Streetwise Professor

The immigration issue is the subject of the most intense coverage right now, just as it was arguably the most important issue in the campaign. The issue has numerous facets. Here are a few observations on several of them.

Birthright citizenship. Trump eliminated it by Executive Order (“EO”). He did so on day one no doubt knowing that the issue will be litigated to the Supreme Court and he wants it decided ASAP.

This immediately elicited shrieks of “it’s unconsitutional!!!!!” Not so fast.

These statements are based on an 1898 Supreme Court decision, which established birthright citizenship on a given set of facts. Moreover, the decision was based on an application of common law, rather than the Constitution. The justices at the time basically used common law to fill a purported gap in the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment. This reliance on the common law was challenged (in a dissent) at the time, and the dispute over this continues.

The issue then, and the one on which any future decision will turn, is the language of the clause in the 14th Amendment italicized here: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” By ordinary principles of statutory and Constitutional interpretation, the clause must mean something. Moreover, it clearly qualifies the previous clause: if the amendment was intended to establish unqualified birthright citizenship, the clause would not be necessary, and indeed would be superfluous.

So what does it mean? It has to mean something more than “born in the US because the US has jurisdiction over the US,” which is what the ardent defenders of birthright citizenship claim.

An interpretation that squares with the debates over the Amendment, and the previous statute that it was intended to protect from challenge or repeal, is that it means “subject to the jurisdiction of no foreign power.” That is, subject to the sole jurisdiction of the US. An immigrant that comes here is potentially subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country. By this reading, the children of parents subject to such jurisdiction would not automatically be citizens.

My GGGF’s citizenship paper says something like “I, Georg Pirrong, having foresworn my allegiance to the King of Germany” (quoting from memory). Which implies that previous to his naturalization he was presumed to have such an allegiance, and was therefore potentially subject to German jurisdiction.

It should also be noted that the Amendment was established when all immigration was legal, so the status of the children of illegal immigrants was not explicitly considered by Congress when the Amendment was enacted. Furthermore, this issue was clearly not what the 14th was about: it was obviously about putting the citizenship of black Americans on a firm Constitutional footing. The facts in the 1898 case also do not match up with the issue of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens: the plaintiff in that case was born in the US prior to the restriction on Chinese immigration, and was denied admission to the US when returning from China after the anti-Chinese immigration law had been passed. So, he was not born to illegal immigrants.

The mismatch of facts between 1868 and 1898 and 2025 means this is not an open and shut issue. It will come down, of course, to squishes like Barrett and Roberts, and it is likely that they will go against the EO.

Who Will Pick Our Vegetables???? And build our houses? And buthcher our meat? This is a standard trope from the left and Democrats, wryly answered by the Babylon Bee:

Democrats Once Again Concerned About Who Will Pick Their Crops https://t.co/gkWTemIree pic.twitter.com/PbksCkaIUo

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) January 27, 2025

To which it must be added that it is an utterly ridiculous argument. There are (on the upside) 3 million farm workers in the US, half of whom are illegal. That figure comes from an advocacy organization. Government data is weirdly out of date: as of 2000 there were about 1.13 million hired farmworkers in the US. (That is from a 2025 USDA document–I haven’t found one with later data–please send if you can find it). Survey data published by the USDA suggest about only 500,000 are employed in crops. Interestingly, that data shows that the average age of hired farmworkers has risen steadily–meaning that recent immigrants (who tend to be very young) are not going into farm work.

There are about 6 million (non-supervisory) construction employees in the US: estimates are that 20-30 percent of these are illegal.

So we are talking at most 3 million illegals in these two sectors, many (if not most) of whom were here before 2021. (Employment in meat packing is less than 100K total, representing perhaps a mere 50K illegals). Yet approximately 10 million flooded in under Biden, not to mention the flow in earlier years, plus the offspring of those who came in during, say, the Obama years. So it’s obviously not the case that the new illegals are vital to sustaining the ag and construction sectors.

The whole issue is absurd on its face. Just what crops are the immigrants in the Roosevelt Hotel in NY picking? The residents of Little Village in Chicago? In any sanctuary city? I could go on.

Enforcing the border with the military. Another freakout is over Trump’s deployment of the military to the border, allegedly in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. There is a parallel freakout over declaring the cartels terrorist organizations. I don’t think the freakers out see the connection between these two issues.

The cartels are inextricably linked with human smuggling/trafficking. Waves of immigrants also contain numerous narcotics mules. If cartels are terrorists, using the military to combat their activities-including human and drug trafficking-is not purely a law enforcement activity, or even primarily a law enforcement activity. It is something clearly under the purview of the military.

But this country was built by immigrants!!!!! Over the weekend, media midwit Margaret Brennan challenged J.D. Vance on immigration. In her (limited) mind, her killer point was going to be: how can you oppose immigration, because this country was built by immigrants?!?!?

This is another idiotic trope that we hear over and over, along with its frequent fellow traveler, the Emma Lazarus poem about give us your poor yadda yadda. I find it particularly ironic that progressives trot out this line.

For one thing, those who solemnly declare native land acknowledgements think such “settler colonialism” is evil and a historical stain on America-so why do they want to elevate it to a principle that must never be challenged or changed? Aren’t immigrants invading tribal lands?

For another, why are they hardcore conservatives–in the strict sense of the word, meaning “devoted to conserving the past”-on this issue, and not on others? Relatedly, why are those who insist on a “living Constitution” that must change with the times because it was written at a time with markedly different circumstances arguing that immigration laws should not be “living” too? Why do they insist on having the dead hand of the past rule the living?

Because it’s a rhetorical trick that they think will appeal to ordinary Americans who descended from immigrants, that’s why. It’s an emotional ploy.

The circumstances of the United States in the mass immigration era were markedly different than is the case now. Moreover, the immigrants were very different than those coming here now, particularly in terms of cultural similarity to the native population. Crucially, the earlier immigrants arrived when assimilation was strongly encouraged–and often embraced–by the immigrants, whereas now that is considered a racist idea: the cultural differences also make assimilation far more difficult, and many of the new immigrants are militantly opposed to assimilation.

And even more crucially, that immigration occurred in the pre-welfare era. The incompatibility of welfare and open immigration has long been emphasized by libertarians who are pre-disposed to favor immigration, such as Milton Friedman and Richard Epstein. An immigration system that works without welfare is a disaster with welfare. So choose, progressives: unbridled immigration, or welfare.

