Archive for the ‘war’ Category

Against Libertarian Imperialism

Thursday, November 26th, 2009

Faré on Distributed Republic criticizes the Rothbardians for supporting the enemies of their country.

Many libertarians, after Rothbard, start from the correct assumption that one’s government is one’s first and most direct enemy, to the conclusion that one should always side with the enemies of one’s current oppressor.

Rothbardians are wrong in supporting our enemies and the government is right to do something about them, the trouble is that the government is not very effectual or successful in doing something about them, while at the same time forbidding private citizens from acting.

Imperialism is not libertarian, colonialism can be.

Obviously I want the US to win in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our enemies to lose – which issue Rothbardians seem alarmingly confused about. But we are having problems in Dar al-Islam, and have alway had similar problems for a thousand years, due to diseconomies of scale in the application of force. The Rothbardians are wrong in that we really do need to kill people and break stuff but governments are not in fact very good at killing enough people and breaking enough stuff. Our past successes in this thousand year war have always involved meeting centralized state violence with centralized state violence, and decentralized non state and micro state violence with decentralized privatized and semi privatized violence. Centralized violence against the likes of the Taliban will work no better than centralized violence did against the Barbary pirates or the Saracens.

Imperialism worked and was good for everyone when the East India company was robbing the natives, for the Company was a colonialist. It became a disaster when the British government took over the East India Company and tried to do good to the natives from afar.

A big central government is bad at building local roads, and it is bad at providing law and justice. To the extent that good old fashioned Cecil Rhodes imperialism substituted competent civilized white stationary bandits for ignorant primitive and savage native stationary bandits, it was a huge improvement. Instead of being robbed by vicious cannibal rapists, the natives were robbed by people who mostly upheld private property rights, freedom of trade, and organized the building of roads. To the extent that imperialism substitutes distant do gooder bureaucrats in a foreign capital city for local primitive and savage stationary bandits, it is a disaster. It is better to be ruled by a local illiterate cannibal rapist despot than a Harvard educated bureaucrat located in Washington.

One of the best of the old imperialists, a man who was on the transition from brigand to bureaucrat, was Sir Stamford Raffles, a man who was willing to turn a city into a desert, and who rewarded troops by permitting them to ravage a city, a man who on a clerk’s salary somehow mysteriously had gold enough to buy princes by the dozen and support armies on the march. He a spy who charmed people while arranging their deaths, and a brigand. Everyone loved him, and thought what a kind and gentle ruler he was. When he was replaced by men who were wholly bureaucrats efficiently representing the will of London, men who did not enrich themselves to any extraordinary extent, no one liked his replacements.

Rhodes and Raffles were better for those they ruled than London bureaucrats nor has governmental military action served Christendom sufficiently well in the war with Dar al Islam.  We never got anywhere in the war with the Barbary pirates till the French started settling their lands. Until the colonialists arrived,  the Barbary pirates would just surrender, then promptly unsurrender.

The peace of Vasvár in 1664 depressingly resembled the innumerable “peace” agreements that Israel has made.

Our installation of Karzai depressingly resembles Charlemagne’s assistance to Ibn al Arubi.  When Israel removed the settlers from Gaza, rockets followed.  Therefore, when the settlers were there, they were preventing rockets.

This post has been corrected: The earlier version was overly critical of Faré.

Judaism is racism, says the British Court of Appeals

Wednesday, November 11th, 2009

A Jewish school, partially funded by the British taxpayer, has been ordered it cannot define Jews by descent, because this is “racism”.  Unfortunately, Judaism does define Jews by descent.  If the effect of the ruling was merely that Jewish institutions, being “racist” cannot receive government funding, this would not be too bad, but unfortunately, Britain prohibits “racist” association generally, so the ruling logically prohibits Jewish association generally, thus the practice of Judaism generally.

“The requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act,… [Whether the reasons were] benign or malignant, theological or supremacist makes it no less and no more unlawful.”

Judaism is not going to be suppressed tomorrow, the government will not immediately proceed with all the logical implications of the ruling, but this is the beginning of a long slow end.  When England went Protestant, it allowed Jews in.  As it goes Muslim, it is going to send them out.

