While on the sweetest shore duty known to a sea going sailor, short of being a Naval Attache in the Down Under (so I’m told, never got to make it there, but had a friend who did), I had to pen a paper on a topic for a Philosphy course. I thought: Hmmm…how can I do something that looks serious, but can’t have that much to read to get my arms around it????

A quandry, but, I went on to think: What about the Turkish and Armenian thing? Ok, I’ll do genocide as a topic, so I’ll learn something, but not have to do a lot of reading…

Foolish me…..I will say, once “engaged,” I found there was much to read and many ways we have determined it can happen, and it’s not always about killing. For instance, I found out that The Muslim Turks would take children from the Christian Aremnians and give them to Turkish families to be raised as Muslims. That, my readers, fits the definition of genocide, as determined in the United Nations definition of the crime of genocide (Resolution 260 (III)A) in 1948. Many other things, brutal and not (at first) come under the umbrella of this word we so fear, and hate, all at once. It’s not a long read, and I’d suggest you take a few minutes and gather some understanding for use in the ongoing discussions, not only about Iraq, but for the future of those in the Darfur region of Sudan.

A guest, and it may have been LCol Ralph Peters on Bill Bennett’s morning show (disclaimer: I was driving and I renouce the need to be 100% accurate on the source), but maybe it was elsewhere, talked about how the time of history we have come to call the “Cold War” had the entire World, in it’s bi-polar superpower state, keeping that conflict between the “free” and “Communist” factions at the forefront of our issues. He made this point to support his other point that the current religious fratricide we are witnessing today in Iraq (and elsewhere, such as Darfur, but the MSM reports on Iraq almost exclusively), is not something new. It is a bloody legacy of the Middle East and the history of the Sunnis and Shi’ites, begun shortly after the death of Mohammed. Now, tie the two together: Our conflict with the Soviet/Communist “sphere of influence” casued both ourselves and the Communists to maneuver pretty much everybody else as a huge political and sometime geographic, buffer between us, thus surpressing the ancient blood feud of the Muslims from our sight, and, while I’m sure some of it was going on, the tensions between the two groups have been simmering in that “pressure cooker” for the 1945-1989 time frame.

Both “spheres” put strong men in power, which aided in keeping the direct confrontations beneath the surface.

Now, flash back to fall 1987: As I dug further into the history and analysis of this horrible human capability of genocide, we saw many cases of genocide on the African continent, as the European colonists departed. The analysis: The same as the source above: The colonial governments never solved existing conflict of the indigenous populations, then did as it turns out the Cold War did for our era: The “lid” was kept on and when the pressure was released, boy was it ugly.

My $.02: The core local issues need to be dealt with in these circumstances. The issue of by lineage or by selection is now about a is almost 2000 years in the making at this time, so it will sure keep great minds thinking about what to do to end the bloodshed, our troops and thier civilians, too. In this case, how do we convince two major “branches” of Islam to park at a conference center and talk out their differences? The analysis of the Iraq Study Group certainly doesn’t focus on this on this issue, but blames our presence in the region, with a dash of the real estate know as Israel being the salt in the same perceived wound for the violence that originally erupted in the later part of the 7th Century AD.

I think Mr. Baker and the others certainly could have afforded to be much more knowledgable of the conditions we are facing, and forgetting “concensus.”

Genocide: Its history taught me so much about the human condition.

It started getting really clear when I woke at 0452 EDT today for some unknown reason…..

A few days ago, I had the opportunity to jump into a “debate” (in quation marks for when one of the debators anchors a post in concrete labeled “Bush is Menatlly Ill” it is a difficult time indeed to have substantive dicussions), begun by a Milblogger and Army Recruiter, who made a post regarding the defeatist attitude on parade and mentioned a few bloggers by name.

I went to one of the sites and read her response, posted on her blog, and then proceeded to enter into the discussion.

The response, which helped me to understand her thinking more completely began to coagulate last night, but when my eyes popped open, it really became clear how she frames her argument. I’ll most likely speak to that here in the next few days.

It also happens to tie into much of what has been bouncing around in my thoughts the last few weeks, with the election results, the claims of mandates, the total lack of understanding of how you don’t elect congressment to run the nation, the Iraq Study Group report and the players who have come out on both sides (while the ISG really kinda did the normal political thing and mealy mouthed the whole issue of Iraq (yet was very clear about hating Israel)) of the debate; The thoughts of how another “Greatest Generation” is in the crucible right now, and to not lose hope, for these are the leaders of tomorrow; World population statistics; Wolrd history, both ot the Islamic culture/faith and also some of the analysis by Paul Kennedy in The Rise and Fall of Great Powers” from the late 80’s; Dr. Spock, Timothy Leary, the rise of gangs on our streets, which have now migrated world wide; The War Against Drugs; The “Mob” and the now prolific “Russian Mafia;” Chaos theory and Complexity and a whole lotta other stuff. More ganglia twitching, and how much of it seems to come together, or at least help explain the human condition.

