Justice upheld

Canada orders deportation of Iraq War resister
It seems a U.S. Army soldier who had a change of heart and fled to Canada to avoid the possibility of being deployed to Iraq no longer is welcome there.
The soldier has been given new marching orders and that is to leave Canada. I am glad our neighbors have declared the soldier persona non grata, although its impact on family members might be difficult.
The soldier, who apparently has four children and a spouse, was living in Toronto and was given until Sept. 20 to leave Canada. Tough, I suppose, but then again, the usual defenses about leaving an army don’t really apply here. The soldier was not drafted into the Army. The soldier was aware that the Army was fighting a war. So, there is no case for saying the soldier was coerced or forced into doing something they didn’t know they were going to do.
Soldiers volunteer for service these days in the United States and not just conscripted into the military, and then swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution and to OBEY the lawful orders of the officers appointed over them. There is no clause in there that if you disagree with those orders that you can just ignore them, and nowhere does it say if you get tired of what you are doing or don’t want to do what you are going to be told to do that you can just vote with your feet and skip out. Sorry, but that is not an option.
No, the military adheres to some archaic ideas like your oath is your bond. That when you swear something it actually means something, like you will hold up your end of the bargain you made. The military doesn’t promise that you won’t go somewhere that you do not want to be, do not like and do things that you don’t want to do. Sorry, but that is not what you signed up for.
Now, the Canadians could have given this soldier continued sanctuary, but they already have turned two others back to the U.S. and the worst they got was a year in jail. I am sorry, but even our military prisons aren’t that bad that a soldier is being harshly treated by being sentenced to serve 12 months behind their walls. It is difficult for me to see how the Canadian government could have decided on “humanitarian” grounds that the soldier could not come back and face the consequences of the desertion in time of conflict. Granted, it is not like the “old” days when they shot or hanged deserters.
Canada has to look to its own order and discipline in its own defense forces and realize that allowing soldiers to just vote with their feet anytime they don’t agree with their superiors is really a very bad idea. Bad for discipline, bad for good order and definitely bad when the soldiers are  fighting for their lives.
In addition, it is sad that integrity has become something of a passé trait among Americans. No longer, it seems, that when you make an agreement, or a pledge or a promise or swear an oath, that it means much. Sign a contract? Tear it up, it doesn’t matter. Find a loophole, get out of it anyway you can, even if it means violating the law. The law, you say? But that is only meant to apply to idiots and fools. It is meant to be bent, broken and ignored as long as it interferes with our feeling good and enjoying life, especially if it means we might have to face some hardship.
Sorry, soldier, but you swore to do you duty. You didn’t and now it is time to pay the piper.
Oh? Did I happen to mention the soldier was a woman? Sorry, shouldn’t matter. I know it did when I was in, but that was wrong then and it is wrong now.

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.

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.

Blame game?

http://geoimpulse.blogspot.com/2012/04/is-iraq-disintegrating.html?showComment=1334933795169#c7736188547415859602

I have an old high school acquaintance who I have relatively recently (via facebook) have renewed some of the debates with which we enlivened one of our classes our senior year. Debating with him was such fun, even if he had difficulty defending his progressive opinions back then. Come to think of it, he still does, in my humble opinion.

His current jag is that the war in Iraq was a failure and Bush was wrong and so it all was a waste … to the point that a) we should have left Saddam in power and b) the Iranians now are going to control Iraq (as well as Syria and Lebanon, I suppose). Well, with all due respect to the Don, once again I think he is wrong.

First, what were the reasons we and about 40 other nations went into Iraq in 2003 to enforce a host of U.N. resolutions?

Weapons of Mass Destruction? Partly … and yes, despite the conventional wisdom of today: a) the Iraqis did have some WMDs, did have the capability of producing more and did have plans to produce more, if and when the then-in-force sanctions regimen collapsed and was no longer in effect and b) that Saddam’s regime already had demonstrated against the Iranians in the 1980-1988 war that it was willing to use them against external enemies and against the Kurds and the Shi’a that it was willing to use such weapons against internal enemies as well.

The fact that he was a genocidal tyrant who was killing thousands of his people annually as well as torturing thousand upon thousands more.

The fact that he was blatant violation of something like 19 U.N. Security Council resolutions, many of which authorized the use of force to compel compliance.

The fact that he was fostering terrorist actions against not only Israel but other “enemies” (including the United States), including but not limited to training, financing and giving the families of anti-Semitic homicide bombers $25,000 USD if they bomber was successful.

