And now for something completely different

Iraq and Islamic radicalism dominated this page too much. I've pretty well laid it all out pro and con, and all that emains is the endgame. If we go down my road, great. If we pull out, at least I am now on record with warnings. Saddam was an easy one, and it got botched! Ha. And the Iraqi Government is tied to the mahdi army...I've said what needs doe there too. That's about it, so time to go elsewhere.

Hugo is on the verge of nationalizing Venezuela's industries. Next comes private property redistribution, if Marx can be any use. Given the culture and history, anyone want to bet who actually receives the wealth of the nation? Oh sure, some will trickly down. But it is a sure bet that Hugo and his cronies will get greedy along the way. If he pulls off his plans, he will control more wealth than you realize. A million here and million there is hardly a blip in the pile. But, greed is what it is...and this socialist experiment will be fun to watch. Hugo is many things, but saint is not one of them. Venezuela is heading for the toilet with corruption competing with malaise to bring her to ruin first...

Iran's schizophrenic nuclear program (it is peaceful; we will burn the jews with the sun) received the least possible slap by the ever-ineffectual UN. I find it bizarre that folks think a nuclear Iran is "their right as a nation, after all, WE have nukes..." Ahem, we have a far different philosophy to go with those nukes, eh? We tend to celebrate life. Aspects of Islam tends to celebrate death in martyrdom. That's to say nothing of the Sunni-states' rush to match them in this region. Saudi, Kuwait, Egypt et-al are none-too-keen to be the odd man out in a nuclear middle east. The proliferation threat is as real as Iran's ambitions once they go nuclear. Neither outcome is good for this world.

Half of the wage earners in this country only pay 3.6% of taxes collected. That is the bottom half of the wage earners. The top 5% of wage earners pay 54.1% of all taxes collected. That is today and the data is from the IRS itself and yes, that means under the "Bush tax cuts." Now listen to democrats bang away about how the "evil rich" are not paying their fair share! If you realize the American dream, chances are the democrats loathe you more than they loathe Al Qaeda. If only they had it the other way around, we'd be kicking some ass!

Deficit? There are two choices. Either raise taxes or cut spending. I don't mean from defense either; that is about all the federal government gets right. We could cut so much of the federal government outside of defense, and only those employees would ever notice. The other option, raising taxes, does nothing to curtail spending. That's like pouring alcohol on a drunk...

Another property rights case is heading to the supreme court. If you like the constitution as a basis for our nation---watch closely. Find out for yourself which eminant domain case this is...and when you do the specifics will blow your mind. Yes, this happens every day in your america. And you thought it was only third world dictators that did this crap, eh? Now google your way to knowledge.

If something evil this way comes into your life--say a home invasion or a mugging, who protects you. The police? No, they are only under obligation to catch the bad guy after the fact by court precedence. Don't you know that? They have no legal obligation to stop your mugging or murder. So, your door is being kicked in. How long until the local department responds to your emergency? At best, we're talking dozen(s) of minute(s). For the badguy, he only needs five to loot your house after the few seconds he devoted to taking you out. Not much help there, eh? If you live in the city, chances are you are anti-gun. At the same time, you are wholly dependant on local government for survival--or you have a scat plan to get the hell out of dodge. I find that amusing. Katrina was snapshot of social breakdown, LA had their moments. Yet, those who live in dense urban areas tend to be anti-self defense vis a vis guns, while simultaneously tied to the whims of local government for all the basics of life. It's hard not to picture a herd of sheep:) How strong is this safety net for you? Ever heard of flux-compression generators? How about biotoxins? Where do you get water once the supply is suspect in a city? Then nature--new pandemics dig dense population clusters. Heheh, you think the culigan man will ride into a quarantine zone to quench your thirst??? Social breakdown occurs in dense areas far too easily, yet the same areas tend to liberally eschew gun ownership. I've said so before--I love irony. If you want to know who is responsible to protect you in dire situations--look into the mirror. If you already ruled that guy out--you are out of luck. Remember, the police have families too once things get that bad...so unless one out four of your friends are cops, you are either toast or a gunowner in a crisis.

For what it is worth, the nanny-state dependancy of city-types is why I am a huge second ammendment fan in the first place. I know why it was placed there in the constitution. The framers knew what they were doing. We tend to forget when the good times roll.

Mark McGuire got panned by the sport's writers for the hall of fame. His side-step testimony on steroids before congress was universally cited as the reason. I guess they forgot one little-bitty fact: The year he and Sosa chased the home run record was the year after the strike year. Baseball was in the toilet. Those two sparked the game on the brink and brought fans back in droves. Baseball owes them, and baseball forgets. Oh hell, I gave up on this sport years ago anyway...

On issues, always consider the other side. By that, lay down preconceptions and pretend you want to believe the opposing views. Conduct research and analysis from that position. The worst thing that can happen is that you'll be better postioned to defend your beliefs with logic and passion...

Selling War

The media portrays the Iraq war as a lost cause. The MSM (main stream media outlets) has been slanted against this undertaking from day one, and the longer it goes on, the more they pour on the sour notes of war to our public. Let’s face it, war isn’t a pretty thing. Our side wants to accomplish our goals, and the enemy(s) desire to stymie us. We argue with the tools of death and that makes for some decidedly ugly stories. Hell, that is war on it’s face—just insert Germany, Japan, Great Britain, Spain, etc; it was always thus. So the media has deep cover in slanting stories against the war. It is what it is. But that does not excuse them from ignoring all things that tell the other side—that we do succeed where we tread, and that Iraqis have taken control and stabilized areas within the IZ. That goes unsaid too often in the MSM. It doesn’t even merit a footnote.

This portrayal, constant and unrelenting, in turn drives public opinion. Too few of us have a connection to this war, even indirectly, as our military is so small. That gives the MSM carte blanch in selling the war—only in this case it is selling the defeat of US forces. There are many reasons for this, all subtle and necessarily the subject of another article, but suffice it to say that if you believe that violence does not solve problems, you’re slanted against Iraq in the first place. The agenda, whether intentional or not, is to prove “they” are right about war in general. So goes the coverage, and with it the American opinion polls.

I hear polls quoted daily in the news, and analysis on the recent election that says we are against the war as a nation. I often wonder how this would poll:

“If the US was clearly achieving its objectives in Iraq with progress obvious on all fronts, would you then support the war?”

I bet that would shift the polls in opposite directions. In short, Americans would support a clearly winning effort, in my opinion. I’ve talked at length about why we are not winning and how that could be turned around. The bottom line is we are entwined in a political execution of war down to the tactical level. That alone could be changed easily enough---but it would take some balls to pull off. It remains to be seen if anyone in charge has a pair big enough…

Word is that we may expand the force in Iraq. If the numbers are accurate, it is too little too late to do much of anything. I stand behind my assertion that a win is possible, but only with a major commitment. I’m talking 200-250K sized force, with a streamlining of C2 and a designated interoperability with CJSOTF.

For all the quitters: What do you see happening over the next five years if we withdraw our forces in the near term?

That question sits like a white elephant in the room whenever Pelosi, Kennedy or Reid speaks on the subject. And they refuse to acknowledge the presence. If they had an idea, this could be debated in turn. But they offer nothing but “no more war in Iraq…” as an end state; which is the height of irresponsibility when it comes to national security.

This Global War on Terror is not a political football to be kicked around in Washington. It is actually a war of ideology that we have already conceded too much to. Radical Islam, also a topic of earlier articles, means what it says it means: “We don’t want your concessions, we want you dead…” That from the Hezbollah terrorist that brought you the Beirut Marine barracks bomb. Al Qaeda declared war on the US while Clinton was president. It took 3000 deaths to wake (some of) us up to that fact. Believe it or not, Al Qaeda is in Iraq (and Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Chechnya, France, Netherlands, Britain, and the US).

Yes indeed: If we withdraw now, what then??? Here is an assignment for those willing to expand their minds: Google “Modern Caliphate” and read on.

The war is on whether we run or fight. From my military perspective, I’ll tell you that the fighting is best done elsewhere. From my historical background, I can tell you that once the fight is enjoined locally, we’ll find a warrior class in unlikely places. We’re not fighting alone today; we have some great allies in this war. But if we quit these allies and the Iraqis now, we will lose what little support we had, while gaining new converts to the “enemy.” To deny this is to stick your head in the sand—it is as obvious as a sunrise.

