Strategery
Yet another reason the September 11th congressional inquiry panel is a waste of time: They're not interested in what the Bush administration has done since September 11th, 2001 to make sure it never happens again. And we should be talking about the strategy they've pursued since then, because it seems to be working:
The State Department's annual report on terrorism notes that terrorism was at a 30-year low in 2003.
Oh, and what was the second lowest year in the last three decades? 2002.
What does that tell us about the idea that attacking terrorists ends up actually creating terrorists? Well, it's wrong, for starters. It's never made a lot of sense to me. (Is Bin Laden like Ben Kenobi? "Strike me down and I shall become even more powerful than before.") Osama is a very unique guy; similarly his various lieutenants are also pretty unique. Lots of people in their neck of the woods hate America and want to hurt the Zionist Imperialist Crusaders etc. But most of these goombahs don't end up doing anything more than burning flags and chanting slogans. The guys who lead Al Qaeda can not be easily replaced. Killing them or at least keeping them off balance and on the run should help reduce the terror problem.
The same with the fight in Fallujah. Cornering a big bunch of bad guys into one town and then methodically killing them all seems to have been a good idea. The mufsidoon have been so busy getting their brains blown out by Marines that they don't have the time to make improvised explosive devices and use them against troops or regular average Iraqis. Makes sense, doesn't it? Why is this so hard for some people to grasp?
--EL DOLOR
Saturday, May 01, 2004
Friday, April 30, 2004
Lt. Kerry, anti-war activist
Just One Minute has been doing a terrific job investigating an error perpetuated by Sen. John Kerry's campaign-- namely, that Kerry was no longer a naval officer in 1970-72 when he was most active in protesting the Vietnam War, and when he met with representatives of North Vietnam in Paris.
Just as I think that Americans should watch what they say when their words will get back to the enemy, I think that servicemen and women must be held to a higher standard. The law recognizes distinctions between military personnel and private citizens by establishing two separate systems of justice for them. It's a different thing for Lt. Kerry to be an anti-war activist than it is for John Kerry, private citizen. I think that Kerry's dissembling on this issue shows not only that he, too, is aware of this distinction, but that he also believes that American voters would make the same distinction. I think he's right.
--JOHANNES CLERK
Just One Minute has been doing a terrific job investigating an error perpetuated by Sen. John Kerry's campaign-- namely, that Kerry was no longer a naval officer in 1970-72 when he was most active in protesting the Vietnam War, and when he met with representatives of North Vietnam in Paris.
Just as I think that Americans should watch what they say when their words will get back to the enemy, I think that servicemen and women must be held to a higher standard. The law recognizes distinctions between military personnel and private citizens by establishing two separate systems of justice for them. It's a different thing for Lt. Kerry to be an anti-war activist than it is for John Kerry, private citizen. I think that Kerry's dissembling on this issue shows not only that he, too, is aware of this distinction, but that he also believes that American voters would make the same distinction. I think he's right.
--JOHANNES CLERK
Ways for us to help
The Spirit of America donation drive is now officially over, but there are still plenty of ways for you to do your part for America's efforts to rebuild Iraq. For one, thing, you can still give to Spirit of America. It's a great cause, run by great people. There's also Operation Give, run by Chief Wiggles. And then there's a long list posted by Blackfive. Any of these charities could really use ten bucks from you, or whatever you could spare. And we all know that you're just going to blow it on worthless luxuries like food and rent, anyway. So, give.
PS - None of my imaginary readers have taken me up on my generous offer yet, so I'm going to let it stand. First one to show me proof that they donated $30 or more to one of these fine charities wins the coolest book ever written.
--HOUSE OF PAYNE
The Spirit of America donation drive is now officially over, but there are still plenty of ways for you to do your part for America's efforts to rebuild Iraq. For one, thing, you can still give to Spirit of America. It's a great cause, run by great people. There's also Operation Give, run by Chief Wiggles. And then there's a long list posted by Blackfive. Any of these charities could really use ten bucks from you, or whatever you could spare. And we all know that you're just going to blow it on worthless luxuries like food and rent, anyway. So, give.