Along these lines, and related to the earlier discussion of immigrant labor. There are still acute labor shortages in, say, the Central Valley of California, despite large inflows of immigrants to that region (and California generally). Why?: because of the benefits showered on immigrants by the Federal government, and by the state of California. (The rising age over farm workers mentioned above is indirect evidence of this).

Margaret Brennan thought she had cornered Vance with this (tired) question. Vance was having none of it, and trenchantly answered that what we did 240 years ago is no reason to have the world’s dumbest immigration laws today. (If I would quibble with Vance, it is that various European countries, notably Germany, have pretty stupid laws too–it’s a close call as to which is dumber).

It never ceases to amaze that midwits like Brennan think they can play gotcha with Vance after he has run rings around them time and time and time again.

The immigration debate will continue to rage. But I predict the battle lines will not change, and that all of the above will be focus of contention for the next four years. At least.

The New York Times and Bloomberg are freaking out at one of Trump’s opening salvos–his designation of Mexican cartels as terrorists. The gravamen of their arguments is that the cartels are so embedded in “legitimate” Mexican businesses that US businesses that deal with such companies could be subject to sanctions. And fearing that, Americans won’t do business with Mexicans:

Even more complicated, these criminal networks have extended their operations far beyond drug trafficking and human smuggling. They are now embedded in a wide swath of the legal economy, from avocado farming to the country’s billion-dollar tourism industry, making it hard to be absolutely sure that American companies are isolated from cartel activities.

Although though I doubt Bloomberg and the NYT would wise up even if beaten mercilessly with the clue bat, let me try to explain.

In brief: Uhm, what they whine about is exactly the point. The sprawling nature of the cartels is precisely why they pose such a serious threat.

The whole purpose of Trump’s action is to isolate American businesses from cartel-related activities. This serves several purposes.

First, and perhaps most important, to hold Mexico’s feet to the fire to get them to take more forceful action against the cartels. Even the Bloomberg oped acknowledges that Mexico’s actions against the cartels have been halting at best. Mexico obviously needs an incentive to get its mind right. We’ve tried the easy way for years, to little effect. So the hard way it is.

Second, to hurt the cartels financially to limit their capacity and incentive to harm the United States.

I should also note that the Executive Order designating the cartels as terrorist organizations will not just impact American businesses’ dealings with Mexican companies: it will impact American businesses’ dealings with American companies, and American companies directly. The cartels’ penetration of businesses is not limited to Mexico by any means: their tentacles spread wide in the United States.

And not just businesses. Law enforcement throughout the United States is also compromised.

The drug cartels have penetrated American commerce and law enforcement even more than the Mafia in its golden age. Do the NYT and Bloomberg regret the government’s war on the Mafia (waged with particular ferocity in the 1960s and 1970s) because of how it affected the GDP print?

Thus, contrary to the NYT and Bloomberg articles, this action does not discriminate unfairly against Mexico. It will likely have effects similar to RICO did at its introduction.

Even evaluated on narrowly economic terms, do the NYT and Bloomberg really believe that massive criminal organizations that supply massive quantities of fentanyl and other drugs resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and addictions per year are somehow additive to GDP? That the vicious violence that they commit is a price worth paying because of the economic benefits of cartel activity? Is human trafficking just a broken egg necessary to make a delicious economic omelet? Or maybe the NYT and Bloomberg believe it’s a positive benefit?

But OMG taking action against the cartels could reduce remittances to Mexico!

If money transfer companies like Western Union also stop transactions to Mexico over worries about properly vetting Mexican clients, it could affect the remittances the country relies on. That would be devastating for the Mexican economy, which received $63.3 billion in remittances in 2023, nearly 5 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.

Well, deporting millions of illegals will too! And again, this would serve to incentivize Mexico to get serious about getting the problem under control.

Both articles fret about the effects of direct military action by say Delta or the SEALs against the cartels in Mexico. I consider this problematic as well, but not for the reasons that media savants. They are fussed about a “massive violation of [Mexican] sovereignty.” Uhm–the cartels operating largely with impunity in Mexico are a massive violation of American sovereignty. Qualms about offending Mexico’s sensibilities about its sovereignty should not prevent us from defending ours.

I consider it beyond ironic that publications that are big boosters of aggressive sanctions against Russia and Russian businesses suddenly clutch their pearls about imposing sanctions on cartels (and hence indirectly-or maybe not so indirectly-the Mexican government). The logic of both is the same: both are methods short of war intended to compel countries operating against the interests of the United States to curb their depredations.

The NYT’s and Bloomberg’s special pleading on behalf of Mexico and its cartels raises questions. Like: Are they under cartel influence?

I say that only half in jest.

Yesterday was Trump’s inauguration. It was also likely his apotheosis–the apex of Trumpness, the culmination of years of struggle. It’s hard to believe it could get any more glorious for him than this.

Watching him speak and then sign one executive order after another made me think “Prometheus unbound.” Trump was certainly a political Prometheus, defying the gods of the establishment, and condemned to years of torment for his impertinence and lese majeste (or lese deus). But through the exercise of will perhaps (but only perhaps) matched only by one man in American history (Andrew Jackson) he broke his shackles and triumphed, to relish a Conan-like best-of-life moment: “To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.” (Yes, I’m looking at you, Liz Warren!)

The progressive left is staggering about (to quote Lincoln’s description of General William Rosecrans) “like a duck struck on the head,” not knowing quite what hit them. They have no one to blame but themselves. They failed to grasp that Trump is the living embodiment of Nietzsche’s aphorism: “What does not kill me makes me stronger.” If they had just let him alone four years and a day ago, he would have probably raged against the coming darkness, but soon faded from view. But they hated and feared him so much that they embarked on an all out campaign to destroy him personally and financially. But he fought back and they failed. All the while he absorbed all of their negative energy and turned it back upon them.

Further, whereas the Trump of 2017 was surprised, shocked, giddy, and naive, making him totally unprepared for the deep state’s and establishment’s unrelenting attacks, the Trump of 2021 is fully aware of what lurks in the recesses of DC and has launched a preemptive attack, the political equivalent of Operation Bagration, an all out attack on all fronts.

The opening barrage of executive orders hit every position the left has established in recent years. Immigration. Gender. Energy. “Climate change.” The public health apparatus (specifically by leaving WHO). Perhaps most provocatively, pardoning the J6 defendants en masse. His inauguration address hit all these positions and a few more to boot.

This broad front strategy is canny. By attacking everywhere at once Trump forces the left/Democrats either to dissipate their efforts by trying to defend everywhere at once, or to concentrate on a few sectors thereby leaving Trump to rampage through the undefended areas. And the stunned ducks haven’t been able to decide which. Army Group Left has been smashed.

