Ukraine at the Precipice

As all who care are aware, a package to respectively provide billions in aid to Ukraine in its struggle against Russia, to Israel in its struggle against Hamas, and to Taiwan to help shore up its defenses against China is being tied up in a U.S. Senate squabble in which Republicans are insisting upon changes to American border security policy that are apparently an anathema to Democrats. Last week, several outlets reported that a number of Senate Republicans “stormed out” of a meeting with Senate Democrats because they did not consider Democrats to be taking their border security demands seriously.

Although some – including me — might initially dismiss the Republicans’ opposition as pandering to their base, I took particular note that U.S. UT Sen. Mitt Romney – who is not running for re-election, has unassailable credentials as an opponent of Russian aggression, and is almost certainly not beloved by his caucus colleagues after his votes to convict former President Trump in both his impeachment trials and given the revelations in Mr. Romney’s book, Romney: A Reckoning – was among the most incensed by what he viewed as Democrats’ intransigence on border issues. On December 5, he tweeted: “Dems want $106B—GOP wants a closed border. That’s the trade. But clueless Dems want to negotiate the border bill. Not going to happen. Is an open border more important to Dems than Ukraine and Israel?”.

I didn’t see it, but The Hill reported Sunday that on NBC News’ Meet the Press, Mr. Romney stated in part:

“It’s not just Republicans that are holding a hard line. It’s Democrats who are holding a hard line. Either side can move and can get this done. … We have gone from one to 2000 [illegal] encounters at the border a day under … Bush, Obama and Trump [to] … 10 to 12,000 a day. As Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman said, we’re basically seeing Pittsburgh show up [at] the border every month.”

Mr. Romney is an estimable man. Given his views, I’m willing to assume that Senate Democrats are being too rigid.

Let’s put Taiwan and Israel aside for purposes of this note; at this moment, it appears unlikely that China’s President Xi Jinping is going to risk further hardening American attitude against China by ordering a Chinese invasion of Taiwan and, as I have previously observed here, it’s pretty clear that Israel has shown little need for our military aid to either defeat Hamas or to lay complete waste to the Gaza Strip.

On the other hand, there appears to be consensus that Ukraine is about out of money, and without our military and economic aid, Ukraine will fall under Russian domination within the foreseeable future. I have found the way that at least the electronic news outlets we follow have focused so heavily on the Israel-Hamas conflict since the Hamas attack of October 7, with scant attendant coverage of Ukraine’s defense against Russia’s invasion, to be extremely distressing; such emphasis endangers western democracy by causing us to take our eye off the ball — Ukraine. Business Insider has reported that Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Russia hoped lawmakers would continue to delay the Ukraine aid; The New Republic has reported that a Russian state television commentator has declared, “Well done, Republicans! They’re standing firm! That’s good for us.”

After all their sacrifices, all of the innocent deaths, all of the displacement, and all of the destruction of their homes and their institutions, and the attempted eradication of their nation and their culture by Vladimir Putin, and notwithstanding their Herculean defense of their homeland, without our continued assistance Ukrainians will lose. Ukraine will disappear – perhaps even in name. And we diddle and bicker.

I don’t know what the Republicans are demanding in the way of different or enhanced border security measures. Even so, I will submit that if President Biden and Congressional Democrats can get Republicans’ agreement to authorize what the Administration deems to be sufficient aid to get Ukraine through to March, 2025, they should agree to all Republican border demands that don’t include shooting illegal immigrants or separating immigrant children from parents (there may be some other similarly egregious exception I’m overlooking, but you get the idea). If advising Mr. Biden, I would recommend that he call his old Senate colleague, Senate Minority Leader U.S. KY Sen. Mitch McConnell – who is currently among those holding up Ukraine aid to obtain additional border security, but does support aid for Ukraine — find out from Mr. McConnell exactly what border measures Senate Republicans are demanding in return for supporting Ukraine aid, and then – assuming that there are no Republican conditions as malign as those I listed above — call Senate Majority Leader U.S. NY Sen. Chuck Schumer and strongly advise Mr. Schumer to … Do. The. Deal.

My rationale is pretty basic: what happens now on the border doesn’t, from a practical standpoint, matter that much. If Mr. Biden wins in November, 2024, Democrats are likely to control both chambers of Congress; they can then attempt to undo whatever measures are enacted now that they consider too onerous. If Donald Trump wins the presidency next November, whatever strictures are put into effect now will be but a prelude to what Mr. Trump (with, if he is elected, will likely be a Republican-controlled Congress) will do anyway in 2025.

Although this is of wildly lesser import, I would agree with those who have opined that signing a law with stringent border measures may actually help Mr. Biden politically. By all accounts, those living near our southern border have reasonable concerns about what appears to be our mishandling of border security (no matter whose fault it actually is, the political reality is that the buck stops at the White House), and even many living in the snowy Midwest find the border an emotive issue. [I was surprised to find how border security resonated with central Wisconsinites at a Republican Town Hall Meeting we attended a couple of years ago. Although one could argue that the mid-state Wisconsin resident is only marginally more likely to be harmed by an illegal immigrant than s/he is to be strangled by a Burmese python (which are now reported to be migrating north in Florida, having wiped out the available prey in the Everglades), it doesn’t matter. Citizens vote on their perceptions.] If Mr. Biden supports stiffer border controls, he will — unlike the many Republicans who are now hypocritically touting the benefits of the Biden Administration’s Infrastructure Law for their districts, despite that fact that they voted against it – be able to correctly declare that he took serious steps to secure our border. The Wall Street Journal noted recently that if he does make major immigration concessions to Republicans, the President risks losing support amongst some segments of Democratic voters; I would counter that if/when these disgruntled Democrats recognize that the alternative to a Biden vote is a Trump Restoration, they’ll come around.

I am sickened by the fact that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has to come to Washington this week to plead – to beg – for assistance that we have the wherewithal to provide which will continue to defend his nation while at the same time safeguarding ours. The Ukrainians can’t afford to wait 13 months until (under the happiest scenario) Mr. Biden has won reelection and Democrats have regained control of Congress. By then, Russia will have conquered Ukraine and the NATO alliance will, for all intents and purposes, be in shreds. Mr. Biden’s party controls the Senate, albeit narrowly. He needs to do virtually anything within his power to secure aid for the Ukrainians now.

