The Geek is even handed. If John Edwards, one of the Geek's betes noirs, shows that he has a grip on something, the Geek will give him a thumbs-up.
Recently, the former Senator joined the chorus decrying the presence of Blackwater USA and similar private security companies in Iraq. He stated that if he becomes president, he would toss Blackwater et al out and replace them with US military personnel.
Bang-on, Mr Edwards!
It's too bad that you immediately discarded your grip on reality by again promising an immediate end to US combat operations in Iraq--apparently whether or not the security situation in that country merited such a step.
Well, the Geek supposes, one out of two isn't that bad. Perhaps one of these days your advisers will get it through to you that a premature cut and run from the rubble of Iraq will be against longer term US interests.
That nice, well-meaning young man, Senator Obama stays in the gripless category with his recent vision of a world without nuclear weapons. The Geek would share that idyllic view if it weren't for the unfortunate fact that unicorns and elves are thin on the ground in his part of the world.
A strong case can be made for the proposition that the nuclear umbrella from 1945 on made the world safe for war. (In fact, the Geek laid out the basics of that argument in a previous post.) An equally strong case can be mounted for the contention that deterrence works.
A.Q Khan has complicated the proliferation problem with his adventures in passing along nuclear technology. If the Senator from Illinois (or one of his deep thinking foreign affairs advisers) took a look at the A.Q. Khan example, they might get a grip on a basic fact regarding nuclear weapons.
The basic fact?
They are deucedly hard to control. The founding members of the Nuclear Club were remarkably successful in restricting this category of weaponry to reasonably responsible states, or at least states whose leadership understood that it is no fun to rule over a greenglassed wasteland populated by megacorpses beyond count.
Thanks to the enterprising Islamist, A.Q., nuclear weapons technology has spread to countries which might not be as stable as the original members of the Club. This raises an important question. Are the leaders of these states whether Pakistan or Iran any less rational than those of the old Soviet Union, or today's Russia, China, Israel, France, UK, or US?
The focus on nuclear disarmament is understandable. There seems nothing more terrifying than the specter of a nuclear exchange no matter how limited.
Just thinking about it, makes the Geek shiver all over.
Not really.
There are options far more attractive than the nuclear one. Options far more easily acquired, more easily employed than the atomic bombs.
Biological weapons, whether those directed against humans or the sources of human life such as livestock and crops, constitute the most preferable in the Geek's estimation, particularly if blowback is not a problem for the user. (Which it wouldn't be in the case of crop directed attacks.)
Electronic attacks on a target's financial, public utilities, or air traffic control system, would be another very attractive option. Think of it as the equivalent of the much maligned enhanced radiation weapon ("neutron bomb") of the Eighties. A lot of destruction without any deaths.
There are other options as well, but a post can't be too long.
Then, Senator Obama, there is the problem of truly effective technology control. Even if all the current nuclear powers were to join in some Sixties fantasy of banning the bomb, the knowledge of how to make it would still exist. The technology would still exist. The required materials would still exist.
Radiological materials would still exist. They could still be obtained by those with money or brains enough to buy or steal them. Sure, there wouldn't be any impressive big bang on the impact zone nor would there be megacorpses. There would still be dead bodies in large enough numbers to be impressive. There would be fear. In all respects except mushroom clouds, nuclear winter and other mediagenic features, the results would be akin to the use of atomic bombs.
Get a grip, Senator Obama.
Big dreams are actually the result of numerous small, achievable dreams. Focus on the real, and you just might achieve the impossible. You might start by addressing what should be done when a state demonstrably, verifiably violates nuclear non-proliferation obligations.
Do that, and you might just convince the Geek to vote for you.
Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Fred Thompson Joins the Out To Lunch Bunch
The Geek admits this is not the most timely post he's ever written. That's OK. He's a historian. Anyway, keeping up with the foreign policy idiocy is exhausting. Sometimes the old Geekmo just can't take anymore.
Now it is probably too much to expect an undistinguished, former short-time Senator and lobbyist to come to the presidential campaign with any knowledge of the intricacies of foreign policy, war, and peace. But, as a TV actor and Ronald Reagan imitator, he darn sure should understand the importance of symbolism.
When Thompson derided Osama bin Laden as "more of a symbolism than he is anything else," it knocked the Geek off his rock in the sun.
Get a grip, Fred!
There are many things Osama bin Laden is not. He is not a political-military strategist. He is not an organizational genius. His combat record in the anti-Russian jihad in Afghanistan is, to put in kindly, undistinguished. Heck, his stone face and black beard aren't even the stuff of which great video drama are made.
Now, Mr Thompson, there is one thing at which bin Laden is very, very good. Symbolism. That's what he is. A symbol. An icon.
And, Mr Thompson, that's all he needs to be. That is his power. That is his strength. His appeal.
Bin Laden comes across to his target audience as a hero, a saintly remake of earlier heroes of Islam during its historical prime a millennium and more ago. He is seen as the austere, self-denying exemplar of Islam by those inclined to the Islamist ideology.
He is a walking, talking recruiting poster. He is seen to have lived as he has preached. Pure, willing to die, willing to fight, willing to kill for the cause and vision of Islamism.
Osama bin Laden doesn't need to be brilliant. He doesn't need to make good decisions. He doesn't need to have a strategic or tactical vision. Others can fill in the awesome blanks in his abilities and knowledge.
All he needs is to be who he is. To be seen as he wishes to be seen. For him, being seen as he wishes is easy. He plays to type. He plays himself.
You should have recognised all of those features, Mr Thompson. You invoke the memory and image of Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator.
