> Reports from N’Djamena, the capital, suggested that in the wake of Déby’s death, parliament has been dissolved and the government replaced by a transitional military council led by Déby’s 37-year-old son Mahamat Idriss Déby Itno, a general.
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.
Churchill had to be talked out of attending the D-Day Landings by King George VI - apparently he thought it unfair that if he couldn't attend the landings (which he wanted to do) then Churchill shouldn't be doing it either.
My extreme cynicism makes me doubt it happened this time either. Not giving a victory speech and instead rushing into danger only to heroically die sounds like a cover-up of either a natural causes death or an internal coup.
More likely this was a "show up at a forward base and visit the troops" type thing and the other guys got their hands on his itinerary and a) dumped a bunch of mortars on his general location b) threw every available asset at said forward base and overwhelmed it.
I haven't seen that claim, but even their attack that effortlessly took a border town than was completely repulsed while miraculously killing the president sounds pretty bogus.
That's a bit of credibility, but the rebel leader is on good enough terms with France to get an interview talking about how they assassinated a country's leader? France has military bases in Chad, that seems like an odd connection.
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.
He's not. France froze his assets for being a member of a terrorist organization, and France is the Western power that has always supported Deby and is currently supporting his son. If anything, France has helped the regulary army against the rebels.
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.
Does RFI have a habit of letting terrorist's voice their point of view on the air? Even if they put out a less biased view than the commercial stations, 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.
Well, "terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?
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.
Come up with one reason that France would fund RFI that isn't essentially propaganda. It's the kind of bias that exists outside the internal political debate, which makes it far better than the alternative commercial stations, but the stated goal is to spread the French POV worldwide.
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.
Oh, France absolutely funds it for propaganda reasons, and that was one of the stated reasons of forcing RFI to joint the new, state-backed international Radio-TV group a couple of years ago. That's not even some hidden, secret motivation. It was stated publicly.
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.
Otherwise Germany, 1945, comes to mind. And there are those who fought on the battlefield and later became head of state. They obviously didn't die, but ran a certain risk.
skin in the game. there is something incredibly honorable about it.
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.
> 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:
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" ...)
Even honor based societies can have criminal elements, the Yakuza being an example. This isn't just a Japanese thing, there are even honor based criminal clans such as the mafia.
let's rephrase what you're saying as so it's bulletproof:
All criminal societies have honor based structures but not all honor based structures are criminal.
What German language speakers refer to as "clans" can have 600 or even 1000 people. That's the size of a small town anywhere. Chances that there are people who end up in crime from such a huge sample is obvious. Add to it that the tight-knit structure of that community will be associated to that individual is a weakness in the eyes of another society where a family doesn't have more than max 20 or 30 people. (they won't say "this person is not part of the family", they may only say that person did bad which is not regular behavior for us etc) The loss of honor & face due to being then associated to the criminal elements in their group (in the eyes of others) is almost impossible for them to defend against. Much easier to say I do not know my neighbor who I only went to kindergarden with (but otherwise do not consider as part of my tribe)
> Can anyone picture BoJo, Trump or Biden jumping off a chopper in Overtheristan killing locals?
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.
> 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.
"Reports from N’Djamena, the capital, suggested that in the wake of Déby’s death, parliament has been dissolved and the government replaced by a transitional military council led by Déby’s 37-year-old son Mahamat Idriss Déby Itno, a general"
According to the linked opinion [1], not sure if it is worse. The old guard may have been the equivalent of a bad military council, and the new may have less military resources, may be a better leader, or may be more afraid of the populace.
I'll admit to not knowing the details, but dissolving parliament and putting the old guard's son in charge sounds like more of the old guard, but with more power.
While supplanting a de facto life-long dictator might sound like a good idea to some, countries with weak institutions generally just fall into the hands of another power clique (or remain in the hands of the incumbent crony dynasty if it prevails).
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.