I recognize that this post approaches rant (or perhaps merely exhibits desperation). Is the Congressional compromise I urge here ugly? Without doubt. Essentially acquiescing to blackmail? Unquestionably. Domestic Realpolitik? Certainly. Necessary to help sustain global democracy? Seemingly, Yes.

On Henry Kissinger

As all who care are aware, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger passed away on November 29 at the age of 100. Mr. Kissinger was appointed National Security Advisor by former President Richard Nixon in 1969, and Mr. Nixon named him U.S. Secretary of State in 1973. To list Sec. Kissinger’s accomplishments here would be a waste of your time; in the coming days there will be a legion of sources that will describe these for those who wish a review. I consider Mr. Kissinger to be the second finest American foreign policy mind of the last half century – behind only Mr. Nixon himself. Mr. Kissinger was a practitioner of Realpolitik – pragmatically seeing the world as it is, and advocating for those policies designed to preserve or improve America’s position in ever-shifting global landscape. (Perhaps I feel the way I do about Mr. Kissinger’s approach because his philosophy toward foreign policy was essentially the same as I would submit must be maintained by an able transaction lawyer – you don’t expect the perfect outcome; you manage within the variables you have to achieve the best outcome you can under the existing circumstances.) He believed in maintaining stability – a structured world order. Many accurately criticize him for heavily prioritizing, in deed if not in word, positions that he perceived as maintaining American strategic interests while placing significantly lesser emphasis on (if not ignoring) human rights transgressions by our less-savory allies as well as our adversaries. I would counter that when you are the world’s preeminent super power, stability is your friend, instability your enemy. Executing upon such a philosophy is not the most humanitarian, but is arguably the only approach that enables America – which has been and as of today remains, whatever our shortcomings, the foremost democracy and bulwark of freedom in the history of the world — to maintain its standing in a world run by ambitious, flawed and frequently malign humans.

Messrs. Nixon and Kissinger got the primary strategic foreign policy challenge of their age – which I consider to be China, not Vietnam – right. Despite the depth of Cold War rhetoric and atmosphere, they recognized that China’s Chairman Mao Zedong and Premier Zhou Enlai had come to fear the power of the U.S.S.R. on China’s border more than they feared America – and that America could leverage this Chinese concern to tilt the balance of world power further toward the U.S. and away from the U.S.S.R. I would submit that former President Ronald Reagan’s later direct and more bellicose approach toward the U.S.S.R., ultimately resulting in its dismantling, would not have succeeded but for the groundwork laid by Messrs. Nixon and Kissinger. I agree with the assertion that it was Mr. Kissinger’s worldwide prestige that kept American foreign policy on an even keel as the nation went through the trauma of Watergate. At the same time, Messrs. Nixon’s and Kissinger’s handling of the Vietnam conflict obviously remains controversial; I have heard commentators opine that they “widened the war” by bombing and ultimately invading North Vietnamese sanctuaries in Cambodia. It is undisputed that the American bombing left devastation; untold numbers of undetonated bombs embedded in Cambodian soil continue to maim Cambodians. (This was brought home to us over a decade ago when we visited our son, a Peace Corps volunteer stationed in Cambodia.) It is also undisputed that American troop levels in Vietnam sharply declined during every year of the Nixon presidency.

As anyone who ever heard Mr. Kissinger speak – which includes almost all of us who have lived in the western world for the last 50 years — is well aware: this brilliant strategist was a German immigrant, whose Jewish family only came to this country in order to escape Nazi persecution. His passing again causes one to reflect upon the intellectual capital that this country, our children and grandchildren may sorely lose out on in the future because the xenophobia now infecting so many of our citizens is resulting in the exclusion of immigrants fleeing persecution in their native lands who would, if allowed, enthusiastically enrich our nation.

About a year ago, I entered a note in these pages, entitled, “Our Most Influential American Non-Presidents Since World War II,” describing the contributions of 15 Americans from Muhammad Ali to Mark Zuckerberg (not all the characterizations were positive 😉 ). I remember considering but ultimately excluding Mr. Kissinger from the list because I didn’t want the group to be too heavily weighted toward my interest in public policy and politics. I ended the piece with the query, “Who did I miss?”

Now, I answer my own question: I missed Henry Kissinger.

May this great – certainly not perfect, but unquestionably great — American rest in peace.

An Admittedly Conflicted View on Civilian Casualties in War

My father enlisted in the Marines right after Pearl Harbor, was a participant in the Battles of Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima, was promoted for his service to his country and decorated for bravery. The Marines were then and are now rightly celebrated in American lore for their courage and esprit de corps. He, along with millions of others, left the American military for good in 1946. Anybody who knows a Marine won’t be a bit surprised to hear that although I never served in the military, part of my rearing included an imprinting that all branches of the military are to be respected, but at bottom, there are the Marines … and then there’s everybody else.

Even so, but for a couple of humorous stories – mostly about brawls in bars between Marines and sailors while on leave – he never talked about the war. Never. Except once.

I recall him standing in front of our black-and-white TV, watching the network coverage of what is now known as the My Lai Massacre, a March, 1968, incident in which American soldiers commanded by Platoon Leader Lt. William Calley, who had been ordered to undertake a search and destroy mission, killed hundreds of unarmed South Vietnamese men, women, and children in the village of My Lai.

As my father stood watching the coverage of the prosecution of Lt. Calley, he was shaking his head in disbelief – I realized not at what had been done to the villagers, but at the Lieutenant’s prosecution. He said in an even tone – not soft, not loud; I think more to himself than to me – “When you’re ordered to clear an area out, you clear the area out.”

Infer from that – and consider whatever you infer from that – as you will. Having never been near a battlefield, I don’t consider my own reflections worth much. During the Second World War, the Marines were engaged in a death struggle against an unyielding enemy to defend freedom. War is messy; there is little time for deliberation; events spin. Were all actions undertaken in that just cause warranted – or at least defensible — or not?

Almost always when I publish a note in these pages, I have concluded – wisely or misguidedly – where I stand on an issue. When it comes to the justification for inflicting civilian casualties as part of a war effort, I am uncertain.

