From The Archives -- Happy Independence Day!
Program Note: For the next two weeks, I will be on semi-vacation. Or "two vacations," really. The first of these starts today and will continue tomorrow during our national holiday. So I will be re-running columns to start this week, but then I'll be back for the end of the week as usual. Next week, I may (or may not) get a column out on Monday and/or Tuesday (we'll see how things go), but then after that point it'll be re-run columns for the rest of the week. By Monday the 17th, everything will return to normal and new columns will appear with regularity once again. I apologize in advance for the gaps in service.
Today's column was (obviously) written to be run yesterday, July 2nd. However, since the 2nd fell on a Sunday this year, I thought it'd be a good bridge column between the weekend and the actual Fourth of July. In any case, enjoy, and have fun celebrating our independence no matter which actual day you decide to celebrate it on.
Originally published July 2, 2012
Happy Second of July, everyone! Happy Independence Day!
Now, you may be thinking: "Has Chris gone bonkers? Why is he jumping the gun, two days early?" The answers to these important queries are: No, Chris has not gone any more bonkers than usual; and, in fact, the rest of you are celebrating a fictitious event on a fictitious anniversary date. So there.
I quote from the illustrious John Adams, writing to his beloved wife Abigail on July 3, 1776:
The second of July 1776, will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore.
"But..." I hear you say, "...but July 4th is when the Declaration of Independence was signed, and that's what we commemorate." Well... no. Sorry.
There is a famous painting by John Trumbull, of course, which hangs in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda. The image is (or should be) a familiar one to every American. It is even "on the money," on the (redesigned) back of the two dollar bill. However, this image does not even depict what most of us think it does. The event most of us assume it depicts never actually happened, and the closest thing to it which did happen took place almost a full month later, on August 2nd. That may seem contradictory, so allow me to explain.
What the painting actually depicts is a five-man committee presenting their draft of the Declaration of Independence to the Second Continental Congress, on June 28th. The reason "it never happened" is that the group depicted in the painting were never actually all in the same room at the same time. Some of the people who were in the room didn't actually sign the Declaration (and were thus omitted from the painting), and some of the people who actually signed the document hadn't even been members of the Congress at the time (they became delegates later, for various reasons). Even in the painting, only 42 of the 56 eventual signers are pictured (Trumbull was unable to obtain likenesses of all of them when the painting was commissioned in 1817, so he just left some out).
The timeline for declaring independence is a convoluted one. After the draft document was submitted, Congress tinkered with the wording for over a week. On July 2nd, they moved forward when twelve of the thirteen colonies voted to declare their independence from Great Britain (to accept the document, in essence). New York abstained, and it wasn't until July 19th that all thirteen approved independence. On July 4th, the document's final language was sent to the printers -- two days after the most meaningful vote had been taken on the independence question.
The story gets even more convoluted at this point. August 2nd is the date that most of the men actually signed the document -- although many of them would not do so until months afterwards (one, Thomas McKean of Delaware, wouldn't actually sign the document until 1777). In the spring of 1777, the official public record of Congress was released, and (lo and behold!) it stated that July 4th was the date that the "Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States" was signed in Congress. This was, to be blunt, a blatant lie. New York wouldn't even vote for independence for another two weeks, so it is impossible that any sort of "Unanimous Declaration" happened on July 4th. To further muddy the waters, in the official record, the entries for July 19th (when New York finally did agree) and August 2nd (when the physical document was actually endorsed by most of the signers) were omitted. It wasn't until 1821, when the Secret Journals of Congress were published, that these entries were restored. On July 19th, the entry specifies that a formal copy of the Declaration of Independence be printed up to be "signed by every member of Congress." This signing took place on August 2nd, according to the true record of what happened in Congress (instead of the made-up version they published in the spring of 1777).