So, the withdrawal crowd does not wish to debate this aspect of their plan. It is no wonder. The media packages the “disaster” in Iraq as a tidy little problem defined by the geography—so little attention is paid to the inevitable “what comes next.”

In short, the polls reflect ignorance. The MSM holds a lion share of the blame for this; but there are two co-conspirators involved. The first is the Democrats in the House and Senate who advocate quitting without considering consequences---where the ignored consequences constitute a gross level of negligence rising to treason. The second culpable entity is the public itself—for if you absorb anything fed to you without any semblance of curiosity you become an automaton who is told what to think. Worse, you actually believe what you are told to believe. Sadly, there are those who peddle to that for personal gain, while the country can be damned. Sadder still are those allowing this to happen out of pure laziness. Too many can’t be bothered to understand the “responsibility” that comes with “rights.”

I said in a reply to a comment, “Success is a decision…” (http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=32663122&postID=116485994736099206
Bottom of the page)

It is true; we either decide to win—and then commit to do just that…or we quit, lose, surrender, or whatever you want to call it. That is it in a nutshell. To decide to win, pin the rose on a general (one, and only one) and tell him to win, no restraints. Or walk away. But to walk away without an understanding of the fallout scenarios will be judged harshly by history. If “we” write that history, that is. If our enemy writes that history, the failure in Iraq will be seen quite differently. It will be the watershed moment in ascendancy.

In the end, Americans love a winner. Our own MSM painted Iraq as a failure, and the left carried that torch with glee. I don’t know how to solve either problem, except to shine a light on it and hammer home that this is truly “un-American” in the final analysis. If reasoned arguments don’t work, a rising indignant chorus might shame them into some self examination. But one thing we can do is decide to win and get after it. Like I said, that will take some balls. But once we did this, and the results go public….

America will love it’s winner.

Success as a failure in Iraq, Part II

Our definition of success isn’t flawed per se, but our timeline to implement it is. In typical western fashion, we’ve applied our own world-view to both the problem and the solution. The Iraqi viewpoint be damned; we have a parade to plan. So a fledgling Iraqi Army is not up to fighting insurgents? Make it a bigger fledgling Iraqi Army! More is better. It reminds one of any other governmental exercise: If something doesn’t work, reinforce it with dollars, resources and manpower until the fix becomes a new problem while the original problem is forgotten. That is how we seem to be pursuing our victory now in Iraq: If it isn’t working, we shall do more of it faster. I’d be remiss to bitch about all this and not present any alternative.
First, insurgencies tax even the most proficient armies; suppressing this one should be the US of A’s number one priority. Iraq needs a military, but not 300K strong---it would do nicely with about 100K. Take that nascent Iraqi force and EMBED them with us (we do it the other way around now). Put one Iraqi squad with one US platoon, add an Iraqi Platoon leader to each US Company Commander, an Iraqi Company CO goes to our battalion CO—and they get trained, daily, while we fight the insurgent/ terrorists head on. This mentorship process could go a long, long way to forming a value system into this new Iraqi Army too. The bonds forged in fires between the US force and the 25% or so Iraqi attachments will be strong, and the influences cannot be understated. Need a civilian control of the military tradition in a hurry? This is one way to expedite the process! Remember: Iraqis have a whole different view about uses of the sword after one enemy is defeated. Hint: It ain’t forging plowshares.
Yes, we need to increase both the overall size of our ground forces, and commit more to Iraq. We need area specialists, not traveling road shows. Insurgencies do one thing better than we can---they go to our weakness. We move in somewhere strong, they move to where we left. The solution is as obvious as their strategy: Garrison the hell out of Iraq and deny the terrorists anything but wasteland to gather. Our airpower can deal with that. Oh, and while we are talking more US forces—we need to aggressively patrol three borders: Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Enforce crossing points and shoot any who try their luck elsewhere along the frontiers. It’s time to stop the international aspect of this little BS game we play in the State Department.
With a firm presence committed to a manageable AO, we can bring security to the Iraqi people. We can hire young men away from mayhem into services for THEIR tribal areas. And, we can focus on realistic-sized police departments; say Chicago-sized forces as opposed to the Brigade sized overmatch departments we currently think we need to field. Once WE, the US, reduce the insurgency—Iraq won’t really need all those gun-toting bribe solicitors. Better it is to have fewer power brokers running around once we leave. Besides, did we not just dismantle a police state???
So, to avoid leaving ahead of the Junta seizing power, we must assume the fight against the insurgents in proven fashion to win. While we do this, we can adopt smallish slices of the Iraqi armed forces to train from within our structures at the appropriate levels. We can weed out the problem children effectively as hell this way too. We get to pick 1 out of 3…the remainder becomes reservists, and continues under the current model. We take an area of Iraq, then we stay and secure it. More US troops will be needed, as we need to do this in a very widespread fashion. GEN Eric Shinseki can say “I told you so” from his forced retirement---he was correct in his assessment pre-invasion after all. Finally, as we bring peace to these villages and tribal areas, we also bring jobs in the form of rebuilding.

Then, when we do leave, we leave the young democracy with a smaller Army that has a slightly different outlook on the collective future; the people will have a police presence but not a police state; and the population will be employed in public works and not in public mayhem.
It could work…but we must stop defining both the problem and solutions in only our terms. And, we really ought to ask, “what happens next” more and more before jumping on our withdrawal bandwagons. Currently, neither side has done this questioning. Those who think a rapidly stood up army and police force is our way out AND those who think we should cut bait now fail to gaze into the crystal balls of the Arab way. As it is, we have failed to define success and wished away the aftermath of failure by focusing only on bringing home our troops. That homecoming is the objective for both sides of this debate. Neither side speaks of post-withdrawal Iraq—the “what’s next Iraq” if you will. And, isn’t the future Iraq the whole damned point of our spilled blood???

Success as a failure in Iraq, Part I

The United States has broadly outlined its goals in Iraq as “a free and stable representative government with a military and police force capable of handling internal (and external) threats.” Add to that our desire to do it as quickly as possible so we can withdraw our forces—and another picture emerges. It is that ever-elusive “what happens next” scenario that our “here today, gone tomorrow” thinking can never quite grasp. Let’s explore the reality:

In order to withdraw, the conventional wisdom in the US is that we need to stand up as much of an Iraqi army and police presence as it will take to quell the violence without our help. We hear this daily---as they do more, then we can do less. And ultimately, we can come home and be done with it.

That is our view of “victory in Iraq.”

What we will leave behind is a hastily trained, overly large army and police force flush with its success in relieving the Americans of the burden of fighting their fight. This armed monolith may be the only successful apparatus of the entire Iraqi Government at that point in time. All these armed fellows will be right proud of themselves while we go back to the good ol’ US of A and toss down on a few parades.
Consider civilian control of the military as a concept. This works if both sides are loyal to one-another, if both sides trust the other, and if a few iterations of “change” have gone by to prove the concept. I short, this concept takes some getting used to.
We are in a hurry, so I doubt the voters will be allowed to prove this concept before we leave all these new-elected civilians and newly invigorated armed-to-the-teeth military types to their own devices…

Now consider our founding fathers’ primary fear: A standing Army. And for good reasons; power being what it is. So, in establishing our republic, they made civilian control of the military a central feature---and then curtailed the Army at every turn. That is why, throughout our history, we bled our army a bit as we built it in times of crisis. It was generally thought better to take a few thousand extra casualties for being unprepared than to have a trained Army lying about with nothing to do but eye the seat of government. It doesn’t take long before some general to think he could do better than the elected clowns, eh? How many of you have thought that lately (not our generals, but our armchair politicos!). So, a group of trained and armed, closed-culture, monolithic thinkers scared the powdered wigs off our forefather’s heads. Add to that the Arab paternalistic worldview: Our Forefathers may have created a sit-in over the revolution had they been Arab!

Now look at Iraq: No tradition whatsoever of Civilian control of the military (Saddam strutted about in army duds for a reason); no tradition of succession of power following an election; many traditions in might makes right and he who holds power counts votes.
Anyone else see the potential backslide yet?

Here it is in a nutshell: We remove Saddam because he is a Ba’athist nutjob, steamrolling over his people, his neighbors, and rattling sabers at the world; then we declare that our victory is a huge and self sustaining military establishment wedded to a fledgling government fractured by ethnic distrust; and as we hit those marks we leave. What happens next is that we end up with a Sh’ia version of Saddam in short order, propelled into power by the same military that enabled us to go home.

