President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
This is so alien to me. Why would they dissolve Parliament in this case? Is this a coup, or an expected turn of events?
The article is a tangle of names, allegiances, rebellions, and dictators. It makes it sound like Déby was one of the "good guys", but I have so little trust for the Western powers mentioned in the article (USA, France). I have no idea what's going on in this part of the world, but it seems like a total clusterfuck.
Edit: Out by one error for monarch
They apparently realized Deby was there because the combat was extremely violent. They attacked him, he was wounded and evacuated on a helicopter.
(1) https://soundcloud.com/radiofranceinternationale/mahamat-mah...
I realize these are now conspiracies based on assumptions. I'm not calling for the new government of Chad to be overthrown based on them, it just sounds too much like something the CIA is ultimately behind to me.
RFI might be a public radio broadcaster, but that doesn't mean they are only talking to "friends" of France or exclusively conveying the "voice" of France. Quite the contrary, their international coverage is quite good, and much better than the other (private, commercial) French radio stations.
But sure, they regularly interview rebels of all stripes, except Islamist insurgents I think (at least I can't think of one such interview).
> they still basically exist as a propaganda station. They're only going to broadcast something like this if they want the world to hear it for some reason.
That's a point of view. I've seen them accused of being at the same time pro-regime and pro-opposition/rebels, inside the same countries, all across Africa, regardless of which group France is supporting. So who knows?
I've even heard once the officials from an opposition party in an African country during a period of unrest, protesting against the then-current RFI correspondant covering the country and asking for his replacement by another RFI reporter, supposedly more neutral. So, again, it's in the eye of the beholder.
Also, being a public radio doesn't necessarily mean they're subservient. We have a national station here which is quite leftist, France Inter. Whenever the government is right-wing (or center-right), it will criticize the government's politics quite severely. Maybe being a civil servant with a lifetime job guarantee helps being less subservient? Or maybe I'm just hopelessly naive.
Again, I realize I'm terribly cynical on these issues. We can both have the same information about the network and my distrust will just lead me to this conclusion.
I'm just saying that the dog doesn't always (emphasis on "always") go where the masters want it to go, particularly when the masters come and go at the whim of the voters but the dog is always there.
Can anyone picture BoJo, Trump or Biden jumping off a chopper in Overtheristan killing locals?
In the West we use the term "who live by the sword shall die by the sword" (Matthew) but only as a warning. I think it illustrates the disconnect between these worlds. What is warning in one place/religion is a _promise_ in the other.
My wife (Japanese) would laugh "at the cowardice" displayed by somebody who questions the right to revenge (an eye for an eye) or hesitates taking their life to save the honor of their family, etc ...
This sounds alien to Westerners if not terrifying to those in power to have an honor based system. It is why media in all German speaking countries use the word "clan" only in a racist sense reserved for specific minorities and aimed to criminalize those who live in these older forms of social groups (with perhaps hundreds of people)[0]
While most are quick to denounce an evangelical missionary[1] hopping of the boat in the Andaman sea to "convert the local heathens", it's much easier to turn a blind eye at every-day injustice against alternative forms of social groups (Roma in Europe come to mind, refugees, or indeed very large families of South Easter European decent that would automatically be labelled terrorists or criminals, Bosnians, Kosovo-Albanias, etc).
[0] a clan in Hamburg, Berlin, Vienna etc is never somebody "good" e.g. the strong family bond here is caricaturized as an organized criminal and only mentioned in relation to drug or human trafficking.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-usa-murder-idUSKCN1...
However, rejecting it isn't cowardice. It's spiritual growth.
sure is. it's also what gives us the feeling we have a right (if not duty if you add religion or moral arguments) to forcefully integrate these societies (for the purpose of taxation / corvée / slavery) the way we have done it since thousands of years. Oldest example perhaps China's expanding kingdoms creating hill tribes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_C._Scott#The_Art_of_Not_...
Of course not, but given their age and the extreme-high risk aversion of modern people, yer not going to see that anytime soon. Not that many people have three sons (the third going into the military) in any case.