It already was costing the US (and other countries involved, including the Brits), billions of bucks to maintain the U.N.-ordered “No Fly” zones over northern and southern Iraq to protect the indigenous people there (both basically unrepresented in Bathist regime) from military reprisals against them.

In addition, the Coalition had moved thousands of troops, billions of dollars worth of military supplies into the deserts of Kuwait and to a lesser extent eastern Turkey, in an effort to convince the Saddam regime that cooperating with the U.N. mandated inspections for weapons of mass destruction was in its best interest. An effort that was only marginally successful, as the U.N. inspectors complained that the Iraqis were not be cooperative, and were, in fact, being disingenuous.

All those are well documented reasons and really can’t be debated, unless you want just to deny reality.

Still, one has to be a realist and point out that however good the reasons 40-plus nations (for whatever reason you want to attribute) felt compelled to be involved, while the initial operation was a resounding success from a purely military point of view, its implementation and the subsequent efforts to help the Iraqis form a more perfect union definitely screwed the pooch as they say.

First, let me say that Gen. Shinseki was right … and Don Rumsfeld was wrong.  Let me say that the Bush Administration (including POTUS and VPOTUS) made a host of atrocious decisions and assumptions that merely illustrated the American propensity to be extremely ignorant of things non-American.

But let me point out that one cannot just use the American presence as a scapegoat for what has happened over the last 10 years in Iraq. It is not from lack of effort by the Americans that bombs still are going off in Iraq and that much of Iraq’s infrastructure remains damaged. No, most (a vast majority and now all) of that is the result of Iraqi v. Iraqi violence and depredations.

It is, as it always has, been the choice of the Iraqis themselves to choose violence over coexistence and compromise.

Now, as for the point that the U.S. has handed Iraq to the suzerainty of Tehran: Ain’t happening, and ain’t gonna happen.

Why do I say that? How about a little reality check here:

First, Iraq is Arab and Kurdish; Iran is Persian and Kurdish (but dominated by the Persians). There is a reason why that stretch of water between the Arabian peninsula and the coast of Southwest Asia has two names, depending on which side you are on – The Arabian Gulf or the Persian Gulf.

Simply put, Arabs and Persians do not get along and haven’t for about 3,000 years. There is a very, very long history of conflict and conquest here in cultures that have very long memories. So, to expect Baghdad just to march in step with Tehran is to ignore reality.

Secondly, not only is their the Shi’a-Sunni divide (which is another source of conflict that stretches back about 1,700 years) but there is a Shi’a-Shi’a divide between the ayatollahs in Qum and the ayatollahs in Karbala. Needless to say that does not bode all that well for Iranian dominance there.

What is happening in Iraq today is little different that what we saw happen in North Ireland for 20-plus years, Lebanon for at least as long, or Bosnia or Kosovo, or Somalia, or Sudan/Dafur, or Uganda, or Namibia, or host of other places that could be named. It is a civil war between two ethnic/religious groups vying for political power and to dominate the economic pie.

Rather than share either, both sides continue to use whatever means possible to advance their own agenda.

Question: Is that that fault of the Americans? Hell, no. Do the Americans necessarily a responsibility to try to intervene? Well, we tried that with mixed results in various places, but in the end, the responsibility for whatever violence and chaos an area maybe enduring, whether it Afghanistan or Iraq or the Philippines or Sri Lanka or Nigeria or Norway, really is the responsibility of the people who live there. They have to make the decision whether it is better to live under a rule of law where they are essentially equal before the law or to live under some other system.

So, to fault the Americans for failing to create more perfect unions in Iraq and Afghanistan is to ignore reality. The Iraqis and the Afghans are choosing their own fates.

Random Thoughts 17

Revisiting History

Was the Iraq War necessary? Given the context of the time, it probably was.

Was the Iraq War executed well? Obviously not, or the U.S. would not still have so many troops there.

Why was the Iraq War necessary?

To answer this question we have to slip back in time and review the complex set of circumstances that led up to the invasion.

First, what was it about the regime of Saddam Hussein that made U.S. leaders think it was time for him to leave the world scene?

Well, Saddam was a so-so educated megalomaniac who pictured himself as the savior of the Arab world.

