And I hope when I next check the news, I discover that we’ve put a missile down Khamenei’s smokestack, and that Putin and his entourage have perished mysteriously in an accident involving an exploding tractor or something. Wouldn’t that make for a great news day. (Given how surprising the news has been so far in 2026, who would be such a fool as to blithely rule that out?)
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil Liberties
Commentary
EconomicsPolitics |
Samizdata quote of the day – Why it doesn’t pay to make predictionsJanuary 3rd, 2026 |
 5 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – Why it doesn’t pay to make predictionsLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
It is indeed possible.
I did not know of today’s events till I came home from looking after the art shop in town (we did reasonably well today).
President Trump showed nerve, and the United States armed forces showed great bravery and competence.
It is no good coming up with a good objective if the military are not competent to carry it out – as Winston Churchill found out in 1915, when the British armed forces were set a perfectly attainable objective (and it was attainable – there was nothing impossible about capturing Constantinople – the only enemy capitol to be on the sea coast – and linking up with the Russians), but the military commanders proved incompetent – see the late historical account by the late Colonel Barker and, more recently, by Brigadier Mallinson.
This is the thing – one needs BOTH a Commander in Chief who can come up with good objectives (and dares to take the political risk of carrying them out) AND a military competent to carry them out.
The United States appears, fortunately, to have both.
Of course, the British establishment did not want to admit that its military commanders were incompetent – in spite of General Stopford, General Mahon and-so-on landing at Sulva Bay with ten thousand British soldiers, facing only a couple of hundred Turkish soldiers, and then doing NOTHING for 48 hours (two whole days) – whilst the Turks rushed in reinforcements and built defenses.
It was much easier to say that “Winston asked the impossible” “the objective could never have been achieved” than to admit that the military was run, in part, by useless people – an especially troubling thing to admit to in the middle of a World War.
However, not admitting that the army was run by useless people had unfortunate consequences – for example the following year, 1916, when over 50 thousand British soldiers were killed or wounded (20 thousand being killed) in one day – July 1st 1916 on the Somme.
When General Lee witnessed what had become of Pickett’s Charge (and, remember, there was no barbed wire or machine guns at Gettysburg) he went to the survivors calling out “it is all my fault”, “it is all my fault”.
There was no such behaviour from General Haig – he apologized to no one, and, indeed, just ordered more attacks – day after day, month after month.
“But he won the war” – the side with vastly more men and resources won the war, no more thanks to General Haig than to his crony (who he betrayed) General Gough.
There were good British and allied Generals on the Western Front – namely, at the start of the campaign General Smith-Dorrien, then General Plumer, and the Earl of Cavan (who, being an aristocrat, did not have to spend time and effort pretending to be one – as Douglas H. did), and in the Canadian forces Generals Byng and General Currie.
“…and in the Canadian forces Generals Byng and General Currie.”
Thanks for mentioning Currie.
Our Canadian governments, always and forever mealy-mouthed and ambivalent to our military and its achievements, have never given him the recognition he deserved.
JJM – correct.
Perhaps the money he borrowed from the regimental mess, before the war, has something to do with the lack of recognition – even though every penny of that money was paid back.
Men are not angels – they have flaws.
That a man does a bad thing, does not negate all the good things he does.
Even angels have flaws – “better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.”