Ironic, isn’t it?

What to do about Iraq

The “leaked” assessment from the Pentagon gives us three options: Stay as we are now and stay forever; Send in more troops and stomp it out quickly; or cut-and-run. Well golly, no kidding? Of course those are the only options! But what is needed is an honest assessment of each course, with all the possible variations within each. The “go big” option will require some force analysis; we aren’t deep in reserves right now, and any increases in Iraq will require some new rules regarding tour lengths and reserve call-up authorities. And, since the cut-and-run option is so popular within our media and the political left, we may as well take a realistic look at what happens next if we do that. I think it is obvious that “stay as we are and stay longer” is a failed idea. So really, it comes down to winning or losing; call withdrawal whatever you want, but it is what it is. Regardless of your definition of cut-and-run, the one that counts will be the one our enemies conjure up for it. If you need a historical model, look at UBL’s take on our withdrawal from Somalia and then at what he decided to do to us once he saw us in that light. That viewpoint, that we are a "weak willed people," will be reinforced to those who took action against us on 9/11, and it will resonate in those who sat on the sidelines: The so-called “moderate” Muslims of this region.

To begin with, why are we still pursuing a failed military policy in Iraq if we allow that the Generals can ask for more troops from the President (as he often says in news reports)? The straight answer is that we cannot expand our presence in Iraq because we do not have a big enough military to do so. Doubling, or even tripling force levels would not guarantee a fixed time to win—so the rotation of forces that we now have would be shelved. Our troops would serve for the duration. Enlistments would expire, and all hell would break loose as we forcibly “extended” those soldiers to keep units intact. Politically, that would not play well. The outgoing SecDef had a part in forcing the failed strategy as well. He was pursuing his smaller force structure with the modernized weaponry with vigor. To now say that more people were needed in Iraq, and that our technology alone was insufficient against this insurgency, would undermine his whole “future army” plan. He needed to make the “facts” fit his view of the future that he formed long ago—for a war we never fought or indeed, never will. Believe me, our Generals got the message: Support Don or get pushed into retirement. The Wolfowitz view of a quick, popular war played into this as well. To increase troops would be an admission of error, and the original fantasy of Iraqis rising up with flowers at our feet died a slow death with the neocons. That is the political side of it.

The military went along with this because it basically had no choice. The Army was too small to increase the ground strength, and the reserves were scheduled to be tapped out sooner rather than later. There was no alternative without getting new law passed thru congress. With the mood of the country and of the congress, there was precious little desire to attempt this. Again, it would undermine many previous positions on many fronts. To maintain what we had, we couldn’t “flex” more troops into the fray---we just don’t have them. There are those who feel that we are breaking the army now; to increase the forces in Iraq would surely do just that. That is the military reality of it. It has not changed today, in fact, it is worse as the reserve 24-month cycles get used up under partial mobilization laws.

So it would seem the easy way out is to cut-and run. Leave Iraq to its’ own success or failure; good luck guys and all our best wishes! In the short term, we will have a decent budget in Washington. That is, until the bills come due to “reset” the military equipment that is worn out by hard use. But the interesting question isn’t what happens at home, but what happens in Iraq after we pull out? Will Al-Qaeda also pull out go to where ever they call home? Or will they stick around and create instability so that they can establish training bases and build a power base politically—think of Hezbollah in Lebanon; politically linked and solidly infused. Do we want an Al Qaeda tied that closely to a state? Didn’t we undo just that sort of set up in Afghanistan? And what would Iran do about that big Sh’ia region atop half of Iraq’s Oil? Al-Sadr is aligned with Iran—and Hezbollah has a presence in that southern region. Some may not ascribe any threat to Iran—but be warned: Iran under current management is no friend to the US or the Sunni Governments in the region. An expanded Iran, emboldened by our lack of will, is something to consider. See my previous writings on Islam and the end of times traditions—then read up on Iran’s leaders’ views on the same. It is some scary stuff.

In short, our withdrawal will increase instability in the region in rapid order. This instability will not be controlled, nor could we stop it with everything we have. Iran and the south of Iraq will break away from the federation if provinces. The Sunnis in Baghdad and Anbar will see that their source of income is slipping away, and they will take action. Iran will side with the Sh’ia. The Kurds will circle their wagons to hold what they have. Turkey will watch with alarm as a Kurdistan forms on the border. The Turks will not allow that to happen. Kuwait, deeply suspicious of Iraqis in general and Iran in particular will be in a quandary. Will they trust the US to continue to shield them, or will they seek a relationship with the new regional power to protect themselves (if only in the short term). Imagine Iran calling the shots for OPEC…


The hard truth is that we must increase our troops in Iraq and win. The alternatives are none too savory. It is a bitter pill to swallow to change the rules of deployments, but we must. What we are doing now is going to an area where the insurgents pop up and crush them. Then, we return to whatever base we came from until the insurgents come back, go elsewhere, or flow behind us. We win a battle, but lose the town in the long run. To win, we must secure the secured area—we go and stay, and fight as we must. We must be everywhere; we must deny the insurgent “safe areas” within the country. We must screen the borders at a minimum to slow the influx of foreign fighters. This all takes enormous manpower, and relatively little technology. It is the exact opposite of the Rumsfeld vision.
By securing and holding areas of Iraq, we can then begin rebuilding in earnest. Currently, we get a power grid up then move on to the next project across town. In the meantime, the grid is looted for scrap copper, and the insurgents target the infrastructure to set us back. We must stick around and prevent that. Again, that takes more manpower. LTG Petraus was credited with pacifying the Mosul region in Iraq after the invasion and for his entire stay. Then, it is said that this "success" was illusionary because it exploded with terrorist activity after he walked away—as if this meant it was a failure. That is a shallow take on what was happing: He was successful in Mosul because he had the troops required to cover the territory. The unit that replaced him was less than a third of what he had in place. That meant one-third the coverage—which gave the terrorists freedom they did not have when LTG Petraus was there. What Petraus proved was that it takes more, not less, troops to prevail.
This is how you win against an insurgency: You deny them all areas of operations by being strong everywhere at once; you deny them popular support by operating reconstruction projects—meaningful improvements—in those secure areas. If you do this over a big enough area—you win. It takes time still, but it is worth the effort. An insurgency has many advantages: Surprise, choosing his time and place for engagements, the ability to blend in with the population at large (show me a smart bomb that distinguishes between a shop keepr and an insurgent dressed as a shopkeeper). Why give them yet another advantage? We did exactly that by applying our absurd "economy of force" in Iraq for all the wrong reasons.

A win is a self sustaining, imperfect democracy that has mechanisms to share the wealth of the nation throughout its society. That means educational opportunity, jobs, upward mobility for the masses. That means that UBLs message of suicide bombings and martyrdom doesn’t sell as easily among this population—they have something else; a better life to strive for, and better still for their children. That is precisely why Al Qaeda calls this the central front against the US—they know the stakes even if we do not.

A win also places a democratic model next to some of the most repressive regimes on the planet. Neighboring populations can look next door to a vibrant society with opportunity for all. How long will they struggle under the yolks of repression with that vision at hand?

The larger War on Terror is a major struggle that faces us. To win, we cannot just kill all the terrorists. We must strangle their recruiting effort. The current order in the Middle East nurtures would be terrorists within these repressive environments where hope is nonexistent; change must occur in this hopelessness for us to prevail. Iraq represents our best hope for such a change. If we walk away now, we will lose the only chance we may ever have to win against terrorists.

And rest assured, if we walk away now our enemies will follow us home. You do not want to know what infidels deserve in the eyes of a terrorist. The ugliness they will visit upon you does not have the limits of human decency that you hold dear. It is vastly different for them against you; witness one beheading video or look into the Beslan school massacre. An Infidel is to be slaughtered like farm animals---no, they have more regard for food---but you get the picture.

