[...] of a passage that I had expected to get to earlier from Sacred Violence, a work by Paul W Kahn that I was just mentioning in connection to the Chris Hayes “heroism” controversy.  Published [...]

A real yogel will always love any yoga-ing done with heart no matter how the externals externalize. So, go, CK, go!

That's just silly Scott, with the fall of the regime, a vaccuum forms, the difference is sometimes consent results from the use of arms not the franchise, In an earlier thread, I mentioned the Roman Social Wars, a period of strife, a generation after the last big war
in Numantia, the most powerful factions, Marius and his deputy Sulla, arose out of that conflict,

I partly agree with you, but there's a difference between authority and authoritarianism, and between liberalism and its alternatives. "Liberal" has a particular genealogy and shifting meanings in different contexts. What is it that in your mind makes your anarchist professors "liberal"? My guess is that you're referring to social liberal values and libertarian impulses, but that combination is not the same as "anarchist."

I'll believe that they can hold their own in political rhetoric when I see them holding their own in political rhetoric - here or anywhere. Until then... well I could be a great yogi if I practiced enough. (Yesterday, I was really loving yoga, by the way - I think I'm getting it much more - though I would be embarrassed to be seen yoga-ing by a real yogel.)

The liberal democratic state is not really a liberal structure. It's an authoritarian structure to begin with, so it always relied on the authoritarian principle. Anarchists are the real liberals and they are completely unrepresented, of course. Several of my professor friends consider themselves to be anarchists and trust me, they could hold their own here in respect to political rhetoric.

Yes, those who did not abide by the guidelines of international protocols, like insurgents were not subject to them,

Or put more simply, the liberal democratic state relies on an authoritarian principle at some point. You can pay me now, or you can pay me later.

The point isn't that liberal democracy is better or worse than authoritarianism of whatever type, but that at the origins and the limits of any actual liberal democratic state there are questions, potentially the most important questions, bearing on the actual existence of the state, that the liberal democratic state can't solve according to its own principles: the emergency, the state of siege, war, fundamental definitions of citizenship, even, especially in our day, when life begins and ends. At one point Schmitt differentiated between "constituting power" and "constituted power": The liberal democratic state exists within the latter, and its theorists constantly seek to extend its reach - lawyers on the battlefield, for example - but in the emergency or in relation to "the exception" it sooner or later has to call upon the former, which lies beyond law. Schmitt's famous formulation was "sovereign is he, who decides upon the exception." So, for example, 9/11 forced the liberal democratic U.S. into a series of exceptional situations at the limits of existing international and constitutional law, and forced now two presidents to operate within the "gray area" where the law recedes or which the law fails to reach. That happens in all wars, but terrorism is aimed directly at the gray area conceptually. Its existential threat to the state is in that sense more a matter of perception and symbol than material threat.

And authoritarian solutions like Schmitt, can., I don't see how that follows, liberal democracy is the worse system, except for all the others, plus I don't see how you can scapegoat bad command decisions on the likes of the regular infantrymen, airman, sailor.

I think Hayes is quite thoughtful for a TV intellectual, but that's not the same thing as having and taking the time to think one's positions through. I'm not sure whether he's more a fighting liberal or more an anti-imperialist or pacifist at bottom, or something else, or if he knows. It's not necessarily in his professional interest to remove whatever ambiguity.

One of the reasons that people started returning to Schmitt for inspiration was the sense that liberalism - in the form of the modern rule of law-state, not as contemporary social liberalism - was incapable of coping with issues of war and sovereignty consistently, within its own principle. Strauss, Kahn, and Agamben are all good on different aspects of this problem, which was anticipated by Schmitt, and worked out very well for his theory, not so well for his reputation or for the world.

wouldn't take an unreasonable man to find reason for embarrassment with the competence of the Federal generalship and their "strategic" profligate squandering of the lives of their soldiers. despite having vast superiority in force, equipment and medical supplies and medical personnel, they managed to kill off far more of their own men, both on the battlefield and off.

I look I look forward forward to your merciless quibbling.

Well it's splitting the difference, very finely, is Hayes only embarassed about Afghanistan ot Iraq, or does he find something wrong with World War 2, maybe the Civil War,

after reading this offering but quickly and not with the deliberate consideration that it deserves, I'm afraid that I can add nothing other than to say that this is first fucking rate.

I shall study this when time permits in hope of unearthing something with which to quibble,

I will I will.

Well he did have a standard to live up to, trumpeting the 'Iraqi Civil War, talking down the MCA, they developed a track record;

http://www.mediaite.com/online/osama-bin-laden-thought-msnbc-neutral-until-keith-olbermann-firing/