Hamas’ attack on Israeli civilians on October 7 was horrific. (As shocking to me have been the breadth of overt anti-Semitic and Islamophobic sentiments and violent incidents it unleashed around the western world; the attack ripped off a thin veneer of tolerance, exposing a depth of widespread religious bigotry in the democracies that I — clearly living in my own oblivious Ivory Tower — had not recognized.) Hamas must be condemned in the most unequivocal terms; it is a Palestinian terrorist organization committed to the destruction of Israel, has done little to help civilian Palestinians during its almost two-decade control of the Gaza Strip, and employs Palestinian civilians and humanitarian facilities as shields in its assaults on Israel. Israel has a right to defend its existence and its citizens – which now appears to mean destroying Hamas — and given Hamas’ modus operandi, such Israeli efforts are necessarily going to result in civilian Palestinian casualties. At the same time, Israel has significantly expanded its control over the last 70 years into land intended by the international community to be inhabited and controlled by Palestinians when Israel was founded. Although much of this expansion occurred not because Israel attacked, but because it was attacked, it has maintained its de facto grip over Palestinian lands because … it can, and such has suited Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu’s political purposes. Before the current conflict, human rights groups had been referring to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank as apartheid. It is not anti-Semitism to suggest — using the Biden Administration, a clear friend of Israel, as the arbiter — that in its assaults, Israel has not been particularly discriminating about protecting Palestinian civilians.

Our acquiescence to civilian casualties may be determined by our view of the virtue of the cause in which they are inflicted and their necessity to achieve victory. Such does not expunge the fact that cruel and unfair consequences can be inflicted upon noncombatants even in the pursuit of a just cause. Christianity, and likely many other faiths, holds that protection of the innocent is paramount. The reality of the flawed human condition makes clear that always prioritizing compassion would lead to subjugation of more peoples by the malignant – ultimately resulting in the maltreatment of a wider set of victims.

Union General William Tecumseh Sherman’s 1864 “scorched earth” march to the sea was a major part of subduing the South and thus preserving the Union and abolishing slavery. At the same time:

“Sherman had terrorized the countryside; his men had destroyed all sources of food and forage and had left behind a hungry and demoralized people. … Sherman … burned or captured all the food stores that Georgians had saved for the winter months. As a result of the hardships on women and children, desertions increased in Robert E. Lee’s army in Virginia. Sherman believed his campaign against civilians would shorten the war by breaking the Confederate will to fight ….”

Anne Bailey, “Sherman’s March to the Sea,” New Georgia Encyclopedia

Despite Gen. Sherman’s fearsome deeds and reputation, he understood the malign nature of war, but clearly felt that some causes were worth the devastation needed to bring them about.

“War is cruelty, there is no use trying to reform it … You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it …”

Gen. Sherman, in a letter to James M. Calhoun, Mayor, E.E. Rawson, S.C. Wells, representing City Council of Atlanta, September 12, 1864.

If there has been a more monstrous atrocity in human history than the Nazis’ systematic slaughter of the Jews, I’m not aware of it. Allied forces were obviously justified in contesting the Nazis and their allies with all of their strength and means. At the same time, a young friend recently reminded me of the American and British bombing of the German city of Dresden in February, 1945, that killed tens of thousands of civilians in a manufacturing city whose resources the Allies believed – in retrospect, apparently erroneously — that the Third Reich could effectively employ to mount a counteroffensive against our D-Day invasion. Were the Allies’ efforts excusable? I would say yes. Were the civilian casualties wrought commendable? Obviously not.

The U.S. military estimated in the late 1940s that over 100,000 people died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear explosions. Others place the total of dead closer to 200,000. A significant number of these were necessarily civilian. At the same time, President Truman indicated in a letter in January, 1953, that Gen. George Marshall told him prior to dropping the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima “that such an invasion would cost at a minimum one quarter of a million casualties and might cost as much as a million, on the American side alone.” Faced with that kind of an estimate, if advising the President I would have supported using the Bomb. Others would vehemently disagree, then and now.

We condemn the slaughter of Ukrainians civilians in Russia’s war of aggression. At the same time, would we denounce Ukrainian operations against Russian civilians if such losses seemed likely to turn Russian public opinion against Putin’s war? I’ll leave that one to you.

Increasing civilian casualties are a fact of modern war and technological weaponry. They are not going to stop. It is for one to ponder whether — and if so, when, and to what extent — these human tragedies are worth what is gained. Americans should be more aware than they appear to be that they have the luxury – at least at present — of considering such philosophical issues from their armchairs. Much of the world is not so fortunate. It is those fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, and sisters and brothers whose lives are collateral sacrifice to the designs of others.

“Abraham drew near and said, ‘Will you destroy the good with the wicked? If there be fifty just men in the city, will you then destroy the place and not spare it for the sake of the fifty just men within it?’ … And the Lord said, ‘If I find that there are fifty just men in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.’”

The Book of Genesis, 18: 24, 26. It is little noted when this passage and the subsequent exchanges between Abraham and the Almighty are read in Christian churches that although the Lord God did allow the just Lot, his wife and daughters to escape, He ultimately did destroy the city and its inhabitants.

There is obviously no ray of enlightenment in this note.

“All cats are grey in the dark.”

Musing by the fictional James Bond; Ian Fleming, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service

Smart and Evil

Former President Donald Trump has been sharply criticized – for once, by Republicans as well as by Democrats – for declaring last week that Hezbollah, an Iran-backed Lebanese militant group designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization, is “very smart.” The New York Times quoted a Biden Administration spokesman in response: “Statements like this are dangerous and unhinged. It’s completely lost on us why any American would ever praise an Iran-backed terrorist organization as ‘smart.’” The Times quoted former Vice President Mike Pence as saying, “Look, Hezbollah are not smart. They’re evil, OK.”

I located the video clip; I wanted to hear Mr. Trump’s tone. I frankly couldn’t tell from his delivery whether he was actually praising Hezbollah – which, if he was, is as repulsive as any of the literally thousand other abhorrent statements he has made since he injected his brand of poison into our political fabric in 2015 – or simply making what he considered an objective observation as a launching point for his attack on Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, who has seemingly invoked Mr. Trump’s wrath by praising President Joe Biden for his support of Israel since the Hamas attacked from the Gaza Strip on October 7.

