"I have no patience, incidentally, with those whataboutery critics invoking the Inquisition and the Crusades to diss Leo’s credentials."

"Nationalism, imperialism, fascism and communism are already far bigger killers than Catholicism, despite having been around for much less time. The main reason for that is, besides being inefficient, it is morally repugnant to most people to kill face to face, but to do it from a distance — with a machinegun, with artillery, with an aerial bomb, with a drone, now with a robot controlled by an algorithm — has become progressively easier over the past 150 years. As the Pope says, not 'seeing the face of human beings lowers the moral threshold of conflict.' That is why he has called for 'the strictest ethical constraints' on the use of AI in warfare. He is right, obviously. I hate AI. But then I think social media has been a disaster and I don’t much like predictive texting, spellcheck or digital train tickets either. I’d have pulled the plug on the whole shebang in 2006, after email, Wikipedia and YouTube but before any of the other nonsense. But hey, I am also a realist.... We have to live with this madness. Given that, why would we let a few super-rich weird nerdy misfits decide what’s ethical AI and what isn’t?"

Writes Robert Crampton, in "Pope Leo’s come out all guns blazing against the AI war machine. Good/Allowing a few super-rich weird nerdy misfits to decide what is and isn’t ethical would be madness" (London Times).

My first draft of this post had one more sentence, but I decided to cut it because I think it's dumb and distracting. For the record, it's "They would blow up the world, as Pope Leo didn’t quite say but I’ll say it for him, if they thought it would bag them a hot babe with fake boobs." But what do you think of the sexualized analysis? The tech leaders are "super-rich weird nerdy misfits" driven by sexual frustration. I used to read analysis like that all the time 60 years ago, when Freudianism was still going strong. It's interesting, but that doesn't make it true. If these men are super-rich, can't they find sexual partners? And why fake boobs? Also, isn't it gauche these days to disparage the neurodivergent with insults like "weird nerdy misfits"?

I remember when a major political party in the United States got the idea that calling a weird person "weird" would be an effective way to win a presidential election. 

"Speaking just ahead of Trump, Xi... said a major question for the two countries was whether they could avoid the 'Thucydides Trap'...."

I'm reading "Xi asks Trump if U.S. and China can avoid 'Thucydides Trap' at high-stakes summit" (CNBC). (That's the original headline. The headline was rewritten, perhaps to avoid mystification, as "Xi warns Trump: Mishandling Taiwan will put U.S.-China relationship in 'great jeopardy.'")

You probably know Thucydides was a historian in ancient Greece, but is "Thucydides trap" a common term? It's pretty recent, according to Wikipedia, coined and popularized in the last 10 years, and used specifically in the context of the U.S. and China. 

"'If the Democratic Party is to flourish in the future,' Mr. Platner told me, 'it needs to be an antiwar party.'"

"As talks to end the latest disastrous war focus on reopening a narrow strait of water that was open before the war began, this seems like an obvious conclusion. And yet many Democratic politicians would most likely be wary of embracing it.... [M]any Democrats seem to fear being seen as antiwar. What if they vote against wartime funding, and then an Iranian attack targets U.S. troops or the homeland? Or what if Mr. Trump bombs Iran, and the regime collapses and is replaced by something better? You could feel this calculation within the Democratic Party as the war began — a hedging that only dissipated when the war’s brutality and insanity became clear.... We like to frame our wars as virtuous, but they are not. Instead, they resemble a declining empire sowing chaos along its periphery as a matter of strategy.... [T]he forever war has been destroying America from within, like an organism that must keep growing to survive, filling us with fear of outsiders and contempt for one another. War does that to societies: Once you normalize taking human life abroad, you tend not to value it at home...."

Writes Ben Rhodes, in "Graham Platner Went to Hell and Back. He Has a Simple Message for Democrats" (NYT).

Rhodes was a speechwriter for Obama. Platner is the likely Democratic Party candidate for U.S. Senator for Maine. 

