Category: HISTORY

C.I.A.

Audio-book Review
           By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

A Great Place to Have a War (America in Laos and the Birth of a Military CIA

By: Joshua Kurlantzick

           Narrated by: Tim Campbell

Joshua Kurlantzick (Author, senior fellow for Southeast Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations)

“A Great Place to Have a War” reflects a turning point in the operations of the CIA in the 1950s. Joshua Kurlantzick’s story implies the CIA’ role became something more than originally intended.

The CIA is founded in 1947. Its primary duty was to collect, evaluate, and disseminate intelligence affecting national security.

Richard Helms (Former Director of the CIA from 1966-1973.)

The former director of the CIA, Richard Helms is quoted as saying Laos“… was a major operation for the Agency….It took manpower; it took specially qualified manpower; it was dangerous; it was difficult.” He contends the CIA did “a superb job”. Helms is referring to the CIA’s covert activity in Laos during the early days of the Vietnam war. Joshua Kurlantzick’s book, “A Great Place to Have a War” suggests Helm’s view of “a superb job” is a self-serving lie that is far from the truth.

The center of this story is about the Hmong people who live in Laos. One of the great leaders of the Hmong in the 1950s is Vang Pao.

He served as a military leader in Laos from 1940 to 1975. He became a Major general and is shown to be a great leader of the Hmong resistance to a communist takeover of Laos. The CIA aids Vang Pao in the creation of a “secret army” to resist North Vietnam’s incursion in Laos.

James William Lair (CIA Officer serving in Laos.)

William Lair aka Bill Lair, a paramilitary officer of the CIA is an Ambassador to Thailand and is moved to Laos to provide CIA support for Vang Pao’s effort to expel communist invaders from Laos.

Lair (to the right of the helmeted soldier) is a tool of the CIA to create a secret army of Hmong fighters to resist communist takeover of the country.

With the help of CIA covert paramilitary operatives like the infamous Tony Poe (aka Anthony Poshepny), the Hmong army is trained in military tactics.

Poe is infamous in that he instituted collection of Vietnamese ears to confirm kills of enemy combatants. He allegedly sent a bag of ears to his superior officers in the CIA. Poe is respected and feared by many Hmong soldiers for his training and brutal killings. Poe’s “take no prisoners” mentality is adopted by Hmong fighters.

The author offers a detailed history of CIA operatives that manage operational support of the Hmong in Laos.

The fundamental point made by Kurlantzick is that (after Laos) the CIA is no longer just a collector of intelligence but an active participant in American covert military actions in foreign countries.

What makes this story discomfiting is the belief that America’s creation of secret armies to change the course of events in foreign countries is an honorable act.

Ho Chi Minh (1890-1969 Communist leader of North Vietnam.)

The Hmong bravely served their country’s independence, but they fail to stop Ho Chi Minh’s army. Laos fell to the communists.

Adding to that failure, America turned its back on many Hmong defenders that were murdered by the communists after the defeat. As history shows, America repeats that ignominious evacuation of nationalist combatants in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Only Vang Pao, his immediate family and a few of his closest soldiers were evacuated.

Helms expressed pride about what the CIA accomplished in Laos. The author suggests Helms felt the CIA learned how to create a secret army in foreign territories that could accomplish American objectives. If that is true, one wonders how the murder of indigenous countrymen and failure to accomplish American objectives is something to be proud of.

In the last chapters of “A Great Place to Have a War”, the author recounts the lives of major players in the Laotian secret war. Vang Pao tells his fellow expatriates that he will return to Laos and take control of the government. Vang Pao offers positions in an imaginary Laotian government in return for money from Hmong that have settled in America.

Vang Pao was clearly a patriot in his years as a leader in Laos but in his American life, he becomes a con man that betrays his fellow countrymen. He acts like a gangster, a “Godfather”, by extorting contributions from Laotians that settled in America.

Vang Pao never intended to overthrow the Laotian government from his exile. He neither had the support or money needed to foment a new revolution. His objective seems simply to be able to maintain his lifestyle in the United States.

Bill Lair quits the CIA and becomes a cross country truck driver to make a living. He never advances in the CIA because he is not accepted by the changing leaders of the “Company”.

Anthony Poshepny (aka Tony Poe)

The infamous Tony Poe receives a second star from the CIA. His skill as a trainer of secret army soldiers of other countries is considered a useful tool to the CIA (despite his craziness) according to the author.  Tony Poe retires and receives a pension from the CIA and dies in obscurity.

This is a disheartening story. Its credibility is supported by information from investigative reporters and illegally acquired information from informants like Edward Snowden. Kurlantzick notes Snowden found the secret CIA budget ballooned to be more than the State Department’s budget.

A CIA officer disputes this book in a formal rebuttal. The rebuttal is revealed in a December 2014 Senate hearing. One can look it up, but the rebuttal is less convincing than the book.

The lesson one may draw from this story is that America’s State Department needs to be recognized as more important than the CIA in improving international relations. The State Department needs to have Ambassadors that know the language of the countries they are assigned. Ambassadors should have an intimate understanding of their assigned country’s cultures.

The CIA is not a path for peace. Its role should be restricted to collection of data. The CIA should not interfere with other nation’s policies and politics. Its role should be to inform the American government of foreign government information not available from public media or normal diplomatic channels.

This is not to say the CIA is not an important organization. It should be adequately funded to gather intelligence information. Its role should not be to create secret armies, murder foreign nationals, or foment rebellion. Actions taken by the American government should only be taken with review by elected officials, particularly for any clandestine actions against foreign nationals or governments.

It should be clear that any foreign actions taken are the fault of elected officials, not secret organizations. All Americans are responsible for what their elected officials decide. Transparency of government policy and action is required in any country that professes belief in freedom.

SCIENCE LEADERS

Audio-book Review
           By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Big Science (Ernest Lawrence and the Invention that Launched the Military-Industrial Complex)

By: Michael Hiltzik

Narrated by: Bob Saouer

Michael A. Hiltzik (Author, American Journalist.)

