“I suppose I agreed with Ward Churchill, in a roundabout way-- they were the "little Eichmanns" supporting...”

Wow, I never got that goofy. Neither did I ever embrace the silly thinking of Noam Chomsky. I guess in this particular instance I have remained mostly sane and balanced. What about areas of my life? Let’s not go there.

"Nelson Ascher wonders why Erwin Rommell, a Nazi, is frequently praised as a brilliant general while Ariel Sharon is not."

I have never even for one moment considered Ariel Sharon as a great general. This is likely due to my gross ignorance. And yes, the liberal establishment has done nothing to credit Sharon with being a superb military tactician. Only a few days ago I obtained a copy of Ariel Sharon’s “Warrior: An Autobiography.” Frustratingly, I haven’t even read one page of Christopher’s Hitchen’s book on Kissinger. The latter one has been in my possession for around the last month. Sometime later later this week I hope to read both works.

I’m pretty sure the answers would be anything but dispassionate, technical and historically informed in the same way as the discussions about the generals above uses to be.

Your first mistake is to expect any kind of dispassionate and historically informed debate from a moonbat. Won't happen. It's not an insult, just a statement of fact.

I have never even for one moment considered Ariel Sharon as a great general.

David,

Now you know. In my opinion, if there is a single individual to whom Israel owes its life, Ariel Sharon comes in second only to David Ben Gurion.

Michael

Did you have a blog in September 2001?

Your archives go back to July 2003.

Wanted see what you posted.

"Now you know. In my opinion, if there is a single individual to whom Israel owes its life, Ariel Sharon comes in second only to David Ben Gurion."

I'm not debating you in the least. It's time for me to read Ariel Sharon's autobography and learn as much as I can about this great man.

“Dean Esmay starts a worthwhile argument with his libertarian and conservative friends.”

I almost started to scream in mock horror when I read the following:

“Corporations are not a free market phenomenon. They are a creation of THE STATE.”

Dean Esmay fails to make the proper distinction. He is confusing creation with protection. Corporations are merely a more highly developed business relationship between free people. The public sector has absolutely nothing to do with their per se creation. But the government is indispensable in protecting the rights of these individuals who have formed the corporation. They are two entirely different things ---and yet a viable society is unable to function effectively without the two of them cooperating closely together.

Thats because Ariel Sharon wasn't a great general.

Rommel, Von Runstedt, Zhukov revolutionised warfare - speciifically armored warfare.
Claude Wingate invented large unit guerilla warfare to western armies.

They revolutionised modern warfare, Sharon was just a good special forces soldiers. Now Ben Gurion, thats leadership on a shoe string budget but Sharon? Nahhhh not a great general.

Neil,

Perhaps you have Sharon confused for somebody else. Sharon did start out as a commando guy (see "Unit 101"), but in '56 and '67 and '73 he was a battlefield general.

Or do you consider Sharon's encirclement of Egypt's entire 3rd Army in Sinai to be a special forces op? He could have slaughtered them all, down to the last man, except for U.N. intervention to spare their lives. It basically ended the Yom Kippur War, which had not been going well for Israel at all.

Michael,

You may not have had time to write something good but you did pick solid topics. WoW!!

You have forced me to spend time in reading and research to learn more about these three topics.

Thanks

Rommell almost took over Europe.
Sharon led some ground troops in a localized war.

I can't imagine why people might be more interested in a key General in WWII and not as interested in a General who did nothing groundbreaking and simply was a good troop leader.

As for the conclusion of the article, apparently smearing Lefties before they've done something horrific is now appropriate. They hang themselves often enough, do we need to accuse them of hypotheticaly boycotting a book that was hypotheticaly written?

The entire article is a strawman. He invents a book, invents a response and then, to tie it all up in a bow, invents a "He's a Nazi" response to tie back to the first paragraphs on Rommel.

This does not seem to me, healthy discourse. This seems instead to be more of the same illogical rantings that some bloggers think smart. The MSM is full of self-serving hypocrites. If the blogsphere becomes the same, then of what value is it?

The post about Corporations being some Statist machination appears as another example of faulty logic, to me.