The Arab world at this point in its history is nearing its nadir. Gone are the fabulous centers of learning of 700 to 1,000 years ago. Gone are the great thinkers of philosophy, mathematics, and natural science. In their place, like a society caught in a time warp, is a cluster of nations that have fallen behind socially and economically, surpassed by the civilization that grew out of the Hellenic traditions and blossomed across Europe. It was the Europeans who underwent a religious Reformation and philosophical period of Enlightenment that leading to a Renaissance that developed into the Industrial Revolution, which literally changed the world and man’s relationship to it.

To the Arab world, to see all this progress and to not be its leader, much less not even to participate in it, not participate in it, much less be its leader, is and was a crushing humiliation. And in the Arab culture, as with most of the non-Occidental societies, humiliation is the worst that can happen to an individual, a village, a tribe, or a nation.

So, here the United States was presented with a megalomaniac, who embodiesd the Arab feeling of humiliation and had , with delusions of grandeur that under his aegis he will be the new Saladin to rule the known world, or at least the Middle East. (Granted that Saladin was a Kurd, but he was the Islamic leader that most modern Middle Eastern Islamic leaders want to emulate – his was the time of the great libraries and the great intellectuals and philosophers). This dictator’s country also had the technical capability to create weapons of mass destructions. He already had developed and actually used various chemical weapons. He had been playing around with various biological weapons, but probably was a tad short of the research needed to weaponize them. And then there were the nuclear weapons. Back in 1990, he got awfully close to making one, but the first Persian Gulf War knocked his plans a kilter.

However, by the end of 2002, he had pretty circumvented most the sanctions for his and his sons’ own personal benefit. And the whole sanctions regime would probably implode and collapse within the next 12 months. Such was the greed of people wanting something that Iraq could give them: money or oil. So, by 2003, we had this idiot just champing at the bit to have the sanctions imposed withdrawn that were to keeping him from developing these weapons on a mass scale. If only the United Nations and its pesky inspectors would go away and drop the Security Council demands that he pledge to be a good boy, and not go building WMDs, and definitely stop using any of his weapons against his neighbors.

The choice then became whether the U.S. would allow the sanctions regime to collapse and the Iraq situation revert to status quo ante the Persian Gulf War. Well, the U.S. still harbored some hopes that the U.N. could become a viable arbiter for the peaceful resolution of the world’s problems. Only, as with all behavior problems, its efforts to change them have to be backed by a credible “or else” option.

For 12 years, a U.S.-led coalition had been giving the “or else” to U.N.’s ultimata to change credibility by flying and responding to attacks and provocations over areas of sky in Iraq that the U.N. had decided were areas that Iraq aircraft were not allowed to fly. These flights were part of an effort to protect not only the inhabitants of those regions from Iraqi military air attacks but also to keep the Iraqi military from threatening its northern and southern neighbors. These flights by American, British, and, for awhile, French warplanes were flying under the U.N. flag to enforce not only the ceasefire resolution at the end of the first Gulf War, but also to protect minorities in Iraqi who were being brutally suppressed by Hussein’s goons.

The atrocities committed by Hussein, his sons, and their henchmen on their own people have been well documented over the last five years and the related deaths numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Tens of thousands of those deaths occurred annually during the Butcher of Baghdad’s nearly 30-year reign.

However, maintaining these forces that essentially are flying potential combat missions on a daily basis was not a cheap proposition and it was the U.S. who bore the lion’s share of the financial burden. It especially was not those people who were its primary benefactors.

This, of course, is where the ugly and evil word “oil” enters the equation.

Unfortunately for the world, the largest deposits of petroleum seem to lie beneath the sands of Arabia and the old Persian and Mesopotamian homelands. Yes, there are substantial deposits in the North Sea, the South China Sea, in Siberia and the nations of the Caspian Sea, in Africa, in North and South America, but the sweetest oil seems to come from the area surrounding the Arabian Gulf. It is the most accessible, because there is not much to disturb but except a few itinerant tribesmen passing through with their camels and their tents. There are no gleaming metropolises here, nor any hubs of great industry churning out products that raise the standard of living not only for the rich but for the common man as well. Not much in the way of people or development, just a lot of sand.

Unfortunately, as the world progresses from the industrial age to the information age and the 21st Century, much of what powers those the world economies is fueled by gasoline, kerosene, and diesel fuel. Some economies are more dependent on oil from this particular region than others. Most of Europe becomes dependent on Middle East crude, as do the Tigers of Asia, to which now can be added China and India. As the world continues to develop, its economies become increasingly intertwined and the supply of oil becomes increasingly inadequate.