I don’t know if Hezbollah is smart. I would, however, respectfully disagree with Mr. Pence’s seeming implication that there is a dichotomy between “smart” and “evil.” A person or organization can be both smart and evil. One need look no further than Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf; the volume bulges with racism, malignance and hate, while it also contains Hitler’s brilliant – there is no other word for it — description of how best to create and wield propaganda to influence the masses. (I have frequently wondered whether certain elements of alt-right media haven’t used the book as a text.)

No matter how depraved an enemy might be, it is a dangerous indulgence to deny or underestimate its intelligence.

As President Biden has noted, Hamas is evil; no organization with a shred of good could have carried out the horrific attack on Israeli civilians it executed on October 7. I don’t know whether its leaders are smart; I do have trouble believing that it could have conducted its operation without the active participation, at least in the planning, by Iranian authorities, who are smart as well as evil. I would submit that the very ferocity and brutality of the attack was intended to leave Mr. Netanyahu and his cabinet no practical political choice but to invade Gaza. It took no prescience to anticipate that innocent Palestinian casualties would inevitably result in an Israeli invasion, which would in turn inflame the other Arab states. Cui bono? Who benefits? It appears that Israel’s offensive against Hamas, precipitated by Hamas’ attack, will derail any prospective accord between Israel and Saudi Arabia – an accord that would have significantly weakened Iran’s strategic posture in the Middle East.

At the same time, I would suggest that Hamas, Hezbollah, and other forces with similar aims were unwilling to wait for the inevitable Palestinian civilian casualties. I will venture that an entity aligned with them, rather than Israel, is responsible for the hospital explosion that that killed hundreds of innocents on October 17. I make this suggestion not based upon Israeli or U.S. denials, but upon what has happened since: Cui bono? The timing of the blast, from the standpoint of Iran and its satellites, was impeccable. The explosion has predictably outraged the entire Middle East. At the time it occurred, Mr. Biden was already committed to a trip intended to quiet tensions through meetings with Mr. Netanyahu, President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi of Egypt, King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority; after the explosion, the King and Messrs. El-Sisi and Abbas cancelled, leaving Mr. Biden seemingly one-sidedly embracing Mr. Netanyahu – obviously no choir boy from a foreign or Israeli domestic perspective. I fear that this well-intentioned trip has now become, due to a circumstance that I would submit was not reasonably foreseeable by Mr. Biden or his advisors (assuming that the blast wasn’t caused by Israel), a strategic backfire, likely damaging U.S. credibility in the region.

Again, as to Hamas’ initial terrorist attack: Cui bono? How much have you heard in the news about Ukraine since the Hamas attack? Despite all the Administration and Congressional vows to get aid to Israel, I strongly suspect that Israel, now aroused, is militarily more than a match for Hamas whether it gets American aid or not. Such is obviously not the case regarding Ukraine’s struggle against Russia. As America’s attention has been diverted to the Middle East by the Hamas attack, Ukraine’s resources to resist Russia – Iran’s ally — are dwindling, and the House of Representatives – the majority of whom, if reports are accurate, wish to provide Ukraine further aid — are prevented from doing so by House Republican caucus dysfunction and MAGA U.S. OH Rep. Jim Jordan’s quest for the Speakership.

And again, as to Hamas’ attack: Cui bono? President Xi Jinping of China must be pondering whether this is the right time to make a move on Taiwan. Given Mr. Biden’s resolve and the West’s collaborative response in responding to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, until recent days Mr. Xi might well have logically concluded that it was wiser to delay any overt action against Taiwan until it could be determined whether the American democratic fabric would further unravel during the upcoming U.S. presidential cycle. Now, it would seemingly be impossible in his place not to consider whether America and its people, even if they have the Pacific military might to repel any attempted Mainland invasion of Taiwan, have the will to confront such an invasion, given all the demands upon them in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Does the octogenarian Mr. Biden have the stamina?

Although it serves little purpose to note these glaringly ironic facts, I can’t resist: Hamas members are Sunni Muslims, and they – as well as their Iranian Shia Muslim collaborators – claim to be dedicated to the precepts of Allah communicated to them through Muhammad – the “Seal of the Prophets” — completely ignoring the fact that Muhammad peacefully allowed Jews to live within his kingdom; or that Jewish Israelis, who rue but accept that their Gaza offensive will inevitably cause injury and death to many innocent Palestinian civilians, subscribe to the Book of Genesis, which describes the Lord God’s efforts to protect innocents as he destroyed the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

I have indicated in these pages that I consider Mr. Biden the most consequential American president since Franklin Roosevelt. Mr. Biden faces not only the foreign policy challenges described here but also the rise of formidable illiberal forces within our own borders. During the next year, he has to persuade a majority of Americans in key swing states that the course he has and is pursuing is the wisest course for our nation and our citizens. While I would not go so far as to say that the severity of the challenges Mr. Biden is addressing is yet as acute as those confronted by his predecessors Abraham Lincoln and Mr. Roosevelt, I can think of no president in our history that has had to simultaneously confront such a wide array of truly critical crises as Mr. Biden does today.

Likely nothing here you haven’t already thought of. Sometimes, one just has to get it out. May Mr. Biden and his team persevere against both the evil … and the smart and evil.

On Kevin McCarthy’s Speakership Ouster

“The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker …”

Article I, Section 2; the Constitution of the United States of America

I had something ready to post yesterday morning, written on Tuesday after former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy was removed as Speaker and before I had heard much commentary from media talking heads, in which I queried whether the House Democratic caucus might not have missed an historic opportunity by failing to provide Mr. McCarthy the votes he needed to retain his office.

I am no fan of Mr. McCarthy. I find him gutless and more interested in title and the trappings of power than in real power. I consider him to have abided if not abetted in former President Donald Trump’s seditious attempt to thwart the results of the 2020 presidential election. I have found it unnerving to have him, as Speaker, second in succession to the presidency.

That said, I suggested in the unpublished post that the weak can serve a purpose; that Democrats might have been able to extract concessions from Mr. McCarthy that could have assured the quick passage of a clean aid bill for Ukraine, perhaps led to bipartisan collaboration on other initiatives between the less partisan members of both parties, and would at a minimum have eliminated the possibility that a MAGA would succeed Mr. McCarthy.

