’s psychological dominance over an addled Hooker that proved decisive, than to the military dominance of the ANV.

And this worked on Lee’s psychology too, and not in a good way.  Chancellorsville contributed to a hubris that proved disastrous at Gettysburg.

Meanwhile,while Lee was triumphing at Chancellorsville, events were developing far to the west, in the heart of Mississippi.  After months of frustrated attempts to get at Vicksburg, Grant was on the east side of the Mississippi River.  He had beaten back a Confederate force commanded by John Bowen at Port Gibson on 1 May.  He was advancing east, towards Jackson.

Lee fought a masterful battle in early May.  Grant fought a masterful campaign over three weeks of that month.  The campaign proved far more decisive than the battle, as I’ll discuss in future posts on Jackson, Champion Hill, and Big Black Bridge.