As I sit here watching the endless reruns of news clips from
Afghanistan, I find my mind running in an unexpected direction. We all saw the
staged scene of the Taliban commanders and sidemen posing in the president’s
office gathered around a table, looking very serious with their automatic
weapons in their arms. I am sure they were enormously impressed with
themselves, but I tried to imagine their conversation the next day, when the
cameras were turned off.
These are no longer brave rebel fighters, staging ambushes and raping teenage girls. Now they are in charge of a country whose capital is a city of 6 million people or so. I could almost hear the commander saying to one of his young lieutenants, “all right, you are now in charge of the water department. It is your job to make sure that when people turn their taps on, water comes out of them. You there with the AK-47, you are in charge of sanitation. Make sure the garbage is collected promptly each day. And you, your job is to sit in an office and file the records properly after they been filled out by your comrades in arms.” As the Taliban fighters entered Kabul, according to reports, widespread looting broke out. That is now their responsibility, their problem.
Meanwhile, this is the second day of school in countless
communities across America and reports are starting to come in of Covid
clusters forcing shutdowns and quarantines.
My principal concern is to find out when my wife and I can get Pfizer
booster shots.
These are strange times.
47 comments:
Your speculation is probably spot on. In the movie “Lawrence of Arabia,” the film ends with Lawrence and the Arab tribesmen taking Damascus, defeating the Turks. Bickering breaks out between the different tribal leaders over the very municipal assignments you refer to – who will take care of the water works; the sanitation; the electric company. Anthony Quinn, portraying the tribal chief Abu ada Tayl, and Omar Sheriff, portraying the tribal chief Sherif Kharish, exchange insults over who is more qualified to do what. Lawrence, infuriated at their bickering, leaves Damascus in disgust. And look at what has become of Damascus now.
Correction:
Omar Sharif
Another anonymous: I like your way of thinking. T.S. Eliot leaves the United States in disgust about the same long-long-ago time Lawrence left Arabia. And look at what has become of the United States over a century later. Or to make it more personal: I left Britain about sixty years ago; and look what has become of Britain. This is clearly a useful, entertaining, and even self-satisfying approach to social explanation.
But as I recall, Lawrence’s disgust (in real life as distinct from a movie—though it was in the movie too, I think) was directed against those imperial decision makers (sorry to introduce that term again) who refused to follow through on the promises he, Lawrence, had made to the Arabs who fought for him and for Britain because they had their own plans for that part of the world.
R McD,
I have an engagement to attend, and so will be brief.
I am not so simple-minded that I would correlate Lawrence’s leaving Damascus with the current state of affair in Syria. As for relying on cinematic sources for information, the movie was very accurate in many respects and followed Lawrence’s own memoir in his Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Lawrence left Damscus for many reasons, not the least of which was the failure of the Arab tribal leaders to cooperate with one another.
Regarding what effect T.S. Eliot’s leaving the U.S. had on the U.S., and your leaving Britain had on Britain, I would guess that the effects were negligible.
And now for some good news: Texas Governor Greg Abbot tests positive for the coronavirus. Unfortunately the reports say he is asymptomatic. If the reports are true, one can hope for a severe presentation of long COVID, which can occur in asymptomatic cases, as well as erectile dysfunction.
AA May you hqve many engagements
Glenn Greenwald on the history of U.S. government lying about Afghanistan from Bush to Biden.
Since I don't read or follow U.S. media, I don't know how much of this has appeared in other
media sources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWu7xHRXG0M
The Taliban doesn't care about governing - it cares about waging a sustained rebellion against imperialist western nations in the name of Islam. And we just re-armed them with billions of dollars in fancy 21st century kit: https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1427696223616737284?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1427696223616737284%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpublish.twitter.com%2F%3Fquery%3Dhttps3A2F2Ftwitter.com2FCBSNews2Fstatus2F1427696223616737284widget%3DTweet
Someone or someones made reference in a previous thread to the military liking the war in Afghanistan because it means there was a need for officers. I think this is kind of silly. West Point and the other service academies graduate people who become officers every year, whether there's a war on or not. What Iraq and Afghanistan meant in this respect was not so much that more officers were going to be graduated or trained, but that more were going to see combat and be wounded or killed. So on the whole, while there are prob individual exceptions, the military is not that "militaristic": combat offers opportunities for promotion, but it is also, obviously, dangerous. People in the military do it if it's in their job description, but for most it is at best a duty, not more than that. A number of people who were officers in these wars went on to write memoirs and/or fiction based on their experiences, and I think if you glance at some of this literature you will not find a glorification of war but, if anything, the opposite. This general pt applies, w some exceptions, also to the literature coming out of past wars (to take just two exs., Vietnam and WW 1).
