On the sixth day of Hate Week, after the processions, the speeches, the shouting, the singing, the banners, the posters, the films, the waxworks, the rolling of drums and squealing of trumpets, the tramp of marching feet, the grinding of the caterpillars of tanks, the roar of massed planes, the booming of guns -- after six days of this, when the great orgasm was quivering to its climax and the general hatred of Eurasia had boiled up into such delirium that if the crowd could have got their hands on the 2,000 Eurasian war-criminals who were to be publicly hanged on the last day of the proceedings, they would unquestionably have torn them to pieces -- at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally.
There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy. Winston was taking part in a demonstration in one of the central London squares at the moment when it happened. It was night, and the white faces and the scarlet banners were luridly floodlit. The square was packed with several thousand people, including a block of about a thousand schoolchildren in the uniform of the Spies. On a scarlet-draped platform an orator of the Inner Party, a small lean man with disproportionately long arms and a large bald skull over which a few lank locks straggled, was haranguing the crowd. A little Rumpelstiltskin figure, contorted with hatred, he gripped the neck of the microphone with one hand while the other, enormous at the end of a bony arm, clawed the air menacingly above his head. His voice, made metallic by the amplifiers, boomed forth an endless catalogue of atrocities, massacres, deportations, lootings, rapings, torture of prisoners, bombing of civilians, lying propaganda, unjust aggressions, broken treaties. It was almost impossible to listen to him without being first convinced and then maddened. At every few moments the fury of the crowd boiled over and the voice of the speaker was drowned by a wild beast-like roaring that rose uncontrollably from thousands of throats. The most savage yells of all came from the schoolchildren. The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker's hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! The agents of Goldstein had been at work! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot. The Spies performed prodigies of activity in clambering over the rooftops and cutting the streamers that fluttered from the chimneys. But within two or three minutes it was all over. The orator, still gripping the neck of the microphone, his shoulders hunched forward, his free hand clawing at the air, had gone straight on with his speech. One minute more, and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from the crowd. The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed.
From 1984 by George Orwell, Part 2 Chapter 9.
The analogy is not perfect, but it is close enough. David Corn tried to make the case that the Obama war is holy and Bush interventions, not so much. There is no real qualitative difference in the policy of the incumbent and his predecessor. Was Mr. Corn ever in show biz. He is quite a song and dance man.
Welcome year 11 of the Bush Obama administration.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
Saving Libya, No Good Deed Goes Unpunished-This was even too fast for moi to comprehend
So after dithering for what seemed like forever, A coalition of US and Euro countries with UN authorization is moving against Mo Q. The Arab League said that they wanted a no fly zone and passed a resolution to that effect.
Now that the coalition is sending the bombs and rockets, Les Arabes are not feeling it. Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said, What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone,” he said in a statement carried by the Middle East News Agency. “And what we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians.”
Hey Amr, sorry about that, but what did you expect? Broken and eggs and omelets, you know. The Neutralist position has always been hands off. Not meaning to be undiplomatic, but cher ami, maybe the Arab League could have imposed the NFZ on their own. Yeah, when there is a cold snap in the place of eternal damnation.
We, at the Neutralist are somewhat taken aback on the speed of the condemnation. we expected a more reasonable amount of time for the League to express its regrets.
Of course, even if it had been done perfectly, there is no chance gratitude would have been expressed.
Now that the coalition is sending the bombs and rockets, Les Arabes are not feeling it. Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said, What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone,” he said in a statement carried by the Middle East News Agency. “And what we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians.”
Hey Amr, sorry about that, but what did you expect? Broken and eggs and omelets, you know. The Neutralist position has always been hands off. Not meaning to be undiplomatic, but cher ami, maybe the Arab League could have imposed the NFZ on their own. Yeah, when there is a cold snap in the place of eternal damnation.
We, at the Neutralist are somewhat taken aback on the speed of the condemnation. we expected a more reasonable amount of time for the League to express its regrets.
Of course, even if it had been done perfectly, there is no chance gratitude would have been expressed.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Sec/Def Gates comes out of the closet-He's a neutralist
No he didn't say that. No one as high up in government would follow the logic to its, well, logical conclusion. What Mr. Gates said you have probably read by now, but here it is,
“Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General [Douglas] MacArthur so delicately put it.”
Actually, there are so many logical conclusions you can get here. At least a good segment of the denizens of the Defense Department constituted a loony bin when they proposed and supported both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Asia, hmm. Why was Europe such a good idea? We are stuck there wasting money fighting a cold war that does not exist.
Fighting Spain, what did we get? A war in Asia, actually three. Getting the Philippines ensured an offshore Asian war and winning that one got us Korea and Viet Nam. How'd that work out"
Every war looks necessary at the time. It's like all the stupid things I did in college. Seemed like a good idea at the time. It rarely was.
And, of course, there is the call to save Libya. Good luck. The Libyans have more sense than all the people who are wringing their hands. They have said, no thanks. Yet over at Patrick Lang's Sic Semper Tyrannis, There is a call for intervention. Col. Lang claims to be anti-intervtion, at least by temperament, yet he wants to go for it. There is a discussion going on and it is well worth a look. Link is here. Fabius Maximus has a good overview here.
“Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General [Douglas] MacArthur so delicately put it.”
Actually, there are so many logical conclusions you can get here. At least a good segment of the denizens of the Defense Department constituted a loony bin when they proposed and supported both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Asia, hmm. Why was Europe such a good idea? We are stuck there wasting money fighting a cold war that does not exist.
Fighting Spain, what did we get? A war in Asia, actually three. Getting the Philippines ensured an offshore Asian war and winning that one got us Korea and Viet Nam. How'd that work out"
Every war looks necessary at the time. It's like all the stupid things I did in college. Seemed like a good idea at the time. It rarely was.
And, of course, there is the call to save Libya. Good luck. The Libyans have more sense than all the people who are wringing their hands. They have said, no thanks. Yet over at Patrick Lang's Sic Semper Tyrannis, There is a call for intervention. Col. Lang claims to be anti-intervtion, at least by temperament, yet he wants to go for it. There is a discussion going on and it is well worth a look. Link is here. Fabius Maximus has a good overview here.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
C'mon Justin, use the good n-word
Antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo has a good article entitled Do We Need a Foreign Policy?
Of course not. It is simple and to the point. He could have changed the title to Time for Neutralism and it would have worked as well. Oh well, we live in hope.
It is our opinion that the best paragraph is
Ordinary Americans shy away from foreign policy issues for the simple reason that they know what they don’t know – and know enough to keep their opinions largely to themselves. This is admirable, but it leaves an important matter to the self-proclaimed credentialed “experts,” who are more than ready to state all kinds of opinions without having the slightest idea of what they’re talking about. Unleashed on this territory, bereft of morality and objective standards, these “experts” don’t hesitate to back tyrants with your tax dollars, and arm murderers with weapons paid for by peaceful, law-abiding US citizens, all in the name of “realpolitik,” or some such ideological construction.
Yup, it's all a sham.
In honor of Justin's great article of February 9, 2011, we are suspending our ongoing Neutralist Fundraiser. Our fundraiser is known mostly for its failure. The terms are a minimum $10million per donor. So far we have collected $0.00. It is expected that 2011 will bring a similar level of success.
Jusin, Eric et al do the heavy lifting against mindless intervention. You can participate in their fundraiser here.
Of course not. It is simple and to the point. He could have changed the title to Time for Neutralism and it would have worked as well. Oh well, we live in hope.
It is our opinion that the best paragraph is
Ordinary Americans shy away from foreign policy issues for the simple reason that they know what they don’t know – and know enough to keep their opinions largely to themselves. This is admirable, but it leaves an important matter to the self-proclaimed credentialed “experts,” who are more than ready to state all kinds of opinions without having the slightest idea of what they’re talking about. Unleashed on this territory, bereft of morality and objective standards, these “experts” don’t hesitate to back tyrants with your tax dollars, and arm murderers with weapons paid for by peaceful, law-abiding US citizens, all in the name of “realpolitik,” or some such ideological construction.
Yup, it's all a sham.
In honor of Justin's great article of February 9, 2011, we are suspending our ongoing Neutralist Fundraiser. Our fundraiser is known mostly for its failure. The terms are a minimum $10million per donor. So far we have collected $0.00. It is expected that 2011 will bring a similar level of success.
Jusin, Eric et al do the heavy lifting against mindless intervention. You can participate in their fundraiser here.
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Main Stream Media has good article on Neutralism even if the author has never heard the term.
Thanassis Cambanis writes for the Boston Globe. Having grown up in the Boston area, I remember it as the serious newspaper, if only because it didn't publish the number like the Record did before the state went into the lottery business.
His article was a departure from MSM articles on the subject as he did not use the word Isolationist as an eptithet. Still, he could not name the right word. What is this, Harry Potter? Neutralism is "the policy whose name must not be mentioned."
Otherwise, the best article on the subject in a long time. To read Stand Alone: The Case for a New Isolationism you can go here if you are registered at the Globe.
Mr. Cambanis also has a blog here, which is well worth a visit. At his blog, he has written about his Globe article and this is the link for that.
His article was a departure from MSM articles on the subject as he did not use the word Isolationist as an eptithet. Still, he could not name the right word. What is this, Harry Potter? Neutralism is "the policy whose name must not be mentioned."
Otherwise, the best article on the subject in a long time. To read Stand Alone: The Case for a New Isolationism you can go here if you are registered at the Globe.
Mr. Cambanis also has a blog here, which is well worth a visit. At his blog, he has written about his Globe article and this is the link for that.
Monday, February 07, 2011
If we invaded Iraq because it was run by a ruthless bad guy, why are we not Invading Egypt?
The Beacon asks the question here.
Just another example of an insane and hypocritical foreign policy. Neutralism on its worst day couldn't be stupider and would cost a lot less.
Just another example of an insane and hypocritical foreign policy. Neutralism on its worst day couldn't be stupider and would cost a lot less.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Wikileaks is just an NWO put up job?
The revelation that AQ is near to a nuke from Wikileaks could be seen as a vindication of The Daily Bell. They have been noting that Assange & Co. have not really been passing out anything that has been truly harmful to "The Elite." The dirty bomb thing kinda, sorta, maybe makes their case. Such a weapon is not something you just order up and that suitcase needs to be as big as a house for a suitcase bomb. Yet that discredited meme shows up out of Wikileaks.
The DB certainly gives pause to those of us not privilege to big secrets. The Neutralist is for transparency. We are for erring on the side of the big T. As Holy Mother State loves keeping even the most trivial items secret. So if DB is correct and secrets are doled out for the benefit of "The Elite." we have all been scammed.
I defended Wikileaks and went after some kids who attacked them in the comments here. I had been aware of the DB's atttude, but was not convinced. I am not convinced now if only because as a nobody from nowhere, I have no access to necessary info.
However, I am not at all put off by what DB is publishing. Their case is well made and certainly possible. Anyway, a little embarrassment for, say Hilary, is a cute way to give the rest of the scam, if it is a scam, credibility.
My haters at in2thefray should start to love wiki+Julian as he serves their statists inclinations.
As usual, we take the Neutralist position, If there is an elite, there international adventure do nothing for our nation. We are better off bringing home all our forces and tending to our own business.
The DB certainly gives pause to those of us not privilege to big secrets. The Neutralist is for transparency. We are for erring on the side of the big T. As Holy Mother State loves keeping even the most trivial items secret. So if DB is correct and secrets are doled out for the benefit of "The Elite." we have all been scammed.
I defended Wikileaks and went after some kids who attacked them in the comments here. I had been aware of the DB's atttude, but was not convinced. I am not convinced now if only because as a nobody from nowhere, I have no access to necessary info.
However, I am not at all put off by what DB is publishing. Their case is well made and certainly possible. Anyway, a little embarrassment for, say Hilary, is a cute way to give the rest of the scam, if it is a scam, credibility.
My haters at in2thefray should start to love wiki+Julian as he serves their statists inclinations.
As usual, we take the Neutralist position, If there is an elite, there international adventure do nothing for our nation. We are better off bringing home all our forces and tending to our own business.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
The Neutralist Announces Its Middle East Policy!
Here it is. It should be a shock to my loyal readers (reader?)
The United States should not have anything to say in the matter of the internal politics of Middle Eastern Nations. If those nations do not threaten the American Republic, their external policies are also not our business. We screw up everything we touch.
Some Links:
Col. Lang has a number of informative posts.
Fabius Maximus has some thoughts on various aspects of what is happening including climate aspects.
As somebody like Walter Winchell would say, "Ya gotta get the story behind the story." Okay, The Neutralist doesn't know if it was Winchell, but it sounds good. The Daily Bell sees the hand of the Anglo-American Elite in everything.
Justin Raimondo notices that Rachel Maddow is bringing out her inner John Bolton. If Suzie Cool Liberal Chick is giving over, it kinda give you a reason not to dismiss the Daily Bell out of hand.
The United States should not have anything to say in the matter of the internal politics of Middle Eastern Nations. If those nations do not threaten the American Republic, their external policies are also not our business. We screw up everything we touch.
Some Links:
Col. Lang has a number of informative posts.
Fabius Maximus has some thoughts on various aspects of what is happening including climate aspects.
As somebody like Walter Winchell would say, "Ya gotta get the story behind the story." Okay, The Neutralist doesn't know if it was Winchell, but it sounds good. The Daily Bell sees the hand of the Anglo-American Elite in everything.
Justin Raimondo notices that Rachel Maddow is bringing out her inner John Bolton. If Suzie Cool Liberal Chick is giving over, it kinda give you a reason not to dismiss the Daily Bell out of hand.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Tough Guys on the Net-They're all on the hunt for Julian Assange!
What is it about the internet that it brings out the homicidal tendencies in people. It's not that they'll act on them. They are safe from that. It's just that they feel the need to threaten mayhem.
One web warrior who goes by the name of Alfie put up a post titled, Please please please Julian Assange;STFU
He starts off his offering with:
I am so sick of this fucking guy.
This Australian wannabe Swede rapist douchebag is nothing but a bitter and petty POS who wants to bask in the limelight of others risk full behaviors.Serving as the public face of WikiLeaks this douche tries to ply the waters of anti American feelings to bolster his otherwise meaningless life.
Of course, the crime he has been accused of is not near rape and, though hardly sterling behavior, is in no way a crime in the US, but why quibble. I'll just let you think about the sad fellow's language. Of course, if you are in a hurry because mom will be calling you down to supper, you just have to go with your gut.
The lad got upset with my use of the word "chickenhawk." He thinks it's overused. Only in the sense that say 1+1=2 is overused. Both are still valid.
We had a back and forth of which the most notable part was,"until he surfaces from whatever “I’m a big pussy” hiding spot he is in." Now think about it. He is calling someone a pussy who is risking life and limb. And what might Alfie be risking? "Mom, I'll hurry, please make the Chef Boyardee Ravioli tonight."
So Alfie had his two minute hate. He actually has a following. They were vile and ignorant. The the gold standard for such behavior goes to a fellow named Jonolan, his words are below.
Fuck trials and juries, Patrick – he’s a foreign enemy. Kill him and make sure the world all but knows in fact the we did it.
Hell! I’d be glad to kill him myself, might even make him watch me mutilate his son first, just to add to the fun.
It’d be sort of nice and heartwarming knowing that the last thing Assange knew before I finally finished him was that what was left of his offspring would suffer through the remaining years of his existence as a deformed and mutilated cripple, incapable of doing anything of value and being nothing but an object of disgust and pity.
How noble a sentiment. It turns out Jonolan has his own blog. His desire to harm not only Julian, was posted and removed. Amazingly, an apology was made. He felt bad? Maybe, but he admits, "Some will now say that I’m apologizing because they believe that they can do me harm. That’s actually sort of true." Certainly there would be more justice in the Oz fatwa being carried out than any harm coming to the Assange family, but let's dispense with such silly games.
Jonolan, as low as he sank, then outdid himself. He claimed to have at least in part, caused Assange to give himself up. He refers to Assange's mention of his low deed in an article in The Australian. Nowhere in the piece does Assange hint that he gave himself up because of Jonolan. Jonolan has no shame. He threatens from the anonymity of the internet and then takes credit for a man turning himself in charged for a non crime. Gee, Jono, I'm sure al Qaeda is now scared you'll come out of your room and get them.