PS - None of my imaginary readers have taken me up on my generous offer yet, so I'm going to let it stand. First one to show me proof that they donated $30 or more to one of these fine charities wins the coolest book ever written.
--HOUSE OF PAYNE
Thursday, April 29, 2004
Correction?
Sen. Clinton has declared that the interview discussed in my previous post is totally bogus. It never happened. (Thanks to Allah for pointing this out.) If this is so, she has my apologies.
That said, the post used Sen. Clinton's alleged remarks merely as an example typical of a kind of political discourse. And the alleged remarks are typical of the kind of thing others have said. So I stand by what I wrote, except that I am glad the junior senator from New York denies uttering these reprehensible words. Good for her.
--HOUSE OF PAYNE
Sen. Clinton has declared that the interview discussed in my previous post is totally bogus. It never happened. (Thanks to Allah for pointing this out.) If this is so, she has my apologies.
That said, the post used Sen. Clinton's alleged remarks merely as an example typical of a kind of political discourse. And the alleged remarks are typical of the kind of thing others have said. So I stand by what I wrote, except that I am glad the junior senator from New York denies uttering these reprehensible words. Good for her.
--HOUSE OF PAYNE
Psy-ops
Senator Hillary Clinton gave a recent interview to an Arab newspaper printed in London:
The democrat Senator stressed that the U.S. is trapped in the quagmire of Iraq. It can not free itself from the country.
Referring to the Bush Administration policies as arrogant and insolent, the wife of the former U.S. president further added that Bush is not willing to admit his mistakes in Iraq, the grave mistakes that have endangered the lives of both the Iraqi people and the U.S. servicemen alike.
The mistakes have also threatened peace and stability in the region, she further explained.
Clinton said the Bush Administration did not have a plan for Iraq and did not have a full understanding of the situation there.
She said the United States was in trouble because it could not abandon Iraq, nor provide enough manpower to run the country, nor gather world allies willing to provide the necessary assistance for the gigantic task.
Grimbeorn comments:
One of the challenges in a counterinsurgency is convincing people that yours is the winning side... Thanks, doll. It'll be a lot easier now.
Well said. It's bad enough to express defeatism here in the US, but to confess to unfriendlies that you think we can not win...? Sometimes I wonder whether the people who say these types of things appreciate what harm they do to the rest of us Americans. Surely they must. But surely Hillary Clinton does not wish to see Americans die and America humiliated.
How can they continue to speak this way? I can think of three interrelated reasons. First, I think American politicians cannot help but think of this in terms of US domestic politics. This is an election year, and George W. Bush is the real enemy to most politicos on the American left. (The American right has its own problems, but that's something to discuss in another post.) The standard by which all words and actions are judged in this crowd is whether or not it makes it more likely that Bush will be defeated at the polls. The intense focus on this one goal has distorted their perceptions.
Second, many of them do not believe that the War on Terrorism is a real war any more than the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs. To them, this "war" is a rhetorical device. They plan to fight this war as they do all other metaphorical wars, with speeches, legislation, government programs, meetings in foreign capitals, etc. If there is no real war, there is no real enemy, and thus no reason to be careful about what you say to an Arab media outlet, other than the normal multiculturalist concerns.
Third, inasmuch as there exists any hostility towards the US in the world today, many people like to believe that this will be resolved not by force but by good will and compromise. By disparaging the Bush administration's war-fighting approach, Clinton and others like her believe they are communicating an important message about their willingness to seek a more peaceful resolution to the problem.
It's like that Far Side cartoon.
What Clinton & Co. say to terrorists: "We're not enemies. And we Americans are not all bloodthirsty bigots like this crazy cowboy from Texas. He doesn't speak for us, and in a few months he'll be gone. We're reasonable. We want to engage you in dialogue, to understand you better--your needs, your fears, your hopes and dreams. Together, we'll find a solution that will be mutually beneficial."