The left will eventually gather itself, somewhat anyway. There will be legal counterattacks. Virtually the second Trump took the oath four lawsuits challenging DOGE were filed. His order to stop spending remaining moneys authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act [sic] will spur legal challenges over the constitutionality of impoundment. So there will not be surrender, let alone unconditional surrender, but the correlation of forces overwhelmingly favors Trump at this time.

Like Bagration, Operation Trump will eventually outrun its logistics and slow down, likely even bogging down for a time. But the momentum is his and the political battlefield favors his ultimate operational success.

Yesterday reminded me of a couple of previous political watersheds.

For one, this is Reagan’s “it’s morning again in America” on steroids. Trump is the embodiment of animal spirits, and MAGA is essentially a promise to free American animal spirits from the suffocating embrace of the nanny state–and the deep state. To harness a Jacksonian bumptiousness that has not been completely banished from the land, despite the establishment’s concerted effort.

The second harkens back to the early days of this blog, in which in what was one of my first political posts, I launched a rant (first of many!) against Obama’s election: it was apparently amusing enough to attract the attention of the WSJ’s John Fund Political Diary, which published an excerpt. Yesterday (and 11/5/24) represent the bell tolling for Obamaism. All political eras are eventually eclipsed. Obama’s just has been. Jackson’s was. Trump’s will be. But I sense that in the latter case, that eclipse will be some time in coming.

It is remarkable to watch the incineration of the left around the world. From California to Canada to Europe you can hear their shrieks emanating from the flaming pyre.

This is almost literally true in California, where the horrific fires in Los Angeles are a veritable bonfire of leftist vanities. For years the self-satisfied, sanctimonious, supposedly superior leftist “elite” has pursued a governing agenda that focused on everything but performing the basic functions of good government. Among these environmental wackiness and DEI have been most prominent.

The environmental wackiness includes privileging some marginal meaningless species of smelt rather than responsibly using and conserving precious water supplies or the construction of reservoirs necessary to supply water for, you know, fighting fires and other irrelevant stuff. (In an ironic twist, it didn’t save the smelt–you can’t make this shit up if you try).

It also includes grotesque forest management practices that create tinderboxes ready to explode due to acts of God, or more likely man (through arson or accident), all in the name of preserving other wildlife (which ends up being incinerated when the tinderboxes erupt), or even more absurdly, of reducing CO2 emissions. (Note to the stupid: letting dead timber rot instead of burn only affects the timing of CO2 release).

The left blames California’s chronic fire problems on climate change. Even granting that dubious premise, a perceived threat of the dire effects of climate change should have led California to redouble efforts at mitigating them, through better water and forest management. If it is as existential threat, as the California left insists, act like it! But they have not. To the contrary.

So what is it? Do they not really believe in climate change? Do they use it as an excuse to divert resources to their real priorities? To camouflage their totalitarian agenda? Or are they just dumb as dirt?

These are observationally equivalent. I’ll leave it up to you to make your own choice.

The DEI dumbness is epitomized by a LA Fire Department that gloats how its lesbian-dominated “leadership” has broken glass ceilings. In case you haven’t noticed, the signs on fire alarms and equipment don’t say “In Case of Fire, Break Glass Ceiling.” And when the alarms have been pulled, the response has been catastrophically incompetent.

In another example of its bad effect do goodism, insurance companies attempted to raise rates to reflect the greater risks and costs of fire (a rational response). To protect its citizens from such unconscionable price gouging, California said no. To which many insurers said, OK, we just won’t sell your citizens insurance, thereby making the cost of private insurance infinite. Thanks, California! (Which is what the insurers who left are now saying, because the fire-related claims ain’t their problem).

I could go on. And on. And on (repeat ad infinitum). Yet the California left presumes to assert its superiority of the rest of us in flyover country, and incessantly attempts to impose its regulatory and legal insanity on the rest of the nation.

The other major leftist vanity bonfire is in Europe and the UK. There the fire starter has been Elon Musk, with an assist from Mark Zuckerberg.

Musk has been holding Labour’s feet to the fire over the appalling Muslim child rape gangs, and especially the official coverup thereof. A coverup that has run for over a decade and has involved virtually the entirety of British officialdom from local Plods to the Prime Minister (in his current incarnation, and his previous one as Crown Prosecutor).

Musk’s X posts have indeed been incendiary, and Labour and its media lackeys have burst into incandescent rage.

BREAKING:

The Mirror reports that the UK government’s counter-extremism unit has launched a probe in Elon Musk’s posts about the coverup of the migrant rape gang scandal in the country.

?The Home Office has stepped up extra monitoring to assess content and the reach of what is… pic.twitter.com/lfSD7e1Pct

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) January 9, 2025

Yes, terrorism. That’s it.

Musk’s real crime is lese majeste. How dare he scorn such eminentos as Starmer and Phillips!?!?! How dare he broadcast our failures?!?!?!

But as is his wont when challenged, Starmer is unleashing the entire state apparatus to go after his critic.

Methinks that he will find the world’s richest man who is tight with the soon-to-be-President of the US a little more of a challenge than a few Southport yobs.

Maybe Starmer should challenge Musk to a fight.

On second thought.

This panties-in-a wad bunch is threatening to end the US-UK “special relationship” over Musk’s insolence (and Trump’s dogpiling).

Oh, would that mean that the CIA couldn’t use MI5 and MI6 to spy on Americans? Your terms are acceptable!

And since the UK military is imploding, just who will defend them, especially against the Russians that the UK claims will rampage to the North Sea if not stopped in Ukraine?

The EU is also going up in flames over Musk. Germany, for example, is on fire because Musk had the audacity to interview the head of the AfD.

ELECTION INTERFERENCE!!!!! OUR PRECIOUS DEMOCRACY IS UNDER THREAT BECAUSE PEOPLE MIGHT FIND OUT THAT THE AFD LEADER IN FACT SOUNDS MORE REASONABLE THAN EVERY MAINSTREAM GERMAN POLITICIAN!!!!

Speaking of precious democracy, the EU admittedly engineered the cancelation of Romania’s presidential election because there was a risk that benighted Romanians might elect a promulgator of Wrongthink.

Former EU Commissioner admits that the EU was responsible for the cancellation of the elections in Romania

"We did it in Romania, and we will do it in Germany if necessary."

