According to an un-attributed Romney camp claim, if they had been in charge much of Super storm Sandy’s destruction would have been prevented. Following that lead others were quick to blame Obama for everything, down to and including reduced Halloween treats.
DOD has stepped up with its plan to destroy storm cells before they begin their terrorist attacks on the country. Exercising the first strike option the strategic Air Force will NUC the Caribbean Islands destroying possible storm staging areas. Primary target in the Caribbean will be Cuba where Castro has been staging attacking storms for half a century. The Navy plans to deploy along the continental shelf firing long range Tomahawks and engaging any surviving winds with naval gunfire. The Army will repel rain, sleet and snow along with high tides on the beaches and in the streets with a slow, fighting withdrawal back to the mountains if faced with superior power. The CIA plans to launch Drones from Utah to take out key infrastructures suppressing clandestine flying debris support of storms. DOD is increasing funding for mad scientist developing weather control weapons that show promise of diverting on coming storms to France. The State Department will enter negotiations for a loan from the Chinese to fund recovery efforts. In a quid pro quo the Chinese will receive the major outsource contracts. Under the new administration Traveler’s giant red umbrella will be constructed over the country to prevent future storm damage. Chinese mills are already producing miles of red silk for the umbrella, which will be constructed in Japan.
I’m reminded of a piece of political science doggerel, “ The (American) president has more power than he ought, but not as much as most people thought.” The latter is a hard lesson to accept for every new administration.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Feature 102812
In battle when a man is first exposed to the horrors of war he adjusts, becoming resigned to the blood and brutality. A woman in the same battle reverts to her nature becoming vicious, enjoying inflicting pain and death without consequences. Women were banned from the battlefield for humanitarian concerns not for their protection but rather for pity for prisoners and innocents exposed to their depravity.
Women warriors are common across cultures and time. Women warriors are particularly prominent during resistance movements in modern history. The histories of; Spanish Civil War, European resistance organizations as well as those of the Chinese and Russian are enriched by their exploits. Often that history however is exceptionally bloody as the women extracted their revenge on occupation forces. In an arbitrary order consider these women warriors:
The Amazons, a tribe of woman warriors of central Asia, fought so fiercely for Troy during the Trojan War they were immortalized in Greek epic poems. Amazons have been adopted by many cultures to describe their woman warriors. Athena the Greek goddess of war was a favorite child of Zeus and often used his thunderbolts to decide battles. Athena became the patron of the American Women’s Army Corps (WAC).
The vision of blood splattered, bare breasted Nordic Valkyrie maidens wildly charging out of the mist, screaming and swinging massive double bladed battleaxes terrorized Europe. One must question this as origin of the derogatory term ‘Battleaxe’ describing some modern women. The word Valkyrie means choosers of the slain, a Nordic heroine, Blenda, led women in an attack that annihilated a pillaging Danish army. Shieldmaidens were Scandinavian women who took up arms as warriors before raising a family.
The Roman gladiatorial games often featured “gladiatrix” in brutal female fighting for entertainment of the masses. Ancient forerunners of the voyeuristic interest in catfights and mud wrestling.
Nusaybah bint Ka'ab; was the first female to fight in defense of Islam and Prophet Muhammad as part of a regular army. This was over a thousand years before western women became part of modern armies. Aisha, wife of Muhammad, led an army against Ali, fourth caliph of Islam. Muslim history records a number of women who fought and led forces with great valor. Khawlah bint Hakim fought in battles against the Romans in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine. Captured along with a number of other Muslim women, Khawla decided death was more honorable than the disgrace of rape. Armed only with tent poles, she led the women in a desperate attack on their Roman guards, killing 30 before escaping. Modern Muslim women continue to earn a ferocious reputation. During the occupation of Afghanistan, Soviets who fell into the hands of women warriors were never the same.
Africa has a rich history of female warriors in vicious tribal warfare and rebellions. The West African Dahomey had an all-female militia serving as the king’s bodyguard. Legionaries would commit suicide rather than fall into the hands’ of Riff tribal women.
The Russian Princess Olga of Kievskiy (945 to 960 AD) avenged the death of her husband, King Igor, by burying alive twenty ambassadors and setting fire to a bathhouse with another group inside. She provided intoxication to 5000 enemy soldiers before attacking; finally she burned down the entire city of the offending tribe. During the Great Patriotic War a large number of Soviet women became “heroes of the Soviet Union” for killing German invaders. Legendary Baltic female resistance snipers known as the “White Tights” inflicted numerous casualties on the conquering Russians.
Rani Lakshmibai was one of the leading figures of the “Great Indian Mutiny” of 1857. She was described by the British as "remarkable for her beauty, cleverness and was the most dangerous of all the rebel leaders".