The Guardian is lecturing Britain’s chief Rabbi on what the Jewish religion should be.  It is a reasonable enough lecture if given by one private citizen to another, and I am sure that lots of Jews have said the same thing, but a very menacing lecture when backed by court and state.  And if Jews comply with this perfectly reasonable lecture, chances are that next year something else, not quite so reasonable, will be found that is wrong with Jews.

Shmuley Boteach very passionately argues that the court, and the guardian, is full of $#!%, similarly Spengler, and Secular Right but whether or not they are full of $#!% they are full of menace.

Muqata suggests it is time for all Jews to get out of Britain.  Not yet it is not, but that is the way the wind is blowing.

Political correctness kills people

Sunday, November 8th, 2009

Section 3 of the US constitution.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Major Nidal Malik Hasan adhered to our enemies and gave our enemies aid and comfort. He then waged war against the united states, shooting 43 soldiers who were not carrying arms at the time.

When he adhered to our enemies and gave them aid and comfort, he should have been (if not charged with treason) dishonorably discharged on the basis that he was unwilling to perform his contract with the united states army, which paid for his education.

Because political correctness holds that Islam is the religion of peace, Major Nidal Malik Hasan cannot be charged with treason, since it cannot be acknowledged that a very large proportion of Muslims are guilty of treason, probably most of those who take their religion seriously. Indeed. If you are an American Muslim, you are guilty of treason against the US, or treason against Dar al Islam, one or the other.

Because political correctness holds that women can fight fires just as well as men, some of the requirements for firefighters, notably the ability to carry an unconscious man to safety, have necessarily been eliminated. And so people burn to death in fires.

And similarly, millions die each year from malaria, which could be easily prevented, but political correctness forbids it.

Fighting to lose in Afghanistan.

Sunday, November 1st, 2009

Hillary has just announced that it is fine by her for Karzai to steal the election.

“that bestowed legitimacy from that moment forward”

Details, x

Democrats of the Vietnam generation long for a re-run of Vietnam. Karzai is militarily incompetent, an enemy of western civilization, and is fighting to lose, thus to allow him to steal the election is defeatism, guaranteeing the Vietnam quagmire that Democrats long for.  Next stop, conscription, compulsory voluntary community service.

The correct response, as I have long argued, to this and to each of Karzai’s previous grave provocations, is to put him in a sack, and drop the sack on Pakistan’s presidential palace from ten thousand feet as a message to the president of Pakistan.

This Afghan government is clearly a disadvantage in our efforts to slay our enemies.  If Afghanistan can only be governed by enemy tyrants, why should we permit it to be governed?  Propping up governments is hard, costly, and bloody.  Propping up illegitimate enemy tyrannies is stupid.

In Afghanistan we are already defeated. From now on, it is just a theatrical display of American weakness and impotence, to the great rejoicing of our enemies within and without.

Betraeus, the candidate to smash the GOP

Friday, October 16th, 2009

Hot air tells us that:

Petraeus is the only candidate who can unite the GOP

What gives him this magic power to unite the GOP?

Well, it seems that this terrible GOP is foolishly and obstinately in favor of terrible and foolish GOP principles:

Over the past couple of decades, the American people have grown more pro-environment, more culturally tolerant, and more suspicious of the unregulated free market, and yet the Republican Party has responded with a series of litmus tests for its presidential candidates that represent the political equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “la la la, I can’t hear you.

Fortunately, for the GOP, the good General Petraeus opposes every single principle that matters for the GOP base, with the sole exception that he wants to conduct an unpopular war against Afghans to force on them a moderate version of Islam, a animatronic version of Islam, a version of Islam that actually is the religion of peace, that treats women with dignity, refrains from executing apostates, and so on and so forth.

Creating a fake version of Islam that fits nicely into the pretty multicutural rainbow and getting Afghans to swallow it is not a realistic military objective.  In fact it is not even a military objective.  Soldiers kill people and break things.  Military objectives are the kind of objectives you can achieve by killing people and breaking things.

So a general who has been conducting a losing war will unite the GOP behind everything it hates, plus a policy of continuing to lose the war for the next four years.

The Cathedral and social decay

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

In 1984, I said the Soviet Union was falling.  In November 2005, I said the mortgage market was collapsing.  I was very far from being the first to say those things, but I was in a minority when I said them.