– Thierry Breton pic.twitter.com/RsiVG8sOy3

— Daily Romania (@daily_romania) January 10, 2025

The world left is also in hysterics over Zuckerberg’s termination of “fact checking” (or, as I call it, “fact” fuckery). Again, the benighted cannot be exposed to possible Wrongthink! They must have their information curated and spoonfed to them by known liars and partisan hacks, as long as these are made men and women in the establishment. Otherwise, who knows what ideas will get through the hoi polloi’s thick skulls!

(NB: Zuckerberg’s statement is an implicit admission that the allegations of US government censorship of social media are 10000 percent true).

The threat emanating from evil American social media giants may result in the erection of the Great Firewall of Europe.

French former EU bureaucrat Thierry Breton says that “X could be banned in Europe.” https://t.co/exBRAc5886

— Uzay Bulut (@bulutuzay_) January 10, 2025

Good luck with that.

By the way, why are there no European social media giants? Or tech giants generally?

Just curious.

Here’s Europe’s real problem (and the left’s generally):

The truth that the leftist project is going down in flames because it is an abject failure, always and everywhere. All the censorship in the world can’t conceal that fact. There are too many fires of dissent for them to put out.

Unlike LA, we don’t need no water. Let the motherfucker burn. To the ground. Because if it isn’t destroyed, it will destroy us.

The euphoria over the collapse of the Assad regime lasted, oh, a good two weeks. Now the meet-the-new-boss-different-than-the-old-boss-but-still-really-bad reality is rearing its ugly head, and the war of all-against-all is returning with some combatants basically reversing roles.

Specifically, the old Ins–the Assadists/Syrian Arab Army–are the new Outs, and the old Outs–the jihadists including most notably the HTS–are the new Ins. The new Outs have fled to ethnic enclaves to resist the new Ins. The roles are reversed, and the locations changed, but the fundamental nature of the conflict is eerily similar.

?? Intense clashes rage into their second day in Tartus, Syria, between Syrian Arab Army resistance cells and forces loyal to the new government.

Footage captured by a local woman from her home offers a close-up view of the chaos, showing militants exchanging fire directly below… pic.twitter.com/jtsokMHdqO

— DD Geopolitics (@DD_Geopolitics) December 26, 2024

There’s plenty more like that. What happened in Iraq post-2003 is a good template for what will happen in Syria, namely, regime “dead enders” (in Donald Rumsfeld’s description) will burrow into ethnic enclaves (Alawites in the case of the SAA) and wage a brutal guerrilla/terror campaign against those who ousted them. And those who ousted them will not respond with the same scruples that the Americans did in Iraq.

The Alawites will see this as an existential conflict. It is likely that they will either hold on and wage a protracted war, or will be wiped out. Either way, the exit of Assad will not usher in a new Kumbaya era, but more war to the knife.

Meanwhile, the United States and other western powers are rushing to make nice with the leader of the new Ins, Abu Mohammad al-Julani. Julani has a long al Qaeda pedigree, on the basis of which he achieved the great distinction of being named as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist.” Not just a designated global terrorist mind you, a specially designated one, and one with a $10 million bounty on his head, no less. His parents must have been so proud.

But the US has indicated that he is someone they can work with, and has removed the bounty.

Apparently because he now wears western style suits and says anodyne things about his plans for Syria and because he’s not Assad.

NB: Assad wore really nice suits too.

I’m also reminded of when westerners cooed over Yuri Andropov because he drank scotch and liked jazz.

Suckers.

All of this is wishcasting. Leopards don’t change their spots, and snakes that shed their skins are still snakes.

And even in the unlikely event that the Face (Julani) has really had a road-to-Damascus conversion, what about all those heavily armed people under him? Will they get with the program, or view Julani as a sellout whom they will eliminate and replace with someone more congenial? Congenial to their jihadist agenda that is, not to humanity generally or the Syrian people specifically.

The Russians are still clinging to their bases on the coast. No doubt the bazaar is open and their are negotiations going on between them and the new Ins over the terms to keep them. It is no coincidence, however, that the aforementioned conflict between the SAA remnants and the HTS is taking place in Tartus–where the Russian naval base is.

Russia has every incentive to support these Alawite elements, meaning that the latter will have strong logistical support, possibly air and ground support, and a relatively secure enclave. Probably more secure than HTS’s was in Idlib. Iran also has an incentive to provide support though this will be somewhat more challenging given HTS’s control over Iran’s old overland supply routes. But overall, I seriously doubt the new Ins will be able to eliminate the new Outs, and the war will continue.

And don’t forget that the Assad collapse has helped ISIS, which has been an enemy of the new Ins when they were the Outs. In response, the US is bombing the shit out of ISIS, but that will not destroy them.

And Turkey is is continuing its onslaught against the Kurds in the northeast. Julani has said that an independent Kurdish enclave in Syria is unacceptable, thereby signaling collaboration with Turkey.

Which puts both on a collision course with the US, which has supported and protected the Kurds, primarily because the latter have been the main boots on the ground in the conflict against ISIS. Will that support continue under Mr. Unpredictable’s presidency? Despite his rhetoric, i’m betting it will, for several reasons. First, because of the aforementioned reactivation of ISIS, whom Trump fought viciously. Second, because that’s where the oil (such as it is) is, and who can forget Trump’s “we’re keeping the oil” statement (made to the accompaniment of much harrumphing around the world). Third, because I doubt Trump is will believe the new Ins have shed their terrorist spots. Fourth, because I doubt he wants to empower Erdogan–especially given the latter’s ambition to assume leadership of the anti-Israel movement.

And as for Israel, they are certainly not putting any faith in Julani and the gang, so they are merrily blowing up any and all weapons that the new Ins might think about using against them. Further, they are amassing a security perimeter on Syrian territory–which will inevitably lead to tension and conflict with the new Ins.

All this means that the situation today isn’t all that different than it was a month ago. Some of the players have switched places, but all the players are still playing. There was a sectarian and ethnic war in Syria for the last decade, and every indication is that there will be a sectarian and ethnic war there for the next decade. At least.

A federal court in Annapolis recently ruled against the plaintiffs in a suit challenging race-based admissions at the United States Naval Academy (of which I am an alum). Writing in Stars & Stripes Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman defends the decision. If his piece is representative of Harvard Law’s logical and legal rigor, then God save us.

Sayeth Feldman:

The court’s decision is legally defensible. The military needs a racially balanced officer corps, and the academies play a crucial role in training officers, especially those who make it to the highest ranks, and the academies play a crucial role in training officers, especially those who make it to the highest ranks.

Rather conclusory, wouldn’t you say? And the reasoning behind the conclusion is fundamentally flabby.

