The Last Debate, Jim Lehrer

Leave a reply

Lehrer, the late PBS anchorman, skewers his own profession in a tale of journalists run amok which, despite being over 30 years old, in many ways seems to reflect our current moment.

At opening, David Donald Meredith, a populist politician of little relevant qualifications or experience has just been polled as leading the Presidential election race on the strength of his racist, authoritarian, anti-elite, pro-religious and contra-constitutional rabble-rousing (sounds familiar…).  When several journalists are selected to question the two leading candidates during the one and only debate to which their respective campaign managers have agreed, they find themselves in an ethical dilemma: whether to act in a clinically objective manner and hope against all indications that the voters will recognize and select the one qualified candidate, or to use their position as moderators to skewer Meredith on a raft of unconfirmed accusations of bad and violent behavior and so ensure that a truly dangerous demagogue does not reach the White House.

Since the novel is told in the past tense, it is no spoiler to say the panel soon chooses the latter approach and so swings the election to Meredith’s oppponent. The remaining two thirds of the novel is spent recounting how they made that decision and the diligent effort it takes the narrator (an alt-universe tabloid-journalist version of Lehrer himself?), to document it for the narrative non-fiction book which The Last Debate pretends to be.  (Fwiw, with Meredith defeated, his opponent, the previously unimpressive Paul L. Green, turns out to be a pretty good Chief Executive, perhaps validating their risky choice and leaving only the credibility of the journalistic profession to die for what Lehrer clearly considers their sins.)

A few quibbles – since the outcome is disclosed so early, most of the book is occupied with details of the tabloid journalist’s work, unfortunately showing the reader just how tedious that can be.  Rather banal conversations are recounted line by line with neither enough individuality nor amusing detail to justify their length, especially since the plot structure has already taken much real drama out of them.  There are also troubling issues around names and pronouns.  Between the large cast of political characters and the questionable choice of having two women named Barbara interacting (and even sharing an apartment!), as well as a candidate whose last name invites confusion when used by itself (since Meredith is more familiar as a female first name) Lehrer is constantly identifying people by full first and last names to a degree that feels artificially formal and further impedes dramatic flow. 

A similar effect happens when the fictional first-person narrator must protecting the identity of a very famous informant, To avoid giving the clue of this persons sex/gender, Lehrer chooses to use “he/she,” “his/her”’ and similar clunky work-arounds which make the section feel more a bureaucratic document than the climax of a political thriller. (An excellent argument, BTW, for writers and speakers of the English language to adopt non-gendered pronouns as argued in the post ‘e is an Enabler’ which is available via this link:   https://robinandrew.net/2026/03/01/e-is-an-enabler/  or simply by going to robinandrew.net and scrolling down to the 03/01/26 post of that title.)

Overall, an imperfect but worthwhile read that today raises a very large question its author could not possibly have intended back when it was written and published: If Jim Lehrer could see the danger of a character like Meredith all the way back in 1995, how did so many of our fellow Americans end up falling for his doppelgänger in 2016 and 2024 and perhaps even thereafter…?

P. S. – ‘E Unum Pluribus’ is speculative fiction about a very different way in which America’s current political dramas may play out. With a thrilling plot driven by politics and economics as well as gender, class, language and even the origins of faith, the novel is currently being serialized online and anyone can read it, at no cost, by navigating to the home page of this website and selecting E Unum Pluribus from the top menu, or via this link: https://robinandrew.net/2026/01/01/e-unum-pluribus/

‘Down and Out in Paris and London,’ George Orwell’s 1933 Social Realism

Leave a reply

Variously described as a novel and as a memoir presented as a novel, this brief volume certainly has the feel of hard-won experience.  With little preamble Orwell throws the reader into a squalid neighborhood of Paris circa 1930 where we experience the scramble for enough food to avoid starvation and a place to sleep – if one dare drift off while in intimate proximity to any number of strangers, swindlers, thieves, the deranged, the pious and the police. 

Visions of filth, sweat and stink dance in our heads as the narrator (who is in no way distinguished from what we know of the author himself) finds job, loses job, finds room, loses room, earns a few francs and spends all of them on barely enough bread, margarine, tea and tobacco to keep his body upright.  Along the way we are treated to character sketches of many sketchy characters, a few of whom have preserved hearts of something better than lead, another few of whom possess remarkably bright minds despite the grinding effects of their poverty and hopeless circumstances.