Part of your propaganda.

Hey White House, please remove the Tropic Thunder clip. We never gave you permission and have no interest in being a part of your propaganda machine. War is not a movie. https://t.co/dMQqRxxVCa

— Ben Stiller (@BenStiller) March 6, 2026

Why withhold video of death?

I'm reading "Trump says Hegseth will decide whether to release boat strike video/The comments come after the president previously said his administration would release video of a controversial military operation, 'no problem'" (WaPo).

If there's something people want to see, why not let them see? I don't want to see it, because I was taught as a child not to look, and I've always regarded this a moral requirement. If I know it is video of a real person dying, I will read about it if it is newsworthy but I don't watch. I read about the death of George Floyd, but I did not watch. 

Do people gain better understanding by watching video of human beings dying? In the case of the boat strike, there are fact questions, and it is evidence – inflammatory evidence, but evidence. And some people want to stare at it and make up their own mind — stare at human beings, desperate and then blown up. How much can be seen?

"Ninety-nine percent of people [back then] didn’t have their portrait painted. It does not mean they did not exist."

"They are central to the drama of the American Revolution. It might be a teenager: John Greenwood from Boston, or Joseph Plumb Martin from Connecticut. Or 10-year-old Betsy Ambler [from Yorktown] or the Native Americans or Spanish or French or Hessian soldiers. At the end, we say the Continental Army is just filled with teenagers and ne’er-do-wells, second and third sons who aren’t due an inheritance, felons, and recent immigrants. That’s who wins the war, and that’s why democracy is not an object of the revolution, it’s a consequence—because you realize at the end, they did the fighting and dying. We’re going to have to give them something. John Greenwood is a footnote? Betsy Ambler is a footnote? Follow the trail. And when you get Maya Hawke reading Betsy Ambler, it comes alive."

Says Ken Burns, in a Vanity Fair interview. He's talking about his new PBS documentary, "The American Revolution," and Vanity Fair makes its headline spicier than the quote: "Ken Burns Knows Who Won the American Revolution: 'Ne’er-Do-Wells, Felons, and Immigrants.'"

Is VF making the show more about present-day politics than it deserves or is the show pushing a political agenda? I have a feeling Burns does very restrained interviews — in line with the PBS presentation of itself. So maybe the VF headline is helpfully apt. Rereading that Burns quote, I find it plainly political.

I cringe at the sentiment "when you get Maya Hawke reading Betsy Ambler, it comes alive." Hand me a history book and spare me the lively readings of nepo-babies.

I believe I've only ever watched one of Burns's shows, the first one: "Brooklyn Bridge," from back in 1981. I've actively avoided them. And I love documentary film.

By the way, of all the American wars, did the Revolutionary War have the highest percentage of teenagers doing the fighting?

"A Romanian worker died late on Monday after being trapped for 12 hours when the 13th-century Torre dei Conti, overlooking the ancient Forum, caved in..."

"... sending a cloud of dust and debris over tourists. Maria Zakharova, a Kremlin spokeswoman, claimed that Italian infrastructure was crumbling because funds were being diverted to backing Ukraine’s war effort. 'As long as the Italian government keeps uselessly wasting taxpayers’ money, all of Italy will collapse, from the economy to its towers,' she said on Monday on her Telegram channel...."

From "Russia blames fatal Rome tower collapse on support for Ukraine/Italy is outraged as the Kremlin links its military aid to the death of a maintenance worker in the Torre dei Conti" (London Times).

Wow, that's some cheap trolling from the Kremlin spokeslady.

"Trump’s opponents complain about the aggressive connotations of the new name."

"But the United States is protected by the most lethal and vigilant fighting force ever assembled, no matter what it’s called. The new name could prompt more focused debate about how to use it."

Writes the Editorial Board of The Washington Post, in "In defense of the War Department/Euphemisms such as 'defense' and 'security' have a tendency for bureaucratic mission-creep."