Now the cite's owner weighs back in.
@jonolan. I followed your posts on the subject with some interest. The threads got a little crazy for sure. I think Assanges decision is actually a sound one. The previously and WIDELY reported charges of rape are misrepresented. The actual charges are lesser ones and the circus around them should actually lead to an Assange vindication of sorts.
I think referencing you shows his vanity,his narcissism. This is clear in context when you think about those that left WikiLeaks and why as well as the 2 women involved in the sex cases.
All in all you showed class with your follow ups and in a number of ways served a higher purpose. Congrats.
Now breaking is how a former colleague is starting a new site (OpenLeaks) and the fans of Julien have done him zero good with their petty panty raids on MC and Visa.
If nothing else I hope the whole thing cements Assanges image as a media whore as opposed to anything resembling a credible and worth
So, it goes from Swede rapist douchebag is now The previously and WIDELY reported charges of rape are misrepresented. The actual charges are lesser ones and the circus around them should actually lead to an Assange vindication of sorts. Now a gentleman would have noted his original remarks were intemperate. Not Alf. He does remark on Assange's vanity and narcissism in mentioning Jono. I guess he is referencing whatever version of the DSM is out there. Actually, he never gives a reason why it follows. Of course mentioning a desire at several removes to mutilate the son and then kill the man is the epitome of sanity. Thinking that Jono showed class in his follow ups is breathtaking in its goofiness.
Now, Alfie had a defender with whom I also had a back and forth with. Victoria set me straight that Alfie was not a chickenhawk but a veteran. I take her at her word that the whiny mommy's boy sounding lad actually learned the joys of low crawling. She also gave the Assange is the anti-Christ rhetoric. Her last communication to me is below:
The exposures which Assange has brought to light is a breach of security and serves no benefit to the US, it’s citizenry or any other country (and their citizenry). It solely feeds his own inflated sense of self-importance. Assange is far from perfect….he is a pedantic little piss-ant whose only claim to fame is being a tattle-tale. And more than likely, a rapist. But given your tone from previous posts, it matters not to you that the man is a possible sex offender, as long as he titilates the general public with information they should not have. It is terrifying that you can link the word “good” with Assange, yet I find a sense of peace in knowing that as of this morning, the POS is exactly where he belongs.
In my reply, I asked her questions about her assertions:
"The exposures which Assange has brought to light is a breach of security and serves no benefit to the US, it’s citizenry or any other country (and their citizenry).”
Name one bit of actual harm, other than no one will believe our liars anymore. Assertions without proof are not worth much.
“It solely feeds his own inflated sense of self-importance.”
How do you know this?
“Assange is far from perfect”
I certainly make no claims to perfection. Still, I am humbled to know that you have attained that state.
“And more than likely, a rapist.”
Please document the exact charges against him. By the way, they don’t come close to rape.
Good luck.
Okay, so one of them wasn't a question. I knew I was never going to hear from her again. The truth is, most of humanity holds views contrary to reason and evidence. Deep down, these folk know, but to admit that there stated views are ragtime would harm their fragile egos.
It is evidence of my own shallow nature that I took a perverse pleasure in the hands down stupidest ad hominem thrown at me.
You call yourself a neutralist, but you’re sounding an awful lot like a neuteredist. Oh the wounding I felt at the deft rhetorical flourish of commenter an800lbgorilla
One web warrior who goes by the name of Alfie put up a post titled, Please please please Julian Assange;STFU
He starts off his offering with:
I am so sick of this fucking guy.
This Australian wannabe Swede rapist douchebag is nothing but a bitter and petty POS who wants to bask in the limelight of others risk full behaviors.Serving as the public face of WikiLeaks this douche tries to ply the waters of anti American feelings to bolster his otherwise meaningless life.
Of course, the crime he has been accused of is not near rape and, though hardly sterling behavior, is in no way a crime in the US, but why quibble. I'll just let you think about the sad fellow's language. Of course, if you are in a hurry because mom will be calling you down to supper, you just have to go with your gut.
The lad got upset with my use of the word "chickenhawk." He thinks it's overused. Only in the sense that say 1+1=2 is overused. Both are still valid.
We had a back and forth of which the most notable part was,"until he surfaces from whatever “I’m a big pussy” hiding spot he is in." Now think about it. He is calling someone a pussy who is risking life and limb. And what might Alfie be risking? "Mom, I'll hurry, please make the Chef Boyardee Ravioli tonight."
So Alfie had his two minute hate. He actually has a following. They were vile and ignorant. The the gold standard for such behavior goes to a fellow named Jonolan, his words are below.
Fuck trials and juries, Patrick – he’s a foreign enemy. Kill him and make sure the world all but knows in fact the we did it.
Hell! I’d be glad to kill him myself, might even make him watch me mutilate his son first, just to add to the fun.
It’d be sort of nice and heartwarming knowing that the last thing Assange knew before I finally finished him was that what was left of his offspring would suffer through the remaining years of his existence as a deformed and mutilated cripple, incapable of doing anything of value and being nothing but an object of disgust and pity.
How noble a sentiment. It turns out Jonolan has his own blog. His desire to harm not only Julian, was posted and removed. Amazingly, an apology was made. He felt bad? Maybe, but he admits, "Some will now say that I’m apologizing because they believe that they can do me harm. That’s actually sort of true." Certainly there would be more justice in the Oz fatwa being carried out than any harm coming to the Assange family, but let's dispense with such silly games.
Jonolan, as low as he sank, then outdid himself. He claimed to have at least in part, caused Assange to give himself up. He refers to Assange's mention of his low deed in an article in The Australian. Nowhere in the piece does Assange hint that he gave himself up because of Jonolan. Jonolan has no shame. He threatens from the anonymity of the internet and then takes credit for a man turning himself in charged for a non crime. Gee, Jono, I'm sure al Qaeda is now scared you'll come out of your room and get them.
Now the cite's owner weighs back in.
@jonolan. I followed your posts on the subject with some interest. The threads got a little crazy for sure. I think Assanges decision is actually a sound one. The previously and WIDELY reported charges of rape are misrepresented. The actual charges are lesser ones and the circus around them should actually lead to an Assange vindication of sorts.
I think referencing you shows his vanity,his narcissism. This is clear in context when you think about those that left WikiLeaks and why as well as the 2 women involved in the sex cases.
All in all you showed class with your follow ups and in a number of ways served a higher purpose. Congrats.
Now breaking is how a former colleague is starting a new site (OpenLeaks) and the fans of Julien have done him zero good with their petty panty raids on MC and Visa.
If nothing else I hope the whole thing cements Assanges image as a media whore as opposed to anything resembling a credible and worth
So, it goes from Swede rapist douchebag is now The previously and WIDELY reported charges of rape are misrepresented. The actual charges are lesser ones and the circus around them should actually lead to an Assange vindication of sorts. Now a gentleman would have noted his original remarks were intemperate. Not Alf. He does remark on Assange's vanity and narcissism in mentioning Jono. I guess he is referencing whatever version of the DSM is out there. Actually, he never gives a reason why it follows. Of course mentioning a desire at several removes to mutilate the son and then kill the man is the epitome of sanity. Thinking that Jono showed class in his follow ups is breathtaking in its goofiness.
Now, Alfie had a defender with whom I also had a back and forth with. Victoria set me straight that Alfie was not a chickenhawk but a veteran. I take her at her word that the whiny mommy's boy sounding lad actually learned the joys of low crawling. She also gave the Assange is the anti-Christ rhetoric. Her last communication to me is below:
The exposures which Assange has brought to light is a breach of security and serves no benefit to the US, it’s citizenry or any other country (and their citizenry). It solely feeds his own inflated sense of self-importance. Assange is far from perfect….he is a pedantic little piss-ant whose only claim to fame is being a tattle-tale. And more than likely, a rapist. But given your tone from previous posts, it matters not to you that the man is a possible sex offender, as long as he titilates the general public with information they should not have. It is terrifying that you can link the word “good” with Assange, yet I find a sense of peace in knowing that as of this morning, the POS is exactly where he belongs.
In my reply, I asked her questions about her assertions:
"The exposures which Assange has brought to light is a breach of security and serves no benefit to the US, it’s citizenry or any other country (and their citizenry).”
Name one bit of actual harm, other than no one will believe our liars anymore. Assertions without proof are not worth much.
“It solely feeds his own inflated sense of self-importance.”
How do you know this?
“Assange is far from perfect”
I certainly make no claims to perfection. Still, I am humbled to know that you have attained that state.
“And more than likely, a rapist.”
Please document the exact charges against him. By the way, they don’t come close to rape.
Good luck.
Okay, so one of them wasn't a question. I knew I was never going to hear from her again. The truth is, most of humanity holds views contrary to reason and evidence. Deep down, these folk know, but to admit that there stated views are ragtime would harm their fragile egos.
It is evidence of my own shallow nature that I took a perverse pleasure in the hands down stupidest ad hominem thrown at me.
You call yourself a neutralist, but you’re sounding an awful lot like a neuteredist. Oh the wounding I felt at the deft rhetorical flourish of commenter an800lbgorilla
Friday, December 03, 2010
Michael Graham would not know what conservatism was if it bit him on the nose
As I drift towards Boston while driving, I can pick up its radio stations. There is a breed of mostly men who are paid to rant on the airwaves. On of them Michael Graham purports to be a conservative. Loving all those, you know, reactionary things like the rule of law, due process, the Constitution. Yup, he loves those quaint traditions, except when he doesn't.
Today, he called for the extra judicial killing of Julian Assange because "our defense department and diplomacy have been blown up completely. Well, if being shown up to be incompetent in your reports, yes he is right. Mr. Assange released true stuff. He offered to redact anything really dangerous. Like the Pentagon Papers, all of this was going to come out sooner or later anyway.
What it shows up is our Hilary and her Department of State as the kids who are still doing student government. It shows us with a military that really isn't doing much but chasing its tail.
The brave Mr. Graham, who "supports" the troops by not ever being one is a chickenhawk calling on others to kill someone withoug any due process. Oh, America is doomed if there is not enough mayhem.
Mr. Graham, a conservative war and foreign policy is that the only things worth defending are hearth and home. Saving the world is bound to fail. Get the right wikileaks message.
Today, he called for the extra judicial killing of Julian Assange because "our defense department and diplomacy have been blown up completely. Well, if being shown up to be incompetent in your reports, yes he is right. Mr. Assange released true stuff. He offered to redact anything really dangerous. Like the Pentagon Papers, all of this was going to come out sooner or later anyway.
What it shows up is our Hilary and her Department of State as the kids who are still doing student government. It shows us with a military that really isn't doing much but chasing its tail.
The brave Mr. Graham, who "supports" the troops by not ever being one is a chickenhawk calling on others to kill someone withoug any due process. Oh, America is doomed if there is not enough mayhem.
Mr. Graham, a conservative war and foreign policy is that the only things worth defending are hearth and home. Saving the world is bound to fail. Get the right wikileaks message.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Philip Giraldi gets it, Does any Republican?
Philip Giraldi, columnist at antiwar.com has, in less than a paragraph, analyzed the recent elections better than any talking head,
Most voters seemed to understand that the outcome of America’s midterm election was the result of a devastated economy and the President Barack Obama’s failure to create jobs or even to understand the difficulties that are confronting many American families. But it’s nevertheless strange how America’s elites never seem to get it, probably because they are completely immune to the consequences of their own actions through their possession of money and power. The latest failure to compute comes from the triumphant Republican Party, which appears to believe that the electoral results were an endorsement of the foreign and security policies of George W. Bush, which will mean blanket approval of a prolonged stay in Afghanistan coupled with new adventures in Iran, Yemen, and Somalia.
In the second paragraph he is equally intelligent.
The euphoria of the Republican triumph is bringing to the surface the usual flotsam and jetsam driven by various agendas linked to foreign countries, none of which in any way benefit the American people. Too bad there was not a national referendum item on the midterm ballot with only one question: "Shall the federal government dismantle its overseas bases, bring its soldiers home, and leave the rest of the world in peace?" Fortunately there are plenty of Republicans and also Democrats around who will make sure that such a question is never asked and who are intent on expanding America’s worldwide footprint.
Maybe, though, he is wrong and the GOP leadership gets it and the tea partiers want forever war. Obviously, the Neutralist wants Phil to be right.
The rest of the article is a discussion of the antics of some of the new warriors in Congress, but worth reading for the humor, though I can't be sure your man intended it so.
No matter, these words alone, "Shall the federal government dismantle its overseas bases, bring its soldiers home, and leave the rest of the world in peace?" are gold. For them, we deem Mr. Giraldi a Neutralist and name him a Fellow of the Neutralist Institue. Sorry Phil, there is little honor and no compensation.
We have st up a link to his archives over to the right.
Most voters seemed to understand that the outcome of America’s midterm election was the result of a devastated economy and the President Barack Obama’s failure to create jobs or even to understand the difficulties that are confronting many American families. But it’s nevertheless strange how America’s elites never seem to get it, probably because they are completely immune to the consequences of their own actions through their possession of money and power. The latest failure to compute comes from the triumphant Republican Party, which appears to believe that the electoral results were an endorsement of the foreign and security policies of George W. Bush, which will mean blanket approval of a prolonged stay in Afghanistan coupled with new adventures in Iran, Yemen, and Somalia.
In the second paragraph he is equally intelligent.
The euphoria of the Republican triumph is bringing to the surface the usual flotsam and jetsam driven by various agendas linked to foreign countries, none of which in any way benefit the American people. Too bad there was not a national referendum item on the midterm ballot with only one question: "Shall the federal government dismantle its overseas bases, bring its soldiers home, and leave the rest of the world in peace?" Fortunately there are plenty of Republicans and also Democrats around who will make sure that such a question is never asked and who are intent on expanding America’s worldwide footprint.
Maybe, though, he is wrong and the GOP leadership gets it and the tea partiers want forever war. Obviously, the Neutralist wants Phil to be right.
The rest of the article is a discussion of the antics of some of the new warriors in Congress, but worth reading for the humor, though I can't be sure your man intended it so.
No matter, these words alone, "Shall the federal government dismantle its overseas bases, bring its soldiers home, and leave the rest of the world in peace?" are gold. For them, we deem Mr. Giraldi a Neutralist and name him a Fellow of the Neutralist Institue. Sorry Phil, there is little honor and no compensation.
We have st up a link to his archives over to the right.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
The Assange assassination continues on the Emily Rooney Show
They can't outright shoot Julian Assange. It's a little too late for that. He is too well known now. That does not mean they won't try to make him a pariah. Last Friday, October 29th, they had a go at it on a Boston radio show.
Emily Rooney, daughter of Andy has a show on WGBH, a public radio outlet in the Boston area. On her Friday show, she had four men, most of whom were reporters, discussing the news. I only get to listen when I am in the car and going east toward Boston. I do that as little as possible. Anyway, NPR seems to be on the war team and Emily, trying to appear ever fair, had at Julian. The boys, however did not get the memo. I urge you to listen to the audio here,starting at 40:45. I have transcribed La Emily as best I could below.
Emily: it is disturbing to me how this got out in the first place cause it could have been a whole lot more damaging to all of us I mean in terms of national security. As it turns out it was just plain riveting I mean to know really that we're involved in I guess it's not a total surprise but the kind of situations torture, you know, killing people by mistake all kind of things that that those documents show
Others opined that they wished we had wikileaks in previous conflicts.
Other panelists:Also, it make those people in government who think they can do things behind closed doors much more cautious and would hold them accountale.
Then she went into her thumbs up thumbs down thing.
Emily: Alright, this is more nuanced thumbs up or thumbs down. Julian Assange himself now he's the founder of wikileaks I mean, he's an ideologue he's a polemic he's doing this for political reasons that was the journalist side of it. what's your take on it.
Someone said something about the attempt to pin the rape charge on assange and Emily let out a guffaw.
Emily: And the New York Times had a very critical piece of him, John burns did, suggesting he isn't stable and then that backfired on the Times as well
The others agreed that getting the info out trumped everything.
Emily: I'm troubled by him I'm going to give him a thumbs down.