Despairing of his ‘opportunities’ in Paris, our guide is thrilled when an old acquaintance in London proffers a job as caretaker to an elderly invalid.  Loaned funds just sufficient for travel and a few days subsistence, he is soon in that great city, only to find the promised position has evaporated as the ‘tame imbecile’ and company have themselves left for the same continent he just abandoned. Now we follow our guide into the bowels of British social services and charities as he learns to navigate ‘the spike’ (a sort of municipal homeless shelter offering prison-like rules and conditions in exchange for horrible food and worse sleep abetted by a tracking system that keeps its customers constantly walking from town to town and so unavailable for any sort of work or betterment), church-run shelters (considered worse than the spike for their insistence on performative piety and the hypocrisy of their tenders), the Embankment (among the few places in London where one is allowed to sleep outdoors, but its benches, noise and Bobbies make sleep next to impossible) and commercial lodging houses (better accommodations, but prices out of reach for the truly destitute).

Given Orwell’s known Socialist leanings, it’s no surprise there’s a certain class consciousness to all this.  His conviction that nearly all the ‘idle’ poor would readily choose to work for their keep if there were jobs available seems a bit broad and naïve ( not to mention the number whose physical, intellectual or/and emotional disabilities and dis-aptitudes might make the unsuitable for hiring).  His modest proposal – group homes where the residents tend gardens which provide a portion of their food, thus requiring a lesser subsidy than the current system wherein they are virtually prohibited from working and earning because the feeble accommodations available will only accept the absolutely penniless – is probably even less likely of enactment today than it would have been in his time.

A painful read, reflecting what the least favored among us must endure simply to survive – but well worth revisiting as the current U. S. administration works to slice open our own social safety net and condemn millions of immigrants and citizens alike to conditions little better than what Orwell describes. (And sometimes worse, incarcerating non-citizens of no significant criminal history without legal process or recourse and even banishing some of them to whatever cutthroat minor state will take our tax money in exchange for receiving and disposing of them). 

P. S. – E Unum Pluribus is a speculative fiction shaped by the economic consequences of the USA’s present partisan divide.  It is currently being serialized online, for free, and you can read its first installment at: 

E Unum Pluribus

You say “Impeachment Now,” I say ” Impeachment, NO!”

Leave a reply

Robert Reich’s 2026-04-13 Substack post “How to Impeach…for Real” claims that “Now’s the time to start organizing” to impeach Mr. Trump.

Whoa there, doggy!

As much as I’d love to see the man and his administration gone, attempting to impeach him yet again will only energize his followers, fuel their claims of persecution by the ‘liberal elite communist Deep State’ and very possibly incite violence on a scale far beyond Jan 6 – all while he still has full control of the Department of ‘Justice’ and the military to use as his imperial guard! Plus, even if it succeeded, impeachment would put J. D. Vance in the White House – one small step for an unqualified man and one giant leap toward his reelection in 2028 and establishment of a Christian Nationalist dynasty.

No. What opponents of Mr. Trump need to do is focus like lasers on taking back Congress and doing so by large enough margins to override the predictable slew of veto attempts. Talking about yet another impeachment makes that outcome less likely, not more.

Instead, all foes of our current autocracy* need to work to elect legislators of any party who will aggressively reassert Congressional authority under the Constitution. That and the painfully slow but sometimes constructive actions of Judges up to and including the Supremes are the only way to dull the worst of Mr. Trump’s impulses until 2028 and to peel away a large enough slice of his followers to ensure he is not able to install a successor regime for another eight years after that. This is a long battle we are fighting, and repeatedly grabbing for the shiniest but least effective solution is not the way to win it.

America is stronger when we work together again against our common foes, including against the tyranny of this deeply flawed man who has become entirely divorced from reality, law and enduring American values.

On a different but related note, ‘E Unum Pluribus’ is a speculative fiction set in the dark future which may come about if we continue to pursue partisan divisiveness. It is currently being serialized, and anyone can read it – for free – starting at: https://robinandrew.net/2026/01/01/e-unum-pluribus/

*Yes, Virginia: we are already in an autocratic period of our nation’s history– one man dictating federal spending, federal prosecutions, decreeing individuals be arrested and shipped off without due process to imprisonment that would not be allowed within our borders, unilaterally deciding portions of our Constitution mean what he wants them to mean not what their words clearly state, removing inspectors general and anyone else who might check his actions, installing unqualified sycophants at every level, remaking Federal buildings and even the nation’s Capital district at his every whim and will, starting wars without Congress and trashing relationships and agreements which predecessors spent decades nurturing and all the while posting crude taunts, temper rants and juvenile prank images depicting himself as King, Pope and Savior – if all that is not autocracy, I don’t know what is!