We all think we know what happened 236 years ago. We all picture Trumbull's painting as the signing of the Declaration of Independence, even though (1) it does not actually depict this event, (2) some people were present at the signing who are not in the painting, (3) the signing took place a month later, (4) the 56 signers were never actually in the same room at the same time, (5) even if they had been, only 42 of them are actually depicted, and, most importantly (6) Congress voted for independence on July 2nd, not July 4th, and New York didn't give its assent until July 19th.
Now, historical accuracy is a wonderful thing, but it leaves the open question: when should we celebrate our independence? June 28th? July 2nd? July 19th? August 2nd? Whenever the last guy finally got around to signing the document?
John Adams, obviously, believed that July 2nd was the date worth celebrating. But soon afterwards, the Congress itself would manufacture its own historical fiction and declare -- in the official public record -- that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776. After all, this date is contained within the document itself. But this was nothing more than America's first "photo op," if you will (yet another historical contradiction, since photography wasn't even around back then). The whole story was a lie, but it was a lie America could agree upon and celebrate. Which we've been doing ever since, and which I will be doing in two days, along with everyone else.
But that doesn't stop me from also celebrating Independence Day today, as well. Because today -- July 2nd -- is when twelve of the thirteen colonies bravely gave their assent to separate America from Great Britain. This monumental event was the true point of no return for the colonies. By voting for their independence, they knew full well they were voting for a war which virtually everyone expected to be a lost cause. In today's terms, it would be the equivalent of Puerto Rico declaring war on the United States of America -- because so few people would bet on Puerto Rico to win such a military encounter.
In the early years of America's independence, the tradition was to drink thirteen separate toasts on Independence Day. That's a lot of drinking, it bears mentioning. I'm not sure emulating early Americans in this respect is such a good idea this July 4th, to put it another way. But since I doubt I'll last thirteen rounds two days from now, I hope you'll join me in raising at least one toast today, to commemorate Congress actually declaring America's independence from Great Britain, 236 years ago in Philadelphia. Because while the Fourth of July is indeed still celebrated with "pomp and parade... shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations" from one end of the continent to the other (and even far out into the Pacific, these days), I am one American who will also be celebrating the day John Adams (wrongly) assumed would be our national anniversary of independence. I invite you all to join me in doing so.
Happy Independence Day! Happy Second of July!
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Wishing you a very Happy Independence Day, Chris! And, enjoy a nice break away from here. :-)
Oh, and a very Happy Fourth of July to everyone else here, too! Have lots of fun and take good care ...
A day late and a dollar short but, what is a poor girl to do. Anyways, after reading this again, I'm reminded of a book that I still hope will be forthcoming ...
Hey, your independence day was two days ago, not tomorrow.
https://youtu.be/1SovKwzewyY
Yes, and you are the one who is late. :)
I miss our Sunday nights.
Since Chris is enjoying some well-deserved time off and since news of the Ukrainian counteroffensive has become rather sparce, I thought now might be a good time to post a William Bradley piece, you know, to spark some discussion. Here is his latest ...
____________________________________
WILLIAM BRADLEY
Political Analyst
former presidential campaign advisor and special advisor to the governor
— “Let there be light.”
Cluster Bombs for the Cluster Frak
7/4/2023 11:40 pm ET
What an Independence Day. America is on the verge of demonstrating its exceptionalism, once again.
We are now a month into the long gestating winter/spring/summer Ukrainian counteroffensive. No breakthroughs, big losses, still more demands for more wonder weapons.
The hoped-for, constantly spun-up — by much the same people — strategic equivalent of the Iraq War’s Surge (which actually failed) turns out to be the Ukraine War’s Stall. As discussed here a week ago. And the Stall is, at least today, on this 4th of July, down a memory hole. As is all the excitement over the abortive Wagner mutiny.
I didn’t see see any reference this morning to the Ukrainian counteroffensive on the New York Times, Washington Post, or Wall Street Journal front pages. Striking, given their constant enthusiastic coverage of the Ukraine War and NATO expansionism.