What they hear: "We are weak and afraid. Continue attacking us and we will soon give you what you want."
This is not to say that everyone who reads that newspaper is a terrorist. There are good people in the Arab and Muslim world who decry terror, and we should do all we can to support them. But I think it's safe to say that there are plenty of terrorists and terror-supporters who will read reports of that interview with Sen. Clinton, and who will be emboldened by it, rather than moved to negotiate. What will it take for someone like Sen. Clinton to realize this?
--SUNSHINE DAVE RAHIMI
Senator Hillary Clinton gave a recent interview to an Arab newspaper printed in London:
The democrat Senator stressed that the U.S. is trapped in the quagmire of Iraq. It can not free itself from the country.
Referring to the Bush Administration policies as arrogant and insolent, the wife of the former U.S. president further added that Bush is not willing to admit his mistakes in Iraq, the grave mistakes that have endangered the lives of both the Iraqi people and the U.S. servicemen alike.
The mistakes have also threatened peace and stability in the region, she further explained.
Clinton said the Bush Administration did not have a plan for Iraq and did not have a full understanding of the situation there.
She said the United States was in trouble because it could not abandon Iraq, nor provide enough manpower to run the country, nor gather world allies willing to provide the necessary assistance for the gigantic task.
Grimbeorn comments:
One of the challenges in a counterinsurgency is convincing people that yours is the winning side... Thanks, doll. It'll be a lot easier now.
Well said. It's bad enough to express defeatism here in the US, but to confess to unfriendlies that you think we can not win...? Sometimes I wonder whether the people who say these types of things appreciate what harm they do to the rest of us Americans. Surely they must. But surely Hillary Clinton does not wish to see Americans die and America humiliated.
How can they continue to speak this way? I can think of three interrelated reasons. First, I think American politicians cannot help but think of this in terms of US domestic politics. This is an election year, and George W. Bush is the real enemy to most politicos on the American left. (The American right has its own problems, but that's something to discuss in another post.) The standard by which all words and actions are judged in this crowd is whether or not it makes it more likely that Bush will be defeated at the polls. The intense focus on this one goal has distorted their perceptions.
Second, many of them do not believe that the War on Terrorism is a real war any more than the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs. To them, this "war" is a rhetorical device. They plan to fight this war as they do all other metaphorical wars, with speeches, legislation, government programs, meetings in foreign capitals, etc. If there is no real war, there is no real enemy, and thus no reason to be careful about what you say to an Arab media outlet, other than the normal multiculturalist concerns.
Third, inasmuch as there exists any hostility towards the US in the world today, many people like to believe that this will be resolved not by force but by good will and compromise. By disparaging the Bush administration's war-fighting approach, Clinton and others like her believe they are communicating an important message about their willingness to seek a more peaceful resolution to the problem.
It's like that Far Side cartoon.
What Clinton & Co. say to terrorists: "We're not enemies. And we Americans are not all bloodthirsty bigots like this crazy cowboy from Texas. He doesn't speak for us, and in a few months he'll be gone. We're reasonable. We want to engage you in dialogue, to understand you better--your needs, your fears, your hopes and dreams. Together, we'll find a solution that will be mutually beneficial."
What they hear: "We are weak and afraid. Continue attacking us and we will soon give you what you want."
This is not to say that everyone who reads that newspaper is a terrorist. There are good people in the Arab and Muslim world who decry terror, and we should do all we can to support them. But I think it's safe to say that there are plenty of terrorists and terror-supporters who will read reports of that interview with Sen. Clinton, and who will be emboldened by it, rather than moved to negotiate. What will it take for someone like Sen. Clinton to realize this?
--SUNSHINE DAVE RAHIMI
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Real American Heroes
Once again, I am going to talk about Spirit of America. As you, my imaginary readers may know, there has been a contest among bloggers to see which group can bring in the most donations for this very worthy cause. Well, the different groups have decided that they are no longer competing against each other (just as well--my group was getting whipped) and are now working together, trying to raise $50,000. And actually, we're pretty close.