Perhaps it's useful to distinguish between career officers and those who leave on their own or fail to make grade and are out by O-3/4. Out of curiosity I checked out the casualty list for Afghanistan sorted by rank. There are only a few once O-6 is reached and one each O-7 and O-8. The most risky officer ranks are O-1-3. Wars make generals and you have to want those stars. My first thought at LFCs comment was the West Point class of 1915 which became known as "the class the stars fell on." "Glorification" isn't a thing here but duty and advancement are.
My brother was an O-1 in the Pacific, hated war (and MacArthur) but was good at what he did and retired O-6 after two more wars.
LFC,
I'm the one who made the point. I don't think it's silly. Wars mean more units and more officers. It means more career people can retire as colonels rather than as majors or lieutenant colonels. Some as generals rather than colonels. It means more can stay beyond 20 years and retire at a higher rank with a larger pension. This would apply to senior enlisted as well. War is good for military careers in the same way that long sentences are good for the careers of prison guards.
I’m with LFC on this. The suggestion that military officers promote conflict and wars in order to advance their careers is rather simplistic. Like the rest of us, each military officer is an individual who has his/her own perspective on the nature of war, their personal aspirations, the meaning of patriotism, and what they hope to achieve out of life. The world is a dangerous place, and the threats to our security from foreign adversaries are multiple and varying. As with regard to any profession, the military has the expertise others do not have to deal with those threats. Plus, under our Constitution, the military is under civilian control. It is their job to advise the executive and legislative branches as to the best means to deal with those threats, and then to execute the orders they are given by the civilian branches. The defeat in Afghanistan is not necessarily the fault of the military; they were executing the orders they were given by the Executive. Moreover, they bear the brunt of the death and injury due to war. Many officers who get promoted may be just like aaall’s brother, who advanced due to competence, not because he relished war. I am reminded of the lecture that Jose Ferrer delivers at the end of the Caine Mutiny, after having done his job as an attorney humiliating Captain Queeg, he chastises Captain Queeg’s accusers for their insubordination, pointing out that the rest of us rely on people like Captain Queeg to do the dirty and dangerous work that we are unable to do.
AA,
The key to understanding the military is to think of them as a bureaucracy—the biggest bureaucracy we have. They are not a bunch of characters from Dr. Strangelove (although they do produce a Gen. Flynn every now and then.) They are, first and foremost, bureaucrats—with weapons.
They’re not anxious to get killed or wounded, but risk is part of the profession, and they are willing to take it. In Viet Nam, for example, the standard tour for enlisted personnel was 13 months; for company grade officers, it was only six months. That was designed to give them all an opportunity to get combat on their records. If there’s a war and you’re not in it, your chances of promotion are slim to none. The same goes for enlisted personnel—the bigger the army, the more six-stripers it needs. The smaller the army, the tougher it is to get promoted.
Mission creep occurs in the military as it does in civilian bureaucracies, perhaps even more so. I don’t know the exact number, but according to various sources on the internet, we keep troops (not counting sailors at sea and Marine guards at embassies) in anywhere from 70 to 150 countries. We have them in several sub-Saharan African countries, places I’ve never thought of as a particular strategic threat to the US.
Our military is bigger today than it would have been had there been no war in Afghanistan. LFC’s point that the military academies graduate the same number every year whether there is a war on or not may be true, but it doesn’t disprove my point. The majority of officers are not graduates of the military academies. They’re ROTC graduates. More important, the number of officers needed can fluctuate from year to year. This is managed by the up-or-out promotion system. If you get passed over for promotion three times, you’re retired. The smaller the military, the greater your chances of being passed over are. The larger it is, the better your chances.