Dean states: "This is a simple, indisputable fact of history and law" in reference to Corporations being created by the State. However, this is not a simple, indisputable fact. Indeed, most people familiar with corproations and a free market seem to consider that the statement an opinion, based possibly on incorrect assumptions.

The blogsphere seems as if its quickly gaining a High Signal to Noise Ratio. Much of this, I think, may be due to the fact that as a society we seem to fail to understand how to debate.

There are some things that are considered simply non-debatable, yet many in the blogsphere try to debate them... poorly. TP, in yesterdays posts, for example, talked alot abot about feelings on the delicate issue being discussed. While feelings are something valid to express, debate on feelings seems counter-productive. One cannot, it would seem, usefully debate another individuals feelings about life, death or the afterlife. Indeed, usually in debate, one does not debate 'feelings' at all. It appears meaningless for debate, since feelings are usually based on the perceptions of the individual.

Debates, I have found, tend to concern themselves with the facts, or at least with the non-biased information at hand. We can debate the Florida Laws, we can debate the medical record, we can debate the constitutionality of Congress involving itself in State matters. We probably cannot have a useful debate on someones personal view that that "we're slapping our own humanity in the face". These statements are not debateable, because we have no common platform to debate from. They are feelings, not facts, they are personal beliefs, based on the particluar reality tunnel that the individual inhabits.

Dean's "essay" is another example of poor debate. He makes no case for his claim that Corporations are State institutions. He simply states it as fact. It's like giving the Math teacher all of your answers for the test, without showing your work. One may not agree with your answer, but without a logical argument to support the 'answer', we cannot usefully debate the issue.

Nelson Ascher, also, fails to make a useful argument for anything. He creates a situation, creates a response and creates a spot for Godwin's Law in a handful of paragraphs. Thats not an essay or a debate. It's a small work of fiction.

Before you flay me for being a liberal whinner (esp since I'm not a liberal)... I have pointed out these same problems in other forums. One, I can immediately think of, references a "paper" written by a pagan on one of the live-journal sites I'm a member of. The individual wrote copius amounts of text (I think it was 6 or so pages), but completely failed to make his case, create supporting arguments or even explain and define the concepts he was discussing.

The Internet is very good at making it easy to say something very loudly. But, 'very loud' doesn't equal right, useful or intelligent.

It all depends on what people want out of the blogsphere, I suppose.

Sharon is certainly a highly accomplished military commander. But in no way should he be compared to the German commanders who created a new way of war and Guderian in particular. However, as I think about it, he may be the most accomplished commander living at this particular moment.

As fo corporations being a "creation of the state," that's balderdash. Joint stock companies and cooperative ventures have been recognized and protected by the state, but hardly created by it.

As for post 9/11, has any other power in human history ever acted with such restraint as the US has? Think about how we COULD have reacted had we chosen to.

I agree that Dean did not present a good argument about corporations. His discussion assumes that legal personhood and limited liability are what fundamentally make a corporation, when there is a good argument to be made that at their base, corporations exist as a contractual framework allowing for efficient management of pooled capital.

However, I think he is more correct in his discussion of intellectual property. Even if you argue that creators of works have natural property rights in IP, it is tough to think of a way for them to protect those rights once the IP is distributed unless there are state created rights. Realizing this made me think of something: I think the government should tax intellectual property. Hear me out. I'm not talking about all intellectual property. Instead we could have a new class of copyrights, trademarks, etc, that get additional protections, particularly some of the ones the IP industrys (recording, music, software, etc) are trying to get. In exchange for registration under this regime, the government appraises each work of IP registered, then taxes a percentage of this appraisal, almost like a real property tax. There would be some minimum tax level. As long as the work was economically viable, the owner could pay the tax. If the owner could not or would not pay the tax, the work would lapse into the public domain. This would keep works that were no longer financially viable for the owner to publish from being restricted from distribution in more efficient networks because of copyrights.
I'm not sure if this an original idea, I've never seen it anywhere else, but if you've heard it before, I'd love to read more about it so point me in the direction of additional commentary.
TravisW

IP is just a very grey area in my mind

Benjamin,

I did not have a blog in 2001. I have an old blog with archives that go back a ways, but not that far back. Thank GOD I didn't have a blog on 911. But someday I'll write about why I think I went crazy for the first week and what snapped me out of it.

