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.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
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.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Gaza and the Neutralist
For anyone following the Neutralist, it is obvious our policy is Washington's no entangling alliances. We do not believe American freedom has been enhanced by any of our adventures whether in Iraq or Afghanistan and a Darfur expedition would come a cropper, just to give a few instances.
So it goes without saying, we believe it is not the business of the American State to be involved in this conflict. We should not be on either side, neither should we be trying to make peace. We have been pretty much a failure in this regard and it does not look like we will better our record in the future.
We have nothing to fear from the Palestinians militarily. They are not going to acquire a carrier fleet and amphibious landing craft and sail to invade Manhattan anytime soon. Granted, they have no love for us, not that I blame them. Certainly, considering that, we should be reticent with letting them immigrate here.
I supposed the Israelis could send their air force all the way, refueling in flight to bomb Wall Street. Of course, what would be the point. Our financial geniuses have more or less done that already.
No we have no business being there. The Neutralist Policy is not to be there.
That does not mean there won't be consequences. Economically, if every Palestinian left the Middle East, there probably would be little impact on the world.
If Israel were destroyed, it would be a disaster of vast import. In spite of lousy government, the Israelis have a brilliant record of invention and improvement. The loss to the world if, say Technion were gutted would be horrible.
There is a high school robotics competition every year in the US and Israel sends a number of teams. The Arab world sends none that I know of. Those young minds will grow to be engineers and their loss would be tragic.
So what does the Neutralist, as a Neutralist suggest Israel do without the support of its sponsor. Years ago, on a now defunct webzine, I wrote the following,
As to strategy that I would pursue if I were the Israeli PM: build that fence. There is an historical incentive for Ariel that he should not miss out on. If it is built well enough it will be spoken of as Sharon's Fence in the same way as is Hadrian's Wall. As Russell Crowe said, "What we do in this life, echoes in eternity." Yeah, there are problems with fencing, as there are with all strategies, but from my vantage point it appears to be the best of whatever there is, short of the Israeli government sending Jews and Arabs into a timeout.
If we were a neutralist country, we would not ally with Israel, but we would cooperate with any nation that was, as William Lind put it, a center of order.
There are other aspects of this. If the Palestinians want to be a state, who cares? A state that existed and had all the apparatus of such an entity would have every incentive to not bug the Israelis. As things are going now, the Hamas apparatus will suffer numerous deaths and then reconstitute itself as a more virulent organism once the current operation runs its course. The Neutralist is just guessing in most predictions. The only thing we are sure of is that our involvement is a sure loser.
So it goes without saying, we believe it is not the business of the American State to be involved in this conflict. We should not be on either side, neither should we be trying to make peace. We have been pretty much a failure in this regard and it does not look like we will better our record in the future.
We have nothing to fear from the Palestinians militarily. They are not going to acquire a carrier fleet and amphibious landing craft and sail to invade Manhattan anytime soon. Granted, they have no love for us, not that I blame them. Certainly, considering that, we should be reticent with letting them immigrate here.
I supposed the Israelis could send their air force all the way, refueling in flight to bomb Wall Street. Of course, what would be the point. Our financial geniuses have more or less done that already.
No we have no business being there. The Neutralist Policy is not to be there.
That does not mean there won't be consequences. Economically, if every Palestinian left the Middle East, there probably would be little impact on the world.
If Israel were destroyed, it would be a disaster of vast import. In spite of lousy government, the Israelis have a brilliant record of invention and improvement. The loss to the world if, say Technion were gutted would be horrible.
There is a high school robotics competition every year in the US and Israel sends a number of teams. The Arab world sends none that I know of. Those young minds will grow to be engineers and their loss would be tragic.
So what does the Neutralist, as a Neutralist suggest Israel do without the support of its sponsor. Years ago, on a now defunct webzine, I wrote the following,
As to strategy that I would pursue if I were the Israeli PM: build that fence. There is an historical incentive for Ariel that he should not miss out on. If it is built well enough it will be spoken of as Sharon's Fence in the same way as is Hadrian's Wall. As Russell Crowe said, "What we do in this life, echoes in eternity." Yeah, there are problems with fencing, as there are with all strategies, but from my vantage point it appears to be the best of whatever there is, short of the Israeli government sending Jews and Arabs into a timeout.
If we were a neutralist country, we would not ally with Israel, but we would cooperate with any nation that was, as William Lind put it, a center of order.
There are other aspects of this. If the Palestinians want to be a state, who cares? A state that existed and had all the apparatus of such an entity would have every incentive to not bug the Israelis. As things are going now, the Hamas apparatus will suffer numerous deaths and then reconstitute itself as a more virulent organism once the current operation runs its course. The Neutralist is just guessing in most predictions. The only thing we are sure of is that our involvement is a sure loser.
Friday, December 19, 2008
The Wound Continues to Bleed
The news from Afghanistan has not been encouraging. On December 7th we posted about the destruction of convoy supplies in Peshawar.
Unfortunately, the news gets worse. In a post over at Defense and the National Interest titled Your taxpayer dollars at work We find something even more disconcerting,
The West is indirectly funding the insurgency in Afghanistan thanks to a system of payoffs to Taleban commanders who charge protection money to allow convoys of military supplies to reach Nato bases in the south of the country.
D-N-I got this story from TIMESONLINE
Antiwar Newswire reports of 10,000 Pakistanis protesting over the supply routes and wanting them stopped.
Of course their is an alternative route through Russian territory. That's certainly safe as we continue to bug the Russkies.
If there is any reader who has an intelligent rationale for why it is in our interest to stay in Afghanistan, we would be grateful to hear it.
Unfortunately, the news gets worse. In a post over at Defense and the National Interest titled Your taxpayer dollars at work We find something even more disconcerting,
The West is indirectly funding the insurgency in Afghanistan thanks to a system of payoffs to Taleban commanders who charge protection money to allow convoys of military supplies to reach Nato bases in the south of the country.
