Jump to content

Scruffbag Bolton to leave the UN?


2sheds
 Share

Recommended Posts

US envoy to UN 'set to lose job'

 

George W Bush lifts his hand to vote as John Bolton looks on

Mr Bolton's nomination was due to be reviewed by the end of the year

The US envoy to the UN, John Bolton, looks set to lose his job after the Democrats' victory in mid-term polls.

 

Mr Bolton was appointed to the post during a Congressional recess after his nomination stalled in the Senate.

 

The White House wants Mr Bolton to stay at the UN, but the chances are slim of him being backed by the Senate.

 

He would become the second high-profile member of President George Bush's team to leave after the polls, following Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

 

Mr Bolton's appointment in August 2005 was a procedural manoeuvre which avoided the need for him to be confirmed until the end of this year.

 

That procedure cannot be repeated, and the new climate in Congress appears to rule out winning a two-thirds majority of senators.

 

Climate change

 

President Bush has formally asked for Mr Bolton to be confirmed during the final session of the outgoing Senate.

 

But the senators who opposed Mr Bolton last time, including one Republican, are refusing to change their minds.

 

 

I see no point in considering Mr Bolton's nomination again

Sen Joseph Biden

Foreign Relations Committee

Lincoln Chaffee, who was defeated by his Democrat rival in Rhode Island this week, said it would be illogical to change his stance at the last minute.

 

"The American people have spoken out against the president's agenda on a number of fronts, and presumably one of those fronts is on foreign policy," Mr Chaffee said.

 

"And at this late stage in my term, I'm not going to endorse something the American people have spoken out against."

 

At the state department, a spokesman defended Mr Bolton, describing his work at the UN as "extraordinarily effective".

 

"Not is not the time to have a gap in your UN ambassador," Sean McCormack said, referring to the current impasse over North Korea's nuclear test and other issues.

 

But with the Democrats due to take over in January, the door has slammed shut, says the BBC's Justin Webb, in Washington.

 

"I see no point in considering Mr Bolton's nomination again in the Foreign Relations Committee because regardless of what happens there, he is unlikely to be considered by the full Senate," said Joseph Biden, senior Democrat on that committee.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6134734.stm

 

This could be an excellent week with both rummy and this trampy hobo leaving office. bluebiggrin.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

not much of a diplomat is he?

 

Oh I dunno... They say diplomacy is an extension of war, afterall.

 

You mean, war is a continuation of policy by other means?

 

I meant what I said, but nevermind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not much of a diplomat is he?

 

Oh I dunno... They say diplomacy is an extension of war, afterall.

 

You mean, war is a continuation of policy by other means?

 

I meant what I said, but nevermind.

 

Oh ok, so who said diplomacy is an extension of war?

Link to post
Share on other sites

not much of a diplomat is he?

 

Oh I dunno... They say diplomacy is an extension of war, afterall.

 

You mean, war is a continuation of policy by other means?

 

I meant what I said, but nevermind.

 

Oh ok, so who said diplomacy is an extension of war?

 

Of public note? Noone, I can think of. I thought it would be fairly clear, but its a take on the von Clausewitz philosophy that places the emphasis on war, albeit somewhat light-hearted. Policy>War>Diplomacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever read On War? it is said that most people quote Clausewitz but have never read his work.

 

I've not, actually, to my regret, though I've witnessed it discussed at length. Yourself?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I've got the 1984 John Howard and Peter Paret translation...much better than Sun Tzu's The Art of War, although I've got the Gagliardi translation which is pretty pants considering he's not a military strategist.

 

 

Good stuff. Ever read Jomini? Again, haven't myself, but it would be worth doing so to "complete" matters having read von Clausewitz.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only read a little about Jomini, none of his work.

 

Writers for military journals refer mainly to Clausewitz and Sun Tzu, and when it comes to guerilla war and insurgency they look at Mao, Lawrence and Vo Nguyen Giap, so I try to read about these because I find it interesting.

 

I bought the abridged version of The Seven Pillars of Wisdom by Lawrence because so many people discuss him and his work is too long, but even the abridged version "The Revolt in the Desert" is full of way too much detail and people that the mind usually wonders after 5 mins.

 

You can read alot from the U.S Air War College about military theory, theorists and strategy if you're interested.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-thry.htm

 

Liddel Hart's book on strategy is also excellent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only read a little about Jomini, none of his work.

 

Writers for military journals refer mainly to Clausewitz and Sun Tzu, and when it comes to guerilla war and insurgency they look at Mao, Lawrence and Vo Nguyen Giap, so I try to read about these because I find it interesting.