Reagan and bin Laden are the same under the skin. They both understood and played to the mythic imagery of their audiences. Bin Laden is what Reagan was--a symbol, an icon. As Reagan was "Morning in America," bin Laden is the "Dawn of Islamism."
Now, about your muddled thinking regarding "due process." Perhaps you've been playing a lawyer on TV too long to have a grip on this.
Capturing bin Laden, let alone giving him public exposure similar to that accorded Saddam Hussein or Manuel Noriega in handcuffs and orange jumpsuit would be the second most stupidly counterproductive thing that might be done. The most stupid thing would be to kill him with after-the-fact publicity of the fact.
Don't you or any of your aides realise that a symbol cannot be killed, an icon cannot die or be put on trial? Capture or publicly acknowledged killing would only elevate Osama bin Laden to the highest pinnacle of martyrdom.
Think how many young Islamist-leaning wannabe martyrs would be stimulated to offer their lives (and our deaths) at the metaphoric feet of bin Laden.
Mr Thompson, if you want to be something more than a second-generation facsimile of Ronald Reagan, you would be well advised to get a grip on the real nature of the war facing us and the centrality of symbolism--both their's and our's--to its prosecution.
A side note to John Edwards: Did you really, really mean it when you challenged Thompson on not understanding the "importance" of "capturing" bin Laden? If so, it is obvious that you still are totally clueless about what is happening in the world today (and have been for the past several decades.)
As a former Tarheel, the Geek will be happy to fill you in, Mr Edwards. And, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, the same goes for you, Mr Thompson.
Now it is probably too much to expect an undistinguished, former short-time Senator and lobbyist to come to the presidential campaign with any knowledge of the intricacies of foreign policy, war, and peace. But, as a TV actor and Ronald Reagan imitator, he darn sure should understand the importance of symbolism.
When Thompson derided Osama bin Laden as "more of a symbolism than he is anything else," it knocked the Geek off his rock in the sun.
Get a grip, Fred!
There are many things Osama bin Laden is not. He is not a political-military strategist. He is not an organizational genius. His combat record in the anti-Russian jihad in Afghanistan is, to put in kindly, undistinguished. Heck, his stone face and black beard aren't even the stuff of which great video drama are made.
Now, Mr Thompson, there is one thing at which bin Laden is very, very good. Symbolism. That's what he is. A symbol. An icon.
And, Mr Thompson, that's all he needs to be. That is his power. That is his strength. His appeal.
Bin Laden comes across to his target audience as a hero, a saintly remake of earlier heroes of Islam during its historical prime a millennium and more ago. He is seen as the austere, self-denying exemplar of Islam by those inclined to the Islamist ideology.
He is a walking, talking recruiting poster. He is seen to have lived as he has preached. Pure, willing to die, willing to fight, willing to kill for the cause and vision of Islamism.
Osama bin Laden doesn't need to be brilliant. He doesn't need to make good decisions. He doesn't need to have a strategic or tactical vision. Others can fill in the awesome blanks in his abilities and knowledge.
All he needs is to be who he is. To be seen as he wishes to be seen. For him, being seen as he wishes is easy. He plays to type. He plays himself.
You should have recognised all of those features, Mr Thompson. You invoke the memory and image of Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator.
Reagan and bin Laden are the same under the skin. They both understood and played to the mythic imagery of their audiences. Bin Laden is what Reagan was--a symbol, an icon. As Reagan was "Morning in America," bin Laden is the "Dawn of Islamism."
Now, about your muddled thinking regarding "due process." Perhaps you've been playing a lawyer on TV too long to have a grip on this.
Capturing bin Laden, let alone giving him public exposure similar to that accorded Saddam Hussein or Manuel Noriega in handcuffs and orange jumpsuit would be the second most stupidly counterproductive thing that might be done. The most stupid thing would be to kill him with after-the-fact publicity of the fact.
Don't you or any of your aides realise that a symbol cannot be killed, an icon cannot die or be put on trial? Capture or publicly acknowledged killing would only elevate Osama bin Laden to the highest pinnacle of martyrdom.
Think how many young Islamist-leaning wannabe martyrs would be stimulated to offer their lives (and our deaths) at the metaphoric feet of bin Laden.
Mr Thompson, if you want to be something more than a second-generation facsimile of Ronald Reagan, you would be well advised to get a grip on the real nature of the war facing us and the centrality of symbolism--both their's and our's--to its prosecution.
A side note to John Edwards: Did you really, really mean it when you challenged Thompson on not understanding the "importance" of "capturing" bin Laden? If so, it is obvious that you still are totally clueless about what is happening in the world today (and have been for the past several decades.)
As a former Tarheel, the Geek will be happy to fill you in, Mr Edwards. And, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, the same goes for you, Mr Thompson.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Hey! Senators! Get This, War Is A Long Slog
Sometimes the Geek is convinced that the best experience for a presidential candidate is a couple of tours in combat, in the infantry. At least the Geek thinks that whenever he hears the wannabes quacking about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The other night at the Democratic debate, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and ex-Senator Edwards agreed that the US could not "win" in Iraq and, presumably for this reason, US troops should be withdrawn. See http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695208775,00.html.
Although Representative Tom Lantos of California is not a presidential candidate, his "thinking" runs in the same vein. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2166326,00.html. Apparently his concern is not that we aren't winning, but the simple fact that US troops are there.
The Geek has never believed that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. He has always been of the view that our invasion of Afghanistan was conducted in the wrong way. From the giddy-up in both wars, he has seen bright intimations of disaster.
