The British on intelligence: a collection (SIS, MI5, GCHQ & more)

[OUTLAW 09]

It has always been about "values" the entire Cold War was fought on "values" and the Ukrainian events are also about Russian perceived values over riding what they perceive to be the "false/fake" western liberal democratic and economic values.

Why the attack on "perceived western liberal and economic values" -- they are a truly serious threat to a country that has a far poorer economic system due to oligarchic corruption to the tune of literally billions and a political system bordering on fascism.

[Bill Moore]

ISIL/ISIS/IS also practices fascism. It seems the End of History is no where in sight after all.

U.S. leadership is absent on the world stage, and it should be clear by now no other country will step up and lead in our absence. However, a lot of bad actors will take advantage of the leadership void.

[Bob's World]

After WWII, when the US still led by example and stood upon the fundamental principles that we ourselves were founded upon, revolutionary people around the world with diverse cultures, such as the Muslim Berbers in Algeria, and the communist rebels led by Ho in Indochina, turned to the US with copies of our universal declaration of independence in hand and cried out, "us too!!"

But we turned our backs on them, and we turned our backs on our principles as well. To exercise a system of control over half the world due to a largely irrational fear of Russia and the decision to lay siege to Russia via containment as a strategy, had made our principles inconvenient - so we watered them down and qualified them with values.

FDR died with a vision of promoting the "four freedoms" (of religion and speech, from fear and want); the end of colonialism; the right to self determination; and a vision of the four emerging powers (US, UK, Russia and China) working together as a new global security partnership to replace the failed league of nations.

But we let our own exaggerated fears drive us to a values based system of directed leadership - and today we still live with the good and bad of that decision.

The neocons are as lost as are the social engineers wishing to conform everyone to our current (certainly not "enduring" or "universal" as arrogantly packaged in the past 2 or 3 National Security Strategies) values.

I for one am not afraid of our founding principles, and believe it is long overdue for the US to assume the risk necessary to be the principled leader by example we believe ourselves to be, and to finally abandon the directive leadership relying upon sloganed "values" that we have actually been employing for the past several decades.

[jcustis]

But we let our own exaggerated fears drive us to a values based system of directed leadership

Sir, could you expand on that and what you mean by directed leadership?

[Bob's World]

Begin with our picking and then protecting governance for a dozen countries that was what we thought would be best for us, over the express, and often violent protest of what those who lived in those places hoped to self determine for themselves. Vietnam, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan being four painful examples. Two of those in direct support of former colonial powers.

[Bill Moore]

Its debatable if our reaction to the USSR was based on irrational fear, but Kennan did express dissatisfaction with the way Truman pursued the containment strategy. He believed he overreached and used values as a cover to pursue ends that exceeded our means. However, let's not engage in excessive historical revisionism. The USSR and Mao's China didn't represent their people's will, instead they had to kill millions of their own people to maintain control. The far left argument that the U.S. was morally wrong is overstated, but yes we made mistakes.

As for directed leadership, in hindsight we "may" have had a friendly communist government to the self of us in Cuba if we reached out instead of attempting a flawed invasion. The same with Vietnam. Yet, there is another side to that view, in both cases tens of thousands of people fled those countries to avoid oppressive governments.

I'm not as concerned about our missteps during the Cold War, because I believe the hard core communists were evil and didn't represent their people. I'm more concerned with our behavior since the end of the Cold War, where our national leaders (especially Clinton) embraced a liberalist world view and felt compelled to push for democracy and free markets as a one size fits all around the world. Now we push for female and gay rights in all countries. I'm all for speaking out for women's rights, but as Kissinger said it is better to promote evolutionary change than revolutionary change. I can't recall the source, but I recall a UK leader expressing their commitment to their alliance with the U.S., but they do not want to engage in anymore moral crusades.

That is easier said than done, when we in the West see atrocities committed by group of extremists we the citizens often push our governments to take action to stop the abuse. That speaks well of us as a people; however, the push to stop atrocities escalates into attempts to transform cultures at the end of our bayonets disguised as nation building. I hope we retain our moral courage to act against atrocities, but to do so with greater wisdom.

[Bob's World]

Bill, "tens of thousands of people fled" the US to Canada and other corners of the Empire to escape violence and oppression following our own revolution to throw off British government. Revolutions for self determination are never universal and are probably always very hard on those who are either comfortable with the status quo, or who see opportunity in jumping in bed with some powerful external actor coming in for reasons of their own.

It is not "revisionist history" to look at the same facts with a fresh perspective. It is revisionist history to change facts to fit the story you want to tell. Often the revisionist history is the one you defend, not the one that offends.

Pulitzer Prize winning historian James McPherson, writing for the American Historical Association, described the importance of revisionism:

The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful. Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers's The Tragic Era. Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs "Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons"? Without revisionist historians who have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions, we would remain mired in one or another of these stereotypes. Supreme Court decisions often reflect a "revisionist" interpretation of history as well as of the Constitution.[1]

(lifted from Wikipedia, but original source here: http://www.historians.org/publicatio...ist-historians )

[OUTLAW 09]

After WWII, when the US still led by example and stood upon the fundamental principles that we ourselves were founded upon, revolutionary people around the world with diverse cultures, such as the Muslim Berbers in Algeria, and the communist rebels led by Ho in Indochina, turned to the US with copies of our universal declaration of independence in hand and cried out, "us too!!"

But we turned our backs on them, and we turned our backs on our principles as well. To exercise a system of control over half the world due to a largely irrational fear of Russia and the decision to lay siege to Russia via containment as a strategy, had made our principles inconvenient - so we watered them down and qualified them with values.

FDR died with a vision of promoting the "four freedoms" (of religion and speech, from fear and want); the end of colonialism; the right to self determination; and a vision of the four emerging powers (US, UK, Russia and China) working together as a new global security partnership to replace the failed league of nations.

But we let our own exaggerated fears drive us to a values based system of directed leadership - and today we still live with the good and bad of that decision.

The neocons are as lost as are the social engineers wishing to conform everyone to our current (certainly not "enduring" or "universal" as arrogantly packaged in the past 2 or 3 National Security Strategies) values.

I for one am not afraid of our founding principles, and believe it is long overdue for the US to assume the risk necessary to be the principled leader by example we believe ourselves to be, and to finally abandon the directive leadership relying upon sloganed "values" that we have actually been employing for the past several decades.

What if question---what if we had accepted Ho's requests for assistance against the recolonialization by France of Indochina after WW2--Ho was a great admirer of George Washington and our Constitution and during late WW2 was willing to work with and support the OSS against the Japanese.

Wonder what our Far Eastern policies would be today?

If we look at the Maidan in the Ukraine--driven by a civil societies desire to ditch the oppressive corruption and oligarchs, who have a sense of a reasonable functioning rule of law and transparent good governance looks , they are now willing as a civil society to support a rag tag army by any means, and they are holding their parliament to transparent standards ---we do what again?---not much support coming out of this WH other thans kind words and an occasional Biden visit.

What is wrong with that concept?---and why is it that when a nation's civil society rises up and demands the two items which by the way we basically also demanded from the British we seem to either ignore them or run from the perceived problems of dealing with that civil society.

Or in the case of say IS- we declare them terrorists and that saves us the problem of even trying to engage with them at all--we do not even have to pretend we "understand" what drives them.