And here is another prophecy:   The decline of our currency, and the our inability to rebuild the two towers, are symptoms of an illness that will bring about American collapse and crisis around 2020 or so.  As to what form the collapse will take, hard to tell.  When a structure is under ever growing stress, something will shatter, but who can see which part will prove the weakest and shatter first? A major financial artery has been slashed open, and it is spouting blood.  This will collapse the American currency, probably resulting in political crisis such as war, dictatorship or foreign rule.

Government applies state power to ensure political outcomes – for example it makes broadcasters toe the line by direct regulation of the airwaves.  The print media get access to the extent that they play along with those they seek access to, hence the New York Times.  The schools teach the government line on the great depression, and scientists and economists know that if you scientifically prove what politicians and regulators want to hear you get ahead, and what politicians and regulators want to hear is always that regulators are doing good, except that they need a lot more power because they are not doing nearly enough – hence the noise about financial “de regulation”, when all the supposed examples of financial de-regulation are financial regulation, financial regulation that happens to be highly favorable to Goldman and Sach, who are connected to the regulators by a revolving door.

At the same time, those seeking political outcomes, seek backing from state power.  A marriage naturally ensues.  Following the terminology and analysis of Moldbug, let us call this happy marriage and its numerous morbidly obese children “the Cathedral”.  The Cathedral is almost the same thing as the left and the progressive movement, or rather it is the left in power, the established left, the professoriat, the mainstream media, the lawyer lobby, the judiciary, the senior public servants, the management of numerous supposedly non governmental quasi private organizations, and so on and so forth.

The Cathedral is not quite the same thing as the left. One can point to a few small and minor differences. For example: The lawyers who get court appointed to defend people that they railroad rather than defend are menial members of the Cathedral, even though when they railroad broke and unimportant leftists for a police prosecutor, they look very like the right. They are direct employees of the Cathedral because court appointed.  If they were paid on a voucher scheme, which is to say appointed by the accused, they would be employees of the accused, instead of the Cathedral.

Another example of the left not being quite the same thing as the Cathedral is the IMF, which is clearly part of the Cathedral, even though much of the left dislike it and consider it right wing – but dislike or not, in America almost all Democrats vote in favor of the IMF and almost everyone who votes against the IMF is a Republican.  The IMF is clearly not part of what most leftists consider the left, but with equal clarity, it is part of the left in power, part of the established left.

The Cathedral is the reason why history always moves left.  The Cathedral is almost the same thing as the left.  The right is an ever changing coalition of some of the groups and interests that are inevitably and inexorably being steamrollered by the Cathedral. Since the Cathedral steamrollers different things every few decades, the right is different people every few decades.  Thus the Cathedral has different policies and programs from time to time, but its people and policies directly descend from previous Cathedral members policies, whereas the right has different policies and people from time to time.

In functioning, the Cathedral is very like a theocratic state.  The guys with guns back the preachers, and the preachers endorse the guys with guns, resulting in the theocracy becoming ever more extreme and nutty in its religious doctrines, for example Global Warming, but in old fashioned theocracies power is concentrated in a King and high priest, with the King owning the high priest or the high priest owning the king, whereas in the Cathedral power is instead diffused amongst a large class of Brahmins, an ever more numerous, ever growing class of Brahmins.  To get anything done, lot of Brahmins have to sign on, and each extracts tribute for signing on – which is why we cannot rebuild the two towers, and Dubai can, Dubai being an old fashioned theocracy.

You want to build a tower in Dubai, you just need one sufficiently high Mullah to sign on.  In the theocracy of New York, you need lots of Brahmins to sign on, more Brahmins to sign on than anyone can count.  So the two towers stay down.

Now what has been steadily happening ever since 1915 is that the power to print money has been diffused through a larger and larger class of people resulting in an ever greater inflationary bias, much as the power to obstruct the building of towers and housing has been diffused through a larger and larger class of people resulting in housing becoming ever more expensive.  But these were stuffy conservative bankers, not really part of the Cathedral, or rather no longer sufficiently part of the Cathedral now that the Cathedral has moved a long way further left than it was in 1915 and become vastly more numerous. In 1993, the Cathedral decided these bankers were racists, and that they must join the new improved considerably more progressive Cathedral, or else.  In due course, they did.  Hence the present financial crisis, which is affirmative action lending leading to a run on the repo market, which run started silently and furtively in 2005 November, in response to the escalation of affirmative action lending, which had started to become excessive in 2000 or so, and became bizarrely extreme and ludicrously blatant in 2005.   The run crashed the repo market in 2007, causing a reduction in affirmative action lending from blatantly insane to less blatantly insane – which reduction appears only temporary, since the underlying forces of politicized lending and financial regulation are still burning through capital at a rate far faster than capital can be created.