Often, it is said that our presence in Iraq spurs terrorist recruiting. That is probably true. But imagine how easy recruiting terrorists will be if we prove Bin Laden correct in his view that we are morally corrupt and weak? If we withdrawal, that will be proof positive to legions of Muslims who will flock to Al Qaeda in numbers not yet seen. With a rudimentary understanding of Islam, it is easy to see the draw that Bin Laden and his fellow travelers can have. They preach what the Qu’ran states; only they say their action fulfills Islam’s destiny. That is a powerful message in that culture, and if it appeals to just 1% of Islam—we are all but defeated. Our pull-out from Iraq before the job is done will go a long, long way to spreading Al Qaeda’s hateful message among the wider faith. That is not something I wish to see in my children’s future. It is bad enough already with the small number of adherents bringing us such things as 9/11, the USS Cole, the African Embassies, and the emasculation of Spain. Imagine what they could do with a million followers? That’s 0.1% in real terms…

The stakes are very high and i doubt that many in our Government see the risks as clearly as you might expect. We really ought to prevail in Iraq, but I rather doubt that we will. The Baker report is due out in a few days, and that will play as political gospel. Jim Baker is many things, and a fairly intelligent man, but he no scholar of Islam or Military operations. Nor are there many of those in our Congress. Positions do make one an expert in anything---that came with them if at all. So, the likely result is going to be another failed strategy or a phased retreat with no real understanding of the consequences. Yes, that is possible. Do not think that our government has sense; it is as imperfect a form of governing there is (except for all the other forms). We ended up with what we have now through a series of preconcieved notions and some circular logic. The downward spiral of standing on "we have enough troops" in Iraq started with the preinvasion optimism, went through Rummies dream of a small, lethal army doing great and mighty things, and ended with the realization that we are stuck with too small a force to do much else with under current rules. The party line of "we have enough troops" was fed to the Generals, and ultimately became a self-fulfilling prophecy as we stayed years on end, muddling around Iraq barely holding the line with too few troops--because we now had to replace those troops on endless rotations. Which meant we were stuck. The remaining troops are now part of the rotation. Had they been commited in an all-out effort, perhaps we would have accomplished our goal in 24-36 months. Instead, we have troops on their third tour (36 months) anyway--with no end in sight.
In other words, it is time to throw everything we have at this mess. Let's get it done and come home to a few parades. It will be hard on the force, to be sure. It will be hard for congress to adjust the laws to make it possible. In fact, it will be too hard...

That is why we will fail.

And that is why I am retiring...

A soldier's view of things

Seving in Iraq in 2004, then again in late 2005, one thing did not change. That was going on a patrol, having an engagement, kicking butt, and coming back to a satellite feed to watch what may have been another war in another place; but instead was MY country getting fed a bleak story of the day's events. We end each day feeling like we are winning. But our media tells us we are full of it! Like they would know. How many journalists, aside from Ollie, can you say for certain served in the military? Yeah, they know what they're talking about. And, if not the media, where does America form their opinion on this war? First hand? Maybe, but that still leaves 98% unaccounted for.

The terrorists know they can't stand up to a US platoon and prevail. Not even at 3 to 1 odds in their favor. Yet he fights. His objective is not to defeat the armed forces. He wants to defeat the American public. He saw that work in Vietnam, and Osama tells him this is the way to victory. They may be right, after all.

Al-Qaeda is a Sunni thing. Iraq is mostly Sh'ia. Numbers win in unrestrained civil war. So, you think Synni bad guys and Sh'ia badguys won't work together? Al Qaeda's strategy of stirring up ehtnic violence is aimed at civil war, yet they will loose that to the Sh'ia majority (with the Kurds effectively going purely defensive). Why would they pursue a goal that leads to their ouster. Hmm. Why indeed? Perhaps the Sunni-Sh'ia at odds thing is overrated? An enemy of our enemy is our friend...

The President says "Stay the course." He means pursue victory in Iraq in the up and down of war. To think he meant doing the same thing over and over in the face of repeated failure is insulting. The insult is not on the President. It is on us--your military! You see, the NCA (the National Command Authority) gives the Military command a series of objectives. We figure out the tactics, the underlying strategies, and make adjustments. If you think that "stay the course" meant we just kept going out the same way, getting blown up in the same places, you have a very dim view of your military.

And, along those lines, those with military experience are a mere fraction of the population as a whole. Yet there are no shortages of armchair generals full of great ideas. I can't wait to hear the new congresses' idea of "new directions" in Iraq.

John Kerry insulted the troops. I do not care one bit what he might have said. It is what he has said that is important. He made some crazy statements in the so called "Winter Soldier" hearings, he made even worse accusations in the Senate Fulbright Hearings, he is on record condemning our troops to the very acts of the terrorists we are fighting. His recent comments are in keeping with his previous sentiments--and we feel the insult deeply. We just do not understand his loathing of our nation--for we are our nation; from doctors to lawyers, to farmers, to inner city kids, to the affluent. We hail from everywhere, and marvel at our similarities. To the vast unitiated--you have no idea what you are missing. It is a great military we have! Yeah, we don't get the John Kerrys of our country.

Swift boaters: Does anyone have any idea about the loyalty of a unit blooded in combat? These guys would never sell out one of their own, unless they got sold out first and fiercely. Much can be forgiven, but crossing the loyalty barrier or dishonoring another of your "family" is not viewed well. But it takes more than once to break that bond. Kerry was slammed by the vast majority of his entire unit. That in itself is extremely rare and telling for those of us in this brotherhood. It is an absolute conviction with no reasonable doubt--nor unreasonable doubt for that matter! If it was just lower enlisted, maybe Kerry was hard but fair. If it was peers alone, maybe Kerry was envued for his prowess, if it was a commander--maybe it was a personality thing. But the swiftees were all of these. The only way they would ever turn on one of their own is if that one deserved much worse. That is a fact of service that those who never served will never fully understand. The swifties didn't swiftboat Kerry. Kerry swiftboated his former team! And they let him know he crossed a line. This was never about politics on the team's part--it was about honor among warriors. If you think otherwise, you do not have a DD214. It is that simple.

Afghanistan is NOT descending into chaos. But the badguys flowed around our strengths to our weaknesses as insurgents are wont to do. They spend the winter holed up, and when the mountain passes clear, each spring, they renew their activities. Like the NVA, these taliban have sanctuary over an international frontier that we cannot cross. They go away in the winter, recruit, and come back in the spring. That is the nature of this war. Two points to remember: First, NATO took over all of this country; Second, Pakistan is on the edge politically with a moderate in charge by coup and a huge restless population of radicals. To go after, as some suggested, the taliban in western Pakistan is to incite an uprising among the radicals. Is getting Osama worth giving Al Qaeda access to nuclear weapons????

Partitioning Iraq is floated as a great idea. I hope we think this one through before we try it. A worse idea may exist, but I have yet to hear it. Turkey would be real happy with a Kurdistan, wouldn't they? Especially one with oil revenue.. Yeah, since they occupy a big chunl of historic Kurdistan, they'd just sign it over to the new republic, eh? No, they'd fight to crush it, widening the war. Iran would do what with Sistani and a Sh'ia state at their door? Kuwait, our best friend in that region, is not so keen on this idea in the south. They are Sunni, they hate Iraqis, and fear Iran's influence. Oil sharing? After what the Sunnis did to Kurds and Sh'ia, can you really be serious that they would honor any such agreement? The Sunnis would fight even harder in the aftermath. Al qaeda is the big winner in this scenario. Disaffected Sunnis are easy recruits to their cause, and the chaos will cover their training bases nicely. Partition Iraq and watch the region go to hell in a handbasket.

On tactics: The key to an insurgency is the population. So why does the Army orient its sectors of responsibility on geography? The Tribal land falls on both sides of the road; the family lives on both sides of the river! So the Sheik has his "area" straddling two army commanders. One enforces roadblocks and curfews at one time, the other commander uses a different time. The sheik thinks we're idiots. On the other hand, SPECOPS orients on populations, assigning teams to ethnic areas rather than geographical areas. This way, they get to know the tribe in its entirety, and the tribe has one voice to communicate with. Wanna know how to win this war? Stomp hard on the damned ego and make CJSOTF the primary command of all forces in the zone. That will never happen, though. Too many senior officers would get their feelings hurt...

So, without that, can we win this war? No. Our current leadership is just not up to fighting an insurgency. By the time the kids who are learning how NOT to fight one grow up, it will be far too late to make a difference here. The public, ever our achilles heal, will have quit us.