At most “the military needs a racially balanced officer corps” is a proposition. A hypothesis. And also an incomplete one.

Critically, this bald assertion ignores trade-offs. Using race as a criterion for admission to a service academy (or promotion) necessarily means that some individuals with superior qualifications that the military deems relevant for officers’ performance are denied admission to an academy. That is a cost. Is the cost worth the benefit? Feldman does not even raise the question, let alone answer it.

Saying “X is good, ceteris paribus” is a vacuous statement if ceteris ain’t paribus. And it ain’t here. And if it ain’t you have to compare the good of X with its costs.

And just what amount of “racial balance” is optimal? At what level of preference is the right trade-off between “racial balance” and performance-relevant qualifications (or signals of such qualifications) struck? Just saying “the military needs a racially balanced officer corps” does not even attempt to grapple with that question.

And there is another trade-off to be considered which Feldman ignores. Namely, such racial “balancing” undermines the no-discrimination principle which is and has been valued highly by many Americans. Martin Luther King, to name one.

Feldman (and apparently the judge) ignores whether the challenged means of achieving “racial balance”–racial preferences in admission to a service academy–is necessary, or even the best way, to achieve the stated goal of “racial balance.” There are other pathways into the US officer corps, notably ROTC and OCS. Those are likely less selective than the service academies but that is irrelevant if minorities who desire a career as a military officer can do so via these alternatives. This also has the benefit of avoiding the mismatch problem which is a baleful effect of racial preferences in higher education.

Along these lines, Feldman is factually incorrect when he insinuates that academy graduates are disproportionately represented “in the highest ranks.” True once upon a time, but today “ring knockers” no longer have a pronounced advantage over OCS or ROTC types.

In defending the lawsuit, the government argued the following, apparently to some effect:

Where things start to look very different is in the government’s explanation of why it needs a racially diverse officer corps. The government provided, and the federal court credited and cited, extensive evidence of racial violence in the military in the decades before and during the Vietnam era, including race riots aboard naval vessels. The court noted the history of racial discrimination in the armed services, especially in the Navy. Reviewing this context, the court accepted the government’s argument that a racially diverse officer corps is mission-critical.

Talk about a whopping non sequitur. Where to begin?

When reading that, I asked myself “What about the Trojan War?” because that war is about as relevant as the cited history, meaning that the sins of the past cannot justify the challenged policies of the present.

The racial strife in the military–and the Navy in particular–during the Vietnam era was not the product of too few minority officers. It was part and parcel of the racial strife that plagued the United States at that time. It was also a result of the problems within the military stemming from the Vietnam War, the draft, and the ending of the draft: as a result of these factors, if anything it was the result of too few minorities the the Navy’s enlisted ranks. That is, it was highly historically contingent, and those historical contingencies are absent today.

Moreover, at least until the rise of wokeness (to which, ironically, the academies have succumbed, big time) those tensions had abated substantially. As for “the history of racial discrimination”, the official discrimination against blacks ceased long ago and cannot justify discriminating in their favor decades later.

Put differently, there is absolutely no reason to believe that striking down race-based admissions at the service academies in 2024 would throw us into the bad old days of October, 1972 or anything close.

(As an aside, when I was at Navy in 1977-8 Admiral Elmo Zumwalt’s Memoir On Watch was assigned reading. Zumwalt was the Chief of Naval Operations that had to deal with the wind down of Vietnam, and in particular with the racial turmoil that plagued the fleet. On Watch discussed that history in some detail).

It actually speaks volumes about the weakness of the government’s case (and the judge’s reasoning in accepting it) that it had to go into the wayback machine to justify policies that have been found unconstitutional for private universities. (It’s also worth noting that private universities were also hotbeds of racial strife during the late-60s and early-70s).

Perhaps a case can be made for racial preferences for service academy admissions. But Feldman and the government go nowhere even close to making it.

This is serious business. The better the officers, the fewer the number of people who get killed in wars. If academy admissions standards are not related to the quality of the officers they produce, then adjust those standards. If they are related to the quality of the officers they produce, then given the vital importance of good officers in matters of life and death (not to mention national survival) then there had better be very, very, very good reason for making exceptions. Just saying “diversity is mission critical” like a mantra and citing to ancient history to support it doesn’t cut it.

SecDef nominee Pete Hegseth (criticism of whom has quieted substantially of late) has made elimination of DEI a major priority precisely because he believes not only is it not mission critical, it is mission detrimental.* And if you read things like this you realize that his argument is much stronger and much more currently relevant than that made by the government in the Naval Academy case.

Diversity at the academies is just one element of the diversity culture that has poisoned the military. And ironically, that culture is more racially fraught than that of the 80s, 90s, and 00s. It is more likely to recreate strife like that that plagued the military in the early-70s than to prevent it. I therefore hope that Trump and Hegseth make the court’s decision in the Naval Academy case moot by eliminating the policies that it challenged.

*As an illustration of how woke culture has penetrated the service academies, West Point colluded with the leftist ProPublica in a hit piece on Hegseth. ProPublica was going to report that Hegseth lied about being admitted to the USMA, and West Point confirmed–twice–that he had not been admitted. Hegseth then produced a copy of his acceptance letter. If you think West Point made a mistake, I have a bridge to sell you.

The request line is open! Responding to Ex-Global Super-Regulator on Lunch Break, here are some thoughts on Syria.

The big picture: it was a shitshow, it is a shitshow, and it will continue to be a shitshow. Just under new management.

Reading the stories of the assault through Aleppo, then Hama, then Homs, and finally Damascus, I thought of the scenes in Lawrence of Arabia in which the Arab irregulars rampaged past a collapsing regular army and took Damascus on 1 October 1918, which soon plunged into tribal bickering and chaos under their rule.

If anything, the ethnic, sectarian, and ideological divisions of the 2024 conquerers are more extreme and latent with violence than the tribal divisions of 1918. Thus, the current euphoria over the fall of the truly odious Assad will prove as fleeting as the euphoria over the fall of the odious Khaddafy. Libya’s recent history is therefore a useful reference in evaluating Syria’s likely future. (The main difference is that Libya has relatively large amounts of oil to fight over).

There are numerous armed groups in Syria with wildly conflicting agendas. The group that has gotten the most attention, HTS, is widely portrayed as a Turkish proxy, but this is wrong. Turkey’s player in the game (a game with a very complex scorecard, even with which you might not be able to identify all the players) is the Syrian National Army, but it was not aimed primarily at the Assad regime. Instead, it (and hence Erdogan) has launched its main effort against the Kurdish (YPG) forces in northeastern Syria. The Kurds were instrumental in the defeat of ISIS–with a considerable assist from the US. Meaning that Turkey’s proxies are attacking US proxies.

