The Perils of History

Eric Muller of the UNC School of Law has published a well-noticed new paper arguing that Department of Justice lawyers exaggerated the threat of a Japanese invasion to secure a Supreme Court decision upholding actions against Japanese-Americans living on the West Coast. He notes, correctly, that key military leaders like Eisenhower (then a staffer in Washington) thought the risk of invasion was non-existent even as they conceded the possibility of small, inconsequential raids. Muller finds in the willingness of civilian leaders like Henry Stimson, the secretary of war, to nonetheless believe in the possibility evidence of nothing more than racism:

There is no reason to think that Edward Ennis and Philip Burling preached or even consciously entertained the rabid depictions of the Asian horde that marked the Yellow Peril era.  But this account of the early-century zeitgeist is what makes Henry Stimson’s February 1942 diary entry so revealing of a turn of thought that may have been common after Pearl Harbor.  Stimson had access to all of the military’s data and reporting.  None of it foresaw or counseled preparation for a Japanese invasion of the coast.  Nonetheless, Stimson’s mind wandered to the thirty-plus-year-old, Yellow-Peril-inflected predictions of Homer Lea; suddenly they did not seem to him so fantastical.  This is powerful, and unusually direct, evidence of the operation of a racial schema:  the uncertainties of the day led Stimson’s mind past what he knew to something he had long latently feared, a Japanese invading horde.

There is only one problem with this analysis: It is incomplete. Reading it, one notes there’s no mention anywhere in it of the words “Singapore” or “Philippines.” And yet, contemporaneously with Stimson’s Feb. 10, 1942, diary entry, the Japanese Army had begun its push down the Malay Peninsula toward Singapore and was in the process of ejecting American forces from Luzon. Certainly in the Singapore case, the Japanese were acting in the face of apparent British military superiority. Meanwhile, it’s not like America’s armed forces in early 1942 had demonstrated any great degree of military competence. Indeed, it wouldn’t be until that May and the Battle of the Coral Sea that the US Navy began offering more than token resistance to the Japanese advance. Stimson and other civilian leaders until then had real cause to wonder if American forces were up to the job. Military leaders, to be sure, had few doubts. But until they started winning a few battles, their assurances were always subject to question.

Advertisements

Great Moments in Movie Advertising

I agree with Jeffrey Overstreet:

Whether the film is a smash or a disaster, this is a home-run of a poster.

Experts Talking Past Each Other

Thomas Barnett turns in a less-than-stellar response to an Edward Luttwak op-ed on the long-term meaning of the Georgia/Russia conflict, reading Luttwak as advocating a rallying behind the former republics regardless of the practicalities. Needless to say, Barnett doesn’t agree:

Go ahead and let Georgia declare war between NATO and Russia. Now, any half-wit small-country leader gets to audition for the role of Archduke Ferdinand.

Pithy, and I daresay it’s a useful caution. Only trouble is that Luttwak was trying to say something more limited, and rather different, than what Barnett thinks he was, namely that NATO remains first and foremost a military alliance:

If Ukraine is allowed to enter Nato, all other members must be ready to send their troops to defend its borders — an outlandish notion for most of them. Yet to refuse Ukraine’s admission now would inevitably hand it over to Russian hegemony.

The decision on whether to confront Russia is an enormously tough one. But that decision will have to be made. It means that Europe’s holiday from serious geopolitics is over.

As an observation, I think that’s pretty much indisputable.

Windfall, Smindfall

Obama’s tax and energy policies do have holes. The biggest would be his call for a windfall profits tax on oil companies, a bad idea from the ’70s that hasn’t improved with age. The problem is that oil companies’ profits aren’t all that large. Sure, Exxon made almost $12 billion last quarter. But it’s a huge company and its income figures aren’t disproportionate to the scale of its enterprise. Last I looked, its profit margin was only about 10 percent, which isn’t a number that suggests the company is spectacularly well-managed or all that great an investment.

Brookings Lays Out Tax Differences

If you’re looking for an explanation of how McCain and Obama differ on tax policy and how those differences would affect you, the Brookings Institution has it (warning, PDF file). It’s a lot to get through and I don’t have any immediate reaction.