3000 casualties in a 3 year insurgency? To hear it in the media we have set a record on killing. Hey, in civil war battles, we lost that much in a day and more! This is a very, very low number for what we are engaged in. We are doing some things right tactically, if just marking time strategically. So, Iraq is a descending into chaos? Hello; it is war after all. It is supposed to be chaotic. The enemy sort of wants it to be. He;s not into just standing there to be shot; indeed, he wants to achieve his own objectives. In this case, his win is to get us to go home. Leave. His win will be a disaster for us. So, what is the solution? In this case, perserverance will win. It won't be pretty (few wars earn that distinction), but it will come to pass. To win, we must be prepared for our blood to spill. We need to double and in cases triple troop strength--and increase their exposure to enemy activity by aggressively getting after them, while staying in the places we clear.

Can the Iraqis handle that? Yeah, in 10-15 years, hands down. Bill O'Rielly once commented that it only takes us 9 weeks to produce a soldier--and that much is true. Then we spend 3-4 years making a Sergeant, 5 years making a Company Commander, 18 years making a Battalion Commander, 22 years making a Brigade Commander and 30 making generals. Building an army from scratch is no 9 week solution. Those who never served just do not get it.

Al-Sadr needs to be taken out. His militia targeted. We knew this in 04, and had him in a corner. Then Bremmer pulled the plug. He decided, with CENTCOM's concurrence, that Al-Sadr should be an Iraqi problem to be dealt with as they saw fit. Now, remember that we even provided that same Iraqi goverment with our own guys for body guards at the time--how in the hell did we expect them to deal with the Mahdi Army??? Yeah, that screw up is biting us in the butt to this day. And worse now is that Sadr is politically allied with the PM. First order of business, if we are serious about trying to win--is to neutralize the threat that Sadr and his little army poses. If we do not, just sign the damn mess over to Iran now and be done with it. Politically hurt-feelings can be survived. A civil war with Iran in one corner is far worse.

Did you know that Hezbollah is in Iraq?

I enjoyed my tours in these war zones immensely. I missed my kids and my wife terribly, yet volunteered again and again. I am far from alone in this sentiment. I saw young kids doing magnifiscent things daily. I laughed so hard at some of the funniest things on the planet. I met some outstanding individuals in unlikely places. I survived some crap, and felt more alive than can be described. The IZ was like a reunion for old friends--so many troops from my long career came out of the woodwork along the way. And, I knew I was making a difference. All those years of training, all that my country gave me...I had the chance to give some back. A strong sense of duty--not to you, or even our flag--but to those troops serving with me--compelled me to go. My twenty years were up, I oculd have quit then. But I really couldn't. It took 28 months over there to finally sense that I did enough. The good news is that I leave many who feel obliged to serve their fellow troops--to give back all that they received and sadly, more at times. I lost more than a few good friends since this all began...and mourn each on the various anniversaries of their deaths.

In war, there are never any easy solutions. It is no sanitary undertaking. It is messy.

And we really haven't had such a deserving enemy, if ever. That is a powerful motivator. Go online and watch a beheading video once. Just once, for you will never wish to see another. Go and see what we are fighting over there. Do it for a soldier, somewhere, and maybe then you will know what supporting him means underneath the sloganism.

All we really want is to be allowed to finish this thing--without all the handwringing and defeatism from those who never will stand for anything. Let us be, and go on with whatever you were doing...

More random thoughts

I took time off from posting to recover from shoulder surgery. I'll let you know how that was in 5 months. Right now, liked the injury better than the fix!

Th elections are over and we all know the results. Somehow, I sense that nothing significant will change. The country is polarized, and both republicans and democrats seem to be afraid of this. For the right, they couldn't bring themselves to meaningful border security, reforming social security (if you think that is a non-issue, then you fail at math 101), and they failed most of all in explaining the links of the GWOT and OIF AND the dire threat each poses to our way of life. The dems, for their part, will fail to pull out of Iraq, will balk at raising taxes, and WILL expand government at the same breakneck pace we are used to seeing lately. All because the virulent politics on both sides. It makes for confusing poll numbers...and the failing of both parties will be their slavish devotion to polls...and the resulting lack of meaningful direction imposed by a perverted "popularity contest."
Rums'fled fled the field. I'm glad, and it was overdue. His failing was NOT the war in Iraq or any reason the media has floated--those are way off base and show a very shallow understanding of war itself (I'll post more on this topic later maybe). Rummy's failure was his "style" and his out-dated vision on modernizing our land forces.
His style is summed up as "my way or the highway" and the brass got the message early on with Shinseki's soft boot out the door. This style is great for a while to assert yourself as the boss-but unless you have the gift of perfection, sidelining opinion can be very bad. Rummy told us we had enough troops from the get-go, and said so at every turn. When the generals were asked, they already had their answer--it was told to them that week in a press conference. Say what you want about what this says about our military--but this is the culture we imbue. Follow orders, once given. And to challenge this necessarily challenges the civilian control of the military. Nobody, not even this humble soldier, wants to go there!
The second point is his vision of the "leaner-lethal" force modernization. That's great in a historical sense--after all, wars follow the same pattern from the Civil War to Korea, Vietnam ended in the same pattern, and Gulf war one had the same pattern as well: Linear formations, lines of contact, and maneuver to objectives. A lethal force would do well indeed. But something happened to the Russian Army in Chechnya. Something happened to us in Somalia. We're getting it in Iraq now too, as well as in the 'Stan. Our damned enemies aren't playing by the linear pattern anymore. In fact, they've decentralized their C2 and their forces in the face of overwhelming force! That is suicide, isn't it? Apparently not, eh? What has happened is they have shunned the pitched battle that a "lethal, lean force" can prevail in and instead opt for hit and run--ambush on their terms with a melt-away into the population before any of that firepower can be brought to bear. In other words, they have negated the advantage of firepower and technology, and even current numbers. War has changed. Rummy's view of it and his ideas to be better at it have not. Hence, he was on the way down the wrong path.

That is why the guy had to go. Too bad the lesson that we needed to learn will be lost on the stupid politics and Bush-hatred that will define the result.

So, the angry left wants to withdrawal from Iraq. What if they get their way? What happens afterwards? If you believe that our going into Iraq swelled the radical muslim's ranks--you have no idea what a true surge in radicalism looks like. On withdrawal, you will catch a glimpse of the true meaning. If you think otherwise because "you wouldn't feel that way if we left your country"--in other words, if you define this belief on YOUR beliefs--YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO HAVE AN OPINION IN THIS MATTER. But you will anyway. You just won't bother to look at it from the true viewpoint of the terrorists; choosing instead to use your own filters to put your ideas into their heads. Hell, they are telling us now how they feel--they are not lying or exaggerating; they expected us to fold--and we just may do so sooner rather than later. That is a huge win for them; and that will embolden them, and many fence-sitting moderates will look again at radicalism with new respect. All that is bad for us. Worse for the folks who dominate liberal thinking in this country, as ironic as that may be!

After all, just look at the U.S. as a series of the most lucrative targets. Now overlay the blue-red county voting pattern map. See how the blue areas seem to be great places for a nuke? If you could ever be completely objective about such things without qualms--it would make a great Shakespearean Comedy. The voters who voted weakness in the face of the enemy catch the wrath of the enemy they failed to recognize. Me, I sit on defendable terrain, far away from centers of commerce and social activity. I get to watch. I will not laugh if I am right and the left is way wrong...but I will say "I told you so" to the survivors.

Subpoenas flying about DC is no way to govern. Petty pay-back politics will be similarly rewarded as was corrupt do-nothings in this last cycle. Beware the temptation, o democrats. Honestly, I feel the dems won't be able to help themselves once Nancy gets the gavel. They'll run us into the ground with federal paralysis (which isn't altogether a bad thing).

(any insult in the following passage is purely unintentional unless you are a socialist--in which case it is wholly intentional)

So, you voters want those evil rich people to pay more than their fair share of taxes? Did you ever wonder who writes your paycheck? Is it poor people? I think not. Oh, and how about increases in business taxes? We'll make the evil oil companies pay those nasty profits back to the people! Tax them to hell! Okay, the people have spoken! Now, let's examine the fallout.