Noam Chomsky would think I was smart for one week and that I've been crazy ever since then. But he would have nothing to say, nothing at all, about what led me out of that wilderness.

When something like 9/11 happens, the initial reactions seem to be intensely emotional. Some people, like Ace, react with rage at the perpetrators. Others, like Chomsky and Ward Churchill, react with rage at the victims. Chomsky and Churchill (Chursky? Chomskill?) also reacted with rage at our own goverment. Others--and perhaps Michael was among them?--reacted with a sense of guilt, asking what we might have done to provoke this. Some were primarily fearful (that was me). For most of us, though, these were just the initial reactions to the shock of it all.

Fortunately, the people in charge didn't seem to react emotionally. They studied the situation, made some calculations to decide the most effective and moral way to deal with it, and then just went about their business to get the job done.

Reminds me of the old joke:

Q: Who was the greatest German general of World War II?

A: Dwight Eisenhower.

Michael, I'm very much looking forward to your writing on the subject of what made you go crazy for a week after 9/11, and what snapped you out of it. The phenomenon of changing one's mind on politics, especially after 9/11, is one of the primary topics I'm trying to write about on my blog. I've only gotten the first two posts written (see here and here, if interested), but I have about twenty more planned--in my head. It's a complex subject, and it's taking me more time than I initially thought it would to write about it. But I think it's a fascinating subject, and one that many people seem to have talked about quite a bit, both on this blog and on Roger's.

Michael,

Concerning Rommel: His actions in North Africa were masterful (hence the nickname "the desert fox"), and he revolutionized armored warfare with his tactics and strategy. He also was in on the plan to kill Hitler in 1944, so I think he is given a lot of slack for that. Right or wrong, this is the way it is. And if you were to judge him strictly on his generalship, he should be considered a master.

Sharon was a great general and deserves to be recognized as such. He possessed all of the qualities of a superb general (leadership, likeability, tactical and strategic genius, daring, situational awareness, commanding presence, willingness to take risk). Carlos is correct in his assessment, Sharon's encirclement of the Egyptian 3rd Army and Nile crossing during the Yom Kippur War were impressive actions worthy of praise and were responsible for Israel's victory after a very bad start.

I'd venture to guess Sharon is not recognized as an excellent general for the extremely obvious reason. Sad.

I'm sorry, but Dean is insane, and you are wrong, Michael. It's not a worthwhile argument at all.

Dean's insanity is clearly expressed in the following statement: "Indeed, if you ask anyone why corporations are a good thing, they inevitably resort to telling you why corporations are good things..." He says this like it's somehow a bad thing, for someone to answer the precise question they are asked.

He then follows up with this: "But if you really ask them, especially the so-called "free marketeers," where the corporations come from, they make "uh, ur, uh, humm!" noises."

Dean must only talk to stupid free-marketeers. As he himself points out (and which should be obvious), corporations are a legal specification, used to define and regulate certain kinds of commercial transactions.

I don't know what Dean thinks "natural law" and "common law" have to do with this; he never bothers to explain.

Nor does he ever tell us why we should care that corporations aren't real people.

Nor does he ever consider the possibility that trade unions, craft guilds, and merchant's syndicates have been around for a long long time.

"Corporation" is just the modern legal term for the age-old human practice of collective bargaining, modified by the recently-developed concept of limiting liability.

I can see how the idea of collective bargaining might always add up to socialism if you don't care to actually think about it, but just because the state recognizes a collective bargaining organization as a legal entity separate from its individual members, that doesn't make the organization socialist in any way. (Note, for example, that corporations tend to be founded by capitalists, and repudiated by socialists.) Capitalists like to pool their resources, too, you know. They just prefer the state to recognize their own organization, rather than forcing a state-controlled organization upon them.

Dean ends with this truism: "Indeed, to the extent that they do good at all, corporations are an example of successful government regulatory policy."