Stronger Together (a thought for this morning..).

Leave a reply

Ezra Klein‘s recent interview with Fareed Zakaria questioned what guiding principle progressives could possibly forward to compete with the divisive and belligerently-reactionary nationalism of the MAGA movement.

One simple answer is ‘Stonger Together.’ Ever since thirteen disparate Colonies chose to work together(and even sought French assistance) to win independence from the reigning world hegemon, right up through Allies defeat of the Axis in WWII and establishing the now-defunct post-war order, it has been unity with others which enabled us to succeed and thrive.

With a little luck and grace, DJT’s narcissistic recoil at any hint of cooperation will die with his political career and allow the US to begin rebuilding our credibility as a coalition member and even – in a few decades – as once again a leader.

E Unum Pluribus

How Style Reveals Character

Leave a reply

Heather Cox Richardson has a tasty piece this morning (see Letters From an American, on Substack) about the moment when Robert E. Lee surrendered the Confederate Army to U. S. Grant – Lee dressed in a brand new dress uniform, Grant in the worn and dirty private’s outfit he’d worn the day before, with scant insignia added to indicate his true rank. That instance of appearance as an indicator of the two men’s divergent characters, brought back to mind some thoughts I’d been working on not long ago, before they were (rightly) eclipsed by the chaos of our nation’s attack on Iran. Herewith:

Viewing the renderings of Mr. Trump’s replacement for the White House’s late East Wing, I’ve been surprised no one seems to be questioning the description of it as a “Ballroom.”

To these ears, the zeal and subterfuge with which The Donald is pursuing this particular bit of noncritical infrastructure suggests there is more at stake here than his enthusiasm for ballroom dancing and debutants (though the latter could be a factor…).

Administration PR pretends this cavern is vitally necessary for legitimate diplomatic events, but given Mr. Trump’s disdain for actual diplomats and his preference for small group strong-arming, that seems a stretch. More likely, the room’s programming will lean toward pseudo-events designed to flatter and reward loyal contributors to his continual fund-raising ventures (including, of course, the cost of this boondoggle itself) and to dangle the bait of future seating arrangements to extract still more contributions and concessions from others.

A means, in other words, for Mr. Trump and his chosen people to more-convincingly imitate the persons he obviously idolizes: the nation-owning monarchs and autocrats of the Middle East and elsewhere.

For that reason, I suggest we all just call this construction what it is – The Donald J. Trump Throne Room, at the Trump™ White House™.

On which note, does anyone really believe Mr. Trump will graciously depart what he is busily turning into the Presidential Palace – having finally gotten it redecorated to his taste – just because his current term expires? Having previously experienced the diminution of becoming an ‘ex-’ Chief Executive? Having in this term solidified his dominion over the rabble thanks to a compliant Supreme Court and supine Trumpublican Party? Having for his entire life scooted around every legal and moral constraint and gotten away with it all?

Note that Mr. Trump’s favorite head of state, Vladimir Putin, will have been in power for thirty years when his current term ends. The House of Saud has ruled its Kingdom for over ninety years (and a somewhat smaller realm for generations before that). China’s Xi Jinping is currently enjoying his third five-year term with no end in sight thanks to the 2018 elimination of the prior term limit on that office. Israel’s Netanyahu is over 18 years in control; Turkey’s Erdogan around 23 (Hungary’s Orban a mere 16). True, Napoleon Bonaparte lasted only 15, but Uncle Joe Stalin managed over 50…

On the turgid scale of those role models, a mere eight years in office would hardly rate inclusion. If, indeed, the style of Mr. Trump’s civic works is true indication of his character, we are in for a bumpy January 2029.

P. S. – E Unum Pluribus is a thrilling speculative fiction exploring one way in which a President’s attempt to overstay his welcome might affect our nation’s survival. It is currently being serialized online and you can read it, at no cost, starting at https://robinandrew.net/2026/01/01/e-unum-pluribus/

Misquoting Jesus, The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, by Bart D. Ehrman

Leave a reply

To those who claim the Bible* is the unerring word of God delivered directly from his mouth, Ehrman, an academic whose career has been spent in study of these scriptures, offers a potent rejoinder.   