D-N-I got this story from TIMESONLINE
Antiwar Newswire reports of 10,000 Pakistanis protesting over the supply routes and wanting them stopped.
Of course their is an alternative route through Russian territory. That's certainly safe as we continue to bug the Russkies.
If there is any reader who has an intelligent rationale for why it is in our interest to stay in Afghanistan, we would be grateful to hear it.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
More People Channeling the Neutralist!
Via The Skeptical CPA is an article at Forbes by John Arquilla titled The Biggest Boondoggle. Now, one's first reaction is to think Mr. Arquilla guilty of chutzpah as there are so many doggles that boon in this country it takes nerve to claim you came up with the ne plus ultra.
Still, I think that your man made a good case that our naval fetish for the big carrier fleet is ill advised. Just the name, Gerald R. Ford class of aircraft carriers screams incompetence and waste.
The Skeptical CPA extracted the meat of the article,
Over the next few decades the Pentagon is planning to spend more than $50 billion on its Gerald R. Ford class of aircraft carriers. ... Since aircraft carriers are near helpless without a protective ring of about ten destroyers, frigates and cruisers, the military wants to invest in newer versions of these too, at a cost of an additional $50 billion. ... Why won't the next Administration get rid of this white elephant? President-elect Obama simply has too little military expertise to take on the carrier champions, even though his senior adviser on strategic affairs, former Navy secretary Richard Danzig, has in the past called for reducing carrier crew sizes. ... Swarms of small Chinese vessels and aircraft armed to the teeth with smart weapons would quickly sink a carrier. ... In a world of such weapons, aircraft carriers should paint over their identifying numbers and replace them with bull's-eyes. They have had a good 70-year run as capital ships, but their time is over. ... In terms of so-called irregular warfare, the most common form of conflict over the past 60 years, carriers have an insignificant role to play. Air Force planes, small or large missiles and artillery
make more effective substitutes
You see it's this "Swarms of small Chinese vessels and aircraft armed to the teeth with smart weapons would quickly sink a carrier. ... In a world of such weapons, aircraft carriers should paint over their identifying numbers and replace them with bull's-eyes" that makes me feel Mr. Arquilla is channeling The Neutralist.
In a previous Neutralist post, The Neutralist Solves the Financial Crisis we noted that our policy should be to
Sell the navy. Other than coastal defense (our coast) it isn't necessary and even with the hi tech stuff, one lucky foreign cruise missle and an aircraft carrier is a another Titanic.
We are gratified that someone so eminent as a professor of defense analysis at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey agrees with us. He may not see it all our way and could be horrified to be cited by us, but at this point he is stuck with us. We feel we have taken his thoughts to their logical conclusion.
Thanks, Professor.
Still, I think that your man made a good case that our naval fetish for the big carrier fleet is ill advised. Just the name, Gerald R. Ford class of aircraft carriers screams incompetence and waste.
The Skeptical CPA extracted the meat of the article,
Over the next few decades the Pentagon is planning to spend more than $50 billion on its Gerald R. Ford class of aircraft carriers. ... Since aircraft carriers are near helpless without a protective ring of about ten destroyers, frigates and cruisers, the military wants to invest in newer versions of these too, at a cost of an additional $50 billion. ... Why won't the next Administration get rid of this white elephant? President-elect Obama simply has too little military expertise to take on the carrier champions, even though his senior adviser on strategic affairs, former Navy secretary Richard Danzig, has in the past called for reducing carrier crew sizes. ... Swarms of small Chinese vessels and aircraft armed to the teeth with smart weapons would quickly sink a carrier. ... In a world of such weapons, aircraft carriers should paint over their identifying numbers and replace them with bull's-eyes. They have had a good 70-year run as capital ships, but their time is over. ... In terms of so-called irregular warfare, the most common form of conflict over the past 60 years, carriers have an insignificant role to play. Air Force planes, small or large missiles and artillery
make more effective substitutes
You see it's this "Swarms of small Chinese vessels and aircraft armed to the teeth with smart weapons would quickly sink a carrier. ... In a world of such weapons, aircraft carriers should paint over their identifying numbers and replace them with bull's-eyes" that makes me feel Mr. Arquilla is channeling The Neutralist.
In a previous Neutralist post, The Neutralist Solves the Financial Crisis we noted that our policy should be to
Sell the navy. Other than coastal defense (our coast) it isn't necessary and even with the hi tech stuff, one lucky foreign cruise missle and an aircraft carrier is a another Titanic.
We are gratified that someone so eminent as a professor of defense analysis at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey agrees with us. He may not see it all our way and could be horrified to be cited by us, but at this point he is stuck with us. We feel we have taken his thoughts to their logical conclusion.
Thanks, Professor.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
You heard it here first!
Well, maybe you heard it here second. Maybe you never heard it here at all. Actually, as this is a blog, you couldn't hear it here at all, you could only read it.
Let us not waste time. Well, anymore time. On Sepember 5, 2008 we opined that things were heating up in the Southern supply routes to our Afghan theater. A Northern route through Russian territory was available, but we were bugging the Russkies making that a not too secure route.
Well, in a Sunday NYT article we note that
More than 100 trucks loaded with supplies for American forces in Afghanistan were destroyed Sunday by militants in Peshawar, the city that serves as an important transit point for the Afghan war effort.
The next paragraph might make us think this may not be a one off, as the Brits say,
It was the third major attack by Taliban militants on NATO supplies in Pakistan in less than a month, and served to expose the vulnerability of the route from the port of Karachi through Peshawar and over the border into Afghanistan. The United States relies on the route for an overwhelming proportion of its supplies for the war in Afghanistan.
A Col. Greg Julian, a spokesman for United States forces in Kabul noted,
The damaged trucks were loaded with American war materiel, including Humvees, destined for the Afghan National Army
Colonel Julian said the loss of equipment would have a minimum impact on the overall war effort.
“It’s a very insignificant loss in terms of everything transported into Afghanistan.”
