Prologue to a Possible Second Term of the Addams Administration 3.

Posted on November 6, 2024 by jsh54

NB: I’m writing this as if I don’t know how yesterday’s election turned out.

As 5 November 2024 loomed, nothing seemed to shift the balance of voters. A Wall Street Journal poll reported that Donald Trump led Kamala Harris 51 to 47 percent nation-wide; a New York Times poll showed them even in the seven “battleground” states. This wasn’t a simple difference of opinion. Another poll reported that 87 percent of respondents believed that “America will suffer permanent damage if their candidate loses.”

In light of the themes of speeches used by the two candidates and their parties in this election season, it isn’t hard to see why so many people are worried. In the sprint to the finish, neither candidate did anything to lessen voter fears. Kamala Harris said that Donald Trump is a “petty tyrant”; that he is “unstable, consumed with grievance, obsessed with revenge, and out for unchecked power”; and that electing him President will produce an America “ruled by chaos and division.”[1] For his part, Trump lambasted the Democratic Party as “a crooked, malicious, leftist machine” and “the most sinister and corrupt forces on Earth.”

Whichever one of them wins, the judiciary is going to be re-made. Asked straight-out about expanding the Supreme Court to outvote the current conservative majority, Harris refused to disavow such a plan. If Trump wins, any vacancies in the next four years will be filled with Federalist Society-vetted people like Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch.

Much will depend on the outcome of races further down the ballot, especially the Senate. If one party gains both the White House and the Senate, it will grasp Executive and Judicial appointments for at least two years. In Senate races (where one-third of the Senate stands for election every two years), Republicans have the easier path to control. Flipping one seat, would give them a tie. The Vice President would be the deciding vote on some legislation, but the filibuster would block most legislation.[2] If the Republicans win two or more seats, then they would have the majority and could either block all Democratic legislation (if Harris wins) or push through some legislation if Trump wins. (The American system is murkier and more contingent than are European parliamentary systems.) Republicans appeared confident that they could win seats in West Virginia and Montana; they hoped to win seats in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Pollsters agreed that these hopes were reasonable. Control of the House of Representatives appeared up for grabs.[3]

Fear haunted the Democrats. Democrats warn that an election that gives Republicans control of both houses of Congress and the Executive Branch, combined with a Republican super-majority on the Supreme Court, will allow the Republicans to launch a sweeping remodeling of American government. Then, many Democrats have given voice to their fear of violence from Trump’s supporters if he loses. Stoked by four years of accusations of a stolen election, it might be much worse than on 6 January 2021. What if he wins? What if he wins both the popular vote and in the Electoral College? How will Democrats absorb such a stinging rejection of all their warnings?

[1] “Harris warns of ‘petty tyrant’ Trump in closing pitch,” The Week, 8 November 2024, p. 4. Harris also proclaimed that “We have to stop pointing fingers and start locking arms.”

[2] Harris has already called for an end to the filibuster in the Senate.

[3] “Republicans hold edge in race to control Congress,” The Week, 8 November 2024, p. 5.

Prologue to a Possible Second Addams Administration 2.

Posted on November 5, 2024 by jsh54

In mid-October 2024, polls showed Kamala Harris and Donald Trump each drawing 48 percent of the nation-wide poll’s respondents; they were neck and neck in the “swing states” which will decide the victor in the Electoral College.

Donald Trump sat for an interview with Fox News.[1] Asked about how to deal with election interference by foreign agitators,[2] he took the question in an entirely different direction. He warned that domestic opponents, whom he called “the enemy within,” posed a much more serious threat. If the police were not up to the task, then the National Guard or even the Army, could be deployed.[3]

Perhaps Trump had in mind the civil unrest attending some of the social justice protests that had followed the murder of George Floyd. Such an interpretation is hard to maintain in light of Trump’s talk about his political opponents. He has called them “radical left lunatics,” and “Marxists and communists and fascists. They’re so sick and they’re so evil.”

Trump’s grim discourse prompted Kamala Harris to adjourn her joy campaign in favor of a return to the Biden campaign’s denunciation of Trump as a danger to democracy. She claimed that Trump is “out for unchecked power” and that he is “increasingly unstable and unhinged.” Soon, “Unstable, Unhinged, and Unchecked” became a staple of Harris ads. She told one interviewer that trump’s program “is about fascism.” General Mark Miley, the former Chairman of of the Joint Chiefs, joined in the assessment. Trump, he said, is “fascist to the core.”

Journalists have been quick to see Trump’s actions as drawn from the non-existent “authoritarian playbook.”[4] The week’s news gave them a lot to work with. Rather than evidence of vulgar Madness, his violent talk is evidence of clever Badness said one columnist. Republican “normies” will vote for him no matter what to avoid a Harris presidency. (Many of these voters this that his threats are just more Trump blather.) He is actually seeking to mobilize the low-information patriotic voters. Even if he does lose the election, he will not accept the outcome. He didn’t in 2020. He’s been spewing charges of massive voter fraud ever since.