Tonight the strangely media-ubiquitous Institute for the Study of War, which earlier said the Ukrainian counteroffensive had entered a one-week “operational pause,” trotted out a new repositioning. The Ukrainian counteroffensive is now an “asymmetrical attrition gradient.”
The bafflegab accelerators have arrived.
Desperate times and all that, so the US is reportedly gearing up to send cluster bombs to the Kyiv government.
Cluster bombs, developed first by the Third Reich, notorious from heavy U.S. usage in the Vietnam War and Iraq War. Now banned by most countries in the world signed on to a global treaty, including three-quarters of NATO members. Oh, and currently illegal for US export.
I’ve continued to hear over the last few days that decision from the Biden administration is impending. That follows on the heels of this report in the staunchly pro-war Washington Post at the start of the holiday weekend:
“The Biden administration is pushing lawmakers and allies to put aside human rights concerns as regular ammunition stocks are depleted.
“Confronted with a worrying shortage of artillery ammunition, a counteroffensive that has been slow to launch and increasingly desperate appeals from Kyiv for more weaponry, the Biden administration is facing an imminent decision over whether to supply Ukraine with controversial cluster bombs.”
With the Ukrainian counteroffensive failing, Biden, who said no to cluster bombs last December, is, true to form, a stubborn guy.
It will no doubt be another great success.
The Kyiv government claims its counteroffensive has liberated, here and there, the territorial equivalent of … one-half of Fresno.
It also claims that its forces have killed more than 230,000 Russian soldiers. That’s over 80,000 more soldiers than the entire Russian army which invaded Ukraine last year!
Since that claim is beyond laughable, it’s just possible that the results of the Ukrainian counteroffensive are even more meager than they are already seem.
With the Ukrainian counteroffensive in very big trouble one month in, and the spin around it all not exactly hard to pierce, a certain desperation is setting in with the Washington alliance. Ukrainian generals openly chafe at growing criticism of their minor progress — nothing even close to a breakthrough, with actual Russian defensive lines still somewhere on the horizon — and complain that the U.S./NATO crew haven’t provided them with enough weapons and ammo. (They even complain about not having F-16s, which were never slated for the counteroffensive.) How many times have we heard that?
If the present trend continues, the Kyiv government and the Washington alliance which props it up will lose the war to the invading Russians. A war which should have been handled as a manageable regional security crisis before it spun up into a massive world crisis which has disrupted both the global economy as a whole and the utterly necessary transition away from fossil fuels.
The answer, as always? More supposed superweapons. A few more rungs up the escalation ladder.
Two more weapons systems were floated in government-friendly media outlets at the end of last week.
First, long-range ATACMS missiles, which National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said last summer they would never send. Now they’re very much on the table.
Second, cluster bombs, long infamous from their massive use by the US in the Vietnam War, as well as their use in America’s disastrous post-9/11 wars. Now many congressional Democrats are pushing hard for their use in the Ukraine War.
Most nations have banned cluster bombs, with a global treaty we won’t sign. And it is currently against US law to export cluster munitions.
How will all this play out?
First, the Brits have already given Kyiv longer range missiles, the Storm Shadow, which is roughly equivalent with the ATACMS. These have hit some Russian targets. They have also been jammed by electronic countermeasures or simply shot down.
Would the US sending ATACMS, which would require drawing down US or allied stores, make more of a difference than the Storm Shadow has? Hope springs eternal.
And at what point do the Russians interdict shipments of more advanced weapons? They are currently content to hit our weapons once they’re inside Ukraine.
The cluster bombs could be effective against Russian troops in defensive line positions. More so than conventional artillery shells and the previous techno-panacea HIMARS rockets, which in any event are in danger of running out. (The cluster bombs would in part also be an attempted short-term solution for the gap between Russian and Western artillery power.)