Christian Marco Polo and Muslim Ibn Battuta both record the feats of Khutulun, a great-great granddaughter of Genghis Khan, as a warrior in Central Asia. The Japanese have a word for it, Onna Bugeisha (woman warrior). In the first century CE the Trung Sisters repelled the Chinese invasion (of now Vietnam) for three years, winning against considerable odds. Phung Thi Chinh fought with the Trung sisters and according to legend gave birth in the front lines, and then carrying her newborn in one arm and with sword in hand cut her way through Chinese ranks. The epics of these women warriors inspired Vietnamese resistance to French and American colonialism. Americans reported an all-female Viet Cong unit that was considered particularly dangerous.
In first century England the Celtic Queen Boudica with her two daughters led a revolt against the Roman Empire. Queen Cordelia fought off several contenders for a throne, personally leading the army in its battles. Margaret of Anjou, wife of Henry VI, as leader of the Lancastrians during the Wars of the Roses, introduced conscription, massed armies, and won several battles before defeat by the Yorkists. Catherine of Aragon as Queen Regent and Captain General of the King's Forces (1513) defeated a Scots’ invasion. Catherine led the army, and rode north in full armor with the troops, despite being heavily pregnant at the time. Not to be out done the Scots have also fielded a number of renowned women warriors.
Joanna of Flanders organized resistance in the siege of Hennebont; taking up arms, dressed in armor, and conducting the defense of the town. She led a raid outside the walls demolishing one of the enemy's camps. She was an early patron for women’s rights, and a possible an influence on Joan of Arc. Joan of Arc asserted that God told her to recover her homeland from English domination late in the Hundred Years' War. The uncrowned King Charles VII sent her to the siege at Orléans as part of its relief force. She gained prominence when she lifted the siege in only nine days of fighting. Winning a number of other battles she was burned at the stake at age 19 for being too successful. The Pope declared her a martyr 24 years later.
Agustina de Aragón was a famous Spanish resistance leader who defended Spain during the Spanish War of Independence, later becoming an officer in the regular Spanish Army. She saved the day at the siege of Saragossa when Spanish troops broke to a French Bayonet charge, she rushed forward loaded and fired cannons at point blank range, shredding the French line. The sight of a lone woman manning the guns inspired the fleeing Spanish troops to return to the battle.
If the objective is to terrorize, then deploy the women.
Women warriors are common across cultures and time. Women warriors are particularly prominent during resistance movements in modern history. The histories of; Spanish Civil War, European resistance organizations as well as those of the Chinese and Russian are enriched by their exploits. Often that history however is exceptionally bloody as the women extracted their revenge on occupation forces. In an arbitrary order consider these women warriors:
The Amazons, a tribe of woman warriors of central Asia, fought so fiercely for Troy during the Trojan War they were immortalized in Greek epic poems. Amazons have been adopted by many cultures to describe their woman warriors. Athena the Greek goddess of war was a favorite child of Zeus and often used his thunderbolts to decide battles. Athena became the patron of the American Women’s Army Corps (WAC).
The vision of blood splattered, bare breasted Nordic Valkyrie maidens wildly charging out of the mist, screaming and swinging massive double bladed battleaxes terrorized Europe. One must question this as origin of the derogatory term ‘Battleaxe’ describing some modern women. The word Valkyrie means choosers of the slain, a Nordic heroine, Blenda, led women in an attack that annihilated a pillaging Danish army. Shieldmaidens were Scandinavian women who took up arms as warriors before raising a family.
The Roman gladiatorial games often featured “gladiatrix” in brutal female fighting for entertainment of the masses. Ancient forerunners of the voyeuristic interest in catfights and mud wrestling.
Nusaybah bint Ka'ab; was the first female to fight in defense of Islam and Prophet Muhammad as part of a regular army. This was over a thousand years before western women became part of modern armies. Aisha, wife of Muhammad, led an army against Ali, fourth caliph of Islam. Muslim history records a number of women who fought and led forces with great valor. Khawlah bint Hakim fought in battles against the Romans in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine. Captured along with a number of other Muslim women, Khawla decided death was more honorable than the disgrace of rape. Armed only with tent poles, she led the women in a desperate attack on their Roman guards, killing 30 before escaping. Modern Muslim women continue to earn a ferocious reputation. During the occupation of Afghanistan, Soviets who fell into the hands of women warriors were never the same.
Africa has a rich history of female warriors in vicious tribal warfare and rebellions. The West African Dahomey had an all-female militia serving as the king’s bodyguard. Legionaries would commit suicide rather than fall into the hands’ of Riff tribal women.