Nothing new here. I just assume that a sclerotic ruling class is simply a sign of late-stage empire. Eventually you'll see an interregnum followed by one of the other models for large scale social integration.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/minority-report/2014...
so does our system of sending the old people to an assisted living facility to live out the last couple of years in "dignity" while crapping their pants and not having visitors (except on every 1st Sunday of the month between 15:00-17:00 which is the time when everyone asks why they are still around because they are so demented and not part of our lives that we wouldn't know what to talk with them anyway).
^^ there is always a way to paint another society as absolutely evil. it's the type of propaganda that makes us feel good about ourselves since the time we got rid of those useless pagans ("coming over here" ... "with their inlaid jewelry, and shit burial traditions" ...)
All criminal societies have honor based structures but not all honor based structures are criminal.
> However the family succession and continuing presence of the military at the heart of power may reassure nervous allies such as France and the US, observers said.
With a link to this Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/natkpowell/status/1384477661632757774
> Déby had ruled for 30 years and won a sixth term in elections last week
Chad is near top of the list.
So, I'm guessing "elections" is probably closer to the true state of affairs.
So, it depends on how you view "western powers", I guess.
What matters is what replaces him, not whether western forces like him. I don’t understand folks who are like “the west is bad, therefore anyone the west supports is bad and their passing is good.”
The short-term at least, sounds worse.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/aug/14/p...
From https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/chad/overview - "Chad ... is ranked last on the World Bank’s Human Capital Index.". This would indicate weak institutions which gives very little reason for optimism.
Déby was a ruthless dictator fighting against ruthless Libyan-backed Islamists (and to a lesser extent Boko Haram). Both are horrible. Déby murdered political opponents and oppressed his people. The rebels used child soldiers, executed PoWs, and just want to set up their own dictatorship but Muslim.
Currently, power has passed to his son, who is a general-major, so not much has changed, except he presumably has less power. This probably means more military influence in the country and less success against the rebels.
Best case, his son turns out to be a better dictator than his father or least have to concede to the people more.
Worst case, the discontent and political infighting leads to more instability and hardship for the country and the weakness leads to the rebels taking over.
All you get are the blood of pacifists. As pacifists are forced into duels and their opponents shoot them. Do you want all the pacifist politicians dead or retired?
The duelist era of American politics led to Andrew Jackson. A man who forced the trail of tears on his opponents. Live by the duel, rule by the duel. You just get sadistic assholes as president
Think about the kind of person who would repeatedly duel his adversaries. Ex: Jackson. You get a wartime monster.
-------
If you want peace, then encourage pacifists to be leaders.
I'm not sure if this is better. Particularly when the 20 year old killing machine is put in charge of the nuclear arsenal, I think we'd all disappear fast.
>I'm not sure if this is better.
Spend a little time seriously thinking about it. The status quo is a very low bar
Besides, I don't think anyone wants a government based on military service today. Military is important, but not as important as say, infrastructure, hospitals, schools, technology, engineering, or a myriad of other government services today.
I'd rather have more government officials who know the details of building road projects or high speed fiber. Or heck, maybe a few web designer politicians so that official government websites actually work
Seems like a fair risk.
I think the fact that one of the world powers today is all about military and projected power disproves this. Almost 50% of the population of that country made it clear that the military is of uttermost importance for them.
Then there are other countries where this is true too.
I wish what you're saying is true, but I don't think it is in most places today, although in many it is like that.
Politics and military do NOT mix. And the current status where military is subservient to politicians is superior to many other setups we've seen.
The Armagnacs, who were slaughtered on the battlefield, weren't really in much power after Agincourt. The Burgundians, who stayed away from that fight, rose in power afterwards.
> The French still win the Hundred Years' War even after the Battle of Agincourt
That took over 30 years after Agincourt, an entire generation later. In the short term, Henry V gets crowned king of France after Charles VI.
And by "Winning the war", you mean, the French-line of kings get to remain king? Kicking out the English king from their country?
I'm trying to say the pool of available talent matters. If the US cabinet is wiped out, there'll be plenty of similarly competent elites to replace them. After all, it happens every few years with new presidencies and power transfer between parties.
Yes, winning the war means the French kept their own kings in power. Clearly all of this is a huge waste of resources and probably wasn't very good for the average peasant.
https://royalcentral.co.uk/asia/the-night-19-ottoman-princes....
At least, if that status was lost after that battle I’d seriously look into other reasons.