The “stabilization” of the repo market and the “normalization” of financial markets is a huge breakthrough for the Cathedral, and was indeed the original objective of declaring the banks racist, for it means that any large American business that can have its debt rated AAA can in effect issue money, for a government stabilized repo market trading AAA debt with an implicit government guarantee makes AAA rated debt directly cash equivalent. Today, in the “stabilized” financial market, an American financial institution gets and keeps AAA rating by political favor, rather than actual solvency, and to get political favor, it has to kiss up to political activist groups such as Acorn, so the effect of “stabilization” is that more and more elements of the Cathedral get to issue money outside the government budget, resulting in ever more rapid escalation of the ever growing inflationary bias.

Another factor is that every so often, by its nature, the Cathedral will simply go to war.  The Cathedral lives on conflict.  Each reform, real or purported, produces a new dispersal of little bits of state power with which to reward the ever more numerous members of the Cathedral, so the Cathedral always needs new reforms involving new conflicts.  Conflicts are apt to get out of hand.  The longer it has been since the Cathedral last went to war, the more it is willing to take on a conflict that runs the risk of getting out of hand.  The growing financial crisis parallels increasingly warlike attitudes by the Cathedral against its internal and external enemies – thus though we see in Afghanistan a government policy that is increasingly hostile to our troops, and increasingly attempts to appease our irreconcilable enemies, the thing that makes our enemies so wholly irreconcilable is that these efforts to make friends are predicated on Islam being a multiculturalist feminist religion of peace, on replacing Islam with an Epcot style politically correct imitation of Islam, a part of the multicultural rainbow, which program our enemies reasonably enough view as aggressive and threatening, rather than friendly and conciliatory.  Piously declaring Islam “the religion of peace” is conciliatory.  Attempting to actually make it into the religion of peace in Afghanistan and attempting remedy its treatment of women is as aggressive as sword point Christianity. Muslims are incorrect to perceive the pictures of pretty girls on shampoo bottles as an attempt to cut their balls off, but this paranoid perception is fed by the fact that the Cathedral really does intend to cut their balls off.  That the Cathedral wants to make Afghanistan into a good modern progressive state, a subsidiary of the Cathedral with equal rights for women and all that, is infinitely more threatening than if we merely intended to discourage a repeat of 9/11 by killing thirty thousand Afghan men, raping three hundred thousand Afghan women, stealing three million Afghan cattle, and cutting down the orchards.

Thus we can foresee an ever more warlike Cathedral, that is causing ever more serious problems – the latest “reform” (bringing the bankers into the new Cathedral line) being one that is causing huge damage and will rapidly cause vastly more damage, which damage will lead to a multitude of conflicts, conflicts with a Cathedral that is increasingly spoiling for a fight.  The current policy in Afghanistan is merely an example of the Cathedral spoiling for a fight.  When the fight breaks out, it it probably will not be with Islam and may well surprise everyone.  The target, though not the fight, will surely surprise me.

In short, the reasons why the two towers would stay down were evident in 1999 well before they fell.  It is now 2009, and they are still down.  This foreshadows crisis and collapse.  What prevented the towers from rising again is also what caused the financial collapse, which foreshadows more of the same.

At the same time, we hear from the Cathedral, rhetoric ever more violent, ever more warlike.

It is perhaps too soon to bet that a faction that has won every conflict over the past three hundred years is going to lose this time but outright war is apt to have surprising outcomes, War that follows collapse the more so.  Trees do not grow to the sky.  The ever multiplying Brahmins of the Cathedral are increasingly a liability, rather than an asset, and if it should survive the coming financial collapse and win the coming war, the Cathedral will have to thin the ranks a bit.  If it survives, as it likely will, it will start looking more like a traditional theocracy, relying more on the gulag and less on persuasion and bribery.  The Cathedral may well continue in power.  The number of Brahmins cannot continue to increase, or if they do increase, the benefits provided will have to be curtailed.  With prospects of joining the Cathedral curtailed, or the benefits of joining curtailed, continuing in power will require harsher measures.

