McPheet.com

“What can you tell me of the Prussian-Russian War?”

“Not much. Mainly that the Prussians got their hides nailed to the barn when the smart money
figured them for winners.”

“Suppose I tell you that twelve people won that war — seven men, five women — and the
heaviest weapon used was a six-millimeter pistol.”

“I don’t think you’ve ever lied to me. How?”

“Friday, brainpower is the scarcest commodity and the only one of real value. Any human
organization can be rendered useless, impotent, a danger to itself, by selectively removing
its best minds while carefully leaving the stupid ones in place. It took only a few careful
‘accidents’ to ruin utterly the great Prussian military machine and turn it into a
blundering mob. But this did not show until the fighting was well under way, because stupid
fools look just as good as military geniuses until the fighting starts.”

- from “Friday,” by Robert A. Heinlein, 1982

I’ve been wondering how the War will be fought, given the history of
invasions of Afghanistan in the past. (See
this
story on Slate for a brief history of Great Power attempts to invade
Afghanistan.) This snippet from Heinlein’s novel keeps popping into my
mind.

We will, I think, likely fight two wars simultaneously. The Big War,
consisting of war planes and infantry troops and viewed by millions on CNN,
will be launched because America needs to show (both to our allies and our
foes) its resolve and might in the face of these attacks. The President must
be seen by the American people as Taking Strong Action. As much as possible,
the President will build an international coalition to support this war, and
maybe even send troops to fight it.

But the President doesn’t appear to be interested in setting up a new
government in Afghanistan, and several writers have made the point that
Afghanistan is so battered and poverty-stricken that bombing the place will
be redundant. So we may also have the other war, which has a chance to be
the more effective one. Several small teams of independently-operating
commandos, targeting key individuals, may be sufficient to
topple the al-Qaida organization. Given the “cell” organization of
al-Qaida (see this

Slate explainer), the number of individuals you have to target may be
limited to the Operation Commanders. Without them, the local cells
probably cannot be put into action.

There are some problems with this plan. To target the right
individuals would require much better intelligence than we apparently
have available. That executive order prohibiting assassination would
have to be rescinded, and the assassinations would probably take place in
countries all over the world, not just places like Afghanistan. And even if
you succeed, it’s unlikely the government can really tell the American
public about the victory - something the President alluded to in his speech
last Thursday night. (”It may include… covert operations, secret even in
success.”) The President will need to show some visible response to these
attacks or risk the loss of public support; thus the Big War. But
fifty years from now, when history teachers raise the topic of the War for
their students, the conversation may read a lot more like Heinlein.

I sometimes listen to a
morning radio show, and today a caller mentioned a
list of songs that some radio stations were “banning” in the wake of last week’s
terrorist attacks. (The stations are owned or affiliated with Clear Channel
Communications, who according to Hoover’s Company Profiles, is “the #1 radio
station owner in the US. Clear Channel owns, programs, or sells airtime for some
1,200 radio stations… throughout the US…” Slate ran

this story with comments from Clear Channel and the complete
list of 162 songs.)  One of the DJs commented that this ban is
“un-American.” There was some discussion of the First Amendment
right to freedom of expression.

One of the principles behind this column is that
words have meaning and should therefore
be used carefully. “Un-American,” a fuzzy concept best left in the
McCarthian past, is being confused with “unconstitutional.” Even this
word is inappropriate to the situation, because the First Amendment limits
the government’s ability to suppress speech. The amendment reads:

“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press.”

Obviously, this is not an issue in the current
case — Congress (and the rest of the federal government) aren’t even
remotely involved. But let’s look a little deeper at this case to see
if anyone is acting inappropriately.

The origin of the word “censorship” goes back
to ancient Rome, and refers to government officials, censors, who were
entrusted with the supervision of public behavior and morals. (They
also organized the census.) In modern usage, a censor is a person who
is authorized to examine various forms of expression (books, films,
theatrical performances, etc) and to suppress in whole or in part anything
that is considered “unacceptable,” that is, immoral, obscene, subversive,
obnoxious, or objectionable. A familiar example of censorship is
the bleeping of certain words on television or radio. (I notice far
fewer words being bleeped these days, which is a shame.)

There is an important distinction between
censorship and the actions taken by Clear Channel: the list wasn’t even
generated by Clear Channel’s management, but by individual program directors
at the various stations affiliated with Clear Channel. Once the list
was assembled, it was sent to all of the program directors by e-mail, not as
a management directive, but as a request not to play these songs at an
emotionally-charged time. Presumably, the decision to play or not play
these songs was left up to the program directors themselves.

While we might find the decision these program
directors made to be unnecessary, even silly in some cases (The Bangles’
“Walk Like an Egyptian” was on the list), it certainly doesn’t qualify as
censorship. In fact, it seems more like sensible restraint: when
skyscrapers are crumbling in Manhattan, playing R.E.M.’s “It’s the End of
the World as We Know It” is at least in bad taste, and likely very upsetting
to those who lost friends or loved ones. We exercise restraint all the
time: Do you swear in front of children? Do you explain the
damaging effects of cholesterol to a woman whose husband just died of a
massive coronary?

Our country is embarking upon a war of shadows,
of unknown duration and with unseen enemies. To protect us from these
enemies, our government will propose and discuss many security measures
which may constitute a threat on the liberties we hold dear. Let’s
save our concern about freedom for the real threats which lie ahead.

Amateur political philosopher. Baseball fan. Computer game designer. Husband.
I play all of these roles from time to time. My work life for most of the past 17 years has been as a computer game designer, mostly for Sierra On-Line, Inc., currently for Exile Interactive. Much of that time has been spent making baseball simulations for PCs. In March 2004, after a 2-1/2 year hiatus from the game industry, I moved to British Columbia to work for Exile.
As a baseball fan, I’ve been a fan of the Los Angeles Dodgers (I attended the last game in which Orel Hershiser gave up a run in 1988), Florida Marlins (how could you not love a team whose rally cry is “Go Fish!”) and now the Seattle Mariners (first in 1987, and then again when I moved to Seattle in 1998). The DH rule goes against my political philosophy, but you’ve gotta love that very nice man Edgar Martinez.
As a political philosopher, I tend toward libertarianism (hence the link to the Cato Institute), but I’m registered as a Republican, and even won election as Precinct Committee Officer in 2000 (I lived in Seattle’s Belltown district at the time, on the northwest edge of downtown; my wife and I may have been the only Republicans in our precinct.) and 2002 (in more Republican-friendly Redmond, a suburb on the east side of Lake Washington).
Finally, I’ve been married for six years to a wonderful woman named Amy. Our car’s license plate reads “HPLYWED;” ’nuff said!