The return of There Will Be War

After a 25-year hiatus, Jerry Pournelle and Castalia House are pleased to announce that the famous military science fiction anthology series, There Will Be War, has been revived with There Will Be War Volume X. This has been a long time in the making, with more than a few challenges and detours along the way, but as a fan of the series from the 1980s, I am absolutely delighted to see it come alive again, although I regret the fact that there is, once more, a genuine need for it in light of current world events.

In many ways, the first nine volumes of There Will Be War have proved to be a chronicle of the Cold War; reading those earlier volumes published in the ’80s is a literal education in both the events and the psychologies of that time. We will be fortunate indeed if the challenges described in There Will Be War Volume X, in both fiction and non-fiction terms, prove to be similarly ephemeral, and disappear from history as speedily and as bloodlessly. Unfortunately, some of the contributors to the new volume would appear to be less than entirely optimistic in that regard.

There Will Be War Volume X is 401 pages, DRM-free, and retails for $4.99 on Amazon. The editor, who arguably did his finest job in selecting stories and essays since Volume II, shared some thoughts on the revival of his classic series at Chaos Manor today. Highlights:

There Will Be War Volume X will be on Amazon Monday. We will see where it goes from there. There is already a campaign to boycott the book on the grounds that the publisher is a scoundrel. This is apparently something to do with fan politics and awards. I can only say that it has been a pleasant experience to work with them. I have all the editorial decisions, of course, including story choices…. I find them very competent and helpful.

We also have some good stuff from new authors, who apparently prefer to be in this book rather than in the traditional magazines; I’m a bit flattered. Anyway it’s done. If you like war stories you will like this book

Note to New Release subscribers: if you don’t have an email in your inbox tomorrow and you’ve been having trouble receiving the emails despite being sure that you’re a subscriber, get in touch and I’ll send you the link to the bonus books. You won’t want to miss them!

And one more thing: fans of the series will no doubt be glad to hear that the hardcover omnibus of Vols I and II is very nearly done and will be published in January.

UPDATE: Mr. Pournelle notes that one of the contributors, CDR Phillip Pournelle, USN, was just awarded the Surface Navy Association Literary Award for “The Deadly Future of Littoral Sea Control”, which is one of the non-fiction pieces that appears in Volume X.

Russia wins round two

That is The Saker’s take on the 11th week of the Syrian-war-by-proxy being fought between Russia and the USA after the US pulls out 12 of its F-15s out of Turkey:

First, the downing of the Russian SU-24 is becoming a major liability. The Russians have immediately claimed that this was a carefully planned and cowardly ambush, but now top western experts agree. This is very embarrassing, and it could get much worse with the deciphering of the flight recorders of the SU-24 (which the Russians have found and brought to Moscow). The picture which emerges is this: not only was this a deliberate provocation, an ambush, but there is overwhelming evidence that the Turks used the information the Russians have provided to the USA about their planned sorties. The fact that the Americans gave that information to the Turks is bad enough, but the fact that the Turks then used that information to shoot down a Russian aircraft makes the US directly responsible. The USA is also responsible by the simple fact that there is no way the Turks could have set up this complex ambush without the USA knowing about it. Now, it is possible that some in the US military machine knew about it while others didn’t. This entire operation sounds to me like exactly the kind of goofball plan the CIA is famous for, so maybe Kerry at State or even Obama did not really “know” about it. Or they did and are now pretending like they did not. Whatever may be the case, the US is now obviously trying to “off-load” this latest screwup on Erdogan who himself is trying to off-load it on his Air Force chief. What is certain is that the plan failed, the Russians did not take the bait and did not retaliate militarily, and that now the political consequences of this disaster are starting to pile up. As for Erdogan, he wanted to come out of this as the Big Pasha, the tough man of the region, but he now looks like an irresponsible coward (Putin ridiculed how the Turks ran to NATO as soon as the Russian SU-24 was shot down when he said: ”they immediately ran to Brussels, shouting: “Help, we have been hurt.” Who is hurting you? Did we touch anybody there? No. They started covering themselves with NATO.”). Even the US and Europe are, reportedly, fed up and angry with him. As for the Russians, they seem to believe that he is a “Saakashvili v2” – a guy with whom there is nothing to discuss and whom the Kremlin considers as politically dead.

Second, look at Syria. Even under maximal pressure, the Russians did not yield or show signs of hesitation but did the exact opposite: they more than doubled their presence, brought in heavy artillery systems and even floated the idea of opening a 2nd major airport in Syria (this intention was later denied by Russian officials). For the Americans this meant something very simple: while the Russians are much weaker in Syria than the USA, they were clearly undeterred and were not only holding their ground, but digging in. In other words, they were ready for war.

