"We must avoid the traps of hubris and imperial temptation that come with great power"

So said Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, in a widely linked Scowcroftian foreign-policy speech yesterday. Here's the Pushback-related bit:

The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform. This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. War is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The casualties of war are from both parties. The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration's policies.

Vietnam was a national tragedy partly because Members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the Administrations in power until it was too late. Some of us who went through that nightmare have an obligation to the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam to not let that happen again. To question your government is not unpatriotic--to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices.

A semi-related note that's probably been discussed more intelligently elsewhere: It continues to be interesting how Republicans have co-opted Wilsonianism (albeit with a Fuck France T-shirt … which Woodrow himself would have worn with pride), while Democrats have rekindled a long-lost romance with Realism. I'll still wager that the philosophical re-alignment will last only as long as the Republican hold on the White House, though.

Comments

[FatDrunkAndStupid]

Isn't this the same guy that supports mandatory military service?

[Ruthless]

Chuck Hagel is my President.
Bill Richardson on NM is my Vice-President.
Or vice versa.
Hey, it could happen.

[Jason Ligon]

I missed something apparently. What is the meaning of the term 'pushback' in these posts? I gather from context that it refers to an argument about not comparing to Vietnam or something like that?

[jf]

Losing your anarchy, Ruthless?

[Ruthless]

jf,
Forget you saw that, and thanks for keeping me semi-honest. I should have posted with an assumed name.
Maybe I could blame my temporary lapse on Justin Raimondo?

[Rich Ard]

"The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform.

[...]

The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration's policies.".

(sigh)

[Matt Welch]

Jason -- Sorry. It refers to Bush's Veteran's Day rhetorical offensive against Democrats who he says were unfairly and perhaps even unpatriotically accusing him of manipulating pre-war intelligence. Glenn Reynolds and others have used the word "pushback" to describe it ...

[Jim Walsh]

Hagel invokes Stan Lee; interesting...

[Jim Walsh redux]

They say beware of any politico who invokes Lincoln, but what about one who paraphrases Spiderman's Uncle Ben...

[clarityiniowa]

Hagel's RINO horn gets bigger by the day, but I love him for it. Judging by the nasty letters written about him by his own constituency in the Omaha World-Herald, he must be doing something right.

[Shannon Love]

So we are fighting an enemy whose entire strategy is based on the idea that if they can kill a few soldiers consistently our morale will collapse, we will withdraw and they will win.

Yet Hegal can't figure out why it might be a tad irresponsible for a senior political leader to stand up and say, "we can't stand this level of causalities, let withdraw and let the enemy win!"

There is such childishness in the stubborn refusal by people like Hegal to acknowledge that the things they say have a direct impact on war.

[JABBS]

JABBS has had two posts, including one today, on Bush's angry and empty spin that critics are trying to rewrite history. Could be interesting for your readers.

[okydoky]

so essentially, since most folks I know don't go around "questioning" the US government, they are mostly busy working and figuring out what to do when they are not working, they are all unpatriotic? The millions and millions of people out there who could give 2 shits about politics are unpatriotic? Is that the new old line going around? And where exactly is the question form I need to fill out to question my government? Does is come with pre-paid postage? Who does it go to, the White House? Supreme Court? Local INS agent? I think it's unpatriotic to call most of the country unpatriotic while making a trite statement. this is just silly, is regurgitating what you read on a blog elsewhere on a message board patriotic? So that guy is a patriot, but the drafted dude who died in war that never questioned his government is not?

[clarityiniowa]

Shannon Love - There is such childishness in the stubborn refusal by people like Hegal to acknowledge that the things they say have a direct impact on war.

So those of us with strong misgivings about the war, the way it was sold to the U.S. public and to Congress, etc. should... what? Go home and count our toes until the boys come marching home?

Do you think for one moment that the "insurgents" in Iraq give a fart in a windstorm about American public opinion? How about Al Qaeda? If they were in the least subject to polling data, they'd have checked to see whether or not American sentiment was for or against the Twin Towers before they knocked them down.