Interesting details are revealed about the discovery of fission and the advent of the nuclear age in Michael Hiltzik’s history of “Big Science”. Hiltzik shows “Big Science” is expensive and involves large teams of scientists led by people like Ernest Lawrence.

Ernest Lawrence (Scientist,1901-1958) Lawrence died at 57 years of age.

Lawrence was born and raised in Canton, South Dakota, a rural community of less than 3,000 residents.  Lawrence pioneered American nuclear science and won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1939 for invention of the cyclotron.

Lawrence’s invention led to the creation of the atom bomb, and later the Large Hadron Collider.

LHC MAP SHOWING CERN SITE

Lawrence’s indefatigable energy, persuasiveness, personability, and equanimity gave him the ability to raise huge sums of money to assemble the largest group of physicists, engineers, and experimentalists of the twentieth century.

Lawrence touched the lives of M. Stanley Livingston, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Arthur Compton, James Conant, Niels Bohr, Marie Curie, Ernest Rutherford, Enrico Fermi, Edward Teller, Vannevar Bush, and many others.

Hiltzik notes Lawrence is much more than an experimental physicist. Picture shows early version of Lawrence’s early cyclotron.

Ernest’s ability to organize a team of scientists and engineers to create the first cyclotron coalesced with Lawrence’s personality.  The cyclotron paves the way to a more precise understanding of the atom. His ability to tap into the resources and ambitions of young scientists and engineers, to convince government agencies, and private donors to contribute money for experiment creates a framework for “Big Science”.

Lawrence’s early cyclotron experiments pave the way for splitting the atom which ultimately leads to atomic blasts at Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Ernest’s younger brother, John Lawrence, became a physician. 

Ernest Lawrence worked on radioactivity with his brother as a treatment for cancer.

Impetus for the unimaginable expansion of “Big Science” is magnified by WWII.  Because of the atom bomb’s horrific consequence, the fame of J. Robert Oppenheimer, and the infamous Edward Teller, become known to the world. Hiltzik explains the key role that Lawrence plays in getting Oppenheimer appointed as the science manager for the Manhattan Project (the project name for America’s rush to create the atom bomb).  Edward Teller is an early member of the team but is found to be a disruptive team player.  Teller is an outlying and brilliant theoretician with an acerbic personality, who breaks as often as he makes friendships with fellow physicists, including Ernest Lawrence.

J.Robert Oppenheimer (1908-1967)
Edward Teller (1908-2003)

Leslie Groves (1896-1970, General in charge of the Manhattan Project.)

The creation of the Manhattan Project required the appointment of a military supervisor.

An interesting note by Hiltzik is the relationship between General Leslie Groves and Lawrence. Lawrence, soon after meeting Groves, realizes who is in charge. Any roadblocks for funding or personnel disappear with the appointment of Groves. The two great managers complement each other and grow to respect each other’s roles in the Manhattan Project.

Hiltzik takes listeners into the aftermath of “Big Science” after the war.  Once Russia demonstrates their arrival in the nuclear bomb era, the danger of nuclear war and atomic bomb testing comes to the forefront of research. 

During the Eisenhower government years, a main concern is with the military/industrial complex and competition for nuclear superiority in the face of potential world cataclysm. 

Hiltzik addresses the dismantling of J. Oppenheimer’s reputation by Eisenhower’s appointment of Lewis Strauss as chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Strauss creates a government investigation of Oppenheimer and his early political life.  Strauss comes off as an unfair judge of Oppenheimer’s contribution to America in Hiltzik’s telling of the investigation.  One is reminded this is in the beginning years of McCarthyism.

Oppenheimer briefly joined the communist party but left it early in his career. Despite Oppenheimer’s great contribution to the creation of the atom bomb, Strauss manages to tarnish the brilliant scientist’s reputation.  Ernest Lawrence did not come to Oppenheimer’s defense.  The two scientists had different political beliefs.  Hiltzik implies Lawrence’s mid-western upbringing conflicted with Oppenheimer’s cosmopolitan life.  Both scientists respected their roles as scientists but differed in their politics.  

Lewis Strauss (Former U.S. Secy. of Commerce & Chair of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission)

Hiltzik’s driving theme is the importance of “Big Science” and America’s waning support after WWII. Hiltzik’s primary example is America’s failure to lead in creating a super cyclotron like that which was built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN).  America participated in the cost but chose not to be the lead in its creation. Of particular note today is the need for investment and leadership in environment and energy.

Though many American physicists work at CERN, research at the Large Hadron is managed by 23 member states with each state having a vote.  Members make capital contributions and pay operating expenses while making all operational decisions.  America has no vote.  Japan, Russia, and America are observers (Russia was suspended on March 8, 2022).

Since WWII, one might argue America has played catch-up in “Big Science”.  Sputnik was a wake-up call that led to America’s moon mission which arguably is the last American push for “Big Science.

After listening to Hiltzik’s book, one may ask oneself–where is the Ernest Lawrence of the 21st century that is leading a team of young scientists in “Big Science”?  Ideas are out there but America’s investment seems destined to be limited by capitalist incentives, not “Big Science” experimentation.

WORLD PEACE

           Audio-book Review
           By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Empires of the Weak (The Real Story of European Expansion and the Creation of the World)

By: J. C. Sharman

Narrated by: John Lee

Jason Sharman (Author, Professor of Politics and International Studies at Cambridge, PhD from University of Illinois.)

Professor J. C. Sharman offers an interesting interpretation of history.  He argues one country’s domination of another in “Empires of the Weak” is widely misrepresented by historians.

Sharman argues domination of other nation-states is incorrectly believed to be the result of technical and military superiority.  Sharman suggests force of arms and technology were only a part of their success.  Their failures often came from not understanding the cultures of the countries they tried to colonize. 

Sharman notes many historians argue early European nations had better weapons and superior military training than countries which they invaded and colonized.  