Any threat to the smooth and peaceful extraction of oil is going to be deemed a life-threatening event to any nation whose economic umbilical is tied to it.

As in the Cold War, Europe, Japan, and other nations look expectantly to the United States, which came out of the Second World War relatively unscathed from the scars of that horrific conflict and with its seemingly huge economic power that seems to be the engine that drives the world economy intact, to shoulder – with its parallel huge military power – the burdens of being the protector of the peace and the protector of the smooth flow of this commodity to the rest of the world.

Only Hussein tended to make things jump off the track.

First, he invaded Iran and after eight years of a bloody stalemate, decided that wasn’t such a good idea after all. Yes, the U.S. and other Arab nations favored the Iraqis in this dispute, mainly because Iran, ruled by the mullahs and ayatollahs, had become a theocratic nightmare that felt the U.S. was the Great Satan and should be destroyed. Besides, there was the minor humiliation of Iran violating years of diplomatic tradition and seizing the American Embassy and holding its occupants as hostages. (Note: This technically is an act of war, but the U.S. ignored that little part of international law.)

We won’t go through the disastrous and muddled attempt to rescue the hostages that so mesmerized the Americans’ attention for the 444 days of their captivity. The U.S. was looking for a little pay back, and so what if Saddam was an evil person, he was fighting the right enemy. In that respect, sort of, it was similar to the U.S.’s alliance with Stalin’s Soviet Union in World War II. Stalin may have been a totally reprehensible person and despot, but he was fighting the right enemy and it was better let him use his millions to grind down the Nazi war machine than to have young Americans pay that price.

It is the old credo: that the enemy of my enemy is my friend – at least for the moment.

So, not only did Saddam’s megalomania pose a threat his neighbors in the Gulf, all of whom maintained tiny militaries in comparison to the Iraqis (except for Iran, Syria and Turkey) and looked for protection under the American umbrella, but also his religion seemed to compel him to want to wipe out Jews - no matter where they are found. Now after Hitler’s nearly successful attempt to wipe out European Jewry, the Europeans – who have never been partial to the Jews because they were the enablers of European hypocrisy for almost two millennia – agreed to a plan to settle the remainder of the survivors in their ancient homeland in Palestine. Even though the Jews have been in Palestine for at least three millennia, the Arabs – who themselves are relative newcomers to area – were upset with the Europeans pawning off their Jews in what the Arabs perceive as “their” territory. However, the nation of Israel was formed, however, and the Arabs have spent the better part of the last 60 years thinking of ways to destroy Israel and push all of the Jews into the Mediterranean., where presumably they will all drown.

Unfortunately, for the Arabs, the United States – partly because it has the largest number population of Jews in the world living in it and partly because we really believe that the Jews should have some place they can safely call home, without being the local scapegoats for everything and occasionally having murderous riots launched to beat up on them – decided that it would be the big brother protector of this small nation of less than four millions. The Americans are just not going to sit by and watch another Holocaust. ... We did that once and it left us still kicking ourselves for letting it happen the first time. Besides, in many ways the Israelis are like us and, unlike most of their neighbors, at least their government is a functioning (or is that disfunctioning, it is hard to tell some times) democracy, unlike most of its neighbors.

But Hussein, mostly for his own domestic consumption (known as creating an outside devil – something we in the West are not immune to doing) but also for his own aggrandizement thinks thought it would really go a long way to wipe out the humiliation the Arabs have suffered over the years (especially in the four wars where the Israelis basically kicked butt on them) if he could figure out a way to wipe out the Israelis.

Well, the first thing he did, after the Iraqis and other Arab nations had their collective butt handed to them by the Israelis in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, was to go for the asymmetrical option and funds Palestinian groups who are were taking the fight daily to the Israelis in low intensity combat (suicide bombers, random rocket and mortar attacks, kidnappings and assassinations, sniper attacks and drive-by shootings). Lurking in his mind, however, was a plan to use that the ultimate weapon those dastardly Americans invented. Even if he died in the process, he would go down in history as a great Muslim martyr who died in a war to crush the infidel.

Besides, if he got his hands on a nuclear bomb, then he could have held hold it over the heads of the Arab tribal leaders in the neighborhood as a great big club and make them dance to his tune. That would have impact on the flow of oil from the Gulf, which would have impacted the big, bumbling U.S.’s economic partners. Then, the U.S. would be called upon to drag out the old military force option and wave its big stick around.