What if the Cassandras are right? Trump could come to power with half or almost half of American voters behind him. What is the next line of defense if the ballot box “fails” from an excess of democracy? If people sincerely believe that Trump is a “fascist” bent on overthrowing Democracy, then he poses a grave danger whether or not he wins the election. If elected, he will use his office to ram through policies that the other half of the population oppose.[5]

What are his opponents planning to do? Sue? Hold vigils? Rally at the Capitol? Enjoy cutting sarcasm on late-night TV? Or hasn’t anyone at all given this thought? That’s hard to believe. So, who has done the thinking and what have they come up with?

[1] “Trump ramps up threats against political ‘enemies’,” The Week, 25 October 2024, p. 4.

[2] The F.B.I. has been reporting to the public about on-line interventions by Russia, China, and Iran.

[3] The planning and decision-making for the use of National Guard troops from the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia on 6 January 2020 is outlined here: https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jan/08/2002562063/-1/-1/0/PLANNING-AND-EXECUTION-TIMELINE-FOR-THE-NATIONAL-GUARDS-INVOLVEMENT-IN-THE-JANUARY-6-2021-FIRST-AMENDMENT-PROTESTS-IN-WASHINGTON-DC

[4] Well, OK, there is a book with that title. However, it is a product of Trump’s opponents. See: The Authoritarian Playbook for 2025 : Protect Democracy : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

[5] Wait, is that how we define “fascism”?

From the river to the sea, Zion will be free. Alas.

Posted on November 5, 2024 by jsh54

The surprise attack of 7 October 2023 on Israel by Hamas continues to send out shock waves. However, those psychological and social shock waves strike a restricted area of world opinion. First and foremost, there is the quarrelling within Israel. Roughly, one might divide opinion into the “rally ‘round the government” party and the “hunt for guilty men” party.

For the “rally” group, the most important issue right now is the defeat of Israel’s enemies. First, this means Hamas, then it means Hezbollah in Lebanon, and ultimately Iran. In the eyes of this group, the multiple blows rained down on Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran restore faith in Israel’s ability to defend itself. It seems not to matter how long this mission will take or what collateral damage it inflicts. It is a war unlike any other.

For the “guilty men” group, Israel’s resilience as a nation rests upon Israeli “faith in the decency of our society…and trust in the integrity of our leaders.” These elements matter at least as much as does armed force. How is that faith and trust possible when the current leaders bear the responsibility for the security failures that made the attacks possible and who are now escalating the war? Moreover, they are alarmed by the duration and savagery of the war. Israeli journalist Amir Tibon has written that, in the wake of the 7 October 2023 attack by Hamas, he would have expected the government to produce a radically better situation in short order.[1] This better situation would have involved a swift recovery of the 200-plus hostages seized by Hamas and the creation of a new government for Gaza comprised of moderate Palestinians. Instead, the war grinds on in Gaza, it has begun to extend into Lebanon, and many of the hostages are still in the hands of Hamas—or dead. Most of all, the government has no “clear strategic endgame.”[2]

Second, there is the quarrelling within the United States.[3] Elite Young Boobs (EYBs) at some leading American universities immediately sided with Hamas and the Palestinians.[4] In September 2024, an F.B.I. report on Hate Crimes declared that more than two-thirds of reported religion-based hate crimes were anti-Semitic and the total number of such incidents were greater than any previous level. Universities that accommodated such actions suddenly found themselves assailed by alumni, donors, and politicians. Still, “let kids be kids.”[5] More importantly for American politics, the attack on Gaza by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) aroused Arab Americans against Israel and against the Biden Administration which has backed Israel’s war effort. In 2016, Joe Biden won the “battleground” state of Michigan by 154,000 votes. The state’s 200,000 Arab-American voters are believed to have voted overwhelmingly for the Democrat. Now, many of them are threatening to vote against Kamala Harris. Common sense will surely reassert itself. Putting Donald Trump into the White House will not produce a more humanitarian Gaza policy. Trump is an admirer of Israel’s prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu.

Lost in all these quarrels is any recognition that Hamas could have stopped Israel’s attack by surrendering, possibly even to the International Criminal Court. Why blame only the Jews?

[1] “Israel: A sense of security forever shattered,” The Week, 18 October 2024, p. 15.

[2] Oh, but it does if you would but see it. Force out the people of Gaza, then turn to the West Bank.

[3] “Oct. 7: How Hamas’ massacre changed the world,” The Week, 18 October 2024.

[4] Although those are not necessarily the same thing. Probably they should read Thucydides.

[5] The phrase turns up all the time on my “Nextdoor” feed after adults complain about acts of petty vandalism or harassment by minor or near-minors.

Prologue to a Possible Second Addams Administration 1.

Posted on November 4, 2024 by jsh54

In early October 2024, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris each could smell victory.[1] A New York Times/Siena College poll had Harris leading Trump nationally 49 to 46 percent. More importantly, an average of polls in the seven “battleground” states that will decide the election in the Electoral College showed the rivals within 1-2 points of each other. Each was ahead in three states and they were tied in Pennsylvania.[2]

Remarkably, nothing has seemed to shift the basic balance of forces for the last several months. It appears that Americans have largely decided for which candidate they will vote if Election Day ever gets here. Faced with the need to just grind it out for another month, the candidates distilled their campaign messages for the final kick.