Someone asked why and she said "He's totally biased."
Then one of the boys said "He's a horse's ass" and herself shouted, "He is, there you go. I liken him to that heavens gate guy Applewhite, he looks like him the guy you know the comet chaser."
Then one of the heavy hitter journalists said, "A lot of these bloggers are whacks too but if they get the information right, I think the public good is served." Thanks, guy. I am glad there are no whack jobs in serious journalism. Heck, the way the biz is going, you might be blogging soon, but I digress.
So the ever so fair Emily on rational public radio (as opposed to crazy right wing talk) unloads one big ad hominem against Assange. Now whatever you want to say about the man, his actions bespeak a bravery beyond what I, or maybe Emily, would attempt. Her act was disgraceful. Of course, ladies and gentlemen, it is on your dime, at least in part, thanks to the largesse of our government. Say what you want about the ravings of Rush and Glenn, at least you aren't charged.
Oh, and let me be ever so gentle here, Em (may I call you Em?) A person is a polemicist,. His speeches or writings may be polemics. Unless you were implying that his total being is one big polemic, which truly highlights you viciousness. Ironic that you would accuse him of being biased at the ideology free zone that is WGBH (not).
As to your statement, it could have been a whole lot more damaging to all of us I mean in terms of national security., Em, there is an ever so slight possibility that some random terrorist will burst into GBH's studios and shoot you. Still, don't worry your head over it. You have a better chance of dying from an infected paper cut.
Emily Rooney, daughter of Andy has a show on WGBH, a public radio outlet in the Boston area. On her Friday show, she had four men, most of whom were reporters, discussing the news. I only get to listen when I am in the car and going east toward Boston. I do that as little as possible. Anyway, NPR seems to be on the war team and Emily, trying to appear ever fair, had at Julian. The boys, however did not get the memo. I urge you to listen to the audio here,starting at 40:45. I have transcribed La Emily as best I could below.
Emily: it is disturbing to me how this got out in the first place cause it could have been a whole lot more damaging to all of us I mean in terms of national security. As it turns out it was just plain riveting I mean to know really that we're involved in I guess it's not a total surprise but the kind of situations torture, you know, killing people by mistake all kind of things that that those documents show
Others opined that they wished we had wikileaks in previous conflicts.
Other panelists:Also, it make those people in government who think they can do things behind closed doors much more cautious and would hold them accountale.
Then she went into her thumbs up thumbs down thing.
Emily: Alright, this is more nuanced thumbs up or thumbs down. Julian Assange himself now he's the founder of wikileaks I mean, he's an ideologue he's a polemic he's doing this for political reasons that was the journalist side of it. what's your take on it.
Someone said something about the attempt to pin the rape charge on assange and Emily let out a guffaw.
Emily: And the New York Times had a very critical piece of him, John burns did, suggesting he isn't stable and then that backfired on the Times as well
The others agreed that getting the info out trumped everything.
Emily: I'm troubled by him I'm going to give him a thumbs down.
Someone asked why and she said "He's totally biased."
Then one of the boys said "He's a horse's ass" and herself shouted, "He is, there you go. I liken him to that heavens gate guy Applewhite, he looks like him the guy you know the comet chaser."
Then one of the heavy hitter journalists said, "A lot of these bloggers are whacks too but if they get the information right, I think the public good is served." Thanks, guy. I am glad there are no whack jobs in serious journalism. Heck, the way the biz is going, you might be blogging soon, but I digress.
So the ever so fair Emily on rational public radio (as opposed to crazy right wing talk) unloads one big ad hominem against Assange. Now whatever you want to say about the man, his actions bespeak a bravery beyond what I, or maybe Emily, would attempt. Her act was disgraceful. Of course, ladies and gentlemen, it is on your dime, at least in part, thanks to the largesse of our government. Say what you want about the ravings of Rush and Glenn, at least you aren't charged.
Oh, and let me be ever so gentle here, Em (may I call you Em?) A person is a polemicist,. His speeches or writings may be polemics. Unless you were implying that his total being is one big polemic, which truly highlights you viciousness. Ironic that you would accuse him of being biased at the ideology free zone that is WGBH (not).
As to your statement, it could have been a whole lot more damaging to all of us I mean in terms of national security., Em, there is an ever so slight possibility that some random terrorist will burst into GBH's studios and shoot you. Still, don't worry your head over it. You have a better chance of dying from an infected paper cut.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Gene Healy says it all: Not even our leaders know why we are in Afghanistan
Country Joe and the Fish may have been a one hit wonder, but their song about Viet Nam resonates today,
and its 1,2,3 what are we fightin for?
don't ask me i don't give a dam
plus ça change, ya know. According to Gene Healy, nobody knows why. Going out on a limb here, but after the half decade mark, any war our country is in, the reasons will get murky and the original justifications will no longer be relevant (as if they were to begin with). Just ask Osama down in Gitmo getting ready for his trial.
It appears Mr. Healy has read the Woodward book so I don't have to. Thank you, Gene. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Anyway, here is a lovely quote,
Last October, Woodward reports, National Security Adviser James Jones called an emergency meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "The president was not happy": After countless meetings and dueling memoranda, "they had not found a way to articulate why the United States was in Afghanistan. What were America's interests?"
Yeah, all we gotta do is find what we believe and then tell the lumpenistas. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Did it occur to any one of the assembled sinecure holders that if you can't explain the reason, there may be no reason?
Nahhhhhh.
and its 1,2,3 what are we fightin for?
don't ask me i don't give a dam
plus ça change, ya know. According to Gene Healy, nobody knows why. Going out on a limb here, but after the half decade mark, any war our country is in, the reasons will get murky and the original justifications will no longer be relevant (as if they were to begin with). Just ask Osama down in Gitmo getting ready for his trial.
It appears Mr. Healy has read the Woodward book so I don't have to. Thank you, Gene. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Anyway, here is a lovely quote,
Last October, Woodward reports, National Security Adviser James Jones called an emergency meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "The president was not happy": After countless meetings and dueling memoranda, "they had not found a way to articulate why the United States was in Afghanistan. What were America's interests?"
Yeah, all we gotta do is find what we believe and then tell the lumpenistas. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Did it occur to any one of the assembled sinecure holders that if you can't explain the reason, there may be no reason?
Nahhhhhh.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Taliban attack the supply lines-World surprised by the obvious tactic
The Taliban has no air force, no predator drones, but that does not mean they are stupid. One does have to ask why they have taken so long to gear up their strategy of attacking supply lines? No matter, it's here.
I know my countrymen are not a nation of geographers, but a simply looking at a map of Afghanistan should be a wake up call. First thing you notice, no seacoast. It is landlocked and borders many countries, none of which are our close allies, and most of whom our relations with are problematic.
So the Taliban in one of its incarnations are attacking the tanker trucks that supply our forces over the road from Pakistan. The question becomes, can they do it enough to make our effort unsustainable?
So it's happening now. Actually, it's happened before, and it is not just the Taliban that can apply pressure.
Hey maybe we can cobble together another supply line and keep the game going until victory, or whatever. Bet on whatever.
I know my countrymen are not a nation of geographers, but a simply looking at a map of Afghanistan should be a wake up call. First thing you notice, no seacoast. It is landlocked and borders many countries, none of which are our close allies, and most of whom our relations with are problematic.
So the Taliban in one of its incarnations are attacking the tanker trucks that supply our forces over the road from Pakistan. The question becomes, can they do it enough to make our effort unsustainable?
So it's happening now. Actually, it's happened before, and it is not just the Taliban that can apply pressure.
Hey maybe we can cobble together another supply line and keep the game going until victory, or whatever. Bet on whatever.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Well, what do you expect. Of course you'd want a president to be a führer if your name was Donald the German
Donnie Deutsch and Pat Buchannan the constitution out the window to protect our soldiers over there. Arrest the Koran burner to protect the troops.
May I point out the supreme irony. A military is supposedly* deployed to protect us. We are not supposed to protect the troops. Anyway, you can watch Mr. Deutsch having the vapors here.
Hat tip to the Daily Burkeman. The link on Burkeman is "this speaks for itself. If a foreign policy gets to the point where we have to arrest our own people, no matter how goofy, because our armed troops, who are pretending to be building a free country overseas might be shot at, then res ipsa loquitur. I agree with Chris Dowd. Donnie and Pat are scarier than Terry.
*our military is not deployed overseas to protect us.
May I point out the supreme irony. A military is supposedly* deployed to protect us. We are not supposed to protect the troops. Anyway, you can watch Mr. Deutsch having the vapors here.
Hat tip to the Daily Burkeman. The link on Burkeman is "this speaks for itself. If a foreign policy gets to the point where we have to arrest our own people, no matter how goofy, because our armed troops, who are pretending to be building a free country overseas might be shot at, then res ipsa loquitur. I agree with Chris Dowd. Donnie and Pat are scarier than Terry.
*our military is not deployed overseas to protect us.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Don't think modern imperialism's a loser. Now we've gotta bailout their lousy banks too!
Per the Washington Post, The Kabul Bank is pulling a Citibank and crying for succor.
Now this is the Neutralist and we want all the troops home. Still, if we are going to do Imperialism, let's get something out of it. We don't bail them out, they bail us out. None of this pottery barn stuff.
This decree should go forth: On December 25th, everyone shall go to the city of their ancestors to be counted for taxes. Pay up by April 15th. Or we withdraw. That is our final offer.
Okay, Augustus didn't threaten to withdraw, but America needs love.
Now this is the Neutralist and we want all the troops home. Still, if we are going to do Imperialism, let's get something out of it. We don't bail them out, they bail us out. None of this pottery barn stuff.
This decree should go forth: On December 25th, everyone shall go to the city of their ancestors to be counted for taxes. Pay up by April 15th. Or we withdraw. That is our final offer.
Okay, Augustus didn't threaten to withdraw, but America needs love.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Interesting video from the other side-The Taliban speaks!
Interesting video from the comments section on Pat Lang's Sic Semper Tyrannis site. A Norwegian was able to film them as they fought us due to their hatred of our freedom. Ah, wait a minute, at 3:14 your man talks about fighting for freedom. Who does he think he is, George Bush.
Well, I think these lads want Afghanistan more than we do. I know they want it more than I do. Heck, they probably want it more than Bennett and Kristol. And...what would you do if someone invaded your country. What those guys are doing I hope.
The man who posted the video goes by the cute name, Charlie Wilson. His actual comment was, "I don't think these guys can be beat. I think we need to redo Panama or Grenada." If we really want to feel good about ourselves, we can let the Japanese build another fleet and do Midway again.
Well, I think these lads want Afghanistan more than we do. I know they want it more than I do. Heck, they probably want it more than Bennett and Kristol. And...what would you do if someone invaded your country. What those guys are doing I hope.
The man who posted the video goes by the cute name, Charlie Wilson. His actual comment was, "I don't think these guys can be beat. I think we need to redo Panama or Grenada." If we really want to feel good about ourselves, we can let the Japanese build another fleet and do Midway again.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Reason throws in the towel completely, goes chickenhawk.
In an article Julian Assange, WikiJournalist
Is the Wikileaks "editor-in-chief" a journalist or an activist? Or both? cool guy libertarian and a Reason Senior Editor, Michael C. Moynihan, went after Julian Assange. You knew it would be a typical hit piece when you read the Assange description,"He looked like Edgar Winter as imagined by Jim Henson; an awkward, lanky Australian with translucent skin and wisps of white hair falling over his face." The rest was the same work. Mr. Moynihan is pretty vicious with his remarks.
It is in the comments that it really gets interesting. The baying for blood is long and loud except for some exceptions. Why, why, if we had this enthusiasm for the war instead of the keyboard, we would have won by now. Of course, online is where their fight is.
Oh, all you folks baying for Assange's blood. You will never see him tried. What he might be able to bring up in a fair trial fills the powers that be with terror.
Hat tip Justin Raimondo.
Is the Wikileaks "editor-in-chief" a journalist or an activist? Or both? cool guy libertarian and a Reason Senior Editor, Michael C. Moynihan, went after Julian Assange. You knew it would be a typical hit piece when you read the Assange description,"He looked like Edgar Winter as imagined by Jim Henson; an awkward, lanky Australian with translucent skin and wisps of white hair falling over his face." The rest was the same work. Mr. Moynihan is pretty vicious with his remarks.
It is in the comments that it really gets interesting. The baying for blood is long and loud except for some exceptions. Why, why, if we had this enthusiasm for the war instead of the keyboard, we would have won by now. Of course, online is where their fight is.
Oh, all you folks baying for Assange's blood. You will never see him tried. What he might be able to bring up in a fair trial fills the powers that be with terror.
Hat tip Justin Raimondo.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The Daily Caller is not just Johnny One Note!
You know, I was wondering if the Daily Caller was going to be a one trick pony. Would Journolist be it? Hey it was a big coup. Today I did not see much of that there, but a horribly reasonable take on The Afghan war by worst dress guy in the line up.
The gist, we ain't gonna win it, but it's worth hitting the link,
Engstrom, don't put on a tie for us.
The gist, we ain't gonna win it, but it's worth hitting the link,
Engstrom, don't put on a tie for us.
Friday, July 30, 2010
A lot of blood for a lot of hands
the counterattack on Julian Assange has begun. I only get to listen to NPR in the car and I drive as little as possible. Some say, NPR, our ministry of information, has always been on the war team. Others say, just since Obama’s ascendancy. Moi, I don’t care.
If you are going to have long wars, this type of thing is bound to happen. Sooner or later, somebody is going to out something. Is it good or bad? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
We at the Neutralist don’t care for the argument. We merely point out that Afghanistan is the reductio ad absurdam of our USA world policeman schtick. We only wonder what will be the next wee contretemps.
If a US grunt is killed due to a wikileaks exposé, then I resent that. If the leaks lead to us leaving sooner rather than later and less dead American lads, I rejoice.
Admiral Mullen, really give some thought to the blood on hands biz.
If you are going to have long wars, this type of thing is bound to happen. Sooner or later, somebody is going to out something. Is it good or bad? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
We at the Neutralist don’t care for the argument. We merely point out that Afghanistan is the reductio ad absurdam of our USA world policeman schtick. We only wonder what will be the next wee contretemps.
If a US grunt is killed due to a wikileaks exposé, then I resent that. If the leaks lead to us leaving sooner rather than later and less dead American lads, I rejoice.
Admiral Mullen, really give some thought to the blood on hands biz.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
The McChrystal Affair-It's only the first time, we're just feeling our way here
So McChrystal has been relieved. Obama let him go and talk radio is on the president's case. The Neutralist believes the best point in the discussion was made by a retired intel officer, Col. Patrick Lang. The colonel is hardly some fanatic leftie Obamista,
The principle has always been in this country that the federal military is an instrument of state policy. Our tradition is designed to prevent the emergence of "Caesarism" as a method of picking leaders or determining basic national policy. To maintain that principle Macarthur was fired on the advice of George Marshall. What McChrystal has done is to challenge President Obama.
That the talkmeisters did not get this and just jerked their knees is understandable. Most are just party Republicans who will do anything to get a teammate in the White House even if it's only Mitt Romney's hair and they have to forget that constitution they claim fealty to.
The Neutralist believes there is a bigger story here. This is the first time since MacArthur we have had an incident and this one is different. The general did not just disagree, he called his boss a stiff when you boiled it down.
So the CinC dismisses him. Everyone is happy.
Pas Moi.
If we have eternal war, why would we not have more of these incidents? How long until the tide of "let the generals run the war, they're the professionals" becomes overwhelming.
Disengagement leading to Neutralism is essential, because we run chance for many evils, including "Caesarism"
The principle has always been in this country that the federal military is an instrument of state policy. Our tradition is designed to prevent the emergence of "Caesarism" as a method of picking leaders or determining basic national policy. To maintain that principle Macarthur was fired on the advice of George Marshall. What McChrystal has done is to challenge President Obama.
That the talkmeisters did not get this and just jerked their knees is understandable. Most are just party Republicans who will do anything to get a teammate in the White House even if it's only Mitt Romney's hair and they have to forget that constitution they claim fealty to.
The Neutralist believes there is a bigger story here. This is the first time since MacArthur we have had an incident and this one is different. The general did not just disagree, he called his boss a stiff when you boiled it down.
