James Fallows

Thanks on the 99.9!

So do you consider the USS Missouri in 1945 "unconditional" ? US allowed the Emperor to remain.

But, yes, agree on main point.

That was for a different surrender (Fort Donelson 1862, not Appomattox. In 1865 Grant allowed Lee's officers to keep their sidearms, their horses, etc.)

'Unconditional surrender':

- Surviving Nazi leaders to Allies, 1945.
- Japan to Allies, 1945, with "condition" of emperor staying on throne.
- Saddam Hussein to Schwarzkopf, 1991, with some conditions.

Zero resemblance to anything she is talking about.

Yup.

Different accent. But otherwise ...

In a crowded field that includes Miller, Kash, Hegseth, Marco, RFKJr, Bondi, Vance, Bessent, and until recently Kristi/Corey, etc .... KL deserves a place in the pantheon all her own.

Cover of a book: "An Operational Necessity."

Who else remembers or has heard of prize-winning late 1960s novel 'An Operational Necessity,' by Gwyn Grffin?

It's about law-of-war consequences for WWII German U-boat crew that kills, rather than rescuing, crew members of a French boat it has torpedoed and sunk.

Worth reading again at the moment.

Democrats may not be able to prevent Mullin's confirmation, but they can certainly turn his track record of offense and stupidity into two days of televised humiliation so spectacular that he is wounded in Trump's eyes from day 1. That is the job.

2/ And, sorry, if not deportees, still prisoners at same place being used as to dominance props.

Kristi Noem, cosplaying in tight white shirt and makeup and long hair, right in front of jailed detainees stripped to their underwear.

Photo for history accounts of Noem era:

Swanning around, in Mar-a-Lago "hot girl" attire, in front of caged, head-shaved, half-naked deportees in foreign prison, many of them taken illegally or by mistake, all of them in humiliating role as props in dominance/submission ritual.

A photo of Kristi Noem as governor of South Dakota, presenting as "normally" fresh-faced and attractive, before the extensive transformation into the Mar-a-Lago look.

When she was governor (and we were traveling all around her state).

Completely agree, on both counts.

Fun fact: For six years, the estimable Tim Walz in MN, and the pre-Trump/pre-makeover Kristi Noem, in SD, were governors at the same time of bordering states.

Maybe you can go home again.

(Watertown SD.)

Kristi Noem has done a stunning amount of damage and it’s good she’s gone.

But this doesn’t change the fact that we need a complete overhaul of DHS, impartial investigations into the killings of two American citizens, and information on children that were taken from Minnesota.

Yup. That fateful summer of 1946, in which WJC, GWB, and DJT were born within a few-week stretch.

Context, as dreaded Boomer-era person:

-I can name hospitals my father and mother were born in. One PA, one NJ.

-I know that one of my *great* grandfathers was an immigrant from Germany, to Philly.

-The man who can start wars at his whim seems confused about which country his *father* was born in

Hey, guys, is it a troubling sign when an 80-year-old man can't remember what continent his father was born on?

Rubio described instead a war by Israel, for Israel, which the United States chose to join. The threat to US forces from Iran he invoked in bad faith. The negotiations the US had requested with the Iranians — evidently also in bad faith — he did not mention.

History Undusted: If World War I were a Bar Fight History can be confusing sometimes, especially if it’s distant – beyond our own experience. Who’s who, who did what, and what the consequences were can all seem a bit vague. The analogy…

In international relations theory we call this chain-ganging,” ie, getting pulled into an ally’s war as if chained together at the ankle. As others have pointed out, there was a large element of this in WWI. See here:

www.jstor.org/stable/2538910

And here:

stephaniehuesler.com/2019/12/15/h...

Wilco thanks.

According to Rubio: 1. Leader of weaker ally (Country A) tells leader of stronger ally (Country B) that it is determined to attack Country C. 2. Country B fears that if this happens, Country C will attack both Countries A & B. 3. So Country B goes ahead and attacks Country C too. (Rather than telling Country A: Don’t do it.) Obviously in this case A=Netanyahu/Israel; B=Trump/US; C=Islamic Iran. Any other historical scenario that matches what Rubio has laid out?

Calling diplo/military historians:

Have attached summary of what seems to be Rubio's rationale [sic] for why US had to attack *now.*

What's the closest comparison in US or other history of a major power following the logic Rubio claims prevailed here?

Actual question—looking for compare/contrast.

Getting the US into avoidable disaster in Iraq took months and months and months.

In Vietnam, it took years and years and years.

We are just three days into this totally unnecessary, one-man's-whim fiasco.

Congrats to these 4 strong law firms that refused to knuckle under. And to Princeton, Harvard, Wesleyan etc who've used their fame and resources to set that example in education. And governors and mayors. And district court and circuit-court judges. AND AMERICANS BY THE MILLIONS, across the country.

And, I meant "et al." but "at all" could work too!

2/
And, I should just have said "Bush I" and "Bush II," but you get the point.

"Tell me how this ends...."

—What Ike asked about Laos, Suez

—What JFK was reportedly ready to ask about US troops in Indochina

—What GWHBush asked, in deciding to limit Gulf War to Kuwait

—What GWBush did *not* ask, when going into Iraq

—What seems not to have occurred to Trump, Hegseth et al

Headline: 6 Voters React to Attacks on Iran Ahead of Texas Primaries. Subhead: President Trump has said the attacks were necessary for the security of the United States and to free the Iranian people from oppression. Do voters agree?

2/2

Here is the original item from this morning.

Headline: 6 Conservative Voters React to Attacks on Iran Ahead of the Texas Primaries Dek: President Trump said the attacks were necessary for U.S. security and to free the Iranian people from oppression. Do people who support him agree?

1/2
No snark: Congrats and respect to whoever at @nytimes.com has changed hed/dek on this story.

(Story is about 6 voters, none of whom has ever voted for a Democrat, w views on Iran war. See next item for original presentation, implying they were just some sample panel of "voters.")

Leavitt too. Also Noem.

Say this for 'nasty, brutish, and short' Greg Bovino: His actions were brutal, but at his press ops he tried to adopt 'charm offensive.'