Bossman gets taxed and now his mortgage is hard to meet. He looks over the bottomline and decides he must consolidate your position so he can take a bit of a raise out of HIS enterprise. You don't expect him to stay in this racket, risking HIS money, for less money, do you? No, he'll cut a job or two if he can, or "retire" and close shop altogether. Multiply that across 300 million folks, and the jobless rates start to climb and climb. Now, you are unemployed, and who is paying YOUR taxes? So, this scenario is not your problem? Think supply and demand, you idiot: More people wanting jobs means I can offer LESS money and still get applicants to chose from. The boss can cut your pay--and if you don't like it, then you can leave--because the line forms at the left to replace you for pennies on the dollar! It's an employers market, desperate people will cut you throat to get that last job. Now, we're at 4.4% (a silly-low fraction) unemployed, and you command a good salary, dude! There's not enough workers floating around to expand "new jobs" upon...so more money is needed to attract those applicants. This is known as an employees' market! But none of that is important--cuz them evil rich guys need a good soaking. Duh. Now, let's talk taxes on business. Guess where those are collected: at the gas pump or bar scan pricing codes. Yes, YOU pay those. Look at the unions in this country fighting pay cuts in bankrupt companies. They're in court every day across the nation, fighting paycuts at the risk of losing the whole workplace. So, when the business tax goes up: The worker won't stand a pay cut; The boss won't stand a pay cut (he can take his toys and go home before that happens); and the shareholders won't either--and they can "sell" the company out of existence if that is even suggested. So, who will pay this new corporate tax? Me, you, the other little guy will, of course. We pay it at the register with higher pricing.

Now if you are really savy, you might see "inflation" coming into this conversation. The federal bank will raise interest with an increase in prices (taxes can cause inflation, which also tightens money supplies, a double-death blow to our good times). Your variable rate mortgage will kick yer butt, the credit cards will become self-replicating cash disposal units, and no one can get new lines of credit to do anything about it. A death spiral is not hard to kick off--ask Jimmy Carter. Funny how few people my age or older remember 19% rates for homes and worse for cars...double digit inflation in general cutting each paycheck back--like being demoted each pay period. After 26 years of upward growth, we forget this stuff exists. We think we've magically overcome those things. Heheh. Not hardly folks! The economy is the same as it has ever been since FDR dumped the gold standard.

And finally, you do know that China owns $700,000,000,000 in U.S. treasuries, don't you? Well, if not, you will real soon with a good hard pinch in your wallet. You see, the Chinese, being our friends and all, decided yesterday to "diversify" their foreign currency holdings. The dollar tanked a bit--which will translate into higher gas prices rickety-tick. Now, we are also their biggest trading partner. Dumping the dollar is bad for their business! So why did they do this? Pelosi, the leftist savior of the little guy, hates our trade with China. She wants to cut imports and tariff the remaining (to make it fair against the wages we pay workers, which isn't a bad idea--the whole world protects, but we are not allowed). So, what we see here today is a "shot across Nancy's bow"--a warning if you will to leave well enough alone. I could be wrong on this, but that is worse by far. China could decide to tank our economy to ruin us while we are extended. If that is the case, the GWOT just expanded into WWIII. Killing the dollar is another way of firing the first shot. Let's hope it is just a warning to Nancy, OK? We have enough trouble right now with Islam.

To keep on this China theme, "we are living in interesting times indeed." The only question remaining is: Will the new majority in congress act responsibly or act vengefully?

Random Thoughts…

The left in America today is frankly Un-American, Unpatriotic and is actively subverting our very survival. If you do not believe me, go to Moveon’s or DU’s chat pages and read just five posts for yourself. Also, consider Iran’s view of the USA. What do they see to judge us? They see our politicians arguing over Iraq and whether we should stay the course (a right-of-center view) or to cut and run (a left-of-center view). They see our history in Vietnam, Somalia, Lebanon, and our tepid responses to attacks on our warship and embassies in Africa as proof of our lack of will. They see Desperate Housewives, Survivor, Michael Moore films, and other “entertainment” as a guide to our national character. Doubt that? What else do they have to go on???? So, to hear the left argue for withdrawal only reinforces their conclusions about our character…and that same anti-war sentiment emboldens our enemies. It brings more fence-sitetrs (moderate Muslims) to their cause, because they seem to think they are winning this war on terror. And that is why the left is recklessly anti-American in my opinion. I wish that we would just step up and call a spade a spade. The Democrats are subverting their own country, and the media is a willing accomplice in this treasonous act. It is high time we made the argument forcefully. And whining about suppressed freedom of speech and unfair name-calling is just too damned bad. Politics used to end at the water’s edge, and it is high time we remembered why that is so. My soldiers are dying, and the left is aiding and abetting those who kill them. I’ve been there, I’ve seen the resurgence first hand. You can say what you will, but you probably have no real experience, eh?

If the loony left is a fringe element that advocates peace at any price, and the loony right is bent on war; I’ll side with the loonies on the right. My belief is it is better to be safe than sorry! If the left is correct, but the right prevails then we have only kicked ass on a people who make an institutionalized religion out of hating us and our way of life. If the right is correct, but the left prevails—we are doomed while fighting on our own soil. Easy choice when you think about it realistically.

Iraq is Not part of the war on terror? Saddam is absolved of ANY connection to terrorism? He did Not have weapons of mass destruction? Really? Then, who cut those checks to Palestinian suicide bombers’ families? Did all those Kurdish villages die of natural causes? Why does Al-Qaeda call Iraq the “central front” against the U.S.? If you believe any of the anti-Iraqi war BS; give me a call, I’ll cut you a deal on a bridge…

Freedom is worth having. Quit wallowing in it and defend it! Power is best diluted down to the lowest level. My County is about as far as I can see; therefore, I want most decisions to be made right here where I can have a say. Federal expansion of power is a terrible thing. Take education for example. You do not know what is best for MY children, it ain’t your job to know. Tis mine! So, why is the Federal Government involved at all? Indeed, a national Teacher’s Union is the same thing; why should ideals from California or New York influence my kid’s education? Now name a program outside of the common defense that the Federal Government runs with anything close to efficiency? Just one? I’ll wait…

On school vouchers: What is the big deal? If it costs x-thousands per pupil per year to educate a child, why not let me have my share and decide “how” to educate my children? You want to know what the fear is against implementing vouchers? The fear is that competition will drive public education, as it now exists “out of business.” Now think about that: What does this fear tell you about the quality of current education versus what could be had for your kids? Yeah, the answer is telling, isn’t it? Now, I ask: “Who among us does not want what is best for our own children?” Either not many of us want what is best, or we do not understand the issue at all. Either way—this is a sad state of affairs. Stupid is as stupid does…

Israel is better off today vis-à-vis Hezbollah than it was on July 11th. That is a win by any measure. They reduced Hezbollah’s freedom of maneuver, depleted the arsenal arrayed against them, killed at least 500 trained terrorists who are forever dead, and put the world’s unblinking eye on this nefarious organization for the immediate future. That, my friends, will either alter Hezbollah’s behavior significantly, or show what they truly are to those who “admire” them. In any case, this is a win—for on July 11th, Hezbollah had 500 more fighters than they currently have, unrestricted movement throughout the zone, and thousands more rockets ready for use. For historical comparison, the ’73 Yom Kipper War was widely called an “Israeli Failure” by the world press in the immediate aftermath. Who still sees that war as a failure today? Those who proclaimed Hezbollah’s victory wrote the history too soon. This often leads to a hearty dish of crow in the final analysis. I would recommend plucking the bird before digging in to the world’s media outlets…

Iran senses our weak knees. They feel that we will fold and run to our borders yet again, based largely on the political debate. I predict that this will play out in the coming months “in our face.” I also predict that this issue, more than any other, will influence the vote in November. By the third day of November, the left in this country will not know what went wrong. And we can thank the mad Mullahs for this outcome. We may be nonsensical to these adversaries, but weak-willed is not a trait they should count on. Their underestimation of our will under direct threat will bring Adm. Yamamoto’s words back to the fore: “I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant…” The parallels of history are fun, but also dangerous. Still, I predict a parallel along these lines, and it will play out initially in the ballot box. Republicans maintain a slim majority, and Iran is now openly involved in a regional conflict.