So the CinC dismisses him. Everyone is happy.
Pas Moi.
If we have eternal war, why would we not have more of these incidents? How long until the tide of "let the generals run the war, they're the professionals" becomes overwhelming.
Disengagement leading to Neutralism is essential, because we run chance for many evils, including "Caesarism"
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
Lest we forget
Another blogger thinks a 911 holiday is in order. Don't know about the holiday thing, but I commented on his blog.
As to remembering 911, I'm all for it. Remember that it led us into two wars that have no purpose and have aided in our collapse.
Let's remember the chickenhawks who cheerlead and never went.
Please tell me what is to win in Iraq and Afghanistan? OBL did not attack us with a carrier fleet. The thing to do was tighten the borders, not send an army to not catch the bogeyman.
On the AntiWar.com blog it has been noted that we have passed 1,000 dead in the Afghan debacle. It is the flower of our youth dead to no purpose other than that noted in Burkeman's comment.
The war against the "Taliban" is a jobs work program. It is a low level war with tolerably low casualties (for Americans) but supremely profitable overhead.
As to remembering 911, I'm all for it. Remember that it led us into two wars that have no purpose and have aided in our collapse.
Let's remember the chickenhawks who cheerlead and never went.
Please tell me what is to win in Iraq and Afghanistan? OBL did not attack us with a carrier fleet. The thing to do was tighten the borders, not send an army to not catch the bogeyman.
On the AntiWar.com blog it has been noted that we have passed 1,000 dead in the Afghan debacle. It is the flower of our youth dead to no purpose other than that noted in Burkeman's comment.
The war against the "Taliban" is a jobs work program. It is a low level war with tolerably low casualties (for Americans) but supremely profitable overhead.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
We have to fight them over there so they won't bomb a Lion King matinee here
or shoot up Fort Hood, or get on a plane with loaded underwear.
Okay, kids, I'm going to say it again, 911 and the subsequent terror events involving Muslims have all been border and immigration control failures.
Does anyone believe that if we bring the troops home and forget the war, that the terrorists will build carrier fleets and bomb the Big Apple from the sky and land an army on Cape May?
Okay, kids, I'm going to say it again, 911 and the subsequent terror events involving Muslims have all been border and immigration control failures.
Does anyone believe that if we bring the troops home and forget the war, that the terrorists will build carrier fleets and bomb the Big Apple from the sky and land an army on Cape May?
Sunday, March 14, 2010
What is the point? and Plus ça again and again and again.
Randall Parker at Parapundit has what the Neutralist believes are two useful posts. The first is,
Afhganistan Is Still Afghanistan
Happy pledges lead to happy outcomes.
JALALABAD, Afghanistan — Six weeks ago, elders of the Shinwari tribe, which dominates a large area in southeastern Afghanistan, pledged that they would set aside internal differences to focus on fighting the Taliban.
This is Afghanistan which is part of the planet Earth and we are all in a Global Village and all really similar to each other. Anyone who dares to say differently will get called bad names. We are all really similar. We can all just get along, live in the present, imagine all the people, and so on.
But something went wrong? How could that be?
This week, that commitment seemed less important as two Shinwari subtribes took up arms to fight each other over an ancient land dispute, leaving at least 13 people dead, according to local officials.
The story includes accusations of police giving weapons to one of the factions. The disagreement degenerated into the use of rocket-propelled grenades and mortar launchers. Obviously Afghanistan needs gun control. Probably a government program to control gang violence too.
Official US policy has been damaged by this incident. Oh my.
The fighting was a setback for American military officials, some of whom had hoped it would be possible to replicate the pledge elsewhere. It raised questions about how effectively the American military could use tribes as part of its counterinsurgency strategy, given the patchwork of rivalries that make up Afghanistan.
The US government wouldn't make policy for a country based on unjustified asumptions about human nature, would it?
This is intra tribal rivalry. What is the point of the whole exercise if we have to keep everybody on board down to this level.
The comments are worth stealing as well,
Stephen said at March 12, 2010 3:54 AM:
Probably means we're about due for the US to announce that its killed a senior Al Qaeda commander.
mike said at March 12, 2010 4:44 AM:
Ancient land dispute? How primitive. After all, no advanced or intelligent society would support a land grab just because it was "promised" to a certain people in a thousand year old religious book.
Black Death said at March 12, 2010 5:47 AM:
"Probably a government program to control gang violence too."
How about midnight basketball?
Randall's newer post is below.
Little Government In Kandahar Afghanistan
Practice makes perfect. US forces are going to try to gain control of Kandahar again.
In theory, the Afghan government is in place in Kandahar, but its authority is nominal. Bombings and assassinations have left the government largely isolated behind concrete barricades and blast walls. In the latest burst of violence, a suicide squad struck across the city late Saturday, detonating bombs at a recently fortified prison, the police headquarters and two other sites, the Associated Press reported. At least 30 people were killed.
For the first time in years, however, the U.S. military again has Kandahar in its sights.
American troops are seeking to reclaim the city and surrounding province, where the Taliban has proved resurgent, more than eight years after the U.S.-led invasion forced the group from power. But a visit here last week made clear that American forces will face an insidious enemy that operates mainly in the shadows and exercises indirect control through intimidation and by instilling fear. The provincial governor remains mostly behind barricades. The provincial council has trouble convening because many members have fled to Kabul. The police are viewed as ill-trained, corrupt and possibly in league with criminal gangs.
Yet US Defense Secretary Robert Gates still expects US troops to begin withdrawing no later than July 2011.
"We will begin that transition no later than July 2011, but the pace will depend also on conditions on the ground," Gates said after watching training exercises at Camp Blackhorse, where U.S. and British forces train Afghan soldiers.
Michael O'Hanlon and Hassina Sherjan say Afghanistan is pretty mild stuff compared to Iraq.
Also, the violence in Afghanistan today is far less severe than it was in Iraq. Before the troop surge in 2007, more Iraqi civilians were killed every month than have been killed from war-related violence in Afghanistan each year. In other words, Afghanistan is less than a tenth as violent as the Iraq of 2004-07. Communities were displaced and sectarian tensions were inflamed far more in Iraq than they have been in Afghanistan.
But low level violence is more business as usual in Afghanistan than it is in Iraq.
The major US goal in Afghanistan appears to be to leave a government in power that won't be overthrown by the Taliban when the US leaves. I do not see how the US can accomplish that goal. The Taliban families make new babies in large numbers. Defeat them now and in a few years a new generation will be old enough to take up the fight.
Why should defeating them this time be more effective? The creation of the Afghan Army is supposed to be the crucial difference that will allow US and NATO forces to withdraw. But will that army become an effective and loyal fighting force?
Moi, I wish I could set up a pool for online betting on the date the third battle for Kandahar and the second battle for Marjah will start.
Afhganistan Is Still Afghanistan
Happy pledges lead to happy outcomes.
JALALABAD, Afghanistan — Six weeks ago, elders of the Shinwari tribe, which dominates a large area in southeastern Afghanistan, pledged that they would set aside internal differences to focus on fighting the Taliban.
This is Afghanistan which is part of the planet Earth and we are all in a Global Village and all really similar to each other. Anyone who dares to say differently will get called bad names. We are all really similar. We can all just get along, live in the present, imagine all the people, and so on.
But something went wrong? How could that be?
This week, that commitment seemed less important as two Shinwari subtribes took up arms to fight each other over an ancient land dispute, leaving at least 13 people dead, according to local officials.
The story includes accusations of police giving weapons to one of the factions. The disagreement degenerated into the use of rocket-propelled grenades and mortar launchers. Obviously Afghanistan needs gun control. Probably a government program to control gang violence too.
Official US policy has been damaged by this incident. Oh my.
The fighting was a setback for American military officials, some of whom had hoped it would be possible to replicate the pledge elsewhere. It raised questions about how effectively the American military could use tribes as part of its counterinsurgency strategy, given the patchwork of rivalries that make up Afghanistan.
The US government wouldn't make policy for a country based on unjustified asumptions about human nature, would it?
This is intra tribal rivalry. What is the point of the whole exercise if we have to keep everybody on board down to this level.
The comments are worth stealing as well,
Stephen said at March 12, 2010 3:54 AM:
Probably means we're about due for the US to announce that its killed a senior Al Qaeda commander.
mike said at March 12, 2010 4:44 AM:
Ancient land dispute? How primitive. After all, no advanced or intelligent society would support a land grab just because it was "promised" to a certain people in a thousand year old religious book.
Black Death said at March 12, 2010 5:47 AM:
"Probably a government program to control gang violence too."
How about midnight basketball?
Randall's newer post is below.
Little Government In Kandahar Afghanistan
Practice makes perfect. US forces are going to try to gain control of Kandahar again.
In theory, the Afghan government is in place in Kandahar, but its authority is nominal. Bombings and assassinations have left the government largely isolated behind concrete barricades and blast walls. In the latest burst of violence, a suicide squad struck across the city late Saturday, detonating bombs at a recently fortified prison, the police headquarters and two other sites, the Associated Press reported. At least 30 people were killed.
For the first time in years, however, the U.S. military again has Kandahar in its sights.
American troops are seeking to reclaim the city and surrounding province, where the Taliban has proved resurgent, more than eight years after the U.S.-led invasion forced the group from power. But a visit here last week made clear that American forces will face an insidious enemy that operates mainly in the shadows and exercises indirect control through intimidation and by instilling fear. The provincial governor remains mostly behind barricades. The provincial council has trouble convening because many members have fled to Kabul. The police are viewed as ill-trained, corrupt and possibly in league with criminal gangs.
Yet US Defense Secretary Robert Gates still expects US troops to begin withdrawing no later than July 2011.
"We will begin that transition no later than July 2011, but the pace will depend also on conditions on the ground," Gates said after watching training exercises at Camp Blackhorse, where U.S. and British forces train Afghan soldiers.
Michael O'Hanlon and Hassina Sherjan say Afghanistan is pretty mild stuff compared to Iraq.
Also, the violence in Afghanistan today is far less severe than it was in Iraq. Before the troop surge in 2007, more Iraqi civilians were killed every month than have been killed from war-related violence in Afghanistan each year. In other words, Afghanistan is less than a tenth as violent as the Iraq of 2004-07. Communities were displaced and sectarian tensions were inflamed far more in Iraq than they have been in Afghanistan.
But low level violence is more business as usual in Afghanistan than it is in Iraq.
The major US goal in Afghanistan appears to be to leave a government in power that won't be overthrown by the Taliban when the US leaves. I do not see how the US can accomplish that goal. The Taliban families make new babies in large numbers. Defeat them now and in a few years a new generation will be old enough to take up the fight.
Why should defeating them this time be more effective? The creation of the Afghan Army is supposed to be the crucial difference that will allow US and NATO forces to withdraw. But will that army become an effective and loyal fighting force?
Moi, I wish I could set up a pool for online betting on the date the third battle for Kandahar and the second battle for Marjah will start.
Saturday, March 06, 2010
They know
The Southern Avenger, Mr. Jack Hunter, is accomplished in the art of the youtube video. Actually, I can’t say that the youtube video is art. Merely can I say that he goes farther with it than I could, which is not into the realm of overachieving.
Still, I generally agree with his thoughts even if he only hits a single. In his February 6, 2010 offering, he blasted it out of the park with just one tiny particle,
Comparing Paul’s foreign policy stance to that of the congressman’s fellow non-interventionist Pat Buchanan, Coulter added “Whenever I listen to Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan I always think ‘I can’t listen too long or they might convince me.”
Bingo. What Ann really said, once parsed is, I know they are right, but pretend they are wrong. I like to think she is not merely a shill, but if she abandoned neoconnery, to come over to the less financially lush side of non-interventionism, well maybe she would not be so fashionable. Ann doesn't really, really believe and the rest don't either.
Even if you hate the muzzies and think they all should be extirpated, you have to see, we are losing. It matters not how many of them we kill if we bankrupt ourselves. Granted, we are trying manfully and womanfully to ruin ourselves on many other non military fronts, but so what. Why waste the flower of our youth on a losing strategy.
Somehow, I think everyone with some modicum of intelligence, knows this. I’ll let others work out why they can’t say it. For now.
Also, the sensible policy of how to deal with Bin Laden was given us by Rep. Paul with a further comment by Mr. Hunter.
Despite what his critics portray, Paul’s approach to Islamic terrorism is not to ignore it, but to examine motive and develop a sound strategy by pinpointing our defense. Just one month after 9/11, Paul introduced the “Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001,” legislation that would have allowed Congress and the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates by placing a bounty on Al-Qaeda leaders. Paul said the Act “allows Congress to narrowly target terrorist enemies, lessening the likelihood of a full-scale war with any Middle Eastern nations. The Act also threatens terrorist cells worldwide by making it more difficult for our enemies to simply slip back into civilian populations or hide in remote locations… Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man.”
In hindsight, what would have been the more conservative, productive approach after 9/11—spending three trillion dollars in Iraq or placing a $1billion bounty on Bin Laden and every other Al-Qaeda member’s head?
Watch the video here:
Still, I generally agree with his thoughts even if he only hits a single. In his February 6, 2010 offering, he blasted it out of the park with just one tiny particle,
Comparing Paul’s foreign policy stance to that of the congressman’s fellow non-interventionist Pat Buchanan, Coulter added “Whenever I listen to Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan I always think ‘I can’t listen too long or they might convince me.”
Bingo. What Ann really said, once parsed is, I know they are right, but pretend they are wrong. I like to think she is not merely a shill, but if she abandoned neoconnery, to come over to the less financially lush side of non-interventionism, well maybe she would not be so fashionable. Ann doesn't really, really believe and the rest don't either.
Even if you hate the muzzies and think they all should be extirpated, you have to see, we are losing. It matters not how many of them we kill if we bankrupt ourselves. Granted, we are trying manfully and womanfully to ruin ourselves on many other non military fronts, but so what. Why waste the flower of our youth on a losing strategy.
Somehow, I think everyone with some modicum of intelligence, knows this. I’ll let others work out why they can’t say it. For now.
Also, the sensible policy of how to deal with Bin Laden was given us by Rep. Paul with a further comment by Mr. Hunter.
Despite what his critics portray, Paul’s approach to Islamic terrorism is not to ignore it, but to examine motive and develop a sound strategy by pinpointing our defense. Just one month after 9/11, Paul introduced the “Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001,” legislation that would have allowed Congress and the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates by placing a bounty on Al-Qaeda leaders. Paul said the Act “allows Congress to narrowly target terrorist enemies, lessening the likelihood of a full-scale war with any Middle Eastern nations. The Act also threatens terrorist cells worldwide by making it more difficult for our enemies to simply slip back into civilian populations or hide in remote locations… Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man.”
In hindsight, what would have been the more conservative, productive approach after 9/11—spending three trillion dollars in Iraq or placing a $1billion bounty on Bin Laden and every other Al-Qaeda member’s head?
Watch the video here:
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Yoo hoo, you can come out now. Well, Maybe not. Hiding under the bed conservatism, Part III
We are in the ninth year of our struggle against the forces of evil in the War on Terrorism. We must watch our backs constantly in this desperate fight against a foe that is cunning and evil. He is seeking every chance to strike at us and if we just drop our guard for a second, why, probably nothing will happen.
Yes, folks, you have nothing to fear but fear itself. Actually, you do have things to fear. Lots of them.. Fortunately, an attack from the Sons of Jihad is not likely to be one. This does not mean our friends to the east love us. Au contraire, we should be surprised if they did, what with all the drones and bombings and troops in their countries. Heck, I would feel the same toward them if they had brigades over here. They don't and they are not likely to either.
I know, I know, you have been propagandized to believe that without the work of all the folks in the Department of Fatherland Security there would be widespread death and destruction across the country. Why, were it not for the vigilance of our guardians, a man with explosive underwear could just get on a plane and.......
Still, the great holy war of death is, to be honest, the least of your worries. Don't take it from me. Take it from Ryan Singel in Wired. He did one of those color coded thingies like the color coded terror threat level the government has. I can't reproduce the colors, but the breakdown is below:
Red
S E V E R E
Driving off the road: 254,419
Falling: 146,542
Accidental poisoning: 140,327
Kind of yellow.