After a brief biographical summary making clear he is himself a committed Christian, Ehrman provides a layperson’s introduction to his discipline of Textual Criticism: the objective analysis of written documents and how their words came to be as they are. Seen through that lens, he explains, the scriptures we read today are demonstrably the product of countless scribes, translators and interpreters over two millennia, some of those persons known by name and reputation but most of them unknown except through the small fraction of their manuscripts which have survived.  Working often in isolation and in various languages of which each had their own varying level of fluency and comprehension, these pre-printing-press copyists produced an undeterminable number of individual handwritten manuscripts, of which time and circumstance allowed only a random selection of perhaps complete, partial and fragmentary examples (still numbering in the tens of thousands,) to survive and be further winnowed and selected by compilers for their use as the basis for all of today’s printed Bibles.  Recent digital collating and cross referencing of those surviving manuscripts have revealed them to contain hundreds of thousands of differences.  So much for any one version being the inerrant word of the deity.

Not surprisingly given the process, some of those differences appear due to simple human fallibility – i.e.: plain old mistakes.  Of the remainder, Ehrman attributes some to the fact that each scribe worked from a different selection of source materials, often fragmentary and often contradictory, so choices were made, differences repeated and passed down to the ages till they became considered ‘gospel’ (in the casual use of that term). Importantly though, other textual variations are seen as reflective of theological or societal debates and conflicts in the time and place a particular variant was created.  Anti-Jewish prejudice within the Christian movement, anti-Christian persecution in the wider community, pushback from earlier philosophical traditions, etc.; when scribes or their masters decided the scriptures needed ‘clarification’ to reflect what was currently considered ‘proper’ doctrine, changes were made. Thus, the ‘Misquoting’ of this book’s title. 

This recounting of process also reminds that, even according to the most doctrinaire recounting of their origin, the ‘Books’ making up what we now know as ‘The Bible’ were initially written as letters, sermons, essays or such, each for a specific audience or purpose.  Only after such initial use, were they distributed more widely and some preserved, though still individually.  Not until still more centuries had passed did various scholars gather some of those ‘books’ together for reference or sharing and still later did the one or another developing church hierarchy settle on the current (and still somewhat contested among Christianity’s many sects and scholars) selection and organization of ‘the’ Books of ‘The’ Bible.’ Even since then, the text has continued to be re-translated, and re-corrected to reflect evolution of our vernacular languages, evolving scholarship and even newly discovered source material (the oldest currently known extant manuscript was only discovered in the late nineteenth century and not made available for study for decades after that; others could turn up any day). No one, it becomes clear as one reads Ehrman’s book, can reliably demonstrate exactly what words were in the ‘original’ text of any ‘Book,’ much less the entire Bible.

Lest the reader think this is all about trifles – the mistranslation of some ancient Greek adjective, the degree of Jesus’ anger or impatience with one particularly beggar’s neediness, Ehrman’s later chapters include examples of major theological points which are presented differently in various early manuscripts and Bibles.  Whether Jesus is rightly considered to have remained a Jew throughout his life; whether he was a ‘normal’ mortal human who only later was ‘adopted’ to become the Son of God or an entirely paranormal being who came down and only pretended to be human; some of these discrepancies in the record go to the heart of important beliefs, including the entire ‘Holy Trinity’ construct. ** In these examples the stakes become more clear: conscientious believers look to the Bible for the most authoritative issues in their spiritual lives, but if the actual text to which they turn has been muddled and changed countless times, how reliable is any directive any particular reader believes they see in its text? 

Near his work’s end, Ehrman steps beyond strict analysis, ventures to wonder whether, if an all-knowing and all-powerful God had really set out a millennium or so ago to transmit his fixed and imperative words to humans, He would not have chosen to do so in some less malleable form (etched on tablets of hardest granite taller than the monoliths of Stonehenge perhaps, or carved into the face of some durable mountain ala Mt Rushmore, for my own examples). The fact that what we know as ‘The Bible’ has come down to us by such a fallible train of events, Ehrman seems by this point to take as evidence that not only was it not ‘written’ by God, it’s words were not individually and specifically inspired by him and so cannot be taken as ‘His’ final and literal word on any subject. 