I’ll also be posting at The Wide Awakes, along with ohters who write for that group blog (see blogroll on the sidebar). I’ll begin this afternoon with a few “retreads” of older work, but some of my prior work seems to be puzzle pieces in the “knowldege soup” brewing on this end.

In the meantime, I believe there is a snow globe that needs shaking to show the true beauty of winter….

Found in the comments section over at Little Green Footballs of the post Servicemen Respond to Democratic Slurs, which, chasing that link is a good read in itself. But…here’s a great add on:

YOU WORRY ME!

By American Airlines Pilot – Captain John Maniscalco

I’ve been trying to say this since 9-11 but you worry me. I wish you didn’t. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don’t blend in anymore. I notice you, and it worries me. I notice you because I can’t help it anymore. People from your homelands, professing to be Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow citizens and our friends for more than 20 years now. I don’t fully understand their grievances and hate but I know that nothing can justify the inhumanity of their attacks.

On September 11, nineteen ARAB-MUSLIMS hijacked four jetliners in my country. They cut the throats of women in front of children and brutally stabbed to death others. They took control of those planes and crashed them into buildings killing thousands of proud fathers, loving sons, wise grandparents, elegant daughters, best friends, favorite coaches, fearless public servants, and children’s mothers.

The Palestinians Celebrated, The Iraqis were overjoyed as was most of the Arab world. So I notice you now. I don’t want to be worried. I don’t want to be consumed by the same rage and hate and prejudice that has destroyed the soul of these terrorists. But I need your help. As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational and unsafe world, I
must know how to tell the difference between you, and the Arab/Muslim terrorist.

Read the rest of this entry »

Consensus? You’ve got to be kidding me. Maybe I can give John Gruden a call and offer my services, and those of several of my friends, who think his record this season sucks, so we can have a commission to tell him how to do it “in a different direction.”

Oh, yeah, I was tall and skinny. I never played football, but I did swim, play baseball and basketball. Much like the Baker Commission, I complee people to look upon me as qualified to discuss detailed NFL lavel football.

And, like a snowball’s chances in hell, I’m sure I’ll get a call back from my buddy John…..

I have come to pretty much emlininate profanity from my discussions, but this entire set of current events has me toying with dusting off the mental bookshelf that holds some more of the more choice sayings I learned in many years as a sailor….

Pardon me, but times like these demand those people, who are so unpolished in polite company during peacetime that they are excluded, passed over and shuffled off to assignments far from where they can embarass the “chosen ones,” who will one day be admirals and generals. I had a few friends like this during my service time. Brutally effective as leaders in the simulated combat conditions we could muster, and constantly considering the options/scenarios for war at sea. They stayed near the waterfront when not on sea duty, in jobs to helpp the fleet get better, and turned their noses up at Pentagon assignments. They knew the profession, on it’s worst day, would require every bit of sea going and combat/damage control/engineering experience they could immerse themselves in, and that’s what they did, to the detriment of their careers.

One man, a mentor to me, who could tell you when you screwed up and make sure you understood the newest tactics, had played many sports, including football and baseball, and it was always with a go for broke, victory if the goal attitude. He carried that attitude into everything he did. He made O-4. He was shuttled off to the side. He retired and, having been noticed by a reservist who drilled with them, was sought after for that very spirit, and now he does in the business world what his senior officers thought was too much out of the question.

Look at the changes of command at the outset of WWII? Those who had grown up and comfortable in the extended peacetime were tossed out to the curb and the agressive, loud, we’re here to kill the enemy and break things crowd was installed. Yep, you need those guys when the light is dim and the casualties are high, caused by the lack of understanding of those who got you there in the first place. But then, after the conflict, the war fighters are, once more, pushed aside and the politicians rise again.

One man I worked for was the most brilliant tactician, in both exercise, and also in a real world multi-month operation, but his “interpersonal skills” left just about everything to be desired. I’d go to war with him in a heartbeat, but count me out if he need administrative support. It’s men like this that carry the day in the times of challenge, not those who refuse to get their hands dirty in understanding our enemy, much less history.

Take your stinking “consensus” and stuff it. Get me a hard nosed, hard driven, focused person, who will lead and make the hard decisions, knowing full well the gravity of the situation. Side Note: Dr. Gates sure isn’t striking me as one of these guys, no matter how many Aggies had has run with and talked to. Being a friend is one skill set, being a leader is another altogether. You can be both, but the leader aspects need to be exercised first.

We don’t need smooth and polished, with the right color tie, and a manicured metrosexual type running the show right now. We most certainly don’t need unelected people to demand the President take orders from them.