Everyone else seems to be offering special incentives to convince people to donate. Me, too. Anyone who reads this post and donates $30 or more because of it will win a very special prize. I will ship to them one of five bound volumes of the old Marvel G.I. Joe comic book from the eighties. (I have some left over from a class me and a friend taught here in January.)
Let me just tell you, these books are super-awesome, even more awesome than when I first read them when I was nine years old. Great art, great stories-- and each volume reprints ten of the original comic issues. First ones to notify me will win Volume 3, with the famed-through-time-and-space SILENT ISSUE!
So, go make a donation to Spirit of America. Then email your donation receipt to me (jpayne1138 at aol dot com), and I'll email you back to get your address.
Yo, Joe!
--THE HOUSE
Once again, I am going to talk about Spirit of America. As you, my imaginary readers may know, there has been a contest among bloggers to see which group can bring in the most donations for this very worthy cause. Well, the different groups have decided that they are no longer competing against each other (just as well--my group was getting whipped) and are now working together, trying to raise $50,000. And actually, we're pretty close.
Everyone else seems to be offering special incentives to convince people to donate. Me, too. Anyone who reads this post and donates $30 or more because of it will win a very special prize. I will ship to them one of five bound volumes of the old Marvel G.I. Joe comic book from the eighties. (I have some left over from a class me and a friend taught here in January.)
Let me just tell you, these books are super-awesome, even more awesome than when I first read them when I was nine years old. Great art, great stories-- and each volume reprints ten of the original comic issues. First ones to notify me will win Volume 3, with the famed-through-time-and-space SILENT ISSUE!
So, go make a donation to Spirit of America. Then email your donation receipt to me (jpayne1138 at aol dot com), and I'll email you back to get your address.
Yo, Joe!
--THE HOUSE
Dogs of Peace
I said I'd write more about mercenaries later. Now it's later.
I should say up front that unlike a lot of other bloggers, I don't have any actual experience as a soldier, mercenary, police officer, etc. I am one of those punk academics who sits in an ivory tower and spouts off untested theories. (If it helps any, I feel a little guilty when I do it.) So, caveat lector imaginarius.
In the nineties, mercenary companies (like Executive Outcomes and Sandline) achieved success in a number of difficult military operations in Africa, including peacekeeping and intervening in civil wars.
Sub-Saharan Africa is perhaps the perfect place for mercenaries to be used, for three reasons. First, African states rarely meet the Weberian standard of having a monopoly on the use of force within their borders. Often, there are non-state armed forces operating with impunity in the hinterlands. Often these forces are ethnic militias led by local strongmen.
Second, even within the state, military capability is rarely concentrated into one body. Because of the ever-present risk of a military coup, 84% of Sub-Saharan African countries have some formal counterweight to military power, such as a presidential guard, gendarmerie or national police force, or some other governmental paramilitary organization. (I gleaned this information from the CIA World Factbook 2002. The 7 states without a counterweight are: Benin, Cape Verde, Comoros, Kenya, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Uganda.)
Third, it is common in Africa to have foreign military forces operating in one's territory. President Denis Sassou-Nguesso of the Congo Republic currently relies on Angolan military forces to control his country. Idi Amin depended heavily on Libyan troops in the final days of his reign. Leon M'Ba and Omar Bongo, both of Gabon, have relied on France to defend them from overthrow. As Machiavelli wrote five centuries ago, using foreign auxiliaries is a dangerous strategy, since foreign forces are ultimately not responsible to the host government. Unfortunately, in Africa external forces are often more trustworthy than domestic forces.