Sharman argues socio-cultural and economic interests were more determinate factors than either technical or military superiority.  He notes Aztec domination by Spain as an example.  He explains a minor military force manages to erase Aztec governance by co-opting indigenous discontented natives and rewarding those who would fight to destroy current leadership and support their colonizers and ultimate benefactors.

The resonating truth of Sharman’s observation in modern times is shown by America’s experience in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. 

Battles can be won but wars lost. Most battles were won with American technology and force of arms but, with the qualified exception of a negotiated compromise at the 38th parallel in Korea, America’s singular wars were lost.  France’s Indochina and Russia’s Afghanistan prove the same.

Vladmir Putin is on the verge of affirming Sharman’s argument.  Putin invades Ukraine with an experienced and well-equipped army, with superior weapons of mass destruction.  However, Russia is losing the war. 

Socio-cultural difference make domination by one country of another difficult, if not impossible.  Putin presumes Ukraine has a Russian culture when in fact it shows itself to be its own cultural nation.  Putin will fail because he ignores cultural difference and fails to co-opt discontented indigenous leaders.

One might wonder how Stalin managed to create the U.S.S.R. from disparate cultures and countries.  One suspects it is not entirely because of Stalinist repression.  Stalin eliminated leaders within Russia’s satellite countries while co-opting existing discontented natives. 

New indigenous leaders of these countries understood their citizens but were beholding to Stalin for having supported their ascension.  Putin may have been able to do the same with more patience and understanding of Ukrainian culture.  His misstep will have future consequence, both for himself, Russia, and the world.

The idea of their always being a clear cause for every effect is false. 

Precise “cause and effect” is proven untrue in quantum physics and seems equally untrue in world leadership.  Leadership success is always a matter of probability, but it must be probability based on cultural understanding.

Sharman’s limited analysis holds great promise for historians and leaders of the world.  Historians can offer more focus on socio-economic conditions of respective countries when determining causes of regime change. Leaders of acquisitive countries might think twice about military intervention or invasion. Leaders may become more selective in choosing ambassadors for other countries.

The threat of the future is that cultural understanding might be achieved in Orwell’s “1984” which implies China is an odds-on favorite as a world hegemon. 

This is a warning to Hong Kong and a threat to Taiwan.  Cultural understanding is a key to world peace.

America needs to get its HouseInOrder by developing Foreign ambassadors like George Kennan that have an intimate understanding of the culture and language of assigned countries.

A point made in this week’s “Economist” is that rising economic Hedgemons like China suggest Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is nothing new because there are no universal rights. President Xi recounts the atrocities of the world that shows man’s inhumanity to man is based on perceived national self-interests, not universal rights.

PUTIN’S INVASION

Audio-book Review
           By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Invention of Russia

By: Arkady Ostrovsky

Narrated by: Michael Page

Arkady Ostrovsky (Author, Russian-born, British journalist spent 15 years reporting for the Financial Times from Moscow.

Arkady Ostrovsky’s book offers a personal perspective on post-1917 Russian political history.  Of particular interest today is in how Vladimir Putin came to power and how he may become an author of his own destruction.

Some listeners may conclude Putin’s invasion of Ukraine will doom his future as Russia’s leader. Others will conclude Putin will survive this political mistake because of Russia’s political history. 

Putin’s ascension after Gorbachev/Yeltsin seems foretold by Russian history.  As noted in Mark Steinberg’s lectures on Russian governance–since the 16th century, popular leaders (whether Czars or revolutionaries) prudently balanced authority and freedom. 

Though Gorbachev and Yeltsin were quite different as Russian leaders, they led Russia with an emphasis on freedom. Both offered freedom without adequate economic support for Russian Citizens.  In contrast, Ostrovsky argues Putin emphasizes authority with a measure of economic support that improves Russian lives.

Yeltsin fails because his reforms were largely political with little improvement in economic security for most citizens. Yeltsin’s support base came from oligarch’s economic gain rather than from policies designed to improve Russian citizens’ lives.  The early years of Putin’s reign emphasize authority with the help of media to influence public perception.

Putin uses secret service personnel and media to detain and restrain public opposition to the government. 

Ostrovsky notes the Chechen uprising is brutally suppressed by Putin. Chechens opt for a level of peaceful coexistence as a part of greater Russia.

Russian government control of media coverage emphasizes Chechen brutality while lauding Russian soldiers’ success in abating Chechen independence.  Ostrovsky suggests the reality of Chechen brutality is real but Russian soldier’s success in abating brutality is exaggerated by government-controlled media. Ostrovsky reports many Russian’ innocents are murdered in the process of rescuing children and teachers from a school attacked by Chechen rebels.

In 2004–Besian school massacre in Russia.

Ostrovsky explains the first President of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, personally endorses Putin as his successor.  Yeltsin is nearing the end of his life after a fifth heart attack.  He views Putin as the best hope of Russia to return to national prominence because of Putin’s relative youth and experience as a former KGB officer.  Putin has political experience as an aid to the former Mayor of Moscow.

However, Ostrovsky notes Yeltsin discounts the paranoia of Putin and how his experience as a KGB officer makes him suspicious of any activity over which he has no control. Ostrovsky suggests KGB training gives Putin the ability to hide behind a persona adopted to sooth the concerns of whomever he meets. That ability disguises Putin’s personal thoughts when dealing with controversial issues.

(The KGB is dismantled in 1991 but its apparatchiks remain in Putin’s government.)

The media during the Gorbachev/Yeltsin years grows as an independent oligarchic organization.  The two edges of power in media are telling convincing truths as easily as lies.  Yeltsin owes his electoral success to media according to Ostrovsky.  Yeltsin, before his last election as President, has a single digit approval rating from the Russian public.  With the help of a media oligarch and Yeltsin’s populist skill, he wins the election. On election day, Ostrovsky notes Yeltsin is nearly dead from a fifth heart attack.

Ostrovsky explains the growth of oligarchs begins with Gorbachev and gains momentum with Yeltsin.  The communist party leaders are losing their hold on governance, but they are well positioned to understand how things get done and can be controlled with acquired individual wealth.  Some of these former communist party leaders use their position to start personal companies with the financing of government money over which they have control.  They become behind-the-scenes movers and shakers for the Russian economy.  Their personal wealth grows, and the general economy begins to improve.