To which I say, so what? Of course they're an example of successful government regulatory policy! That's because "corporation" is exactly that: state regulation of collective capitalist organizations.

Not that this gets us any closer to anything interesting.

Might as well say, rock bands don't exist in natural law, or that the ACLU doesn't exist in natural law.

Whatever that means, fine. I have no problem with you saying it. But who cares? Does this line of reasoning actually go anywhere? Dean doesn't think so. Or at least he makes no attempt to get anywhere with it.

Stutefish,

I'm sorry you missed Dean's point. If you care, read his comments thread and perhaps it will click.

Thanks, Michael.

I've been reading his comments, and I think I understand it better now. He's off down some libertarian-debate rabbit hole that quite frankly holds no interest for me.

I will qualify my original opinion: "Not that this gets us any closer to anything interesting--to me."

The Sharon vs. Rommel debate Mr.Ascher tries to drum up is utterly pointless. Look at the level of competition for one thing. Rommel beat the British. Anyone who beats the British becomes instantly famous.

Many of the greatest military commanders never get any attention. For example, the greatest General in WWI was probably Franchet D'Esperey, who basically won the war for the allies by defeating Bulgaria in 1918 and opening up the Danube front right into Austria. Yet he is forgotten.

These comparisons are worse than the "Manning vs. Brady" debates that take up so much space on my personal favorite website. Of course Sharon is unjustly vilified. But what a silly way to show liberal bias against Sharon.

These comparisons are worse than the "Manning vs. Brady" debates that take up so much space on my personal favorite website

What moron would debate that? :) Tom has three rings, with no all pro receivers and only a good running back this year. Peyton has Edgerrin James, Marvin Harrison and a sore butt from the whippin' the Pats put on him each and every time they play a game that matters.

Brady vs. Peyton, that's a good one!

"Nelson Ascher wonders why Erwin Rommell, a Nazi, is frequently praised as a brilliant general..."

I'm fairly sure Rommel was never actually a member of the Nazi Party. The degree to which he was actually in on Stauffenberg's conspiracy to kill Hitler remains an open question, but it's what he was forced to kill himself for, and even if he wasn't directly involved, by then he had begun openly questioning the wisdom of continuing the war, at least in the west.

"In the 1960s Zhou Enlai was asked what he thought of the French Revolution. He wisely said "It is too soon to tell.""

Gee Mike, if 170 years isn't enough time to tell, how many years does it take? Five hundred, a thousand?
You think that since the Chinnese revolution of 1949 wasn't even twenty years old, and Zhou was numero 2 in it, he had an incentive to say it "...too soon to tell"? Especially since he promised a lot and came up short a lot and Moa and him had to murder roughly thirty million people and they still weren't done with the revolution.
If some Boston or Chicago politican said that would your response be you dumb shit or something like that?
I think its your racisim to say it was wise of Zho to say that. You give in to the sterotypically asian man as wise with his fortune cookie philosophy.
Then again, to second graders, sixth graders are the smartest and the coolest.
China did great under Moa and Zhou, right!(?)

Terry: I think its your racisim to say it was wise of Zho to say that. You give in to the sterotypically asian man as wise with his fortune cookie philosophy.

You are banned for trolling.

stutefish - despite your statement that you have no interest in Dean's post, you seem to have taken a lot of time to write a list of objections. Strange.

“Terry: I think its your racisim to say it was wise of Zho to say that. You give in to the sterotypically asian man as wise with his fortune cookie philosophy.

You are banned for trolling.”

Accusing someone of racism is going too far. But is fair to question whether a political correct attitude is responsible for giving Zho so much credit for a banal utterance.

It is already an established fact that the French Revolution was an utter disaster. This is beyond dispute. Edmund Burke saw through this evil event almost immediately. Unlike the American Revolution, the French did not institute checks and balances on their leaders. The top boss is supposedly the epitome of virtue and anyone opposing him is a pe se enemy of the people.

Rommel was never technically a Nazi but was a complete supporter of what the Nazi's were doing ,to the extent he was aware of what they were doing, prior to end of the African campaign. I think the technical distinction is meaningless. The only reason he never joined the Nazi party is that he was part of the small yet skilled officer corps during the inter-war years that strongly believed that soldiers should not get involved in politics or join political parties.