For Trump it boiled down to Courage and Anger. He returned to Butler, Pennsylvania, where he had narrowly survived an assassination attempt in July. Then, as the Secret Service agents had belatedly tried to drag him to safety,[3] he had instinctively yelled to the crowd “Fight! Fight! Fight!” Many in his audience now sported T-shirts bearing the same words.[4] In Butler, he warned of the “enemy from within.” Two days later, in Wisconsin, he warned that a victory by Kamala Harris would mean that “The country won’t be the U.S. any longer.”

For Harris, it boiled down to Fear and Promises. She arranged a series of appearances with friendly interviewers that allowed her to speak directly to her target audiences.[5] In one appearance, Harris said that she wanted to extend Medicare to pay for long-term home care for senior citizens, but stated that “there is not a thing” that she would have done differently from President Biden over the last four years. She also agreed to an interview on “Sixty Minutes.” In the “Sixty Minutes” interview Harris skipped past Russia and China to name Iran as the “greatest adversary” of the United States, and judged that Vladimir Putin “would be sitting in Kyiv right now” if Donald Trump had been president instead of Joe Biden.

Neither the media nor the campaign staffs felt much joy from these approaches. They roundly denounced the former president’s refusal to stay on a conventional political message (inflation, illegal immigration) while avoiding incitements to violence and personal denigration of his opponents. They roundly denounced the Vice President’s penchant for soft-ball media appearances and her relatively thin schedule of public appearances. Too many voters say that they don’t really know her. To be fair, too many voters say they know Trump all too well.

[1] “Harris, Trump neck and neck in race’s final month,” The Week, 18 October 2024, p. 4.

[2] Which explains why I’m being bombarded with text messages and phone calls while I’m trying to watch the evening news. Note to Self: This is NOT the place for a tirade about “The David Muir Cartoon Show.”

[3] Department of Justice Inspector General investigated the FISA warrants issued to allow communication intercepts of one of Donald Trump’s campaign advisors in 2016. He found no “documentary or testimonial evidence” of wrong-doing. All he found were a series of inexplicable “errors” made by very experienced investigative personnel that all tended in one direction. The same appears to be the case with the apses made by the Secret Service detail assigned to protect Trump. OTOH, there’s a legitimate case that the existing Secret Service is inadequately funded and staffed to meet its responsibilities. Many complain that they are over-worked and under-paid. As a result, nearly 20 percent of Secret Service employees left in fiscal 2022 and 2023. For a quick, well-informed take on systemic problems of the Secret Service, see: In ‘Zero Fail,’ Carol Leonnig Says Secret Service Is Underfunded And Overworked : NPR

[4] Comically, many of the shirts are manufactured by the Chinese consumer goods giant Temu. Pattern – Temu

[5] Stephen Colbert, Howard Stern, “The View,” and “Call Her Daddy.”

At the Start of Something.

Posted on October 7, 2024 by jsh54

Over the years, Iran has armed and helped organize “proxy” forces on the borders of Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthies in Yemen all are clients of Iran. The Iranian term for these groups is the “Axis of Resistance.” They are sometimes described in the Western media as Iran’s forward line of defense against Israel. In truth they are the “Axis of Aggression” and Iran’s forward line of attack against Israel.

On 7 October 2023, Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel.[1] Israel began a long, grinding conquest of Gaza. Soon after Hamas launched its attack, Hezbollah (“Party of God”) in Lebanon (and eventually the Houthies in Yemen) began supporting Hamas by their own missile attacks on northern Israel and shipping in the Red Sea. Sixty thousand people fled northern Israel in search of a place of greater safety. Israel did little in response to these attacks as it concentrated its effort on Gaza.

The Israeli are, apparently, masters of Sequence: first one thing, then the next thing. Suddenly, Israeli pummeled Hezbollah. (This may be a sign that the government regards matters as being well in hand in Gaza.) First, pagers previously distributed by Hezbollah to many of its members exploded. These had been chosen as a more secure communication device than cell phones, calls on which might easily be intercepted by Israel. The next day, walkie-talkies distributed as a back-up system to the pagers exploded. Israel’s intelligence service had compromised Hezbollah’s communications logistics.

Then Israel began bombing in a precise (but bloody) fashion. On the one hand, they hit many in the upper ranks of Hezbollah’s leadership. Apparently, they knew how to locate them. Among the dead were Hassan Nasrallah, the long-time leader of Hezbollah; Nabil Kaouk, a deputy of Nasrallah; and Ibrahim Akil, head of Hezbollah’s equivalent of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. These all come on top of earlier assassinations.[2]

On the other hand, Israeli jets pounded storage sites of Hezbollah’s missiles and rockets. American and Israeli sources claim that perhaps half of Hezbollah’s huge stockpile has been destroyed.[3] Then Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) invaded southern Lebanon. The government of Israel claims that this is a “limited” operation meant to clear southern Lebanon of Hezbollah troops and weapons. Only time will tell if this operation really is “limited” or if it portends something larger.

In response to the battering of Hezbollah, it’s patron-state Iran launched a large strike of 181 missiles at targets in Israel. Backed up by fire from U.S. Navy destroyers, Israel’s air defense system shot down most of the incoming missiles.