In the short term, these new barons of wealth improve the lives of many Russian citizens.  However, this unrestrained capitalist revolution begins to rot at its core.  Political power follows money.  Money supports political leaders that kowtow to oligarchic demand. An oligarch’s demand may or may not benefit the general public. 

When political leaders act in ways that support oligarchic demand, they improve their prospect for re-election.  In some cases, dynamic political leaders gain some independence based on their popular appeal.  Putin seems to have achieved some level of that power. With the help of popular appeal, public support can become a source of power to challenge oligarchic demand.  It seems Putin may have achieved both power bases, but invasion of Ukraine may change that support.

Robert Kagan finely reveals the fundamental mistake made by Putin in a May-June 2022 “Foreign Affairs” article. History reveals the mistakes of great nations like France, Great Britain, Germany and Japan in thinking they could become world hegemons by force.

Robert Kagan (A neoconservative Republican scholar and member of the Council on Foreign Relations of the Brookings Institute.)

Kagan notes America became a world force by virtue of economic growth which led to a choice by other nations to recognize American hegemony. Rather than capitalizing on the natural resources of Russia, Putin chooses to waste his country’s wealth on a war Russia will lose. It is a lesson one hopes China realizes in its pursuit of its sphere of influence. Sphere of influence is determined by economic growth, not military power.

Ostrovsky argues media is reality in Russia. World media is not the same as the Russian media that is tightly controlled by government leadership.  Further Ukraine invasion is not a Chechnian rebellion.  Chechnya is a small area within Russia–with an estimated 1.2 million people. Ukraine is an independent country of 44.3 million. 

Russian media might be controlled within Russia, but the world’s news will seep into Russian citizen’s knowledge, either by the internet or other means. 

Russia may be an invention as Ostrovsky suggests but all nation-states in the course of history are inventions.  History changes with information.  Dissemination of information is increasingly uncontrollable. 

In time of war, Nagasaki and Hiroshima show what uncontrolled fission can do in the event of a nuclear bomb. Fukushima shows what uncontrolled fission can do in time of peace.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima Nuclear Bomb
Fukushima Nuclear Accident

Invading Ukraine may lead to loss of Putin’s power and influence in Russia.  The tragic consequence of Putin’s decision is the unnecessary death of many Ukrainians and Russians. The decision to invade Ukraine may lead to Putin’s dismissal, imprisonment, or execution. It has certainly changed his reputation in the world.

AUTHORITY AND FREEDOM

Audio-book Review
           By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

A History of Russia: From Peter the Great to Gorbachev

By: The Great Courses

Lecturer: Mark Steinberg

Mark Steinberg (History professor at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign)

It is timely to review Steinberg’s lecture series on the history of Russia because it offers perspective on Russian leadership.  Professor Steinberg reveals a dichotomy in Russian leadership that reaches back to the Czars. 

When Czarist Russia is replaced by Leninist communism, Russian citizens continue to demand centralized authority but with greater personal freedom, both of which are inherently in conflict.  There is no government in history that has achieved a perfect balance between authority and freedom.

Either centralized authority or freedom are compromised by human nature.

America’s answer is “checks and balances”.  Russia’s answer, with few exceptions, is to strengthen centralized authority at the expense of individual freedom. 

The natural human desire for money, power, and prestige demand balancing centralized authority with freedom. 

The most recent exception for more freedom within centralized authority is Gorbachev.  Gorbachev tries to keep the U.S.S.R. together by authoritatively demanding meritocratic government that focuses on improvement in Russian citizen’s freedom.  In contrast, Putin looks to define freedom only for those who get things done in accordance with government dictate.  The “things done” are meant to improve the economy and power of the nation.  Steinberg suggests Putin reduced corruption in his redefinition of freedom, but the rise of oligarchs diminishes his success. Neither leader finds the right balance between authority and freedom.

12/8/1987 President Mikhail Gorbachev in the White House Library
Vladimir Putin, President of Russia

Steinberg recounts the leadership of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great that appear more like precursors to Gorbachev’s style of government.  All three demand a powerful centralized authority but they temper that demand with their desire to make Russian citizens’ lives better.  Though Putin is not addressed by Steinberg, as a leader, Putin seems more like Ivan the Terrible and Nicholas the First who looked at what was best for government leadership rather than what benefits the general population.

Steinberg exudes love for Russia in his profile of its past. He reinforces one’s belief that an intimate understanding of another countries culture is necessary for there to be any hope for success in diplomacy.

Putin is at a crossroad in Ukraine.  Professor Steinberg implies that a crossroad is not for one direction or another but a middle way that serves the best interests of all Russian citizens, not just those in leadership positions.

AMERICA’S CHALLENGE

Audio-book Review
           By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Notes on a Foreign Country (An American Abroad in a Post-American World)

By: Suzy Hansen

Narrated by Kirsten Potter

Suzy Hansen (Author, journalist.)

In her thirties, Suzy Hansen chooses to relocate to Turkey, in part because of a writing assignment but also as a life changing experience. 

Hansen’s view of the world is disappointing in that it represents a population cohort positioned to inherit America’s future.  Hansen reports facts with a journalist’s interpretation of other’s perception of American foreign policy without history’s context.  

To an older generation, Hansen’s facts denigrate the realpolitik of life in the presence of its time. 

In many respects, Hansen’s view of America’s moral failure is spot on, but no country is without sin.  Without intending to deny the ugly consequence of President Truman’s decision to drop the bomb, or America’s intent to widen its sphere of influence, Hansen ignores some important facts.

America’s experience in WWII left little doubt to most Americans that the Japanese would fight to the end, even in defeat.  Over 41,000 Americans were killed and 145,000 injured in Pacific conflicts.  Japanese culture demanded fealty to an emperor to the point of suicide in the face of defeat.