Cluster bombs shoot out many explosive bomblets over a target, potentially taking advantage of air gaps in defensive positions, shredding human bodies and penetrating vehicles and equipment. Since unexploded little bomblets are very hard to recover, they continued to kill and maim thousands of civilians many years after the Vietnam War ended, a phenomenon we’ve also seen in the Middle East.
Of course, the Ukrainians have to make it to Russian defensive lines in order to capitalize.
I can’t speak offhand to further defensive precautions against cluster bombs. But the Russians have them, too. One shudders to think what air bursts of cluster munitions would do to Ukrainian troops trying to advance in the field.
Both Ukraine and Russia, neither of which signed the treaty, have used cluster bombs in this war, but not much and not recently. That may be about to change.
Frustration leads to escalation.
Biden will journey to the NATO Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania next week. With the failing Ukrainian counteroffensive layered atop the failed Biden plan to win the war by crushing the Russian economy with what turned out to be backfiring sanctions and asset seizures, it’s not an especially happy time.
The Eurozone is in recession. Centrist establishment governments are under severe stress. Food and energy costs and even supply are big problems for major members. The warmer than usual weather last winter helped them to escape the worst repercussions from their shift away from Russian energy. (Ironic, given the elite Moscow view that global warming is a big geostrategic plus in the future for Russia.) But the Euros — who are replacing piped Russian natural gas with liquefied American gas, much more expensive and emitting 10 times as much in greenhouse gases — may not be so fortunate again. To the extent that leaders with so many problems can be considered fortunate.
Sharply divided over its future leadership, NATO will once again extend the term of its civilian leader, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, a former Norwegian prime minister. The Supreme Allied Commander — a title from World War II first held by Dwight Eisenhower — under the notional guidance of the NATO military committee, is always an American general or admiral.
Now Biden and company have to present and sell a new scenario.
And they might just want to pay at least some attention to the concerns of most of the world, which takes a decidedly skeptical if not derisive view of what the US and its allies are up to in the Ukraine War.
Even before any further Ukraine War escalation, the British government has just announced it is cancelling its 11.6 billion pound contribution to a long promised/never materializing Western climate mitigation fund for poor nations bearing most of the early brunt of the dawning climate apocalypse (TM).
Why? The Brits have to spend more money propping up the Kyiv government. The Pentagon can’t keep finding convenient accounting errors.
New West Notes
HuffPost
Politics from the inside/outside…
Comments, questions, insults? Let the fun begin!
non-serious, as you would say.
Hardly.
Care to imagine what each side could do with more cluster bombs?
Here is another piece - this time by Eric Ciaramella of the Carnegie Institute for International Peace - detailing a strategy for ensuring longterm Ukrainian security by deterring future Russian aggression.
I'm still digesting it ...
My initial response to the CEIP study is to suggest that Ukraine's leadership has made absolute assertions - on too many occasions - that no negotiations can take place until all Russian troops are repelled from Ukraine, including from Crimea. Which ensures a very long war that could easily extend to many years and beyond - assuming, of course, that Russia is not nearly as weak as many in the West are quick to postulate.
This study seems to accept and confirm this long war scenario.
Liz [6]
This: It also claims that its forces have killed more than 230,000 Russian soldiers. That’s over 80,000 more soldiers than the entire Russian army which invaded Ukraine last year!
Is just blatant bullshit. If it wasn't for his "stellar" bio, I might give him slack for a possibly poor translation. That figure is causalities and in it's rough form is backed up by just about everyone.
More so, Fresno? Do you have any idea, beyond bulk population, what half a Fresno is? I do as I have been there as I had a friend who grew up there, but it has to be the most obscure comparisons I've seen in a long time...