We need Bucks and Bills to be put in place, with orders to “retake the Falklands” type direction from the Commander-in-Chief. Along the way, the rules of armed conflict and rules of engagement will be followed, because those seemingly troglodytes are the consumate professionals. But if they need an ROE changed, they’ll be stating their case.

Better yet, men like Bill and Buck would come home victorious, with a simple request: “What next?”

Update 12/11/2006: Looks like Rick Santorum and I are of one mind…

Many years ago, as we sat at the dinner table, discussing the current effort to get rid of cars that burned leaded gas, I made some comment about tha implied that would be the end of it when they got it completed.

My mother-in-law had recently gotten the diesel Mercedes she had wanted for some time and that next factored into the equation.

My father-in-law next commented “these people keep lists of 10 itmes thay are after. When they get rid of the item at the top, then they add another one at the bottom, so they will always have things to attack.”

In the past few days, and reflecting on the state of world affairs, specifically in reference to the Islamofascists, Jes was oh, so correct. They will ask for one thing, then when they get it, they add more requests. The sad part is we keep believing what they are asking is the thing they actually desire, instead of figuring out it is merely a stepping stone to the larger prize they seek. In this case, they won’t stop until they dominate, which has been the history of the Muslim faith (via the leadership) since the inception of the religion.

Yes, they have been beaten back and given up on agression for a while, but it our time when they have chosen to surge forward to accomplish their desired goal.

So, if “they” get Israel taken off the map, they aren’t going to stop there…

I read “Strategy for Defeat” many years ago, back in the days in Newport, RI, while studying such issues, and not promted by any reading list.

The book, written from the viewpoint of the admiral who was CINCPAC (Commander-in-Chief, Pacific), so he was well breifed in as to the “goings on” of the time.

I am working from recall, but Adm Sharp’s premise is the “doves” were the ones who caused the prolonging of the war and therefore the bloodshed, on all sides, and the “hawks” would have had the war come to a much faster conclusion. As a result, his contention was the hawks were actually the ones who would have saved lives.

His thesis was supported, in one chapter, by the story of a major sea port, aerial mines and “peace” talks…..

He said in 1968, he had forwarded a battle plan to mine Haiphong Harbor. The plan was rejected, because Washington felt Soviet ships (that were delivering war materials to the North Vietnamese) might become victims of the functional blockade and therefore a major international incident would be caused.

When the plan was finally executed in 1972, the North Vietnamese were at the Paris Peace Talks and actually talking, as their logistical “tail” had been strangled. This is more important in the light of the conflict between China and Russia as to who was “more senior” in the Communist world, and China was denying the Soviets the use of Chinese railways to send material to Vietnam. Being forced to get their major resupply by sea, and the major seport, with the capacity to offload the items, was cut off. The North Vietnamese quickly become more argeeable in figuring out how to back away from the conflict.

This is a lesson in strategy (recall who were the presidents in the two years listed above), and a show of force (or not when the capability existed), which managed to clearly and consisely communicate to our enemy we meant business. If you think about the metod used, there didn’t even have to be casualties, as the mines become “guards” on the sea ways, and would kill and maim the enemy only when the beligerent chose to cross the area.

Read the rest of this entry »

BFO moment.

Why are we still looking at war strategies for Iraq? Not to say there isn’t a need for such thinking, but I think it’s better applied to the larger issue of worldwide terrorism.

As far as Iraq, we need to be face down into how the Marshall Plan and General McArthur’s methods for Germany and Japan were formulated and then put into place….

This is a teaser. I have to hit the raod, but I’ll be working on this thought much, much more!

The lead in post is here….

Look at our pattern of waging since we have twice used miniature suns on our enemies:

Korea – Took the attack, got rolled back, finally got into the battle, rolled over the enemy, right up to the far end of their country, when we let them. joined by their allies, push us back and a long term armistice has been in place ever since, the Korean War having nver reached “closure.”

Vietnam – Took over from our allies, brought a conventional military, in terms of equipment and mindset, designed for a fight against an armor heavy military, into triple canopy jungles, initially to fight against an un-uniformed militia. While we dominated on the battlefields, even with our historical mindset and equipment limitations, world political opinion was picked up by our own governmental authorities, and we declared victory and departed, promising support for our allied forces. Strategically, we lost the war and the cause of world communism enslaved the people of South Vietnam, when too many loud voices said we couldn’t stomach the carnage anymore. In this war, we faced an enemy who wanted us out our their country, which, was definable by internationally recognized lines on maps.

Gulf War I – A defined mission to liberate Kuwait was handily achieved, using tactics requiring entry into a second nation (Iraq). While the military sought to not only push the aggressors out of Kuwait, they began to neutralize, by elimination, the forces of Saddam Hussein. With his paper tiger military was trapped on the “Highway of Death” while leaving Kuwait, our public opinion lost it’s stomach once more and demanded the end of the carnage, which was actually the strategic destruction of enemy armed forces, and was not engaging civilians. Once again, we fought against a country, one that we could identify on a map. We pushed them back within their borders.