Even so, I pulled the post back because of a factor I heard frequently emphasized in media commentary about Mr. McCarthy after I had scheduled it: Democrats didn’t believe that he could be trusted to keep his word.

One can’t do business with somebody who can’t be trusted. If that was indeed the ground upon which Democrats decided to allow Mr. McCarthy’s ouster – rather than pique at Mr. McCarthy’s authorization of an impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden, or his potshots at them to appease his base, or some other similar grandstanding gesture – I understand why they did what they did.

That said, Pandora’s Box has clearly now been opened. At the time this is typed, U.S. LA Rep. Steve Scalise and U.S. OH Rep. Jim Jordan have announced their candidacies for the Speakership. In a January note in these pages on Mr. McCarthy’s quest for the Speakership, I indicated:

“If … I was a member of the House Republican Caucus, I’d be a hard No on Mr. McCarthy [due to his lack of fortitude] (unless the only alternative was U.S. OH Rep. Jim Jordan, whom I consider at this point to arguably present a greater danger to American democracy than former President Donald Trump). [Emphasis Added]”

I feel no differently about Mr. Jordan’s illiberal inclinations now than I did then [although I concede that given Mr. Trump’s statements and actions over the last nine months and given their respective positions in the MAGA universe, Mr. Jordan may not now present quite as great a danger to American democracy as Mr. Trump (but I am confident that he’ll make up the gap if given the opportunity)].

I fear that we may be descending into a political maelstrom. We’ll soon know whether Democrats’ refusal to prop up Mr. McCarthy was a wise maneuver or regrettable blunder.

On Mr. Prigozhin’s “Crash”

Russian news sources have reported that a plane carrying Wagner Group Leader Yevgeny Prigozhin “crashed” yesterday about 30 minutes after taking off from Moscow. As all who care are aware, this summer Mr. Prigozhin led his forces – which by all accounts have been the most effective in furthering Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – in a quickly-extinguished mini-revolt against Russian President Vladimir Putin’s conduct of the conflict. Mr. Prigozhin’s Wagner Group has reportedly also been Russia’s most effective force furthering Russia’s efforts in Africa.

I have heard it speculated that the plane was shot down or that an explosion occurred on board. The cause may never be officially confirmed, since the crash occurred over Russian territory. Given Putin’s track record with those disputing his leadership, I suspect that nobody who thought about it for over, say, a second, thought Mr. Prigozhin had very long to live after his attempted coup was aborted. Most will assume that Putin was behind Mr. Prigozhin’s demise. I have seen former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, obviously an extremely knowledgeable authority, indicate that it was too soon to tell whether Putin was responsible; Mr. McFaul offered that it might have been Putin, or it might have been forces aligned with Mr. Prigozhin’s attempted revolt who were outraged when he backed down to Putin.

A Latin phrase that those of us who are mystery story readers have seen countless times: Cui bono? – Colloquially, Who benefits? With all due and deserved regard for Mr. McFaul’s reservations, my money would be on Putin. I’m confident that Putin believes that rebels can’t run a revolt against an established dictator such as himself without a credible revolutionary leader.

Former Russian World Chess Champion and well-known dissident Garry Kasparov – one of the very few people I follow on Twitter; his rants against Putin and in support of Ukraine are worthy of note – has tweeted that he thinks Putin’s assassination of Mr. Prigozhin is an indication of Putin’s fragility, not strength. Since I’ve had the temerity to disagree with Mr. McFaul, I’ll also take the liberty of respectfully disagreeing with Mr. Kasparov. I consider the main consequence of Mr. Prigozhin’s death to seemingly be the solidification of Putin’s domination over Russia even as the Russian president’s Ukrainian incursion appears an ever-deepening strategic debacle.

Mid-Summer Impressions

Summertime celebrations, activities, and responsibilities have afforded little time during the last month to keep abreast of current events, and brought about what is by far the longest interval between entries in these pages since they began in 2017. I am confident that everybody has survived just fine 😉 . A few impressions as we round the corner into the last month of real summer, at least in the upper Midwest:

As all who care are aware, in mid-July, former President Donald Trump received a so-called “Target Letter” from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutorial team, indicating that Mr. Trump is the subject of the federal investigation into the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. It almost certainly portends an indictment of Mr. Trump for his part in inciting the insurrection.

I was obviously never a judge; I never did criminal law; I did very little courtroom work in my career. While I stand ready to be corrected by any of those reading these notes who have oceans more trial experience than I have, if I was the District of Columbia federal judge hearing the insurrection case against Mr. Trump, I’d have to think pretty hard about whether to grant the Trump team’s inevitable motion to significantly delay the trial date. A criminal defendant should be given a fair opportunity to defend him/herself, and since Mr. Trump is now scheduled to defend himself in New York in March against authorities’ state law charges that he criminally falsified business records, he is now scheduled to defend himself in Florida in May against Mr. Smith’s team’s federal charges that he misappropriated and mishandled classified documents, and he is reportedly facing an August indictment in Georgia by Georgia authorities for his efforts to overturn the 2020 Georgia presidential results – a case that will be on its own state court scheduling track – it’s perhaps becoming problematic as to how, in fairness, a trial dealing with insurrection charges against Mr. Trump could be scheduled prior to the 2024 presidential election.

Next: The most recent edition of Foreign Affairs Magazine is entitled, “Tell Me How This Ends – Is there a Path to Victory in Ukraine?” I haven’t read all the pieces, but one addresses all the ways that the war could end up destabilizing Russian President Vladimir Putin and lead to peace. I consider the authors’ premises closer to pipedream than reality. If Putin was going to be deposed, it would most probably have resulted from Yevgeny Prigozhin’s Wagner Group’s short-lived and quickly-quashed revolt (which arose, as far as I could tell, not from any wish by Mr. Prigozhin to end the war but because Mr. Prigozhin didn’t think Putin was providing his Group sufficiently aggressive assistance). Another essay declared the war “unwinnable,” noting that even as Ukraine has launched its counteroffensive, “Russian forces are heavily dug in on the most likely axis of advance in the south.” Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt echoed in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month, “Between the two armies, there are at least 3 miles of heavily mined territory followed by rows of concrete antitank obstacles, with artillery pieces hidden in nearby forests. The Russian military has amassed so much artillery and ammunition that it can afford to fire 50,000 rounds a day – an order of magnitude more than Ukraine. Traditional military doctrine suggests that an advancing force should have air superiority and a 3-to-1 advantage in soldiers to make steady progress against a dug-in opponent. Ukrainians have neither.” (Mr. Schmidt is obviously an expert in technology, not military tactics, but I quote him because he summarizes sentiments I have heard expressed in other quarters.)