H I G H
Dying from work: 59,730
Walking down the street: 52,000.
Accidentally drowning: 38,302
Brighter yellow
E L E V A T E D
Killed by the flu: 19,415
Dying from a hernia: 16,742
Blue
G U A R D E D
Accidental firing of a gun: 8,536
Electrocution: 5,171
Green
L O W
Being shot by law enforcement: 3,949
Terrorism: 3147
Carbon monoxide in products: 1,554
As I have a greater chance of being shot by a cop than a Bin Ladenist, maybe we should fire all our police and hire members of Al Qaeda to staff our constabulary.
Mr. Singel should not have published this. When people read that they have a much greater chance of shuffling off the mortal coil by going to work, productivity in this country is going to nosedive.
So my fellow countrymen and women, don't come out from under the bed. Well don't fall out of bed. After all, a fall is up there in the severe category.
Lest you think it has been a long slog up from America as free fire zone to a near terrorist free garden of Eden, you may want to read the words of Paul Jackson. Jackson said basically the same thing Singel is telling, but he said it back in 2005.
These lads are a bit too pollyanish for me though. I have met terrorism dead on. Ah, almost dead on a few months ago here in hillbilly Nova Anglia. I was driving on a mountain road when out of nowhere a deer jumped in front of the car and crashed into my windshield. Had I been going faster or had someone been tailgating, another casualty of the enemy combatants would have been counted. Clever of the foe it was. They know that that doe could not have been on the no fly list.
The War on Terror is merely theater.
Yes, folks, you have nothing to fear but fear itself. Actually, you do have things to fear. Lots of them.. Fortunately, an attack from the Sons of Jihad is not likely to be one. This does not mean our friends to the east love us. Au contraire, we should be surprised if they did, what with all the drones and bombings and troops in their countries. Heck, I would feel the same toward them if they had brigades over here. They don't and they are not likely to either.
I know, I know, you have been propagandized to believe that without the work of all the folks in the Department of Fatherland Security there would be widespread death and destruction across the country. Why, were it not for the vigilance of our guardians, a man with explosive underwear could just get on a plane and.......
Still, the great holy war of death is, to be honest, the least of your worries. Don't take it from me. Take it from Ryan Singel in Wired. He did one of those color coded thingies like the color coded terror threat level the government has. I can't reproduce the colors, but the breakdown is below:
Red
S E V E R E
Driving off the road: 254,419
Falling: 146,542
Accidental poisoning: 140,327
Kind of yellow.
H I G H
Dying from work: 59,730
Walking down the street: 52,000.
Accidentally drowning: 38,302
Brighter yellow
E L E V A T E D
Killed by the flu: 19,415
Dying from a hernia: 16,742
Blue
G U A R D E D
Accidental firing of a gun: 8,536
Electrocution: 5,171
Green
L O W
Being shot by law enforcement: 3,949
Terrorism: 3147
Carbon monoxide in products: 1,554
As I have a greater chance of being shot by a cop than a Bin Ladenist, maybe we should fire all our police and hire members of Al Qaeda to staff our constabulary.
Mr. Singel should not have published this. When people read that they have a much greater chance of shuffling off the mortal coil by going to work, productivity in this country is going to nosedive.
So my fellow countrymen and women, don't come out from under the bed. Well don't fall out of bed. After all, a fall is up there in the severe category.
Lest you think it has been a long slog up from America as free fire zone to a near terrorist free garden of Eden, you may want to read the words of Paul Jackson. Jackson said basically the same thing Singel is telling, but he said it back in 2005.
These lads are a bit too pollyanish for me though. I have met terrorism dead on. Ah, almost dead on a few months ago here in hillbilly Nova Anglia. I was driving on a mountain road when out of nowhere a deer jumped in front of the car and crashed into my windshield. Had I been going faster or had someone been tailgating, another casualty of the enemy combatants would have been counted. Clever of the foe it was. They know that that doe could not have been on the no fly list.
The War on Terror is merely theater.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
More in sorrow
In the eighties, witch hunting hysteria returned to Massachusetts. Child abuse hunters targeted an innocent family north of Boston. The Amiraults, who ran a day care, were railroaded to prison on bizzare charges.
No one was more noble in championing the cause of the persecuted family than Wall Street Journal reporter, Dorothy Rabinowitz. Her columns in the Journal were tough and relentless. She was recently able to reprise her role during the campaign lost by the un lamented Matha, or is it Marcia, Coakley. The article not only brought the history of that sordid event back into view, it exposed Coakley as one twisted pol.
Sadly, Ms. Rabinowitz has demeaned herself with an article ostensibly on Sarah Palin. It seems she is a bit spooked by the recent success of Ron Paul. She is not the only one, but one expected more from her. A little of it is below.
Though it hasn't attracted wide attention, nothing Mrs. Palin has done recently has been worthier of notice than her endorsement of Rand Paul, now running in Kentucky's GOP senate primary. Dr. Paul, an opthamologist and radical libertarian, holds views on national security and defense that have much in common with those of the far left. Not to mention those of the considerable body of conspiracy theorists, antigovernment zealots, 9/11 truthers, and assorted other cadres of the obsessed and deranged who flocked to the presidential candidacy of his father Ron Paul, the congressman from Texas.
A bit sleazy. Come on Dorothy. We all know the press walked by all the normal well adjusted folks who liked Paul so they could find someone strange. You are doing to Paulistas what Coaks and her ilk did to the Amiraults.
You disgrace yourself.
No one was more noble in championing the cause of the persecuted family than Wall Street Journal reporter, Dorothy Rabinowitz. Her columns in the Journal were tough and relentless. She was recently able to reprise her role during the campaign lost by the un lamented Matha, or is it Marcia, Coakley. The article not only brought the history of that sordid event back into view, it exposed Coakley as one twisted pol.
Sadly, Ms. Rabinowitz has demeaned herself with an article ostensibly on Sarah Palin. It seems she is a bit spooked by the recent success of Ron Paul. She is not the only one, but one expected more from her. A little of it is below.
Though it hasn't attracted wide attention, nothing Mrs. Palin has done recently has been worthier of notice than her endorsement of Rand Paul, now running in Kentucky's GOP senate primary. Dr. Paul, an opthamologist and radical libertarian, holds views on national security and defense that have much in common with those of the far left. Not to mention those of the considerable body of conspiracy theorists, antigovernment zealots, 9/11 truthers, and assorted other cadres of the obsessed and deranged who flocked to the presidential candidacy of his father Ron Paul, the congressman from Texas.
A bit sleazy. Come on Dorothy. We all know the press walked by all the normal well adjusted folks who liked Paul so they could find someone strange. You are doing to Paulistas what Coaks and her ilk did to the Amiraults.
You disgrace yourself.
Monday, February 22, 2010
FAIL
I thought the Marjah offensive would be done. We had screamed that we were coming for so long that the Talibs should have got the message, bugging out who needed to be gone and a clever little retreat to take a few potshots and a couple of dead infidels et au revoir.
Well, it has not happened. The lads who use towels to cover their heads have shown a bit more sophistication then was expected. I guess we will eventually scour the place and send anyone who can't blend in packing. Still, it has not gone to plan.
That sneaky enemy has taken up the not fair tricks of Hezbollah or the NVA or ironically for marines, General Kuribayashi*.
Listening to Npr this morning, the embedded Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson was talking about the operation. Rules of engagement limit who the marines can shoot and when. It is to protect civilians so, I would guess, they won't think we suck when the fighting is done. When all the make nice rules don't work, an air strike is called in. There were several non taliban in the building who no longer have to worry about being alienated.
Also, heard on the radio this morning, a group of Ahghans fleeing the war were also struck from the air. Twenty-seven dead, and the usual regrets were voiced.
*An interesting book on how the people we fight respond to our hi tech war tactics and strategy is Phantom Soldier by John Poole.
Well, it has not happened. The lads who use towels to cover their heads have shown a bit more sophistication then was expected. I guess we will eventually scour the place and send anyone who can't blend in packing. Still, it has not gone to plan.
That sneaky enemy has taken up the not fair tricks of Hezbollah or the NVA or ironically for marines, General Kuribayashi*.
Listening to Npr this morning, the embedded Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson was talking about the operation. Rules of engagement limit who the marines can shoot and when. It is to protect civilians so, I would guess, they won't think we suck when the fighting is done. When all the make nice rules don't work, an air strike is called in. There were several non taliban in the building who no longer have to worry about being alienated.
Also, heard on the radio this morning, a group of Ahghans fleeing the war were also struck from the air. Twenty-seven dead, and the usual regrets were voiced.
*An interesting book on how the people we fight respond to our hi tech war tactics and strategy is Phantom Soldier by John Poole.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
If this is how our miltary prosecutes an offensive, they don't deserve to have any
Let’s imagine a bit of alternative history. In early May, 1944 newspaper headlines and radio broadcasts go out with the story, Allies to invade Normandy on or about June 6th. At German HQ, this conversation takes place. Dolph, “Zo, ist this ein trick?” Rommel, “Nein, Fuhrer, Das Allies have always announced before hand their plans.” Dolph, “Sehr Gut, General, plan accordingly.”
Fast forward to 2010 and the Coalition offensive at Marjah in Helmand Province. It was talked about for a long time in advance and was hardly unexpected. We telegraphed the punch and it appears the Taliban did what any good pugilist would. They ducked.
Anyone the Taliban wanted out of Marjah for strategic reasons surely left in time if only because they had all the time in the world to bug out. Anyone who stayed was part of a retreating defense. I have not been listening intensely but I have not heard any big body counts or pow takings. Not that one would feel confident in the reports. Have heard some happy talk about Afghan flags now flying above buildings. Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Oh and we have reports of some senior Taliban leaders captured in Pakistan. Supposedly, the lads were so big, insurgent effectiveness will be vastly depleted. Since young, I’ve been hearing about drug busts that had reduced the supply on the street to a negative amount. The Taliban arrests have that flavor.
Fast forward to 2010 and the Coalition offensive at Marjah in Helmand Province. It was talked about for a long time in advance and was hardly unexpected. We telegraphed the punch and it appears the Taliban did what any good pugilist would. They ducked.
Anyone the Taliban wanted out of Marjah for strategic reasons surely left in time if only because they had all the time in the world to bug out. Anyone who stayed was part of a retreating defense. I have not been listening intensely but I have not heard any big body counts or pow takings. Not that one would feel confident in the reports. Have heard some happy talk about Afghan flags now flying above buildings. Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Oh and we have reports of some senior Taliban leaders captured in Pakistan. Supposedly, the lads were so big, insurgent effectiveness will be vastly depleted. Since young, I’ve been hearing about drug busts that had reduced the supply on the street to a negative amount. The Taliban arrests have that flavor.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Lindsay will be Secretary of Obfuscation in the next Republican Administration
Senator Lindsay Graham gave the weekly radio response for the Republicans. Now, I did not hear the President's message so I am not completely aware of what the Senator is responding to. I do know he was upset that people would get a trial. Of course, it is not just any people. It's people he does not want to hear from.
Here are the Grahamster words,
Never before have we allowed non-citizen enemy combatants, captured on the battlefield, access to our civilian courts providing them with the same constitutional rights as American citizens. Al Qaeda terrorists should not receive more rights than a Nazi war criminal and now is not the time to go back to the pre-9/11 mentality of fighting crime instead of fighting a war.
He would be talking about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Your man was not captured on the battlefield. That is of course unless you consider an arrest in a house in Rawalpindi a battlefield. Also, that more rights than a Nazi war criminal business is a little silly. The Nazi trials were conducted in public. At Nuremberg the Germans had access to first rate counsel and Herman Goering was able to put prosecution lawyers on the defensive at times.
He wants to go back to the glory days of the Bush Administration when guys like Shoes Reid were tried by Military Commission. Oh, right. Bush tried Reid in an American court.
I suppose the big reason that Graham and his ilk do not want the trials to be in the Big Apple is fear. They are afraid of what might happen. A man waterboarded once, maybe that is not torture. I think it is, but I'll let it go. A man who was tortured 183 time was tortued. Maybe we'll look a little Naziish.
What if these guys get top notch counsel who can turn the tables on the tax dollars at work barristers. That would be embarrassing.
The conduct of the so called war on terror has been inept from day one. Our nation's strength ebbs apace yet no one learns.
Here are the Grahamster words,
Never before have we allowed non-citizen enemy combatants, captured on the battlefield, access to our civilian courts providing them with the same constitutional rights as American citizens. Al Qaeda terrorists should not receive more rights than a Nazi war criminal and now is not the time to go back to the pre-9/11 mentality of fighting crime instead of fighting a war.
He would be talking about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Your man was not captured on the battlefield. That is of course unless you consider an arrest in a house in Rawalpindi a battlefield. Also, that more rights than a Nazi war criminal business is a little silly. The Nazi trials were conducted in public. At Nuremberg the Germans had access to first rate counsel and Herman Goering was able to put prosecution lawyers on the defensive at times.
He wants to go back to the glory days of the Bush Administration when guys like Shoes Reid were tried by Military Commission. Oh, right. Bush tried Reid in an American court.
I suppose the big reason that Graham and his ilk do not want the trials to be in the Big Apple is fear. They are afraid of what might happen. A man waterboarded once, maybe that is not torture. I think it is, but I'll let it go. A man who was tortured 183 time was tortued. Maybe we'll look a little Naziish.
What if these guys get top notch counsel who can turn the tables on the tax dollars at work barristers. That would be embarrassing.
The conduct of the so called war on terror has been inept from day one. Our nation's strength ebbs apace yet no one learns.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
We suspend our fundraiser
The Neutralist occasionally announces a fundraiser that is known mostly for its failure. The terms are a minimum $10million per donor. This year, we are suspending the effort in favor of antiwar.com.
Antiwar.com is holding another one of its begathons and unlike public radio, they have earned support. After all, public radio has never forced the establishment to retreat if only because they are part of the establishment.
antiwar.com latest coup is the exposé of the AP story that the Iranians had enriched enough enriched enough weapons grade nuclear material to end civilization. Ah, maybe that was not the case. antiwar.com's Jason Ditz issued a refutation and et voilà , the original was withdrawn and a milder bit of screed put in place.
Now I should have such authority, but I don't. So give it where it will do the most good.
Of course, if you do have that spare 10 big ones lying around...........
Antiwar.com is holding another one of its begathons and unlike public radio, they have earned support. After all, public radio has never forced the establishment to retreat if only because they are part of the establishment.
antiwar.com latest coup is the exposé of the AP story that the Iranians had enriched enough enriched enough weapons grade nuclear material to end civilization. Ah, maybe that was not the case. antiwar.com's Jason Ditz issued a refutation and et voilà , the original was withdrawn and a milder bit of screed put in place.
Now I should have such authority, but I don't. So give it where it will do the most good.
Of course, if you do have that spare 10 big ones lying around...........
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Smoke without fire-All those jihadis who went back to the fight, not
Ah yes, remember the days when someone would come up with something that proved Saddam had nukes and then a few days later, the evidence would turn out to be, well, nothing really. Of course you don't if you are a normal American. Three minutes ago is ancient history here.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Well, it is happening again. Not about WMD in Iraq but one of the other places we have troops. Granted, that's a lot of places. You remember that place we invaded after 911 and never left and is popping up in the news again. Yes, it's called Afghanistan.
Well, we scooped up a lot of lads and gave them a vacation in the sun drenched Caribbean where we treated them with kid gloves. Ah, well maybe we were a tad harsh with some. Still, if it is in a higher cause, what the heck.
Now John Brennan, the assistant to President Obama for homeland security and counterterrorism has written that, [T]he Intelligence Community assesses that 20 percent of detainees transferred from Guantánamo are confirmed or suspected of recidivist activity. I find that shocking. To tell you the truth, if I had been held for years against my will, I'd certainly be wanting to get back at the nation that jailed me.
The thing about the recidivist figures is that they are bunk. Over at the Future Of Freedom Commentaries, Andy Worthington exposes it in Repeating Pentagon Lies on Gitmo Recidivism. It seems that the figures were kinda fudged and repeated by the MSM. My apologies, I should have given a warning. I know those of you who believe that MSM member are killer fact checkers are going into shock.
The accounting is as creative as the Madoff team. It seems some of the former detainees went right back to the war by writing about it and were thus counted as just about to put petn down their undies. Per Andy,
We know, from earlier Pentagon claims, that this “recidivism” has included — and may well still include — publishing houses, the offices of newspapers, TV studios, and film sets because the Pentagon admitted (in a press release that was subsequently deleted from the Pentagon’s website, but is mirrored here) that it included former prisoners, like the Tipton Three — three young men from the West Midlands — who had appeared in a movie, The Road to Guantánamo, which dramatized their experiences, and the five Uighurs sent to Albania in 2006, after tribunals at Guantánamo cleared them of being “enemy combatants.” In the latter case, this was apparently because one of them, Abu Bakker Qassim, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times in which he urged U.S. lawmakers to defend habeas corpus.
In the years since, many more ex-prisoners have written books, newspaper articles, and op-eds, and have appeared on TV and in films. Perhaps Omar Deghayes, the British resident (released in 2007), who appeared in the Guantánamo documentary that I co-directed, Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo, has now joined this ever-expanding group of “recidivists” who have dared to use their words and their voices to “attack” the United States for what it did to them in its brutal, experimental prisons in Afghanistan, Guantánamo and elsewhere.
Of course, If the pen is mightier than the sword, we may every right to be fearful. Being able to argue has to be defined as aggression.
No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up. Lily Tomlin, I think.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Well, it is happening again. Not about WMD in Iraq but one of the other places we have troops. Granted, that's a lot of places. You remember that place we invaded after 911 and never left and is popping up in the news again. Yes, it's called Afghanistan.
Well, we scooped up a lot of lads and gave them a vacation in the sun drenched Caribbean where we treated them with kid gloves. Ah, well maybe we were a tad harsh with some. Still, if it is in a higher cause, what the heck.
Now John Brennan, the assistant to President Obama for homeland security and counterterrorism has written that, [T]he Intelligence Community assesses that 20 percent of detainees transferred from Guantánamo are confirmed or suspected of recidivist activity. I find that shocking. To tell you the truth, if I had been held for years against my will, I'd certainly be wanting to get back at the nation that jailed me.
The thing about the recidivist figures is that they are bunk. Over at the Future Of Freedom Commentaries, Andy Worthington exposes it in Repeating Pentagon Lies on Gitmo Recidivism. It seems that the figures were kinda fudged and repeated by the MSM. My apologies, I should have given a warning. I know those of you who believe that MSM member are killer fact checkers are going into shock.
The accounting is as creative as the Madoff team. It seems some of the former detainees went right back to the war by writing about it and were thus counted as just about to put petn down their undies. Per Andy,
We know, from earlier Pentagon claims, that this “recidivism” has included — and may well still include — publishing houses, the offices of newspapers, TV studios, and film sets because the Pentagon admitted (in a press release that was subsequently deleted from the Pentagon’s website, but is mirrored here) that it included former prisoners, like the Tipton Three — three young men from the West Midlands — who had appeared in a movie, The Road to Guantánamo, which dramatized their experiences, and the five Uighurs sent to Albania in 2006, after tribunals at Guantánamo cleared them of being “enemy combatants.” In the latter case, this was apparently because one of them, Abu Bakker Qassim, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times in which he urged U.S. lawmakers to defend habeas corpus.
In the years since, many more ex-prisoners have written books, newspaper articles, and op-eds, and have appeared on TV and in films. Perhaps Omar Deghayes, the British resident (released in 2007), who appeared in the Guantánamo documentary that I co-directed, Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo, has now joined this ever-expanding group of “recidivists” who have dared to use their words and their voices to “attack” the United States for what it did to them in its brutal, experimental prisons in Afghanistan, Guantánamo and elsewhere.
Of course, If the pen is mightier than the sword, we may every right to be fearful. Being able to argue has to be defined as aggression.
No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up. Lily Tomlin, I think.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Wasn't that the rationale?
From USA Today: Intel chief: al-Qaeda likely to attempt attack
From the article: WASHINGTON (AP) — al-Qaeda can be expected to attempt an attack on the United States in the next three to six months, senior U.S. intelligence officials told Congress.
The terrorist organization is deploying operatives to the United States to carry out new attacks from inside the country, including "clean" recruits with a negligible trail of terrorist contacts, CIA Director Leon Panetta said.
So I guess some of them are taking a break from fighting us over there so they can fight us over here.
Of course anyone who bought that line was capable of believing they hate us for our freedoms.
Now how many billions? trillions? has this brilliant strategy wasted. How many young men have been killed and maimed in the struggle?
Ah, but it has not been all a waste. Many chickenhawk journalistic careers have gotten a boost.
From the article: WASHINGTON (AP) — al-Qaeda can be expected to attempt an attack on the United States in the next three to six months, senior U.S. intelligence officials told Congress.
The terrorist organization is deploying operatives to the United States to carry out new attacks from inside the country, including "clean" recruits with a negligible trail of terrorist contacts, CIA Director Leon Panetta said.
So I guess some of them are taking a break from fighting us over there so they can fight us over here.
Of course anyone who bought that line was capable of believing they hate us for our freedoms.
Now how many billions? trillions? has this brilliant strategy wasted. How many young men have been killed and maimed in the struggle?
Ah, but it has not been all a waste. Many chickenhawk journalistic careers have gotten a boost.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Let's do Dresden again!
In my role as a normal, walking around human being (whatever that is?) I tend to agree with the Skeptical CPA. Heaven knows we need more auditors who are willing to use a jauniced eye.
When your man delves into foregn policy, he becomes a hide under the bed conservative where Iran is concerned. I then have to step into the phone booth and put on my Neutralist costume. He offends below,
I believe Ralph Peters shortly after 9/11 suggested the: US, Russia, India, Israel and China form an alliance to fight Jihadism. Imagine had this happened, the US and Russia could have presented Iran an ultimatum, replete with pictures of Dresden and Berlin: stop all nuclear activities or this is your fate, that of Germany in 1945. My guess, within a few weeks, Iran's military will have slaughtered its Mullahs and given US-Russian teams free reign to look at anything in Iran. Instead, the US kisses Saudi Arabia's arse.
Mr. Peters is a buffoon and thug. A buffoon because after the Soviet collapse, we made Russia promises that we broke and all of a sudden we say, hey let's be friends and they will buy it. A thug, because the proposal above is thuggish as was Dresden and Hiroshima.
The only part that makes sense is the part about where we kiss the Saudis. Then again, as a Neutralist, I do not want to kiss or kick any part of anyone's anatomy. Our save the world foreign policy is a big part of the reason we are going broke. Yet we continue to punch shadows. The Middle East, even Iran trying to get the big firecracker is no threat to us. Let me say it again, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iranians do not have carrier fleets and couldn't sail them if they did. Even Iran doesn't have a real air force. It is the Middle East Powder Thimble.
Oh, and say we and the Russkies had given the ultimatum to Iran and they had said, go fry ice and we then fried them. We would have become what we are now, a rogue, failed state.
Yes, the Russians do want us to stay and chase our tail in Afghanistan. We dissipate our strength and keep their enemies occupied. Win Win for them. That is no reason for us to be there.
When your man delves into foregn policy, he becomes a hide under the bed conservative where Iran is concerned. I then have to step into the phone booth and put on my Neutralist costume. He offends below,
I believe Ralph Peters shortly after 9/11 suggested the: US, Russia, India, Israel and China form an alliance to fight Jihadism. Imagine had this happened, the US and Russia could have presented Iran an ultimatum, replete with pictures of Dresden and Berlin: stop all nuclear activities or this is your fate, that of Germany in 1945. My guess, within a few weeks, Iran's military will have slaughtered its Mullahs and given US-Russian teams free reign to look at anything in Iran. Instead, the US kisses Saudi Arabia's arse.
Mr. Peters is a buffoon and thug. A buffoon because after the Soviet collapse, we made Russia promises that we broke and all of a sudden we say, hey let's be friends and they will buy it. A thug, because the proposal above is thuggish as was Dresden and Hiroshima.
The only part that makes sense is the part about where we kiss the Saudis. Then again, as a Neutralist, I do not want to kiss or kick any part of anyone's anatomy. Our save the world foreign policy is a big part of the reason we are going broke. Yet we continue to punch shadows. The Middle East, even Iran trying to get the big firecracker is no threat to us. Let me say it again, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iranians do not have carrier fleets and couldn't sail them if they did. Even Iran doesn't have a real air force. It is the Middle East Powder Thimble.
Oh, and say we and the Russkies had given the ultimatum to Iran and they had said, go fry ice and we then fried them. We would have become what we are now, a rogue, failed state.
Yes, the Russians do want us to stay and chase our tail in Afghanistan. We dissipate our strength and keep their enemies occupied. Win Win for them. That is no reason for us to be there.
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Neutralist Position on Haiti
So what is the Neutralist position on Haiti? Yes, the desperate call for guidance from our headquarters can be measured in almost less than single digits. No matter, we are happy to state our position. The Neutralist is against Neo-Colonialism in all its forms, but especially when it leads to American military assets being deployed to save another benighted people from themselves.
Want to throw a twenty into the special collection at your church? Be my guest. Give to make Yclef Jean (whoever that is) wealthier and yourself feel better? Go for it. Whatever charitable expenditure you make is your business and if you know what you are doing or get lucky in your choice of organization, it might do some good.
We have been intervening militarily in Haiti since 1850, according to one source. Now I have no right to say that has made Haiti the supposed basket case it is. I do aver that it has not in any event really helped.
I spoke with someone who has had extensive aid experience and he does not believe the current save Haiti thingie to be glorious.
One interesting news item was that all the buildings made by Euros and Euro Americans, or in the style thereof, collapsed. Now the building codes in our sister republic might be a bit fluid, but contrast that with the shanty towns. It appears the flimsy stuff held up nicely.
I suspect that left to themselves the Haitians would build something suitable. Okay, they might not set up universities, but does a nation need a lot of sinecure factories anyway? There is an overpopulation problem that is probably being "fed" by all the do good agencies that work in the country. The thing is, Haiti should be a Haitian problem, not a people who have to be the special project of the rest of the world.
And the Haitians are not the helpless wards of the world in all things. They beat up the imperial armies of France, England and Spain. I would guess in some of our adventures, we were happy to leave.
Want to throw a twenty into the special collection at your church? Be my guest. Give to make Yclef Jean (whoever that is) wealthier and yourself feel better? Go for it. Whatever charitable expenditure you make is your business and if you know what you are doing or get lucky in your choice of organization, it might do some good.
We have been intervening militarily in Haiti since 1850, according to one source. Now I have no right to say that has made Haiti the supposed basket case it is. I do aver that it has not in any event really helped.
I spoke with someone who has had extensive aid experience and he does not believe the current save Haiti thingie to be glorious.
One interesting news item was that all the buildings made by Euros and Euro Americans, or in the style thereof, collapsed. Now the building codes in our sister republic might be a bit fluid, but contrast that with the shanty towns. It appears the flimsy stuff held up nicely.
I suspect that left to themselves the Haitians would build something suitable. Okay, they might not set up universities, but does a nation need a lot of sinecure factories anyway? There is an overpopulation problem that is probably being "fed" by all the do good agencies that work in the country. The thing is, Haiti should be a Haitian problem, not a people who have to be the special project of the rest of the world.
And the Haitians are not the helpless wards of the world in all things. They beat up the imperial armies of France, England and Spain. I would guess in some of our adventures, we were happy to leave.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
The Boondoggle Continues
I started reading Mike "Mish" Shedlock because I accidentally heard a podcast where he explained why we have not had roaring inflation despite Zimbabwe Ben's best efforts. It was the most cogent explanation I'd heard. Heck, it was the only reasonable voice on the matter that I had come across.
This, however, is not a blog about economics other than we espouse a foreign policy that does not bankrupt the nation. FP is not necessarily the remit of Mish's blog, but there is no resentment from us. Step on our toes anytime, Mr. Shedlock.
Anyway, Mish has been trading emails with a soldier over in Afghanistan. The soldier, BP pinged Mish,
You really need to do something on the waste of this war. Foreign contractors are everywhere you look.
KBR must have 4 civilians for every military member. There are a few American contractors but most seem to be Foreign nationals. Philippine nationals are everywhere. I'm sure they get paid peanuts so the KBR shareholders get their return.
Mish did some research on the question and quotes a Wapo article ,
The surge of 30,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan could be accompanied by a surge of up to 56,000 contractors, vastly expanding the presence of personnel from the U.S. private sector in a war zone, according to a study by the Congressional Research Service.
CRS, which provides background information to members of Congress on a bipartisan basis, said it expects an additional 26,000 to 56,000 contractors to be sent to Afghanistan. That would bring the number of contractors in the country to anywhere from 130,000 to 160,000.
The CRS study says contractors made up 69 percent of the Pentagon's personnel in Afghanistan last December, a proportion that "apparently represented the highest recorded percentage of contractors used by the Defense Department in any conflict in the history of the United States."
He quotes James Howard Kunstler on the unwinnability of the war. I find some of Kunstler's stuff charming, especially his autobiographical vignettes, but he does not mention his y2k doomer stuff that did not pan out. Saying the war is unwinnable now is only evidence of sanity. Saying it in 2001 was wisdom.
Back to Mish. His words are dead on.
How many trillions have we wasted on "Star Wars" initiatives? Yet since the end of the cold war, the big threat never was nor ever will be, countries firing missiles at us. The big threat to the US so far has been improper security procedures on airplanes and schools.
Nut cases are everywhere. Proof enough can be found in the US when Timothy McVeigh blew up a building, and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were responsible for the Columbine High School massacre.
It's important to remember "terror" is a method. A war on terror makes no sense because one cannot win a war on a method.
Externally, the most important thing to note is the longer we meddle in the internal affairs of other countries the more enemies we make.
In spite of the fact that Iraq was never a strategic threat to the US, we wasted $694 billion there as noted in Cost of Iraq war will surpass Vietnam. Add in future medical liabilities and money hidden elsewhere and the cost of Iraq easily exceeds $1 trillion. We can thank idiot Bush and Congressional morons for that mess.
Now Obama is about to throw more money down the Afghanistan black hole. Like Iraq, Afghanistan is another Vietnam. It will not cost as many lives but it is just as stupid and economically will cost as much if we stay for a few more years.
Why Do They Hate Us?
War mongers like to tout "they hate us for our freedoms". Well, no they don't. If that was the reason, they would hate New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Germany, Iceland, and dozens of other countries.
They hate the US because ...
* We have troops in 150 countries
* We support corrupt regimes
* We needlessly meddle in the internal affairs of other countries
* We have a one-sided policy on Israel
* We are hypocrites on free trade and human rights
The more we keep troops all over the world, the more enemies we make. Eventually it will bankrupt us. The only sane solution is to declare the war won and leave, not just Afghanistan, but 149 other countries as well.
Mish will have to bear the burden of being awarded the not too much coveted Neutralist Article of the Month for January. It is a great post and we wish to recognize him now. Also, this spares us having to make the effort to think about other articles.
Congratulations, Mish.
This, however, is not a blog about economics other than we espouse a foreign policy that does not bankrupt the nation. FP is not necessarily the remit of Mish's blog, but there is no resentment from us. Step on our toes anytime, Mr. Shedlock.
Anyway, Mish has been trading emails with a soldier over in Afghanistan. The soldier, BP pinged Mish,
You really need to do something on the waste of this war. Foreign contractors are everywhere you look.
KBR must have 4 civilians for every military member. There are a few American contractors but most seem to be Foreign nationals. Philippine nationals are everywhere. I'm sure they get paid peanuts so the KBR shareholders get their return.
Mish did some research on the question and quotes a Wapo article ,
The surge of 30,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan could be accompanied by a surge of up to 56,000 contractors, vastly expanding the presence of personnel from the U.S. private sector in a war zone, according to a study by the Congressional Research Service.
CRS, which provides background information to members of Congress on a bipartisan basis, said it expects an additional 26,000 to 56,000 contractors to be sent to Afghanistan. That would bring the number of contractors in the country to anywhere from 130,000 to 160,000.