In 1990, he had tried direct action to gain control of more of the Gulf Oil, but again his military had its collective butt handed to them in Kuwait in 1991 by the overwhelming force of a U.N.-sponsored coalition led by the United States. In a funny way, he was able to portray this humiliating defeat of his troops as a victory, because had the situation been reversed, he surely would be putting the head of GHW Bush on a pike and parading it around the square. Since that didn’t happen to his head, then obviously Allah, peace be upon him, was protecting him.

The Gulf War also got him saddled him with a series of UN resolutions designed to de-fang the Mesopotamian viper. To all of which, he did what he could to defy and skirt his way around them.

In December 1998, he essentially told the UN inspectors to take a hike and leave, which resulted in President Bill Clinton ordering four days of aerial bombing and missiles strikes in an exercise called Operation Desert Fox. All that accomplished was to get the UN inspectors permanently banned from Iraq.

At the same time, at the urging of President Clinton, Congress passed a bicameral and bipartisan resolution for it to be the stated policy of the United States government to seek out and pursue a way to terminate the rule of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Come the fall of 2002, the UN Security Council unanimously passed its 19th resolution advising Saddam to come clean about all his various WMD programs or face the consequences. In December 2002, we saw aee this huge document dump by the Iraqis. After review of those documents, the chief of the UN inspectors, Hans Blix, said they proved nothing and did not begin to meet the requirements laid out in the UN resolution. In short, Blix said the Iraqis were lying again and trying to be evasive.

Why did the Iraqis let the inspectors back and do the document dump? It wasn’t out the goodness of their hearts that is for sure. What had changed from January 1999 and January 2003?

Well, the big change was that in January 2003, there were increasing numbers of U.S. troops sitting in camps in the Kuwait desert. We are not talking a small group; we are talking 170,000 American Soldiers, along with about 30,000 British Tommies and a smattering of forces from some 44 other nations ranging from Italy to Lithuania. Notably absent from the ranks are the French, Germans, Russians, and the Chinese, as well as most of the other Arab nations. The thing about this coalition, whether you want to believe it or not, was that it was hoping to put some spine into the UN and prove that its “or else” threats were not just empty air.

Now, the question came: Do you use this force or not?

While the French, the Russians, and the Chinese had signed off on the previous resolutions that threatened “or else”, this the trio was had cold feet on No. 20 because it might upset their new contracts they had negotiated in violation of previous sanctions resolutions and that would never do. Besides, in a few months all support for the sanctions would collapse and the Russians, Chinese, and French could go back into the very lucrative weapons trade with the Iraqis.

And if the Iraqis did come up with a device to vaporize Tel Aviv, they could always blame the Americans for failing to take any action.

To cover Tony Blair’s butt, GW Bush agrees that is a good idea to try to get a 20th UN Security Council resolution authorizing military force. It was not that the previous 19 resolutions had not either authorized military force or at least threatened it, it was just another ‘i’ to dot and a ‘t’ to cross, to make sure that if anything went wrong, then the blame would not fall on just the Americans and the British. However, since the Chinese, the French, and the Russians all hold vetoes on the Security Council, the resolution stands stood no chance of passing.

With summer approaching, Turkey balking at letting the Americans launch a second front through its territory with the 4th Mechanized Infantry Division and with some 200,000 troops sitting in the Kuwaiti desert, Bush and Rumsfeld grew impatient, or realized that the French, the Russians, and the Chinese had no intention of letting the UN become a truly effective organization that could impose its vision on recalcitrant nations. Bush and Co. looked back at the previous 19 UNSCRs and discovered they held all the authorization for the Coalition to strike. Besides, it would be awfully expensive and degrade the combat readiness if the juggernaut was forced to sit and wait until summer passed.

So, given the fact that Saddam Hussein’s regime was starving his own people, murdering tens of thousands annually, oppressing millions, merely waiting to reopen his weapons labs and rebuild his WMD facilities, funding terrorist operations against the United States through the Palestinians, flirting with the people who had pulled off the 9/11 attack on US interests (see documentation from the Iraq Perspectives Project), had already attempted to assassinate the sitting president’s father, defied the UN by basically giving it the finger, and last but not least, its leader was basically a despicable person, George Bush and Company decided that indeed Hussein posed a clear and present danger to the health and wealth of the world and it was time to depose him.