[thoreau]

Shannon-

There's no doubt that we are less tolerant of casualties than our enemies are, and if we lose enough people we will probably leave. And thank God for that fact, for a nation that does not value the lives of its citizens (including those who are willing to defend the nation) is not a nation worthy of respect or loyalty.

Now, that need not condemn us to inevitable defeat, if we can accomplish our goals before we reach a threshold of unacceptable losses and withdraw.

The questions:

1) Can you give some very concrete objectives that we can use to decide when it's time to go home? Something that we can clearly measure and say "Yep, that's done, we can go"?

2) How many lives do you think we'll have to lose before the insurgency is defeated?

[thoreau]

BTW, it is rather ironic that our alleged goal is to spread democracy, but the strongest proponents of that goal believe that America's Achilles heel is our free press. Last I checked, a free press is a vital institution in a system of representative government.

[thoreau]

BTW, it is rather ironic that our alleged goal is to spread democracy, but the strongest proponents of that goal believe that America's Achilles heel is our free press. Last I checked, a free press is a vital institution in a system of representative government.

[Jammer]

Last I checked, a free press is a vital institution in a system of representative government.

Yes, thoreau, but is a press which regurgitates left-wing talking points truly serving our people?

[clarityiniowa]

thoreau - I think you've purposely asked some question-beggers. I'll defer to Shannon to answer, but may I point out that your questions assume a.) that the opposition in Iraq are, indeed, largely insurgents, which I would define as reasonably patriotic - at least in their own mind - Iraqis who seriously think our attempt at democratization is a threat to their nation, and, b.) that they can be brought to heel and forced at some point to sign articles of surrender or some such.

A great many of these "insurgents" appear to be criminals, foreign terrorists and an amalgam of former Ba'athists and Sunnis trying to regain the power they lost. I wouldn't dignify them with the term "insurgent."

[Jammer]

Last I checked, a free press is a vital institution in a system of representative government.

Yes, thoreau, but is a corporate media which regurgitates right-wing talking points truly serving our people?

[fyodor]

Yet Hegal can't figure out why it might be a tad irresponsible for a senior political leader to stand up and say, "we can't stand this level of causalities, let withdraw and let the enemy win!"

Well, "Bring it on!" didn't work!

[clarityiniowa]

Yes, thoreau, but is a press which regurgitates left-wing talking points truly serving our people?

Of course not. Good thing that's not what we have. Last I checked, there was quite a mix of news sources coming from nearly every political slant, Reason is one example. You can tell which one's come from the right because they trumpet their abundantly self-evident fairness and sense of balance while continually crying about the "liberal press."

[thoreau]

clarity-

OK, maybe the term "insurgent" was a poor choice to describe the people that we're fighting. Just substitute "people that we're fighting" and/or some other term that you prefer, in place of "insurgents."

But I will leave in place the premise of victory, since there's no point in continuing to fight if we can't win. Since my question was directed to somebody who believes that we should stay and continue to fight, I would just like to know what that victory will require.

[clarityiniowa]

fyodor - Well, "Bring it on!" didn't work!

Neither did "Mission Accomplished."

[SR]

"If they were in the least subject to polling data, they'd have checked to see whether or not American sentiment was for or against the Twin Towers before they knocked them down."

Actually, bin Laden commissioned a Gallup survey on the subject but micro-managed the phrasing of the questions so it turned into a push-poll. The question that was asked to a statistically valid percentage of Americans in August 2001 was, "Do you agree the World Trade Center is architecturally bleak and oppressive and should be replaced with a public park?" That polled 78-15-7 on a yes/no/undecided basis.

[Jason Ligon]

thoreau:

Question 2 strikes me as unfair and loaded. The question about strategic objectives seems sufficient and perfectly appropriate.

[clarityiniowa]

thoreau - Good question. I'll wait patiently with you for an answer. Shannon?

[thoreau]

Jason-

I see your point on question 2, although I do think it's reasonable to ask what the price of victory will be.

But on question 1, what do you think our concrete metric for leaving should be?

[Rick Barton]

Hagel's RINO horn gets bigger by the day, but I love him for it.

