I don't have faith that the President can stand up to the war chiefs, but he needs to grow a pair fast, because every choice he has, except a smart and orderly withdrawl, results in political failure. If he escalates he can kick the can, but surely not past his second term - probable failure for which he will be blamed. If he treads water, and we continue to lose 10-12 guys at a time, he probably won't survive his first term, especially if there are reverses so bad that we won't be able to declare a (phoney, but I'll take it) victory.
He needs to go on offense. He's boxed in politically, and I don't believe he can buck his masters, but the military solution isn't that thorny. Declare victory, stand down and make it clear that the ground pounders are not expendable game pieces. Make sure that all blame, especially for any domestic economic chaos, is redirected to the previous regime that also managed to practically destroy the active military and reserves. If he can, he should get Schwartzkopf (who was a tool, but at least he looked out for his troops) back as SecDef.
Of course, he will dither and speak good things instead, so my only real hope is that the grunts concentrate on keeping each other alive and the spirit of healthy insubordination works it's way up the chain-of-command, until President Paul can straighten it back out.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Philip Giraldi, one of best and most honest minds of our era, has a good idea, A Manifesto for X Street. A lobby for the interests of American-Americans, what a concept.
"What this country needs is a new direction, possibly driven by a new foreign policy lobby that recognizes that while all nations have an inalienable right to be treated fairly by the United States, Washington has a clear and compelling responsibility to avoid involvement in other countries’ quarrels so it can put its own people and interests first. "
I'm totally there:
"Membership in X Street will be open to all American citizens of every race, national origin, and religious belief. It will be guided by a unifying principle, that preservation of the liberties defined in the constitution and support of the national interest of the United States should be the sole objectives of any and all foreign policy. It would be the modern embodiment of George Washington’s warning to steer clear of foreign involvements and to be a friend to all."
The Constitution, Congressional declarations of war, staged withdrawal from Iraq and Afganistan, all good stuff, but then he twitches,
"X Street understands that the United States has no abiding national interest in staying in either Afghanistan or Iraq, but it recognizes that Washington has done a great deal of damage to both countries and their people. The US will arrange for a staged withdrawal from both nations after first convoking a conference of all countries in both regions to discuss mutual security issues in a bid to create a workable and sustainable regional security environment that will benefit everyone. The current bilateral security agreements dictated by Washington will be replaced by multilateral arrangements in which neighboring countries work together to combat international terrorism, drug trafficking, and human rights abuses. The United States will support such efforts but will commit itself to strict non-intervention in both the Middle East and Central Asia." (my bold)
My first question; does multilateral include the US, and how will we "support such efforts" beyond well-wishing?
"X Street believes that there is no security justification for maintaining hundreds of US military bases worldwide at an annual cost of hundreds of billions dollars. Many countries in Asia and Europe have become wealthy due to the US security umbrella that has been in place since 1945. They should now take over responsibility for their own security with the United States reverting to the role of good friend and trading partner. NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the United States to dissolve the alliance."
No complaints, here, but then the horizon darkens again,
"The United States will advise Israel that its settlement policy is in violation of numerous UN resolutions and that it opposes on principle the continuing denial of any rights to West Bank and Gazan Palestinians. Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies. As Israel is now the twenty-ninth wealthiest nation in the world per capita, all US economic and military assistance will cease immediately. The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection. The purpose is not to punish Israel but to make it like every other country vis-à-vis the United States – a friend and a trading partner, but there will be no free ride and no presumption of a "special relationship." There will be no special relationships with anyone."
I'm troubled by the implication that we would inform Israel of UN resolutions and urge them to join the NPT. If x street doesn't call for the US (and any other country that cares to) abrogate and anull all international treaties and withdraw from the entire Fabian structure, I can't see the point of the exercise. One of the only things I admire about Israel is it's defiance of the UN (while, like us, also gaming the UN whenever that might serve it's own interests). The lobby is far less dangerous to Americans than the cathedral (the military-industrial-educational-financial-congressional complex. See Moldbug, et al.) In foreign affairs, Israel should be a model of real Realism for us, shorn of the bristling paranoia and hysteria, of course other than that minor quibble, Sign me up!
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Sorry for the long gap between posts. That was a long period of very nice weather, I got a lot of small things done, while I stewed and sulked about what a crappy world full of fuckees and fuckahs it is, but, stoically kept my bitter opinions to myself, except to the extent necessary to irritate my loved ones. Sorry about that also, so rather than resuming my kvetching, I'm going to try for a more questioning approach. Rather than simply state my belief that Evil has a permanent advantage because good people cannot do evil, but evil people can do good when it suits them, therefore Evil can never be defeated on this side of the Apocalyptic divide. An even grimmer prospect for those who may doubt this divide exists, is that Evil can never be defeated without total collateral damage, because "they" are so intertwined with "us". For all practical purposes, they is us. (h/t - Pogo). I have to put aside the whole revealed religion thing here, because I'm unqualified to comment, and have to go with the Natural Law test whether one knows in his heart if a thing is wrong. What a child or a dimwit or an average person without Sophistic training would see as wrong. Overly simple, I know, but I call Occam in defense.
My question is, why is Evil so devilishly smart and aggressive? Couldn't it survive and thrive all laid-back and hippy or partying like it was 1975. If it only wants our souls, why does it have to kill everyone in the village and all their livestock as well? All it really needed for souls was a liquor store and a lottery, besides it would lose a lot of young and innocent souls by harvesting prematurely, so to speak. It just don't make no sense.
Gravity's Rainbow V-2 guidance system
V-1 guidance system complexity Wiki
war as technology spur
Analogue computers wiki
use for astronomy in the ancient world
use as weapons in modern world
complexity and sheer numbers of terror weapons, opportunity costs for reich
tech boost to british to defend, intellectual horsepower applied to breaking codes
tie to dearth of military tech at GW seas