Won’t that be fun. What the rump US administration will do is unknown, and that is presumably why Erdogan is in such a hurry, trying to change the facts on the ground before Trump takes office.

So post-Assad Syria is at least a 3-sided conflict, akin to the climatic scene of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (minus any Good character a la Clint):

Probably more in fact because the Jihadi and Jihadi-adjacent HTS is itself a coalition of many Islamist groups who could well fall out. And because it would not be surprising if Assad regime elements go underground a la Saddamites post-2003 and wage a guerrilla/terror war. And because Iran will almost certainly attempt to employ Hezbollah elements to retain a shred of influence in the country.

A quick take on the losers and winners.

Losers:

• Iran. Clearly the biggest loser, and the worst in a string of defeats in the last year. Assad’s Syria was the essential logistical lynchpin and staging area for Iranian support to Hezbollah. That’s basically gone, leaving an already reeling Hezbollah to wither on the vine. Further, Israel has moved rapidly to destroy Syrian military infrastructure (which Iran used) and to seize “buffer zones” that will make it difficult for Iran to utilize even smuggling operations to sustain Hezbollah. In retrospect, October 7 may look like Pearl Harbor. A seeming smashing surprise attack that set off a chain of events that ended ultimately in defeat.
• Hezbollah. For the same reasons as Iran.
• Russia. His regime’s collapse makes Assad’s other major patron looks like a giant with clay feet. Russian troops in the interior are bugging out to the coast: the serpentine routes of some convoys looks like some mini-Xenophon Anabasis. As for the bases that these troops are fleeing to, they still remain in Russian hands although the anti-Assad forces have evidently surrounded them. These bases are so vital that I expect Russia will cut some deal with the victors to retain them. They are essential to supporting Russian operations in Africa. Moreover, without the naval base at Tartus Russia has no ability to support a presence in the Mediterranean, a prestige item for Russia. The Turkish Straits are closed to them so they can’t operate in the Med from Black Sea bases. Given that most of the Russian fleet now consists of short-legged frigates and the like, it’s not operationally feasible to show the flag in the Med from the Baltic or Arctic. (Not to mention if the Russians are forced out of Tartus, the frigates and patrol craft it has there now would have a hard time to get back to St. Petersburg. A winter voyage would be particularly fun!) So Russia will probably hang on with its fingernails, but its position will be tenuous and its reputation damaged further.
• Hamas. Another loser as a result of Iran’s emasculation.

Winners:

• Israel. The biggest winner by far. Iran’s and Hezbollah’s losses are its gain. It has moved with remarkable speed to exploit the opportunity by (a) obliterating virtually all Syrian military assets (aircraft, ships, depots, arms production facilities) thereby depriving any successor state/statelets of them, and (b) establishing the aforementioned buffer zone east of the Golan Heights. Israel’s security situation in the north is better now than probably ever.
• The US, though the picture is far more mixed than for Israel. Although the Biden-Obama administration is likely to differ, Iran’s strategic defeat is a gain for the US. (Biden-Obama’s approach to Iran is one of the most baffling and stupid foreign policies in American history). As noted above, a conflict with Turkey over the Kurds looms. A jihadi regime in Syria (or more realistically, parts of Syria) is not ideal, and may be worse from a realpolitik perspective than an Assad regime. The greatest benefit to the US would be a serious retrenchment by Iran, which would reduce the strategic risks for the US in the Middle East (given that Iran is the main source of those risks).
• Other Arab regimes, especially in the Gulf. Again due to the Iranian losses. Some are saying the Saudis and Qatar will be the big winner because Assad’s fall will permit the building of a gas pipeline through Syria (and Jordan) to Turkey and then Europe. This would exacerbate Russian losses and be a win for the Gulfies, but I think it is an unlikely outcome. The chaos that is likely to reign for years in Syria will make this pipeline as chimerical as the oft-vaunted claims about pipelines through Afghanistan.

TBD:

• Turkey. Again, it’s main interest is not in Syria per se, but in the Kurds. I expect the US will prevent Erdogan from achieving the destruction of the Kurds that he seeks, so it is likely that Turkey will not achieve the victory it seeks. Many in Turkey greeted the news of Assad’s fall by saying: “Great! Now all the Syrians can go home!” Unlikely, for reasons I discuss shortly.
• Lebanon. The weakening of Hezbollah should be a great boon to Lebanon. But it’s Lebanon.
• The Syrian people. Assad’s regime was monstrous. The country has been devastated. (I think GNP has fallen by something like 90 percent). But the likelihood of continued strife means that Syrians are unlikely to harvest the fruits of peace. And being ruled by Islamists will not be fun times–especially for minorities like Christians and Alawites. So contrary to the hopes of the Turks (and the Europeans who have also found Syrian immigrants to be pestilential) I doubt there will be a flood of people back to Syria, and indeed there might be another exodus.
• Ukraine. Ukrainians are crowing over Putin’s humiliation. But how Putin will react is unclear. Having lost and made to look ineffectual in Syria he may decide to amplify his efforts in Ukraine. And will logistic complications lead him to redeploy assets from Africa to Ukraine? Who knows?

So that’s my hot take on Syria. The basic takeaway is that it is the end of a regime but not the end of wars in Syria. And that from a geopolitical perspective it redounds to the benefit of all those at odds with Iran.

The celebrations in some quarters over the cold blooded murder of health insurance company CEO Brian Thompson are beyond sick. Thompson has become dehumanized, and transformed into nothing more than the face of an industry that many despise. The man accused of his murder, Luigi Mangione, a Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber) admirer and radical anti-capitalist evidently believed that his supposedly humanist ideology justifies taking a human life.

That’s wrong regardless of the particulars of the supposed systemic sin he really wants to destroy. It therefore seems somewhat invidious to examine the merits of his motivation. But given that he has received such widespread accolades it is unfortunately necessary.

Take it as given that there are massively dysfunctional elements and intense conflicts in the US healthcare system. But what is the source of those dysfunctions and the resulting dissatisfactions, with respect to insurance in particular?

The fundamental problem inheres in the nature of insurance, and third-party payment for healthcare generally (whether via private insurance or government provision).

Insurance incentivizes moral hazard. In healthcare, part of that moral hazard in due to the insured: they have insufficient incentive to take actions to reduce bad health outcomes. This leads to greater demand for healthcare services. But a big part of the moral hazard problem relates to providers: they have an incentive to overtreat. And facing low marginal cost for additional treatments, the insured have an incentive to overconsume.