Hagel's not the kind of Republican for which the appellation "RINO" is reserved. On the contrary, he is a good fiscal conservative who has had the sense, from the start, to question our government's attack on Iraq along with the neocon's lies, which served as its pretext. Also, he has easily been more vociferous in his objections to the war than most Democrat politicians. I mean those Democrats who *actually* object to the war.

So we are fighting an enemy...So we are fighting an enemy...

The insurgency in Iraq is not our "enemy". They are people who want the foreign occupiers, our government, out of their country.

[Jammer]

You can tell which one's come from the right because they trumpet their abundantly self-evident fairness and sense of balance while continually crying about the "liberal press."

Though it can be tedious, it helps to read all the comments in a thread before applying snark. Really, it does.

[The wed RINO]

Hagel's not the kind of Republican for which the appellation "RINO" is reserved.

I thought anyone who didn't toe the line was a RINO.

[Rick Barton]

"RINO" usually means a bigger spending, liberal type of Republican. Bush really deserves the label!

[clarityiniowa]

Rick Barton -

Hagel's not the kind of Republican for which the appellation "RINO" is reserved.

I agree he is not deserving of the label. I think he is a great representative of the Republican Party - and I would vote their way if there were more like him - but the social authoriarians among his constituency can't stand him, and neither can many in his party because he doesn't toe the Bush/neocon line. Look up RINO on Widipedia, and you'll find his name listed among those whom party leaders and spokespeople have hung with the RINO label.

[Jason Ligon]

thoreau:

I think the answer to "What's the price going to be?" is always "We don't know. Here are our force projection models. Does that help?"

As for strategic objectives, I would put the whole thing on a string like this:

1) Remove Saddam. Check.

2) Remove formal Baathist military presence and dismantle the old internal security apparatus. Check.

3) Establish sufficient order for preconstitutional elections to transpire. Check.

4) Get some sort of framework in place for ongoing self governance. A constitution is one option here. Check minus. It remains to be seen whether the constitution created will result in anything other than civil war, but there is one in place.

5) Do whatever is necessary to recruit, organize, train, and deploy a new Iraqi internal security apparatus (most important) and formal military (less important) that is capable of establishing a rule of law over a majority of the country in the absence of significant US presence. Big Fat Zero

The implications for me are that legitimate criticism can be made around why the police and troop development programs are so poor. The relevant metric of success from this point on my string of objectives is how well Iraqi forces function.

[clarityiniowa]

Jammer - LOL, point well taken. I missed the sardonic tone entirely until I reread your posts. Thanks.

[Rick Barton]

Jason,

Wait a second! I thought that the primary objective, indeed the one that the neocons and the government told us made the war mandatory, was to make it impossible that those WMD could be used against us. Now does that one get a "check"???

[clarityiniowa]

Jason L - Great checklist.

Now if President Bush would simply stand up and elucidate such a checklist as clearly and succinctly as you just did, I, for one, would be more satisfied that we need to stay a little longer. But the man absolutely refuses to even define the parameters of success any clearer than "When the Iraqis stand up, the U.S. will stand down." Maddening.

The man reminds me of the dumbest kid in fifth grade kid addressing a bunch of third graders he's desperately afraid are all smarter than he is.

[Wintermute]

Well, you pulled out the best part of the speech. Mostly what I heard was more internationalism and interventionism (but better-planned, says Hagel). Wasn't he a soldier in Vietnam? Some of us courted prison not to go. And to be honest, proposing a pullout, or more realistically speaking, reaching the point where an armed conflict is finally recognized as unwinnable or not worth it might indeed embolden an enemy to some degree and cause more attacks by the enemy and some extra casualties. But that goes along with getting out. I'm getting serious late 60's and early 70's flashbacks these days; and they're not drug-induced, they're war-induced.

[clarityiniowa]

Wintermute - Your flashbacks are justified, it seems to me, under this most Nixonian of adminstrations since, well... Nixon.

[James Feldman]

There is such childishness in the stubborn refusal by people like Hegal to acknowledge that the things they say have a direct impact on war.

Maybe it isn't childishness. Maybe Hagel believes, like I do, that there are more important things than 'winning' the damn war.

[Jammer]

clarity -- no sweat. It does look a bit like a double post. Part of the joke, for me anyway. 🙂

[Jason Ligon]

Rick Barton:

Yes, that one gets a check. I was making that implicitly part of 1.