Care Bear war in Afghanistan

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

In guerrilla wars, victory always requires dreadful means.  The guerrillas clutch the people as shields.  That is a good reason to avoid fighting against guerrillas.  There is usually an alternative.  The Reaganite alternative was that instead of us fighting against Soviet sponsored guerrillas, we would sponsor lots and lots of guerrillas and let the Soviets fight them.  The Soviets did not hesitate to employ dreadful means, but they swiftly ran short of treasure to pay for dreadful means.

Every victory against guerrillas has involved horrifying brutality.  The British in Malaya imprisoned the entire ethnic group that the guerrillas hid among, all of them.    Saddam re-engineered his country’s rivers so that he could deny water to vast areas of Iraq, not only burning the crops and killing the cattle that the people would have nothing to eat, but also, nothing to drink.  Americans conquered the Philippines by threatening genocide, and making a pretty good start on it, a model that the Ceylonese government has been imitating.  The Ceylonese government systematically massacred women and children to deter the guerrillas from hiding among them, which deterrence succeeded, forcing the Tamil Tigers into conventional war.

Thus in Afghanistan, there are three choices:  Defeat the Taliban using the methods of Malaya and the Philippines, choose a different war after the manner of Reagan, or leave.

We are not doing any of those.  What the @#$% are we doing?

General McChrystal tells us:

“our strategy cannot be focused on seizing terrain or destroying insurgent forces; our objective must be the population.”

Not killing the enemy means losing the war while they kill Americans.

“Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us – physically and psychologically – from the people we seek to protect.”

So we should not be protecting our own forces, but instead the people who willingly or unwillingly are protecting our enemies.  At least this General is consistent.  Evil and insane, but consistently so.

So if we are not slaying our enemies, and protecting our troops, what the @#$% are we doing in Afghanistan?

“There must be development and use of indigenous narratives to tap into the wider cultural pulse of Afghanistan.”

This is the standard multiculturalist pap we get inflicted in America’s public schools as an effort to smash Christianity.  Islam is supposedly the religion of peace, and we just have to remind all those gentle nice Muslims that it is, and they will happily join the multicultural rainbow singing Kumbayah.

It is not working against Christianity in America even though the Cathedral has total control.  It sure is not going to work in a Muslim country where the Muslims are shooting back, answering words that seek to destroy their culture with bullets that seek to destroy their enemies.  If you want to change the Afghan belief system to something less violent, the only plausible candidates are Sufi Islam or evangelical protestantism.  Multicultural religion of peace pablum is not going to stand a chance.  And if you want to change the Afghan belief system, first you have to kill everyone who will kill to prevent you from changing it.  You cannot win the war by changing their religious beliefs.  After you win the war, you can use victory for lots of purposes, such as imposing a more peaceable brand of Islam, or eradicating Islam, or raping all the women, or turning the place into a superhighway and parking lot, or whatever.  But you cannot impose a more peaceable variety of Islam while the less peaceable variety answers words with bullets.

Other blogs commenting on this moronic plan for winning the war by means of rainbows and pink unicorns, care bear style, either complain that there are insufficient rainbows and pink unicorns, or else are mightily impressed because it is such a muscular militaristic proposal.  The only sane commentary that I found was “Our troops are not in Afghanistan for a social experiment”.  The Obama objection to this plan appears to be that it involves too much deadly violence, and not enough rainbows and pink unicorns.

I consult the ghost of Raffles on Afghanistan

Friday, October 2nd, 2009

Blog:  “Previously I talked to Xenophon on our troubles in Afghanistan.  His advice was perhaps a little bit anachronistic.  Today we are a bit too civilized for such drastic measures.”

Raffles: “Troubles?”

“A war, we are losing.  In the Hindu Kush.”

“Ah, yes, the Hindu Kush was a problem in my day.  You should leave it alone.  Dreadful climate, barren land, no gold or valuable materials, full of men with nothing of value except guns, guns that they are very good at using.”