In reading how easily the culprits were able to operate we wonder if Colonel Julian is part of the Army's whistling past the graveyard command?
There is a lot to think about here as it is happening as the Pak forces might become more distracted toward the east after the events in Mumbai. It just gets harder for us to play twister.
Let us not waste time. Well, anymore time. On Sepember 5, 2008 we opined that things were heating up in the Southern supply routes to our Afghan theater. A Northern route through Russian territory was available, but we were bugging the Russkies making that a not too secure route.
Well, in a Sunday NYT article we note that
More than 100 trucks loaded with supplies for American forces in Afghanistan were destroyed Sunday by militants in Peshawar, the city that serves as an important transit point for the Afghan war effort.
The next paragraph might make us think this may not be a one off, as the Brits say,
It was the third major attack by Taliban militants on NATO supplies in Pakistan in less than a month, and served to expose the vulnerability of the route from the port of Karachi through Peshawar and over the border into Afghanistan. The United States relies on the route for an overwhelming proportion of its supplies for the war in Afghanistan.
A Col. Greg Julian, a spokesman for United States forces in Kabul noted,
The damaged trucks were loaded with American war materiel, including Humvees, destined for the Afghan National Army
Colonel Julian said the loss of equipment would have a minimum impact on the overall war effort.
“It’s a very insignificant loss in terms of everything transported into Afghanistan.”
In reading how easily the culprits were able to operate we wonder if Colonel Julian is part of the Army's whistling past the graveyard command?
There is a lot to think about here as it is happening as the Pak forces might become more distracted toward the east after the events in Mumbai. It just gets harder for us to play twister.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Time to Stop Doing Dumb
Barrack Obama said the Iraq invasion would be a "dumb war." It may have been his finest hour, well minute, er few seconds as he hasn't said anything near as smart since. To be fair, almost none of our so called statesmen have said much that can be called smart.
It is hard to say where we have been at our worst in regard to Russia. It seems we can't do enough to bug the Bear. In the recent Georgian contretemps we tried to make out Russia as the invader. Both the O man and McCain acted like violated innocents. To be sure, McCain was the goofier with his "We are all Georgians now" buffoonery. Of course John outdid himself with the "in the 21st century nations don't invade other nations" silliness.
Then there is running NATO up to the Russian border. The venerable George Kennan called it, “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold war era.” Not exactly a Dale Carnegie decision.
And there is the actual thievery performed by American academics who were to help the reformed commies privatize. The thieves were helped in their looting, or were shielded by Larry Summers. Summers could be a member of the Obama team.
All in all, our track record with Les Russes ain't too pretty. So why should we care after all, Putin and Medvedev are putting a corporatist state in place. Oh, that's happening here too.
Still, there is hope and it is being offered by the Russians as reported by William S. Lind at Defense and the National Interest. In an article of November 17, 2008 entitled The Russian Imperative he reports,
Until last week, I would have said that the U.S. had damaged the prospects for an American-Russian entente beyond repair. But to the West’s potential good fortune, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has now signaled otherwise. According to the November 14 Financial Times, speaking shortly before his trip to Washington to a group of Russian and European business leaders, President Medvedev said that Russia could develop “neighborly and partnership-based relations with the U.S.” In Washington for the Group of 20 meeting, he repeated the message. The November 16 Washington Post quoted him as saying, “I think we can create in principle a new framework…a partnership between the U.S. and Russia.”
Now, I would think even the dimmest would think that, at a minimum, not bugging the Russkies would be a good idea (of course there is no lack of the sub-dim in the American Government). The partnership idea is something good to explore as Mr. lInd points out,
America’s failure to reintegrate post-Communist Russia into the concert of powers was a strategic blunder of the first order. The threat from the global south, manifested most powerfully by invasion by immigration but also evident in many other ways, can only be met by a united global north. Russia holds the West’s vast eastern flank, which stretches all the way from the Black Sea to Vladivostok. Were that flank to collapse, as Russia came close to doing in the early 1990s, the West’s geo-strategic position would become well-nigh hopeless.
Mr. Medvedev was asked by the CFR if Russia could join NATO. Now a question from the CFR makes me ask what deviousness they are pursuiing. Here is Lind's paragraph,
......when Medvedev was asked before the CFR about the possibility of Russia joining NATO, he said, “There is a good phrase - never say never.” Since the fall of Communism, NATO has had no real reason to exist. But if Russia joined NATO, NATO would become what the West needs most, an alliance of the global north. This is a lead both the Obama administration and the European members of NATO should pursue avidly.
Well of course as a Neutralist, I would like to see NATO dissolve. What would succeed it. That is the question and Mr. Lind has addressed it here. It is that we should connect to centers of order and be as far away from centers of disorder as possible. Now, I agree in that we should not bug functioning entities if they mean us no harm and cooperate with them where necessary (e.g. in India's current problem, we should share everything we know about their antagonist). This does not mean we have to have an alliance.
There is much to learn from both of Mr. Lind's articles, but at minimum, stop bugging the Russkies.
It is hard to say where we have been at our worst in regard to Russia. It seems we can't do enough to bug the Bear. In the recent Georgian contretemps we tried to make out Russia as the invader. Both the O man and McCain acted like violated innocents. To be sure, McCain was the goofier with his "We are all Georgians now" buffoonery. Of course John outdid himself with the "in the 21st century nations don't invade other nations" silliness.
Then there is running NATO up to the Russian border. The venerable George Kennan called it, “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold war era.” Not exactly a Dale Carnegie decision.
And there is the actual thievery performed by American academics who were to help the reformed commies privatize. The thieves were helped in their looting, or were shielded by Larry Summers. Summers could be a member of the Obama team.
All in all, our track record with Les Russes ain't too pretty. So why should we care after all, Putin and Medvedev are putting a corporatist state in place. Oh, that's happening here too.
Still, there is hope and it is being offered by the Russians as reported by William S. Lind at Defense and the National Interest. In an article of November 17, 2008 entitled The Russian Imperative he reports,
Until last week, I would have said that the U.S. had damaged the prospects for an American-Russian entente beyond repair. But to the West’s potential good fortune, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has now signaled otherwise. According to the November 14 Financial Times, speaking shortly before his trip to Washington to a group of Russian and European business leaders, President Medvedev said that Russia could develop “neighborly and partnership-based relations with the U.S.” In Washington for the Group of 20 meeting, he repeated the message. The November 16 Washington Post quoted him as saying, “I think we can create in principle a new framework…a partnership between the U.S. and Russia.”
Now, I would think even the dimmest would think that, at a minimum, not bugging the Russkies would be a good idea (of course there is no lack of the sub-dim in the American Government). The partnership idea is something good to explore as Mr. lInd points out,
America’s failure to reintegrate post-Communist Russia into the concert of powers was a strategic blunder of the first order. The threat from the global south, manifested most powerfully by invasion by immigration but also evident in many other ways, can only be met by a united global north. Russia holds the West’s vast eastern flank, which stretches all the way from the Black Sea to Vladivostok. Were that flank to collapse, as Russia came close to doing in the early 1990s, the West’s geo-strategic position would become well-nigh hopeless.
Mr. Medvedev was asked by the CFR if Russia could join NATO. Now a question from the CFR makes me ask what deviousness they are pursuiing. Here is Lind's paragraph,
......when Medvedev was asked before the CFR about the possibility of Russia joining NATO, he said, “There is a good phrase - never say never.” Since the fall of Communism, NATO has had no real reason to exist. But if Russia joined NATO, NATO would become what the West needs most, an alliance of the global north. This is a lead both the Obama administration and the European members of NATO should pursue avidly.
Well of course as a Neutralist, I would like to see NATO dissolve. What would succeed it. That is the question and Mr. Lind has addressed it here. It is that we should connect to centers of order and be as far away from centers of disorder as possible. Now, I agree in that we should not bug functioning entities if they mean us no harm and cooperate with them where necessary (e.g. in India's current problem, we should share everything we know about their antagonist). This does not mean we have to have an alliance.
There is much to learn from both of Mr. Lind's articles, but at minimum, stop bugging the Russkies.
Friday, November 28, 2008
You Didn't Notice?
That's okay, some of the lads on patrol probably didn't either.
The War is over in Iraq. A site called Zombietime has declared it so. The fact that the troops are not coming home and being feted through the streets appears irrelevant to your man. That the army continues to need soldiers such that they are now taking Cat IVs also means nothing to the fellow. He cites stats that say the level of violence is way down.
Which means the troops will be coming home soon. Er, no. We are coming up with an agreement to prop up the Iraqi regime with our army for another three years.
So who am I to rain on the ChickenHawks* parade that they're not actually having. Well, I have a different conception of victory as I set out in America's greatest 20th century victory
Now, granted we might not all agree on what constitutes a win. In order to set the tone, let us define terms.
The Agamemnon School of Victory: This consists of completely destroying your enemy, grabbing a lot of plunder and a great looking slave babe. After that, you go home to be murdered by your wife and her toy boy. It is only the last part that I think needs work.
The American Century School: After victory or tie, hunker down, rebuild the place, never leave.
The Neutralist School: After the war, you can leave and forget about the place you left.
The ChickenHawk victory bloggers see it as a American Century victory where we leave troops, waste money and make sure oil profits flow.
The poor sap fighting the war who the war bloggers pretend to love but would never join may see it differently as well.
On a some of blogs I saw tip jars. The nerve! Hey lads, sign up and get the paltry bonus on offer to others not so fortunate.
If it were victory, we could leave.
*They may not all be ChickenHawks but a lot had little about me sketches telling how brilliant they are. Oddly, little about their service.
The War is over in Iraq. A site called Zombietime has declared it so. The fact that the troops are not coming home and being feted through the streets appears irrelevant to your man. That the army continues to need soldiers such that they are now taking Cat IVs also means nothing to the fellow. He cites stats that say the level of violence is way down.
Which means the troops will be coming home soon. Er, no. We are coming up with an agreement to prop up the Iraqi regime with our army for another three years.
So who am I to rain on the ChickenHawks* parade that they're not actually having. Well, I have a different conception of victory as I set out in America's greatest 20th century victory
Now, granted we might not all agree on what constitutes a win. In order to set the tone, let us define terms.
The Agamemnon School of Victory: This consists of completely destroying your enemy, grabbing a lot of plunder and a great looking slave babe. After that, you go home to be murdered by your wife and her toy boy. It is only the last part that I think needs work.
The American Century School: After victory or tie, hunker down, rebuild the place, never leave.
The Neutralist School: After the war, you can leave and forget about the place you left.
The ChickenHawk victory bloggers see it as a American Century victory where we leave troops, waste money and make sure oil profits flow.
The poor sap fighting the war who the war bloggers pretend to love but would never join may see it differently as well.
On a some of blogs I saw tip jars. The nerve! Hey lads, sign up and get the paltry bonus on offer to others not so fortunate.
If it were victory, we could leave.
*They may not all be ChickenHawks but a lot had little about me sketches telling how brilliant they are. Oddly, little about their service.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
plus ça change is like deja vu all over again (sorry Yogi)
So we have Clinton retread Holder at Justice.
La Pasionara herself at State.
Rahm Emmanuel, Chicago neocon hack as Chief of Staff.
Now, Obama and the Dem leadership have made peace with Department of Fatherland Security Committee Chairman Lieberman. Notice they did not take away the chairmanship of the committee where he can be as neoconnish as he likes.
So now exposed for the world to see is the meaning of change, Obama style. It is not in the sense of the management of a losing ball team firing the coach and obtaining different players. No, it is change in the sense of the purchase of new and more stylish uniforms for the same sad team.
Yes we can get ready for the Bush-Obama Administration.
La Pasionara herself at State.
Rahm Emmanuel, Chicago neocon hack as Chief of Staff.
Now, Obama and the Dem leadership have made peace with Department of Fatherland Security Committee Chairman Lieberman. Notice they did not take away the chairmanship of the committee where he can be as neoconnish as he likes.
So now exposed for the world to see is the meaning of change, Obama style. It is not in the sense of the management of a losing ball team firing the coach and obtaining different players. No, it is change in the sense of the purchase of new and more stylish uniforms for the same sad team.
Yes we can get ready for the Bush-Obama Administration.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Lest We Forget
Today we celebrate the veterans of our country. The origin of this holiday was the armistice that ended the World War I.
I defy anyone to justify our entry into that war as anything but a horrible error. I have had this discussion many times and in the end, either my opponents would give way (rare) or resort to invective.
Then again, it is the same with the so called war on terror.
Our national motto should be:
Plus ça change, whatever.
I defy anyone to justify our entry into that war as anything but a horrible error. I have had this discussion many times and in the end, either my opponents would give way (rare) or resort to invective.
Then again, it is the same with the so called war on terror.
Our national motto should be:
Plus ça change, whatever.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
All you need is love
From a comment The Black Sea left on my last post,
There is a difference between defeating a rival football team, and trying to win the allegiance of its fans. If you define the latter as "victory," you're in for a very long game.
Excellent insight into the nature and foolishness that is our overseas adventures. I intend to steal this as often as I can.
There is a difference between defeating a rival football team, and trying to win the allegiance of its fans. If you define the latter as "victory," you're in for a very long game.
Excellent insight into the nature and foolishness that is our overseas adventures. I intend to steal this as often as I can.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Sunk Costs
I suppose anyone reading this understands sunk costs. You own a factory with a machine that makes widgets at $2 per and you sell at three. Joe buys a new machine that makes them at $1 per and sells them at $2. You either get a similar machine or close, but your old machine is obsolete and you can only recover scrap costs. The costs are sunk, gone.
Ah, but the human condition is to say, I'll get a new machine as soon as I get back my money on the old. Dumb.
Our situation is similar to a friend of mine who owned a tanning salon that was losing money. She asked me if she should close it. I asked her if there were any prospect that profitability would happen. She said no. Obviously, my answer was get out now. Costs are sunk and would never be recovered.
So it is with Afghanistan. Put aside the fact that the concept of victory there as benefiting the US is debatable. The point is we can't win. Costs are sunk. Move on.
Don't believe me. As witness for the prosecution I give you Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, recently the senior British commander in Afghanistan. Your man said, a military victory over the Taleban was “neither feasible nor supportable”.
Of course he did blather on a bit with some positive spin,
Brigadier Carleton-Smith did suggest that the foreign troops need to stay longer: "If we reduce our expectations then I think realistically in the next three to five years we will be handing over tactical military responsibility to the Afghan army and in the next 10 years the bulk of responsibility for combating insurgency will be with them."
Veteran military affairs reporter Gwynne Dyer begs to differ,
There are two things wrong with this argument.
One is the notion that Western countries are willing to take casualties in Afghanistan for another three, five or 10 years. The other is that the Afghan government is not getting stronger.
Yup, with our economic problems we shall have oodles of cash to throw in to Afghanistan and stay the course.
Mr. Dyer was not done.
In a recently leaked diplomatic cable, the deputy French ambassador in Kabul, Francois Fitou, reported that the British ambassador there, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, told him that the strategy for Afghanistan was "doomed to failure. In Sir Sherard's view, "the security situation is getting worse, so is corruption, and the government has lost all trust." The usual denials followed, but that is exactly what British officials there say in private.
Mr. Dyer finishes,
So it would make sense to announce a deadline for pulling out the foreign troops and start negotiating for a final peace settlement in Afghanistan now. Waiting is unlikely to produce a better deal. Which is probably why President Hamid Karzai said last week that he had asked the king of Saudi Arabia to mediate in negotiations with the Taliban.
Oh, that negotiation word. If the deadline is set, why do the Taliban need to negotiate at all.
In the words of Martin Mull, "It's too hard to say au revoir, let's just say hors d'œuvre."
Ah, but the human condition is to say, I'll get a new machine as soon as I get back my money on the old. Dumb.
Our situation is similar to a friend of mine who owned a tanning salon that was losing money. She asked me if she should close it. I asked her if there were any prospect that profitability would happen. She said no. Obviously, my answer was get out now. Costs are sunk and would never be recovered.
So it is with Afghanistan. Put aside the fact that the concept of victory there as benefiting the US is debatable. The point is we can't win. Costs are sunk. Move on.
Don't believe me. As witness for the prosecution I give you Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, recently the senior British commander in Afghanistan. Your man said, a military victory over the Taleban was “neither feasible nor supportable”.
Of course he did blather on a bit with some positive spin,
Brigadier Carleton-Smith did suggest that the foreign troops need to stay longer: "If we reduce our expectations then I think realistically in the next three to five years we will be handing over tactical military responsibility to the Afghan army and in the next 10 years the bulk of responsibility for combating insurgency will be with them."
Veteran military affairs reporter Gwynne Dyer begs to differ,
There are two things wrong with this argument.
One is the notion that Western countries are willing to take casualties in Afghanistan for another three, five or 10 years. The other is that the Afghan government is not getting stronger.
Yup, with our economic problems we shall have oodles of cash to throw in to Afghanistan and stay the course.
Mr. Dyer was not done.
In a recently leaked diplomatic cable, the deputy French ambassador in Kabul, Francois Fitou, reported that the British ambassador there, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, told him that the strategy for Afghanistan was "doomed to failure. In Sir Sherard's view, "the security situation is getting worse, so is corruption, and the government has lost all trust." The usual denials followed, but that is exactly what British officials there say in private.
Mr. Dyer finishes,
So it would make sense to announce a deadline for pulling out the foreign troops and start negotiating for a final peace settlement in Afghanistan now. Waiting is unlikely to produce a better deal. Which is probably why President Hamid Karzai said last week that he had asked the king of Saudi Arabia to mediate in negotiations with the Taliban.
Oh, that negotiation word. If the deadline is set, why do the Taliban need to negotiate at all.
In the words of Martin Mull, "It's too hard to say au revoir, let's just say hors d'œuvre."
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The Neutralist Solves the Financial Crisis
We have the big financial meltdown and the imperial project has reached its reductio ad absurdam.
How do I know the foreign adventure has gone past the point of ridiculousness? The Coast Guard is serving along the coast of the wrong Georgia.
But that is a mere digression. I have come up with a solution to the problems of our financial system that will also bring about a neutral foreign policy.
Sell the navy. Other than coastal defense (our coast) it isn't necessary and even with the hi tech stuff, one lucky foreign cruise missle and an aircraft carrier is a another Titanic.
No, sell 'em. If only for scrap, at the rate the dollar is going, they will be worth more made into fridges in China than as a navy.
First thing, though, is we destroy all the manuals. Getting a navy up to speed takes a while even with training. I have high respect for the Chinese people but even with the manuals, it would take them years to get it right. Without the manuals, they'll be obsolete by the time they can sail across the Pacific.
Now would the Chinese be stupid enough to buy the fleet. They put on the Olympics for prestige and they were stupid enough to buy our worthless paper to begin with. Finger s crossed.
Sell them to Chavez. Actually, that is too Machievellian. That clown would demand to sail on the fleet to show himself mas macho and would sink them faster than he can sink his own economy.
It's not even 8:00 AM here and I've done a good day's work for my country already.
How do I know the foreign adventure has gone past the point of ridiculousness? The Coast Guard is serving along the coast of the wrong Georgia.
But that is a mere digression. I have come up with a solution to the problems of our financial system that will also bring about a neutral foreign policy.
Sell the navy. Other than coastal defense (our coast) it isn't necessary and even with the hi tech stuff, one lucky foreign cruise missle and an aircraft carrier is a another Titanic.
No, sell 'em. If only for scrap, at the rate the dollar is going, they will be worth more made into fridges in China than as a navy.
First thing, though, is we destroy all the manuals. Getting a navy up to speed takes a while even with training. I have high respect for the Chinese people but even with the manuals, it would take them years to get it right. Without the manuals, they'll be obsolete by the time they can sail across the Pacific.
Now would the Chinese be stupid enough to buy the fleet. They put on the Olympics for prestige and they were stupid enough to buy our worthless paper to begin with. Finger s crossed.
Sell them to Chavez. Actually, that is too Machievellian. That clown would demand to sail on the fleet to show himself mas macho and would sink them faster than he can sink his own economy.
It's not even 8:00 AM here and I've done a good day's work for my country already.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Did we just lose the war in Afghanistan?
No, my few readers know I believe we lost it when it started. Well, are we closer to the denouement.? Not if the Russkies are smart.
Shakespearean actor, Jim Varney was known for his character, Ernest. I remember seeing a t-shirt with Ernest's image and the question, "Do I look like I have stupid written on my forehead?" If anyone running American foreign policy were to ask me that question, the answer would not be in doubt.
Timesonline reports that the Russians are pulling out of an agreement to allow us to resupply in Afghanistan through Russia. I had not been aware of that agreement, but it certainly helps illustrate how stupid bugging Russia over Georgia and Ukraine is.
So Cheney goes to Georgia the other day and presents a blank check.
Now what would I do if I were Putin or Medvedev . The question is not as easy as it seems. The first reaction would be "No more gas to Europe or supplies to Afghanistan unless you stop bugging us." I don't think the Russians want to provoke an extreme reaction. Besides, every day we spend frittering away our strength in Afghanistan is a costless victory for Russia if they are in a contest with us. It is win win for them. We degrade and more hostile people in a hostile country on their border are killed.
I suspect the Russians will play it out with subtlety. In the current presidential silliness, we are debating who has more experience, Palin, Obama, blah blah blah. The man who has experience where it counts is Putin.
Just how important is the Russian route agreement of 2007, per the August 26, 2008 Timesonline article, you judge,
the Taleban have been targeting the supply routes of the alliance this year, mimicking tactics used against the British in 1841 and the Soviet Union two decades ago. Nato imports about 70 per cent of its food, fuel, water and equipment from Pakistan via the Khyber Pass, and flies in much of the rest through Russian airspace via bases in Central Asia.
The Blogger, Albert E. of Military Analysis points up seriousness of the problem,
The Taliban have been attacking the Main Supply Route [MSR] from Karachi, through the Khyber Pass, to Kabul. This HAS BEEN AN ON-GOING THREAT, AND HAS NOW MATERIALIZED, JUST AS I FEARED!!
The villains have gotten it into their head that this is a do-able strategy that can reap great rewards. The single MSR supplies currently 70 % of the re-supply for NATO forces in Afghan. If that life-line is cut or severely interrupted, NATO is in deep doo-doo [skat/merde'/etc.]!
Attacks on the MSR have already included:
* "one [attack] that destroyed 36 fuel tankers"
* "Four US helicopter engines worth $13 million (£7 million) went missing [pilfered]"
* "militants killed ten French soldiers on the same route"
The road, and the narrow-gauge [?] rail link from Pakistan to Kabul must be kept open. Cannot be jeopardized even slightly. NATO forces would have to face the consequences if this life-line is cut. Mission in Afghan would rapidly become untenable. American and allied forces would have beat feet, and quick.
But how? And to where? Contingency plans are on the table and being constantly reviewed!!
An Imperialist or if you wish a Benevolent Interventionist policy will always come a cropper.
Shakespearean actor, Jim Varney was known for his character, Ernest. I remember seeing a t-shirt with Ernest's image and the question, "Do I look like I have stupid written on my forehead?" If anyone running American foreign policy were to ask me that question, the answer would not be in doubt.
Timesonline reports that the Russians are pulling out of an agreement to allow us to resupply in Afghanistan through Russia. I had not been aware of that agreement, but it certainly helps illustrate how stupid bugging Russia over Georgia and Ukraine is.
So Cheney goes to Georgia the other day and presents a blank check.
Now what would I do if I were Putin or Medvedev . The question is not as easy as it seems. The first reaction would be "No more gas to Europe or supplies to Afghanistan unless you stop bugging us." I don't think the Russians want to provoke an extreme reaction. Besides, every day we spend frittering away our strength in Afghanistan is a costless victory for Russia if they are in a contest with us. It is win win for them. We degrade and more hostile people in a hostile country on their border are killed.
I suspect the Russians will play it out with subtlety. In the current presidential silliness, we are debating who has more experience, Palin, Obama, blah blah blah. The man who has experience where it counts is Putin.
Just how important is the Russian route agreement of 2007, per the August 26, 2008 Timesonline article, you judge,
the Taleban have been targeting the supply routes of the alliance this year, mimicking tactics used against the British in 1841 and the Soviet Union two decades ago. Nato imports about 70 per cent of its food, fuel, water and equipment from Pakistan via the Khyber Pass, and flies in much of the rest through Russian airspace via bases in Central Asia.
The Blogger, Albert E. of Military Analysis points up seriousness of the problem,
The Taliban have been attacking the Main Supply Route [MSR] from Karachi, through the Khyber Pass, to Kabul. This HAS BEEN AN ON-GOING THREAT, AND HAS NOW MATERIALIZED, JUST AS I FEARED!!
The villains have gotten it into their head that this is a do-able strategy that can reap great rewards. The single MSR supplies currently 70 % of the re-supply for NATO forces in Afghan. If that life-line is cut or severely interrupted, NATO is in deep doo-doo [skat/merde'/etc.]!
Attacks on the MSR have already included:
* "one [attack] that destroyed 36 fuel tankers"
* "Four US helicopter engines worth $13 million (£7 million) went missing [pilfered]"
* "militants killed ten French soldiers on the same route"
The road, and the narrow-gauge [?] rail link from Pakistan to Kabul must be kept open. Cannot be jeopardized even slightly. NATO forces would have to face the consequences if this life-line is cut. Mission in Afghan would rapidly become untenable. American and allied forces would have beat feet, and quick.
But how? And to where? Contingency plans are on the table and being constantly reviewed!!
An Imperialist or if you wish a Benevolent Interventionist policy will always come a cropper.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
The Neutralist Comes Out for Change.
That does not mean we are endorsing Obama. From his acceptance speech, he wouldn't know real change if it bit him in the nose. To be non partisan, McCain wouldn't know a real American Foreign Policy if he ran into it.
It was sometime in the 70s. The Turkish airborne had just jumped into Cyprus and occupied a large part of the island. I was walking up Tremont Street across from the Common when I saw the last stragglers hurrying to a demonstration. The sign a child was carrying read, "America Help Us Drive Turks From Cyprus."
I did not stop to ask one of the demonstrators why this country should drive the Turks from Cyprus. Greek people are fun, passionate and manic. A discussion with such lovable folk goes only so far. That is not to say, one on one, you can't have a rational discussion. Most Hellenes I've met are intelligent and would stand out in Lake Woebegone. The group thing, is another matter.
The Greeks are an organized pressure group. The Turks are still in Cyprus. What this means is one or more of a few possibilities.
1. We need the Turks more or as much as the Greeks.
2. The Turks are strong enough that it would be no fun to engage them in battle even if we could prevail.
3. The Turks are organized and can lobby us as well as the Greeks even though there are far fewer Turks here.
The Sibel Edmonds case is evidence for 3.
So every country around hires lobbyists who ask for money, arms, troops, support and love. We've had the slick Georgians trying to play us like a violin. The tune hasn't worked as well as they wished.
Is all this a good thing for the United States? I recommend the Jason Raimondo's article of August 27, Foreign Lobbyists and the Making of US Policy. My only quibble with it is the sub title is more important than the title, American politicians are for sale – and so is our foreign policy.
It is not new, but it is still afflicting us. Justin quotes Washington's farewell address.
"nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests."
We agree. In another blog, we make proposals of constitutional reform with the knowledge they have no chance of enactment. The Neutralist will propose a reform that we hope against hope is made law.
No nation may send people to this country to lobby the congress and/or executive on behalf of a foreign country. No citizen of this country may lobby on behalf of a foreign country, whether paid or unpaid, the congress or executive.
Now the next part of the bill would set the penalty. I remember the old "Branded" TV series where Chuck Connors would have his rank ripped off and his sword broken and he would be pushed out of the fort. Most of the lobbyists wear business suits and carry palms. It wouldn't be the same.
Still, we've given it some thought and remembering that defenestration is the traditional Czech method of dealing with those disagreed with, we have come up with a solution.
The guilty will be taken up in a transport, their palm will be taken from them and thrown out the door. then, the lobbyist will be pushed out of the plane a la Chuck Connors while the theme of the show is being played.
Thus the complete law will read.
No nation may send people to this country to lobby the congress and/or executive on behalf of a foreign country. No citizen of this country may lobby on behalf of a foreign country, whether paid or unpaid, the congress or executive.
The penalty will be deplaning without parachute at an altitude not less than 5,000 feet.
It was sometime in the 70s. The Turkish airborne had just jumped into Cyprus and occupied a large part of the island. I was walking up Tremont Street across from the Common when I saw the last stragglers hurrying to a demonstration. The sign a child was carrying read, "America Help Us Drive Turks From Cyprus."
I did not stop to ask one of the demonstrators why this country should drive the Turks from Cyprus. Greek people are fun, passionate and manic. A discussion with such lovable folk goes only so far. That is not to say, one on one, you can't have a rational discussion. Most Hellenes I've met are intelligent and would stand out in Lake Woebegone. The group thing, is another matter.
The Greeks are an organized pressure group. The Turks are still in Cyprus. What this means is one or more of a few possibilities.
1. We need the Turks more or as much as the Greeks.
2. The Turks are strong enough that it would be no fun to engage them in battle even if we could prevail.
3. The Turks are organized and can lobby us as well as the Greeks even though there are far fewer Turks here.
The Sibel Edmonds case is evidence for 3.
So every country around hires lobbyists who ask for money, arms, troops, support and love. We've had the slick Georgians trying to play us like a violin. The tune hasn't worked as well as they wished.
Is all this a good thing for the United States? I recommend the Jason Raimondo's article of August 27, Foreign Lobbyists and the Making of US Policy. My only quibble with it is the sub title is more important than the title, American politicians are for sale – and so is our foreign policy.
It is not new, but it is still afflicting us. Justin quotes Washington's farewell address.
"nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests."
We agree. In another blog, we make proposals of constitutional reform with the knowledge they have no chance of enactment. The Neutralist will propose a reform that we hope against hope is made law.
No nation may send people to this country to lobby the congress and/or executive on behalf of a foreign country. No citizen of this country may lobby on behalf of a foreign country, whether paid or unpaid, the congress or executive.
Now the next part of the bill would set the penalty. I remember the old "Branded" TV series where Chuck Connors would have his rank ripped off and his sword broken and he would be pushed out of the fort. Most of the lobbyists wear business suits and carry palms. It wouldn't be the same.
Still, we've given it some thought and remembering that defenestration is the traditional Czech method of dealing with those disagreed with, we have come up with a solution.
The guilty will be taken up in a transport, their palm will be taken from them and thrown out the door. then, the lobbyist will be pushed out of the plane a la Chuck Connors while the theme of the show is being played.
Thus the complete law will read.
No nation may send people to this country to lobby the congress and/or executive on behalf of a foreign country. No citizen of this country may lobby on behalf of a foreign country, whether paid or unpaid, the congress or executive.
The penalty will be deplaning without parachute at an altitude not less than 5,000 feet.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
I'm no longer doubting you, Thomas
Okay, I haven't been paying perfect attention to Thomas Sowell on our various adventures. I had the impression your man was neoconnish. So, over at NRO online of all places he causes me to overdose on his sane writing. what is he trying to do, cause me to need a pacemaker?
99% was great. I take issue with
Apparently Barack Obama doesn’t yet know it, judging by his initial response to news of the Russian invasion of Georgia, which was to call on “both sides” to cease fire and then go to the U.N.
Later he changed his position to correspond to John McCain’s more grown-up position that Russians have to pay a price if we expect them to change their behavior.
The words "John McCain's more grown up position" do not work.
Still,
Some people seem to think that, if we had already included Georgia in NATO, Russia would not have attacked. But what if they attacked anyway? Would we have done any more than we are doing now?
Would that have protected Georgia or would our inaction have just brought the reliability of our protection of other NATO countries into question?
His last words nail for him the coveted Neutralist Article of the Week award,
If anything, we ought to be thinking about pulling out of NATO ourselves. European countries already have the wealth to produce their own military defense. If they do not have the will, that is their problem. What American officials can do is keep their mouths shut if they don’t intend to back up their words.
Congratulations, Thomas. We know you have had other encomia in your career, but we award you anyway.
99% was great. I take issue with
Apparently Barack Obama doesn’t yet know it, judging by his initial response to news of the Russian invasion of Georgia, which was to call on “both sides” to cease fire and then go to the U.N.
Later he changed his position to correspond to John McCain’s more grown-up position that Russians have to pay a price if we expect them to change their behavior.
The words "John McCain's more grown up position" do not work.
Still,
Some people seem to think that, if we had already included Georgia in NATO, Russia would not have attacked. But what if they attacked anyway? Would we have done any more than we are doing now?
Would that have protected Georgia or would our inaction have just brought the reliability of our protection of other NATO countries into question?
His last words nail for him the coveted Neutralist Article of the Week award,
If anything, we ought to be thinking about pulling out of NATO ourselves. European countries already have the wealth to produce their own military defense. If they do not have the will, that is their problem. What American officials can do is keep their mouths shut if they don’t intend to back up their words.
Congratulations, Thomas. We know you have had other encomia in your career, but we award you anyway.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Al Fin on War V
Al can't stop. Russia Takes the Path of Violence is a post that infers that Russia has gone off the deep end.
Hey, maybe they have. Maybe, they have decided to emulate a country that invaded another country for no reason. Or maybe Russia had a reason. We could have a discussion on this, but Al is too afraid to allow comments.
Here he steps in it.
mighty Russia with its huge army, navy, and nuclear arsenal is so unhinged by fear that it is willing to undo the difficult diplomatic work of almost two decades?
No, Al, we promised Gorby that we would not run NATO, that worthless array of spongers, up to his borders. We lied and Putin is changing the equation.
His last paragraph is a keeper.
Think about it. Clint Eastwood always says, "a man's got to know his limitations." The same is true for a nation. Already on a one way superhighway to oblivion, Russia is in the process of destroying its bridges behind it.
That goes for any country, Al.
Hey, maybe they have. Maybe, they have decided to emulate a country that invaded another country for no reason. Or maybe Russia had a reason. We could have a discussion on this, but Al is too afraid to allow comments.
Here he steps in it.
mighty Russia with its huge army, navy, and nuclear arsenal is so unhinged by fear that it is willing to undo the difficult diplomatic work of almost two decades?
No, Al, we promised Gorby that we would not run NATO, that worthless array of spongers, up to his borders. We lied and Putin is changing the equation.
His last paragraph is a keeper.
Think about it. Clint Eastwood always says, "a man's got to know his limitations." The same is true for a nation. Already on a one way superhighway to oblivion, Russia is in the process of destroying its bridges behind it.
That goes for any country, Al.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