Here you go:

.5 Eliminate the possibility that the region's only confirmed source of WMD have anything left to either us against the US or, more significantly provide such to terrorists. Check.

[Jason Ligon]

clarity:

I agree about the maddening lack of a coherent expression of objectives from this administratiobn. As I mentioned in the NRO laden thread, making objectives clear allows you to contextualize both praise and criticism, and it gives the media a story they can digest.

You see the same thing in business environments. There is a big chunk of people who will resist metrics being applied to their work at all costs.

[The wed RINO]

.5 Eliminate the possibility that the region's only confirmed source of WMD have anything left to either us against the US or, more significantly provide such to terrorists. Check.

I thought one of the excuses for not finding them was that they were shipped over the boarders.

[Jason Ligon]

RINO:

I am not an administration mouthpiece. That said, I think we now have a pretty convincing case that stockpiles did not exist. I would note that we did not have much of a case either way before the invasion, hence the choice of words 'remove the possibility'.

[joe]

Shannon, our enemies seem to be winning just fine even with American forces in Iraq. In fact, if you took the "flypaper" nonsense you've been parroting seriously, it might have occured to you that drawing thousands of jihadis into Iraq - jihadis motivated by an urge to battle the US - to link up with the domestic insurgency just might not be a smart way to defeat that insurgency.

Since your side has pretty much managed to make every strategic and tactic error imaginable in this war, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to assume that the opposition's prefered course of action is a one way ticket to defeat.

[joe]

Jason Ligon,

On your checklist:

"Remove formal Baathist military presence and dismantle the old internal security apparatus. Check." All hail the new internal security apparatus, the Interior Ministry! The one that just got busted operating a torture and starvation prison, the one that keeps assassinating Sunni political leaders.

And you left out "assist in the creation of a Constitutional process that is acceptable to Iraq's diverse communities." Big Fat Zero.

[Hakluyt]

Jason Ligon,

Yes, that one gets a check. I was making that implicitly part of 1.

Sure.

.5 Eliminate the possibility that the region's only confirmed source of WMD...

Syria has used chemical weapons in the past and probably continues to have a stockpile of such. I'd imagine other nations in the region have their own stockpiles of chemical weapons.

The wed RINO,

These ignorant fucks don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, so expecting the remotest amount of consistency out of them shouldn't be expected.

[Murphy]

We're letting Wikipedia define "RINO" now?

My Republican friends will be a little upset to hear that.

[Rick Barton]

Jason:

Eliminate the possibility that the region's only confirmed source of WMD have

What?? Only?? What are you talking about?? Egypt, Iran, Israel, Syria, SA...And also, WMD never turned up in Iraq after the war! Iraq never posed a serious threat to our nation but there were lotsa lies to convince us that they did.

or, more significantly provide such to terrorists.

Ah terrorists! The government's carte blanche. There was no threat there. There is no evidence that Iraq had WMD at the time. Also, if there was a real threat, they wouldn't have had to fabricate stories about planning meetings between terrorists and the Iraqi government in Prague.

That the threat that some terrorists could obtain Iraq's phantom WMD and use them against us is NOW called "more significant" is a pathetic comment on the fool's errand that has cost over 2000 American lives.

BTW, in SA there is a infinitely greater probability of their WMD winding up in folks' hands who would do us harm.

(I'm having a bad dejevue. It's like we're debating the war again!)

[Hakluyt]

Rick barton,

The idea that Iraq is the only confirmed source of WMD in the region is laughable. Of course, most of it is chemical weapons (one has to ask why many types of chemical weapons get the moniker WMD attached to them?).

[Rick Barton]

Hakluyt,

Yeah, I think that Jason's evil twin musta written that!

[M1EK]

Hi Jammer. Hope I wasn't the one who brought you here - there's dishes to hand-wash!

[Jason Ligon]

Pardon the WMD stupidity. I was firing a response without thinking.

[Jason Ligon]

In general, I have absolutely no interest in rehashing the reasons to go into Iraq. I have no interest in distinguishing yet again my position from that of the administration.

Rick Barton, you can just say "What I said before." I'll respond "What I said before."

