I’m not particularly interested in Audrey Hale’s manifesto, but I strongly object to the idea that it is too dangerous to be released to the public.
On one hand I have faith that public disclosure will lead ultimately to the best reactionary result. On the other hand I don’t trust officials who withhold information “for our own good” — they have no right to do so.
Citing the example of the Pentagon Papers, Ray McGovern opines that only a senior executive “at the upper reaches of The Joint Chiefs of Staff or the National Intelligence directorate” could have accumulated the specific intelligence that National Guard Airman Jack Texeira is accused of leaking via a gamers’ chat server on the Internet. The speculation is based on the fact that some of the material consists of CIA and Department of State internal documents that are never disseminated outside those agencies, even to other members of the intelligence community. McGovern believes that someone close to the White House wants to derail President Biden’s foreign policy agenda before it leads to war.
McGovern notes that leaks like the Texeira leak can be consequential. Some here may remember, for example, that shortly after the Pentagon Papers became public, LBJ announced he would not seek reelection.
Because the U.S. is the most heavily propagandized nation on Earth, I sometimes think a whole new world could evolve around us and few would notice. It is easy, for example, to overlook the recent meeting between the presidents of France and China.
The writer seems to think the meeting produced a significant outcome, specifically a joint declaration in which China and France together said, “They seek to strengthen the multilateral international system under the aegis of the United Nations, in a multipolar world.”
I think this outcome is significant, too. My first reaction is to worry that the dunderheads who shape public opinion in the U.S. will step up their efforts to demonize China. But that is the last thing we need just now. An escalation of tribal rhetoric can only lead to invincible ignorance and potentially to conflict.
I’d call this a news tidbit. We’ll have to wait and see if the story has legs.
The basic allegation is that then Vice President Joe Biden steered taxpayer funded technical support to Ukrainian energy giant Burisma once his son Hunter joined the company’s board of directors. An interesting speculation is that this allegation is connected to last week’s revelation of leaked intelligence outlining Ukraine’s failing war effort. Is Stumble Joe under fire?
WSJ makes the obvious point that publication of classified military documents in wartime is unfortunate. In this case, “The leaks are especially damaging because they disclose secret U.S. judgments about the progress of the war.”
It will surprise many that the U.S. assessment is not favorable. WSJ says, “The most troubling leak is that Ukraine’s air defenses could be defeated by May, which would give Russia air superiority and a huge tactical advantage.”
Although WSJ doesn’t mention it, I’m told the leaked documents also provide casualty estimates as of March 1, 2023:
Ukrainian KIA: 70,0000
Russian KIA: 17,000
Some sources dispute those estimates for various reasons, whereas others claim the 4:1 ratio at least corresponds to U.S./NATO military opinion on the subject of casualties.
Personally, I’m less interested in the leak itself and its consequences for the war effort than in the possibility that it reveals our leaders have been lying to us about Ukrainian successes and Russian failures.
Without reading too much into it, this story is interesting for its conformance to pattern. It reminds me of Ronald Reagan, who said he never left the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. It reminds me in ironic ways of the #WalkAway campaign and many of the confessions it generated.
It is unlikely the Democratic Party will soon collapse due to defection, but it is noteworthy that party defectors commonly describe their former fellows as unpleasant people.
The writer continues his exploration of the topic of culture-bound mental illness.
I wonder if some sort of synthesis eventually might be feasible. It might be helpful to know, for example, whether perceptions of equality/inequality correlate to some sort of psychological range in which health and illness represent the opposite extremes.
But that’s an aside. For now, just establishing that mental states are caused to some degree by the society in which one lives, or by the society to which one becomes exposed, is the challenge.