Is Hezbollah irreparably damaged or destroyed? Much of the discussion seems to report a consensus view that Hezbollah SHOULD be destroyed or, at least, forced out of its powerful position in Lebanon’s politics. It doesn’t really address the question of whether Hezbollah CAN be destroyed. Certainly, the huge damage done to its upper leadership will weaken and disorganize Hezbollah for some time. That weakness and disorganization will open more gaps for Israel to attack. Furthermore, in light of the history of other revolutionary movements, there is likely to be a great “rat hunt” inside Hezbollah for the Israeli agent or agents. In light of the history of other “rat hunts,” the person in charge of the hunt will almost certainly be an Israeli agent.[4] In light of the history of other organizations, such hunts tend to wreak havoc with the organization engaged in the “rat hunt.”[5] Deep distrust may lead to fragmentation, at least for a time.

However, Hezbollah is supposed to have around 100,000 fighting men that it can call up. That is a substantial base from which to recruit a new leadership hierarchy. Not to draw too close a parallel, but consider the American “War on Drugs.” For half a century now, we’ve devoted great resources to battling the “drug cartels.”[6] Huge loads of illegal drugs and the cash from their sale have been captured; many cartel members have been captured; many others have died in the fratricidal battles of the drug trade. In 2022, the United States suffered 73,838 deaths attributed to fentanyl.[7] People in the drug trade are like “dragon’s teeth.” Is it the same for Hezbollah?

[1] “Israel vows retaliation after Iranian attack,” The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 4.

[2] For lists of Hezbollah leaders believed to have been killed as of 30 September 2024, see: The Hezbollah leaders killed by Israel – who they were and the key players that remain | CNN and List of Hezbollah’s high-ranking figures killed by Israel | Al Bawaba. Among the others killed was Fateh al-Sharif, who led Hamas fighters in Lebanon and acted as co-ordinator of Hamas with Hezbollah. When not busy with those activities he worked as a school principal for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and as head of the teachers’ union. The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 9. During the Second World War, the British and the Czechs assassinated Reinhard Heydrich, while the Americans ambushed the plane they knew to be carrying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who had planned the Pearl Harbor attack.

[3] Either that’s a wild guess and they’re just blowing smoke or they’re right on the money because they knew the location and exact contents of the dumps. Given the evidence from Israel’s other attacks, it seems that Hezbollah has been riddled by Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad. See: The GWOT if Israel was in charge. | waroftheworldblog

[4] See: Peter Hart, The IRA and Its Enemies: Violence and Community in Cork, 1916-1923 (1988).

[5] David Wise, Molehunt: The Secret Search for Traitors That Shattered the C.I.A. (1992).

[6] Mark Bowden, Killing Pablo: The Hunt for the World’s Greatest Outlaw (2001).

[7] See: Fentanyl overdose deaths U.S. 1999-2022 | Statista

Remaking the Middle East 7 October 2024.

Posted on October 7, 2024 by jsh54

It is a moment of great uncertainty in the Middle East. Many people fear the expansion of Israel’s war with Hamas and Hezbollah into a larger war involving Iran and the United States, one which has no certain outcome. For others, however, visions of sugar plums dance in their head.[1] A Saudi Arabian journalist[2] wrote that Israel’s deadly attacks had done so much damage to Hezbollah that “even if the group were to live on, it would most likely be a caricature of its former self.”[3] Lebanon may be able to free itself from the thirty-year death-grip of Hezbollah. A British journalist judged that, in spite of the Biden administration dragging on Israel’s coat, “Israel is likely to see the current moment as too good an opportunity to miss.”

Opportunity to do what? One answer is to strike at the nuclear weapons program that threatens the survival of Israel. Another answer is both more ambitious and ill-defined. An American journalist reported that “Many in Israel see a ‘once-in-a-generation chance’ to remake the Middle East to Israel’s advantage.” Naftali Bennett, a former Prime Minister of Israel, sees “the biggest opportunity in the past 50 years” to reshape the region.[4]

Reshape how? Destroy Hamas entirely? Destroy Hezbollah entirely or, at least as a significant force in regional conflicts? Gravely damage Iran’s nuclear program and force it to accept long-term international supervision? Topple the Islamist regime in Iran entirely in hopes of something better emerging? Forge an alliance with Saudi Arabia over the Iran conflict and relegate the Palestinian question to Israel alone? Redraw the map of the Middle East to unite all Kurds not under Turkish rule into a sovereign state? Redraw the map of the Middle East to assign the Sunni part of Iraq to Jordan? “Transfer”[5] the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank to the Shi’ite portion of a partitioned Iraq?

What does History tell us about once-in-a-generation opportunities?

In the early 19^th Century, “Nationalism” meant that all people speaking the same language and sharing the same culture should live in a single independent country. Germany were split into 30-plus states; Italy was split into half a dozen states; the Austrian Empire smooshed together people from many different latent-countries. Many people saw Nationalism as the wave of the future. Austria saw it as a death sentence. One of these Believers was the French Emperor Napoleon III, the nephew of the great Napoleon I. France should lead this remaking of the map of Europe.