Deposing Saddam him was the easy part. It was the aftermath that Donald Rumsfeld totally dropped the ball. To him, the Iraq war was just a testing ground for his new lighter, faster, more mobile, interconnected military force that substituted firepower for manpower. Despite the fact that the U.S. State Department actually had a plan for implementation post-bellum; it was ignored, in fact, disdained. In a bureaucratic feudal turf war, Donald Rumsefeld’s DoD told those stuffed shirts at State to take a hike and the DoD’s program of military shock and awe would sort things out. He disregarded the Pottery Shop rule and had illusions about being able to replace a vacuum with a non-existent laissezze-faire anything-goes solution.

In fumbling in the aftermath of the offensive phase of the war, Rumsfeld gave those who, for whatever reason, are predisposed to dislike, nay hate, GW Bush, ample ammunition to attack the former governor of Texas. It is ironic that the first president who has had the courage and resolution to stand up to the relentless attacks against Americans, their businesses, and their overseas representatives and say “Enough. It stops here. Beyond this we will respond with more than the niceties of our legal system. The gloves are coming off and we will strike back and hit hard,” gets such harsh treatment.

It is as if, as Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto observed almost 70 years ago, the terrorists had awoken a terrible sleeping dragon and had made it angry. The dragon was awake now and tired of the pinprick attacks. It had stared down the Bear without much thanks and now was going to look out for itself.

In retrospect, the WMDs were there, especially the capability to bring production facilities rapidly on line as well as resume the pursuit of the Golden Fleece of a nuclear device. If you don’t believe that, I beg that you read the Duelfer Report in its entirety and not just the news stories summarizing inaccurately its findings.

In addition, Saddam Hussein was indeed proven to be a very malevolent despot who deserved to hang at the hands of his people.

The threat of his regime is now gone, but the threat from Iran has never gone away and if the U.S. can be run out of Iraq by asymmetrical warfare, financed in good part by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, then it will be the mullahs who have driven the Great Satan from the region and it is their time to rise, as the Xerxes of old and restore the Persian empire to is rightful place as the leader of the world, but especially the Islamic world.

If the bumbling bums of the U.S. cannot pull a rabbit out of their hat, as they seem to be doing today, then who will challenge other despots and threats to the economic stability of the world?

What it really comes down to the end of the day is all the Americans want to do is trade with other countries and sell them stuff – at a profit, of course.

PS: We seem to be winning.

Random thoughts 15

A random rant

I sometimes think if I hear one more time that George W. Bush stole the 2000 election or the 2004 election or that the war in Iraq is illegal or that members of the Bush political administration are guilty of war crimes, that there were no WMDs in Iraq in 2003, that Saddam had no connection with terrorists (including some who did have connections with 9-11 although Saddam was not in on that operation) or that Israel is the source of all the problems in the Middle East, I think I just will go off the deep end.

First: GWB did not steal the 2000 election. The U.S. Supreme Court did not select him. If anything, it was the Gore campaign that tried to use the judicial system to change the outcome in Florida. I am tired of hearing that all election officials down at the county level are in the hip pocket of this campaign or that political party. In the 30 years I covered elections, the local election officials have done their darndest to be as accurate and accountable as possible. So, when I hear people talk of conspiracies to steal elections, I think of those hard working folks at the local level and just shake my head.

As for Gore and his campaign: They just couldn’t let Bush have in the appearance of a victory, so they tried everything they could to stop the count until they could line up a judge or two to allow manual recounts, but only in areas that favored Gore. The hypocrisy of that just made me sick. For God’s sake, I wanted to scream, just let the process work itself out. There is a procedure for challenging the results of an election and asking for a recount, just follow it. Rather, the Gore campaign had to jump to the courts. And don’t go on about the GOP controlling the Florida secretary of state’s office, that is just hogwash to the extreme. Don’t go on about suppressed votes or butterfly ballots. It is all stuff to obscure the fact that Gore did not win.

Besides, in the ultimate end, after all the dust settled and a coalition of media outlets went back in a recounted the ballots ... guess who was the winner in like all the various scenarios: GWB.

So, if you don’t like the result, get over it.

Also, even if the minority vote was suppressed in some areas of Ohio in 2004, which it apparently didn’t happen but makes a convenient urban fairy tale, the margin of victory for Bush was such that it wouldn’t have mattered ... in other words, Bush-haters, you lost; time to get over it.