The UN has outlived its usefulness. The corruption of this organization is only rivaled by its ineffectiveness to accomplish anything useful. How long is Darfour’s genocide going to go on? What did the “UN peacekeepers” do to stop the Hutu/ Tutsi death orgies? Has it stopped nuclear proliferation by despotic regimes with openly hostile intentions’? What good did peacekeepers do in South Lebanon with Hezbollah fighting bunkers co-located next to UN camps? Ah, the failures are many, eh? What about “good” programs like “Oil for Food?” Isn’t that the one where the UN was going to prevent the starvation of children caused, as alleged by the left in our own country, by US-led/ UN mandated sanctions? And what is the final analysis of this program? Saddam looted it shamelessly for his and Ba’athist gains, and the UN looted it for personal gain in typical corrupt fashion. The children of Iraq got nothing, and the loonies on the left blamed the US for that too. So, let’s just give this useless parking-ticket generator the boot, and cut off our funding. Let it go to Paris, and try to raise revenue from ol’ Jaques.

Hey, New Orleans: If people had good jobs to come back to, they’d come back and rebuild. Also, it wouldn’t hurt to have some infrastructure in place, food retailers, power and services to return to. In other words: A freakin’ plan! The money is there…the plan is not. Coming back from this level of destruction is not going to happen by accident! Now, if you want a National effort to do this for you, here’s a thought from an impartial observer not of your community (the kind of thought outsiders tend to have when they are not affected): Let’s not rebuild below sea-level! In fact, Louisiana is not even a good choice politically for such a city! Let’s rebuild it in, say, South Dakota! Now if that sounds like a disinterested party coming in and dictating bad ideas; fine! Then get off your duffs and start planning a future for yourselves! You will not like a national effort complete with wild outsider ideas….so quit whining and waiting, or you won’t like what you get! After all, South Dakota could really use some population influx to stem the decline! And foreclosed farmland is far cheaper than levies and canal walls.

If FEMA was truly dysfunctional, why didn’t we get a glimpse of that in the dozens of responses in Alabama, Florida and Mississippi in the preceding few years? Could it be that FEMA plugged into a functional state response? Might that be the only difference? If so (and it is so), then some clowns on the left owe the President an apology. To the Presidents credit and character, he has assumed all blame. Find a similar mea culpa on the left. Yeah, right.

Well, this ends my drive-by of random issues.

Instead of disagreeing with my positions, try something new: Find evidence that supports both of our views and weigh those. That is called critical thought, and we as a nation suck at it. We’d rather just feel good or bad and leave it at that with our mind made up. So, either take the lazy way out, or try some critical thought. Your choice. But if you counter emotively, expect a big, huge “blow off.” I suffer fools badly.

Media Lies or just laziness?

"If you tell a lie often enough..."
-Goebels


Today's media is slowly losing its credibility with the public it allegedly serves. Slowly, only because the public itself does not take the time or expend the effort to fact check, or use two sources to verify what is presented as fact. Too many just accept whatever "slant" their favorite talking head proclaims on any given subject. But is this presentation "lies" you may ask? We should look at a some recent examples "beyond" the media hype:

Hurricane Katrina is a great example. The heavy slant is that the Bush administration failed miserably in the Federal response to the disaster. But, is that the whole truth, a partial truth, or a propaganda blitz from the opposition? Let's look at the facts and see what we really know from the saturation coverage. First, there is a Federal Response Plan in effect that was re-ritten thoroughly in the aftermath of 9/11. Do you know what that plan is? Have you ever read it? Has any of your news programs quoted from it, or even acknowledged its existance? If so, I have not seen any such coverage myself. But I have read this legnthy document as an Officer in the DSCA (Defense Support to Civilian Agencies, DoD's contribution to FEMA) mission role of my current job. Now, to boil this "response" down to the marrow, it states that the Federal response will begin on the direct request of the (state in question) Governor. And, more importantly, it also ensures that the Federal response is supportive of (and not substituting for) local lead agencies. In other words, HUD works with city, town or county housing agencies; DoD backs up any capability as a last resort; and NOWHERE will you find a Federal "primary responder" in this plan. There are many, many more examples of this support---but none of the Federal supporting agencies assume control of any part of the relief effort. Consider the Federal relief effort under FEMA a "plug and play" massive bulk up of your local networks. That is, and should remain the plan. In fact, this feature of state and local responsibility was demanded by your local governmental agencies during the drafting of this plan.

So, when we analyze the federal response without knowing a damned thing about the plan---one can easily point the finger at the White House. But, knowing how FEMA works into local-level as a supporting effort, one can begin to see where Louisianna was woefully unprepared for any disaster, let alone one of this magnitude. Yet, the Federal Government got the brunt of the blame for this. I will tell you that, as of now, the national plan has not changed--and neither has Louisiana. What that means is: Next Hurricane aimed at that corner of the country will rsult in much the same damage, with dysfunctional local support struggling to save lives. The Feds, who will necessarily wait outside the strike zone (why subject you rescuers to need of rescue in the distater zone?)--and the media will beat the same tired drum.

Is it possible that the media never read the plan, or never understood what it meant? yes; but that is not an excuse for a profession dedicated to the truth. My opinion is that our media long left pursuit of truth in its wake and now pursues a truth based on inner beliefs. The psychological make-up of journalists is a subject in itself, but suffice it to say that Mary Maples quote as to why she entered the field, "to make a difference in the world" tells us something. A journalist is supposed to be an impartial observer, so how could any self-respecting journalist expect to change the world, or indeed, make a difference?

Another example: Reuters Wire Sevice has dropped the term "terrorism." Using that description is thought by this agency to be, "inflamatory" in nature, so they axed it from their articles. That seems innocuous enough on the surface, but think about that for a minute. We defined terror in an earlier post, and it is a fairly simple distinction---do you, the reader, not have the right to that simple word? It does simplify understanding of the targeted victims versus the perps; yet this agency will not provide that level of detail for a purpose of it's own. Reuters does not want you to make the link between an act of violence and any other issue political, religious, or otherwise; even if that link is glaringly obvious with claims of responsibility from known groups. This is simply censorship, and since this self censorship is aimed directly at influencing your emotive response to the "facts"--it is also blatant propaganda.

On the lines of censored news, how about the rapid cut from the Palestinian celebrations in the streets right after the 9/11 attacks? Was that not news worthy of our digestion? Apparently not, according to CNN--who quickly hid that from our view to never mentioning it again in any major presentation. Yet, those celebrations DID occur, and not just there, but in Aman, Cairo and other Arab capitols. And, since we are on the subject of 9/11---how many times have you heard that "we will not show those images (of the towers burning or falling)" so as not to upset the viewer? I take it you can't change the channel? or, is it that these images might remind you of other things, like the war on terror and why we are fighting it?

Does the media have a bias; or worse, an agenda?

You'll never know if you continue to sit back and take everything at face value. You really need to form an opinion based on verfied facts; and not just "facts" that back-up any pre-concieved notion you may have already formed. You need to dig into both sides of a debate, and to look for relevant documents and issues that relate to the issue at hand. You need to see for yourself where the truth lies (pun intended) because your media is no longer doing it for you. In fact, it has not done so for a very long time!

Know Your Enemy!

"The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is a matter of life and death, A road to either safety or to ruin."

"Therefore I say: 'Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning and losing are equal.If ignorant of both your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril.(chapter 3, lines 31-33)."
-General Sun Tzu

Appropriate words from across the ages; though today in America one could add, "know that you even have an enemy.."

We are engaged in a war on terror whether we like it or not. The enemy chose to bring the fight to us after some unsuccessful attempts to do just that and successful attempts against us abroad. The fact is, we were attacked in such a way that even the most dovish among us could not ignore. September 11, 2001 succeeded in, briefly, uniting us as a people involved in a war.

Since that date this unity has, shall we say, dissolved. Now we debate whether this is even deserving to be called a war. We debate whether Iraq has anything to do with terror. We debate whether engagement in dialogue is better than engagement with direct fires of military action. We deliberately refrain from calling acts of terror "acts of terrorists" in our newspapers, we shun coverage of celebrations of Muslims in the proverbial Arab street on 9/11; we cannot decide what the issue is let alone how it relates to our survival as a culture! We are talking around all the issues, with precious little attention focused on the threat itself. Know your enemy...indeed, know that you have one first and foremost. To begin with, picture the towers burning on that September morning. Picture the people falling along side the stricken towers as they sought escape from the carnage...and know that, yes, we have an enemy. Now, we must explore who or what our enemy is, and what that enemy (or friend?) represents in terms of a threat or no threat.