Due to moral hazard, risks are not insured completely. One way of limiting insurance coverage is through deductibles–a major source of complaints in our current system. In healthcare particularly, another especially despised way of limiting coverage is to deny some claims–another source of great discontent, and supposedly one of Mangione’s specific grievances (as indicated by his writing “Deny” on at least one of his casings). Especially given the severe information asymmetries between the insurer, the insured, and the provider, in many cases these denials are arbitrary, and would not occur in a Nirvana where information is complete and free. But we don’t live in Nirvana. (And note that denials, and anger about them, are a feature of every type of insurance, be it auto or home or what have you).

That is, there is inherently an adversarial relationship between the insurer and the insured. When the stakes are high–as they are with health–this adversarial relationship is inevitably extremely fraught.

Don’t like denials? Well, if you outlaw them, or even substantially restrict them, you definitely won’t like what insurance costs.

This is not something that moving to a government-run system changes. Medicare and Medicaid also limit coverage and deny coverage for treatments. And look at systems like the UK or Canada where treatments are rationed in large part by waiting, or not getting treated at all.

It is no coincidence, comrades, that Canada and now the UK have implemented “right to die” legislation, which in reality is “right to kill”: offing granny is a very efficacious–and cost effective!–way of denying treatment. Both countries’ systems have proved incapable of providing care at cost that taxpayers can afford, so they are reducing demand through such Orwellian measures, as much as they try to deny that.

So it is not an issue of insurer “greed” or the evils of capitalism. It’s baked into the cake, regardless of the baker.

In countries with socialized medicine, years of government propaganda have helped to diffuse anger at the inadequacies of the health system. In the United States, insurers have been the targets (quite literally in the case of Mr. Thompson), and this has only increased since Obamacare was adopted.

This was effectively a devil’s bargain for the industry. Forcing people to obtain insurance increased the demand for the insurers’ products, but effectively shielded the government from hostility. Given that the insurance industry was a major booster (and in fact author) of Obamacare, it is clear that this was a trade-off that they were quite happy to accept. Although Brian Thompson might beg to differ. If he was alive.

The conflict in healthcare is inherent in the nature of the product, but the conflict has been exacerbated by, and the system hugely distorted by, government policies adopted over the decades.

The original sin is the tying of health insurance to employment, an artifact of labor union lobbying and taxes. The tax-favored nature of paying compensation in the form of benefits rather than wages/salary incentivized employer-provided insurance. This had several malign effects, notably the linkage of insurance with employment, and also the encouragement of excessive coverage (and hence excessive demand for healthcare services) by distorting relative prices.

Other distortions include restricting choice by mandating that insurers provide coverage that individuals don’t want or need. This inflates cost by yet again distorting relative prices. Broader coverage also inevitably leads to more denials, increasing resentment among the insured.

Healthcare insurance is hard. Insurance is hard generally due to information asymmetries, but those generic difficulties are exacerbated by the emotional salience of sickness and health. As a result, insurers will never be loved, and indeed, will almost always be reviled.

Meaning that those whose sickness is a moral rather than physical one who celebrate the death of Brian Thompson are not just moral defectives but mental ones. They attribute the defects of the healthcare and healthcare payment systems to the greed of private enterprises, or the supposed systemic evils of capitalism. The seen vs. the unseen. The things that they hate are inherent in the nature of the service, and can be worse when private enterprise and capitalism don’t deliver it. Don’t believe me? Move to Canada and find out the hard way.

Angela Merkel is currently on a world tongue bath tour. The occasion is the release of her evidently quite turbid memoir.

A recent stop was in DC, where she was interviewed by Barack Obama. If held at Gitmo, this would be considered a Geneva Convention offense, but people actually stood in line for and paid for the privilege of attending. Of course, they are swamp denizens, and Merkel is a kindred species and Obama is their lord.

In her memoir confesses to not a single error in her long tenure. Zero. Kein!

The lack of self-awareness here is staggering. Germany is currently a basket case. Its economy has been in a prolonged recession. It is in political chaos and social ferment, due in no small part to the mass immigration of recent decades. The phrase “Germany is the sick man of Europe” has considerable currency.

Virtually all of Germany’s current travails can be laid directly at Angela Merkel’s feet. The two biggest problems besetting Germany are energy (which is a major cause of the broader economic malaise) and immigration, both of which are the direct result of Merkel policies. Energiewende (which I have pilloried for over a dozen years) with its renewables obsession and the closing of nuclear plants due to (checks notes) a tsunami in Japan has made German energy among the most expensive in the world. Not a good thing for an energy intensive manufacturing economy! The perversities of the post-Syrian War immigration wave are impossible to ignore–although the German government strives mightily to suppress opposition on the issue.

These were signature Merkel policies. Bad in substance, they were also served up with a huge dollop of supercilious sanctimony. Merkel condemned (and continues to condemn) anyone who opposed them as intellectual and crucially moral inferiors.

In brief, Angela Merkel is the Ms. Magoo of German politics (and world politics, given how she was and is lionized outside of Germany). A blind bumbler who left a trail of chaos and destruction behind her, all the while touting her achievements. “Merkel, you’ve done it again!”

The adulation she is currently receiving suggests she is an exception to Enoch Powell’s dictum that “All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.” And that may be Merkel’s true genius. That she saw what was coming and stepped aside to let others clean up the mess and take the blame. If so, well played!

But that would require a degree of self-awareness that Merkel apparently does not possess. She seems utterly sincere in her belief that she did no wrong, and indeed, did everything right.

But a lack of self-awareness is the most prominent trait of her class. As I’ve written since Trump emerged on the stage in 2015 the establishment/elite/ruling class is completely unaware of the baleful consequences of their overlordship, ignorant of how much they are despised by the hoi polloi, and clueless about their impending doom. Even as it stares them in the face, as evidenced by Trump’s decisive victory and the political chaos in France, Germany, and the UK.

Yet on and on they go, as supercilious and sanctimonious as ever.

We see it in the US in spades, with the Democrats’ complete inability to comprehend or come to grips with the massive repudiation they received a month ago. Obama is the best illustration of this, projecting on Trump and his voters all the horribles (e.g., vote rigging, lawfare) his party has committed, and failing to acknowledge that DEI, wokeness, mass immigration, climate extremism, etc., etc. etc., are widely detested.

These people need to go away. But they never will leave voluntarily. In their narcissistic self-regard they view themselves as God’s gift and their legacies as glorious.