This is a good sign for those of us who would prefer to see the war remain warm and by-proxy rather than hot and direct. Remember, unlike the Cold War, the role of the aggressor has now flipped, so whereas each US victory will tend to lead to more aggression, each setback will tend to lead to less.

NFL Week 15

Well, that’s the end of my fantasy season. I made it to the wild card round, but Mark Ingram went on IR and I erroneously preferred to start the SF RB1 against the Cleveland defense rather than the CLE RB1 against the San Francisco defense.

That was the difference.

This is your NFL Open Thread. All eyes are on Carolina.

Freedom trumps “free speech”

Eugene Volokh somehow manages to completely miss the salient point. This is why lawyers tend to be intrinsically flawed defenders of freedom; their training predisposes them to miss the forest for the trees:

Monday, a three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit panel handed down a third opinion in Wollschlaeger v. Governor, the Florida “Docs vs. Glocks” case. Florida law limits doctors’ conversations with patients about guns. The first opinion in the case held that the law wasn’t really a speech restriction, because it just regulated the practice of medicine (a deeply unsound view, I think). The second opinion, issued after a petition for rehearing, changed course and held that the law was a speech restriction, but that — as a restriction on professional-client speech — it had to be judged under “intermediate scrutiny,” which it passed.

First of all, since the State regulates doctors and protects them from competition, they can do anything they want with regards to how they go about their business. Second, as the article shows, what is actually being prohibited is doctors being used as a line of attack against gun rights.

It bans doctors “from unnecessarily harassing a patient about firearm ownership during an examination.” This means, according to the panel majority, that a doctor “should not disparage firearm-owning patients, and should not persist in attempting to speak to the patient about firearm ownership when the subject is not relevant [based on the particularized circumstances of the patient’s case, such as the patient’s being suicidal] to medical care or safety.”

And whenever there is a conflict between gun rights and speech rights, gun rights much always come first, because gun rights defend speech rights far more effectively than speech rights defend gun rights.

But that is a philosophical point, not a legal one, which is why even a libertarian lawyer is likely going to miss it. Here is the crux of his error:

Now I think that the supposed imbalance of power between doctor and patient, like the supposed imbalance of power among students, is quite overstated.

That’s completely absurd. This attempt to turn the medical community into a white-coated Stasi should be shot down in any and every way necessary. 

The New America, in progress

I’m certain this disaster has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the changing demographics of Flint, which has seen the Non-Hispanic Whites population fall from 70.1 percent of the population to 35.7 percent since 1970:

“The City of Flint has experienced a Manmade disaster,” said the city’s mayor Monday evening, as she declared a state of emergency over evidently staggering levels of lead in the city’s tap water. Mayor Karen M. Weaver has requested federal assistance to deal with the fallout from over a year’s worth of tainted water delivered to Flint residents and, allegedly, falsely declared safe by government officials.

In September, news broke that lead contamination was on the rise in Flint. Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha of the Hurley Medical Center concluded that since the water supply switched from the Detroit system to Flint River in April 2014, the number of infants and children with elevated levels of lead in their blood had doubled, from 2.1% to 4%. While the rise seems small, it is statistically significant. Even so, Attisha warned: “My research shows that lead levels have gone up. I cannot say it’s from the water. But that’s, you know, the thing that has happened.“

The World Health Organization says “lead affects children’s brain development resulting in reduced intelligence quotient (IQ), behavioral changes such as shortening of attention span and increased antisocial behavior, and reduced educational attainment. Lead exposure also causes anemia, hypertension, renal impairment, immunotoxicity and toxicity to the reproductive organs. The neurological and behavioral effects of lead are believed to be irreversible.”

The high levels of lead have been attributed to old pipes and plumbing, which researchers say rubs off more into Flint River water than it does other sources. Because the water itself is more corrosive than other supplies, it erodes the pipes it flows through, picking up lead along the way.

Flint River is one of the filthiest rivers in Michigan. Over the years, it has housed raw sewage, tires, old refrigerators — which residents have attempted to sift out — and lead. In spite of this, officials declared it safe to drink in April 2014, when they switched the supply to the tainted river.

The change was widely attributed to the city’s switch from Detroit’s water system to the Flint River under the leadership of the city’s previous mayor, Dayne Walling. The shift in supply was a result of failed procedures and negotiations to continue purchasing the water.