But none of that matters. The reality is that we are there. We can't turn the clock back. We've got boots on the ground in both countries. Now the problem is simple.
How do we retrieve two, count them, two policy blunders from the failure they so richly deserve?
The Geek agrees with candidates Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Richardson. We cannot win in any meaningful sense of the word in Iraq. Neither can we "win" in Afghanistan.
And, to add to the comments of the wannabes, we cannot win in the "global war on terrorism."
As the Geek has written before: It is impossible to win against a tactic, a means of waging hostilities. Only an enemy can be defeated, not a method.
Terrorism cannot be defeated. Islamists and their ideology can--and must--be.
Only resolve, firmness and patience can defeat the Islamists.
This means that we must not--absolutely must not--lose in either Iraq or Afghanistan. As the Korean War demonstrated beyond a doubt to anyone well oriented in place and time, not losing is the necessary prerequisite to eventual victory.
Enter the combat infantry experience. Get a grip on it, candidates,
To make it simple, the basics of combat infantry life are simple. Hump a heavy weight on your back, preferably over rough terrain in weather that is either too hot or too cold. Even better do it with the wind in your face. This is improved if it is raining.
Add boredom to exhaustion. Then, just as the boredom numbs your mind, have someone shoot at you. Or have a mortar round land nearby. At your option, you can substitute rocket or improvised explosive device for the mortar round.
Fear spikes. You'll wake up beaucoup schnell. If you're real lucky you can fire your weapon at something. That will discharge some fear. Make you feel a little better.
If you're really, really, really lucky, you'll actually see a live hostile to shoot at. Maybe you'll hit him. Maybe you'll see him fall. This will make you feel even better. Or, perhaps not. Everyone is a bit different at that.
Then, when the noise stops, get up, and start humping again. The straps on your shoulders won't hurt for the next few minutes. Then they'll hurt worse. The rain will start up again. You'll get thirsty. Reach for your canteen. Find out its empty. Shit.
Have you won your little encounter with whoever?
Maybe. Maybe not.
It doesn't matter.
You haven't been hit. None of your buddies have been hit. You didn't lose. That's what matters. You didn't lose.
You feel a little better. As long as you can put one foot in front of the other, as long as you can keep on slogging, keep on yomping, you haven't lost. You haven't let your buddies down. You've done your job.
Senators Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Governor Richardson, Representative Lantos, the Geek has a question for you.
Do you, any of you, have the guts to keep putting one foot in front of the other? Do you have what it takes not to lose? Not to let your buddies down? Not to let your nation's future go down the tubes? Do you, any of you, have the right stuff to do your job?
The other night at the Democratic debate, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and ex-Senator Edwards agreed that the US could not "win" in Iraq and, presumably for this reason, US troops should be withdrawn. See http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695208775,00.html.
Although Representative Tom Lantos of California is not a presidential candidate, his "thinking" runs in the same vein. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2166326,00.html. Apparently his concern is not that we aren't winning, but the simple fact that US troops are there.
The Geek has never believed that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. He has always been of the view that our invasion of Afghanistan was conducted in the wrong way. From the giddy-up in both wars, he has seen bright intimations of disaster.
But none of that matters. The reality is that we are there. We can't turn the clock back. We've got boots on the ground in both countries. Now the problem is simple.
How do we retrieve two, count them, two policy blunders from the failure they so richly deserve?
The Geek agrees with candidates Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Richardson. We cannot win in any meaningful sense of the word in Iraq. Neither can we "win" in Afghanistan.
And, to add to the comments of the wannabes, we cannot win in the "global war on terrorism."
As the Geek has written before: It is impossible to win against a tactic, a means of waging hostilities. Only an enemy can be defeated, not a method.
Terrorism cannot be defeated. Islamists and their ideology can--and must--be.
Only resolve, firmness and patience can defeat the Islamists.
This means that we must not--absolutely must not--lose in either Iraq or Afghanistan. As the Korean War demonstrated beyond a doubt to anyone well oriented in place and time, not losing is the necessary prerequisite to eventual victory.
Enter the combat infantry experience. Get a grip on it, candidates,
To make it simple, the basics of combat infantry life are simple. Hump a heavy weight on your back, preferably over rough terrain in weather that is either too hot or too cold. Even better do it with the wind in your face. This is improved if it is raining.
Add boredom to exhaustion. Then, just as the boredom numbs your mind, have someone shoot at you. Or have a mortar round land nearby. At your option, you can substitute rocket or improvised explosive device for the mortar round.
Fear spikes. You'll wake up beaucoup schnell. If you're real lucky you can fire your weapon at something. That will discharge some fear. Make you feel a little better.
If you're really, really, really lucky, you'll actually see a live hostile to shoot at. Maybe you'll hit him. Maybe you'll see him fall. This will make you feel even better. Or, perhaps not. Everyone is a bit different at that.
Then, when the noise stops, get up, and start humping again. The straps on your shoulders won't hurt for the next few minutes. Then they'll hurt worse. The rain will start up again. You'll get thirsty. Reach for your canteen. Find out its empty. Shit.
Have you won your little encounter with whoever?
Maybe. Maybe not.
It doesn't matter.
You haven't been hit. None of your buddies have been hit. You didn't lose. That's what matters. You didn't lose.
You feel a little better. As long as you can put one foot in front of the other, as long as you can keep on slogging, keep on yomping, you haven't lost. You haven't let your buddies down. You've done your job.
Senators Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Governor Richardson, Representative Lantos, the Geek has a question for you.