Nor was the war in Iraq illegal nor are Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., guilty of any war crimes.

First, how many U.N. resolutions threatening AND authorizing force does it take to make a war legal? The UN Security Council since 1991 had passed 19 resolutions on Iraq that Saddam supposedly was in violation of. Even Hans Blix admitted that Hussein had violated the last one in November 2002, but he wanted more time.

If you truly believe that Saddam Hussein’s regime had NO WMDs, please read the entire Duelfer Report, http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html , not just cherry picked passages.

Also understand, if I put a bar of soap in my jacket pocket where you can’t see it and tell you it is a gun, you most likely would believe it was a gun. Especially if all my buddies with me are saying it is a gun, because they actually believe it is a gun. And when the cops show up and see me pointing my “gun”, they are not going to assume it is a bar of soap. They are going to assume it is a gun and tell me to put it down. And if I don’t do it immediately, they are liable to open fire and justifiably I might add.

Saddam may have had a bar of soap or he may have really believed he had WMDs, but 45 nations believed he did and formed a coalition (and so what if GWB allegedly coerced most of them, the man is not omnipotent and they still put their people on the line in one way or another) to take Saddam down. It was not something that just the Americans did, or just the Brits did, or the Italians or the Poles or any other of the members of the coalition.

Just because you don’t like George W. Bush does not make him a liar or a criminal.

Bush did not lie. He did follow the law. He got Congressional approval, that in essence (except that it did not have it as its title) was a declaration of war. He had a U.N. resolution to back him up. OK, granted it didn’t specifically authorize the U.S. to invade Iraq, but the November resolution authorized unspecified measures to compel compliance if Saddam’s regime did not satisfy its provisions. It didn’t.

Saddam had no links to terrorists, specifically Al Qaeda. Arrgggghhh. Please read the Iraq Perspectives Report.

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html

And what has been released so far is just the tip of the iceberg.

I also wish people would understand the difference between a lawful and unlawful combatant. Unfortunately, since we have had a slew of bombing over the last 7 years, a lot of people think we can go back to status quo ante 9-11. When will we realize that we really are at war with these hoods and it is an honest to goodness root’n toot’n shooting war?

As for torture: Maybe I have misplaced my faith and trust but I find it difficult to believe that the type of soldiers I have had the pleasure to serve with actually engaged in torture. Of course, your definition of torture and mine differ. I mean, to me torture is like beating somebody with fists or a rubber hose. It is like breaking limbs and dislocating joints. It is like drilling holes in a body or chopping off digits. It is like carving on someone or using them for a human ash tray. Let’s not forget sexually violating someone.

However, it is not torture to subject someone to loud music that they dislike for 24/7 or to put them in a cold room with little clothes on. It is not forcing them to stand for hours, or squat for hours or keeping them under a bright light for hours. Those psychological pressures do not meet the standard for torture in my book. Nor does the Good Cop-Bad Cop routine.

My personal jury is still out on waterboarding. I don’t know enough about the procedure to know if it qualifies as torture. Drowning some one is, but then they would be dead. I do think that keel-hauling would qualify as torture, but that is primarily due to the barnacles, plus ships’ keels are much longer than they used to be. We could be back the cat-o-nine-tails, but they flogging really is more than punishment. It is torture.

Still, I am not sure humiliation is torture. It is humiliation and torture is more physical.

One thing I do wonder is that when did combatants (whether lawful or unlawful) get rights other than those laid down by the Hague and Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war. Remember, we are in a war. Oops, I forgot ... we aren’t, even if Congress authorized the use of military force to resolve the problem.

Finally, for all those who hate GWB so much that they lose all sense of proportion. Understand this, in a few months on Jan. 20, 2009, at noon, a new president will be sworn in. This person will be the winner of a national ballot held on Nov. 4 (and days preceding in some jurisdictions) and your long nightmare will be over. I wonder what you will say if your preferred candidate doesn’t get elected this time. What excuse are you going to trot out this time.

Ok, I have vented enough for today.

Random Thoughts 12

In reviewing the news , I see where the Iranian president and the Ayatollah are back out baiting the U.S. and daring it to smack down Iraq. What is with these guys? It is like they want a fight, and are doing their best to ignite one all the while saying they just want peace. I fear the president what's his name that seem impossible to pronounce as has some apocalyptic vision that he wants to fulfill. It really is haunting though.

.