Although some have deplored the Biden Administration’s agreement to provide Ukraine with cluster bombs due to the devastating impact that such launched but unexploded devices can have on civilian populations, I tend to give the Administration the benefit of the doubt: other available artillery may be dwindling, and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy seems best able to determine whether or not his people are better served by deploying such weapons on his soil.

One can hope but it seems optimistic to expect that the Ukrainians will make significant headway with their current counteroffensive. (As reported above, the Ukrainians have been directing their efforts at the southwest areas of the conflict zone, presumably in an attempt to obtain secure access to the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea that seems essential if the nation is to survive economically when the conflict ultimately ends.) Current accounts are rife with seemingly eerily-apt references to World War I; Barbara Tuchman noted in The Guns of August that after Germany failed to secure a quick military victory by early autumn 1914, “[Then] came the slow deadly sinking into the stalemate of trench warfare. … [L]ike a gangrenous wound across French and Belgian territory, the trenches determined the war of position and attrition, the brutal, mud-filled, murderous insanity known as the Western Front that was to last for four more years.”

The general consensus among commentators is that the parties should be looking for a negotiated settlement. Various options for achieving such a result have been offered: immediately making Ukraine a member of NATO; having Ukraine and Russia agree to an armistice such as exists in Korea; or having America provide defense assurances to Ukraine such as it provides to Israel. The difficulty with these and any other proposals is plain: even if Ukraine was ready to negotiate a peace arrangement – and it’s not – Putin isn’t going anywhere and he isn’t interested in negotiations.

I’m confident that the Russian President sees what we all see: Russia can’t conquer Ukraine militarily, but it can still win – if former President Donald Trump is re-elected. Putin won’t make meaningful overtures for peace with Ukraine unless and until he sees that neither Mr. Trump nor any other isolationist MAGA has a realistic opportunity to win the U.S. presidency. It is what it is. If counseling President Joe Biden, I’d advise him to continue explaining to the American people why Ukraine’s fight is also a fight for our freedom and begin messaging that it is unlikely that there will be a meaningful opportunity to achieve a negotiated settlement until at least 2025.

Next: Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s recent mental “freeze” – some months after he sustained a head injury in a fall – is extremely troubling. Even putting aside human kindness, the possible reminder to some of President Joe Biden’s potential frailty (the men are the same age), and despite Mr. McConnell’s deplorable manipulation of Senate procedures to achieve an aggressively conservative U.S. Supreme Court (efforts which, ironically, have so far backfired on Republicans politically), I would submit that those concerned about American democracy should hope that Mr. McConnell remains sufficiently possessed of his faculties to continue to lead Senate Republicans through 2024. He clearly has no regard for Mr. Trump, and has used his position to limit MAGA influence in the Senate and to support the Administration’s efforts in Ukraine.

Finally: This week, Mr. Smith filed a superseding indictment in the classified documents case against Mr. Trump, and added Carlos De Oliveira, a Mar-a-Lago property manager, as a defendant. The superseding indictment alleges, “De Oliveira told Trump Employee 4 that ‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted. … De Oliveira then insisted to Trump Employee 4 that ‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted and asked, ‘What are we going to do?'”

Mr. Smith’s team is clearly attempting to pressure Mr. De Oliveira to turn state’s evidence. If Mr. De Oliveira does elect to cooperate with prosecutors and his testimony supports their charges, it will seemingly directly implicate Mr. Trump in a criminal conspiracy. The indictment’s allegations regarding Mr. De Oliveira reminded me of a reference posted here in February, 2018, relating to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Mr. Trump:

“As aptly noted in the movie, You’ve Got Mail, The Godfather is … the I Ching; the sum of all wisdom; the answer to any question.

Not specifically called out in the film, Mario Puzo wrote in the novel:

‘[The fictional Don Corleone] … put layers of insulation between himself and any operational act. When he gave an order it was to [the Consigliore] or to one of the caporegimes alone. Rarely did he have a witness to any order he gave any particular one of them …

Between the head of the family, Don Corleone, who dictated policy, and the operating level of men who actually carried out the orders of the Don, there were three layers, or buffers … each link of the chain would have to turn traitor for the Don to be involved …’

If Mr. Mueller and his team are seeking high-level corroboration of evidence against the President, whether they secure it may come down to whether Mr. Trump read The Godfather, or merely saw the movie …”

If Mr. De Oliveira ultimately confirms the Special Counsel’s allegations, I’ll no longer need to wonder; it will be clear that Mr. Trump only saw the movie. 😉

Post’s Amazon Coverage Wins Polk Award

Set forth below is a link to a Washington Post article reporting that Washington Post reporter Terrence McCoy won the 2022 George Polk Award in environmental reporting for his series, “The Amazon, Undone.” I’m confident that the Post will not begrudge a proud parent the opportunity to excerpt verbatim from its lead paragraphs:

“Washington Post reporter Terrence McCoy’s coverage of ecological destruction, violence and terror in the Amazon rainforest has won a George Polk Award, a top honor in journalism, organizers announced Monday.

McCoy, The Post’s Rio de Janeiro bureau chief, will receive the environmental reporting award for “The Amazon, Undone,” a 2022 series that examined how ruthless deforestation, the policies of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and the American appetite for beef are rapidly destabilizing the rainforest, which is one of the planet’s last bulwarks against unchecked global warming.

‘The forest is racing toward what scientists warn is a tipping point, when it can no longer maintain its base ecology and suffers a spreading dieback,’ McCoy wrote in a recap of the project, which took him hundreds of miles through the jungle. …

The Polk Awards, presented by Long Island University since 1949 and named after a CBS correspondent killed during the Greek Civil War, gave out 16 prizes among more than 500 submissions for 2022.”