The Russian Princess Olga of Kievskiy (945 to 960 AD) avenged the death of her husband, King Igor, by burying alive twenty ambassadors and setting fire to a bathhouse with another group inside. She provided intoxication to 5000 enemy soldiers before attacking; finally she burned down the entire city of the offending tribe. During the Great Patriotic War a large number of Soviet women became “heroes of the Soviet Union” for killing German invaders. Legendary Baltic female resistance snipers known as the “White Tights” inflicted numerous casualties on the conquering Russians.
Rani Lakshmibai was one of the leading figures of the “Great Indian Mutiny” of 1857. She was described by the British as "remarkable for her beauty, cleverness and was the most dangerous of all the rebel leaders".
Christian Marco Polo and Muslim Ibn Battuta both record the feats of Khutulun, a great-great granddaughter of Genghis Khan, as a warrior in Central Asia. The Japanese have a word for it, Onna Bugeisha (woman warrior). In the first century CE the Trung Sisters repelled the Chinese invasion (of now Vietnam) for three years, winning against considerable odds. Phung Thi Chinh fought with the Trung sisters and according to legend gave birth in the front lines, and then carrying her newborn in one arm and with sword in hand cut her way through Chinese ranks. The epics of these women warriors inspired Vietnamese resistance to French and American colonialism. Americans reported an all-female Viet Cong unit that was considered particularly dangerous.
In first century England the Celtic Queen Boudica with her two daughters led a revolt against the Roman Empire. Queen Cordelia fought off several contenders for a throne, personally leading the army in its battles. Margaret of Anjou, wife of Henry VI, as leader of the Lancastrians during the Wars of the Roses, introduced conscription, massed armies, and won several battles before defeat by the Yorkists. Catherine of Aragon as Queen Regent and Captain General of the King's Forces (1513) defeated a Scots’ invasion. Catherine led the army, and rode north in full armor with the troops, despite being heavily pregnant at the time. Not to be out done the Scots have also fielded a number of renowned women warriors.
Joanna of Flanders organized resistance in the siege of Hennebont; taking up arms, dressed in armor, and conducting the defense of the town. She led a raid outside the walls demolishing one of the enemy's camps. She was an early patron for women’s rights, and a possible an influence on Joan of Arc. Joan of Arc asserted that God told her to recover her homeland from English domination late in the Hundred Years' War. The uncrowned King Charles VII sent her to the siege at Orléans as part of its relief force. She gained prominence when she lifted the siege in only nine days of fighting. Winning a number of other battles she was burned at the stake at age 19 for being too successful. The Pope declared her a martyr 24 years later.
Agustina de Aragón was a famous Spanish resistance leader who defended Spain during the Spanish War of Independence, later becoming an officer in the regular Spanish Army. She saved the day at the siege of Saragossa when Spanish troops broke to a French Bayonet charge, she rushed forward loaded and fired cannons at point blank range, shredding the French line. The sight of a lone woman manning the guns inspired the fleeing Spanish troops to return to the battle.
If the objective is to terrorize, then deploy the women.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Insurgents 102112
Throughout history regimes have battled insurgents while failing to understand insurgencies. An insurgent basically objects to demands for political correctness and resulting insurgencies become internal in origin, a product of the regime’s missteps.
A foreign power may attempt to create an insurgency as a cheap method of achieving its goals, but these attempts end in costly failures. A coup can be foreign in origin but they have a shallow base and may well result in an insurgency forming against the new order. An insurgency may also result from the government’s failure to satisfy the desires of major segments of the population. It may take considerable time before governing leaders and their foreign sponsors notice this insurgent environment.
Generally an insurgency is well established before any reactionary counter-insurgency measures begin. Local resistance leaders emerge while government actions alienate segments of the population. Counter-insurgency programs become increasingly oppressive, even draconian, which aids in recruitment of even more resistance fighters.
Although a foreign power can’t create an insurgency it can provide material and political support. This support is not free; the powers expect a return on their investment. The returns are political influence, access to resources or just the satisfaction of embarrassing a rival power. This recurring scenario cost millions of lives during the “Cold War Era” as rival great powers sponsored coups, counter-coups, and insurgencies in obscure corners of the globe.
The cold war ended in the late 20th century, almost a quarter century ago, but still resonates among its victims. As the crossroad of Asia, Afghanistan has probably suffered the most from great power competitions. Throughout the 19th and 20th century British, Russians, American and Soviets played a “Great Game”. When the Soviets withdrew the Americans walked out leaving a vicious civil war fueled with piles of left over weapons. Corrupt, competing warlords battled and exploited the people until an insurgent religious army of young students (Taliban) brought a degree of stability to the isolated country. Arab veterans of cold war battles remained in the mountains directing another insurgency against the Saudi government, supported by America, that also became its target.