All of this pushes in the direction of expanding the mission. Add to that the normal bureaucratic reluctance to be the one associated with failure, and you’ve got 20 years in Afghanistan, originally justified as needed to get rid of Al Qaeda after 9/11.
David,
Your statement is such an over-simplification that I find it astounding. The underlying premise of the discussion you initiated is that military officers promote war and conflict in order to enhance their opportunity for advancement. This is nonsense. Most officers who have served in combat believe that war is hell, and they would rather avoid war than promote it, even if this would inhibit their advancement. The caricature in Apocalypse Now of Col. Kilgore exclaiming, “How I love the smell of napalm in the morning!” is just that, a caricature. Although I was opposed to the Vietnam War, I served, reluctantly, in the Army Reserve and though I was far from a model soldier, it was a maturing experience for me. Although there were drill sergeants who had served in Viet Nam who re-upped in order to return to combat, it was not because they enjoyed it or saw it as an opportunity to advance their careers. Based on what they told me, it was due to a misguided belief in what they thought was in the interest of the United States. They did not relish, it however.
The geographic locations in which the U.S. still has a military presence is to protect the U.S. interests from potential attack, including in sub-Saharan Africa, where radical Islamist terror cells are continuously emerging and which, like Al Qaeda and Isis, do present a threat to our – your – security. They do not need missile bearing rockets to do this; smuggling a dirty nuclear device into the U.S. would suffice.
Your description of the military as a bureaucracy in which promotion depends on length of service is true of all bureaucracies. But it neither entails nor equates to your underlying premise that military officers promote war and conflict in order to advance their careers. Hospital physicians work in bureaucracies also, but they do not hope for, or promote, the occurrence of, more illness and disease in order to advance their careers.
David Palmeter,
I think you make some good points. I agree that bureaucratic factors (e.g. promotion) prob. play a role, and it makes sense that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in a somewhat bigger military, at least in certain branches, than the U.S. might otherwise have.
I don't think, however, that these are the main factors driving policy decisions, which, as AA points out, are mostly made by civilians (though the civilian-military line does get blurred in various ways).
There are occasions, though perhaps not that numerous, when civilian decision-makers are more inclined to use force than the military is. I'm thinking in particular of the moment when Madeleine Albright, then Clinton's sec of state, was more in favor of using air power in ex-Yugoslavia than the joint chiefs (this was sometime before the NATO air campaign of March '99 in Serbia), and at one point exclaimed in exasperation (I'm paraphrasing): "What's the point of having this great military if we can't use it?"
Specifically on the mission creep point: mission creep is a thing, but it is not the main explanation, I think, for the U.S. network of 700 or so military bases around the world. That is more of a function of a conscious, or perhaps more inertial, decision that U.S. "security interests" are best served by having this network, which allows for "force projection" wherever it might be deemed required. The "war on terror" did result in an expansion of the U.S. mil. presence in the Horn of Africa and prob sub-Saharan Africa as well. Islamist groups are active, e.g., in Mali and Mozambique, where (in the latter case) recently they've taken territory. This is not a direct strategic threat to the U.S., but the network of bases and the division of the mil into regional commands (Central Command, Africa Command, etc) is premised partly on what cd be called an inflated (or less derogatorily, an expansive) notion of "threat."
It's this inflated notion of what counts as a threat, coupled with inertia and the difficulty of changing an under-the-radar policy once it's been established, coupled with the fact that some countries (e.g. Djibouti) get substantial payments from the U.S. for hosting its bases, that, among other things, account for the network of bases.
At bottom it comes down to a clash between two different visions of the U.S. role in the world: on one hand, an expansive, global forward mil footprint justified as needed to support the US position as "a great power" w "interests" virtually everywhere, and also w responsibilities to maintain free passage on the world sea lanes and other so-called public goods, and on the other hand a more restrained, modest, circumscribed notion of what counts as a threat, what counts as a genuine "interest," and what circumstances justify force projection. Proponents of the latter view vary somewhat in ideological disposition (as do proponents of the former) and include, e.g., Barry Posen, Stephen Walt, Andrew Bacevich, Stephen Wertheim, Quincy Institute, the late Chalmers Johnson, etc.
