COIN comes home to assist policing

[jmm99]

are always at hand here - my secret: I don't have to share them.

Anyway, thought you might be paraphrasing that - and mixing "the Cause" (what is publicly expressed) with "the Ideology" (which is what is privately believed, and communicated only to the inner circle). Galula defines "The Nature of the Cause" (pp.14-15); and gets into your territory in "Tactical Manipulation of the Cause" (pp.15-16; where there were more than 4 changes) - window dressing, in effect.

So, "the Cause", to a dedicated communist, was totally casuistic - the end (based on ideology) justified the means (the expressed causes). To paraphrase the old priest in the Exorcist, "It goes by many names, but it is always the same." Mao illustrates the varied dances employed by the ChiComs; the announcers for Radio Moscow did the same for SovCom - and they had to be very good dancers, indeed.

Simple rule: a Chekist is a Chekist is a Chekist - regardless of the letters used. Not saying you can't deal with them; and total killing was never an option. So - trust, but verify (thrice IMO).

As to AQ, it seems to me (from reading UBL and Zawahiri; and earlier such as Maududi) that they pretty much practice what they believe (they ARE very "legalistic"). That structural rigidity is a strength (hard to get into their inner circle), but also a weakness - e.g., Anbar ("awakening") and Astan (under the Taliban - these "saints" eventually wore out their welcome).

BTW: AQ itself is not a monolith (again IMO); and their writings suggest various hardcore levels. But, that is really tea leaf reading and WAGs.

--------------------------------------
Brief to Ken - I'm honored that you're honored - and that you admit you will never be humbled. Wouldn't have it any other way. I'll answer your PS elsewhere - if at all.

[jmm99]

we're again hitting a common page;

except for H.L.A. Hart - had to Google that one. Henry Hart (of Harvard Law and co-author of The Federal Courts and the Federal System), oui - "reflective" there. As to jurisprudence and legal philosophy, non - in general (might surprise on some specifics, but only as they deal with legal practice).

Remember you are dealing with a guy who has a lot of CFM-Canada genes - so, don't expect much beyond someone like Dani Greysolon, here and here - not an ancestor, but my fav CFM capitaine.

Getting to the meat. Your distinction between proximity of causes makes sense. To me, "final cause" would imply the "proximate cause" which is closest in time to the injury giving rise to the tort. That is not what you meant by it.

What I learned (I think the same thing) was called "but for causation" - that is, but for the lack of a nail, etc., etc., etc., the kingdom was lost. In your Pinto case, that would be akin to suing Daimler's heirs - cuz he started it all (actually I guess Carnot's heirs, if he had any).

Anyway, we do look to "proximate cause", for which we have an operational definition here:

M Civ JI 15.01 Definition of Proximate Cause
When I use the words “proximate cause” I mean first, that the negligent conduct must have been a cause of plaintiff’s injury, and second, that the plaintiff’s injury must have been a natural and probable result of the negligent conduct.

M Civ JI 15.03 More Than One Proximate Cause
There may be more than one proximate cause. To be a proximate cause, the claimed negligence need not be the only cause nor the last cause. A cause may be proximate although it and another cause act at the same time or in combination to produce the occurrence.

M Civ JI 15.04 Causation by Multiple Defendants
You may decide that the conduct of [neither / none], one or [both / more] of the defendants was a proximate cause. If you decide that [one / one or more] of the defendants was negligent and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the occurrence, it is not a defense that the conduct of [the / any] other [defendant / defendants] also may have been a cause of the occurrence. Each defendant is entitled to separate consideration as to whether [his / or / her] conduct was a proximate cause of the occurrence.

M Civ JI 15.06 Intervening Outside Force (Other Than Person)
If you decide that [the defendant / one or more of the defendants] [was / were] negligent and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the occurrence, it is not a defense that [description of force] also was a cause of this occurrence. However, if you decide that the only proximate cause of the occurrence was [description of force], then your verdict should be for the [defendant / defendants].

Now, all this is what we'uns call "litigation language". The question of proximity is simply one of fact, as to which reasonable people can differ.

As to the example of the French Revolution, I would (based on my knowledge now) look at Louis XIII-XVI as a continuum - lots of threads passing through that period and giving us a 1789 conflagration.

But, having said that, if I were looking at the question cold - as an intel officer would have to with a new project, I'd start with Louis XVI. And then work backwards, if I had the time. In the real world, we not only have to look for arteries (avoiding waste of time on capillaries); but for lack of time we have to select which arteries are best pursued. So, you can't be risk averse - just careful.

------------------------------------

from wm
It has a corollary called the "Swapping Horses Fallacy;" namely, one cannot resolve a problem by changing one's perspective on that problem ("swap horses") in the middle of identifying and resolving the problem ("the middle of the stream" as it were).

Liked this one, which was similar to what I read recently in a military context - always keeping the objective in sight and not being diverted by intervening events (obviously based on CvC, but I will possibly remember the actual book after posting this).

[jmm99]

Amen.

And a prayer to St. Jude (patron of lost causes) that our elected and appointed officials would read and heed them.

[Sergeant T]

Article here. Aside from the obvious nausea over this it's worth noting that someone is trying to get some mileage out of perpetuating the rift. The group's website is straight out of the Cynthia McKinney playbook. (Or vice versa.) Maybe the ten pound brains at NPS should forget about Salinas and work on Oakland.

[AdamG]

Being in a street gang is now forbidden for members of the U.S. armed forces. But you might not guess that if you were to visit U.S. military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to soldiers who have recently served there.

Jeffrey Stoleson, a Wisconsin corrections official, returned from Iraq in January with photos of gang graffiti on armored vehicles, latrines and buildings. Stoleson, a sergeant with a National Guard unit, was there for nine months to help the Army set up a prison facility outside Baghdad.

*

Now back in Chicago, the officer said he has arrested high-level gang members who have served in the military and kept the "Infantryman's bible" -- called the FM 7-8 -- in their homes. The book describes how to run for cover, fire a weapon tactically and do the "three- to five-second rushes" seen in war movies.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/25...fiti18.article