As horrendous as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, it ended war with Japan in less than a week.  How many more would have died in a continuing battle? This does not diminish the horror of nuclear war, but its reality defied 20th century’s imagination.

After the war, Japan, Greece, and Turkey, let alone Europe, were in dire straits.  The Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plans were created to rebuild much of what was destroyed in the war.  There is no question American capitalism profited by its investment in these countries.  However, no other country had the untapped wealth that capitalism created in America. What nation could take on reconstruction without American capitalist success?

America did take advantage of its wealth by imposing democratic ideals on foreign countries.  However, mistakes Hansen notes in her book are more a function of cultural ignorance and capitalist fervor than evil intent. 

Hansen fails to mention the power grab by Stalinist Russia as a major factor in creating an American counter force to Stalinist acquisitiveness. The Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan created a shield against Stalinism.

Kennan’s Russian containment policy set the table for the eventual dismantling of the U.S.S.R.

America continues to make mistakes in other countries for many of the same capitalist reasons they did after the war.  America supports some of the most immoral autocrats of the world because they control their countries.  American support of despots is based on America’s perceived self-interest.  As with any foreign country’s foreign policy decisions, self-interest can be a mistake recognized only in history.  One must acknowledge “self-interest” pervades all human beings, let alone independent nations.

Only with more investment in understanding other cultures, in the way that George Kennan understood the U.S.S.R., can good foreign policies be formulated.

The reality is–many mistakes are based on cultural ignorance.

Hansen presumes America is in decline.  America is not in decline, but other countries are advancing, and America is becoming an equal, not a hegemon.  The lesson America must re-learn is the importance of sovereignty and culture difference.  There should be no more Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan invasions. This is not to argue isolationism which seems implied by Hansen’s stories.  America must use its financial strength to influence other nations to become better stewards of their citizens, whether through democratic ideals or their chosen form of governance.

America must stand on the side of sovereignty for all countries that choose their own identity.  When sovereignty is challenged, the world (not any singular nation) is challenged to respond.  America must lead by example, not by force, except in concert with all sovereign nations.  

Hansen ignores many facts to make her case for America’s failures.  It is difficult to listen to “Notes on a Foreign Country” because it only reports on mistakes, not America’s example as a free Republic.

A DIARIST

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Club (Johnson, Boswell, and the Friends Who Shaped an Age)

By: Leo Damrosch

Narrated by Simon Vance

Leo Damrosch (American author and professor of Literature at Harvard)

“The Club” is more of a biography of James Boswell than “…the Friends Who Shaped an Age”. 

James Boswell (1740-1795, died at 54, Lawyer, diarist, biographer.).

Though many pages reflect on Samuel Johnson (best known for the “Dictionary of The English Language”), the primary source of information on Johnson, as well as “…the Friends…”, appears to come from Boswell’s diary and notes. 

Samuel Johnson (1709-1784, died at age 75, Author, poet, playwright, moralist, editor, and lexicographer.)

An irony of Damrosch’s story is that Boswell neither has the intellectual depth nor historical significance of Johnson or many of the “…Friends who shaped an Age”.  What Leo Damrosch explains is Boswell is a great mime for the opinions and voices of Johnson and Friends.  Damrosch suggests Boswell is the first biographer to capture natural dialog with detailed features of friends and acquaintances. 

In some ways, Boswell is like a court jester, eliciting laughter and opinion in a court of higher-ranking superiors.

Damrosch is not denigrating Boswell’s contribution to historical information but shows Boswell as a bon vivant, rather than an intellectual.  “The Club” is an association of writers, artists, and thinkers formed in a London tavern in the 1760s. Damrosch notes that the club is formed by Joshua Reynolds, a noted portrait artist.  In addition to Reynolds, the original members are Samuel Johnson, Oliver Goldsmith, Edmund Burke, John Hawkins, Topham Beauclerk, Anthony Chamier, Bennet Langton, and Christopher Nugent.  To become a member of the club, one is elected by existing members.

Sir Joshua Reynold’s Club

Boswell, Edward Gibbon, and Adam Smith become members in the 1770s.  From an American perspective, the names of Reynolds, Johnson, Burke, Gibbon, and Smith are the best known.  Many will recognize Reynolds for portrait paintings of famous people of that time.  Reynold’s portraits are in galleries today.  Damrosch notes the portraits represent the best of what a person looks like with creative enhancements of the subject’s best features.  Burke is famous for vilification of the French Revolution and his conservative views of government.  Gibbon is famous for his “…History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, and Johnson for his dictionary.

Joshua Reynolds (1723-1792, died age 68, Portrait Artist.)
Samuel Johnson (1709-1784, died at age 75, Author, poet, playwright, moralist, editor, and lexicographer.)
Edmund Burke (1729-1797, Irish statesman)
Edward Gibbon (1737-1794, died age 56, Author.).
Adam Smith (1723-1790, died age 67, Economist, Author.)

Contrary to what Damrosch notes, it does not appear David Garrick, a famous Shakespearean actor and producer, was in that club but had his own tavern club called the Garrick Club.  Garrick had been a pupil of Samuel Johnson.  Damrosch may have identified Garrick as a member of “The Club” because of his association with Johnson.

David Garrick (1717-1779, died age 62, English actor, playwright, theater manager, and producer.)

Boswell is characterized by Damrosch as an excellent conversationalist because of an ability to listen and ask questions that have interest for those whom he questions.  However, at times, Damrosch notes Johnson becomes irritated with Boswell’s questions because of their vacuous value.  The example given is Boswell’s question to Johnson about why Apples are round while Pears grow with narrow shoulders and wide hips.

Boswell’s question to Johnson-why are Apples round while Pears grow with narrow shoulders and wide hips?

Damrosch shows Boswell comes from a wealthy, aristocratic family.  He is the eldest son, in line to receive the wealth of his family when his father dies.  Boswell moves to London to become an attorney but fails to learn his profession well enough to be financially or reputationally successful.  He meets Johnson whom he admires, and through association, Boswell manages to meet the movers and shakers of his day.  Boswell becomes a diarist that records his life and the lives of people he meets.  His writing makes him famous, largely because of his association with Samuel Johnson and his remarkable ability to reproduce the natural conversation of “…Friends Who Shaped an Age”.