So do to them what they hate most: mock them. Mercilessly. And start with Ms. Magoo.

Trump’s cabinet nominees are provocative, to say the least. There has to be some stratagem behind Gaetz in particular, because it is facially hard to understand on the merits, but I’ll be damned if I know what that strategem is. Yes, I can see Trump wanting Gaetz or someone like him. But a choice should depend on both the desirability of the outcome conditional on its occurrence, and the probability of it occurring. Since Gaetz’s odds seem extremely low, and Trump must know that, I infer that Trump is deliberately courting rejection. But why? I have nothing.

I could go through all of them, but there’s only so many hours in the day. I will therefore focus on the one closest to my interest, SecDef (Hegseth). I will try to do a post on Tulsi Gabbard soon.

Of course the assault on Hegseth started nanoseconds after his name was announced, and was launched from the usual swampy quarters on the usual swampy grounds. He hasn’t served in the swamp! Therefore he is unqualified to be SecDef! There is also a concerted personal attack under way: racist, white supremacist, alleged sexual assailant. The usual, in other words.

Now those are the stated reasons for opposing him, but as we’ll see, not the real reasons. Indeed, I think the real reasons are that the swamp fears that he is capable of running DoD in the way Trump wants it run.

As for qualifications, just what are they? What individual who has run for, or has been, commander in chief or in line to be commander in chief, has the qualifications? For example, Tim Walz was supposedly qualified to be commander in chief, but based on what? Twenty plus years as a National Guard NCO who bugged out when there was a risk he’d actually get shot at? If so, and I see no other qualifications, Hegseth–20 year NG veteran, retired as major, multiple combat tours, two Bronze Stars–is qualified to be SecDef. If someone is qualified to be CinC, they should be more than qualified to be SecDef. Similar things could be said about Obama, Harris, Biden, and Trump, and pretty much any late-20th-21st century president or veep you could name except for Eisenhower. Their military and managerial bona fides ranged from non-existent to extremely limited.

Our current SecDef has the kinds of credentials the swamp thinks necessary–general who retired to clean up in the MIC–and he’s been a complete dolt who cannot claim any positive accomplishment. (Name one. I dare you). The fact that he could go missing for several days without anybody really noticing, a la Major Major Major Major, tells you all you need to know about his contributions to our national defense.

In recent decades most SecDefs have been apparatchiks who had no lasting impact.

Meaning that the background that the swamp demands is neither necessary nor sufficient for success. I doubt it is even a strong predictor of performance.

The SecDef’s job consists of two basic parts: establishing policy objectives, and steering the Pentagon towards achieving them. The swamp tut-tuts about Hegseth’s ability to do the latter, but they really fear the former, and his ability to achieve the latter.

In rather outspoken, and frequently salty, remarks before his name was floated as the nominee, Hegseth revealed that his overriding policy objective is to change fundamentally the culture of the military. In particular, to change it back to what it was. MMGA. Make the Military Great Again.

The uniformed and civilian incumbents who advanced in that culture, and who have actively promoted it, detest Hegseth on those grounds alone.

In particular, Hegseth has made it plain that he believes that the DEI culture that pervades today’s military is inimical to the purpose of the military–war fighting–and must be eliminated root and branch. Part of that rooting out means terminating many general officers, including (and he has called him out specifically) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

He has said that the expression “diversity is our strength” makes him throw up in his mouth. I can relate.

In my reasons to vote for Trump post, I specifically listed elimination of DEI, in the military in particular. It is vital for restoring the culture of the military.

So yes, he is a “culture warrior.” A “warrior culture warrior” actually. “Culture warrior” is hurled as an epithet against him. It’s actually a great qualification given the depths to which the military has descended.

He’s absolutely right that rescuing and restoring the culture is necessary to rescue recruiting, which is one of the military’s current grave problems.

In interviews he has suggested going back to the standards and procedures in place around 1995. That is actually a very thoughtful idea. Not necessarily to be applied literally, but as a useful exercise in resetting the military.

The mid-90s represents what is arguably the acme of American military power and performance. The military of that era was optimized for peer and near-peer conflicts, and had yet to have experienced the corrosive effects (doctrinally, force design, weapons acquisition, morale, etc.) of decades of counterinsurgency focus. We are again in an era where we need to focus on peer conflicts. Moreover, it predates the descent into DEI madness (though that had begun, with “don’t ask, don’t tell”).

So use the mid-90s as a baseline. See what has changed, and determine why. See what effects the changes have had. Get rid of the pernicious changes–of which there have been many.

As for firing generals, this will be salutary for many reasons. To get rid of those responsible for the cultural decay and prevent them from doing further damage. And pour encourager les autres.

Indeed, although a board to vet the current generals has been mooted, maybe that isn’t necessary, or at least could be supplemented by instituting the Roman practice of decimation. Just axing 10 percent at random. I say that only partly in the spirit of A Modest Proposal.

Decimation was adopted and worked for a reason. It was a punishment exacted on an organization (a cohort, a legion) that had failed. It was a signal that the failure was collective, and the responsibility of all. It incentivized each legionnaire to police others, for each knew that they could pay a price for the failure of others.

The American military has failed in recent decades. The failure is collective. Take it from there.

Fixing the culture is an overriding priority. Another is fixing procurement–another collective failure. Current flag ranks plus senior civilian DoD staff are responsible for that. This is another reason for a thorough culling.

Here’s an area where Elon Musk could provide very valuable insight. Name one procurement program that has come close to matching what Musk has done with SpaceX, or Tesla for that matter. You can’t.

Indeed, I’d prefer Musk focus his DOGE efforts on this, rather than spread them across the entirety of the US government. Military procurement is government inefficiency par excellence, and needs a major overhaul.

I therefore agree with Hegseth’s policy priorities, as he has expressed them in pre-nomination interviews.

And I don’t GAF that he has bad tattoos.

The jury is of course out on how successful he can be in implementing them.

He will face intense internal opposition. Which is precisely why a thorough culling of the flag ranks and senior civilians is imperative.

Hegseth obviously can’t do it alone. Strong and aligned service secretaries are essential. As are the various under- and assistant secretaries and their staffs.

But it can be done. Reagan inherited a dispirited and lost military when he took office in 1981. Under his leadership, and that of Caspar Weinberger (who definitely did not have a MIC background, and indeed wanted to be Secretary of State but was given Defense instead) and his deputies, the military was turned around within a few short years.

I believe that the task will be more difficult, 44 years later. The institutional rot and bloat is worse now than then. But it must be done. And it must start with the culture. For that, a culture warrior is essential.