Time heals all wounds. The French became a major power later, but there was a very bloody time. I don't think anyone wants to "Agincourt" their own political leaders.
Regardless, the Armagnacs were severely damaged due to Agincourt. The somewhat neutral Burgundians had much more prominence after the battle.
-------
In the short term, King Henry V (of England) is named the heir to the throne of France. It takes nearly 30 years before another battle routes the English forces and forces England back to its island.
I'd say having a foreign king declared heir to the throne, while nearly eradicating one major political party (Armagnacs) is a pretty big deal. France doesn't make any major moves until the 1500s, nearly a hundred years later.
Or if you want to be romantic about it: a knight, or samurai. There are many periods of history where warlords ruled by shear might and took to the battlefields personally.
If you rule by military strength, then it is customary to also take to the battlefield. That's why the samurai class, knights, etc. etc. were on the battlefield. They were expected to personally enter battle as part of their political power.
Turns out: having a bunch of warriors as leaders isn't the best political style. Not by a long shot.
----------
In any case, Agincourt remains the perfect example of that. The Armagnac decided to fight the English invasion. The Burgundians remained neutral.
Then the Armagnacs were virtually wiped out in the battle of Agincourt, allowing the Burgundians to basically take over France and win the Armagnac vs Burgundian civil war.
The Armagnacs died, defending their values. Since they died, the victory goes to other parties.
----------
> political class that are personally at risk from their policies and decisions.
Note: with their heavy armor, superior training and armed guards... Knights weren't really the ones personally at risk in most battles.
The unarmored peasants who fought under them, too poor for fancy armor. Too poor for nourishment (much smaller and weaker than a nobleman due to malnutrition). The peasants were at highest risk in any case.
Agincourt was unusual in that the political class died as part of the battle. Normally, just the peasants die while the knights / noblemen retreat safely on their horses.
Maybe they'll think twice about sending snuffy off to die if they or theirs will get dead.
We know what a warlord looks like when they're in power. The people who come to power by the sword are not peaceful folk. Military politicians (such as Samurai or Knights) seem to be more violent than democracies. They are more than willing to risk their lives, or send off their children to die to grab political power.
EDIT: In the Samurai / Warring States era of Japan, it was common to marry off your daughters to rival warlords in the hopes of keeping the peace. But when war broke out, the Samurai were ruthless: they were willing to risk their daughters lives to advanced politically (ex: grab some land and/or glory).
Back then, it was normal to fight a war for simple glory. Children be damned, or even your own life. That's the way of a warlord based political system.
If the government of enlightened former-warriors created a world without war, would that be a failure for future generations because their leaders wouldn't get the exposure required? At the end of the day, we ought to find more sustainable ways to prepare our civil servants and filter for capable leaders.
the Japanese politicians currently arguing that "the water of Fukushima does not present any danger to the environment and that it should be dumped into the sea" should only be allowed to consume the water they claim to be safe. that's about as close as it needs to be in order for accountability.
Mostly their visits had nothing to do with actual policy and had more to do with scoring a picture with people in standard fatigues on big bases. Rarely if ever did those politicians get to see what it's like when a few American Marines are instructed to go on patrol with a platoon of Afghan National Army soldiers (I'm reminded of this story [0]. They'd parade the big armored vehicles by them, they'd show them videos of us blowing up things up from a distance, but rarely if ever did those stories cover when a 19 year old is kicking in the door to a house in Fallujah with a Russian supplied and made AK-47 pointed at his dome. Rarely would they see troops in their natural state. They made us shave, clean our clothes, and would hand out replacement gear if a VIP was coming by.
This is a limited subset of behavior I personally witnessed. Civilians do it too though, most people's understanding of Iraq and Afghanistan is based on fiction and rumors, where the real pros, cons, and incentives of each are buried under a mountain of narrative and conspiracy. In watching all the dog and pony show nature of things I wondered if politicians and regular civilians would actually benefit from military service.
In some way, I think yes. Maybe the left would stop crafting policy that is harmful to veterans and service members, like the ROE change that occurred around 2009. Maybe it would make the right do more than lip service and charade to the military and veterans. Maybe people would be more understanding and observant of the warrior class. But I'm always left with the thought that any of those experiences only mean something if someone cares to try to understand them in the first place.
[0] https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/veterans/2014/04/23/mar...