Tom Diaz

Archive for the ‘bad manners’ Category

The Rain in Moscow Wasn’t Purple: Of Honey Traps and Con·cu·pis·cence

In bad manners, Cronatos Hybamper, Espionage, Ethics in Washington, Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence, Political Satire, politics, Putin, Russia, Russian Intelligence Operations, The Great Stupid, Trump on January 11, 2017 at 1:24 pm

sweet-apple

Two weeks after her arrival, [redacted] was delighted to have been invited to Monica’s Moscow flat for lunch. The flat was surprisingly roomy. It was just the two of them. Vasily could not break away from work. There was a good champagne, and lots of it. One thing led to another, skillfully guided by the charming Monica. Before mid-day, the two … were lying in bed, naked and deliciously exhausted. They had enjoyed every variety of passionate sexual embrace imaginable. This was all recorded on high-quality sound film by KGB technicians, working in an adjoining room from behind a strategically placed two-way mirror.

From Cronatos Hybamper –An Extraordinary Incident by Tom Diaz

Forgive me for being repetitious, but once again the headlines are ripped from my novel, Cronatos Hybamper.

I have no idea whether the “unconfirmed” allegations about President-elect Trump described below are true or not. But use of the so-called “honey trap” has been a staple of the Russian intelligence services for at least a century. So, my only point here is that my little fictive device has a long, solid, eminently believable foundation in real life.

I don’t want to include a plot-spoiler in this excerpt, so you’ll have to read the novel to find out who was the victim of the honey trap in Cronatos.

Buzzfeed posted a version of the actual memo containing the alleged Russian “kompromat” activities in this story, “These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia.”

A dossier, compiled by a person who has claimed to be a former British intelligence official, alleges Russia has compromising information on Trump. The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors.…

The dossier, which is a collection of memos written over a period of months, includes specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives, and graphic claims of sexual acts documented by the Russians.

The New York Times alluded to the sexual antics that are described in some detail in the Buzzfeed post in its story, “Trump Received Unsubstantiated Report That Russia Had Damaging Information About Him,” by Scott Shane, Adam Goldman and Matthew Rosenberg, Jan. 10, 2017.

WASHINGTON — The chiefs of America’s intelligence agencies last week presented President Obama and President-elect Donald J. Trump with a summary of unsubstantiated reports that Russia had collected compromising and salacious personal information about Mr. Trump, two officials with knowledge of the briefing said.

The memos describe sex videos involving prostitutes with Mr. Trump in a 2013 visit to a Moscow hotel. The videos were supposedly prepared as “kompromat,” or compromising material, with the possible goal of blackmailing Mr. Trump in the future.

The Washington Post’s story skipped the salacious part and went with full pabulum suitable for reading by children and in church, “Intelligence chiefs briefed Trump and Obama on unconfirmed claims Russia has compromising information on president-elect,” by Greg Miller, Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger and Steven Mufson, January 10 at 10:04 PM

A classified report delivered to President Obama and President-elect Donald Trump last week included a section summarizing allegations that Russian intelligence services have compromising material and information on Trump’s personal life and finances, U.S. officials said.

To read more about the honey trap in Cronatos and its consequences, read the novel, which you can sample and order here:

 

 

Generals in the Political Mine Field

In bad manners, Cronatos Hybamper, Ethics in Washington, Political Satire, politics, Turf Wars on January 7, 2017 at 5:56 pm

truman-macarthur

The general nodded absently, as if dismissing his driver. He was thoroughly enjoying himself. This was just getting better by the moment. It was precisely the kind of “serendipitous yet decisive axis of intersecting strategic forces” for which he had long prepared and on the foundation of which he had fashioned his ascent and tenure as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a tenure that was going quite well among his old conservative friends on the Hill. There had been some idle talk of his running for very high office, talk that he had, of course, squelched, and yet at the same time not squelched. No military man could engage in politics, or at least give the appearance of engaging in politics. Many star-studded forebears of his had stepped on career-fatal landmines walking that walk too early and too visibly.

“In two words,” he replied to such hints, exactly as he had also often explained his high national security concept to the Pentagon’s bewitched civilian overseers in Congress. “Be prepared. Simply, be prepared.”

From Cronatos Hybamper –An Extraordinary Incident by Tom Diaz

It’s not that generals don’t, or perhaps even shouldn’t, get involved in politics. But timing and the right touch are everything.

My fictional General Raymond (Ray) Sanders, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose thoughts are illuminated in the above quote from the novel, understands that. Too soon, too obvious, too disrespectful of civilian authority and a general’s political future gets blown up. A bit of patience, a bit of reluctance, and his political star rises.

General Douglas MacArthur tried to have his cake and eat it too in 1948. Rather than resign from the Army, where he was riding high as a hero, and campaign for the Presidency, he played an “if nominated, I will shall run” strategy. He got only crumbs. Thomas E. Dewey got the nomination.

A few years later, MacArthur again blew it while he was in command of the Korean War. He ignored an order from President Harry S. Truman to stop undermining Truman’s strategy by communicating his private wisdom to the Congress. When some of that wisdom was read on the floor of the House, Truman sacked MacArthur, later explaining:

I fired him because he wouldn’t respect the authority of the President. I didn’t fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that’s not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail.

Lock them up?

MacArthur’s peer and professional rival General Dwight David Eisenhower played the game better–calmly, coolly, and with poise. “Ike” sailed into the White House.

Here in an excerpt from the thoughts of a prominent military scholar on the subject of generals in politics:

The 20th century also witnessed its share of generals vying for the political spotlight. General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, hero of the Southwest Pacific campaign in World War II and Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers in Japan, made no secret of his desire to secure the Republican nomination for president in 1948. He made no headway in the primaries, however, garnering only 11 delegates. The nomination went to Governor Thomas Dewey of New York.

Another war hero, General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower, was still in uniform when he was drafted to run for president as a Republican in 1952, but he retired before accepting the nomination. Ike went on to become a popular two-term president.

Several other general and flag officers have run for president or vice-president since then, but they have all done so as retirees: General Curtis Lemay (vice presidential candidate with Governor George Wallace of Alabama) in 1968, General Alexander Haig (candidate for the Republican nomination) in 1988, Vice Admiral James Stockdale (vice presidential candidate with Ross Perot) in 1992, and General Wesley Clark (candidate for the Democratic nomination) in 2004.

With this long list of senior military leaders competing in the political arena, does the military actually have a tradition of being “apolitical?” If it does, it can be traced back to several prominent military figures, among them General George Washington, General of the Army General William T. Sherman, hero of the Civil War and originator of the “Shermanesque” statement categorically declining consideration for public office, and General George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army during World War II. Marshall refused to even vote for fear of compromising his “professional independence and judgment.”

“Generals And Politics,”by Peter R. Mansoor, August 8, 2016

Read about the rest of General Sanders’ political career in Cronatos Hybamper, which you can sample and order here:

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: