Strange story
Ok, summary of the link above by the Associated Press: Military vote outreach officials are telling voting officials in various states that a plane crash on Oct.19, 2012, in Afghanistan apparently appears to have allegedly destroyed 4,500 pounds of service members’ mail, but they are not sure. Included in this load were an undetermined amount of absentee ballots. Would they send out new ones?
Now, this is not outside the realm of possibility. However, having said that, why do none of the public affairs offices in the theater make any reference to such an accident? Hello, these are the people who write press releases when a coalition aircraft makes a hard landing, much less gets its cargo burned up in a crash.
I have gone through my “usual” suspects when I am trying to find out about what the military is putting out, just to check to see if I missed something, but I can find no reference to said crash. Interesting, however, is the ISAF Joint Operations release for the next day now is missing, but that is just interesting.
I am not crying foul, but my experiences with the Military Postal System do not give me much faith that “replacement” absentee ballots will get to Afghanistan and back in anywhere near enough time. Makes one wonder exactly how many absentee ballots were on that “alleged” plane.
Something about this story is funky, and I don’t know what it is, but it is sending off all sorts of warning bells in my mind.
If anyone can find a reference to this accident dated prior to Oct. 25, 2012, I would surely like to read it, because I can’t. In addition, none of the military public affairs sites reference any aircraft losses on Oct. 19: ZIP, zero, nada, zilch; and no crashes with or without casualties.
The only reference I can find to a crash on the airbase is this one Afghan report of helicopter
"US helicopter crashes in Shindand
airbase HERAT, Oct. 21 – Officials of Islamic Emirate reporting from
Herat province state that a US helicopter crashed inside Shindand airbase due to
technical difficulties. The helicopter is said to have crash landed at dusk time
Friday inside the mega base, catching fire upon impact and killing all the
invaders and crew aboard. It is worth reminding that a couple of days earlier, a
UNAMA helicopter also crashed in Bamyan province due to technical issues,
killing all the foreigners and hirelings aboard."
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Friday, October 26, 2012
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Ernie Pyle for the 21st Century
21st Century war correspondent
I am a history buff and have read a lot about World War II (I wasn’t even born yet, so I have no personal memories). I also spent my life as a journalist and a part-time soldier. You can’t be those things and not have read about Ernie Pyle.
Ernie Pyle was a singular American and a singular journalist. He wrote a newspaper column that was read by millions back in the states and told the story of the war from the dog-faced soldier’s point of view. He was very popular with the troops and a little less popular with the brass hats because he tended to take the side of the troops rather than their bosses.
There was a character in the Errol Flynn movie “Objective Burma” (1945) that was patterned after Pyle, I suspect. Pyle, who had followed the American GIs through the entire European campaign, from North Africa to Sicily to Italy to Normandy to VE-Day, was killed by a Japanese sniper covering the invasion of Okinawa in 1945.
Pyle probably is the epitome of what an American journalist, covering American troops, should be. There are very few like Pyle.
Today, however, there is a war correspondent by the name of Michael Yon, who I have been following for a number of years. During most of Iraq and a good part of Afghanistan, Yon has been embedded with American as well as allied troops. Unfortunately, his Pyle-like reportage has got him disinvited by the American military leadership from future embeds. It seems his experience as a former soldier and years of covering combat compel him to tell uncomfortable truths about the wars, which tend to recognize the worst of the enemy, the failures in leadership of American commanders and often the heroism of the unheralded foot-soldier.
He currently is “fighting” a campaign of his own to get the U.S. military to arm its medical evacuation helicopters so they can fight their way into hot landing zones to carry out wounded troops in the “golden hour” rather than often wait for Air Force planes or Army attack helicopters to provide cover for them. He has told several stories of young soldiers, good soldiers, who died unnecessarily because their evacuation was delayed because the landing zone for the Dustoff helicopter was hot and higher authorities wouldn’t let it land.
This is not a ding on the crews of those helicopters. More often than not they plunge right in, because they know the importance of their mission.
Anyway, if you really want to see the face of modern war and get a good perspective of what it is like for the men and women on the ground in Afghanistan … even though he is not there at the moment, he has a lot of really good sources … I would encourage you to follow his posts on his website, on twitter and on Facebook.
His name is Michael You. His website is www.michaelyon-online.com.
Not to puff up his ego any, but this old scribe thinks he stands up there with Ernie Pyle and Bill Mauldin.
I am a history buff and have read a lot about World War II (I wasn’t even born yet, so I have no personal memories). I also spent my life as a journalist and a part-time soldier. You can’t be those things and not have read about Ernie Pyle.
Ernie Pyle was a singular American and a singular journalist. He wrote a newspaper column that was read by millions back in the states and told the story of the war from the dog-faced soldier’s point of view. He was very popular with the troops and a little less popular with the brass hats because he tended to take the side of the troops rather than their bosses.
There was a character in the Errol Flynn movie “Objective Burma” (1945) that was patterned after Pyle, I suspect. Pyle, who had followed the American GIs through the entire European campaign, from North Africa to Sicily to Italy to Normandy to VE-Day, was killed by a Japanese sniper covering the invasion of Okinawa in 1945.
Pyle probably is the epitome of what an American journalist, covering American troops, should be. There are very few like Pyle.
Today, however, there is a war correspondent by the name of Michael Yon, who I have been following for a number of years. During most of Iraq and a good part of Afghanistan, Yon has been embedded with American as well as allied troops. Unfortunately, his Pyle-like reportage has got him disinvited by the American military leadership from future embeds. It seems his experience as a former soldier and years of covering combat compel him to tell uncomfortable truths about the wars, which tend to recognize the worst of the enemy, the failures in leadership of American commanders and often the heroism of the unheralded foot-soldier.
He currently is “fighting” a campaign of his own to get the U.S. military to arm its medical evacuation helicopters so they can fight their way into hot landing zones to carry out wounded troops in the “golden hour” rather than often wait for Air Force planes or Army attack helicopters to provide cover for them. He has told several stories of young soldiers, good soldiers, who died unnecessarily because their evacuation was delayed because the landing zone for the Dustoff helicopter was hot and higher authorities wouldn’t let it land.
This is not a ding on the crews of those helicopters. More often than not they plunge right in, because they know the importance of their mission.
Anyway, if you really want to see the face of modern war and get a good perspective of what it is like for the men and women on the ground in Afghanistan … even though he is not there at the moment, he has a lot of really good sources … I would encourage you to follow his posts on his website, on twitter and on Facebook.
His name is Michael You. His website is www.michaelyon-online.com.
Not to puff up his ego any, but this old scribe thinks he stands up there with Ernie Pyle and Bill Mauldin.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Random thoughts again
Innocence of Muslims controversy
Good backgrounder on the movie
It seems the new Egyptian government wants to pander to the mob. Ok, I can understand that … even if pandering to the mob usually is wrong.
Granted, the movie “Innocence of Muslims” is a piece of trash and insulting to almost anyone with active brain cells, and it almost a criminal assault on one’s intellect, it does not rise to the level of a capital offense. Not in reality, however, in Egypt, people who face such charges are indeed facing a possible death sentence.
This is how so stupid, and I use that word advisedly, in the Muslim world – especially in the Muslim Arab countries – things have become. We Americans wonder what is with these people? Well, folks, there are two things going down here.
1. Is third parties are stirring the pot to increase their personal power and influence.
2. Some people, some cultures, some social systems, just have no tolerance for differences opinion. They have no tolerance for satire or parody. In short, they have not sense of tolerance at all.
I don’t say that because I think these people are evil or essentially bad people. No, in their world, what they think and do is entirely correct and proper. Unfortunately, from many of us in the West, it is totally incorrect and improper. Ironically, many people from this end of the world who applaud or approve the actions like these of the Egyptian government probably fail to realize that with their views, they probably would be among the first to go to the guillotine.
Unfortunately, we have those in the U.S. who fail to see the point that freedom does not mean they or anybody else gets to trump up charges to suppress views, however fallacious, however wrong, however bad they may seem. The people who hold those views, in this case, are the victims and not the criminals.
A good argument against prosecution
Rumors of war
Azerbaijan v. Armenia (or Russia v. Turkey)
China v. its neighbors in the South China Sea
I guess if you look at it, it really is a pretty bleak world out there. Whether it is the ongoing war in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) or the threatened or ongoing conflicts in the Middle East or the ones threatening in Central Asia or with Iran versus whomever, or the Chinese versus whomever, it seems that the news is full of warnings and rumblings that would lead some people to think war is right around the corner. Well, maybe I am an optimist, but I don’t think so.
Yes, the low intensity (to the rest of us) conflict in Syria will continue as will the ethnic clashes elsewhere between Shia and Sunni, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Muslim, Hindu and Sikh, Christian and Animists, Catholics and Protestants (although that has cooled down a log in recent years).
I know the Israeli-Palestinian/Iran confrontation has my friend out west up in arms. He seems to think that the next two weeks will see Israel attack Iran, or so he told me about a week ago. I told him that it could happen but I wasn’t of the opinion that it was all that likely.
Just like in the East or South China Seas, some sort of naval clash could happen at any time, but I am doubtful that it would degenerate into a full-blown war.
Why am I so optimistic: Because at the moment, none of the involved parties really have all that to gain by sparking large scale armed conflicts. Granted, I am not in the heads of any of the leaders anywhere but most leaders are not suicidal and unless you have a much better than even chance of prevailing in whatever level of combat you are willing to gamble will result from your initial move, then you aren’t about to make that initial move.
Of course, unfortunately, that does not factor in the individuals on the ground (or sea) at the point of conflict who just might make those stupid decisions that usually trigger a major conflict.
Still, before we head for the bunkers, I think we all should just take a deep breath and consider that war often is just a rumor and we can wait to verify it before jumping off any cliffs.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
To my Muslim readers: Why the violence?
Short history of Muslim intolerance
Obama says US has respect for people of all faiths
And then again, maybe not – No one murdered though (NSFW or kids)
I would hope that someone of the Islamic faith would explain to me the reason for the violence – and resultant carnage – every time some obscure person or entity in the “West” does something that criticizes or portrays the Islamic faith in a less than favorable light. Oh, I have my own thoughts, but I would like to hear from some Muslims.
You see, I find it odd that people launch themselves into the streets and attack people, places or things based on what to them is merely a rumor. How many people out there demonstrating and fighting with riot police really have viewed the YouTube videos “Innocence of a Muslim” or its short version trailer? I would hazard a guess, that even with all the publicity, it remains a relatively small number, particularly in countries where internet access is nowhere near as prevalent as it is, let say, in the United States.
You look at the list of incidents over the past decade or so (see first link) and you wonder what really is going on. It really isn’t over the books, films, cartoons, or whatever; it is over something else – local control.
It is, simply put, an effort by local political and religious leaders to incite and then divert the passions of the people they are trying to control away from themselves. Tired people who are angry are less likely to do violence to their leaders if they have some “foreign” devil to blame for their troubles instead of the “known” devils who are ruling them.
This is not new. It is as old as mankind. Tribal leaders, religious leaders, leaders of all shapes, sizes and descriptions always try to find a devil of some type to get the people they want to support them to focus their energy (actually anger) on.
You see, we humans are perpetually angry. We always find someone or something to be angry about. If you don’t agree, stop and think about all the things that aggravated, irritated and angered you just today. It probably be everything from that stupid alarm clock that woke you this morning, to the idiot driving that car that you didn’t like or some crazy politician making a promise you know he (or she) won’t even try to keep (much less have any realistic chance of keeping in today’s world).
That much anger needs to be channeled. It is dangerous but it can be useful. You want to cause fear and to influence the people you want to control as well as to do harm to people who disagree with you. Well, let’s whip up your friendly neighborhood mob and just march them out to do something outrageous … ok, we won’t tell them it is stupid, idiotic and outrageous, we will just get them mad enough to get their emotions to overtake their normal rational selves.
How many times have you done something in a fit of anger or pique that in retrospect that you have asked yourself “WHAT THE HECK WAS I THINKING?” Don’t you worry, we all do it, so you are not alone.
Our president does it at almost every campaign stop when he tries to whip up anger against those evil rich people who don’t pay their fair share of taxes or those evil corporations who are out to steal you blind. Hey, the Republicans are just as bad, saying the president is out to ruin the country, that he really hates the country but he just won’t tell you that. It all is to strike fear into your heart and get you to act in the way that they want you to do.
You see, these political and religious leaders often don’t want you to think for yourself. They don’t want you to look at the options they are offering and decide for yourself if those options really are in your own best interest. Nope, can’t give people that choice, you see, because they will screw things up by not deciding what is in their own best interest … even if they think it is and can tell you why.
So, I look at the rioting and chaos around the world and I wonder “How can those people really think that their actions really are in their own best interest?”
Well, I would say “I haven’t a clue.” But I do. People who want power know the best way to control people is to get them emotional enough to overcome reason. Then there always are the “looters” (those people who want something for nothing) who take advantage of the confusion and chaos to do things that will gratify themselves for the time being.
However, you see this in the way soldiers are indoctrinated and the way “true believers” are indoctrinated. It is all an effort to get the individual to surrender themselves to things that really are alien to themselves (even if sometimes necessary) and get them to overcome their fears and do things that really are not in the individual’s best interest.
For example, running into a hail of bullets really is not in the best interest of an individual soldier, but sometimes it has to be done in order to “advance” the cause, whether it is win the war or just save the life of your buddy.
So, if Islam is such a peaceful religion, and if Islam does not see itself “at war” with other religions (particularly Christianity and Judaism, and sometimes Sunnis versus Shiites), then why the violence?
It is interesting that the web site The Onion, which takes a satirical and irreverent view of the world all the time, can post a rather obscene cartoon, yet no one has been killed over the cartoon (at least yet – I think because no one can figure out a target). I wonder why this is.
I, like most other people in the United States, and much of the “West” merely shake our heads and go “what idiots” and go on with what we are doing. Why does that seem so impossible for so many Muslims in so many countries around the world?
Obama says US has respect for people of all faiths
And then again, maybe not – No one murdered though (NSFW or kids)
I would hope that someone of the Islamic faith would explain to me the reason for the violence – and resultant carnage – every time some obscure person or entity in the “West” does something that criticizes or portrays the Islamic faith in a less than favorable light. Oh, I have my own thoughts, but I would like to hear from some Muslims.
You see, I find it odd that people launch themselves into the streets and attack people, places or things based on what to them is merely a rumor. How many people out there demonstrating and fighting with riot police really have viewed the YouTube videos “Innocence of a Muslim” or its short version trailer? I would hazard a guess, that even with all the publicity, it remains a relatively small number, particularly in countries where internet access is nowhere near as prevalent as it is, let say, in the United States.
You look at the list of incidents over the past decade or so (see first link) and you wonder what really is going on. It really isn’t over the books, films, cartoons, or whatever; it is over something else – local control.
It is, simply put, an effort by local political and religious leaders to incite and then divert the passions of the people they are trying to control away from themselves. Tired people who are angry are less likely to do violence to their leaders if they have some “foreign” devil to blame for their troubles instead of the “known” devils who are ruling them.
This is not new. It is as old as mankind. Tribal leaders, religious leaders, leaders of all shapes, sizes and descriptions always try to find a devil of some type to get the people they want to support them to focus their energy (actually anger) on.
You see, we humans are perpetually angry. We always find someone or something to be angry about. If you don’t agree, stop and think about all the things that aggravated, irritated and angered you just today. It probably be everything from that stupid alarm clock that woke you this morning, to the idiot driving that car that you didn’t like or some crazy politician making a promise you know he (or she) won’t even try to keep (much less have any realistic chance of keeping in today’s world).
That much anger needs to be channeled. It is dangerous but it can be useful. You want to cause fear and to influence the people you want to control as well as to do harm to people who disagree with you. Well, let’s whip up your friendly neighborhood mob and just march them out to do something outrageous … ok, we won’t tell them it is stupid, idiotic and outrageous, we will just get them mad enough to get their emotions to overtake their normal rational selves.
How many times have you done something in a fit of anger or pique that in retrospect that you have asked yourself “WHAT THE HECK WAS I THINKING?” Don’t you worry, we all do it, so you are not alone.
Our president does it at almost every campaign stop when he tries to whip up anger against those evil rich people who don’t pay their fair share of taxes or those evil corporations who are out to steal you blind. Hey, the Republicans are just as bad, saying the president is out to ruin the country, that he really hates the country but he just won’t tell you that. It all is to strike fear into your heart and get you to act in the way that they want you to do.
You see, these political and religious leaders often don’t want you to think for yourself. They don’t want you to look at the options they are offering and decide for yourself if those options really are in your own best interest. Nope, can’t give people that choice, you see, because they will screw things up by not deciding what is in their own best interest … even if they think it is and can tell you why.
So, I look at the rioting and chaos around the world and I wonder “How can those people really think that their actions really are in their own best interest?”
Well, I would say “I haven’t a clue.” But I do. People who want power know the best way to control people is to get them emotional enough to overcome reason. Then there always are the “looters” (those people who want something for nothing) who take advantage of the confusion and chaos to do things that will gratify themselves for the time being.
However, you see this in the way soldiers are indoctrinated and the way “true believers” are indoctrinated. It is all an effort to get the individual to surrender themselves to things that really are alien to themselves (even if sometimes necessary) and get them to overcome their fears and do things that really are not in the individual’s best interest.
For example, running into a hail of bullets really is not in the best interest of an individual soldier, but sometimes it has to be done in order to “advance” the cause, whether it is win the war or just save the life of your buddy.