Shortly after the April switch, residents complained the water emitted a foul odor and was cloudy in appearance, but local and state officials insisted the water was safe. In spite of these assurances, in January 2015, MLive reported the State Department of Environmental Quality had “issued a notice of violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act for maximum contaminant levels for trihalomethanes — or TTHM — a group of four chemicals that are formed as a byproduct of disinfecting water.”

These chemical byproducts are linked to cancer and other diseases, and presented a separate issue from the lead.

The water was so dirty that in October 2014, General Motors announced it would no longer use treated Flint River water at its engine plant out of fears it would cause corrosion.

It’s probably just Bad Luck. Or Evil Liberal policies, who are randomly adopted by various polities for No Reason At All. Perhaps they should consider importing some Magic Dirt to combat the bad juju in the water. Or sacrifice some albinos to appease the angry river gods.

Now consider the fact that the national US demographics have fallen to around 70 percent Non-Hispanic White already, then contemplate the 40-year projections.

A Republican self-throat-cutting ritual

Even the cuckservatives at National Review are aghast at the Republicans in office:

It would be bad enough had Republicans merely acquiesced to foolish policies, but in this bill they actively advanced them. The bill’s most egregious proposal will temporarily expand the H-2B visa program, quadrupling the issuance of visas to foreign workers for nonagricultural or temporary service jobs in 2016 — and it was a Republican initiative from start to finish.

What is the rationale? There is strong evidence that large-scale hiring of foreign workers depresses wages for Americans, and it’s not as if Ferris wheels and ski lifts will go unmanned if we stop importing Peruvian labor.

Clearly, Republican leaders bent to the demands of a tiny segment of employers. Meanwhile, they capitulated on a host of other proposals. Despite serious concerns about the integrity of our refugee-vetting procedures in the wake of terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, the bill fully funds the government’s refugee-resettlement program, facilitating the president’s promise to settle 10,000 Syrians in the U.S. over the coming year. Despite revelations about outrageous criminal activity in America’s 340 “sanctuary cities,” the bill permits federal grants to those cities without adding any qualifying conditions.

And despite a bipartisan effort to reform the cronyism-riddled EB-5 visa program, under which foreigners can obtain a green card if they invest a certain amount in a business that creates or preserves ten jobs for U.S. citizens, Republican leadership dismissed the reform effort and extended the EB-5 program as is through September.

You know it’s bad when they can’t even bother trying to claim that this is just a tactical defeat that is cleverly setting up a long-term conservative strategic victory. You know, one of those long-term strategic victories that are apparently measured in centuries, because I’ve yet to see one come to pass.

Not an invasion?

The only reason the mass “immigration” is not seen as an invasion is because the West is not resisting it:

Some 800 to 1,000 migrants tried on Thursday to
break into the Channel Tunnel near the French port city of Calais in a
desperate bid to reach Britain, local officials said, triggering chaotic
scenes that saw traffic disrupted and security forces firing tear gas
to disperse the crowds.

“We
noted the presence of 800 to 1,000 migrants” near the tunnel, a
local official told AFP, as a police source described the numbers as
“unprecedented” for daytime. People normally try to cross over under
cover of darkness, often having paid exorbitant sums to smugglers to
make dangerous, even life-threatening bids to reach the other side of
the Channel. “As they approached the tunnel, several migrants tried hard
to slow down the flow of traffic so they could climb into the trucks,”
the source said.

An
AFP journalist saw young men climb on top of trucks heading
towards Britain, with some cutting through the tarpaulin covering the
vehicles to get inside. Others could be seen helping their friends climb
into the back of a white truck. Several people succeeded in their bid
to enter the Channel Tunnel site, the journalist said. “Security forces
were deployed… objects were being thrown at them, and they had to
resort to using tear gas,” police said in a statement.

Obviously these totally non-invasive immigrants are perfectly willing to resort to force if it is required.

Disemploy harder

This is almost inconceivable from an American perspective, but it is what having an amenable authority on the side of free expression and free association looks like:

Hungary’s government told ministries and other state institutions to cancel subscriptions with Magyar Telekom on Thursday in a row over the telecom operator’s decision to end a sponsorship deal with a pop singer over his remarks about women.

The singer, Akos Kovacs, is known to support the ruling centre-right Fidesz party. The government, which has made waves in recent days with a conservative take on gender equality, said Kovacs had been subject to unfair discrimination by Magyar Telekom, a subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom, over remarks in which he said it was not women’s role to earn as much as men.