Although the Taliban was in negotiations to evict the Arabs the slow pace led to an American invasion now targeting the Taliban. Installing a corrupt central government America prohibited all dealings with the Taliban. The foreign occupation, corrupt government, cultural assaults and deaths of thousands of innocents soon generated a number of new insurgent groups. Failing to understand what was happening the Americans lumped all resistance groups under the label of “Taliban.” Facing defeat after 11 years of war America is seeking to disengage, now calling for negotiations with the demonized Taliban. Both the Taliban and Government, as well as other insurgent groups, expect that when America again walks away, another multi-faceted civil war will ensue.
Deluding itself, by pointing to press photos of smiling Afghans, America fails to understand that it has trained and armed; insurgents, private armies along with the national force. The reality is, that as long as the gifts keep coming Afghans will stand in line, smile and pose for pictures. When the well dries up so will the smiles and competing interest will again carve up the country. Left on its own it is probable that a new anti-corruption insurgency will eventually arise, possibly more liberal than the old Taliban. It equally as likely that an even more fundamentalist insurgency will emerge with America squarely in it’s sights.
Afghanistan has a few flashing lights on the horizon; New Russia and China have expressed interest in helping the country. New resources have been discovered. India has also expressed an interest, partly with aid, partly for resources and largely to surround its own enemy, Pakistan. Resistance to a new great game waged by the world’s three largest nations may ultimately unite Afghanistan.
A foreign power may attempt to create an insurgency as a cheap method of achieving its goals, but these attempts end in costly failures. A coup can be foreign in origin but they have a shallow base and may well result in an insurgency forming against the new order. An insurgency may also result from the government’s failure to satisfy the desires of major segments of the population. It may take considerable time before governing leaders and their foreign sponsors notice this insurgent environment.
Generally an insurgency is well established before any reactionary counter-insurgency measures begin. Local resistance leaders emerge while government actions alienate segments of the population. Counter-insurgency programs become increasingly oppressive, even draconian, which aids in recruitment of even more resistance fighters.
Although a foreign power can’t create an insurgency it can provide material and political support. This support is not free; the powers expect a return on their investment. The returns are political influence, access to resources or just the satisfaction of embarrassing a rival power. This recurring scenario cost millions of lives during the “Cold War Era” as rival great powers sponsored coups, counter-coups, and insurgencies in obscure corners of the globe.
The cold war ended in the late 20th century, almost a quarter century ago, but still resonates among its victims. As the crossroad of Asia, Afghanistan has probably suffered the most from great power competitions. Throughout the 19th and 20th century British, Russians, American and Soviets played a “Great Game”. When the Soviets withdrew the Americans walked out leaving a vicious civil war fueled with piles of left over weapons. Corrupt, competing warlords battled and exploited the people until an insurgent religious army of young students (Taliban) brought a degree of stability to the isolated country. Arab veterans of cold war battles remained in the mountains directing another insurgency against the Saudi government, supported by America, that also became its target.
Although the Taliban was in negotiations to evict the Arabs the slow pace led to an American invasion now targeting the Taliban. Installing a corrupt central government America prohibited all dealings with the Taliban. The foreign occupation, corrupt government, cultural assaults and deaths of thousands of innocents soon generated a number of new insurgent groups. Failing to understand what was happening the Americans lumped all resistance groups under the label of “Taliban.” Facing defeat after 11 years of war America is seeking to disengage, now calling for negotiations with the demonized Taliban. Both the Taliban and Government, as well as other insurgent groups, expect that when America again walks away, another multi-faceted civil war will ensue.
Deluding itself, by pointing to press photos of smiling Afghans, America fails to understand that it has trained and armed; insurgents, private armies along with the national force. The reality is, that as long as the gifts keep coming Afghans will stand in line, smile and pose for pictures. When the well dries up so will the smiles and competing interest will again carve up the country. Left on its own it is probable that a new anti-corruption insurgency will eventually arise, possibly more liberal than the old Taliban. It equally as likely that an even more fundamentalist insurgency will emerge with America squarely in it’s sights.
Afghanistan has a few flashing lights on the horizon; New Russia and China have expressed interest in helping the country. New resources have been discovered. India has also expressed an interest, partly with aid, partly for resources and largely to surround its own enemy, Pakistan. Resistance to a new great game waged by the world’s three largest nations may ultimately unite Afghanistan.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Decline 102012
From the late 18th century no classical education has been complete without consideration of Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.” Published between 1776 and 1789 his works were probably read by America’s founding fathers. They may also have been the last American classical scholars, for science and engineering became the country’s new wave.
According to Gibbon the Empire fell through the gradual decline of civic virtue (will or cultural values.) Rome began to hire mercenaries, rather than sacrifice in their common defense. Romans began to pursue an easier life, without challenges but with ample entertaining diversions. He cites governing abuses of power and religious extremism as two other causations of the decline. Gibbon only considered Rome’s fall but a similar case can be made for each of the ancient civilizations.