Boswell, from Damrosch’s description, is a hedonist.  He lives for pleasure from conversation with luminaries, drinking to excess, and dalliance with women of the street and lovers whom he seduces. 

Boswell is characterized as a pursuer of women who have an interest in sexual encounters for pay or pleasure.  Boswell’s lifestyle leads to periodic treatment for crabs and other sexually transmitted diseases. 

Damrosch notes that Boswell marries but continues his profligate behavior.  Boswell professes love and remorse to his wife, who knows of his dalliances.  She bares his behavior and accepts his remorse. His wife dies of consumption with seeming disregard by Boswell’s self-absorption. 

Margaret Boswell (1738-1789. died at age 51.)

Boswell inherits his father’s wealth but squanders it and fails as a barrister.  Nearing the end of his life, he produces the best biography of Samuel Johnson ever written.  It becomes a best seller in his time and is still read by some today. Damrosch notes Boswell’s contribution to biography is in making his subjects human by including detailed descriptions of their appearance, and emotive qualities.

More detailed information about the lives of Edmund Burke, Edward Gibbon, and Adam Smith would have made “The Club” more interesting to this reviewer but any who have listened to other narratives by Simon Vance will be pleased by Damrosch’s story.  At the least, a struggling writer may be encouraged to keep a diary of life’s events to become a better author.

FREEDOM’S HERO

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Gorbachev (His Life and Times)

By: William Taubman

Narrated by Henry Strozier

William Taubman (Author, Political Science professor at Amherst College, received 2004 Pulitzer Prize for Biography of Krushchev.)

The length of William Taubman’s audiobook requires a Gorbachev II review.  The first review addresses Gorbachev’s personal life.  The second reflects on Gorbachev’s political life.  Gorbachev’s life is suffused with great accomplishment and tragic failure. 

Georgy Malenkov replaces Joseph Stalin after his death in 1953.  Malenkov is believed to be a reformist who plans to reduce military spending and Stalinist suppression.

However, within weeks, Malenkov is pushed aside by Nikita Khrushchev who takes supreme power within two years of Stalin’s death.  Surprisingly, Khrushchev becomes something of a reformist himself.

Nikita Khrushchev (1894-1971, First Secy. of the Communist Party 1953-1964)

 

Stalin’s autocratic, paranoid leadership is semi-privately exposed by Khrushchev in a speech to the Central Committee of the Communist Party.  Khruschev’s vilification of Stalinist suppression, imprisonment, and murder eventually become known to the world.

The overriding concern of Russian leaders is to maintain suzerainty over Baltic nations and satellite territories in the face of ethnic and economic diversity.  Taubman notes older Russian leaders tend toward autocratic dictate to maintain political control.  The younger and more politically astute lean toward confederation of adjacent soviet republics and East Berlin with the U.S.S.R. as an umbrella organization.  Gorbachev is in the “politically astute” group.

Mikhail Gorbachev rises to chairman of the Communist Party and eventual President of the U.S.S.R., with the expressed intent of democratizing the Baltics, Russia, and East Berlin into a democratic socialist block.  However, ethnic, and cultural differences, accompanied by general economic failure, defeat Gorbachev’s unionist objective.

There is no question of Gorbachev’s success in democratizing U.S.S.R.’ citizens. 

However, in that democratization, the drive for independence becomes paramount to the satellite countries.  German reunification, and the breakaway of Baltic nations from the U.S.S.R. is inevitable.  Freedom, based on ethnic and cultural identity, surmount all efforts by Gorbachev to reinstate U.S.S.R. suzerainty.  Only by force could the U.S.S.R. prevail over state and territorial independence.  Taubman notes force is not within Gorbachev’s nature as a leader.

Once socialist democracy is dangled before the electorate, the die is cast.  Gorbachev’s governance could not provide enough economic stability to justify confederation.  That is his tragic failure.

Gorbachev’s immense success is liberating millions of former U.S.S.R. citizens.  With liberation, former citizens of the U.S.S.R. return to govern as citizens of their own countries.  This at a time of Reagan’s conservative government in the United States, and European distrust of U.S.S.R. militarization.  Taubman shows Gorbachev becomes an international hero based on his personality and persuasive power.  He is greeted as the great liberator of the twentieth century even though his primary objective is to retain those countries seeking freedom within the U.S.S.R.

Gorbachev raised the bar for nuclear disarmament by cultivating American and European participation in the reduction of nuclear weapons. 

Taubman explains Gorbachev is a tragic hero because momentum-of-change is halted by a cult of personality, compounded by economic insecurity.  Gorbachev is replaced by acting President, Alexander Rutskoy, after the 1993 constitutional crises. Rutskoy is replaced by a second acting President, Viktor Chernomyrdin. Boris Yeltsin succeeds Chernomyrdin as President in an overlapping term.

The Russian economy falters in its transition from communism to democratic socialism.  Russian history of “rule-of-one” reasserts itself with the rise of an incompetent President (Boris Yeltsin) and an autocratic but effective leader, Vladimir Putin.  However, Putin’s autocratic effectiveness is in question with the invasion of Ukraine.

Taubman suggests and infers Gorbachev’s success, and world history in general, are two steps forward with one step backward. Based on historical precedent of “one-man-rule” (dating back to czarist Russia) Taubman’s inference seems spot-on. 

Boris Yeltsin (1931-2007, President of Russia 1990-1999.)
Vladmir Putin (Becomes President of Russia after Yeltsin with possible lifetime tenure.

Gorbachev flipped a switch that released the power of democracy but failed to provide adequate economic infrastructure to assure U.S.S.R. survival.  Taubman optimistically infers economic infrastructure of eastern bloc countries will improve overtime, even with autocratic leadership by people like Vladimir Putin. 