This primary work of Christian literature, then, is the product of an extended and complex series of human choices about how to record their own human thoughts about Jesus, God and the world.  The words of specific persons who based them upon the words of generations of other persons about events of which they all learned from other persons, only a few of whom actually lived in the time of Jesus – and even fewer of whom actually heard or interacted with him.  Such a work is, despite those caveats, tremendously valuable as one piece of a complex history and philosophy, as a record of what the early Christians thought and as an illustration of timeless human nature.  Ehrman evinces no regret for having spent his career studying it, but rather a continuing fascination and awe at the complications encoded in this cornucopia of early writings, each with its own history and claims upon authority. 

Similarly, any reader – Christian or otherwise – who is willing to approach Misquoting Jesus in a spirit of intellectual curiosity will be well rewarded with new understanding of the very human aspects of its subject.  A valuable piece of scholarship.

P. S.: E Unum Pluribus is a speculative fiction about how this ‘Great Experiment’ we call the USA may self-destruct – soon.  Along the way, it suggests that even the new ‘Dark Age’ which may follow that collapse could harbor the seeds of some future enlightenment with its own new contributions to spirituality and belief systems. 

The novel is currently being serialized and anyone can read it, for free, starting at: https://robinandrew.net/2026/01/01/e-unum-pluribus/

*- the “Bible” as used in Ehrman’s book refers primarily to the New Testament, though many of the methodologies and concepts its author describes could readily be applied also to the even-more ancient texts of The Old Testament – and probably to many other texts which predate the era of mass-mechanical and electronic reproduction.

** In a particularly striking example, Ehrman cites John 17:15, in which the currently standard texts have Jesus pray to God “I do not ask that you keep them from the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.”  Looking back to a highly respected early source manuscript, Codex Vaticanus (fourth century CE), he finds the same verse reads simply “I do not ask that you keep them from the evil one.”  An entirely different prayer suggesting a drastically different image of Jesus’ personality and character as a teacher/spiritual guide.

‘Winner Takes All’ Makes Losers of Us All

Leave a reply

In a recent column titled ‘We Have Reached End Stage Polarization*,’ conservative Christian writer David French calls out the ill effects of fanning political disagreements into emotional hatred.  “In the United States,” he writes at one point, “there should never be any such thing as a winner-takes-all electoral result.”

Well, today we live under an administration which disagrees; which is governing the nation as if they have taken full ownership of it and who treat other free nations as zero-sum competitors to be trampled on whenever circumstance provides cover.

E Unum Pluribus is a new speculative fiction exploring where such a politics may soon lead us.  In the chaos of the USA’s dissolution, it finds deprivation, mystery, conspiracy and perhaps the first small signs of new beginnings. You can read it for free, starting at: https://robinandrew.net/2026/01/01/e-unum-pluribus/

And, for one small step each of us can take to resist polarization, see also: https://robinandrew.net/2026/01/11/change-your-party-change-the-future/

*NY Times online edition, 2026-03-15

The Winter Soldier, Daniel Mason

Leave a reply

A masterful work that rewards the stout-hearted reader.  Set in the Austro-Hungarian Empire during the First World War, the narrative vividly evokes the cold, hunger, pain and desolation of a nearly-forgotten military aid station serving the Russian front.  Despite having trained in the academics of medicine, Lucius Krzelewski, son of Polish aristocrat industrialists relocated to Vienna after their nation was absorbed into the Empire, is totally unprepared to help the maimed, sick, starved and addled soldiers for whom he is suddenly responsible.  Only the patience and wisdom of the station’s one nurse, Sister Margarete, allows him to fake it till he can make it.  All the while, the front lines advance and retreat, supplies are unpredictable and violence can erupt at any moment. 

Thrown together under such circumstances, it seems ordained by the god of literature that Lucius and Margarete will become attracted to one another, though it is only after a tragic episode involving Horvath, a patient suffering extreme mental distress for which Lucius feels he is close to achieving a breakthrough, that they are drawn to act on their attraction. And, in true romantic fashion, are soon separated, leading Lucius to spend the next several years trying to reunite with Margarete among the chaos first of war, then its aftermath. 

As the novel’s end approaches, it seems Mason is steering Lucius toward a joyous reunion with his loved one but then, in literally the last three pages, he flips the table and crafts an ending which replaces conventional confection with a much superior concoction of wisdom, insight and generosity.