"The U.S. has entered a new era in which narcotraffickers are classified as terrorists — and Trump is claiming the right to kill them before they or their drugs reach this country."

From "'We've never seen this before': Trump's drug war looks like a real war" (Axios).

The attack marked the first time a suspected "go-fast" drug-running boat was destroyed by a military missile, according to officials and drug-war experts. "There's more where that came from," Trump said in announcing the strike. All other details of the shocking, caught-on-video missile attack are classified, officials said....

What happened Tuesday was "a murder anywhere in the world," Colombia's president, Gustavo Petro, wrote on X. "We have been capturing civilians who transport drugs for decades without killing them. Those who transport drugs are not the big narcos, but the very poor, young people from the Caribbean and the Pacific."...

ADDED: "Trump Claims the Power to Summarily Kill Suspected Drug Smugglers/The move to treat criminals as if they were wartime combatants escalated an administration pattern of using military force for law enforcement tasks at home and abroad" (NYT). 

"President Trump’s tone after the call with President Putin was once again emollient."

"Rather than punishing Russia with the 'bone-crushing' sanctions some had hoped for, he hailed an 'excellent' call and said Russia had a 'tremendous opportunity' to do business with the US if the war ended. Even better for Putin, he also appeared to backtrack from US involvement in talks, speculating that they could be hosted by the Pope in the Vatican and saying it would be 'negotiated between the two parties, as it can only be.'"

The London Times reports.

What role have popes played in bringing about peace? Some examples, here, at Grok.

"Russian special forces have hiked through nine miles of gas pipeline to ambush Ukrainian troops in the Kursk region..."

"... as Moscow claims it retook three new settlements from Kyiv on Sunday. The Kremlin fighters allegedly spent days hiding inside a gas pipeline connecting Russia to Europe before emerging late Saturday to attack Ukrainian soldiers stationed near the border city of Sudzha, according to Russian bloggers on Telegram.... Sudzha, which had about 5,000 residents before the war began, remains one of the key cities Ukraine managed to take during its surprise counter-invasion last year in Kursk, with the conquered cities constituting a major bargaining chip against the Russian invaders...."

The NY Post reports.

ADDED: For the annals of Things I Asked Grok: "What are some movies or books where a military attack is made after marching through a pipeline?" And then, noting this NY Post report, "Do you think that really happened?

"It's been very clear from the beginning that President Trump views this as a protracted stalemated conflict. And frankly, it's a proxy war..."

"... between nuclear powers — the United States, helping Ukraine, and Russia. And it needs to come to an end. And no one has any idea or plan to bring it to an end. The plan of the Ukrainians up to now — and their allies on Capitol Hill and people you talk to in other countries — is let's just keep giving them as much as they need for as long as it takes. That's not a strategy." 

🚨Update: Secretary Marco Rubio stated - Ukraine conflict is a ‘PROXY WAR’ between US and Russia; Ukraine has no plan to end the war!! pic.twitter.com/n9L01s5bIh

— US Homeland Security News (@defense_civil25) March 6, 2025

"Tens of thousands of displaced Palestinians were walking toward their homes in northern Gaza on Monday, nearly 16 months after they were forced to flee..."

"... at the start of Israel’s military offensive. A column of people that stretched for miles marched north along Gaza’s coastal road, many carrying their few possessions on their heads, on makeshift carts and in plastic bags slung over their backs.... As they began arriving in Gaza City, in the north of the territory, they confronted a wasteland of rubble after the Israeli military destroyed whole neighborhoods and Hamas booby-trapped many buildings. Many of those returning had spent the war sheltering in tents.... On Monday, some used bikes, wheelchairs and trolleys to carry their belongings. One man attached wheels to a plastic box, turning it into a makeshift stroller for a baby...."

The NYT reports.