Many will recall that reporter Dom Phillips was killed this past June during a trip in the Amazon. This is a moment to reflect upon journalists’ vital contributions in so many different contexts across the globe, sometimes with disregard for their own safety.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/02/20/polk-award-terrence-mccoy-amazon-undone/

Out of Africa: Part II

[If one intends to review this post, but has not yet read Part I (which is below), I would start there.]

The choice for this note’s title was deliberate; the best mental preparation I had for the trip was Out of Africa, published in 1937 by Danish Baroness Karen von Blixen under the pseudonym, Isak Dinesen, in which she chronicled her ownership and operation of a coffee plantation outside Nairobi from 1915 to 1931. The book, which bears only passing relation to the 1985 Meryl Streep – Robert Redford film drawn from it, is devoted primarily to Ms. Blixen’s struggles to manage her farm, her relationships and interactions with native Africans, and her love of the flora and fauna of Africa. The book has been called “intricately racist,” but I strongly disagree. Given the evident high esteem Ms. Blixen had for those she called the “Natives,” and the great regard they in turn had for her, the work is simply a product of its times.

There are 42 tribes in Kenya. The largest tribe in Kenya is the Kikuyu; the most renowned and resplendent, in their red plaid tribal garb – and, until recent generations, the most feared and fearsome — are the herders, the Maasai.

“A Maasai warrior is a fine sight. Those young men … are unswervingly true to their own nature, and to an immanent ideal. Their style is not an assumed manner, nor an imitation of a foreign perfection; it has grown from the inside, and is an expression of the tribe and its history, and their weapons and finery are as much part of their being as are a deer’s antlers.”

Out of Africa; Isak Dinesen

Kenya’s population has grown from 2.65 million in Ms. Blixen’s time to 55 million today. Population and urban growth have dramatically shrunk the land upon which the Maasai traditionally roamed with their herds, causing their ancestral livelihood to wither. Some now have no alternative but to support their families by doing tribal dances for tourists in makeshift villages.

Among themselves, Kenyans speak in native languages; as Binyavanga Wainaina noted decades ago in One Day I Will Write About This Place: “Urban Kenya is a split personality: authority, trajectory, international citizen in English; national brother in [Swahili]; and content villager or nostalgic urbanite in our mother [i.e., tribal] tongues.” [Our guide, Manson, advised us during the trip that in Swahili, “Hakuna Matada,” made famous by Disney’s The Lion King, does indeed mean, “No Worries.” 😉 ] Each of the places we stayed offered wonderful accommodations and excellent service by staffs consisting entirely of Kenyans. We came to realize that these service employees are the fortunate ones; by adopting Western manner and command of English, their incomes far surpass that of the average Kenyan. They wore name tags with English monikers such as “Lucy” and “Juliet.” Although businesses catering to foreigners are clearly reluctant to ask customers to deal with African mores, most of the employees themselves were pleased to provide and be called by their native names when we asked for them.

At our last tent camp, I stupidly left some items where they could be damaged by an impending storm. We were out in the park, so we called back to the camp to ask someone to move the items out of the elements. When we returned, I asked the young man who had helped me – whose nameplate said, “Moses,” but who had readily given me (and helped me pronounce) his native name, how to say, “I am an idiot” in Swahili. At first, he blanked; but when he understood that I was referring to myself, he grinned but said, “I can’t tell you that; you’ll have to ask Beth.”

Beth (as with Manson, since I haven’t sought this lady’s permission to refer to her, not her actual name) is the wonderful woman who manages the camp. Manson considers her a role model for his daughters. When I asked her for the Swahili translation for “I am an idiot,” she smiled broadly. “You can’t say that,” she said. “People will laugh at you.” I said, “But I was an idiot, and made the staff work.” She laughed, and gave me the translation, and practiced it with me.

We had the chance to visit with Beth during our last few evenings. She is of the Kikuyu tribe. While playfully teaching me the Swahili translation for other common phrases, she informed us that what I had been referring to “Kenyan names” were actually “tribal names.” She pointedly did not want to be called by her tribal name. Her name was Beth. She indicated that tribal loyalties and customs were holding Kenya back. “The only way we will move ahead as a country is if we think of ourselves as Kenyans, not as tribe members,” she said. English is the common denominator, and accordingly, she felt that English was the language that her fellow citizens should embrace. She was the last we heard repeat what I had heard from a number of Kenyans during our stay: how pleased she was that – finally – there had been a peaceful transfer of presidential power without riots.

So amid extreme poverty for so many Kenyans, I found that many we encountered had hope – in some, despite material conditions at which most Americans we consider “poor” would blanch. They – who have been struggling to maintain a democracy for a mere 60 years – cherished the peaceful transfer of power that we had taken for granted before January 6th; they, such as Manson and Beth, appreciate – obviously better than some of our own American elected officials — that the well-being of their nation lays in putting tribal loyalties aside and focusing on the good of the nation. Their understanding brought home to me that the Capitol riot was not only an insult to America, but to people everywhere who yearn for what we have. Recently-elected Kenyan President William Ruto, who came from humble beginnings but is now rich, won the election on a pledge to provide help for impoverished Kenyans. (Studies of his victory reportedly indicate that voting patterns had not adhered to tribal lines as closely as in the past.) May he make good on his promises. As this is published, the election opponent Mr. Ruto defeated, Raila Odinga, continues to question his loss; may his supporters refrain from taking to the streets to emulate the example of seditionists in America and recently in Brazil, and Kenya’s own recent troubled electoral past.

Beth walked us to our van on the last day. After hugging each of us in turn, she looked up at me. “Of all the Swahili phrases I taught you, the only one you pronounce correctly is, ‘I am an idiot,’” she smiled.

Clearly apropos. We started home. I don’t foresee that we’ll ever make it back to Kenya, but I wish we could. If Kenyans can put aside their ancestral differences and remain on a democratic path, there is certainly light for them at the end of what will unfortunately be a long tunnel.

Out of Africa: Part I

In the first half of September, we traveled to Kenya on Safari. This site would make a poor travel log, so suffice it to say that our adventure offered everything we had hoped for — the opportunity to see innumerable African species, including all of those in the American imagination, in their domain (i.e., the “bush”), while (happily) not having to spend our nights in accommodations that one associates with big game hunters of a century past. If you have the inclination and means to visit Africa, don’t put it off; it will be one of your most memorable experiences.