Mercenary companies, in particular, have proven themselves surprisingly trustworthy. Consider the civil war in Sierra Leone (1991-2002). In 1994, mercenary firm Executive Outcomes was hired by Sierra Leone's government, and they soon brought peace and stability where before had been violence and chaos (although they controlled only parts of the country). After elections in 1996, new president Ahmed Tejan Kabbah was pressured by the international community to evict the mercenaries, one of the conditions asked for by rebel forces. Kabbah did so, and formed a unity government with the rebels, who returned the favor by throwing him out in a coup in 1997. Kabbah then hired another mercenary company, Sandline, who with aid from Nigeria restored him to power in 1998. But they did not stay, and Sierra Leone once more became hell-on-earth. UN peacekeeping troops were sent in, but rebel forces routinely humiliated them. Frequent interventions by Britain eventually succeeded in chasing rebel forces out into neighboring countries and ending the civil war. The situation remains tenuous, however, and the UN Security Council voted a few weeks ago to keep UN peacekeepers in Sierra Leone, fearing that their departure would result in open war breaking out again. Conclusion: the people of Sierra Leone would be much better off today if Executive Outcomes had been allowed to stay.
The funny thing is that UN peacekeeping troops are mercenaries, too. Member states volunteer their armed forces for peacekeeping duty, for which they are compensated. Renting out soldiers to the UN is a big money-maker for third-world countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, Ethiopia, Pakistan, and Jordan. So the blue helmets are mercenaries, too. It's just that they're not as cheap, and arguably not as effective or as trustworthy.
Mercenary soldiers have brought peace to some of the most troubled spots in the world. Especially when considering the alternative, I am happy to know that the Coalition is employing mercenaries in Iraq. Cry reconstruction and let slip the dogs of peace!
--MAJOR BLUDD.
I said I'd write more about mercenaries later. Now it's later.
I should say up front that unlike a lot of other bloggers, I don't have any actual experience as a soldier, mercenary, police officer, etc. I am one of those punk academics who sits in an ivory tower and spouts off untested theories. (If it helps any, I feel a little guilty when I do it.) So, caveat lector imaginarius.
In the nineties, mercenary companies (like Executive Outcomes and Sandline) achieved success in a number of difficult military operations in Africa, including peacekeeping and intervening in civil wars.
Sub-Saharan Africa is perhaps the perfect place for mercenaries to be used, for three reasons. First, African states rarely meet the Weberian standard of having a monopoly on the use of force within their borders. Often, there are non-state armed forces operating with impunity in the hinterlands. Often these forces are ethnic militias led by local strongmen.
Second, even within the state, military capability is rarely concentrated into one body. Because of the ever-present risk of a military coup, 84% of Sub-Saharan African countries have some formal counterweight to military power, such as a presidential guard, gendarmerie or national police force, or some other governmental paramilitary organization. (I gleaned this information from the CIA World Factbook 2002. The 7 states without a counterweight are: Benin, Cape Verde, Comoros, Kenya, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Uganda.)
Third, it is common in Africa to have foreign military forces operating in one's territory. President Denis Sassou-Nguesso of the Congo Republic currently relies on Angolan military forces to control his country. Idi Amin depended heavily on Libyan troops in the final days of his reign. Leon M'Ba and Omar Bongo, both of Gabon, have relied on France to defend them from overthrow. As Machiavelli wrote five centuries ago, using foreign auxiliaries is a dangerous strategy, since foreign forces are ultimately not responsible to the host government. Unfortunately, in Africa external forces are often more trustworthy than domestic forces.
Mercenary companies, in particular, have proven themselves surprisingly trustworthy. Consider the civil war in Sierra Leone (1991-2002). In 1994, mercenary firm Executive Outcomes was hired by Sierra Leone's government, and they soon brought peace and stability where before had been violence and chaos (although they controlled only parts of the country). After elections in 1996, new president Ahmed Tejan Kabbah was pressured by the international community to evict the mercenaries, one of the conditions asked for by rebel forces. Kabbah did so, and formed a unity government with the rebels, who returned the favor by throwing him out in a coup in 1997. Kabbah then hired another mercenary company, Sandline, who with aid from Nigeria restored him to power in 1998. But they did not stay, and Sierra Leone once more became hell-on-earth. UN peacekeeping troops were sent in, but rebel forces routinely humiliated them. Frequent interventions by Britain eventually succeeded in chasing rebel forces out into neighboring countries and ending the civil war. The situation remains tenuous, however, and the UN Security Council voted a few weeks ago to keep UN peacekeepers in Sierra Leone, fearing that their departure would result in open war breaking out again. Conclusion: the people of Sierra Leone would be much better off today if Executive Outcomes had been allowed to stay.