By the late 20th century a long cycle theory emerged that states in essence that great powers predictably rise and fall over time, not by defeat but rather by their unwillingness to pay the cost of maintaining greatness. The measures of power are constantly evolving with military power only a passing measure. Unwilling to maintain the preponderance of power (economic, philosophical, social as well as military) a great power forfeits its leadership. The world order becomes unstable until new leaderships are established.
In the 22nd century foreign scholars may be writing about the eclipse of the American sun. It is already apparent that the economic sun no longer rises in New York to light the world. Market forces are now constantly circling the globe. The sun rises in Tokyo, Beijing, Dubai, Frankfurt and London before waking New York to new dynamics. Now a debtor nation, the United States can no longer project its power by loans to needy states.
Roman gladiatorial diversions have evolved into Saturday, Sunday and Monday night football, with replays for the rest of the week. Political debates are upstaged by news of wardrobe malfunctions (they are at least more interesting and informative.) The highest salaries go to entertainers. The traditional civilian army has become a Praetorian Guard exercising political power over civilian restraints. National security programs grow, never shrink, despite increased reliance on proxy armies and paid mercenaries (contractors). Battlefield success fails to deliver desired political outcomes, yet the military seeks to blunder on to another war.
In any given situation government’s first impulse is cover up, stamping classified in the national interest, on bungled excursions. The military began training some of histories’ most formidable warriors over ten years ago. These Afghan warriors defeated the Persians, Alexander, British (three times), Russians and are forcing Americans into retreat. Failure is covered up by Generals demanding another ten years to “train” the Afghan Army in the American way. To lose?
Already on a downhill slide, how far to the precipice?
According to Gibbon the Empire fell through the gradual decline of civic virtue (will or cultural values.) Rome began to hire mercenaries, rather than sacrifice in their common defense. Romans began to pursue an easier life, without challenges but with ample entertaining diversions. He cites governing abuses of power and religious extremism as two other causations of the decline. Gibbon only considered Rome’s fall but a similar case can be made for each of the ancient civilizations.
By the late 20th century a long cycle theory emerged that states in essence that great powers predictably rise and fall over time, not by defeat but rather by their unwillingness to pay the cost of maintaining greatness. The measures of power are constantly evolving with military power only a passing measure. Unwilling to maintain the preponderance of power (economic, philosophical, social as well as military) a great power forfeits its leadership. The world order becomes unstable until new leaderships are established.
In the 22nd century foreign scholars may be writing about the eclipse of the American sun. It is already apparent that the economic sun no longer rises in New York to light the world. Market forces are now constantly circling the globe. The sun rises in Tokyo, Beijing, Dubai, Frankfurt and London before waking New York to new dynamics. Now a debtor nation, the United States can no longer project its power by loans to needy states.
Roman gladiatorial diversions have evolved into Saturday, Sunday and Monday night football, with replays for the rest of the week. Political debates are upstaged by news of wardrobe malfunctions (they are at least more interesting and informative.) The highest salaries go to entertainers. The traditional civilian army has become a Praetorian Guard exercising political power over civilian restraints. National security programs grow, never shrink, despite increased reliance on proxy armies and paid mercenaries (contractors). Battlefield success fails to deliver desired political outcomes, yet the military seeks to blunder on to another war.
In any given situation government’s first impulse is cover up, stamping classified in the national interest, on bungled excursions. The military began training some of histories’ most formidable warriors over ten years ago. These Afghan warriors defeated the Persians, Alexander, British (three times), Russians and are forcing Americans into retreat. Failure is covered up by Generals demanding another ten years to “train” the Afghan Army in the American way. To lose?
Already on a downhill slide, how far to the precipice?
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Destiny 100912
The United States of 19th century was one of Manifest Destiny. According to its proponents it was the destiny of the new nation to reach from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Many even advocated the annexation of Canada and Mexico. Exploration of the Louisiana territory led to conflicts over British Canada’s Oregon territory. After minor skirmishes the northern border, was adjusted in a series of negotiations. Stripping Mexico of much of its territory by conquest the U.S. made a token payment for the stolen land. Russia unable to protect its colonies from American and British commercial interest agreed to sell its settlements in Alaska and along the West Coast. The Americans took the opportunity to claim all native lands between the settlements and Canada. Through political skullduggery and a little force in the late 1800s the United States seized the independent Kingdom of Hawaii. Manifest Destiny then searched for colonies in the Pacific and Atlantic with a canal between the two through Latin America.
The United States achieved its Manifest Destiny at the cost of its idealism. The country practiced slavery, ethnic cleansing, genocide, concentration camps, cultural extinction, war and manipulation of due process to acquire territories. A late comer to colonial power, Manifest Destiny was left with only a few islands but was quick to subjugate them with skills learned in the 19th century. America also learned that colonial empires are expensive to maintain and following a British model turned administration over to big businesses that extorted native wealth while oppressing populations.