Do you, any of you, have the guts to keep putting one foot in front of the other? Do you have what it takes not to lose? Not to let your buddies down? Not to let your nation's future go down the tubes? Do you, any of you, have the right stuff to do your job?
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Former Sen Edwards Really Torques the Geek!
The Geek lived and worked in North Carolina for awhile back in the days that Senator Jesse Helms infuriated most of the country while delighting many Tarheels.
The Geek was not one of those amused by thinking that Senator Helms was a SOB, but he's our SOB. One major fact in favor of Helms is that he never would have stooped to the level of asininity demonstrated by former Senator and present presidential wannabe, John Edwards.
Apparently the good looking dude with the expensive haircut and gigabuck mansion wants not only to write off nearly four thousand Americans killed in Iraq as some sort of bad investment. That's not enough for the spine and brain challenged ex-North Carolina senator. Not by a long way.
He is demanding that Congress repeat the disastrous experiences of former Congresses during the War Between the States (that's the Civil War for you Yankees) and the Vietnam War. Edwards challenged the congresswallahs to "force" the current administration to withdraw "forty or fifty thousand" troops immediately with the rest to follow. Or so quoth the Boston Globe on-line: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/09/edwards_calls_o.html
Edwards utterly indifferent to what might happen in Iraq following the departure of American troops quipping, "I don't think anyone can predict with confidence what will happen in Iraq.
Get a grip Senator Blow dry!
The Geek has already predicted what must come with the dreary predictability of prognosticating that hurricanes bring high winds. So have many others in the military, diplomatic, and academic communities. Even the UN SecGen has said his view of Iraq following an overly rapid US withdrawal was "gloomy."
To make it simple for the lame brained ex-senator and his foreign policy advisers to understand what is going to occur, here is the future of Iraq in baby words. Death. Blood. More death. More blood. Bombs. More bombs. Folks running for their lives. Run. Run. Run. Invaders come. Can we say Iran? Syria? Turkey? How about Saudi Arabia? More blood. More killing. More running. More bombs.
How about it, Senator? Do you get the general picture?
In the past, Edwards has announced screwball notions such as honoring our dead in Iraq last Memorial Day by demanding the US quit the war. Now he has outdone his previous efforts.
If the congresswallahs were to take up his challenge and seek to manage the war, which at least some wish to do, they would be walking down the same path as congressional Republicans did during the War Between the States and the Democrats in congress during the closing days of the Vietnam War.
Because knowledge of history is not a strong point among the lawyers and others in congress, the Geek will consider only the second example of war managing by political committee.
Without going through the dismal litany of documentation, of congressional move and administrative counter move, suffice it to say that not only did the "date certain" resolutions and amendments to military funding acts force US troops out too early, in the last analysis, Congress caused the fall of South Vietnam.
You read that right. Congress caused the fall of South Vietnam.
How did the congresswallahs pull off that trick?
Simple. The US had repeatedly and formally promised the Saigon government that, if push came to shove, the US would provide logistics and air support. That was only right and proper. We had trained and equipped the South Vietnamese Army to fight an American style war--heavy on materiel and firepower, particularly air delivered firepower.
When the shove came, when the well-equipped and trained North Vietnamese army went on the attack, the South Vietnamese had roughly six shells for each of their artillery pieces. (That's about twenty seconds worth of shooting for the 105mm howitzer of the day.) They had no air force worthy of the name. No reserves of equipment, spare parts, munitions.
Nonetheless the South Vietnamese troops fought well. That is until they had nothing left with which to fight.
Saigon screamed for help. The government of South Vietnam demanded the US live up to the commitments it gave in order to gain the semblance of peace at Paris.
The administration of Gerald Ford agreed. Congress, to its everlasting shame, said, "NO." Using the power of the purse, the congresswallahs banned any funds being used to support or provide material assistance beyond a token level.
By this act of supreme moral and intellectual cowardliness, Congress not only flipped the ultimate bird at the sixty thousand Americans who died in the war, it delivered South Vietnam to the less than tender mercies of the Hanoi Politburo.
In a circular logic of self-fulfilling prophecy, Edward Kennedy, then as now a senator from Massachusetts, proclaimed South Vietnam was non-viable and voted to make it such.
Now, John Edwards wants, no, demands, Congress do the same in Iraq.
A note to congesswallahs: Your predecessors covered themselves (and the nation) with shame a little more than thirty years ago. If you choose to do the same today in a war which should never have been fought but now must be prosecuted to assure that we and the Iraqis do not lose, History Geek and other well-educated and insightful historians will be there to write the final verdict upon you.
Get a grip on this. It won't be pretty.
The Geek was not one of those amused by thinking that Senator Helms was a SOB, but he's our SOB. One major fact in favor of Helms is that he never would have stooped to the level of asininity demonstrated by former Senator and present presidential wannabe, John Edwards.
Apparently the good looking dude with the expensive haircut and gigabuck mansion wants not only to write off nearly four thousand Americans killed in Iraq as some sort of bad investment. That's not enough for the spine and brain challenged ex-North Carolina senator. Not by a long way.
He is demanding that Congress repeat the disastrous experiences of former Congresses during the War Between the States (that's the Civil War for you Yankees) and the Vietnam War. Edwards challenged the congresswallahs to "force" the current administration to withdraw "forty or fifty thousand" troops immediately with the rest to follow. Or so quoth the Boston Globe on-line: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/09/edwards_calls_o.html
Edwards utterly indifferent to what might happen in Iraq following the departure of American troops quipping, "I don't think anyone can predict with confidence what will happen in Iraq.