AA
"...t military officers promote war and conflict in order to enhance their opportunity for advancement" is your phrase, not mine. LFC points out, correctly in my view, that it is often the civilian authorities that instigate military action, and that was the case for Afghanistan. But the mission was get rid of Al Qaeda, and that was done long, long ago. Then the bureaucratic/career elements took over. The phrase "mission creep," so characteristic of bureaucracies, is a military phrase. A further factor, which I mentioned in my first post, and one that I think is very important, is an individual commander's understandable reluctance to be the one who announces failure. That leads to the "just a few more troops, just a few more weeks/months and we'll turn the corner" position that a high ranking career officer would be led to make. No one wants to be the one to say we can't do it. The instinct is to leave that for their successor. I think that's pretty much what happened in Afghanistan (and in Viet Nam).
David,
Hold on, you wrote: “Wars mean more units and more officers. It means more career people can retire as colonels rather than as majors or lieutenant colonels. Some as generals rather than colonels. It means more can stay beyond 20 years and retire at a higher rank with a larger pension. This would apply to senior enlisted as well. War is good for military careers in the same way that long sentences are good for the careers of prison guards.”
As an attorney, my stock I trade is the usage of language and its interpretation. If the above statement is not a direct assertion that military officers promote war and conflict in order to advance their careers, then what is it?
Regarding you point that conflicts are often extended because no one wants to admit defeat applies to the civilian commanders as much, if at all, to the military commanders. It was Lyndon Johnson who did not want to be the first U.S. President to preside over losing a war. Regarding our continued presence in Afghanistan after Al Qaeda was defeated, as I pointed out in a prior comment, there was a rational and justifiable reason for doing so – to prevent the Taliban, under whose government Al Qaeda was allowed to stay in Afghanistan and launch its 9/11 attack – from regaining control of Afghanistan. It had nothing to do with providing more war for military officers to advance their careers.
Errata:
"stock in trade"
As an attorney, AA, your stock in trade is to rephrase your opponent's argument in terms more favorable to yourself. You know that and so do I. I did it for 40 plus years.
David,
Maybe that is how you practiced law – something defense attorneys are particularly good at - but that is not how I have practiced law. I am, and have been, scrupulous about presenting the facts and law to a court without skewing either in my favor.
You still have not answered my question. As to my allegedly having skewed your statement in my favor, I quoted it verbatim. How is my interpretation erroneous?
Although I initiated this conversation, the specific question of whether officers promote war to advance their careers is not that interesting. AA and DP are to some extent talking past each other. I think DP is saying that once a conflict is underway, there are a number of factors, including bureaucratic considerations in the military, that push in the direction of its continuation if it's not a sort of simple, do-some-air-strikes-and-leave kind of thing. If that's the point DP is making, I tend to agree.
The broader and more interesting question, though, is what the guiding or overarching vision of the U.S. role in the world is: is it an expansive vision, which sees the US as leading a new 21st cent fight of democracy vs autocracy and requires military bases everywhere for force projection and defense of "interests" (which is the dominant position of the US foreign policy "establishment," to the extent there still is one), or is it a more restrained and circumscribed view of what the US role in the world shd be. Russia and China's fairly aggressive pursuit of their interests in various places, and the rise of China more generally, pose a challenge for the second view in that its proponents have to explain that "restraint" does not equal "retreat" or "isolation" and why the US does not actually need 700 bases scattered all over the world to defend its interests or respond appropriately to its so-called peer competitors, esp China. Trump's vision (inasmuch as he had a semi-coherent one in f.p.) aligns more w the second view, Biden's more w the first (except when it comes to ending involvement in Mid Eastern "endless" conflicts). This is one case where the left, broadly defined, and Trump actually agree more w each other, even if both may be somewhat reluctant to point that out.
I addressed, indirectly, some of these matters in a recent guest post at USIH blog. Link in next box (later, pressed for time rt now).
p.s. Note, however, that whatever Trump's own inclinations, his administration left the global network of US military bases pretty much intact, afaik. He did propose drawing down US soldiers in Germany, a decision that Biden reversed.
AA
This: “Wars mean more units and more officers. It means more career people can retire as colonels rather than as majors or lieutenant colonels. Some as generals rather than colonels. It means more can stay beyond 20 years and retire at a higher rank with a larger pension. This would apply to senior enlisted as well. War is good for military careers in the same way that long sentences are good for the careers of prison guards.”