Random Thoughts 9

I see where Fred Thompson has entered the Republican lists in the contest for the presidency in 2008. This is probably a plus for the GOP ... Thompson comes across on the TV as none of the others do ... due undoubtedly to his years of acting on the big screen and the small screen. He just looks more presidential than the other candidates.

I see where Oprah is raising money for Obama ... I don't think his campaign will want for anything. I am not a Obama fan ... but I am not all that swept up in the Oprah fever that seems to have engulfed afternoon TV watchers. Actually, I have to say, Oprah impresses the heck out of me. She is a tremendous TV personality who connects well with her viewers and is an incredible business woman ... a tycoon in fact.

I read where Bush is asking the Democrats to unite behind him in a bipartisan front on Iraq, given that the surge actually seems to be meeting with at least a modicum of success. Note to tell Dubya: Don't hold your breath. Too many Democrats have invested too much of their soul in destroying his administration to ever be bipartisan. Such is the pettiness of politics in America today.

For an interesting take on the Iraqi front in the "War on Terror", I really do recommend people visit Michael Yon's web site and blog. http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/ghosts-of-anbar-part-iv-of-iv.htm - read the whole series on Anbar http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/the-ghosts-of-anbar-part-1-of-4.htm http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/the-ghosts-of-anbar-part-ii-of-iv.htm http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/ghosts-of-anbar-part-iii-of-iv.htm

The interesting part is that he says what I beleive ... now ain't the time to cut and run ... but to lead, follow or get the hades out of the way for those who will.

I also see the Mister Bin Laden has rejoined list on the media front of the war between the west and Islamic extremism. Those Al Quaida guys are getting so media savy ... we should be taking notes ... ok, the text of his translated speech is so full holes and screwed up facts but who cares ... his audience doesn't, because like some of those in the U.S. who still think Bush stole the 2000 election from Al Gore, they don't care about the facts.
Anyway, the whole thing is classic propaganda ... oh Where is Frank Capra when we need him? The U.S. desperately needs a new "Why we fight?" series like Capra's films from WWII ... only don't look for Hollywood to help on this one. They seem to be AWOL or working for Major Quisling this time.

Tis enough for now.

Random thoughts 6

Question for the day: Should the United States pull its troops out of Iraq and surrounding countries in the Middle East to stop the violence?

Not unless everyone stops looking to the United States for leadership is my thought.

If the U.S. pulled out the Middle East, why should it not also pull out all the other countries where it has forces forward deployed?

The problem is that because the U.S. is the 900-pound gorilla in world affairs, it is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Today, the U.S. with its huge economy that drives much of the world’s commerce is dependent upon and inexorably linked to the economies of other countries. It cannot just withdraw and try to isolate itself, to be dependent on its own resources and no other markets.

The same holds true militarily. There are those who are begging for the Americans to intervene in Dafur and the Sudan, while nothing was done in Bosnia and Kosovo until the Americans took the lead. When disaster strikes, who often is the first responder to bring immediate relief? It is the U.S. military, which has the resources, the training and the capability to go almost anywhere in the world.

Many countries took for granted during the Cold War the protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella that kept the Soviet Union at bay for more than 40 years. The war in Korea happened because the U.S. said South Korea was outside its area of interest. The invasion of Kuwait in 1990 happened because the U.S. told Saddam Hussein that the sheikdom was outside the area of American defense interests.

If the Americans are to withdraw, then don’t ask them to return or intervene anywhere, militarily or economically. No military aid or economic assistance and the Americans will not be there to help those asking for American help and/or leadership.

IF the Americans pulled out of Iraq tomorrow (physically impossible, but let’s consider the hypothetical), what would be the result? Would peace immediately descend on Iraq? Does anyone really believe that? No, the factions – tribal groups, clans, Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds – probably would descend into a frenzy of internecine warfare as they jockeyed for power and dominance. Little to no effort would be made to achieve political compromise or community co-existence. And who would be blamed? Not the Iraqis, not the foreign jihadists flooding the country. No, it would be blamed on the Americans.

The Americans always are responsible for everyone else’s problems. It is easier to blame the Americans than to look inward and find where the responsibility truly lies.

The sad thing is the Americans are guppies and they have yet to overcome their innate desire to do good in the world. In their blind arrogance and imperious hubris, surrounded by their incredible wealth, they can’t see that nothing they do in the world will be perceived as attempting to help the less fortunate, to protect the weak, and to help end the killing.