Get a grip Senator Blow dry!
The Geek has already predicted what must come with the dreary predictability of prognosticating that hurricanes bring high winds. So have many others in the military, diplomatic, and academic communities. Even the UN SecGen has said his view of Iraq following an overly rapid US withdrawal was "gloomy."
To make it simple for the lame brained ex-senator and his foreign policy advisers to understand what is going to occur, here is the future of Iraq in baby words. Death. Blood. More death. More blood. Bombs. More bombs. Folks running for their lives. Run. Run. Run. Invaders come. Can we say Iran? Syria? Turkey? How about Saudi Arabia? More blood. More killing. More running. More bombs.
How about it, Senator? Do you get the general picture?
In the past, Edwards has announced screwball notions such as honoring our dead in Iraq last Memorial Day by demanding the US quit the war. Now he has outdone his previous efforts.
If the congresswallahs were to take up his challenge and seek to manage the war, which at least some wish to do, they would be walking down the same path as congressional Republicans did during the War Between the States and the Democrats in congress during the closing days of the Vietnam War.
Because knowledge of history is not a strong point among the lawyers and others in congress, the Geek will consider only the second example of war managing by political committee.
Without going through the dismal litany of documentation, of congressional move and administrative counter move, suffice it to say that not only did the "date certain" resolutions and amendments to military funding acts force US troops out too early, in the last analysis, Congress caused the fall of South Vietnam.
You read that right. Congress caused the fall of South Vietnam.
How did the congresswallahs pull off that trick?
Simple. The US had repeatedly and formally promised the Saigon government that, if push came to shove, the US would provide logistics and air support. That was only right and proper. We had trained and equipped the South Vietnamese Army to fight an American style war--heavy on materiel and firepower, particularly air delivered firepower.
When the shove came, when the well-equipped and trained North Vietnamese army went on the attack, the South Vietnamese had roughly six shells for each of their artillery pieces. (That's about twenty seconds worth of shooting for the 105mm howitzer of the day.) They had no air force worthy of the name. No reserves of equipment, spare parts, munitions.
Nonetheless the South Vietnamese troops fought well. That is until they had nothing left with which to fight.
Saigon screamed for help. The government of South Vietnam demanded the US live up to the commitments it gave in order to gain the semblance of peace at Paris.
The administration of Gerald Ford agreed. Congress, to its everlasting shame, said, "NO." Using the power of the purse, the congresswallahs banned any funds being used to support or provide material assistance beyond a token level.
By this act of supreme moral and intellectual cowardliness, Congress not only flipped the ultimate bird at the sixty thousand Americans who died in the war, it delivered South Vietnam to the less than tender mercies of the Hanoi Politburo.
In a circular logic of self-fulfilling prophecy, Edward Kennedy, then as now a senator from Massachusetts, proclaimed South Vietnam was non-viable and voted to make it such.
Now, John Edwards wants, no, demands, Congress do the same in Iraq.
A note to congesswallahs: Your predecessors covered themselves (and the nation) with shame a little more than thirty years ago. If you choose to do the same today in a war which should never have been fought but now must be prosecuted to assure that we and the Iraqis do not lose, History Geek and other well-educated and insightful historians will be there to write the final verdict upon you.
Get a grip on this. It won't be pretty.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
John Edwards Is Out To Lunch--Or Worse!
Originally, I was going to take a look at how the US could still succeed in the Iraq adventure, but John Edwards, former Senator from North Carolina and current Democratic presidential wannabe, got in the way of my plan. I swear that he is either the most gripless politician in the US today or he is lost in the zone. Either the Twilight Zone or O-zone, I'm not sure.
In either event, he's become my bete noir. Worse, Edwards' latest lunacy has driven me to the desperate position of having to agree with a White House staffer. Specifically, Peter Wehner a deputy assistant to the president and director of the Office of Strategic Initiatives who wrote a ditty on Edwards' idiocy in Real Clear Politics http//www.realclearpolitics.com/article/2007/05/edwards_view_is_wrong_and_dang.html.
In his speech two days ago to the New York Council on Foreign Relations, the ex-senator and nearly perpetual candidate showed that he didn't have a grip on several important realities. What's at stake in Iraq for the US. What's been happening in Iraq. What alternatives are available beside de facto defeat for the US in Iraq. And, finally, logic.
In case you missed the numerous reports of the speech in the MSM, here are the highlights. Withdraw 40 or 50 thousand troops immediately. Withdraw the rest some time in the next year. However, the US should station enough forces in the region to "prevent genocide," to assure that the "civil war" doesn't "spill over" and to make certain that Iraq doesn't "become a safe haven for al-Qaeda."
He also termed the war on terrorism not so much a policy as a "bumper sticker."
Leaving aside the gratuitous insult which I presume is meant to be some sort of crowd pleaser, but which actually demonstrates his awesome ability to conflate two separate albeit mutually reinforcing considerations, the main points of his proposal deserves a response.
First, I have to put some blue sky between myself and Wehner. He obviously believes that our invasion of Iraq was a good idea, a very good idea. I don't. It was a bad idea. A very bad idea.
Now back to Edwards and getting a grip on reality.
Wars are much easier to start than to end. The easiest way to end a war is to quit. To give up. It's a hell of a lot harder to end a war by bringing into existence that elusive critter--a better state of peace.
We never should have started the war. There was no basis for it. The intelligence used to support the decision to invade was polluted at best, fabricated at worst.
The most knowledgeable observers and analysts understood that there was no community of interest whatsoever between al-Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. There never was. There never could be given the Islamist base of "the Base." Nor were there any weapons of mass destruction. In short, as everyone but the most gripless members of the red meat eating far right must understand perfectly: There was no reason to invade.