So, if Islam is such a peaceful religion, and if Islam does not see itself “at war” with other religions (particularly Christianity and Judaism, and sometimes Sunnis versus Shiites), then why the violence?
It is interesting that the web site The Onion, which takes a satirical and irreverent view of the world all the time, can post a rather obscene cartoon, yet no one has been killed over the cartoon (at least yet – I think because no one can figure out a target). I wonder why this is.
I, like most other people in the United States, and much of the “West” merely shake our heads and go “what idiots” and go on with what we are doing. Why does that seem so impossible for so many Muslims in so many countries around the world?
Monday, September 10, 2012
Hazardous duty
Taliban threaten to kill Price Harry/aka Capt. Wales
Capt. Harry Wales, British Army, AKA Prince Harry, is doing his bit for Queen and Country in Afghanistan and once more is clambering into the breach and the local bad guys there are not happy. In fact, they either are going to run him out of the country in fear for his life, take him captive or kill him, if they have their way.
Well, this is where the rubber meets the road, as we used to say back in my armored days. Will the good captain do what he obviously wants to do and show all those doubters that even if he is currently the third in line to the British throne, that he can serve his country as well as any other Briton in a very dangerous place? Two points, for Harry for at least talking somebody in the British hierarchy into letting him do the job he trained to do.
Yes, it makes him a high-value target to some people, but it also shows that the monarchy is willing to put its own on the line in support of its government’s policies. I just hope they have the intestinal fortitude to stay the course.
You all may not agree, but Capt. Wales life was never meant to be simple or easy. That comes from living in the fishbowl as a member of the royal house. Grant him his due in that he has tried to be what any second or third son of British gentry has done throughout its history and that is make a place for himself by serving the nation in the military.
The history buff in me remembers there is an old saying about noble families in Great Britain: To the manor goes the first born (i.e. he inherits the family wealth), to the church goes the second (not so much anymore, especially with royals), and the third son goes into the military (Army/Navy, it doesn’t matter) to make his own fortune.
Being a royal makes him a target, but that has always been the case for royals on the battlefield. It was the reason he was pulled from his first tour in Afghanistan a few years back because his highers got cold feet about exposing him. Maybe they will show a bit more of the heralded stiff upper lip, the Brits allegedly are known for, this time.
My hat (Kevlar, if I still had one) is off to the young prince and I wish him well for he definitely is going in harm’s way. May God grant him a good ship, and a good crew to take care of him and it, and may he always find a fair wind to guide him back to base.
At this point, I am not going to debate whether his presence is something that should be happening. I only hope that he and his fellow tommies, as well as all the other members of the ISAF force in Afghanistan will do their best to keep each other alive and do what they can to defeat the Taliban and its allies … or at least convince them that after more than 30 years of warfare, maybe it is time for the tribes to stand down and let the villagers live in some sort of peace.
I don’t look for that to happen, because as the Brits learned a century and more ago, the Afghans are tough fighters and they never seem to give up or surrender to anybody - regardless of what flag they carry.
As for Harry, he is going to earn his hazardous duty – aka combat – pay this go around, as well as his spurs as an airmobile cavalry trooper with his AH-64.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Blame America first
Iraq helps Iran skirt sanctions
China warns Japan over islands
Politically incorrect guide to U.S. interests
I am always fascinated by those who blame the United States for all the woes in the world … as if the Americans had that much power. I am sorry, but superpower or not, the U.S. never has been in “control” of anything outside the U.S., much less control of events inside its own borders.
There are those who look at the conflicts around the world and say “Well, what are you going to do about it America?”
Whether it is the civil wars in Syria, Iraq, Sudan or Congo; or threatening conflicts between Japan and China, or the Chinese and Filipinos, or the Chinese and the Vietnamese, or the Indians and the Pakistanis or the Israelis versus Iran … or even the U.S. versus Iran, do you really think these conflicts are being triggered by remote control? Do you really believe that there is some nefarious group that is manipulating all these conflicts? Give me a break. The answer is much simpler than that: Nobody is in “control” or you can say everybody is in control. In each of these conflicts, there really is very little the U.S. – or you or me, for that matter – can do to influence their resolutions.
The problem is, as the problem has been throughout history, is that there are individuals – good, bad or indifferent – in each one of the above countries who is making guesses about what they can or cannot do and which would maybe result in an outcome that is to their benefit and the benefit of their country. Those guesses probably not all the educated, or educated so much that they still don’t know what they are doing.
In Syria, there are so many players playing so many angles who knows what will happen. I sure don’t, but I can tell you this: It will be a bloody mess, literally and figuratively.
In Iraq, despite eight years there and a significant contingent of American “advisors”, the Americans are not calling the shots and nobody is being “handled.” The Iraqis and their leadership are going to play the game to suit their own interests and not necessarily the country’s best interests.
In Sudan and Congo, the same metric is going down but with different players and, sorry folks, but the U.S. not only won’t, but can’t do anything to affect it.
The events in the South and East China Seas? You think Beijing or Tokyo or Manila or Jakarta or Hanoi really are going to jump when the U.S. says: “Ok, boys, everybody back in their corners.” Do think the North Koreans are going to stop blowing smoke about “sacred wars” if the U.S. would just sit down and talk to them like they were rational adults?
Like the U.S. is going to have a whole lot of influence over Pakistan and be able to tell it and its neighbor to stop rattling each other’s cage.
And Israel and Iran? Why does the Iranian leadership have to keep rattling their sabers? It just makes the Israelis rattle theirs. A friend of mine said everything would be all right if the Israelis would just settle their long-term problems with the Palestinians. Hello? What planet is he on? Maybe I am wrong, but I thought Bill Clinton came within inches of that goal in 2000, but Yasser Arafat walked out at the last minute. I am sorry, but compromise sometimes means accepting a 95 percent solution rather than a 100 percent solution.