The 20th century ushered in a horrified progressive movement demanding humane treatment for indigenous natives. The century also saw the country involved in five major wars, untold numbers of minor conflicts. It also joined other colonial powers’ suppression of nationalist aspirations. In an almost “last man standing” victory the United States came out of World War Two as the world's most respected nation. Harden by war the victor developed a self-image that its destiny was now world domination. Believing its own propaganda and blinded by its vision, the country soon began to lose its glitter around the globe. With a still mighty military the country found that while it could win battles it could not win political wars and was repeatedly forced into a face saving withdrawals. Soon the only people who believed American propaganda were themselves.
It was a begrimed, beggared and bedraggled Imperial America that entered the 21st century. With few friends it soon discovered many enemies able to reach into its heartland. Unable to fight shadows, as a distraction America invaded Afghanistan and Iraq defeating their forces quickly with overwhelming power it could not sustain. By twisting arms and bribery a token force was recruited to appear as an international effort but the war rested squarely on American shoulders. After ten years of military occupation attempting to install 19th century colonial regimes responsive to Washington, America faces total rejection. Insurgencies and competing factions now tear both countries with the rot spreading throughout the region. In the face of failure America is again declaring victory and withdrawing.
Many even advocated the annexation of Canada and Mexico. Exploration of the Louisiana territory led to conflicts over British Canada’s Oregon territory. After minor skirmishes the northern border, was adjusted in a series of negotiations. Stripping Mexico of much of its territory by conquest the U.S. made a token payment for the stolen land. Russia unable to protect its colonies from American and British commercial interest agreed to sell its settlements in Alaska and along the West Coast. The Americans took the opportunity to claim all native lands between the settlements and Canada. Through political skullduggery and a little force in the late 1800s the United States seized the independent Kingdom of Hawaii. Manifest Destiny then searched for colonies in the Pacific and Atlantic with a canal between the two through Latin America.
The United States achieved its Manifest Destiny at the cost of its idealism. The country practiced slavery, ethnic cleansing, genocide, concentration camps, cultural extinction, war and manipulation of due process to acquire territories. A late comer to colonial power, Manifest Destiny was left with only a few islands but was quick to subjugate them with skills learned in the 19th century. America also learned that colonial empires are expensive to maintain and following a British model turned administration over to big businesses that extorted native wealth while oppressing populations.
The 20th century ushered in a horrified progressive movement demanding humane treatment for indigenous natives. The century also saw the country involved in five major wars, untold numbers of minor conflicts. It also joined other colonial powers’ suppression of nationalist aspirations. In an almost “last man standing” victory the United States came out of World War Two as the world's most respected nation. Harden by war the victor developed a self-image that its destiny was now world domination. Believing its own propaganda and blinded by its vision, the country soon began to lose its glitter around the globe. With a still mighty military the country found that while it could win battles it could not win political wars and was repeatedly forced into a face saving withdrawals. Soon the only people who believed American propaganda were themselves.
It was a begrimed, beggared and bedraggled Imperial America that entered the 21st century. With few friends it soon discovered many enemies able to reach into its heartland. Unable to fight shadows, as a distraction America invaded Afghanistan and Iraq defeating their forces quickly with overwhelming power it could not sustain. By twisting arms and bribery a token force was recruited to appear as an international effort but the war rested squarely on American shoulders. After ten years of military occupation attempting to install 19th century colonial regimes responsive to Washington, America faces total rejection. Insurgencies and competing factions now tear both countries with the rot spreading throughout the region. In the face of failure America is again declaring victory and withdrawing.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Legacy 100512
The eleventh anniversary of the United States’ declaration of war on terror is an appropriate time to step back and consider the legacy of its longest battle. (The war on drugs is longer but with less cultural impact.)
This is a war of difficult to measure intangibles. Over 6,500 Americans lost their lives on battlefields and another 50 thousand were wounded. Surrogate armies lost about half that number, still an exorbitant cost to small nations. The cost to local Afghan, Iraqi and Pakistani forces are also high and may never be accurately known. Bare numbers do not consider soldiers who later died as a result of battle exposures nor the increased rate of suicides among soldiers.
Estimates of casualties among innocent civilians range into hundreds of thousands (all causes). The U.S. Military own estimates admit that collateral damage (its euphemism for killing of bystanders in pursuit of its objectives) is in tens of thousands. Victory is now claimed on the basis of the execution of just two men: one a head of state and embarrassing former ally and the other a philosopher, figure head also a former ally.