That having been said, several central realities remain. We invaded. We have occupied. We have removed Saddam. We have installed a government. A constitution, no matter how incomplete and imperfect has gone into operation with our approval and support. We have killed beaucoup Iraqis. We have seen nearly 3,500 of our uniformed citizens killed.
We started the war. We have to finish it. Finish it by bringing about a better state of peace, not by quitting as Edwards would have us.
Why?
Set aside for the moment the fact that quitting consigns our dead to the trash heap of casual, meaningless losses. Forget if you can, that these Americans were killed in our collective service, whether or not we approve of the war.
Look at the realities. Get a grip on the realpolitik of the war.
Realpolitik factor number one: If we lose, the Iranians win. At the least, Tehran and the mullahs who run it will become the regional hegemonic power.
Realpolitik factor number two: If we split out, the affiliates of al-Qaeda will be emboldened and empowered. The events of 9/11 might well pale in comparison to what will happen then. But, there's more. Much more.
Realpolitik factor number three: If we leave, there is a good to excellent chance that Iraq will become the latest failed state. It will be like Somalia on steroids. No small time sideshow like Sierra Leone. No bloody little affair like Rwanda.
No. It will be a major, major main attraction. Compared to the hurricane which will certainly occur when Iraq collapses, the decade of interventionary wars, genocide and diplomatic posturing over the corpse of Yugoslavia will be a belch. Iran's forces both open and covert will cross the border to "protect" the Shia majority. Turkey will have "no option" except to occupy the Kurdish region to "guard" it's interests, to "defend" against a widening of its own Kurdish insurgency. The Sunni minority will appeal to Saudi Arabia or Syria or both for "assistance" against the "oppressor."
Get the picture?
Oh, consider this. Not all Shi'ites by a long shot approve of the mullahs in Tehran. After all, Shia Iraqis are Arabs. Shia Iranians are not. Another add-on: There are other groups in Iraq, not just Shia and Sunni Arabs, not just Kurds. There are other groups as well. Recall that Iraq is not an organic nation-state, but an artificial creation of western diplomats at the end of World War I and the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire.
Looks great doesn't it? Blood enough to satisfy the most eager viewer of slasher flicks and car chase movies.
Is that sort of mess really in the American best interests, Mr Edwards? (If you have any doubts have one of your staff go check the latest gasoline prices.'
Also, Mr Edwards, since you proposed that we leave enough troops somewhere unspecified in the region to prevent genocide and civil war spill-over, how many men will it take to go back to Iraq after its collapse and impose order? Did you think that one through before you shot off your mouth in New York?
Second guess doesn't count.
Neither did you think about the options open to the US now other than defeat. That's obvious. Wehner has some. I don't agree with all of them.
I have some others that the smart guys at the White House haven't come up with yet. Mine are drawn from history, not from the combination of political considerations and strategic desperation which I see as the sub-text for Wehner's concepts.
Mine will have to wait for a later post. The nest post, I hope. It depends on whether or not Edwards or some other vacuum head hacks me off.
In either event, he's become my bete noir. Worse, Edwards' latest lunacy has driven me to the desperate position of having to agree with a White House staffer. Specifically, Peter Wehner a deputy assistant to the president and director of the Office of Strategic Initiatives who wrote a ditty on Edwards' idiocy in Real Clear Politics http//www.realclearpolitics.com/article/2007/05/edwards_view_is_wrong_and_dang.html.
In his speech two days ago to the New York Council on Foreign Relations, the ex-senator and nearly perpetual candidate showed that he didn't have a grip on several important realities. What's at stake in Iraq for the US. What's been happening in Iraq. What alternatives are available beside de facto defeat for the US in Iraq. And, finally, logic.
In case you missed the numerous reports of the speech in the MSM, here are the highlights. Withdraw 40 or 50 thousand troops immediately. Withdraw the rest some time in the next year. However, the US should station enough forces in the region to "prevent genocide," to assure that the "civil war" doesn't "spill over" and to make certain that Iraq doesn't "become a safe haven for al-Qaeda."
He also termed the war on terrorism not so much a policy as a "bumper sticker."
Leaving aside the gratuitous insult which I presume is meant to be some sort of crowd pleaser, but which actually demonstrates his awesome ability to conflate two separate albeit mutually reinforcing considerations, the main points of his proposal deserves a response.
First, I have to put some blue sky between myself and Wehner. He obviously believes that our invasion of Iraq was a good idea, a very good idea. I don't. It was a bad idea. A very bad idea.
Now back to Edwards and getting a grip on reality.
Wars are much easier to start than to end. The easiest way to end a war is to quit. To give up. It's a hell of a lot harder to end a war by bringing into existence that elusive critter--a better state of peace.
We never should have started the war. There was no basis for it. The intelligence used to support the decision to invade was polluted at best, fabricated at worst.
The most knowledgeable observers and analysts understood that there was no community of interest whatsoever between al-Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. There never was. There never could be given the Islamist base of "the Base." Nor were there any weapons of mass destruction. In short, as everyone but the most gripless members of the red meat eating far right must understand perfectly: There was no reason to invade.
That having been said, several central realities remain. We invaded. We have occupied. We have removed Saddam. We have installed a government. A constitution, no matter how incomplete and imperfect has gone into operation with our approval and support. We have killed beaucoup Iraqis. We have seen nearly 3,500 of our uniformed citizens killed.