As for the Israelis, I don’t like a lot of their policies, especially the settlement policies, but you know, I can halfway understand them. Even then, they gave up all the settlements in Gaza in a bid to trade land for peace and a fat lot that got them.
I know there are those who blame the Israelis for all the conditions in Gaza and the West Bank, but I think that is a red herring. It would seem, at least for Gaza, that Egypt has had as big a role, if not bigger role in what has happened in Gaza. You do know Egypt ruled Gaza for almost 20 years and still has a border with Gaza, with their own border guards on it. I suppose, if they had wanted, they could have flooded Gaza with humanitarian aid at any time over the last 60 years … but they didn’t and they probably won’t … at least not with any aid that would create a self-sustaining, functional economy. Same goes for Jordan with the West Bank.
Still, one has to remember - despite the announcements by the Iranians and others in the Muslim world - that the Holocaust DID happen. Six million European Jews and about four million others were systematically murdered by the German Nazis. A good chunk of the Israelis are descendants of the survivors and they have decided never again.
You see, no one took Mister Hitler seriously when he wrote about and said what he planned to do. The Israelis are not about to make the same mistake twice. When you have somebody saying they want to see you eradicated because you are an insult to the world and others say they just want to wipe your nation off the map, then people with the Israelis’ background tend to take them at their word. Preemptive strikes usually work better than second strikes, basically because you often can take out much of the other side’s abilities to do any damage.
If you think the U.S. is about to be able to call the shots for the Israelis, then you are sadly mistaken. Yes, the U.S. is their bosom buddy and has helped them for years, but in the end, the Israelis are going to do what they think is in the best interest of their own survival (with the minimum of acceptable losses and casualties on their side).
Granted, the Iranians (one really should call them Persians to understand the length of their history) should be proud of their heritage, but they also should understand that in the 21st century, the empires of centuries and millennia ago are not about to be resurrected. Unfortunately, the ayatollahs and IRGC never got the meme.
The whole thing points to the probable future that it is going to get awfully violent around the world, whether it is Latin America, Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East or Eurasia. And don’t think North America or Europe is immune, because they are not.
In the United States we have seen what appears to be an uptick in political violence. It almost makes one dread what will happen this fall.
Whatever happens, please try to remember: The Americans are not in control. The multinational corporations are not in control. The Zionist Conspiracy is not in control.
NO ONE person, entity, group or thing is in control. And with all those actors and factors, mistakes are going to be made and my bet is that things are going to get really, really ugly.
Sorry to be such a wet blanket, but the old saying is “if you want peace, prepare for war” and maybe you will get lucky.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
National interests
If one wants learn a lesson from history, then reading the above article should be on your reading list.
Synopsis: When the U.S. gets involved in a conflict, regardless of intentions, efforts, justification, it will not win. It will own the conflict and the parties in it will cease to own their own roles. Everything bad that happens inside the country involved that is bad is the fault of the Americans, and no credit is given to the Americans for any good. In addition, there is anger at the Americans because they did not automatically, magically and instantly solve all the problems that besiege a country.
If you review the history basically since World War II, you will find that is the case. It is sad, in a way, but then truth always is the first casualty in wars, civil or uncivil, and to quote Winston Churchill: It must be protected and guarded by a phalanx of lies.
Currently, there is a civil war going on in Syria. We know that because the International Committee of the Red Cross has decreed it. There also is a civil war still going in Iraq. Now, the U.S. does not “own” the civil war in Syria (even though our president has decided to aid one side against the other) and despite what some people will try to tell you, it bears no responsibility for the civil war in Iraq. In both cases, it is the people in those ravaged countries who are choosing to use violence to resolve their problems.
In Syria, a basically oppressive minority regime seeks to retain power and, so far, has retained the loyalty of considerable portions of the nation’s military. It doesn’t matter what the world thinks. It doesn’t matter what people think the U.S. or the U.N. should or should not do. The result will, in the end, be a verification of Chairman Mao’s axiom: All power flowers out the barrel of a gun. We will see this in Syria. We will see it in Iraq. We will see it in Iran … and when the day is done, we will see it in Afghanistan.
The problem for the Americans is that they live in a world that no longer is comfortable with this maxim. We want to believe that force is not the ultimate decider in all conflicts. Bloodied by more than three-quarters of devastating warfare, the Europeans are hoping on hope that their experiment with the European Union will break this truth. Watching what is happening in Europe today, the likelihood of that seems to be receding. Maybe the Europeans will make it work, but history is not on their side.
In the Middle East, new reports point to the Iranians building nuclear weapons.Memri.org report
Again, is this a problem for the Americans? What should the Americans do?
I point to the simple fact that the Americans do not have any magic wands. We can’t solve anything anywhere unless the people on the ground are willing to help solve it themselves. We should have learned, that even though we may be entirely justified, that we might be doing it with all the best of intentions, the unreal expectations of other nations will neither thank, nor probably help, the Americans.
It is something you need to think about.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Amen!
Presidents, policies - foreign and domestic - and elections
The author of the article linked above has a really good grasp of reality when it comes to the powers of the presidency, to which I add my hearty: Amen! Definitely read the article, it really is good.
You see, contrary to a lot of people’s opinions, the American president ain’t all that powerful. That is malice by design by the people who created this republic 225 years ago.
The so-called “founding fathers” had a really strong dislike for a strong executive authority, which in that time normally was wielded by a monarch of some variety. So, the president was not given all that much authority to do anything, without the advice and consent of Congress, the Supreme Court and the states. Despite the passage of time, the president still finds himself (so far, just hims) very limited in what he actually can accomplish. I think that President Obama probably is getting around to understanding that lesson, but unfortunately, a lot of Americans and very few non-Americans get it.
No matter who wins in November, whoever is sworn in on January 20, 2013, they will find themselves in the same bind.
In addition, as the author pointed out, no matter how much the president wants to control things, he ain’t in control. No one is. That to me is the salient point of the article. People, in their hubris, think we can control events. Well, I have news for you, if you haven’t figured it out already: We don’t, we can’t and we never will.