The military reluctantly concedes that its policies failed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The designated enemies are now a far stronger than before the invasions. Both countries are destabilized and may fracture into post intervention civil wars. Under covert cover, regional dissent groups, armed and funded during the war are spreading destabilization widely.
In the immediate wake of the 911 attack poorly drafted legislation and executive orders were issued. According to government investigations, under these programs average Americans are targeted. A recent U.S. Senate report states that one multibillion dollar program produced little valuable intelligence on terrorism. "The ... investigation could identify no reporting which uncovered a terrorist threat, nor could it identify a contribution such fusion center reporting made to disrupt an active terrorist plot," the report said. It went on to state that agencies used the authority to infringe on civil liberties targeting groups deemed dangerous: i.e. ACLU, abortion rights activist, war protesters etc. Because of the mixing of federal and states’ monies the Government is unable to determine just how much money has been spent on this non-productive program.
In wasting money DOD can not be out spent by another government agency. Since the war began the Army has spent over five billion dollars on camouflage equipment, and must spend as much again to replace current inadequate material. Not to be out done, but spending less, the other services decided they too must have unique new uniforms. This follows a multibillion-dollar program to replace the “WWII tin pot” helmet with one that wouldn’t stay on soldiers’ heads and they couldn’t even fight in it, also replaced during the war.
Bureaucracies are self-generating and when given the freedom of vague restrictions and unlimited funds they will abuse intended mandates. Now citizen surveillance can extend to every call, tweet and email. Anti-terrorist software can now track innocent senior citizens or children down any street because a terrorist may be anyone. Trained to repel terrorist armies, local police now shoot first and teaser unruly schoolboys in classrooms.
The ultimate intangible is that radicalism has become universal. Legislators attempt to erode constitutional protections. Governors ignore constitutions and legislatures attempting to rule by edict. The military now has authority for domestic spying on the American public, arrest and hold incognito indefinitely any citizen. To the military disgust this act still requires the signature of its civilian commander in chief. The commander of the Special Operations Command attempted to bypass civilian control, stating he already had enough authority to attack anyone, anywhere in the world without any civilian oversight in the name of National Security.
Domestic terrorism has become a norm where any large gathering is a possible target for the disenchanted. Law is breaking down and protections becoming more reactionary. The intangible is that the people have come to accept loss of privacy and freedoms in the name of necessary actions, which do not protect.
Extremism is not restricted to one region, nationality or religion; it takes root in any fertile soil. The war on terror plowed the ground and spread the seeds. Now watch it grow.
###
This is a war of difficult to measure intangibles. Over 6,500 Americans lost their lives on battlefields and another 50 thousand were wounded. Surrogate armies lost about half that number, still an exorbitant cost to small nations. The cost to local Afghan, Iraqi and Pakistani forces are also high and may never be accurately known. Bare numbers do not consider soldiers who later died as a result of battle exposures nor the increased rate of suicides among soldiers.
Estimates of casualties among innocent civilians range into hundreds of thousands (all causes). The U.S. Military own estimates admit that collateral damage (its euphemism for killing of bystanders in pursuit of its objectives) is in tens of thousands. Victory is now claimed on the basis of the execution of just two men: one a head of state and embarrassing former ally and the other a philosopher, figure head also a former ally.
The military reluctantly concedes that its policies failed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The designated enemies are now a far stronger than before the invasions. Both countries are destabilized and may fracture into post intervention civil wars. Under covert cover, regional dissent groups, armed and funded during the war are spreading destabilization widely.
In the immediate wake of the 911 attack poorly drafted legislation and executive orders were issued. According to government investigations, under these programs average Americans are targeted. A recent U.S. Senate report states that one multibillion dollar program produced little valuable intelligence on terrorism. "The ... investigation could identify no reporting which uncovered a terrorist threat, nor could it identify a contribution such fusion center reporting made to disrupt an active terrorist plot," the report said. It went on to state that agencies used the authority to infringe on civil liberties targeting groups deemed dangerous: i.e. ACLU, abortion rights activist, war protesters etc. Because of the mixing of federal and states’ monies the Government is unable to determine just how much money has been spent on this non-productive program.
In wasting money DOD can not be out spent by another government agency. Since the war began the Army has spent over five billion dollars on camouflage equipment, and must spend as much again to replace current inadequate material. Not to be out done, but spending less, the other services decided they too must have unique new uniforms. This follows a multibillion-dollar program to replace the “WWII tin pot” helmet with one that wouldn’t stay on soldiers’ heads and they couldn’t even fight in it, also replaced during the war.
Bureaucracies are self-generating and when given the freedom of vague restrictions and unlimited funds they will abuse intended mandates. Now citizen surveillance can extend to every call, tweet and email. Anti-terrorist software can now track innocent senior citizens or children down any street because a terrorist may be anyone. Trained to repel terrorist armies, local police now shoot first and teaser unruly schoolboys in classrooms.