Does not equal this:
"The underlying premise of the discussion you initiated is that military officers promote war and conflict in order to enhance their opportunity for advancement."
Somewhere above I noted LFC's point that most (all?) begin with civilians. That's true of Afghanistan--Bush and Cheney. I do not claim that the military "promote[s] war and conflict." My claim is that, like any bureaucrats, when they get involved the bureaucratic interests take over--and that means keep the work going, don't get blamed for anything, make sure there's no failure on your watch, get the right boxes checked in your personnel record etc.
David,
You are playing bait and switch. You did not write:
“Bureaucracy means more units and more officers. It means more career people can retire as colonels rather than as majors or lieutenant colonels. Some as generals rather than colonels. It means more can stay beyond 20 years and retire at a higher rank with a larger pension. This would apply to senior enlisted as well. Bureaucracy is good for military careers in the same way that long sentences are good for the careers of prison guards.”
Rather, you wrote: “War means more units and more officers. … War is good for military careers in the same way that long sentences are good for the careers of prison guards.” The latter, rather than your effort to substitute “bureaucracy” for “war,” is as direct an assertion that career military officers promote war in order to increase their opportunity for advancement as one can write. It is an assertion which is false, and which you are now seeking to disassociate yourself from having made.
“War means more units and more officers. … War is good for military careers in the same way that long sentences are good for the careers of prison guards.”
I think that statement is true. Eisenhower was an obscure major who would not have become a five star general without WWII. The war was very good for his career.
Lord!
So, what are you saying, that Eisenhower did what he could to encourage FDR to declare war after Pearl Harbor, so that there would be a war in which he could be promoted to general? That he did what he could to extend the length of the war to make sure there was time for him to be appointed general? That he made sure as many men would die storming the beaches of Normandy so that he could bask in the ultimate victory of D-Day? And that he, in addition, did all this knowing he would become the Republican nominee for President, and as the general credited with planning and executing D-Day, he would be elected President?
Once can tell how fatuous an advocate’s position is by the ridiculous lengths they are willing to go to maintain the purported validity of their position.
AA,
No.
You mistake consequences for agency, AA. David's response is tellingly kind to you.
Anonymous,
No, because David's original comment was in fact about agency, not consequences.
This dispute between David Palmer and Another Anonymous is going nowhere, mainly because Another Anonymous cannot take a point.
In this passage from one his first posts in this thread, David Palmeter is clearly making a point about consequences, not intentions or agency:
"I'm the one who made the point. I don't think it's silly. Wars mean more units and more officers. It means more career people can retire as colonels rather than as majors or lieutenant colonels. Some as generals rather than colonels. It means more can stay beyond 20 years and retire at a higher rank with a larger pension. This would apply to senior enlisted as well. War is good for military careers in the same way that long sentences are good for the careers of prison guards."
There is nothing here about why military officers tend to support longer rather than shorter wars, if they in fact do. It's a point about one consequence of that length on their careers.
Now, can we get back to some interesting and important points about the debacle of Afghanistan [and Iraq, and Vietnam, and so on and on]?
I must say I'm flattered, touched, and generally overwhelmed by the popular clamor for the link to my USIH guest post, which I referenced above. ;)
It's here.
Actually it was Hideki Tojo who did what he could to successfully impel Roosevelt to ask congress to declare war on Japan which declaration, for reasons, led Germany to declare war on the United States. All Eisenhower had to do was make the decision to attend West Point, graduate, develop certain innate talents, serve with distinction, and persevere.
(He wasn't an obscure Major but had served under folks like MacArthur and Marshall (esp. Marshall) who had taken note of his abilities. He languished as a Major because of peace and depression and was an LTC by the time of the Louisiana Maneuvers.)
It seems beyond dispute that career minded officers will benefit from war. It doesn't follow that except for the occasional LeMay that they will lobby for war.
