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.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