The Global War on Terror – We have used far fewer troops to control two foreign nation far from our shores than any nation has used before in a “war.” We have been exceedingly “delicate” in the application of force, which has left mostly infrastructure intact, compared to the carpet bombing in WWII. We now are hamstrung by an enemy that knows no national boundaries, flies no flag, and wears civilian clothing, operating freely in all nations of the world. The stated goal of the enemy is not for us to leave “their land,” for “their land” is the entire planet. As a result, they are demanding the conquest of all lands of the world. We may leave Afghanistan and Iraq, but that will not be the end of the conflict. At best, it will provide a time to breathe, but no more.

This discussion is about our “governor,” metaphor being the control imposed, short of being able to reach full power on a piece of machinery, a limiting device. I would contend, with each conflict after WWII, we went in and adjusted the governor each time to a lower level than before, while at the same time, we were engineering more and greater military might and technical ability to attack anyone who attacks us.

Why? That is the main question.

You can understand the nations of the rest of the world, our allies, our enemies, and those who are still trying to decide who to stand with in the future, is looking at our much publicized debate and hoping they have correctly ascertained a trend in our policy and actions. The hope of the enemy is we will, lose our lunch and and, maybe, unlike Vietnam, not have the politicians declare victory and then bring the troops home (More like force the withdrawal by cutting off the appropriations money), but this time, following the trend line established, declare we are defeated in our effort to attack a root cause of aggression not only against us, but against all peoples who do not declare Islam as their guiding principle, and tell the rest of the world, from the mouths of our most senior elected officials, we should be ashamed of having sent out troops to their doorstep, to barge in and rape their daughters and kill their sons and fathers, and then cut off the funding, causing a “redeployment” all the way back to their stateside bases.

So, we are coming to a crossroad in our history. Do we, with the most powerful weaponry, the most militarily effective, yet compassionate people every to step forward in the defense of our nation, allow people, who are now well over 30, yet proclaimed “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” while they are young, to emasculate the military, so they may bow before any other country who does not “like” what we do?

It is clear. The projection of the ability to back up your statements, showing your strength, is what the world respects, unless you are the strong one. It is a particular human condition to try to tear down the ones who have risen to the top. We see it in the business world, as software companies went to Congress to try to break up Microsoft. We see the liberals attacking Wal-Mart, and we have the Islamofascists telling the world we need to be conquered. The enemy, respects the strength of our military, and like the Soviets, realize they cannot beat us on the battlefield. They can, as proven in Vietnam, in Central America, and to a lesser extent, in Gulf War I, defeat us by turning the stomachs of those in Congress and a few widely respected media outlets.

We have the answer and it also shows the degree of schizophrenia that has come to be accepted within our society. That will be the topic of Part III of this serial posting.

Short theoughts on Charlie Rangel’s selective service plan:

He wants a shared sacrifice? I guess he has to force the young, disconnected, apathetic, and just plain rebellious to take a part in defending their future?

And, let me get this straight: In an “unpopular war,” we’ll just go out and rake them in off the streets, as they won’t come in on their own? Then we have a larger military (gutted by President Clinton, btw), yet we’re going to pull out of Iraq, just what do we need them for?

Mr Rangel, do you have imperialistc visons dancing through your head? If not, I see no reason to add more forces, while you cut funds for the forward deployed units, so they’ll “redeploy” and thereby need less manpower and less munitions to sit in garrison camps thousands of miles from the current combat zones.

I’m just way too slow to keep track of these wonderous plans of the Democrats to fight the war on terror…

Update: Maybe I have figured it out: Draft troops, then you don’t have to pay them well, since they have to be there any way (Hey, Senator Kennedy: Will they at least get the new minimu wage per hour?), and then, all the extra money in the Food Stamp Program will be used! Just think: The Dems can then say they spent more for social progrrams, while giving to the low ranks for the enlisted military, all the while it never showing as an increase in the military budget. That’s a win-win, huh?

(disclaimer: may not be in the exact chronological order, and will not list each and every act of terror, but a good list is linked here)

*click!*
The Olympics in the 70s.
*click!*
The US Embassy in Iran.
*click!*
Marine Barracks, Beruit
*click!*
Leo Klingenhoffer on the Achilles Lauro
*click!*
Lockerbee, Scotland.
*click!*
Discos in Germany where US Service members congregate
*click*
Bombing of embassies in Africa,
Swarming over the “Mog”
USS COLE
9/11
Madrid
7/7
*Click!*
*CLICK!*
*CLICKKKK!*
Read the rest of this entry »