(Spoiler alert:  Lucius himself christens the patient Horvath a “winter soldier,” but later, as his own troubling memories and nightmares – what we today might label PTSD – plague him and isolate him from the comfortable society to which he has returned, it seems he could as well be the titular character.  By story’s end though, one wonders if Margarete is not the true ‘winter soldier,’ the one who has campaigned longest, hardest, most courageously and most selflessly to ameliorate the damage war can do.  In fact, one can even frame this as a feminist novel; all those boastful arrogant males waging war for to salve their egos while, nearly unnoticed, women care endlessly for children, husbands, fathers, rulers, nations.  When we learn Margarete has birthed a child after the war, we are reminded that through all the deadly deprivation of that wilderness aid station, she was also managing her own monthly cycle – discretely, without modern ‘products,’ complaint, days off or even allowing her discomfort to show.  ‘The weaker sex,’ indeed.)

Throughout, Mason demonstrates an exhaustive knowledge of the period, its medicine (he is a physician himself, but a modern one….), warfare in a far-away corner of northeastern Europe, intricacies of the era’s railway network and more.  At times verging near to distraction, this detail ultimately gives his narrative the authenticity and credentials to hold the reader’s attention while he builds our emotional connection to Lucius and Margarete.

Again, masterful.  This is not a book for every reader, but for those willing to weather its painful realties, ample rewards await.  I’m holding on tightly to my copy of Daniel Mason’s The Winter Soldier.

P. S.: E Unum Pluribus is a new speculative fiction about a very different time and place and another government serving its own interests rather than those of its people.   The novel is currently being serialized digitally at no charge and you can be among the first to read it by navigating to this site’s home page and scrolling down to the post titled ‘E Unum Pluribus’ or just select the item of that same name in the top menu.  Any way you get there, it’s totally free!

If you like what you read here at robinandrew.net, feel free to share any posts as widely as possible. And consider subscribing, it’s totally free!

‘e’ is an Enabler

Leave a reply

(aka, Taking our genitalia off the table)

A previous post (‘Novel Words – fictional pronouns for the actual future.’ *) explored the concept of a non-gendered singular pronoun, ‘e’, to supplement our familiar ‘he’ and ‘she.’  Fortuitously, a recent article on the perils of AI suggested another way to frame the case.

With ‘he’ and ‘she’ as our English language’s only widely-accepted singular pronouns (‘they’ carrying the stain of wokeness upon its back in addition to its confusion with the plural and ‘it’ being generally received as an insult whether or not intended as such), alongside the predominant conversational practice of using gender terms (‘man’ and ‘woman’) as if they were synonymous with the bio-sexual (‘male‘ and ‘female’), any inquisitive consideration of gender is pre-emptively shipwrecked on the issue of whether each particular individual carries around a penis or a vagina. 

Thus, perhaps the simplest and most cogent reason to encourage the use of a gender free singular pronoun such as ‘e’: it enables us to discuss gender issues without the need to pin-down (ouch!) anyone’s genitalia. 

P. S.: E Unum Pluribus is a new speculative fiction with its own take on where the current culture wars may be leading our nation, and how even tragic events can spawn new possibilities for the future.    The novel is currently being serialized on this site and you can be among the first to read its opening pages in the post titled ‘E Unum Pluribus.’  

E Unum Pluribus

If you like what you read here at robinandrew.net, please share any posts as widely as possible – and consider subscribing: it’s totally free!

* https://robinandrew.net/2026/01/26/novel-words-fictional-pronouns-for-the-actual-future/

** ‘Open Ai is Making the Mistakes Facebook Made. I quit.’ Opinion section, N.Y. Times online edition, 2026-02-11   https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/11/opinion/openai-ads-chatgpt.html

The Fort Bragg Cartel, by Seth Harp

Leave a reply

Having recently read The Mission, Tim Weiner’s history of the 21st Century CIA, which naturally contains many references to our nation’s Special Forces, it felt appropriate to check out this more populist look at one aspect of those forces.

Based on his own reporting for Rolling Stone magazine and other outlets, Harp gives us an abundance of anecdote; the parade of murders, suicides and drug- and alcohol-fueled behaviors on or adjacent to the Fort is head-spinning.  He provides a substantial ‘Notes’ section as well, though, oddly, these notes are not called out in the text; one has to read them at the back of the book and then, if interested in a particular one, go to the page indicated and search for a key phrase to find the relevant text.  Then too, many of these notes are not attributions. Better than no back-up at all, but less than totally convincing and perilously like the growth pattern of social-media conspiracy theories; a self-referential circle of fingers all pointing to one another with no object at its center.  Regardless there is plenty of evidence here that things are not copasetic.