 

I bought the abridged version of The Seven Pillars of Wisdom by Lawrence because so many people discuss him and his work is too long, but even the abridged version "The Revolt in the Desert" is full of way too much detail and people that the mind usually wonders after 5 mins.

 

You can read alot from the U.S Air War College about military theory, theorists and strategy if you're interested.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-thry.htm

 

Liddel Hart's book on strategy is also excellent.

 

Regarding the popularity of thinkers other than Jomini, its telling that the second result on a google search I just did regarding him was on www.clausewitz.com - "Their Interaction". With reason too, I believe. All the same, seeing as they were contemporaries and rivals to one degree or another, it'd be interesting to obtain your own sense of why one is predominantly spoken about when in reference to the other.

 

Cheers for that link, looks like it could have some interesting bits and pieces in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only read a little about Jomini, none of his work.

 

Writers for military journals refer mainly to Clausewitz and Sun Tzu, and when it comes to guerilla war and insurgency they look at Mao, Lawrence and Vo Nguyen Giap, so I try to read about these because I find it interesting.

 

I bought the abridged version of The Seven Pillars of Wisdom by Lawrence because so many people discuss him and his work is too long, but even the abridged version "The Revolt in the Desert" is full of way too much detail and people that the mind usually wonders after 5 mins.

 

You can read alot from the U.S Air War College about military theory, theorists and strategy if you're interested.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-thry.htm

 

Liddel Hart's book on strategy is also excellent.

 

Regarding the popularity of thinkers other than Jomini, its telling that the second result on a google search I just did regarding him was on www.clausewitz.com - "Their Interaction". With reason too, I believe. All the same, seeing as they were contemporaries and rivals to one degree or another, it'd be interesting to obtain your own sense of why one is predominantly spoken about when in reference to the other.

 

Cheers for that link, looks like it could have some interesting bits and pieces in it.

 

Well I can't add anything to what Chris Bassford wrote in that article regarding their interaction, after all he is Professor of Strategy at National War College while it is only an interest to me.

 

I did read that article a while ago and re-read it yesterday, I think he points out that the main difference is that Jomini offers a prescriptive approach while Clausewitz offers a descriptive approach and therefore outlasts Jomini due to the changing characteristics of warfare, in terms of technological advancements, which means Jomini's principles don't apply.

 

I know Clausewitz talks about mountain warfare, rivers and streams, defence of forests etc which is said to not apply today, but is of historical value. But the main use of Clausewitz is in his description of the nature of war especially the trinity, the effect of friction which makes the simple thing difficult to execute and also the relationship between politics and the military which is still relevant to today.

 

Clausewitz.com is the best resource for research on him and his ideas being applied today, while Sonshi.com is regarding as the best site for Sun Tzu.

Link to post
Share on other sites

forget the theorists lads - read about the real thing instead.......................

 

You need theory in order to understand the history, and you need historical examples to better clarify the theory.

 

Or, as Clausewitz wrote in Book 2 On the Theory of War:

 

5.—Reflections on Military Events brought about the want of a Theory.

 

As contemplation on war continually increased, and its history every day assumed more of a critical character, the urgent want appeared of the support of fixed maxims and rules, in order that in the controversies naturally arising about military events, the war of opinions might be brought to some one point. This whirl of opinions, which neither revolved on any central pivot, nor according to any appreciable laws, could not but be very distasteful to people's minds.

 

27.—Theory must be of the nature of observation, not of doctrine.

 

The second opening for the possibility of a theory lies in the point of view that it does not necessarily require to be a direction for action. As a general rule, whenever an activity is for the most part occupied with the same objects over and over again, with the same ends and means, although there may be trifling alterations, and a corresponding number of varieties of combination, such things are capable of becoming a subject of study for the reasoning faculties. But such study is just the most essential part of every theory, and has a peculiar title to that name. It is an analytical investigation of the subject that leads to an exact knowledge; and if brought to bear on the results of experience, which in our case would be military history, to a thorough familiarity with it. The nearer theory attains the latter object so much the more it passes over from the objective form of knowledge into the subjective one of skill in action; and so much the more, therefore, it will prove itself effective when circumstances allow of no other decision but that of personal talents; it will show its effects in that talent itself. If theory investigates the subjects which constitute war; if it separates more distinctly that which at first sight seems amalgamated; if it explains fully the properties of the means; if it shows their probable effects; if it makes evident the nature of objects; if it brings to bear all over the field of war the light of essentially critical investigation,—then it has fulfilled the chief duties of its province. It becomes, then, a guide to him who wishes to make himself acquainted with war from books; it lights up the whole road for him, facilitates his progress, educates his judgment, and shields him from error.