The CRS study says contractors made up 69 percent of the Pentagon's personnel in Afghanistan last December, a proportion that "apparently represented the highest recorded percentage of contractors used by the Defense Department in any conflict in the history of the United States."
He quotes James Howard Kunstler on the unwinnability of the war. I find some of Kunstler's stuff charming, especially his autobiographical vignettes, but he does not mention his y2k doomer stuff that did not pan out. Saying the war is unwinnable now is only evidence of sanity. Saying it in 2001 was wisdom.
Back to Mish. His words are dead on.
How many trillions have we wasted on "Star Wars" initiatives? Yet since the end of the cold war, the big threat never was nor ever will be, countries firing missiles at us. The big threat to the US so far has been improper security procedures on airplanes and schools.
Nut cases are everywhere. Proof enough can be found in the US when Timothy McVeigh blew up a building, and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were responsible for the Columbine High School massacre.
It's important to remember "terror" is a method. A war on terror makes no sense because one cannot win a war on a method.
Externally, the most important thing to note is the longer we meddle in the internal affairs of other countries the more enemies we make.
In spite of the fact that Iraq was never a strategic threat to the US, we wasted $694 billion there as noted in Cost of Iraq war will surpass Vietnam. Add in future medical liabilities and money hidden elsewhere and the cost of Iraq easily exceeds $1 trillion. We can thank idiot Bush and Congressional morons for that mess.
Now Obama is about to throw more money down the Afghanistan black hole. Like Iraq, Afghanistan is another Vietnam. It will not cost as many lives but it is just as stupid and economically will cost as much if we stay for a few more years.
Why Do They Hate Us?
War mongers like to tout "they hate us for our freedoms". Well, no they don't. If that was the reason, they would hate New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Germany, Iceland, and dozens of other countries.
They hate the US because ...
* We have troops in 150 countries
* We support corrupt regimes
* We needlessly meddle in the internal affairs of other countries
* We have a one-sided policy on Israel
* We are hypocrites on free trade and human rights
The more we keep troops all over the world, the more enemies we make. Eventually it will bankrupt us. The only sane solution is to declare the war won and leave, not just Afghanistan, but 149 other countries as well.
Mish will have to bear the burden of being awarded the not too much coveted Neutralist Article of the Month for January. It is a great post and we wish to recognize him now. Also, this spares us having to make the effort to think about other articles.
Congratulations, Mish.
Friday, January 01, 2010
The descent of Ben Stein
I suppose everyone has seen the Stein-Lee-Paul video from Larry King where Ben Stein's knee jerks into an inference of anti-semitism when Ron Paul says our foreign policy is a cause of blowback.
I have been reading Ben Stein for, I would guess, at least thirty years. He is a wit and not without wisdom. What he has done here is stain his soul. A man of talent and ability becoming old and sad in the misguided service of something he loves.
For a Jew to defend and support Israel is natural. That is something only an true anti-semite either does not understand or opposes because he does precisely realize it is valid. Israel, however, is not the United States and the United States is not Israel. We may at times have mutual interests and at times we may not. The Neutralist avers that trying to run the world is in the interest of neither. Calling someone an anti-semite over that is sad.
The Neutralist policy on Israel, as much as there is one, is here.
Sheila Jackson Lee appeared to only be there to say Obama is God. There is no comment necessary from the Neutralist.
I have been reading Ben Stein for, I would guess, at least thirty years. He is a wit and not without wisdom. What he has done here is stain his soul. A man of talent and ability becoming old and sad in the misguided service of something he loves.
For a Jew to defend and support Israel is natural. That is something only an true anti-semite either does not understand or opposes because he does precisely realize it is valid. Israel, however, is not the United States and the United States is not Israel. We may at times have mutual interests and at times we may not. The Neutralist avers that trying to run the world is in the interest of neither. Calling someone an anti-semite over that is sad.
The Neutralist policy on Israel, as much as there is one, is here.
Sheila Jackson Lee appeared to only be there to say Obama is God. There is no comment necessary from the Neutralist.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Establishment magazine says the war is lost. Tell us something we didn't already know.
Foreign Policy, a magazine of the American establishment has said it all,
There isn't the slightest possibility that the course laid out by Barack Obama in his Dec. 1 speech will halt or even slow the downward spiral toward defeat in Afghanistan. None.
These words were penned by BY THOMAS H. JOHNSON, M. CHRIS MASON on DECEMBER 10, 2009. Who are the authors? Thomas H. Johnson is research professor of the Department in National Security Affairs and director of the Program for Culture and Conflict Studies at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif.
M. Chris Mason, a retired Foreign Service officer who served in 2005 as political officer for the provincial reconstruction team in Paktika, is senior fellow at the Program for Culture and Conflict Studies and at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies in Washington.
Thus the men are true members of the team. I suspect they have both believed this for a while before the speech. It is not as if there were the slightest chance the Pres was going to come up with sufficient men and materiel to turn Afghanistan into any kind of stable entity capable of standing on its own.
Your humble neutralist thought the war doomed before it started. I take no joy in my country's defeat. I only note, in truth, we are defeating ourselves.
Of course, politically, Obama could not say what he knows is true even if he was so inclined. The question becomes why, really did it take so long to come up with a policy that he probably knew was ridiculous. Granted this surge may have been the least goofy alternative that was politically acceptable. His inability to tell the truth and end it, means the war is now well and truly his. In truth, did anyone not think this was going to happen?
I first read of the FP article at Randall Parker's Parapundit blog. In passing I note the comment of one of his readers.
I remember watching 3 segments on consecutive nights on Britain's Newsnight program earlier this year regarding the involvement of British forces and being shocked at the comments of various senior commanders.
i) in one segment a senior commander was interviewed who had been in command in Kabul for several months admitted on camera that he had only just recently become aware of the British Afghan campaigns in the 19th century and was reading up on them.
When I was an enlisted man during the Viet Nam war, only one of my officers knew as much about history as I did. One thought the Brits would know more. I would guess Johnson and Mason have a grasp of the history of Afghanistan. I doubt Obama and his coterie do. The previous team didn't either.
It would be nice if someone could just say let's go home and spare the lives of us and them.
There isn't the slightest possibility that the course laid out by Barack Obama in his Dec. 1 speech will halt or even slow the downward spiral toward defeat in Afghanistan. None.
These words were penned by BY THOMAS H. JOHNSON, M. CHRIS MASON on DECEMBER 10, 2009. Who are the authors? Thomas H. Johnson is research professor of the Department in National Security Affairs and director of the Program for Culture and Conflict Studies at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif.
M. Chris Mason, a retired Foreign Service officer who served in 2005 as political officer for the provincial reconstruction team in Paktika, is senior fellow at the Program for Culture and Conflict Studies and at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies in Washington.
Thus the men are true members of the team. I suspect they have both believed this for a while before the speech. It is not as if there were the slightest chance the Pres was going to come up with sufficient men and materiel to turn Afghanistan into any kind of stable entity capable of standing on its own.
Your humble neutralist thought the war doomed before it started. I take no joy in my country's defeat. I only note, in truth, we are defeating ourselves.
Of course, politically, Obama could not say what he knows is true even if he was so inclined. The question becomes why, really did it take so long to come up with a policy that he probably knew was ridiculous. Granted this surge may have been the least goofy alternative that was politically acceptable. His inability to tell the truth and end it, means the war is now well and truly his. In truth, did anyone not think this was going to happen?
I first read of the FP article at Randall Parker's Parapundit blog. In passing I note the comment of one of his readers.
I remember watching 3 segments on consecutive nights on Britain's Newsnight program earlier this year regarding the involvement of British forces and being shocked at the comments of various senior commanders.
i) in one segment a senior commander was interviewed who had been in command in Kabul for several months admitted on camera that he had only just recently become aware of the British Afghan campaigns in the 19th century and was reading up on them.
When I was an enlisted man during the Viet Nam war, only one of my officers knew as much about history as I did. One thought the Brits would know more. I would guess Johnson and Mason have a grasp of the history of Afghanistan. I doubt Obama and his coterie do. The previous team didn't either.
It would be nice if someone could just say let's go home and spare the lives of us and them.
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Neutralism has its work cut out for it.
Mr. Daniel Larison has a December 3rd post at The Amercian Conservative blog about how our countrymen will claim to be for minding our own biz while still favoring intervention.
He starts, The new Pew survey (via RCP) that purports to show a record-high level of “isolationist sentiment” is fairly misleading. No doubt, there was a higher percentage that answered that the U.S. should “mind its own business and let other countries get along the best they can on their own,” but the alternative was to answer that the U.S. “is the most powerful nation in the world, we should go our own way in international matters, not worrying about whether other countries agree with us or not.” Given that choice between something that sounds reasonable and something that sounds idiotic, a great many non-”isolationists” would prefer the former response. Essentially, the survey offered two choices. On the one hand, the respondent can choose arrogant hegemonism and disregard the interests of all other nations, or he can choose something less obviously obnoxious. One depressing thing about the survey results is that hegemonism still gets 44%. The other depressing thing is that the 49% don’t really mean what they claim to believe.
Disheartening as the above paragraph is, the one that really shocks is,
Among the public, 63% approve of the use of U.S. military force against Iran if it were certain that Iran had produced a nuclear weapon; just 33% of CFR members agree.
The freaking CFR members are less warmongering than my lumpen fellow countrymen!
The title of the post is "The Bogey Of Isolationism" Mr. Larison nicely puts the whole Pew thing in perspective.
The commenters know something is wrong because if you are not for all war all the time overseas, you become an "isolationist." Not exactly a Nazi, but as goofy as a Moonie. They have come up with alternative terms such as Realist, Eunomic, George Washingtonism and others. I am saddened they have not realized the obvious. Neutralism is the term.
Of course, I have not been doing any heavy lifting of late to make Neutalist and Neutralism household words, but that does not take away from the fact that the term that they are searching for is within their grasp.
He starts, The new Pew survey (via RCP) that purports to show a record-high level of “isolationist sentiment” is fairly misleading. No doubt, there was a higher percentage that answered that the U.S. should “mind its own business and let other countries get along the best they can on their own,” but the alternative was to answer that the U.S. “is the most powerful nation in the world, we should go our own way in international matters, not worrying about whether other countries agree with us or not.” Given that choice between something that sounds reasonable and something that sounds idiotic, a great many non-”isolationists” would prefer the former response. Essentially, the survey offered two choices. On the one hand, the respondent can choose arrogant hegemonism and disregard the interests of all other nations, or he can choose something less obviously obnoxious. One depressing thing about the survey results is that hegemonism still gets 44%. The other depressing thing is that the 49% don’t really mean what they claim to believe.
Disheartening as the above paragraph is, the one that really shocks is,
Among the public, 63% approve of the use of U.S. military force against Iran if it were certain that Iran had produced a nuclear weapon; just 33% of CFR members agree.
The freaking CFR members are less warmongering than my lumpen fellow countrymen!
The title of the post is "The Bogey Of Isolationism" Mr. Larison nicely puts the whole Pew thing in perspective.
The commenters know something is wrong because if you are not for all war all the time overseas, you become an "isolationist." Not exactly a Nazi, but as goofy as a Moonie. They have come up with alternative terms such as Realist, Eunomic, George Washingtonism and others. I am saddened they have not realized the obvious. Neutralism is the term.
Of course, I have not been doing any heavy lifting of late to make Neutalist and Neutralism household words, but that does not take away from the fact that the term that they are searching for is within their grasp.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
It bears repeating
Over at Defense and the National Interest, a Senor Tomas made this comment,
Saddam Hussein was a counter-balance against the Iranians and a counter-balance against Islamic fundamentalists - including Al Qaeda. For this reason alone overthrowing Saddam Hussein weakened United States national security - not strenghthened it. I have said this before and I say it again - overthrowing Saddam Hussein is one of the stupidest things the United States of America has done in its 200-plus-year history.
I beg anyone to try and make the case that ST is wrong. ST may not be a neutralist, but he made the case for it. A country that treats its foreign policy so stupidly doesn't deserve to have one.
Saddam Hussein was a counter-balance against the Iranians and a counter-balance against Islamic fundamentalists - including Al Qaeda. For this reason alone overthrowing Saddam Hussein weakened United States national security - not strenghthened it. I have said this before and I say it again - overthrowing Saddam Hussein is one of the stupidest things the United States of America has done in its 200-plus-year history.
I beg anyone to try and make the case that ST is wrong. ST may not be a neutralist, but he made the case for it. A country that treats its foreign policy so stupidly doesn't deserve to have one.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Quaker Card as sliming
Below we steal from Mr. Vance. The Quakers where I live seem to be a group of touchy feely granolas with a New Age tinge. I am sure this is unfair as I've never made a study of them. Still, I think Jefferson's point is well taken.
From LRC Blog
The Quaker Card
Posted by Laurence Vance at May 12, 2009 08:54 PM
The "Quaker card" was recently played against me again. Although I am a Baptist, I would gladly accept a hand full of Quaker cards--it beats a hand of aggression, torture, intervention, death, and destruction.
Here is Thomas Jefferson’s "Quaker" foreign policy:
Peace has been our principle, peace is our interest, and peace has saved to the world this only plant of free and rational government now existing in it. However, therefore, we may have been reproached for pursuing our Quaker system, time will affix the stamp of wisdom on it, and the happiness and prosperity of our citizens will attest its merit. And this, I believe, is the only legitimate object of government, and the first duty of governors, and not the slaughter of men and devastation of the countries placed under their care, in pursuit of a fantastic honor, unallied to virtue or happiness; or in gratification of the angry passions, or the pride of administrators, excited by personal incidents, in which their citizens have no concern.
From LRC Blog
The Quaker Card
Posted by Laurence Vance at May 12, 2009 08:54 PM
The "Quaker card" was recently played against me again. Although I am a Baptist, I would gladly accept a hand full of Quaker cards--it beats a hand of aggression, torture, intervention, death, and destruction.
Here is Thomas Jefferson’s "Quaker" foreign policy:
Peace has been our principle, peace is our interest, and peace has saved to the world this only plant of free and rational government now existing in it. However, therefore, we may have been reproached for pursuing our Quaker system, time will affix the stamp of wisdom on it, and the happiness and prosperity of our citizens will attest its merit. And this, I believe, is the only legitimate object of government, and the first duty of governors, and not the slaughter of men and devastation of the countries placed under their care, in pursuit of a fantastic honor, unallied to virtue or happiness; or in gratification of the angry passions, or the pride of administrators, excited by personal incidents, in which their citizens have no concern.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Answer the Question
All you drunk in a bar or hiding under the bed so called conservatives* and other assorted chickenhawks should answer the questions posed by Ronnie in this speech.
Okay, chickenhawks, you sent the army to kill untold thousands of foreigners as well as 5,000 of your countrymen (and women) Have you had enough revenge for the 3,000 dead in911? Did you bring them back to life?
*The only true Conservative Foreign Policy is defense of hearth and home. It is not pursuit of empire.
Hat tip.
Okay, chickenhawks, you sent the army to kill untold thousands of foreigners as well as 5,000 of your countrymen (and women) Have you had enough revenge for the 3,000 dead in911? Did you bring them back to life?
*The only true Conservative Foreign Policy is defense of hearth and home. It is not pursuit of empire.
Hat tip.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Drunk in A Bar Conservatism
The Skeptical CPA is an interesting blog and I agree with him a lot and find him interesting. About foreign policy he has, like most of my countrymen and women, no commonsense.
Here is his February 6, 2009 post wherin he reposts the work of a so called intellectual conservative and then caps it with the words of Michael Savage speaking ex cathedra.