David Zimmerman,
It appears that I am beating a dead horse, to the distaste of you and others. But when one writes, “War is good for military careers in the same way that long sentences are good for the careers of prison guards," the clear implication, to me at least, is that war is being promoted by those whose careers benefit from it. This is a chicken vs. egg question. Prison guards may benefit from the long sentences meted out to prisoners, but the sentences are meted out by courts, not by the prison guards, who therefore are not the agents of the consequences which benefit them. The benefit is the consequence of the actions of third parties. But wars, by contrast, are managed by the military officers who fight them, even under a Constitution in which the military is subject to civilian control. It is the military officers, those who execute the orders they are given by the civilian government, who ultimately determine the success or failure of the military maneuvers, and therefore whose careers directly benefit or suffer from those wars. To say that “war is good for military careers” is a statement of agency, not just consequences - that those who administer the war benefit from the war, and this is so no matter what type of spin you and David Pameter wish to put on it.
P.S.
And as to your remark, “can we get back to some interesting and important points about the debacle of Afghanistan [and Iraq, and Vietnam, and so on and on]?” the issue regarding David Palmeter’s choice of words is about the Afghanistan conflict, and the U.S. military’s role in that conflict, and others. David’s statement was asserting that we stayed in Afghanistan as long as we did, and the durations of the Vietnam War and others were as long as they were, because their durations have been dictated primarily, if not exclusively, by the desire of the military brass to extend the wars as long as possible to enhance their opportunities for military advancement. If anybody said that about any other profession, they would meet with outrage and strong resistance. But it’s OK for sophisticated political pundits and academics to say that about the military because, after all, we all know they have no humanistic values and just love to go to war. I am not the product of a military family, but I am confident that if such a remark or opinion were offered in person to members of the military, or their families, that speaker would come away with a fat lip and a black eye.
The fact that if someone made such a remark to someone from the military, they would come away with a fat lip and a black eye doesn't prove much except the tendency of people from the military to recur to violence to settle arguments, does it?
Another, let me confess something to you. At the very beginning of this long argument I agreed with you about certain things, but your arguing style, your "love it or leave it" remark and now your evident vicarious pleasure in violence, turn me off so much that I end up on the other team.
It may be in the courtroom (I've only been in U.S. courts twice in my life, once because I was arrested in a civil rights demonstration and once because I was arrested for jaywalking in Boise, Idaho), your arguing style functions well, but here I don't think that you're winning friends and influencing people, which as the book says, is the way to convince others.
s. wallerstein,
First, such a reaction to a remark which insults the integrity of the person for whom the remark is intended would not be limited to members of the military. I am sure that most lawyers, and some physicians, accountants, and construction workers would have a similar response to a suggestion that they allow their professional ambitions dictate what strategy they implement, even if it is to the detriment of the client – in the case of the U.S. military, the American public. Only philosophers, perhaps, would desist from reacting with violence (although Wittgenstein did, once, point a poker at Karl Popper). An angry response would neither add to nor detract from the validity of the argument being advanced, but it would emphasize the inappropriateness of the remark.
Regarding my rhetorical style, I do not comment here to make friends. I submit comments which represent my opinions, for which I make no apologies. I am particularly offended by the comments of others which strike me as sophistical.
No doubt, my style is a product of my career as an attorney. I am combative, as a good attorney must be, and I do not mince words, either in my discourse or in my legal briefs. Below, for example, is the Conclusion of a brief I recently filed in federal court (the names have not been expunged, because they are a matter of public record):
The Defendants would have this Court believe this is a routine case involving a feckless and pertinacious Plaintiff who simply won’t accept that justice has already been done, that she legitimately lost a breach of contact case in a Michigan state court, and that she has come to this Court out of a deluded belief that she has been wronged, that she is no more than a state court loser seeking to undo a just decision obtained in a state court, a decision which has been thoroughly reviewed by the appellate courts of Michigan, and therefore beyond consideration by this Court.