We started the war. We have to finish it. Finish it by bringing about a better state of peace, not by quitting as Edwards would have us.
Why?
Set aside for the moment the fact that quitting consigns our dead to the trash heap of casual, meaningless losses. Forget if you can, that these Americans were killed in our collective service, whether or not we approve of the war.
Look at the realities. Get a grip on the realpolitik of the war.
Realpolitik factor number one: If we lose, the Iranians win. At the least, Tehran and the mullahs who run it will become the regional hegemonic power.
Realpolitik factor number two: If we split out, the affiliates of al-Qaeda will be emboldened and empowered. The events of 9/11 might well pale in comparison to what will happen then. But, there's more. Much more.
Realpolitik factor number three: If we leave, there is a good to excellent chance that Iraq will become the latest failed state. It will be like Somalia on steroids. No small time sideshow like Sierra Leone. No bloody little affair like Rwanda.
No. It will be a major, major main attraction. Compared to the hurricane which will certainly occur when Iraq collapses, the decade of interventionary wars, genocide and diplomatic posturing over the corpse of Yugoslavia will be a belch. Iran's forces both open and covert will cross the border to "protect" the Shia majority. Turkey will have "no option" except to occupy the Kurdish region to "guard" it's interests, to "defend" against a widening of its own Kurdish insurgency. The Sunni minority will appeal to Saudi Arabia or Syria or both for "assistance" against the "oppressor."
Get the picture?
Oh, consider this. Not all Shi'ites by a long shot approve of the mullahs in Tehran. After all, Shia Iraqis are Arabs. Shia Iranians are not. Another add-on: There are other groups in Iraq, not just Shia and Sunni Arabs, not just Kurds. There are other groups as well. Recall that Iraq is not an organic nation-state, but an artificial creation of western diplomats at the end of World War I and the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire.
Looks great doesn't it? Blood enough to satisfy the most eager viewer of slasher flicks and car chase movies.
Is that sort of mess really in the American best interests, Mr Edwards? (If you have any doubts have one of your staff go check the latest gasoline prices.'
Also, Mr Edwards, since you proposed that we leave enough troops somewhere unspecified in the region to prevent genocide and civil war spill-over, how many men will it take to go back to Iraq after its collapse and impose order? Did you think that one through before you shot off your mouth in New York?
Second guess doesn't count.
Neither did you think about the options open to the US now other than defeat. That's obvious. Wehner has some. I don't agree with all of them.
I have some others that the smart guys at the White House haven't come up with yet. Mine are drawn from history, not from the combination of political considerations and strategic desperation which I see as the sub-text for Wehner's concepts.
Mine will have to wait for a later post. The nest post, I hope. It depends on whether or not Edwards or some other vacuum head hacks me off.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Senator Edwards, The Iraq War and Memorial Day
Either former North Carolina Senator and Democratic Party presidential wannabe is truly desperate, or he is terminally out to lunch. It has been widely reported that he called upon his supporters to use Memorial Day to protest the war in Iraq. The most recent report of his remarks is in the Nashua, NH "Telegraph" . While there are no doubt many who agree with Mr Edwards, there are some who don't, such as the American Legion.
I hate to climb in the same bed as an organization I wouldn't join if you held a gun to my head. But I have no choice.
John Edwards! Get a grip!
You are as wrong as soup sandwich on two counts. First: Memorial Day is more than a three day weekend. It is more than the unofficial start of summer. It should be more than a time to protest a war.
It should be a time to think. To think about those Americans who have been killed in our various wars. Particularly to think about the reasons for which they were killed. To think about what--if anything--the butchers' bill of which each person was a small entry actually bought.
The primary reason a war, any war, is fought is to bring about a better state of peace. For some of our wars, most notably World War II, the outpouring of blood did buy a better state of peace. The Americans who died between the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the final day of the war--VJ Day--did not die without purpose. Other Americans, most recently the over sixty thousand who were killed in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War died for absolutely nothing.
Think about that for a moment. Consider sixty thousand men, young men with hopes, dreams, plans for the future transformed from living, loving, fearing, hoping human beings into mere sanitation problems. Without an outcome which might justify the loss of one's life.
Mr Edwards would have made a far better statement about himself and his country had he called upon his supporters to ask themselves, "What do we want the three and a half thousand Americans who have already been killed in Iraq to have died for?"
He might have reminded his supporters--and all of us--that all people in the military have signed a Covenant With Death whether they realized or not when each raised a right hand and swore an oath of service. Like all covenants this particular one has two parts. Two parts in a statement of reciprocity.
The individual acknowledges that death is a real possibility of service to our nation.
The nation, for its part, promises that death will not be without purpose or meaning.
Meaning and purpose go beyond, far beyond, flag draped coffins, statutes or monuments or well meaning words. Meaning and purpose come from one final reality only. The death, the individual's small entry in the final butcher's bill of history will have accomplished something. The something is simply: A better state of peace.
The Nation did not honor its portion of the Covenant in the Vietnam War. We the People simply got fed up. We the People washed our hands with an indifference that even Pilate did not feel. We the People said, "Screw them! Screw their lives. Screw their deaths."
John Edwards wants us to do the same now.
He needs to get a grip. A grip on several realities.
The first reality is one I agree with completely. Invading Iraq was wrong. Absolutely, unalterably, completely wrong. It was as General Omar Bradley famously said regarding a war with China in 1951, "The wrong war against the wrong enemy at the wrong time."
