The Mercenary – Jerry Pournelle

Cover of The Mercenary


The Mercenary
Jerry Pournelle
223 pages
published in 1977

The Mercenary is one of those books in my collection I’m a bit ashamed of. Not because it’s so badly written, but because its politics are so embarrassing. Having it on my bookshelves is a bit like owning a collection of books about the nazis and the Second World War; you can be genuinely interested but it still looks bad to see a row of red and black bookspines with swastikas plastered all over them. Yet it’s precisely because of its politics that I kept it when I was purging my collection a few years back and why I reread it now. The Mercenary is a book that stands at the root of one of the more succesful –and distasteful– science fiction subgenres: mil-sf and in it can be found a lot of what makes the genre so awful so often.

Science fiction has always had a large conservative, rightwing streak running through it and Pournelle falls squarely in this tradition. This in itself is not a problem; some of science fiction’s best writers, like Poul Anderson, H. Beam Piper or Robert Heinlein were conservatives or had rightwing sympathies and you can still enjoy (most of) their stories without necessarily agreeing with their politics, even when they’ve made them explicit. What makes Pournelle different is that he goes beyond this. He’s not just a conservative, but a reactionary. His politics as shown in The Mercenary have fascist overtones, though I don’t believe he’s a fascist himself. No doubt if you asked him he would describe himself as an American conservative and believer in a strong democracy, though weary of the wisdom of the average voter, but what comes across here is his deep pessimism and mistrust of democracy and his yearning for a saviour to safe democracy from itself.

Read more

Georgia should be all Hezbollah now

According to at least one anonymous US military adviser Georgia should emulate Hezbollah:

A defense analyst I spoke with, who advises American ground forces, said to rebuild the Georgian military along conventional lines might be the wrong approach. Instead he suggested a different force model, that of Hezbollah. What Hezbollah did so effectively, as was shown in the 2006 Lebanon war, was combine modern weaponry with a distributed infantry force that fought in guerrilla fashion. Fighting as distributed networks, Hezbollah rarely presented an inviting target for Israeli air and artillery attack, but their well trained tactical units were able to swarm at the point of attack of Israeli armored incursions and hit the Israelis hard with precision anti-tank weaponry.

Equipped with top-shelf anti-armor systems, such as the U.S. Dragon and Javelin and the Russian-built RPG-29 and AT-14 Kornet, such a force would perhaps better be able to exploit Georgia’s mountainous and urbanized terrain against channelized Russian armored columns than a conventionally organized combat brigade, as Hezbollah did in south Lebanon. The lessons from the initial Russian incursion into Grozny in 1994 are instructive as well. Fighting in small tactical teams organized around close range anti-armor weapons, the Chechens savaged Russian
tank columns.

This “analysis” only makes sense if you believe in the Official Truth of Georgia as innocent victim of the perfidious Russia of course. A Hezbollah style army doesn’t work so well if you actually want to invade any seccessionist areas protected by the neighbouring superpower. Not that this model of resistance would work as well against the Russians as against the Israelis in 2006 as unlike them, the Russians are not that bothered about losing a couple of thousand soldiers subjugating a difficult enemy. The Chechens may have beaten off the Russians back in 1994, but didn’t do quite so well the second time around.

(Via Jamie.)

The collapse of the Dutch post-war consensus

Oh dear. The latest opinion polls do not look good for the government parties, with the social democrats in particular polling at a historic low point (link in Dutch/PDF). How did it get to be this way?

latest figures show a collapse in support for the centrist parties

Until about 2002 the Dutch political landscape was relatively uncomplicated. Power was shared between the social democrats (PvdA), liberals (VVD/D66) and Christian Democrats (CDA) in various centre right (CDA/VVD) or centre left (PvdA/CDA, PvdA/VVD/D66) coalitions, with a few smaller parties on the fringes for those who chose principles over power. Sure, there were times when several of the big three and a half (D66 being the half) parties were not on speaking terms, but on the whole it was a cozy and mutual profitable consensus. Even the exclusion of the Christian Democrats from power for most of the nineties –something that hadn’t happened before — did not really threaten the system.

But then came Fortuyn and the whole house of cards collapsed. As I explained at the time, Fortuyn’s party won the 2002 general elections through a combination of the voters being sick to the backteeth of the existing parties and their arrogance, the general dire economical and political situation making the party’s populist message attractive and a general wave of sympathy for the murdered Fortuyn. When the party went into government only to crash and burn completely, it looked at first as if the old consensus had re-established itself, but since then we’ve seen the rise of two more would-be Fortuyns, Geert “Islamophobe” Wilders and Rita “talks the talk but does not walk” Verdonk, both coincidently ex-members of the VVD. Especially the rise of Verdonk’s party, Trots op Nederland (Proud of Holland), is remarkable, getting 18 seats without having done anything at all. Verdonk has barely shown her face in parliament, prefering to go on begging tours of the country instead…

To draw longterm conclusions out of one poll is of course silly, but the polls have been trending this way for a year or so now and even if things will shake out differently at election time, it’s still a somewhat worrying development. Not so much the establishment parties losing their traditional voting base –they deserve it– but where those votes are going. Both Wilders and Verdonk play on a nascent xenophobia and Islamophobia that, if not quite unknown before 2001-02, only came into full flower after the September 11 attacks and the murders of Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. Sentiments that had been taboo for decades (Islam as a violent religion, the need for all foreigners to integrate and learn Dutch, the usual stereotypes about workshy, criminal wifebeating minorities etc) went mainstream, were seriously debated by political commentators who, if pressed, would’ve called themselves leftwing. Don’t take my word for it, The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance said so too, earlier this year.

Meanwhile the options for the real left look bleak. Two years ago it looked likely that we’d see a genuinely leftist government in power, but as per usual the PvdA opted instead for the familiar and went with the Christian Democrats. Now this choice has brought them well deserved ruin, but the votes they lost are not picked up by the only genuinely socialist party in parliament, the SP. Instead the SP is losing the competition with Verdonk and Wilders for the populist vote, as the country is continuing its rightward drift.

In short term then things look bleak, but we shouldn’t panic. The SP needs to keep mounting a strong opposition against both the establishment and the populist right, keep holding to their principles and not go for the easy option of joining in the scaremongering. Currently Wilders and Verdonk are doing well because they don’t have to worry about anything but political point scoring. They’re not in power, they’re focused completely on parliament, not local government and therefore they can be as extreme as they like without suffering the consequences. Like Fortuyn’s party, these movements are likely to splinter once they do have to take on real responsibilities and inevitably have to compromise. Not a reason to be complacent and sit on our hands, but a reminder that things may look bleak now, but they won’t always remain so. The destruction of the old consensus opens opportunities for the left as well as the right.

Fortunately we’ve got Microsoft

Questionable Content explains the drawbacks of sentient computers. (You may also want to see this and this to get the full story.

In a completely unrelated story, Chrome, Google’s spiffy new browser has a socalled incognito mode: “For times when you want to browse in stealth mode, for example, to plan surprises like gifts or birthdays, Google Chrome offers the incognito browsing mode. Webpages that you open and files downloaded while you are incognito won’t be logged in your browsing and download histories; all new cookies are deleted after you close the incognito window. You can browse normally and in incognito mode at the same time by using separate windows.

An incognito mode to plan surprises. Suuure. Better make sure to wipe the keyboard and screen as well after you’ve “planned”your “surprise”.

I don’t care


I Still Like Mike

Even if he is “like Sims with the funny taken out and replaced with Swamp Thing obsession and random musings on creepy comic shop motards“.