Magyar Telekom severed links with Kovacs after the singer’s comments to private television channel Echo TV on Sunday, in which he also said that women had better “fulfill the female calling by belonging to someone, bearing a child for someone.”

Magyar Telekom said in a statement to news portal index.hu on Wednesday that the remarks were incompatible with the company’s diversity principles and it was withdrawing its sponsorship deal with Kovacs.

“Our company does not think the spirit of the artist’s interview … is compatible with our group’s beliefs and values, Magyar Telekom said. “Magyar Telekom is committed to ensure equal opportunities for women and men and sustain sexual equality in all circumstances.”

The controversy was discussed at a government meeting on Wednesday, government spokesman Zoltan Kovacs – no relation to the singer – told state news agency MTI on Thursday.

“The government was shocked to learn about Telekom’s action, which we believe violates both the spirit and letter of the Hungarian constitution,” Zoltan Kovacs told MTI.

“It might be possible in Germany but we cannot accept anyone to suffer discrimination for his opinion and views.”

Zoltan Kovacs said the review of contracts with Magyar Telekom was under way, adding that the termination of 103 contracts at one ministry had already been initiated.

Once again, Hungary leads the way. Don’t tolerate SJWs. Don’t support SJW corporations. If you’re in procurement or you’re making a decision about a supplier, don’t choose those who support thought-policing.

Always hit back harder. They bring a knife, bring a gun. Or three.

We’re not radicals or extremists

We’re “policy entrepreneurs”. That’s a useful little phrase, that is.

This dynamic is inherently more challenging for those of us on the Right, who have good reason to believe that politicians’ incentives to placate various factional constituencies are so often at odds with the long-term effort to rein in the federal footprint. While political parties can exist as factions rather than ideological entities, conservatism cannot succeed as a factional constituency to a political party.

Several years ago, Ross Douthat identified the Obama-era GOP’s worst tendency as “[n]ot an ideological extremism, exactly, but rather a vision of government that you might call ‘small government for thee, but not for me,’ in which conservatism is just constituent services for the most reliable Republican groups and voters.” This is the worst of Republicanism, and it is incompatible with conservatives’ long-term project.

The GOP could exist as a political party by handing out patronage to its constituent groups—a prescription drug benefit for seniors, corporate agriculture pork masquerading as a farm bill, Export-Import Bank loans to Boeing. Conservatism, however, has no chance of advancing an agenda in this type of factionalized party.

A conservative reform effort, therefore, requires the Republican Party to forego factional politics and the patronage role of elected officials in favor of winning the argument on a conservative articulation of public policy. We must have the confidence that our reform ideas will best serve the nation and, realistically, if the government we have today has been built over 100 years by progressives with a vastly different conception of good policy, it will require attacking the status quo in a manner that makes niche constituencies nervous.

Never mind the pitchforks and torches. They’re just policy implementation enhancers.

Anyhow, this is precisely what I was saying about a year ago. You must cherish your extremists, not turn your backs on them, much less shoot at them. They provide the impetus for advancement; even if they go too far, at least they are going in the right direction.

It’s all too telling

Mike Glyer announces the incipient publication of There Will Be War Vol. X on Monday. SJWs at File 770 respond accordingly:

CORA: from my West European POV, listing the military ranks of several of the contributors along with their names looks very weird. But I guess the target audience expects that sort of thing.

JERRY POURNELLE: Military ranks are shown for military contributors of non-fiction. i can think of no reason why they should not be.

SANDDORN: Aren’t you leaving out several Dr. or PhDs, you know, real titles?

As opposed to fake titles like LtCol, Col., Lt. Col., and CDR? Unbelievable. SJWs are even more despicable than you probably imagined.

But that tells you everything you need to know about SJWs. All that matters to them is sitting obediently in a classroom, regurgitating information like a good and properly programmed little girl.

The reason military titles are used for the non-fiction contributors, and are not used for the fiction contributors (some of whom happen to possess them), is that if one is writing on the subject of, say, modifying the U.S. Navy’s fleet composition, one tends to have just a little more credibility on the subject if one is, in fact, an officer in the U.S. Navy intimately familiar with the pros and cons of the current composition.

This doesn’t mean that military rank is the only credential worth taking seriously; the fact that the U.S. Marines think so highly of a certain contributor that they have a terrain feature on their training grounds named after him is arguably even more indicative of someone whose opinion you would do well to at least grant serious consideration. And if another contributor’s work is declared to be doctrine by an armed force, well, then, you simply shut up, read, and learn.

But neither a general’s stars nor a doctorate means a damn thing when it comes to writing fiction. There, the work must stand alone.