The ultimate intangible is that radicalism has become universal. Legislators attempt to erode constitutional protections. Governors ignore constitutions and legislatures attempting to rule by edict. The military now has authority for domestic spying on the American public, arrest and hold incognito indefinitely any citizen. To the military disgust this act still requires the signature of its civilian commander in chief. The commander of the Special Operations Command attempted to bypass civilian control, stating he already had enough authority to attack anyone, anywhere in the world without any civilian oversight in the name of National Security.
Domestic terrorism has become a norm where any large gathering is a possible target for the disenchanted. Law is breaking down and protections becoming more reactionary. The intangible is that the people have come to accept loss of privacy and freedoms in the name of necessary actions, which do not protect.
Extremism is not restricted to one region, nationality or religion; it takes root in any fertile soil. The war on terror plowed the ground and spread the seeds. Now watch it grow.
###
Friday, October 5, 2012
It’s definite 100412
The first debate in the obscenely expensive 2012 presidential campaign is over. According to the pundits: the Blues won, the Reds won, it was a tie. What is definite is that the people lost.
The people should have been enlightened on each candidate’s position and the country’s future direction under their respective leadership. After all the cost of campaign 2012 is expected to exceed two billion dollars not counting special interest spending not monitored. That money could have been applied to the national debt and the people spared the almost two year pointless, political harangue.
Consider a possible October campaign season where the candidates can spend only a million each. Such a campaign would be just as beneficial to the people as the present system. Why not? Because political campaigns are now big business, where bigger businesses get the candidates they can afford.
Presidential debates waste time and money and should be considered more like reality TV entertainment than a productive democratic process. It is little remembered but a feminist group, to attract attention to its agenda, staged the first TV debates. According to serious analysis of that debate, Nixon won but Kennedy looked sexier on TV. From that precedent debates have been a downhill run for “good TV.” Candidates merely justify a video opportunity and issues are unimportant. Networks like debates because they are cheap to produce and they don’t have to pay the talent. Special interests like the debates because they get national exposure of their banners. Political consultants like debates because they get big buck employment and can always blame the candidate for failures. The people are bored by debates since nothing is said and truth is a UFO. Candidates probably hate debates because it wastes time better spent at home with their family. Cosmetologist, Tailors and set designers love debates because they get signed photos to hang in their establishments.
The people would be better served if the candidates just sent them sign photos and forgot the meaningless rhetoric.
Advertising agencies, media pundits and spin doctors also love debates because they can now generate some real “horse race” excitement without trying to explain boring political stuff.
The people have lost the prerequisite of democratic elections, the right to be an informed voter. Since it is now a horse race why not open a two dollar betting window to pay off the national debt? Ill informed voters would flock to the windows to cast their vote for a chance at an after tax return of one dollar. Two-dollar betting could replace an antiquated and expensive election system. The voice of peoples’ collective bets just might be heard over the roar of big buck donors.
The people should have been enlightened on each candidate’s position and the country’s future direction under their respective leadership. After all the cost of campaign 2012 is expected to exceed two billion dollars not counting special interest spending not monitored. That money could have been applied to the national debt and the people spared the almost two year pointless, political harangue.
Consider a possible October campaign season where the candidates can spend only a million each. Such a campaign would be just as beneficial to the people as the present system. Why not? Because political campaigns are now big business, where bigger businesses get the candidates they can afford.
Presidential debates waste time and money and should be considered more like reality TV entertainment than a productive democratic process. It is little remembered but a feminist group, to attract attention to its agenda, staged the first TV debates. According to serious analysis of that debate, Nixon won but Kennedy looked sexier on TV. From that precedent debates have been a downhill run for “good TV.” Candidates merely justify a video opportunity and issues are unimportant. Networks like debates because they are cheap to produce and they don’t have to pay the talent. Special interests like the debates because they get national exposure of their banners. Political consultants like debates because they get big buck employment and can always blame the candidate for failures. The people are bored by debates since nothing is said and truth is a UFO. Candidates probably hate debates because it wastes time better spent at home with their family. Cosmetologist, Tailors and set designers love debates because they get signed photos to hang in their establishments.
The people would be better served if the candidates just sent them sign photos and forgot the meaningless rhetoric.
Advertising agencies, media pundits and spin doctors also love debates because they can now generate some real “horse race” excitement without trying to explain boring political stuff.
The people have lost the prerequisite of democratic elections, the right to be an informed voter. Since it is now a horse race why not open a two dollar betting window to pay off the national debt? Ill informed voters would flock to the windows to cast their vote for a chance at an after tax return of one dollar. Two-dollar betting could replace an antiquated and expensive election system. The voice of peoples’ collective bets just might be heard over the roar of big buck donors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)