"asymmetrical attrition gradient". A silly made up phrase from a think tank but is it true or false? Your guy just wants to make fun of it, but if we look at the full paragraph:
Ukrainian forces appear to be focusing on creating an asymmetrical attrition gradient that conserves Ukrainian manpower at the cost of a slower rate of territorial gains, while gradually wearing down Russian manpower and equipment. Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council Secretary Oleksiy Danilov reported on July 4 that Ukrainian forces are performing their main task of destroying Russian manpower, equipment, fuel depots, artillery, and air defenses and that a “war of destruction is equal to a war of kilometers.”[1] Danilov’s assessment underlines the prioritization of Ukraine’s ongoing campaign to attrit Russian manpower and assets over attempting to conduct massive sweeping mechanized maneuvers to regain large swaths of territory rapidly. NATO Military Committee Chair Admiral Bob Bauer reported on July 3 that Ukrainian forces are correct to proceed cautiously and avoid high casualties in the counteroffensive and acknowledged that the counteroffensive is difficult due to landmines and other obstacles up to 30km deep into Russian-occupied territory.[2] Bauer stated that Ukrainian forces should not face criticism or pressure for moving slowly.
It has a defined meaning and is backed up at least someone in NATO. Why does your guy not mention that?
Lots of other vague stuff. A recession in Eurozone at .01% (more technical than real) vs the European union which is above the threshold for a recession. The UK has already refuted the pull out of 11.6 billion in the climate fund for poor nations.
Reading his newsletter is like reading something between FOX News and a Michale post. Seems to more about generating biased outrage than real analysis...
Bashi,
What do you have to say about the actual gist of the piece?
Which is the stalled counteroffensive - you just have to look at a map to see how small the gains are without having to compare it to the size of any other geographical area - and the growing concern among NATO allies and in the US over the current state of affairs on the battlefield and in Western weapon depots, not to mention the impact the Ukraine focus is having on the fight against the "dawning climate apocalypse".
Bashi,
"asymmetrical attrition gradient". A silly made up phrase from a think tank but is it true or false? Your guy just wants to make fun of it, but if we look at the full paragraph..."
The funny part about this is that the Institute For The Study of War is a "think tank" that is run by the same folks who advocated for the invasion of Iraq, merely one of the worst geopolitical blunders ever undertaken. Lessons learned, anyone!?
Bashi,
"asymmetrical attrition gradient". A silly made up phrase from a think tank but is it true or false? Your guy just wants to make fun of it, but if we look at the full paragraph..."
The funny part about this is that the Institute For The Study of War is a "think tank" that is run by the same folks who advocated for the invasion of Iraq, merely one of the worst geopolitical blunders ever undertaken. Lessons learned, anyone!?
Bashi,
As for the paragraph in its entirety ... I think we are all capable of recognizing blatant spin when we read it.
Bashi,
Do have any reports about the UK NOT pulling its funding for climate mitigation that is more up to date than this Guardian piece from yesterday?
panda #9
@kick,
massive panda 9
Liz,
The funny part about this is that the Institute For The Study of War is a "think tank" that is run by the same folks who advocated for the invasion of Iraq, merely one of the worst geopolitical blunders ever undertaken. Lessons learned, anyone!?
Well, Wikipedia thinks they are a think tank. I have not heard of them before.
As for the paragraph in its entirety ... I think we are all capable of recognizing blatant spin when we read it.
Oh, there is definitely spin surrounding that paragraph, the question is who is doing the spinning?
Do have any reports about the UK NOT pulling its funding for climate mitigation that is more up to date than this Guardian piece from yesterday?
Yes, they specifically called out the Guardian piece. What the truth of the matter is...who knows.
Got a link refuting the Guardian piece - I'd like to read it...
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-set-drop-1476-bln-climate-pledge-guardian-2023-07-04/
That's good news, if true.
It's not like the UK is the only rich country that isn't doing all it should to help poorer countries mitigate climate change. Hell, we can't even help ourselves!
If Biden sends cluster bombs to Ukraine, then that means the time for negotiating an end to this stupid and unnecessary war is NOW. Because, clamouring for more of these weapons only means you're losing and better cut your losses. Worry about sovereignty down the road.
Freedom's just another word for ...
So, the US will be sending cluster bombs to Ukraine even though using them is akin to "a war crime".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66134663