George W. Bush opposed nation-building and that is just what trapped his administration in Afghanistan and Iraq. Barack Obama was going to step back and let other nations help carry the load, and found out that everybody still looks to the Americans to take the lead.
Whether it is trying to control the weather or stop climate change, or bring global peace to all mankind, or ensure that no one goes hungry or without medical care: It is not going to happen. That may sound like a pretty ugly assessment, but it is facing reality.
The best we all can do is to try to cope with whatever contingencies we are faced with. Rarely will they be the ones we chose and often they will be seemingly overwhelming … and sometimes they might well be. But we can’t delude ourselves into thinking that somehow, someone, somewhere will be able to bring this chaos we see around us under control. It is not going to happen.
Remember the ancient curse – “May you live in interesting times” - well, it may come as a revelation to you, but all times are interesting times.
I don’t have a crystal ball, nor am I clairvoyant, but I can tell you all: BUCKLE UP, we are in for a wild ride.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
War v. Law Enforcement
NY Times: US Officials sued over deaths in Yemen
Fox: Families of US citizens killed in Yemen drone strikes file suit
The families of two American members of the Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula organization are suing the American government for killing their relatives with missiles fired from unmanned aerial reconnaissance craft - UAVs.
It seems, they feel that being a member of a quasi-state organization that has declared war on the United States does not qualify their family members to be shot on sight. The American Civil Liberties Union, who I sometimes think thinks the U.S. Constitution applies worldwide, has taken their case to federal court to charge the deaths were wrongful because the individuals involved were never charged with any criminal act and thus deprived of their constitutionally guaranteed due process.
Ok, first of all, I haven’t a clue how this case will play out in the courts. I just don’t know where the courts will come down on this issue or whether the courts will even accept that they do have jurisdiction in the case (a very real possibility).
The problem as I see it is that what we have here is a failure to understand the difference between “war” and “law enforcement.”
In war, the rules of law enforcement as applied in the U.S. do not apply. I am sorry, but the bad guys do not have to be given an opportunity to surrender. They don’t have to be read their constitutional rights when they are arrested or detained. In fact, they can be killed by just about any means available. Ok, international law, as reflected in the Geneva/Hague Conventions, does say that certain weapons really aren’t allowed, but that is open to interpretation.
For example, it really isn’t kosher to use a 2000-pound bomb to kill a single person standing in the desert. Not to say that it doesn’t happen but somewhere in the language of the conventions are passages about the “appropriate” use of force to kill people.
Another example, the white phosphorus used to generate smoke screens and to mark targets is not supposed to be used directly against dismounted troops. Phosphorus does create rather nasty wounds that are difficult to treat, as I can attest to. However, it can be used against buildings and vehicles in the open. What happens when there are dismounted troops next to armored vehicles? White phosphorus is a perfectly valid and effective weapon to use on armor (it burns through it), but what about the poor troops outside? Are you supposed to ignore what might be your best weapon against the armor in order not to violate the prohibition against using it against troops in the open? Good question and one my soldiers and I would debate around a campfire at night. Remember, however, when your life is at stake, there are no rules. It is kill or be killed and you want to survive.
Okay, in this case, the father was killed while riding in a car that was hit by an air-to-surface missile. Now was that a legitimate target? Well, he was in Yemen, but the Yemeni government lets U.S. UAVs fly over its country assisting in its fight against the Al-Qaida bunch.
Again, does that make it illegal, as the ACLU contends, to kill a member (who happens to be an American) who is aiding, abetting and controlling portions of a group that openly admits it is waging a war against the United States? Now, in a ”real” war between two nations the answer would not only “yes” but “HELL YES!”
But then is the war with Al-Qaida really a war? The ACLU would tell you it isn’t and in that case the law enforcement paradigm holds: You have make every effort to arrest the person alive (regardless of the hazards to the persons making the arrest), read them their rights, offer them an attorney and tell them that anything that they say can be used against them, bring them to a court in the U.S., charge them, try them … and then maybe, just maybe, you can put them to death. This is known as due process.
This standard really is hard to apply in combat … and so the debate is whether the use of armed UAVs is governed by the laws of crime or the laws war? And what if, the American is only one of several people in the target area – non-Americans and some of them are combatants and some of them aren’t? And then, what if they are not innocent civilians but don’t qualify as combatants according to the definitions in the conventions? The conventions allow you to summarily (without trial) execute illegal combatants and spies.
Murky, isn’t it?
This is the problem with the so-called Global War on Terror. Is it a war-war or is it a law enforcement “war” like the war on drugs or organized crime?
Some, such as me, see the GWOT as a war-war. We authorized the president back in 2001 to seek and destroy the parties responsible for the attack on the U.S. on 9/11. In essence, Congress declared war on Al-Qaida. It didn’t issue a “declaration of war” in the technical sense in that those only really apply to inter-nation conflicts. Al-Qaida really isn’t a nation, although it has at various times controlled parts of several, including Yemen and Afghanistan.
Others, such as the ACLU, say it is not a war but a law enforcement problem, even if American laws don’t apply outside the boundaries of the United States (as a general rule) and very few nations are going to enforce those laws for us. In many cases, those governments are going to actively contest the right of U.S. law enforcement agents operating in their country to capture miscreants.
Personally, I think the case should be thrown out by the first U.S. District Judge that gets the filing as a frivolous lawsuit because the law enforcement paradigm does not apply and the court, therefore, has absolutely no jurisdiction on which it has a right to hear the case.
Sorry, folks, but your relatives chose the bed they made … and unfortunately for you, they got blown up.
Besides, if your relatives had the chance, I am pretty sure they would have tried to kill me.
Fox: Families of US citizens killed in Yemen drone strikes file suit
The families of two American members of the Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula organization are suing the American government for killing their relatives with missiles fired from unmanned aerial reconnaissance craft - UAVs.
