Specifically, the anti-Western law professors defined as the "critical law of armed conflict academy" (CLOACA). As always when the word "critical" is used in the context of legal theory, these academics are bitterly anti-American.At this point I wonder if maybe we're being put on. Onion? No.
It is a serious essay discussed on Powerline by John Hinderaker called Treason of the Professors that was linked several times today. Hinderaker is introducing the ideas developed by William Bradford, that's his paper's title, an Associate Professor of Law, he says, on National Secuirity, and Strategy at the National Defense University and also in Abu Dhabi. His curricula vitae is considerable and all related to security.
These guys who brag like that, ding ding ding, convince us to respect your authoritah.
Bradford posits the West is losing what he calls the fourth generation war, 4GW, without explaining what the 1, 2, 3GWs were precisely, accepting that, the West pursues an ill defined vision of democratic Islamic rule-of-law, Islamists are focused on expanding their religious, political and legal rule.
Secondly, the West underestimates Islamist determination and few acknowledge the threat. Most believe the ideology will follow the path of its ideologic antecedents Nazism, Fascism, totalitarianism to discarded history.
Thirdly, the West has failed to adapt to the changed nature of the conflict that is compounded by its disadvantage in psychological operations. The West holds to outdated ideas of conventional military force being sufficient while Islamists work at destroying the West's will to fight. Islamists recognize that political will particularly of its constituents belief in the legitimacy of their own civilization is vulnerable.
Damn, they're on to us and our incapacitating national schizophrenia where one half of us undoes the advances made by the other, regarding them disadvantages, back and forth until only scraps remain strewn across a desert to be picked off by any random wandering tribe that can put them to focused use.
Bradford continues by asserting Law professors seized the power to define the limits of discussion and they've turned the legal academy (law schools collectively, I guess) into a cohort whose pronouncements are a weapon that supports Islamists military operations by fortifying a PSYOP campaign against American political will. Bradford asserts although the claim applies broadly the real power is with some two hundred academics, experts in law of armed conflict.
Most pointedly, this charge is aimed at a clique of about forty contemptuously critical LOACA scholars (“CLOACA”) who, by proposing that LOAC restrictions on Islamists be waived to provide unilateral advantage, that Western states face more rigorous compliance standards, and that captured Islamist militants be restored to the battlefield, effectively tilt the battlefield against U.S. forces, contribute to timorousness and lethargy in U.S. military commanders, constrain U.S. military power, enhance the danger to U.S. troops, and potentiate the cognitive effects of Islamist military operations.Bradford writes about treason.
He writes about Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.
Alas, the exhausting analysis in pdf form is flawed and so is its author. Other professors chimed in with different impressions. Readers seem to agree the article is target for censor and likely to be forced down. Now, he makes very good points an he's exhaustive with them, he packs his sentences such when they're stripped of their parka feather down padding they amount to "Dan ate." It reads altogether as emotional appeal, a concern so overwhelming and deep that it borders on psychosis, and the conclusion sounds like a cry to heaven.