Whatever cutesy way you would prefer me to acknowledge that 1) There was a strategic objective to eliminate the threat of WMD coming from Saddam's old or new stockpile; 2) No, we didn't know for a fact everything was gone; and 3) Yes, I consider the elimination of that possiblity checked off; consider it said.

[Jason Ligon]

joe:

Installing a new security apparatus of some competence was further down the list, and I did give it a big fat zero.

[Kahn]

I'd give thoreau's question a simpler answer.

what do you think our concrete metric for leaving should be?

No WMDs were found. The only genuine threat to the US now is if terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers, got control of the oil. That's a huge revenue source and letting it fall to a Taliban style government is a potential threat.

So my "Go home" metric is "When there's a government in place that a) looks like it's going to stand on its own and b) that we have reasonable grounds to believe will not support terrorism."

This subsumes some, maybe all, of what Jason listed. But I'd reduce the core of my argument to a clear strategic US interest.

What other justification can one give for war?

clarityiniowa,

the man absolutely refuses to even define the parameters of success any clearer than "When the Iraqis stand up, the U.S. will stand down." Maddening.

I agree. And he doesn't seem to be smart enough to realize that this makes people doubt his motives for invading, even more than they would have anyway.

[tarran]

Of course, we could leave and let Iraqi's sort things out for themselves, partitioning the country as they see fit, working out the blood feuds,

or we could put in a repressive government that basicly puts a lid on the pressure cooker, a government that will fail without our active support, whose subjects will blame us for their oppression...

Hmm, what to do, what to do...

[Kahn]

By and large I'd let the Iraqis figure it out for themselves, moreso than we have to date. I'd make no particular demand that they create a democracy. [I mean, look at California.]

Not every corner of the world is ripe for democracy. And Iraqi democracy per se has nothing to do with the strategic threat that should be the only reason we're still over there.

[Kahn]

btw, I wouldn't have US troops involved in general peace keeping in Iraq either. The oil is the issue. The oil is what we make sure gets protected.

The Iraqis, meanwhile, get the full sway of self determination. Tell me what's wrong with that. If they want to split up, they split up. If they don't, they don't. If the UN wants to play Voter Police, let them. If they don't, that's fine too.

Staking our purpose beyond the bounds of our own security interests is too likely to draw us into crap we shouldn't be involved in. And let's don't get started with "we shouldn't have gone there to begin with". I agree, but that isn't the point.

I betcha the casualties would fall way off with this policy. The "insurgents" have far weaker grounds for "fighting the invading infidels", because the infidels aren't trying to police the whole country. Plus we don't have US patrols all over the freaking place, thus reducing the odds of tripping a roadside bomb.

The other thing this does, is reduce our efforts in Iraq to a level where technology, not foot soldiers, can be used to do much more of the grunt work. That cuts casualties even more, plus keeps our troops for mixing with the Iraqis even more (which gives the insurgents even less ground to argue from).

[Rick Barton]

Losing your anarchy, Ruthless?

Yeah Ruthless, stay pure. I'm increasingly seeing the logic and equity of anarchy, myself. I'm not there (yet?) but I wish you guys luck cuz we certainly need to move in that direction.

But it seems to me that one can participate in politics with the goal of less government and still be an anarchist.

I believe that the only reason for politics is to (quite nearly) put an end to politics. You agree except you leave out the "quite nearly" part.

You should come out to Denver Saturday and hang with us. So should everyone on this thread.

[JABBS]

As JABBS points out: Some conservatives offer Hagel as some sort of liberal pariah -- Kenneth Tomlinson's crack research team, for example. But that's just empty spin. Others suggest Hagel doesn't represent Republican views, and therefore should be ignored. The response to that empty spin? Does anyone remember how the Republicans fawned over Zell Miller last year?

[Bruuuuce]

"Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for"

Nice strawman, Chuck.

The so-called White House "pushback" consists of arguments against historical revisionism regarding pre-war intelligence. Bush began the "pushback" by saying "it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war".

But it's more fun to bitch about things that never happened, isn't it?

[Ethan]

Must...resist...getting...into...Iraq...War...dis...cussion.....