As its title suggests, the book contends that there has existed for many years some sort of organized smuggling operation centered on the Fort Bragg premises and that this operation is at least tolerated – if not actually headed – by unknown persons higher up in the chain of command than the various Special Forces operatives, support personnel and hangers-on who are directly involved in the book’s incidents.  The argument in favor of this contention is largely of the ‘it seems too likely to not be true’ variety.  At several dramatic points we hear about a thumb drive left behind by one of the murdered smugglers who claimed it documented crimes and criminals significant enough to act as his insurance policy – or to get him killed.  Supposedly still held in evidence by one of several law enforcement agencies which have themselves been repeatedly painted as shielding military miscreants out of ‘blue line’ solidarity with the ‘green line,’ the closest we get to a big reveal of the drive’s contents is when one source tells Harp it actually contains no data, though whether that is because the crucial data was erased by some double- or triple-agent in the ranks or because it never existed at all is left unresolved. In other words, a big nothing-burger.

Regardless whether or not the actual Cartel exists, it seems undeniable that armed forces by their profession accustom some of their members to use of force and violence.  That they groom some personnel, especially strength-proud young males, to believe themselves unbound by the moral and legal codes that constrain civilian life, and that these tendencies are strongest at the ‘tip of the spear,’ units like Rangers, Green Berets, Seals and Delta Force who are increasingly deployed to do the dirtiest ‘wet work’ of our national defense.  Over the decades those ranks have shifted from short term citizen-soldiers to longer-serving career professionals at the same time their assignments have moved farther from ‘regular’ infantry tactics to special operations – small scale infiltrations, espionage, resistance support, sabotage, assassinations and other covert acts sometimes difficult to distinguish from the tactics of the terrorists they now spend much of their time hunting – or from those of hard core criminality.  When soldiers are intensively selected and schooled for the attitudes required by that work, and that training is reinforced by months/years of ultra-high stress and pressure while surrounded by a culture that reveres and rewards self-reliance, cold-calculation and tolerance for brutality (while loosely dispensing powerful and addictive drugs to deal with the fallout), it should not surprise that some of those reflexes continue to direct behavior after their deployments are over or even after their careers have ended.

On the evidence in this book, military leadership cannot be trusted to thwart drug activity and the violence that accompanies it.  Nor can they be relied upon to care for those service persons affected by it, much less to protect service families and the rest of us from the dangers which a few operators – even some who served honorably and heroically – present.  As in so much lately, it is law enforcement agencies and the courts we must rely upon but unfortunately, if Harp’s reporting is accurate, the fraternal bond between military and the law sometimes precludes that, so we are left with a continuing tragedy of broken and deceased servicepersons, wives, families and communities. 

As if that were not enough, The Fort Bragg Cartel’s greatest revelation, to these eyes, is not about drug activities in the U. S. but in Afghanistan.  According to Harp’s reporting, prior to the U. S. invasion there the Taliban had, out of religious convictions, reduced poppy cultivation to near zero with corresponding impact on the flood of heroin and other drugs to users in ‘more developed’ nations.  By itself, a clearly desirable outcome.  Once the U. S. and its War on Terror allies took control though, cultivation began again due both to inattention (by U. S. leadership) and financial incentive (of those allied forces and perhaps also some of ‘our’ people).   Once the U. S. pulled out and the Taliban resumed control, the production of poppies and heroin was again shut down!  In Latin America as well, Harp reports, U. S. political objectives have sometimes led to cooperation and even support of narco-traffickers in exchange for their cooperation with U. S. political goals.  Not a pretty picture, and one further negative consequence of how the War on Terror has been prosecuted and profited off of.

Despite trending more toward the true crime genre than the academic history line, The Fort Bragg Cartel is a useful summary of events worth considering.  It raises worthwhile questions about our government’s role in the drug trade, and that makes it, at the end of the day, a Book Worth Keeping. 

P. S.: E Unum Pluribus is a new speculative fiction about another time, another place and another government serving its own interests rather than those of its people.   A draft of the novel is currently being serialized here at robinandrew.net and you can be among the first to read it, beginning with the post titled ‘E Unum Pluribus’ or by clicking on that same title in the home page’s Top Menu.

If you like what you read here or at robinandrew.net, please share any posts as widely as possible – and consider subscribing: it’s totally free!