These debates are in fact healthy so long as both sides understand what it is they are debating. This ongoing battle of ideas is a unique feature of our culture that has made it great in times past. Of course, that does suppose that both sides have some understanding of the issue at hand. I would venture to guess that those opposed to the current methodology DO NOT HAVE A CLUE about what they are arguing over. Let's explore some basic concepts of understanding the terrorist, his culture and most importantly, his world view.

Free Will versus God's (Allah) will: Few people realize the significance of this simple difference between western popular religions and Islam. In'sh'Allah (According to the Oxford English Dictionary: "Representing Arab. in sa' Allah, if Allah wills (it), a very frequent pious ejaculation among Muslims.") --this literally means that Allah's will is supreme, even over your own (man's will). Now many know Martin Luther and Calvin and what they represent to western civilization. But there it ends to most; that little sidebar declaring free will (man's) was a very significant development in societal affairs: It gave each of us personal responsibility for our actions. Contrast free will to that of predestination--could the difference alter your world? But, you may ask, why is this even important to a discussion on terror? To answer, let's look at the Beslan School massacre. Here we found a Islamic radical group taking over a grade school in the former Soviet Replublic; rigging it for demolition, and huddling the small children inside that ring of death. If you ever wondered how it is possible to be so inhumane as to do something like this--well, look no further than Allah's will--predestination. We'll look at the 5 pillars of Islam below, but one that is important to know is the first, and the dirivitive "one true religion," here and now. If Islam is the one true religion, and Allah says so, then enabling this religion anywhere and anytime is also Allah's will. If anyone resists, then Allah allows any measure to force this issue. If you have been to the Middle East, you have seen this illogical thinking play out on the highways (Kuwait in particular)--if a Muslim wakes up late, he is therefore excused by Allah from heading the red light placed before him (it is Allah's will to make me hurry today). The accident rate resulting from this world view would make us shudder, despite our own startling statistics. It is something to see, and something to avoid if you find yourself there! It is also a result of believing in predestination over accepting personal responsibility for actions.

Now we have pointed out just one striking difference between a western thinker and an Islamic thinker, try to consider all the ways this changes how you might approach issues and events; how indeed you would see the same things through the lens of "no free will." If you are capable of such critical thought, you may begin to see the nature of the debate shifting slightly. Here is a simple exercise in ethno-centric thinking. The word is FOOD. What are you thinking in relation to this simple word? McDonalds? A Grocery store? Dinner? Now, to a third world inhabitant of an outlying village, this word brings thoughts of rain on his crops, tilled fields, the hunt, of survival in the nearest of terms. That significant difference, from just one simple, even basic concept shows how thought processes are vital to understanding. Westerners see things differently on all levels from a Muslim. Unless you can grasp this, the debate is pointless.

On both sides of the argument over the global war on terror we have alarmists. People with extreme views in either direction, from nuking Iran all the way to the total withdrawal into our own borders. Those extremes turn off people sitting just to one side or the other of the fence. But again, what basis of understanding do you use to anchor your opinion either way?

Do you know what the basic Five Pillars of Islam are?

Have you read the Qu'ran? Excerpts?

Do you know what or who the Al-Mahdi is?

Can you name two differences between Sunni beliefs and Sh'ia beliefs? One difference?

Here's an easy one: What is the nexus that links Judaism, Christinanity and Islam?

Nothing? Not one correct answer to the above?

Don't worry, you are not alone in ignorance of Islam. To most, including our leaders in Congress and the Executive Branch, the link to those answers and terrorism do not exist. To most, terror is an undercurrent at best in an oppressed people who happen to be Muslim. Islam itself, to those who ignore the basic understanding, happens to be a separate issue altogether. And that is sheer intellectual laziness at best.

The separation of Islam as a whole from the radicals in its midst is just plain wrong. To be sure, not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorsists are Muslim. But does this prove anything on the face? Too many believe just that, and for them, the argument ends there. Too bad, really, because the consequences of that "post hoc ergo propter hoc" analysis opens a door of vulnerability that is in factstrengtheningg the Radical Islamist movement. And if you knew nothing of the questions I listed above, can you be sure that the link does not exist?

In the many Islamic-majority nations I have visited, there is a broad spectrum of Muslims; some are very devout and moderate (say, 4 of 1o ten as I have witnessed in Afghanistan and Iraq), some are radical (maybe 10%), and most are almost secular (up to 50%) in their beliefs. All these groupings will know the tenants of their religion, however. That too is a major difference over the west--where some agnostics could not even name two books from within the Bible! These over-simplified divisions of the population are important to understanding the dynamic of radicals driving the agenda in the media today (in Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, UK, Western Europe). The radicalized Islamist is making a statement, and the moderates take notice. The secular are watching as well, and what do they see? If one believes in the "finality of the prophethood of Muhammad" or even if one just wonders about it, then how much of a stretch is it to also wonder if the radical Islamists may be closer than ever of establishing Islam world-wide? If you thought that Allah would shape events, what must you think of the momentum of the radicals in also shaping events? Would you, a Muslim, be so sure they were not on to something? Would you wonder if they might pull it off in your lifetime? Do you, a westerner, even understand the desirability of Islam as the world's only religion? Do you know what the rewards are for Muslims in the post apocalypse?

Why does the first pillar, "Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad" imply only one religion on earth? The tracings here involve both traditions, Sunni and Shi'ia, and how the Mahdi, the final Imam, arrives on earth (the major differences involve whether he is already alive during the millenia or whether he is to be born into his mission). Who and what the mahdi is, in the words of the Prophet:

"Even if the entire duration of the world's existence has already been exhausted and only one day is left (before the day of judgment), Allah will expand that day to such a length of time, as to accommodate the kingdom of a person from my Ahlul-Bayt who will be called by my name. He will fill out the earth with peace and justice as it will have been full of injustice and tyranny (by then)."

In short, this is the apocalyptic vision of Islam. To further boil this down to brass tacks (and thus avoiding Islam 101), average moderates believe that the Mahdi's time is Allah's will (in sha'allah) where the radical believes that conditions can be "set" to bring him into our world. This is not a Sunni/ Shi'ia divide either; there are variances on both sides as to how or why the Mahdi will appear--but appear he will. The true differences are found in "when" he appears; and those straddle the two versions of Islam and delineate likely terrorists from the moderates. But right now, the version of events where man controls the Mahdi's appearance is fast becoming concievable to Islam as a whole. That the adherents to this view are also our terrorists or direct sponsors of terror should alarm anyone who follows this stuff in such detail. I know that I am alarmed. I hope a few of my readers may start to sense the danger as well.

Do not believe what I just said. Go forth and research it for yourself! Know these arguments and debates inside and out. Only then will you be productive in this debate. Here's some references to get you started: Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v2, p86, v9, pp 74-75, Sunan Abu Dawud, v2, p7, Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, pp 84,376; V3, p63, al-Mustadrak ala al-Sahihayn, by al-Hakim, v4, p557, Jami' al-Saghir, by al-Suyuti, pp 2,160. Also, visit http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/ for in-depth understanding of this and other aspects of Islam.

Terror itself is not a hard concept to define. Intentionally attacking, intimidating, or other violent activities, directed against civilian populations (specifically, non-combatants or women and children if you prefer) for political (or religious) gain is one definition that carries the water. Now, how hard is it to label such acts? Read the media reports for yourself; it is hard indeed. Does this make sense to anyone??? Terror is just that, and it is perfectly obvious to all but the ubtusively enlightened.

One last point to ponder: Sha'ria law is a political concept of governing according to the Qu'ran. Political religion, if you will. To state that negotiation is a course to pursue with our adversaries is neither right nor is it wrong--but how can we take our preconceived political understanding into such negotiation without a thorough understanding of the religion we will negotiate with? In other words, we are talking from one perspective, and Iran (by example) will respond from another. If we cannot make the links to their positions, how could we succeed in such talks?

So, we now have a little insight into Islam, and have defined our debate over the semantics of terror. Where does this leave us?

I hope that we have realized that perhaps we do have an enemy, like it or not, and that our enemy has views so alien to our own that we cannot fathom his motivations through our own lens of understanding. If people in the west can grasp that simple concept--then research, critical thought, and continued debate can accomplish something. Until then, all the noise in the current debate is a chorus of westerners "whistling past their own graveyard." And our enemies continue to work towards the Mahdi's arrival.