I think the checklist may in fact be too short. Bush was even more sucessful:

(7) Kill 100,000 Iraqis check

(8) Create a centuries-long recruiting tool for terrorist organizations check

(9) Give the US a nice, shiny "Pariah" status check

(10) Divert hundreds of billions from the actual struggle against terrorism to the elimination of phantom WMD-related program-like potentially planned future activities check

(11) Distract national attention from the president's subliteracy and inability to find Bin Laden check

[thoreau]

12) Scare people before the 2002 election--check

[Kahn]

13) Scare people after the 2002 election. check

But hey, this was just a matter of opportunity knocking.

[Rick Barton]

14) Bring to fruition the long held plans of neocons for the Israeli government-check

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

[Ethan]

(15) Reprise Vietnam check

[Jason Ligon]

16) Nevermind.

See, this is me trying to stay above an argument that took a turn to the goofy a little while ago. My therapist would be proud. Except I'm pretty sure I'm not supposed to be snarking like this either. At least it's off topic.

[James]

I find it really tiresome to hear people whining about how the "left-wing media" abuses poor Bush and recites left-wing talking points. That's not how I remember it. I remember have to turn to the internet to find any real dissenting opinions about the issue of WMD in Iraq.

A few days before the fiasco started, my dad confidently asserted that the US would find nothing. "It's all been destroyed. It's been gone since 1998." I was dubious. Certainly, I thought, the US must have some pretty convincing secret evidence that would enable them to prove to the whole world that Iraq was a clear and present threat to the United States. Since "imminent attack" is the only excuse for a "preemptive attack," the threat had to be pretty clear. The simply HAD to know for sure, or they would never make such a bold and ultimately risky move.

And it was risky: all wars are risky. It's similar to pro football. On any given Sunday, any team in the NFL can beat any other team in the NFL. The side with the home-field advantage has an advantage that's impossible to accurately predict. I'm no master strategist, but history is full of great powers that squandered all they had invading someone they thought would be a pushover. Spain and the Netherlands; Britain and the Orange Free State; Japan and China. It happens all the time.

But you didn't hear any of that from "MSM" when it counted. They cheerfully presented government communiques as investigative journalism and bought, hook, line, and sinker, the government's claims of "secret evidence" that turned out to be laughable innuendoes and outright lies. My father was right. There was nothing there. The whole of their "secret evidence" turned out to be of less value than a retired sociologist with internet access.

Bottom line: everything Saddam said about his WMD before the war turned out to be true. The 12000 page declaration? Substantially true. Everything the US said, every word out of the mouth of every official used to sell the war, turned out to be a lie. Hell, yes, we're going to go into this.

We should be tearing the whole of the Executive Branch apart to find out who knew what and when. The investigations so far are mere puttering around the edges, as far as I'm concerned. When the evil "left-wing" media publishes this age's version of the Pentagon Papers, the mass of memos and reports and documents that charts the Administration's steamroller path to war, then and only then will they be doing the job they are supposed to be doing.

We aren't to have any trouble getting the government's side of the story. The guys who wrote the Constitution knew that well enough. The problem would always be finding someone to criticize them openly. The press should continually skirt the raggedy edges of crime and treason in its government reporting. It's their job to do so.

[Rick Barton]

an argument that took a turn to the goofy a little while ago.

Now Jason, did that goofy turn happen when you said that Iraq was: "the region's only confirmed source of WMD"? 🙂

Just teasing ya. You get a little sketchy on the war but hey, you're a libertarian and a David Hume fan to boot.

[ralphus]

Since your side has pretty much managed to make every strategic and tactic error imaginable in this war, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to assume that the opposition's prefered course of action is a one way ticket to defeat.

What exactly is the opposition's preferred course of action? I don't recall them articulating one that goes beyond just get the hell out. Don't get me wrong. I don't think Bush has presented any kind of grand vision for the future of Iraq, but I sure as hell haven't heard one from his opponents.

[stephen]

"We must avoid the traps of hubris and imperial temptation that come with great power"

Ah, Plus ca change -- see, Pericles, Funeral
Oration, Thuycidides, The Peloponnesian War...some
folks never learn...