The second reality, one that apparently eludes Edwards, is that it is far easier to stage an invasion and defeat an inferior conventional force than it is to bring about a better state of peace. The only way open to us now to both redeem the policy from the failure it otherwise so richly deserves is to uphold our Nation's part of the covenant and press on to bring about a better state of peace.
Pressing on will require more Americans to die. A reality remains.
The reality?
An abject withdrawal, no matter how cloaked and covered by Congressional action, or "will of the people" rhetoric means We the People break our covenant with those who have been killed on our service. But, it means more than that.
It means that Iran will expand its sway in the region. Take a firm grip on that. Looking at Iran simply as a nation-state pursuing its own, subjectively defined national interests, leaving Islam out of the equation except as a tool of state, Iran has definite ambitions. Ambitions that run directly against our interests both in the region and the world.
Nothing would suit Iran's desire for regional dominance, and potential Great Power status more than seeing the US quit Iraq, withdraw to its side of the Atlantic and, as we did after the Vietnam cut-and-run, turn timid and introspective. Doubt me?
Check out a recent This is London or the admittedly anti-Mullah Iranian National Resistance Council . Consider Iran's regional aspirations in connection with its nuclear program and ask yourself, "Is it really, really in our best long-term interests to get out of Iraq without leaving behind a reasonably stable, reasonably competent government and a reasonably integrated nation?"
Even without considering how an American withdrawal might encourage Islamist terrorists, is Mr Edwards pursuing the best course of action for our nation over the long haul when he counsels getting out of Iraq?
But, he might protest, as might many other Americans, "If we stay there, how can we be sure that more lives won't be lost without reaching the better state of peace?"
Fair question. I'll take my shot at answering it in my next post.
I hate to climb in the same bed as an organization I wouldn't join if you held a gun to my head. But I have no choice.
John Edwards! Get a grip!
You are as wrong as soup sandwich on two counts. First: Memorial Day is more than a three day weekend. It is more than the unofficial start of summer. It should be more than a time to protest a war.
It should be a time to think. To think about those Americans who have been killed in our various wars. Particularly to think about the reasons for which they were killed. To think about what--if anything--the butchers' bill of which each person was a small entry actually bought.
The primary reason a war, any war, is fought is to bring about a better state of peace. For some of our wars, most notably World War II, the outpouring of blood did buy a better state of peace. The Americans who died between the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the final day of the war--VJ Day--did not die without purpose. Other Americans, most recently the over sixty thousand who were killed in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War died for absolutely nothing.
Think about that for a moment. Consider sixty thousand men, young men with hopes, dreams, plans for the future transformed from living, loving, fearing, hoping human beings into mere sanitation problems. Without an outcome which might justify the loss of one's life.
Mr Edwards would have made a far better statement about himself and his country had he called upon his supporters to ask themselves, "What do we want the three and a half thousand Americans who have already been killed in Iraq to have died for?"
He might have reminded his supporters--and all of us--that all people in the military have signed a Covenant With Death whether they realized or not when each raised a right hand and swore an oath of service. Like all covenants this particular one has two parts. Two parts in a statement of reciprocity.
The individual acknowledges that death is a real possibility of service to our nation.
The nation, for its part, promises that death will not be without purpose or meaning.
Meaning and purpose go beyond, far beyond, flag draped coffins, statutes or monuments or well meaning words. Meaning and purpose come from one final reality only. The death, the individual's small entry in the final butcher's bill of history will have accomplished something. The something is simply: A better state of peace.
The Nation did not honor its portion of the Covenant in the Vietnam War. We the People simply got fed up. We the People washed our hands with an indifference that even Pilate did not feel. We the People said, "Screw them! Screw their lives. Screw their deaths."
John Edwards wants us to do the same now.
He needs to get a grip. A grip on several realities.
The first reality is one I agree with completely. Invading Iraq was wrong. Absolutely, unalterably, completely wrong. It was as General Omar Bradley famously said regarding a war with China in 1951, "The wrong war against the wrong enemy at the wrong time."
The second reality, one that apparently eludes Edwards, is that it is far easier to stage an invasion and defeat an inferior conventional force than it is to bring about a better state of peace. The only way open to us now to both redeem the policy from the failure it otherwise so richly deserves is to uphold our Nation's part of the covenant and press on to bring about a better state of peace.
Pressing on will require more Americans to die. A reality remains.
The reality?
An abject withdrawal, no matter how cloaked and covered by Congressional action, or "will of the people" rhetoric means We the People break our covenant with those who have been killed on our service. But, it means more than that.
It means that Iran will expand its sway in the region. Take a firm grip on that. Looking at Iran simply as a nation-state pursuing its own, subjectively defined national interests, leaving Islam out of the equation except as a tool of state, Iran has definite ambitions. Ambitions that run directly against our interests both in the region and the world.
Nothing would suit Iran's desire for regional dominance, and potential Great Power status more than seeing the US quit Iraq, withdraw to its side of the Atlantic and, as we did after the Vietnam cut-and-run, turn timid and introspective. Doubt me?
Check out a recent This is London or the admittedly anti-Mullah Iranian National Resistance Council . Consider Iran's regional aspirations in connection with its nuclear program and ask yourself, "Is it really, really in our best long-term interests to get out of Iraq without leaving behind a reasonably stable, reasonably competent government and a reasonably integrated nation?"
Even without considering how an American withdrawal might encourage Islamist terrorists, is Mr Edwards pursuing the best course of action for our nation over the long haul when he counsels getting out of Iraq?
But, he might protest, as might many other Americans, "If we stay there, how can we be sure that more lives won't be lost without reaching the better state of peace?"
Fair question. I'll take my shot at answering it in my next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)