Napoleon III started with Italy, concluding a secret deal with Count Camillo di Cavour, the prime minister of the Italian kingdom of Piedmont-Sardina.[6] If Cavour would provide a war with Austria, Napoleon II would furnish the French army to win it. Then, the Austrians would be expelled from Italy, and Italy would be “united” in a loose federation. Piedmont would expand to dominate northern Italy; central Italy’s small states would join together under a ruler to be supplied by France; the backward southern Italian kingdom of the Two Sicilies would join the confederation; and the Pope’s lands would be much reduced, but the Pope would become head of this loose confederation.

Cavour did what he said that he would: he provoked Austria into declaring war. Napoleon III did what he said that he would: his army thrashed the Austrians at Magenta and Solferino. Then the wheels came off, badly and at high speed. First, the French were appalled by the casualties suffered in battle and tried to crawfish on Piedmont by striking a deal with the Austrians. Second, Italian popular nationalism surged up on the enthusiasm of victories won by others. Popular revolts led to demands for the unification of all Italy north of the kingdom of Naples, regardless of promises made to Napoleon III. Third, then the Italian nationalist and republican adventurer Giusseppe Garibaldi led a small expedition (with or without the knowledge of Cavour?) against the kingdom of the Two Sicilies. The kingdom collapsed like a house of cards. Garibaldi led his army north toward Rome. Faced with the danger of a republican revolution overwhelming a monarchical revolution, the king of Piedmont met Garibaldi face to face. The great man surrendered to the little king, at the price of southern Italy being included in the new nation.

France hadn’t wanted a united Italian peninsula unified under a centralized government. The northern Italians hadn’t really wanted the inclusion of the backward Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in their new nation. Garibaldi hadn’t wanted a monarchy, but a unified and centralized republic. No one got exactly what they wanted.

Nor did they clearly foresee the long-term effects. The unification of Italy made the unification of Germany (against and without the Austrian empire) the next pressing question in European affairs. Nationalist victories in central Europe then accelerated the spread of nationalism into the great multi-national empires of eastern Europe and the Middle East. The Austrian, Russian, and Ottoman empires all succumbed during the First World War.

Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian statesman and leader of German unification, was a temperamentally conservative and cautious person. He spent a lot of time thinking about all the possible scenarios, but he didn’t go looking for “once-in-a-generation” chances.

Of course, other people are more time-bound and fixated on one outcome as the only possible outcome. That is, they feel a burning need to accomplish some great mission in their lifetime. Both Lenin and Hitler were that way.

[1] Marc Champion wrote in Bloomberg that the blows suffered by Iran offer a tempting chance for Israel to inflict serious harm on its avowed main enemy. Champion acknowledged that an Israeli attack would force Iran to choose between humiliation for the regime and a war with a surprising adversary and the possibility of American involvement.

[2] A place where speech is never free, but often inspired.

[3] Faisal Abbas, quoted in “Lebanon: Can Hezbollah survive the death of its leader?” The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 15.

[4] All quoted in “Israel vows retaliation after Iranian attack,” The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 4.

[5] At the end of and after the Second World War, many ethnic Germans fled the advancing Red Army or were driven out of places like Poland and the Czech Sudetenland. These and other population movements were sometimes referred to as population “transfers.”

[6] Derek Beales and Eugenio Biagini, The Risorgimento and the Unification of Italy (2003). It’s an update of an earlier work. But, if you have the time, there are a series of classic older books by Denis Mack Smith.

Movies About War at Sea: Bear With Me Here.

Posted on September 26, 2024 by jsh54

C.S. Forester (1899-1966)[1] was rejected when he volunteered for military service during the First World War.[2] He tried med school, but left without the MD. He tried writing. This time he got what he wanted. Forester discovered “write fast, send it off, and start something new—you’ll learn as you go.” In 1922 he started a relationship with Methuen publishers that led to four popular history books.[3] In 1924, he published two little noticed novels; in 1926 he hit pay-dirt with Payment Deferred; in 1927 he wrote two more little-noticed novels, and a third in 1928; in 1929 he hit pay-dirt again with Brown on Resolution; in 1930 and 1931 he wrote two more little-noticed novels; then in 1932 and 1933 he wrote two successful historical novels, Death to the French,[4] and The Gun.[5] Then, suddenly, he was successful. He got a contract to spend a quarter of each year in Hollywood working on screen-plays. In 1935, “Brown on Resolution” became a movie[6]; he published both the still highly-regarded The General and The African Queen (and the soon-forgotten The Pursued). In 1937 and 1938 he published the first three novels in the “Horatio Hornblower” series.[7] These books launched a string of a dozen works that dominated his later career. Not knowing this in advance, in 1940 he wrote To the Indies, about Spanish conquistadors.