But that is not what this case is about. Emily Evans is burdened for the rest of her life by a debt exceeding $100,000 – a debt that it will take the rest of her life to pay off, if she lives long enough; a debt which keeps growing because the judge who presided over the trial refuses to acknowledge, even today, despite the documentary and testimonial proof which has been laid before him, that the Judgment which he issued was obtained in his courtroom by a witness who committed perjury, suborned by his attorney. By virtue of that perjury and its subornation, Emily Evans is burdened with that debt for the rest of her life, simply because she refused to agree that she owed Selby’s home improvement company money for allegedly breaching a contract she never signed, and refusing to pay money for work which was never done. The fact that Selby committed perjury, suborned by Wilson, has never been reviewed by a Michigan appellate court, because it was never raised, and under Michigan procedural law, could not be raised on appeal, because no one in the courtroom on October 2, 2017, objected to the introduction of that perjurious testimony, because there was no one in that courtroom representing the legal interests of Emily Evans, due to the decision by Judge Connors to proceed with the jury trial rather than afford Evans time to obtain a new attorney. As demonstrated above, neither the Rooker-Feldman doctrine nor collateral estoppel bars this lawsuit.
(Continued)
On October 2, 2017, Douglas Selby took an oath in a Michigan state court to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. On that date, in a Michigan court of law, he violated that oath, by testifying that a five-page document was the contract which Evans agreed to, when he had previously signed a legal document, approved as to form and substance, admitting that the five-page document was not the contract which Emily Evans had agreed to, and that that five-page document, and the change orders accompanying it, violated Michigan law, and therefore under Michigan law were void and unenforceable. When Douglas Selby offered that testimony, at the invitation of his attorney, Brandon Wilson, Selby lied, prevaricated and committed perjury – all at the invitation of his attorney, Brandon Wilson, an officer of the court.
If the Defendants are correct, that that patently unjust Judgment cannot be undone in a federal court – that a witness can be allowed to lie under oath at the invitation of his attorney, an officer of the court, with impunity, then we have no need of courts, federal or otherwise. We may as well close the doors of all the courts in this country, because they are operating under a falsehood – that the courts are the last refuge for truth in this country, the place where truth and justice are served. And the citizens of this country should instead be left to the barbarism of their own resources to resort to obtaining justice by self-help.
Emily Evans believes, and fervently hopes she can continue to believe, that this vision of how the courts in this country operate is a distortion, that that is not how they operate and not how they are supposed to operate. She is hopeful that justice will, finally, actually prevail in this Court, and that this Court, recognizing the gross injustice which occurred in the Washtenaw County Circuit Court due to perjury and the subornation of perjury, will deny the motion to dismiss filed by Howard & Howard and a former partner of that law firm, Brandon Wilson, an officer of the court, an officer of the court who, on October 2, 2017, irrefutably suborned perjury in a Michigan state court in order to win a lawsuit.
Fiat Justitia ruat caelum.
AA
Your writing might be more effective if it were less florid and sparer, but at this point in your life and career you're obvs. not going to change your writing style.
LFC,
So do you think I am going to lose the motion?
I have no idea, but it looks like on a quick reading that you have a strong case, taking the facts as you have stated them here. But I wd have to read all the pleadings wdnt I, to form any kind of firm opinion. But yes, you're trying to defeat a motion to dismiss so I imagine you'll succeed and at least get yr client's case heard on the merits.
LFC,
I have just read your contribution to the SUSH blog and have some words of stylistic advice. I think you could use some more florid and elaborate language, and less spare, rather antiseptic, sentences which lack the emotive power necessary to persuade. Strunk & White notwithstanding, sometimes more is better.
Just kidding. I thought the piece was interesting and informative. Your writing style suits the format of a peer reviewed journal article, to which I also generally conform in the body of my legal briefs. The Conclusion which I wrote above, however, adopts a more provocative style because I am facing a uphill battle, seeking to overturn a four-year old judgment which was affirmed by two appellate state courts. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which I refer to in the Conclusion, generally precludes going into federal court in order to contest a state court’s rulings, while the state court proceeding is still pending, or after it has concluded, rather than using the state’s appellate procedures. There is an exception, however, if one can demonstrate that the ruling which was issued by the state court was obtained via the prevailing party having committed a fraud on the court. In this case I am contending that the principal witness for the plaintiff committed demonstrable perjury, at the invitation of his attorney, a perjury which the state court judge ignored. To complicate matters, when the attorney for the defendant (my current client) failed to show up on the day of trial, the judge, rather than adjourning the trial to allow the defendant to retain new counsel, proceeded to conduct the jury trial without any attorney present to represent her, to call witnesses on her behalf, or to object to the evidence, including the perjury, which the plaintiff’s attorney was offering. In so doing, I maintain that the state court judge violated the defendant’s constitutional right to due process. I have an uphill battle because it is a rare occasion for a federal court to overturn a state court judgment after all the appellate procedures in the state judicial system have been exhausted, as they were in this case. My rather florid language, with its use of repetition, is intended to impress on the federal judge the injustice which occurred in the state court in order to overcome the customary federal judicial inertia which prefers to allow state court decisions to remain undisturbed.