The funny thing is that UN peacekeeping troops are mercenaries, too. Member states volunteer their armed forces for peacekeeping duty, for which they are compensated. Renting out soldiers to the UN is a big money-maker for third-world countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, Ethiopia, Pakistan, and Jordan. So the blue helmets are mercenaries, too. It's just that they're not as cheap, and arguably not as effective or as trustworthy.
Mercenary soldiers have brought peace to some of the most troubled spots in the world. Especially when considering the alternative, I am happy to know that the Coalition is employing mercenaries in Iraq. Cry reconstruction and let slip the dogs of peace!
--MAJOR BLUDD.
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
FBI FYI
Quick note to all jackbooted government stormtroopers, Ashcroftian spies, and other intelligence analysts who might be tracking this blog for important bits of information: I totally, totally do not want to kill the president. Just so you know.
--JOHANN F. WEISHAUPT
Quick note to all jackbooted government stormtroopers, Ashcroftian spies, and other intelligence analysts who might be tracking this blog for important bits of information: I totally, totally do not want to kill the president. Just so you know.
--JOHANN F. WEISHAUPT
Saturday, April 24, 2004
We are all in it now, all the way
"Every single man, woman and child is a partner in the most tremendous undertaking of our American history."
The fight to bring peace and safety, freedom and democracy to Iraq is not just a fight for the military or the government. It is our fight. Yours and mine. Are we doing our part?
--HOUSE OF PAYNE
"Every single man, woman and child is a partner in the most tremendous undertaking of our American history."
The fight to bring peace and safety, freedom and democracy to Iraq is not just a fight for the military or the government. It is our fight. Yours and mine. Are we doing our part?
--HOUSE OF PAYNE
Book of the Month
Rapture: The Second Coming, by William Spencer-Hale.
As I said before, I am a huge nerd. Part of being a huge nerd is being interested in role-playing games. These days I don't have the time, but once I was a great big role-playing dork. Enough said.
So, the fascinating thing about this book is that it is a guide for Apocalyptic roleplaying. That's right. It's a game about the last days before the second coming of Christ, compatible with Dungeons and Dragons, favorite bogeyman of various Christian groups. I love it. For the record, the game allows you to play on either side.
Anyway, I must confess that I haven't bought this, or even read it. It could be brilliant. It could be crap. But the idea so appeals to my sense of irony that I had to post about it. I'd love to hear more about it, though. So if any of you buy it, please drop me a line.
Meanwhile, enjoy another attempt to imagine what it's really like to deal with scary Christian monsters (although this author displays a much lower capacity for imagination).
--CHISAIBU
Rapture: The Second Coming, by William Spencer-Hale.
As I said before, I am a huge nerd. Part of being a huge nerd is being interested in role-playing games. These days I don't have the time, but once I was a great big role-playing dork. Enough said.
So, the fascinating thing about this book is that it is a guide for Apocalyptic roleplaying. That's right. It's a game about the last days before the second coming of Christ, compatible with Dungeons and Dragons, favorite bogeyman of various Christian groups. I love it. For the record, the game allows you to play on either side.
Anyway, I must confess that I haven't bought this, or even read it. It could be brilliant. It could be crap. But the idea so appeals to my sense of irony that I had to post about it. I'd love to hear more about it, though. So if any of you buy it, please drop me a line.
Meanwhile, enjoy another attempt to imagine what it's really like to deal with scary Christian monsters (although this author displays a much lower capacity for imagination).
--CHISAIBU
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