“Unfortunately, some people from the area raided us.”

It seems that little has changed:  Well, there are three alternatives.

  1. Put up with it.
  2. Eliminate the tribes that caused the most trouble.
  3. Rule the hostile lands.

Unless it has changed a lot since my day, ruling it is likely to be impractical.  Obviously, your course of action depends on how costly the raiding is. Have there been any new raids since you started the war? What you have done already might well suffice.”

“Eliminate the Pashtun tribes?  Even Xenophon did not go quite that far.”

“I don’t mean kill them all.  Just tell them to get out, go some place else.  Dispersed, strangers amongst tribes that caused you less trouble, they cannot get together to do bad things far from home.”

“But what of those who will not or cannot go?”

“Below my pay grade.  The officer tells the sergeant, clear these people out, the sergeant tells the private. And if there is too much mess, well I am sure the tribes that attacked you also attacked other tribes who have not attacked you.  The natives of the Hindu Kush attack everyone, especially each other. You ally with local victims of the enemy tribes, and have your native auxiliaries do the potentially unpleasant work.”

“But even in your day, did that not create a certain amount of public concern?”

“You rule those parts that are easier and more profitable to rule, or influence local allies that are friendly, to uplift and civilize your native auxiliaries, and everyone forgets to ask about those people that are not around any more.  For example I abolished slavery.  Of course, had I actually abolished slavery all at once, there would have been a lot of ex slaves lazing around all day and stealing stuff all night, so I retained an arrangement where debtors could be forced to work for creditors,  and the creditors kept the books as to how much debt remained, and I made sure that potential trouble makers and lazy good-for-nothings were well supervised by creditors.  You should try it.  Abolishing slavery creates a great deal of favorable comment, sufficient that people overlook what happened in areas that, after all, you do not rule, so cannot be wholly blamed for what happened there.”

“Unfortunately we abolished slavery already.”

“Well I am sure there is something else to abolish.  Opium, perhaps, and doubtless the natives of the Hindu Kush mistreat women to this day.”

I consult the ghost of Xenophon on Afghanistan

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

Blog:

“Ah, Xenophon, I am glad you could spend some time with us.”

Xenophon:

“I was not doing anything.”

Blog:

“We have a bit of a problem in Afghanistan. Despite overwhelming military superiority, we are losing.”

Xenophon:

“Afghanistan?”

Blog:

“It is a mountainous land east of your journey through Asia – the people there somewhat resemble the Kurds.”

Xenophon:

“Ouch! Kurds! Tough fighters, never give up. They never accept that they are beaten. Lots of little ambushes, right? Like that?”

Blog:

“Right. Exactly like that.”

Xenophon:

“I regret that I had to kill so many brave men. Station your most valiant men, your best equipped men, and your most able generals in the rearguard, and get out as swiftly as possible, as I and my men did.”

“Unfortunately, if we do that, they are likely to raid us again.”

“They raided you before! Well then, kill enough of them that they do not do it again. One in ten might suffice, then get out … though if they are anything like the Kurds, you might have to go back in and double up.”

“Ummh … it might be hard to find the right men to kill.”

“Kill the women and children. The brave men will appear soon enough. Kill the brave, and the rest do not matter.  Then get out.”

“The women and children?”

“Spare some of the pretty ones, of course, to please the troops. ”

“Our allies might find this tactic disturbing.”

“Did these Afghans raid you first?”

“Some of them did. Others disapproved strongly.”

“Evidently not strongly enough.  You need tougher allies.”

Next, the ghost of Raffles.

Aiming to lose in Afghanistan

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009

Obama tells us

I’m not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of …  sending a message that America is here for the duration.

Thereby announcing to our enemies America is not there for the duration.

If you aim to win, you aim to intimidate your enemies, so you always say you are going to fight to the bitter end and turn the place in even more of a barren wasteland than it is already. If you announce in advance that you are going to bug out should things get tough, things are guaranteed to get tough.

Obama is smart enough to know this, so I conclude that for political reasons, he aims to lose in Afghanistan, and aims to justify the defeat by a disturbingly large level of American casualties.

A lot of blogs call for a surge, a bunch of blogs are outraged Obama is not retreating already but the great wrong is staying there without intent to win.