The growth of democracy has always been messy, but it moves forward in the face of temporary setbacks.  Spheres of influence will always be in play.   It seems a matter of time for another Gorbachev to make two more steps forward with a repeat of the next leader’s “one-step-backward”.  It appears in 2022, Putin makes that “one-step-backward” with the invasion of Ukraine. Taubman reminds readers of America’s trial in the civil war. Slavery is abolished but institutional racism remains a work in progress. The risk is that the world destroys itself before freedom and economic security become real for all.

SPHERES OF INFLUENCE

Audio-book Revie
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Destined for War (Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?

By: Graham Allison

Narrated by Richard Ferrone

Graham Allison (Author, American political scientist, Professor of Government at Harvard.)

Allison briefly reviews the history of war to reinforce an argument about its causes.  He suggests wars come from the rise of competing hegemonic powers. A quibble one may have with Allison’s argument is that it diminishes reasons beyond power that led to WWII. The rise of Hitler may not have occurred if reparations for WWI had not been excessive.  However, his main point is that cultural differences are seeds from which power and conflict grows.  Allison suggests, when nation-state’ cultures are different, countries competing for political and economic power incline toward war. He gives many relevant and convincing examples.

Graham Allison suggests the cause of war is defined by Thucydides (Greek Historian of the Pelopnnnesian War, Born 460-455 B.C., Died 400 B.C.) in the fifth century BC. 

The “Thucydides’s trap” is when one country achieves a competitive level of political power it challenges existing hegemonic powers, leading to conflict and probable war. 

Allison argues that war is not inevitable but that to avoid it requires acceptance of spheres of influence.  This is not a new concept.  The terms “sphere of influence” became legally significant in the 1880s when Africa was being colonized by European countries.  It was meant to explain a colonizer’s political claim for exclusive control of a particular area of the world.

Vladimir Putin argues Ukraine is Russian territory because it was a part of the U.S.S.R. under the repressive hand of Joseph Stalin. Putin like all colonizers believes his regime has a political claim for exclusive control of another country. He makes the same mistake of ignoring Ukrainian cultural identity, i.e., the same mistake of all interventionist countries of the world.

Allison notes that China’s Chairman Xi is the same as America’s Ex-President, Donald Trump.  That “sameness” is Xi’s goal of making China “Great Again”.

Putin joins the ludicrous “Great Again” club with the invasion of Ukraine.

Allison explains China is culturally unique based on its history, reaching back to 1600 B.C.  Like Ancient Egypt (3400-3200 B.C.), China is as culturally different as any nation-state in the world.  Allison offers a highly intelligent and informative analysis of how different Chinese culture is from American culture.

To avoid war, Allison argues America, the alleged current hegemon of the world, must couch its political behavior and power in ways that acknowledge cultural difference between itself and rising presumed hegemons of the world.

Allison recalls the history of England’s dealings with America after the 1776 revolution.  England reluctantly accepted America’s eventual rise to hegemon of the world. (Some would argue, England’s decision to remove itself from the European Union accelerates that decline.)

The United Kingdom’s economic, military, and political power (its sphere of influence) diminishes as America’s flourishes.  England remains a power in the world, but its sphere of influence steadily declines.

Russia struggles with their sphere of influence because of the collapse of the U.S.S.R.  In 2022 Russia invades Ukraine, just as they did Crimea in 2014, to re-expand its sphere of influence.  Russia maneuvers to politically enlist China as an ally to accomplish that end. Putin undoubtedly cultivates China’s objection to America’s attempt to expand its sphere of influence in the far east.

The issues of Ukraine and Georgia are more precarious for Russia than the rest of the world. Putin’s demand to expand Russia’s sphere of influence renews a cold war that will inevitably become hot. The only question is where the heat will lie.

Robert Kagan reveals the fundamental mistake made by Putin in a May-June 2022 “Foreign Affairs” article. History reveals mistakes of great nations like France, Great Britain, Germany and Japan in thinking they could remain or become world hegemons by force. All ignore the cultural identities of their respective victims.

Kagan’s point is Great Britain adjusted to its changed role from hegemon to a nation among nations. England prospered and maintained its integrity as an independent nation, capable of improving the lives of its people without falling on the sword of its hegemonic past.

Ukraine will become Putin’s American’ Vietnam. It is a war that can only be resolved at the expense of many Russian’, and Ukrainian’ soldiers’ lives. The most other countries can do is support Ukrainian resistance while pursuing a diplomatic solution that respects sovereign independence.

The inference one draws from Allison’s book is that America must recognize the cultural difference between itself China, and Russia to avoid another world war.  Like Rome, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, the former U.S.S.R., and other hegemons of world history, America must adjust its behavior to be a nation among nations, not a hegemon, but a singular influence on other nations. America effectively operates within a sphere of influence. America’s sphere of influence is indirectly challenged in the Far East by China and directly by Russia’s errant invasion of Ukraine.

Allison’s view of the world gives weight to Putin’s great concern about Ukraine’s independence and implied wish to join NATO. The fear Putin has is a reminder of even Gorbachev’s opposition to western encroachment on eastern bloc independence.

The sense one draws from Allison’s insight about culture is that no country in history has ever treated its citizens equitably.  In America, the stain of slavery and native Indian displacement remain festering wounds.  When and if those wounds heal, America’s sphere of influence will either grow or diminish.  In China, it may be the wounds of Uighur discrimination and Han superiority that wounds its future as a hegemon.  In Afghanistan, the unfair treatment of women may doom its sphere of influence.  In Russia, it will be the mistakes Putin makes in violating the sovereignty of Ukraine.

Every nation’s sphere of influence is affected by internal cultural errors and external cultural influences.  Only a state that adjusts to the demands of its culture will survive.  Culture is not exportable, but it has weight.  Foreign cultures can only be an influencer to other countries.  A culture imposed by force will fail as both America and France proved in Vietnam.  Cultural change must come from its own citizens as it did with the U.S.S.R. in 1991. 

Spheres of influence evolve.  They are not static. 