Kenya became an independent nation in 1963, emerging from what had been (mostly British) colonial rule existing since the late 19^th century. It has been said that since achieving independence, the country’s leadership — a few families have effectively controlled the government — has been too slow to break down the vestiges of colonialism. We arguably saw indications of that throughout our excursion; virtually all of the guests everywhere we stayed were Caucasian or Asian. It is a land where tribal traditions and constitutional government are in search of peaceful accommodation, one of stark contrast between enduring customs and onrushing modernity.

One visiting Kenya cannot help but recognize the material benefits we in America have, and the precious democratic practices we seemingly remain at risk of frittering away.

Kenya had elected a new president, William Ruto, shortly before we arrived. The outgoing president, Uhuru Kenyatta (son of Kenya’s first president), was stepping down after two terms in accord with the Kenyan Constitution. Mr. Ruto’s opponent, Raila Odinga — who had lost notwithstanding an endorsement from Mr. Kenyatta (Mr. Odinga, having lost five presidential elections, is somewhat the Harold Stassen of Kenya) — had appealed Mr. Ruto’s victory to the nation’s highest tribunal; we arrived in the country two days before the tribunal was to decide on his appeal. Kenya has a history of unrest arising from disputed elections; rioting attendant to a 2007 election dispute claimed over 1,000 lives, and lesser disturbances accompanied a challenge to Mr. Kenyatta’s 2017 election. We were aware at the time we arrived that there was some concern throughout the country, despite both candidates’ and Mr. Kenyatta’s pleas for calm, that disturbances might follow any final declaration upholding Mr. Ruto’s victory; however, when his victory was sanctioned, all remained quiet.

Our safari guide was Manson [since I haven’t sought this incredible gentleman’s consent to refer to him, not his real name], about 40. Descended from a father of the Maasai tribe and a mother from the Kikuyu tribe, tribal mores caused Manson to leave his Maasai village in his middle-school years. He was taken in by a Catholic mission, and completed advanced studies under the mission’s auspices. Manson is a naturalist with a specialization in ornithology, and possesses a seemingly-encyclopedic knowledge of the habits of East African birds (which he used as indicators to locate Africa’s celebrated wildlife for us in unexpected parts of the parks). Because of the just-concluded Kenyan presidential election, politics naturally came up early during the trip; Manson observed with satisfaction that his country had finally achieved a transfer of presidential power without riots. He follows international affairs; after he asked me whether I thought America should negotiate with Russia over Ukraine, and I indicated that I then opposed negotiation because I didn’t think it would stop Mr. Putin from continuing to stir unrest among democracies, he immediately responded, “I completely agree.” He was then in the process of building a house – almost unheard of except for affluent Kenyans. He has two daughters, 20 and 14. His elder daughter had recently been awarded a green card to the U.S. through the U.S. Diversity Visa Program (known as the “Green Card Lottery”) and he was thrilled. He said to me, “In America, if you work hard, you can get ahead.” While some born and reared in the U.S. might question the statement, from the perspective of a Kenyan, it is undeniable.

Our excursion took us both north and west of Nairobi to visit the wildlife preserves; it is hard for any American who has never been in a Third World country to imagine life in rural Kenya. While the flora is gorgeous and the soil the rich burnt orange of Utah, Kenyans residing in remote villages have desperately limited means. Manson mentioned how much improved the roads surrounding Nairobi had become during Mr. Kenyatta’s term as president, but outside the city the roads were, to an American, barely passable. (“Were most roads in Kenya like this ten years ago?” TLOML asked as we pounded along a particularly sacroiliac-abusive stretch. “Oh, this is much better,” Manson replied, without any trace of irony.) Shanty hamlets and markets exist on the wayside amid plastic bottles and refuse for which there is no means of disposal. People (including small children), cattle, goats, even camels walk perilously close to vehicles whizzing along the road. Tiny thatched huts (it sounds like a cliché, but it’s not), smaller than almost any room in any American home built in the last century, dot the surrounding fields, housing whole families. There is very little health insurance. Where the roads are reasonably traversable, speed is maintained not by stoplights but by mountainous speed bumps – and at every speed bump, people approach the slowing cars from the side of the road to try to sell produce, water, or souvenirs. (Manson was amused when I suggested that they were “businessmen,” and referred to them as such for the rest of the trip.)

Early in our trip, Manson described how difficult life can be for elementary-school-aged Kenyans, particularly outside Nairobi. There are frequently over 100 in a class, with limited facilities and poorly-paid teachers; many times the schools receiving the tuition fail to pay the teachers, who in turn therefore sometimes demand payment directly from the students and send them away if they cannot comply. (Unexpectedly, grade school children are better dressed than some adults because many schools require uniforms.) Manson indicated that in his early years, he himself had at times been sent home from school because his family lacked the money to pay his teachers. At about the mid-point of our trip, our van broke down between preserves. While Manson called back to Nairobi for assistance, the delay provided the opportunity to walk around (for safety purposes, most time in wildlife preserves is spent in the vehicle) and appreciate the vista. A middle schooler, Sam, walked by and then stopped while we waited by the side of the road. He was stoic, and didn’t speak much English, but it became clear that he understood it perfectly. Random motorists would stop, come over and speak with Manson in Swahili, and look under the hood of our vehicle; sometimes tinkering would go on; more talk would ensue; the engine wouldn’t start; and they would leave, soon followed by other well-meaning, but equally ineffective, Good Samaritans. Sam and I watched this cycle several times. Finally I quietly asked him, “Do you think any of these guys know anything about cars?” For a moment his deadpan disappeared; I got a brilliant smile, and he shook his head. At some break in the (in)action, Manson came over and asked Sam why he wasn’t in school. It turned out that he had been sent home because he couldn’t pay his teacher. Manson was clearly taken back to his own past, and asked how much money Sam needed to be allowed back in school: it was 500KSh – 500 Kenyan shillings. Manson and I split the needed tuition. Before being too struck by our generosity, be aware: at the time, 500KSh amounted to $4.35 – another stark indication as to how far many Kenyans’ material means differ from our own.

To avoid unduly taxing your eyes or your stamina, the remainder of this note will appear in Part II.