This will at the least reduce stability in the country, which to the average person is one of the most important things.
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.
You can largely replace "western powers" with "France" here. France is pretty well-known for being extremely cozy with the dictators of its former colonies, so long as they represent stability rather than insurgency and let France have some measure of influence in the country. France is pretty unabashedly neocolonial in its treatment of Francophone Africa.
I'd like to add that it is France who controls Chad's currency policy with CFA francs [1]. Some people say it's a modern mean for wealth extraction from Africa.
Yeah, well a guy who gained power through military force is being challenged by rebel fighters... live by the sword, die by the sword.
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.”
Imagine if international disputes were settled by one-on-one combat between world leaders. Our ruling class of flabby fiftysomething bureaucrats would disappear fast
You mean like when Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel by a rival politician? And Hamilton's son was killed in a duel as well?
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
To be replaced by macho 20-30 year olds who excel at one-on-one combat?
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.
If I am going to be ruled by someone (this appears to be the case, at least for the forseeable future), I would rather it be someone like Alexander than someone like Brezhnev
>I'm not sure if this is better.
Spend a little time seriously thinking about it. The status quo is a very low bar
It should be mandatory for all Presidents to be on the battle field. It should also be mandatory for all members of congress and the senate to rotate in and out of the battle field.
Then the Battle of Agincourt happens and you lose something like 1/2 of all of your leaders. Then your status as a world power is lost forever.
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
After the battle of Agincourt, the Armagnac and Burgundians civil war changed forever.
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.
> 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 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.
And the USA has rules preventing military from becoming politicians unless there's a break period. Because the risks of a politicized military are off the charts.
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 French still win the Hundred Years' War even after the Battle of Agincourt, and are clearly the dominant force in Western Europe until the advent of industrialization.
Who were "The French"? The Armagnacs? Or the Burgundians?
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 think you do make a good point. The Armagnacs really were decimated and their prospects dimmed. But the country still had enough of a competent elite that they were able to resist English conquest. That it took another 30 years speaks to the relative stalemate that was achieved, and also shows the French elite were able to field a competent set of leaders.
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.
Moreover, I can only imagine how much grief the Armagnacs went through. It would make for a good opera. (I'm not trying to minimize the grief of the others, but just imagine if a ton of people from one family died - the grief must be different, devastating.) The one analogue I can think of is Mehmet III's summary execution of 19 of his (half)brothers when he ascended the throne.
I think his point wasn’t to have a political class with military experience, but rather a political class that are personally at risk from their policies and decisions.
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.
No, its not what I mean. I want to see the politicians directly affected by their decisions. Like, their kids are sent off to fight along with the poors.
Maybe they'll think twice about sending snuffy off to die if they or theirs will get dead.
I know what you're trying to say. But I'm saying that history doesn't support your viewpoint. I can't think of any political power (be it Caesar, the Knights, Samurai, or whatever) across cultures where the politicians being part of the military had any such benefit you describe.
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.
I’d prefer requiring they have children that serve in the armed forces. Nothing makes you think twice about sending people to die in foreign lands as much as your own child being right there with them.
Well this already happens at some places, but due to some "internal works" (i.e nepotism) their children are always highly ranked and can sit at the comfort of their home country while a war is waged.
Then you'd just be optimizing even more for sociopathic politicians. It's not like caring more about your children than power is some universal behavior in humans.
Is the goal of such a policy to expose our leaders to the horrors of war, and hopefully yield a more compassionate government? A noble idea, but to implement it, you would basically need to actively pursue a state of war.
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.
Politicians do come by the battlefield and then they go home and brag about how they were exposed to war. This is common across the political spectrum.
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.
> How close to danger would you put the politicians
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.
On October 7, 1916, near Bapaume, France, Hitler was wounded in the leg by a shell blast. On October 14, 1918, Corporal Adolf Hitler was temporarily blinded by a British gas shell. This experience helped him a lot to start WWW II.
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.