It seems, they feel that being a member of a quasi-state organization that has declared war on the United States does not qualify their family members to be shot on sight. The American Civil Liberties Union, who I sometimes think thinks the U.S. Constitution applies worldwide, has taken their case to federal court to charge the deaths were wrongful because the individuals involved were never charged with any criminal act and thus deprived of their constitutionally guaranteed due process.
Ok, first of all, I haven’t a clue how this case will play out in the courts. I just don’t know where the courts will come down on this issue or whether the courts will even accept that they do have jurisdiction in the case (a very real possibility).
The problem as I see it is that what we have here is a failure to understand the difference between “war” and “law enforcement.”
In war, the rules of law enforcement as applied in the U.S. do not apply. I am sorry, but the bad guys do not have to be given an opportunity to surrender. They don’t have to be read their constitutional rights when they are arrested or detained. In fact, they can be killed by just about any means available. Ok, international law, as reflected in the Geneva/Hague Conventions, does say that certain weapons really aren’t allowed, but that is open to interpretation.
For example, it really isn’t kosher to use a 2000-pound bomb to kill a single person standing in the desert. Not to say that it doesn’t happen but somewhere in the language of the conventions are passages about the “appropriate” use of force to kill people.
Another example, the white phosphorus used to generate smoke screens and to mark targets is not supposed to be used directly against dismounted troops. Phosphorus does create rather nasty wounds that are difficult to treat, as I can attest to. However, it can be used against buildings and vehicles in the open. What happens when there are dismounted troops next to armored vehicles? White phosphorus is a perfectly valid and effective weapon to use on armor (it burns through it), but what about the poor troops outside? Are you supposed to ignore what might be your best weapon against the armor in order not to violate the prohibition against using it against troops in the open? Good question and one my soldiers and I would debate around a campfire at night. Remember, however, when your life is at stake, there are no rules. It is kill or be killed and you want to survive.
Okay, in this case, the father was killed while riding in a car that was hit by an air-to-surface missile. Now was that a legitimate target? Well, he was in Yemen, but the Yemeni government lets U.S. UAVs fly over its country assisting in its fight against the Al-Qaida bunch.
Again, does that make it illegal, as the ACLU contends, to kill a member (who happens to be an American) who is aiding, abetting and controlling portions of a group that openly admits it is waging a war against the United States? Now, in a ”real” war between two nations the answer would not only “yes” but “HELL YES!”
But then is the war with Al-Qaida really a war? The ACLU would tell you it isn’t and in that case the law enforcement paradigm holds: You have make every effort to arrest the person alive (regardless of the hazards to the persons making the arrest), read them their rights, offer them an attorney and tell them that anything that they say can be used against them, bring them to a court in the U.S., charge them, try them … and then maybe, just maybe, you can put them to death. This is known as due process.
This standard really is hard to apply in combat … and so the debate is whether the use of armed UAVs is governed by the laws of crime or the laws war? And what if, the American is only one of several people in the target area – non-Americans and some of them are combatants and some of them aren’t? And then, what if they are not innocent civilians but don’t qualify as combatants according to the definitions in the conventions? The conventions allow you to summarily (without trial) execute illegal combatants and spies.
Murky, isn’t it?
This is the problem with the so-called Global War on Terror. Is it a war-war or is it a law enforcement “war” like the war on drugs or organized crime?
Some, such as me, see the GWOT as a war-war. We authorized the president back in 2001 to seek and destroy the parties responsible for the attack on the U.S. on 9/11. In essence, Congress declared war on Al-Qaida. It didn’t issue a “declaration of war” in the technical sense in that those only really apply to inter-nation conflicts. Al-Qaida really isn’t a nation, although it has at various times controlled parts of several, including Yemen and Afghanistan.
Others, such as the ACLU, say it is not a war but a law enforcement problem, even if American laws don’t apply outside the boundaries of the United States (as a general rule) and very few nations are going to enforce those laws for us. In many cases, those governments are going to actively contest the right of U.S. law enforcement agents operating in their country to capture miscreants.
Personally, I think the case should be thrown out by the first U.S. District Judge that gets the filing as a frivolous lawsuit because the law enforcement paradigm does not apply and the court, therefore, has absolutely no jurisdiction on which it has a right to hear the case.
Sorry, folks, but your relatives chose the bed they made … and unfortunately for you, they got blown up.
Besides, if your relatives had the chance, I am pretty sure they would have tried to kill me.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Civil Wars
Reference story: IROC declares Syria a civil war
The International Committee of the Red Cross has declared that the conflict in Syria is a “Civil War”, but what does this mean. Wars aren’t civil, they are highly uncivil.
Now that means very little to the Syrians right now, the fighting will go on until the Assad regime is ousted or the rebellion is crushed.
But to the rest of the world it now means that a different set of rules governing warfare can now be applied, probably retroactively. You see, under the international “laws of war” certain things can be done in combat and certain things cannot. Now, what can or cannot be done is governed by the type of conflict. If it is merely a riot or a terrorist attack, a certain set of things are considered the appropriate response. If it is an insurrection, then another set applies. If it is a civil war, a third set applies and if it is a state vs. state declared war yet another set of rules apply. And if it is an undeclared war, or some military action ordered by the UN, then probably another set applies depending who is trying to define the rules.
Basically, the rules are meant to salve the consciences of people who are not in the line of fire, because the people in the line of fire will tell you the rules don’t apply and never have and never will. You do whatever it takes to survive and win and let God and the politicians sort it out afterwards.
Most people don’t understand that. They think that combat can be fought like a joust or a prize fight with the Marquis of Queensbury rules … but that is not reality and in the real world is liable to get a lot of people killed unnecessarily. Still, if you violate the rules in today’s world, at least in certain countries, you can expect to be hauled up on whatever charges those who want to bring them bring and in whatever venue they want to bring it. Note to some of these people: Sorry but the US Constitution really doesn’t apply anywhere but in US territory. I know that is a disappointment, but it is the truth.