Perhaps the following story from "The Intercept" will refocus in a useful way the discussion here about the role of the military in prolonging wars.
Perhaps a significant problem is the role that retired officers -- currently in the employ of the defence industry, who appear on news programs to laud this war or that [of late the one in Afghanistan] and without announcing their obvious conflict of interest -- play in urging that the US should continue to fight, fight, fight.
https://theintercept.com/2021/08/19/afghanistan-taliban-defense-industry-media/
AA,
I understand; the style that one chooses has to match the occasion.
I also understand the legal, procedural points you're making, but I don't want to further divert this thread with a discussion of the details. I hope you succeed in this particular uphill battle.
Re: the Evans matter on appeal. One cannot find the words that can both expose and then dissolve the outrage of it; but the sometimes eponymous "Mr. Chase" does a brave turn with it.
Then, this is the reflection of the 12th century author out of the court of Henry I a man almost certainly "conservative in outlook, anxious to preserve the ancient customs of the kingdom, and he found no satisfaction in reflecting upon the tendencies of his own judicial work and that of his colleagues":
Law varies through the counties as the avarice and the sinister, odious activity of legal experts add more grievous means of injury to established legal process. There is so much perversity, and such affluence of evil that the certain truth of law and the remedy established by settled provision can rarely be found, but to the great confusion of all a new method of impleading is sought out, a new subtlety of injury is found, as if that which was before hurt little, and he is thought of most account who does most harm to most people. To those only we pretend reverence and love whom we cannot do without, and whatever does not agree with our cruelty does not exist for us. We assume the character of tyrants and it is desire of wealth which brings this madness upon us.... Legal process is involved in so many and so great anxieties that men avoid these exactions, and the uncertain dice of pleas.
Leges Henrici Primi, 6, 3 a--6,6 Excerpt trans. F.M. Stenton, The First Century of English Feudalism
i. e. rabinovitz,
Thank you for your comments and observations. One correction. The Evans case is not on appeal – it is currently pending in federal trial court. I am suing 22 defendants, including two judges (for what is called declaratory relief, not damages; unless I can prove they took bribes, they are immune from a lawsuit for damages), who are being defended by five of the largest defense firms in Michigan. This is truly a David vs. Goliath legal proceeding.
In the Conclusion which I quoted in my comment, it only touched on the surface of the duplicity and unscrupulous behavior which the lawsuit involves. If one reads the Complaint (now a First Amended Complaint), one will shake his head in disbelief that such an atrocity of jurisprudence could possibly occur in an American court. But it did, including the plaintiff prevailing in his breach of contract claim, notwithstanding that he committed perjury, at the invitation of his attorney, and in full view of the presiding judge. Moreover, after the judgment was entered against my client (whom I did not represent at the trial – if I had, none of this would have happened), the plaintiff garnished her disability benefit payments, in violation of Michigan law. Then, when she borrowed money in order to pay off the construction lien which the plaintiff and his attorney had placed on her home, they refused to accept the cashiers checks which she went to their business to deliver the day before her home was scheduled to be sold at a sheriff’s sale in order to pay off the construction lien. She had to contact the sheriff’s office to have a deputy come out to the business in order to force the plaintiff to accept the checks. Then the plaintiff accuse my client (and her mother) of trespassing on his property, where they had gone to deliver the cashiers checks.
One of my favorite movies about the law (among which there are many) is The Return of Martin Guerre, which takes place in 16th Century France. Towards the end of the movie, the French prosecutor says something to the effect, “A lie has many faces; the truth has only one.” I am optimistic that I will prove that the plaintiff in the Evans case committed perjury, suborned by his attorney, and I will succeed in having the four-year old judgment overturned.
Post a Comment