Then the Second World War came. He had missed “doing his bit” in the first war; he wasn’t going to miss it this time. He couldn’t soldier, but he could write. By 1938, he had created a series of British characters who were stolid, courageous, undeterred by adversity, and inventive about overcoming it. He had mastered the action scene.[8] The British Ministry of Information sent him to America. “You’ve been there, you know them, make us sympathetic, eh what?”[9]

So he moved to the United States. Lippity-lippity quick like a bunny, he wrote another novel about war in the Age of Fighting Sail. This time, the Hero-Captain was an American during the War of 1812.[10] It turns into a story of Anglo-American friendship developing in wartime. Timely, huh? Appearing in Summer 1941, it was a huge hit with critics and readers. He wrote a magazine story about Americans flying in the RAF while the United States remained neutral. It got made into a successful movie.[11] He wrote a magazine story about Commando raids on occupied Europe. It got made into a movie.[12] In 1942-1943, the Royal Navy took him along on missions. A trip on H.M.S. Penelope during a convoy to Malta resulted in the trim little fact-based novel The Ship (1943).[13]

After the war he stayed in America. He continued the Hornblower series to completion.[14] He also wrote a bunch of other stuff. In part, he wrote a different kind of fiction. The Sky and the Forest (1948) seems to me like the inspiration for Chinua Achebe, Things Fall Apart (1958). Or perhaps Achebe just reacted against the White man’s view of Africa, like he did with Joseph Conrad and Joyce Cary. But that’s just me. Randall and the River of Time (1951) is a bit of a head-scratcher, but it seems to me a riff on Ecclesiastes 9: 11-12. In part, the cobbler returned to his last, writing The Naval War of 1812/The Age of Fighting Sail (1957) about the naval side of the War of 1812; and Hunting the Bismarck/The Last Nine Days of the Bismarck/Sink the Bismarck (1959).[15]

Among that “other stuff” is The Good Shephard (1955). The book brings together The Captain from Connecticut and The Ship. That is, it is the story of an American Captain commanding the escort vessels of a convoy crossing the Atlantic in the face of ferocious U-boat attacks early in 1942. From this novel came the movie “Greyhound.”

[1] I think that I had read all his “Hornblower” books by the time he died. I was then twelve years old.

[2] Only a serious medical problem would get you rejected by the British Army in 1917-1918.

[3] Victor Emmanuel II (1922); Napoleon and His Court (1922); Josephine, Napoleon’s Empress (1925); Victor Emmanuel II and the Union of Italy (1927); Louis XIV, King of France and Navarre (1928).

[4] OK, this has a funny side to it. In America, it was titled Rifleman Dodd and its central character is Rifleman Matthew Dodd. He is a soldier in the 95^th Regiment of Foot who becomes separated from his unit during Sir Arthur Wellesley’s retreat to the Lines of Torres Vedras. There is also a Rifleman Matthew Dodd who becomes separated from his unit in the 95^th Regiment of Foot during Sir John Moore’s retreat to Coruna. He appears in Bernard Cornwell, Sharpe’s Escape (2004). Not an accident.

[5] Very loosely adapted as “The Pride and the Passion” (dir. Stanley Kramer, 1957). Interesting back-story.

[6] Forever England 1935 John Mills (youtube.com). Later remade as “Sailor of the King” (dir. Roy Boulting, 1953) Sailor Of The King 1953 (youtube.com)

[7] The Happy Return/Beat to Quarters (1937); A Ship of the Line and Flying Colours (both 1938). Warner Brothers bought all three. “Captain Horatio Hornblower” (dir. Raoul Walsh, 1951) tried to squeeze all three into one movie.

[8] Of course the battles are well done, but the towing-off of the dismasted flagship in Ship of the Line is memorable.

[9] Lynne Olson, Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941 (2013) casts some light on the British information/influence operations.

[10] Captain from Connecticut (1941).

[11] “Eagle Squadron,” (dir. Arthur Lubin, 1942).

[12] “Commandos Strike at Dawn” (dir. John Farrow, 1942). Filmed on Vancouver Island because of the close resemblance to Norway. HA!

[13] On the background and significance for this convoy, see My Weekly Reader 14 June 2021. | waroftheworldblog

[14] Commodore Hornblower (1945); Lord Hornblower (1946); Mr. Midshipman Hornblower (1950); Lieutenant Hornblower (1952); Hornblower and the Atropos (1953); Hornblower and the Hotspur (1962).

[15] See: “Sink the Bismarck!” (dir. Lewis Gilbert, 1960). Sink the Bismarck! 1960 Film in English Full HD, Kenneth More, Dana Wynter, Carl Möhner (youtube.com) Gilbert seems unknown now, but he directed a bunch of interesting stuff. Started with a short documentary on how cod liver oil is made. Lesson for all young people there. That same year, the country-western singer Johnny Horton came out with a song “Sink the Bismark!” (1960). American theaters often ran the song as part of the trailer for the movie. Sink The Bismarck (youtube.com)

Movies About War at Sea” Greyhound.”

Posted on September 25, 2024 by jsh54

In 1939, Germany won the “Battle of Poland.” In early 1940 Germany won the “Battle of France.”[1] A German invasion of Britain required control of the air over the English Channel. The British won the “Battle of Britain.”[2] Then began the “Battle of the Atlantic.” Britain imported much of its food and raw materials; it would have to send forces to its far-flung battle fronts by sea; no Britain as a base, no cross-Channel attack in 1944 or any other year. To stay in the war, Britain had to control the shipping lanes of the world. Hitler ordered his navy to strangle Britain through submarine warfare. The critical phase of the “Battle of the Atlantic” ran from 1940 to 1943. All the while, Britain’s survival hung by a thread.[3]

At first, the Royal Navy had only the help of the small navies of the Commonwealth countries and a few Polish and Free French ships. After Pearl Harbor, the United States Navy joined the fight. “Greyhound” (dir. Aaron Schneider, 2020) provides an absorbing account of the problems of convoy escorts during the critical stage of the “Battle of the Atlantic.”[4] The movie tracks a 37-ship convoy bound for Britain.[5] What do we learn?