"Hegseth is in no danger of rising to the level of mediocrity, but next to some of his Democratic questioners, he looked like Carl von Clausewitz."

"Hegseth’s core populist conviction — repeated ad nauseam — is that the grunts on the ground know what they are doing and the pencil-necked geeks in air-conditioned offices just write nonsense regulations that get in the way. The man wasted years at Princeton and Harvard when he could have learned everything he knows by watching that Colonel Jessup speech at the end of 'A Few Good Men.'... In a healthy democracy people revere great learning on substantive issues; they understand the world is too complex to be captured in bite-size slogans; but they also appreciate the wisdom that comes from concrete experience and know that most hard calls have to be made in light of the deeply held values that have made America what it is...."

Writes David Brooks, in "We Deserve Pete Hegseth" (NYT).

Here's Colonel Jessup:

 

And here's  Carl von Clausewitz:

Here's Wikipedia's list of Clausewitz's ideas:

The intensely visual and emotional Trumpian view of the landscape of war.

From the transcript of yesterday's press conference:

We're trying to get the war stopped, that horrible war that's going on in Ukraine with Russia, Ukraine. We've got a little progress. It's a tough one. It's a nasty one. It's nasty. People are being killed at levels that nobody's ever seen. It's very level fields. And the only thing that stops a bullet is a body, a human body. And the number of soldiers that are being killed on both sides is astronomical. I've never seen anything like that. And rapidly. I get reports every week and it's not even… It's like just… They're going down. Nobody's seen anything like it. It's a very flat surface, a very flat land. That's why it's great farming land. It's the breadbasket for the world actually. But it's very flat and there's nothing to stop a bullet but a body.

Insane not to think about.

Just one of these could level an entire European city within 20 minutes of being launched. Insane to think about. https://t.co/9MkZBxp8DN

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) November 22, 2024

"Under traditional targeting principle... [the] pager attack... passes that basic test with flying colors.... It might be the most precise targeted strike [on] a military force embedded in a civilian population in the history of war.

Says David French, applying the United States's DOD Law of War Manual, in the new episode of the Advisory Opinions podcast, "The Legality of Israel’s Beeper Attack" (audio at transcript at Podscribe)(I've slightly edited the transcript to match the audio).

Under traditional targeting principles, which require necessity, distinction, and proportionality, necessity means: Is there a military need for this? Distinction means: Are you attacking only military targets? And proportional is: Are you using no more force than is necessary to accomplish your legitimate military aim?

This pager attack under that construct passes that basic test with flying colors.

"Then our Stryker drives right into their table. We killed many of them on the first day. Because they were unarmed and didn’t expect us."

Said a Ukrainian solder who "said he was part of the first wave of troops crossing into Russia on Aug. 6 in a US-provided Stryker fighter vehicle," quoted in "Ukraine soldier says Russian troops were caught so off-guard that they were 'sitting in the forest drinking coffiee': 'Didn’t expect us'" (NY Post)(typo in headline).

"I adore war. It is like a big picnic without the objectlessness of a picnic. I’ve never been so well or so happy."

Wrote the WWI poet Julian Grenfell, quoted in "How the Rich and Poor Once Saw War/In 'Muse of Fire,' Michael Korda depicts the lives and passions of the soldier poets whose verse provided a view into the carnage of World War I" (NYT)(free-access link).

That book review was published last April. I'm reading it today, because I wrote a post that got me researching the phrase "happy warrior."

Here's the book "Muse of Fire" (commission earned). From the book review:

A new chapter in The History of Ears.

I'm reading "From Van Gogh to Mike Tyson: a brief history of ears," a 2009 Guardian article, by Lucy Mangan.

Found after trying to think of a list of famous ears, a list to which Trump's ear will now take one of the top 2 spots. I think Van Gogh's ear still belongs in first place.

I'd thought of the ear Mike Tyson bit off but had forgotten whose ear it was. (It was Evander Holyfield's.)

I'd thought of a movie ear —