"What happens when the alternatives fail? What happens when all the negotiations, sanctions, and compromises fail to dissuade an aggressor? What happens when a nation is forced into war as a last resort? When is 'victory' over an aggressor truly achieved? The answer can be found in an analysis of American strategic war doctrine in the late 19th and 20th ccenturies. ... Historically, the term 'total war'--examples of which include the American Civil War and World War II--was based on the assumption that there were only two options in existential conflicts--total victory or total defeat. .. For the defeated, it meant the end of its ability to wage war, the futility of continuing the conflict and, as in the case of the Nazis, the end of their dream of a thousand-year Reich. Nazi Germany was not merely defeated, it was psychologically vanquished. ... FDR, Churchill and Generals Eisenhower and Patton--like Lincoln, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan before them--understood that if wars had to be fought, if blood and treasure had to be expended, if sacrifice had to be demanded of the nation (including setting the economy on a war footing, re-instituting the draft, selling war bonds, instituting food rationing, and bringing the nation with you by seeking a Congressional declaration of war), then the American people had the right to demand that wars be prosecuted to insure absolute victory so the issues over which they were being fought and for which they were being asked to sacrifice their children would never have to be 'revisted.' ... At the end of World War II, no Nazi official could stand in the ruins of Berlin in April, 1945 and urge his fellow Germans to 'stay the course' until a Nazi victory was assured. Nor, for that matter, could General Hideki Tojo of the Imperial Japanese Army convince his poeople that the destruction wrought by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 were just a 'temporary setback.' It was clear to the German and Japanese peoples that the European and Japanese wars were over. ... All this changed in the post-World War II era. With the advent of nuclear weapons, warefare theorists came to believe that a total war between the two superpowers could lead to mutual annihilation. It was this deterrent concept, applied across the board, the led post-war American military strategists to modify the historical rules of war by resurrecting the seemingly more logical and humane concept that came to be known as 'limited war.' That concept assumed that our enemies would pursue their war objectives in much the same manner and according to the same rules of engagement that we pursue ours. ... But strategists of 'limited war' failed to consider the consequences of what would happen when we confront religiously-inspired enemies like jihadists who refuse to play by our 'limited war' rules, who do not accept international treaties governing the rules of engagement or the treatment of prisoners, who use civilians as human shields, children as human grenades, see 'martyrdom' as a tactical weapon, come from an entirely different culture and value system, and seek nothing less than the destruction of our way of life. ... During the Iranian embassy crisis, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni disclosed that he had no fear of America. 'Our youth should be confident that America cannot do a damn thing.' ... Carter contented himself with imposing ineffectual ... sanctions. ... His dithering would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans in the coming decades. ... This same defensive war doctrine reigns today in Iraq. Despite the rhetoric, U.S. military strategy is not geared to vanquishing its enemies. ... During World War II, it would have been unthinkable to stop at the German border after the liberation of Fance and begin reconstruction, leaving Adolf Hitler and the Nazis in power. ... The U.S. has always assumed that it is the only nation with grand visions like peace, democratization, free enterprsie and globalization. But Iran and its Palestinian and Lebanese Islamic surrogates have their own 'grand vision' and the grandest of them all tells that that both America and Israel will never be anything but enemies of their regime, culture and religions, and that victory over both is assured because it has been ordained by Allah. ... Americans want victory and like it or not, the road to that victory leads through Tehran. Destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, bringing down the Islamic regime and vanquishing all aspects of the Islamic Revolution are absolutely critical if the greater war against Islamic jihadism is to be won", Mark Silverberg, 14 January 2009 at: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/01/14/the-strategy-of-defeat-and-lessons-for-israel-in-gaza/.
This may make some cry, but war against Islamic Jihadism requires much more killing of jihadists and their populations than the West has done to date. Absent more killing, the West will not survive. That's the bottom line. Our entire war on terror rests on false premises. Spengler had a 12 June 2003 post, "More Killing Please" on this, link: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF12Ak01.html. How right he is. As Michael Savage, radio talk show host has said many times, "Only a more Savage nation will survive".
Alright, lets think about this. SCPA, Siverberg and Savage want to wage war. Big war, a lot of war. Well, the enemy is out thinking them. Recently, they out thought the Israelis in Operation Cast Lead. They throw some piddling rockets, the Israelis huff and puff and finally send some reservists in Merkavas. The Palis go to ground, the Israelis bust up some stuff and kill a few people and leave looking stupid. Yup, because they were stupid. The Sabras of the war of independence are gone. It was just reservists riding through. The Israelis could have killed them all if they wanted to but unless Savage is made CinC, that ain't happening. Short much better humint that can target every militant there is not much Israel can do except elect tough talkers. Even though they have a lot of stupid socialism, Israel is infinitely more advanced than the Palis. Guess who has more to lose?
Silverberg:
Americans want victory and like it or not, the road to that victory leads through Tehran. Destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, bringing down the Islamic regime and vanquishing all aspects of the Islamic Revolution are absolutely critical if the greater war against Islamic jihadism is to be won"
SCPA agrees with that. Intellectually, If he really believes that, he and Savage have a duty to be part of that war. Go get 'em. Our overseas adventure is stupid and the biggest part of why we are financially going down the tubes. I defy SCPA to tell me how the Islamists can destroy us if we only control immigration. They don't have carrier fleets and even if they got them, they couldn't sail them.
So good luck SCPA and Mike. Hope you learn to low crawl, because if you're part of the invasion force, you're going to need it. The IDF probably needs to do more of that too.
Oh, and the denouement of Vietnam that Mr. Silverberg regrets our loser policy over? We got to leave the place and they never bothered us again. The only successful exit strategy we ever executed.
Here is his February 6, 2009 post wherin he reposts the work of a so called intellectual conservative and then caps it with the words of Michael Savage speaking ex cathedra.
"What happens when the alternatives fail? What happens when all the negotiations, sanctions, and compromises fail to dissuade an aggressor? What happens when a nation is forced into war as a last resort? When is 'victory' over an aggressor truly achieved? The answer can be found in an analysis of American strategic war doctrine in the late 19th and 20th ccenturies. ... Historically, the term 'total war'--examples of which include the American Civil War and World War II--was based on the assumption that there were only two options in existential conflicts--total victory or total defeat. .. For the defeated, it meant the end of its ability to wage war, the futility of continuing the conflict and, as in the case of the Nazis, the end of their dream of a thousand-year Reich. Nazi Germany was not merely defeated, it was psychologically vanquished. ... FDR, Churchill and Generals Eisenhower and Patton--like Lincoln, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan before them--understood that if wars had to be fought, if blood and treasure had to be expended, if sacrifice had to be demanded of the nation (including setting the economy on a war footing, re-instituting the draft, selling war bonds, instituting food rationing, and bringing the nation with you by seeking a Congressional declaration of war), then the American people had the right to demand that wars be prosecuted to insure absolute victory so the issues over which they were being fought and for which they were being asked to sacrifice their children would never have to be 'revisted.' ... At the end of World War II, no Nazi official could stand in the ruins of Berlin in April, 1945 and urge his fellow Germans to 'stay the course' until a Nazi victory was assured. Nor, for that matter, could General Hideki Tojo of the Imperial Japanese Army convince his poeople that the destruction wrought by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 were just a 'temporary setback.' It was clear to the German and Japanese peoples that the European and Japanese wars were over. ... All this changed in the post-World War II era. With the advent of nuclear weapons, warefare theorists came to believe that a total war between the two superpowers could lead to mutual annihilation. It was this deterrent concept, applied across the board, the led post-war American military strategists to modify the historical rules of war by resurrecting the seemingly more logical and humane concept that came to be known as 'limited war.' That concept assumed that our enemies would pursue their war objectives in much the same manner and according to the same rules of engagement that we pursue ours. ... But strategists of 'limited war' failed to consider the consequences of what would happen when we confront religiously-inspired enemies like jihadists who refuse to play by our 'limited war' rules, who do not accept international treaties governing the rules of engagement or the treatment of prisoners, who use civilians as human shields, children as human grenades, see 'martyrdom' as a tactical weapon, come from an entirely different culture and value system, and seek nothing less than the destruction of our way of life. ... During the Iranian embassy crisis, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni disclosed that he had no fear of America. 'Our youth should be confident that America cannot do a damn thing.' ... Carter contented himself with imposing ineffectual ... sanctions. ... His dithering would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans in the coming decades. ... This same defensive war doctrine reigns today in Iraq. Despite the rhetoric, U.S. military strategy is not geared to vanquishing its enemies. ... During World War II, it would have been unthinkable to stop at the German border after the liberation of Fance and begin reconstruction, leaving Adolf Hitler and the Nazis in power. ... The U.S. has always assumed that it is the only nation with grand visions like peace, democratization, free enterprsie and globalization. But Iran and its Palestinian and Lebanese Islamic surrogates have their own 'grand vision' and the grandest of them all tells that that both America and Israel will never be anything but enemies of their regime, culture and religions, and that victory over both is assured because it has been ordained by Allah. ... Americans want victory and like it or not, the road to that victory leads through Tehran. Destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, bringing down the Islamic regime and vanquishing all aspects of the Islamic Revolution are absolutely critical if the greater war against Islamic jihadism is to be won", Mark Silverberg, 14 January 2009 at: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/01/14/the-strategy-of-defeat-and-lessons-for-israel-in-gaza/.
This may make some cry, but war against Islamic Jihadism requires much more killing of jihadists and their populations than the West has done to date. Absent more killing, the West will not survive. That's the bottom line. Our entire war on terror rests on false premises. Spengler had a 12 June 2003 post, "More Killing Please" on this, link: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF12Ak01.html. How right he is. As Michael Savage, radio talk show host has said many times, "Only a more Savage nation will survive".
Alright, lets think about this. SCPA, Siverberg and Savage want to wage war. Big war, a lot of war. Well, the enemy is out thinking them. Recently, they out thought the Israelis in Operation Cast Lead. They throw some piddling rockets, the Israelis huff and puff and finally send some reservists in Merkavas. The Palis go to ground, the Israelis bust up some stuff and kill a few people and leave looking stupid. Yup, because they were stupid. The Sabras of the war of independence are gone. It was just reservists riding through. The Israelis could have killed them all if they wanted to but unless Savage is made CinC, that ain't happening. Short much better humint that can target every militant there is not much Israel can do except elect tough talkers. Even though they have a lot of stupid socialism, Israel is infinitely more advanced than the Palis. Guess who has more to lose?
Silverberg:
Americans want victory and like it or not, the road to that victory leads through Tehran. Destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, bringing down the Islamic regime and vanquishing all aspects of the Islamic Revolution are absolutely critical if the greater war against Islamic jihadism is to be won"
SCPA agrees with that. Intellectually, If he really believes that, he and Savage have a duty to be part of that war. Go get 'em. Our overseas adventure is stupid and the biggest part of why we are financially going down the tubes. I defy SCPA to tell me how the Islamists can destroy us if we only control immigration. They don't have carrier fleets and even if they got them, they couldn't sail them.
So good luck SCPA and Mike. Hope you learn to low crawl, because if you're part of the invasion force, you're going to need it. The IDF probably needs to do more of that too.
Oh, and the denouement of Vietnam that Mr. Silverberg regrets our loser policy over? We got to leave the place and they never bothered us again. The only successful exit strategy we ever executed.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
You Can Do Something For Neutralism Today!
I read about the new President's experiment in direct democracy over at Gavinthink. Your man is giving it the old college try (he does live in Amherst, after all).
I do tend to have a suspicion of such innovations. My history nerd reading life has led me to the conclusion that even if some are better than others, there is no Philosophers Stone of Government. Even the best will become sclerotic and die.
Still, I went over and voted if only for this proposal,
Bring our troops home- from everywhere!
Why do we still have troops in Germany? Korea? Asia? Egypt?
"The total of America's military bases in other people's countries in 2005, according to official sources, was 737.
Using data from fiscal year 2005, the Pentagon bureaucrats calculated that its overseas bases were worth at least $127 billion -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic products of most countries -- and an estimated $658.1 billion for all of them, foreign and domestic (a base's "worth" is based on a Department of Defense estimate of what it would cost to replace it). During fiscal 2005, the military high command deployed to our overseas bases some 196,975 uniformed personnel as well as an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employed an additional 81,425 locally hired foreigners.
The worldwide total of U.S. military personnel in 2005, including those based domestically, was 1,840,062 supported by an additional 473,306 Defense Department civil service employees and 203,328 local hires. Its overseas bases, according to the Pentagon, contained 32,327 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and 16,527 more that it leased. The size of these holdings was recorded in the inventory as covering 687,347 acres overseas and 29,819,492 acres worldwide, making the Pentagon easily one of the world's largest landlords" (figures from Dept. of Defense Base Structure Report 2005) Chalmers
We spend a fortune on military bases in many countries all over the world. Think of all of the money this would save, and what all of that money could accomplish here at home.
While there may have been some rationale for having far-flung bases in the 1940s, when travel and communication were slower and we may have needed a deterrent "on the ground" in many locations, this is oudated thinking.
Close all of our military bases all over the world, and bring those troops home. It would help us in many ways: the good will generated by getting our troops out of other countries; a smaller military force that would be used strictly for DEFENSE of America, as required by our Constitution; a good deterrent to our being tempted to interfere in the affairs of other countries, where we have a 60 year history of secret manipulations, assassinations, regime changes, and bad policies that have resulted in terrible "blowback" to Americans.
Just one recent example of blowback: A graduate student in Germany was so disturbed by the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1996, and it's killing more than 100 innocents in Cana that he determined to pay them (and the US, who supplied the weapons) back for their actions. He was Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers.
Our support for bad policies has long term unintended consequences. Why not follow a policy consistent with American values- friendship with all, trade with all, talk with all, but no "passionate attachments" to any but our own country.
So go to the portal, look around and if you want sign in and then go to Bring the Troops Home and vote.
Maybe it is a futile gesture, but what the heck.
I do tend to have a suspicion of such innovations. My history nerd reading life has led me to the conclusion that even if some are better than others, there is no Philosophers Stone of Government. Even the best will become sclerotic and die.
Still, I went over and voted if only for this proposal,
Bring our troops home- from everywhere!
Why do we still have troops in Germany? Korea? Asia? Egypt?
"The total of America's military bases in other people's countries in 2005, according to official sources, was 737.
Using data from fiscal year 2005, the Pentagon bureaucrats calculated that its overseas bases were worth at least $127 billion -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic products of most countries -- and an estimated $658.1 billion for all of them, foreign and domestic (a base's "worth" is based on a Department of Defense estimate of what it would cost to replace it). During fiscal 2005, the military high command deployed to our overseas bases some 196,975 uniformed personnel as well as an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employed an additional 81,425 locally hired foreigners.
The worldwide total of U.S. military personnel in 2005, including those based domestically, was 1,840,062 supported by an additional 473,306 Defense Department civil service employees and 203,328 local hires. Its overseas bases, according to the Pentagon, contained 32,327 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and 16,527 more that it leased. The size of these holdings was recorded in the inventory as covering 687,347 acres overseas and 29,819,492 acres worldwide, making the Pentagon easily one of the world's largest landlords" (figures from Dept. of Defense Base Structure Report 2005) Chalmers
We spend a fortune on military bases in many countries all over the world. Think of all of the money this would save, and what all of that money could accomplish here at home.
While there may have been some rationale for having far-flung bases in the 1940s, when travel and communication were slower and we may have needed a deterrent "on the ground" in many locations, this is oudated thinking.
Close all of our military bases all over the world, and bring those troops home. It would help us in many ways: the good will generated by getting our troops out of other countries; a smaller military force that would be used strictly for DEFENSE of America, as required by our Constitution; a good deterrent to our being tempted to interfere in the affairs of other countries, where we have a 60 year history of secret manipulations, assassinations, regime changes, and bad policies that have resulted in terrible "blowback" to Americans.
Just one recent example of blowback: A graduate student in Germany was so disturbed by the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1996, and it's killing more than 100 innocents in Cana that he determined to pay them (and the US, who supplied the weapons) back for their actions. He was Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers.
Our support for bad policies has long term unintended consequences. Why not follow a policy consistent with American values- friendship with all, trade with all, talk with all, but no "passionate attachments" to any but our own country.
So go to the portal, look around and if you want sign in and then go to Bring the Troops Home and vote.
Maybe it is a futile gesture, but what the heck.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Neutralism and the Middle East, by someone who might not know he is a Neutralist
Mr. Jack Hunter makes videos that I usually agree with. Well, I have not seen one I disagreed with. This one makes perfect sense so we post it here as an official statement of Neutralismo even though he never used that N word in any form.
Here are some links to Jack The Southern Avenger" Hunter.
At Taki Mag, here.
At his blog, here.
Here are some links to Jack The Southern Avenger" Hunter.
At Taki Mag, here.
At his blog, here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