First, on either end of the voyage, the convoy is also protected by aircraft, armed with depth charges and searching a much greater area than can the escort vessels. In between is the “Mid-Atlantic Gap” when the convoy is out of range of air cover.[6] Then the convoy has only the escort vessels. The German U-boats loved this “Black Hole.”

Second, modern science helped arm the escort vessels. “High Frequency Direction Finding” (HFDF or “Huff-Duff”) could locate the source of the long-distance radio messages used by the U-boats to communicate with their bases. ASDIC (now called Sonar for Sound Navigation and Ranging) allowed the escort vessels to locate U-boats at closer range. Attacks on submarines used depth charges whose water-pressure sensitive triggers caused them to explode at pre-set depths.

Third, the U-boats still had advantages. On the one hand, ASDIC could tell location, but not depth and depth charges had to explode within 20 feet to damage a submarine; when on the surface they had a high speed through the water and a very low silhouette that made them hard to see. Surface night attacks were common. Get a ship burning and it illuminated other targets. On the other hand, the Germans subs took up a picket line across likely convoy routes, then converged on sighted convoys to attack in “wolf packs” that could swarm the escort vessels.

Fourth, Captain Ernest Krause (Tom Hanks), the commander of the U.S.S. “Keeling,” represents the whole US war-effort in the early period after Pearl Harbor. The Americans would exert an ever-increasing weight in the Anglo-American alliance as time went by, but the British had been at war for two years already. Krause relies on his long years of service in a highly-trained and unforgiving Navy and upon an imposing personal sense of duty to cross his own “mid-Atlantic gap.”

Fifth, words like “success” and “victory” had only a relative meaning. Six of the merchant ships and one of the escort vessels are sunk by the Germans, and the “Keeling” is damaged. Still, 31 merchantmen and three escorts survive. It was a “tonnage war” and much more got through than was lost. As Krause, exhausted by 52 straight hours on the bridge managing the complex battle trudges toward his cabin, he hears the crews of the merchant ships cheering.

[1] An umbrella term for conquering Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France, and driving the British Expeditionary force off the Continent at Dunkirk.

[2] See “The Battle of Britain” (dir. Guy Hamilton, 1969). It is historically accurate and the flying scenes are thrilling. Based on Derek Wood and Derek Dempster, The Narrow Margin. The Battle Of Britain (1969) (youtube.com)

[3] There are a host of good books on this subject, but one might start with Samuel Eliot Morison, The Battle of the Atlantic, September 1939—May 1943 (1947), a volume in Professor/Admiral Morison’s Official History of U.S. Naval Operations in World War II. Morison knew the sea and how to write readable history.

[4] Other Good-to-Great movies on this subject include: “San Demetrio London” (dir. Charles Frend, 1943); “The Enemy Below” (dir. Dick Powell, 1957) The Enemy Below 1957 (youtube.com); “The Cruel Sea” (dir. Charles Frend, 1953); and, from the German side, “Das Boot” (dir. Wolfgang Peterson, 1981). There’s a documentary as well: “U-Boats vs. Allies” U-Boats vs Allies – WWII: Witness to War – S01 EP3 – History Documentary (youtube.com)

[5] East-bound convoys had an “HX” designation (originally for leaving Halifax, Nova Scotia).

[6] Both the RAF and the USAAF prioritized strategic bombing of Germany in allocating long-range aircraft, stinting convoy protection. Eire remained resolutely neutral and denied Britain the use of ports and airfields in Western Ireland that would have greatly eased the situation. Had Britain fallen to Hitler,…

“The System Is Blinking Red” 2.

Posted on September 24, 2024 by jsh54

The Armed Services Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate created a “Commission on the National Defense Strategy.” Eight people were appointed to the Commission by both parties in both committees. The Commission examined both the current and foreseeable threat environment facing the United States and the military preparedness of the United States to address that environment. The study makes grim reading.[1]

First, the threat environment is familiar. In first place is China; in second place is Russia; and in third and fourth places are Iran and North Korea. All are aggressive tyrannies. All devote a much larger share of their national resources to the military than does the United States. All have grown closer to each other—formal or informal allies—over the last few years. All are deeply aggrieved with the “rules-based order” fostered by the United States after the Cold War. “The good old rule sufficeth them, the simple plan, That they should take who have the power, and they should keep who can.”[2] One is already fully at war, one is using its proxies in war, and the others are using military power in an attempt to intimidate their neighbors, who are American allies. In short, “the United States faces the most challenging and most dangerous international security environment since World War II. It faces peer and near-peer competitors for the first time since the end of the Cold War.” Once upon a time, such actions would have met a powerful American response as a matter of policy.[3]

Now, “[the] consequences of an all-out war with a peer or near peer would be devastating. Such a war would not only yield massive personnel and military costs but would also likely feature cyberattacks on U.S. critical infrastructure and a global economic recession from disruptions to supply chains, manufacturing, and trade.”