America’s goal should be to understand other cultures.  In that understanding, there must be acceptance of a competitor’s sphere of influence. Allison is not suggesting America withdraw from the world stage, but that engagement be along the lines of a containment strategy like that proposed by the former ambassador to Russia, George Kennan, in the 1950s.  Kennan’s long memorandum is born of an intimate understanding of Russian culture.

Allison argues America should pursue a policy of minimizing conflict while promoting democracy to citizens who seek freedom and equality. 

Allison recommends engagement with rising hegemonic powers with an eye on their respective cultures.  Allison argues, only with understanding of cultural difference is there a way to avoid Thucydides’ trap.

One cannot deny the economic success of China.  At the same time, anyone who has visited China in recent years knows of dissidents who object to communist monitoring and control of citizen freedom.  Tiananmen Square remains a rallying point for mainland China resistors.  Hong Kong continues to demonstrate against Xi’s influence on the lives of local business owners. Taiwan objects to Xi’s intent to repatriate their island country. Tibetans are denied their rights as followers of Buddhist belief.

In sum, one comes away from Allison’s book with the hope of a future without war.  Hegemonic powers will rise, and fall based on the evolution of their respective cultures.  History suggests governments that rely on the “rule of one” in modern times will not last.  Adding population demographics and ecological threats, China’s “rule of one” suggests the best policy for American democracy is acceptance of spheres of influence with a policy of Kennan-like’ containment.  Chairman Xi is mortal, and mortality is the penultimate harbinger of change. In the long run, freedom and equality will change the nature of even the oldest cultures.

Allison’s enlightening history of spheres of influence discounts many conflicts occurring within nations that have little to do with national interests or international conflicts. Of particular concern are tribal and religious conflicts occurring in Africa, Latin America, and parts of the Middle East. Warlord and gang-like leaders have little nationalist interest beyond self-preservation. The consequence is displacement and impoverishment of millions who have no future.

MIDDLE EAST AGENDAS

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Black Wave (Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Forty-Year Rivalry)

By: Kim Ghattas

Narrated by: Kim Ghattas, Nan McNamara

Kim Ghattas (Author, Dutch Lebanese Journalist for the BBC)

Kim Ghattas capsulizes the causes of cultural and religious conflict in the Middle East. Her complex explanation of politics in the Middle East shows the importance of religious freedom and the negative consequence of mixing religion in nation-state governance.  Ghattas’s intimate understanding and experience in the Middle East illustrates how ignorant America has been in confronting Middle Eastern leaders in their struggle for peace in their own countries.

“Black Wave” is a difficult book to summarize.  Some reader/listeners will conclude from Gattis’s book that the heart of Middle Eastern conflict is religious intolerance.  However, it is not religion itself but political leaders who distort religious belief for personal power that roils the world.  America has its own religious zealotry, but it is tempered by a political culture that demands freedom of religion, independent of political governance.  It does not keep American political leaders from distorting religion for their own agendas, but it tempers its potential for state acceptance of orchestrated violence.

Osama bin Laden used religion to justify his directed murder of innocents.  He sought political power at the expense of religion. 

Ghattas dances around America’s bungled effort to democratize the Middle East.  Some would argue Iran democratically elected an Imam to lead their country. Ghattas notes the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia clearly fears popularly elected leaders.

In ancient times, the middle east is known as Mesopotamia, the Arabian Peninsula, the Persian Empire, and Babylonia (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and today’s Saudi Arabia). 

America’s self-interest has made many enemies in the Middle East.  America is a cultural and political baby in respect to the ancient cultures of the Middle East. The birth of the Islamic religion dates to 7th century in Saudi Arabia. 

As is true of all religions that have stood the test of time, the Islamic religion has broken into different factions that consider themselves Islamic but with different interpretations of their faith. 

The added dimension of poverty, cultural identity, and economic inequality encourage belief in religion. A religious believer’s purpose in the world is to gain some peace in this world, with hope for eternal life in the next. Therein lies the source of much violence within and among all countries of the world. There can be little peace in a world where people are being indiscriminately murdered, starving and treated unequally.

An example of how violent and unfair nations can be is Syrian leaders’ murder of its own people.

Ghattas explains there are two major versions of the Islamic religion in the Middle East.  One is Sunni, the other is Shite. 

The hegemon for the Sunni Islamic religion lies in several countries but its center of power is Saudi Arabia.  The center of power for Shite belief is Iran.  “Black Wave” recounts a history of both power centers and how they use religious belief to increase their influence and power in the Middle East.

 Ghattas argues religious interpretation is a tool used by Saudi Arabian’ and Iranian’ leadership to gain power and influence in the Middle East.  Ghattas infers the leaders of Iran and Saudi Arabia do not believe in peaceful coexistence but in hegemonic power.  They use the Islamic religion to maintain control of their power.  When state power is threatened, their leaders’ resort to interpretations of Islam that preserve their control. 

Citizens of any country may be murdered by zealots, domestic terrorists, or foreign invaders. Leaders seeking power care little for those who believe in an afterlife or the luxury of their current life as long as they are obedient servants of the state.

Ghattas recounts many examples of Middle Eastern leadership that show little concern for their citizens, e.g., Saudi Arabia’s murder and dismembering of Jamal Khashoggi, Syria‘s gassing of Syrian citizens, and Iran’s imprisonment and torture of citizens who choose not to follow political leaders’ interpretations of the Koran.

 Ghattas’s book implies the consequence of American ignorance of Islamic beliefs victimizes the poor, powerless, and disenfranchised.  A western country that does not understand the subtlety of religious beliefs in the Middle East has little influence on the course of events.  With a better understanding of Islamic faith and how it is being used by Saudi Arabia and Iran, there is some hope for peace. 

Understanding and acceptance of those who fervently believe in a religion, along with economic opportunity for those who are victimized by hardship and/or violence, offers some hope for peace.  Without understanding of foreign cultures and economic assistance for those victimized, world conflagration is an ever-present danger. One must ask oneself–how wise is it to use political policy, religion, or trade to victimize the poor and disenfranchised?