Sharon was a brilliant operator who executed existing doctrine well but Rommel invented doctrine as he went, and his theories turned out to be right more than they were wrong which is all anyone can hope for.

Michael

Thanks for the answer.

Yes, you should write about what you thought and wrote that first week or so, and what changed you.

John Keegan once made the interesting observation that the only "myth general" of the English speaking world is Robert E. Lee -- who fought for the only English-speaking country to be invaded, defeated, and destroyed as a political entity. Military genius, or at least a reputation for military genius, seems to involve ultimately losing.

He didn't develop the thought beyond that, but I wonder if being in a losing battle might allow someone to show their brilliance -- to take risks that a winning general would avoid as unnecessary.

Naturally, this is more about reputation than anything else.

Bill Roggio writes: I'd venture to guess Sharon is not recognized as an excellent general for the extremely obvious reason. Sad.

Moshe Dayan is considered an excellent general, and I believe he shares with Sharon the obvious reason you suggest.

I'm inclined to agree with you in general. But Sharon has been so targetted by leftist/arabist/radical Islamic forces for his (indirect) role in Lebanon, and they have defined his resume in the eyes of the media. That's sad too.

I'm hardly Sharon's biggest fan, but he definitely gets a bum rap, mostly driven by the folks who think Yasser Arafat is a heroic figure.

As someone above said, Rommel had victories against the british, and that was quite a feat. How do you get a reputation as a great general by getting victories over arabs?

There was the 1973 case where israel was in desperate straits and Sharon was the general who commanded the breakthrough. But it's hard to attribute too much of that to Sharon, it was done with US equipment and US supplies, following a US plan based on US satellite photos. You've got to credit the israeli soldiers who did the killing but Sharon was pretty much along for the ride.

Sharon might be a great general. But until he proves it fighting the germans or the americans or the russians, who would know? Possibly someday he might get his chance but I'd just as soon he didn't.

Lots of folks don't get the credit they deserve; Casimir Pulaski is a jokey day off in order to placate an interest group in Chicago, but he was apparently a superb commander during the Revolutionary War.

Joint stock companies and cooperative ventures have been recognized and protected by the state, but hardly created by it.

Yes, but the concept of a limited liability corporation was very much created by the state, as have been, in the end, all property rights. A big part of what the state does in even its most minimalist form is to define and maintain property rights.

J. Thomas:

There was the 1973 case where israel was in desperate straits and Sharon was the general who commanded the breakthrough. But it's hard to attribute too much of that to Sharon, it was done with US equipment and US supplies, following a US plan based on US satellite photos. You've got to credit the israeli soldiers who did the killing but Sharon was pretty much along for the ride.

Not quite. If you want to credit American weaponry and intelligence -- which would be wrong, by the way, since there was plenty of home-grown Israeli weaponry and intelligence at work in 1973 -- then wouldn't you also give credit to the Soviet weaponry (in far greater numbers) and intelligence that the Egyptians and Syrians were using?

Sharon's breakthrough in 1973 was breathtaking in its audacity, and it's been pretty well established that he did it on his own initiative, getting approval for the crossing of the Suez Canal only several hours after he had already done so.

In the meantime, while he was pouring everything he had across the Canal to block the (eventual) retreat of the Egyptian Third Army, he had to stop the advance of that Third Army somehow... and did so by ordering a tank squadron to race around the desert like maniacs, radioing phony orders to themselves and convincing the Egyptians that there were more of them. This enabled Sharon to hold out for several hours, until reinforcements arrived from the north... but for a time, the entire Egyptian Third Army was held in place by seven tanks, in what had to be the greatest military bluff in decades.

All this, mind you, at a time when Israel was on the verge of extinction due to a surprise two-pronged attack... and all this done, without orders, by a reserve general. (Sharon was no longer in the regulars in 1973; he was called up when the war started.)

As a military strategist and tactician, Sharon was probably second to his boss, Moshe Dayan. But there's no questioning his briliance in military matters.

respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
SSgt, IDF (ret.)