Why is this? The Commission finds American power much reduced and hobbled, all by our own doing. First, “The Commission finds that DoD’s business practices, byzantine research and development (R&D) and procurement systems, reliance on decades-old military hardware, and culture of risk avoidance reflect an era of uncontested military dominance.” As a result, “the U.S. military lacks both the capabilities and the capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in combat.”

Second, “the U.S. defense industrial base (DIB) is unable to meet the equipment, technology, and munitions needs of the United States and its allies and partners. A protracted conflict, especially in multiple theaters, would require much greater capacity to produce, maintain, and replenish weapons and munitions.”

Third, “today’s [DoD workforce and all-volunteer force ] is the smallest force in generations. It is stressed to maintain readiness today and is not sufficient to meet the needs of strategic global competition and multi-theater war.” “Recent recruitment shortfalls [for the all-volunteer force] have decreased the size of the Army, Air Force, and Navy.”

Fourth, we aren’t spending on–or raising money for–defense the way we used to when we were conscious of danger. On the one hand, defense spending as a share of GDP has roller-coastered: in 1965, 6.9 percent; in 1967, 8.6 percent; in 1979, 4.9 percent; in 1983, 6.8 percent; in 1999, 2.9 percent; in 2010, 4.7 percent; and in 2025 it is projected that the US will spend 3 percent. On the other hand, “Defense spending in the Cold War relied on top marginal income tax rates above 70 percent and corporate tax rates averaging 50 percent.”

The Commission concludes that “The lack of preparedness to meet the challenges to U.S. national security is the result of many years of failure to recognize the changing threats and to transform the U.S. national security structure and has been exacerbated by the 2011 Budget Control Act, repeated continuing resolutions, and inflexible government systems. The United States is still failing to act with the urgency required, across administrations and without regard to governing party.”

It offers a series of urgent recommendations that are well worth considering. But not for too long. Our enemies can see all these things. They may not wait.

[1] See: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/nds_commission_final_report.pdf The Report was brought to my attention by Walter Russell Mead, “U.S. Shrugs as World War II Approaches,” WSJ, 17 September 2024.

[2] William Wordsworth, “Rob Roy’s Grave.”

[3] Bing Videos

“The System Is Blinking Red” 1.

Posted on September 24, 2024 by jsh54

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is required to report on the state of public finances.[1] The CBO offers credible long-term projections. They project an average annual growth of 2 percent.[2]

In 2001, U.S. government debt held by the public was $3.3 trillion dollars, amounting to 33 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Adjusted for inflation, that would be $5.93 trillion in 2024 dollars.

In 2024, U.S. government debt held by the public is $28 trillion, amounting to 99 percent of GDP. So the debt has multiplied almost five-fold in real terms, while it has tripled as a share of GDP. The national debt is growing faster than is the American economy.

In 2035, U.S. government debt held by the public is projected to surpass $50 trillion, amounting to 122 percent of GDP. By 2054, U.S. government debt held by the public is projected to surpass $50 trillion, amounting to 166 percent of GDP. To further complicate matters, the “reserves” of Social Security are forecast to run out by 2033; the “reserves” of Medicare are forecast to run out by 2036. Then the federal government will assume responsibility for making up any difference between assets and obligations.

From the mid-Seventies to today, interest payments on the national debt averaged 2.1 percent of GDP. In 2024 it is 3.1 percent of GDP. In 2033 it will hit 4.1 percent of GDP. This latter figure is highly optimistic because it assumes that the Trump administration tax cuts of 2017 will expire in 2025. There is virtually no chance that this will happen. The interest payment on the debt is growing as a share of GDP.

Why does this ballooning debt matter? The United States government has been cutting taxes and increasing spending for a long time now. Nothing bad has happened. Yet. Many people may assume that creditors will go on lending the government of the United States whatever it needs to fill the deficit. This is not necessarily so. While vast, the pool of global savings available to be borrowed by the United States is not infinite. As the debt grows in tandem with America’s unwillingness to accept fiscal discipline, lenders may conclude that there is a mounting risk of at least partial default. Rather than stopping lending at all, they may demand a “risk premium” in the form of higher interest rates.[3] The point of the higher interest rates is for the investor to recover as much of his/her capital as possible before anything goes wrong. Higher interest payments will crowd-out other spending categories from the budget.

This began as problem-solving or vote-buying in an earlier time. People in both parties now are used to the government giving them things without any immediate cost. Politicians who argue for austerity—lower spending, higher taxes—will lose elections. Many people think that this is pathological. Hard to be puritanical when Puritanism is culturally discredited.

[1] William A. Galston, “A U.S. National Debt Crisis Is Coming,” WSJ, 18 September 2024. Sources: Part 1 of Answers to Questions for the Record Following a Hearing on An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2024 to 2034 (cbo.gov) and Part 2 of Answers to Questions for the Record Following a Hearing on An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2024 to 2034 (cbo.gov)

[2] By my own calculation, the American GDP grew by 58 percent between 2001 and 2023. That averages at 2.5 percent per year. However, the turn against globalization could slow growth everywhere. GDP (constant 2015 US$) – United States | Data (worldbank.org)

[3] See: Risk premium – Wikipedia