For example: One standard applies to the US forces, no matter where they go, and that standard, unfortunately rarely applies to the people they are fighting. If the Americans used IEDs or even mines on civilian roads, something serious disciplinary-wise is going to happen to the soldier(s) responsible if they are caught. Americans are not supposed to fight that way. Not that it isn’t an effective tactic; but it is not the way Americans are supposed to behave.
Now if the “bad guys” do summary executions or other punishments on civilians, use IEDs or suicide bombers who the flip cares. If the Americans do it, well here comes the mob to hang them. I am not saying that the Americans shouldn’t be disciplined, but for heaven’s sake that is more for discipline and control than it is because it is against some arbitrary rule. However, it gets more press over here than the multitude of sins committed by our asymmetrical enemies, who rarely, if ever seem to publicly punish their troops for shooting villagers, blowing up civilians and destroying people and property.
So, as far as Syria goes now, the wise folk in Europe sitting back in their ivy-covered halls of the International Criminal Court can feel good about doing really nothing to stop the obscenity that is what is going on in Syria.
Nope, no matter who wins, there will be some bureaucrats, jurists and lawyers in The Hague lining up to prosecute whomever they don’t like for possible war crimes.
Well, I have a message for these people: War is a crime.
No, war is not a crime, nor is it moral. It IS amoral. Moral and immoral things can be done during wars, but by and large war is simply amoral. In reality, it simply is the slaughter of large numbers of people, combatants, non-combatants, civilians and illegal combatants on a large scale, usually on a mass industrial scale using some pretty horrific ways to die.
While wars will have to be fought, at least by those who wish to be free of oppression, the most moral thing that can be done in war is to use, as Pappy told me about getting into a fight, any and all means necessary to bring it to an end. That is the important thing; to get it over as quickly as possible and hopefully with as little blood split (on your side) as possible.
And in war, one must remember that the battle isn’t over until some poor slug of an infantryman is standing over the enemy with his bayonet-tipped rifle pointed at the enemy and saying in no uncertain terms: The battle is over now, you understand.
Unfortunately, Mister Rumsfeld, Mister Cheney and Mister Bush didn’t listen to people like General Shinseki when they told them that and hence here we are still in Afghanistan and spent eight years in Iraq.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Tribute to the American Soldier
A good friend of mine from my days as a civilian US Army employee down in Georgia posted this link on his facebook page. I chose to share it with you because of what it says about the American service members today. Particular the young men who serve in the Queen of Battle, The Infantry. This is one Frenchmen’s view of the American infantry there. I thank him for the soldiers who are there and who serve around the world. Despite what you might hear about them, all in all, they are a pretty good bunch … not only as soldiers but as human beings.
http://nakedliberty.com/2010/12/a-french-infantrymans-view-of-american-soldiers/
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
The problem with delegation
Background reading
I recently read the above story about an Afghan Army hospital and the abysmal care its patients receive. Now, the hospital does have American advisors, but I fail to see how that makes them responsible for how the Afghan Army runs its hospital.
Granted, I think the actions and policies suck … big time … but that happens when you delegate authority and responsibility to someone else.
First of all, when you delegate some task, remember first, foremost and always: You are not doing it and because you are not doing it, whoever is doing WILL in most cases do it differently than you would have done it.
This is a fact of life. They might do it somewhat the way you would have done it, but there will be differences. The biggest problem in leadership is recognizing this fact and accepting it. This is something Americans have a big problem dealing with when we are in other lands. We seem to think that a) we know best, so everybody should do everything the way we do it and b) there is no other way to do things. We are stupid, and, in that sense, lousy leaders. Sorry, my fellow Americans, but we are.
So, when you let someone else take over doing whatever, then you damn well better be ready to accept the outcome and hope and pray it accomplishes the mission/job. By that I mean, you have to be ready to accept that what they are doing is the best way they think it should be done and, despite that, you have to respect that, even if you think it is awful. If it accomplished the job satisfactorily, then all the better; if not, then it is a “teaching moment” for you. Otherwise, you might as well try to do it yourself … and you never will go home.
I learned this lesson in both my civilian and military careers. When I was the news editor at a mid-sized daily newspaper it was my job to see that the paper got out each night. I had several subordinates who would stand in for me on my days off or when I got sick and I learned fast that I had to accept how the paper looked when one of them had the job of getting it to the press on time and it was really bad form to be a Monday-morning quarterback the next day. I hadn’t been there, so I really couldn’t be a critic. All I could do is use it as a teaching moment and explain what I might have done different and how I would have done it. No, you don’t jump up and down on your desk, yelling and screaming, because that rarely works as people will just turn off and tune you out.
I quickly learned the same lesson in my National Guard role as a platoon sergeant. Unless I wanted to run everything (which is impossible), I had to trust my squad leaders to do their assigned tasks as they were trained to do. Often, they would try new ways of doing tasks. Some worked and some didn’t. But in all cases it was a learning experience.
Another leadership tip: Praise in public; criticize in private. To do otherwise is a morale killer. My workers and troops soon learned that if their fearless leader called them into a private conference, it was a bit – as one former school teacher told me – a bit like being sent to the principal’s office. Which I told him was exactly how he should have felt because what I was chewing him out for was really beneath what I expected him as a professional.
I had one of my soldiers look at me and say, honestly to me one day as I drew him off to the side with the words “we need to have a chat”: “Sarge, I really screwed up this time, didn’t I.” He knew he had done wrong, and it was bad enough that I wasn’t going to be able to use as an example of a teaching moment for the rest of the troops. He also knew I wasn't going to embarrass him in front of his friends just for the sake of making a point.
These are hard lessons to learn, and are lessons that nations as well as people of all shapes, stripes and colors would be well to learn in my humble opinion.
So, what happens in the Afghan Army, or what happens in Iraq, is not the fault of NATO or the Americans. The Afghans (or the Iraqis) are the ones dropping the ball and it is time for people to step back and hold them accountable.
In this case, the Pottery Shack Rule (you break it, you own it), doesn’t really apply.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)