 

If a man of expertness spends half his life in the endeavour to clear up an obscure subject thoroughly, he will probably know more about it than a person who seeks to master it in a short time. Theory is instituted that each person in succession may not have to go through the same labour of clearing the ground and toiling through it, but may find the thing in order, and light admitted on it. It should educate the mind of the future leader in war, or rather guide him in his self-instruction, but not accompany him to the field of battle: just as a sensible tutor forms and enlightens the opening mind of a youth without, therefore, keeping him in leading strings all through his life.

 

If maxims and rules result of themselves from the considerations which theory institutes, if the truth concretes itself in that form of crystal, then theory will not oppose this natural law of the mind; it will rather, if the arch ends in such a keystone, bring it prominently out; but it does this only in order to satisfy the philosophical law of reason, in order to show distinctly the point to which the lines all converge, not in order to form out of it an algebraical formula for the battle-field: for even these maxims and rules also are more to determine in the reflecting mind the leading outline of its habitual movements, than to serve as landmarks indicating to it the way in the act of execution.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"You need theory in order to understand the history, and you need historical examples to better clarify the theory."

 

but history DOESN'T repeat itself, nor can it be used for experimental purposes - so theory is useless

 

note Clauswitz states "IF maxims and rules result of themselves....."  if they don't the whole thing is a load of hot air and only useful for a place for retired Generals and academics who never served

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Book 2 On the Theory of War, Clausewitz states that reflections on the events of war led to the need for a theory due to controversies in military history, conflicting opinions and lack of basic principles and laws.

 

He then investigates efforts to bring principles and rules to the conduct of war and noted that these principles pertained only to physical matters and uniltaeral activity, the theorists who tried to resolve the problems, understand history and provide a theory considered only mathematical calculations and material factors such as:

 

1. Numerical superiority as the one and only rule

Or

2. Supply as the main issue in the conduct of war

Or

3. Geometrical principles

 

Clausewitz objected to all of these attempts because they didn't consider several important facts:

1. In war everything is uncertain.

2. All military action pertains to physical AND moral forces.

3. War is a continuous interaction of opposing forces that react.

 

He then went on to say that a commander can't rely on support at ALL times on manuals containing principles and rules, he must at times fall back on what he called talent, which is outside of manuals and conflicts with it. Talent and genius operate outside rules and therefore theory conflicts with practise. He is alluding to the theories he mentioned in his investigation that rely only on physical unilateral action and material factors that provide precise rules in the sense of a manual)

 

Clausewitz went on to discuss two alternatives to this problem (theory conflicting with practise).

 

1. Comments on the nature of military action in general do not apply to action at all levels. Tactics presents fewer difficulties than strategy because it mainly deals with physical forces that can be seen, whereas strategy deals mainly with the intellect and things based on uncertaintly such as influencing the commander's will.

2. As quoted in my previous post "27 Theory must be of the nature of observation, not doctrine", here Clausewitz states that theory does not have to be a manual for action. That inquiry is the most essential part of any theory and leads to becoming closer to the subject, where it is applied to military history it leads to familiarity. The closer it leads to familiarity the more effective it becomes in areas where rules and principles are not useful and instead one has to rely on talent.

 

After, he writes that theory studies the nature of ends and means and discusses this in relation to tactics and strategy.

 

Later, when discussing the nature of knowledge in relation to the commander in chief, he writes:

 

"The knowledge needed by a senior commander is distinguished by the fact that it can only be attained by a special talent, through the medium of reflection, study and thought: an intellectual instinct extracting the essence from the phenomena of life,..."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Bump

 

*Gloats*

 

See I told yas - the tramp has resigned

 

The controversial US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, is to leave his post, the White House says.

 

Mr Bolton looked unable to win the necessary Senate support for him to continue in the job, which he had obtained on a temporary basis.

 

Critics have questioned factors including his abrasive style at the UN.

 

Mr Bolton's move comes after US defence chief Donald Rumsfeld resigned following the Republican defeat in last month's mid-term elections.

 

The incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic Senator Joe Biden, said he saw "no point in considering Mr Bolton's nomination again".

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6207054.stm

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Ridzuan

What a bad and sad news.Mr Bolton was a great ambassador for the US and I think he will still be if he didnt leave the UN.I just hope that whoever is next to take Mr Bolton's place continue the good job that Mr Bolton has done.After Mr Rumsfeld and now Mr Bolton out from politics,I wonder who will be the next victim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...